Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 8:14

"And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings [and] mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." — Daniel 8:14 (ASV)

And he said to me - Instead of answering the one who made the inquiry, the answer is made to Daniel, undoubtedly so that he might make a record of it or communicate it to others. If it had been made to the inquirer, the answer would have remained with him and could have been of no use to the world. For the encouragement, however, of the Hebrew people, when their sanctuary and city would be thus desolate, and in order to furnish an instance of the clear fulfillment of a prediction, it was important that it should be recorded; for this reason, it was made to Daniel.

For two thousand and three hundred days - Margin: evening, morning. So the Hebrew, בקר ערב (‛ereb boqer). So the Latin Vulgate, ad vesperam et mane. And so Theodotion: ἕως ἑσπέρας καὶ πρωΐ (heōs hesperas kai prōi) — “to the evening and morning.” The language here is evidently derived from Genesis 1, or was common among the Hebrews, to speak of the “evening and the morning” as constituting a day. There can be no doubt, however, that a day is intended by this, for this is the fair and obvious interpretation.

The Greeks were accustomed to denote the period of a day in the same manner by the word νυχθήμερον (nuchthēmeron) (see 2 Corinthians 11:25), to designate one complete day more emphatically. See Professor Stuart’s Hints on Prophecy, pp. 99, 100. The time then specified by this would be six years and one hundred and ten days.

Expositors have felt much difficulty in reconciling this statement with the other designations of time in the book of Daniel, supposed to refer to the same event, and with the account Josephus provided regarding the period during which the sanctuary was desolate and the daily sacrifice suspended. The other designations of time which have been supposed to refer to the same event in Daniel are Daniel 7:25, where the time mentioned is three years and a half, or twelve hundred and sixty days; Daniel 12:7, where the same time is mentioned, “a time, times, and an half,” or three years and a half, or, as before, twelve hundred and sixty days; Daniel 12:11, where the period mentioned is “a thousand two hundred and ninety days;” and Daniel 12:12, where the time mentioned is “a thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.” The time Josephus mentioned is exactly three years from the time when “their Divine worship had fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use,” until the time when the lamps were lighted again and worship was restored. For he says that the one event happened precisely three years after the other, on the same day of the month (Antiquities, Book 12, Chapter 7).

In his Jewish Wars, however (Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 1), he says that Antiochus “spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months.” Now, in order to explain the passage before us, and to reconcile the accounts, or to show that there is no contradiction between them, the following remarks may be made:

