Verse 2

Shushan--Susa. Though then comparatively insignificant, it was destined to be the capital of Persia after Cyrus' time. Therefore Daniel is transported into it, as being the capital of the kingdom signified by the two-horned ram (Neh 1:1; Est 1:2-5). Elam--west of Persia proper, east of Babylonia, south of Media. Daniel was not present there personally, but in vision. Ulai--called in PLINY Euloeus; by the Greeks, Choaspes. Now Kerah, or Karasu. So in Dan 10:4 he receives a vision near another river, the Hiddekel. So Ezekiel (Eze 1:1) at the Chebar. Perhaps because synagogues used to be built near rivers, as before praying they washed their hands in the water [ROSENMULLER], (Psa 137:1).

Verse 3

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

Verse 4

ram pushing westward--Persia conquered westward Babylon, Mesopotamia, Syria, Asia Minor. northward--Colchis, Armenia, Iberia, and the dwellers on the Caspian Sea. southward--Judea, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya; also India, under Darius. He does not say eastward, for the Persians themselves came from the east (Isa 46:11). did according to his will-- (Dan 11:3, Dan 11:16; compare Dan 5:19).

Verse 5

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

Verse 6

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

Verse 7

moved with choler--Alexander represented the concentrated wrath of Greece against Persia for the Persian invasions of Greece; also for the Persian cruelties to Greeks, and Darius' attempts to seduce Alexander's soldiers to treachery [NEWTON]. stamped upon him--In 331 B.C. he defeated Darius Codomanus, and in 330 burned Persepolis and completed the conquest of Persia. none . . . could deliver--Not the immense hosts of Persia could save it from the small army of Alexander (Psa 33:16).

Verse 8

when he was strong . . . great horn was broken--The empire was in full strength at Alexander's death by fever at Babylon, and seemed then least likely to fall. Yet it was then "broken." His natural brother, Philip Aridoeus, and his two sons, Alexander Ægus and Hercules, in fifteen months were murdered. four . . . toward . . . four winds--Seleucus, in the east, obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, &c.; Cassander, in the west, Macedon Thessaly, Greece; PTOLEMY, in the south, Egypt, Cyprus, &c.; Lysimachus, in the north, Thrace, Cappadocia, and the north parts of Asia Minor.

Verse 9

little horn--not to be confounded with the little horn of the fourth kingdom in Dan 7:8. The little horn in Dan 7:8 comes as an eleventh horn after ten preceding horns. In Dan 8:9 it is not an independent fifth horn, after the four previous ones, but it arises out of one of the four existing horns. This horn is explained (Dan 8:23) to be "a king of fierce countenance," &c. Antiochus Epiphanes is meant. Greece with all its refinement produces the first, that is, the Old Testament Antichrist. Antiochus had an extraordinarly love of art, which expressed itself in grand temples. He wished to substitute Zeus Olympius for Jehovah at Jerusalem. Thus first heathen civilization from below, and revealed religion from above, came into collision. Identifying himself with Jupiter, his aim was to make his own worship universal (compare Dan 8:25 with Dan 11:36); so mad was he in this that he was called Epimanes (maniac) instead of Epiphanes. None of the previous world rulers, Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:31-34), Darius (Dan 6:27-28), Cyrus (Ezr 1:2-4), Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezr 7:12), had systematically opposed the Jews' religious worship. Hence the need of prophecy to prepare them for Antiochus. The struggle of the Maccabees was a fruit of Daniel's prophecy (1 Maccabees 2:59). He is the forerunner of the final Antichrist, standing in the same relation to the first advent of Christ that Antichrist does to His second coming. The sins in Israel which gave rise to the Greek Antichrist were that some Jews adopted Hellenic customs (compare Dan 11:30, Dan 11:32), erecting theaters, and regarding all religions alike, sacrificing to Jehovah, but at the same time sending money for sacrifices to Hercules. Such shall be the state of the world when ripe for Antichrist. At Dan 8:9 and Dan 8:23 the description passes from the literal Antiochus to features which, though partially attributed to him, hold good in their fullest sense only of his antitype, the New Testament Antichrist. The Mohammedan Antichrist may also be included; answering to the Euphratean (Turk) horsemen (Rev 9:14-21), loosed "an hour, a day, a month, a year" (391 years, in the year-day theory), to scourge corrupted, idolatrous Christianity. In A.D. 637 the Saracen Moslem mosque of Omar was founded on the site of the temple, "treading under foot the sanctuary" (Dan 8:11-13); and there it still remains.The first conquest of the Turks over Christians was in A.D. 1281; and 391 years after they reached their zenith of power and began to decline, Sobieski defeating them at Vienna. Mohammed II, called "the conqueror," reigned A.D. 1451-1481, in which period Constantinople fell 391 years after brings us to our own day, in which Turkey's fall is imminent. waxed . . . great, toward . . . south-- (Dan 11:25). Antiochus fought against PTOLEMY Philometer and Egypt, that is, the south. toward the east--He fought against those who attempted a change of government in Persia. toward the pleasant land--Judea, "the glorious land" (Dan 11:16, Dan 11:41, Dan 11:45; compare Psa 48:2; Eze 20:6, Eze 20:15). Its chief pleasantness consists in its being God's chosen land (Psa 132:13; Jer 3:19). Into it Antiochus made his inroad after his return from Egypt.

Verse 10

great, even to . . . host of heaven--explained in Dan 8:24, "the mighty and holy people," that is, the Jews (Dan 7:21) and their priests (compare Isa 24:21). The Levites' service is called "a warfare" (Num 8:24-25, Margin). Great civil and religious powers are symbolized by "stars" (Mat 24:29). See 1 Maccabees 1:25, &c.; 1 Maccabees 2:35, &c.; 1 Maccabees 5:2, 12, 13. TREGELLES refers "stars" to those Jews whose portion from God is heavenly glory (Dan 12:3), being believers in Him who is above at God's right hand: not the blinded Jews. cast . . . stars to the ground--So Babel, as type of Antichrist, is described (Isa 14:13-14), "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." Compare Rev 12:4; 2 Maccabees 9:10, as to Antiochus.

Verse 11

to the prince of the host--that is, God Himself, the Lord of Sabaoth, the hosts in heaven and earth, stars, angels, and earthly ministers. So Dan 8:25, "he shall stand up against the Prince of princes"; "against the God of gods" (Dan 11:36; compare Dan 7:8). He not only opposes God's ancient people, but also God Himself. daily sacrifice--offered morning and evening (Exo 29:38-39). taken away--by Antiochus (1 Maccabees 1:20-50). sanctuary . . . cast down--Though robbed of its treasures, it was not strictly cast down" by Antiochus. So that a fuller accomplishment is future. Antiochus took away the daily sacrifice for a few years; the Romans, for many ages, and "cast down" the temple; and Antichrist, in connection with Rome, the fourth kingdom, shall do so again after the Jews in their own land, still unbelieving, shall have rebuilt the temple, and restored the Mosaic ritual: God giving them up to him "by reason of transgression" (Dan 8:12), that is, not owning the worship so rendered [TREGELLES]; and then the opposition of the horn to the "truth" is especially mentioned.

Verse 12

an host--rather, "the host was given up to him," that is, the holy people were given into his hands. So in Dan 8:10 "the host" is used; and again in Dan 8:13, where also "give" is used as here for "giving up" for destruction (compare Dan 11:6) [MAURER]. against . . . daily sacrifice--rather (the host was given up for him to tread upon), "together with the daily sacrifice" (compare Dan 8:13). by reason of transgression--1 Maccabees 1:11-16 traces all the calamities suffered under Antiochus to the transgression of certain Jews who introduced heathen customs into Jerusalem just before. But transgression was not at the full (Dan 8:23) under Antiochus; for Onias the high priest administered the laws in godliness at the time (2 Maccabees 3:1). Therefore the "transgression" must refer to that of the Jews hereafter restored to Palestine in unbelief. the truth--the worship of the true God. Isa 59:14, "Truth is fallen in the street." practised, and prospered--Whatever he undertook succeeded (Dan 8:4; Dan 11:28, Dan 11:36).

Verse 13

that certain saint--Daniel did not know the names of these two holy angels, but saw only that one was speaking to the other. How long shall be the vision concerning . . . daily sacrifice--How long shall the daily sacrifice be suspended? transgression of desolation--literally, "making desolate," that is, Antiochus desolating profanation of the temple (Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11). Compare as to Rome and the last Antichrist, Mat 24:15.

Verse 14

unto me--The answer is to Daniel, not to the inquirer, for the latter had asked in Daniel's name; as vice versa the saint or angel (Job 15:15; Psa 89:6-7) speaks of the vision granted to Daniel, as if it had been granted to himself. For holy men are in Scripture represented as having attendant angels, with whom they are in a way identified in interests. If the conversation had been limited to the angels, it could have been of no use to us. But God conveys it to prophetical men, for our good, through the ministry of angels. two thousand . . . three hundred days--literally, "mornings and evenings," specified in connection with the morning and evening sacrifice. Compare Gen 1:5. Six years and a hundred ten days. This includes not only the three and a half years during which the daily sacrifice was forbidden by Antiochus [JOSEPHUS, Wars of the Jews, 1:1.1], but the whole series of events whereby it was practically interrupted: beginning with the "little horn waxing great toward the pleasant land," and "casting down some of the host" (Dan 8:9-10); namely, when in 171 B.C., or the month Sivan in the year 142 of the era of the SeleucidÃ&brvbr, the sacrifices began to be neglected, owing to the high priest Jason introducing at Jerusalem Grecian customs and amusements, the palÃ&brvbrstra and gymnasium; ending with the death of Antiochus, 165 B.C., or the month Shebath, in the year 148 of the Seleucid era. Compare 1 Maccabees 1:11-15; 2 Maccabees 4:9, &c. The reason for the greater minuteness of historical facts and dates, given in Daniel's prophecies, than in those of the New Testament, is that Israel, not having yet the clear views which Christians have of immortality and the heavenly inheritance, could only be directed to the earthly future: for it was on earth the looked-for Messiah was to appear, and the sum and subject of Old Testament prophecy was the kingdom of God upon earth. The minuteness of the revelation of Israel's earthly destiny was to compensate for the absence, in the Old Testament, of views of heavenly glory. Thus, in Dan 9:24-27, the times of Messiah are foretold to the very year; in Dan 8:14 the times of Antiochus, even to the day; and in Dan. 11:5-20 the Syro-Egyptian struggles in most minute detail. TREGELLES thinks the twenty-three hundred "days" answer to the week of years (Dan 9:27), during which the destroying prince (Dan 9:26) makes a covenant, which he breaks in the midst of the week (namely, at the end of three and a half years). The seven years exceed the twenty-three hundred days by considerably more than a half year. This period of the seven years' excess above the twenty-three hundred days may be allotted to the preparations needed for setting up the temple-worship, with Antichrist's permission to the restored Jews, according to his "covenant" with them; and the twenty-three hundred days may date from the actual setting up of the worship. But, says AUBERLEN, the more accurate to a day the dates as to Antiochus are given, the less should we say the 1290, or 1335 days (Dan 12:11-12) correspond to the half week (roughly), and the twenty-three hundred to the whole. The event, however, may, in the case of Antichrist, show a correspondence between the days here given and Dan 9:27, such as is not yet discernible. The term of twenty-three hundred days cannot refer twenty-three hundred years of the treading down of Christianity by Mohammedanism, as this would leave the greater portion of the time yet future; whereas, Mohammedanism is fast waning. If the twenty-three hundred days mean years, dating from Alexander's conquests, 334 B.C. to 323, we should arrive at about the close of the sixth thousand years of the world, just as the 1260 years (Dan 7:25) from Justinian's decree arrive at the same terminus. The Jews' tradition represents the seventh thousand as the millennium. CUMMING remarks, 480 B.C. is the date of the waning of the Persian empire before Greece; deducting 480 from 2300, we have 1820; and in 1821, Turkey, the successor of the Greek empire, began to wane, and Greece became a separate kingdom. See on Dan 12:11. cleansed--literally, "justified," vindicated from profanation. Judas Maccabeus celebrated the feast of dedication after the cleansing, on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month, Kisleu (1 Maccabees 4:51-58; 2 Maccabees 10:1-7; Joh 10:22). As to the antitypical dedication of the new temple, see Eze. 43:1-27, &c.; also Amo 9:11-12.

Verse 16

Gabriel--meaning, "the strength of God."

Verse 17

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

Verse 19

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

Verse 21

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

Verse 22

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

Verse 23

transgressors are come to the full--This does not hold good of the times of Antiochus, but of the closing times of the Christian era. Compare Luk 18:8, and Ti2 3:1-9, as to the wickedness of the world in general just before Christ's second coming. Israel's guilt, too, shall then be at the full, when they who rejected Christ shall receive Antichrist; fulfilling Jesus words, "I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (compare Gen 15:16; Mat 23:32; Th1 2:16). of fierce countenance-- (Deu 28:50); one who will spare neither old nor young. understanding dark sentences--rather, "artifices" [GESENIUS]. Antiochus made himself master of Egypt and Jerusalem successively by craft (1 Maccabees 1:30, &c.; 2 Maccabees 5:24, &c.).

Verse 24

not by his own power--which in the beginning was "little" (Dan 8:9; Dan 7:8); but by gaining over others through craft, the once little horn became "mighty" (compare Dan 8:25; Dan 11:23). To be fully realized by Antichrist. He shall act by the power of Satan, who shall then be permitted to work through him in unrestricted license, such as he has not now (Rev 13:2); hence the ten kingdoms shall give the beast their power (Th2 2:9-12; Rev 17:13). prosper and practise--prosper in all that he attempts (Dan 8:12). holy people--His persecutions are especially directed against the Jews.

Verse 25

by peace--by pretending "peace" and friendship; in the midst of security [GESENIUS], suddenly striking his blow (compare Note, see on Jer 15:8). "A spoiler at noon-day." also . . . against the Prince of princes--not merely against the Jews (Dan 8:11; Dan 11:36). broken without hand--by God's special visitation. The stone "cut out of the mountain without hands," that is, Christ is to smite the world power image on his feet (Dan 2:34), that is, in its last development (compare Dan 7:11). Antiochus horrible death by worms and ulcers, when on his way to Judea, intending to take vengeance for the defeat of his armies by the Maccabees, was a primary fulfilment, foreshadowing God's judgment on the last enemy of the Jewish Church.

Verse 26

shut . . . up . . . vision--implying the vision was not to be understood for the present. In Rev 22:10 it is said, "Seal not the vision, for the time is at hand." What in Daniel's time was hidden was more fully explained in Revelation, and as the time draws nearer, it will be clearer still. it shall be for many days--It refers to remote times (Eze 12:27).

Verse 27

I . . . was sick--through grief at the calamities coming on my people and the Church of God (compare Psa 102:14). afterward I . . . did the king's business--He who holds nearest communion with heaven can best discharge the duties of common life. none understood it--He had heard of kings, but knew not their names; He foresaw the events, but not the time when they were to take place; thereupon he could only feel "astonished," and leave all with the omniscient God [JEROME]. The world powers here recede from view; Israel, and the salvation by Messiah promised to it, are the subject of revelation. Israel had naturally expected salvation at the end of the captivity. Daniel is therefore told, that, after the seventy years of the captivity, seventy times seven must elapse, and that even then Messiah would not come in glory as the Jews might through misunderstanding expect from the earlier prophets, but by dying would put away sin. This ninth chapter (Messianic prophecy) stands between the two visions of the Old Testament Antichrist, to comfort "the wise." In the interval between Antiochus and Christ, no further revelation was needed; therefore, as in the first part of the book, so in the second, Christ and Antichrist in connection are the theme. Next: Daniel Chapter 9

Verse 1

In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar,.... Which some say (t) was the last year of his reign; but, according to Ptolemy's canon, he reigned seventeen years; and so says Josephus (u); however, this, as well as the preceding vision, were seen before what happened recorded in the "fifth" and "sixth" chapters. The following vision was seen by Daniel, according to Bishop Usher (w) and Dean Prideaux (x) in the year of the world 3451 A.M., and 553 B.C. Mr. Bedford (y) places it in 552 B.C.; and Mr. Whiston (z), very wrongly, in 537 B.C., two years after the death of Belshazzar. The prophet having, in the preceding chapters, related what concerned the Chaldeans, he wrote in the Chaldee language; but now, henceforward, writing of things which concerned the Jews more especially, and the church and people of God in later times, he writes in the Hebrew tongue. A vision appeared unto me, even to me Daniel; and not another; which is said for the certainty of it; whether it was seen by him waking, or in a dream, as the former vision, is not certain; it seems rather as if he was awake at first, though he afterwards fell prostrate to the ground, and into a deep sleep; yet the Syriac version takes it to be a dream, and so renders the first clause of the next verse: "after that which appeared to me at the first"; at the beginning of Belshazzar's reign, in the first year of it, recorded in the preceding chapter; which was concerning the four monarchies in general, and particularly concerning the fourth or Roman monarchy, of which a large account is given; and the Chaldean monarchy being near at an end, here the two monarchies between, namely, the Persian and Grecian, are in this vision described. (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.

Verse 2

And I saw in a vision,.... The following things: and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; not in reality, but so it seemed to him in the vision; as Ezekiel, when in Babylon, seemed in the visions of God to be at Jerusalem, Eze 8:3. This city Shushan, or Susa, as it is called by other writers, and signifies a "lily", was so called from the plenty of lilies that grew about it, or because of the pleasantness of it; it was the metropolis of the country Susiana, which had its name from it, and was afterwards the royal seat of the kings of Persia. This was first made so by Cyrus; for Strabo (a) says, that he and the Persians having overcome the Medes, observing that their own country was situated in the extreme parts, and Susa more inward, and nearer to other nations, being, as he says, between Persia and Babylon, set his royal palace in it; approving both the nearness of the country, and the dignity of the city. Here the kings of Persia laid up their treasures, even prodigious large ones; hence Aristagoras told Cleomenes, that if he could take that city, he would vie, and might contend, with Jupiter for riches (b); for hither Cyrus carried whatever money he had in Persia, even forty thousand talents, some say fifty (c). Alexander (d), when he took this city, found a vast quantity of riches in it. It is called here a palace; and so it is spoken of by Herodotus (e), Diodorus Siculus (f), Pausanius (g), Pliny (h), and others, as a royal city, where were the residence and palace of the kings of Persia; but the royal palace was not in it at this time; the kings of Babylon had their palace and kept their court at Babylon, where Daniel was; but in vision it seemed to him that he was in Shushan, and which was represented to him as a palace, as it would be, and as the metropolis of the kingdom of Persia, which he had a view of in its future flourishing condition, and as destroyed by Alexander; for, as before observed, it was Cyrus that first made it a royal city; whereas this vision was in the third year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon. Some versions render it, a "tower" or "castle"; and so several writers, as Strabo (i) Plutarch (k) and Pliny (l), speak of the tower or castle in it. Diodorus Siculus (m) says, when Antigonus took the tower of Susa, he found in it a golden vine, and a great quantity of other works, to the value of fifteen thousand talents; and out of crowns, and other gifts and spoils, he made up five thousand more. And Polybius (n) relates, that though Molon took the city, yet could not take the fortress, and was obliged to raise the siege, so strong it was. It must be a mistake of Pliny (o) that this city was built by Darius Hystaspes; he could only mean it was rebuilt, or rather enlarged, by him, since it was in being long before his time, and even a royal city in the times of Cyrus. Strabo (p) says it was built by Tithon the father of Merenon, was in compass a fifteen miles, of an oblong figure, and the tower was called after his father's name Mernnonia; and Shushan itself is called, by Herodotus (q), Susa Memnonia. At this day, with the common people, it goes by the name of Tuster (r). The east gate of the mountain of the house, which led to the temple at Jerusalem, was called Shushan. Some say (s) there was a building over this gate, on which the palace of Shushan was portrayed, from whence it had its name. The reason of this portrait is differently given; the Jewish commentators on the Misnah (t) commonly say that this was ordered by the kings of Persia, that the people of Israel might stand in awe of them, and not rebel against them. Their famous lexicographer (u) says, that this was done, that the Israelites, when they saw it, might remember their captivity in it. But a chronologer (w) of theirs gives this as the reason, that the children of the captivity made this figure, that they might remember the miracle of Purim, which was made in Shushan; and this, he says, is a good interpretation of it. This city was in the province of Elam; that is, Persia, as it is also called, Isa 21:6 for Josephus (x) says the Persians had their original from the Elamites, or Elameans; and Pliny (y) observes, that Elymais joined to Persia; and the country of Susiane, so called from Susa its chief city, was, according to Strabo (z) and Ptolemy (a1), a part of Persia: and here Daniel in vision thought himself to be; and a very suitable place for him to have this vision in, which so much concerned the affairs of Persia. And I saw in a vision, and I was by the river Ulai; that is, in vision; it seemed to the prophet that he was upon the banks of the river Ulai; the same with the Eulaeus of Strabo (b1), Pliny (c1), Ptolemy (d1), and others, which ran by, and surrounded, the city of Shushan, or Susa; the water of which was so light, as Strabo (e1) observes, that it was had in great request, and the kings of Persia would drink of no other, and carried it with them wherever they went. Herodotus (f1) and Curtius (g1) make mention of the river Choaspes, as running by Susa, and say the same things of its water; from whence it might be concluded it was one and the same river, called by different names; though Strabo takes notice of them together, as if they were distinct; yet he, from Polycletus (h1), makes them, with Tigris, to disembogue into the same lake, and from thence into the sea. The river which runs by Shushan, now called Souster, according to Monsieur Thevenot (i1), is Caron, and comes from the hills about it, and is thought to be the Choaspes of the ancients; near to which, as he was told, is a hill that now goes by the name of Choasp; so that, upon the whole, they seem to be one and the same river (k1). Josephus says (l1), that Daniel had this vision in the plain of Susa, the metropolis of Persia, as he went out with his friends, that is, out of the city: and the Vulgate Latin version renders it, "by the gate Ulai"; a gate of the city of Shushan so called: and so Saadiah Gaon interprets it a gate; but the former sense is best. (a) Geograph. l. 15. p. 500. (b) Herodoti Terpsichore, sive l. 5. c. 48. (c) Strabo. ib. p. 502. (d) Curtius, l. 5. c. 2. Plutarch. in Vita Alexandri, Diador. Sicul. Bibliothec. l. 17. p. 540. (e) Terpsichore, sive l. 5. sect. 48. (f) Bibliothec. l. 17. p. 539. (g) Laconice, sive l. 3. p. 175. (h) Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 27. (i) Geograph. l. 15. p. 500. (k) In Vita Alexandri. (l) Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 27.) (m) Bibliothec. l. 17. p. 540. (n) Hist. l. 5. p. 249. (o) Ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 27.) (p) Geograph. l. 15. p. 500. (q) Polymnia, sive l. 7. c. 151. (r) Hiller. Onomastic. Sacr. p. 658, 935. (s) Jarchi & Bartenora in Misn. Celim, c. 17. sect. 9. (t) Maimon & Bartenora in Misn. Kelim, c. 17. sect. 9. & Middot, c. 1. sect. 3. (u) R. Nathan, Sepher Aruch in voce fol. 160. 3. (w) R. Abraham Zacuth, Sepher Juchasin, fol. 65. 2. (x) Antiqu. l. 1. c. 6. sect. 4. (y) Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 27. (z) Geograph. l. 15. p. 500. (a1) Geograph. l. 6. c. 3. (b1) Geograph. p. 501, 505. (c1) Ut supra, (Nat. Hist.) l. 6. c. 23, 27. (d1) Geograph. l. 6. c. 3. (e1) Ut supra, (Geograph.) p. 505. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 27. (f1) Clio, sive l. 1. c. 188. Terpsichore, sive l. 5. c. 49, 52. (g1) Ut supra. (Curtius, l. 5. c. 2.) (h1) Geograph. l. 15. p. 501. (i1) Travels, part 2. B. 3. c. 9. p. 153. (k1) See the Universal History, vol. 5. p. 124. (l1) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 7.

