Daniel 8

Chapter 8

Three years later, another vision. This vision is very specific as to geography. He is in Susa, in the province of Elam, at the Ulai canal. He sees a ram with two horns, both high, but one higher than the other. The ram charges North, West, and South. None can stand before it. (This is the Medo-Persian empire rising.)

A goat with one horn attacks the ram with two. The goat breaks the two horns, and none can oppose the goat. But eventually, the goat's horn also breaks, and then four little horns come up instead of the one. This is obviously about Alexander the great, and the division of his territory into four sub-kingdoms after his death.

2022 - Daniel is on one bank of the river, and the ram with the two horns is on the other bank. This placement tells us that these visions represent men. We are not looking now at the spiritual world, as we did in the chapter 7 vision, but now we are looking at what events here below will look like during the same period. That makes it stand to reason that we will see a pretty obvious - though likely not perfect - correspondence between the visions of 7 and 8, but not necessarily all the way back to Neb's own vision of the statue.

2022 - Here is what it looks like to me know. Neb saw the world-dominating empires of the future. His vision included the age of the Gentiles down at the feet, with iron and clay, too many nations, too many kingdoms to list separately. The mongrel age that we are now experiencing. Then Daniel's first vision in Dan 7, which I think we've shown is about the demonic warlords assigned by Satan to thwart God's plans. Each evil in its own way, but each exemplifying a different underlying strategy. All unsuccessful. Then Daniel's vision in Dan 8, which is the earthly view of these same four kingdoms. It is noteworthy that there is no "human counterpart" to the beast that is Nebuchadnezzar. I think this corroborates the idea that Neb was angel turned to man, and so one vision serves both purposes. This surely seems like a profound correlation.

2026 - The paragraph above seems way off. I don't know why Daniel on one side and the Ram, which represents the Medo-Persians that will conquer Babylon while Belshazzar is King, should mean the vision is of men and not spiritual. Remember 7:17 which said the four beasts represent four kings. So while spiritual backing and support - demonic backing and support - would necessarily have been there, the four beasts each represented a human king. The characteristics of each beast told us something about the King, his kingdom, and his conquest, but they were just "icons" representing men.

2026 - I need to take that same idea and go back to Revelation 13 where there is the Dragon, that we know is the devil, and then a first beast from the sea and a second from the earth. Using Dan 7:17 both of those beasts are representations of future kings. Daniel's four in chapter 7 all came up from a stormy sea. In Rev, the first is from the sea, the second from the earth. Don't know what that means anymore - I thought it meant an angel and a man - but now I think it is just part of the vision. It means something, but I don't know what it means.

2026 - It is still true that these men, these rulers. are sometimes "gifted" extraordinary powers and reach by Satan, and sometimes, as in Neb's case, by God. These are not just men operation entirely in the physical world. There is a spiritual aspect to it also.

2022 - This verse:

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. [Dan 8:8 ESV]

The animal becoming great means that nation expanded, and became a world power. The horn here obviously represents a "King". A broken horn is a dead king. This principal applies here, and would surely be well known to John in Revelation, and he would likely use - be given the same clues in his visions - as were in use in Daniel. Four "conspicuous" horns? Interlinear says this means conspicuous in appearance. None of these four were descended from Alexander, so there is no reason that they might have looked alike. I suspect that most likely they all looked very different from each other. Racially? Who were the four? What were their names?

They were Ptolemy I Soter who ruled Levant and Egypt, Seleucus I Nicator who ruled Mesopotamia and Iran, Cassander who ruled Greece, and Lysimachus who ruled Thrace. I found several images of all but Cassander. I saw nothing particularly conspicuous about them. It might be worthwhile to see where each was from. However, I think in this case, they might well have been conspicuous for their bravery or skill in battle or leadership. These were not ordinary men, but the successors of Alexander the Great.

