And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.

And it came to pass when I Daniel saw the vision, and sought the meaning, that behold there stood before me as it were the appearance of a man.

And it came to pass, when I Daniel had seen the vision, I sought for the understanding of it, and behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.

And it cometh to pass in my seeing, I, Daniel, the vision, that I require understanding, and lo, standing over-against me is as the appearance of a mighty one.

And it came about that when I, Daniel, had seen this vision, I had a desire for the sense of it to be unfolded; and I saw one before me in the form of a man.

It came about when I, Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to understand it. And look, there stood before me someone who appeared to be a man.

Et factum est cum videram ego Daniel visionem, et quaererem intelligentiam, ecce stetit coram me quasi aspectus, vel species, viri.

Daniel again confirms his original statement. But before he descends to the interpretation, he makes a preface concerning the faithfulness and certainty of the oracle, lest the Church should hesitate to embrace his utterance as really proceeding from God. In doing this, he uses no artifice as rhetoricians do; but God wished to stir up both him and all the pious to meditate upon this prophecy, the knowledge of which was then so peculiarly necessary and useful. He says, therefore, when he sought the understanding of this vision, there appeared to him a form like that of a man Now God had anticipated this desire of the Prophet, by the answer which the angel received from Christ, who in reply had partly explained the sense of this vision. Now Daniel, finding himself anticipated by God who did not wait for his inquiry, gathers courage, and trusting in God's readiness to furnish an answer, he wishes to learn the matter more clearly; not that he was altogether ignorant of the subject, but he did not yet perceive with sufficient clearness what was useful to himself and the whole Church. We see then, how the answer of Christ only afforded him a taste of the vision, and only urged him forwards towards the full comprehension of it. Many are immediately satisfied with but moderate information, and as soon as they understand a portion of any subject, they reject every addition, and many too often settle down at the first elements, and their obstinacy prevents that complete knowledge which is necessary. Daniel therefore shews himself to be far distant from such fastidiousness, as he was rendered more attentive by hearing from Christ' lips the rea1 object of the vision. When I was attentive 1 sought to understand it, says he, behold! there stood before my face (or near it) like the aspect of a man We ought probably to interpret this passage of Christ, who is now called like a man, as formerly. (Daniel 7:13.) For he had not yet put on our flesh, so as to be properly entitled to the name of a man; but he was here like a man, because he wished to allow the holy fathers a taste from which they might understand his future coming as Mediator, when he should put on human nature as God manifest in flesh:. (1-Timothy 3:16.) Thus Daniel speaks suitably as before when he says, Christ appeared to him under the aspect of a man But this adds to the same purpose, --

And it came to pass - Daniel saw the vision, but was unable to explain it.
And sought for the meaning - Evidently by meditating on it, or endeavoring in his own mind to make it out.
There stood before me as the appearance of a man - One having the appearance of a man. This was evidently Gabriel Daniel 8:16, who now assumed a human form, and who was addressed by the voice from between the banks of the Ulai, and commenced to make known the meaning of the vision.

As the appearance of a man - Supposed to be the Messiah.

And it came to pass, when I, [even] I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me (b) as the appearance of a man.
(b) Who was Christ who in this manner declared himself to the old fathers, how he would be God manifest in flesh.

And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision,.... The whole of the preceding vision, concerning the ram, he goat, and little horn, and what were done by them; the prophet not only affirms he saw this vision, but repeats the affirmation, expressing his own name, partly for the sake of emphasis, and partly for the greater confirmation of his words; wherefore it was a most impudent thing Porphyry to say, that the true Daniel never saw this vision; but what is here related was written after Antiochus's reign, and falsely ascribed to him. It being so clear a prophecy concerning Alexander, and the destruction of the Persian empire by him, this acute spiteful Heathen had no other way of evading the evidence of it in favour of true religion but by this false and lying assertion:
and I sought for the meaning; that is, of the vision; for a more perfect, clear, and explicit meaning of it; something he had learnt concerning the latter part of it, relating to the desolation of the temple, and the continuance of it, from what passed between the two saints or angels; but he was desirous of knowing more; which he either signified by making application to the angel that stood near him; or rather by secret ejaculations in prayer to God; and he, who is afterwards described as a man, though the eternal God that knows all things, knew the secret desires of his soul, and immediately took care they should be answered:
then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man: not really a man, but in form and appearance; not Gabriel, or any created angel in human form, in which angels sometimes appeared but the eternal Son of God, who was to be incarnate, and was often seen in the form of a man before his incarnation; in like manner he was now seen by Daniel, right
over against (k) whom he stood; this is the same with the speaking saint, or Paimoni the wonderful One, in Daniel 8:13. Jacchiades says, this is the holy blessed God; as it is indeed the Immanuel, God that was to be manifested in the flesh.
(k) "ex adverso mei", Michaelis.

The eternal Son of God stood before the prophet in the appearance of a man, and directed the angel Gabriel to explain the vision. Daniel's fainting and astonishment at the prospect of evils he saw coming on his people and the church, confirm the opinion that long-continued calamities were foretold. The vision being ended, a charge was given to Daniel to keep it private for the present. He kept it to himself, and went on to do the duty of his place. As long as we live in this world we must have something to do in it; and even those whom God has most honoured, must not think themselves above their business. Nor must the pleasure of communion with God take us from the duties of our callings, but we must in them abide with God. All who are intrusted with public business must discharge their trust uprightly; and, amidst all doubts and discouragements, they may, if true believers, look forward to a happy issue. Thus should we endeavour to compose our minds for attending to the duties to which each is appointed, in the church and in the world.

