The Little Horn And 2,300 Days Of Daniel 8

This 70th week of Daniel Bible study focuses on how the 2,300 days in Daniel 8 were fulfilled, as Seventh Day Adventists proclaim that it points to 2,300 years which spanned from when the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 prophecy began in 457 BC until 1844 AD.

Upon this explanation, the Millerites declared that Messiah would return in 1844 AD. People sold their homes and possessions in anticipation of His return. When that didn’t happen, there was a great disappointment.

But instead of realizing that they’re wrong about it being 2,300 years, Seventh Day Adventists proclaim that Messiah started His supposed ‘Investigative Judgment’ in 1844 AD.

First of all, there is no verse which proclaims Messiah enters into a time of Investigative Judgment.

Secondly, it would mean that Messiah has been in a state of Investigative Judgment for 180 years, which doesn’t make sense. Why would the heavenly sanctuary need to be cleansed? Who could have defiled it?

The connection between the 2,300 days of Daniel 8 and the 70 weeks (490 days) of Daniel 9 is based on false premises.

Daniel 9:24 is simply saying that 70 weeks of seven, 490 years, are determined in which the narrative of Daniel 9:24-27 is fulfilled. It is not declaring that the 70-week prophecy is cut off from the 2,300 days in Daniel 8, and the proof of the fulfillment of the 2300 days proves that the SDA explanation is not valid.

SDA’s misrepresent Daniel 8:14, to point to a heavenly sanctuary which needs to be cleansed.
But the Daniel 8 prophecy is not about a heavenly sanctuary, it’s about the physical temple in Jerusalem, so the premise of the SDA Church explanation is out of context.

The narrative of Daniel 8 is about the Medo-Persian and Grecian empires, the second and third beast kingdoms of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. It’s not describing the Roman beast kingdom or the time leading up to 1844 AD.

Daniel 8 gives the vision of the Ram and the he-goat, which represent Persia being destroyed and succeeded by the Grecian beast kingdom.

The ram which you saw, having the two horns–they are the kings of Media and Persia. Daniel 8:20

And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. Daniel 8:21

The mighty world-conquering king who overthrew the power of Persia was Alexander the Great of Macedon (the large horn), and the fourfold division of his kingdom (Cassander, Lysimachus, Selucus and Ptolemy) in the prophecy answers to the course of history.

The little horn of Daniel 8 was Antiochus Epiphanes, who arose out of the Seleucidae of Syria. He was called a little horn, because he was a less-powerful leader than Alexander the Great, who was called a notable horn.

Daniel 8:9 points to Antiochus Epiphanes and his army coming into Jerusalem,

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.

Daniel 8:10 describes Antiochus killing some Jews (stars/host can point to people),

And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

Daniel 8:11-12 describes Antiochus making pagan sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem,

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. 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.

Daniel 8:13-14 tells us how long the temple in Jerusalem was controlled by Antiochus Epiphanes, until Judas Maccabaeus took back control of the temple and cleansed it.

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? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Here’s a timeline of events regarding Antiochus Epiphanes and the Jews regaining control of the temple:

175 BC: Antiochus IV becomes ruler of the Seleucid Empire

168 BC: Antiochus IV gives orders to loot the temple and outlaw Judaism

167 BC: After Antiochus has an altar to Zeus erected in the Temple, Mattathias refuses to further desecrate it. Mattathias kills a Greek and a collaborating Jew. With his five sons and a group of allies, they lead a rebellion against Antiochus. Judah becomes known as Judah Maccabee (“Judah the Hammer”), based on a Biblical reference and his military prowess.

165 BC: The Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy is successful in recapturing the Temple.

164 BC: The Temple is rededicated with a new altar and new sacred vessels.

To understand the fulfillment of Daniel 8-11, read The Beasts Of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7

Here are some comments about this prophecy from theologians who wrote Bible commentaries.

There is variance about years of the fulfillment timeline, but they agree that the prophecy points to Grecian leader Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn, who caused the sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem to be stopped, and that it was the Maccabean Revolt which led to the temple being cleansed.

The explanations are extensive, so if you don’t want to read all of the text, I’ve bolded the names Antiochus Epiphanes and Judas Maccabaeus so that you can scan the commentaries to see that the theologians are all pointing to them fulfilling the prophecy.

By this, you can see that the prophecy is not pointing to 2,300 years as the SDA Church teaches.

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible Daniel 8:9

And out of one of them, came forth a little horn – Emblematic of new power that should spring up. Compare the notes at Da 7:8. This little horn sprang, up out of one of the others; it did not spring up in the midst of the others as the little horn, in Da 7:8, did among the ten others. This seemed to grow out of one of the four, and the meaning cannot be misunderstood. From one of the four powers or kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander would be divided, there would spring up this ambitions and persecuting power.

Which waxed exceeding great – Which became exceedingly powerful. It was comparatively small at first, but ultimately became mighty. There can be no doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes is denoted here. All the circumstances of the prediction find a fulfillment in him; and if it were supposed that this was written after he had lived, and that it was the design of the writer to describe him by this symbol, he could not have found a symbol that would have been more striking or appropriate than this. The Syriac version has inserted here, in the Syriae text, the words “Antiochus Epiphanes,” and almost without exception expositors have been agreed in the opinion that he is referred to.

For a general account of him, see the notes at Da 7:24, following The author of the book of Maccabees, after noticing, in the passage above quoted, the death of Alexander, and the distractions that followed his death, says, “And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been a hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks,” 1 Macc. 1:10.

A few expositors have supposed that this passage refers to Antichrist – what will not expositors of the Bible suppose? But the great body of interpreters have understood it to refer to Antiochus. This prince was a successor of Seleucus Nicator, who, in the division of the empire of Alexander, obtained Syria, Babylonia, Media, etc. (see above the note at Da 8:8), and whose capital was Antioch.

The succession of princes who reigned in Antioch, from Seleucus to Antiochus Epiphanes, were as follows:

(1) Seleucus Nicator, 312-280 b.c.
(2) Antiochus Soter, his son, 280-261.
(3) Antiochus Theos, his son, 261-247.
(4) Seleucus Callinicus, his son, 247-226.
(5) (Alexander), or Seleucus Ceraunus, his son, 226-223.
(6) Antiochus the Great, his brother, 223-187.
(7) Seleucus Philopater, his son, 187-176.
(8) Antiochus Epiphanes, his brother, 176-164. – Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii. Appendix, ch. iii.

The succession of the Syrian kings reigning in Antioch was continued until Syria was reduced to the form of a Roman province by Pompey, 63 b.c. Seleucus Philopater, the immediate predecessor of Antiochus, having been assassinated by one of his courtiers, his brother Antiochus hastened to occupy the vacant throne, although the natural heir, Demetrius, son of Seleucus, was yet alive, but a hostage at Rome. Antiochus assumed the name of Epiphanes, or Illustrious. In Da 11:21, it is intimated that he gained the kingdom by flatteries; and there can be no doubt that bribery, and the promise of reward to others, was made use of to secure his power. See Kitto’s Cyclo., i. 168-170. Of the acts of this prince there will be occasion for a fuller detail in the notes on the remainder of this chapter, and Dan. 11.

Toward the south – Toward the country of Egypt, etc. In the year 171 b.c., he declared war against Ptolemy Philometer, and in the year 170 he conquered Egypt, and plundered Jerusalem. 1 Macc. 1:16-19: “Now when the kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt, that he might have the dominion of two realms. Wherefore he entered Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy. And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof.”

And toward the east – Toward Persia and the countries of the East. He went there – these countries being nominally subject to him – according to the author of the book of Maccabees (1 Macc. 3:21-37), in order to replenish his exhausted treasury, that he might carry on his wars with the Jews, and that he might keep up the splendor and liberality of his court: “He saw that the money of his treasures failed, and that the tributes in the country were small, because of the dissension and plague which he had brought upon the land, and he feared that he should not be able to bear the charges any longer, nor to have such gifts to give so liberally as he did before; wherefore, being greatly perplexed in his mind, he determined to go into Persia, there to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money. So the king departed from Antioch, his royal city, the hundred forty and seventh year; and having passed the river Euphrates, he went through the high countries.”

And toward the pleasant land – The word used here (צבי tseby ) means, properly, splendor, beauty, Isa 4:2; 24:16; 28:1, Isa 28:4-5. It is applied, in Isa 13:19, to Babylon – “the glory of kingdoms.” Here it evidently denotes the land of the Israelites, or Palestine – so often described as a land of beauty, as flowing with milk and honey, etc. This is such language as a pious Hebrew would naturally use of his own country, and especially if he was an exile from it, as Daniel was. Nothing more would be necessary to designate the land so as to be understood than such an appellation – as nothing more would be necessary to designate his country to an exile from China than to speak of “the flowery land.” Antiochus, on his return from Egypt, turned aside and invaded Judea, and ultimately robbed the temple, destroyed Jerusalem, and spread desolation through the land. See 1 Macc. 1.

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible Daniel 8:10

And it waxed great – It became very powerful. This was eminently true of Antiochus, after having subdued Egypt, etc.

Even to the host of heaven – Margin, against. The Hebrew word (עד ad ) means “to” or “unto,” and the natural idea would seem to be that he wished to place himself among the stars, or to exalt himself above all that was earthly. Compare the notes at Isa 14:13 : “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.” Lengerke supposes that the meaning here is, that he not only carried his conquests to Egypt and to the East, and to the holy land in general, but that he made war on the holy army of God – the priests and worshippers of Jehovah, here spoken of as the host of heaven. So Maurer understands it.

In 2 Macc. 9:10, Antiochus is described in this language: “And the man that thought a little afore he could reach the stars of heaven, etc.” The connection, would seem to demand the interpretation proposed by Lengerke and Maurer, for it is immediately said that he cast down some of the host and the stars to the ground. And such an interpretation accords with the language elsewhere used, of the priests and rulers of the Hebrew people. Thus, in Isa 24:21, they are called “the host of the high ones that are on high.” See the note at that passage.

