A foundation has been laid for the identification of Rome in its two phases in Dn. 8:9-12 by demonstrating the earthly expansion of pagan Rome in verse 9 and the religious attack of papal Rome in verse 10 on the hosts of heaven. Attention will now be focused on 8:11. The literal translation of the first clause in verse 11a reads, “even unto the Prince of the host he exalted himself”. Evidence was previously presented by context and gender identification that the one exalting himself was pagan Rome. However, the pivotal issue concerning the interpretation of the “daily” is a determination of “from whom” the “daily” is removed or lifted up in the second clause (verse 11b) which literally reads, “and from him the daily was lifted up”. Thus, the pivotal issue of the exegesis revolves around the identification of the antecedent of “from him”.
5.2.1 The Antecedent of “From Him” (mimmennu). Two choices are possible for the antecedent: 1) the Prince of the host or 2) the one exalting himself. Upon this choice, the “daily” will be associated either with the Prince of the host or the pagan phase of the horn from littleness. Hasel dedicates three short sentences in his 84 page exegesis to this problem. He relies on “grammatical nearness” supported by the Greek Septuagint, the Theodotion and the Latin Vulgate for his decision that the antecedent of “from him” is the Prince of the host.(27) However, relying solely on the Hebrew Masoretic text, rather than a secondary Greek translation, and strictly using the basis of “grammatical nearness”, the first clause in verse 11a concludes with “he exalted himself” (higdil) and the second clause in verse 11b begins with “from him” (mimmennu). The translation of mimmennu as “from him” in contrast to “by him” is confirmed by the cultic language parallels (see Section 7.0) in Leviticus where both rum and mimmennu are used in conjunction with one another.(28) It is immediately evident on the basis of grammatical nearness that the antecedent of “from him” is the one exalting himself or pagan Rome. As Hasel points out in a footnote,(29) syntactically the first two clauses in verse 11 are inverted verbal clauses, meaning the object precedes the verb which contains the subject, contrary to normal word order. It is suggested that Daniel inverted the normal Hebrew syntax of these two clauses for the specific purpose of making an unmistakable connection of the antecedent (he exalted himself) associated with the phrase, “from him”, by placing them adjacent to one another (“…he exalted himself, and from him…”). An internal reflection of the type A:B::B’:C results from this inverted syntax with the end of verse 11a reflecting the identification of the first word (prepositional phrase: “from him”) in verse 11b. This is illustrated in the following chart.
INTERNAL REFLECTION OF DANIEL 8:11
|A = EVEN UNTO THE PRINCE OF THE HOST||VERSE 11a|
|B = HE EXALTED HIMSELF||VERSE 11a|
|B’ = AND FROM HIM||VERSE 11b|
|C = THE DAILY WAS LIFTED UP||VERSE 11b|
This internal reflection of the Hebrew syntax supports the contention that the “daily” is lifted up “from” the one exalting himself and not “from” the Prince of the host. This is in addition to the fact that the thrust of emphasis of 8:9-13 is on the horn from littleness and not on the Prince of the host. Additional lines of evidence are presented which lead to the conclusion that the “daily” is intimately associated with the horn from littleness and not the Prince of the host. The evidence will focus on the syntactical and contextual interpretation of the “daily”. Furthermore, conclusive evidence that the antecedent of mimmennu represents the horn from littleness is derived from the cultic language parallels of Daniel 8 with Leviticus which will be examined in depth in the later Section on Cultic Language.
5.2.2 The Daily. In this section the distinction between rum (lift up) used in Daniel 8:11 and sur (turn aside, remove or take away) used in 11:31 and 12:11 in connection with “the daily” will be examined. A preliminary identification of “the daily” will be suggested and the linkage of tamid with paganism in the OT will be examined.
