DANIEL - CHAPTER 8
A Bible Study - Commentary by Jim
Melough
Copyright
2000 James Melough
8:1.
“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.”
This vision supplies further
details relating to the empires of Medo-Persia and Greece, and in addition,
introduces Antiochus Epiphanes, a bitter persecutor of the Jews in the second century
BC, and a type of the still more terrible persecutor, the beast emperor, who will
arise in the Tribulation age.
Daniel’s first vision had
been in the first year of Belshazzar, as recorded in chapter 7, but now in this
second vision there are added details not given in the first.
8:2.
“And I saw in a vision:
and it came to pass, when 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 Ulai.”
It is generally understood that the prophet wasn’t actually in Shushan, but
that he had been carried there in spirit, and Dr. Heading points out that Ulai was a
canal linking two rivers which flowed past the city.
Shushan means a lily; Elam, their heaps: suckling them: eternal;
and Ulai, my leaders (mighties), and undoubtedly
these names, like all others in Scripture, have spiritual significance, but I regret
being unable to determine what those meanings are.
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.”
Verse 20 identifies this ram as Medo-Persia, the smaller horn representing
Media under Darius; the higher horn which came up last, representing Persia under
Cyrus, which eventually emerged as the dominant power.
The only apparent reason for God’s having chosen the ram to represent Medo-Persia;
and the he goat, Greece, is that they were the emblems on the banners and coins of
those two countries, and that the Persian kings wore golden crowns shaped like
ram’s heads.
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.”
This is generally taken to represent Persia’s subjugation of Babylon,
Mesopotamia, Syria (westward), Colchis, Armenia, and the regions around the Caspian
sea (northward), and Israel, Egypt, and Ethiopia (southward).
The fact that the nations, powerless against the might of Persia, are referred
to under the figure of beasts, reminds us that God views, not only the four having
universal dominion, but all nations, as being of the same character, beastly.
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.”
The goat from the west represents Greece; and the notable horn, its king,
Alexander the Great. Its not touching
the ground is usually taken to refer to the speed of Alexander’s conquests (he
conquered virtually the known world of his day in just about twelve years), but an
alternative rendering of this clause is “none touched him in the earth,” in which
case the reference may be to his invincibility.
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.”
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 stamped upon him: and there
was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.”
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.”
Verses 6 and 7 describe Alexander’s subjugation of the Medo-Persian empire,
and verse 8 tells us of the conquests by which he subdued the known world of his day.
The great horn broken symbolizes Alexander’s death which occurred in Babylon
when he was only 32; while the rising up of “four notable ones (horns) towards the
four winds of heaven” represents the division of the empire among his four chief
generals, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus.
He himself had no natural heir. Cassander
ruled Greece and Macedonia; Lysimachus, Thrace, Bithynia, Lydia,
Mycia and Phrygia; Ptolemy,
Egypt; and Selecus, Israel, Syria and Mesopotamia.
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.”
This
little horn refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria from 175-163 BC. His being “exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the
east, and toward the pleasant land” refers to his conquests in Egypt, the East, and
Israel. He is not to be confused with
the little horn of 7:8, which represents the beast ruler of the yet future
Tribulation period, though he (Antiochus) is very clearly a type of that coming
evil king.
8:10.
“And it waxed great, even to (against) the host of heaven; and it cast down
some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.”
The
“host of heaven” is taken by most commentators to represent God’s people,
Israel; and the “stars,” either the leaders of the people, or more likely, those
who bore a faithful witness for God. His
casting some of them “to the ground” refers to his killing them.
History records the fulfillment
of this prophecy. Antiochus Epiphanes,
meaning the Illustrious One or manifestation of a god, was known also
as Epimanes, i.e., the madman. Few of Israel’s persecutors have rivaled his ruthless cruelty.
8:11.
“Yea, he (Antiochus) magnified himself even to (against) the prince of the
host (Christ), and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his
(God’s) sanctuary was cast down.”
The fact that he delighted in
the appellation “Epiphanes (manifestation of a god)” declares how much he desired
to be regarded as a god. Not only did he
forbid all Jewish worship, but he profaned the temple by offering a pig on the altar,
and sprinkling its blood on the walls and vessels; and having set up an image of
Jupiter, he then declared the temple to be the shrine of that pagan god.
It has been estimated that he massacred more than 100,000 Jews. It is beyond
question that he is a type of the impious “little horn (king)” of chapter seven,
the beast ruler of the Tribulation period, and that his blasphemous persecution of
God’s people in the second century BC is but a foreshadowing of the still more
terrible persecution which they will suffer at the hand of that final Gentile king in
the Tribulation.
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 practiced and
prospered.”
