And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be at the end of the indignation for at the set time the end shall be.
Gabriel comes near to explain the vision of the ram and the goat. His first move is to tell Daniel when it lands: not in the prophet's own day, but at "the latter end of the indignation." That phrase raises the two questions this verse turns on. What is God's indignation? And who fixes the "appointed time" when it ends?
The vision of Daniel 8 came true once in history. Commentators read Gabriel's words as proof that this was not the whole story.
History fulfilled what Daniel saw in Antiochus Epiphanes, during the time of the Maccabees. But Gabriel's interpretation now teaches us that this fulfilment in history also pointed forward to another one. So the full realisation of what is described will come after the rapture of the Church, when the Jews are once more in their own land.
That reading rests on a wider rule about how Scripture explains a vision.
We must never suppose that the explanations of a vision in Scripture only repeat what came before. They point back to the past, but they add fresh features not given before. That is very plain here. The part of the vision already seen has mostly happened. The explanation, though, adds fresh information that looks on to the last days.
The word is not vague anger. In the prophets it carries a fixed sense.
Anyone at all familiar with the prophets can see what this means. The prophet shows that the idolatry of Israel, and above all the idolatry of their kings, roused God's indignation against His people. He sends a chastening on them. But whatever the first effects of that chastening, the evil broke out again with fresh fury, as evil always does unless someone puts it away. So that terrible word rings out: "For all this His anger has not turned away, and His hand is stretched out still." His wrath burns again and again.
"The latter end" implies a stopping point. Commentators find that point in Isaiah, where God's anger ends in the fall of Israel's oppressor.
In the interpretation we get the plain statement that the events described here happen "at the latter end of the indignation." The indignation meant here is the one against Israel. Isaiah 10:25 speaks of this time of indignation. It ends with the destruction of the Assyrian, who is its chief instrument. Read in context, all these passages show us that these prophecies will come true in the last days. It will be "the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be delivered out of it."
Why does God break the very power He used?
God will use the Assyrian there as the rod of His anger. But when God has finished His whole work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, the indignation will cease in the destruction of the Assyrian himself. He forgot that he was only a rod in the hands of the Lord. He flattered himself that it was all his own wisdom and might. But the Lord says He will deal with the rod itself, and destroy it.
The close of the indignation is not simply the end of punishment. It opens into something positive — and it belongs to a particular people.
The "end of the indignation" will finish in Israel's restoration, inward and outward, as all the prophets testify. It has nothing at all to do with the Christian or the church.
Gabriel does not only promise an end. He says the end has a set date. That turns a terrifying vision into a bounded one.
Gabriel tells Daniel that the vision speaks of the events that will end the "indignation." Whatever sorrows come in between, they will have a definite end, for "it refers to the appointed time of the end."
Not every part of the chapter is aimed at that end.
Plainly the whole vision does not belong to the time of the end. Only the special part Daniel asked about does — the part the vision was given to explain.
- Cause. The indignation starts with Israel's idolatry. God's anger rises, chastening falls, the evil breaks out again, and His hand is stretched out still.
- Course. Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled the vision once in history. Gabriel's interpretation carries it forward to a later and fuller one.
- Close. The indignation has a "latter end." It stops in the destruction of the Assyrian, the rod God used on Israel.
- Limit. The "appointed time" fixes a boundary. Whatever sorrows come between, they end on God's schedule, not the enemy's.
- Outcome. The end of the indignation is not bare relief but restoration, inward and outward. Commentators say this is Israel's story, not the church's.
The ram that thou sawest having the two horns they are the kings of Media and Persia.
Daniel has just seen a ram and a goat fight in a vision, and now the angel names the players. Here the picture turns into plain history: the ram's two horns stand for Media and Persia. That one line unlocks the rest of the vision.
The interpretation given here is not a scholar's guess added later. The book of Daniel explains its own images. One writer shows how this verse and the next settle which empire follows which.
The believer does not look at history and find things that puzzle him. He takes up his Bible and finds the answer before he even leaves the prophecy. Daniel 8:20-21 makes it plain. The empire of the united Medes and Persians gives way to the Greek kingdom, which splits into four at Alexander's death.
History does confirm all of this. But confirming is not the same as explaining, and the same writer keeps the two apart.
We may turn to history as a way of honouring prophecy. But history confirming a fulfilled prophecy is a very different thing from explaining what it means. Only the Spirit of God explains prophecy, as He explains all Scripture.
