Daniel 8

Leaving this, however, out of consideration, it can be shown that it is quite arbitrary to separate the Median kingdom from the Persian, and that our book knows as little about a special Median universal monarchy as the rest of history. History is totally ignorant of such a kingdom, and thus the prophet is made to commit a great historical error in speaking of a Median kingdom as having possessed the same universal historical importance as the Babylonian, the Persian and Grecian. This universal monarchy is not the invention of Daniel, but solely of the commentators, to rescue them out from their difficulty, and enable them to enumerate four world kingdoms besides the Roman. The prophet speaks, both in the historical and prophetic portions, of the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians as of one whole (8: 20; 5: 28; 6: 8, 12, 15): it is this kingdom, and not a Median, which succeeds the Babylonian (5: 28). The first king of this kingdom is Darius the Median (6: 1; 9: 1; 11: 1); the second is Kores, or Cyrus the Persian (6: 28). But because from Cyrus onward, the rulers on the Medo-Persian throne were Persians only, it is naturally spoken of subsequently as the Persian kingdom (10: 1, 13, 20; 11: 2). Daniel not only speaks nowhere of a separate Median kingdom, but even under the reign of Darius the kingdom is designated as that of the Medes and Persians (6: 8, 12, 15). This is the state of things as shown by exegesis; and it is clear to the very weakest intelligence that in the whole of our prophet, from first to last, there is no vestige of a Median universal monarchy. The fiction was repeated by one modern critic after another, none being able to propose a better expedient, and after passing through so many books, this theory shared the fate of other modern learned myths and attained to historical authority.

Thus we see that the separate enumeration of a Median universal monarchy and a Persian, which is the basis of the whole modern interpretation of the second and seventh chapters, is in every respect untenable. It is incompatible with the whole Book of Daniel, and with history; moreover, the analogy of the eighth chapter is against it. This overthrows the view taken by modern criticism of the four world kingdoms as a whole; for this separate enumeration of Persia and Media being impossible, simple arithmetical reasons compel us to look for a fourth monarchy besides the Babylonian, Medo-Persian and Grecian. If we compare the seventh and eighth chapters accurately we shall advance from this merely negative result. Such a comparison points out unmistakably that the ram is identical with the bear, the he-goat with the leopard. And since the ram is expressly explained to be the Medo-Persian, and the he-goat the Greek empire (8: 20, 21), it is clear how we must interpret the bear and the leopard.

This, then, is the result of our investigation. Daniel himself furnishes us with more minute particulars concerning the second and third monarchy in the eighth chapter, and refutes by them all those interpretations which do not understand the former to be the Medo-Persian kingdom, the latter that of Alexander and his successors, including, according to chap. 8: 20, Antiochus. To interpret the second and third kingdoms in the seventh chapters, and, consequently, also in the second in any other way, one must ignore intentionally the statements of the eighth chapter. But this shows clearly that the fourth monarchy is subsequent to Antiochus, and points out the Roman empire. Auberlen.

8: 1 Is the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. And I saw in the vision; now it was so, that when I saw, I was in Shushan the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was by the river Ulai. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; and no beasts could stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and magnified himself. And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had the two horns, which I saw standing before the river, and ran upon him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him: but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the glorious land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and some of the host and of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled upon them. Yea, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host; and it took away from him the continual burnt offering, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt offering through transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it did its pleasure and prospered. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said unto that certain one which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, and the transgression that maketh desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to understand it; and, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was affrighted, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for the vision be longeth to the time of the end. Now as he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation: for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end. The ram which thou sawest that had the two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. And as for that which was broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper and do his pleasure: and he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people. And through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in their security shall he destroy many: he shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evenings and mornings which hath been told is true: but shut thou up the vision; for it belongeth to many days to come. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; then I rose up, and did the king’s business: and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World in their more Immediate Future.

THE first part of our book (chaps. 2-7) throws a prophetic light over the whole future, as far even as that remote time when the people of God shall form a visible kingdom on the earth.

