Daniel's vision in the third year of King Belshazzar's reign reveals significant events concerning the Persian and Grecian empires, presented in Hebrew to emphasize its importance for the Jewish people. The vision, experienced while Daniel was awake, serves to confirm earlier revelations and highlights the impending fall of prominent kingdoms including Babylon. The scene is set in Susa, indicating the connectivity of Daniel's prophetic messages to the broader context of empires affecting Israel and the Church.

1. DANIEL 8 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Daniel’s Vision of a Ram and a Goat
1 In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I,
Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had
already appeared to me.
BARNES, "In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar - In regard to
Belshazzar, see Intro. to Dan. 5 Section II.
A vision appeared unto me - This vision appears to have occurred to him when
awake, or in an ecstasy; the former one occurred when he was asleep, Dan_7:1. Compare
Dan_8:17-18, where the prophet represents himself as overpowered, and as falling down
to the earth on account of the vision. The representation would seem to have been made
to pass before his mind in open day, and when he was fully awake. Compare the case of
Balaam, Num_24:4 : “Which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but
having his eyes open.”
After what appeared unto me at the first - That occurred in the first year of
Belshazzar, Dan_7:1.
CLARKE, "In the third year of the reign of - Belshazzar - We now come once
more to the Hebrew, the Chaldee part of the book being finished. As the Chaldeans had a
particular interest both in the history and prophecies from Dan_2:4 to the end of chap.
7, the whole is written in Chaldee, but as the prophecies which remain concern times
posterior to the Chaldean monarchy, and principally relate to the Church and people of
God generally, they are written in the Hebrew language, this being the tongue in which
God chose to reveal all his counsels given under the Old Testament relative to the New.
GILL, "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
1

2. 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.
HENRY, "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.
JAMISON, "Dan_8:1-27. Vision of the ram and he-goat: The twenty-three hundred
days of the Sanctuary being trodden down.
With this chapter the Hebrew part of the book begins and continues to be the
language of the remainder; the visions relating wholly to the Jews and Jerusalem. The
scene here narrows from world-wide prophecies to those affecting the one covenant-
2

3. people in the five centuries between the exile and the advent. Antichrist, like Christ, has
a more immediate future, as well as one more remote. The vision, the eighth chapter,
begins, and that, the tenth through twelfth chapters, concludes, the account of the
Antichrist of the third kingdom. Between the two visions the ninth chapter is inserted, as
to Messiah and the covenant-people at the end of the half millennium (seventy weeks of
years).
vision — a higher kind of revelation than a dream.
after that ... at the first — that in Dan_7:1.
K&D, "The Vision
Dan_8:1, Dan_8:2 contain the historical introduction to this new revelation. This was
given to Daniel in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, and thus two years after the
vision of the four world-kingdoms (Dan_7:1), but not in a dream as that was, but while
he was awake. The words, I, Daniel, are neither a pleonasm (Häv.) nor a sign that the
writer wished specially to give himself out for Daniel (Ewald), but expressly denote that
Daniel continues to speak of himself in the first person (Kliefoth). The article in ‫ה‬ ָ‫א‬ ְ‫ַנר‬ ִ‫ה‬
(that which appeared) takes place of the relative ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬, and the expression is concise for
‫ה‬ ָ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ִ‫נ‬ ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ז‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫ה‬ (the vision which appeared); cf. Ewald's Lehr. §335a. ‫ה‬ָ‫לּ‬ ִ‫ח‬ ְ‫תּ‬ ַ‫בּ‬ (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 ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ֹ‫אשׁ‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫בּ‬ (in the beginning). Here
the word points back to Daniel 7, and in Dan_9:21 it refers to Dan_8:16 of this chapter.
“In vision,” i.e., ἐν πνεύματι, not ἐν σώματι, Daniel was placed in the city of Susa, in
the province of Elam (Elymaïs). By the words, “I saw in vision; and it came to pass when
I saw,” which precede the specification of the scene of the vision, is indicated the fact
that he was in Susa only in vision, and the misconception is sufficiently guarded against
that Daniel was actually there in the body. This is acknowledge by v. Leng., Hitzig,
Maurer, Häv., Hgstb., Kran., and Kliefoth, against Bertholdt and Rosenmüller, who
understand this, in connection with Dan_8:27, as meaning that Daniel was personally
present in Susa to execute the king's business, from which Bertholdt frames the charge
against the pseudo-Daniel, that he was not conscious that Elam under Nabonned did not
belong to Babylon, and that the royal palace at Susa had as yet no existence. But this
accusation has no historical foundation. We have no accurate information whether
under Belshazzar Elam was added to Babylon or the Chaldean empire. It is true that not
Hengstenberg (Beitr. i. p. 42f.) only has, with older theologians, concluded from the
prophecies of Jer_49:34., compared with Jer_25:25 and Eze_32:24, that
Nebuchadnezzar subjugated Susa, but Niebuhr also (Gesch. Assurs, p. 211ff.) seeks from
these and other passages of the O.T. to establish the view, that Nebuchadnezzar, after
the death of Cyaxares (Uwakhshatra), to whom he owed allegiance, refused to do
homage to his successor, and entered on a war against Media, which resulted in the
annexation of Elam to his kingdom. But, on the contrary, Hävernick has well remarked,
that the subjugation of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar can scarcely harmonize with the fact of
the division of the Assyrian kingdom between the Babylonian king Nabopolassar and the
Median king Cyaxares, whereby the former obtained the western and the latter the
eastern half, and that from these passages of prophecy a subjugation of Elam by the
Chaldeans cannot be concluded. Jeremiah announces neither in Jer_25:25 nor in Jer_
49:34. a conquest of Elam by Nebuchadnezzar, but rather in Jer. 49 prophesies the
3

4. complete destruction of Elam, or a divine judgment, in language which is much too
strong and elevated for a mere making of it tributary and annexing it to a new state.
Besides, this passage in no respect requires that Susa and Elam should be regarded as
provinces of the Chaldean kingdom, since the opinion that Daniel was in Susa engaged
in some public business for the Chaldean king is founded only on a false interpretation
of Dan_8:2, Dan_8:27. From the prophet's having been placed in an ecstasy in the city
of Susa, there follows nothing further than that this city was already at the time of the
existing Chaldean kingdom a central-point of Elamitish or Persian power. And the more
definite description of the situation of this city in the words, “which was in the province
of Elam,” points decidedly to the time of Daniel, in which Susa as yet belonged to the
province of Elam, while this province was made a satrapy, Susis, Susiana, now
Chusistan, by the kings of Persia, and Susa became the capital of this province; therefore
the capital Susa is not reckoned as situated in Elam by writers, who after this time
distinguish between Susis (Susiana) and Elymaïs (Elam), as Strabo, xvi. 1. 17f., Pliny,
hist. nat. vi. 27: Susianen ab Elymaide disterminat amnis Eulaeus.
Still more groundless is the assertion, that the city of Susa was not in existence in the
time of Daniel, or, as Duncker (Gesch. der Alterth. ii. p. 913, 3 Auf.) affirms, that Darius
first removed the residence or seat of the king to Susa with the intention that it should
become the permanent residence for him and his successors, the central-point of his
kingdom and of his government, and that Pliny and Aelian say decidedly that Darius
built Susa, the king's city of Persia, and that the inscriptions confirm this saying. For, to
begin with the latter statement, an inscription found in the ruins of a palace at Susa,
according to the deciphering of Mordtmann (in der D. morgl. Ztschr. xvi. pp. 123ff.),
which Duncker cites as confirming his statement, contains only these words: “Thus
speaks Artaxerxes the great king, the son of Darius the son of Achämenides Vistaçpa:
This building my great-great-grandfather Darius erected; afterwards it was improved by
Artaxerxes my grandfather.” This inscription thus confirms only the fact of the building
of a palace in Susa by Darius, but nothing further, from which it is impossible to
conclude that Darius first founded the city, or built the first tower in it. Still less does
such an idea lie in the words of Aelian, nat. animal. i. 59: “Darius was proud of the
erection of a celebrated building which he had raised in Susa.” And Pliny also, taken
strictly, speaks only of the elevation of Susa to the rank of capital of the kingdom by
Darius, which does not exclude the opinion that Susa was before this already a
considerable town, and had a royal castle, in which Cyrus may have resided during
several months of the year (according to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 6. 22, Anab. iii. 5. 15; cf.
Brissonius, de regio Pers. princ. p. 88f.).
(Note: Pliny, hist. nat. vi. 27, says regarding Susiana, “In qua vetus regia
Presarum Susa a Dario Hystaspis filio condita,” which may be understood as if he
ascribed to Darius the founding of the city of Susa. But how little weight is to be
given to this statement appears from the similar statement, hist. nat. vi. 14 (17):
“Ecbatana caput Mediae Seleucus rex condidit,” which plainly contains an error,
since Ecbatana, under the name of Achmeta, is mentioned (Ezr_6:2) in the time of
Darius Hystaspes, in the tower of which the archives of the Persian kings were
preserved.)
The founding of Susa, and of the old tower in Susa, reaches back into pre-historic times.
According to Strabo, xv. 2. 3, Susa must have been built by Tithonos, the father of
Memnon. With this the epithet Μεμνόνια Σοῦσα, which Herod. vii. 151, v. 54, 53, and
Aelian, nat. anim. xiii. 18, gives to the town of Susa, stands in unison. For if this proves
4

5. nothing more than that in Susa there was a tomb of Memnon (Häv.), yet would this
sufficiently prove that the city or its citadel existed from ancient times - times so ancient
that the mythic Memnon lived and was buried there.
The city had its name ‫ן‬ַ‫,שׁוּשׁ‬ 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 ‫ָה‬‫נ‬‫י‬ ִ‫ד‬ ְ‫,מ‬ a province, does not refer to a Chaldean province.
‫ם‬ ָ‫יל‬ֵ‫,ע‬ in Greek ̓Ελυμαΐ́ς, formed the western part of the Persian satrapy of Susis or
Susiana, which lay at the foot of the highlands of Iran, at the beginning of the valley of
the Tigris and the Euphrates between Persia and Babylon, called by the Persians Uvaja,
and by the Greeks Susis or Susiana after the capital, or Cissia after its inhabitants. It is
bounded by the western border mountains of Persia and the Tigris, and on the south
terminates in a arm, swampy and harbourless coast, which stretches from the mouth of
the Tigris to that of the Aurvaiti (Oroatis). Strabo (xv. 732) says Susiana is inhabited by
two races, the Cissaei and the Elymäi; Herodotus (iii. 91, v. 49, vii. 62), on the contrary,
names only the Cissaei as the inhabitants of the country of the same name. The saying
put into circulation by Josephus (Antt. i. 6. 4, ̓́Ελαμος γὰρ ̓Ελαμαίους Περσῶν ὄντας
ἀρχηγέτας κατέλιπεν), that the Elamites are the primitive race of the Persians, has no
historical foundation. The deep valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates was the country of
the Semites. “The names of the towns and rivers of the country confirm the statements
of Genesis, which names Elam among the sons of Shem, although the erecting of the
Persian royal residence in Elam, and the long continuance of the Persian rule, could not
but exercise, as it did, an influence on the manners and arts of the Semitish inhabitants”
(Duncker, p. 942).
The further statement, that Daniel in vision was by the river Ulai, shows that Susa lay
on the banks of the river. ‫י‬ַ‫אוּל‬ 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, ‫י‬ַ‫אוּל‬ 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
5

6. after them, is mentioned by Pliny of the Euläus, h. n. vi. 27, and in 31:3 of the Choaspes
and Euläus.
(Note: There is little probability in the supposition that Choaspes is the modern
Kerrah or Kerkha, the Euläus the modern Dizful, as Susa lay between these two
rivers (Ker Porter, Winer, Ruetschi in Herz.'s Realen. xv. 246), and receives no
sufficient support from the bas relief of Kojundshik discovered by Layard, which
represents the siege of a town lying between two rivers, since the identification of
this town with Susa is a mere conjecture.)
Daniel was in spirit conveyed to Susa, that here in the future royal citadel of the
Persian kingdom he might witness the destruction of this world-power, as Ezekiel was
removed to Jerusalem that he might there see the judgment of its destruction. The
placing of the prophet also on the river of Ulai is significant, yet it is not to be explained,
with Kranichfeld, from Dan_8:3, Dan_8:6, “where the kingdom in question stands in
the same relation to the flowing river as the four kingdoms in Dan_7:2 do to the sea.”
For the geographically defined river Ulai has nothing in common with the sea as a
symbol of the nations of the world (Dan_7:2). The Ulai is rather named as the place
where afterwards the ram and the he-goat pushed against one another, and the shock
followed, deciding the fate of the Persian kingdom.
As, the, the scene of the vision stands in intimate relation to its contents, so also the
time at which the revelation was made to Daniel. With the third year of Belshazzar the
dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the Babylonian world-kingdom, was
extinguished. In this year Belshazzar, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, died,
and the sovereignty was transferred to a collateral branch, and finally to an intruder,
under whom that world-kingdom, once so powerful, in a few years fell to pieces. Shortly
before the death of Belshazzar the end of the Babylonian monarchy was thus to be seen,
and the point of time, not very remote, which must end the Exile with the fall of Babylon.
This point of time was altogether fitted to reveal to the prophet in a vision what would
happen after the overthrow of Babylon, and after the termination of the Exile.
Dan_8:3-4
The vision. - Dan_8:3. Daniel first sees one ram, ‫ל‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫,א‬ standing by the river. The ‫ד‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫א‬
(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. ‫ת‬ ַ‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬ ָ‫ה‬ does not mean the first,
but the one, and ‫ית‬ִ‫נ‬ֵ‫שּׁ‬ ַ‫ה‬ the other; for the higher grew up last. This is not to be
understood as if Daniel first saw the ram without horns, and then saw the horns grow
up, and at length the one horn become higher than the other (v. Leng., Hitzig); but that
from the first Daniel saw the ram with two horns, but afterwards saw the one horn grow
higher than the other (Kliefoth). The angel (Dan_8:20) explains the ram with two horns
of the king of Media and Persia. This does not mean that the two horns are to be
understood (with Theodoret) of the two dynasties of Cyrus and of Darius Hystaspes; but
since the ram represents the one kingdom of the Medes and Persians, so the two horns
represent the people of the Medes and Persians, from the union of which the Medo-
Persian kingdom grew up. Both nations were the horns, i.e., the power of the monarchy;
therefore are they both high. The one horn, which afterwards grew up higher than the
other, represents the Persians, who raised themselves above the Medians. A ram and
goat, as emblems of kings, princes, chiefs, often occur; cf. Isa_14:9; Eze_34:17; Eze_
39:18; Jer_50:8; Zec_10:3. In Bundehesch the guardian spirit of the Persian kingdom
6

7. appears under the form of a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns, and,
according to Amm. Marcell. xix. 1, the Persian king, when he stood at the head of his
army, bore, instead of the diadem, the head of a ram (cf. Häv.). The point of resemblance
of this symbol is to be sought, not in the richness (the wool) and in the aggressive nature
(the horns) of the ram (Theod., Venema), but the ram and the he-goat form, as Hofmann
has justly remarked, a contrast to dull firmness and nimble lightness, as the bear and the
panther.
The ram stands by the river and pushes toward the west, north, and south, but not
toward the east. The river is thus not the one flowing on the east of Susa, for, standing
there, the ram pushing toward the west from Susa would push against the capital of his
kingdom, but the one flowing on the west; and the ram is to be conceived of as standing
on the western bank of this river, from whence he pushed down with his horns all beasts
before him, i.e., subdued all nations and kingdoms to his power in three regions of the
earth. In the west he pushed against Babylon, Syria, and Asia Minor; in the south, Egypt;
in the north, the Armenian and Scythian nations. These he subdued and incorporated in
the Persian kingdom. He did not push toward the east - not because he could only push
forwards and against that which was nearer, but not, without changing his position,
backwards (Hitzig); nor because the Medo-Persians themselves came from the east (v.
Leng., Kran.); not yet because the conquests of the Persians did not stretch toward the
east (Häv.), for Cyrus and Darius subdued nations to the east of Persia even as far as to
the Indus; but because, for the unfolding of the Medo-Persian monarchy as a world-
power, its conquests in the east were subordinate, and therefore are not mentioned. The
pushing toward the three world-regions corresponds to the three ribs in the mouth of
the bear, Dan_7:5, and intimates that the Medo-Persian world-kingdom, in spite of the
irresistibility of its arms, did not, however, extend its power into all the regions of the
world. ‫ח‬ ‫יּ‬ ַ‫,ח‬ to push, of beast, Exo_21:28, in the Piel figuratively is used of nations,
Deu_33:17; Psa_44:6. ‫דוּ‬ ָ‫מ‬ַ‫ַע‬‫י‬ is potentialis: could not stand. The masculine is here used,
because ‫ת‬ ‫יּ‬ ַ‫ח‬ (beasts) represents kingdoms and nations. ‫ֹנ‬‫צ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫כ‬ ‫ה‬ָ‫שׂ‬ָ‫,ע‬ did according to
his will, expresses arbitrary conduct, a despotic behaviour. ‫יל‬ ִ‫דּ‬ְ‫ג‬ ִ‫,ה‬ became great. The
word does not mean to become haughty, for ‫ב‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫ל‬ ִ‫,בּ‬ in his heart, is not added here as it
is in Psa_44:25, but to magnify the action. It is equivalent to ‫ת‬ ‫ֲשׂ‬‫ע‬ַ‫ל‬ ‫יל‬ ִ‫דּ‬ְ‫ג‬ ִ‫ה‬ 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 ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ָ‫א‬ ָ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ֵע‬‫ג‬ ‫נ‬ ‫ין‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫,ו‬ 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 ‫זוּת‬ ָ‫ח‬ ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫;ק‬ i.e., not a horn of vision, a
horn such as a goat naturally has, but here only in vision (Hofm., Klief.). This
7

8. interpretation would render ‫זוּת‬ ָ‫ח‬ 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 ‫ה‬ָ‫ל‬ ‫ד‬ְ‫גּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ק‬ ַ‫ה‬ (the great horn). Accordingly ‫זוּת‬ ָ‫ח‬ has the
meaning of ‫ה‬ ֶ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫,מ‬ in the Keri ‫ה‬ ֶ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ ‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫,א‬ 2Sa_23:21, a man of countenance or sight (cf.
Targ. Est_2:2): a horn of sight, consideration, of considerable greatness; κέρας
θεορητόν (lxx, Theodot.), which Theodoret explains by ἐπίσημον καὶ περίβλεπτον.
The horn was between the eyes, i.e., in the middle of the forehead, the centre of its
whole strength, and represents, according to Dan_8:21, the first king, i.e., the founder of
the Javanic world-kingdom, or the dynasty of this kingdom represented by him. The he-
goat ran up against the ram, the possessor of the two horns, i.e., the two-horned ram by
the river Ulai, in the fire of his anger, i.e., in the glowing anger which gave him his
strength, and with the greatest fury threw him down. The prophet adds, “And I saw him
come close unto the ram,” as giving prominence to the chief matter, and then further
describes its complete destruction. It broke in pieces both of the horns, which the ram
still had, i.e., the power of the Medes and Persians, the two component elements of the
Persian world-kingdom. This representation proves itself to be genuine prophecy, whilst
an author writing ex eventu would have spoken of the horn representing the power of
the Medes as assailed and overthrown earlier by that other horn (see under Dan_7:8,
Dan_7:20). The pushing and trampling down by the Ulai is explained from the idea of
the prophecy, according to which the power of the ram is destroyed at the central seat of
its might, without reference to the historical course of the victories by which Alexander
the Great completed the subjugation of the Persian monarchy. In the concluding
passage, Dan_8:7, the complete destruction is described in the words of the fourth
verse, to express the idea of righteous retribution. As the Medo-Persian had crushed the
other kingdoms, so now it also was itself destroyed.
CALVIN, "Here Daniel relates another vision, differing from the former as a part
from the whole. For God wished to show him first what various changes should
happen before Christ’s advent. The second redemption was the beginning of a new
life, since God then not only restored afresh his own Church, but as it were created
a new people; and hence the departure from Babylon and the return to their
country are called the second birth of the Church. But as God at that time afforded
then only a taste of true and solid redemption, whenever the prophets treat of that
deliverance, they extended their thoughts and their prophecies as far as the coming
of Christ. God therefore, with great propriety, shows the Four Monarchies to His
Prophet, lest the faithful should grow weary in beholding the world so often
convulsed, and all but changing its figure and nature. Thus they would be subject to
the most distressing cares, become a laughing stock to their enemies, and ever
remain contemptible and mean, without the power to help themselves, under these
constant innovations. The faithful, then, were forewarned concerning these Four
Monarchies, lest they should suppose themselves rejected by God and deprived
altogether of his care. But now God wished to show only one part to his Prophet. As
the destruction of the Babylonian empire was at hand, and the second kingdom was
approaching, this dominion also should speedily come to its close, and then God’s
8

9. people should be reduced to the utmost extremity. And the chief object of this vision
is to prepare the faithful to bear patiently the horrible tyranny of Antiochus, of
which the Prophet treats in this chapter. Now, therefore, we understand the
meaning of this prophet, where God speaks of only two Monarchies, for the
kingdom of the Chaldees was soon to be abolished: he treats first of the Persian
kingdom; and next, adds that of Macedon, but omits all others, and descends
directly to Antiochus, king of Syria. He then declares the prevalence of the most
wretched confusion in the Church; for the sanctuary should be deprived of its
dignity, and the elect people everywhere slain, without sparing even innocent blood.
We shall see also why the faithful were informed beforehand of these grievous and
oppressive calamities, to induce them to look up to God when oppressed by such
extreme darkness. And at this day this prophecy is useful to us, lest our courage
should fail us in the extreme calamity of the Church, because a perpetual
representation of the Church is depicted for us under that calamitous and mournful
state. Although God often spares our infirmities, yet the Church is never free from
many distresses, and unless we are prepared to undergo all contests, we shall never
stand firm in the faith. This is the scope and explanation of the prophecy. I will
defer the rest.
COFFMAN."This chapter stands as the irrefutable example of genuine predictive
prophecy at its most excellent achievement. Nobody, but nobody, can deny the
obvious meaning of this prophecy. Even the most outspoken critical enemies freely
admit the true meaning of the chapter, as did Herbert T. Andrews. He wrote:
"The interpretation of the vision which is given by Gabriel to Daniel is
exceptionally clear, and leaves no manner of doubt that it refers to events of the
Maccabean age. The ram with the two horns stands for Medo-Persia. The He-goat is
the Greek Empire, the first horn representing Alexander the Great, and the four
later horns the four kingdoms into which the empire later split up. The "Little
horn" is Antiochus Epiphanes. His attack upon the Jewish religion is clearly
described."[1]
The only support for the critical proposition that this is "prophecy written after the
fact," based on the absurd proposition that the Book of Daniel was written about
165 B.C. (in the times of the Maccabees), is their arrogant, imaginative assertion to
that effect. We have referred to that assertion as "absurd." Why? Every line of the
Book of Daniel is in the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Old Testament.; and it was
translated into the Greek language in the year 250 B.C.. What better proof could
there be that Daniel was written long, long before the times of the Maccabees which
are so accurately described herein?
There are also many other remarkable proofs of the divine origin of these
remarkably vivid prophecies.
For example, if Daniel had been written in the times after Alexander appeared upon
9

10. the historical horizon, any writer of that period would most certainly have made the
ram, and not the goat, to have been the Greek kingdom. Why? Because Alexander
wore a ram's horn on his crown; and this writer has seen gold seals in the
Metropolitan Museum, New York City, carrying the image of Alexander the Great
with his invariable ram's horn. "Alexander wore that horn in support of his boast
that he was the son of Jupiter-Ammon."[2]
Then again, there is that story in Josephus which we mentioned in the introduction
that when the High Priest of Jerusalem showed Alexander this chapter in the Book
of Daniel, he spared the city from the punishment which their behavior had surely
merited, and even extended the most amazing privileges to Jerusalem and the Jews.
Some would question that story; but we accept it as the only reasonable explanation
of what most surely happened in those events.
In the light of known facts, therefore, we find it ,somewhat incredible that an
alleged Christian author would declare that:
Daniel is a straight piece of historical writing cast in the form of prophecy![3]
We fully agree with the words of many of the old commentators, for example, those
of Gaebelein, who stated that:
"Here indeed is history prewritten, for all of these things were revealed while the
Babylonian Empire was still flourishing. No wonder that critics and kindred infidels
have tried their very best to break down the authenticity of this book."[4]
Daniel 8:1-2
"In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, Daniel,
after that which appeared unto me at the first. And I saw in the vision; now it was
so, that when I saw, I was in Shushan the palace, which is in the province of Elam;
and I saw in the vision, and I was by the river Ulai."
It is not necessary to suppose that Daniel was actually physically in Shushan for this
vision, because the text clearly says that his being there was "when he saw."
Furthermore, at the end of the chapter, when he took up his regular business with
the king he was not in Shushan, but in Babylon.
From time to time, critics in their vain efforts to discredit the prophecy have
complained that in the time here cited, namely in the third (and last year) of
Belshazzar, Shushan had not then been constructed, or that it was not in the
province of Elam, etc., etc. Those interested in pursuing such nit picking criticisms
will find all of them thoroughly refuted by C. F. Keil.[5] His unequivocal conclusion
was that, "The vision stands in intimate relationship to its contents and also to the
time at which the revelation was made to Daniel."[6]
10

11. COKE, "Introduction
CHAP. VIII.
Daniel's vision of the ram and he-goat. The two thousand three hundred days of
sacrifice. Gabriel comforteth Daniel, and interpreteth the vision.
Before Christ 553.
THIS chapter contains the vision of the ram and of the he-goat; or an account of the
Persian and Grecian monarchies; the explanation of the vision by the angel Gabriel;
the persecutions of the Jews in the profanation of their temple and removal of the
daily sacrifice, and the continuance of the troubles for 2300 days, till the sanctuary
should be cleansed; with a reference also to the persecutions and profanations of
antichrist.
Verse 1
Daniel 8:1. In the third year of—king Belshazzar— This vision was about five
hundred and fifty-three years before Christ. From chap. Daniel 2:4 to this chapter,
the prophesies are written in Chaldee. As they greatly concerned the Chaldeans, so
they were published in that language. But the remaining prophesies are written in
Hebrew, because they treat altogether of affairs subsequent to the time of the
Chaldeans, and no ways relate to them, but principally to the church and people of
God. See Bishop Newton's Dissertation, vol. 2: p. 1, &c.
ELLICOTT, " (1) The Hebrew language is here resumed. The visions recorded in
the remaining portion of the book having no connection with Babylon, the Chaldee
dialect is dropped.
Third year.—Most probably, not long before the end of his reign. This vision is
supplementary to the one recorded in the preceding chapter, giving various details
respecting the second and third empires there omitted, showing also how a “little
horn” is to grow out of the third as well as out of the fourth empire.
At the first—i.e., earlier. (Comp. Daniel 9:21.)
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision
appeared unto me, [even unto] me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the
first.
Ver. 1. In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar.] Which was his last year,
when Babylon was closely besieged: therefore Daniel was not now really at Shushan,
but in vision only. [Daniel 8:2]
11

12. A vision appeared unto me.] While waking likely: and for further explication of the
former vision, [Daniel 7:1-2] whereof because Daniel made so good use, ampliorem
gratiam accipit, saith Oecolampadius, he now receiveth further grace.
EBC, "THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT
This vision is dated as having occurred in the third year of Belshazzar; but it is not
easy to see the significance of the date, since it is almost exclusively occupied with
the establishment of the Greek Empire, its dissolution into the kingdoms of the
Diadochi, and the godless despotism of King Antiochus Epiphanes.
The seer imagines himself to be in the palace of Shushan: "As I beheld I was in the
castle of Shushan." It has been supposed by some that Daniel was really there upon
some business connected with the kingdom of Babylon. But this view creates a
needless difficulty. Shushan, which the Greeks called Susa, and the Persians Shush
(now Shushter), "the city of the lily," was "the palace" or fortress (birah) of the
Achaemenid kings of Persia. and it is most unlikely that a chief officer of the
kingdom of Babylon should have been there in the third year of the imaginary King
Belshazzar, just when Cyrus was on the eve of capturing Babylon without a blow. If
Belshazzar is some dim reflection of the son of Nabunaid (though he never reigned),
Shushan was not then subject to the King of Babylonia. But the ideal presence of the
prophet there, in vision, is analogous to the presence of the exile Ezekiel in
Jerusalem; [Ezekiel 40:1] and these transferences of the prophets to the scenes of
their operation were sometimes even regarded as bodily, as in the legend of
Habakkuk taken to the lions’ den to support Daniel.
Shushan is described as being in the province of Elam or Elymais, which may be
here used as a general designation of the district in which Susa was included. The
prophet imagines himself as standing by the river-basin of the Ulai, which shows
that we must take the words "in the castle of Shushan" in an ideal sense; for, as
Ewald says, "it is only in a dream that images and places are changed so rapidly."
The Ulai is the river called by the Greeks the Eulaens, now the Karun.
Shushan is said by Pliny and Arrian to have been on the river Eulaens, and by
Herodotus to have been on the banks of
"Choaspes, amber stream, The drink of none but kings."
It seems now to have been proved that the Ulai was merely a branch of the Choaspes
or Kerkhah.
Lifting up his eyes, Daniel sees a ram standing eastward of the river-basin. It has
two lofty horns, the loftier of the two being the later in origin. It butts westward,
northward, and southward, and does great things. But in the midst of its successes a
12

13. he-goat, with a conspicuous horn between its eyes, comes from the West so swiftly
over the face of all the earth that it scarcely seems even to touch the ground, and
runs upon the ram in the fury of his strength, conquering and trampling upon him,
and smashing in pieces his two horns. But his impetuosity was shortlived, for the
great horn was speedily broken, and four others rose in its place towards the four
winds of heaven. Out of these four horns shot up a puny horn, which grew
exceedingly great towards the South, and towards the East, and towards the
"Glory," i.e., towards the Holy Land. It became great even to the host of heaven,
and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and trampled on
them. He even behaved proudly against the prince of the host, took away from him
"the daily" (sacrifice), polluted the dismantled sanctuary with sacrilegious arms,
and cast the truth to the ground and prospered. Then "one holy one called to
another and asked, For how long is the vision of the daily [sacrifice], and the
horrible sacrilege, that thus both the sanctuary and host are surrendered to be
trampled underfoot?" And the answer is, "Until two thousand three hundred
‘erebh-boqer, ‘evening-morning’; then will the sanctuary be justified."
Daniel sought to understand the vision, and immediately there stood before him one
in the semblance of a man, and he hears the distant voice of some standing between
the Ulai- i.e. , between its two banks, or perhaps between its two branches the
Eulaeus and the Choaspes-who called aloud to "Gabriel." The archangel Gabriel is
here first mentioned in Scripture. "Gabriel," cried the voice, "explain to him what
he has seen." So Gabriel came and stood beside him; but he was terrified, and fell
on his face. "Observe, thou son of man," said the angel to him; "for unto the time of
the end is the vision." But since Daniel still lay prostrate on his face, and sank into a
swoon, the angel touched him, and raised him up, and said that the great wrath was
only for a fixed time, and he would tell him what would happen at the end of it.
The two-horned ram, he said, the Baalkeranaim, or "lord of two horns," represents
the King of Media and Persia; the shaggy goat is the Empire of Greece; and the
great horn is its first king-Alexander the Great.
The four horns rising out of the broken great horn are four inferior kingdoms. In
one of these, sacrilege would culminate in the person of a king of bold face, and
skilled in cunning, who would become powerful, though not by his own strength. He
would prosper and destroy mighty men and the people of the holy ones, and deceit
would succeed by his double-dealing. He would contend against the Prince of
princes and yet without a hand would he be broken in pieces.
Such is the vision and its interpretation; and though there is here and there a
difficulty in the details and translation, and though there is a necessary crudeness in
the emblematic imagery, the general significance of the whole is perfectly clear.
The scene of the vision is ideally placed in Shushan, because the Jews regarded it as
the royal capital of the Persian dominion, and the dream begins with the overthrow
of the Medo-Persian Empire. The ram is a natural symbol of power and strength, as
13

14. in Isaiah 60:7. The two horns represent the two divisions of the empire, of which the
later-the Persian - is the loftier and the stronger. It is regarded as being already the
lord of the East, but it extends its conquests by butting westward over the Tigris
into Europe, and southwards to Egypt and Africa, and northwards towards Scythia,
with magnificent success.
The he-goat is Greece. Its one great horn represents "the great Emathian
conqueror." So swift was the career of Alexander’s conquests, that the goat seems to
speed along without so much as touching the ground. [Isaiah 5:26-29 Comp.
#/RAPC 1 Maccabees 1:3] With irresistible fury, in the great battles of the Granicus
(B.C. 334), Issus (B.C. 333), and Arbela (B.C. 331), he stamps to pieces the power of
Persia and of its king, Darius Codomannus. In this short space of time Alexander
conquers Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Tyre, Gaza, Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, Media,
Hyrcania, Aria, and Arachosia. In B.C. 330 Darius was murdered by Bessus, and
Alexander became lord of his kingdom. In B.C. 329 the Greek King conquered
Bactria, crossed the Oxus and Jaxartes, and defeated the Scythians. In B.C. 328 he
conquered Sogdiana. In B.C. 327 and 326 he crossed the Indus, Hydaspes, and
Akesines, subdued Northern and Western India, and-compelled by the discontent of
his troops to pause in his career of victory-sailed down the Hydaspes and Indus to
the Ocean.
He then returned by land through Gedrosia, Karmania, Persia, and Susiana to
Babylon.
There the great horn is suddenly broken without hand. {#/RAPC 1 Maccabees
6:1-16, 2 Maccabees 9:9, Job 7:6, Proverbs 26:20} Alexander in B.C. 323, after a
reign of twelve years and eight months, died as a fool dieth, of a fever brought on by
fatigue, exposure, drunkenness, and debauchery. He was only thirty-two years old.
The dismemberment of his empire immediately followed. In B.C. 322 its vast extent
was divided among his principal generals. Twenty-two years of war ensued; and in
B.C. 301, after the defeat of Antigonus and his son Demetrius at the Battle of Ipsus,
four horns are visible in the place of one. The battle was won by the confederacy of
Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, and they founded four kingdoms.
Cassander ruled in Greece and Macedonia; Lysimachus in Asia Minor; Ptolemy in
Egypt, Coele-Syria, and Palestine; Seleucus in Upper Asia.
With one only of the four kingdoms, and with one only of its kings, is the vision
further concerned-with the kingdom of the Seleueidae, and with the eighth king of
the Dynasty, Antiochus Epiphanes. In this chapter, however, a brief sketch only of
him is furnished. Many details of the minutest kind are subsequently added.
He is called "a puny horn," because, in his youth, no one could have anticipated his
future greatness. He was only a younger son of Antiochus III (the Great). When
Antiochus III was defeated in the Battle of Magnesia under Mount Sipylus (B.C.
190), his loss was terrible. Fifty thousand foot and four thousand horse were slain on
14

15. the battlefield, and fourteen hundred were taken prisoners. He was forced to make
peace with the Romans, and to give them hostages, one of whom was Antiochus the
Younger, brother of Seleucus, who was heir to the throne. Antiochus for thirteen
years languished miserably as a hostage at Rome. His father, Antiochus the Great,
was either slain in B.C. 187 by the people of Elymais, after his sacrilegious
plundering of the Temple of Jupiter-Belus; or murdered by some of his own
attendants whom he had beaten during a fit of drunkenness. Seleucus Philopator
succeeded him, and after having reigned for thirteen years, wished to see his brother
Antiochus again. He therefore sent his son Demetrius in exchange for him, perhaps
desiring that the boy, who was then twelve years old, should enjoy the advantage of
a Roman education, or thinking that Antiochus would be of more use to him in his
designs against Ptolemy Philometor, the child-king of Egypt. When Demetrius was
on his way to Rome, and Antiochus had not yet reached Antioch, Heliodorus, the
treasurer, seized the opportunity to poison Seleucus and usurp the crown.
The chances, therefore, of Antiochus seemed very forlorn. But he was a man of
ability, though with a taint of folly and madness in his veins. By allying himself with
Eumenes, King of Pergamum, as we shall see hereafter, he suppressed Heliodorus,
secured the kingdom, and "becoming very great," though only by fraud, cruelty,
and stratagem, assumed the title of Epiphanes "the Illustrious." He extended his
power "towards the South" by intriguing and warring against Egypt and his young
nephew, Ptolemy Philometor; and "towards the Sun-rising" by his successes in the
direction of Media and Persia; {See #/RAPC 1 Maccabees 3:29-37} and towards
"the Glory" or "Ornament" (hatstsebi) - i.e., the Holy Land. Inflated with
insolence, he now set himself against the stars, the host of heaven- i.e., against the
chosen people of God and their leaders. He cast down and trampled on them, and
defined the Prince of the host; for he
"Not e’en against the Holy One of heaven Refrained his tongue blasphemous."
His chief enormity was the abolition of "the daily" (tamid) - i.e., the sacrifice daily
offered in the Temple; and the desecration of the sanctuary itself by violence and
sacrilege, which will be more fully set forth in the next chapters. He also seized and
destroyed the sacred books of the Jews. As he forbade the reading of the Law-of
which the daily lesson was called the Parashah -there began from this time the
custom of selecting a lesson from the Prophets, which was called the Haphtarah.
It was natural to make one of the holy ones, who are supposed to witness this
horrible iniquity, inquire how long it was to be permitted. The enigmatic answer is,
"Until an evening-morning two thousand three hundred."
In the further explanation given to Daniel by Gabriel a few more touches are added.
Antiochus Epiphanes is described as a king "bold of visage, and skilled in enigmas."
His boldness is sufficiently illustrated by his many campaigns and battles, and his
braggart insolence has been already alluded to in Daniel 7:8. His skill in enigmas is
15

16. illustrated by his dark and tortuous diplomacy, which was exhibited in all his
proceedings, {Comp. Daniel 11:21} and especially in the whole of his dealings with
Egypt, in which country he desired to usurp the throne from his young nephew
Ptolemy Philometor. The statement that "he will have mighty strength, but not by
his own strength," may either mean that his transient prosperity was due only to the
permission of God, or that his successes were won rather by cunning than by
prowess. After an allusion to his cruel persecution of the holy people, Gabriel adds
that "without a hand shall he be broken in pieces"; in other words, his retribution
and destruction shall be due to no human intervention, but will come from God
Himself.
Daniel is bidden to hide the vision for many days-a sentence which is due to the
literary plan of the Book; and he is assured that the vision concerning the "evening-
morning" was true. He adds that the vision exhausted and almost annihilated him;
but, afterwards, he arose and did the king’s business. He was silent about the vision,
for neither he nor any one else understood it. Of course, had the real date of the
chapter been in the reign of Belshazzar, it was wholly impossible that either the seer
or any one else should have been able to attach any significance to it.
Emphasis is evidently attached to the "two thousand three hundred evening-
morning" during which the desolation of the sanctuary is to continue.
What does the phrase "evening-morning" (‘erebh-boqer) mean?
In Daniel 8:26 it is called "the vision concerning the evening and the morning."
Does "evening-morning" mean a whole day, or half a day? The expression is doubly
perplexing. If the writer meant "days," why does he not say " days ," as in Daniel
12:11-12? And why, in any case, does he here use the solecism ‘erebh-boqer
(Abendmorgen), and not, as in Daniel 8:26, "evening and morning?" Does the
expression mean two thousand three hundred days? or eleven hundred and fifty
days?
It is a natural supposition that the time is meant to correspond with the three years
and a half ("a time, two times, and half a time") of Daniel 7:25. But here again all
certainty of detail is precluded by our ignorance as to the exact length of years by
which the writer reckoned; and how he treated the month Veadar , a month of
thirty days, which was intercalated once in every six years.
Supposing that he allowed an intercalary fifteen days for three and a half years, and
took the Babylonian reckoning of twelve months of thirty days, then three and a
half years gives us twelve hundred and seventy-five days, or, omitting any allowance
for intercalation, twelve hundred and sixty days.
If, then, "two thousand three hundred evening-morning" means two thousand three
hundred half days, we have one hundred and ten days too many for the three and a
16

17. half years.
And if the phrase means two thousand three hundred full days, that gives us
(counting thirty intercalary days for Veadar ) too little for seven years by two
hundred and fifty days. Some see in this a mystic intimation that the period of
chastisement shall for the elect’s sake be shortened. [Matthew 24:22] Some
commentators reckon seven years roughly, from the elevation of Menelaus to the
high-priesthood (Kisleu, B.C. 1682 Macc. 5:11) to the victory of Judas Maccabaeus
over Nicanor at Adasa, March, B.C. 161. {#/RAPC 1 Maccabees 7:25-50, 2
Maccabees 15:20-35}
In neither case do the calculations agree with the twelve hundred and ninety or the
thirteen hundred and thirty-five days of Daniel 12:12-13.
Entire volumes of tedious and wholly inconclusive comment have been written on
these combinations, but by no reasonable supposition can we arrive at close
accuracy. Strict chronological accuracy was difficult of attainment in those days,
and was never a matter about which the Jews, in particular, greatly troubled
themselves. We do not know either the terminus a quo from which or the terminus
ad quem to which the writer reckoned. All that can be said is that it is perfectly
impossible for us to identify or exactly equiparate the three and a half years, [Daniel
7:25] the "two thousand three hundred evening-morning," [Daniel 8:14] the
seventy-two weeks, [Daniel 9:26] and the twelve hundred and ninety. [Daniel 12:11]
Yet all those dates have this point of resemblance about them, that they very
roughly indicate a space of about three and a half years (more or less) as the time
during which the daily sacrifice should cease, and the Temple be polluted and
desolate.
Turning now to the dates, we know that Judas the Maccabee cleansed {#/RAPC 1
Maccabees 4:41-56, 2 Maccabees 10:1-5} ("justified" or "vindicated," Daniel 8:14)
the Temple on Kisleu 25 (December 25th, B.C. 165). If we reckon back two thousand
three hundred full days from this date, it brings us to B.C. 171, in which Menelaus,
who bribed Antiochus to appoint him high priest, robbed the Temple of some of its
treasures, and procured the murder of the high priest Onias III. In this year
Antiochus sacrificed a great sow on the altar of burnt offerings, and sprinkled its
broth over the sacred building. These crimes provoked the revolt of the Jews in
which they killed Lysimachus, governor of Syria, and brought on themselves a
heavy retribution.
If we reckon back two thousand three hundred half- days, eleven hundred and fifty
whole days, we must go back three years and seventy days, but we cannot tell what
exact event the writer had in mind as the starting-point of his calculations. The
actual time which elapsed from the final defilement of the Temple by Apollonius, the
general of Antiochus, in B.C. 168, till its re-purification was roughly three years.
Perhaps, however-for all is uncertain-the writer reckoned from the earliest steps
taken, or contemplated, by Antiochus for the suppression of Judaism. The
17

18. purification of the Temple did not end the time of persecution, which was to
continue, first, for one hundred and forty days longer, and then forty-five days
more. [Daniel 12:11-12] It is clear from this that the writer reckoned the beginning
and the end of troubles from different epochs which we have no longer sufficient
data to discover.
It must, however, be borne in mind that no minute certainty about the exact dates is
attainable. Many authorities, from Prideaux down to Schurer, place the desecration
of the Temple towards the close of B.C. 168. Kuenen sees reason to place it a year
later. Our authorities for this period of history are numerous, but they are
fragmentary, abbreviated, and often inexact. Fortunately, so far as we are able to
see, no very important lesson is lost by our inability to furnish an undoubted or a
rigidly scientific explanation of the minuter details.
APPROXIMATE DATES AS INFERRED BY CORNILL AND OTHERS
Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jeremiah 25:12-38
Jeremiah’s "prophecy" in Jeremiah 29:10-32
Destruction of the Temple-586 or 588
Return of the Jewish exiles.-537
Decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus [Ezra 7:1] -458
Second decree [Nehemiah 2:1] -445
Accession of Antiochus Epiphanes (August, Clinton)-175
Usurpation of the high-priesthood by Jason-175
Jason displaced by Menelaus-172 (?)
Murder of Onias III (June)-171
Apollonius defiles the Temple-168
War of Independence-166
Purification of the Temple by Judas the Maccabee-(Dec.) 165
Death of Antiochus-163
PETT, "Introduction
18

19. Chapter 8 The Rise of the Greek Empire and The Resulting Evil King Whose
Persecution Brought About Such a Transformation of The True Remnant In Israel
That The Time of God’s Wrath Against Israel Came to An End (Until Israel
Rejected The Messiah).
This chapter, which moves from the Aramaic of the previous six chapters to the
Hebrew of chapter 1 and of the remainder of the book, both debunks the theory of a
separate Medan empire in Daniel (as does Daniel 5:28) and explains at the same
time why it was thought necessary. It was mainly because the horn (the small one) of
chapter 7 was wrongly equated with the ‘small horn’ of chapter 8, both of which
were identified with Antiochus Epiphanes, a king arising from the Greek empire,
who savagely persecuted Israel.
But small horns are small because they are those which start to come up later, that
is they come up after others that precede them, therefore there can be any number
of them. It depends what beast they are on. And in fact these two are presented so
differently that to identify them would be to lose all sense of reality. What such
interpreters fail to acknowledge is that Antiochus Epiphanes is in fact but an
example of the greater Anti-God yet to come.
At this time the Babylonian empire was weakening and new powers were arising,
first the Medes, and then the Persian empire under Cyrus II who rebelled against
the Medes and conquered them (550 BC). He then conquered Lydia (547 BC) and
Babylon (539 BC). His son Cambyses followed him (530 BC) and conquered Egypt,
followed by Darius I (522 BC) and Xerxes (also named Ahasuerus - 486 BC). Both
Darius and Xerxes sought to conquer Greece which was made up of a number of
nation states, the last part of their world which remained unconquered. But, after
some success, they finally failed. However, the empire continued and at last seemed
on the point of taking over Greece as a result of bribing the Greeks to fight each
other, thus weakening them considerably, but civil war developed in the empire
preventing consolidation of the position, and they failed, although the Greeks of
Asia did still remain under their control.
Then Philip of Macedon united the Greeks, followed by his son Alexander the Great
(336 BC) who invaded the Persian empire, and having first ‘delivered’ the Greeks in
Asia, Alexander defeated the main Persian army in 333 BC. From there he went
forward and conquered the whole of the Mediterranean world and beyond. But
when he died (323 BC) his enfeebled son was unable to do anything and his empire
was eventually divided up into four empires, two of which were the Seleucids, north
of Palestine (Babylonia and Syria) and the Ptolemies, south of Palestine (in Egypt),
the ‘king of the north’ and ‘the king of the south’. Both empires were ‘Hellenised’,
that is, strongly influenced by Greek culture.
The Ptolemies ruled Palestine for the next one hundred years but interfered little in
their internal and religious affairs, until eventually there arose a Seleucid king name
19

20. Antiochus III, ‘the Great’ (223-187 BC), who annexed Palestine in 198 BC, and
showed the Jews great consideration. Meanwhile Hellenisation continued apace in
Palestine, causing growing dissension between the Hellenised Jews with their new
ideas, which at a minimum flirted with the Greek gods, and the more orthodox.
Then Antiochus III, encouraged by Hannibal of Carthage who was now a refugee in
Asia, advanced into Greece where he came into conflict with the might of Rome (192
BC), who drove him back from Greece and followed him into Asia, totally defeating
him. Antiochus III died in 187 BC while plundering an Elamite temple for needed
treasure, for he was still subject to Roman tribute. His son Seleucus IV (187-175 BC)
who succeeded him began to meddle more in Jewish affairs (2 Maccabees 3).
Things, however, came to a head in the reign of his successor and brother Antiochus
IV (Epiphanes) (175-163 BC) who had been a hostage in Rome. Threatened by both
Rome and Egypt he determined to unify his empire round Hellenistic culture,
including the worship of the Greek gods, which included himself as the
manifestation of Zeus, (depicted on his coins), and sought every means of building
up his treasury, plundering a number of temples in the cause. He took more
seriously what others before him had claimed.
He was a strange man. He would mix among the common people and partake in
their fun, and yet he could rob their temples, and treat them savagely, especially
when he thought that they were being unreasonable.
Internal dissension among the Jews, largely about Hellenisation and who should be
High Priest, meant that all parties looked for assistance to Antiochus, which was a
great mistake, and eventually, as a result of opposition to his policies, and probably
with his eye on the temple treasures, (he was an infamous robber of temples), he
sacked Jerusalem and practically forbade the practise of Judaism, suspending
regular sacrifices, destroying copies of the Scriptures and forbidding circumcision
and the observance of the Sabbath. Moreover all without exception were to offer
sacrifices to Zeus (see the Jewish histories 1 Maccabees 1:41-64; 2 Maccabees
6:1-11).
This was later followed by the erection of an altar to Zeus in the temple, on which he
sacrificed a pig, an abomination to the Jews, a Desolating Horror. This latter took
place in December 167 BC. While a deliberate snub to the Jews he almost certainly
could not understand why there was so much fuss. No other part of his empire
would have objected strongly to such moves.
This all resulted in a rebellion by the Jews under the Maccabees which enabled
them through good generalship, great bravery and fortuitous circumstances to free
themselves from Antiochus’ yoke and restore and cleanse the temple in December
164 BC, three years after its desecration.
The vision in this chapter sees this period as pivotal for Israel. The persecutions of
Antiochus were seen as the final and most furious manifestation of God’s
20

21. indignation against His people. The faithful remnant who resulted were seen as free
from wrath and as opening the way for the coming of the Davidic Messiah, Jesus,
(as depicted in chapter 7).
Verse 1
Commencement of Daniel’s Vision.
‘In the third year of the king Belshazzar, a vision appeared to me, even to me
Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.’
Daniel draws our attention to the fact that this, his second great vision, occurred two
years after the first. But this was not stated to be a dream-vision, but a full vision
during which he remained awake and conscious. The mention of Belshazzar is
important in that it indicates the continuation at this time of the Babylonian empire.
The order of the empires is thus here clearly stated, Babylonian, Medo-Persian,
Greek.
PULPIY, "THE RAM AND THE HE-GOAT
This chapter marks the change from Aramaic to Hebrew. The character of the
chapter is like that which immediately precedes it. It consists, like it, of the account
of a vision, and the interpretation of it. The subject of this vision is the overthrow of
the Persian monarchy by Alexander the Great, the division of his empire, and the
oppression of Israel by Epiphanes.
Daniel 8:1
In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even
unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. The text of the
Septuagint does not differ greatly from the Hebrew, but avoids the strange
anarthrous position of anu, "I." The Septuagint renders this verse as a title to the
chapter, thus: "A vision which I Daniel saw in the third year of the reign of
Belshazzar (Beltasar), after that I saw formerly ( πρώτην)." The Septuagint reading
seems to have been asher r'oeh anee. Theodotion and the Peshitta are in verbal
agreement with the Massoretic text. The third year of the reign of King Belshazzar.
We learn now that Belshazzar did not reign independently; but that for at least five
years he exercised all the functions of government. If Daniel's investiture with the
position of third man in the kingdom took place on the occasion of Belshazzar's
inauguration of his vice-regal reign, Daniel may have remained in the royal service
continuously till the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy. After that which
appeared ,into me at the first. The former vision referred to is clearly the vision of
the preceding chapter.
21

22. BI 1-27, "Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold, there stood before the river
a ram which had two horns.
The World-powers and Israel
A glance at the particulars in this vision is enough to satisfy us that we have to do with
some of the same powers brought to view in the preceding chapter, and in
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. What, at first glance, we might be disposed to regard as mere
repetitions are not such in reality. There is something connected with the repetition to
adapt it to some altered position, end, or intent. In the two preceding visions we behold
the pictures of the powers of the world as a whole, without regard to any distinction
between Jew and Gentile. It is human dominion in its broadest view, in the entirety of its
history—first as outwardly considered, and then as spiritually considered, and finally
superseded by the Kingdom of God. The vision now in hand is given, not in Chaldee, but
in Hebrew. What Daniel is shown of these world-power manifestations he sees and hears
not only as a spiritual man of God, but more particularly as a Jewish prophet, and as
mainly concerning the Jewish people. Hence the dominion of Babylon is left out entirely,
for it was now on the eve of its downfall, and nothing more was to come of it to the Jews.
It is still the same world-power in its various forms which constitutes the subject of this
vision, but with the emphasis now on what particularly concerns the Jewish prophet,
and with all else touched but lightly, or not at all. To little purpose do we read the Book
of Daniel not to find in it a solemn warning to the Church of our time, and for all the
days yet to come, to beware of the fascinating flatteries and secularising expedients and
compliances which, in the self-idolising spirit of spurious charity, specious liberality,
mad heartless scepticism, would tempt her to forget her Dirge origin and Heavenly
destiny. There is a spirit abroad which would have the Church rescind her sacred
charter, cancel her authentic commission, and assimilate herself to a mere political or
conventional institution. Men call it a liberalising spirit, a spirit of improvement, which
would change our Christian schools and colleges into mere secular gymnasiums and
scientific museums or artistic studios and literary athenaeums but it is a spirit which is
prone to treat holy Scriptures as mere human lucubrations of worthy men before the
ages of better light, rationalise away all the definite doctrines of the authourised creed
into mere scholastic or philosophical theorems, dissolve the sacraments into picturesque
symbolisms and visionary shadows without life or power, and dismantle the ministry
and services of the Church as if they never had a solid right to be regarded as the
appointment of very God for conveying and imparting to lost men the regenerating,
sanctifying and only restorative gifts of Jehovah’s grace. It is the spirit of Antichrist.
Many of the so-called churches, and the leaders of the prevailing religious sentiment of
our day, are sewing for a harvest of miseries of which they but little dream. Daniel was
greatly affected by these visions, and the explanations made of them, as he well might be.
(Joseph A. Seiss, D.D.)
Vision of the -Ram and the He-Goat
Learn:
1. The strength of one evil habit may overcome even the mightiest conqueror.
Alexander the Great died as the victim of his own excesses at the early age of thirty-
three. He could conquer the world by his armies, yet intemperance was his master
and destroyer. How many there are among us who have made similar conquests, and
22

