In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king, a vision appeared unto me, [even] to me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
Babylon was still ruling when Daniel received this second vision. From this verse on, the book changes both its language and its focus — so why here, and why now?
An English Bible hides one change here. In the original the language switches at this verse, and it switches along with the subject.
Two changes mark the start of this chapter. From Daniel 2:4 to the end of chapter 7 the language used is Chaldee; from Daniel 8:1 to the end of the book it is Hebrew. The Spirit of God was unfolding things connected with the Gentile monarchs and their doings, present and future, along with the character and course of their several kingdoms. While He did that, He used the language of the country where Daniel lived. But the moment He turns to their doings in relation to the land and the sanctuary, He goes back to the sacred language.
From here on, the details would have meant little to a Gentile — a non-Jewish reader. Yet they are not old news.
But now we are about to enter on visions that especially concern the Jews. Daniel 8, for example, refers to the sanctuary, to the holy people, to the daily sacrifice, and many other details. A Gentile would hardly have understood them, and they held no interest for him. These things may seem small in our eyes now. It may all seem to be only something of the past, about a people broken to pieces and scattered over the face of the earth. Yet it still has a real and lasting interest in the mind of the Spirit. For the Jews are not finished with yet. Far from it.
The verse looks back to the vision of chapter 7. This new one does not simply repeat it.
Two years after the vision in Daniel 7, Daniel received another vision. It filled in details not given before.
Of the four empires shown in the earlier chapters, this one narrows the lens to two of them.
I now come to chapter 8. In it the Spirit of God takes two empires — the second and third of the four beasts seen earlier — to give a more detailed history of them.
The date is worth pausing on.
This fresh vision appeared to Daniel in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar. The period of the first world empire was within three years of its close.
Yet Babylon still stood when the vision came.
As in Daniel 7, so here, the vision came during the reign of Belshazzar. The later visions came after the power of Babylon was overthrown. But up to this time there was no judgment of Babylon.
Daniel does not say the word of the Lord came to him. That wording is deliberate.
With Daniel it is not as with the other prophets. It is not said that the word of the Lord came to him, or that he spoke as moved by the Holy Spirit. Instead he "saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed," or, as in Daniel 8, "a vision appeared to" him. In fact, he was not a messenger to God's people, as Isaiah and Jeremiah were. Like John on Patmos, he received revelations of the future for the guidance of God's people in all ages.
This vision reached Daniel while he was out of favour and out of sight.
What an immense compliment to Daniel this was! He had no part or share in the wild sins of Belshazzar's corrupt court. We see here — all honour to him! — the same Daniel who first appeared in Daniel 1, firmly separate from evil. And there is more than this. It was in the later years of this time out of sight that he received the first two of those wonderful visions given to him. Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 record them. During this time when he was down, he was plainly in close communion with heaven.
- Language turns. At this verse the text returns to Hebrew. The subject turns from world empires to the land and the sanctuary.
- Focus narrows. The vision takes two of the four empires already seen and gives their history in detail.
- Timing sharpens. It came in Belshazzar's third year, within three years of Babylon's fall. No judgment had yet touched the city.
- Audience widens. Daniel was not sent as a messenger to Israel. Like John on Patmos, he received revelations for God's people in every age.
- The man matters. The vision came to a man in obscurity, kept clear of a corrupt court and in close communion with heaven.
And I saw in the vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was in the fortress of Shushan, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was by the river Ulai.
Daniel had lived his whole life in Babylon. In this vision he stands somewhere else — a fortress city far to the east, beside a river, in land that belonged to a power not yet risen. The date and the place are the first clues to what the vision means.
The vision carries a date: the third year of Belshazzar. Babylon's time as world ruler was nearly up.
This fresh vision appeared to Daniel in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar. The period of the first world empire was within three years of its close.
Babylon was still standing. Yet where Daniel stands in this vision points to the empire that comes next.
As in Daniel 7, so here, the vision was during the reign of Belshazzar, while the later visions came after the power of Babylon was overthrown. But up to this time there was no judgment of Babylon. Even so, the very place where he saw this new vision prepares us for a certain change. It was in the east — still farther east... Elam is the Hebrew name for Persia, or one of its names, at any rate.
The palace where he stood belonged to the coming empire, not the present one.
The vision came to Daniel in Shushan, not in Babylon. Shushan was a palace of the Medo-Persian empire, the empire that overthrew Babylon. And it must have come just before that overthrow happened.
Elam had its own long history before Persia ever ruled it.
Son of Shem. He settled in a highland district east of Babylonia, which became the seat of a powerful monarchy. The district was also called ELAM... When Assyria declined, its Persian neighbours conquered Elam... In Scripture Elam often designates Persia... Daniel was at Shushan, which was in the province of Elam.
The Ulai is the waterway beside that city. In the vision the water itself carries meaning.
The river here seems to symbolize the armed forces of Persia in their restless energy of imperial conquest. The ram he saw stands before the river, watching and directing its movements. That ram symbolizes the Medo-Persian kingdom.
The verse allows two readings. Daniel may have travelled to Shushan, or he may have seen it only in the vision. Commentators differ.
Some have objected to Daniel being at Shushan in the reign of Belshazzar. But the prophecy does not clearly say that he was there. He may have been there in a vision, or he may have gone there on the business of the king.
The place changes here. So does the book's language. Both changes point the same way.
Two changes mark the start of this chapter. From Daniel 2:4 to the end of chapter 7 the language used is Chaldee; from Daniel 8:1 to the end of the book it is Hebrew. The Spirit of God was unfolding things about the Gentile monarchs and their doings, present and future, along with the character and course of their various kingdoms. For that He used the language of the country where Daniel lived. But the moment He begins to speak of how they deal with the land and the sanctuary, He returns to the sacred language. Second, the scene changes. Until now Daniel had been in Babylon.
From here on, the details belong to Israel, not to the Gentiles.