From one of the four horns comes a little horn, which grows exceedingly great toward the south, east, and toward the glorious land. This verse describes that little horn:

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. [Dan 8:9-10 ESV]

This almost has to be Egypt in the south. They did rise against Rome but were defeated So all still future??? Hmm...reading on, if near/far, the south is about AE and about the final AC. Where was AE from? Did he consolidate his power from a southern base of support?

2022 - South, east and toward the glorious land (which is what?) from where? It just says out of one of them, it doesn't say which one? MSB note says the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanies, presumably the first one. He came to rule Syria, and in this case the glorious land must mean Israel. What though, would be meant by stars? Host apparently means "host of heaven". Is the implication that this "man" was able to conquer angels? How would he even see them? MSB says he will have a much longer explanation of AE when we get to 11:2-35...which thankfully is not today! I am moving on along. Time to speed this up.

I wish I was speeding up! This verse:

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. [Dan 8:11-12 ESV] These two verses, I think, make it very clear that we have moved into near/far territory. The Prince of the host is Michael, I would think...MSB says no...MSB notes are not much help. I am too tired to dig deep. I do not want to put off the rest of Daniel for another year, but I just do not have it today. It makes sense to do a separate study of these visions before undertaking an end times study in detail. So I finish judgment, then Daniel 7-??, then End times.

Hope there will be an interpretation. This seems to say that the little horn is powerful not just on earth, but in heaven, to the point of defeating some of the angels and trampling on them.

2023 - There might be a key here...If this is a near/far prophecy, then these confusing descriptions like "grew great to the host of heaven" - possibly meaning that the MoL in Revelation will receive so much power from the beast from the sea that he can stand toe to toe with angels. Perhaps that is how he "throws the host and some stars to the ground and tramples on them". He is able - because of the power delegated to him - to overcome true angels, to defeat them. But it does not say kill...It does not say this man can kill immortal creations. Wow. Wonder why I never though of these phrases as descriptive primarily of the far fulfillment? Because today, it makes really good sense of what was previously total confusion.

2023 - It seems to me that it is in vs 9 that we switch over from near term events to end time events. In vs 10 especially, I think it is clear that we are talking about the MoL.

2023 - In vs. 11, we need to determine what is meant by the removal of the regular burnt offering from the Prince of the Host, and the overthrow of the place of his sanctuary. We might speculate - and I don't see anything else we can do - that as tgt begins, the temple has been restored, or some place has been designated as the place to resume the sacrifice. This appears to have been a triumph of the prince of the host, but is hotly contested by Satan's forces. So when this ultra-powerful MoL comes to power, he is able not only to stop the sacrifices in this "new location", but to physically, perhaps militarily, capture that area. If we continue down this line, it would have required a significantly numerous group of Orthodox Jews - Jews who wanted their temple back in operation - to become powerful enough to rebuild the temple - or establish it somewhere. We could assume Jerusalem but it hasn't told us that.

2023 - Then this verse:

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. [Dan 8:12 ESV]. The MoL will have angels under his command, and so be able to hold onto the burnt offering by forces both physical and spiritual. There is an important footnote in the ESV after the word transgression. The footnote says "Or in an act of rebellion". Is that correlative to this verse: 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, [2Th 2:3 ESV]? Perhaps in seizing power over the new temple and requiring that the offerings be made to him, the church will recognize that the MoL is the one we've mistakenly called "The Antichrist" for so long, and then will begin persecution of the CHURCH, not necessarily the Jews. So we'd be saying that the MoL will lead a rebellion - a rebellion of Jews - who oppose those Jews who restarted the sacrifice, a civil war kind of thing in Israel herself maybe? He's made promises to the Jews who help him "restore order" to the sacrifice. Perhaps those original Jews, now deposed, were highly supported by the church, and so the MoL and those Jews who helped him in rebelling against the sacrifice, now support him strongly in the pursuit of the church because the church praised those who rebuilt the temple.