But this lies in a far-off distance; the very first of the four world-monarchies was yet in existence. Israel, therefore, must now receive disclosures concerning the events which more immediately await them; and it was particularly necessary that special prophecies should be given to the people of God for the times then approaching—the five centuries between the Exile and the Advent—since it was a period during which they would be given up for a prey to the Gentiles, and in which salvation would not be fully manifested to comfort their hearts. These disclosures are contained in the second part of Daniel. We find here, also, two visions which correspond with one another, one beginning, the other concluding this portion of the book (chaps. 8 and 10-12). Between them is inserted the ninth chapter, which reveals the future of the Messiah, and the people of the covenant at the end of the half-millennium, in relation to those images of the world. Auberlen.

Chap. 8. About two years had elapsed between the vision of chap. 7 and that of this chapter. The Medo-Persian was at the gates of Babylon, and the catastrophe which Daniel announced was impending though unsuspected. The prophet knew that the doom of the Babylonian kingdom was pronounced, though how destruction should follow was still undeclared. In this vision “seen at Shushan,” the Babylonian dynasty is left behind; the prophet at that city was brought close to the monarchy destined to rise upon the ruins of that which it superseded. What will be the fate of this second kingdom? was to such a mind as Daniel’s, thoughtful, inquiring, and far-seeing—the mind of an inspired seer and of a veteran politician—no improbable question. That question God was pleased to answer. He revealed to him the wars between Persia and Grecia (verses 20, 21), which Daniel would never actually see; and, carrying the revelation farther than had yet been given, drew His prophet onward to a time when earthly kingdoms and wars should yield to Divine powers, and peace forever follow. It is not surprising that the dim outlines in which these last thoughts were shadowed out should have been felt insufficient by the prophet. He brooded over the subject again and again, till later on (10-12) the revelation was renewed, and in clearer, more emphatic language. B. C.

This chapter comprises one entire vision with its explanation—the third in the series of Daniel’s four prophecies. It is naturally divided into three parts, of which the first is purely symbolic—the ram with two horns; the he-goat with his great horn; the four that came up subsequently, and the little one (verses 1-9). The second part shades off from the symbol of the horn to the conception of a king, and gives his doings (verses 9-14). The third comprises the manner of giving the explanation, and the explanation itself (verses 15-27). It is proposed to comment upon the words and clauses, to educe their exact sense; and then to inquire more fully into the prophetic significance of the little horn—this being the only thing in this vision upon which commentators have disagreed. H. C.

1,2. In the third year. We have no scriptural account of the accession of Belshazzar; that of his father (Nabonadius) is dated n.c. 506. The vision took place in the last year of his reign. B. C.

“I was at Shushan, in the palace.” (Cf. verse 27.) “I rose up, and did the king’s business.” The date in verse 1, “the third year of King Belshazzar,” is evidently the last unfinished year of his reign. P. S.

3-5. Under the image of a ram and a he-goat the destinies of Medo-Persia and of Grecia (verses 20, 21) are set forth. Such symbolical representations as winged beasts with one and two horns with ram’s and goat’s heads are found on Persian gems and cylinders. The special distinctions between the Medo-Persian and the Greco-Macedonian empires underlie the selections of the ram and the he-goat. Both powers were remarkable for their strength and warlike prowess; both animals have ever been accounted remarkable for their pugnacity and courage, confronting their foes at the head of their flocks. The common purpose of “the bear and the leopard” (7: 5, 6)—the lust of power and gain of dominion—is once more pressed under a new symbolism; national dissimilarities are kept out of sight. As Daniel “saw in a vision,” the two horns were not seen arising from their earliest stage, but from that point of growth when the horn which had come up last—the Persian which came into prominence after the Median—became the “higher” of the two. It was an accurate representation of the development of the two branches of one kingdom which the history of Cyrus exhibits. B. C.

4. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward. Daniel saw “the ram standing,” or established in his strength, after the succession of the Persian power under Cyrus; and then butting “westward, and northward, and southward,” or subduing Lydia, Babylonia, and Egypt, with their dependencies, represented in the former vision by three ribs in the bear’s mouth. Dr. Hales.

5. The “he-goat” is explained to be “the first king” of Grecia (verse 21). Just such a he-goat may still be seen on the sculptures at Persepolis with one “notable” horn between his eyes (Vaux, “Persia”). The mode of his coming—“not touching the ground”—recalls the swift flight-like motion of the winged

“leopard” (7 : 6), and is an indirect testimony to the prophetic identification of the two “beasts.” B. C.

He came “from the west,” for Europe lies westward of Asia; he came “on the face of the whole earth,” carrying everything before him in all the three parts of the world then known, “and he touched not the ground;” alluding to the swiftness of his marches and the rapidity of his conquests. For the same reason the same empire in the former vision was likened to a “leopard,” which is a swift, nimble animal; and, to denote the greater quickness and impetuosity, to “a leopard with four wings.” Bp. Newton.—No compend of history could draw the outline of Alexander’s conquest of Asia better than this prophetic vision has done it. A “rough” personage to deal with as a foe; coming from the west; sweeping the breadth of the whole land; seeming for the rapidity of his movements not to touch the earth (like the leopard with four wings, chap. 7 : 6), and with one notable horn between his eyes—a horn specially noticeable and the prominent feature in this new power—such is the description, and such was Alexander and his Grecian kingdom. Yet still the decisive evidence of identity is the explicit affirmation of the revealing angel (verse 21). H. C.

6. If this chapter had contained a prophecy “post eventum,” and had been written by a pseudo-Daniel, the representation in the text would probably have been altered in accordance with the more common opinion current in the last two centuries before Christ. B. C.

6,7. Standing before the river. The first and principal engagement in which Alexander overthrew the Persians was at the river Granicus, in Phrygia. The succeeding part of this description is a striking representation of his conquering the Persian monarch in repeated battles, subduing his whole kingdom, taking all his forts and strong cities, making the king himself, with his family, principal officers, etc., prisoners, and thus utterly overturning the Persian empire. Bp. Newton.

7. “There was no power in the ram to stand before” the he-goat. That truth found its last fulfilment when even the intricacies of the mountain-passes and the inclemency of the time of year (December) were of no avail to protect Darius at “Susa by the river of Ulai.” The last of the Persian kings, “cast down to the ground,” “stamped upon,” finding “none to deliver him,” fled to Bessos and Barsaentes, the satraps of Bactria and Arachosia, only to meet with death by assassination. When Alexander reached the spot which Mordtmann has identified with the modern Dauletâbâd, Darius was no more. Retributive justice had overtaken that empire which had once claimed greatness and power as peculiarly its own. (Cf. verses 4 and 7; and for the historical details, Grote, “History of Greece,” xii. 7; Rawlinson, “A. M.,” iii. chap. 7.) B. C.

Thus with fewest words, but words full of force, Daniel gives in prophetic anticipation the history of the fall of Persia before the arms of Alexander. Profane history verifies every point most perfectly. Greece had long been nursing her revenge for the invasion of her soil by Xerxes. Alexander had the energy and the ambition to lead her vigorous armies to this retaliation. He came against the ram “in the fury of his power.” The last vision (11 : 2, 3) touches Xerxes and then glances from him to Alexander, as if the spirit of inspiration grasped perfectly the springs of human action which threw Greece upon Asia and made her one of the great conquering powers of the East. It is well-known history that the Medo-Persian armies, become effeminate through luxury, had no power to stand before Alexander and his Grecian forces. He used up the armed hosts of Persia with amazing rapidity. Twelve years sufficed him to master not Persia alone, but Tyre, Egypt and all the East, even deeper into India itself than the ancient powers of Western Asia or of Europe ever went before or after. H. C.

8. When he was strong. The expression is intended to point out, with the following words, that the great horn was broken at a time when it was at its fullest power. The death of Alexander, B.C. 323, at the early age of thirty-two, after a career of unparalleled conquest, was truly a “breaking” not only of the horn itself, but also of “his kingdom” (11 : 4), and reference is intended here to that event. B. C.

