The pivotal question, upon which depends the identification of the “daily” (hattamid), is directly related to the antecedent of mimmennu (from him) in Dn. 8:11: “Even unto the Prince of the host he exalted himself, and from him the daily was lifted up…”. Is the daily lifted up from: 1) the Prince of the host or 2) the one exalting himself? Alternatively does “from him” refer to the Prince of the host or the one exalting himself? Sufficient exegetical evidence has already been presented strongly suggesting that the antecedent of mimmennu is the “one exalting himself” or Rome in its pagan phase. However, overwhelming support for this conclusion derives from Daniel’s use of cultic language and symbols taken from the “typical” sanctuary service recorded in Leviticus and Numbers. It is immediately evident, as previously demonstrated, that the ram, goat, and horn in Daniel 8 are all counterfeit cultic symbols which strongly suggests the further use of counterfeit cultic symbols and language in this chapter of Daniel. One specific phrase in Dn. 8:11 has unusual significance: “from him was lifted up the daily.” This phrase consists of three Hebrew words which are used repeatedly in the worship setting of Leviticus and Numbers. The three root words include min or mimmennu (from or from him), rum (lift up) hattamid (the daily). More specifically the phrase “he shall lift up (rum: root) from it (mimmennu)” is utilized a total of five times in Leviticus: four times in the active voice (2:9; 4:8; 4:19; 6:15) and once in the passive voice in 4:10 (it is lifted up from the ox of the sacrifice). In three occurrences the cultic priest lifts up from the cultic beast sacrifice (ram, goat, bull, lamb) the fat which is then burned as incense. For example, in Lev. 4:19, “and he shall lift up (rum) all its fat from it (mimmennu) and shall burn it as incense on the altar.” In the other two occurrences (Lev. 2:9 & 6:15) the cultic priest lifts up from the cultic food offering a portion of the flour (a memorial offering) which is then burned as incense on the altar. For example in Lev. 6:15, “he (priest) shall lift up from it his handful of the flour of the food offering and of its oil and all the frankincense which (is) on the food offering and shall burn it as incense on the altar, a sweet fragrance, as a memorial offering to Jehovah.” In all five cases where this cultic linguistic phrase, employing mimmennu and rum, is used the item which is lifted up from the cultic offering is always burned as incense (qamar) as a sweet aroma to Jehovah.(74) The cultic language and activity in the five passages in Leviticus are contrasted with the cultic language in Dn. 8:11 in the following two tables respectively.
Cultic Language Parallels in Leviticus and Daniel
| Lv. 4:8 | Lv. 4:10 | Lv. 4:19 | Lv. 2:9 | Lv. 6:15 | Dn. 8:11 |
| rum | rum | rum | rum | rum | rum |
| mimmennu | min | mimmennu | min | mimmennu | mimmennu |
| heleb | heleb | heleb | ‘azkarah | solet | hattamid |
Cultic Activity Parallels in Leviticus and Daniel
| Lv. 4:8 | Lv. 4:10 | Lv. 4:19 | Lv. 2:9 | Lv. 6:15 | Dn. 8:11 |
| High Priest lifts up |
High Priest lifts up |
High Priest lifts up |
High Priest lifts up |
High Priest lifts up |
High Priest lifts up |
| from cultic beast |
from ox | from cultic beast |
from food offering |
from food offering |
from cultic beast |
| the fat | the fat | the fat | memorial offering |
flour | “the daily” |
The striking parallels of the language and activity in Leviticus with Daniel 8:11 are unmistakable. The genuine priest is replaced by a counterfeit priest (papal Rome); the genuine cultic beast sacrifice is replaced by a counterfeit beast sacrifice (pagan Rome); and the genuine portion of the offering (fat or flour) is replaced by the counterfeit hattamid (the daily).
The pivotal question, “what is the antecedent of mimmennu?” or alternatively, “is the daily lifted up from the Prince of the host or the one exalting himself?” is unequivocally answered by the cultic language parallels with Leviticus. Just as the “fat” is lifted from the cultic beast sacrifice so the hattamid must be lifted from the counterfeit cultic beast sacrifice. (The nature of hattamid will be clarified in the next section.) The term, Prince of the host, conveys not the slightest hint of cultic significance. Although sar (prince, ruler, commander) inherently possesses no cultic or cultic sacrificial significance, it may be used in conjunction with cultic terms such as rulers of the sanctuary (Is. 43:28) just as it is used in conjunction with other categories such as rulers of the soldiers, rulers of the cupbearers, rulers of a prison or rulers of the host.(75) Moreover, sar possesses not a trace of counterfeit cultic significance in Daniel 8 which would be demanded by the cultic-counterfeit cultic parallels of Leviticus and Daniel 8 respectively. Nowhere in the cultic language of the sanctuary service in Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers does a princely ruler play a cultic role.
On the other hand, the “one exalting himself” or the horn from littleness exhibits clear cultic significance. Indeed, the horn from littleness derives from the four winds of heaven to which the four horns of the goat grew great from the broken horn of the goat (Dn. 8:8-9). By implication the horn from littleness is directly associated with the counterfeit cultic goat symbol or cultic beast sacrifice. The horn from littleness thus symbolizes a new cultic beast power derived indirectly from the cultic goat (beast) power by way of the four winds of heaven. This new cultic beast power or sacrificial beast, the horn from littleness, is analogous and parallel to the cultic sacrificial beast in Lev. 4:8, 10 & 19 from which the priest lifts up the fat. Hence, the antecedent of mimmennu (“from him”) in Dn. 8:11 is the cultic beast power/sacrifice symbolized by the horn from littleness or Rome in its pagan phase; and from him the “daily” is lifted up.(76) Pagan Rome represents a counterfeit cultic sacrifice since it yields to (is sacrificed) and is replaced by papal Rome. This conclusion reinforces the view that the dragon who represents pagan Rome in Rev. 13:2 gives the beast (papal Rome) his throne, power, and great authority.(77)
The counterfeit cultic language and activity of Dn. 8:11 which is parallel to the genuine cultic activity of Leviticus provides conclusive and decisive evidence that the hattamid is lifted up not from the Prince of the host but from the cultic beast power/sacrifice symbolized by the horn from littleness or Rome in its pagan phase. The cultic language parallels of Leviticus with Daniel 8 demand that “the daily” be lifted up from the cultic beast symbol in Dn. 8:11. The counterfeit cultic language confirms the pagan/papal identification by gender distinction in Section 5.0.
References:
74) The Hebrew root word, qamar, means: to offer odors, to burn (incense in honor of a deity); to give a scent, to be fragrant. Qamar is used for both lawful (for example, see Lev. 1:9, 17; 2:2, 16) and unlawful or idolatrous (for example, see Jer. 1:16; 7:9; 11:13; 19:14; 1 Kg: 3:3) sacrifices. See H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 730, 1979.
75) H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 792, 1979.
76) It should be noted that it was previously demonstrated from the internal exegesis of Dn. 8:9-13 that the pagan and papal phases of Rome (horn from littleness) are identified by the masculine and feminine gender of the pronoun/verbal subject respectively. In Dn. 8:11, the masculine verbal subject: “he (masculine) exalted himself (horn from littleness) even unto the Prince of the host” designates pagan Rome.
77) U. Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, Washington DC: Review & Herald, p. 161, 1944.
| <= Previous | Return to Main Menu | Next => |