Comments for October 30

v.6 - We place such value on human life, but it is clear here that the life is only valued by God of people who serve Him. All other human life is dispensable. It is good for us to recognise this perspective and live our own lives accordingly.

28:11 The phrase 'fierce anger of the LORD' is seen in the following places. Numbers 25:4 32:14 Jeremiah 4:8 12:13 25:37 30:24 51:45 Zephaniah 2:2
Of the 8 occasions 5 are found in Jeremiah and Zephaniah, the time of Josiah and the Babylonian overthrow.

v.16-22 - How sad it is that Ahaz could not bring himself to ask help of the Lord. Instead he turns to man to his ever increasing detriment.

28:3 It seems that Ahaz and Manasseh (2Chron 33:6) are the only king who burnt their children to other gods. Though I stand to be corrected - making such a bold statement can produce a flurry of corrections!

NEVER TOO LATE

By the time Ahaz was king of Judah, the Northern tribes in Israel were about as bad as they could get. It was only 21 years after Ahaz took the throne in Judah, that their bothers in Israel were carried away into captivity. God had warned Israel time after time, and pointed out their sins through his prophets, much of which has been recorded for us. In 2 Kings 17 we can also see a condensed list of the sins that caused Israel to be evicted from God's land.

But even though Israel was so depraved, they were still able to respond to guilt from their greater sins. After Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, defeated Judah, the prophet Oded warned Israel of their sin in taking out such a rage against Judah, and carrying off their brothers as slaves. And the people of Israel responded! Even though they were so hardened in their sins and we would have thought there would have been no room for a response of their conscience, they did not want to add to their guilt by sinning even more.

This instance can give us hope as we try to influence people who seem to be too set in their ways to change for the better. No matter how bad a person is, there is always hope. Let's not give up on anyone, but always keep trying to turn them towards God.

28:5-7 The events recorded here should be seen against the words of Isaiah (7:16) where Isaiah is seeking to engender Godliness in the king.

V.3 Born in the days of Jotham, Ahaz had seen the rapid decline into idolatry and the devastation produced by foreign invasion. He had witnessed the disastrous consequences of an alliance with Assyria and had been there when his own brother had been offered in the fires of Molech. 

When reading this chapter, we should also read Isa 7 for background.  Having done that, it is interesting to speculate who Immanuel is (are) that is mentioned. 

I once heard it suggested that 2Chron 28:15 is the basis of Jesus' parable on the Good Samaritan.  It could well be.

V.17-18 As a result of the decision to ignore the warning of Isaiah Isa 7 Ahaz choose to rely on himself and not on the Lord, and found himself with even greater problems. The Philistines invaded the west and the Edomites the east. 

28:5  In contrast with his father – who God blessed – Ahaz suffered at God’s hand – though it would have just looked as if the Syrians were stronger than he. It is all down to how one regards God working in the lives of His people.

28:8-11 Israel had smitten Judah because of Judah’s sins. This was ‘of God’ however Israel did it in ‘a rage’ 2Chron 28:9. So Israel were encouraged to realise that they also had sinned against God like their brethren in Judah and to use that realisation as a basis for freeing the captives. This is rather like the parable of the two debtors Luke 7:41. Having been forgiven a large debt the servant should be willing to forgive a smaller debt to himself. How often do we, in a rage, pronounce a judgement when we are also guilty of other things? This is not to suggest that we should not address issues that need addressing. Rather I am suggesting that when we judge others we think about our own position also and let that realisation of our own weakness temper our judgement of others.

V.23 The belief, in the Ancient Near East, was that a conquering nation succeeded in victory because its god (s) was (were) stronger than the defeated nation's god (s). 

Take Assyria for example.  Although Assyria had many gods, Asshur was considered the greatest, and all Assyrian military campaigns commenced at Asshur's command. 

The Assyrians had never been defeated.  No wonder Rabshakeh could make such a confident, boastful claim against Jerusalem (2Kin 18:33-35).  He believed that his god Asshur was invincible. 

Nations in the Near East would recognize the victorious god of a conquering nation and start worshipping it.  That's what Ahaz was doing in worshipping the gods of Damascus.