Daniel 8, for example, refers to the sanctuary, to the holy people, to the daily sacrifice, and to many other details. A Gentile would barely have understood them, and they held no interest for him.
- Timing. The vision falls in Belshazzar's third year. The first world empire had three years left.
- Placing. Daniel stands in Shushan of Elam, the region that "in Scripture often designates Persia." The place itself names the empire coming next.
- The river. The Ulai runs beside that fortress city. One writer takes its water as a picture of Persia's restless military energy, with the ram standing over it.
- The question left open. Scripture does not settle whether Daniel travelled to Shushan or saw it only in vision. Commentators hold both views.
- The purpose. The scene changes, and so does the language. The subject narrows too — from Gentile empires to the land, the sanctuary and the holy people.
And 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; and one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.
Babylon is in its final years when this second vision comes to Daniel. Beside the river he sees no monster this time, but a ram — and its two uneven horns map the empire about to swallow Babylon.
Daniel sees this while Babylon still rules. Yet the vision sets him inside the land of the power that will replace it.
Here we leave the part of the prophecy that deals especially with the Gentile powers. So, as chapter 8 begins, the original text goes back from Aramaic to Hebrew. The vision in this chapter is dated about two years after the one we have just looked at. Gentile powers are still in view, but the main point seems to be what they do to Jerusalem, with its sanctuary and its sacrifices. This vision did not come to Daniel in Babylon. It came in Shushan, a palace of the Medo-Persian empire, the empire that overthrew Babylon. And it must have come just before that overthrow took place.
Persia used the ram as its own emblem, and the place named in verse 2 points the same way.
It was in the east — still further east — "in Susa the citadel, which is in the province of Elam." Elam is the Hebrew name for Persia, or one of its names at least... He lifts up his eyes and sees a ram. The ram was a well-known symbol, used in Persia itself, and very familiar on its monuments and public documents... The point is the mixed make-up of the Persian Empire. It had two parts, unlike the others: the Median came first, and the Persian was the younger of the two. But in time the younger becomes the greater. That is why one horn was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last.
The picture of these empires also changes from the chapter before, and the reason has to do with Israel.
Chapter 7 gives us a bear and a leopard as the symbols of the Persian and Macedonian empires. Chapter 8 pictures them as a ram and a male goat. The reason for the change, we take it, is that this chapter has so much to do with Israel, and that these empires were kind to Israel in their early days. Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes stand out as Israel's helpers, and Alexander the Great showed them great honour.
The chapter itself explains the ram later on, at verse 20. The odd detail — the taller horn coming up second — is the part history confirms.
He sees a ram with two horns, one higher than the other, and this higher horn appearing after the other. Verse 20 tells us this is a picture of the Medo-Persian Empire. The two horns set out the double nature of that empire. The higher horn shows in advance that one part of the empire would gain the upper hand over the other. It also shows that this ruling part would rise last. That is exactly what happened. Darius the Mede crushed the power of Babylon. He then gave place to Cyrus the Persian, who soon became the leading power in the Persian Empire.
The same uneven shape shows up in the earlier vision, in the bear.
The second beast was like a bear. It was the Medes and Persians who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. We are told that the bear raised itself up on one side. That detail is interesting, because it shows the great accuracy of the Spirit of God. Its meaning is given to us in Daniel 8:3, where the same power appears as a ram with two horns, one higher than the other, and the higher coming up last. This is God's way of noting that the Persian part was the stronger one in this double empire, though it was by no means the older.
Daniel is not only shown Persia's rise. He is shown its fall, before that empire had even come to power.
So before the Medo-Persian empire won its victory, Daniel already had a picture of its own overthrow in his mind, since the ram with two horns stood for that power. The Persian horn became the dominant one, but it came up last. For a time the ram was irresistible, doing its own will and pushing in every direction.
- Place — The vision came at Shushan (Susa) in Elam, the Hebrew name for Persia. Daniel stands on the soil of an empire that has not yet risen.
- Symbol — The ram was Persia's own emblem. Chapter 7 called this empire a bear; here it is a ram, because these rulers were kind to Israel.
- Horns — Two horns mark a double empire: Media and Persia. No other world power in these visions was built that way.
- Order — The taller horn came up last. Darius the Mede gave place to Cyrus the Persian, the younger branch that grew the stronger.
- Certainty — Daniel saw Persia's rise, its power, and its fall before Babylon had even fallen. The small details are the proof.
I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward, and no beast could stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; and he did according to his will, and became great.
Daniel sees this ram before the empire it pictures ever rises. Two questions come at once: who is the ram, and what does it mean that a beast does as it pleases and grows great?
Verse 20 names the ram for Daniel. Its two horns, and the odd fact that the taller one grew last, picture one empire in two parts and the rise of its stronger half:
He sees a ram with two horns. One is higher than the other, and the higher one came up after the other. From verse 20 we know this pictures the Medo-Persian Empire, and the two horns show that the empire had two parts. The higher horn foretells that one part of the empire would rise above the other, and that this ruling power would come last. That is exactly what happened. Darius the Mede crushed the power of Babylon, and then gave way to Cyrus the Persian, who quickly took the lead in the Persian Empire. The ram pushing toward the west, north and south foretells the victories of Cyrus and the directions they took. No power could stand against him or block his will.
The choice of animal was not random. These kingdoms already used it of themselves:
It is said that the Persians themselves used a ram as the emblem of their kingdom, and the Macedonians used a goat.
The vision came before Persia rose. In the same picture where the ram is unstoppable, its fall is already in view:
So Daniel saw the overthrow of the Medo-Persian empire before that empire had even won its power, since the ram with two horns stood for it. For a time the ram could not be stopped, doing its own will and pushing in every direction.
Scripture itself shows how far that empire reached:
"I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward" — that is, the direction of the various conquests of the Persian Empire... Here we see how completely all secular history has to bow to the word of God. But we need not go beyond Scripture itself. Let anyone read the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and he will see how wide and undisputed that dominion was. Even outside the Bible this was the title used of them — "the great king" — and above all of the Persian monarchy.
