Deeper Commentary

Dan 8:1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even to me, I Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first-

We know from Dan. 5 that Belshazzar is about to be judged and destroyed for blaspheming the temple. But Daniel is now shown that beyond his time would come a "little horn" who would do the same and suffer the same. He is being set up to learn what we all need to, that Divine history repeats according to patterns and we are to learn those patterns.

The vision of Dan. 8 I suggest gives yet another possible outcome or schema leading to the re-establishment of God's Kingdom. The image of Dan. 2 spoke of four kings / empires followed by an unstable mixed period before the "end". Dan. 7 has four beasts, the fourth of which has ten horns and a little horn, who arises from among the ten horns against God and His people for a defined number of days and is destroyed by the "end". Dan. 8 has two beasts, Persia and Greece, led by Alexander the Great. Out of Alexander's four generals or four [not ten] "horns" comes a little horn, clearly Antiochus Epiphanes, who abuses God's people for a defined number of days and is destroyed by the "end". But that "end" didn't happen to Antiochus Epiphanes. These different scenarios do not perfectly map onto each other as is often suggested. There are similarities; the second beast of Dan. 7 [Persia?] has three ribs in its mouth, and the ram [Persia] of Dan. 8:4 butts in three directions. The "little horns" are described in very similar language and do the same things.

But the differences are significant. The fourth beast of Dan. 7, from which the little horn comes, has no equivalent in Dan. 8. The little horn arises from Greece, the third empire of Dan. 7. The little horn in Dan. 7:25 abuses God's people for "a time, times and a half", 1260 days; the little horn of Dan. 8:14 does so for 2300 evening-mornings. I suggest these are all different potential scenarios. Had the Jews repented at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, had Judas Maccabeus been a true spiritual leader, "the end" could then have come. The little horn of Dan. 8 would have been that of Dan. 7, making the sequence there and in Dan. 2 Babylon-Media-Persia-Greece. Indeed had Cyrus of Persia lived up to his potential as a Messiah figure, and had the Jews returned obediently to the land and rebuilt Zion as commanded, then none of these scenarios need have come true. The failure at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes meant that the kaleidoscope turned again, the fourth beast of Dan. 7 could then have been Rome, the Lord Jesus could have returned in AD70. That didn't happen and so the kaleidoscope turned again, and maybe it will again, until we come to the time when the Lord Jesus returns and establishes His Kingdom. Immediately prior to that, all these prophecies will have their final iteration. All the beasts and metals of the image will exist at the same time; as discussed on :17, the ram, goat and little horn of Dan. 8 will also all exist at the same time. And will all be judged together by His final return. That will be the final picture of the kaleidoscope. The failure of the earlier possibilities only led to something even greater- not merely the re-establishment of God's Kingdom as it was in the time of David, but the establishment of the eternal Kingdom of God on the whole earth under the rulership of the Lord Jesus.

Belshazzar could have repented, but didn't- as made clear in Dan. 5. And so therefore another outworking of prophecy became possible. Belshazzar only reigned three years so this vision was given around the time of the events of Daniel 5, when Belshazzar was slain and "Darius" took the kingdom. This was the first year of Darius, the time of the visions and events of Dan. 9:1 and Dan. 11:1. So the events of Dan. 5,8,9,11 all occurred within the same year. If Darius and Cyrus were separate kings but co-reigned and overlapped with each other, it's also possible that the third year of Cyrus in Dan. 10:1 was in fact this same year- the first year of Darius. Dan. 1:21 could be read as meaning that Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus; but that may mean the third year of his total rule, if he co-reigned with Darius for the first two or three years. In this case then Dan. 5,8,9,10 and 11 were all within the same year or so.

Belshazzar only reigned a few years, so the vision was given about a year before he died and his deposition by Darius the Mede recorded in Dan. 5. Perhaps as with Nebuchadnezzar, this prophecy was as it were a serving of notice upon him, and he had like Nebuchadnezzar one year in which to repent and alter the otherwise prophesied and inevitable chain of events. Belshazzar was aware of what had happened to Nebuchadnezzar and was condemned by Daniel for not having learnt the lesson from it. We too are expected to learn from situations going on in the lives around us or in our families. This is one channel of God's word of communication with us.

"To me, even to me" is a phrase picked up by Peter when he says that the vision of beasts and Gentile inclusion was given even to him (Acts 11:5). He read Daniel as we should- not as mere history alone, but as a living pattern to be followed.

Dan 8:2 I saw in the vision; now it was so, that when I saw, I was in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was by the river Ulai- This could mean that he was in Susa when he had the vision, although that is unlikely as he worked for Belshazzar of Babylon (:27) and the Persians were his enemies; or that he was transported in the vision to Susa. Daniel was seeing the vision of Medo-Persian power, viewing in vision the citadel or palace, just a year before that power would conquer Babylon. If he relayed the vision to Belshazzar, this was similar to his revelation of a dream of downfall to Nebuchadnezzar a year before he fell. So Daniel was having a repeat experience, just as circumstances repeat in our lives. Perhaps he was seeing what Elam, once a province of the Babylonian empire, was to soon turn into- a citadel epitomizing Persian and not Babylonian power.

I have discussed on Ps. 137 how Jews sat by the rivers / canals of Babylon like the Ulai and Chebar, and some like that Psalmist were caught up in bitterness, endlessly playing the tape of their own experiences and the bitter words spoken to them. Failing to accept that Ezekiel by the Chebar and Daniel by the Ulai had seen visions of restoration and victory over their oppressors. Those canals were dug by slave labour, including the Jewish exiles. But at those very places there was given the hope of glory in the midst of their workaday lives and experience.

Dan 8:3 Then I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high- Ulai was a canal joined to the Euphrates, so "the river" can have reference to that. We have the impression of a ram about to no longer be restrained by a river [Euphrates] and surge toward Babylon. This is the picture we have in Rev. 9:14; 16:12. Again, the historical application to Medo-Persia must be seen as only a pointer towards the fulfilment in the last days, when Babylon falls as a result of hordes of Islamists bursting across the Euphrates into the eretz promised to Abraham which is the focus of Bible prophecy. The ram was a symbol of Persia, embossed on their medallions and on the crown of their kings.

There is no word for "two" in the original. We wonder if in fact there was potential for this beast entity to have had more horns. It's just that two are mentioned.

But one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last- The power of the Medes was far less than that of the Persians who followed them under Cyrus. All the beasts and horns in Daniel are observed coming or growing up, and then being destroyed. When a power or individual are in the ascendancy, observers tend to think that they are unstoppable and invincible. Daniel's prophecies make the simple point that they too shall fade and fall, unlike the things of God's Kingdom.

The horns are uneven; just as the second beast of Dan. 7:5 was "raised up on one side". The second beast of Dan. 7 rampages in three directions; the beast of Dan. 8 has three ribs in its mouth.

Dan 8:4 I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward; and no beasts could stand before him, neither was there any who could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and magnified himself- This is language elsewhere used about Yahweh, who alone does His own will to the ultimate term, and is alone to be magnified, and before whom none can stand nor be delivered from. All the monarchs and empires considered in Daniel are all guilty of playing God, and are punished accordingly. The compass points recall Abraham being bidden look to them all, and being told that all he saw was to be part of the land eternally promised to him, the eretz. The ram didn't push East in the vision because the Persians came from the East, and their conquests Eastwards to India were irrelevant to the prophetic focus upon the eretz promised to Abraham. This small detail is strong confirmation of our position that the prophetic dominion of the beasts is over eretz Israel and not anywhere beyond that.

The beasts of Dan. 7 are supernatural, having elements of natural animals such as lions. The beasts of Dan. 8 are rams and goats- usually harmless animals, clean animals, at best only using force in defence; but they are presented here as being stirred up to uncharacteristic flights of aggression. We are left to infer God's influence upon them. On :17 I will comment upon the similarities between Ezekiel and Daniel. The people of Judah are likened to rams and goats in Ez. 34:17-19,21,25. And they too become aggressive. Their behaviour is described in the same language as that of the aggressive rams and goats of Dan. 8. They gore (Ez. 34:21 = Dan. 8:4) and trample others (Ez. 34:18 = Dan. 8:7,10). The simple takeaway is that as the people and leaders of Judah had done, so the beasts were doing to them. And Ez. 34:25 actually calls them "bad beasts".

