Text -- Daniel 8:1-26 (NET)

Daniel Has a Vision of a Goat and a Ram

8:1 In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after the one that had appeared to me previously. 8:2 In this vision I saw myself in Susa the citadel, which is located in the province of Elam. In the vision I saw myself at the Ulai Canal. 8:3 I looked up and saw a ram with two horns standing at the canal. Its two horns were both long, but one was longer than the other. The longer one was coming up after the shorter one. 8:4 I saw that the ram was butting westward, northward, and southward. No animal was able to stand before it, and there was none who could deliver from its power. It did as it pleased and acted arrogantly. 8:5 While I was contemplating all this, a male goat was coming from the west over the surface of all the land without touching the ground. This goat had a conspicuous horn between its eyes. 8:6 It came to the two-horned ram that I had seen standing beside the canal and rushed against it with raging strength. 8:7 I saw it approaching the ram. It went into a fit of rage against the ram and struck it and broke off its two horns. The ram had no ability to resist it. The goat hurled the ram to the ground and trampled it. No one could deliver the ram from its power. 8:8 The male goat acted even more arrogantly. But no sooner had the large horn become strong than it was broken, and there arose four conspicuous horns in its place, extending toward the four winds of the sky. 8:9 From one of them came a small horn. But it grew to be very big, toward the south and the east and toward the beautiful land. 8:10 It grew so big it reached the army of heaven, and it brought about the fall of some of the army and some of the stars to the ground, where it trampled them. 8:11 It also acted arrogantly against the Prince of the army, from whom the daily sacrifice was removed and whose sanctuary was thrown down. 8:12 The army was given over, along with the daily sacrifice, in the course of his sinful rebellion. It hurled truth to the ground and enjoyed success. 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking. Another holy one said to the one who was speaking, “To what period of time does the vision pertain– this vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the destructive act of rebellion and the giving over of both the sanctuary and army to be trampled?” 8:14 He said to me, “To 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be put right again.”

An Angel Interprets Daniel’s Vision

8:15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision, I sought to understand it. Now one who appeared to be a man was standing before me. 8:16 Then I heard a human voice coming from between the banks of the Ulai. It called out, “Gabriel, enable this person to understand the vision.” 8:17 So he approached the place where I was standing. As he came, I felt terrified and fell flat on the ground. Then he said to me, “Understand, son of man, that the vision pertains to the time of the end.” 8:18 As he spoke with me, I fell into a trance with my face to the ground. But he touched me and stood me upright. 8:19 Then he said, “I am going to inform you about what will happen in the latter time of wrath, for the vision pertains to the appointed time of the end. 8:20 The ram that you saw with the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. 8:21 The male goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king. 8:22 The horn that was broken and in whose place there arose four others stands for four kingdoms that will arise from his nation, though they will not have his strength. 8:23 Toward the end of their rule, when rebellious acts are complete, a rash and deceitful king will arise. 8:24 His power will be great, but it will not be by his strength alone. He will cause terrible destruction. He will be successful in what he undertakes. He will destroy powerful people and the people of the holy ones. 8:25 By his treachery he will succeed through deceit. He will have an arrogant attitude, and he will destroy many who are unaware of his schemes. He will rise up against the Prince of princes, yet he will be broken apart– but not by human agency. 8:26 The vision of the evenings and mornings that was told to you is correct. But you should seal up the vision, for it refers to a time many days from now.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Dan 8:1

In the other vision he speaks o[ all the four monarchies; here only of the three first; this vision being a comment upon the first.

Wesley: Dan 8:2

Which ran round the city.

Wesley: Dan 8:3

The kingdom of Media and Persia.

Wesley: Dan 8:3

The kingdom of Persia which rose last, in Cyrus, became more eminent than that of the Medes.

Wesley: Dan 8:4

ward - Toward Babylon, Syria, Cappadocia, Asia the less, and Greece, all westward from Media and Persia.

Wesley: Dan 8:4

ward - Against the Armenians, Iberians, Lydians, Colchi Caspians.

Wesley: Dan 8:4

ward - Against Ethiopia, Arabia, Egypt.

Wesley: Dan 8:5

goat - The Grecian empire.

Wesley: Dan 8:5

The whole Persian empire.

Wesley: Dan 8:5

Went with incredible swiftness.

Wesley: Dan 8:5

This was Alexander the great.

Wesley: Dan 8:6

The king of Media and Persia.

Wesley: Dan 8:8

When Alexander was greatest, then was he broken, and that to pieces, for he, his mother, son, brother, and all his kindred were destroyed. The four winds Antipater got Greece. Asia was possessed by Antigonus. Ptolemy got Egypt. Seleucus had Babylon and Syria. All these were variously situated; to the east, Babylon and Syria; to the south, Egypt; to the north, Asia the less; to the west, Greece.

Wesley: Dan 8:9

This little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes.

Wesley: Dan 8:9

Egypt where he besieged and took many places.

Wesley: Dan 8:9

In Syria, Babylon, Armenia.

Wesley: Dan 8:9

Judea, so called because of the temple and people of God in it, and the fruitfulness of it.

Wesley: Dan 8:10

The church of God militant, who worship the God of heaven, who are citizens of heaven, whose names are written in heaven; and among these the priests, and champions, who were as stars shining above the rest; these he profaned and slew cruelly.

Wesley: Dan 8:11

Not only against the high-priest, but against God himself.

Wesley: Dan 8:11

He took away the use of the temple as to the holy service and sacrifices.

Wesley: Dan 8:12

Both the transgression of the priests, and of the people.

Wesley: Dan 8:13

That is, one holy angel.

Wesley: Dan 8:13

How long shall Antiochus continue his vexations against the people and prevent the worship of God? This is, the treading down of the sanctuary, and the host.

Wesley: Dan 8:14

That angel.

Wesley: Dan 8:14

Just so long it was, from the defection of the people, procured by Menelaus, the high-priest, to the cleansing of the sanctuary, and the re - establishment of religion among them.

Wesley: Dan 8:15

A more clear discovery of those things.

Wesley: Dan 8:15

Probably Gabriel.

Wesley: Dan 8:16

Of him before mentioned, namely, Christ.

Wesley: Dan 8:17

That he might speak more familiarly to him, yet Daniel could not bear the glory of it. How much less can we bear the glory of God, and how graciously hath the Lord dealt with us, to teach us by men, and not by angels? O son of man - He calls him son of man, to make him mind his frailty, and not to be lifted up with this great condescension of heaven.

Wesley: Dan 8:17

In God's appointed time, in the latter day, but not now in thy life - time.

Wesley: Dan 8:18

Being terrified with the splendor and grandeur both of the messenger and message.

Wesley: Dan 8:18

By one touch only. The power of spirits is incomparably greater than that of the strongest of men.

Wesley: Dan 8:19

God will raise up Antiochus to execute his wrath against the Jews for their sins, yet there shall be an end of that indignation.

Wesley: Dan 8:23

When they were come to the height, and beginning to decline.

Wesley: Dan 8:23

When the Jews were grown to an excess of wickedness, then God suffered Antiochus to persecute them.

Wesley: Dan 8:23

Full of subtilty: such all histories declare Antiochus to be.

Wesley: Dan 8:24

Not by any heroick deeds, but by making use of the Jewish factions, through the divine commission to punish a backsliding nation; and by means of Eumenes and Attalus, by whose help he got up to this height.

Wesley: Dan 8:24

He shall by force, craft, and cruelty, destroy many of God's people.

Wesley: Dan 8:25

Under colour of kindness.

Wesley: Dan 8:25

He fought against God, affronting God's laws, profaning God's worship, and temple, and setting up the image and worship of Jupiter there.

Wesley: Dan 8:25

By a disease whereof he died, 1 Macc. 6:8.

Wesley: Dan 8:26

Lay it up in thy heart.

Wesley: Dan 8:26

Three hundred years after this; long after Daniel's days.

JFB: Dan 8:1

A higher kind of revelation than a dream.

JFB: Dan 8:1

That in Dan 7:1.

JFB: Dan 8:2

Susa. Though then comparatively insignificant, it was destined to be the capital of Persia after Cyrus' time. Therefore Daniel is transported into it, as being the capital of the kingdom signified by the two-horned ram (Neh 1:1; Est 1:2-5).

JFB: Dan 8:2

West of Persia proper, east of Babylonia, south of Media. Daniel was not present there personally, but in vision.

JFB: Dan 8:2

Called in PLINY Euloeus; by the Greeks, Choaspes. Now Kerah, or Karasu. So in Dan 10:4 he receives a vision near another river, the Hiddekel. So Ezekiel (Eze 1:1) at the Chebar. Perhaps because synagogues used to be built near rivers, as before praying they washed their hands in the water [ROSENMULLER], (Psa 137:1).

JFB: Dan 8:3

The "two" ought not to be in italics, as if it were not in the original; for it is expressed by the Hebrew dual. "Horn" in the East is the symbol of power and royalty.

JFB: Dan 8:3

Persia, which was of little note till Cyrus' time, became then ascendant over Media, the more ancient kingdom. Darius was sixty-two years old (Dan 5:31) when he began to reign; during his short reign of two years, being a weak king (Dan 6:1-3), the government was almost entirely in Cyrus' hands. Hence HERODOTUS does not mention Darius; but XENOPHON does under the name of Cyaxares II. The "ram" here corresponds to the "bear" (Dan 7:5), symbolizing clumsy firmness. The king of Persia wore a jewelled ram's head of gold instead of a diadem, such as are seen on the pillars at Persepolis. Also the Hebrew for "ram" springs from the same root as "Elam," or Persia [NEWTON]. The "one horn higher than the other" answers to the bear "raising itself on one side" (compare Note, see on Dan 7:5).

JFB: Dan 8:4

Persia conquered westward Babylon, Mesopotamia, Syria, Asia Minor.

JFB: Dan 8:4

Colchis, Armenia, Iberia, and the dwellers on the Caspian Sea.

JFB: Dan 8:4

Judea, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya; also India, under Darius. He does not say eastward, for the Persians themselves came from the east (Isa 46:11).

JFB: Dan 8:4

(Dan 11:3, Dan 11:16; compare Dan 5:19).

JFB: Dan 8:5

Græco-Macedonia.

JFB: Dan 8:5

Alexander. "Touched not . . . ground," implies the incredible swiftness of his conquests; he overran the world in less than twelve years. The he-goat answers to the leopard (Dan 7:6). Caranus, the first king of Macedonia, was said to have been led by goats to Edessa, which he made the seat of his kingdom, and called Æge, that is, "goat-city."

JFB: Dan 8:6

Ulai. It was at the "river" Granicus that Alexander fought his first victorious battle against Darius, 334 B.C.

JFB: Dan 8:7

Alexander represented the concentrated wrath of Greece against Persia for the Persian invasions of Greece; also for the Persian cruelties to Greeks, and Darius' attempts to seduce Alexander's soldiers to treachery [NEWTON].

JFB: Dan 8:7

In 331 B.C. he defeated Darius Codomanus, and in 330 burned Persepolis and completed the conquest of Persia.

JFB: Dan 8:7

Not the immense hosts of Persia could save it from the small army of Alexander (Psa 33:16).

JFB: Dan 8:8

The empire was in full strength at Alexander's death by fever at Babylon, and seemed then least likely to fall. Yet it was then "broken." His natural brother, Philip Aridoeus, and his two sons, Alexander Ægus and Hercules, in fifteen months were murdered.

JFB: Dan 8:8

Seleucus, in the east, obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, &c.; Cassander, in the west, Macedon Thessaly, Greece; PTOLEMY, in the south, Egypt, Cyprus, &c.; Lysimachus, in the north, Thrace, Cappadocia, and the north parts of Asia Minor.

JFB: Dan 8:9

Not to be confounded with the little horn of the fourth kingdom in Dan 7:8. The little horn in Dan 7:8 comes as an eleventh horn after ten preceding horns. In Dan 8:9 it is not an independent fifth horn, after the four previous ones, but it arises out of one of the four existing horns. This horn is explained (Dan 8:23) to be "a king of fierce countenance," &c. Antiochus Epiphanes is meant. Greece with all its refinement produces the first, that is, the Old Testament Antichrist. Antiochus had an extraordinarly love of art, which expressed itself in grand temples. He wished to substitute Zeus Olympius for Jehovah at Jerusalem. Thus first heathen civilization from below, and revealed religion from above, came into collision. Identifying himself with Jupiter, his aim was to make his own worship universal (compare Dan 8:25 with Dan 11:36); so mad was he in this that he was called Epimanes (maniac) instead of Epiphanes. None of the previous world rulers, Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:31-34), Darius (Dan 6:27-28), Cyrus (Ezr 1:2-4), Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezr 7:12), had systematically opposed the Jews' religious worship. Hence the need of prophecy to prepare them for Antiochus. The struggle of the Maccabees was a fruit of Daniel's prophecy (1 Maccabees 2:59). He is the forerunner of the final Antichrist, standing in the same relation to the first advent of Christ that Antichrist does to His second coming. The sins in Israel which gave rise to the Greek Antichrist were that some Jews adopted Hellenic customs (compare Dan 11:30, Dan 11:32), erecting theaters, and regarding all religions alike, sacrificing to Jehovah, but at the same time sending money for sacrifices to Hercules. Such shall be the state of the world when ripe for Antichrist. At Dan 8:9 and Dan 8:23 the description passes from the literal Antiochus to features which, though partially attributed to him, hold good in their fullest sense only of his antitype, the New Testament Antichrist. The Mohammedan Antichrist may also be included; answering to the Euphratean (Turk) horsemen (Rev 9:14-21), loosed "an hour, a day, a month, a year" (391 years, in the year-day theory), to scourge corrupted, idolatrous Christianity. In A.D. 637 the Saracen Moslem mosque of Omar was founded on the site of the temple, "treading under foot the sanctuary" (Dan 8:11-13); and there it still remains.The first conquest of the Turks over Christians was in A.D. 1281; and 391 years after they reached their zenith of power and began to decline, Sobieski defeating them at Vienna. Mohammed II, called "the conqueror," reigned A.D. 1451-1481, in which period Constantinople fell 391 years after brings us to our own day, in which Turkey's fall is imminent.

JFB: Dan 8:9

(Dan 11:25). Antiochus fought against PTOLEMY Philometer and Egypt, that is, the south.

JFB: Dan 8:9

He fought against those who attempted a change of government in Persia.

JFB: Dan 8:9

Judea, "the glorious land" (Dan 11:16, Dan 11:41, Dan 11:45; compare Psa 48:2; Eze 20:6, Eze 20:15). Its chief pleasantness consists in its being God's chosen land (Psa 132:13; Jer 3:19). Into it Antiochus made his inroad after his return from Egypt.

JFB: Dan 8:10

Explained in Dan 8:24, "the mighty and holy people," that is, the Jews (Dan 7:21) and their priests (compare Isa 24:21). The Levites' service is called "a warfare" (Num 8:24-25, Margin). Great civil and religious powers are symbolized by "stars" (Mat 24:29). See 1 Maccabees 1:25, &c.; 1 Maccabees 2:35, &c.; 1 Maccabees 5:2, 12, 13. TREGELLES refers "stars" to those Jews whose portion from God is heavenly glory (Dan 12:3), being believers in Him who is above at God's right hand: not the blinded Jews.

JFB: Dan 8:10

So Babel, as type of Antichrist, is described (Isa 14:13-14), "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." Compare Rev 12:4; 2 Maccabees 9:10, as to Antiochus.

JFB: Dan 8:11

That is, God Himself, the Lord of Sabaoth, the hosts in heaven and earth, stars, angels, and earthly ministers. So Dan 8:25, "he shall stand up against the Prince of princes"; "against the God of gods" (Dan 11:36; compare Dan 7:8). He not only opposes God's ancient people, but also God Himself.

JFB: Dan 8:11

Offered morning and evening (Exo 29:38-39).

JFB: Dan 8:11

By Antiochus (1 Maccabees 1:20-50).

JFB: Dan 8:11

Though robbed of its treasures, it was not strictly cast down" by Antiochus. So that a fuller accomplishment is future. Antiochus took away the daily sacrifice for a few years; the Romans, for many ages, and "cast down" the temple; and Antichrist, in connection with Rome, the fourth kingdom, shall do so again after the Jews in their own land, still unbelieving, shall have rebuilt the temple, and restored the Mosaic ritual: God giving them up to him "by reason of transgression" (Dan 8:12), that is, not owning the worship so rendered [TREGELLES]; and then the opposition of the horn to the "truth" is especially mentioned.

JFB: Dan 8:12

Rather, "the host was given up to him," that is, the holy people were given into his hands. So in Dan 8:10 "the host" is used; and again in Dan 8:13, where also "give" is used as here for "giving up" for destruction (compare Dan 11:6) [MAURER].

JFB: Dan 8:12

Rather (the host was given up for him to tread upon), "together with the daily sacrifice" (compare Dan 8:13).

JFB: Dan 8:12

1 Maccabees 1:11-16 traces all the calamities suffered under Antiochus to the transgression of certain Jews who introduced heathen customs into Jerusalem just before. But transgression was not at the full (Dan 8:23) under Antiochus; for Onias the high priest administered the laws in godliness at the time (2 Maccabees 3:1). Therefore the "transgression" must refer to that of the Jews hereafter restored to Palestine in unbelief.

JFB: Dan 8:12

The worship of the true God. Isa 59:14, "Truth is fallen in the street."

JFB: Dan 8:12

Whatever he undertook succeeded (Dan 8:4; Dan 11:28, Dan 11:36).

JFB: Dan 8:13

Daniel did not know the names of these two holy angels, but saw only that one was speaking to the other.

JFB: Dan 8:13

How long shall the daily sacrifice be suspended?

JFB: Dan 8:13

Literally, "making desolate," that is, Antiochus desolating profanation of the temple (Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11). Compare as to Rome and the last Antichrist, Mat 24:15.

JFB: Dan 8:14

The answer is to Daniel, not to the inquirer, for the latter had asked in Daniel's name; as vice versa the saint or angel (Job 15:15; Psa 89:6-7) speaks of the vision granted to Daniel, as if it had been granted to himself. For holy men are in Scripture represented as having attendant angels, with whom they are in a way identified in interests. If the conversation had been limited to the angels, it could have been of no use to us. But God conveys it to prophetical men, for our good, through the ministry of angels.

JFB: Dan 8:14

Literally, "mornings and evenings," specified in connection with the morning and evening sacrifice. Compare Gen 1:5. Six years and a hundred ten days. This includes not only the three and a half years during which the daily sacrifice was forbidden by Antiochus [JOSEPHUS, Wars of the Jews, 1:1.1], but the whole series of events whereby it was practically interrupted: beginning with the "little horn waxing great toward the pleasant land," and "casting down some of the host" (Dan 8:9-10); namely, when in 171 B.C., or the month Sivan in the year 142 of the era of the Seleucidæ, the sacrifices began to be neglected, owing to the high priest Jason introducing at Jerusalem Grecian customs and amusements, the palæstra and gymnasium; ending with the death of Antiochus, 165 B.C., or the month Shebath, in the year 148 of the Seleucid era. Compare 1 Maccabees 1:11-15; 2 Maccabees 4:9, &c. The reason for the greater minuteness of historical facts and dates, given in Daniel's prophecies, than in those of the New Testament, is that Israel, not having yet the clear views which Christians have of immortality and the heavenly inheritance, could only be directed to the earthly future: for it was on earth the looked-for Messiah was to appear, and the sum and subject of Old Testament prophecy was the kingdom of God upon earth. The minuteness of the revelation of Israel's earthly destiny was to compensate for the absence, in the Old Testament, of views of heavenly glory. Thus, in Dan 9:24-27, the times of Messiah are foretold to the very year; in Dan 8:14 the times of Antiochus, even to the day; and in Dan. 11:5-20 the Syro-Egyptian struggles in most minute detail. TREGELLES thinks the twenty-three hundred "days" answer to the week of years (Dan 9:27), during which the destroying prince (Dan 9:26) makes a covenant, which he breaks in the midst of the week (namely, at the end of three and a half years). The seven years exceed the twenty-three hundred days by considerably more than a half year. This period of the seven years' excess above the twenty-three hundred days may be allotted to the preparations needed for setting up the temple-worship, with Antichrist's permission to the restored Jews, according to his "covenant" with them; and the twenty-three hundred days may date from the actual setting up of the worship. But, says AUBERLEN, the more accurate to a day the dates as to Antiochus are given, the less should we say the 1290, or 1335 days (Dan 12:11-12) correspond to the half week (roughly), and the twenty-three hundred to the whole. The event, however, may, in the case of Antichrist, show a correspondence between the days here given and Dan 9:27, such as is not yet discernible. The term of twenty-three hundred days cannot refer twenty-three hundred years of the treading down of Christianity by Mohammedanism, as this would leave the greater portion of the time yet future; whereas, Mohammedanism is fast waning. If the twenty-three hundred days mean years, dating from Alexander's conquests, 334 B.C. to 323, we should arrive at about the close of the sixth thousand years of the world, just as the 1260 years (Dan 7:25) from Justinian's decree arrive at the same terminus. The Jews' tradition represents the seventh thousand as the millennium. CUMMING remarks, 480 B.C. is the date of the waning of the Persian empire before Greece; deducting 480 from 2300, we have 1820; and in 1821, Turkey, the successor of the Greek empire, began to wane, and Greece became a separate kingdom. See on Dan 12:11.

JFB: Dan 8:14

Literally, "justified," vindicated from profanation. Judas Maccabeus celebrated the feast of dedication after the cleansing, on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month, Kisleu (1 Maccabees 4:51-58; 2 Maccabees 10:1-7; Joh 10:22). As to the antitypical dedication of the new temple, see Eze. 43:1-27, &c.; also Amo 9:11-12.

JFB: Dan 8:16

Meaning, "the strength of God."

JFB: Dan 8:17

So Dan 8:19; Dan 11:35-36, Dan 11:40. The event being to take place at "the time of the end" makes it likely that the Antichrist ultimately referred to (besides the immediate reference to Antiochus) in this chapter, and the one in Dan 7:8, are one and the same. The objection that the one in the seventh chapter springs out of the ten divisions of the Roman earth, the fourth kingdom, the one in the eighth chapter and the eleventh chapter from one of the four divisions of the third kingdom, Greece, is answered thus: The four divisions of the Grecian empire, having become parts of the Roman empire, shall at the end form four of its ten final divisions [TREGELLES]. However, the origin from one of the four parts of the third kingdom may be limited to Antiochus, the immediate subject of the eighth and eleventh chapter, while the ulterior typical reference of these chapters (namely, Antichrist) may belong to one of the ten Roman divisions, not necessarily one formerly of the four of the third kingdom. The event will tell. "Time of the end" may apply to the time of Antiochus. For it is the prophetic phrase for the time of fulfilment, seen always at the end of the prophetic horizon (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14).

JFB: Dan 8:19

God's displeasure against the Jews for their sins. For their comfort they are told, the calamities about to come are not to be for ever. The "time" is limited (Dan 9:27; Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35-36; Dan 12:7; Hab 2:3).

JFB: Dan 8:21

Philip was king of Macedon before Alexander, but the latter was the first who, as a generalissimo of Greece, subdued the Persian empire.

JFB: Dan 8:22

Not with the power which Alexander possessed [MAURER]. An empire united, as under Alexander, is more powerful than one divided, as under the four Diadochi.

JFB: Dan 8:23

This does not hold good of the times of Antiochus, but of the closing times of the Christian era. Compare Luk 18:8, and 2Ti 3:1-9, as to the wickedness of the world in general just before Christ's second coming. Israel's guilt, too, shall then be at the full, when they who rejected Christ shall receive Antichrist; fulfilling Jesus words, "I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (compare Gen 15:16; Mat 23:32; 1Th 2:16).

JFB: Dan 8:23

(Deu 28:50); one who will spare neither old nor young.

JFB: Dan 8:23

Rather, "artifices" [GESENIUS]. Antiochus made himself master of Egypt and Jerusalem successively by craft (1 Maccabees 1:30, &c.; 2 Maccabees 5:24, &c.).

JFB: Dan 8:24

Which in the beginning was "little" (Dan 8:9; Dan 7:8); but by gaining over others through craft, the once little horn became "mighty" (compare Dan 8:25; Dan 11:23). To be fully realized by Antichrist. He shall act by the power of Satan, who shall then be permitted to work through him in unrestricted license, such as he has not now (Rev 13:2); hence the ten kingdoms shall give the beast their power (2Th 2:9-12; Rev 17:13).

JFB: Dan 8:24

Prosper in all that he attempts (Dan 8:12).

JFB: Dan 8:24

His persecutions are especially directed against the Jews.

JFB: Dan 8:25

By pretending "peace" and friendship; in the midst of security [GESENIUS], suddenly striking his blow (compare Note, see on Jer 15:8). "A spoiler at noon-day."

JFB: Dan 8:25

Not merely against the Jews (Dan 8:11; Dan 11:36).

JFB: Dan 8:25

By God's special visitation. The stone "cut out of the mountain without hands," that is, Christ is to smite the world power image on his feet (Dan 2:34), that is, in its last development (compare Dan 7:11). Antiochus horrible death by worms and ulcers, when on his way to Judea, intending to take vengeance for the defeat of his armies by the Maccabees, was a primary fulfilment, foreshadowing God's judgment on the last enemy of the Jewish Church.

JFB: Dan 8:26

Implying the vision was not to be understood for the present. In Rev 22:10 it is said, "Seal not the vision, for the time is at hand." What in Daniel's time was hidden was more fully explained in Revelation, and as the time draws nearer, it will be clearer still.

JFB: Dan 8:26

It refers to remote times (Eze 12:27).

Clarke: Dan 8:1

In the third year of the reign of - Belshazzar - We now come once more to the Hebrew, the Chaldee part of the book being finished. As the Chaldeans had a particular interest both in the history and prophecies from Dan 2:4 to the end of chap. 7, the whole is written in Chaldee, but as the prophecies which remain concern times posterior to the Chaldean monarchy, and principally relate to the Church and people of God generally, they are written in the Hebrew language, this being the tongue in which God chose to reveal all his counsels given under the Old Testament relative to the New.

Clarke: Dan 8:2

I saw in a vision - Daniel was at this time in Shushan, which appears to have been a strong place, where the kings of Persia had their summer residence. It was the capital of the province of Elam or the Elymais; which province was most probably added to the Chaldean territories by Nebuchadnezzar; see Jer 49:34, Jer 49:35. Here was Daniel’ s ordinary residence; and though here at this time, he, in vision, saw himself on the banks of the river Ulai. This is the same as the river Euleus, which divided Shushan or Susiana from Elymais.

Clarke: Dan 8:3

A ram which had two horns - In the former vision there were four beasts, pointing out four empires; in this we have but two, as only two empires are concerned here, viz., the Grecian and the Persian. The Babylonish empire is not mentioned; its fate was before decided, and it was now at its close

By the ram, the empire of the Medes and Persians was pointed out, as explained by the angel Gabriel, Dan 8:20; and particularly Cyrus, who was the founder of that empire. Cyrus was the son of Cambyses, king of Persia; and grandson of Astyages, king of Media, by his daughter Mandane, who had been given in marriage to Cambyses. Cyrus marrying Roxana, the daughter and only child of his uncle Cyaxares, called in Scripture Ahasuerus, succeeded to both crowns, and thus united Media and Persia. A ram was the symbol of the Persians; and a ram’ s head with two horns, one higher than the other, appears as such in different parts of the ruins of Persepolis. See the plates of these ruins in the supplement to the seventh volume of the ancient part of the Universal History

This ram had two horns; that is, two kingdoms, viz., Media and Persia; but one was higher than the other; and the higher came up last. Media, signified by the shorter horn, was the more ancient of the two kingdoms. Persia, the higher horn, had come up but lately, and was of little historic or political consequence till the time of Cyrus; but in the reigns of this prince and his immediate successors, Persia attained a political consequence greatly superior to that possessed at any time by the kingdom of Media; therefore, it is said to have been the higher, and to have come up last.

Clarke: Dan 8:4

I saw the ram pushing westward - The Persians, who are signified by the ram, as well as their founder Cyrus, pushed their conquests west, north and south. The principal theater of their wars, says Calmet, was against the Scythians, northward; against the Greeks, westward; and against the Egyptians, southward

Clarke: Dan 8:4

He did according to his will - There was no other nation at that time that could stay the progress of the Persian arms.

Clarke: Dan 8:5

Behold, a he-goat - This was Alexander the Great; and a goat was a very proper symbol of the Grecian or Macedonian people. Bp. Newton very properly observes that, two hundred years before the time of Daniel, they were called Aegeadae, the goats’ people; the origin of which name is said to be as follows: Caranus, their first king, going with a multitude of Greeks to seek a new habitation in Macedonia, was advised by an oracle to take the goats for his guides; and afterwards, seeing a herd of goats flying from a violent storm, he followed them to Edessa, and there fixed the seat of his empire, and made the goats his ensigns or standards; and called the place Aege or Aegea, the goats’ town; and the people Aegeadae, the goats’ people; names which are derived from αιξ, αιγος, a goat. The city Aege or Aegea, was the usual burying-place of the Macedonian kings; and, in reference to this origin, Alexander called his son by Roxana, Alexander Aegus, Alexander the goat. All this shows the very great propriety of the symbol here used

Clarke: Dan 8:5

Came from the west - Europe lies westward of Asia

Clarke: Dan 8:5

On the face of the whole earth - Carrying every thing before him

Clarke: Dan 8:5

Touched not the ground - Seemed to fly from conquest to conquest. By the time Alexander was thirty years of age he had conquered all Asia: and, because of the rapidity of his conquests, he is represented as a leopard with four wings, in the preceding vision

Clarke: Dan 8:5

A notable horn between his eyes - This, says the angel, is the first king, Dan 8:21, that is, the first kingdom of the Greeks in Asia, which was erected by Alexander; and continued some years in his brother Philip Aridaeus, and in his two young sons, Alexander Aegus and Hercules. See Newton.

Clarke: Dan 8:6

And he came to the ram - This and the following verse give an account of the overthrow of the Persian empire by Alexander

Clarke: Dan 8:6

And ran unto him in the fury of his power - The conflicts between the Greeks and the Persians were excessively severe. Alexander first vanquished the generals of Darius, at the river Granicus, in Phrygia; he next attacked and totally routed Darius, at the straits of Issus, in Cilicia; and afterwards at the plains of Arbela, in Assyria. One can hardly read these words, says Bp. Newton, "the ram - which I had seen standing by the river, ran unto him in the fury of his power,"without having the image of Darius’ army standing and guarding the river Granicus and of Alexander on the other side, with his forces plunging in swimming across the stream, and rushing on the enemy, with all the fire and fury that can be conceived.

Clarke: Dan 8:7

And brake his two horns - Subdued Persia and Media; sacked and burnt the royal city of Persepolis, the capital of the Persian empire, and, even in its ruins, one of the wonders of the world to the present day. This he did because "he was moved with choler"against Darius, who had endeavored to draw off his captains with bribes, and had labored to induce some of his friends to assassinate him. Alexander, finding this, would listen to no proposals of peace; and was determined never to rest till he had destroyed Darius and his whole empire. In Media, Darius was seized and made prisoner by some of his own treacherous subjects, and afterwards basely murdered

Clarke: Dan 8:7

There was no power in the ram to stand before him - Alexander’ s victories over the Persians were as easy as they were rapid and decisive

Clarke: Dan 8:7

He cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him - Totally destroyed the family, and overturned the whole monarchy.

Clarke: Dan 8:8

The he-goat waxed very strong - He had subdued nearly the whole of the then known world

Clarke: Dan 8:8

The great horn was broken - Alexander died in the height of his conquests, when he was but about thirty-three years of age. His natural brother, Philip Aridaeus, and his two sons, Alexander Aegus and Hercules, kept up the show and name of the Macedonian kingdom for a time; but they were all murdered within fifteen years; and thus the great horn, the Macedonian kingdom, was broken, Alexander’ s family being now cut off

Clarke: Dan 8:8

And for it came up four notable ones - The regal family being all dead, the governors of provinces usurped the title of kings; and Antigonus, one of them, being slain at the battle of Ipsus, they were reduced to four, as we have already seen

1.    Seleucus, who had Syria and Babylon, from whom came the Seleucidae, famous in history

2.    Lysimachus, who had Asia Minor

3.    Ptolemy, son of Lagus, who had Egypt, from whom sprang the Lagidae. And

4.    Cassander, who had Greece and the neighboring countries. These held dominion towards the four winds of heaven

Cassander had the western parts, Lysimachus had the northern regions, Ptolemy possessed the southern countries, and Seleucus had the eastern provinces.

Clarke: Dan 8:9

Out of one of them came forth a little horn - Some think that Antiochus Epiphanes is meant; but Bp. Newton contends that it is the Roman government that is intended; and although very great at its zenith, yet very little in its rising

Clarke: Dan 8:9

Waxed - great toward the south - The Romans made Egypt a province of their empire, and it continued such for some centuries

Clarke: Dan 8:9

Toward the east - They conquered Syria, and made it a province

Clarke: Dan 8:9

Toward the pleasant land - Judea, so called Psa 106:24; Jer 3:19; Dan 11:16, Dan 11:41. It is well known that they took Judea, and made it a province; and afterwards burnt the city and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the earth.

Clarke: Dan 8:10

The host of heaven - The Jewish hierarchy. The stars, the priests and Levites. The powers or host of heaven are probably intended by our Lord, Mat 24:29, to signify the whole Jewish hierarchy.

Clarke: Dan 8:11

Even to the prince of the host - They seemed, in this case, to fight against God himself

Clarke: Dan 8:11

The daily sacrifice was taken away - By the destruction of the city and temple; and has never been restored from that day until now.

Clarke: Dan 8:12

And a host was given him - That is, power; or perhaps the host of heaven - the priesthood - the whole sacrificial system, by reason of transgression. They had filled up the measure of their iniquities, in rejecting the Lord that bought them; and the daily sacrifice, being no longer of use, was given up with the rest to destruction

Clarke: Dan 8:12

Cast down the truth - Probably the whole Jewish ritual and religion

Clarke: Dan 8:12

Practiced, and prospered - Prosperity or success followed all their acts.

Clarke: Dan 8:13

One saint speaking, and another saint said - One angel asked another how long the sanctuary was to be trodden down?

Clarke: Dan 8:14

Unto two thousand and three hundred days - Though literally it be two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings. Yet I think the prophetic day should be understood here, as in other parts of this prophet, and must signify so many years. If we date these years from the vision of the he-goat, (Alexander’ s invading Asia), this was A.M. 3670, b.c. 334; and two thousand three hundred years from that time will reach to a.d. 1966, or one hundred and forty-one years from the present a.d. 1825. This will bring it near to the time mentioned Dan 7:25 (note), where see the note.

Clarke: Dan 8:15

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

Clarke: Dan 8:17

At the time of the end shall be the vision - Or, as Houbigant, "The vision shall have an end at the proper time."

Clarke: Dan 8:20

The ram which thou sagest - See this explained under the vision itself, Dan 8:3 (note), etc.

Clarke: Dan 8:22

But not in his power - The four kingdoms which shall arise out of the Macedonian empire shall not be of Alexander’ s power or family, nor have his strength and dignity.

Clarke: Dan 8:23

When the transgressors are come to the full - When the utmost degradation has taken place, by the buying and selling of the high priesthood; for Onias was ejected for a sum of money, to make room for wicked Jason; and Jason again was supplanted for a greater sum by a worse man, if possible, than himself, Menelaus; and the golden vessels of the temple were sold to pay for this sacrilegious purchase. Thus transgressions were come to the full, before the Romans had commission to destroy Jerusalem and its temple, etc

Clarke: Dan 8:23

A king of fierce countenance - The Roman government, as before; for king is often taken for kingdom or empire

Clarke: Dan 8:23

Understanding dark sentences - Very learned and skillful in all things relating to government and its intrigues. The learning of Rome is proverbial to the present time.

Clarke: Dan 8:24

But not by his own power - The strength of the other kingdoms consisted in themselves; but the Roman empire, as a horn or kingdom of the goat, was not mighty by its own power - was not strong by virtue of the goat, but drew its nourishment and strength from Rome and Italy. There grew the trunk and body of the tree; though the branches extended over Greece, Asia, Syria, and Egypt. - Bp. Newton

Clarke: Dan 8:24

Shall destroy wonderfully - In the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans ninety-seven thousand Jews were made captives, and eleven hundred thousand were slain. So they destroyed this once mighty and holy people!

Clarke: Dan 8:26

He shall cause craft to prosper - They subdued as many by their diplomatic skill and political intrigues as they did by the sword

Clarke: Dan 8:26

He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes - Against Christ, for it was by the Roman authority that he was condemned to death and crucified; and their persecutions had nearly destroyed the Christian religion; but the house was founded on a rock

Clarke: Dan 8:26

But he shall be broken without hand - The tide was turned by the invisible hand of God; and thus heathen Rome was overcome, and converted to Christianity.

Clarke: Dan 8:26

The vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true - That mentioned in Dan 8:14

Clarke: Dan 8:26

For it shall be for many days - Not less than two thousand three hundred years!

Calvin: Dan 8:1

Here Daniel relates another vision, differing from the former as a part from the whole. For God wished to show him first what various changes should happen before Christ’s advent. The second redemption was the beginning of a new life, since God then not only restored afresh his own Church, but as it were created a new people; and hence the departure from Babylon and the return to their country are called the second birth of the Church. But as God at that time afforded then only a taste of true and solid redemption, whenever the prophets treat of that deliverance, they extended their thoughts and their prophecies as far as the coming of Christ. God therefore, with great propriety, shows the Four Monarchies to His Prophet, lest the faithful should grow weary in beholding the world so often convulsed, and all but changing its figure and nature. Thus they would be subject to the most distressing cares, become a laughing stock to their enemies, and ever remain contemptible and mean, without the power to help themselves, under these constant innovations. The faithful, then, were forewarned concerning these Four Monarchies, lest they should suppose themselves rejected by God and deprived altogether of his care. But now God wished to show only one part to his Prophet. As the destruction of the Babylonian empire was at hand, and the second kingdom was approaching, this dominion also should speedily come to its close, and then God’s people should be reduced to the utmost extremity. And the chief object of this vision is to prepare the faithful to bear patiently the horrible tyranny of Antiochus, of which the Prophet treats in this chapter. Now, therefore, we understand the meaning of this prophet, where God speaks of only two Monarchies, for the kingdom of the Chaldees was soon to be abolished: he treats first of the Persian kingdom; and next, adds that of Macedon, but omits all others, and descends directly to Antiochus, king of Syria. He then declares the prevalence of the most wretched confusion in the Church; for the sanctuary should be deprived of its dignity, and the elect people everywhere slain, without sparing even innocent blood. We shall see also why the faithful were informed beforehand of these grievous and oppressive calamities, to induce them to look up to God when oppressed by such extreme darkness. And at this day this prophecy is useful to us, lest our courage should fail us in the extreme calamity of the Church, because a perpetual representation of the Church is depicted for us under that calamitous and mournful state. Although God often spares our infirmities, yet the Church is never free from many distresses, and unless we are prepared to undergo all contests, we shall never stand firm in the faith. This is the scope and explanation of the prophecy. I will defer the rest.

Calvin: Dan 8:2

Without any doubt, the Prophet here recognized a new empire as about to arise, which could not happen without Babylon being reduced to slavery. Hence it would tend in. no slight degree to alleviate the cares of the pious, and to mitigate their sorrows, when they saw what they had previously thought incredible, namely, the approaching destruction of that horrible tyranny under which they had been so, cruelly oppressed. And if the liberty of returning to their country was not immediately granted to the people, it would be no small consolation to behold God’s judgment against the Chaldeans as foretold by the prophets. We must now examine the Prophet’s language. I have seen in a vision, says he. This word חזון , chezon, a “vision,” is added to show us that the ram of which mention is made was not seen by the eyes of the body. Hence this was a heavenly oracle, and ought to have raised the beholder above all human sensations, to enable him to discern from lofty watch-tower what was hidden from the rest of mankind. He did not see then what ordinary men might behold, but God showed in a vision things which no mortal senses could apprehend. He next adds, The vision was shewn to me, Daniel, and I happened, says he, when I saw it, to be in Shushan Some think Daniel to be then dwelling in Persia, bug this view is by no means probable; for who could persuade the holy Prophet of God, who had been led captive with the rest and was attached to the king of Babylon, to depart as if he had been entirely his own master, and to go into Persia when the Persians were then open enemies? This is not at all likely; and I wonder what can induce men to adopt this comment, so contrary to all reason. For we need not dispute about a matter by no means obscure if we weigh the Prophet’s words, as he removes all doubt by saying he was in Shushan when he saw, that is, when he was caught up by the prophetic spirit beyond himself and above the world. The Prophet does not say he dwelt in Shushan, or in the neighborhood, but he was there in the vision only. The next verse, too, sufficiently shews him to have then been in Chaldean in the third year, he says, of the reign of King Belshazzar. By naming the king, he clearly expresses that he then dwelt under his power and dominion. It is clearly to be gathered from these words, without the slightest doubt, that the Prophet then dwelt in Chaldea. And perhaps Babylon had been already besieged, as we saw before. He says he was in the palace at Shushan I know not how I ought to translate this word, הבירה , hebireh, as I see no reason for preferring the meaning “palace” to that of” citadel.” We are sure of the nobility and celebrity of the citadel which was afterwards the head of the East, for all nations and tribes received from thence their laws, rights, and judgments. At the same time, I think this citadel was not then built, for its empire over the Persian territory was not firmly established till the successors of Cyrus. We may perhaps distinguish Shushan from Persia at large, yet as it is usually treated as a part of that kingdom, I will not urge the distinction. The country is, however, far milder and more fertile than Persia, as it receives its name from being flowery and abounding in roses. Thus the Prophet says he was there in a vision.

He afterwards repeats this I saw in a vision, and behold I was near the river Ulai The Latin writers mention a river Eulaeus, and as there is a great similitude between the words, I have no hesitation in understanding Daniel’s language of the Eulaeus. The repetition is not superfluous. It adds certainty to the prophecy, because Daniel affirms it; not to have been any vanishing specter, as a vision might be suspected to be, but clearly and certainly a divine revelation, as he will afterwards relate. He says, too, he raised his eyes upwards This attentive attitude has the same meaning, as experience informs us how often men are deceived by wandering in erroneous imaginations. But Daniel here bears witness to his raising his eyes upwards, because he, knew himself to be, divinely called upon to discern future events.

Calvin: Dan 8:3

He next subjoins, And behold a ram, stood at the bank of the river, and it had horns He now compares the empire of Persia and Media to a ram. It ought not to seem absurd that God proposed to his servant various similitude’s, because his duty was to teach a rude people in various ways; and[ we know this vision to have been presented before the Prophet, not for his private instruction only, but for the common advantage of the whole people. I do not think we need scrupulously inquire why the Persian kings are called rams. I know of no valid reason, unless perhaps to institute a comparison between them and Alexander of Macedon and his successors. If so, when God, under the image of a ram, exhibits to his Prophet the Persian Empire, he does not illustrate its nature absolutely, but only by comparison with that of Alexander. ‘We are well aware of the opposition between these two empires. The Persian monarchy is called “a ram,” with reference to the Macedonian, which, as we shall afterwards see, bears the name of “he-goat” with respect to its antagonism. And we may gather the best reason for this comparison in the humble origin of the kings of Persia. With great propriety, then, Cyrus, the first ruler of this empire, is here depicted for us under the form or image of a ram. His “horn” produced a concussion through the whole earth, when no one expected anything to spring from a region by no means abounding in anything noble. And as to Alexander, he is called a “he-goat,” with respect to the “ram,” as being far more nimble, and yet more obscure in his origin. For what was Macedon but a mere corner of Greece? But I do not propose to run the parallel between these points; it is sufficient that God wishes to show to his Prophet and to the whole Church, how among the Persians, unknown as they were, and despised by their neighbors, a king should arise to consume the Median power, as we shall soon see, and also to overthrow the Babylonian monarchy. Behold, therefore, says he, a ram stood before the river, or at the bank of the river, since Cyrus subdued both the Medes and his grandfather, as historians inform us. Cyrus then rushed forth from his own mountains and stood at the bank of the river He also says, He had two horns. Here the Prophet puts two horns for two empires, and not by any means for two persons. For although Cyrus married the daughter of Cyaxares his uncle, yet we know the Persian empire to have lasted a long time, and to have supplied historians with a long catalogue of kings. As Cyrus had so many successors, by the two horns God doubtless showed his Prophet those two empires of the Medes and Persians united under one sovereignty. Therefore, when the ram appeared to the Prophet, it represented both kingdoms under one emblem.

The context confirms this by saying, The two horns were lofty, one higher than the other, and this was raised backwards The two horns were lofty; for, though the Persian territory was not rich, and the people rustic and living in woods, spending an austere life and despising all luxuries, yet the nation was always warlike. Wherefore the Prophet says this horn was higher than the other, meaning, than the empire of the Medes. Now Cyrus surpassed his father-in-law Darius in fame, authority, and rank, and still he always permitted Darius to enjoy the royal majesty to the end of his life. As he was an old man, Cyrus might easily concede to him the highest one without any loss to himself. With respect then to the following period, Cyrus was clearly pre-eminent, as he was certainly superior to Darius, whom Xenophon calls Cyaxares. For this reason, then, this horn was higher. But meanwhile the Prophet shews how gradually Cyrus was raised on high. The horn rose backwards; that is, “afterwards” — meaning, although the horn of the Median kingdom was more illustrious and conspicuous, yet the horn which rose afterwards obscured the brightness and glory of the former one. This agrees with the narratives of profane history: for every reader of those narratives will find nothing recorded by Daniel which was not fulfilled by the event. Let us go on: —

Calvin: Dan 8:4

The Prophet, now shortly sketches the great success which should attend this double kingdom. He says, The ram struck all the nations towards the west, and north, and south. The Persian and Median territory lay to the east of Babylon and Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. This, without doubt, is extended to all the successors of Cyrus, who are recorded as having convulsed the whole world. Cyrus himself was shortly afterwards cruelly and basely slain, according to many historians, although Xenophon affirms that he died in his bed. But I have before warned you not to put your trust in that writer, although most excellent, since, under the image of that king, he wished to set before us an example of perfect manliness; and hence he brings him forward as discoursing on his deathbed, and exhorting his sons to kingly virtues. Whichever is the true account, Cyrus was clearly overtaken in the midst of his career. In this way God wished to chastise his insatiable cupidity, a vice in which he resembled Alexander. As to his successors, they excited such commotion in the whole world as to stir up heaven and earth. Xerxes alone said he could bind the sea with fetters! and we know the greatness of the army which he commanded; and this passage treats not only of one king, but of all those of Persia. As they obtained a dominion so far and wide, their ambition and pride always inflamed them, and there was no end to their warfare till they had subdued the distant boundaries of the world. We are acquainted too with their numerous attempts to destroy the liberty of Greece. All this the Prophet embraces in but few words. God also wished to give his Prophet a short glance into futurity, as far as such knowledge could be useful. I saw, then, says he, a ram, namely, a beast which possessed a double horn, representing the Medes and Persians united in the same sovereignty.

He struck the west, and the north, and the south, so that no beasts could stand before him As the Persian kingdom is here depicted under the, image of a ram, all kings and people are called “beasts.” Thus, no beast stood before him, and no one could deliver out of his hand It is well known, indeed, how Xerxes and others failed in their attacks, and how many wars the Monarchs of Persia attempted in which they were conquered by the Greeks; but still their conquerors were in no better condition, as they were compelled to seek peace like suppliants. So great became the power of the Persians, that they inspired all nations with fear. For this reason the Prophet says, he did according to his pleasure, not implying the complete success of these Monarchs according to their utmost wishes, for their desires were often frustrated, as we have already narrated on the testimony of historical evidence. Still they were always formidable, not only to their neighbors who submitted to their yoke, but to the most distant nations, as they crossed the sea and descended from Asia upon Greece. In the last word, he expresses this fact, — the ram became mighty. For the Persian king became the greatest of all Monarchs in the world, and it is sufficiently notorious that no one could add to his dignity and strength. It follows: —

Calvin: Dan 8:5

Here another change is shown to the Prophet, namely, Alexander’s coming to the east and acquiring. for himself the mighty sway of the Persians, as afterwards happened. With the view, then, of procuring confidence for his prediction, he says, he was attentive He doubtless dwells upon the reverence with which he received the vision to exhort us to the pursuit of piety, and also to modesty and attention. The Prophet, therefore, was not carried away in imagination by a dream which could be called in question; he knew this vision to have been set before him by God, and acknowledged his duty to receive it with modesty and humility. Wherefore, I was attentive, and behold a he-goat came forth from the west, says he. The situation of Macedon with respect to Persia must be noticed. As the Greeks were situated to the west, of Persia, the Prophet says, the he-goat came from the west, and went over the surface of the whole earth These words signify the very extensive dominion of Alexander, aid. the terror of surrounding nations. His arrival in Asia with a very insignificant army is well known. He thought 30,000 men sufficient, after he had been created their general by the States of Greece. Hence, the passage is to be understood not of numbers, but of the terror inspired on all sides; for, although he advanced with but a moderate force, yet he terrified the whole earth.

But he did not touch the ground, says he. This refers to his swiftness, for he rather flew than traveled either on foot or by sea, so incredible was his speed in this expedition. For if any one had galloped through regions completely at peace, he could not have passed through Asia more speedily. Hence a he-goat was shewn to the Prophet who did not touch the ground, that is, who was borne along with a rapid impulse, like that of lightning itself. And the goat had a horn, says he, between its eyes — a remarkable horn. We know how much glory Alexander acquired for himself in a short time, and yet he did not undertake the war in his own name, or on his own responsibility, but he used every artifice to obtain from the Grecian States the office of general-in-chief against the Persians, as perpetual enemies. We are well acquainted with the hostility of the Persians to the Greeks, who, though often compelled to retreat with great disgrace, and infamy, and loss of troops, still kept renewing the war, as they had abundance of men and of pecuniary resources. When Alexander was created general of the whole of Greece, he had a remarkable horn between his eyes; that is, he took care to have his title of general made known to increase his personal superiority. Besides, it was sufficiently prominent to constitute him alone general of the whole army, while all things were carried on according to his will, as he had undertaken the war. This, then, is the reason why the Prophet says, the horn was visible between the eyes of the goat It follows, It came to the ram, which had two horns; that is, it came against the king of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus also had seized on Babylon, and had subdued many kings, but two horns are assigned to the ram, since the Persian kings had united the Medes in alliance to themselves. Hence one he-goat with his horn, came against the ram which had two horns, and ran against it in the ardor of its bravery Thus the perseverance of Alexander is denoted, as he hastened so as to surpass all expectation by the speed of his arrival. For Darius continued in security, although he had collected a large army, but Alexander rushed forwards in the boldness of his strength, and surrounded the enemy by his celerity. It follows: —

Calvin: Dan 8:7

Here God shews to his Prophet the victory of Alexander, by which he subdued almost the whole east. Although he encountered many nations in battle, and especially the Indians, yet the name of the Persian empire was so celebrated in the world, that the dignity of others never approached it. Alexander, therefore, by conquering Darius, acquired nearly the whole east. God showed his Prophet the easiness of his victory under this figure. I looked, says he, when he approached the land Darius was fortified by both the distance of his stations and the strength of his fortifications; for many of his cities were impregnable, according to the common opinion of mankind. It was incredible, then, that the he-goat should approach the ram, surrounded as he was on all sides by such strong and such powerful garrisons. But the Prophet says he; approached the ram, and then, he exasperated himself against him This applies to Alexander’s furious assaults. We are well acquainted with the keenness of his talents and the superiority of his valor; yet, such was his unbridled audacity, that his promptness approached rather to rashness than to regal bravery. For he often threw himself with a blind impulse against his foes, and it was not his fault if the Macedonian name was not destroyed ten times over. As, then, he rushed on with such violent fury, we are not surprised when the Prophet says he was exasperated of his own accord. And he struck the ram, says he. He conquered Darius in two battles, when the power of the Persian sway throughout Asia Minor was completely ruined. We are all familiar with the results of these hazardous battles, shewing the whole stress of the war to have rested on that engagement in which Darius was first conquered; for when he says, The ram had no strength to stand; and although he had collected an immense multitude, yet that preparation was available for nothing but: empty pomp. For Darius was resplendent with gold, and silver, and gems, and he rather made a show of these, luxuries in warfare, than displayed manly and vigorous strength. The ram, then, had no power to stand before the he goat. Hence, he threw him prostrate on the earth, and trod him down; and no one was able to deliver out of his hand. Darius, indeed, was slain by his attendants, but Alexander trod down all his glory, and the dignity of the Persian Empire, under which all the people of the east trembled. We are aware also of the pride with which he abused his victory, until under the influence of harlots and debauchees, as some report, he tumultuously set fire to that most celebrated citadel of Susa in the drunken fit. As he so indignantly trampled under foot the glory of the Persian monarchy, we see how aptly the events fulfilled the prophecy, in the manner recorded by all profane historians.

Calvin: Dan 8:8

This prophecy relates to the death of Alexander. We have explained how, under the image of a he-goat, the Macedonian empire is set before us, having its beginning in the person of Alexander, but by no means ending there, as the monarchy was divided into four parts. The angel said, or at least Daniel records his words, — that he-goat increased to an immense magnitude, because he wandered as it were in sport through almost the whole east, and at the same time subdued it; but when it was in its strength, says he, its great horn was broken By the great horn, he means the monarchy which was solely m Alexander’s power during his life, as he, was the first and last monarch of his race. And in consequence of his generals, who had obtained dominion in the four quarters of the world, becoming kings, as we shall soon see, the word “he-goat” is not restricted to his person, but is extended to his successors. He Himself is called “the great horn.” Hence, when the he-goat was in his strength, the great horn was broken For Alexander had arrived at the height of prosperity when he died. Whether he perished by disease or by poison is unknown, since historians report; a great suspicion of foul-play. The angel does not notice his age, which was thirty-three years at his death, while he seemed to have been born for subduing the whole world, although he was so suddenly snatched away. But the angel regards those continued successes, since Alexander almost by a look subdued the whole land, as we have stated before, and hurried on rashly from place to place. Hence he perpetually gained fresh victories, though at the constant hazard of his life, as he had far more audacity than skill. When he was in his strength, says he; meaning, after having subjugated the whole east. He had returned from India, and had determined to re-cross the sea, and to reduce Greece under his power; for the States had rebelled against him, and the Athenians had already collected a great army; but all the eastern States of Asia had been rendered subservient to Alexander when he died. The angel refers to this by the breaking of the great horn.

He afterwards adds, In his place four conspicuous horns sprang up For he uses the noun חזות chezeveth, notable,” as in yesterday’s Lecture. ⁵¹ There were, therefore, four kingdoms which excelled, and each of them was celebrated and placed aloft. Nor is this superfluous, since we know how many became kings, who had enlisted in the service of Alexander with reputation and dignity. Perdiccas was the first, and all thought him to have been favored with special honor by Alexander When asked whom he wished for a successor, he replied, according to the greatness or pride of his spirit, “The person whom he considered most worthy of empire.” He had a son by Roxana the daughter of Darius, as well as another son; then Aridmus his brother approached; yet he deemed no one worthy of the honor of being his successor, as if the world contained no equal to himself. His answer, then, was a proof of his pride. But when he was unable to speak, he took a ring from his hand and gave it to Perdieeas. Hence all conjectured that he had the preference in Alexander’s judgment, and he obtained the supreme authority. After this, Eumenes was slain, who had served under him. Although he was an ally, he was judged as an enemy, and betrayed by his men; Lysimachus being slain on the other side. Fifteen generals were put to death. And as so many succeeded to the place of Alexander and exercised the royal authority, the angel correctly expresses how four conspicuous horns sprang up in the place of one great one For after various conflicts and many fluctuations for fifteen years or thereabouts, Alexander’s monarchy was at length divided into four parts. Cassander, the son of Antipater, obtained the kingdom of Macedon, after slaying Olympias, the mother of Alexander, his sister, his sons, and his wife Rexaria. This was a horrible slaughter, and if ever God offered a visible spectacle to the world, whereby he openly denounced the shedding of human blood, surely a memorable proof of this existed in the whole of Alexander’s race! Not a single one survived for twenty years after his death. Though his mother had grown old, she was not permitted to descend naturally to the grave, but was murdered. His wife, and son, and brother, and all his relations, shared her fate. And that slaughter was even yet more cruel, as no single leader spared the life of his companions, but each either openly attacked or craftily assailed his friend and confederate! But omitting details, four kingdoms were at last left after such remarkable devastation’s. For Cassander, the son of Antipater, obtained Macedon and some part of Thrace, together with the cities of Greece. Seleucus became master in Syria; Antigonus in Asia Minor, joining Phrygia, Paphlagonia, and all other Asiatic regions, after five or six generals were slain. Ptolemy became prefect of Egypt. This makes four horns, which the angel calls “conspicuous,” for on the testimony of history, all the other principalities vanished away. Alexander’s generals had divided among themselves many large and fertile provinces, but at length they were summed up in these four heads. He says, by the four winds of heaven, that is, of the atmosphere. Now the kingdom of Macedon was very far distant from Syria; Asia was in the midst, and Egypt lay to the south. Thus, the he-goat, as we saw before, reigned throughout the four quarters of the globe; since Egypt, as we have said, was situated towards the south; but the kingdom of Persia, which was possessed by Seleucus, was towards the east and united with Syria; the kingdom of Asia was to the north, and that of Macedon to the west, as we formerly saw the he-goat setting out from the west. It now follows, —

Calvin: Dan 8:9

Now God shews his Prophet what peculiarly concerned the welfare of his Church. For it was of very great importance to warn the Jews of the calamities which were about to oppress them. There is nothing which more torments the minds of men than their becoming bewildered in false imaginations, and thinking the world the sport of chance, while they never ponder over the providence of God nor reflect upon his judgments. Hence, with this design, God wished to teach the Prophet and all the pious the nature of their future afflictions, since they would thus understand how events never happened by chance, but all these scourges proceeded from God; for the same God both determines and executes his decrees, as he also predicts future events. For if nothing had been predicted, the pious would have glided gently downwards to despair in consequence of their heavy afflictions. We know also how magnificently the prophets extol the grace of God when they promise return and deliverance. Isaiah, too, has elsewhere spoken to this effect: Not in haste nor in tumult shall ye go forth, but with a standard displayed. Again, The wealth of all the nations shall flow towards you; kings shall come, and submit, and bow the knee to thee. (Isa 52:10; Isa 55:12; Isa 55:6.) The Jews were permitted to return to their own land; but we know how cruelly they were harassed by all their neighbors, so that they did not dwell in that corner of the world without the greatest difficulties. The building of both the city and the Temple was hindered by many enemies, till at length they became tributary to the kings of Syria. Antiochus, indeed, who is here alluded to, advanced with cruel tyranny against the people of God. If this had not been predicted, they would have thought themselves deceived by the splendid promises concerning their return. But when they perceived everything occurring according as they had been opportunely forewarned, this became no slight solace in the midst of their woes; they could then determine at once how completely it was in the power of God to relieve them from so many and such oppressive evils. With what intention, then, had God predicted all these things to his Prophet Daniel? clearly that the Jews might look forward to a happy result, and not give way to despair under events so full of anxiety and confusion. This, then, was the utility of the prophecy, with reference to that particular period.

