Daniel 8, Part 1
Notes
Transcript
Vision of Ram and Goat
Vision of Ram and Goat
Daniel now reports his second vision, and once more animals are employed to symbolize empires. Commentators are in general agreement about the interpretation of this prophecy, although many regard it as a prophecy of events that already had occurred. In the previous chapter God had given a preview of world history with emphasis on the end times, particularly the evil activities of the Antichrist. God’s people also needed to be warned of another crisis that would come in less than four hundred years after Daniel’s lifetime—the persecutions of a madman named Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–163 B.C.). It would be one of the most horrible periods in history for believers, a time when the very existence of the true religion and its adherents was threatened. God knew that for those brief—only a few years—but extremely dark days his people would need a supernatural revelation to encourage them as they faced their “great tribulation.”
1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first.
2 And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the citadel, which is in the province of Elam. And I saw in the vision, and I was at the Ulai canal.
Since Belshazzar became coregent with his father, Nabonidus, in 553 B.C., the third year of his rule would have been approximately 550 B.C. About this time Cyrus established the Medo-Persian Empire, destined to bring an end to the period of Babylonian supremacy within a mere twelve years. Nabonidus, observing this union, became apprehensive about Cyrus’s intentions and attempted to forge an alliance with Lydia and Egypt to protect himself against a possible Medo-Persian threat.3
Like the previous vision (chap. 7), this revelation came well before the events of chap. 5. It is possible that Belshazzar may have heard of these prophecies that intimated his downfall to the Persians, and this may be one reason for his blasphemous attack on Yahweh at the drunken banquet.
The phrase “in the citadel of Susa” may mean either that Daniel saw himself in Susa merely in vision or that he was present physically in that city when he received the vision.
In the Old Testament, Hebrew bîrâ (“citadel”) may denote a palace, a fortress within a city, or most commonly the city itself as a fortress. Elam, later called Susiana, was northeast of the Lower Tigris area in what is now Iran.
3 I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the canal. It had two horns, and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last.
4 I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward. No beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power. He did as he pleased and became great.
The angel Gabriel interpreted this ram with the two horns as the Medo-Persian Empire. A ram was a fitting symbol of the empire, for according to Ammianus Marcellinus (10.1; fourth century A.D.), the Persian ruler carried the gold head of a ram when he marched before his army.
Rams normally have two horns, but these horns were unique. One horn came up later yet grew longer than the other. Scholars agree that the symbolism denotes the two divisions of the empire, Media and Persia, and signifies that one part of this empire would begin with less strength yet subsequently become more powerful than the other division. That such was the case is evident from Medo-Persian history. Before Cyrus came to power, Media already was a major force, while Persia was a small country holding less than fifty thousand square miles of territory. But Cyrus succeeded in gaining control of powerful Media to the north (ca. 550 B.C.) and then made Persia the more important of the two states. With these nations united, he established the vast Medo-Persian Empire.
The ram seemed invincible as it charged toward the west (lit., “toward the sea,” a reference to the Mediterranean Sea, which was west of Palestine), the north, and the south. Medo-Persia made most of its conquests in these directions. To the west it subdued Babylonia, Syria, Asia Minor, and made raids upon Greece; to the north—Armenia, Scythia, and the Caspian Sea region; to the south—Egypt and Ethiopia.
“No animal could stand against” the ram, and no deliverance from its power was to be found from any source. Apparently other unnamed beasts entered the vision to challenge the ram but were defeated. The meaning is that no country could resist Medo-Persian power.
5 As I was considering, behold, a male goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground. And the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes.
6 He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the canal, and he ran at him in his powerful wrath.
7 I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns. And the ram had no power to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled on him. And there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power.
8 Then the goat became exceedingly great, but when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.
Daniel was impressed by the ram and was “thinking about” what he had seen, evidently in an attempt to understand the significance of the ram and its actions, when a charging goat suddenly appeared. It moved swiftly in conquest (“without touching the ground”) from the west to encounter the ram.
Gabriel again interpreted the vision for Daniel. In v. 21 the goat is specifically identified as a symbol of the Greek Empire, and the “prominent” horn is stated to represent its first king, who, of course, was Alexander the Great. The rest of the symbolism is not explained in the text but is clear from history. Coming “from the west” points to the position of Greece, which was to the west of Medo-Persia (and Palestine). “Crossing the whole earth” means that Alexander conquered the world of his day, and the goat speeding across the globe “without touching the ground” portrays the swiftness of Alexander’s conquests.