There is a repeated theme of pride being the reason for the fall of the kings / empires. The ram "did as he pleased and grew arrogant" (Dan. 8:4), in turn "the goat grew more and more arrogant" (Dan. 8:8). In Dan. 8:25 The little horn "will be proud of himself", "the little horn bragging and boasting" (Dan. 7:11), "it had eyes and a mouth and was boasting proudly" (Dan. 7:20). Out of all the things they could be condemned for, pride is the number one issue. God is so sensitive to it. See on Dan. 7:11.

Dan 8:5 As I was considering- It was Daniel's desire to understand which led to further revelation and understanding. This recalls how those who enquired further about the Lord's parables were given further understanding "in the house".

Behold, a male goat came from the west over the surface of the whole land, and didn’t touch the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes- The speed of the goat speaks of the lightning speed of Alexander's conquest. The "notable horn" was Alexander. Alexander's son was named Alexander Aegus, "Son of the Goat". The other horns in the visions can also be seen as individuals; the notable little horn we encounter on the fourth beast is therefore an individual who makes great and amazingly fast conquests, something like that seen by the jihadists taking large swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria overnight in 2015. The "male goat" was a symbol for the leadership of the flock.

Dan 8:6 He came to the ram that had the two horns, which I saw standing before the river, and ran on him in the fury of his power- Alexander defeated the Persian Darius at the river  Granicus in 334 BC, his forces plunging in swimming across the stream, and rushing on the enemy. Hence the appropriacy of seeing the ram before a river. His fury was from his desire to revenge the Persian domination of Greece.

Dan 8:7 I saw him come close to the ram, and he was moved with anger against him- Persia had previously cruelly dominated Greece, and this was the anger of bitter revenge by Alexander the Great.

And struck 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- Perhaps a specific reference to the burning and trampling of the Persian city of Persepolis. The trampling and casting down is exactly the language of the later abusers of God's people, the horn of Dan. 7:8. The clear historical fulfilment in how Alexander of Macedon / Greece treated the Persians is intended to explain how the latter day little horn shall act. Alexander was characterized by small forces winning amazingly quick victories against much larger forces due to their speed and military technology; and we can imagine this being repeated in the latter day little horn. This is already the feature of organized Jihadist groups. The two horns broken refer to the ending of the Medo Persian empire.

There is a repetition of how likewise Medo-Persia had been the same: "neither was there any who could deliver out of his hand" (:4). The point is that what seems invincible is replaced by something else that seems invincible. This is all the ebb and flow of human prowess and dominion, as taught in the vision of Dan. 2. And in this case the point is made that what man does to his fellow man, is in turn done to him. "There was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand" in that the other peoples whom the Persian empire called to its aid couldn't save them from Alexander.

Even before Babylon conquered Judah, Isaiah and Jeremiah had foretold that Babylon would be punished by Persia [Elam, a word similar to "the ram"] for being too cruel to the Jews (Is. 13:3,5,17; 47:6). But Jeremiah stated that Elam / Persia would "be dismayed before their enemies and before them that seek their life" (Jer. 49:37); God would "set His throne in Elam" and "destroy the king and the princes" (Jer. 49:38). This would be because He would "break the bow of Elam" by bringing "the winds from the four quarters of heaven" (Jer. 49:35,36). These four winds surely refer to the four generals of Alexander the Great that helped him to overcome the Medo-Persian empire. But they were raised up by God, by His winds / spirits / Angels which were seen whipping up the sea in Dan. 7 so that the beasts arose from it as a result. All was under God's control. This was just as God had earlier "raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes [to destroy Babylon]: for His device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple" (Jer. 50:28). Likewise Jer. 51:28, "Prepare against her [Babylon] the nations [Media and Persia] with the kings [Darius and Cyrus?] of the Medes". They were 'prepared', far above the time and tide of human history and aspiration there was this higher, controlling hand of God.

Dan 8:8 The male goat magnified himself exceedingly- Zech. 9:5,9 foretells Alexander's attack on Gaza and Palestine and paints him as the arrogant antithesis of the humble Messianic King of Israel, who was to ride a donkey rather than Alexander's charger. Alexander is thereby set up as a fake, imitation Christ, an antiChrist.

And when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and in the place of it there came up four notable horns toward the four winds of the sky- The notable horn was an individual, Alexander the Great. The horns elsewhere in these visions likewise refers to individuals, not to any organization like the papacy. The horn was broken in that Alexander had no dynasty. His brother Philip Aridaeus, and his two sons, Alexander Aegus and Hercules, failed to continue it. This refers to the untimely death of Alexander the Great and his kingdom being divided amongst his four generals. "Lysimachus ruled over part of Thrace, Asia Minor, part of Cappadocia, and the countries within the limits of Mount Taurus. Casander possessed Macedonia, Thessaly and part of Greece. Ptolemy obtained Egypt, Cyprus, Cyrene, and ultimately Coele-Syria, Phoenicia and Judea. Seleucus obtained Phoenicia, Syria, Babylonia to the Indus". Daniel 11 focuses upon the two of them, the kings of the north and south, who dominated God's people and land of Israel. Again we see that the focus of the prophecies are upon them and not upon any other geographical area. But they were directed "toward the four winds of the sky / heaven", as if to say that they were under the domination of heaven, or perhaps opposed against heaven; the "four winds" may refer to the four cherubic Angels, as God makes His Angels spirits or winds (Ps. 104:4). See on :10.

 

Dan 8:9 Out of one of them came forth a little horn, which grew exceedingly great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the glorious land-

 

All the history of Seleucus ["one of them"] is passed over up to Antiochus Epiphanes, because these visions are about what was done to the land and people of Israel. They are not a general prediction of history in advance.

The push toward the South refers as in :5 to Egypt. Dan. 11:21 ff. provides us with the history and shows that this is clearly Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He attacked Egypt (1 Macc. 1:16-20; 2 Macc. 5:51; Dan. 11:29,30) and then Persia to the east (1 Macc. 6:1-6; 2 Macc. 9:1-28). It's hard to apply this attack of the South and then the East to any 'Roman' or Catholic entity. If this is the same little horn as in Dan. 7, then it surely has to be conceded that there was another primary intended fulfilment of that prophecy in relation to Greece and Antiochus Epiphanes. "Toward the east" references the expedition of Antiochus led an expedition into Elymais (on the East of Babylonia); and again we have this alluded to in Dan. 11:40. We note that like Dan. 8, the visions of Dan. 10 and 11 refer only to Persia and Greece existing before the final establishment of God's Kingdom. This is definitely an alternative to the four kingdom scenario of Dan. 2 and 7- it was another possible future that didn't happen.

The little horn of Dan. 8:9 pushes in three directions. Possibly this matches the little horn of Dan. 7:8 uprooting three horns.

The connection between the Angels and the people of God in their land is shown by how the horn extends horizontally on earth until it comes to the "glorious land"; and then it rises up vertically to the host of Heaven, the stars, and to the commander of the host.

 

Many historicists like to understand this "little horn" as Rome and the Papacy. But this little horn came out of one of the four generals who succeeded Alexander the Great. The reference seems without doubt to Antiochus. Israel even then was the land of glory- potentially. It was their legalism and apostasy which meant that the Messianic kingdom was not then established, but potentially it could have been. Rather like apostate believers are still  given exalted titles in the New Testament because of the potential status they had.

The little horn of Dan. 8:9 is clearly related to the little horn that arises from the fourth empire in Dan. 7. And the little horn of Dan. 8 is clearly Antiochus Epiphanes. But that doesn't at all fit the 'Roman' interpretation of the beast of Dan. 7 from which the little horn arises. I suggested on Dan. 2 that this is an example of how there were possible, potential fulfilments. The little horn of Dan. 8 could have been destroyed by the coming of a Messiah figure. But that didn't happen. And so the kaleidoscope was turned, and the same images [in this case, of a little horn] meshed to produce a different picture. Greek step logic wants to see a simple correspondence between statement and fulfilment over time. But that is to misunderstand or ignore the genre of apocalyptic. This genre takes the images and realigns them, mixing them with others, to produce various possible pictures. A rigid step logic will fall down in making sense of the two 'little horns', and will fail even worse when it comes to the horns and heads of Revelation.