After Alexander’s return to Babylon, which he proposed to make the seat of his empire, and while busily engaged in preparations for future conquest and a lasting dominion, he was unexpectedly removed by a fever. “Ambassadors from Southern Greece now came to present Alexander with golden crowns; and these, on advancing to his presence, appeared in the sacred garlands, which were never worn by deputies except when commissioned to consult oracles or to carry gifts to the shrines of distant deities. But while these servile republicans hailed him with Divine honors; while the bravest and best disciplined army on the face of the earth loved him as their leader and revered him as their king; while his newly created fleet was furrowing with unwonted keels the bosom of the Euphrates and preparing to spread its sails on seas unknown; while he was anticipating the fulfilment of his early dreams of becoming the master of the gold, the aromatics, the myrrh and the frankincense of the hitherto untouched Sabaea, and of compelling the sons of the desert to add a third god to their scanty Pantheon; while he was preparing to forge the last link of the golden chain which was to bind together his subjects on the Indus, the Tigris and the Nile by the strong ties of mutual advantages, the scene was suddenly changed, and he was cut down in the prime of life, in the height of his glory and in the middle of his vast projects.” How strikingly verified was the prophetic record, and how affectingly impressive to contemplate is the termination of that extraordinary conqueror whom the world calls “Great!” F. A. Cox.

He was succeeded in the throne by his natural brother, Philip Aridæus, and by his own two sons, Alexander Ægus and Hercules; but in the space of about fifteen years they were all murdered. The royal family being thus extinct, the governors of provinces, who had usurped the power, assumed the title of kings, and, by the defeat and death of Antigonus in the battle of Ipsus, they were reduced to four, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, who parted Alexander’s dominions among them, and divided and settled them into four kingdoms. These four kingdoms are the four notable horns, which came up in the room of the first great horn; and are the same as the four heads of the leopard in the former vision. “Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power;” they were to be kingdoms of Greeks, not of Alexander’s own family, but only of his nation; and neither were they to be equal to him in power and dominion—an empire united is certainly more powerful than the same empire divided, and the whole is greater than any of the parts. They were likewise to extend “toward the four winds of heaven;” and in the partition of the empire Cassander held Macedon and Greece and the western parts; Lysimachus had Thrace, Bithynia, and the northern regions; Ptolemy possessed Egypt and the southern countries; and Seleucus obtained Syria and the eastward provinces. Thus were they divided “toward the four winds of heaven.” Bp. Newton.

That this great empire was cleft into four parts is a well-known fact of history. Thrace and Macedon were the nucleus of the European and western section; Asia Minor, stretching to the Euxine and the Caspian, lay on the extreme north; Syria, north as to Palestine, pushed its empire to India, and became really the eastern and great Asiatic portion; while Egypt became the centre for the southern section. Of these four the Jews stood in close relations only to Egypt on the south and Syria on the north. Hence the other sections are at once dropped from these visions. The special exigencies of the symbol require these four kingdoms to appear first as horns, inasmuch as they spring up on account of the breaking of the great horn. Indeed, they are at first only kings, but ultimately they secured for themselves kingdoms. Hence they stand in the vision as horns, but in the interpretation as kingdoms. H. C.

9. The little horn is usually taken to be Antiochus Epiphanes, who sprang from “one of the notable horns”—the Seleucids. His power extended southward (Egypt), eastward (especially Armenia and Elymais), and toward the pleasant land—a mode of describing Palestine found in Jer. 3: 19; Ezek. 20: 6, 15, as well as in 11: 16, 41. B. C.

