Daniel · Chapter 8

V. 1. After that-In the other vision he speaks o[ all the four monarchies; here only of the three first; this vision being a comment upon the first.

Verse 1. In the third year of the reign of—Belshazzar] We now come once more to the Hebrew, the Chaldee part of the book being finished. As the Chaldeans had a particular interest both in the history and prophecies from Daniel 2:4 to the end of Daniel 7:28, the whole is written in Chaldee, but as the prophecies which remain concern times posterior to the Chaldean monarchy, and principally relate to the Church and people of God generally, they are written in the Hebrew language, this being the tongue in which God chose to reveal all his counsels given under the Old Testament relative to the New.

Verse 1. In the third year of King Belshazzar — Daniel’s former vision of the four great beasts, representing the four great empires of the world, took place in the first year of Belshazzar; now, in the third year of that king’s reign, he had another vision, which chiefly respected two of those empires. Thus God showed the same things to Daniel at different times, and under different symbols; doubtless in order that they might be more deeply impressed on his mind, and that he might more distinctly understand them in all their circumstances. We find God acting in the same manner with some of the other prophets, particularly Ezekiel, to whom he showed the destruction of Jerusalem by a great many different types, or symbols. This vision was communicated to Daniel about the year before Christ 553, according to Usher, Prideaux, and other chronologers.

1. If this were the third year of Belshazzar’s co-regency, this vision chronologically preceded the narration of chap. v while coming two years later than that of chap. 7. This verse does not conclusively prove, as Kamphausen and others think, that the author of Daniel regarded Belshazzar as an “independent king who ruled many years.” We are now historically certain that Belshazzar ruled as independent sovereign only a few weeks or months, if at all; but the cuneiform records, though they never declare him to have exercised joint sovereignty with his father, yet do assign to him state functions agreeable to the position which he would have possessed as co-regent. For Belshazzar see our Introduction, III, 3, (4).

V. 2. The river of Ulai-Which ran round the city.

Verse 2. I saw in a vision] Daniel was at this time in Shushan, which appears to have been a strong place, where the kings of Persia had their summer residence. It was the capital of the province of Elam or the Elymais; which province was most probably added to the Chaldean territories by Nebuchadnezzar; see Jeremiah 49:34, 35. Here was Daniel’s ordinary residence; and though here at this time, he, in vision, saw himself on the banks of the river Ulai. This is the same as the river Euleus, which divided Shushan or Susiana from Elymais.

Verse 2. I saw in a vision — When I was awake, and had my bodily senses: see verse 3, and compare Daniel 10:4, 5. This was accounted a more perfect degree of revelation than the having a representation of things imprinted on the imagination during sleep. When I saw, I was at Shushan in the palace — This circumstance shows that Daniel continued in some post of honour, at least during the former part of the reign of Belshazzar. Which is in the province of Elam — The province of Elam, or Persia, properly so called, was taken from Astyages, king of Media, by Nebuchadnezzar, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah against Elam, Jeremiah 49:34. And it was subject to the king of Babylon when Daniel saw this vision; though afterward the viceroy of that country revolted to Cyrus, and joined with him in taking Babylon. And I was by the river Ulai — Or, Eluæus, as it was called by the Greeks and Romans. This river divided Susiana from the province of Elam, properly so called: see Plin., lib. 6. cap. 27. Elam, however, is often taken in a larger sense, so as to comprehend Susiana under it. It was usual for the prophets to see visions by river sides, of which Daniel gives us another instance, chap. 10:4; and Ezekiel likewise saw visions by the river Chebar, Ezekiel 1:3; as if the Holy Spirit delighted to manifest himself in such retired scenes. And the gifts and graces of the Spirit are often, in Scripture language, described by the metaphors of springs and streams of water, than which nothing is more agreeable and refreshing in hot and dry countries.

Verse 2. At Shushan in the palace. Some think that Daniel was now ambassador at the Persian court. The Ulai or Eulæus, is a great and navigable river which watered Ecbatana, capital of Media, and then, after a course of two hundred and fifty miles, washed Shushan, or the lily, so called from the beauty of the country. Daniel’s residence here may farther account for Belshazzar’s imperfect knowledge of him. But was not Shushan at this time subject to Babylon; and Persepolis capital of the Persian kingdom? Daniel was here in office on the king’s business, as in ver. 26.

2. He dreams that he is in Shushan. This place is comparatively well known now. From ancient times it was the capital of Elam, and Persian kings who were successors of Cyrus, took it as their capital also (Meyer, Geschichte, ¶ 466). Bertholdt, De Wette, Graf, etc., thought the mention of a Babylonian imperial palace at this time in Elam was clearly an error, and proved the late authorship of this passage, and Reuss laughed at the idea that a courtier of Babylon could even dream of being in the capital of Persia (La Bible, 7:222); but recent researches make the accuracy of this statement less doubtful. If this vision is to be dated a year or two previous to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus it is quite natural that at this period all Babylonian statesmen would be seeking the friendship and alliance of every city which was not absolutely controlled by Cyrus. (Compare verse 27.) Now, though Cyrus was king of Anzan (Elam), he never calls himself in his inscriptions king of Susa (Shushan), and high authorities believe that there is “no proof that Cyrus ever lived in Susa or looked upon himself as its king” (Billerbeck, Susa, 1893). Even if Cyrus did control Susa there is reason to believe from the inscriptions, that at certain times during his reign this city looked toward the Babylonian king as friend and helper, not as an enemy. In any case, diplomatic and other intercommunication between Shushan and Babylon at this period is most natural, and it is the contrary supposition which would now appear “incredible.” Several words in this passage appear archaic. The name Elam is seldom used by the successors of Cyrus, who instead of this use the word Persia. The Greeks also located Susa in Susiana, not in Elam. The word “palace” is thought to be the old Persian word commonly used by Darius and Artaxerxes, for the royal fortress or castle. Even the name Shushan for Susa is archaic, as, contrary to later usage, in the oldest texts this name is written Shusha, or Shushi, being probably pronounced Shoshan, having been named after the god Shushinak (Hilprecht, American Philological Society, 1893). Loftus in 1852 here found, near the reputed tomb of Daniel, the palace built by Darius (521-485 B.C.). M. Dieulafoy, 1882-1885, made many excavations, finding vast magnificent chambers, one of which was supported by thirty-six immense columns in rows of six. The roof of this royal hall was of cedar brought from Phoenicia. The tall, slender pilasters with their beautiful capitals were carved to represent the lotus, the brick walls were painted with colored stucco, the doorways were supported by an Egyptian cornice carved in the form of a double row of lotus leaves, the great pylons at each side of the entrance were decorated with enameled buds. Many beautiful scenes were painted on the palace walls, where, for example, the Indian bodyguard of the Persian king could be seen in all the glory of their gorgeous uniforms. This was the very palace mentioned in Esther, and the successor of the palace spoken of in Daniel’s vision. M. Dieulafoy has tried to reconstruct this marvelous building, with its portals of marble and porphyry columns; its magnificent gateways guarded by double-headed bulls; its banquet halls where the emblematic designs upon the stucco stand out “like heavy lace;” the cornices covered with enameled tiles of turquoise; its thick carpets and splendid drapery. The earlier palace referred to in Daniel must have been very similar to this. Sardanapalus (650 B.C.) says of it: “I conquered Shushan, the great city, the dwelling of the gods… by the command of Ashur and Ishtar I entered into the palaces and sojourned there with joy. I opened their treasures in which gold, silver, and other possessions were stored, which the ancient kings of Elam had collected and on which no other enemy had laid his hand. I brought it out and accounted it my booty.” Then he speaks of silver and gold which the kings of Elam, in seven expeditions, had brought from Babylon, and “costly treasure” of jewels which former kings of Babylon had sent to Elam “to make alliance” with its kings, and of the splendid spoil of garments, weapons of war, chariots, horses, and a great many statues of kings and deities which he had carried away. For a popular general description see Evetts’s New Light on the Bible, 1892. Assurbanipal mentions the river Uai (Eulaeus) in close connection with Shushan.

V. 3. Two horns-The kingdom of Media and Persia. And the higher-The kingdom of Persia which rose last, in Cyrus, became more eminent than that of the Medes.

Verse 3. A ram which had two horns] In the former vision there were four beasts, pointing out four empires; in this we have but two, as only two empires are concerned here, viz., the Grecian and the Persian. The Babylonish empire is not mentioned; its fate was before decided, and it was now at its close.

By the ram, the empire of the Medes and Persians was pointed out, as explained by the angel Gabriel, Daniel 8:20; and particularly Cyrus, who was the founder of that empire. Cyrus was the son of Cambyses, king of Persia; and grandson of Astyages, king of Media, by his daughter Mandane, who had been given in marriage to Cambyses. Cyrus marrying Roxana, the daughter and only child of his uncle Cyaxares, called in Scripture Ahasuerus, succeeded to both crowns, and thus united Media and Persia. A ram was the symbol of the Persians; and a ram’s head with two horns, one higher than the other, appears as such in different parts of the ruins of Persepolis. See the plates of these ruins in the supplement to the seventh volume of the ancient part of the Universal History. This ram had two horns; that is, two kingdoms, viz., Media and Persia; but one was higher than the other; and the higher came up last. Media, signified by the shorter horn, was the more ancient of the two kingdoms. Persia, the higher horn, had come up but lately, and was of little historic or political consequence till the time of Cyrus; but in the reigns of this prince and his immediate successors, Persia attained a political consequence greatly superior to that possessed at any time by the kingdom of Media; therefore, it is said to have been the higher, and to have come up last.