184.108.40.206 RUM: take away or lift up. The Hebrew verbal form huraym (hophal form) derives from the Hebrew root rum meaning exalt, raise up, offer, lift up, pick up, take up, serve, elevate, extol. Examination of Holladay’s Hebrew lexicon reveals that all forms of the verb have this general “uplifting” sense of meaning.(30) In every instance where the Hebrew root rum is used in Daniel it is translated by its customary meaning of lift up or exalt. This applies to the Aramaic sections of Daniel (5:19, 20, 23) and the Hebrew sections of Daniel (11:12, 36; 12:7). Compared with these occurrences, Shea acknowledges that the use he proposes for rum in 8:11 (“take away”) appears to be exceptional.(31) Shea then proceeds to argue that the “extended” meaning in Dn. 8:11 is based on the use of rum in the first seven chapters of Leviticus describing the sacrificial services (Lev. 2:9; 4:8, 10, 19; 6:10, 15). He then suggests that out of the approximately 200 occurrences of rum in the Hebrew text, where the meaning is lift up, that the 6 occurrences in Lev. 1-7 should be translated in a uniquely equivalent manner with the Hebrew root sur which has the primary root meaning of “to turn aside” or “to go away;” other meanings include “to take away”, “remove” or “depart” in its approximately 300 uses in the Masoretic text including those in the first seven chapters of Leviticus (1:16; 3:4, 9, 10, 15; 4:9, 31, 35; 7:4). Shea states that rum and sur are not synonyms, but claims that there is unique overlap between them in the special sacrificial altar applications of Lev. 1-7 approved of God.(32) In summary, Shea argues for the specialized use of an extended meaning of rum in Dn. 8:11 based on its “unique” use in 6 occurrences in Lev. 1-7.
It will be demonstrated that the distinct cognitive quality of rum (to lift up) and sur (turn aside, take away, remove) are maintained in both Lev. 1-7 and Dn. 8:11; 11:31 & 12:11. The distinctive root meanings of rum and sur are contrasted in Lev. 4:8, 9 & 10 where rum, sur and rum are used respectively. If the meaning of rum and sur were synonyms in these consecutive verses, it would make no sense to use two different verbs. Clearly the author intended a distinct and different activity in verses 8 & 10 where rum is used compared to verse 9 where sur is used. In verses 8 & 10 the priest offers up the fat or lifts up the fat from the sin offering to burn it on the altar of burnt offering. In verse 9, the priest specifically removes or turns aside the fold on the liver beside the kidneys. The literal translation is rendered: “And he shall lift up from it all the fat of the bullock of the sin offering, the fat which (is/was) covering over the inward parts (verse 8), and the two kidneys and the fat which (is/was) on them, which (is/was) beside the flanks and he shall remove (turn aside) the fold on the liver beside the kidneys (verse 9). As it is lifted up from the sacrifice of the peace offerings of the bullock, the priest also shall burn them as incense on the altar of burnt offering” (verse 10).
Careful examination of every use of rum and sur in Lev. 1-7 reveals two distinct and consecutive actions. First, the fat is removed (turned aside) or separated (sur) from the inward parts and second, the separated fat is lifted up by the priest from the sacrificial offering and burned on the altar. It is especially noteworthy that in the case of food (cereal) offerings, there is no fat to remove (turn aside) or separate (sur) and without exception the root verb rum is used where the priest lifts up from the food offering, its memorial offering, and burns it as incense on the altar (see Lev. 2:9; 6:15). The activity involves offering up or lifting up the cereal to burn as incense as opposed to removing the food offering. It is also noteworthy that Lev. 6:15-20 is the only passage in the OT where rum and tamid are closely linked. This linkage does not exist for sur. The flour lifted up (rum) in Lev. 6:15 was to be a “continual” food offering in verse 20. This is parallel to the linkage of these two words in Dn. 8:11.