The verse ends with the ram doing as he pleases. One writer notes what is missing from that picture, and sets it beside the honour God gives Cyrus by name in Isaiah 45:
What is more, he did as he pleased, and became great. He seems to show no recognition of God, no sense that one supreme Being has rights that should be respected on the earth. This is surprising to read, because of the honourable mention Cyrus has in Isaiah 45, though there God does say, "I have given you a name, though you have not known Me." Later in his career than the point at which Daniel sees him, he may have been brought into the light of the knowledge of the Lord.
God gave these empires their power, and they abused it. Yet the believer reading the same history sees what the conquerors never saw:
God gave Israel the truth of one God — they became idolaters. He gave the nations dominion, and they became tyrants who tormented the earth. But while those empires stood, the mind taught by God sees in all the conflict and struggle the fulfilment of God's word, and the means by which He carries out His purpose. He foresees and controls every event, and still man's pride and self-exaltation appear. In the use — or rather the abuse — of the power given to him, man became vile, and God revealed the result to the prophet. The rulers of the world became beasts, and as beasts they will be destroyed. That is how the rule of the nations ends.
The ram grew great, but no man has ever held the whole earth:
The tower of Babel was never finished, and no man will ever rule the whole world, until He comes to whom the whole creation belongs by right. To Him, and to Him alone, every creature in heaven and on earth will be made subject.
- Gift — These empires did not seize their power. God gave it, and they turned it into tyranny.
- Will — The ram's mark is that he did as he pleased. He gave no recognition to God, whose rights stand over the earth.
- Reach — West, north and south trace the real conquests of Medo-Persia. Its two horns were Media first, then the stronger Persia under Cyrus.
- Limit — No one could rescue from his power, yet the same vision had already shown his overthrow.
- End — No man has ever ruled the whole world. That waits for the One to whom the whole creation belongs by right.
And as I was considering, behold, a 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.
As Daniel watches the two-horned ram trample everything in its path, a second creature rushes in from the west, moving so fast it never touches the ground. The chapter names both animals later, so the real questions are who this single horn is, why Greece appears as a goat, and where the vision finally leads.
The goat is not left to guesswork. One writer explains why the animal stands for a kingdom, and its single horn for one man:
The goat sets forth "the king of Greece," the king here standing, as often, for the sovereignty or kingdom itself. So the "notable horn" stands for Alexander. History has long celebrated his military genius, courage and victories. Speed marked his campaigns, and the vision describes it in a striking way. In about ten years he conquered almost all the kingdoms of the then known world.
The goat never touching the ground is not decoration. One writer links it to another picture of the same empire — a leopard with wings:
A leopard pictures how fast it conquered, since the leopard is one of the swiftest beasts after its prey. The picture adds four bird's wings to speed up its movements. Its progress was so rapid that when it appears as a goat in chapter 8:5, it is said it "touched not the ground." In this way the Spirit of God takes notice of the campaigns and victories of Alexander the Great.
The direction matters too. The goat comes from the west. This "describes the first contest of Europe with Asia for world power," writes A. J. Pollock.
The earlier vision showed these empires as beasts. Here the symbols change, and one writer reads that change as God's own accounting:
Before God the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian were only "beasts." They were no better than the Babylonian before them or the Roman after. Yet God still valued the kindness shown to His chastened people. So the symbols change in Daniel 8 compared with Daniel 7. In this special aspect they are presented as clean animals... Whatever regard they had for the afflicted Jew, toward one another they showed no mercy and no lack of ambition.
The chapter also marks a turn. Even the language of the original text changes here, and the subject narrows:
We now leave the portion of the prophecy that deals specially with the Gentile powers. As chapter 8 begins, the original language goes back to Hebrew from the language of Babylon. Gentile powers are still in view, but the main point seems to be what they do to Jerusalem, with its sanctuary and sacrifices. The vision came to Daniel in Shushan, not in Babylon. Shushan was a palace of the Medo-Persian empire, the empire that overthrew Babylon. And it must have come just before that overthrow happened.
The vision does not stop with Alexander. His speed and success are only the opening act:
No one denies how good these symbols are. They picture the slower, heavier aggression of the Medo-Persian, and the amazing speed and force of the spirited Greek. They also show the later division of the Syrian-Greek kingdom of the north. But all this, however interesting, only prepares the way for the main design in the last days. Then a mysterious king will meddle with the Jews. He will hurt many of them, but it will end in his own destruction.
Daniel saw this while Babylon still stood and Persia had not yet taken over. History then matched the picture:
No other horn comes up to dispute with that conspicuous horn. Yet it was broken, as Nebuchadnezzar never was, nor Cyrus. Alexander did come from the west as one who never touched the ground. In the fury of his power he ran at the mighty Persian power, which had pushed west, north and south. Yet in the strangest and saddest way his course was cut short. He was a young man of thirty-two, in the middle of plans that reached further than any ruler before him. Give, if you can, out of any history, anything that so clearly answers to the vision.
- Named — The goat is the kingdom of Greece, and its one great horn between the eyes is Alexander.
- Swift — The goat crosses the earth "without touching the ground." Alexander took almost the whole known world in about ten years.
- Weighed — Greece and Persia appear as clean animals, not beasts of prey. God values even kindness shown to His chastened people.
- Narrowed — The language of the original returns to Hebrew. The focus tightens onto Jerusalem, its sanctuary and its sacrifices.
- Preparatory — The whole brilliant career is only a runway. It sets the stage for a later king who will meddle with the Jews and be destroyed himself.
And he came to the ram that had the two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran upon him in the fury of his power.
In Daniel 8:6 the vision turns violent. The goat from the west reaches the two-horned ram by the canal and charges him in a rage. The picture raises two questions — who are these animals, and why does the goat attack with such fury?