23. been themselves similarly overcome. Think of Lord Byron and Robert Burns, the two
poets. To no purpose shall we gain other crowns if we are our- selves the slaves of
appetite. It is easier to acquire a habit than it is to break it off.
2. Conformity to the world is fraught with great danger to the people of God. If we
have been right in conjecturing that the evils which came upon the Jews in the days
of Anticchus were designed as chastisements for their unfaithfulness to the covenant,
the history over which we have come is, in this regard, full of most salutary warning.
Nor does it stand alone. The tendency of these days is to minimize the difference
between the Christian and other men. So it happens that the Church of Christ is
invaded by the unbelieving, and its power to resist and overcome the world is
thereby sadly weakened. That which gives salt its value is its saltness, and when that
quality is lost by it, men cast it from them and trample it underfoot. Our peculiarities
as Christians are the very elements of our power. By these it is that the Church has its
aggressive force and purifying influence upon the world.
3. Learn, in conclusion, the limited power of the enemies of God’s people. The
spoliation of Jerusalem by Antiochus was to be only for a season. The world-tyrant
could only go a certain length. God is stronger than the mightiest man; and so to the
people of God who continue faithful unto Him there is a limit to calamity. The
longest night is followed by the dawn. As the proverb has it, “Time and the hour run
through the roughest day.”
Then be patient, be uncompromising, be courageous. (William M. Taylor, D.D.)
Vision of the Ram and the He-Goat
This second vision of Daniel came to him in the third year of the reign of King
Belshazzar. If the first year of
Belshazzar, during which Daniel had his first vision, corresponded with the seventh year
of his father Nabonidus, the year following that in which
Media was conquered by Cyrus the third year of Belshazzar would be the tenth year of
Nabonidus, and so about 646 B.C. The scene of the vision was
Shushan, or Susa, the capital of Elam, and afterwards one of the chief residences of the
Persian kings. Shushan, which means a lily, may have been so called from the many
white lilies which grew in its neighbourhood.
The language of Daniel leaves it doubtful whether, when he received the vision, he was
present at Shushan in the body or only in the spirit, like to
Ezekiel when he was removed to Jerusalem to see the causes of his impending doom
(Eze_8:1-18). As Elam, which lay to the east of Babylonia, seems to have become a
tributary province of the empire in the days of
Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel as the prime minister would sometimes probably visit Shushan
its capital: but as the history of Elam during this period is very obscure, it would be
hazardous to affirm that he was actually present in Shushan when he received the vision,
although it seems to me that he might. The likelihood seems to be that Cyrus would leave
Elam untouched, not only until after the conquest of Media, Lydia, and Persia, but also
until after he had made adequate preparations for the more formidable task of
23

24. conquering the great Babylonian empire. In that case Daniel might be in
Shushan in the tenth year of Nabonidus, which we have supposed to be the third year of
his son Belshazzar, in connection with the mustering of the forces of Elam against Cyrus;
and his actual presence there for the purposes of defence would give peculiar point and
significance to the vision.. The first thing in the vision which met the eye of the ecstatic
Daniel was a ram with two horns (v. 3, 4). The river Ulai (the Eulaeus of the
Greeks) before which the ram stood, apparently on the opposite side of the stream,
seems to have been “a large artificial canal, some nine hundred feet broad, though it is
now dry, which left the Choaspes at Pat Pul, about twenty miles north-west of Susa,
passed close by the town of Susa on the north or north-east, and afterwards joined the
Coprates” (Driver). In connection with the ram there is in the original, the numeral one,
to bring into relief the fact that the ram had two horns. The ram is the symbol of the
Medo-Persian empire, as the angel Gabriel said to Daniel: “The ram which thou sawest
that had two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia.” This symbol corresponds
with that of the arms and breast of silver in the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and
with that of the bear raised up on one side in the first vision of Daniel. The two horns,
which represent the kingdoms of Media and Persia, were both high or conspicuous
horns, while the horn which was higher than the other, and which came up after it,
represents the kingdom of Persia, which until the time of Cyrus was but a tributary of
Media, but which grew and became the more powerful and conspicuous member of the
united kingdom. This is seen in the fact that at the first, as in this book, the empire is
spoken of as that of the Medes and Persians, but afterwards, as in the book of Esther, as
that of the Persians and the Medes (Est_1:3; Est_1:14; Est_1:18-19). As the symbol of
the ram with the two horns here represents the Medo-Persian empire, it is strange that
anyone should explain the symbol of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and that of Daniel’s first
vision to mean the Medes alone. The idea of a Median empire succeeding the Babylonian
is, as the higher critics admit, a gross historical blunder; but then they ascribe the
blunder, which they themselves have created, to the ignorance of the author, and apply
to their own workmanship the well-sounding name of scientific criticism. As Daniel
looked at the ram with the two horns on the other side of the Ulai, he saw it pushing or
butting westward, and northward and southward, and overthrowing all the beasts which
came in its way, and glorying in its crushing and victorious power. This is a striking
description of the conquests and spirit of the Medo-Persian empire. In the west it
vanquished Babylon and Syria; in the north Lydia, Armenia, and the Scythian nations;
and in the south part of Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia. It was more of a world-empire than
Babylon, and for a time resistless in its conquering career, and became in an eminent
degree a despotic and vainglorious power. The next part of the vision relates to the he-
goat (v. 5, 8). This is the interpretation given by Gabriel to Daniel: “And the rough he-
goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
And as for that which was broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms
shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power.” The he-goat with its one great
horn at the first, and afterwards with its four notable horns, the symbol of the Graeco-
Macedonian empire, corresponds with the belly and thighs of brass of the image in
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and with the four-winged leopard with four heads in Daniel’s
first vision. There is a likeness of a he-goat with one notable horn between its eyes still to
be seen in the sculptures at Persepolis. The first king of the GraceMacedonian empire,
symbolised by the one great horn between the eyes, is Alexander the Great. This
remarkable man, who at thirteen became for three years the pupil of the famous
24

25. Aristotle, was born in 356 B.C., and ascended the throne of Macedonia in 336 B.C., when
he was twenty years of age. Within two years after his coronation he had made himself
the recognised leader of the Grecian peoples; and in 334 B.C., he crossed the Hellespont
to overthrow the Medo-Persian empire with not more perhaps than 30,000 infantry and
4,000 cavalry, and began the struggle by completely routing the Persians in battle at the
Granicus. He then overran and subdued a large part of Asia Minor, and in 333 B.C. dealt
a crushing blow to the immense army of Darius at Issus in Cilicia. Instead of pursuing
the beaten Darius the youthful conqueror marched southward through Syria and
Palestine, taking Tyre after a siege of seven months, and Gaza after a siege of two, and
entered Egypt, where he not only overthrew the Persian rule, but founded the city of
Alexandria for his new kingdom. In 331 B.C. he left Egypt and hastened with all speed
through Palestine and Syria to Thapsacus, where he crossed the Euphrates, and then
onwards to the Tigris, below Nineveh, which he crossed without opposition. Some days
after Alexander encountered the army of Darius, said to be more than a million in
number, posted on a broad plain stretching from Guagamela to Arbela, and completely
routed it, and thus practically ended the Medo-Persian empire, which had lasted for a
period of 218 years. In the following year, 330 B.C., Darius, after he had fled to Susa,
then to Persepolis (Pasargadae), and then to Ecbatana, three of the royal residences of
the Persian kings, made his escape into Bactria, where he was assassinated. In three
years the little king of Macedonia had made himself master of the vast Medo-Persian
empire. The rapidity of his movements is aptly likened to that of a four-winged leopard
in the first vision, and in this to that of a he-goat bounding along without touching the
ground. His attacks on the armies of Darius were like those of the he-goat on the ram
with the two horns. Darius, like the ram, had no power to resist him; and Alexander, like
the he-goat, “cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none
to deliver the ram out of his hand.” Alexander, too, like the he-goat, “magnified himself
exceedingly.” His extraordinary successes impressed him with the idea that he must be
more than human; and, to settle the matter, when he was in Egypt, he sent to enquire of
the oracle of Ammon, which, knowing what would please the vainglorious conqueror,
gave the answer that he was the son, not of Philip, but of Zeus. Hence, to the disgust of
many of his followers, he claimed to be divine, and expected to be worshipped with
divine honours. And he, like the great horn, was “broken in his strength.” He was cut off
at Babylon by fever, aggravated by intemperance, when in the midst of his successes, and
not yet thirty-three years of age. After the breaking of the great horn the four notable
horns, which came up towards the four winds of Heaven, are explained by Gabriel to be
four kingdoms that would stand up out of the nation, but not with his power. The four
horns of the-he-goat correspond with the four heads of the leopard in the first vision.
Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C.; and for twenty-two years after the empire was in a
condition of conflict and confusion; but in 301 B.C. it was divided into four kingdoms, all
of which were weaker than the original empire. Seleucus got what may be called the
eastern kingdom of Syria, Babylonia, and the countries as far as India; Cassander, the
western kingdom of Macedonia and Greece; Lysimachus, the northern kingdom of
Thrace and Bithynia; and Ptolemy, the southern kingdom of Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia
Petrea. These four kingdoms were towards the four winds of Heaven. The little horn is
admitted on all hands to be Antiochus Epiphanes, who seized the throne of Syria in 175
B.C., in the absence of his nephew Demetrius, the rightful heir. He might be called a
little horn, partly from the depressed state of the kingdom of Syria at the time, and
partly from his own depressed state, as he had been hostage at Rome for the seven
preceding years. In the eyes of the world such a king would be very insignificant. The
25

26. period in which he would arise is said to be “in the latter time of the kingdom (the
Graeco-Macedonian empire), when the transgressors are come to the full,” that is, when
the Jewish people had filled up the cup of their iniquity. Many of the Jews with their
high priest apostatised in the early days of Antiochus, and adopted the heathen customs
of the Greeks. The period of the little horn is also said to belong to the time of the end.
Gabriel said to Dan_5:17: “Understand O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the
time of the end”; and again, v.19: “Behold I will make thee know what shall be in the
latter time of theindignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end.” The time
of the end seems to refer to the end of the present age, as distinguished from the future
age of the Messiah. The appearance of the little horn, which would be in the latter time
of God’s indignation against His chosen people, would show that men were living in the
last stage of the old order of things, and that a new order of things was about to arise.
Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn which was to arise in the time of the end, is
minutely and accurately described. He was “a king of fierce countenance, and
understanding dark sentences,” noted for his hard-hearted cruelty and crafty
dissimulation. Though a little horn at the first, “he waxed exceeding great toward the
glorious land.” The south refers to Egypt, against which he undertook several
campaigns, and would have made a complete conquest of it, had it not been for the
interference of the Romans; the east refers to his military expeditions into Armenia,
Bactria, and Elymais; and the glorious land, “the glory of all lands” in Ezekiel (Eze_
20:6), refers to Palestine which he so grievously oppressed. His success was due, not so
much to inherent ability as to the favouring providence of God and the practice of
dissimulation. The one cause is pointed out in the words, “And his power shall be
mighty; but not by his own power”; and the other in the words, “And through his policy
he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand.” And in his successful career, “he shall
destroy the mighty ones and the holy people,” that is, powerful foes in the world and the
chosen people of Israel. The destructive power of the little horn is especially noted in
reference to the holy people. We read: “And it waxed great even to the host of heaven:
and some of the host and of the stars it cast down to the ground and trampled upon
them.” The host of Heaven and the stars refer to the same, and not to different persons;
and the stars here symbolise, not the angels but the chosen people, partly because the
seed of Abraham had been likened to the stars for multitude (Gen_15:5), but mainly
because they are sometimes called the Lord’s host (Exo_7:4; Exo_12:41). This was
fulfilled in his two captures of Jerusalem, when many of the inhabitants were slain, and
in his persecution of those who refused to abandon their religion (Jos. Ant. 12:3, 4).
“Yes,” continues Daniel, “it magnified itself, oven to the prince of the host; and it took
away from him the continual burnt offering and the pines of his sanctuary was cut down.
And the host was given over to it, together with the continual burnt offering through
transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it did its pleasure and
prospered.” This describes the attempt of Antiochus to extinguish the religion of the
Jews. The arch-persecutor was opposed not only to the host but to the prince of the host.
His aim was to blast the glory, and overthrow the power of the Most High. He plundered
His temple, and caused the daily sacrifice to cease, and transformed the altar of Jehovah
into an altar dedicated to the worship of idols. And because of the transgressions of the
host Antiochus, like Nebuchadnezzar in reference to the destruction of Solomon’s
temple, was permitted to do his pleasure and prosper. (T. Kirk.)
26

27. 2 In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa
in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside
the Ulai Canal.
BARNES, "And I saw in a vision - I looked as the vision appeared to me; or I saw
certain things represented to me in a vision. On the word vision, see the notes at Dan_
1:17. The meaning here would seem to be that a vision appeared to Daniel, and that he
contemplated it with earnestness, to understand what it meant.
That I was at Shushan - As remarked in the introduction to this chapter, this might
mean that he seemed to be there, or that the vision was represented to him as being
there; but the most natural construction is to suppose that Daniel was actually there
himself. Why he was there he has not informed us directly - whether he was on public
business, or on his own. From Dan_8:27, however - “Afterward I rose up, and did the
king’s business” - it would seem most probable that he was then in the service of the
king. This supposition will not conflict with the statement in Dan_5:10-11, in which the
queen-mother, when the handwriting appeared on the wall of the palace informs
Belshazzar that there was “a man in his kingdom in whom was the spirit of the holy
gods, etc.” - from which it might be objected that Daniel was at that time unknown to the
king, and could not have been in his employ, for it might have been a fact that he was in
the employ of the king as an officer of the government, and yet it may have been
forgotten that he had this power of disclosing the meaning of visions.
He may have been employed in the public service, but his services to the father of the
king, and his extraordinary skill in interpreting dreams and visions may not at once have
occurred to the affrighted monarch and his courtiers. Shushan, or Susa, the chief town
of Susiana, was the capital of Persia after the time of Cyrus, in which the kings of Persia
had their principal residence, Neh_1:1; Est_1:2-5. It was situated on the Eulaeus or
Choaspes, probably on the spot now occupied by the village Shus. - Rennel, Geog. of
Herodotus; Kinneir, Mem. Pers. Emp.; K. Porter’s Travels, ii. 4, 11; Ritter, Erdkunde,
Asien, 9: 294; Pict. Bib. in loc. At Shus there are extensive ruins, stretching perhaps
twelve miles from one extremity to the other, and consisting, like the other ruins in that
country, of hillocks of earth, and rubbish, covered with broken, pieces of brick and
colored tile. At the foot of these mounds is the so-called tomb of Daniel, a small building
erected on the spot where the remains of Daniel are believed in that region to rest.
It is apparently modern, but nothing but the belief that this was the site of the
prophet’s sepulchre could have led to its being built in the place where it stands -
Malcolm, Hist. of Persia, i. 255, 256. The city of Shus is now a gloomy wilderness,
inhabited by lions, hyenas, and other beasts of prey. - Kitto’s Cyclo., art. “Shushan.” Sir
John Kinneir says that the dread of these animals compelled Mr. Monteith and himself
to take shelter for the night within the walls that encompass Daniel’s tomb. Of that tomb
27

28. Sir John Malcolm says, “It is a small building, but sufficient to shelter some dervishes
who watch the remains of the prophet, and are supported by the alms of pious pilgrims,
who visit the holy sepulchre. The dervishes are now the only inhabitants of Susa; and
every species of wild beast roams at large over the spot on which some of the proudest
palaces ever raised by human art once stood.” - Vol. i. pp. 255, 256. For a description of
the ruins of Susa, see Pict. Bib. in loc. This city was about 450 Roman miles from
Seleucia, and was built, according to Pliny, 6; 27, in a square of about 120 stadia. It was
the summer residence of the Persian kings (Cyrop. 8, 6, 10), as they passed the spring in
Ecbatana, and the autumn and winter in Babylon. See Lengerke, in loc. It was in this city
that Alexander the Great married Stateira, daughter of Darius Codomanus. The name
means a lily, and was probably given to it on account of its beauty - Lengerke.
Rosenmuller supposes that the vision here is represented to have appeared to Daniel in
this city because it would be the future capital of Persia, and because so much of the
vision pertained to Persia. See Maurer, in loc.
In the palace - This word (‫בירה‬ bı̂yrâh) means a fortress, a castle, a fortified
palace. - Gesenius. See Neh_1:1; Est_1:5; Est_2:5; Est_8:14; Est_9:6, Est_9:11-12. It
would seem to have been given to the city because it was a fortified place. The word
applied not only to the palace proper, a royal residence, but to the whole adjacent city. It
is not necessary to suppose that Daniel was in the palace proper, but only that he was in
the city to which the name was given.
Which is in the province of Elam - See the notes at Isa_11:11. This province was
bounded on the east by Persia Proper, on the west by Babylonia, on the north by Media,
and on the south by the Persian Gulf. It was about half as large as Persia, and not quite
as large as England. - Kitto’s Cyclo. It was probably conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, and
in the time of Belshazzar was subject to the Babylonian dominion, Shushan had been
doubtless the capital of the kingdom of Elam while it continued a separate kingdom, and
remained the capital of the province while it was under the Babylonian yoke, and until it
was subdued as a part of the empire by Cyrus. It was then made one of the capitals of the
united Medo-Persian empire. It was when it was the capital of a province that it was
visited by Daniel, and that he saw the vision there. Possibly he may have dwelt there
subsequently, and died there.
And I was by the river of Ulai - This river flowed by the city of Shushan, or Susa,
and fell into the united stream of the Tigris and the Euphrates. It is called by Pliny (Nat.
Hist. vi. 81) Eulaeus; but it is described by Greek writers generally under the name of
Choaspes. - Herod. v. 49; Strabo, xv. p. 728. It is now known by the name Kerah, called
by the Turks Karasu. It passes on the west of the ruins of Shus (Susa), and enters the
Shat-ul-Arab about twenty miles below Korna. - Kinneir, Geog. Mem. of the Persian
Empire, pp. 96, 97. See Kitto’s Cyclo., art. “Ulai”
CLARKE, "I saw in a vision - Daniel was at this time in Shushan, which appears to
have been a strong place, where the kings of Persia had their summer residence. It was
the capital of the province of Elam or the Elymais; which province was most probably
added to the Chaldean territories by Nebuchadnezzar; see Jer_49:34, Jer_49:35. Here
was Daniel’s ordinary residence; and though here at this time, he, in vision, saw himself
on the banks of the river Ulai. This is the same as the river Euleus, which divided
Shushan or Susiana from Elymais.
28

29. GILL, "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
29

30. 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.
JAMISON, "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).
CALVIN, "Without any doubt, the Prophet here recognized a new empire as about
to arise, which could not happen without Babylon being reduced to slavery. Hence it
would tend in. no slight degree to alleviate the cares of the pious, and to mitigate
their sorrows, when they saw what they had previously thought incredible, namely,
the approaching destruction of that horrible tyranny under which they had been so,
cruelly oppressed. And if the liberty of returning to their country was not
immediately granted to the people, it would be no small consolation to behold God’s
judgment against the Chaldeans as foretold by the prophets. We must now examine
the Prophet’s language. I have seen in a vision, says he. This word ‫,חזון‬ chezon, a
“vision,” is added to show us that the ram of which mention is made was not seen by
the eyes of the body. Hence this was a heavenly oracle, and ought to have raised the
30

31. beholder above all human sensations, to enable him to discern from lofty watch-
tower what was hidden from the rest of mankind. He did not see then what ordinary
men might behold, but God showed in a vision things which no mortal senses could
apprehend. He next adds, The vision was shewn to me, Daniel, and I happened, says
he, when I saw it, to be in Shushan Some think Daniel to be then dwelling in Persia,
bug this view is by no means probable; for who could persuade the holy Prophet of
God, who had been led captive with the rest and was attached to the king of
Babylon, to depart as if he had been entirely his own master, and to go into Persia
when the Persians were then open enemies? This is not at all likely; and I wonder
what can induce men to adopt this comment, so contrary to all reason. For we need
not dispute about a matter by no means obscure if we weigh the Prophet’s words, as
he removes all doubt by saying he was in Shushan when he saw, that is, when he was
caught up by the prophetic spirit beyond himself and above the world. The Prophet
does not say he dwelt in Shushan, or in the neighborhood, but he was there in the
vision only. The next verse, too, sufficiently shews him to have then been in
Chaldean in the third year, he says, of the reign of King Belshazzar. By naming the
king, he clearly expresses that he then dwelt under his power and dominion. It is
clearly to be gathered from these words, without the slightest doubt, that the
Prophet then dwelt in Chaldea. And perhaps Babylon had been already besieged, as
we saw before. He says he was in the palace at Shushan I know not how I ought to
translate this word, ‫,הבירה‬ hebireh, as I see no reason for preferring the meaning
“palace” to that of” citadel.” We are sure of the nobility and celebrity of the citadel
which was afterwards the head of the East, for all nations and tribes received from
thence their laws, rights, and judgments. At the same time, I think this citadel was
not then built, for its empire over the Persian territory was not firmly established till
the successors of Cyrus. We may perhaps distinguish Shushan from Persia at large,
yet as it is usually treated as a part of that kingdom, I will not urge the distinction.
The country is, however, far milder and more fertile than Persia, as it receives its
name from being flowery and abounding in roses. Thus the Prophet says he was
there in a vision.
He afterwards repeats thisI saw in a vision, and behold I was near the river Ulai
The Latin writers mention a river Eulaeus, and as there is a great similitude
between the words, I have no hesitation in understanding Daniel’s language of the
Eulaeus. The repetition is not superfluous. It adds certainty to the prophecy,
because Daniel affirms it; not to have been any vanishing specter, as a vision might
be suspected to be, but clearly and certainly a divine revelation, as he will
afterwards relate. He says, too, he raised his eyes upwards This attentive attitude
has the same meaning, as experience informs us how often men are deceived by
wandering in erroneous imaginations. But Daniel here bears witness to his raising
his eyes upwards, because he, knew himself to be, divinely called upon to discern
future events.
COKE, "Daniel 8:2. And I saw in a vision, &c.— Houbigant renders this very
properly, And I saw myself in the vision to be by the river Ulai; for Daniel was at
31

32. Shushan when he had this vision, wherein he imagined himself to be by the river
Ulai; which divides Susiana from Elam, properly so called; though Elam is often
taken in a larger sense, so as to comprehend Susiana.
ELLICOTT, "(2) At Shushan—i.e., Susa. At this time (see Records of the Past, vol.
1, p. 71, &c.) Susa was, as Daniel describes it, in the province of Elam; at a later
period it became the capital of the Persian empire. Daniel was at Susa only in vision,
he was not bodily transported thither. The Ulai is the river Eul‫ז‬us, and is mentioned
in connection with Susa in the inscription cited above.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:2 And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I
[was] at Shushan [in] the palace, which [is] in the province of Elam; and I saw in a
vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
Ver. 2. I saw in a vision.] God revealed himself to men waking in vision, as well as in
dreams, [Hebrews 1:1] wherein the prophets saw things actually done, which hereby
they knew were to be done. [1 Kings 22:17]
I was at Shushan.] Which signifieth a lily, (a) so it was called for the pleasantness of
the place: now it is called Valdac, of the poverty of the place. Here it was that
Alexander found fifty thousand talents of gold, besides silver great store. It was once
the royal seat of the kings of Persia, and gave name to the whole province Susiane.
See Nehemiah 1:1, Esther 1:1.
And I was by the river of Ulai.] Called by heathen authors Eulaeus, but better
‫.ןכץביןע‬ It compassed the temple of Diana at Shushan round, and, as some say, the
whole city. Pliny (b) saith that the waters of this river were highly esteemed, so that
the Persian kings drank thereof.
EXPOSITO'S DICTIONARY, " Daniel 8:2
In his Remarkable Passages of the Life and Death of Mr. John Semple, minister of
Carsphairn in Galloway, Patrick Walker tells how "that night after his wife died, he
spent the whole ensuing night in prayer and meditation in his garden. The next
morning, one of his elders coming to see him, and lamenting his great loss and want
of rest, he replied: "I declare I have not, all night, had one thought of the death of
my wife, I have been so taken up in meditating on heavenly things. I have been this
night on the banks of Ulai, plucking an apple here and there.""
Daniel 8:2
Even in a palace life may be lived well.
—Marcus Aurelius.
32

33. See M. Arnold"s Sonnet, "Worldly Place".
PETT, " ‘And I saw in the vision, - now it was so that when I was seeing I was in
Shushan the fortress, which is in the province of Elam - and I saw in the vision, and
I was by the River Ulai.’
Daniel repeats that he saw things in vision, and informs us of his whereabouts at the
time. He was in Shushan (Susa), the fortress-city, in the province of Elam. It is quite
probable that he was there on a mission on behalf of Babylon, as a retired governor
of Babylon now available for such special missions. This would explain why, as he
saw the power of Medo-Persia, he recognised that the downfall of Babylon must
come soon. On the other hand some see this as meaning that he was, as it were,
transported there in the vision.
Shushan was Cyrus’ capital city, capital of the Persian empire, a huge fortress of a
city in the former territory of Elam, ‘in the province of Elam’. In Ezra 4:9 the
‘Shushancites’ are differentiated from the Elamites. This was a differentiation of
cityfolk from the provincials. Compare Jerusalem and Judah, often seen in
apposition. At this time Elam was a province of either Media or Persia.
The ‘River’ Ulai flowed by Susa and was a canal, 275 metres (900 feet) wide, which
joined two large rivers.
PULPIY, "Daniel 8:2
And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the
palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the
river of Ulai. The LXX. presents several slight differences, "And I saw in the vision
of my dream, when I was in the city Susa, which is in the province Elymais, and I
seemed in my vision to be at the gate Ailam." Theodotion renders more briefly,
"And I was in Susa the palace ( ‫ףן‬́‫ץ‬‫פ‬ ‫ףןיע‬͂ͅ‫ח‬‫ג‬́‫ב‬‫סוי‬ ), in the province Ailam, and I was
on the Ubal." The Syriac is in close agreement with the Massoretic. even to the
transcription of the doubtful word Ubal. The transcription is carried so far that
medeenatha, "a city," is used to translate medeena, "a province." Jerome renders m
deena, cicitas, and uval, portam, and beera, castrum. The word ‫ל‬ַ‫אוּב‬ ('oobal) is
nearly a hapax legomenon, absolutely so if we do not admit joobal, in Jeremiah 17:8,
to be the same word. There is, as will have been seen above, great differences among
the versions. The LXX. and Jerome seem to have read ‫אולם‬ (oolam), "porch" or
"gate," instead of oobal. Ewald would make the word mean "river-basin,"
Stromgebeit—a view supported also by Z‫צ‬ckler. In many respects "marsh" might
be a more suitable rendering. To the south-west of the present ruins of Susa there is
an extensive marsh, which may have been of old date. The preposition liphnee,
which occurs in Jeremiah 17:3, is all but meaningless applied to a river, if we use it
in its ordinary meaning, "before." If we take it as meaning "eastward," the ram
33

34. would be "westward" from Shushan, ie. between Shushan and the river; but as
Daniel was in Shushan, he would naturally state the position of the "ram" in
relation to it rather than to the river. The preposition ‫ל‬ַ‫ﬠ‬ (‛al) is nearly as
meaningless with regard to a river, unless a bridge or a boat is intended. We are
inclined to read oolam as "porch." At the same time, we know that there was the
river Ulai (Eulaeus) near Shushan. It is mentioned in one of the inscriptions of
Asshurbanipal in connection with Shushan. The palace. Beera really seems to mean
"fortress." It occurs ten times in Esther, and always as the appellation of Shushan.
In Nehemiah it is once used with this connotation, but twice in regard to some
building in Jerusalem, probably the temple; in Chronicles it is used for the temple.
In Ezra 6:2 it is used of Achmetha, equivalent to Ecbatana. From the fact that the
LXX. translates ‫נ‬́‫ן‬ ëéò, it might be reasoned that the translator had ‫עיר‬ before him,
but the translation probably was due to ignorance of the precise meaning of the
word. In Esther this word is rendered ðḯëéò. In Nehemiah it is once rendered ðḯëéò,
once it is rendered á̓́âéñá, and once âé́ñá. The derivation of the word seems to be
from the Assyrian birtu. It really means "citadel" or "fortress," and thus may be
compared with the Carthaginian byrsa. Jerome's translation, castrum, suits this. It
is not necessary to maintain that at this time Daniel was in Shushan. All that is
implied is that in his dream he was there. Shushan is first referred to in the
inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal as the capital of Elam. In the history of that
monarch there is an inscription of his given in which he says, "Shushan, the great
city, the seat of their gods, the place of their oracle, I captured." Then follows a
description of the plunder he took from it. We do not know when it recovered from
that overthrow. The name is said to be derived from the number of lilies growing in
the neighbourhood; but shushan, "a lily," is a Shemitie word, and the Elamites are
usually regarded as an Aryan people. The association of Babylon with Elam and
Media must have been intimate, if any credit is to be placed on the Greek accounts
of the marriage of Nebuchadnezzar. Hence, even if Elam was not, at the date
specified, a province of the Babylonian Empire, perhaps never was, yet the
Babylonian. court might well have envoys visiting the court of Elam. We find from
the well-known inscription of Nabunahid, that he regarded Cyrus at first as a friend
and deliverer from the formidable Astyages, King of Umman-Manda. Daniel may
have been sent to Elam, although there is no necessity for maintaining that this was
the case. It was not until he had conquered Astyages that Cyrus held possession of
Shushan.
3 I looked up, and there before me was a ram with
two horns, standing beside the canal, and the
horns were long. One of the horns was longer than
34

35. the other but grew up later.
BARNES, "Then I lifted up mine eyes and saw - And saw in vision, or there
seemed to be before me.
There stood before the river - On the bank of the river.
A ram which had two horns - There can be no error in explaining the design of
this symbol, for in Dan_8:20 it is expressly said that it denoted the two kings of Media
and Persia. The united power of the kingdom was denoted by the ram itself; the fact that
there were two powers or kingdoms combined, by the two horns of the ram.
And the two horns were high - Both indicating great power.
But one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last - The higher
horn springing up last denotes Persia, that became the more mighty power of the two, so
that the name Media became finally almost dropped, and the united kingdom was
known in Grecian history as the Persian The Median or Assyrian power was the older,
but the Persian became the most mighty.
CLARKE, "A ram which had two horns - In the former vision there were four
beasts, pointing out four empires; in this we have but two, as only two empires are
concerned here, viz., the Grecian and the Persian. The Babylonish empire is not
mentioned; its fate was before decided, and it was now at its close.
By the ram, the empire of the Medes and Persians was pointed out, as explained by the
angel Gabriel, Dan_8:20; and particularly Cyrus, who was the founder of that empire.
Cyrus was the son of Cambyses, king of Persia; and grandson of Astyages, king of Media,
by his daughter Mandane, who had been given in marriage to Cambyses. Cyrus marrying
Roxana, the daughter and only child of his uncle Cyaxares, called in Scripture
Ahasuerus, succeeded to both crowns, and thus united Media and Persia. A ram was the
symbol of the Persians; and a ram’s head with two horns, one higher than the other,
appears as such in different parts of the ruins of Persepolis. See the plates of these ruins
in the supplement to the seventh volume of the ancient part of the Universal History.
This ram had two horns; that is, two kingdoms, viz., Media and Persia; but one was
higher than the other; and the higher came up last. Media, signified by the shorter horn,
was the more ancient of the two kingdoms. Persia, the higher horn, had come up but
lately, and was of little historic or political consequence till the time of Cyrus; but in the
reigns of this prince and his immediate successors, Persia attained a political
consequence greatly superior to that possessed at any time by the kingdom of Media;
therefore, it is said to have been the higher, and to have come up last.
GILL, "Then I lifted up mine eyes,.... To see what was to be seen in this place,
35

36. 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.
HENRY, "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.
JAMISON, "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
36

37. 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 jeweled 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).
CALVIN, "He next subjoins, And behold a ram, stood at the bank of the river, and
it had horns He now compares the empire of Persia and Media to a ram. It ought
not to seem absurd that God proposed to his servant various similitude’s, because
his duty was to teach a rude people in various ways; and[ we know this vision to
have been presented before the Prophet, not for his private instruction only, but for
the common advantage of the whole people. I do not think we need scrupulously
inquire why the Persian kings are called rams. I know of no valid reason, unless
perhaps to institute a comparison between them and Alexander of Macedon and his
successors. If so, when God, under the image of a ram, exhibits to his Prophet the
Persian Empire, he does not illustrate its nature absolutely, but only by comparison
with that of Alexander. ‘We are well aware of the opposition between these two
empires. The Persian monarchy is called “a ram,” with reference to the
Macedonian, which, as we shall afterwards see, bears the name of “he-goat” with
respect to its antagonism. And we may gather the best reason for this comparison in
the humble origin of the kings of Persia. With great propriety, then, Cyrus, the first
ruler of this empire, is here depicted for us under the form or image of a ram. His
“horn” produced a concussion through the whole earth, when no one expected
anything to spring from a region by no means abounding in anything noble. And as
to Alexander, he is called a “he-goat,” with respect to the “ram,” as being far more
nimble, and yet more obscure in his origin. For what was Macedon but a mere
corner of Greece? But I do not propose to run the parallel between these points; it is
sufficient that God wishes to show to his Prophet and to the whole Church, how
among the Persians, unknown as they were, and despised by their neighbors, a king
should arise to consume the Median power, as we shall soon see, and also to
overthrow the Babylonian monarchy. Behold, therefore, says he, a ram stood before
the river, or at the bank of the river, since Cyrus subdued both the Medes and his
grandfather, as historians inform us. Cyrus then rushed forth from his own
mountains and stood at the bank of the river He also says, He had two horns. Here
the Prophet puts two horns for two empires, and not by any means for two persons.
For although Cyrus married the daughter of Cyaxares his uncle, yet we know the
Persian empire to have lasted a long time, and to have supplied historians with a
long catalogue of kings. As Cyrus had so many successors, by the two horns God
doubtless showed his Prophet those two empires of the Medes and Persians united
under one sovereignty. Therefore, when the ram appeared to the Prophet, it
represented both kingdoms under one emblem.
37

38. The context confirms this by saying, The two horns were lofty, one higher than the
other, and this was raised backwards The two horns were lofty; for, though the
Persian territory was not rich, and the people rustic and living in woods, spending
an austere life and despising all luxuries, yet the nation was always warlike.
Wherefore the Prophet says this horn was higher than the other, meaning, than the
empire of the Medes. Now Cyrus surpassed his father-in-law Darius in fame,
authority, and rank, and still he always permitted Darius to enjoy the royal majesty
to the end of his life. As he was an old man, Cyrus might easily concede to him the
highest one without any loss to himself. With respect then to the following period,
Cyrus was clearly pre-eminent, as he was certainly superior to Darius, whom
Xenophon calls Cyaxares. For this reason, then, this horn was higher. But
meanwhile the Prophet shews how gradually Cyrus was raised on high. The horn
rose backwards; that is, “afterwards” — meaning, although the horn of the Median
kingdom was more illustrious and conspicuous, yet the horn which rose afterwards
obscured the brightness and glory of the former one. This agrees with the narratives
of profane history: for every reader of those narratives will find nothing recorded
by Daniel which was not fulfilled by the event. Let us go on: —
COFFMAN, ""Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before
the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was
higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing
westward, and northward, and southward; and no beasts could stand before him,
neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his
will, and magnified himself."
Many have pointed out that the ram here is the same world power represented by
the arms and breast of silver in Daniel 2:32 and the beast "like unto a bear" (Daniel
7:5). The symbolism is exactly the same in all three instances. The ram represents
Medo-Persia. This is one kingdom with two elements (Median and Persian), not two
successive powers, for they are here represented by one animal. The bear's having
three ribs in his mouth is the same as the ram pushing in three different directions,
westward, northward, and southward. The bear's raising up on one side is the same
as the younger horn of the ram rising up higher than the first one. These symbols
show that the Persian Power, which was subsequent to the Median power, would
become dominant in the later phase of this kingdom. The ferocity, power, and force
of the ram speak of the mighty conquests of the Persians who at places such as
Marathon and Thermopylae even extended their power out of Asia into Europe.
It is of interest that in the ancient signs of the Zodiac, the Persians were under the
sign of Aries the Ram, and Greece was under the sign of Capricorn the Goat.[7]
COKE, "Daniel 8:3. A ram which had two horns— In the former vision there
appeared four beasts, because there four empires were represented; but here two
only, because here we have a representation of what was transacted chiefly within
38

39. two empires. The first of the four empires, that is, the Babylonian, is wholly omitted
here; for its fate was sufficiently known, and it was now drawing very near to a
conclusion. The second empire in the former vision, is the first in this; and what is
there compared to a bear, is here prefigured by a ram. This ram had two horns,
and, according to the explication of the angel Gabriel, Daniel 8:20 it was the empire
of the Medes and Persians. The source of this figure of horns for kingdoms, must be
derived from the hieroglyphics of Egypt, from which most of the metaphors and
figures in the oriental languages were originally derived; and in these languages, the
same word signifies a horn, a crown, power, and splendour; whence a horn was an
ensign of royalty among the Phoenicians; and the Hebrew word ‫קרן‬ keren, signifying
a horn, is several times by the Chaldee rendered ‫מלכותא‬ malkuta, or a kingdom; and
horns are frequently used for kings and kingdoms in the Old Testament. This
empire therefore, which was formed by the conjunction of the Medes and Persians,
was not unfitly represented by a ram with two horns. Cyrus, the founder of this
empire, was the son of Cambyses king of Persia, and by his mother Mandane was
grandson of Astyages king of Media: and afterwards, marrying the daughter and
only child of his uncle Cyaxares, king of Media, he succeeded to both crowns, and
united the kingdoms of Media and Persia. It was a coalition of two very formidable
powers, and therefore it is said that the two horns were high; but one, it is added,
was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. The kingdom of Media was
the more ancient of the two, and more famous in history: Persia was of little note or
account till the time of Cyrus; but under him the Persians gained and maintained
the ascendant. But a question remains, why that empire, which was before likened
to a bear for its cruelty, should now be represented by a ram? The propriety of it
will appear, if we consider, that it was usual for the king of Persia to wear a ram's
head made of gold, and set with precious stones, instead of a diadem. We may add
that a ram's head with horns, one higher and the other lower, was the royal ensign
of the Persians, and is still to be seen on the pillars of Persepolis. See Newton, vol. 2:
p. 5. Bishop Chandler's Vindication, p. 154 and Dr. Sharpe's Sermon on the Rise
and Fall of Jerusalem, p. 46 in the note.
ELLICOTT, " (3) A ram—i.e., a single ram. The ram was standing before the river,
or eastward of it, and represented the Medo-Persian empire (Daniel 8:20). The two
horns, like the two breasts and arms of the image, or the two sides of the bear,
symbolise the twofold character of this empire. The higher horn denotes the
Persians, the dominant race. For other instances of rams and goats representing
nations, comp. Isaiah 14:9; Jeremiah 1:8; Zechariah 10:3.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:3 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood
before the river a ram which had [two] horns: and the [two] horns [were] high; but
one [was] higher than the other, and the higher came up last.
Ver. 3. There stood before the river a ram.] With a golden fleece and full of flesh.
This was the Persian monarch; who is also said to stand, because of his slow motion
and sluggish disposition; and "before the river," because the Persians ruled over
39

40. many nations, signified by waters. [Revelation 17:1] A ram stalketh stately before
the flock as a captain; but they are only sheep which he leadeth. Let a dog but lay
his nose over the hedge, and away they run all: so did the sheepish cowardly
Persians before Alexander.
Which had two horns.] These were the states of Medea and Persia.
But one was higher than the other,] i.e., The Persians at length became higher than
the Medes, and overtopped them.
And the higher came up last.] Cyrus after Darius, uniting both nations into one
monarchy.
PETT, "Verse 3
The Mighty Ram - The Medo Persian Empire.
‘Then I lifted up my eyes and saw, and behold, there stood before the river one ram
which had two horns, and the two horns were high, but one was higher that the
other, and the higher came up last.’
‘I lifted up my eyes.’ We might paraphrase as ‘my eyes were opened’. The fact that
he was by this Medo-Persian river partly explains why he had Medo-Persia in mind
and saw this vision.
‘One ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high, but one was higher
that the other, and the higher came up last.’ He emphasises that there was one ram
but that it had two horns, of which one was higher than the other, and had come up
last. This is a clear description of the Medo-Persian empire (Daniel 8:20). Cyrus was
the larger horn, being over the whole, but beneath him and allied to him was the
kingship of the Medes, which had previously been the most powerful. His general
who captured Babylon was a Mede.
We are told that the guardian spirit of the Persian kingdom was said to appear
under the form of a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns, and that often,
when the king stood at the head of his army, he carried the head of a ram. Ezekiel
used the picture of the ram, and the he-goat, to denote a form of leadership (Ezekiel
34:17; Ezekiel 39:18). Although not wild beasts they were still seen as pretty
fearsome.
PULPIT, "Daniel 8:3
Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram
which had two horns; and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the
40

41. other, and the higher came up last. The rendering of the LXX. does not differ
essentially from the Massoretic Version, save in the last clause, which is rendered,
"and the higher ascended ( á̓ íǻâáéíå)." As in the former verse, oobal is translated
"gate." Certainly, as before remarked, "before a river" is an awkward
combination; "before" or "over against a gate" is intelligible. "Eastward," which
liphnee also means, will not suit the geographical circumstances, as Shushan itself
stood on the east bank of the river Eulaeus, or Shapur. If, further, oobal means a
"marsh," as Jerome renders it, then "eastward" would not suit. for the existing
marsh is to the south-west of Shushan. Theodotion is in closer agreement with the
Massoretic text, but does not translate
. The Peshitta renders "westward," not by yammah, but by the term for "west" that
became common in Exilic and post-Exilic Hebrew, ma‛arab—the word that is used
in the next verse. Ezekiel uses yammah for "west," when in vision he places himself
in Palestine, otherwise it is not used for "west" by Exilic and post-Exilic writers. If
we take the statement of the next verse as fixing what was "the west" to the author
of Daniel, where would "seaward" be? If we draw a line from Tress, where
Alexander landed, and continue it through Babylon, it reaches the Persian Gulf.
"Seaward" would mean consequently "eastward," or approximately so, to one
writing in Babylon. A great number of suggestions have been offered to explain the
singular omission of "eastward" from the direction in which the ram pushes with
his horns, Havernick, and following him Moses Stuart, assert that "eastward" is not
mentioned because the Persians made no conquests to the east until the days of
Darius Hystaspis, and then not permanent ones. Against this is the fact that Elam
and Media were mainly east of Ansan. Further, the picture here given of the Persian
Empire is not restricted to the days of Cyrus and Cambyses, but all through its
course. As to the permanence of these Eastern conquests, the territories of Darius
Codomannus east of Arbela embraced modern Persia and other territories to the
confines of India. Keil assumes that the ram stands on the western bank of the
Shapur, so, if he pushed eastward, it would be against his own capital; but if oobal
means "a river," then the only meaning possible for liphnee is "eastward." He
would then be butting towards the river across which the enemy was likely to come,
moreover, against his own capital, unless the ram is supposed to be between the
river and the city—an unlikely supposition, as Shushan was on the river Eulaeus.
He further maintains that the unfolding of the power of Persia was towards these
three named directions, and not towards the last, whatever that may mean. Ewald
declares the ram does not butt towards the east, because that already belongs to
him. As a matter of fact, and, as exhibited by the Book of Esther, welt known to the
Jews, the Persian Empire did conquer towards the east. Behrmann says, "The ram
does not push towards the east, because he comes from the east—a delicacy the
Septuagint overlooked." In point of fact, there is no word in the vision of the ram
coming from anywhere—this delicacy (feinheit) Professor Behrmann has
overlooked. Kranich-fold and Z‫צ‬ckler follow this. The view of Bishop Newton,
followed by Archdeacon Rose, is that the east had no importance to the Jews; but
north and south had just a little. Jephet-ihn-Ali and several modern commentators
think the three directions, as the three ribs, imply the limitation of the Persian
41

42. Empire. It certainly was recognized by the Jews to be little, if at all, less than that of
Alexander the Great Hitzig propounds in all gravity an absurd view; he assumes
that the ram was standing on the west bank of the river, and faced west, and argues
that he did not butt eastward because he could not butt backwards. His preliminary
assumption is groundless, as we have seen, and rams can change their position. The
true explanation is that a direction has dropped out. While "seaward" had ceased to
mean "west" to the Jews in Babylon, it did not take long residence in Palestine to
recover this name for "west."£ A copyist living in Palestine, finding yammah, in the
first place would translate it "westward;" then after "northward" he would, in the
third place, come upon ma‛arab, which also meant "west;" so naturally he dropped
the second of what seemed to him synonymous terms. If we are correct in our
supposition, we have here demonstrative proof that Daniel was written by one living
in Babylon Are beasts might stand before him. All the powers round Persia had to
submit to him. And be became great affords proof, if proof were needed, that the
vision applies to the whole of the history of Persia. There is little necessity for Moses
Stuart's translation, "became haughty."
4 I watched the ram as it charged toward the west
and the north and the south. No animal could
stand against it, and none could rescue from its
power. It did as it pleased and became great.
BARNES, "I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and
southward - Denoting the conquests of the united kingdom. The east is not mentioned,
for none of the conquests of the Medo-Persian empire extended in that direction: Yet
nothing could better express the conquests actually made by the Medo-Persian empire
than this representation. On the west the conquests embraced Babylonia, Mesopotamia,
Syria, and Asia Minor; on the north, Colchis, Armenia, Iberia, and the regions around
the Caspian Sea; and on the south, Palestine, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Lybia. - Lengerke.
This Medo-Persian power is represented as coming from the east. Isa_41:2 : “who raised
up the righteous man from the east, etc.” Isa_46:11 : “calling a ravenous bird from the
east, etc.”
He did according to his will, and became great - This expresses well also the
character of the Medo-Persian empire. It extended over a great part of the known world,
subduing to itself a large portion of the earth. In its early conquests it met with no
42

43. successful opposition, nor was it stayed until it was subdued by Greece - as at Leuctra
and Marathon, and then as it was finally overthrown by Alexander the Great.
CLARKE, "I saw the ram pushing westward - The Persians, who are signified
by the ram, as well as their founder Cyrus, pushed their conquests west, north and
south. The principal theater of their wars, says Calmet, was against the Scythians,
northward; against the Greeks, westward; and against the Egyptians, southward.
He did according to his will - There was no other nation at that time that could
stay the progress of the Persian arms.
GILL, "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:
HENRY, "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.
43

44. JAMISON, "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).
CALVIN, "The Prophet, now shortly sketches the great success which should attend
this double kingdom. He says, The ram struck all the nations towards the west, and
north, and south. The Persian and Median territory lay to the east of Babylon and
Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. This, without doubt, is extended to all the
successors of Cyrus, who are recorded as having convulsed the whole world. Cyrus
himself was shortly afterwards cruelly and basely slain, according to many
historians, although Xenophon affirms that he died in his bed. But I have before
warned you not to put your trust in that writer, although most excellent, since,
under the image of that king, he wished to set before us an example of perfect
manliness; and hence he brings him forward as discoursing on his deathbed, and
exhorting his sons to kingly virtues. Whichever is the true account, Cyrus was
clearly overtaken in the midst of his career. In this way God wished to chastise his
insatiable cupidity, a vice in which he resembled Alexander. As to his successors,
they excited such commotion in the whole world as to stir up heaven and earth.
Xerxes alone said he could bind the sea with fetters! and we know the greatness of
the army which he commanded; and this passage treats not only of one king, but of
all those of Persia. As they obtained a dominion so far and wide, their ambition and
pride always inflamed them, and there was no end to their warfare till they had
subdued the distant boundaries of the world. We are acquainted too with their
numerous attempts to destroy the liberty of Greece. All this the Prophet embraces in
but few words. God also wished to give his Prophet a short glance into futurity, as
far as such knowledge could be useful. I saw, then, says he, a ram, namely, a beast
which possessed a double horn, representing the Medes and Persians united in the
same sovereignty.
He struck the west, and the north, and the south, so that no beasts could stand
before him. As the Persian kingdom is here depicted under the, image of a ram, all
kings and people are called “beasts.” Thus, no beast stood before him, and no one
could deliver out of his hand It is well known, indeed, how Xerxes and others failed
in their attacks, and how many wars the Monarchs of Persia attempted in which
they were conquered by the Greeks; but still their conquerors were in no better
condition, as they were compelled to seek peace like suppliants. So great became the
power of the Persians, that they inspired all nations with fear. For this reason the
Prophet says, he did according to his pleasure, not implying the complete success of
these Monarchs according to their utmost wishes, for their desires were often
44

45. frustrated, as we have already narrated on the testimony of historical evidence. Still
they were always formidable, not only to their neighbors who submitted to their
yoke, but to the most distant nations, as they crossed the sea and descended from
Asia upon Greece. In the last word, he expresses this fact, — the ram became
mighty. For the Persian king became the greatest of all Monarchs in the world, and
it is sufficiently notorious that no one could add to his dignity and strength. It
follows: —
COKE, "Daniel 8:4. Pushing westward, and northward, and southward—
Westward, that is, subduing Babylonia, Syria, and Asia Minor, under the reign of
Cyrus, and extending to part of Greece under that of his successors, Darius the son
of Hystaspes, and Xerxes. Northward; the same Darius, according to Herodotus and
Justin, carried his arms into the territories of the Scythians, beyond the Caspian
Sea; and the Lydians, Armenians, Cappadocians, Iberians, &c. were subject to
Persia. Southward; the Persians extended their conquests over Arabia, India, Egypt,
and Ethiopia, which last was entered by Cambyses the son and successor of Cyrus;
and the Persian empire was very much enlarged and extended under the victorious
arms of its first monarchs.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:4 I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and
southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither [was there any] that
could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
Ver. 4. And I saw the ram pushing westward, &c.] Hereby are set forth the Persian
wars, and especially those waged by Cyrus, who subdued many nations and grew
very great, as did also his successors, but especially Darius Hystaspes.
Neither was there any.] None could resist his rage, nor escape his reach.
PETT, " ‘I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward, and no
beasts could stand before him, nor was there any who could deliver out of his hand,
but he did according to his will and magnified himself.’
The vision was of a successful empire builder, conquering in all directions, all-
powerful and undefeatable, one who attained great power and authority. ‘Pushing’,
that is, with his horns. ‘Magnified himself’ (as with Nebuchadnezzar - Daniel 4:30)
is probably intended in a bad sense explaining why God brought his empire
crashing down. The Persian empire was however always favourable to Israel, for its
policy was to foster local religions.
45

46. 5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat
with a prominent horn between its eyes came
from the west, crossing the whole earth without
touching the ground.
BARNES, "And as I was considering - As I was looking on this vision. It was a
vison which would naturally attract attention, and one which would not be readily
understood. It evidently denoted some combined power that was attempting conquest,
but we are not to suppose that Daniel would readily understand what was meant by it.
The whole scene was future - for the Medo-Persian power was not yet consolidated in the
time of Belshazzar, and the conquests represented by the ram continued through many
years, and those denoted by the he-goat extended still much further into futurity.
Behold, an he-goat came from the west - In Dan_8:21, this is called the “rough-
goat,” There can be no doubt as to the application of this, for in Dan_8:21 it is expressly
said that it was “the king of Grecia.” The power represented is that of Greece when it was
consolidated under Alexander the Great, and when he went forth to the subjugation of
this vast Persian empire. It may serve to illustrate this, and to show the propriety of
representing the Macedonian power by the symbol of a goat, to remark that this symbol
is often found, in various ways, in connection with Macedon, and that, for some reason,
the goat was used as emblematic of that power. A few facts, furnished to the editor of
Calmet’s Dictionary, by Taylor Combe, Esq., will show the propriety of this allusion to
Macedonia under the emblem of a goat, and that the allusion would be readily
understood in after-times. They are condensed here from his account in Taylor’s Calmet,
v. 410-412.
(1) Caranus, the first king of the Macedonians, commenced his reign 814 years before
the Christian era. The circumstance of his being led by goats to the city of Edessa, the
name of which, when he established there the seat of his kingdom, he converted into
AEgae, is well worthy of remark: Urbem Edessam, ob memoriam muneris AEgas
populam AEgeadas. - Justin, lib. vii. c. 1. The adoption of the goat as an emblem of
Macedon would have been early suggested by an important event in their history.
(2) Bronze figures of a goat have been found as the symbol of Macedon. Mr. Combe
says, “I have lately had an opportunity of procuring an ancient bronze figure of a goat
with one horn, which was the old symbol of Macedon. As figures representing the types
of ancient countries are extremely rare, and as neither a bronze nor marble symbol of
Macedon has been hitherto noticed, I beg leave to trouble you with the few following
observations, etc.” He then says, “The goat which is sent for your inspection was dug up
in Asia Minor, and was brought, together with other antiquities, into this country by a
poor Turk.” The annexed engraving is a representation of this figure. The slightest
inspection of this figure will show the propriety of the representation before us. Mr.
Combe then says, “Not only many of the individual towns in Macedon and Thrace
employed this type, but the kingdom itself of Macedon, which is the oldest in Europe of
46

