Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 8:15 - 8:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The interpretation of the vision - The interpretation of Daniel's vision, as given by the angel, falls within the vision itself. When Daniel sought to understand the vision, viz., in his mind, not by prayer or by asking a question, he saw before him, according to Dan 8:17, one standing at some distance, who had the appearance of a man, but was not a man, but a supernatural being in human likeness. This person resembling a man is (Dan 8:16) named by the angel, Gabriel, i.e., man of God. The voice of another, whom Daniel did not see, hearing only a human voice proceeding from the Ulai, commanded this person to explain the vision to the prophet (לְהַלָּז, i.e., to Daniel). Nothing further is indicated of the person from whom the voice proceeded than what may be conjectured from אוּלַי בֵּין (between the Ulai), whence the voice sounded. These words do not mean “hither from Ulai” (Bertholdt), but “between the two banks of the Ulai” (Chr. B. Mich., Häv., etc.); according to which, the being whose voice Daniel heard appears as if hovering over the waters of the river Ulai. This conjecture is confirmed by Dan 12:6-7, where Daniel sees a man hovering over the waters of the river of Ulai, who by the majesty of his appearance and his words shows himself to be a divine being, and is more minutely described according to the majesty of his appearance in Dan 10:5. The question, who this man might be, is first answered in Daniel Dan 10:5. Gabriel is not a nomen proprium but appellativum. The angel who was described as an appearance like a גֶּבֶר (man) is named, for Daniel, Gabriel (“man of God”), that on subsequent occasions (e.g., Dan 9:21) he might recognise him again as the same (Hgst., Hofm., Kliefoth). As to his relation to other angels and archangels, the Scripture gives no information. If Lengerke and Maurer regard him, after the book of Enoch, along with Michael, and Raphael, and Uriel whose name does not occur in Scripture, as one of the four angels that stand before the throne of God, the Scripture affords no support for it; nor does it countenance the supposition of Hitzig, that the two angels in Dan 8:15, Dan 8:16 are identical with those in Dan 8:13, Dan 8:14 - that Gabriel who spake, and the unknown angel, was the angel of the “rivers and fountains of waters,” Rev 16:4.
(Note: Altogether groundless, also, is the identification of them with the Persian Amschaspands, since neither the doctrine of angels nor the names of angels of the O.T. are derived from Parsism. The most recent attempt by Dr. Al. Kohut, in his researches regarding Jewish angelology and demonology in their dependence on Parsism (Abhand. für die Kunde des Morgen. iv. Bc., Nr. 3), to establish this connection, is extremely poor and superficial. The proof adduced in the first ten pages of his treatise is confined to these points: that in the writings of the O.T. after the Exile or during the Exile the appearance of the angels is altogether different from that presented in the portions written before the Exile. It is said that, as a rule, the angels in the period first named take the human form, and bear names corresponding to their properties - Michael, Dan 10:13, Dan 10:21; Dan 12:1; Gabriel, Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21; and in the book of Tobit, 12:15, not much later in date (?), Raphael; - now also, in contrast to the period before the Exile, there is an order in rank among the angels; Michael, Dan 10:12, is designated as one of the first angel-princes, and, Dan 12:1, as the greatest angel-prince; moreover, the number of שָׂרִים (angel-princes) is spoken of as seven, corresponding to the Persian Amesha-çpentas (Tob. 12:15, and Book of Enoch 90:21). But does this distinction between the pre-exilian and post-exilian doctrine of angels, even though it were allowed to be as great as Kohut supposes, furnish a proof for the derivation of the latter from Parsism? or does this derivation follow from the fact that the Jews in exile came into intercourse with the Persians and the Medes, and that about this time the Zend worship flourished? And do the angels in the post-exilian writings for the first time indeed assume the human form? Kohut seems to know nothing of the appearance of angels in Gen 19:1., Jdg 6:11., Jdg 13:9. Then does the agreement, not of the doctrine of the O.T., but of the later Jewish apocryphal writings, Tobit and the Book of Enoch, with regard to the number of angel-princes and of the Amesha-çpenta, furnish a sufficient proof of this derivation? Dr. Kohut does not himself appear to think so, since he regards it as necessary, in addition to this, which is “perhaps purely accidental,” to furnish an etymological argument. Amesha-çpenta means “non connivens sanctus = the holy one not sleeping;” “thus,” he says, “it is a mere Chaldee rendering of the word Amesha-çpenta, when in Dan 4:10,Dan 4:14, Dan 4:20; Dan 8:13, the Jewish angel-princes are called עִירִין קַדִּשִׁין = holy watchers.” But was, then, the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar, to whom in a dream a “holy watcher” appeared, a Jew? and in what edition of the Bible has Dr. Kohut found in Dan 8:13 the angel name עִיר? Nor is it any better proof that the demonology of the O.T. is a foreign production, resulting from the contact of the Jews with the Persians and Medes during the exile, because in Zec 3:1., Psa 48:1-14 :49; 1Ch 21:1, and especially in Job 1:6., Dan 2:1, Satan “is depicted as a plague-spirit, altogether corresponding to the Persian Agromainjus, the killing spirit.” Such silly talk needs no refutation.)