The angel names two kingdoms, yet Daniel saw one ram carrying both horns.
Here we clearly see what made Medo-Persia different. It is described as a double empire, unlike the one before it and the ones that came after. That mark belonged to it alone.
Verse 20 explains the two horns. The vision had already noted that one horn was taller and came up later. That detail tracked a real shift of power inside the empire.
One horn being higher than the other foretold that one part of the empire would gain the upper hand over the other, and that this ruling power would rise last. We know this is just what happened. Darius the Mede crushed the power of Babylon. Then he gave way to Cyrus the Persian, who quickly took the lead in the Persian Empire.
Commentators differ over how far a "king" in these visions means one man or a line of rulers. One writer uses this verse to show the word covers more than one man.
Daniel 7:17 and Daniel 8:20 plainly contradict the narrow meaning that some would give to the word "king." There has been a past application, but it is only the first instalment of the grand future fulfilment.
In chapter 7 these same empires appear as wild beasts. Here the picture changes, and one writer sees a reason for it.
In God's sight the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian empires were only "beasts," no better than Babylon before them or Rome after them. Yet God still valued the kindness done to His people while He was disciplining them. That is why the symbols change in Daniel 8 compared with chapter 7. In this special light they appear as clean animals. First, Medo-Persia is now seen as a ram, and second, Greece as a male goat.
When Daniel saw this vision, the empire named in verse 20 had not yet come to power.
Before the Medo-Persian empire won its victories, Daniel already saw its downfall in his mind, because the ram with two horns stood for that power. The Persian horn became the leading one, yet it came up last.
That timing is the point. No human mind could map the rise and fall of empires by clever guessing.
The Babylonian Empire was still standing at the time of these visions. Only inspired prophecy could have foretold the fall of that mighty empire and the rise of other empires, whose path lay completely hidden from human sight in the centuries ahead. Daniel is therefore a very remarkable proof of inspiration.
- Named. The angel says the two-horned ram is Media and Persia. The Bible explains its own symbol.
- Dual. Two horns on one animal mark a double empire. No other power in Daniel's visions had that mark.
- Last. The taller horn came up last. So Darius the Mede gave way to Cyrus the Persian, who took the lead.
- Clean. Chapter 7 shows wild beasts; here a ram and a goat. God noticed the kindness these empires showed His people.
- Pledge. The past fulfilment is only a first instalment. A greater fulfilment is still ahead, so verse 20 anchors prophecy that is not yet finished.
And the rough goat is the king of Greece; and the great horn that was between his eyes is the first king.
Here the vision names its own symbols, and it does so while Babylon still ruled. That raises two questions: does a "horn" mean one man or a line of kings, and why point to these empires at all?
The Holy Spirit supplies the interpretation, so no reader has to guess who these powers are.
Who can miss how clear the interpretation is? The Holy Spirit Himself supplied it. There is no need to reason about the date or the scene of the vision: verses 20 and 21 settle it for any simple mind. The Macedonian conqueror and his overthrow of the great king appear most vividly in verses 5-7 compared with verse 21. History can illustrate this, and it does. But no believer needs more than what is given here to be clearly and intelligently certain about the prophecy and how it applies.
The animal's speed in the vision matches the pace of the career it pictures.
As Daniel was watching this ram, he saw a male goat come from the west. It moved so fast that it did not seem to touch the ground. Between the eyes of the goat was a notable horn. This rough goat, we know from verse 21, is a figure of the Grecian kingdom, and the great horn a figure of the first king. In few and striking words the passage sets out the career of Alexander the Great.
The Hebrew word behind "Greece" here is Javan, a name found in the family lines of Genesis.
Javan was the fourth son of Japheth. "From these the coastland peoples spread." Genesis 10:2, 4; 1 Chronicles 1:5, 7. Matching this is Isaiah 66:19, where God sends His messengers to Javan, to the coastlands far away, where His glory will be made known. In Daniel 8:21 the Hebrew word is the same, so Alexander the Great is king of Javan. This agrees with Daniel 10:20; Daniel 11:2; and Zechariah 9:13, where Javan means Greece.
What snapped was the horn, not the beast — and it snapped at the moment of greatest strength.