47. which we have any regular and connected history, was represented also by a goat, with
this peculiarity, that it had but one horn.”
(3) In the reign of Amyntas the First, nearly 300 years after Caranus, and about 547
years before Christ, the Macedonians, upon being threatened with an invasion, became
tributary to the Persians. In one of the pilasters of Persepolis, this very event seems to be
recorded in a manner that throws considerable light on this subject. A goat is
represented with an immense horn growing out of the middle of his forehead, and a man
in a Persian dress is seen by his side, holding the horn with his left hand, by which is
signified the subjection of Macedon. The subjoined is the figure referred to, and it
strikingly shows how early this symbol was used.
(4) In the reign of Archelaus of Macedon, 413 b.c., there occurs on the reverse of a coin
of that king the head of a goat having only one horn. Of this coin, so remarkable for the
single horn, there are two varieties, one (No. 1) engraved by Pellerin, and the oth. er (No.
2) preserved in the cabinet of the late Dr. W. Hunter.
(5) “There is a gem,” says Mr. Combe, “engraved in the Florentine collection, which, as
it confirms what has been already said, and has not hitherto been understood, I think
worthy of mention. It will be seen by the drawing of this gem that nothing more or less is
meant by the ram’s head with two horns, and the goat’s head with one, than the
kingdoms of Persia and Macedon, represented under their appropriate symbols. From
the circumstance, however; of these characteristic types being united, it is extremely
probable that the gem was engraved after the conquest of Persia by Alexander the
Great.” These remarks and illustrations will show the propriety of the symbol used here,
and show also how readily it would be understood in after-times. There is no evidence
that Daniel understood that this ever had been a symbol of Mace-donia, or that, if he
had, he could have conjectured, by any natural sagacity, that a power represented by that
symbol would have become the conqueror of Media and Persia, and every circumstance,
therefore, connected with this only shows the more clearly that he was under the
influence of inspiration. It is affirmed by Josephus (Ant. b. xi. ch. viii.) that when
Alexander was at Jerusalem, the prophecies of Daniel respecting him were shown to him
by the high priest, and that this fact was the means of his conferring important favors on
the Jews. If such an event occurred, the circumstances here alluded to show how readily
Alexander would recognize the reference to his own country, and to himself, and how
probable the account of Josephus is, that this was the means of conciliating him toward
the Jewish people. The credibilty of the account, which has been called in question, is
examined in Newton on the Prophecies, pp. 241-246.
On the face of the whole earth - He seemed to move over the whole world - well
representing the movements of Alexander, who conquered the known world, and who is
said to have wept because there were no other worlds to conquer.
And touched not the ground - Margin, none touched him in the earth. The
translation in the text, however, is more correct than that in the margin. He seemed to
bound along as if he did not touch the ground - denoting the rapidity of his movements
and conquests. A similar description of great beauty occurs in Virgil, AEn. vii. 806,
following of Camillia:
“Cursu pedum pravertere ventos.
Illa vel intactae segetis per summa volaret
Gramina, nec teneras cursu laesisset aristas,
Vel mare per medium fluctu suspensa tumenti
47

48. Ferretiter, celeres nec tingeret aequore plantas”
Nothing would better express the rapid conquests of Alexander the Great than the
language employed by Daniel. He died at the early age of thirty-three, and having been
chosen generalissimo of the Greeks against the Persians at the age of twenty-one, the
whole period occupied by him in his conquests, and in his public life, was but twelve
years; yet in that time he brought the world in subjection to his arms. A single glance at
his rapid movements will show the propriety of the description here. In the year 334 b.c.,
he invaded Persia, and defeated the Persians in the battle of the Granicus; in the year
333, he again defeated them at the battle of Issus, and conquered Parthia, Bactria,
Hyrcania, Sogdiana, and Asia Minor. In the year 332, he conquered Tyre and Egypt, and
built Alexandria. In the year 331, he defeated Darius Codomanus, and in 330 completed
the conquest of the Persian empire. In the year 328, he defeated Porus, king of India,
and pursued his march to the Ganges. In these few years, therefore, he had overrun
nearly all the then known world, in conquests more rapid and more decisive than had
ever before been made.
And the goat had a notable horn between his eyes - The goat represented the
Macedonian power, and all this power was concentrated in the person of Alexander -
undoubtedly denoted by the single horn - as if all the power of Greece was concentrated
in him. The margin is, a horn of sight. This corresponds with the Hebrew - the word
rendered “notable” (‫חזוּת‬ châzût) meaning, properly, look, appearance, and then
something conspicuous or remarkable. The literal translation would be, a horn of
appearance; that is, conspicuous, large - Gesenius, Lexicon
CLARKE, "Behold, a he-goat - This was Alexander the Great; and a goat was a
very proper symbol of the Grecian or Macedonian people. Bp. Newton very properly
observes that, two hundred years before the time of Daniel, they were called Aegeadae,
the goats’ people; the origin of which name is said to be as follows: Caranus, their first
king, going with a multitude of Greeks to seek a new habitation in Macedonia, was
advised by an oracle to take the goats for his guides; and afterwards, seeing a herd of
goats flying from a violent storm, he followed them to Edessa, and there fixed the seat of
his empire, and made the goats his ensigns or standards; and called the place Aege or
Aegea, the goats’ town; and the people Aegeadae, the goats’ people; names which are
derived from αιξ, αιγος, a goat. The city Aege or Aegea, was the usual burying-place of
the Macedonian kings; and, in reference to this origin, Alexander called his son by
Roxana, Alexander Aegus, Alexander the goat. All this shows the very great propriety of
the symbol here used.
Came from the west - Europe lies westward of Asia.
On the face of the whole earth - Carrying every thing before him.
Touched not the ground - Seemed to fly from conquest to conquest. By the time
Alexander was thirty years of age he had conquered all Asia: and, because of the rapidity
of his conquests, he is represented as a leopard with four wings, in the preceding vision.
A notable horn between his eyes - This, says the angel, is the first king, Dan_
8:21, that is, the first kingdom of the Greeks in Asia, which was erected by Alexander;
and continued some years in his brother Philip Aridaeus, and in his two young sons,
Alexander Aegus and Hercules. See Newton.
48

49. GILL, "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
49

50. 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.
HENRY 5-7, "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.
JAMISON, "he-goat — Graeco-Macedonia.
50

51. 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 Aege,
that is, “goat-city.”
CALVIN, "Here another change is shown to the Prophet, namely, Alexander’s
coming to the east and acquiring. for himself the mighty sway of the Persians, as
afterwards happened. With the view, then, of procuring confidence for his
prediction, he says, he was attentive He doubtless dwells upon the reverence with
which he received the vision to exhort us to the pursuit of piety, and also to modesty
and attention. The Prophet, therefore, was not carried away in imagination by a
dream which could be called in question; he knew this vision to have been set before
him by God, and acknowledged his duty to receive it with modesty and humility.
Wherefore, I was attentive, and behold a he-goat came forth from the west, says he.
The situation of Macedon with respect to Persia must be noticed. As the Greeks
were situated to the west, of Persia, the Prophet says, the he-goat came from the
west, and went over the surface of the whole earth These words signify the very
extensive dominion of Alexander, aid. the terror of surrounding nations. His arrival
in Asia with a very insignificant army is well known. He thought 30,000 men
sufficient, after he had been created their general by the States of Greece. Hence, the
passage is to be understood not of numbers, but of the terror inspired on all sides;
for, although he advanced with but a moderate force, yet he terrified the whole
earth.
But he did not touch the ground, says he. This refers to his swiftness, for he rather
flew than traveled either on foot or by sea, so incredible was his speed in this
expedition. For if any one had galloped through regions completely at peace, he
could not have passed through Asia more speedily. Hence a he-goat was shewn to
the Prophet who did not touch the ground, that is, who was borne along with a
rapid impulse, like that of lightning itself. And the goat had a horn, says he,between
its eyes —a remarkable horn. We know how much glory Alexander acquired for
himself in a short time, and yet he did not undertake the war in his own name, or on
his own responsibility, but he used every artifice to obtain from the Grecian States
the office of general-in-chief against the Persians, as perpetual enemies. We are well
acquainted with the hostility of the Persians to the Greeks, who, though often
compelled to retreat with great disgrace, and infamy, and loss of troops, still kept
renewing the war, as they had abundance of men and of pecuniary resources. When
Alexander was created general of the whole of Greece, he had a remarkable horn
between his eyes; that is, he took care to have his title of general made known to
increase his personal superiority. Besides, it was sufficiently prominent to constitute
him alone general of the whole army, while all things were carried on according to
his will, as he had undertaken the war. This, then, is the reason why the Prophet
says, the horn was visible between the eyes of the goat It follows, It came to the ram,
51

52. which had two horns; that is, it came against the king of the Medes and Persians.
Cyrus also had seized on Babylon, and had subdued many kings, but two horns are
assigned to the ram, since the Persian kings had united the Medes in alliance to
themselves. Hence one he-goat with his horn, came against the ram which had two
horns, and ran against it in the ardor of its bravery Thus the perseverance of
Alexander is denoted, as he hastened so as to surpass all expectation by the speed of
his arrival. For Darius continued in security, although he had collected a large
army, but Alexander rushed forwards in the boldness of his strength, and
surrounded the enemy by his celerity. It follows: —
COFFMAN, ""And as I was considering, a he-goat came from the west over the face
of the whole earth, and he touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn
between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I saw standing
before the river, and ran upon him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come
close unto the ram, and he was moved with anger against him, and smote the ram,
and brake his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him;
but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none
that could deliver the ram out of his hand. And the he-goat magnified himself
exceedingly: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it
there came up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven."
THE PROPHECY OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT
This is so clear a prophecy that there is no wonder that Alexander the Great
recognized himself in it when it was shown to him.
Again we have the clear consonance of this vision with the earlier ones in Daniel 2
and Daniel 7. The Greek kingdom of Alexander was represented in the first as belly
and thighs of brass, and in the second by a leopard with four wings. The four wings,
of course, stand for swiftness; and here that characteristic is inherent in the fact that
this he-goat went so fast that he did not even touch the ground! Note also that he
came from the west. Alexander's great conquests followed that course exactly. He
crossed the Hellespont and carried his campaigns all the way to India, the only
conqueror in world history ever to do that.
The great central horn of the he-goat stands for Alexander himself. Note that it was
broken when it was strong. It was at the very height of Alexander's glory in 323 B.C.
that he suddenly died as a result of his drinking and of a fever.
The four notable horns that followed Alexander were most circumstantially fulfilled
by the division of his world-empire into four parts: (1) Cassandra controlled
Macedonia and Greece; (2) Lysimachus controlled Thrace and Asia Minor; (3)
Ptolemy I took firm control of Egypt; and (4) Seleucus controlled Syria and
Babylonia. As the prophecy said, "toward the four winds of heaven." Note also that
none of these ever attained the importance of Alexander's kingdom, despite the fact
of the Seleucids gaining some preeminence. It was from them that the blasphemous
52

53. "little horn" arose to challenge the Jewish religion in the times of the Maccabees.
Palestine at first fell under the control of Egypt, but later was taken over by the
Seleucids. It was from them that the terrible "little horn" developed. All of
Alexander's empire finally disappeared into the dominions of the Roman Empire.
The last little remnant was that of the Ptolemys in Egypt; but Pompey reduced it to
a Roman Province in 63 B.C. The famed Cleopatra was involved in events related to
that.
COKE, "Daniel 8:5. An he-goat came from the west— This is interpreted Daniel
8:21 to be the king, or kingdom of Grecia. A goat is very properly made the type of
the Grecian or Macedonian empire, because the Macedonians at first, about two
hundred years before Daniel, were denominated AEgeadae or the goat's people. The
reason of their being so named is thus assigned. Caranus, their first king, going with
a multitude of Greeks to seek new habitations in Macedonia, was commanded by the
oracle to take the goats for his guides to empire; and afterwards seeing a herd of
goats flying from a violent storm, he followed them to Edessa, and there fixed the
seat of his empire, made the goats his ensigns or standards, and called the place
AEge, or AEgea, that is to say, The Goat's Town, and the people, AEgeadae, or The
Goat's People; names which allude to, and are derived from the Greek word áéî
[aix] a goat. To this may be added, that the city AEgae or AEge was the usual
burying-place for the Macedonian kings. It is also remarkable, that Alexander's son
by Roxana was named Alexander AEgus, or the son of the goat. Alexander himself
ordered the statuaries to represent him with a horn upon his head, that he might
appear to be the son of Jupiter Ammon; and some of Alexander's successors are
represented in their coins with goat's horns. This he-goat came from the west; and
who is ignorant that Europe lies westward of Asia? He came on the face of the whole
earth, carrying every thing before him in all the three parts of the world then
known. And he touched not the ground: his marches were so swift, and his
conquests so rapid, that he might be said, in a manner, to fly over the whole earth
without touching it. For the same reason, the same empire in chap. 7: was likened to
a leopard, which is a swift noble animal; and, to denote the greater quickness and
impetuosity, to a leopard with four wings. And the he-goat had a notable horn
between his eyes. This horn, says the angel, is the first king, or kingdom, of the
Greeks, in Asia, which was erected by Alexander the Great, and continued some
years in his brother Philip Aridaeus, and his two young sons, Alexander AEgus, and
Hercules. See Bishop Newton, p. 9, &c. Dr. Sharpe's Rise and Fall, &c. p. 47 and
Prideaux's Connection, part 2: book 8: ann. 330.
ELLICOTT, " (5) An he goat.—This, according to Daniel 8:21, means the Greek
empire, the large horn being the first king, or Alexander the Great. It may be
remarked that the goat and the ram form the same contrast as the panther and the
bear. Matchless activity is contrasted with physical strength and brutal fierceness.
Touched not the ground.—An exact prediction of the early conquests of Alexander,
all whose movements were characterised by marvellous rapidity. This is expressed
53

54. by “the wings of a fowl” (Daniel 7:6).
A notable horn.—See margin. This is explained (Daniel 8:21) to be Alexander
himself.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:5 And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the
west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat [had]
a notable horn between his eyes.
Ver. 5. And as I was considering.] Such as are studious shall see more of God’s
mind. [Revelation 1:12]
Behold, an he-goat came from the west,] i.e., From Greece and Macedon, west from
Persia. This goat, more nimble, swift, and potent than a ram, was the Grecian
monarch Alexander, who came capering and prancing over the whole earth - that is,
over the whole Persian monarchy, and more - setting fire on all Asia, as the
magicians foretold he would do, as being born the same day that Diana’s temple at
Ephesus was set on fire. This Alexander the Great was Dux gregis ipse caper, of all
whose victories we have here a notable abridgement, more like a history than a
prophecy. The high-priest Jaddus is said (a) to have shown it to Alexander in his
march against Darius Codomannus, the last king of Persia, who thereby, much
encouraged in his enterprise, bestowed upon the Jews many favours and freedoms.
And touched not the ground.] Alexander was notably nimble, thinking nothing too
hard for him to achieve, and slipping no opportunity. When he was to encounter
with Darius’s army at Granicum, Parmenion persuaded him to stay till the next day,
but he would not, neither was success wanting. With wonderful celerity, in six years’
time, he overrun so great a part of the habitable world, that he might rather seem to
fly than to march. Apelles pictured Alexander with a thunderbolt, signifying his
great swiftness in his exploits.
And the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.] This notable horn is Alexander,
founder of the Grecian monarchy. The Macedonians were at that time called
Aegeades - i.e., goatish; the, occasion whereof see in Justin, lib. vii. Alexander is here
fitly called Hircus caprarum, a he-goat, (b) or the horn of sight, between the eyes of
that goat - a fit emblem of a good prince, whose virtues are conspicuous as a horn is,
who defendeth his people and offendeth their enemies; who, like this horn rising up
between the eyes, is circumspect and well advised, doing all with counsel. [Proverbs
24:6] Alexander had his father Philip’s counsellors about him, who were excellent in
wisdom beyond any that came after them in the same empire.
PETT, " The Mighty He-Goat - The Greek Empire.
‘And as I was considering, behold a he-goat came from the west over the face of the
54

55. whole earth and did not touch the ground. And the goat had a notable horn between
its eyes.’
As we are specifically told later (Daniel 8:21) this he-goat represents Greece, to the
west of the Persian empire. Greece had been well known for centuries as a source of
trade, and it had provided contingents of very effective mercenaries for foreign
armies, including the Egyptian and Persian armies. ‘Over the face of the whole
earth’ means the Mediterranean ‘earth’, but now stretching into Europe as well.
‘Did not touch the ground.’ They skimmed over the ground, demonstrating the
speed of their conquests. The notable horn was no doubt Alexander the Great.
PULPIT, "Daniel 8:5
And as I was considering, behold, an he-goat came from the west on the face of the
whole earth, and touched net the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between
his eyes. The Septuagint, when completed from Paulus Tellensis, agrees in the main
with the Massoretic, omitting only "whole" before "earth." The Christian MS.
omits the clause, "and touched the ground," but it is in Paulus Tellensis. As I was
considering. "Was" is here used much as an auxiliary verb—an Aramaic usage.
"Considering" really suggests "meditating on." He-goat. The word here used does
not elsewhere occur in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is really an Aramaic word, though
vocalized here after the analogy of Hebrew. On the face of the whole earth. The
writer had probably in his mind the negative idea expressed in the next verse; hence
the word kol. A notable horn; "a horn of sight;" a horn that no one could fail to
remark upon. No symbol could express in a more graphic way the rapidity of the
conquests of Alexander the Great than this of the goat that flew over the ground.
One can parallel with this the four wings of the leopard in Daniel 7:1-28. It is
singular that Alexander should generally on his coins be figured as horned. Had this
vision been due to a knowledge of this—which could not have escaped a Jew of the
days of the Maccabees—the writer would certainly have made Alexander not a goat,
but a ram. as it is a ram's horn that is intended to be figured on the portraits of
Alexander. As everybody knows, this refers to the fable that he was the son of
Jupiter Ammon, the ram-horned. It is difficult to assign a reason why the goat was
chosen as the symbol of the Grecian power, save that, as compared with the Persian
power, the Greek was the more agile.
6 It came toward the two-horned ram I had seen
standing beside the canal and charged at it in
55

56. great rage.
BARNES, "And he came to the ram ... - Representing the Medo-Persian power.
And ran unto him in the fury of his power - Representing the fierceness and
fury with which Alexander attacked the Persians at the Granicus, at Issus, and at Arbela,
with which he invaded and overthrew them in their own country. Nothing would better
express this than to say that it was done in “the fury of power.”
CLARKE, "And he came to the ram - This and the following verse give an
account of the overthrow of the Persian empire by Alexander.
And ran unto him in the fury of his power - The conflicts between the Greeks
and the Persians were excessively severe. Alexander first vanquished the generals of
Darius, at the river Granicus, in Phrygia; he next attacked and totally routed Darius, at
the straits of Issus, in Cilicia; and afterwards at the plains of Arbela, in Assyria. One can
hardly read these words, says Bp. Newton, “the ram - which I had seen standing by the
river, ran unto him in the fury of his power,” without having the image of Darius’ army
standing and guarding the river Granicus and of Alexander on the other side, with his
forces plunging in swimming across the stream, and rushing on the enemy, with all the
fire and fury that can be conceived.
GILL, "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
56

57. they fight with one another, or attack an enemy.
HENRY 6-12, "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;
57

58. 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
58

59. 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,
JAMISON, "standing before the river — Ulai. It was at the “river” Granicus that
Alexander fought his first victorious battle against Darius, 334 b.c.
COKE, "Verse 6-7
Daniel 8:6-7. He came to the ram, &c.— In these two verses we have an account of
the Grecians overthrowing the Persian empire. The ram had before, Daniel 8:4
pushed westward; and the Persians, in the reign of Darius Hystaspis and Xerxes,
had poured down with great armies into Greece: but now the Greeks in return
carried their arms into Asia, and the he-goat invaded the ram that had invaded him.
And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the
river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. We can hardly read these words
without having some image of Darius's army standing and guarding the river
Granicus, and of Alexander on the other side, with his forces plunging in, swimming
across the stream, and rushing on the enemy with all the fire and fury which can be
conceived. And I saw him close unto the ram: he had several close engagements or
set battles with the king of Persia, and particularly at the Granicus in Phrygia, at
the straits of Issus in Cilicia, and in the plains of Arbela in Assyria. And he was
moved with choler against him, for the cruelties which the Persians had exercised
against the Greeks, and for Darius's attempting sometimes to corrupt his soldiers to
betray him, and sometimes his friends to destroy him; so that he would not listen to
the most advantageous offers of peace, but determined to pursue the Persian king,
not as a generous and noble enemy, but as a prisoner and a murderer, to the death
which he deserved. And he smote the ram, and brake his two horns: he subdued
Persia and Media, with other provinces and kingdoms of the Persian empire; and it
is remarkable, that in Persia he barbarously sacked and burned the royal city of
Persepolis, the capital of the empire; and in Media Darius was seized and made
prisoner by some of his own treacherous subjects, who not long afterwards basely
murdered him.—And there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he
cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: he conquered wherever he
came; routed all their forces, took all the cities and castles, and intirely subverted
and ruined the Persian empire. And there was none that could deliver him out of his
hand; not even his numerous armies could defend the king of Persia, though his
forces in the battle of Issus amounted to six hundred thousand men; and in that of
Arbela, to ten or eleven hundred thousand; whereas the whole number of
Alexander's was not more than forty-seven thousand in either engagement. See
Bishop Newton, vol. 2: p. 13.
59

60. TRAPP, "Daniel 8:6 And he came to the ram that had [two] horns, which I had seen
standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
Ver. 6. And he came to the ram that had two horns.] He came. This may betoken the
slower preparations of Philip, king of Macedonia.
And ran unto him.] Alexander did, by quick and furious marches.
“ Nil actum credens dum quid superesset agendam
Fertur atrox. ” - De Cas. Lucan,
PETT, "Verse 6-7
‘And he came to the ram which had two horns, which I saw standing before the
river, and ran on him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close to the ram,
and he was full of rage against him, and smote the ram and broke his two horns.
And there was no power in the ram to stand before him. But he cast him down to
the ground and trampled on him. And there was none who could deliver the ram out
of his hand.’
Alexander’s swift approach and savage attack defeated the Persian army which
came out to oppose him, and he then overran Syria and Palestine and finally
defeated the Persians once and for all at the battle of Gaugamela, near Nineveh in
331 BC. The contrast between the one horn of the he-goat (thus a visionary goat, for
goats have two horns) with the two horns of the ram, emphasis the dual nature of
the Medo-Persian empire. This duality is constantly emphasised as we have seen.
PULPIT, "And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing
before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. The differences of the
Septuagint from the received text are slight here. Oobal is still translated ðṍëç; it
renders, "fury of his rage" rather than "fury of his power." The Massoretic, as the
less obvious collocation, is the better reading. Theodotion and the Peshitta leave
oobal untranslated. The latter omits the last clause of the Massoretic. In the Hebrew
the ram is called Baal-karnayeem, "lord of two horns." Alexander's war against
Persia was one of simple aggression.
60

61. 7 I saw it attack the ram furiously, striking the
ram and shattering its two horns. The ram was
powerless to stand against it; the goat knocked it
to the ground and trampled on it, and none could
rescue the ram from its power.
BARNES, "And I saw him, come close unto the ram - The ram standing on the
banks of the Ulai, and in the very heart of the empire. This representation is designed
undoubtedly to denote that the Grecian power would attack the Persian in its own
dominions. Perhaps the vision was represented at the place which would be the capital
of the empire in order to denote this.
And he was moved with choler against him - (i. e., the ram).” With wrath or
anger. That is, he acted as if he were furiously enraged. This is not an improper
representation. Alexander, though spurred on by ambition as his ruling motive, yet
might be supposed without impropriety to represent the concentrated wrath of all
Greece on account of the repeated Persian invasions. It is true the Persians had been
defeated at Leuctra, at Marathon, and at Salamis, that their hosts had been held in check
at Thermopylae, that they had never succeeded in subduing Greece, and that the
Grecians in defending their country had covered themselves with glory. But it is true,
also, that the wrongs inflicted or attempted on the Greeks had never been forgotten, and
it cannot be doubted that the remembrance of these wrongs was a motive that influenced
many a Greek at the battle of the Granicus and Issus, and at Arbela. It would be one of
most powerful motives to which Alexander could appeal in stimulating his army.
And brake his two horns - Completely prostrated his power - as Alexander did
when he overthrew Darius Codemenus, and subjugated to himself the Medo-Persian
empire. That empire ceased at that time, and was merged in that of the son of Philp.
And there was no power in the ram to stand before him - To resist him.
But he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him - An act
strikingly expressive of the conduct of Alexander. The empire was crushed beneath his
power, and, as it were, trampled to the earth.
And there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand - No
auxiliaries that the Persian empire could call to its aid that could save it from the Grecian
conqueror.
CLARKE, "And brake his two horns - Subdued Persia and Media; sacked and
burnt the royal city of Persepolis, the capital of the Persian empire, and, even in its ruins,
one of the wonders of the world to the present day. This he did because “he was moved
with choler” against Darius, who had endeavored to draw off his captains with bribes,
61

62. and had labored to induce some of his friends to assassinate him. Alexander, finding
this, would listen to no proposals of peace; and was determined never to rest till he had
destroyed Darius and his whole empire. In Media, Darius was seized and made prisoner
by some of his own treacherous subjects, and afterwards basely murdered.
There was no power in the ram to stand before him - Alexander’s victories
over the Persians were as easy as they were rapid and decisive.
He cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him - Totally destroyed
the family, and overturned the whole monarchy.
GILL, "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
62

63. 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.
JAMISON, "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].
63

64. stamped upon him — In 331 b.c. he defeated Darius Codomanus, and in 330 b.c.
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).
CALVIN, "Here God shews to his Prophet the victory of Alexander, by which he
subdued almost the whole east. Although he encountered many nations in battle,
and especially the Indians, yet the name of the Persian empire was so celebrated in
the world, that the dignity of others never approached it. Alexander, therefore, by
conquering Darius, acquired nearly the whole east. God showed his Prophet the
easiness of his victory under this figure. I looked, says he, when he approached the
land Darius was fortified by both the distance of his stations and the strength of his
fortifications; for many of his cities were impregnable, according to the common
opinion of mankind. It was incredible, then, that the he-goat should approach the
ram, surrounded as he was on all sides by such strong and such powerful garrisons.
But the Prophet says he; approached the ram, and then, he exasperated himself
against him This applies to Alexander’s furious assaults. We are well acquainted
with the keenness of his talents and the superiority of his valor; yet, such was his
unbridled audacity, that his promptness approached rather to rashness than to
regal bravery. For he often threw himself with a blind impulse against his foes, and
it was not his fault if the Macedonian name was not destroyed ten times over. As,
then, he rushed on with such violent fury, we are not surprised when the Prophet
says he was exasperated of his own accord. And he struck the ram, says he. He
conquered Darius in two battles, when the power of the Persian sway throughout
Asia Minor was completely ruined. We are all familiar with the results of these
hazardous battles, shewing the whole stress of the war to have rested on that
engagement in which Darius was first conquered; for when he says, The ram had no
strength to stand; and although he had collected an immense multitude, yet that
preparation was available for nothing but: empty pomp. For Darius was
resplendent with gold, and silver, and gems, and he rather made a show of these,
luxuries in warfare, than displayed manly and vigorous strength. The ram, then,had
no power to stand before the he goat. Hence, he threw him prostrate on the earth,
and trod him down; and no one was able to deliver out of his hand. Darius, indeed,
was slain by his attendants, but Alexander trod down all his glory, and the dignity
of the Persian Empire, under which all the people of the east trembled. We are
aware also of the pride with which he abused his victory, until under the influence
of harlots and debauchees, as some report, he tumultuously set fire to that most
celebrated citadel of Susa in the drunken fit. As he so indignantly trampled under
foot the glory of the Persian monarchy, we see how aptly the events fulfilled the
prophecy, in the manner recorded by all profane historians.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:7 And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved
with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was
no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and
64

65. stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
Ver. 7. And I saw him come close unto the ram.] Who stood for a while in his
stoutness, and brought several huge armies into the field - not less than fifteen
hundred thousand - but all would not do; the fairest states are subject to change in
their greatest flourish. [Ezekiel 31:18]
“ In se magna ruunt.; laetis hunc numina rebus
Crescendi posuere modum. ” - Lucan.
And he was moved with choler against him.] Neither would he be pacified with
promise of great gifts, and of part of the kingdom, and the marriage of his daughter.
And smote the ram.] By overthrowing the Persian armies in three main battles - at
Granicum, at Issus, and at Arbela, not far from which is the mountain Nicatorium,
(a) so called by Alexander, as a constant trophy of that famous victory.
And there was no power in the ram to stand before him.] In that last battle at
Arbela, the whole power of Persia was overturned, and Darius Codomannus was
slain by Bessus, one of his own captains. It is observed that great kingdoms often fall
and are destroyed under such kings as are of the same name with the founders
thereof. Darius here, for instance; so Philip of Macedon, and Philip the father of
Perseus, the last king of that country; so Constantine the Great, and Constantine
Palaeologus; Augustus and Augustulus, &c.
And stamped upon him,] i.e., After full conquest, he crowed, insulted, triumphed; at
the instance of his concubine Thais, he caused the most goodly palace in the world at
Persepolis to be set on fire.
PULPIT, "And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler
against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power
in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped
upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. The two
Greek versions, though differing very much in the Greek words chosen as
equivalent to the Hebrew, yet both represent a text practically identical with that of
the Massoretes. The Peshitta omits the introductory "behold," but otherwise can
scarcely be said to differ essentially from the received text, though there are some
peculiarities due to mistaken reading, but unimportant. The word yithmormar, "he
was emhittered," is a word that occurs here and in the eleventh chapter. The root,
however, as might be guessed from its meaning, is not uncommon, being found in
Genesis Exodus, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Ruth, Job, and Zechariah. How Professor
Bevan can class this with "words or roots which occur nowhere else in the Old
Testament" it is difficult to see. If this part of the verb occurs in later Jewish
literature, it is singular that neither Buxtorf nor Levy chronicles the fact. It does not
occur in Western Aramaic, but does in Eastern (comp. Peshitta 2 Samuel 18:33;
65

66. Acts 17:16). It is quite such a word as a man writing among those who spoke
Eastern Aramaic might use. Alexander advanced always against Darius; he would
not even speak of treating with him. After the passage of the Granicus, he pushed on
to Cilicia, overthrew Darius at Issus, b.c. 333; then, after the conquest of Egypt,
advanced against him again at Arbela, and once more inflicted on him an
overwhelming defeat. When Darius fled from the field, Alexander pursued him to
the shores of the Caspian and into Bactria and Sogdiana, till Darius fell a victim to
the treachery of Bessus. Certainly relentlessness was the most marked character of
Alexander's pursuit of Darius. The horns of the Persian power were broken, thrown
to the earth, and trodden underfoot.
8 The goat became very great, but at the height of
its power the large horn was broken off, and in its
place four prominent horns grew up toward the
four winds of heaven.
BARNES, "Therefore the he-goat waxed very great - The Macedonian power,
especially under the reign of Alexander.
And when he was strong, the great horn was broken - In the time, or at the
period of its greatest strength. Then an event occurred which broke the horn in which
was concentrated its power. It is easy to see the application of this to the Macedonian
power. At no time was the empire so strong as at the death of Alexander. Its power did
not pine away; it was not enfeebled, as monarchies are often, by age, and luxury, and
corruption; it was most flourishing and prosperous just at the period when broken by
the death of Alexander. Never afterward did it recover its vigour; never was it
consolidated again. From that time this mighty empire, broken into separate kingdoms,
lost its influence in the world.
And for it came up four notable ones - In the place of this one horn in which all
the power was concentrated, there sprang up four others that were distinguished and
remarkable. On the word notable, see the notes at Dan_8:5. This representation would
lead us to suppose that the power which had thus been concentrated in one monarchy
would be divided and distributed into four, and that instead of that one power there
66

67. would be four kingdoms that would fill up about the same space in the world, occupy
about the same territory, and have about the same characteristics - so that they might be
regarded as the succession to the one dynasty. The same representation we have of this
one power in Dan_7:6 : “The beast had also four heads.” See also Dan_11:4 : “His
kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven.” This
accords with the accounts in history of the effect of Alexander’s death, for though the
kingdom was not by him divided into four parts, yet, from the confusion and conflicts
that arose, the power was ultimately concentrated into four dynasties.
At his death, his brother Aridaeus was declared king in his stead, and Perdiccas
regent. But the unity of the Macedonian power was gone, and disorder and confusion,
and a struggle for empire, immediately succeeded. The author of the books of Maccabees
(1 Macc. 1:7-9) says: “So Alexander reigned twelve years, and then died. And his servants
bare rule every one in his place. And after his death, they all put crowns upon
themselves; so did their sons after them many years; and evils were multiplied in the
earth.” Alexander died 323 b.c.; Antipater succeeded Perdiccas, 321 b.c.; Ptolemy Lagus
the same year took possession of Egypt; Cassander assumed the government of
Macedon, 317 b.c.; Seleucus Nicator took possession of Syria, 311 b.c.; in 305 b.c. the
successors of Alexander took the title of kings, and in 301 b.c. there occurred the battle
of Ipsus, in which Antigonus, who reigned in Asia Minor, was killed, and then followed
in that year a formal division of Alexander’s empire between the four victorious princes,
Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysimachus. This great battle of Ipsus, a city of
Phrygia, was fought between Antigonus and his son Demetrius on the one side, and the
combined forces of these princes on the other.
Antigonus had aimed at universal sovereignty; he had taken and plundered the island
of Cyprus; had destroyed the fieet of Ptolemy Lagus, and had assumed the crown.
Against him and his usurpations, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus, combined their
forces, and the result was his complete overthrow at the battle of Ipsus. - Lengerke, in
loc. In this battle, Antigonus lost all his conquests and his life. In the division of the
empire, Seleucus Nicator obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, and Susiana, Armenia, a
part of Cappadocia, Cilicia, and his kingdom, in name at least, extended from the
Hellespont to the Indies. The kingdom of Lysimachus extended over a part of Thrace,
Asia Minor, part of Cappadocia, and the countries within the limits of Mount Taurus.
Cassander possessed Macedonia, Thessaly, and a part of Greece. Ptolemy obtained
Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene, and ultimately Ccelo-Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, and a part of
Asia Minor and Thrace - Lengerke, in loc.
Toward the four winds of heaven - Toward the four quarters of the world. Thus
the dominions of Seleucus were in the east; these of Cassander in the west; those of
Ptolemy in the south, and those of Lysimachus in the north.
CLARKE, "The he-goat waxed very strong - He had subdued nearly the whole of
the then known world.
The great horn was broken - Alexander died in the height of his conquests, when
he was but about thirty-three years of age. His natural brother, Philip Aridaeus, and his
two sons, Alexander Aegus and Hercules, kept up the show and name of the Macedonian
kingdom for a time; but they were all murdered within fifteen years; and thus the great
horn, the Macedonian kingdom, was broken, Alexander’s family being now cut off.
And for it came up four notable ones - The regal family being all dead, the
67

68. governors of provinces usurped the title of kings; and Antigonus, one of them, being
slain at the battle of Ipsus, they were reduced to four, as we have already seen.
1. Seleucus, who had Syria and Babylon, from whom came the Seleucidae, famous in
history.
2. Lysimachus, who had Asia Minor.
3. Ptolemy, son of Lagus, who had Egypt, from whom sprang the Lagidae. And,
4. Cassander, who had Greece and the neighboring countries. These held dominion
towards the four winds of heaven.
Cassander had the western parts, Lysimachus had the northern regions, Ptolemy
possessed the southern countries, and Seleucus had the eastern provinces.
GILL, "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
68

69. 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.
JAMISON, "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 Aegus and Hercules, in fifteen months were murdered.
four ... toward ... four winds — Seleucus, in the east, obtained Syria, Babylonia,
Media, etc.; Cassander, in the west, Macedon Thessaly, Greece; Ptolemy, in the south,
Egypt, Cyprus, etc.; Lysimachus, in the north, Thrace, Cappadocia, and the north parts
of Asia Minor.
K&D, "The transformation of the Javanic kingdom. - By the kingdom of the ram the
he-goat became very great, powerful (‫יל‬ ִ‫דּ‬ְ‫ג‬ ִ‫ה‬ 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. ‫זוּת‬ ָ‫ח‬ is here used adverbially, conspicuously: there came
forth conspicuously four in its place. This statement does not contradict Dan_8:22 and
Dan_11:4, according to which the four kingdom shave not the power of the one great
horn; for the thought is only this: they represent in themselves a considerable power,
without, however, gaining the power of the one undivided kingdom. The breaking of the
great horn indicates the breaking up of the monarchy of Alexander by his death. The
four horns which grow up in the place of the one great horn are, according to Dan_8:22,
four kingdoms. These are the dynasties of the Diadochs, of whom there were indeed five:
Antigonus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus laid claim to the title of king; but for
the first time after the overthrow of Antigonus at the battle of Ipsus, 301 b.c., and thus
twenty-two years after the death of Alexander (323 b.c.), they became in reality four
kings, and so divided the kingdom among themselves, that Lysimachus had Thrace and
Bithynia, - Cassander, Macedonia and Greece, - Seleucus, Syria, Babylonia, and the
Eastern countries as far as India, - and Ptolemy, Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia Petrea. But
from the fact that this first happened after all the descendants of the royal family had
been extirpated, we are not to conclude, with Hävernick, that the breaking of the great
horn did not denote the death of Alexander, but the extinction of his race or house; a
conclusion which derives no valid support from these words of Justin: “All of them
abstained from the use of the insignia of this (royal) dignity while the sons of their king
survived. So great was their veneration, that although they had royal wealth and
resources, they cared not for the name of kings so long as there existed a legitimate heir
to Alexander” (Hist. xv. 2. 13). If the breaking of the horn is placed at the point of time
when the horn was powerful, here as well as at Dan_11:4, the reference of the words to
the sudden death of Alexander in the prime of his days, and when in the very height of
his victorious career, cannot be disputed; and by the breaking of the horn we can only
understand Alexander's death, and the breaking up of the kingdom founded by him,
although it was still held together in a considerable degree for two decenniums by his
generals, till the most imperious and the most powerful amongst them usurped the rank
of kings, and then, after the conquest of Antigonus, a formal division of the kingdom into
the four considerable kingdoms here named raised them to royal dignity.
69

70. 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.)
CALVIN, "This prophecy relates to the death of Alexander. We have explained
how, under the image of a he-goat, the Macedonian empire is set before us, having
its beginning in the person of Alexander, but by no means ending there, as the
monarchy was divided into four parts. The angel said, or at least Daniel records his
words, — that he-goat increased to an immense magnitude, because he wandered as
it were in sport through almost the whole east, and at the same time subdued it; but
when it was in its strength, says he, its great horn was broken By the great horn, he
means the monarchy which was solely m Alexander’s power during his life, as he,
was the first and last monarch of his race. And in consequence of his generals, who
had obtained dominion in the four quarters of the world, becoming kings, as we
shall soon see, the word “he-goat” is not restricted to his person, but is extended to
his successors. He Himself is called “the great horn.” Hence, when the he-goat was
in his strength, the great horn was broken For Alexander had arrived at the height
70

71. of prosperity when he died. Whether he perished by disease or by poison is
unknown, since historians report; a great suspicion of foul-play. The angel does not
notice his age, which was thirty-three years at his death, while he seemed to have
been born for subduing the whole world, although he was so suddenly snatched
away. But the angel regards those continued successes, since Alexander almost by a
look subdued the whole land, as we have stated before, and hurried on rashly from
place to place. Hence he perpetually gained fresh victories, though at the constant
hazard of his life, as he had far more audacity than skill. When he was in his
strength, says he; meaning, after having subjugated the whole east. He had returned
from India, and had determined to re-cross the sea, and to reduce Greece under his
power; for the States had rebelled against him, and the Athenians had already
collected a great army; but all the eastern States of Asia had been rendered
subservient to Alexander when he died. The angel refers to this by the breaking of
the great horn.
He afterwards adds, In his place four conspicuous horns sprang up For he uses the
noun ‫חזות‬ chezeveth, notable,” as in yesterday’s Lecture. (51) There were, therefore,
four kingdoms which excelled, and each of them was celebrated and placed aloft.
Nor is this superfluous, since we know how many became kings, who had enlisted in
the service of Alexander with reputation and dignity. Perdiccas was the first, and all
thought him to have been favored with special honor by Alexander When asked
whom he wished for a successor, he replied, according to the greatness or pride of
his spirit, “The person whom he considered most worthy of empire.” He had a son
by Roxana the daughter of Darius, as well as another son; then Aridmus his brother
approached; yet he deemed no one worthy of the honor of being his successor, as if
the world contained no equal to himself. His answer, then, was a proof of his pride.
But when he was unable to speak, he took a ring from his hand and gave it to
Perdieeas. Hence all conjectured that he had the preference in Alexander’s
judgment, and he obtained the supreme authority. After this, Eumenes was slain,
who had served under him. Although he was an ally, he was judged as an enemy,
and betrayed by his men; Lysimachus being slain on the other side. Fifteen generals
were put to death. And as so many succeeded to the place of Alexander and
exercised the royal authority, the angel correctly expresses how four conspicuous
horns sprang up in the place of one great one For after various conflicts and many
fluctuations for fifteen years or thereabouts, Alexander’s monarchy was at length
divided into four parts. Cassander, the son of Antipater, obtained the kingdom of
Macedon, after slaying Olympias, the mother of Alexander, his sister, his sons, and
his wife Rexaria. This was a horrible slaughter, and if ever God offered a visible
spectacle to the world, whereby he openly denounced the shedding of human blood,
surely a memorable proof of this existed in the whole of Alexander’s race! Not a
single one survived for twenty years after his death. Though his mother had grown
old, she was not permitted to descend naturally to the grave, but was murdered. His
wife, and son, and brother, and all his relations, shared her fate. And that slaughter
was even yet more cruel, as no single leader spared the life of his companions, but
each either openly attacked or craftily assailed his friend and confederate! But
omitting details, four kingdoms were at last left after such remarkable devastation’s.
71

72. For Cassander, the son of Antipater, obtained Macedon and some part of Thrace,
together with the cities of Greece. Seleucus became master in Syria; Antigonus in
Asia Minor, joining Phrygia, Paphlagonia, and all other Asiatic regions, after five or
six generals were slain. Ptolemy became prefect of Egypt. This makes four horns,
which the angel calls “conspicuous,” for on the testimony of history, all the other
principalities vanished away. Alexander’s generals had divided among themselves
many large and fertile provinces, but at length they were summed up in these four
heads. He says, by the four winds of heaven, that is, of the atmosphere. Now the
kingdom of Macedon was very far distant from Syria; Asia was in the midst, and
Egypt lay to the south. Thus, the he-goat, as we saw before, reigned throughout the
four quarters of the globe; since Egypt, as we have said, was situated towards the
south; but the kingdom of Persia, which was possessed by Seleucus, was towards the
east and united with Syria; the kingdom of Asia was to the north, and that of
Macedon to the west, as we formerly saw the he-goat setting out from the west. It
now follows, —
COKE, "Daniel 8:8. The he-goat waxed very great, &c.— This the angel interprets,
Daniel 8:22. The empire of the goat was in its full strength when Alexander died. He
was succeeded by his natural brother Philip Aridaeus, and by his two sons,
Alexander AEgus and Hercules; but in the space of about fifteen years they were all
murdered, and the first horn or kingdom was intirely broken. The royal family
being thus extinct, the governors of provinces, who had before usurped the power,
usurped the title of kings, and by the defeat and death of Antigonus, in the battle of
Issus, were reduced to four; Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, who
parted Alexander's dominions between them, and divided and settled them into four
kingdoms. These four kingdoms are the four notable horns which came up in the
room of the first great horn, and are the same as the four heads of the leopard, ch. 7.
Four kingdoms shall stand up,—but not in his power: they were to be kingdoms of
Greeks, not of Alexander's own family, but only of his nation: neither were they to
be equal to him in power and dominion; as an empire united is certainly more
powerful than the same divided, and the whole greater than any of its parts. They
were likewise to extend towards the four winds of heaven; and in the partition of the
empire Cassander held Macedon and Greece, and the western parts; Lysimachus
had Thrace, Bithynia, and the northern regions: Ptolemy possessed Egypt, and the
southern countries; and Seleucus obtained Syria, and the eastern provinces. See
Bishop Newton, p. 27.
ELLICOTT, "(8) Was broken.—This points to the sudden and unexpected end of
Alexander, B.C. 323. The “four horns,” which take the place of the “notable horn,”
may mean either that this empire was dispersed to the four winds of heaven on the
death of its founder (comp. Daniel 7:2; Daniel 11:4; Jeremiah 49:36; Zechariah 2:6),
or it may hint at the ultimate division of the empire into four parts, Thrace,
Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, under Symmachus, Cassander, Seleucus, and Ptolemy
respectively.
72

73. TRAPP, "Daniel 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was
strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the
four winds of heaven.
Ver. 8. Therefore the he-goat waxed very great.] The Greeks became lords of all;
their emperor was Et re et nomine magnus, not called great for nought; he began to
take upon him as a god, and would be counted son to Jupiter Hammon; he called for
divine honours, and slew Callisthenes, his tutor, because he would not yield thereto.
This intolerable pride was a sure forerunner of his fall; his heart swelled so fast that
the case could no longer hold it, but cracked. The world was a cage or little ease to
him, therefore is he soon turned out of it, and of heaven’s darling made the disdain
of all. (a)
And when he was strong, the great horn was broken.] Surfeiting and drunkenness
cast him into a fever, whereof he died in the flower of his youth and height of his
enjoyments - such is the instability of earthly monarchs’ worldly glory:
“ Magna repente raunt, summa cadunt subito. ”
Being not unlike those flores horae, flowers of the hour, very pleasant for the time,
but dead and withdrawn in a trice. The vanities of this life, saith one, (b) at our most
need, and when we least think, quite forsake us, leaving even them that most sought
after them, and most abounded in them, shrouded often times in the sheet of
dishonour and shame. Great Alexander lay unburied thirty days together; his
conquests above ground purchased him no title for habitation under ground. The
like befell Pompey the Great, our William the Conqueror, and others of the like
reputation.
And for it came up four notable horns,] i.e., Four potent princes, out of the
shipwreck of his empire; which four, in process of time, came to two. [Daniel 11:5-6]
PETT., " ‘And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly, and when he was strong
the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up conspicuously four
towards the four winds of heaven.’
Following the death of Alexander his empire eventually divided into four. But the
reason for his death is emphasised. He magnified himself exceedingly, taking godlike
status. Thus at the height of his strength he was smitten down, resulting finally in
the four empires.
‘Towards the four winds of heaven.’ The four winds of heaven always indicate the
activity of God. For He is the king of heaven and acts from heaven (Daniel 7:2;
Daniel 4:37 compare Daniel 4:13; Daniel 4:26; Daniel 4:31). For these ‘four winds of
heaven’ compare Jeremiah 49:36, where they represent God’s fierce activity against
73

74. Elam resulting in their scattering to all parts of the earth. They are winds with
‘worldwide’ effects, although we must remember that it means the known world of
that day. Israel too had been spread in all directions around the known world by the
four winds of heaven (Zechariah 2:6). Thus the idea of the four winds of heaven is of
the activity of God stirring up ‘the world’ with mighty effects (compare Daniel 7:2
and contrast Ezekiel 37:9 where the four winds are life giving for the people of
God). The idea here is that, just as Alexander had magnified himself, so they also
defied God to His face.
Some see it simply as meaning in all four directions, but that is the four winds, not
the four winds of heaven.
On the death of Alexander the Great his empire was in fact split between his four
generals, two of whom were prominent in the Mediterranean world north and south
of Palestine. Most who hold this view think that they were Lysimachus (who ruled
over Thrace and Bithynia), Cassander (Macedonia and Greece), Seleucus (Syria,
Babylonia, and the eastern territories), and Ptolemy (Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia
Petrea). However, the exact identification of the rulers is debatable because it took
about 20 years for the kingdom to be successfully divided. But there is no question
about the fact that Greece split into four major parts.
Antiochus Epiphanes - The Persecutor of the Jews and Despoiler of the Temple.
PULPIT, "Therefore the he-goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the
great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds
of heaven. The two Greek versions differ from the Massoretic only in this—that the
four horns are not mentioned as notable horns, but simply ́̔‫ו‬‫פוסב‬ , "other." The
Peshitta agrees closely with the Massoretic. The Greek versions indicate that the
reading they had before them was '"haroth instead of hazooth; hazooth has been
borrowed from the fifth verse. The empire of Alexander had reached its greatest
extent when the young conqueror fell a victim to what seems malarial fever,
aggravated by his drinking. His life was broken off before its legitimate conclusion.
At his death there was great confusion. Perdiccas assumed the guardianship of the
children of the conqueror, and attempted to succeed him in the empire. After his
death Antigonus in turn attempted to secure the imperial power, but was defeated
and slain at the battle of Ipsus. The empire of Alexander was then divided into four
main portions—Macedonia and Greece, under Cassander; Asia Minor, under
Lysimachus; Syria and all the East, under Seleucus; and Cyrene, under Ptolemy. In
the two first of these there were several revolutions, but finally the Antigonids
established themselves in Macedon, and the Attalids in Asia Minor.
74

75. 9 Out of one of them came another horn, which
started small but grew in power to the south and
to the east and toward the Beautiful Land.
BARNES, "And out of one of them, came forth a little horn - Emblematic of
new power that should spring up. Compare the notes at Dan_7:8. This little horn
sprang, up out of one of the others; it did not spring up in the midst of the others as the
little horn, in Dan_7:8, did among the ten others. This seemed to grow out of one of the
four, and the meaning cannot be misunderstood. From one of the four powers or
kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander would be divided, there would spring up
this ambitions and persecuting power.
Which waxed exceeding great - Which became exceedingly powerful. It was
comparatively small at first, but ultimately became mighty. There can be no doubt that
Antiochus Epiphanes is denoted here. All the circumstances of the prediction find a
fulfillment in him; and if it were supposed that this was written after he had lived, and
that it was the design of the writer to describe him by this symbol, he could not have
found a symbol that would have been more striking or appropriate than this. The Syriac
version has inserted here, in the Syriae text, the words “Antiochus Epiphanes,” and
almost without exception expositors have been agreed in the opinion that he is referred
to. For a general account of him, see the notes at Dan_7:24, following The author of the
book of Maccabees, after noticing, in the passage above quoted, the death of Alexander,
and the distractions that followed his death, says, “And there came out of them a wicked
root, Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been a
hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the
kingdom of the Greeks,” 1 Macc. 1:10. A few expositors have supposed that this passage
refers to Antichrist - what will not expositors of the Bible suppose? But the great body of
interpreters have understood it to refer to Antiochus. This prince was a successor of
Seleucus Nicator, who, in the division of the empire of Alexander, obtained Syria,
Babylonia, Media, etc. (see above the note at Dan_8:8), and whose capital was Antioch.
The succession of princes who reigned in Antioch, from Seleucus to Antiochus
Epiphanes, were as follows:
(1) Seleucus Nicator, 312-280 b.c.
(2) Antiochus Soter, his son, 280-261.
(3) Antiochus Theos, his son, 261-247.
(4) Seleucus Callinicus, his son, 247-226.
(5) (Alexander), or Seleucus Ceraunus, his son, 226-223.
(6) Antiochus the Great, his brother, 223-187.
(7) Seleucus Philopater, his son, 187-176.
75

76. (8) Antiochus Epiphanes, his brother, 176-164.
- Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii. Appendix, ch. iii.
The succession of the Syrian kings reigning in Antioch was continued until Syria was
reduced to the form of a Roman province by Pompey, 63 b.c. Seleucus Philopater, the
immediate predecessor of Antiochus, having been assassinated by one of his courtiers,
his brother Antiochus hastened to occupy the vacant throne, although the natural heir,
Demetrius, son of Seleucus, was yet alive, but a hostage at Rome. Antiochus assumed the
name of Epiphanes, or Illustrious. In Dan_11:21, it is intimated that he gained the
kingdom by flatteries; and there can be no doubt that bribery, and the promise of reward
to others, was made use of to secure his power. See Kitto’s Cyclo., i. 168-170. Of the acts
of this prince there will be occasion for a fuller detail in the notes on the remainder of
this chapter, and Dan. 11.
Toward the south - Toward the country of Egypt, etc. In the year 171 b.c., he
declared war against Ptolemy Philometer, and in the year 170 he conquered Egypt, and
plundered Jerusalem. 1 Macc. 1:16-19: “Now when the kingdom was established before
Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt, that he might have the dominion of two
realms. Wherefore he entered Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and
elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy. And made war against Ptolemee king of
Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. Thus
they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof.”
And toward the east - Toward Persia and the countries of the East. He went there -
these countries being nominally subject to him - according to the author of the book of
Maccabees (1 Macc. 3:21-37), in order to replenish his exhausted treasury, that he might
carry on his wars with the Jews, and that he might keep up the splendor and liberality of
his court: “He saw that the money of his treasures failed, and that the tributes in the
country were small, because of the dissension and plague which he had brought upon
the land, and he feared that he should not be able to bear the charges any longer, nor to
have such gifts to give so liberally as he did before; wherefore, being greatly perplexed in
his mind, he determined to go into Persia, there to take the tributes of the countries, and
to gather much money. So the king departed from Antioch, his royal city, the hundred
forty and seventh year; and having passed the river Euphrates, he went through the high
countries.”
And toward the pleasant land - The word used here (‫צבי‬ tse
bı̂y) means, properly,
splendor, beauty, Isa_4:2; Isa_24:16; Isa_28:1, Isa_28:4-5. It is applied, in Isa_13:19, to
Babylon - “the glory of kingdoms.” Here it evidently denotes the land of the Israelites, or
Palestine - so often described as a land of beauty, as flowing with milk and honey, etc.
This is such language as a pious Hebrew would naturally use of his own country, and
especially if he was an exile from it, as Daniel was. Nothing more would be necessary to
designate the land so as to be understood than such an appellation - as nothing more
would be necessary to designate his country to an exile from China than to speak of “the
flowery land.” Antiochus, on his return from Egypt, turned aside and invaded Judea, and
ultimately robbed the temple, destroyed Jerusalem, and spread desolation through the
land. See 1 Macc. 1.
CLARKE, "Out of one of them came forth a little horn - Some think that
Antiochus Epiphanes is meant; but Bp. Newton contends that it is the Roman
76

