220612 – Daniel 8:1-7
Daniel now leaves the Aramaic (which Daniel 2:4–7:28 was written in) and reverts back to Hebrew for the rest of the book. In any case, much of the Aramaic and Hebrew was very similar. However, the reason for the change seems to be that the Aramaic passages dealt primarily with their ramifications for Babylon (both Chaldean and Persian), while Ch.8 onward deals primarily with its ramifications for Israel. The little horn in Ch.7 is clearly referring to the end-times beast commonly known as the antichrist (even though the word “antichrist” is not actually mentioned anywhere in Revelation). He is yet to be revealed sometime in the future. On the other hand, the little horn of Ch.8 (Daniel 8:9) can be none other than Antiochus IV Epiphanes who, sometime between 168 BC and 164 BC, caused proper temple sacrifice to cease and instead set up an altar to Zeus in the temple and sacrificed a pig on it. We’ll look further at this next time.
Daniel 8:1 – In the third
year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, [even unto] me
Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
Because Belshazzar wasn’t the actual king but was most likely acting on behalf of Nabonidus who was often absent from Babylon, it is difficult to determine the exact year when this might have happened, other than it must have been between 553 BC (the 3rd year after Nabonidus took over according to historical records) and 539 BC (when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon). History records Nabonidus as the king of Babylon from 556 BC to 539 BC, and while Belshazzar may have died in 539 BC, Nabonidus may have lived until at least 522 BC. Nabonidus was apparently more interested in archaeology than ruling a nation; he was often away on archaeological digs, leaving Belshazzar (who was probably his son) to rule Babylon in his place.
at the first – at the
first time; at the beginning. It could mean “earlier” or “earlier on”. Note its use in “…. even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at
the beginning ….” (Daniel 9:21) where it has the idea of being
earlier on in time, thus “even the man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision
earlier on.”
after that
which appeared to me at the first – After or following the previous vision of Ch.7. The
vision of Ch.7 occurred in the first year of Belshazzar and this one in Ch.8 is
apparently two years later, in Belshazzar’s third year.
appeared – ra’ah (back to Hebrew again) Used twice for “appeared” in Vs 1 and 3 times for “saw” in Vs 2, used 11 times in Ch.8. Obviously, though, if a vision occurs, then it has to appear to be seen. It is not certain if Daniel were asleep or awake at this time. In Daniel 7:1, “Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed” but in Ch.8 doesn’t mention his bed.
Daniel 8:2 – And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I [was] at Shushan [in] the palace, which [is] in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
Daniel saw certain events in this vision, noting that at the time of the vision he was at Shushan in the palace (castle; temple; citadel) in the province of Elam, either in actual person or as part of the vision. It is not clear whether he was there in person or if the vision portrayed him as being there.
He was beside the river (or stream) Ulai. It seems that the vision was in a rural or pastoral setting in order to better portray its message using animals to depict kingdoms.
Shushan (or Susa = "lily") was the location of the winter
residence of the Persian kings, located on the river Ulai, generally believed
to be the Choaspes (sometimes called Karkheh
River). Shushan
(Susa) was later to become the Persian capital. Esther 1:1-2 – 1Now it came to pass in the days of
Ahasuerus, (this [is] Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto
Ethiopia, [over] an hundred and seven and
twenty provinces:) 2[That] in those days, when the king
Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which [was] in Shushan the
palace,
Nehemiah commences his writings at Shushan (Susa) (Nehemiah 1:1).
The location of the vision may be important as it was one of the Persian capital cities captured by Alexander when he conquered the Persian empire. Note that in the book of Esther, Susa is where the palace of Ahasuerus (probably Xerxes 1, although the LXX names him as Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes). The last Persian king (Darius III) lost a major battle at Susa not long before Alexander took Persepolis and soon after claimed victory over the Persians.
Daniel 8:3 – Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had [two] horns: and the [two] horns [were] high; but one [was] higher than the other, and the higher came up last.
before the river – or facing the river
a ram – or literally “one single ram” or “a certain ram” It may be emphasising that even though there were two nations, they acted as one.
I lifted up mine eyes – It seems to be used as a term to denote a paying of attention to something important, rather than actually lifting up his eyes, noting that the ram was probably not above his level here. Daniel is paying attention to the vision; he is actively taking in the information he “sees” in this vision.
When Daniel focuses his attention on this vision, he
notes that there was a ram with two horns facing the river to start with; it
pushes or thrusts (as a bull might gore with its horns) in different directions
after that – see Vs 4 below. The two horns were high (high; tall; lofty) but one was even
higher or taller than the other. Daniel must have observed these horns
appearing on the ram as he notes that the higher horn came up later after the
other one.
