In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.
Parallel Translations
-
In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.
-
In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
-
In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
Cross-references (8)
Passages linked to Daniel 8:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head on his bed. Then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters.
- Daniel 7:15 “As for me, Daniel, my spirit was grieved within my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.
- Daniel 7:28 “Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my face was changed in me; but I kept the matter in my heart.”
- Daniel 8:15 When I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it. Then behold, there stood before me something like the appearance of a man.
- Daniel 9:2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of the years about which Yahweh’s word came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishing of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years.
- Daniel 10:2 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning three whole weeks.
- Daniel 10:7 I, Daniel, alone saw the vision; for the men who were with me didn’t see the vision; but a great quaking fell on them, and they fled to hide themselves.
- Daniel 11:4 When he stands up, his kingdom will be broken, and will be divided toward the four winds of the sky, but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom will be plucked up, even for others besides these.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (24 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain Here Daniel relates another vision, differing from the former…
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.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain After the general vision, he cometh to certain particular…
After the general vision, he cometh to certain particular visions as touching 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 thereof.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Dan 8:1 In the third year of the reign…
Dan 8:1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, [even unto] me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
Ver. 1. In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar.] Which was his last year, when Babylon was closely besieged: therefore Daniel was not now really at Shushan, but in vision only. {Dan 8:2}
Read full note →
A vision appeared unto me.] While waking likely: and for further explication of the former vision, {Dan 7:1-2} whereof because Daniel made so good use, ampliorem gratiam accipit, saith Oecolampadius, he now receiveth further grace.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain This follows then in time after the former. Those…
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Here is, I. The date of this vision, Dan…
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.
Read full note →
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, Jde 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, Pe1 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 (Rut 4:1) for Ho, such a one, and (Kg2 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's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain In the third year of the reign of King…
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.
Read full note →
(t) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 28. p. 81. (u) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 4. (w) Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3451. (x) Connexion, &c part 1. p. 117. (y) Scripture Chronlogy, p. 710. (z) Chronological Tables, cent. 10.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain This and the following chapters are not writ in…
This and the following chapters are not writ in Chaldee, but in Hebrew, for the benefit of the Jews. Here is the vision of the ram, and the he-goat, and the little horn, ver. 1-14. The interpretation of it, ver. 15-27
After that - 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.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain This chapter contains Daniel's vision of the ram and…
CHAPTER VIII
This chapter contains Daniel's vision of the ram and he-goat,
Read full note →
1-14;
referring, as explained by the angel, to the Persian and
Grecian monarchies, 15-26.
The little horn mentioned in the ninth verse, (or fierce king,
as interpreted in the twenty-third,) is supposed by some to
denote Antiochus Epiphanes; but seems more properly to apply to
the Roman power in general, by which the polity and temple of
the Jews were destroyed, on account of the great transgressions
of these ancient people of God; and particularly because of
their very obstinate and unaccountable rejection of the
glorious doctrines of Christianity, which had been preached
among them by Jesus Christ and his apostles, and the truth of
which God had attested "by signs and wonders, and by divers
miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost." Daniel is then informed
of the two thousand and three hundred prophetic days (that is,
years) which must elapse before the sanctuary be cleansed; or,
in other words, before righteousness shall prevail over the
whole earth. This period is supposed, with considerable
probability to have had its commencement when Alexander the
Great invaded Asia, in the year before Christ 334. This will
bring the close of it to about the end of the SIXTH chiliad of
the world; when, as already observed, some astonishing changes
are expected to take place in the moral condition of the human
race; when the power of Antichrist, both Papal and Mohammedan,
shall be totally annihilated, and universal dominion given to
the saints of the Most High. The chapter concludes with the
distress of Daniel on account of the fearful judgments with
which his country should be visited in after ages, 27.
NOTES ON CHAP. VIII
Verse 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 Da 2:4 to the end of Da 7:28, 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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Dan 8:1. In the third year of King Belshazzar…
Dan 8:1. In the third year of King Belshazzar — Daniel’s former vision of the four great beasts, representing the four great empires of the world, took place in the first year of Belshazzar; now, in the third year of that king’s reign, he had another vision, which chiefly respected two of those empires. Thus God showed the same things to Daniel at different times, and under different symbols; doubtless in order that they might be more deeply impressed on his mind, and that he might more distinctly understand them in all their circumstances. We find God acting in the same manner with some of the other prophets, particularly Ezekiel, to whom he showed the destruction of Jerusalem by a great many different types, or symbols. This vision was communicated to Daniel about the year before Christ 553, according to Usher, Prideaux, and other chronologers.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain In the third year of the reign of king…
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.”
Read full note →
After what appeared unto me at the first - That occurred in the first year of Belshazzar, Dan 7:1.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Beginning. This vision was to explain what he had…
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)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain 2. The vision of the two world-kingdoms and their…
2. The vision of the two world-kingdoms and their fall
Dan_8:1-27
Read full note →
1In the third year of1 the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me [I] Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. 2And I saw in a vision (and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at [in] Shushan in the palace [or, citadel], which is in the province of Elam); and I saw in a vision, and I was by [upon] the river of Ulai.
3Then [And] I lifted up mine eyes and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a [single] ram which [and he] had two horns, and the two horns were high; but [the] one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. 4I saw the ram pushing2 westward [sea-ward], and northward, and southward; so that [and] no beasts might [could] stand before him, neither was there any that could. deliver out of his hand; but [and] he did according to his will, and became great.3
5And as I was considering [then], behold, a he-goat4 came from the west,5 on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground [earth]: and the goat had a notable [sightly] horn between his eyes. 6And he came to the ram that had [master of the] two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. 7And I saw him come close unto6 the ram, and he was moved with choler7 against [towards] him, and 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 [earth], and stamped upon [trampled] him: and there was none that could deliver8 the ram out of his hand.
8Therefore [And] the he-goat4 waxed [became] very9 great:3 and when [as] he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable 9[sightly] ones,10 toward the four winds of heaven [the heavens]. And out of [the] one of them came forth a [single] little11 horn which waxed [and it became exceeding great,3 toward the south, and toward the east and toward the pleasant land.12 10And it waxed [became] great,3 even to the host of heaven [the heavens]; and it cast down13 some of the host and of the stars to the ground [earth], and 11stamped upon [trampled] them. Yea [And] he magnified himself3 even to the prince of the host, and by [from] him the daily [continual] sacrifice was taken 12away,14 and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And a host was [would be] given him against the daily [continual] sacrifice by reason of [in] transgression, and it [would] cast down the truth to the ground [earth]; and it practised [did], and prospered.
13Then [And] I [quite] heard one saint [holy one] speaking, and another saint [one holy one] said unto that certain saint which spake [to so-and-so the one speaking], How long shall be the vision concerning [of] the daily [continual] sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation [desolating or astounding transgression], to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days [evening-mornings];15 then [and] shall the sanctuary be cleansed [sanctified].
15And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning [understanding], then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man [person]. 16And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which [and he] called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the 17vision [appearance]. So [And] he came near where I stood;16 and when he came, I was afraid, and fell [quite] upon my face: but [and] he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for [that] at [to] the time of the end shall be the 18vision. Now [And], as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep [stunned] on my face toward the ground [earth]: but [and] he touched me, and set me [made me stand] upright.17 19And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be [it is to the time of the end].
20The ram which thou sawest18 having [master of the] two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 21And the rough goat19 is the king of Græcia [Javan]; and the great horn that is between his eyes [, that] is the first king. 22Now that being broken, whereas [And the broken one, and] four stood up for it, four kingdoms 23shall stand up out of the nation, but [and] not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when [as] the transgressors are come to the full [have completed], a king of fierce countenance [strong (bold) of face], and understanding dark sentences [stratagems], shall stand up. 24And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy [or, corrupt] wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise [do], and shall destroy [or, corrupt] the 25mighty [ones] and the holy people [people of the holy ones]. And through [upon] his policy also [and] he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself3 in his heart, and by peace [in security] shall destroy [or, corrupt] many: he shall also [and he will] stand up against the Prince of 26princes; but [and] he shall be broken without20 hand. And the vision [appearance] of the evening and the morning20 which was told is true [, it is truth]: wherefore [and thou] shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.
27And I Daniel fainted,21 and was sick certain days: afterward [and] I rose up, and did the king’s business [work]; and I was astonished at the vision [appearance], but [and] none understood it.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan_8:1-2. Time and place of the vision. In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar; hence, shortly before the end of this king, who reigned but little more than two years (cf. Introd., § 8, note 3), and therefore not long after the incident recorded in chap. 5, which revealed the Medo-Persian kingdom already rising with a threatening light above the political horizon of the Chaldæan empire, as the heiress of Babylonia. Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the image and that of the four beasts and the Son of man (seen perhaps two years before the present date), as well as the vision of the Medo-Persian ram and the Græcian goat, described in the following verses, had already prepared Daniel, before he interpreted the mysterious writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s banquethall, to see Medo-Persia standing on the arena of history as the leading world-power instead of Babylonia in the not distant future The extent, however, to which recent political events, such as successes achieved by the Medes, or, what is more probable, the rise of the youthful Persian prince Cyrus and his victory over Astyages (B. C. 559, and therefore two years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar in 561, and shortly after the overthrow of his successor Belshazzar-Evilmerodach), may have been influential in inciting the prophet to the politico-religious meditations from which originated the vision of this chapter, cannot be positively decided, in view of the silence of the book with regard to such externally conditioning circumstances. The political situation must certainly not be apprehended as if the fall of the Babylonian empire were immediately impending, and the approach of the Medes under Darius were looked for shortly. Against this view, which is based on the familiar but incorrect interpretation of Dan_5:29 et seq., and which is still advocated by Hitzig, Ewald, etc., see supra, on that passage.22—A vision appeared unto me … Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first; i.e., “after having seen, somewhat earlier, an important prophetic vision, another of a similar character appeared to me.” This new vision, however, is not called a “dream” or a dreamvision, like that in Dan_7:1, but simply a חָזוֹן, “’ vision, what has been seen;” cf. Dan_8:15; Dan_8:26, and also מַרְאֶח (Dan_8:16; Dan_8:27; Dan_10:7; also Exo_3:3; Eze_43:3), which is often substituted for חָזֹון. It is evident that the prophet was awake and conscious during this vision, from the language of the verses at the beginning and end of the section (Dan_8:2; Dan_8:27), and also from a comparison with the vision in chap. 10, which is analogous in form (see especially Dan_8:7-10).—הנִּרְאָה, instead of הֶחָזוֹן אֲשֶׁר נִרְאָה. On this apparently relative use of the article, cf. Ewald, Lehrb., § 335 a.—בַּתְּהִלָּה, properly, “in the beginning,” is here and in Dan_9:21 equivalent to “formerly, before,” and therefore:=בָּרִאשֹׁנָה, Isa_1:26; Gen_13:3-4 (in both passages the two terms are employed as synonyms). The expression refers back to chap. 7, and especially to 7:28.
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, וַיְהִי בִּוְאֹתִי indicates that he was merely visionally present at Shushan, or that in spirit he was transported to that Persian metropolis; but in the following words he describes its situation and locality in so realizing and exact a manner that his actual presence in or near that city becomes exceedingly probable. During his long official and semi-official service under Nebuchadnezzar he may have visited that region more than once (cf. supra, on 3:12 and 4:6). Like Josephus, a majority of the older translators, Luther, Grotius, etc., Bertholdt and Gesenius advocate the view that the words beginning with ויִהִי are in parenthesis; but this is contrary to the Heb. usage and to the expression of the author, and consequently the view adopted by nearly all the modern expositors, which finds only a presence of Daniel ἑν πνεύματι at Shushan indicated by this language, is preferable. This destroys all foundation for the charge of Bertholdt, that the writer is guilty of anachronism in this instance, since Shushan was no longer subject to the Babylonian empire in the reign of Belshazzar, i.e., Nabonidus. Even prior to the fall of the Chaldæan world-power Daniel was able to speak of the palace (or castle) of Shushan (with regard to בִּירָּה, Pers. bâru, “a castle,” Sanscr. bura, Gr. βάρις, cf. Gesenius and Dietrich, s. v) as a centre of Persian power, and even, in a measure, as the heart of the Medo-Persian world-monarchy, because the city of Susa (Old-Pers. probably Shuza, now Shush—see Lassen, Zeitschr. für Kunde des Morgenl., VI. 47), together with its well-fortified castle, was, from the earliest times, a principal feature in the province of Elymaïs (which is indicated by the terms applied to it by Herodotus, e.g., Μεμνόνιον ἀστυ, Σοῦσα τὰ Μεμνό-νια etc.; see Herod., V. 53, 54; VII. 151; cf. Strabo, XV. 52 et seq.; Pausan., IV. 31, 5), and because the prominent and all-controlling part which that city would take under the direction of a native Persian prince could readily be foreseen, even before cyrus should have solemnly declared it the capital of his empire, and before Darius Hystaspis should have enlarged and splendidly ornamented it as such (cf. Hävernick, on this passage).—Which is in the province of Elam. Kranichfeld observes correctly that “if this book had been written subsequent to the exile, Shushan would not have been located in Elam, but in Susiana” (cf. Füller, p. 190); for Elam (Gr. Ἐλυμαΐς Sept. Αἰλάμ) is the old-Heb. designation of the countries situated east of Babylon and the lower Tigris, which were inhabited from the earliest times by Shemites (see Gen_10:22; Gen_14:19; cf. Isa_11:11; Isa_21:2; Isa_22:6; Jer_25:25, etc.), and it was not till the period of the Persian supremacy that the extended province of Elam was limited to the narrow strip between the Tigris and the Eulæus, or between the Persian satrapies of Babylonia and Susiana, by which arrangement the river Eulæus (see the notes immediately following) became the boundary between Elymaïs and Susiana, and the city of Susa was assigned to the latter province. Cf. Strabo, XV. 3, 12; XVI. 1, 17; Pliny, II, N., VI. 27: “susianam ab Elymaide disterminat omnis Eulœus.” The expression עֵילָם הַמְּדִינָה, “the province of Elam,” does not by any means convey the idea of a Chaldœan province of that name, whose capital was Susa, because the author conforms entirely to the ancient Heb. usage. Cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs und Babels, p. 198 et seq.; Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl., Art. Elam.—And I was by the river of Ulai, i.e., on the banks of the Eulæus, which flowed on one side of the city of Susa, while the Choaspes (on which river the classics, as Herod., I. 188; V. 49, 52; Strab., XV. p. 728, etc., locate that town) probably bounded it on the other. Corresponding with this, the representation of a large city, lying between two rivers, on a bas-relief of Kuyunjik copied by Layard (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 452), was probably designed for Susa. The explorations of Loftus in the region of Shush in 1851 make it probable that the Eulæus itself was merely a fork or branch of the ancient Choaspes or modern Kerkhah, and that the latter stream was also occasionally called Eulæus (see Rödiger, Zeitschr. f. Kunde des Morgenl., 13:715 et seq.; Rüetschi, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl., art. Susa). The peculiar name אוּבָל, stream, water-course,” which is applied to the Ulai in this place and in Dan_8:3; Dan_8:6; Dan_8:16, appears likewise to indicate that it was not so much a single river as a stream which divided into two forks. The same idea was probably intended by the expression “between the Ulai,” Dan_8:16 (see on that passage).23
Dan_8:3-4. The first leading feature of the vision: the Persian ram. And behold there stood before the river a ram. “Before it,” i.e., probably, eastward from it, in case the branch of the river which flowed to the west of Susa is intended; for if Daniel did not stand in the castle of Shushan, he was at any rate close beside it, and therefore on the eastern bank of that branch of the stream. If from this position he saw the ram standing before the river, the latter must likewise have been on the eastern bank. [“Daniel first sees one ram, אַיּל standing by the river. The אֶחָד (one) does not here stand for the indefinite article, but is a numeral in contradistinction to the two horns which the one ram has” (Keil). Rather it indicates a solitary ram, and not a member of a flock, as is usual with these gregarious animals. For every ram has of course two horns.] The vision symbolizes the Persian monarchy as a ram (and afterward the Græcian empire as a he goat), in harmony with that mode of representation—which prevailed generally in the figurative language of O.–T. prophecy and accorded with Oriental modes of conception in general—by which princes, national sovereigns, or military leaders were typified under similar figures; cf. Isa_14:9 (“all the great goats of the earth”), and as parallel with it, “all the kings of the heathen,” Jer_1:8; Eze_34:17; Zec_10:3. From extra-Biblical sources, cf. Zendav., part II., p. 273 et seq., in Kleuker (Ized Behram appears “like a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns”); Hamasa, p. 482, ed. Shultens; also the Iliad, 13:491–493; Cicero, de divinat., i. 22, 14; Plutarch, Sulla, c. 27.24 It is especially significant that Persia is represented as a male sheep, while the Macedonian-Greek empire is symbolized as a he-goat, in view of the contrast between the solid prosperity and even abundant wealth of the Persian monarchy, and the combative, rampant, and warlike nature of Macedon. With similar propriety the preceding vision (Dan_7:5 et seq.) employed the bear to represent the slow, clumsy, but enormous power of Medo-Persia, and the four-winged leopard to illustrate the fleetness and warlike spirit of the Macedonians. It is also possible that an indirect allusion to the ethical contrast between Medo-Persia, as a power which in a religious point of view approximated somewhat towards Shemitism and the Theocracy, and maintained friendly relations with them, and the Græcian empire, as being thoroughly heathen and fundamentally opposed to all monotheism, was implied in this representation; for the parallel descriptions in chapters 2 and 7 likewise describe the succeeding world-kingdoms as in every case more degraded and abominable, in a religious and ethical light, than their predecessors (see Eth.-fund. principles, etc., on chap. 2 No. 3, a and b). He-goats serve elsewhere also as symbols of a violent, savage, and obstinately hostile disposition, while sheep (and consequently rams also) are distinguished by being more governable, and by evincing a more peaceful and mild nature, and thus are better adapted to typify what is ethically good and attractive. See Mat_25:31-46, and cf. Lange on that passage, who observes against Meyer, and certainly with justice, that in this description of the last judgment, Christ does not represent the wicked under the symbol of goats because of the inferior value of that animal (Luk_15:29), but because of its “incorrigible obstinacy” and ungovernable temper (Vol. I. of the New-Test portion of this Bible work). Cf. also Piper, Christus der Weltrichter in the evangel. Kalender, 1853, p. 25.—Which had two horns; and the horns were high. The ram was therefore not impotent and defenceless, since the tall horns which he bore are symbols of great power, being the natural weapons of rams, both for offence and defence; cf. on Dan_7:7; Dan_7:24.—But one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. The vision therefore represents the horns as still growing, and fixes the prophet’s attention on the fact that the horn which comes up last excels the other in its powerful growth—a striking illustration of the well-known process of development by which the Persian nation became the head of the Medo-Persian world-empire after the time of Cyrus, as being the more powerful element in the confederacy, and thus able to compel the Median branch, though older, to assume the second place in power and dignity. Theodoret thinks that this passage refers to the expulsion of the dynasty of Cyrus by the later, but more powerful family of Darius Hystaspis; the ram, however, does not represent Persia only, but the combined Medo-Persia, as the angel expressly states in the interpretation Dan_8:20, and as the parallel visions in Dan_2:39; Dan_7:5, when properly conceived and understood, compel us to suppose (see on that passage).
Dan_8:4. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward. The “pushing” can only be intended to signify the assertion and extension of its power in a warlike manner; cf. Dan_11:40; Psa_44:6; Deu_33:17; 1Ki_22:11. In this place the pushing westward denotes more particularly the victories of Medo-Persia over Babylonia and the Lydian kingdom of Asia Minor; that toward the north, the expeditions for the conquest of Scythia, led by Cyrus and Darius; and that towards the south, the conquest of Egypt and Libya by Cambyses. The ram does not push eastward, because the east already belonged to the Medo-Persian empire, and no farther extension in that direction was to be expected. Hitzig remarks, with incredible absurdity: “The fourth quarter of the earth is here unnoticed. While the ram turns his head to the right or left, he may, without changing his position, push northward and southward, but not backwards; in that direction, moreover, he would assail Daniel himself, and afterward Susa”—as if there could have been any difficulty in the matter of changing the position of the ram, in case it became necessary to represent an extension of its power eastward, by the symbol of pushing in that direction!25—So that no beasts might stand before him; literally, “and all beasts—they stood not before him.” The imperfect לֹא רַעַמְדוּ expresses here, as often, the sense of “not being able to resist” (cf. Gesen., Lehrgeb., p. 772 et seq.). The verb in this place is masculine (unlike Dan_8:22), because the writer has in his mind the kingdoms or monarchs symbolized by the חַיּוֹת. Cf. the similar enallage gen. in Job_15:6; Hos_14:1.—But he did according to his will and became great. וְהִגְדִּיל properly, “and he made great,” namely, his power, i.e., he became strong, mighty. Not “and he pretended to be great, gave himself boastful airs”(de Wette, van Ess, Ewald, etc.); for, as Dan_8:25 shows, הִגְדִּיל never expresses the sense of boasting or conceited superciliousness when standing alone, as it does here and in Dan_8:8, but only when joined with the particularizing בִּלְבָבוֹ.26 With regard to Dan_8:10-11 cf. infra, on those passages.
Dan_8:5-7. The Græcian he-goat and its victory over the Persian ram. And as I was considering, behold, a he-goat, etc. “Considering,” מֵבִין, as in Dan_8:27. The he-goat with a single notable horn between the eyes—hence in its general appearance resembling one of the unicorns which are prominent in the drawings on the monuments of Nineveh, Babylon, and Persepolis—symbolizes the Macedonian-Hellenistic world-monarchy founded by Alexander the Great (whom the single great horn more directly represents, see Dan_8:21), and at the same time the kingdoms of the Diadochi which emanated from it, as Dan_8:8 indicates with all possible clearness by the growth of four new horns in the place of the great horn which was broken. This comprehensive animal symbol accordingly includes all that had been characterized separately in the two former visions of the world-monarchies, chapters 2 and 7, at-first by the figure of two different parts of the body of the colossus, and afterward by the symbol of two beasts appearing in succession. This departure from the former mode of representation involves no questionable features whatever, inasmuch as this chapter follows a different train of ideas in many other respects as well, and the advocates of the interpretation of the fourth beast in chap. 7 (and of the legs of clay and iron intermingled, in chap. 2), which differs from ours, must not be permitted to urge their view to the exclusion of our own, because they also are compelled to acknowledge that the present vision combines in one two features which are there found separately, so that the one Medo-Persian ram in this place corresponds to the two beasts in the former vision, which, in their judgment, represent Media and Persia (cf. supra).—Came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground; therefore, with great swiftness, as if flying, or as if borne on the wings of the storm. Cf. the description of the leopard in Dan_7:6, and the statement respecting Alexander the Great, in 1Ma_1:3 διῆλθεν έως ἀκρων τῆς γῆς; also Isa_41:2 et seq.; Hos_13:7; Hab_1:6; Hab_1:8, and other descriptions relating to conquerors of earlier times.—And the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. קֶרֶן חָזוּת does not signify a “horn of vision” (Hofmann, Weiss und Erfüllung, I. 292), but rather a “notable horn,” as the parallel גְּדוֹלָה in Dan_8:8; Dan_8:21 shows, and as the ancient versions already declare (Theod.: κέρας θεωρητόν; Vulg.: cornu insigne, etc.); cf. אִישׁ מַרְאָה,2Sa_23:21; also Targ., Est_2:2; Gen_12:11.
Dan_8:6. And he came to the ram that had two horns. The Arabs term Alexander the Great “the two-horned one,” because he was represented on coins, etc., as the son of Jupiter Amnion, wearing two horns on his head. The fact that on the contrary, the Medo-Persian empire which he conquered is represented as a double-horned ram, indicates with sufficient clearness that the symbolic visions of this chapter did not originate with a pseudo-Daniel, who prophesied subsequent to the event. Cf. Kranichfeld on this passage, where he justly rejects Hitzig’s opinion that we have here merely an “accidental analogy” to the Arabian idea.—And ran unto him in the fury of his power; properly, in the heat of his power, i.e., in the irresistible rage (חמח) of which he was capable by reason of his mighty power. Hävernick is not exactly correct when he reads “full of a fierce desire for battle;” nor are De Wette, Von Lengerke, etc., in their version, “in his mighty rage.”