Verse 3

Then I lifted up mine eyes,.... To see what was to be seen in this place, where he in the vision was brought; he lifted up the eyes of his understanding, being enlightened by the vision of prophecy, and the eyes of his body, to which objects of corporeal things formed in the fancy were represented: and saw, and, behold; he saw something wonderful in a visionary way, and which struck his mind, and raised his attention: there stood before the river; the river Ulai, near Shushan, the palace, the seat of the kings of Persia, to the east: a ram, which had two horns; a symbol of the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, signified by the two horns, Dan 8:20, an emblem of power and dominion, and sometimes used to signify kings and kingdoms; see Dan 7:24 and these as united in one monarchy, under one monarch, Cyrus, and continued in his successors unto the times of Alexander; and therefore called "a ram", or "one ram" (m), as in the original; and which in sound has some likeness to Elam or Persia: and this kingdom or monarchy may be signified by it, partly because of its strength and power, and partly because of its riches, as some think, as well as because it is a fighting creature; and it may be chiefly because this monarchy was mild, and kind, and gentle to the Jewish nation: and it is very remarkable, that, according to Ammianus Marcellinus (n), the ram was the royal ensign of the Persians; whose kings used to wear for a diadem something made of gold, in the shape of a ram's head, set with little stones: and the two horns were high; grew straight up on high, and so were different from the usual horns of a ram, which are crooked; denoting the great power, authority, wealth, and riches, these two kingdoms rose up unto: but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last; I think the words might be rendered better, "and the first was higher than the second, but it ascended, or grew up, higher at last" (o); the kingdom of the Medes was the first kingdom, and it was at first superior to the kingdom of Persia; but afterwards the kingdom of Persia became greater than that, under Cyrus and his successors: and Sir John Chardin says (p), that rams' heads, with horns one higher than another, are still to be seen in the ruins of Persepolis. (m) "aries unus", V. L. Pagninus, Montanus, &c. (n) Hist. l. 19. (o) . (p) Travels, vol. 3.

Verse 4

I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward,.... That is, with his horns, as rams do; these kingdoms using all their power and strength, wealth and riches, in fighting with and subduing nations, and pushing on their conquests in all parts here mentioned; to the west, Babylon, Syria, Asia, and part of Greece; to the north, Iberia, Albania, Armenia, Scythia, Colchis, and the inhabitants of the Caspian sea; and to the south, Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and India; all which places were conquered by Cyrus and his successors. No mention is made of the east, because this ram stood in the east, facing the west; and at the right and left were the north and south; and so Cyrus is said to come from the east, Isa 46:11. So that no beast might stand before him: no, not the first beast, the Babylonian monarchy, which; fell into the hands of Cyrus; nor any other king or kingdom he and his successors fought against: neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; or power; Croesus, the rich king of Lydia, and other allies of the king of Babylon, assisted him against Cyrus, and endeavoured to prevent his falling into his hands, but all in vain: but he did according to his will, and became great; none being able to oppose him, he carried his arms where he pleased, and imposed what tribute he thought fit, and obliged them to do whatever was his will; and so became great in power and dignity, in riches and wealth: this monarchy was very large and extensive, and very rich and wealthy, in the times of Cyrus and his successors; and especially in the times of Darius, the last monarch of it, conquered by Alexander, who is described as follows:

Verse 5

And as I was considering,.... The ram, and the strange things done by him; wondering that a creature of so little strength, comparatively with other beasts, should be able to do such exploits: and thinking with himself what should be the meaning of all this, and what would be the issue of it, behold, an he goat came from the west; which is interpreted of the king or kingdom of Grecia, which lay to the west of Persia; and a kingdom may be said to do what one of its kings did; particularly Alexander, king of Macedon, in Greece, who, with the Grecian army under him, marched from thence to fight the king of Persia; and which might be signified by a "he goat", because of its strength, its comeliness in walking, and its being the guide and leader of the flock: and also it is remarkable, that the arms of Macedon, or the ensigns carried before their armies, were a goat, ever since the days of Caranus; who following a flock of goats, was directed to Edessa, a city of Macedon, and took it; and from this circumstance of the goats called it Aegeas, and the people Aegeades, which signifies "goats"; and put the goat in his arms (q). On the face of the whole earth; all that lay between Greece and Persia, all Asia; yea, all the whole world, at least as Alexander thought, who wept because there was not another world to conquer: hence Juvenal says (r), "unus Pelloeo juveni non sufficit orbis"; one world was not enough for this young man. And touched not the ground; as he went; he seemed rather to fly in the air than to walk upon the earth; with such swiftness did Alexander run over the world, and make his conquests: in six or eight years time he conquered the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, Babylon, Egypt, and all the neighbouring nations; and afar off, Greece, Thrace, Illyricum, and even the greatest part of the then known world: hence the third or Grecian monarchy under him is said to be like a leopard, with four wings of a fowl on its back (s); see Gill on Dan 7:6 he conquered countries as soon almost as another could have travelled over them; in his marches he was swift and indefatigable. Aelianus (t) reports, that he marched, clad in armour, thrice four hundred, that is, twelve hundred furlongs, upon a stretch; and, before his army could take any rest, fought his enemies, and conquered them. Some render the words, "whom no man touched in the earth" (u); that is, none could oppose, resist, and stop him; he bore down and carried all before him; there was no coming at him, so as to touch him, or hurt him; he was so swift in his motions, and so powerful in his army. And the goat had a notable horn between his eyes; or, "a horn of vision": which in Dan 8:21 is interpreted of the first king of Greece, that is, when it became a monarchy; who was Alexander the great; and very properly called a "horn", being possessed of great power and authority; and a notable one, very remarkable and famous, as he has been in all ages since: "a horn of vision" (w) as it may be rendered; a very visible and conspicuous one, to be seen afar off, and which attracted the eyes of all unto it: its situation was "between the eyes of the goat", denoting his sagacity, wisdom, prudence, craft, and cunning; being attended and surrounded with his father Philip's wise counsellors as Parmenio, Philotas, Clitus, and others. It is remarkable that by the Arabs Alexander is called Dulcarnaim, or Dhilcarnain; that is, one having two horns (x): the reason of which was, he affected to be the son of Jupiter Hammon, and therefore at feasts and public entertainments would put on the purple and horns of Hammon: hence, as Clemens of Alexandria observes (y), he is by the statuaries represented as horned, or wearing horns; but then, as Arnobius (z) and others take notice, Hammon is made by the painters and statuaries to have ram's horns; whereas it seems more likely that Alexander's were goat's horns, since the goat was in the arms of Macedon; and so Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who mimicked Alexander in his armour, is said to have goat's horns on his helmet, upon the top of his crest (a); and to such ensigns is the allusion here. (q) Justin ex Trogo, l. 7. c. 1. (r) Satyr. 10. (s) Alexander was remarkable for the agility of his body, as appeared by his mounting his horse Bucephalus (Plutarch in Vita Alexandri), to the admiration of his father, and all that beheld him; as well as famous for the quick marches of his army, and his very swift and expeditious execution of his signs. "Plurimum pedum celeritate pollebat"; he greatly excelled in swiftness of foot, says the historian: and again, "armatusque de navi, tripudianti similis prosiluit"; he leaped armed out of the ship like one that danced (Suppl. in Curt. l. 1. p. 16. l. 2. p. 26) And he himself, speaking of the countries he had conquered, says, "quas tanta velocitate domuimus": and elsewhere, "cujus velocitatem nemo valuisset effugere". And of Bessus it is said, that "Alexandri celeritate perterritus". And Cobares, the magician calls him "velocissimus rex" (Curt. Hist. l. 6. c. 3. & l. 7. c. 4. 7.). And another historian says (Justin ex Trogo, l. 11. c. 2. & l. 12. c. 9.) that having observed the enemy's city forsook by them, "sine ullo satellite desiliit in planitiem urbis": and again, "tanta celeritate instructo paraloque exercitu Graeciam oppressi; ut quem venire non senserant, videre se vix crederant". (t) Var. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. (u) quem neme attingebat in terra, Junius & Tremellius. (w) "cornu visionis", Montanus; "visibile sive visendum", Vatablus; "conspicuum", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. (x) See Gregory, de Aeris & Epochis, c. 11. p. 158, 159. (y) Protreptic. ad Gentes, p. 36. (z) Adv. Gentes, l. 6. p. 233. (a) Plutarch. in Vita Pyrrhi.

Verse 6

And he came to the ram that had two horns,.... Alexander being chosen and made by the states of Greece captain general of all Greece against the Persians, marched from thence with his army, passed the Hellespont, and entered into the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, signified by the ram with two horns, and came up to Darius Codomannus, possessed of this large monarchy, and at the head of a numerous army: which I had seen standing before the river; the river Ulai, near to Shushan, the royal seat of the kings of Persia; here Darius stood in his royal majesty and dignity, as the defender of his empire, and unconcerned at the attempt of Alexander, having nothing to fear, as he thought, from such a puny adversary: and ran unto him in the fury of his power; or, "heat of his power" (b); which denotes the haste Alexander made with his army into Asia; his eager desire, and the fervour of his mind to engage with the Persians: the historian says, that he passed the Hellespont into Asia, "incredibli ardore mentis accensus"; fired with an incredible ardour of mind: and a little after, having conquered the rebels of Pisidia, he marched against Darius, "summo mentis ardore"; with the greatest ardour of mind, and with no less alacrity (c); which exactly agrees with the sacred text. The running of the he goat to the ram in a hostile way is described in allusion to the manner of those creatures when they fight with one another, or attack an enemy. (b) "fervore virtutis suae", Munster; "cum ardore virium suarum", Cocceius; "in aestu robaris sui", Michaelis. (c) Supplem. in Curt. l. 2. p. 26, 28.

Verse 7

And I saw him come close unto the ram,.... Though the distance between Greece and Persia was very great, and many rivers and mountains in the way, which seemed impassable; Alexander got over them all, and came up to Darius, and fought several battles with him, and entirely defeated him, though greatly inferior in number to him, as follows: and he was moved with choler against him; exceedingly embittered against him; exasperated and provoked to the last degree, by the proud and scornful message he sent him; calling himself king of kings, and akin to the gods, and Alexander his servant; ordering his nobles to take Philip's madding stripling, as he called him in contempt, and whip him with children's rods, and clothe him in purple, and deliver him bound to him; then sink his ships with the mariners, and transport all his soldiers to the further part of the Red sea (d): and smote the ram; in three battles, in each of which the Persians were smitten and routed by the Grecians: first at the river Granicus, where Alexander with thirty thousand foot, and five thousand horse, met the Persians, though more than five times his number, being, as Justin (e) says, six hundred thousand, and got the victory over them; here twenty thousand of the Persian footmen, and two hundred and fifty of their horse, were slain, and not more than thirty nine of the Macedonians killed (f): Plutarch (g) says, it was reported that the Persians lost twenty thousand footmen, and two thousand five hundred horse; and from Aristobulus he says, that the Macedonians lost only thirty four men, of which twelve were footmen: and Diodorus Siculus (h) relates that the Persians lost more than ten thousand footmen, and not less than two thousand horse, and more than twenty thousand were taken: according to Justin (i), of Alexander's army there only fell nine footmen, and a hundred and twenty horsemen: others say, that, of the Macedonians, twenty five men of Alexander's own troop fell in the first attack, about sixty other of the horsemen were killed, and thirty of the footmen (k); so different are the accounts of the slain in this battle; however, the victory appears to be very great, whereby Sardis, with all Darius's rich furniture, fell into the hands of Alexander, and all the provinces of the lesser Asia submitted to him. The next battle was fought at Issus its Cilicia, where Darius had an army, according to Plutarch (l), consisting of six hundred thousand men; according to Justin (m), four hundred thousand footmen, and a hundred thousand horsemen, which was routed by Alexander; when a hundred thousand of the Persian footmen, and ten thousand of their horsemen, were slain; and only, on Alexander's side, five hundred and four of the footmen wounded, thirty two wanting, and a hundred and fifty of the horsemen killed (n): here also the accounts vary; Plutarch (o) says above a hundred and ten thousand of the Persians were slain: according to Diodorus Siculus (p), there fell of them a hundred and twenty thousand footmen, and not less than ten thousand horsemen; and of the Macedonians three hundred footmen, and about a hundred and fifty horsemen: according to Arrian (q), the Persians lost ten thousand horsemen, and ninety thousand footmen: according to Justin (r), sixty one thousand footmen, and ten thousand horsemen, were slain, and forty thousand taken; and of the Macedonians there fell one hundred and thirty footmen, and one hundred and fifty horsemen; but, be it as it will, the victory was exceeding great, whereby the camp of Darius, his mother, wife, and children, and all his riches at Damascus, fell into the hands of Alexander, with all Syria. The third and last battle was fought near Arbela, or rather at Gaugamela in Assyria, when Alexander with fifty thousand men beat Darius with an army of eleven hundred thousand men; Plutarch (s) says ten hundred thousand; forty thousand of which were slain, and of the Macedonians only three hundred or less were wanting (t); according to Arrian (u) thirty thousand were slain; but Diodorus Siculus (w) says ninety thousand: this was the decisive battle; after this Babylon and Persepolis were taken by Alexander, and he became master of the whole empire, which is intended in the next clause: and brake his two horns; conquered the Medes and Persians, the two kingdoms united in one monarchy, but now destroyed; another monarchy, the Grecian, took its place: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him there was no strength in tim whole empire sufficient to resist, oppose, and stop him; though vast armies were collected together, these were soon broken and routed, and Darius at the head of them was forced to fly and make his escape in the best manner he could; but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: not Darius personally, for he was slain by Bessus, one of his own captains; but the Persian empire, it ceased to be, and was no longer in the hands of the Persians, but was taken from them by Alexander; and all the glory and majesty of it were defaced and despised; the famous city and palace of Persepolis were burnt in a drunken fit, at the instigation of Thais the harlot: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand; not his armies, nor his generals, nor his allies, nor his offers to Alexander of his daughter in marriage, and part of his kingdom; all were in vain, and to no purpose; he and his whole empire fell into the conqueror's hands, and there was no remedy against it. Josephus (x) says, that when Alexander was in his way to Jerusalem, Jaddus, the high priest, met and accompanied him into the city and temple, and showed him this prophecy of Daniel, that some one of the Grecians should abolish the empire of the Persians; and, thinking himself to be intended, was greatly pleased. Gorionides (y) says the high priest, whom he calls Ananias, said to Alexander, on showing him the prophecy, thou art this he goat, and Darius is the ram; and thou shall trample him to the ground, and take the kingdom out of his hand; and he greatly strengthened the heart of the king. (d) Supplem. in Curt. l. 2. p. 27. (e) Trogo, l. 11. c. 6. (f) Supplem. in Curt. l. 2. p. 28. (g) In Vit. Alexandri. (h) Bibliothec. l. 17. p. 503. (i) E Trogo, l. 11. c. 6. (k) Universal History, vol. 5. p. 297. (l) In Vit. Alexandri. (m) E Trogo, l. 11. c. 9. (n) Curtius, l. 3. c. 11. (o) In Vita Alexandri. (p) Bibliothec l. 17. p. 515. (q) Exped. Alex. l. 2. (r) E. Trogo, l. 11. c. 9. (s) Vit. Alexandri. (t) Curtius, l. 4. c. 16. (u) Ut supra, ( Exped. Alex.) l. 3. (w) Biblioth. l. 17. p. 536. (x) Antiqu. l. 11. c. 8. sect. 5. (y) Heb. Hist. l. 2. c. 7. p. 88.

Verse 8

Therefore the he goat waxed very great,.... The Grecian monarchy, under Alexander, became very powerful, and was very extensive; he not only conquered the Persian empire, but also the Indies, yea, the whole world, as he imagined; and indeed he did bring into subjection to him the greatest part of the then known world; and he was very great in his own esteem, at least reckoned himself lord of the world, called himself the son of Jupiter Ammon, and affected to be worshipped as a god: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; when the Grecian monarchy was established, and became very powerful, and reached to the greatest part of the earth, then Alexander the first king of it, a great horn, and powerful monarch, died, or was broken; not as the two horns of the ram, by the power of the enemy; not by violence, but by intemperance, in a drunken fit, or, as was suspected, by poison; and that when he was in the height of his glory, swelled with his victories; and that in the prime of his days, when in his full strength, being in the "thirty third" year of his age: and for it, or in the room and stead of it (z), came up four notable ones; or, "four horns of vision" (a); very famous and conspicuous, like that in Dan 8:5, which were the four kingdoms into which the empire was divided some time after Alexander's death, and the four kings that were over them: the kingdoms were those of Egypt, Greece, Asia, and Syria. Ptolemy was king of Egypt, to which belonged Lybia, Palestine, Arabia, and Caelesyria. Cassander was king of Macedonia and Greece. Lysimachus was king of Asia, to which belonged Thrace, Bithynia, and other places; and Seleucus was king of Syria, and of the eastern countries: these are the four heads of the leopard, or third beast, which signifies the Grecian monarchy, Dan 7:6 and these were toward the four winds of heaven; east, west, north, and south: Egypt, with its appendages, lay to the south; Asia, and what belonged to that, to the north; Macedonia and Greece to the west; and Syria to the east: and thus was the Grecian empire divided into four kingdoms, among the successors of Alexander: there were some partitions of it before this into provinces among governors, under the brother and son of Alexander; but after the battle of Ipsus, in which Antigonus, one of Alexander's captains, and a very principal, active, and ambitious man, was slain, and his army routed; the four confederate princes against him, above named, divided by consent the empire between them into separate kingdoms, and became really, and not in title only, kings of them (b); which is what is here prophesied of. (z) "loco ejus, vel illius", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius, Michaelis. (a) "quatuor cornua conspicua", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator; "cornua aspectus quatuor", Michaelis. (b) See Prideaux's Connexion, part 1. B. 8. p. 558, 559.

Verse 9

And out of one of them came forth a little horn,.... Meaning not the kingdom of Titus Vespasian, as Jarchi; nor the kingdom of the Turks, as Saadiah; but the kingdom of Antiochia, as Aben Ezra and Jacchiades; or rather Antiochus Epiphanes, who sprung from the kingdom of the Seleucidae in Syria, or from Seleucus king of Syria, one of the four horns before mentioned: this is that sinful root said to come out from thence, in the Apocrypha: "And there came out of them a wicked root Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.'' (1 Maccabees 1:10) called "a horn", because he had some power and authority, and which he usurped and increased in; though but a "little" one in comparison of Alexander the great horn; or at his beginning, being an hostage at Rome; from whence he got away by stealth, and seized the kingdom of Syria, which belonged to his elder brother's son, whom he dispossessed of it; and by mean, artful, and deceitful methods, got it into his hands, who had no right unto it, nor any princely qualities for it: which waxed exceeding great toward the south; towards Egypt, which lay south of Syria; into which Antiochus entered, and fought against Ptolemy Philometer, king of it, took many cities, and besieged Alexandria; and in all probability would have subdued the whole country, had not the Romans (c) restrained him, by sending their ambassador Popilius to him, who obliged him to desist and depart; "17 Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy, 18 And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. 19 Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt and he took the spoils thereof. 20 And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude,'' (1 Maccabees 1) and toward the east; towards Armenia and Persia, the Atropatii in Media, and the countries beyond the Euphrates, whom he made tributary to him; in the Apocrypha: "Wherefore, being greatly perplexed in his mind, he determined to go into Persia, there to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money.'' (1 Maccabees 3:31) "1 About that time king Antiochus travelling through the high countries heard say, that Elymais in the country of Persia was a city greatly renowned for riches, silver, and gold; 2 And that there was in it a very rich temple, wherein were coverings of gold, and breastplates, and shields, which Alexander, son of Philip, the Macedonian king, who reigned first among the Grecians, had left there.'' (1 Maccabees 6) and toward the pleasant land; the land of Judea, so called because of its delightful situation, and great fruitfulness; and because God chose it above all others for his habitation; where his word, and worship, and ordinances, were observed and enjoyed; and where the Messiah should be born and dwell; into this Antiochus led his army, and greatly afflicted and distressed it; he made himself master of most places in Galilee and Judea. The Arabic version reads "toward the west"; no mention is made of the north, because there he himself reigned; Syria being north to Egypt, as that was south to Syria; hence afterwards the king of Egypt is called the king of the south, and the king of Syria the king of the north. (c) See Joseph. Antiqu. l. 12. c. 5. sect. 2.

