II. DANIEL THE PROPHET--Chapters 7-12
     B. The Vision of  the Ram and Goat--8:1-27
          1. The vision described--vv. 1-14
               a. The place of  the vision--vv. 1,2
                    (I) Its date
                         (A) Third year of  King Belshazzar's reign
                         (B) Consequently, two years after the vision of  chapter 7
                         (C) Chronologically occurs before events of  chapter 5
                         (D) Probably about 551 B. C. or twelve years prior to Belshazzar's feast
                    (II) Its nature
                         (A) Daniel's second vision.
                         (B) "The vision of  chapter 8 is somewhat different in character from that of  chapter 7, as it apparently did
                              not occur in a dream or in a night vision.  As Young correctly says, 'This vision was not a dream vision                               like that of  ch. 7.'  Keil says in a similar way, 'But not in a dream as that was, but while he was awake.'
                              Daniel is careful to distinguish not only the character of  the vision but its time by adding 'after that
                              which appeared unto me at the first,' that is, the vision of  chapter 7." (Young, 165; Keil, 285; quoted
                              in Walvoord, 179)
                    (III) Its place
                        (A) The palace at Shushan
                             (1) In the province Elam
                             (2) By the river Ulai
                             (3) Location--"Ancient Susa (called Shushan in the King James Version), about 150 miles north of  the
                                  present head of  the Persian Gulf, was situated midway between Ecbatana and Persepolio, and later
                                  became one of  the main residences of  the Persian kings." (Walvoord, 180)
                        (B)  The question
                             (1) Was Daniel actually there or transported there in the vision?
                             (2) Josephus places Daniel in Elam.
                                  (a) Some interpreters follow Josephus.
                                  (b) "Daniel was personally present in Susa to execute the king's business, from which Bertholdt
                                       frames the charge against the pseudo-Daniel, that he was not conscious that Elam under
                                       Nabonned did not belong to Babylon, and that the royal palace at Susa had as yet no existence.
                                       But this accusation has no historical foundation.  We have no accurate information whether under
                                       Belshazzar Elam was added to Babylon or the Chaldean Empire." (Keil, 285)
                             (3) "Most expositors, whether liberal or conservative, understand Daniel 8 to teach that Daniel was
                                  actually in Babylon and in vision only was transported to Shushan.  Montgomery cites the
                                  overwhelming weight of  scholarship on this point that Daniel was there only in vision, which is
                                  supported by the Syriac version and the Vulgate, and held by John Calvin and many contemporary
                                  writers.  Ezekiel also was transported, in vision, presumably (Eze 8:3; 40:1ff. )." (Walvoord, 180)
                             (4) Here again, this writer thinks this is an unnecessary controversy.  What difference does it make if
                                  Daniel was in Babylon, or in Shushan physically?  It does not change one iota the value of  the
                                  vision.  It appears that the language indicates that he was not there physically, but it makes not one
                                  particle of  difference.  Likewise, just because Ezekiel was transported in a vision to Jerusalem, does
                                  not really have any bearing on whether or not Daniel was.
                        (C) Did Babylon control Shushan at this time?
                             (1) "The question as to whether Babylon at this time controlled ancient Susa is debated but is beside the
                                  point [precisely]; in any case, in the vision Daniel is projected forward into the prophetic future of
                                  the Persian and Grecian Empires." (Ibid.)
                             (2) Though Walvoord states that Babylon probably did not control it, this writer can see no
                                  astonishment on Daniel's part as suggested by Walvoord; the text simply states that he had a vision
                                  of  being there.
                    (IV) Its value
                         (A) Notice that Daniel has to spell out the location of  Shushan.
                              (1) "Daniel finds it necessary to define in particular the location of  this city, something a second-century
                                   pseudo-Daniel would not have had to do." (Ibid.)
                              (2) States that it is in the province of  Elam--Note:  it does not say that it was a province of  Babylon.
                         (B) "In a word, Daniel finds himself projected in a vision to town little known at that time and unsuspected
                              for future grandeur, but yet destined to be the important capital of  Persia, the home of  Esther, and the
                             city from which Nehemiah came to Jerusalem." (op. cit., 181)
               b. The ram with two horns--vv. 3, 4
                    (I) Daniel sees a ram with two horns.
                         (A) The two are unequal.
                         (B) It pushes in three directions.
                              (1) Westward
                              (2) Northward
                              (3) Southward
                         (C) "No other beast is found to stand before the ram nor was anyone, whether man or beast, able to
                              deliver from his power.  As Daniel summarizes it, the ram does according to his will and becomes
                              great." (Ibid.)
                    (II) The interpretation occurs in Daniel 8:20.
                         (A) The ram is Medo-Persia .
