“¹³Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, “How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?” ¹⁴He said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.”

            The following are the explanations of several noted Bible Commentators.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary Old Testament (Dwight Pentecost)

 “Antiochus’ desecration of the temple was to last 2,300 evenings and mornings before its cleansing (8:14). Some take the 2,300 evenings and mornings to mean 2,300 days, that is, a little more than six years. In this interpretation, the six years were from Antiochus’ first incursion into Jerusalem (170 b.c.) to the refurbishing and restoring of the temple by Judas Maccabeus in late 164. A second interpretation seems preferable. Rather than each evening and each morning representing a day, the reference may be to evening and morning sacrifices, which were interrupted by Antiochus’ desecration (cf. “the daily sacrifice,” vv. 11-21). With two sacrifices made daily, the 2,300 offerings would cover 1,150 days or three years (of 360 days each) plus 70 days. This is the time from Antiochus’ desecration of the temple (December 16, 167 b.c.) to the refurbishing and restoring of the temple by Judas Maccabeus in late 164 and on into 163 b.c. when all the Jewish sacrifices were fully restored and religious independence gained for Judah. Whichever interpretation it is that one accepts, the figure of 2,300 was a literal one and so the time period was literally fulfilled.

There is no question among expositors that Antiochus is in view in this prophecy. What was prophesied was fulfilled literally through him. However, the prophecy looks beyond Antiochus to a future person (the Antichrist) of whom Antiochus is only a foreshadowing. This coming one is said to “stand against the Prince of princes” (v. 25). This can be none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the prophecy must go beyond Antiochus and look forward to the coming of one whose ministry will parallel that of Antiochus.

From Antiochus certain facts can be learned about the forthcoming desecrator: (1) He will achieve great power by subduing others (v. 24). (2) He will rise to power by promising false security (v. 25). (3) He will be intelligent and persuasive (v. 23). (4) He will be controlled by another (v. 24), that is, Satan. (5) He will be an adversary of Israel and subjugate Israel to his authority (vv. 24-25). (6) He will rise up in opposition to the Prince of princes, the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 25). (7) His rule will be terminated by divine judgment (v. 25). So it may be concluded that there is a dual reference in this striking prophecy. It reveals Israel’s history under the Seleucids and particularly under Antiochus during the time of Greek domination, but it also looks forward to Israel’s experiences under Antichrist, whom Antiochus foreshadows.”

(The Bible Knowledge Commentary – Old Testament on 8:23-25)

Barne’s Notes on the Old Testament (Albert T. Barnes)

“Unto 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— ἔως ἑσπέρας καὶ πρωῒ heōs hesperas kai prōi —”to the evening and morning.” The language here is evidently what was derived from Gen. 1 , or which 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 Cor. 11:25 ), in order more emphatically to designate one complete day. See Prof. Stuart’s Hints on Prophecy, pp. 99, 100. The time then specified by this would be six years and a hundred and ten days.

Much difficulty has been felt by expositors 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 furnished by Josephus in regard to the period which elapsed 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 Dan. 7:25 , where the time mentioned is three years and a half, or twelve hundred and sixty days; and Dan. 12:7 , where the same time is mentioned, “a time, times, and an half,” or three years and an half, or, as before, twelve hundred and sixty days; and Dan. 12:11 , where the period mentioned is “a thousand two hundred and ninety days;” and Dan. 12:12 , where the time mentioned is “a thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.” The time mentioned by Josephus is three years exactly from the time when “their Divine worship was fallen off, and was reduced to a profane and common use,” until the time when the lamps were lighted again, and the worship restored, for he says that the one event happened precisely three years after the other, on the same day of the month—Ant. b. xii. ch. vii. Section 6. In his Jewish Wars, however, b. i. ch. i. 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 lay out of view the passage in Dan. 7:25 . See the note at that passage. If the reasoning there be sound, then that passage had no reference to Antiochus, and though, according to Josephus, there is a remarkable coincidence between the time mentioned there and the time during which the daily sacrifice was suspended, yet that does not demonstrate that the reference there is to Antiochus.