Dan 8:10 It grew great, even to the army of Heaven; and some of the army and of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled on them-

"It grew great" is a key theme here. The word is used several times. The ram "magnified himself", grew great (:4); "The male goat magnified himself exceedingly" (:8); "a little horn, which grew exceedingly great" (:9); "it grew great" (:10); "Yes, it magnified itself / grew great" (:11). Men and empires grow great, but everything in this world is born to roll downhill. These prophecies help us to see all human glory as it is; beauty, wealth, power shall all briefly rise but eternally fall. Expensive homes fall down, beauty fades, well toned muscles flab, career training becomes obsolete... only the things of God's Kingdom are eternal. We note that in each case, the ram, goat and little horn 'grow great' or 'magnify themselves' immediately before their fall. This hubris is one reason for the Lord's judgments at His return- because He so hates pride and His coming will be timed in order to judge pride.

The “host of Yahweh" can refer both to the heavenly army of Angels (Josh. 5:14,15; Ps. 103:21; 148:2) as well as to the peoples or armies on earth which Yahweh calls "My host" (Ex. 7:4), "the hosts of Yahweh” (Ex. 12:41). The situation on earth is reflected in Heaven by the representative Angels playing out the roles before the court of Heaven. This is the Angelic / Spirit mechanism, as it were, through which God sees and knows all things. It heightens our awareness of the importance of our existence and actions on this earth. And may provide a clue to Paul's enigmatic comment "Because of the Angels".

God's Angels and people were as it were trampled under foot just as Alexander had done to the Persians in :7. In Daniel we find the "host" being trodden down, God and His Angels apparently defeated- when the truth was that this is only how it seemed, and Daniel's visions, like that of Ezekiel of the cherubim in this same context, show that in fact God works through this to the final achievement of His intention to save His people and establish His Kingdom. What a wonderful day it will be when these things are turned to sight before men, and what Paul calls "the weakness of God" is shown to be His power. The "weakness" of the Lord on the cross is the parade example of all this: "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men... For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you" (1 Cor. 1:25; 2 Cor. 13:4).

"The army of heaven" could on one level refer to the way Antiochus saw himself as exalted above all gods of all nations. The term is used about them in 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3 "they worshipped all the host of heaven". The books of the Maccabees record him demanding all conquered nations give up their own laws and gods; he frequently desecrated the temples of those he conquered. And as the Maccabees often record, he especially practiced this against Yahweh. The language of the little horn in Dan. 8:10 recalls that used of Nebuchadnezzar in Is. 14:13 "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God". Likewise the little horn "magnified himself even to the Prince of the host" (Dan. 8:11), i.e. even to God Himself, just as in Is. 14:14 Nebuchadnezzar claimed: "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High". Although "the prince of the host" could also refer to the Angel Michael (Dan. 12:1), possibly manifest in the High Priest Onias. See on Dan. 7:8.

"Of the stars" implies "some of the stars". Stars can refer to Angels, but also to military commanders (Num. 24:17) or faithful ones amongst God's people (Dan. 12:3). Again, they had their Angelic representatives in Heaven. The stars who fought from Heaven appear to be Angels fighting for Israel in Jud. 5:20.

But the army and stars are defined in :24 as "the mighty and holy people", the army of Yahweh (Ex. 12:41). Stars are symbols of God's faithful people (Gen. 22:17; 26:4; Ex. 32:13; Dt. 1:10; 10:22; 28:62; Neh. 9:23; 1 Chron. 27:23). And yet the language sounds applicable to Angels. As Dan. 12:1 explains, Israel have an Angel superintending them, and perhaps we are to understand each individual member of God's people as having an Angel representing them. Hence the language here refers to both individual Jews as well as their representative Angels. The stars are specifically a symbol of the faithful Israelites in Dan. 12:3. The language also recalls that of Is. 14:13,14 regarding the desire of Babylon to take the temple mount.

Angels can represent political powers before God; see on :8. This has interesting implications in Dan. 8:8-12: "Four notable ones toward the four winds of Heaven (the number four and "winds" both have Angelic connections). And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which... waxed great, even to the host of Heaven (the Angels controlling the Jewish people); and it cast down some of the host and of the stars (both "host" and "stars" are Angelic words), and stamped upon them; Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host (the "Most High" Angel, the Angel of Jesus, who was the real prince of the Angel hosts), and by him... the place of His sanctuary (i. e. the temple, where the "Most High" Angel dwelt) was cast down. And an host (of Angels controlling the soldiers of Antiochus) was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the Truth to the ground". "The Truth" here does not necessarily refer to a set of doctrines or people holding them which comprises the true Gospel. This can never be thrown down, and in any case "the Truth" in this sense was not thrown down after the sacking of the temple. "The truth"  being thrown down may parallel the host and stars being cast to the ground in :10- in which case "the truth" represents the Jews in covenant relationship- or it may hint at the Mosaic Law being "thrown down" by the Angelic destruction of the temple and the Mosaic system. "Thy Law (of Moses) is the Truth" (Ps. 119:142). This all lays the basis for Rev. 12 describing the conflicting groups of Angels in Heaven at the time of the final abolition of the Mosaic system.

Dan 8:11 Yes, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the army- "The prince of the host" was initially Onias the high priest of the host, the army, of priests and of Israel. But clearly it also refers to Michael the representative Angel of Israel. In Daniel, nine times "prince" [shar] is used of men and nine times of an Angel, reflecting the theme of how men have representative Angels matching them in the court of Heaven. We note that the term elohim is used of priests, of Angels and of God Himself. Michael was apparently defeated (see on :10) but arises in eternal victory in Dan. 12.

The Hebrew words for "host / army" [ts'bah] and "glorious / pleasant / beautiful" [ts'bee] in :9 are very similar. The little horn 'grows exceedingly great' towards the glorious / pleasant land of Israel in :9, and likewise towards the host / army of heaven and the prince of the host in :10,11. The heavenly host are the host of the land of Israel. We note that the "host" is not specifically defined here as the Jews. Because although these things clearly had a primary fulfilment in the abuses of Antiochus against the Jews, they will have a final latter day fulfilment against God's people however they are defined. The prince of the host / army has the burnt offering 'taken away from him', and "the place of his sanctuary was cast down"- all by a mere man. This is the degree to which God's mighty Angel, representing Himself, can have things taken away from Him by man.

Indeed "the prince of the host" could be read as God Himself. "Even unto the prince of the host it magnified itself" speaks of showing greatness against God, just as the king of Babylon did in Is. 14. The word for "place" is used mostly of God’s abode, whether on earth (Ex. 15:17, 1 Kings 8:13), or in heaven (Is. 18:4, 1 Kings 8:39,43,49; Ps. 33:14). This is how far God allows human freewill, and how far He is sensitive to human behaviour. Man can, in the short term, take something away from God. The continual burnt offering was to be 'taken away' from "the prince" by the little horn. "Taken away" can mean to steal. From the God who in another sense owns everything. But He has given it to us. "Will a man rob God?", Malachi asks. And Malachi answers this shocking question "Yes". They were robbing God in not paying tithes and giving sacrifices. He is a God near at hand and not afar off, which is why He feels this things so closely and personally. This explains the strange statement in Dan. 12:7 that "the power of the holy people" will, for a time, be smashed or broken. That power is surely God. And in this light we must imagine how Daniel felt when he heard in Dan. 9:26 that the Messiah whom he was looking for as the saving answer was "to be cut off". Jerusalem and the sanctuary were again to be destroyed...

The army is the host of God's people and their representative Angels (see on :10). Their prince is "the prince of princes" (:25), "the God of gods" (Dan. 11:36 cp. Dan. 7:8). So God Himself could be in view. But the prince could equally refer to the high priest. And the language of "prince of princes" is applied to the Lord Jesus in Rev. 1:5. So whilst this prophecy may have application to the rage of Antiochus against Israel's God, it clearly is recorded because all the previous abusers of God's people point forward to the final entity which shall abuse them, which will incorporate features of all Israel's previous abusers. As Antiochus magnified himself against God and the Jerusalem temple, so shall the latter day antiChrist against the real Christ, the prince of princes. The little horn makes himself as if he is “the prince of the host” (Dan. 8:11 Heb.); he sets himself up as an alternative Christ, an antiChrist. God is presented in Daniel as being able to depose kings and change or decree the times and seasons; the decree of Nebuchadnezzar to kill all the Babylonian wise men was “changed” by the revelation of His prophetic word through Daniel. The same words are used for how the little horn will change times and laws [s.w. ‘decrees’] (Dan. 7:25). In terms of 2 Thess. 2, he declares himself as God enthroned in the temple of God, after the historical pattern of Antiochus.

