Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 8:20
The ram which thou sawest having [two] horns [are] the kings of Media and Persia.
20. having the two horns ] see on Dan 8:3.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
20 26. The explanation of the vision.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The ram which thou sawest … – See the notes at Dan 8:3. This is one of the instances in the Scriptures in which symbols are explained. There can be no doubt, therefore, as to the meaning.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 20. The ram which thou sawest] See this explained under the vision itself, Da 8:3, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Or the kingdom, Dan 7:17.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
The ram which thou sawest having two horns,…. Here begins the particular explanation of the above vision, and of the first thing which the prophet saw in it, a ram with two horns: which two horns, he says,
are the kings of Media and Persia; Darius the first king was a Mede, and Cyrus, that succeeded him, or rather reigned with him, was a Persian: or rather the ram with two horns signifies the two kingdoms of the Medes and Persians united in one monarchy, of which the ram was an emblem; [See comments on Da 8:3] for Darius and Cyrus were dead many years before the time of Alexander; and therefore could not personally be the two horns of the ram broken by him; nor is it to be understood of the kings of two different families, as the one of. Cyrus, and the other of Darius Hystaspes, in whose successors the Persian monarchy continued till destroyed by Alexander, as Theodoret.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
We have previously given a brief explanation of all these subjects. But here the angel removes all doubt, lest we should still anxiously inquire the meaning of the ram which Daniel saw, and of the he-goat which followed and prostrated the ram. The angel, therefore, here pronounces the ram to represent two kingdoms, which coalesced in one. Cyrus, as we have said, granted it for a time to his father-in-law Cyaxares, but yet; drew the whole power to himself, and the Persians began to extend their sway over all the realms of the East. But God in this vision had respect to the beginning of that monarchy. When, however, the Persians and Medes, were united, then the ram bore two horns; then the he-goat succeeded, and he threw down the ram, as we have already seen. In that he-goat there was first one great horn and then four small ones. The angel then answers concerning the he-goat representing the kingdom of the Greeks. There is not the slightest doubt here, since Alexander seized upon the whole East, and thus the Persian monarchy was utterly destroyed. In the he-goat, therefore, the kingdom of Greece or Macedon was displayed, but the horns will mark something special.
That great, horn, says Daniel, was the first king, namely, Alexander; afterwards four smaller horns arose in his place. We have already explained these. For when much blood had been shed, and the greater part of the leaders had been slain, and after the followers of Alexander had mutually attacked and. destroyed each other, those who remained divided his dominions among themselves. Cassander the son of Antipater obtained Macedon; Seleueus, Syria; Ptolemy, Egypt; and Antigonus his own fourth share. In this way the smaller horns succeeded Alexander, according to the clear testimony of profane history. From the frequency with which God sets this prophecy before us, we gather his intention of giving us a conspicuous sign of his majesty. For how could Daniel conjecture future events for so long a period before they happened? He does not pronounce mere enigmas, but; narrates things exactly as if they were already fulfilled. At the present time Epicureans despise the Scriptures and laugh at our simplicity, as if we were too ridiculous. But they rather display their own prodigious madness, and blindness, by not acknowledging the prediction of Daniel to be divine. Nay, from this prophecy alone we may prove with certainty the unity of God. If any one was inclined to deny that first principle, and utterly reject the doctrine of his divinity, he might be convinced by this single prophecy. Not only is this subject treated here, but Daniel points with his finger to the God of Israel as the only one in whose hand and will are all things, and from whom nothing either escapes or is concealed. From this prophecy alone the authority of Scripture is established by proofs perfectly sure and undoubted, as the Prophet treats with perfect clearness events at the time unknown, and which no mortal could ever have divined.
First of all he says, The ram which, thou sawest, having two horns, means the kings of the Medes and Persians This had not then occurred, for that ram had not yet risen and seized upon Babylon, as we have stated already. Thus Daniel was raised up as it were to heaven, and observed from that watch-tower things hidden from the minds of men. He afterwards adds, The he-goat is the king of Greece. Philip, the father of Alexander, although a strenuous and a most skillful warrior, who surpassed all the kings of Macedon for cleverness, yet, superior as he was, never dared to cross over the sea. It, was sufficient for him if he could strengthen his power in Greece, and render himself formidable against his neighbors in Asia Minor. But he never dared to attack the power of Persia, or even to harass them, and much less to overcome the whole East. Alexander, inflamed rather by rashness and pride than by good judgment, thought nothing would prove difficult to him. But when Daniel saw this vision, who ever would have thought of any king of Greece invading that most powerful monarchy, and not only seizing upon the whole of Asia, but obtaining sway in Egypt, Syria, and other regions? Although Asia Minor was an extensive region, and well known to be divided into many rich and fertile provinces, yet it was but a small addition to his immense empire. Nay, when Nineveh was conquered by Babylon, and the Chaldeans became masters of Assyria, this also was an addition to the Persian monarchy. We are familiar with the amazing riches of the Medes, and yet they were entirely absorbed. Darius drew with him 800,000 men, and quite buried the earth under his army. Alexander met him at the head of 30,000. What comparison was there between them! When Xerxes (73) came to Greece he brought with him 800,000 men, and threatened to put fetters upon the sea; yet Daniel speaks of his incredible event just as if it had already taken place, and were matter of history. These points must be diligently noticed that the Scriptures may inspire us with the confidence which they deserve.
(73) The edit. Gen., 1617 read Merces incorrectly: that of Vincent, 1571, and the French of Perrin, 1569, are correct, as in the text. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(20-22) See Notes on Dan. 8:3-8.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
20-22. These verses explain Dan 8:3-8. (See notes.) The explanation is brief, because the interest centers not in the great horn (Alexander the Great), but in the “little horn” (Antiochus Epiphanes).
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Interpretation of the Vision.
‘The ram which you saw, which had the two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece. And the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. And as for that which was broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power.’
This confirms what we have seen above, all given in a few words within which more than three hundred years have passed by. But all is leading up to the time of Antiochus IV. Note the emphasis on the declining control of the empires. ‘Two horns’, an empire made up of two, although one king had dominion of the other; ‘four kingdoms’, an empire made up of four, and even more separated. Compare the declining value of the metals in Dan 2:37-43.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Who this fierce king points at, or what awful indignation is to take place at the time, when the latter kingdom shall come, and the transgressions are come to the full; I presume not to say. But one spiritual improvement ariseth out of it, which both Writer and Reader will do well to regard: namely, how awful are all the Lord’s visitations, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. We behold Daniel’s mind so affected in the very contemplation of it, that though he knew it would not happen in his days, yet, it induced sickness and fear. There is a sickness of soul as well as sickness of body, and both may be supposed to have their operations on the Lord’s faithful ones in times of sorrow for Zion’s welfare. But in the midst of these, while the soul lives on the Person, Work, and glory of the Lord Jesus Christ; the purposes of an unchangeable God in Covenant, will bring comfort within, when matters are ever so unpromising without. Oh! how truly blessed is it to have this Covenant God in Christ to fly to, and to trust in, when the world is convulsed with storms and tempests; and all things in disorder!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Dan 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having [two] horns [are] the kings of Media and Persia.
Ver. 20. The ram which thou sawest. ] See Dan 8:3 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the kings. Here in Dan 8:20 we have the beginning of the interpretation; which commences with past history with which the prophecy (which belongs to the future) is linked on. This is to connect the anticipatory and partial, or foreshadowing, fulfillment, which shows how the “little horn” will act, in a similar way as an individual, and not as a series of kings or popes.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 8:20
Dan 8:20 The ramH352 whichH834 thou sawestH7200 havingH1167 two hornsH7161 are the kingsH4428 of MediaH4074 and Persia.H6539
Dan 8:20
The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
Cyrus, the Persian and Darius the Mede.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
ram
vs. Dan 8:3; Dan 8:4.
The “higher” horn which “came up last” is Cyrus, the other “Darius the Mede.”
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Dan 8:3, Dan 11:1, Dan 11:2
Reciprocal: Est 1:3 – of Persia Isa 21:2 – Go up Jer 51:28 – the kings Dan 2:39 – another kingdom Dan 5:28 – Thy Dan 7:6 – lo Act 2:9 – Medes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 8:20. This is fully explained at verse 3,
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Dan 8:20-22. The ram, &c., having two horns, are the kings, or kingdoms rather, of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king, or kingdom, of Grecia. And the great horn, &c., is the first king Namely, Alexander the Great, the first Grecian king that reigned over Asia. Now that being broken That is, this first king being deceased; four kingdoms shall stand up, &c. Shall arise from it, under the rule of the same nation that the first king was of, namely, the Grecian. But not in his power They were to be kingdoms of Greeks, not of Alexanders own family, but only of his nation; neither were they to be equal to him in power and dominion, as an empire united is certainly more powerful than the same empire divided, and the whole is greater than any of its parts.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gabriel identified the ram with the two horns as Media and Persia (cf. Dan 8:3-4), not just Media as many liberal interpreters insist because of their second-century composition hypothesis. The goat, here further described as shaggy, represents Greece (cf. Dan 8:5-7), not Persia as many liberals contend. The large horn on the goat is the first king of Greece, namely, Alexander the Great. The four kingdoms that arose to replace Alexander when he died were Macedonia and Greece, Thrace and Asia Minor, Egypt and Palestine, and Syria and Persia (cf. Dan 8:8).
"Most [conservative] expositors agree that Dan 8:20-22 have been fulfilled completely in history in connection with the Medo-Persian and Greek empires and the four divisions following Alexander the Great. The exegetical problems arise in the passage which follows." [Note: Walvoord, Daniel . . ., p. 197.]