The interpretation of the vision - The interpretation of Daniel's vision, as given by the angel, falls within the vision itself. When Daniel sought to understand the vision, viz., in his mind, not by prayer or by asking a question, he saw before him, according to Daniel 8:17, one standing at some distance, who had the appearance of a man, but was not a man, but a supernatural being in human likeness. This person resembling a man is (Daniel 8:16) named by the angel, Gabriel, i.e., man of God. The voice of another, whom Daniel did not see, hearing only a human voice proceeding from the Ulai, commanded this person to explain the vision to the prophet (להלּז, i.e., to Daniel). Nothing further is indicated of the person from whom the voice proceeded than what may be conjectured from אוּלי בּין (between the Ulai), whence the voice sounded. These words do not mean "hither from Ulai" (Bertholdt), but "between the two banks of the Ulai" (Chr. B. Mich., Hv., etc.); according to which, the being whose voice Daniel heard appears as if hovering over the waters of the river Ulai. This conjecture is confirmed by Daniel 12:6-7, where Daniel sees a man hovering over the waters of the river of Ulai, who by the majesty of his appearance and his words shows himself to be a divine being, and is more minutely described according to the majesty of his appearance in Daniel 10:5. The question, who this man might be, is first answered in Daniel Daniel 10:5. Gabriel is not a nomen proprium but appellativum. The angel who was described as an appearance like a גּבר (man) is named, for Daniel, Gabriel ("man of God"), that on subsequent occasions (e.g., Daniel 9:21) he might recognise him again as the same (Hgst., Hofm., Kliefoth). As to his relation to other angels and archangels, the Scripture gives no information. If Lengerke and Maurer regard him, after the book of Enoch, along with Michael, and Raphael, and Uriel whose name does not occur in Scripture, as one of the four angels that stand before the throne of God, the Scripture affords no support for it; nor does it countenance the supposition of Hitzig, that the two angels in Daniel 8:15, Daniel 8:16 are identical with those in Daniel 8:13, Daniel 8:14 - that Gabriel who spake, and the unknown angel, was the angel of the "rivers and fountains of waters," Revelation 16:4.
(Note: Altogether groundless, also, is the identification of them with the Persian Amschaspands, since neither the doctrine of angels nor the names of angels of the O.T. are derived from Parsism. The most recent attempt by Dr. Al. Kohut, in his researches regarding Jewish angelology and demonology in their dependence on Parsism (Abhand. fr die Kunde des Morgen. iv. Bc., Nr. 3), to establish this connection, is extremely poor and superficial. The proof adduced in the first ten pages of his treatise is confined to these points: that in the writings of the O.T. after the Exile or during the Exile the appearance of the angels is altogether different from that presented in the portions written before the Exile. It is said that, as a rule, the angels in the period first named take the human form, and bear names corresponding to their properties - Michael, Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1; Gabriel, Daniel 8:16; Daniel 9:21; and in the book of Tobit, 12:15, not much later in date (?), Raphael; - now also, in contrast to the period before the Exile, there is an order in rank among the angels; Michael, Daniel 10:12, is designated as one of the first angel-princes, and, Daniel 12:1, as the greatest angel-prince; moreover, the number of שׂרים (angel-princes) is spoken of as seven, corresponding to the Persian Amesha-pentas (Tob. 12:15, and Book of Enoch 90:21). But does this distinction between the pre-exilian and post-exilian doctrine of angels, even though it were allowed to be as great as Kohut supposes, furnish a proof for the derivation of the latter from Parsism? or does this derivation follow from the fact that the Jews in exile came into intercourse with the Persians and the Medes, and that about this time the Zend worship flourished? And do the angels in the post-exilian writings for the first time indeed assume the human form? Kohut seems to know nothing of the appearance of angels in Genesis 19:1., Judges 6:11., Judges 13:9. Then does the agreement, not of the doctrine of the O.T., but of the later Jewish apocryphal writings, Tobit and the Book of Enoch, with regard to the number of angel-princes and of the Amesha-penta, furnish a sufficient proof of this derivation? Dr. Kohut does not himself appear to think so, since he regards it as necessary, in addition to this, which is "perhaps purely accidental," to furnish an etymological argument. Amesha-penta means "non connivens sanctus = the holy one not sleeping;" "thus," he says, "it is a mere Chaldee rendering of the word Amesha-penta, when in Daniel 4:10,Daniel 4:14, Daniel 4:20; Daniel 8:13, the Jewish angel-princes are called עירין קדּשׁין = holy watchers." But was, then, the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar, to whom in a dream a "holy watcher" appeared, a Jew? and in what edition of the Bible has Dr. Kohut found in Daniel 8:13 the angel name עיר? Nor is it any better proof that the demonology of the O.T. is a foreign production, resulting from the contact of the Jews with the Persians and Medes during the exile, because in Zac 3:1., Psalm 48:1-14 :49; 1-Chronicles 21:1, and especially in Job 1:6., Daniel 2:1, Satan "is depicted as a plague-spirit, altogether corresponding to the Persian Agromainjus, the killing spirit." Such silly talk needs no refutation.)

The meaning - A more clear discovery of those things. The appearance of a man - Probably Gabriel.