And it took away from him the continual burnt offering- This was specifically ordered by Antiochus (1 Macc. 1:20,47,54,59). Such a command was not specifically made by the Romans. The requirements of the text here fit Antiochus very well, but are a very imperfect fit to the events of AD67-70.

There are many connections between the historical chapters of Daniel and the visions. Daniel is noted for serving God "continually" (Dan. 6:11,14,17,21) His morning and evening prayers were surely when the sacrifices would have been offered (1 Chron. 23:30). The Jews recognized the connection between the daily sacrifices and prayer, the prayer times in the temple were at the same time as the daily sacrifices (Acts 3:1). In Dan. 9:21 Daniel prayed “about the time of the evening sacrifice", seeing his prayer as the sacrifice. The connection is presumably to teach that despite the continual burnt offerings being ended, the essential offering to God was of prayer made toward Jerusalem as Daniel had done. There was no actual need for a sanctuary in order to offer to God. For the holy place is your own room and heart. We read here literally of "the continual", "burnt offering" is added by many versions in explanation but the corresponding words aren't in the original.

And the place of his sanctuary was cast down- This speaks of "the prince of the Host" living in the temple, a phrase recalling the Angel captain of the Lord's host in Josh. 5:15. See on Ps. 78:60. The prince of the army was therefore God manifest through the Angel superintending Israel. The casting down of the temple was not specifically done by Antiochus, but his abuse of the sanctuary is thus described because this history points forward to the latter day antiChrist who shall do this.

The LXX of Dan 8:9-11 would imply that only at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the captivity of Judah would be "delivered": "And out of one of them came forth one strong horn, and it grew very great toward the south, and toward the host: and it magnified itself to the host of heaven; and there fell to the earth some of the host of heaven and of the stars, and they trampled on them. And this shall be until the chief captain shall have delivered the captivity". Thus the period of only 70 years in captivity was lengthened; and even then, this is not how things worked out in practice. Likewise the time for the restoration of the temple from the hands of pagan abomination is redefined in Dan. 9:27 LXX as now no longer being in Daniel's time, nor any time close to it, but rather at the time of the Kingdom of God: "On the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation".

It is stressed that the sanctuary of God was "cast down" (Dan. 8:11), "trampled under foot" (Dan. 8:13). "destroyed / wasted / spoiled" along with His capital city (Dan. 9:26), "made desolate" (Dan. 9:27). If the city and sanctuary of a god was destroyed in this way, so publically, then that god had lost and had been slain by the god of the army who did this. God as it were emphasizes His own apparent destruction. He recognizes by all this repeated language that indeed, it does look as if "the death of God" has validity, it is how it seems, it is what it looks like. He gets that. The purpose of the prophecies is to show that in fact He exists and is hugely active beyond that. Clearly enough, God doesn't care for His 'image'. He allows people to think as they do about Him, without rushing in to correct impressions. We think of His apparent silence and lack of involvement and engagement at the time of tragedies. It is all a test of our spiritual perception, and we are guided by His word in this. And yet Jeremiah had lamented, using the same word for "cast down", that "He has cast down from heaven to the earth the beauty of Israel, and hasn’t remembered His footstool in the day of His anger" (Lam. 2:1). As ever, God was ultimately behind this casting down by the little horn.

The LXX reads very differently: "And this shall be until the chief captain shall have delivered the captivity: and by reason of him the sacrifice was disturbed, and he prospered; and the holy place shall be made desolate". This may be a legitimate reading, in that there was the potential for the Angel Michael, the "chief captain" of Israel (Dan. 12:1), to end the captivity / exile at this time. We note Daniel is next recorded as wondering why the captivity hadn't ended (Dan. 9:3).

Dan 8:12 The army was given over to it-

AV "And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice". This hints that it was God who gave the little horn a "host" or "army". Such hints are common in the visions of Daniel. Beasts are raised up, "given" things etc.- by God. But the host "given" was in order to overthrow the "host" or army of God's people and their Angelic representatives: "the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them" (:10). We would see here the way that representative hosts of Angels act out in Heaven the conflicts upon earth, host against host. We see here how all the conflicts ultimately have God in control over them.

However the GNB is likely not far wrong in offering: "People sinned there instead of offering the proper daily sacrifices, and true religion was thrown to the ground". It was abuses in the temple that led the little horn to desecrate it. This would fit the time of Antiochus and the Romans, but makes no sense if applied to the Papacy. The reference may be to how Antiochus installed an armed garrison in the ‘city of David’ with the object of overawing the worshippers and stopping any Jewish religious rites there (1 Macc. 1:33-38; 8:51; 2:15,31; 4:41).

This could be translated as AV "A host / army was given him". As in :13 and elsewhere, it is emphasized that all power is "given" to these horns and beasts. See on :24. Ultimately they were given power by God. The world is not radically out of control; there is no radical evil in the cosmos. All is finally under God's control, and this Divine giving of power to Israel's was "on account of [their] disobedience".

Along with the continual burnt offering on account of disobedience- Most expositors note the paganism of some of the Jews who returned from Babylon, and quote 1 Macc. 1:11-16: "In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the pagan that are round about us; for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow... Whereupon they built a place of exercise (a school) at Jerusalem, according to the customs of the pagan; and made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the pagan, and were sold to do mischief". This is true, but specifically the opportunity to offer the daily burnt offering was taken away because of "disobedience". Many of the Jews who returned from Babylon were proud of their obedience; but the prophets repeatedly warned them that their daily burnt offerings were a provocation to God because of their hypocrisy and legalism (Is. 43:23; 66:3; Am. 5:22; Mal. 3:3)

And it cast down the truth to the ground, and it did according to its will and prospered- See on :10. Is. 59:14 had lamented that amongst the restoration community, "truth is fallen in the street". Antiochus merely confirmed in physical terms the blasphemy of the sanctuary which they had committed in spiritual terms. "Truth" may refer to the law of Moses (Ps. 43:3; 119:4). But we can perhaps understand "the truth" in the sense it is used in John's writings and in Dan. 9:13, for a life lived in fellowship with God: "we have not entreated the favour of Yahweh our God, that we should turn from our iniquities, and accept Your truth". The result of the destruction of the sanctuary was that it severely damaged the walk of God's people with Him.

Another possibility, given the various potential fulfilments of the prophecies, is that "the truth" refers to what "the truth" usually refers to in Daniel- the prophecies (Dan. 8:26; 9:13; 10:1,21; 11:2). The visions of Dan. 2 and Dan. 7 had shown a fourth entity arising after Greece, which would be the prelude to the re-establishment of God's Kingdom. But this "truth" was deposed or cast aside ["down" isn't necessarily implied in the original] in that Antiochus Epiphanes would behave in such an awful way, that the re-establishment of the Kingdom was made possible then. Because his sins were so extreme that he filled up the required level of sin, and this could've triggered the final judgment [see on :23].

Dan 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who spoke- The tribulations which come upon God's people are described as being under the control of a "certain one", "Palmoni", or the 'wonderful numberer' as that can be translated, implying that there is one powerful Angel who co-ordinates the timing of all things, and other Angels ask this Angel for information concerning the time periods worked out for the saints in their charge, as here in Daniel's case. Job seemed to have sensed very keenly the "appointed time" for his trials to end and for his "change" of nature to occur. We have seen that the phrase "appointed time" is the same word as "host" used regarding the Angels. But like Job, because we can't see the Angel physically it's easy to get bitter about the trials brought upon us by them, as Balaam got bitter with the ass until he physically saw the Angel causing the trial (Num. 22:23). See on Job 14:5; Dan. 12:1.