Verse 3. I saw, and behold, a ram with two horns — In the former vision there appeared four beasts, because there four empires were represented; but in this two only, because here we have a representation of what was transacted chiefly within two empires. The first of the four empires, that is, the Babylonian, is wholly omitted here; for its fate was sufficiently known, and it was now drawing very near to a conclusion. The second empire in the former vision is the first in this; and what is there compared to a bear, is here prefigured by a ram. This ram had two horns; and, according to the explication of the angel Gabriel, verse 20, it was the empire of the Medes and Persians. The source of this figure of horns for kingdoms, must be derived from the hieroglyphics of Egypt, from which most of the metaphors and figures in the oriental languages were originally derived; and in these languages the same word signifies a horn, a crown, power, and splendour, whence a horn was an ensign of royalty among the Phenicians; and the Hebrew word ˆrq, keren, signifying a horn, is several times by the Chaldeans rendered atwklm, malchutha, or a kingdom; and horns are frequently used for kings and kingdoms in the Old Testament. This empire, therefore, which was formed by the conjunction of the Medes and Persians, was not unfitly represented by a ram with two horns. Cyrus, the founder of this empire, was the son of Cambyses, king of Persia, and, by his mother Mandane, was grandson of Astyages, king of Media; and afterward marrying the daughter and only child of his uncle Cyaxares, king of Media, he succeeded to both crowns, and united the kingdoms of Media and Persia. It was a coalition of two very formidable powers, and therefore it is said that the two horns were high; but one, it is added, was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. The kingdom of Media was the more ancient of the two, and more famous in history. Persia was of little note or account till the time of Cyrus; but under him the Persians gained and maintained the ascendant. But a question remains, why that empire, which was before likened to a bear for its cruelty, should now be represented by a ram? Now the Hebrew word for a ram, which is lya, ail, and µly[, eelam, which is the Hebrew word for Persia, both sprang from the same root; and both implying something of strength, the one is not improperly made the type of the other. The propriety of it appears further from hence, that it was usual for the king of Persia to wear a ram’s head made of gold, and set with precious stones, instead of a diadem. We may add, that a ram’s head with horns, one higher and the other lower, was the royal ensign of the Persians, and is still to be seen on the pillars of Persepolis: see Bishop Newton.

Ver. 3. A ram which had two horns. Spanheim, a very learned protestant divine of Geneva, a friend of archbishop Usher’s, has observed, that keren signifies horn, crown, power, and splendour. He quotes Grotius also to say, that the horn is everywhere put for a kingdom, or for kings, in the old testament. He took the idea from the Chaldaic paraphrase which reads, kingdom.—A ram, we are told, was the ensign of Persia; and a ram, says Sir John Chardin, was placed on the pillars of Persepolis with two horns, the one higher than the other. We find also that the prophetic style generally employs the ensigns and emblems used by the nations of which it speaks. But our enlightened Joseph Mede conjectures that if the letter gnain be sounded as aleph, Allam for Elam, it gives the ancient name of Persia. Isaiah 21:2. It sounds like aries, or ram, and is derived from the same root.

3. Even Dr. Terry says of the ram that “it represented the Medo-Persian empire.” This indeed can hardly be denied in the face of the direct statement of verse 20. But since this two-horned ram corresponds exactly to the bear of Daniel 7:5, this alone would seem to settle the contention that the second empire was not Median but Medo-Persian. Dr. Terry supposes that the two horns represent the dynasties of Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes. Yet, according to his own theory, neither of these was a Median king, but both were kings of a later Persian empire; the second, or Median empire, having existed merely in the imagination of the writer of this book, being represented only by “Darius the Mede” (vi, 31). It does not appear consistent to acknowledge a Medo-Persian empire here and to deny it a place in the list of successive empires described in chaps. ii and 7. Bryan is more consistent with his own position when he declares that the ram here represents the two distinct empires of the Medes and Persians, the higher horn representing the Persian and the lower one the Median empire. But certainly it is contrary to all the laws of symbolism to represent two distinct empires as merely the two horns of one animal. In that case, what would the animal itself symbolize? It is the animal, not the horn, which symbolizes the empire. The empire is a unit as the animal is one. But this one empire is distinctly declared in verse 20 to be that of the Medes and Persians. The two horns of power growing out of this one beast almost certainly, therefore, represent these dual potencies; the higher and younger of the two representing the Persian, and the other the Median branches of the one empire. This explanation agrees with Daniel’s own statement, and has the additional advantage over the opposing view of being consistent with the facts of history. (See notes Daniel 2:39-41.) As a ram naturally has two horns this feature would not have had symbolic importance if the fact had not been brought into prominence by the writer himself.

V. 4. West-ward-Toward Babylon, Syria, Cappadocia, Asia the less, and Greece, all westward from Media and Persia. North-ward-Against the Armenians, Iberians, Lydians, Colchi Caspians. South-ward-Against Ethiopia, Arabia, Egypt.

Verse 4. I saw the ram pushing westward] The Persians, who are signified by the ram, as well as their founder Cyrus, pushed their conquests west, north and south. The principal theatre of their wars, says Calmet, was against the SCYTHIANS, northward; against the GREEKS, westward; and against the EGYPTIANS, southward.

He did according to his will] There was no other nation at that time that could stay the progress of the Persian arms.

Verse 4. I saw the ram pushing westward, &c. — Under Cyrus himself the Persians pushed their conquests westward, as far as the Ægean sea, subduing Babylonia, Syria, and Asia Minor; and extended them to part of Greece under his successors, Darius the son of Hystaspes, and Xerxes: northward they subdued the Lydians, Iberians, Albanians, Armenians, Cappadocians, and the adjacent countries: southward they conquered Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia, if not under Cyrus, as Xenophon affirms, yet most certainly under Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus. Under Darius they subdued India; but in the prophecy no mention is made of their conquests in the East, because those countries lay very remote from the Jews, and were of little concern or consequence to them.

Ver. 4. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward. This ram with two unequal horns designates the unequal kingdoms of Persia and ELamentations The fall of Babylon, and the march of Cyrus from Ecbatana to Lidya, has already been noticed in Isaiah 13. 14., and Ezra 1. Afterwards the kings of Persia became masters of all western Asia, Egypt, and the isles of Greece; and their wars were coëval with their power.

4. This Medo-Persian beast became great (rather, “magnified himself,” R.V.) as he pushed his conquests through Syria and Mesopotamia toward the Mediterranean on the west, Armenia and Scythia on the north, Libya, Egypt, and Arabia on the south. It has been supposed that conquests in the East are not mentioned because such victories had no vital interest to the Jews, or because they were comparatively unimportant in the development of the Medo-Persian empire, or perhaps because this threefold conquest bears some analogy to the “three ribs” in the mouth of the bear (Daniel 7:5). The Greek version, however, adds “eastward.”

V. 5. An he-goat-The Grecian empire. The whole earth-The whole Persian empire. Touched not the ground-Went with incredible swiftness. A horn-This was Alexander the great.

Verse 5. Behold, a he—goat] This was Alexander the Great; and a goat was a very proper symbol of the Grecian or Macedonian people. Bp. Newton very properly observes that, two hundred years before the time of Daniel, they were called Ægeadæ, the goats’ people; the origin of which name is said to be as follows: Caranus, their first king, going with a multitude of Greeks to seek a new habitation in Macedonia, was advised by an oracle to take the goats for his guides; and afterwards, seeing a herd of goats flying from a violent storm, he followed them to Edessa, and there fixed the seat of his empire, and made the goats his ensigns or standards; and called the place Æge or Ægea, the goats’ town; and the people Ægeadæ, the goats’ people; names which are derived from aix, aigov, a goat. The city Æge or Ægea, was the usual burying-place of the Macedonian kings; and, in reference to this origin, Alexander called his son by Roxana, Alexander Ægus, Alexander the goat. All this shows the very great propriety of the symbol here used.

Came from the west] Europe lies westward of Asia.

On the face of the whole earth] Carrying every thing before him. Touched not the ground] Seemed to fly from conquest to conquest. By the time Alexander was thirty years of age he had conquered all Asia: and, because of the rapidity of his conquests, he is represented as a leopard with four wings, in the preceding vision.

A notable horn between his eyes.] This, says the angel, is the first king, Daniel 8:21, that is, the first kingdom of the Greeks in Asia, which was erected by Alexander; and continued some years in his brother Philip Aridæus, and in his two young sons, Alexander Ægus and Hercules. See Newton.

Verse 5. As I was considering, behold, a he-goat, &c. — This is interpreted, verse 21, to be the king, or kingdom, of Grecia. “A goat is very properly made the type of the Grecian or Macedonian empire; because the Macedonians at first, about two hundred years before Daniel, were denominated Ægeadæ, or the goats’ people; and upon this occasion, as heathen authors report: Caranus, their first king, going with a great multitude of Greeks to seek new habitations in Macedonia, was commanded by the oracle to take the goats for his guides to empire: and afterward, seeing a herd of goats flying from a violent storm, he followed them to Edessa, and there fixed the seat of his empire, made the goats his ensigns, or standards, and called the city Ægeæ, or, The Goats’ Town, and the people Ægeadæ, or, The goats’ people. And to this may be added, that the city Ægeæ, or Ægæ, was the usual burying-place of the Macedonian kings. It is also very remarkable, that Alexander’s son, by Roxana, was named Alexander Ægus, or the son of the goat; and some of Alexander’s successors are represented on their coins with goats’ horns. This he-goat came from the west; and who is ignorant that Europe lies westward of Asia? He came on the face of the whole earth, carrying every thing before him in all the three parts of the world then known; and he touched not the ground — His marches were so swift, and his conquests so rapid, that he might be said, in a manner, to fly over the ground without touching it. For the same reason, the same empire, in the former vision, was likened to a leopard, which is a swift, nimble animal; and, to denote the greater quickness and impetuosity, to a leopard with four wings.” “He flew,” says Dean Prideaux, “with victory, swifter than others can travel; often with his horse pursuing his enemies upon the spur whole days and nights; and sometimes making long marches for several days one after the other, as once he did in pursuit of Darius, of near forty miles a day, for eleven days together. So that, by the speed of his marches, he came upon his enemies before they were aware of him, and conquered them before they could be in a posture to resist him.” The goat had a notable horn between his eyes — “This horn, says the angel, is the first king, or kingdom, of the Greeks in Asia, which was erected by Alexander the Great, and continued for some years in his brother, Philip Aridæus, and his two young sons, Alexander Ægus and Hercules.” — Bishop Newton.