The chapter itself names both animals. One writer sets out the history behind the charge:
This land of Elam, or Persia, was the body of the second beast. The bear of chapter 7 is now the ram. "The ram that you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia" (v. 20). These two kingdoms were united into one... The he-goat of verse 5, who attacks the ram, is the empire of the Greeks, which began under Alexander. This "notable horn," having united the Greeks, led them into Asia against the empire of the Persians. In three years he overthrew it. It crumbled into nothing before his energy, and this won him, among men, the name of Great.
Persia was at its peak when the goat ran at him. The attack came from the west, a part of the world that had never struck the east before.
This was the first attack the west had ever made on the eastern world. Nothing seemed more unlikely, because the east was the cradle of the human race. Yet here this striking prophetic picture shows the Persian kingdom still without a rival. It was not in decline. It was at the very height of its power. Then, from quite another quarter, comes a power shown in the vision as a he-goat — an enemy from the west. And this power advances with the greatest possible speed. As it says here, he "did not touch the ground."
The verse does not just say the goat attacked. It says he ran at the ram in rage. The wording points to a real hatred between the two nations.
Verses 6 and 7 describe the attack of Alexander upon Persia in figures. Yet though the language is symbolic, no description of his conquest could be more accurate. The goat "came to the ram with the two horns … and he ran at him in his powerful wrath."... The very words used express a special hostility in the one attacking Persia. And that is just what was there. Greece had never forgotten the invasion of their country by the Persian armies, and they burned to take revenge on their enemy.
Behind the rage of a conqueror stood a limit God had already set.
In fact the Persian empire had, by God's appointment, reached the end of its time. The kingdom He had chosen to follow it was now to take the supremacy. The battles of Issus and Arbela are among the decisive battles of the world. They were decisive because God was using Alexander "the Great" to carry out His purposes for the government of the earth.
Two empires that filled the history books get only a few lines here. That tells us where God's attention rests.
The Spirit always looks forward to the close. He may bring in things that will happen in a fairly short time. But His main attention rests on the end of this age, not on the events that surround the powers of the world. God has a people that His heart is set upon... Persia may have looked mighty, and Greece too. Their disputes may fill up the history of the world. But God thinks little of them. He disposes of the records of centuries in a few words.
Even critics have long noticed how exact the description is. Kelly points to the sceptical historian Gibbon. Gibbon admitted that "the rapid conquest of Persia by Alexander, his untimely death without posterity, the division of his monarchy into four kingdoms" and more "are described with as much clearness as in the histories of Justin and Diodorus." He then concluded that Daniel "is too exact for a prophet" (William Kelly).
- Charge — named. The ram is Media and Persia; the goat is Greece, its great horn Alexander, who overthrew Persia in three years.
- Charge — unexpected. The blow fell on Persia at its height, from the west, which had never struck the east before.
- Charge — angry. The rage in the verse is real. Greece had never forgotten Persia's invasion of their land.
- Charge — permitted. God had set the end of Persia's time. Alexander's victories carried out His purposes for the government of the earth.
- Charge — brief. God spends a few words on centuries of empire, because His attention rests on His people and on the end of the age.
And I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged with him, and smote the ram, and broke his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him; and he cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
This vision shows Daniel two empires that have not yet risen. They are locked in a fight to the death. The ram is shattered, thrown down and trampled, with no one to rescue it. Commentators ask what the picture meant in history, and why God showed it at all.
One writer sums up the collision:
The he-goat came close to the ram, broke his two horns, cast him to the ground, and stamped on him. In other words, Greece, led by Alexander the Great, smashed the world-empire of the Medes and Persians.
An earlier vision in Daniel had pictured these same powers as wild beasts. Here the symbols change to clean animals. One writer ties the change to how the two empires treated God's scattered people:
In God's sight the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian empires were only "beasts," no better than the Babylonian before them or the Roman after them. Yet God still valued kindness shown to His chastened people. So the symbols change in Daniel 8 compared with Daniel 7. In this one respect they appear as clean animals... Whatever regard they had for the afflicted Jew, toward each other they showed no mercy and no lack of ambition... The symbol had to show a power made of two parts: the ram had two horns, both high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.
The verse reports more than a defeat. It reports a temper. The wording points to a settled hatred with a history behind it:
The very words used express a particularly hostile feeling on the part of Persia's attacker. This was indeed the case. Greece had never forgotten the invasion of their country by the Persian hordes, and they burned to take revenge on their enemy.
(Older translations say "moved with choler." The ESV says "enraged against him.")
The attack left the ram no defence:
The he-goat attacks the ram with such overwhelming force that the ram had no power to withstand the assault. The ram was cast down, ruthlessly crushed, with none to deliver. The picture vividly sets out the speed and ferocity of Alexander's conquests. They crushed the Persian Empire and ended it as a world power, and the Greek Empire took its place.
One writer traces the timing of this collapse to God Himself:
In fact the duration of the Persian empire had, by God's appointment, reached its end, and the kingdom He had chosen to follow it was now to take the supremacy... God was using Alexander "the Great" to accomplish His purposes for the government of the earth.
One writer names the battles and the king who fell:
He fought the great battles of the Granicus, Issus and Arbela, and stamped the power of Persia and its king, Darius Codomannus, to the ground. He rapidly conquered Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Tyre, Gaza, Egypt, Babylonia, Persia... And so he trampled on the ram after having broken its horns.
Another writer turns the match into a challenge:
Alexander did come from the west as one who did not touch the ground. In the fury of his power he ran at the Persian empire, mighty until then, which had pushed west, north and south... Produce, if you can, out of any history, anything that so clearly answers to the vision. The facts are well known and correspond exactly with the prophecy.
God covers two of the greatest empires of the ancient world in a handful of clauses. That brevity tells us where His interest lies:
Persia looked mighty, and so did Greece. Their conflicts filled up the history of the world. Yet God thinks little of them. He disposes of the records of centuries in a few words. The point God hurries on to might have seemed small in the eyes of the world. But it is bound up with the interests of His king and His people, so He moves on to the great events connected with them in the last days.
