Daniel the Prophet and the Times of the Gentiles

By Edward Dennett

Chapter 8

Two changes mark the commencement of this chapter. From Daniel 2: 4 to the end of chapter 7: the language employed is Chaldee; from Daniel 8: 1 to the end of the book it is Hebrew. While the Spirit of God was unfolding things connected with the Gentile monarchs and their actings, present and future, together with the character and course of their several kingdoms, He used the tongue of the country in which Daniel dwelt; but the moment He begins to treat of their actings in relation to the land and to the sanctuary, He returns to the sacred language.¹ Secondly, the scene is changed. Until now Daniel had been in Babylon; here, "in the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar," when the vision of this chapter appeared unto him, he was "at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam," a country adjacent to Persian territory, and which seems afterwards to have become a Persian province. It was here "by the river of Ulai" that Daniel "saw in a vision." "Then," he says, "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; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great." (vv. 2-4). This is a symbolic description of "the kings of Media and Persia "² (v. 20); and it represents the dual character of that empire, composed as it was of Media and Persia (see Dan. 5: 28, Dan. 6: 8); and the fact, in that the horn that came up last was higher than the other, that the Persian part of the kingdom ultimately gained the ascendancy. Darius the Mede was thus succeeded by Cyrus the Persian; and the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, invincible in its conquests, and doing "according to his will," exhibits this kingdom in the zenith of its power and aggrandizement, and probably during the reign of Cyrus. The rapacity of this empire in its career of victorious conflict was pointed out when considering Dan. 7: 5. This was the second of the four Gentile kingdoms, and consequently the successor of Babylon.

Daniel next relates what he further saw in these words: "And as I was considering, behold, an he-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes" (v. 5). The goat sets forth "the king of Grecia," the king being here, as often, the expression of the sovereignty or kingdom; and, consequently, the "notable horn" stands for the Alexander whose martial genius, courage, and victories, have been so largely celebrated in history. The rapidity of his movements, which was a conspicuous feature in his campaigns, is strikingly described in the vision: "An he-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground." In about ten years he conquered almost all the kingdoms of the then known world. In verses 6, 7, we have the attack of Alexander upon Persia figuratively described; and yet, though the language is symbolic, a more accurate description of his conquest could not have been conveyed. The goat "came to the ram that had two horns . . . and ran unto him in the fury of his power." Again: "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" (vv. 6, 7). The very words used express a specially hostile feeling on the part of Persia's assailant; and this was the case, for Greece had never forgotten the invasion of their country by the Persian hordes, and they burned to revenge themselves upon their enemy. No less graphically is the utter powerlessness of Persia in the presence of her foe portrayed: "There was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand" (v. 7). In fact the duration of the Persian empire had, by God's appointment, reached its termination; and the kingdom which He had destined to succeed it was now to obtain the supremacy. The battles of Issus and Arbela are among the decisive battles of the world, and they were decisive because God was using Alexander "the Great" to accomplish His purposes in respect of the government of the earth.

The object of the mention of Persia and Greece, and of these two only, in this place is well stated in the following words: "The two empires of Persia and Greece, or of the East, which succeeded that of Babylon under which the prophecy was given, are only introduced to point out the countries in which these events are to take place, and to bring them before us in their historical order. The Persian empire is overthrown by the king of Greece, whose empire is afterwards divided into four kingdoms, from one of which a power arises that forms the main subject of the prophecy."³ This last sentence will be explained by the two following verses: "Therefore the he-goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. 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" (vv. 8, 9). A long stretch of history is compressed into this compendious statement, which contains, however, all the points affecting the prophetic subject of the chapter. First, the fact of the establishment of the Grecian kingdom is given; then the death of Alexander in the midst of his triumphs — when he was strong"; — the subsequent partition of his empire between four of his generals; and finally the rise out of one of these of "a little horn, which waxed exceeding great."

Leaving the reader, if he so desire, to pursue the examination of the history, it will suffice to here state, that the four kingdoms, as pointed out in Daniel 7, into which Alexander's empire was ultimately divided, were Syria, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace. The two latter soon succumbed to the advancing Roman power; but the two former continued till about 50 B.C. The one out of which the little horn arose was Syria, and for reasons which will appear in the course of the prophecy, this little horn was the king known as Antiochus Epiphanes. It will therefore be seen, if what was said of the little horn of chapter 7 be remembered, that the two little horns are entirely distinct; that the one of chapter 7, which subdues three kings, and finally wields the whole power of the empire, belongs to the west. It is the dominion of the revived Roman empire which he possesses. The little horn of Daniel 8 has his seat and throne in Syria, and it is on this account that he becomes such a remarkable foreshadowing of the personage so often mentioned in the prophetic scriptures as the Assyrian, and as the king of the north.⁴