Verse 10

And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven,.... The people of the Jews, the army of the living God, the church militant, among whom were many of the citizens of heaven, whose names are written there; such was the insolence of this king, as to molest and disturb them: and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped them; some of the common people he persecuted and destroyed, or prevailed upon them, either by threats or flatteries, to relinquish their religion; and even some of the "stars", the lights of the people, the priests and Levites, that ministered unto them; or the princes, and elders of the people, whom he slew, as Jacchiades interprets it; or removed from their posts so that they could not do their office; or they turned apostates; and those that did not he barbarously put to death, and insulted over them, and used them in a very contemptuous manner, as old Eleazar, the mother and her seven sons; see 2 Maccabees chapter 7.

Verse 11

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince host,.... Either the high priest Onias, whom he disposed of his office, and put Jason a wicked man into it; or Judas Maccabeus, the prince of the Jewish nation; or rather, as Jacchiades, God himself, the Lord God of Israel, the King, Prince, Governor, and defender of them, whom Antiochus blasphemed; whose worship he puts stop to; and whose temple he profaned, and ill used his people; all which was against God himself, and is a proof of the pride and insolence of this king: and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away; the lambs in the morning and evening were forbid to be sacrificed; or they could not be offered, because the altar was pulled down, or profaned; and so all other sacrifices were made to cease, as well as this, which is put for all: or, "from him" (d), the prince, "the daily sacrifice was taken away"; either from the priest, who used to offer it; or from God, to whom it was offered: and the place of his sanctuary was cast down: not that the temple was destroyed by him, but it was profaned and rendered useless; the worship of God was not carried on in it, but the image of Jupiter was set up in it, and it was devoted to the service of an idol; yea, the altar was pulled down, and all the vessels and ornaments of the temple were taken away and destroyed; in the Apocrypha: "And the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off.'' (1 Maccabees 1:22) "Now Jerusalem lay void as a wilderness, there was none of her children that went in or out: the sanctuary also was trodden down, and aliens kept the strong hold; the heathen had their habitation in that place; and joy was taken from Jacob, and the pipe with the harp ceased.'' (1 Maccabees 3:45) "And lo, the heathen are assembled together against us to destroy us: what things they imagine against us, thou knowest.'' (1 Maccabees 3:52) (d) "ab eo", Pagninus, Montanus, Cocceius, "ab ipso", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Michaelis.

Verse 12

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression,.... Which some interpret of a garrison of soldiers placed by Antiochus, through his sin and wickedness, to hinder the oblation of the daily sacrifice, as Grotius: others, of a host of apostates among the Jews, who advised Antiochus against the daily sacrifice, and to kill swine, and offer them on the altar, as Jacchiades; or rather it may be rendered, "and the host was given over", or "delivered", i.e. to the enemy, "because of the transgression against the daily sacrifice" (e); that is, because of the transgression of the priests or the people, in neglecting the daily sacrifice, the host or people of the Jews were delivered up into the hands of Antiochus; or they were delivered up, together with the daily sacrifice, for their sins (f). The word is by Jarchi and Ben Melech interpreted a set time, a fixed time which shall have an end; and Calvin inclines to this sense, that though the daily sacrifice would be taken away, because of the transgression of the people, yet it was only for a certain time, and would be restored again when that time was up; and so is spoken for the comfort of the Lord's people: and it cast down the truth to the ground: that is, the little horn Antiochus, or his host and army; he did all that in him lay to extirpate and abolish true religion and godliness; he cut in pieces the copies of the book of the law, and burnt them, called the law of truth in Mal 2:6, as Jacchiades observes, and put to death the professors of the truth; and showed all the contempt of true doctrine and worship he was capable of; see the Apocrypha: "57 And whosoever was found with any the book of the testament, or if any committed to the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death. 58 Thus did they by their authority unto the Israelites every month, to as many as were found in the cities. 59 Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God. 60 At which time according to the commandment they put to death certain women, that had caused their children to be circumcised.'' (1 Maccabees 1) and it practised, and prospered; he did what he pleased, and he succeeded in his attempts for a while, there being none to oppose him. (e) "exercitusque traditus est propter trangressionem contra res circa illud juge sacrificium", Vatablus. (f) "Et exercitus tradetur una cum sacrificio jugi ob praevaricationem", Michaelis.

Verse 13

Then I heard one saint speaking,.... An angel, either a created angel, pure and holy in his nature, as Gabriel; or the uncreated Angel Jesus Christ, the Word of God; what he was speaking of is not said; perhaps Daniel did not hear what he said, though he heard him speaking, or perceived that he spake; yet did not understand what he said, or what was the subject of his discourse; very probably it was something relative to the vision now seen: and another saint said unto that certain saint that spake; another angel said to him that spake, whose name is unknown, only called such an one, or Palmoni, which some render "the wonderful numberer"; or, "the numberer of secrets", or "that has all secrets numbered" (g); and apply it to Christ, whose name is "Pele", wonderful; the eternal Word of God, that is in the bosom of the Father, and knows all secrets, and the number of times and seasons, how long they will last; what created angels know not, he does; and therefore they apply to him for instruction and knowledge in hidden things: how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot? that is, how long will this vision last? or when will this prophecy be at an end, and have its full and final accomplishment? how long will the sacrifice be taken away, or made to cease? how long will that transgression, that abomination, making the temple desolate, the image of Jupiter Olympius set up by Antiochus, continue in it? how long shall it be given to him, or he be permitted to tread under foot, and use in the most contemptuous manner, the temple of the Lord, and his people? (g) "illi qui occulta in numerato habet", Junius & Tremellius.

Verse 14

And he said unto me,.... That is, "Palmoni", the wonderful person, to whom the angel put the above question, gave the answer to it; not unto the angel that asked it, but unto Daniel that stood by; knowing that it was for his and his people's sake the question was asked, and therefore gave the answer to him, as follows: unto two thousand and three hundred days; or so many "mornings" and "evenings" (h); which shows that not so many years, as Jacchiades, and others, are meant; but natural days, consisting of twenty four hours, and which make six years, three months, and eighteen days; and reckoning from the fifteenth day of the month Cisleu, in the year 145 of the Selucidae, in which Antiochus set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, in the Apocrypha: "Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God.'' (1 Maccabees 1:59) to the victory obtained over Nicanor by Judas, on the thirteenth day of the month Adar, Anno 151, are just 2300 days; which day the Jews kept as an annual feast, in commemoration of that victory; and from that time enjoyed peace and rest from war (i): this way goes L'Empereur after Capellus; but others begin from the defection of the people from the pure religion by Menelaus, Anno 141; though Antiochus did not enter on his impieties till the following year; and, reckoning from the sixth day of the sixth month in that year, to the twenty fifth day of Cisleu in the year 148, when the Jews offered the daily sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offerings, in the Apocrypha: "Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month, which is called the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and eighth year, they rose up betimes in the morning, 53 And offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of burnt offerings, which they had made. '' (1 Maccabees 4:52) were just six years, three months, and eighteen days: and so it follows, and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed; as it was by Judas Maccabeus at the time above mentioned; when he purified the holy places, sanctified the courts, rebuilt the altar, renewed the vessels of the sanctuary, and put all in their proper places; in the Apocrypha: "41 Then Judas appointed certain men to fight against those that were in the fortress, until he had cleansed the sanctuary. 42 So he chose priests of blameless conversation, such as had pleasure in the law: 43 Who cleansed the sanctuary, and bare out the defiled stones into an unclean place. 44 And when as they consulted what to do with the altar of burnt offerings, which was profaned; 45 They thought it best to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the heathen had defiled it: wherefore they pulled it down, 46 And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them. 47 Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former; 48 And made up the sanctuary, and the things that were within the temple, and hallowed the courts. 49 They made also new holy vessels, and into the temple they brought the candlestick, and the altar of burnt offerings, and of incense, and the table. 50 And upon the altar they burned incense, and the lamps that were upon the candlestick they lighted, that they might give light in the temple. 51 Furthermore they set the loaves upon the table, and spread out the veils, and finished all the works which they had begun to make.'' (1 Maccabees 4) Indeed, as Antiochus was a type of antichrist, and his persecution of that desolation made by antichrist in the church; these 2300 days may be considered as so many years, which will bring it down to the end of the sixth Millennium, or thereabout; when it may be hoped there will be a new face of things upon the sanctuary and church of God, and a cleansing of it from all corruption in doctrine, discipline, worship, and conversation. (h) "vespero matutina", Castalio; "vespertina matutinaque tempora", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. (i) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 12. c. 10. sect. 5.

Verse 15

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

Verse 16

And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai,.... Near to which Daniel was, Dan 8:2 and it seemed to him as if the appearance of the man was in the midst of the river, between the banks of it, from whence the voice came; or between the arms of it, it bending and winding about; or rather between Shushan and the river; or between the prophet and that: this voice was the voice of the person that appeared as a man in the preceding verse: which called, and said, Gabriel; the voice was loud, audible, and commanding; even to an angel, one of great note, Gabriel, the man of God, the mighty one; and shows, that the person that made this appearance, and spoke in this authoritative way, was the Lord, and head of angels, even of all principalities and power, at whose beck and command they are: make this man to understand the vision; the above vision of the ram, he goat, and little horn; give him a full explanation of it; tell him what the several figures mean, represented in it; that he may have a clear understanding of all things contained in it; the saints and people of God are sometimes instructed by angels, and particularly the prophets of old were; and which was more common in the times of the former dispensation than now; for God has not put in subjection to angels the world to come, or the Gospel dispensation, Heb 2:5.

Verse 17

So he came near where I stood,.... The angel immediately obeyed the divine Person in human form, and came near the prophet, in order to instruct him, and carry on a familiar conversation with him: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face; not being able to bear the glory that attended him; and especially when he considered him as the messenger of a divine Person sent to instruct him, and being conscious of his own frailty and weakness: but he said unto me, understand, O son of man: give attention in order to understand the vision, which the angel, by a divine command, was about to give him the full meaning of; and which he could not so well attend unto in his present circumstance and posture; and therefore suggests he should shake off his fear, and stand on his feet, and listen to what he was about to say: he calls him "son of man", a title only given to him and Ezekiel; and so may be considered as a mark of honour and respect, as being one greatly beloved and honoured by the Lord; or to express his tender regard to him, and accommodating himself to him, considering he was a frail mortal man; or to put him in mind that he should so consider himself, though now among angels, and favoured with revelations of secrets, that so he might not be exalted with them above measure: for at the time of the end shall be the vision; or rather, "for a time is the end of the vision" (l); there is a set, fixed, and determined time, when the vision shall end, and have its full accomplishment; namely, when the 2300 days are expired. (l) "ad tempus, finis visionis", Munster, Montanus, Calvin.

Verse 18

Now as he was speaking with me,.... Addressing him in the above manner: I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground; through fear he fell prostrate to the ground, and swooned away, which issued in a deep sleep; and so was unfit to attend to the explanation of the vision the angel was sent to give him; and which was not through indifference to it, or neglect of it; but through human weakness, his nature not being able to bear up under such circumstances, which struck him with such fear and dread: but he touched me, and set me upright; he jogged him out of his sleep, and took him, and raised him up, and set him on his feet; or, "on his standing" (m); which Ben Melech explains, as he "was standing at first"; and so in a better posture to attend to what was about to be revealed unto him. (m) "super stare meum", Montanus, Gejerus; "super stationem meam", Michaelis.

Verse 19

And he said, behold, I will make thee know,.... Or, "make known unto thee" (n); what he knew not, even things future: particularly what shall be in the last end of the indignation; the indignation of God against the people of Israel, in the sore affliction and persecution of them by Antiochus, which he suffered to be; here the angel suggests that that should not remain always, but should have an end; and he would inform the prophet what should be at the close; or rather, as Noldius (o) renders it, "what shall be unto the last end of the indignation"; all that should come to pass from the beginning of the Persian monarchy, signified by the "ram", quite through the Grecian monarchy, designed by the "he goat", unto the end of the persecution by Antiochus; for, certain it is, the angel informed the prophet of more things than what concerned the last part and, closing scene of these sorrowful times; even of all the above said things, which intervened between the setting up of the Persian monarchy, and the sufferings of the Jews in the times of Antiochus; and so Aben Ezra interprets it, here "is declared the wrath of God upon Israel in the days of wicked Greece, and in the days of Antiochus, until the Hasmonaeans cleansed the temple:'' for at the time appointed the end shall be; the end of that indignation or affliction, and so of this vision or prophecy: there was a time appointed by God for the fulfilment of the whole; and when that time was come all would be accomplished; the indignation would cease, and the persecution be at an end. (n) "ego notum faciam tibi", Piscator; "indicaturus tibi sum", Michaelis. (o) Concord. Ebr. Partic. p. 180. No. 809.

Verse 20

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

Verse 21

And the rough goat is the king of Grecia,.... Including all the kings of it, from Alexander to the end of the Grecian monarchy; or rather the kingdom of Greece, which began in him, and continued until it was destroyed by the Romans: this was signified by the rough or hairy goat, especially when Alexander was at the head of it, for his strength and prowess, his swiftness in his marches over rocks and mountains, his majesty and grandeur, and also his lust and uncleanness; See Gill on Dan 8:5, and the great host that is between his eyes is the first king; this is Alexander, who, though he was not the first king of Macedon, his father Philip, and others, were kings before him; yet was the first king of the Grecian monarchy, which took place on the Persian monarchy being destroyed by him.

Verse 22

Now that being broken,.... That is, the great horn Alexander, the first king of the Grecian monarchy; whose death, either by drunkenness, or by poison, is here expressed by being "broken". The sense is, he being dead, or upon his death, whereas four stood up for it; four horns rose up in the room and stead of the great one broken; see Dan 8:8 these signified that four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation; which were the kingdoms of Egypt, Asia, Macedonia, and Syria, into which the Grecian monarchy was divided after the death of Alexander; and the first kings of them were all of the Grecian or Macedonian nation, and not Egyptians, Armenians, Syrians, &c.: but not in his power; they did not rise and stand up in the power and strength, in the grandeur and magnificence, of Alexander; they were not equal, but greatly inferior to him, though they were notable horns, or famous kingdoms, as in Dan 8:8. Saadiah interprets it, not of his seed or offspring; these were not his sons that were the heads of these kingdoms; but his captains or generals.

Verse 23

And in the latter time of their kingdom,.... Toward the close of the kingdom of the four kings that divided Alexander's kingdom; for though they were four distinct kings, and had four separate kingdoms, yet these all belonged to one kingdom or monarchy, the Grecian empire; and when that was decreasing, and coming into the hands of the Romans, there rose up, stood, and flourished awhile, King Antiochus, afterwards described, who began to reign in the hundred and thirty seventh year of the Seleucidae, "And there came out of them a wicked root Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.'' (1 Maccabees 1:10) and 166 B.C., and the same year that he set up the abomination of desolation in the temple at Jerusalem, as Mr. Mede (p) has observed, Aemilius the Roman consul conquered Perseus king of Macedon, whereby all Greece came into the hands of the Romans; so that this king may be truly said to arise and stand in the latter part of the Grecian empire, when that was declining, and the Roman empire was taking place: when the transgressors are come to the full; many among the Jews, who apostatized from their religion, turned Heathens, even some of the priests, when their number was completed, and they had filled up the measure of their iniquities; in the Apocrypha: "In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us: for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow. &c.'' (1 Maccabees 1:11) a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up; meaning Antiochus; as is generally agreed, both by Jewish and Christian interpreters, and to whom these characters agree: he was "hard of face" (q), as it may be rendered; an impudent brasen faced man, who had no shame nor fear in him; regarded neither God nor man; committed the most atrocious crimes in the most public manner; and particularly was daring and impudent in his blasphemy against God and the true religion; and it may also signify that he was cruel, barbarous, and inhuman, especially to the Jews, as his persecution of them abundantly proves: and his "understanding dark sentences", or "riddles" (r), which he could both propose and answer, shows him to be sagacious and cunning, well versed in wicked craft and policy; he had the art of inveigling and deceiving men; it was by deceit and cunning he got the kingdom from his nephew; and, by the wicked art of persuasion he was master of, he seduced many of the Jews to relinquish their religion, and embrace Heathenism; and so well skilled he was in wicked politics, that he could cover his own designs, and penetrate into the secrets of others; according to Jacchiades, he was skilful in the art of magic and astrology. This is the little horn that was to rise out of one of the four horns or kingdoms; as Antiochus did from that of Seleucus, and stood and reigned more than twelve years. (p) Works, B. 3. c. 11. p. 654. (q) "durus facie", Calvin, Piscator; "validus facie", Michaelis. (r) "aenigmata", Pagninus, Montanus, Munster, Calvin, Piscator, Polanus.

Verse 24

And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power,.... He should possess a large kingdom, and that should be increased by conquests: but not in his power (s), the power of Alexander; he should not arrive to that greatness he did, as in Dan 8:22 so Jacchiades: or, "in his own power" (t); for it was not so much by his own courage and valour, by any heroic actions of Antiochus, he became so great, as by craft and deceit: through sedition he procured the death of his father and eider brother; and by fraud got the kingdom from his nephew; and through the perfidy of Menelaus and Jason, the high priests of the Jews, and other apostates, he obtained what dominion he had over the Jews; and it was by the assistance of Eumenes king of Pergamos, and his brother Attalus, that he kept the kingdom he had usurped, who stood by him, in order to check the growing power of the Romans; and more especially it was by a power given him from above, or by the permission and providence of God, who suffered him to be so great, and to prevail particularly over the Jews; because of their sins, as Aben Ezra and Saadiah observe, to chastise them for them: so his antitype, antichrist, became great and powerful, through craft and policy, and by the help of the ten kings that gave their kingdoms to him: and he shall destroy wonderfully; or beyond all credit, countries, cities, towns, and their inhabitants; he slew fourscore thousand Jews in three days' time, bound forty thousand, and sold as many, "And there were destroyed within the space of three whole days fourscore thousand, whereof forty thousand were slain in the conflict; and no fewer sold than slain.'' (2 Maccabees 5:14) or, "he shall destroy wonderful things" (u); the temple, and the wonderful things of worth and value in it, so Saadiah and Jacchiades; he took away the vessels of the temple, the golden lamps, the ark, and table of gold, &c.: and shall prosper and practise; for a while do what he pleased, none being able to oppose and hinder him; see Dan 8:12. and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people; by the "mighty" may be meant the Egyptians, Parthians, and other nations he made war with; and by the "holy people" the Jews, who were sanctified and separated from other people by the Lord, to be a peculiar people; among whom were his holy temple, his holy priests, his holy word, ordinances, and worship; multitudes of these he destroyed, as before observed. Jacchiades interprets this of the sons of Aaron, the holy priests of the Lord, whom he slew. (s) "robore ipsius", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. (t) "In fortitudine sua", Pagninus, Montanus; "per virtutem suam", Munster. (u) "mirabilia", Montanus, Polanus.

Verse 25

And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,.... His schemes were laid in such deep policy, and he managed so artfully and craftily in the execution of them, that he commonly succeeded; as in getting the kingdom of Syria from his nephew; and, under a pretence of peace and friendship, and to defend Philometer king of Egypt, a minor, and by large promises to the nobles of the land, made himself master of it; and by deceitful methods he prevailed in Judea; see Dan 11:21, and he shall magnify himself in his heart; swell with pride, on account of success, through his policy, craft, and cunning, and think himself above all mortals, and equal to God himself; yea, as his antitype antichrist, exalt himself above all that is called God; fancy that he could command the seas, weigh the mountains in scales, and reach heaven itself, in the Apocrypha: "And thus he that a little afore thought he might command the waves of the sea, (so proud was he beyond the condition of man) and weigh the high mountains in a balance, was now cast on the ground, and carried in an horselitter, shewing forth unto all the manifest power of God.'' (2 Maccabees 9:8) and by peace shall destroy many; under a pretence of peace enter into countries and destroy the inhabitants of them, as in Egypt and Judea; or, by leagues and treaties of peace, outwitting those he made peace with; so some political princes do themselves more service, and their enemies more hurt, by treaties than by battles: or "in peace" (w); when at peace with them, or while they are in peace and tranquillity; coming upon them unexpectedly at an unawares, when they did not so much as dream of war: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; not the high priest, as Grotius; nor Michael, as Aben Ezra; but God himself, as Saadiah and Jacchiades; who is King of kings, and Lord of lords, the only Pontentate, to whom all the princes above and below are subject; him Antiochus stood up against, when he profaned his temple at Jerusalem, forbid his worship, persecuted and destroyed his people, and set up the image of Jupiter in his house: but he shall be broken without hand; alluding to his being a horn; it is expressive of his death, and the manner of it; that he should not die by the hand of an enemy in battle, nor be assassinated by the hand of a ruffian, but be cut off by the immediate hand of God. Jacchiades says, that by the providence of God he fell ill of a bad disease, and at the cry of one of his elephants his chariot was overturned, and he fell on the ground, and his bones were broken. Of his death, and the manner of it, in the Apocrypha: "Now when the king heard these words, he was astonished and sore moved: whereupon he laid him down upon his bed, and fell sick for grief, because it had not befallen him as he looked for.'' (1 Maccabees 6:8) "But the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, smote him with an incurable and invisible plague: or as soon as he had spoken these words, a pain of the bowels that was remediless came upon him, and sore torments of the inner parts;'' (2 Maccabees 9:5) "So that the worms rose up out of the body of this wicked man, and whiles he lived in sorrow and pain, his flesh fell away, and the filthiness of his smell was noisome to all his army.'' (2 Maccabees 9:9) which was much like that of Herod's, Act 12:23, being stricken with a violent disorder in his bowels: his body covered with worms; his flesh flaked off, and emitted such a stench, as was intolerable to his army. Aben Ezra says, he fell from the roof of a house, and was broken, and died. (w) "in pace", Calvin, Vatablus; "in tranquillitate", Montanus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius, Michaelis.