2 Chronicles 28

28:20-21 Notice the word ‘but’ which joins these two verses. Ahaz was not strengthened because he has failed to trust God, viewing things of the temple as simply of monetary worth. So he should have learnt that one cannot buy security.

V.3 Ahaz sacrificed his sons to Molech in the Valley of the sons of Hinnom (Gehenna).

V.27 Yahweh spared Hezekiah from being sacrificed to Molech. Ironically, Hezekiah would be the progenitor of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego).

Isaiah told Hezekiah that his progeny would be eunuchs in Babylon (2Kin 20:18).  Daniel, Hananiah Mishael and Azariah were of the king’s seed (Dan 1:3,6).  This was the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy. 

These three would also escape death through fire. Yahweh spared them when they were cast into Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace (Dan 3:12-30).

28:1 Ahaz was alive through all the good reign of his faithful father and yet did not follow his footsteps. He clearly did not watch his father for the purpose of being instructed.

V.1 Ahaz means possessor.

V.3 Under the Law, priests had to burn incense (Exo 3:7,8; Luke 1:10). But, Ahaz was burning incense to foreign gods: He forsook the temple of the Lord and sacrificed and burnt incense on the hills, as if they would place him nearer heaven, and under every green tree, as if they would signify the protection and influence of heaven by their shade and dropping (Matthew Henry Commentary).

In the phrase: burnt his children (KJV); burned his sons (ESV), the word burnt (burned) comes from the Hebrew ba’ar which means (wholly) consumed by fire.

Just like the burnt offering under the Law, which was completely consumed by fire, these children were totally consumed by fire as a sacrifice to Molech. This was contrary to the Law (Lev 20:2-5).

V.6 See Isa 7:1; 2Kin 15:37.

V.16 Ahaz’s army had been diminished with 120,000 soldiers killed (v.6). He turned to Assyria for help instead of humbling himself before Yahweh, who would have helped him.

Vs.20,21 Instead of helping him, Assyria helped themselves to Ahaz’s gifts.

Vs.24,25 In his despair, anger, and frustration, Ahaz could have turned to Yahweh for help. But, instead of that, Ahaz turned to idolatry.

When we are angry and frustrated, do we turn to Yahweh for help, or do we turn away and seek help from the world. It all depends upon how much faith we have. And so, the task is to increase faith. That comes through reading the Word of God (Rom 10:17).

And remember, to gain Yahweh’s help, we must be proactive. Yahweh is a reactive God and will respond to whatever we do (2Chron 15:2; James 4:8).

28:9  The mention of the prophet ‘Oded’ highlights the fact that there were more faithful prophets speaking the word of God than those whose words are recorded in Scripture.

2Chron 28:1-2 - Ahaz was so evil he was lumped with the kings of Israel (2Chron 28:23,27).

2Chron 28:3 - the valley of Ben Hinnom was just SW of Jerusalem and children were burned there in sacrifice to Molech; in the New Testament it was referred to as "hell" (from "Gehenna") and the location had evolved into a garbage dump with fires continually burning to prevent the spread of disease, etc.; some people mistakenly assume this is a fiery underworld place where the dead aren't truly dead but where a loving God has the guilty and ignorant suffer a literal fiery torment for all eternity (Psa 145:20); the first lie was "you will not surely die" (Gen 3:4) and many still promote/preach/believe this lie. 2Chron 28:9 - "Oded" [<5752> is thought to mean "restorer, restoration, aided, reiteration"].

2Chron 28:12 - some feel these names strung together hint Yah is a preserver, gracious, and a burden bearer to the weak.

2Chron 28:13-15 - agree with observations of others this perhaps echoes the parables of the good Samaritan and the two debtors; it is a literal liberation of those enslaved and could have a spiritual application to those who will be liberated from enslavement to sin and death - perhaps the remnant that will return in the last days to restore the greatness of Israel in the times when the Messiah shall reign. It also shows how even brethren can physically (and spiritually) mistreat, kill and enslave each other and that God is against that.