Dan_8:7. And I saw him come close unto the ram. The manner in which Alexander the Great, at the head of the Macedonian forces, put an end to the Medo-Persian empire, corresponds in the main with this description of the assault by the goat upon the ram, which resulted in the breaking of the two horns of the latter (i.e., the power of Media and of Persia), but still not so exactly as to suggest a sketching ex eventu of that event. The figurative description is especially defective in not containing any tolerably clear indication of the fact that several vigorous blows by the ram, which were inflicted at different points (the first at Granicus, the next at Issus, and the final one in the neighborhood of Susa and the Eulæus river), were required to break and destroy the Persian power. A Maccabæan pseudo-Daniel would hardly have escaped the temptation to introduce more tangible allusions to these features.
Dan_8:8-12. The little horn which grew from the goat, and its violence against the Most High and His sanctuary. And the goat waxed very great. Here again חִגְּדִּיל does not signify “to pretend to greatness,” but “to become great, to develop mightily.”27 עַר מְאֹד, “unto excess,” as in Gen_27:33; 1Ki_1:4; Isa_64:8.—And when he was (or, “had become”) strong, the great horn was broken. כְּעָצְמוֹ, when the height of his “becoming great” was reached, when his power was at its climax. Think of Alexander’s expeditions to Bactria, Sogdiana, and India, which were soon followed by his death. The “breaking of the great horn,” however, does not refer simply to Alexander’s death, but also to the division of the dominion and disruption of the unity of the realm immediately consequent on the decease of that monarch.—And for it came up four notable ones. חָזוּת is properly in apposition with אַרְבַּע, “conspicuousness, four,” or also an adverbial accusative, “in conspicuousness, in a notable manner;” cf. supra, on Dan_8:5. Each of the separate powers is therefore still important, although each receives but a fourth of the power and greatness of the original collective empire.—Toward the four winds of heaven. This addition alludes to the centrifugal principle, tending to division and separation, which after Alexander’s death (not after the battle of Ipsus, as Hitzig prefers) seized on the Macedonian-Hellenistic world-monarchy, in which the centralizing principle had hitherto prevailed. The number of the horns appears to be based on the number of the winds, and to be a standing symbolic expression which is found in other writers also (cf. Jer_49:36; Zec_2:10; Zec_6:5; Job_1:19). It is at any rate of symbolic significance, referring to the separation and parting of the empire toward all quarters of the world; and it is therefore not admissible to seek four particular kingdoms which should be denoted by the four horns growing towards the four quarters of the earth, as those of Cassander (Macedon), Lysimachus (Thrace and Asia Minor), Seleucus (Syria, Babylonia, and Persia), and Ptolemy (Egypt),28 Both the opponents and the advocates of the genuineness of this book, since Porphyry and Jerome, are agreed in this specializing interpretation of the four horns, by which the kingdoms of the four Diadochi, who have been mentioned, are obtained (cf. in addition Hävernick, Hitzig, Ewald, and Kamphausen, on the passage). But they do not consider (1) that not the battle of Ipsus, but the death of Alexander, the monarch who founded the empire, is given as the terminus a quo at which the growth of the “four horns” begins; (2) that in point of fact the number of the great empires of the Diadochi Cassander, Lysimachus, etc., was limited to four during a period even more brief than that during which the empire was a unit under Alexander; (3) that the enumeration of four such empires even immediately subsequent to the battle of Ipsus might be assailed as being inexact, inasmuch as Demetrius, the son of Antigonus whom those kings had conquered, stood upon the scene of action (as ruler of the sea, and lord of Phœnicia, Cyprus, Athens, etc.), as well as the independent rulers of the Achæmenidæ who governed Pontus, Armenia, and Cappadocia; (4) that the parallel visions in chap. 2 and 7 appear to indicate a division of the original empire into two kingdoms (the “two legs” of the colossus, Dan_2:33; Dan_2:40 et seq.), or into ten (cf. Bleek’s interpretation of the ten horns, Dan_7:7) instead of four. Among modern expositors Kranichfeld advocates the correct view by laying the principal stress on the symbolic idea of a “dispersion to the four winds,” and contenting himself with observing in relation to the bearing of this prophecy upon the four empires of the Diadochi in question, that “the prophetic idea is verified formally also, by events suggesting its fulfilment which were connected with the four kingdoms of the Diadochi in the Macedonian realm.”
Dan_8:9. And out of one of them came forth a little horn. מִצְּעִירָה, literally, “out of littleness, in a small way,” an adverbial conception of similar formation as מִן יַצִּיב ,מִן קְשׁוֹט in Dan_2:8; Dan_2:47 (see on those passages). On the masculine forms מֵהֶם and יָצָא cf. the similar constructions ad sensum in Dan_8:4 (יַעַמְדוּ) and Dan_8:11 (הִגְדִּיל).—The horn from which the horn “sprouting in a diminutive manner” comes forth has its historical counterpart in the kingdom of the Seleucidæ; the little horn which sprouts or branches forth from it—after the manner of the prongs in the antlers of a deer—finds, like that in Dan_7:8, its most pregnant historical illustration in the most godless offspring of that dynasty, Antiochus Epiphanes. The little horn, however, was certainly not intended to represent Epiphanes only and exclusively, as the description shows that immediately follows, which relates to the predecessors of Epiphanes also, especially to Antiochus the Great, and perhaps even suggests a reference to Seleucus Nicator and his expeditions to Persia and India in search of conquest.—Which waxed exceeding great toward the south and toward the east. It is usual to apply this to the wars of Ant. Epiphanes against Egypt (1Ma_1:18 et seq.; cf. infra, Dan_11:22 et seq.), against the countries beyond the Euphrates, Armenia and Elymaïs (1Ma_1:31; 1Ma_1:37; 1Ma_6:1 et seq.; cf. Appian., Syr., c. 45, 66), and against the Jews under the leadership of the Asmonæans. But Syria derived no “exceeding greatness under that tyrant from these wars; the וְתִגְדַּל־יֶתֶר may be far more appropriately applied to the former extensions of the power of the Seleucidæ under Sel. Nicator and Antiochus the Great (whose conquests toward the west are not noticed, probably because of their transient character). Moreover in case the reference to the undertakings of Epiphanes that have been mentioned could be established, the prophecy would be so direct in its application, that it would be hardly possible to defend its origin during the captivity with Daniel.29 It is better, therefore, to be content with the more general, and, so to speak, collective or genealogical interpretation of the “little horn,” by which it signifies, more immediately, the antitheocratic or anti-Christian governing power in the empire of the Seleucidæ merely, the power of the “transgressors,” who are clearly distinguished in like manner in Dan_8:23 from Ant. Epiphanes as the most concentrated expression of the anti-theistic principle (see on that passage). Cf. also Kranichfeld, who, while assenting to this general idea of the little horn, seeks to explain the circumstance that the growth of this horn toward the west is not mentioned, by assuming that “the Græcian horn as such is conceived as being in the west and as operating from thence,” and that therefore the author “would naturally describe it as asserting its power only in the regions which lay southward and eastward from Javan.”—And toward the pleasant land. הצְבִי, properly, “the ornament;” here equivalent to אֶרֶץ הַצְבִי (Dan_11:16; Dan_11:41), i.e., the valued, precious land, the blessed land, the land of Israel; cf. Jer_3:19; Eze_20:6; Eze_20:15; Zec_7:14; Psa_106:24. “Palestine is here noticed as a third land between the south and the east, as, in a different connection, in Isa_19:23 et seq., it is located between the once hostile Egypt and Assyria,”30
Dan_8:10. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven. The “becoming great” is here no longer to be taken in the strict and proper objective sense, but is subjective, an impious presumption, a conceited pride whose greatness reached to the host of heaven; cf. Dan_8:25. The “host of heaven,” however, is doubtless a figurative expression, referring in strong eulogistic phrase to Israel, the community of saints, who contsitute “the Lord’s host” on earth, even as the glittering stars form His host in the sky; cf. Gen_15:5; Gen_22:17; Num_24:17; also Exo_7:4; Exo_12:41; and further, the name Jehovah Sabaoth, which probably designates God in a two-fold sense, namely, as the “Lord of hosts,” with reference to the starry host, and also to people of Israel, the host of His earthly servants and elect ones. The figurative designation of Israel as the “host of heaven” was probably caused by the designed assonance between צָבָא and צָבִי, the latter of which had just been employed to characterize the land of Israel.31—And it cast down (some) of the host and of the stars to the ground. The copula before הַכּוֹכָבִיםמִן is explicative (=namely), and serves to introduce an explanatory clause, intended to sustain the force of the figure presented in the preceding sentence while applying the term צָבָא—which is not metaphorical in itself—to the host of Israel, and thus to strengthen the conception of the impious character of the attempt.—And stamped upon them, namely, the members of the people of God; cf. Dan_8:13 and Dan_7:21; Dan_7:25. The manner in which this part of the prophetic vision was fulfilled under Ant. Epiphanes is recorded in 1Ma_1:24; 1Ma_1:30; 1Ma_1:37; 1Ma_2:38. Cf. the reference expressly to this prophecy in 2Ma_9:10.
Dan_8:11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host. The masculine הִגְדִּיל is used because the foe who is typified by the horn is intended; cf. 11:36.—The “prince of the host” is of course not identical with him who is mentioned in Jos_5:14 (who is probably identical with Michael, Dan_10:13), but the Most High God Himself, to whom Dan_8:25 refers as the “Prince of princes.” Cf. Dan_7:8; Dan_7:20; Dan_7:25; Dan_11:36.—And by him the daily sacrifice was taken away. The enemy of God’s people, who is symbolized by the horn, must be regarded as the agent of the two passive verbs הוּרָם and הֻשְׁלָךְ (for which Hitzig, following the Keri and the versions, unnecessarily desires to substitute the actives הֵרִום and וְהַשְׁלֵךְ, הַתָּמִיד “the daily” (Gr. ἐνδελεχισμός), designates, as is shown by the mention of “the place of his sanctuary” immediately afterward, the daily service in the temple, and more particularly, probably the daily morning and evening sacrifices, the תָמִידעוֹלָה, Num_28:3; 1Ch_16:40; 2Ch_29:7. Cf. the rabbinical usage which expresses, this idea also by הִתמיד simply; cf. also infra, on Dan_8:14.—The events in the history of the theocracy immediately prior to the Christian æra, which fulfilled this prophecy in a measure, are narrated in 1Ma_1:39; 1Ma_1:45 et seq.; 3:45.
Dan_8:12. And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression; rather, “and war is raised against the daily sacrifice, with outrage.” The imperf. verbs תִּנָתֵן and תַּשְׁלֵךְ are not, indeed, præterites (Hitzig), but they are not used in a strictly future sense (Ewald, Lehrb., p. 829 et seq.). They denote, rather, the idea that the predicted course of conduct accords with the Divine decree, or that it is ordained or permitted by God, thus corresponding to Dan_7:14; Dan_7:17, or supra, Dan_8:4. This sense is most readily expressed in the English by the present tense.—צָבָא תִּנָּתֵן does not signify “the host is given up, or devoted to ruin” (De Wette, Von Lengerke, Hävernick, Kranichfeld, etc.), but, “a war is carried on, a warlike expedition is begun, a campaign is undertaken” (cf. Isa_40:2). The correct view was already entertained by Jerome, Luther, etc., and among moderns by Hitzig, Kamphausen, and Ewald, the latter of whom justly notices the contrast between צָבָא here and the same word in Dan_8:10, where it stands in a different sense, and therefore translates, “and the compulsion of a host is imposed on the daily. His idea is that compulsion is employed for the purpose of introducing idolatrous worship in place of the service of the true God, and particularly, compulsion to service in the host, so that “host stands opposed to host, serfdom to the true service (of God), coercion to freedom.”—In imitation of Theodotion (καὶ ἐδόθη ἐπὶ τὴν θνσίαν ἁμαρτία), Bertholdt makes the very uncalled-for proposition of rejecting וְצָבָא from the text, and then reading בְּפֶשַׁעהַפֶּשַׁע unquestionably indicates the method of making war upon the daily sacrifice; it stands sensu objectivo, to designate the outrageous heathen idolatry or sacrificial service, which superseded the worship belonging to the true faith. The same feature occurs in Dan_8:13, where שֹׁמֵם is added, to strengthen the idea.32—And it cast (“casts”) down the truth to the ground. The subject of וְתַשְׁלֵךְ (for which Hitzig, following the Septuagint, Theodot., and Syr., prefers to read וְתֻשְׁלַךְ) is the קֶרֶן, which is last mentioned in Dan_8:10, and which forms the principal feature of the entire description before us. The “truth” (אֱמֶת Theodot., διλαιοσύνη) to be cast down by this “horn” is the true religion, the objective truth of God, which is revealed in the law and the prophets (cf. Psa_19:10; Psa_30:10; also Dan_9:13). Dan_8:14 shows that its being cast down, like that of the daily sacrifice, shall continue but for a brief period.—And it practised and prospered; rather, “and it accomplishes this, and prospers,” namely, because of the Divine permission. The words, and indeed the verse as a whole, serve to recapitulate and gather together the preceding statements.
Dan_8:13-14. A question concerning the duration of the oppression of the truth, and the answer to this question. Then I heard one saint speaking. This speaking angel (for קָדֹושׁ here signifies an angel, cf. קַדִּישׁ, Dan_4:10, and also Deu_33:2; Job_5:1; Job_15:5; Psa_89:6; Psa_89:8; Zec_14:1) enters into the vision here described without previous notice, because the prophet conceives of the whole scene as surrounded by angels, similar to Dan_7:10; cf. Dan_8:16, and analogous features (perhaps in imitation of this passage) in the night visions of Zechariah, e.g., Zec_1:9 et seq., 13 et seq.; 2:2, 5, 7; 3:1 et seq.; 4:1 et seq. The prophet does not state what the angel, who is introduced in this mysterious and dream-like manner, said at first, evidently because he does not know, i.e., because, although he has heard him speak, he has not understood his words. He saw, therefore, two angels, who were engaged in conversing with each other, and heard one of them say something which he failed to understand; the question, however, which the other addressed to the first speaker was so clearly apprehended by the prophet that he was able to repeat it in the latter half of this verse. Ewald puts it, correctly: “Thus, at the first moment of silence after that speech, he suddenly hears one angel ask another, with whom he is conversing,” etc. Hitzig, Kamphausen, etc., on the other hand, are arbitrary: “The second angel addressed the speaker, by directing an inquiry in the interest of Daniel to him (Dan_8:13 b), by replying to which the other angel became for the first time speaker.” According to this the greater part of Dan_8:13 would be a logical parenthesis, and the words “and he said unto me” at the beginning of Dan_8:14 would serve simply to resume the introductory words of Dan_8:13; the language of the writer, however, does not accord with this view. His evident aim is to repeat what he has overheard of a conversation between two angels; otherwise the most simple course for him would have been to address the inquiry concerning the duration of the tribulation to the angel in person, as in Dan_7:16, which is, in other respects, an analogous case.—How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice. “The vision,” i.e., the subject of the vision, which is here more specially indicated by the two genitives that follow, viz.: הַתָּמַיד and וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם. The anxious question as to “how long?” (cf. Isa_6:11) is caused by the fearful and alarming character of the profanation and destruction, as seen in the vision of the prophet.—And the transgression of desolation; rather, “and the horrible transgression.” שֹׁמֵם, the partic. of שָׁמֵם, “to be astonished,” and then “to be desolate or laid waste,” certainly expresses the idea of the “horrible or monstrous” (Lat. horrendus), whether the intransitive sense of “being astounded,” or, in accord with Eze_36:3, the less general transitive sense of “laying waste,” be regarded as the radical meaning; cf. on Dan_9:27. In the latter case it would probably be necessary to translate the participle as a substantive in apposition; “and (of) the transgressor, the destroyer;”33 but in the former case also, where the adjective sense “’ horrible” (Ewald) or “astounding” (Kranichfeld) is chosen, the participle must be regarded as a kind of appositional supplement to פֶּשַׁע, to which it is therefore added without the article (as in Eze_39:27). The expression שׁמֵם הַפֶּשַׁע, instead of which פֶּשַׁע הַשֹׁמֵם might have been expected (cf. 11:31), produces a solemn emphasis, which warrants the urgent question that is proposed.—To give both the sanctuary (rather, “the most sacred thing”) and the host to be trodden under foot, i.e., to give both the holy sacrifice (the central point of worship) and the community of the saints of the Most High (cf. 7:18, 22, 27), the partakers of the theocratic covenant, to be trodden under foot (thus Ewald, correctly). [The grammatical construction of the latter clause of the verse seems to be that תֵּת and קֹדָשׁ and צָבָא are all in dependence upon חָזוֹן, like תָּמִיד and פֶּשַׁע preceding. “How long shall be.… (the) giving, and (the) sanctuary, and (the) host (to be) trampled.” מִרְמָס thus qualifies all the last three nouns, the latter two directly as an adj., and the former as an equivalent for the infin.] “The expression adds nothing that is new to the former statements, but simply repeats the comprehensive estimate of the condition of the Jewish religion referred to, and the outrage committed against it, in the light of the idea that they are permitted by a superior Providence; and, in point of fact, the only object of the question is to recapitulate what has already been said. The asyndetic connection accords with the abrupt conciseness of the description, and the disjunctive וְ before קֹדֶשׁ and צָבָא, added to the lack of conjunctions, is suited to its poetic character (note also the omission of articles!. Consequently, everything that Hitzig regards as objectionable in this place, and that he urges against the traditional pointing for the purpose of removing תֵּת to the preceding clause, arises naturally from the subject itself. Moreover, the explanation of נָתַן by Hitzig, ‘to permit the horrible transgression to go on,’ has no parallel, neither in Dan_8:12. nor in Isa_10:6, where, like the synonymous שׂים, ‘to make into something,’ it is joined to a double accusative; and when Hitzig takes נָתַן at first in the sense of ‘ to permit,’ and immediately afterward makes it signify ‘ to make into something,’ the artificial zeugma certainly does not diminish the imaginary difficulty which, in view of the disjunctive vav, he discovers in the vav that is not prefixed to תֵּת,” (Kranichfeld.)
Dan_8:14. And he said unto me. Thus all the MSS., which read אֵלַי, while the ancient translators, and among modern expositors, Bertholdt. Dereser, Hitzig, Ewald, etc., prefer אֵלָיו. The latter form certainly seems to accord better with the contents of Dan_8:13, since it is supposed that the פַּלְמֹנִי הַמְּדַבֵּר (cf. Rth_4:1) who says what follows, would address it to the other angel, who inquires of him; but it is conceivable, on both logical and psychological grounds, that the witness to the conversation of the angels would represent the information conveyed in the reply to the angel’s question as imparted to himself, because he was still more interested in that information than was the inquirer. Accordingly, he substitutes himself for the angel, because the interest felt by him in equal measure justifies him in identifying himself to some extent with the questioner.—Unto two-thousand and three-hundred days (“evening-mornings”); then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (rather, “justified”). The “justifying of the sanctuary” is the re-consecration of the desecrated sanctuary and its services (which were permitted to be trodden under foot), which is accomplished by the renewal of the daily sacrifices. וְנּצְדּק consequently denotes a being justified by that work, and, in its position at the head of the apodosis to the antecedent clause beginning with the connective עַד, expresses to some extent the sense of the fut. exactum. The material justification or renewal of the perfection of the host, according to Dan_8:13, the second of the objects exposed to being “trodden under foot,” is conceived of as essentially coincident with that of the sanctuary, or as immediately involved in it, and for that reason is not expressly mentioned. The neglect to mention the host does not warrant the conclusion reached by Hitzig, under reference to 1Ma_5:2 et seq., that the author intended to point out that its state of being trodden under foot was to be more protracted, while that of the sanctuary was to cease at an earlier date.—The duration of the period which is to precede the re-dedication of the sanctuary, is again indicated by a mystically indefinite and equivocal limitation of time, as in Dan_7:25. The 2,300 evening-mornings (עֶרֶב בּקֶר) cannot be intended to signify so many days (as Bertholdt, Hävernick, v. Lengerke, etc., assume), for although the several days are, in Gen_1:5 et seq., divided into the two parts which represent them, עֶרֶב and בּקֶר, they are not numbered accordingly; and the Gr. νυχθήμερον, which is often adduced in comparison, is the less adapted to serve as an analogy or ground of probability for the signification of evening-morning as synonymous with “day,” as עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר can hardly be regarded as a compound word (on the analogy of מַסִגֵר), but is, on the contrary, an asyndeton, arising from the poetic brevity of expression in this section (similar to הַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם in Dan_8:13), which, so far from being a “current phrase” or “stereotyped formula,” occurs only in this place as a designation of time. The limitation of the expression in this sense to this passage indicates, with an almost absolute certainty, that ערב and בקר do not signify the corresponding periods of the day, but rather the sacrifices required to be offered in them. The whole prophecy relates principally to the תָּמִיד, to which the passage under consideration assigns an especially prominent position; but as, according to Exo_29:41 (cf. infra, Dan_9:21), this consists of a מִנְחַת־עֶרֶב and a מ׳־בקר, the terms “evening” and “morning” in this place clearly denote the evening and morning sacrifices, or, if it be preferred, the times at which they were offered. “Morning” and “evening” are therefore to be counted separately;34 and thus the period indicated by the author covers 1,150 days instead of 2,300. This period is nearly equivalent to the three and a half years in Dan_7:25, while, on the other hand, the later numbers of 1,290 and 1,335 days (Dan_12:11 et seq.) exceed the medium of three and a half years but little. How this discrepancy in the limits assigned to the duration of the time of anti-Christian persecution and oppression is to be explained, and, in particular, how the number in this place is to be interpreted, is of course very uncertain, and must always remain undecided. In general, those expositors of the truth who always come nearest to the sense of the prophetic author, will regard the present number 1,150 as a designed narrowing, and the numbers 1,290 and 1,335 as a designed extension or overstepping of the limit of three and a half years, and seek to establish a conformity to law both in the narrowing and the extension of that period. If it is assumed that this book limits the year to 360 days (or to twelve months of thirty days each) besides five intercalated days, amounting in all to 365 days, it will be found (1) that the whole number of 1,277 days, which are necessary to cover the period of three and a half years, is decreased by 127 days, or something more than four months, by the number 1,150; (2) that the number 1,290 adds twelve days or about half a month to 1,277 days or three and a half years; and (3) that the number 1,335 adds fifty-eight days, or nearly two months, to the period of three and a half years. A certain conformity to law is evident from these figures, inasmuch as the two months by which the three and a half years are extended in the last number, are added to the shorter period of three years in the first (i.e., to 1,095 days); or, in other words, in the one case the prophet regards the period of three and a half years as extended by two months, in the other (in the present passage) as shortened by four months. These prophetic limitations of time correspond generally to the events of the primary historical fulfilment of this vision in the Maccabæan æra of oppression and revolt, without being chronologically covered by them. It has already been shown, on Dan_7:25, that the interval between the abrogation of the daily sacrifices by Epiphanes (1Ma_1:54) and the reconsecration of the sanctuary by Judas Maccabæus (ibid. 4:52) amounted to three years and ten days, or 1,105 days, thus covering forty-five days or one and a half months less than 1,150 days, as here stated. But if, on the other hand, the arrival in Judæa of Appollonius, the commissioner of tribute (1Ma_1:29), is taken as the starting-point of the calculation (as Hitzig does), a result of three and a quarter years to the rededication of the temple is obtained, with tolerable exactness, which amounts at least to from one to one and a half months more than 1,150 days. A comparison of the larger periods of 1,290 and 1,335 days with the circumstances of the æra of the religious persecution by Antiochus, as recorded in the books of Maccabæs, leads to still more unsatisfactory results (cf. infra, on Dan_12:11 et seq.). Hence, nothing more definite than a general or approximate correspondence between the predicted periods and their historical counterparts can be looked for; or, what amounts to the same thing, the prophetically-ideal value of the numbers in question must be recognized. Cf. the remarks in the Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 1, respecting the necessity that the predictions of any prophet which involve numbers should be only approximately fulfilled.—All the expositors of this passage, whether upholding or denying the composition of Daniel’s prophecies during the captivity, are in the end obliged to assume a merely approximate correspondence of the number 1,150 to the periods of the Maccabæan æra of persecution. Among the former class, the view we have presented comes nearest to that of Delitzsch (p. 280), who holds that, “for reasons which our knowledge of history does not permit us to recognize,” the prophet’s estimate of the period of something more than three years, from the 15th Chisleu 145 æ. Sel. to the 25th Chisleu 148, is “somewhat inadequate;” and also to that of Kranichfeld (p. 300 et seq.), who diverges from us on the mode of estimating the duration of the years in question, but is wholly agreed on the general principle. His opinion is that here, as well as elsewhere in the book, Daniel estimated the year at twelve months of thirty days each, intercalating a month of thirty days every third year. This results in exactly 1,290 days for 3½ years, but leaves a discrepancy of forty days between 1,150 days and three years or 1,110 days. With regard to this difference he then observes: “It is equally in harmony with the very general employment of the number forty in theocratic representations of times of severe trial and sifting (e.g., Gen_7:4; Gen_7:12; Gen_7:17; Num_14:33-34; Eze_4:6; Eze_29:11 et seq.; 1Ki_19:8; Mat_6:1 et seq.), and with the author’s general usage which employs numbers in an ideal sense (cf. on 4:13; 7:25), as well as with the context more especially, that precisely this number should be found in combination with the final half-time. Consequently the amount 1,110 + 40 results as substantially identical with the more direct measurement of the three and a half times in Dan_12:11; and this discrepancy within the book itself becomes no more strange than that for instance, which represents the same kingdom at one time as divided into two parts, at another as falling into ten, and again (see supra, on Dan_8:8) as separating into four, in all of which descriptions the same fundamental idea prevails, although presented under different forms.” We cannot adopt this estimate of the 1,150 days, by which they are made to consist of 1,110 + 40 days, because it seems too artificial upon the whole, and because the opinion on which it rests, that Daniel added an intercalary month of thirty days to every third year of 360 days, seems to be untenable, and to conflict with the 1, 260 days or forty-two months of the Apocalypse, which, beyond all question, are synonymous with the three and a half years of this book (cf. Auberlen, Daniel, etc., pp. 185, 286 et seq.).—Among those who deny the genuineness of this book, Ewald approaches our method of reckoning, upon the whole, inasmuch as he supposes that the author constantly assigns 365 days to the year; and he consequently extends the 1,290 days over three and a half years + one-half month, and the 1,335 days over three and a half years + two months; but he departs from our view in arbitrarily reducing the number 2,300 to 2,230, so as to obtain only 1,115 days, or three years + one month, instead of 1,150 (p. 468). In opposition to such critical violence, Hilgenfeld, Kamphausen, etc., retain the reading 2,300 in the text, reckon the 1,150 days backwards from the dedication of the temple on the 25th Chisleu 148, and accept some unknown event as marking the beginning of the 1,150 days, since they exceed the period to the 15th Chisleu 145 by forty days. Hitzig thinks that only 1,105 days elapsed between the 15th Chisleu 145 and the 25th Chisleu 148, instead of 1,110, and therefore forty-five less than 2,300 evening-mornings, and that this difference of one and a half months “belongs to the interval between the abrogation of the תָּמִיד (1Ma_1:45) and the introduction of the βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως (ibid. 8:54).” A hasty glance at the description of these incidents in 1 Maccabæs will be sufficient to show that this interval of exactly forty-five days between the interdict of the daily sacrifices and the erection of the statue of Zeus in the temple is wholly imaginary. Moreover, the critic contradicts himself, since he employs all his acuteness to prove, on Dan_7:25, that the Antiochian persecution began at least a quarter of a year, or more than three months, before the 15th Chisleu 145, while he finds it proper in this place to place the abrogation of the תָּמִיד, or the beginning of the same period of oppression, only one and a half months earlier than this date.—While the representatives of the opinion that the 2,300 evening-mornings are but half as many days, fail to establish an exact correspondence between the prophecy and its fulfilment, those expositors who regard the language as designating 2,300 days succeed no better. Bertholdt and Hävernick go three years beyond the time of Antiochus, to the defeat of Nicanor (1Ma_7:43; 1Ma_7:49), and assign to that period 2,271 days; the 29 days which, accordingly, are still lacking, are placed by Bertholdt at the close of the period, as an interval between that victory and the consequent celebration of the triumph, while Hävernick would prefer to assign them to the beginning, prior to the 15th Chisleu 145 (in opposition to both, see Hitzig, p. 136). On the other hand, Dereser. Von Lengerke, Wieseler (Die 70 Jahrwochen, etc., p. 110 et seq.), and Von Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfüllung, I., 295 et seq.) go back to the year 142 æ. Sel. in reckoning the entire period of about six years—Dereser and Hofmann calculating from the 25th Chisleu 148 (the day of the dedication of the temple), and Von Lengerke and Wieseler from the death of Ant. Epiphanes in the month of Shebat 148. The former are thus carried back to the summer of the year 142 in fixing the date of the beginning of the apostasy of the Jews who were seduced by Antiochus, Von Lengerke to Sivan, or the third month, and Wieseler only to the feast of tabernacles in the same year, 142. Wieseler himself afterwards recognized the untenable character of this method of reckoning, and therefore acknowledged his conversion to the exegetically more correct view entertained by a majority of moderns, which estimates only 1,150 days, in his subsequent essay in the Gött. Gelehrten-Anzeigen, 1846.35 [The author, it will be perceived, ignores that class of interpreters, quite common in this country and Great Britain, but comparatively rare in Germany, who understand by the days in question so many years, and generally apply the prophecy to the continuance of the papal supremacy. There is, however, a great discrepancy among these interpreters as to the point of time from which to date the period spoken of as well as some diversity as to its length, whether 2,300 years or only 1,150 years, although the majority prefer the latter. It would be a tedious, and, in our opinion, a bootless task, to follow them into all the details of their historical investigations, computations, and comparisons. Others, adopting the same substitution of years for “days,” apply the prophecy to the rise and sway of Mohammedanism, and make out the requisite dates as best they can. It is an adequate answer to all these interpretations to say that such a meaning of the word day has no sufficient—if any—warrant in Scripture use, and certainly is not hinted at in this entire passage. A calm but fundamental refutation of the theory in question is given by Tregelles, Remarks on Daniel (Lond., 1864, 5th ed.), p. 110 et seq. It is also abundantly met by Stuart in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, II. 459 seq. Elliott, the strongest advocate of this theory, admits (Horæ Apocalypticæ, II. 965) that it was unknown till the close of the fourteenth century, when it was first broached by Walter Brute. It came into vogue with the Reformation, and owes its prevalence, not to any sound exegetical support, but to the polemical spirit of the times, which has seized upon it as a popular weapon against papacy.]