When the Prophet says, Out of one of those four horns a little horn arose, Antiochus Epiphanes is most distinctly pointed out. The title Epiphanes entails “illustrious,” as, after the capture of his father, he was detained as a hostage at Rome, and then escaped from custody. Historians inform us of his possessing a servile disposition, and being much addicted to gross flattery. As he had nothing royal or heroic in his feelings, but was simply remarkable for cunning, the Prophet is justified in calling him the little horn He was far more powerful than his neighbors; but the horn is called little, not in comparison with the kingdoms of either Egypt, or Asia, or Macedon, but because no one supposed he would ever be king and succeed his father. He was the eldest of many brothers, and singularly servile and cunning, without a single trait worthy of future royalty. Thus he was the little horn who escaped secretly and fraudulently from custody, as, we have already mentioned, and returned. to his native country, which he afterwards governed.

He now adds, This horn was very mighty towards the south, and the east, and “the desire ”’ for unless he had been checked by the Romans, he would have obtained possession of Egypt. There is a remarkable and celebrated story of Pompilius, who, was sent to him to command him to abstain from Egypt at the, bidding of the senate. After he had delivered his message, Antiochus demanded time for deliberation, but Pompilius drew a circle with the staff which he held in his hand, and forbade him to move his foot until he gave him an answer. Though he claimed Egypt as his own by right of conquest, yet he dared not openly to deny the Romans their request; at first he pretended to be merely the guardian of his nephew, but he certainly seized upon the kingdom in his own name. However, he dared not oppose the Romans, but by changing his ground wished to dismiss Pompilius. They had been mutual acquaintances, and a great familiarity had arisen between them while he was a hostage at Rome; hence he offered to salute Pompilius at the interview, but he rejected him disdainfully, and, as I have said, drew a line around him, saying, “Before you go out of this circle answer me; do not delude me by asking time to consult with your councilors; answer at once, otherwise I know how to treat thee.” He was compelled to relinquish Egypt, although he had formerly refused to do so. The language of the Prophet, then, was not in vain, The small horn became mighty towards the south, that is, towards Egypt, and the east; for he extended his kingdom as far as Ptolemais. In the third place, he uses the word glory; that is, Judea, the sanctuary of God, which he had chosen as his dwelling, and desired his name to be invoked. Thus this small horn extended itself to the glory, or the land of glory or desire. There is nothing doubtful in the sense, though the interpretation scarcely agrees with the words. It afterwards follows: —

Calvin: Dan 8:10

Here Daniel continues the vision which he had received. We have already shewn he object of the Almighty to be the preparation of the faithful to bear serious calamities, because nothing new or unexpected should happen to them. Now, Daniel’s dwelling upon this point is not surprising, for it becomes his duty to inform the faithful of the heavy calamities which were at hand, and thus to mould them to patience and equity. Thus he says, The horn became magnificent, even to the army of the heavens. Without the slightest doubt this figure marks the elect people of God. Although the Church often lies prostrate in the world, and is trodden under foot and buried, yet it is always precious before God. Hence the Prophet adorns the Church with this remarkable praise, not to obtain for it any honor before men, but because God has separated it from the world, and provided a sure inheritance in heaven. Although the sons of God are pilgrims on earth, and have scarcely any dwelling-place here, becoming like castaways before men, yet they are nevertheless citizens of heaven. The usefulness of this teaching to us is apparent, by its inducing us to bear it patiently whenever we are often thrown prostrate on the ground, and whenever tyrants and the despiser’s of God look down upon us with scorn. Meanwhile our seat is laid up in heaven, and God numbers us among the stars, although, as Paul says, we are as dung and the offscouring of all things. (1Co 4:13.) In fine, God here shews his Prophet, as in a mirror, the estimation in which he holds his Church, however contemptible it is on earth. That horn, then, was magnified before the army of the heavens, and cast down some of that army upon the earth, and trod them out of the stars Exactly as if he proclaimed the loosening of the reins from the tyrant, permitting him to treat the Church with contempt, to tread it under foot;, and to draw down the stars from heaven, just as if God never appeared for its protection. For when God permits us to be safe and secure in his hand, and pronounces it impossible to prevail against his help, while tyrants harass and oppress us by their lust, it is like drawing down stars from heaven. God therefore, while he takes us under his guardianship, does not offer us. any succor, but dissembles as if he wished to betray us to our enemies. Nothing therefore is superfluous in these expressions of the Prophet — The stars were trodden down and the heavenly army thrown down to earth He now adds —

Calvin: Dan 8:11

Daniel announces something still more atrocious here, namely, the exaltation of the little horn against God. Some take “the prince of the army” for the high priest, as princes are sometimes called כוהנים , kuhnim, as well as שרים , serim; but that is too forced. The true sense of the passage imputes such arrogance and folly to Antiochus as to urge him to declare war with the stars of heaven, implying not only his opposition to God’s Church, which is separate from the world, but also his daring defiance of God himself and his resistance to his power. He not only exercised his cruelty against the faithful, but profaned the temple itself, and endeavored to extinguish all piety, and to abolish the worship of God throughout Judea, as we shall explain more fully in other passages. As, therefore, Antiochus not only raged against men, but used his utmost endeavors to overthrow religion, Daniel relates how that horn was raised up even against the prince of the army God is deservedly entitled to this appellation, because he defends his Church, and cherishes it under his wings. This expression ought to be explained not only of God’s glory and empire, but also of his paternal favor towards us, as he deigns to manifest his care for us as if he were our Prince.

From him, says he, was the perpetual sacrifice utterly snatched away, and the place of his sanctuary cast down These words are horrible in their import; God was thus spoiled of his rights, since he had chosen but a single corner in the world for his special worship. What heathen, then, would not despise this forbearance of God, in permitting himself to be deprived of his legitimate honor by that sordid tyrant? As we have already stated, Antiochus had neither greatness of mind nor warlike courage, being skillful only in cunning and in the basest acts of flattery. Besides, granting him to have comprised a hundred Alexanders in his own person, what can be the Almighty’s design in allowing his temple to be polluted, and all true sacrifices to cease throughout the world? One corner alone, as we have lately mentioned, was left where God wished to be worshipped, and now Antiochus seizes upon the temple, and profanes and defiles it with the utmost possible indignity, thus leaving no single place sacred to the Almighty. For this reason I have asserted the prophecy to appear very harsh. The Prophet now increases the indignity when he speaks of the perpetual sacrifice For God had often borne witness to his temple being his perpetual “rest,” or “station,” or “seat;” yet he is now ejected from this spot, as if exiled from the earth entirely. The temple could not exist without sacrifices, for the whole worship under the law was a kind of appendage to the temple. As God had promised the sacrifice should be perpetual and eternal, who would not assert, when Antiochus destroyed it, either all the promises to have been deceptive, or all authority to have departed from God, who failed to defend his right against that impious tyrant. Surely this must have been a distressing calamity, overwhelming all the faithful! And when even at this moment we read the prophecy, all our senses are horrified by its perusal. No wonder, then, that God forewarned his servant of such sorrowful events, and such incredible evils, to admonish his whole Church in due season, and to arm them against the severest temptations, which might otherwise strike down even the most courageous. The sacrifice, then, says he, was snatched away from God himself, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down or dissipated. It afterwards follows: —

Calvin: Dan 8:12

The Prophet mitigates the asperity which he now records. It seems absurd for God to allow such license to Antiochus, that his temple should be spoiled and all sacrifices and all worship exterminated. It is difficult to reconcile this, for the opinion will naturally creep in, — possibly God is constrained and deprived of power to subdue his foes. The, Prophet therefore clearly states here how the license for vexing and oppressing’ the Church would never have been granted to Antiochus without God’s permission. Time, therefore, shall be given him, says he. By the words, time shall be given. he refers to the will of God, meaning, the pious shall have no cause for desponding while they see all things disturbed and confused in every direction, as God will rule all these perplexities by his secret judgment. Time, then, shall be given, implying, Antiochus can do nothing by his unbridled and furious audacity, unless divinely permitted and previously limited. צבא tzeba, signifies both “army” and “time,” but the latter meaning is the most suitable here; for when it is translated “an army shall be given him,” the sense appears forced. I more willingly embrace the sense of time being allowed; that is, God will try the patience of his Church for a certain definite time, and will then bring their troubles to an end. We, know it to be impossible to sustain the spirits of the faithful, otherwise that by their expectation of a favorable termination, and by the hope of their emerging from the abyss of sorrow. This, then, is the reason why God shews his Prophet by a vision the temporary duration of the sway of Antiochus. A period, then, shall be appointed to him over the perpetual sacrifice; meaning, whatever he may intend, he shall not abolish the worship of God. For, however he may exert himself, God will not permit the sacrifices to perish utterly and forever; he will restore them in his own time, as we shall afterwards see, and when we come to the close, we shall find the context flowing on in accordance with this meaning — a time shall be given him over the continual sacrifice.

He afterwards adds בפשע , beph-sheng, “in wickedness,” or “in sin.” I prefer the simple translation “in sin” to “by sin,” although different senses are elicited according to the different views of interpreters. It is better to leave it to every one’s free choice, and thus simply to translate “in wickedness” or “sin.” Some refer it to Antiochus, because he wickedly polluted God’s temple, and abolished the sacrifices. This sense is probable, but I will add others, and then say which of them I like best. Some understand “in sin” of the priests, because, through the perfidy of Jason, Antiochus entered the city, spoiled the temple, and introduced those abominations which exterminated all piety and divine worship. (2Ma 4:7.) As Jason desired to snatch the priesthood from his brother Onias, he opened the gates to Antiochus; then a great slaughter followed, in which all the adherents of Onias were cruelly slain. Afterwards Menelaus expelled Jason again by similar perfidy. Some translate “by means of wickedness,” as these priests induced Antiochus to exercise cruelty in the holy city, and to violate the temple itself. Others approach nearer the real sense, by supposing the sacrifices to have ceased through wickedness, because they were adulterated by the priests. But this appears to me too restricted. In my judgment, I rather hold towards the view of those who take “wickedness” as a cause arid origin, thereby teaching the Jews how justly they were punished for their sins. I have already explained how properly the vision was limited as to time, and controlled by God’s permission and secret counsel. The cause is here expressed; for it might still be objected, “How happens it that God submits himself and his sacred name to the ridicule of the impious, and even deserts his own people? What does he intend by this?” The Prophet, therefore, assigns this cause — the Jews must feel the profanation of the temple, the sad devastation. of the whole city and their horrible slaughter, to be the reward due to their sins. A time, therefore, shall be assigned over the perpetual sacrifice in sin; that is, on account of sin. We here see how God on the one hand moderates the weight of the evils which pressed upon the Jews, and shews them some kindness, lest sorrow, anxiety, and despair should consume the wretched people; on the other hand, he humbles them and admonishes them to confess their sins, and then he urges them to apply their minds to repentance, by stating their own sins to be the cause of their afflictions. He thus shews how the source of all their evils was in the Jews themselves, while God’s anger was provoked by their vices. It is necessary to stop here till tomorrow.

Calvin: Dan 8:13

Here he expresses more clearly, what I formerly said, unfolding God’s intention of consoling and soothing the sorrows of the pious lest they should sink under the severity of their trials, at the sight of an impious tyrant domineering in the sanctuary of God. Besides, the spot which God had promised should be his perpetual dwelling-place, was exposed to impious superstitions, for the idol of Jupiter Olympius was erected there, the history of the Maccabees informs us. (2Ma 1:57; 2Ma 6:2.) God therefore wished to uphold his servants, lest too severe a temptation should overwhelm them, and lest trial in so many forms should cause them to yield and become deficient in piety through want of courage. But while Daniel is stupefied through astonishment, God provides for his infirmity by means of an angel. Daniel himself, without doubt, inquired concerning the vision as we shall see he did afterwards; but here God desired to meet him, as he saw the holy man so overcome by fear as scarcely to dare to make any inquiry. God, therefore, here affords no common proof of his paternal goodness and indulgence, in interposing and sending his angel to make inquiries in the Prophet’s name. He says, then, he heard a holy one, meaning an angel. For, although God deigns to call the faithful while dwelling in the world by this honorable title, yet the superior purity of angels is familiar to us, as they are altogether free from the lusts of the flesh. But we, alas! are detained in this prison-house, we are bound down in slavery to sin, and are polluted by much corruption. The holiness of angels, however, is far greater than that of mortals, and thus this attribute of “holiness” is properly applied to them. When Daniel was caught up by the prophetic spirit, he was separated from the society of men, and was admitted to that of angels.

An angel then, said to the wonderful one The Hebrews often use this expression when they mean “whoever it may be” — ploni almoni and apply it to places as well as persons. They use it also of any place unknown to them or concealed from them. They treat the noun as compounded of two words, and many interpret it of any one unknown, but I think the word to be more emphatic than this. ⁶² Daniel here brings forward an angel speaking, and adds dignity to his description by calling him “holy.” Without doubt, then, the person of whom the angel asked the question was his superior; it is not likely that he would be called “a certain one,” while the angel is termed a holy one. Reason, then, requires the expression to be applied to some angel whose glory was incomprehensible, or at least far superior to ordinary ones; for, as Daniel calls one angel “holy,” so he would have called the rest, as we shall afterwards see. When treating, however, of a distinct being, he uses the word פלמוני , palmoni, and its etymology guides us to its sense, as meaning something mysterious and incomprehensible. Then, who does not see that Christ is denoted, who is the chief of angels and far superior to them all? In the ninth chapter of Isaiah, (Isa 9:6,) he is called פלא pela, “wonderful.” The word in the text is a compound one, as we have said, but as פלא pela, signifies “hidden” in Hebrew, as Christ is so called, and as in Jud 3:1, God claims this name as peculiarly his own, all these points agree well together. The sense then is, an angel comes to Christ for the sake of Daniel and of the whole Church, and seeks from him as from the supreme teacher and master, the meaning of the declarations which we have just heard. We need not feel surprise at angels inquiring into eternity, as if it were unknown to them. It is the property of Deity alone to know all things, while the knowledge of angels is necessarily limited. Paul teaches us to wonder at the Church being collected out of profane and strange people; this was a mystery hidden from angels themselves, before God really showed himself the father of the whole world. (Eph 3:10.) Hence, there is no absurdity in supposing angels to inquire into mysteries, as ignorance is not necessarily deserving of blame, and as God has not raised his creatures for his own level. It is his peculiar province to know all things, and to have everything under his eye. The angel desires to understand this mystery, not so much for his own sake as on account of the whole Church; for we know them to be our ministers, according to the clear testimony of the Apostle. (Heb 1:14.) As they keep watch over us so carefully, it does not surprise us to find the angel inquiring so anxiously concerning this vision, and thus benefiting the whole Church by the hand of Daniel.

Meanwhile, we must notice, how Christ is the chief of angels and also their instructor, because he is the eternal Wisdom of God. Angels, therefore, must draw all the light of their intelligence from that single fountain. Thus angels draw us to Christ by their example, and induce us to devote ourselves to him through the persuasion that this is the supreme and only wisdom. If we are his disciples, being obedient, humble, and teachable, we shall desire to know only what he will make manifest to us. But the angel asks. What is the meaning of the vision of the perpetual sacrifice, and of the sin? that is, what, is the object of the vision concerning the abrogation of the perpetual sacrifice, and concerning the sin which lays waste? As to the second point, we explained yesterday the various opinions of interpreters, some twisting it to Antiochus, who impiously dared to violate God’s temple, and others to the priests. But we said the people were intended, lest many, as they are accustomed, should blame the Almighty for so heavily afflicting the Church. But God wished to bear witness to the origin of this devastation from the sins of the people. It is just as if the angel had said, How long will the sacrifices cease? How long will this vengeance, by which God will chastise the wickedness of his people, endure? For the sin is called devastating, through being the cause of that calamity. It is afterwards added, how long will the sanctuary and the army be trodden, down? that is, how long will the worship of God, and true piety, and the people itself, be trodden down under this cruel tyranny of Antiochus? But this question has far more efficacy, than if the Prophet had said, as we saw yesterday, that the punishment should be uniform and temporal. It was now necessary to explain what had already been stated more clearly. Thus this question was interposed with the view of rendering Daniel more attentive, and of stirring up the people by this narrative to the pursuit of learning. For it is no common event when angels approach Christ for our sakes, and inquire into the events which concern the state and safety of the Church. As, therefore, angels discharge this duty, we must be worse than stony, if we are not urged to eagerness and carefulness in the pursuit of divine knowledge. We see, then, why this passage concerning the angel is interposed.

Calvin: Dan 8:14

The phrase, And he said to me, now follows. This ought to be referred not to the angel inquiring, but to the Wonderful One. Whence we, rather gather the great anxiety of the angel concerning the interpretation of the prophecy, not for his own sake, but for the common benefit of the pious. Respecting this Wonderful One, though I am persuaded he was the Son of God, yet whoever he was, he certainly does not reject the angel’s request. Why then does he address Daniel rather than the angel? Because the angel was not seeking his own benefit, but took up the cause of the whole Church, as we have Shawn how angels are occupied in our salvation. Thus also we see how the angel notices the Prophet’s astonishment, when he was almost dead, and had not thought of inquiring for himself, or at least did not dare to break forth at once; for he afterwards recovered himself, and was raised up by the angel’s hand, as we shall soon perceive. The Wonderful One said to me — that is, the incomprehensible or the mysterious one said to me — for two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings, then the sanctuary shall be justified Here the Hebrews are mutually at variance whether they ought to understand the number of years or of months; but it is surprising to perceive how grossly they are deluded in so plain a matter. The expression, to evening and morning, is not doubtful, since Christ, clearly means two thousand three hundred days; for what else can the phrase, morning and evening, signify? It cannot be used of either years or months. Evidently we ought to understand natural days here, consisting of twenty-four hours each. Those who receive it of years and months are wretchedly mistaken, and even ridiculous in their calculations. For some begin to calculate the, time from Samuel, they next descend to the reign of Saul, and next to that of David; and thus they foolishly trifle, through not understanding the intention of Christ, who wished his Church to be forewarned of the coming empires and slaughters, with the view of rendering the faithful invincible, however sorely they may be oppressed on all sides. Christ therefore wished to hold up a light to direct all the elect through the approaching darkness under the tyranny of Antiochus, and to assure them that in the very depths of it they would not be deserted by the favor of God. Hope would thus elevate their minds and all their senses unto the promised termination. To what purpose, then, do those interpreters speak of the reigns of Saul and David? We see this to be altogether foreign and adverse to the mind of Christ, and to the use of this prophecy. No less absurd is the guess of those who prate about months. Their refutation would occupy three or four hours, and would be a waste of time, utterly profitless. It is sufficient to gather this simple meaning from the words — Christ does not speak here of years or months, but of days. We must now seek the true interpretation of the passage from the whole context. We have shewn how impossible it is to explain this prophecy otherwise than by Antiochus: the event itself proves this to be its meaning. Blind indeed must be those who do not hold this principle — the small horn sprang from one of those remarkable and illustrious persons who came forth in place of one very large horn. Boys even know this by reading the accredited history of those times. As Christ here alluded to the tyranny of Antiochus, we must observe how his words accord with the facts. Christ numbers 2300 days for the pollution of the sanctuary, and this period comprehends six years and about four months. We know the Jews to have used lunar years as well as months. They afterwards used interealary periods, since twelve lunar months did not correspond with the sun’s course. The same custom prevailed among both Greeks and Romans. Julius Caesar first arranged for us the solar year, and supplied the defect by intercalary days, so that the months might accord with the sun’s course. But however that was, these days, as I have said, fill up six years and three months and a half. Now, if we compare the testimony of history, and especially of the book of Maccabees, with this prophecy, we shall find that miserable race oppressed for six years under the tyranny of Antiochus. The idol of Olympian Jove did not remain in the temple for six continuous years, but the commencement of the pollution occurred at the first attack, as if he would insult the very face of God. No wonder then if Daniel understood this vision of six years and about a third, because Antiochus then insulted the worship of God and the Law; and when he poured forth innocent blood promiscuously, no one dared openly to resist him. As, therefore, religion was then laid prostrate on the ground, until the cleansing of the temple, we see how very clearly the prophecy and the history agree, as far as this narrative is concerned. Again, it is clear the purifying of the temple could not have been at the end of the sixth current year, but in the month כסלו , keslu, answering to October or November, as leaned men prudently decide, it was profaned. For this month among the Jews begins sometimes in the middle of October, and sometimes at the end, according to the course of the moon; for we said the months and years were lunar. In the month Keslu the temple was polluted; in the month אדר Ader, about three months afterwards, near its close, the Maccabees purged it. (1Ma 4:36.) Thus the history confirms in every way what Daniel had predicted many ages previously — nay, nearly three hundred years before it came to pass. For this occurred a hundred and fifty years after the death of Alexander. Some time also had already elapsed, as there were eight or ten kings of Persia between the deaths of Cyrus and Darius. I do not remember any but the chief events just now, and it ought it to be sufficient for us to perceive how Daniel’s predictions were fulfilled in their own season, as historians clearly narrate. Without the slightest doubt, Christ predicted the profanation of the temple, and this would depress the spirits of the pious as if God had betrayed them, had abandoned all care of his temple, and had given up his election and his covenant entirely. Christ therefore wished to support the spirit of the faithful by this prediction, thereby informing them how fully they deserved these future evils, in consequence of their provoking God’s wrath; and yet their punishment should be temporary, because the very God who announced its approach promised at the same time a prosperous issue.

Respecting the phrase, the sanctuary shall be justified, some translate it — “Then the sanctuary shall be expiated;” but I prefer retaining the proper sense of the word. We know how usually the Hebrews use the word “justify” when they speak of rights. When their own rights are restored to those who have been deprived of them — when a slave has been blessed with his liberty — when he who has been unjustly oppressed obtains his cause, the Hebrews use this word “justified.” As God’s sanctuary was subject to infamy by’ the image of Olympian Jove being exhibited there, all respect for it had passed away; for we know how the glory of the temple sprang from the worship of God. As the temple had been defiled by so great disgrace, it was then justified, when God established his own sacrifices again, and restored his pure worship as prescribed by the Law. The sanctuary, therefore, shall be justified; that is, vindicated from that disgrace to which for a time it had been subject. It follows: —

Calvin: Dan 8:15

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. (Dan 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:. (1Ti 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, —

Calvin: Dan 8:16

He does not use the particle implying fitness, but says he heard the voice of a man, because he treats no longer of either a man or a figure, but of a voice. It is sufficient to say at once, he was like a man, not really so, but only under the image and appearance of one. Christ therefore appeared as a man, and is called one, since Scripture often records how angels often appeared under the form of men, and are called indiscriminately, either angels or men. (Jud 8:3, etc.) So in this place Daniel relates the appearance of a. man, or the aspect of one, improperly indeed, but without any danger of mistake; for he afterwards admonishes the faithful, how this person was not clothed with the substance of flesh, but had only a human form and aspect. I heard then a human voice in the midst of the river We gather from this that the same person is here intended of whom mention was lately made, because he commands the angel; whence this can be referred to Christ alone.

Gabriel, says he, teach him. We observe the speaker from the midst of the river here commanding Gabriel, as if superior to him. For Gabriel as the name of an angel, is sufficiently known from other passages of Scripture; (Luk 1:19;) and its etymology, “The strength of God,” is very suitable to this meaning. Without ally doubt, the angel here receives his commands from Christ. Thus, we see the supreme power and authority represented under the form and aspect of a man, as well as obedience portrayed in Gabriel, who discharges the duty enjoined upon him. From this Christ’s divinity is inferred, as he could not issue orders to angels, without either having special authority, or being God himself. But when the phrase “like a man” is used, we are taught his manifest superiority to man. And what does this imply? not angelic nature but divine. Christ by thus presenting himself under a human form, shews, by a kind of foreshadowing, how he would become a man, when the fullness of time arrived. Then he would really manifest himself as the head of the Church, and the guardian of the salvation of the pious. For he proves himself to have power over all angels, when he orders Gabriel to discharge the office of the Prophet’s instructor. We will put off the remainder.

Calvin: Dan 8:17

I will not repeat what I have already explained. I will proceed with what I had commenced, namely, the Prophet’s need of instruction, because he could not understand the vision without an interpreter; wherefore the angel was ordered to explain his revelation of God more fully. But, before he narrates this, he says, he was frightened at the approach of the angel. Without doubt, this reverence was always present to his mind. Whenever he perceived himself called or taught by God, he was doubtless struck with fear; but here some special feeling is expressed, as God desired to influence his mind to set us an example, and to render us more attentive. Here Daniel explains his own mind to us, commending the magnitude and importance of the vision, lest we should read with carelessness what he will afterwards relate, and not treat the occasion with sufficient seriousness. For God used the angel as his servant to explain his intention to the Prophet; at the same time he inwardly touched his mind by his Spirit to show us the way, and thus he would not only train us to docility, but also to fear. He says, then, he was frightened and fell down This, as I have said, was usual with the Prophet, as it ought to be with all the pious. Paul also, in celebrating the effect and power of prophecy, says, if any unbelievers should enter into the assembly and hear a prophet speaking in God’s name, he would prostrate himself, says he, upon his face. (1Co 14:25.) If this happened to unbelievers, how great will be our troubles, unless we receive most reverently and humbly, what we know to have been uttered by the mouth of God? Meanwhile, we should remember what I have lately touched upon, — the importance of the present oracle as here commended to us by the Prophet; for he fell upon his face through his fright, as he will repeat in the next verse.

Nor is the following exhortation superfluous; understated, says he, O son of Adam It would be of little use to us to be moved and excited for a time, unless our minds were afterwards composed for hearing. For many are touched by fear when God appears to them; that is, when he compels them to feel the force and power of his sway; but they continue in their stupidity, and thus their fright is rendered profitless. But Daniel here makes a difference between himself and the profane, who are only astonished and by no means prepared for obedience. At the same time, he relates how his own excitement was effected by the assistance of the angel. The fear, then, of which we have lately made mention, was preparation for docility; but; this terror would have been useless by itself, unless it had been added, that he might understand We ought to understand how piety does not consist merely in acknowledging the fear of God, but obedience is also required, preparing us to receive with tranquil and composed feelings whatever we shall be taught. We ought diligently to observe this order.

It now follows: Because there shall be an end of the vision at a fixed time. Some join לעת-קף legneth-ketz, making the sense “at the end of the time,” קף ketz, in this sense being in the genitive case by way of an epithet, as the Hebrews commonly use it. They elicit this sense — the vision shall be for a prefixed time. But others prefer — the end of the vision shall be for a time. I think this latter sense is better, as the former seems to me forced. On the whole, it is not of much consequence, yet as that form of expression is the easier, namely, the end or fulfillment of the vision should be at a definite time, I had rather follow that interpretation. The angel asserts, then, that this was no vain speculation, but a cause joined with its effect, which should have its completion at a stated period. There shall be an end, then, of the vision in its time; meaning, what you now behold shall neither vanish away nor be destroyed, but its end shall happen when the time shall arrive which God has determined. קף , ketz, is often taken in this sense. Hence there shall be an end of the vision,; that is, the vision shall be completed when the fitting time shall arrive. We ought to bear in mind this exhortation of the angel, because unless we are certainly persuaded of the fixedness of anything when God speaks, we shall not be ready to receive whatever he pronounces. But when we are convinced of this saying, God never separates his hand from his mouth — meaning, he is never unlike himself, but his power follows up his word, and thus he fulfills whatever he declares; this becomes a sure and firm foundation for our faith. This admonition of the angel ought to be extended generally to the whole of Scripture, since God does not throw words into the air, according to the common phrase. For nothing happens rashly, but as soon as he speaks, his truth, the matter itself and its necessary effect, are all consistent. It follows: —

Calvin: Dan 8:18

The Prophet repeats what he had said, namely, how he had been frightened by the magnitude of this vision; meanwhile, he was raised up by the angel, lest he should remain in that state of stupor. Yet these two clauses must be noticed: Daniel was astonished at the outset, for he could not otherwise be sufficiently composed to listen to the angel’s voice; but at the same time another clause is added, stating, the angel set him upright in his place. Whenever God addresses us, we must necessarily be subject to fear and dread, to produce humility, and to render us docile and obedient. Fears the true preparation for obedience; but, as we formerly said, another feeling ought to follow; namely, as God has previously prostrated and cast us down, he will also raise us up, thereby preparing us for listening; and this disposition cannot arise except our minds are sedate and composed. The Prophet then expresses both these states of mind here. This, as I have said, is common to all the pious; but a peculiarity is noticed here, lest the readers of the vision should become torpid, and receive it carelessly; for they ought to collect all their senses, conscious of their inability to understand it, unless the fear of God should precede, and thus form the mind for obedience. While he was speaking with me, therefore, I fell into a swoon with my face upon the ground; that is, I lay astonished, and he touched me. I have already stated the opinion of others, that the angel approached him, but it is only tolerable. He now adds: —

Calvin: Dan 8:19

Those who read the noun קף ketz, “ end, ” in the genitive case in Dan 8:17, understand in this place the word “vision” again, as if the Prophet had said, “At the time of the end there shall be a vision.” But as מועד , meveged, or moed, signifies a “time fixed and settled beforehand,” there is nothing superfluous in that method of speech; then ketz, as I have said, is properly taken for the effect itself, and it would be harsh and far-fetched to say “at the time of the end there shall be a vision,” in the, sense of the filling up of the vision. For this word expresses all which such interpreters wish it to imply. Besides, all are agreed as to the matter itself, since the angel bears witness to his being the interpreter chosen by God, who explains futurity to the Prophet. Behold, therefore, says he, I will explain to thee He here acquires confidence for himself from his office, as he had accepted the commands divinely laid upon him. And we should remark this also, since our faith will never rest or become firm unless the authority on which it is founded be fixed. As then the angel declares himself to be executing an office divinely enjoined upon him, ought we to put confidence in men who conduct themselves with rashness, and, though they assume authority in God’s name, yet have no certain and lawful calling? We may learn, then, how neither angels nor men ought to be held in such honor as to induce us to receive whatever they bring forward, unless the Almighty has appointed them to be his ministers and interpreters.

He then says, I will announce to thee what shall happen even at the end of the wrath. Without doubt, the angel asserts by this phrase the suddenness of God’s wrath. We are aware how instantaneously on the return of the people their enemies attacked them in Judea, and never ceased to inflict upon them numberless troubles. Wherefore, as soon as the Jews had returned from exile, God began to exercise them in various ways, and not without sufficient reason. Every one privately studied his own interests, but without any regard for the temple and any desire for the worship of God, and thus they were given up to avarice and caprice. They also defrauded God himself in tithes and offerings, as is evident from the prophets Malachi and Haggai. (Hag 1:12; Mal 3:8.) From that period God began to punish them, but deferred his vengeance till the time of Antiochus. The angel, therefore, calls the end of the vengeance that severer punishment which God inflicted after the people had abused his forbearance. Therefore I will teach thee, or lay before time, what shall happen at the close of the vengeance, because, says he, it shall be the time of the end. He here repeats what he had said concerning the effect of the prophecy, meaning, the fulfillment should take place at its own appointed season. We must; now notice the noun moed, because it is here opposed to our fervor and intemperance. Haste in desiring anything leads, as they say, to delay; for as soon as God bears witness to anything, we wish it to be fulfilled at the very first moment, and if he suspend its execution only a very few days, we not only wonder but cry out with vexation. God, therefore, here admonishes us by his angel that he has a settled time, and thus we are to learn to put a bridle on ourselves, and not to be rash and unseasonably hasty, according to our usual habit. We ought, then, to remember the explanation given, and perceive how the effect of the vision is shewn here, and thus it will obtain from us its just reverence. It follows: —

Calvin: Dan 8:20

We have previously given a brief explanation of all these subjects. But here the angel removes all doubt, lest we should still anxiously inquire the meaning of the ram which Daniel saw, and of the he-goat which followed and prostrated the ram. The angel, therefore, here pronounces the ram to represent two kingdoms, which coalesced in one. Cyrus, as we have said, granted it for a time to his father-in-law Cyaxares, but yet; drew the whole power to himself, and the Persians began to extend their sway over all the realms of the East. But God in this vision had respect to the beginning of that monarchy. When, however, the Persians and Medes, were united, then the ram bore two horns; then the he-goat succeeded, and he threw down the ram, as we have already seen. In that he-goat there was first one great horn and then four small ones. The angel then answers concerning the he-goat representing the kingdom of the Greeks. There is not the slightest doubt here, since Alexander seized upon the whole East, and thus the Persian monarchy was utterly destroyed. In the he-goat, therefore, the kingdom of Greece or Macedon was displayed, but the horns will mark something special.

That great, horn, says Daniel, was the first king, namely, Alexander; afterwards four smaller horns arose in his place. We have already explained these. For when much blood had been shed, and the greater part of the leaders had been slain, and after the followers of Alexander had mutually attacked and. destroyed each other, those who remained divided his dominions among themselves. Cassander the son of Antipater obtained Macedon; Seleueus, Syria; Ptolemy, Egypt; and Antigonus his own fourth share. In this way the smaller horns succeeded Alexander, according to the clear testimony of profane history. From the frequency with which God sets this prophecy before us, we gather his intention of giving us a conspicuous sign of his majesty. For how could Daniel conjecture future events for so long a period before they happened? He does not pronounce mere enigmas, but; narrates things exactly as if they were already fulfilled. At the present time Epicureans despise the Scriptures and laugh at our simplicity, as if we were too ridiculous. But they rather display their own prodigious madness, and blindness, by not acknowledging the prediction of Daniel to be divine. Nay, from this prophecy alone we may prove with certainty the unity of God. If any one was inclined to deny that first principle, and utterly reject the doctrine of his divinity, he might be convinced by this single prophecy. Not only is this subject treated here, but Daniel points with his finger to the God of Israel as the only one in whose hand and will are all things, and from whom nothing either escapes or is concealed. From this prophecy alone the authority of Scripture is established by proofs perfectly sure and undoubted, as the Prophet treats with perfect clearness events at the time unknown, and which no mortal could ever have divined.

First of all he says, The ram which, thou sawest, having two horns, means the kings of the Medes and Persians This had not then occurred, for that ram had not yet risen and seized upon Babylon, as we have stated already. Thus Daniel was raised up as it were to heaven, and observed from that watch-tower things hidden from the minds of men. He afterwards adds, The he-goat is the king of Greece. Philip, the father of Alexander, although a strenuous and a most skillful warrior, who surpassed all the kings of Macedon for cleverness, yet, superior as he was, never dared to cross over the sea. It, was sufficient for him if he could strengthen his power in Greece, and render himself formidable against his neighbors in Asia Minor. But he never dared to attack the power of Persia, or even to harass them, and much less to overcome the whole East. Alexander, inflamed rather by rashness and pride than by good judgment, thought nothing would prove difficult to him. But when Daniel saw this vision, who ever would have thought of any king of Greece invading that most powerful monarchy, and not only seizing upon the whole of Asia, but obtaining sway in Egypt, Syria, and other regions? Although Asia Minor was an extensive region, and well known to be divided into many rich and fertile provinces, yet it was but a small addition to his immense empire. Nay, when Nineveh was conquered by Babylon, and the Chaldeans became masters of Assyria, this also was an addition to the Persian monarchy. We are familiar with the amazing riches of the Medes, and yet they were entirely absorbed. Darius drew with him 800,000 men, and quite buried the earth under his army. Alexander met him at the head of 30,000. What comparison was there between them! When Xerxes ⁷³ came to Greece he brought with him 800,000 men, and threatened to put fetters upon the sea; yet Daniel speaks of his incredible event just as if it had already taken place, and were matter of history. These points must be diligently noticed that the Scriptures may inspire us with the confidence which they deserve.

Calvin: Dan 8:21

By the word “Javan” the Hebrews designate not only the Greeks but the: Macedonians, and the whole of that tract which is divided by the Hellespont, from Asia Minor as far as Illyricmn. Therefore the meaning is — the king of Greece.

Calvin: Dan 8:22

The great horn, says he, which was between his eyes was the first king, and when it was broken, four others sprang up. Alexander, as we have mentioned, perished in the flower of his age, and was scarcely’ thirty years old when he died, through the influence of either poison or disease. Which of the two is uncertain, although great suspicion of fraud attaches to the manner of his death; and whichever way it happened, that horn was broken. In his place there arose four horns, which sprang up, say’s he, from that nation. Here we must notice this, since I very much wonder what has come into some persons’ minds, to cause them to translate it “from the nations” and yet these are persons skilled in the Hebrew language. First, they show great ignorance by changing the number, and next, they do not comprehend the intention of the angel. For he confirms what he formerly said concerning the unity of the kingdom and its division into four parts, and he assigns the reason here. They shall spring, says he, from a nation, meaning the Greeks, and all from a single origin. For by what right did Polemy obtain the empire? solely by being one of Alexander’s generals. At the beginning, he dared not use the royal name, nor wear the diadem, but only after a lapse of time. The same is true of Selcucus, and Antigonus, and Cassander. We see, then, how correctly the kingdom of the Greeks is represented to us under the figure of a single beast, although it was immediately dispersed and torn into four parts. The kingdoms, then, which sprang from the nation meaning; Greece, shall stand, but not in full strength The copula is here taken in the sense of “but; ” the four kingdom shall stand, but not by his strength, for Alexander had touched upon the Indian sea, and enjoyed the tranquil possession of his empire throughout the whole east, having filled all men with the fear of his industry, valor, and speed. Hence, the;angel states the four horns to be so small, that not one of them should be equal to the first king.

Calvin: Dan 8:23

And at the end of their reign, when the wicked shall be at their height, one king shall stand By saying at the end of their kingdom, he does not mean to imply the destruction of the four kingdoms had ceased. The successors of Antiochus were not directly cast down from their sway, and Syria was not reduced into a province till about eighty or a hundred years after Antiochus the Great had been completely conquered. He again left heirs, who, without doubt, succeeded to the throne, as we shall see more clearly in the eleventh chapter. But this point is certain — Perseus was the last king of Macedon, and the Ptolemies continued to the times of Julius Caesar and Augustus, and we are well aware how completely Cleopatra was conquered and ruined by Antony. As women succeeded to the throne, we could not place the destruction of the Macedonian empire under Antiochus Epiphanes. But the angel means, at the end of their kingdom, when they had really come to the close of their reigns, and their final ruin was at hand. For when Antiochus Epiphanes returned to his country, he seemed to have re-established his power though it very soon afterwards began to die away. Similar circumstances also happened to Egypt and to Macedon, for the reign of all their kings was precarious, and although not directly overthrown, yet they depended on the Romans, and thus their royal majesty was but fleeting. At the end, therefore, of their kingdom, that is, when they arrived at the height, and their fall led them on to ruin, then, says he, when the wicked were consummated or perfected. Some apply this to the professed and outward enemies of the Church, but I rather approve of another opinion, which supposes the angel to be speaking of the impious, who provoked God’s wrath, till it became necessary for grievous and severe penalties to be inflicted on the people, to whom God had so magnificently promised a happy and a tranquil state. This, however, was no common temptation, after the prophets had treated so fully of the happy and prosperous state of the people after their return from captivity, to behold the horrible dispersion, and to witness these tyrants making their assault not only upon men, but upon the temple of God itself. Wherefore the angel, as before, fortifies the Prophet and all the rest of the pious against this kind of trial, and shews how God had not changed his counsels in afflicting his Church, to which he had promised tranquillity, but had been grievously provoked by the sins of the people. He then shews the urgent necessity which had compelled God to exercise this severity. When, therefore, the impious had come to their height, that is, when they had arrived at the highest pitch, and their intolerable obstinacy had become desperate. We perceive how the angel here meets the trial, and instructs the pious beforehand, unfolding to them the inviolability of God’s word, while the people’s impiety compelled him to treat, them severely, although he had determined to display liberality in every way. Then, he says, a king shall stand with a fierce countenance But the rest tomorrow.

Calvin: Dan 8:24

After the angel had explained the Grecian monarchy, he records the future origin of a king who should be hard of face Without the slightest doubt, he implies the iniquity of Antiochus by this phrase. He was notoriously destitute of any nobleness of mind, and remarkable for low cunning, and to this disposition was added an impudence which faltered at nothing. This is the sense in which I take the words hard of face The following phrase asserts his cunning, when it says, he shall be skilled in enigmas This is equivalent to saying, he should excel in cunning, and should not be easily deceived. By these two epithets he does not compliment, but rather defames Antiochus Epiphanes, by representing him as hardened as the wicked usually are, without the slightest particle of either reason, or equity, or shame. He next blames his craftiness and deceit, by stating he should be skilled in enigmas He afterwards adds, his power shall be strengthened, and yet not by his own might Some are of opinion that Antiochus Epiphanes is here compared to Alexander, as the angel had previously stated the inferiority of the four kings to the first; for they were prefigured by four small horns. For the most powerful of them all did not reign over a fifth part of the dominions which Alexander had acquired for himself by violence and war. Others, again, explain this passage as if the power of Antiochus would be great, but still very unlike that of Alexander, and far inferior to it, according to the sense, not in his, i.e., Alexander’s, strength,. Many, however, refer this to Antiochus, although they do not agree among themselves. Some, again, want a kind of correction, as if the angel implied that the power of Antiochus should be great, but not quite openly so. Hence his valor shall be strengthened, not meaning by “valor” that heroic spirit with which kings are usually endowed, nor any increase in magnanimity; nor yet that Antiochus should imitate such monarchs as these, but his strength should lie concealed. He should creep on by clandestine acts, and not contend in open battle according to the practice of those who excel in courage; he should secretly try many schemes, and thus stealthily extend his empire. This makes a tolerable sense. Others, again, think this ought to be referred to God, since the strength of Antiochus was not the result of his own industry or valor, but of the judgment of God, who armed him with it, because he wished to use him as a scourge to execute his punishments on the Jews. His fortitude, therefore, shall be strengthened, yet not by his own valor, as this entirely depended on the just designs and vengeance of God. Although this last sense is more profitable, and contains much useful instruction, yet I fear it is distorted. And thus the last clause is either a correction of the preceding words, meaning” because he should not increase with ingenuous earnestness,” or else, the angel is still comparing his strength with the power of Alexander. His power, therefore, shall be strengthened, and yet not bear comparison with Alexander’s; or, his power shall be strengthened, but not by habits of war nor by open magnanimity, but he shall grow great by fraudulent and clandestine arts; because he was on the one hand most impious, and on the other, of a servile disposition, as we have formerly said.

It follows, He shall make wonderful havoc, and shall prosper, and shall proceed, that is, shall execute, and shall destroy the strong, and the people of the saints. By עצומים , gnetzumim, I understand not only the Jews, but also other neighboring nations; as if the angel had said, Antiochus shall be conqueror wherever he shall extend his arms, until at length he shall subdue Judea, and miserably afflict the people of God. Wherefore, he shall strike or destroy the brave, and the people of the saints, that is, the holy people, as we saw before. And according to his understanding shall his craftiness prosper in his hand The conjunction “and may be here superfluous; in this sense the passage is usually received, thus reading it on in one context; according to his understanding he shall prosper, although there is the conjunction “and” in the way, but this is frequently superfluous in Hebrew. It means, deceit shall prosper in his hand Here the angel confirms the former assertion respecting the servile cunning of Antiochus, as he did not act with ingenuous manliness, but with his audacity and hardihood he united malicious arts and craftiness unworthy of a king. Craft, therefore, shall prosper in his hand, and that too, as far as he understands it. Some suppose the sharpness of Antiochus to be noticed here, as if the angel had said, Craftiness shall prosper in his hand, in consequence of his possessing superior ability and penetration. But the passage may be suitably explained in this way, — Antiochus shall act prosperously according to his mental perception, and shall be so assisted by’ his craftiness, as to obtain whatever he shall grasp at.

Calvin: Dan 8:25

It follows next; He shall magnify himself in his heart, or he shall raise himself, and bear himself magnificently; although this expression implies boasting and pride, and is taken in a disadvantageous sense. He shall be insolent, therefore, in his heart. The angel seems to distinguish here between the scheming and penetration of Antiochus, and his pride of heart; for, although he should obtain great: victories, and should subdue many nations according to his desires, yet he would oppress the Jews, and then, should be magnified in heart; that is, should be puffed up with greater pride than before, on account of those continuous successes. And in peace he shall destroy many, or the brave; for the word רבים rabbim, signifies either. Some translate, on account of his prosperity, because the Lord wished to relax the reins, so that no one should hinder the course of his victories. On account, then, of that success, he shall destroy many. Profane men, indeed, who understand nothing of God’s providence, have said that folly and chance prevail more in war than skill or arms; but the success of generals does not spring from either chance or fortune, but as God pleases to conduct the affairs of the world in various ways, so in some eases the evil and unskillful warriors succeed, while others make many fruitless efforts and trials, although they are superior in counsel, and are provided with the very best ornaments. But I rather incline to another sense which interpreters do not mention; namely, Antiochus should destroy and lay waste many nations without any trouble, with the greatest ease, and as it were in sport. Wherefore the Prophet signifies, or the angel who addresses the Prophet., that Antiochus should be the conqueror of many nations, not only because he should be endowed with great cunning, and should carry on the war more by treachery than by open violence, but as it is reported of Timotheus the Athenian general: He will take cities and lands, and subject them to himself, through fortune spreading her net for him while he is indulging in sleep. The angel, therefore, seems to point out this listlessness, by predicting much devastation by the hand of Antiochus in apparent ease and calmness. Others expound it thus, — nations shall be laid waste by that robber which have given him no occasion for attack, because they have never stirred up any hostility against him; but when they attempt to cultivate peace, he wearies them without the slightest pretext. But this interpretation seems to be forced.

He afterwards adds, And against the Prince Of Princes he shall stand, or rise up, and he shall be destroyed without hand, or shall be ruined. The ו , vau, is put adversatively; yet he shall be destroyed without hand. This was far more galling to the Prophet, and to the whole people, for the angel to predict the contests of Antiochus, not only with mortals, but with God himself. Some understand שר-שרים , sar-sarim, of the high priest, but this is too confined and spiritless. I have not the least doubt that God is here meant by the Prince of Princes Wherefore the complete sense is, — Antiochus should be not only bold, and cruel, and proud towards men, but this madness and full should proceed so far as to lead him to attack and resist God. This is the full sense. But a consolation is soon added, when the angel says, he should be destroyed without hand It would, indeed, have been almost intolerable for the Jews to hear only of the insolence of Antiochus in contending against God, unless this correction had been added — the end of the contest must be the self-destruction of Antiochus by his own impiety. He shall be destroyed then. But how? without hand, says he. For after subduing so many nations, and after obtaining whatever he wished, what more could be hoped for as far as man is concerned? Who would dare to rise up against him? Clearly enough, if the kings of Syria had been content with their own boundaries, they need not have feared any one, for no enemy would have molested them; but they provoked the Romans to attack them, and when they wished to invade Egypt, they did not prosper in their attempts. Whichever be the meaning, the angel here announces the sufficiency of the divine power without any human aid, for the destruction and overthrow of Antiochus. Some think this prophet refers to Antichrist, thus they pass by Antiochus altogether, and describe to us the appearance of Antichrist, as if the angel had shewn to Daniel what should happen after the second renovation of the Church. The first restoration took place when liberty was restored to the people, and they returned from exile to their native land, and the second occurred at the advent of Christ. These interpreters suppose this passage to unfold that devastation of the Church which should take place after the coming of Christ, and the promulgation of the gospel. But as we have previously seen, this is not a suitable meaning, and I am surprised that men versed in the Scriptures should so pour forth clouds upon clear light. For, as we said yesterday, nothing can be clearer, or more perspicuous, or even more familiar, than this prophecy. And what is the tendency of ascribing so violently to Antichrist what even mere children clearly see to be spoken of Antiochus, except to deprive Scripture of all its authority? Others speak more modestly and more considerately, when they suppose the angel to treat of Antiochus for the purpose of depicting in his person the figure of Antichrist. But I do not think this reasoning sufficiently sound. I desire the sacred oracles to be treated so reverently, that no one may introduce any variety according to the will of man, but simply hold what is positively certain. It would please me better to see any one wishing to adapt this prophecy to the present use of the Church, and to apply to Antichrist by analogy what is said of Antiochus. We know that whatever happened to the Church of old, belongs also to us, because we have fallen upon the fullness of times.

No doubt the Holy Spirit wished to teach us how to bear our cross by making use of this example, but as I have already said, it seems to me far too frivolous to search for allegories. We should be content with true simplicity, and transfer to ourselves whatever occurred to the ancient people. (1Co 10:11.) With how much reason does the Apostle say there should be false teachers in the kingdom of Christ, as there were formerly false prophets! (2Pe 2:1.) So we must determine, that the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning, will always find those whom he will stir up and impel to persecute the Church. The devil contends at this very day, not only by fallacious doctrines, and impious errors, and impostures, but also by cruel tyranny, as he inflames many impious men to madness, and thus harasses the sons of God. As the Jews ought not to quail under the calamities which oppressed them, through Daniel’s predictions concerning Antiochus, so the same doctrine ought in these days to fortify us, lest the novelty of our calamities should appall us, when the Church is oppressed by heavy burdens, and tyrants rage and storm, with fire and sword. (Rom 8:28 :) For the fathers experienced similar trials, to whom Christ had not then pointed out the way of life, and who did not comprehend so clearly as we do our duty to be conformed to the only-begotten Son of God, because he is the first-born in the Church; he is our head and we are his members. This. was not so fully unfolded to those holy men, who still endured under so many afflictions, when they might suppose the Church completely buried, as it is certainly surprising that they did not yield a hundred times over to so many and such dreadful calamities. Therefore this doctrine will be best accommodated to our instruction, if we are convinced of the justice of our condition not being better than that of the fathers. What, therefore, happened to them? These wicked ones should be destroyed, namely, the Jews:, who professed themselves to be the elect people of God, and the holy family of Abraham, and in numberless ways had obstinately provoked God’s wrath; thus the Church was miserably harassed. Antiochus, especially, like a sweeping tempest, reduced all things to ruin, till the people felt themselves utterly undone, and to all human appearance were without the slightest hope. As God punished so severely the wickedness of his ancient people, it does not surprise us when we feel his present chastisements, as in these days the land is full of sinfulness, and we do not cease perpetually and purposely to provoke God’s wrath. (1Th 3:3.) Lastly, to avoid the penalty due to our sins, let us consider the end of our calling, the subjection of our whole life to the cross. This is the warfare to which our heavenly Father destines us. As this is our lot, we ought to look into this mirror, and there behold the perpetual condition of the

Church. It is therefore no matter of surprise, if, instead of one Antiochus, God should raise up many who are hardened and invincible in their obstinacy, and in their cruelty make many attempts with clandestine arts, and plot for the destruction of the Church. If the fathers experienced this, it does not surprise us, if we in these days undergo similar sufferings. This, I say, is a useful analogy, and does not distort the simple sense of Scripture. Now, let us go on, —

Calvin: Dan 8:26

The angel again confirms the assertion that no part of this vision was shewn to the Prophet in vain, because not even the slightest portion of it should fail of its effect. The necessity of this method of confirming our faith is notorious, because, although the events may be well known to us, yet we cannot acquiesce in God’s word, unless he should testify so repeatedly to the truth of his assertions, and sanction by such repetition whatever appears to us ambiguous. When it becomes perfectly obvious that the angel discourses upon obscure events, and such as were utterly incredible at the time, it does not surprise us when he announces again, that the Prophet had seen nothing which God would not accomplish. This vision, therefore, says he, is truth. He calls it “the vision of the evening and morning,” because while the angel was treating of the six years and almost a half, he used this form of speech. And we said this was purposely expressed, lest any one should extend it to years or months, as some did; as if the angel had said, — Behold! by calculating single days up to six years and about a half, the completion of this prophecy when the Temple shall be cleansed, shall be accurately discovered. Again it is asserted, that the vision is certain, because God had computed day by day the time of the profanation of the Temple until the period of its cleansing. Do thou, therefore, says he, seal or close the vision, because it is for many days It may surprise us why God should wish what he had explained to his servant to remain concealed. For Daniel was not instructed in futurity for his own private advantage, but for the common usefulness of the whole people. It seems, therefore, contrary to his office to be commanded to close up the vision, and to keep it. in complete obscurity. But the angel means, if the greater part of the people should reject this prophecy, this formed no reason why Daniel should hesitate. Be thou, therefore, the guardian of this prophecy, as if God had deposited a treasure in the hands of his servant, and had said, “Pay no regard to any who despise this prophecy; many may deride thee, and others think thou art narrating fables, and very few will have confidence in thee but do not relax on this account, but faithfully guard this treasure,” since it is for many days; that is, although its effect is not immediately apparent, because God will suspend for some time the punishments of which entreats, and will not restore the Temple all at once, nor wrest His people immediately out of the hand of the tyrant. In consequence, then, of his deferring his judgments as well as his pity for many days, do thou close up this visions, that is, keep it to thyself, as if thou art alone. Thus God does not simply command his Prophet to be silent, or to conceal what he had learnt, but rather confirms him in his consistency, lest he should estimate this prophecy according to the ordinary opinions of his countrymen. And at the same time he shews, that though the Jews did not pay attention to what Daniel announced to them, yet nothing whatever should be in vain. It follows, —

Defender: Dan 8:1

At this point in his book, Daniel returns again to using the Hebrew language rather than Aramaic, presumably because by this time (the third year of Belshazzar), his influence with the leaders of Babylon had become minimal and he was writing mainly for his own people of Judah. However, his later experience in the lion's den during the reign of Darius, as recorded in chapter 6, was again written in Aramaic, probably as a testimony to Darius and his Persian nobles, as well as to the Babylonians remaining in the city. The Persians were probably fluent in the language of the Chaldeans. It is noteworthy that Daniel's visions as recorded in chapters 7, 8 and 9, and probably those in chapters 10, 11 and Dan 12:1-13 as well, were given and recorded before the history account in chapter 6."

Defender: Dan 8:2

Daniel was translated in his vision to the capital of Persia even before the Persians had conquered Babylon. Furthermore, his vision then prophesied the eventual defeat of Persia by Greece, as well as the still more distant break-up of the Grecian empire. It is not surprising that those who deny supernatural divine inspiration must try to assign the book of Daniel to a later period."

Defender: Dan 8:3

The ram is Medo-Persia, with the higher horn representing Persia and the lower Media (Dan 8:20)."

Defender: Dan 8:4

When this was written, Babylonia was still dominant, but the Medo-Persians were rising, and Daniel saw that, eventually, not even Babylon could stand against them."

Defender: Dan 8:5

This "he-goat" represents the Greek empire (Dan 8:21), which Daniel prophesied would eventually conquer the Medo-Persian empire, just as he had prophesied the latter would conquer the Babylonian empire. These events came to pass as predicted, and the fact that the ram is Medo-Persia and the goat is Greece provides further indication that the bear and leopard in chapter 7 were not these two kingdoms, as many take them to be, but rather two great kingdoms of the end-times.

Defender: Dan 8:5

This "notable horn" on the goat is said to be the "first king" of the future conquering Greek empire (Dan 8:21) - none other than the famous Alexander the Great, whose conquests were so swift that it seemed like his legions "touched not the ground" as they advanced."

Defender: Dan 8:8

Alexander, fully as arrogant as Nebuchadnezzar had been, boasted of his exploits and complained that there were no more worlds to conquer, then soon died as a dissolute young man.

Defender: Dan 8:8

This unlikely prophecy was fulfilled when Alexander's four generals divided up his kingdom after his death. Ptolemy took over the southern parts of his empire, Lysimachus the northern, Cassander the western, and Seleucus the eastern."

Defender: Dan 8:9

This "little horn" is evidently the same as the "little horn" of Dan 7:8, the Beast of the end-times, also known as the antichrist. He cannot be (as some expositors believe) Antiochus Epiphanes, one of the Syrian kings in the dynasty established by Seleucus. Although he did manifest the character of an antichrist, Antiochus did not become as great as "the host of heaven" (Dan 8:10) or do the other things described in Dan 8:10-14 and Dan 8:22-25. When Gabriel interpreted the vision to Daniel, he said specifically that it was "the time of the end" (Dan 8:17)."

Defender: Dan 8:10

This person, said specifically to come forth out of one of the four divisions of Alexander's empire, must be possessed and energized by Satan himself, for in no other way could he be said to wax as great as "the host of heaven," a term used throughout the Bible only for either stars or angels or both. In the New Testament, he is called "that man of sin ... the son of perdition" (2Th 2:3), and it is clear that when men worship him as he demands, they actually are worshiping Satan (Rev 13:4)."

Defender: Dan 8:11

The statements of this passage can only be literally applied to Satan, who brought down many of the angelic "stars" with him when he "magnified himself" against God. Further, he will (through his possessed "son") take away the daily sacrifice in the restored temple during the tribulation period (Dan 9:27; Dan 11:31; Mat 24:15)."

Defender: Dan 8:14

According to the interchange between the two "saints" (Dan 8:13), who were evidently two holy angels, the sanctuary, which was desolated by the replacement of the daily sacrifice by the image of the beast (Dan 9:27; Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11) will be purged and cleansed 2300 days later. But also see Dan 12:11, Dan 12:12. There are many other things that must happen in the seven year period at the climax of history."

Defender: Dan 8:23

This dark king, learned in occultism and lying wonders, possessed and controlled by the devil, will arise "in the latter time." There have been many antichrists, but the great antichrist has not yet arisen."

Defender: Dan 8:24

He will not only stop Jewish sacrifices but will attempt genocide on the entire chosen people."

Defender: Dan 8:25

When He finally confronts Christ, he will quickly be "broken without hand," simply by "the breath of his lips" (Isa 11:4)."

