The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 1

The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23

Eduard C. Hanganu
B.A., M.A., Linguistics
Lecturer in English, UE
Draft 3
Revised June 11, 2014
2014
Word Referent and Interpretation
Word usage and meaning in context should never be studied outside two linguistic
notions to refer, and referent. Hudson states that when a word is used on a particular
occasion it refers to some person or thing by picking it out. Whoever or whatever a word refers
to is its referent on that occasion of use. 1 Trask defines the term referent as the object in the
world which is picked out by a noun phrase serving as a referring expression. Again, the
referring expression is, of course, a noun phrase which picks out something in the world. 2
One major issue in the interpretation of chapters 8 and 9 in Daniel concerns the referents
of the instances of the term vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23, or in other words, to what
visions the words vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 are referring: 1. the vision in Daniel
8? 2. The vision in Daniel 9? 3. Separate visions? Could, for instance, the word vision in
Daniel 9: 21 refer to the prophetic revelation in Daniel chapter 8 and the word vision in Daniel
9:23 refer to the prophetic revelation in chapter 9? States the Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary [further, SDABC] to Daniel 9:21:
10. Note particularly that Daniel was told to understand the matter, and consider the vision (ch. 9:23),
that is, the vision he had seen at the beginning [emphasis supplied] (v. 21). This can refer only to the
vision of ch. 8:214, as no other vision had been given since that one [emphasis added]. Compare the
words understand the vision (ch. 8:16) with consider the vision (ch. 9:23). 3

Two different Hebrew terms are translated into English with the word vision. The term
in Daniel 9:21 is chazon, while the term in Daniel 9:23 is mareh. In verse 23, Gabriel tells the
prophet to consider the dabar, word, [divine message] and understand the mareh, vision
from the divine apparition. As the angel makes no mention to the vision or elements of the vision
in chapter 8, and fails to state that he had come back now to continue the explanation for the
vision in chapter 8 or the time element involved in verse 14, it is clear that Daniel has in mind
the current message and the current angelic apparition, and not something that happened 10 years
before. Therefore, the assumption that both Daniel and Gabriel refer to the same vision (the
vision in chapter 8) in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 must be dismissed as inconsistent with the
specific Hebrew language in the chapter that appears to communicate events and situations that
occurred in actual time and were related to immediate and observable events and not to historical
events a decade old that were no more relevant and significant for the historical context that
formed the background for the vision in Daniel 9.

The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 2

Dependent on Incorrect Translation

The first issue about the SDABC historicist interpretation of the word vision in Daniel
9:21 and Daniel 9:23 develops from an unfortunate dependence on the English KJV translation
of Daniel 9. While the KJV translates Daniel 9:21 as, Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer,
even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning [emphasis added],
being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation, the NIV
translates the same verse as, while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the
earlier vision [emphasis added], came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening
sacrifice. Based on the English KJV version, the SDABC commentators decided that because
Daniel had said I had seen in the vision at the beginning, the word vision, in Daniel 9:23
can refer only to the vision of ch. 8:2-14, as no other vision had been given since that one.4
Daniel, though, appears to mention the word vision in 9:21 in relation to the man Gabriel,
whom he had seen in the earlier [previous] vision, that is, the vision of chapter 8, in order to
distinguish and separate Gabriels first or previous apparition (chapter 8) from the second or
current apparition (chapter 9) as two different distinct and separate events that were isolated
from each other through a decade, and he indicates the distinction between the two separate
visions through his use of a different Hebrew word for each vision.
The prepositional phrase translated in KJV as in the beginning (Daniel 9:21) is the
Hebrew ba-techilah. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [BDB] defines the
Hebrew term techillah, beginning, preceded by the preposition ba, in, as in the beginning,
or at first, and also as at the first (or former) time, i.e. first in a series of occurrences [emphasis
added].5 It appears, then, that the NIV translation, which reads Gabriel, the man I had seen in the
earlier vision [emphasis added] could be quite an acceptable alternate translation of the Hebrew
phrase, and therefore it appears that Daniel simply confirms in the 9:21 verse that he had seen
Gabriel in a previous and earlier vision, the one in chapter 8:1, and that now he sees the angel for the
second time. Daniels mention of his second encounter with Gabriel, a decade from his first
encounter, would not be, therefore, about an assumed angelic apparition scheduled so that Gabriel
could explain to the prophet past historical events or a past vision component such as the time
element involved6 [emphasis added] assumed to have remained unexplained in the chapter 8 vision,
but intended to introduce the old prophet to new historical events and a new prophetic forecast.
Two Crucial Linguistic Principles