Dan_8:15-19. Preparatory to the interpretation of the vision of the ram and the he-goat. And … when I … sought for the meaning, namely, of the entire vision that was seen. The seeking was purely subjective, and not expressed in the form of a question addressed to the angel (Von Leng.), nor in a silent prayer to God (Hävernick).—Behold, there stood before me (one), as the appearance of a man, i.e., appearing like a man. The expression “behold, there stood,” etc., indicates the startling and extraordinary character of the apparition, which argued something terrible and superhuman (cf. Job_4:16); the כְּמַרְאֵה גֶבֶר then follows to denote the encouraging effect produced on the seer by the manlike appearance of the form. The term גֶּבֶר is employed instead of אָדָם or אֱנוֹשׁ, doubtless in allusion to the name of the angel, which is given below, in Dan_8:16; see on that passage, and cf. Dan_9:21, where the same angel is designated as “the man Gabriel,” but where his super-human nature is also very clearly implied (in his “flying”).
Dan_8:16. And I heard a man’s voice between (the) Ulai, i.e., between the two branches of the Eulæus; cf. supra, on Dan_8:2. בֵּין does not stand for מִבֵּין, as if the voice only, and not also the listener, were stationed between the Ulai; nor does בֵּין אוּלַי signify “between the banks of the Ulai” (against Von Lengerke, Hitzig, etc.).—Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. גַּבְרִיאֵל, i.e., “man of God,” or also “man-god” (according to Ewald, “a God who kindly condescends to man”), is the name of one of the principal angels or angel-princes (cf. Luk_1:19), one of the ἀρχάγγελοι or שָׂרִים (Dan_10:13 et seq.), whose number is fixed at seven in Rev_8:2 (οἱ ἑπτὰ ἀγγελοι, οῖ ἐνώπιον τοῦ νεοῦ ἑστήκασι), equal to that of the amshaspands, who stand beside Ormuzd as a divine council, according to the ancient religious books of Parseeism. The Scriptural archangels, however, of whom another, Michael, is mentioned hereafter in this book, are not to be regarded as identical with the Amêshaspentas of Parseeism; for (1) the number seven in the latter case is obtained only by adding Ormuzd himself to six others; (2) they are not represented as angels or servants of God, but as being themselves divine, and as governing determined portions of creation in that character, e.g., Bohumano (Bohman) governs the sky, Ardihesht the fire, Sapandomad the earth, etc; (3) the names of the amshaspands are as thoroughly Persian or Aryan in their character as those of the Scriptural archangel, so far as they occur in the Holy Bible (namely, Gabriel and Michael, and Raphael in the Apocrypha, Tob. 3:25; 12:12 et seq.) are specifically Shemitic, and bear, by virtue of the ending אֵל in each case, a thoroughly monotheistic character; (4) the attempts to establish the identity of individual amshaspands with individual archangels of the Bible must be regarded, without exception, as failures; e.g., the supposed recognition of Chordad (Haurvatat) in the Apocalyptic “angel of the waters,” Rev_16:5 (Hitzig; also Hilgenfeld, Das Judenthum im pers. Zeitalter, in the Zeitschr. wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1866, No. 4), the proposed identifying of Gabriel with Craosha and of Michael with Bohman (by Alex. Kohut, Ueber die jüdische Angelologie und Dämonologie in ihrer Abhängigkeit vom Parsismus,” in Abhandlungen der Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, vol. IV. No. 3). Cf. Haneberg, in Reusch’s Theolog. Literaturbl., 1837, No. 3, p. 72; also Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, p. 361; M. Haug. Essays on the sacred language, writings, and religion of the Parsees, Bombay; 1862.—Ewald appears inclined to regard Gabriel not as one of the superior angels, but as occupying an intermediate or inferior rank, since he designates the “man’s voice” which calls to him as that of a still higher angel. This assumption, however, is unnecessary; it is conceivable that an angel of equal rank may have given him this direction, or, if this should not be preferred, that God Himself, giving a human. sound to His voice that He might be heard by Daniel, addressed the angel.—It must remain undecided whether the “man’s voice” is to be considered as belonging to the former of the קְדשִׁים who were speaking together in Dan_8:13, while Gabriel is to be identified with the questioner in that place (as Hitzig supposes), since the author has not definitely indicated such an identity.
Dan_8:17. So he came near where I stood; literally, “beside my standing” (cf. Dan_8:18). Luther renders it, “and he came hard by me.”—And when (or “as”) he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face. Cf. Dan_10:9; Eze_1:28; Eze_43:3; Rev_1:17.—Understand, O son of man (—this address is probably modelled after Ezekiel—); for at the time of the end shall be the vision; rather, “for the vision is for the final time,” i.e., it refers to the final period of earthly history; cf. Dan_8:19 b, 26. [But these verses do not warrant this interpretation. See below.] The words are not designed to comfort, but to direct attention to the impressive and alarming nature of the prophecy, in which, according to the following context, they are successful.
Dan_8:18. Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground; rather, “and while he was speaking with me, I fell stunned upon my face to the ground.” Not until this repeated falling down in terror did the “benumbing” or Divine ἔκστασις, take place, as the immediate presence of God for the purpose of imparting to the prophet a highly important revelation, was not realized until then. Cf. the case of Moses (Exo_33:20), Isaiah (Isa_6:5), Peter, John, and James, on the mount of transfiguration (Luk_9:32), Paul and his companions near Damascus (Act_9:4; Act_22:7; Act_26:12), etc.—But he touched me, and set me upright. Cf. 10:10 et seq.; Neh_9:3, etc.
Dan_8:19. Behold.… what shall be in the last end or the indignation, namely, of the Divine indignation upon the godless world (the ὀργὴ μεγαλη, 1Ma_1:64; cf. Rom_2:5; Isa_10:5; Isa_10:25; Isa_26:20; Jer_1:5), which naturally will be manifested most strongly toward the close of human history, when the tares of wickedness shall flourish most luxuriantly (see Dan_8:23 and Mat_13:30; Mat_13:39; cf. Mat_24:9 et seq.). For this reason the last times shall constitute a period of great tribulation and woes (θλίψεις, ὠδινες—Mat_24:7 et seq.).—For at the time appointed the end shall be; rather, “for it relates to the point of time of the end.” The subject here, as in Dan_8:17 b, is the vision (הָלָזוֹן), or rather its contents, which, according to this assurance from the angel, refers to the מוֹעֵד קֵץ, the determined point of time of the end.”36
Dan_8:20-26. The interpretation of the vision. On Dan_8:20, cf. supra, on Dan_8:3; concerning Dan_8:21, on Dan_8:5.—The king of Græcia; properly, of Javan (יָוָן). By this term the Hebrews designated all the Hellenic lands and peoples, because the Ionians (Homer, Ἰάονες) dwelt in the eastern portions of Hellas, and through their colonies in Asia Minor were the first to become acquainted with the Asiatics. The Egyptians, ancient Persians, and Indians appear likewise to have constantly denominated the whole body of Græcian nations as Ionians or Jaonians; Æschylus and Aristophanes, at least, introduce Persians as employing the term Ἰάονες instead of Ἐλληνες. Cf. generally, Knobel, Völkertafel, p. 78 et seq.
Dan_8:22. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it; rather, “and that which was broken, and in whose stead four stood up.” It should have read, properly, “and concerning this, that it (the great horn) was broken, and that in its stead four stood up;” but instead of this, וְהַנִּשְׁבֶרֶת stands abruptly at the beginning (cf. 7:17), and the ecbactic וַתַּעֲמֹדְּנָה וגו׳, “and four stood up,” etc., is subordinate to that term in its absolute position.—Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation; יַעֲמֹדְנָה, an archaism (Gen_30:38; 1Sa_6:12), that here seems to be renewed under the influence of the Chaldee element.—But not in his power. The suffix in בְּכֹהוֹ does not refer back to מִגּוֹי, but to הַמֶּלֶך in Dan_8:21 b. The power of the first great Græcian conqueror shall not descend to the kingdoms which spring from his empire; they shall not equal him, neither singly, nor all taken together.
Dan_8:23. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, namely, of the measure of their wicked plans and actions; cf. the same elliptic usage of חֵתֵם in Dan_9:24 Keri, and in addition Gen_15:16; 2Ma_6:14; Mat_23:32; 1Th_2:16. The פּשְׁעִים who are here charged with “filling the measure of their sins” are not the Israelites who have forsaken Jehovah and His law (Dereser, Von Lengerke, Kranichfeld), but, without doubt, the enemies of God’s people, the heathen oppressors of the saints of the Most High; for the term פּשְׁצים alludes with sufficient clearness to פֵּשַׁע in Dan_8:6; Dan_8:12-13. For the opinion that this does not probably refer to the servants and abettors of Antiochus Epiphanes, but rather to his predecessors, see supra, on Dan_8:9.37—A king of fierce (rather, “insolent”) countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. עַז פָּנִים, properly, “of hard countenance” (cf. Deu_28:50; Isa_19:4). The predicate probably refers chiefly to the blasphemous sayings of the tyrant, see Dan_7:3 et seq. The following predicate, מֵבִין חִידוֹת, “versed in riddles,” denotes his art of cunning dissimulation, by which he is able to conceal his purposes from both friend and foe; cf. Dan_8:25; Dan_11:21; Dan_11:27.
Dan_8:24. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power. The implied thought is, “but by Divine permission;” cf. Dan_8:12-13, and also Isa_10:5 et seq.; 1Sa_2:9, etc.—It is incorrect to supply, with Dereser, Von Lengerke, etc., an antithesis to “not by his own power,” so that it will read “but by his cunning.” לֹא בִּכֹחו is a litotes, which, exactly similar to the expression “without hand” (Dan_2:34 and infra, Dan_8:25), alludes to the superhuman providence of God as compared to human power, which is never more than impotence.—And he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper; נִפְלָאוֹת, an adverb, as in Job_37:5. For what remains, cf. supra, Dan_8:12 b.—And shall destroy the mighty (ones) and the holy people. The וְ in וְהִשְׁחִית is explicative; it is designed to denote more particularly the respects in which the king shall prosper. The “mighty ones” are the warlike enemies over whom he shall triumph, and to them are added, by way of contrast, the “nation of saints” (cf. 7:18, 22), as unwarlike opponents. In the opinion of Hitzig, Ewald, etc., the עַצוּמִים are the three pretenders to the crown whom Epiphanes was compelled to depose; but not one of these deserved to be called a mighty one, not even the usurper Heliodorus; see supra, on Dan_7:8; Dan_7:25.38
Dan_8:25. And through (rather, “according to”) his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand. עַל־שִׁכְלוֹ is probably not “by reason of,” but “according to his cunning;” cf. Psa_110:4; Est_9:26, etc. This expression, in an absolute position at the beginning, is connected with the principal sentence which follows by an emphatic וְ; cf. Gesenius, Thesaur., p. 396 a. הִצְלִיחַ is not transitive (Hitzig, et al.), as if the following מִרְמָח were its accusative, but probably intransitive, despite the fem. מִרְמָה; cf. Isa_53:10.—“In (or with) his hand” (cf. Isa_44:20), considered as the outward sphere of action, seems intended to form an antithesis to the following “in his heart.” Concerning בִּלְבָבוֹ and the signification of יַגְדִּיל which results from it, cf. supra, on Dan_8:4.—And by peace shall destroy many; rather, “and unawares shall destroy many.” וּבְשַׁלְוָה does not exactly signify “in the midst of profound peace” (Job_15:21), but more indefinitely, “with suddenness, by a malignant surprise.” an illustration of the malice and dissimulation practised by this tyrant, which were already mentioned in Dan_8:23. The circumstance that it is recorded of Antiochus Epiphanes, in 1Ma_1:30, καὶ ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ την πολιν ἐξάπινα, proves nothing in favor of a vatic. ex eventu, beyond the fact that malignant and sudden surprises are necessarily practised by every warlike foe of cruel disposition. [“In the רַבִּים (many) are comprehended ‘the mighty (one) and the holy people’ (Dan_8:24).”—Keil.]—He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes, etc. Cf. Dan_8:11, and with regard to the being “broken without hand,” cf. Dan_2:34; also Job_34:20 and Lam_4:6. It is not necessary to seek a definite reference to the death of Epiphanes by sickness or extraordinary accident in this passage, instead of permitting him to fall on the battle-field, or by the hand of a murderer (against Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, Hävernick, etc.).39
Dan_8:26. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told, namely, in Dan_8:14. Since the observation in that place respecting the 2,300 evening-mornings was really a מִשְׁמַע, and not a מַרְאֶה the words אֲשֶׁר נֶאֱמַר seem to refer back to the genitive הָעֶיֶב וגו׳, instead of to the Stat. constr. (thus Hitzig). Words and things told, however, form the subject of visions in other cases also (cf. Isa_2:1; Amo_1:1; Hab_2:1, etc.); and the remark concerning the 2,300 evening-mornings may consequently be termed a “vision” in this instance.—Is true (rather “truth”), i.e., it is correct, deserves to be credited, inasmuch as 2,300 evening-mornings must elapse before the end of the period of affliction. That period is thus determined as an extended one, which shall not soon reach its close. On אֶמֶת, cf. Dan_10:1; Dan_11:2; also 12:7; Jer_26:15; Jer_28:9; Rev_19:9; Rev_21:5; Rev_22:6.—Wherefore shut thou up the vision; rather, “and thou, conceal the vision,” i.e., do not publish it, do not be anxious to spread a report concerning it. ססם is not equivalent to חרּם “to seal up” (Theodotion, Hävernick, Von Lengerke); for “sealing” is added to the mere “concealing” in Dan_12:4, as a strengthening term.—For it shall be for many days, i.e., it (the vision) shall retain its prophetic value for a long period, it does not relate to a near, but to a distant future; cf. Dan_12:4; Dan_12:9. As the direction to conceal the vision is here based on the consideration that a long period must elapse before it shall be fulfilled, so, on the contrary, the prophet is directed, in Rev_22:10, not to seal what has been revealed to him, because the time of its fulfilment is near. Notice the difference between the Old-Testament seer, who is far removed from the final future, and only sees it primarily in types (e.g., instead of beholding the antichrist he only sees his forerunner Epiphanes), and the New-Testament prophet, who beholds the events of the last times in the history of the world much nearer at hand, and is therefore not obliged to conceal the prophecies relating to them, especially since he addresses a communnity composed exclusively of νεοδιδακτοί (Isa_54:3; Joh_6:45; cf. 1Jn_2:20; 1Jn_2:27).
Dan_8:27. The effect of the vision upon the prophet. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick (certain) days. Cf. 7:28, and especially Dan_2:1, in relation to נִחְיֵיתִי.—Afterward I rose up, namely, from the sick-bed. This formal statement by the prophet cannot be regarded as extraordinary, since not only the vision as such (i.e., by reason of its startling character), but also the fasting which preceded it (cf. Dan_9:3; Dan_10:2 et seq.), comes under consideration as the cause of the complete exhaustion which followed.—And did the king’s business. Concerning the extent to which Daniel might have transacted official business for the king in the reign of Belshazzar, without being personally known to him, see on Dan_5:7.—And was astonished at (rather, “dumb concerning”) the vision, but (“and”) none understood (rather, “became aware of”) it; usually rendered, “none understood it,” or, “and to me there was no understanding, I did not understand it” (thus Maurer, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, Kamphausen, etc., under comparison with Dan_12:8). Since, however, the obvious design is to state what Daniel did “to conceal” the vision, the signification of “not noticing, not learning” seems to be the only logical and suitable one for לֹא הֵבִין in this passage; cf. on this interpretation, Dan_8:5; Dan_8:17; Job_28:23; Isa_28:19, etc.
Ethico-fundamental Principles Related To The History Of Salvation, Apologetical Remarks, And Homiletical Suggestions
1. The principal difficulty to be met with in this section relates to the concrete number of 1150 days or 2300 evening-mornings, in Dan_8:14, and in its failure to agree with the three and a half years of the preceding vision (Dan_7:25). If simply the idea was to be expressed that the period of tribulation should expire in something less than three and a half years, why did the author not permit the angel to say, “even before three and a half years shall have passed,” etc.? Or why did he not select really a round number, as 1200 days (to denote 1277, which amount exactly to three and a half years)? Or why did he not pursue the course adopted by the New-Test. apocalyptist, who substituted forty-two months for forty-two and a half, and hence 1260 days for 1277 (see Rev_11:2; Rev_12:6; Rev_13:5)?—This strange feature admits of a correct explanation, only when it is remembered that prophecies relating to time are necessarily and unavoidably of a symbolic-concrete character, and that for this reason, no exact correspondence, or mechanically precise agreement of the prophetic numbers with the extent of the periods in which they are realized, can be expected. Neither the seventy years of being forgotten and of ruin which Isaiah predicted for the Tyrians (Isaiah 25:15–18), nor the seventy years of captivity in Babylon, which Jeremiah (Jer_25:11, et seq.; Jer_29:10 et seq.) foretold to the Israelites of his time, were fulfilled with literal exactness40 (cf. infra. on chap. 9); and as the “two days” (יֹמַיִם) during which Israel’s state of death or the period of its affliction was to continue, according to Hos_6:2, have primarily an ideal-symbolic value only, so the “three days and three nights,” which were to be spent by the prophet in the belly of the great fish, according to Jon_2:1, were, in like manner, not an exact number, amounting to precisely seventy-two hours (cf. Kleinert on that passage)—and yet tooth these prophetic numbers were designed to foretell the resurrection of the Saviour on the third day, i.e., after two whole nights and one entire day.41 The prophets are accustomed to employ concrete conceptions of time, and to clothe them in definite form. This form might arise from any incident or event, most of which can no longer be discovered; but their relation to the duration of the events which fulfil the prophecy must as certainly be a merely approximate agreement, and not mathematically exact, as the manner in which God secures the fulfilment of the prophecies uttered by holy men through the Spirit, is in nowise a matter entrusted to man, but belongs only to the God who brings the predictions to pass (cf. 2Pe_1:20 et seq.)42 The predictions of the prophets in the Church during the Middle Ages and in modern times (e.g., St. Hildegard, Joachim, the Parisian professor Nicholas Oresmius, who, in 1364, foretold the great papal schism, which actually broke out in 1378; Huss and Savonarola, who predicted the Reformation; the Lutheran Michael Stiefel of Jena († 1567); the astrologer Nostradamus († 1566); and finally J. A. Benzel and Jung-Stilling) might be substantially treated in the same manner, so far as they assume a numerically exact, or definitely chronological form.43 The partial non-agreement of their predictions with the points of time or periods of the future in which they were to be realized does not destroy their character as genuine prophets, or disprove that they were employed in a superior and heavenly calling; but the approximate agreement or partial coincidence of their vaticinations with the facts of fulfilment and their chronological relations, does not warrant a suspicion that they were forged subsequently to the beginning of their fulfilment, any more than the approximate agreement of either the 1150 days or the three and a half years, etc., in the prophecy before us, with the epochs of the Maccabæan history will justify the pseudo-Daniel tendency-hypothesis.