Dan 8:16-18
As commanded, the angel goes to the place where Daniel stands. On his approach Daniel is so filled with terror that he falls on his face, because as a sinful and mortal man he could not bear the holiness of God which appeared before him in the pure heavenly being. At the appearance of God he fears that he must die. Cf. remarks at Gen 16:13 and Exo 33:20. But the angel, in order to mitigate his alarm, calls him to take heed, for the vision relates to the time of the end. The address (Dan 8:17), “son of man,” stands in contrast to “man of God” (= Gabriel), and is designed to remind Daniel of his human weakness (cf. Psa 8:5), not that he may be humbled (Hävernick), without any occasion for that, but to inform him that, notwithstanding this, he was deemed worthy of receiving high divine revelations (Kliefoth). The foundation of the summons to give heed, “for the vision relates to the time of the end,” is variously interpreted. Auberlen (p. 87) and Zündel (p. 105ff.) understand עֶת־קֵץ not of the time of the end of all history, but of a nearer relative end of the prophecy. “Time of the end” is the general prophetic expression for the time which, as the period of fulfilment, lies at the end of the existing prophetic horizon - in the present case the time of Antiochus. Bleek (Jahrb.f. D. Theol. v. p. 57) remarks, on the contrary, that if the seer was exhorted to special attention because the vision related to the time of the end, then קֵץ here, as in Dan 8:19; Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40; Dan 12:4, also Dan 9:26, without doubt is to be interpreted of the end of the time of trial and sorrow of the people, and at the same time of the beginning of the new time of deliverance vouchsafed by God to His people; and herein lay the intimation, “that the beginning of the deliverance destined by God for His people (i.e., the Messianic time) would connect itself immediately with the cessation of the suppression of the worship of Jehovah by Antiochus Epiphanes, and with the destruction of that ruler.” From the passages referred to, Dan 11:40 and Dan 12:4, it is certainly proved that עֶתקֵץ denotes the time of all suffering, and the completion of the kingdom of God by the Messiah. It does not, however, follow, either that these words “are to be understood of the absolute end of all things, of the time when the Messiah will come to set up His regum gloriae, and of the time of the last tribulation going before this coming of the Lord” (Klief.); or that the prophet cherished the idea, that immediately after the downfall of Antiochus, thus at the close of the 2300 days, the Messiah would appear, bring the world to an end, and erect the kingdom of eternity (v. Leng., Hitz., Maur., etc.). The latter conclusion is not, it is true, refuted by the remark, that the words do not say that the vision has the time of the end directly for its subject, that the prophecy will find its fulfilment in the time of the end, but only that the vision has a relation, a reference, to the time of the end, that there is a parallelism between the time of Antiochus and the time of Antichrist, that “that which will happen to Javan and Antiochus shall repeat itself in, shall be a type of, that which will happen in the time of the end with the last world-kingdom and the Antichrist arising out of it” (Kliefoth). For this idea does not lie in the words. That is shown by the parallel passage, Dan 10:14, which Kliefoth thus understands - ”The vision extends to the days which are before named הַיָמִים אַחֲרִית (latter days); it goes over the same events which will then happen.” Accordingly the angel can also here (Dan 8:17) only say, “Give heed, for the vision relates to the end-time; it gives information of that which shall happen in the end of time.”