                         (B) The two horns represent
                              (1) Its major kings
                              (2) "The fact that the ram represents both the Median and Persian Empires in their combined states
                                   rather than as separate empires is another important proof what the critics are wrong.  The critics
                                   attempt to prove, on the basis of  the reference to Darius the Mede, that Daniel erroneously taught
                                   two empires, first a Median and then a Persian.  This, of  course, is contradicted by history; and
                                   critics use this in attempt to prove Daniel in error.  The critics, however, attribute to Daniel what he
                                   does not teach; and the problem is their own faulty interpretation." (Ibid.)
                         (C) As often is the case, critics like to set up straw men which do not fit their theory of  a second century
                              Daniel, and then try to proceed to knock it down.
                         (D "The portrayal of  the two horns representing the two major aspects of  the Medo-Persian Empire, that
                              is, the Medes and the Persians, , is very accurate, as the Persians coming up last and represented by                                   the higher horn were also the more prominent and powerful.  The directions which represent the
                              conquests of  the ram include all except the east.  Although Persia did expand to the east, its principal
                              movement was to the west, north, and south.  It is the accuracy of  this portrayal, rather than any
                              alleged inaccuracy, which is embarrassing to the critic who does not want to accept a sixth-century
                              Daniel who wrote genuine prophecy." (op. cit., 182)
                         (E) Interestingly enough is what the ram symbolizes--"The guardian spirit of  the Persian kingdom appears
                              under the form of  a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns, and, according to Amm. Marcell,
                              xix.l, the Persian king, when he stood at the head of  his army, bore, instead of  the diadem, the head of
                              a ram." (Keil, 290)
               c. The he-goat from the west--vv. 5-8
                    (I) Generally agreed as to whom it represents
                    (A) He-goat--literally, buck of  the goat
                    (B) Represents the king of  Greece--cf. Daniel 8:21
                    (C) The single horn doubtlessly represents Alexander the Great.--"All the facts about this goat and his
                         activities obviously anticipate the dynamic role of  Alexander.  Like Alexander, the he goat comes 'from
                         the west on the face of  the whole earth,' that is, his conquests beginning in Greece move east and cover
                         the entire territory.  The implication in the vision, where it states that the he goat 'touched not the ground,'
                         is the impression of  tremendous speed, which characterized the conquest of  Alexander.  The unusual
                         horn, one large horn instead of  the normal two, symbolically represents the single leadership provided by
                         Alexander." (Walvoord, 182-3 )
                    (II) The he-goat defeats the ram.
                         (A) "All of  this, of  course, was fulfilled dramatically in history.  The forces of  Alexander first met and
                              defeated the Persians at the Granicus River in Asia Minor in May 334 B. C., which was the beginning
                              of  the complete conquest of  the entire Persian Empire.  A year and half  later a battle occurred at
                              Issus (November 333 B. C.) near the north-eastern tip of  the Mediterranean Sea.  The power of
                              Persia was finally broken at Gaugamela near Nineveh in October 331 B. C." (op. cit., 183)
                         (B) "There is no discrepancy between history, which records a series of  battles, and Daniel's
                              representation that the Persian Empire fell with one blow.  Daniel is obviously describing the result
                              rather than the details.  That the prophecy is accurate, insofar as it goes, most expositors concede.
                              Here again the correspondence of  the prophecy to history is so accurate that liberal critics attempt
                              to make it history instead of  prophecy " (Ibid.)
                    (III) The great horn broken--v. 8
                         (A) The he goat grew great and strong.
                         (B) The breaking of  the horn
                              (1) "As Daniel contemplates in his vision the triumph of  the he goat, an unexpected development takes
                                   place.  The great horn between the eyes of  the he goat is broken just when the he goat has reached
                                   the pinnacle of  its strength." (op. cit., 184)
                              (2) Most commentators agree that this refers to the sudden death of  Alexander.
                              (3) "Alexander, who had conquered more of  the world than any previous ruler, was not able to
                                   conquer himself.  Partly due to a strenuous exertion, his dissipated life, and a raging fever,
                                   Alexander died in a drunken debauch at Babylon not yet thirty-three years of  age.  His death left a
                                   great conquest without an effective single leader, and it took about twenty years for the empire to
                                   be successfully divided." (Ibid.)
                         (C) The rise of  the four horns
                              (1) Again, most commentators agree that these represent the four generals who divided Greece into
                                   four parts.
                              (2) The four kingdoms
                                   (a) Cassander--ruled Macedonia and Greece proper
                                   (b) Lysinccus--ruled thrace, Bithynia and most of  Asia Minor
                                   (c) Seleucus--ruled Syria, and east to Babylon
                                   (d) Ptolemy--ruled Egypt and probably Palestine and Arabia .
               d. The rise of  the little horn --vv. 9-14
                    (I) The rise itself--vv. 9, 10 .