- Rage — the language marks more than war; it marks a grudge. Greece had not forgotten Persia's invasion and attacked "in the fury of his power."
- Rescue — no one could deliver the ram. Persia's time had run out by God's appointment, and God was using Alexander to carry out His purposes for the government of the earth.
- Ruin — broken horns and a trampled body. Persia ended as a world power, and Greece took its place.
- Record — commentators point to Alexander and the fall of Persia as the exact answer to the picture. They challenge anyone to find a closer match in history.
- Reason — God compresses centuries into a sentence because His eye is on His king and His people. He sums up empires in a line and presses on with His purpose.
And the he-goat became exceeding great; but when he was become strong, the great horn was broken; and in its stead came up four notable ones toward the four winds of the heavens.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which became exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauty [of the earth].
Daniel 8 has just shown two great empires rise and fall. Now the prophecy narrows to one figure: a small horn growing out of one of the four parts of Alexander's broken kingdom. Who is he, why does the vision spend so much space on him, and why do his conquests bend toward Israel's land?
(The ESV says "the glorious land." The older translations quoted below say "the pleasant land.")
Two verses cover a huge span of history. Each phrase marks a stage.
This short statement packs in a long stretch of history. Yet it holds every point that matters to the prophecy of this chapter. First, the Greek kingdom comes into being. Then Alexander dies in the middle of his triumphs — "when he was strong." Then four of his generals divide his empire between them. And finally, out of one of these rises "a little horn, which grew exceedingly great."
Which four kingdoms, and which one produced the horn?
In the end, Alexander's empire split into four kingdoms, as Daniel 7 points out: Syria, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace. The last two soon fell to the advancing Roman power. The first two lasted until about 50 B.C. The little horn arose out of Syria.
Daniel 7 also showed a little horn. Is this the same one?
It is important to distinguish between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8. The one arises in the West, out of the fourth Empire; the other arises in the East, out of one of the four divisions of the third Empire. This last is the king of the North, whose doings we read so much about in Daniel 11.
The word "little" says something about where this man comes from. It also explains why the chapter keeps its eye on him.
The expression "little horn" may show that the person pictured here rises out of the crowd. Apart from his own genius, he would be a person of no importance. The little horn of Daniel 8 is a figure of the king of the north. Many prophecies speak of him, and he will play a leading part in what happens to God's earthly people in the time of the end. For this reason, no doubt, the vision and the interpretation deal mainly with this little horn.
Three directions are named. They also point back to where the horn began.
"And out of one of them came forth a little horn," otherwise called in Scripture the king of the north. Being in the north, he pushes his territory down "toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." The direction of his conquests shows where his own power lay, and the point from which he started.
Each direction points to a real place on the map.
This little horn extended his kingdom. He "grew exceedingly great toward the south," that is, toward Egypt. Egypt is always described this way because it lies south of Palestine. He grew "toward the east," that is, toward Parthia and Armenia, and so on. And he grew "toward the pleasant land," that is, Palestine. All these are well-known facts of history, and history books record the various campaigns of this notorious king in these countries.
The third direction is not a compass point. It is a name.
The power called "the little horn" enlarges its territory toward the east, and toward the pleasant land, or ornament of the earth. That is to say, as it appears to me, toward Jerusalem or Zion.
Writers name the man of verse 9: Antiochus Epiphanes, a Syrian king who attacked the Jews. The vision and its later interpretation look in two directions.
Daniel 8 speaks not of the west but of the east. It speaks of the Greek-Syrian kingdom, which persecuted and defiled holy things in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel 11:21-31 gives us ample details about him. This prediction is so exact that it goes beyond what any ancient historian we still have supplies. The vision in Daniel 8:9-14 dwells on what is now history. The interpretation, in verses 23-25, dwells mainly on what is still to be fulfilled.
So why does Scripture linger over his crimes?
Scripture dwells on his evil deeds at some length, we believe, because he acted with such violence against the Jews. That made him a type or forecast of the king of the north, who in the last days will be their great enemy.
- Small. The horn starts as nothing — one shoot out of Syria. Syria was one of four fragments left when Alexander died at the height of his strength.
- Growing. It grows "exceedingly great," pressing south to Egypt, east to Parthia and Armenia, and into Palestine.
- Northern. The direction of his conquests shows where he began; he is the king of the north, not the western horn of Daniel 7.
- Aimed. His third target is the land God calls pleasant — Jerusalem, Zion — which is why this one man fills the chapter.
- Twofold. Verses 9-14 read as history already fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes. The interpretation in verses 23-25 still waits. He is the forecast of Israel's last great adversary.
And it became great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down [some] of the host and of the stars to the ground, and trampled upon them.
In Daniel's vision a small horn grows until it reaches heaven itself. It pulls part of the sky down and tramples on it. What does that mean, and why does God describe an attack on people as an attack on stars?
The language sounds cosmic. One writer asks who these figures really are:
So we can conclude that the "host of heaven" in our Scripture stands for some ruling authorities. Who then are they? ... The "host of heaven" means those who held the place of authority among the Jews, those who occupied, by whatever means, positions of responsibility in the government of the Jewish people. Remember that Revelation 1–3 uses stars as symbols of those who hold the place of rule in the church, the assembly. In the same way, the host of heaven stands for those entrusted with rule among the Jews at that time.
The title is no compliment on their spiritual state. It says where these people stand, not what they are like:
The expression applies to those who, at least outwardly, surround the throne of God, and especially those who stand out among them. It does not mean the faithful who look towards heaven, whom chapter 7 speaks of. To be the host of heaven describes a position and not a moral state... They are again under the eye of God, in relation with Him. They are something He concerns Himself with. They are a people still responsible for their former relationship with Him, even though the Gentile power still stands.