2. While the slight difference between the prophetic number and the events connected with its realization, discussed above, belongs undoubtedly to the category of those “slight discrepancies” which, according to M. v. Niebuhr, “must excite our awe, instead of begetting a doubt of the truth of the prophecy, or shaking our confidence in the chronology of ancient history” (Geschichte Assurs und Babels, p. 90), the relation between the character of the history of nations and kingdoms as described in the vision under consideration, and the condition of Israel during the æra of oppression and revolt in the Maccabæan age, which corresponds to it as a primary historical fulfilment, is such, that it unconditionally forbids the idea that the vision is a prophecy ex eventu, and was composed to favor a tendency. There is no complete and thorough correspondence between prophecy and fulfilment, that could favor the suspicion of its composition under such circumstances and for such a purpose; on the contrary, the discrepancies are so numerous, that to trace historical facts which shall correspond in every case to the particular features of the prophetic vision, involves the greatest uncertainty and difficulty. Bertholdt and v. Lengerke assume that the chapter was written shortly after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes; Hitzig, that it was composed shortly before that event; Bleek (Jahrb. für deutsche Theologie, 1860, No. 1, p. 57), that it was framed at least about that time. “According to this, the section was at any rate composed at a time when the Jews had already demonstrated their superiority in arms over the troops of the tyrant. At the same time, these bloody feats of arms, which formed the basis of all the hopes that animated the newly-awakened national consciousness of the Jews, are not mentioned with a single word. As in chap. 7 the heathen oppressor triumphs in battle over the holy people to the end of the three and a half times, so in this selection the host and sanctuary are represented as being trodden under foot until the close of the period mentioned in Dan_8:14. Even the restoration of the sanctuary (Dan_8:14), which might at least indirectly be interpreted as consequent on a warlike triumph of the Jews, is, in Dan_8:25, referred only to a theocratic judgment imposed directly by God, and not to a national victory. The latter, indeed, is directly excluded. The great deeds of the oppressor only are spoken of, and his overthrow בְּאֶפֶס יָד is immediately connected with them. Every real foundation for the opinion that this section originated at that juncture which was marked by the triumphs over Apollonius and Seron, over Gorgias and Lysius, dearly bought as they were with the blood of the people, is thus taken away, since the situation described in the chapter, testifies only to defeat down to the time of restoring the temple, and denotes a disposition which looked for help only from a supernatural agency” (Kranichfeld, p. 286 et seq.).—Remarkable as is this total silence respecting the national revolt, which was so successfully introduced, when the author is regarded as a Maccabæan pseudo-Daniel, it is no less difficult to understand why, if the vision was recorded soon after the death of Antiochus, the Messianic hopes which must have been connected with that death, should not be mentioned with a single word. The only tolerable explanation of this fact is that the death of the oppressor (his “being broken without hand,” Dan_8:25) was future to the writer, as much so as everything else. Even the restoration of the temple-service, which had been abolished, is clearly placed in the future by the description in Dan_8:14, and does not appear as an incident in the past experience of the prophet. The only comfort offered by him in the entire section has no relation to the sufferings of the present or the past, but to tribulations belonging to the far-distant future.
3. The only circumstance which seems seriously to favor the theory of a Maccabæan composition is the express mention of Juvan in Dan_8:21, as the world-power from which the impious oppressor of Israel should come forth (preceded, however, by a number of anti-theistic kingdoms [5:22] and wicked sovereigns [5:23]). But this circumstance also loses its apparent character, as disproving the origin of the chapter during the captivity, and becomes decidedly more intelligible, as soon as we remember the frequent contact of the orientals with Hellenic civilization and culture, as well as with Græcian military art and bravery, which began even before the time of Nebuchadnezzar (see Introd. § 7, Note 2). Let it also be remembered that the ancient prophecy by Balaam (Numbers 24), which threatened destruction to the Assyrians and Hebrews through “ships from Chittim,” i.e., through Greek invasions from the sea (cf. supra, on chap. 2), must have been known to Daniel, even if it had originated as late as the age of Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, and afterward been incorporated with the early history in the Pentateuch. There is no lack of natural indications arising from the events of current history, which might suggest to a seer of the period of the exile, that precisely the distant nation of the Greeks would become a threatening rival, and eventually, a victorious opponent of the Persian power and greatness, and which might also awaken in him a presentiment of the internally divided and disunited, and therefore transient character of the future empire of the Greeks. The definite character of the predictions respecting the development of that Javanic empire is certainly marvellous and inexplicable, unless referred to the Divine Spirit of prophecy; but it is scarcely more wonderful than the equally definite character of Balaam’s prophecy, which likewise related to the Greeks, or than the surprising clearness and confidence with which Amos foretold that the Israel of his day should “go into captivity beyond Damascus” (Dan_5:27), or Isaiah was able to predict that the successors of Hezekiah should be led into captivity at Babylon (Isa_39:6 et seq.; 2Ki_20:17 et seq.), or Jeremiah could describe to his contemporaries the overthrow of Babylon by the Medo-Persians! Cf. also Kranichfeld, p. 128 et seq.
4. The real and fundamental Messianic feature of this section, and, at the same time, the thought which is pre-eminently adapted to practical homiletical treatment, is that already noticed in the exegesis of Dan_8:19; Dan_8:23, according to which the moral degradation and the wickedness of the world-power in its hostility to God becomes more excessive with each stage through which that power passes in its development, until it reaches its climax, when God interferes to judge and deliver—thus bringing it, in its character as an oppressive, pseudo-prophetic antichristianity, into the strongest contrast with the transparent light and holiness of the Messiah and the community of His saints, who are born of God. This thought is also presented by the Saviour in the parable which describes the tares as growing together with the good seed in the field, and as ripening for the harvest at the judgment (Mat_13:30 et seq.); it is the same Messianic truth and necessity to which he refers in the former half of his oratio eschatologica in thoroughly prophetic language (Mat_24:5 et seq.); it is the fundamental thought of all apocalyptic prophecy, of all prophecy relating to the future history of empires, as the analogous sections in 2 Thess. and the book of Revelation show with sufficient clearness. The goats triumph over the more harmless rams in the last times; the place of the weaker horns that arise against the Lord is supplied by others who succeed each other in constantly increasing strength. The “great power” of the enemy is reinforced by “great cunning,” which increases with the lapse of time; and his insolence is joined to craft which steadily develops, and to malignant dissimulation (cf. Dan_8:23-25), until, through the instigation of the great arch-enemy, who is ever the same, nation rises against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. To increase the need and oppression of the righteous, many false prophets arise and practice their deceitful arts, and because iniquity abounds, the love of many waxes cold (Mat_24:7 et seq., 11 et seq.).—If all this, considered as the real fundamental idea of the visional representation, be duly regarded, the jejune character of this section, which at first sight seems to offer nothing that possesses practical value, or that is available for homiletical purposes, will speedily disappear; and as the danger of feeling that only unimportant features, such as the animal-symbols (Dan_8:3-7) or the doctrine of angels (Dan_8:13-18), are here presented, becomes less, the preacher will find the energetic warning and promise by the Saviour, “But he that endureth to the end shall be saved,” available as an encouraging and hortatory theme that covers the ground of the whole chapter. This forms the pregnant and solemn expression of the New Testament, which marks the consoling and elevating Messianic back-ground in which the discouraging and stormy scene of the chapter is laid, but which here appears but for a brief moment in the concluding words of Dan_8:19, like the cheering sun at evening against the border of the stormy cloud.
5. Special homiletical suggestions relating to separate passages:
On Dan_8:3 et seq., Melancthon: “Aliquoties dictum est, ad quid prosit tenere prædictiones de serie monarchiarum et omnium temporum usque ad extremum judicium? Est Ecclesiæ hac doctrina et consolatione opus, ne inter tot afflictiones et scandala desperet. Est etiam admonitione opus, ut causas cogitemus afflictionum.… Hæ atroces comminationes exsuscitent nos, ut simus diligentiores in conservanda puritate doctrinæ et in vita, ne Deus sinat exoriri majores tenebras.”—The Tübing. Bib.: “How uncertain is the glory and majesty of the kingdoms of earth! Even when they have attained the highest prosperity they must yet be humbled, fall, and pass away, like every other earthly good and honor. The kingdom of heaven alone is immutable, and forms the hope of every believer,” Psa_145:13.
On Dan_8:10 et seq., the Tüb. Bib.: “Nothing is more dangerous than pride, which leads man even to war against God, His Church, and the true worship. This must inevitably be followed by heavy judgments from God.”—Starke: “An earthly ruler will not permit rebellion against his authority to pass unpunished. How shall he escape, who revolts against the Prince over the host of God (Isa_10:13)?”
On Dan_8:14, Cramer: “The persecution and rage of the godless is a storm that sweeps over us; God fixes its limits, results, and measure.”—Starke: “God has indeed revealed something in relation to the hope of Christ’s Church for better times on the earth, in order that no doubt may be entertained concerning the fact itself; but to seek to ascertain the particular time, would be fool-hardiness and useless trouble (Act_1:7).”
On Dan_8:17 et seq., Jerome: “Et Ezechiel et Daniel Authenticity Of The Booket Zacharias, quia sæpe inter angelos esse se cernunt, ne eleventur in superbiam et angelicæ vel naturæ vel dignitatis se esse credant, admonentur fragilitatis suæ, et filii hominum appellantur, ut homines se esse noverint.”—Geier: “If the presence of a holy angel was so insupportable to Daniel, how terrible will be the experience of the wicked when they shall behold the Lord of angels and Judge of the whole world, Jesus Christ Himself (Rev_6:15 et seq.)!”
On Dan_8:24, Osiander: “God sometimes permits the plans of the wicked to succeed, in order that the saints may be tried.”—Starke: “God requires no great preparation or mighty instruments to cast down a tyrant; He can adapt the most insignificant means to that end (Act_12:23).”
Footnotes:
[1][To.
[2]מְנַגֵּחַ, butting, as rams are fond of doing.
[3]הִגְדִּיל, acted proudly.
[4]Literally, a leaper of the goats.
[5]מַעֲרָב, a different term from that used in Dan_8:4, יָמ, the sea, i.e., Mediterranean, which here might have been misunderstood as being literally the place of origin, whereas the idea of direction only is intended.
[6]Literally, touching the side of.
[7]Literally, imbittered himself, i.e., was exasperated.
[8]Literally, no deliverer for.
[9]Literally, till exceedingly.
[10]Literally, a sight of four.
[11]מצעירה, diminution; the order too is emphatic, one horn—a petty one.
[12]הַצֶבִי, the beauty of lands.
[13]Caused to fall.
[14]According to the text הֵרִים, one took away.
[15]The original is exceedingly laconic and obscure, תֵּת וִקדֶֹשׁ וְצָבָא מִרְמָס, literally, a giving and the sanctuary and the host a treading.
[16]The original is very peculiar, Till an evening-morning, 2300.
[17]Literally, to the side of my standing.
[18]Literally, upon my standing.
[19]Literally, hairy leaper.
[20]Literally, with a cessation of.
[21]נִהְיֵיתִי, q.d., “Was done up,” was overcome.]
[22][If, however, Rawlinson’s identification of Belshazzar with Nabonned’s son and viceroy be correct, the Medo-Persian army was at this very time besieging Babylon, though with apparently little prospect of success; and the fall of the city must have followed shortly after this vision. Hence the first monarchy, the Chaldæan, is here kept out of view, as if already a thing of the past.]
[23][“But why such a locality? Because the prophet’s present vision begins with the Medo-Persian empire, and Shushan was to be its capital. And why on the river’s bank? Not because the Jews were wont to build prayer-houses in such places, Act_16:13; nor because Ezekiel had visions on the Chaboras, 1:1, 3; 3:15, 25 al. (Leng.); nor because of the solitude of the place (Maurer); but simply, as I understand it, because the castle (בִּירָה) stood on the banks of the river. The mention of the river, however, would still be in a measure superfluous, were not this mention a preparation for what is said in Dan_8:16.”—Stuart.]
[24]Iliad, 1. c.:
Οί οἰ ἁμ̓ ἡγεμόςες Τρώων ἔσαν αὐταρ ἔπειτα
Ααοὶ ἕπονθ, ὼσεὶ τε μετὰ κτίου ἕσπετο μῆλα
Πιόμεν ἐκ βοτάνης γάνυται δ̓ ἄρα τε φρἐνα ποιμήν
Cf. the prophetic dream relating to the murder of a brother of Brutus by Tarquin Superbus, and to the vengeance inflicted by Brutus for that deed, as narrated by Tarquin in Cicero, de divin., l.c.
“Visus’t in somnis pastor ad me adpellere
Pecus lanigerum exinda pulchritudine,
Duo consanguineos arietes inde eligi
Prœclarioremque alterum immolare me;
Deinde ejus germanum cornibus connitier
In me arietare, toque ictu me ad casum dari.”
In Plutarch’s Sylla the following is related, and treated as an omen of the defeat of the younger Marius and the consul Norbanus, which occurred soon afterwards: ἐν Καμπανίο πεπὶ τὸ Ἥφαιον (? read Τίφατον instead) ὅρος ἡμέρας ὥφθησαν δύο τράγοι μεγάλοι συμφερόμενοι, καὶ πάντα δρῶςτες καὶ πάσχοντες, ἅ συμβαίνει μαχομένοις ἀςθρώποις—Cf. additional extracts from the classics and from the oriental liter ature which bear on this point in Hävernick.
[25][“He did push toward the east—not because. … the Medo-Persians themselves came from the east (Von Leng., Kran.): nor 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 of the bear, Dan_7:5, and intimates that the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, in spite of the irresistibility of its arms, did not extend its power into all the regions of the world.”—Keil.]
[26][Yet “the idea of insolence or arrogance is not absent from הִגְדִּיל used thus absolutely, see Sam. 1:9; Zep_2:8. Flushed with success, we know from all quarters that the Persians assumed a haughty position; so Crœsus (in Herod, 1:89), Πέρσαι … ὑβρισταί and so Æschylus (Pers. 795) ὑπέρκομποι ἅγαν.“—Stuart.”]
[27][The necessity for this limitation of the meaning of הִגְדִּיל here is not clear; it seems better to take it in the same sense of arrogance as the result of success which it bears in the remainder of the chapter.]
[28][Yet Daniel says explicitly that the four horns are four kingdoms (Dan_8:22), and the coincidence is too striking and minute to be accidental. There were indeed originally five of the Diadochi, but they so soon resolved themselves into four that this temporary pentarchy is disregarded.]
[29][The force of these arguments, especially the last, for extending the import of “the little horn” beyond Antiochus Epiphanes, it is very difficult for those who are wholly untinged with rationalistic sentiments to appreciate.]
[30]A later Rabbinical interpretation conceives צְבִי the sense of “gazelle,” and refers this designation partly to its beauty, and partly to its peculiarity to extend its borders when inhabited, like the skin of a gazelle, but to shrink when uninhabited (Taanith, 69 a).
[31][“The comparison of the saints to the host of heaven has its root in this, that God, the king of Israel, is called the God of hosts, and by the צְבָאוֹת (hosts) are generally to be understood the stars or 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).”—Keil.]
[32][Keil thus reviews the various interpretations proposed of this difficult clause: “We must altogether reject the interpretation of the Vulgate, ‘ Robur autem datum est contra juge sacriflcium 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 Rashi’s example, צָבָא is interpreted of the statio militaris, and thence the interpretation tempus or intervallum is derived. For צָבָא means neither robur nor tempus, nor statio militaris, but only military service, and perhaps military forces. Add to this that צָבָא 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 צָבָא 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 צָבָא partly by the construction of the word as fem. (תנתן). 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 the 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 dæmons (Ebrard). But the latter interpretation is to be rejected on account of the arbitrary insertion of לֹו (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 36:8, that נתן means to lead out, to bring forward, to give contrary to or against.” Keil concludes by translating: “And (a) host shall be given up together with the daily sacrifice, because of transgression. “Stuart renders,” And a host was placed over the daily sacrifice by wickedness,” and remarks: “Put or place is a very common meaning of נָתַן, as also the kindred signification to appoint, constitute: see Lex.—עַל, over, in a hostile sense, implying that the daily sacrifice was subjected to oppression and impious supervision.—בְּפֶשַׁע, by the rebel. Hence, in the N. Test., 2Th_2:3, ἀποστασία (an exact version of פֶּשַׁע), also ὁἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας and in Dan_8:8 (ib.), ὁ ἄνομος; expressions having their basis, as I apprehend, in the verse before us, and applied by Paul to some personage of a character similar to that of Antiochus.1”]
[33][Stuart, on the other hand, strongly contends for the passive sense of שֹׁמֵם here, “equivalent to which ought to be laid waste or destroyed” as being sustained not only by the intransitive force of the root, but by the distinctive use of the transitive מְשֹׁמֵם in Dan_9:27. Keil takes substantially the same view.]
[34][This conclusion, however, is by no means certain, as the following considerations will serve to show: “עָרָב בֹּקֶר have no copula or conjunction between them; it would therefore seem to be a popular mode of compound expression, like that of the Greek νυχθήμερον (2Co_11:25), in order to designate the whole of a day. Compare Genesis 1, where the evening and morning constitute respectively day the first, day the second, etc.; for it seems plain that the phraseology before us is derived from this source. In other words, בֹּקֶר עָרָב, as here employed, may be admitted to contain an allusion to the morning and evening sacrifices, and thus the phrase virtually becomes a kind of substitution for תָּמִיד, which is generic, and includes both the morning and the evening sacrifice.”—Stuart. “That in Dan_8:26 יְהַבֹּקָר הִעָרָב (the evening and the morning) stands for the phrase in question, does not prove that the evening and 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. Thus they say, e.g., forty days and forty nights (Gen_7:4; Gen_7:12; Exo_24:18; 1Ki_19:8), or 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.’—Keil.]
[35][These difficulties in the way of the literal exactness of the period in question as applicable to the history of the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, are drawn out in detail by Keil p. 302 et seq., who does not, however, add anything of importance to what the author adduces. They seem to us to be fairly met by the following explanation of Stuart in his Commentary, p. 238 et seq.: “And then shall that which is holy be vindicated, וְנִעְדַּק, shall have justice done, i.e., the rights of the sanctuary shall be effectually restored, its claims shall be vindicated. This was done when Judas Maccabæus, after the three and a half years in which all temple rites had been suspended, and heathen sacrifices had been offered there, made a thorough expurgation of everything pertaining to the temple, and restored its entire services. This was on the 25th of Dec., 165 B. C., just three years from the time when swine’s flesh was first offered there by Antiochus. We have then the terminus ad quem of the 2,300 days; and it is not difficult, therefore, to find the terminus a quo. These days, at thirty in a month (which is clearly the prophetic mode of reckoning), make six years, four months, and twenty days. Dec. 25th of 171 makes six years, and the four months and twenty days will bring the time to the latter half of July in the same year, i.e., 171 B. C. During this year, Menelaus, the high-priest appointed by Antiochus on the ground of a proffered bribe, rifled the temple of many of the treasures to pay that bribe, and in this transaction he was assisted by his brother Lysimachus. The regular and lawful high-priest, Onias III., who had been removed, severely reproved this sacrilege committed by his brethren; and afterward, through fear of them, fled for refuge to Daphne, an asylum near Antioch, in Syria. Thence he was allured by the false promises of Menelaus, and perfidiously murdered by the king’s lieutenant, Andronicus. See the whole story in 2Ma_4:27 seq. The Jews at Jerusalem, incensed by the violent death of their lawful high-priest, and by the sacrilegious robberies of Menelaus and Lysimachus, became tumultuous, and a severe contest took place between them and the adherents of those who committed the robbery, in which the patriotic Jews at last gained the victory, and Lysimachus was slain at the treasury. This was the first contest that took place between the friends of Antiochus and the adherents to the Hebrew laws and usages. The whole of it was occasioned by the baseness of Antiochus in accepting bribes for bestowing the office of high-priest on those who had no just claim to it. The payment of the bribes occasioned the robbing of the temple and the sacrilege-committed there; and this was the commencement of that long series of oppression, persecution, and bloodshed which took place in the sequel under Antiochus.
“We have, indeed, no data in ancient history by which the very day, or even month, connected with the transactions above related can be exactly ascertained. But the year is certain; and, as the time seems to be definite in our text, the fair presumption is, that the outbreak of the populace and the battle that followed constitutes the terminus a quo of the 2,300 days. See Frœlich, Annates Reg. Syr., p. 46; and also Usher’s Chronol. … As to the difference between the time here, viz., 2,300 days, and the three and a half years in 7:25, if the reader narrowly inspects the latter, he will perceive that the time there specified has relation to the period during which Antiochus entirely prohibited the Jewish religion in every shape. This period, as is well known, corresponds with historical facts. In the passage before us a more extensive series of events is comprised, as Dan_8:10-12 indicate. They begin with assaults on the priesthood (which we have seen to be matter of fact, as stated above), and end with the desecration and prostration of all that is sacred and holy. It is unnecessary to show that each of the things described belongs to each and every part of the 2,300 days. Enough that the events are successive, and spread over the time specified in our text. The trampling down or degradation of the priesthood and the sanctuary commenced the whole series of oppression and persecution, and this, with most aggravated acts of sacrilege and blasphemy, was also the consummation of the tyrant’s outrages.” Cowles gives a similar explanation in detail, Commentary, p. 378 et seq.]
[36][Keil, however, justly remarks: “But עֵת־קֵץ, the time of the end, and מוֹעֵד קֵץ, the appointed time of the end, is not the absolute end of all things, the time of the setting up of the regnum gloriæ, and the time of the tribulation preceding the return of the 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 οὒτος and the commencement of the αἰὼν μέλλων, the time of the אַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים (Dan_9:14), which an apostle calls (1Co_10:11) τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων, and speaks of as having then already come.” Stuart still more correctly says: “End of what? Of Antiochus? or of a troublous state of things? or end of the world? Not merely of Antiochus; for his importance, as exhibited in the book of Daniel, arises principally from his power to annoy the people of God. Not the end of the world; for in chap. 8 no Messianic period is developed at the close of its predictions, and yet the Messianic reign is itself the end or last time of the world. Dan_8:19 gives us perhaps more light; בְּאַהֲרִית הַוָּעַם, in the latter time of the indignation, i.e., the latter time of afflictions permitted to be brought upon Israel, because of the divine indignation against their sins. The vision itself in fact reaches only to the end of those special afflictions that are to come on the people of the Jews before the Messianic period, and which are made the subject of prophecy because of their importance. The warning to mark well or consider the vision, because it discloses these afflictions, connects itself of course with a supposed importance attached to the knowledge of the final special troubles of the Jews before the coming of the Messiah. The Rabbins call these troubles מָשִׁיחַ חַבְלֵי.” In other words, as Keil presently says more distinctly, “הַזָּעַם 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_25:11; Eze_22:24, etc., and here the sufferings of punishment and discipline which the little horn shall bring over Israel.”]
[37][Stuart and Keil, on the contrary, strongly maintain that “the transgressors” here are not the heathen, but the apostate Jews, whose sin will be visited by the indignation of God; and this seems to be more appropriate to the whole connection.]
[38][“עֲצוּמִים does not here signify many, numerous, many individual Israelites (Von Leng., Maurer, Kliefoth [Stuart]), partly because in Dan_8:25 רַבִּים stands for that partly because of the עַם קְדשִׁים, by which we are to understand the people of Israel”—Keil.]
[39][“The language is adapted to the symbol, namely, the little horn. The meaning is, totally destroyed. Facts correspond. According to history, Antiochus, after marching into Persia, and robbing the temple at Elymais, was driven away by popular tumult; and on his return back towards Syria, he was met with the news of the total defeat of his army in Judæa. and of the restoration of the temple services there. Polybius (31:11) says of him, that ‘he fell mad (δαιμονήσας) and died;’ 1Ma_6:8 relates that he fell sick of grief for his losses; Appian (De reb. Syr., 66) says simply: oiívwv ereyeutrjoe. Various shades are given to the picture by the different writers; e.g., in 1Ma_6:8 seq., which narrates his penitent confessions. But these have a strong tinge of Jewish coloring. So much is undoubtedly true, viz., that he perished suddenly by a violent sickness, during which he probably fell into a state of mania. He died, therefore, without violence by the hand of man, and so as to make a deep impression of perishing by a peculiar visitation of God.”—Stuart.]