28:11-15   The return of the captives of Judah and the care taken of them and their being left in Jericho is the basis for Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan – Luke 10:30-36

OUR CHOICES AFFECT OTHERS

If we choose to disobey God, it is our decision and in the end we will personally face judgement for the choices we have made. But it is not just ourselves that it affects when we rebel against God.

Take, for example, King Ahaz. His life began with the influence of two good kings, Uzziah and Jotham, yet he turned away from their examples and "did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD." (2Chron 28:1) It was his choice and he was the loser because of it. But part way though the record of the sin and effects of Ahaz, we read this: "The LORD had humbled Judah because of Ahaz king of Israel, for he had promoted wickedness in Judah and had been most unfaithful to the LORD." (v.19)

The choices Ahaz made were choices that affected all the people around him. The people he affected were not just the people that advised him or encouraged him in his wickedness, but normal, every day parents and families whose lives were disrupted and destroyed by the choices Ahaz made.

Ahaz was a king and so his choices had much bigger consequences than ours. But even so, the choices we make will still have an effect on all the people around us.

Ultimately our sin is between us and God, but the people around us will still feel its consequences. Let us think carefully about our choices and choose the right way, leading others to life, and not to death.

28:10  Israel had been used to punish Judah. However, lest Israel thought of herself as better than Judah, the prophet advises them of their own sinfulness. The fact that God used them did not sanction their behaviour. In fact He used wicked foreign nations to fulfil His will. He brought the Chaldeans against the nation even though they were wicked.

28:5 Ahaz Embattled On All Sides

Notice the dire straits Ahaz was subjected to because he turned away from God. God was chastening him in the hope that he would repent. However Ahaz presumed that the troubles had come because God was powerless to save 2Chron 28:23

Ahaz inherited a mighty kingdom from Kings Uzziah and Jotham, who had both served God and as a result were blessed with strength, riches, and secure borders (e.g. 2Chron 27:6). Yet there was something lacking in this man's intelligence, being unable to attribute this great success of his forefathers to God, however much this might have been obvious. This chapter presents success/failure as a direct consequence of serving/rejecting God (see v2-5), yet he couldn't see that. How often do we see this clear link in our own lives, or do we ignore it as Ahaz did?

28:6     The battle spoken of here which caused the deaths of many of the men of Judah may be the background to the way in which Isa 4:1 speaks of women seeking men. 

28:19 In saying that Ahaz ‘brought Israel low’ we are being directed to think about the punishment that God would bring against Israel if they were unfaithful to Him –Deut 28:43.

28 The Parable Of The Good Samaritan and Ahaz

The uncaring attitude of the king of Israel, being reproved by the prophet, caused Israel to return the captives to Judah. This forms the basis for the parable of the Good Samaritan

28:24   Whereas Ahaz shut the doors of the temple his son, in the first year of his reign, opened them2Chron 29:3

28:17  The record that Edom had “carried away captive” matching exactly the Hebrew of Deut 21:10 – two Hebrew words  <7617> <7628> - which are only found together on four occasions. The point being made here is that due to Israel’s disobedience Edom is doing what they should have been doing to Edom.

28:18   This is the second, and only other, time that Shocho <<7755> has been mentioned as a place where the Philistines had invaded the town. The previous one is in the time of David – 1Sam 17:1

28:27  In not bringing Ahaz into the sepulchres of the kings we see the people made a clear distinction between faithful and unfaithful kings in their burial.

28:21 On more than one occasion items are taken out of Yahweh’s temple to try and appease a foreign power. Such behaviour would imply that the one giving away material out of the temple had no real regard for the system of worship that Yahweh had set up.

28:8-15 Judah, under the leadership of Ahaz, earned the wrath of Yahweh. So 200,000 of Judah were taken captive by the northern kingdom. It was judgment against Ahaz. However this did not give the northern kingdom the right to abuse those taken captive. As the prophet reminded them. They likewise had turned away from Yahweh. This produced a godly response in the north and the captives were returned, suitably clothed and fed. They resisted the temptation to excess in their retribution of Judah. It is all too easy for us to go beyond what is necessary in reproving others. We do well to remember our own frailties when reproving others.