Verse 26

And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true,.... That is, of the 2300 evenings and mornings, or natural days; unto which time the daily sacrifice was to cease, and the sanctuary and host trodden under foot; and then the sanctuary would be cleansed. This account is "true", and not only to be believed, but is clear and plain, and to be literally understood of so many days, of such a term of time exactly, having no obscurity in it: wherefore shut thou up the vision; the whole vision of the ram and he goat, and the little horn: the meaning is, that he should keep it to himself, and conceal it from men; not from his own people, for whose sake it was given, but from the Chaldeans, whose destruction was near; and who would be succeeded by the Persians, who might be disgusted with this prophecy, should they see it, it foretelling the destruction of their empire: or this order was given to suggest to Daniel that the fulfilment of it would be deferred some time, during which it would not be so easy to be understood as when it was near accomplishing and accomplished; and then prophecy and facts might be compared together: for it shall be for many days; it were three hundred years, or more, from the reign of Belshazzar to the death of Antiochus, in which this vision ends.

Verse 27

And I Daniel fainted and was sick certain days,.... Or, "then I Daniel fainted" (x); after he had seen the vision, and had thought upon it, and considered the afflictions that were to come upon the people of God, and the condition the temple, and the worship of it, would be in; these so affected his mind, that he not only fainted away, and was struck with a kind of stupor and amazement, but had a fit of illness upon him, which continued some days; such a nearness and sympathy there are between the soul and body: afterwards I rose up; from the bed in which he had laid some days ill: and did the king's business; by which it appears, that, upon the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel was as yet continued in the service of the king of Babylon, though perhaps not in the same posts as before, and was not a favourite at court, and so much known as he had been; and also that he was not in reality at Shushan, when he had this vision, but at Babylon: and I was astonished at the vision; at the things contained in it, which were of so much importance, respecting the kingdoms of the earth, especially the Persian and Grecian empires, and the state of his own people the Jews: but none understood it: to whom he showed it; none but himself, who was made to understand it by the angel, Dan 8:16. (x) So Noldius, Concord. Ebr. Part. p. 309. Next: Daniel Chapter 9

Verse 1

The Vision Dan 8:1, Dan 8:2 contain the historical introduction to this new revelation. This was given to Daniel in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, and thus two years after the vision of the four world-kingdoms (Dan 7:1), but not in a dream as that was, but while he was awake. The words, I, Daniel, are neither a pleonasm (Hv.) nor a sign that the writer wished specially to give himself out for Daniel (Ewald), but expressly denote that Daniel continues to speak of himself in the first person (Kliefoth). The article in הנראה (that which appeared) takes place of the relative אשׁר, and the expression is concise for נראה אשׁר החזון (the vision which appeared); cf. Ewald's Lehr. 335a. בּתּחלּה (at the first), as in Dan 9:21, in the general signification earlier, and in Gen 13:3; Gen 41:21; Gen 43:18, Gen 43:20; Isa 1:26, synonymous with בּראשׁנה (in the beginning). Here the word points back to Daniel 7, and in Dan 9:21 it refers to Dan 8:16 of this chapter. "In vision," i.e., ἐν πνεύματι, not ἐν σώματι, Daniel was placed in the city of Susa, in the province of Elam (Elymas). By the words, "I saw in vision; and it came to pass when I saw," which precede the specification of the scene of the vision, is indicated the fact that he was in Susa only in vision, and the misconception is sufficiently guarded against that Daniel was actually there in the body. This is acknowledge by v. Leng., Hitzig, Maurer, Hv., Hgstb., Kran., and Kliefoth, against Bertholdt and Rosenmller, who understand this, in connection with Dan 8:27, as meaning that Daniel was personally present in Susa to execute the king's business, from which Bertholdt frames the charge against the pseudo-Daniel, that he was not conscious that Elam under Nabonned did not belong to Babylon, and that the royal palace at Susa had as yet no existence. But this accusation has no historical foundation. We have no accurate information whether under Belshazzar Elam was added to Babylon or the Chaldean empire. It is true that not Hengstenberg (Beitr. i. p. 42f.) only has, with older theologians, concluded from the prophecies of Jer 49:34., compared with Jer 25:25 and Eze 32:24, that Nebuchadnezzar subjugated Susa, but Niebuhr also (Gesch. Assurs, p. 211ff.) seeks from these and other passages of the O.T. to establish the view, that Nebuchadnezzar, after the death of Cyaxares (Uwakhshatra), to whom he owed allegiance, refused to do homage to his successor, and entered on a war against Media, which resulted in the annexation of Elam to his kingdom. But, on the contrary, Hvernick has well remarked, that the subjugation of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar can scarcely harmonize with the fact of the division of the Assyrian kingdom between the Babylonian king Nabopolassar and the Median king Cyaxares, whereby the former obtained the western and the latter the eastern half, and that from these passages of prophecy a subjugation of Elam by the Chaldeans cannot be concluded. Jeremiah announces neither in Jer 25:25 nor in Jer 49:34. a conquest of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar, but rather in Jer. 49 prophesies the complete destruction of Elam, or a divine judgment, in language which is much too strong and elevated for a mere making of it tributary and annexing it to a new state. Besides, this passage in no respect requires that Susa and Elam should be regarded as provinces of the Chaldean kingdom, since the opinion that Daniel was in Susa engaged in some public business for the Chaldean king is founded only on a false interpretation of Dan 8:2, Dan 8:27. From the prophet's having been placed in an ecstasy in the city of Susa, there follows nothing further than that this city was already at the time of the existing Chaldean kingdom a central-point of Elamitish or Persian power. And the more definite description of the situation of this city in the words, "which was in the province of Elam," points decidedly to the time of Daniel, in which Susa as yet belonged to the province of Elam, while this province was made a satrapy, Susis, Susiana, now Chusistan, by the kings of Persia, and Susa became the capital of this province; therefore the capital Susa is not reckoned as situated in Elam by writers, who after this time distinguish between Susis (Susiana) and Elymas (Elam), as Strabo, xvi. 1. 17f., Pliny, hist. nat. vi. 27: Susianen ab Elymaide disterminat amnis Eulaeus. Still more groundless is the assertion, that the city of Susa was not in existence in the time of Daniel, or, as Duncker (Gesch. der Alterth. ii. p. 913, 3 Auf.) affirms, that Darius first removed the residence or seat of the king to Susa with the intention that it should become the permanent residence for him and his successors, the central-point of his kingdom and of his government, and that Pliny and Aelian say decidedly that Darius built Susa, the king's city of Persia, and that the inscriptions confirm this saying. For, to begin with the latter statement, an inscription found in the ruins of a palace at Susa, according to the deciphering of Mordtmann (in der D. morgl. Ztschr. xvi. pp. 123ff.), which Duncker cites as confirming his statement, contains only these words: "Thus speaks Artaxerxes the great king, the son of Darius the son of Achmenides Vistapa: This building my great-great-grandfather Darius erected; afterwards it was improved by Artaxerxes my grandfather." This inscription thus confirms only the fact of the building of a palace in Susa by Darius, but nothing further, from which it is impossible to conclude that Darius first founded the city, or built the first tower in it. Still less does such an idea lie in the words of Aelian, nat. animal. i. 59: "Darius was proud of the erection of a celebrated building which he had raised in Susa." And Pliny also, taken strictly, speaks only of the elevation of Susa to the rank of capital of the kingdom by Darius, which does not exclude the opinion that Susa was before this already a considerable town, and had a royal castle, in which Cyrus may have resided during several months of the year (according to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 6. 22, Anab. iii. 5. 15; cf. Brissonius, de regio Pers. princ. p. 88f.). (Note: Pliny, hist. nat. vi. 27, says regarding Susiana, "In qua vetus regia Presarum Susa a Dario Hystaspis filio condita," which may be understood as if he ascribed to Darius the founding of the city of Susa. But how little weight is to be given to this statement appears from the similar statement, hist. nat. vi. 14 (17): "Ecbatana caput Mediae Seleucus rex condidit," which plainly contains an error, since Ecbatana, under the name of Achmeta, is mentioned (Ezr 6:2) in the time of Darius Hystaspes, in the tower of which the archives of the Persian kings were preserved.) The founding of Susa, and of the old tower in Susa, reaches back into pre-historic times. According to Strabo, xv. 2. 3, Susa must have been built by Tithonos, the father of Memnon. With this the epithet Μεμνόνια Σοῦσα, which Herod. vii. 151, v. 54, 53, and Aelian, nat. anim. xiii. 18, gives to the town of Susa, stands in unison. For if this proves nothing more than that in Susa there was a tomb of Memnon (Hv.), yet would this sufficiently prove that the city or its citadel existed from ancient times - times so ancient that the mythic Memnon lived and was buried there. The city had its name שׁוּשׁן, Lily, from the lilies which grew in great abundance in that region (Athen. Deipnos. xii. p. 409; Stephan. Byz., etc.), and had, according to Strabo, xv. 3. 2, a circuit of 120 (twelve English miles), and according to others, 200 stadia. Its palace was called Memnoneion, and was strongly fortified. Here was "the golden seat;" here also were "the apartments of Darius, which were adorned with gold," as Aeschylos says (Pers. 3. 4. 159, 160), "the widely-famed palace," - the περιβόητα βασιλεῖα, as Diod. Sic. xvii. 65, expresses himself. The ruins of Susa are not only a wilderness, inhabited by lions and hyaenas, on the eastern banks of the Shapur, between it and the Dizful, where three great mountains of ruins, from 80 to 100 feet high, raise themselves, showing the compass of the city, while eastward smaller heaps of ruins point out the remains of the city, which to this day bear the name Schusch; cf. Herz.'s Realenc. xvi. p. 263f., and Duncker, Gesch. d. Alt. ii. p. 942ff. The designation of Elam as מדינה, a province, does not refer to a Chaldean province. עילם, in Greek ̓Ελυμαΐ́ς, formed the western part of the Persian satrapy of Susis or Susiana, which lay at the foot of the highlands of Iran, at the beginning of the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates between Persia and Babylon, called by the Persians Uvaja, and by the Greeks Susis or Susiana after the capital, or Cissia after its inhabitants. It is bounded by the western border mountains of Persia and the Tigris, and on the south terminates in a arm, swampy and harbourless coast, which stretches from the mouth of the Tigris to that of the Aurvaiti (Oroatis). Strabo (xv. 732) says Susiana is inhabited by two races, the Cissaei and the Elymi; Herodotus (iii. 91, v. 49, vii. 62), on the contrary, names only the Cissaei as the inhabitants of the country of the same name. The saying put into circulation by Josephus (Antt. i. 6. 4, ̓́Ελαμος γὰρ ̓Ελαμαίους Περσῶν ὄντας ἀρχηγέτας κατέλιπεν), that the Elamites are the primitive race of the Persians, has no historical foundation. The deep valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates was the country of the Semites. "The names of the towns and rivers of the country confirm the statements of Genesis, which names Elam among the sons of Shem, although the erecting of the Persian royal residence in Elam, and the long continuance of the Persian rule, could not but exercise, as it did, an influence on the manners and arts of the Semitish inhabitants" (Duncker, p. 942). The further statement, that Daniel in vision was by the river Ulai, shows that Susa lay on the banks of the river. אוּלי is the Εὐλαῖος, Eulaeus, of the Greeks and Romans, of which Pliny says, "circuit arcem Susorum," and which Arrian (Exped. Alex. vii. 7) also mentions as a navigable river of Susis. On the contrary, Herodotus, i. 188, v. 49, 52, and Strabo, xv. 3, 4, place Susa on the river Choaspes. These contradictory statements are reconciled in the simplest manner by the supposition that Ulai, Eulaeus, was the Semitish, Choaspes the Aryan (Persian) name of the Kuran, which received the Shapur and Dizful. In favour of this, we have not only the circumstance that the name Choaspes is undoubtedly of Persian origin, while, on the other hand, אוּלי is a word of Semitic formation; but still more, that Herodotus knows nothing whatever of the Eulaeus, while Ptolemy (vi. 3. 2) does not mention the Choaspes, but, on the contrary, two sources of the Eulaeus, the one in Media, the other in Susiana; and that what Herod. i. 188, says of the Choaspes, that the kings of Persia drink its water only, and caused it to be carried far after them, is mentioned by Pliny of the Eulus, h. n. vi. 27, and in 31:3 of the Choaspes and Eulus. (Note: There is little probability in the supposition that Choaspes is the modern Kerrah or Kerkha, the Eulus the modern Dizful, as Susa lay between these two rivers (Ker Porter, Winer, Ruetschi in Herz.'s Realen. xv. 246), and receives no sufficient support from the bas relief of Kojundshik discovered by Layard, which represents the siege of a town lying between two rivers, since the identification of this town with Susa is a mere conjecture.) Daniel was in spirit conveyed to Susa, that here in the future royal citadel of the Persian kingdom he might witness the destruction of this world-power, as Ezekiel was removed to Jerusalem that he might there see the judgment of its destruction. The placing of the prophet also on the river of Ulai is significant, yet it is not to be explained, with Kranichfeld, from Dan 8:3, Dan 8:6, "where the kingdom in question stands in the same relation to the flowing river as the four kingdoms in Dan 7:2 do to the sea." For the geographically defined river Ulai has nothing in common with the sea as a symbol of the nations of the world (Dan 7:2). The Ulai is rather named as the place where afterwards the ram and the he-goat pushed against one another, and the shock followed, deciding the fate of the Persian kingdom. As, the, the scene of the vision stands in intimate relation to its contents, so also the time at which the revelation was made to Daniel. With the third year of Belshazzar the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the Babylonian world-kingdom, was extinguished. In this year Belshazzar, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, died, and the sovereignty was transferred to a collateral branch, and finally to an intruder, under whom that world-kingdom, once so powerful, in a few years fell to pieces. Shortly before the death of Belshazzar the end of the Babylonian monarchy was thus to be seen, and the point of time, not very remote, which must end the Exile with the fall of Babylon. This point of time was altogether fitted to reveal to the prophet in a vision what would happen after the overthrow of Babylon, and after the termination of the Exile. Dan 8:3-4 The vision. - Dan 8:3. Daniel first sees one ram, איל, standing by the river. The אחד (one) does not here stand for the indefinite article, but is a numeral, in contradistinction to the two horns which the one ram has. The two horns of the ram were high, but the one was higher than the other, the higher coming up later. האחת does not mean the first, but the one, and השּׁנית the other; for the higher grew up last. This is not to be understood as if Daniel first saw the ram without horns, and then saw the horns grow up, and at length the one horn become higher than the other (v. Leng., Hitzig); but that from the first Daniel saw the ram with two horns, but afterwards saw the one horn grow higher than the other (Kliefoth). The angel (Dan 8:20) explains the ram with two horns of the king of Media and Persia. This does not mean that the two horns are to be understood (with Theodoret) of the two dynasties of Cyrus and of Darius Hystaspes; but since the ram represents the one kingdom of the Medes and Persians, so the two horns represent the people of the Medes and Persians, from the union of which the Medo-Persian kingdom grew up. Both nations were the horns, i.e., the power of the monarchy; therefore are they both high. The one horn, which afterwards grew up higher than the other, represents the Persians, who raised themselves above the Medians. A ram and goat, as emblems of kings, princes, chiefs, often occur; cf. Isa 14:9; Eze 34:17; Eze 39:18; Jer 50:8; Zac 10:3. In Bundehesch the guardian spirit of the Persian kingdom appears under the form of a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns, and, according to Amm. Marcell. xix. 1, the Persian king, when he stood at the head of his army, bore, instead of the diadem, the head of a ram (cf. Hv.). The point of resemblance of this symbol is to be sought, not in the richness (the wool) and in the aggressive nature (the horns) of the ram (Theod., Venema), but the ram and the he-goat form, as Hofmann has justly remarked, a contrast to dull firmness and nimble lightness, as the bear and the panther. The ram stands by the river and pushes toward the west, north, and south, but not toward the east. The river is thus not the one flowing on the east of Susa, for, standing there, the ram pushing toward the west from Susa would push against the capital of his kingdom, but the one flowing on the west; and the ram is to be conceived of as standing on the western bank of this river, from whence he pushed down with his horns all beasts before him, i.e., subdued all nations and kingdoms to his power in three regions of the earth. In the west he pushed against Babylon, Syria, and Asia Minor; in the south, Egypt; in the north, the Armenian and Scythian nations. These he subdued and incorporated in the Persian kingdom. He did not push toward the east - not because he could only push forwards and against that which was nearer, but not, without changing his position, backwards (Hitzig); nor because the Medo-Persians themselves came from the east (v. Leng., Kran.); not yet because the conquests of the Persians did not stretch toward the east (Hv.), for Cyrus and Darius subdued nations to the east of Persia even as far as to the Indus; but because, for the unfolding of the Medo-Persian monarchy as a world-power, its conquests in the east were subordinate, and therefore are not mentioned. The pushing toward the three world-regions corresponds to the three ribs in the mouth of the bear, Dan 7:5, and intimates that the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, in spite of the irresistibility of its arms, did not, however, extend its power into all the regions of the world. חיּוח, to push, of beast, Exo 21:28, in the Piel figuratively is used of nations, Deu 33:17; Psa 44:6. יעמדוּ is potentialis: could not stand. The masculine is here used, because חיּות (beasts) represents kingdoms and nations. כרצנו עשׂה, did according to his will, expresses arbitrary conduct, a despotic behaviour. הגדּיל, became great. The word does not mean to become haughty, for בּלבבו, in his heart, is not added here as it is in Psa 44:25, but to magnify the action. It is equivalent to לעשׂות הגדּיל in Joe 2:20 (hath done great things), and Psa 126:2-3, in the sense of to become great, powerful; cf. Dan 8:8. Dan 8:5-7 After Daniel had for a while contemplated the conduct of the ram, he saw a he-goat come from the west over the earth, run with furious might against the two-horned ram, and throw it to the ground and tread upon it. The he-goat, according to the interpretation of the angel, Dan 8:21, represents the king of Javan (Greece and Macedonia) - not the person of the king (Gesen.), but the kingship of Javan; for, according to Dan 8:21, the great horn of the goat symbolizes the first king, and thus the goat itself cannot represent a separate king. The goat comes from the west; for Macedonia lay to the west of Susa or Persia. Its coming over the earth is more definitely denoted by the expression בּארץ נוגע ואין, and he was not touching the earth, i.e., as he hastened over it in his flight. This remark corresponds with the four wings of the leopard, Dan 7:6. The goat had between its eyes חזוּת קרן; i.e., not a horn of vision, a horn such as a goat naturally has, but here only in vision (Hofm., Klief.). This interpretation would render חזוּת an altogether useless addition, since the goat itself, only seen in vision, is described as it appeared in the vision. For the right explanation of the expression reference must be made to Dan 8:8, where, instead of horn of vision, there is used the expression הגּדולה הקרן (the great horn). Accordingly חזוּת has the meaning of מראה, in the Keri מראה אישׁ, Sa2 23:21, a man of countenance or sight (cf. Targ. Est 2:2): a horn of sight, consideration, of considerable greatness; κέρας θεορητόν (lxx, Theodot.), which Theodoret explains by ἐπίσημον καὶ περίβλεπτον. The horn was between the eyes, i.e., in the middle of the forehead, the centre of its whole strength, and represents, according to Dan 8:21, the first king, i.e., the founder of the Javanic world-kingdom, or the dynasty of this kingdom represented by him. The he-goat ran up against the ram, the possessor of the two horns, i.e., the two-horned ram by the river Ulai, in the fire of his anger, i.e., in the glowing anger which gave him his strength, and with the greatest fury threw him down. The prophet adds, "And I saw him come close unto the ram," as giving prominence to the chief matter, and then further describes its complete destruction. It broke in pieces both of the horns, which the ram still had, i.e., the power of the Medes and Persians, the two component elements of the Persian world-kingdom. This representation proves itself to be genuine prophecy, whilst an author writing ex eventu would have spoken of the horn representing the power of the Medes as assailed and overthrown earlier by that other horn (see under Dan 7:8, Dan 7:20). The pushing and trampling down by the Ulai is explained from the idea of the prophecy, according to which the power of the ram is destroyed at the central seat of its might, without reference to the historical course of the victories by which Alexander the Great completed the subjugation of the Persian monarchy. In the concluding passage, Dan 8:7, the complete destruction is described in the words of the fourth verse, to express the idea of righteous retribution. As the Medo-Persian had crushed the other kingdoms, so now it also was itself destroyed.