[40][With regard to the latter point at least the author concedes too much, for the Babylonian captivity was exactly seventy years in length, namely, from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, B. C. 606, to the edict of Cyrus, B.C. 536. See Browne’s Ordo Sædorum, Daniel 3 sec. 1. §§ 161 et seq. Had we the data extant we might doubtless prove the truth of the other periods named in Scripture prophecy with equal precision.]
[41][The “three days and three nights” in question are an exact expression according to Hebrew usage, which includes both extremes in all such periods.]
[42]Cf. Tholuck Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen; eine apologetisch-hermeneutiche Studie (Gotha, 1860), p. 113 et seq., where the remark is made concerning the seventy years of Jeremiah, considered as being a designation of time that agreed, generally at least, with the duration of the captivity. “Can any means of escaping this conclusion be discovered? Only that one, which, among others, Ewald has not despised, viz., to regard the number seventy as a round number, and therefore=‘a long time.’ … . Is then, round number really=long time in the Oriental use of language? The master of Old-Test. language will certainly not attempt to deny that it rather denotes an ‘approximate limitation of time!’ … . Such numbers are clearly approximate, e.g., in Amo_2:4, where it is said, ‘For three transgressions of Judah and for four, I will not turn away,’ etc; Mic_5:5, ‘Then shall we raise against him seven shepherds and eight principal men;’ cf. Hos_6:2. In like manner a desolation of forty years is predicted for Egypt, by Ezekiel, in Eze_29:11-12, which is, indeed, a round number of probable reckoning, but is, at the same time, an approximate number, namely, 36 or 37,” etc. [But these conventional numbers in a general statement are very different from those obviously given as chronological data.]
[43]In relation to the prophets of the Christian æra, above referred to, and also with regard to several others, cf. the interesting statements in Splittgerber, Schlaf und Tod, etc. (Halle. 1866), p. 235–253. [But sound theologians—indeed, accurate observers merely—would certainly place all these pseudo-predictions on a very different level from those of the prophets of Scripture.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 1. If this were the third year of Belshazzar’s…
1. If this were the third year of Belshazzar’s co-regency, this vision chronologically preceded the narration of chap. v while coming two years later than that of chap. 7. This verse does not conclusively prove, as Kamphausen and others think, that the author of Daniel regarded Belshazzar as an “independent king who ruled many years.” We are now historically certain that Belshazzar ruled as independent sovereign only a few weeks or months, if at all; but the cuneiform records, though they never declare him to have exercised joint sovereignty with his father, yet do assign to him state functions agreeable to the position which he would have possessed as co-regent. For Belshazzar see our Introduction, III, 3, (4).
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 1. In the third year &c.] See the note…
1. In the third year &c.] See the note on Dan_7:1.
at the first] properly, at the beginning (Gen_13:3; Gen_41:21; Gen_43:18; Gen_43:20). The reference is to ch. 7 where the first of Daniel’s visions is recorded.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) The Hebrew language is here resumed. The visions…
VIII
(1) The Hebrew language is here resumed. The visions recorded in the remaining portion of the book having no connection with Babylon, the Chaldee dialect is dropped.
Read full note →
Third year.—Most probably, not long before the end of his reign. This vision is supplementary to the one recorded in the preceding chapter, giving various details respecting the second and third empires there omitted, showing also how a “little horn” is to grow out of the third as well as out of the fourth empire.
At the first—i.e., earlier. (Comp. Dan_9:21.)
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Vers. 1-27. THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT This chapter…
Vers. 1-27. THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT This chapter marks the change from Aramaic to Hebrew. The character of the chapter is like that which immediately precedes it. It consists, like it, of the account of a vision, and the interpretation of it. The subject of this vision is the overthrow of the Persian monarchy by Alexander the Great, the division of his empire, and the oppression of Israel by Epiphanes.
In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. The text of the Septuagint does not differ greatly from the Hebrew, but avoids the strange anarthrous position of anu, "I" The Septuagint renders this verse as a title to the chapter, thus: "A vision which I Daniel saw in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar (Beltasar), after that I saw formerly (prwthn)." The Septuagint reading seems to have been asher roeh anee. Theodotion and the Peshitta are in verbal agreement with the Massoretic text. The third year of the reign of King Belshazzar. We learn now that Belshazzar did not reign independently; but that for at least five years he exercised all the functions of government. If Daniel"s investiture with the position of third man in the kingdom took place on the occasion of Belshazzar"s inauguration of his vice-regal reign, Daniel may have remained in the royal service continuously till the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy. After that which appeared,into me at the first. The former vision referred to is clearly the vision of the preceding chapter.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-14.
The triumph of evil.
I THE DARK SIDE OF THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL. Evil is sometimes not only powerful, but ascendant and dominant, apparently sweeping all before it.
1. Evil is destructive. Kingdoms under the sway of evil become mutually destructive. The successive visions of the world-empires represent them with increasingly destructive characteristics. The first brings before us a monstrous image of incongruous elements, but with a certain unity and peaceful relation of parts (ch. 2.). The second shows us a series of ravenous beasts, which, however, are not represented as all fighting one with another (ch. 7.). The third introduces us to animals, by nature peaceful, in fierce mutually destructive conflict. Thus as the knowledge of the evil kingdoms grows, they are seen to be more destructive, even in their most peaceful relations. The more we see of evil the more shall we feel its essentially destructive character. (Jam_1:15)
2. The world without God deteriorates. These kingdoms get worse and worse. The moral progress of mankind is dependent on our relation to God on our submission to his redemptive and educational influence. When these are discarded, morality declines.
3. When evil triumphs in the state, the exercise of religious ordinances is endangered (ver. 11). Persecution usually has a moral cause. The protest of pure public worship is regarded as a danger to the sway of wickedness.
4. Evil is inimical to truth, and when it triumphs truth suffers. Evil is darkness; it is essentially a lie. (Joh_8:44) Truth is a protest against evil, therefore evil "casts truth to the ground". (ver. 12; see 2Th_2:11)
5. Evil gains power from its prosperity. It "practices and prospers." When it flourishes it puts on an imposing appearance and grows by popularity. Thus the more it prospers the more it tends to prosper.
II THE LIGHT SIDE OF THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL. I It is fores, on and predicted. Therefore it should not surprise us. It was foreknown by God from the Creation. It was known when the promises of Divine blessing were given. All the plans of Providence were made in view of it. Yet they are bright and hopeful. (Rom_8:19-23)
1. It is converted into a chastisement for sin and a means of purifying those who suffer by it. Though wicked men may only intend harm to God"s people, the wrong they do may be the means of the highest good.
2. Its duration is limited. A period is named for the termination of its sway (vers. 13, 14). Evil is but for a time, and this is short compared with eternity. God holds power over it and fixes its limitations.
3. Ultimately evil shall be entirely cast out. Then the triumph of goodness will be the greater by its contrast with the sway of evil. The glory of Christ in redeeming from sin and restoring the world to God is only possible after evil has had an opportunity of asserting its power. (2Th_2:7, 2Th_2:8)
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES Vers. 1-12.
The temporary triumph of violence.
The good use of God"s revelation leads to the impartation of further and clearer revelation. "To those who have, it shall be given." The former vision had well exercised Daniel"s mind; now a more minute vision is vouchsafed. In the improvement of character is piety"s reward.
I GOD"S GOOD GIFTS ARE DESPISED BY THE CARNAL AMBITION OF MEN. Lands, cities, palaces, extensive provinces, all fail to satisfy the man in whose breast vulgar ambition dwells. The possessor of the great kingdom of Persia did not conduct himself as a man, but as a silly ram. He was supreme master of these things; but since he did not extract advantage or enjoyment from them, he could not be said to possess them. His one thought was how to acquire more. Instead of cherishing a grateful disposition that God had given him so much, and afforded him such fine opportunities for useful service, his dominant passion was to dispossess others of their dominion. Nor did the fact afflict his soul, that in the career of violence, much innocent blood would be shed, men would be diverted from occupations of husbandry, and misery would be widely sown. The palace in which vain Ambition hatches her plots is no better than a pesthouse. And the monarch who is prodigal with human blood is no other than a murderer. Like Satan, the destroyer, "he also goeth about seeking whom he may devour.
II MILITARY CONQUESTS SOW DEEPLY THE SEEDS OF DEADLY REVENGE. The arbiter of war settles nothing. The victor today is the vanquished to-morrow. The memories of the conquered people hold, with a deathless tenacity, purposes of revenge; and if the conqueror himself does not live to see his military fortune reversed, his successors feel the blow with accumulated fury. The ram, with his two unequal horns, pushed westward, northward, and southward, and for a moment was accounted great. But ere tong the goat with one strong horn assailed him with uncontrollable rage, smote him to the ground, and trod him underfoot. The arm of muscular strength soon decays. If a monarch has nothing better to depend upon than an arm of flesh, his glory will soon fade. It is surprising how that, generation after generation, monarchs still rely upon human battalions rather than on the living God. So ingrained in their imperial nature is ambitions pride, that they need to be bruised and pulverized in a mortar before the pride can be extracted.
III THE MILITARY POWER OF A KINGDOM IS EASILY BROKEN. Very significantly is it said respecting this he-goat, that "when he was strong, the great horn was broken." Alexander, surnamed by flatterers "the Great," was to the kingdom of Macedon merely a horn a weapon of offence. Can there be a more humiliating statement? If God has given to the inferior animals natural horns, they are intended to serve as defensive weapons. If the animal has any native sagacity, it will reserve its horns for fitting occasions of danger; for if it should rush into needless hostilities, its horns may be broken, and in the hour of peril the animal will become a helpless prey. How often does God snap the horn of human power in the hour of boastful triumph! Herod was drinking the sweet potion of profane flattery, when an angel smote him, and he was eaten up of worms. Nebuchadnezzar was feasting on the pride of his great success, when his reason forsook him, and he was degraded to a place among the cattle. Alexander sat down to weep, because there seemed no further scope for his ambition; but God"s shaft of disease pierced him, and left him a corpse.
IV TRANSIENT SUCCESS MAKES MONARCHS INSOLENT AND PROFANE. If God takes away, he also gives. Where the one strong horn had been broken off, four other horns came up instead. The vital energy which could produce this is the direct gift of God. Whoever is meant by this "little horn," he ought to have learnt, as the very first lesson of his life, that he had been raised up by God to replace one who had been removed by death, But instead of learning lessons of humility and pious trust from the patent scenes of human mortality, men, for the most part, become more presumptuous and profane. No outward events permanently impress the soul. Nothing but the mysterious grace of God can soften and purify man"s heart. This "little horn" ventures to assail the very stars of heaven. As high as the stars are above the earth as bright and as useful so are God"s saints compared with earthly and sensual men. Against these this proud ruler arrays his hostile forces yea against the Prince of heaven. He corrupts the priesthood, defiles God"s sanctuary, interrupts the daily sacrifice. This is a sin of sins a crime of blackest dye. Herein we see what is the natural effect of military conquest upon the victor himself. It hardens the feelings, stupefies the conscience, makes the man a demon, and hurries him along to the brink of self-destruction.
V PRESENT TRIUMPHS OVER THE RIGHTEOUS ARE DIVINELY PERMITTED, IN" ORDER TO SECURE HIGHER GOOD. Although the leaders among the Jews were vastly superior to the invading hordes of Antiochus superior in virtue and morality nevertheless they were far from perfect. A strange intermingling of good and evil of light and darkness appeared in their nature. So great was God"s regard for his chosen peepe, that he made adversity to serve as moral medicine. Military disaster may serve as moral triumph. The armies of proud monarchs God used as his instruments of chastisement. The wicked are his hand his sword. The victorious army usually boasts that, by their own might, they have conquered. They can see no other result or end than their own fame. But God sees other and remoter results. In this case it was not simply because Syria"s army was mightier than the Jewish force, that the former triumphed, and made the daily sacrifice to cease. The real cause was that transgression was found in Israel; and if God"s remedy was severe, it was not more severe than needful. Israel was smitten before the Canaanites, because a spirit el mercenary selfishness was found in Achan. The cause of righteousness may be arrested, impeded, dishonoured, if some flagrant sin be found in its leaders. The kingdom of righteousness can only be advanced by righteous methods. It is true that God bad promised to shield his people Israel from their foes, but there was a condition, tacit or expressed, viz. that they should honour his commands. An army is defeated; the temple desecrated; access to God interrupted; because transgression was found in Israel. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and…
Dan_8:1-27
Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns.
Read full note →
The World-powers and Israel
A glance at the particulars in this vision is enough to satisfy us that we have to do with some of the same powers brought to view in the preceding chapter, and in Nebuchadnezzars dream. What, at first glance, we might be disposed to regard as mere repetitions are not such in reality. There is something connected with the repetition to adapt it to some altered position, end, or intent. In the two preceding visions we behold the pictures of the powers of the world as a whole, without regard to any distinction between Jew and Gentile. It is human dominion in its broadest view, in the entirety of its history--first as outwardly considered, and then as spiritually considered, and finally superseded by the Kingdom of God. The vision now in hand is given, not in Chaldee, but in Hebrew. What Daniel is shown of these world-power manifestations he sees and hears not only as a spiritual man of God, but more particularly as a Jewish prophet, and as mainly concerning the Jewish people. Hence the dominion of Babylon is left out entirely, for it was now on the eve of its downfall, and nothing more was to come of it to the Jews. It is still the same world-power in its various forms which constitutes the subject of this vision, but with the emphasis now on what particularly concerns the Jewish prophet, and with all else touched but lightly, or not at all. To little purpose do we read the Book of Daniel not to find in it a solemn warning to the Church of our time, and for all the days yet to come, to beware of the fascinating flatteries and secularising expedients and compliances which, in the self-idolising spirit of spurious charity, specious liberality, mad heartless scepticism, would tempt her to forget her Dirge origin and Heavenly destiny. There is a spirit abroad which would have the Church rescind her sacred charter, cancel her authentic commission, and assimilate herself to a mere political or conventional institution. Men call it a liberalising spirit, a spirit of improvement, which would change our Christian schools and colleges into mere secular gymnasiums and scientific museums or artistic studios and literary athenaeums but it is a spirit which is prone to treat holy Scriptures as mere human lucubrations of worthy men before the ages of better light, rationalise away all the definite doctrines of the authourised creed into mere scholastic or philosophical theorems, dissolve the sacraments into picturesque symbolisms and visionary shadows without life or power, and dismantle the ministry and services of the Church as if they never had a solid right to be regarded as the appointment of very God for conveying and imparting to lost men the regenerating, sanctifying and only restorative gifts of Jehovahs grace. It is the spirit of Antichrist. Many of the so-called churches, and the leaders of the prevailing religious sentiment of our day, are sewing for a harvest of miseries of which they but little dream. Daniel was greatly affected by these visions, and the explanations made of them, as he well might be. (Joseph A. Seiss, D.D.)
Vision of the -Ram and the He-Goat
Learn:
1. The strength of one evil habit may overcome even the mightiest conqueror. Alexander the Great died as the victim of his own excesses at the early age of thirty-three. He could conquer the world by his armies, yet intemperance was his master and destroyer. How many there are among us who have made similar conquests, and been themselves similarly overcome. Think of Lord Byron and Robert Burns, the two poets. To no purpose shall we gain other crowns if we are our- selves the slaves of appetite. It is easier to acquire a habit than it is to break it off.
2. Conformity to the world is fraught with great danger to the people of God. If we have been right in conjecturing that the evils which came upon the Jews in the days of Anticchus were designed as chastisements for their unfaithfulness to the covenant, the history over which we have come is, in this regard, full of most salutary warning. Nor does it stand alone. The tendency of these days is to minimize the difference between the Christian and other men. So it happens that the Church of Christ is invaded by the unbelieving, and its power to resist and overcome the world is thereby sadly weakened. That which gives salt its value is its saltness, and when that quality is lost by it, men cast it from them and trample it underfoot. Our peculiarities as Christians are the very elements of our power. By these it is that the Church has its aggressive force and purifying influence upon the world.
3. Learn, in conclusion, the limited power of the enemies of Gods people. The spoliation of Jerusalem by Antiochus was to be only for a season. The world-tyrant could only go a certain length. God is stronger than the mightiest man; and so to the people of God who continue faithful unto Him there is a limit to calamity. The longest night is followed by the dawn. As the proverb has it, Time and the hour run through the roughest day.
Then be patient, be uncompromising, be courageous. (William M. Taylor, D.D.)
Vision of the Ram and the He-Goat
This second vision of Daniel came to him in the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar. If the first year of
Belshazzar, during which Daniel had his first vision, corresponded with the seventh year of his father Nabonidus, the year following that in which
Media was conquered by Cyrus the third year of Belshazzar would be the tenth year of Nabonidus, and so about 646 B.C. The scene of the vision was
Shushan, or Susa, the capital of Elam, and afterwards one of the chief residences of the Persian kings. Shushan, which means a lily, may have been so called from the many white lilies which grew in its neighbourhood.
The language of Daniel leaves it doubtful whether, when he received the vision, he was present at Shushan in the body or only in the spirit, like to
Ezekiel when he was removed to Jerusalem to see the causes of his impending doom (Eze_8:1-18). As Elam, which lay to the east of Babylonia, seems to have become a tributary province of the empire in the days of
Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel as the prime minister would sometimes probably visit Shushan its capital: but as the history of Elam during this period is very obscure, it would be hazardous to affirm that he was actually present in Shushan when he received the vision, although it seems to me that he might. The likelihood seems to be that Cyrus would leave Elam untouched, not only until after the conquest of Media, Lydia, and Persia, but also until after he had made adequate preparations for the more formidable task of conquering the great Babylonian empire. In that case Daniel might be in
Shushan in the tenth year of Nabonidus, which we have supposed to be the third year of his son Belshazzar, in connection with the mustering of the forces of Elam against Cyrus; and his actual presence there for the purposes of defence would give peculiar point and significance to the vision.. The first thing in the vision which met the eye of the ecstatic Daniel was a ram with two horns (v. 3, 4). The river Ulai (the Eulaeus of the
Greeks) before which the ram stood, apparently on the opposite side of the stream, seems to have been a large artificial canal, some nine hundred feet broad, though it is now dry, which left the Choaspes at Pat Pul, about twenty miles north-west of Susa, passed close by the town of Susa on the north or north-east, and afterwards joined the Coprates (Driver). In connection with the ram there is in the original, the numeral one, to bring into relief the fact that the ram had two horns. The ram is the symbol of the
Medo-Persian empire, as the angel Gabriel said to Daniel: The ram which thou sawest that had two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia. This symbol corresponds with that of the arms and breast of silver in the image of Nebuchadnezzars dream, and with that of the bear raised up on one side in the first vision of Daniel. The two horns, which represent the kingdoms of Media and Persia, were both high or conspicuous horns, while the horn which was higher than the other, and which came up after it, represents the kingdom of Persia, which until the time of Cyrus was but a tributary of Media, but which grew and became the more powerful and conspicuous member of the united kingdom. This is seen in the fact that at the first, as in this book, the empire is spoken of as that of the Medes and Persians, but afterwards, as in the book of Esther, as that of the Persians and the Medes (Est_1:3; Est_1:14; Est_1:18-19). As the symbol of the ram with the two horns here represents the Medo-Persian empire, it is strange that anyone should explain the symbol of Nebuchadnezzars dream and that of Daniels first vision to mean the Medes alone. The idea of a Median empire succeeding the Babylonian is, as the higher critics admit, a gross historical blunder; but then they ascribe the blunder, which they themselves have created, to the ignorance of the author, and apply to their own workmanship the well-sounding name of scientific criticism. As Daniel looked at the ram with the two horns on the other side of the Ulai, he saw it pushing or butting westward, and northward and southward, and overthrowing all the beasts which came in its way, and glorying in its crushing and victorious power. This is a striking description of the conquests and spirit of the Medo-Persian empire. In the west it vanquished Babylon and Syria; in the north Lydia, Armenia, and the Scythian nations; and in the south part of Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia. It was more of a world-empire than Babylon, and for a time resistless in its conquering career, and became in an eminent degree a despotic and vainglorious power. The next part of the vision relates to the he-goat (v. 5, 8). This is the interpretation given by Gabriel to Daniel: And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. And as for that which was broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power. The he-goat with its one great horn at the first, and afterwards with its four notable horns, the symbol of the Graeco-Macedonian empire, corresponds with the belly and thighs of brass of the image in Nebuchadnezzars dream, and with the four-winged leopard with four heads in Daniels first vision. There is a likeness of a he-goat with one notable horn between its eyes still to be seen in the sculptures at Persepolis. The first king of the GraceMacedonian empire, symbolised by the one great horn between the eyes, is Alexander the Great. This remarkable man, who at thirteen became for three years the pupil of the famous Aristotle, was born in 356 B.C., and ascended the throne of Macedonia in 336 B.C., when he was twenty years of age. Within two years after his coronation he had made himself the recognised leader of the Grecian peoples; and in 334 B.C., he crossed the Hellespont to overthrow the Medo-Persian empire with not more perhaps than 30,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry, and began the struggle by completely routing the Persians in battle at the Granicus. He then overran and subdued a large part of Asia Minor, and in 333 B.C. dealt a crushing blow to the immense army of Darius at Issus in Cilicia. Instead of pursuing the beaten Darius the youthful conqueror marched southward through Syria and Palestine, taking Tyre after a siege of seven months, and Gaza after a siege of two, and entered Egypt, where he not only overthrew the Persian rule, but founded the city of Alexandria for his new kingdom. In 331 B.C. he left Egypt and hastened with all speed through Palestine and Syria to Thapsacus, where he crossed the Euphrates, and then onwards to the Tigris, below Nineveh, which he crossed without opposition. Some days after Alexander encountered the army of Darius, said to be more than a million in number, posted on a broad plain stretching from Guagamela to Arbela, and completely routed it, and thus practically ended the Medo-Persian empire, which had lasted for a period of 218 years. In the following year, 330 B.C., Darius, after he had fled to Susa, then to Persepolis (Pasargadae), and then to Ecbatana, three of the royal residences of the Persian kings, made his escape into Bactria, where he was assassinated. In three years the little king of Macedonia had made himself master of the vast Medo-Persian empire. The rapidity of his movements is aptly likened to that of a four-winged leopard in the first vision, and in this to that of a he-goat bounding along without touching the ground. His attacks on the armies of Darius were like those of the he-goat on the ram with the two horns. Darius, like the ram, had no power to resist him; and Alexander, like the he-goat, cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none to deliver the ram out of his hand. Alexander, too, like the he-goat, magnified himself exceedingly. His extraordinary successes impressed him with the idea that he must be more than human; and, to settle the matter, when he was in Egypt, he sent to enquire of the oracle of Ammon, which, knowing what would please the vainglorious conqueror, gave the answer that he was the son, not of Philip, but of Zeus. Hence, to the disgust of many of his followers, he claimed to be divine, and expected to be worshipped with divine honours. And he, like the great horn, was broken in his strength. He was cut off at Babylon by fever, aggravated by intemperance, when in the midst of his successes, and not yet thirty-three years of age. After the breaking of the great horn the four notable horns, which came up towards the four winds of Heaven, are explained by Gabriel to be four kingdoms that would stand up out of the nation, but not with his power. The four horns of the-he-goat correspond with the four heads of the leopard in the first vision. Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C.; and for twenty-two years after the empire was in a condition of conflict and confusion; but in 301 B.C. it was divided into four kingdoms, all of which were weaker than the original empire. Seleucus got what may be called the eastern kingdom of Syria, Babylonia, and the countries as far as India; Cassander, the western kingdom of Macedonia and Greece; Lysimachus, the northern kingdom of Thrace and Bithynia; and Ptolemy, the southern kingdom of Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petrea. These four kingdoms were towards the four winds of Heaven. The little horn is admitted on all hands to be Antiochus Epiphanes, who seized the throne of Syria in 175 B.C., in the absence of his nephew Demetrius, the rightful heir. He might be called a little horn, partly from the depressed state of the kingdom of Syria at the time, and partly from his own depressed state, as he had been hostage at Rome for the seven preceding years. In the eyes of the world such a king would be very insignificant. The period in which he would arise is said to be in the latter time of the kingdom (the Graeco-Macedonian empire), when the transgressors are come to the full, that is, when the Jewish people had filled up the cup of their iniquity. Many of the Jews with their high priest apostatised in the early days of Antiochus, and adopted the heathen customs of the Greeks. The period of the little horn is also said to belong to the time of the end. Gabriel said to Dan_5:17 : Understand O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end; and again, v.19: Behold I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of theindignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end. The time of the end seems to refer to the end of the present age, as distinguished from the future age of the Messiah. The appearance of the little horn, which would be in the latter time of Gods indignation against His chosen people, would show that men were living in the last stage of the old order of things, and that a new order of things was about to arise. Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn which was to arise in the time of the end, is minutely and accurately described. He was a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, noted for his hard-hearted cruelty and crafty dissimulation. Though a little horn at the first, he waxed exceeding great toward the glorious land. The south refers to Egypt, against which he undertook several campaigns, and would have made a complete conquest of it, had it not been for the interference of the Romans; the east refers to his military expeditions into Armenia, Bactria, and Elymais; and the glorious land, the glory of all lands in Ezekiel (Eze_20:6), refers to Palestine which he so grievously oppressed. His success was due, not so much to inherent ability as to the favouring providence of God and the practice of dissimulation. The one cause is pointed out in the words, And his power shall be mighty; but not by his own power; and the other in the words, And through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand. And in his successful career, he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people, that is, powerful foes in the world and the chosen people of Israel. The destructive power of the little horn is especially noted in reference to the holy people. We read: And it waxed great even to the host of heaven: and some of the host and of the stars it cast down to the ground and trampled upon them. The host of Heaven and the stars refer to the same, and not to different persons; and the stars here symbolise, not the angels but the chosen people, partly because the seed of Abraham had been likened to the stars for multitude (Gen_15:5), but mainly because they are sometimes called the Lords host (Exo_7:4; Exo_12:41). This was fulfilled in his two captures of Jerusalem, when many of the inhabitants were slain, and in his persecution of those who refused to abandon their religion (Jos. Ant. 12:3, 4). Yes, continues Daniel, it magnified itself, oven to the prince of the host; and it took away from him the continual burnt offering and the pines of his sanctuary was cut down. And the host was given over to it, together with the continual burnt offering through transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it did its pleasure and prospered. This describes the attempt of Antiochus to extinguish the religion of the Jews. The arch-persecutor was opposed not only to the host but to the prince of the host. His aim was to blast the glory, and overthrow the power of the Most High. He plundered His temple, and caused the daily sacrifice to cease, and transformed the altar of Jehovah into an altar dedicated to the worship of idols. And because of the transgressions of the host Antiochus, like Nebuchadnezzar in reference to the destruction of Solomons temple, was permitted to do his pleasure and prosper. (T. Kirk.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain SECT. XXVIII.—ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, OR THE SYRIAN LITTLE HORN (Chap.…
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXVIII.—ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, OR THE SYRIAN LITTLE HORN (Chap. Dan_8:1-27)
Read full note →
This chapter presents to us another vision of Daniel vouchsafed to him in the reign of Belshazzar, but two years later than the preceding one, which is here mentioned as that which appeared to him “at the first,” or at an earlier period. See chap. Dan_9:21, note ([215] The narrative is given in Hebrew, which is now resumed, and continues to be the language of the book to its conclusion, there being no more reference made to Chaldea, and what remains being intended only for God’s covenant people. This change in the language is a confirmation of the genuineness of the book.