Alexander was one of the great military strategists of history. He was born in 356 B.C., the son of a great conqueror in his own right, Philip of Macedon. Philip had united Greece with Macedonia and was planning to attack Persia when he was murdered. Alexander, educated under the famed Aristotle, was only twenty in 336 B.C. when he succeeded his father as king. A year and a half later (334 B.C.), he launched his attack against the Persians. In that same year Alexander won the Battle of Granicus in Asia Minor, thereby bringing to an end the dominance of the Medo-Persian Empire. With his subsequent victories at Issus (333 B.C.) and Arbela (331 B.C.) the conquest of Medo-Persia was complete. Incredibly within only three years Alexander had conquered the entire Near East.
The goat charging the ram in a fit of “great rage” (v. 6) aptly describes Alexander’s assault on the Persian Empire. Hatred for the Persians had grown steadily since the time of Cyrus due to constant quarreling and fighting between Persia and Greece, and the Greeks were especially bitter over the invasions of Darius I (490 B.C.) and his son, Xerxes I (480 B.C.). Alexander determined to avenge these assaults on his homeland, and v. 7 graphically portrays the utter defeat of the Persian armies at the hands of the Greek forces.
Alexander conquered most of the known world of that day, thus making Greece the greatest nation on earth. Because of his incredible success the Greek king became proud. Achilles (the mightiest warrior on the Greek side in the Trojan War) was Alexander’s hero, and he believed that Achilles and the god Hercules were his ancestors. Whether out of pride or for political reasons or both, Alexander required the provinces to worship him as a god. Quite naturally the Greek troops resented such an order.
Alexander “carved out an empire of 1.5 million square miles,” but at the pinnacle of his career, having conquered much of the known world, the great conqueror died. On returning to Babylon from the east, he was taken with a severe fever (possibly malaria) and on June 13, 323 B.C. died at the age of thirty-two. Alexander spread the Greek language and culture all over the world, an act that prepared the world for the gospel by giving it a common speech, Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament.
When Alexander (the large horn) died, he left two sons, Alexander IV and Herakles, both of whom were murdered. After a period of infighting and struggle, the empire came to be partitioned among four Greek military leaders (“four prominent horns”), who are commonly designated as the Diadochi (“successors”). This division took place roughly according to the four directions (cf. 11:4, and see the discussion at 7:6). This fourfold division of the Greek Empire after Alexander “has been the almost constant interpretation of the four [kingdoms], with variations as to the names of the Diadochi.” Archer observes that some of these areas later gained their independence but correctly notes that “the initial division of Alexander’s empire was unquestionably fourfold.”
9 Out of one of them came a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land.
10 It grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them.
11 It became great, even as great as the Prince of the host. And the regular burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown.
12 And a host will be given over to it together with the regular burnt offering because of transgression, and it will throw truth to the ground, and it will act and prosper.
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?”
14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”
Out of one of the four horns grew a little horn that “started small” but became very large and powerful. The meaning is that from one of the divisions of the Greek Empire would emerge a king of unusual significance. Scholars agree that this little horn represents the eighth ruler of the Seleucid Greek Empire, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–163 B.C.). Antiochus IV was particularly important because of his exploits against the inhabitants of Palestine and for that reason received special attention in the Book of Daniel.
Starting “small” (Heb. ṣāʿîr, “little with the idea of insignificant”) indicates that Antiochus would have an insignificant beginning. Although his nephew, son of his older brother Seleucus IV, was the rightful heir to the throne, Antiochus gained this position through bribery and flattery. He made notable conquests in “the south” (Egypt), “the east” (Persia, Parthia, Armenia), and “the Beautiful Land” (Palestine). Palestine is called “Beautiful” (ṣebî, “place of beauty or honor”) not because of its scenery but because of its spiritual significance. It was a place of beauty and honor because Yahweh God had chosen it as the center of his operations on the earth and because his people lived there. Though Palestine was in the southern regions, it is singled out because the little horn’s rule over the holy land would have enormous consequences for the Jewish people.
170 B.C., v. 25 calls this person the “Prince of princes,” a title that refers to God. Montgomery rightly contends, with the majority of scholars, that the “Prince” in v. 11 “can be none other than God.” Moreover, the language of this verse indicates that the Prince is no mere man.
Not only would the “horn” consider himself the Prince’s equal; he would also set himself “against” the Prince (an alternate translation of the Heb.). He felt that he and his Greek gods were above Yahweh, and he blatantly attacked Yahweh and his worshipers. For example, Antiochus insisted that the Jews refrain from following the Jewish religious laws (diet, circumcision, Sabbaths, and feasts); he desecrated Yahweh’s temple; he required allegiance to himself and the Greek gods rather than to Yahweh; and he showed disrespect to Yahweh by persecuting his followers. These were blatant offenses not only against the saints but against their God, “the Prince of the host.”