                         (A) Arises out of  one of  four
                              (1) Small at first--"In the words 'it arose out of  littleness' there lies the idea that it grew to great power
                                   from a small beginning." (Keil, 295)
                              (2) Grows exceeding great
                                   (a) In three directions
                                   (b) "The implication is that the point of  reference is Syria, that 'the south' is equal to Egypt, and 'the
                                        east,' in the direction of  ancient Medo-Persia or Armenia, and 'the pleasant land,' or 'glorious
                                        land' referring to Palestine or Canaan, which lay between Syria and Egypt.  The original for
                                        'pleasant land' actually means 'beauty,' with the word for 'land' supplied from Daniel 11 (cf. Dan
                                        11:16, 41, 45; Jer 3:19; Eze 20:6, 15; Mal 3:12). Actually, the meaning here may be Jerusalem
                                        in particular rather than the land in general." (Walvoord, 185)
                         (B) This person
                              (1) "In his lifetime, he conducted military expeditions in relation to all of  these areas.  Montgomery
                                   considers the expression 'toward the pleasant land' as a gloss 'which is absurd when aligned with the
                                   given points of  the compass, in which the book is remarkably accurate.'  There is no justification for
                                   this deletion from the text, however, as from Daniel's viewpoint in this whole section, the important
                                   question is how the times of  the Gentiles relate to Israel.  The land of  Israel indeed became the
                                   battle ground between Syria and Egypt, and the setting of  some of  Antiochus Epiphanes' most
                                   significant blasphemous acts against God.  According to 1 Maccabees 1:20, . . ., Antiochus first
                                   invaded Egypt and then Jerusalem; 'after subduing Egypt, Antiochus returned in the one hundred
                                   and forty-third year.  He went up against Israel and came to Jerusalem with a strong force.'"
                                   (Montgomery, 333; quoted in Walvoord, 185)
                              (2) Who is Antiochus Epiphanes?
                                   (a) Eighth king of  the Syrian Dynasty
                                   (b) Antiochus the Fourth
                                   (c) Reigned 175 B. C.-164 B. C.
                                   (d) Brother of  Cleopatra
                                   (e) Worked deceitfully feigning friendship with those he wished to conquer
                                   (f) "In his capture of  Jerusalem, guided by Menelaus, the high priest, 'against the holy covenant,' he
                                        took away the golden altar, candlestick, vessels of  gold and silver from the temple, sacrificed
                                        swine on the altar, and sprinkled swine broth through the temple; his spoils from it amounted to
                                        1800 talents million dollars]." (Fausset, A[ndrew] R[obert], Bible Encyclopedia and
                                        Dictionary, Critical and Expository.  Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publishing House, n. d.,
                                        42)
                                   (g) "A's [Antiochus] genera1, Apollonius, dismantled Jerusalem, and from a high fortress slew the
                                        temple worshippers.  A. [Antiochus] commanded all on pain of  death to conform to the Greek
                                        religion and consecrated the temple to Jupiter Olympius or Capitolinus.  Identifying himself with
                                        that god 'whom his fathers knew not,' and whose worship he imported from Rome, he wished to
                                        make his own worship universal.  The Jews were constrained to profane the sabbath and
                                        monthly on the king's birthday to eat of  the idol sacrifices, and to go in procession to Bacchus,
                                        carrying ivy.  This was the gravest peril that ever befell the theocratic nation." (Ibid.; brackets
                                        are this writer's.)
                         (C) The rise to heaven
                              (1) "As the result of  his military conquests, the little horn, representing Antiochus Epiphanes, is said to
                                   grow great 'even to the host of  heaven.'  He is pictured as casting some of  the host and of  the                                          stars to the ground and stamping upon them.  This difficult prophecy has aroused many technical
                                   discussions as that of  Montgomery which extends over several pages." (Walvoord, 185)
                              (2) Mythological explanations generally used by liberals give no satisfactory explanation.
                              (3) Probable explanation--"Probably the best explanation is that this prophecy relates to the
                                   persecution and destruction of  the people of  God with its defiance of  the angelic hosts who are
                                   their protectors, including the power of  God Himself." (Ibid.)
                              (4) "That Antiochus blasphemed God and heavenly power as well as persecuted the people of  Israel,
                                   the people of  God, is all to evident from history." (op. cit. , 186)
                    (II) The desolation of  the temple--vv. 11-14
                         (A) "Beginning with verse 11, however, expositors have differed widely as to whether the main import of
                              the passage refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, with complete fulfillment in his lifetime, or whether the
                              passage either primarily or secondarily refers to the end of  the age, that is, the period of  great
                              tribulation preceding the second coming of  Jesus Christ.  The divergence of  interpretation is so wide
                              as to be confusing to the student of  Daniel.  As Montgomery states, verses 11 and 12 'constitute . . .
                              the most difficult short passage of  the bk.'" (Montgomery, 335; quoted in Walvoord, 186)
                         (B) Three classifications of  views
                              (1) The critical view
                                   (a) Daniel is a second-century forgery.
                                   (b) He recorded only history after the fact.
                                   (c) Passage completely fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes.
                              (2) The amillennial view
                                   (a) Daniel is genuine sixth-century B. C. prophet.
                                   (b) Passage completely fulfilled in history in Antiochus Epiphanes.