The sequential activity of first removing the fat from the inward parts of the sin offering and then lifting up the fat as a burnt offering in Lev. 4 is confirmed by an examination of sur in Lev. 3 in connection with the peace offering of the bullock. A reading of Lev. 3:1-5 reveals that the priest brings near to Jehovah the fat only after it is removed (turned aside) or separated (sur) from the inward parts including the fatty fold by the liver. It is then burned as incense on the altar (v. 5). The same sequence is described more explicitly in verses 9-11. This reading alone would suggest that the rum activity of lifting up the fat following its separation or removal was not involved. However, Lev. 4:10 explicitly states that just as the fat was lifted up (rum) from the sacrifice of the peace offering of the bullock, described in Lev. 3:1-11, so also the fat of the sin offering of Lev. 4:1-12 is to be lifted up from the sin offering and burned as incense after its prior removal (sur) as described in Lev. 3. Hence it becomes clear that there is a two-fold sequential activity involved with both the sin and peace offerings of sacrificial animals. First, the fat is turned aside or separated (sur) from the inward parts and second the separated fat is lifted up (rum) from the animal as an incense offering on the altar of burnt offering. This two-fold sequential activity is in contrast to the singular rum activity associated with the cereal offering. The exclusive cognitive quality of rum (lift up or offer up) is again set forth with the food offerings in Num. 15:19-20 in which the children of Israel are to lift up (rum) a cake of the first of their dough as a heave offering. The use of sur is superfluous since nothing needs to be separated which was previously intimately united such as the fat to the inward parts.
The distinctive root meaning of rum is also clearly evident in Lev. 6:10-11 in which the priest “lifts up” the ashes from the altar and places them beside the altar. The priest does not remove (sur) the ashes from the altar since they are first lifted up from and then placed beside the altar. Then, only after changing his garments, the priest brings (the removal activity) the ashes outside the camp.
In every case where rum is employed in the cultic service of Leviticus and Numbers, the accurate, literal rendering is “lift up” or “offer up” in harmony with the root meaning of rum. Rodriguez correctly points out that rum is often used in cultic settings in the sense of “to donate” or “to give a gift” (Num. 15:19-21) but simply acquiesces to Jacob Milgram’s assertion that rum should be rendered “to remove, set aside” in Lev. 2:9 & 4:8. However, the context of the passages and the evidence presented reveals that the priest does not set aside but lifts up a food offering and burns it as incense (Lev. 2:9) and lifts up the fat following its separation from the inward parts as offering of incense in Lev. 4:8-10.(33)
It is suggested that the evidence convincingly demonstrates that the distinct cognitive qualities for root meanings of both rum and sur are maintained throughout Leviticus and Daniel as well as the entire OT. The evidence will not substantiate a claim of a specialized use of an “extended” meaning for rum for the cultic functions of Leviticus.
The only two instances among the hundreds of normal renderings where rum is translated as “take away” are found in Dn. 8:11 and Eze. 45:9 in the KJV. The New Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance confirms these observations.(34) The phrase in Eze. 45:9 translated as “take away your exactions from my people” is more accurately rendered “take up or lift up your exactions (oppression) from my people”. The “daily” is, in fact, “turned aside or taken away” in Dn. 11:31 and Dn. 12:11; but the Hebrew verb sur is used in these instances. Lexical evidence confirms that the basic sense of meaning for sur is “to turn aside” or “to depart” with occasional extended meanings in the hiphil and hophal of “taken away” or “be removed”.(35) The Hebrew concordance again confirms that the hundreds of uses of sur in the various verbal forms always have this sense of meaning.(36) The translators of the Hebrew text, apparently in an effort to maintain consistency of the “activity of the daily” in Dn. 8:11 with 11:31 & 12:11, translated rum of Dn. 8:11 in this particular instance as “take away” (rather than the correct rendering of “lift up” or “raise up”) to correspond with sur of Dn. 11:31 & 12:11.