77. government that is intended; and although very great at its zenith, yet very little in its
rising.
Waxed - great toward the south - The Romans made Egypt a province of their
empire, and it continued such for some centuries.
Toward the east - They conquered Syria, and made it a province.
Toward the pleasant land - Judea, so called Psa_106:24; Jer_3:19; Dan_11:16,
Dan_11:41. It is well known that they took Judea, and made it a province; and afterwards
burnt the city and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the earth.
GILL, "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)
77

78. "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.
JAMISON, "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,” etc. Antiochus Epiphanes is meant. Greece
with all its refinement produces the first, that is, the Old Testament Antichrist.
Antiochus had an extraordinary 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, Dan_6:28), 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,
78

79. 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.
K&D, "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 ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ה‬ ֵ‫מ‬
and ‫א‬ָ‫ָצ‬‫י‬ (out of them came) are to be explained as a constructio ad sensum. ‫ת‬ ַ‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬ (one)
after ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ק‬ (horn) is as little superfluous as is the ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ in ‫ה‬ ָ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ְ‫צּ‬ ִ‫.מ‬ ‫ת‬ ַ‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬ is a numeral, one
horn, not several; ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ is either comparative, less than little, i.e., very little (Ewald), or, as
less than insignificance, wretchedness, i.e., in an altogether miserable way (Häv.). The
one explanation is more forced than the other, and the idea of wretchedness is altogether
untenable. Yet the ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ serves as a circumlocution for the superlative = perpaucus (Gesen.,
Win., Aub.), while verbal analogies for it are wanting. ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ signifies from, out of; but it is
not to be united with ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫:ק‬ one horn of smallness (v. Leng.), in which case ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ would be
superfluous, but with the verb ‫א‬ָ‫ָצ‬‫י‬: it came up out of littleness, a parvo, i.e., a parvis
initiis (Maur., Hofm., Kran., Klief.). Thus it corresponds with ‫ת‬ ָ‫ק‬ ְ‫ל‬ ִ‫ס‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫יר‬ֵ‫,זְע‬ 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 ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ‫צּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ (the splendour, glory), i.e., toward the glorious land. ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ‫צּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ =
‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ‫צּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫,א‬ 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 ‫ה‬ ָ‫דּ‬ ְ‫מ‬ ֶ‫ח‬ ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫א‬ (“pleasant land”), Jer_3:19; Zec_7:14; Psa_106:24. Canaan was so
designate don account of its great fruitfulness as a land flowing with milk and honey; cf.
Eze_20:6.
The one of the four horns from which the little horn grew up is the Syrian monarchy,
and the horn growing up out of it is the king Antiochus Epiphanes, as Josephus (Ant. x.
11. 7) and all interpreters acknowledge, on the ground of 1 Macc. 1:10. The south, against
which he became great, is Egypt (cf. Dan_11:5 and 1 Macc. 1:16ff.). The east is not Asia
(Kranichfeld), but Babylon, and particularly Elymaïs and Armenia, 1 Macc. 1:31, 37; 3:31,
37; 6:1-4, according to which he subdued Elymaïs and overcame Artaxias, king of
Armenia (App. Syr. c. 45, 46; Polyb. xxxi. 11). Besides the south and the east, Canaan, the
79

80. 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 ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ‫צּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ל‬ ֶ‫א‬ ְ‫ו‬ (“and toward the glorious land”) is not,
with Kranichfeld, to be regarded as an exegetical addition to ‫ח‬ ָ‫ר‬ְ‫ז‬ ִ‫מּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ל‬ ֶ‫א‬ ְ‫ו‬ (“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.
CALVIN, "Now God shews his Prophet what peculiarly concerned the welfare of
his Church. For it was of very great importance to warn the Jews of the calamities
which were about to oppress them. There is nothing which more torments the minds
of men than their becoming bewildered in false imaginations, and thinking the
world the sport of chance, while they never ponder over the providence of God nor
reflect upon his judgments. Hence, with this design, God wished to teach the
Prophet and all the pious the nature of their future afflictions, since they would thus
understand how events never happened by chance, but all these scourges proceeded
from God; for the same God both determines and executes his decrees, as he also
predicts future events. For if nothing had been predicted, the pious would have
glided gently downwards to despair in consequence of their heavy afflictions. We
know also how magnificently the prophets extol the grace of God when they promise
return and deliverance. Isaiah, too, has elsewhere spoken to this effect: Not in haste
nor in tumult shall ye go forth, but with a standard displayed. Again, The wealth of
all the nations shall flow towards you; kings shall come, and submit, and bow the
knee to thee. (Isaiah 52:10; Isaiah 55:12; Isaiah 55:6.) The Jews were permitted to
return to their own land; but we know how cruelly they were harassed by all their
neighbors, so that they did not dwell in that corner of the world without the greatest
difficulties. The building of both the city and the Temple was hindered by many
enemies, till at length they became tributary to the kings of Syria. Antiochus,
indeed, who is here alluded to, advanced with cruel tyranny against the people of
God. If this had not been predicted, they would have thought themselves deceived
by the splendid promises concerning their return. But when they perceived
everything occurring according as they had been opportunely forewarned, this
became no slight solace in the midst of their woes; they could then determine at once
how completely it was in the power of God to relieve them from so many and such
oppressive evils. With what intention, then, had God predicted all these things to his
Prophet Daniel? clearly that the Jews might look forward to a happy result, and not
give way to despair under events so full of anxiety and confusion. This, then, was the
utility of the prophecy, with reference to that particular period.
When the Prophet says, Out of one of those four horns a little horn arose, Antiochus
Epiphanes is most distinctly pointed out. The title Epiphanes entails “illustrious,”
as, after the capture of his father, he was detained as a hostage at Rome, and then
escaped from custody. Historians inform us of his possessing a servile disposition,
and being much addicted to gross flattery. As he had nothing royal or heroic in his
feelings, but was simply remarkable for cunning, the Prophet is justified in calling
him the little horn He was far more powerful than his neighbors; but the horn is
80

81. called little, not in comparison with the kingdoms of either Egypt, or Asia, or
Macedon, but because no one supposed he would ever be king and succeed his
father. He was the eldest of many brothers, and singularly servile and cunning,
without a single trait worthy of future royalty. Thus he was the little horn who
escaped secretly and fraudulently from custody, as, we have already mentioned, and
returned. to his native country, which he afterwards governed.
He now adds, This horn was very mighty towards the south, and the east, and “the
desire ”’ for unless he had been checked by the Romans, he would have obtained
possession of Egypt. There is a remarkable and celebrated story of Pompilius, who,
was sent to him to command him to abstain from Egypt at the, bidding of the senate.
After he had delivered his message, Antiochus demanded time for deliberation, but
Pompilius drew a circle with the staff which he held in his hand, and forbade him to
move his foot until he gave him an answer. Though he claimed Egypt as his own by
right of conquest, yet he dared not openly to deny the Romans their request; at first
he pretended to be merely the guardian of his nephew, but he certainly seized upon
the kingdom in his own name. However, he dared not oppose the Romans, but by
changing his ground wished to dismiss Pompilius. They had been mutual
acquaintances, and a great familiarity had arisen between them while he was a
hostage at Rome; hence he offered to salute Pompilius at the interview, but he
rejected him disdainfully, and, as I have said, drew a line around him, saying,
“Before you go out of this circle answer me; do not delude me by asking time to
consult with your councilors; answer at once, otherwise I know how to treat thee.”
He was compelled to relinquish Egypt, although he had formerly refused to do so.
The language of the Prophet, then, was not in vain, The small horn became mighty
towards the south, that is, towards Egypt, and the east; for he extended his kingdom
as far as Ptolemais. In the third place, he uses the word glory; that is, Judea, the
sanctuary of God, which he had chosen as his dwelling, and desired his name to be
invoked. Thus this small horn extended itself to the glory, or the land of glory or
desire. There is nothing doubtful in the sense, though the interpretation scarcely
agrees with the words. It afterwards follows: —
COFFMAN, ""And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed
exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the glorious
land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and some of the host and some
of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled upon them. Yea, it magnified
itself, even to the prince of the host; and it took away from him the continual burnt-
offering, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And the host was given over
to it together with the continual burnt-offering through transgression; and it cast
down truth to the ground, and it did its pleasure and prospered. Then I heard a holy
one speaking; and another holy one said unto that certain one who spake. How long
shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt-offering, and the transgression
that maketh desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under
foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and
mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."
81

82. THE LITTLE HORN
Salient features of this are: (1) The terrible calamity prophesied was allowed to fall
upon Israel "through transgressions" (Daniel 8:12), that means as a punishment for
the sinful rebellion of Israel. (2) It will be a limited, controlled punishment. The
sanctuary will again be cleansed. (3) The mention of the `glorious land' (Daniel 8:9)
is a reference to Palestine. (4) `The prince of the host' (Daniel 8:11) is a reference to
God Himself, since he is depicted as the owner of the sanctuary and as the possessor
of the continual burnt-offerings.
There is no disagreement whatever among scholars of all shades of belief. The
`Little Horn' of this passage is a prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes. The title means,
"Antiochus the Illustrious"; but the Jews referred to him as "Antiochus Epimanes,"
meaning "Antiochus the Madman."
This Antiochus Epiphanes was an evil character who inherited the throne of the
Seleucid branch of Alexander's empire from his brother Seleucus IV, continuing his
abominable tyranny until his death in 163 B.C. His outrages against Judaism were
related to his efforts to exterminate the worship of God which at that point in
history was still controlled by the Law of Moses. This was in connection with his
desire to Helenize (Grecianize) Palestine. Onias III was High Priest; but his brother
Jason, who fully favored Antiochus' plans to exterminate God's religion and replace
it with the worship of the Grecian deity Zeus, went to Antiochus and made a deal
with him, that if he would get rid of Onias III, Jason would aid his plans. Onias III,
therefore was murdered and the corruption of the Jewish worship for a few terrible
years was indeed accomplished.[8]
Antiochus' outrageous actions precipitated a rebellion against him by the
Maccabees; and the Maccabean war resulted in the overthrow of Antiochus, and the
cleansing and re-consecration of the temple, events which the Jews thereafter
celebrated with a fourth annual convocation rivaling the three older ones dating
from the times of Moses, namely, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. They called
this celebration"The Feast of Lights," or"The Feast of Dedication."
Many of the facts of the Jewish war led by the Maccabees are recorded in the
apocryphal books of 1,2Maccabees and in the writings of Josephus. The extent of
the desecrations imposed by Antiochus included the following:
"The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those relating to the Sabbath and
circumcision were forbidden under penalty of death. All Jewish sacrifices were
forbidden, and sacrifices to pagan deities the old mythical gods of the Romans) were
offered throughout the nation. Once a month they had a search; and anyone found
with a copy of the Law of Moses was put to death. The same penalty applied to
anyone who either permitted or allowed the rite of circumcision. In the year 168
B.C., a pagan altar was erected on top of the great Altar in the temple itself. Both
82

83. the temple and the city of Jerusalem were dedicated to Zeus.[9] (This deity was the
same as Jupiter Olympus).
"He sacrificed a sow upon the altar of burnt-offering and sprinkled its blood over
the entire building. He corrupted the youth of Jerusalem by the introduction of lewd
and shameful practices; the feast of Tabernacles was made to be the feast of
Bacchus; he auctioned off the office of the high priest; and he murdered at least
100,000 pious Jews."[10]SIZE>
Regarding the true interpretation of the 2,300 evenings and mornings, it would
appear that any certain solution of this is impossible. Note that: (1) we do not know
if the year or the religious year is meant; (2) we do not know if "evenings and
mornings" mean "days," 2,300 days, or half that many days, since each day had
both an evening and a morning; (3) the allegation that each day stands for a year
(an assumption by no means proved) leads to the fantastic claim of the Seventh-Day
Adventist Church that "Christ did not enter into the Holiest until the year 1844!
In our studies of Revelation, it became evident that such numbers are almost
certainly symbolical; and in that likelihood we have concluded that Keil is correct in
seeing this number as a symbol. A symbol of what?
"If we reduce these 2,300 days to years, we find that they add up to some three
months and a little more past six years. The period of God's judgments falling either
upon pagans as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 4, or upon Israel as in the
seven years famine under Ahab, or the punishment of Israel for David's numbering
of the people (2 Samuel 24:13), was usually a full period of seven years; and the fact
of this desecration to be terminated in a little over six years, indicates that, `It shall
by no means reach the status of a full divine judgment against Israel.'"[11]
Robert D. Culver was therefore most probably correct in the suggestion that the
twenty-three hundred days, "Seem to refer to a period in 168-165 B.C. when the
Temple was desecrated by pagan sacrifices."[12] If we must supply a reason why
God permitted such outrageous transgressions against his holy religion, we need
search no further than the prophecy of Malachi. The priesthood itself was cursed by
Almighty God Himself for their shameful lapses; and such desecrations as arose in
the 2century before Christ should therefore have been expected.
Daniel 8:10-11 above, indicates that the wickedness of Antiochus was against the
"host of heaven, and the prince of the host (even God)." Such language is very
extravagant, after the manner of prophecy; but the simple meaning of it would
appear to be: "The insolence of Antiochus was a wickedness against Heaven, and
the heavenly order of things!"[13]
Up to here the explanation of the prophecy is nearly transparent, there being
practically no disagreement about it from any quarter. However, the introduction of
an additional element in Daniel 8:17 brings into the passage suggestions of its
83

84. application to events far in the future from the times of Antiochus. We shall note
these in the explanations given in the prophecy itself.
COKE, "Verses 9-12
Daniel 8:9-12. Out of one of them came forth a little horn, &c.— There are two ways
of expounding this prophesy of the little horn; either by understanding it with the
generality of interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, ancient and modern, of
Antiochus Epiphanes, and considering Antiochus as a type of antichrist; or by
leaving him wholly out of the question, and seeking another application. Now a
horn, in the style of Daniel, does not signify any particular king, but is an emblem of
a kingdom; and the little horn, in the former chapter, did not signify a single person,
but a succession of persons claiming such prerogatives and exerting such powers as
are there specified. In this vision likewise the two horns of the ram do not represent
two kings, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, but the two kingdoms of Media
and Persia; and for this plain reason, because the ram had all along two horns, even
when he was attacked by the he-goat; but the two kingdoms of Media and Persia
had been long united under one king. The horns of the he-goat prefigure not kings,
but kingdoms. The first great horn does not typify Alexander himself, but the
kingdom of Alexander, as long as the title continued united in him and his brother
and two sons. The four horns which arose after the first was broken, are expressly
said, Daniel 8:22 to be four kingdoms; and consequently it should seem that the little
horn cannot signify Antiochus Epiphanes, or any single king, but must denote some
kingdom; by kingdom meaning, what the ancients meant thereby, any government,
whether monarchy or republic, or of what form soever. Now what kingdom was
there which rose up during the subsistence of the four kingdoms of the Grecian
empire, and was advanced to any greatness and eminence, but the Roman?—The
general character certainly is better adapted to the Romans than to any other; let us
then consider the particular properties and actions of this little horn. Out of one of
the four kingdoms came forth, &c. This was applicable to the Romans, who were a
new and different power, who rose up from small beginnings, to be an exceeding
great empire; who first subdued Macedon and Greece, the capital kingdom of the
goat, and hence enlarged their conquests over the rest. In this vision the Roman
empire is not designed at large, but only the Roman empire as a horn of the goat.
When the Romans first got footing in Greece, then they became this horn of the
goat; out of this horn they came, and were at first a little horn, but in process of time
over-topped the other horns. From Greece they extended their arms, and overran
the other parts of the goat's dominion; and their actions within the dominions of the
goat, and not their affairs in the western empire, are the principal subject of this
prophesy. This horn, though little at first, waxed exceeding great, &c. It was to rise
up in the north-west parts of those nations which composed the body of the goat,
and thence was to extend its dominion towards Egypt, Syria, and Judaea. He waxed
great; and so did the Roman empire, even within the territories of the goat.—
Toward the south; the Romans made Egypt a province of their empire, and kept
possession of it for several centuries: Toward the east also the Romans grew very
84

85. powerful; conquering and making Syria a province, which was the eastern kingdom
of the goat. And toward the pleasant land; that is, Judaea; for so it is called Psalms
106:24. Jeremiah 3:19 and ch. Daniel 11:16; Daniel 11:41. The Romans conquered
and subdued the Jews; first made a province of their country, and then destroyed
their city and temple, and dispersed the people; so that after so fatal a fall, they have
never hitherto been able to rise again. The remainder of the prophesy relate's
chiefly to the persecution and oppression of the people of God. And it waxed great,
even to the host of heaven, &c. By the stars are meant the Jewish state in general,
(the mighty and the holy people, Daniel 8:24.) or the priests and Levites in
particular; who are called stars, as they were eminent for their station, and
illustrious for their knowledge; and the host of heaven, as they watched and served
in the temple, and their service is denominated a warfare. See Numbers 8:24 in the
original. Our Saviour making use of the same expressions, Matthew 24:29 in
speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, this passage also may be
more properly referred to that event. Yea, he magnified himself,—and by him the
daily sacrifice was taken away, &c. The Romans took away the daily sacrifice for
many ages, and utterly destroyed the temple. The word ‫עבא‬ tsaba, translated host,
Daniel 8:12 is rendered in ch. Daniel 10:1 and Job 7:1 an appointed time;
accordingly, the verse may be read, An APPOINTED TIME was given against the
daily sacrifice, &c. or, The last was given over for the transgressions against the
daily sacrifice; and he cast down,—and he practised, &c. When the city of
Jerusalem was besieged and taken by the Romans, the number of the captives
amounted to 97,000, and of the slain to 1,100,000: and they carried their conquests
and revenge so far, as to put an end to the government of the Jews, and entirely to
take away their place and nation. See Bishop Newton, p. 3l, &c. Instead of pleasant
land, at the end of the 9th verse, Houbigant reads the west, after the Arabic;
denoting Judaea, which lay in the west of Asia.
ELLICOTT, " (9) Little.—Literally, out of littleness. (Comp. Daniel 7:8.) This is
explained more fully in Daniel 8:23. The southern campaigns of Antiochus
Epiphanes are related 1 Maccabees 1:16; for his eastern wars see 1 Maccabees
3:31-37; 1 Maccabees 6:1-4.
The pleasant land—i.e., Palestine, which here, as in Isaiah 19:23-24, is spoken of as
a third land, between south and east. The phrase, “pleasant land,” or “glorious
land,” which recurs Daniel 11:16-41, was suggested to Daniel by the language of
Jeremiah 3:19; Ezekiel 20:6; Ezekiel 20:15.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed
exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant
[land].
Ver. 9. And out of one of them.] Out of the posterity of Seleucus, king of Syria.
Came forth a little horn.] This was Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, illustrious;
85

86. Polybius called him Epimanes, the madman. He is here called a "little horn,"
because he was vile and base from the very first to the last of him; indeed, he was
born a prince, but without a kingdom, a mere nullatenensis, till he became a
usurper. He was sent for a hostage to Rome by his father, Antiochus the Great,
whom the Romans had cudgelled into a treaty, taking away from him the best part
of his kingdom. After his father’s death, he stole away from Rome and seized upon
the kingdom of Syria, casting out of it his nephew Demetrius, who was the rightful
heir. Afterwards he got into his hands also the kingdom of Egypt, under colour of
protector to his young nephew, Ptolemy Philometor; and being therehence
discharged by the Romans, and made to answer Parebo, I will be gone, he went
thence in a rage, and like a madman wreaked his teem, as we say, upon the poor
Jews, playing the devil among them.
Toward the south,] i.e., Egypt,
And toward the east.] Persia, which he also conquered.
And toward the pleasant land,] i.e., Judea, called here Decus Capreolus, the
delectable and desirable country, by reason of its great prerogatives. So Ezekiel
20:6, Psalms 48:2.
PETT, "Verse 9-10
‘And out of one of them came a horn from smallness which grew exceedingly great
towards the south, and towards the east and towards the beauty (the desirable). And
it grew great even to the host of heaven, and some of the host and of the stars it cast
down to the ground and trampled on them.’
This horn is described in a totally different way from that in Daniel 7:8. There it is
described as ‘a horn, a small one’, and it uproots and replaces three horns. Here it is
‘a horn from smallness’, that is a growing one, and it arises from one horn. Its
activity is also described in a different way.
1) In chapter 7 God directly intervenes as a result of the king’s activity and the
everlasting kingdom is set up, in chapter 8 all that is mentioned is the renewal of the
sacrifices.
2) In chapter 7 the destruction of the king is almost overlooked, the emphasis being
on the destruction of the wild beast and the end of empire, while in chapter 8 he is
broken, but not by a human hand, presumably referring to a death by non-violent
means attributed to God. The destiny of the wild beast is not even in mind.
3) The king in chapter 7 has eyes like the eyes of a man, which suggests outward
humility towards God, while in chapter 8 he openly defies God.
86

87. 4) The king in chapter 7 has a mouth that speaks great things, while in chapter 8 he
magnifies himselfin his heart.
Given that both defy God and persecute the people of God these differences in
description are specific and do not suggest identification. They could of course be
reconciled by clever argument, but the first impression is certainly of a different
type of attitude and situation.
The king referred to here in chapter 8 is almost certainly Antiochus IV Epiphanes,
(175-164 BC) who ruled the Seleucid empire in Babylonia and Syria (see 1
Maccabees 1:10), in contrast with that in chapter 7 which refers to a great and evil
king of the time of the end.
‘Which grew exceedingly great towards the south, and towards the east and towards
the beauty (the desirable).’ Reference here would seem to be towards Antiochus’
campaigns against Egypt (the south - Daniel 11:5) - see 1 Maccabees 1:16-19, from
which he was turned back by the authority of Rome. The east is Elymais in Persia,
and Armenia (1 Maccabees 3:31; 1 Maccabees 3:37; 1 Maccabees 6:1-4).
‘The beauty (the desirable).’ Reference may be made to Daniel 11:16; Daniel 11:41;
Daniel 11:45; Jeremiah 3:19; Ezekiel 20:6; Ezekiel 20:15; compare Psalms 106:24;
Zechariah 7:14. The reference is to the land of promise, seen as God’s land and
God’s inheritance to His people. The aim is to bring out the awfulness of his crime.
‘And it grew great even to the host of heaven, and some of the host and of the stars it
cast down to the ground and trampled on them.’
The host of heaven elsewhere can mean the sun, moon and stars and their
connections with the gods (see Deuteronomy 4:19; Deuteronomy 17:3; 2 Kings
17:16; 2 Kings 21:3 and often; Isaiah 34:4; Jeremiah 8:2; Jeremiah 19:13;
Zephaniah 1:5), or the angels in God’s court (1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18;
Nehemiah 9:6). But the people of Israel are thought of as the hosts of Yahweh in
Exodus 7:4; Exodus 12:41 also see Exodus 16:13; Deuteronomy 4:13 and often,
where Israel are called ‘the host’.
Antiochus made great claims for himself, seeing himself as the manifestation of
Zeus, and thus as being over the host of heaven in the first sense. He pillaged and
robbed temples without restraint, treating their gods with contempt. Thus by the
Jews he would be seen as not only blasphemous in his attitude towards God but also
by many as sacrilegious in his attitude and behaviour towards the gods in general.
That is not to say that he persecuted all religions, for that would have gained him
nothing. As long as the people submitted to Zeus he left them generally alone, except
where he felt that he could enrich himself by robbing their temples.
Polybius comments that he ‘robbed most of the sanctuaries’ although it is not clear
how extensive was the area in mind, and Granus Licianus tells us that he plundered
87

88. the temple of Diana in Hierapolis and robbed it of its treasures. Polybius also tells us
that immediately prior to his death he made a vain attempt to acquire the riches of a
temple of Artemis in Elymais, where he had come on a campaign against the
Parthians (compare 1 Maccabees 6:1-4). These are examples we know of; we need
not doubt that they were some among many, for it was clearly his custom. Thus he
would adequately fit the description given, if interpreting the host of heaven as
signifying the gods.
But alternately ‘the host of heaven’ (see Daniel 4:26 for the use of heaven to mean
God) may here mean the people of the God of heaven. Compare Daniel 8:11 - ‘the
prince of the host’, Daniel 8:12 - ‘the host who were given over to him’, and Daniel
12:3 where the true people of God are to shine as the stars, so that Daniel sees them
as like stars (compare Genesis 37:9; Revelation 12:1). Indeed the next two verses
really demand it. The trampling down then refers to their maltreatment and
persecution.
PULPIT, "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding
great, toward the south, and toward the east. and toward the pleasant land. The
Greek versions here differ considerably from the Massoretic text. The LXX. is as
follows: "And out of one there sprang a strong horn, and it prevailed and smote
toward the south, toward the south-west ( ̓‫ו‬‫נ‬̀‫י‬‫ם‬́‫ן‬‫פןם‬ ), and toward the east, and
toward the north." In this case, ̓‫ו‬‫נ‬̀‫י‬‫ם‬́‫ן‬‫פןם‬ is clearly a doublet—an alternative
rendering that has got into the text from the margin. ̓‫ו‬‫נ‬̀‫י‬‫גן‬̓‫ס‬̔‫ס‬̀‫ב‬‫ם‬ results from reading
tzephonah ( ‫ָה‬‫נ‬‫פוֹ‬ ְ‫צ‬ ) instead of tzebee ( ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ֶ‫.)צ‬ Theodotion renders, "From one of them
went forth a strong horn, and was magnified exceedingly to the south and to the
power"—reading ‫א‬ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ (tzaba), "host," for tzebee. It is to be observed that both
translate mitztze‛eeroth as "strong" ( ̓‫י‬‫ףקץס‬́‫ן‬‫ע‬ ) instead of "little." The reason of this
is that they have taken ְ‫מ‬ as equivalent to ex, therefore equivalent to a negative. The
Peshitta agrees with the Authorized in reading mitztze‛eroth as "little," but leaves
out the difficult final word rendered "the pleasant land" in our Authorized Version.
Jerome translates mitztze'eeroth by modicum, and tzebee by fortitudinem—a
combination of Theodotion and the Massoretic; he must have had tzaba in his text
instead of tzebee,—this may have been due to the fact that tzaba occurs in the next
verse. The reference is sufficiently obvious to Antiochus. The description is
accurate; he sprang from one of the four horns or dynasties that succeeded the great
conqueror. He carried his arms to the east, but mainly to the south against Egypt.
The great difficulties are in the two Hebrew words mitztze‛eeroth and tzebee. As to
the first word, the fact that the two Greek versions have read it are conclusive
against the suggestion of Gratz and Hitzig, supported by Bevan, that we should omit
‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ . (min). Jephet-ibn-Ali takes min as denoting the origin of the horn, "from a little
one." The further suggestion of Gratz, that we should adopt the reading of the
LXX; is rightly combatted by Professor Bevan. The readings alike of the LXX. and
Theodotion could have sprung from the Massoretic reading, whereas neither of
these could so readily be the original reading. It was necessary that Israel should be
prominent in this part of the prophecy; it all leads up to the persecution the Jews
88

89. endured at the hands of Epiphanes. It is necessary, then, to hold that this word,
whatever reading we adopt, and whatever immediate meaning we assign to it, must
refer to Palestine. Ewald renders it "ornament;" Bevan, "glory."
10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens,
and it threw some of the starry host down to the
earth and trampled on them.
BARNES, "And it waxed great - It became very powerful. This was eminently true
of Antiochus, after having subdued Egypt, etc.
Even to the host of heaven - Margin, against. The Hebrew word (‫עד‬ ‛ad) means
“to” or “unto,” and the natural idea would seem to be that he wished to place himself
among the stars, or to exalt himself above all that was earthly. Compare the notes at Isa_
14:13 : “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne
above the stars of God.” Lengerke supposes that the meaning here is, that he not only
carried his conquests to Egypt and to the East, and to the holy land in general, but that
he made war on the holy army of God - the priests and worshippers of Jehovah, here
spoken of as the host of heaven. So Maurer understands it. In 2 Macc. 9:10, Antiochus is
described in this language: “And the man that thought a little afore he could reach the
stars of heaven, etc.” The connection, would seem to demand the interpretation
proposed by Lengerke and Maurer, for it is immediately said that he cast down some of
the host and the stars to the ground. And such an interpretation accords with the
language elsewhere used, of the priests and rulers of the Hebrew people. Thus, in Isa_
24:21, they are called “the host of the high ones that are on high.” See the note at that
passage. This language is by no means uncommon in the Scriptures. It is usual to
compare princes and rulers, and especially ecclesiastical rulers, with the sun, moon, and
stars. Undoubtedly it is the design here to describe the pride and ambition of Antiochus,
and to show that he did not think anything too exalted for his aspiration. None were too
high or too sacred to be secure from his attempts to overthrow them, and even those
who, by their position and character, seemed to deserve to be spoken of as suns and
stars, as “the host of heaven,” were not secure.
And it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground - The horn
seemed to grow up to the stars, and to wrest them from their places, and to cast them to
the earth. Antiochus, in the fulfillment of this, east down and trampled on the princes,
and rulers, and people, of the holy host or army of God. All that is implied in this was
abundantly fulfilled in what he did to the Jewish people. Compare 1 Macc. 1, and 2 Macc.
8:2.
89

90. And stamped upon them - With indignation and contempt. Nothing could better
express the conduct of Antiochus toward the Jews.
CLARKE, "The host of heaven - The Jewish hierarchy. The stars, the priests and
Levites. The powers or host of heaven are probably intended by our Lord, Mat_24:29, to
signify the whole Jewish hierarchy.
GILL, "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.
JAMISON, "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, Num_8:25, Margin).
Great civil and religious powers are symbolized by “stars” (Mat_24:29). See 1 Maccabees
1:25, etc.; 1 Maccabees 2:35, etc.; 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, Isa_14:14), “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.” Compare Rev_12:4; 2
Maccabees 9:10, as to Antiochus.
K&D, "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
(‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ 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
90

91. compared to the host of heaven, the stars, then the separate stars cannot be the
ecclesiastical or civil chiefs, but the members of this nation in common. But by “the
people of the saints” is to be understood (since the little horn denotes Antiochus
Epiphanes) the people of God in the Old Covenant, the people of Israel. They are named
the people of the saints by virtue of their being called to be an holy nation (Exo_19:6),
because “they had the revelation of God and God Himself dwelling among them,
altogether irrespective of the subjective degrees of sanctification in individuals”
(Kliefoth). But the comparing of them with the host of the stars does not arise from
Jewish national pride, nor does it mean that Daniel thought only of the truly faithful in
Israel (Theod., Häv.), or that the pseudo-Daniel thought that with the death of
Antiochus the Messiah would appear, and that then Israel, after the extermination of the
godless, would become a people of pure holiness. The comparison rather has its roots in
this, that God, the King of Israel, is called the God of hosts, and by the ‫ת‬ ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫צ‬ (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 ‫ים‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ‫ד‬ ְ‫ק‬ (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.)
CALVIN, "Here Daniel continues the vision which he had received. We have
already shewn he object of the Almighty to be the preparation of the faithful to bear
serious calamities, because nothing new or unexpected should happen to them. Now,
Daniel’s dwelling upon this point is not surprising, for it becomes his duty to inform
the faithful of the heavy calamities which were at hand, and thus to mould them to
patience and equity. Thus he says, The horn became magnificent, even to the army
of the heavens. Without the slightest doubt this figure marks the elect people of God.
Although the Church often lies prostrate in the world, and is trodden under foot
and buried, yet it is always precious before God. Hence the Prophet adorns the
Church with this remarkable praise, not to obtain for it any honor before men, but
because God has separated it from the world, and provided a sure inheritance in
91

92. heaven. Although the sons of God are pilgrims on earth, and have scarcely any
dwelling-place here, becoming like castaways before men, yet they are nevertheless
citizens of heaven. The usefulness of this teaching to us is apparent, by its inducing
us to bear it patiently whenever we are often thrown prostrate on the ground, and
whenever tyrants and the despiser’s of God look down upon us with scorn.
Meanwhile our seat is laid up in heaven, and God numbers us among the stars,
although, as Paul says, we are as dung and the offscouring of all things. (1
Corinthians 4:13.) In fine, God here shews his Prophet, as in a mirror, the
estimation in which he holds his Church, however contemptible it is on earth. That
horn, then, was magnified before the army of the heavens, and cast down some of
that army upon the earth, and trod them out of the stars Exactly as if he proclaimed
the loosening of the reins from the tyrant, permitting him to treat the Church with
contempt, to tread it under foot;, and to draw down the stars from heaven, just as if
God never appeared for its protection. For when God permits us to be safe and
secure in his hand, and pronounces it impossible to prevail against his help, while
tyrants harass and oppress us by their lust, it is like drawing down stars from
heaven. God therefore, while he takes us under his guardianship, does not offer us.
any succor, but dissembles as if he wished to betray us to our enemies. Nothing
therefore is superfluous in these expressions of the Prophet — The stars were
trodden down and the heavenly army thrown down to earth He now adds —
ELLICOTT, "(10) The host of heaven.—Probably meaning the stars, as Jeremiah
33:22, but in a metaphorical sense indicating the people of Israel. (Comp. Exodus
7:4; Numbers 24:17.) The actions of Antiochus, predicted here, are related 1
Maccabees 1:24; 1 Maccabees 1:30; 1 Maccabees 1:37; 1 Maccabees 2:38; 2
Maccabees 9:10.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, [even] to the host of heaven; and it cast
down [some] of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
Ver. 10. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven.] Or, Against the host of
heaven, so the Church militant is called. The saints are the world’s great luminaries,
yea, the only earthly angels, although wicked people count and call them the "filth
and offscouring of all things."
And of the stars.] Such as shone in the light of holy doctrine; [Revelation 1:10]
persecutors’ spite is specially against such. [Zechariah 13:7]
PULPIT, "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of
the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. The reading of the
LXX. is very different after the first clause, "And it was exalted to the stars of
heaven, and it was shattered to the earth by thestars, and by them trampled down."
The verb ‫ל‬ ֵ‫סּ‬ ַ‫תּ‬ (tappayl) translated "cast down," has been read as if it had been ‫ל‬ַ‫פּ‬ֻ‫תּ‬
(tooppal). So too the last verb has evidently been read ‫סוּהוּ‬ ְ‫מ‬ ְ‫ַיר‬‫ו‬ (vāyyir'msoohoo)
instead of ‫ם‬ֵ‫ס‬ ְ‫מ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫ַתּ‬‫ו‬ (vattir'msaym), due to the resemblance which there was between
92

93. yod and tan in the older script. Theodotion differs hardly less from the Massoretic,
"And it was magnified to the power of heaven, and it fell to the earth from the
power of heaven and from the stars, and they trode them down." The verb
translated "fell" is evidently read with a vocalization different from both the
Massoretic and the LXX The sense of Theodotion is more in accordance with the
Septuagint than with the Massoretic. The Peshitta and the Vulgate agree with the
Massoretic. The question of which reading is to be preferred can scarcely be settled
without regarding the meaning of the terms here used. The crucial point is—What is
the meaning of the "host of heaven"? The general consensus of interpreters is that
this refers to Israel. Some maintain that the best of heaven is Israel, and the stars
their leaders (Glassins); the stars are the Levites (Grotius). Moses Stuart would hold
the host to be the priests, and the stars the teachers. Kliefoth is right in commencing
first with the picture, and requiring that it be realized in thought. The horn grows
and grows before Daniel's gaze, until it seems to touch the stars, that is, the host of
heaven. As to what is meant by the stars, we must look elsewhere for an explanation.
Have we any right to take "the host of heaven" as meaning the people of God? The
phrase, "host of heaven," occurs elsewhere in Scripture nearly a score of times, and
it rover means anything else than the stars or the angels. Therefore all
interpretations that make this mean either the people of God or the Levites, must be
thrown aside. It may, however, mean the people of God mediately. A quite elaborate
line of deduction has been brought forward—the promise to Abraham (Genesis
15:5), to Isaac (Genesis 26:4), that their seed should be as the stars of heaven, is
brought into connection with the use of the word "hosts" in regard to Israel
(Numbers 1:52, etc.)—and the title given to God as the God of Israel, "Jehovah of
hosts." This is very ingenious, but it has no support from scriptural usage or from
the usage in apocalyptic writings. In the Book of Enoch, which, since it is modelled
on this book, furnishes us with the earliest commentary on it, we find the stars are
invariably the symbol of the angels. When we pass to the Book of Revelation, we
find the same thing. We find when we pass on to the tenth chapter of this book, that
all the nations are regarded as under the rule of some special angel We must apply,
so far as we can, rules of interpretation which the author himself supplies us with.
Using this guide, we see next that, when a nation was defeated and oppressed, its
angel or star was regarded as thrown to the earth and trodden underfoot. The
treatment Epiphanes meted out to Egypt and Palestine seems specially referred to.
If we take the reading of the LXX; then the reference will be to the humiliation
Epiphanes received at the hands of the Romans first, and then the Jews, and lastly
the Elamites, whose temple he attempted to plunder.
11 It set itself up to be as great as the commander
93

94. of the army of the Lord; it took away the daily
sacrifice from the Lord, and his sanctuary was
thrown down.
BARNES, "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host -
Grotius, Ephraem the Syrian, and others, understand this of Onias the high priest, as the
chief officer of the holy people. Lengerke supposes that it means God himself. This
interpretation is the more probable; and the idea in the phrase “prince of the host” is,
that as God is the ruler of the host of heaven - leading on the constellations, and
marshalling the stars, so he may be regarded as the ruler of the holy army here below -
the ministers of religion, and his people. Against him as the Ruler and Leader of his
people Antiochus exalted himself, particularly by attempting to change his laws, and to
cause his worship to cease.
And by him - Margin, “from him.” The meaning is, that the command or authority to
do this proceeded from him.
The daily sacrifice was taken away - The sacrifice that was offered daily in the
temple, morning and evening, was suspended. A full account of this may be found in 1
Macc. 1:20-24, 29-32, 44-50. In the execution of the purposes of Antiochus, he “entered
the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick, and all the vessels
thereof; and the table of showbread, the pouring vessels, etc., and stripped the temple of
all the ornaments of gold.” After two years he again visited the city, and “smote it very
sore, and destroyed much people of Israel, and when he had taken the spoils of the city
he set it on fire, and pulled down the walls thereof on every side.” Everything in
Jerusalem was made desolate. Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts
were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honor into contempt.”
Subsequently, by a solemn edict, and by more decisive acts, he put a period to the
worship of God in the temple, and polluted and defiled every part of it. “For the king had
sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should
follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-
offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the sabbaths and festival days, and
pollute the sanctuary and holy people; set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and
sacrifice swine’s flesh, and unclean beasts; that they should also leave their children
uncir. cumcised, and make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and
profanation; to the end they might forget the laws, and change all the ordinances,” 1
Macc. 1:44-49.
It was undoubtedly to these acts of Antiochus that the passage before us refers, and
the event accords with the words of the prediction as clearly as if what is a prediction
had been written afterward, and had been designed to represent what actually occurred
as a matter of historical record. The word which is rendered “daily sacrifice” - the word
“sacrifice” being supplied by the translators - ‫תמיד‬ tâmı̂yd - means, properly,
continuance, prepetuity, and then what is continuous or constant - as a sacrifice or
service daily occurring. The word sacrifice is properly inserted here. - Gesenius, Lexicon
94

95. The meaning of the word rendered “was taken away” - ‫הרם‬ huram (Hophal from ‫רום‬
rûm - to exalt, to lift up) - here is, that it was lifted up, and then was taken away; that is, it
was made to cease - as if it had been carried away. - Gesenius.
And the place of his sanctuary - Of the sanctuary or holy place of the, “Prince of
the host,” that is, of God. The reference is to the temple.
Was cast down - The temple was not entirely destroyed by Antiochus, but it was
robbed and rifled, and its holy vessels were carried away. The walls indeed remained, but
it was desolate, and the whole service then was abandoned. See the passages quoted
above from 1 Macc.
CLARKE, "Even to the prince of the host - They seemed, in this case, to fight
against God himself.
The daily sacrifice was taken away - By the destruction of the city and temple;
and has never been restored from that day until now.
GILL, "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
95

96. imagine against us, thou knowest.'' (1 Maccabees 3:52)
JAMISON, "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, Exo_29:39).
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.
K&D, "Dan_8:11
This horn raised its might even to the Prince of the host. ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ַ‫,שׂ‬ 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. ‫ד‬ַ‫ע‬ ‫יל‬ ִ‫דּ‬ְ‫ג‬ ִ‫ה‬ (he
magnified himself to) is repeated in Dan_8:25 by ‫ל‬ַ‫ע‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ֲמ‬‫ע‬ַ‫י‬ (he shall stand up against).
Wherein this rising up against God consisted, the second half of the verse indicates in
the statement that the ‫יד‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫תּ‬ (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.” ‫יד‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫תּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ is
everything in the worship of God which is not used merely temporarily, but is
permanent, as the daily sacrifice, the setting forth of the shew-bread, and the like. The
limitation of it to the daily morning and evening service in the writings of the Rabbis is
unknown in the O.T. The word much rather comprehends all that is of permanent use in
the holy services of divine worship (Hgst., Häv., Hofm., Kran., Klief.). Thus interpreted,
the prophetic announcement corresponds with history; for, according to 1 Macc. 1:45,
Antiochus gave orders that they should “forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifice, and drink-
offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the Sabbath and festival days.”
The horn also overthrew the place of the sanctuary of Jehovah. ‫י‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ to cast away,
to cast forth, - used of buildings, to lay waste; cf. Jer_9:18. ‫ן‬ ‫כ‬ ָ‫,מ‬ properly, that which is
set up, erected; here, as frequently, of the dwelling-place of God, the temple: so also
ְ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ‫ן‬ ‫כ‬ ְ‫מ‬ (a settled place for thee to dwell in), Exo_15:17; 1Ki_8:13. It is used also of
the heavenly dwelling-place of God, 1Ki_8:39, 1Ki_8:43; here, of the temple of
96

97. 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.
CALVIN, "Daniel announces something still more atrocious here, namely, the
exaltation of the little horn against God. Some take “the prince of the army” for the
high priest, as princes are sometimes called ‫,כוהנים‬ kuhnim, as well as ‫,שרים‬serim;
but that is too forced. The true sense of the passage imputes such arrogance and
folly to Antiochus as to urge him to declare war with the stars of heaven, implying
not only his opposition to God’s Church, which is separate from the world, but also
his daring defiance of God himself and his resistance to his power. He not only
exercised his cruelty against the faithful, but profaned the temple itself, and
endeavored to extinguish all piety, and to abolish the worship of God throughout
Judea, as we shall explain more fully in other passages. As, therefore, Antiochus not
only raged against men, but used his utmost endeavors to overthrow religion, Daniel
relates how that horn was raised up even against the prince of the army God is
deservedly entitled to this appellation, because he defends his Church, and cherishes
it under his wings. This expression ought to be explained not only of God’s glory
and empire, but also of his paternal favor towards us, as he deigns to manifest his
care for us as if he were our Prince.
From him, says he, was the perpetual sacrifice utterly snatched away, and the place
of his sanctuary cast down These words are horrible in their import; God was thus
spoiled of his rights, since he had chosen but a single corner in the world for his
special worship. What heathen, then, would not despise this forbearance of God, in
permitting himself to be deprived of his legitimate honor by that sordid tyrant? As
we have already stated, Antiochus had neither greatness of mind nor warlike
courage, being skillful only in cunning and in the basest acts of flattery. Besides,
granting him to have comprised a hundred Alexanders in his own person, what can
be the Almighty’s design in allowing his temple to be polluted, and all true sacrifices
to cease throughout the world? One corner alone, as we have lately mentioned, was
left where God wished to be worshipped, and now Antiochus seizes upon the temple,
and profanes and defiles it with the utmost possible indignity, thus leaving no single
place sacred to the Almighty. For this reason I have asserted the prophecy to appear
very harsh. The Prophet now increases the indignity when he speaks of the
perpetual sacrifice For God had often borne witness to his temple being his
perpetual “rest,” or “station,” or “seat;” yet he is now ejected from this spot, as if
exiled from the earth entirely. The temple could not exist without sacrifices, for the
whole worship under the law was a kind of appendage to the temple. As God had
promised the sacrifice should be perpetual and eternal, who would not assert, when
Antiochus destroyed it, either all the promises to have been deceptive, or all
authority to have departed from God, who failed to defend his right against that
impious tyrant. Surely this must have been a distressing calamity, overwhelming all
the faithful! And when even at this moment we read the prophecy, all our senses are
horrified by its perusal. No wonder, then, that God forewarned his servant of such
sorrowful events, and such incredible evils, to admonish his whole Church in due
97

98. season, and to arm them against the severest temptations, which might otherwise
strike down even the most courageous. The sacrifice, then, says he, was snatched
away from God himself, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down or dissipated.
It afterwards follows: —
ELLICOTT. " (11) Prince of the host—i.e., Jehovah Himself. (Comp. Daniel 8:25,
Daniel 11:36.)
The daily—i.e., everything permanent in the worship of God, such as sacrifices, &c.
(See Note on Leviticus 6:13.) On this conduct of Antiochus see 1 Maccabees 1:39; 1
Maccabees 1:45, &c., 1 Maccabees 3:45.
Place of his sanctuary—i.e., the Temple. (Comp. 1 Kings 8:13.)
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and
by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast
down.
Ver. 11. Yea, he magnified himself.] He extolled or extended himself, such was his
insolence.
Even to (or against) the prince of the host.] Christ, the captain of his people’s
sufferings, and of their salvation. [Hebrews 2:10] He bare a hostile spirit against the
God of the Jews - such a hell hound hardly ever was born - casting him out of his
place, and setting up in his room Jupiter Olympus - that is, the devil; he defaced
also and burned up the books of the law, all he could light on. [1 Maccabees 1:54-59]
PETT, "Verse 11-12
‘Yes it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host, and it took away from him
what is done continually (religious worship including the offerings and sacrifices),
and the place of his sanctuary was cast down, and the host was given up together
with the continual (rites) because of transgression. And it cast down truth to the
ground, and it acted and prospered.’
This would seem to confirm that the ‘host of heaven’ is the people of God.
Antiochus, by his behaviour set himself against God and those who served Him.
For ‘the prince (sar) of the host’ compare Joshua 5:14, ‘as sar of the host of Yahweh
have I come’ where the thought is probably of the divine Angel of Yahweh (Judges
2:1). See also ‘the prince (sar) of princes’ in Daniel 8:25 in this chapter. ‘Yahweh of
Hosts’ was after all a regular name for God. In Isaiah 9:6 the coming king is called
‘the Prince (sar) of peace. But in Daniel 10:21 we have reference to ‘Michael your
sar’ and in Daniel 12:1 to ‘Michael -- the great sar who stands for the children of
98

99. your people’. However, neither are directly linked with God’s host.
So in the light of reference to the ‘taking away’ from him of what is ‘done
continually’ (the sabbaths and feasts, the offerings and sacrifices) and the reference
to ‘his’ sanctuary we must surely see this prince of the host as meaning God Himself
or the Angel of Yahweh. The ‘host of heaven’ is then certainly the true Israel.
By his religious restrictions, forbidding sacrifices and circumcision, banning the
sabbath, and the reading of the Scriptures, and by the desecration of God’s temple,
he basically took away from God what was His, and in the course of it cast down the
sanctuary (compare 1 Maccabees 1:44-47).
An alternative is to see the prince of the host as the true High Priest who had had
taken from him the privilege of partaking in the continual rites of worship, and had
also seen the sanctuary which was his responsibility, desecrated.
‘What is done continually’ (religious worship including the offerings and sacrifices).
This is literally ‘the continual.’ It probably includes all the continually repeated
aspects of Israelite worship; morning and evening sacrifice, other regular sacrifices,
the keeping of the sabbath, circumcision, the reading of Scripture, and so on
(compare again 1 Maccabees 1:44-47).
‘And the place of his sanctuary was cast down.’ ‘The place’ means that which has
been set up. It may refer mainly to the altar, which was replaced by Antiochus with
an altar for the worship of Zeus, or it may mean that the whole of the sanctuary
which had been set up for the worship of God was rendered useless for its purpose
because of the desecration. Notice that the stars (God’s true people?) were cast
down to the ground, literally ‘were made to fall’ (Daniel 8:10), the place of His
sanctuary was cast down (Daniel 8:11) and truth was cast down to the ground
(Daniel 8:12), a threefold casting down denoting completeness.
The ‘giving up’ up may mean given up by God because of the transgressions of His
people. Such humiliations of His people as this are usually traced to sin in Scripture,
and at this time there was much sin and apostasy in Israel due to the worst aspects
of Hellenisation. It will shortly be depicted as the latter part of the whole period of
God’s indignation against Israel. Alternately it may signify that Antiochus gave
them up, and the continual rites, to punishment, cessation and retribution because
they had transgressed against him.
‘Because of transgression.’ Compare Daniel 8:23, but see also Daniel 8:13.
‘And it cast down truth to the ground, and it acted and prospered.’ This is
expressing what has already been said in another way. As a result of his activities it
was truth that was the victim. It was rejected and tossed to the ground. People were
being turned from the way of truth by persecution. And in the face of it Antiochus
prospered. There was judgment waiting to happen.
99

100. PULPIT, "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the
daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. This is
said by Bevan to be the most difficult verse in this whole book. There is a difference
here between the Q'ri and the K'thib. The latter reads ‫,הרים‬ the hiphil of ‫,רום‬ while
the former reads ‫,הרם‬ the hophal of the same verb At first sight the difficulty is not
lessened by consideration of the versions. The Septuagint as it at present stands is
utterly unintelligible, "Until the leader of the host shall save the captivity, and by
him everlasting mountains were broken down, and their place and sacrifice taken
away, and he placed it in the very ground, and he prospered [reading with Syriac]
and was, and the holy place shall be laid waste." This confusion is due to confluence
of readings, and is not difficult to disentangle with the help of the Massoretic text.
Up to the last two words the Septuagint is a translation of a text differing from the
Massoretic simply by intelligible variations and repetitions not uncommon in the
Septuagint. The first clause of the LXX . originally was probably, "Till the prince
shall deliver the captivity," reading ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ (shebee) instead of ‫א‬ָ‫ב‬ַ‫צ‬ (tzaba)—a scribe,
finding ‫צבא‬ in his Hebrew, then added the translation of it to the margin of his
Greek copy, from which it got into the text. The original of the LXX. had also ‫יּל‬ ִּ‫ח‬ַ‫י‬
(yatztzeel) instead of ‫יל‬ ִ‫ד‬ְ‫ג‬ ִ‫ה‬ ‛hig'deel)—a confusion easily made in the elder script, in
which ‫י‬ and ‫ה‬were like. We learn from the Talmud that ‫ג‬was liable to be mistaken
by scribes for . ‫צ‬ Moreover, "captivity" would naturally suggest ‫,נצל‬ "to deliver."
The second clause is, "By him the everlasting mountains were broken down." Here
hayreem has been read with the K'thib, and vocalized as if it were hareem, and
tameed, "continual," translated as equivalent to ‫עולם‬ (‛olam), "everlasting." The
next clause reveals the other meaning of tameed, "sacrifice," which probably had
been written on the margin, and then dropped into the text. The latter part of the
Septuagint verse appears to be confused with the latter part of the following verse
according to the Massoretes. Theodotion is even less intelligible than the Septuagint,
"Until the leader of the host shall save the captivity, and through him the sacrifice
was broken down, and he prospered, and the holy place shall be made desolate." It
is to be noticed that the first clause here agrees with the LXX. It is possible that
"and he prospered" is a doublet, ‫ַח‬‫י‬ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫צ‬ ִ‫ה‬ being read for ‫ַד‬‫ל‬ ְ‫ֻשׁ‬‫ח‬ in some copy. The
Peshitta differs from beth the Greek versions, "Until it arrive to the chiefs of the
host, and by it was set up in perpetuity, and preparing he strengthened the
sanctuary," and while it is difficult to understand the origin of the variation in the
first clause, it is clear that in the second clause the translator must have read
hishleem for hooshlak. The one thing that seems clear is that the reading of the
K'thib is to be preferred. We should read hayreem, not hooram. Only the first of
these could be read "mountains." If we translate the words as they stand, we shall
certainly be removed out of the region of all the commentators. It is assumed that
"the little horn" is the subject of this sentence; but "horn" is feminine in Hebrew,
and the verbs here are in the masculine; this is against it being the nominative. The
"prince of the host," then, must be the nominative of the verbs and subject of the
sentence. The rendering of the first clause ought to be, then, "Until the prince of the
host magnify himself (1 Samuel 12:24), and by himself he shall offer the daily
100

101. sacrifice. And he shall cast down the foundation of his holy place," reading hishlayk
instead of hooshlak. We should feel strongly in. clined to transfer the first "and" to
hayreem, and, changing the punctuation, read, "Until the prince of the host shall
make himself greater than he"—viz, the tyrant represented by "the little
horn"—"and shall offer the daily sacrifice." If we might read hishleem with the
Peshitta instead of hooshlak, we get a satisfactory meaning to the last clause, in
which case we should render, "He shall complete the place of his sanctuary." We
would understand by "complete," "to perfectly purify." Taking the Massoretic text
thus with little modification, we have a description of the successes of Judas
Maccabseus, who was prince of the host, and as such became stronger than
Epiphanes, and then cleansed the temple, and offered the continual daily sacrifice.
We give, as a curiosity, the note of Saadiah Gaon: "The King of Ishmael was more
powerful than the kings of Rome who had Jerusalem, and he took Jerusalem from
them by force."
12 Because of rebellion, the Lord’s people[a] and
the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It
prospered in everything it did, and truth was
thrown to the ground.
BARNES, "
And a host was given him - The Vulgate renders this, “and strength - robur - was
given him, etc.” Theodotion, “and sin was permitted - ἐδόθη edothē - against the
sacrifice; and this righteousness was cast on the ground; so he acted and was
prospered.” Luther renders it, “and such might (or power, macht) was given him.” The
Syriac renders it, “and strength was given him, etc.” Bertholdt renders it, Statt jenes
stellte man den Greuel auf, “instead of this (the temple) there was set up an
abomination.” Dathe, “and the stars were delivered to him” - tradita ei fuerunt astra,
seu populus Judaicus. Maurer understands it also of the Jewish people, and interprets it,
“and an army - exercitus - the people of the Jews was delivered to destruction, at the
same time with the perpetual sacrifice, on account of wickedness, that is, for a wicked
thing, or for impure sacrifices.” Lengerke renders it, as in our translation, “an host - ein
101