How long shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, and the abomination that makes desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the army to be trodden under foot?- The desolation caused by transgression (the Jews' transgression, see on :12) is clearly initially that done by Antiochus (Dan. 11:31). He erected a heathen altar erected in place of the altar of burnt-offering in the Temple court. But there is a 1290 day period between the end of the continual burnt offering and the placing of the desolation (Dan. 12:11). But here the period for both is 2300 evening-mornings. The time periods definitey are variable. The 1290 period may possibly have been true in the time of Antiochus, but it was not true in AD67-70; the daily sacrifices were offered then right up to AD70. It could have come true then- the LXX of Dan. 8:13 is quoted by the Lord in Mt. 24:15 about the AD70 situation. So these were but incipient fulfilments- the last days will see the final fulfilment. Dan. 9:26,27 require the city of Jerusalem to be taken, and the abomination of desolation placed there; and this is quoted by the Lord Jesus as requiring fulfilment in the last days just prior to His return (Mt. 24:14,15,29-31). Any previous fulfilments were incipient at best; they did not immediately herald the Lord’s visible return as required by the Oliver prophecy. Lk. 21:24 adds: "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled". The allusion is to Dan. 8:13: "The transgression of desolation gave both the sanctuary and the host (i.e. the people of Israel) to be trodden underfoot". 

Daniel's question "How long...?" was answered. The exiles had lamented that they had no prophet who knew "How long": "There is no longer any prophet, nor is there any among us who knows how long" (Ps. 74:9,10). He was thus assured that he was indeed a prophet. Even though the answer was not to his liking [as he was expecting an immediate re-establishment of the Kingdom of God], and therefore he struggled to understand it. So often our difficulty in understanding the Bible is because we subconsciously don't want to accept the truth that we see there, again, subconsciously.

We enquire who exactly are "the army" or "host". It is used of Angels, but also of the ministers in the sanctuary or priests (Num. 4:23,30,35,39,43; 8:24,25). Again we have the Angels representative of their charges on earth.

 

Dan 8:14 He said to me- Daniel has heard two Angels talking in :13. One has asked the other how long the desolation would continue. But the other Angel now speaks directly to Daniel. The first Angel was Daniel's representative in the court of heaven. Daniel naturally had the question in his mind, as to how long this would continue for. And his Angel asks another Angel that question, and that Angel then answers Daniel directly. Our questions and situations are likewise represented in Heaven. Truly man is not alone. In :13, Daniel has as it were overheard a discussion between two Angels. Daniel has within him the obvious question: "In that case, how long...?". One of the Angels asks that very question, and then the answer is directed to Daniel. We are to understand that our representative Angel carries our questions and fears before the court of Heaven, and answers are given. Note the parallel between Angels and God's people discussed on :11.

To two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed- The phrase "evening-mornings" refers to the daily sacrifices, which were offered twice daily, morning and evening. 2300 evening-morning sacrifices were therefore 1150 days. The various time periods in Daniel all seem around this number- 1260, 1290, 1335 days, and three and a half times [years?] which is 1260 days. Perhaps the variations are because the final periods are flexible, depending upon how quickly Israel repent in the last days, and how intense are our prayers and longing for "the end". Or it could be that the 2300 is the period from the beginning of the tribulation until the time when the abomination is ended. Perhaps the days of the elect's tribulation are shortened from 2300 to 1260 (Mt. 24:22).

Antiochus is clearly the "little horn" of Daniel 8, but this is the same little horn which arises from the fourth beast in Dan. 7. Consider the similarities: Dan. 7:8= Dan. 8:23; Dan. 7:20 = Dan. 8:9; Dan. 7:21,25 = Dan. 8:10; Dan. 7:25 = Dan. 8:11,25; Dan. 7:25 changing times and seasons = Dan. 8:11,12, and 1 Macc. 1:44-51 records how Antiochus forced the Jews to stop offering the daily sacrifice and Jewish feasts, and desecrated the altar with pigs' blood. The period in which the daily sacrifices were stopped is described as 2300 mornings and evenings (Dan. 8:13,14), that is 1150 days when the twice daily [morning and evening] sacrifices were stopped. According to the dates given in 1 Macc. 1:41-59; 6:1-17, this is the exact period between when Antiochus began forbidding the daily sacrifices in Autumn of BC167 to the day of his death in the spring of BC163. There is no other very compelling fulfilment of the 2300 mornings and evenings.

Dan. 9:27 says that "for half a week he will put a stop to the sacrifice and the meal offering". Dan. 8 gives a period of 2300 evening-mornings, i.e. 1150 days, for the cessation of sacrifices. In Dan. 9:27 the time period is different- three and a half days, possibly meaning three and a half years or 1260 days. So often in Daniel we find the time periods are flexible. Which they are, because there are various possible and potential fulfilments of the prophecies, and the range of them is because God takes into account human freewill. For prophecy doesn't make God deterministic. Possibly these 1260 days are reduced to 1150 because the "days are shortened for the elect's sake". We must also factor in that 1 Maccabees gives a period of exactly 3 years for the desecration of the altar by Antiochus Epiphanes [1080 days if we take a 360 day year, 1095 days if a 365 day year]. This again could be because there was a shortening of the days. Josephus however claims it was exactly three and a half years (Wars 1.32). We could simply suppose that the time periods in Dan. 7:25; 8:14; 9:27; 12:7,11,12 all designate a period of roughly three and a half years and refer to the same time. The differences are because "the days" are shortened or lengthened in accordance with human freewill responses. And another simple takeaway is that all the suffering of God's people is only for a period foreknown by God. There comes a time of the end, a time when the days of suffering end.

The phrase 'evening-mornings' naturally recalls the account of creation, "There was evening and there was morning, a [e.g. second] day" (Gen. 1:8). The hint may be that through that long period [humanly speaking] of darkness, blasphemy and destruction, there was arising a new creation. Likewise in Dan. 7 we have the ferocious beasts arising out of the sea, with the winds / Spirit of God hovering over the waters. Those terrifying beasts and their evil work was in fact part of a new creation. The appearance of the "son of man" at the end then connects with the creation of man.

Perhaps the 'evening-morning' idea is used because we have noted the parallel with Daniel's continual evening and morning prayers, paralleled with the sacrifices. The message may be that the end will come if there is continued prayer during the period. And prayer is one of the human freewill responses that shortens or lengthens fulfilment of prophecy. Possibly there is an allusion to how the punishment for Israel's disobedience would be a longing for morning at evening, and a longing for evening at the morning (Dt. 28:66,67).

Dan 8:15 It happened 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-

This is clearly an Angel. The Angels are called those who stand by in Zech. 3:7.

Daniel sees the vision but doesn't understand it; but he wants to. Previously, it was the kings who had seen visions and wanted to understand, and Daniel had explained to them. Now the roles are reversed. Daniel is being made to feel himself into the place of those kings. Likewise he is described several times as awestruck and visibly sick and distressed because of the visions or their interpretations; just as the kings had been. Here we have a major feature of the Biblical histories, and of our lives as believers: we are made to experience and feel that which other people do. People who are in our lives, as believers or unbelievers. This is such a common theme in the Bible, and in life, that we conclude that this is what God does oftentimes with man, at least with believers. To bring us to greater human understanding, and to place our own apparently unique experiences within the wider context of society and people around us.

"Man" is geber, suggesting the name Gabriel (:16). Daniel sought to understand the meaning of a vision; but two verses earlier, an Angel had asked another Angel for understanding of the same vision. Here surely we have the practical meaning, in Angelic terms, of God knowing our prayers and arranging the answers before we even ask them. Perhaps it was Daniel’s guardian Angel who asked a more senior Angel for the interpretation of the vision, knowing Daniel was going to be asking for it. Yet it was the second Angel who actually gave the answer to Daniel (Dan. 8:14). Verse 16 describes the one Angel standing at the Ulai river calling out: “Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision”. Yet at this time, Daniel himself was in vision at the Ulai river (:2). His guardian Angel was there, right in front of him. And He had foreknown Daniel’s feelings and arranged for another Angel to respond to them... and so the second Angel (Gabriel) also comes near where Daniel was standing (:17). His guardian Angel had literally called Gabriel to come over to Daniel... And all this is going on for you and me hourly in the court of Heaven! There’s another example of this in Dan. 12. There are two Angels with Daniel by the river (:2). One of them asks the other: “How long shall it be to the end...?” (:6; cp. 8:13). Yet this was exactly the spirit of Daniel! And then the other Angel gives Daniel the answer. His guardian Angel knew his unexpressed questions and desires, and passed them on to another Angel to answer. See on Zech. 1:12.