28:2  Ahab had introduced Baal worship an though Elijah seems to have opposed it we see it returning again in the days of Ahaz. The worship of anything other than the Creator seems be the natural tendency of men and women! Do we think we are any different or do we recognise that we each have our own “Baal” that gets in the way, from time to time, of our worship of our heavenly Father?

28:5 We cannot emphasise enough the word “wherefore”. Ahaz doubtless saw the Syrian attack as just the sort of thing that happened between nations. If Ahaz gave heed to scripture he would realise that such events were punishments from God for rebellion against Him – see Lev 26 and Deut 28

v.2,16 - This river Ulai is only mentioned here. I can't find it in my (fairly comprehensive) Bible Atlas. One wonders if it is of more spiritual significance. It is a Persian word meaning 'my leaders' or 'my mighties'.

8:13 The prediction Daniel 8:12 of the casting down and oppression of the truth caused one 'saint' [angel] to speak to another. Daniel 8:13 Which produces information about the king of fierce countenance. Daniel 8:23 Which provides the background for the comment made in Daniel 9:24

v.16 (and 9:21) - We only read of Gabriel here and in Luke 1:19,26 where he comes to predict Jesus birth. The name Gabriel means 'Champion of God'.

8:1 Being the third year of Belshazzar we are now two years on from Chapter 7 (7:1) The use of 'without hand' (8:25) echoes Daniel 2:45 - Daniel would have seen the link, so should we.

8:13 The treading underfoot is picked up by Jesus (Luke 21:24) and applied to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

8:27 Daniel was "sick" but "none" understood it. So we can conclude that Daniel discussed his vision with others to try to work out what it all meant. Do we discuss Scripture with our brethren and sisters to develop our understanding?

Chapter 8 marks the beginning of a new section of the book, indicated by a change of language in keeping with the change of thought  From  2:4 to  7:28 was written in Aramaic; but chapter 8 on, the language returns to Hebrew. The prophecy is now more particularly occupied with the history of the nations as it directly effects Israel.  

V.4 etc. This prophecy concerns the rise of Alexander the Great who superseded the Medo-Persian empire.  Alexander is represented by the he goat.  He built a great empire which stretched from Greece to India.

Upon Alexander's  death, four generals struggled for leadership (vs.8,22).  Then there emerged two strong leaders among them, one controlled the north (Seleucids) and the other controlled the south, including Judea (Ptolemies). 

In 200 BC, Antiochus III (a Seleucid king) defeated Egypt and took control over Palestine, and the Ptolemies declined. Jewish worship was defiled under Antiochus (vs.10-12;23-25). The temple was used for pagan worship where it was reported that pigs were sacrificed.  

It was under Antiochus IV (175-164 BC) that the Maccabean revolt took place (167-165 BC).  At this time that the supposed miracle of the lamp stand whose flame never extinguished occurred.

The temple was cleansed and rededicated. The feast of dedication was introduced (John 10:22).   Hanukkah, the festival of lights, commemorates the rededication of the temple. It is still celebrated by Jews today. 

V.2 The river Ulai  (KJV) was a canal off the Tigris.  It was divided into two branches upstream.  That is the reason Daniel talks about being between two banks (v.16).              

Susa (transcribed in Hebrew as Shushan) was located about 250 miles east of Babylon in Elam and was made the winter capital of the Persian Empire by Cyrus.  It was also the capital where Esther and Ahasuerus are believed to have reigned (Est 1:2). 

Daniel's vision in the third year of Belshazzar's rule was, therefore, fast-forwarded to a time in the Medo-Persian Empire just before the ascendancy of Alexander the Great who subsequently captured Susa and took away its treasures. 

V.13-14 - Possibly this refers to when the Jews lost control of Jerusalem in 333 BC. If one subtracts 333 BC from 2,300 (Eze 4:6 mentions a day for a year) one arrives at 1967 when the Jews retook Jerusalem.

8:10  The casting down of some of the stars to the ground is the basis for Rev 12:4. So understanding this section of Daniel is a pre requisite to understanding Rev 12.