Verses 6. 7. And he came to the ram that had two horns, &c. — “The ram had before pushed westward, and the Persians, in the reign of Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes, had poured down with great armies into Greece; but now the Grecians, in return, carried their arms into Asia, and the he-goat invaded the ram that had invaded him. And he came to the ram &c., which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. One can hardly read these words without having some image of Darius’s army standing and guarding the river Granicus, and of Alexander on the other side, with his forces plunging in, swimming across the stream, and rushing on the enemy with all the fire and fury that can be imagined. And I saw him come close unto the ram — He had several close engagements, or set battles, with the king of Persia, and particularly at Granicus in Phrygia, at the straits of Issus in Cilicia, and in the plains of Arbela, in Assyria. And he was moved with choler against him — For the cruelties which the Persians had exercised toward the Grecians; and for Darius’s attempting to corrupt sometimes his soldiers to betray him, and sometimes his friends to destroy him: so that he would not listen to the most advantageous offers of peace, but determined to pursue the Persian king, not as a generous and noble enemy, but as a poisoner and a murderer, to the death which he deserved. And smote the ram, and brake his two horns — He subdued Persia and Media, with other provinces and kingdoms of the Persian empire; and it is remarkable, that in Persia he barbarously sacked and burned the royal city of Persepolis, the capital of the empire; and in Media, Darius was seized and made prisoner by some of his own treacherous subjects, who not long afterward basely murdered him. And there was no power in the ram to stand before him, &c. — He conquered wherever he came; routed all the forces, took all the cities and castles, and entirely subverted and ruined the Persian empire. And there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand — Not even his numerous armies could defend the king of Persia, though his forces in the battle of Issus amounted to 600,000 men, and in that of Arbela, to 10 or 1100,000, whereas the whole number of Alexander’s was not more than 47,000 in either engagement.” — Bishop Newton.

Ver. 5, 6. Behold, a he-goat came from the west. Alexander the great, in full career of conquest, came to the Persian ram, standing by the river Granicus, and smote him in three successive battles, and finally pursued him to the city of Arbela in Palestine. After that, the hero met with little obstruction till he had planted his standard on the walls of Babylon. It is calculated that six hundred thousand Persians fell in those wars, fighting against little more than thirty thousand Greeks.

5. This he-goat was the Grecian empire impersonated in Alexander the Great (verse 21), as the Babylonian in Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:38). The marvelous rapidity of Alexander’s conquests is well pictured by the goat which seemed to rush over the ground without touching it. (Compare the four-winged leopard, Daniel 7:6.) The Grecian empire is symbolized as a goat with one notable or conspicuous horn, because it rose and reached its culmination in Alexander, who in a very few years conquered the entire world, and almost literally took possession of the face of the whole earth. The Arabic designation of Alexander as the “two horned” has no reference to this passage (Prince), but probably grew out of the Egyptian legend that he was the son of Amon, whose symbol was a ram. In the Syriac version of the pseudo-Callisthenes he is also given this title. (Compare Budge, History of Alexander.)

V. 6. The ram-The king of Media and Persia.

Verse 6. And he came to the ram.] This and the following verse give an account of the overthrow of the Persian empire by Alexander. And ran unto him in the fury of his power] The conflicts between the Greeks and the Persians were excessively severe. Alexander first vanquished the generals of Darius, at the river Granicus, in Phrygia; he next attacked and totally routed Darius, at the straits of Issus, in Cilicia; and afterwards at the plains of Arbela, in Assyria. One can hardly read these words, says Bp. Newton, “the ram-which I had seen standing by the river, ran unto him in the fury of his power,” without having the image of Darius’ army standing and guarding the river Granicus and of Alexander on the other side, with his forces plunging in swimming across the stream, and rushing on the enemy, with all the fire and fury that can be conceived.

Ver. 5, 6. Behold, a he-goat came from the west. Alexander the great, in full career of conquest, came to the Persian ram, standing by the river Granicus, and smote him in three successive battles, and finally pursued him to the city of Arbela in Palestine. After that, the hero met with little obstruction till he had planted his standard on the walls of Babylon. It is calculated that six hundred thousand Persians fell in those wars, fighting against little more than thirty thousand Greeks.

6, 7. A graphic picture of Alexander’s conquest of the Medo-Persian empire under Darius. Alexander was really the aggressor, and refusing absolutely to make terms of peace pursued him to his death, notwithstanding the sympathy of many onlookers who feared that it would be their turn next to be trampled upon.

Verse 7. And brake his two horns] Subdued Persia and Media; sacked and burnt the royal city of Persepolis, the capital of the Persian empire, and, even in its ruins, one of the wonders of the world to the present day. This he did because “he was moved with choler” against Darius, who had endeavoured to draw off his captains with bribes, and had laboured to induce some of his friends to assassinate him. Alexander, finding this, would listen to no proposals of peace; and was determined never to rest till he had destroyed Darius and his whole empire. In Media, Darius was seized and made prisoner by some of his own treacherous subjects, and afterwards basely murdered.

There was no power in the ram to stand before him] Alexander’s victories over the Persians were as easy as they were rapid and decisive. He cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him] Totally destroyed the family, and overturned the whole monarchy.

6, 7. A graphic picture of Alexander’s conquest of the Medo-Persian empire under Darius. Alexander was really the aggressor, and refusing absolutely to make terms of peace pursued him to his death, notwithstanding the sympathy of many onlookers who feared that it would be their turn next to be trampled upon.

V. 8. Was broken-When Alexander was greatest, then was he broken, and that to pieces, for he, his mother, son, brother, and all his kindred were destroyed. The four winds—

1. Antipater got Greece.

2. Asia was possessed by Antigonus.

3. Ptolemy got Egypt.

4. Seleucus had Babylon and Syria.

All these were variously situated; to the east, Babylon and Syria; to the south, Egypt; to the north, Asia the less; to the west, Greece.

Verse 8. The he-goat waxed very strong] He had subdued nearly the whole of the then known world.

The great horn was broken] Alexander died in the height of his conquests, when he was but about thirty-three years of age. His natural brother, Philip Aridæus, and his two sons, Alexander Ægus and Hercules, kept up the show and name of the Macedonian kingdom for a time; but they were all murdered within fifteen years; and thus the great horn, the Macedonian kingdom, was broken, Alexander’s family being now cut off. And for it came up four notable ones] The regal family being all dead, the governors of provinces usurped the title of kings; and Antigonus, one of them, being slain at the battle of Ipsus, they were reduced to four, as we have already seen. 1. SELEUCUS, who had Syria and Babylon, from whom came the Seleucidæ, famous in history. 2. LYSIMACHUS, who had Asia Minor. 3. PTOLEMY, son of Lagus, who had Egypt, from whom sprang the Lagidæ. And, 4. CASSANDER, who had Greece and the neighbouring countries. These held dominion towards the four winds of heaven. Cassander had the western parts, Lysimachus had the northern regions, Ptolemy possessed the southern countries, and Seleucus had the eastern provinces.

Verse 8. Therefore the he-goat waxed very great — See note on chap. 2:39. The empire of the goat was in its full strength when Alexander died. He was succeeded by his natural brother Philip Aridæus, and by his own two sons before mentioned; but in the space of about fifteen years they were all murdered, and the firstborn, or kingdom, was entirely broken. And for it came up four notable ones — The royal family being thus extinct, the governors of provinces, who had usurped the power, assumed the title of kings, and by the defeat and death of Antigonus in the battle of Ipsus they were reduced to four, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus; who parted Alexander’s dominions between them, and divided and settled them into four kingdoms, which are the four notable horns that came up in the room of the first great horn, and are the same as the four heads of the leopard, chap. 7. Toward the four winds of heaven — In the partition of the empire Cassander held Macedonia and Greece, and the western parts; Lysimachus had Thrace, Bithynia, and the northern regions; Ptolemy possessed Egypt and the southern countries; and Seleucus obtained Syria and the eastern provinces. Thus were they divided toward the four winds of heaven.

Ver. 8. When he was strong the great horn was broken. Alexander died on the consummation of his conquests at Babylon, either by poison or by the visitation of God. Afterwards came up four notable ones, the horns of the four kingdoms into which the Greek empire was divided on his death, as stated in Daniel 6:6.

8. While still in his youth and at the height of his power Alexander died (323 B.C.), and after a confused conflict, which reached a crisis with the battle of Ipsus (301 B.C.), his great empire was divided into four parts: Thracia on the north, Macedonia on the west, Syria on the east, and Egypt on the south. Ptolemy I took Egypt; Seleucus, Syria; Cassander, Macedonia and Greece; and Lysimachus, Thracia, to which he added later a large part of Asia Minor. As, however, the number “four” is often used symbolically this passage may possibly only mean that the entire empire was split into pieces in all directions. (Compare Daniel 11:4.)

V. 9. A little horn-This little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes. The south-Egypt where he besieged and took many places. The east-In Syria, Babylon, Armenia. The pleasant land-Judea, so called because of the temple and people of God in it, and the fruitfulness of it.

Verse 9. Out of one of them came forth a little horn] Some think that Antiochus Epiphanes is meant; but Bp. Newton contends that it is the Roman government that is intended; and although very great at its zenith, yet very little in its rising.

Waxed—great toward the south] The Romans made Egypt a province of their empire, and it continued such for some centuries. Toward the east] They conquered Syria, and made it a province. Toward the pleasant land.] Judea, so called Psalm 106:24; Jeremiah 3:19; Daniel 11:16, 41. It is well known that they took Judea, and made it a province; and afterwards burnt the city and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the earth.

Verse 9. And out of one of them — Namely, out of one of the four notable horns, mentioned in the preceding verse, came forth a little horn — The reader will be pleased particularly to observe this, as being a key to the right interpretation of the subsequent prophecy. The little horn proceeded from one of the four kingdoms just mentioned, into which Alexander’s empire was divided after his death: therefore to look for it elsewhere, or to interpret it of any power, king, or kingdom, which had not its origin in one of them, must be a misinterpretation of the prophecy. From one of the four successors of Alexander, namely, from Antiochus the Great, came forth Antiochus, afterward called Epiphanes, or Illustrious, by his flatterers; but by Polybius termed more properly Epimanes, or the madman. He was indeed a vile person, as the angel characterizes him, Daniel 11:21, to whom the honour of the kingdom did not belong, Demetrius, his eldest brother’s son, being the rightful heir. He is here called a little horn: as he was originally of no great fortune or dignity, a younger brother, a contemptible person, and a sort of captive at Rome. Some have objected, that the word horn, in these visions, never signifies a single king, but always a kingdom or empire; but this is evidently a mistake, as the notable horn, mentioned verse 5, which the goat had between his eyes, manifestly means Alexander the Great. This little horn belonging to the third, or Macedonian monarchy, must not be confounded with the little horn belonging to the fourth, mentioned Daniel 7:8-20, although this here spoken of may be allowed to be a type or figure of the latter. Which waxed exceeding great toward the south — He extended his dominion toward the south, when, taking advantage of the youth of Ptolemy Philometer, (see 1 Mac. 1:16-19,) he made himself master of Egypt, called the south, in several places of chap. 11. of this prophecy. And toward the east — Where he conquered Armenia, and penetrated into Persia. And toward the pleasant land — Or, the land of Judea, called the pleasant land, by the holy writers, as being chosen by God for the place of his people’s habitation, and of his house or temple; where also the Messiah was to appear, called elsewhere the glory of all lands, Ezekiel 20:6, 15. The cruelties which Antiochus Epiphanes exercised in Judea seem to be the primary subject of the following verses. In which, however, he may be considered as a type of antichrist, exercising still greater cruelties on the Christian Church.