I need to stop this. So much of this is just pure speculation. What does it actually say? That the MoL will be a part - the leader - of a rebellion that takes over a temple that exists at that time. I think it is clear that this rebellion is the same as the one described in 2 Thess. And after this, the MoL will "act and prosper". He is going to become exceedingly powerful in the world.

I would tie Dan 8:12, Matt 24:21, and 2 Thess 2:3 are all describing the same events. But for now, I cannot see where Rev 13 ties into these other three, and I think it must tie for any of this to be correct.

The biggest problems I have in connecting them are these:

First, 5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. [Rev 13:5 ESV]. I think this beast is immortal - not a man at all, and is in power 3 1/2 years. This is the beast to whom Satan gives "his power and his throne and great authority". Note also that all the references about the haughty and blasphemous words being spoken are about this immortal demon, NOT about the MoL. I think. (And this I think knocks some pretty big holes in some interpretations I've previously made. I will need to revise them. For instance this verse: Dan 7:8? It was a little horn with a mouth speaking great things. So...does that make this little horn and this 42 month immortal the same? See? With this new insight I just have a whole new set of problems.) So that implies that this immortal shows up either on day 1 of tgt or in the exact middle of tgt. It almost has to be on day 1. And then I have to say that the head that was wounded but lived is the MoL...but then where do I put the story about the little one getting rid of three others and taking over...How does that all fit?

Second, If this beast only has authority for 3.5 years, and he shows up on day one, who has that authority for the last 3.5 years? Who comes to power then? And if he only comes to power in the last half, then who is it - man or immortal - that takes over the sacrifice and makes it stick for 6 years and 140 days? That time frame transcends the time of this 3.5 year beast. How can those things be reconciled?

These are really big problems. So big that it convinces me that I either still do not see something major, or that I have a big "hole" in my understanding to this point. That would mean I am connecting things that are not connected. And I'm just drained for right now. Maybe I can come back to it later today, maybe it will continue to process in my head...maybe the Holy Spirit will show me how it connects.

So. I seem to have run out of connections. I did a LOT of work on this today, and I think I have really done a good job connecting the three verses above. Maybe next year, I can connect Rev 13 to them.

For today, then, I am moving on. Maybe Gabriel, beginning in vs 15, can help me unravel a bit more as he helped Daniel!

This horn becomes as great as the "Prince of the host". As great as Jesus??? (2025 - No. As great as the commander of the armies of heaven. The one we saw in Elisha's time. And angel, but THE angel in command. AEIV did not overtake this angel...or did he? The sacrifice was stopped, we do know that...don't we?) The burnt offering will be given over to it. As Antichrist will be worshiped in the Temple. The abomination of desolation in the Holy Place perhaps. I think these verses, this question, clarifies it somewhat:

This looks like the time from when Antichrist breaks the covenant with Israel. 2300 days is 6.3 years of 365 days. It is 6.5 lunar years. Or, looking at the info below from Adrian Rogers, 2300/360 is 6.389 years, 6 years, 140 days. So, where to start counting. Does this mean Antichrist elevates himself to "god of the temple" at 7 years, 120 days after the start of the Tribulation? Or does it mean that temple worship will be restored to what it should be 120 days before the end of the 70th week, and during that 4 months will come the final battle? Antichrist will spend four months trying to "take back" the temple for himself maybe?

2023 - The Prince of the host may well be Michael, MSB notwithstanding. The MoL could be delegated so much power - remember it comes from Satan through the beast from the sea to the MoL - that he equals archangels in power. No man could stand before him. He would have supernatural powers. The burnt offering given over to it (why do I start using "it" here? Because a horn is an it? I am pretty sure now that this little horn is the MoL, and that he is male.) We know that the MoL will declare himself God and require that the temple sacrifices be made to him. This also fits then.