This little horn extended his kingdom, "waxed exceeding great toward the south," that is, toward Egypt, which is always so denominated as being south of Palestine; "toward the east," that is, toward Parthia and Armenia, etc.; and "toward the pleasant land," that is, Palestine. All these again are well-known facts of history, and the various campaigns of this notorious king in these several countries are given in historical records.⁵

It is in the next three verses that his doings in respect of the "pleasant land" are found, the doings, indeed, to which our attention is specially directed as of great prophetic importance: "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" (v. 10). The first thing necessary for the understanding of this description is to ascertain the import of the "host of heaven." That the sun, moon, and stars are indicated by this term is seen in one of the Psalms: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth" (Psalm 33: 6); and it is as plain from the Scriptures that the sun, moon, and stars represent, symbolically, ruling authorities — the sun supreme, the moon derivative, and the stars subordinate authorities. This symbolic significance is drawn from the actual functions assigned to the heavenly luminaries. In Genesis we read, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [He made] the stars also" (chap. 1: 16); and in Psalm 136 it says, "To Him that made great lights . . . the sun to rule by day . . . the moon and stars to rule by night" (vv. 7-9). In accordance with the emblematic meaning thus drawn, we have the sun, moon, and stars introduced in Rev. 12: 1, and the stars in v. 4.⁶

The conclusion, therefore, may be safely drawn, that the "host of heaven" in our Scripture is figurative of some ruling authorities. Who then are they? The references in the following verse, point, without doubt, to Jerusalem as the place where they existed at the time indicated; that is, a period after Persia had been conquered by Greece. It is indispensable to bear this in mind, because, as we learn from Ezra and Nehemiah, the temple and the holy city had been rebuilt during the sovereignty of Persia. The temple services were organised at the period spoken of, whatever the state of the people and the corruption into which they had fallen; and provision had been made in measure for their government according to Jewish customs and forms. The "host of heaven" will thus signify those who held the place of authority in the Jewish polity, those who occupied, by whatever means, positions of responsibility in the government of the Jewish people. Stars are employed, it will be remembered, in Rev. 1 - 3, as emblems of those who have the place of rule in the church, the assembly; and in like manner, the host of heaven designates those to whom rule was entrusted at this epoch in the midst of the Jews.

What we learn then from our scripture is that this little horn, Antiochus Epiphanes (and that he did so is a matter of history), assailed the ruling powers among the Jews, cast down some of different grades, "stamped" upon them, and subjected them to every species of ill-treatment and degradation, even to destruction.

The next verse carries us further, and gives us more details; but it should be carefully observed that from the beginning of v. 11 to the word "transgression" in v. 12 is an explanatory parenthesis, so that the clause after this word is connected with the end of v. 10. This may be readily perceived if it be noticed that in the parenthesis "he" is employed, whereas after it the neuter pronoun "it" is again used (agreeing with "horn") as found in vv. 9, 10. Taking now the parenthesis, we, read, "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host [i.e., the prince of the host of heaven], 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" (vv. 11, 12). The change from "it" to "he," which has been pointed out, would seem, it has been suggested, to show that it was the king in person who so acted — the king figured by the little horn — and this suggestion commends itself from the fact that the little horn might be expressive, though in a general way, of the power of the kingdom. We gather then that such was the daring of this king that he ventured openly and avowedly to set himself in opposition to Him who was no less than Jehovah. In profession, at least, the Jewish rulers were God's servants; and their Prince, the One they waited for, whatever their carnal expectations, was Israel's God, the One who afterwards appeared in this world as Jehovah-Jesus to save His people from their sins.

The next clause is obscure, but most agree that it should be rendered, "and from him [not by him] the daily sacrifice was taken away." This means that it was taken away from Jehovah, that it was, in fact, suppressed — it does not say by whom, though the context points very plainly to the little horn, the king himself. The beginning of the next verse reveals also that, whatever the wickedness of the agent, he was but an instrument in the hands of God for the chastisement of those who were in the place of His people, for this wicked king was allowed to succeed in his designs against the daily sacrifice "by reason of transgression." Moreover, "the place of His sanctuary was cast down." For the time all Jewish rites and sacrifices were abolished, and Zion, the holy mountain, was defiled by the Gentile oppressor.⁷ In addition to this the little horn (for now. the connection with v. 10 is resumed) "cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered." Together with the abolition of the daily sacrifices, and the profanation and destruction of the sanctuary, the truth, as Isaiah speaks, was fallen in the streets, "cast down" by the violence of the enemy; and this wicked power practised — practised by subtleties, plans, and schemes — and prospered.⁸

At this point of the vision Daniel "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" (vv. 13, 14). Passing by the question for the present (as it must come before us in examining the interpretation), whether this period of time named in the answer of the angel has any prophetic significance, it will be enough now to perceive that it must have had an historical application. The sacrifice was taken away, the place of the sanctuary was defiled, "cast down," by the personage denominated as the little horn; the temple was cleansed again after a certain time by the Maccabees, and the sacrifices were restored, so that there is no necessary connection between this period and those named of a different duration in Daniel 12.