102. Heer - was Wen up to him at the same time with the daily offering, on account of evil.”
The word “host” (‫צבא‬ tsâbâ') is doubtless to be taken here in the same sense as in Dan_
8:10, where it is connected with heaven - “the host of heaven.” If it refers there to the
Jewish people, it doubtless does here, and the appellation is such a one as would not
unnaturally be used. It is equivalent to saying “the army of the Lord,” or “the people of
the Lord,” and it should have been rendered here “and the host was given up to him;”
that is, the people of God, or the holy people were given into his hands.
Against the daily sacrifice - This does not convey any clear idea. Lengerke renders
it, sammt den bestandigen opfer - “at the same time with the permanent sacrifice.” He
remarks that the preposition ‫על‬ ‛al (rendered in our version against), like the Greek ἐπὶ
epi, may denote a connection with anything, or a being with a thing - Zusammenseyn - and
thus it would denote a union of time, or that the things occurred together, Gen_32:11
(12); Hos_10:14; Amo_3:15. Compare Gesenius (Lexicon) on the word ‫על‬ ‛al, 3.
According to this, the meaning is, that the “host,” or the Jewish people, were given to
him at the same time, or in connection with the daily sacrifice. The conquest over the
people, and the command respecting the daily sacrifice, were simultaneous. Both passed
into his hands, and he exercised jurisdiction over them both.
By reason of transgression - - ‫בפשׁע‬ be
ppâsha‛. That is, all this was on account of
the transgression of the people, or on account of abounding iniquity. God gave up the
people, and their temple, and their sacrifices, into the hands of Antiochus, on account of
the prevailing impiety. Compare 1 Macc. 1:11-16. The author of that book traces all these
calamities to the acts of certain wicked men, who obtained permission of Antiochus to
introduce pagan customs into Jerusalem, and who actually established many of those
customs there.
And it cast down the truth to the ground - The true system of religion, or the
true method of worshipping God - represented here as truth in the abstract. So in Isa_
59:14, it is said: “Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.” The meaning here
is, that the institutions of the true religion would be utterly prostrate. This was fully
accomplished by Antiochus. See 1 Macc. 1.
And it practiced - Hebrew. “it did,” or it acted. That is, it undertook a work, and was
successful. So in Psa_1:3, where the same expression occurs: “And whatsoever he doeth
shall prosper.” This was fully accomplished in Antiochus, who was entirely successful in
all his enterprises against Jerusalem. See 1 Macc. 1.
CLARKE, "And a host was given him - That is, power; or perhaps the host of
heaven - the priesthood - the whole sacrificial system, by reason of transgression. They
had filled up the measure of their iniquities, in rejecting the Lord that bought them; and
the daily sacrifice, being no longer of use, was given up with the rest to destruction.
Cast down the truth - Probably the whole Jewish ritual and religion.
Practiced, and prospered - Prosperity or success followed all their acts.
GILL, "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,
102

103. through his sin and wickedness, to hinder the oblation of the daily sacrifice, as Grotius:
others, of a host of apostates among the Jews, who advised Antiochus against the daily
sacrifice, and to kill swine, and offer them on the altar, as Jacchiades; or rather it may be
rendered, "and the host was given over", or "delivered", i.e. to the enemy, "because of the
transgression against the daily sacrifice" (e); that is, because of the transgression of the
priests or the people, in neglecting the daily sacrifice, the host or people of the Jews were
delivered up into the hands of Antiochus; or they were delivered up, together with the
daily sacrifice, for their sins (f). The word ‫צבא‬ is by Jarchi and Ben Melech interpreted a
set time, a fixed time which shall have an end; and Calvin inclines to this sense, that
though the daily sacrifice would be taken away, because of the transgression of the
people, yet it was only for a certain time, and would be restored again when that time
was up; and so is spoken for the comfort of the Lord's people:
and it cast down the truth to the ground: that is, the little horn Antiochus, or his
host and army; he did all that in him lay to extirpate and abolish true religion and
godliness; he cut in pieces the copies of the book of the law, and burnt them, called the
law of truth in Mal_2:6, as Jacchiades observes, and put to death the professors of the
truth; and showed all the contempt of true doctrine and worship he was capable of; see
the Apocrypha:
"57 And whosoever was found with any the book of the testament, or if any committed to
the law, the king's commandment was, that they should put him to death. 58 Thus did
they by their authority unto the Israelites every month, to as many as were found in the
cities. 59 Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol
altar, which was upon the altar of God. 60 At which time according to the
commandment they put to death certain women, that had caused their children to be
circumcised.'' (1 Maccabees 1)
and it practised, and prospered; he did what he pleased, and he succeeded in his
attempts for a while, there being none to oppose him.
JAMISON, "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.”
practiced, and prospered — Whatever he undertook succeeded (Dan_8:4; Dan_
11:28, Dan_11:36).
103

104. K&D, "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 ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ and ‫יד‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫תּ‬ 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, ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ is interpreted of
the statio militaris, and thence the interpretation tempus or intervallum is derived. For
‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ means neither robur, nor tempus, nor statio militaris, but only military service,
and perhaps military forces. Add to this that ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ 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 ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ 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 ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫,צ‬ and partly by the construction of the word as fem. (‫ן‬ ֵ‫ָת‬‫נּ‬ ִ‫.)תּ‬
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 ‫ל‬ (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 ‫ן‬ ַ‫ָת‬‫נ‬ means to lead out, to bring forward, to give contrary to or against.
CALVIN, "The Prophet mitigates the asperity which he now records. It seems
absurd for God to allow such license to Antiochus, that his temple should be spoiled
and all sacrifices and all worship exterminated. It is difficult to reconcile this, for
the opinion will naturally creep in, — possibly God is constrained and deprived of
power to subdue his foes. The, Prophet therefore clearly states here how the license
for vexing and oppressing’ the Church would never have been granted to Antiochus
without God’s permission. Time, therefore, shall be given him, says he. By the
words, time shall be given. he refers to the will of God, meaning, the pious shall have
no cause for desponding while they see all things disturbed and confused in every
direction, as God will rule all these perplexities by his secret judgment. Time, then,
shall be given, implying, Antiochus can do nothing by his unbridled and furious
audacity, unless divinely permitted and previously limited. ‫צבא‬ tzeba, signifies both
“army” and “time,” but the latter meaning is the most suitable here; for when it is
translated “an army shall be given him,” the sense appears forced. I more willingly
embrace the sense of time being allowed; that is, God will try the patience of his
104

105. Church for a certain definite time, and will then bring their troubles to an end. We,
know it to be impossible to sustain the spirits of the faithful, otherwise that by their
expectation of a favorable termination, and by the hope of their emerging from the
abyss of sorrow. This, then, is the reason why God shews his Prophet by a vision the
temporary duration of the sway of Antiochus. A period, then, shall be appointed to
him over the perpetual sacrifice; meaning, whatever he may intend, he shall not
abolish the worship of God. For, however he may exert himself, God will not permit
the sacrifices to perish utterly and forever; he will restore them in his own time, as
we shall afterwards see, and when we come to the close, we shall find the context
flowing on in accordance with this meaning — a time shall be given him over the
continual sacrifice.
He afterwards adds ‫,בפשע‬ beph-sheng, “in wickedness,” or “in sin.” I prefer the
simple translation “in sin” to “by sin,” although different senses are elicited
according to the different views of interpreters. It is better to leave it to every one’s
free choice, and thus simply to translate “in wickedness” or “sin.” Some refer it to
Antiochus, because he wickedly polluted God’s temple, and abolished the sacrifices.
This sense is probable, but I will add others, and then say which of them I like best.
Some understand “in sin” of the priests, because, through the perfidy of Jason,
Antiochus entered the city, spoiled the temple, and introduced those abominations
which exterminated all piety and divine worship. (2 Maccabees 4:7.) As Jason
desired to snatch the priesthood from his brother Onias, he opened the gates to
Antiochus; then a great slaughter followed, in which all the adherents of Onias were
cruelly slain. Afterwards Menelaus expelled Jason again by similar perfidy. Some
translate “by means of wickedness,” as these priests induced Antiochus to exercise
cruelty in the holy city, and to violate the temple itself. Others approach nearer the
real sense, by supposing the sacrifices to have ceased through wickedness, because
they were adulterated by the priests. But this appears to me too restricted. In my
judgment, I rather hold towards the view of those who take “wickedness” as a cause
arid origin, thereby teaching the Jews how justly they were punished for their sins. I
have already explained how properly the vision was limited as to time, and
controlled by God’s permission and secret counsel. The cause is here expressed; for
it might still be objected, “How happens it that God submits himself and his sacred
name to the ridicule of the impious, and even deserts his own people? What does he
intend by this?” The Prophet, therefore, assigns this cause — the Jews must feel the
profanation of the temple, the sad devastation. of the whole city and their horrible
slaughter, to be the reward due to their sins. A time, therefore, shall be assigned
over the perpetual sacrifice in sin; that is, on account of sin. We here see how God
on the one hand moderates the weight of the evils which pressed upon the Jews, and
shews them some kindness, lest sorrow, anxiety, and despair should consume the
wretched people; on the other hand, he humbles them and admonishes them to
confess their sins, and then he urges them to apply their minds to repentance, by
stating their own sins to be the cause of their afflictions. He thus shews how the
source of all their evils was in the Jews themselves, while God’s anger was provoked
by their vices. It is necessary to stop here till tomorrow.
105

106. ELLLICOTT, " (12) An host . . .—The host is apparently the same as that which is
mentioned in Daniel 8:10, and means some of the Jewish people. It is known that
some of them lapsed under the persecutions of Antiochus, and joined in his
idolatrous rites. These apostates were given into his hand, and on account of their
apostasy the daily sacrifice also was taken away. (Comp. Daniel 8:13.)
The truth—i.e., the word of God, as appears from 1 Maccabees 1:43-52; 1
Maccabees 1:56; 1 Maccabees 1:60.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:12 And an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by
reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised,
and prospered.
Ver. 12. And an host was given him.] Or, The host was given over, for the
transgression against the daily sacrifice. The Jews were grown to a great height of
profaneness, even in Malachi’s days, as is to be seen Malachi 1:1-14; Malachi
2:1-17; Malachi 3:1-15, and by this time, doubtless, they were become much worse;
God therefore, for punishment, turned this tiger loose upon them.
And it cast down the truth to the ground.] The doctrine of truth, together with the
professors thereof. The like whereunto is still done by the Romish antichrist, to
whom some apply all this part of the chapter as the proper and genuine sense of the
text. See the visions and prophecies of Daniel expounded by Mr Thomas Parker of
Newbery, in New England, pp. 43, 44, &c.
And it practised, and prospered.] Wicked practices against religion may prosper for
the time. [Acts 12:1-3] It was therefore no good argument that the Earl of Derby
used to George Marsh, martyr, telling him that the Dukes of Northumberland and
of Suffolk, and other of the new persuasion, had ill luck, and were either put to
death, or in danger so to be. And again, he rehearsed unto him the good hap of the
queen’s highness, and of those that held with her, and said that the Duke of
Northumberland confessed so plainly. (a)
PULPIT, "And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of
transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and
prospered. The renderings of the LXX. and Theodotion are closely related, and both
differ from the Massoretic text. The first is, "And the sins were upon the sacrifice,
and righteousness was fallen to the earth, and he (or, it) did, and prospered."
Theodotion renders, "And sin was placed (given) upon the sacrifice, and
righteousness is fallen to the earth, and he (it) did and prospered." The Peshitta is
nearer the Massoretic text, but better in accordance with the Authorized Version,
"A host was given against the perpetuity, in transgression the holy place was thrown
to the ground, and he did and prospered." From the fact that ‫א‬ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ (tzaba) is omitted
106

107. from the two Greek versions, we venture to omit it also; it has probably been
inserted from the verse above. Both versions also omit the preposition before"
transgression;" we omit it also. We would thus render, "And transgression was
upon the sacrifice, and," reading ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫,תּ‬ "truth was cast to the ground, and it did and
prospered." After Judas Maccabaeus had cleansed the temple and offered sacrifices,
sin mingled with it. We know that the stricter Hasidim, objected to the foreign
alliances into which the Maccabees were inclined to enter; the battle of Beth-
zecharias was largely lost by the abstention of the stricter party. After that, Lysias,
representing really the same movement as Epiphanes, advanced to the capture of
Bethshur. Thus it might be said of the little horn, that "it did and prospered." Were
it not that there is no authority for it in the versions, we should read ‫ם‬ִ‫ל‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫תּ‬ instead of
ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫.תּ‬ In that ease we should render, "And transgression was upon the sacrifice"—
regarding this sacrifice as the atonement for the transgression (Le 16:21)—"and
truth shall make peace in the land, and do and prosper."
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another
holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the
vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the
daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes
desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the
trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?”
BARNES, "Then I heard one saint speaking - One holy one. The vision was now
ended, and the prophet represents himself now as hearing earnest inquiries as to the
length of time during which this desolation was to continue. This conversation, or these
inquiries, he represents himself as hearing among those whom he calls “saints” - or holy
ones - ‫קדשׁ‬ qâdôsh. This word might refer to a saint on earth, or to an angel - to any holy
being. As one of these, however, was able to explain the vision, and to tell how long the
desolation was to continue, it is more natural to refer it to angels. So Lengerke
understands it. The representation is, that one holy one, or angel, was heard by Daniel
107

108. speaking on this subject, but nothing is recorded of what he said. It is implied only that
he was conversing about the desolations that were to come upon the holy city and the
people of God. To him thus speaking, and who is introduced as having power to explain
it, another holy one approaches, and asks how long this state of things was to continue.
The answer to this question Dan_8:14 is made, not to the one who made the inquiry, but
to Daniel, evidently that it might be recorded. Daniel does not say where this vision
occurred - whether in heaven or on earth. It was so near to him, however, that he could
hear what was said.
And another saint - Another holy one - probably an angel. If so, we may conclude,
what is in itself every way probable, that one angel has more knowledge than another, or
that things are communicated to some which are not to others.
Unto that certain saint which spake - Margin, Palmoni, or, the numberer of
secrets, or, the wondeful numberer. The Hebrew word, ‫פלמוני‬ pale
mônı̂y, occurs
nowhere else in the Scriptures. The similar form, ‫פלני‬ pe
lonı̂y, occurs in Rth_4:1, “Ho,
such a one, turn aside;” in 1Sa_21:2, “appointed my servants to such and such a place;”
and 2Ki_6:8, “In such and such a place.” The Italic words denote the corresponding
Hebrew word. The word, according to Gesenius, means some one, a certain one; in
Arabic, one who is distinct or definite, whom one points out as with the finger, and not
by name. It is derived from an obsolete noun, ‫פלון‬ pâlôn, from the verb ‫פלה‬ pâlâh, to
distinguish, and is united commonly with the word ‫אלמני‬ 'ale
monı̂y - meaning, properly,
one concealed or unknown. It is language, therefore, which would be properly addressed
to an unknown person with whom we would desire to speak, or whom we would
designate by the finger, or in some such way, without being able to call the name. Thus
applied in the passage here, it means that Daniel did not know the names of the persons
thus speaking, but simply saw that one was speaking to another. He had no other way of
designating or distinguishing them than by applying a term which was commonly used
of a stranger when one wished to address him, or to point him out, or to call him to him.
There is no foundation in the word for the meaning suggested in the margin. Theodotion
does not attempt to translate the word, but retains it - φελμουνὶ phelmouni - Phelmouni.
The Latin Vulgate well expresses the meaning, dixit unus sanctus alteri nescio loquenti.
The full sense is undoubtedly conveyed by the two ideas,
(a) that the one referred to was unknown by name, and
(b) that he wished to designate him in some way, or to point him out.
How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice? - How long is
what is designed to be represented by the vision to continue; that is, how long in fact will
the offering of the daily sacrifice in the temple be suspended?
And the transgression of desolation - Margin, making desolate. That is, the act
of iniquity on the part of Antiochus producing such desolation in the holy city and the
temple - show long is that to continue?
To give both the sanctuary - The temple; the holy place where God dwelt by a
visible symbol, and where he was worshipped.
And the host - The people of God - the Jewish people.
To be trodden under foot - To be utterly despised and prostrated - as anything
which is trodden under our feet.
108

109. CLARKE, "One saint speaking, and another saint said - One angel asked
another how long the sanctuary was to be trodden down?
GILL, "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?
HENRY 13, "(1.) The question asked concerning it, Dan_8:13. Observe [1.] By whom
the question was put: I heard one saint speaking to this purport, and then another saint
seconded him. “O that we knew how long this trouble will last!” The angels here are
called saints, for they are holy ones (Dan_4:13), the holy myriads, Jud_1:14. The angels
concern themselves in the affairs of the church, and enquire concerning them, if, as here,
concerning its temporal salvations, much more do they desire to look into the great
salvation, 1Pe_1:12. One saint spoke of the thing, and another enquired concerning it.
Thus John, who lay in Christ's bosom, was beckoned to by Peter to ask Christ a question,
Joh_13:23, Joh_13:24. [2.] To whom the question was put. He said unto Palmoni that
spoke. Some make this certain saint to be a superior angel who understood more than
the rest, to whom therefore they came with their enquiries. Others make it to be the
eternal Word, the Son of God. He is the unknown One. Palmoni seems to be
compounded of Peloni Almoni, which is used (Rth_4:1) for Ho, such a one, and (2Ki_
6:8) for such a place. Christ was yet the nameless One. Wherefore asked thou after my
name, seeing it is secret? Jdg_13:18. He is the numberer of secrets (as some translate
it), for from him there is nothing hidden - the wonderful numberer, so others; his name
is called Wonderful. Note, If we would know the mind of God, we must apply to Jesus
Christ, who lay in the bosom of the Father, and in whom are hidden all the treasures of
109

110. 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.
JAMISON, "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.
K&D, "In Dan_8:13 ‫ת‬ ֵ‫תּ‬ (to give) is more closely defined by ‫ס‬ ָ‫מ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫מ‬ (something
trodden under foot); but in these passages in Ezekiel above referred to, it [the verb ‫ן‬ ַ‫ָת‬‫נ‬]
is connected with an actual object. Construed with the accus. pers. and ‫ל‬ַ‫,ע‬ ‫ן‬ ַ‫ָת‬‫נ‬ 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. ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫,צ‬ 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 ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ֹד‬‫ק‬, 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 ‫ם‬ָ‫,ע‬ people, fem., Exo_5:16; 1Ki_18:7; Jer_8:5; ‫ן‬ ‫מ‬ ָ‫,ה‬ a multitude, Job_
31:34; ‫ע‬ ַ‫ֶר‬‫ז‬, seed, i.e., descendants, Deu_31:21; cf. Ewald's Lehr. §174. But the want of
110

111. the article in ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ 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 ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ (of the host) to the earth. If, therefore,
there is no sufficient ground for rejecting the application of the ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ 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 ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ 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,
‫ן‬ ֵ‫ָת‬‫נּ‬ ִ‫תּ‬ can have in this passage only the meaning of to be given up. ‫יד‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫תּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ל‬ַ‫ע‬ can then
only be translated because of the permanent sacrifice, if ‫ע‬ַ‫שׁ‬ֶ‫פ‬ ְ‫בּ‬ (by reason of
transgression) is united as object with ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ָת‬‫נּ‬ ִ‫תּ‬ in the sense: “was delivered up in
transgression.” But apart from this, that ‫ן‬ ַ‫ָת‬‫נ‬ in the sense of to give up is construed with
‫ַד‬‫י‬ ְ‫,בּ‬ and there are wanting certain parallels for its construction with ְ‫ב‬ merely, this
interpretation, “the host (= Israel) is given up in wickedness on account of the continual
sacrifice,” presents an idea not to be tolerated. We agree, therefore, in general with the
interpretation of Daniel B. Michaelis, Hävernick, v. Lengerke, Maurer, Kranichfeld, and
Kliefoth, and explain the words thus: “and (an) host shall be given up together with the
daily sacrifice, because of transgression.” ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫,צ‬ an host, i.e., a great company of the host,
the people of Israel. ְ‫ב‬ before ‫ע‬ַ‫שׁ‬ֶ‫פּ‬ (transgression) in the meaning of ְ‫ב‬ pretii, on account
of (um), or because of, cf. Gen_18:28. ‫ע‬ַ‫שׁ‬ֶ‫פּ‬ is the apostasy of the Israelites from God, the
wickedness proceeding from the ‫ים‬ ִ‫ע‬ ְ‫ֹשׁ‬‫פּ‬ (transgressors), Dan_8:23. The objection that
this interpretation is not appropriate, because ‫ע‬ַ‫שׁ‬ֶ‫פּ‬ is repeated in Dan_8:13 in union
with ‫ם‬ ֵ‫מ‬ֹ‫שׁ‬ (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 ‫יד‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫תּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ is not the subject of
the sentence, but is only co-ordinated to the subject. If ְ‫ב‬ in ‫ע‬ַ‫שׁ‬ֶ‫פ‬ ְ‫בּ‬ is regarded as the ְ‫ב‬
pretii, then ‫פשׁע‬ can only be that which would be put in the place of the ‫א‬ ָ‫ב‬ָ‫.צ‬ The
preposition ‫ל‬ַ‫ע‬ before ‫יד‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫תּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ means thereon, after that, also at the same time, or
together with, as in Amo_3:15; Hos_10:14, etc. ‫יד‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫,תּ‬ as in Dan_8:11, is not merely the
daily sacrifice, but all that had continuance in the Mosaic worship. Finally, the jussive
forms ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ָת‬‫נּ‬ ִ‫תּ‬ and ֵ‫ל‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫תּ‬ 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 ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ק‬ (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
111

112. superior. Ergo oportuit etiam hoc praedici, ne quid novum vel inopinatum
constingeret fidelibus.” - Calvin.)
‫ת‬ ֶ‫ֱמ‬‫א‬, 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 ‫י‬ַ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ (to me), Dan_8:14, is not, according to the old versions, to be changed into
‫יו‬ָ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ (to him). What Hitzig says in justification of ‫יו‬ָ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ is of no weight; cf. Kran. The
angel that talked is designated by ‫י‬ִ‫נ‬ ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ַ‫,פּ‬ 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.?” ‫ן‬ ‫ז‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫ה‬ 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. ‫ם‬ ֵ‫מ‬ֹ‫שׁ‬ 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. ‫ם‬ ֵ‫מ‬ֹ‫שׁ‬
cannot be understood transitively, since ‫ם‬ ֵ‫מ‬ֹ‫שׁ‬ and ‫ם‬ ֵ‫מ‬ֹ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫מ‬ are placed over against each
other in Dan_9:27.
In the answer, ‫ד‬ַ‫ע‬ 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. ‫ק‬ ַ‫ד‬ָ‫צ‬ 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 ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ֹק‬‫בּ‬ ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ֶ‫ע‬ is doubtful. Among
recent interpreters, Berth., Häv., v. Leng., Maur., and Horm. (Weiss. u. Erf. p. 295)
understand by its days consisting of morning and evening (twenty-four hours); others,
as Bleek, Kirmss, Ewald, Hitzig, Wieseler (who, however, in his treatise, Die 70 Wochen,
u.s.w., p. 115ff., defends the first explanation), Kran., and Delitzsch, are of opinion that
evening-morning is particularly reckoned with reference to the offering of a morning and
an evening sacrifice each day, so that 2300 evening-mornings make only 1150 whole
days. But there is no exegetical foundation for this latter opinion. It is derived only from
a comparison, or rather an identification, of this passage with Dan_7:25; Dan_12:11.,
112

113. 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 ‫יד‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫תּ‬ (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 ‫יד‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫,תּ‬ but also of the delivering up of the saints and the people to be trodden under
foot, is fixed to 2300 evening-mornings. This oppression continued longer than the
removal of the appointed daily sacrifice. According to 1 Macc. 1:10ff., the violent assaults
of Antiochus against the temple and the Jews who remained faithful to the law began in
the 143rd year of the era of the Seleucidae, but the abomination that maketh desolate,
i.e., the idol-altar, was first erected on Jehovah's altar of burnt-offering, according to 1
Macc. 1:54, in the 145th year of the Seleucidae, and the purification of the temple from
this abomination, and its re-consecration, took place on the 25th day of Kisleu (9th
month) of the year of the Seleucidae 148. According to this, from the beginning of the
desecration of the temple by the plundering of its vessels and its golden ornaments (1
Macc. 1:20ff.) to its restoration to its right condition, more than five years passed. The
fulfilment, or the historical reference, of this prophecy accordingly affords, as is
sufficiently manifest, no proper means of ascertaining the import of the “evening-
morning.” This must rather be exegetically decided. It occurs only here, and corresponds
to νυχθήμερον, 2Co_11:25. But the choice of so unusual a measure of time, derived from
the two chief parts of the day, instead of the simple measure of time by days, probably
originates with reference to the morning and evening sacrifice, by which the day was to
be consecrated to the Lord, after Gen_1:5, Gen_1:8,Gen_1:13, etc., where the days of the
creation week are named and reckoned according to the succession of evening and
morning. This separation of the expression into evening and morning, so that to number
them separately and add them together would make 2300 evening-mornings = 1150
days, is shown to be inadmissible, both by the asyndeton evening-morning and the
usages of the Hebrew language. That in Dan_8:26 ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ֹק‬‫בּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ֶ‫ע‬ ָ‫ה‬ (the evening and the
morning) stands for it, does not prove that the evening ad morning are reckoned
separately, but only that evening-morning is a period of time consisting of evening and
morning. When the Hebrews wish to express separately day and night, the component
parts of a day of a week, then the number of both is expressed. They say, e.g., forty days
and forty nights (Gen_7:4, Gen_7:12; Exo_24:18; 1Ki_19:8), and three days and three
nights (Jon_2:1; Mat_12:40), but not eighty or six days-and-nights, when they wish to
speak of forty or three full days. A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the
period of time 2300 evening-mornings of 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because
evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day. Still less,
in the designation of time, “till 2300 evening-mornings,” could “evening-mornings” be
understood of the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as
meaning, that till 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices are discontinued.
We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e., understand them of 2300 whole days.
This exegetical resolution of the matter is not made doubtful by the remark, that an
113

114. 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, ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ֹד‬‫ק‬
‫ק‬ ַ‫דּ‬ ְ‫צ‬ִ‫נ‬ ְ‫ו‬ (“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 ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫דּ‬ ְ‫ק‬ ִ‫מ‬ for temple, while on the other hand ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ֹד‬‫ק‬ means all
that is holy. Was, then, the sanctuary, in this comprehensive meaning of the word,
placed in its right state with the consecration of the temple, when after this occurrence
“they that were in the tower (Acra) shut up the Israelites round about the sanctuary,”
sought to hinder access to the temple, and, when Judas Maccabaeus had begun to
besiege the tower, the Syrians approached with a reinforced army, besieged the
sanctuary for many days, and on their departure demolished its strongholds (1 Macc.
6:18ff., 51, 62)? - when, again, under Demetrius Soter of Bacchides, the high priest
Menelaus was deposed, and Alcimus, who was not descended from the family of a high
priest, was advanced to his place, who cruelly persecuted the pious in Israel? - when the
Syrian general Nicanor mocked the priests who showed to him the burnt-offering for the
king, and defiled and threatened to burn the temple (1 Macc. 7)? And did the trampling
upon Israel cease with the consecration of the temple, when at the building up of the
altar and the restoration of the temple the heathen around became so furious, that they
resolved to destroy all who were of the race of Jacob amongst them, and began to
murder them (1 Macc. 5:1ff.)? Hävernick therefore, with Bertholdt, places the terminus
ad quem of the 2300 days in the victory over Nicanor, by which the power of the Syrians
over Judea was first broken, and the land enjoyed rest, so that it was resolved to
celebrate annually this victory as well as the consecration of the temple (1 Macc.
114

115. 7:48-50), according to which the terminus a quo of the period named would be shortly
before the erection of the abomination of idolatry in the temple.
If we now, however, turn from this supposition, since the text speaks further of it, to
seek the end of the oppression in the restoration of the legal temple-worship, or in the
overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes, which the angel brings to view in the interpretation
of the vision (Dan_8:26), so also in these cases the 2300 days are to be calculated. C. v.
Leng., Maur., and Wiesel., who regard the death of Antiochus as the termination, place
the beginning of the 2300 days one year before the beginning of violence with which
Antiochus, after his return from the expedition into Egypt in the year 143 Sel., went forth
to destroy (1 Macc. 1:20) the Mosaic worship and law. Only a few weeks or months
earlier, in the middle of the year 142 Sel., the point of commencement must be placed, if
the consecration of the temple is held to be the termination. In the year 142 not only was
the pious high priest Onias removed from his office by the godless Jason, but also Jason
himself was forced from the place he had usurped by Menelaus, who gave Antiochus a
greater bribe than he did, and gave away as presents and sold to the heathen the golden
utensils of the temple, and commanded Onias, who denounced his wickedness, to be
deceitfully murdered (2 Macc. 2:4). Hence we need not, with Hofmann, regard the
deposition of Onias, the date of which cannot be accurately fixed, but which, 2 Macc.
4:7ff., is brought into connection with the commencement of the reign of Antiochus, and
which probably took place before the year 142, as the date of the commencement of the
2300 days, although the laying waste of the sanctuary may be dated from it; since Jason
by royal authority set up a heathen γυμνάσιον with an ἐφηβεῖον, and by the wickedness
of the profane and unpriestly conduct of this man Greek customs and the adoption of
heathenish manners so prevailed, that the priests ceased to concern themselves about
the service of the altar, but, despising the temple and forgetting the sacrifice, they
hastened to witness the spectacles in the palaestra, which were contrary to the law; cf. 2
Macc. 4:13ff. with 1 Macc. 1:11-15. The 2300 days are thus, as well as the 1150 days,
historically authenticated.
But it is on the whole questionable whether the number given by the angel is to be
reckoned as an historico-chronological period of time, or is not rather to be interpreted
as symbolical. The analogy of the other prophetic numbers speaks decidedly for the
symbolical interpretation. The 2300 cannot, it is true, be directly a symbolical number,
such as 7, 10, 40, 70, and other numbers are, but yet it can stand in such a relation to the
number seven as to receive a symbolical meaning. The longer periods of time are usually
reckoned not by days, but by weeks, months, or years; if, therefore, as to the question of
the duration of the 2300 days, we reduce the days to weeks, months, and years, we shall
find six years, three or four months, and some days, and discover that the oppression of
the people by the little horn was to continue not fully a period of seven years. But the
times of God's visitations, trials, and judgments are so often measured by the number
seven, that this number came to bear stamped on it this signification; see under Dan_
4:13; Dan_7:25. The number of seven years is used in the symbolical meaning when, not
to mention the cases in Gen_29:18, Gen_29:27; Gen_41:26., and Jdg_6:1, seven years'
famine were laid upon the land as a punishment for David's sin in numbering the people
(2Sa_24:13), and when in Elisha's time Israel was visited with seven years' famine (2Ki_
8:1). Thus the answer of the angel has this meaning: The time of the predicted
oppression of Israel, and of the desolation of the sanctuary by Antiochus, the little horn,
shall not reach the full duration of a period of divine judgment, shall not last so long as
the severe oppression of Israel by the Midianites, Jdg_6:1, or as the famine which fell
upon Israel in the time of Elisha, and shall not reach to a tenth part of the time of trial
115

116. 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.
CALVIN, "Here he expresses more clearly, what I formerly said, unfolding God’s
intention of consoling and soothing the sorrows of the pious lest they should sink
under the severity of their trials, at the sight of an impious tyrant domineering in
the sanctuary of God. Besides, the spot which God had promised should be his
perpetual dwelling-place, was exposed to impious superstitions, for the idol of
Jupiter Olympius was erected there, the history of the Maccabees informs us. (2
Maccabees 1:57; 2 Maccabees 6:2.) God therefore wished to uphold his servants, lest
too severe a temptation should overwhelm them, and lest trial in so many forms
should cause them to yield and become deficient in piety through want of courage.
But while Daniel is stupefied through astonishment, God provides for his infirmity
by means of an angel. Daniel himself, without doubt, inquired concerning the vision
as we shall see he did afterwards; but here God desired to meet him, as he saw the
holy man so overcome by fear as scarcely to dare to make any inquiry. God,
therefore, here affords no common proof of his paternal goodness and indulgence,
in interposing and sending his angel to make inquiries in the Prophet’s name. He
116

117. says, then, he heard a holy one, meaning an angel. For, although God deigns to call
the faithful while dwelling in the world by this honorable title, yet the superior
purity of angels is familiar to us, as they are altogether free from the lusts of the
flesh. But we, alas! are detained in this prison-house, we are bound down in slavery
to sin, and are polluted by much corruption. The holiness of angels, however, is far
greater than that of mortals, and thus this attribute of “holiness” is properly applied
to them. When Daniel was caught up by the prophetic spirit, he was separated from
the society of men, and was admitted to that of angels.
An angel then, said to the wonderful one The Hebrews often use this expression
when they mean “whoever it may be” — ploni almoni and apply it to places as well
as persons. They use it also of any place unknown to them or concealed from them.
They treat the noun as compounded of two words, and many interpret it of any one
unknown, but I think the word to be more emphatic than this. (62) Daniel here
brings forward an angel speaking, and adds dignity to his description by calling him
“holy.” Without doubt, then, the person of whom the angel asked the question was
his superior; it is not likely that he would be called “a certain one,” while the angel
is termed a holy one. Reason, then, requires the expression to be applied to some
angel whose glory was incomprehensible, or at least far superior to ordinary ones;
for, as Daniel calls one angel “holy,” so he would have called the rest, as we shall
afterwards see. When treating, however, of a distinct being, he uses the word ‫,פלמוני‬
palmoni, and its etymology guides us to its sense, as meaning something mysterious
and incomprehensible. Then, who does not see that Christ is denoted, who is the
chief of angels and far superior to them all? In the ninth chapter of Isaiah, (Isaiah
9:6,) he is called ‫פלא‬ pela, “wonderful.” The word in the text is a compound one, as
we have said, but as ‫פלא‬ pela, signifies “hidden” in Hebrew, as Christ is so called,
and as in Jude 3:1, God claims this name as peculiarly his own, all these points
agree well together. The sense then is, an angel comes to Christ for the sake of
Daniel and of the whole Church, and seeks from him as from the supreme teacher
and master, the meaning of the declarations which we have just heard. We need not
feel surprise at angels inquiring into eternity, as if it were unknown to them. It is the
property of Deity alone to know all things, while the knowledge of angels is
necessarily limited. Paul teaches us to wonder at the Church being collected out of
profane and strange people; this was a mystery hidden from angels themselves,
before God really showed himself the father of the whole world. (Ephesians 3:10.)
Hence, there is no absurdity in supposing angels to inquire into mysteries, as
ignorance is not necessarily deserving of blame, and as God has not raised his
creatures for his own level. It is his peculiar province to know all things, and to have
everything under his eye. The angel desires to understand this mystery, not so much
for his own sake as on account of the whole Church; for we know them to be our
ministers, according to the clear testimony of the Apostle. (Hebrews 1:14.) As they
keep watch over us so carefully, it does not surprise us to find the angel inquiring so
anxiously concerning this vision, and thus benefiting the whole Church by the hand
of Daniel.
Meanwhile, we must notice, how Christ is the chief of angels and also their
117

118. instructor, because he is the eternal Wisdom of God. Angels, therefore, must draw
all the light of their intelligence from that single fountain. Thus angels draw us to
Christ by their example, and induce us to devote ourselves to him through the
persuasion that this is the supreme and only wisdom. If we are his disciples, being
obedient, humble, and teachable, we shall desire to know only what he will make
manifest to us. But the angel asks. What is the meaning of the vision of the perpetual
sacrifice, and of the sin? that is, what, is the object of the vision concerning the
abrogation of the perpetual sacrifice, and concerning the sin which lays waste? As to
the second point, we explained yesterday the various opinions of interpreters, some
twisting it to Antiochus, who impiously dared to violate God’s temple, and others to
the priests. But we said the people were intended, lest many, as they are accustomed,
should blame the Almighty for so heavily afflicting the Church. But God wished to
bear witness to the origin of this devastation from the sins of the people. It is just as
if the angel had said, How long will the sacrifices cease? How long will this
vengeance, by which God will chastise the wickedness of his people, endure? For the
sin is called devastating, through being the cause of that calamity. It is afterwards
added, how long will the sanctuary and the army be trodden, down? that is, how
long will the worship of God, and true piety, and the people itself, be trodden down
under this cruel tyranny of Antiochus? But this question has far more efficacy, than
if the Prophet had said, as we saw yesterday, that the punishment should be uniform
and temporal. It was now necessary to explain what had already been stated more
clearly. Thus this question was interposed with the view of rendering Daniel more
attentive, and of stirring up the people by this narrative to the pursuit of learning.
For it is no common event when angels approach Christ for our sakes, and inquire
into the events which concern the state and safety of the Church. As, therefore,
angels discharge this duty, we must be worse than stony, if we are not urged to
eagerness and carefulness in the pursuit of divine knowledge. We see, then, why this
passage concerning the angel is interposed.
COKE, "Daniel 8:13. How long shall be the vision concerning, &c.— There is no
word for concerning in this verse, which may be rendered more properly, For how
long time shall the vision last, the daily sacrifice be taken away, and the
transgression of desolation continue? After the same manner the question is
translated in the LXX, Arabic, and Vulgate. See Bishop Newton.
ELLICOTT, " (13) One saint—i.e., an angel, who, however, has not been mentioned
before. This part of the vision recalls Daniel 7:16. It is implied that the angels were
conversing upon the subject of this awful revelation concerning the future of God’s
people. Only a portion of what they said is here recorded.
The vision.—The inquiry means, “How long shall be the duration of the object of
this vision, so far as it has to do with the great apostasy?”
Transgression of desolation.—Comp. Daniel 9:27. Probably these words mean the
118

119. same as the “abomination that maketh desolate” (Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11; see 1
Maccabees 1:59).
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto
that certain [saint] which spake, How long [shall be] the vision [concerning] the
daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and
the host to be trodden under foot?
Ver. 13. And I heard one saint speaking,] i.e., One holy angel; for they are solicitous
of God’s glory, and sensitive to the saints’ sufferings, whereof they would have a
speedy end. And should not we be so too, weeping with those that weep, and
rejoicing with those that rejoice?
And another saint said unto that certain saint which spake.] Anonymo illi qui
loquebatur, so Piscator rendereth it; others, To the wonderful numberer who
spake - i.e., who commanded Gabriel to declare the vision to Daniel. [Daniel 8:16]
This was Jesus Christ, the Wisdom and Word of God. He who knoweth all the
secrets of his Father as perfectly as if they were numbered before him.
How long shall be the vision.] It appeareth, then, that angels know not all secrets,
but that their knowledge is limited; they know not so much, but they would know
more. [Ephesians 3:10 1 Peter 1:12]
Concerning the daily sacrifice.] The loss whereof was a just matter of lamentation to
godly minds. See Zephaniah 3:18.
And the transgression of desolation.] Transgression is a land desolating evil.
[Lamentations 1:9]
And the host to be trodden under foot,] i.e., The professors of the truth were
overturned; some by persuasion, others by persecution.
PETT, " ‘Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that
certain one who spoke, “How long will be the vision about the continual things
(worship rites) and the transgression that appals (or makes desolate), to give both
the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot?” And he said to me, “To two
thousand three hundred mornings and evenings. Then will the sanctuary be
cleansed (made righteous).” ’
Here we have a conversation between two holy ones, or angels, in which the question
is put as to how long the devastating things that are to happen will last.
We could paraphrase it as ‘how long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled, during
which the continual rites will cease, and the transgression that appals takes place,
119

120. and from the time when the sanctuary and God’s people are trodden under foot, to
the date when the sanctuary is finally made righteous (justified)?’
The main ideas to be considered are:
1) The cessation of the continual rites of true worship. This represented the decrees
by which true worship was forbidden, including the observance of the Sabbath, the
offering of the morning and evening sacrifices, and the carrying out of the other
regular ritual observances.
2) The transgression that appals. This could have been the active participation in
worship of a high priest who was not of the recognised priestly line, the stealing of
the temple vessels by that high priest, the murder of the true high priest by
instigation of that high priest, or the final sacrilege of offering a pig on the altar. All
these could be seen as transgressions that ‘appalled’. Compare Ezra 9:4 where he
too was appalled. at the holy seed mixing in marriage with the inhabitants of the
land, and Jeremiah 2:12 where God calls on the heavens to be appalled at the
idolatry of God’s people.
3) The treading under foot of the sanctuary and God’s people. This occurred the
moment that Menelaus was appointed and took up office. The sanctity of the
sanctuary and the concerns of the people were both trodden under foot. And this
then continued in what followed.
4) The date when the temple is finally ‘made righteous’. This may have been the
time when the temple was purified, or it may have been seen as only accomplished
when the defiler had died. It may thus refer to the date of Antiochus’ death.
The reply to the question is then, for two thousand three hundred mornings and
evenings, after which the sanctuary will be ‘made righteous’.
The ‘desolation’ or ‘astonishment’ may refer to the time when the High Priest
Menelaus was appointed who was not of the priestly line, thus defiling the
sanctuary, the time when he stole the sacred temple vessels for his own use, taking
them out of the sanctuary, the time when he slew the true high priest who was
sacred before God, or to the time when the daily sacrifices ceased, all being
transgressions which astonished and desolated the true Israel. The transgression
may have been that of Antiochus, or that of the high priest, or that of the leadership
of Israel who allowed it, or all three.
The ‘two thousand three hundred mornings and evenings’ presents a difficulty of
interpretation. Does this mean two thousand three hundred days, (compare the
regular use of mornings and evenings in Genesis 1), or does it mean one thousand
one hundred and fifty evening sacrifices and one thousand one hundred and fifty
morning sacrifices which have been omitted because of the persecution? The latter
may well be an accurate indication of the length of time that the sacrifices ceased.
120

121. And if it means two thousand three hundred days is it then the equivalent of ‘a time,
times (e.g. five times) and half a time’ (Daniel 7:25) where it signified a period that
came to more than six but less than seven times, thought of here in terms of years?
Seven years would be, say, two thousand five hundred and twenty days, Thus two
thousand three hundred could be a round number indicating not reaching the
perfect seven years because God prevented it, expressed here in days so as to suggest
that every day of that dreadful time was counted by God.
One thing we can be sure of is that it does not mean two thousand three hundred
years. It does not say ‘days’ it says evenings and mornings. Besides it is very
questionable whether we have a right to see days as representing years anywhere
except when it is made perfectly clear in the context. The prophets cannot be so
straitjacketed or presumed upon.
If we take the two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings as representing
the number of evening and morning sacrifices, thus one thousand one hundred and
fifty days, we can obtain this by adding the 1,080 days (360 + 360 + 360) between the
sacrificing of a pig on the altar and the purifying of the temple, plus an extra ten as
the finalising of the building of the pagan altar was early December and the
cessation late December (the former the 15th the latter the 25th of Chislev) making
1,090 days, and adding two round months because the actual sacrifices ceased prior
to the altar being set up, thus making 1,150 days. Alternately the two months may
be to take into account work done in preparation for the final desecration, once the
sacrifices had been forbidden (1 Maccabees 1:45). Either way we can reach the
1,150 days referred to in this chapter as ‘2,300 evenings mornings’ (i.e. morning and
evening sacrifices).
If we consider the meaning to be two thousand three hundred days, however, the
period being over six years, but falling short of seven, compare ‘a time, times and
half a time’, it may be from 171 BC, when Menelaus the High Priest appointed by
Antiochus, who was not of the recognised priestly line, profaned the sanctuary itself
by acting as High Priest, or from the time when he stole and profaned the temple
vessels, or from 170 BC when he killed Onias III, the High Priest recognised by the
people and by God (Daniel 11:22), (any of these might be ‘the transgression that
appals’) to 164 BC, the death of Antiochus, a date chosen on the grounds that only
the death of the defiler could finally ‘make righteous’ the holy sanctuary and ‘atone’
for the blasphemy.
One thing we can be sure of is that it refers to a period during the reign of
Antiochus during which he caused the sabbaths and the sacrifices to cease,
desecrated the temple and persecuted Israel severely.
PULPIT, "Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain
saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and
121

122. the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden
under foot? Our Authorized rendering is clearly mistaken; it ought not to be
"saint," but "holy one," as in the Revised Version. The versions leave palmoni, "a
certain one," untranslated. Fust's suggestion, held also by Behrmann, is that this is a
contraction for paloni almoni. The renderings of the versions are worthy of note.
The LXX; "And I heard one holy one speaking, and another holy one said to
Phehnouni who spoke, How long shall the vision stand, and the removed sacrifice,
and the sin of desolation given, and the holy place be desolate to be trodden
underfoot ( ‫ו‬̓‫י‬‫ךבפבנ‬ ‫ע‬́‫ב‬‫פחלב‬ )?" Here the word ‫ףפ‬́‫ח‬‫ףופבי‬ , "shall stand," is supposed by
Professor Bevan to be an addition by one who did not fully comprehend the
sentence. Following Gratz, Professor Bevan suggests a word, ‫ם‬ ָ‫מוּר‬ (mooram),
"removed," to explain the presence of ̔‫ח‬ á̓ ñèåé͂ óá—a suggestion that appears well-
founded. His further suggestion, that sin ( ‫ם‬ ִ‫שׂ‬ ), "to set up," has been read instead of
shomaym ( ‫ם‬ ֵ‫מ‬ֹ‫שׁ‬ ), must be due to inattention to the Greek. In it there is nothing
about "set up," unless he transfers óôḉóåôáé from its place in the beginning of the
sentence to the middle, and changes it to the active voice. Equally extraordinary is
the suggestion that the translators read ‫,יצבא‬ instead of ‫וצבא‬ . The truth is, the
introduction of å̓ ñçìùèḉóåôáé is probably due to a gloss or a confluence of readings.
Theodotion is in close agreement with the Septuagint, save in the last clause, which
he renders, "And the sanctuary and the power be trodden underfoot." The Peshitta
is closer to the Massoretic, "And I heard a holy one who spake, and a holy one said
to palmoni, who spake, When shall the vision of the perpetuity (daily sacrifice?),
and of sin and of corruption be completed, and the holy place and the host be
trodden underfoot?" The translators must have read shahata instead of shomaym.
"Completed," neshtlem, may have been added, as óôḉóåôáé in the Greek, but the
fact that all the versions have a word not represented in the Massoretic would
indicate the probability that something has dropped out. Some part of the verb ‫שׂוּם‬
is suggested by the Greek Version, whereas some portion of ‫ַם‬‫ל‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ is suggested by the
Peshitta. Daniel hears one of those watching angels who desire to look into the
evolution of the Divine purpose concerning man and his salvation, asking another,
"How long shall be the desolation of Jerusalem under Epiphanes?" The irregular
construction here suggests corruption. We would render the speech of the angel,
"How long—the vision, the sacrifice—the sin of desolation to give the sanctuary and
the service to be trodden underfoot?" as if Daniel had only heard snatches of what
was said; we would, we may say, omit the "and" before "sanctuary." The
Septuagint translators may have omitted ‫א‬ָ‫ב‬ָ‫צ‬ (tzaba), thinking only of its ordinary
meaning, "host," forgetful of the fact that it is used of the temple service in
Numbers 4:23. These angels are most interested in the length of time that the
sanctuary shall remain desolate. This may indicate that it was evident, from the
vision, that the period of desolation was a limited one. The scene presented to the
imagination is striking. The seer, as he gazes on the vision appearing to him over the
marsh at Susa, hears angelic voices that direct attention to what was most important
to him and to his people. To the Israelites of the period of the Maccabees, the length
of time that the temple service would be in abeyance was of the highest importance.
It was well that they should know that the time was shortened for the elect's sake.
122

123. 14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and
mornings; then the sanctuary will be
reconsecrated.”
BARNES, "And he said unto me - Instead of answering the one who made the
inquiry, the answer is made to Daniel, doubtless that he might make a record of it, or
communicate it to others. If it had been made to the inquirer, the answer would have
remained with him, and could have been of no use to the world. For the encouragement,
however, of the Hebrew people, when their sanctuary and city would be thus desolate,
and in order to furnish an instance of the clear fulfillment of a prediction, it was
important that it should be recorded, and hence, it was made to Daniel.
Unto two thousand and three hundred days - Margin, evening, morning. So the
Hebrew, ‫בקר‬ ‫ערב‬ ‛ereb boqer. So the Latin Vulgate, ad vesperam et mane. And so
Theodotion - ἔως ἑσπέρας καὶ πρωΐ̀ heōs hesperas kai prōi - “to the evening and
morning.” The language here is evidently what was derived from Gen. i., or which was
common among the Hebrews, to speak of the “evening and the morning” as constituting
a day. There can be no doubt, however, that a day is intended by this, for this is the fair
and obvious interpretation. The Greeks were accustomed to denote the period of a day in
the same manner by the word νυχθήμερον nuchthēmeron (see 2Co_11:25), in order more
emphatically to designate one complete day. See Prof. Stuart’s Hints on Prophecy, pp.
99, 100. The time then specified by this would be six years and a hundred and ten days.
Much difficulty has been felt by expositors in reconciling this statement with the other
designations of time in the book of Daniel, supposed to refer to the same event, and with
the account furnished by Josephus in regard to the period which elapsed during which
the sanctuary was desolate, and the daily sacrifice suspended. The other designations of
time which have been supposed to refer to the same event in Daniel, are Dan_7:25,
where the time mentioned is three years and a half, or twelve hundred and sixty days;
and Dan_12:7, where the same time is mentioned, “a time, times, and an half,” or three
years and an half, or, as before, twelve hundred and sixty days; and Dan_12:11, where
the period mentioned is “a thousand two hundred and ninety days;” and Dan_12:12,
where the time mentioned is “a thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.” The time
mentioned by Josephus is three years exactly from the time when “their Divine worship
was fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use,” until the time when the
lamps were lighted again, and the worship restored, for he says that the one event
123

124. happened precisely three years after the other, on the same day of the month - Ant. b.
xii. ch. vii. Section 6. In his Jewish Wars, however, b. i. ch. i. Section 1, he says that
Antiochus “spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily
sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months.” Now, in order to explain the
passage before us, and to reconcile the accounts, or to show that there is no
contradiction between them, the following remarks may be made:
(1) We may lay out of view the passage in Dan_7:25. See the note at that passage. If
the reasoning there be sound, then that passage had no reference to Antiochus, and
though, according to Josephus, there is a remarkable coincidence between the time
mentioned there and the time during which the daily sacrifice was suspended, yet that
does not demonstrate that the reference there is to Antiochus.
(2) We may lay out of view, also, for the present, the passages in Dan_12:11-12. Those
will be the subject of consideration hereafter, and for the present ought not to be allowed
to embarrass us in ascertaining the meaning of the passage before us.
(3) On the assumption, however, that those passages refer to Antiochus, and that the
accounts in Josephus above referred to are correct - though he mentions different times,
and though different periods are referred to by Daniel, the variety may be accounted for
by the supposition that separate epochs are referred to at the starting point in the
calculation - the terminus a quo. The truth was, there were several decisive acts in the
history of Antiochus that led to the ultimate desolation of Jerusalem, and at one time a
writer may have contemplated one, and at another time another. Thus, there was the act
by which Jason, made high priest by Antiochus, was permitted to set up a gymnasium in
Jerusalem after the manner of the pagan (Prideaux, iii. 216; 1 Macc. 1:11-15); the act by
which he assaulted and took Jerusalem, entering the most holy place, stripping the
temple of its treasures, defiling the temple, and offering a great sow on the altar of
burnt-offerings (Prideaux, iii. 230, 231; 1 Macc. 1:20-28); the act, just two years after
this, by which, having been defeated in his expedition to Egypt, he resolved to vent all
his wrath on the Jews, and, on his return, sent Apollonius with a great army to ravage
and destroy Jerusalem - when Apollonius, having plundered the city, set it on fire,
demolished the houses, pulled down the walls, and with the ruins of the demolished city
built a strong fortress on Mount Acra, which overlooked the temple, and from which he
could attack all who went to the temple to worship (Prideaux, iii. 239, 240; 1 Macc.
1:29-40); and the act by which Antiochus solemnly forbade all burnt-offerings, and
sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple - (Prideaux, iii. 241, 242; 1 Macc. 1:44-51).
Now, it is evident that one writing of these calamitous events, and mentioning how long
they would continue, might at one time contemplate one of these events as the
beginning, the terminus a quo, and at another time, another of these events might be in
his eye. Each one of them was a strongly marked and decisive event, and each one might
be contemplated as a period which, in an important sense, determined the destiny of the
city, and put an end to the worship of God there.
(4) It seems probable that the time mentioned in the passage before us is designed to
take in the whole series of disastrous events, from the first decisive act which led to the
suspending of the daily sacrifice, or the termination of the worship of God there, to the
time when the “sanctuary was cleansed.” That this is so would seem to be probable from
the series of visions presented to Daniel in the chapter before us. The acts of the “little
horn” representing Antiochus, as seen in vision, began with his attack on the “pleasant
land” Dan_8:9, and the things which attracted the attention of Daniel were, that he
“waxed great,” and made war on “the host of heaven,” and “cast some of the host and of
the stars to the ground” Dan_8:10, and “magnified himself against the prince of the
124