The second issue that develops from the historicist claim that both instances of the word
vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 point back to Daniel chapter 8, as the scholars who
wrote the comments on Daniel 9:21 in the SDABC suggest, is that such an interpretation would
violate two linguistic principles of interpretation, local interpretation, and analogy. Brown
and Yule state about the first principle:
One principle which we can identify we shall call the principle of local interpretation. This principle
instructs the hearer not to construct a context any larger than he needs to arrive at an interpretation

The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 3

[emphasis supplied]. Thus if he hears someone say, Shut the door he will look towards the nearest door
available for being shut. (If that door is shut, he may well say, Its shut, rather than consider what other
doors are potentially available for being shut.) Similarly if his host says Come early, having just invited
him for eight oclock, he will interpret early with respect to the last-mentioned time, rather than to some
previously mentioned time.7

In simple words, what Brown and Yule state in the above paragraph is that if during
exegesis we ignore the empirical fact that a words referent should be in the immediate context
and look for the words referent in the extended context, we will distort the meaning of the text
under examination and we will reach speculative and invalid exegetical conclusions.
While it is obvious that the Hebrew term chhazon, vision, in Daniel 9:21 points to the
prophetic vision in chapter 8 because Daniel refers to Gabriel as the man I had seen in the
earlier vision [emphasis supplied], that is, the angel whom the prophet had seen and talked
with before, in Daniel 8:17, to interpret the term mareh, vision, in Daniel 9:23 as referring to
the vision in chapter 8 would violate the principle of local interpretation because we would
construct a contextlarger than [we] need to arrive at an interpretation, 8 rather than look for
the referent of the word vision in the immediate context of Daniel 9 and conclude that the
prophetic vision Gabriel refers to is the one contained in Daniel 9:24-27. We would
unnecessarily expand our context to Daniel 8: 2-14 looking for the prophetic vision in that
context, although there are already a vision and a context in chapter 9:24-27 that meet the
referents requirements.
The second linguistic principle that Brown and Yule mention in relation to discourse
interpretation is the principle of analogy, and this principle requires that all topical shifts and
turns of events should be made explicit to the hearers or readers in order to prevent confusion
about the matter under discussion and the events that take place in that context:
The principle of analogy is one of the fundamental heuristics which hearers and analysts adopt in
determining interpretations in context. They assume that everything will remain as it was before unless
they are given specific notice that some aspect has changed [emphasis supplied]. Dahl (1976:46)
formulates a principle for speakers: Indicate only things which have changed and omit those which are as
they were before...
Relevant previous experience, together with the principle of local interpretation, will impel hearers/readers
to try to interpret sequential utterances as relating to the same topic. When two sentences are placed
together in sequence by a writer who does not want us to consider them as a continuous text, their
separateness or disconnectedness must be positivity indicated [emphasis supplied].9

The question we need to ask ourselves, then, is whether Daniel chapters 8 and 9 should
be seen as a continuous text or as topically separate or autonomous chapters. Does Gabriel return
to Daniel in vision a full decade later with the purpose of completing his assigned task,10 that
is, to finish his explanation of the chapter 8 vision because in v. 26 [of chapter 8] Gabriel
mentions the time element, but breaks off his explanation before saying anything further about