9. Out of one of these grand divisions of the empire (Syria) the little horn arose. This horn has previously been identified as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the “eleventh” horn or king of the fourth empire (Daniel 7:8, 20, 24). That he was the “eleventh” would indicate in symbolical language that he was “one too many,” since “ten” is the symbolic number of completeness. Antiochus, who was the second son of Antiochus the Great, after expelling Heliodorus, who was a claimant to the throne, grasped the Syrian kingdom from his brother, Seleucus Philopator, B.C. 175. He immediately planned and executed several successful campaigns into Egypt on the south (compare Daniel 11:5, 25; 1 Macc. 1:18), and toward Persia on the east (1 Macc. 3:31); but was especially brutal in his conquests of the pleasant, or, rather, glorious country of Palestine. (Compare Jeremiah 3:13; Zechariah 7:14; Ezekiel 20:6.) Again and again he visited Jerusalem with terrible punishments, despoiling the city, defiling the temple, and massacring many thousands of its inhabitants, being seemingly determined, if possible, to exterminate the Jewish nation (1 Macc. i-iii; 2 Macc. v, vi; Antiquities of the Jews, XII, 5:3; XII, 7:2; Apion, 2:7).

V. 10. The host of heaven-The church of God militant, who worship the God of heaven, who are citizens of heaven, whose names are written in heaven; and among these the priests, and champions, who were as stars shining above the rest; these he profaned and slew cruelly.

Verse 10. The host of heaven] The Jewish hierarchy. The stars, the priests and Levites. The powers or host of heaven are probably intended by our Lord, Matthew 24:29, to signify the whole Jewish hierarchy.

Verses 10, 11. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven — By the host of heaven, seems to be here meant the Jewish priesthood, so called from their continual attendance on God’s service in the temple, as the angels do in heaven. The word abx, here rendered host, is applied to the attendants in the sanctuary, Exodus 38:8; Numbers 4:23. And it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground — Persons of principal dignity and high offices are often called stars in the Scriptures. In Isaiah 24:21, The host of the high ones that are on high, is explained by Vitringa of the Jewish rulers and people: see Daniel 12:3, and Revelation 1:20, where the angels, or governors of the church, are called stars. The words here seem to import, either that Antiochus should put an end to the services of the temple, by taking away the daily sacrifice,

10. The little evil horn grew till it reached heaven and made war on the stars (compare Isaiah 14:13) and the host, that is, the army of stars (Deuteronomy 4:19; 2 Kings 17:16; Jeremiah 8:2), or of angels (Daniel 4:35, Aramaic; 1 Kings 22:19; Nehemiah 9:6). On the stars compare Isaiah 14:13; the LXX. in its oldest manuscript speaks only of the stars. Professor G.F. Moore’s conjecture that this verse refers to Antiochus’s treatment of heathen religions (compare Daniel 11:36; 1 Macc. 1:42, 51) while the next verse refers to the Jewish religion — “the prince of the host” — has not met with much favor (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1896). Thomson’s idea that the host means the various guardian angels of the nations which Antiochus defeated (the stars being the symbols of those angels) is also too ingenious to be probable (yet compare note Daniel 10:13). It seems more natural to suppose that these heavenly lights and ministers are all only symbols of the holy heavenly people against whom Antiochus was most fierce (verses 24, 25; 11:36, 37).

V. 11. The prince-Not only against the high-priest, but against God himself. Was cast down-He took away the use of the temple as to the holy service and sacrifices.

Verse 11. Even to the prince of the host] They seemed, in this case, to fight against God himself.

The daily sacrifice was taken away] By the destruction of the city and temple; and has never been restored from that day until now.

Verses 10, 11. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven — By the host of heaven, seems to be here meant the Jewish priesthood, so called from their continual attendance on God’s service in the temple, as the angels do in heaven. The word abx, here rendered host, is applied to the attendants in the sanctuary, Exodus 38:8; Numbers 4:23. And it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground — Persons of principal dignity and high offices are often called stars in the Scriptures. In Isaiah 24:21, The host of the high ones that are on high, is explained by Vitringa of the Jewish rulers and people: see Daniel 12:3, and Revelation 1:20, where the angels, or governors of the church, are called stars. The words here seem to import, either that Antiochus should put an end to the services of the temple, by taking away the daily sacrifice,

11, 12. The R.V. translates these difficult verses: “Yea, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host; and it took away from him the continual burnt offering, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt offering through transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it did its pleasure and prospered.” It is absolutely impossible to reach certainty in regard to some of these words and phrases; but it seems clear that the “prince of the host” is either the “Ancient of days” (Daniel 7:9; 8:25), or else the Son of man to whom he gave the kingdom (Daniel 7:13). It was because of the “transgression” of the Jewish people that the host of holy ones (verse 10), and even the holy temple itself, was given into the power of this great transgressor, Antiochus Epiphanes. (See note verse 9; compare Job 1:12.) “Any such triumph of a heathen power over the representatives of the true religion is a casting down of the truth to the ground.” — Terry.

V. 12. By reason of transgression-Both the transgression of the priests, and of the people.

Verse 12. And a host was given him] That is, power; or perhaps the host of heaven-the priesthood-the whole sacrificial system, by reason of transgression. They had filled up the measure of their iniquities, in rejecting the Lord that bought them; and the daily sacrifice, being no longer of use, was given up with the rest to destruction. Cast down the truth] Probably the whole Jewish ritual and religion. Practised, and prospered.] Prosperity or success followed all their acts.

verse 12; or else that he should seduce some of the priests and rulers, by threats and flatteries, to turn apostates. And stamped upon them — Utterly subdued and destroyed them: see Daniel 7:7. Yea, he magnified himself even to [or against] the prince of the host — This may be understood of the high-priest Onias, (compare Daniel 11:22,) whom Antiochus deprived of his office, putting Jason in his place, an ungodly wretch, who set up heathen rites in God’s temple, 2 Mac. 4:13-17. But Jerome and Theodoret understand it of God himself, as do many others; or of Christ, the High-Priest over the house of God, whose sanctuary the temple is called in the following words. Antiochus erected in the temple a statue to Jupiter Olympus, deservedly esteemed the abomination of desolation, and thus magnified himself against God, to whom the sanctuary and its services were appropriated. And by him the daily sacrifice was taken away — The sacrifice which was offered, in the name of the whole nation, every morning and evening: see Numbers 28:3. This was taken away by Antiochus, together with the whole customary worship, and both altar and temple profaned: see 1 Mac. 1:44-64. And the place of his sanctuary was cast down — Or cast out, or rendered profane: comp. Revelation 11:2. It was deprived of the honour and privileges that belonged to a holy place, as if the enclosures had been thrown down which separated it from common ground. It may include also the profanation of the high-priesthood, which Antiochus set up to sale, and let men of the most profligate lives have it; so that both the sanctuary itself, and the priesthood, might truly be said to be rendered profane.

Verse 12. And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression — Antiochus prospered so far in his attempts against the Jews and their religion, that he built a citadel in the city of David, and placed a garrison of soldiers there, to disturb those that should come to worship God at the temple: see 1 Mac. 1:33-36. This God permitted, as a just punishment for the sins of the people, and particularly of those who professed a willingness to forsake the worship of God, and to join with the heathen in their idolatry, 1 Mac. 1:11; 2 Mac. 4:13-17. Some translate the words, And a set time was appointed against the daily sacrifice; for the word abx, rendered host, signifies likewise a set time: see Daniel 10:1. And it cast down the truth to the ground, and prospered — The book of the law, or the divine ordinances delivered to the Jews by Moses, is here called the truth. He prospered so far in his attempts against the true religion, as to suppress it for a time, and hinder the open profession of it: see verse 24, and Daniel 11:28-32. We read, 1 Mac. 1:56, that Antiochus ordered the copies of the law to be cut in pieces and burned.

11, 12. The R.V. translates these difficult verses: “Yea, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host; and it took away from him the continual burnt offering, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt offering through transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it did its pleasure and prospered.” It is absolutely impossible to reach certainty in regard to some of these words and phrases; but it seems clear that the “prince of the host” is either the “Ancient of days” (Daniel 7:9; 8:25), or else the Son of man to whom he gave the kingdom (Daniel 7:13). It was because of the “transgression” of the Jewish people that the host of holy ones (verse 10), and even the holy temple itself, was given into the power of this great transgressor, Antiochus Epiphanes. (See note verse 9; compare Job 1:12.) “Any such triumph of a heathen power over the representatives of the true religion is a casting down of the truth to the ground.” — Terry.

V. 13. One saint-That is, one holy angel. How long-How long shall Antiochus continue his vexations against the people and prevent the worship of God? This is, the treading down of the sanctuary, and the host.

Verse 13. One saint speaking, and another saint said] One angel asked another how long the sanctuary was to be trodden down?