125. host” Dan_8:11 - acts which refer manifestly to his attack on the people of God, and the
priests or ministers of religion, and on God him. self as the “prince of the host” - unless
this phrase should be understood as referring rather to the high priest. We are then
rather to look to the whole series of events as included within the two thousand and
three hundred days, than the period in which literally the daily sacrifice was forbidden
by a solemn statute. It was practically suspended, and the worship of God interrupted
during all that time.
(5) The terminus ad quem - the conclusion of the period is marked and settled. This
was the “cleansing of the sanctuary.” This took place, under Judas Maccabeus, Dec. 25,
165 b.c. - Prideaux, iii. 265-268. Now, reckoning back from this period, two thousand
and three hundred days, we come to August 5, 171 b.c. The question is, whether there
were in this year, and at about this time, any events in the series of sufficient importance
to constitute a period from which to reckon; events answering to what Daniel saw as the
commencement of the vision, when “some of the host and the stars were cast down and
stamped upon.” Now, as a matter of fact, there commenced in the year 171 b.c. a series of
aggressions upon the priesthood, and temple, and city of the Jews on the part of
Antiochus, which terminated only with his death. Up to this year, the relations of
Antiochus and the Jewish people were peaceful and cordial.
In the year 175 b.c. he granted to the Jewish people, who desired it, permission to
erect a gymnasium in Jerusalem, as above stated. In the year 173 b.c. demand was made
of Antiochus of the provinces of Ccelo-Syria and Palestine by the young Philometor of
Egypt, who had just come to the throne, and by his mother - a demand which was the
origin of the war between Antiochus and the king of Egypt, and the beginning of all the
disturbances. - Prideaux, iii. 218. In the year 172 b.c., Antiochus bestowed the office of
high priest on Menelaus, who was the brother of Jason the high priest. Jason had sent
Menelaus to Antioch to pay the king his tribute-money, and while there Menelaus
conceived the design of supplanting his brother, and by offering for it more than Jason
had, he procured the appointment and returned to Jerusalem. - Prideaux, iii. 220-222.
Up to this time all the intercourse of Antiochus with the Jews had been of a peaceful
character, and nothing of a hostile nature had occurred.
In 171 b.c. began the series of events which finally resulted in the invasion and
destruction of the city, and in the cessation of the public worship of God. Menelaus,
having procured the high priesthood, refused to pay the tribute-money which he had
promised for it, and was summoned to Antioch. Antioclius being then absent, Menelaus
took advantage of his absence, and having, by means of Lysimachus, whom he had left at
Jerusalem, procured the vessels out of the temple, He sold them at Tyre, and thus raised
money to pay the king. In the meantime, Onias III, the lawful high priest, who had fled
to Antioch, sternly rebuked Menelaus for his sacrilege, and soon after, at the instigation
of Menelaus, was allured from his retreat at Daphne, where he had sought an asylum,
and was murdered by Andronicus, the vicegerent of Antiochus. At the same time, the
Jews in Jerusalem, highly indignant at the profanation by Menelaus, and the sacrilege in
robbing the temple, rose in rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who
defended him, and both cut off this “sacrilegious robber” (Prideaux), and the guards by
whom he was surrounded.
This assault on the officer of Antiochus, and rebellion against him, was the
commencement of the hostilities which resulted in the ruin of the city, and the closing of
the worship of God. - Prideaux, iii. 224-226; Stuart’s Hints on Prophecy, p. 102. Here
commenced a series of aggressions upon the priesthood, and the temple, and the city of
the Jews, which, with occasional interruption, continued to the death of Antiochus, and
125

126. which led to all that was done in profaning the temple, and in suspending the public
worship of God, and it is doubtless to this time that the prophet here refers. This is the
natural period in describing the series of events which were so disastrous to the Jewish
people; this is the period at which one who should now describe them as history, would
begin. It may not, indeed, be practicable to make out the precise number of days, for the
exact dates are not preserved in history, but the calculation brings it into the year 171
b.c., the year which is necessary to be supposed in order that the two thousand and three
hundred days should be completed. Compare Lengerke, in loc., p. 388. Various attempts
have been made to determine the exact number of the days by historic records.
Bertholdt, whom Lengerke follows, determines it in this manner. He regards the time
referred to as that from the command to set up pagan altars to the victory over Nicanor,
and the solemn celebration of that victory, as referred to in 1 Macc. 7:48, 49. According
to this reckoning, the time is as follows: The command to set up idol altars was issued in
the year 145, on the 15th of the month Kisleu. There remained of that year, after the
command was given -
Half of the month Kisleu 15 days
The month Thebet 30 days
The month Shebath 29 days
The month Adar 30 days
The year 146 354 days
The year 147 354 days
The year 148 354 days
The year 149 354 days
The year 150 354 days
The year 15l to the 13th day of the
month Adar, when the victory over
Nicanor was achieved
337 days
Two intercalary months during this
time, according to the Jewish reckoning
60 days
Total of 2,271 days.
This would leave but twenty-nine days of the 2300 to be accounted for, and this would
be required to go from the place of the battle - between Beth-Horon and Adasa (1 Macc.
7:39, 40) to Jerusalem, and to make arrangements to celebrate the victory. See
Bertholdt, pp. 501-503. The reckoning here is from the time of founding the kingdom of
the Seleucidae, or the era of the Seleucidae.
Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed - Margin, justified. the Hebrew word (‫צדק‬
tsâdaq) means, to be right or straight, and then to be just or righteous; then to vindicate
or justify. In the form used here (Niphal), it means to be declared just; to be justified or
vindicated, and, as applied to the temple or sanctuary, to be vindicated from violence or
injury; that is, to be cleansed. See Gesenius, Lexicon There is undoubtedly reference here
to the act of Judas Maccabeus, in solemnly purifying the temple, and repairing it, and re-
dedicating it, after the pollutions brought upon it by Antiochus. For a description of this,
see Prideaux’s Connexions, iii. 265-269. Judas designated a priesthood again to serve in
the temple; pulled down the altars which the pagan had erected; bore out all the defiled
stones into an unclean place; built a new altar in place of the old altar of burnt-offerings
126

127. which they had defiled; hallowed the courts; made a new altar of incense, table of
showbread, golden candlestick, etc., and solemnly re-consecrated the whole to the
service of God. This act occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month (Kisleu),
and the solemnity continued for eight days. This is the festival which is called “the feast
of dedication” in the New Testament Joh_10:22, and which our Saviour honored with
his presence. See 1 Macc. 4:41-58; 2 Macc. 10:1-7; Josephus, Ant. b. xii. ch. vii. Section 6,
7.
CLARKE, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days - Though literally it
be two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings. Yet I think the prophetic day
should be understood here, as in other parts of this prophet, and must signify so many
years. If we date these years from the vision of the he-goat, (Alexander’s invading Asia),
this was A.M. 3670, b.c. 334; and two thousand three hundred years from that time will
reach to a.d. 1966, or one hundred and forty-one years from the present a.d. 1825. This
will bring it near to the time mentioned Dan_7:25 (note), where see the note.
GILL, "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,
127

128. 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.
HENRY, "(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,
128

129. 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.
JAMISON, "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, Psa_
89:7) 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, Dan_8:10); namely, when in 171 b.c., or the month Sivan in the year 142 of
the era of the Seleucidae, the sacrifices began to be neglected, owing to the high priest
Jason introducing at Jerusalem Grecian customs and amusements, the palaestra 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, etc. 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, Dan_12:12) 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
129

130. 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, etc.; also Amo_9:11, Amo_
9:12.
CALVIN, "The phrase, And he said to me, now follows. This ought to be referred
not to the angel inquiring, but to the Wonderful One. Whence we, rather gather the
great anxiety of the angel concerning the interpretation of the prophecy, not for his
own sake, but for the common benefit of the pious. Respecting this Wonderful One,
though I am persuaded he was the Son of God, yet whoever he was, he certainly
does not reject the angel’s request. Why then does he address Daniel rather than the
angel? Because the angel was not seeking his own benefit, but took up the cause of
the whole Church, as we have Shawn how angels are occupied in our salvation.
Thus also we see how the angel notices the Prophet’s astonishment, when he was
almost dead, and had not thought of inquiring for himself, or at least did not dare to
break forth at once; for he afterwards recovered himself, and was raised up by the
angel’s hand, as we shall soon perceive. The Wonderful One said to me — that is,
the incomprehensible or the mysterious one said to me —for two thousand three
hundred evenings and mornings, then the sanctuary shall be justified Here the
Hebrews are mutually at variance whether they ought to understand the number of
years or of months; but it is surprising to perceive how grossly they are deluded in
so plain a matter. The expression, to evening and morning, is not doubtful, since
Christ, clearly means two thousand three hundred days; for what else can the
phrase, morning and evening, signify? It cannot be used of either years or months.
Evidently we ought to understand natural days here, consisting of twenty-four
hours each. Those who receive it of years and months are wretchedly mistaken, and
even ridiculous in their calculations. For some begin to calculate the, time from
Samuel, they next descend to the reign of Saul, and next to that of David; and thus
they foolishly trifle, through not understanding the intention of Christ, who wished
his Church to be forewarned of the coming empires and slaughters, with the view of
rendering the faithful invincible, however sorely they may be oppressed on all sides.
Christ therefore wished to hold up a light to direct all the elect through the
approaching darkness under the tyranny of Antiochus, and to assure them that in
the very depths of it they would not be deserted by the favor of God. Hope would
130

131. thus elevate their minds and all their senses unto the promised termination. To what
purpose, then, do those interpreters speak of the reigns of Saul and David? We see
this to be altogether foreign and adverse to the mind of Christ, and to the use of this
prophecy. No less absurd is the guess of those who prate about months. Their
refutation would occupy three or four hours, and would be a waste of time, utterly
profitless. It is sufficient to gather this simple meaning from the words — Christ
does not speak here of years or months, but of days. We must now seek the true
interpretation of the passage from the whole context. We have shewn how
impossible it is to explain this prophecy otherwise than by Antiochus: the event itself
proves this to be its meaning. Blind indeed must be those who do not hold this
principle — the small horn sprang from one of those remarkable and illustrious
persons who came forth in place of one very large horn. Boys even know this by
reading the accredited history of those times. As Christ here alluded to the tyranny
of Antiochus, we must observe how his words accord with the facts. Christ numbers
2300 days for the pollution of the sanctuary, and this period comprehends six years
and about four months. We know the Jews to have used lunar years as well as
months. They afterwards used interealary periods, since twelve lunar months did
not correspond with the sun’s course. The same custom prevailed among both
Greeks and Romans. Julius Caesar first arranged for us the solar year, and supplied
the defect by intercalary days, so that the months might accord with the sun’s
course. But however that was, these days, as I have said, fill up six years and three
months and a half. Now, if we compare the testimony of history, and especially of
the book of Maccabees, with this prophecy, we shall find that miserable race
oppressed for six years under the tyranny of Antiochus. The idol of Olympian Jove
did not remain in the temple for six continuous years, but the commencement of the
pollution occurred at the first attack, as if he would insult the very face of God. No
wonder then if Daniel understood this vision of six years and about a third, because
Antiochus then insulted the worship of God and the Law; and when he poured forth
innocent blood promiscuously, no one dared openly to resist him. As, therefore,
religion was then laid prostrate on the ground, until the cleansing of the temple, we
see how very clearly the prophecy and the history agree, as far as this narrative is
concerned. Again, it is clear the purifying of the temple could not have been at the
end of the sixth current year, but in the month ‫,כסלו‬ keslu, answering to October or
November, as leaned men prudently decide, it was profaned. For this month among
the Jews begins sometimes in the middle of October, and sometimes at the end,
according to the course of the moon; for we said the months and years were lunar.
In the month Keslu the temple was polluted; in the month ‫אדר‬ Ader, about three
months afterwards, near its close, the Maccabees purged it. (1 Maccabees 4:36.)
Thus the history confirms in every way what Daniel had predicted many ages
previously — nay, nearly three hundred years before it came to pass. For this
occurred a hundred and fifty years after the death of Alexander. Some time also had
already elapsed, as there were eight or ten kings of Persia between the deaths of
Cyrus and Darius. I do not remember any but the chief events just now, and it ought
it to be sufficient for us to perceive how Daniel’s predictions were fulfilled in their
own season, as historians clearly narrate. Without the slightest doubt, Christ
predicted the profanation of the temple, and this would depress the spirits of the
131

132. pious as if God had betrayed them, had abandoned all care of his temple, and had
given up his election and his covenant entirely. Christ therefore wished to support
the spirit of the faithful by this prediction, thereby informing them how fully they
deserved these future evils, in consequence of their provoking God’s wrath; and yet
their punishment should be temporary, because the very God who announced its
approach promised at the same time a prosperous issue.
Respecting the phrase, the sanctuary shall be justified, some translate it — “Then
the sanctuary shall be expiated;” but I prefer retaining the proper sense of the
word. We know how usually the Hebrews use the word “justify” when they speak of
rights. When their own rights are restored to those who have been deprived of
them — when a slave has been blessed with his liberty — when he who has been
unjustly oppressed obtains his cause, the Hebrews use this word “justified.” As
God’s sanctuary was subject to infamy by’ the image of Olympian Jove being
exhibited there, all respect for it had passed away; for we know how the glory of the
temple sprang from the worship of God. As the temple had been defiled by so great
disgrace, it was then justified, when God established his own sacrifices again, and
restored his pure worship as prescribed by the Law. The sanctuary, therefore, shall
be justified; that is, vindicated from that disgrace to which for a time it had been
subject. It follows: —
COKE, "Daniel 8:14. Unto two thousand and three hundred days— In the original,
Unto two thousand and three hundred mornings and evenings; an evening and a
morning being the Hebrew notation of time for a day. See Daniel 8:26. Now these
2300 days can by no computation be accommodated to the times of Antiochus
Epiphanes, even though the days be taken for natural days. The days, without
doubt, are to be taken, agreeably to the style of Daniel in other places, not for
natural, but for prophetic days or years; and as the question was asked, not only
how long the daily sacrifices should be taken away, and the transgression of
desolation continue, but also how long the vision should last; so the answer is to be
understood: and these 2300 days denote the whole time from the beginning of the
vision to the cleansing of the sanctuary. The sanctuary is not yet cleansed, and
consequently these years are not expired. It is difficult to fix the precise time when
the prophetic dates begin and end, till the prophesies are fulfilled: but it appears to
me that the 2300 days should be computed from the vision of the he-goat, or
Alexander's invading Asia. Alexander invaded Asia in the year of the world 3670
(according to the common calculation, which may in some degree be erroneous), and
before Christ 334. Two thousand and three hundred years from that time will draw
towards the conclusion of the sixth millennium of the world. See Bishop Newton.
But I shall speak more on this subject when we come to the Revelation.
ELLICOTT, " (14) Unto two thousand and three hundred days.—It is clear from
the language that the period here spoken of terminates with the cleansing of the
sanctuary, and that it begins with the transgression that led to the awful events that
occurred in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Judas Maccabeus took Jerusalem in
132

133. the year B.C. 165, and kept the Feast of Dedication the same year, Antiochus being
at the time in Armenia. The period apparently commences with the events
mentioned in 2 Maccabees 4:32-39, which occurred about B.C. 171. The dates,
however, not being recorded precisely, it is impossible to reckon with certainty
whence the starting-point is to be dated. The phrase “evening morning” (see
margin) is used to indicate a complete night and day, and 2,300 complete days of
twenty-four hours make a period of six years 140 days. It has been observed that
this period falls short of seven years (a week of years) by about two-thirds of a year.
If, then, seven years is the number of years symbolical of Divine chastisements, the
prophecy implies that the people shall not suffer persecution according to their full
deserts, but “for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” (See Note on Daniel
7:25.)
Be cleansed.—Literally, be placed in its proper state.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred
days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
Ver. 14. And he said unto me.] Not to the angel, but to me, who should have
proposed the question; the holy angel did it for me.
Unto two thousand and three hundred days.] Heb., To the evening and morning two
thousand and three hundred - i.e., to so many natural days consisting of twenty-four
hours, which in all do make up six years, three months, and twenty days. This point
of skill Daniel here learneth of the wonderful numberer Christ, who hath all secrets
in numerato, and will put a timely period to his people’s afflictions. Not full seven
years did they suffer here, much less seventy, as once in Babylon. How he
moderateth the matter., see on Revelation 2:10; how this prophecy was fulfilled, see
1 Maccabees 1:12-14, 2 Maccabees 4:12-16 cf. 1 Maccabees 4:52-45.
PULPIT, "And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then
shall the sanctuary be cleansed. The Massoretic reading is here clearly corrupt.
"Unto me" ought to be "unto him," as proved by the versions and necessitated by
sense. The LXX. is somewhat violent in construction, but means, "And he said to
him, Until evenings and mornings are two thousand three hundred days, and the
sanctuary shall be purified." Theodotion agrees closely with the LXX; only he has
"five hundred" instead of "three hundred." The Peshitta agrees with the
Massoretic, save as above mentioned—"him" instead of "me," and the last clause,
which ought naturally to rendered "and the sacrifice be purified." The Hebrew
phrase for this clause is an unnatural one—it might be rendered, "And holiness (or,
'holy thing,' 'offering') shall be justified." The want of the article is not an objection,
as the manner of the author is to use the article sparingly. The word translated
"cleansed" really means "justified;" it is the only example of this part of the verb.
All the versions translate as if the word had been some derivative of ‫ר‬ַ‫ה‬ָ‫ט‬ (tahar). The
133

134. period referred to is that between the desolation inflicted on the temple by
Antiochus Epiphanes and its cleansing by Judas Maccabaeus. It is somewhat
difficult to fix the exact space of time intended by these two thousand three hundred
evening-mornings. Does it mean two thousand three hundred days? For this may be
urged that this succession. "evening and morning," not "morning and evening,"
resembles Genesis 31-1:1 . If this resemblance is intentional, then "evening-
morning" means a space of twenty-four hours. If the days are literal days, then the
space of time would amount to nearly six years and a half, if' we take the year here
as three hundred and sixty days. Another view is that day and night are separated
and each reckoned; hence the number of days involved would be eleven hundred
and fifty—fifty-five days more than three average years, and seventy days more
than three years of three hundred and sixty days each. If, however, the year be the
lunar year of three hundred and fifty-four days, it closely approximates to three
years and a quarter. The period that one would naturally think of is that between
the setting up of the abomination of desolation (1 Macc. 1:54), on the fifteenth day of
Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year of the Seleucid era to the rededication of
the temple on the twenty-fifth of Casleu, in the hundred and forty-eighth year, but
that is only three years and ten days. If the first and last of these years were
respectively the fifth and seventh of a metonic cycle, in each of which there were
intercalary months, then there is only a difference of eighteen days between the
interval given above and the actual historical interval. If, however, we are to believe
Maerobius ('Satur.,' Genesis 1:13, § 9), and hold that the intercalations were
supplied by adding the three months in one year, if one of the years in question was
the year in the cycle in which this took place, then the interval would be twelve days
too much. In either case the difference is very small. The attempt to take the interval
as two thousand three hundred days leads to very arbitrary results. Behrmann takes
the victory of Adasa, which Judas gained over Nicanor, as the termination of the
period—a purely arbitrary date, and reckons back to the displacement of Onias,
another date that, so far as can be seen, was not regarded as of importance by the
Jews, however important it has become in the eye of critics.
The Interpretation of the Vision
15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and
trying to understand it, there before me stood one
who looked like a man.
134

135. BARNES, "And it came to pass ... - Daniel saw the vision, but was unable to
explain it.
And sought for the meaning - Evidently by meditating on it, or endeavoring in his
own mind to make it out.
There stood before me as the appearance of a man - One having the
appearance of a man. This was evidently Gabriel Dan_8:16, who now assumed a human
form, and who was addressed by the voice from between the banks of the Ulai, and
commenced to make known the meaning of the vision.
CLARKE, "As the appearance of a man - Supposed to be the Messiah.
GILL, "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.
135

136. HENRY, "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.
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 (‫ז‬ָ‫לּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫,ל‬ i.e., to Daniel). Nothing further is
indicated of the person from whom the voice proceeded than what may be conjectured
from ‫י‬ַ‫אוּל‬ ‫ין‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ (between the Ulai), whence the voice sounded. These words do not mean
“hither from Ulai” (Bertholdt), but “between the two banks of the Ulai” (Chr. B. Mich.,
Häv., etc.); according to which, the being whose voice Daniel heard appears as if
hovering over the waters of the river Ulai. This conjecture is confirmed by Dan_12:6-7,
where Daniel sees a man hovering over the waters of the river of Ulai, who by the
majesty of his appearance and his words shows himself to be a divine being, and is more
minutely described according to the majesty of his appearance in Dan_10:5. The
question, who this man might be, is first answered in Daniel Dan_10:5. Gabriel is not a
nomen proprium but appellativum. The angel who was described as an appearance like
a ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ֶב‬‫גּ‬ (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
136

137. Parsism (Abhand. für die Kunde des Morgen. iv. Bc., Nr. 3), to establish this
connection, is extremely poor and superficial. The proof adduced in the first ten
pages of his treatise is confined to these points: that in the writings of the O.T. after
the Exile or during the Exile the appearance of the angels is altogether different from
that presented in the portions written before the Exile. It is said that, as a rule, the
angels in the period first named take the human form, and bear names
corresponding to their properties - Michael, Dan_10:13, Dan_10:21; Dan_12:1;
Gabriel, Dan_8:16; Dan_9:21; and in the book of Tobit, 12:15, not much later in date
(?), Raphael; - now also, in contrast to the period before the Exile, there is an order
in rank among the angels; Michael, Dan_10:12, is designated as one of the first
angel-princes, and, Dan_12:1, as the greatest angel-prince; moreover, the number of
‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ָ‫שׂ‬ (angel-princes) is spoken of as seven, corresponding to the Persian Amesha-
çpentas (Tob. 12:15, and Book of Enoch 90:21). But does this distinction between the
pre-exilian and post-exilian doctrine of angels, even though it were allowed to be as
great as Kohut supposes, furnish a proof for the derivation of the latter from
Parsism? or does this derivation follow from the fact that the Jews in exile came into
intercourse with the Persians and the Medes, and that about this time the Zend
worship flourished? And do the angels in the post-exilian writings for the first time
indeed assume the human form? Kohut seems to know nothing of the appearance of
angels in Gen_19:1., Jdg_6:11., Jdg_13:9. Then does the agreement, not of the
doctrine of the O.T., but of the later Jewish apocryphal writings, Tobit and the Book
of Enoch, with regard to the number of angel-princes and of the Amesha-çpenta,
furnish a sufficient proof of this derivation? Dr. Kohut does not himself appear to
think so, since he regards it as necessary, in addition to this, which is “perhaps
purely accidental,” to furnish an etymological argument. Amesha-çpenta means “non
connivens sanctus = the holy one not sleeping;” “thus,” he says, “it is a mere Chaldee
rendering of the word Amesha-çpenta, when in Dan_4:10,Dan_4:14, Dan_4:20;
Dan_8:13, the Jewish angel-princes are called ‫ין‬ ִ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ‫ין‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ַ‫ק‬ = 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 ‫יר‬ ִ‫?ע‬ Nor is it any better proof that the demonology of the O.T. is a
foreign production, resulting from the contact of the Jews with the Persians and
Medes during the exile, because in Zec_3:1., Psa_48:1-14 :49; 1Ch_21:1, and
especially in Job_1:6., Dan_2:1, Satan “is depicted as a plague-spirit, altogether
corresponding to the Persian Agromainjus, the killing spirit.” Such silly talk needs
no refutation.)
CALVIN, "Daniel again confirms his original statement. But before he descends to
the interpretation, he makes a preface concerning the faithfulness and certainty of
the oracle, lest the Church should hesitate to embrace his utterance as really
proceeding from God. In doing this, he uses no artifice as rhetoricians do; but God
wished to stir up both him and all the pious to meditate upon this prophecy, the
knowledge of which was then so peculiarly necessary and useful. He says, therefore,
when he sought the understanding of this vision, there appeared to him a form like
that of a man Now God had anticipated this desire of the Prophet, by the answer
which the angel received from Christ, who in reply had partly explained the sense of
this vision. Now Daniel, finding himself anticipated by God who did not wait for his
137

138. inquiry, gathers courage, and trusting in God’s readiness to furnish an answer, he
wishes to learn the matter more clearly; not that he was altogether ignorant of the
subject, but he did not yet perceive with sufficient clearness what was useful to
himself and the whole Church. We see then, how the answer of Christ only afforded
him a taste of the vision, and only urged him forwards towards the full
comprehension of it. Many are immediately satisfied with but moderate
information, and as soon as they understand a portion of any subject, they reject
every addition, and many too often settle down at the first elements, and their
obstinacy prevents that complete knowledge which is necessary. Daniel therefore
shews himself to be far distant from such fastidiousness, as he was rendered more
attentive by hearing from Christ’ lips the rea1 object of the vision. When I was
attentive 1 sought to understand it, says he, behold! there stood before my face (or
near it) like the aspect of a man We ought probably to interpret this passage of
Christ, who is now called like a man, as formerly. (Daniel 7:13.) For he had not yet
put on our flesh, so as to be properly entitled to the name of a man; but he was here
like a man, because he wished to allow the holy fathers a taste from which they
might understand his future coming as Mediator, when he should put on human
nature as God manifest in flesh:. (1 Timothy 3:16.) Thus Daniel speaks suitably as
before when he says, Christ appeared to him under the aspect of a man But this
adds to the same purpose, —
COFFMAN, ""And it came to pass when I, even I, Daniel, had seen the vision, that I
sought to understand it; and, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a
man. And I heard a man's voice between the banks of the Ulai, which called and
said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I
stood; and when he came, I was affrighted, and fell upon my face: but he said unto
me, Understand, O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end. Now
as he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face toward the ground;
but he touched me and set me upright. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know
what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed
time of the end."
This paragraph has the first naming of a holy angel in the entire Bible, Gabriel
being the same angel that appeared to Mary and to Zacharias. The great burden of
what the angel here said is that this great prophecy has an application to "the end
time," It is extremely unlikely that this could possibly refer to anything else other
than the end of "the indignation," that is, "God's indignation upon the human race
as a result of their shameful rebellions against his will." In the understanding of the
prophets, the "latter days," "the last days," the "end times," etc. invariably refer to
the end of time, the setting up of the Messianic kingdom (always in the foreground)
and of the final execution of the Great Judgment upon all mankind.
Still another factor that almost certainly must be taken into consideration is the fact
of Christ's making the end of the Israelite nation (in the destruction of Jerusalem) a
type of the final judgment (Matthew 24). In view of this, "the time of the end" might
138

139. well have a dual application, being prophetic of the "end of the indignation" against
Israel, which issued in the destruction of the nation, and also prophetic of the final
judgment itself. "Certainly, there is more here than history relating to the times of
Antiochus and the Maccabees."[14] Keil is apparently correct in the discernment
that the primary application of this to the end time is not to the final judgment, but
to the setting up of the kingdom of Christ in the First Advent of the Messiah.[15] It
should also be remembered in this context that the apostle Peter designated the
entire Church Age as "the last days" (Acts 2:16). Of course, this does not at all deny
the existence of prophetic overtones reaching to the Final Judgment itself.
"The time of the appointed end ..." (Daniel 8:19). Paul declared that God had
"appointed a day" in which he would judge the world (Acts 17:31). There were also
other days which God appointed. He had appointed seventy years as the termination
of the captivity in Babylon, a time which when Daniel was written, had just about
expired.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:15 And it came to pass, when I, [even] I Daniel, had seen the
vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the
appearance of a man.
Ver. 15. And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel.] Not another, as that black-
mouthed Porphyry (a) slanderously affirmed, that not the prophet Daniel saw and
uttered these prophecies so long before they happened, but another who lived after
the reign of Antiochus wrote a history of things past, and entitled it falsely to Daniel,
as a prophecy of things to come. Os durum! Harsh mouth.
Then, behold, there stood before me.] They who seriously and sedulously seek after
divine knowledge, shall find means to attain unto it. [Revelation 13:1]
PETT, "Verse 15-16
The Angel Gabriel Appears To Interpret the Vision.
‘And so it was that when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to
understand it, and behold there stood before me the appearance of a man, and I
heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai which called and said, “Gabriel,
make this man (or ‘that one there’ - hallaz) to understand the vision.’
Daniel, considering the vision he had seen and seeking in his own mind to
understand it, suddenly saw the appearance of a man (gaber = ‘man’ or ‘strong’ -
suggestive of Gabriel = ‘man of God’ or ‘God has made strong’) before him. Then
he heard the voice of a man (adam), possibly coming from above the water at the
centre of the river (compare Daniel 12:6-7), telling Gabriel (see also Daniel 9:21) to
reveal to him the truth about the vision. It was the voice of authority.
139

140. The voice was probably not an ordinary ‘holy one’ (angel) otherwise why differ
from Daniel 8:13? Thus this must have been the man clothed with linen (Daniel
12:6-7; Ezekiel 9:2), who was so powerful that he could declare the ending of time
(Daniel 12:7) and mark men off for judgment (Ezekiel 9:2), for the fact that it is
described as the voice of a man suggests that whoever it was had appeared in human
form. The voice commanded Gabriel to reveal the meaning of the vision.
We should note that, along with Michael the archangel, Gabriel is the only angel
ever mentioned by name in Scripture (Daniel 9:21; Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21;
Daniel 12:1; Luke 1:19; Luke 1:26; Jude 1:9).
PULPIT, "And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and
sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a
man. The versions here are unimportant. Daniel desires to understand the meaning
of this vision. From this we see that, at the time when this book was written, it was
understood that prophets might be ignorant of the meaning of the revelations made
to them. This is at variance with the assumption of even believing critics, that if a
prophecy were given to a prophet, he must have understood the reference of the
message. On the accuracy of this assumption, they found the rejection of any
interpretation of a prophecy which sees more in it than the prophet could have seen.
This latest critical date of Daniel is separated by approximately two centuries and a
half from prophecy in actual existence in Malachi. The tradition of the conditions of
the phenomenon would still be vital. The phrase before us probably means that
Daniel applied the various Babylonian formulae to the dream, to find the
interpretation , but, suspicious of them, he still continued his search. In answer to
Daniel's search, there stood before him one having "the appearance of a man
(gaber)"—an angelic being in human form. The H,.brew word translated "man" is
gaber, which suggests the name given to the angel, "Gabriel."
16 And I heard a man’s voice from the Ulai
calling, “Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the
vision.”
140

141. BARNES, "And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai - See the
notes at Dan_8:2. The voice seemed to come from the river, as if it were that of the
Genius of the river, and to address Gabriel, who stood near to Daniel on the shore. This
was doubtless the voice of God. The speaker was invisible, and this method of explaining
the vision was adopted, probably to make the whole scene more impressive.
Which called, and said, Gabriel - Gabriel is mentioned in the Scriptures only in
Dan_8:16; Dan_9:21; Luk_1:19, Luk_1:26. In Luk_1:19, he is mentioned as saying of
himself, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God.” The word means, properly,
“man of God.” Nothing more is known of him, and he is mentioned only as bearing
messages to Daniel, to Zacharias the father of John the Baptist, and to Mary.
Make this man to understand the vision - Explain it to him so that he will under
stand its meaning.
GILL, "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.
JAMISON, "Gabriel — meaning, “the strength of God.”
K&D 16-18, "Dan_8:16-18
As commanded, the angel goes to the place where Daniel stands. On his approach
Daniel is so filled with terror that he falls on his face, because as a sinful and mortal man
he could not bear the holiness of God which appeared before him in the pure heavenly
being. At the appearance of God he fears that he must die. Cf. remarks at Gen_16:13 and
Exo_33:20. But the angel, in order to mitigate his alarm, calls him to take heed, for the
vision relates to the time of the end. The address (Dan_8:17), “son of man,” stands in
contrast to “man of God” (= Gabriel), and is designed to remind Daniel of his human
weakness (cf. Psa_8:5), not that he may be humbled (Hävernick), without any occasion
for that, but to inform him that, notwithstanding this, he was deemed worthy of
receiving high divine revelations (Kliefoth). The foundation of the summons to give
141

142. heed, “for the vision relates to the time of the end,” is variously interpreted. Auberlen (p.
87) and Zündel (p. 105ff.) understand ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫ת־ק‬ֶ‫ע‬ 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 ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫ק‬ 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
‫ץ‬ ֵ‫תק‬ֶ‫ע‬ 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 ‫ים‬ ִ‫ָמ‬‫י‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫ֲר‬‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬
(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.”
CALVIN, "He does not use the particle implying fitness, but says he heard the voice
of a man, because he treats no longer of either a man or a figure, but of a voice. It is
sufficient to say at once, he was like a man, not really so, but only under the image
and appearance of one. Christ therefore appeared as a man, and is called one, since
Scripture often records how angels often appeared under the form of men, and are
called indiscriminately, either angels or men. (Jude 8:3, etc.) So in this place Daniel
relates the appearance of a. man, or the aspect of one, improperly indeed, but
without any danger of mistake; for he afterwards admonishes the faithful, how this
person was not clothed with the substance of flesh, but had only a human form and
aspect. I heard then a human voice in the midst of the river We gather from this
that the same person is here intended of whom mention was lately made, because he
commands the angel; whence this can be referred to Christ alone.
142

143. Gabriel, says he, teach him. We observe the speaker from the midst of the river here
commanding Gabriel, as if superior to him. For Gabriel as the name of an angel, is
sufficiently known from other passages of Scripture; (Luke 1:19;) and its etymology,
“The strength of God,” is very suitable to this meaning. Without ally doubt, the
angel here receives his commands from Christ. Thus, we see the supreme power and
authority represented under the form and aspect of a man, as well as obedience
portrayed in Gabriel, who discharges the duty enjoined upon him. From this
Christ’s divinity is inferred, as he could not issue orders to angels, without either
having special authority, or being God himself. But when the phrase “like a man” is
used, we are taught his manifest superiority to man. And what does this imply? not
angelic nature but divine. Christ by thus presenting himself under a human form,
shews, by a kind of foreshadowing, how he would become a man, when the fullness
of time arrived. Then he would really manifest himself as the head of the Church,
and the guardian of the salvation of the pious. For he proves himself to have power
over all angels, when he orders Gabriel to discharge the office of the Prophet’s
instructor. We will put off the remainder.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:16 And I heard a man’s voice between [the banks of] Ulai, which
called, and said, Gabriel, make this [man] to understand the vision.
Ver. 16. And I heard a man’s voice.] This was the man Christ Jesus, the great doctor
of his Church, and commander of angels, viro similis, quia incarnandus.
Make this man to understand.] Angels and ministers make men to understand
secrets, "give the knowledge of salvation to God’s people," [Luke 1:77] not by
infusion, but by instruction.
PULPIT, "And I heard a man's voice between the hanks of Ulai, which called, and
said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. The Septuagint has an
addition, "And the man called out, saying, To that purpose is the vision." This
seems to be a gloss. Theodotion and the Peshita agree with the Massoretic, only that
Theodotion does not indicate the difference of the word used for "man" in this verse
from that in Daniel 8:15, and renders Ulai "Oubeh" "Between Ulai" is a singular
phrase. The versions do not attempt any solution. The preposition bayin means
usually "between." If we assume that the river Ulai is here meant, and that it
divided into two branches, the thing is explicable. Only it would have been more in
accordance with usage to have put "Ulai" in the plural. It may, perhaps refer to the
marsh, in which case it might be between the citadel and the marsh. Daniel had seen
the appearance of a man; now he hears a voice addressing the man, and naming him
Gabriel, "Hero of God." It is to be noted that this is the earliest instance of the
naming of angels in Scripture. In the tenth chapter Michael is also named. These are
the only angelic names in the whole of Scripture. These two names, and these alone,
recur in the New Testament, the first of them in the first chapter of Luke, and the
second in Revelation 12:7 and Jude. The Book of Tobit added another angelic name
143

144. on the same lines, Raphael. When we pass to the Books of Enoch, we have moat
elaborate hierarchies of angels, in all of which, however much they may otherwise
differ, occur the two angels mentioned here and Raphael. The difference in
atmosphere between the elaborate angelology of Enoch and the reticent accounts in
the book before us is great. It is hardly possible to imagine so great a difference
between the works of men that were all but contemporaries. The function assigned
to Gabriel here is in accordance with that he fulfils in the New Testament—he is to
make Daniel "understand the vision."
17 As he came near the place where I was
standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son
of man,”[b] he said to me, “understand that the
vision concerns the time of the end.”
BARNES, "So he came near where I stood - He had seen him, evidently, at first
in the distance. He now drew near to Daniel, that he might communicate with him the
more readily.
And when, he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face - Doubtless
perceiving that he was a celestial being. See the notes at Rev_1:17. Compare Eze_1:28,
and Dan_10:8-9. He was completely overpowered by the presence of the celestial
stranger, and sank to the ground.
But he said unto me, Understand, O son of man - Give attention, that you may
understand the vision. On the phrase “son of man,” see the notes at Dan_7:13. It is here
simply an address to him as a man.
For at the time of the end shall be the vision - The design of this expression is
undoubtedly to cheer and comfort the prophet with some assurance of what was to occur
in future times. In what way this was done, or what was the precise idea indicated by
these words, interpreters have not been agreed. Maurer explains it, “for this vision looks
to the last time; that is, the time which would immediately precede the coming of the
Messiah, which would be a time of calamity, in which the guilt of the wicked would be
punished, and the virtue of the saints would be tried, to wit, the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes.” Lengerke supposes that the end of the existing calamities - the sufferings of
144

145. the Jews - is referred to; and that the meaning is, that in the time of the Messiah, to
which the vision is extended, there would be an end of their sufferings and trials. The
design of the angel, says he, is to support and comfort the troubled seer, as if he should
not be anxious that these troubles were to occur, since they would have an end, or, as
Michaelis observes, that the seer should not suppose that the calamities indicated by the
vision would have no end.
Perhaps the meaning may be this: “The vision is for the time of the end;” that is, it has
respect to the closing period of the world, under which the Messiah is to come, and
necessarily precedes that, and leads on to that. It pertains to a series of events which are
to introduce the latter times, when the kingdom of God shall be set up on the earth. In
justification of this view of the passage, it may be remarked that this is not only the most
obvious view, but is sustained by all those passages which speak of the coming of the
Messiah as “the end,” the “last days,” etc. Thus 1Co_10:11 : “upon whom the ends of the
world are come.” Compare the notes at Isa_2:2. According to this interpretation, the
meaning is, “the vision pertains to the end, or the closing dispensation of things;” that is,
it has a bearing on the period when the end will come, or will introduce that period. It
looks on to future times, even to those times, though now remote (compare Dan_8:26),
when a new order of things will exist, under which the affairs of the world will be wound
up. Compare the notes at Heb_1:2.
CLARKE, "At the time of the end shall be the vision - Or, as Houbigant, “The
vision shall have an end at the proper time.”
GILL, "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.
145

146. HENRY 17-19, "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.
JAMISON, "the time of the end — so Dan_8:19; Dan_11:35, Dan_11:36, 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,
146

147. 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 fulfillment, seen always at the end of the
prophetic horizon (Gen_49:1; Num_24:14).
CALVIN, "I will not repeat what I have already explained. I will proceed with what
I had commenced, namely, the Prophet’s need of instruction, because he could not
understand the vision without an interpreter; wherefore the angel was ordered to
explain his revelation of God more fully. But, before he narrates this, he says, he
was frightened at the approach of the angel. Without doubt, this reverence was
always present to his mind. Whenever he perceived himself called or taught by God,
he was doubtless struck with fear; but here some special feeling is expressed, as God
desired to influence his mind to set us an example, and to render us more attentive.
Here Daniel explains his own mind to us, commending the magnitude and
importance of the vision, lest we should read with carelessness what he will
afterwards relate, and not treat the occasion with sufficient seriousness. For God
used the angel as his servant to explain his intention to the Prophet; at the same time
he inwardly touched his mind by his Spirit to show us the way, and thus he would
not only train us to docility, but also to fear. He says, then, he was frightened and
fell down This, as I have said, was usual with the Prophet, as it ought to be with all
the pious. Paul also, in celebrating the effect and power of prophecy, says, if any
unbelievers should enter into the assembly and hear a prophet speaking in God’s
name, he would prostrate himself, says he, upon his face. (1 Corinthians 14:25.) If
this happened to unbelievers, how great will be our troubles, unless we receive most
reverently and humbly, what we know to have been uttered by the mouth of God?
Meanwhile, we should remember what I have lately touched upon, — the
importance of the present oracle as here commended to us by the Prophet; for he
fell upon his face through his fright, as he will repeat in the next verse.
Nor is the following exhortation superfluous; understated, says he, O son of Adam It
would be of little use to us to be moved and excited for a time, unless our minds
were afterwards composed for hearing. For many are touched by fear when God
appears to them; that is, when he compels them to feel the force and power of his
sway; but they continue in their stupidity, and thus their fright is rendered
profitless. But Daniel here makes a difference between himself and the profane, who
are only astonished and by no means prepared for obedience. At the same time, he
relates how his own excitement was effected by the assistance of the angel. The fear,
then, of which we have lately made mention, was preparation for docility; but; this
terror would have been useless by itself, unless it had been added, that he might
understand We ought to understand how piety does not consist merely in
147

148. acknowledging the fear of God, but obedience is also required, preparing us to
receive with tranquil and composed feelings whatever we shall be taught. We ought
diligently to observe this order.
It now follows: Because there shall be an end of the vision at a fixed time. Some join
‫לעת‬-‫קף‬ legneth-ketz, making the sense “at the end of the time,” ‫קף‬ ketz, in this sense
being in the genitive case by way of an epithet, as the Hebrews commonly use it.
They elicit this sense — the vision shall be for a prefixed time. But others prefer —
the end of the vision shall be for a time. I think this latter sense is better, as the
former seems to me forced. On the whole, it is not of much consequence, yet as that
form of expression is the easier, namely, the end or fulfillment of the vision should
be at a definite time, I had rather follow that interpretation. The angel asserts, then,
that this was no vain speculation, but a cause joined with its effect, which should
have its completion at a stated period. There shall be an end, then, of the vision in its
time; meaning, what you now behold shall neither vanish away nor be destroyed,
but its end shall happen when the time shall arrive which God has determined. ‫קף‬ ,
ketz, is often taken in this sense. Hence there shall be an end of the vision,; that is,
the vision shall be completed when the fitting time shall arrive. We ought to bear in
mind this exhortation of the angel, because unless we are certainly persuaded of the
fixedness of anything when God speaks, we shall not be ready to receive whatever he
pronounces. But when we are convinced of this saying, God never separates his
hand from his mouth — meaning, he is never unlike himself, but his power follows
up his word, and thus he fulfills whatever he declares; this becomes a sure and firm
foundation for our faith. This admonition of the angel ought to be extended
generally to the whole of Scripture, since God does not throw words into the air,
according to the common phrase. For nothing happens rashly, but as soon as he
speaks, his truth, the matter itself and its necessary effect, are all consistent. It
follows: —
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was
afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at
the time of the end [shall be] the vision.
Ver. 17. So he came near where I stood.] Let our obedience be like that of the angels,
prompt and present.
I was afraid.] Through human frailty and conscience of sin.
Understand, O son of man.] Ezekiel and Daniel only of all the prophets are so
called; haply lest they should be "exalted above measure with the abundance of the
revelations."
For at the time of the end shall be the vision,] i.e., That this vision of the daily
sacrifice intermitted for so many years, and the abomination of desolation, the
picture of Jupiter Olympus, set up in the sanctuary, shall be toward the end of the
148

149. Greek monarchy.
PETT, "Verse 17
‘So he came near where I stood, and when he came I was filled with awe, and fell on
my face. But he said to me, “Understand O son of man, for the vision belongs to the
time of the end.”
The approach of Gabriel filled Daniel with awe and he fell on his face. The presence
of Gabriel and the voice from the river made him aware of the awesome presence of
God. Gabriel then addressed him as ‘son of man’, a title suggestive of weakness and
humanity, and, in the context of Daniel, of one of the people of God.
‘For the vision belongs to the time of the end.’ The meaning of this statement is open
to question. Of course, for interpreters who see large parts of prophetic Scripture as
belonging to what they call ‘the end times’, meaning the time just before Christ’s
second coming, even when, on the face of it, it does not fit in, there is no difficulty,
‘the end’ always means that period. The fact that what has gone before does not fit
in with that is no problem, they simply double up and say it all applies to both its
obvious meaning and the end times. Such interpreters take up certain phrases and
say that they always indicate what they mean by ‘the end times’ (phrases such as
‘the Day of Yahweh’, which can actually refer to any ‘day’ when Yahweh acts in
judgment whether at the ‘end times’ or not; and ‘in that day’, which can simply
mean at that time; although both often can mean ‘the end times’.(
But we have to ask what Daniel meant by it in context, and, as we have seen, the
vision refers first to the rise of the Medo-Persian empire, and then of the Greek
empire and then refers at the end to the time of the rise and persecutions of
Antiochus Epiphanes and desecration of the temple, and ceases at the point of the
‘making righteous’ of the temple. ‘The ‘fourth empire’ is not yet in sight. Thus the
obvious meaning of ‘belongs to the time of the end’ is that the whole significance
and purpose of the vision was to bring us up to that end point, the end of the vision.
The ‘time of the end’ is ‘the time of the end of the vision’. The concentration of the
vision was not on the prior sweep of history but on the final phase, the dealings of
Antiochus Epiphanes. That is the time the vision ‘belongs to’, the time at the end of
the vision.
Note on - ‘The vision belongs to the time of the end’ and similar phrases
In Daniel, references to ‘the end’ are many and certainly do not all point to one
period. We have seen already that in Daniel 8:17 ‘the time of the end’ is the time on
which the vision concentrates at its end, the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, thus
meaning ‘the time of the end of the vision’. We can compare Daniel 8:19 where ‘the
latter time of the indignation’, that is the final part of the period of indignation
against Israel and Judah, (which includes the three hundred and ninety years of
149

150. Israel and the forty years of Judah - Ezekiel 4:4-13) belongs to ‘the appointed time
of the end’. This refers to the activities of Antiochus which are seen as the closure of
the time of indignation. The angel’s explanation will cover exactly the same period.
This ‘indignation’ refers to God’s wrath against His people as described by the
prophets, which was clearly here seen as continuing during the activities of Medo-
Persia and Greece because of the disobedience of God’s rebellious people, the latter
time of it being the reign of Antiochus, for that is what the vision is specifically
emphasising. The end of this period is ‘the appointed time of the end’ (of the
indignation).
This phrase ‘the appointed time’ also occurs in Daniel 11:27; Daniel 11:29; Daniel
11:35 where each time it is referring to the time that God has appointed in which to
deal with this vile persecutor, Antiochus. The exile was clearly not seen as having
averted ‘the indignation’, and this was to be Israel’s next major hurdle. Thus Daniel
saw the Maccabaean uprising which followed Antiochus, and the rise of the Hasidim
(the loyal ones) and their followers, preparatory for the coming of John the Baptiser
and Jesus, as following this period of indignation. The return from exile had not
purified the people. This had required the persecution of an Antiochus.
In Daniel 11:6 ‘the end of the years’ simply means the end of the period to which
those particular circumstances apply.
Very different are references to ‘the end’ (Daniel 9:26; Daniel 11:40, Daniel 12:6
compare Daniel 12:13, and possibly Daniel 12:4; Daniel 12:9) where there is no
reference point for ‘the end’ and we must therefore see them as actually referring to
the time when God is about to sum up history. For all these references see the
commentary at that point.
Like all the prophets Daniel looked forward in his vision and saw the near and far
future. None of them knew how long it would be. But they saw certain events ahead
like mountain peaks one behind the other. And to them beyond the first mountain
peak were ‘the last days’.
Imagine a sturdy walker on a long hike in unknown mountainous country. He looks
ahead and sees stretching before him a number of mountain peaks, and the farthest
does not seem all that much further than the nearest. The problem is going to be
getting to the first. Then they will come quickly one after another. So he struggles on
and at last reaches the first mountain. But when he gets to the top of the first
mountain peak, he receives his first shock. The second mountain peak which had
seemed to be just behind the first is now a long way distance away separated from
him by a huge plain. So he begins his weary trip towards the second. And the same
happens each time he reaches a mountain top. Rather than being close together as
they first appeared they are each separated from the other by huge plains.
In the same way the prophets looked ahead and saw the mountain tops. They did
not know what lay between, and they rarely reached the first mountain. (Ezekiel did
150

151. and then he saw further mountains ahead). They were not fortune tellers or
foretellers of future events in order to satisfy human curiosity, they were the voice of
God, declarers of what God was going to do and the principles that he would follow
through to the end. Their prophecies were regularly in two phases, the first phase
which would be fulfilled in the not too distant future, but would only be a partial
fulfilment, and a second phase, a further mountain top, which would bring about its
final fulfilment. Compare for example Tyre (Ezekiel 26:7-14). This was first to be
defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, but it would only a lot later on become a place to
spread nets in. A similar example is Babylon, defeated by the Medes, but it was only
long centuries later that it became a total ruin (Isaiah 13:17-22). And yet the second
result followed the first inexorably.
In Daniel’s case he saw first the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, which would
have such a profound effect on the faith of Israel, bringing about the birth of what
was good in the Pharisaic teaching with its emphasis on the resurrection. That was
his first mountain top. And then would come (of which he saw glimpses) the rise of
the fourth kingdom and the birth of Jesus the Messiah and Son of Man, followed by
the establishment of the new Israel under the Kingly Rule of God, arising out of the
old Israel, all smiting at the base of the totality of the empires, and then would come
‘the end’, troublous times, followed by the final judgment of God and the
resurrection (Daniel 12:2-3). And all seen as coming closely one after another,
without any conception of the spans of time that lay between, which to us seem so
huge, but which to God, Who can step from one mountain top to another in a
moment of time, are just ahead.
So the fourth and final empire, which was already in view in Daniel 11:30, would
follow Antiochus. And as we have seen in his visions that was the ‘end time’ empire,
(Daniel 2:40-44; Daniel 7:7-8; Daniel 7:19-25), the apocalyptic empire, which would
clash with the smiting stone and the son of man receiving His kingdom.
To put it in other words the actions of Antiochus would introduce ‘the last days’.
These ‘last days’ would include the conquests of Rome, the coming of Jesus, the
Messiah and Son of Man, (regularly described in the New Testament as ‘the last
days’ and as being ‘the end of the ages’ and its equivalent - Acts 2:17; 1 Peter 1:20;
1 Peter 4:7; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 1:1-2; Hebrews 9:26-28), the destruction
of Jerusalem by Rome, the growth of the new Israel, the everlasting kingdom of God
which incorporates all true believers, and indeed is the true church and the true
Israel of God, the disintegration of Rome into many ‘kingships’ (the ten horns), and
the final times prior to the second coming of Christ, which would include the rise of
‘the horn, the small one’, leading up to that coming, and the resurrection and the
final judgment of God. All these are portrayed in one way or another by the
prophets.
End of note.
151

152. PULPIT, "So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell
upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the
end shall be the vision. The versions are here in close agreement with the Massoretic
text. On Gabriel's approach Daniel fell on his face, overwhelmed at contact with the
spiritual. It is mentioned as if this were the natural result of such an interview as
that vouchsafed to Daniel. At first sight this contradicts Daniel 7:16, where Daniel
interrogates one of the angelic bystanders. In the first place, Daniel 7:15 shows that
Daniel had been grieved and disturbed before he ventured on the question; and,
next, Gabriel was one of the great angels that stood before God. Gabriel addressed
Daniel by the title so often given to Ezekiel, "son of man," ben-adam. Professor
Fuller, and also Kranichfeld, remark on the contrast between Gabriel, "Hero of
God," and ben-adam, "son of man" The time of the end does not mean the end of
the world, or of the appearance of the Messiah, for in this vision there is no
reference to either of these. It is rather to be rendered, after the analogy of Jeremiah
1:1-19 :26, where miqqetz means "from the utmost border," and reaches to a far-off
time.
18 While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep
sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he
touched me and raised me to my feet.
BARNES, "Now, as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my
face toward the ground - Overcome and prostrate with the vision. That is, he had
sunk down stupified or senseless. See Dan_10:9. His strength had been entirely taken
away by the vision. There is nothing improbable in this, that the sudden appearance of a
celestial vision, or a heavenly being, should take away the strength. Compare Gen_15:12;
Job_4:13, following; Jdg_6:22; Jdg_13:20, Jdg_13:22; Isa_6:5; Luk_1:12, Luk_1:29;
Luk_2:9; Act_9:3, Act_9:8. “But he touched me, and set me upright.” Margin, as in
Hebrew, “made me stand upon my standing.” He raised me up on my feet. So the
Saviour addressed Saul of Tarsus, when he had been suddenly smitten to the earth, by
his appearing to him on the way to Damascus: “Rise, and stand upon thy feet,” etc., Act_
26:16.
GILL, "Now as he was speaking with me,.... Addressing him in the above manner:
152

153. 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.
K&D, "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 ‫ם‬ַ‫ַע‬‫זּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ֲ‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬ ְ‫בּ‬ (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
‫ם‬ַ‫ַע‬‫ז‬, i.e., the period of anger of the Babylonian Exile. But ‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ֲ‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬ 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 ‫ית‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫,ר‬ the end over against the beginning. If ‫ים‬ ִ‫ָמ‬‫י‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫ֲר‬‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬ 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 ‫ם‬ַ‫ַע‬‫ז‬ is here the time of the revelation of
the divine wrath, ‫ם‬ַ‫ַע‬‫זּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ֲ‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬ 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, ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫ק‬ ‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ (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
153