The kingdom of Media and Persia spread and became great until its adversary, Greece, arose. This had one horn (Alexander), which overthrew and trampled the ram. But when "he was strong the great horn was broken." Alexander died a young man at Babylon. The horn — not the goat — was broken, and four horns came up in place of the broken horn. After Alexander's death his generals quarrelled, and at last they divided his empire among four of themselves.
Commentators differ over what a horn stands for. One writer answers the claim that a horn always means a line of kings.
Mr. Gaussen insists that a horn is always a succession of kings; but it is no such thing. A horn is a power; sometimes it is a succession of kings who have a moral unity. But this expression is also applied to Christ. He has seven horns on His head, the perfection of power; certainly there is no question of a succession in that case. The great horn is called the first king (Daniel 8:21). It seems clear enough to me that the Spirit means this to apply to Alexander himself.
Another writer points to the next verse, which cuts the other way.
Daniel 8:22 reads the same way in every good version I know. It refutes the notion that a horn is always personal. It shows that a horn may sometimes have an official sense, taking in the idea of "a kingdom."… The great horn is the one said to be broken, and four horns arose in its place. The text explains these as four kingdoms that will rise out of the nation.
The prophecy brings in Persia and Greece not for their own sake, but to place what comes later.
Daniel 8 gives details of what happens on another side of Judea, with reference to the Jews. Persia and Greece are the two eastern empires that followed Babylon, which ruled when God gave this prophecy. They come in only to point out the countries where these events take place, and to set them before us in their historical order. The king of Greece overthrows the Persian empire. His own empire is later divided into four kingdoms. Out of one of them arises the power that forms the main subject of the prophecy.
This prophecy names a kingdom and describes the break-up of its founder's empire centuries before it happened.
At Alexander's death the Grecian Empire was divided among his four generals. How exact and accurate Scripture is. These events needed centuries to be fulfilled. Knowing them beforehand is absolutely irrefutable proof of divine inspiration.
- Named — Scripture itself names the goat as Greece and the horn as its first king, so no one has to guess.
- Swift — the goat crossing the ground without touching it pictures the speed of Alexander, the great horn and "first king".
- Broken — the horn snapped at the height of strength, not in defeat. Alexander died young at Babylon, and four kingdoms rose from his empire.
- Disputed — a horn is a power. It can mean one man, as with Alexander, or an office and a kingdom. No fixed rule fits every horn.
- Purposed — Persia and Greece mark out the place and order for the power that later troubles the Jews. Such accuracy, centuries ahead, is proof of inspiration.
Now that being broken, whereas four stood up in its stead, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power.
The angel is explaining Daniel's vision: the goat's great horn has been broken at the height of its power, and four horns have grown in its place. Here he says what those four stand for — and adds one limit on them.
The verse looks back to a single power that no rival could match. One writer shows how different its end was from that of other conquerors:
No other horn comes up to dispute with that conspicuous horn. Yet it was broken, as neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Cyrus was. Alexander did come from the west without touching the ground, and in the fury of his power he ran at the Persian power that had been mighty until then... Yet in the strangest and saddest way Alexander's course was cut short. He was a young man of thirty-two, still making plans that reached further than any ruler before him. And his generals began, as they often do, to fight one with another... After a few years' conflict emerged four kingdoms, four notable horns. Give if you can, out of any history, anything that so clearly answers to the vision.
History names the four kingdoms that grew out of Alexander's empire:
It is impossible not to see in this picture exactly what came to pass in history. Alexander's brief but victorious career was cut short in the middle of his triumphs. In time the empire was divided into four kingdoms: Syria, Egypt, Greece and Thrace.
The angel does more than report the split. He adds one point about the four:
These kingdoms have already been named. But the angel adds one detail: they will not have the power of the one before them.
The weakness lay in the empire itself. The four kingdoms did not come from outside conquest — the empire broke up from within:
It was not smaller in extent than the empires before it. But as an empire it was not held together, and it had hardly any capital city. An army had to be left in Greece under Antipater to keep the peace. When Alexander died, the empire was not conquered by others; it fell to pieces on its own.
Does a "horn" in Daniel always mean one person? Kelly answered a man who wanted to reword this verse to escape its plain sense:
If people are allowed to change the plain meaning, and even the translation, of a text that goes against them, then no truth is safe from denial. Daniel 8:22, as it stands in every good version I know, refutes the idea that a horn always stands for a person. It shows that a horn may sometimes be used in an official sense, taking in the idea of "a kingdom."... I do not hesitate to say that the English Bible gives the clear and certain sense of the Hebrew. A comparison with verses 8 and 9 confirms it.