[215] At the beginning” (Dan_8:21). בַּתְּחלָּה (battekhil’lah), “at the first,” as in chap. Dan_8:1; with the general signification, as Keil observes, of earlier, and synonymous with בָּרִאשׁנָה (barishonah), in the beginning, in Gen_13:3; Gen_41:21; Gen_43:18; Gen_43:20; Isa_1:26.
The vision is represented as given when Daniel was in the province of Elam, another name for Persia, at the palace or royal residence of Shushan [216] or Susa, probably so called from the lilies that abounded in the region. He relates that at the time he was on the banks of the river Ulai [217]; but whether in the body, or, as Calvin and others, with great probability, suppose, in spirit, as Ezekiel was at Jerusalem in spirit while in body he was in Chaldea, appears uncertain. The quiet banks of this Persian stream, now long unknown, might be to Daniel what lonely Patmos was to the beloved disciple, who so much resembled him, having been chosen by him as a place of retirement for prayer and communion with God after his hours of public business in Shushan. “Arise, and get thee into the plain, and there will I talk with thee.”
[216] “Shushan the palace.” Shushan or Susa, now called Sús or Shoosh by the Arabs, was the chief city of the province of Elam, called Elymais by the Greeks, and, until Darius, is thought to have been part of the Babylonian dominion. Keil, however, says we have no accurate information whether under Belshazzar Elam was or was not added to Babylon or the Chaldean empire. At the time of Darius Susa belonged to the province of Elam, which had been made a satrapy by the kings of Persia, with Susa for its capital. Dr. Rule observes that the “palace” of Susa, as is evident from the ruins, was a different building from the citadel, the הַבִּירָה (habbirah) of the text. This was a strongly fortified building, towering over the city for its terror or its defence; while the “palace,” as is known by inscriptions, was built by Darius Hystaspis or Gushtasp, who only began to reign b.c. 521, perhaps thirty-two years after this vision. He reads: “I was in Shushan, the citadel,” as the city itself is called, either from the citadel proper, or because of its own great strength, the palace being described in Est_1:5-6, &c., and called “the house (or palace) of the king,” situated in a garden, and sumptuously furnished, as being intended for state or pleasure, but not like a citadel for strength. The ruins of Susa are now only a wilderness, and inhabited by lions and hyenas, on the eastern banks of the Shapur, between it and the Dizful, both flowing into the Kuran, probably the same as the Ulai, or, according to its Aryan or Persian name, the Choaspes. Three great mountains of ruins, from eighty to a hundred feet high, show the compass of the city, while smaller heaps point out its remains.
[217] By the river of Ulai. Mentioned on the cylinder of Assurbanipal as the river of Shushan. “Their wives, like bows and arrows, filled the vicinity of Shushan; their corpses I caused the Ulai to receive.” Jerome, as well as the Vulgate and Theodotion, translate the words, “at the gate of Ulai,” remarking that Ulai is the name of a place or of a gate, and stating that at Shushan there is no river, but only the gate of that castle, although some make the word אוּבַל (oobhal) equivalent to יוּבַל (yoobhal), a flood. There had been such a river. Calvin observes that the Latin writers mention a river Eulœus, and that he has no hesitation in understanding it to be intended here. Pliny says the river Eulæus divides Susiana from Elymais.
This vision, like the preceding one, is related by Daniel in his own name, Daniel being now not a mere narrator of events, but a witness to what had been personally communicated to him. This also, like the other, was interpreted to Daniel, at his own request, by the Angel Gabriel [218], acting under the direction of One with the appearance of a man, probably, as Calvin thinks, the Son of God Himself, who was one day to be also the Son of Man [219]. It is called “the vision of the evening and the morning,” generally considered to be a title given to it on account of the expression in Dan_8:14, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days,” literally, as in the margin, “evening, morning” [220].
[218] “Gabriel.” For remarks on this angelic messenger see under chap. Dan_9:21.
[219] “That certain saint” (Dan_8:13), פַּלְמוֹנִי (palmoni); according to Keil, “a certain one, I know not who,” as not being more particularly definable. Left untranslated in the Greek. The margin of E.V. has “Palmoni;” but adds, “or the numberer of secrets, or the wonderful numberer.” Pfaff, Junius, and Willet: “a certain one,” like peloni almoni, “such a one” (Rth_4:1); Willet thinking the Hebrew words better joined on account of the ambiguous signification. Polanus understands it to mean “secret,” from פלא (pele), “wonderful,” and עלם (’alam), “to hide.” Œcolampadius translates the word “an admirable or wonderful one,” from פלא (pele), “a wonder,” and אלמני (almoni), “a certain one.” Calvin also renders it “wonderful,” and thinks it certainly points to a person the superior of the angel who speaks, and that it denotes Christ Himself. Brightman has “an excellent one;” while Wintle adopts the marginal rendering.
[220] “The vision of the evening and the morning” (Dan_8:26). עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר (’erebhboqer), like the νυχθήμερον (a night and day) of the Greeks (2Co_11:25). According to Keil, who renders the phrase “evening-morning,” we are to understand whole days, consisting of morning and evening (twenty-four hours). So Bertholdt, Hävernick, &c., in opposition to Bleek, Ewald, Delitzsch, and others, who, understanding the reference to the morning and evening sacrifice of each day, make the number, not 2300 whole days, but 1150. Keil thinks the verbal import of the expression doubtful; but that 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, &c., where the days of the creation week are named and reckoned according to the succession of evening and morning.
The vision now given is that of the Ram and the He-goat, representing respectively the Persian and the Grecian empires. It connects itself both with Nebuchadnezzar’s great image and Daniel’s four beasts, the ram being the silver breast and arms of the image and the bear of Daniel’s vision, while the he-goat corresponds with the brazen belly and thighs of the former and the four horned leopards of the latter. The vision thus brings up before us the second and third of the four great monarchies.
The special and more immediate object of the vision was to acquaint Daniel, and through him his brethren the Jews, with calamities which should overtake them many years after their return to their own land, and the happy issue out of them at the appointed time. The vision was therefore to be sealed up, marked as true and certain, and carefully preserved for future use [221]. It is remarkable that, as in the former vision with reference to the New Testament Church, these troubles were to arise from a power called a “little horn,” but in this case proceeding not from the fourth beast or Roman Empire, but from the third or Grecian one, it being within its bounds that Judea lay. From the period mentioned for the continuance of this Little Horn and his persecution of the covenant people, two thousand three hundred days, as also from the manner in which it is again introduced (chap. Dan_11:21, &c.), it has been supposed that it is intended to exhibit a twofold aspect, or to possess a typical character, the first and nearer power being the type of another more remote; as it is not uncommon in the prophecies of Scripture for two persons, things, or events to be predicted together in one and the same prophecy, the two standing related to each other as type and antitype, and seen together as in a kind of mental perspective [222]. By universal consent, the person mere immediately described is one of the kings of Syria, which constituted one of the four kingdoms formed out of Alexander’s Grecian or Macedonian Empire. His name was Antiochus Epiphanes, or the Illustrious, the author of one of the bitterest persecutions that ever the sins of Israel brought upon their race. We have in the vision—
[221] “Shut up the vision” (Dan_8:26). סְתוֹם (sethom), from סָתַם (satham), to stop, to conclude, to hide; but not in the sense of keeping secret, or because it would be incomprehensible for the nearest times; but in the sense of keeping, as in archives. According to Keil and Kliefoth, the meaning 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 future times. So Chrysostom: Keep and preserve it faithfully. Cardinal Hugo understands it to mean: Commit it to memory. De Lyra: Commit it to writing. Bullinger: Seal it as a thing most true and certain. Willet: Keep it from the Chaldees and from carnal men. According to Junius, it was to intimate that the vision would be long in receiving its fulfilment. Calvin understood it to mean that men were not to doubt of its fulfilment. Dr. Rule thus paraphrases: “Let nothing curiously tempt thee to break the seal, for that which God closes no creature has power to break open. Be not impatient to promulgate what thou art not able to explain; for neither is it necessary to publish what God has determined that none shall understand till the time to understand shall come. Seal it up, therefore, and let it be kept with care, every letter of it, that no rude handling obliterate the finest stroke.”
[222] “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 chap. Dan_2:34, &c., 44, &c., and Dan_7:13; Dan_7:26, &c.… For in the last vision (chaps. 10–12.) which Daniel saw, not only the time of the oppression of Antiochus and that of the last enemy are contemplated together as one, but also the whole contents of this one vision are, chap. Dan_10:14, transferred to the ‘end of the days.” ’—Keil.
I. The rise of this power. It was to exhibit this that the vision of the ram and the he-goat was introduced (Dan_8:3-9). A ram is seen by the prophet, and is explained by the angel to denote the Medo-Persian Empire [223]; its two horns, of which the higher came up last, representing the Medes and Persians, who together constituted the empire, the former, in the person of Darius the Mede, taking possession immediately on the fall of Babylon, while the latter, who succeeded in the person of Cyrus, was the more powerful. This ram is represented as pushing westward, northward, and southward [224], so that none could stand before him; Cyrus having extended his conquests to Babylon, Syria, and Asia Minor on the west, to Armenia and Scythia in the north, and to Egypt in the south. He is, however, confronted by a he-goat who comes from the west, with a great horn between his eyes, and so swift as to appear not to touch the ground, and is interpreted by Gabriel to denote the king of Grecia [225]. The goat attacks the ram in great fury, breaks his two horns, and utterly crushes them under his feet; verified in history by the victories obtained over the Persians by the Greeks under Alexander the Great, the founder of the Greek Empire [226], and here represented as “a notable horn” [227] of the goat. His conquests over Persia were made with such rapidity as to be included within the space of six years, while his whole course of victory elsewhere was completed in six more, when he was arrested by death in the thirty-third year of his age. This horn being thus broken or snapt asunder [228], “for it,”—or in its stead,—“came up four notable horns towards the four winds of heaven;” interpreted by the angel to mean that on the death of the first king, Alexander the Great, “four kingdoms should stand up out of the nation, but not in his power [229];” fulfilled in the well-known historical fact that, soon after Alexander’s death, his vast empire came to be divided among his four principal generals, who ruled with a power greatly inferior to his own. These, as already indicated under the visions of the great image and the four beasts, were Antigonus, or, after the battle of Ipsus, Cassander, who ruled Macedonia and Greece; Lysimachus, who possessed Thrace and Asia Minor; Ptolemy Lagus, who took Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petraea; and Seleucus, who obtained Syria, Babylonia, and the Eastern countries as far as India; thus “towards the four winds of heaven.” It was out of the last of these that there “came forth a Little Horn,” making the most conspicuous figure in the vision; waxing “exceeding great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” (Dan_8:9). This was Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes” [230], the son, though not immediate successor, of Antigonus the Great, and the eighth who had reigned as king of Syria. He greatly extended the dominions of his father, almost gaining possession of Egypt, and seizing “the pleasant land,” [231] or Palestine, on whose account it is that he is introduced at all. It is especially from the exact agreement between the prophecy and this person that Porphyry was led to maintain that it was history and not prophecy at all, and that it had been written after the events by some one who wished to palm off his composition as that of Daniel the prophet. For more in regard to him and his rise as the Little Horn, see the prophecy in chap. Dan_11:21, &c.
[223] “A ram which had two horns.” “The kings of Media and Persia” (Dan_8:3; Dan_8:20). A ram’s head of gold, says Dr. Cumming, chosen as the diadem of the Persian kings, alone sufficient to identify the symbol. The figure of a ram, the symbol of Persia, Dr. Rule tells us, has been found among the ruins of Persepolis. In the Zend book Bundehesh, the guardian spirit of the Persian kingdom is represented under the figure of a ram. Dr. Rule observes that the Medo-Persian conqueror of Shushan, a Babylonian stronghold, is here foretold; and thinks that it was perhaps as much the assurance produced in his mind in this vision as any second revelation in the night of the banquet, that enabled the prophet to declare the meaning of the writing on the wall.
[224] “Pushing westward, and northward, and southward” (Dan_8:4). Dr. Cumming observes that Lydia and Babylon were subdued by Cyrus, and Egypt by his son Cambyses. Keil remarks that the ram is to be conceived of as standing on the western bank of the river flowing on the west of Susa, 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, Babylon, Syria, and Asia Minor; in the south, Egypt; in the north, the Armenian and Scythian nations. He did not push toward the east; not because, as Hävernick thinks, the conquests of the Persians did not stretch towards that quarter, 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.
[225] “An he-goat came from the west.” “The rough goat is the king of Grecia” (Dan_8:5; Dan_8:21). Dr. Taylor remarks that the symbol of a goat often appears in connection with Macedonia, and was used as an emblem of that kingdom, its origin being ascribed to the tradition that Caremus, the first king of Mace-don, was led by a flock of goats to the spot on which he decided for the capital of his kingdom. Keil observes that the goat comes from the west, as Macedonia lay west of Susa or Persia; and its coming over the earth is more definitely denoted by the expression, “he touched not the ground,” i.e., as he hastened over it in his flight,—the remark corresponding with the four wings of the leopard (chap. Dan_7:6).
[226] “The first king.” The author of the first Book of Maccabees says that Alexander “reigned in his stead (viz., that of Darius the Mede), the first over Greece.” The author of this book, which is said to have been written originally in Hebrew, “is thought to have compiled it partly from the memoirs collected by Judas Maccabæus, and partly from those of John Hyrcanus, whose leadership began at the period where this book leaves off.” Archdeacon Harrison remarks, after Mr. Forster (Mohammedanism Unveiled) that a clear reference is made by the author of that book to the prophecy regarding Antiochus Epiphanes.
[227] “A notable horn.” קֶרֶן הָזוּת (keren khazuth), a “a horn of sight,” i.e., a horn to be looked at and contemplated with admiration. The parallel expression in Dan_8:8, “the great horn.” Keil remarks that חָזוּת (khazuth) has the meaning of מַרְאֶה (mareh), in the keri אִיש מַרְאֶה (ish mareh) of 2Sa_23:21, a man of countenance or sight; a horn of sight, consideration, or considerable greatness. Sept., κέρας θεορητό. “He made many wars, and won many strong-holds, and slew the kings of the earth, and went through to the ends of the earth, and took the spoils of many nations, insomuch that the earth was quiet before him; and he ruled over countries, and nations, and kings, who became tributary to him” (1Ma_1:2, &c.)
[228] “The great horn was broken.” Dr. Cumming, applying the words to Alexander’s government rather than to himself, observes that the original term denotes “snapt asunder;” not gradually wasted away, nor desolated inch by inch till it disappeared. Alexander’s government was terminated with his life. The expression, however, probably refers to Alexander’s own death, which came upon him suddenly in the midst of his carousings in Babylon, the termination of his empire being the result of that event. “Here as well as at chap. 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.”—Keil.
[229] “For it came up four notable ones.” “Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power” (Dan_8:8; Dan_8:22). חָזוּת (khazuth), “sight,” the noun used in Dan_8:5, here employed as an adverb, conspicuously; “there came forth four conspicuously in its place.” According to the interpretation of the angel, however, these four horns, though notable and conspicuous, have not the power of the one great horn. “They represent in themselves a considerable power, without, however, gaining the power of the one undivided kingdom.”—Keil. These four horns or kingdoms are the dynasties of the Diadochs, as they are called. Of these there were indeed five; but after the overthrow of Antigonus at the battle of Ipsus, 301 b.c., twenty-two years after the death of Alexander, for the first time they became in reality four kings, and divided the empire among themselves, as stated in the text All of them, however, says the historian Justin, “abstained from the use of the insignia of their 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.”
[230] “Out of one of them came forth a little horn” (Dan_8:9). Literally, “Out of one of them came forth one horn out of littleness,” i.e., from small beginnings. So Keil, Maurer, and others. The expression corresponds with זְעִירָה סִלְקַת (ze’irah silqath), “came up small,” in chap. Dan_7:8. The horn was to grow to great power from a small beginning. It was to be one horn, not several. The one of the four horns from which the Little Horn grew up has been acknowledged by all interpreters since Josephus to be the Syrian monarchy, and the horn itself to be Antiochus Epiphanes. “There came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king” (1Ma_1:10). Josephus says, “Our nation suffered these calamities under Antiochus Epiphanes, as Daniel saw and wrote many years before what things should come to pass.”
[231] “The pleasant land” (Dan_8:9) הַצִּבִיְ (hatstsebhi), the beauty, delight, or ornament, as in chap. Dan_11:16; Dan_11:41; Dan_11:45, where it has “land” or “mountain” connected with it. The name given to the land of Canaan, and perhaps to Jerusalem, its capital, from its pleasantness and beauty, but more especially from its being chosen as the land in which Jehovah was pleased to manifest Himself; hence, in chap. Dan_11:45, the addition of the epithet “holy.” According to Keil, “splendour, glory;” the glorious land. So Calvin. The same word used as the name of the roe, from its pleasantness and beauty. The expeditions of Antiochus referred to in the text are thus related in the first Book of Maccabees, “Now when the kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt [in the south], that he might have the dominion of two realms. Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy; and made war against Ptolemy, king of Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof. And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude” (1Ma_1:16-20).
II. His character. The notes given of him by Gabriel are:—
1. Pride. “He magnified himself even to (or against) the prince of the host,” i.e., God Himself or the Messiah, called also the Prince of princes: “He shall magnify himself in his heart, and shall stand up against the Prince of princes” (Dan_8:14; Dan_8:25). The author of the second Book of Maccabees says, in like manner, that “he thought he might command the waves of the sea and weigh the high mountains in a balance; so proud was he beyond the condition of men.” The same book relates that when humbled in his last hours by the hand of God so heavily laid upon him, conscious of his past pride, he said, “It is meet to be subject unto God; and a man that is mortal should not proudly think of himself as if he were God.” Pride, and especially pride in relation to God, always a prominent feature in the description of Antichrist.
2. Fierceness. “A king of fierce countenance” (Dan_8:23). This feature in his character sufficiently verified by his doings as related in the first Book of Maccabees. When he first came against Jerusalem, under the impression that the Jews had revolted, “removing from Egypt in a furious mind, he took the city by force of arms, and commanded his men of war not to spare such as they met, and to slay such as went up upon the houses.” Even with his last sickness upon him, he is said to have been still filled with pride, and to have breathed out fire in his rage against the Jews. This enemy was to be daring and shameless, without fear either of God or man.
3. Knowledge and penetration. “Understanding dark sentences” (Dan_8:23). The exact meaning and application of this clause uncertain [232]. Bishop Newton thinks it denotes that the Little Horn should be “a politic and artful as well as a formidable power.” The second Book of Maccabees speaks of him as thinking in his pride to “make the land navigable and the sea passable on foot,” as if possessed of extraordinary knowledge or acquaintance with magical powers. He was to be clever, and possessing no ordinary powers of intellect. Even Satan is transformed into an angel of light.
[232] “Understanding dark sentences.” Literally, “understanding mysteries;” חִידוֹת (khidhoth); but probably taken in a bad sense; concealing his purpose behind ambiguous words, using dissimulation, forming artifices. So Keil, who thinks the expression is interpreted in Dan_8:25 by מִרְמָה (mirmah), craft or deceit. The Sept. and Vulg. have, “understanding problems or propositions.” Luther refers the expression to his craftiness; while Calvin understands it also of his cleverness; not easy to be deceived—skilled in enigmas. So Martin (French): Of a penetrating spirit. Grotius interprets it of his knowledge of tricks, stratagems, and wiles; knowing in what way many of the Jews might be drawn away from their religion. Junius and Geier understand it as denoting his sagacity in investigating and finding out abstruse matters. Adam Clarke thinks the expression to mean—learned and skilful in all things relating to government and its intrigues, and apparently typical of Rome, whose legal learning is proverbial to the present time. R. Saadias understood it of his mastery of the “dark sentences” or enigmas of the principal kings of his time, viz., those of Greece, Rome, and Persia.
4. Policy and craft. “Through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,” and “by peace he shall destroy many” (Dan_8:25). Much of his success against the Jews appears as the result of this feature of his character [233]. His general, Apollonius, coming to Jerusalem with an army and pretending peace, forbore from his operations until the Sabbath, when, taking advantage of the Jewish habit of resting on that sacred day, he armed his men, and, rushing on the unprepared Jews, he slew them all (2 Maccabees 5) The enemy to be characterised by great ability to deceive. Paul speaks of “all deceivableness of unrighteousness.”
[233] “Through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper” (Dan_8:25). שֵׂכֶל (sechel), sagacity; generally used in a good sense; here apparently in a bad one,—cunning. Through his cleverness his deceit should be successful. Great intelligence and cleverness to characterise both type and antitype. “All deceivableness of unrighteousness.” Satan transformed into an angel of light.
III. His doings. “It waxed great even to (or against) the host of heaven;” probably the Jewish people or Church of God; [234] and it “cast down some of the host of the stars (individuals among them) to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to (or against) the prince of the host (probably the promised Messiah or God Himself); and by Him the daily sacrifice”—the ordinary stated worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem, accompanied with and expressed by the offering of a lamb every morning and evening—“and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. And an host [235] (or a time) was given him against (or over) the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth”—the Jewish worship and religion—“to the ground, and it practised and prospered” (Dan_8:9-12). In the interpretation of the vision it is said, “He shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people,”—the Jews, called to be to God “a holy nation” (Exo_19:6; Exo_19:24). The first Book of Maccabees reveals the exact fulfilment of this part of the prophecy, [236] as well as the fact, also predicted, that these outrages did not take place till the apostasy of a large number of the Jews had ripened them for the judgment: “The transgressors had come to the full” [237]. “The Lord was angry for a while for the sins of them that dwelt in the city; therefore His eye was not upon the place.” The result of Antiochus waxing great toward “the pleasant land” was that forty thousand of the Jews were slain and an equal number sold into captivity.