Dan 8:19
The justice of this exposition is placed beyond a doubt by this verse. Here the angel says in distinct words, “I will show thee what will happen הַזַּעַם בְּאַחֲרִית (in the last time of the indignation), for it relates to the appointed time of the end.” Kliefoth indeed thinks that what the angel, Dan 8:19, says to the prophet for his comfort is not the same that he had said to him in Dan 8:17, and which cast him down, and that Dan 8:19 does not contain anything so weighty and so overwhelming as Dan 8:17, but something more cheering and consoling; that it gives to the vision another aspect, which relieves Daniel of the sorrow which it had brought upon him on account of its import with reference to the end. From this view of the contents of Dan 8:19 Kliefoth concludes that Daniel, after he had recovered from his terror in the presence of the heavenly messenger, and had turned his mind to the contents of the vision, was thrown to the ground by the thought presented to him by the angel, that the vision had reference to the end of all things, and that, in order to raise him up, the angel said something else to him more comforting of the vision. But this conclusion has no foundation in the text. The circumstance that Daniel was not again cast to the ground by the communication of the angel in Dan 8:19, is not to be accounted for by supposing that the angel now made known to him something more consoling; but it has its foundation in this, that the angel touched the prophet, who had fallen dismayed to the earth, and placed him again on his feet (Dan 8:18), and by means of this touch communicated to him the strength to hear his words. But the explanation which Kliefoth gives of Dan 8:19 the words do not bear. “The last end of the indignation” must denote the time which will follow after the expiration of the זַעַם, i.e., the period of anger of the Babylonian Exile. But אַחֲרִית means, when space is spoken of, that which is farthest (cf. Psa 139:9), and when time is spoken of, the last, the end, the opposite of רֵשִׁית, the end over against the beginning. If הַיָמִים אַחֲרִית does not denote such a time was follows an otherwise fixed termination, but the last time, the end-time (see under Dan 2:28), so also, since זַעַם is here the time of the revelation of the divine wrath, הַזַּעַם אַחֲרִית הַ can only denote the last time, or the end-time, of the revelation of the divine wrath. This explanation of the words, the only one which the terms admit of, is also required by the closing words of Dan 8:19, קֵץ לְמוֹעֵד כִּי (for at the time appointed the end). According to the example of the Vulg., quoniam habet tempus finem suum, and Luther's version, “for the end has its appointed time,” Kliefoth translates the words, “for the firmly-ordained, definite time has its end,” and refers this to the time of the Babylonish Exile, which indeed, as Daniel knew (Dan 9:2), was fixed by God to seventy years. But that in the Babylonish Exile will have its fixed end, will come to an end with the seventy years, the angel needed not to announce to the prophet, for he did not doubt it, and the putting him in remembrance of that fact would have afforded him but very poor consolation regarding the time of the future wrath. This conception of the words depends on the inaccurate interpretation of the words הַזַּעַם אַחֲרִית, and will consequently fall to the ground along with it. If לְמוֹעֵד (to the appointment) were separated from קֵץ, and were to be taken by itself, and to be understood of the time of the זַעַם, then it ought to have the article, as in Dan 11:27, Dan 11:35. Without the article, as here, it must be connected with קֵץ, and them, with הֶחָזֹון supplied as the subject from the context (Dan 8:17), is to be translated, as it is by almost all modern interpreters: for the vision relates to the appointed time of the end. But עֶתקֵץ, the time of the end, and קֵץ מוֹעֵד, the appointed time of the end, is not the absolute end of all things, the time of the setting up of the regnum gloriae, and the time of the tribulation preceding the return of our Lord; but the time of the judgment of the world-kingdom and the setting up of the everlasting kingdom of God by the appearance of the Messiah, the end of αἰὼν οὕτος and the commencement of the αἰὼν μέλλων, the time of the הַיָמִים אַחֲרִית (Dan 10:14), which the apostle calls (1Co 10:11) τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων, and speaks of as having then already come.