The horn had already toppled nations. One writer points out where God's attention rests:
Notice how God weighs things. The priests and governors among this poor people matter more to Him than anything else the beast has been doing in the world. He lifted himself up "even to the host of heaven." A man may overturn empires or found them, or win the greatest victories, and God in His providence may oversee such events. But it is far more dangerous to meddle with the things that belong to God, the things He looks upon, and to try to wipe out His glory, however tarnished it may be in our hands.
The verse names two acts, and the second is the uglier one. One writer describes the man behind them:
This little horn casts down some of the host, and some of the stars too, to the ground. The rulers of the nation offend this man's proud heart. Like every other dictator, he cannot bear the slightest resistance to his will from anyone he has defeated.
His reach went through every rank of authority, and it stopped at nothing:
So our scripture teaches us that this little horn, Antiochus Epiphanes, attacked the ruling powers among the Jews. History records that he did. He cast down some of them, men of different ranks, "stamped" on them, and put them through every kind of ill-treatment and humiliation, even to destruction.
The title stands even though the people had fallen. One writer explains why:
By this I understand those who were in a position of honour and glory before the Jewish people... The importance of everything that touches Israel is now coming more and more into view. So you find an expression that may seem strong — "the host of heaven." But this should not surprise us. God takes the utmost interest in His people. Bear in mind that this does not imply that His people were in a good state. On the contrary, in judging failure, we must consider the position the people held, and for which they are responsible.
Commentators differ on the timing. Some read the horn's work as history already fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes. Others place this part of the vision in the future:
At verse 9 we pass to that part of the vision whose fulfilment is yet future. In the time of the end (verse 17), a nation will exist north of Palestine. It will attack the Jewish nation, then gathered back in their land... For a time this northern power will be allowed to overrun the "pleasant land," and to cast down those in authority among God's people.
- Stars mean rulers. The host and the stars stand for the men who held authority among God's people. Revelation uses stars the same way for those who rule in the assembly.
- Heaven means position. The title describes where God set them, not how well they behaved. They stay under His eye as a people still in relationship with Him.
- Position means responsibility. God takes the deepest interest in His people even when their state is poor. He measures their failure against the place He gave them.
- Touching them means touching God. Overturning empires weighs less with God than reaching for what belongs to Him. That is why this one act outweighs all the horn's conquests.
- The horn means two readings. Commentators differ. Some see the verse fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes. Others expect a northern power in the time of the end.
(And he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and from him the continual [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
The vision has been describing a horn — a power — but here the pronoun changes and a person steps forward. That raises two questions: who is the Prince of the host he rises against, and who is robbed of the regular burnt offering?
Verse 11 and the first half of verse 12 sit apart from the flow around them, marked off by the switch from "it" to "he":
Those who held this place of responsible authority in Israel are spoken of here as the host and stars of heaven. God put them in that place of authority… This little horn grew great, and cast down some of the host and stars of heaven, and trampled on them. That is, certain Jewish rulers held that place of great authority. They are overthrown, treated with the utmost cruelty, and degraded. "Yes, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host," which I take to mean the Lord Himself… In other words, the eleventh verse and the first half of the twelfth form a parenthesis. Then in the latter part of the twelfth verse we again have "it," which points to the little horn of verse 10.
Writers see the shift of pronoun as pointing past the kingdom to the man who heads it.
The change from "it" to "he" has already been noticed. It seems to show that the king himself acted here — the king pictured by the little horn. That reading convinces, since the little horn may stand for the power of the kingdom in a general way. So this king was daring enough to set himself openly and publicly against Him who was no less than Jehovah.
Older versions read "by him the daily sacrifice was taken away." Their margin reads "from him," and the ESV follows it: the regular burnt offering "was taken away from him." Writers hold the margin is right, and the next clause proves it:
I take the marginal reading in chapter 8 to be beyond doubt the right translation — "from him," and not "by him." In that case "him" refers to the prince of the host. The words "the place of his sanctuary" fully confirm this, for that sanctuary is certainly not the little horn's.
The title sets the offence at its true height. This is more than an attack on a nation's worship.
He pushes his claims so far that he opposes Him. He sets himself against Christ as Prince of Israel, against the Judge who comes, the Head of Israel, who is Jehovah Himself… We know it is Jehovah, because the sacrifice taken away is His and the sanctuary cast down is His. But the vision presents Him here as the Prince of the host.
The next verse supplies the reason the attack succeeds, and it is not the attacker's strength:
However wicked the agent was, he was only an instrument in the hands of God. God used him to chastise those who held the place of His people. He let this wicked king succeed in his plans against the daily sacrifice "by reason of transgression." Moreover, "the place of His sanctuary was cast down." For a time all Jewish rites and sacrifices stopped, and the Gentile oppressor defiled Zion, the holy mountain.
Take away the daily offering and you take away the ground on which a worshipper could approach:
The reason God gave for not cursing (we hear it in Genesis 8) is that He looks to Noah's sacrifice, not to the sin. God deals with us in virtue of what the Mediator is, instead of what we are. It ought to be always in our hearts, but it is always before God. When the daily sacrifice was taken away, the Jew could not go to God; there was no savour; see Dan. 8:11.
Does all of this lie in the past? One writer traces the little horn to a real king, then shows why the vision reaches past him:
The third kingdom, the Grecian, split into four. Out of it arose a little horn, which magnified itself. Then follows the ceasing of the daily sacrifice at Jerusalem, "the pleasant land." But in Dan. 8:11 and part of verse 12 there is a change from "it" to "he," and Dan. 8:17 and Dan. 8:19 speak of "the time of the end." The little horn does refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, and he did cause the worship at Jerusalem to cease. Even so, the passage points to a later and still future period, and to another king of Syria. He will stand against the Prince of princes, and shall be broken without hand. Dan. 8:25.
- Person. The pronoun turns from "it" to "he" — the vision stops describing a kingdom and shows the king himself.
- Prince. The one he lifts himself against is the Prince of the host, Israel's Head, Jehovah Himself — and the king who defies Him is broken at last, "without hand."
- Plunder. Read "from him," not "by him": the sacrifice and the sanctuary are God's, and they are taken from Him.