[234] “The host of heaven.” Here, as in Jer_33:22, the whole body of the stars of heaven, interpreted by the angel in Dan_8:24 to denote the people of the saints, or the covenannt people of God, the stars who were cast to the ground being therefore individuals among the people, and not necessarily the priests or leaders. “He (the general) fell suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed many people of Israel” (1Ma_1:30).
[235] “An host was given him against the daily sacrifice” (Dan_8:12). צָבָא (tsabha), “a host.” According to Keil, it denotes only military service, or perhaps military forces; and the proper rendering of the passage is, “An host shall be given up, together with the daily sacrifice, because of transgression,” viz., the apostasy of Israel from God. So, in general, C. B. Michaelis, Hävernick, V. Lengerke, Maurer, and Kliefoth. So also Willet, Bullinger, Junius, and Polanus; the latter, however, reading “against the daily sacrifice;” and understanding by the transgression especially the treachery of the priests’ Jason and Menelaus, through which the city and Temple were betrayed (2 Maccabees , 4.) Calvin understands the word צָבָא (tsabha) in the sense of “an appointed time,” as in Job_7:1; and considers the meaning to be, that Antiochus could do nothing unless divinely permitted and previously limited; that God would try the patience of His Church for a certain definite time, but that Antiochus should not be able to abolish the worship of God.—תָּמִיד (tamidh), “daily sacrifice;” literally, “the continual;” comprehends all that is of permanent use in the service or worship of God. So Keil, Hengstenberg, Hävernick, &c.
[236] “It cast down the truth to the ground” (Dan_8:12). אֱמֶת (emeth), “truth,” “the truth;” here objective truth; the Word of God, so far as it is embodied in external worship; the Jewish religion and worship as appointed by God Himself. The first Book of Maccabees (1Ma_1:43, &c.) informs us how far this was “cast down “by Antiochus. “He entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof, and the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the bowls, and the censers of gold, and the veil, the crowns, and the golden ornaments that were before the Temple; all which he pulled off. He took also the silver and the gold and the precious vessels.… Moreover, King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, and every one should receive his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols and profaned the Sabbath. For the king had sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah that they should follow the strange laws of the king, and forbid burnt-offerings and sacrifices and drink-offerings in the Temple, and that they should profane the Sabbath-days and festival days, and pollute the sanctuary and holy people.” The punishment of non-compliance was death, which was rigorously inflicted.
[237] “When the transgressors are come to the full” (Dan_8:23). כְּהָתֵם (kehathem), literally, “at the making full,” or “when they have made full,” i.e., their transgression, or the measure of their sins, understood from the conception of the subject. The transgressors, הַפּשְׁעִים (happoshe’im), are the rebellious among the Jews, who apostatised and cast off the religion of Jehovah for the manners of the Greeks, as in Dan_8:12; perhaps with special reference to the leaders in the apostasy. The author of the first Book of Maccabees thus relates: “When on the death of Seleucus, king of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes came to the kingdom, Jason, the brother of Onias the high priest, laboured underhand to obtain that dignity, promising the king a large sum of money as a bribe, and at the same time another large sum if he might have licence to set him up a place for exercise, and for the training up of youth in the fashions of the heathen; which, when the king had granted, and he had gotten into his hand the rich, he forthwith brought his own nation to the Greek fashion, and putting down the governments which were according to law, he brought up new customs against the law. For he gladly built a place of exercise under the tower itself, and brought the chief young men under his subjection.… Now such was the height of Greek fashions and increase of heathenish manners, through the exceeding profanity of Jason, that ungodly wretch and no high priest, that the priests had no courage to serve any more at the altar; but, despising the Temple, and neglecting the sacrifices, they hastened to be partakers of the unlawful allowance in the place of exercise, … not setting by the honour of their fathers, but liking the glory of the Grecians best of all. By reason whereof sore calamities came upon them; for they had them to be their enemies and avengers whose customs they followed so eagerly, and to whom they desired to be like in all things. For it is no light thing to do wickedly against the law of God.”
IV. His continuance. “He practised and prospered” (Dan_8:12). It is not said how long; but in Dan_8:13-14, it is related by the prophet, “Then I heard one saint (or holy one, namely, an angel) speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint (marg., “the numberer of secrets” or “the wonderful numberer,” probably the Son of God, whose name is Wonderful, Isa_9:6; Jdg_13:18), which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation (marg., “making desolate”), to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And He said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days (marg., “evening-morning,” or evening and morning), and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” The sanctuary was defiled by Antiochus, and the daily sacrifice made to cease in the year 168 B.C. In that year, two years after his first coming up from Egypt against Jerusalem, he sent his chief collector to put an end to the temple-worship, and thus to lay waste the sanctuary till it was made “like a wilderness” (1Ma_1:39). It was not till about four years afterwards that he died. The sanctuary, however, had been cleansed in the preceding year by Mattathias and his sons the Maccabees, after it had been defiled between three and four years. The time mentioned in the text—“two thousand and three hundred days”—might, it has been thought, indicate the period from the first attack of Antiochus on Jerusalem, when he “entered proudly the sanctuary and took away the golden altar,” &c., till the cleansing of it between five and six years afterwards [238]. Viewed typically and reckoned on the large year-day prophetic scale, a day being counted a year, according to Num_14:34, Eze_4:5-6, the cleansing would apparently take place, A.D. 2132.
[238] “Unto two thousand and three hundred days (marg., evening morning): then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Calvin says these days fill up six years and three and a half months, while the Jews suffered under Antiochus about six years. Keil also understands the period here mentioned as two thousand three hundred days, but views it rather as symbolical, the oppression of Antiochus having continued not fully seven years. Wintle thinks the expression “evening morning” should induce us to understand those days in the first instance literally, rather than of months and years; and would thus refer them to the tyranny of Antiochus, without forgetting the reference to Antichrist, of whom Antiochus was the type. Dr. Rule, however, remarks: “The king of fierce countenance (Dan_8:23) was to arise in the latter part of the kingdom of the successors of Alexander, which kingdom began about three hundred and seven years before Christ. The defilement of the Temple, b.c. 168, took place only one hundred and two years before the extinction of the Syrian kingdom, b.c. 66, and therefore ‘in the latter time of their kingdom,’ that is to say, the kingdom of the four kings; and must be taken to make the commencement of the two thousand three hundred years, which, on that calculation, will terminate in the year of our Lord 2132. About that year, therefore, if we correctly understand the prophecy, some state of things is likely to arise that shall answer to the cleansing of the sanctuary, the restoration of the daily sacrifice, the ending of the transgression of desolation, and the fulfilment of Daniel’s vision.”
V. His end (Dan_8:25). “He shall be broken without hand.” Neither in battle, nor by the hand of the assassin, nor any other human instrumentality, but by the secret operation and mighty power of God, was this oppressor of His people and His cause to meet with his end. Prophecy was fulfilled in his death as truly as in his life. History relates that having gone to Elymais, in Persia, in quest of gold to pay the Roman tribute, he left the place in great heaviness to return to Babylon. “There came to him,” however, says the author of 1st Maccabees, “one who brought him tidings into Persia that his armies, which went against the land of Judea, were put to flight,” and that the people “had pulled down the abomination which he had set up upon the altar in Jerusalem.” When the king heard this “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 had looked for; and there he continued many days, his grief always increasing, and he made account that he should die.” Then calling his friends together, he is said to have addressed them in the following terms: “I now remember the evils that I did at Jerusalem, and that I took all the vessels of gold and silver that were therein, and sent to destroy the inhabitants of Judea without a cause. I perceive, therefore, that for this cause these troubles are come upon me, and behold, I perish through great grief in a strange land” (1Ma_6:4-16). The second Book of Maccabees further relates that, fleeing from Persepolis, where he had attempted to rob the temple, and coming to Ecbatana, he received the tidings of the defeat of his generals, Nicanor and Timotheus, in Judea, and that upon this he resolved to hasten his return to Jerusalem, threatening to make it a common burying place of the Jews; but that as soon as he uttered the words, “he was smitten with an incurable and invisible plague, being seized with severe pains in his bowels,” aggravated by a sore fall from his chariot while driving violently in haste for revenge; while, “along with his extreme pain, the worms rose up out of his body, his flesh fell away, and the noisomeness of the smell that issued from him was such that no one could endure to carry him, and that he himself was unable to bear it.”
From the whole chapter we may notice—
1. The reality of fulfilled prophecy. The proof of the predictions contained in this chapter being true prophecy and not history, as well as of their actual fulfilment, such as to be sufficient to convince any but those who will not believe either in prophecy or miracle on any evidence whatever. The fulfilment of the prophecy in this section so exact that writers of the Rationalistic school have employed all their ingenuity to disprove the genuineness of the book and to make it to be a forgery of later times. Our comfort to know that as God possesses the knowledge of future events, so He has given to His people a proof of His concern for their welfare by communicating to them through His servants, centuries beforehand, events that shall surely come to pass.
2. The interest taken by angelic beings in the affairs of the Church and the world. This interest exhibited here by two celestial personages, one of whom at least is a created angel. Their interest in the vision and its interpretation an example worthy of our imitation, for whose benefit both were given. If an angel inquired with concern of Him who is the revealer of secrets, “How long shall be the vision?” well may those do so who have a personal interest in the events foretold.
3. The duty of inquiring into the meaning of the word of prophecy. This taught by the example of the prophet himself. Daniel, not satisfied with receiving the vision, earnestly sought its meaning. If the prophets themselves “inquired diligently what, and what manner of time, the Spirit that was in them did signify, when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow,” how much more ought we to do so for whom they ministered? (1Pe_1:10-12).
4. Jesus the Author both of the prophecies and their interpretation. Little doubt but that here and in chap. 9. He is the person who is introduced as communicating with Daniel through a created angel. So the New Testament prophecies are called “the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto Him,” and which “He sent and signified by His angel unto His servant John” (Rev_1:1). So in chap. Rev_22:16 : “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.” “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” A sufficient reason surely for studying the prophetic Word, as well as a sweet encouragement to look for divine help in understanding its meaning. The prophetic office of Jesus never to be forgotten.
5. The instrumentality of others employed by the Head of the Church in communicating knowledge. The interpretation of the vision not given to Daniel directly, but through the medium of an angel. “Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.” So Philip was sent to expound to the eunuch the prophecy he was reading: “How can I understand except some man should guide me?” (Act_8:30-31).
6. The tendency of the heart to backslide from God. Within four centuries after the return of the Jews from Babylon, they are found to have departed so far from God, and to have adopted so much the ways of the heathen, that fresh and still greater calamities were made to overtake them, almost to their entire extinction as a people. Only too much ground for the warning, “Take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.”
7. The danger to true religion from the influence of the world around us, and the necessity of guarding against it. The danger to Israel after their return to their own land was that they were surrounded by the heathen and brought into close contact with them. “They were mixed with the heathen and learned their ways.” The danger from conformity to the world, the rock against which the Church of God needs constantly to be warned. “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” Hence the exhortation, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2Co_6:17).
8. God’s patience and long-suffering. Not till “the transgressors had come to the full” did He employ the scourge of the Syrian oppression for their correction. Sentence against an evil work not speedily executed. The long-suffering of God to be accounted salvation. God not willing that any should perish. His goodness intended to lead to repentance. Only when that fails goodness is exchanged for severity.
9. The mercy of divine chastisement. “Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth.” Better for Israel to have Antiochus let loose upon them than to continue to learn and practise the ways of the heathen and sink into apostasy. Better smart for sin in time than suffer for it in eternity. The case of Israel and Antiochus is given as an example of the use of persecution to discipline the Church of God and His ministers, and to prepare the way for the Saviour.
10. The wretched depravity of the human heart. In Antiochus Epiphanes, as in millions more, we have an example of the madness that is in men’s hearts while they live without God and are strangers to His grace. The tendency of the heart to increase in depravity as its desires are indulged. No height of pride or depth of wickedness to which a man may not arrive when left to himself and the enemy of souls. One prayed to be kept from that most hideous of sights, a human heart. Better the saying of the heathen philosopher, “Know thyself.”
11. Oppressors and persecutors still in God’s hand. To Antiochus, as to others, He says, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed.” The tyrant and oppressor employed as His scourge as long as He sees necessary, and then arrested in his madness, either in mercy or in judgment. Saul, breathing out slaughter against God’s saints, is awakened and saved; Antiochus perseveres in his cruelty till he is “broken without hand.”
12. Timely help and deliverance provided for God’s persecuted people. While Antiochus is prepared as a scourge for backsliding Israel, Mattathias and his sons are raised up as means for their deliverance. So with the Jews and Sennacherib. “The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold,” &c. Herod Agrippa stretches out his hand to vex certain of the Church, and he is smitten with an unseen hand and eaten up of worms. Queen Mary dies while Bernard Gilpin is on his way to a martyr’s death. Persecutors seldom allowed to be long livers, and when the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him. Where Satan raises up a Pharaoh, God in His time prepares a Moses.
13. Religious privileges and ordinances not sufficient to keep the Church from backsliding from God, nor to save it from punishment when it does so. The abuse of such privileges among a nation’s greatest sins, and the cause of its sorest chastisements. The sin which brought Antiochus against the Jews and Mahomet against the Christians. The ark of God no safety to unfaithful Israel from the hand of the Philistines. “Take away her battlements, for they are not the Lord’s.” England’s greatest danger from despised mercies and abused privileges. Britain’s highest privilege the abundance of her Bibles and the freeness of her Gospel. The present a time, however, for all the lovers of their country to cry mightily to God to save her from the sin of a refused Bible and a rejected Saviour.
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXIX.—THE MOSLEM ANTICHRIST (Chap. Dan_8:9-25)
Although the vision of the Syrian or Grecian Little Horn had plainly its fulfilment in Antiochus Epiphanes, yet there have appeared reasons for believing that it looked beyond that monarch to another power, of which it might be regarded as the type [239]. This has seemed especially probable from the time during which the sanctuary was to remain uncleansed and the daily sacrifice to be abolished. The pollution of the Temple by Antiochus, strictly speaking, continued only some three years or three years and a half; which latter term would be not 2300, but 1260 days. The probability is that the term “days,” or, as it is here peculiarly expressed, “evening mornings,” as often elsewhere in prophecy, is to be understood of years; as it obviously is in chap. 12., and as the “weeks” in the next chapter are well known to be weeks not of days but of years. Another reason for regarding this Little Horn as typical of another power afterwards to arise is the fact that the Scripture elsewhere applies the same language to a power that was only to appear in connection with the fourth beast or Roman Empire, and that is usually spoken of as the Antichrist; while the evils predicted as wrought by Antiochus against the Jews were much less than those inflicted both upon Jews and Christians (the people of the new covenant) by another power in many respects resembling him. There appears reason, therefore, to regard the “Little Horn “of the third beast or Grecian Empire as typical of that other “Little Horn “of the fourth beast or Roman Empire predicted in chap. 7. It is thus that Antiochus was regarded by the early Christians as a type of Antichrist.
[239] Bishop Newton observes that most of the ancient fathers and modern divines and commentators agree with Jerome in applying the prophecy to Antiochus Epiphanes, while all allow at the same time that Antiochus was a type of Antichrist, and that in this great enemy of the truth the prophecy was to obtain its full accomplishment. The Bishop, who regards the Roman Empire as the antitype, observes: “Antiochus did indeed take away the daily sacrifice, but he did not cast down the place of the sanctuary—he did not destroy the Temple. He took away the sacrifice for a few years, but the Romans for many ages; and the Romans likewise utterly destroyed the Temple, which Antiochus only spoiled and profaned.” He adds, that “Antiochus did not so mightily destroy the Jews nor prosper in his heathenish designs against them. Antiochus slew forty thousand and sold forty thousand more; the Romans, after the city was taken, slew eleven hundred thousand and sold ninety-seven thousand more. Antiochus meant to root out the whole people, but his success was not equal; the Romans put an end to the government of the Jews and entirely took away their place and nation.” Calvin remarks: “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 fulness of times.” Jerome had said: “Most Christians refer this place to Antichrist, and affirm that what was transacted in a type under Antiochus Epiphanes will be fulfilled in truth under Antichrist.” Luther says: “All former teachers have called and interpreted this Antiochus a figure of the final Antichrist, and they have hit the right mark.” Wieseler remarks that “Antiochus Epiphanes, in his self-deifying fanatical haughtiness and his enmity against God and divine worship, is very properly the type of Antichrist.” Keil says: “The circumstance that the description of the Little Horn growing up between the ten horns of the fourth beast, the speaking great and blasphemous things against the Most High, and thinking to change times and laws (chap. Dan_7:8; Dan_7:24, &c.), harmonises in certain features with the representation of Antiochus Epiphanes, described by the Little Horn (chap, 8.), which would destroy the people of the Holy One, rise up against the Prince of princes, and be broken without hand of man, does not at all warrant the identification of these enemies of God and His people rising out of different world-kingdoms, but corresponds perfectly with this idea that Antiochus in his war against the people of God was a type of Antichrist, the great enemy arising out of the last world-kingdom.”
It has, however, been believed by some, on apparently satisfactory grounds, that besides the Antichrist of the fourth beast or Roman Empire, Antiochus might typify another power that was to prove as hurtful to the Christian Church as that tyrant was to the Jewish one, and which was to arise within the bounds of the same third empire to which Antiochus himself belonged. That power was the Mohammedan or Turkish, which, with Mahomet for its head and representative, might be called the Antichrist of the East, as the Papacy, with the Roman Pontiff as its head, was of the West; and which, like the latter, appears to occupy a considerable place in the Apocalypse of the New Testament. See Rev_9:1-19; Rev_16:12. The pollution of the sanctuary and the “abomination of desolation standing in the holy place,” which were to characterise the future Antichrist, as it had done Antiochus, has marked the conduct no less of the Moslems than of the Romans. The latter polluted the Temple by planting an idolatrous standard, the Roman eagle, within its walls after the siege [240], while a new city, called Ælia Capitolina, was erected on the ruins of Jerusalem, which no Jew was allowed to approach. The doings of the Moslems have been no less marked in respect to the Temple, the Holy City, and the Jewish people, while they have been especially directed against the people of the new covenant, the Christian Church in its Eastern branch, with its sanctuaries and worship [241]; and it is not a little remarkable that, as D’Aubigné observes. “At the beginning of the seventh century, while the sturdy shoulders of the children of the idolatrous North were placing on the supreme throne of Christendom a pastor on the banks of the Tiber, these events were accomplishing in the West precisely at the period when the power of Mahomet arose in the East.” It may be interesting to trace the typical analogy in the various particulars enumerated in the preceding chapter.
[240] Josephus relates that after the city was taken the Romans brought their ensigns into the Temple and placed them over against the eastern gate, and sacrificed to them there. Bishop Newton remarks that the Roman army itself is fitly called “the abomination,” and “the abomination of desolation,” as it was to desolate and lay waste Jerusalem; and is said to stand in the holy place when compassing the city; Jerusalem itself and a space around it being accounted holy.
[241] Dr. Cox remarks that in this chapter, according to Faber, whose interpretation appears to be, on good grounds, now universally [rather, extensively] adopted, the prophet records the history of the Mohammedan imposture. He adds that “the first efforts of the impostor were directed against the Jews, who refused to receive Mohammed’s effusions as the revelations of Heaven, and in consequence suffered the loss of their possessions and lives.” So that under the modern Antichrist the Jews suffered as well as the Christians. Gibbon says: “Mohammed, with the sword in one hand and the Koran in the other, erected his throne on the ruins of Christianity and of Rome. The genius of the Arabian prophet, the manners of his nation, and the spirit of his religion, involved the causes of the decline and fall of the Eastern empire; and our eyes are curiously intent on one of the most memorable revolutions which have impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe.” E. Irving observes that the third of the four chief streams of prophecy presented in the Book of Daniel (viz., that in this 8th chapter), “connected itself with the former, at the struggle of the third kingdom with the second, in order that it may trace, within the territory of the third, the rise of another blasphemous power [the Mohammedan], which was also to prevail against the saints of God till the time of the end.” Dr. Keith says: “The ‘king of fierce countenance’ is Mohammed, who offered only submission or the sword, and ‘understanding dark sentences’ (wherewith the Koran pre eminently abounds); who stood up and became mighty, not by his own power, Mohammed possessing no hereditary dominion and rising from nothing. The ‘holy ones’ are the Christians, whose churches, ‘the host and the stars,’ he cast to the ground; prospering by ‘policy and craft’ through a faith accommodated to the passions of men; ‘magnifying himself in his heart,’ saying, ‘There is no God but one, and Mohammed is His prophet;’ ‘magnifying himself against the Prince of the host’ by calling himself a greater prophet than Christ; and destroying the land he subjugated more ‘by peace’ than others have done by war.”
I. The rise of their power. The Saracen power, like Mahomet himself, arose in Arabia, while that of the Turks had its origin in Parthia, near the Oxus, both being within the territory of the he-goat or Grecian Empire, and indeed that part of it from which the Little Horn was to spring, and of which Antiochus was the ruler. Like the founder of the religion which bears his name, the Turkish Empire was “little” in its beginning, commencing with Togrul Beg, a Turcoman shepherd, the petty chief of a petty clan. Togrul, by marrying the Caliph’s daughter, from being, as Dr. Cumming remarks, “a petty and contemptible chief, became the loyal and all but irresistible propagandist of Mahometan fanaticism.”
II. Its character. Pride obviously belonged to one who claimed to be the supreme prophet of God, whose teachings and revelations were to supersede those both of Moses and of Christ, and to a people that believe themselves to be alone the faithful and the favourites of the Almighty, and despise all others as dogs and infidels. Fierceness is the well-known characteristic both of Saracens and Turks, a people, according to one of their own chiefs, whose “delight is in war rather than in peace,” and who, in the language of Gibbon speaking of the Turkish nations, “still breathe the fierceness of the desert.” The singular and somewhat obscure feature of “understanding dark sentences” may not unnaturally be applied to one who pretended to receive the Koran, with all its mysterious and dark sentences, from the mouth of the Angel Gabriel, a book which has been the study of many of his followers in relation to the most abstruse theological subjects, while many others have entered as profoundly into the various branches of mathematical and scientific knowledge,—Mahomet’s successor, Ali, uniting, as Gibbon remarks, “the qualifications of a poet, a soldier, and a saint.”
By policy and craft Mahomet is known to have made the progress he did, acting as a worldly ruler while pretending to be the prophet of God and the organ of divine communications to mankind. “In the exercise of political government,” says the historian just quoted, “Mahomet was compelled to abate the stern rigour of fanaticism, to comply with the prejudices and passions of his followers, and to employ even the vices of mankind as the instruments of their salvation. The use of fraud and perfidy, of cruelty and injustice, was often subservient to the propagation of the faith.” He is believed to have worn the mask of sanctity and mortification only the better to extend his imposture in the world; while his craft appears in pretending new and contradictory communications from Heaven to meet emergencies and requirements as they arose.
III. Its doings. Like Antiochus Epiphanes, the Saracens and Turks “waxed exceeding great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.” They extended their conquests to Egypt, Persia, &c., and to Palestine, the last being in their possession to the present day. The Caliph Omar, in the seventh century, obtained possession of Jerusalem, and immediately caused a magnificent mosque to be erected on the site of the ancient Temple. On his entering the city, the Christian patriarch Sophronius, says Gibbon, “bowed before his new master, and muttered, in the words of Daniel, ‘the abomination of desolation is in the holy place.’ ” In place of the worship of the Triune Jehovah through the one Mediator Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice, was substituted the worship of a Being of whom Mahomet taught that it was unbecoming to say that He could have a son, and who was to be approached through no Mediator unless it might be himself, and through no offering except a man’s own meritorious actions. The daily sacrifice was taken away in its true sense, as it had been by Antiochus in its typical one. The religion of Jesus, with its one sacrifice for sin, was banished from the precincts of the Temple area, within which even now a Christian is scarcely permitted to enter. Nor indeed did this take place till, as in the case of Antiochus and the Jews, “the transgressors had come to the full;” Moslems and Turks being simply the scourge of a degenerate Christianity, which had changed “the Gospel of the blessed God” into what was in many respects a lie, and His worship into a mass of foolish and worthless superstitions [242]. By them the mystical holy city, the Church of Christ, as well as the literal one, was to be trodden under foot. Everywhere Christian churches were either demolished or converted into mosques [243], and were permitted to remain as such only on the payment of a tribute, the memorials of this profane desolation meeting you everywhere in the East at the present day, as well as in Constantinople itself, where the most splendid mosques, as that of St. Sophia, were originally employed for Christian worship before the Crescent supplanted the Cross. The well-known option to the Christian was between renouncing Christianity, tribute, and death [244]. How Mahomet magnified himself against the Prince of princes, and cast down the truth to the ground, was made only too obvious by the well-known watchword, “There is no God but one, and Mahomet is His prophet;” and by the law, rescinded only a few years ago under British influence, that made it death for a Moslem to become a Christian.