(2) We may lay out of view, also, for the present, the passages in Dan. 12:11-12 . Those will be the subject of consideration hereafter, and for the present ought not to be allowed to embarrass us in ascertaining the meaning of the passage before us.

(3) On the assumption, however, that those passages refer to Antiochus, and that the accounts in Josephus above referred to are correct—though he mentions different times, and though different periods are referred to by Daniel, the variety may be accounted for by the supposition that separate epochs are referred to at 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, and at one time a writer may have contemplated one, and at another time another. Thus, there was the act by which Jason, made high priest by Antiochus, was permitted to set up a gymnasium in Jerusalem after the manner of the pagan (Prideaux, iii. 216; 1 Macc. 1:11-15); the act by which he assaulted and took Jerusalem, entering the most holy place, stripping the temple of its treasures, defiling the temple, and offering a great sow on the altar of burnt-offerings (Prideaux, iii. 230, 231; 1 Macc. 1:20-28); the act, just two years after this, by which, having been defeated in his expedition to Egypt, he resolved to vent all his wrath on the Jews, and, on his return, sent Apollonius with a great army to ravage and destroy Jerusalem—when Apollonius, having 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, iii. 239, 240; 1 Macc. 1:29-40); and the act by which Antiochus solemnly forbade all burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the temple—(Prideaux, iii. 241, 242; 1 Macc. 1:44-51). Now, it is evident that one writing of these calamitous events, and mentioning how long they would continue, might at one time contemplate one of these events as the beginning, the terminus a quo , and at another time, another of these events might be in his eye. Each one of them was a strongly marked and decisive event, and each one might be contemplated as a period which, in an important sense, determined the destiny of the city, 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 take in the whole series of disastrous events, from the first decisive act which led to the suspending of the daily sacrifice, or the termination of the worship of God there, to the time when the “sanctuary was cleansed.” That this is so would seem to be probable from the series of visions presented to Daniel in the chapter before us. The acts of the “little horn” representing Antiochus, as seen in vision, began with his attack on the “pleasant land” Dan. 8:9 , and the things which attracted the attention of Daniel were, that he “waxed great,” and made war on “the host of heaven,” and “cast some of the host and of the stars to the ground” Dan. 8:10 , and “magnified himself against the prince of the host” Dan. 8:11 —acts which refer manifestly to his attack on the people of God, and the priests or ministers of religion, and on God him. self as the “prince of the host”—unless this phrase should be understood as referring rather to the high priest. We are then rather to look to the whole series of events as included within the two thousand and three hundred days, than the period in which literally the daily sacrifice was forbidden by a solemn statute. It was practically suspended, and the worship of God 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, Dec. 25 , 165 b.c.—Prideaux, iii. 265-268. Now, reckoning back from this period, two thousand and three hundred days, we come to 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 answering to what Daniel saw as the commencement of the vision, when “some of the host and the stars were cast down and stamped upon.” Now, as a matter of fact, there commenced in the year 171 b.c. a series of aggressions upon the priesthood, and temple, and city of the Jews on the part of Antiochus, 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 to the Jewish people, who desired it, permission to erect a gymnasium in Jerusalem, as above stated. In the year 173 b.c. demand was made of Antiochus of the provinces of Ccelo-Syria and Palestine by the young Philometor of Egypt, who had just come to the throne, and by his mother—a demand which was the origin of the war between Antiochus and the king of Egypt, and the beginning of all the disturbances.—Prideaux, iii. 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, and while there Menelaus conceived the design of supplanting his brother, and by offering for it more than Jason had, he procured the appointment and returned to Jerusalem.—Prideaux, iii. 220-222. Up to this time all the intercourse of Antiochus with the Jews had been of a peaceful character, and nothing of a hostile nature had occurred.

In 171 b.c. began the series of events which 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 which he had promised for it, and was summoned to Antioch. Antioclius being then absent, Menelaus took advantage of his absence, and having, by means of Lysimachus, whom he had left at Jerusalem, procured the vessels out of the temple, He 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, and soon after, at the instigation of Menelaus, was allured from his retreat at Daphne, where he had sought an asylum, and was murdered by Andronicus, the vicegerent of Antiochus. At the same time, the Jews in Jerusalem, highly indignant at the profanation by Menelaus, and the sacrilege in robbing the temple, rose in rebellion against Lysimachus and the Syrian forces who defended him, and both cut off this “sacrilegious robber” (Prideaux), and the guards by whom he was surrounded.