Horns in such visions usually represent power, strength and authority,
such as kings (or their kingdoms or empires). Thus the
higher or larger horn would represent a king (or kingdom) with more power and
authority than the smaller horn. As the smaller horn came up first, it would
represent a king (or kingdom) that had sovereignty before the second horn
appeared. The second horn, however, despite appearing later, represents a king
(or kingdom) with greater power and authority than the first horn.
In the interpretation later on (Daniel 8:20) we are told that the two ram’s horns are the
kings of Media and Persia. Media (the Medes) was the first of the two to gain
power, after which Persia defeated it to become the major power of the two in
partnership. Thus Media is the first large yet smaller
horn while Persia is the larger and later horn. Note the same idea in Daniel 7:5 where the beast
(like a bear) raises itself up on one side (thus the dominant side representing
Persia).
“And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it
raised up itself on one side” (Daniel 7:5)
Both horns were high (tall or exalted) which means
they represented great earthly dominion, but the higher or taller horn was more
dominant than the smaller horn.
Daniel 8:4 – I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither [was there any] that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
pushing – to push, thrust or to gore (with its horns). Note its use in the following:
“If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten” (Exodus 21:28)
became great – be magnified; to do great things
The ram (the Medo-Persian empire) pushes or thrusts in all directions (except eastward) with so much power and might that no beasts (representing other countries and nations) could withstand him. Thus there was also no other country or nation that was able to stand up against him, or to save those who were attacked by the ram (Medo-Persia). He therefore did what he wanted to do and became great (with great power and authority) as a result.
There is some disagreement over the omission of “eastward” as the Medo-Persians did conquer as far as some of India which was on the east. One theory is that the ram could have been facing east toward the river and therefore the emphasis is on the other three directions, especially as Israel was definitely to the west!
Daniel 8:5 – And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat [had] a notable horn between his eyes.
This male goat (with one notable or conspicuous horn) covers ground so quickly it is as if he were flying. Note that this represents the Greeks under Alexander the Great who conquered in lightning-fast fashion, so rapidly as if he had flown. He was described in Daniel 7 as being swift like a leopard and with flying ability of not just two wings but four wings.
“After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl” (Daniel 7:6)
The “notable” (or conspicuous by reason of its size) horn demonstrates great power and authority, great dominion. This horn is seemingly not just large or big, but is so big that it stands out; it catches your attention! If the size of the horn represents the God-given dominion over the earth, then this horn has more dominion authority than the two ram’s horns combined.
The ram was a powerful animal, well-able to win battles against other strong nations. But while the ram is ponderously powerful, like the bear that represents it in Daniel 7:5, the he-goat, like the four-winged leopard that represents it in Daniel 7:6, is better able to go for the lightning-fast knock-out punch that puts its opponents out of the battle from the beginning. This male goat came in fast and furious and hard-hitting.
Daniel 8:6 – And he came to the ram that had [two] horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
the fury – heat; rage; hot displeasure;
burning anger; wrath; poison; venom; fever.
It has the idea of someone who loses his temper so
much that he becomes uncontrollable in a burning rage.
the fury of his power
– or possibly “the fury of his rage” One version of the LXX says that the goat
ran against the ram in a furious rage.
Alexander the Great’s charge against the Persian
empire lasted no more than three years.
Daniel 8:7 – And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
come close unto the ram – closed in on the ram in the sense that the goat gave the ram no room to manoeuvre, especially because of the speed at which the goat closed in on him. The vision places the ram at Susa where the Persian king would often spend his time, especially the winters. Being attacked and defeated at Susa would have been a very personal loss for Darius III. He could retreat from much of his kingdom but one of the places he would retreat to was Susa, and it is Susa which is depicted as the location for his defeat in the vision. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Susa was the administrative capital of the Persian empire.
choler – bitterness; rage.
brake his two horns – Destroyed the dominion authority of both Persia and Media. The breaking of both horns signifies a defeated and beaten Persian empire with no will nor ability to continue fighting, and with no-one to call upon to come to their assistance.
hand – or strength; power.
The ram was powerless to stand before the goat. The breaking of the two horns of the ram represents the removal of any power of the ram to withstand the fast and furious charge of the goat. The goat throws the ram to the ground in an exhibition of power and might. One gets a picture of a wrestler picking up his opponent and throwing him onto the ground, probably breaking bones as he does so. This isn’t a long-drawn-out tussle but a quick victory that knocks out the ability of the ram to get up and continue fighting. Once the ram is down, he’s not getting up again! And there’s no point in crying out for help here either, as there is no-one else who is able to help deliver the ram from the power of the goat. The ram is down for the count!