This language is by no means uncommon in the Scriptures. It is usual to compare princes and rulers, and especially ecclesiastical rulers, with the sun, moon, and stars. Undoubtedly it is the design here to describe the pride and ambition of Antiochus, and to show that he did not think anything too exalted for his aspiration. None were too high or too sacred to be secure from his attempts to overthrow them, and even those who, by their position and character, seemed to deserve to be spoken of as suns and stars, as “the host of heaven,” were not secure.

And it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground – The horn seemed to grow up to the stars, and to wrest them from their places, and to cast them to the earth. Antiochus, in the fulfillment of this, east down and trampled on the princes, and rulers, and people, of the holy host or army of God. All that is implied in this was abundantly fulfilled in what he did to the Jewish people. Compare 1 Macc. 1, and 2 Macc. 8:2.

And stamped upon them – With indignation and contempt. Nothing could better express the conduct of Antiochus toward the Jews.

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible Daniel 8:11

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host – Grotius, Ephraem the Syrian, and others, understand this of Onias the high priest, as the chief officer of the holy people. Lengerke supposes that it means God himself. This interpretation is the more probable; and the idea in the phrase “prince of the host” is, that as God is the ruler of the host of heaven – leading on the constellations, and marshalling the stars, so he may be regarded as the ruler of the holy army here below – the ministers of religion, and his people. Against him as the Ruler and Leader of his people Antiochus exalted himself, particularly by attempting to change his laws, and to cause his worship to cease.

And by him – Margin, “from him.” The meaning is, that the command or authority to do this proceeded from him.

The daily sacrifice was taken away – The sacrifice that was offered daily in the temple, morning and evening, was suspended. A full account of this may be found in 1 Macc. 1:20-24, 29-32, 44-50. In the execution of the purposes of Antiochus, he “entered the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick, and all the vessels thereof; and the table of showbread, the pouring vessels, etc., and stripped the temple of all the ornaments of gold.” After two years he again visited the city, and “smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel, and when he had taken the spoils of the city he set it on fire, and pulled down the walls thereof on every side.”

Everything in Jerusalem was made desolate. Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honor into contempt.” Subsequently, by a solemn edict, and by more decisive acts, he put a period to the worship of God in the temple, and polluted and defiled every part of it. “For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple; and that they should profane the sabbaths and festival days, and pollute the sanctuary and holy people; set up altars, and groves, and chapels of idols, and sacrifice swine’s flesh, and unclean beasts; that they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and profanation; to the end they might forget the laws, and change all the ordinances,” 1 Macc. 1:44-49.

It was undoubtedly to these acts of Antiochus that the passage before us refers, and the event accords with the words of the prediction as clearly as if what is a prediction had been written afterward, and had been designed to represent what actually occurred as a matter of historical record. The word which is rendered “daily sacrifice” – the word “sacrifice” being supplied by the translators – תמיד tamyd – means, properly, continuance, prepetuity, and then what is continuous or constant – as a sacrifice or service daily occurring. The word sacrifice is properly inserted here. – Gesenius, Lexicon The meaning of the word rendered “was taken away” – הרם huram (Hophal from רום rum – to exalt, to lift up) – here is, that it was lifted up, and then was taken away; that is, it was made to cease – as if it had been carried away. – Gesenius.

And the place of his sanctuary – Of the sanctuary or holy place of the, “Prince of the host,” that is, of God. The reference is to the temple.

Was cast down – The temple was not entirely destroyed by Antiochus, but it was robbed and rifled, and its holy vessels were carried away. The walls indeed remained, but it was desolate, and the whole service then was abandoned. See the passages quoted above from 1 Macc.

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible Daniel 8:12

And a host was given him – The Vulgate renders this, “and strength – robur – was given him, etc.” Theodotion, “and sin was permitted – εδοθη edothe – against the sacrifice; and this righteousness was cast on the ground; so he acted and was prospered.” Luther renders it, “and such might (or power, macht) was given him.” The Syriac renders it, “and strength was given him, etc.” Bertholdt renders it, Statt jenes stellte man den Greuel auf, “instead of this (the temple) there was set up an abomination.” Dathe, “and the stars were delivered to him” – tradita ei fuerunt astra, seu populus Judaicus.

Maurer understands it also of the Jewish people, and interprets it, “and an army – exercitus – the people of the Jews was delivered to destruction, at the same time with the perpetual sacrifice, on account of wickedness, that is, for a wicked thing, or for impure sacrifices.”

Lengerke renders it, as in our translation, “an host – ein Heer – was Wen up to him at the same time with the daily offering, on account of evil.” The word “host” (צבא tsaba’ ) is doubtless to be taken here in the same sense as in Da 8:10, where it is connected with heaven – “the host of heaven.” If it refers there to the Jewish people, it doubtless does here, and the appellation is such a one as would not unnaturally be used. It is equivalent to saying “the army of the Lord,” or “the people of the Lord,” and it should have been rendered here “and the host was given up to him;” that is, the people of God, or the holy people were given into his hands.

Against the daily sacrifice – This does not convey any clear idea. Lengerke renders it, sammt den bestandigen opfer – “at the same time with the permanent sacrifice.” He remarks that the preposition על al (rendered in our version against), like the Greek επι epi, may denote a connection with anything, or a being with a thing – Zusammenseyn – and thus it would denote a union of time, or that the things occurred together, Ge 32:11 (12); Ho 10:14; Am 3:15. Compare Gesenius (Lexicon) on the word על al, 3.

According to this, the meaning is, that the “host,” or the Jewish people, were given to him at the same time, or in connection with the daily sacrifice. The conquest over the people, and the command respecting the daily sacrifice, were simultaneous. Both passed into his hands, and he exercised jurisdiction over them both.

By reason of transgression – – בפשע beppasha. That is, all this was on account of the transgression of the people, or on account of abounding iniquity. God gave up the people, and their temple, and their sacrifices, into the hands of Antiochus, on account of the prevailing impiety. Compare 1 Macc. 1:11-16. The author of that book traces all these calamities to the acts of certain wicked men, who obtained permission of Antiochus to introduce pagan customs into Jerusalem, and who actually established many of those customs there.

And it cast down the truth to the ground – The true system of religion, or the true method of worshipping God – represented here as truth in the abstract. So in Isa 59:14, it is said: “Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.” The meaning here is, that the institutions of the true religion would be utterly prostrate. This was fully accomplished by Antiochus. See 1 Macc. 1.

And it practiced – Hebrew. “it did,” or it acted. That is, it undertook a work, and was successful. So in Ps 1:3, where the same expression occurs: “And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” This was fully accomplished in Antiochus, who was entirely successful in all his enterprises against Jerusalem. See 1 Macc. 1.

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible Daniel 8:13

Then I heard one saint speaking – One holy one. The vision was now ended, and the prophet represents himself now as hearing earnest inquiries as to the length of time during which this desolation was to continue. This conversation, or these inquiries, he represents himself as hearing among those whom he calls “saints” – or holy ones – קדש qadosh. This word might refer to a saint on earth, or to an angel – to any holy being. As one of these, however, was able to explain the vision, and to tell how long the desolation was to continue, it is more natural to refer it to angels. So Lengerke understands it. The representation is, that one holy one, or angel, was heard by Daniel speaking on this subject, but nothing is recorded of what he said. It is implied only that he was conversing about the desolations that were to come upon the holy city and the people of God.

To him thus speaking, and who is introduced as having power to explain it, another holy one approaches, and asks how long this state of things was to continue. The answer to this question Da 8:14 is made, not to the one who made the inquiry, but to Daniel, evidently that it might be recorded. Daniel does not say where this vision occurred – whether in heaven or on earth. It was so near to him, however, that he could hear what was said.

And another saint – Another holy one – probably an angel. If so, we may conclude, what is in itself every way probable, that one angel has more knowledge than another, or that things are communicated to some which are not to others.

Unto that certain saint which spake – Margin, Palmoni, or, the numberer of secrets, or, the wondeful numberer. The Hebrew word, פלמוני palemony, occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures. The similar form, פלני pelony, occurs in Ru 4:1, “Ho, such a one, turn aside;” in 1Sa 21:2, “appointed my servants to such and such a place;” and 2Ki 6:8, “In such and such a place.” The Italic words denote the corresponding Hebrew word. The word, according to Gesenius, means some one, a certain one; in Arabic, one who is distinct or definite, whom one points out as with the finger, and not by name. It is derived from an obsolete noun, פלון palon, from the verb פלה palah, to distinguish, and is united commonly with the word אלמני ‘alemony – meaning, properly, one concealed or unknown.

It is language, therefore, which would be properly addressed to an unknown person with whom we would desire to speak, or whom we would designate by the finger, or in some such way, without being able to call the name. Thus applied in the passage here, it means that Daniel did not know the names of the persons thus speaking, but simply saw that one was speaking to another. He had no other way of designating or distinguishing them than by applying a term which was commonly used of a stranger when one wished to address him, or to point him out, or to call him to him. There is no foundation in the word for the meaning suggested in the margin. Theodotion does not attempt to translate the word, but retains it – φελμουνι phelmouni – Phelmouni. The Latin Vulgate well expresses the meaning, dixit unus sanctus alteri nescio loquenti.

The full sense is undoubtedly conveyed by the two ideas,
(a) that the one referred to was unknown by name, and
(b) that he wished to designate him in some way, or to point him out.

How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice? – How long is what is designed to be represented by the vision to continue; that is, how long in fact will the offering of the daily sacrifice in the temple be suspended?

And the transgression of desolation – Margin, making desolate. That is, the act of iniquity on the part of Antiochus producing such desolation in the holy city and the temple – show long is that to continue?

To give both the sanctuary – The temple; the holy place where God dwelt by a visible symbol, and where he was worshipped.

And the host – The people of God – the Jewish people.

To be trodden under foot – To be utterly despised and prostrated – as anything which is trodden under our feet.

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible Daniel 8:14

And he said unto me – Instead of answering the one who made the inquiry, the answer is made to Daniel, doubtless that he might make a record of it, or communicate it to others. If it had been made to the inquirer, the answer would have remained with him, and could have been of no use to the world. For the encouragement, however, of the Hebrew people, when their sanctuary and city would be thus desolate, and in order to furnish an instance of the clear fulfillment of a prediction, it was important that it should be recorded, and hence, it was made to Daniel.