This assault on the officer of Antiochus, and rebellion against him, was the commencement of the hostilities which resulted in the ruin of the city, and the closing of the worship of God.—Prideaux, iii. 224-226; Stuart’s Hints on Prophecy, p. 102. Here commenced a series of aggressions upon the priesthood, and the temple, and the city of the Jews, which, with occasional interruption, continued to the death of Antiochus, and which led to all that was done in profaning the temple, and in suspending the public worship of God, and it is doubtless to this time that the prophet here refers. This is the natural period in describing the series of events which were so disastrous to the Jewish people; this is the period at which one who should now describe them as history, would begin. It may not, indeed, be practicable to make out the precise number of days, for the exact dates are not preserved in history, but the calculation brings it into the year 171 b.c., the year which is necessary to be supposed in order that the two thousand and three hundred days should be completed. Compare Lengerke, in loc ., p. 388. Various attempts have been made to determine the exact number of the days by historic records. Bertholdt, whom Lengerke follows, determines it in this manner. He regards the time referred to as that from the command to set up pagan altars to the victory over Nicanor, and the solemn celebration of that victory, as referred to in 1 Macc. 7:48, 49. According to this reckoning, the time is as follows: The command to set up idol altars was issued in the year 145, on the 15th of the month Kisleu. There remained of that year, after the command was given—

Half of the month Kisleu—15 days

The month Thebet—30 days

The month Shebath—29 days

The month Adar—30 days

The year 146—354 days

The year 147—354 days

The year 148—354 days

The year 149—354 days

The year 150—354 days

The year 15l to the 13th day of the month Adar, when the victory over Nicanor was achieved—337 days

Two intercalary months during this time, according to the Jewish reckoning—60 days

Total of—2,271 days.

This would leave but twenty-nine days of the 2300 to be accounted for, and this would be required to go from the place of the battle—between Beth-Horon and Adasa (1 Macc. 7:39, 40) 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 shall the sanctuary 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, and, as applied to the temple or sanctuary, to be vindicated from violence or injury; that is, to be cleansed. See Gesenius, Lexicon There is undoubtedly reference here to the act of Judas Maccabeus, in solemnly purifying the temple, and repairing it, and re-dedicating it, after the pollutions brought upon it by Antiochus. For a description of this, see Prideaux’s Connexions, iii. 265-269. Judas designated a priesthood again to serve in the temple; pulled down the altars which the pagan had erected; bore out all the defiled stones into 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 re-consecrated the whole to the service of God. This act occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month (Kisleu), and the solemnity continued for eight days. This is the festival which is called “the feast of dedication” in the New Testament John 10:22 , and which our Savior honored with his presence. See 1 Macc. 4:41-58; 2 Macc. 10:1-7; Josephus, Ant. b. xii. ch. vii. Section 6, 7.”

(Albert T. Barnes, Barne’s Notes on the Old Testament, 8:14)

          I think it may be above my pay grade to determine which of the various interpretations are correct. Some, such as Kent Hovind have concluded that it will be a period in the end-times, and has developed a time-line chart to accommodate that interpretation. However, the problem with that interpretation is that it is not compatible with Daniel’s time times and half a time, and his 1290 and 1335 days of chapter 12. If we understand that 2300 days from the time the Antichrist stops the sacrifice in the temple (which most scholars agree is at the midpoint of the 70th week of Daniel) it takes us well beyond the 1290th day or the 1335th day, well beyond the end of the 7 year Tribulation Period. Even if we assume the 2300 is the number morning and evenings combined, thus only 1150 days, it does not match up to anything in Daniel or Revelation, but would have the sacrifices being resumed shortly before the end of the Tribulation Period. Thus, it does seem that we should take the historic fulfillment as the complete fulfillment, and see it as just a short term, near term prophecy, as many were.