154. 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 ‫ם‬ַ‫ַע‬‫זּ‬ ַ‫ה‬
‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ֲ‫ח‬ ַ‫,א‬ and will consequently fall to the ground along with it. If ‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ (to the
appointment) were separated from ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫,ק‬ and were to be taken by itself, and to be
understood of the time of the ‫ם‬ַ‫ַע‬‫ז‬, 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 ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫,ק‬ and them, with
‫ן‬ ‫ז‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫ה‬ 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 ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫תק‬ֶ‫,ע‬ the time of the end, and ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫ק‬ ‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ ‫,מ‬ 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 ‫ים‬ ִ‫ָמ‬‫י‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫ֲר‬‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬ (Dan_10:14), which the apostle calls (1Co_10:11) τὰ τέλη τῶν
αἰώνων, and speaks of as having then already come.
CALVIN, "The Prophet repeats what he had said, namely, how he had been
frightened by the magnitude of this vision; meanwhile, he was raised up by the
angel, lest he should remain in that state of stupor. Yet these two clauses must be
noticed: Daniel was astonished at the outset, for he could not otherwise be
sufficiently composed to listen to the angel’s voice; but at the same time another
clause is added, stating, the angel set him upright in his place. Whenever God
addresses us, we must necessarily be subject to fear and dread, to produce humility,
and to render us docile and obedient. Fears the true preparation for obedience; but,
as we formerly said, another feeling ought to follow; namely, as God has previously
prostrated and cast us down, he will also raise us up, thereby preparing us for
listening; and this disposition cannot arise except our minds are sedate and
composed. The Prophet then expresses both these states of mind here. This, as I
have said, is common to all the pious; but a peculiarity is noticed here, lest the
readers of the vision should become torpid, and receive it carelessly; for they ought
to collect all their senses, conscious of their inability to understand it, unless the fear
of God should precede, and thus form the mind for obedience. While he was
speaking with me, therefore, I fell into a swoon with my face upon the ground; that
is, I lay astonished, and he touched me. I have already stated the opinion of others,
that the angel approached him, but it is only tolerable. He now adds: —
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:18 Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my
face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright.
Ver. 18. I was in a deep sleep.] In a prophetic ecstasy or trance, wherein I was laid
up fast, losing for the time all manner of action and motion, that my soul might be
154

155. more free to receive divine revelations.
But he touched me, and set me upright.] Heb., Made me stand upon my standing,
who was yet all the while in a deep sleep. The touch of the angel kept him from
reeling to and fro, and made him stand firmly.
PETT, "Verse 18-19
‘Now as he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep (swooned) with my face
towards the ground, but he touched me and set me upright, and he said, “Behold I
will make you know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation, for it belongs
to the appointed time of the end.” ’
The effect of the contact with Gabriel caused him to go into a deep swoon as he lay
on his face on the ground (Daniel 8:17). This is elsewhere the result of contact with
the supernatural where something unique is happening, compare Daniel 10:9;
Genesis 2:21; Genesis 15:12. But Gabriel touched him and aroused him, giving him
strength for this ordeal of receiving revelation from such a powerful angel. For ‘set
me upright’ compare Daniel 7:4. He was made ready to receive God’s revelation.
By considering the vision we are made to recognise that God’s indignation against
his people had not ceased with the return from exile, simply because they failed to
repent and be transformed. So it continued through the rise of Medo-Persia to the
appointed time for Antiochus, the latter period being in the latter part of the whole
period of indignation, leading up to ‘the appointed time of the end’ of the
indignation. All was within God’s appointment. And the result of Antiochus’
persecution was the beginning of a new period for the true purified Israel, free from
indignation, which was the beginning of the last days, preparing for the arrival of
the Messiah, and was also the beginning of the rise of the fourth kingdom, the
kingdom of the last days, which began with Rome and continued in different forms
ever since. The days of Antiochus were seen as pivotal.
PULPIT, "Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward
the ground; but he touched me, and set me upright. The LXX. joins the opening
words of the next verse to this. I was in a deep sleep suggests the case of the three
apostles, Peter, James, and John, on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke
9:1-62 :82). The numbing effect of the presence of the supernatural produces a state
analogous to sleep, yet "the eyes are open" (Numbers 24:4) the senses are ready to
convey impressions to the mind. The angel, however, touched Daniel, and set him
upright.
155

156. 19 He said: “I am going to tell you what will
happen later in the time of wrath, because the
vision concerns the appointed time of the end.[c]
BARNES, "And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the
last end of the indignation - In the future time when the Divine indignation shall be
manifest toward the Hebrew people; to wit, by suffering the evils to come upon them
which Antiochus would inflict. It is everywhere represented that these calamities would
occur as a proof of the Divine displeasure on account of their sins. Compare Dan_9:24;
Dan_11:35; 2 Macc. 7:33.
For at the time appointed the end shall be - It shall not always continue. There
is a definite period marked out in the Divine purpose, and when that period shall arrive,
the end of all this will take place. See the notes at Dan_8:17.
GILL, "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.
JAMISON, "the last end of the indignation — God’s displeasure against the Jews
156

157. 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, Dan_11:36; Dan_12:7;
Hab_2:3).
CALVIN, "Those who read the noun ‫קף‬ ketz, “end, ” in the genitive case in Daniel
8:17, understand in this place the word “vision” again, as if the Prophet had said,
“At the time of the end there shall be a vision.” But as ‫,מועד‬ meveged, or moed,
signifies a “time fixed and settled beforehand,” there is nothing superfluous in that
method of speech; then ketz, as I have said, is properly taken for the effect itself,
and it would be harsh and far-fetched to say “at the time of the end there shall be a
vision,” in the, sense of the filling up of the vision. For this word expresses all which
such interpreters wish it to imply. Besides, all are agreed as to the matter itself, since
the angel bears witness to his being the interpreter chosen by God, who explains
futurity to the Prophet. Behold, therefore, says he, I will explain to thee He here
acquires confidence for himself from his office, as he had accepted the commands
divinely laid upon him. And we should remark this also, since our faith will never
rest or become firm unless the authority on which it is founded be fixed. As then the
angel declares himself to be executing an office divinely enjoined upon him, ought
we to put confidence in men who conduct themselves with rashness, and, though
they assume authority in God’s name, yet have no certain and lawful calling? We
may learn, then, how neither angels nor men ought to be held in such honor as to
induce us to receive whatever they bring forward, unless the Almighty has
appointed them to be his ministers and interpreters.
He then says, I will announce to thee what shall happen even at the end of the
wrath. Without doubt, the angel asserts by this phrase the suddenness of God’s
wrath. We are aware how instantaneously on the return of the people their enemies
attacked them in Judea, and never ceased to inflict upon them numberless troubles.
Wherefore, as soon as the Jews had returned from exile, God began to exercise them
in various ways, and not without sufficient reason. Every one privately studied his
own interests, but without any regard for the temple and any desire for the worship
of God, and thus they were given up to avarice and caprice. They also defrauded
God himself in tithes and offerings, as is evident from the prophets Malachi and
Haggai. (Haggai 1:12; Malachi 3:8.) From that period God began to punish them,
but deferred his vengeance till the time of Antiochus. The angel, therefore, calls the
end of the vengeance that severer punishment which God inflicted after the people
had abused his forbearance. Therefore I will teach thee, or lay before time, what
shall happen at the close of the vengeance, because, says he, it shall be the time of
the end. He here repeats what he had said concerning the effect of the prophecy,
meaning, the fulfillment should take place at its own appointed season. We must;
now notice the noun moed, because it is here opposed to our fervor and
intemperance. Haste in desiring anything leads, as they say, to delay; for as soon as
God bears witness to anything, we wish it to be fulfilled at the very first moment,
and if he suspend its execution only a very few days, we not only wonder but cry out
with vexation. God, therefore, here admonishes us by his angel that he has a settled
time, and thus we are to learn to put a bridle on ourselves, and not to be rash and
157

158. unseasonably hasty, according to our usual habit. We ought, then, to remember the
explanation given, and perceive how the effect of the vision is shewn here, and thus
it will obtain from us its just reverence. It follows: —
COKE, "Daniel 8:19. In the last end— Even unto the end, or, in the latter time.
Daniel 8:21. The king of Grecia] Rather, the kingdom, and so at Daniel 8:20.
Hebrew ‫יון‬ iavan, from Javan the son of Japheth, Genesis 10:2. The whole states of
Greece were sometimes called Iones, and the sea which washes their borders is the
Ionian sea. Yet there seems to have been a distinction made by the Hebrews between
the Peloponnesian and the Ionian Greece; but Macedonia certainly belonged to the
latter; and Alexander might with the greatest propriety be styled the first king of
Ion, as he was the first and chief who subdued the Medo-Persic, and established the
Grecian empire.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in
the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end [shall be].
Ver. 19. In the last end of the indignation.] In the final end of the Greek persecution,
which shall not pass the Lord’s appointed time.
PULPIT, "And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end
of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. The Septuagint here
inserts a clause after "indignation." It reads, "on the children of thy people." It may
have been inserted from Daniel 12:1, only it is used in such a different sense that
that does not seem very likely. It may have been in the original text, and dropped
out not unlikely by homoioteleuton. The missing clause would be ֶ‫מּ‬ַ‫ﬠ‬ ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ ְ‫בּ‬ ‫ל‬ַ‫,ﬠ‬ the last
word of which is like two. On the other hand, its omission from Theodotion and the
Peshitta is not so easily intelligible. Theodotion is in close agreement with the
Massoretic text. The Peshitta is more brief, practically omitting the last clause. We
have here the reference to the end, as in verse 17 it is not the end of the world that is
in the mind of the writer, but the "end of the indignation." The Jews, while
maintaining their gallant struggle against Epiphanes, have need of being assured
that the battle will have an end, and one determined before by God, The angel has
to make Daniel know the end of the indignation. It may be said that the present
time, when Israel has neither country nor city, is one of indignation; but the
immediate reference is to the persecution against the Jews inaugurated by
Epiphanes.
158

159. 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents
the kings of Media and Persia.
BARNES, "The ram which thou sawest ... - See the notes at Dan_8:3. This is one
of the instances in the Scriptures in which symbols are explained. There can be no doubt,
therefore, as to the meaning.
CLARKE, "The ram which thou sagest - See this explained under the vision
itself, Dan_8:3 (note), etc.
GILL, "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.
HENRY 20-22, "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
159

160. 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.
K&D, "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 ‫יר‬ ִ‫פ‬ָ‫צּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ the epithet ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ָ‫שּׂ‬ ַ‫,ה‬
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 ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫בּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ִ‫נּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ו‬ to
ָ‫יה‬ ֶ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ח‬ ַ‫תּ‬ (Dan_8:22) form an absolute subject-sentence, in which, however, ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ד‬ֹ‫מ‬ֲ‫ע‬ ַ‫ַתּ‬‫ו‬ 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 ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬, 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.” ‫י‬ ‫גּ‬ ִ‫מ‬ without the article does not signify
from the people of Javan, for in this case the article would not have been omitted; nor
does it signify from the heathen world, because a direct contrast to Israel does not lie
before us; but indefinitely, from the territory of the people, or the world of the people,
since the prophecy conceives of the whole world of the people (Vöklerwelt) as united
under the sceptre of the king of Javan. ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ד‬ֹ‫מ‬ֲ‫ע‬ַ‫י‬ is a revived archaism; cf. Gen_30:38;
1Sa_6:12; Ewald, §191; Gesen. Gramm. §47. - ‫ח‬ ‫כ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ ְ‫,ו‬ but not in his power, not
armed with the strength of the first king, cf. Dan_11:4.
CALVIN, "We have previously given a brief explanation of all these subjects. But
here the angel removes all doubt, lest we should still anxiously inquire the meaning
of the ram which Daniel saw, and of the he-goat which followed and prostrated the
ram. The angel, therefore, here pronounces the ram to represent two kingdoms,
which coalesced in one. Cyrus, as we have said, granted it for a time to his father-in-
law Cyaxares, but yet; drew the whole power to himself, and the Persians began to
extend their sway over all the realms of the East. But God in this vision had respect
to the beginning of that monarchy. When, however, the Persians and Medes, were
united, then the ram bore two horns; then the he-goat succeeded, and he threw
down the ram, as we have already seen. In that he-goat there was first one great
160

161. horn and then four small ones. The angel then answers concerning the he-goat
representing the kingdom of the Greeks. There is not the slightest doubt here, since
Alexander seized upon the whole East, and thus the Persian monarchy was utterly
destroyed. In the he-goat, therefore, the kingdom of Greece or Macedon was
displayed, but the horns will mark something special.
That great, horn, says Daniel, was the first king, namely, Alexander; afterwards
four smaller horns arose in his place. We have already explained these. For when
much blood had been shed, and the greater part of the leaders had been slain, and
after the followers of Alexander had mutually attacked and. destroyed each other,
those who remained divided his dominions among themselves. Cassander the son of
Antipater obtained Macedon; Seleueus, Syria; Ptolemy, Egypt; and Antigonus his
own fourth share. In this way the smaller horns succeeded Alexander, according to
the clear testimony of profane history. From the frequency with which God sets this
prophecy before us, we gather his intention of giving us a conspicuous sign of his
majesty. For how could Daniel conjecture future events for so long a period before
they happened? He does not pronounce mere enigmas, but; narrates things exactly
as if they were already fulfilled. At the present time Epicureans despise the
Scriptures and laugh at our simplicity, as if we were too ridiculous. But they rather
display their own prodigious madness, and blindness, by not acknowledging the
prediction of Daniel to be divine. Nay, from this prophecy alone we may prove with
certainty the unity of God. If any one was inclined to deny that first principle, and
utterly reject the doctrine of his divinity, he might be convinced by this single
prophecy. Not only is this subject treated here, but Daniel points with his finger to
the God of Israel as the only one in whose hand and will are all things, and from
whom nothing either escapes or is concealed. From this prophecy alone the
authority of Scripture is established by proofs perfectly sure and undoubted, as the
Prophet treats with perfect clearness events at the time unknown, and which no
mortal could ever have divined.
First of all he says, The ram which, thou sawest, having two horns, means the kings
of the Medes and Persians This had not then occurred, for that ram had not yet
risen and seized upon Babylon, as we have stated already. Thus Daniel was raised
up as it were to heaven, and observed from that watch-tower things hidden from the
minds of men. He afterwards adds, The he-goat is the king of Greece. Philip, the
father of Alexander, although a strenuous and a most skillful warrior, who
surpassed all the kings of Macedon for cleverness, yet, superior as he was, never
dared to cross over the sea. It, was sufficient for him if he could strengthen his
power in Greece, and render himself formidable against his neighbors in Asia
Minor. But he never dared to attack the power of Persia, or even to harass them,
and much less to overcome the whole East. Alexander, inflamed rather by rashness
and pride than by good judgment, thought nothing would prove difficult to him. But
when Daniel saw this vision, who ever would have thought of any king of Greece
invading that most powerful monarchy, and not only seizing upon the whole of Asia,
but obtaining sway in Egypt, Syria, and other regions? Although Asia Minor was an
extensive region, and well known to be divided into many rich and fertile provinces,
161

162. yet it was but a small addition to his immense empire. Nay, when Nineveh was
conquered by Babylon, and the Chaldeans became masters of Assyria, this also was
an addition to the Persian monarchy. We are familiar with the amazing riches of the
Medes, and yet they were entirely absorbed. Darius drew with him 800,000 men,
and quite buried the earth under his army. Alexander met him at the head of
30,000. What comparison was there between them! When Xerxes (73) came to
Greece he brought with him 800,000 men, and threatened to put fetters upon the
sea; yet Daniel speaks of his incredible event just as if it had already taken place,
and were matter of history. These points must be diligently noticed that the
Scriptures may inspire us with the confidence which they deserve.
COFFMAN. ""The ram which thou sawest, that had the two horns, they are the
kings of Media and of Persia. And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece: and the
great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. And as for that which was
broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the
nation, but not with his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the
transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding
dark sentences shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own
power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper and do his pleasure; and
he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people. And through his policy he
shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself mightily in his
heart, and in their security shall he destroy many: he shall also stand up against the
prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."
"But not in his own power ..." (Daniel 8:24). Apparently God gave this evil man the
power to bring punishment upon Israel. Also, the intervention of God is behind the
statement that, "He shall be broken without hand ..." (Daniel 8:25). He is said to
have died of madness. "The defeat of Antiochus by Judas Maccabaeus might have
been overcome by that evil power if he had had the money to pay his troops. Not
having it, he attempted to plunder the pagan temple of Artemis at Elymais. He
utterly failed, and that caused his death. Historians of those times viewed his death
as caused by madness inflicted by a Divine hand."[16]
"When the transgressors are come to the full ..." (Daniel 8:23). This is a reference to
the transgressions of Israel. It was the climax of such sins that led to God's
permission for such an evil power as Antiochus to rise up.
OETT, "Verses 20-22
The Interpretation of the Vision.
‘The ram which you saw, which had the two horns, they are the kings of Media and
Persia. And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn that is
between his eyes is the first king. And as for that which was broken, in the place
whereof four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with
162

163. his power.’
This confirms what we have seen above, all given in a few words within which more
than three hundred years have passed by. But all is leading up to the time of
Antiochus IV. Note the emphasis on the declining control of the empires. ‘Two
horns’, an empire made up of two, although one king had dominion of the other;
‘four kingdoms’, an empire made up of four, and even more separated. Compare
the declining value of the metals in Daniel 2:37-43.
PULPIT, "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and
Persia. All the versions—the Septuagint, Theodotion, the Peshitta, and the
Vulgate—have read, not ‫י‬ֵ‫כ‬ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫,מ‬ as we find in the Massoretic text, but ‫ֶד‬‫ל‬ ֶ‫מ‬ The ancient
construct case in Hebrew was formed by adding ‫י‬to the root. Possibly this may be a
survival of that usage. In this case the change is due to scribal blunder. When we
turn to Jeremiah 25:25 and Jeremiah 51:11, Jeremiah 51:58, we have the same
phrases used as here: this is probably the origin of the blunder. For any one to
ground an argument, as does Professor Bevan, on this, and maintain that it proves
the writer to have held that there were two separate empires—one of Media, and the
other of Persia—is absurd. When the true reading is adopted, this passage proves
the very reverse of that for which Professor Bevan contends. The reasoning of
Kliefoth, that the distinction between plural and singular points to the fact that,
while several kings reigned ever the Persian Empire, only one ruled over the Greek,
is very ingenious, but, unfortunately, it has no foundation in fact. "King," it may be
observed, stands for dynasty, only that in the crisis of history, when the two powers
encountered, each was ruled and represented by one king—Persia by Darius
Codomannus, and Greece by Alexander.
21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the
large horn between its eyes is the first king.
BARNES, "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
163

164. horns signifies the two kingdoms of the Medes and Persians united in one monarchy, of
which the ram was an emblem; See Gill on Dan_8:3 for Darius and Cyrus were dead
many years before the time of Alexander; and therefore could not personally be the two
horns of the ram broken by him; nor is it to be understood of the kings of two different
families, as the one of. Cyrus, and the other of Darius Hystaspes, in whose successors the
Persian monarchy continued till destroyed by Alexander, as Theodoret.
GILL, "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.
JAMISON, "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.
CALVIN, "By the word “Javan” the Hebrews designate not only the Greeks but
the: Macedonians, and the whole of that tract which is divided by the Hellespont,
from Asia Minor as far as Illyricmn. Therefore the meaning is — the king of Greece.
PULPIT, "And the rough goat is the King of Grecia; and the great horn that is
between his eyes is the first king. Again all the versions agree in omitting the word
"rough," and in inserting "of the goats," as in the fifth verse. The authority of these
is much too great to be resisted. The Massoretic reading is probably due to a
confluence of readings, as the word translated "rough" also means "goats." The
omission of the word "of the goats" is probably due to the inclusion of ‫יר‬ ִ‫ﬠ‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ (sa‛eer).
Here, as in the previous case, "king" stands for dynasty; and this is proved by the
fact that there is implied a series of kings, of whom the great horn is the first.
22 The four horns that replaced the one that was
broken off represent four kingdoms that will
emerge from his nation but will not have the same
164

165. power.
BARNES, "Now that being broken - By the death of Alexander.
Whereas four stood up for it - Stood up in its place.
Four kingdoms shall stand up - Ultimately. It is not necessary to suppose that this
would be immediately. If four such should in fact spring out of this one kingdom, all that
implied in the prophecy would be fulfilled. On the fulfillment of this, see the notes at
Dan_8:8.
But not in his power - No one of these four dynasties had at any time the power
which was wielded by Alexander the Great.
CLARKE, "But not in his power - The four kingdoms which shall arise out of the
Macedonian empire shall not be of Alexander’s power or family, nor have his strength
and dignity.
GILL, "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.
JAMISON, "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.
K&D, "Dan_8:20-22
165

166. 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
la‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ ‫מ‬ ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫ק‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ע‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫כּ‬ (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
166

167. 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). ‫ם‬ַ‫ַע‬‫זּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ 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 ‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ֲ‫ח‬ ַ‫א‬ because it belongs to the ‫ים‬ ִ‫ָמ‬‫י‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫ֲר‬‫ח‬ ַ‫,א‬ 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 ‫ֶה‬‫י‬ ְ‫ה‬ִ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ (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 ‫ם‬ַ‫ַע‬‫זּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ִ‫ר‬ֲ‫ח‬ ַ‫,א‬ 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 ‫ת‬ֵ‫ע‬ for
‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ ‫מ‬ is the definite time in its duration; ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫ק‬ ‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ ‫מ‬ thus denotes the end-time as to its
duration. This expression is here chosen with regard to the circumstance that in Dan_
8:14 the end of the oppression was accurately defined by the declaration of its
continuance. The object of these words also is variously viewed by interpreters. The
meaning is not that the angel wished to console Daniel with the thought that the
judgment of the vision was not yet so near at hand (Zündel); for, according to Dan_8:17,
Daniel was not terrified by the contents of the vision, but by the approach of the
heavenly being; and if, according to Dan_8:18, the words of the angel so increased his
terror that he fell down confounded to the earth, and the angel had to raise him by
touching him, yet it is not at the same time said that the words of the angel of the end-
time had so confounded him, and that the subsequent fuller explanation was somewhat
less overwhelming than the words, Dan_8:17, something lighter or more comforting.
Even though the statement about the time of the end contributed to the increase of the
terror, yet the contents of Dan_8:19 were not fitted to raise up the prophet, but the
whole discourse of the angel was for Daniel so oppressive that after hearing it, he was for
some days sick, Dan_8:27. From Daniel's astonishment we are not to conclude that the
angel in Dan_8:17 spoke of the absolute end of all things, and in Dan_8:19, on the
contrary, of the end of the oppression of the people of Israel by Antiochus. By the words,
“the vision relates to the appointed end-time,” the angel wished only to point to the
importance of his announcement, and to add emphasis to his call to the prophet to give
heed.
CALVIN, "The great horn, says he, which was between his eyes was the first king,
and when it was broken, four others sprang up. Alexander, as we have mentioned,
perished in the flower of his age, and was scarcely’ thirty years old when he died,
167

168. through the influence of either poison or disease. Which of the two is uncertain,
although great suspicion of fraud attaches to the manner of his death; and
whichever way it happened, that horn was broken. In his place there arose four
horns, which sprang up, say’s he, from that nation. Here we must notice this, since I
very much wonder what has come into some persons’ minds, to cause them to
translate it “from the nations” and yet these are persons skilled in the Hebrew
language. First, they show great ignorance by changing the number, and next, they
do not comprehend the intention of the angel. For he confirms what he formerly
said concerning the unity of the kingdom and its division into four parts, and he
assigns the reason here. They shall spring, says he, from a nation, meaning the
Greeks, and all from a single origin. For by what right did Polemy obtain the
empire? solely by being one of Alexander’s generals. At the beginning, he dared not
use the royal name, nor wear the diadem, but only after a lapse of time. The same is
true of Selcucus, and Antigonus, and Cassander. We see, then, how correctly the
kingdom of the Greeks is represented to us under the figure of a single beast,
although it was immediately dispersed and torn into four parts. The kingdoms, then,
which sprang from the nation meaning; Greece, shall stand, but not in full strength
The copula is here taken in the sense of “but; ” the four kingdom shall stand, but
not by his strength, for Alexander had touched upon the Indian sea, and enjoyed the
tranquil possession of his empire throughout the whole east, having filled all men
with the fear of his industry, valor, and speed. Hence, the;angel states the four horns
to be so small, that not one of them should be equal to the first king.
COKE, "Daniel 8:22. Four kingdoms shall stand up, &c.— Does not this imply that
the remaining kingdom, the kingdom of the little horn, should not be of the nation?
Newton, p. 33. Houbigant reads, Four kingdoms shall arise out of this nation, but
not of so great power.
PULPIT, "Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall
stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. The LXX; if we take the reading of
the Roman edition, agrees with the Masso-retie, save in the last clause, where it
reads, "their power" instead of "his power." In this variation we find also
Theodotion and the Peshitta agreeing. Jerome has "ejus." It is difficult to decide
what is the true reading here. In the reading of the older versions the meaning is
that these kings which should succeed Alexander should not be mighty. The reading
of the Massoretic and Jerome implies a direct and natural comparison with
Alexander the Great. As for the Greek versions, ‫ןץ‬ is easily mistaken for ‫ש‬ in uncial
manuscripts. As for the Syriac, see Syriac character, is apt to be added to, see Syriac
character, of the third person, and produce the difference we find. While the Greek
versions and Jerome render, "his nation" instead of "the nation," as in the
Massoretic, the Peshitta follows the Massoretic , which is wrong here. The point of
the contrast is that the kings that succeeded Alexander were not of his family.
Certainly none of the successors of Alexander had an empire nearly so extensive as
his. The only one that really even comes into comparison with the empire of
168

169. Alexander is that of Seleucus Nicator. But not only had he neither European nor
African dominions, he did not possess, save for a little while. Asia Minor, nor
Palestine, nor India beyond the Indus at all. The Parthian Empire seen sprang up,
and wrested from the Solenoid a large portion of their possessions east of the
Euphrates. It can well be said, even of the empire of Seleucus, that it had not the
power of that of Alexander the Great.
23 “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels
have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking
king, a master of intrigue, will arise.
BARNES, "And in the latter time of their kingdom - When it shall be drawing
to an end. All these powers were ultimately absorbed in the Roman power; and the
meaning here is, that taking the time from the period of their formation - the division of
the empire after the battle of Ipsus (see the notes at Dan_8:8), until the time when all
would be swallowed up in the Roman dominion, what is here stated - to wit, the rise of
Antiochus - would be in the latter portion of that period. The battle of Ipsus was fought
301 b.c., and the Roman power was extended over all those regions gradually from 168
b.c. - the battle of Pydna, when Perseus was defeated, and Macedonia was reduced to a
Roman province, to 30 b.c., when Egypt was subjected - the last of these kingdoms that
submitted to the Roman arms. Antiochus began to reign, 175 b.c. - so that it was in the
latter part of this period.
When the transgressors are come to the full - Margin, accomplished. That is,
when the state of things - the prevalence of wickedness and irreligion in Judea - shall
have been allowed to continue as long as it can be - or so that the cup shall be full - then
shall appear this formidable power to inflict deserved punishment on the guilty nation.
The sacred writers often speak of iniquity as being full - of the cup of iniquity as being
full - as if there was a certain limit or capacity beyond which it could not be allowed to
go. When that arrives, God interposes, and cuts off the guilty by some heavy judgment.
Compare Gen_15:16 : “The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” Mat_23:32 : “fill ye
up then the measure of your fathers.” 1Th_2:16 : “to fill up their sins alway.” The idea is,
that there is a certain measure or amount of sin which can be tolerated, but beyond that
the Divine compassion cannot go with safety to the universe, or consistently with the
honor of God, and then the punishment may be expected; then punishment must come.
This is true, doubtless, of individuals and nations, and this period had arrived in regard
169

170. to the Jews when Antiochus was permitted to lay their temple, city, and country waste.
A king of fierce countenance - Stern and severe. This expression would be
applicable to many who have held the kingly office, and no one can doubt that it may be
applied with strict propriety to Antiochus.
And understanding dark sentences - Gesenius (Lexicon) explains the word here
rendered “dark sentences” to mean artifice, trick, stratagem. This will better agree with
the character of Antiochus, who was more distinguished for craft and policy than he was
for wisdom, or for explaining enigmas. The meaning seems to be that he would be politic
and crafty, seeking to make his way, and to accomplish his purpose, not only by the
terror that he inspired, but by deceit and cunning. That this was his character is well
known. Compare the notes at Dan_8:25.
Shall stand up - Shall succeed, or there shall be such a king.
CLARKE, "When the transgressors are come to the full - When the utmost
degradation has taken place, by the buying and selling of the high priesthood; for Onias
was ejected for a sum of money, to make room for wicked Jason; and Jason again was
supplanted for a greater sum by a worse man, if possible, than himself, Menelaus; and
the golden vessels of the temple were sold to pay for this sacrilegious purchase. Thus
transgressions were come to the full, before the Romans had commission to destroy
Jerusalem and its temple, etc.
A king of fierce countenance - The Roman government, as before; for king is often
taken for kingdom or empire.
Understanding dark sentences - Very learned and skillful in all things relating to
government and its intrigues. The learning of Rome is proverbial to the present time.
GILL, "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
170

171. 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.
HENRY 23-25, "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
171

172. 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.
JAMISON, "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
2Ti_3:1-9, as to the wickedness of the world in general just before Christ’s second
coming. Israel’s guilt, too, shall then be at the full, when they who rejected Christ shall
receive Antichrist; fulfilling Jesus words, “I am come in My Father’s name, and ye
receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” (compare
Gen_15:16; Mat_23:32; 1Th_2:16).
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, etc.; 2
Maccabees 5:24, etc.).
172

173. K&D, "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
‫ם‬ ָ‫כוּת‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫מ‬ (of their kingdom) relates to the idea contained in ‫ת‬ ‫יּ‬ֻ‫כ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫מ‬ ni deniat (kings).
‫ים‬ ִ‫ע‬ ְ‫ֹשׁ‬‫פּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ת‬ ָ‫ה‬ ְ‫,כּ‬ when the transgressors have made full, scil. the transgression or
measure of the sins. The object wanting to ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ת‬ ָ‫ה‬ is seen from the conception of the
subject. ‫ים‬ ִ‫ע‬ ְ‫ֹשׁ‬‫פּ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ the rebellious, are not the heathen, for ‫ע‬ַ‫שׁ‬ָ‫פּ‬ denotes the apostasy from
God which is only said of the Israelites, but not of the heathen; and the word points back
to ‫ע‬ַ‫שׁ‬ֶ‫פ‬ ְ‫בּ‬ in Dan_8:12. The king that rises up is Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 1 Macc. 1:10ff.).
‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ָ‫ז־פּ‬ַ‫,ע‬ hard of countenance, i.e., impudent, unashamed in trampling down, without
fear of God or man; cf. Deu_28:50. ‫ת‬ ‫יד‬ ִ‫ח‬ ‫ין‬ ִ‫ב‬ ֵ‫,מ‬ understanding mysteries; here sensu
malo, concealing his purpose behind ambiguous words, using dissimulation, forming
an artifice, interpreted in Dan_8:25 by ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫,מ‬ cf. Dan_11:21. The unfolding of these
qualities is presented in Dan_8:24, Dan_8:25; in Dan_8:24 of the ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ָ‫ז־פּ‬ַ‫.ע‬ By virtue of
the audacity of his conduct his power will be strengthened, ‫ֹח‬‫כ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ ְ‫,ו‬ but not by his own
might. The contrast here is not: by the power or permission of God (Ephr., Theodrt.,
Häv., Hitz., Kran.), reference being made to ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ָת‬‫נּ‬ ִ‫תּ‬ (was given) in Dan_8:12, and to ‫ת‬ ֵ‫תּ‬
(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. ‫ת‬ ‫א‬ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫פּ‬ִ‫נ‬ (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 ‫ֹח‬‫כ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ ְ‫ו‬ 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 ‫ית‬ ִ‫ח‬ ְ‫ַשׁ‬‫י‬
(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.
‫ים‬ ִ‫ֲצוּמ‬‫ע‬ does not here signify many, numerous, many individual Israelites (v. Leng.,
Maur., Kliefoth), partly because in Dan_8:25 ‫ים‬ ִ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ר‬ stands for that, partly because of the
‫ים‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ֹ‫ד‬ ְ‫ק‬ ‫ם‬ַ‫,ע‬ by which we are to understand the people of Israel, not merely the
insignificant and weak, or pious (Kran.). Hence ‫ים‬ ִ‫ֲצוּמ‬‫ע‬ 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.
CALVIN, "And at the end of their reign, when the wicked shall be at their height,
one king shall stand By saying at the end of their kingdom, he does not mean to
imply the destruction of the four kingdoms had ceased. The successors of Antiochus
were not directly cast down from their sway, and Syria was not reduced into a
province till about eighty or a hundred years after Antiochus the Great had been
173

174. completely conquered. He again left heirs, who, without doubt, succeeded to the
throne, as we shall see more clearly in the eleventh chapter. But this point is
certain — Perseus was the last king of Macedon, and the Ptolemies continued to the
times of Julius Caesar and Augustus, and we are well aware how completely
Cleopatra was conquered and ruined by Antony. As women succeeded to the throne,
we could not place the destruction of the Macedonian empire under Antiochus
Epiphanes. But the angel means, at the end of their kingdom, when they had really
come to the close of their reigns, and their final ruin was at hand. For when
Antiochus Epiphanes returned to his country, he seemed to have re-established his
power though it very soon afterwards began to die away. Similar circumstances also
happened to Egypt and to Macedon, for the reign of all their kings was precarious,
and although not directly overthrown, yet they depended on the Romans, and thus
their royal majesty was but fleeting. At the end, therefore, of their kingdom, that is,
when they arrived at the height, and their fall led them on to ruin, then, says he,
when the wicked were consummated or perfected. Some apply this to the professed
and outward enemies of the Church, but I rather approve of another opinion, which
supposes the angel to be speaking of the impious, who provoked God’s wrath, till it
became necessary for grievous and severe penalties to be inflicted on the people, to
whom God had so magnificently promised a happy and a tranquil state. This,
however, was no common temptation, after the prophets had treated so fully of the
happy and prosperous state of the people after their return from captivity, to behold
the horrible dispersion, and to witness these tyrants making their assault not only
upon men, but upon the temple of God itself. Wherefore the angel, as before,
fortifies the Prophet and all the rest of the pious against this kind of trial, and shews
how God had not changed his counsels in afflicting his Church, to which he had
promised tranquillity, but had been grievously provoked by the sins of the people.
He then shews the urgent necessity which had compelled God to exercise this
severity. When, therefore, the impious had come to their height, that is, when they
had arrived at the highest pitch, and their intolerable obstinacy had become
desperate. We perceive how the angel here meets the trial, and instructs the pious
beforehand, unfolding to them the inviolability of God’s word, while the people’s
impiety compelled him to treat, them severely, although he had determined to
display liberality in every way. Then, he says, a king shall stand with a fierce
countenance But the rest tomorrow.
COKE, "Daniel 8:23. In the latter time, &c.— The Romans might be said to stand
up in the latter time, &c. who saw the end not only of one kingdom, but of all four;
who first subdued the kingdom of Macedon and Greece; then inherited, by the will
of Attalus, the kingdom of Lysimachus; and afterwards made a province of the
kingdom of Syria; and lastly, of the kingdom of Egypt. When the Romans stood up
too, the transgressions were come to the full; for the high-priesthood was exposed to
sale: good Onias was ejected for a sum of money, to make room for wicked Jason,
and Jason again was supplanted for a greater sum of money by a worse man, if
possible, than himself,—his brother Menelaus; and the golden vessels of the temple
were sold to pay for the sacrilegious purchase. At the same time the customs of the
174

175. heathens were introduced, the youth were trained up and exercised after the
manner of the Greeks; and the people, and even the priests, apostatized from the
true religion. See 2 Maccabees 4:14. Nay, Jerusalem was taken by Antiochus, 40,000
Jews were slain, and as many were sold into slavery; the temple was profaned, even
under the conduct of the high-priest Menelaus, was defiled with swine's blood, and
plundered of every thing valuable: and in the same year that Paulus AEmilius, the
Roman consul, vanquished Perseus, the last king of the Macedonians, and thereby
put an end to that kingdom, the Jewish religion was put down, and the heathen
worship set up in the cities of Judaea and Jerusalem; the temple itself was
consecrated to Jupiter Olympius, and his image was erected upon the very altar.
Then indeed the transgressions were come to the full. See Bishop Newton.
A king of fierce countenance— A king, in the prophetic style, is the same as
kingdom. Instead of understanding dark sentences, the Syriac translates skilful of
ruling, and the Arabic, skilful of disputations. We may suppose the meaning to be,
that this should be a politic and artful, as well as a formidable power; which
properly characterizes the Romans. They were represented in the former vision by a
beast dreadful and terrible; and for the same reason they are here signified by a
king of fierce countenance. Whether this character belongs to the Romans, or to
Antiochus Epiphanes, may be collected from the following narrative. Antiochus was
engaged in a war with Egypt, and in a fair way of making himself master of it. The
Romans, therefore, looking upon his increasing power with a jealous eye, sent an
embassy to him, to require him to desist from his enterprize, or else to declare
against him. Popilius, the chief of the ambassadors, had formerly been his friend;
and the king, at their first meeting near Alexandria, offered him his hand, in
remembrance of their former friendship. This Popilius declined, saying, that private
friendship must give place to the public welfare, and he must first know whether the
king was a friend to the Roman state, before he could acknowledge him as a friend
to himself: he then presented to him the tables, which contained the decree of the
senate, and desired an immediate answer. Antiochus, after reading them, replied,
that he would communicate them to his friends, and return him an answer very
speedily; but Popilius, with a wand which he carried in his hand, drew a circle
round the king, and insisted upon his answer before he stirred out of that circle. The
king, astonished at this peremptory manner of proceeding, after some hesitation,
said he would obey the commands of the senate; and then at length Popilius reached
forth his hand to him. This incident happened soon after the conquest of
Macedonia; and being the first memorable action of the Romans immediately on
their becoming a horn of the kingdom of the goat, it is very fitly said of them, and
more fitly than of Antiochus, A king of fierce countenance shall stand up. See
Bishop Newton.
ELLICOTT."(23) Transgressors . . .—When transgressors have filled up the
measure of their guilt so as to exceed the limits of God’s mercy, then this event shall
take place. The transgressors are the apostate Jews. Here, as in the other visions, the
particulars respecting the most prominent objects of the vision are given more fully
175

176. in the interpretation than in the early part of the chapter. The king is represented as
being “of a fierce countenance,” he is shameless, he has no reluctance in pursuing
the cruelties which he has designed. He “understands dark sayings,” or uses
falsehood and dissimulation to carry out his purposes.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the
transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding
dark sentences, shall stand up.
Ver. 23. And in the latter time of their kingdom.] In the one hundred and thirty-
seventh year of the Greek monarchy.
When the transgressors are come to the full.] Heb., Are accomplished; when the
Jews are grown stark naught. This was the reason why God set over them such a
breathing devil, as was Antiochus, for a punishment of their open impiety and
formal apostasy. When Phocas the traitor had slain Mauritius the emperor, there
was an honest poor man, saith Cedrenus, who was earnest with God in prayer to
know why that wicked man so prospered in his design; to whom answer was
returned by a voice, that there could not be a worse man found and that the sins of
Christians and of Constantinople did require it.
A king of fierce countenanoe.] Heb., Hard of face - that is, brazen faced, impudent,
and withal acute, subtle ( acutus et astutus), and of a deep reach. Antiochus, Julian,
the Duke of Alva, were such.
PETT, "Verse 23
‘And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors (or, repointed, this
could be ‘transgressions’) are come to the full, a king of strong countenance, and
understanding riddles, will stand up. And his power will be mighty, but not by his
own power. And he will destroy wonderfully, and will prosper and will do
(whatever he wants). And he will destroy the mighty ones and the holy people.’
The one now spoken of arises in the latter time of the Greek kingdom, at a time
when Israel’s transgressing has reached its full, as they turned back to the idolatry
from which the exile was supposed to deliver them. Some would turn back
reluctantly under persecution, but these had turned back for political convenience
long before. Among many hellenisation and acknowledgement of the Greek gods
gave them a new way of life and a new culture, and they embraced it eagerly (see 1
Maccabees 1:11-15).
‘A king of strong countenance, and understanding riddles, will stand up.’ This can
hardly be any other than Antiochus Epiphanes. ‘Strong countenance’ refers to
hardness of feature caused by a hard and unyielding spirit (compare Deuteronomy
28:50).
176

177. ‘Understanding riddles.’ Seeing himself as a god he saw himself as wise and full of
understanding of the things of the gods, which was why the stubborn Israelites so
infuriated him. Did they not realise that he was a master of the knowledge of the
gods? Or the idea may be that he was a master of dissimulation, cunning enough to
be able to deceive people and disguise his intentions. For example, he sent his
general to Jerusalem pretending peace, and when they received him he took
advantage of the Sabbath and then slaughtered many Israelites.
‘And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power.’ He claimed to be the
manifestation of Zeus and thus that Zeus was operative through him, thus this may
be seeing it from his viewpoint. Others see it as meaning that it was God Who
enabled him in order to use him as an instrument of chastisement for His people. He
was only able to do it because God allowed it. Like the Assyrians and
Nebuchadnezzar before him he was the rod of God’s anger (Isaiah 10:5). Perhaps
the latter may be seen as more likely to be in Daniel’s mind.
‘He will destroy wonderfully, and will prosper and will do (whatever he wants). And
he will destroy the mighty ones and the holy people.’ This describes his effectiveness
in every sphere. He destroyed, and prospered, and did whatever he wanted. No one,
apart in the end from the Romans, could prevent him from doing whatever he
wanted. However mighty his enemies might be they could not stand before him.
‘The mighty ones and the holy people.’ A deliberate contrast. He was not just a
successful warrior, he was an attacker of God’s true people, and it was that that
would result in his downfall. He was the first real persecutor.
PULPIT, "And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come
to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall
stand up. The versions here are, on the whole, in agreement with the Massoretic.
The Greek versions read, "their sins," as if it were the iniquities of the successors of
Alexander that had become full, and thus afforded the occasion of the appearance of
Epiphanes. The Peshitta and Jerome have "iniquities" generally, without reference
to the kings, but with probable reference to the Jewish people. The probability is
decidedly in favour of the Massoretic reading; it was an easy suggestion that the
iniquities to be punished were those of the heathen kings. The whole analogy of
Scripture leads us to look at the iniquity of the people of God being the cause of evil
befalling them. Certainly immediately before the persecution inflicted on the Jews
by Antiochus, the progress of the unbelieving Hellenizing party had been very great,
as we see by 1 Macc. 1:13-16. It was "like people, like priest;" the people devoted
themselves to Grecian games with all their heathen associations, and strove to hide
their Hebrew origin and the covenant of their faith, and high priests were ready to
abet their practices. A king of fierce countenance; "strong of countenance." This
refers to courage and success in war. Thus Amaziah (2 Kings 14:8), when he wishes
to challenge Joash King of Israel, desires to "look in his face." Epiphanes'
countenance was one that could successfully stand a hostile meeting. The Greek
177

178. versions render ‫ץ‬ַ‫ﬠ‬ (‛az) by ̓‫ב‬‫םביה‬́‫ח‬‫ע‬ , "reckless." Understanding dark sentences.
There may be some reference to incantations and superstitious observances; it may
mean that he was well acquainted with omens, and how to benefit by them.
Regardlessness in the matter of religion was a prominent characteristic of
Antiochus; but it is quite a possible thing that, like most irreligious men, he was
superstitious. He certainly was very keen-sighted in observing the political signs of
the times, and very adroit at availing himself of what made for his own advantage.
This last is the interpretation of Ewald. Z‫צ‬ckler and Hitzig think it means that the
king here pictured "will be cunning to hide his own designs from friend and foe."
Yet more common is the view of Keil, Behrmann, Stuart, and Bevan, that it refers
generally to his mastery in the use of artifice. The main difficulty in regard to this
view is that usage, does not support assigning such a meaning to heedoth. On the
other hand, when we bear in mind that here we have the language of symbol and
prophecy, so tricks of strategy and chicane of policy may all be symbolized by "dark
sayings," without necessary reference to sentences such as those with which the
Queen of Sheba tested the wisdom of Solomon.
24 He will become very strong, but not by his own
power. He will cause astounding devastation and
will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy
those who are mighty, the holy people.
BARNES, "And his power shall be mighty - He shall be a powerful monarch.
Though not as mighty as Alexander, yet his conquests of Egypt and other places show
that he deserved to be numbered among the mighty kings of the earth.
But not by his own power - That is, it shall not be by any strength of his own, but
by the power which God gives him. This is true of all kings and princes (compare Joh_
19:11; Isa_10:5, following), but it seems to be referred to here particularly to show that
the calamities which he was about to bring upon the Hebrew people were by Divine
direction and appointment. This great power was given him in order that he might be an
instrument in the Divine hand of inflicting deserved punishment on them for their sins.
And he shall destroy wonderfully - In a wonderful or extraordinary manner shall
he spread desolation. This refers particularly to the manner in which he would lay waste
the holy city, and the land of Judea. The history in the books of Maccabees shows that
this was literally fulfilled.
178

179. And shall prosper - Antiochus was among the most successful kings in his various
expeditions. Particularly was he successful in his enterprises against the holy land.
And practice - Hebrew, “do.” That is, he shall be distinguished not only for
“forming” plans, but for “executing” them; not merely for “purposing,” but for “doing.”
And shall destroy the mighty and the holy people - The people of God - the
Jewish nation. See the notes at Dan_8:9-12.
CLARKE, "But not by his own power - The strength of the other kingdoms
consisted in themselves; but the Roman empire, as a horn or kingdom of the goat, was
not mighty by its own power - was not strong by virtue of the goat, but drew its
nourishment and strength from Rome and Italy. There grew the trunk and body of the
tree; though the branches extended over Greece, Asia, Syria, and Egypt. - Bp. Newton.
Shall destroy wonderfully - In the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans ninety-
seven thousand Jews were made captives, and eleven hundred thousand were slain. So
they destroyed this once mighty and holy people!
GILL, "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.:
179

180. 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.
JAMISON, "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 (2Th_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.
CALVIN, "After the angel had explained the Grecian monarchy, he records the
future origin of a king who should be hard of face Without the slightest doubt, he
implies the iniquity of Antiochus by this phrase. He was notoriously destitute of any
nobleness of mind, and remarkable for low cunning, and to this disposition was
added an impudence which faltered at nothing. This is the sense in which I take the
words hard of face The following phrase asserts his cunning, when it says, he shall
be skilled in enigmas This is equivalent to saying, he should excel in cunning, and
should not be easily deceived. By these two epithets he does not compliment, but
rather defames Antiochus Epiphanes, by representing him as hardened as the
wicked usually are, without the slightest particle of either reason, or equity, or
shame. He next blames his craftiness and deceit, by stating he should be skilled in
enigmas He afterwards adds, his power shall be strengthened, and yet not by his
own might Some are of opinion that Antiochus Epiphanes is here compared to
Alexander, as the angel had previously stated the inferiority of the four kings to the
first; for they were prefigured by four small horns. For the most powerful of them
all did not reign over a fifth part of the dominions which Alexander had acquired
for himself by violence and war. Others, again, explain this passage as if the power
of Antiochus would be great, but still very unlike that of Alexander, and far inferior
to it, according to the sense, not in his, i.e., Alexander’s, strength,. Many, however,
refer this to Antiochus, although they do not agree among themselves. Some, again,
want a kind of correction, as if the angel implied that the power of Antiochus should
be great, but not quite openly so. Hence his valor shall be strengthened, not meaning
by “valor” that heroic spirit with which kings are usually endowed, nor any increase
180

181. in magnanimity; nor yet that Antiochus should imitate such monarchs as these, but
his strength should lie concealed. He should creep on by clandestine acts, and not
contend in open battle according to the practice of those who excel in courage; he
should secretly try many schemes, and thus stealthily extend his empire. This makes
a tolerable sense. Others, again, think this ought to be referred to God, since the
strength of Antiochus was not the result of his own industry or valor, but of the
judgment of God, who armed him with it, because he wished to use him as a scourge
to execute his punishments on the Jews. His fortitude, therefore, shall be
strengthened, yet not by his own valor, as this entirely depended on the just designs
and vengeance of God. Although this last sense is more profitable, and contains
much useful instruction, yet I fear it is distorted. And thus the last clause is either a
correction of the preceding words, meaning” because he should not increase with
ingenuous earnestness,” or else, the angel is still comparing his strength with the
power of Alexander. His power, therefore, shall be strengthened, and yet not bear
comparison with Alexander’s; or, his power shall be strengthened, but not by habits
of war nor by open magnanimity, but he shall grow great by fraudulent and
clandestine arts; because he was on the one hand most impious, and on the other, of
a servile disposition, as we have formerly said.
It follows, He shall make wonderful havoc, and shall prosper, and shall proceed,
that is, shall execute, and shall destroy the strong, and the people of the saints. By
‫עצומים‬ , gnetzumim, I understand not only the Jews, but also other neighboring
nations; as if the angel had said, Antiochus shall be conqueror wherever he shall
extend his arms, until at length he shall subdue Judea, and miserably afflict the
people of God. Wherefore, he shall strike or destroy the brave, and the people of the
saints, that is, the holy people, as we saw before. And according to his
understanding shall his craftiness prosper in his hand The conjunction “and may be
here superfluous; in this sense the passage is usually received, thus reading it on in
one context; according to his understanding he shall prosper, although there is the
conjunction “and” in the way, but this is frequently superfluous in Hebrew. It
means, deceit shall prosper in his hand Here the angel confirms the former assertion
respecting the servile cunning of Antiochus, as he did not act with ingenuous
manliness, but with his audacity and hardihood he united malicious arts and
craftiness unworthy of a king. Craft, therefore, shall prosper in his hand, and that
too, as far as he understands it. Some suppose the sharpness of Antiochus to be
noticed here, as if the angel had said, Craftiness shall prosper in his hand, in
consequence of his possessing superior ability and penetration. But the passage may
be suitably explained in this way, — Antiochus shall act prosperously according to
his mental perception, and shall be so assisted by’ his craftiness, as to obtain
whatever he shall grasp at.
COKE, "Verse 24
Daniel 8:24. His power shall be mighty, &c.— This part of the prophesy can no
where be so justly applied as to the Romans. With them it quadrates exactly, and
181

182. with none of the other horns or kingdoms of the goat. The strength of the other
kingdoms consisted in themselves, and had its foundation in some part of the goat:
but the Roman empire, as a horn, or kingdom of the goat, was not mighty by its own
power, was not strong by virtue of the goat; but drew its nourishment and strength
from Rome and Italy. There grew the trunk and body of the tree, though the
branches extended over Greece, Asia, Syria, and Egypt. See Bishop Newton.
ELLICOTT 24-26, " (24) Not by his own power.—Not might, but cunning, will
cause his success. (Comp. 1 Maccabees 1:10, &c.) Thus his destructive powers
become astonishing.
The mighty.—No special individuals are pointed out, but rulers in general.
(25) Through his policy.—This is explained more fully in the next two sentences.
Through his craft he succeeds, and becomes able to destroy many unexpectedly, and
finally raises up himself against God.
Without hand.—Not by the hand of man (comp. Daniel 2:34), but by the act of God.
(26) The concluding words of the angel are intended to comfort the Jewish Church
in the days of her persecution. They teach her that God has foreseen her affliction,
that it comes from Him in His love, and that it shall last only for a short while. This
promise accounts for the firmness which was exhibited by the saints of the
Maccabees, which entitles their faith to a place in the same list of faithful men which
contains the names of Abel, Abraham, and Moses (Hebrews 11:34-38).
Shut thou up.—The revelation is to be kept safe, because the time of fulfilment is far
off, and then the comforting words will be needed. Comp. Revelation 22:10, where
the opposite counsel is given, “seal it not, for the time of fulfilment is near.”
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power:
and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy
the mighty and the holy people.
Ver. 24. Not by his own power.] But by his policy rather, and by the perfidy of
others. [Daniel 11:23]
And he shall destroy wonderfully.] Mirificentissime. In three days he slew fourscore
thousand in Jerusalem; forty thousand were put in bands, and as many sold.
And shall prosper, and practice.] Shall do whatsoever he wishes; as if he were some
petty god within himself.
And shall destroy the mighty.] So the Jews are called, because stout and undaunted,
and while they kept close to God, insuperable; as when otherwise, weak as water.
182

183. See Hosea 13:1. {See Trapp on "Hosea 13:1"}
And the holy people.] Federally holy at least.
PULPIT, "And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall
destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty
and the holy people. This verse involves many difficulties, grammatical and
exegetical. These difficulties may be said to be present in all the versions of this
passage. The LXX. renders, "And his power shall be confirmed, and not in his
strength, and he shall destroy marvellously, and prosper and do, and shall destroy
the rulers and people of the saints." Theodotion is so far slavishly close to the
Massoretic text; but he seems to have read qodesh, an adjective agreeing with
"people," instead of qedosheem, "saints;" and he omits the negative clause. The
Peshitta is very close to the Massoretic. It emphasizes the negative clause by adding
denaphsho, and translates "wonders" instead of "wonderfully." Jerome, more
intent on expressing what is his own interpretation of the passage than on
representing- the original, translates the first heel ("power") by fortitude, and the
second by viribus suis. That the power of Epiphanes was great—greater than that of
his brother and immediate predecessor—is undoubted. It is also the ease that lie was
confirmed in Iris place by the Romans, though, if we are to receive the account of
Appian, the direct means of his elevation to the throne was the intervention of
Eumenes of Pergamus on his behalf. Thus the reference of the phrase, "not by his
own power," may be to this. Little as he might brook the thought, he was but a
subject-ally of the great republic. The other interpretations are
All of these have something to favour them, but also something against them. There
is against the first that there is no reference in the context to the fact, true though it
was, that Antiochus was raised up by God for his own purposes. Against the second
is the pronominal suffix, which would be needless if the contrast were between force
and fraud. Of course, Hitzig's combination falls with this. Against the view
advocated by Calvin and Ewald is the fact that it seems a long time to hold the
reference to Alexander in abeyance. Still, it may be urged that the vision was before
the prophet; on the other hand, the relative strength of Epiphanes and Alexander
does not seem to be of importance. We still think that the real reference is to the fact
that he did not attain the throne either by inheritance or by his own prowess, but by
the help and authority of others, namely, Eumencs and Rome. And he shall destroy
wonderfully. Gratz thinks yasheeth, "destroy," suspicious, and Professor Bevan
suggests ‫יח‬ ִ‫ַשׂ‬‫י‬, (yaseeḥ), and would render, "He shall utter monstrous things;" but,
unfortunately for his view, there is no hint in the versions of any difficulty as to the
reading, and, further, ‫שׂוּח‬ (sooḥ) does not mean "utter," but "meditate." We must
take the words as they stand (comp. 13:19), and translate, "He shall destroy
portentously." Certainly Epiphanes was to the Jews a portent of destruction; there
had not been his like—not Nebuchadnezzar, who burned the temple, was to be
compared to him who endeavoured to blot out the worship of Jehovah altogether:
not any other of the Greek monarchs. He was unique in his enmity against God and
183