[242] “The Christians of the seventh century,” says Gibbon, “had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of Paganism; their public and private vow were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East; the throne of the Almighty was darkened by a cloud of martyrs and saints and angels, the objects of popular veneration; and the Collyridian heretics, who flourished in the fruitful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honours of a goddess.”
[243] “When Christian churches,” says Scott the commentator, “were converted into mosques, the ‘daily sacrifice’ might be said to be taken away.”
[244] “Ye Christian dogs!” said Kaled to the Christians of Damascus, “ye know your option—the Koran, the tribute, or the sword.”—Gibbon (“Decline and Fall,” &c., chap. 51.)
IV. Its end. The Little Horn was to be “broken without hand.” We have seen the fulfilment of this part of the prophecy in relation to the person of Antiochus. In his Moslem antitype, however, we look for it rather in the power than the person. In the Book of Revelation the Turkish power, which succeeded the Saracenic and continued the reign of Islam, is presented under the symbol of the river Euphrates, the quarter from whence it sprung (Rev_9:14-15). That river, however, was to be “dried up,” that “the way of the kings of the East might be prepared” (Rev_16:12). The Turkish power, after serving the purpose for which in the providence of God it was “prepared” for an appointed time, was to be gradually dissolved till it wholly disappeared. This decay or “drying up” was to take place, according to apocalyptic symbol, as the effect of the effusion of the sixth vial, while that of the seventh was to bring the end. The fact that, in the days in which we live, this decay of the Turkish Empire is rapidly going on, is well known to every intelligent reader of the newspapers. One of the subjects recently engaging the attention of Europe was the demand of Greece for the rectification of its extended frontier, involving the surrender of Turkish territory. More than half a century ago E. Irving wrote: “Though the destruction of the Mahometan power is yet future, it is even now beginning to be ‘broken without hand’ by its own disorganisation and dismemberment—wasting away of inward consumption, according to the language of the sixth vial” [245]. From the year 1820, the Turkish power has been “the sick man,” gradually losing his strength and coming to his end. Moslems themselves believe that, according to ancient prophecy, the days of Islam are numbered. Daniel’s period for the antitypical cleansing of the sanctuary cannot, therefore, be far distant [246]. Nor is it unlikely that, as the Papal and Moslem Antichrists began their disastrous course almost together, so together, or within a short period of each other, they will perish.
[245] Fifty years ago it was written by Lamartine, “Turkey is dying rapidly for want of Turks.” Another, writing subsequently from Constantinople, says, “Turkey is in the agony of dissolution.” A recent death-pang was in the cession of Dulcigno to Montenegro at the bidding of the powers of Europe; immediately followed by another, the cession of more of its territory to Greece.
[246] Dating from the time of Alexander’s invasion of Asia in 334 b.c., according to Bishop Newton and others, the 2300 years expire in 1966 a.d. or, if the Septuagint reading be adopted, a century later. Dr. Cumming prefers to date this period from the time when the Persian Empire reached its meridian glory in the year 480 b.c., just before the defeat of Xerxes on his invasion of Greece; which brings the period to its close in 1820 a.d., when it is well known the decay of the Ottoman Empire began by the revolt of Ali Pasha and the insurrection of the Greeks. Dr. Cox observes: “It is some clue to the commencement of the period to remark that Daniel does not refer to the origin of the Persian monarchy, but to some period afterwards when it is to become a settled government; because the Medo-Persian ram does not rise from the sea, but stands, already grown, upon the margin of the river. Cyrus and Darius were conquerors, but it was not till the seventh year of Artaxerxes that the empire had attained its’ strength. The Medo-Persian ram rose in the year b.c. 536, and continued to stand till b.c. 330; the date of the vision therefore is between these years.” To date the period from the middle of that interval would bring its termination to the year a.d. 1897, or, if we read according to the Septuagint, a century later.
The effect of the vision upon Daniel himself, noted in the end of the chapter. “I, Daniel, fainted, and was sick certain days” (Dan_8:27). The mere circumstances of the vision might have thus operated on Daniel’s physical system. Communication with angelic beings in the present state probably too much for the human frame to endure without considerable derangement. It is likely, however, that the nature of the communication made had the principal share in producing this effect. The prospect of so much misery in store for his people after their restoration to their own land, and that, too, as the consequence of their own multiplied and matured transgressions, especially their abandonment of Jehovah’s worship, was too much for the sensitive and beloved prophet. Daniel felt as a patriot, a prophet, and a man of God. From this, the concluding part of the chapter, we may note—
1. It is the part of sin to blunt, but of grace to intensify, natural feelings. The more that our nature is refined and purified, the more shall we be affected by the sins and sorrows of others, especially those of our own kindred and country. The more we are made to resemble the Sinless One, the more readily shall we with Him mingle our tears with the bereaved and weep over a city that rejects its God and Saviour. The same grace drew from the tender-hearted prophet the exclamation, “Oh, that my head were waters and mine eyes fountains of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughters of my people;” and caused the manly, courageous Apostle to write, “I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Jer_9:1; Rom_9:23).
2. The feelings and affections moved by realised truth according to its nature. The effect of truth, cordially received and realised, as in the case of the prophet, is to produce either joy or sorrow, hope or fear, love or aversion. The depth and power of the emotion according to the character of the truth and the intensity with which it is realised. The proper effect of Gospel truth to produce not only love to the revealed Saviour, but to fill the soul with joy (1Pe_1:8). Believed and realised prediction of divine visitation for sin naturally productive of deep concern. The mark of the godly to tremble at God’s word (Isa_66:2). “When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself, that I might rest in the day of trouble” (Hab_3:16). It is the nature of sin to harden the heart against divine threatenings (Heb_3:7; Heb_4:7). While Paul reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled. His ruin was that he resisted his convictions, silenced his fears, and hardened his heart by a return to his sins.
3. Religious concern no hindrance to daily duty. Daniel’s sickness disabled him for duty while it lasted, which was only for “certain days.” So soon as it was over he “rose up and did the king’s business” (Dan_8:27). Daniel’s well-balanced mind knew how to be “diligent in business” while “fervent in spirit.” One form, fruit, and evidence of serving God faithfully is the faithful discharge of relative duties. Daniel was faithful and diligent in serving the king because he was faithful and diligent in serving God. His diligence and fidelity as well as his wisdom the source and secret of his influence at the Babylonian and Persian courts. “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings, and shall not stand before mean men.”
4. God’s dealings often dark and mysterious. Daniel “was astonished at the vision” (Dan_8:27). Events in providence often very different from our anticipation. Daniel expected a long period of peace and prosperity to his people on their settlement in their own land, according to the glowing descriptions of Isaiah and other prophets; while Israel, taught by bitter experience, would henceforth walk in the ways of the Lord. Both of these expectations were contradicted by the vision. Messiah was not yet to appear. The people were to suffer more than ever, and their suffering was to be the chastisement of their apostasy and sin. “His way is in the sea, and His path on the great waters.” Patience is to have her perfect work. “Though the vision tarry, wait for it.” One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. God is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness. If He delay to fulfil His promise, it is because delay is better than despatch. “My ways are not your ways, neither are my thoughts your thoughts, saith the Lord.”
5. Knowledge of prophetic truth not in all cases vouchsafed. “None understood the vision” (Dan_8:27). Daniel was to “shut up the vision” (Dan_8:27). It was true, and therefore to be carefully preserved; but its fulfilment was distant, “for many days.” As the time of fulfilment drew nigh it would be pondered and better understood. “At the end it shall speak, and not lie” (Hab_2:3). The time would come when many should run to and fro, or carefully investigate its meaning, and the knowledge of it should be increased (chap. Dan_12:4). That time much nearer now in these last days. “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand” (Rev_1:3).
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Vision of the Ram and the He-Goat
The Vision of the Ram and the He-Goat
In the third year of Belshazzar Daniel has a vision in which he seems to stand by the river Ulai, near Susa (Dan_8:1-2). He sees a two-homed ram which behaves aggressively for a time (Dan_8:3-4), but is attacked and overthrown by a he-goat which comes rapidly from the w, (Dan_8:5-7). The he-goat has a notable horn (Dan_8:5), which is presently broken, and instead of which four others come up (Dan_8:8). From one of these there springs a little horn, which
Read full note →
Identification.Daniel 2Daniel 7Compare Daniel 8The Babylonian empire, or Nebuchadnezzar himselfThe head of goldThe lion The 'Median' empire, or BelshazzarThe breast and arms of silverThe bear The Persian, or the Medo-Persian empireThe belly and thighs of brassThe leopardThe ram (the Medo-Persian empire)The Greek empire of Alexander and his successorsThe legs of iron and the feet of iron and clayThe beast with 10 hornsThe he-goatThe Messianic kingdomThe stone cut from the mountain.The human figure 'a son of man' prospers greatly, and behaves arrogantly and wickedly, especially against the sanctuary and the continual burnt offering (Dan_8:9-12). An angel proclaims that its oppressions will last for 2,300 evenings and mornings (Dan_8:13-14). The angel Gabriel then explains the vision to Daniel (Dan_8:15-16). It relates to 'the time of the end' (Dan_8:17-19). The ram is the Medo-Persian empire (Dan_8:20), and the he-goat the Greek empire (Dan_8:21). The notable horn is the first Greek king (Alexander the Great), and the four horns which succeed it are the rulers of the four divisions of his empire (Dan_8:20-21). The little horn is a king of one of these divisions, and the description plainly points to Antiochus Epiphanes. Gabriel foretells his various acts of oppression and blasphemy and his sudden overthrow (Dan_8:23-25). The last two vv. contain Gabriel's parting message to Daniel, and describe the effect of the vision on the latter (Dan_8:26-27).
2. A vision] RV 'the vision.' Shushan.. the palace] Susa, the capital of the Persian kings (Neh_1:1; Est_1:2). Elam] a region NW. of Persia proper, frequently mentioned in OT. (Gen_10:22; Isa_11:11; Jer_49:34, etc.). Ulai] the Eulæus, a large canal in the vicinity of Susa: cp. the 'Chebar' in Ezekiel's vision (Eze_1:3), and the 'Hiddekel' (Dan_10:4).
8. For it] RV 'instead of it.'
9. Pleasant (RV 'glorious') land] Palestine.
10. The host of heaven] the stars, symbolising in Daniel the righteous Israelites (Dan_12:3), some of whom were slain by Antiochus: see Dan_8:24; Daniel 1Ma_1:24, 1Ma_1:30, 1Ma_1:57, 1Ma_1:63).
11. The prince of the host] God. And by him, etc.] RV 'And it took away from him' (God) 'the continual burnt offering': see Dan_11:31; Daniel 1Ma_1:45, 1Ma_1:59. The place of his sanctuary was cast down] see 1Ma_1:21-23, 1Ma_1:39; 1Ma_3:45; 1Ma_4:38.
12. The rendering of this v. is uncertain. RV 'And the host' (of the Israelites) 'was given over to it' (the little horn)],'through transgression' (the apostasy of the heathen party in Jerusalem, 1Ma_1:11-15). Practised] RV 'did its pleasure.' Similarly in Dan_8:24.
13. Saint] RV 'holy one,' angel: see Dan_4:13. Transgression of desolation] see Dan_9:27; Dan_11:31; Dan_12:11; Daniel 1Ma_1:54, 1Ma_1:59.
14. Days] RV 'evenings and mornings,' 1,150 days. The period between 1Ma_1:54 and 1Ma_4:52-53, when the Temple was cleansed, was 3 years and 10 days. The 1,150 days may be reckoned from a slightly earlier starting-point in the profane career of Antiochus.
16. Gabriel] the first mention in Scripture of an angelic name.
17. At the time of the end, etc.] RV 'The vision belongeth to the time of the end.' This defines the limit of Daniel's outlook upon the future. The termination of this vision is therefore that of all the visions in the book.
18. Was in] RV 'fell into': see Eze_2:1, Eze_2:2.
19. Last end] RV 'latter time.' Indignation] the troubles of Israel are tokens of God's displeasure: see Dan_11:36; Daniel 1Ma_1:64. At the time appointed, etc.] RV 'It belongeth to the appointed time of the end.'
20. Kings of Media and Persia] The Medo-Persian empire is symbolised here by one animal, but its two portions are distinguished, and the Persian rule is regarded as succeeding the Median, since the higher of the two horns comes up last (Dan_8:3).
21. The king of Grecia(RV 'Greece')] 'King' is evidently used loosely for 'kingdom' (as in Dan_7:17), since the kings are particularised as horns in what follows. The first king] Alexander the Great.
22. Four kingdoms] those of Alexander's four generals—Macedonia, Thrace, Egypt, and Syria: see Intro. In his power] RV 'with his power.' These kingdoms were severally inferior to Alexander's empire.
23. A king of fierce countenance] Antiochus Epiphanes. Understanding dark sentences] skilled in deceitful intrigues.
24. Not by his own power] This rendering may mean 'by God's permission,' or, 'by craft rather than force.' But RM has, 'not with his' (Alexander's) 'power,' as in Dan_8:22. Mighty] RV 'mighty ones.'
25. By peace] RV 'in their security.' Some of the worst outrages of Antiochus upon the Jews had this treacherous character: see Dan_11:21, Dan_11:24; Daniel 1Ma_1:29, 1Ma_1:30. The Prince of princes] God. Broken without hand] destroyed by God's power: cp. Dan_2:34, Dan_2:35.
26. Evening.. morning] RV 'evenings.. mornings.'. The reference is to Dan_8:14.
Wherefore] RV 'but.' Shall he for many days] RV 'belongeth to many days to come,' to a future remote from Daniel's time.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain The eighth chapter gives details concerning the second and…
vision
The eighth chapter gives details concerning the second and third world-kingdoms: the silver and brass kingdoms of Daniel 2; the bear and leopard kingdoms of Daniel 7, viz., the Medo-Persian and Macedonian kingdoms of history. At the time of this vision (Dan 8:1) the first monarchy was nearing its end. Belshazzar was the last king of that monarchy.
Read full note →
third year About B.C. 530.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain CHAPTER 8 The Ram and the He-Goat
CHAPTER 8 The Ram and the He-Goat
1. The vision (Dan 8:1-14)
Read full note →
2. The interpretation of the vision (Dan 8:15-27)
Dan 8:1-14. Beginning with this chapter to the end of the book prophecy will lead us mostly upon Jewish ground. While some of these prophecies were fulfilled in the past, most of them are related to the future when the great end fulfillment takes place before the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven to receive the kingdom. The phrases “the latter times,” “the time of the end,” “in the last end of the indignation,” appear several times in these chapters. These phrases describe the same period of time mentioned in the seventh chapter, “a time, times and dividing of times; “ the 1,260 days or 42 months in the book of Revelation. It is the great tribulation which is recorded in the last chapter of this book.
The time and place of the vision in this chapter are given in the beginning. The ram, according to divine interpretation (Dan 8:15, etc.), is the Medo-Persian monarchy--the silver kingdom, the kingdom also typified by the bear. The he-goat with a notable horn is the Graeco- Macedonian monarchy and the notable horn is Alexander the Great. In 334 B. C., Alexander leaped like a swift he-goat across the Hellespont and fought his successful battles, then pushed on to the banks of the Indus and the Nile and then onward to Shushan. The great battles of the Granicus, Issus and Arbella were fought, and he stamped the power of Persia and its King, Darius Codomannus, to the ground. He conquered rapidly Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Tyre, Gaza, Egypt, Babylonia, Persia. In 329 he conquered Bactria, crossed the Oxus and Jaxaitis and defeated the Scythians. And thus he stamped upon the ram after having broken its horns. But when the he goat had waxed very great, the great horn was broken. This predicted the early and sudden death of Alexander the Great. He died after a reign of 12 years and eight months, after a career of drunkenness and debauchery in 323 B.C. He died when he was but 32 years old. Then four notable ones sprang up in the place of the broken horn. This too has been fulfilled, for the empire of Alexander was divided into four parts. Four of the great generals of Alexander made the division namely, Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus and Ptolemy. The four great divisions were, Syria, Egypt, Macedonia and Asia Minor.
Then a little horn appeared out of one of these divisions; it sprung up out of Syria. This little horn is of course not the little horn mentioned in the previous chapter, for the little horn in Dan 7:1-28 has its place in connection with the fourth beast (Rome), while this one comes from a division of the third beast, the Graeco-Macedonian monarchy.
History does not leave us in doubt of how and when this great prophetic vision was fulfilled. This little horn is the eighth king of the Seleucid dynasty. He is known by the name of Antiochus Epiphanes; after his wild and wicked deeds he was called Epiphanes, the madman. Long before he invaded the pleasant land (Israel’s land), Daniel saw what he would do. He conquered Jerusalem. He took away the daily sacrifice in the temple and offered a swine and swine’s blood upon the altar. He introduced idol worship, devastated the whole land and killed some 100,000 Jews.
In Dan 8:13-14 is an angelic conversation. The 2,300 days (literal days) cover just about the period of time during which Antiochus did his wicked deeds. When they were ended Judas Maccabaeus cleansed the sanctuary about December 25, 165 B.C.
We believe these 2,300 days are therefore literal days and have found their literal fulfillment in the dreadful days of this wicked king from the north. There is no other meaning attached to these days and the foolish speculations that these days are years, etc., lacks scriptural foundation altogether. Such views and fanciful interpretations bring the study of prophecy into disrepute. We have special reference to the Seventh Day Adventist delusion. They teach the abominable falsehood that the Lord Jesus Christ did not enter into the Holiest till the year 1844 had been reached, because this is according to their reckoning 2,300 years after Cyrus had issued the command to build the temple. That this is a denial of the gospel itself and satanic is self-evident.
Dan 8:15-27. Gabriel is the interpreter of the whole vision. It should be carefully studied. It points to a future fulfillment.
Gabriel told Daniel that the vision has a special meaning for the time of the end. Four different expressions are used to denote the time of the final fulfillment of the vision: (1) “The time of the end” (Dan 8:17); (2) “The last end of the indignation” (Dan 8:19); (3) “The latter time of their kingdom” (Dan 8:23); (4) “When the transgressors are come to the full” (Dan 8:23).
Once more, at the close of the age, before the Lord comes in visible glory, in the days of the great tribulation, the time of Jacob’s trouble, an invasion from the north takes place. Israel’s land will once more undergo the horrors of a devastation, foreshadowed by Antiochus Epiphanes. The king of the north, as he is also called in Isaiah’s prophecy, “the Assyrian,” will do this work. For details and other prophecies relating to this coming event see our exposition of Daniel, pages 102-118.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Vision Itself
The Vision Itself
v. 1. In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar, two years after Daniel had had the vision of the four monarchies, a vision appeared unto me, even unto me, Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first, that is, in addition to that other important prophetic vision which he had recorded in the previous chapter. It is evident that this vision did not come to Daniel in a dream, but that he was awake and conscious while this information came to him.
Read full note →
v. 2. And I saw in a vision, in a state of ecstasy; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan, or Susa, in the palace, which is in the province of Elam, for Susa was the capital of this province during the Babylonian supremacy, while under Persian reign it was located in the satrapy of Susiana; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai, or Eulaeus, on which Susa was situated. Daniel evidently, in his capacity as one of the foremost officials of the empire, visited the various provinces from time to time, or he may even have had a winter home in this city.
v. 3. Then I lifted up mine eyes and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river, probably to the east of it, a ram, not in a flock, but alone, which had two horns; and the two horns were high, both of them expressive of royalty and power, but one was higher than the other, and the higher, the one possessing the greater power, came up last, it was later in point of time.
v. 4. I saw the ram pushing westward and northward and southward, to subdue all the countries located in these directions, so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand, his power, for the time being, was absolute; but he did according to his will and became great, so that the empire which he represented became a world power.
v. 5. And as I was considering, observing very closely everything that transpired, behold, an he-goat came from the west, from Europe, across Asia Minor, on the face of the whole earth, sweeping along over all the intervening countries, and touched not the ground, that is, his advance was so rapid that it was like a flight; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes, in the midst of his forehead, so that his whole force was behind it.
v. 6. And he came to the ram that had two horns, not stopping for any consideration, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power, in irresistible, mighty rage.
v. 7. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, with sudden, explosive anger, and smote the ram, in a fierce overthrow, 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, so that the complete overthrow of the ram was speedily accomplished; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand, all the resources that he commanded availing him nothing.
v. 8. Therefore the he-goat waxed very great, his power developed mightily; and when he was strong, just as he reached the highest point of his might, the great horn was broken, the unity of the attacking power was disrupted with the death of its leader: and for it came up four notable ones, four leaders, who divided the power among themselves, toward the four winds of heaven.
v. 9. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, sprouting in a diminutive manner, like the branches in the prongs of an antelope, which waxed exceeding great toward the south and toward the east and toward the pleasant land, Judea, the glorious land, the land of God’s chosen people.
v. 10. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven, to the congregation of the Lord’s people, for the Jews were at that time representatives of the Lord’s Church on earth; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground and stamped upon them, presuming, in its pride, to wage warfare even against the kingdom of the Lord.
v. 11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, placing himself on a level with the most high God, with the King of kings and the Lord of lords, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, that is, he interfered with the worship of the true God as then carried on in the Temple, and the place of His Sanctuary was cast down, profaned with blasphemous behavior.
v. 12. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, that is, "warfare was inaugurated against the daily sacrifice with outrage," with idolatrous worship by the heathen ruler represented by the last horn, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and prospered, it accomplished this much, it was successful by divine permission: God permitted the profaning to go on for some time.
v. 13. Then I heard one saint, one of the Lord’s angels, speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, as they were conversing, the interruption being made in the interest of Daniel, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, that is, how long would the subject of this vision, the destruction of the Lord’s worship, continue, and the transgression of desolation, the horrible transgression which had just been described, to give both the Sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? so that the Church of God, then represented by the nation of the Jews returned from Babylon, would be made desolate and be hindered from spreading.
v. 14. And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days, literally, "evening-mornings"; then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed, or "justified," which may mean deconsecrated. The figures in the vision are strangely interwoven with direct statements, which anticipate, in a measure, the interpretation given in the second part of the chapter.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 General Information:
General Information:
Chapters 7 and 8 are not in chronological order. They happened while Belshazzar was still the king, before the rule of Darius and Cyrus that was discussed in chapter 6.
Read full note →
General Information:
In Daniel's vision, he saw animals that were symbols of other things. Later in the vision someone explains the meaning of those symbols. (See: Symbolic Language)
In the third year
"In year three" (See: Ordinal Numbers)
Belshazzar
This is the son of Nebuchadnezzar who became king after his father. See how you translated this name in Daniel 5:1.
had a vision appear to me (after the one ... first)
This is background information to remind the reader that this is Daniel's second vision. AT: "had a second vision appear to me" (See: Background Information)
fortress
a walled city that was guarded and protected
Susa ... Elam ... Ulai Canal
These are names of places. (See: How to Translate Names)
Canal
A canal is a narrow man-made waterway.
translationWords
year
reign
king
Daniel
vision
Elam
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 8:1-27 This vision expands the vision of ch 7,…
8:1-27 This vision expands the vision of ch 7, developing additional symbolism regarding the second and third beasts (7:5-6). Its report about a small horn that arises from the goat has similarities with the “little horn” of 7:8, 20-25; the “ruler” of 9:26-27; and the “despicable man” of 11:21-45.
8:1 The author probably changes back to Hebrew because he now focuses again (as with 1:1–2:4a) on the holy people, Israel, for the remainder of the book. • The third year of King Belshazzar’s reign was around 554~551 BC. It was about two years after the vision of ch 7 and over a decade before the fall of Babylon in 539 BC (5:31).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.