Hasel does not give any linguistic evidence for his acceptance of the rendering “take away” for rum in Dn. 8:11. He devotes only 4 lines out of 84 pages to this key issue.(37) With the correct translation of rum, Hasel’s rendering of the second phrase of verse 11 would be: “from Him (Christ) the daily (Priestly ministry) was lifted up or raised up and the place of His sanctuary was cast down”. This rendering is self-contradictory and retains no self-consistency with the text, if the antecedent of “him” is the Prince of the host. The accurate rendering of the second phrase of verse 11 in view of the evidence presented thus far is: “and from him (Rome: masculine, pagan phase) the daily was lifted up.” When “the daily” represents the self-exalting behavior of pagan Rome, as it will be demonstrated, the text is self-consistent and becomes significant. In this case the little horn lifts up this self-exalting character. Ellen White supports this meaning: “paganism” and “her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ” which “resulted in the development of `the man of sin.'”(38)
220.127.116.11 Hattamid Linkage with Gadal. The vision (chazon) sets forth four major actors: 1) the ram, 2) the goat, 3) the horn from littleness (masculine phase) and 4) the horn from littleness (feminine phase), each with a similar dominant characteristic. Examination of the vision reveals that Daniel consistently introduces and characterizes each of the four major powers with the Hebrew word gadal with the root meaning of “to become great” or “make oneself great”.(39) The ram became great in verse 4, the goat “grew very great” in verse 8 and “he came, a horn from littleness, which grew exceedingly great” in verse 9 and the horn from littleness (feminine phase) “became great” in verse 10. Finally in verse 11 the masculine phase of the horn (pagan Rome) “exalts” (becomes great) even to the Prince of the host. Furthermore, this characteristic activity (gadal) is transferred or “lifted up” (rum) from him (pagan Rome) by papal Rome. The chart below summarizes the exalting characteristic of the 4 world powers in Dn 8 which culminates in the final step (v. 11) in which papal Rome lifts up the “daily”, which is characterized by “gadal“, from pagan Rome.
Hattamid Characterized By Gadal
|Verse||Exalting Verb||World Power|
Paganism consistently magnifies itself against the Lord in the OT: In Jer. 48:26, 42 Moab magnifies itself (higdil; root is gadal) against the Lord; in Ps. 35:26; 38:16 & 55:12, all with Messianic implications, the rebellious magnify themselves (gadal) against the Lord. Finally in Dn. 11:36-37, paganism (King of the South) “magnifies (gadal) himself above every god … nor regards any god for he shall magnify (gadal) himself above all.
The perpetual, continual activity or characteristic of paganism throughout history has been self-exaltation. This characteristic was personified by the four pagan world powers: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. Daniel purposely emphasizes this “continual” characteristic with the word “gadal” which is the essence of pagan worship or Baal self-worship. Daniel associates gadal with the cultic term “hattamid” meaning “the continual” which is a substantive rather than the usual adjective. Thus, verse 11 may be rendered: “…he exalted himself and from him the continual was lifted up…”.
It is suggested that the evidence strongly supports the view that hattamid or “the continual” is represented and characterized by the Hebrew word, gadal, in the context of Daniel 8 meaning “to exalt oneself” in the hiphil form (higdil). This characteristic has manifested itself by the forms and practices of pagan worship or Baal worship which were first exhibited by Cain with the grain offering thereby avoiding the cross of Christ. The phenomena of self-exaltation whose author is Satan (Is. 14 & Eze. 28) has exhibited itself not only in every pagan culture but infiltrated Israel itself (Jer. 23:13; Hos. 2:16-17) as well as apostate Christianity personified by Rome.
18.104.22.168 Hattamid: The Daily Identified. Recent Adventist scholarship has concluded that the “daily” is associated with the high priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.(40) The pioneers of Seventh-day Adventism until 1900 identified hattamid interchangeably as paganism or pagan Rome which evoked virtually no controversy. For example, U. Smith identifies “the daily” in Daniel 8:11 as pagan Rome,(41) but in Daniel 8:13 and 11:31 he identifies “the daily” as paganism.(42) Similarly, William Miller linked “the daily” of Daniel 8:11 with “the restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 identifying both as paganism which was interchangeable with pagan Rome.(43)
However, a clear distinction must be maintained between the term “pagan Rome” and “paganism.” Pagan Rome is a national power or the exceedingly dreadful beast with teeth of iron (Dn. 7:7, 19). On the other hand, paganism is an “activity” or false religious system in rebellion against God manifested by character attributes of self-exaltation against God. Succinctly stated, “the daily” is a rebellious activity manifesting self-exalting character attributes.
