Daniel 8:13,14 - Joseph Benson’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Then I heard one saint speaking The word saint here is equivalent to angel: see Daniel 4:13. What this saint or angel said, is not expressed; no more than the words spoken by that illustrious person who appeared to Daniel 10:5, are recorded. And another saint said to that certain saint which spake Several angels are introduced in Daniel's visions, and so in Zechariah's. This appears to be spoken of one of a higher rank, as being able to unfold those secrets which were hid from the other angels; and is therefore justly supposed to mean the Son of God, called the Wonderful Counsellor, Isaiah 9:6, as being acquainted with all God's purposes and designs. How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice? &c. The words, says Lowth, may be translated more agreeably to the Hebrew thus: For how long a time shall the vision last, the daily sacrifice be taken away, and the transgression of desolation continue? Since, however, there are no words in the Hebrew for taken away and continue, Mr. Wintle rather thinks the inquiry respects only the duration of the vision, and that the other words are by way of explaining what the vision is, namely, “of the daily sacrifice, and of the transgression of desolation, and of the sanctuary and host,” or its attendant ministers, “being suppressed and trampled on.” He therefore translates the clause thus: How long will be the term of the vision of the daily sacrifice, and the transgression that maketh desolate, exposing both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled on? The plain meaning of the verse is, that one of the angels asked the superior personage, distinguished here by the title of that certain saint, How long the evils signified in this vision, and particularly the taking away, or interruption, of the daily sacrifice, &c., should last. By the transgression of desolation seems to be meant the harassing and ravaging of the city by the garrison of Antiochus, setting up an idol to be worshipped in God's temple, and, by that and other heathenish superstitions, profaning it, and also the host, or the Levites; persuading them, either by threats or enticements, to quit the worship of Jehovah, the true God, or to mix it with the worship of idols, contrary to the divine law. And he said, Unto two thousand and three hundred days Hebrew, Until the evening [and] morning two thousand and three hundred. This signifies a space of about six years, and is to be taken from the first invasion of Judea by Antiochus, when he profaned the priesthood, and includes his second coming into that country, when he forbade the worship of God in the temple, and set up an idol there. After this time of two thousand three hundred days, or about six years from the first coming of Antiochus, it is here declared that the temple should be purged, or cleansed from the polluted or unclean things which Antiochus had brought into it, or from those things in it which he had defiled, by using them for idolatrous rites: see 1 Maccabees 4. It must, however, be remembered, that many interpreters understand these days in the same sense in which days are generally understood by this prophet, namely, for years; and thus refer the prophecy to antichrist, of whom Antiochus was a type. This will carry us on to a still distant time in the church of God, to the completion of that opposition to the church of Christ which has been wished for long since, when the sanctuary will be perfectly cleansed, and to which the twelve hundred ninety and thirteen hundred thirty-five years of chap. 12. must have a reference. Sir Isaac Newton, Obs., chap. 9., not only reckons the days to be years, but will have the horn to be Rome, and does not refer it at all to Antiochus; and in this he is followed, in a great measure, by Bishop Newton, who makes the years commence from the time of Alexander's invading Asia, three hundred thirty-four years before Christ, and thus to end with near the sixth millennium of the world. With this interpretation of Bishop Newton, Mr. Faber (a late writer) finds great fault, and endeavours to prove that the Mohammedan delusion, and not that of the Papacy, is intended here by the little horn. His reasonings, calculations, and quotations on this subject, cannot possibly be inserted here, nor even an abstract of them. The reader that wishes to be acquainted with his scheme, must necessarily be referred to the book itself. There seems, however, to be one insuperable objection, both to Bishop Newton's and this interpretation, and that is, that they are utterly irreconcileable with Daniel 8:9, where it is expressly said, that this little horn came forth from one of the four notable horns, or kingdoms, into which Alexander's empire was divided. Now it cannot be said that either the Papacy, which arose in the west of Europe, or Mohammedanism, which had its rise and first prevailed in Arabia, sprang from any of the four branches of the Macedonian empire.