10,11. The sense of verse 10 is that the little horn-king made war upon the people of God and destroyed some of their distinguished leaders. Verse 11 states that he dared to wage war against the God of the Jews, the Immanuel who appeared to Joshua as “the Prince of the host” (translated there “Captain,” but it is the same word as here, Prince); and consequently he sacrilegiously broke up the established, divinely ordained temple sacrifices, and “cast down” the place of his manifested presence and abode. The original Hebrew, rendered, “By him the daily sacrifice was taken away,” is peculiar. It means either that one sent forth from and by him took away the daily sacrifice; or more abstractly, that by reason of him—at his instance, one took away, etc. It is remarkable that precisely the same expression is used in stating the same fact (chap. 11: 31): “From him or at his command, a military force (‘arms’) shall be organized and sent forth.” So I paraphrase the first clause of this verse. And this, too, is the historic fact. Antiochus Epiphanes sent his chief collector of tribute (1 Mac. 1: 29), and he seized Jerusalem and took away the daily sacrifice. H. C.

He took away the daily sacrifice or continual burnt offering; the morning and evening lamb which God appointed to be offered every day upon His altar Antiochus forbade and restrained the offering of. No doubt he took away all other sacrifices, but the daily sacrifice only is mentioned because that was the chief expression of communion with God. H.

12. The last clause of verse 13 shows that the thing done was the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot. This was a judgment on the Jews for their sins, “by reason of transgression.” Both the authors of the books of Maccabees assign the same cause, which seems to indicate a somewhat general, perhaps national, sense of the relation between their sufferings under God’s judgments, and the sins for which He sent them. (See 1 Mac. 1 : 11-15, 64 ; 2 Mac. 5 : 17 ; 6 : 12.) This horn-power cast down the truth—its interests and cause—and for a time seemed to have everything his own way.

13,14. Daniel hears one of the holy ones (attendant angels) speaking as if about to explain some point of the vision, when lo! an other of the angels led his mind to the question of time, asking how long that part of the vision should be which refers to the daily sacrifice and the sin that works ruin (referring to the sin brought forward in verse 12 as the cause of this judgment), and which involves giving both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot. H. C.

13-16. The antiquity of the belief in angels is not now disputed. The foundation of the doctrine is recognized as laid in times far anterior to the captivity of Babylon. The Hebrews had, from the earliest ages, been taught and accustomed themselves to believe in beings of a nature superior to man, messengers of the Most High, executors of His orders. Moses, it is true, gave no precise idea of their nature, nor of the rank they occupied in creation. It is not till later that a definiteness and precision are attained, unrecorded—though not perhaps unrecognized—by the legislator of Israel. In this development the prophet Daniel stands conspicuous. In his pages may be discerned the rudiments of the angelological conceptions so extensively permeating the writings of later Judaism. To him may be traced a more distinct expression of the attributes of the heavenly messengers. They are no longer agents of the Deity generally, but are classed categorically. Each has his special department, each his special functions. The chiefs, those whose part is the most active, are designated by names. The books of Tobit and the fourth of Esdras carried these conceptions farther. They developed angelology into a system, and the heavenly host became in their hands an organized militia.

A few words will sum up the angelological teaching of the Book of Daniel. Personal appellations are there first assigned to the “ministering spirits” of the Hebrew Church. Two, named by him Gabriel and Michael, are represented as among the chiefs of the celestial hierarchy, and agents of God in behalf of man. They appear as guardians of nations. They espouse the cause of the people entrusted to them and fight their battles (10 : 13, 20). Daniel sees also in his visions “the watchers and holy ones come down from heaven;” the judgment passed upon Nebuchadnezzar is a “matter by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones” (4 : 13, 17, 23). There is no inconsistency, no contradiction between the notions of the angelic hierarchy of the Babylonian prophet and those contained in the works current before the time of the Captivity. Isaiah’s splendid vision (6) depicts, nearly two centuries before the Exile, the Almighty surrounded by the six-winged seraphim. These constituted the “chief princes” of his day, and one of them by issuing forth with a message to Isaiah offers a proof of independent personality. Earlier still, the prophet Micaiah represents “the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left” (1 K. 22 : 19-22). Gradation and personality can only be surrendered here with the authenticity of the passage. And further back still, one who is called the “Captain” or “Prince of the host of the Lord,” reveals himself to Joshua as holding a rank of archangelic preeminence over the celestial army. What do these instances prove but the affinity between the conception of the ancient books and that of Daniel; just as this last exhibits doctrine identical with that of Zechariah (1 : 10, 11 ; 3 : 1 ; 6 : 5) ? B. C.