If pagan Rome is represented by the masculine pronoun in the prepositional phrase, “from him (mimmennu) the daily was lifted up,” in verse 11, then “the daily” cannot represent the entity or power of pagan Rome. It is a non sequitur to suggest that pagan Rome is lifted up from pagan Rome. It is suggested that “the daily” must be carefully defined as a principle, namely the self-exalting character of paganism, inherent in mankind, of which Arianism became integrated. The “abomination (transgression) which desolates” in Daniel 8, 11 and 12, which supersedes and replaces “the daily,” may be defined as the self-exalting character of nominal Christianity of which the papacy became the fountain head. The essence of “the daily” is “the mystery of iniquity” which seeks to become like God (Is. 14:12-14; 2 Thess. 2:3-7). The point of commonality between “the daily” and the “abomination which desolates” is the “mystery of iniquity.” This character attribute was lifted up by papal Rome from pagan Rome with the result that the false religious systems (paganism) were replaced or superseded (taken away or turned aside) by nominal Christianity, a new false religious system professing Christ, uncreated, in contrast to Arianism’s created christ. This process commenced in AD 508 when Arian powers under Theodoric made peace with Clovis and the resistance of the Arian powers began to come to an end.(44)
The conclusion stated above that “the daily” is represented by the principle of self-exaltation manifested in the character of paganism and inherent in mankind, and the conclusion concerning “the abomination which desolates” will be confirmed as the explication of Daniel 8 proceeds.
22.214.171.124 Tamid and Paganism in the Old Testament. The expression, tamid, occurs 103 times in the OT and is used regularly and without exception either as an adverb or adjective meaning “continually” or “continual” respectively. Only in Dn. 8:11, 12, 13; 11:31 and 12:11 does the word tamid occur as an isolated substantive without adjectival designation, hattamid, meaning “the continuance”. Of the 103 occurrences in the OT tamid is used 30 times in connection with several different types of activities of the priests in the sanctuary (Ex. 25:30; 27:20; 29:38; 30:8; etc.). Shea(45) as well as Rodriguez(46) and Hasel(47) all agree that hattamid in Daniel refers to the Hebrew cultus of the sanctuary service. This exegesis will confirm that “the daily” is a Hebrew cultic term in a later section, but only in a counterfeit cultic sense in the book of Daniel. Consequently, hattamid should be understood in its broadest possible sense including its use in a pagan context.
The connection of hattamid with “gadal” (to become great) and rum (lift up) in Dn. 8:11 has its closest parallel in Ps. 74:23, “Do not forget the voice of Your enemies; the tumult of those who rise up against You increases continually (tamid)”. The Hebrew word for rise up is `alah which has the root meaning of “lifted up”, “elevated”, “exalted” or “offer” which is nearly identical to the root meaning of rum and similar to gadal in Dn. 8:11. The continual (tamid) activity of the Lord’s foes (paganism) is to rise up or exalt themselves against Him in Ps. 74:23. The parallel to Dn. 8:11 is extremely close.
Other uses of tamid in a pagan context include Is. 52:4-5 wherein the past oppression of Israel by Egypt and Assyria and Israel’s future captivity is evident and the Lord says “those who rule over them make them wail and My name is blasphemed every day continually (tamid). Again there is an implicit connection of tamid with exalting against God (blaspheming) similar to Dn. 8:11 and Ps. 74:23. In Obadiah 15-16 there is a clear allusion to the “continual” exalting against God by Edom and other pagan nations on God’s holy mountain. The continual (tamid) wickedness of Assyria in opposition to and rebellion against God is evident in Nahum 3:18-19 (cf. 1:2).
The self-exalting, rejoicing behavior of Babylon by virtue of their world-conquering prowess is decried by Habakkuk in chapter 3:15. The pagan nation ascribes his power to his god (1:11) and worships in a counterfeit cultic setting (1:6) while sacrificing to his net and burning incense to his fishnet. In 1:17 tamid is connected with the false cultic worship in self-exalting rebellion against God: “shall he therefore empty his net, and shall he not spare to continually (tamid) slay nations?”
Finally the counterfeit cultic application of tamid by rebellious Israel, exalting against God, is seen in Is. 65:2-3 in which “a people provoke Me to anger continually (tamid) who sacrifice in gardens and burn incense on altars of brick”. The continual (tamid) exalting against God, associated with pagan nations, has been lifted up and incorporated by God’s professed people of Israel. The parallel to Dn. 8:11 is again unmistakable in which even unto God, pagan Rome magnifies itself and from him hattamid (continual self-exalting) is lifted up by papal Rome.