                              (3) The premillennial view
                                   (a) Also holds that Daniel is a sixth-century B. C. prophet.
                                   (b) Passage historically fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes
                                   (c) "But typical and anticipatory of  the final conflict between God and Gentile rulers at the time of
                                        the persecution of  Israel prior' to the second advent of  Christ." (Ibid.)
                                   (d) The third view sometimes confuses the prophetic and typical interpretations or attempts to find
                                        dual fulfillment literally of  both aspects of  the prophecy.  The ultimate decision must rest not
                                        simply on verses 11 through 14 but on the interpretation of  the prophecy given in verses
                                        20-26." (Walvoord, 186-7)
                         (C) Antiochus Epiphanes fulfills verse 11.
                              (l) He exalted himself to point of  claiming divine honor.
                              (2) Epiphanes means the illustrious.
                              (3) "His pretensions are similar to the little horn of  Daniel 7:8, 20. Antiochus, however, obviously also
                                   directed blasphemous opposition against God Himself and to this extent magnified himself against
                                   God as well as reaching toward the glory and honor belonging to God." (op. cit., 187)
                                   (a) "By this is meant that Antiochus stopped the morning and evening sacrifices, taking away from
                                        God what were daily tokens of  Israel's worship. The expression daily sacrifices, form the
                                        Hebrew tamid, which means 'constant,' applies to the daily offerings (cf. Ex 29:38 ff.; Num
                                        28:3ff.).  Young, accordingly, feels that it should not be restricted to the morning and evening
                                        sacrifices, but that it included all the offerings customarily offered in the temple services." (Ibid.)
                                   (b) Cf. 1 Maccabees 1:44-49 (quoted from Walvoord, 187)--"And the king sent letters by
                                        messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of  Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to
                                        the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane
                                        Sabbaths and feasts, to defile the sanctuary and the priests, to build altars in sacred precincts
                                        and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, and to leave their sons
                                        uncircumcised.  They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane,
                                        so that they should forget the law and change all the ordinances.  And whoever does not obey
                                        the command of  the king shall die."
                                   (c) "The obvious parallel between the cessation of  the daily sacrifice by Antiochus Epiphanes and
                                        that anticipated in Daniel 9:27, which occurs three and one-half years before the coming of
                                        Christ, has led some expositors to find here evidence for reference to the end of  the age and not
                                        simply to Antiochus." (Walvoord, 187-8)
                         (D) Antiochus' doings against God are recapped in verse 12.
                              (1) An host was given to him--probably refers to Israel being placed under his power by God's
                                   permission.
                              (2) The phrase against the daily sacrifice--"The daily sacrifices were also in his power and he was
                                   able to substitute a heathen worship." (op. cit., 188)
                              (3) "The phrase by reason of transgression should be understood as an extension of  this, that is, the
                                   daily sacrifices are given in his power in order to permit him to transgress against God.  The result is
                                   that Antiochus 'cast down the truth to the ground,' that is, the truth of  the law of  Moses, practice
                                   his activities, and seemingly prospered.  Although the translation of  this verse is very difficult,
                                   conservative scholars generally interpret it to mean that the people of  Israel along with their worship
                                   are given over to the power of  Antiochus Epiphanes with the resulting transgression and blasphemy
                                   against God." (Ibid.; italics are his.)
                    (E) The question of  the holy ones-- v. 13
                         (1) "Notice carefully the angelic dialogue of  verses 13 and 14.  Daniel reports that he 'heard one saint
                              speaking' (lit., one holy one, who is next referred to as 'that certain saint which spake,' the Hebrew
                              expression meaning 'the numberer of  secrets,' or 'wonderful numberer').  That which this mysterious
                              being was speaking is not recorded by the prophet, but it was obviously some comment upon the
                              desecration of  the holy place by the little horn, just stated in verses 10-12." (Newell, 111)
                         (2) Question is about the time of  this desecration.
                    (F) The answer to the question is in verse 14.
                         (1) The answer is 2,300 days.
                         (2) "The answer given in verse 14 has touched off  almost endless exegetical controversy.  Daniel is
                              informed that the answer to the riddle is 'Unto two thousand, and three hundred days; then shall the
                              sanctuary be cleansed.'  The answer is said to be given 'unto me,' that is, to Daniel rather than to the
                              other angel.  Obviously these angels are brought in for Daniel's benefit and the result is that Daniel hears
                              the answer.  The interpretation and fulfillment of  this passage is to some extent the crux of  this entire
                              chapter." (Walvoord, 188)
                         (3) The Seventh-day Adventists
                              (a) "The Seventh Day Adventists understood that the two thousand and three hundred days referred to
                                   years which, on the basis of  their interpretation, were to culminate in the year 1884 [sic--1844?]
                                   with the second coming of  Christ.  The year-day theory for all practical purposes was excluded by
                                   the fact that Christ did not come in 1884 [sic--1844?] in any real fulfillment of  the anticipation of
                                   this interpretation." (Ibid.)
                              (b) Newell spends nearly three pages showing how the Adventists supposedly reach the year of  1844
                                   by working backwards to find a starting date in the seventh year of  Artaxerxes which would be
                                   457 B. C. (Newell, 112-14)
                              (c) Refutation
                                   ((I)) "Daniel 9:25 establishes without question, the beginning point of  the seventy weeks as 'The
                                        going forth of  the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.'  Now there is only one
                                        possible event to which this can refer.  The decrees of  Cyrus of Darius, and Artaxerxes, all
                                        mentioned in Ezra 6:14 have solely to do with the rebuilding of  the temple, as will be seen upon
                                        detailed examination of  each in the context.  They make no reference whatever to the rebuilding
                                        of  the city itself, as specified in Daniel 9:25." (op. cit., 114)
                                   ((II)) If  one assumes the evening and morning represents one day, it still does not begin at the same
                                        time as the seventieth week--"The two have no connection whatever in this sense; and the 2300
                                        evenings and mornings are obviously the period of  time during which the sanctuary of  the holy
                                        people was to be cast down and desecrated by this little horn before us in Daniel 8.  This
                                        desecration did not begin until the days of  Antiochus Epiphanes noted above, and we know
                                        from the book of  I Maccabees, as well as from other history, that this was in the year 168
                                        B. C." (Newell, 115)
                         (4) The interpretation of  the 2,300 days
                              (a) Rejecting the day-year idea leaves two possibilities.
                                   ((I)) 2,300 twenty-four days
                                   ((II)) 1,150 days
                                        ((A)) Days are related to evening and morning sacrifices.
                                        ((B)) Therefore, it would be 2,300 evenings and mornings
                              (b) Newell holds to this latter position.
                                   ((I)) "Since there are two of  these daily, the actual time period involved is 1150 days, or slightly
                                        over three years.  This, in fact, was the time of  the Maccabean tribulation, 168-165 B.C., at the
                                        end of  which the sanctuary was 'cleansed' by Judas Maccabeus in his restoration of  the
                                        evening and morning sacrifice (II Macc. 10:1-5).” (Ibid.)
                                   ((II)) "The concept that the period in view is eleven hundred and fifty days also is taken by some to
                                        coincide with the three and one-ha1f years of  the great tribulation predicted in Daniel 9:27 and
                                        elsewhere, even though there is a discrepancy of  over one hundred days." (Walvoord, 189)
                                   ((III)) Keil's discussion covers nine pages and concludes--"A Hebrew reader could not possibly
                                        understand the period of  time 2300 evening-mornings of  2300 half days or 1150 whole days,
                                        because evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day.  Still less,
                                        in the designation of  time, 'till 2300 evening -mornings,' could 'evening-mornings’ be understood
                                        of  the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as meaning, that till 1150
                                        evening sacrifices and 1150 mornings sacrifices are discontinued.  We must therefore take the
                                        words as they are, i. e., understand them of  2300 whole days." (Keil, 304)
                              (c) Literal 2,300 days
                                   ((I)) The problem is what is the fulfillment?
                                   ((II)) "The attempts to relate this to the last seven years of  the Gentile period referred to in Daniel
                                        9:27 have confused rather than helped the interpretation.  Twenty-three hundred days is less
                                        than seven years of  360 days, and the half figure of  eleven hundred and fifty days is short
                                        of  the three and one-half years of  the great tribulation." (Walvoord, 189)
                                   ((III)) Fulfillment must be found in Antiochus Epiphanes.
                                   ((IV)) Walvoord's conclusion is appropriate--"Taking all the evidence into consideration, the best
                                        conclusion is that the twenty-three hundred days of  Daniel are fulfilled in the period from 171
                                        B. C. and culminated in the death of  Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 B.C.  The period when the
                                        sacrifices ceased was the latter part of  this longer period.  Although the evidence available
                                        today does not offer fulfillment to the precise day, the twenty-three hundred days, obviously a
                                        round number [why rounded?  It may be that we at this time do not have enough evidence to
                                        assume such.], is relatively accurate in defining the period when the Jewish religion began to
                                        erode under the persecution of  Antiochus, and the period as a whole concluded with his death."
                                        (op. cit., 190)
          2. The vision interpreted--vv. 15-27
               (a) The meaning of  the vision sought--vv. 15-19
                    (I) The request and answer
                         (A) "According to verse 15, Daniel 'sought for the meaning'; and in response to his desire, a personage
                              stood before him described 'as the appearance of  a man,' but obviously an angel.  In verse 16, the
                              angel Gabriel is mentioned specifically, and a man's voice is addressed to Gabriel to instruct Daniel in
                              understanding the vision." (Walvoord, 191)
                         (B) The voice
                              (1) Michael the archangel
                              (2) God
                              (3) Calvin thought it was Christ.
                    (II) The first time an angel is mentioned by name
                         (A) Gabriel is his name.
                         (B) Meaning
                              (l) Hero of  God
                              (2) "As Michael represents the angels in their might in conflict with evil, so G[abriel] in ministering
                                   comfort and sympathy. to man in dark times." (Fausset, 238)
                         (C) Other mentions of  Gabriel
                              (l) Daniel 9:21
                              (2) Luke 1:19, 26
                    (III) Daniel's fear
                         (A) "Because of  the whole context of  the vision, the powerful presence of  Gabriel , and the mysterious
                              voice which may be the voice of  Deity, Daniel is afraid, actually panic-stricken, and falls on his face.
                              The situation is not much different from that of  John the apostle in Revelation 1 at the tremendous
                              vision of  the glorified Christ." (Walvoord, 191)
                         (B) His fear causes him to faint.--"Although Daniel apparently had been awake in the earlier part of  the
                              vision, we now learn that, as Gabriel was speaking, Daniel had fallen into a deep sleep with his face
                              toward the ground.  Montgomery translates I was in a deep sleep as 'I swooned.'  In any event, it is
                              not a natural sleep,but the result of  his fear described in verse 17." (Ibid.; italics are his.)
                    (IV) Gabriel's comfort and help
                         (A) He reassures Daniel.
                         (B) He informs Daniel.
                              (1) Calls him son of  man
                              (2) Tells him that these things involve the time of  the end
                         (C) "As in the case of  Ezekiel (Eze 1:28-2:2), Daniel is aroused:  as stated in verse 18 Gabriel 'touched
                              me, and set me upright.'  Porteous suggests that the expression set me upright (v. 18), 'probably
                              means "made me stand up where I was."'" (Ibid.)
                         (D) He tells him of  the last end of  the indignation.
                              (1) The term indignation--"Here seems to refer to God's anger against Israel.  As in the days of
                                   Isaiah, when God used Assyria as His chastening rod (Is 10:5, 25), God in His indignation was
                                   using for His corrective purposes the tyranny of  Antiochus and 'lawless men' (. . .) who carried out
                                   Antiochus' orders.  In any case, the point is that God is permitting the persecution as a chastening of
                                   Israel in this instance." (op. cit., 192)
                              (2) The term the time of  the end
                                   (a) Daniel 8:17, 19
                                   (b) Verse 19--the phrase being considered
                                   (c) "Many scholars find in this chapter reference to the ultimate consummation of  Gentile time at the
                                        second advent of  Christ." (Ibid.)
                              (3) Complicated by other references
                                   (a) Daniel 9:27
                                   (b) Daniel 11:35ff.
                                   (c) Chapter 12
                    (V) The major interpretations
                         (A) The historical view only
                              (1) Supported by
                                   (a) Liberals
                                   (b) Amillennialists
                              (2) Liberals--"Driver, identifying the fourth empire of  Daniel 7 as the Greek Empire, as liberal critics
                                   do in contrast to most conservative expositors, finds the two little horns identical.  In keeping with
                                   this, he defines the time of  the end as meaning from Daniel's standpoint 'the period of  Antiochus's
                                   persecution, together with the short interval consisting of  a few months, which followed before his
                                   death (xi.35, 40), that being, in the view of  the author, the "end" of  the present condition of  things,
                                   and the divine kingdom (vii.14, 18, 22, 27, xii. 2,3) being established immediately afterwards.
                                   Driver goes on, 'This sense of  "end" is based probably upon the use of  the word in Am. viii. 2, Ez.
                                   vii. 2, "an end is come, the end is come upon the four corners of  the land," 3, 6:  cf. also "in.the time
                                   of  the iniquity is yet for the appointed time [has reference to the time of  its destined fulfillment], and
                                   it hasteth toward the end."'" (Driver, Samuel Rolles, The Book of  Daniel.  The Cambridge Bible
                                   for Schools and Colleges.  Cambridge:  University Press, 1900, 121, brackets are his; quoted in
                                   Walvoord, 193)
                              (3) Amillennialists--"In summarizing his view of  the identity of  the fourth empire, Young writes, 'A
                                   comparison of  the horns of  ch. 8 evidently stands for Antiochus Epiphanes, it follows that the little
                                   horn of  ch. 7 does not stand for Antiochus Epiphanes.'  In a word, Young finds chapter 8
                                   completely fulfilled in history.  The principal difficulty with the purely historical view is that it
                                   provides no satisfactory explanation of  the expression the time of  the end, the other references in
                                   the book of  Daniel which use it as the end of  the time of  the Gentiles, and certain details that are
                                   given in the interpretation of  the vision." (Young, 288; quoted in Walvoord, 193; italics are
                                   Walvoord's.)
                         (B) The futuristic view only
                              (1) Essentially a premillennial view
                              (2) "It is like the liberal view in identifying the two horns, but unlike the liberal critical view in relating it
                                   to the Roman Empire in the future and not to the Greek Empire of  the past.” (Ibid.,)
                              (3) Only a few premillennialists held this viewpoint.