Verses 13, 14. Then I heard one saint speaking — The word saint here is equivalent to angel: see Daniel 4:13. What this saint or angel said, is not expressed; no more than the words spoken by that illustrious person who appeared to Daniel 10:5, are recorded. And another saint said to that certain saint which spake — Several angels are introduced in Daniel’s visions, and so in Zechariah’s. This appears to be spoken of one of a higher rank, as being able to unfold those secrets which were hid from the other angels; and is therefore justly supposed to mean the Son of God, called the Wonderful Counsellor, Isaiah 9:6, as being acquainted with all God’s purposes and designs. How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice? &c. — The words, says Lowth, may be translated more agreeably to the Hebrew thus: For how long a time shall the vision last, the daily sacrifice be taken away, and the transgression of desolation continue? Since, however, there are no words in the Hebrew for taken away and continue, Mr. Wintle rather thinks the inquiry respects only the duration of the vision, and that the other words are by way of explaining what the vision is, namely, “of the daily sacrifice, and of the transgression of desolation, and of the sanctuary and host,” or its attendant ministers, “being suppressed and trampled on.” He therefore translates the clause thus: How long will be the term of the vision of the daily sacrifice, and the transgression that maketh desolate, exposing both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled on? The plain meaning of the verse is, that one of the angels asked the superior personage, distinguished here by the title of that certain saint, How long the evils signified in this vision, and particularly the taking away, or interruption, of the daily sacrifice, &c., should last. By the transgression of desolation seems to be meant the harassing and ravaging of the city by the garrison of Antiochus, setting up an idol to be worshipped in God’s temple, and, by that and other heathenish superstitions, profaning it, and also the host, or the Levites; persuading them, either by threats or enticements, to quit the worship of Jehovah, the true God, or to mix it with the worship of idols, contrary to the divine law. And he said, Unto two thousand and three hundred days — Hebrew, Until the evening [and] morning two thousand and three hundred. This signifies a space of about six years, and is to be taken from the first invasion of Judea by Antiochus, when he profaned the priesthood, and includes his second coming into that country, when he forbade the worship of God in the temple, and set up an idol there. After this time of two thousand three hundred days, or about six years from the first coming of Antiochus, it is here declared that the temple should be purged, or cleansed from the polluted or unclean things which Antiochus had brought into it, or from those things in it which he had defiled, by using them for idolatrous rites: see 1 Mac. 4. It must, however, be remembered, that many interpreters understand these days in the same sense in which days are generally understood by this prophet, namely, for years; and thus refer the prophecy to antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a type. This will carry us on to a still distant time in the church of God, to the completion of that opposition to the church of Christ which has been wished for long since, when the sanctuary will be perfectly cleansed, and to which the twelve hundred ninety and thirteen hundred thirty-five years of chap. 12. must have a reference. Sir Isaac Newton, Obs., chap. 9., not only reckons the days to be years, but will have the horn to be Rome, and does not refer it at all to Antiochus; and in this he is followed, in a great measure, by Bishop Newton, who makes the years commence from the time of Alexander’s invading Asia, three hundred thirty-four years before Christ, and thus to end with near the sixth millennium of the world. With this interpretation of Bishop Newton, Mr. Faber (a late writer) finds great fault, and endeavours to prove that the Mohammedan delusion, and not that of the Papacy, is intended here by the little horn. His reasonings, calculations, and quotations on this subject, cannot possibly be inserted here, nor even an abstract of them. The reader that wishes to be acquainted with his scheme, must necessarily be referred to the book itself. There seems, however, to be one insuperable objection, both to Bishop Newton’s and this interpretation, and that is, that they are utterly irreconcileable with verse 9, where it is expressly said, that this little horn came forth from one of the four notable horns, or kingdoms, into which Alexander’s empire was divided. Now it cannot be said that either the Papacy, which arose in the west of Europe, or Mohammedanism, which had its rise and first prevailed in Arabia, sprang from any of the four branches of the Macedonian empire.

Ver. 13. How long shall be the vision. How long shall the sanctuary and the host be trodden underfoot? Host, or the army, as Montanus reads. Both here and at ver. 9, it is rendered dynasty, by Theodotian; that is, the supreme government. The Vulgate reads, fortitude; but the English, following Munster, read pleasant land. Hence this little horn was to tread down the sanctuary, and the government, or power, or land of Israel, for the space of the days mentioned in the next verse.

13. “Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said unto that certain one which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, and the transgression that maketh desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” (R.V.) (Compare 4:13; Zechariah 1:12, 13.) Even the angels are interested in the question how long this defilement of the temple and punishment of the holy people is to last. As long as their transgression lasts the punishment will continue. However, the “transgression that maketh desolate” mentioned here may not refer to Israel’s sin but to the “iniquity (or abomination) of desolation” which was set up by this arch transgressor, Antiochus, in the temple. (See notes Daniel 11:31; 12:11.)

V. 14. He-That angel. Then-Just so long it was, from the defection of the people, procured by Menelaus, the high-priest, to the cleansing of the sanctuary, and the re-establishment of religion among them.

Verse 14. Unto two thousand and three hundred days] Though literally it be two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings. Yet I think the prophetic day should be understood here, as in other parts of this prophet, and must signify so many years. If we date these years from the vision of the he-goat, (Alexander’s invading Asia,) this was A.M. 3670, B.C. 334; and two thousand three hundred years from that time will reach to A.D. 1966, or one hundred and forty-one years from the present A.D. 1825. This will bring it near to the time mentioned Daniel 7:25, where see the note.

Verses 13, 14. Then I heard one saint speaking — The word saint here is equivalent to angel: see Daniel 4:13. What this saint or angel said, is not expressed; no more than the words spoken by that illustrious person who appeared to Daniel 10:5, are recorded. And another saint said to that certain saint which spake — Several angels are introduced in Daniel’s visions, and so in Zechariah’s. This appears to be spoken of one of a higher rank, as being able to unfold those secrets which were hid from the other angels; and is therefore justly supposed to mean the Son of God, called the Wonderful Counsellor, Isaiah 9:6, as being acquainted with all God’s purposes and designs. How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice? &c. — The words, says Lowth, may be translated more agreeably to the Hebrew thus: For how long a time shall the vision last, the daily sacrifice be taken away, and the transgression of desolation continue? Since, however, there are no words in the Hebrew for taken away and continue, Mr. Wintle rather thinks the inquiry respects only the duration of the vision, and that the other words are by way of explaining what the vision is, namely, “of the daily sacrifice, and of the transgression of desolation, and of the sanctuary and host,” or its attendant ministers, “being suppressed and trampled on.” He therefore translates the clause thus: How long will be the term of the vision of the daily sacrifice, and the transgression that maketh desolate, exposing both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled on? The plain meaning of the verse is, that one of the angels asked the superior personage, distinguished here by the title of that certain saint, How long the evils signified in this vision, and particularly the taking away, or interruption, of the daily sacrifice, &c., should last. By the transgression of desolation seems to be meant the harassing and ravaging of the city by the garrison of Antiochus, setting up an idol to be worshipped in God’s temple, and, by that and other heathenish superstitions, profaning it, and also the host, or the Levites; persuading them, either by threats or enticements, to quit the worship of Jehovah, the true God, or to mix it with the worship of idols, contrary to the divine law. And he said, Unto two thousand and three hundred days — Hebrew, Until the evening [and] morning two thousand and three hundred. This signifies a space of about six years, and is to be taken from the first invasion of Judea by Antiochus, when he profaned the priesthood, and includes his second coming into that country, when he forbade the worship of God in the temple, and set up an idol there. After this time of two thousand three hundred days, or about six years from the first coming of Antiochus, it is here declared that the temple should be purged, or cleansed from the polluted or unclean things which Antiochus had brought into it, or from those things in it which he had defiled, by using them for idolatrous rites: see 1 Mac. 4. It must, however, be remembered, that many interpreters understand these days in the same sense in which days are generally understood by this prophet, namely, for years; and thus refer the prophecy to antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a type. This will carry us on to a still distant time in the church of God, to the completion of that opposition to the church of Christ which has been wished for long since, when the sanctuary will be perfectly cleansed, and to which the twelve hundred ninety and thirteen hundred thirty-five years of chap. 12. must have a reference. Sir Isaac Newton, Obs., chap. 9., not only reckons the days to be years, but will have the horn to be Rome, and does not refer it at all to Antiochus; and in this he is followed, in a great measure, by Bishop Newton, who makes the years commence from the time of Alexander’s invading Asia, three hundred thirty-four years before Christ, and thus to end with near the sixth millennium of the world. With this interpretation of Bishop Newton, Mr. Faber (a late writer) finds great fault, and endeavours to prove that the Mohammedan delusion, and not that of the Papacy, is intended here by the little horn. His reasonings, calculations, and quotations on this subject, cannot possibly be inserted here, nor even an abstract of them. The reader that wishes to be acquainted with his scheme, must necessarily be referred to the book itself. There seems, however, to be one insuperable objection, both to Bishop Newton’s and this interpretation, and that is, that they are utterly irreconcileable with verse 9, where it is expressly said, that this little horn came forth from one of the four notable horns, or kingdoms, into which Alexander’s empire was divided. Now it cannot be said that either the Papacy, which arose in the west of Europe, or Mohammedanism, which had its rise and first prevailed in Arabia, sprang from any of the four branches of the Macedonian empire.

Ver. 14. Unto two thousand and three hundred days, or till evening and morning days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. The Vatican, the Alexandrine, the Complute, and Aldus’s copy of the Greek, read two thousand three hundred days; but Theodotian reads two thousand four hundred. In the Hebrew, as the very learned Joseph Scaliger remarks, the points are neglected in Montanus, who reads, elphim one thousand, instead of alphagim two thousand. All antiquity is against Montanus’s reading as erroneous. Jerome reads, two thousand three hundred; but he mentions some copies which read two thousand two hundred days. Perhaps there was a providence in these variations of the reading to hide from us the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, and the holy land. This little horn was applied by many of the ancients to Antiochus king of Syria, called Epiphanes, who took Jerusalem, profaned the temple, put forty thousand, or some say, eighty thousand jews to the sword, and made forty thousand of them slaves. This monster of cruelty and lasciviousness set up the image of Jupiter Olympus in the Lord’s house, and forced the jews by all kinds of tortures to live as the gentiles, and to sacrifice to the idols. Hence the Greeks ceased to call him Epiphanes, which signifies illustrious, and called him Epimanes; that is, furious, or mad.