The four kingdoms are not the subject of the chapter. They mark out where the real subject appears:
The two empires of Persia and Greece, the empires of the East, followed the empire of Babylon, under which this prophecy was given. They are brought in only to point out the countries where these events are to take place, and to set them before us in their historical order. The king of Greece overthrows the Persian empire. His own empire is later divided into four kingdoms, and out of one of them rises the power that forms the main subject of the prophecy.
Kelly named Antiochus Epiphanes, a later ruler of the Syrian kingdom, as the first fulfilment — with a fiercer king still to come:
I do not doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes was the first, or historical, king described here. But look on to the last holder of that power, when the end of the indignation (that is, God's indignation against Israel) arrives in the latter day... The representative of the Syrian kingdom (the king of the North) at the close is to have extraordinary power, mainly through foreign support, and a craft that will deceive and destroy the Jews in days still to come.
- Broken. The great horn is Alexander, cut off at thirty-two in the middle of his plans. No rival horn had beaten him.
- Divided. Out of the one nation came four kingdoms — Syria, Egypt, Greece and Thrace — after his generals fought among themselves.
- Diminished. The angel adds that the four would not hold the power of the one before them. The empire never held together and fell apart on its own.
- Defined. A horn here can stand for a kingdom, not only a person — a key to reading Daniel's other horns.
- Directed. The four are named to fix the map. From one of them rises the power that is the real subject of the prophecy — Antiochus Epiphanes in history, and, in Kelly's reading, a fiercer king still to come.
And at the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors shall have come to the full, a king of bold countenance, and understanding riddles, shall stand up.
An angel explains Daniel's vision of the ram and the goat. The explanation does not stop with the empires Daniel could have seen. It reaches forward to a king who rises when transgression has reached its limit. Who is this bold-faced king, and when does he appear?
Commentators see two figures in this king. One belongs to the past. The angel's own time-markers reach past him to another.
I have no doubt, dear friends, that the type was the king of the Syrians — the king of the line of the Seleucids. But it is quite certain that this was not the end of the indignation. In the explanation which Daniel gives, he confines himself to what the antitype will do at the time of the end (v. 17) — the end of the indignation against the Jews (v. 19). We must set the church aside here. This is about the Jews in the last days, at the end of the indignation.
The vision itself covers ground now past; the explanation looks ahead.
The vision in Daniel 8:9-14 dwells on what is now history; the interpretation, in verses 23-25, mainly on what is yet to be fulfilled.
The king does not arise at random. He is timed to a moral condition — Israel's sin brought to its full measure. One writer reads that condition through Jesus' picture of the unclean spirit returning to a swept house with seven worse than itself.
The text hints here that the Jews at the end of the age will become worse than they even are now… "Empty, swept, and garnished" had been, was then, and is now the condition of the Jews. In sharp contrast with their ways of old, there has been no idolatry among them for more than 2,000 years… It is still the same moral state, until all that the prophets predicted of "the end" is accomplished.
The same writer draws the link to our verse directly: at that point the transgressors reach their limit, and God allows this Gentile scourge to stand up.
The ESV renders the phrase "one who understands riddles." It describes more than a soldier. He works on minds as much as on armies.
Next, the "king of bold face" will be not only a great king but something like a rabbi in a philosophical way. He will have force of arms, and also a spirit of crafty wisdom that can explain riddles. He will be like a prophet, like the second Beast in Palestine, who explains deep and mysterious things. So by a deceitful and penetrating spirit he will gain great influence over the thinking part of the Jewish nation. He will persuade them into a false and irreligious security, where they forget and forsake the LORD.
The next verse says his power is not his own. One writer makes this the mark that separates him from the little horn of Daniel 7.
"And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power." That is a remarkable word. It is not said at all about the little horn of Daniel 7. There, I take it, the power was his own. Satan might give him power too, but in his own person he wielded the force of the Roman Empire. This ruler's power will be mighty, but it will not be his own. He depends on the strength given him by others. He will be the instrument of foreign policy and power, not his own.
Readers often merge the end-time figures into one. One writer warns against that.
We must also beware of a still more common confusion. People mix the little Horn of Daniel 8 with either the Emperor in Rome or the Antichrist in Jerusalem. He is the enemy of both. He is "the Assyrian" of the prophets in general, and the "king of the north." We read of his last doings and his end in Daniel 11:40-45.
Commentators differ on how much of this fits Antiochus, but they agree the final scene is still ahead.
Two phrases in this verse fix the timing, and so does the king's end two verses later.
Put together the expressions "at the latter end of their kingdom" and "when the transgressors have reached their limit." Add this: "he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes, but he shall be broken without hand." That is, he comes into conflict with the Lord Himself. This proves that the king will arise in the last days. It also proves that his end will take place at the very end of the latter half of Daniel's seventieth week.
- Timed — He rises when transgression reaches its limit. Ripening sin is the clock that lets him stand up.
- Typed — An early Syrian king was the pattern. The angel's explanation looks past him to the one he pictured.
- Trained in riddles — His weapon is crafty wisdom. He explains mysteries and lulls people into a false security.
- Borrowed might — He is mighty "but not by his own power," an instrument of strength supplied from outside.
- Broken — Rising at last against the Prince of princes, he is broken by no human hand.
And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy marvellously, and shall prosper, and shall practise, and shall destroy the mighty ones, and the people of the saints.
The angel Gabriel is explaining Daniel's vision, and here he describes a ruler with huge power that is not his own. Who is this king, where does his strength come from, and why are the people he destroys still called holy?
This king does not belong to Daniel's own day. He belongs to the end of God's anger with Israel.
In verse 19 we see that the interpretation relates to the time of the end — a very important point for understanding the passage. And this is what will happen at the very end of God's anger (against Israel), when the sin of the Jews is at its height. A fierce-looking king will arise. He will cause terrible destruction. He will prosper and carry out his schemes, destroying the mighty, or a great multitude of persons, and especially "the people of the holy ones," that is, the Jews.
Readers often merge three end-time figures into one. Writers here keep them apart.
We must also beware of the still more common confusion of the little Horn of Daniel 8 with either the Emperor in Rome or the Antichrist in Jerusalem. He is the enemy of both, being "the Assyrian" of the prophets in general, and the "king of the north," whose last doings and end we read of in Daniel 11:40-45. The Beast and the False Prophet meet a terrible end, and his own ruin follows soon after, no less striking than theirs.
Others identify the horn with Antiochus Epiphanes, an earlier king. The reply is that the description outgrows him.
This horn was at first a little one, and grew very great; Antiochus did not. His kingdom was weak and paid tribute to the Romans, and he never enlarged it. The horn was a fierce-looking king. He destroyed on an astonishing scale. He prospered and schemed — that is, his schemes against the holy people succeeded. But a mere message from the Romans frightened Antiochus out of Egypt, and the Jews later routed and baffled him.
Compare him with the little horn of the earlier vision in chapter 7. One phrase marks the difference.
"His power shall be great — but not by his own power" — a remarkable statement, which is not said at all about the little horn of Daniel 7. There, I take it, it was by his own power. Satan might give him power too; but in his own person he wielded the force of the Roman Empire. This ruler depends on strength given him by others. He will be the instrument of foreign policy and power, not his own.
Commentators differ on the source of that backing. Some name a northern empire:
He will also be powerful, but not by his own power. That is, someone else will support him in his ambitious claims. Those claims seem to be the "total destruction of Israel and the complete blotting out of the very name from the earth."… Who can doubt that Gog, the Czar of all the Russias, supports "the King of the North"? He is his overlord, and further north still.
Others reject that reading and look instead behind the visible world:
Some have thought that because the verse says his power will be great, but not by his own power (Daniel 8:24), a neighbouring power will support him — probably Russia. We do not think so… He will be the rod of God's anger. So may it not be that God will permit and order one of those great spiritual powers that move behind the nations to energise and guide him until he completes his commission?
The verse calls the people he attacks holy, though their conduct was not. (The writers use an older translation here; the ESV reads "the people who are the saints.")
Despite their treachery and rebellion as a nation, the Jews are, to the prophet, the holy people.
Two very different powers use this same man.
Altogether it is a fearful portrait. He will be a fit tool of Satan, and at the same time an instrument in the hand of God to chasten the Jews in their ungodliness. He will be a man of determined will and refined cruelty, practised in designing craftiness, and a master of hidden knowledge. His purpose will be so fixed that he will let nothing stand in the way of his own selfish designs. His whole object will be his own advancement and exaltation.