                                   (a) G. H. Pember
                                   (b)Tregelles
                         (C) The dual fulfillment view
                              (1) Held by the majority of  premillennialists
                              (2) This view is that the passage is fulfilled in part in the past which foreshadows the future complete
                                   fulfillment.
                                   (a) "Variations exist in this approach with some taking the entire passage as having dual fulfillment,
                                        and others taking Daniel 8:1-14 as historically fulfilled and Daniel 8:15-17 as having dual
                                        fulfillment." (op. cit., 194)
                                   (b) Position of  the Scofield Reference Bible
                              (3) J. Dwight Pentecost's summary--"The key to understanding chapters 7-12 of  Daniel's prophecy is
                                   to understand that Daniel is focusing his attention on this one great ruler and his kingdom which will
                                   arise in the end time.  And while Daniel may use historical reference and refer to events which to us
                                   may be fulfilled, Daniel is thinking of  them only to give us more details about this final form of
                                   Gentile world power and its ruler who will reign on the earth.  In Daniel chapter 8, we have another
                                   reference to this one.  Daniel describes a king who is going to conquer the Medo-Persian Empire.
                                   This is an historical event that took place several centuries after Daniel lived.  There was an
                                   individual that came out of  the Grecian Empire who was a great enemy of  the nation Israel.  We
                                   know him as Antiochus Epiphanes.  Antiochus Epiphanes was a ruler who sought to show his
                                   contempt for Palestine, the Jews, and the Jewish religion by going to the temple in Jerusalem with a
                                   sow which he slaughtered and put its blood upon the altar.  This man was known as one who
                                  desolated, or 'the desolator.’  But this passage in Daniel 8 is speaking not only of  Antiochus in his
                                  desolation and his desecration of  the temple; it is looking forward to the great desolator who would
                                  come, the one who is called 'the little horn' in Danie17.  In Daniel 8:23 we read of  this one and his
                                  ministry." (Pentecost, J. Dwight, Things to Come.  Findlay, OH:  Dunham, 1958, 82-3.  These
                                  points are a summary of  an extended discussion; quoted in Walvoord, 195)
                             (4) Actually results in two views--"It may be concluded that many premillennial expositors find a dual
                                  fulfillment in Daniel 8; some of  them achieve this by division of  the first part of  the chapter as
                                  historically fulfilled and the last part prophetically future; some regard the whole chapter as having, in
                                  some sense, a dual fulfillment historically as well as in the future; but most of them find the futuristic
                                  elements emphasized, especially in the interpretation of  the vision." (Walvoord, 196)
                        (D) The historical-typical view
                             (1) This view holds that the chapter is fulfilled historically, but is typical of  events at the end of  the age.
                             (2) "It may be concluded that many premillennial expositors find a dual fulfillment in Daniel 8; some of
                                  them achieve this by division of  the first part of  the chapter as historically fulfilled and the last part
                                  prophetically future; some regard the whole chapter as having, in some sense, a dual fulfillment
                                  historically as well as in the future; but most of  them find the futuristic elements emphasized,
                                  especially in the interpretation of the vision." (Ibid.)
               b. The interpretation of  the ram and goat seen--vv.20-22
                    (I) As stated earlier, the ram represents the Medo-Persian Empire.
                    (II) "Most significant is the fact that Media and Persia here regarded as one empire, refuting the liberal notion
                         that Daniel taught the empire of  Media was separate from Persia, which liberals use to justify the exegesis
                         that the second and third empires of  Daniel 7 were Media and Persia.  All agree that history does not
                         support this, and the liberal interpretation assumes that Daniel was in error.  Here the matter is made clear
                         by Daniel himself, and it is evident that the critics are guilty of  attributing to Daniel something he did not
                         teach." (Ibid.)
                    (III) As stated earlier, the he-goat , here called the rough goat, represents Greece.
                         (A) Called the King of  Grecia, but obviously the kingdom is in view
                         (B) Note that the great horn is identified as Greece's first king--all agree that this is Alexander.
                    (IV) "The four kingdoms represented by the four horns which replaced the great horn that was broken are
                         identified as four kingdoms arising from the he goat nation.  They are described as not having the power of
                         the great horn.  Aside from expositors pressed.to relate this to the Roman empire, where there is no
                         reasonable parallel, the four kingdoms are obviously the four generals of  Alexander who partitioned his
                         empire as previously noted." (op. cit., 196-7)
                    (V) These verses were thus fulfilled by the Medo-Persian and Greek empires.
               c. The latter times of  the kingdom--vv. 23-26
                    (I) The personage involved
                         (A) Appearance
                              (1) Latter time of  their kingdom
                              (2) Their kingdom refers to the four of  verse 22.
                              (3) When transgressions come to the full
                         (B) Description
                              (1) A king of  fierce (strong or bold) countenance
                              (2) Understands dark sentences
                                   (a) Able to interpret riddles
                                   (b) Evidence of  intelligence
                              (3) Has might power which is not of  himself
                              (4) He shall destroy the mighty and the holy people--referring to Israel.
                              (5) He shall cause craft to prosper in his hand.
                                   (a) This refers to his hatching plots.
                                   (b) His wickedness will increase.
                              (6) He shall exalt himself:
                              (7) By peace (a false kind) he shall destroy many.
                              (8) He shall oppose the Prince of  princes, i. e., the Lord Himself.
                              (9) Finally he will be broken without hand, i. e., without human instrument.
                    (II) Daniel cautioned
                         (A) That the vision is true
                         (B) That the understanding of  it will be delayed many days.
                         (C) The fulfillment must be delayed also.
                    (III) The interpretation considered
                         (A) "A careful scrutiny of  these many points will justify the conclusion that it is possible to explain all of
                              these elements as fulfilled historically in Antiochus Epiphanes." (Walvoord, 197)
                         (B) The problems
                              (1) The phrase in the latter time of  their kingdom
                              (2) The phrase he shall stand up against the Prince of  princes
                              (3) The principle problem--"Taken as a whole, the principal problem of  the passage when interpreted
                                   as prophecy fulfilled completely in Antiochus is the allusions to the end of  the age." (op. cit., 198)
                         (C) The answer to the first problem
                              (1) Antiochus Epiphanes did rise in the latter time of  the Syrian kingdom.
                              (2) "'The simple solution is that those four kingdoms are to have “a latter time"; i. e. , they are to be
                                   again represented territorially as four kingdoms in the last days at the Times of  the Gentiles.'  The
                                   expression the end frequently occurs in references in Daniel 9:26; 11:6, 27,35,40,45; 12:4, 6, 9,
                                   13." (Ibid.; italics are his.)
                         (D) The answer to the second problem
                              (1) As already stated the Prince of  princes refers to the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.
                              (2) Some say that this can only fulfilled in the future.
                              (3) "However, this objection is not unanswerable, because opposition to God, to Israel, and to the
                                   Messianic hope in general, which characterized blasphemers of  the Old Testament, can well be
                                   interpreted as standing up against 'the Prince of  princes.'  After all, Christ existed in the Old
                                   Testament times as God and as the Angel of  Jehovah and as the defender of  Israel." (Ibid.)
                         (E) The answer to the third problem
                              (1) "These are hard to understand as relating to Antiochus in view of the larger picture of  Daniel 7
                                   which concludes with the second advent of  Christ.  It is for this reason, as well as for the many
                                   details in the passage, that many expositors believe the interpretation goes beyond the vision.  If  the
                                   vision itself of  the little horn can be fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes, the interpretation given by the
                                   angel seems to go beyond Antiochus to the final world ruler." (Ibid.)
                              (2) Walvoord's conclusion--"It may be concluded that this difficult passage apparently goes beyond
                                   that which is historically fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes to foreshadow a future personage often
                                   identified as the world ruler of  the end time.  In many respects this ruler carries on a persecution of
                                   Israel and desecration of  the temple similar to what was accomplished historically by Antiochus.
                                   This interpretation of  the vision may be regarded as an illustration of  double fulfillment of  prophecy
                                   or, using Antiochus as a type, the interpretation may go on to reveal additional facts which go
                                   beyond the type in describing the ultimate king who will oppose Israel in the last days.  He indeed
                                   will be 'broken without hand’ at the time of the second advent of  Jesus Christ." (op. cit., 199)
               d. The effect on Daniel--v. 27
                    (I) Initial effect
                         (A) Fainted
                         (B) Sick certain days
                    (II) After his recovery
                         (A) He resumed his duties for the king.
                         (B) "Jeffrey notes that Daniel by his immediate resumption of  his work in the king's service proves that he
                              had been in Babylon all the time, and that his presence in Susa was purely visionary." (Ibid.)
                         (C) Jeffrey's statement is based, however, on the assumption that his duties was always in Babylon; it is
                              possible that his duties took him to Susa where this vision actually occurred.  Again, there is not really
                              enough information to decide one way or the other.
                    (III) His astonishment continued.
                         (A) "It is obvious that the intent of  the vision was to record the prophecy for the benefit of  future
                              generations rather than for Daniel himself.  Unlike the previous instances where Daniel was the
                              interpreter of  divine revelation, here Daniel becomes the recorder of  it without understanding all that
                              he wrote or experienced." (Ibid.)
                         (B) "The emphasis of  the eighth chapter of  Daniel is on prophecy as it relates to Israel; and for this
                              reason, the little horn is given prominence both in the vision and in the interpretation.  The times of  the
                              Gentiles, although not entirely a period of  persecution of  Israel, often resulted in great trial to them.
                              Of  the four great empires anticipated by Daniel, only the Persian empire was relatively kind to the Jew.
                              As Christ Himself indicated in Luke 21.24, the times of  the Gentiles is characterized by the treading
                              down of  Jerusalem , and the subjugation and persecution of  the people of  Israel." (Walvoord,
                              199-200)