184. his worship. He shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. The rendering of the
Revised Version better conveys the sense of the original, "He shall destroy the
mighty ones." There has been discussion as to the distinction involved here. Ewald
regards the mighty as the three other horns of the ten (Daniel 7:8)—an
interpretation which proceeds in the false identification of the fourth beast with the
Greek Empire. Rashi imagines the star-worshippers; this seems the height of
caprice. Jephet-ibn-Ali, who identifies the little horn with Mahommed, holds the
"mighty" to be the Romans. Keil and Fuller hold it to be the heathen rulers
generally. Von Lengerke, Kliefoth, and others maintain it refers to the rich of the
holy people, while ‫ם‬ַ‫ﬠ‬ (‛am) are the poor. Hitzig refers it to the three claimants for
the crown, whom Antiochus is alleged, on somewhat insufficient evidence, to have
overthrown; Behrmann and Z‫צ‬ckler, to the political and warlike enemies of
Epiphanes, in contrast to the holy people, who were unwarlike. Kranichfeld refers it
to the rulers of Israel, as distinct from the people; Calvin to "neighbouring nations."
Moses Stuart would render, "great numbers, even the people of the saints;" while
Professor Bevan thinks there is an interpolation here, and adopts a reading of Gratz
from the LXX. for the beginning of the following verse. On the whole, this seems the
best solution of the difficulty. After Epiphanes had destroyed the "mighty," that is
to say, the political enemies he had, the Egyptians, etc; he directed his mind the
"people of the saints."
25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will
consider himself superior. When they feel secure,
he will destroy many and take his stand against
the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but
not by human power.
BARNES, "And through his policy - The word rendered “policy” here (‫שׂכל‬
s'êkel) means, properly, intelligence, understanding, wisdom; and then, in a bad sense,
craft, cunning. So it is rendered here by Gesenius, and the meaning is, that he would owe
his success in a great measure to craft and subtilty.
He shall cause craft to prosper in his hand - He shall owe his success in a great
184

185. measure to a crafty policy, to intrigue, and to cunning. This was true in an eminent
sense, of Antiochus. See his history in Prideaux, above referred to, and the books of
Maccabees. Compare the notes at Dan_11:21. The same character is given of him by
Polybius, “Relig.” lib. xxi. c. 5, tom. iv. p. 501, ed. Schweighauser; Appian, “de reb. Syr.”
xlv. t. 1, p. 604, ed. Schweigh. Compare 2 Macc. 5:24-26. He came to the kingdom by
deceit (Prideaux, iii. 212), and a great part of his success was owing to craft and policy.
And he shall magnify himself in his heart - Shall be lifted up with pride, or
esteem himself of great consequence.
And by peace shall destroy many - Margin, “prosperity.” The Hebrew word (‫שׁלוה‬
shale
vâh) means, properly, tranquility, security, ease, carelessness. Here the phrase
seems to mean “in the midst of security” (Gesenius, Lexicon); that is, while they were at
ease, and regarded themselves as in a state of safety, he would come suddenly and
unexpectedly upon them, and destroy them. He would make sudden war on them,
invading their territories, so that they would have no opportunity to make preparation to
meet him. Compare Dan_11:21, Dan_11:24. It would seem to mean that he would
endeavor to produce the impression that he was coming in peace; that he pretended
friendship, and designed to keep those whom he meant to invade and destroy in a state
of false security, so that he might descend upon them unawares. This was his policy
rather than to declare war openly, and so give his enemies fair warning of what he
intended to do. This description agrees every way with the character of Antiochus, a
leading part of whose policy always was to preserve the appearance of friendship, that he
might accomplish his purpose while his enemies were off their guard.
He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes - Notes, Dan_8:11.
Against God, the ruler over the kings of the earth.
But he shall be broken without hand - That is, without the hand of man, or by no
visible cause. He shall be overcome by Divine, invisible power. According to the author
of the first book of Maccabees (1 Macc. 6:8-16), he died of grief and remorse in Babylon.
He was on an expedition to Persia, and there laid siege to Elymais, and was defeated, and
fled to Babylon, when, learning that his forces in Palestine had been repulsed,
penetrated with grief and remorse, he sickened and died. According to the account in the
second book of Maccabees (2 Macc. 9), his death was most distressing and horrible.
Compare Prideaux, iii. 272-275. All the statements given of his death, by the authors of
the books of Maccabees, by Josephus, by Polybius, by Q. Curtius, and by Arrian (see the
quotations in Prideaux), agree in representing it as attended with every circumstance of
horror that can be well supposed to accompany a departure from this world, and as
having every mark of the just judgment of God. The Divine prediction in Daniel was fully
accomplished, that his death would be “without hand,” in the sense that it would not be
by human instrumentality; but that it would be by a direct Divine infliction. When
Antiochus died, the opposition to the Jews ceased, and their land again had peace and
rest.
GILL, "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
185

186. 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
186

187. broken, and died.
JAMISON, "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 fulfillment, foreshadowing
God’s judgment on the last enemy of the Jewish Church.
K&D, "Dan_8:25
In Dan_8:25 the cunning and craftiness of his action and demeanour are depicted.
‫ל‬ ְ‫כ‬ ִ‫שׂ‬ ‫ל‬ַ‫ע‬ (through his craft) is placed first. ‫ל‬ֶ‫כ‬ ֵ‫,שׂ‬ sagacity, here sensu malo, cunning. On
the ground of this cunning his deceit will be successful. ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫מ‬ 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 ‫ים‬ ִ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ר‬ (many) are comprehended “the mighty and the holy people”
(Dan_8:24). ‫ָה‬‫ו‬ ְ‫ל‬ַ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫בּ‬ 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. ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ָ‫שׂ‬ ‫ר‬ַ‫שׂ‬ (Prince of
princes) corresponds with ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ֹ‫ד‬ֲ‫א‬ ‫ים‬ִ‫ֲדֹנ‬‫א‬ ָ‫ה‬ (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.
CALVIN, "It follows next; He shall magnify himself in his heart, or he shall raise
himself, and bear himself magnificently; although this expression implies boasting
and pride, and is taken in a disadvantageous sense. He shall be insolent, therefore,
in his heart. The angel seems to distinguish here between the scheming and
penetration of Antiochus, and his pride of heart; for, although he should obtain
great: victories, and should subdue many nations according to his desires, yet he
would oppress the Jews, and then, should be magnified in heart; that is, should be
puffed up with greater pride than before, on account of those continuous successes.
And in peace he shall destroy many, or the brave; for the word ‫רבים‬ rabbim,
signifies either. Some translate, on account of his prosperity, because the Lord
wished to relax the reins, so that no one should hinder the course of his victories. On
account, then, of that success, he shall destroy many. Profane men, indeed, who
understand nothing of God’s providence, have said that folly and chance prevail
more in war than skill or arms; but the success of generals does not spring from
either chance or fortune, but as God pleases to conduct the affairs of the world in
187

188. various ways, so in some eases the evil and unskillful warriors succeed, while others
make many fruitless efforts and trials, although they are superior in counsel, and
are provided with the very best ornaments. But I rather incline to another sense
which interpreters do not mention; namely, Antiochus should destroy and lay waste
many nations without any trouble, with the greatest ease, and as it were in sport.
Wherefore the Prophet signifies, or the angel who addresses the Prophet., that
Antiochus should be the conqueror of many nations, not only because he should be
endowed with great cunning, and should carry on the war more by treachery than
by open violence, but as it is reported of Timotheus the Athenian general: He will
take cities and lands, and subject them to himself, through fortune spreading her
net for him while he is indulging in sleep. The angel, therefore, seems to point out
this listlessness, by predicting much devastation by the hand of Antiochus in
apparent ease and calmness. Others expound it thus, — nations shall be laid waste
by that robber which have given him no occasion for attack, because they have
never stirred up any hostility against him; but when they attempt to cultivate peace,
he wearies them without the slightest pretext. But this interpretation seems to be
forced.
He afterwards adds, And against the Prince Of Princes he shall stand, or rise up,
and he shall be destroyed without hand, or shall be ruined. The ‫,ו‬ vau, is put
adversatively; yet he shall be destroyed without hand. This was far more galling to
the Prophet, and to the whole people, for the angel to predict the contests of
Antiochus, not only with mortals, but with God himself. Some understand ‫שר‬-‫שרים‬ ,
sar-sarim, of the high priest, but this is too confined and spiritless. I have not the
least doubt that God is here meant by the Prince of Princes Wherefore the complete
sense is, — Antiochus should be not only bold, and cruel, and proud towards men,
but this madness and full should proceed so far as to lead him to attack and resist
God. This is the full sense. But a consolation is soon added, when the angel says, he
should be destroyed without hand It would, indeed, have been almost intolerable for
the Jews to hear only of the insolence of Antiochus in contending against God,
unless this correction had been added — the end of the contest must be the self-
destruction of Antiochus by his own impiety.He shall be destroyed then. But how?
without hand, says he. For after subduing so many nations, and after obtaining
whatever he wished, what more could be hoped for as far as man is concerned?
Who would dare to rise up against him? Clearly enough, if the kings of Syria had
been content with their own boundaries, they need not have feared any one, for no
enemy would have molested them; but they provoked the Romans to attack them,
and when they wished to invade Egypt, they did not prosper in their attempts.
Whichever be the meaning, the angel here announces the sufficiency of the divine
power without any human aid, for the destruction and overthrow of Antiochus.
Some think this prophet refers to Antichrist, thus they pass by Antiochus altogether,
and describe to us the appearance of Antichrist, as if the angel had shewn to Daniel
what should happen after the second renovation of the Church. The first restoration
took place when liberty was restored to the people, and they returned from exile to
their native land, and the second occurred at the advent of Christ. These
interpreters suppose this passage to unfold that devastation of the Church which
188

189. should take place after the coming of Christ, and the promulgation of the gospel.
But as we have previously seen, this is not a suitable meaning, and I am surprised
that men versed in the Scriptures should so pour forth clouds upon clear light. For,
as we said yesterday, nothing can be clearer, or more perspicuous, or even more
familiar, than this prophecy. And what is the tendency of ascribing so violently to
Antichrist what even mere children clearly see to be spoken of Antiochus, except to
deprive Scripture of all its authority? Others speak more modestly and more
considerately, when they suppose the angel to treat of Antiochus for the purpose of
depicting in his person the figure of Antichrist. But I do not think this reasoning
sufficiently sound. I desire the sacred oracles to be treated so reverently, that no one
may introduce any variety according to the will of man, but simply hold what is
positively certain. It would please me better to see any one wishing to adapt this
prophecy to the present use of the Church, and to apply to Antichrist by analogy
what is said of Antiochus. We know that whatever happened to the Church of old,
belongs also to us, because we have fallen upon the fullness of times.
No doubt the Holy Spirit wished to teach us how to bear our cross by making use of
this example, but as I have already said, it seems to me far too frivolous to search for
allegories. We should be content with true simplicity, and transfer to ourselves
whatever occurred to the ancient people. (1 Corinthians 10:11.) With how much
reason does the Apostle say there should be false teachers in the kingdom of Christ,
as there were formerly false prophets! (2 Peter 2:1.) So we must determine, that the
devil, who was a murderer from the beginning, will always find those whom he will
stir up and impel to persecute the Church. The devil contends at this very day, not
only by fallacious doctrines, and impious errors, and impostures, but also by cruel
tyranny, as he inflames many impious men to madness, and thus harasses the sons
of God. As the Jews ought not to quail under the calamities which oppressed them,
through Daniel’s predictions concerning Antiochus, so the same doctrine ought in
these days to fortify us, lest the novelty of our calamities should appall us, when the
Church is oppressed by heavy burdens, and tyrants rage and storm, with fire and
sword. (Romans 8:28 :) For the fathers experienced similar trials, to whom Christ
had not then pointed out the way of life, and who did not comprehend so clearly as
we do our duty to be conformed to the only-begotten Son of God, because he is the
first-born in the Church; he is our head and we are his members. This. was not so
fully unfolded to those holy men, who still endured under so many afflictions, when
they might suppose the Church completely buried, as it is certainly surprising that
they did not yield a hundred times over to so many and such dreadful calamities.
Therefore this doctrine will be best accommodated to our instruction, if we are
convinced of the justice of our condition not being better than that of the fathers.
What, therefore, happened to them? These wicked ones should be destroyed,
namely, the Jews:, who professed themselves to be the elect people of God, and the
holy family of Abraham, and in numberless ways had obstinately provoked God’s
wrath; thus the Church was miserably harassed. Antiochus, especially, like a
sweeping tempest, reduced all things to ruin, till the people felt themselves utterly
undone, and to all human appearance were without the slightest hope. As God
punished so severely the wickedness of his ancient people, it does not surprise us
189

190. when we feel his present chastisements, as in these days the land is full of sinfulness,
and we do not cease perpetually and purposely to provoke God’s wrath. (1
Thessalonians 3:3.) Lastly, to avoid the penalty due to our sins, let us consider the
end of our calling, the subjection of our whole life to the cross. This is the warfare to
which our heavenly Father destines us. As this is our lot, we ought to look into this
mirror, and there behold the perpetual condition of the
Church. It is therefore no matter of surprise, if, instead of one Antiochus, God
should raise up many who are hardened and invincible in their obstinacy, and in
their cruelty make many attempts with clandestine arts, and plot for the destruction
of the Church. If the fathers experienced this, it does not surprise us, if we in these
days undergo similar sufferings. This, I say, is a useful analogy, and does not distort
the simple sense of Scripture. Now, let us go on, —
COKE, "Daniel 8:25. He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes— If by the
prince of princes, the high-priest be meant, the Romans abolished the whole
administration of that priesthood. If the Messiah be meant, it was effected by the
Romans. It was indeed by the malice of the Jews, but by the authority of the
Romans, that he was put to death; and he suffered the punishment of the Roman
malefactors and slaves. And indeed it is very worthy of our consideration, whether
this part of the prophesy be not a sketch of the fate and sufferings of the Christian,
as well as of the Jewish church. Nothing is more usual with the prophets than to
describe the religion and worship of later times, by figures borrowed from their own
religion. The Christians may full as well as the Jews be comprehended under the
name of holy people, or people of the holy ones. The Romans not only crucified our
Saviour, but also persecuted his disciples for above three centuries; and when at
length they embraced the Christian religion, they soon corrupted it; so that it may
be questioned, whether their favour was not as hurtful to the church as their
enmity. As the power of the Roman emperors declines, that of the Roman pontiff
increased: and may it not with equal truth and justice be said of the latter, as of the
former, that they cast down the truth to the ground? How applicable in this sense is
every part of the angel's interpretation, in this and the two former verses! and this
farther opens and explains the appellations of the little horn. The persecuting power
of Rome, whether exercised towards the Jews, or towards the Christians, by the
emperors, or by the popes, is still the little horn. Their tyranny is the same; but as
exerted in Greece and the east, it is the little horn of the he-goat, or the third
empire; as exerted in Italy and the west, it is the little horn of the fourth beast, or
the fourth empire. See Bishop Newton.
He shall be broken without hand— As the stone, in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, was
cut out of the mountain without hands; that is to say, not by human but by
supernatural means; so the little horn, shall be broken without hand; shall not die
the common death; nor fall by the hand of men, but perish by a stroke from heaven.
And this agrees perfectly with the former predictions of the fatal catastrophe of the
Romans, chap. Daniel 2:34; Daniel 7:11; Daniel 7:26. All which implies, that the
190

191. dominion of the Romans shall finally be destroyed by some extraordinary
manifestation of the divine power. By thus retracing the particulars of this
remarkable prophesy, it appears, that though some of them agree very well with
Antiochus Epiphanes, yet others can by no means be reconciled to him; but they all
agree and correspond exactly with the Romans, and with none else; so that the
application of the character to them must be the right application. See Bishop
Newton.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in
his hand; and he shall magnify [himself] in his heart, and by peace shall destroy
many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken
without hand.
Ver. 25. And through his policy also.] Incumbens intelligentiae suae, leaning on his
own wit, Versutulus et versatilis, and that great elixir called reason of state, which
can make, for a need,
“ Candida de nigris, et de candentibus atra. ”
And by peace shall destroy many.] Undo them by promises of prosperity and
preferment, which are dangerous baits; [Mark 4:9] "they were sawn asunder, they
were tempted." [Hebrews 11:37] Julian the apostate went this way to work, and
prevailed to make many apostates.
He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes.] God Almighty, by destroying
the daily sacrifices, and by setting up idolatry in the temple.
But he shall be broken without hand,] i.e., By the visible vengeance of God, [1
Maccabees 6:8-13 2 Maccabees 9:5-11] who laid upon him a loathsome disease
( Tetro morbo), and wrapped him up in the sheet of shame.
PETT, "Verse 25
‘And by his understanding he will cause deceit to prosper by his hand, and he will
magnify himself in his heart and he will destroy many in security. He will also stand
up against the prince of princes. But he will be broken without hand.’
His ‘understanding’ means his understanding of cunning. He used deceit to obtain
victory and reap wealth. He was a man who could not be trusted. ‘Magnifying
himself in his heart’ may well refer to his claims of deity. Once kings magnified
themselves too highly, their end was sure. Compare Daniel 8:4; Daniel 8:8. ‘Destroy
many in security’ probably refers to his methods such as that of pretending to come
in peace and then taking men by surprise and slaughtering them (see 1 Maccabees
1:29-30).
191

192. ‘He will also stand up against the prince of princes. But he will be broken without
hand.’ The ‘prince of princes’, that is God. Compare ‘the prince of the host’ (Daniel
8:11.) This probably mainly refers to the desecration of the temple and the ban on
circumcision, the Sabbath, and true worship, and the enforced destruction of the
Scriptures. Thus he would die, but not by a human hand, that is not ‘naturally’ or
by being slain in warfare but because God had destined him for death. They need
not fear for God has him in hand.
PULPIT, "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand;
and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall
also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
The versions here are at variance with each other and. with the Massoretic
recension. The LXX. renders, "And against the saints shall his purpose be"—
evidently reading, as suggested by Gratz, v‛al qedosheem siklo—"and craft shall
prosper in his hands, and his heart shall be lifted up, and by treachery he shall
destroy many, and for the destruction of men shall he stand, and he shall make a
gathering of power, and shall sell (it)." Theodotion is, in regard to the first clause,
considerably more at variance with the Massorctic, "And the yoke of his collar (or
chain) shall prosper." Evidently Theodotion had read ‫ל‬ֹ‫ע‬ (‛ol), "yoke," instead of ‫ל‬ַ‫ﬠ‬
(‛al), "upon," and probably ‫לוֹ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ‫ס‬ (sib'lo), "his burden," instead of ‫לוֹ‬ ְ‫כ‬ ִ‫שׂ‬ (sik'lo), "his
thought." "And in his heart he shall be magnified, and by treachery shall he corrupt
many. and for the destruction of many. shall he stand, and as eggs shall he crush
(them) in his hand," reading kebaytzeem beyad yishbar instead of be'eseph yad
yishahabayr. The Peshitta has several points of peculiarity, "And in his might he
shall prosper: he shall restrain with his hand, and his heart shall be lifted up, and
by treachery shall he corrupt many. and against the Ruler of rulers shall he rise up,
and with grasp of the hand shall be taken." Even Jerome,. who is usually in close
agreement with the Massoretic text, translates at variance with their pointing. He
begins this verse really with the last clause of the previous one, "And he shall slay
strong ones and the people of the saints according to his will, and treachery shall be
directed in his hand, and in plenty of all things he shall slay many, and against the
Prince of princes shall he rise, and without hand shall be broken." The most
singular thing is the omission by both the Greek versions of the phrase sar sareem,
which both appear to have read yishhat rabbeem a variation of reading difficult to
understand. On the whole, these varying versions seem to have sprung from a text
originally not differing much from the Massoretic, save in the opening clause, in
which the Septuagint appears to suit the succession of thought better. The return of
Antiochus from his expedition to Egypt was the signal for his persecution of the
saints; then his "purpose, was against the holy people." Craft shall prosper in his
hand. The account we have in the First Book of the Maccabees shows the perpetual
exercise by Antiochus and those under him of treachery. At first, at all events, his
craft prospered (1 Macc. 1:30). And he shall magnify himself in his heart. Bevan
thinks this hardly accurate, as the hiphil is ordinarily causative. Only Zephaniah 2:8
has this verb used in hiphil as reflexive. The sense, however, seems to be, not that he
192

193. shall become proud, but that he has many great projects in his mind one (1 Macc.
1:42) being to unify all the various peoples that were under his sceptre, so that they
should be one in religion and law. He further had the design of conquering Egypt
and uniting it to his empire, and would have done so had the Romans not
intervened. And by peace shall destroy many. The word translated "peace" means
also "suddenly." The Greek versions both render it by ‫ה‬́‫ן‬ ëùͅ . Schleusner suggests
that the word was derived from another root. There dues not seem such a root in
Levy. The probability is that the meaning passed from "tranquillity" to the notion
of "treachery." The meaning assigned to the word by Jerome is inexplicable, copia
rerum. It happens that both the meaning attached to the word shalvah by the Greek
versions here, and that found in other passages, harmonize. The treachery of the
chief collector of tribute lay in feigning peace, and then slaying the people (1 Macc.
1:29). He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes. The Greek versions, as
above observed, have instead of this, å̓ ðé̀ á̓ ðùëåé́áò á̓ íäñù͂ í óôḉóåôáé—a phrase that
might be a rendering of ‫רבבים‬ ‫.לשחת‬ The Massoretic text here seems the preferable.
Antiochus had certainly risen up against God, the "Prince of princes," or, as the
Peshitta renders, "Ruler of rulers." He shall be broken without hand. The fact of
Antiochus dying immediately after an ineffectual attempt to rob a temple in
Elymais, and dying, not from the effect of wounds received, but from chagrin, is
symbolized by this statement. The figure of a horn pushing in this direction and in
that is resumed; hence Epiphanes is said to be broken. And that he was not
overthrown in battle by any rival for the crown is shown by the statement that it
was without hands that he was so broken. The Romans resisted his attempt to take
possession of Egypt, so he was baulked in his pursuit after one object. He desired to
unite his whole multifarious empire, so that it should be homogeneous; that was
baulked by the victorious revolt of the Jews under Judas Maccabaeus. If he could
have made his empire homogeneous, he might have expected to be able to defy the
Romans. The defeat of his army by Judas might easily be remedied if he had money
to pay his troops, so he attempted the plunder of the temple in Elymais, said to be
that of Artemis. The inhabitants resisted so vehemently, that he had to retire
baffled. This it was that caused his death. Polybius hints at madness inflicted by a
Divine hand.
26 “The vision of the evenings and mornings that
has been given you is true, but seal up the vision,
for it concerns the distant future.”
193

194. BARNES, "And the vision of the evening and the morning - That is, of the two
thousand three hundred days. See Dan_8:14, and the margin on that verse. The meaning
here is, “the vision pertaining to that succession of evenings and mornings.” Perhaps this
appellation was given to it particularly because it pertained so much to the evening and
morning sacrifice.
Is true - Shall be certainly accomplished. This was said by the angel, giving thus to
Daniel the assurance that what he had seen Dan_8:9-14 was no illusion, but would
certainly come to pass.
Wherefore shut thou up the visions - Seal it up. Make a record of it, that it may
be preserved, and that its fulfillment may be marked. See the notes at Isa_8:16.
For it shall be for many days - That is, many days will elapse before it will be
accomplished. Let a fair record, therefore, be made of it, and let it be sealed up, that it
may be preserved to prepare the people for these events. “When” these things would
come thus fearfully upon the people of Judea, they would be the better able to bear these
trials, knowing the period when they would terminate.
CLARKE, "
He shall cause craft to prosper - They subdued as many by their diplomatic skill
and political intrigues as they did by the sword.
He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes - Against Christ, for it was
by the Roman authority that he was condemned to death and crucified; and their
persecutions had nearly destroyed the Christian religion; but the house was founded on
a rock.
But he shall be broken without hand - The tide was turned by the invisible hand
of God; and thus heathen Rome was overcome, and converted to Christianity.
Daniel 8:26
The vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true - That
mentioned in Dan_8:14.
For it shall be for many days - Not less than two thousand three hundred years!
GILL, "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:
194

195. 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.
HENRY 26-27, "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.
JAMISON, "shut ... up ... vision — implying the vision was not to be understood
195

196. 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).
K&D, "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, ‫ר‬ ַ‫ֱמ‬‫א‬ֶ‫נ‬ ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ 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 ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ֹק‬‫בּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ֶ‫ע‬ ָ‫ה‬ (the evening and the morning), although this were
admissible, but can make it depend on ‫ה‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ (vision), since the world-revelation of the
evenings and mornings forms an integral part of the “vision.” ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ֹק‬‫בּ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ֶ‫ע‬ ָ‫ה‬ 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. ‫ן‬ ַ‫ת‬ ָ‫ס‬ is not
equivalent to ‫ם‬ ַ‫ת‬ ָ‫,ח‬ to seal up, but it means to stop, to conclude, to hide (cf. 2Ki_3:19;
Eze_28:3), but not in the sense of keeping secret, or because it would be
incomprehensible for the nearest times; for to seal or to shut up has nothing in common
with incomprehensibility, but is used in the sense of keeping. “A document is sealed up
in the original text, and laid up in archives (shut up), that it may remain preserved for
remote times, but not that it may remain secret, while copies of it remain in public use”
(Kliefoth). The meaning of the command, then, is simply this: “Preserve the revelation,
not because it is not yet to be understood, also not for the purpose of keeping it secret,
but that it may remain preserved for distant times” (Kliefoth). The reason assigned for
the command only agrees with this interpretation. ‫ים‬ ִ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ָמ‬‫י‬ ְ‫ל‬ (to many days) is not to
be identified with ‫ץ‬ ֵ‫ת־ק‬ֶ‫ע‬ ְ‫ל‬ 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.
CALVIN, "The angel again confirms the assertion that no part of this vision was
shewn to the Prophet in vain, because not even the slightest portion of it should fail
of its effect. The necessity of this method of confirming our faith is notorious,
because, although the events may be well known to us, yet we cannot acquiesce in
196

197. God’s word, unless he should testify so repeatedly to the truth of his assertions, and
sanction by such repetition whatever appears to us ambiguous. When it becomes
perfectly obvious that the angel discourses upon obscure events, and such as were
utterly incredible at the time, it does not surprise us when he announces again, that
the Prophet had seen nothing which God would not accomplish. This vision,
therefore, says he, is truth. He calls it “the vision of the evening and morning,”
because while the angel was treating of the six years and almost a half, he used this
form of speech. And we said this was purposely expressed, lest any one should
extend it to years or months, as some did; as if the angel had said, — Behold! by
calculating single days up to six years and about a half, the completion of this
prophecy when the Temple shall be cleansed, shall be accurately discovered. Again
it is asserted, that the vision is certain, because God had computed day by day the
time of the profanation of the Temple until the period of its cleansing. Do thou,
therefore, says he, seal or close the vision, because it is for many days It may
surprise us why God should wish what he had explained to his servant to remain
concealed. For Daniel was not instructed in futurity for his own private advantage,
but for the common usefulness of the whole people. It seems, therefore, contrary to
his office to be commanded to close up the vision, and to keep it. in complete
obscurity. But the angel means, if the greater part of the people should reject this
prophecy, this formed no reason why Daniel should hesitate. Be thou, therefore, the
guardian of this prophecy, as if God had deposited a treasure in the hands of his
servant, and had said, “Pay no regard to any who despise this prophecy; many may
deride thee, and others think thou art narrating fables, and very few will have
confidence in thee but do not relax on this account, but faithfully guard this
treasure,” since it is for many days; that is, although its effect is not immediately
apparent, because God will suspend for some time the punishments of which
entreats, and will not restore the Temple all at once, nor wrest His people
immediately out of the hand of the tyrant. In consequence, then, of his deferring his
judgments as well as his pity for many days, do thou close up this visions, that is,
keep it to thyself, as if thou art alone. Thus God does not simply command his
Prophet to be silent, or to conceal what he had learnt, but rather confirms him in his
consistency, lest he should estimate this prophecy according to the ordinary opinions
of his countrymen. And at the same time he shews, that though the Jews did not pay
attention to what Daniel announced to them, yet nothing whatever should be in vain.
It follows, —
COFFMAN, ""And the vision of the evenings and the mornings which hath been
told is true: but shut thou up the vision; for it belongeth to many days to come. And
I, Daniel, fainted, and was sick certain days; then I rose up and did the king's
business: and I wondered at the vision, but none understood it."
"Shut thou up the vision ..." (Daniel 8:26). Andrews thought this meant, "Keep it
secret";[17] but we believe the better understanding of it is that of Barnes who said
it meant, "Keep a record of it, that it may be preserved and that the fulfillment of it
197

198. might be noted."[18]
It is of very great significance that Daniel himself made no claim whatever to a full
understanding of what he recorded. Even believing commentators often make the
gross error of assuming that no prophet ever wrote anything that was not fully
understood by the prophet himself, and that it is illogical to look for anything in the
prophets that cannot be traced to the prophet's own knowledge or experience.
It would be hard to imagine an error more directly opposed to what the Word of
God teaches than is the one just cited. There are examples in both the Old
Testament and the New Testament in which prophets plainly declared what they did
not understand.
For example, on Pentecost, Peter stated that the promises of the Christian gospel
were for them that "were afar off," a plain reference to the Gentiles; yet it took a
miraculous vision later to convince Peter that he should go to the home of Cornelius
(a Gentile) and baptize him. In the Old Testament, there can hardly be any doubt
whatever that Amos was without the foggiest notion of what God's Words through
him actually meant, when he stated that the sabbath would be gone, "When the
earth is darkened in a clear sky, and the sun goes down at noon."
This error fails to recognize that it was God who spoke "through" the prophets.
People who are influenced by this error should read 1 Peter 1:10-12. In that passage
an apostle of Christ stripped this common error of every vestige of its validity.
COKE, "Daniel 8:26. Shut thou up the vision, &c.— This shutting up of the vision
implies, that it should not be understood for some time. The vision being for many
days, must necessarily infer a longer term than the calamity under Antiochus, of
three years and a half, or even than the whole time from the first beginning of the
vision in Cyrus, to the cleansing of the sanctuary under Antiochus, which was not
above three hundred and seventy-one years. Such a vision could not well be called
long by Daniel, who had seen so much longer before; and especially as the time
assigned for it, Daniel 8:14 is two thousand three hundred days; which, since they
cannot by any account be natural days, must needs be prophetic days, or two
thousand and three hundred years. Such a vision may properly enough be said to be
for many days. See Bishop Newton.
TRAPP, "Daniel 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told
[is] true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it [shall be] for many days.
Ver. 26. And the vision of the evening.] See Daniel 8:14. Lyra by the "morning"
would have understood the time of Antiochus; by the "evening" the time of
antichrist, who was prefigured by Antiochus.
198

199. Is true.] Heb., Truth, and so plain that I need say no more of it.
Wherefore shut thou up the vision.] Keep it to thyself in sacred silence, and reserve
it in writing for posterity. See Daniel 12:4-9, Isaiah 8:16.
For it shall be for many days,] i.e., For about three hundred years hence. The Lord
would have visions concealed till toward the accomplishment.
PETT, "Verse 26
‘And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true. But shut
up the vision for it belongs to many days.’
Compare Daniel 8:14. The spoken vision of the evenings and the mornings was of
the period when the temple was desecrated, whether by a the ministrations of a false
High Priest (Menelaus) or by the altar of Zeus. It would be a heavy burden for
Israel if they considered the fact, that the sanctuary that they would so painfully
erect would again be desecrated, and almost unbelievable that God would allow it.
But Daniel is assured that it will indeed be so, but that it will not be for a long time.
So the vision was not to be read out as though it could happen at any time. It was to
be kept on one side and preserved with a recognition that it spoke of a distant future
and in those days would prove a comfort and a strength.
PULPIT, "And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true:
wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. The rendering of
the LXX. here is, "The vision of the evening and morning was found true, and tile
vision has been secured for many days." ‫מֲר‬ ֶ‫ֶא‬‫נ‬ ‫ר‬ ַ‫שׁ‬ֲ‫א‬ (asher ne‛emar) has been read
‫על‬ ‫,נמצא‬ although it is difficult to see the genesis of such a reading from the
Massoretic , or vice versa. The LXX. rendering of ‫סתם‬ ought to be observed—not
"shut up," in the sense of being "sealed," but "defended from interference by being
secured as with a hedge." Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic
text, but have ‫,חתם‬ construct of ‫סתם‬ . The vision of the evening and the morning
refers to Daniel 8:14. The phrase used. here differs by the insertion of the definite
article: but this merely intimates a reference. This statement does not mean that the
period indicated by the two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings would
end with the death of Antiochus. Certainly, his death occurred in the year following
the cleansing of the temple (1 Macc. 6:16). If the writer reckons the beginning of the
year according to the Macedonian Calendar, almost a year must have elapsed
between the temple-cleansing and the death of Antiochus; but it is the cleansing that
is the terminus ad quem, not the death of Antiochus. The pollution of the temple was
the event that, of all others, would be trying to the faith and patience of Jewish
believers; therefore attention is directed to this. As the beginning of this season of
trial is the point to which the whole history of the Greek Empire travels, so the
termination of this desecration is the end contemplated. Shut thou up the vision.
199

200. Certainly the verb satham means sometimes "to hide;" and it is also certain that it is
a characteristic of apocalyptic literature to contain, in the text, elaborate directions
fur hiding the vision; e.g. the Apocalypse of Moses. It has been argued that this is a
preparation for the publication of Daniel in the age of the Maccabees, so long after
the date at which it purports to be written. But there is no description of how the
book is to be hidden, as in the Assumption of Moses. Moreover, the translators of
the LXX. did not understand satham as "hide." If it had been hidden, and had been
discovered, he would have known and translated accordingly. Then when we turn to
the next verse, we find that Daniel himself did not understand the command as
meaning that he was to keep the vision secret from his contemporaries; so far from
that being the case, one at' his reasons for distress is that no one understood the
vision. The vision shall be far many days. That is to say, that a long interval divided
the time when the revelation was made from the time of its fulfilment (Ezekiel
12:27); the vision he sees is for many days to come. Before the beginning of the
history revealed to Daniel, certainly not many years intervened; but between the
days of Belshazzar and those of Antiochus was an interval of approximately four
centuries. The Persian Empire rose and fell, and the Macedonian Empire rose and
was approaching its fall. At the end of the period, the light of the vision fell most
clearly. It was not necessary that Daniel should know the events portrayed to
foretell them truly, any more than it was needful that the Second Isaiah should
know the exact historical events portrayed so clearly in his fifty-third chapter.
Daniel could not fail to know of Persia, and it even did not require more than a
knowledge of the past, and ordinary powers of political forecast, to see that Cyrus
might, and probably would, found a world-empire. He knew of the Greeks: there
were Greeks in the army of Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover, we learn from Herodotus
(1.77) that Nabu-nahid Labynetus had made an alliance with Croesus, in order to
check the advance of Cyrus. We know from Herodotus (1:26, 27) that Croesus
subdued all the Greek cities in Asia Minor. To Daniel, who possibly had favoured
this alliance with the Western monarch, the King of Javan would mean, not
Alexander the Great, as it means to us, but Croesus. But his hopes that Babylon will
be delivered by the help of Croesus are shown to be groundless, by the intimation
that it will be "for many days." The intimation that he had made to Belshazzar, of
the interpretation of the inscription on the palace wall, did not necessarily, in his
mind, militate against the hope that repentance might lead to respite. Daniel may
have made use of political expedients to help in the result he wished.
27 I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for
several days. Then I got up and went about the
200

201. king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it
was beyond understanding.
BARNES, "And I Daniel fainted - Hebrew, “I was “ - ‫נהייתי‬ nı̂he
yēythı̂y. Compare
Dan_2:1. The meaning, according to Gesenius (“Lexicon”), is, “I was done up, and was
sick:” - I was done over, etc. Perhaps the “reason” of his using this verb here is, that he
represents himself as “having been sick,” and then as fainting away, as if his life had
departed. The Latin Vulgate renders it langui. Theodotion, ἐκοιμήθην ekoimēthēn - “ was
laid in my bed.” The general idea is plain, that he was overcome and prostrate at the
effect of the vision. He had been permitted to look into the future, and the scenes were
so appalling - the changes that were to occur were so great - the calamities were so
fearful in their character - and, above all, his mind was so affected that the daily sacrifice
was to cease, and the worship of God be suspended, that he was entirely overcome. And
who of us, probably, could “bear” a revelation of what is to occur hereafter? Where is
there strength that could endure the disclosure of what may happen even in a few years?
And was sick certain days - The exact time is not specified. The natural
interpretation is, that it was for a considerable period.
Afterward I rose up, and did the king’s business - Compare the notes at Dan_
8:2. From this it would appear that he had been sent to Shushan on some business
pertaining to the government. What it was we are not informed. As a matter of fact, he
was sent there for a more important purpose than any which pertained to the
government at Babylon - to receive disclosure of most momentous events that were to
occur in distant times. Yet this did not prevent him from attending faithfully to the
business entrusted to him - as no views which we take of heavenly things, and no
disclosures made to our souls, and no absorption in the duties and enjoyments of
religion, should prevent us from attending with fidelity to whatever secular duties may
be entrusted to us. Sickness justifies us, of course, in not attending to them; the highest
views which we may have of God and of religious truth should only make us more
faithful in the discharge of our duties to our fellow-men, to our country, and in all the
relations of life. He who has been favored with the clearest views of Divine things will be
none the less prepared to discharge with faithfulness the duties of this life; he who is
permitted and enabled to look far into the future will be none the less likely to be
diligent, faithful, and laborious in meeting the responsibilites of the present moment. If
a man could see all that there is in heaven, it would only serve to impress him with a
deeper conviction of his obligations in every relation; if he could see all that there is to
come in the vast eternity before him, it would only impress him with a profounder sense
of the consequences which may follow from the discharge of the present duty.
And I was astonished at the vision - He was stupified - he was overcome - at the
splendid appearance, and the momentous nature of the disclosures. Compare the notes
at Dan_4:19.
201

202. But none understood it - It would seem probable from this, that he communicated
it to others, but no one was able to explain it. Its general features were plain, but no one
could follow out the details, and tell “precisely” what would occur, before the vision was
fulfilled. This is the general nature of prophecy; and if neither Daniel nor any of his
friends could explain this vision in detail, are we to hope that we shall be successful in
disclosing the full meaning of those which are not yet fulfilled? The truth is, that in all
such revelations of the future, there must be much in detail which is not now fully
understood. The general features may be plain - as, in this case, it was clear that a
mighty king would rise; that he would be a tyrant; that he would oppress the people of
God; that he would invade the holy land; that he would for a time put a period to the
offering of the daily sacrifice; and that this would continue for a definite period; and that
then he would be cut off without human instrumentality: but who from this would have
been able to draw out, in detail, all the events which in fact occurred? Who could have
told precisely how these things would come to pass? Who could have ventured on a
biography of Antiochus Epiphanes? Yet these three things are true in regard to this:
(1) That no one by human sagacity could have foreseen these events so as to have been
able to furnish these sketches of what was to be;
(2) That these were sufficient to apprise those who were interested particularly of
what would occur; and
(3) That when these events occurred, it was plain to all persons that the prophecy had
reference to them.
So plain is this - so clear is the application of the predictions in this book, that
Porphyry maintained that it was written after the events had occurred, and that the book
must have been forged.
CLARKE, "Daniel fainted - To foresee the desolations that were coming on the
land, the city, the temple, and the people.
Did the king’s business - Transacted the affairs of state that belonged to my
department, after having been sick for certain days through the effects of this vision. He
had a pious and feeling heart; and he was distressed for the desolations that were
coming upon his people.
GILL, "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
202

203. 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.
JAMISON, "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].
K&D, "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 ‫ין‬ ִ‫ב‬ ֵ‫מ‬ ‫ין‬ ֵ‫א‬ (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 ‫ן‬ ַ‫ת‬ ָ‫ס‬
(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 ‫ין‬ ִ‫ב‬ ֵ‫מ‬ ‫ין‬ ֵ‫א‬ only to Daniel is forbidden by
the comparison with ‫ין‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ‫א‬ ‫ֹא‬ ‫ל‬ ְ‫ו‬ in Dan_12:8. The fulfilment of this vision can alone lead
to its full understanding.
CALVIN, "Again, Daniel shews himself to have been so touched with the secret
instinct of God, that he knew for certain this vision to have been divinely presented
to him. For God wished so to affect his servant, that he might embrace with greater
reverence what he both heard and saw. I have already referred to our want; of
attention in listening to God’s word as it deserves, unless some kind of fear precedes
it which may rouse our minds by some means from their torpor; but this prophecy
had a special intention. In an ordinary case, God did not humble his servant; but by
203

204. the disease which is here mentioned, he wishes to show how this prediction related
to some event of serious magnitude. Daniel, therefore, states himself to have been
astonished, as if suffering under some defect, and afflicted by disease This disease
did not happen to the Prophet naturally, but it fell upon him in consequence, of his
being suddenly terrified. And he afterwards shews this, by saying, no one
understood the prediction. Here, then, he admonishes all the pious, neither to hear
nor read this, narrative with carelessness, but to summon up their utmost attention,
and to perceive that God here shews them things of the greatest importance, and
which vitally concern their salvation. This forms a reason why Daniel ought to
suffer dejection and to be afflicted by disease. He next says, he returned to the
king’s business, meaning his ordinary occupation. We infer from this expression,
the grievous error of those who think him to have been in Persia at this period,
because he could not return to his duties, unless to were present in the king’s palace.
But why is this added? To assure us that the Prophet was not drawn off from the
duties which the king had assigned to him, although God had chosen him to perform
the peculiar office of Prophet and teacher of his Church. This is a rare instance, and
ought not to be drawn into a precedent, according to the usual phrase. Which of us,
for instance, would be sufficient for those duties of political government assigned to
Daniel, and also for those incumbent upon a pastor and teacher? But God made use
of his servant Daniel in an extraordinary way, because he had many reasons for
wishing him occupied in the king’s palace. We have previously seen how God’s
glory was illustrated by his position, for Daniel admonished Belshazzar of his
approaching death, when his enemies had already partially captured the city. And
the utility of this was proved by Cyrus and Darius sparing the Jews. As long as the
Chaldeans held the supreme power, Daniel was of no slight benefit to those
miserable exiles; for even if he lived under cruel tyrants, yet he had some authority
remaining, and this enabled him to alleviate many of the sufferings of his nation.
God, therefore, was consulting the advantage of the whole people, when he desired
Daniel to proceed in the course of his usual duties. Besides this, he wished to confer
upon him the extraordinary gift of prophecy, an endowment, as I have said, peculiar
to Daniel. It now follows, —
COKE, "Daniel 8:27. I Daniel fainted— Daniel's sickness proceeded from his grief
for his religion and country; as in the former vision he was grieved at the success of
the little horn, there described. And this is another conclusive argument, that the
calamities under Antiochus Epiphanes could not possibly be the main end and
ultimate scope of this prophesy, for the calamities under Antiochus were of small
extent, and of short duration, in comparison with what the nation had suffered, and
was then suffering, under Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. Present and sensible
evils usually affect us most; and therefore, that Daniel was so much more affected
with the future than the present,—was astonished, and fainted, and was sick certain
days, can be ascribed to nothing but his foreseeing that the future distress and
misery of the nation would greatly exceed all that they endured at present. But the
calamities under Antiochus, as we observed above, were much less and much
shorter. Those only which they suffered from the Romans were greater and worse
than the evils brought on them by Nebuchadnezzar; and the transgression of
204

205. desolation has now continued above seventeen hundred years. They expect, and we
expect, that at length the sanctuary will be cleansed, and that in God's time his
promise in Amos 9:11-12 and Acts 15:16-17 will be fully accomplished. This concern
of Daniel, and affection for his religion and country, shew him in a very amiable
light, and give an additional lustre to his character. But not only in this instance, but
in every other, he manifests the same public spirit, and appears no less eminently a
patriot than a prophet. Though he was torn early from his country, and enjoyed all
the advantages that he could enjoy in a foreign service, yet nothing could make him
forget his native home: and in the next chapter we see him pouring out his soul in
prayer, and supplicating most earnestly and devoutly for the pardon and
restoration of his captive nation. See Bishop Newton. Houbigant renders the last
clause, But I was silent, and astonished, nobody understanding that I was so
affected on account of the vision.
REFLECTIONS.—1st, This second vision is dated, in the third year of Belshazzar's
reign. The scene is laid in Shushan, which was one of the royal palaces of the kings
of Persia by the river Ulai.
1. The prophet saw a ram, the emblem of the second monarchy, having two very
high horns, the nations of Medes and Persians; and one horn, which rose the last,
was higher than the other, the Persians under Cyrus taking the lead, though at first
inferior to the Medes. This animal seemed to push furiously, westward, northward,
and southward, extending his conquests on every side, none of the nations being
able to stand before him; so that he did as he pleased, and became great, rose to
universal empire. But such is the perishing nature of all sublunary things, that the
seeds of corruption and ruin are ripening when a nation's outward prosperity seems
most established; for,
2. A he-goat attacks and overcomes the ram. This represents the Grecian monarchy
under Alexander: he came from the west, from Macedon, on the face of the whole
earth, sweeping it with his victorious arms, and weeping, it is said, that he had not
another world to conquer: and he touched not the ground; so rapid were his
marches, that he rather seemed to fly than walk; and the goat had a notable horn
between his eyes, descriptive of Alexander, the first founder of the monarchy; so
eminent a conqueror, so sagacious a general, and attended by his father's wisest
counsellors. He came to the ram that had two horns, the Persian monarch Darius
Codomannus, then in possession of the kingdom, and ran unto him in the fury of his
power, eager to engage, and furious in the attack that he made; highly exasperated
by the message of contempt which Darius had sent him, he came close to the ram,
joined battle with him, and smote him in three general engagements, at the
Granicus, at Issus, and at Arbela; and brake his two horns, overthrew his armies;
and so entirely destroyed the force of the Persian empire, that there was no power in
the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and stamped upon
him, quite subdued the whole kingdom of Persia; and there was none that could
deliver the ram out of his hand, his allies all falling with him. Thus the he-goat
waxed very great; the Grecian monarchy being established through the greatest
205

206. part of the then known world.
3. In this flourishing state of the new empire, a sudden stroke divides it into four
parts. The great horn was broken: Alexander, at thirty-two or three years of age,
was cut off suddenly, by a drunken debauch, as some say; or by poison, as others;
and for it, in his room, came up four notable ones, his four captains, who divided his
dominions among them, see chap. Daniel 7:6 toward the four winds; see the
annotations. Note; Many take great pains, while others reap the fruit of their
labours.
4. The principal thing intended in the vision, as what more immediately concerned
the Jewish people, is the little horn coming out of these kingdoms. But I have
enlarged so much in my annotations on this point, that I shall refer my readers to
them.
2nd, The vision that he had seen excited in the prophet a great desire to know the
meaning of it; and whilst in his own mind he pondered on what he had seen and
heard, God graciously orders one of his angels to explain the particulars to him.
Note; When, in God's appointed ways, we are earnestly desiring to know his mind
and will, he will enlighten our minds, and lead us in the right way. We have,
1. The deep impression made on Daniel by the approach of the heavenly messenger.
Overpowered with his glory, he trembled, and fell at his feet as in a swoon, and a
deep sleep came upon him. The spirit is sometimes willing, when the flesh is weak.
2. The angel gently raised him from the dust, and set him on his feet, bidding him
attend to and understand the explication he was about to give concerning what shall
be in the last end of the indignation; for at the time of the end shall be the vision, or
the vision shall have an end at its proper time; when the troubles of God's people
should cease, and his indignation be removed from them, at the time appointed.
Note; All the sufferings of God's faithful people have their bounds and limits, and
by faith and patience they shall be enabled with comfort to see their end.
3. He gives the interpretation of the vision, mentioned before, Daniel 8:3-14. But see
the annotations.
Lastly, The vision left a deep impression upon him. He fainted on the view of the
terrible sufferings that his people were to endure, and he was sick certain days,
could not recover from the distress into which the vision had thrown him.
Afterward I rose up, from his bed, to which he had been confined, and did the
king's business, according to the duty of his place; and I was astonished at the
vision, at the awful contents of it; but none understood it; he either kept the whole
quite a secret, or, if he told the vision, he mentioned not the interpretation, shutting
it up as he was commanded. Note; (1.) The distress of God's people cannot but
deeply affect every gracious soul. (2.) Our grief must never be so inordinate as to
disable us from the duties of our station
206

207. TRAPP, "Daniel 8:27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick [certain] days; afterward I
rose up, and did the king’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none
understood [it].
Ver. 27. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick.] So deeply affected was he with the
vision, and should we be with the word preached; it should work upon our very
bowels, and go to the hearts of us. [Jeremiah 4:19 Acts 2:37]
Afterwards I rose up, and did the king’s business.] viz., King Belshazzar’s, with
whom, though he was out of grace, yet not out of office under him, and will not
therefore be indiligent. Malo mihi male esse, quam molliter, (a) Let us not neglect
the work of the Lord, though less able to perform it. A sick child’s service is doubly
accepted.
But none understood it.] Daniel disguised his sorrow for Zion before scorners.
[Esther 5:1] Taciturnity is no contemptible virtue.
PETT, "Verse 27
‘And I Daniel was totally exhausted, and was sick certain days. Then I rose up and
did the business of the king, and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood
it (or ‘I did not understand it’).’
The reception of the vision was exhausting and demanding, so much so that Daniel
was ill and unable to carry out his duties for the king. And he spent much time
pondering it in total astonishment. But as it had been explained to him it is difficult
to believe that this means that he did not understand it, as some suggest. Possibly he
found it hard to believe and comprehend, living as he did when the Persian empire
was so strong and powerful. Or possibly the idea is that, when he tried to explain it,
it was too hard for men to grasp. It would seem to speak in riddles. It was beyond
conception.
Should We Read Into This Horn of Littleness The Evil King of the End Times?
That he is a pattern of that king we need not doubt, but the evil king of the end
times is clearly depicted in chapter 7. Thus this one is but a shadow of the other. It is
in chapter 11 that the one merges into the other. We may safely therefore say that he
was a warning and pattern of what is to come, but should probably go no further
than that. Some are too eager to read into Scripture what it does not say, and should
beware. This is the word of God. Our interpretations must therefore be careful and
not so enthusiastic that they go beyond what is said.
207

208. PULPIT, "And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and
did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.
The Septuagint omits "fainted," but otherwise agrees with the above. Theodotion
evidently has lind the Massoretic text before him; but he has not understood, and
has slavishly rendered it word for word. The Peshitta represents also a text
practically identical with that of the Massoretes. Jerome also agrees with the
received text; he renders the last clause, non erat qui interpretaretur. That Daniel
should faint, and remain sick for days—"many days," says the LXX.—is quite in
accordance with what we might imagine to be the natural effect of intercourse with
the spiritual world. The mental strain and the intense excitement incident upon such
an occurrence would necessarily produce a reaction. Afterward I rose up, and did
the king's business. We have no distinct evidence of what the business was that took
Daniel to Susa, if he was there in reality, and not merely in vision; but we may
surmise that it was about the advance of Cyrus Elam and Media were both
embraced in the dominion of Cyrus very early. Cyrus had overthrown the Umman-
Manda, and delivered Babylon. At that time there seems to have been somewhat of a
rapprochement between Nabu-nahid and Cyrus; but at the time before us, Cyrus
must have begun to realize his destiny, and possibly would not be easy to on. at with.
Daniel may have been plenipotentiary of Babylon at the court of Cyrus,
endeavouring to secure a treaty. At the same time, aware that Croesus, the rival of
Cyrus, might be called in, he continues the negotiation. I was astonished at the
vision, but none understood it. The idea of the word translated "astonished" is
"benumbed;" it may be exegetic of the first clause, explaining the cause of the
fainting and subsequent sickness. It is clear that Daniel did not regard the command
"to guard ‫סתם‬ (satham) the vision" as implying that he should keep it secret. We see,
as we said above, that his complaint is that no one understood the vision. Behrmann
maintains that ‫ין‬ ִ‫ב‬ ֵ‫מ‬ (maybeen), "to understand," ought to be translated "marked,"
"observed," but ‫ע‬ ַ‫ָד‬‫י‬ would be the natural verb to use in such a connection, not ‫ין‬ַ‫ב‬ .
Hitzig explains this by saying, "He had imparted the vision to no one." If Daniel had
indulged in statements of float kind, the word before us would not have inaugurated
a new form of literature. Professor Bevan's interpretation is as farfetched, "And I
was no understander thereof." The example he brings forward of verse 5 is not to
the purpose, because the distinction between the first person and the third is too
great. Moses Stuart has the same view.
208