And while the ram is yet on the ground, the goat tramples him to ensure that he stays down. He doesn’t just knock him down but ensures that he stays down.
These events were yet-future for Daniel, so much so that some claim that Daniel must have been written after 164 BC. However, God knows all things past, present and future, and therefore may prophesy such events with absolute accuracy. The prophecies of Ch.7 may also be seen as amazingly accurate, yet it is only as we approach the end-times that we are able to see even just a part yet of the fulfilment of those prophecies (and therefore their accuracy)
However, the prophecies of Ch.8 have unfolded exactly as prophesied. While Daniel could have guessed (not known for certain, though) some of the details of the Medo-Persian ram once Cyrus took over Babylon), keep in mind that this was written while the Chaldeans were still ruling in Babylon, some time before Cyrus defeated them. If Daniel wrote these details before Persia took Babylon, then the prophetic detail is amazing. The ram was the Medo-Persian empire, the goat was Alexander the Great, the four horns that grew (Daniel 8:8) were the four generals (Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus, and Antigones) who took over after Alexander died, and the little horn that grew (out of the Seleucid horn) was Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Antiochus literally fulfilled everything that Ch.8 records of the little horn, so exactly that the book of Daniel is claimed by some to have been written at least 350 years after Daniel’s death. Note, though, that Daniel’s description of the little horn of Ch.7 is falling into place as the antichrist of the end-times. Even Jesus (in Matthew 24:15) referred to the abomination spoken of by Daniel as a yet-future event. If Daniel didn’t write the book of Daniel, then why did Jesus say it was written by Daniel (whom He declared to be a prophet)? And if God knows all things, why is it too hard for Him to get all the facts right in Daniel’s vision, especially when Jesus claimed that “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26)? Why must God’s knowledge be limited when it comes to prophecy? And if Jesus declared Daniel to be a prophet, then why cannot he be permitted to prophesy?
If people believe in a God who fails to know the future because his foreknowledge is not actually a perfect knowledge of the future, then the god they believe in is not the God of the Bible. Countless pseudo-Christian religions have tried over the years to limit their god’s sovereignty, and one of those limitations is on just how much their god is to be permitted to know of the future. If a prophet accurately foretells the future, then, rather than acknowledge the perfect foreknowledge of the true God, they will excuse the prophecy as having been foretold after the event.
Deuteronomy 18:22 – When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
The Greek word for prophecy is propheteia
from prophetes (a prophet)
which in turn is derived from pro (before)
and phemi (to say; to
make known one’s thoughts; to declare). That is, a prophet has
to declare something before it happens. If Daniel is to be written after the
event occurs, then it cannot be a prophecy and Daniel cannot be a prophet and
therefore Jesus was lying when He declared Daniel to be a prophet!
It's a lot like that word “foreknowledge” that
calvinists refuse to accept as God’s perfect knowledge of the future. They use
such phrases as “God peering through the corridors of time to see something in
the far distant future” to ridicule the idea of God using foreknowledge to
choose His elect, even though 1 Peter 1:2a says that we are “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”.
Calvinists such as MacArthur then say that God’s foreknowledge is not
His perfect knowledge of the future but is instead a special knowing of his
people in order to set his loving relationship upon them. Piper says that “God does not foreknow the free
decisions of people to believe in him because there aren't any such free
decisions to know.” (What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism) Piper even dismisses
God’s foreknowledge as the cause of God’s predestination of His people with the
following from the same document: “As C.E.B. Cranfield says, the foreknowledge of Romans
8:29 is "that special taking knowledge of a person which is God's electing
grace." Such foreknowledge is virtually the same as election: "Those
whom he foreknew (i.e. chose) he predestined to be conformed to the image of
his Son."”
It is always a
sign of heresy when its proponents try to support their teachings by changing
the meaning of biblical passages. If God had meant to use “chose” in Romans 8:29, then why didn’t He? And 1 Peter 1:2a would have to have been written as
“Chosen (elect) by the choosing (election) of God the Father”. Think about it!
It’s like the person who, after I quoted 1 Peter
1:2a to him, said, “Foreknowledge means that God planned before, not that he
observed before …. Now if you can find me one verse where it can be
emphatically proven that God predestined his chosen elect because He first
saw that we will choose him first, I will surrender in defeat.”
Some people just cannot
accept the truth, no matter how obvious it is!
To Messages and Teachings page
List of all my posts on this site