2023 - Vs 14 could mean that the MoL will declare himself god when there are 6 years and 140 days left in tgt. These verses I think are another description of that time: 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. [Mat 24:21-22 ESV]. The MoL will declare himself god just over 6 months into the 70th week, into tgt. His attempt to wipe out all the Jews will begin in earnest on that day.

But...how then can he strike a deal with many after 3 1/2 weeks? Ahhh....This massive persecution occurs after THE CHURCH recognizes him, and it is the church that will suffer persecution. He will be unsuccessful because the church will be raptured out before he can "kill" it. Recognizing that his only remaining avenue to stopping the end times is to eliminate all the Jews, he makes a deal to sucker them in, to gain their trust. He is as powerful as angels, remember. He can lie almost as effectively as Satan. So that whole first half last half thing is specific to the Jews, and this initial persecution is specific to the church. That is why Paul told the Thessalonians that they would see the MoL before the rapture. That message is to the church, not to the Jews. This too makes really good sense, and uncrosses more seeming contradictions. Wow.

2023 - Or it just means that from the time the sacrifice is taken away, though many players will come and go, the sacrifice is not restored to what it ought to be until the end of tgt.

2025 - Not feeling very "sharp" this morning. But it occurs to me that a lot of difficulty is presented by this reference to 2300 days. However, it is possible that just four months into TGT, the MoL will already have risen to power. This would mean a lot of the events of the first five seals take place before he rises, and the last seven weeks don't begin the same day as the seals. What you get FIRST is that falling away, that rebellion. Maybe this is the majority of the planet backing the MoL, not knowing who he is. Maybe it is during this time that he gets the Temple rebuilt, hands it over to the Jews, and lets them start sacrificing again. And then we enter TGT, and 4 months later, he announces that he is in fact a god himself. At this point the church recognizes him. He knows that the church knows, and persecution beyond anything ever seen begins. But before he can wipe out the church, it is taken out at the rapture. The MoL then goes after the Jews, betraying them at the 3.5 year mark, and maintaining his control of the Temple and the sacrifices until the last day of the seventieth week. Revelation doesn't tell us a lot about the MoL's rise. Maybe Daniel is filling in some details here. The "shift" from current events to MoL comes in vs. 9.

2025 - Or...this is all about AEIV. But are we ready to say he threw down the host of heaven? Did he stop the sacrifice for 2300 days? Or a much shorter period of time?

2020-The time period is very specific and does not seem to lay down over the 7 years of trib and great trib at all. So it could be solely about Antiochus Epiphanes at this point. It doesn't always have to be near/far. (No! See the unraveling in the 2023 note just above!)

(((Gonna have to stop here because I am out of time. Will come back later in the day...

Came home to Adrian Rogers preaching Daniel. A "prophetic year" is 360 days. 483 years of 360 days from the going forth of the commandment. j

AD 29, Jesus' prophetic ministry started, 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. 4/6/32 AD. Jesus enters Jerusalem.

The 70 weeks...1 week to complete building the temple and the city, 62 weeks to get to Jesus, 1 week for end times. How amazing is this, to come home to the explanation of the math I was struggling with to a guy explaining it on the radio!)))

2023 - As I read this now, that is only 64 weeks. We need six more weeks. Was 62 supposed to be 68? Pretty much has to be. See below. It was seven weeks until the temple, 62 weeks to Jesus.

In vs 15, the Bible explanation starts. After the vision is over, Daniel wants to understand, and he sees one who's appearance is like a man. Then he hears a voice from out in the middle of the Ulai telling Gabriel to explain the vision to Daniel. Daniel is afraid, but Gabriel tells him this vision is about the time of the end.

2023 - So even though events in Daniel's time are a sort of "preview" of what can and will happen, this vision is really about the end. So I feel more strongly that the interpretations above are correct.

2025 - Instead of speculating so much about all this, next year, I should just skip down to the explanation the Bible gives about who is who! It would save a lot of time.