8:12 The ‘little horn’ was given power by God – see also :24. Just another detail that shows that it is the Most High who is ruling Dan 4:17,

8:8 Alexander's empire was at its peak at the time of his death at Babylon, which came about as the result of a fever. One would have never thought that it could fail; however, the strongest empire in history up to this time did fall, it was broken. History further records for us that within two years Alexander's brother Philip, and Philip's two sons were all murdered. 

Vs.15-27; 9:20-27 The archangel Gabriel (meaning strong of God) appears four times in the Bible: twice to Daniel; once each at the announcements of the births of John (Luke 1:8-20); and Jesus (Luke 1:26-38).

8:23 the ‘king of fierce countenance’ had already been prophesied – Deut 28:50

8:25 The breaking of this power ‘without hand’ echoes the way in which the image will be broken – 2:45

V.19, 23-26 - Does this have application to the last days? Who or what is the king? Is it Putin? Is it a religious leader with origins in Greek philosophy that corrupted Bible teachings? Is it a condensed version of anti-God rulers from Antiochus Epiphanes through pagan and Papal Rome, Turk, and what ever manifestations may take place until the Messiah comes in power? Does the Prince of princes refer to Christ and his second coming?

V.1 This was in 550 BC.

V.3 The two horns of the ram represented the Medes and the Persians. The Medes preceded Persia. But, Persia rose to prominence, becoming greater than the Medes. Persia is represented by the higher horn.

V.4 The Medo-Persian Empire expanded. To the north, the Scythians were conquered; to the west, Greece; and to the south, Egypt.

Vs.5-7 Alexander the Great defeated Medo-Persia.

V.8 Alexander forged a great empire which extended from southern Europe to India. However, Alexander died young at aged 32, after 13 years on the throne. The one horn of Alexander, now broken, was succeeded by four horns. Four generals took over leadership of the empire.

V.9 The little horn represented Antiochus Epiphanes.

V.11 Antiochus invaded the temple and took away the morning and evening sacrifices for three-and-a half years.

V.12 The temple service was discontinued, but in its place pagan worship, including the sacrifice of pigs, occurred.

V.13 Saint (KJV); holy one (ESV) is probably descriptive of an angel. The wonder is: how long will it be before the liberation of the temple, and the return of true sacrifice?

V.14 2,300 evenings and mornings equates to 6 years and 110 days. Antiochus forbad any sacrifice to take place for 3 years and 6 months (Josephus). And so, the angel’s tabulation would have started from the events of the little horn’s activity (Alexander’s Empire building).

Vs.23-25 Gabriel is now expressing latter events which are nothing to do with Antiochus. They have to do with Rome. First, there was Imperial Rome who dominated the Jews and the Holy Land. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD, with over 1,000,000 Jews killed, was a statement of the power and cruelty of Rome.

Then, Imperial Rome gave way to Ecclesiastical Rome which will stand up in opposition to Jesus when He returns. A prominent person from Ecclesiastical Rome will come forward as the leader and challenge the authority of Jesus as King of the World. He and his followers will make war with Jesus (Rev 17:4). But the Lord Jesus will overcome them. The enemy shall be broken--but by no human hand (See Dan 2:34).

V.26 The 2300 days must apply also to a future event. On a-day-for-a-year principle, 2300 years from 550 BC would be 1550 AD. An important even did occur on July 21^st. of that year. The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) was definitely approved by Pope Julius III. This organisation was, and still, is dedicated to promoting the Catholic Church by whatever means.

In England, the Jesuits were responsible for assassination plots against King James 1; Queen Elizabeth 1; and the Gunpowder Plot to blow up the Parliament buildings.  All plots were foiled and the perpetrators were executed.

What was sealed in Daniel's time was opened by Jesus in the Apocalypse (Rev 22:10). Jesus expounded prophecy against this false system of worship and its ruler, and their ultimate end, which is destruction (Rev 18:2,21;19:20).

If you would like a copy of The Extreme Oath of the Jesuits to see how vicious this society is, please e-mail me.