Dan 8:20-22
Since, from the explanation given by the angel in this verse, the vision relates to the Medo-Persian and the Javanic world-kingdoms, and to the persecuting kingdom of Antiochus which arose out of the latter, so it cannot be disputed that here, in prophetic perspective, the time of the end is seen together with the period of the oppression of the people of God by Antiochus, and the first appearance of the Messiah with His return in glory to the final judgment, as the latter is the case also in Dan 2:34., 44f., and Dan 7:13, Dan 7:25. If Kliefoth objects: The coming of the Messiah may certainly be conceived of as bound up with the end of all things, and this is done, since both events stand in intimate causal relation to each other, not seldom in those O.T. prophets who yet do not distinguish the times; but they also know well that this intimate causal connection does not include contemporaneousness, that the coming of the Messiah in the flesh will certainly bring about the end of all things, but not as an immediate consequence, but after a somewhat lengthened intervening space, that thus, after the coming of the Messiah, a course of historical events will further unfold themselves before the end comes (which Daniel also knew, as Daniel 9 shows), and where the supposition is this, as in Daniel, there the time before the appearance of Christ in the flesh cannot be called the time of the end: - then the inference drawn in these last passages is not confirmed by the contents of the book of Daniel. For in the last vision (Daniel 10-12) which Daniel saw, not only the time of oppression of Antiochus and that of the last enemy are contemplated together as one, but also the whole contents of this one vision are, Dan 10:14, transferred to the “end of the days;” for the divine messenger says to Daniel, “I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the end of the days, for the vision yet relates to the days.” And not only this, but also in Dan 11:35 it is said of the tribulation brought upon the people of God by Antiochus, that in it many would fall, to cleanse them and to purify them to the time of the end, for it is yet for the appointed time. Here, beyond doubt, the time of the persecution by Antiochus is placed in intimate union with the time of the end, but, as is to be particularly observed, not so that the two are spoken of as synchronous. This point is of importance for the right exposition of the verse before us. If, in Dan 11:35, Dan 11:40, it is twice said laמוֹעֵד קֵץ עֹוד כִּי (the end is yet for the appointed time), and thus does not begin with the oppression of the people of God by Antiochus, so we may not conclude from these verses - and in this Kliefoth is perfectly justified - that Daniel expected the erection of the Messianic kingdom and the end of all history with the overthrow of Antiochus. If, however, on the whole, the intimate causal connection of the two periods of tribulation placed together in Daniel 11 in one vision neither demands nor even permits us to regard the two as synchronous, so this erroneous conclusion drawn from these verses before us, in connection with an incorrect interpretation of Dan 11:36-45, is sufficiently obviated, both by Daniel 2 and 7, according to which the fourth world-kingdom shall precede the erection of the everlasting kingdom of God and the manifestation of the Son of man, as also by Dan 9:24-27, where - as our exposition will show - the coming of the Messiah and the perfecting of the kingdom of God by the overthrow of the last enemy are dependent on one another in point of time - the coming of the Messiah after seven weeks, the perfecting of the kingdom of God will follow, but not trill after the lapse of seventy weeks.