TSK: Dan 8:1

Cir, am 3451, bc 553

the third : Dan 7:1

me Daniel : Dan 8:15, Dan 7:15, Dan 7:28, Dan 9:2, Dan 10:2, Dan 10:7, Dan 11:4

TSK: Dan 8:2

I saw in : Dan 8:3, Dan 7:2, Dan 7:15; Num 12:6; Heb 1:1

Shushan : Neh 1:1; Est 1:2, Est 2:8, Est 3:15, Est 7:6, Est 8:15, Est 9:11, Est 9:15

province : Gen 10:22, Gen 14:1; Isa 21:2; Jer 25:25, Jer 49:34-39; Eze 32:24

Ulai : Dan 8:16

TSK: Dan 8:3

I lifted : Dan 10:5; Num 24:2; Jos 5:13; 1Ch 21:16; Zec 1:18, Zec 2:1, Zec 5:1, Zec 5:5, Zec 5:9, Zec 6:1

a ram : The Medo-Persian empire, of which a ram was the ensign; and a ram’ s head with horns, one higher than the other, is still to be seen on the ruins of Persepolis. Dan 8:20, Dan 2:39, Dan 7:5

one : Media was the more ancient kingdom; but Persia, after Cyrus, was the most considerable. Dan 5:31, Dan 6:28; Ezr 1:2, Ezr 4:5; Est 1:3; Isa 13:17, Isa 21:2, Isa 44:28; Jer 51:11

the other : Heb. the second

TSK: Dan 8:4

pushing : Dan 5:30, Dan 7:5, Dan 11:2; Isa 45:1-5; Jer. 50:1-51:64

neither : Dan 8:7; Job 10:7; Psa 7:2, Psa 50:22; Mic 5:8

but : Dan 5:19, Dan 11:3, Dan 11:16, Dan 11:36; Isa 10:13, Isa 10:14

TSK: Dan 8:5

an he goat : Dan 8:21, Dan 2:32, Dan 2:39, Dan 7:6

touched not the ground : or, none touched him in the earth, a notable horn. Heb. an horn of sight. Alexander the Great. Dan 8:8, Dan 8:21, Dan 11:3

TSK: Dan 8:6

to the : Dan 8:3

TSK: Dan 8:7

moved : Dan 11:11

and there was no : Lev 26:37; Jos 8:20

but : Dan 7:7

there was none : Dan 8:4

TSK: Dan 8:8

waxed : Deu 31:20; Est 9:4; Jer 5:27; Eze 16:7

when : Dan 4:31, Dan 5:20; 2Ch 26:16; Psa 82:6, Psa 82:7; Eze 28:9

the great : Dan 8:22, Dan 7:6, Dan 11:4

toward : Dan 7:2; Mat 24:31; Mar 13:27; Rev 7:1

TSK: Dan 8:9

came : Dan 8:23, Dan 8:24, Dan 7:8, Dan 7:20-26, Dan 11:21, 25-45

the pleasant : Dan 11:16, Dan 11:41, Dan 11:45; Psa 48:2, Psa 105:24; Jer 3:19; Eze 20:6, Eze 20:15; Zec 7:14

TSK: Dan 8:10

to the host : or, against the host, Dan 8:24, Dan 8:25, Dan 11:28, Dan 11:30,Dan 11:33-36; Isa 14:13; Rev 12:4

and stamped : Dan 8:7, Dan 7:7

TSK: Dan 8:11

he magnified : Dan 8:25, Dan 5:23, Dan 7:25, Dan 11:36; 2Ki 19:22, 2Ki 19:23; 2Ch 32:15-22; Isa 37:23, Isa 37:29; Jer 48:26, Jer 48:42; 2Th 2:4; Rev 13:5-7

to : or, against

the prince : Jos 5:14, Jos 5:15; Heb 2:10; Rev 17:14, Rev 19:13-16

by him : or, from him

the daily : Dan 8:12, Dan 11:31, Dan 12:11; Exo 29:38-42; Num 28:3; Eze 46:14

and the place : Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27; Luk 21:5, Luk 21:6, Luk 21:24

TSK: Dan 8:12

an host was given him against the daily sacrifice : or, the host was given over for the transgression against the daily sacrifice. Dan 11:31-35; Rev 13:7

and it cast : Psa 119:43, Psa 119:142; Isa 59:14; 2Th 2:10-12

and it practiced : Dan 8:4, Dan 11:28, Dan 11:36; 1Sa 23:9; Job 12:6; Jer 12:1; Rev 13:11-17

TSK: Dan 8:13

one saint : Dan 4:13, Dan 7:16, Dan 12:5, Dan 12:6; Deu 33:2; Zec 1:9-12, Zec 1:19, Zec 2:3, Zec 2:4, Zec 14:5; 1Th 3:13; 1Pe 1:12; Jud 1:14

that certain saint : or, the numberer of secrets, or, the wonderful numberer, Heb. Palmoni, Jdg 13:18 *marg. Isa 9:6; Mat 11:27; Luk 10:22; Joh 1:18

How : Dan 12:6; Psa 74:9, Psa 79:5; Isa 6:11; Rev 6:10

the vision : Dan 8:11, Dan 8:12

and the : Dan 9:27, Dan 11:31, Dan 12:11; Mat 24:15; Mar 13:14; Luk 21:20

of desolation : or, making desolate

to be : Dan 7:23; Isa 63:18; Luk 21:24; Heb 10:29; Rev 11:2

TSK: Dan 8:14

Unto : Dan 7:25, Dan 12:7, Dan 12:11; Rev 11:2, Rev 11:3, Rev 12:14, Rev 13:5

two thousand : That is, 2,300 years, which reckoned from the time Alexander invaded Asia, bc 334, will be ad 1966.

days : Heb. evening, morning, Dan 8:26; Gen 1:5

then : Isa 1:27; Rom 11:26, Rom 11:27; Rev 11:15

cleansed : Heb. justified, Isa 45:25; Gal 3:8

TSK: Dan 8:15

I Daniel : Dan 7:28

sought : Dan 7:16-19, Dan 12:8; Mat 13:36, Mat 24:15; Mar 4:12, Mar 13:14; 1Pe 1:10,1Pe 1:11; Rev 13:18

as : Dan 10:5, Dan 10:16; Jos 5:14; Isa 9:6; Eze 1:26-28; Mat 24:30; Rev 1:13

TSK: Dan 8:16

I heard : Dan 10:11, Dan 10:12; Act 9:7, Act 10:13; Rev 1:12

between : Dan 8:2, Dan 12:5-7

Gabriel : Dan 9:21; Luk 1:19, Luk 1:26

make : Dan 9:22, Dan 10:14, Dan 10:21, Dan 12:7; Zec 1:9, Zec 2:4; Heb 1:14; Rev 22:16

TSK: Dan 8:17

I was : Dan 10:7, Dan 10:8, Dan 10:16; Gen 17:3; Eze 1:28; Mat 17:8; Mar 9:4, Mar 9:5; Rev 1:17, Rev 19:9, Rev 19:10; Rev 22:8

Understand : Dan 8:15, Dan 9:23, Dan 10:11

O son : Eze 2:1, Eze 6:2

at : Dan 8:19, Dan 9:27, Dan 11:35, Dan 11:36, Dan 12:4, Dan 12:13; Hab 2:3

TSK: Dan 8:18

I was : Dan 8:17, Dan 8:27, Dan 10:8, Dan 10:9; Luk 9:32, Luk 22:45

he touched : Dan 10:10,Dan 10:16, Dan 10:18; Gen 15:12; Job 4:13; Eze 2:2; Zec 4:1; Act 26:6

set me upright : Heb. made me stand upon my standing

TSK: Dan 8:19

I will : Dan 8:15-17; Rev 1:1

the last : Dan 8:17, Dan 8:23, Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27, Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35, Dan 11:36, Dan 12:7, Dan 12:8; Hab 2:3; Rev 10:7, Rev 11:18; Rev 15:1, Rev 17:17

TSK: Dan 8:20

Dan 8:3, Dan 11:1, Dan 11:2

TSK: Dan 8:21

the rough : Dan 8:5-7, Dan 10:20

the great : Dan 8:8, Dan 11:3

TSK: Dan 8:22

being broken : After Alexander’ s death, in the prime of life and in the height of his conquests, his brother and two sons were all murdered; and the kingdom was divided among four of his generals.

	Four Generals	Portion of Kingdom
1.	Seleucus	Syria and Babylon
2.	Lysimachus	Asia Minor
3.	Ptolemy	Egypt
4.	Cassander	Greece

whereas : Dan 8:3, Dan 11:4

TSK: Dan 8:23

in the : Dan 10:14; Num 24:24; Eze 38:8, Eze 38:16; 1Ti 4:1

when : Gen 15:16; Mat 23:32; 1Th 2:16

come : Heb. accomplished

a king : The Roman empire, which reduced Judea to a province, burnt the city and temple, and scattered the Jews to the four winds of heaven. Dan 8:9-12, Dan 7:8, Dan 7:11, Dan 7:20,Dan 7:25; Deu 28:50

and understanding : Dan 8:25, Dan 11:21, Dan 11:24; 2Th 2:9-11; Rev 13:11-14, Rev 19:20

shall stand : Dan 8:6

TSK: Dan 8:24

but : Rev 13:3-9, Rev 17:12, Rev 17:13, Rev 17:17

shall prosper : Dan 8:12, Dan 11:36

shall destroy : Dan 8:10,Dan 8:12, Dan 7:25, Dan 11:31-36; Rev 13:10, Rev 16:6, Rev 17:6, Rev 19:2

holy people : Heb. people of the holy ones

TSK: Dan 8:25

through : Dan 8:23, Dan 8:24, Dan 7:8, Dan 11:21-25, Dan 11:32, Dan 11:33

magnify : Dan 8:11, Dan 11:36, Dan 11:37; Jer 48:26

peace : or, prosperity, Dan 11:21

stand : Dan 8:11, Dan 11:36; Rev 17:14, Rev 19:16

but : Dan 2:34, Dan 2:35, Dan 2:44, Dan 2:45, Dan 7:26, Dan 11:45; Job 34:20; Lam 4:6; Act 12:23; Rev 19:19-21

TSK: Dan 8:26

the vision of : Dan 8:11-15, Dan 10:1

wherefore : Dan 12:4, Dan 12:9; Eze 12:27; Rev 10:4, Rev 22:10

for : It is now 2,387 years since Daniel had this vision; and the utter desolation of the sanctuary had continued 1,764 years; and no doubt the end of 2,300 years is not far distant. Dan 10:1, Dan 10:14; Isa 24:22; Hos 3:3, Hos 3:4

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Dan 8:1

In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar - In regard to Belshazzar, see Intro. to Dan. 5 Section II.

A vision appeared unto me - This vision appears to have occurred to him when awake, or in an ecstasy; the former one occurred when he was asleep, Dan 7:1. Compare Dan 8:17-18, where the prophet represents himself as overpowered, and as falling down to the earth on account of the vision. The representation would seem to have been made to pass before his mind in open day, and when he was fully awake. Compare the case of Balaam, Num 24:4 : "Which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open."

After what appeared unto me at the first - That occurred in the first year of Belshazzar, Dan 7:1.

Barnes: Dan 8:2

And I saw in a vision - I looked as the vision appeared to me; or I saw certain things represented to me in a vision. On the word vision, see the notes at Dan 1:17. The meaning here would seem to be that a vision appeared to Daniel, and that he contemplated it with earnestness, to understand what it meant.

That I was at Shushan - As remarked in the introduction to this chapter, this might mean that he seemed to be there, or that the vision was represented to him as being there; but the most natural construction is to suppose that Daniel was actually there himself. Why he was there he has not informed us directly - whether he was on public business, or on his own. From Dan 8:27, however - "Afterward I rose up, and did the king’ s business"- it would seem most probable that he was then in the service of the king. This supposition will not conflict with the statement in Dan 5:10-11, in which the queen-mother, when the handwriting appeared on the wall of the palace informs Belshazzar that there was "a man in his kingdom in whom was the spirit of the holy gods, etc."- from which it might be objected that Daniel was at that time unknown to the king, and could not have been in his employ, for it might have been a fact that he was in the employ of the king as an officer of the government, and yet it may have been forgotten that he had this power of disclosing the meaning of visions.

He may have been employed in the public service, but his services to the father of the king, and his extraordinary skill in interpreting dreams and visions may not at once have occurred to the affrighted monarch and his courtiers. Shushan, or Susa, the chief town of Susiana, was the capital of Persia after the time of Cyrus, in which the kings of Persia had their principal residence, Neh 1:1; Est 1:2-5. It was situated on the Eulaeus or Choaspes, probably on the spot now occupied by the village Shus. - Rennel, Geog. of Herodotus; Kinneir, Mem. Pers. Emp.; K. Porter’ s Travels, ii. 4, 11; Ritter, Erdkunde, Asien, 9: 294; Pict. Bib. in loc . At Shus there are extensive ruins, stretching perhaps twelve miles from one extremity to the other, and consisting, like the other ruins in that country, of hillocks of earth, and rubbish, covered with broken, pieces of brick and colored tile. At the foot of these mounds is the so-called tomb of Daniel, a small building erected on the spot where the remains of Daniel are believed in that region to rest.

It is apparently modern, but nothing but the belief that this was the site of the prophet’ s sepulchre could have led to its being built in the place where it stands - Malcolm, Hist. of Persia, i. 255, 256. The city of Shus is now a gloomy wilderness, inhabited by lions, hyenas, and other beasts of prey. - Kitto’ s Cyclo., art. "Shushan."Sir John Kinneir says that the dread of these animals compelled Mr. Monteith and himself to take shelter for the night within the walls that encompass Daniel’ s tomb. Of that tomb Sir John Malcolm says, "It is a small building, but sufficient to shelter some dervishes who watch the remains of the prophet, and are supported by the alms of pious pilgrims, who visit the holy sepulchre. The dervishes are now the only inhabitants of Susa; and every species of wild beast roams at large over the spot on which some of the proudest palaces ever raised by human art once stood."- Vol. i. pp. 255, 256. For a description of the ruins of Susa, see Pict. Bib. in loc . This city was about 450 Roman miles from Seleucia, and was built, according to Pliny, 6; 27, in a square of about 120 stadia. It was the summer residence of the Persian kings (Cyrop. 8, 6, 10), as they passed the spring in Ecbatana, and the autumn and winter in Babylon. See Lengerke, in loc . It was in this city that Alexander the Great married Stateira, daughter of Darius Codomanus. The name means a lily, and was probably given to it on account of its beauty - Lengerke. Rosenmuller supposes that the vision here is represented to have appeared to Daniel in this city because it would be the future capital of Persia, and because so much of the vision pertained to Persia. See Maurer, in loc .

In the palace - This word ( בירה bı̂yrâh ) means a fortress, a castle, a fortified palace. - Gesenius. See Neh 1:1; Est 1:5; Est 2:5; Est 8:14; Est 9:6, Est 9:11-12. It would seem to have been given to the city because it was a fortified place. The word applied not only to the palace proper, a royal residence, but to the whole adjacent city. It is not necessary to suppose that Daniel was in the palace proper, but only that he was in the city to which the name was given.

Which is in the province of Elam - See the notes at Isa 11:11. This province was bounded on the east by Persia Proper, on the west by Babylonia, on the north by Media, and on the south by the Persian Gulf. It was about half as large as Persia, and not quite as large as England. - Kitto’ s Cyclo. It was probably conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, and in the time of Belshazzar was subject to the Babylonian dominion, Shushan had been doubtless the capital of the kingdom of Elam while it continued a separate kingdom, and remained the capital of the province while it was under the Babylonian yoke, and until it was subdued as a part of the empire by Cyrus. It was then made one of the capitals of the united Medo-Persian empire. It was when it was the capital of a province that it was visited by Daniel, and that he saw the vision there. Possibly he may have dwelt there subsequently, and died there.

And I was by the river of Ulai - This river flowed by the city of Shushan, or Susa, and fell into the united stream of the Tigris and the Euphrates. It is called by Pliny (Nat. Hist. vi. 81) Eulaeus; but it is described by Greek writers generally under the name of Choaspes. - Herod. v. 49; Strabo, xv. p. 728. It is now known by the name Kerah, called by the Turks Karasu. It passes on the west of the ruins of Shus (Susa), and enters the Shat-ul-Arab about twenty miles below Korna. - Kinneir, Geog. Mem. of the Persian Empire, pp. 96, 97. See Kitto’ s Cyclo., art. "Ulai"

Barnes: Dan 8:3

Then I lifted up mine eyes and saw - And saw in vision, or there seemed to be before me.

There stood before the river - On the bank of the river.

A ram which had two horns - There can be no error in explaining the design of this symbol, for in Dan 8:20 it is expressly said that it denoted the two kings of Media and Persia. The united power of the kingdom was denoted by the ram itself; the fact that there were two powers or kingdoms combined, by the two horns of the ram.

And the two horns were high - Both indicating great power.

But one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last - The higher horn springing up last denotes Persia, that became the more mighty power of the two, so that the name Media became finally almost dropped, and the united kingdom was known in Grecian history as the Persian The Median or Assyrian power was the older, but the Persian became the most mighty.

Barnes: Dan 8:4

I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward - Denoting the conquests of the united kingdom. The east is not mentioned, for none of the conquests of the Medo-Persian empire extended in that direction: Yet nothing could better express the conquests actually made by the Medo-Persian empire than this representation. On the west the conquests embraced Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Asia Minor; on the north, Colchis, Armenia, Iberia, and the regions around the Caspian Sea; and on the south, Palestine, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Lybia. - Lengerke. This Medo-Persian power is represented as coming from the east. Isa 41:2 : "who raised up the righteous man from the east, etc."Isa 46:11 : "calling a ravenous bird from the east, etc."

He did according to his will, and became great - This expresses well also the character of the Medo-Persian empire. It extended over a great part of the known world, subduing to itself a large portion of the earth. In its early conquests it met with no successful opposition, nor was it stayed until it was subdued by Greece - as at Leuctra and Marathon, and then as it was finally overthrown by Alexander the Great.

Barnes: Dan 8:5

And as I was considering - As I was looking on this vision. It was a vison which would naturally attract attention, and one which would not be readily understood. It evidently denoted some combined power that was attempting conquest, but we are not to suppose that Daniel would readily understand what was meant by it. The whole scene was future - for the Medo-Persian power was not yet consolidated in the time of Belshazzar, and the conquests represented by the ram continued through many years, and those denoted by the he-goat extended still much further into futurity.

Behold, an he-goat came from the west - In Dan 8:21, this is called the "rough-goat,"There can be no doubt as to the application of this, for in Dan 8:21 it is expressly said that it was "the king of Grecia."The power represented is that of Greece when it was consolidated under Alexander the Great, and when he went forth to the subjugation of this vast Persian empire. It may serve to illustrate this, and to show the propriety of representing the Macedonian power by the symbol of a goat, to remark that this symbol is often found, in various ways, in connection with Macedon, and that, for some reason, the goat was used as emblematic of that power. A few facts, furnished to the editor of Calmet’ s Dictionary, by Taylor Combe, Esq., will show the propriety of this allusion to Macedonia under the emblem of a goat, and that the allusion would be readily understood in after-times. They are condensed here from his account in Taylor’ s Calmet, v. 410-412.

(1) Caranus, the first king of the Macedonians, commenced his reign 814 years before the Christian era. The circumstance of his being led by goats to the city of Edessa, the name of which, when he established there the seat of his kingdom, he converted into AEgae, is well worthy of remark: Urbem Edessam, ob memoriam muneris AEgas populam AEgeadas. - Justin, lib. vii. c. 1. The adoption of the goat as an emblem of Macedon would have been early suggested by an important event in their history.

(2) \caps1 b\caps0 ronze figures of a goat have been found as the symbol of Macedon. Mr. Combe says, "I have lately had an opportunity of procuring an ancient bronze figure of a goat with one horn, which was the old symbol of Macedon. As figures representing the types of ancient countries are extremely rare, and as neither a bronze nor marble symbol of Macedon has been hitherto noticed, I beg leave to trouble you with the few following observations, etc."He then says, "The goat which is sent for your inspection was dug up in Asia Minor, and was brought, together with other antiquities, into this country by a poor Turk."The annexed engraving is a representation of this figure. The slightest inspection of this figure will show the propriety of the representation before us. Mr. Combe then says, "Not only many of the individual towns in Macedon and Thrace employed this type, but the kingdom itself of Macedon, which is the oldest in Europe of which we have any regular and connected history, was represented also by a goat, with this peculiarity, that it had but one horn."

(3) In the reign of Amyntas the First, nearly 300 years after Caranus, and about 547 years before Christ, the Macedonians, upon being threatened with an invasion, became tributary to the Persians. In one of the pilasters of Persepolis, this very event seems to be recorded in a manner that throws considerable light on this subject. A goat is represented with an immense horn growing out of the middle of his forehead, and a man in a Persian dress is seen by his side, holding the horn with his left hand, by which is signified the subjection of Macedon. The subjoined is the figure referred to, and it strikingly shows how early this symbol was used.

(4) In the reign of Archelaus of Macedon, 413 b.c., there occurs on the reverse of a coin of that king the head of a goat having only one horn. Of this coin, so remarkable for the single horn, there are two varieties, one (No. 1) engraved by Pellerin, and the oth. er (No. 2) preserved in the cabinet of the late Dr. W. Hunter.

(5) "\caps1 t\caps0 here is a gem,"says Mr. Combe, "engraved in the Florentine collection, which, as it confirms what has been already said, and has not hitherto been understood, I think worthy of mention. It will be seen by the drawing of this gem that nothing more or less is meant by the ram’ s head with two horns, and the goat’ s head with one, than the kingdoms of Persia and Macedon, represented under their appropriate symbols. From the circumstance, however; of these characteristic types being united, it is extremely probable that the gem was engraved after the conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great."These remarks and illustrations will show the propriety of the symbol used here, and show also how readily it would be understood in after-times. There is no evidence that Daniel understood that this ever had been a symbol of Mace-donia, or that, if he had, he could have conjectured, by any natural sagacity, that a power represented by that symbol would have become the conqueror of Media and Persia, and every circumstance, therefore, connected with this only shows the more clearly that he was under the influence of inspiration. It is affirmed by Josephus (Ant. b. xi. ch. viii.) that when Alexander was at Jerusalem, the prophecies of Daniel respecting him were shown to him by the high priest, and that this fact was the means of his conferring important favors on the Jews. If such an event occurred, the circumstances here alluded to show how readily Alexander would recognize the reference to his own country, and to himself, and how probable the account of Josephus is, that this was the means of conciliating him toward the Jewish people. The credibilty of the account, which has been called in question, is examined in Newton on the Prophecies, pp. 241-246.

On the face of the whole earth - He seemed to move over the whole world - well representing the movements of Alexander, who conquered the known world, and who is said to have wept because there were no other worlds to conquer.

And touched not the ground - Margin, none touched him in the earth. The translation in the text, however, is more correct than that in the margin. He seemed to bound along as if he did not touch the ground - denoting the rapidity of his movements and conquests. A similar description of great beauty occurs in Virgil, AEn. vii. 806, following of Camillia:

" Cursu pedum pravertere ventos.

Illa vel intactae segetis per summa volaret

Gramina, nec teneras cursu laesisset aristas,

Vel mare per medium fluctu suspensa tumenti

Ferretiter, celeres nec tingeret aequore plantas "

Nothing would better express the rapid conquests of Alexander the Great than the language employed by Daniel. He died at the early age of thirty-three, and having been chosen generalissimo of the Greeks against the Persians at the age of twenty-one, the whole period occupied by him in his conquests, and in his public life, was but twelve years; yet in that time he brought the world in subjection to his arms. A single glance at his rapid movements will show the propriety of the description here. In the year 334 b.c., he invaded Persia, and defeated the Persians in the battle of the Granicus; in the year 333, he again defeated them at the battle of Issus, and conquered Parthia, Bactria, Hyrcania, Sogdiana, and Asia Minor. In the year 332, he conquered Tyre and Egypt, and built Alexandria. In the year 331, he defeated Darius Codomanus, and in 330 completed the conquest of the Persian empire. In the year 328, he defeated Porus, king of India, and pursued his march to the Ganges. In these few years, therefore, he had overrun nearly all the then known world, in conquests more rapid and more decisive than had ever before been made.

And the goat had a notable horn between his eyes - The goat represented the Macedonian power, and all this power was concentrated in the person of Alexander - undoubtedly denoted by the single horn - as if all the power of Greece was concentrated in him. The margin is, a horn of sight. This corresponds with the Hebrew - the word rendered "notable"( חזוּת châzût ) meaning, properly, look, appearance, and then something conspicuous or remarkable. The literal translation would be, a horn of appearance; that is, conspicuous, large - Gesenius, Lexicon

Barnes: Dan 8:6

And he came to the ram ... - Representing the Medo-Persian power.

And ran unto him in the fury of his power - Representing the fierceness and fury with which Alexander attacked the Persians at the Granicus, at Issus, and at Arbela, with which he invaded and overthrew them in their own country. Nothing would better express this than to say that it was done in "the fury of power."

Barnes: Dan 8:7

And I saw him, come close unto the ram - The ram standing on the banks of the Ulai, and in the very heart of the empire. This representation is designed undoubtedly to denote that the Grecian power would attack the Persian in its own dominions. Perhaps the vision was represented at the place which would be the capital of the empire in order to denote this.

And he was moved with choler against him - (i. e., the ram)."With wrath or anger. That is, he acted as if he were furiously enraged. This is not an improper representation. Alexander, though spurred on by ambition as his ruling motive, yet might be supposed without impropriety to represent the concentrated wrath of all Greece on account of the repeated Persian invasions. It is true the Persians had been defeated at Leuctra, at Marathon, and at Salamis, that their hosts had been held in check at Thermopylae, that they had never succeeded in subduing Greece, and that the Grecians in defending their country had covered themselves with glory. But it is true, also, that the wrongs inflicted or attempted on the Greeks had never been forgotten, and it cannot be doubted that the remembrance of these wrongs was a motive that influenced many a Greek at the battle of the Granicus and Issus, and at Arbela. It would be one of most powerful motives to which Alexander could appeal in stimulating his army.

And brake his two horns - Completely prostrated his power - as Alexander did when he overthrew Darius Codemenus, and subjugated to himself the Medo-Persian empire. That empire ceased at that time, and was merged in that of the son of Philp.

And there was no power in the ram to stand before him - To resist him.

But he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him - An act strikingly expressive of the conduct of Alexander. The empire was crushed beneath his power, and, as it were, trampled to the earth.

And there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand - No auxiliaries that the Persian empire could call to its aid that could save it from the Grecian conqueror.

Barnes: Dan 8:8

Therefore the he-goat waxed very great - The Macedonian power, especially under the reign of Alexander.

And when he was strong, the great horn was broken - In the time, or at the period of its greatest strength. Then an event occurred which broke the horn in which was concentrated its power. It is easy to see the application of this to the Macedonian power. At no time was the empire so strong as at the death of Alexander. Its power did not pine away; it was not enfeebled, as monarchies are often, by age, and luxury, and corruption; it was most flourishing and prosperous just at the period when broken by the death of Alexander. Never afterward did it recover its vigour; never was it consolidated again. From that time this mighty empire, broken into separate kingdoms, lost its influence in the world.

And for it came up four notable ones - In the place of this one horn in which all the power was concentrated, there sprang up four others that were distinguished and remarkable. On the word notable, see the notes at Dan 8:5. This representation would lead us to suppose that the power which had thus been concentrated in one monarchy would be divided and distributed into four, and that instead of that one power there would be four kingdoms that would fill up about the same space in the world, occupy about the same territory, and have about the same characteristics - so that they might be regarded as the succession to the one dynasty. The same representation we have of this one power in Dan 7:6 : "The beast had also four heads."See also Dan 11:4 : "His kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven."This accords with the accounts in history of the effect of Alexander’ s death, for though the kingdom was not by him divided into four parts, yet, from the confusion and conflicts that arose, the power was ultimately concentrated into four dynasties.

At his death, his brother Aridaeus was declared king in his stead, and Perdiccas regent. But the unity of the Macedonian power was gone, and disorder and confusion, and a struggle for empire, immediately succeeded. The author of the books of Maccabees (1 Macc. 1:7-9) says: "So Alexander reigned twelve years, and then died. And his servants bare rule every one in his place. And after his death, they all put crowns upon themselves; so did their sons after them many years; and evils were multiplied in the earth."Alexander died 323 b.c.; Antipater succeeded Perdiccas, 321 b.c.; Ptolemy Lagus the same year took possession of Egypt; Cassander assumed the government of Macedon, 317 b.c.; Seleucus Nicator took possession of Syria, 311 b.c.; in 305 b.c. the successors of Alexander took the title of kings, and in 301 b.c. there occurred the battle of Ipsus, in which Antigonus, who reigned in Asia Minor, was killed, and then followed in that year a formal division of Alexander’ s empire between the four victorious princes, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysimachus. This great battle of Ipsus, a city of Phrygia, was fought between Antigonus and his son Demetrius on the one side, and the combined forces of these princes on the other.

Antigonus had aimed at universal sovereignty; he had taken and plundered the island of Cyprus; had destroyed the fieet of Ptolemy Lagus, and had assumed the crown. Against him and his usurpations, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus, combined their forces, and the result was his complete overthrow at the battle of Ipsus. - Lengerke, in loc . In this battle, Antigonus lost all his conquests and his life. In the division of the empire, Seleucus Nicator obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, and Susiana, Armenia, a part of Cappadocia, Cilicia, and his kingdom, in name at least, extended from the Hellespont to the Indies. The kingdom of Lysimachus extended over a part of Thrace, Asia Minor, part of Cappadocia, and the countries within the limits of Mount Taurus. Cassander possessed Macedonia, Thessaly, and a part of Greece. Ptolemy obtained Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene, and ultimately Ccelo-Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, and a part of Asia Minor and Thrace - Lengerke, in loc .

Toward the four winds of heaven - Toward the four quarters of the world. Thus the dominions of Seleucus were in the east; these of Cassander in the west; those of Ptolemy in the south, and those of Lysimachus in the north.

Barnes: Dan 8:9

And out of one of them, came forth a little horn - Emblematic of new power that should spring up. Compare the notes at Dan 7:8. This little horn sprang, up out of one of the others; it did not spring up in the midst of the others as the little horn, in Dan 7:8, did among the ten others. This seemed to grow out of one of the four, and the meaning cannot be misunderstood. From one of the four powers or kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander would be divided, there would spring up this ambitions and persecuting power.

Which waxed exceeding great - Which became exceedingly powerful. It was comparatively small at first, but ultimately became mighty. There can be no doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes is denoted here. All the circumstances of the prediction find a fulfillment in him; and if it were supposed that this was written after he had lived, and that it was the design of the writer to describe him by this symbol, he could not have found a symbol that would have been more striking or appropriate than this. The Syriac version has inserted here, in the Syriae text, the words "Antiochus Epiphanes,"and almost without exception expositors have been agreed in the opinion that he is referred to. For a general account of him, see the notes at Dan 7:24, following The author of the book of Maccabees, after noticing, in the passage above quoted, the death of Alexander, and the distractions that followed his death, says, "And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been a hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks,"1 Macc. 1:10. A few expositors have supposed that this passage refers to Antichrist - what will not expositors of the Bible suppose? But the great body of interpreters have understood it to refer to Antiochus. This prince was a successor of Seleucus Nicator, who, in the division of the empire of Alexander, obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, etc. (see above the note at Dan 8:8), and whose capital was Antioch. The succession of princes who reigned in Antioch, from Seleucus to Antiochus Epiphanes, were as follows:

(1) Seleucus Nicator, 312-280 b.c.

(2) Antiochus Soter, his son, 280-261.

(3) Antiochus Theos, his son, 261-247.

(4) Seleucus Callinicus, his son, 247-226.

(5) (Alexander), or Seleucus Ceraunus, his son, 226-223.

(6) Antiochus the Great, his brother, 223-187.

(7) Seleucus Philopater, his son, 187-176.

(8) Antiochus Epiphanes, his brother, 176-164.

- Clinton’ s Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii. Appendix, ch. iii.

The succession of the Syrian kings reigning in Antioch was continued until Syria was reduced to the form of a Roman province by Pompey, 63 b.c. Seleucus Philopater, the immediate predecessor of Antiochus, having been assassinated by one of his courtiers, his brother Antiochus hastened to occupy the vacant throne, although the natural heir, Demetrius, son of Seleucus, was yet alive, but a hostage at Rome. Antiochus assumed the name of Epiphanes, or Illustrious. In Dan 11:21, it is intimated that he gained the kingdom by flatteries; and there can be no doubt that bribery, and the promise of reward to others, was made use of to secure his power. See Kitto’ s Cyclo., i. 168-170. Of the acts of this prince there will be occasion for a fuller detail in the notes on the remainder of this chapter, and Dan. 11.

Toward the south - Toward the country of Egypt, etc. In the year 171 b.c., he declared war against Ptolemy Philometer, and in the year 170 he conquered Egypt, and plundered Jerusalem. 1 Macc. 1:16-19: "Now when the kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt, that he might have the dominion of two realms. Wherefore he entered Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy. And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof."

And toward the east - Toward Persia and the countries of the East. He went there - these countries being nominally subject to him - according to the author of the book of Maccabees (1 Macc. 3:21-37), in order to replenish his exhausted treasury, that he might carry on his wars with the Jews, and that he might keep up the splendor and liberality of his court: "He saw that the money of his treasures failed, and that the tributes in the country were small, because of the dissension and plague which he had brought upon the land, and he feared that he should not be able to bear the charges any longer, nor to have such gifts to give so liberally as he did before; wherefore, being greatly perplexed in his mind, he determined to go into Persia, there to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money. So the king departed from Antioch, his royal city, the hundred forty and seventh year; and having passed the river Euphrates, he went through the high countries."

And toward the pleasant land - The word used here ( צבי ts^e bı̂y ) means, properly, splendor, beauty, Isa 4:2; Isa 24:16; Isa 28:1, Isa 28:4-5. It is applied, in Isa 13:19, to Babylon - "the glory of kingdoms."Here it evidently denotes the land of the Israelites, or Palestine - so often described as a land of beauty, as flowing with milk and honey, etc. This is such language as a pious Hebrew would naturally use of his own country, and especially if he was an exile from it, as Daniel was. Nothing more would be necessary to designate the land so as to be understood than such an appellation - as nothing more would be necessary to designate his country to an exile from China than to speak of "the flowery land."Antiochus, on his return from Egypt, turned aside and invaded Judea, and ultimately robbed the temple, destroyed Jerusalem, and spread desolation through the land. See 1 Macc. 1.

Barnes: Dan 8:10

And it waxed great - It became very powerful. This was eminently true of Antiochus, after having subdued Egypt, etc.

Even to the host of heaven - Margin, against. The Hebrew word ( עד ‛ad ) means "to"or "unto,"and the natural idea would seem to be that he wished to place himself among the stars, or to exalt himself above all that was earthly. Compare the notes at Isa 14:13 : "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God."Lengerke supposes that the meaning here is, that he not only carried his conquests to Egypt and to the East, and to the holy land in general, but that he made war on the holy army of God - the priests and worshippers of Jehovah, here spoken of as the host of heaven. So Maurer understands it. In 2 Macc. 9:10, Antiochus is described in this language: "And the man that thought a little afore he could reach the stars of heaven, etc."The connection, would seem to demand the interpretation proposed by Lengerke and Maurer, for it is immediately said that he cast down some of the host and the stars to the ground. And such an interpretation accords with the language elsewhere used, of the priests and rulers of the Hebrew people. Thus, in Isa 24:21, they are called "the host of the high ones that are on high."See the note at that passage. This language is by no means uncommon in the Scriptures. It is usual to compare princes and rulers, and especially ecclesiastical rulers, with the sun, moon, and stars. Undoubtedly it is the design here to describe the pride and ambition of Antiochus, and to show that he did not think anything too exalted for his aspiration. None were too high or too sacred to be secure from his attempts to overthrow them, and even those who, by their position and character, seemed to deserve to be spoken of as suns and stars, as "the host of heaven,"were not secure.

And it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground - The horn seemed to grow up to the stars, and to wrest them from their places, and to cast them to the earth. Antiochus, in the fulfillment of this, east down and trampled on the princes, and rulers, and people, of the holy host or army of God. All that is implied in this was abundantly fulfilled in what he did to the Jewish people. Compare 1 Macc. 1, and 2 Macc. 8:2.

And stamped upon them - With indignation and contempt. Nothing could better express the conduct of Antiochus toward the Jews.

Barnes: Dan 8:11

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host - Grotius, Ephraem the Syrian, and others, understand this of Onias the high priest, as the chief officer of the holy people. Lengerke supposes that it means God himself. This interpretation is the more probable; and the idea in the phrase "prince of the host"is, that as God is the ruler of the host of heaven - leading on the constellations, and marshalling the stars, so he may be regarded as the ruler of the holy army here below - the ministers of religion, and his people. Against him as the Ruler and Leader of his people Antiochus exalted himself, particularly by attempting to change his laws, and to cause his worship to cease.

And by him - Margin, "from him."The meaning is, that the command or authority to do this proceeded from him.

The daily sacrifice was taken away - The sacrifice that was offered daily in the temple, morning and evening, was suspended. A full account of this may be found in 1 Macc. 1:20-24, 29-32, 44-50. In the execution of the purposes of Antiochus, he "entered the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick, and all the vessels thereof; and the table of showbread, the pouring vessels, etc., and stripped the temple of all the ornaments of gold."After two years he again visited the city, and "smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel, and when he had taken the spoils of the city he set it on fire, and pulled down the walls thereof on every side."Everything in Jerusalem was made desolate. Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honor into contempt."Subsequently, by a solemn edict, and by more decisive acts, he put a period to the worship of God in the temple, and polluted and defiled every part of it. "For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the sabbaths and festival days, and pollute the sanctuary and holy people; set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine’ s flesh, and unclean beasts; that they should also leave their children uncir. cumcised, and make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and profanation; to the end they might forget the laws, and change all the ordinances,"1 Macc. 1:44-49.

It was undoubtedly to these acts of Antiochus that the passage before us refers, and the event accords with the words of the prediction as clearly as if what is a prediction had been written afterward, and had been designed to represent what actually occurred as a matter of historical record. The word which is rendered "daily sacrifice"- the word "sacrifice"being supplied by the translators - תמיד tâmı̂yd - means, properly, continuance, prepetuity, and then what is continuous or constant - as a sacrifice or service daily occurring. The word sacrifice is properly inserted here. - Gesenius, Lexicon The meaning of the word rendered "was taken away"- הרם huram (Hophal from רום rûm - to exalt, to lift up) - here is, that it was lifted up, and then was taken away; that is, it was made to cease - as if it had been carried away. - Gesenius.

And the place of his sanctuary - Of the sanctuary or holy place of the, "Prince of the host,"that is, of God. The reference is to the temple.

Was cast down - The temple was not entirely destroyed by Antiochus, but it was robbed and rifled, and its holy vessels were carried away. The walls indeed remained, but it was desolate, and the whole service then was abandoned. See the passages quoted above from 1 Macc.

Barnes: Dan 8:12

And a host was given him - The Vulgate renders this, "and strength - robur - was given him, etc."Theodotion, "and sin was permitted - ἐδόθη edothē - against the sacrifice; and this righteousness was cast on the ground; so he acted and was prospered."Luther renders it, "and such might (or power, macht ) was given him."The Syriac renders it, "and strength was given him, etc."Bertholdt renders it, Statt jenes stellte man den Greuel auf , "instead of this (the temple) there was set up an abomination."Dathe, "and the stars were delivered to him"- tradita ei fuerunt astra, seu populus Judaicus . Maurer understands it also of the Jewish people, and interprets it, "and an army - exercitus - the people of the Jews was delivered to destruction, at the same time with the perpetual sacrifice, on account of wickedness, that is, for a wicked thing, or for impure sacrifices."Lengerke renders it, as in our translation, "an host - ein Heer - was Wen up to him at the same time with the daily offering, on account of evil."The word "host"( צבא tsâbâ' ) is doubtless to be taken here in the same sense as in Dan 8:10, where it is connected with heaven - "the host of heaven."If it refers there to the Jewish people, it doubtless does here, and the appellation is such a one as would not unnaturally be used. It is equivalent to saying "the army of the Lord,"or "the people of the Lord,"and it should have been rendered here "and the host was given up to him;"that is, the people of God, or the holy people were given into his hands.

Against the daily sacrifice - This does not convey any clear idea. Lengerke renders it, sammt den bestandigen opfer - "at the same time with the permanent sacrifice."He remarks that the preposition על ‛al (rendered in our version against), like the Greek ἐπὶ epi , may denote a connection with anything, or a being with a thing - Zusammenseyn - and thus it would denote a union of time, or that the things occurred together, Gen 32:11 (12); Hos 10:14; Amo 3:15. Compare Gesenius (Lexicon) on the word על ‛al , 3. According to this, the meaning is, that the "host,"or the Jewish people, were given to him at the same time, or in connection with the daily sacrifice. The conquest over the people, and the command respecting the daily sacrifice, were simultaneous. Both passed into his hands, and he exercised jurisdiction over them both.

By reason of transgression - - בפשׁע b^e ppâsha‛ . That is, all this was on account of the transgression of the people, or on account of abounding iniquity. God gave up the people, and their temple, and their sacrifices, into the hands of Antiochus, on account of the prevailing impiety. Compare 1 Macc. 1:11-16. The author of that book traces all these calamities to the acts of certain wicked men, who obtained permission of Antiochus to introduce pagan customs into Jerusalem, and who actually established many of those customs there.

And it cast down the truth to the ground - The true system of religion, or the true method of worshipping God - represented here as truth in the abstract. So in Isa 59:14, it is said: "Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter."The meaning here is, that the institutions of the true religion would be utterly prostrate. This was fully accomplished by Antiochus. See 1 Macc. 1.

And it practiced - Hebrew. "it did,"or it acted. That is, it undertook a work, and was successful. So in Psa 1:3, where the same expression occurs: "And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper."This was fully accomplished in Antiochus, who was entirely successful in all his enterprises against Jerusalem. See 1 Macc. 1.

Barnes: Dan 8:13

Then I heard one saint speaking - One holy one. The vision was now ended, and the prophet represents himself now as hearing earnest inquiries as to the length of time during which this desolation was to continue. This conversation, or these inquiries, he represents himself as hearing among those whom he calls "saints"- or holy ones - קדשׁ qâdôsh . This word might refer to a saint on earth, or to an angel - to any holy being. As one of these, however, was able to explain the vision, and to tell how long the desolation was to continue, it is more natural to refer it to angels. So Lengerke understands it. The representation is, that one holy one, or angel, was heard by Daniel speaking on this subject, but nothing is recorded of what he said. It is implied only that he was conversing about the desolations that were to come upon the holy city and the people of God. To him thus speaking, and who is introduced as having power to explain it, another holy one approaches, and asks how long this state of things was to continue. The answer to this question Dan 8:14 is made, not to the one who made the inquiry, but to Daniel, evidently that it might be recorded. Daniel does not say where this vision occurred - whether in heaven or on earth. It was so near to him, however, that he could hear what was said.

And another saint - Another holy one - probably an angel. If so, we may conclude, what is in itself every way probable, that one angel has more knowledge than another, or that things are communicated to some which are not to others.

Unto that certain saint which spake - Margin, Palmoni, or, the numberer of secrets, or, the wondeful numberer. The Hebrew word, פלמוני pal^e mônı̂y , occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures. The similar form, פלני p^e lonı̂y , occurs in Rth 4:1, "Ho, such a one, turn aside;"in 1Sa 21:2, "appointed my servants to such and such a place;"and 2Ki 6:8, "In such and such a place."The Italic words denote the corresponding Hebrew word. The word, according to Gesenius, means some one, a certain one; in Arabic, one who is distinct or definite, whom one points out as with the finger, and not by name. It is derived from an obsolete noun, פלון pâlôn , from the verb פלה pâlâh , to distinguish, and is united commonly with the word אלמני 'al^e monı̂y - meaning, properly, one concealed or unknown. It is language, therefore, which would be properly addressed to an unknown person with whom we would desire to speak, or whom we would designate by the finger, or in some such way, without being able to call the name. Thus applied in the passage here, it means that Daniel did not know the names of the persons thus speaking, but simply saw that one was speaking to another. He had no other way of designating or distinguishing them than by applying a term which was commonly used of a stranger when one wished to address him, or to point him out, or to call him to him. There is no foundation in the word for the meaning suggested in the margin. Theodotion does not attempt to translate the word, but retains it - φελμουνὶ phelmouni - Phelmouni. The Latin Vulgate well expresses the meaning, dixit unus sanctus alteri nescio loquenti . The full sense is undoubtedly conveyed by the two ideas,

(a) that the one referred to was unknown by name, and

(b) that he wished to designate him in some way, or to point him out.

How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice? - How long is what is designed to be represented by the vision to continue; that is, how long in fact will the offering of the daily sacrifice in the temple be suspended?

And the transgression of desolation - Margin, making desolate. That is, the act of iniquity on the part of Antiochus producing such desolation in the holy city and the temple - show long is that to continue?

To give both the sanctuary - The temple; the holy place where God dwelt by a visible symbol, and where he was worshipped.

And the host - The people of God - the Jewish people.

To be trodden under foot - To be utterly despised and prostrated - as anything which is trodden under our feet.

Barnes: Dan 8:14

And he said unto me - Instead of answering the one who made the inquiry, the answer is made to Daniel, doubtless that he might make a record of it, or communicate it to others. If it had been made to the inquirer, the answer would have remained with him, and could have been of no use to the world. For the encouragement, however, of the Hebrew people, when their sanctuary and city would be thus desolate, and in order to furnish an instance of the clear fulfillment of a prediction, it was important that it should be recorded, and hence, it was made to Daniel.

Unto two thousand and three hundred days - Margin, evening, morning. So the Hebrew, בקר ערב ‛ereb boqer . So the Latin Vulgate, ad vesperam et mane . And so Theodotion - ἔως ἑσπέρας καὶ πρωΐ̀ heōs hesperas kai prōi - "to the evening and morning."The language here is evidently what was derived from Gen. i., or which was common among the Hebrews, to speak of the "evening and the morning"as constituting a day. There can be no doubt, however, that a day is intended by this, for this is the fair and obvious interpretation. The Greeks were accustomed to denote the period of a day in the same manner by the word νυχθήμερον nuchthēmeron (see 2Co 11:25), in order more emphatically to designate one complete day. See Prof. Stuart’ s Hints on Prophecy, pp. 99, 100. The time then specified by this would be six years and a hundred and ten days.

Much difficulty has been felt by expositors in reconciling this statement with the other designations of time in the book of Daniel, supposed to refer to the same event, and with the account furnished by Josephus in regard to the period which elapsed during which the sanctuary was desolate, and the daily sacrifice suspended. The other designations of time which have been supposed to refer to the same event in Daniel, are Dan 7:25, where the time mentioned is three years and a half, or twelve hundred and sixty days; and Dan 12:7, where the same time is mentioned, "a time, times, and an half,"or three years and an half, or, as before, twelve hundred and sixty days; and Dan 12:11, where the period mentioned is "a thousand two hundred and ninety days;"and Dan 12:12, where the time mentioned is "a thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."The time mentioned by Josephus is three years exactly from the time when "their Divine worship was fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use,"until the time when the lamps were lighted again, and the worship restored, for he says that the one event happened precisely three years after the other, on the same day of the month - Ant. b. xii. ch. vii. Section 6. In his Jewish Wars, however, b. i. ch. i. Section 1, he says that Antiochus "spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months."Now, in order to explain the passage before us, and to reconcile the accounts, or to show that there is no contradiction between them, the following remarks may be made:

(1) We may lay out of view the passage in Dan 7:25. See the note at that passage. If the reasoning there be sound, then that passage had no reference to Antiochus, and though, according to Josephus, there is a remarkable coincidence between the time mentioned there and the time during which the daily sacrifice was suspended, yet that does not demonstrate that the reference there is to Antiochus.

(2) We may lay out of view, also, for the present, the passages in Dan 12:11-12. Those will be the subject of consideration hereafter, and for the present ought not to be allowed to embarrass us in ascertaining the meaning of the passage before us.

(3) On the assumption, however, that those passages refer to Antiochus, and that the accounts in Josephus above referred to are correct - though he mentions different times, and though different periods are referred to by Daniel, the variety may be accounted for by the supposition that separate epochs are referred to at the starting point in the calculation - the terminus a quo . The truth was, there were several decisive acts in the history of Antiochus that led to the ultimate desolation of Jerusalem, and at one time a writer may have contemplated one, and at another time another. Thus, there was the act by which Jason, made high priest by Antiochus, was permitted to set up a gymnasium in Jerusalem after the manner of the pagan (Prideaux, iii. 216; 1 Macc. 1:11-15); the act by which he assaulted and took Jerusalem, entering the most holy place, stripping the temple of its treasures, defiling the temple, and offering a great sow on the altar of burnt-offerings (Prideaux, iii. 230, 231; 1 Macc. 1:20-28); the act, just two years after this, by which, having been defeated in his expedition to Egypt, he resolved to vent all his wrath on the Jews, and, on his return, sent Apollonius with a great army to ravage and destroy Jerusalem - when Apollonius, having plundered the city, set it on fire, demolished the houses, pulled down the walls, and with the ruins of the demolished city built a strong fortress on Mount Acra, which overlooked the temple, and from which he could attack all who went to the temple to worship (Prideaux, iii. 239, 240; 1 Macc. 1:29-40); and the act by which Antiochus solemnly forbade all burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple - (Prideaux, iii. 241, 242; 1 Macc. 1:44-51). Now, it is evident that one writing of these calamitous events, and mentioning how long they would continue, might at one time contemplate one of these events as the beginning, the terminus a quo , and at another time, another of these events might be in his eye. Each one of them was a strongly marked and decisive event, and each one might be contemplated as a period which, in an important sense, determined the destiny of the city, and put an end to the worship of God there.

(4) It seems probable that the time mentioned in the passage before us is designed to take in the whole series of disastrous events, from the first decisive act which led to the suspending of the daily sacrifice, or the termination of the worship of God there, to the time when the "sanctuary was cleansed."That this is so would seem to be probable from the series of visions presented to Daniel in the chapter before us. The acts of the "little horn"representing Antiochus, as seen in vision, began with his attack on the "pleasant land"Dan 8:9, and the things which attracted the attention of Daniel were, that he "waxed great,"and made war on "the host of heaven,"and "cast some of the host and of the stars to the ground"Dan 8:10, and "magnified himself against the prince of the host"Dan 8:11 - acts which refer manifestly to his attack on the people of God, and the priests or ministers of religion, and on God him. self as the "prince of the host"- unless this phrase should be understood as referring rather to the high priest. We are then rather to look to the whole series of events as included within the two thousand and three hundred days, than the period in which literally the daily sacrifice was forbidden by a solemn statute. It was practically suspended, and the worship of God interrupted during all that time.

(5) The terminus ad quem - the conclusion of the period is marked and settled. This was the "cleansing of the sanctuary."This took place, under Judas Maccabeus, Dec. 25, 165 b.c. - Prideaux, iii. 265-268. Now, reckoning back from this period, two thousand and three hundred days, we come to August 5, 171 b.c. The question is, whether there were in this year, and at about this time, any events in the series of sufficient importance to constitute a period from which to reckon; events answering to what Daniel saw as the commencement of the vision, when "some of the host and the stars were cast down and stamped upon."Now, as a matter of fact, there commenced in the year 171 b.c. a series of aggressions upon the priesthood, and temple, and city of the Jews on the part of Antiochus, which terminated only with his death. Up to this year, the relations of Antiochus and the Jewish people were peaceful and cordial.

In the year 175 b.c. he granted to the Jewish people, who desired it, permission to erect a gymnasium in Jerusalem, as above stated. In the year 173 b.c. demand was made of Antiochus of the provinces of Ccelo-Syria and Palestine by the young Philometor of Egypt, who had just come to the throne, and by his mother - a demand which was the origin of the war between Antiochus and the king of Egypt, and the beginning of all the disturbances. - Prideaux, iii. 218. In the year 172 b.c., Antiochus bestowed the office of high priest on Menelaus, who was the brother of Jason the high priest. Jason had sent Menelaus to Antioch to pay the king his tribute-money, and while there Menelaus conceived the design of supplanting his brother, and by offering for it more than Jason had, he procured the appointment and returned to Jerusalem. - Prideaux, iii. 220-222. Up to this time all the intercourse of Antiochus with the Jews had been of a peaceful character, and nothing of a hostile nature had occurred.

In 171 b.c. began the series of events which finally resulted in the invasion and destruction of the city, and in the cessation of the public worship of God. Menelaus, having procured the high priesthood, refused to pay the tribute-money which he had promised for it, and was summoned to Antioch. Antioclius being then absent, Menelaus took advantage of his absence, and having, by means of Lysimachus, whom he had left at Jerusalem, procured the vessels out of the temple, He sold them at Tyre, and thus raised money to pay the king. In the meantime, Onias III, the lawful high priest, who had fled to Antioch, sternly rebuked Menelaus for his sacrilege, and soon after, at the instigation of Menelaus, was allured from his retreat at Daphne, where he had sought an asylum, and was murdered by Andronicus, the vicegerent of Antiochus. At the same time, the Jews in Jerusalem, highly indignant at the profanation by Menelaus, and the sacrilege in robbing the temple, rose in rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who defended him, and both cut off this "sacrilegious robber"(Prideaux), and the guards by whom he was surrounded.

This assault on the officer of Antiochus, and rebellion against him, was the commencement of the hostilities which resulted in the ruin of the city, and the closing of the worship of God. - Prideaux, iii. 224-226; Stuart’ s Hints on Prophecy, p. 102. Here commenced a series of aggressions upon the priesthood, and the temple, and the city of the Jews, which, with occasional interruption, continued to the death of Antiochus, and which led to all that was done in profaning the temple, and in suspending the public worship of God, and it is doubtless to this time that the prophet here refers. This is the natural period in describing the series of events which were so disastrous to the Jewish people; this is the period at which one who should now describe them as history, would begin. It may not, indeed, be practicable to make out the precise number of days, for the exact dates are not preserved in history, but the calculation brings it into the year 171 b.c., the year which is necessary to be supposed in order that the two thousand and three hundred days should be completed. Compare Lengerke, in loc ., p. 388. Various attempts have been made to determine the exact number of the days by historic records. Bertholdt, whom Lengerke follows, determines it in this manner. He regards the time referred to as that from the command to set up pagan altars to the victory over Nicanor, and the solemn celebration of that victory, as referred to in 1 Macc. 7:48, 49. According to this reckoning, the time is as follows: The command to set up idol altars was issued in the year 145, on the 15th of the month Kisleu. There remained of that year, after the command was given -

15 days
The month Thebet	30 days
The month Shebath	29 days
The month Adar	30 days
The year 146	354 days
The year 147	354 days
The year 148	354 days
The year 149	354 days
The year 150	354 days
The year 15l to the 13th day of the month Adar, when the victory over Nicanor was achieved	337 days
Two intercalary months during this time, according to the Jewish reckoning	60 days
Total of	2,271 days.

This would leave but twenty-nine days of the 2300 to be accounted for, and this would be required to go from the place of the battle - between Beth-Horon and Adasa (1 Macc. 7:39, 40) to Jerusalem, and to make arrangements to celebrate the victory. See Bertholdt, pp. 501-503. The reckoning here is from the time of founding the kingdom of the Seleucidae, or the era of the Seleucidae.

Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed - Margin, justified. the Hebrew word ( צדק tsâdaq ) means, to be right or straight, and then to be just or righteous; then to vindicate or justify. In the form used here (Niphal), it means to be declared just; to be justified or vindicated, and, as applied to the temple or sanctuary, to be vindicated from violence or injury; that is, to be cleansed. See Gesenius, Lexicon There is undoubtedly reference here to the act of Judas Maccabeus, in solemnly purifying the temple, and repairing it, and re-dedicating it, after the pollutions brought upon it by Antiochus. For a description of this, see Prideaux’ s Connexions, iii. 265-269. Judas designated a priesthood again to serve in the temple; pulled down the altars which the pagan had erected; bore out all the defiled stones into an unclean place; built a new altar in place of the old altar of burnt-offerings which they had defiled; hallowed the courts; made a new altar of incense, table of showbread, golden candlestick, etc., and solemnly re-consecrated the whole to the service of God. This act occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month (Kisleu), and the solemnity continued for eight days. This is the festival which is called "the feast of dedication"in the New Testament Joh 10:22, and which our Saviour honored with his presence. See 1 Macc. 4:41-58; 2 Macc. 10:1-7; Josephus, Ant. b. xii. ch. vii. Section 6, 7.

Barnes: Dan 8:15

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 Dan 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.

Barnes: Dan 8:16

And I heard a man’ s voice between the banks of Ulai - See the notes at Dan 8:2. The voice seemed to come from the river, as if it were that of the Genius of the river, and to address Gabriel, who stood near to Daniel on the shore. This was doubtless the voice of God. The speaker was invisible, and this method of explaining the vision was adopted, probably to make the whole scene more impressive.

Which called, and said, Gabriel - Gabriel is mentioned in the Scriptures only in Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21; Luk 1:19, Luk 1:26. In Luk 1:19, he is mentioned as saying of himself, "I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God."The word means, properly, "man of God."Nothing more is known of him, and he is mentioned only as bearing messages to Daniel, to Zacharias the father of John the Baptist, and to Mary.

Make this man to understand the vision - Explain it to him so that he will under stand its meaning.

Barnes: Dan 8:17

So he came near where I stood - He had seen him, evidently, at first in the distance. He now drew near to Daniel, that he might communicate with him the more readily.

And when, he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face - Doubtless perceiving that he was a celestial being. See the notes at Rev 1:17. Compare Eze 1:28, and Dan 10:8-9. He was completely overpowered by the presence of the celestial stranger, and sank to the ground.

But he said unto me, Understand, O son of man - Give attention, that you may understand the vision. On the phrase "son of man,"see the notes at Dan 7:13. It is here simply an address to him as a man.

For at the time of the end shall be the vision - The design of this expression is undoubtedly to cheer and comfort the prophet with some assurance of what was to occur in future times. In what way this was done, or what was the precise idea indicated by these words, interpreters have not been agreed. Maurer explains it, "for this vision looks to the last time; that is, the time which would immediately precede the coming of the Messiah, which would be a time of calamity, in which the guilt of the wicked would be punished, and the virtue of the saints would be tried, to wit, the time of Antiochus Epiphanes."Lengerke supposes that the end of the existing calamities - the sufferings of the Jews - is referred to; and that the meaning is, that in the time of the Messiah, to which the vision is extended, there would be an end of their sufferings and trials. The design of the angel, says he, is to support and comfort the troubled seer, as if he should not be anxious that these troubles were to occur, since they would have an end, or, as Michaelis observes, that the seer should not suppose that the calamities indicated by the vision would have no end.

Perhaps the meaning may be this: "The vision is for the time of the end;"that is, it has respect to the closing period of the world, under which the Messiah is to come, and necessarily precedes that, and leads on to that. It pertains to a series of events which are to introduce the latter times, when the kingdom of God shall be set up on the earth. In justification of this view of the passage, it may be remarked that this is not only the most obvious view, but is sustained by all those passages which speak of the coming of the Messiah as "the end,"the "last days,"etc. Thus 1Co 10:11 : "upon whom the ends of the world are come."Compare the notes at Isa 2:2. According to this interpretation, the meaning is, "the vision pertains to the end, or the closing dispensation of things;"that is, it has a bearing on the period when the end will come, or will introduce that period. It looks on to future times, even to those times, though now remote (compare Dan 8:26), when a new order of things will exist, under which the affairs of the world will be wound up. Compare the notes at Heb 1:2.

Barnes: Dan 8:18

Now, as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground - Overcome and prostrate with the vision. That is, he had sunk down stupified or senseless. See Dan 10:9. His strength had been entirely taken away by the vision. There is nothing improbable in this, that the sudden appearance of a celestial vision, or a heavenly being, should take away the strength. Compare Gen 15:12; Job 4:13, following; Jdg 6:22; Jdg 13:20, Jdg 13:22; Isa 6:5; Luk 1:12, Luk 1:29; Luk 2:9; Act 9:3, Act 9:8. "But he touched me, and set me upright."Margin, as in Hebrew, "made me stand upon my standing."He raised me up on my feet. So the Saviour addressed Saul of Tarsus, when he had been suddenly smitten to the earth, by his appearing to him on the way to Damascus: "Rise, and stand upon thy feet,"etc., Act 26:16.

Barnes: Dan 8:19

And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation - In the future time when the Divine indignation shall be manifest toward the Hebrew people; to wit, by suffering the evils to come upon them which Antiochus would inflict. It is everywhere represented that these calamities would occur as a proof of the Divine displeasure on account of their sins. Compare Dan 9:24; Dan 11:35; 2 Macc. 7:33.

For at the time appointed the end shall be - It shall not always continue. There is a definite period marked out in the Divine purpose, and when that period shall arrive, the end of all this will take place. See the notes at Dan 8:17.

Barnes: Dan 8:20

The ram which thou sawest ... - See the notes at Dan 8:3. This is one of the instances in the Scriptures in which symbols are explained. There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the meaning.

Barnes: Dan 8:21

And the rough goat - See the notes at Dan 8:5. In Dan 8:5 he is called a he-goat. Here the word rough or hairy - שׂעיר s'â‛ı̂yr - is applied to it. This appellation is often given to a goat Lev 4:24; Lev 16:9; Gen 37:31. It would seem that either term - a he-goat, or a hairy-goat - would serve to designate the animal, and it is probable that the terms were used indiscriminately.

Is the king of Grecia - Represents the king of Greece. The word here rendered Grecia ( יון yâvân ) denotes usually and properly Ionia , the western part of Asia Minor; but this name was extended so as to embrace the whole of Greece. See Aristoph. Acharn. 504, ibique Schol.; AEschyl. Pers. 176, 561; Gesenius, Lexicon Latin Vulgate and Theodotion, here render it "the king of the Grecians,"and there can be no doubt that the royal power among the Greeks is here referred to. See the notes at Dan 8:5.