This man, having run his course, was, as is usual, infatuated to destruction. He heard of the treasures in the temple of Diana at Elymais in Persia, and thought to make himself master of them; but his army was defeated. On his return he heard of the defeat of his generals by Mattathias and his sons, the Maccabees. So excessive was his grief that he died on the road, in all the horrors which can possibly seize a guilty mind. Thus Judas Maccabeus purified the temple, and restored the principality till the time of Herod the Ascalonite. The end of this unhappy man may teach civil governments not to meddle with religion. Bishop Newton has proved by many arguments, and decisive ones indeed, that though Josephus, and many jews and christians assert Antiochus to be the little horn, that Jerome is right in supposing him to be merely a type of antichrist; for he did not in any sense oppress the jews two thousand three hundred days, and he fought by his own power as king of Syria; but the kings of the earth were to give their power and strength to antichrist or the beast. Revelation 17:13. This little horn magnified himself against the prince of the host. Now, Antiochus only profaned the temple, and twice sold the high priesthood; but the Romans utterly destroyed the temple, and under Adrian sought to annihilate the jews, after having aided in the crucifixion of the Lord Christ. Besides, it is said, Daniel 7:26, “they shall take away his dominion, to consume, and to destroy it unto the end.” Though therefore the affairs of Antiochus came to a gloomy close, yet his crown passed to his heirs; nor was it removed till the Romans fully took possession of the country by force of arms; but the antichrist was to be broken without hands: ver. 25. Hence the great body of protestants do most seriously regard the papal hierarchy, which sprang as a horn out of the Roman power, as the antichrist, or the armillium improbum, the wicked one who was so revealed, sitting in the temple of God, and speaking as though he was a god. See notes on Isaiah 11:4. 2 Thessalonians 2:3. The papal hierarchy of dignified clergymen have magnified themselves above all, and impiously taken both heaven and earth into their own hands.

14. Days — Literally, evenings-mornings; that is, successive evenings and mornings. Since it is a question of the suspension of the daily sacrifice the verse alludes, no doubt, to the evening oblation (Daniel 9:21) and the morning oblation (note Daniel 9:26; Exodus 29:41). There have been libraries of discussion over the meaning and application of these words, but they most probably refer to the fact that there should be twenty-three hundred omissions of the daily sacrifices, covering a period of some eleven hundred and fifty days. This most naturally applies to the “three years and six months” during which time Josephus says Antiochus “put a stop to the daily offerings” (Wars, I, 1, i). There is no need to suppose that Josephus’s reckoning of three and a half years (twelve hundred and sixty days) is exact to the day. Daniel calculates one period of this temple defilement to be twelve hundred and ninety days (Daniel 12:11) and another period — to the complete triumph of righteousness — thirteen hundred and thirty-five days (Daniel 12:12); while here a certain section of this persecution is computed at twenty-three hundred evenings-mornings. This might possibly mean twenty-three hundred full days (Genesis 1:5); but since there is no period of six and a half years known to us which would offer a natural explanation of the use of such a time reckoning, it is probably better to consider it as eleven hundred and fifty days, and explain it as above — though there can be no doubt that the persecutions of Antiochus covered a period of six years and longer. We are as yet not sufficiently acquainted with the daily history of the Jews during this awful time of trouble to understand in all cases what these numbers mean. Indeed it may be possible that Dr. Terry is right in his suggestion that this difference of enumeration, referring to the same general period, was to enforce the truth that the “time, times, and dividing of a time” (Daniel 7:25; 12:7) could not be reckoned with mathematical accuracy. (Compare Acts 1:7.) Since, however, these figures are not made up of the usual symbolic numbers of Scripture we prefer to accept them as referring to events well known then, although hidden from us. Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed — Or, “justified” (R.V., margin). “The justification of the sanctuary is the vindication of the cause; for so long as it is polluted it lies under condemnation.” — Bevan.

V. 15. The meaning-A more clear discovery of those things. The appearance of a man-Probably Gabriel.

Verse 15. As the appearance of a man.] Supposed to be the Messiah.

Verses 15, 16. When I had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning — Here we are informed of Daniel’s earnest desire to have the vision explained to him. For those that rightly know the things of God, cannot but desire to be led still further into the mystery of them. And those who desire to know the meaning of what they have seen or heard from God, must seek it, and that diligently, namely, by earnest prayer and close meditation. Then there stood before me as the appearance of a man — The Scriptures frequently represent the angels as appearing in human forms, which it is likely they do, because, perhaps, there is nothing visible to us that so much resembles what they really are, as the human form does. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai — That is, between me and the river Ulai. Which said, Gabriel, make this man understand the vision — Explain it more clearly to him, if there be any thing in it which he does not perfectly understand. He who spake this seems to be the same angel who is spoken of verse 13, and called there that certain saint, by way of distinction; for he here speaks as one that had authority over the angel Gabriel.

15, 16. This is the first time in Scripture that an angel is given a name. This one, having the appearance of a man (Daniel 7:13; Ezekiel 1:26), is called Gabriel — “Man of God,” or “Hero of God.” He appears again Daniel 9:21, and probably Daniel 10:18. He is always in Scripture the bearer of good news to prayerful hearts. (Compare Luke 1:11, 26.) He ever appears as God’s representative and mediatorial revelation of divine wisdom and comfort. The connection of this “archangel” with any of the seven amshaspands of Zoroastrianism, the seven Babylonian planets, or the seven counselors at the Persian court (Ezra 7:14) has not been made out (see article “Gabriel” in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, 2:1899). It was formerly supposed that at least the names of these angels came from Babylon, but the cuneiform texts so far offer no confirmation of this theory. In the Zend-Avesta angels are supposed to be spoken of as symbols of God’s attributes, while the archangels are merely the Good Mind’s “thoughts and beneficent intentions” (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xxxi). In the Scripture they appear as personal messengers of Jehovah. After considering the whole question of the angelology of Daniel, Behrmann reaches the conclusion that “we meet here no conception which had not been intimated or begun in earlier or contemporary biblical books.” (See also Daniel 10:13.)

V. 16. A man’s voice-Of him before mentioned, namely, Christ.

Verses 15, 16. When I had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning — Here we are informed of Daniel’s earnest desire to have the vision explained to him. For those that rightly know the things of God, cannot but desire to be led still further into the mystery of them. And those who desire to know the meaning of what they have seen or heard from God, must seek it, and that diligently, namely, by earnest prayer and close meditation. Then there stood before me as the appearance of a man — The Scriptures frequently represent the angels as appearing in human forms, which it is likely they do, because, perhaps, there is nothing visible to us that so much resembles what they really are, as the human form does. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai — That is, between me and the river Ulai. Which said, Gabriel, make this man understand the vision — Explain it more clearly to him, if there be any thing in it which he does not perfectly understand. He who spake this seems to be the same angel who is spoken of verse 13, and called there that certain saint, by way of distinction; for he here speaks as one that had authority over the angel Gabriel.

Ver. 16. Gabriel, that is, the great power of God, make this man to understand the vision. See on Luke 1:19.

15, 16. This is the first time in Scripture that an angel is given a name. This one, having the appearance of a man (Daniel 7:13; Ezekiel 1:26), is called Gabriel — “Man of God,” or “Hero of God.” He appears again Daniel 9:21, and probably Daniel 10:18. He is always in Scripture the bearer of good news to prayerful hearts. (Compare Luke 1:11, 26.) He ever appears as God’s representative and mediatorial revelation of divine wisdom and comfort. The connection of this “archangel” with any of the seven amshaspands of Zoroastrianism, the seven Babylonian planets, or the seven counselors at the Persian court (Ezra 7:14) has not been made out (see article “Gabriel” in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible, 2:1899). It was formerly supposed that at least the names of these angels came from Babylon, but the cuneiform texts so far offer no confirmation of this theory. In the Zend-Avesta angels are supposed to be spoken of as symbols of God’s attributes, while the archangels are merely the Good Mind’s “thoughts and beneficent intentions” (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xxxi). In the Scripture they appear as personal messengers of Jehovah. After considering the whole question of the angelology of Daniel, Behrmann reaches the conclusion that “we meet here no conception which had not been intimated or begun in earlier or contemporary biblical books.” (See also Daniel 10:13.)

V. 17. He came near-That he might speak more familiarly to him, yet Daniel could not bear the glory of it. How much less can we bear the glory of God, and how graciously hath the Lord dealt with us, to teach us by men, and not by angels? O son of man-He calls him son of man, to make him mind his frailty, and not to be lifted up with this great condescension of heaven. At the time-In God’s appointed time, in the latter day, but not now in thy life-time.

Verse 17. At the time of the end shall be the vision.] Or, as Houbigant, “The vision shall have an end at the proper time.”

Verse 17. So he came near where I stood — That he might speak more familiarly with him. And when he came, I was afraid — This fear was probably occasioned by the effulgent brightness of the heavenly messenger, which quite amazed Daniel upon his drawing near to him. And I fell upon my face — Not to worship the angel, but because he could not bear the lustre of his glory. But he said unto me, Understand, O son of man — We find this is a title given to none of the prophets but Ezekiel and Daniel, who had more frequent converse with angels than any of the rest: and it is given to the prophet here, either to put him in mind that he was but flesh and blood, that he might not be exalted for having these heavenly visions imparted to him; or else it was used as a mark of honour, implying that he was something more than an ordinary man, even one highly favoured and beloved of God. For at the time, or, to the time, of the end shall be the vision — That is, there is a precise time determined for the accomplishment of the vision, when it shall certainly be fulfilled. Or the meaning may be, that the fulfilling of the vision should not come to pass for a considerable space of time; that it was concerning matters at a distance, namely, at the distance of almost four hundred years.

17. Here, at least, son of man means human as contrasted with angelic or divine. (Compare Daniel 7:13.) Daniel, though accustomed to angelic presences (Daniel 7:10, 16), was “terrified” either at the appearance of this greatest of the angels, or, as Gabriel’s first words may suggest, being overwhelmed with the thought that now at last this most profound mystery is about to be explained. (Compare verse 27.) At the time of the end — Rather, the vision belongeth to the time of the end. The “end” does not refer to the end of the world; for the vision does not refer to this. Rather, as verse 19 proves and the interpretation of the vision necessitates, the “end” is the “end of the indignation” or “wrath,” which the Jews were then suffering under Antiochus. With this king the power of the fourth brute kingdom is to be broken, after which comes the kingdom of God under the peaceful rule of one who is like the Son of man (Daniel 7:13, 14).

V. 18. Toward the ground-Being terrified with the splendor and grandeur both of the messenger and message. Set me upright-By one touch only. The power of spirits is incomparably greater than that of the strongest of men.