Verse 8

The transformation of the Javanic kingdom. - By the kingdom of the ram the he-goat became very great, powerful (הגדּיל as in Dan 8:4). But the great horn was broken at the height of his strength, and four similar horns grew up in its stead, toward the four regions of heaven. חזוּת is here used adverbially, conspicuously: there came forth conspicuously four in its place. This statement does not contradict Dan 8:22 and Dan 11:4, according to which the four kingdom shave not the power of the one great horn; for the thought is only this: they represent in themselves a considerable power, without, however, gaining the power of the one undivided kingdom. The breaking of the great horn indicates the breaking up of the monarchy of Alexander by his death. The four horns which grow up in the place of the one great horn are, according to Dan 8:22, four kingdoms. These are the dynasties of the Diadochs, of whom there were indeed five: Antigonus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus laid claim to the title of king; but for the first time after the overthrow of Antigonus at the battle of Ipsus, 301 b.c., and thus twenty-two years after the death of Alexander (323 b.c.), they became in reality four kings, and so divided the kingdom among themselves, that Lysimachus had Thrace and Bithynia, - Cassander, Macedonia and Greece, - Seleucus, Syria, Babylonia, and the Eastern countries as far as India, - and Ptolemy, Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petrea. But from the fact that this first happened after all the descendants of the royal family had been extirpated, we are not to conclude, with Hvernick, that the breaking of the great horn did not denote the death of Alexander, but the extinction of his race or house; a conclusion which derives no valid support from these words of Justin: "All of them abstained from the use of the insignia of this (royal) dignity while the sons of their king survived. So great was their veneration, that although they had royal wealth and resources, they cared not for the name of kings so long as there existed a legitimate heir to Alexander" (Hist. xv. 2. 13). If the breaking of the horn is placed at the point of time when the horn was powerful, here as well as at Dan 11:4, the reference of the words to the sudden death of Alexander in the prime of his days, and when in the very height of his victorious career, cannot be disputed; and by the breaking of the horn we can only understand Alexander's death, and the breaking up of the kingdom founded by him, although it was still held together in a considerable degree for two decenniums by his generals, till the most imperious and the most powerful amongst them usurped the rank of kings, and then, after the conquest of Antigonus, a formal division of the kingdom into the four considerable kingdoms here named raised them to royal dignity. The prophetic representation is not a prediction of historical details, but it gives only the fundamental traces of the development of the world-kingdoms, and that not in the form of a historiographical prophecy, but only so that it sketches the ground-thoughts of the divinely ordained unfolding of these world-kingdoms. This ideal fundamental thought of the prophecy has so wrought itself out in actual history, that from the one great kingdom, after the death of the founder, in the course of time four considerable kingdoms arise. The number four in the prophetic contemplation comes into view only according to its symbolical idea as the number of the world in its extension toward the four regions of heaven, so that thereby only the thought is declared, that a kingdom embracing the world will fall to ruins in a plurality of kingdoms toward all the regions of heaven (Kliefoth). This has been so historically realized, that out of the wars of the Diadochs for the supremacy four kingdoms arose toward the four regions of the earth into longer duration, - that of Cassander (Macedonia) toward the west, that of Seleucus (Babylonia, etc.) toward the east, that of Lysimachus (Thracia and Bithynia) toward the north, and finally that of Ptolemy (Egypt) toward the south. (Note: When, on the other hand, Hitzig seeks to explain the prophetic representation, here as well as at Dan 11:4, that with or immediately after the death of Alexander his kingdom was divided, by reference to 1 Macc. 1:6, according to which Alexander himself, shortly before his death, divided the kingdom among his generals, he thereby not only misapprehends the ideal character of the prophecy, but does not in the least degree clear up the matter itself. For the passage in 1 Macc. 1:6, which not only Arabic and Persian authors repeat, but also Moses v. Chroene, and even later Greek and Latin historiographers, as Ammian Marcell., has been explained by Curtius (x. 10. 5) as a fama vana, and is proved by Wernsdorf (de Fide Librr. Macc. p. 40 f) and Droysen (das Test. Alex. 3te Beilage, zu Gesch. des Hellen. i.) to be without foundation (cf. Grimm, K. ex. Hdb. zu 1 Macc. 1:6). This may have been originally put into circulation by the partisans of the Hellenic kings, in order to legitimatize their sovereignty in the eyes of the people, as Grimm conjectures; yet the confirmation which the book of Daniel appears to give to it contributed to its wide diffusion by Oriental and Byzantine authors, and the author of the first book of the Maccabees had without doubt the book of Daniel before his eyes in the representation he gives.)

Verse 9

The interpretation of the vision. Dan 8:9 Without following the development of the four horns further, the prophecy passes over to the little horn, which grew up out of one of the four horns, and gained great significance in relation to the history of the people of God. The masculine forms מהם and יצא (out of them came) are to be explained as a constructio ad sensum. אחת (one) after קרן (horn) is as little superfluous as is the מן in מצּעירה. אחת is a numeral, one horn, not several; מן is either comparative, less than little, i.e., very little (Ewald), or, as less than insignificance, wretchedness, i.e., in an altogether miserable way (Hv.). The one explanation is more forced than the other, and the idea of wretchedness is altogether untenable. Yet the מן serves as a circumlocution for the superlative = perpaucus (Gesen., Win., Aub.), while verbal analogies for it are wanting. מן signifies from, out of; but it is not to be united with קרן: one horn of smallness (v. Leng.), in which case מן would be superfluous, but with the verb יצא: it came up out of littleness, a parvo, i.e., a parvis initiis (Maur., Hofm., Kran., Klief.). Thus it corresponds with סלקת זעירה, Dan 7:8. In the words "it arose out of littleness" there lies the idea that it grew to great power from a small beginning; for it became very great, i.e., powerful, toward the south, toward the east, and toward the הצּבי (the splendour, glory), i.e., toward the glorious land. הצּבי = הצּבי ארץ, Dan 11:16, Dan 11:41. This designation of the land of Israel is framed after Jer 3:19 and Eze 20:6, Eze 20:15, where this land is called "a heritage of the greatest glory of nations" (a goodly heritage of the host of nations, E. V.), "a glory of all lands," i.e., the most glorious land which a people can possess. The expression is synonymous with חמדּה ארץ ("pleasant land"), Jer 3:19; Zac 7:14; Psa 106:24. Canaan was so designate don account of its great fruitfulness as a land flowing with milk and honey; cf. Eze 20:6. The one of the four horns from which the little horn grew up is the Syrian monarchy, and the horn growing up out of it is the king Antiochus Epiphanes, as Josephus (Ant. x. 11. 7) and all interpreters acknowledge, on the ground of 1 Macc. 1:10. The south, against which he became great, is Egypt (cf. Dan 11:5 and 1 Macc. 1:16ff.). The east is not Asia (Kranichfeld), but Babylon, and particularly Elymas and Armenia, 1 Macc. 1:31, 37; 3:31, 37; 6:1-4, according to which he subdued Elymas and overcame Artaxias, king of Armenia (App. Syr. c. 45, 46; Polyb. xxxi. 11). Besides the south and the east, Canaan, the holy land, as lying between, is named as the third land, as in Isa 19:23. it is named as third, between Egypt and Assyria; but הצּבי ואל ("and toward the glorious land") is not, with Kranichfeld, to be regarded as an exegetical addition to המּזרח ואל ("and toward the east"). Palestine lay neither to the east of Daniel, nor geographically to the east of the kingdom denoted by the little horn, because the text gives no support to the identifying of this kingdom with the Javanic, the horn operating from the west. Dan 8:10 As this horn became great in extent toward the south and toward the east, so also it grew up in height even unto the host of heaven, and some of them it cast down, i.e., some of the stars, to the earth. The host of heaven is here, as in Jer 33:22, the whole body of the stars of heaven, the constellations, and of the stars is epexegetical of of the host. Daniel in the vision sees the horn grow so great in height, that it reaches even to the heavens, can reach the heavenly bodies with the hand, and throws some of the stars (מן is partitive) down to the earth and tramples upon them, destroys them with scorn. The words of the angel, Jer 33:24, show that by the stars we are to understand the people of the saints, the people of God. The stars cast down to the earth are, according to this, neither the Levites (Grotius), nor the viri illustres in Israel (Glass.), nor the chief rulers of the Jews in church and state (Dathe). If the people of the saints generally are compared to the host of heaven, the stars, then the separate stars cannot be the ecclesiastical or civil chiefs, but the members of this nation in common. But by "the people of the saints" is to be understood (since the little horn denotes Antiochus Epiphanes) the people of God in the Old Covenant, the people of Israel. They are named the people of the saints by virtue of their being called to be an holy nation (Exo 19:6), because "they had the revelation of God and God Himself dwelling among them, altogether irrespective of the subjective degrees of sanctification in individuals" (Kliefoth). But the comparing of them with the host of the stars does not arise from Jewish national pride, nor does it mean that Daniel thought only of the truly faithful in Israel (Theod., Hv.), or that the pseudo-Daniel thought that with the death of Antiochus the Messiah would appear, and that then Israel, after the extermination of the godless, would become a people of pure holiness. The comparison rather has its roots in this, that God, the King of Israel, is called the God of hosts, and by the צבאות (hosts) are generally to be understood the stars or the angels; but the tribes of Israel also, who were led by God out of Egypt, are called "the hosts of Jehovah" (Exo 7:4; Exo 12:41). As in heaven the angels and stars, so on earth the sons of Israel form the host of God; and as the angels on account of the glory of their nature are called קדושׁים (holy ones), so the Israelites by virtue of their being chosen to be the holy nation of God, forming the kingdom of heaven in this world. As God, the King of this people, has His throne in heaven, so there also Israel have their true home, and are in the eyes of God regarded as like unto the stars. This comparison serves, then, to characterize the insolence of Antiochus as a wickedness against Heaven and the heavenly order of things. Cf. 2 Macc. 9:10. (Note: The deep practical explanation of Calvin deserves attention: - "Although the church often lies prostrate in the world and is trodden under foot, yet is it always precious before God. Hence the prophet adorns the church with this remarkable praise, not to obtain for it great dignity in the sight of men, but because God has separated it from the world and provided for it a sure inheritance in heaven. Although the sons of God are pilgrims on the earth, and have scarcely any place in it, because they are as castaways, yet they are nevertheless citizens of heaven. Hence we derive this useful lesson, that we should bear it patiently when we are thrown prostrate on the ground, and are despised by tyrants and contemners of God. In the meantime our seat is laid up in heaven, and God numbers us among the stars, although, as Paul says, we are as dung and as the offscourings of all things." - Calv. in loc.) Dan 8:11 This horn raised its might even to the Prince of the host. הצבא שׂר, the Prince of the host of heaven, is obviously not the high priest Onias (Grotius), but the God of heaven and the King of Israel, the Prince of princes, as He is called in Dan 8:25. עד הגדּיל (he magnified himself to) is repeated in Dan 8:25 by על יעמוד (he shall stand up against). Wherein this rising up against God consisted, the second half of the verse indicates in the statement that the תּמיד (daily sacrifice) was taken away, and the building of His sanctuary was destroyed. This verse does not record a part of the vision, but is a further development of that which was seen in prophetic words. Hence we may not, with Ebrard, refer its contents to heavenly events, to a putting away of the sacrifice from before the throne of God and a destruction of the heavenly sanctuary. On the contrary, Kliefoth has well remarked that it is "without example in Scripture that men penetrate into heaven to insult God; what men do against God is done on the earth." התּמיד is everything in the worship of God which is not used merely temporarily, but is permanent, as the daily sacrifice, the setting forth of the shew-bread, and the like. The limitation of it to the daily morning and evening service in the writings of the Rabbis is unknown in the O.T. The word much rather comprehends all that is of permanent use in the holy services of divine worship (Hgst., Hv., Hofm., Kran., Klief.). Thus interpreted, the prophetic announcement corresponds with history; for, according to 1 Macc. 1:45, Antiochus gave orders that they should "forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifice, and drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbath and festival days." The horn also overthrew the place of the sanctuary of Jehovah. השׁליך, to cast away, to cast forth, - used of buildings, to lay waste; cf. Jer 9:18. מכון, properly, that which is set up, erected; here, as frequently, of the dwelling-place of God, the temple: so also שׁבתּך מכון (a settled place for thee to dwell in), Exo 15:17; Kg1 8:13. It is used also of the heavenly dwelling-place of God, Kg1 8:39, Kg1 8:43; here, of the temple of Jerusalem. With regard to the historical fulfilment, cf. The expressions, "her (Jerusalem's) sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness," and "pollute the sanctuary," 1 Macc. 1:39, 46; and "the sanctuary was trodden down," 1 Macc. 3:45. Dan 8:12 The actions of the little horn are definitively comprehended in this verse, as may be seen from this, that in the first hemistich צבא and תּמיד are mentioned together. But this hemistich has been very variously interpreted. We must altogether reject the interpretation of the Vulgate, "Robur autem datum est contra juge sacrificium propter peccata," which is reproduced in Luther's translation, "There was given to him such strength against the daily sacrifice on account of sin;" or Calvin's, "Et tempus datum est super jugi sacrificio in scelere," whereby, after Raschi's example, צבא is interpreted of the statio militaris, and thence the interpretation tempus or intervallum is derived. For צבא means neither robur, nor tempus, nor statio militaris, but only military service, and perhaps military forces. Add to this that צבא both in Dan 8:10, Dan 8:13 means host. If we maintain this, with the majority of interpreters, only two explanations are admissible, according as we understand צבא of the host of heaven, i.e., of Israel, or of some other host. The latter interpretation is apparently supported partly by the absence of the article in צבא, and partly by the construction of the word as fem. (תּנּתן). Accordingly, Hitzig says that a Hebrew reader could not understand the words otherwise than as meaning, "and a warlike expedition was made or conducted against the daily sacrifice with wickedness" (i.e., the impure service of idols); while others translate, "and a host placed against he daily sacrifice on account of sin" (Syr., Grot., Harenb., J. D. Michaelis); or, "a host is given against the daily sacrifice in wickedness" (Wieseler); or, "given against that which was continual with the service of idols," i.e., so that, in the place of the "continual," wickedness, the worship of idols, is appointed (Hofmann); or, "the power of an army is given to it (the horn) against the daily sacrifice through wickedness," i.e., by the evil higher demons (Ebrard). But the latter interpretation is to be rejected on account of the arbitrary insertion of לו (to it); and against all the others it is to be remarked, that there is no proof either from Dan 8:13, or from Eze 32:23 or Eze 26:8, that נתן means to lead out, to bring forward, to give contrary to or against.