And the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king - Alexander the Great. The first that consolidated the whole power, and that was known in the East as the king of Greece. So he is expressly called in 1 Macc. 1:1: "The first over Greece."Philip, his father, was opposed in his attempts to conquer Greece, and was defeated. Alexander invaded Greece, burned Thebes, compelled the Athenians to submit, and was declared generalissimo of the Grecian forces against the Persians.

Barnes: Dan 8:22

Now that being broken - By the death of Alexander.

Whereas four stood up for it - Stood up in its place.

Four kingdoms shall stand up - Ultimately. It is not necessary to suppose that this would be immediately. If four such should in fact spring out of this one kingdom, all that implied in the prophecy would be fulfilled. On the fulfillment of this, see the notes at Dan 8:8.

But not in his power - No one of these four dynasties had at any time the power which was wielded by Alexander the Great.

Barnes: Dan 8:23

And in the latter time of their kingdom - When it shall be drawing to an end. All these powers were ultimately absorbed in the Roman power; and the meaning here is, that taking the time from the period of their formation - the division of the empire after the battle of Ipsus (see the notes at Dan 8:8), until the time when all would be swallowed up in the Roman dominion, what is here stated - to wit, the rise of Antiochus - would be in the latter portion of that period. The battle of Ipsus was fought 301 b.c., and the Roman power was extended over all those regions gradually from 168 b.c. - the battle of Pydna, when Perseus was defeated, and Macedonia was reduced to a Roman province, to 30 b.c., when Egypt was subjected - the last of these kingdoms that submitted to the Roman arms. Antiochus began to reign, 175 b.c. - so that it was in the latter part of this period.

When the transgressors are come to the full - Margin, accomplished. That is, when the state of things - the prevalence of wickedness and irreligion in Judea - shall have been allowed to continue as long as it can be - or so that the cup shall be full - then shall appear this formidable power to inflict deserved punishment on the guilty nation. The sacred writers often speak of iniquity as being full - of the cup of iniquity as being full - as if there was a certain limit or capacity beyond which it could not be allowed to go. When that arrives, God interposes, and cuts off the guilty by some heavy judgment. Compare Gen 15:16 : "The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."Mat 23:32 : "fill ye up then the measure of your fathers."1Th 2:16 : "to fill up their sins alway."The idea is, that there is a certain measure or amount of sin which can be tolerated, but beyond that the Divine compassion cannot go with safety to the universe, or consistently with the honor of God, and then the punishment may be expected; then punishment must come. This is true, doubtless, of individuals and nations, and this period had arrived in regard to the Jews when Antiochus was permitted to lay their temple, city, and country waste.

A king of fierce countenance - Stern and severe. This expression would be applicable to many who have held the kingly office, and no one can doubt that it may be applied with strict propriety to Antiochus.

And understanding dark sentences - Gesenius (Lexicon) explains the word here rendered "dark sentences"to mean artifice, trick, stratagem. This will better agree with the character of Antiochus, who was more distinguished for craft and policy than he was for wisdom, or for explaining enigmas. The meaning seems to be that he would be politic and crafty, seeking to make his way, and to accomplish his purpose, not only by the terror that he inspired, but by deceit and cunning. That this was his character is well known. Compare the notes at Dan 8:25.

Shall stand up - Shall succeed, or there shall be such a king.

Barnes: Dan 8:24

And his power shall be mighty - He shall be a powerful monarch. Though not as mighty as Alexander, yet his conquests of Egypt and other places show that he deserved to be numbered among the mighty kings of the earth.

But not by his own power - That is, it shall not be by any strength of his own, but by the power which God gives him. This is true of all kings and princes (compare Joh 19:11; Isa 10:5, following), but it seems to be referred to here particularly to show that the calamities which he was about to bring upon the Hebrew people were by Divine direction and appointment. This great power was given him in order that he might be an instrument in the Divine hand of inflicting deserved punishment on them for their sins.

And he shall destroy wonderfully - In a wonderful or extraordinary manner shall he spread desolation. This refers particularly to the manner in which he would lay waste the holy city, and the land of Judea. The history in the books of Maccabees shows that this was literally fulfilled.

And shall prosper - Antiochus was among the most successful kings in his various expeditions. Particularly was he successful in his enterprises against the holy land.

And practice - Hebrew, "do."That is, he shall be distinguished not only for "forming"plans, but for "executing"them; not merely for "purposing,"but for "doing."

And shall destroy the mighty and the holy people - The people of God - the Jewish nation. See the notes at Dan 8:9-12.

Barnes: Dan 8:25

And through his policy - The word rendered "policy"here ( שׂכל s'êkel ) means, properly, intelligence, understanding, wisdom; and then, in a bad sense, craft, cunning. So it is rendered here by Gesenius, and the meaning is, that he would owe his success in a great measure to craft and subtilty.

He shall cause craft to prosper in his hand - He shall owe his success in a great measure to a crafty policy, to intrigue, and to cunning. This was true in an eminent sense, of Antiochus. See his history in Prideaux, above referred to, and the books of Maccabees. Compare the notes at Dan 11:21. The same character is given of him by Polybius, "Relig."lib. xxi. c. 5, tom. iv. p. 501, ed. Schweighauser; Appian, "de reb. Syr."xlv. t. 1, p. 604, ed. Schweigh. Compare 2 Macc. 5:24-26. He came to the kingdom by deceit (Prideaux, iii. 212), and a great part of his success was owing to craft and policy.

And he shall magnify himself in his heart - Shall be lifted up with pride, or esteem himself of great consequence.

And by peace shall destroy many - Margin, "prosperity."The Hebrew word ( שׁלוה shal^e vâh ) means, properly, tranquility, security, ease, carelessness. Here the phrase seems to mean "in the midst of security"(Gesenius, Lexicon); that is, while they were at ease, and regarded themselves as in a state of safety, he would come suddenly and unexpectedly upon them, and destroy them. He would make sudden war on them, invading their territories, so that they would have no opportunity to make preparation to meet him. Compare Dan 11:21, Dan 11:24. It would seem to mean that he would endeavor to produce the impression that he was coming in peace; that he pretended friendship, and designed to keep those whom he meant to invade and destroy in a state of false security, so that he might descend upon them unawares. This was his policy rather than to declare war openly, and so give his enemies fair warning of what he intended to do. This description agrees every way with the character of Antiochus, a leading part of whose policy always was to preserve the appearance of friendship, that he might accomplish his purpose while his enemies were off their guard.

He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes - Notes, Dan 8:11. Against God, the ruler over the kings of the earth.

But he shall be broken without hand - That is, without the hand of man, or by no visible cause. He shall be overcome by Divine, invisible power. According to the author of the first book of Maccabees (1 Macc. 6:8-16), he died of grief and remorse in Babylon. He was on an expedition to Persia, and there laid siege to Elymais, and was defeated, and fled to Babylon, when, learning that his forces in Palestine had been repulsed, penetrated with grief and remorse, he sickened and died. According to the account in the second book of Maccabees (2 Macc. 9), his death was most distressing and horrible. Compare Prideaux, iii. 272-275. All the statements given of his death, by the authors of the books of Maccabees, by Josephus, by Polybius, by Q. Curtius, and by Arrian (see the quotations in Prideaux), agree in representing it as attended with every circumstance of horror that can be well supposed to accompany a departure from this world, and as having every mark of the just judgment of God. The Divine prediction in Daniel was fully accomplished, that his death would be "without hand,"in the sense that it would not be by human instrumentality; but that it would be by a direct Divine infliction. When Antiochus died, the opposition to the Jews ceased, and their land again had peace and rest.

Barnes: Dan 8:26

And the vision of the evening and the morning - That is, of the two thousand three hundred days. See Dan 8:14, and the margin on that verse. The meaning here is, "the vision pertaining to that succession of evenings and mornings."Perhaps this appellation was given to it particularly because it pertained so much to the evening and morning sacrifice.

Is true - Shall be certainly accomplished. This was said by the angel, giving thus to Daniel the assurance that what he had seen Dan 8:9-14 was no illusion, but would certainly come to pass.

Wherefore shut thou up the visions - Seal it up. Make a record of it, that it may be preserved, and that its fulfillment may be marked. See the notes at Isa 8:16.

For it shall be for many days - That is, many days will elapse before it will be accomplished. Let a fair record, therefore, be made of it, and let it be sealed up, that it may be preserved to prepare the people for these events. "When"these things would come thus fearfully upon the people of Judea, they would be the better able to bear these trials, knowing the period when they would terminate.

Poole: Dan 8:2

I was at Shushan in his mind and thoughts, not bodily, and was by the river Ulai: some think he was locally there, being sent thither in embassy by Cyrus; but Daniel was now at Babylon, when it was besieged and taken, Da 5 ; he was only there in spirit, as the prophet Ezekiel saith he was in Jerusalem, Eze 8:3 . Now Daniel had this vision at Shushan, because their deliverance was to come by Cyrus the Persian or Elamite, for Elam is Persia. This city was called Shushan, i.e. a lily, for the pleasantness of it: such names they give also their cities in China.

The river of Ulai a river whose waters were so wholesome that they were carried far, and the king drank of no other.

Poole: Dan 8:3

Which had two horns by which is meant the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, as it is in Dan 8:20 , where it is so interpreted. Before he was called a

bear and here a

ram both noting the same thing, though by different expressions. A ram because he is a fighting creature, pushing.

The two horns were high i.e. they were very powerful.

One was higher than the other i.e. the Median, that it came up last; but afterward the Persian was much superior in magnificence and fame, which was verified in Cyrus; who had an incredible heap, even fifty millions of talents. See Curtius and Strabo.

Poole: Dan 8:4

Westward i.e. towards Babylon, Syria, Cappadocia. Asia the Less, and Greece, all westward from Media and Persia; for the Persians under Darius and Xerxes made war against Greece.

Northward i.e. against the Armenians, Iberians, Lydians, Colchi, Cusptans.

Southward i.e. against Ethiopia, Arabia, Egypt, which Cambyses invaded.

No beasts might stand before him they prospered and conquered all, as did Cyrus.

He did according to his will, and became great he prevailed against all that opposed, and did what he would without control, and became the greatest king of the earth then.

Poole: Dan 8:5

An he-goat Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia and all Greece, called a he-goat because the Greeks were called

Poole: Dan 8:6

The ram that had two horns i.e. the king of Media and Persia, and joined battle presently and furiously, Jehu like.

Poole: Dan 8:7

Brake his two horns: Artaxerxes Mnemon, by aiding Cyrus against him and then Darius Codomanus; these are the two horns, or the Medes and Persians.

Cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him he overthrew him utterly, that he could never rise again. This was at the Granicus, Issus, and Arbela.

Poole: Dan 8:8

The he-goat waxed very great by conquering all the Eastern empire and power, even to India.

The great horn was broken: this was the mighty power of the Lord of hosts, who is higher than the highest, and stronger than the strongest, though they seem invincible. Verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity. Selah . When Alexander the Great was greatest, in his youth, not thirtythree years old; when he called himself the son of Jupiter; when he was swoln with victories and successes; then was he broken, and that to pieces, for he, his mother, son, brother, and all his kindred were destroyed. So weak are the greatest to bear prosperity long! for this wonder of men, by pride, luxury, and passion, prepared himself for ruin; he that wept because he had not another world to conquer, and wanted breathing room in this, how soon was he tumbled into a grave of six feet!

For it came up four notable ones:

1. Antipater got Greece.

2. Asia was possessed by Antigonus.

3. Ptolemy got Egypt.

4. Seleucus had Babylon and Syria. All these were variously situated: to the east, Babylon and Syria; to the south, Egypt; to the north, Asia the Less; to the west, Greece.

Poole: Dan 8:9

A little horn the little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes, he arose out of the Seleucidae of Syria; called a little horn,

1. Because he was much less than Alexander, called a notable horn; Dan 8:5 .

2. Little, because he was the youngest of his brethren.

3. He was held a prisoner and pledge at Rome, whence he escaped.

4. Little, because he had nothing at first of greatness and heroic nobleness in him, also of low fortune.

Toward the south i.e. Egypt, where he besieged and took many places from Philometer, till the Romans stopped him.

Toward the east i.e. in Syria, Babylon, Armenia.

Toward the pleasant land Judea, so called because of the temple and people of God in it, and the fruitfulness of it, Eze 20:6 ,

the glory of all lands . So Dan 9:15 Psa 48:2,3, Jer 3:19 Dan 11:16,41,45 .

Poole: Dan 8:10

Even to the host of heaven i.e. the church of God militant, who worship the God of heaven, who are citizens of heaven, whose names are written in heaven; and among these chiefly the priests, and nobles, and champions, who were as stars shining above the rest; these he profaned and slew cruelly.

Poole: Dan 8:11

Even to the prince of the host not only against the high priest Onias, whom he put from his priesthood, and sold the high priesthood, /APC 2Mac 4 , but against God himself, which showed his daring insolence, and God’ s patience and permission, for the sins of his people.

By him the daily sacrifice was taken away for he so persecuted the people of God, that he forced them to omit the worship of God.

The place of his sanctuary was cast down he took away the use of the temple as to the holy service and sacrifices, commanding that it should not be called the temple of God, but of Jupiter Olympus, whose image he set up in it, and gave the priesthood to wicked men, as Jason and Menelaus.

Poole: Dan 8:12

By reason of transgression i.e. either the transgression of the priests, for Jason perfidiously took away the priesthood from his brother Onias, and afterwards Menelaus did the like by him. Or else for the sin of the people about the worship of God. Or else Antiochus wickedly and in contempt of God put soldiers into the city to hinder or break up the meetings of God’ s people about his worship, /APC 1Mac 1:47 .

It cast down the truth i.e. the law of God, called the law of truth, Mal 2:6 , which Antiochus cut in pieces and burnt, /APC 1Mac 1:59 . This was his practice, and it succeeded for a time as he desired.

Poole: Dan 8:13

By the first

saint is meant a holy angel, by the other is meant Jesus Christ,

Palmoni , a

numberer or revealer of secrets a wonderful revealer, Isa 9:6 . Of him the angel asks this secret concerning the calamity of the church, how long it would last, for Daniel’ s sake and his people. For the Lord Christ is the Teacher of his people, the Wisdom of God, and hath all this in his power by office, and as he stands in relation to his church, and for them.

The Lord knows his suffering people are much concerned about the time of their sufferings, because there is an appointed time for it, and the Lord doth sometimes reveal it, as we see here, unto his considering ones, Dan 8:5 , and praying saints, Da 9 ; they cry out in their agonies, How long, O Lord? and it is an addition to their sorrow that no man knoweth how long, Psa 74:9 . How long shall Antiochus continue his tyrannical vexations against the people of God, and the worship of God? This is the

treading down of the sanctuary and the host

Poole: Dan 8:14

He said unto me i.e. that angel unnamed. Why did he speak to Daniel, and not to the angel that asked him? Because Daniel, and the church to which he related and was to communicate the answer, was most concerned in it, and the angel that asked the question did it upon their account. Unto two thousand and three hundred days: this seems to many learned men a very difficult place, i.e. where to begin and where to end these days.

1. Some explain it thus: A year contains three hundred and sixty-five days; then two thousand three hundred make six years, three months, and eighteen days, reckoning in two days of the leap years gained from the supernumerary hours and minutes. Now this time begins at the first entrance of Antiochus into Judea, when he profaned the priesthood; and takes in also his second coming in, when he interdicted their worship, set up an idol in the temple, and interrupted the daily sacrifice.

2. Others count the two thousand three hundred days from the people’ s revolt, which was procured by Menelaus, which began in the year 141 of the reign of the Seleucidae, /APC 1Mac 1 ; but Antiochus did not act his impieties till the next year after, viz. 142, in the 6th month and the 6th day; from whence if we reckon to the 25th day of the 9th month of the year 148, there will fall out precisely six years, three months, and eighteen days.

3. Others reckon a little otherwise, from the beginning of Antiochus’ s profanations to his death; from 143 to 148, taking in both years to the number. For though Judas Maccabeus recovered the city and cleansed the temple in 148, yet Antiochus was not dead till 149, till when the work was not finished.

4. Others make it to, begin in the year of the Seleneidea 145, and to end anne 151, two years after Antiochus’ s death, for the abomination of desolation was set up in the month Chisleu, /APC 1Mac 1:57 , for not till two years after Antiochus’ s death was Nicanor overthrown with all his army. Thus Jacob Capell, and L’ Empereur.

5. Others reckon not days, but sacrifices, (at two every day,) and restrain the time to fewer years, out of Maccabees. Josephus .

Poole: Dan 8:15

Having obtained the favour of knowing something, he longed for a more clear discovery of those things; and he had his desire granted.

As the appearance of a man either the angel Gabriel or Michael, who appeared often in the shape of men, and are the messengers of God in the great things concerning his church, Heb 1:14 ; others will have this angel to be Christ.

Poole: Dan 8:16

A man’ s voice i.e. of him but now before mentioned, namely, Christ.

To understand the vision i.e. by declaring it more plainly to him: this shows Christ to be God, in commanding and sending his angel. Gabriel signifies the strength of God.

Poole: Dan 8:17

He came near that he might speak more familiarly to him, yet Daniel could not bear the glory of it, Mat 17:6 . How much less can we bear the glory of God! and how graciously hath the Lord dealt with us to teach us by men, and not by angels! and how vain are they who aspire to a converse with angels here on earth!

O son of man: he calls him son of man, to make him mind his frailty, and not to be lifted up with visions, and this great condescension and familiarity of Heaven with him.

At the time of the end i.e. in God’ s appointed time, i.e. in the latter generations, but not now in thy lifetime, but about four hundred years hence. See Dan 8:26 .

Poole: Dan 8:18

In a deep sleep on my face toward the ground being terrified and astonished with the splendour and grandeur both of the messenger and message; by the sight and by the voice. Set me upright, by one touch only. The power of spirits is incomparably greater than the strongest of men. Carnal, and flesh and blood, in Scripture signifies weak, 2Co 10:3,4 .

Poole: Dan 8:19

In the last end of the indignation i.e. that God will raise up Antiochus to execute his wrath against the Jews for their sins, and that yet there shall be an end of that

indignation God will have the end of his intention, and the end of his execution, in all his severe providences relating to his people.

At the time appointed the end shall be: this he saith to make us wait patiently. He that believeth will not make haste.

Poole: Dan 8:20

Or the kingdom, Dan 7:17 .

Poole: Dan 8:21

The king of Grecia of Javan, or Ion, or Joan, which properly is Asia the Less, which was inhabited by Javan, Gen 10:2 , but spread over all Greece, and all spake Greek, and the sea was thence called the Ionian Sea, See more in Bochart.

The first king i.e. Alexander the Great; called the Great from his great power, success, and possessions; and the

first king i.e. in Asia, and by his exploits and victories over the Persian monarchy; for else there were other kings of Greece before him, but none of them in the sense aforesaid.

Poole: Dan 8:22

Being broken i.e. by death, which breaks the horn of all pride and earthly glory.

Four stood up for it i.e. four kingdoms of the nations of the Greeks.

Not in his power that is, not in his majesty and magnificence, but inferior to him.

Poole: Dan 8:23

In the latter time of their kingdom i.e. when they were come to the height, and beginning to decline. It notes that time when the Romans began to seize part of the Grecian kingdom, by Emilius Probus, who subdued Perseus king of Macedonia, and thereby brought all Greece under the Roman jurisdiction; which was one hundred and sixty-six years before Christ was born, that very year Antiochus set up the abomination of desolation.

When the transgressors are come to the full when the Jews were grown to an excess of wickedness, and called for punishment, then God suffered Antiochus to persecute them.

Of fierce countenance such was he: the word is translated impudent, inhuman, for the countenance is the discoverer of the mind and manners oftentimes.

Understanding dark sentences full of all subtlety, another Julian, to lay snares, and fetch over the inconstant and backsliding Jews: such a one all histories declare this Antiochus to be.

Poole: Dan 8:24

Not by his own power not by any heroic deeds, or truly regal qualities, but by making use of the Jewish factions, and also through the Divine permission, and commission given him to punish a backsliding, degenerate nation; lastly, by the help of Eumenes and Attalus, by whose means and help he got up to this height; who being kings, suspected the Roman power, and raised him to be a kind of cheek to them.

The holy people he shall by force, craft, and cruelty destroy many of God’ s people, from the highest to the meanest ranks of them.

Poole: Dan 8:25

He shall cause craft to prosper in his hand he shall contrive many devices, and most of them shall take; he shall be a great master of those kinds of artifices: all to circumvent and destroy, as beasts and birds of prey have a kind of craft to compass and then devour their prey.

He shall magnify himself in his heart shall take a pride in his wicked devices and tricks.

By peace shall destroy many under colour of kindness, and promising peace and amity, shall lull men asleep, so as to fear nothing from him.

He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes: all this you find verified of him in the Maccabees and Josephus. He fought against God in removing the high priest, affronting God’ s laws, profaning God’ s worship, name, and temple, and setting up the image and worship of Jupiter there. He shall be broken without hand, by a disease whereof he died, /APC 1Mac 6:8 2Mac 9:5 .

Poole: Dan 8:26

The vision is true i.e. of the two thousand three hundred days before, Dan 8:14 . This exposition of it is true, plain, and certain. and therefore to be believed and seriously minded. Shut thou up the vision; lay it up in thy heart, keep it secret, reveal it to none till it be fulfilled. He doth not mean that it should be concealed from the people of God that were wise in heart, for they were concerned in it, and therefore it was revealed to Daniel; but he would not have it revealed to the Chaldeans and profane heathens, and therefore it was written in Hebrew, and not in Chaldee. It was to be fulfilled in after-times, and therefore to be safely laid up, and wisely to be thought on and improved. Therefore it is added,

for it shall be for many days three hundred years after this, in the time of the Seleucidae; long after Daniel’ s days and that generation. See Rev 22:10 .

Haydock: Dan 8:1

Beginning. This vision was to explain what he had seen Chap. vii. respecting the four monarchies. The conflict of the Persians with Alexander, after two hundred years and twenty years, is here described. (Worthington)

Haydock: Dan 8:2

Castle; some read "city." Here the kings had a palace; and Hystaspes, &c. generally resided in it. Nabuchodonosor seems to have subdued Elam. Cyrus had it for his share; but Darius, the Mede, appears from Eschylus to have plundered Susa again. Daniel probably spent the latter part of his life in this city. (Calmet) ---

Gate, or "stagnant water;" ( paludem. ver. 3. Haydock) though most understand the river Euleus, on the side of Susiana. The prophets often sought retired places. (Chap. x. 4.; Ezechiel i. l.) (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 8:3

A ram. The empire of the Medes and Persians. (Challoner) (Worthington) ---

Cyrus, the founder, was allied to both. ---

Higher, denoting the Persians; or Hystaspes, and his posterity, the second branch of the royal family, which reigned to the end: whereas Cambyses was the only one of the race of Cyrus who succeeded to the throne. Others think that he alludes to Codomannus, whom Alexander certainly attacked. ---

Afterward is not in Hebrew. St. Jerome supposed that another ram was designated, but it is the same.

Haydock: Dan 8:4

South. Codomannus reigned in peace for two years, when he was invaded. But his predecessors had made war chiefly in Greece, Scythia, and Egypt. The stupendous preparations of Xerxes against Greece only accelerated the fall of his own kingdom, by irritating the two nations. (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 8:5

A he-goat. The empire of the Greeks, or Macedonians. ---

He touched not the ground. He conquered all before him with so much rapidity, that he seemed rather to fly than to walk upon the earth. ---

A notable horn. Alexander the great. (Challoner) ---

He succeeded his father when only twenty years old, and the next year was chosen generalissimo of the Greeks against Persia, which he invaded at the head of 30,000 foot and 4,000 horses, having only seventy talents of silver and provisions for one month. With this he attacked the most flourishing empire, and conquered it in less than four years' time, when Darius was slain in the year 3674 [326 B.C.]. Alexander survived only six years and ten months, yet subdued so many nations that it is almost incredible that he should have travelled over them. He is the belly of brass and the leopard, Chap. ii. 39. and vii. 6. (Calmet) ---

He died in the midst of his prosperity, (Haydock) when not quite thirty-three years old, (Worthington) and left no heirs to succeed him. This conqueror would be painted with two horns, to intimate that he was the son of Jupiter Ammon. (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 8:7

Hand. He routed all the forces of his enemy (Haydock) at the Granicus, at Issus; and at Gaugamela, (Calmet) or Arbela, Darius escaped, but was slain by his own servants. (Haydock) ---

The clemency of the conqueror towards the fallen royal family is not here specified. (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 8:8

Broken, by death. Usher, in the year 3681 [319 B.C.] ---

Four. Seleucus, Antigonus, Philip, and Ptolemeus, the successors of Alexander, who divided his empire among them. (Challoner) ---

Other generals held out for some time. Philip was only a nominal king; Antipater governed Macedon and Greece. Syria, Asia, and Egypt, formed three other kingdoms. All four marked out by the four heads of the leopard. (Chap. vii. 6.) But the prophet is intent upon Syria and Egypt, which had most to do with the Jews. (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 8:9

A little horn. Antiochus Epiphanes, a descendant of Seleucus. He grew against the south and the east, by his victories over the kings of Egypt and Armenia; and against the strength, that is, against Jerusalem and the people of God. (Challoner) ---

He persecuted God's people, and set up the idol of Jupiter Olympius in the very temple. (Worthington)

Haydock: Dan 8:10

Even unto, or against the strength of heaven. So are here called the army of the Jews, the people of God, (Challoner) and particularly the teachers. Many priests gave way to idolatry. (1 Machabees i. 48. and 2 Machabees iv. 14.) (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 8:11

Strength; the God of armies, (Haydock) over whom Epiphanes seemed to triumph.

Haydock: Dan 8:12

Strength. Hebrew: "the army was delivered up to him, for the," &c. While several contended for the high priesthood, and imitated the manners of the Greeks, the sacrifices were neglected, and then Antiochus prevailed. (2 Machabees iv. 7.) ---

Ground. The ambitious pontiffs, as well as the king and his officers, kept not their promises. Onias, the lawful high priest, being displaced, went to seek redress at Antioch, in the asylum at Daphne. Andronicus prevailed on him to come out by treacherous promises, and slew him; whereupon even Epiphanes wept, and ordered the murderer to be punished. (2 Machabees iv. 32.) The following year he entered Jerusalem, and committed horrible profanations.

Haydock: Dan 8:13

Another. We do not inquire how the angels explained themselves, or whether they instruct each other. This conversation was for the prophet's information. (Calmet) ---

One angel asked the other a question about futurity. (Worthington)

Haydock: Dan 8:14

Days. That is, six years and almost four months; which was the whole time from the beginning of the persecution of Antiochus till his death. (Challoner) ---

He began A. [in the year] 143, and died A. [in the year] 149, according to the era of Seleucus. (Haydock) ---

The temple was purified in the mean time. (1 Machabees i. 21. and vi. 16.) (Worthington) ---

Full days are specified. Sacrifice entirely ceased for three years, in the year 145. (Chap. vii. 25.) Sym. [Symmachus?] has 2,400, others 2,200, as quoted by St. Jerome. We know not whether the solar year of 365 days, or the lunar of 354, be meant.

Ver 16. Between, in an island formed by the river. It was the Son of God, (Calmet) or St. Michael, (St. Jerome) directing Gabriel to explain the vision.

Haydock: Dan 8:17

Man. So Ezechiel is usually styled, to shew that the human nature is different from that of angels, and would be greatly honoured by Jesus Christ, who takes this appellation. (Worthington) ---

Of the end, or determined. This shall take place, (Calmet) but the period is distinct. (Grotius ver. 26.)

Haydock: Dan 8:19

Malediction. Hebrew: "wrath" against the people of God, and their enemies. (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 8:21

Is. Hebrew: " are the kings," (Haydock) including all. (ver. 3.)

Haydock: Dan 8:22

Nation, yet not his children. (ver. 8.)

Haydock: Dan 8:23

Shameless. Hebrew: "hard," cruel, and impudent, as Epiphanes was. (1 Machabees i. 2.) Marcellinus styles him "wrathful and savage." ---

Sentences, making use of artifice to seize the estates of his nephew Philometor, and to oppress the Jews. (2 Machabees v. 24.) (Calmet) ---

The history speaks of Antiochus: antichrist is also meant, as Chap. xii. and Matthew xxiv. (Worthington)

Haydock: Dan 8:24

By. Hebrew: "not to his (Alexander's) strength." (ver. 22.) Epiphanes conquered Egypt and the Jews: but the former had an infant king, and the latter were unprovided. He shewed more cunning than prowess.

Haydock: Dan 8:25

Prince: God. ---

Hand of man. He confessed that he was justly punished. (1 Machabees vi. 10.) Greek: "He shall raise himself by the ruin of many, (Theod. and some manuscripts add, and shall rise up against the prince of princes ) and he shall break them like eggs with his hand."

Haydock: Dan 8:26

Morning of this day, or of what shall happen in certain full days. (ver. 14.) ---

Seal. When the predictions were to take place, soon they were dated and published. (Calmet) ---

This will remain obscure till after the event. (St. Jerome) ---

What regarded the temple, happened in 300 years' time. But it alludes also to antichrist. (St. Gregory, Mor. xxx. 12.) (Worthington)

Gill: Dan 8:1

In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar,.... Which some say ^t was the last year of his reign; but, according to Ptolemy's canon, he reigned seventeen years; and so says Josephus ^u; however, this, as well as the preceding vision, were seen before what happened recorded in the "fifth" and "sixth" chapters. The following vision was seen by Daniel, according to Bishop Usher ^w and Dean Prideaux ^x in the year of the world 3451 A.M., and 553 B.C. Mr. Bedford ^y places it in 552 B.C.; and Mr. Whiston ^z, very wrongly, in 537 B.C., two years after the death of Belshazzar. The prophet having, in the preceding chapters, related what concerned the Chaldeans, he wrote in the Chaldee language; but now, henceforward, writing of things which concerned the Jews more especially, and the church and people of God in later times, he writes in the Hebrew tongue.

A vision appeared unto me, even to me Daniel; and not another; which is said for the certainty of it; whether it was seen by him waking, or in a dream, as the former vision, is not certain; it seems rather as if he was awake at first, though he afterwards fell prostrate to the ground, and into a deep sleep; yet the Syriac version takes it to be a dream, and so renders the first clause of the next verse: "after that which appeared to me at the first"; at the beginning of Belshazzar's reign, in the first year of it, recorded in the preceding chapter; which was concerning the four monarchies in general, and particularly concerning the fourth or Roman monarchy, of which a large account is given; and the Chaldean monarchy being near at an end, here the two monarchies between, namely, the Persian and Grecian, are in this vision described.

Gill: Dan 8:2

And I saw in a vision,.... The following things:

and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; not in reality, but so it seemed to him in the vision; as Ezekiel, when in Babylon, seemed in the visions of God to be at Jerusalem, Eze 8:3. This city Shushan, or Susa, as it is called by other writers, and signifies a "lily", was so called from the plenty of lilies that grew about it, or because of the pleasantness of it; it was the metropolis of the country Susiana, which had its name from it, and was afterwards the royal seat of the kings of Persia. This was first made so by Cyrus; for Strabo ^a says, that he and the Persians having overcome the Medes, observing that their own country was situated in the extreme parts, and Susa more inward, and nearer to other nations, being, as he says, between Persia and Babylon, set his royal palace in it; approving both the nearness of the country, and the dignity of the city. Here the kings of Persia laid up their treasures, even prodigious large ones; hence Aristagoras told Cleomenes, that if he could take that city, he would vie, and might contend, with Jupiter for riches ^b; for hither Cyrus carried whatever money he had in Persia, even forty thousand talents, some say fifty ^c. Alexander ^d, when he took this city, found a vast quantity of riches in it. It is called here a palace; and so it is spoken of by Herodotus ^e, Diodorus Siculus ^f, Pausanius ^g, Pliny ^h, and others, as a royal city, where were the residence and palace of the kings of Persia; but the royal palace was not in it at this time; the kings of Babylon had their palace and kept their court at Babylon, where Daniel was; but in vision it seemed to him that he was in Shushan, and which was represented to him as a palace, as it would be, and as the metropolis of the kingdom of Persia, which he had a view of in its future flourishing condition, and as destroyed by Alexander; for, as before observed, it was Cyrus that first made it a royal city; whereas this vision was in the third year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon. Some versions render it, a "tower" or "castle"; and so several writers, as Strabo ⁱ Plutarch ^k and Pliny ^l, speak of the tower or castle in it. Diodorus Siculus ^m says, when Antigonus took the tower of Susa, he found in it a golden vine, and a great quantity of other works, to the value of fifteen thousand talents; and out of crowns, and other gifts and spoils, he made up five thousand more. And Polybius ⁿ relates, that though Molon took the city, yet could not take the fortress, and was obliged to raise the siege, so strong it was. It must be a mistake of Pliny ^o that this city was built by Darius Hystaspes; he could only mean it was rebuilt, or rather enlarged, by him, since it was in being long before his time, and even a royal city in the times of Cyrus. Strabo ^p says it was built by Tithon the father of Merenon, was in compass a fifteen miles, of an oblong figure, and the tower was called after his father's name Mernnonia; and Shushan itself is called, by Herodotus ^q, Susa Memnonia. At this day, with the common people, it goes by the name of Tuster ^r. The east gate of the mountain of the house, which led to the temple at Jerusalem, was called Shushan. Some say ^s there was a building over this gate, on which the palace of Shushan was portrayed, from whence it had its name. The reason of this portrait is differently given; the Jewish commentators on the Misnah ^t commonly say that this was ordered by the kings of Persia, that the people of Israel might stand in awe of them, and not rebel against them. Their famous lexicographer ^u says, that this was done, that the Israelites, when they saw it, might remember their captivity in it. But a chronologer ^w of theirs gives this as the reason, that the children of the captivity made this figure, that they might remember the miracle of Purim, which was made in Shushan; and this, he says, is a good interpretation of it. This city was in the province of Elam; that is, Persia, as it is also called, Isa 21:6 for Josephus ^x says the Persians had their original from the Elamites, or Elameans; and Pliny ^y observes, that Elymais joined to Persia; and the country of Susiane, so called from Susa its chief city, was, according to Strabo ^z and Ptolemy (a1), a part of Persia: and here Daniel in vision thought himself to be; and a very suitable place for him to have this vision in, which so much concerned the affairs of Persia.

And I saw in a vision, and I was by the river Ulai; that is, in vision; it seemed to the prophet that he was upon the banks of the river Ulai; the same with the Eulaeus of Strabo (b1), Pliny (c1), Ptolemy (d1), and others, which ran by, and surrounded, the city of Shushan, or Susa; the water of which was so light, as Strabo (e1) observes, that it was had in great request, and the kings of Persia would drink of no other, and carried it with them wherever they went. Herodotus (f1) and Curtius (g1) make mention of the river Choaspes, as running by Susa, and say the same things of its water; from whence it might be concluded it was one and the same river, called by different names; though Strabo takes notice of them together, as if they were distinct; yet he, from Polycletus (h1), makes them, with Tigris, to disembogue into the same lake, and from thence into the sea. The river which runs by Shushan, now called Souster, according to Monsieur Thevenot (i1), is Caron, and comes from the hills about it, and is thought to be the Choaspes of the ancients; near to which, as he was told, is a hill that now goes by the name of Choasp; so that, upon the whole, they seem to be one and the same river (k1). Josephus says (l1), that Daniel had this vision in the plain of Susa, the metropolis of Persia, as he went out with his friends, that is, out of the city: and the Vulgate Latin version renders it, "by the gate Ulai"; a gate of the city of Shushan so called: and so Saadiah Gaon interprets it a gate; but the former sense is best.

Gill: Dan 8:3

Then I lifted up mine eyes,.... To see what was to be seen in this place, where he in the vision was brought; he lifted up the eyes of his understanding, being enlightened by the vision of prophecy, and the eyes of his body, to which objects of corporeal things formed in the fancy were represented:

and saw, and, behold; he saw something wonderful in a visionary way, and which struck his mind, and raised his attention:

there stood before the river; the river Ulai, near Shushan, the palace, the seat of the kings of Persia, to the east:

a ram, which had two horns; a symbol of the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, signified by the two horns, Dan 8:20, an emblem of power and dominion, and sometimes used to signify kings and kingdoms; see Dan 7:24 and these as united in one monarchy, under one monarch, Cyrus, and continued in his successors unto the times of Alexander; and therefore called "a ram", or "one ram" ^m, as in the original; and which in sound has some likeness to Elam or Persia: and this kingdom or monarchy may be signified by it, partly because of its strength and power, and partly because of its riches, as some think, as well as because it is a fighting creature; and it may be chiefly because this monarchy was mild, and kind, and gentle to the Jewish nation: and it is very remarkable, that, according to Ammianus Marcellinus ⁿ, the ram was the royal ensign of the Persians; whose kings used to wear for a diadem something made of gold, in the shape of a ram's head, set with little stones:

and the two horns were high; grew straight up on high, and so were different from the usual horns of a ram, which are crooked; denoting the great power, authority, wealth, and riches, these two kingdoms rose up unto:

but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last; I think the words might be rendered better, "and the first was higher than the second, but it ascended, or grew up, higher at last" ^o; the kingdom of the Medes was the first kingdom, and it was at first superior to the kingdom of Persia; but afterwards the kingdom of Persia became greater than that, under Cyrus and his successors: and Sir John Chardin says ^p, that rams' heads, with horns one higher than another, are still to be seen in the ruins of Persepolis.

Gill: Dan 8:4

I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward,.... That is, with his horns, as rams do; these kingdoms using all their power and strength, wealth and riches, in fighting with and subduing nations, and pushing on their conquests in all parts here mentioned; to the west, Babylon, Syria, Asia, and part of Greece; to the north, Iberia, Albania, Armenia, Scythia, Colchis, and the inhabitants of the Caspian sea; and to the south, Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and India; all which places were conquered by Cyrus and his successors. No mention is made of the east, because this ram stood in the east, facing the west; and at the right and left were the north and south; and so Cyrus is said to come from the east, Isa 46:11.

So that no beast might stand before him: no, not the first beast, the Babylonian monarchy, which; fell into the hands of Cyrus; nor any other king or kingdom he and his successors fought against:

neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; or power; Croesus, the rich king of Lydia, and other allies of the king of Babylon, assisted him against Cyrus, and endeavoured to prevent his falling into his hands, but all in vain:

but he did according to his will, and became great; none being able to oppose him, he carried his arms where he pleased, and imposed what tribute he thought fit, and obliged them to do whatever was his will; and so became great in power and dignity, in riches and wealth: this monarchy was very large and extensive, and very rich and wealthy, in the times of Cyrus and his successors; and especially in the times of Darius, the last monarch of it, conquered by Alexander, who is described as follows:

Gill: Dan 8:5

And as I was considering,.... The ram, and the strange things done by him; wondering that a creature of so little strength, comparatively with other beasts, should be able to do such exploits: and thinking with himself what should be the meaning of all this, and what would be the issue of it,

behold, an he goat came from the west; which is interpreted of the king or kingdom of Grecia, which lay to the west of Persia; and a kingdom may be said to do what one of its kings did; particularly Alexander, king of Macedon, in Greece, who, with the Grecian army under him, marched from thence to fight the king of Persia; and which might be signified by a "he goat", because of its strength, its comeliness in walking, and its being the guide and leader of the flock: and also it is remarkable, that the arms of Macedon, or the ensigns carried before their armies, were a goat, ever since the days of Caranus; who following a flock of goats, was directed to Edessa, a city of Macedon, and took it; and from this circumstance of the goats called it Aegeas, and the people Aegeades, which signifies "goats"; and put the goat in his arms ^q.

On the face of the whole earth; all that lay between Greece and Persia, all Asia; yea, all the whole world, at least as Alexander thought, who wept because there was not another world to conquer: hence Juvenal says ^r, "unus Pelloeo juveni non sufficit orbis"; one world was not enough for this young man.

And touched not the ground; as he went; he seemed rather to fly in the air than to walk upon the earth; with such swiftness did Alexander run over the world, and make his conquests: in six or eight years time he conquered the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, Babylon, Egypt, and all the neighbouring nations; and afar off, Greece, Thrace, Illyricum, and even the greatest part of the then known world: hence the third or Grecian monarchy under him is said to be like a leopard, with four wings of a fowl on its back ^s; see Gill on Dan 7:6 he conquered countries as soon almost as another could have travelled over them; in his marches he was swift and indefatigable. Aelianus ^t reports, that he marched, clad in armour, thrice four hundred, that is, twelve hundred furlongs, upon a stretch; and, before his army could take any rest, fought his enemies, and conquered them. Some render the words, "whom no man touched in the earth" ^u; that is, none could oppose, resist, and stop him; he bore down and carried all before him; there was no coming at him, so as to touch him, or hurt him; he was so swift in his motions, and so powerful in his army.

And the goat had a notable horn between his eyes; or, "a horn of vision": which in Dan 8:21 is interpreted of the first king of Greece, that is, when it became a monarchy; who was Alexander the great; and very properly called a "horn", being possessed of great power and authority; and a notable one, very remarkable and famous, as he has been in all ages since: "a horn of vision" ^w as it may be rendered; a very visible and conspicuous one, to be seen afar off, and which attracted the eyes of all unto it: its situation was "between the eyes of the goat", denoting his sagacity, wisdom, prudence, craft, and cunning; being attended and surrounded with his father Philip's wise counsellors as Parmenio, Philotas, Clitus, and others. It is remarkable that by the Arabs Alexander is called Dulcarnaim, or Dhilcarnain; that is, one having two horns ^x: the reason of which was, he affected to be the son of Jupiter Hammon, and therefore at feasts and public entertainments would put on the purple and horns of Hammon: hence, as Clemens of Alexandria observes ^y, he is by the statuaries represented as horned, or wearing horns; but then, as Arnobius ^z and others take notice, Hammon is made by the painters and statuaries to have ram's horns; whereas it seems more likely that Alexander's were goat's horns, since the goat was in the arms of Macedon; and so Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who mimicked Alexander in his armour, is said to have goat's horns on his helmet, upon the top of his crest ^a; and to such ensigns is the allusion here.

Gill: Dan 8:6

And he came to the ram that had two horns,.... Alexander being chosen and made by the states of Greece captain general of all Greece against the Persians, marched from thence with his army, passed the Hellespont, and entered into the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, signified by the ram with two horns, and came up to Darius Codomannus, possessed of this large monarchy, and at the head of a numerous army:

which I had seen standing before the river; the river Ulai, near to Shushan, the royal seat of the kings of Persia; here Darius stood in his royal majesty and dignity, as the defender of his empire, and unconcerned at the attempt of Alexander, having nothing to fear, as he thought, from such a puny adversary:

and ran unto him in the fury of his power; or, "heat of his power" ^b; which denotes the haste Alexander made with his army into Asia; his eager desire, and the fervour of his mind to engage with the Persians: the historian says, that he passed the Hellespont into Asia, "incredibli ardore mentis accensus"; fired with an incredible ardour of mind: and a little after, having conquered the rebels of Pisidia, he marched against Darius, "summo mentis ardore"; with the greatest ardour of mind, and with no less alacrity ^c; which exactly agrees with the sacred text. The running of the he goat to the ram in a hostile way is described in allusion to the manner of those creatures when they fight with one another, or attack an enemy.

Gill: Dan 8:7

And I saw him come close unto the ram,.... Though the distance between Greece and Persia was very great, and many rivers and mountains in the way, which seemed impassable; Alexander got over them all, and came up to Darius, and fought several battles with him, and entirely defeated him, though greatly inferior in number to him, as follows:

and he was moved with choler against him; exceedingly embittered against him; exasperated and provoked to the last degree, by the proud and scornful message he sent him; calling himself king of kings, and akin to the gods, and Alexander his servant; ordering his nobles to take Philip's madding stripling, as he called him in contempt, and whip him with children's rods, and clothe him in purple, and deliver him bound to him; then sink his ships with the mariners, and transport all his soldiers to the further part of the Red sea ^d:

and smote the ram; in three battles, in each of which the Persians were smitten and routed by the Grecians: first at the river Granicus, where Alexander with thirty thousand foot, and five thousand horse, met the Persians, though more than five times his number, being, as Justin ^e says, six hundred thousand, and got the victory over them; here twenty thousand of the Persian footmen, and two hundred and fifty of their horse, were slain, and not more than thirty nine of the Macedonians killed ^f: Plutarch ^g says, it was reported that the Persians lost twenty thousand footmen, and two thousand five hundred horse; and from Aristobulus he says, that the Macedonians lost only thirty four men, of which twelve were footmen: and Diodorus Siculus ^h relates that the Persians lost more than ten thousand footmen, and not less than two thousand horse, and more than twenty thousand were taken: according to Justin ⁱ, of Alexander's army there only fell nine footmen, and a hundred and twenty horsemen: others say, that, of the Macedonians, twenty five men of Alexander's own troop fell in the first attack, about sixty other of the horsemen were killed, and thirty of the footmen ^k; so different are the accounts of the slain in this battle; however, the victory appears to be very great, whereby Sardis, with all Darius's rich furniture, fell into the hands of Alexander, and all the provinces of the lesser Asia submitted to him. The next battle was fought at Issus its Cilicia, where Darius had an army, according to Plutarch ^l, consisting of six hundred thousand men; according to Justin ^m, four hundred thousand footmen, and a hundred thousand horsemen, which was routed by Alexander; when a hundred thousand of the Persian footmen, and ten thousand of their horsemen, were slain; and only, on Alexander's side, five hundred and four of the footmen wounded, thirty two wanting, and a hundred and fifty of the horsemen killed ⁿ: here also the accounts vary; Plutarch ^o says above a hundred and ten thousand of the Persians were slain: according to Diodorus Siculus ^p, there fell of them a hundred and twenty thousand footmen, and not less than ten thousand horsemen; and of the Macedonians three hundred footmen, and about a hundred and fifty horsemen: according to Arrian ^q, the Persians lost ten thousand horsemen, and ninety thousand footmen: according to Justin ^r, sixty one thousand footmen, and ten thousand horsemen, were slain, and forty thousand taken; and of the Macedonians there fell one hundred and thirty footmen, and one hundred and fifty horsemen; but, be it as it will, the victory was exceeding great, whereby the camp of Darius, his mother, wife, and children, and all his riches at Damascus, fell into the hands of Alexander, with all Syria. The third and last battle was fought near Arbela, or rather at Gaugamela in Assyria, when Alexander with fifty thousand men beat Darius with an army of eleven hundred thousand men; Plutarch ^s says ten hundred thousand; forty thousand of which were slain, and of the Macedonians only three hundred or less were wanting ^t; according to Arrian ^u thirty thousand were slain; but Diodorus Siculus ^w says ninety thousand: this was the decisive battle; after this Babylon and Persepolis were taken by Alexander, and he became master of the whole empire, which is intended in the next clause:

and brake his two horns; conquered the Medes and Persians, the two kingdoms united in one monarchy, but now destroyed; another monarchy, the Grecian, took its place:

and there was no power in the ram to stand before him there was no strength in tim whole empire sufficient to resist, oppose, and stop him; though vast armies were collected together, these were soon broken and routed, and Darius at the head of them was forced to fly and make his escape in the best manner he could;

but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: not Darius personally, for he was slain by Bessus, one of his own captains; but the Persian empire, it ceased to be, and was no longer in the hands of the Persians, but was taken from them by Alexander; and all the glory and majesty of it were defaced and despised; the famous city and palace of Persepolis were burnt in a drunken fit, at the instigation of Thais the harlot:

and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand; not his armies, nor his generals, nor his allies, nor his offers to Alexander of his daughter in marriage, and part of his kingdom; all were in vain, and to no purpose; he and his whole empire fell into the conqueror's hands, and there was no remedy against it. Josephus ^x says, that when Alexander was in his way to Jerusalem, Jaddus, the high priest, met and accompanied him into the city and temple, and showed him this prophecy of Daniel, that some one of the Grecians should abolish the empire of the Persians; and, thinking himself to be intended, was greatly pleased. Gorionides ^y says the high priest, whom he calls Ananias, said to Alexander, on showing him the prophecy, thou art this he goat, and Darius is the ram; and thou shall trample him to the ground, and take the kingdom out of his hand; and he greatly strengthened the heart of the king.

Gill: Dan 8:8

Therefore the he goat waxed very great,.... The Grecian monarchy, under Alexander, became very powerful, and was very extensive; he not only conquered the Persian empire, but also the Indies, yea, the whole world, as he imagined; and indeed he did bring into subjection to him the greatest part of the then known world; and he was very great in his own esteem, at least reckoned himself lord of the world, called himself the son of Jupiter Ammon, and affected to be worshipped as a god:

and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; when the Grecian monarchy was established, and became very powerful, and reached to the greatest part of the earth, then Alexander the first king of it, a great horn, and powerful monarch, died, or was broken; not as the two horns of the ram, by the power of the enemy; not by violence, but by intemperance, in a drunken fit, or, as was suspected, by poison; and that when he was in the height of his glory, swelled with his victories; and that in the prime of his days, when in his full strength, being in the "thirty third" year of his age:

and for it, or in the room and stead of it ^z,

came up four notable ones; or, "four horns of vision" ^a; very famous and conspicuous, like that in Dan 8:5, which were the four kingdoms into which the empire was divided some time after Alexander's death, and the four kings that were over them: the kingdoms were those of Egypt, Greece, Asia, and Syria. Ptolemy was king of Egypt, to which belonged Lybia, Palestine, Arabia, and Caelesyria. Cassander was king of Macedonia and Greece. Lysimachus was king of Asia, to which belonged Thrace, Bithynia, and other places; and Seleucus was king of Syria, and of the eastern countries: these are the four heads of the leopard, or third beast, which signifies the Grecian monarchy, Dan 7:6 and these were

toward the four winds of heaven; east, west, north, and south: Egypt, with its appendages, lay to the south; Asia, and what belonged to that, to the north; Macedonia and Greece to the west; and Syria to the east: and thus was the Grecian empire divided into four kingdoms, among the successors of Alexander: there were some partitions of it before this into provinces among governors, under the brother and son of Alexander; but after the battle of Ipsus, in which Antigonus, one of Alexander's captains, and a very principal, active, and ambitious man, was slain, and his army routed; the four confederate princes against him, above named, divided by consent the empire between them into separate kingdoms, and became really, and not in title only, kings of them ^b; which is what is here prophesied of.

Gill: Dan 8:9

And out of one of them came forth a little horn,.... Meaning not the kingdom of Titus Vespasian, as Jarchi; nor the kingdom of the Turks, as Saadiah; but the kingdom of Antiochia, as Aben Ezra and Jacchiades; or rather Antiochus Epiphanes, who sprung from the kingdom of the Seleucidae in Syria, or from Seleucus king of Syria, one of the four horns before mentioned: this is that sinful root said to come out from thence, in the Apocrypha:

"And there came out of them a wicked root Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.'' (1 Maccabees 1:10)

called "a horn", because he had some power and authority, and which he usurped and increased in; though but a "little" one in comparison of Alexander the great horn; or at his beginning, being an hostage at Rome; from whence he got away by stealth, and seized the kingdom of Syria, which belonged to his elder brother's son, whom he dispossessed of it; and by mean, artful, and deceitful methods, got it into his hands, who had no right unto it, nor any princely qualities for it:

which waxed exceeding great toward the south; towards Egypt, which lay south of Syria; into which Antiochus entered, and fought against Ptolemy Philometer, king of it, took many cities, and besieged Alexandria; and in all probability would have subdued the whole country, had not the Romans ^c restrained him, by sending their ambassador Popilius to him, who obliged him to desist and depart;

"17 Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy, 18 And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. 19 Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt and he took the spoils thereof. 20 And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude,'' (1 Maccabees 1)

and toward the east; towards Armenia and Persia, the Atropatii in Media, and the countries beyond the Euphrates, whom he made tributary to him; in the Apocrypha:

"Wherefore, being greatly perplexed in his mind, he determined to go into Persia, there to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money.'' (1 Maccabees 3:31)

"1 About that time king Antiochus travelling through the high countries heard say, that Elymais in the country of Persia was a city greatly renowned for riches, silver, and gold; 2 And that there was in it a very rich temple, wherein were coverings of gold, and breastplates, and shields, which Alexander, son of Philip, the Macedonian king, who reigned first among the Grecians, had left there.'' (1 Maccabees 6)

and toward the pleasant land; the land of Judea, so called because of its delightful situation, and great fruitfulness; and because God chose it above all others for his habitation; where his word, and worship, and ordinances, were observed and enjoyed; and where the Messiah should be born and dwell; into this Antiochus led his army, and greatly afflicted and distressed it; he made himself master of most places in Galilee and Judea. The Arabic version reads "toward the west"; no mention is made of the north, because there he himself reigned; Syria being north to Egypt, as that was south to Syria; hence afterwards the king of Egypt is called the king of the south, and the king of Syria the king of the north.

Gill: Dan 8:10

And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven,.... The people of the Jews, the army of the living God, the church militant, among whom were many of the citizens of heaven, whose names are written there; such was the insolence of this king, as to molest and disturb them:

and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped them; some of the common people he persecuted and destroyed, or prevailed upon them, either by threats or flatteries, to relinquish their religion; and even some of the "stars", the lights of the people, the priests and Levites, that ministered unto them; or the princes, and elders of the people, whom he slew, as Jacchiades interprets it; or removed from their posts so that they could not do their office; or they turned apostates; and those that did not he barbarously put to death, and insulted over them, and used them in a very contemptuous manner, as old Eleazar, the mother and her seven sons; see 2 Maccabees chapter 7.

Gill: Dan 8:11

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince host,.... Either the high priest Onias, whom he disposed of his office, and put Jason a wicked man into it; or Judas Maccabeus, the prince of the Jewish nation; or rather, as Jacchiades, God himself, the Lord God of Israel, the King, Prince, Governor, and defender of them, whom Antiochus blasphemed; whose worship he puts stop to; and whose temple he profaned, and ill used his people; all which was against God himself, and is a proof of the pride and insolence of this king:

and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away; the lambs in the morning and evening were forbid to be sacrificed; or they could not be offered, because the altar was pulled down, or profaned; and so all other sacrifices were made to cease, as well as this, which is put for all: or, "from him" ^d, the prince, "the daily sacrifice was taken away"; either from the priest, who used to offer it; or from God, to whom it was offered:

and the place of his sanctuary was cast down: not that the temple was destroyed by him, but it was profaned and rendered useless; the worship of God was not carried on in it, but the image of Jupiter was set up in it, and it was devoted to the service of an idol; yea, the altar was pulled down, and all the vessels and ornaments of the temple were taken away and destroyed; in the Apocrypha:

"And the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off.'' (1 Maccabees 1:22)

"Now Jerusalem lay void as a wilderness, there was none of her children that went in or out: the sanctuary also was trodden down, and aliens kept the strong hold; the heathen had their habitation in that place; and joy was taken from Jacob, and the pipe with the harp ceased.'' (1 Maccabees 3:45)

"And lo, the heathen are assembled together against us to destroy us: what things they imagine against us, thou knowest.'' (1 Maccabees 3:52)

Gill: Dan 8:12

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression,.... Which some interpret of a garrison of soldiers placed by Antiochus, through his sin and wickedness, to hinder the oblation of the daily sacrifice, as Grotius: others, of a host of apostates among the Jews, who advised Antiochus against the daily sacrifice, and to kill swine, and offer them on the altar, as Jacchiades; or rather it may be rendered, "and the host was given over", or "delivered", i.e. to the enemy, "because of the transgression against the daily sacrifice" ^e; that is, because of the transgression of the priests or the people, in neglecting the daily sacrifice, the host or people of the Jews were delivered up into the hands of Antiochus; or they were delivered up, together with the daily sacrifice, for their sins ^f. The word צבא is by Jarchi and Ben Melech interpreted a set time, a fixed time which shall have an end; and Calvin inclines to this sense, that though the daily sacrifice would be taken away, because of the transgression of the people, yet it was only for a certain time, and would be restored again when that time was up; and so is spoken for the comfort of the Lord's people:

and it cast down the truth to the ground: that is, the little horn Antiochus, or his host and army; he did all that in him lay to extirpate and abolish true religion and godliness; he cut in pieces the copies of the book of the law, and burnt them, called the law of truth in Mal 2:6, as Jacchiades observes, and put to death the professors of the truth; and showed all the contempt of true doctrine and worship he was capable of; see the Apocrypha:

"57 And whosoever was found with any the book of the testament, or if any committed to the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death. 58 Thus did they by their authority unto the Israelites every month, to as many as were found in the cities. 59 Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God. 60 At which time according to the commandment they put to death certain women, that had caused their children to be circumcised.'' (1 Maccabees 1)

and it practised, and prospered; he did what he pleased, and he succeeded in his attempts for a while, there being none to oppose him.

Gill: Dan 8:13

Then I heard one saint speaking,.... An angel, either a created angel, pure and holy in his nature, as Gabriel; or the uncreated Angel Jesus Christ, the Word of God; what he was speaking of is not said; perhaps Daniel did not hear what he said, though he heard him speaking, or perceived that he spake; yet did not understand what he said, or what was the subject of his discourse; very probably it was something relative to the vision now seen:

and another saint said unto that certain saint that spake; another angel said to him that spake, whose name is unknown, only called such an one, or Palmoni, which some render "the wonderful numberer"; or, "the numberer of secrets", or "that has all secrets numbered" ^g; and apply it to Christ, whose name is "Pele", wonderful; the eternal Word of God, that is in the bosom of the Father, and knows all secrets, and the number of times and seasons, how long they will last; what created angels know not, he does; and therefore they apply to him for instruction and knowledge in hidden things:

how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot? that is, how long will this vision last? or when will this prophecy be at an end, and have its full and final accomplishment? how long will the sacrifice be taken away, or made to cease? how long will that transgression, that abomination, making the temple desolate, the image of Jupiter Olympius set up by Antiochus, continue in it? how long shall it be given to him, or he be permitted to tread under foot, and use in the most contemptuous manner, the temple of the Lord, and his people?

Gill: Dan 8:14

And he said unto me,.... That is, "Palmoni", the wonderful person, to whom the angel put the above question, gave the answer to it; not unto the angel that asked it, but unto Daniel that stood by; knowing that it was for his and his people's sake the question was asked, and therefore gave the answer to him, as follows:

unto two thousand and three hundred days; or so many "mornings" and "evenings" ^h; which shows that not so many years, as Jacchiades, and others, are meant; but natural days, consisting of twenty four hours, and which make six years, three months, and eighteen days; and reckoning from the fifteenth day of the month Cisleu, in the year 145 of the Selucidae, in which Antiochus set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, in the Apocrypha:

"Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God.'' (1 Maccabees 1:59)

to the victory obtained over Nicanor by Judas, on the thirteenth day of the month Adar, Anno 151, are just 2300 days; which day the Jews kept as an annual feast, in commemoration of that victory; and from that time enjoyed peace and rest from war ⁱ: this way goes L'Empereur after Capellus; but others begin from the defection of the people from the pure religion by Menelaus, Anno 141; though Antiochus did not enter on his impieties till the following year; and, reckoning from the sixth day of the sixth month in that year, to the twenty fifth day of Cisleu in the year 148, when the Jews offered the daily sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offerings, in the Apocrypha:

"Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month, which is called the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and eighth year, they rose up betimes in the morning, 53 And offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of burnt offerings, which they had made. '' (1 Maccabees 4:52)

were just six years, three months, and eighteen days: and so it follows,

and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed; as it was by Judas Maccabeus at the time above mentioned; when he purified the holy places, sanctified the courts, rebuilt the altar, renewed the vessels of the sanctuary, and put all in their proper places; in the Apocrypha:

"41 Then Judas appointed certain men to fight against those that were in the fortress, until he had cleansed the sanctuary. 42 So he chose priests of blameless conversation, such as had pleasure in the law: 43 Who cleansed the sanctuary, and bare out the defiled stones into an unclean place. 44 And when as they consulted what to do with the altar of burnt offerings, which was profaned; 45 They thought it best to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the heathen had defiled it: wherefore they pulled it down, 46 And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them. 47 Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former; 48 And made up the sanctuary, and the things that were within the temple, and hallowed the courts. 49 They made also new holy vessels, and into the temple they brought the candlestick, and the altar of burnt offerings, and of incense, and the table. 50 And upon the altar they burned incense, and the lamps that were upon the candlestick they lighted, that they might give light in the temple. 51 Furthermore they set the loaves upon the table, and spread out the veils, and finished all the works which they had begun to make.'' (1 Maccabees 4)

Indeed, as Antiochus was a type of antichrist, and his persecution of that desolation made by antichrist in the church; these 2300 days may be considered as so many years, which will bring it down to the end of the sixth Millennium, or thereabout; when it may be hoped there will be a new face of things upon the sanctuary and church of God, and a cleansing of it from all corruption in doctrine, discipline, worship, and conversation.