Susa (Shushan) in v2 is the place where Esther and Mordecai were (Est 1:2) and Nehemiah (Neh 1:1). It reminds us that it was presumably the combined effect of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-nego, Esther, Mordecai and Nehemiah on the rulers of this Babylonish / Medo-Persian empire that caused Cyrus to send the Jews back to the land and continue the empire's support for them. Many of the kings they influenced are mentioned in Ezra 4:1-7.

8:5 That Daniel was ‘considering’ what he had seen during the vision indicates that the prophets were not simply recipients of revelation. They thought about it as well. Peter comments on this 1Pet 1:10-12

 8:16  That Daniel had to be made to understand the vision is exactly what had happened previously. Daniel was not able to expound visions through his own wisdom.

8:10   In the Olivet prophecy – Matt 24:29 – the start falling from heaven echoes what is spoken of here in Daniel’s prophecy.

8:3     The ‘two horns’ of the ram is picked up in Rev 13:11

1. Dan 8:2 - "in a vision...I was at 'shushan'(<7800> means lilly or white)" - that Daniel envisions himself in the Medo-Persian palace of Shushan divided by a river (as was Babylon) suggests Babylon would be overthrown; "Elam"(<5867> means "eternity") and perhaps foreshadows the purity of an eternal kingdom and the mighty river of life (Rev 22:1-3) which perhaps suggested future hope despite the unfortunate events that would preceed.

2. Dan 8:3,20 - a ram with two horns represents the Medo-Persian empire.

3. Dan 8:5,21 - the he goat with one horn from the west on the face of the whole earth represents Alexander the Great.

4. Dan 8:7 - the Medo-Persian military was overthrown by Alexander the Great.

5. Dan 8:8 - "the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones" - after Alexander's death at age 33 his empire was divided up between his generals Lysimachus, Casander, Ptolemy, and Seleuchus.

6. Dan 8:9 - "came forth a little horn" (the little horn probably refers to the military expansion of Rome in the east etc. which was given an assist by certain Grecian powers allied with Rome, some believe the little horn may refer to Antiochus Epiphanes who was a Syrian persecuter of the Jews but where did he magnify himself to the prince?); "and toward the pleasant land" (the land promised to Abraham, the land of Israel).

7. Dan 8:9-12,23 - the little horn or king of fierce countenance opposed Israel and Christ so this could be the ruling Roman authorities, Herod the Great, Pilate, Titus, etc. with a future echo perhaps being the leader of the Gogian host who will oppose Israel and Christ.

8. Dan 8:10 - "the 'host'<6635> of heaven" (i.e. Israel Exo 12:41); "it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground" (Rome suppressed the Jewish army, people and the Jewish leaders represented as the stars Isa 14:13-14).

9. Dan 8:11 - "he magnified himself even to the prince of the host" (i.e. the ruling Roman authorities such as the Idumean Herod the Great Matt 2:1-20 and the reluctant Pilate who when pushed by the Jewish leaders opposed the prince of the host, Jesus Christ); "and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down" (in A.D. 70 Rome under Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem).

10. Dan 8:12 - "an 'host'<6635> was given him" (this is the host/army of Rome not Israel); "against the daily sacrifice by reason of 'transgression'<6588>" (the leaders of the Jewish people rejected the Messiahship of Jesus and demanded his crucifixion which Roman authorities carried out); "it cast down 'the truth'<571> to the ground" (pagan Rome opposed the true Christian religion based on the covenants of promise).

11. Dan 8:13;9:27;Matt 24:15.

12. Dan 8:13-14 - during this period daily sacrifices will fail to be offered with the defiled sanctuary and host to be trodden underfoot; the temple has not yet been cleansed which suggests it will take the return of Christ and the kingdom on earth unless one considers the 1967 retaking of Jerusalem by the Jews as a fulfillment of sorts; not certain whether the 2300 days (days? years? literal? figurative?) applies to one of the stages in the politcal  developments of the vision, or to the actual suspension of the daily sacrifices in 70 A.D.

13. Dan 8:14 - did the 2300 days commence at the epoch of Alexander the Great's victories? Did the 2300 days commence with the three year suspension of sacrifices and desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes (circa 168-165 B.C.)? Certainly the daily sacrifices were suspended along with the sanctuary and host being trampled by Titus in 70 A.D. (Luke 21:24).