The King James translation of
this verse is obscure. Many Bible
scholars understand it to mean that “the host” (Israel) was given into the hand
of Antiochus because of their transgression against God’s order for the offering of
the sacrifices. They themselves had been
guilty of polluting God’s altar, e.g., “Ye offer polluted bread (sacrifices) upon
Mine altar.... Ye offer the blind for sacrifice ... the lame and the sick” (Mal
1:7-8). In permitting Antiochus to
sacrifice a pig on the temple altar, God would have His own people see His abhorrence
of the maimed (and therefore proscribed) sacrifices with which they themselves had
polluted His altar and sanctuary. Israel’s blemished lambs were no more acceptable
to God than was the pig offered by Antiochus.
There is, however, practical
instruction in this for Spiritual Israel (the Church).
We may be guilty of the same offense, for Israel’s literal sacrifices are
but symbols of our spiritual offerings. It
is to be feared that much of what we offer to God today as worship and service is as
abhorrent to Him as were those repudiated blemished offerings brought by His earthly
people. They presented what cost them
little (the blemished animal had little market value), but are we less guilty?
What do our worship and service cost us?
How much time, for example, do we give to our preparation for coming to the
Lord’s table on the first day of each week? Do
we spend time throughout the week - willingly giving up ease, pleasure, or money, to
have that time - so that we may have for presentation to the Father that which can
honestly be called “the sacrifices of praise” (Heb 13:15)?
The same standard must measure
also our service. What service have we
rendered this week, for example, that has cost us anything in the way of time,
convenience, or money?
Spiritual men and women grieve
to see spiritual Israel present the equivalent of earthly Israel’s blemished
offerings which offended God, and brought His chastisement, for the Church will no
more escape judgment than did Israel. For literal Israel the instrument of that chastisement was
Antiochus, but he was only the puppet of Satan, permitted by God to desecrate temple
and altar, so that Israel might see in that desecration a duplicate of their own
defilement of His temple and altar. Blind
eyes and seared consciences, however, prevent us from seeing that the type is being
fulfilled today. Believers are
frequently made to witness the spectacle, not only of God’s being presented with
the blemished offerings of spiritual Israelites, but worse, with “the pig” of the
unbeliever, for negligence on the part of elders has made it easy for Satan’s
wolves, disguised as sheep, to take their places amongst God’s people.
Dr. John Heading’s comments on this twelfth verse are worth noting, “The
transgression totally was caused not only by the people and their evil ways, but by
the high priest Jason who opened the temple gates so that Antiochus could enter.
There were thus no powerful ‘porters to guard the gates of the house of the
Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in,’ 2 Chron. 23:19.
This recalls the local church visualized by Paul in Acts 20:29-30, where men
from the outside and men from within would damage the spiritual status of the church
at Ephesus.”
“... and it (the little horn,
Antiochus) cast down the truth to the ground.” This is always Satan’s work, for the Truth is the antidote for
his spiritual poison, the light to dispel his darkness.
It is Truth alone that can annul the power of evil.
Satan’s use of Antiochus therefore, “to cast down the truth to the
ground,” that is, to destroy it, is nothing new.
He has impelled multitudes to do the same thing down through the ages, and in
his attempt to destroy the Truth we see the shadow of his ultimate objective - to
destroy Him Who is not only “the Truth,” but “the Way, and the Life” as well.
Nor have we far to look to find the reason for his hatred of the Truth.
His own destruction is guaranteed both by the immutability of the written
Word, and the omnipotence of the living Word. Until
the day he is cast into the lake of fire therefore, he will continue the nefarious
work so willing done by Antiochus almost twenty-two hundred years ago.
Nor will he ever lack an “Antiochus” to do his bidding.
The last one will be the Gentile Tribulation-age beast ruler. He has his “Antiochuses” at work today both outside and inside
the Church, and their success may be measured by the spiritual illiteracy of God’s
people. To multitudes of believers the
Old Testament is written in an unknown language.
Its truth has been “cast down to the ground” as far as they are concerned,
and the New Testament is quickly meeting the same fate.
How? Christians are so busy with the things of this world, and with
useless “Christian activities” that they have no time to study their Bibles.
The method may be more subtle, but Truth is just as much “cast down to the
ground” today as it was in the days of Antiochus.
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?”
Saint here is generally taken
to be a holy angel, and the words, “How long shall be the vision, etc.,” as
meaning “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled?”
8:14.
“And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall
the sanctuary be cleansed.”
There has been much debate over
this verse. While certainly what Israel
suffered at the hand of Antiochus is a foreshadowing of what she will yet suffer at
the hand of the final beast ruler in the Tribulation, there doesn’t seem to be any
reason to believe that the present reference is to any cleansing of the Temple other
than that which followed its desecration by Antiochus, i.e., the cleansing carried
out by Judas Maccabees between BC 164 and 163. In
regard to that cleansing, the many attempts to explain the 2,300 days have produced
no very satisfactory answer, and I regret being unable to shed any light on the
puzzle, the difficulty being that while December 16, 167 BC is the generally accepted
date of Antiochus’ desecration of the Temple, there is no generally accepted exact
date of the completion of its cleansing. Many
expositors believe that the time was “2,300 evenings and mornings” (the times for
offering the evening and morning sacrifice), which would make the time 1,150 actual
twenty-four days, and this certainly fits approximately the time from 167 BC, when
Antiochus first defiled it, till 164 or 163 BC, when Judas Maccabees cleansed it.