- Permission. The attack succeeds only "by reason of transgression." The oppressor is a tool in God's hand to chastise His own people.
- Poverty. With the daily sacrifice gone, there was no savour. The Jew could not come to God.
And a time of trial was appointed unto the continual [sacrifice] by reason of transgression.) And it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised and prospered.
Daniel 8:12 sits in the middle of a vision about a small horn that turns on the Jewish people, their worship, and their God. It is one of the hardest verses in the book. Who takes the sacrifice away? What does its opening clause mean? Whose success is described?
Writers point out that verse 11 and the opening of verse 12 read as a break in the flow. Getting the translation right matters here.
There is a change in the next verse that matters a great deal, because it concerns the complete destruction of the worship of God at Jerusalem. Here is what I believe is the right reading: "And he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and from him (the prince of the host) the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down, and a certain time of distress was appointed to the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression." I would put all of that in a parenthesis. The important change is that the taking away of the daily sacrifice is not credited to this little horn. The little horn's actions start again after the word "transgression": "And it cast down the truth to the ground."
The words say the offering was taken from someone, not by someone. So who lost it? The answer points to the "prince of the host" named just before.
God further permits that the daily sacrifice should be taken away from this prince. We see therefore who this Prince is. It is the Lord. The sacrifice is taken away from Him, and the place of His sanctuary cast down, in this time of terror.
The verse gives a reason for the loss, and it sits with the people, not with the tyrant. His freedom to act is on loan.
"It," referring to the little horn, is changed to "he" in verse 11, alluding in both cases to the same person, Antiochus Epiphanes. He takes away the daily sacrifice from the temple, and is allowed to do so as the scourge of God because of the transgression of the people.
Once the parenthesis closes, the horn is back in view, and the verse names two things about it: what it does to truth, and how it operates.
In addition to this the little horn (the connection with verse 10 is now picked up again) "cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered." Along with the ending of the daily sacrifices, and the defiling and destruction of the sanctuary, the truth, as Isaiah says, had fallen in the streets, "cast down" by the violence of the enemy. And this wicked power practised — it worked by cunning, plans, and schemes — and prospered.
The success is real, and it is also on a leash.
Then the vision indicates that "it," the northern power, will cast down the truth and, for a time, be allowed to prosper and accomplish great things.
Commentators differ on the timing. Some read verses 10–12 as already fulfilled in the past.
What is said of the horn up to verse 12 has been fulfilled in the times of the Seleucids (Antiochus Epiphanes)… and not the last days.
Others hold that the past event was a sample of something larger.
I strongly suspect that most of what we have here, apart from the part marked as a parenthesis, has had a partial fulfilment in the past… In secular history he is called Antiochus Epiphanes, and he was a particularly bad man… He tried to force pagan worship on the Jews, and he put to death all who resisted his plans. At last, partly by the Romans and partly by the courage of the Maccabees, he was put down and defeated, the temple was cleansed once more, and Jewish worship started again. No doubt this was the person meant historically by the little horn. But he shows the same kind of features which will reappear.
- Transgression — the door opens from the inside. The oppressor gains ground "because of transgression." The first cause of the loss is the sin of the people, not the strength of the enemy.
- Permission — the tyrant is a tool. He is "allowed to do so as the scourge of God," which means his power is granted, not seized.
- Loss — what is taken is taken from God. The daily sacrifice is taken from the Prince of the host. Commentators identify that Prince as the Lord Himself.
- Method — the horn works by "subtleties, plans, and schemes," and truth is thrown to the ground by violence before the horn appears to succeed.
- Limit — the prospering is "for a time." Scripture states the success and dates its end, so apparent triumph over truth is temporary by design.
And I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that one who spoke, How long shall be the vision of the continual [sacrifice] and of the transgression that maketh desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden down under foot?
Daniel's vision has just shown a power that stops Israel's daily burnt offering and tramples the sanctuary. Now the prophet overhears two holy ones asking how long it will last — and the answer decides whether this is old history or still ahead.
The word for "saint," or "holy one," does not have to mean a person. Scripture uses it of angels as well as of Israel:
Scripture speaks often of saints, or holy ones. It describes the elect angels this way (Deut. 33:2; Job 15:15; Dan. 8:13; Jude 14). It calls the people of Israel by the same name (Deut. 33:3).
The one being addressed is harder to name. An older English version calls him "that certain saint," and the margin adds a title:
We quote this passage for the phrase "that certain saint." A competent authority tells us the phrase means "a certain unknown person." The margin of our Authorized Bible describes this person as "the numberer of secrets, or the wonderful numberer." The Hebrew name is "Palmoni," which means a wonderful numberer, as the margin says. Does it not look as if there is an angel appointed whose work is to deal with numbers?
The question looks back to verse 11, where the horn attacks both the people and their worship. One small word decides the sense: was the daily sacrifice taken away by the horn, or from the Prince of the host?
This little horn grew great, and cast down some of the host and the stars of heaven, and trampled on them. That is, certain Jewish rulers who held a place of great authority are overthrown, treated with the greatest cruelty and degraded. "Yes, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host," which, I suppose, means the Lord Himself. The marginal note is right in the next clause: "From him the daily sacrifice was taken away." That at once makes it all plain. Taking "by him" to mean the little horn, and "the place of his sanctuary" to mean the sanctuary of the Prince of the host, brings in the greatest confusion.
The daily sacrifice is the verse's regular burnt offering, and it was never a private act:
The priest offered the daily sacrifice as acting for the whole nation. It pictured the ground of the nation's blessings and privileges. So faith made much of it. Ezra 3:3; Dan. 8:11, 13, 26; Dan. 9:27.
The wording here is not the better-known "abomination of desolation." One writer keeps the two apart:
I am not ready to say that "the abomination of desolation," which our Lord speaks of in Matt. 24, referring to Daniel 12:11, is the same as "the image" before us... In Dan. 8:13 it is a different thing: "the transgression of desolation."