- Borrowed — His might is real, but lent. He is the instrument of another's policy. The horn of chapter 7 wielded his own empire's force; this king does not.
- Disputed — Who lends it? Some writers name a northern empire. Others name an unseen spiritual power that drives him on.
- Directed — The lent power has one target: the Jews. He destroys their great men and their people.
- Holy — The prophet still calls them the holy people while they rebel. Their name does not depend on their behaviour.
- Overruled — Satan's fit tool is at the same time God's rod. His ruin is as certain and as striking as the Beast's.
And through his cunning shall he cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he will magnify [himself] in his heart, and by prosperity will corrupt many; and he will stand up against the Prince of princes but he shall be broken without hand.
Daniel 8:25 ends Gabriel's explanation of the fierce king who rises out of the broken Greek empire, and it traces his whole career in one line: cunning, pride, then a clash with "the Prince of princes" that ends him. Two questions keep coming back — who is this king, and what does it mean that he is "broken — but by no human hand" (older translations, which the writers below quote, read "without hand")?
Commentators are careful not to confuse him with the Antichrist. He is not the ruler in Palestine; he attacks from outside.
This evil agent is not the wilful king or Antichrist who is to reign in Palestine in that day. He is another king who opposes the Antichrist from outside. He is no less wicked, and he perishes just as terribly. He is the same who in the last prophecy of Daniel (11:40–45) is called "the king of the north."
The chapter has a fulfilment in the past and another one still ahead.
The little horn does refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, and he did stop the worship at Jerusalem. Yet the passage plainly points to a later and still future period, and to another king of Syria, who will stand against the Prince of princes and will be broken without hand. Verses 23–25 are clearly future: "in the latter time."
Kelly names the earlier persecutor and says where he came from.
Out of Alexander's broken empire arose the kingdom of Syria, which fell to Seleucus Nicator. Of that line, Antiochus Epiphanes persecuted the Jews and insulted the God of Israel beyond all others, and tried to destroy the Jews and their religion.
The verse's opening words describe a weapon sharper than an army.
That is, it will not be by force of arms. He will deal with the Jews in the way of peace. By keen insight and cunning, as a kind of rabbi, he will have great influence over the Jewish nation.
Older translations say he will destroy many "by peace"; the ESV has "without warning he shall destroy many." Kelly looks at the state of the victims: comfortable, and so defenceless.
He will take advantage of the fact that they are at ease and unprepared for his cunning advances.
The title is not left vague. Commentators read it as a name for Christ Himself.
Christ is the Prince of princes — "the prince of the host." This king will not only overthrow many Jews. At the same time he will gain immense influence over the nation. And when he sets himself against the Prince of princes, he will be destroyed without hand.
Notice the order in the verse: he grows great in his own mind first, and only then stands up against the Prince of princes.
But his career of prosperity will be his ruin. Deceived by his own successes and lifted up in heart, he will dare to "stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." We are told only the fact: this ruler on earth will dare to be the open enemy of Him who will soon claim His title as King of kings and Lord of lords. In some way, "without hand," he will meet with instant destruction.
No army defeats him. No rebellion topples him. The words rule out every human instrument. Kelly points to a matching line later in Daniel.
He will be completely helpless in this last struggle. As another scripture says (Daniel 11:45), "he shall come to his end, with none to help him."
Boyd traces where such a purpose comes from, and who ends it.
He is an offspring of the great destroyer, the devil. His aim will be to destroy every trace of the name of God on the earth. But he shall be broken without hand. Christ will deal with him at His appearing. No human hand shall deal with him. The sword that lays him low will come out of the mouth of the Lord. What a life of rebellion against God! What a solemn ending to the life of a responsible creature! May our ways on earth not be directed and driven by our own wills, but by the holy will of God.
- Craft — he rises by scheming, not by weapons. He wins the Jewish nation by dealing peacefully with them while they are at ease and unprepared.
- Pride — his successes swell his heart. A man deceived by his own run of success is heading for ruin.
- Defiance — pride reaches its limit when he stands up against the Prince of princes. Commentators read that title as Christ, who will soon claim His place as King of kings.
- Judgment — "without hand" means no human hand. Christ deals with him at His appearing, and Daniel 11:45 adds that no one helps him.
- Timing — Antiochus Epiphanes matched much of this in history. But "the latter time" points on to a still-future king of the north, whose end is settled before it begins.