14. Dan 8:15 - "of a man"<1397>.

15. Dan 8:17 - "O son of man" (Daniel types Christ).

16. Dan 8:17,19,26 - "at the time of the end shall be the vision...last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be...shut thou up the vision; it shall be for many days" (explains the last end of the indignation along with other verses hinting at a future destroyer along with suggestions of the resurrection).

17. Dan 8:18 - "I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright" (Daniel figuratively died and was resurrected typing Christ and those "in him", the time of the end is associated with the resurrection).

18. Dan 8:23,25 - the little horn or a form of it "a king of fierce countenance, 'and understanding'<995> 'dark sentences'<2420>" is still in existence at the time of the end so could this be a personification of sin or a succession of rulers opposing God's truth (1Cor 1:22-23;Acts 17:23) with one final head of a Gogian host or religious antichrist? Is it possible in a metaphoric sense that the sanctuary or temple with daily sacrifices also has a secondary application to Christ, who sacrificed his fleshly desires on a daily basis (Dan 8:9-14;John 2:19-21) and will soon return to the earth to rule and establish in his full glory in manifesting his Father while sitting on David's throne? Even faithful believers in a sense can be considered God's temple (1Cor 3:16 NIV - "...you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you").
19. Dan 8:24 - "'And his power'<3581> 'shall be mighty'<6105>, but not 'by his own power'(<3581> Dan 2:21;4:17): 'and he shall destroy'<7843> 'wonderfully'<6381>, 'and shall prosper'<6743>, 'and practise'<6213>, 'and shall destroy'<7843> 'the mighty'<6099> 'and the holy'<6918> 'people'<5971>" - Is this the Roman military of 70 A.D. etc.? Does it also have application to the future?

20. Dan 8:25 - "through 'his policy'<7922> 'also he shall cause craft'<4820> to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by 'peace'(<7962> can mean security genuine or false) shall 'destroy'<7843> many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes (i.e. he will oppose Christ); but he shall be broken 'without hand'(i.e. without human hand Dan 2:34,45)" - who is this king of fierce countenance who opposes Christ? A succession little horns opposed to God's ways? Is it Rome? Is it the antichrists or a final apostate antichrist who fools people with deceit and the appearance of peace? Is it the leader of the Gogian host? Is it fleshly nature and sin?

8:15   There are many things that we do not understand in Scripture. Daniel, here, gives us an example in such situations. He “sought for the meaning …” Is this how we react when we see things in Scripture we do not understand? Or do we just shrug off the matter and give it no further thought? 

8:24   there is a contrast here with the one spoken of in Dan 11:36

8:10  The casting down of stars to the ground is drawn upon in Rev 12:4

Dan 8:3

“Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.”

Since Persia figured in the overthrow of ancient Babylon (today, Iraq), the geographical setting of the vision was significant in as much as Shushan (v. 2) was the capital of Persia where Nehemiah and Esther lived (Neh 1:1; Est 1:2-5; 2:3-5).

The two horns represent the Medo-Persian dual Empires. Media under Darius the Mede, enjoyed supremacy before Persia did under Cyrus the Persian (cf. Dan 6:1,28; 9:1; 10:1); but of the two, Persia eventually became the greater power - the higher horn (v. 4).

Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chapter X1, section 7, writes: “… God interpreted the appearance of this vision [of the ram] after the following manner: He said that the RAM signified THE KINGDOMS OF THE MEDES AND PERSIANS, and the horns of those kings that were to reign in them; and that the last horn signified the last king, and that he should exceed all the kings in riches and glory.” The ram signified kingdoms, not one combined kingdom (note v. 20). The Mede and Persian Empires as separate kingdoms are also represented in the unequal horns of the ram, and this distinction is made throughout the book of Daniel. Babylon was taken by Darius (Dan 5:31), and he with Cyrus put an end to the dominion of the Babylonians.