2022 - This verse:

17 So he came near where I stood. And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face. But he said to me, "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end." [Dan 8:17 ESV]

Does this mean the whole vision is for the end? If so, it would seem the end begins after Neb. But even if it runs this long, that little horn could be referring to AE as much as to the first beast of the earth. It could also mean that at some point, the vision changes over from near to far. Maybe, from the rest of the explanation, we can establish where the dividing point is, based on exactly what part(s) of the vision he explains.

Another phrase to get a handle on; "the latter end of the indignation". When does indignation start? This surely does sound like it is speaking of the last part of t/gt.

2023 - The above was on the right track, but the 2023 notes above are much better.

2025 - The vision pertains to the time of the end. So even the early events in the vision - the things we identify as the Medo-Persians, Alexander and so forth, are a part of "end time events" in that they all point to that MoL that will ultimately come. We ought to be able to figure out what has already happened and what has not. I am liking the 2025 idea that the seals may start before the church recognizes the MoL.

2025 - So in vs 25, is it AEIV or the MoL who is broken without human agency? I got this about the death of AEIV from Copilot: Antiochus IV Epiphanes died in Tabae, which is in present-day Iran. He fell ill during his campaign in Persia and ultimately succumbed to his illness there. So does dieing of a disease count as fulfilling this prophecy? Or does this seem more likely to be the subject of this verse: 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. [Rev 19:20 ESV]. AEIV died, but Dan 8:25 doesn't say died it says broken. Rev seems a much more likely candidate.

2026 - The vision is explained. There is no need for conjecture. Gabriel tells Daniel this about the end, that is still far in the future and he ought not worry about it. These words:

19 He said, "Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation, for it refers to the appointed time of the end. [Dan 8:19 ESV]

So trying to make AEIV fit this is a bad idea. It is not about that. We are 2000 years past that. AEIV was not the latter end of indignation. That won't come until the double punishment is spent. We know that is not spent because the Jews are still blind to Jesus. So trying to put AEIV into Chapter 8 is a force fit of a wrong interpretation. Just stop it. Apply this only to the MoL in Revelation.

Gabriel says this a little later:

19 He said, "Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation, for it refers to the appointed time of the end. [Dan 8:19 ESV]

I wonder if "latter end of the indignation" refers to after the temple is restored but before the end of week 70, or the whole 70th week, as God finally deals justice to the world?

The clue that unlocks this phrase, and indeed unlocks what Gabriel is about to say, is in 9:24. There we see that the "indignation" is a reference to the indignation and wrath of God stored up for a long time, and then poured out, and STILL pouring as of today, on the nation of Israel because of their sin. Here, in 19, Gabriel sort of "microscopes in" on what he is about to explain. He will explain the "latter end of the indignation - the appointed time of the end", which means, I think, t/gt. But look at how vs 20 starts: "As for the ram...". Gabriel is going to lay some groundwork for the explanation of the end first. It starts with the near future, with this "early indignation". After he's explained all that, he will get to the meat of the vision. Vs 23 starts with a different kind of phrase: "And at the latter end...". This is the same phrase - latter end - that he used back in 19 before he started the preamble of current events. He's explained all that "near stuff" and is now switching to the latter end. So the descriptions in 23-26 are not about AE, these are about the latter end - these are about the first beast from the earth, about the beast from the sea that rises after Satan and all his are thrown out of heaven. 23-26 are NOT about AE. If THIS is the case, then vss 9-14 are also about the latter end of the indignation...but may have also held the line of unfolding history, through the end of 4 successors and then AE after them. But why is Rome not here? Was AE a Roman? If so, we could see the vision as the vision up to 70 AD, and the long term extinguishing of Israel as a nation. Yet even then, the wrath is not spent. The age of the Gentiles comes in, then when trib starts, the last week of wrath occurs, followed by the fulfillment, the restoration, the renewal - ON BOTH SIDES - of the covenant God made to be their God and for them to be HIS people. Gabriel explains very cursorily the coming earthly kingdoms, but when he gets to that last guy, who is a preliminary look at what might be expected at the end, he goes in to far more detail. All of vss 23-26 of Gabriel's explanation is about the little horn, as 9-14 are used to describe him in Daniel's vision. AE, when he came, was truly devastating to the people of God, singling them out for destruction. The last AE, during t/gt, will also single them out in like manner. This is what the vision of chapter 8 is about.

2023 - It seems pretty clear that Gabriel says the ram, the goats, and the four are about events that have now passed. Medo-Persia, Alexander, the four empires that succeeded Alexander. But in vs 23, "And at the latter end..." he signals that we are talking about the fourth kingdom, the one not like any of the others. We are looking at the last week beginning in vs 23.

2020-or the end of Great Tribulation. Further, Gabriel says this is about "the appointed time of the end". But then, be talks about Media Persia and Alexander, who were not far away at all and certainly not the end. At the end of his explanation, Gabriel says he has explained the vision of the evenings and the mornings. So that part of the vision having to do with sacrifices ceasing and foreigners in charge of the Temple. That could certainly be AE, followed by AD 70 as the end. It clearly was the end of Israel. Maybe that's what this is really about, same as Matt 24. The end referred to is AD 70, not Trib and Great Trib.

Gabriel confirms that the ram is Media and Persia The goat is the King of Greece - Alexander. Four kingdoms arise after this first one, but not with the same power as the first king. Alexander's partitioned empire after his death. It is all pretty clear to here.

Then comes what vs 9 called a little horn that arises from one of the four, going south, east and toward the glorious land. In those verses, we were almost certainly skipping from Alexander's divided kingdom all the way to the Antichrist - not like the others because Satan gives him his power - who sets himself up in the Temple.

2022 - The explanation, from vs 20-23, is what we expect. It is Medo-Persia, and Alexander, and the four kingdoms after him. So Daniel's vision initially is of the near future, and the state of the world during these soon to come events. As the four kingdoms ruled by Alexanders successors come to an end - apparently all at about the same time, and apparently as they weaken with the passing of their original, conspicuous kings, this little horn begins to rise.

But in the explanation Gabriel gives, it seems different. Gabriel says at the latter end of the four kingdoms, another king arises. He is of "bold face" and understands riddles. This verse:

The part about it not being his own power sounds like Antichrist, the same as in vs 9.

This phrase, from vs 25:

"Without warning he shall destroy many..." The breaking of the covenant of peace with the Jews, when he sets himself up as a god. This will be mentioned in Dan. 9, there is a reference in 2 Thess 2 that I think is related. I just don't remember that Antichrist kills a lot of people when this happens. Got to be a verse for that though. This happens right after "in his own mind, he shall become great". He will rise up even against the Prince of princes. Antichrist does attempt to defeat Jesus on his second advent, when he comes with his army. Broken by no human hand - 21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh. [Rev 19:21 ESV] This is the battle when Christ comes to set up the Millennial. It is not the one at the end of the 1000 years.

2023 - This verse:

24 His power shall be great--but not by his own power; and he shall cause fearful destruction and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints. [Dan 8:24 ESV]. This statement about power is true of the first beast from the sea. His power comes directly from Satan, who delegates pretty much ALL of his power on earth to this beast. Is this beast different because he is an actual angel walking around on earth? Is that what is different about this fourth kingdom? Its ruler presides over both the spiritual and the worldly realms?

I still cannot resolve the 2600 days of the sacrifice being taken away by SOMEBODY, but the beast only receiving power for 3.5 years. In the middle, does Satan himself take over? Beasts can be either men or angels. How can I tell in these references to beasts which is which? I though the land and sea thing did it but now not so much.