The Biblical evidence clearly reveals counterfeit cultic applications of the Hebrew term “tamid” with the connotation of self-exalting behavior against God. Based on the foregoing discussion, it is suggested that the substantive hattamid represents neither the continual heavenly ministry of Christ nor the nation or power of pagan Rome, but represents the “continual” self-exalting character of paganism inherent within fallen man and which has been manifested in the false religious systems of every pagan nation throughout history. Daniel explicitly attributes this tamid-gadal behavior to Medo-Persia, Greece, and Pagan Rome from whom it was “lifted up” (rum) by papal Rome.
5.2.3 The Place of his Sanctuary. The Hebrew text uses two words for sanctuary: miqdash and qodesh. Both words are used in Dn. 8:9-14. Miqdash is the chosen word in verse 11: “and the place of his sanctuary was cast down”. Qodesh is the chosen word in verses 13 and 14: “until when the vision…to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled”; “unto 2300 days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”. It is suggested that Daniel used two distinct words for sanctuary not for recapitulative emphasis as suggested by Hasel(48) but to emphasize the stark contrast of two different sanctuaries.
126.96.36.199 Miqdash. Concerning the use of miqdash, Rodriguez correctly points out that out of the 74 occurrences in the OT it most often denotes an earthly sanctuary (Ex. 25:8; Lev. 26:2, etc.).(49) Both Rodriguez(50) and Hasel(51) suggest that miqdash in a few instances refers to the heavenly sanctuary. Ps. 68:35 is cited as the first example. Although the immediate context in verse 33 & 34 seems to imply a heavenly connection with miqdash in v. 35, the overall context of Psalm 68 more convincingly suggests the earthly connection. Specific words for “holy place at Sinai”, “sanctuary” (earthly) and “temple” appear in verses 17, 24 and 29 respectively, and in each case the connection is with the earthly setting of Mt. Sinai or Jerusalem. The message of the Psalmist is that kings will bring presents to Jehovah because of His temple at Jerusalem (v. 29) because they have seen the procession of God into the sanctuary (v. 24). Therefore, sing praises to God you kingdoms of the earth (v. 32) because “awesome is our God out of His holy places (miqdash), the God of Israel who gives strength and power to the people” (v. 35). The concluding verse is a reference to God coming out of the earthly tabernacle to guide his people day (cloud) and night (fire) and fight their battles. The awesome power of God out of His sanctuary during the wilderness experience is explicitly alluded to in Ps. 68:7-8 in which God went out before His people and marched through the wilderness and the earth shook.
The second example is Ps. 96:6. The context within verses 6-8 reveals that the people bring an offering and come into His courts. In verse 6, “Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary” (miqdash). The surrounding context clearly suggests that the sanctuary of verse 6 is earthly.
In Ps. 78:69, the prior context alludes to the apostasy of Israel’s high places (v. 58). The Lord forsook the tabernacle at Shiloh, the tent He had placed among them (v. 60). Following the temporary rejection of His people (verses 61-64) the Lord chose Judah, Mt. Zion and He built His sanctuary (miqdash) and chose David (v. 69-70). The earthly sanctuary setting is clearly in view in Ps. 78:69.
Finally the last example cited is Jer.17:12, “a glorious high throne from the beginning (is) the place of our sanctuary”. Both Jeremiah and Jehovah speak alternately in Jer. 16 & 17. Jehovah speaks in Jer. 16:1-18 and Jeremiah responds in verses 19-20; Jehovah continues His warnings and admonitions in 16:20 through 17:11; Jeremiah responds in verse 12 and 13a which is followed by Jehovah’s response in v. 13b. Finally, Jeremiah prays in 17:14-18. With this understanding in view, Jeremiah’s words in 17:12 immediately make it self-evident that “the place of our sanctuary” refers to the earthly sanctuary in Jerusalem. The plural pronoun “our” based on the context of the passage excludes the heavenly sanctuary of Jehovah, since Jehovah speaks in the singular person throughout the passage (“I, Jehovah”; Jer.17:10).(52)
It is suggested that all 74 occurrences of miqdash, with a high degree of probability, may refer exclusively to an earthly sanctuary, structure or a dedicated place. In one instance a portion of a gift/heave offering associated with the earthly sanctuary system is described by miqdash (its sanctified part) in Num. 18:29. Irrespective of whether miqdash refers exclusively to an earthly sanctuary, the transcendent issue is that miqdash often designates a pagan, unholy earthly sanctuary which will be demonstrated in the following discussion. On the other hand, qodesh, when denoting the sanctuary, always connotes a holy sanctuary, either earthly or heavenly.