Unto two thousand and three hundred days – Margin, evening, morning. So the Hebrew, בקר ערב ereb boqer. So the Latin Vulgate, ad vesperam et mane. And so Theodotion – εως εσπερας και πρωι heos hesperas kai proi – “to the evening and morning.” The language here is evidently what was derived from Gen. i., or which was common among the Hebrews, to speak of the “evening and the morning” as constituting a day. There can be no doubt, however, that a day is intended by this, for this is the fair and obvious interpretation. The Greeks were accustomed to denote the period of a day in the same manner by the word νυχθημερον nuchthemeron (see 2Co 11:25), in order more emphatically to designate one complete day. See Prof. Stuart’s Hints on Prophecy, pp. 99, 100. The time then specified by this would be six years and a hundred and ten days.

Much difficulty has been felt by expositors in reconciling this statement with the other designations of time in the book of Daniel, supposed to refer to the same event, and with the account furnished by Josephus in regard to the period which elapsed during which the sanctuary was desolate, and the daily sacrifice suspended. The other designations of time which have been supposed to refer to the same event in Daniel, are Da 7:25, where the time mentioned is three years and a half, or twelve hundred and sixty days; and Da 12:7, where the same time is mentioned, “a time, times, and an half,” or three years and an half, or, as before, twelve hundred and sixty days; and Da 12:11, where the period mentioned is “a thousand two hundred and ninety days;” and Da 12:12, where the time mentioned is “a thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.”

The time mentioned by Josephus is three years exactly from the time when “their Divine worship was fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use,” until the time when the lamps were lighted again, and the worship restored, for he says that the one event happened precisely three years after the other, on the same day of the month – Ant. b. xii. ch. vii. Section 6. In his Jewish Wars, however, b. i. ch. i. Section 1, he says that Antiochus “spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months.”

Now, in order to explain the passage before us, and to reconcile the accounts, or to show that there is no contradiction between them, the following remarks may be made:

(1) We may lay out of view the passage in Da 7:25. See the note at that passage. If the reasoning there be sound, then that passage had no reference to Antiochus, and though, according to Josephus, there is a remarkable coincidence between the time mentioned there and the time during which the daily sacrifice was suspended, yet that does not demonstrate that the reference there is to Antiochus.

(2) We may lay out of view, also, for the present, the passages in Da 12:11-12. Those will be the subject of consideration hereafter, and for the present ought not to be allowed to embarrass us in ascertaining the meaning of the passage before us.

(3) On the assumption, however, that those passages refer to Antiochus, and that the accounts in Josephus above referred to are correct – though he mentions different times, and though different periods are referred to by Daniel, the variety may be accounted for by the supposition that separate epochs are referred to at the starting point in the calculation – the terminus a quo. The truth was, there were several decisive acts in the history of Antiochus that led to the ultimate desolation of Jerusalem, and at one time a writer may have contemplated one, and at another time another.

Thus, there was the act by which Jason, made high priest by Antiochus, was permitted to set up a gymnasium in Jerusalem after the manner of the pagan (Prideaux, iii. 216; 1 Macc. 1:11-15); the act by which he assaulted and took Jerusalem, entering the most holy place, stripping the temple of its treasures, defiling the temple, and offering a great sow on the altar of burnt-offerings (Prideaux, iii. 230, 231; 1 Macc. 1:20-28); the act, just two years after this, by which, having been defeated in his expedition to Egypt, he resolved to vent all his wrath on the Jews, and, on his return, sent Apollonius with a great army to ravage and destroy Jerusalem – when Apollonius, having plundered the city, set it on fire, demolished the houses, pulled down the walls, and with the ruins of the demolished city built a strong fortress on Mount Acra, which overlooked the temple, and from which he could attack all who went to the temple to worship (Prideaux, iii. 239, 240; 1 Macc. 1:29-40); and the act by which Antiochus solemnly forbade all burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple – (Prideaux, iii. 241, 242; 1 Macc. 1:44-51).

Now, it is evident that one writing of these calamitous events, and mentioning how long they would continue, might at one time contemplate one of these events as the beginning, the terminus a quo, and at another time, another of these events might be in his eye. Each one of them was a strongly marked and decisive event, and each one might be contemplated as a period which, in an important sense, determined the destiny of the city, and put an end to the worship of God there.

(4) It seems probable that the time mentioned in the passage before us is designed to take in the whole series of disastrous events, from the first decisive act which led to the suspending of the daily sacrifice, or the termination of the worship of God there, to the time when the “sanctuary was cleansed.” That this is so would seem to be probable from the series of visions presented to Daniel in the chapter before us. The acts of the “little horn” representing Antiochus, as seen in vision, began with his attack on the “pleasant land” Da 8:9, and the things which attracted the attention of Daniel were, that he “waxed great,” and made war on “the host of heaven,” and “cast some of the host and of the stars to the ground” Da 8:10, and “magnified himself against the prince of the host” Da 8:11 – acts which refer manifestly to his attack on the people of God, and the priests or ministers of religion, and on God him. self as the “prince of the host” – unless this phrase should be understood as referring rather to the high priest. We are then rather to look to the whole series of events as included within the two thousand and three hundred days, than the period in which literally the daily sacrifice was forbidden by a solemn statute. It was practically suspended, and the worship of God interrupted during all that time.

(5) The terminus ad quem – the conclusion of the period is marked and settled. This was the “cleansing of the sanctuary.” This took place, under Judas Maccabeus, Dec. 25, 165 B.C. – Prideaux, iii. 265-268. Now, reckoning back from this period, two thousand and three hundred days, we come to August 5, 171 B.C. The question is, whether there were in this year, and at about this time, any events in the series of sufficient importance to constitute a period from which to reckon; events answering to what Daniel saw as the commencement of the vision, when “some of the host and the stars were cast down and stamped upon.”

Now, as a matter of fact, there commenced in the year 171 B.C. a series of aggressions upon the priesthood, and temple, and city of the Jews on the part of Antiochus, which terminated only with his death. Up to this year, the relations of Antiochus and the Jewish people were peaceful and cordial.
In the year 175 B.C. he granted to the Jewish people, who desired it, permission to erect a gymnasium in Jerusalem, as above stated. In the year 173 B.C. demand was made of Antiochus of the provinces of Ccelo-Syria and Palestine by the young Philometor of Egypt, who had just come to the throne, and by his mother – a demand which was the origin of the war between Antiochus and the king of Egypt, and the beginning of all the disturbances. – Prideaux, iii. 218.

In the year 172 B.C. , Antiochus bestowed the office of high priest on Menelaus, who was the brother of Jason the high priest. Jason had sent Menelaus to Antioch to pay the king his tribute-money, and while there Menelaus conceived the design of supplanting his brother, and by offering for it more than Jason had, he procured the appointment and returned to Jerusalem. – Prideaux, iii. 220-222. Up to this time all the intercourse of Antiochus with the Jews had been of a peaceful character, and nothing of a hostile nature had occurred.

In 171 B.C. began the series of events which finally resulted in the invasion and destruction of the city, and in the cessation of the public worship of God. Menelaus, having procured the high priesthood, refused to pay the tribute-money which he had promised for it, and was summoned to Antioch. Antioclius being then absent, Menelaus took advantage of his absence, and having, by means of Lysimachus, whom he had left at Jerusalem, procured the vessels out of the temple, He sold them at Tyre, and thus raised money to pay the king. In the meantime, Onias III, the lawful high priest, who had fled to Antioch, sternly rebuked Menelaus for his sacrilege, and soon after, at the instigation of Menelaus, was allured from his retreat at Daphne, where he had sought an asylum, and was murdered by Andronicus, the vicegerent of Antiochus. At the same time, the Jews in Jerusalem, highly indignant at the profanation by Menelaus, and the sacrilege in robbing the temple, rose in rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who defended him, and both cut off this “sacrilegious robber” (Prideaux), and the guards by whom he was surrounded.

This assault on the officer of Antiochus, and rebellion against him, was the commencement of the hostilities which resulted in the ruin of the city, and the closing of the worship of God. – Prideaux, iii. 224-226; Stuart’s Hints on Prophecy, p. 102. Here commenced a series of aggressions upon the priesthood, and the temple, and the city of the Jews, which, with occasional interruption, continued to the death of Antiochus, and which led to all that was done in profaning the temple, and in suspending the public worship of God, and it is doubtless to this time that the prophet here refers.

This is the natural period in describing the series of events which were so disastrous to the Jewish people; this is the period at which one who should now describe them as history, would begin. It may not, indeed, be practicable to make out the precise number of days, for the exact dates are not preserved in history, but the calculation brings it into the year 171 B.C. , the year which is necessary to be supposed in order that the two thousand and three hundred days should be completed. Compare Lengerke, in loc., p. 388. Various attempts have been made to determine the exact number of the days by historic records. Bertholdt, whom Lengerke follows, determines it in this manner. He regards the time referred to as that from the command to set up pagan altars to the victory over Nicanor, and the solemn celebration of that victory, as referred to in 1 Macc. 7:48, 49. According to this reckoning, the time is as follows:

The command to set up idol altars was issued in the year 145, on the 15th of the month Kisleu. There remained of that year, after the command was given –
Half of the month Kisleu 15 days
The month Thebet 30 days
The month Shebath 29 days
The month Adar 30 days
The year 146 354 days
The year 147 354 days
The year 148 354 days
The year 149 354 days
The year 150 354 days
The year 15l to the 13th day of the month Adar, when the victory over Nicanor was achieved 337 days
Two intercalary months during this time, according to the Jewish reckoning 60 days
Total of 2,271 days.

This would leave but twenty-nine days of the 2300 to be accounted for, and this would be required to go from the place of the battle – between Beth-Horon and Adasa (1 Macc. 7:39, 40) to Jerusalem, and to make arrangements to celebrate the victory. See Bertholdt, pp. 501-503. The reckoning here is from the time of founding the kingdom of the Seleucidae, or the era of the Seleucidae.

Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed – Margin, justified. the Hebrew word (צדק tsadaq ) means, to be right or straight, and then to be just or righteous; then to vindicate or justify. In the form used here (Niphal), it means to be declared just; to be justified or vindicated, and, as applied to the temple or sanctuary, to be vindicated from violence or injury; that is, to be cleansed. See Gesenius, Lexicon. There is undoubtedly reference here to the act of Judas Maccabeus, in solemnly purifying the temple, and repairing it, and re-dedicating it, after the pollutions brought upon it by Antiochus. For a description of this, see Prideaux’s Connexions, iii. 265-269.

Judas designated a priesthood again to serve in the temple; pulled down the altars which the pagan had erected; bore out all the defiled stones into an unclean place; built a new altar in place of the old altar of burnt-offerings which they had defiled; hallowed the courts; made a new altar of incense, table of showbread, golden candlestick, etc., and solemnly re-consecrated the whole to the service of God. This act occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month (Kisleu), and the solemnity continued for eight days. This is the festival which is called “the feast of dedication” in the New Testament Joh 10:22, and which our Saviour honored with his presence. See 1 Macc. 4:41-58; 2 Macc. 10:1-7; Josephus, Ant. b. xii. ch. vii. Section 6, 7.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible Daniel 8:9

And out of one of them came forth a little horn, Meaning not the kingdom of Titus Vespasian, as Jarchi; nor the kingdom of the Turks, as Saadiah; but the kingdom of Antiochia, as Aben Ezra and Jacchiades; or rather Antiochus Epiphanes, who sprung from the kingdom of the Seleucidae in Syria, or from Seleucus king of Syria, one of the four horns before mentioned: this is that sinful root said to come out from thence, in the Apocrypha:

“And there came out of them a wicked root Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, who had been an hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and thirty and seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks.” (1 Maccabees 1:10) called “a horn”, because he had some power and authority, and which he usurped and increased in; though but a “little” one in comparison of Alexander the great horn; or at his beginning, being an hostage at Rome; from whence he got away by stealth, and seized the kingdom of Syria, which belonged to his elder brother’s son, whom he dispossessed of it; and by mean, artful, and deceitful methods, got it into his hands, who had no right unto it, nor any princely qualities for it:

which waxed exceeding great toward the south; towards Egypt, which lay south of Syria; into which Antiochus entered, and fought against Ptolemy Philometer, king of it, took many cities, and besieged Alexandria; and in all probability would have subdued the whole country, had not the Romans restrained him, by sending their ambassador Popilius to him, who obliged him to desist and depart;
“17 Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy, 18 And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. 19 Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt and he took the spoils thereof. 20 And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude,” (1 Maccabees 1)

and toward the east; towards Armenia and Persia, the Atropatii in Media, and the countries beyond the Euphrates, whom he made tributary to him; in the Apocrypha: “Wherefore, being greatly perplexed in his mind, he determined to go into Persia, there to take the tributes of the countries, and to gather much money.” (1 Maccabees 3:31)

“1 About that time king Antiochus travelling through the high countries heard say, that Elymais in the country of Persia was a city greatly renowned for riches, silver, and gold; 2 And that there was in it a very rich temple, wherein were coverings of gold, and breastplates, and shields, which Alexander, son of Philip, the Macedonian king, who reigned first among the Grecians, had left there.” (1 Maccabees 6)
and toward the pleasant land; the land of Judea, so called because of its delightful situation, and great fruitfulness; and because God chose it above all others for his habitation; where his word, and worship, and ordinances, were observed and enjoyed; and where the Messiah should be born and dwell; into this Antiochus led his army, and greatly afflicted and distressed it; he made himself master of most places in Galilee and Judea. The Arabic version reads “toward the west”; no mention is made of the north, because there he himself reigned; Syria being north to Egypt, as that was south to Syria; hence afterwards the king of Egypt is called the king of the south, and the king of Syria the king of the north. 1. See Joseph. Antiqu. l. 12. c. 5. sect. 2.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible Daniel 8:10

And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven, The people of the Jews, the army of the living God, the church militant, among whom were many of the citizens of heaven, whose names are written there; such was the insolence of this king, as to molest and disturb them:

and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped them; some of the common people he persecuted and destroyed, or prevailed upon them, either by threats or flatteries, to relinquish their religion; and even some of the “stars”, the lights of the people, the priests and Levites, that ministered unto them; or the princes, and elders of the people, whom he slew, as Jacchiades interprets it; or removed from their posts so that they could not do their office; or they turned apostates; and those that did not he barbarously put to death, and insulted over them, and used them in a very contemptuous manner, as old Eleazar, the mother and her seven sons; see 2 Maccabees chapter 7.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible Daniel 8:11

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince host, Either the high priest Onias, whom he disposed of his office, and put Jason a wicked man into it; or Judas Maccabeus, the prince of the Jewish nation; or rather, as Jacchiades, God himself, the Lord God of Israel, the King, Prince, Governor, and defender of them, whom Antiochus blasphemed; whose worship he puts stop to; and whose temple he profaned, and ill used his people; all which was against God himself, and is a proof of the pride and insolence of this king:

and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away; the lambs in the morning and evening were forbid to be sacrificed; or they could not be offered, because the altar was pulled down, or profaned; and so all other sacrifices were made to cease, as well as this, which is put for all: or, “from him”1, the prince, “the daily sacrifice was taken away”; either from the priest, who used to offer it; or from God, to whom it was offered:

and the place of his sanctuary was cast down: not that the temple was destroyed by him, but it was profaned and rendered useless; the worship of God was not carried on in it, but the image of Jupiter was set up in it, and it was devoted to the service of an idol; yea, the altar was pulled down, and all the vessels and ornaments of the temple were taken away and destroyed; in the Apocrypha:

“And the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials, and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off.” (1 Maccabees 1:22)

“Now Jerusalem lay void as a wilderness, there was none of her children that went in or out: the sanctuary also was trodden down, and aliens kept the strong hold; the heathen had their habitation in that place; and joy was taken from Jacob, and the pipe with the harp ceased.” (1 Maccabees 3:45)
“And lo, the heathen are assembled together against us to destroy us: what things they imagine against us, thou knowest.” (1 Maccabees 3:52)

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible Daniel 8:12

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, Which some interpret of a garrison of soldiers placed by Antiochus, through his sin and wickedness, to hinder the oblation of the daily sacrifice, as Grotius: others, of a host of apostates among the Jews, who advised Antiochus against the daily sacrifice, and to kill swine, and offer them on the altar, as Jacchiades; or rather it may be rendered, “and the host was given over”, or “delivered”, i.e. to the enemy, “because of the transgression against the daily sacrifice”; that is, because of the transgression of the priests or the people, in neglecting the daily sacrifice, the host or people of the Jews were delivered up into the hands of Antiochus; or they were delivered up, together with the daily sacrifice, for their sins. The word צבא is by Jarchi and Ben Melech interpreted a set time, a fixed time which shall have an end; and Calvin inclines to this sense, that though the daily sacrifice would be taken away, because of the transgression of the people, yet it was only for a certain time, and would be restored again when that time was up; and so is spoken for the comfort of the Lord’s people:

and it cast down the truth to the ground: that is, the little horn Antiochus, or his host and army; he did all that in him lay to extirpate and abolish true religion and godliness; he cut in pieces the copies of the book of the law, and burnt them, called the law of truth in Mal 2:6, as Jacchiades observes, and put to death the professors of the truth; and showed all the contempt of true doctrine and worship he was capable of; see the Apocrypha:

“57 And whosoever was found with any the book of the testament, or if any committed to the law, the king’s commandment was, that they should put him to death. 58 Thus did they by their authority unto the Israelites every month, to as many as were found in the cities. 59 Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God. 60 At which time according to the commandment they put to death certain women, that had caused their children to be circumcised.” (1 Maccabees 1)

and it practised, and prospered; he did what he pleased, and he succeeded in his attempts for a while, there being none to oppose him.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible Daniel 8:13

Then I heard one saint speaking, An angel, either a created angel, pure and holy in his nature, as Gabriel; or the uncreated Angel Jesus Christ, the Word of God; what he was speaking of is not said; perhaps Daniel did not hear what he said, though he heard him speaking, or perceived that he spake; yet did not understand what he said, or what was the subject of his discourse; very probably it was something relative to the vision now seen:

and another saint said unto that certain saint that spake; another angel said to him that spake, whose name is unknown, only called such an one, or Palmoni, which some render “the wonderful numberer”; or, “the numberer of secrets”, or “that has all secrets numbered”1; and apply it to Christ, whose name is “Pele”, wonderful; the eternal Word of God, that is in the bosom of the Father, and knows all secrets, and the number of times and seasons, how long they will last; what created angels know not, he does; and therefore they apply to him for instruction and knowledge in hidden things:

how long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot? that is, how long will this vision last? or when will this prophecy be at an end, and have its full and final accomplishment? how long will the sacrifice be taken away, or made to cease? how long will that transgression, that abomination, making the temple desolate, the image of Jupiter Olympius set up by Antiochus, continue in it? how long shall it be given to him, or he be permitted to tread under foot, and use in the most contemptuous manner, the temple of the Lord, and his people?