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.”
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.”
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.”
The One having the appearance
of a man seems to be the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, confirmation of this view being
found in the fact that He commanded Gabriel, an authority unlikely to be possessed by
any other except perhaps the archangel Michael, and if it were he, then we might
suppose that his name would have been used.
If the majesty of Gabriel
prostrated Daniel with fear, what must the majesty of God be like?
“Son of man” is not used here in the same sense as when applied to the
Lord Jesus Christ. Here it simply designates Daniel as one of the human race.
The fact that the events revealed in the vision are said to relate to “the
time of the end” makes it clear that what happened in the second century BC was
only a partial fulfillment of the prophecy, Antiochus being but a type of the final
beast emperor of the Tribulation era.
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.”
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.”
“The last end of the
indignation” continues to emphasize that while the prophecy included the activity
of Antiochus, its ultimate application is to the activity of the final beast emperor
in the Tribulation.
8:20.
“The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and
Persia.”
8:21.
“And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is
between his eyes is the first king.”
8:22.
“Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall
stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.”
Since we have already discussed
these verses, we will go on to look at verse 23.
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.”
While certainly the immediate
application was to Antiochus, it is clear that the ultimate application is to the
final beast emperor, for it cannot be said of Antiochus that he understood “dark
sentences,” nor can it be said that transgressors had come to the full in his days.
That “fullness” will be only when the beast reigns.
(The ability to understand “dark sentences,” incidentally, is simply
another way of declaring that the man will be possessed of extraordinary
intelligence, and while Antiochus was shrewd and cunning, his intelligence was not
phenomenal).
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.”
Antiochus was powerful to a
degree, but it could not be said that he was mighty. And while he was certainly Satan’s instrument, it is clear that
he was so in a much more limited measure than will be the coming beast emperor.
Likewise in regard to the destruction wrought by Antiochus, it will pale into
insignificance compared to that which will lie in the wake of the Tribulation-age
beast ruler, as will also his slaughter of the “mighty and the holy people” (the
Jews). “Mighty” meaning literally mighty
ones, is taken by many to refer, not to Israel, but to the nations that will be
conquered by the beast.
In the original language, the
word “practise” has a great many meanings, all of which point to an ability far
surpassing that of Antiochus, but which Scripture makes clear will be possessed by
the beast.
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.”
There is no question that
Antiochus prospered through craft, that he “magnified himself in his heart,”
i.e., he felt superior to others, and had great ambition, that he “by peace”
destroyed many, i.e., treacherously destroyed them when they least expected it,
having believed his promises of peace. Apart
from the fact that he was opposed to the “Prince of princ-es,” i.e., the Lord
Jesus Christ, however, he did not literally “stand up against the Prince of
princes” as will the final beast emperor whose forces will engage in literal battle
with Christ at Megiddo, and who will himself be cast directly into the lake of fire.
His being “broken without hand” very clearly points to his being brought
to an end by a unique means, i.e., by being cast directly into the lake of fire.
Only the beast, the false prophet, and Satan will have this terrible
experience. It did not happen to
Antiochus.
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.”
Some take “the vision of the
evening and the morning’ to mean that the vision was given to Daniel at night, and
there appears to be no good reason not to accept this.
In regard to his being told “shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for
many days,” most commentators take it to mean, not that he was to keep it secret,
but to preserve it by committing it to writing, so that others might read what God
had written concerning events at the end of the age that would see Gentile dominion
broken, and Christ’s millennial kingdom established, a time then far distant, but
now surely very near. Some, however,
understand it to mean that the contents were not to be disclosed, and in view
of what is written in verse 27, this interpretation may well be correct.
The word shut, in fact, has this very meaning.
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.”
Daniel’s fainting and
sickness may have been due to the emotional strain of having experienced a theophany
(the appearance of Deity in the guise of a man or an angel), and of having been in
the presence of Gabriel, see verses 15-18. His
being astonished at the vision is usually taken to mean that he was appalled by it.
The phrase “none understood it” is difficult to interpret, since the
explanation given him by Gabriel seems to be reasonably explicit, though it is to be
realized that we read it having the benefit of about 2,500 years of history, which
records much of the fulfillment of the prophecy.
We have to remember also that Daniel may have been given the vision, but not
its meaning, as in 12:8-9, nor should we forget that the prophets not infrequently
wrote without understanding the meaning of what they were commanded to write, see 1
Pe 1:10-12.
[Daniel 9]