And in Rev 13, it looks to me this year like the beast that rises out of the earth is the "high priest", not the MoL? It says "another beast rising out of the earth". How do we understand this? Is it a second beast rising out of the earth, and we didn't get any information on the first that rose out of the earth? Or did he see one rise out of the sea and a second rise from the earth - one from each place? If it is that first one, John would be assuming we already knew about the first one out of the earth and he doesn't need to tell us about him...

I just do not know.

Later that same day in 2023 -

I got out my copy of the history by Josephus that I got from Dad. I read the account of Antiochus Epiphanes in there - easy to find, easy to read. Here is what I got out of that reading: There were some Jews who were anxious to make a deal with Antiochus so that he would leave them alone. So represented that they wanted to obey the laws of the King, to be like the Greek culture, and they asked to build their own gymnasium- all in exchange for AE letting them alone. He agrees. As a VERY interesting side note, these Jews found some surgery that could be done to make it look as if they had never been circumcised. They did this, because in Greek gymnasiums, everyone was naked. So it would have been obvious that they were NOT Greek, but were Jews. So they "reversed" their circumcisions. Many believe that this was sometimes practiced even in Paul's time, and so he wrote this: 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. [1Co 7:18 ESV]. Many believe this is a reference back to what these Jews did. So, back to the story. What we have here is a peace agreement between the Jews and AE. There is no date attached to this agreement that I can find in Josephus. He seems to be VERY clear about dates when he wants to be. Sometime later, some time greater than two years but I cannot tell how much longer (I am guess about a hear and a half longer), AE gets really greedy, and decides that he wants to loot the Temple. He "tricks" his way into Jerusalem, and basically captures it without firing a shot - so he gets in there not by military force but by trickery - and first thing he does is kill a lot of people. Then he loots the temple, takes everything from the Table of Shewbread to the Altar of Burnt offering. He forbids the Jews to practice Judaism. Then he builds his own altar, and sacrifices a pig on it. He demands that alters be build throughout Judea, and that pigs be offered regularly all over the country - and also in the Temple. The date for this is given to the very day. I don't remember it exactly but it's precise. AE also prohibits circumcision of newborn boys on pain of really severe pain. Crucifixion, and many other abominable tortures he things up - and some refuse to listen to him and he carries through on these awful things. Time passes. He finds that his treasury is running short again and goes off to war with Persia, aiming to collect the taxes they haven't paid to replenish his funds. He leaves Lysias in charge. The Maccabees come to power under Judah Maccabeus. There are some exhilarating battles, and ultimately the Jews push out Lysias and all the forces of AE and take their country back. They re-consecrate the Temple, they put the temple furniture back - doesn't say if it was the old stuff recovered or they made new stuff, and they recommence Jewish worship exactly three years, to the day, after AE had taken it away. Josephus says this was just as predicted by the Prophet Daniel.

So. Wow. Couldn't ask for a much better set of details than that! This, to me, makes it certain that Daniel is near far. The near IS, after all, about AE. I never knew how certain that really was. I also think this makes the 2600 day cessation of the sacrifices an event that will happen in the last days. It would also be possible now to argue that the 7 year deal broken half way through was also about AE. I will need to nail down whether that 3 1/2 stuff is from Daniel or Revelation. This makes Rev 13 the far fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy. A LOT more things ought untangle now!!!