Verses 18, 19. Now as he was speaking, I was in a deep sleep — I was as one that faints away, and falls into a swoon through fear and astonishment. But he touched me, and set me upright — By only a touch of him my strength revived, and I came to myself. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know — I will inform thee, and give thee to understand, what shall be in the last end, or, to the last end, of the indignation — I will acquaint thee with the whole series of God’s judgments upon his people, to the end and conclusion of them. “The prophet had doubtless a regard to the captivity in the first place; and therefore, beginning from this, the angel hints at a sort of epitome of the evils which would fall upon the posterity of God’s chosen people, till their iniquity was taken away, and their sin purged, when the indignation would be overpast, Isaiah 26:20.” — Wintle.

18. The seer is overcome with the awful nearness of God and the strange character of the revelations received (verses 17, 27, 10:9; compare Luke 9:32). In a deep sleep — Rather, in a faint, or trance.

V. 19. The indignation-God will raise up Antiochus to execute his wrath against the Jews for their sins, yet there shall be an end of that indignation.

Verses 18, 19. Now as he was speaking, I was in a deep sleep — I was as one that faints away, and falls into a swoon through fear and astonishment. But he touched me, and set me upright — By only a touch of him my strength revived, and I came to myself. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know — I will inform thee, and give thee to understand, what shall be in the last end, or, to the last end, of the indignation — I will acquaint thee with the whole series of God’s judgments upon his people, to the end and conclusion of them. “The prophet had doubtless a regard to the captivity in the first place; and therefore, beginning from this, the angel hints at a sort of epitome of the evils which would fall upon the posterity of God’s chosen people, till their iniquity was taken away, and their sin purged, when the indignation would be overpast, Isaiah 26:20.” — Wintle.

19. “Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation: for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end” (R.V.). See note verse 17.

Verse 20. The ram which thou sawest] See this explained under the vision itself, Daniel 8:3, &c.

Verses 20-22. The ram, &c., having two horns, are the kings, or kingdoms rather, of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king, or kingdom, of Grecia. And the great horn, &c., is the first king — Namely, Alexander the Great, the first Grecian king that reigned over Asia. Now that being broken — That is, this first king being deceased; four kingdoms shall stand up, &c. — Shall arise from it, under the rule of the same nation that the first king was of, namely, the Grecian. But not in his power — They were to be kingdoms of Greeks, not of Alexander’s own family, but only of his nation; neither were they to be equal to him in power and dominion, as an empire united is certainly more powerful than the same empire divided, and the whole is greater than any of its parts.

20-22. These verses explain verses 3-8. (See notes.) The explanation is brief, because the interest centers not in the great horn (Alexander the Great), but in the “little horn” (Antiochus Epiphanes).

Verses 20-22. The ram, &c., having two horns, are the kings, or kingdoms rather, of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king, or kingdom, of Grecia. And the great horn, &c., is the first king — Namely, Alexander the Great, the first Grecian king that reigned over Asia. Now that being broken — That is, this first king being deceased; four kingdoms shall stand up, &c. — Shall arise from it, under the rule of the same nation that the first king was of, namely, the Grecian. But not in his power — They were to be kingdoms of Greeks, not of Alexander’s own family, but only of his nation; neither were they to be equal to him in power and dominion, as an empire united is certainly more powerful than the same empire divided, and the whole is greater than any of its parts.

20-22. These verses explain verses 3-8. (See notes.) The explanation is brief, because the interest centers not in the great horn (Alexander the Great), but in the “little horn” (Antiochus Epiphanes).

Verse 22. But not in his power.] The four kingdoms which shall arise out of the Macedonian empire shall not be of Alexander’s power or family, nor have his strength and dignity.

Verses 20-22. The ram, &c., having two horns, are the kings, or kingdoms rather, of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king, or kingdom, of Grecia. And the great horn, &c., is the first king — Namely, Alexander the Great, the first Grecian king that reigned over Asia. Now that being broken — That is, this first king being deceased; four kingdoms shall stand up, &c. — Shall arise from it, under the rule of the same nation that the first king was of, namely, the Grecian. But not in his power — They were to be kingdoms of Greeks, not of Alexander’s own family, but only of his nation; neither were they to be equal to him in power and dominion, as an empire united is certainly more powerful than the same empire divided, and the whole is greater than any of its parts.

20-22. These verses explain verses 3-8. (See notes.) The explanation is brief, because the interest centers not in the great horn (Alexander the Great), but in the “little horn” (Antiochus Epiphanes).

V. 23. In the latter time-When they were come to the height, and beginning to decline. When the transgressors-When the Jews were grown to an excess of wickedness, then God suffered Antiochus to persecute them. Dark sentences-Full of subtilty: such all histories declare Antiochus to be.

Verse 23. When the transgressors are come to the full] When the utmost degradation has taken place, by the buying and selling of the high priesthood; for Onias was ejected for a sum of money, to make room for wicked Jason; and Jason again was supplanted for a greater sum by a worse man, if possible, than himself, Menelaus; and the golden vessels of the temple were sold to pay for this sacrilegious purchase. Thus transgressions were come to the full, before the Romans had commission to destroy Jerusalem and its temple, &c.

A king of fierce countenance] The Roman government, as before; for king is often taken for kingdom or empire.

Understanding dark sentences] Very learned and skilful in all things relating to government and its intrigues. The learning of Rome is proverbial to the present time.

Verse 23. And in the latter end of their kingdom — When their power was diminishing, and the Roman empire beginning to be established in Greece, from whence the Grecian kingdoms in Asia had their origin: for the bringing of Greece into subjection to the Roman power was a manifest indication of the declension of the Macedonian, or third monarchy, with its four heads, and the advancement of the fourth monarchy. Now this was remarkably brought to pass when Æmilius, the Roman consul, vanquished Perseus, king of Macedonia, and thereby brought all Greece under the power of the Romans, which happened one hundred and sixty-six years before Christ, and about the time when Antiochus profaned the temple, and set up therein the abomination of desolation. It must be observed likewise, that, before that time, the four horns, or kingdoms, had been reduced to two principal ones, Syria and Egypt. Antiochus had attempted to gain the latter, and had marched toward Alexandria to besiege that city, the conquest of which would have made him absolute master of the whole kingdom; but in order to prevent his success, Ptolemy Euergetes and his sister Cleopatra had sent ambassadors to the Romans, to beg their relief; and when Popilius was deputed by the senate to go into Egypt, he proposed terms to Antiochus which he was obliged to accept, and obey the commands of the senate. Thus both Syria and Egypt became, in some sort, vassals to Rome. When the transgressors are come to the full — Here the reason is assigned why God permitted these calamities to fall on his people, namely, their wickedness had risen to a very great height: of which Bishop Newton gives the following account. “The high-priesthood was exposed to sale. Good Onias was ejected for a sum of money, to make room for wicked Jason; and Jason again was supplanted for a greater sum of money, by a worse man, if possible, than himself, his brother Menelaus; and the golden vessels of the temple were sold, to pay for the sacrilegious purchase. At the same time, the customs of the heathen nations were introduced among the Jews; the youth were trained up and exercised after the manner of the Greeks; the people, apostatized from the true religion, and even the priests, (2 Mac. 4:14,) despising the temple, and neglecting the sacrifices, hastened to be partakers of unlawful diversions. Nay, the temple was profaned under the conduct of the high-priest Menelaus, was defiled with swine’s blood, and plundered of every thing valuable; and in the same year that Paulus Æmilius vanquished Perseus, the last king of Macedonia, and thereby put an end to that kingdom, the Jewish religion was put down, and the heathen worship was set up in the cities of Judea, and in Jerusalem; and the temple itself was consecrated to Jupiter Olympus, and his image was erected upon the very altar.” So evident it is that the transgressors were come to the full, and that it was in the latter time of the Macedonian empire, when what follows took place. A king of fierce countenance shall stand up — This is a very just character of Antiochus, according to Diodorus, Polybius, and all the historians. And such a character may be presumed to belong to antichrist, who would be acquainted with all the depths of Satan, Revelation 2:24. “I must confess,” says Mr. Wintle, “that this part of the interpretation appears to me to agree better with Antiochus than with the Romans: when interpreted of the latter, it is understood to mean a warlike and politic state.” Understanding dark sentences — One practised in craft and policy, particularly in the arts of seducing men from their religion. In this Antiochus was too successful with the Jews. Michaelis renders the clause, rex omnis doli peritus, a king skilled in every kind of deceit. Mr. Wintle reads, penetrating in mysterious craft.

23. The Alexandrine empire has been broken into four kingdoms (verses 8, 22) which in this vision are said to have ultimately become changed into a kingdom — the fourth kingdom of Daniel (Daniel 7:7, 8, 23-25; notes Daniel 2:39-41). At the latter end of this kingdom appears a fierce and shrewd king who is undoubtedly Antiochus Epiphanes. He is said to come when the transgressors are come to the full, perhaps referring to the sins of the people of Israel, which according to Scripture, were always the cause of their troubles (see, for example, Ezekiel 4-7) or else to the fact that all the iniquity of the previous beast empires seemed to come to a head in the days of this worst king. Understanding dark sentences — That is, skilled in double dealing (Bevan). He was a skillful diplomatist, and the intrigues of state would be the “riddles” in which Antiochus would be the most interested (verse 25; Daniel 11:21, 32; 1 Macc. 1:30).

V. 24. Not by his own power-Not by any heroick deeds, but by making use of the Jewish factions, through the divine commission to punish a backsliding nation; and by means of Eumenes and Attalus, by whose help he got up to this height. Shall destroy-He shall by force, craft, and cruelty, destroy many of God’s people.

Verse 24. But not by his own power] The strength of the other kingdoms consisted in themselves; but the Roman empire, as a horn or kingdom of the goat, was not mighty by its own power-was not strong by virtue of the goat, but drew its nourishment and strength from Rome and Italy. There grew the trunk and body of the tree; though the branches extended over Greece, Asia, Syria, and Egypt.—Bp. Newton.

Shall destroy wonderfully] In the taking of Jerusalem by the Romans ninety-seven thousand Jews were made captives, and eleven hundred thousand were slain. So they destroyed this once mighty and holy people!