The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 4

it11? The events described in Daniel 8:15-27 do not appear to support such a speculative and
tendentious conclusion.
Gabriel begins the explanation of the vision in Daniel 8:2-14 with a clear paragraph
opener, a discourse marker that indicates the beginning of his explanation: Son of man, he
said to me, understand that the vision concerns the time of the end (Daniel 8:17 NIV). The
angel continues his explanation of the vision in Daniel 8:2-14 in the next verses (19-25), and
then concludes, or terminates his explanation with another discourse marker that indicates the
end of his explanation and shows that he had finished his task: The vision of evenings and
mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future
(Daniel 8:26). There is no mention in Gabriels closure statement (Daniel 8:26) that ends the
explanation about the vision in verses 8-14 that he was interrupting the vision explanation before
he had completed his task and had provided Daniel with the full interpretation of the vision.
According to the principle of analogy, if Gabriel had planned to discontinue the
explanation of the vision12 for one reason or another and resume it at a later time he would have
had to positively indicate that interruption to Daniel and mention that he would resume the
explanation of the vision in Daniel 8, dated 548 B.C., at a later time in Daniel 9, which is dated
538 B.C., that is, a decade later [emphasis added].13 The fact that there is no explicit indication
from Gabriel in Daniel 8 that he was going to suspend his explanation of the vision in Daniel
8:2-24 in order to resume it later, but, on the other hand, there is an explicit indication from
Gabriel in verse 8:27 that he had completed his explanation of the vision of chapter 8, shows that
the claim that Gabriel comes to Daniel in chapter 9 to finish the explanation of the vision, that is,
to explain the time element involved14 that had been left unexplained before, does not have
explicit textual support and must be based on speculation.
Different Interpretation Narratives
It would be appropriate now, after the review of the instances of the word vision in
Daniel 9:21and 23 and their possible interpretations, to mention that there could be at least two
possible narratives for the chapters 8 and 9 in Daniel. The first one might be developed on the
basis of the KJV translation of Daniel 9:21-24, the SDABC comments to Daniel 9:21-24, Ellen
G. Whites account of the events in The Great Controversy, pages 325-326, and also the
comments in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe, pages 358-359. This first narrative could
be as follows:
In 548 B.C., during King Belshazzars third year, Daniel the prophet had a vision of a ram, goat, and
little horn. While Daniel watched the events in the vision, a heavenly voice instructed the angel
Gabriel to explain the vision to the prophet. Gabriel began to explain the vision to Daniel, but while
the angel explained this vision to the prophet the prospect of terrible persecution during the course
of 2300 days (Dan 8:10-13, 23-25) proved more than the aged Daniel could bear, and as a result he
[Daniel] fainted, and was sick certain days (ch. 8:27 GC 325), and therefore the angel

The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 5

discontinued the explanation of the vision at this time. 15 In fact, according to Ellen G. Whites
account of the events in Daniel 8, it seems that it is Gabriels disobedience to Gods explicit
command that prevented the angel to continue and explain the vision in Daniel 8:2-14, as she argues
that the angel Gabriel, though commanded to make Daniel understand the vision, gave him
only a partial explanation [emphasis added].16
The events related to the vision in Daniel 8:2-14 continued a decade later [emphasis added], in 538
B.C. In the meantime, Daniel had been reading the book of Jeremiah, and especially chapters 25 and
29 and suffering about the sins of the Jews and about the captivity of his people. While he was
praying concerning this matter, some time afterward,17 the angel Gabriel, returned in haste to the
prophet, (Daniel 9:21 came to me in swift flight [emphasis added]), in order to finish what was
left unexplained of the vision of Daniel 8, because there was one important point in the vision
of chapter 8 which had been left unexplained, namely, that relating to time [emphasis
added] the period of the 2300 days; therefore the angel, in resuming his explanation, dwells
chiefly upon the subject of time.18 Gabriels explanation was about the 2300 years that were
claimed to be connected with the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27, because the 70 weeks were
cut off from the longer prophetic period of 2300 years.19

The problems with this narrative have already been discussed above, and among them are
that the SDA historicists chose a convenient translation for Daniel 9:21 (the KJV translation
whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, versus the equally acceptable NIV alternative,
the man I had seen in the earlier vision), and the violation of two principles of linguistic
interpretation, the principle of local interpretation and the principle of analogy. Another
issue is that the narrative based on the SDABC and Ellen G. White comments seems to depend
on too many presuppositions and assumptions. It is hard to imagine that the angel Gabriel
refused to continue his explanation for the vision in Daniel 8:8-13 without any acceptable reason
and in defiance to Gods command. It is also implausible that the prophet who had been so much
affected by the vision of Daniel 8:2-14 in 548 B.C. that he remained sick for a while had to wait
for almost a decade until 538 B.C. in order to be informed about what was left unexplained
from the prophetic vision in Daniel 8.
There is also a problem with the order of events as presented in the SDABC and in Ellen
Whites book. She appears to claim that as the terrible persecution to befall the church was
unfolded to the prophet's vision, physical strength gave way. He could endure no more, and the
angel left him for a time,20and the SDABC confirms this perspective with the claim: The
prospect of terrible persecution during the course of the 2300 days (Dan. 8:10-13, 23-25)
proved more than the aged Daniel could bear, and as a result he fainted, and was sick certain
days (ch. 8:27 Gc 325) so that the angel discontinued the explanation of the vision at this
time.21 The truth is that Daniel did not faint during the angels explanation, but after Gabriel
finished his comments to the prophet (Daniel 8:27), and therefore Daniels fainting was no
reason for Gabriel to discontinue his explanation.