17. The reign of Antiochus was the last great crisis in the history of the Jews before the coming of our Lord. The conquest of Alexander had introduced the forces of Greek thought and life into the Jewish nation, which was already prepared for their operation. For more than a century and a half these forces had acted powerfully both upon the faith and upon the habits of the people; and the time was come when an outward struggle alone could decide whether Judaism was to be merged in a rationalized paganism, or to rise not only victorious from the conflict, but more vigorous and more pure. There were many symptoms that betokened the approaching struggle. The position which Judea occupied on the borders of the conflicting empires of Syria and Egypt, exposed equally to the open miseries of war and the treacherous favors of rival sovereigns, rendered its national condition precarious from the first, though these very circumstances were favorable to the growth of freedom. The terrible crimes by which “the wars of the north and the south” were stained must have alienated the mind of every faithful Jew from his Grecian lords, even if persecution had not been superadded from Egypt first, and then from Syria. Politically nothing was left for the people in the reign of Antiochus but independence, or the abandonment of every prophetic hope. Nor was their social position less perilous. The influence of Greek literature, of foreign travel, of extended commerce, had made itself felt in daily life. At Jerusalem the mass of the inhabitants seem to have desired to imitate the exercises of the Greeks; and a Jewish embassy attended the games of Hercules at Tyre (2 Mac. 4: 9-20). Even their religious feelings were yielding: and before the rising of the Maccabees no opposition was offered to the execution of the king’s decrees. Upon the first attempt of Jason, the priests had no courage to serve at the altar, and this not so much from wilful apostasy as from a disregard to the vital principles involved in the conflict. Thus it was necessary that the final issues of a false Hellenism should be openly seen that it might be discarded forever by those who cherished the ancient faith of Israel. P. S.

“To the time of the end belongs the vision,” a phrase explained in verses 19 and 26. The vision was intended to give Daniel “understanding” about the “end” which should come after “many days,” even “the last end of the indignation,” when God’s anger with a godless world will be revealed. It is best to take these words in their most ample sense, without at the same time excluding more partial and immediate fulfilments, such as that named by Aben Ezra, when God’s indignation against His own people was felt in the days of the Greek rule and of Antiochus until the Hasmonaeans “cleansed the sanctuary” (verse 14). B. C.

23. This verse explains verse 9. “Out of one of them” (i.e., one of those four kingdoms) “came forth a little horn.” Here the angel interpreter has it: “In the latter time of their kingdom, a king shall stand up.” The horn there is a king here. It is of course assumed here that he is a king in one of those four kingdoms. The angel therefore proceeds to locate him yet more definitely in point of time. “In the latter time of their kingdom,” and “when the transgressors” (the Jews) “have filled up the measure of their sins,” so that discipline and judgment from the Lord’s hand must needs come to save them. This king is Antiochus Epiphanes. He fills the description in every particular; no other personage does or can. As to his point of time in the Syrian line of kings, one hundred and thirty-seven years had passed when he came to the throne; about one hundred remained after his death. Moreover, the kingdom had waned very much as compared with its extent and vigor under its founder Seleucus Nicator; and hence in this point of light might naturally be thought of as in its latter stages. As the interpreter said, “in the latter time of their kingdom,” it is proper to note that two out of these four kingdoms had already run their course and become extinct when Antiochus ascended his throne. As a whole those kingdoms were manifestly “in their latter time.” His “fierce countenance” here refers, probably, to his character—i.e., to him as seen in vision with his character written on his very face, rather than as seen by merely human eyes in the flesh. It means therefore that he was ferocious, passionate, cruel. That he “should understand dark sentences,” intricate matters, testifies to his resources for cunning, craft and policy, as is indicated also (verse 25): “Through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand.”