The “daily sacrifice” (Heb tāmîd, “continuity,” offerings made continually) refers to those morning and evening sacrifices the priests offered each day on behalf of the nation. Young argues that tāmîd is not limited to the daily sacrifices but denotes “all that is of continual, i.e., constant, permanent, use in the Temple services.” But the term is merely an abbreviated form of ʿōlat tāmîd, “a continual burnt offering”, which specifically designates the daily sacrifices. In either case the point is that temple worship would cease. In 167 B.C. Antiochus issued the order that the regular ceremonial observances to Yahweh were forbidden, and thus sacrifices ceased being offered to him.
“The place of his sanctuary” could refer to Jerusalem, but more likely it is the temple itself. “Brought low” does not mean that the temple was destroyed but that it would be desecrated.
“Because of rebellion” (Heb. pešaʿ, also “revolt,” “transgression”) may allude to the sins of the Jewish people themselves that brought about divine judgment in the form of Antiochus’s persecutions, the particular acts of sin perpetrated upon Israel by Antiochus, or both.
During the three horrible years specifically in view (167–164 B.C.), the Jewish people (“the host of the saints”) were “given over” to Antiochus (the little horn) in the sense that the Syrian-Greek tyrant controlled Palestine and was able to persecute its citizens. The “daily sacrifice” would be terminated by Antiochus.
“It [the little horn, Antiochus] prospered in everything it did” reads literally, “And it acted and prospered.” The NIV’s rendering is possible, but these clauses may also mean that Antiochus would “act as he pleases and prosper” (cf. NASB). The latter understanding of the passage well describes Antiochus’s actions. For a time he held absolute power over Palestine and was successful in his military and political endeavors.
The evil dictator threw “truth … to the ground” by repressing the true teachings (religion) of Yahweh and attempting to destroy the Hebrew Scriptures, which embodied the true religion. The satanically inspired king was endeavoring to rid the world of the Word of God as tyrants have attempted to do many times since. But as Jehoiakim discovered, one who tries to destroy the truth of God will find that he has only destroyed himself.
Without introduction two heavenly beings suddenly appeared on the scene. Daniel “heard” an angel (“a holy one”) “speaking” (to another angel). A second angel (“holy one”) said to the one who was speaking, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled?”
The angel’s question is, How long would temple worship cease and the persecution of the saints described in Daniel’s vision continue? No services would be held in the temple because it would be defiled by Antiochus, and idols would be set up in the temple precincts. “The rebellion that causes desolation” likely alludes to the Zeus statue (or altar) set up by Antiochus in the temple and designated in 11:31 “the abomination that causes desolation.” The angel desired to know the duration of this period of desolation. Here it is demonstrated that angels are deeply interested in the affairs of God’s people.
d both sacrifices offered in the morning and evening. The word tāmîd, therefore, represents one entity, not two. Thus “2,300 evenings and mornings” denotes 2,300 days with both a morning and an evening offering. When the two daily sacrifices of the tāmîd are specified, the order in the Old Testament is always morning and evening, never evening and morning. Therefore Schwantes concludes with Keil that the expression reflects usage in Gen 1 and must represent 2,300 full days.
The case for the 2,300-day view seems conclusive, indicating that the period in view covered six years and almost four months. December 164 (the reconsecration of the sanctuary) is the termination date given in the text, thus the 2,300 days began in the fall of 170 B.C. Something significant must have occurred at that time that marked the beginning of the persecution, and such an event did take place. In 170 B.C. Onias III (a former high priest) was murdered at the urging of the wicked high priest Menelaus, whom Antiochus had appointed to that position for a bribe. From this point trouble between Antiochus’s administration and the Jews began to brew. In 169 B.C. Antiochus looted the temple and murdered some of the Jewish people. The altar to Zeus was not set up until 167 B.C., but the persecution had been going on long before that event. According to the 2,300-day view, therefore, the whole persecution period (the time that the saints “will be trampled underfoot”) was involved, not just the span from the cessation of the sacrifice and the desecration of the sanctuary until the rededication of the temple.
Verse 14 concludes by stating that after this period of persecution, the temple would be “reconsecrated.” Just over three years after the altar to Zeus was set up, Judas Maccabeus cleansed and rededicated the temple on December 14, 164 B.C. Today the Jews celebrate the Feast of Hanukkah (“dedication”) to commemorate this momentous event.
Miller, Stephen R. 1994. Daniel. Vol. 18. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.