Gill: Dan 8:15

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 Dan 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.

Gill: Dan 8:16

And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai,.... Near to which Daniel was, Dan 8:2 and it seemed to him as if the appearance of the man was in the midst of the river, between the banks of it, from whence the voice came; or between the arms of it, it bending and winding about; or rather between Shushan and the river; or between the prophet and that: this voice was the voice of the person that appeared as a man in the preceding verse:

which called, and said, Gabriel; the voice was loud, audible, and commanding; even to an angel, one of great note, Gabriel, the man of God, the mighty one; and shows, that the person that made this appearance, and spoke in this authoritative way, was the Lord, and head of angels, even of all principalities and power, at whose beck and command they are:

make this man to understand the vision; the above vision of the ram, he goat, and little horn; give him a full explanation of it; tell him what the several figures mean, represented in it; that he may have a clear understanding of all things contained in it; the saints and people of God are sometimes instructed by angels, and particularly the prophets of old were; and which was more common in the times of the former dispensation than now; for God has not put in subjection to angels the world to come, or the Gospel dispensation, Heb 2:5.

Gill: Dan 8:17

So he came near where I stood,.... The angel immediately obeyed the divine Person in human form, and came near the prophet, in order to instruct him, and carry on a familiar conversation with him:

and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face; not being able to bear the glory that attended him; and especially when he considered him as the messenger of a divine Person sent to instruct him, and being conscious of his own frailty and weakness:

but he said unto me, understand, O son of man: give attention in order to understand the vision, which the angel, by a divine command, was about to give him the full meaning of; and which he could not so well attend unto in his present circumstance and posture; and therefore suggests he should shake off his fear, and stand on his feet, and listen to what he was about to say: he calls him "son of man", a title only given to him and Ezekiel; and so may be considered as a mark of honour and respect, as being one greatly beloved and honoured by the Lord; or to express his tender regard to him, and accommodating himself to him, considering he was a frail mortal man; or to put him in mind that he should so consider himself, though now among angels, and favoured with revelations of secrets, that so he might not be exalted with them above measure:

for at the time of the end shall be the vision; or rather, "for a time is the end of the vision" ^l; there is a set, fixed, and determined time, when the vision shall end, and have its full accomplishment; namely, when the 2300 days are expired.

Gill: Dan 8:18

Now as he was speaking with me,.... Addressing him in the above manner:

I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground; through fear he fell prostrate to the ground, and swooned away, which issued in a deep sleep; and so was unfit to attend to the explanation of the vision the angel was sent to give him; and which was not through indifference to it, or neglect of it; but through human weakness, his nature not being able to bear up under such circumstances, which struck him with such fear and dread:

but he touched me, and set me upright; he jogged him out of his sleep, and took him, and raised him up, and set him on his feet; or, "on his standing" ^m; which Ben Melech explains, as he "was standing at first"; and so in a better posture to attend to what was about to be revealed unto him.

Gill: Dan 8:19

And he said, behold, I will make thee know,.... Or, "make known unto thee" ⁿ; what he knew not, even things future: particularly

what shall be in the last end of the indignation; the indignation of God against the people of Israel, in the sore affliction and persecution of them by Antiochus, which he suffered to be; here the angel suggests that that should not remain always, but should have an end; and he would inform the prophet what should be at the close; or rather, as Noldius ^o renders it, "what shall be unto the last end of the indignation"; all that should come to pass from the beginning of the Persian monarchy, signified by the "ram", quite through the Grecian monarchy, designed by the "he goat", unto the end of the persecution by Antiochus; for, certain it is, the angel informed the prophet of more things than what concerned the last part and, closing scene of these sorrowful times; even of all the above said things, which intervened between the setting up of the Persian monarchy, and the sufferings of the Jews in the times of Antiochus; and so Aben Ezra interprets it, here

"is declared the wrath of God upon Israel in the days of wicked Greece, and in the days of Antiochus, until the Hasmonaeans cleansed the temple:''

for at the time appointed the end shall be; the end of that indignation or affliction, and so of this vision or prophecy: there was a time appointed by God for the fulfilment of the whole; and when that time was come all would be accomplished; the indignation would cease, and the persecution be at an end.

Gill: Dan 8:20

The ram which thou sawest having two horns,.... Here begins the particular explanation of the above vision, and of the first thing which the prophet saw in it, a ram with two horns: which two horns, he says,

are the kings of Media and Persia; Darius the first king was a Mede, and Cyrus, that succeeded him, or rather reigned with him, was a Persian: or rather the ram with two horns signifies the two kingdoms of the Medes and Persians united in one monarchy, of which the ram was an emblem; See Gill on Dan 8:3 for Darius and Cyrus were dead many years before the time of Alexander; and therefore could not personally be the two horns of the ram broken by him; nor is it to be understood of the kings of two different families, as the one of. Cyrus, and the other of Darius Hystaspes, in whose successors the Persian monarchy continued till destroyed by Alexander, as Theodoret.

Gill: Dan 8:21

And the rough goat is the king of Grecia,.... Including all the kings of it, from Alexander to the end of the Grecian monarchy; or rather the kingdom of Greece, which began in him, and continued until it was destroyed by the Romans: this was signified by the rough or hairy goat, especially when Alexander was at the head of it, for his strength and prowess, his swiftness in his marches over rocks and mountains, his majesty and grandeur, and also his lust and uncleanness; See Gill on Dan 8:5,

and the great host that is between his eyes is the first king; this is Alexander, who, though he was not the first king of Macedon, his father Philip, and others, were kings before him; yet was the first king of the Grecian monarchy, which took place on the Persian monarchy being destroyed by him.

Gill: Dan 8:22

Now that being broken,.... That is, the great horn Alexander, the first king of the Grecian monarchy; whose death, either by drunkenness, or by poison, is here expressed by being "broken". The sense is, he being dead, or upon his death,

whereas four stood up for it; four horns rose up in the room and stead of the great one broken; see Dan 8:8 these signified that

four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation; which were the kingdoms of Egypt, Asia, Macedonia, and Syria, into which the Grecian monarchy was divided after the death of Alexander; and the first kings of them were all of the Grecian or Macedonian nation, and not Egyptians, Armenians, Syrians, &c.:

but not in his power; they did not rise and stand up in the power and strength, in the grandeur and magnificence, of Alexander; they were not equal, but greatly inferior to him, though they were notable horns, or famous kingdoms, as in Dan 8:8. Saadiah interprets it, not of his seed or offspring; these were not his sons that were the heads of these kingdoms; but his captains or generals.

Gill: Dan 8:23

And in the latter time of their kingdom,.... Toward the close of the kingdom of the four kings that divided Alexander's kingdom; for though they were four distinct kings, and had four separate kingdoms, yet these all belonged to one kingdom or monarchy, the Grecian empire; and when that was decreasing, and coming into the hands of the Romans, there rose up, stood, and flourished awhile, King Antiochus, afterwards described, who began to reign in the hundred and thirty seventh year of the Seleucidae,

"And there came out of them a wicked root Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.'' (1 Maccabees 1:10)

and 166 B.C., and the same year that he set up the abomination of desolation in the temple at Jerusalem, as Mr. Mede ^p has observed, Aemilius the Roman consul conquered Perseus king of Macedon, whereby all Greece came into the hands of the Romans; so that this king may be truly said to arise and stand in the latter part of the Grecian empire, when that was declining, and the Roman empire was taking place:

when the transgressors are come to the full; many among the Jews, who apostatized from their religion, turned Heathens, even some of the priests, when their number was completed, and they had filled up the measure of their iniquities; in the Apocrypha:

"In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us: for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow. &c.'' (1 Maccabees 1:11)

a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up; meaning Antiochus; as is generally agreed, both by Jewish and Christian interpreters, and to whom these characters agree: he was "hard of face" ^q, as it may be rendered; an impudent brasen faced man, who had no shame nor fear in him; regarded neither God nor man; committed the most atrocious crimes in the most public manner; and particularly was daring and impudent in his blasphemy against God and the true religion; and it may also signify that he was cruel, barbarous, and inhuman, especially to the Jews, as his persecution of them abundantly proves: and his "understanding dark sentences", or "riddles" ^r, which he could both propose and answer, shows him to be sagacious and cunning, well versed in wicked craft and policy; he had the art of inveigling and deceiving men; it was by deceit and cunning he got the kingdom from his nephew; and, by the wicked art of persuasion he was master of, he seduced many of the Jews to relinquish their religion, and embrace Heathenism; and so well skilled he was in wicked politics, that he could cover his own designs, and penetrate into the secrets of others; according to Jacchiades, he was skilful in the art of magic and astrology. This is the little horn that was to rise out of one of the four horns or kingdoms; as Antiochus did from that of Seleucus, and stood and reigned more than twelve years.

Gill: Dan 8:24

And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power,.... He should possess a large kingdom, and that should be increased by conquests:

but not in his power ^s, the power of Alexander; he should not arrive to that greatness he did, as in Dan 8:22 so Jacchiades: or, "in his own power" ^t; for it was not so much by his own courage and valour, by any heroic actions of Antiochus, he became so great, as by craft and deceit: through sedition he procured the death of his father and eider brother; and by fraud got the kingdom from his nephew; and through the perfidy of Menelaus and Jason, the high priests of the Jews, and other apostates, he obtained what dominion he had over the Jews; and it was by the assistance of Eumenes king of Pergamos, and his brother Attalus, that he kept the kingdom he had usurped, who stood by him, in order to check the growing power of the Romans; and more especially it was by a power given him from above, or by the permission and providence of God, who suffered him to be so great, and to prevail particularly over the Jews; because of their sins, as Aben Ezra and Saadiah observe, to chastise them for them: so his antitype, antichrist, became great and powerful, through craft and policy, and by the help of the ten kings that gave their kingdoms to him:

and he shall destroy wonderfully; or beyond all credit, countries, cities, towns, and their inhabitants; he slew fourscore thousand Jews in three days' time, bound forty thousand, and sold as many,

"And there were destroyed within the space of three whole days fourscore thousand, whereof forty thousand were slain in the conflict; and no fewer sold than slain.'' (2 Maccabees 5:14)

or, "he shall destroy wonderful things" ^u; the temple, and the wonderful things of worth and value in it, so Saadiah and Jacchiades; he took away the vessels of the temple, the golden lamps, the ark, and table of gold, &c.:

and shall prosper and practise; for a while do what he pleased, none being able to oppose and hinder him; see Dan 8:12.

and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people; by the "mighty" may be meant the Egyptians, Parthians, and other nations he made war with; and by the "holy people" the Jews, who were sanctified and separated from other people by the Lord, to be a peculiar people; among whom were his holy temple, his holy priests, his holy word, ordinances, and worship; multitudes of these he destroyed, as before observed. Jacchiades interprets this of the sons of Aaron, the holy priests of the Lord, whom he slew.

Gill: Dan 8:25

And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,.... His schemes were laid in such deep policy, and he managed so artfully and craftily in the execution of them, that he commonly succeeded; as in getting the kingdom of Syria from his nephew; and, under a pretence of peace and friendship, and to defend Philometer king of Egypt, a minor, and by large promises to the nobles of the land, made himself master of it; and by deceitful methods he prevailed in Judea; see Dan 11:21,

and he shall magnify himself in his heart; swell with pride, on account of success, through his policy, craft, and cunning, and think himself above all mortals, and equal to God himself; yea, as his antitype antichrist, exalt himself above all that is called God; fancy that he could command the seas, weigh the mountains in scales, and reach heaven itself, in the Apocrypha:

"And thus he that a little afore thought he might command the waves of the sea, (so proud was he beyond the condition of man) and weigh the high mountains in a balance, was now cast on the ground, and carried in an horselitter, shewing forth unto all the manifest power of God.'' (2 Maccabees 9:8)

and by peace shall destroy many; under a pretence of peace enter into countries and destroy the inhabitants of them, as in Egypt and Judea; or, by leagues and treaties of peace, outwitting those he made peace with; so some political princes do themselves more service, and their enemies more hurt, by treaties than by battles: or "in peace" ^w; when at peace with them, or while they are in peace and tranquillity; coming upon them unexpectedly at an unawares, when they did not so much as dream of war:

he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; not the high priest, as Grotius; nor Michael, as Aben Ezra; but God himself, as Saadiah and Jacchiades; who is King of kings, and Lord of lords, the only Pontentate, to whom all the princes above and below are subject; him Antiochus stood up against, when he profaned his temple at Jerusalem, forbid his worship, persecuted and destroyed his people, and set up the image of Jupiter in his house:

but he shall be broken without hand; alluding to his being a horn; it is expressive of his death, and the manner of it; that he should not die by the hand of an enemy in battle, nor be assassinated by the hand of a ruffian, but be cut off by the immediate hand of God. Jacchiades says, that by the providence of God he fell ill of a bad disease, and at the cry of one of his elephants his chariot was overturned, and he fell on the ground, and his bones were broken. Of his death, and the manner of it, in the Apocrypha:

"Now when the king heard these words, he was astonished and sore moved: whereupon he laid him down upon his bed, and fell sick for grief, because it had not befallen him as he looked for.'' (1 Maccabees 6:8)

"But the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, smote him with an incurable and invisible plague: or as soon as he had spoken these words, a pain of the bowels that was remediless came upon him, and sore torments of the inner parts;'' (2 Maccabees 9:5)

"So that the worms rose up out of the body of this wicked man, and whiles he lived in sorrow and pain, his flesh fell away, and the filthiness of his smell was noisome to all his army.'' (2 Maccabees 9:9)

which was much like that of Herod's, Act 12:23, being stricken with a violent disorder in his bowels: his body covered with worms; his flesh flaked off, and emitted such a stench, as was intolerable to his army. Aben Ezra says, he fell from the roof of a house, and was broken, and died.

Gill: Dan 8:26

And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true,.... That is, of the 2300 evenings and mornings, or natural days; unto which time the daily sacrifice was to cease, and the sanctuary and host trodden under foot; and then the sanctuary would be cleansed. This account is "true", and not only to be believed, but is clear and plain, and to be literally understood of so many days, of such a term of time exactly, having no obscurity in it:

wherefore shut thou up the vision; the whole vision of the ram and he goat, and the little horn: the meaning is, that he should keep it to himself, and conceal it from men; not from his own people, for whose sake it was given, but from the Chaldeans, whose destruction was near; and who would be succeeded by the Persians, who might be disgusted with this prophecy, should they see it, it foretelling the destruction of their empire: or this order was given to suggest to Daniel that the fulfilment of it would be deferred some time, during which it would not be so easy to be understood as when it was near accomplishing and accomplished; and then prophecy and facts might be compared together:

for it shall be for many days; it were three hundred years, or more, from the reign of Belshazzar to the death of Antiochus, in which this vision ends.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Dan 8:1

¹ sn Dan 8:1 marks the switch from Aramaic (= 2:4b-7:28) back to Hebrew as the language in which the book is written in its present form. The remainder of the book from this point on (8:1-12:13) is in Hebrew. The bilingual nature of the book has been variously explained, but it most likely has to do with the book’s transmission history.

² sn The third year of King Belshazzar’s reign would have been ca. 551 B.C. Daniel would have been approximately 69 years old at the time of this vision.

³ tn Heb “in the beginning.” This refers to the vision described in chapter seven.

NET Notes: Dan 8:2

¹ tn Heb “the.”

² sn Susa (Heb. שׁוּשַׁן, shushan), located some 230 miles (380 km) east of Babylon, was a winter residence for Persian kings during the Achaemenid period. The language of v. 2 seems to suggest that Daniel may not have been physically present at Susa, but only saw himself there in the vision. However, the Hebrew is difficult, and some have concluded that the first four words of v. 2 in the MT are a later addition (cf. Theodotion).

³ tn The Hebrew word בִּירָה (birah, “castle, palace”) usually refers to a fortified structure within a city, but here it is in apposition to the city name Susa and therefore has a broader reference to the entire city (against this view, however, see BDB 108 s.v. 2). Cf. NAB “the fortress of Susa”; TEV “the walled city of Susa.”

⁴ tn The term אוּבַל (’uval = “stream, river”) is a relatively rare word in biblical Hebrew, found only here and in vv. 3 and 6. The Ulai was apparently a sizable artificial canal in Susa (cf. NASB, NIV, NCV), and not a river in the ordinary sense of that word.

NET Notes: Dan 8:3

¹ tn Heb “lifted my eyes.”

² tn Heb “and behold.”

³ tn Heb “one.” The Hebrew numerical adjective occasionally functions like an English indefinite article. See GKC 401 §125.b.

⁴ tn Heb “high” (also “higher” later in this verse).

NET Notes: Dan 8:4

¹ tn Or “beast” (NAB).

² tn Heb “hand.” So also in v. 7.

³ tn In the Hiphil the Hebrew verb גָּדַל (gadal, “to make great; to magnify”) can have either a positive or a negative sense. For the former, used especially of God, see Ps 126:2, 3; Joel 2:21. In this chapter (8:4, 8, 11, 25) the word has a pejorative sense, describing the self-glorification of this king. The sense seems to be that of vainly assuming one’s own superiority through deliberate hubris.

NET Notes: Dan 8:5

¹ tn The words “all this” are added in the translation for stylistic reasons and for clarification.

² tn Heb “and behold, a he-goat of the goats.”

³ tn Or “of the whole earth” (NAB, ASV, NASB, NRSV).

⁴ tn Heb “a horn of vision” [or “conspicuousness”], i.e., “a conspicuous horn,” one easily seen.

NET Notes: Dan 8:6

¹ tn Heb “the wrath of its strength.”

NET Notes: Dan 8:7

¹ tn Heb “him.”

² tn Heb “the ram.”

³ tn Heb “stand before him.”

⁴ tn Heb “he hurled him.” The referents of both pronouns (the male goat and the ram) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁵ sn The goat of Daniel’s vision represents Greece; the large horn represents Alexander the Great. The ram stands for Media-Persia. Alexander’s rapid conquest of the Persians involved three battles of major significance which he won against overwhelming odds: Granicus (334 B.C.), Isus (333 B.C.), and Gaugemela (331 B.C.).

NET Notes: Dan 8:8

¹ tn The word “horns” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied.

² sn The four conspicuous horns refer to Alexander’s successors. After his death, Alexander’s empire was divided up among four of his generals: Cassander, who took Macedonia and Greece; Lysimachus, who took Thrace and parts of Asia Minor; Seleucus, who took Syria and territory to its east; and Ptolemy, who took control of Egypt.

³ tn Or “the heavens.” The Hebrew term שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) may be translated “heavens” or “sky” depending on the context.

NET Notes: Dan 8:9

¹ sn This small horn is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who controlled the Seleucid kingdom from ca. 175-164 B.C. Antiochus was extremely hostile toward the Jews and persecuted them mercilessly.

² sn The expression the beautiful land (Heb. הַצֶּבִי [hatsÿvi] = “the beauty”) is a cryptic reference to the land of Israel. Cf. 11:16, 41, where it is preceded by the word אֶרֶץ (’erets, “land”).

NET Notes: Dan 8:10

¹ tn Traditionally, “host.” The term refers to God’s heavenly angelic assembly, which he sometimes leads into battle as an army.

² sn In prescientific Israelite thinking the stars were associated with the angelic members of God’s heavenly assembly. See Judg 5:20; Job 38:7; Isa 40:26. In west Semitic mythology the stars were members of the high god’s divine assembly (see Isa 14:13).

NET Notes: Dan 8:11

¹ sn The prince of the army may refer to God (cf. “whose sanctuary” later in the verse) or to the angel Michael (cf. 12:1).

² tn Or perhaps “and by him,” referring to Antiochus rather than to God.

³ sn Here the sanctuary is a reference to the temple of God in Jerusalem.

NET Notes: Dan 8:12

¹ tc The present translation reads וּצְבָאָהּ נִתַּן (utsÿva’ah nittan) for the MT וְצָבָא תִּנָּתֵן (vÿtsava’ tinnaten). The context suggests a perfect rather than an imperfect verb.

² tn Heb “in (the course of) rebellion.” The meaning of the phrase is difficult to determine. It could mean “due to rebellion,” referring to the failures of the Jews, but this is not likely since it is not a point made elsewhere in the book. The phrase more probably refers to the rebellion against God and the atrocities against the Jews epitomized by Antiochus.

³ tc Two medieval Hebrew MSS and the LXX have a passive verb here: “truth was hurled to the ground” (cf. NIV, NCV, TEV).

⁴ sn Truth here probably refers to the Torah. According to 1 Macc 1:56, Antiochus initiated destruction of the sacred books of the Jews.

⁵ tn Heb “it acted and prospered.”

NET Notes: Dan 8:13

¹ sn The holy one referred to here is presumably an angel. Cf. 4:13[10], 23 [20].

NET Notes: Dan 8:14

¹ sn The language of evenings and mornings is reminiscent of the creation account in Genesis 1. Since “evening and morning” is the equivalent of a day, the reference here would be to 2,300 days. However, some interpreters understand the reference to be to the evening sacrifice and the morning sacrifice, in which case the reference would be to only 1,150 days. Either way, the event that marked the commencement of this period is unclear. The event that marked the conclusion of the period is the rededication of the temple in Jerusalem following the atrocious and sacrilegious acts that Antiochus implemented. This took place on December 25, 165 B.C. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah each year commemorates this victory.

² tn Heb “will be vindicated” or “will be justified.” This is the only occurrence of this verb in the Niphal in the OT. English versions interpret it as “cleansed” (KJV, ASV), “restored” (NASB, TEV, NLT), or “reconsecrated” (NIV).

NET Notes: Dan 8:16

¹ sn The only angels whose names are given in the OT are Gabriel (Dan 8:16; 9:21; cf. Luke 1:19, 26) and Michael (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; cf. Jude 9; Rev 12:7). The name Gabriel means in Hebrew “man of God,” and Michael means “who is like God?”

NET Notes: Dan 8:17

¹ tn Heb “on my face.”

² tn Or “human one.”

NET Notes: Dan 8:18

¹ tn Heb “on my standing.”

NET Notes: Dan 8:19

¹ tn The Hebrew text does not actually state the referent (the vision Daniel saw in vv. 8-12; cf. also v. 13), which has been specified in the translation for clarity. Some Greek witnesses add “the vision” here.

NET Notes: Dan 8:21

¹ tn Heb “the he-goat, the buck.” The expression is odd, and the second word may be an explanatory gloss.

² tn Heb “Javan.”

NET Notes: Dan 8:22

¹ tn Heb “the broken one.” The word “horn” has been supplied in the translation to clarify the referent.

NET Notes: Dan 8:23

¹ tc The present translation reads הַפְּשָׁעִים (happÿsha’im, “rebellious acts”) for the MT הַפֹּשְׁעִים (happoshÿ’im, “rebels”). While the MT is understandable (cf. NIV, “when rebels have become completely wicked”), the filling up of transgressions is a familiar OT expression (cf. Gen 15:16) and fits this context well. Cf. the LXX, Theodotion, the Vulgate, and the Syriac.

² tn Heb “strong of face.”

³ tn Heb “understanding riddles.” Possible meanings include “double-dealing” (BDB 295 s.v. חִידָה; cf. TEV, CEV) and “with a good knowledge of intrigue” (HALOT 309 s.v. חִידָה; cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT).

⁴ tn Heb “stand” or “stand up.”

NET Notes: Dan 8:24

¹ tn Heb “extraordinarily he will destroy.”

² tn Heb “he will succeed and act.”

³ tn See the corresponding Aramaic expression in 7:27. If the “holy ones” are angels, then this probably refers to the angels as protectors of God’s people. One could translate, “people belonging to (i.e., protected by) the holy ones.” If the “holy ones” are God’s people, then this is an appositional construction, “the people who are the holy ones.” One could translate simply “holy people.” For examples of a plural appositional genitive after “people,” see 11:15, 32. Because either interpretation is possible, the translation has deliberately preserved the ambiguity of the Hebrew grammar here.

NET Notes: Dan 8:25

¹ tn The Hebrew term has a primary meaning of “skill, insight,” but here it has the connotation “cunning, treachery.” See BDB 968 s.v. שֵׂכֶל, שֶׂכֶל.

² tn Heb “he will cause deceit to succeed by his hand.”

³ tn Heb “in his heart he will act arrogantly.”

⁴ tn Heb “in peace.” The Hebrew word used here is difficult. It may refer to the security felt by those who did not realize the danger of imminent attack, or it may refer to the condition of being unaware of the impending danger. The latter idea is reflected in the present translation. See further, BDB 1017 s.v. שַׁלְוָה.

⁵ tn Heb “with nothingness of hand.”

NET Notes: Dan 8:26

¹ tn Heb “truth.”

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:1

In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, [even unto] me Daniel, ^{( a )} after that which appeared unto me at the first.

^{( a )} After the general vision, he comes to certain particular visions with regard to the destruction of the monarchy of the Persians, and Macedonians: for the ruin of the Babylonians was at hand, and also he had sufficiently spoken of it.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:2

And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I [was] at Shushan [in] the palace, which [is] in the province ^{( b )} of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.

^{( b )} That is, of Persia.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:3

Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ^{( c )} ram which had [two] horns: and the [two] horns [were] high; but one [was] ^{( d )} higher than the other, and the higher came up last.

^{( c )} Which represented the kingdom of the Persians and Medes, which were united together.

^{( d )} Meaning Cyrus, who after grew greater in power than Darius his uncle and father-in-law.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:4

I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no ^{( e )} beasts might stand before him, neither [was there any] that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.

^{( e )} That is, no kings or nations.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:5

And as I was considering, behold, ^{( f )} an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat [had] a notable ^{( g )} horn between his eyes.

^{( f )} Meaning Alexander that came from Greece with great speed and warlike undertaking.

^{( g )} Even though he came in the name of all Greece, yet he bore the title and dignity of the general captain, so that the strength was attributed to him, which is meant by this horn.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:7

And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and ^{( h )} smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.

^{( h )} Alexander overcame Darius in two different battles, and so had the two kingdoms of the Medes and Persians.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:8

Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great ^{( i )} horn was broken; and for it came up four ^{( k )} notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

^{( i )} Alexander's great power was broken: for when he had overcome all the East, he thought to return towards Greece to subdue those that had rebelled, and so died along the way.

^{( k )} That is, who were famous: for almost in the space of fifteen years there were fifteen different successors before this monarchy was divided to these four, of which Cassander had Macedonia, Seleucus had Syria, Antigonus had Asia the less, and Ptolemeus had Egypt.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:9

And out of one of them came forth a ^{( l )} little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the ^{( m )} south, and toward the ^{( n )} east, and toward the ^{( o )} pleasant [land].

^{( l )} Which was Antiochus Epiphanes, who was of a servile and flattering nature, and also there were others between him and the kingdom: and therefore he is here called the little horn, because neither princely conditions, nor any other thing was in him, why he should obtain this kingdom.

^{( m )} That is, towards Egypt.

^{( n )} By which he means Ptolemais.

^{( o )} That is, Judea.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:10

And it waxed great, [even] to the ^{( p )} host of heaven; and it cast down [some] of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

^{( p )} Antiochus raged against the elect of God, and tread his precious stars underfoot, who are so called because they are separated from the world.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:11

Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the ^{( q )} prince of the host, and by him the ^{( r )} daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

^{( q )} That is, God, who governs and maintains his Church.

^{( r )} He laboured to abolish all religion, and therefore cast God's service out of his temple, which God had chosen as a little corner from all the rest of the world to have his name there truly called upon.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:12

And ^{( s )} an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it ^{( t )} cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

^{( s )} He shows that their sins are the cause of these horrible afflictions: and yet comforts them, in that he appoints this tyrant for a time, whom he would not allow to utterly abolish his religion.

^{( t )} This horn will abolish for a time the true doctrine, and so corrupt God's service.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:13

Then I heard one ^{( u )} saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [saint] which spake, How long [shall be] the vision [concerning] the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of ^{( x )} desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the ^{( y )} host to be trodden under foot?

^{( u )} Meaning that he heard one of the angels asking this question of Christ, whom he called a certain one, or a secret one, or a marvellous one.

^{( x )} That is, the Jews' sins, which were the cause of its destruction.

^{( y )} That is, which suppresses God's religion and his people.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:14

And ^{( z )} he said unto me, Unto ^{( a )} two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

^{( z )} Christ answered me for the comfort of the Church.

^{( a )} That is, until so many natural days have passed, which make six years, and three and a half months: for the temple was profaned this long under Antiochus.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:15

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.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:16

And I heard a man's voice between [the banks of] Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, ^{( c )} make this [man] to understand the vision.

^{( c )} This power to command the angel, declared that he was God.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:17

So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for ^{( d )} at the time of the end [shall be] the vision.

^{( d )} The effect of this vision will not yet appear, until a long time after.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:19

And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last ^{( e )} end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end [shall be].

^{( e )} Meaning that great rage which Antiochus would show against the Church.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:22

Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up ^{( f )} out of the nation, but not ^{( g )} in his power.

^{( f )} That is, out of Greece.

^{( g )} They will not have similar power as Alexander had.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:23

And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of ^{( h )} fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

^{( h )} Noting that this Antiochus was impudent and cruel, and also crafty so that he could not be deceived.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:24

And his power shall be mighty, but not ^{( i )} by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the ^{( k )} mighty and the holy people.

^{( i )} That is, not like Alexander's strength.

^{( k )} Both the Gentiles that dwelt around him, and also the Jews.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:25

And through his ^{( l )} policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by ^{( m )} peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the ^{( n )} Prince of princes; but he shall be broken ^{( o )} without hand.

^{( l )} Whatever he goes about by his craft, he will bring it to pass.

^{( m )} That is, under pretence of peace, or as it were in sport.

^{( n )} Meaning, against God.

^{( o )} For God would destroy him with a notable plague, and so comfort his Church.

Geneva Bible: Dan 8:26

And the vision of the ^{( p )} evening and the morning which was told [is] true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it [shall be] for many days.

^{( p )} Read (Dan 8:14).

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Dan 8:1-27

1 Daniel's vision of the ram and he goat.

13 The two thousand three hundred days of the suspension of the daily sacrifice.

15 Gabriel comforts Daniel, and interprets the vision.

MHCC: Dan 8:1-14

God gives Daniel a foresight of the destruction of other kingdoms, which in their day were as powerful as that of Babylon. Could we foresee the changes that shall be when we are gone, we should be less affected with changes in our own day. The ram with two horns was the second empire, that of Media and Persia. He saw this ram overcome by a he-goat. This was Alexander the Great. Alexander, when about thirty-three years of age, and in his full strength, died, and showed the vanity of worldly pomp and power, and that they cannot make a man happy. While men dispute, as in the case of Alexander, respecting the death of some prosperous warrior, it is plain that the great First Cause of all had no more of his plan for him to execute, and therefore cut him off. Instead of that one great horn, there came up four notable ones, Alexander's four chief captains. A little horn became a great persecutor of the church and people of God. It seems that the Mohammedan delusion is here pointed out. It prospered, and at one time nearly destroyed the holy religion God's right hand had planted. It is just with God to deprive those of the privileges of his house who despise and profane them; and to make those know the worth of ordinances by the want of them, who would not know it by the enjoyment of them. Daniel heard the time of this calamity limited and determined; but not the time when it should come. If we would know the mind of God, we must apply to Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; not hid from us, but hid for us. There is much difficulty as to the precise time here stated, but the end of it cannot be very distant. God will, for his own glory, see to the cleansing of the church in due time. Christ died to cleanse his church; and he will so cleanse it as to present it blameless to himself.

MHCC: Dan 8:15-27

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.

Matthew Henry: Dan 8:1-14

Here is, I. The date of this vision, Dan 8:1. It was in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, which proved to be his last year, as many reckon; so that this chapter also should be, in order of time, before the fifth. That Daniel might not be surprised at the destruction of Babylon, now at hand, God gives him a foresight of the destruction of other kingdoms hereafter, which in their day had been as potent as that of Babylon. Could we foresee the changes that shall be hereafter, when we are gone, we should the less admire, and be less affected with, the changes in our own day; for that which is done is that which shall be done, Ecc 1:9. Then it was that a vision appeared to me, even to me, Daniel. Here he solemnly attests the truth of it: it was to him, even to him, that the vision was shown; he was the eye-witness of it. And this vision puts him in mind of a former vision which appeared to him at the first, in the first year of this reign, which he makes mention of because this vision was an explication and confirmation of that, and points at many of the same events. That seems to have been a dream, a vision in his sleep; this seems to have been when he was awake.

II. The scene of this vision. The place where that was laid was in Shushan the palace, one of the royal seats of the kings of Persia, situated on the banks of the river Ulai, which surrounded the city; it was in the province of Elam, that part of Persia which lay next to Babylon. Daniel was not there in person, for he was now in Babylon, a captive, in some employment under Belshazzar, and might not go to such a distant country, especially being now an enemy's country. But he was there in vision; as Ezekiel, when a captive in Babylon, was often brought, in the spirit, to the land of Israel. Note, The soul may be a liberty when the body is in captivity; for, when we are bound, the Spirit of the Lord is not bound. The vision related to that country, and therefore there he was made to fancy himself to be as strongly as if he had really been there.

III. The vision itself and the process of it.

1. He saw a ram with two horns, Dan 8:3. This was the second monarchy, of which the kingdoms of Media and Persia were the two horns. The horns were very high; but that which came up last was the higher, and got the start of the former. So the last shall be first, and the first last. The kingdom of Persia, which rose last, in Cyrus, became more eminent than that of the Medes.

2. He saw this ram pushing all about him with his horns (Dan 8:4), westward (towards Babylon, Syria, Greece, and Asia the less), northward (towards the Lydians, Armenians, and Scythians), and southward (towards Arabia, Ethiopia, and Egypt), for all these nations did the Persian empire, one time or other, make attempts upon for the enlarging of their dominion. And at last he became so powerful that no beasts might stand before him. This ram, though of a species of animal often preyed upon, became formidable even to the beasts of prey themselves, so that there was no standing before him, no escaping him, none that could deliver out of his hand, but all must yield to him: the kings of Persia did according to their will, prospered in all their ways abroad, had an uncontrollable power at home, and became great. He thought himself great because he did what he would; but to do good is that which makes men truly great.

3. He saw this ram overcome by a he-goat. He was considering the ram (wondering that so weak an animal should come to be so prevalent) and thinking what would be the issue; and, behold, a he-goat came, Dan 8:5. This was Alexander the Great, the son of Philip king of Macedonia. He came from the west, from Greece, which lay west from Persia. He fetched a great compass with his army: he came upon the face of the whole earth; he did in effect conquer the world, and then sat down and wept because there was not another world to be conquered. Unus Pellaeo juveni non sufficit orbis - One world was too little for the youth of Pellae. This he-goat (a creature famed for comeliness in going, Pro 30:31) went on with incredible swiftness, so that he touched not the ground, so lightly did he move; he rather seemed to fly above the ground than to go upon the ground; or none touched him in the earth, that is, he met with little or no opposition. This he-goat, or buck, had a notable horn between his eyes, like a unicorn. He had strength, and knew his own strength; he saw himself a match for all his neighbours. Alexander pushed his conquests on so fast, and with so much fury, that none of the kingdoms he attacked had courage to make a stand, or give check to the progress of his victorious arms. In six years he made himself master of the greatest part of the then known world. Well might he be called a notable horn, for his name still lives in history as the name of one of the most celebrated commanders in war that ever the world knew. Alexander's victories and achievements are still the entertainment of the ingenious. This he-goat came to the ram that had two horns, Dan 8:6. Alexander with his victorious army attacked the kingdom of Persia, an army consisting of no more than 30,000 foot and 5000 horse. He ran unto him, to surprise him ere he could get intelligence of his motions, in the fury of his power. He came close to the ram. Alexander with his army came up with Darius Codomannus, then emperor of Persia, being moved with choler against him, Dan 8:7. It was with the greatest violence that Alexander pushed on his war against Darius, who, though he brought vast numbers into the field, yet, for want of skill, was an unequal match for him, so that Alexander was too hard for him whenever he engaged him, smote him, cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him, which three expressions, some think, refer to the three famous victories that Alexander obtained over Darius, at Granicus, at Issus, and at Arbela, by which he was at length totally routed, having, in the last battle, had 600,000 men killed, so that Alexander became absolute master of all the Persian empire, broke his two horns, the kingdoms of Media and Persia. The ram that had destroyed all before him (Dan 8:4) now is himself destroyed; Darius has no power to stand before Alexander, not has he any friends or allies to help to deliver him out of his hand. Note, Those kingdoms which, when they had power, abused it, and, because none could oppose them, withheld not themselves from the doing of any wrong, may expect to have their power at length taken from them, and to be served in their own kind, Isa 33:1.

4. He saw the he-goat made hereby very considerable; but the great horn, that had done all this execution, was broken, Dan 8:8. Alexander was about twenty years old when he began his wars. When he was about twenty-six he conquered Darius, and became master of the whole Persian empire; but when he was about thirty-two or thirty-three years of age, when he was strong, in his full strength, he was broken. He was not killed in war, in the bed of honour, but died of a drunken surfeit, or, as some suspect, by poison and left no child living behind him to enjoy that which he had endlessly laboured for, but left a lasting monument of the vanity of worldly pomp and power, and their insufficiency to make a man happy.

5. He saw this kingdom divided into four parts, and that instead of that one great horn there came up four notable ones, Alexander's four captains, to whom he bequeathed his conquests; and he had so much that, when it was divided among four, they had each of them enough for any one man. These four notable horns were towards the four winds of heaven, the same with the four heads of the leopard (Dan 7:6), the kingdoms of Syria and Egypt, Asia and Greece - Syria lying to the east, Greece to the west, Asia Minor to the north, and Egypt to the south. Note, Those that heap up riches know not who shall gather them, nor whose all those things shall be which they have provided.

6. He saw a little horn which became a great persecutor of the church and people of God; and this was the principal thing that was intended to be shown to him in this vision, as afterwards, Dan 11:30, etc. All agree that this was Antiochus Epiphanes (so he called himself) - the illustrious, but others called him Antiochus Epimanes - Antiochus the furious. He is called here (as before, Dan 7:8), a little horn, because he was in his original contemptible; there were others between him and the kingdom, and he was of a base servile disposition, had nothing in him of princely qualities, and had been for some time a hostage and prisoner at Rome, whence he made his escape, and, though, the youngest brother, and his elder living, got the kingdom. He waxed exceedingly great towards the south, for he seized upon Egypt, and towards the east, for he invaded Persia and Armenia. But that which is here especially taken notice of is the mischief that he did to the people of the Jews. They are not expressly named, or prophecies must not be too plain; but they are here so described that it would be easy for those who understood scripture-language to know who were meant; and the Jews, having notice of this before, might be awakened to prepare themselves and their children beforehand for these suffering trying times. (1.) He set himself against the pleasant land, the land of Israel, so called because it was the glory of all lands, for fruitfulness and all the delights of human life, but especially for the tokens of God's presence in it, and its being blessed with divine revelations and institutions; it was Mount Zion that was beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, Psa 48:2. The pleasantness of that land was that there the Messiah was to be born, who would be both the consolation and the glory of his people Israel. Note, We have reason to reckon that a pleasant place which is a holy place, in which God dwells, and where we may have opportunity of communing with him. Surely, It is good to be here. (2.) He fought against the host of heaven, that is, the people of God, the church, which is the kingdom of heaven, the church-militant here on earth. The saints, being born from above, and citizens of heaven, and doing the will of God, by his grace, in some measure, as the angels of heaven do it, may be well called a heavenly host. Or the priests and Levites, who were employed in the service of the tabernacle, and there warred a good warfare, were this host of heaven. These Antiochus set himself against; he waxed great to the host of heaven, in opposition to them and in defiance of them. (3.) He cast down some of the host (that is, of the stars, for they are called the host of heaven) to the ground, and stamped upon them. Some of those that were most eminent both in church and state, that were burning and shining lights in their generation, he either forced to comply with his idolatries or put them to death; he got them into his hands, and then trampled upon them and triumphed over them; as good old Eleazar, and the seven brethren, whom he put to death with cruel tortures, because they would not eat swine's flesh, 2 Macc. 6:7. He gloried in it that herein he insulted Heaven itself and exalted his throne above the stars of God, Isa 14:13. (4.) He magnified himself even to the prince of the host. He set himself against the high priest, Onias, whom he deprived of his dignity, or rather against God himself, who was Israel's King of old, who reigns for ever Zion's King, who himself heads his own host that fight his battles. Against him Antiochus magnified himself; as Pharaoh, when he said, Who is the Lord ? Note, Those who persecute the people of God persecute God himself. (5.) He took away the daily sacrifice. The morning and evening lamb, which God appointed to be offered every day upon his altar to his honour, Antiochus forbade and restrained the offering of. No doubt he took away all other sacrifices, but only the daily sacrifice is mentioned, because that was the greatest loss of all, for in that they kept up their constant communion with God, which they preferred before that which is only occasional. God's people reckon their daily sacrifices, their morning and evening exercises of devotion, the most needful of their daily business and the most delightful of their daily comforts, and would not for all the world part with them. (6.) He cast down the place of his sanctuary. He did not burn and demolish the temple, but he cast it down, when he profaned it, made it the temple of Jupiter Olympius, and set up his image in it. He also cast down the truth to the ground, trampled upon the book of the law, that word of truth, tore it, and burnt it, and did what he could to destroy it quite, that it might be lost and forgotten for ever. These were the projects of that wicked prince. In these he practised. And (would you think it?) in these he prospered. He carried the matter very far, seemed to have gained his point, and went near to extirpate that holy religion which God's right hand had planted. But lest he or any other should triumph, as if herein he had prevailed against God himself and been too hard for him, the matter is here explained and set in a true light. [1.] He could not have done this if God had not permitted him to do it, could have had no power against Israel unless it had been given him from above. God put this power into his hand, and gave him a host against the daily sacrifice. God's providence put that sword into his hand by which he was enabled thus to bear down all before him. Note, We ought to eye and own the hand of God in all the enterprises and all the successes of the church's enemies against the church. They are but the rod in God's hand. [2.] God would not have permitted it if his people had not provoked him to do so. It is by reason of transgression, the transgression of Israel, to correct them for that, that Antiochus is employed to give them all this trouble. Note, When the pleasant land and all its pleasant things are laid waste, it must be acknowledged that sin is the procuring cause of all the desolation. Who gave Jacob to the spoil? Did not the Lord, he against whom we have sinned? Isa 42:24. The great transgression of the Jews after the captivity (when they were cured of idolatry) was a contempt and profanation of the holy things, snuffing at the service of God, bringing the torn and the lame for sacrifice, as if the table of the Lord were a contemptible thing (so we find Mal 1:7, Mal 1:8, etc., and that the priests were guilty of this Mal 2:1, Mal 2:8), and therefore God sent Antiochus to take away the daily sacrifice and cast down the place of his sanctuary. Note, It is just with God to deprive those of the privileges of his house who despise and profane them, and to make those know the worth of ordinances by the want of them who would not know it by the enjoyment of them.

7. He heard the time of this calamity limited and determined, not the time when it should come (that is not here fixed, because God would have his people always prepared for it), but how long it should last, that, when they had no more any prophets to tell them how long (Psa 74:9, which psalm seems to have been calculated for this dark and doleful day), they might have this prophecy to give them a prospect of deliverance in due time. Now concerning this we have here,

(1.) The question asked concerning it, Dan 8:13. Observe [1.] By whom the question was put: I heard one saint speaking to this purport, and then another saint seconded him. "O that we knew how long this trouble will last!"The angels here are called saints, for they are holy ones (Dan 4:13), the holy myriads, Jud 1:14. The angels concern themselves in the affairs of the church, and enquire concerning them, if, as here, concerning its temporal salvations, much more do they desire to look into the great salvation, 1Pe 1:12. One saint spoke of the thing, and another enquired concerning it. Thus John, who lay in Christ's bosom, was beckoned to by Peter to ask Christ a question, Joh 13:23, Joh 13:24. [2.] To whom the question was put. He said unto Palmoni that spoke. Some make this certain saint to be a superior angel who understood more than the rest, to whom therefore they came with their enquiries. Others make it to be the eternal Word, the Son of God. He is the unknown One. Palmoni seems to be compounded of Peloni Almoni , which is used (Rth 4:1) for Ho, such a one, and (2Ki 6:8) for such a place. Christ was yet the nameless One. Wherefore asked thou after my name, seeing it is secret? Jdg 13:18. He is the numberer of secrets (as some translate it), for from him there is nothing hidden - the wonderful numberer, so others; his name is called Wonderful. Note, If we would know the mind of God, we must apply to Jesus Christ, who lay in the bosom of the Father, and in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, not hidden from us, but hidden for us. [3.] The question itself that was asked: " How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice? How long shall the prohibition of it continue? How long shall the pleasant land be made unpleasant by that severe interdict? How long shall the transgression of desolation (the image of Jupiter), that great transgression which makes all our sacred things desolate, how long shall that stand in the temple? How long shall the sanctuary and the host, the holy place and the holy persons that minister in it, be trodden under foot by the oppressor?"Note, Angels are concerned for the prosperity of the church on earth and desirous to see an end of its desolations. The angels asked, for the satisfaction of Daniel, not doubting but he was desirous to know, how long these calamities should last? The question takes it for granted that they should not last always. The rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous, though it may come upon their lot. Christ comforted himself in his sufferings with this, The things concerning me have an end (Luk 22:37), and so may the church in hers. But it is desirable to know how long they shall last, that we may provide accordingly.

(2.) The answer given to this question, Dan 8:14. Christ gives instruction to the holy angels, for they are our fellow-servants; but here the answer was given to Daniel, because for his sake the question was asked: He said unto me. God sometimes gives in great favours to his people, in answer to the enquiries and requests of their friends for them. Now, [1.] Christ assures him that the trouble shall end; it shall continue 2300 days and no longer, so many evenings and mornings (so the word is), so many nuchthēmerai , so many natural days, reckoned, as in the beginning of Genesis, by the evenings and mornings, because it was the evening and the morning sacrifice that they most lamented the loss of, and thought the time passed very slowly while they were deprived of them. Some make the morning and the evening, in this number, to stand for two, and then 2300 evenings and as many mornings will make but 1150 days; and about so many days it was that the daily sacrifice was interrupted: and this comes nearer to the computation (Dan 7:25) of a time, times, and the dividing of a time. But it is less forced to understand them of so many natural days; 2300 days make six years and three months, and about eighteen days; and just so long they reckon from the defection of the people, procured by Menelaus the high priest in the 142nd year of the kingdom of the Seleucidae, the sixth month of that year, and the 6th day of the month (so Josephus dates it), to the cleansing of the sanctuary, and the reestablishment of religion among them, which was in the 148th year, the 9th month, and the 25th day of the month, 1 Macc. 4:52. God reckons the time of his people's afflictions he is afflicted. Rev 2:10, Thou shalt have tribulation ten days. [2.] He assures him that they shall see better days afterwards: Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Note, The cleansing of the sanctuary is a happy token for good to any people; when they begin to be reformed they will soon be relieved. Though the righteous God may, for the correction of his people, suffer his sanctuary to be profaned for a while, yet the jealous God will, for his own glory, see to the cleansing of it in due time. Christ died to cleanse his church, and he will so cleanse it as at length to present it blameless to himself.

Matthew Henry: Dan 8:15-27

Here we have,

I. Daniel's earnest desire to have this vision explained to him (Dan 8:15): I sought the meaning. Note, Those that rightly know the things of God cannot but desire to know more and more of them, and to be led further into the mystery of them; and those that would find the meaning of what they have seen or heard from God must seek it, and seek it diligently. Seek and you shall find. Daniel considered the thing, compared it with the former discoveries, to try if he could understand it; but especially he sought by prayer (as he had done Dan 2:18), and he did not seek in vain.

II. Orders given to the angel Gabriel to inform him concerning this vision. One in the appearance of a man (who, some think, was Christ himself, for who besides could command angels?) orders Gabriel to make Daniel understand this vision. Sometimes God is pleased to make use of the ministration of angels, not only to protect his children, but to instruct them, to serve the kind intentions, not only of his providence, but of his grace.

III. The consternation that Daniel was in upon the approach of his instructor (Dan 8:17): When he came near I was afraid. Though Daniel was a man of great prudence and courage, and had been conversant with the visions of the Almighty, yet the approach of an extraordinary messenger from heaven put him into this fright. He fell upon his face, not to worship the angel, but because he could no longer bear the dazzling lustre of his glory. Nay, being prostrate upon the ground, he fell into a deep sleep, (Dan 8:18), which came not from any neglect of the vision, or indifference towards it, but was an effect of his faintness and the oppression of spirit he was under, through the abundance of revelations. The disciples in the garden slept for sorrow; and, as there, so here, the spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak. Daniel would have kept awake, and could not.

IV. The relief which the angel gave to Daniel, with great encouragement to him to expect a satisfactory discovery of the meaning of this vision. 1. He touched him, and set him upon his feet, Dan 8:18. Thus when John, in a similar case, was in similar consternation, Christ laid his right hand upon him, Rev 1:17. It was a gentle touch that the angel here gave to Daniel, to show that he came not to hurt him, not to plead against him with his great power, or with a hand heavy upon him, but to help him, to put strength into him (Job 23:6), which God can do with a touch. When we are slumbering and grovelling on this earth we are very unfit to hear from God, and to converse with him. But, if God design instruction for us, he will be his grace awaken us out of our slumber, raise us from things below, and set us upright. 2. He promised to inform him: " Understand, O son of man! Dan 8:17. Thou shalt understand, if thou wilt but apply thy mind to understand."He calls him son of man to intimate that he would consider his frame, and would deal tenderly with him, accommodating himself to his capacity as a man. Or thus he preaches humility to him; though he be admitted to converse with angels, he must not be puffed up with it, but must remember that he is a son of man. Or perhaps this title puts honour upon him: the Messiah was lately called the Son of man (Dan 7:13), and Daniel is akin to him, and is a figure of him as a prophet and one greatly beloved. He assures him that he shall be made to know what shall be in the last end of the indignation, Dan 8:19. Let it be laid up for a comfort to those who shall live to see these calamitous times that there shall be an end of them; the indignation shall cease (Isa 10:25); it shall be overpast, Isa 26:20. It may intermit and return again, but the last end shall be glorious; good will follow it, nay, and good will be brought out of it. He tells him (Dan 8:17), " At the time of the end shall be the vision; when the last end of the indignation comes, when the course of this providence is completed, then the vision shall be made plain and intelligible by the event, as the event shall be made plain and intelligible by the vision."Or, " At the time of the end of the Jewish church, in the latter days of it, shall this vision be accomplished, 300 or 400 years hence; understand it therefore, that thou mayest leave it on record for the generations to come."But is he ask more particularly, "When is the time of the end? And how long will it be before it arrive?"let this answer suffice (Dan 8:19): At the time appointed the end shall be; it is fixed in the divine counsel, which cannot be altered and which must not be pried into.

V. The exposition which he gave him of the vision.

1. Concerning the two monarchies of Persia and Greece, Dan 8:20-22. The ram signified the succession of the kings of Media and Persia; the rough goat signified the kings of Greece; the great horn was Alexander; the four horns that rose in his room were the four kingdoms into which his conquests were cantoned, of which before, Dan 8:8. They are said to stand up out of the nations, but not in his power; none of them ever made the figure that Alexander did. Josephus relates that when Alexander had taken Tyre, and subdued Palestine, and was upon his march to Jerusalem, Jaddas, who was them high priest (Nehemiah mentions one of his name, Neh 12:11), fearing his rage, had recourse to God by prayer and sacrifice for the common safety, and was by him warned in a dream that upon Alexander's approach he should throw open the gates of the city, and that he and the rest of the priests should go forth to meet him in their habits, and all the people in white. Alexander, seeing this company at a distance, went himself alone to the high priest, and, having prostrated himself before that God whose name was engraven in the golden plate of his mitre, he first saluted him; and, being asked by one of his own captains why he did so, he said that while he was yet in Macedon, musing on the conquest of Asia, there appeared to him a man like unto this, and thus attired, who invited him into Asia, and assured him of success in the conquest of it. The priests led him to the temple, where he offered sacrifice to the God of Israel as they directed him; and there they showed him this book of the prophet Daniel, that it was there foretold that a Grecian should come and destroy the Persians, which animated him very much in the expedition he was now meditating against Darius. Hereupon he took the Jews and their religion under his protection, promised to be kind to those of their religion in Babylon and Media, whither he was now marching, and in honour of him all the priests that had sons born that year called them Alexander. Joseph. lib. 11.

2. Concerning Antiochus, and his oppression of the Jews. This is said to be in the latter time of the kingdom of the Greeks, when the transgressors are come to the full (Dan 8:23); that is, when the degenerate Jews have filled up the measure of their iniquity, and are ripe for this destruction, so that God cannot in honour bear with them any longer then shall stand up this king, to be flagellum Dei - the rod in God's hand for the chastising of the Jews. Now observe here, (1.) His character: He shall be a king of fierce countenance, insolent and furious, neither fearing God nor regarding man, understanding dark sentences, or (rather) versed in dark practices, the hidden things of dishonesty; he was master of all the arts of dissimulation and deceit, and knew the depths of Satan as well as any man. He was wise to do evil. (2.) His success. He shall make dreadful havoc of the nations about him: His power shall be mighty, bear down all before it, but not by his own power (Dan 8:24), but partly by the assistance of his allies, Eumenes and Attalus, partly by the baseness and treachery of many of the Jews, even of the priests that came into his interests, and especially by the divine permission. it was not by his own power, but by a power given him from above, that he destroyed wonderfully, and thought he made himself a great man by being a great destroyer. He destroys wonderfully indeed, for he destroys, [1.] The mighty people, and they cannot resist him by their power. The princes of Egypt cannot stand before him with all their forces, but he practises against them and prospers. Note, The mighty ones of the earth commonly meet with those at length that are too hard for them, that are more mighty than they. Let not the strong man then glory in his strength, be it ever so great, unless he could be sure that there were none stronger than he. [2.] He destroys the holy people, or the people of the holy ones; and their sacred character does neither deter him from destroying them nor defend them from being destroyed. All things come alike to all, and there is one event to the mighty and to the holy in this world. [3.] The methods by which he will gain this success, not by true courage, wisdom, or justice, but by his policy and craft (Dan 8:25), by fraud and deceit, and serpentine subtlety: He shall cause craft to prosper; so cunningly shall he carry on his projects that he shall gain his point by the art of wheedling. By peace he shall destroy many, as others do by war; under the pretence of treaties, leagues, and alliances, with them, he shall encroach on their rights, and trick them into a subjection to him. Thus sometimes what a nation truly brave has gained in a righteous war a nation truly base has regained in a treacherous peace, and craft has been caused to prosper. [4.] The mischief that he shall do to religion: He shall magnify himself in his heart, and think himself fit to prescribe and give law to every body, so that he shall stand up against the Prince of princes, that is, against God himself. He will profane his temple and altar, prohibit his worship, and persecute his worshippers. See what a height of impudence some men's impiety brings them to; they openly bid defiance to God himself though he is the Kings of kings. [5.] The ruin that he shall be brought to at last: He shall be broken without hand, that is, without the hand of man. He shall not be slain in war, nor shall he be assassinated, as tyrants commonly were, but he shall fall into the hand of the living God and die by an immediate stroke of his vengeance. He, hearing that the Jews had cast the image of Jupiter Olympius out of the temple, where he had placed it, was so enraged at the Jews that he vowed he would make Jerusalem a common burial-place, and determined to march thither immediately; but no sooner had he spoken these proud words than he was struck with an incurable plague in his bowels; worms bred so fast in his body that whole flakes of flesh sometimes dropped from him; his torments were violent, and the stench of his disease such that none could endure to come near him. He continued in this misery very long. At first he persisted in his menaces against the Jews; but at length, despairing of his recovery, he called his friends together, and acknowledged all those miseries to have fallen upon him for the injuries he had done to the Jews and his profaning the temple at Jerusalem. Then he wrote courteous letters to the Jews, and vowed that if he recovered he would let them have the free exercise of their religion. But, finding his disease grow upon him, when he could no longer endure his own smell, he said, It is meet to submit to God, and for man who is mortal not to set himself in competition with God, and so died miserably in a strange land, on the mountains of Pacata near Babylon: so Ussher's Annals, A.M. 3840, about 160 years before the birth of Christ.

3. As to the time fixed for the continuance of the cessation of the daily sacrifice, it is not explained here, but only confirmed (Dan 8:26). That vision of the evening and morning is true, in the proper sense of the words, and needs no explication. How unlikely soever it might be that God should suffer his own sanctuary to be thus profaned, yet it is true, it is too true, so it shall be.

VI. Here is the conclusion of this vision, and here, 1. The charge given to Daniel to keep it private for the present: Shut thou up the vision; let it not be publicly know among the Chaldeans, lest the Persians, who were now shortly to possess the kingdom, should be incensed against the Jews by it, because the downfall of their kingdom was foretold by it, which would be unseasonable now that the edict for their release was expected from the king of Persia. Shut it up, for it shall be for many days. It was about 300 years from the time of this vision to the time of the accomplishment of it; therefore he must shut it up for the present, even from the people of the Jews, lest it should amaze and perplex them, but let it be kept safely for the generations to come, that should live about the time of the accomplishment of it, for to them it would be both most intelligible and most serviceable. Note, What we know of the things of God should be carefully laid up, that hereafter, when there is occasion, it may be faithfully laid out; and what we have not now any use for, yet we may have another time. Divine truths should be sealed up among our treasures, that we may find them again after many days. 2. The care he took to keep it private, having received such a charge, Dan 8:27. He fainted, and was sick, with the multitude of his thoughts within him occasioned by this vision, which oppressed and overwhelmed him the more because he was forbidden to publish what he had seen, so that his belly was as wine which has no vent, he was ready to burst like new bottles, Job 32:19. However, he kept it to himself, stifled and smothered the concern he was in; so that those he conversed with could not perceive it, but he did the king's business according to the duty of his place, whatever it was. Note, As long as we live in this world we must have something to do in it; and even those whom God has most dignified with his favours must not think themselves above their business; nor must the pleasure of communion with God take us off from the duties of our particular callings, but still we must in them abide with God. Those especially that are entrusted with public business must see to it that they conscientiously discharge their trust.

Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 8:1-7

The Vision

Dan 8:1, Dan 8:2 contain the historical introduction to this new revelation. This was given to Daniel in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, and thus two years after the vision of the four world-kingdoms (Dan 7:1), but not in a dream as that was, but while he was awake. The words, I, Daniel , are neither a pleonasm (Häv.) nor a sign that the writer wished specially to give himself out for Daniel (Ewald), but expressly denote that Daniel continues to speak of himself in the first person (Kliefoth). The article in הנראה ( that which appeared ) takes place of the relative אשׁר , and the expression is concise for נראה אשׁר החזון ( the vision which appeared ); cf. Ewald's Lehr . §335 a . בּתּחלּה ( at the first ), as in Dan 9:21, in the general signification earlier , and in Gen 13:3; Gen 41:21; Gen 43:18, Gen 43:20; Isa 1:26, synonymous with בּראשׁנה ( in the beginning ). Here the word points back to Daniel 7, and in Dan 9:21 it refers to Dan 8:16 of this chapter.

"In vision,"i.e., ἐν πνεύματι , not ἐν σώματι , Daniel was placed in the city of Susa, in the province of Elam (Elymaïs). By the words, "I saw in vision; and it came to pass when I saw,"which precede the specification of the scene of the vision, is indicated the fact that he was in Susa only in vision, and the misconception is sufficiently guarded against that Daniel was actually there in the body. This is acknowledge by v. Leng., Hitzig, Maurer, Häv., Hgstb., Kran., and Kliefoth, against Bertholdt and Rosenmüller, who understand this, in connection with Dan 8:27, as meaning that Daniel was personally present in Susa to execute the king's business, from which Bertholdt frames the charge against the pseudo-Daniel, that he was not conscious that Elam under Nabonned did not belong to Babylon, and that the royal palace at Susa had as yet no existence. But this accusation has no historical foundation. We have no accurate information whether under Belshazzar Elam was added to Babylon or the Chaldean empire. It is true that not Hengstenberg ( Beitr. i. p. 42f.) only has, with older theologians, concluded from the prophecies of Jer 49:34., compared with Jer 25:25 and Eze 32:24, that Nebuchadnezzar subjugated Susa, but Niebuhr also ( Gesch. Assurs , p. 211ff.) seeks from these and other passages of the O.T. to establish the view, that Nebuchadnezzar, after the death of Cyaxares (Uwakhshatra), to whom he owed allegiance, refused to do homage to his successor, and entered on a war against Media, which resulted in the annexation of Elam to his kingdom. But, on the contrary, Hävernick has well remarked, that the subjugation of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar can scarcely harmonize with the fact of the division of the Assyrian kingdom between the Babylonian king Nabopolassar and the Median king Cyaxares, whereby the former obtained the western and the latter the eastern half, and that from these passages of prophecy a subjugation of Elam by the Chaldeans cannot be concluded. Jeremiah announces neither in Jer 25:25 nor in Jer 49:34. a conquest of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar, but rather in Jer. 49 prophesies the complete destruction of Elam, or a divine judgment, in language which is much too strong and elevated for a mere making of it tributary and annexing it to a new state.

Besides, this passage in no respect requires that Susa and Elam should be regarded as provinces of the Chaldean kingdom, since the opinion that Daniel was in Susa engaged in some public business for the Chaldean king is founded only on a false interpretation of Dan 8:2, Dan 8:27. From the prophet's having been placed in an ecstasy in the city of Susa, there follows nothing further than that this city was already at the time of the existing Chaldean kingdom a central-point of Elamitish or Persian power. And the more definite description of the situation of this city in the words, "which was in the province of Elam,"points decidedly to the time of Daniel, in which Susa as yet belonged to the province of Elam, while this province was made a satrapy, Susis, Susiana, now Chusistan, by the kings of Persia, and Susa became the capital of this province; therefore the capital Susa is not reckoned as situated in Elam by writers, who after this time distinguish between Susis (Susiana) and Elymaïs (Elam), as Strabo, xvi. 1. 17f., Pliny, hist. nat. vi. 27: Susianen ab Elymaide disterminat amnis Eulaeus .

Still more groundless is the assertion, that the city of Susa was not in existence in the time of Daniel, or, as Duncker ( Gesch. der Alterth. ii. p. 913, 3 Auf.) affirms, that Darius first removed the residence or seat of the king to Susa with the intention that it should become the permanent residence for him and his successors, the central-point of his kingdom and of his government, and that Pliny and Aelian say decidedly that Darius built Susa, the king's city of Persia, and that the inscriptions confirm this saying. For, to begin with the latter statement, an inscription found in the ruins of a palace at Susa, according to the deciphering of Mordtmann ( in der D. morgl. Ztschr . xvi. pp. 123ff.), which Duncker cites as confirming his statement, contains only these words: "Thus speaks Artaxerxes the great king, the son of Darius the son of Achämenides Vistaçpa: This building my great-great-grandfather Darius erected; afterwards it was improved by Artaxerxes my grandfather."This inscription thus confirms only the fact of the building of a palace in Susa by Darius, but nothing further, from which it is impossible to conclude that Darius first founded the city, or built the first tower in it. Still less does such an idea lie in the words of Aelian, nat. animal . i. 59: "Darius was proud of the erection of a celebrated building which he had raised in Susa."And Pliny also, taken strictly, speaks only of the elevation of Susa to the rank of capital of the kingdom by Darius, which does not exclude the opinion that Susa was before this already a considerable town, and had a royal castle, in which Cyrus may have resided during several months of the year (according to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 6. 22, Anab. iii. 5. 15; cf. Brissonius, de regio Pers. princ. p. 88f.).

(Note: Pliny, hist. nat. vi. 27, says regarding Susiana , " In qua vetus regia Presarum Susa a Dario Hystaspis filio condita, "which may be understood as if he ascribed to Darius the founding of the city of Susa. But how little weight is to be given to this statement appears from the similar statement, hist. nat. vi. 14 (17): " Ecbatana caput Mediae Seleucus rex condidit, "which plainly contains an error, since Ecbatana, under the name of Achmeta , is mentioned (Ezr 6:2) in the time of Darius Hystaspes, in the tower of which the archives of the Persian kings were preserved.)

The founding of Susa, and of the old tower in Susa, reaches back into pre-historic times. According to Strabo, xv. 2. 3, Susa must have been built by Tithonos, the father of Memnon. With this the epithet Μεμνόνια Σοῦσα , which Herod. vii. 151, v. 54, 53, and Aelian, nat. anim . xiii. 18, gives to the town of Susa, stands in unison. For if this proves nothing more than that in Susa there was a tomb of Memnon (Häv.), yet would this sufficiently prove that the city or its citadel existed from ancient times - times so ancient that the mythic Memnon lived and was buried there.

The city had its name שׁוּשׁן , Lily , from the lilies which grew in great abundance in that region (Athen. Deipnos . xii. p. 409; Stephan. Byz., etc.), and had, according to Strabo, xv. 3. 2, a circuit of 120 (twelve English miles), and according to others, 200 stadia. Its palace was called Memnoneion , and was strongly fortified. Here was "the golden seat;"here also were "the apartments of Darius, which were adorned with gold,"as Aeschylos says ( Pers . 3. 4. 159, 160), "the widely-famed palace,"- the περιβόητα βασιλεῖα , as Diod. Sic. xvii. 65, expresses himself.

The ruins of Susa are not only a wilderness, inhabited by lions and hyaenas, on the eastern banks of the Shapur, between it and the Dizful, where three great mountains of ruins, from 80 to 100 feet high, raise themselves, showing the compass of the city, while eastward smaller heaps of ruins point out the remains of the city, which to this day bear the name Schusch ; cf. Herz.'s Realenc . xvi. p. 263f., and Duncker, Gesch. d. Alt . ii. p. 942ff.

The designation of Elam as מדינה , a province , does not refer to a Chaldean province. עילם , in Greek ̓Ελυμαΐ́ς , formed the western part of the Persian satrapy of Susis or Susiana, which lay at the foot of the highlands of Iran, at the beginning of the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates between Persia and Babylon, called by the Persians Uvaja , and by the Greeks Susis or Susiana after the capital, or Cissia after its inhabitants. It is bounded by the western border mountains of Persia and the Tigris, and on the south terminates in a arm, swampy and harbourless coast, which stretches from the mouth of the Tigris to that of the Aurvaiti (Oroatis). Strabo (xv. 732) says Susiana is inhabited by two races, the Cissaei and the Elymäi; Herodotus (iii. 91, v. 49, vii. 62), on the contrary, names only the Cissaei as the inhabitants of the country of the same name. The saying put into circulation by Josephus ( Antt. i. 6. 4, ̓́Ελαμος γὰρ ̓Ελαμαίους Περσῶν ὄντας ἀρχηγέτας κατέλιπεν ), that the Elamites are the primitive race of the Persians, has no historical foundation. The deep valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates was the country of the Semites. "The names of the towns and rivers of the country confirm the statements of Genesis, which names Elam among the sons of Shem, although the erecting of the Persian royal residence in Elam, and the long continuance of the Persian rule, could not but exercise, as it did, an influence on the manners and arts of the Semitish inhabitants"(Duncker, p. 942).

The further statement, that Daniel in vision was by the river Ulai , shows that Susa lay on the banks of the river. אוּלי is the Εὐλαῖος , Eulaeus , of the Greeks and Romans, of which Pliny says, "circuit arcem Susorum ," and which Arrian ( Exped. Alex . vii. 7) also mentions as a navigable river of Susis. On the contrary, Herodotus, i. 188, v. 49, 52, and Strabo, xv. 3, 4, place Susa on the river Choaspes . These contradictory statements are reconciled in the simplest manner by the supposition that Ulai, Eulaeus , was the Semitish, Choaspes the Aryan (Persian) name of the Kuran , which received the Shapur and Dizful. In favour of this, we have not only the circumstance that the name Choaspes is undoubtedly of Persian origin, while, on the other hand, אוּלי is a word of Semitic formation; but still more, that Herodotus knows nothing whatever of the Eulaeus , while Ptolemy (vi. 3. 2) does not mention the Choaspes , but, on the contrary, two sources of the Eulaeus , the one in Media, the other in Susiana; and that what Herod. i. 188, says of the Choaspes, that the kings of Persia drink its water only, and caused it to be carried far after them, is mentioned by Pliny of the Euläus, h. n. vi. 27, and in 31:3 of the Choaspes and Euläus.

(Note: There is little probability in the supposition that Choaspes is the modern Kerrah or Kerkha , the Euläus the modern Dizful , as Susa lay between these two rivers (Ker Porter, Winer, Ruetschi in Herz.'s Realen . xv. 246), and receives no sufficient support from the bas relief of Kojundshik discovered by Layard, which represents the siege of a town lying between two rivers, since the identification of this town with Susa is a mere conjecture.)

Daniel was in spirit conveyed to Susa, that here in the future royal citadel of the Persian kingdom he might witness the destruction of this world-power, as Ezekiel was removed to Jerusalem that he might there see the judgment of its destruction. The placing of the prophet also on the river of Ulai is significant, yet it is not to be explained, with Kranichfeld, from Dan 8:3, Dan 8:6, "where the kingdom in question stands in the same relation to the flowing river as the four kingdoms in Dan 7:2 do to the sea."For the geographically defined river Ulai has nothing in common with the sea as a symbol of the nations of the world (Dan 7:2). The Ulai is rather named as the place where afterwards the ram and the he-goat pushed against one another, and the shock followed, deciding the fate of the Persian kingdom.

As, the, the scene of the vision stands in intimate relation to its contents, so also the time at which the revelation was made to Daniel. With the third year of Belshazzar the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the Babylonian world-kingdom, was extinguished. In this year Belshazzar, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, died, and the sovereignty was transferred to a collateral branch, and finally to an intruder, under whom that world-kingdom, once so powerful, in a few years fell to pieces. Shortly before the death of Belshazzar the end of the Babylonian monarchy was thus to be seen, and the point of time, not very remote, which must end the Exile with the fall of Babylon. This point of time was altogether fitted to reveal to the prophet in a vision what would happen after the overthrow of Babylon, and after the termination of the Exile.

Dan 8:3-4

The vision . - Dan 8:3. Daniel first sees one ram, איל , standing by the river. The אחד ( one ) does not here stand for the indefinite article, but is a numeral, in contradistinction to the two horns which the one ram has. The two horns of the ram were high, but the one was higher than the other, the higher coming up later. האחת does not mean the first , but the one , and השּׁנית the other ; for the higher grew up last. This is not to be understood as if Daniel first saw the ram without horns, and then saw the horns grow up, and at length the one horn become higher than the other (v. Leng., Hitzig); but that from the first Daniel saw the ram with two horns, but afterwards saw the one horn grow higher than the other (Kliefoth). The angel (Dan 8:20) explains the ram with two horns of the king of Media and Persia. This does not mean that the two horns are to be understood (with Theodoret) of the two dynasties of Cyrus and of Darius Hystaspes; but since the ram represents the one kingdom of the Medes and Persians, so the two horns represent the people of the Medes and Persians, from the union of which the Medo-Persian kingdom grew up. Both nations were the horns, i.e., the power of the monarchy; therefore are they both high. The one horn, which afterwards grew up higher than the other, represents the Persians, who raised themselves above the Medians. A ram and goat, as emblems of kings, princes, chiefs, often occur; cf. Isa 14:9; Eze 34:17; Eze 39:18; Jer 50:8; Zec 10:3. In Bundehesch the guardian spirit of the Persian kingdom appears under the form of a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns, and, according to Amm. Marcell. xix. 1, the Persian king, when he stood at the head of his army, bore, instead of the diadem, the head of a ram (cf. Häv.). The point of resemblance of this symbol is to be sought, not in the richness (the wool) and in the aggressive nature (the horns) of the ram (Theod., Venema), but the ram and the he-goat form, as Hofmann has justly remarked, a contrast to dull firmness and nimble lightness, as the bear and the panther.

The ram stands by the river and pushes toward the west, north, and south, but not toward the east. The river is thus not the one flowing on the east of Susa, for, standing there, the ram pushing toward the west from Susa would push against the capital of his kingdom, but the one flowing on the west; and the ram is to be conceived of as standing on the western bank of this river, from whence he pushed down with his horns all beasts before him, i.e., subdued all nations and kingdoms to his power in three regions of the earth. In the west he pushed against Babylon, Syria, and Asia Minor; in the south, Egypt; in the north, the Armenian and Scythian nations. These he subdued and incorporated in the Persian kingdom. He did not push toward the east - not because he could only push forwards and against that which was nearer, but not, without changing his position, backwards (Hitzig); nor because the Medo-Persians themselves came from the east (v. Leng., Kran.); not yet because the conquests of the Persians did not stretch toward the east (Häv.), for Cyrus and Darius subdued nations to the east of Persia even as far as to the Indus; but because, for the unfolding of the Medo-Persian monarchy as a world-power, its conquests in the east were subordinate, and therefore are not mentioned. The pushing toward the three world-regions corresponds to the three ribs in the mouth of the bear, Dan 7:5, and intimates that the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, in spite of the irresistibility of its arms, did not, however, extend its power into all the regions of the world. חיּוח , to push , of beast, Exo 21:28, in the Piel figuratively is used of nations, Deu 33:17; Psa 44:6. יעמדוּ is potentialis : could not stand . The masculine is here used, because חיּות ( beasts ) represents kingdoms and nations . כרצנו עשׂה , did according to his will , expresses arbitrary conduct, a despotic behaviour. הגדּיל , became great . The word does not mean to become haughty, for בּלבבו , in his heart , is not added here as it is in Psa 44:25, but to magnify the action . It is equivalent to לעשׂות הגדּיל in Joe 2:20 ( hath done great things ), and Psa 126:2-3, in the sense of to become great, powerful ; cf. Dan 8:8.

Dan 8:5-7

After Daniel had for a while contemplated the conduct of the ram, he saw a he-goat come from the west over the earth, run with furious might against the two-horned ram, and throw it to the ground and tread upon it. The he-goat, according to the interpretation of the angel, Dan 8:21, represents the king of Javan (Greece and Macedonia) - not the person of the king (Gesen.), but the kingship of Javan; for, according to Dan 8:21, the great horn of the goat symbolizes the first king, and thus the goat itself cannot represent a separate king. The goat comes from the west; for Macedonia lay to the west of Susa or Persia. Its coming over the earth is more definitely denoted by the expression בּארץ נוגע ואין , and he was not touching the earth , i.e., as he hastened over it in his flight. This remark corresponds with the four wings of the leopard, Dan 7:6. The goat had between its eyes חזוּת קרן ; i.e., not a horn of vision , a horn such as a goat naturally has, but here only in vision (Hofm., Klief.). This interpretation would render חזוּת an altogether useless addition, since the goat itself, only seen in vision, is described as it appeared in the vision. For the right explanation of the expression reference must be made to Dan 8:8, where, instead of horn of vision , there is used the expression הגּדולה הקרן ( the great horn ). Accordingly חזוּת has the meaning of מראה , in the Keri מראה אישׁ , 2Sa 23:21, a man of countenance or sight (cf. Targ. Est 2:2): a horn of sight, consideration, of considerable greatness ; κέρας θεορητόν (lxx, Theodot.), which Theodoret explains by ἐπίσημον καὶ περίβλεπτον .

The horn was between the eyes, i.e., in the middle of the forehead, the centre of its whole strength, and represents, according to Dan 8:21, the first king, i.e., the founder of the Javanic world-kingdom, or the dynasty of this kingdom represented by him. The he-goat ran up against the ram, the possessor of the two horns, i.e., the two-horned ram by the river Ulai, in the fire of his anger, i.e., in the glowing anger which gave him his strength, and with the greatest fury threw him down. The prophet adds, "And I saw him come close unto the ram,"as giving prominence to the chief matter, and then further describes its complete destruction. It broke in pieces both of the horns, which the ram still had, i.e., the power of the Medes and Persians, the two component elements of the Persian world-kingdom. This representation proves itself to be genuine prophecy, whilst an author writing ex eventu would have spoken of the horn representing the power of the Medes as assailed and overthrown earlier by that other horn (see under Dan 7:8, Dan 7:20). The pushing and trampling down by the Ulai is explained from the idea of the prophecy, according to which the power of the ram is destroyed at the central seat of its might, without reference to the historical course of the victories by which Alexander the Great completed the subjugation of the Persian monarchy. In the concluding passage, Dan 8:7, the complete destruction is described in the words of the fourth verse, to express the idea of righteous retribution. As the Medo-Persian had crushed the other kingdoms, so now it also was itself destroyed.

Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 8:8

The transformation of the Javanic kingdom. - By the kingdom of the ram the he-goat became very great, powerful ( הגדּיל as in Dan 8:4). But the great horn was broken at the height of his strength, and four similar horns grew up in its stead, toward the four regions of heaven. חזוּת is here used adverbially, conspicuously : there came forth conspicuously four in its place. This statement does not contradict Dan 8:22 and Dan 11:4, according to which the four kingdom shave not the power of the one great horn; for the thought is only this: they represent in themselves a considerable power, without, however, gaining the power of the one undivided kingdom. The breaking of the great horn indicates the breaking up of the monarchy of Alexander by his death. The four horns which grow up in the place of the one great horn are, according to Dan 8:22, four kingdoms. These are the dynasties of the Diadochs, of whom there were indeed five: Antigonus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus laid claim to the title of king; but for the first time after the overthrow of Antigonus at the battle of Ipsus, 301 b.c., and thus twenty-two years after the death of Alexander (323 b.c.), they became in reality four kings, and so divided the kingdom among themselves, that Lysimachus had Thrace and Bithynia, - Cassander, Macedonia and Greece, - Seleucus, Syria, Babylonia, and the Eastern countries as far as India, - and Ptolemy, Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petrea. But from the fact that this first happened after all the descendants of the royal family had been extirpated, we are not to conclude, with Hävernick, that the breaking of the great horn did not denote the death of Alexander, but the extinction of his race or house; a conclusion which derives no valid support from these words of Justin: "All of them abstained from the use of the insignia of this (royal) dignity while the sons of their king survived. So great was their veneration, that although they had royal wealth and resources, they cared not for the name of kings so long as there existed a legitimate heir to Alexander"( Hist . xv. 2. 13). If the breaking of the horn is placed at the point of time when the horn was powerful, here as well as at Dan 11:4, the reference of the words to the sudden death of Alexander in the prime of his days, and when in the very height of his victorious career, cannot be disputed; and by the breaking of the horn we can only understand Alexander's death, and the breaking up of the kingdom founded by him, although it was still held together in a considerable degree for two decenniums by his generals, till the most imperious and the most powerful amongst them usurped the rank of kings, and then, after the conquest of Antigonus, a formal division of the kingdom into the four considerable kingdoms here named raised them to royal dignity.

The prophetic representation is not a prediction of historical details, but it gives only the fundamental traces of the development of the world-kingdoms, and that not in the form of a historiographical prophecy, but only so that it sketches the ground-thoughts of the divinely ordained unfolding of these world-kingdoms. This ideal fundamental thought of the prophecy has so wrought itself out in actual history, that from the one great kingdom, after the death of the founder, in the course of time four considerable kingdoms arise. The number four in the prophetic contemplation comes into view only according to its symbolical idea as the number of the world in its extension toward the four regions of heaven, so that thereby only the thought is declared, that a kingdom embracing the world will fall to ruins in a plurality of kingdoms toward all the regions of heaven (Kliefoth). This has been so historically realized, that out of the wars of the Diadochs for the supremacy four kingdoms arose toward the four regions of the earth into longer duration, - that of Cassander (Macedonia) toward the west, that of Seleucus (Babylonia, etc.) toward the east, that of Lysimachus (Thracia and Bithynia) toward the north, and finally that of Ptolemy (Egypt) toward the south.

(Note: When, on the other hand, Hitzig seeks to explain the prophetic representation, here as well as at Dan 11:4, that with or immediately after the death of Alexander his kingdom was divided, by reference to 1 Macc. 1:6, according to which Alexander himself, shortly before his death, divided the kingdom among his generals, he thereby not only misapprehends the ideal character of the prophecy, but does not in the least degree clear up the matter itself. For the passage in 1 Macc. 1:6, which not only Arabic and Persian authors repeat, but also Moses v. Chroene, and even later Greek and Latin historiographers, as Ammian Marcell., has been explained by Curtius (x. 10. 5) as a fama vana , and is proved by Wernsdorf ( de Fide Librr. Macc . p. 40 f) and Droysen ( das Test. Alex. 3te Beilage, zu Gesch. des Hellen . i.) to be without foundation (cf. Grimm, K. ex. Hdb. zu 1 Macc . 1:6). This may have been originally put into circulation by the partisans of the Hellenic kings, in order to legitimatize their sovereignty in the eyes of the people, as Grimm conjectures; yet the confirmation which the book of Daniel appears to give to it contributed to its wide diffusion by Oriental and Byzantine authors, and the author of the first book of the Maccabees had without doubt the book of Daniel before his eyes in the representation he gives.)

Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 8:9-12

The interpretation of the vision.

Dan 8:9

Without following the development of the four horns further, the prophecy passes over to the little horn, which grew up out of one of the four horns, and gained great significance in relation to the history of the people of God. The masculine forms מהם and יצא ( out of them came ) are to be explained as a constructio ad sensum . אחת ( one ) after קרן ( horn ) is as little superfluous as is the מן in מצּעירה . אחת is a numeral, one horn, not several; מן is either comparative, less than little, i.e., very little (Ewald), or, as less than insignificance, wretchedness, i.e., in an altogether miserable way (Häv.). The one explanation is more forced than the other, and the idea of wretchedness is altogether untenable. Yet the מן serves as a circumlocution for the superlative = perpaucus (Gesen., Win., Aub.), while verbal analogies for it are wanting. מן signifies from, out of ; but it is not to be united with קרן : one horn of smallness (v. Leng.), in which case מן would be superfluous, but with the verb יצא : it came up out of littleness, a parvo , i.e., a parvis initiis (Maur., Hofm., Kran., Klief.). Thus it corresponds with סלקת זעירה , Dan 7:8. In the words "it arose out of littleness"there lies the idea that it grew to great power from a small beginning; for it became very great, i.e., powerful, toward the south, toward the east, and toward the הצּבי ( the splendour, glory ), i.e., toward the glorious land. הצּבי = הצּבי ארץ , Dan 11:16, Dan 11:41. This designation of the land of Israel is framed after Jer 3:19 and Eze 20:6, Eze 20:15, where this land is called "a heritage of the greatest glory of nations"(a goodly heritage of the host of nations, E. V.), "a glory of all lands,"i.e., the most glorious land which a people can possess. The expression is synonymous with חמדּה ארץ ("pleasant land"), Jer 3:19; Zec 7:14; Psa 106:24. Canaan was so designate don account of its great fruitfulness as a land flowing with milk and honey; cf. Eze 20:6.

The one of the four horns from which the little horn grew up is the Syrian monarchy, and the horn growing up out of it is the king Antiochus Epiphanes, as Josephus ( Ant . x. 11. 7) and all interpreters acknowledge, on the ground of 1 Macc. 1:10. The south, against which he became great, is Egypt (cf. Dan 11:5 and 1 Macc. 1:16ff.). The east is not Asia (Kranichfeld), but Babylon, and particularly Elymaïs and Armenia, 1 Macc. 1:31, 37; 3:31, 37; 6:1-4, according to which he subdued Elymaïs and overcame Artaxias, king of Armenia (App. Syr. c. 45, 46; Polyb. xxxi. 11). Besides the south and the east, Canaan, the holy land, as lying between, is named as the third land, as in Isa 19:23. it is named as third, between Egypt and Assyria; but הצּבי ואל ("and toward the glorious land") is not, with Kranichfeld, to be regarded as an exegetical addition to המּזרח ואՀœ ("and toward the east"). Palestine lay neither to the east of Daniel, nor geographically to the east of the kingdom denoted by the little horn, because the text gives no support to the identifying of this kingdom with the Javanic, the horn operating from the west.

Dan 8:10

As this horn became great in extent toward the south and toward the east, so also it grew up in height even unto the host of heaven, and some of them it cast down, i.e., some of the stars, to the earth. The host of heaven is here, as in Jer 33:22, the whole body of the stars of heaven, the constellations, and of the stars is epexegetical of of the host . Daniel in the vision sees the horn grow so great in height, that it reaches even to the heavens, can reach the heavenly bodies with the hand, and throws some of the stars ( מן is partitive) down to the earth and tramples upon them, destroys them with scorn. The words of the angel, Jer 33:24, show that by the stars we are to understand the people of the saints, the people of God. The stars cast down to the earth are, according to this, neither the Levites (Grotius), nor the viri illustres in Israel (Glass.), nor the chief rulers of the Jews in church and state (Dathe). If the people of the saints generally are compared to the host of heaven, the stars, then the separate stars cannot be the ecclesiastical or civil chiefs, but the members of this nation in common. But by "the people of the saints"is to be understood (since the little horn denotes Antiochus Epiphanes) the people of God in the Old Covenant, the people of Israel. They are named the people of the saints by virtue of their being called to be an holy nation (Exo 19:6), because "they had the revelation of God and God Himself dwelling among them, altogether irrespective of the subjective degrees of sanctification in individuals"(Kliefoth). But the comparing of them with the host of the stars does not arise from Jewish national pride, nor does it mean that Daniel thought only of the truly faithful in Israel (Theod., Häv.), or that the pseudo-Daniel thought that with the death of Antiochus the Messiah would appear, and that then Israel, after the extermination of the godless, would become a people of pure holiness. The comparison rather has its roots in this, that God, the King of Israel, is called the God of hosts, and by the צבאות ( hosts ) are generally to be understood the stars or the angels; but the tribes of Israel also, who were led by God out of Egypt, are called "the hosts of Jehovah"(Exo 7:4; Exo 12:41). As in heaven the angels and stars, so on earth the sons of Israel form the host of God; and as the angels on account of the glory of their nature are called קדושׁים ( holy ones ), so the Israelites by virtue of their being chosen to be the holy nation of God, forming the kingdom of heaven in this world. As God, the King of this people, has His throne in heaven, so there also Israel have their true home, and are in the eyes of God regarded as like unto the stars. This comparison serves, then, to characterize the insolence of Antiochus as a wickedness against Heaven and the heavenly order of things. Cf. 2 Macc. 9:10.

(Note: The deep practical explanation of Calvin deserves attention: - "Although the church often lies prostrate in the world and is trodden under foot, yet is it always precious before God. Hence the prophet adorns the church with this remarkable praise, not to obtain for it great dignity in the sight of men, but because God has separated it from the world and provided for it a sure inheritance in heaven. Although the sons of God are pilgrims on the earth, and have scarcely any place in it, because they are as castaways, yet they are nevertheless citizens of heaven. Hence we derive this useful lesson, that we should bear it patiently when we are thrown prostrate on the ground, and are despised by tyrants and contemners of God. In the meantime our seat is laid up in heaven, and God numbers us among the stars, although, as Paul says, we are as dung and as the offscourings of all things."- Calv. in loc .)

Dan 8:11

This horn raised its might even to the Prince of the host. הצבא שׂר , the Prince of the host of heaven , is obviously not the high priest Onias (Grotius), but the God of heaven and the King of Israel, the Prince of princes, as He is called in Dan 8:25. עד הגדּיל ( he magnified himself to ) is repeated in Dan 8:25 by על יעמוד ( he shall stand up against ). Wherein this rising up against God consisted, the second half of the verse indicates in the statement that the תּמיד ( daily sacrifice) was taken away, and the building of His sanctuary was destroyed. This verse does not record a part of the vision, but is a further development of that which was seen in prophetic words. Hence we may not, with Ebrard, refer its contents to heavenly events, to a putting away of the sacrifice from before the throne of God and a destruction of the heavenly sanctuary. On the contrary, Kliefoth has well remarked that it is "without example in Scripture that men penetrate into heaven to insult God; what men do against God is done on the earth." התּמיד is everything in the worship of God which is not used merely temporarily, but is permanent, as the daily sacrifice, the setting forth of the shew-bread, and the like. The limitation of it to the daily morning and evening service in the writings of the Rabbis is unknown in the O.T. The word much rather comprehends all that is of permanent use in the holy services of divine worship (Hgst., Häv., Hofm., Kran., Klief.). Thus interpreted, the prophetic announcement corresponds with history; for, according to 1 Macc. 1:45, Antiochus gave orders that they should "forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifice, and drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbath and festival days."

The horn also overthrew the place of the sanctuary of Jehovah. השׁליך , to cast away, to cast forth , - used of buildings, to lay waste ; cf. Jer 9:18. מכון , properly, that which is set up , erected; here, as frequently, of the dwelling-place of God, the temple : so also שׁבתּך מכון ( a settled place for thee to dwell in ), Exo 15:17; 1Ki 8:13. It is used also of the heavenly dwelling-place of God, 1Ki 8:39, 1Ki 8:43; here, of the temple of Jerusalem. With regard to the historical fulfilment, cf. The expressions, "her (Jerusalem's) sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness,"and "pollute the sanctuary,"1 Macc. 1:39, 46; and "the sanctuary was trodden down,"1 Macc. 3:45.

Dan 8:12

The actions of the little horn are definitively comprehended in this verse, as may be seen from this, that in the first hemistich צבא and תּמיד are mentioned together. But this hemistich has been very variously interpreted. We must altogether reject the interpretation of the Vulgate, " Robur autem datum est contra juge sacrificium propter peccata," which is reproduced in Luther's translation, " There was given to him such strength against the daily sacrifice on account of sin;"or Calvin's, " Et tempus datum est super jugi sacrificio in scelere," whereby, after Raschi's example, צבא is interpreted of the statio militaris , and thence the interpretation tempus or intervallum is derived. For צבא means neither robur , nor tempus , nor statio militaris , but only military service , and perhaps military forces . Add to this that צבא both in Dan 8:10, Dan 8:13 means host . If we maintain this, with the majority of interpreters, only two explanations are admissible, according as we understand צבא of the host of heaven, i.e., of Israel, or of some other host. The latter interpretation is apparently supported partly by the absence of the article in צבא , and partly by the construction of the word as fem. ( תּנּתן ). Accordingly, Hitzig says that a Hebrew reader could not understand the words otherwise than as meaning, " and a warlike expedition was made or conducted against the daily sacrifice with wickedness"(i.e., the impure service of idols); while others translate, "and a host placed against he daily sacrifice on account of sin"(Syr., Grot., Harenb., J. D. Michaelis); or, "a host is given against the daily sacrifice in wickedness"(Wieseler); or, "given against that which was continual with the service of idols,"i.e., so that, in the place of the "continual,"wickedness, the worship of idols, is appointed (Hofmann); or, "the power of an army is given to it (the horn) against the daily sacrifice through wickedness,"i.e., by the evil higher demons (Ebrard). But the latter interpretation is to be rejected on account of the arbitrary insertion of לו ( to it ); and against all the others it is to be remarked, that there is no proof either from Dan 8:13, or from Eze 32:23 or Eze 26:8, that נתן means to lead out, to bring forward, to give contrary to or against.

Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 8:13-14

In Dan 8:13 תּת ( to give ) is more closely defined by מרמס ( something trodden under foot ); but in these passages in Ezekiel above referred to, it [the verb נתן ] is connected with an actual object. Construed with the accus. pers. and על , נתן means "to place one over anything."This conception in its different shades is not so much derived from the words of the text as from a reference to the history; for it is supposed (cf. Grotius, Wies.) that because the matter spoken of is the wickedness of Antiochus, the entrance of the Syrian army into Jerusalem and its proceedings (1 Macc. 1:29ff.) must be set forth. צבא , notwithstanding the want of the article, and notwithstanding the feminine construction, cannot properly be otherwise understood in Dan 8:12 than in Dan 8:10, Dan 8:13, not of the host of the Syrians, but only of the people of Israel. The article is wanting also in Dan 8:13, where yet, because of its being taken in connection with קדשׁ , it can only refer to Israel. Besides this passage, the fem. construction is found also only in Isa 40:2, where it signifies the service of war or vassalage. But this meaning here, where weighty reasons oppose it, this construction does not require us to adopt, for such a construction is not infrequent. It is found not merely with names of nations and races, so far as land and people are nearly related ideas, but also with other words, such as even עם , people, fem. , Exo 5:16; 1Ki 18:7; Jer 8:5; המון , a multitude , Job 31:34; זרע , seed , i.e., descendants , Deu 31:21; cf. Ewald's Lehr . §174. But the want of the article in צבא in Dan 8:12 and in Dan 8:13 has its reason in this, that that which is said does not concern the whole host, but only one part of it, since, according to Dan 8:10, the hostile horn will cast only some הצבא מן ( of the host ) to the earth. If, therefore, there is no sufficient ground for rejecting the application of the צבא to the people of Israel, it follows that this interpretation is decidedly required not only by the connection, chiefly by Dan 8:13, but also by that which is said of צבא in Dan 8:12 .

"Since in Dan 8:13 the inquirer resumes the contents of Dan 8:10-12, and along with the sanctuary names also the 'host' as the object of the 'treading down,' it is not credible that this 'host' should be different from that mentioned in Dan 8:12"(Klief.). Moreover, תּנּתן can have in this passage only the meaning of to be given up . התּמיד על can then only be translated because of the permanent sacrifice , if בּפשׁע ( by reason of transgression ) is united as object with תּנּתן in the sense: "was delivered up in transgression."But apart from this, that נתן in the sense of to give up is construed with בּיד , and there are wanting certain parallels for its construction with ב merely, this interpretation, "the host (= Israel) is given up in wickedness on account of the continual sacrifice,"presents an idea not to be tolerated. We agree, therefore, in general with the interpretation of Daniel B. Michaelis, Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth, and explain the words thus: "and (an) host shall be given up together with the daily sacrifice, because of transgression." צבא , an host , i.e., a great company of the host, the people of Israel. ב before פּשׁע ( transgression ) in the meaning of ב pretii , on account of ( um ), or because of , cf. Gen 18:28. פּשׁע is the apostasy of the Israelites from God, the wickedness proceeding from the פּשׁעים ( transgressors ), Dan 8:23. The objection that this interpretation is not appropriate, because פּשׁע is repeated in Dan 8:13 in union with שׁמם ( desolation ), and therefore a wickedness devoted to destruction is characterized (Klief.), avails nothing, because it in no way follows from this that the "transgression"must be wickedness seating itself in the place of the "daily sacrifice,"idolatrous worship supplanting the true worship. But "the transgression"cannot be that which sets itself in the place of the "daily sacrifice,"because התּמיד is not the subject of the sentence, but is only co-ordinated to the subject. If ב in בּפשׁע is regarded as the ב pretii , then פשׁע can only be that which would be put in the place of the צבא . The preposition על before התּמיד means thereon , after that , also at the same time , or together with , as in Amo 3:15; Hos 10:14, etc. תּמיד , as in Dan 8:11, is not merely the daily sacrifice , but all that had continuance in the Mosaic worship. Finally, the jussive forms תּנּתן and תּשׁלך d ( to be trodden ) are to be observed, since, according to the just observation of Kran., they are not simply identical with the future, as Ewald (§343) thinks, but here, as in Dan 11:4, Dan 11:10,Dan 11:16, modify the conception of time by the presentation of the divine pre-determination or the decree, and thus express a should , may , or a faculty , a being able , in consequence of the divine counsel. To the verbs of the second half of the verse קרן ( horn ) is easily supplied from the foregoing context as the subject; and the passage closes with the thought: thus must the horn throw the truth to the ground, and he shall succeed in this.

(Note: " Successus Antiochi potuit pios omnes turbare, acsi tyrannus ille esset Deo superior. Ergo oportuit etiam hoc praedici, ne quid novum vel inopinatum constingeret fidelibus." - Calvin.)

אמת , the objective truth, the word of God, so far as it is embodied in the worship. As to this matter cf. 1 Macc. 1:43-52, 56, 60.

Dan 8:13-14

In addition to what has been already seen and communicated in the vision, a further vision unfolds itself, by which there is conveyed to the prophet disclosures regarding the duration of the oppression of the people of God by the little horn. Daniel hears a holy one, i.e., an angel (see under Dan 4:10), talking. What he said is not recorded. But while he is talking, another angel interrupts him with the question as to the duration of the affliction, and this is done that Daniel may hear the answer. Therefore the first angel immediately turns himself to Daniel, and, addressing him, makes known to him the information that was desired.

The אלי ( to me ), Dan 8:14, is not, according to the old versions, to be changed into אליו ( to him ). What Hitzig says in justification of אליו is of no weight; cf. Kran. The angel that talked is designated by פּלמוני , quidam, nescio quis , as not being more particularly definable. The question condenses the contents of Dan 8:10-12 : " Till how long is the vision, etc.?" החזון is not the action, but the contents of the vision, the thing seen . The contents of the vision are arranged in the form of appositions: that which is continual and the desolating wickedness, for: the vision of that which is continual and of the desolation. The meaning of this apposition is more particularly defined by the further passage following asyndetos : to give up the sanctuary as well as the host to destruction. שׁמם after the definite noun without the article, which is sometimes wanting (Jer 2:21; Eze 39:27; cf. Ew. §293), does not mean being benumbed, confounded, but laid waste , fallen into ruin; thus the wickedness which consists in laying waste. שׁמם cannot be understood transitively, since שׁמם and משׁמם are placed over against each other in Dan 9:27.

In the answer, עד is to be interpreted as in the question: till 2300 evening-mornings have been, or have passed, thus: 2300 evening-mornings long, so (=then) the sanctuary is brought into its right state. צדק primarily means to be just, whence the meaning is derived to justify, which is not here suitable, for it must be followed by, from the defilement of the desolation. The restoration of the temple to its right condition is, it is true, at the same time a justification of it from its desolation, and it includes in it the restoration of the permanent worship.

The interpretation of the period of time, 2300 evening-mornings, named by the angel is beset with difficulty. And first the verbal import of בּקר ערב is doubtful. Among recent interpreters, Berth., Häv., v. Leng., Maur., and Horm. ( Weiss. u. Erf. p. 295) understand by its days consisting of morning and evening (twenty-four hours); others, as Bleek, Kirmss, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler (who, however, in his treatise, Die 70 Wochen , u.s.w., p. 115ff., defends the first explanation), Kran., and Delitzsch, are of opinion that evening-morning is particularly reckoned with reference to the offering of a morning and an evening sacrifice each day, so that 2300 evening-mornings make only 1150 whole days. But there is no exegetical foundation for this latter opinion. It is derived only from a comparison, or rather an identification, of this passage with Dan 7:25; Dan 12:11., and Dan 9:27; and therewith it is proved that, according to 1 Macc. 1:54, 59, cf. 4:52, the desolation of the sanctuary by the worship of idols under Antiochus Epiphanes lasted not longer than three years and ten days, and that from Dan 12:11 it extends only to 1290 days. But these arguments rest on assertions which must first be justified. The passages Dan 7:25 and Dan 9:27 cannot be here taken into account, because they do not speak of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the 1290 days (1335 days, Dan 12:11.) do not give 2300 evening-mornings, that we can and may at once identify these statements with this before us. In Dan 12:11 the terminus a quo of the 1290 days is unquestionably the putting away or the removal of the תּמיד ( daily sacrifice ), and the giving (placing, raising up) of the abomination that maketh desolate (i.e., the altar of idol-worship); but in this verse (Dan 8:14), on the contrary, the continuance not only of the taking away of the תּמיד , but also of the delivering up of the saints and the people to be trodden under foot, is fixed to 2300 evening-mornings. This oppression continued longer than the removal of the appointed daily sacrifice. According to 1 Macc. 1:10ff., the violent assaults of Antiochus against the temple and the Jews who remained faithful to the law began in the 143rd year of the era of the Seleucidae, but the abomination that maketh desolate, i.e., the idol-altar, was first erected on Jehovah's altar of burnt-offering, according to 1 Macc. 1:54, in the 145th year of the Seleucidae, and the purification of the temple from this abomination, and its re-consecration, took place on the 25th day of Kisleu (9th month) of the year of the Seleucidae 148. According to this, from the beginning of the desecration of the temple by the plundering of its vessels and its golden ornaments (1 Macc. 1:20ff.) to its restoration to its right condition, more than five years passed. The fulfilment, or the historical reference, of this prophecy accordingly affords, as is sufficiently manifest, no proper means of ascertaining the import of the "evening-morning."This must rather be exegetically decided. It occurs only here, and corresponds to νυχθήμερον , 2Co 11:25. But the choice of so unusual a measure of time, derived from the two chief parts of the day, instead of the simple measure of time by days, probably originates with reference to the morning and evening sacrifice, by which the day was to be consecrated to the Lord, after Gen 1:5, Gen 1:8,Gen 1:13, etc., where the days of the creation week are named and reckoned according to the succession of evening and morning. This separation of the expression into evening and morning, so that to number them separately and add them together would make 2300 evening-mornings = 1150 days, is shown to be inadmissible, both by the asyndeton evening-morning and the usages of the Hebrew language. That in Dan 8:26 והבּקר הערב ( the evening and the morning ) stands for it, does not prove that the evening ad morning are reckoned separately, but only that evening-morning is a period of time consisting of evening and morning. When the Hebrews wish to express separately day and night, the component parts of a day of a week, then the number of both is expressed. They say, e.g., forty days and forty nights (Gen 7:4, Gen 7:12; Exo 24:18; 1Ki 19:8), and three days and three nights (Jon 2:1; Mat 12:40), but not eighty or six days-and-nights, when they wish to speak of forty or three full days. A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the period of time 2300 evening-mornings of 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day. Still less, in the designation of time, "till 2300 evening-mornings,"could "evening-mornings"be understood of the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as meaning, that till 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices are discontinued. We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e., understand them of 2300 whole days.

This exegetical resolution of the matter is not made doubtful by the remark, that an increasing of the period of oppression to 2300 days, over against the duration of the oppression limited in Dan 7:25 to only three and a half times, or to 1290 (or 1335 days, Dan 12:11-12), is very unlikely, since there is in no respect any reason for this increase over against these statements (Kran. p. 298). This remark can only be valid as proof if, on the one side, the three and a half times in Dan 7:25 are equal to three and a half civil years, for which the proof fails, and, on the other side, if the 1290 or the 1335 days in Dan 12:11. indicate the whole duration of the oppression of Israel by Antiochus. But if these periods, on the contrary, refer only to the time of the greatest oppression, the erection of the idol-altar in the temple, this time cannot be made the measure for the duration of the whole period of tribulation.

The objection also, that it is more difficult to prove historically an oppression of the people of God for 2300 days by Antiochus than the 1150 days' duration of this oppression, need not move us to depart from the exegetically ascertained meaning of the words. The opponents of this view are indeed at one in this, that the consecration of the temple after its purification, and after the altar of Jehovah was restored, on the 25th Kisleu of the 148th year of the Seleucidae, formed the termination of the period named, but they are at variance as to the commencement of the period. Delitzsch reckons from the erection of the idol-altar in the temple on 15th Kisleu in the 145th year of the Sel., and thus makes it only three years and ten days, or 1090 to 1105 days. Hitzig reckons from the taking away of the daily sacrifice, which would take place somewhat earlier than the setting up of the idol-altar, but has not furnished proof that this happened tow months earlier. Bleek and Kirmss reckon from the taking of Jerusalem by Apollonius in the year of the Sel . 145 (1 Macc. 1:30ff.; 2 Macc. 5:24ff.), misplacing this in the first month of the year named, but without having any other proof for it than the agreement of the reckoning.

To this is to be added, that the adoption of the consecration of the temple as the terminus ad quem is not so well grounded as is supposed. The words of the text, קדשׁ ונצדּק ("thus is the sanctuary placed in the right state"), comprehend more than the purification and re-consecration of the temple. In Dan 8:11, also Dan 9:17 and Dan 11:31, Daniel uses the word מקדּשׁ for temple, while on the other hand קדשׁ means all that is holy. Was, then, the sanctuary, in this comprehensive meaning of the word, placed in its right state with the consecration of the temple, when after this occurrence "they that were in the tower (Acra) shut up the Israelites round about the sanctuary,"sought to hinder access to the temple, and, when Judas Maccabaeus had begun to besiege the tower, the Syrians approached with a reinforced army, besieged the sanctuary for many days, and on their departure demolished its strongholds (1 Macc. 6:18ff., 51, 62)? - when, again, under Demetrius Soter of Bacchides, the high priest Menelaus was deposed, and Alcimus, who was not descended from the family of a high priest, was advanced to his place, who cruelly persecuted the pious in Israel? - when the Syrian general Nicanor mocked the priests who showed to him the burnt-offering for the king, and defiled and threatened to burn the temple (1 Macc. 7)? And did the trampling upon Israel cease with the consecration of the temple, when at the building up of the altar and the restoration of the temple the heathen around became so furious, that they resolved to destroy all who were of the race of Jacob amongst them, and began to murder them (1 Macc. 5:1ff.)? Hävernick therefore, with Bertholdt, places the terminus ad quem of the 2300 days in the victory over Nicanor, by which the power of the Syrians over Judea was first broken, and the land enjoyed rest, so that it was resolved to celebrate annually this victory as well as the consecration of the temple (1 Macc. 7:48-50), according to which the terminus a quo of the period named would be shortly before the erection of the abomination of idolatry in the temple.

If we now, however, turn from this supposition, since the text speaks further of it, to seek the end of the oppression in the restoration of the legal temple-worship, or in the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, which the angel brings to view in the interpretation of the vision (Dan 8:26), so also in these cases the 2300 days are to be calculated. C. v. Leng., Maur., and Wiesel., who regard the death of Antiochus as the termination, place the beginning of the 2300 days one year before the beginning of violence with which Antiochus, after his return from the expedition into Egypt in the year 143 Sel ., went forth to destroy (1 Macc. 1:20) the Mosaic worship and law. Only a few weeks or months earlier, in the middle of the year 142 Sel ., the point of commencement must be placed, if the consecration of the temple is held to be the termination. In the year 142 not only was the pious high priest Onias removed from his office by the godless Jason, but also Jason himself was forced from the place he had usurped by Menelaus, who gave Antiochus a greater bribe than he did, and gave away as presents and sold to the heathen the golden utensils of the temple, and commanded Onias, who denounced his wickedness, to be deceitfully murdered (2 Macc. 2:4). Hence we need not, with Hofmann, regard the deposition of Onias, the date of which cannot be accurately fixed, but which, 2 Macc. 4:7ff., is brought into connection with the commencement of the reign of Antiochus, and which probably took place before the year 142, as the date of the commencement of the 2300 days, although the laying waste of the sanctuary may be dated from it; since Jason by royal authority set up a heathen γυμνάσιον with an ἐφηβεῖον , and by the wickedness of the profane and unpriestly conduct of this man Greek customs and the adoption of heathenish manners so prevailed, that the priests ceased to concern themselves about the service of the altar, but, despising the temple and forgetting the sacrifice, they hastened to witness the spectacles in the palaestra, which were contrary to the law; cf. 2 Macc. 4:13ff. with 1 Macc. 1:11-15. The 2300 days are thus, as well as the 1150 days, historically authenticated.

But it is on the whole questionable whether the number given by the angel is to be reckoned as an historico-chronological period of time, or is not rather to be interpreted as symbolical. The analogy of the other prophetic numbers speaks decidedly for the symbolical interpretation. The 2300 cannot, it is true, be directly a symbolical number, such as 7, 10, 40, 70, and other numbers are, but yet it can stand in such a relation to the number seven as to receive a symbolical meaning. The longer periods of time are usually reckoned not by days, but by weeks, months, or years; if, therefore, as to the question of the duration of the 2300 days, we reduce the days to weeks, months, and years, we shall find six years, three or four months, and some days, and discover that the oppression of the people by the little horn was to continue not fully a period of seven years. But the times of God's visitations, trials, and judgments are so often measured by the number seven, that this number came to bear stamped on it this signification; see under Dan 4:13; Dan 7:25. The number of seven years is used in the symbolical meaning when, not to mention the cases in Gen 29:18, Gen 29:27; Gen 41:26., and Jdg 6:1, seven years' famine were laid upon the land as a punishment for David's sin in numbering the people (2Sa 24:13), and when in Elisha's time Israel was visited with seven years' famine (2Ki 8:1). Thus the answer of the angel has this meaning: The time of the predicted oppression of Israel, and of the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus, the little horn, shall not reach the full duration of a period of divine judgment, shall not last so long as the severe oppression of Israel by the Midianites, Jdg 6:1, or as the famine which fell upon Israel in the time of Elisha, and shall not reach to a tenth part of the time of trial and of sorrow endured by the exiles, and under the weight of which Israel then mourned.

But if this is the meaning of the angel's message, why does not the divine messenger use a pure symbolical expression, such as "not full seven times?"and why does he not simply say, "not quite seven years?"As to the first of these questions, we answer that the expression "times"is too indefinite; for the duration of this period of sorrow must be given more minutely. As to the second question, we know no other answer that can be given than this, that, on the one side, only the positive determination of the length of time, measured by days, can afford full confidence that the domination and the tyranny of the oppressor shall not continue one day longer than God has before fixed; but, on the other side, by the measuring of this period by a number defined according to thousands and hundreds, both the long duration of the affliction is shown, and the symbolical character of the period named is indicated. While by the period "evening-morning"every ambiguity of the expression, and every uncertainty thence arising regarding the actual length of the time of affliction, is excluded, yet the number 2300 shows that the period must be defined in round numbers, measuring only nearly the actual time, in conformity with all genuine prophecy, which never passes over into the mantic prediction of historico-chronological data.

If we compare with this the designation of time in Dan 7:25, instead of the general idea there expressed, of "time, times, and half a time,"which is not to be computed as to its duration, we have here a very definite space of time mentioned. This difference corresponds to the contents of the two prophecies. The oppression prophesied of in this chapter would visit the people of Israel at not too distant a time; and its commencement as well as its termination, announced by God beforehand, was fitted to strengthen believers in the faith of the truth and fidelity of God for the time of the great tribulation of the end, the duration of which God the Lord indeed determined accurately and firmly beforehand, but according to a measure of time whose extent men cannot calculate in advance. In this respect the designation of the time of the affliction which the horn growing up out of the third world-kingdom will bring upon God's people, becomes a type for the duration of the oppression of the last enemy of the church of the Lord at the end of the days.

Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 8:15-27

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 Dan 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 (Dan 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., Häv., 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 Dan 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 Dan 10:5. The question, who this man might be, is first answered in Daniel Dan 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., Dan 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 Dan 8:15, Dan 8:16 are identical with those in Dan 8:13, Dan 8:14 - that Gabriel who spake, and the unknown angel, was the angel of the "rivers and fountains of waters,"Rev 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. für 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, Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; Gabriel, Dan 8:16; Dan 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, Dan 10:12, is designated as one of the first angel-princes, and, Dan 12:1, as the greatest angel-prince; moreover, the number of שׂרים ( angel-princes ) is spoken of as seven, corresponding to the Persian Amesha-çpentas (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 Gen 19:1., Jdg 6:11., Jdg 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-çpenta, 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-çpenta means " non connivens sanctus = the holy one not sleeping;""thus,"he says, "it is a mere Chaldee rendering of the word Amesha-çpenta , when in Dan 4:10,Dan 4:14, Dan 4:20; Dan 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 Dan 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 Zec 3:1., Psa 48:1-14 :49; 1Ch 21:1, and especially in Job 1:6., Dan 2:1, Satan "is depicted as a plague-spirit, altogether corresponding to the Persian Agromainjus, the killing spirit ."Such silly talk needs no refutation.)

Dan 8:16-18

As commanded, the angel goes to the place where Daniel stands. On his approach Daniel is so filled with terror that he falls on his face, because as a sinful and mortal man he could not bear the holiness of God which appeared before him in the pure heavenly being. At the appearance of God he fears that he must die. Cf. remarks at Gen 16:13 and Exo 33:20. But the angel, in order to mitigate his alarm, calls him to take heed, for the vision relates to the time of the end. The address (Dan 8:17), "son of man,"stands in contrast to "man of God"(= Gabriel), and is designed to remind Daniel of his human weakness (cf. Psa 8:5), not that he may be humbled (Hävernick), without any occasion for that, but to inform him that, notwithstanding this, he was deemed worthy of receiving high divine revelations (Kliefoth). The foundation of the summons to give heed, "for the vision relates to the time of the end,"is variously interpreted. Auberlen (p. 87) and Zündel (p. 105ff.) understand עת־קץ not of the time of the end of all history, but of a nearer relative end of the prophecy. "Time of the end"is the general prophetic expression for the time which, as the period of fulfilment, lies at the end of the existing prophetic horizon - in the present case the time of Antiochus. Bleek ( Jahrb.f. D. Theol. v. p. 57) remarks, on the contrary, that if the seer was exhorted to special attention because the vision related to the time of the end, then קץ here, as in Dan 8:19; Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40; Dan 12:4, also Dan 9:26, without doubt is to be interpreted of the end of the time of trial and sorrow of the people, and at the same time of the beginning of the new time of deliverance vouchsafed by God to His people; and herein lay the intimation, "that the beginning of the deliverance destined by God for His people (i.e., the Messianic time) would connect itself immediately with the cessation of the suppression of the worship of Jehovah by Antiochus Epiphanes, and with the destruction of that ruler."From the passages referred to, Dan 11:40 and Dan 12:4, it is certainly proved that עתקץ denotes the time of all suffering, and the completion of the kingdom of God by the Messiah. It does not, however, follow, either that these words "are to be understood of the absolute end of all things, of the time when the Messiah will come to set up His regum gloriae , and of the time of the last tribulation going before this coming of the Lord"(Klief.); or that the prophet cherished the idea, that immediately after the downfall of Antiochus, thus at the close of the 2300 days, the Messiah would appear, bring the world to an end, and erect the kingdom of eternity (v. Leng., Hitz., Maur., etc.). The latter conclusion is not, it is true, refuted by the remark, that the words do not say that the vision has the time of the end directly for its subject, that the prophecy will find its fulfilment in the time of the end, but only that the vision has a relation, a reference, to the time of the end, that there is a parallelism between the time of Antiochus and the time of Antichrist, that "that which will happen to Javan and Antiochus shall repeat itself in, shall be a type of, that which will happen in the time of the end with the last world-kingdom and the Antichrist arising out of it"(Kliefoth). For this idea does not lie in the words. That is shown by the parallel passage, Dan 10:14, which Kliefoth thus understands - "The vision extends to the days which are before named הימים אחרית ( latter days ); it goes over the same events which will then happen."Accordingly the angel can also here (Dan 8:17) only say, "Give heed, for the vision relates to the end-time; it gives information of that which shall happen in the end of time."

Dan 8:19

The justice of this exposition is placed beyond a doubt by this verse. Here the angel says in distinct words, "I will show thee what will happen הזּעם בּאחרית ( in the last time of the indignation ), for it relates to the appointed time of the end."Kliefoth indeed thinks that what the angel, Dan 8:19, says to the prophet for his comfort is not the same that he had said to him in Dan 8:17, and which cast him down, and that Dan 8:19 does not contain anything so weighty and so overwhelming as Dan 8:17, but something more cheering and consoling; that it gives to the vision another aspect, which relieves Daniel of the sorrow which it had brought upon him on account of its import with reference to the end. From this view of the contents of Dan 8:19 Kliefoth concludes that Daniel, after he had recovered from his terror in the presence of the heavenly messenger, and had turned his mind to the contents of the vision, was thrown to the ground by the thought presented to him by the angel, that the vision had reference to the end of all things, and that, in order to raise him up, the angel said something else to him more comforting of the vision. But this conclusion has no foundation in the text. The circumstance that Daniel was not again cast to the ground by the communication of the angel in Dan 8:19, is not to be accounted for by supposing that the angel now made known to him something more consoling; but it has its foundation in this, that the angel touched the prophet, who had fallen dismayed to the earth, and placed him again on his feet (Dan 8:18), and by means of this touch communicated to him the strength to hear his words. But the explanation which Kliefoth gives of Dan 8:19 the words do not bear. "The last end of the indignation"must denote the time which will follow after the expiration of the זעם , i.e., the period of anger of the Babylonian Exile. But אחרית means, when space is spoken of, that which is farthest (cf. Psa 139:9), and when time is spoken of, the last, the end, the opposite of רשׁית , the end over against the beginning . If הימים אחרית does not denote such a time was follows an otherwise fixed termination, but the last time, the end-time (see under Dan 2:28), so also, since זעם is here the time of the revelation of the divine wrath, הזּעם אחרית ה can only denote the last time, or the end-time, of the revelation of the divine wrath. This explanation of the words, the only one which the terms admit of, is also required by the closing words of Dan 8:19, קץ למועד כּי ( for at the time appointed the end ). According to the example of the Vulg., quoniam habet tempus finem suum , and Luther's version, "for the end has its appointed time,"Kliefoth translates the words, "for the firmly-ordained, definite time has its end,"and refers this to the time of the Babylonish Exile, which indeed, as Daniel knew (Dan 9:2), was fixed by God to seventy years. But that in the Babylonish Exile will have its fixed end, will come to an end with the seventy years, the angel needed not to announce to the prophet, for he did not doubt it, and the putting him in remembrance of that fact would have afforded him but very poor consolation regarding the time of the future wrath. This conception of the words depends on the inaccurate interpretation of the words הזּעם אחרית , and will consequently fall to the ground along with it. If למועד ( to the appointment ) were separated from קץ , and were to be taken by itself, and to be understood of the time of the זעם , then it ought to have the article, as in Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35. Without the article, as here, it must be connected with קץ , and them, with החזון supplied as the subject from the context (Dan 8:17), is to be translated, as it is by almost all modern interpreters: for the vision relates to the appointed time of the end. But עתקץ , the time of the end , and קץ מועד , the appointed time of the end , is not the absolute end of all things, the time of the setting up of the regnum gloriae , and the time of the tribulation preceding the return of our Lord; but the time of the judgment of the world-kingdom and the setting up of the everlasting kingdom of God by the appearance of the Messiah, the end of αἰὼν οὕτος and the commencement of the αἰὼν μέλλων , the time of the הימים אחרית (Dan 10:14), which the apostle calls (1Co 10:11) τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων , and speaks of as having then already come.