If our Angel has not the strength or authority to give us a blessing which He sees we need, He can ask another Angel to bring this about- thus Daniel's guardian Angel had to ask Gabriel to help Daniel understand the vision which He knew Daniel so desperately wanted to have interpreted (Dan. 8:16). It may be that this request by the guardian Angel was not for the best for Daniel, because it seems to have been denied by God- v. 27 says that at the end of the interpretation or "understanding" being given by Gabriel, "I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding" (v. 27 N.I.V.). In that case, it would seem that when Gabriel said "Understand, O son of man" (v. 17), Gabriel Himself either did not appreciate that giving Daniel the understanding would not help him, or He obeyed the request from the guardian Angel unquestioningly. Or alternatively, was Gabriel saying in v. 17 that Daniel was to understand that the vision would not be fully understood till the last days, as in Dan. 12:4? This would mean that it is in the hands of the Angels as to at what time, both individually and as the body of God's people generally,  we gain spiritual understanding of certain parts of the word, in the same way as the Angels debated "Shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do?". This may be very relevant to the various interpretations of Revelation held by God's true people down through the years, each interpretation giving great encouragement to a certain group of saints, despite  their details varying considerably. This process would then be seen to be under the direct control of the Angels.

Dan 8:16 I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision- Gabriel is El-Gibbor, a title of the Lord Jesus (Is. 9:6). Hebrews 1 labours the point that the Lord was not an Angel. This Angel was not the Lord Jesus, but just as Michael represented Israel (Dan. 12:1), so this Angel was the representative of the Messiah. I have noted on :11 the theme in Daniel of men and entities having Angelic representatives. It is only through reading the Old Testament in the light of the Lord Jesus that we can come to any correct understanding.

Dan 8:17 So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened, and fell on my face: but he said to me, Understand, son of man; for the vision concerns the time of the end- Daniel was face down (:18), the manner of the Jews to bury. He experienced a symbolic death and resurrection, because the vision concerned "the time of the end". Although the vision clearly concerned Antiochus and Alexander, clearly the essential fulfilment was not in them but in the events of the last days. This makes any other primary fulfilments of the prophecy no more than that- primary fulfilment. "The end" is the "end" of the final cleansing of the sanctuary (:14), "the end" of Lk. 21:24; 1 Cor. 15:23, the visible return of the Lord Jesus to earth to destroy the blasphemous edifice and system then enthroned in Jerusalem.

Being addressed as "son of man" would have reminded Daniel of his contemporary prophet [and possibly acquaintance] Ezekiel, who over 90 times was addressed as "son of man". Just as Daniel falls on his face and is restored upright by an Angel (Dan. 8:17,18), so was Ezekiel: "When I saw it, I fell on my face... He said to me, son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you. The spirit entered into me when He spoke to me, and set me on my feet; and I heard Him who spoke to me" (Ez. 1:28; 2:1,2). These parallels between believers are common in spiritual life, and are often recorded in Biblical history. We are intended to see such connections, and this becomes the basis of being "in fellowship" in practice. No theological creed creates this fellowship; "doctrine divides; experience unites", as Paul Tournier put it long ago.

"For at the time of the end shall be the vision" (Dan. 8:17) would suggest that the things of the little horn etc. have their main fulfilment at the very end, before the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth, and not in any other time historically. Indeed we could fairly define "the vision" as the entire vision of the ram and goat (:1). This would then require the ram, goat and little horn to all have a specifically latter day interpretation. The obvious historical references to Persia and Greece were therefore merely the immediate potential fulfilment, which didn't fully come about in that there was no direct Divine intervention to re-establish God's Kingdom and eternally save His people. Just as all the metals of Dan. 2 and beasts of Dan. 7 exist in the last day, despite their clear historical references.

Dan 8:18 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- See on :17; Dan. 9:21. Clearly enough, as noted on :17, the time of Daniel's resurrection was to be the time of the end, when these things would have their fulfilment. Any historical interpretations of the horn and desolation of the sanctuary are therefore not the essential fulfilments.

Dan 8:19 He said, See, I will make you know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it concerns the appointed time of the end- This is as clear a statement as we could wish that the events described in the vision speak of the last days, and the historical fulfilments were only incipient, clear as they were.

Dan 8:20 The ram which you saw, that had the two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia- It has just been stressed in :17,19 that the vision is of the time of the end. The obvious historical fulfilments in the kings of Media and Persia were therefore only primary fulfilments. There must be a latter day equivalent, but in the very last days, the times when Daniel would be resurrected (see on :17,18).

Dan 8:21 The rough male goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king- Philip was king of Macedon before Alexander; this may be an example of where the prophecy will only have its 'best fit' fulfilment in the last days (:17,19). Or "first" may simply mean 'greatest'. Their great leader, Alexander the great, was “the great horn” on the goat (Dan. 8:21); this was broken, and four kingdoms arose out of that (Dan. 8:22). But out of them arose “a king of fierce countenance” who was to be “broken without hand” (Dan. 8:25). This is the very language of the entire image being broken by the stone cut out without hands, which speaks of the return of Christ to earth (Dan. 2:44). But at first blush, this seems out of chronological sequence- that a fierce king arising out of the breakup of the Greek empire [surely referring to Antiochus in its historical sense of fulfilment] should be broken by the second coming of Christ- many centuries later. But the problem is solved once we understand that the image stands erect and complete in the last days, in the sense that elements of all the previous empires and leaders would be incorporated in the final entity which shall be destroyed “without hand” by the return of the Lord Jesus. Daniel 7 has spoken of the fourth beast having a little horn which is destroyed by the coming of Christ and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. But Daniel 8 speaks of the third beast, the third kingdom of the image of Daniel 2, as having a “little horn” which is destroyed by the Kingdom of God. The conclusion would seem to be that at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom the little horn of Daniel 8 clearly refers, there could have been the coming of a "Christ" and establishment of the Kingdom. But this didn’t happen, and so Antiochus Epiphanes became a prototype of the latter day little horn, which will emerge from the fourth beast; and there is a large gap or delay in fulfilment between his time and that of Christ’s coming.

Dan 8:22 As for that which was broken, in the place where four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power- The four generals who took power after the death of Alexander the Great did not have "his power". But as laboured in :17,19, these historical events were not the ultimate fulfilment; they point forward to events specifically around the "time of the end", the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth, when Daniel shall be resurrected. We can look therefore for the arising of an individual like Alexander, who shall be broken before the Lord's return.

Dan 8:23 In the latter time of their kingdom- The idea could be that the historical kingdoms and related events of Greece, Antiochus, Medo-Persia etc. are to have their latter day fulfilment, as stressed in :17,19.

When the wicked have come to the full, a king of fierce appearance and understanding mysteries shall stand up-

"When the wicked have come to the full" could mean "when the transgressors have completed (their guilt)", a similar idea to the iniquity of the Amorites becoming full, i.e. judgment came after a specified period. And why like that? Because that period was their opportunity for repentance. We marvel that a hardened blasphemer like Antiochus could be given a hope of repentance. We think of how God likewise tried to get Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar to repent and gave them a specific time period. It's the same idea of God elsewhere waiting until "the cup of iniquity was full" before judging as in Gen. 15:16: “The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full”. Likewise Mt. 23:32: “fill you up then the measure of your fathers” and 1 Thess. 2:16: “to fill up their sins”. This is the time of Dan. 9:24 "To make an end of sins". But that verse in Dan. 9 is in the midst of a quite different chronology, of the 70 weeks prophecy. Again we have to conclude that there were various chronological schemes that were potentially possible, such is God's sensitivity to human freewill, and His refusal to make His prophecies simply determinate predictions that rob man of his freewill.

The same words for a king of fierce face are found in Dt. 28:49,50, describing the nation that will be brought upon a disobedient Israel in judgment: "Yahweh will bring a nation against you from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle flies; a nation whose language you will not understand; a nation of fierce face". That nation was embodied in this individual king. Just as there is confusion between king and kingdoms in all the visions. Dt. 28:50 can be understood on one hand as Rome, but as discussed on :1, the initial possible iteration of the vision concerned Antiochus Epiphanes. When that didn't work out, the kaleidoscope turned and it became relevant to Rome, and then it turned again, becoming relevant to the latter day antichrist. The whole vision of Dan. 8 is described as "the vision of the evenings and mornings" (:26) and this may also allude to Deuteronomy 28 and the curses for disobedience: : "In the morning you will say 'If only it was evening!' and in the evening you will say 'If only it was morning!' because of the great fear your heart will feel and because of the sight your eyes will see" (Dt. 28:67).