The prophet was not content with the vision itself, but he "sought for the meaning." The desire of his heart was approved of God, for He delights in communicating His mind to the seeking soul; and hence no sooner did the prophet wish to know the meaning of the vision than the interpreter was at hand. He says, "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" (vv. 15, 16). Gabriel, obedient to the command he had received, came near where Daniel stood. Afraid in the presence of his angelic visitant, the prophet fell upon his face; but Gabriel "said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision." Daniel, overcome, was in a deep sleep on his face toward the ground; "but he touched me, and set me upright" (vv. 17, 18). Gabriel thus imparted understanding and strength to enable him to receive the interpretation of the vision. The title "Son of man" is also given him, the significance of which may be gathered from the following remarks upon the same title as bestowed on Ezekiel. It is "a title that suited the testimony of a God who spoke outside His people, as being no longer in their midst; but, on the contrary, was judging them from the throne of His sovereignty. It is Christ's own title, looked at as rejected and outside of Israel, although He never ceases to think of the blessing of the people in grace. This puts the prophet in connection with the position of Christ Himself."⁹

Before proceeding with the explanation of the vision, it will be for profit to again state distinctly the relation of a divine interpretation to the thing interpreted. The interpretation never confines itself to the matter to be explained, but adds whatever may be necessary to bring out the mind of God in the thing communicated. A simple illustration from John 14 will unfold the principle. When the Lord had spoken of manifesting Himself to the one who had His commandments and kept them, Judas enquired as to how He could manifest Himself to His own, and not to the world. In the answer to this question our Lord goes much beyond (at east in explaining its import) what He had before said. Instead of manifesting Himself, we have "WE (the Father and the Son) will come unto him, and make our abode with him." All this unquestionably lay in His first statement, but it would not have been apprehended unless He had explained it. And in the interpretation of a prophetic vision additions and applications are made in order to bring out its divine meaning — a meaning which otherwise would have been hidden.

So is it here. What Daniel saw was fulfilled, historically, in Antiochus Epiphanes during the time of the Maccabees; but we now learn from Gabriel's interpretation that this historical fulfilment was also prophetic of another fulfilment, and hence that the full realization of what is described will be after the rapture of the Church, when the Jews will be once more in their own land.¹⁰ Thus in the very first words of the angel he says, "At the time of the end shall be the vision"; and again, "Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be" (vv. 17, 19). There is a remarkable proof in the prophet Isaiah, that the period here spoken of refers to the last days a passage in which he speaks of the Assyrian, or the king of the north, of whom "the little horn," Antiochus Epiphanes, is such a striking figure: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in, their destruction" (Isa. 10: 24, 25).

That this scripture applies to the future may be seen from the fact that the apostle Paul so uses the immediate context (Rom. 9: 28); and this was the important point for Daniel to understand that the vision had to do with the accomplishment, through sorrows and tribulation, of God's purposes of blessing for His beloved people. It is true that Antiochus had not yet arisen; but with this authentic unfolding of the vision, it would be impossible for any one acquainted with it to suppose, however closely Antiochus might resemble him, that he was the personage here delineated, unless the issue of his advent had been the restoration and blessing of the chosen nation.

Seeing then that the fulfilment of this vision is yet future, the details of the angelic interpretation may now be considered. Since, however, in dealing with the vision itself, many of these have been necessarily anticipated, it will suffice to show their bearing and connection. In verses 20-23 we have it authoritatively stated that the two kingdoms figured by the ram and the goat (vv. 3-7) are Persia and Greece, and it will be recalled that the introduction of these two kingdoms in this chapter is merely to show the quarter whence the little horn is to arise. Greece succeeds Persia in the world-empire; the notable horn of Greece, Alexander the Great, is broken, and "four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power." These kingdoms have already been specified; but the angel adds one particular, that they will not be in the power of their predecessor. Then, leaping over the interval from the existence of these four kingdoms to "the time of the end" (v. 17), for at that period the Assyrian, the king of the north, will have appeared, and will exercise his sovereignty in the same regions as the little horn of verses 9, 10, Gabriel proceeds: "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" (v. 23). This is the personal description of the antagonist of Israel in the last days, the one of whom Isaiah so often speaks as the Assyrian.¹¹ Pride and cruelty seem to mark his appearance; and a kind of supernatural wisdom (understanding dark sentences), enabling him to penetrate into the meaning of mysterious forms of speech, will give him ascendancy over the minds of men, and especially over the Jewish mind in alienation from God. In himself he is not to be a powerful king, for if mighty, it will not be "by his own power"; that is, he will be sustained in his realm by a mightier potentate than himself.¹²