Dan 8:20-22

Since, from the explanation given by the angel in this verse, the vision relates to the Medo-Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms, and to the persecuting kingdom of Antiochus which arose out of the latter, so it cannot be disputed that here, in prophetic perspective, the time of the end is seen together with the period of the oppression of the people of God by Antiochus, and the first appearance of the Messiah with His return in glory to the final judgment, as the latter is the case also in Dan 2:34., 44f., and Dan 7:13, Dan 7:25. If Kliefoth objects: The coming of the Messiah may certainly be conceived of as bound up with the end of all things, and this is done, since both events stand in intimate causal relation to each other, not seldom in those O.T. prophets who yet do not distinguish the times; but they also know well that this intimate causal connection does not include contemporaneousness, that the coming of the Messiah in the flesh will certainly bring about the end of all things, but not as an immediate consequence, but after a somewhat lengthened intervening space, that thus, after the coming of the Messiah, a course of historical events will further unfold themselves before the end comes (which Daniel also knew, as Daniel 9 shows), and where the supposition is this, as in Daniel, there the time before the appearance of Christ in the flesh cannot be called the time of the end: - then the inference drawn in these last passages is not confirmed by the contents of the book of Daniel. For in the last vision (Daniel 10-12) which Daniel saw, not only the time of oppression of Antiochus and that of the last enemy are contemplated together as one , but also the whole contents of this one vision are, Dan 10:14, transferred to the "end of the days;"for the divine messenger says to Daniel, "I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the end of the days, for the vision yet relates to the days."And not only this, but also in Dan 11:35 it is said of the tribulation brought upon the people of God by Antiochus, that in it many would fall, to cleanse them and to purify them to the time of the end, for it is yet for the appointed time. Here, beyond doubt, the time of the persecution by Antiochus is placed in intimate union with the time of the end, but, as is to be particularly observed, not so that the two are spoken of as synchronous. This point is of importance for the right exposition of the verse before us. If, in Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40, it is twice said la מועד קץ עוד כּי ( the end is yet for the appointed time ), and thus does not begin with the oppression of the people of God by Antiochus, so we may not conclude from these verses - and in this Kliefoth is perfectly justified - that Daniel expected the erection of the Messianic kingdom and the end of all history with the overthrow of Antiochus. If, however, on the whole, the intimate causal connection of the two periods of tribulation placed together in Daniel 11 in one vision neither demands nor even permits us to regard the two as synchronous, so this erroneous conclusion drawn from these verses before us, in connection with an incorrect interpretation of Dan 11:36-45, is sufficiently obviated, both by Daniel 2 and 7, according to which the fourth world-kingdom shall precede the erection of the everlasting kingdom of God and the manifestation of the Son of man, as also by Dan 9:24-27, where - as our exposition will show - the coming of the Messiah and the perfecting of the kingdom of God by the overthrow of the last enemy are dependent on one another in point of time - the coming of the Messiah after seven weeks, the perfecting of the kingdom of God will follow, but not trill after the lapse of seventy weeks.

This passage is to be understood according to these distinct revelations and statements, and not that because in them, according to prophetic perspective, the oppression of the people of the saints by Antiochus, the little horn, is seen in one vision with the tribulation of the end-time, therefore the synchronism or identity of the two is to be concluded, and the erection of the regnum gloriae and the end of the world to be placed at the destruction of this little horn. The words, "the vision relates to the time of the end,"thus only declare that the prophecy has a reference to Messianic times. As to the nature of this reference, the angel gives some intimation when, having touched the prophet, who had fallen in amazement to the ground, he raised him up and enabled him to listen to his words (Dan 8:18), the intimation that he would make known to him what would happen in the last time of violence (Dan 8:19). הזּעם is the wrath of God against Israel, the punishment which God hung over them on account of their sins, as in Isa 10:5; Jer 25:17; Eze 22:24, etc., and here the sufferings of punishment and discipline which the little horn shall bring over Israel. The time of this revelation of divine wrath is called אחרית because it belongs to the הימים אחרית , prepares the Messianic future, and with its conclusion begins the last age of the world, of which, however, nothing more particular is here said, for the prophecy breaks off with the destruction of the little horn. The vision of the eleventh chapter first supplies more particular disclosures on this point. In that chapter the great enemy of the saints of God, arising out of the third world-kingdom, is set forth and represented as the prefiguration or type of their last enemy at the end of the days. Under the words יהיה אשׁר ( which shall be ) the angel understands all that the vision of this chapter contains, from the rising up of the Medo-Persian world-kingdom to the time of the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, as Dan 8:20-25 show. But when he adds הזּעם אחרית , he immediately makes prominent that which is the most important matter in the whole vision, the severe oppression which awaits the people of Israel in the future for their purification, and repeats, in justification of that which is said, the conclusion from Dan 8:17, in which he only exchanges עת for מועד is the definite time in its duration ; קץ מועד thus denotes the end-time as to its duration . This expression is here chosen with regard to the circumstance that in Dan 8:14 the end of the oppression was accurately defined by the declaration of its continuance. The object of these words also is variously viewed by interpreters. The meaning is not that the angel wished to console Daniel with the thought that the judgment of the vision was not yet so near at hand (Zündel); for, according to Dan 8:17, Daniel was not terrified by the contents of the vision, but by the approach of the heavenly being; and if, according to Dan 8:18, the words of the angel so increased his terror that he fell down confounded to the earth, and the angel had to raise him by touching him, yet it is not at the same time said that the words of the angel of the end-time had so confounded him, and that the subsequent fuller explanation was somewhat less overwhelming than the words, Dan 8:17, something lighter or more comforting. Even though the statement about the time of the end contributed to the increase of the terror, yet the contents of Dan 8:19 were not fitted to raise up the prophet, but the whole discourse of the angel was for Daniel so oppressive that after hearing it, he was for some days sick, Dan 8:27. From Daniel's astonishment we are not to conclude that the angel in Dan 8:17 spoke of the absolute end of all things, and in Dan 8:19, on the contrary, of the end of the oppression of the people of Israel by Antiochus. By the words, "the vision relates to the appointed end-time,"the angel wished only to point to the importance of his announcement, and to add emphasis to his call to the prophet to give heed.

Dan 8:20-26

After the introductory words, we have now in these verses the explanation of the chief points of the vision.

Dan 8:20-22 explain Dan 8:3-8. "The kings of Media and Persia"are the whole number of the Medo-Persian kings as they succeed each other, i.e., the Medo-Persian monarchy in the whole of its historical development. To הצּפיר the epithet השּׂעיר , hairy , shaggy , is added to characterize the animal as an he-goat. The king of Javan (Greece) is the founder and representative of the Macedo-Grecian world-kingdom, or rather the royalty of this kingdom, since the great horn of the ram is forthwith interpreted of Alexander the Great, the first king of this kingdom. The words והנּשׁבּרת to תּחתּיה (Dan 8:22) form an absolute subject-sentence, in which, however, ותּעמדנה is not to be taken ἐκβατικῶς , it broke in pieces, so that ... (Kran.); for "the statement of the principal passage may not appear here in the subordinate relative passage"(Hitzig); but to the statement beginning with the participle the further definition in the verb. in. with ו consec . is added, without the relative אשׁר , as is frequently the case (cf. Ewald's Lehr . §351), which we cannot give with so much brevity, but must express thus: "as concerning the horn, that it was broken in pieces, and then four stood up in its place, (this signifies) that four kingdoms shall arise from the people." מגּוי without the article does not signify from the people of Javan, for in this case the article would not have been omitted; nor does it signify from the heathen world , because a direct contrast to Israel does not lie before us; but indefinitely, from the territory of the people , or the world of the people, since the prophecy conceives of the whole world of the people (Vöklerwelt) as united under the sceptre of the king of Javan. יעמדנה is a revived archaism; cf. Gen 30:38; 1Sa 6:12; Ewald, §191; Gesen. Gramm . §47. - בכוחו ולא , but not in his power , not armed with the strength of the first king, cf. Dan 11:4.

Dan 8:23-24

Dan 8:23-26 give the interpretation of the vision of the little horn (Dan 8:9-12) , with a more special definition of certain elements not made prominent in the vision . The horn signifies a king who will arise "in the last time of their kingdom."The suffix to מלכוּתם ( of their kingdom ) relates to the idea contained in מלכיּות ni deniat ( kings ). הפּשׁעים כּהתם , when the transgressors have made full, scil . the transgression or measure of the sins. The object wanting to התם is seen from the conception of the subject. הפּשׁעים , the rebellious , are not the heathen , for פּשׁע denotes the apostasy from God which is only said of the Israelites, but not of the heathen; and the word points back to בּפשׁע in Dan 8:12. The king that rises up is Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 1 Macc. 1:10ff.). עז־פּנים , hard of countenance , i.e., impudent, unashamed in trampling down, without fear of God or man; cf. Deu 28:50. חידות מבין , understanding mysteries ; here sensu malo , concealing his purpose behind ambiguous words , using dissimulation, forming an artifice, interpreted in Dan 8:25 by מרמה , cf. Dan 11:21. The unfolding of these qualities is presented in Dan 8:24, Dan 8:25; in Dan 8:24 of the עז־פּנים . By virtue of the audacity of his conduct his power will be strengthened, בכחו ולא , but not by his own might . The contrast here is not: by the power or permission of God (Ephr., Theodrt., Häv., Hitz., Kran.), reference being made to תּנּתן ( was given ) in Dan 8:12, and to תּת ( to give ) in Dan 8:13. This contrast is foreign to the passage. The context much rather relates to the audacity and the cunning by which, more than by his power, Antiochus raised himself to might. The strengthening of the power is limited neither to his reaching the throne by the overthrow of other pretenders to it (Berth. and others), nor to the to the following statements, he developed as king against Israel, as well as against other kingdoms. נפּלאות ( wonderful works ) is used adverbially, as in Job 37:5 : in an astonishing , wonderful way , he will work destruction. But from this word it does not follow that the expression בכחו ולא is to be referred to the power of God, for it does not necessarily mean deeds or things supernaturally originating from God; and even though it had only this meaning, yet here they could not be thought of as deeds accomplished in God's strength, but only as deeds performed by demoniacal strength, because ישׁחית ( shall destroy ) cannot be predicated of God in the sense determined by the context. This destructive work he shall direct against the mighty and against the people of the saints. עצוּמים does not here signify many, numerous, many individual Israelites (v. Leng., Maur., Kliefoth), partly because in Dan 8:25 רבּים stands for that, partly because of the קדשׁים עם , by which we are to understand the people of Israel , not merely the insignificant and weak, or pious (Kran.). Hence עצוּמים cannot mean the elders of Israel, much less merely foreign kings (Berth., Dereser), but the mighty generally, under which perhaps we are specially to think of heathen rulers.

Dan 8:25

In Dan 8:25 the cunning and craftiness of his action and demeanour are depicted. שׂכלו על ( through his craft ) is placed first. שׂכל , sagacity , here sensu malo , cunning . On the ground of this cunning his deceit will be successful. מרמה without the article means "all kinds of deceit which he designs"(Hitzig). On that account his heart is raised in haughtiness, so that not only does he destroy many unexpectedly, but also raises himself against God. In the רבּים ( many ) are comprehended "the mighty and the holy people"(Dan 8:24). בּשׁלוה does not mean in deep peace, but in careless security , and thus unexpectedly . An historical proof of this is found in 1 Macc. 1:10. שׂרים שׂר ( Prince of princes ) corresponds with אדני האדנים ( Lord of lords ) in Psa 136:3. It is God; cf. Dan 8:11. But the angel adds, "he shall be destroyed without hands,"i.e., he shall be destroyed not by the hand of man, but by God.

Dan 8:26

In Dan 8:26 there follows, in conclusion, the confirmation of the truth of what is said of the duration of this oppression for the people of God. Because the time of it was not seen by Daniel, but was revealed to him in words, נאמר אשׁר is here used in reference to that which was, or of which it was, said. But we need not connect this relative sentence with the genitive והבּקר הערב ( the evening and the morning ), although this were admissible, but can make it depend on מראה ( vision ), since the world-revelation of the evenings and mornings forms an integral part of the "vision." והבּקר הערב are to be taken collectively. The confirmation of the truth of this revelation does not betray the purpose to make the book falsely appear as if it were old (v. Leng., Hitzig); it much more is fitted to serve the purpose of strengthening the weakness of the faithful, and giving them consolation in the hour of trial. For in the statement of the duration of the afflictions lies not only the fact that they will come to an end, but at the same time also that this end is determined beforehand by God; cf. Dan 12:7. In other places this confirmation serves only to meet doubts, arising from the weakness of the flesh, as to the realization of revelations of such weighty import; cf. Dan 10:1; Dan 12:1; Rev 19:9; Rev 21:5; Rev 22:6.

But Daniel must close the prophecy, because it extends into a long time. סתן is not equivalent to חתם , to seal up , but it means to stop , to conclude , to hide (cf. 2Ki 3:19; Eze 28:3), but not in the sense of keeping secret, or because it would be incomprehensible for the nearest times; for to seal or to shut up has nothing in common with incomprehensibility, but is used in the sense of keeping . "A document is sealed up in the original text, and laid up in archives (shut up), that it may remain preserved for remote times, but not that it may remain secret, while copies of it remain in public use"(Kliefoth). The meaning of the command, then, is simply this: "Preserve the revelation, not because it is not yet to be understood, also not for the purpose of keeping it secret, but that it may remain preserved for distant times"(Kliefoth). The reason assigned for the command only agrees with this interpretation. רבּים לימים ( to many days ) is not to be identified with לעת־קץ in Dan 8:17, but designates only a long time ; and this indefinite expression is here used because it was not intended to give exactly again the termination according to Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19, but only to say that the time of the end was not near.

Dan 8:27

In Dan 8:27 the influence of this vision on Daniel is mentioned (cf. Dan 7:28). It so deeply agitated the prophet that he was sick certain days, and not till after he had recovered from this sickness could he attend to the king's business. The contents of the vision remained fixed in his mind; the scene filled him with amazement, and no one understood it. Maurer, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld interpret מבין אין ( I understood it not, ) supplying the pronoun of the first person from the connection. But even though the construction of the words should admit of this supplement, for which a valid proof is not adduced, yet it would be here unsuitable, and is derived merely from giving to סתן (Dan 8:26) the false interpretation of to conceal . If Daniel had been required to keep the prophecy secret according to the command in Dan 8:26, then the remark "no one understood it"would have been altogether superfluous. But if he was required only to preserve the prophecy, and it deeply moved him, then those around him must have had knowledge of it, and the amazement of Daniel would become the greater when not only he but all others failed to understand it. To refer מבין אין only to Daniel is forbidden by the comparison with אבין ולא in Dan 12:8. The fulfilment of this vision can alone lead to its full understanding.

Constable: Dan 8:1--12:13

III. Israel in relation to the Gentiles: God's program for Israel chs. 8--12

Two things signal the beginning of a new section in the book here. These two things are a return to the Hebrew language in the original text (cf. 1:1-2:3) and an emphasis on the nation Israel. Evidently Daniel wrote the remainder of this book in Hebrew because the revelation in it concerned his people particularly.²⁹¹

Constable: Dan 8:1-27

A. Daniel's vision of the ram and the goat ch. 8

Chapter 7 recorded the general history of "the times of the Gentiles," from the time Nebuchadnezzar took the Jews into captivity until the Son of Man's return to the earth. Chapter 8 reveals more detail about the second (Persian) and third (Greek) kingdoms and especially how they relate to Israel.

"Chap. 8 is the last of the book's symbolic visions; the succeeding revelations are more verbal than visual and still cryptic but not symbolic."²⁹²

Constable: Dan 8:1

1. The setting of the vision 8:1

The third year of Belshazzar was about 551 B.C., two years after the vision in chapter 7 and about 12 years before the events of chapter 5. Daniel was then living within the kingdom of Neo-Babylonia, the first beast of chapter 7. Apparently this was not a dream as well as a vision (7:1) but just a vision. Probably it came to Daniel during the daytime. The vision that appeared to Daniel previously refers to the one in chapter 7.

Constable: Dan 8:2-4

2. The ram 8:2-4

8:2 Evidently Daniel was in Babylon when he had this vision, but what he saw, including himself, was in Susa (Shushan, AV; cf. Ezek. 8:3; 40:1).²⁹³ Daniel probably knew where he was in his vision because he had visited Susa. It is reasonable to assume that a man in Daniel's position in the Neo-Babylonian government would have visited Susa previously. Susa stood about 200 miles east of Babylon and approximately 150 miles due north of the top of the Persian Gulf.²⁹⁴ Elam was the name of the province where Susa stood when Daniel wrote this book, not necessarily when he had this vision. When Medo-Persia overthrew Neo-Babylonia, Susa became the capital of the Persian Empire. Eighty years after Daniel had this vision Susa became Esther's home. One hundred seven years later it was the city from which Nehemiah departed to return to Palestine (Esth. 1:2; Neh. 1:1). The citadel was the palace, the royal residence, that had strong fortifications.

"The Ulai [Canal] can best be identified with an artificial canal which connected the rivers Choastes [or Choaspes, modern Kerkha] and Coprates [modern Abdizful] and ran close by Susa."²⁹⁵

8:3 The ram (male sheep) that Daniel saw standing before the canal represented Medo-Persia (v. 20). It corresponds to the lopsided bear in the chapter 7 vision (7:5). The two horns, representing power, symbolized Media and Persia, the two kingdoms that formed an alliance to create Medo-Persia. The longer horn stood for Persia, which had become more powerful in the alliance and had risen to displace Media in leadership after the two nations merged.²⁹⁶

The ram was especially important for the Persians. The guardian spirit of the Persian Empire was portrayed as a ram. When the Persian king went into battle, he carried the head of a ram.²⁹⁷ Also in the ancient world different zodiac signs represented various nations. Aries, the ram, stood for Persia, and Capricorn (Latin caper, goat, and cornu, horn) was Greece.²⁹⁸

8:4 Historically the Medo-Persian Empire pushed its borders primarily in three directions. It went westward (into Lydia, Ionia, Thrace, and Macedonia), northward (toward the Caspian Mountains, the Oxus Valley, and Scythia), and southward (toward Babylonia, Palestine, and Egypt).²⁹⁹ These advances happened mainly under the leadership of Cyrus and Cambyses.³⁰⁰ Indeed Medo-Persia had its own way for many years and glorified itself.

"There is nothing inherently wrong about doing great things" . . .; but the expression is only used in an unequivocally good sense of God (1 Sam 12:24; Ps 126:2, 3); of human beings it tends to suggest arrogance (Jer 48:26; Joel 2:20; Zeph 2:10; Ps 35:26; Ps 55:13 [12]), or at least achievement at someone else's expense (Zeph 2:8; Lam 1:9)--here achievement that presages calamity. The expression has the foreboding ambiguity of the mouth speaking great things in 7:8, 20."³⁰¹

Constable: Dan 8:5-8

3. The goat 8:5-8

8:5 The text also identifies the male goat--goats are relatives of sheep--in this vision as representing Greece (v. 21). History has confirmed the identification. Alexander the Great is clearly the conspicuous horn. Normally goats have two horns, so this one was unusual. Under Alexander, the Greek armies advanced quickly from the West against Persia.

"Alexander's conquest of the entire Near and Middle East within three years stands unique in military history and is appropriately portrayed by the lightning speed of this one-horned goat. Despite the immense numerical superiority of the Persian imperial forces and their possession of military equipment like war elephants, the tactical genius of young Alexander, with his disciplined Macedonian phalanx, proved decisive."³⁰²

8:6-7 Due to previous attacks by the Persians, the Greeks retaliated against their enemies with unusual vengeance. Alexander won two significant battles in Asia Minor in 334 B.C. and in 333, first at the Granicus River and then at Issus in Phrygia. Alexander finally subdued Persia with a victory at Gaugamela near Nineveh in 331 B.C.³⁰³

8:8 Clearly this description corresponds to that of the third beast in 7:6. Alexander magnified himself exceedingly in two ways. He extended the borders of his empire after he conquered Medo-Persia even farther east, into modern Afghanistan and to the Indus Valley. He also became extremely arrogant. He regarded himself as divine and made his soldiers bow down before him. This resulted in his troops revolting.³⁰⁴

"Expositors, both liberal and conservative, have interpreted this verse as representing the untimely death of Alexander and the division of his empire into four major sections. Alexander, who had conquered more of the world than any previous ruler, was not able to conquer himself. Partly due to a strenuous exertion, his dissipated life, and a raging fever, Alexander died in a drunken debauch at Babylon, not yet thirty-three years of age. His death left a great conquest without an effective single leader, and it took about twenty years for the empire to be successfully divided."³⁰⁵

As mentioned in my comments on 7:6, the most probable identifications of the four horns are Lysimachus, Cassander, Seleucus, and Ptolemy (cf. 11:4).³⁰⁶ Lysimachus ruled the northern part of Alexander's empire, Cassander the western part, Seleucus the eastern part, and Ptolemy the southern part.

Constable: Dan 8:9-14

4. The little horn on the goat 8:9-14

8:9 Daniel next saw a rather small horn (king, v. 23) grow out of one of the four horns (kingdoms, v. 22) that had replaced the single horn (the first king, v. 21) on the goat (Greece, v. 21). This horn is quite clearly different from the little horn that came up among the 10 horns on the fourth beast in the previous vision (cf. 7:8, 11, 24-26).

". . . the little horn arising from the third kingdom serves as a prototype of the little horn of the fourth kingdom. The crisis destined to confront God's people in the time of the earlier little horn, Antiochus Epiphanes, will bear a strong similarity to the crisis that will befall them in the eschatological or final phase of the fourth kingdom in the last days (as Christ himself foresaw in the Olivet Discourse [Matt 24:15])."³⁰⁷

This little horn grew very great to the south, the east, and "the beautiful." The first problem with this description is what is the reference point for these directions? History has identified this little horn as Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the eighth king of the Seleucid dynasty. He ruled Syria from 175 to 164 B.C. (cf. 1 Macc. 1:10; 6; 16), and he conducted military campaigns in all of these directions (cf. 1 Macc. 1:20).³⁰⁸ Therefore the point of reference is Syria.

The second problem is the identification of "the beautiful." This is quite evidently a reference to Palestine (cf. 11:16, 41, 45; Jer. 3:19; Ezek. 20:6, 15). Here the vision begins to focus on the future of Israel and the Jews. Antiochus was especially vengeful against the Jews whom he persecuted brutally.

"He is . . . one of the greatest persecutors Israel has ever known."³⁰⁹

"In one assault on Jerusalem, 40,000 Jews were killed in three days and 10,000 more were carried into captivity."³¹⁰

"This suppression came to a head in December 168 B.C., when Antiochus returned in frustration from Alexandria, where he had been turned back by the Roman commander Popilius Laenas, and vented his exasperation on the Jews. He sent his general, Apollonius, with twenty thousand troops under orders to seize Jerusalem on a Sabbath. There he erected an idol of Zeus and desecrated the altar by offering swine on it. This idol became known to the Jews as the abomination of desolation' (hassiqqus mesomem, 11:31), which served as a type of a future abomination that will be set up in the Jerusalem sanctuary to be built in the last days (cf. Christ's prediction in Matt 24:15)."³¹¹

Three years later, on December 25, 164 B.C., Judas Maccabaeus, a Jewish nationalist, led the Jews in rededicating the temple to Yahweh. This is the event that Jews have celebrated with Hanukkah ever since.

8:10 This little horn grew up to the host of heaven, caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and trampled on them. The stars probably refer to the children of Israel whom God predicted would be as numerous as the stars of heaven (Gen. 15:5; 22:17; 37:9-10; cf. Dan. 12:3; Matt. 13:43; Enoch 46:7).³¹² They constitute His armies (cf. Exod. 7:4; 12:17, 51; Num. 33:1).

"If the world calls those men and women stars who excel in one or another department of human activity, why should not a similar statement be still more appropriate with reference to God's people?"³¹³

Many scholars regard the stars and the host of heaven as synonymous: "the host even the stars" (cf. v. 13; Exod. 12:41)."³¹⁴ Alternatively the host of heaven may be angels who have some connection with the Jews (the stars). The falling of the host to the earth then would picture Antiochus' victory over these angels, and his trampling the stars down would stress his persecution of the Jews. However verse 12 seems to indicate that the horn really controlled the host, which would be impossible if they were angels.

8:11 By desecrating the temple, Antiochus (lit. illustrious one) effectively exalted himself to a position of superiority over Yahweh, the commander (or prince) of the host (the Jews).³¹⁵

"An attack on the place set aside for worship of God is tantamount to an attack on God Himself."³¹⁶

Antiochus temporarily terminated the constant sacrifices (Heb. tamid) in the temple, including the daily morning and evening sacrifices, thereby depriving Yahweh of His people's worship (cf. 1 Macc. 1:44-49, RSV).³¹⁷

"Apparently Antiochus did not actually tear down the temple, although eventually he desecrated it to such a point that it was hardly fit for use [cf. 1 Macc. 4:48]."³¹⁸

"Its overthrowing consists in its being prevented from functioning as a place of worship of the true God."³¹⁹

Some interpreters believe that this verse also previews another literal fulfillment of the destruction of the temple, which is still future (cf. 9:27).³²⁰ Antiochus' actions anticipated what the Antichrist, the little horn of chapter 7, will do in the future (cf. 7:8, 20).

8:12 God would give control of the host (the Jews) to the little horn (Antiochus) because of transgression. This verse makes identification of the host as the Jews rather than angels almost certain.

This verse may mean that God would use Antiochus as His instrument of discipline as He had used so many other leaders and nations in Israel's past because of Israel's transgression (cf. 1 Macc. 1:44-49, RSV).³²¹ Another view is that God would give him control of the sacrifices so he would transgress against God.³²² This second view has in its favor that the transgression in view in verse 13 is Antiochus' rather than the Jews'. Antiochus would terminate the sacrifices, disregard the truth (he destroyed the Torah scrolls, 1 Macc. 1:56), do as he chose, and prosper.

"Attacks on Israel are not the same as attacks on other peoples. Anti-Semitism has an extra dimension."³²³

8:13 The holy ones (Heb. qados) that Daniel heard conversing were evidently angels (cf. 4:17). Here the transgression in view seems to be that of Antiochus, not the Jews (cf. v. 12). It causes horror among the Jews because it involves desecration of the sanctuary (v. 11). The holy place is the temple, and the host is the Jews. The angel wanted to know how long the desecration of the sanctuary and the persecution of the Jews would last.

8:14 Another angel replied, but he replied to Daniel. The answer was primarily for his comfort and for the comfort of his people, the Jews. The angel said that the desecration would last 2,300 evenings and mornings. Many commentators take this as meaning 2,300 days (six years, four months, and 20 days) since the Jews described a 24-hour day as evening and morning (Gen. 1:5-31).³²⁴ Others believe it means a total of 2,300 evenings and mornings (1,150 of each), namely, 1,150 24-hour days (three years, two months, and 10 days). In this case "2,300 evenings and mornings" may mean 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices. This period then may describe the duration of the period when Antiochus did his worst to the temple and the Jews (167-164 B.C.).³²⁵ I think 2,300 days are in view.³²⁶

Some interpreters view the 2,300 as a symbolical number. The problems with this approach are essentially two. First, the other similar numbers in Daniel appear to be literal. Second, arriving at the symbolic meaning of this number is extremely difficult and boils down to guessing. Other interpreters have tried to explain these days as years, but the connection with evenings and mornings probably limits them to days.³²⁷ Perhaps the figure is in days rather than in months or years to give the impression of a long, hard duration.

The temple would be restored after 2,300 days.

"Innumerable explanations have been attempted to make the twenty-three hundred days coincide with the history of Antiochus Epiphanes."³²⁸

One way to locate the fulfillment is to identify the end of the 2,300 days and then work back. But did the angel mean that this period would end with the restoration of the holy place or that the restoration of the holy place would follow sometime after the end of the 2,300 days? The text does not provide the answer, but the first Hanukkah in December of 164 B.C. may be the reconsecration that the angel predicted. Alternatively the full restoration of all the sacrifices and the religious independence of the Jews that came a few months later may be in view. In either case the year of restoration was probably 164 B.C. or shortly after that.

One literal view is that the 2,300 days ended with Antiochus' death in November-December of 164 B.C.³²⁹ However the text seems to identify the 2,300 days specifically with the desecration of the temple and the persecution of the Jews. As far as we know, Antiochus did not take over six years to do those things.³³⁰ Some who hold this view identify the beginning of this period as Antiochus' initial entrance into Jerusalem in 170 B.C. Others identify it with the murder of the Jewish high priest Onias III in 171 B.C. However there was no abridgement of temple service at those early dates. Antiochus looted the temple in 170 B.C., but the abolition of the sacrifices did not begin until 167 B.C.

Regardless of how we solve the 2,300 evenings and mornings problem there is general agreement among the scholars that Antiochus fulfilled this prophecy. I do not know the exact numbers of the years involved here, before 164 B.C. when Antiochus died, but I believe the 2,300 days was a period of persecution during his domination of the Jews.

"A persecutor of the Jews in Russia asked a Jew what he thought the outcome would be if the wave of persecutions continued. The Jew answered, The result will be a feast! Pharaoh tried to destroy the Jews, but the result was the Passover. Haman attempted to destroy the Jews, but the result was the Feast of Purim. Antiochus Epiphanes tried to destroy the Jews, but the result was the Feast of Dedication.'"³³¹

Constable: Dan 8:15-26

5. The interpretation of this vision 8:15-26

8:15-16 As in the previous vision (7:16), Daniel needed help understanding what he had seen. He saw someone who looked like a man standing before him. Evidently this was an angel. Daniel also heard a voice that he could understand, possibly God's, instructing the angel by name to give Daniel understanding of the vision. "Gabriel" (lit. God has shown Himself strong, strong man of God, or man of God) is one of only two angels, and the first, that the Bible identifies by name (cf. 9:21; 10:13, 21; 12:1; Luke 1:19, 26). The use of his proper name probably reflects the importance of this vision and its interpretation.

8:17-18 Gabriel's approach made Daniel so fearful that he prostrated himself on the ground (cf. 2:46; 10:9-10, 15; Ezek. 1:28; 3:23; 44:4; Rev. 1:17). The title "son of man" indicates humanity, and here, in contrast to Gabriel, it stressed Daniel's human weakness (cf. 7:13; Ezek. 2:1; et al.).

"It suggests both solemnly and encouragingly the awesomeness and the honor of an ordinary human being hearing this man of God address him . . ."³³²

Gabriel introduced his interpretation by explaining that it concerned "the time of the end" or the end times (cf. v. 19). The vision dealt with events yet future from Daniel's viewpoint in history.³³³ Daniel's response to Gabriel's awesome presence and words was that he fainted.³³⁴ Gabriel proceeded to revive the prophet and to prepare him to receive the remainder of the interpretation.

8:19 Gabriel clarified that what he was going to explain dealt with "the final period of the indignation" and "the appointed time of the end." Clearly this was future from Daniel's point in history. Yet does it refer to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes exclusively,³³⁵ or does it refer to the end times before Jesus Christ returns,³³⁶ or both? Most premillennial interpreters believe that it refers to both in some sense, either as a double fulfillment³³⁷ or as a type and antitype.³³⁸ This conclusion rests on what follows in verses 23-25 and on other uses of the phrase "the end" in Daniel (9:26; 11:6, 27, 35, 40, 45; 12:4, 6, 9, 13).

8:20-22 Gabriel identified the ram with the two horns as Media and Persia (cf. vv. 3-4), not just Media as many liberal interpreters insist because of their second-century composition hypothesis. The goat, here further described as shaggy, represents Greece (cf. vv. 5-7), not Persia as the liberals contend. The large horn on the goat is the first king of Greece, namely, Alexander the Great. The four kingdoms that arose to replace Alexander when he died were Macedonia and Greece, Thrace and Asia Minor, Egypt and Palestine, and Syria and Persia (cf. v. 8).

"Most [conservative] expositors agree that verses 20-22 have been fulfilled completely in history in connection with the Medo-Persian and Greek empires and the four divisions following Alexander the Great. The exegetical problems arise in the passage which follows."³³⁹

8:23-25 Almost all scholars recognize that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled what Gabriel predicted in these verses.³⁴⁰ He arose in the latter period of the Diacochi, the four kingdoms that arose after Alexander's death, following many transgressors of God's will. He was bold and deceptive. He was powerful because God allowed him to be so. He did much damage especially to Jerusalem and the temple. He became prosperous and carried out his objectives. He destroyed powerful people including the Jewish high priest as well as many Jews. He fooled many people with his shrewdness some of whom were unsuspecting. He exalted himself even to the extent of minting coins that bore his image and the inscription "God manifest" (Gr. theos epiphanes). He also opposed God, the "Prince of princes."

Many students of these verses have noticed striking similarities between Antiochus Epiphanes as described here and another political leader predicted to appear in the future (cf. 7:8, 11, 21-22, 24-26; 9:27; 11:36-45; 12:11; Matt. 24:5, 23-24, 26; Mark 13:6, 21-22; Luke 21:8; 2 Thess 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7; Rev. 13:1-10; 19:20; 20:10, 15). Therefore they, and I, conclude that these verses are prophetic of the Antichrist as well as of Antiochus. It seems that Antiochus did on a smaller scale what Antichrist will do on a larger one.³⁴¹ Apparently in the much later period of the rule of these kings, namely, the end times, transgressors will have run their course even more completely. The Antichrist will oppose the Prince of princes, God the Son, who will break him without human agency (Ps. 2; Rev. 19:19-20).³⁴²

8:26 Another title for this vision is "the vision of the evenings and mornings" (cf. v. 14). The phrase describes the particular period when this prediction would find fulfillment, probably 167-164 B.C. Daniel needed to seal up the vision (NIV) in the sense of recording and finishing it, not in the sense of making it secret (NASB, cf. 7:28; 12:9). It pertained to many days in the future, namely, four centuries later as well as beyond then. The NIV translation "distant future" unfortunately implies that it pertains only to the distant future from our point in history.

Guzik: Dan 8:1-27

Daniel 8 - Antiochus and Antichrist

In the ancient manuscripts, the Book of Daniel here resumes using the Hebrew language. The section from Daniel 2:4 to 7:28 was written in Aramaic.

A. The vision recounted.

1. (1-2) Introduction to the vision.

In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me; to me, Daniel; after the one that appeared to me the first time. I saw in the vision, and it so happened while I was looking, that I was in Shushan, the citadel, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision that I was by the River Ulai.

a. The third year of the reign of King Belshazzar: This vision happened while Babylon was securely in power. Though the vision will deal with the emergence and destiny of the Greek Empire, the Greek Empire was not much of anything at the time the prophecy came to Daniel.

b. I was in Shushan, the citadel: Daniel was in Shushan on the king's business (Daniel 8:27).

2. (3-4) A mighty ram pushing in different directions.

Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great.

a. A ram which had two horns: In this same chapter (Daniel 8:20) this ram is clearly identified as representing the Medo-Persian Empire, which succeeded the Babylonian Empire.

i. It wasn't a stretch to use a ram to represent the Medo-Persian Empire. "Ammianus Marcellinus, a fourth century historian, states that the Persian ruler bore the head of a ram as he stood at the head of his army." (Wood) "The ram was the national emblem of Persia, a ram being stamped on Persian coins as well as on the headdress of Persian emperors." (Strauss)

b. The two horns were high; but one was higher than the other: The ram is noted for the proportion of its two horns - one was higher than the other. This was an accurate prediction of the partnership between the Medes and the Persians, because the Persians were larger and stronger in the partnership. They also emerged after the Medes (the higher one came up last).

c. Pushing westward, northward, and southward: The Medo-Persian Empire exerted its power to the north, south, and west. It assumed territory but made no major conquests towards the east.

i. "The principle theatre of their wars, says Calmet, was against the SCYTHIANS, northward; against the GREEKS, westward; and against the EGYPTIANS, southward." (Clarke)

3. (5-8) A male goat challenges and conquers the ram.

And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Then he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand. Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven.

a. A male goat came from the west: In this same chapter (Daniel 8:21-22) this male goat is clearly identified with Greece and its horns with the rulers of the Greek Empire.

i. From ancient history we know this isn't a strange symbol. The goat was a common representation of the Greek Empire. "Newton very properly observes that, two hundred years before the time of Daniel, they were called, the goats' people." (Clarke)

b. Across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground: The prophetic description of the male goat was proved to be accurate regarding the Greek Empire.

· The Greek Empire rose from the west of previous empires

· The Greek Empire rose with great speed (suddenly . . . without touching the ground)

· The Greek Empire had a notable ruler, Alexander the Great (a notable horn)

· The Greek Empire had a famous war with the Medo-Persian Empire (I saw him confronting the ram)

· The Greek Empire and the Medo-Persian Empire greatly hated each other (with furious power . . . moved with rage). Some of the greatest, fiercest battles of ancient history were fought between the Greeks and the Persians

· The Greek Empire conquered the Medo-Persian Empire (no one that could deliver the ram from his hand)

· The reign of the notable leader of the Greek Empire was suddenly cut short (the large horn was broken)

· After the end of Alexander the Great's reign, the Greek Empire was divided among four rulers (in place of it four notable ones came up)

· The four rulers of the Greek Empire after Alexander ruled their own dominions, not the entire empire together (came up toward the four winds of heaven)

i. Alexander did not divide the empire among his four generals himself. His four leading generals divided it among themselves by force after his death.

· Cassander, ruling over Greece and its region

· Lysimachus, ruling over Asia Minor

· Seleucus, ruling over Syria and Israel's land

· Ptolemy, ruling over Egypt

c. The male goat grew very great: The greatness of Alexander's Empire was not only in its vast dominion, but also in its cultural power. Alexander the Great was determined to spread Greek civilization, culture, and language across every land he conquered.

i. As God guided history, He used Alexander's passion to spread Greek culture to prepare the world for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Because of Alexander's influence koine (common) Greek became the common language of the civilized world - and the language of the New Testament.

4. (9-12) The strong horn that arises from the four horns of the male goat.

And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered.

a. A little horn which grew exceeding great: This was fulfilled in one of the four successors to Alexander the Great. Since the dominion of this horn was extended toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land, we can identify the historical fulfillment of this little horn in Antiochus IV Epiphanes who ruled over Syria and Israel's land under the Seleucid dynasty.

i. Israel's land was fought over between the dynasties of Seleucid and Ptolemy, but the Seleucids gained power over the region in the days of Antiochus III (198 B.C.).

ii. Antiochus IV gained the throne by murdering his brother, the former king Seleucus Philopator. The son of Philopator was the rightful heir to the throne, but Antiochus IV had him held hostage in Rome. Antiochus IV legitimized his rule mainly through flattery and bribery.

iii. Antiochus IV assumed the title "Epiphanes" meaning, "illustrious" and alluding to deity. The Jews turned it into "Epimanes" meaning, "madman."

b. The Glorious Land: In the Hebrew, the same term is used for the land of Israel in Ezekiel 20:6 (the glory of all lands), Ezekiel 25:9 (the glory of the country), and in Daniel 11:16 and 11:41. Similar wording is used in Psalm 48:2.

i. We can rightly see the Glorious Land as the center of the world:

· It is the nerve center of civilization since the days of Abraham

· It is the truth center from which flowed God's revelation to man

· It is the storm center of warring nations since the days of Joshua

· It will be the peace center of the earth during the millennial reign of Jesus

· It will be the home center for the Jewish people forever more

c. Antiochus Epiphanes is an accurate and dramatic fulfillment of this prophecy in history - so much so that critics insist that the Book of Daniel must have been written after his time.

· Antiochus Epiphanes exerted his dominion toward the south, toward the east, and toward the land of Israel

· Antiochus Epiphanes murdered other rulers and persecuted the people of Israel (cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them)

· Antiochus Epiphanes blasphemed God and commanded idolatrous worship directed towards himself (exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host)

· Antiochus Epiphanes put a stop to temple sacrifices in Jerusalem (by him the daily sacrifices were taken away)

· Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple (the place of His sanctuary was cast down)

· Antiochus Epiphanes opposed God and seemed to prosper (he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered)

d. It cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground: These are symbols used in the Old Testament for angels, kings and leaders, or the people of God at large. Here it is fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes and his attacks against rulers and God's people in general.

i. The terms stars of heaven (Genesis 12:3, 15:5) and the hosts of the LORD (Exodus 12:41) are used of God's people in general.

ii. "Undoubtedly it is the design here to describe the pride and ambition of [the "little horn"], and to show that he did not think anything too exalted for his aspiration." (Barnes)

e. And trampled them: Antiochus was an infamous persecutor of the Jewish people. He wanted them to submit to Greek culture and customs and was more than willing to use murder and violence to compel them.

i. Antiochus's suppression of the Jews came to a head in December of 168 B.C. when he returned in defeat from Alexandria. He ordered his generals to seize Jerusalem on a Sabbath. There he erected an idol of Zeus and desecrated the altar by an offering of swine and sprinkling the pig's juices in the sanctuary. Sacrifice was ceased because the temple was desecrated.

ii. 1 Maccabees 1:29-32 and 1:52-61 describe how Antiochus persecuted the Jews. 1 Maccabees 1:41-50 describes his blasphemies. By some estimates he is responsible for the murder of more than 100,000 Jews.

f. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices: This was fulfilled in the terrors of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Jews, especially their leaders invited God's judgment upon them through Antiochus because of their sin.

i. The first attack of Antiochus against the Jews was to settle a rivalry for the high priesthood. A pious high priest, Onias III, was removed from office and replaced with his brother Jason because Jason bribed Antiochus. Then in 172, another brother (Menelaus) gave Antiochus an even bigger bribe and replaced Jason. A year later Menelaus started selling many of the temple's gold utensils to raise money to pay off the bribe. Onias III rebuked him, and Menelaus had him murdered. Meanwhile, Jason gathered armies and fought against Menelaus to regain the office of High Priest. Antiochus Epiphanes came in to Jerusalem in 171 to defend the man who paid him a bigger bribe to be the High Priest.

ii. "This was the reason why God set over them such a breathing devil, as was Antiochus, for a punishment of their open impiety and formal apostasy." (Trapp)

5. (13-14) The duration of the sanctuary's desecration: 2,300 days.

Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, "How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot?" And he said to me, "For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."

a. Then I heard a holy one speaking: Many think this nameless holy one is an Old Testament appearance of Jesus. This is possible, but there is not enough information to be certain.

b. How long will the vision be? Daniel didn't ask this question; he heard the holy ones speaking together and one asked the question. They wanted to know how long the sacrifices would be suspended and how long the sanctuary would be desecrated.

c. For two thousand three hundred days: Literally, Daniel heard a holy one say "two thousand three hundred mornings and evenings." Bible students debate if this means 2,300 days or 1,150 days. 2,300 days is almost seven years.

i. Either understanding is possible, but it is more likely that this means 2,300 days. The date when the temple was cleansed is well established as December 25, 165 B.C. If we count back 2,300 days from then, we come to the year when Antiochus Epiphanes began his persecution in earnest (171 B.C.).

ii. However, if we take it to mean 1,150 days it can refer to the time the temple was actually desecrated. Philip Newell makes this case: "For a duration of time during which 2300 daily sacrifices would ordinarily have been offered, one at evening and one in the morning, as specified in Exodus 29:38-43. Since there are two of these daily, the actual time period involved is 1150 days, or slightly over three years. This, in fact, was the time of the Maccabean tribulation, 168-165 B.C., at the end of which the sanctuary was 'cleansed' by Judas Maccabeus in his restoration of the evening and morning sacrifices (2 Maccabees 10:1-5)."

iii. This passage has been a favorite springboard for elaborate and fanciful prophetic interpretations. A popular and tragic interpretation of this passage took one year for every day, and William Miller used 2,300 "year-days" to calculate that Jesus would return in 1844 (2,300 years after Cyrus issued the decree to rebuild the temple). His movement ended up giving birth to the Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and several other movements.

iv. We can know that Miller and other "year-day" theories are wrong because this passage was fulfilled before the time of Jesus. Jesus recognized that the temple was properly cleansed and rededicated when He attended the Feast of Lights, commemorating the cleansing and rededication of the temple after the desecration brought by Antiochus Epiphanes (John 10:22).

v. Adam Clarke comments show what a hold the year-date approach had to many of his time: "Though literally it be two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings, yet I think the prophetic day should be understood here, as in other parts of this prophet, and must signify so many years. If we date these years from the vision of the he-goat, (Alexander's invading Asia), this was A.M. 3670, B.C. 334; and two thousand three hundred years from that time will reach to A.D. 1966, or one hundred and forty-one years from the present A.D. 1825." There is no foundation for Clarke's approach, and it has led many off into serious error.

d. This amazingly specific prophecy was written some 350 years before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Great prophetic fulfillment like this demonstrates that God not only knows the future, He also guides the future.

B. The vision is interpreted.

1. (15-19) Gabriel appears to Daniel.

Then it happened, when I, Daniel, had seen the vision and was seeking the meaning, that suddenly there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. And I heard a man's voice between the banks of the Ulai, who called, and said, "Gabriel, make this man understand the vision." So he came near where I stood, and when he came I was afraid and fell on my face; but he said to me, "Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end." Now, as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep with my face to the ground; but he touched me, and stood me upright. And he said, "Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be.

a. Between the banks of the Ulai: Daniel is still in the midst of his vision, where he saw himself on the shores of the Persian river. He heard someone instruct Gabriel to explain the vision to Daniel.

b. The vision refers to the time of the end: Gabriel assures Daniel that this vision has to do with end times, with the latter time of the indignation.

i. This is a problem for some, because we see that the prophecy of Daniel 8:1-14 was fulfilled in the days of the Medo-Persian and Greek Empires, especially in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The terms time of the end and latter time of the indignation commonly refer to what we think of as the end times, not events fulfilled more than a 100 years before the birth of Jesus.

ii. The answer is that though this prophecy is fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes it also has a later fulfillment in the Antichrist, referring to the time of the end. Antiochus Epiphanes is sometimes called the "antichrist of the Old Testament." He prefigures the Antichrist of the end times.

iii. Just like Antiochus Epiphanes rose to power with force and intrigue, so will the Antichrist. As he persecuted the Jews, so will the Antichrist. As he stopped sacrifice and desecrated the temple, so will the Antichrist. As he seemed to be a complete success, so will the Antichrist. "From what Antiochus did to Jews in his day, therefore, one may know the general pattern of what the Antichrist will do to them in the future." (Wood)

iv. "Greece with all its refinement, culture and art, produced the Old Testament Anti-Christ while the so called Christian nations produce the New Testament Anti-Christ." (Heslop)

c. Some see this Antiochus and Antichrist connection, and some do not. Martin Luther wrote, "This chapter in Daniel refers both to Antiochus and Antichrist." John Calvin wrote, "Hence Luther, indulging his thoughts too freely, refers this passage to the masks of Antichrist."

2. (20-22) The specific identification of the ram and the male goat of Daniel's vision.

The ram which you saw, having the two horns; they are the kings of Media and Persia. And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.

a. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king: This was fulfilled in history by Alexander the Great.

b. Four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power: This was fulfilled in history by the four generals who divided Alexander's Empire between them.

3. (23-26) The rise and fall of the strong little horn.

And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise, having fierce features, who understands sinister schemes. His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; he shall destroy fearfully, and shall prosper and thrive; he shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people. Through his cunning he shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule; and he shall exalt himself in his heart. He shall destroy many in their prosperity. He shall even rise against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human means. And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true; therefore seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the future.

a. In the latter time of their kingdom: The prophecy in this passage reads equally true of both Antiochus and Antichrist. This is an example of a prophetic passage that has both a near and far fulfillment.

b. Having fierce features: Antiochus Epiphanes was known for his cruel brutality; this will also become the legacy of the coming Antichrist.

c. Who understands sinister schemes . . . through his cunning: Antiochus was known for his flattery and smooth tongue. The coming Antichrist will strike a covenant with Israel (Daniel 9:27).

d. His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: Antiochus Epiphanes was empowered by Satan and allowed by God. The same will be true of the coming Antichrist.

e. Shall prosper and thrive: Antiochus Epiphanes looked like a total success. The coming Antichrist will look like a complete winner until God topples his reign.

f. He shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people: Antiochus Epiphanes not only destroyed his enemies, but also harshly persecuted the people of God. The coming Antichrist will also destroy and persecute.

g. He shall cause deceit to prosper: Both the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes in the past and the Antichrist in the future are marked by deceit. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10)

h. He shall magnify himself in his heart: The coins of Antiochus Epiphanes were inscribed with this title: theos epiphanies meaning, "God manifest." The coming Antichrist will also exalt himself: So that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4)

i. He shall even rise against the Prince of princes: Though Antiochus Epiphanes hated and fought against the people of God, it was because he really hated God. The same will be true of the coming Antichrist, who will hate the Jews because they hate God.

j. Broken without human hand: History tells us that Antiochus Epiphanes died of disease, not by the hand of man. In a similar way, no man will defeat the coming Antichrist, but the hand of Jesus will strike him down (Revelation 19:20).

k. Therefore seal up the vision: Daniel must do this because in his day the vision referred to a period far distant in its ultimate fulfillment. For us, the time is near (Revelation 1:3) and the book is unsealed (Revelation 22:10).

5. (27) Daniel reacts to the vision with physical shock and astonishment.

And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days; afterward I arose and went about the king's business. I was astonished by the vision, but no one understood it.

a. Fainted and was sick . . . I was astonished: Daniel probably couldn't understand why God would allow such a mighty persecutor of His people to rise up.

i. "He may well have been puzzled about why Yahweh would permit even this brief time of brutal oppression under the little horn." (Archer)

b. I went about the king's business: Daniel didn't let either spiritual mysteries or physical weakness keep him from doing his duty. This shows us that our interest in prophecy should make us more about our king's business, not less about it.

i. "He would have counted it a great slur on his religious life if it could have been said that his visions and exercises interfered with his service to the king." (Meyer)

ii. "Let us not neglect the work of the Lord, though less able to perform it. A sick child's service is doubly accepted." (Trapp)

c. No one understood it: It wasn't because God never wanted this prophecy to be understood. There is no reason for God to reveal something to man that can never be understood. The reason why no one understood it was because the vision was sealed up in light of its ultimate fulfillment in Daniel's distant future.

i. It is worth repeating: the time is not distant for us in light of Revelation 1:3 and the book of prophecy is not sealed in light of Revelation 22:10.

© 2002 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Daniel (Book Introduction)

DANIEL, that is, "God is my judge"; probably of the blood royal (compare Dan 1:3, with 1Ch 3:1, where a son of David is named so). Jerusalem may have been his birthplace (though Dan 9:24, "thy holy city," does not necessarily imply this). He was carried to Babylon among the Hebrew captives brought thither by Nebuchadnezzar at the first deportation in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. As he and his three companions are called (Dan 1:4) "children," he cannot have been more than about twelve years old when put in training, according to Eastern etiquette, to be a courtier (Dan 1:3, Dan 1:6). He then received a new name, by which it was usual to mark a change in one's condition (2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:17; Ezr 5:14; Est 2:7), Belteshazzar, that is, "a prince favored by Bel" (Dan 1:7). His piety and wisdom were proverbial among his countrymen at an early period; probably owing to that noble proof he gave of faithfulness, combined with wisdom, in abstaining from the food sent to him from the king's table, as being polluted by the idolatries usual at heathen banquets (Dan 1:8-16). Hence Ezekiel's reference to him (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20; Eze 28:3) is precisely of that kind we should expect; a coincidence which must be undesigned. Ezekiel refers to him not as a writer, but as exhibiting a character righteous and wise in discerning secrets, in those circumstances now found in his book, which are earlier than the time when Ezekiel wrote. As Joseph rose in Egypt by interpreting Pharaoh's dreams, so Daniel, by interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's, was promoted to be governor of Babylonia, and president of the Magian priest-caste. Under Evil-merodach, Nebuchadnezzar's successor, as a change of officers often attends the accession of a new king, Daniel seems to have had a lower post, which led him occasionally to be away from Babylon (Dan 8:2, Dan 8:27). Again he came into note when he read the mystic writing of Belshazzar's doom on the wall on the night of that monarch's impious feast. BEROSUS calls the last Babylonian king Nabonidus and says he was not killed, but had an honorable abode in Carmania assigned to him, after having surrendered voluntarily in Borsippa. RAWLINSON has cleared up the discrepancy from the Nineveh inscription. Belshazzar was joint king with his father, Evil-merodach or Nabonidus (called Minus in the inscriptions), to whom he was subordinate. He shut himself up in Babylon, while the other king took refuge elsewhere, namely, in Borsippa. BEROSUS gives the Chaldean account, which suppresses all about Belshazzar, as being to the national dishonor. Had Daniel been a late book, he would no doubt have taken up the later account of BEROSUS. If he gave a history differing from that current in Babylonia, the Jews of that region would not have received it as true. Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II, succeeded and reigned two years. The mention of this monarch's reign, almost unknown to profane history (being eclipsed by the splendor of Cyrus) is an incidental proof that Daniel wrote as a contemporary historian of events which he knew, and did not borrow from others. In the third year of Cyrus he saw the visions (the tenth through twelfth chapters) relating to his people down to the latest days and the coming resurrection. He must have been about eighty-four years old at this time. Tradition represents Daniel as having died and been buried at Shushan. Though his advanced age did not allow him to be among those who returned to Palestine, yet he never ceased to have his people's interests nearest to his heart (Dan. 9:3-19; Dan 10:12).

AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. Dan 7:1, Dan 7:28; Dan 8:2; Dan 9:2; Dan 10:1-2; Dan 12:4-5, testify that it was composed by Daniel himself. He does not mention himself in the first six chapters, which are historical; for in these it is not the author, but the events which are the prominent point. In the last six, which are prophetical, the author makes himself known, for here it was needed, prophecy being a revelation of words to particular men. It holds a third rank in the Hebrew canon: not among the prophets, but in the Hagiographa (Chetubim), between Esther and Ezra, books like it relating to the captivity; because he did not strictly belong to those who held exclusively the profession of "prophets" in the theocracy, but was rather a "seer," having the gift, but not the office of prophet. Were the book an interpolated one, it doubtless would have been placed among the prophets. Its present position is a proof of its genuineness, as it was deliberately put in a position different from that where most would expect to find it. Placed between Esther, and Ezra and Nehemiah, it separated the historical books of the time after the captivity. Thus, Daniel was, as BENGEL calls him, the politician, chronologer, and historian among the prophets. The Psalms also, though many are prophetical, are ranked with the Hagiographa, not with the prophets; and the Revelation of John is separated from his Epistles, as Daniel is from the Old Testament prophets. Instead of writing in the midst of the covenant people, and making them the foreground of his picture, he writes in a heathen court, the world kingdoms occupying the foreground, and the kingdom of God, though ultimately made the most significant, the background. His peculiar position in the heathen court is reflected in his peculiar position in the canon. As the "prophets" in the Old Testament, so the epistles of the apostles in the New Testament were written by divinely commissioned persons for their contemporaries. But Daniel and John were not in immediate contact with the congregation, but isolated and alone with God, the one in a heathen court, the other on a lonely isle (Rev 1:9). PORPHYRY, the assailant of Christianity in the third century, asserted that the Book of Daniel was a forgery of the time of the Maccabees (170-164 B.C.), a time when confessedly there were no prophets, written after the events as to Antiochus Epiphanes, which it professes to foretell; so accurate are the details. A conclusive proof of Daniel's inspiration, if his prophecies can be shown to have been before the events. Now we know, from JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 10.11.7], that the Jews in Christ's days recognized Daniel as in the canon. Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah, centuries before Antiochus, refer to it. Jesus refers to it in His characteristic designation, "Son of man," Mat 24:30 (Dan 7:13); also expressly by name, and as a "prophet," in Mat 24:15 (compare Mat 24:21, with Dan 12:1, &c.); and in the moment that decided His life (Mat 26:64) or death, when the high priest adjured him by the living God. Also, in Luk 1:19-26, "Gabriel" is mentioned, whose name occurs nowhere else in Scripture, save in Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21. Besides the references to it in Revelation, Paul confirms the prophetical part of it, as to the blasphemous king (Dan 7:8, Dan 7:25; Dan 11:36), in 1Co 6:2; 2Th 2:3-4; the narrative part, as to the miraculous deliverances from "the lions" and "the fire," in Heb 11:33-34. Thus the book is expressly attested by the New Testament on the three points made the stumbling-block of neologists--the predictions, the narratives of miracles, and the manifestations of angels. An objection has been stated to the unity of the book, namely, that Jesus quotes no part of the first half of Daniel. But Mat 21:44 would be an enigma if it were not a reference to the "stone that smote the image" (Dan 2:34-35, Dan 2:44-45). Thus the New Testament sanctions the second, third, sixth, seventh, and eleventh chapters. The design of the miracles in the heathen courts where Daniel was, as of those of Moses in Egypt, was to lead the world power, which seemed to be victorious over the theocracy, to see the essential inner superiority of the seemingly fallen kingdom of God to itself, and to show prostrate Israel that the power of God was the same as of old in Egypt. The first book of Maccabees (compare 1 Maccabees 1:24; 9:27, 40, with Dan 12:1; Dan 11:26, of the Septuagint) refers to Daniel as an accredited book, and even refers to the Septuagint Alexandrian version of it. The fact of Daniel having a place in the Septuagint shows it was received by the Jews at large prior to the Maccabean times. The Septuagint version so arbitrarily deviated from the Hebrew Daniel, that Theodotius' version was substituted for it in the early Christian Church. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees. With Jaddua (high priest from 341-322 B.C.) the Old Testament history ends (Neh 12:11). (The register of the priests and Levites was not written by Nehemiah, who died about 400 B.C., but was inserted with divine sanction by the collectors of the canon subsequently.) An objection to Daniel's authenticity has been rested on a few Greek words found in it. But these are mostly names of Greek musical instruments, which were imported by Greece from the East, rather than vice versa. Some of the words are derived from the common Indo-Germanic stock of both Greek and Chaldee: hence their appearance in both tongues. And one or two may have come through the Greeks of Asia Minor to the Chaldee. The fact that from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh, the language is Chaldee, but the rest Hebrew, is not an argument against, but for, its authenticity. So in Ezra the two languages are found. The work, if that of one author, must have been composed by someone in the circumstances of Daniel, that is, by one familiar with both languages. No native-born Hebrew who had not lived in Chaldea would know Chaldee so well as to use it with the same idiomatic ease as his native tongue; the very impurities in Daniel's use of both are just such as were natural to one in his circumstances, but unnatural to one in a later age, or to one not half Hebrew, half Chaldean in residence as Daniel was. Those parts of Daniel which concern the whole world are mostly Chaldee, then the language of the world empire. So Greek was made the language of the New Testament, which was designed for the whole world. Those affecting the Jews, mostly Hebrew; and this not so impure as that of Ezekiel. His Chaldee is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. Two predictions alone are enough to prove to us that Daniel was a true prophet. (1) That his prophecies reach beyond Antiochus; namely, he foretells the rise of the four great monarchies, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (the last not being in Daniel's time known beyond the precincts of Italy, or rather of Latium), and that no other earthly kingdom would subvert the fourth, but that it would divide into parts. All this has come to pass. No fifth great earthly monarchy has arisen, though often attempted, as by Charlemagne, Charles V, and Napoleon. (2) The time of Messiah's advent, as dated from a certain decree, His being cut off, and the destruction of the city. "He who denies Daniel's prophecies," says SIR ISAAC NEWTON, "undermines Christianity, which is founded on Daniel's prophecies concerning Christ."

