“We will continue considering the arguments we formulated to support the idea that Rome is mentioned in Daniel 8. For this purpose, we have stated that the prophecy is for the time of the end or end of times; and that the little horn does not arise from one of the four horns, but from one of the four winds. More specifically, our scholars have stated the following: ‘The interpreting angel of Daniel told him that the vision in chapter 8 had to do with the time of the end’; ‘If the little horn arises from the four horns into which Greece was divided, Rome would be omitted from the prophetic timeline, and the prophecy would not reach the time of the end.’
At this point, we would need to better define the meaning of the phrase ‘time of the end’; because if we interpret it as referring to the end of times, we have problems with our traditional interpretation of the prophecy in Daniel 8, where we affirm that the 2,300 evenings and mornings ended in the year 1844 with the cleansing of the sanctuary. If 1844 is part of the end of times, it is evident that the meaning of that phrase is incorrect, because 179 years have passed since then. This also applies to the prophecy in Daniel 7 and the 1,260 days, because according to our traditional interpretation, that prophecy ended in the year 1798, over two centuries ago.
It is true that the angel mentions the time of the end, but the meaning of that phrase needs to be investigated, because in Daniel 11:40-41, the Hebrew text records the following: ‘And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north will rush against him … and many will fall, but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.’ The question that arises here is: What do Edom, Moab, and the children of Ammon have to do with the time of the end? Based on the above considerations, it is evident that ‘the time of the end’ is not precisely referring to the end of times, so our interpretation that the prophecy in Daniel 8 must reach the end of times is not correct, because the prophecy of the 2,300 evenings and mornings began in the year 457 B.C. and ended in 1844. There is no more time for the little horn of Daniel 8 after 1844, as it is broken by a non-human hand before the sanctuary is cleansed.
Regarding the second assertion that the little horn does not arise from one of the four notable horns, but from one of the four winds, our scholars have pointed out the existence of a grammatical figure called gender agreement for proper interpretation of texts whose meaning may be ambiguous, as allegedly is the case at hand. Gerhard Hasel in the book ‘Symposium on Daniel’ states the following: The gender agreement, in the case of Daniel 8:8-9, consists of the agreement that must exist in Hebrew between the gender of the antecedent (horns or winds) and the gender of the words that follow it, which in this case is found in the phrase ‘one of them.’ It is very clear that based on syntax, the masculine ‘them’ does not match with the feminine ‘horns.’ The explanation of these grammatical and syntactic problems is acute and questions (and actually dismisses) the interpretation that the little horn arises from one of the four horns of the male goat.
In relation to the above, the Adventist Bible Commentary, volume 4, page 867, records the following: “The word translated as ‘one,’ ‘ajath’ is feminine, hence suggesting the word ‘horns’ – feminine – as the antecedent… several Hebrew manuscripts have the word translated as ‘them’ in the feminine gender. If these manuscripts reflect the correct meaning, the passage would still be ambiguous. Given that in this case, the inspired Word (verse 23) only speaks of the time when the power represented by this horn would arise and says nothing about its geographical origin, there is no reason to emphasize the phrase ‘one of them’ “.
In Going back to Hasel’s statements, they present the following inconveniences: 1- The origin of the little horn is not only recorded in Daniel 8:8-9; but also in verses 23-25, where Gabriel explains that at the end of these kingdoms, an arrogant king will arise who will rise against the Prince of princes and destroy the people of the saints, which matches with what is revealed in verses 8-9, that the little horn arises from one of the four notable horns. 2- Gender agreement should be between words, not between a word and a phrase that may have words with two different genders, as is the case at hand, because that leads to different and contradictory interpretations. In this case, agreement should be sought between the feminine ‘horn’ and the singular numeral ‘one,’ which is also feminine, and not with the pronoun ‘them’ which supposedly has a masculine gender, because the little horn arises from ‘one’ and not from all the horns, where we will definitely not find gender agreement. 3- Hasel in the same work, page 392, makes the following statement: ‘In the Hebrew language, ‘them’ can have a masculine or feminine gender’ – which according to some ancient manuscripts has a feminine gender, as mentioned by the Adventist Bible Commentary – which does not allow us to assert categorically that this word has a masculine gender in verse nine. Based on the above, it is evident that the little feminine horn cannot arise from ‘them’ (masculine plural), nor from the four ‘winds’ (masculine in that text) because there would be a lack of gender agreement. Where we do find agreement is in what is clearly revealed in the Scriptures, which state that the little feminine horn emerges from ‘one’ – singular feminine – of them. After all the exegetical labyrinth created with the unnecessary gender agreement proposed to justify the representation of Rome in Daniel 8, it is clear, from the context of verses 8-9 in chapter 8 of Daniel, detailing the progressive emergence of horns as symbols of power, that the little horn of Daniel 8 arose from one of the four notable horns.
Finally, it is important to highlight that in the same work, page 398, Hasel ends with the following contradictory statement-conclusion that reads: ‘In short, the idea of 8-9 is not that the little horn comes from one of the winds of heaven, but that it advances from one of the cardinal points…’ If the little horn of Daniel 8 arises from one of the four notable horns, as found in verses 8-9 and 22-23 of chapter 8 of Daniel, and not from one of the four winds, as we have surmised; let’s ask again: Where is Rome in Daniel 8?”
Comments