Much of this has already happened once, and history names the man:
I strongly suspect that most of what we have here, apart from the part set in brackets, was partly fulfilled in the past... Secular history calls him Antiochus Epiphanes, and he was a very bad man... He tried to force pagan worship on the Jews, above all the worship of Jupiter Olympus. He put to death every Jew who resisted him. At last the Romans, together with the strength and courage of the Maccabees themselves, held him back and defeated him. The temple was cleansed once more, and Jewish worship started again.
But that fulfilment was only partial. The same writer shows how far the details of the vision run past anything Antiochus did:
The horn cast down the sanctuary to the ground, and Antiochus did not: he left it standing. The sanctuary and the host were to be trampled under foot until two thousand three hundred days, and in Daniel's prophecies days stand for years. But the defiling in the reign of Antiochus did not last that many ordinary days. The trampling was to last until the time of the end, until the very end of the indignation against the Jews — and that indignation has not ended yet. It was to last until the sanctuary that had been cast down should be cleansed — and the sanctuary is not yet cleansed. The most we can allow is that the prophecy had only a partial fulfilment in Antiochus, one that ran ahead of the real one.
The sanctuary in view stands on earth, not in heaven:
What is the sanctuary spoken of here? It is Israel's. The "indignation" is God's anger against them, and it ends with their restoration and blessing, as we see here... The only sanctuary of God that could be trampled underfoot was the one in Israel, and so shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
- Asked — holy ones raise the question in heaven while the trampling is still going on. God's people are not the only ones watching the clock.
- Numbered — the margin calls the one addressed the wonderful numberer. The evil has a counted limit, not an open one.
- Named — what is lost is the daily sacrifice, taken from the Prince of the host. It stood for the whole ground of Israel's blessing.
- Limited — the sanctuary and the host are given up, but only for a counted number of days. Antiochus fulfilled part of it; the sanctuary is not yet cleansed.
- Cleansed — the answer ends with a cleansed sanctuary. God's anger against His people closes in their restoration and blessing.
And he said unto me, Until two thousand and three hundred evenings [and] mornings then shall the sanctuary be vindicated.
A question in verse 13 asks how long the daily sacrifice will stay stopped and the sanctuary lie trampled, and this verse is the answer. Three things hang on it: what "evenings and mornings" counts, which sanctuary the verse means, and whether the answer belongs to the past or the future.
The figure is tied to Israel's own way of counting days. One writer asks whether it can stretch across the kingdoms of this chapter:
Does this time measure the whole time of the kingdoms spoken of? Of course, two thousand three hundred days, if it is literally this, could not; and "evening-mornings" — taken from the Jewish reckoning of days — seems literal enough.
The little horn of this chapter attacked Israel's worship. One writer follows the story to its end:
History outside the Bible calls him Antiochus Epiphanes, and he was a very bad man… He tried to force pagan worship on the Jews, above all the worship of Jupiter Olympus, and he put to death all the Jews who resisted his plans. In the end he was held back and defeated, partly by the Romans and partly by the force and courage of the Maccabees themselves. The temple was cleansed once more, and Jewish worship began again.
Because the count fits that history, some writers reject the popular method of turning each prophetic day into a year:
The 2,300 days (literal days) cover just about the period of time during which Antiochus did his wicked deeds. When those days ended, Judas Maccabaeus cleansed the sanctuary about December 25, 165 B.C… the foolish speculations that these days are years, and so on, lacks scriptural foundation altogether. Such views and fanciful interpretations bring the study of prophecy into disrepute. We have in mind especially the Seventh Day Adventist delusion. They teach the terrible falsehood that the Lord Jesus Christ did not enter the Most Holy Place until the year 1844, because by their reckoning that is 2,300 years after Cyrus gave the command to build the temple. That this is a denial of the gospel itself, and satanic, is self-evident.
Commentators differ on how far this verse reaches. Some see it fully carried out in the days of the Maccabees. Others follow Gabriel's interpretation, which points past that crisis to a later day.
What Daniel saw came true in history, in Antiochus Epiphanes during the time of the Maccabees. But Gabriel's interpretation now shows us that this historical fulfilment also pointed to another fulfilment. So the full realization of what Daniel describes will come after the rapture of the Church, when the Jews will be once more in their own land.
Older translations end the verse, "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," and the writers here use that wording. The promise belongs to one people. God's anger let the trampling happen, and the same anger closes with their restoration.
What is the sanctuary spoken of here? It is Israel's. The "indignation" is God's anger against them, which closes with their restoration and blessing, as seen here.
Some move the cleansing to a sanctuary in heaven. One writer answers that nothing in heaven can be trodden down:
It is certain, however, that the sanctuary in Daniel 8 is the Jewish one. It is not wholly set aside, as they imagine. As we have seen, and as the sure word of God teaches, it is still to stand in the midst of Israel… No heavenly sanctuary, despite all claims, could be "trodden underfoot," and the prophecy shows us the one who is to do this to the earthly one.
This teaching makes 1844 the start of a work not yet finished. The cost falls on the cross:
Imagine believers, pardoned and accepted by the Father, still waiting for a verdict on whether they have a right to the benefits of the atonement! Imagine the work of atonement not completed. Every true believer in the Lord Jesus must reject this serious dishonour put upon his Saviour and His precious finished work.
- Question. The verse answers a "how long?" from the vision: the trampling of God's house has a fixed limit, not an endless one.
- Days. "Evenings and mornings" follows Israel's own way of counting days. Taken as real days, the span is far too short to cover the kingdoms of this chapter.
- History. The limit ran out on Antiochus Epiphanes. Judas Maccabaeus cleansed the sanctuary he had defiled, and its worship began again.
- Horizon. Commentators differ on how far the words reach. Gabriel's interpretation leads many to see that old tyrant as a picture of a last one.
- Hope. The sanctuary here is Israel's, not one in heaven. So the verse closes God's anger with restoration, and leaves Christ's finished work untouched.