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible Daniel 8:14

And he said unto me, That is, “Palmoni”, the wonderful person, to whom the angel put the above question, gave the answer to it; not unto the angel that asked it, but unto Daniel that stood by; knowing that it was for his and his people’s sake the question was asked, and therefore gave the answer to him, as follows:

unto two thousand and three hundred days; or so many “mornings” and “evenings”1; which shows that not so many years, as Jacchiades, and others, are meant; but natural days, consisting of twenty four hours, and which make six years, three months, and eighteen days; and reckoning from the fifteenth day of the month Cisleu, in the year 145 of the Selucidae, in which Antiochus set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, in the Apocrypha:

“Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God.” (1 Maccabees 1:59) to the victory obtained over Nicanor by Judas, on the thirteenth day of the month Adar, Anno 151, are just 2300 days; which day the Jews kept as an annual feast, in commemoration of that victory; and from that time enjoyed peace and rest from war: this way goes L’Empereur after Capellus; but others begin from the defection of the people from the pure religion by Menelaus, Anno 141; though Antiochus did not enter on his impieties till the following year; and, reckoning from the sixth day of the sixth month in that year, to the twenty fifth day of Cisleu in the year 148, when the Jews offered the daily sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offerings, in the Apocrypha:

“Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month, which is called the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and eighth year, they rose up betimes in the morning, 53 And offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of burnt offerings, which they had made. ” (1 Maccabees 4:52)
were just six years, three months, and eighteen days: and so it follows, and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed; as it was by Judas Maccabeus at the time above mentioned; when he purified the holy places, sanctified the courts, rebuilt the altar, renewed the vessels of the sanctuary, and put all in their proper places; in the Apocrypha:

“41 Then Judas appointed certain men to fight against those that were in the fortress, until he had cleansed the sanctuary. 42 So he chose priests of blameless conversation, such as had pleasure in the law: 43 Who cleansed the sanctuary, and bare out the defiled stones into an unclean place. 44 And when as they consulted what to do with the altar of burnt offerings, which was profaned; 45 They thought it best to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the heathen had defiled it: wherefore they pulled it down, 46 And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them. 47 Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former; 48 And made up the sanctuary, and the things that were within the temple, and hallowed the courts. 49 They made also new holy vessels, and into the temple they brought the candlestick, and the altar of burnt offerings, and of incense, and the table. 50 And upon the altar they burned incense, and the lamps that were upon the candlestick they lighted, that they might give light in the temple. 51 Furthermore they set the loaves upon the table, and spread out the veils, and finished all the works which they had begun to make.” (1 Maccabees 4)

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Daniel 8:9

little horn–not to be confounded with the little horn of the fourth kingdom in Da 7:8. The little horn in Da 7:8 comes as an eleventh horn after ten preceding horns. In Da 8:9 it is not an independent fifth horn, after the four previous ones, but it arises out of one of the four existing horns. This horn is explained (Da 8:23) to be “a king of fierce countenance,” &c. Antiochus Epiphanes is meant. Greece with all its refinement produces the first, that is, the Old Testament Antichrist. Antiochus had an extraordinary love of art, which expressed itself in grand temples. He wished to substitute Zeus Olympius for Jehovah at Jerusalem.

Thus first heathen civilization from below, and revealed religion from above, came into collision. Identifying himself with Jupiter, his aim was to make his own worship universal (compare Da 8:25; 11:36); so mad was he in this that he was called Epimanes (maniac) instead of Epiphanes. None of the previous world rulers, Nebuchadnezzar (Da 4:31-34), Darius (Da 6:27-28), Cyrus (Ezr 1:2-4), Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezr 7:12), had systematically opposed the Jews’ religious worship. Hence the need of prophecy to prepare them for Antiochus.

waxed . . . great, toward . . . south– (Da 11:25). Antiochus fought against Ptolemy Philometer and Egypt, that is, the south.

toward the east–He fought against those who attempted a change of government in Persia.

toward the pleasant land--Judea, “the glorious land” (Da 11:16,41,45; compare Ps 48:2; Eze 20:6,15). Its chief pleasantness consists in its being God’s chosen land (Ps 132:13; Jer 3:19). Into it Antiochus made his inroad after his return from Egypt.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Daniel 8:10

great, even to . . . host of heaven–explained in Da 8:24, “the mighty and holy people,” that is, the Jews (Da 7:21) and their priests (compare Isa 24:21). The Levites’ service is called “a warfare” (Nu 8:24-25, Margin). Great civil and religious powers are symbolized by “stars” (Mt 24:29). See 1 Maccabees 1:25, &c.; 1 Maccabees 2:35, &c.; 1 Maccabees 5:2, 12, 13. TREGELLES refers “stars” to those Jews whose portion from God is heavenly glory (Da 12:3), being believers in Him who is above at God’s right hand: not the blinded Jews.

cast . . . stars to the ground–So Babel, as type of Antichrist, is described (Isa 14:13-14), “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.” Compare Re 12:4; 2 Maccabees 9:10, as to Antiochus.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Daniel 8:11

to the prince of the host–that is, God Himself, the Lord of Sabaoth, the hosts in heaven and earth, stars, angels, and earthly ministers. So Da 8:25, “he shall stand up against the Prince of princes”; “against the God of gods” (Da 11:36; compare Da 7:8). He not only opposes God’s ancient people, but also God Himself.

daily sacrifice–offered morning and evening (Ex 29:38-39).

taken away–by Antiochus (1 Maccabees 1:20-50).

sanctuary . . . cast down–Though robbed of its treasures, it was not strictly “cast down” by Antiochus. So that a fuller accomplishment is future. Antiochus took away the daily sacrifice for a few years; the Romans, for many ages, and “cast down” the temple; and Antichrist, in connection with Rome, the fourth kingdom, shall do so again after the Jews in their own land, still unbelieving, shall have rebuilt the temple, and restored the Mosaic ritual: God giving them up to him “by reason of transgression” (Da 8:12), that is, not owning the worship so rendered [TREGELLES]; and then the opposition of the horn to the “truth” is especially mentioned.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Daniel 8:12

an host–rather, “the host was given up to him,” that is, the holy people were given into his hands. So in Da 8:10 “the host” is used; and again in Da 8:13, where also “give” is used as here for “giving up” for destruction (compare Da 11:6) [MAURER].

against . . . daily sacrifice–rather (the host was given up for him to tread upon), “together with the daily sacrifice” (compare Da 8:13).

by reason of transgression–1 Maccabees 1:11-16 traces all the calamities suffered under Antiochus to the transgression of certain Jews who introduced heathen customs into Jerusalem just before. But transgression was not at the full (Da 8:23) under Antiochus; for Onias the high priest administered the laws in godliness at the time (2 Maccabees 3:1). Therefore the “transgression” must refer to that of the Jews hereafter restored to Palestine in unbelief.

the truth–the worship of the true God. Isa 59:14, “Truth is fallen in the street.”

practised, and prospered–Whatever he undertook succeeded (Da 8:4; 11:28,36).

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Daniel 8:13

that certain saint–Daniel did not know the names of these two holy angels, but saw only that one was speaking to the other.

How long shall be the vision concerning . . . daily sacrifice–How long shall the daily sacrifice be suspended?

transgression of desolation–literally, “making desolate,” that is, Antiochus desolating profanation of the temple (Da 11:31; 12:11). Compare as to Rome and the last Antichrist, Mt 24:15.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Daniel 8:14

unto me–The answer is to Daniel, not to the inquirer, for the latter had asked in Daniel’s name; as vice versa the saint or angel (Job 15:15; Ps 89:6-7) speaks of the vision granted to Daniel, as if it had been granted to himself. For holy men are in Scripture represented as having attendant angels, with whom they are in a way identified in interests. If the conversation had been limited to the angels, it could have been of no use to us. But God conveys it to prophetical men, for our good, through the ministry of angels.

two thousand . . . three hundred days–literally, “mornings and evenings,” specified in connection with the morning and evening sacrifice. Compare Ge 1:5. Six years and a hundred ten days. This includes not only the three and a half years during which the daily sacrifice was forbidden by Antiochus [JOSEPHUS, Wars of the Jews, 1:1.1], but the whole series of events whereby it was practically interrupted: beginning with the “little horn waxing great toward the pleasant land,” and “casting down some of the host” (Da 8:9-10); namely, when in 171 B.C., or the month Sivan in the year 142 of the era of the Seleucidæ, the sacrifices began to be neglected, owing to the high priest Jason introducing at Jerusalem Grecian customs and amusements, the palæstra and gymnasium; ending with the death of Antiochus, 165 B.C., or the month Shebath, in the year 148 of the Seleucid era.

Compare 1 Maccabees 1:11-15; 2 Maccabees 4:9, &c. The reason for the greater minuteness of historical facts and dates, given in Daniel’s prophecies, than in those of the New Testament, is that Israel, not having yet the clear views which Christians have of immortality and the heavenly inheritance, could only be directed to the earthly future: for it was on earth the looked-for Messiah was to appear, and the sum and subject of Old Testament prophecy was the kingdom of God upon earth. The minuteness of the revelation of Israel’s earthly destiny was to compensate for the absence, in the Old Testament, of views of heavenly glory.

Thus, in Da 9:24-27, the times of Messiah are foretold to the very year; in Da 8:14 the times of Antiochus, even to the day; and in Da 11:5-20 the Syro-Egyptian struggles in most minute detail. TREGELLES thinks the twenty-three hundred “days” answer to the week of years (Da 9:27), during which the destroying prince (Da 9:26) makes a covenant, which he breaks in the midst of the week (namely, at the end of three and a half years). The seven years exceed the twenty-three hundred days by considerably more than a half year.

This period of the seven years’ excess above the twenty-three hundred days may be allotted to the preparations needed for setting up the temple-worship, with Antichrist’s permission to the restored Jews, according to his “covenant” with them; and the twenty-three hundred days may date from the actual setting up of the worship. But, says AUBERLEN, the more accurate to a day the dates as to Antiochus are given, the less should we say the 1290, or 1335 days (Da 12:11-12) correspond to the half week (roughly), and the twenty-three hundred to the whole. The event, however, may, in the case of Antichrist, show a correspondence between the days here given and Da 9:27, such as is not yet discernible.

The term of twenty-three hundred days cannot refer twenty-three hundred years of the treading down of Christianity by Mohammedanism, as this would leave the greater portion of the time yet future; whereas, Mohammedanism is fast waning. If the twenty-three hundred days mean years, dating from Alexander’s conquests, 334 B.C. to 323, we should arrive at about the close of the sixth thousand years of the world, just as the 1260 years (Da 7:25) from Justinian’s decree arrive at the same terminus.

The Jews’ tradition represents the seventh thousand as the millennium. CUMMING remarks, 480 B.C. is the date of the waning of the Persian empire before Greece; deducting 480 from 2300, we have 1820; and in 1821, Turkey, the successor of the Greek empire, began to wane, and Greece became a separate kingdom. See on Cmt. on Da 12:11.

cleansed–literally, “justified,” vindicated from profanation. Judas Maccabeus celebrated the feast of dedication after the cleansing, on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month, Kisleu (1 Maccabees 4:51-58; 2 Maccabees 10:1-7; Joh 10:22). As to the antitypical dedication of the new temple, see Eze 43, &c.; also Am 9:11-12.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible Daniel 8:9

A little horn; the little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes, he arose out of the Seleucidae of Syria; called a little horn,

1. Because he was much less than Alexander, called a notable horn; Da 8:5.

2. Little, because he was the youngest of his brethren.

3. He was held a prisoner and pledge at Rome, whence he escaped.

4. Little, because he had nothing at first of greatness and heroic nobleness in him, also of low fortune.
Toward the south, i.e. Egypt, where he besieged and took many places from Philometer, till the Romans stopped him.

Toward the east, i.e. in Syria, Babylon, Armenia.

Toward the pleasant land; Judea, so called because of the temple and people of God in it, and the fruitfulness of it, Eze 20:6, the glory of all lands. So Da 9:15; Ps 48:2-3.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible Daniel 8:10

Even to the host of heaven, i.e. the church of God militant, who worship the God of heaven, who are citizens of heaven, whose names are written in heaven; and among these chiefly the priests, and nobles, and champions, who were as stars shining above the rest; these he profaned and slew cruelly.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible Daniel 8:11

Even to the prince of the host; not only against the high priest Onias, whom he put from his priesthood, and sold the high priesthood, , but against God himself, which showed his daring insolence, and God’s patience and permission, for the sins of his people.

By him the daily sacrifice was taken away; for he so persecuted the people of God, that he forced them to omit the worship of God.

The place of his sanctuary was cast down; he took away the use of the temple as to the holy service and sacrifices, commanding that it should not be called the temple of God, but of Jupiter Olympus, whose image he set up in it, and gave the priesthood to wicked men, as Jason and Menelaus.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible Daniel 8:12

By reason of transgression, i.e. either the transgression of the priests, for Jason perfidiously took away the priesthood from his brother Onias, and afterwards Menelaus did the like by him. Or else for the sin of the people about the worship of God. Or else Antiochus wickedly and in contempt of God put soldiers into the city to hinder or break up the meetings of God’s people about his worship, .

It cast down the truth, i.e. the law of God, called the law of truth, Mal 2:6, which Antiochus cut in pieces and burnt, . This was his practice, and it succeeded for a time as he desired.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible Daniel 8:13

By the first saint is meant a holy angel, by the other is meant Jesus Christ, Palmoni, a numberer or revealer of secrets, a wonderful revealer, Isa 9:6. Of him the angel asks this secret concerning the calamity of the church, how long it would last, for Daniel’s sake and his people. For the Lord Christ is the Teacher of his people, the Wisdom of God, and hath all this in his power by office, and as he stands in relation to his church, and for them.

The Lord knows his suffering people are much concerned about the time of their sufferings, because there is an appointed time for it, and the Lord doth sometimes reveal it, as we see here, unto his considering ones, Da 8:5, and praying saints, Da 9; they cry out in their agonies, How long, O Lord? and it is an addition to their sorrow that no man knoweth how long, Ps 74:9. How long shall Antiochus continue his tyrannical vexations against the people of God, and the worship of God? This is the treading down of the sanctuary and the host.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible Daniel 8:14

He said unto me, i.e. that angel unnamed. Why did he speak to Daniel, and not to the angel that asked him? Because Daniel, and the church to which he related and was to communicate the answer, was most concerned in it, and the angel that asked the question did it upon their account. Unto two thousand and three hundred days: this seems to many learned men a very difficult place, i.e. where to begin and where to end these days.

1. Some explain it thus: A year contains three hundred and sixty-five days; then two thousand three hundred make six years, three months, and eighteen days, reckoning in two days of the leap years gained from the supernumerary hours and minutes. Now this time begins at the first entrance of Antiochus into Judea, when he profaned the priesthood; and takes in also his second coming in, when he interdicted their worship, set up an idol in the temple, and interrupted the daily sacrifice.

2. Others count the two thousand three hundred days from the people’s revolt, which was procured by Menelaus, which began in the year 141 of the reign of the Seleucidae,; but Antiochus did not act his impieties till the next year after, viz. 142, in the 6th month and the 6th day; from whence if we reckon to the 25th day of the 9th month of the year 148, there will fall out precisely six years, three months, and eighteen days.

3. Others reckon a little otherwise, from the beginning of Antiochus’s profanations to his death; from 143 to 148, taking in both years to the number. For though Judas Maccabeus recovered the city and cleansed the temple in 148, yet Antiochus was not dead till 149, till when the work was not finished.

4. Others make it to, begin in the year of the Seleneidea 145, and to end anne 151, two years after Antiochus’s death, for the abomination of desolation was set up in the month Chisleu, , for not till two years after Antiochus’s death was Nicanor overthrown with all his army. Thus Jacob Capell, and L’Empereur.

5. Others reckon not days, but sacrifices, (at two every day,) and restrain the time to fewer years, out of Maccabees. Josephus.

Pulpit Commentary Daniel 8:9

And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east. and toward the pleasant land. The Greek versions here differ considerably from the Masoretic text. The LXX is as follows: “And out of one there sprang a strong horn, and it prevailed and smote toward the south, toward the south-west (ejpiton), and toward the east, and toward the north.” In this case, ejpiton is clearly a doublet—an alternative rendering that has got into the text from the margin. jEpi borjrJan results from reading tzephonah (hn;wOpx]) instead of tzebee (ybix],).

Theodotion renders, “From one of them went forth a strong horn, and was magnified exceedingly to the south and to the power”—reading ab; x; (tzaba), “host,” for tzebee. It is to be observed that both translate mitztze’eeroth as “strong” (ijscurov) instead of “little.”

The reason of this is that they have taken m as equivalent to ex, therefore equivalent to a negative. The Peshitta agrees with the Authorized in reading mitztzeeroth as “little,” but leaves out the difficult final word rendered “the pleasant land” in our Authorized Version. Jerome translates mitztze’eeroth by modicum, and tzebee by fortitudinem—a combination of Theodotion and the Masoretic; he must have had tzaba in his text instead of tzebee, —this may have been due to the fact that tzaba occurs in the next verse. The reference is sufficiently obvious to Antiochus. The description is accurate; he sprang from one of the four horns or dynasties that succeeded the great conqueror. He carried his arms to the east, but mainly to the south against Egypt.

The great difficulties are in the two Hebrew words mitztz”eeroth and tzebee. As to the first word, the fact that the two Greek versions have read it are conclusive against the suggestion of Gratz and Hitzig, supported by Bevan, that we should omit mi. (min). Jephet-ibn-Ali takes min as denoting the origin of the horn, “from a little one.” The further suggestion of Gratz, that we should adopt the reading of the LXX, is rightly combatted by Professor Bevan.

The readings alike of the LXX and Theodotion could have sprung from the Masoretic reading, whereas neither of these could so readily be the original reading. It was necessary that Israel should be prominent in this part of the prophecy; it all leads up to the persecution the Jews endured at the hands of Epiphanes. It is necessary, then, to hold that this word, whatever reading we adopt, and whatever immediate meaning we assign to it, must refer to Palestine. Ewald renders it “ornament;” Bevan, “glory.”

Vers. 9-12, 23-25.— The scourge of Israel.

“He shall stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand” (ver. 25). As in the previous homily, we give a mere directive outline, for the help of those who may care to make the antichrist of the later Hebrew time the subject of treatment. The sketch given by the prophet undoubtedly applies to Antiochus Epiphanes. The only question has been raised by those who wish to throw discredit on the supernatural in prophecy, and who, struck by the marvelous minuteness of Daniel’s description, have tried to show that it must have been written after the event, and therefore not by Daniel at all. Observe:

1. The general description. Out of one of the four kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire was divided, came forth a new kingdom—at least a new king, with special characteristics, and with special antagonistic relations to the kingdom of God.

2. The notes of time—very remarkable. The date of the rise of Antiochus is given. “In the latter time” of the dominion of the four kingdoms “a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.” These kingdoms were gradually absorbed into the Roman empire, but may be considered to have commenced with the defeat of Perseus at the battle of Pydna, B.C. 168. Another note: “When the transgressions are come to the full.” We understand that to be said of the state of things in Judaea. There affairs were in a frightful state. We can imagine the condition when men fought for the high priesthood, and obtained it often by bribery or murder. “The sacred writers often speak of iniquity as being full—of the cup of iniquity as being full—as if there was a certain limit or capacity beyond which it could not be allowed to go. When that arrives, God interferes, and cuts off the guilty by some heavy judgment.” Such a state of things existed at Jerusalem, when Antiochus ascended the throne of Syria.

I HIS CHARACTER was marked by:

1. Shameless audacity. “Of fierce countenance;” i.e. “hardy of countenance” (ver. 23). Destitute of shame. Most conquerors respected the religion of the conquered; this man forced on the Jews his own.

2. Deceitful subtlety. Master of deceitful wiles. “Understanding dark sentences” (ver. 23).

3. Power. But such advantage as he gained against Israel was “not by his own power.” By whose.9 By God’s. In what sense? The eternal law of righteousness made him its instrument, as against the iniquity of Israel.

4. Practical genius. “He shall practice” (ver. 24); i.e. “he shall do;” i.e. the man was to be no mere dreamer. What he professed he would perform.

5. Destructiveness. (Ver. 24.) The activity should be malicious.

II HIS ACTION.

1. He practiced deceit. (Ver. 25.) “And though by peace shall destroy many.” He would destroy a people resting in an unreal security.

2. He disliked the ecclesiastical rulers in Israel. (Ver. 10.) Read, The horn “waxed great against the host,” etc.

3. He acted so that the whole Hebrew commonwealth was at his mercy. (Ver. 12.) Read, “A host was given him with the daily sacrifice, by reason of transgression.”

4. He abolished the daily sacrifice. (Ver. 11.) Read, “And by him was taken away the perpetual, and was cast down the place of his sanctuary.” No doubt the daily sacrifice is principally intended, but there is given to it grandeur by designating it “the perpetual,” i.e. the everlasting changeless element in the Hebrew ritual. The undying testimony to the atonement of the Lord [Ex 29:35-44; Le 6:13] Against the Redeemer’s own memorial did Antiochus lift up his hand. That struck down, the sanctuary was desolate. (See terrible description, RAPC 1Ma 1. Note the heroic fidelity of some, verses 63, 64.)

5. He struck at the truth. (Ver. 12.)

6. He sets himself against God. “He magnified himself against the Prince of the hosts;” “He stood up against the Prince of princes” (verses 11, 25).

7. He attained to a certain sort and measure of prosperity. (Ver. 9.) The reference is to Egypt, to what remained of Persia, and to Judaea.

III THE DOOM. How sublime the prophecy! “He shall be broken without hand.” How terrible the fulfilment! He fell by an invisible blow from the King of kings. He died of grief and remorse at Babylon.

Pulpit Commentary Daniel 8:10

And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. The reading of the LXX is very different after the first clause, “And it was exalted to the stars of heaven, and it was shattered to the earth by thestars, and by them trampled down.” The verb lSeT” (tappayl) translated “cast down,” has been read as if it had been lP”Tu (tooppal). So too the last verb has evidently been read WhWsm]r]yw” (vayyir’msoohoo) instead of µsem]r]Tiw” (vattir’msaym), due to the resemblance which there was between yod and tan in the older script. Theodotion differs hardly less from the Masoretic, “And it was magnified to the power of heaven, and it fell to the earth from the power of heaven and from the stars, and they trode them down.”

The verb translated “fell” is evidently read with a vocalization different from both the Masoretic and the LXX The sense of Theodotion is more in accordance with the Septuagint than with the Masoretic. The Peshitta and the Vulgate agree with the Masoretic. The question of which reading is to be preferred can scarcely be settled without regarding the meaning of the terms here used. The crucial point is—What is the meaning of the “host of heaven”? The general consensus of interpreters is that this refers to Israel. Some maintain that the best of heaven is Israel, and the stars their leaders (Glassins); the stars are the Levites (Grotius). Moses Stuart would hold the host to be the priests, and the stars the teachers. Kliefoth is right in commencing first with the picture, and requiring that it be realized in thought. The horn grows and grows before Daniel’s gaze, until it seems to touch the stars, that is, the host of heaven. As to what is meant by the stars, we must look elsewhere for an explanation.

Have we any right to take “the host of heaven” as meaning the people of God? The phrase, “host of heaven,” occurs elsewhere in Scripture nearly a score of times, and it rover means anything else than the stars or the angels. Therefore all interpretations that make this mean either the people of God or the Levites, must be thrown aside. It may, however, mean the people of God mediately. A quite elaborate line of deduction has been brought forward—the promise to Abraham, [Ge 15:5] to [Ge 26:4] that their seed should be as the stars of heaven, is brought into connection with the use of the word “hosts” in regard to Israel1 —and the title given to God as the God of Israel, “Jehovah of hosts.” This is very ingenious, but it has no support from scriptural usage or from the usage in apocalyptic writings. In the Book of Enoch, which, since it is modelled on this book, furnishes us with the earliest commentary on it, we find the stars are invariably the symbol of the angels.

When we pass to the Book of Revelation, we find the same thing. We find when we pass on to the tenth chapter of this book, that all the nations are regarded as under the rule of some special angel We must apply, so far as we can, rules of interpretation which the author himself supplies us with. Using this guide, we see next that, when a nation was defeated and oppressed, its angel or star was regarded as thrown to the earth and trodden underfoot. The treatment Epiphanes meted out to Egypt and Palestine seems specially referred to. If we take the reading of the LXX, then the reference will be to the humiliation Epiphanes received at the hands of the Romans first, and then the Jews, and lastly the Elamites, whose temple he attempted to plunder.

Pulpit Commentary Daniel 8:11

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. This is said by Bevan to be the most difficult verse in this whole book. There is a difference here between the Q’ri and the K’thib. The latter reads µyrh, the hiphil of µwr, while the former reads µrh, the hophal of the same verb At first sight the difficulty is not lessened by consideration of the versions.

The Septuagint as it at present stands is utterly unintelligible, “Until the leader of the host shall save the captivity, and by him everlasting mountains were broken down, and their place and sacrifice taken away, and he placed it in the very ground, and he prospered reading with Syriac and was, and the holy place shall be laid waste.” This confusion is due to confluence of readings, and is not difficult to disentangle with the help of the Masoretic text. Up to the last two words the Septuagint is a translation of a text differing from the Masoretic simply by intelligible variations and repetitions not uncommon in the Septuagint.

The first clause of the LXX originally was probably, “Till the prince shall deliver the captivity,” reading ybiv] (shebee) instead of ab; x( tzaba)—a scribe, finding abx in his Hebrew, then added the translation of it to the margin of his Greek copy, from which it got into the text. The original of the LXX had also lYXiy” (yatztzeel) instead of lydig]hi (hig’deel)—a confusion easily made in the elder script, in which y and h were like. We learn from the Talmud (Shabb., 103b) that g was liable to be mistaken by scribes for x. Moreover, “captivity” would naturally suggest lxn, “to deliver.”

The second clause is, “By him the everlasting mountains were broken down.” Here hayreem has been read with the K’thib, and vocalized as if it were hareem, and tameed, “continual,” translated as equivalent to µlw[ (‘olam), “everlasting.” The next clause reveals the other meaning of tameed, “sacrifice,” which probably had been written on the margin, and then dropped into the text. The latter part of the Septuagint verse appears to be confused with the latter part of the following verse according to the Masoretes. Theodotion is even less intelligible than the Septuagint, “Until the leader of the host shall save the captivity, and through him the sacrifice was broken down, and he prospered, and the holy place shall be made desolate.” It is to be noticed that the first clause here agrees with the LXX It is possible that “and he prospered” is a doublet, jy”lix]hi being read for dl”v]ju in some copy.

The Peshitta differs from beth the Greek versions, “Until it arrive to the chiefs of the host, and by it was set up in perpetuity, and preparing he strengthened the sanctuary,” and while it is difficult to understand the origin of the variation in the first clause, it is clear that in the second clause the translator must have read hish-leem for hooshlak. The one thing that seems clear is that the reading of the K’thib is to be preferred. We should read hayreem, not hooram. Only the first of these could be read “mountains.” If we translate the words as they stand, we shall certainly be removed out of the region of all the commentators. It is assumed that “the little horn” is the subject of this sentence; but “horn” is feminine in Hebrew, and the verbs here are in the masculine; this is against it being the nominative.

The “prince of the host,” then, must be the nominative of the verbs and subject of the sentence. The rendering of the first clause ought to be, then, “Until the prince of the host magnify himself, [1Sa 12:24] and by himself he shall offer the daily sacrifice. And he shall cast down the foundation of his holy place,” reading hishlayk instead of hooshlak. We should feel strongly inclined to transfer the first “and” to hayreem, and, changing the punctuation, read, “Until the prince of the host shall make himself greater than he”—viz, the tyrant represented by “the little horn”—”and shall offer the daily sacrifice.”

If we might read hishleem with the Peshitta instead of hoosh-lak, we get a satisfactory meaning to the last clause, in which case we should render, “He shall complete the place of his sanctuary.” We would understand by “complete,” “to perfectly purify.” Taking the Masoretic text thus with little modification, we have a description of the successes of Judas Maccabeus, who was prince of the host, and as such became stronger than Epiphanes, and then cleansed the temple, and offered the continual daily sacrifice. We give, as a curiosity, the note of Saadiah Gaon: “The King of Ishmael was more powerful than the kings of Rome who had Jerusalem, and he took Jerusalem from them by force.”

Pulpit Commentary Daniel 8:12

And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. The renderings of the LXX and Theodotion are closely related, and both differ from the Masoretic text. The first is, “And the sins were upon the sacrifice, and righteousness was fallen to the earth, and he (or, it) did, and prospered.” Theodotion renders, “And sin was placed (given) upon the sacrifice, and righteousness is fallen to the earth, and he (it) did and prospered.”

The Peshitta is nearer the Masoretic text, but better in accordance with the Authorized Version, “A host was given against the perpetuity, in transgression the holy place was thrown to the ground, and he did and prospered.” From the fact that abx (tzaba) is omitted from the two Greek versions, we venture to omit it also; it has probably been inserted from the verse above. Both versions also omit the preposition before” transgression;” we omit it also. We would thus render, “And transgression was upon the sacrifice, and,” reading Ël”v]T”, “truth was cast to the ground, and it did and prospered.”

After Judas Maccabaeus had cleansed the temple and offered sacrifices, sin mingled with it. We know that the stricter Hasidim, objected to the foreign alliances into which the Maccabees were inclined to enter; the battle of Beth-zecharias was largely lost by the abstention of the stricter party. After that, Lysias, representing really the same movement as Epiphanes, advanced to the capture of Bethshur. Thus it might be said of the little horn, that “it did and prospered.” Were it not that there is no authority for it in the versions, we should read µliveT” instead of Ël”v]T”. In that ease we should render, “And transgression was upon the sacrifice”—regarding this sacrifice as the atonement for the transgression [Le 16:21] —”and truth shall make peace in the land, and do and prosper.”

Pulpit Commentary Daniel 8:13

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? Our Authorized rendering is clearly mistaken; it ought not to be “saint,” but “holy one,” as in the Revised Version. The versions leave palmoni, “a certain one,” untranslated. Fust’s suggestion, held also by Behrmann, is that this is a contraction for paloni almoni. The renderings of the versions are worthy of note.

The LXX, “And I heard one holy one speaking, and another holy one said to Phehnouni who spoke, How long shall the vision stand, and the removed sacrifice, and the sin of desolation given, and the holy place be desolate to be trodden underfoot (eijv katapathma)?” Here the word sthsetai, “shall stand,” is supposed by Professor Bevan to be an addition by one who did not fully comprehend the sentence. Following Gratz, Professor Bevan suggests a word, µr[;;Wm (mooram), “removed,” to explain the presence of hJ ajrqeisa—a suggestion that appears well-founded.