1. We may set aside the passage in Daniel 7:25. See the note on that passage. If the reasoning there is sound, then that passage did not refer to Antiochus. Although, according to Josephus, there is a remarkable coincidence between the time mentioned there and the time during which the daily sacrifice was suspended, this does not demonstrate that the reference there is to Antiochus.
2. We may also set aside for the present the passages in Daniel 12:11-12. Those will be considered later and, for now, should not be allowed to complicate our efforts to ascertain the meaning of the passage before us.
3. However, on the assumption that those passages refer to Antiochus and that the accounts in Josephus mentioned above are correct—though he mentions different times, and though Daniel refers to different periods—the variety may be accounted for by the supposition that separate epochs are referred to as the starting point in the calculation: the terminus a quo. The truth was, there were several decisive acts in the history of Antiochus that led to the ultimate desolation of Jerusalem. A writer might have contemplated one of these acts at one time and another act at another time. For example, there was the act by which Jason, made high priest by Antiochus, was permitted to set up a gymnasium in Jerusalem in the pagan manner (Prideaux, vol. 3, p. 216). Another was the act by which Antiochus assaulted and took Jerusalem, entering the Most Holy Place, stripping the temple of its treasures, defiling the temple, and offering a large sow on the altar of burnt offerings (Prideaux, vol. 3, pp. 230-231). Then, just two years after this, having been defeated in his expedition to Egypt, he resolved to vent all his wrath on the Jews. On his return, he sent Apollonius with a large army to ravage and destroy Jerusalem. Apollonius plundered the city, set it on fire, demolished the houses, pulled down the walls, and with the ruins of the demolished city built a strong fortress on Mount Acra, which overlooked the temple and from which he could attack all who went to the temple to worship (Prideaux, vol. 3, pp. 239-240). Finally, there was the act by which Antiochus solemnly forbade all burnt offerings, sacrifices, and drink offerings in the temple (Prideaux, vol. 3, pp. 241-242). Now, it is evident that someone writing about these calamitous events, and mentioning how long they would continue, might at one time consider one of these events as the beginning (the terminus a quo), and at another time, have another of these events in view. Each of them was a strongly marked and decisive event, and each might be seen as a period that, in an important sense, determined the city's destiny and put an end to the worship of God there.
4. It seems probable that the time mentioned in the passage before us is designed to include the whole series of disastrous events, from the first decisive act that led to the suspension of the daily sacrifice (or the termination of God's worship there) to the time when the “sanctuary was cleansed.” That this is so seems probable from the series of visions presented to Daniel in this chapter. The acts of the “little horn” representing Antiochus, as seen in vision, began with his attack on the pleasant land (Daniel 8:9). The things that attracted Daniel’s attention were that he waxed great, made war on the host of heaven, and cast some of the host and of the stars to the ground (Daniel 8:10), and magnified himself against the prince of the host (Daniel 8:11). These acts manifestly refer to his attack on God’s people, the priests or ministers of religion, and on God Himself as the prince of the host—unless this phrase should instead be understood as referring to the high priest. We are then to look to the whole series of events as included within the two thousand and three hundred days, rather than only the period in which the daily sacrifice was literally forbidden by a solemn statute. It was practically suspended, and God's worship was interrupted during all that time.
5. The terminus ad quem—the conclusion of the period—is marked and settled. This was the “cleansing of the sanctuary.” This took place under Judas Maccabeus on December 25, 165 B.C. (Prideaux, vol. 3, pp. 265-268). Now, reckoning back two thousand and three hundred days from this period, we arrive at August 5, 171 B.C. The question is whether there were, in this year and at about this time, any events in the series of sufficient importance to constitute a period from which to reckon—events corresponding to what Daniel saw as the commencement of the vision, when some of the host and of the stars were cast down and stamped upon. Now, as a matter of fact, a series of aggressions by Antiochus against the priesthood, temple, and city of the Jews commenced in the year 171 B.C., which terminated only with his death. Up to this year, the relations of Antiochus and the Jewish people were peaceful and cordial. In the year 175 B.C., he granted the Jewish people who desired it permission to erect a gymnasium in Jerusalem, as stated above. In the year 173 B.C., a demand was made of Antiochus for the provinces of Coele-Syria and Palestine by the young Philometor of Egypt, who had just come to the throne, and by his mother. This demand was the origin of the war between Antiochus and the king of Egypt, and the beginning of all the disturbances (Prideaux, vol. 3, p. 218). In the year 172 B.C., Antiochus bestowed the office of high priest on Menelaus, who was the brother of Jason the high priest. Jason had sent Menelaus to Antioch to pay the king his tribute money. While there, Menelaus conceived the design of supplanting his brother and, by offering more for it than Jason had, he procured the appointment and returned to Jerusalem (Prideaux, vol. 3, pp. 220-222). Up to this time, all of Antiochus's dealings with the Jews had been peaceful, and nothing of a hostile nature had occurred. In 171 B.C. began the series of events that finally resulted in the invasion and destruction of the city, and in the cessation of the public worship of God. Menelaus, having procured the high priesthood, refused to pay the tribute money he had promised for it and was summoned to Antioch. Antiochus being then absent, Menelaus took advantage of his absence. By means of Lysimachus, whom he had left at Jerusalem, he procured the vessels from the temple, sold them at Tyre, and thus raised money to pay the king. In the meantime, Onias III, the lawful high priest who had fled to Antioch, sternly rebuked Menelaus for his sacrilege. Soon after, at Menelaus's instigation, Onias was lured from his retreat at Daphne, where he had sought asylum, and was murdered by Andronicus, Antiochus's vicegerent. At the same time, the Jews in Jerusalem, highly indignant at Menelaus's profanation and the sacrilege in robbing the temple, rose in rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who defended him. They cut off both this “sacrilegious robber” (as Prideaux calls him) and the guards by whom he was surrounded. This would leave only twenty-nine days of the 2,300 to be accounted for. This time would be required to travel from the place of the battle—between Beth-Horon and Adasa ()—to Jerusalem, and to make arrangements to celebrate the victory (see Bertholdt, pp. 501-503). The reckoning here is from the time of founding the kingdom of the Seleucidae, or the era of the Seleucidae.

Then the sanctuary shall be cleansed - Margin: justified. The Hebrew word (צדק, tsâdaq) means to be right or straight, and then to be just or righteous; then to vindicate or justify. In the form used here (Niphal), it means to be declared just, to be justified or vindicated. As applied to the temple or sanctuary, it means to be vindicated from violence or injury; that is, to be cleansed. See Gesenius, Lexicon. There is undoubtedly a reference here to the act of Judas Maccabeus in solemnly purifying the temple, repairing it, and rededicating it, after the pollutions Antiochus brought upon it.

For a description of this, see Prideaux’s Connexions, vol. 3, pp. 265-269. Judas designated a priesthood again to serve in the temple. He pulled down the altars the pagans had erected, carried out all the defiled stones to an unclean place, built a new altar in place of the old altar of burnt offerings which they had defiled, hallowed the courts, made a new altar of incense, table of showbread, golden candlestick, etc., and solemnly reconsecrated the whole to God's service. This act occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month (Kislev), and the solemnity continued for eight days. This is the festival called “the feast of dedication” in the New Testament (John 10:22), which our Savior honored with His presence. See 1 Maccabees 4:41-58; 2 Maccabees 10:1-7; Josephus, Antiquities, Book 12, Chapter 7, Sections 6-7.