The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 6

The second narrative concerning chapters 8 and 9 in Daniel could be assembled for the
most part on the basis of the English NIV translation of the Bible with due attention to the
discourse of the chapters and the linguistic markers that are included in that discourse, and with
the inclusion of selected notes from the SDABC. The narrative would be as follows:
In 548 B.C., 22 during King Belshazzars third year, Daniel had a vision of a ram, goat, and little
horn (Dan 8:2-14). While he was seeing the vision, a heavenly voice told the angel Gabriel to
explain to Daniel the vision. Gabriel explained the vision to the prophet in verses 17-26, finished
his task, and left. Daniel did not understand the vision and the angelic explanation, was
overwhelmed by the divine revelation, and fell sick (verse 27).
A decade after the vision in Daniel 8, the prophet began to read the book of Jeremiah (chapters
25 and 29) in order to understand the future fate of his people and the city of Jerusalem in
relation to the 70 years of Babylonian captivity (Daniel 9:2) that had come as punishment for
Israels sins.23He learned that the years of captivity would end soon,24 but worried that the period
might be extended due to unrepented sins because he suspected that the vision in chapter 8 might
mean an extension of the exile. He prayed to God for repentance, forgiveness, and the end of the
exile and of the desolation of the city of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:3-19).25 In answer to Daniels
fervent prayers, the angel Gabriel, the same angel who had given the prophet the explanation for
the vision in chapter 8, came a full decade after the vision in chapter 8, in 538 B.C.,26 in order to
reveal to the prophet the future of his people and his beloved city, Jerusalem (Daniel 9:20-23).
Gabriel delivered to Daniel an explanation of the vision in the verses 24-27 of chapter 9. This
time Daniel did not appear to be alarmed or frightened by the angelic message, and this seems to
mean that he understood the vision about the future of Israel and was comforted by the Divine
message.
While the second or alternative reading of Daniel 8 and 9 might not satisfy every student
of Daniels prophecies, there seems to be much less assumption and speculation in this narrative
than in the official SDA historicist version of the interpretation of Daniel 8 and 9. According
to Occams razor principle, an interpretation that requires less presupposition, speculation, and
guesses is to be preferred to one that is based in large part on such elements of exegesis.
References
1

Richard Hudson, Word Meaning (New York: Routledge, 1995), 7 box.

R. L. Trask, A Students Dictionary of Language and Linguistics (New York: Arnold, 1997),
185.
3

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version. Daniel 9:21 Sub-point 1.

The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 7

Ibid., Sub-point 10.

Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and
English Lexicon (New York: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996).
6

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version. Daniel 9: 21, Sub-point 1.
7

Gillian Brown and George Yule, Discourse Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1983), 59:1.
8

Ibid., 59:2.

Ibid., 65:1-2.

10

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version. Daniel 9: 21, Sub-point 1.
11

Ibid., Daniel 9:21, Sub-point 1.

12

Ibid., Daniel 9:21, Sub-point 4.

13

For the dating of the events in Daniel chapters 8 and 9 see Gerhard F. Hasel, The First and
Third Years of Belshazzar (Dan 7:1; 8:1), Andrews University Seminary Studies, 15, and
William Shea, When Did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin? Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, 2/1 (1991), 115-139.
14

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version.
15

Ibid., Daniel 9: 21, Sub-point 2.

16

Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association,
1950), 325-326.
17

Ibid.

18

Ibid.

19

Ibid.

20

Ibid.

21

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version. Daniel 9: 21, Sub-point 4.

The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23 8

22

Gerhard F. Hasel, The First and Third Years of Belshazzar (Dan 7:1; 8:1), Andrews
University Seminary Studies, 15, 1977.
23

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version. Daniel 9:21, Sub-point 5.
24

Ibid., Sub-point 5.

25

Ibid., Sub-point 2.

26

William Shea, When Did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin? Journal of the Adventist
Theological Society, 2/1 (1991), 115-139.