Antiochus Epiphanes is characterized by "understanding mysteries" in Dan. 8:23; he is a fake Daniel, who did understand (Dan. 1:4,17,20; 8:5,15; 9:2; 10:1). Just as he seeks to act as God.

This person arises in the time of the end- and this phrase in Daniel always has some reference to the time of the Lord’s return and Daniel's personal resurrection (:17,19). He is to arise out of the Syrian Kingdom, i.e. part of the divided empire of Alexander the Great. Historically, this must refer to Antiochus who arose in the latter time of the kingdom of the four generals; Rome just doesn't fit here. Some Protestant expositors seem to wish to see the Papacy here, and so have ignored the obvious application to Antiochus and tried to force everything into a Roman context. The individual king of fierce countenance applies so much better to Antiochus than to any of the Roman generals involved in the events of AD67-70. But whether Antiochus or Rome, the vision specifically refers to the very last days. The time when he will arise will be the time when “iniquity is come to the full”- which fits most comfortably with the very last days. The iniquity is that of :12, the sin of Israel in rejecting Jesus as Messiah. Dan. 8:17, 19 make it clear: “The vision pertains to the time of the end... the final period of indignation... the appointed time of the end”. This is the time when Israel's wickedness (:12) has come to its full point, when final judgment and deliverance will come. Such a point of the final filling up of Israel's sin is envisaged in Mt. 23:32; 1 Thess. 2:16. "Understanding mysteries" can mean that he would use deceit, as explained on :25. This makes sense when applied to Antiochus: "The king sent his chief collector of tribute, who came unto Jerusalem with a great multitude, and spake peaceable words unto them; but all was deceit: for when they had given him credence, he fell suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel... Antiochus sent also that detestable ringleader, Apollonius, with an army of two and twenty thousand, commanding him to slay all those that were in their best age, and to sell the women and the younger sort; who, coming to Jerusalem, and pretending peace, did forbear until the holy day of the Sabbath, when, taking the Jews keeping holyday, he commanded his men to arm themselves, and so he slew all them that were gone to the celebrating of the Sabbath" (1 Macc. 1:30; 2 Macc. 5:24). Dan. 11:27 provides the history; he would "obtain the kingdom by smooth sayings". The deceit of Antiochus was seen in how he deceived and destroyed his nephew, Ptolemy Philometor, in order to get power.

The manifestation of a Kingdom in its leader is to be found in the way the antiChrist is called "the king of fierce countenance" in Dan. 8:23. But the entire nation or entity which persecute Israel in the last days is a "nation of fierce countenance" (the same words are used- Dt. 28:50). Their leader is an embodiment of them.

Dan 8:24 His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; he shall be very destructive, and shall prosper and do his own will-

"But not by his own power" is yet another reminder that these powerful men and empires had actually no power of themselves, it was all given by God, as in Jn. 19:11; Is. 10:5 etc. We note that the interpretation in :24,25 differs somewhat from the original vision, which spoke of the desecration and destruction of the sanctuary. There is not reference to this in the interpretation. Possibly because the potential for Antiochus Epiphanes to do this wasn't realized. He did desecrate the sanctuary, but he didn't destroy the temple to the extent implied in the vision. The interpretation also makes no reference to the "host" or army given him in the vision. These aspects were unfulfilled in him; but did and will come true in future possible fulfilments of the prophecy.

See on Rev. 21:12. The Lord was intensely intellectually conscious throughout His sufferings. Often it is possible to see in His words allusions to even seven or eight OT passages, all in context, all relevant. Reflect how His response to Pilate “You could have no power against me" (Jn. 19:11) was a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 8, about the persecutors becoming mighty “but not by his own power". The apparent mightiness was due to God giving him the power; that is the point. See on :12. God only gives power to the Gentile persecutors of Israel because of their sins and His desire for their repentance. This is why the repentance of Israel is such an important precondition for the Lord's return, and we ought to be preaching it to them right now.

The reference however may also be to how the beast is given power not of himself but from the entity known as "the dragon" (Rev. 13:2), an earlier entity which has arisen.

And he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people- Or, "the people of the holy ones". As noted on :10,11, each of God's people have a representative Angel. What is done to them is effectively done to the Angels who represent them before the court of Heaven. The "holy ones" of :12,13 are clearly Angels. Again we have confirmed that in Daniel we are being invited to see God's host or people on earth as having representative Angels in Heaven. Hence the Lord Jesus will return with His holy ones or Angels with Him, in order to judge His holy ones on earth.

Dan 8:25 Through his policy-

"Policy" is the word elsewhere translated "wisdom" and it is used of Daniel himself in Dan. 1:17; 5:11,12,14. Likewise the little horn 'understands riddles', AV "understanding dark sentences" (:23), just as Daniel is described as doing (Dan. 5:12). Daniel repeatedly said that his wisdom was not from him, just as for the little horn "his strength will be mighty, but not with his own strength" (:23). "And so Daniel prospered" (Dan. 6:29) is the word thrice used of the little horn prospering (Dan. 8:12,24,25). The little horn is an anti-Daniel. Not simply evil, but actually a mimic of what is true and Godly; a veritable anti-Christ.

The singular "his" clearly refers to the latter day antiChrist individual in view. It appears somewhat of a twist to make this apply to generations of Roman Catholic leaders, as historicists do. It is the official policy of Islam to use deceit to bring down their enemies and to destroy under the banner of peace. The individual would fit a radical Islamist in the last days.

He shall cause deceit to prosper; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in their security shall he destroy many-

Again, the initial application was to Antiochus. "In (time of) security he will destroy many" is the language used of him when we read the Biblically provided history of him in Dan. 11:21,24. Again we note that for all the reasons God could judge the little horn, the one given is his pride "in his heart", an internal attitude that God is so sensitive to.

The fierce king "by peace shall destroy many" (AV); perhaps alluded to in the prophecy that the sudden destruction wrought by the Lord's return will be when men are saying "peace and safety" (1 Thess. 5:3). This certainly sounds like the result of jihadist Islam, the [supposed] religion of peace. The Semitic consonants S-L-M are at the root of the words Islam and also Shalom, Salaam [Hebrew and Arabic for 'peace']. There were no vowels in ancient Hebrew and Arabic. The connection is in that peace ['salaam' in Arabic] is believed to come from 'islam', submission. Muslim apologists frequently justify their religion by claiming that Islam is a religion of peace [even if they believe in murdering anyone who disagrees]. As we survey the atrocities being performed in the name of Islam today in the territory of the land promised to Abraham... we are seeing this being fulfilled. By peace / salaam / Islam, many are being destroyed. What however we are still waiting to see is more focus upon the leader of the jihadists, for these prophecies focus upon 'kings' and 'horns' [kings] more than more abstract 'kingdoms'. This may partly be because God attaches much importance to the responsibilities of leaders, but also because there must arise prominent leaders, especially an antiChrist figure who is the "fierce king" orchestrating this destruction of many by his religion of 'peace'.

The latter day beast of Revelation and his publicity agent likewise do apparent miracles; the little horn of Dan. 8:24 will destroy by miracles (AV “wonderfully”, but the Hebrew is elsewhere translated as ‘miracles’ or ‘performing miracles’). The Koran claims that God will perform miracles in support of Moslem activity and judgment of unbelievers, especially Israel. The prophet Mohammad is the pattern and “aim” of Islam and their leaders. The miracles attributed to Mohammad in the Hadith are similar to latter day judgments upon Israel. It may be that the Islamists bring these judgments in a manner which appears miraculous:
Multiplying bread and water Volume 4, Book 56, Numbers 779, 780
Making animals speak Volume 3, Book 39, Number 517
Splitting the moon Volume 6, Book 60, Number 388
Making stars appear Volume 1, Book 8, Number 454
Making rain Volume 8, Book 73, Number 115
Making a dead body arise Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814
Ascended into the sky and thence to Heaven

All these things are spoken of as happening in the various seal or trumpet judgments. It may be that the Caliph of the final jihadist Islamic entity does indeed appear to be able to do miracles, and he consciously does these things because he wishes to impersonate Mohammad. Remember article 8 of the Hamas Covenant: "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model”- also quoted by the jihadists today.