His further suggestion, that sim (µci), “to set up,” has been read instead of shomaym (µmevo), must be due to inattention to the Greek. In it there is nothing about “set up,” unless he transfers sthsetai from its place in the beginning of the sentence to the middle, and changes it to the active voice. Equally extraordinary is the suggestion that the translators read abxy, instead of abxw. The truth is, the introduction of ejrhmwqhsetai is probably due to a gloss or a confluence of readings. Theodotion is in close agreement with the Septuagint, save in the last clause, which he renders, “And the sanctuary and the power be trodden underfoot.” The Peshitta is closer to the Massoretic, “And I heard a holy one who spake, and a holy one said to palmoni, who spake, When shall the vision of the perpetuity (daily sacrifice?), and of sin and of corruption be completed, and the holy place and the host be trodden underfoot?”

The translators must have read shahata instead of shomaym. “Completed,” nesh-tlem, may have been added, as sthsetai in the Greek, but the fact that all the versions have a word not represented in the Massoretic would indicate the probability that something has dropped out. Some part of the verb µWc is suggested by the Greek Version, whereas some portion of µl”v;; is suggested by the Peshitta. Daniel hears one of those watching angels who desire to look into the evolution of the Divine purpose concerning man and his salvation, asking another, “How long shall be the desolation of Jerusalem under Epiphanes?” The irregular construction here suggests corruption. We would render the speech of the angel, “How long—the vision, the sacrifice—the sin of desolation to give the sanctuary and the service to be trodden underfoot?” as if Daniel had only heard snatches of what was said; we would, we may say, omit the “and” before “sanctuary.”

The Septuagint translators may have omitted abx (tzaba), thinking only of its ordinary meaning, “host,” forgetful of the fact that it is used of the temple service in Nu 4:23. These angels are most interested in the length of time that the sanctuary shall remain desolate. This may indicate that it was evident, from the vision, that the period of desolation was a limited one. The scene presented to the imagination is striking. The seer, as he gazes on the vision appearing to him over the marsh at Susa, hears angelic voices that direct attention to what was most important to him and to his people. To the Israelites of the period of the Maccabees, the length of time that the temple service would be in abeyance was of the highest importance. It was well that they should know that the time was shortened for the elect’s sake.

Vers. 13, 14, 26.— Prophecy’s sure fulfilments.
“Unto evenings and mornings, two thousand and three hundred; The vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true” (vers. 14, 26). Two thousand three hundred days, that is, six years and a hundred and ten days. Whence reckoned? To what time? The cleansing of the sanctuary took place under Judas Maccabaeus, December 25, B.C. 165. Reckoning back two thousand three hundred days, we come to August 1, B.C. 171. Up to this latter date the relations between Antiochus and the Jewish people had been peaceful; then began a series of aggressions, which ended only with his death.1 We suggest a homily on The certainty of the fulfilment of the Divine Word.

I THE DEFINITENESS OF THE END. Here “the cleansing of the sanctuary.”

II. THE EXACT MEASUREMENT OF ALL INTERMEDIATE SECOND CAUSES. The number, force, combination, duration of their action.

III CONSEQUENT LIMIT OF TIME. In the Divine mind. Not necessarily revealed to us; though the exact number of the days was so in this case.

IV OUR MORAL ATTITUDE. Belief in the word. Confidence in the Word-giver. Obedience, active and passive. The entertainment of a great hope. Let the sunshine of the assured future light the present.—R.

Vers. 13-27.— The place of angelic ministration.
Angels appear upon Daniel’s visionary scene, and indicate the manifold services they discharge for men. In all probability they have individual and special qualifications for different kinds of service. The utmost variety of gift is consistent with wisdom, happiness, and purity.

I OBSERVE THEIR HOLY CHARACTER. They are denominated “saints,” i.e. “holy ones.” Our Lord distinctly styles them by this epithet, “the holy angels.” They are capable of sin; have been exposed to temptation; and yet have preserved their original purity. This is their high distinction, their crown of excellence. So far they are models for our imitation.

II THEIR PREVAILING DISPOSITION. They are not absorbed in thinking ant planning about themselves. The very reverse. Their chief concern is the honour and majesty of God—about the well-being of man. They are represented as inquiring of each other respecting the cessation of symbolic sacrifice, the desolations of God’s temple, and the unhappy prospects of mankind. Into the great problems of atonement and redemption “the angels desire to look.” So absorbed are their minds in these momentous themes, that all time appears to them but as a season of atonement. “Days” are described as “evening-morning.” They are the subjects of hope, even as are men; and they encourage the faith of the godly by announcing the brevity of the disaster. It stirs their joy to anticipate the termination of the transient eclipse, and to see beforehand the brightness of Messiah’s reign.

III THEIR SUBMISSION TO THE GOD-MAN. The Son of God is Lord of angels, as well as Lord of saints. Without doubt this was a pre-incarnate visit of Christ to our earth. Daniel was staggered by the vision, and stood in an attitude of reverent inquiry. He was knocking at the gate of truth, and lo! Incarnate Truth himself stood before him. To his rapt vision there was “the appearance of a man.” His organ of hearing caught the sounds of a human voice. Yet this voice was not addressed directly to Daniel Gabriel was summoned to intervene as mediator and instructor. Immediately Gabriel undertakes the office, and proceeds to instruct the trembling prophet. The obedience of angels is prompt, hearty, and complete.

IV THE SUPERIORITY IN KNOWLEDGE OF ANGELS TO MEN. They are said in the Book of Psalms to “excel in strength.” We know that they excel in purity; here we learn that they excel also in wisdom and knowledge. Without doubt, they have clearer and larger vision of the kingdom of God, as it extends through the entire universe. As man possesses, through God’s goodness, a gift of memory; so it is possible theft the unfallen angels are endowed with a measure of foreknowledge. In this case Gabriel certainly knew the precise import of the vision, end knew the order of events which were about to occur in the Eastern empires. Such prescience may be an assistance to their loyal service; it would be mainly a hindrance in the discharge of human duty. But the case of Daniel was exceptional. So much of humility and patient trust had he that he would not run counter to the revealed will of God. This was a manifest reward of his piety, and was a banquet of peace for his soul. A large accession was made to his knowledge through the friendly interest of Gabriel.

V THEIR DESIRE THAT MEN, LIKE ANGELS, SHOULD DO ALL THE WILL OF GOD. Having certified to the veracity of the vision and to the certainty of approaching events, Gabriel enjoins Daniel to fulfil his part, viz. to seal up the vision. For the present it must be concealed from the common eye, and be carefully preserved for the future confirmation of human faith. To many men there would be a subtle temptation to publish abroad what they knew touching the march of events. This would serve to swell their self-importance. But Daniel was a wiser man. Fully to obey his God was his first principle in creed and life. To disclose these things prematurely might have injured the existing prospects of the captive Hebrews—might, in some measure, have turned the history of the world into another channel. To wait is at times as plain a duty as to act Patiently to endure is one of the most heroic virtues the world has seen.—D.

Pulpit Commentary Daniel 8:14

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. The Masoretic reading is here clearly corrupt. “Unto me” ought to be “unto him,” as proved by the versions and necessitated by sense. The LXX is somewhat violent in construction, but means, “And he said to him, Until evenings and mornings are two thousand three hundred days, and the sanctuary shall be purified.” Theodotion agrees closely with the LXX, only he has “five hundred” instead of “three hundred.” The Peshitta agrees with the Masoretic, save as above mentioned—”him” instead of “me,” and the last clause, which ought naturally to rendered “and the sacrifice be purified.” The Hebrew phrase for this clause is an unnatural one—it might be rendered, “And holiness (or, ‘holy thing,’ ‘offering’) shall be justified.”

The want of the article is not an objection, as the manner of the author is to use the article sparingly. The word translated “cleansed” really means “justified;” it is the only example of this part of the verb. All the versions translate as if the word had been some derivative of rhf; (tahar). The period referred to is that between the desolation inflicted on the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes and its cleansing by Judas Maccabaeus. It is somewhat difficult to fix the exact space of time intended by these two thousand three hundred evening-mornings.

Does it mean two thousand three hundred days? For this may be urged that this succession. “evening and morning,” not “morning and evening,” resembles Ge 1. If this resemblance is intentional, then “evening-morning” means a space of twenty-four hours. If the days are literal days, then the space of time would amount to nearly six years and a half, if’ we take the year here as three hundred and sixty days. Another view is that day and night are separated and each reckoned; hence the number of days involved would be eleven hundred and fifty—fifty-five days more than three average years, and seventy days more than three years of three hundred and sixty days each.

If, however, the year be the lunar year of three hundred and fifty-four days, it closely approximates to three years and a quarter. The period that one would naturally think of is that between the setting up of the abomination of desolation,1 on the fifteenth day of Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year of the Seleucid era to the rededication of the temple on the twenty-fifth of Casleu, in the hundred and forty-eighth year (from B.C. 167 to B.C. 164), but that is only three years and ten days. If the first and last of these years were respectively the fifth and seventh of a metonic cycle, in each of which there were intercalary months, then there is only a difference of eighteen days between the interval given above and the actual historical interval.

If, however, we are to believe Maerobius (‘Satur.,’ 1:13, §9), and hold that the intercalations were supplied by adding the three months in one year, if one of the years in question was the year in the cycle in which this took place, then the interval would be twelve days too much. In either case the difference is very small. The attempt to take the interval as two thousand three hundred days leads to very arbitrary results. Behrmann takes the victory of Adasa, which Judas gained over Nicanor, as the termination of the period—a purely arbitrary date, and reckons back to the displacement of Onias, another date that, so far as can be seen, was not regarded as of importance by the Jews, however important it has become in the eye of critics.

We can see that the little horn of Daniel 8 was Grecian leader Antiochus Epiphanes, who killed some of the Jews when he took control of the temple in Jerusalem. The prophecy timeline ended when Judas Maccabaeus took back control of the temple and cleansed it.

The occasion of cleansing the temple is celebrated during the Feast of Lights, Hanukah. It’s not a holy convocation in Scripture, but it seems to point to the light of the world, Messiah, who cleansed the temple at the beginning and end of His multiyear ministry when he opposed the Jewish leaders who had profaned it.

Click here to The 70th Week Of Daniel 9 home page.