Verse 13

In Dan 8:13 תּת (to give) is more closely defined by מרמס (something trodden under foot); but in these passages in Ezekiel above referred to, it [the verb נתן] is connected with an actual object. Construed with the accus. pers. and על, נתן means "to place one over anything." This conception in its different shades is not so much derived from the words of the text as from a reference to the history; for it is supposed (cf. Grotius, Wies.) that because the matter spoken of is the wickedness of Antiochus, the entrance of the Syrian army into Jerusalem and its proceedings (1 Macc. 1:29ff.) must be set forth. צבא, notwithstanding the want of the article, and notwithstanding the feminine construction, cannot properly be otherwise understood in Dan 8:12 than in Dan 8:10, Dan 8:13, not of the host of the Syrians, but only of the people of Israel. The article is wanting also in Dan 8:13, where yet, because of its being taken in connection with קדשׁ, it can only refer to Israel. Besides this passage, the fem. construction is found also only in Isa 40:2, where it signifies the service of war or vassalage. But this meaning here, where weighty reasons oppose it, this construction does not require us to adopt, for such a construction is not infrequent. It is found not merely with names of nations and races, so far as land and people are nearly related ideas, but also with other words, such as even עם, people, fem., Exo 5:16; Kg1 18:7; Jer 8:5; המון, a multitude, Job 31:34; זרע, seed, i.e., descendants, Deu 31:21; cf. Ewald's Lehr. 174. But the want of the article in צבא in Dan 8:12 and in Dan 8:13 has its reason in this, that that which is said does not concern the whole host, but only one part of it, since, according to Dan 8:10, the hostile horn will cast only some הצבא מן (of the host) to the earth. If, therefore, there is no sufficient ground for rejecting the application of the צבא to the people of Israel, it follows that this interpretation is decidedly required not only by the connection, chiefly by Dan 8:13, but also by that which is said of צבא in Dan 8:12. "Since in Dan 8:13 the inquirer resumes the contents of Dan 8:10-12, and along with the sanctuary names also the 'host' as the object of the 'treading down,' it is not credible that this 'host' should be different from that mentioned in Dan 8:12" (Klief.). Moreover, תּנּתן can have in this passage only the meaning of to be given up. התּמיד על can then only be translated because of the permanent sacrifice, if בּפשׁע (by reason of transgression) is united as object with תּנּתן in the sense: "was delivered up in transgression." But apart from this, that נתן in the sense of to give up is construed with בּיד, and there are wanting certain parallels for its construction with ב merely, this interpretation, "the host (= Israel) is given up in wickedness on account of the continual sacrifice," presents an idea not to be tolerated. We agree, therefore, in general with the interpretation of Daniel B. Michaelis, Hvernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth, and explain the words thus: "and (an) host shall be given up together with the daily sacrifice, because of transgression." צבא, an host, i.e., a great company of the host, the people of Israel. ב before פּשׁע (transgression) in the meaning of ב pretii, on account of (um), or because of, cf. Gen 18:28. פּשׁע is the apostasy of the Israelites from God, the wickedness proceeding from the פּשׁעים (transgressors), Dan 8:23. The objection that this interpretation is not appropriate, because פּשׁע is repeated in Dan 8:13 in union with שׁמם (desolation), and therefore a wickedness devoted to destruction is characterized (Klief.), avails nothing, because it in no way follows from this that the "transgression" must be wickedness seating itself in the place of the "daily sacrifice," idolatrous worship supplanting the true worship. But "the transgression" cannot be that which sets itself in the place of the "daily sacrifice," because התּמיד is not the subject of the sentence, but is only co-ordinated to the subject. If ב in בּפשׁע is regarded as the ב pretii, then פשׁע can only be that which would be put in the place of the צבא. The preposition על before התּמיד means thereon, after that, also at the same time, or together with, as in Amo 3:15; Hos 10:14, etc. תּמיד, as in Dan 8:11, is not merely the daily sacrifice, but all that had continuance in the Mosaic worship. Finally, the jussive forms תּנּתן and תּשׁלך d (to be trodden) are to be observed, since, according to the just observation of Kran., they are not simply identical with the future, as Ewald (343) thinks, but here, as in Dan 11:4, Dan 11:10,Dan 11:16, modify the conception of time by the presentation of the divine pre-determination or the decree, and thus express a should, may, or a faculty, a being able, in consequence of the divine counsel. To the verbs of the second half of the verse קרן (horn) is easily supplied from the foregoing context as the subject; and the passage closes with the thought: thus must the horn throw the truth to the ground, and he shall succeed in this. (Note: "Successus Antiochi potuit pios omnes turbare, acsi tyrannus ille esset Deo superior. Ergo oportuit etiam hoc praedici, ne quid novum vel inopinatum constingeret fidelibus." - Calvin.) אמת, the objective truth, the word of God, so far as it is embodied in the worship. As to this matter cf. 1 Macc. 1:43-52, 56, 60. Dan 8:13-14 In addition to what has been already seen and communicated in the vision, a further vision unfolds itself, by which there is conveyed to the prophet disclosures regarding the duration of the oppression of the people of God by the little horn. Daniel hears a holy one, i.e., an angel (see under Dan 4:10), talking. What he said is not recorded. But while he is talking, another angel interrupts him with the question as to the duration of the affliction, and this is done that Daniel may hear the answer. Therefore the first angel immediately turns himself to Daniel, and, addressing him, makes known to him the information that was desired. The אלי (to me), Dan 8:14, is not, according to the old versions, to be changed into אליו (to him). What Hitzig says in justification of אליו is of no weight; cf. Kran. The angel that talked is designated by פּלמוני, quidam, nescio quis, as not being more particularly definable. The question condenses the contents of Dan 8:10-12 : "Till how long is the vision, etc.?" החזון is not the action, but the contents of the vision, the thing seen. The contents of the vision are arranged in the form of appositions: that which is continual and the desolating wickedness, for: the vision of that which is continual and of the desolation. The meaning of this apposition is more particularly defined by the further passage following asyndetos: to give up the sanctuary as well as the host to destruction. שׁמם after the definite noun without the article, which is sometimes wanting (Jer 2:21; Eze 39:27; cf. Ew. 293), does not mean being benumbed, confounded, but laid waste, fallen into ruin; thus the wickedness which consists in laying waste. שׁמם cannot be understood transitively, since שׁמם and משׁמם are placed over against each other in Dan 9:27. In the answer, עד is to be interpreted as in the question: till 2300 evening-mornings have been, or have passed, thus: 2300 evening-mornings long, so (=then) the sanctuary is brought into its right state. צדק primarily means to be just, whence the meaning is derived to justify, which is not here suitable, for it must be followed by, from the defilement of the desolation. The restoration of the temple to its right condition is, it is true, at the same time a justification of it from its desolation, and it includes in it the restoration of the permanent worship. The interpretation of the period of time, 2300 evening-mornings, named by the angel is beset with difficulty. And first the verbal import of בּקר ערב is doubtful. Among recent interpreters, Berth., Hv., v. Leng., Maur., and Horm. (Weiss. u. Erf. p. 295) understand by its days consisting of morning and evening (twenty-four hours); others, as Bleek, Kirmss, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler (who, however, in his treatise, Die 70 Wochen, u.s.w., p. 115ff., defends the first explanation), Kran., and Delitzsch, are of opinion that evening-morning is particularly reckoned with reference to the offering of a morning and an evening sacrifice each day, so that 2300 evening-mornings make only 1150 whole days. But there is no exegetical foundation for this latter opinion. It is derived only from a comparison, or rather an identification, of this passage with Dan 7:25; Dan 12:11., and Dan 9:27; and therewith it is proved that, according to 1 Macc. 1:54, 59, cf. 4:52, the desolation of the sanctuary by the worship of idols under Antiochus Epiphanes lasted not longer than three years and ten days, and that from Dan 12:11 it extends only to 1290 days. But these arguments rest on assertions which must first be justified. The passages Dan 7:25 and Dan 9:27 cannot be here taken into account, because they do not speak of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the 1290 days (1335 days, Dan 12:11.) do not give 2300 evening-mornings, that we can and may at once identify these statements with this before us. In Dan 12:11 the terminus a quo of the 1290 days is unquestionably the putting away or the removal of the תּמיד (daily sacrifice), and the giving (placing, raising up) of the abomination that maketh desolate (i.e., the altar of idol-worship); but in this verse (Dan 8:14), on the contrary, the continuance not only of the taking away of the תּמיד, but also of the delivering up of the saints and the people to be trodden under foot, is fixed to 2300 evening-mornings. This oppression continued longer than the removal of the appointed daily sacrifice. According to 1 Macc. 1:10ff., the violent assaults of Antiochus against the temple and the Jews who remained faithful to the law began in the 143rd year of the era of the Seleucidae, but the abomination that maketh desolate, i.e., the idol-altar, was first erected on Jehovah's altar of burnt-offering, according to 1 Macc. 1:54, in the 145th year of the Seleucidae, and the purification of the temple from this abomination, and its re-consecration, took place on the 25th day of Kisleu (9th month) of the year of the Seleucidae 148. According to this, from the beginning of the desecration of the temple by the plundering of its vessels and its golden ornaments (1 Macc. 1:20ff.) to its restoration to its right condition, more than five years passed. The fulfilment, or the historical reference, of this prophecy accordingly affords, as is sufficiently manifest, no proper means of ascertaining the import of the "evening-morning." This must rather be exegetically decided. It occurs only here, and corresponds to νυχθήμερον, Co2 11:25. But the choice of so unusual a measure of time, derived from the two chief parts of the day, instead of the simple measure of time by days, probably originates with reference to the morning and evening sacrifice, by which the day was to be consecrated to the Lord, after Gen 1:5, Gen 1:8,Gen 1:13, etc., where the days of the creation week are named and reckoned according to the succession of evening and morning. This separation of the expression into evening and morning, so that to number them separately and add them together would make 2300 evening-mornings = 1150 days, is shown to be inadmissible, both by the asyndeton evening-morning and the usages of the Hebrew language. That in Dan 8:26 והבּקר הערב (the evening and the morning) stands for it, does not prove that the evening ad morning are reckoned separately, but only that evening-morning is a period of time consisting of evening and morning. When the Hebrews wish to express separately day and night, the component parts of a day of a week, then the number of both is expressed. They say, e.g., forty days and forty nights (Gen 7:4, Gen 7:12; Exo 24:18; Kg1 19:8), and three days and three nights (Jon 2:1; Mat 12:40), but not eighty or six days-and-nights, when they wish to speak of forty or three full days. A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the period of time 2300 evening-mornings of 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day. Still less, in the designation of time, "till 2300 evening-mornings," could "evening-mornings" be understood of the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as meaning, that till 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices are discontinued. We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e., understand them of 2300 whole days. This exegetical resolution of the matter is not made doubtful by the remark, that an increasing of the period of oppression to 2300 days, over against the duration of the oppression limited in Dan 7:25 to only three and a half times, or to 1290 (or 1335 days, Dan 12:11-12), is very unlikely, since there is in no respect any reason for this increase over against these statements (Kran. p. 298). This remark can only be valid as proof if, on the one side, the three and a half times in Dan 7:25 are equal to three and a half civil years, for which the proof fails, and, on the other side, if the 1290 or the 1335 days in Dan 12:11. indicate the whole duration of the oppression of Israel by Antiochus. But if these periods, on the contrary, refer only to the time of the greatest oppression, the erection of the idol-altar in the temple, this time cannot be made the measure for the duration of the whole period of tribulation. The objection also, that it is more difficult to prove historically an oppression of the people of God for 2300 days by Antiochus than the 1150 days' duration of this oppression, need not move us to depart from the exegetically ascertained meaning of the words. The opponents of this view are indeed at one in this, that the consecration of the temple after its purification, and after the altar of Jehovah was restored, on the 25th Kisleu of the 148th year of the Seleucidae, formed the termination of the period named, but they are at variance as to the commencement of the period. Delitzsch reckons from the erection of the idol-altar in the temple on 15th Kisleu in the 145th year of the Sel., and thus makes it only three years and ten days, or 1090 to 1105 days. Hitzig reckons from the taking away of the daily sacrifice, which would take place somewhat earlier than the setting up of the idol-altar, but has not furnished proof that this happened tow months earlier. Bleek and Kirmss reckon from the taking of Jerusalem by Apollonius in the year of the Sel. 145 (1 Macc. 1:30ff.; 2 Macc. 5:24ff.), misplacing this in the first month of the year named, but without having any other proof for it than the agreement of the reckoning. To this is to be added, that the adoption of the consecration of the temple as the terminus ad quem is not so well grounded as is supposed. The words of the text, קדשׁ ונצדּק ("thus is the sanctuary placed in the right state"), comprehend more than the purification and re-consecration of the temple. In Dan 8:11, also Dan 9:17 and Dan 11:31, Daniel uses the word מקדּשׁ for temple, while on the other hand קדשׁ means all that is holy. Was, then, the sanctuary, in this comprehensive meaning of the word, placed in its right state with the consecration of the temple, when after this occurrence "they that were in the tower (Acra) shut up the Israelites round about the sanctuary," sought to hinder access to the temple, and, when Judas Maccabaeus had begun to besiege the tower, the Syrians approached with a reinforced army, besieged the sanctuary for many days, and on their departure demolished its strongholds (1 Macc. 6:18ff., 51, 62)? - when, again, under Demetrius Soter of Bacchides, the high priest Menelaus was deposed, and Alcimus, who was not descended from the family of a high priest, was advanced to his place, who cruelly persecuted the pious in Israel? - when the Syrian general Nicanor mocked the priests who showed to him the burnt-offering for the king, and defiled and threatened to burn the temple (1 Macc. 7)? And did the trampling upon Israel cease with the consecration of the temple, when at the building up of the altar and the restoration of the temple the heathen around became so furious, that they resolved to destroy all who were of the race of Jacob amongst them, and began to murder them (1 Macc. 5:1ff.)? Hvernick therefore, with Bertholdt, places the terminus ad quem of the 2300 days in the victory over Nicanor, by which the power of the Syrians over Judea was first broken, and the land enjoyed rest, so that it was resolved to celebrate annually this victory as well as the consecration of the temple (1 Macc. 7:48-50), according to which the terminus a quo of the period named would be shortly before the erection of the abomination of idolatry in the temple. If we now, however, turn from this supposition, since the text speaks further of it, to seek the end of the oppression in the restoration of the legal temple-worship, or in the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, which the angel brings to view in the interpretation of the vision (Dan 8:26), so also in these cases the 2300 days are to be calculated. C. v. Leng., Maur., and Wiesel., who regard the death of Antiochus as the termination, place the beginning of the 2300 days one year before the beginning of violence with which Antiochus, after his return from the expedition into Egypt in the year 143 Sel., went forth to destroy (1 Macc. 1:20) the Mosaic worship and law. Only a few weeks or months earlier, in the middle of the year 142 Sel., the point of commencement must be placed, if the consecration of the temple is held to be the termination. In the year 142 not only was the pious high priest Onias removed from his office by the godless Jason, but also Jason himself was forced from the place he had usurped by Menelaus, who gave Antiochus a greater bribe than he did, and gave away as presents and sold to the heathen the golden utensils of the temple, and commanded Onias, who denounced his wickedness, to be deceitfully murdered (2 Macc. 2:4). Hence we need not, with Hofmann, regard the deposition of Onias, the date of which cannot be accurately fixed, but which, 2 Macc. 4:7ff., is brought into connection with the commencement of the reign of Antiochus, and which probably took place before the year 142, as the date of the commencement of the 2300 days, although the laying waste of the sanctuary may be dated from it; since Jason by royal authority set up a heathen γυμνάσιον with an ἐφηβεῖον, and by the wickedness of the profane and unpriestly conduct of this man Greek customs and the adoption of heathenish manners so prevailed, that the priests ceased to concern themselves about the service of the altar, but, despising the temple and forgetting the sacrifice, they hastened to witness the spectacles in the palaestra, which were contrary to the law; cf. 2 Macc. 4:13ff. with 1 Macc. 1:11-15. The 2300 days are thus, as well as the 1150 days, historically authenticated. But it is on the whole questionable whether the number given by the angel is to be reckoned as an historico-chronological period of time, or is not rather to be interpreted as symbolical. The analogy of the other prophetic numbers speaks decidedly for the symbolical interpretation. The 2300 cannot, it is true, be directly a symbolical number, such as 7, 10, 40, 70, and other numbers are, but yet it can stand in such a relation to the number seven as to receive a symbolical meaning. The longer periods of time are usually reckoned not by days, but by weeks, months, or years; if, therefore, as to the question of the duration of the 2300 days, we reduce the days to weeks, months, and years, we shall find six years, three or four months, and some days, and discover that the oppression of the people by the little horn was to continue not fully a period of seven years. But the times of God's visitations, trials, and judgments are so often measured by the number seven, that this number came to bear stamped on it this signification; see under Dan 4:13; Dan 7:25. The number of seven years is used in the symbolical meaning when, not to mention the cases in Gen 29:18, Gen 29:27; Gen 41:26., and Jdg 6:1, seven years' famine were laid upon the land as a punishment for David's sin in numbering the people (Sa2 24:13), and when in Elisha's time Israel was visited with seven years' famine (Kg2 8:1). Thus the answer of the angel has this meaning: The time of the predicted oppression of Israel, and of the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus, the little horn, shall not reach the full duration of a period of divine judgment, shall not last so long as the severe oppression of Israel by the Midianites, Jdg 6:1, or as the famine which fell upon Israel in the time of Elisha, and shall not reach to a tenth part of the time of trial and of sorrow endured by the exiles, and under the weight of which Israel then mourned. But if this is the meaning of the angel's message, why does not the divine messenger use a pure symbolical expression, such as "not full seven times?" and why does he not simply say, "not quite seven years?" As to the first of these questions, we answer that the expression "times" is too indefinite; for the duration of this period of sorrow must be given more minutely. As to the second question, we know no other answer that can be given than this, that, on the one side, only the positive determination of the length of time, measured by days, can afford full confidence that the domination and the tyranny of the oppressor shall not continue one day longer than God has before fixed; but, on the other side, by the measuring of this period by a number defined according to thousands and hundreds, both the long duration of the affliction is shown, and the symbolical character of the period named is indicated. While by the period "evening-morning" every ambiguity of the expression, and every uncertainty thence arising regarding the actual length of the time of affliction, is excluded, yet the number 2300 shows that the period must be defined in round numbers, measuring only nearly the actual time, in conformity with all genuine prophecy, which never passes over into the mantic prediction of historico-chronological data. If we compare with this the designation of time in Dan 7:25, instead of the general idea there expressed, of "time, times, and half a time," which is not to be computed as to its duration, we have here a very definite space of time mentioned. This difference corresponds to the contents of the two prophecies. The oppression prophesied of in this chapter would visit the people of Israel at not too distant a time; and its commencement as well as its termination, announced by God beforehand, was fitted to strengthen believers in the faith of the truth and fidelity of God for the time of the great tribulation of the end, the duration of which God the Lord indeed determined accurately and firmly beforehand, but according to a measure of time whose extent men cannot calculate in advance. In this respect the designation of the time of the affliction which the horn growing up out of the third world-kingdom will bring upon God's people, becomes a type for the duration of the oppression of the last enemy of the church of the Lord at the end of the days.