Today, the Kurds of northern Iraq are believed to be the modern day descendants of the ancient Medes of the Median Empire of Daniel’s day. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1897) by M.G. Easton lists the Medes as part of the Assyrian Empire, which covers the area of today's Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The army that destroyed Babylon in Dan 5 was a combined army from Medo-Persia (Kurds-Iran). Cyrus II, the Great, was half Mede on his mother’s side, Mandane, a daughter of Astyages, king of Media (585- 550 BC.). His father was Cambyses I, the Elder, king of Anshan, in Persia, 600 - 559 BC.

We read in Isa 13:1,17-22 that the Medes (Kurds) would wreak God's final judgment upon the people of Babylon (Iraq). Today, a Kurdish state exists, an independent state, known as Kurdistan, autonomous from the rest of Iraq, yet a part of Iraq. They are now in a position to gain power where they could strike westward, northward, and southward, exacting the kind of disastrous annihilating judgment which God pronounced. Despite the Kurds fierce opponents, they have a fierce military force and they will not disappear from the world’s stage. Babylon was never destroyed in the way Isaiah and Jeremiah (Jer 50; Jer 51:1-4) described, as being like Sodom and Gomorrah never to be inhabited.

Dan 8:9-12

“… And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land… by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down…”

This little horn arises out of one of the four horns of the third beast (vv 8,9). It is not the same little horn of Dan 7 that arose from the terrible fourth beast that came from the 10 horns (Dan 7:7,8,11.19,20). Otherwise, both “horns” were imbued with strength and both afflicted and made war against God’s holy people.

The two-horned Medo-Persian Empires were conquered by Greece represented by a one-horned goat (Dan 8:21). Goats are tougher than rams and this goat attacked the ram with great speed and ferocity. The he goat covered and conquered all that part of the earth lying to the west of the Persian Empire and stormed across the Hellespont into Persia against the ram. Alexander continued to conquer and expand in rapid succession the then known world from Egypt to India, from Greece to Mesopotamia, but then his horn was broken at the height of his power.

The Grecian kingdom was then divided among four of his generals. They ruled over four main regions:

Antigonus’ ruled in the region of Macedonia.

Lysimachus ruled over the western portion of Asia Minor (Turkey), and Thrace in Europe.

Seleucus Nicator ruled in Syria, in addition to portions of Asia Minor.

Ptolemy ruled in the region of Egypt.

It is out of one of these four ruling regions that another little horn rose into prominence. “Out of one of them” refers to the four horns, not winds (cf. v 8). This little horn became exceeding great, cast down the sanctuary of God and took away the daily sacrifice. Who is this little horn?

Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a Hellenistic Greek king of the Seleucid Empire. He wanted to assimilate the Hebrews into the prevailing Greek culture, but most refused. Antiochus then desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem, offered swine on the altar, and rededicated it to Zeus. He put many of the Hebrews to death simply for observing the Sabbath. Still, the Hebrews would not submit to him. His cruel persecutions provoked a bloody revolt, and under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus, they were liberated from Syrian control.

8:24       In telling us that the Roman strength was not by his own power we learn, again, that God is in control – Dan 4:17 comes to mind again.

8:4       The four beasts that Daniel saw are God’s view of the four nations that Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream in Dan 2 .

8:10-11   We might feel we can identify, prophetically, when these things happened. However we should spare a thought for Daniel. How would he feel when he knew that faithful believers were going to be persecuted? How would we feel if we knew of the problems that some of our fellow believers were going to suffer? There is more to prophecy than foretelling the future. We should enter into the feelings of those involved in the prophecies. The one given the revelation and the ones who would experience its fulfilment.

8:7 “Choler” <4843> is elsewhere translated “grieved” Gen 49:23 “provoke” Exo 22:21 “vexed” 2Kin 4:27 which helps us to understand the word’s use here in Daniel. It is telling us that animal which represented a nation was angry.

Dan 8:9-12

No short dispute exists over the identity of the “little horn.” Preterists regard the little horn as the Seleucid tyrant, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–163 BC). Historicists advocate Rome. Futurists also opt for Antiochus IV. The majority of us, likewise, attribute the "little horn" to Antiochus Epiphanes IV, but on further study, this is questionable. Here's why: