Chapter eight of Daniel contains some of the clearest prophecy – as well as some of the most difficult verses in Scripture (at least in my opinion). I have never been so frustrated by any verse in the Bible as Daniel 8:14. This is a long passage! 

V. 1 – This is the third year of Belshazzar – so about three years after the events of chapter seven. After chapter eight we will go back to chapter five (the final events of the Babylonian empire). A chronological study of Daniel yields such rich understanding of the circumstances in which Daniel received his visions. In addition, this chapter returns to the Hebrew language. This reflects at least two specific truths.

1. Daniel’s audience had dwindled to almost no one. He was no longer writing/speaking from a position of influence in the Babylonian court. He had been virtually forgotten.

2. The prophecies that are given in chapter 8-12 were given to Daniel (and arguable the nation of Israel) – not pagan kings.

So, the chapter opens with a vision and Daniel is reminding his readers that this comes after the events of chapter seven in case they miss the time stamps.

V. 2 – This vision happened in Belshazzar’s rule, but it appears that Daniel was not in Babylon. He is either physically in Susa or he is transported there in spirit to see this vision. Regardless of which one is true, it is important. This is the first vision that, for all intents and purposes, ignores Babylon. There is no mention of them as the world power in reflection of their waning status. Eventually, Susa became one of the four capitals of the Medo-Persian empire. However, here it is referred to as a citadel because it was not yet a capital or a place of such great importance. It was conquered by Cyrus in 540 BC and made a capital by his son Cambyses II several years later (after Daniel’s death from what we know).

V. 3-4 – We are introduced to the first nation – Medo-Persia. Unlike some of the other visions, Gabriel (introduced in v. 16) specifically names some of the countries in this particular vision. The ram here is the Medo-Persian empire. The two horns are not evenly balanced. Historically, the Persian portion of the Medo-Persian empire was the strongest and most influential of the two. Eventually, it became known simply as the Persian empire. For many years, the Medes were the dominant kingdom of the alliance. However, each had their own king until around 550 BC when a man named Cyrus decided he wanted all the power for himself.

He overthrew Astyages in 550 BC to claim the throne. Astyages is the last historically verifiable independent king of the Medes. Although we will get into more detail regarding Cyrus/Darius and what that looks like in chapter five. The ram charges in all directions (except east because that was their origin point).

Cyrus, known as Cyrus the Great ruled as the king of the Medo-Persian empire, but really it was the Persian empire. All of the kings that came after Cyrus were Persian in origin. Their kingdom spread from Egypt, Babylon, Syria, parts of Greece, Assyria, and even towards India at the height of their power. They were known for being formidable by land and sea. The Bible covers approximately 220 years of history in two verses. The rise and fall of the Persian empire and the defeat of that nation by Alexander in 330 BC.

V. 5-8 – The Greek empire is introduced (and verified as the goat in v. 21). Gabriel goes so far as to clarify that this prominent horn is the first king (Alexander the Great). The goat moved, “without touching the ground.” It is phenomenal to consider how quickly Alexander conquered nations around him. His “rule” only lasted approximately 13 years, but he amassed an enormous empire. His military might and accomplishments seem almost impossible.

Alexander appears to have been particularly upset with Persia, perhaps because of some of the battles that had been waged such as Thermopylae or Salamis. Regardless, once he had established his army, he moved to attack Persia almost immediately. Yet while the goat was “strong” the horn (Alexander) was broken. He was only 32-33 years old when he died. There have been debates that have raged for years regarding what caused Alexander’s death. He seems to have died from some type of fever, while others have argued he was poisoned. There is not any conclusive evidence, but he was certainly cut down in his prime.

He was incredibly arrogant. Once, supposedly, he complained that there were no more worlds left to conquer. God used him to fulfil prophecy, and establish Greece as a world power, a mindset that would endure, and as a world language. Eventually, it would go on to influence the Roman empire. However, before we get to Rome – this vision diverges even further to give us historical details that are not included in other places. This is further expanded upon in chapter eleven.