Verse 15

The interpretation of the vision - The interpretation of Daniel's vision, as given by the angel, falls within the vision itself. When Daniel sought to understand the vision, viz., in his mind, not by prayer or by asking a question, he saw before him, according to Dan 8:17, one standing at some distance, who had the appearance of a man, but was not a man, but a supernatural being in human likeness. This person resembling a man is (Dan 8:16) named by the angel, Gabriel, i.e., man of God. The voice of another, whom Daniel did not see, hearing only a human voice proceeding from the Ulai, commanded this person to explain the vision to the prophet (להלּז, i.e., to Daniel). Nothing further is indicated of the person from whom the voice proceeded than what may be conjectured from אוּלי בּין (between the Ulai), whence the voice sounded. These words do not mean "hither from Ulai" (Bertholdt), but "between the two banks of the Ulai" (Chr. B. Mich., Hv., etc.); according to which, the being whose voice Daniel heard appears as if hovering over the waters of the river Ulai. This conjecture is confirmed by Dan 12:6-7, where Daniel sees a man hovering over the waters of the river of Ulai, who by the majesty of his appearance and his words shows himself to be a divine being, and is more minutely described according to the majesty of his appearance in Dan 10:5. The question, who this man might be, is first answered in Daniel Dan 10:5. Gabriel is not a nomen proprium but appellativum. The angel who was described as an appearance like a גּבר (man) is named, for Daniel, Gabriel ("man of God"), that on subsequent occasions (e.g., Dan 9:21) he might recognise him again as the same (Hgst., Hofm., Kliefoth). As to his relation to other angels and archangels, the Scripture gives no information. If Lengerke and Maurer regard him, after the book of Enoch, along with Michael, and Raphael, and Uriel whose name does not occur in Scripture, as one of the four angels that stand before the throne of God, the Scripture affords no support for it; nor does it countenance the supposition of Hitzig, that the two angels in Dan 8:15, Dan 8:16 are identical with those in Dan 8:13, Dan 8:14 - that Gabriel who spake, and the unknown angel, was the angel of the "rivers and fountains of waters," Rev 16:4. (Note: Altogether groundless, also, is the identification of them with the Persian Amschaspands, since neither the doctrine of angels nor the names of angels of the O.T. are derived from Parsism. The most recent attempt by Dr. Al. Kohut, in his researches regarding Jewish angelology and demonology in their dependence on Parsism (Abhand. fr die Kunde des Morgen. iv. Bc., Nr. 3), to establish this connection, is extremely poor and superficial. The proof adduced in the first ten pages of his treatise is confined to these points: that in the writings of the O.T. after the Exile or during the Exile the appearance of the angels is altogether different from that presented in the portions written before the Exile. It is said that, as a rule, the angels in the period first named take the human form, and bear names corresponding to their properties - Michael, Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; Gabriel, Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21; and in the book of Tobit, 12:15, not much later in date (?), Raphael; - now also, in contrast to the period before the Exile, there is an order in rank among the angels; Michael, Dan 10:12, is designated as one of the first angel-princes, and, Dan 12:1, as the greatest angel-prince; moreover, the number of שׂרים (angel-princes) is spoken of as seven, corresponding to the Persian Amesha-pentas (Tob. 12:15, and Book of Enoch 90:21). But does this distinction between the pre-exilian and post-exilian doctrine of angels, even though it were allowed to be as great as Kohut supposes, furnish a proof for the derivation of the latter from Parsism? or does this derivation follow from the fact that the Jews in exile came into intercourse with the Persians and the Medes, and that about this time the Zend worship flourished? And do the angels in the post-exilian writings for the first time indeed assume the human form? Kohut seems to know nothing of the appearance of angels in Gen 19:1., Jdg 6:11., Jdg 13:9. Then does the agreement, not of the doctrine of the O.T., but of the later Jewish apocryphal writings, Tobit and the Book of Enoch, with regard to the number of angel-princes and of the Amesha-penta, furnish a sufficient proof of this derivation? Dr. Kohut does not himself appear to think so, since he regards it as necessary, in addition to this, which is "perhaps purely accidental," to furnish an etymological argument. Amesha-penta means "non connivens sanctus = the holy one not sleeping;" "thus," he says, "it is a mere Chaldee rendering of the word Amesha-penta, when in Dan 4:10,Dan 4:14, Dan 4:20; Dan 8:13, the Jewish angel-princes are called עירין קדּשׁין = holy watchers." But was, then, the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar, to whom in a dream a "holy watcher" appeared, a Jew? and in what edition of the Bible has Dr. Kohut found in Dan 8:13 the angel name עיר? Nor is it any better proof that the demonology of the O.T. is a foreign production, resulting from the contact of the Jews with the Persians and Medes during the exile, because in Zac 3:1., Psa 48:1-14 :49; Ch1 21:1, and especially in Job 1:6., Dan 2:1, Satan "is depicted as a plague-spirit, altogether corresponding to the Persian Agromainjus, the killing spirit." Such silly talk needs no refutation.) Dan 8:16-18 As commanded, the angel goes to the place where Daniel stands. On his approach Daniel is so filled with terror that he falls on his face, because as a sinful and mortal man he could not bear the holiness of God which appeared before him in the pure heavenly being. At the appearance of God he fears that he must die. Cf. remarks at Gen 16:13 and Exo 33:20. But the angel, in order to mitigate his alarm, calls him to take heed, for the vision relates to the time of the end. The address (Dan 8:17), "son of man," stands in contrast to "man of God" (= Gabriel), and is designed to remind Daniel of his human weakness (cf. Psa 8:5), not that he may be humbled (Hvernick), without any occasion for that, but to inform him that, notwithstanding this, he was deemed worthy of receiving high divine revelations (Kliefoth). The foundation of the summons to give heed, "for the vision relates to the time of the end," is variously interpreted. Auberlen (p. 87) and Zndel (p. 105ff.) understand עת־קץ not of the time of the end of all history, but of a nearer relative end of the prophecy. "Time of the end" is the general prophetic expression for the time which, as the period of fulfilment, lies at the end of the existing prophetic horizon - in the present case the time of Antiochus. Bleek (Jahrb.f. D. Theol. v. p. 57) remarks, on the contrary, that if the seer was exhorted to special attention because the vision related to the time of the end, then קץ here, as in Dan 8:19; Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40; Dan 12:4, also Dan 9:26, without doubt is to be interpreted of the end of the time of trial and sorrow of the people, and at the same time of the beginning of the new time of deliverance vouchsafed by God to His people; and herein lay the intimation, "that the beginning of the deliverance destined by God for His people (i.e., the Messianic time) would connect itself immediately with the cessation of the suppression of the worship of Jehovah by Antiochus Epiphanes, and with the destruction of that ruler." From the passages referred to, Dan 11:40 and Dan 12:4, it is certainly proved that עתקץ denotes the time of all suffering, and the completion of the kingdom of God by the Messiah. It does not, however, follow, either that these words "are to be understood of the absolute end of all things, of the time when the Messiah will come to set up His regum gloriae, and of the time of the last tribulation going before this coming of the Lord" (Klief.); or that the prophet cherished the idea, that immediately after the downfall of Antiochus, thus at the close of the 2300 days, the Messiah would appear, bring the world to an end, and erect the kingdom of eternity (v. Leng., Hitz., Maur., etc.). The latter conclusion is not, it is true, refuted by the remark, that the words do not say that the vision has the time of the end directly for its subject, that the prophecy will find its fulfilment in the time of the end, but only that the vision has a relation, a reference, to the time of the end, that there is a parallelism between the time of Antiochus and the time of Antichrist, that "that which will happen to Javan and Antiochus shall repeat itself in, shall be a type of, that which will happen in the time of the end with the last world-kingdom and the Antichrist arising out of it" (Kliefoth). For this idea does not lie in the words. That is shown by the parallel passage, Dan 10:14, which Kliefoth thus understands - "The vision extends to the days which are before named הימים אחרית (latter days); it goes over the same events which will then happen." Accordingly the angel can also here (Dan 8:17) only say, "Give heed, for the vision relates to the end-time; it gives information of that which shall happen in the end of time." Dan 8:19 The justice of this exposition is placed beyond a doubt by this verse. Here the angel says in distinct words, "I will show thee what will happen הזּעם בּאחרית (in the last time of the indignation), for it relates to the appointed time of the end." Kliefoth indeed thinks that what the angel, Dan 8:19, says to the prophet for his comfort is not the same that he had said to him in Dan 8:17, and which cast him down, and that Dan 8:19 does not contain anything so weighty and so overwhelming as Dan 8:17, but something more cheering and consoling; that it gives to the vision another aspect, which relieves Daniel of the sorrow which it had brought upon him on account of its import with reference to the end. From this view of the contents of Dan 8:19 Kliefoth concludes that Daniel, after he had recovered from his terror in the presence of the heavenly messenger, and had turned his mind to the contents of the vision, was thrown to the ground by the thought presented to him by the angel, that the vision had reference to the end of all things, and that, in order to raise him up, the angel said something else to him more comforting of the vision. But this conclusion has no foundation in the text. The circumstance that Daniel was not again cast to the ground by the communication of the angel in Dan 8:19, is not to be accounted for by supposing that the angel now made known to him something more consoling; but it has its foundation in this, that the angel touched the prophet, who had fallen dismayed to the earth, and placed him again on his feet (Dan 8:18), and by means of this touch communicated to him the strength to hear his words. But the explanation which Kliefoth gives of Dan 8:19 the words do not bear. "The last end of the indignation" must denote the time which will follow after the expiration of the זעם, i.e., the period of anger of the Babylonian Exile. But אחרית means, when space is spoken of, that which is farthest (cf. Psa 139:9), and when time is spoken of, the last, the end, the opposite of רשׁית, the end over against the beginning. If הימים אחרית does not denote such a time was follows an otherwise fixed termination, but the last time, the end-time (see under Dan 2:28), so also, since זעם is here the time of the revelation of the divine wrath, הזּעם אחרית ה can only denote the last time, or the end-time, of the revelation of the divine wrath. This explanation of the words, the only one which the terms admit of, is also required by the closing words of Dan 8:19, קץ למועד כּי (for at the time appointed the end). According to the example of the Vulg., quoniam habet tempus finem suum, and Luther's version, "for the end has its appointed time," Kliefoth translates the words, "for the firmly-ordained, definite time has its end," and refers this to the time of the Babylonish Exile, which indeed, as Daniel knew (Dan 9:2), was fixed by God to seventy years. But that in the Babylonish Exile will have its fixed end, will come to an end with the seventy years, the angel needed not to announce to the prophet, for he did not doubt it, and the putting him in remembrance of that fact would have afforded him but very poor consolation regarding the time of the future wrath. This conception of the words depends on the inaccurate interpretation of the words הזּעם אחרית, and will consequently fall to the ground along with it. If למועד (to the appointment) were separated from קץ, and were to be taken by itself, and to be understood of the time of the זעם, then it ought to have the article, as in Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35. Without the article, as here, it must be connected with קץ, and them, with החזון supplied as the subject from the context (Dan 8:17), is to be translated, as it is by almost all modern interpreters: for the vision relates to the appointed time of the end. But עתקץ, the time of the end, and קץ מועד, the appointed time of the end, is not the absolute end of all things, the time of the setting up of the regnum gloriae, and the time of the tribulation preceding the return of our Lord; but the time of the judgment of the world-kingdom and the setting up of the everlasting kingdom of God by the appearance of the Messiah, the end of αἰὼν οὕτος and the commencement of the αἰὼν μέλλων, the time of the הימים אחרית (Dan 10:14), which the apostle calls (Co1 10:11) τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων, and speaks of as having then already come. Dan 8:20-22 Since, from the explanation given by the angel in this verse, the vision relates to the Medo-Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms, and to the persecuting kingdom of Antiochus which arose out of the latter, so it cannot be disputed that here, in prophetic perspective, the time of the end is seen together with the period of the oppression of the people of God by Antiochus, and the first appearance of the Messiah with His return in glory to the final judgment, as the latter is the case also in Dan 2:34., 44f., and Dan 7:13, Dan 7:25. If Kliefoth objects: The coming of the Messiah may certainly be conceived of as bound up with the end of all things, and this is done, since both events stand in intimate causal relation to each other, not seldom in those O.T. prophets who yet do not distinguish the times; but they also know well that this intimate causal connection does not include contemporaneousness, that the coming of the Messiah in the flesh will certainly bring about the end of all things, but not as an immediate consequence, but after a somewhat lengthened intervening space, that thus, after the coming of the Messiah, a course of historical events will further unfold themselves before the end comes (which Daniel also knew, as Daniel 9 shows), and where the supposition is this, as in Daniel, there the time before the appearance of Christ in the flesh cannot be called the time of the end: - then the inference drawn in these last passages is not confirmed by the contents of the book of Daniel. For in the last vision (Daniel 10-12) which Daniel saw, not only the time of oppression of Antiochus and that of the last enemy are contemplated together as one, but also the whole contents of this one vision are, Dan 10:14, transferred to the "end of the days;" for the divine messenger says to Daniel, "I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the end of the days, for the vision yet relates to the days." And not only this, but also in Dan 11:35 it is said of the tribulation brought upon the people of God by Antiochus, that in it many would fall, to cleanse them and to purify them to the time of the end, for it is yet for the appointed time. Here, beyond doubt, the time of the persecution by Antiochus is placed in intimate union with the time of the end, but, as is to be particularly observed, not so that the two are spoken of as synchronous. This point is of importance for the right exposition of the verse before us. If, in Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40, it is twice said laמועד קץ עוד כּי (the end is yet for the appointed time), and thus does not begin with the oppression of the people of God by Antiochus, so we may not conclude from these verses - and in this Kliefoth is perfectly justified - that Daniel expected the erection of the Messianic kingdom and the end of all history with the overthrow of Antiochus. If, however, on the whole, the intimate causal connection of the two periods of tribulation placed together in Daniel 11 in one vision neither demands nor even permits us to regard the two as synchronous, so this erroneous conclusion drawn from these verses before us, in connection with an incorrect interpretation of Dan 11:36-45, is sufficiently obviated, both by Daniel 2 and 7, according to which the fourth world-kingdom shall precede the erection of the everlasting kingdom of God and the manifestation of the Son of man, as also by Dan 9:24-27, where - as our exposition will show - the coming of the Messiah and the perfecting of the kingdom of God by the overthrow of the last enemy are dependent on one another in point of time - the coming of the Messiah after seven weeks, the perfecting of the kingdom of God will follow, but not trill after the lapse of seventy weeks. This passage is to be understood according to these distinct revelations and statements, and not that because in them, according to prophetic perspective, the oppression of the people of the saints by Antiochus, the little horn, is seen in one vision with the tribulation of the end-time, therefore the synchronism or identity of the two is to be concluded, and the erection of the regnum gloriae and the end of the world to be placed at the destruction of this little horn. The words, "the vision relates to the time of the end," thus only declare that the prophecy has a reference to Messianic times. As to the nature of this reference, the angel gives some intimation when, having touched the prophet, who had fallen in amazement to the ground, he raised him up and enabled him to listen to his words (Dan 8:18), the intimation that he would make known to him what would happen in the last time of violence (Dan 8:19). הזּעם is the wrath of God against Israel, the punishment which God hung over them on account of their sins, as in Isa 10:5; Jer 25:17; Eze 22:24, etc., and here the sufferings of punishment and discipline which the little horn shall bring over Israel. The time of this revelation of divine wrath is called אחרית because it belongs to the הימים אחרית, prepares the Messianic future, and with its conclusion begins the last age of the world, of which, however, nothing more particular is here said, for the prophecy breaks off with the destruction of the little horn. The vision of the eleventh chapter first supplies more particular disclosures on this point. In that chapter the great enemy of the saints of God, arising out of the third world-kingdom, is set forth and represented as the prefiguration or type of their last enemy at the end of the days. Under the words יהיה אשׁר (which shall be) the angel understands all that the vision of this chapter contains, from the rising up of the Medo-Persian world-kingdom to the time of the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, as Dan 8:20-25 show. But when he adds הזּעם אחרית, he immediately makes prominent that which is the most important matter in the whole vision, the severe oppression which awaits the people of Israel in the future for their purification, and repeats, in justification of that which is said, the conclusion from Dan 8:17, in which he only exchanges עת for מועד is the definite time in its duration; קץ מועד thus denotes the end-time as to its duration. This expression is here chosen with regard to the circumstance that in Dan 8:14 the end of the oppression was accurately defined by the declaration of its continuance. The object of these words also is variously viewed by interpreters. The meaning is not that the angel wished to console Daniel with the thought that the judgment of the vision was not yet so near at hand (Zndel); for, according to Dan 8:17, Daniel was not terrified by the contents of the vision, but by the approach of the heavenly being; and if, according to Dan 8:18, the words of the angel so increased his terror that he fell down confounded to the earth, and the angel had to raise him by touching him, yet it is not at the same time said that the words of the angel of the end-time had so confounded him, and that the subsequent fuller explanation was somewhat less overwhelming than the words, Dan 8:17, something lighter or more comforting. Even though the statement about the time of the end contributed to the increase of the terror, yet the contents of Dan 8:19 were not fitted to raise up the prophet, but the whole discourse of the angel was for Daniel so oppressive that after hearing it, he was for some days sick, Dan 8:27. From Daniel's astonishment we are not to conclude that the angel in Dan 8:17 spoke of the absolute end of all things, and in Dan 8:19, on the contrary, of the end of the oppression of the people of Israel by Antiochus. By the words, "the vision relates to the appointed end-time," the angel wished only to point to the importance of his announcement, and to add emphasis to his call to the prophet to give heed. Dan 8:20-26 After the introductory words, we have now in these verses the explanation of the chief points of the vision. Dan 8:20-22 explain Dan 8:3-8. "The kings of Media and Persia" are the whole number of the Medo-Persian kings as they succeed each other, i.e., the Medo-Persian monarchy in the whole of its historical development. To הצּפיר the epithet השּׂעיר, hairy, shaggy, is added to characterize the animal as an he-goat. The king of Javan (Greece) is the founder and representative of the Macedo-Grecian world-kingdom, or rather the royalty of this kingdom, since the great horn of the ram is forthwith interpreted of Alexander the Great, the first king of this kingdom. The words והנּשׁבּרת to תּחתּיה (Dan 8:22) form an absolute subject-sentence, in which, however, ותּעמדנה is not to be taken ἐκβατικῶς, it broke in pieces, so that ... (Kran.); for "the statement of the principal passage may not appear here in the subordinate relative passage" (Hitzig); but to the statement beginning with the participle the further definition in the verb. in. with וconsec. is added, without the relative אשׁר, as is frequently the case (cf. Ewald's Lehr. 351), which we cannot give with so much brevity, but must express thus: "as concerning the horn, that it was broken in pieces, and then four stood up in its place, (this signifies) that four kingdoms shall arise from the people." מגּוי without the article does not signify from the people of Javan, for in this case the article would not have been omitted; nor does it signify from the heathen world, because a direct contrast to Israel does not lie before us; but indefinitely, from the territory of the people, or the world of the people, since the prophecy conceives of the whole world of the people (Vklerwelt) as united under the sceptre of the king of Javan. יעמדנה is a revived archaism; cf. Gen 30:38; Sa1 6:12; Ewald, 191; Gesen. Gramm. 47. - בכוחו ולא, but not in his power, not armed with the strength of the first king, cf. Dan 11:4. Dan 8:23-24 Dan 8:23-26 give the interpretation of the vision of the little horn (Dan 8:9-12), with a more special definition of certain elements not made prominent in the vision. The horn signifies a king who will arise "in the last time of their kingdom." The suffix to מלכוּתם (of their kingdom) relates to the idea contained in מלכיּות ni deniat (kings). הפּשׁעים כּהתם, when the transgressors have made full, scil. the transgression or measure of the sins. The object wanting to התם is seen from the conception of the subject. הפּשׁעים, the rebellious, are not the heathen, for פּשׁע denotes the apostasy from God which is only said of the Israelites, but not of the heathen; and the word points back to בּפשׁע in Dan 8:12. The king that rises up is Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 1 Macc. 1:10ff.). עז־פּנים, hard of countenance, i.e., impudent, unashamed in trampling down, without fear of God or man; cf. Deu 28:50. חידות מבין, understanding mysteries; here sensu malo, concealing his purpose behind ambiguous words, using dissimulation, forming an artifice, interpreted in Dan 8:25 by מרמה, cf. Dan 11:21. The unfolding of these qualities is presented in Dan 8:24, Dan 8:25; in Dan 8:24 of the עז־פּנים. By virtue of the audacity of his conduct his power will be strengthened, בכחו ולא, but not by his own might. The contrast here is not: by the power or permission of God (Ephr., Theodrt., Hv., Hitz., Kran.), reference being made to תּנּתן (was given) in Dan 8:12, and to תּת (to give) in Dan 8:13. This contrast is foreign to the passage. The context much rather relates to the audacity and the cunning by which, more than by his power, Antiochus raised himself to might. The strengthening of the power is limited neither to his reaching the throne by the overthrow of other pretenders to it (Berth. and others), nor to the to the following statements, he developed as king against Israel, as well as against other kingdoms. נפּלאות (wonderful works) is used adverbially, as in Job 37:5 : in an astonishing, wonderful way, he will work destruction. But from this word it does not follow that the expression בכחו ולא is to be referred to the power of God, for it does not necessarily mean deeds or things supernaturally originating from God; and even though it had only this meaning, yet here they could not be thought of as deeds accomplished in God's strength, but only as deeds performed by demoniacal strength, because ישׁחית (shall destroy) cannot be predicated of God in the sense determined by the context. This destructive work he shall direct against the mighty and against the people of the saints. עצוּמים does not here signify many, numerous, many individual Israelites (v. Leng., Maur., Kliefoth), partly because in Dan 8:25 רבּים stands for that, partly because of the קדשׁים עם, by which we are to understand the people of Israel, not merely the insignificant and weak, or pious (Kran.). Hence עצוּמים cannot mean the elders of Israel, much less merely foreign kings (Berth., Dereser), but the mighty generally, under which perhaps we are specially to think of heathen rulers. Dan 8:25 In Dan 8:25 the cunning and craftiness of his action and demeanour are depicted. שׂכלו על (through his craft) is placed first. שׂכל, sagacity, here sensu malo, cunning. On the ground of this cunning his deceit will be successful. מרמה without the article means "all kinds of deceit which he designs" (Hitzig). On that account his heart is raised in haughtiness, so that not only does he destroy many unexpectedly, but also raises himself against God. In the רבּים (many) are comprehended "the mighty and the holy people" (Dan 8:24). בּשׁלוה does not mean in deep peace, but in careless security, and thus unexpectedly. An historical proof of this is found in 1 Macc. 1:10. שׂרים שׂר (Prince of princes) corresponds with אדני האדנים (Lord of lords) in Psa 136:3. It is God; cf. Dan 8:11. But the angel adds, "he shall be destroyed without hands," i.e., he shall be destroyed not by the hand of man, but by God. Dan 8:26 In Dan 8:26 there follows, in conclusion, the confirmation of the truth of what is said of the duration of this oppression for the people of God. Because the time of it was not seen by Daniel, but was revealed to him in words, נאמר אשׁר is here used in reference to that which was, or of which it was, said. But we need not connect this relative sentence with the genitive והבּקר הערב (the evening and the morning), although this were admissible, but can make it depend on מראה (vision), since the world-revelation of the evenings and mornings forms an integral part of the "vision." והבּקר הערב are to be taken collectively. The confirmation of the truth of this revelation does not betray the purpose to make the book falsely appear as if it were old (v. Leng., Hitzig); it much more is fitted to serve the purpose of strengthening the weakness of the faithful, and giving them consolation in the hour of trial. For in the statement of the duration of the afflictions lies not only the fact that they will come to an end, but at the same time also that this end is determined beforehand by God; cf. Dan 12:7. In other places this confirmation serves only to meet doubts, arising from the weakness of the flesh, as to the realization of revelations of such weighty import; cf. Dan 10:1; Dan 12:1; Rev 19:9; Rev 21:5; Rev 22:6. But Daniel must close the prophecy, because it extends into a long time. סתן is not equivalent to חתם, to seal up, but it means to stop, to conclude, to hide (cf. Kg2 3:19; Eze 28:3), but not in the sense of keeping secret, or because it would be incomprehensible for the nearest times; for to seal or to shut up has nothing in common with incomprehensibility, but is used in the sense of keeping. "A document is sealed up in the original text, and laid up in archives (shut up), that it may remain preserved for remote times, but not that it may remain secret, while copies of it remain in public use" (Kliefoth). The meaning of the command, then, is simply this: "Preserve the revelation, not because it is not yet to be understood, also not for the purpose of keeping it secret, but that it may remain preserved for distant times" (Kliefoth). The reason assigned for the command only agrees with this interpretation. רבּים לימים (to many days) is not to be identified with לעת־קץ in Dan 8:17, but designates only a long time; and this indefinite expression is here used because it was not intended to give exactly again the termination according to Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19, but only to say that the time of the end was not near. Dan 8:27 In Dan 8:27 the influence of this vision on Daniel is mentioned (cf. Dan 7:28). It so deeply agitated the prophet that he was sick certain days, and not till after he had recovered from this sickness could he attend to the king's business. The contents of the vision remained fixed in his mind; the scene filled him with amazement, and no one understood it. Maurer, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld interpret מבין אין (I understood it not,) supplying the pronoun of the first person from the connection. But even though the construction of the words should admit of this supplement, for which a valid proof is not adduced, yet it would be here unsuitable, and is derived merely from giving to סתן (Dan 8:26) the false interpretation of to conceal. If Daniel had been required to keep the prophecy secret according to the command in Dan 8:26, then the remark "no one understood it" would have been altogether superfluous. But if he was required only to preserve the prophecy, and it deeply moved him, then those around him must have had knowledge of it, and the amazement of Daniel would become the greater when not only he but all others failed to understand it. To refer מבין אין only to Daniel is forbidden by the comparison with אבין ולא in Dan 12:8. The fulfilment of this vision can alone lead to its full understanding.

Verse 1

Here is, I. The date of this vision, Dan 8:1. It was in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, which proved to be his last year, as many reckon; so that this chapter also should be, in order of time, before the fifth. That Daniel might not be surprised at the destruction of Babylon, now at hand, God gives him a foresight of the destruction of other kingdoms hereafter, which in their day had been as potent as that of Babylon. Could we foresee the changes that shall be hereafter, when we are gone, we should the less admire, and be less affected with, the changes in our own day; for that which is done is that which shall be done, Ecc 1:9. Then it was that a vision appeared to me, even to me, Daniel. Here he solemnly attests the truth of it: it was to him, even to him, that the vision was shown; he was the eye-witness of it. And this vision puts him in mind of a former vision which appeared to him at the first, in the first year of this reign, which he makes mention of because this vision was an explication and confirmation of that, and points at many of the same events. That seems to have been a dream, a vision in his sleep; this seems to have been when he was awake. II. The scene of this vision. The place where that was laid was in Shushan the palace, one of the royal seats of the kings of Persia, situated on the banks of the river Ulai, which surrounded the city; it was in the province of Elam, that part of Persia which lay next to Babylon. Daniel was not there in person, for he was now in Babylon, a captive, in some employment under Belshazzar, and might not go to such a distant country, especially being now an enemy's country. But he was there in vision; as Ezekiel, when a captive in Babylon, was often brought, in the spirit, to the land of Israel. Note, The soul may be a liberty when the body is in captivity; for, when we are bound, the Spirit of the Lord is not bound. The vision related to that country, and therefore there he was made to fancy himself to be as strongly as if he had really been there. III. The vision itself and the process of it. 1. He saw a ram with two horns, Dan 8:3. This was the second monarchy, of which the kingdoms of Media and Persia were the two horns. The horns were very high; but that which came up last was the higher, and got the start of the former. So the last shall be first, and the first last. The kingdom of Persia, which rose last, in Cyrus, became more eminent than that of the Medes. 2. He saw this ram pushing all about him with his horns (Dan 8:4), westward (towards Babylon, Syria, Greece, and Asia the less), northward (towards the Lydians, Armenians, and Scythians), and southward (towards Arabia, Ethiopia, and Egypt), for all these nations did the Persian empire, one time or other, make attempts upon for the enlarging of their dominion. And at last he became so powerful that no beasts might stand before him. This ram, though of a species of animal often preyed upon, became formidable even to the beasts of prey themselves, so that there was no standing before him, no escaping him, none that could deliver out of his hand, but all must yield to him: the kings of Persia did according to their will, prospered in all their ways abroad, had an uncontrollable power at home, and became great. He thought himself great because he did what he would; but to do good is that which makes men truly great. 3. He saw this ram overcome by a he-goat. He was considering the ram (wondering that so weak an animal should come to be so prevalent) and thinking what would be the issue; and, behold, a he-goat came, Dan 8:5. This was Alexander the Great, the son of Philip king of Macedonia. He came from the west, from Greece, which lay west from Persia. He fetched a great compass with his army: he came upon the face of the whole earth; he did in effect conquer the world, and then sat down and wept because there was not another world to be conquered. Unus Pellaeo juveni non sufficit orbis - One world was too little for the youth of Pellae. This he-goat (a creature famed for comeliness in going, Pro 30:31) went on with incredible swiftness, so that he touched not the ground, so lightly did he move; he rather seemed to fly above the ground than to go upon the ground; or none touched him in the earth, that is, he met with little or no opposition. This he-goat, or buck, had a notable horn between his eyes, like a unicorn. He had strength, and knew his own strength; he saw himself a match for all his neighbours. Alexander pushed his conquests on so fast, and with so much fury, that none of the kingdoms he attacked had courage to make a stand, or give check to the progress of his victorious arms. In six years he made himself master of the greatest part of the then known world. Well might he be called a notable horn, for his name still lives in history as the name of one of the most celebrated commanders in war that ever the world knew. Alexander's victories and achievements are still the entertainment of the ingenious. This he-goat came to the ram that had two horns, Dan 8:6. Alexander with his victorious army attacked the kingdom of Persia, an army consisting of no more than 30,000 foot and 5000 horse. He ran unto him, to surprise him ere he could get intelligence of his motions, in the fury of his power. He came close to the ram. Alexander with his army came up with Darius Codomannus, then emperor of Persia, being moved with choler against him, Dan 8:7. It was with the greatest violence that Alexander pushed on his war against Darius, who, though he brought vast numbers into the field, yet, for want of skill, was an unequal match for him, so that Alexander was too hard for him whenever he engaged him, smote him, cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him, which three expressions, some think, refer to the three famous victories that Alexander obtained over Darius, at Granicus, at Issus, and at Arbela, by which he was at length totally routed, having, in the last battle, had 600,000 men killed, so that Alexander became absolute master of all the Persian empire, broke his two horns, the kingdoms of Media and Persia. The ram that had destroyed all before him (Dan 8:4) now is himself destroyed; Darius has no power to stand before Alexander, not has he any friends or allies to help to deliver him out of his hand. Note, Those kingdoms which, when they had power, abused it, and, because none could oppose them, withheld not themselves from the doing of any wrong, may expect to have their power at length taken from them, and to be served in their own kind, Isa 33:1. 4. He saw the he-goat made hereby very considerable; but the great horn, that had done all this execution, was broken, Dan 8:8. Alexander was about twenty years old when he began his wars. When he was about twenty-six he conquered Darius, and became master of the whole Persian empire; but when he was about thirty-two or thirty-three years of age, when he was strong, in his full strength, he was broken. He was not killed in war, in the bed of honour, but died of a drunken surfeit, or, as some suspect, by poison and left no child living behind him to enjoy that which he had endlessly laboured for, but left a lasting monument of the vanity of worldly pomp and power, and their insufficiency to make a man happy. 5. He saw this kingdom divided into four parts, and that instead of that one great horn there came up four notable ones, Alexander's four captains, to whom he bequeathed his conquests; and he had so much that, when it was divided among four, they had each of them enough for any one man. These four notable horns were towards the four winds of heaven, the same with the four heads of the leopard (Dan 7:6), the kingdoms of Syria and Egypt, Asia and Greece - Syria lying to the east, Greece to the west, Asia Minor to the north, and Egypt to the south. Note, Those that heap up riches know not who shall gather them, nor whose all those things shall be which they have provided. 6. He saw a little horn which became a great persecutor of the church and people of God; and this was the principal thing that was intended to be shown to him in this vision, as afterwards, Dan 11:30, etc. All agree that this was Antiochus Epiphanes (so he called himself) - the illustrious, but others called him Antiochus Epimanes - Antiochus the furious. He is called here (as before, Dan 7:8), a little horn, because he was in his original contemptible; there were others between him and the kingdom, and he was of a base servile disposition, had nothing in him of princely qualities, and had been for some time a hostage and prisoner at Rome, whence he made his escape, and, though, the youngest brother, and his elder living, got the kingdom. He waxed exceedingly great towards the south, for he seized upon Egypt, and towards the east, for he invaded Persia and Armenia. But that which is here especially taken notice of is the mischief that he did to the people of the Jews. They are not expressly named, or prophecies must not be too plain; but they are here so described that it would be easy for those who understood scripture-language to know who were meant; and the Jews, having notice of this before, might be awakened to prepare themselves and their children beforehand for these suffering trying times. (1.) He set himself against the pleasant land, the land of Israel, so called because it was the glory of all lands, for fruitfulness and all the delights of human life, but especially for the tokens of God's presence in it, and its being blessed with divine revelations and institutions; it was Mount Zion that was beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, Psa 48:2. The pleasantness of that land was that there the Messiah was to be born, who would be both the consolation and the glory of his people Israel. Note, We have reason to reckon that a pleasant place which is a holy place, in which God dwells, and where we may have opportunity of communing with him. Surely, It is good to be here. (2.) He fought against the host of heaven, that is, the people of God, the church, which is the kingdom of heaven, the church-militant here on earth. The saints, being born from above, and citizens of heaven, and doing the will of God, by his grace, in some measure, as the angels of heaven do it, may be well called a heavenly host. Or the priests and Levites, who were employed in the service of the tabernacle, and there warred a good warfare, were this host of heaven. These Antiochus set himself against; he waxed great to the host of heaven, in opposition to them and in defiance of them. (3.) He cast down some of the host (that is, of the stars, for they are called the host of heaven) to the ground, and stamped upon them. Some of those that were most eminent both in church and state, that were burning and shining lights in their generation, he either forced to comply with his idolatries or put them to death; he got them into his hands, and then trampled upon them and triumphed over them; as good old Eleazar, and the seven brethren, whom he put to death with cruel tortures, because they would not eat swine's flesh, 2 Macc. 6:7. He gloried in it that herein he insulted Heaven itself and exalted his throne above the stars of God, Isa 14:13. (4.) He magnified himself even to the prince of the host. He set himself against the high priest, Onias, whom he deprived of his dignity, or rather against God himself, who was Israel's King of old, who reigns for ever Zion's King, who himself heads his own host that fight his battles. Against him Antiochus magnified himself; as Pharaoh, when he said, Who is the Lord? Note, Those who persecute the people of God persecute God himself. (5.) He took away the daily sacrifice. The morning and evening lamb, which God appointed to be offered every day upon his altar to his honour, Antiochus forbade and restrained the offering of. No doubt he took away all other sacrifices, but only the daily sacrifice is mentioned, because that was the greatest loss of all, for in that they kept up their constant communion with God, which they preferred before that which is only occasional. God's people reckon their daily sacrifices, their morning and evening exercises of devotion, the most needful of their daily business and the most delightful of their daily comforts, and would not for all the world part with them. (6.) He cast down the place of his sanctuary. He did not burn and demolish the temple, but he cast it down, when he profaned it, made it the temple of Jupiter Olympius, and set up his image in it. He also cast down the truth to the ground, trampled upon the book of the law, that word of truth, tore it, and burnt it, and did what he could to destroy it quite, that it might be lost and forgotten for ever. These were the projects of that wicked prince. In these he practised. And (would you think it?) in these he prospered. He carried the matter very far, seemed to have gained his point, and went near to extirpate that holy religion which God's right hand had planted. But lest he or any other should triumph, as if herein he had prevailed against God himself and been too hard for him, the matter is here explained and set in a true light. [1.] He could not have done this if God had not permitted him to do it, could have had no power against Israel unless it had been given him from above. God put this power into his hand, and gave him a host against the daily sacrifice. God's providence put that sword into his hand by which he was enabled thus to bear down all before him. Note, We ought to eye and own the hand of God in all the enterprises and all the successes of the church's enemies against the church. They are but the rod in God's hand. [2.] God would not have permitted it if his people had not provoked him to do so. It is by reason of transgression, the transgression of Israel, to correct them for that, that Antiochus is employed to give them all this trouble. Note, When the pleasant land and all its pleasant things are laid waste, it must be acknowledged that sin is the procuring cause of all the desolation. Who gave Jacob to the spoil? Did not the Lord, he against whom we have sinned? Isa 42:24. The great transgression of the Jews after the captivity (when they were cured of idolatry) was a contempt and profanation of the holy things, snuffing at the service of God, bringing the torn and the lame for sacrifice, as if the table of the Lord were a contemptible thing (so we find Mal 1:7, Mal 1:8, etc., and that the priests were guilty of this Mal 2:1, Mal 2:8), and therefore God sent Antiochus to take away the daily sacrifice and cast down the place of his sanctuary. Note, It is just with God to deprive those of the privileges of his house who despise and profane them, and to make those know the worth of ordinances by the want of them who would not know it by the enjoyment of them. 7. He heard the time of this calamity limited and determined, not the time when it should come (that is not here fixed, because God would have his people always prepared for it), but how long it should last, that, when they had no more any prophets to tell them how long (Psa 74:9, which psalm seems to have been calculated for this dark and doleful day), they might have this prophecy to give them a prospect of deliverance in due time. Now concerning this we have here, (1.) The question asked concerning it, Dan 8:13. Observe [1.] By whom the question was put: I heard one saint speaking to this purport, and then another saint seconded him. "O that we knew how long this trouble will last!" The angels here are called saints, for they are holy ones (Dan 4:13), the holy myriads, 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.

Verse 15

Here we have, I. Daniel's earnest desire to have this vision explained to him (Dan 8:15): I sought the meaning. Note, Those that rightly know the things of God cannot but desire to know more and more of them, and to be led further into the mystery of them; and those that would find the meaning of what they have seen or heard from God must seek it, and seek it diligently. Seek and you shall find. Daniel considered the thing, compared it with the former discoveries, to try if he could understand it; but especially he sought by prayer (as he had done Dan 2:18), and he did not seek in vain. II. Orders given to the angel Gabriel to inform him concerning this vision. One in the appearance of a man (who, some think, was Christ himself, for who besides could command angels?) orders Gabriel to make Daniel understand this vision. Sometimes God is pleased to make use of the ministration of angels, not only to protect his children, but to instruct them, to serve the kind intentions, not only of his providence, but of his grace. III. The consternation that Daniel was in upon the approach of his instructor (Dan 8:17): When he came near I was afraid. Though Daniel was a man of great prudence and courage, and had been conversant with the visions of the Almighty, yet the approach of an extraordinary messenger from heaven put him into this fright. He fell upon his face, not to worship the angel, but because he could no longer bear the dazzling lustre of his glory. Nay, being prostrate upon the ground, he fell into a deep sleep, (Dan 8:18), which came not from any neglect of the vision, or indifference towards it, but was an effect of his faintness and the oppression of spirit he was under, through the abundance of revelations. The disciples in the garden slept for sorrow; and, as there, so here, the spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak. Daniel would have kept awake, and could not. IV. The relief which the angel gave to Daniel, with great encouragement to him to expect a satisfactory discovery of the meaning of this vision. 1. He touched him, and set him upon his feet, Dan 8:18. Thus when John, in a similar case, was in similar consternation, Christ laid his right hand upon him, Rev 1:17. It was a gentle touch that the angel here gave to Daniel, to show that he came not to hurt him, not to plead against him with his great power, or with a hand heavy upon him, but to help him, to put strength into him (Job 23:6), which God can do with a touch. When we are slumbering and grovelling on this earth we are very unfit to hear from God, and to converse with him. But, if God design instruction for us, he will be his grace awaken us out of our slumber, raise us from things below, and set us upright. 2. He promised to inform him: "Understand, O son of man! Dan 8:17. Thou shalt understand, if thou wilt but apply thy mind to understand." He calls him son of man to intimate that he would consider his frame, and would deal tenderly with him, accommodating himself to his capacity as a man. Or thus he preaches humility to him; though he be admitted to converse with angels, he must not be puffed up with it, but must remember that he is a son of man. Or perhaps this title puts honour upon him: the Messiah was lately called the Son of man (Dan 7:13), and Daniel is akin to him, and is a figure of him as a prophet and one greatly beloved. He assures him that he shall be made to know what shall be in the last end of the indignation, Dan 8:19. Let it be laid up for a comfort to those who shall live to see these calamitous times that there shall be an end of them; the indignation shall cease (Isa 10:25); it shall be overpast, Isa 26:20. It may intermit and return again, but the last end shall be glorious; good will follow it, nay, and good will be brought out of it. He tells him (Dan 8:17), "At the time of the end shall be the vision; when the last end of the indignation comes, when the course of this providence is completed, then the vision shall be made plain and intelligible by the event, as the event shall be made plain and intelligible by the vision." Or, "At the time of the end of the Jewish church, in the latter days of it, shall this vision be accomplished, 300 or 400 years hence; understand it therefore, that thou mayest leave it on record for the generations to come." But is he ask more particularly, "When is the time of the end? And how long will it be before it arrive?" let this answer suffice (Dan 8:19): At the time appointed the end shall be; it is fixed in the divine counsel, which cannot be altered and which must not be pried into. V. The exposition which he gave him of the vision. 1. Concerning the two monarchies of Persia and Greece, Dan 8:20-22. The ram signified the succession of the kings of Media and Persia; the rough goat signified the kings of Greece; the great horn was Alexander; the four horns that rose in his room were the four kingdoms into which his conquests were cantoned, of which before, Dan 8:8. They are said to stand up out of the nations, but not in his power; none of them ever made the figure that Alexander did. Josephus relates that when Alexander had taken Tyre, and subdued Palestine, and was upon his march to Jerusalem, Jaddas, who was them high priest (Nehemiah mentions one of his name, Neh 12:11), fearing his rage, had recourse to God by prayer and sacrifice for the common safety, and was by him warned in a dream that upon Alexander's approach he should throw open the gates of the city, and that he and the rest of the priests should go forth to meet him in their habits, and all the people in white. Alexander, seeing this company at a distance, went himself alone to the high priest, and, having prostrated himself before that God whose name was engraven in the golden plate of his mitre, he first saluted him; and, being asked by one of his own captains why he did so, he said that while he was yet in Macedon, musing on the conquest of Asia, there appeared to him a man like unto this, and thus attired, who invited him into Asia, and assured him of success in the conquest of it. The priests led him to the temple, where he offered sacrifice to the God of Israel as they directed him; and there they showed him this book of the prophet Daniel, that it was there foretold that a Grecian should come and destroy the Persians, which animated him very much in the expedition he was now meditating against Darius. Hereupon he took the Jews and their religion under his protection, promised to be kind to those of their religion in Babylon and Media, whither he was now marching, and in honour of him all the priests that had sons born that year called them Alexander. Joseph. lib. 11. 2. Concerning Antiochus, and his oppression of the Jews. This is said to be in the latter time of the kingdom of the Greeks, when the transgressors are come to the full (Dan 8:23); that is, when the degenerate Jews have filled up the measure of their iniquity, and are ripe for this destruction, so that God cannot in honour bear with them any longer then shall stand up this king, to be flagellum Dei - the rod in God's hand for the chastising of the Jews. Now observe here, (1.) His character: He shall be a king of fierce countenance, insolent and furious, neither fearing God nor regarding man, understanding dark sentences, or (rather) versed in dark practices, the hidden things of dishonesty; he was master of all the arts of dissimulation and deceit, and knew the depths of Satan as well as any man. He was wise to do evil. (2.) His success. He shall make dreadful havoc of the nations about him: His power shall be mighty, bear down all before it, but not by his own power (Dan 8:24), but partly by the assistance of his allies, Eumenes and Attalus, partly by the baseness and treachery of many of the Jews, even of the priests that came into his interests, and especially by the divine permission. it was not by his own power, but by a power given him from above, that he destroyed wonderfully, and thought he made himself a great man by being a great destroyer. He destroys wonderfully indeed, for he destroys, [1.] The mighty people, and they cannot resist him by their power. The princes of Egypt cannot stand before him with all their forces, but he practises against them and prospers. Note, The mighty ones of the earth commonly meet with those at length that are too hard for them, that are more mighty than they. Let not the strong man then glory in his strength, be it ever so great, unless he could be sure that there were none stronger than he. [2.] He destroys the holy people, or the people of the holy ones; and their sacred character does neither deter him from destroying them nor defend them from being destroyed. All things come alike to all, and there is one event to the mighty and to the holy in this world. [3.] The methods by which he will gain this success, not by true courage, wisdom, or justice, but by his policy and craft (Dan 8:25), by fraud and deceit, and serpentine subtlety: He shall cause craft to prosper; so cunningly shall he carry on his projects that he shall gain his point by the art of wheedling. By peace he shall destroy many, as others do by war; under the pretence of treaties, leagues, and alliances, with them, he shall encroach on their rights, and trick them into a subjection to him. Thus sometimes what a nation truly brave has gained in a righteous war a nation truly base has regained in a treacherous peace, and craft has been caused to prosper. [4.] The mischief that he shall do to religion: He shall magnify himself in his heart, and think himself fit to prescribe and give law to every body, so that he shall stand up against the Prince of princes, that is, against God himself. He will profane his temple and altar, prohibit his worship, and persecute his worshippers. See what a height of impudence some men's impiety brings them to; they openly bid defiance to God himself though he is the Kings of kings. [5.] The ruin that he shall be brought to at last: He shall be broken without hand, that is, without the hand of man. He shall not be slain in war, nor shall he be assassinated, as tyrants commonly were, but he shall fall into the hand of the living God and die by an immediate stroke of his vengeance. He, hearing that the Jews had cast the image of Jupiter Olympius out of the temple, where he had placed it, was so enraged at the Jews that he vowed he would make Jerusalem a common burial-place, and determined to march thither immediately; but no sooner had he spoken these proud words than he was struck with an incurable plague in his bowels; worms bred so fast in his body that whole flakes of flesh sometimes dropped from him; his torments were violent, and the stench of his disease such that none could endure to come near him. He continued in this misery very long. At first he persisted in his menaces against the Jews; but at length, despairing of his recovery, he called his friends together, and acknowledged all those miseries to have fallen upon him for the injuries he had done to the Jews and his profaning the temple at Jerusalem. Then he wrote courteous letters to the Jews, and vowed that if he recovered he would let them have the free exercise of their religion. But, finding his disease grow upon him, when he could no longer endure his own smell, he said, It is meet to submit to God, and for man who is mortal not to set himself in competition with God, and so died miserably in a strange land, on the mountains of Pacata near Babylon: so Ussher's Annals, A.M. 3840, about 160 years before the birth of Christ. 3. As to the time fixed for the continuance of the cessation of the daily sacrifice, it is not explained here, but only confirmed (Dan 8:26). That vision of the evening and morning is true, in the proper sense of the words, and needs no explication. How unlikely soever it might be that God should suffer his own sanctuary to be thus profaned, yet it is true, it is too true, so it shall be. VI. Here is the conclusion of this vision, and here, 1. The charge given to Daniel to keep it private for the present: Shut thou up the vision; let it not be publicly know among the Chaldeans, lest the Persians, who were now shortly to possess the kingdom, should be incensed against the Jews by it, because the downfall of their kingdom was foretold by it, which would be unseasonable now that the edict for their release was expected from the king of Persia. Shut it up, for it shall be for many days. It was about 300 years from the time of this vision to the time of the accomplishment of it; therefore he must shut it up for the present, even from the people of the Jews, lest it should amaze and perplex them, but let it be kept safely for the generations to come, that should live about the time of the accomplishment of it, for to them it would be both most intelligible and most serviceable. Note, What we know of the things of God should be carefully laid up, that hereafter, when there is occasion, it may be faithfully laid out; and what we have not now any use for, yet we may have another time. Divine truths should be sealed up among our treasures, that we may find them again after many days. 2. The care he took to keep it private, having received such a charge, Dan 8:27. He fainted, and was sick, with the multitude of his thoughts within him occasioned by this vision, which oppressed and overwhelmed him the more because he was forbidden to publish what he had seen, so that his belly was as wine which has no vent, he was ready to burst like new bottles, Job 32:19. However, he kept it to himself, stifled and smothered the concern he was in; so that those he conversed with could not perceive it, but he did the king's business according to the duty of his place, whatever it was. Note, As long as we live in this world we must have something to do in it; and even those whom God has most dignified with his favours must not think themselves above their business; nor must the pleasure of communion with God take us off from the duties of our particular callings, but still we must in them abide with God. Those especially that are entrusted with public business must see to it that they conscientiously discharge their trust.

Verse 1

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).

Verse 2

8:2 Susa, located in the lowlands southwest of the Zagros Mountains, was one of Persia’s capital cities (cp. Ezra 4:9; Neh 1:1; Esth 1:2). It was a fortified capital whose architecture was decorated with glazed griffins, winged bulls, and lions. • The Ulai River was probably a man-made canal.

Verse 3

8:3-4 Two long horns implies that there were two major nations in this kingdom represented by a ram (see 8:20-21). • God allowed the nation to do as it pleased; God was still in control (cp. Isa 45:1-4).

Verse 5

8:5-12 The symbolism is explained in 8:21-25.

Verse 10

8:10 The heavenly army could refer to (1) actual divine beings, since the “small horn” attempted to destroy Israel’s divinely given religion and Israel was protected by God’s watchful eye and his armies; and/or (2) the human defenders of Israel that were fighting for God’s holy people and the Temple. Both the physical and the spiritual realms were affected by these events.

Verse 11

8:11-12 God is the Commander of heaven’s army (cp. Josh 5:13-15; 1 Sam 4:4; 1 Kgs 22:19) to whom the daily sacrifices were offered in his Temple, where God’s name resided and Israel worshiped its King (Isa 18:7; Ezek 43:6-7). • destroying (literally casting down): The religious function of the Temple was disabled. • God restrained the heavenly army for reasons known only to him. • The truth of God’s law, embodied in true worship, was also overthrown (literally cast down).

Verse 13

8:13-14 How long: God’s people were called en masse to endure this period to the end. • The Temple would then be made right for its proper religious functions, not rebuilt physically (see 8:11-12; study note on 8:26).

Verse 15

8:15-16 The name Gabriel means “man of God”; he appeared like a man to Daniel (see also 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26).

Verse 17

8:17 Son of man means “human being,” as opposed to a divine being, “a son of the gods” (cp. 7:13; see, e.g., Ezek 2:1, 3, 6, 8).

Verse 19

8:19-26 These verses provide the interpretation of the vision of 8:3-14.

8:19 the very end of time: There is an appointed time for the end of history.

Verse 20

8:20 The smaller horn represents Media, which began as an independent kingdom in 670 BC. The larger horn represents Persia, which dominated Media during Cyrus’s reign (see 7:5).

Verse 21

8:21 The large horn represents Alexander the Great, the mighty first king who forged the Greek Empire. Two centuries after Daniel, Alexander would swiftly conquer the world (8:5); he overcame Persia in 331 BC. Alexander died in 323 BC at the age of thirty-three, but not before he arrogantly allowed himself to be called a god. • Josephus records that some Jewish priests showed the book of Daniel to Alexander, but Alexander treated Homer’s Iliad as his Bible and relied on it for guidance.

Verse 22

8:22 After Alexander’s death in 323 BC, his kingdom was divided into four major kingdoms, ruled by his generals (see “The Greeks” Profile).

Verse 23

8:23-25 The small horn (8:9) was a fierce king. The description matches Antiochus IV (175–163 BC), one of the Seleucids (cp. 11:21-45). He bore the name “Epiphanes” (“The Manifest Presence [of God]”), but many, including Jews, mockingly called him “Epimanes” (“Mad Man”). By desecrating the Temple and Jewish worship (8:11-12), Antiochus tried to destroy Judaism and unify his kingdom under the cult of Hellenistic culture. Some Jews were swept up in the program of Hellenism and adopted Greek ways.

Verse 24

8:24 not by his own power: God remained in sovereign control of the seemingly fortuitous events of history that brought Antiochus IV to power. • a shocking amount of destruction: See 1 Maccabees 1:10-63, which describes many of the evils that Antiochus IV instigated.

Verse 25

8:25 The Prince of princes is the King of Israel, the ruler of heaven and earth (7:9-10, 13-14). Antiochus, at the time of his death, exalted himself as God and intended to destroy Jerusalem. • he will be broken: Just as Antiochus IV’s rise was not by his own power (8:24), so he was destroyed by God’s hand rather than by human power. His end was to be eaten by worms (1 Maccabees 6:7-16 and 2 Maccabees 9:4-28; cp. Herod Agrippa, Acts 12:20-23).

Verse 26

8:26 about the 2,300 evenings and mornings: This could refer to a period of 1,150 days (1,150 evenings + 1,150 mornings, about 31/2 years) or 2,300 days (about 7 years). Antiochus IV deposed high priest Onias III in 171 BC. He desecrated the Temple in December 167 BC and offered unclean sacrifices. The Temple and the altar were cleansed and used again in December 164 BC, seven years after Onias was deposed and just over three years after the Temple was desecrated (see 1 Maccabees 1:54; 4:52-53; 2 Maccabees 10:5). • keep this vision a secret: It would have been unwise for Daniel to share this vision at that time during Belshazzar’s reign, when it would have smelled of insurrection or treason.