Verse 24. And his power shall be mighty — His power shall increase more and more, namely, in Judea; but not by his own power — This shall not be owing so much to himself, as to the wickedness and factions among the Jews. “Antiochus,” says Mr. Wintle, “was certainly much favoured in his designs by a factious party of the Jews themselves, by the treachery of the Jewish people, according to Josephus, and, according to Appion, the perfidy of others. Eumenes, king of Pergamus, and his brother Attalus, being jealous of the Romans, desired to make the king of Syria their friend, and supported Antiochus in his kingdom. The divine displeasure also against the Jews operated to the furtherance of his designs, who was herein an agent of the vindictive justice of God.” And he shall destroy wonderfully — He shall cause a very great and scarcely credible desolation in Judea. Wintle renders it, He shall make astonishing havoc, and shall be successful: which prediction was accomplished when Jerusalem was taken by Antiochus, 40,000 Jews were slain, and as many were sold into slavery. And shall destroy the mighty and the holy people — Or, the people of the holy God, as µycdq µ[ may be rendered, the noun plural being sometimes applied to the Deity. Or the expressions may mean, that he should destroy many of the principal and chief men, and many of the common sort, termed the holy people, as being good men, and sincere worshippers of God. With regard to the former, Grotius observes, from Josephus, that men of the greatest reputation, and of the most generous spirit, among the Jews, paid no regard to Antiochus, and therefore were harassed daily, and died under the most bitter torments. Antiochus, in his first invasion of Judea, slew and led captive 80,000 Jews; and two years afterward sent Apollonius, with an army of 22,000 men, to destroy those that assembled in their synagogues on the sabbath, 2 Mac. 5:14, 24; and 1 Mac. 1:29.

24. See verse 12. Not by his own power he shall prosper, and practice (literally, do), and destroy wonderfully (or, by a slight change, utter monstrous things, as Daniel 11:36), and afflict “the mighty ones and the people of the saints.” This was permitted not because he was more powerful than Jehovah, but rather because, like Pharaoh, he was being unconsciously controlled by the One who can make even the sin and wrath of man to praise him. As a double meaning is always to be looked for in an apocalyptic description there may also be a reference here to the fact that it was through outside help that he reached the throne and was confirmed upon it. Still other exegetes make prominent the fact that it was not by power but by poison that this crafty king worked his way up to the throne.

V. 25. By peace-Under colour of kindness. Against the prince of princes-He fought against God, affronting God’s laws, profaning God’s worship, and temple, and setting up the image and worship of Jupiter there. Without hand-By a disease whereof he died, 1Macc 6:8.

Verse 25. He shall cause craft to prosper] They subdued as many by their diplomatic skill and political intrigues as they did by the sword. He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes] Against Christ; for it was by the Roman authority that he was condemned to death and crucified; and their persecutions had nearly destroyed the Christian religion; but the house was founded on a rock.

But he shall be broken without hand.] The tide was turned by the invisible hand of God; and thus heathen Rome was overcome, and converted to Christianity.

Verse 25. Through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper — His craft and cunning shall succeed. And he shall magnify himself in his heart — Elated by his successes, he will always be aiming at more and more, and making further attempts; and by peace shall destroy many — Without making war, and without being a declared enemy, or receiving injuries from them, he shall destroy many. Under pretence of peace and friendship, he invaded and spoiled both Egypt and Judea. The character which Grotius gives of Antiochus may serve to throw light on these clauses of the verse. “He had no regard to piety or integrity, to any true or false God, but measured all things by the rule of his own convenience. He certainly deceived many nations, and by his flatteries and frauds obtained, as well as enlarged his dominion; and under the colour of peace, or pretended tranquillity, he oppressed the unwary, and destroyed multitudes:” see 1 Mac. 1:30. He shall also stand up against the Prince of princes — He shall exalt himself against the true God, the Lord of heaven and earth, abolishing his worship, and setting up idolatry in its stead. But he shall be broken without hand — By an immediate judgment of God. God struck him with a noisome disease, attended with horrible torments both of body and mind: see 1 Mac. 6:8-13; 2 Mac. 9:5-29. It is observable, that Polybius and Josephus both confirm the account which the authors of the books of Maccabees give of his death, in a state of madness, from the apparitions and reproaches of spectres and evil spirits.

25. By peace [rather, in their security] shall he destroy many — I think with Bevan and Prince that this undoubtedly has reference to his sudden treacherous attack on Jerusalem (1 Macc. 1:30). The oldest Greek version seems to have had a better text than ours, and renders, “And against the saints shall be his policy, and deceit shall prosper in his hand, and his heart shall be lifted up, and by treachery he shall destroy many.” Prince of princes — That is, the divine prince of the host. (See note verse 11.) Not by the agency of some human hand, but by direct judgment from heaven, shall this little evil horn be broken. Antiochus was not killed in battle, but died suddenly from some horrible malady, just after his failure to rob a temple in Elymais. (See 1 Macc. 6:6-18; 2 Macc. 9:1-10.) This was insanity or “madness of the heart,” according to some ancient authors, but according to the writer of 2 Macc. he was eaten up with worms, and “the filthiness of his smell was noisome to all his army.”

V. 26. Shut thou up-Lay it up in thy heart. For many days-Three hundred years after this; long after Daniel’s days.

Verse 26. The vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true] That mentioned in Daniel 8:14.

For it shall be for many days.] Not less than two thousand three hundred years!

Verse 26. And the vision of the evening and the morning, &c., is true — The vision of the 2300 evenings and mornings, mentioned verse 13, is certain. The angel here tells him, that these calamities would certainly last during the time expressed by that number of days, and then would have an end. Wherefore shut thou up the vision, for it shall be for many days — Some consider these words as expressing the same thing that is meant by shutting up the words, and sealing the book, Daniel 12:4. The sense in both places, they think, is, that the full meaning of the prophecy should be concealed from people in general, till the accomplishment of the events foretold. Thus we find that shutting and opening, sealing and unfolding, are opposed in the prophetical language, and import the same as concealing and revealing. Thus taken the words imply, that prophecies are never fully understood till they are accomplished: and the nearer the time approaches of their accomplishment, the more light shall diligent inquirers have for the explaining them. But the words may also imply a command to Daniel to commit this vision to writing, and then to take such care of the copy as would ensure its preservation, even till the things spoken of in it should be fulfilled; that so the prophecies might be compared with the events accomplishing them, and it might be seen how exactly they had been foretold. And in order that Daniel might take proper measures for preserving the account of these visions, and that posterity might take the same care, the angel concludes with observing, that the vision should be for many days; that is, that the accomplishment of it would not take place till after a long space of time; it being a term of near four hundred years from the first intimation of the vision, in the third of Belshazzar, to the cleansing of the sanctuary by Judas, in the time of Antiochus. It is of importance to observe here, that in remembrance of this great mercy which God had showed to his people, in delivering them from the tyranny and idolatry of Antiochus, a solemn feast was instituted, called Egkainia, or the feast of dedication, which was annually observed, in consequence of cleansing the sanctuary, and the consecration of the altar, by Judas Maccabeus, for the space of eight days, from the 25th day of the month Casleu, 1 Mac. 4:59. And to this St. John alludes, John 10:22, where he speaks of the feast of dedication.

Ver. 26. Shut up the vision, for it shall be for many days. These words, many days, refer to our own times, to which the two thousand three hundred or two thousand four hundred days or years refer. Therefore the vision must be shut up in the bosom of the church, as a reserve of consolation in the latter day. God has begun already his great work of cleansing the sanctuary. Luther removed idols from the protestant world, and the keen satires of an infidel philosophy are chasing them, with a cloud of superstitions, from the papists. The bible is obtaining its rank as the light of the world, and christian powers are suppressing simony in the sanctuary, that the church may be filled with holy men.—This subject is resumed in another vision, chapter the twelfth.

26. Wherefore shut thou up, etc. — Rather, nevertheless shut thou up the vision. (See Daniel 9:24; 12:4.) Although a true prophecy, it was to be hidden from the minds of men, if not from their eyes, until a later time. Two large legal documents of the fifth century B.C. were found in perfect condition by Dr. Petrie, which had been hidden away in an earthen pot probably at the time they were drawn up. (Compare Jeremiah 32:11.) However, there is no account in Daniel or elsewhere of any such discovery in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes — to which time this prophecy chiefly refers. It is better, therefore, to understand this verse as part of the apocalyptic vision. The author uses here the common literary method of his day in enforcing the thought that the chief lessons of the vision were not for the contemporaries of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, but for those who should live long afterward. It could not be understood until then.

V. 27. Was sick-Being overwhelmed by a sense of the calamity that should befall the people of God. Did the king’s business-Having recovered strength, he minded his place, duty and trust, and concealed the whole, that they might not see it by his countenance.

Verse 27. Daniel fainted] To foresee the desolations that were coming on the land, the city, the temple, and the people.

Did the king’s business] Transacted the affairs of state that belonged to my department, after having been sick for certain days through the effects of this vision. He had a pious and feeling heart; and he was distressed for the desolations that were coming upon his people.

DANIEL

Verse 27. And I Daniel fainted — Rather, languished, or pined, being overwhelmed with grief at the calamities which I learned by the vision were to come upon my countrymen, and also for the profanation of the temple in those days. And I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it — The meaning of this clause seems to be, that though Daniel was greatly troubled at this vision, even after he rose and went about the king’s business, yet he took care to conceal it, so that none might take notice of it.

In the explication of this vision, the usurpations of Antiochus have been referred to, for the primary sense of the ravages committed by the little horn; yet, at the same time, it has been hinted, that there are some strong features in the vision, which favour the opinion of those who refer it to later times, particularly to the rule and dominion of antichrist. “I am of opinion,” says Mr. Wintle, “that, in the spirit of prophecy, both applications were meant to be comprehended; and I see no reason for not extending the prophetic visions, or revelations, to events, to which, by the rules of fair and just interpretation, they shall be found applicable. The only sure way of knowing the meaning of a prophecy is, by comparing it with the accomplishment; and if successions of events shall, in more than one instance, be found to agree, and square exactly with a single series of predicted circumstances, I should be inclined to make the improvement as extensive as may be, consistently with truth and justice; and to acknowledge the wisdom and prescience of the Divine Contriver, who is acquainted with all his works from the foundation of the world, and who could adapt human language, in one form, to such an admirable variety of purposes, thus making his own strength perfect in weakness.”

27. Sick — Sickness is no proof of God’s displeasure. It may be the result of highest spiritual revelations. He whom God loved most, even the “Man of sorrows,” was “made perfect through suffering” (Hebrews 2:10; 5:8). None understood it — Probably (against Behrmann), I was no understander thereof, or (R.V., margin) “there was none to make it understood.”