This passage is to be understood according to these distinct revelations and statements, and not that because in them, according to prophetic perspective, the oppression of the people of the saints by Antiochus, the little horn, is seen in one vision with the tribulation of the end-time, therefore the synchronism or identity of the two is to be concluded, and the erection of the regnum gloriae and the end of the world to be placed at the destruction of this little horn. The words, “the vision relates to the time of the end,” thus only declare that the prophecy has a reference to Messianic times. As to the nature of this reference, the angel gives some intimation when, having touched the prophet, who had fallen in amazement to the ground, he raised him up and enabled him to listen to his words (Dan 8:18), the intimation that he would make known to him what would happen in the last time of violence (Dan 8:19). הַזַּעַם is the wrath of God against Israel, the punishment which God hung over them on account of their sins, as in Isa 10:5; Jer 25:17; Eze 22:24, etc., and here the sufferings of punishment and discipline which the little horn shall bring over Israel. The time of this revelation of divine wrath is called אַחֲרִית because it belongs to the הַיָמִים אַחֲרִית, prepares the Messianic future, and with its conclusion begins the last age of the world, of which, however, nothing more particular is here said, for the prophecy breaks off with the destruction of the little horn. The vision of the eleventh chapter first supplies more particular disclosures on this point. In that chapter the great enemy of the saints of God, arising out of the third world-kingdom, is set forth and represented as the prefiguration or type of their last enemy at the end of the days. Under the words יִהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר (which shall be) the angel understands all that the vision of this chapter contains, from the rising up of the Medo-Persian world-kingdom to the time of the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes, as Dan 8:20-25 show. But when he adds הַזַּעַם אַחֲרִית, he immediately makes prominent that which is the most important matter in the whole vision, the severe oppression which awaits the people of Israel in the future for their purification, and repeats, in justification of that which is said, the conclusion from Dan 8:17, in which he only exchanges עֵת for מוֹעֵד is the definite time in its duration; קֵץ מוֹעֵד thus denotes the end-time as to its duration. This expression is here chosen with regard to the circumstance that in Dan 8:14 the end of the oppression was accurately defined by the declaration of its continuance. The object of these words also is variously viewed by interpreters. The meaning is not that the angel wished to console Daniel with the thought that the judgment of the vision was not yet so near at hand (Zündel); for, according to Dan 8:17, Daniel was not terrified by the contents of the vision, but by the approach of the heavenly being; and if, according to Dan 8:18, the words of the angel so increased his terror that he fell down confounded to the earth, and the angel had to raise him by touching him, yet it is not at the same time said that the words of the angel of the end-time had so confounded him, and that the subsequent fuller explanation was somewhat less overwhelming than the words, Dan 8:17, something lighter or more comforting. Even though the statement about the time of the end contributed to the increase of the terror, yet the contents of Dan 8:19 were not fitted to raise up the prophet, but the whole discourse of the angel was for Daniel so oppressive that after hearing it, he was for some days sick, Dan 8:27. From Daniel's astonishment we are not to conclude that the angel in Dan 8:17 spoke of the absolute end of all things, and in Dan 8:19, on the contrary, of the end of the oppression of the people of Israel by Antiochus. By the words, “the vision relates to the appointed end-time,” the angel wished only to point to the importance of his announcement, and to add emphasis to his call to the prophet to give heed.
Dan 8:20-26
After the introductory words, we have now in these verses the explanation of the chief points of the vision.
Dan 8:20-22 explain Dan 8:3-8. “The kings of Media and Persia” are the whole number of the Medo-Persian kings as they succeed each other, i.e., the Medo-Persian monarchy in the whole of its historical development. To הַצָּפִיר the epithet הַשָּׂעִיר, hairy, shaggy, is added to characterize the animal as an he-goat. The king of Javan (Greece) is the founder and representative of the Macedo-Grecian world-kingdom, or rather the royalty of this kingdom, since the great horn of the ram is forthwith interpreted of Alexander the Great, the first king of this kingdom. The words וְהַנִּשְׁבֶּרֶת to תַּחְתֶּיהָ (Dan 8:22) form an absolute subject-sentence, in which, however, וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה is not to be taken ἐκβατικῶς, it broke in pieces, so that ... (Kran.); for “the statement of the principal passage may not appear here in the subordinate relative passage” (Hitzig); but to the statement beginning with the participle the further definition in the verb. in. with וconsec. is added, without the relative אֲשֶׁר, as is frequently the case (cf. Ewald's Lehr. §351), which we cannot give with so much brevity, but must express thus: “as concerning the horn, that it was broken in pieces, and then four stood up in its place, (this signifies) that four kingdoms shall arise from the people.” מִגּוֹי without the article does not signify from the people of Javan, for in this case the article would not have been omitted; nor does it signify from the heathen world, because a direct contrast to Israel does not lie before us; but indefinitely, from the territory of the people, or the world of the people, since the prophecy conceives of the whole world of the people (Vöklerwelt) as united under the sceptre of the king of Javan. יַעֲמֹדְנָה is a revived archaism; cf. Gen 30:38; 1Sa 6:12; Ewald, §191; Gesen. Gramm. §47. - בְכוֹחוֹ וְלֹא, but not in his power, not armed with the strength of the first king, cf. Dan 11:4.
Dan 8:23-24
Dan 8:23-26 give the interpretation of the vision of the little horn (Dan 8:9-12), with a more special definition of certain elements not made prominent in the vision. The horn signifies a king who will arise “in the last time of their kingdom.” The suffix to מַלְכוּתָם (of their kingdom) relates to the idea contained in מַלְכֻיּוֹת ni deniat (kings). הַפֹּשְׁעִים כְּהָתֵם, when the transgressors have made full, scil. the transgression or measure of the sins. The object wanting to הָתֵם is seen from the conception of the subject. הַפֹּשְׁעִים, the rebellious, are not the heathen, for פָּשַׁע denotes the apostasy from God which is only said of the Israelites, but not of the heathen; and the word points back to בְּפֶשַׁע in Dan 8:12. The king that rises up is Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. 1 Macc. 1:10ff.). עַז־פָּנִים, hard of countenance, i.e., impudent, unashamed in trampling down, without fear of God or man; cf. Deu 28:50. חִידוֹת מֵבִין, understanding mysteries; here sensu malo, concealing his purpose behind ambiguous words, using dissimulation, forming an artifice, interpreted in Dan 8:25 by מִרְמָה, cf. Dan 11:21. The unfolding of these qualities is presented in Dan 8:24, Dan 8:25; in Dan 8:24 of the עַז־פָּנִים. By virtue of the audacity of his conduct his power will be strengthened, בְכֹחוֹ וְלֹא, but not by his own might. The contrast here is not: by the power or permission of God (Ephr., Theodrt., Häv., Hitz., Kran.), reference being made to תִּנָּתֵן (was given) in Dan 8:12, and to תֵּת (to give) in Dan 8:13. This contrast is foreign to the passage. The context much rather relates to the audacity and the cunning by which, more than by his power, Antiochus raised himself to might. The strengthening of the power is limited neither to his reaching the throne by the overthrow of other pretenders to it (Berth. and others), nor to the to the following statements, he developed as king against Israel, as well as against other kingdoms. נִפְּלָאֹות (wonderful works) is used adverbially, as in Job 37:5 : in an astonishing, wonderful way, he will work destruction. But from this word it does not follow that the expression בְכֹחוֹ וְלֹא is to be referred to the power of God, for it does not necessarily mean deeds or things supernaturally originating from God; and even though it had only this meaning, yet here they could not be thought of as deeds accomplished in God's strength, but only as deeds performed by demoniacal strength, because יַשְׁחִית (shall destroy) cannot be predicated of God in the sense determined by the context. This destructive work he shall direct against the mighty and against the people of the saints. עֲצוּמִים does not here signify many, numerous, many individual Israelites (v. Leng., Maur., Kliefoth), partly because in Dan 8:25 רַבִּים stands for that, partly because of the קְדֹשִׁים עַם, by which we are to understand the people of Israel, not merely the insignificant and weak, or pious (Kran.). Hence עֲצוּמִים cannot mean the elders of Israel, much less merely foreign kings (Berth., Dereser), but the mighty generally, under which perhaps we are specially to think of heathen rulers.