The coming of the "wicked one" is "after the working [Gk. energeia] of the Satan". The Satan of the last days is as defined in Revelation 12- the beast of the last days. But God sends "strong delusion that they should believe a lie" (2 Thess. 2:9,11). "Strong delusion" again uses the same term, energeia. The energy in the whole thing is from God, not some 'satan' in the orthodox sense of radical evil in the cosmos. The satan-beast of the last days is under God's direct Angelic control, as made clear in Revelation. Due to the false miracles, the masses will flock to believe in this individual. We are already seeing something of the sort in the land promised to Abraham, where the Islamic extremism and its caliph is being believed and followed in a way which is strange and unbelievable to the rational observer. God will confirm these people so that they believe this individual and the beast-satan system behind him.

He shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human hand- 

"The prince of princes" could initially refer to Michael the chief prince (Dan. 10:13), "the commander of the [Angelic] host of Yahweh" of Josh. 5:14,15. This was in view in earlier potential fulfilments through Antiochus Epiphanes. But in the last days, it applies to the Lord Jesus. "He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes" ultimately refers to God ("the God of gods" Dan. 11:36; "God of gods and Lord of kings", Dan. 2:47). The parallel "little horn" in Dan. 7 exalts himself against "the most high" (Dan. 7:8,11,20,25). In the latter days, this refers to God manifest in the Lord Jesus, the prince of the kings of the earth. But this didn't happen, because the Antiochus application was a potential that didn't happen. Just as in Dan. 11 everything fits so well, until we come to a sudden point when it no longer does. The application failed, but in essence will come true with a latter day Antiochus, another time of peace and safety, and the Lord Jesus.

The Lord Jesus is called "Messiah the Prince" in Dan. 9:25 in order to contrast with how the anti-Christ, the fake Christ, is also called "the prince of the host" in Dan. 8:11. "It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host" (ESV). This prince "shall stand up against the Prince of princes", the Lord Jesus (Rev. 1:5; see on :11). There will be a final showdown between these two princes, and their respective followers and Kingdoms. The armies of the earth / land will be gathered together against those of the Lord Jesus. And the Moslems will eagerly rush into this final conflict, believing that this is "the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met" (Sura 8.41). Being broken without human hand is clearly the language of the Lord's return to destroy the king of the north and the entire image system he personifies (Dan. 2:34; 11:45). This individual therefore exists at the time of the Lord's return and shall be destroyed thereby. It cannot therefore majorly refer to any system or individuals before that time. The historical fulfilment would have been in Antiochus dying not in battle but of a mysterious illness. It is hard to see any possible application to the destruction of any Roman entity associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.

The little stone cut out without human hand in Dan. 2 is the very phrase used of the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, who "shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human hand" (Dan. 8:25). Clearly there was a possible potential fulfilment of the Dan. 2 prophecy at his time. But again, it didn't happen and the prophecy was again reapplied and reinterpreted. Antiochus died suddenly of a stroke. But the Kingdom of God didn't come, perhaps because Judas Maccabeus failed to be the potential Messiah figure. And above all, because the Jews were not spiritually ready and wanted their own kingdom rather than God's Kingdom.

Dan 8:26 The vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true: but seal up the vision; for it belongs to many days to come- Again we see emphasized, as in :17,19, that the obvious historical fulfilment in the likes of Alexander and Antiochus was only the incipient fulfilment; these things belong to the very last days, the time of Daniel's personal resurrection (:17-19). The simple statement that the vision is true is lifted from Dan. 2:45. As noted on :25, the destruction of the image system and the beasts is the same as the destruction of this latter day arrogant individual who will personify them. The vision was to be sealed until the time of the end, which Dan. 12:9 explains as meaning that it would not be understood until the time of the Lord's return; as Rev. 13:10. The unsealing of the scroll in Revelation therefore also majorly refers to the events of the very last days before the Lord's return. Only then, when prophecy is being fulfilled before the eyes of the faithful, will the ultimate interpretation be apparent. All we can do now is muse over the primary fulfilments, and get some broad picture of how things shall unfold at the end. The purpose of prophecy is not to predict the future, but so that the generation that sees the fulfilment will realize that this was all foretold and all is going wonderfully according to plan. And the traumas of the last days will mean that this is vital encouragement.

Daniel's prophecies, specifically those with potential for fulfilment under Antiochus, were "sealed". The implication may be that no matter how men go to and fro to find knowledge, the fulfilment will remain hidden. The text of the prophecies were possibly literally sealed but opened in the time of Antiochus. And they were written in Aramaic so that the Jews of the time clearly understood. But Is. 29 speaks of prophetic words being sealed, impossible of interpretation by learned and unlearned alike, as a result of Israel's sin and refusal to realize their potential. The sealing of the prophetic book there referred to a judgment in consequence of Judah's sins. Daniel's prophecies about the Antiochus period were sealed because they were only to come to fulfilment if the seals were removed by the fulfilment of various preconditions. This didn't happen. And so the concept is repeated in Revelation, where the scroll of the book of life, the ultimate sealed book, is unsealed by the Lamb after the seal events of the very last days.

Dan 8:27 I Daniel, fainted, and was sick for some days; then I rose up, and did the king’s business: and I wondered at the vision-

Daniel's trauma may be because he had lived through the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon, and was expecting restoration. But now he is given a vision of an even worse destruction of the temple and even more abuse of his people. For as yet he has not received the prophecies of Messiah and eternal restoration of Dan. 9 and 11. He had clearly under estimated the sin and impenitence of his people, and was still struggling to accept the conditional and flexible nature of Divine prophecy, as we see also in Dan. 9:1-4. And perhaps all God's children have struggled with these same things, especially those who come to accept they will likely die before their Lord returns; having lived their lives in expectation of His imminent coming. I suggest that it was Daniel's reflection upon these things at this point that led him to make the prayer of confession of sin of Dan. 9.

Why the mention that after seeing these things, Daniel got up and went back to work doing the King's work? The idea is that like us, we understand clearly that kings and empires shall all pass away and we always even know some details about events leading up to that. But for now, we must go on with our workaday lives. Although doing what we do in the knowledge that all this shall pass away and is as light as the chaff that shall be blown away and known no more.

This is the same kind of conclusion to Dan. 7; Daniel feels sick after the interpretation is given, having realized that the fulfilment was not until "many days to come" (:26). As noted on Dan. 7:15, he had the welfare of God's people so deeply in his heart that he felt actually ill because he realized that their restoration was not going to happen as had been potentially possible when Jeremiah first uttered the restoration prophecies and mentioned a 70 year period.

But none understood it- This may mean that he discussed it with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, but they too did not totally understand it. This lack of understanding was likely because he knew little about Greece. "But none understood it" suggests Daniel shared it with others, but no one was able to explain it. Thus his experiences again repeat those of the kings for whom he had interpreted dreams. Just as we have experiences which enable us to understand the feelings of others in our lives. Likewise "fainted" means to be exhausted or sleepless, the verb used in Dan 2:1 for how the king's sleep fainted from him. Again by this Daniel was allowed to enter into the experiences of a man who had been in his life many years ago. We may pass through experiences which help us understand how someone felt with whom we intersected decades ago.

Daniel didn't understand the 2300 evening-morning period (Dan. 8:27), and in Dan. 9 he is given understanding (Dan. 9:2,22,23). The answer was in the 70 weeks prophecy. "Understand the vision" (Dan. 9:23) prefaces the 70 weeks prophecy, and the vision in view is that of Dan. 8, repeatedly called "the vision" (Dan. 8:1,2,13,15,17,26). The issues of Dan. 9:24 are exactly those of Dan. 8:12-14: transgression will be finished, everlasting righteousness will be brought, and a holy of holies anointed. But just as the 2300 period differs from the 1260 day period of Dan. 7, so the interpretation in Dan. 9 differs. Because the 70 weeks period is not 2300 evening-mornings. Likewise the 1260,1290 and 1335 day periods of Dan. 12 seem to offer yet another scenario. The language of Dan. 12:10,11 is that of Dan. 11:31-35, initially about the possible fulfilment in Antiochus Epiphanes. Surely we have to conclude that the time periods are flexible and changeable, as God factors in all the possible fulfilments in line with human freewill decisions. This really has to be the case, for otherwise Divine prophecy would be simply deterministic and rob man of any freewill.