2023 - Next morning, before reading 11, 12...I looked back at this chapter to see if what Josephus says about the 3 years during which AE stopped the sacrifice would unravel some things. I think, today, that the beginning of vs 9, saying "out of one of these" tells us we are still in the past, after Alexander died. The four kingdoms arise, and one in THOSE days arises. This is AE. I do NOT understand how vs 10 could apply to him, but it surely seems to do so. Instead of understanding "host of heaven" and "stars" to be about angels, I think it is required that these be preachers, rabbis, NOT prophets because their were none, but there still had to be a remnant even during these days. Can I find scriptural support for "host of heaven" and "stars" being devout men, and not always angels? As great as the Prince of the host...who could that have been during this time, if NOT an angel? The language here is continuous. That is, it seems to me that it would be a real reach to say somewhere in these verses we are switching from AE in the intertestamentary period to the MoL in the end times. At least not yet - not through vs 12. In vs 11, if we are saying that the host is about men, the Prince of the host, from whom the regular burnt offering was taken, would almost have to be the High Priest of this time. He is named in Josephus but I don't remember his name. If we run with this, then the host of heaven might here refer to the priesthood. Maybe host are Aaronic priests and stars are Levites. I am almost sure that Josephus says AE killed many priests. So that connection does hold with the rest of the verses - if I am remembering that correctly. Even if it is not specifically saying that, AE's actions in spoiling the temple would almost certainly have included "trampling" on those who served there. How could it not? This works.

CONFIRMATION of this definition of host of heaven and stars would nail this down, but it is, I think, a pretty strong argument as it is.

2023 - THEN, there is this verse, which I think signals a change:

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?" [Dan 8:13 ESV]. Now I realize full well that I "want" this next to be what this means, and I realize I may be off. BUT, it looks to me like our frame of reference has shifted here. We switch from what Daniel is seeing as vision to a discussion between a couple of angels. Holy one's anyway. Hmm...he does not call them "hosts" or stars, but "holy ones". Maybe this is Daniel's word for angels? He asks three questions, really: How long is the vision about the regular burnt offering. How long is the transgression that makes desolate. How long will the sanctuary and host (priests?) be trampled underfoot? Note first that Daniel's vision here - this vision - does not include in any way the transgression that makes desolate. I think that is in a different vision. In BOTH visions, would we say that burnt offerings cease? This vision said nothing about the sanctuary and host being trampled. What vision speaks of that? A "host" is talking. A second "host" asks him a question. The first "host" says to Daniel - not to the one who asked the question - that it will be 2300 days.

We need next to compare this to the explanation Gabriel gives. Everything seems in sync down through vs 22. But again, vs 23, as vs 13, seems to be a break in continuity. In 13, the break says "then I heard". 13 departs from the vision. In 23, the break is "And at the latter end...". My contention - my interpretation - is that from 23 on we are talking about the MoL, and the things he will do at the LATTER end, not the things Antiochus will do in 150 BC or so. Need to tie "without warning he shall destroy many" to a verse in Revelation. "His power shall be great, but not by his OWN power. This ties to Rev 13 pretty well with the beast from the sea being delegated power from the dragon. Rising up against the prince of princes though...that seems clearly to be about Jesus. Antiochus did not do that. Broken, but not by human hand. Jesus destroys his army with fire from his mouth. No hands. Then a reference, again, to evenings and mornings. 2300 of them. We know from Josephus that AE took the sacrifice away for something like 3.5 years. So the 2300 CANNOT be about AE. It MUST be about the end times.

There are more things to confirm here, to try and nail this down as a valid interpretation in all respects. I must make time for that. But now it is time for today's reading - Chapter 11 - which many say is about the MoL, and that Chapter 8 is all about AE.

Daniel is so overwhelmed by all this that he lay sick for some days. But he recovered, and went about the king's business.

(MSB says that the "near" fulfillment of this was Antiochus, who's career was until 164 BC, the end of the four kingdoms. The latter period of their rule. In BC 146, Rome conquers Greece, ending the time of the four winged leopard. So...hang on. There's the statue Nebuchadnezzar saw in Daniel 2:32, 33, and there is this vision that Daniel saw.

There is an Excel spreadsheet with a Table correlating the vision of Neb, its interpretation, and Daniel's visions of the four beasts and the interpretation of that, and then of the ram with two horns, and the goat with only one, and Gabriel's interpretation of that vision.

I would just love to put that all right here so it is easy to find. But I haven't been able to do it. This has been all all day project. I need to get on to 9.

Pepper's Homepage

Daniel 8

Chapter 8