Dan 8:25
In Dan 8:25 the cunning and craftiness of his action and demeanour are depicted. שִׂכְלוֹ עַל (through his craft) is placed first. שֵׂכֶל, sagacity, here sensu malo, cunning. On the ground of this cunning his deceit will be successful. מִרְמָה without the article means “all kinds of deceit which he designs” (Hitzig). On that account his heart is raised in haughtiness, so that not only does he destroy many unexpectedly, but also raises himself against God. In the רַבִּים (many) are comprehended “the mighty and the holy people” (Dan 8:24). בְּשַׁלְוָה does not mean in deep peace, but in careless security, and thus unexpectedly. An historical proof of this is found in 1 Macc. 1:10. שָׂרִים שַׂר (Prince of princes) corresponds with אֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים (Lord of lords) in Psa 136:3. It is God; cf. Dan 8:11. But the angel adds, “he shall be destroyed without hands,” i.e., he shall be destroyed not by the hand of man, but by God.
Dan 8:26
In Dan 8:26 there follows, in conclusion, the confirmation of the truth of what is said of the duration of this oppression for the people of God. Because the time of it was not seen by Daniel, but was revealed to him in words, נֶאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר is here used in reference to that which was, or of which it was, said. But we need not connect this relative sentence with the genitive וְהַבֹּקֶר הָעֶרֶב (the evening and the morning), although this were admissible, but can make it depend on מַרְאֵה (vision), since the world-revelation of the evenings and mornings forms an integral part of the “vision.” וְהַבֹּקֶר הָעֶרֶב are to be taken collectively. The confirmation of the truth of this revelation does not betray the purpose to make the book falsely appear as if it were old (v. Leng., Hitzig); it much more is fitted to serve the purpose of strengthening the weakness of the faithful, and giving them consolation in the hour of trial. For in the statement of the duration of the afflictions lies not only the fact that they will come to an end, but at the same time also that this end is determined beforehand by God; cf. Dan 12:7. In other places this confirmation serves only to meet doubts, arising from the weakness of the flesh, as to the realization of revelations of such weighty import; cf. Dan 10:1; Dan 12:1; Rev 19:9; Rev 21:5; Rev 22:6.
But Daniel must close the prophecy, because it extends into a long time. סָתַן is not equivalent to חָתַם, to seal up, but it means to stop, to conclude, to hide (cf. 2Ki 3:19; Eze 28:3), but not in the sense of keeping secret, or because it would be incomprehensible for the nearest times; for to seal or to shut up has nothing in common with incomprehensibility, but is used in the sense of keeping. “A document is sealed up in the original text, and laid up in archives (shut up), that it may remain preserved for remote times, but not that it may remain secret, while copies of it remain in public use” (Kliefoth). The meaning of the command, then, is simply this: “Preserve the revelation, not because it is not yet to be understood, also not for the purpose of keeping it secret, but that it may remain preserved for distant times” (Kliefoth). The reason assigned for the command only agrees with this interpretation. רַבִּים לְיָמִים (to many days) is not to be identified with לְעֶת־קֵץ in Dan 8:17, but designates only a long time; and this indefinite expression is here used because it was not intended to give exactly again the termination according to Dan 8:17, Dan 8:19, but only to say that the time of the end was not near.
Dan 8:27
In Dan 8:27 the influence of this vision on Daniel is mentioned (cf. Dan 7:28). It so deeply agitated the prophet that he was sick certain days, and not till after he had recovered from this sickness could he attend to the king's business. The contents of the vision remained fixed in his mind; the scene filled him with amazement, and no one understood it. Maurer, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld interpret מֵבִין אֵין (I understood it not,) supplying the pronoun of the first person from the connection. But even though the construction of the words should admit of this supplement, for which a valid proof is not adduced, yet it would be here unsuitable, and is derived merely from giving to סָתַן (Dan 8:26) the false interpretation of to conceal. If Daniel had been required to keep the prophecy secret according to the command in Dan 8:26, then the remark “no one understood it” would have been altogether superfluous. But if he was required only to preserve the prophecy, and it deeply moved him, then those around him must have had knowledge of it, and the amazement of Daniel would become the greater when not only he but all others failed to understand it. To refer מֵבִין אֵין only to Daniel is forbidden by the comparison with אָבִין וְלֹא in Dan 12:8. The fulfilment of this vision can alone lead to its full understanding.