Alexander’s dying instructions were to give his kingdom to “the strong.” There is sometimes this idea that Alexander died, and everyone very happily sat down and divided the kingdom four ways equally. That was most definitely not the case. The Diadochi Wars lasted for at least forty years in one form or another. His four generals fought one another for Alexander’s vast empire (bigger even than the Persian empire).

The four horns (or generals) were:

Ptolomy: south (Egypt) – just as a fair warning as we wade into the history of this period, there are a lot of Ptolomys to read about.

Lysimachus: north (Macedonia/Asia minor)

Cassander: west (continuation of Greek empire)

Sleucus: east – (Seleucid empire)

Cassander spent many years fighting the regent (his father Antipater) who was representing Alexander’s infant son (Alexander IV). However, Cassander was eventually victorious and claimed Greece itself as his territory. He eventually killed (likely poisoned) Alexander the Great’s wife, Roxana and his young son.

Lysimachus was eventually killed by Seleucus. His death, for all practical purposes, ended the war. There was ongoing drama in the south (which we will read about in chapter 11), but the fighting among the four kingdoms ended around 281 BC.

We will be talking extensively about Seleucus and Ptolomy in the future so we won’t tackle them in detail at this point.

V. 9-14 – These verses get quite complicated. There are extensive arguments regarding who the “little horn” is that is introduced in verse 9. Many Biblical scholars believe this prophecy was fulfilled, at least in part, by Antiocus Ephiphanes’ actions against Israel (175-164 BC). There are several theories we will discuss. I absolutely agree that he is a type of “little horn” and that his actions at least partially satisfy this vison. However, I believe there are also several reasons why his actions cannot be the only fulfillment.

So, let’s tackle the reasons why I believe this prophecy is not only about Antiochus Epiphanes.

1. V. 9-10 describes him as “exceeding great.” Certainly, the Selucid empire was very great. However, in comparison to his father (Antiochus III), Antiochus Epiphanes was actually something of a disappointment. He (AE specifically) certainly never became great like the host of heaven.

2. V. 23 identifies the ‘latter end” when transgressors have “reached their limit.” This bears images of end times – not Antiochus’ rule.

3. V. 25 states that he rules by cunning and some translations say “by peace” he shall destroy many. Antiochus did many things, but he never ruled by peace. He started his reign with the overthrow of his brother and continued in a perpetual journey of war.

4. It says he shall rise up against the Prince of princes (v. 25). He could barely stand up against human kings (he was eventually defeated by Rome and faced several other military defeats). However, he did claim (from what we know) to be like God. He was certainly great in his own eyes.

5. Daniel was told to “seal up the vision” because it refers to “many days from now” (v. 26). This would seem to indicate that it is farther into the future than Antiochus. Unfortunately, Gabriel did not elaborate further on exactly how many days.

Those in favor of this prophecy being only about Antiochus say:  

1. They largely ignore that he wasn’t a very good military commander.

2. They argue that the “host of heaven” (identified in v. 10) is the nation of Israel. They believe it borrows the imagery form God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15.

3. They believe the Prince of the host (v. 11) and Prince of princes (v. 25) is the High-Priest that Antiochus deposed and eventually had killed.

4. Antiochus definitely did take away the daily sacrifice and desecrated the Temple (v. 11)

5. They argue that the 2300 days identified in v. 14 is not tied to any prophecy found in Revelation/end times.

6. They don’t really address the idea of the transgressions coming to fullness or the content of v. 23-25.

I think it is very possible for this to be a mix of the two. In Ezekiel 28 we have an example of a prophecy that begins by speaking of the Prince of Tyre and eventually speaks of Satan. However, in Ezekiel there is a clear and definitive shift. He never mixes the two. John writes in the New Testament that there are many Antichrists (1 John 2:18). Antiochus certainly seems to be a type of Antichrist in the sense that he sought to destroy the Jews and exalt himself against God.

He first meddled in Jewish affairs around 170 (ish) BC when he deposed the High Priest Onias, and appointed Jason. He eventually ousted Jason in exchange for Menelaus (who was likely not a Levite). Antiochus began Hellenizing many Jewish laws, began building a gymnasium in Jerusalem, and interfered in worship practices. He officially entered Jerusalem in 169/168 BC and desecrated the Temple when he returned from a complicated military campaign in Egypt. He sacrificed a pig and set up an image to Zeus.

This desecration prompted the Maccabean Revolt. The Temple was cleansed and restored around 165/164 BC and Antiochus died in 164 BC.

So, why the muddle? Some argue that the time period between the desolation of the Temple and the cleansing is exactly the 2300 day period. There are some Biblical scholars that I deeply respect who argue this and move on. However, historically, it is more difficult to align that time so perfectly. There are good arguments to be made, but I think it is important to understand that if we are going to have conversations with people who do not believe the Bible is inspired we are going to face opposition to this interpretation. However, it does not fit very neatly into the end times model. 2300 days seems to be something of an anomaly in prophecy. In Daniel 9 we will go into more detail regarding the ideas of 7 years, and 3 ½ year segments of the Tribulation (also found in Revelation). 2300 days, in contrast is about 6.3-6.4 years which doesn’t really match with anything else in Scripture.

This is further complicated by the fact that evenings and mornings in v. 14 does not always refer to actual “days.” This is not the word in Genesis that literally means 24 hour days. That word is Yom. The word found here is Ereb (mornings) and Boqer (evenings). Some argue that this means 2300 sacrifices (since there were morning and evening sacrifices).

While there is some debate regarding precise dates, 1150 days (2300 sacrifices) is much closer to the time from the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus to the cleansing/restoration than 2300 actual days. Some also argue that the 2300 days started when he first deposed Onias (not the actual desecration). If you start with Onias’ deposition to the cleansing of the Temple you are very close to that 6+ year rule. However, it clearly says 2300 days from the desecration/removal of the sacrifice.  

If this is exclusively referring to Antiochus, the 1150 days are the most likely. There is also a small group that argues the 2300 days refer to years and they often attempt to use this in order to estimate when Christ will return to earth. This is quite popular with some cults. Some argue that Daniel was using a Greek calendar which adds an extra month every other year so they can get a more precise date. Although why he would be using a calendar that would not have been the standard of the time is somewhat beyond me.

If this is confusing – welcome to the club. When I began researching this passage, I quickly became frustrated. I’m not sure that I have ever done quite so much research on any one verse. I finally stopped and had to think about what is important – and what I know. That includes the fact that when we get to heaven, we are going to be worshipping Jesus. As a church, I do not believe we will be on earth during the Tribulation. However, if I have any spare attention, I am going to be very curious to see how these dates play out. I don’t see, from the text how they can only be about Antiochus. Christ confirms in Matthew 24:15-51 that there is a future desolation that was not fulfilled by Antiochus. It will be interesting to see how the Tribulation timeline unfolds or if this period of time does exclusively refer to Antiochus’ persecution of the Jews.

Not all Scripture is easy to understand. However, that doesn’t mean we don’t study and wrestle with the truth we find there. It also means that when respected scholars teach something as obvious fact…when it is perhaps not nearly so obvious, we shouldn’t just accept their teaching as truth. We should research truth based on Scripture – not the interpretation of man.

Study hard, seek God’s heart – not merely man’s wisdom. Certainly, appreciate the hard work and study that many of them have committed to. However, the only inerrant source is Scripture itself. Wise men and women can impart wisdom and help us understand truth – but they are not the ultimate authority. Seek to know God’s heart, not man’s opinion. Even when the answers are not completely clear, we have more than enough evidence of God’s reliability and wisdom to trust that he will reveal his plans in due time.