The biblical evidence suggests, with a reasonable degree of probability, that miqdash may always refer to an earthly structure either associated with Jehovah’s sanctuary or to a heathen/pagan structure.(53) Miqdash is Satan’s dedicated place in Is. 16:12 and Eze. 28:18 and is used derogatorily in Eze. 21:2 and Lev. 26:31. Miqdash also means a “dedicated place” requiring contextual or adjectival designation. Qodesh is used 469 times in the OT and refers exclusively to holiness associated with both the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary and also holiness associated with God, the Levites, priests and God’s people.(54) Qodesh, translated as sanctuary in Dn. 8:13-14, always carries the connotation of holiness and exclusively refers to the Lord’s true sanctuary (either earthly or heavenly), usually without adjectival designation. The distinctive qualities of miqdash and qodesh are summarized in the chart below.
MIQDASH / QODESH DISTINCTION
The evidence supports the contention that miqdash in Dn. 8:11 refers to the counterfeit sanctuary located in pagan Rome from which it practiced continual self-exalting worship against God.
188.8.131.52 Makon. Both Shea(55) and Hasel(56) present strenuous arguments that makon, which is translated normally as “place”, “habitation”, or “dwelling” should be translated as “foundation.” The argument is based in part on the conclusion that the tamid represents Christ’s high priestly ministry which was taken away by papal Rome who in turn cast down the “foundation” of Christ’s sanctuary. It is asserted that the foundation of God’s throne which is righteousness and justice in Ps. 89:14 is equivalent to the “foundation” of His sanctuary in Dn. 8:11 to justify the translation of makon as foundation in both cases.
In addition to the evidence revealing that miqdash, the sanctuary in Dn. 8:11, represents an earthly dwelling of pagan Rome, evidence will be presented which contravenes the establishment of a one-for-one equivalency of the “foundation of His throne” in Ps. 89:14 with the “foundation of his sanctuary” in Dn. 8:11.
From the 17 occurrences of makon in the OT a clear definition of the word is inherently portrayed in 2 Chron. 6:2 wherein “I have built an exalted house for You and a place (makon) for You to dwell forever”. Makon is equated with house and dwelling. A similar definition is provided in Ex. 15:17 wherein “…the place (makon) You have made O Lord for Your dwelling, the sanctuary, O Lord, Your hands have prepared.” Makon is equated again with dwelling and also sanctuary.
It is suggested that makon consistently manifests the connotation of habitation or dwelling in all 17 occurrences. In only three instances, Ps. 89:14; 97:2 & 104:5 can makon be logically translated as “foundation”. In Ps. 89:14 and 97:2 righteousness and justice are the habitation of His throne which is equivalent to saying God’s throne dwells in righteousness and justice. Where God is present righteousness and justice exist, since He, the Source of righteousness and justice, is sitting on His throne.
In Ps. 104:5 God literally “founded the earth on its `foundations’; it shall not be shaken forever”. Equivalently, “God founded the earth on its `habitations’…”. Makon is plural in this instance, and it is suggested that God founded the earth on its two primary dwelling places: 1) its internal axis of rotation and 2) its axis of rotation about the sun. The earth’s two axes of rotation represent its permanent dwelling places or habitations which God created.