24. “He shall be strong,” but shall not obtain this power by legitimate means, shall not be the rightful heir to the throne. Such is the history of Antiochus. He was the youngest son of Antiochus the Great. His elder brother, Seleucus Philopator, reigned eleven years. Just before his death he sent his only son, Demetrius, to Rome as a hostage, thus exchanging and releasing his own brother, Antiochus Epiphanes, who had been there in that capacity twelve years. The king fell by poison at the hand of Heliodorus, who sought to seize the kingdom. Antiochus heard of his brother’s death while at Athens on his way home, and immediately made interest with powerful foreign parties to gain the kingdom for himself, and succeeded—ungratefully displacing the real heir to the throne. He shall make fearful havoc among the nominal people of God, the Jews. So the reader of the books of the Maccabees will see. The Jewish wars commenced by him continued long after his death, in all about twenty-four years, resulting at length in the independence of the Jewish nation B.C. 143, but at the cost of many thousands of Jewish lives.

25. “And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in their security shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.” The sense of the first clause is, that by means of cunning, keen-eyed sagacity, he will make deception work successfully toward his ends. The points made in the entire verse are—successful cunning and deceit, unbounded pride and self-esteem; destroying many suddenly, in the midst of apparent tranquillity; daring to array himself against the Almighty; and his utter fall before some superhuman hand. This king’s sharp-minded sagacity has been noticed before; “understanding dark sentences.” This feature of his character and his abundant and successful use of it stand out with great prominence in chap. 11: 21-32. “He comes in peaceably and obtains the kingdom by flatteries;” “works deceitfully;” “enters peaceably” (not by force of arms) “upon the fattest places of the provinces;” “forecasts devices and corrupts the wicked Jews by flatteries,” etc. History shows that he obtained the kingdom by precisely such means, and also that he plied these arts in their full strength upon the Jews, drawing many of them into apostasy from their religion and from their country’s cause, into co-operation with himself. “He shall have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.” His supreme pride and self-esteem appear also in chap. 11. “The king shall do according to his will;” “he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god;” “regarding neither the god of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor any god, he shall magnify himself above all.” History gives him the same character. That he dared to fight against the God of the Jews, even while he had sufficient means of knowing that He was the true and Almighty God, has been noted on verse 11, and stands out prominently in his history as given in the books of Maccabees. It was perhaps specially manifest (as usual) in that hour which most tries men’s souls—the hour of impending death. The author of second Maccabees, chap. 9, says: “Here, therefore, being plagued, he began to leave off his great pride and to come to the knowledge of himself by the scourge of God, his pain increasing every moment. And when he could not abide his own smell, he said: “It is meet to be subject unto God, and that a man that is mortal should not proudly think of himself as if he were God.” Also in his distress and remorse, he vowed that if God would spare him, he “would become a Jew himself and go through all the world declaring the power of God.” This shows that he had arrayed himself against Jehovah God with his eyes open, standing up intelligently against the Prince of princes. No wonder therefore that he was suddenly “broken without hand,” or, as in 11: 45, that “he came to his end with none to help him;” or yet as in 7: 26, that “the judgment did sit and they took away his dominion to consume and destroy it to the end.”

26. This vision is spoken of as “the vision of the evening and the morning,” with reference to the use of this phrase in the Hebrew of verse 14—“twenty-three hundred evening morning.” There can be no doubt that “the vision of the evening and the morning” in this verse 26 is the vision of this eighth chapter, especially that part of it in which this phrase occurs, and which shows how long the little horn shall tread down “the sanctuary” and the sacramental “host.” The direction “to shut up this vision” indicates that its time of more special interest and value to its readers was yet somewhat remote. When this day of trial should come, those heroic men and women who fell martyrs to the faith of their fathers, or who fought with lion-hearted courage and prowess against fearful odds, would read these visions and dwell on these predictions of the fall of their great foe with surpassing interest. H. C.