CHARACTERISTICS OF DANIEL. The vision mode of revelation is the exception in other prophets, the rule in Daniel. In Zechariah (Zec. 1:1-6:15), who lived after Daniel, the same mode appears, but the other form from the seventh chapter to the end. The Revelation of St. John alone is perfectly parallel to Daniel, which may be called the Old Testament Apocalypse. In the contents too there is the difference above noticed, that he views the kingdom of God from the standpoint of the world kingdoms, the development of which is his great subject. This mode of viewing it was appropriate to his own position in a heathen court, and to the relation of subjection in which the covenant-people then stood to the world powers. No longer are single powers of the world incidentally introduced, but the universal monarchies are the chief theme, in which the worldly principle, opposed to the kingdom of God, manifests itself fully. The near and distant are not seen in the same perspective, as by the other prophets, who viewed the whole future from the eschatological point; but in Daniel the historical details are given of that development of the world powers which must precede the advent of the kingdom [AUBERLEN].

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. The exile is the historical basis of Daniel's prophecies, as Daniel implies in the first chapter, which commences with the beginning, and ends with the termination, of the captivity (Dan 1:1, Dan 1:21; compare Dan 9:1-2). A new stage in the theocracy begins with the captivity. Nebuchadnezzar made three incursions into Judah. The first under Jehoiakim (606 B.C.), in which Daniel was carried away, subjected the theocracy to the Babylonian world power. The second (598 B.C.) was that in which Jehoiachin and Ezekiel were carried away. In the third (588 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried away Zedekiah. Originally, Abraham was raised out of the "sea" (Dan 7:2) of the nations, as an island holy to God, and his seed chosen as God's mediator of His revelations of love to mankind. Under David and Solomon, the theocracy, as opposed to the heathen power, attained its climax in the Old Testament, not only being independent, but lord of the surrounding nations; so that the period of these two kings was henceforth made the type of the Messianic. But when God's people, instead of resting on Him, seek alliance with the world power, that very power is made the instrument of their chastisement. So Ephraim (722 B.C.) fell by Assyria; and Judah also, drawn into the sphere of the world's movements from the time of Ahaz, who sought Assyrian help (740 B.C., Isa. 7:1-25) at last fell by Babylon, and thenceforth has been more or less dependent on the world monarchies, and so, till Messiah, was favored with no revelations from the time of Malachi (four hundred years). Thus, from the beginning of the exile, the theocracy, in the strict sense, ceased on earth; the rule of the world powers superseding it. But God's covenant with Israel remains firm (Rom 11:29); therefore, a period of blessing under Messiah's kingdom is now foretold as about to follow their long chastisement. The exile thus is the turning point in the history of the theocracy, which ROOS thus divides: (1) From Adam to the exodus out of Egypt. (2) From the exodus to the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. (3) From the captivity to the millennium. (4) From the millennium to the end of the world. The position of Daniel in the Babylonian court was in unison with the altered relations of the theocracy and the world power, which new relation was to be the theme of his prophecy. Earlier prophets, from the standpoint of Israel, treated of Israel in its relation to the world powers; Daniel, from Babylon, the center of the then world power, treats of the world powers in their relation to Israel. His seventy years' residence in Babylon, and his high official position there, gave him an insight into the world's politics, fitting him to be the recipient of political revelations; while his spiritual experiences, gained through Nebuchadnezzar's humiliation, Belshazzar's downfall, and the rapid decay of the Babylonian empire itself, as well as the miraculous deliverances of himself and his friends (the third through sixth chapters), all fitted him for regarding things from the spiritual standpoint, from which the world's power appears transient, but the glory of God's kingdom eternal. As his political position was the body, the school of magicians in which he had studied for three years (Dan 1:4-5) was the soul; and his mind strong in faith and nourished by the earlier prophecies (Dan 9:2), the spirit of his prophecy, which only waited for the spirit of revelation from above to kindle it. So God fits His organs for their work. AUBERLEN compares Daniel to Joseph: the one at the beginning, the other at the end of the Jewish history of revelation; both representatives of God and His people at heathen courts; both interpreters of the dim presentiments of truth, expressed in God-sent dreams, and therefore raised to honor by the powers of the world: so representing Israel's calling to be a royal priesthood among the nations; and types of Christ, the true Israel, and of Israel's destination to be a light to lighten the whole Gentile world, as Rom 11:12, Rom 11:15 foretells. As Achilles at the beginning, and Alexander at the end, of Grecian history are the mirrors of the whole life of the Hellenic people, so Joseph and Daniel of Israel.

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK. Historical and biographical introduction in the first chapter. Daniel, a captive exile, is representative of his nation in its servitude and exile: while his heavenly insight into dreams, far exceeding that of the magi, represents the divine superiority of the covenant-people over their heathen lords. The high dignities, even in the world, which he thereby attained, typify the giving of the earth-kingdom at last "to the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan 7:27). Thus Daniel's personal history is the typical foundation of his prophecy. The prophets had to experience in themselves, and in their age, something of what they foretold about future times; just as David felt much of Christ's sufferings in his own person (compare Hos 1:2-11; Hos 2:3). So Jon. 1:1-17, &c. [ROOS]. Hence biographical notices of Daniel and his friends are inserted among his prophecies. The second through twelfth chapters contain the substance of the book, and consist of two parts. The first (the second through seventh chapters) represents the development of the world powers, viewed from a historical point. The second (the eighth through twelfth chapters), their development in relation to Israel, especially in the future preceding Christ's first advent, foretold in the ninth chapter. But prophecy looks beyond the immediate future to the complete fulfilment in the last days, since the individual parts in the organic history of salvation cannot be understood except in connection with the whole. Also Israel looked forward to the Messianic time, not only for spiritual salvation, but also for the visible restoration of the kingdom which even now we too expect. The prophecy which they needed ought therefore to comprise both, and so much of the history of the world as would elapse before the final consummation. The period of Daniel's prophecies, therefore, is that from the downfall of the theocracy at the captivity till its final restoration, yet future--the period of the dominion of the world powers, not set aside by Christ's first coming (Joh 18:36; for, to have taken the earth-kingdom then, would have been to take it from Satan's hands, Mat 4:8-10), but to be superseded by His universal and everlasting kingdom at His second coming (Rev 11:15). Thus the general survey of the development and final destiny of the world powers (the second through seventh chapters) fittingly precedes the disclosures as to the immediate future (the eighth through twelfth chapters). Daniel marks the division by writing the first part in Chaldee, and the second, and the introduction, in Hebrew; the former, referring to the powers of the world, in the language of the then dominant world power under which he lived; the latter, relating to the people of God, in their own language. An interpolator in a later age would have used Hebrew, the language of the ancient prophets throughout, or if anywhere Aramaic, so as to be understood by his contemporaries, he would have used it in the second rather than in the first part as having a more immediate reference to his own times [AUBERLEN].

JFB: Daniel (Outline)

• THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY BEGINS; DANIEL'S EDUCATION AT BABYLON, &C. (Dan. 1:1-21)
• NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S DREAM: DANIEL'S INTERPRETATION OF IT, AND ADVANCEMENT. (Dan. 2:1-49)
• NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S IDOLATROUS IMAGE; SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABED-NEGO ARE DELIVERED FROM THE FURNACE. (Dan. 3:1-30)
• EDICT OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR CONTAINING HIS SECOND DREAM, RELATING TO HIMSELF. (Dan. 4:1-37)
• BELSHAZZAR'S IMPIOUS FEAST; THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL INTERPRETED BY DANIEL OF THE DOOM OF BABYLON AND ITS KING. (Dan. 5:1-31)
• DARIUS' DECREE: DANIEL'S DISOBEDIENCE, AND CONSEQUENT EXPOSURE TO THE LION'S: HIS DELIVERANCE BY GOD, AND DARIUS' DECREE. (Dan. 6:1-28)
• VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS. (Dan. 7:1-28)
• VISION OF THE RAM AND HE-GOAT: THE TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS OF THE SANCTUARY BEING TRODDEN DOWN. (Dan. 8:1-27)
• DANIEL'S CONFESSION AND PRAYER FOR JERUSALEM: GABRIEL COMFORTS HIM BY THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. (Dan. 9:1-27)
• DANIEL COMFORTED BY AN ANGELIC VISION. (Dan. 10:1-21)
• CONCLUSION OF THE VISION (TENTH THROUGH TWELFTH CHAPTERS) AND EPILOGUE TO THE BOOK. (Dan 12:1-13)

TSK: Daniel 8 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Dan 8:1, Daniel’s vision of the ram and he goat; Dan 8:13, The two thousand three hundred days of the suspension of the daily sacrifice; Dan 8:15, Gabriel comforts Daniel, and interprets the vision.

Poole: Daniel (Book Introduction)

BOOK OF DANIEL

THE ARGUMENT

IN Daniel and his prophecy, observe these things for the better understanding of this book, and the mind of God in it:

1. As to the author; First, He was a prophet, as appears in the little stone cut out of the mountain without hands, meaning Christ the Messiah and his kingdom, what he should do, chapter 2; likewise chapter 7 to the end of the book: the first six chapters are historical, the last six prophetical. Secondly, As to his lineage, he was one of the royal seed. Thirdly, He was a captive. Fourthly, He was rarely qualified for piety, wisdom, beauty. Fifthly, As to his education, he was trained for three years in learning. Sixthly, His advancement for his parts and wisdom. Seventhly, He was faithful and blameless in the place of honour to which he was preferred. Eighthly, His care and kindness for his companions; he procured their promotion also. Ninthly, His singular holiness and power with God in prayer, Eze 14:14 . Tenthly, His faithfulness and constancy in the worship of God, maugre the envy and persecution of his enemies. Eleventhly, The strange providence of God in his preservation and deliverance. Twelfthly, His signal integrity and flourishing state under several kings’ reigns, even in critical times and great changes, unto his old age, and beyond the seventy years of captivity.

2. AS to the book itself, both the historical and prophetical part of it, especially the latter, we find, First. Great variety in them. Secondly, Famous predictions; of the Messiah, of dreadful wars, of fearful desolations to countries, and the Jewish nation in particular, for putting Christ to death; great persecutions of the church, by the Grecians and Romans especially, in which Antiochus and antichrist are pointed at. These things are all of such weighty consideration, that our blessed Saviour calls for especial understanding in the reading even of one part of it, Mat 24:15 . His chronology and calculations may be called the key of time, relating to the church’ s sufferings and deliverances. Daniel was the greatest favourite we read of, namely, of the King of heaven, Dan 9:23 10:11 , and of the greatest kings then on earth. He was the noblest pattern of a public heart for the church of God, for whose affliction he was deeply afflicted in the midst of his court honours and employments.

Poole: Daniel 8 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 8

Daniel’ s vision of the ram and he goat, Dan 8:1-12 . The days of suspension of the daily sacrifice, and desolation of the sanctuary, Dan 8:13,14 . Gabriel comforteth Daniel, and interpreteth the vision, Dan 8:15-27 .

This follows then in time after the former. Those things that were meet for the Chaldees to know are recorded by Daniel in that tongue; but now he writes in Hebrew, which lasts to the end of the book, because these things relate to the church of Christ, Jew and Gentile, to the end of the world.

In the other vision he speaks of all the four monarchies, here only of the three first; this vision being both as a part and a comment upon the first.

MHCC: Daniel (Book Introduction)

Daniel was of noble birth, if not one of the royal family of Judah. He was carried captive to Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiachin, B. C. 606, when a youth. He was there taught the learning of the Chaldeans, and held high offices, both under the Babylonian and Persian empires. He was persecuted for his religion, but was miraculously delivered; and lived to a great age, as he must have been about ninety-four years old at the time of the last of his visions. The book of Daniel is partly historical, relating various circumstances which befell himself and the Jews, at Babylon; but is chiefly prophetical, detailing visions and prophecies which foretell numerous important events relative to the four great empires of the world, the coming and death of the Messiah, the restoration of the Jews, and the conversion of the Gentiles. Though there are considerable difficulties in explaining the prophetical meaning of some passages in this book, we always find encouragement to faith and hope, examples worthy of imitation, and something to direct our thoughts to Christ Jesus upon the cross and on his glorious throne.

MHCC: Daniel 8 (Chapter Introduction)

(Dan 8:1-14) Daniel's vision of the ram and the he-goat.

(Dan 8:15-27) The interpretation of it.

Matthew Henry: Daniel (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Book of the Prophet Daniel

The book of Ezekiel left the affairs of Jerusalem under a doleful aspect, all in ruins, but with a joyful prospect of all in glory again. This of Daniel fitly follows. Ezekiel told us what was seen, and what was foreseen, by him in the former years of the captivity: Daniel tells us what was seen, and foreseen, in the latter years of the captivity. When God employs different hands, yet it is about the same work. And it was a comfort to the poor captives that they had first one prophet among them and then another, to show them how long, and a sign that God had not quite cast them off. Let us enquire, I. Concerning this prophet His Hebrew name was Daniel, which signifies the judgment of God; his Chaldean name was Belteshazzar. He was of the tribe of Judah, and, as it should seem, of the royal family. He was betimes eminent for wisdom and piety. Ezekiel, his contemporary, but much his senior, speaks of him as an oracle when thus he upbraids the king of Tyre with his conceitedness of himself: Thou art wiser then Daniel, Eze 38:3. He is likewise there celebrated for success in prayer, when Noah, Daniel, and Job are reckoned as three men that had the greatest interest in heaven of any, Eze 14:14. He began betimes to be famous, and continued long so. Some of the Jewish rabbin are loth to acknowledge him to be a prophet of the higher form, and therefore rank his book among the Hagiographa , not among the prophecies, and would not have their disciples pay much regard to it. One reason they pretend is because he did not live such a mean mortified life as Jeremiah and some other of the prophets did, but lived like a prince, and was a prime-minister of state; whereas we find him persecuted as other prophets were (ch. 6), and mortifying himself as other prophets did, when he ate no pleasant bread (Dan 10:3), and fainting sick when he was under the power of the Spirit of prophecy, Dan 8:27. Another reason they pretend is because he wrote his book in a heathen country, and there had his visions, and not in the land of Israel; but, for the same reason, Ezekiel also must be expunged out of the roll of prophets. But the true reason is that he speaks so plainly of the time of the Messiah's coming that the Jews cannot avoid the conviction of it and therefore do not care to hear of it. But Josephus calls him one of the greatest of the prophets, nay, the angel Gabriel calls him a man greatly beloved. He lived long an active life in the courts and councils of some of the greatest monarchs the world ever had, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius; for we mistake of we confine the privilege of an intercourse with heaven to speculative men, or those that spend their time in contemplation; no, who was more intimately acquainted with the mind of God than Daniel, a courtier, a statesman, and a man of business? The Spirit, as the wind, blows where it lists. And, if those that have much to do in the world plead that as an excuse for the infrequency and slightness of their converse with God, Daniel will condemn them. Some have thought that he returned to Jerusalem, and was one of the masters of the Greek synagogue; but nothing of that appears in scripture; it is therefore generally concluded that he died in Persia at Susan, where he lived to be very old. II. Concerning this book. The first six chapters of it are historical, and are plain and easy; the last six are prophetical, and in them are many things dark, and hard to be understood, which yet would be more intelligible if we had a more complete history of the nations, and especially the Jewish nation, from Daniel's time to the coming of the Messiah. Our Saviour intimates the difficulty of apprehending the sense of Daniel's prophecies when, speaking of them, he says, Let him that readeth understand, Mat 24:15. The first chapter, and the first three verses of the second chapter, are in Hebrew; thence to the eighth chapter is in the Chaldee dialect; and thence to the end is in Hebrew. Mr. Broughton observes that, as the Chaldeans were kind to Daniel, and gave cups of cold water to him when he requested it, rather than the king's wine, God would not have them lose their reward, but made that language which they taught him to have honour in his writings through all the world, unto this day. Daniel, according to his computation, continues the holy story from the first surprising of Jerusalem by the Chaldean Babel, when he himself was carried away captive, until the last destruction of it by Rome, the mystical Babel, for so far forward his predictions look, Dan 9:27. The fables of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, in both which Daniel is made a party, are apocryphal stories, which we think we have no reason to give any credit to, they being never found in the Hebrew or Chaldee, but only in the Greek, nor ever admitted by the Jewish church. There are some both of the histories and of the prophecies of this book that bear date in the latter end of the Chaldean monarchy, and others of both that are dated in the beginning of the Persian monarchy. But both Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which Daniel interpreted, and his own visions, point at the Grecian and Roman monarchies, and very particularly at the Jews' troubles under Antiochus, which it would be of great use to them to prepare for; as his fixing the very time for the coming of the Messiah was of use to all those that waited for the consolation of Israel, and is to us, for the confirming of our belief, That this is he who should come, and we are to look for no other.

Matthew Henry: Daniel 8 (Chapter Introduction)

The visions and prophecies of this chapter look only and entirely at the events that were then shortly to come to pass in the monarchies of Persia and Greece, and seem not to have any further reference at all. Nothing is here said of the Chaldean monarchy, for that was now just at its period; and therefore this chapter is written not in Chaldee, as the six foregoing chapters were, for the benefit of the Chaldeans, but in Hebrew, and so are the rest of the chapters to the end of the book, for the service of the Jews, that they might know what troubles were before them and what the issue of them would be, and might provide accordingly. In this chapter we have, I. The vision itself of the ram, and the he-goat, and the little horn that should fight and prevail against the people of God, for a certain limited time (Dan 8:1-14). II. The interpretation of this vision by an angel, showing that the ram signified the Persian empire, the he-goat the Grecian, and the little horn a king of the Grecian monarchy, that should set himself against the Jews and religion, which was Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan 8:15-27). The Jewish church, from its beginning, had been all along, more or less, blessed with prophets, men divinely inspired to explain God's mind to them in his providences and give them some prospect of what was coming upon them; but, soon after Ezra's time, divine inspiration ceased, and there was no more any prophet till the gospel day dawned. And therefore the events of that time were here foretold by Daniel, and left upon record, that even then God might not leave himself without witness, nor them without a guide.

Constable: Daniel (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Background

In 605 B.C. Prince Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonian army of his father Nabopolassar against the allied forces of Assyria and Egypt. He defeated them at Carchemish near the top of the Fertile Crescent. This victory gave Babylon supremacy in the ancient Near East. With Babylon's victory, Egypt's vassals, including Judah, passed under Babylonian control. Shortly thereafter that same year Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him as king. Nebuchadnezzar then moved south and invaded Judah, also in 605 B.C. He took some royal and noble captives to Babylon (Dan. 1:1-3) including Daniel, whose name means "God is my judge" or "God is judging" or "God will judge," plus some of the vessels from Solomon's temple (2 Chron. 36:7). This was the first of Judah's three deportations in which the Babylonians took groups of Judahites to Babylon. The king of Judah at that time was Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:1-4).

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p27dan-1@

Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah and Coniah) succeeded him in 598 B.C. Jehoichin reigned only three months and 10 days (2 Chron. 36:9). Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah again. At the turn of the year, in 597 B.C., he took Jehoichin to Babylon along with most of Judah's remaining leaders and the rest of the national treasures including young Ezekiel (2 Kings 24:10-17; 2 Chron. 36:10).

A third and final deportation took place approximately 11 years later, in 586 B.C. Jehoikim's younger brother Zedekiah, whose name Nebuchadnezzar had changed to Mattaniah, was then Judah's puppet king. He rebelled against Babylon's sovereignty by secretly making a treaty with Pharaoh Hophra under pressure from Jewish nationalists (Jer. 37-38). After a two-year siege, Jerusalem fell. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem, burned the temple, broke down the city walls, and took all but the poorest of the Jews captive to Babylon. He also took Zedekiah prisoner to Babylon after he executed his sons and put out the king's eyes at Riblah in Aramea (modern Syria; 2 Kings 24:18-25:24).

Scope

Daniel, the main character from whom this book gets its name, was probably only a teenager when he arrived in Babylon in 605 B.C. The Hebrew words used to describe him, the internal evidence of chapter 1, and the length of his ministry seem to make this clear. He continued in office as a public servant at least until 538 B.C. (1:21) and as a prophet at least until 536 B.C. (10:1). Thus the record of his ministry spans 70 years, the entire duration of the Babylonian Captivity. He probably lived to be at least 85 years old and perhaps older.

Writer

There is little doubt among conservative scholars that Daniel himself wrote this book under the Holy Spirit's guidance. Probably he did so late in his life, which could have been about 530 B.C. or a few years later. Several Persian-derived governmental terms appear in the book. The presence of these words suggests that the book received its final polishing after Persian had become the official language of government. This would have been late in Daniel's life. What makes Daniel's authorship quite clear is both internal and external evidence.

Internally the book claims in several places that Daniel was its writer (8:1; 9:2, 20; 10:2). References to Daniel in the third person do not indicate that someone else wrote about him. It was customary for ancient authors of historical memoirs to write of themselves this way (cf. Exod. 20:2, 7).¹

Externally the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of this book as the writing of Daniel (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). The Jews believed that Daniel was its writer from its earliest appearance. The early church father Jerome argued for Daniel's authorship against a contemporary critic of his, Porphyry, who contended that someone composed it about 165 B.C. and claimed that he was Daniel.

The Jews placed Daniel in the Writings section of their Bible.² They did this because Daniel was not a prophet in the sense in which the other Hebrew prophets were. He functioned as a prophet and wrote inspired Scripture, but he was a government official, an administrator in a Gentile land, rather than an official prophet.

"For though Christ spoke of Daniel's function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29-30)."³

In contrast to Ezekiel, his contemporary in Babylon, Daniel lived and worked among Gentiles primarily, whereas Ezekiel live and ministered among the Israelites.⁴

The Greek and Latin translators of Daniel placed this book among the other major prophets in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions because of its prophetic content. That tradition influenced the scholars who produced our English versions.

Date

The dating of this book is one of the most controversial subjects in the field of Old Testament Introduction. The controversy is not due to the obscurity of evidence but to the presuppositions of critics.

It is quite easy to determine when Daniel lived and ministered because of the many historical references in this book. His fellow prophet Ezekiel also referred to him (cf. Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3). However because the book contains prophecies that Antiochus Epiphanies fulfilled in the second century B.C. many rationalistic critics who deny that the Bible contains predictive prophecy have said that Daniel could not have written it. They contend that it must have been written after Antiochus, namely, about 165 B.C. However there are many evidences within the book itself that point to its origin in the sixth century B.C.⁵ This modern criticism follows Porphyry's view. However no significant writer espoused a late date for the book after Jerome refuted Porphyry until the eighteenth century A.D. J. D. Michaelis revived Porphyry's theory in 1771, and it took root in the rationalistic intellectual soil of the Enlightenment. Since then many scholars who disbelieve in predictive prophecy have insisted that this book must have been the product of the Maccabean revolt (168-165 B.C.). Liberal critics still consider the late dating of Daniel to be one of the most assured results of modern scholarship. Nevertheless there is ample evidence in the book itself that Daniel wrote it and that it dates from the sixth century B.C.⁶

"One who claims that the book of Daniel is a product of the Maccabean age thereby denies that it is a work of true predictive prophecy as it purports to be. Furthermore, if the book of Daniel comes from the age of the Maccabees, I do not see how it is possible to escape the conclusion that the book is also a forgery, for it claims to be a revelation from God to the Daniel who lived in Babylon during the exile."⁷

Languages

Daniel is one of the few books in the Old Testament that was originally written in two different languages. One was Aramaic (also known as Chaldee or Syriac), the common language of the ancient Near East, and the other was Hebrew.⁸ The Aramaic portions deal with matters pertaining to all the citizens of the Babylonian and Persian empires whereas the Hebrew sections describe predominantly Jewish concerns and God's plans for Israel. Probably Daniel wrote the Aramaic sections for the benefit of his Gentile neighbors, and he wrote the whole book for the Jews who could read both languages.

Purpose

To the interested observer of Israel's fortunes in Daniel's time, it seemed that Yahweh had either become impotent or had abandoned His chosen people. The gods of Assyria and Babylon had apparently triumphed over Him. His temple lay in ruins, His capital had been ravaged and stood empty and vulnerable, and His people were living as unhappy captives in a foreign land.

At such a time as this, God revealed His supernatural power. He did so to demonstrate that He is the one true God and that He is still sovereign over the affairs of humanity and history. He manifested his power to the supreme rulers of Babylon and Persia that they might know that He governs over all from heaven. This was a time in Israel's history similar to the time just before the Exodus. Israel was in captivity, and Israel's God was in disgrace. Daniel contains proof of God's sovereignty, which the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea demonstrated to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Daniel, as Exodus, relates several "contests" between false gods and Yahweh in which Israel's God proves to be the only true and living God. Like Daniel, Esther also shows God working for His people during a period of their divine discipline.

"The predominant message is that God's people will experience suffering and be threatened with extinction, but that will not be the end of the story because their God is the living and all-powerful God who will get glory by vindicating His name and who will save them."⁹

"Daniel's purpose in writing blended the two themes of prophecy and piety. He wrote first to show God's future program for the nation of Israel (in light of her fall) during and after the times of the Gentiles.' Second, he wrote to show what the believers' present response should be as they await the coming kingdom of God. Daniel encouraged his readers to remain faithful to God in a hostile society while they waited for God's promised kingdom."¹⁰

Theology

Theologically the book stresses the sovereignty of God.

"The absolute sovereignty and transcendence of God above all angels and men literally permeates the book."¹¹

"The theme running through the whole book is that the fortunes of kings and the affairs of men are subject to God's decrees, and that he is able to accomplish his will despite the most determined opposition of the mightiest potentates on earth."¹²

"The collapse and fall of both Israel and Judah notwithstanding, the book of Daniel makes crystal clear that the Lord God remains absolutely sovereign over human affairs. This is apparent in the present, despite political and religious conditions that might suggest otherwise, and in the future, when there would be no doubt in anyone's mind."¹³

The miracles recorded in chapters 1-6 show God's sovereignty at work for His people. The prophecies in chapters 7-12 show His sovereignty over the Gentile nations and Israel by unveiling what He will do with them far into the future. Especially the period that Jesus Christ referred to as "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24) is the focus of this revelation.

"The times of the Gentiles is that extended period of time in which the land given in covenant by God to Abraham and his descendants is occupied by Gentile powers and the Davidic throne is empty of any rightful heir in the Davidic line. The times of the Gentiles, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Jerusalem in 605 B.C., will continue till the Messiah returns. Then Christ will subdue nations, deliver the land of Israel from its Gentile occupants, and bring the nation Israel into her covenanted blessings in the millennial kingdom."¹⁴

These prophecies also reveal the fulfillment of God's great redemptive plan that began at the Fall and will culminate in the return and reign of the Son of Man on the earth.

A third theological emphasis is the power of prayer. God's working in response to His people's prayers is evident everywhere in this book, particularly in the first six chapters and in chapters 9 and 10.

Another theological theme is the indomitable grace of God. Even though the Jews had failed Him miserably, God revealed that He had not cast off His people Israel. He was disciplining them presently, but He has a future for them as a nation (cf. Rom. 11:29). Furthermore He will fulfill His promises to the patriarchs regarding Gentile blessing too.

Genre

Daniel is a book of prophecy.

"Among the great prophetic books of Scripture, none provides a more comprehensive and chronological prophetic view of the broad movement of history than the book of Daniel. Of the three prophetic programs revealed in Scripture, outlining the course of the nations, Israel, and the church, Daniel alone reveals the details of God's plan for both the nations and Israel. Although other prophets like Jeremiah had much to say to the nations and Israel, Daniel brings together and interrelates these great themes of prophecy as does no other portion of Scripture. For this reason, the book of Daniel is essential to the structure of prophecy and is the key to the entire Old Testament prophetic revelation. A study of this book is, therefore, not only important from the standpoint of determining the revelation of one of the great books of the Old Testament but is an indispensable preliminary investigation to any complete eschatological system."¹⁵

"In NT prophecy Daniel is referred to more than any other OT book. Moreover, it contains more fulfilled prophecies than any other book in the Bible."¹⁶

"In many respects, the book of Daniel is the most comprehensive prophetic revelation of the Old Testament, giving the only total view of world history from Babylon to the second advent of Christ and interrelating Gentile history and prophecy with that which concerns Israel. Daniel provides the key to the overall interpretation of prophecy, is a major element in premillennialism, and is essential to the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Its revelation of the sovereignty and power of God has brought assurance to Jew and Gentile alike that God will fulfill His sovereign purposes in time and eternity."¹⁷

Daniel is one of three Old Testament books that is apocalyptic. The apocalyptic sections are chapters 2, 7, 8, and 10-12. The other two books are Ezekiel (37:1-14; 40:1-48:35) and Zechariah (1:7-6:8). In the New Testament, Revelation is the only apocalyptic book.¹⁸ Apocalyptic literature is a particular genre (literary type).

"Apocalyptic literature is symbolic visionary prophetic literature, composed during oppressive conditions, consisting of visions whose events are recorded exactly as they were seen by the author and explained through a divine interpreter, and whose theological content is primarily eschatological."¹⁹

"The book of Daniel is unquestionably the key to all biblical prophecy. It is the great apocalyptic book of the Old Testament, whereas Revelation is that of the New Testament. Passages such as Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21, and the book of Revelation are unintelligible without a knowledge of the book of Daniel."²⁰

"No one who has reverently studied the book of Daniel in the context of the completed Scriptures can deny the crucial contribution of this book to God's complete prophetic revelation. Our Lord spoke often of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. 5:3; Dan. 2:44) and of Himself as the son of man' (Matt. 26:64; Dan. 7:13-14). Looking toward His second coming to the earth, He referred to a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now' (Matt. 24:21; cf. Dan. 12:1), and to the abomination of desolation' that will stand in the Temple (Matt. 24:15; Dan. 9:27; 12:11). The apostle Paul also referred to this work of the man of lawlessness' (2 Thess. 2:3-4; cf. Dan. 7:25; 11:36-39) but rejoiced that someday the saints will judge the world' (1 Cor. 6:1; Dan. 7:18, 22, 27)."²¹

Message²²

The Book of Daniel contains many unique and significant emphases. I would like to point out some of these first before we organize them into an explanation of what God has given us this book to reveal.

Theologically Daniel stresses the sovereignty of God. Specifically it shows that God is wise enough and powerful enough to control and to create history.

Philosophically Daniel reveals the course and the culmination of good and evil throughout human history.

Hermeneutically we see that God teaches His people what will happen in the future by helping them to appreciate what has happened in the past. In other words, we learn to understand the future by studying the past. The future builds on the past and is an extension of the past.

Pedagogically we observe that God teaches us by going from the simple to the complex, from the known to the unknown. This applies as we look back on history, and it applies as we look forward in prophecy. For example, God gave Daniel simple visions first and then more complex ones later that built on the earlier ones. The first vision in Daniel is the most simple to interpret, and the last one is the most difficult to interpret.

Temporally the book proceeds from what happened in the past to what will happen in the future. Some students of the book divide it into two parts: history (chs. 1-6), and prophecy (chs. 7-12). This illustrates how the content of this book moves generally from past events to future events.

Anthropologically Daniel deals with two groups of people that occupy planet earth in time: Israel and the Gentiles. Some students of the book, including myself, prefer to divide it into three parts. We believe that the languages that Daniel wrote in reflect his emphases on revelation stressing particularly Gentiles or Jews in the various sections of the book.

Chronologically the revelation in Daniel advances from the present, to the near future, to the far future from Daniel's perspective. Even liberal students of the book admit this. From Daniel's perspective in history, some of what God revealed to him involved what was past, and some was future. From our perspective, we can see that what God revealed was not just past and future for him but past, near future, and far future.

Now with this background, let us turn to the major revelations in the Book of Daniel. The contrasts are observational; they help us see what is here clearly. The major revelations are interpretational; they help us understand what is here clearly. I am now going to suggest what is significant about what we observe. There are essentially two major revelations.

The first major revelation is that Yahweh is sovereign in history. By history I mean what is past. In Daniel, God has proved that He is the ultimate ruler of the world by the way things turned out in the past. Half the book deals with history; the other half, generally speaking, deals with prophecy.

God has revealed much evidence in this book that He is sovereign over history, that He has made it turn out the way He has wanted it to turn out. We find this evidence particularly in the record of the three rulers in chapters 1-6.

We have the most evidence in the record of Nebuchadnezzar.

In the first chapter we read, "The Lord (Adonai) gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his [Nebuchadnezzar's] hand" (1:2). All the events of chapter 1, beginning with Daniel's insignificance in Judah and his quick rise to great significance in Babylon, demonstrate God's sovereignty in the past.

In chapter 2, we have the vision of Nebuchadnezzar's image that gets crushed by a stone that flies at it from heaven. This revelation teaches that all the kingdoms of the earth are subject to the kingdom of heaven. Daniel's own testimony to God's sovereignty in 2:20-22 expresses the main point of this dream, which the most powerful king in the ancient world received from God.

In chapter 3, we see how God takes care of people who acknowledge His sovereignty, namely Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.

In chapter 4 we see how He takes care of people who do not, namely Nebuchadnezzar. Learning who is the ultimate authority and responding appropriately to Him is extremely important for all human beings.

Belshazzar was the second king through whom God revealed His sovereignty (ch. 5). Belshazzar could not read the handwriting on the wall, but Daniel could. The God of heaven had evaluated the king on earth, had found him deficient, and had decided to replace him. What a demonstration of Yahweh's sovereignty we have in this chapter!

The third king was Darius (ch. 6). When Darius visited the lion's den early in the morning, he voiced a question that all people have asked. The Jews of Daniel's day, whom their Gentile enemies had wrenched from the land that Yahweh had promised them and given them, were asking this question. Darius said, "Has your God, whom you constantly serve, been able to deliver you from the lion's mouth?" (6:20). Remember that the lion was a symbol of Babylon (7:4). Daniel's reply testified to Yahweh's sovereignty: "My God . . . shut the lions' mouths, and they have not harmed me" (6:22). This is the historical evidence of Yahweh's sovereignty that provided a base of confidence for the prophet, and for the reader, to believe that He is sovereign over the future too.

How were Daniel and his three friends able to perceive the fact that God is sovereign when most people did not? There are three keys to their spiritual perception that this book identifies for our education.

First, they separated themselves unto God and His will. Daniel did this in chapter 1. We read that his three friends did it in chapter 3.

Second, in response to their choice to separate to His will God gave them the ability to understand His will (1:20; 3:30).

Third, the outcome of their decision and God's provision was the glorification of God publicly (3:28-29; 4:34-35; 6:25-27).

Notice also how God communicated the fact of His sovereignty to Daniel and through him to others. Notice His methods.

First, Daniel's contemporaries saw God's wisdom manifest through His own servants in their ability to interpret dreams and visions that no one else could interpret (1:20; 2:10; 5:11-12). The Jews who returned to the land to reestablish life there needed this wisdom, and God's provision of it to Daniel and his friends would have encouraged them.

Second, Daniel's contemporaries saw God's power manifest through His own servants in His care of them (1:15, 21; 2:48-49; 3:24-26, 30; 5:29; 6:28). The many instances in which God protected His own who had committed themselves to following Him faithfully would have encouraged Daniel's contemporaries particularly. They encourage us too.

A second major revelation of the Book of Daniel is God's sovereignty in the future. He has shown us that He is sovereign over the past in history, and now He asks us to believe that He is sovereign over the future in prophecy. The foci of prophecy in this book are three.

The first general subject of prophecy in Daniel is the Gentiles. We might speak of this as humanity in general. He told us how He would direct the affairs of Gentile world powers in the future.

He did this by comparing nations to the parts of an image of a person and to various beasts. What He showed Daniel about Gentile world powers under the image of the man (ch. 2) revealed their external manifestations primarily: their relative power and glory. What He showed Daniel about them under the figures of beasts (chs. 7 and 8) revealed their internal character primarily: their haughtiness, brutality, aggressiveness, vileness, etc. Notice that these were all beasts and birds of prey symbolizing their hostility toward one another.

The second general subject of prophecy in Daniel is the Israelites. This is a particular element within humanity, namely Israel. God also told us how He would direct the affairs of His chosen people in the future.

Essentially He did this in two stages both of which were future from Daniel's perspective in history but only one of which is future from our perspective. The first stage, or near future, involved Israel's affairs culminating in a great persecution under a Greek ruler, namely Antiochus Epiphanes (9:23-26; 11:2-35). This persecution happened in the second century B.C. The second stage, or far future, involved Israel's affairs culminating in a greater persecution under a Roman ruler, namely the Antichrist (9:27; 11:36-45). This would happen in the far future.

Daniel struggled to understand this revelation because the two antagonists were both future from his perspective. God did not specify that they would be separate individuals. We can understand this revelation more easily than Daniel could because one antagonist has appeared and the other has not yet appeared. Similarly the Old Testament prophets struggled to understand God's revelation about the two advents of Christ (Isa. 61:1-2). From our perspective we now understand that He had always predicted two advents of Messiah and that we live between them.

The third general subject of prophecy in Daniel is God Himself. As I have mentioned, it is God's sovereign control over time and space that He stressed in the Book of Daniel. However, two sub-revelations help us appreciate Yahweh's sovereignty, namely His wisdom and His power.

Absolute sovereignty demands perfect wisdom and limitless power. We can see God's perfect wisdom in His insight into the course of history and in His ability to impart that wisdom (insight) to His prophet. We can see God's limitless power in His setting up and taking down Gentile kingdoms and in His delegating great worldly power to His prophet.

We come now to the "so what" of the book. We have observed several important characteristics of this book and have pointed out the significant major revelation. We have done observation and interpretation of the book as a whole, so now we will do application. What effect did God intend that this book should have on the readers, the original Jewish readers of Daniel's day and us in our day? Let me suggest three applications.

First, we must apply the revelation that God is sovereign by acknowledging it and by submitting to Him. We need to know that God is sovereign, to have an unshakable conviction that God is in control, to believe that He is the ultimate ruler over all the affairs of humankind. The Book of Daniel can strengthen this belief in us. However, we must not just reckon this fact as true. We must also yield ourselves to Him as Daniel and His three friends did. If He is sovereign, then we must submit to His will. His slightest wish must be for us a command. We must live according to His revealed will.

Second, as we submit to His sovereignty we can understand what is going on in history. In this book God has revealed that He is guiding the course of evil to its end, which is destruction. He has also revealed that He is guiding the course of good to its end, which is victory.

Some people are saying that the days in which we live are the most wonderful that the world has ever seen. The world is getting better and better, and utopia is just around the corner. With just a few more modifications, we can realize a world order that will surpass anything in the past.

Other people say the world is getting worse and worse. Crime and violence are running rampant. We are just the push of a button away from extinction as a race. Which is true?

Daniel reveals that both are true. If both are true, we seem to be headed for a crisis, a final conflict between the forces of good and evil. Daniel reveals that that crisis is coming. It also tells us what the outcome of that conflict will be. God will intervene in history to terminate evil and to establish good. The stone from heaven will crush the image that represents Gentile world dominion.

Third, how should we then live? We should live as Daniel and his three friends did. We should separate ourselves unto God and His will. We should receive inspiration to persevere from the insight that He has given to us in this revelation. Moreover we should worship the sovereign God of the universe who, in His infinite wisdom and power, will eventually raise His own to everlasting life and reward them with participation in His coming kingdom (12:2-3, 13).

Constable: Daniel (Outline)

Outline

I. The character of Daniel ch. 1

A. Historical background 1:1-2

B. Nebuchadnezzar's training program for promising youths 1:3-7

C. Daniel's resolve to please Yahweh 1:8-13

D. The success of the test 1:14-16

E. God's blessing of Daniel and his friends 1:17-21

II. The Times of the Gentiles: God's program for the world chs. 2-7

A. Nebuchadnezzar's first dream: the big picture ch. 2

1. The king's dream 2:1-3

2. The failure of the king's wise men 2:4-13

3. Daniel's request for time 2:14-16

4. Daniel's reception of a revelation and his thanksgiving 2:17-23

5. Daniel's appearance before Nebuchadnezzar 2:24-30

6. What Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream 2:31-35

7. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream 2:36-45

8. The consequences of Daniel's interpretation 2:46-49

B. Nebuchadnezzar's golden image ch. 3

1. The worship of Nebuchadnezzar's statue 3:1-7

2. The charge against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego 3:8-12

3. The response of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego 3:13-18

4. The execution of the king's command 3:19-23

5. God's deliverance of His servants 3:24-27

6. The consequences of God's deliverance 3:28-30

C. Nebuchadnezzar's pride and humbling ch. 4

1. Nebuchadnezzar's introductory doxology 4:1-3

2. The king's frustration over his second dream 4:4-8

3. Nebuchadnezzar's account of his dream 4:9-18

4. Daniel's interpretation 4:19-27

5. The fulfillment of threatened discipline 4:28-33

6. Nebuchadnezzar's restoration 4:34-37

D. Belshazzar's feast ch. 5

1. Belshazzar's dishonoring of Yahweh 5:1-4

2. God's revelation to Belshazzar 5:5-9

3. The queen's counsel 5:10-12

4. Belshazzar's request of Daniel 5:13-16

5. Daniel's rebuke of Belshazzar 5:17-24

6. Daniel's interpretation of the writing 5:25-28

7. Daniel's rise and Belshazzar's fall 5:29-31

E. Darius' pride and Daniel's preservation ch. 6

1. Daniel's promotion in the Persian government 6:1-3

2. The conspiracy against Daniel 6:4-9

3. Daniel's faithfulness and Darius' predicament 6:10-15

4. Daniel in the lions' den 6:16-18

5. Daniel's deliverance and his enemies' destruction 6:19-24

6. Darius' decree and praise of Yahweh 6:25-28

F. Daniel's vision of future world history ch. 7

1. The four beasts 7:1-8

2. The Ancient of Days and the destruction of the fourth beast 7:9-12

3. The Son of Man's kingdom 7:13-14

4. The interpretation of the four beasts 7:15-18

5. Daniel's request for interpretation of the fourth beast 7:19-22

6. The interpretation of the fourth beast 7:23-25

7. The end of the fourth beast and the beginning of the everlasting kingdom 7:26-28

III. Israel in relation to the Gentiles: God's program for Israel chs. 8-12

A. Daniel's vision of the ram and the goat ch. 8

1. The setting of the vision 8:1

2. The ram 8:2-4

3. The goat 8:5-8

4. The little horn on the goat 8:9-14

5. The interpretation of this vision 8:15-26

6. The result of this vision 8:27

B. Daniel's vision of the 70 sevens ch. 9

1. Jeremiah's prophecy of Jerusalem's restoration and Daniel's response 9:1-3

2. Daniel's prayer of confession 9:4-14

3. Daniel's petition for restoration 9:15-19

4. God's response to Daniel's prayer 9:20-23

5. The revelation of Israel's future in 70 sevens 9:24-27

C. Daniel's most detailed vision of the future chs. 10-12

1. Daniel's preparation to receive the vision 10:1-11:1

2. The near future 11:2-35

3. The distant future 11:36-12:4

4. The end of Israel's trials 12:5-13

This outline reflects the linguistic divisions of the book, chapters 1 and 8-12 having been written in Hebrew, and chapters 2-7 in Aramaic.

Many students of the book simply divide it into two parts.

I. The history of Daniel chs. 1-6

II. The prophecies of Daniel chs. 7-12

Constable: Daniel

Daniel

Bibliography

Albright, William F. From Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Doubleday Press, Anchor Books, 1957.

Aalders, G. C. Daniel. Koorte Verklaring servies. The Netherlands: Kampen, 1965.

Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1967.

Alexander, J. B. "New Light on the Fiery Furnace." Journal of Biblical Literature 69:4 (December 1950):375-76.

Alexander, Ralph H. "Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic Literature." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968.

Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. 14th ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1954.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Daniel." In Daniel-Minor Prophets. Vol. 7 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

_____. "Old Testament History and Recent Archeology From the Exile to Malachi." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):291-98.

_____. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1964. Revised ed. 1974.

Armerding, Carl. "Russia and the King of the North." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:477 (January-March 1963):50-55.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel, An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Barker, Kenneth L. "Evidence from Daniel." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 135-46. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Bevan, Anthony Ashley. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Cambridge: University Press, 1892.

Boutflower, Charles. In and Around the Book of Daniel. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing Co., 1977.

Breshears, Gerry. "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):3-26.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1928.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 2 vols. Translated by Thomas Myers. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852.

Campbell, Donald K. Daniel: Decoder of Dreams. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1977.

Charles, Robert Henry. The Book of Daniel. The New Century Bible series. New York: H. Frowde, Oxford University, n.d.

Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire. London: Dent, 1983.

Culver, Robert D. Daniel and the Latter Days. Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.

Cumont, F. "La Plus Ancienne geographie astrologique." Klio 9 (1909):263-73.

Darby, John Nelson. Studies in the Book of Daniel. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Dennett, Edward. Daniel the Prophet: And The Times of the Gentiles Reprint ed. Denver: Wilson Foundation, 1967.

Driver, Samuel Rolles. The Book of Daniel. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1900.

Dyer, Charles H. "The Musical Instruments in Daniel 3." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):426-36.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H. Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1981.

Ferguson, Paul. "Nebuchadnezzar, Gilgamesh, and the Babylonian Job.'" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):321-31.

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Ford, Desmond. Daniel. Nashville: Southern Publishing House, 1978.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Prophet Daniel. New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911.

Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentaries series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Gurney, R. "the Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7." Themelios 2 (1977):39-45.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Herodotus. History of the Persian Wars. 2 vols. Translated by Henry Carey. New York: Harper Publishers, 1889.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987.

Hoehner, Harold W. "Daniel's Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):47-65.

Humphreys, W. L. "A Life-style for Diaspora." Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973):211-23.

Ironside, Harry A. Lectures on Daniel the Prophet. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946.

Jamieson, Robert; A. R. Fausset; and David Brown. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jeffery, Arthur. "The Book of Daniel, Introduction and Exegesis." In The Interpreter's Bible. 6 vols. Edited by George A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951.

Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Translated by Gleason L. Archer Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. Against Apion. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keil, Carl Friedrich. Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Translated by M. G. Easton. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Book of Daniel. 2nd ed. London: G. Morrish, 1881.

King, Geoffrey R. Daniel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. "The Aramaic in Daniel." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 31-79. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

Kraeling, Emil G. Rand McNally Bible Atlas. New York, Chicago, and San Francisco: Rand McNally & Co., 1956.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865-80. Reprint ed. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 7: Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets, by W. J. Schröder, et al.

Larkin, Clarence. The Book of Daniel. Philadelphia: The author, 1929.

Lehmann, Paul. The Transfiguration of Politics. London: SCM Press, 1975.

Leupold, Herbert Carl. Exposition of Daniel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1949; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.

Mauro, Philip. The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. Boston: Scripture Truth Depot, 1923.

McClain, Alva J. Daniel's Prophecies of the Seventy Weeks. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1940.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Daniel as a Contribution to Kingdom Theology." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 211-25. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

_____. "A Theology of Ezekiel and Daniel." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 365-95. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Mitchell, T. C., and R. Joyce. "The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar's Orchestra." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 19-27. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

New Bible Dictionary. 1962 ed. S.v. "Belshazzar," by D. J. Wiseman.

_____. S.v. "Ophir," by D. J. Wiseman.

_____. S.v. "Uphaz," by D. J. Wiseman.

New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Olmstead, A. T. The History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.

Oppenheim, A. L. "The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 (1956):179-373.

Patterson, Richard D. "Holding on to Daniel's Court Tales." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:4 (December 1993):445-54.

Pember, George Hawkins. The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning Israel and the Gentiles. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "Daniel." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 1323-75. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

_____. Prophecy for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

Peretti, Frank E. Piercing the Darkness. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1989.

_____. Prophet. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992.

_____. This Present Darkness. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1986.

Porteous, Norman W. Daniel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Revised ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Pusey, Edward B. Daniel the Prophet. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885.

Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden, Germany: O. Harrassowitz, 1961.

Rowley, Harold Henry. Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales, 1959.

_____. "The Historicity of the Fifth Chapter of Daniel." Journal of Theological Studies 32 (October 1930):12-31.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Seiss, Joseph A. Voices from Babylon: Or the Records of Daniel the Prophet. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1879.

Shea, William H. "Darius the Mede: An Update." Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Autumn 1982):229-47.

_____. "The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel's Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):97-105.

_____. "Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):89-96.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, Charles R. "The Book of Life." Grace Theological Journal 6:2 (Fall 1985):219-30.

Stuart, Moses. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850.

Talbot, Louis T. The Prophecies of Daniel. 3rd ed. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1954.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Thomas, D. W., ed. Documents from Old Testament Times. London/New York: Thomas Nelson, 1958.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:499 (July-September 1968):254-62.

Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel. 7th ed. London: Sovereign Grace, 1965.

Unger's Bible Dictionary. 1957. S.v. "Shushan," by Merrill F. Unger.

Van Sickle, C. E. A Political and Cultural History of the Ancient World. 2 vols. N.c.: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1947 & 1948.

Waltke, Bruce K. "The Date of the Book of Daniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):319-29.

Walton, John H. "The Four Kingdoms of Daniel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):25-36.

Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.

_____. The Nations in Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

_____. "Revival of Rome." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):317-28.

West, Nathaniel. Daniel's Great Prophecy. New York: Hope of Israel, 1898.

Whitcomb, John Clement. Daniel. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

_____. Darius the Mede. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

Wilson, Robert Dick. Studies in the Book of Daniel. New York: Putnam, 1917.

_____. "The Title king of Persia' in the Scriptures." Princeton Theological Review 15 (1917):90-145.

Wiseman, Donald J. The Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.

_____. "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 9-18. Edited by D. J. Wiseman, et al. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

Wood, Leon. A Commentary on Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. Greece and Babylon. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.

Young, Edward J. The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949.

Yuzon, Lourdino A. "The Kingdom of God in Daniel." South East Asia Journal of Theology 19 (1978):23-27.

Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. S.v. "Book of Daniel," by J. Barton Payne.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Daniel (Book Introduction)

THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL.

INTRODUCTION.

DANIEL, whose name signifies "the judgment of God," was of the royal blood of the kings of Juda, and one of those that were first of all carried away into captivity. He was so renowned for his wisdom and knowledge, that it became a proverb among the Babylonians, "as wise as Daniel;" (Ezechiel xxviii. 3.) and his holiness was so great from his very childhood, that at the time when he was as yet but a young man, he is joined by the Spirit of God with Noe[Noah] and Job, as three persons most eminent for virtue and sanctity. (Ezechiel xiv.) He is not commonly numbered by the Hebrews among the prophets, because he lived at court, and in high station in the world: but if we consider his many clear predictions of things to come, we shall find that no one better deserves the name and title of a prophet; which also has been given him by the Son of God himself. (Matthew xxiv.; Mark xiii.; Luke xxi.) (Challoner) --- The ancient Jews ranked him among the greatest prophets. (Josephus, Antiquities x. 12., and 1 Machabees ii. 59.) Those who came after Christ began to make frivolous exceptions, because he so clearly pointed out the coming of our Saviour, (Theodoret) that Porphyrius has no other method of evading this authority except by saying, that the book was written under Epiphanes after the event of many of the predictions. (St. Jerome) --- But this assertion is contrary to all antiquity. Some parts have indeed been questioned, which are found only in Greek. They must, however, have sometime existed in Hebrew or Chaldee else how should we have the version of Theodotion, which the Church has substituted instead of the Septuagint as that copy was become very incorrect, and is now lost? (Calmet) --- Some hopes of its recovery are nevertheless entertained; and its publication, at Rome, has been announced. (Kennicott.) --- In a title, it seems to make the Daniel visited by Habacuc, a priest; but it is abandoned. (Calmet) --- This version of course proves that the original was formerly known; and the loss of it, at present, is no more decisive against the authenticity of these pieces, that that of St. Matthew's Hebrew original, and of the Chaldee of Judith, &c. will evince that their works are spurious. (Haydock) ---Extracts of (Calmet) Aquila and Symmachus seen by St. Jerome, (Worthington) are also given in the Hexapla. Origen has answered the objections of Africanus, respecting the history of Susanna; and his arguments are equally cogent, when applied to the other contested works. The Jews and Christians were formerly both divided in their sentiments about these pieces. (Calmet) See St. Jerome in Jeremias xxix. 12. and xxxii. 44. --- But now as the Church ( the pillar of truth ) has spoken, all farther controversy ought to cease; (Haydock) and we should follow the precept, Remove not the landmarks which thy fathers have placed. (Deuteronomy xix. 14.) See N. Alex. [Alexander Noel] t. ii. St. Jerome, who sometimes calls these pieces "fables," explains himself, by observing, that he had delivered "not his own sentiments," but those of the Jews: quid illi contra nos dicere soleant. (Calmet) --- If he really denied their authority, his opinion ought not to outweigh that of so many other (Haydock) Fathers and Councils who receive them. They admit all the parts, as the Council of Trent expressly requires us to do. See St. Cyprian, &c., also the observations prefixed to Tobias, (Worthington) and p. 597. (Haydock) --- Paine remarks that Daniel and Ezechiel only pretended to have visions, and carried on an enigmatical correspondence relative to the recovery of their country. But this deserves no refutation. By allowing that their works are genuine, he cuts up the very root of his performance. (Watson) --- Daniel, according to Sir Isaac Newton, resembles the Apocalypse (as both bring us to the end of the Roman empire) and is "the most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood; and therefore, in those things that relate to the last times, he must be made a key to the rest." (Bp. Newton.) --- Yet there are many difficulties which require a knowledge of history; (St. Jerome; Worthington) and we must reflect on the words of Christ, He that readeth, let him understand. (Matthew xxiv. 15.) Daniel (Haydock) is supposed to have died at court, (Calmet) aged 110, having written many things of Christ. (Worthington) --- His name is not prefixed to his book, yet as Prideaux observes, he sufficiently shews himself in the sequel to be the author. (Haydock)

Gill: Daniel (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL

This book is called, in the Vulgate Latin version, "the Prophecy of Daniel"; and in the Syriac and Arabic versions "the Prophecy of Daniel the Prophet". This Daniel was of the children of Judah, that were carried captive into Babylon with Jehoiakim; and was of princely blood, if not of the royal seed, as appears from, Dan 1:3. Josephus ^a is express for it, that he was of the kindred and family of Zedekiah: and Saadiah Gaon ^b says he was of the seed of Hezekiah, and so fulfilled the prophecy in 2Ki 20:18. As to what the author of the "Lives of the Prophets", ascribed to Epiphanius, says ^c, that he was born in upper Bethabara, not far from Jerusalem, it is not to be depended on; or that his father's name was Sabaam, according to a tradition mentioned by the true Epiphanius ^d. The Jews ^e would have it that this book was not written by Daniel himself, but by the men of the great synagogue; though it is evident, from the book itself, that Daniel is the writer of it, as from Dan 7:1. That he wrote books, which were received, read, and believed by the Jews as of God, is affirmed by Josephus ^f; and the Jews in general acknowledge that this book was written by the influence of the Holy Spirit, but not by prophecy; they, without any foundation, distinguishing between the Holy Spirit and prophecy. And so Maimonides says ^g, it is the general consent of their nation, that this book is among the holy writings, but not among the Prophets; nor will they allow Daniel to be a prophet: the reasons they give are frivolous; what seems to have induced them to degrade him is the manifest prophecy of the time of the Messiah's coming in this book, which sometimes they are obliged to own is fixed in it. They tell us a story of Jonathan ben Uzziel, that having finished his paraphrase of the Prophets, thought to have wrote one on the Hagiographa, or holy writings, among which they place the book of Daniel; but was forbid by "Bath Kol", or a voice from heaven, giving this as a reason, because that in it is contained the end of the Messiah ^h, the precise time of his coming; and the gloss on the passage adds, by way of explanation,

"in the book of Daniel;''

though elsewhere they would have it, that after it was made known to Daniel, it was taken away from him. For so, they say ⁱ, there are two men to whom the end was revealed, and afterwards it was hidden from them; and these are they, Jacob and Daniel: from Daniel, according to Dan 12:4, "but thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book &c.", from Jacob, Gen 49:1, "that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days". Yet the prophecy of Daniel was so clear, with respect to the time of the Messiah's coming, that one of their Rabbins, who lived about fifty years before the coming of Christ, asserted that the time of the Messiah, as signified by Daniel, could not be deferred longer than those fifty years ^k; and a most glaring prophecy it is, and sufficient to denominate Daniel a prophet, as well as many more contained in this book. And, after all, Maimonides himself owns, that he, and the other writers of the Hagiographa, or holy writings, may be called prophets in general. And Aben Ezra observes of Daniel, in his preface, that he delivered out prophecies of things now past, and of things to come; yea, he expressly calls him a prophet on Dan 1:17. And Jacchiades, another of their commentators on this book, says that he attained to the highest degree of prophecy. To which may be added the testimony of Josephus ^l, who says he was one of the greatest prophets, and to be preferred to others; since he not only predicted things future, but fixed the time when they should come to pass. And, above all, and what should satisfy us Christians, he is expressly called a prophet by our Lord, Mat 24:15. There are no other authentic writings of Daniel, which bear his name; the stories of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, which make the "thirteenth" and "fourteenth" chapters in the Greek of Theodotion, and in the Vulgate Latin version, are apocryphal and spurious. The Oriental writers make Daniel the author of a volume, entitled, "Principles relating to the Explanation of Dreams". And there is another book in the king of France's library, with this title, "Odmath-al-mantoul ân Daniel al-nabi"; which contains predictions of the Prophet Daniel, received by tradition from him. This is a book which abounds with falsities, forged by the Mahometans, and founded on the real prophecies of Daniel ^m. This book, written by him, is partly historical, relating facts in which he was concerned; and partly prophetic, of things that should happen from his time to the end of the world, and especially of the Messiah and his kingdom; and it is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee. This great man, as he was both in nature and grace, in religion and politics, lived throughout the captivity, but does not seem ever to have returned into Judea; but continued in the courts of the kings of the Medes and Persians, to take care of the affairs of his people the Jews. Where he died, and was buried, is not certain. Some say in Babylon; and others, which is more likely, at Susa on the Tigris, where he was in the third year of Cyrus, Dan 10:1. So says Abulfeda ⁿ; with which agrees the account of Benjamin of Tudela ^o.

Gill: Daniel 8 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL 8

This chapter contains the vision of a ram and he goat, and the interpretation of it. It begins with observing the time and place of the vision, Dan 8:1, then describes the ram seen; by the place of his situation; by his two horns; and by his pushing several ways with so much force and fury, that none could stand before him, or deliver: out of his hands, Dan 8:3 next the he goat appears, and is described by the part from whence he came; the swiftness of his motion; the notable horn between his eyes; and his running to ram in great fury, smiting him between his horns, casting him to the ground, and trampling upon him, and none to deliver, Dan 8:5 but, after waxing great and powerful, its horn was broken, and four more rose up in its stead, and out of one of them a little horn, Dan 8:8 which little horn is described by its power and prevalence to the south and to the east, towards the pleasant land, the host of heaven, and the Prince of the host; and by it the stars were cast down and trampled upon, the daily sacrifice made to cease; the place of the sanctuary cast down, and truth itself, Dan 8:9, and upon inquiry it appeared that these sacred things were to continue in this desolate condition unto 2300 days, Dan 8:13. Daniel being desirous of knowing the meaning of this vision, the Angel Gabriel is ordered by Christ to give him an understanding of it; who drew near to him, and awaked him out of his sleep, and gave him the interpretation of it; Dan 8:15, which is as follows; the ram; with two horns, signifies the kings of Media and Persia; the rough goat, the king of Greece; and the great horn the first king, Alexander the great; and the four horns, four kingdoms which rose up out of the Grecian empire upon his death, Dan 8:20, and the little horn a king of fierce countenance, Antiochus Epiphanes; who is, described by his craft, and cunning, by his power and might, and by the destruction he should make; Dan 8:23, this vision the angel assures the prophet was true, and bids him shut it up, since it was for many days, Dan 8:26, upon which Daniel fainted, and was sick for a time; but afterwards recovered, so as to be able to do the king's business; but astonished at the vision himself, and which was not understood by others, Dan 8:27.