Although maqom from the root qum (meaning to stand up) is also translated as “place” in about 400 occurrences, it connotes the sense of “general locational area”. On the other hand, makon from the root kun (similar to qum in meaning: to stand firm) connotes the sense of habitation or dwelling and is used primarily in a cultic or counterfeit cultic context as in Dn. 8:11. The cognitive sense of makon and maqom may be deduced from a careful examination of the lexical evidence(57) and their application in the OT.(58)
In view of the evidence, it is suggested Daniel used miqdash to designate an earthly dedicated pagan sanctuary in Dn. 8:11 in stark contrast to God’s holy sanctuary in 8:13 & 14. Makon specifically identifies the habitation of his sanctuary which was the city of Rome. Thus, simultaneously at the time “the continual” self-exalting character of pagan Rome was lifted up by papal Rome, the place or habitation of pagan Rome’s sanctuary was cast down by Constantine and transferred to Constantinople in AD 330. Pagan Rome’s original sanctuary in Rome remained and was permanently occupied by papal Rome. This is the historicist position of U. Smith and the majority of the pioneers of the SDA church.(59)
27) G. F. Hasel, DARCOM: Vol. 2, p. 404.
28) Mimmennu is translated as “`from’ it” in all the Levitical cultic parallels to Dn. 8:11 (cf. Lev. 2:9; 4:8, 10, 19; 6:15). See also Section 7.0 for the cultic language parallels.
29) Ibid., p. 402.
30) W. L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 335, 1988.
31) W. H. Shea, DARCOM: Vol. 2, p. 204.
32) Ibid., p. 206.
33) A. M. Rodriguez, DARCOM: Vol. 2, p. 532.
34) G. V. Wigram, The New Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance, Peabody:Hendrickson Publishers, pp.1163-1164, 1984. (Hereafter referred to as “Wigram: NEHC”)
35) H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius’s Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 582, 1979. (Hereafter referred to as “Gesenius: Lexicon.”) W. L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, p. 254, 1988. (Hereafter referred to as “Holladay: CHAL.”)
36) Wigram: NEHC, pp. 872-874.
37) G. F. Hasel, DARCOM: Vol. 2, p. 404.
38) E. G. White. Great Controversy, Mountain View:Pacific Press, p. 50, 1950 (emphasis mine).
39) Holladay:CHAL, p. 56.
40) F. B. Holbrook, Ed., DARCOM, Volumes 1-6.
41) Smith: D & R, pp. 159-161.
42) Ibid., pp. 165 & 271.
43) Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Washington DC: Review and Herald, p. 367, 1976. See also P. G. Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission, Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, p. 38, 1977.
44) Thomas Hodgkin, Theodoric, the Goth, pp. 202, 203; Nugent Robinson, A History of the World, Vol. I, pp. 745-79, 81, 82; Richard W. Church, The Beginning of the Middle Ages, pp. 38-39. Quoted in Smith: D & R, p. 328.
45) W. H. Shea, DARCOM: Vol. 2, p. 514.
46) A. M. Rodriguez, DARCOM: Vol. 2, p. 533.
47) G. F. Hasel, DARCOM: Vol. 2, pp. 404-409.
48) Ibid.,p. 446.
49) A. M. Rodriguez, DARCOM: Vol. 2, p. 531.
51) G. F. Hasel, DARCOM: Vol. 2, p. 415.
52) E. G. White adapts this verse in Patriarch & Prophets (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1958), p. 34, directly quoting “A glorious high throne from the beginning” and then applies it by prophetic prerogative to the Lord’s heavenly sanctuary without direct quotation of Jer. 17:12. A similar case of prophetic prerogative is the application of 1 Sam. 7:12 where Ellen White quotes, “Hitherto the Lord has helped me,” not us, as in the biblical text. See E. G. White, In Heavenly Places, Washington, DC: Review and Herald, p. 242, 1967; also E. G. White, Letter #1, 1904.
53) Wigram: NEHC, pp. 755-756.
54) G. F. Hasel, DARCOM: Vol. 2, pp. 444-445.
55) W. H. Shea, DARCOM: Vol. 2, pp. 213-215.
56) G. F. Hasel, DARCOM: Vol. 2, 412-415.
57) H. W. F. Gesenius, Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker, pp. 471 & 502, 1979.
58) Wigram: NEHC, pp. 756-758 & 699.
59) Smith: D & R, p. 161.
|<= Previous||Return to Main Menu||Next =>|