Next, the actions of this fierce king are described: "He shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people." The location of this king, it must not be forgotten, like that of his prototype, will be in Syria, in the north of Palestine, and hence his designation in this book (Dan. 11) as the king of the north; and thus, being on the borders of, he will wax exceeding great towards the pleasant land, as we learn from verse 9. This explains the statement of our verse concerning his deadly hostility to the Jews. As another has written, "He will make great havoc, will prosper and practise, destroying the mighty, or a great multitude of persons, and especially 'the people of the holy ones'; that is, the Jews (Dan. 7: 27). He is subtle, and his craftiness is successful. He will magnify himself in his heart, and will destroy many by means of a false and religious security." Altogether it is a fearful portraiture of one who will be an apt tool of Satan, and yet withal an instrument in the hand of God for the chastisement of the ungodly Jews. He will be a man of resolute will, refined cruelty, one practised in designing craftiness, a master of occult knowledge, and one of such determined purpose that he will allow nothing to stand in the way of the execution of his own selfish designs; for all his object will be his own aggrandizement and exaltation. Such will be one of the powerful enemies of the Jews, after they have been restored to their own land, and have rebuilt the temple, while still in unbelief, before the appearing of their Messiah in glory.

But his career of prosperity will be his ruin. Deceived by his own successes and lifted up in heart, he will venture also to "stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." The fact only is stated that this earthly monarch will dare to be the open antagonist to Him who will soon assert His title as King of kings and Lord of lords, and that in some way, "without hand," he will meet with instant destruction. The same event is probably alluded to in Daniel 11: 45, where it says that "he shall come to his end, and none shall help him"; and as the occasion of his being in the "pleasant land," when condign punishment thus overtakes him, is there given with some detail, it will be more suitable to defer further remarks till this passage is reached.

Gabriel finally affirms the truth of the vision which Daniel had received, and commands him to shut it up, "for it shall be for many days." Under the burden of these divine communications Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days (v. 27). The vessel was strained by the contents, portending so much of sorrow and tribulation, which had been poured into it, and for a time was disabled. "Afterward," he says, "I rose up, and did the king's business" (ever faithful to his earthly master); "and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it." Who were the "none" is not explained, although we may be sure that they were of Daniel's companions in captivity. Even the people of God do not listen willingly to the prophet of coming sorrows, while the prophet of smooth things ever finds a ready ear. Hence it is that a soul who is in the secret of the divine mind must be content to be unappreciated and to walk alone.

 

---

Footnote 

1 We say "returns," because chapters 1 - 2: 1-3 is in Hebrew.

2 It is said that a ram was used as an emblem of their kingdom by the Persians themselves, and a goat by the Macedonians.

3 Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, by J. N. Darby, vol. ii., (New edition, revised).

4 See, for example, Isa. 10: 24; Isa. 14: 25; Isa. 31: 8; Micah 5: 5 Daniel 11: 6, 8, etc.

5 His actings in respect of the pleasant land are narrated in 1 Maccabees, which, though no part of Sacred Scripture, is judged to be accurate in the main. This remark will not apply to the other books of the Maccabees, except perhaps in measure to the second book.

6 For an exposition of these Scriptures see The Visions of John in Patmos.

7 See for the history of these particulars 1 Maccabees 1.

8 Psalm 79 may be read as a commentary upon the state of things at this time in Jerusalem.

9 Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, vol. ii.

10 Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, in a volume of published discourses, called special attention to this prophetic principle, that a fulfilment became, in God's hand, the shadow of a deeper fulfilment.

11 It may be interesting to recall, in proof that the Assyrian is a future enemy, what has been often noticed, that Assyria historically succumbed to Babylon, whereas prophetically the Assyrian is, after the restoration of Israel to their own land, their last external adversary.

12 Two things are often put together in connection with this statement, viz., that the seat of the sovereignty of this king will be in Asiatic Turkey; and, secondly, that Russia, as plainly shown in Ezekiel 38 and 39, will be the final enemy of Israel, after their establishment in the land in blessing under their Messiah. The deduction is then made that the power behind this king of the north will be Russia. It may be so, but where Scripture does not speak positively, a conjecture can only be accepted as a possibility.