Isaac Newton	Protestant History	3 Interpretations	Daniel	Revelation	Armageddon	Audio Links	Site Index
Home ¬ Previous Page ¬ Why Antiochus IV Is Not The Little Horn Of Daniel 8

Why Antiochus IV Is Not The Little Horn Of Daniel 8 - 1
by William Shea **

Significance of the Interpretation

The vision described in Dan 8 may be outlined briefly as follows: The Persian ram appeared in the vision first, conquering to the north, west, and south (vs 3-4). The Grecian goat with its principal horn came on the scene of action next. By defeating the Persian ram it became the dominant power in view (vs 5-7). After reaching this position, however, the principal horn of the goat was broken and four horns, extending out to the four winds of heaven, came up in its place (v 8). Commentators concur that the contents of the vision thus far are relatively straightforward, since these four horns can be identified readily with the four kings, and the kingdoms derivative from them, who divided the empire conquered by Alexander.

The interpretation of the next main element in the vision is more controversial. Another horn ("a little horn") which came either from one of the four winds or from one of the four horns appeared on the scene. The attack which this horn launched was not directed so much against other beasts or kingdoms as against God's people, identified here as "the host of the stars" (vs 10, 24). It was also directed against God's work of redemption in the form of the tamid ("daily") and the temple (vs 11--12), and against God's principal representative--"the Prince of the host," "the Prince of princes" (vs 11, 25).

Daniel then heard two heavenly beings discussing what he had seen. One asked the other, "For how long is the vision concerning the [tamid], the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?" The answer given was, "Unto two thousand and three hundred evening--mornings, then the sanctuary shall be cleansed/restored" (tr. mine).

Crucial to the interpretation of Dan 8:9-14 is the identification of this little horn which was to do all these things against God and His people. In their attempt to identify the little horn commentators have applied the methods advanced by the preterist, futurist, and historicist schools of prophetic interpretation.

Preterists are committed to the view that the majority of the prophecies of the book of Daniel have already been fulfilled and therefore have no significance for the present day. Thus they hold that the little horn rose from one of the divisions of Alexander's empire. They conclude that the activities of the little horn unmistakably point to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Futurists generally follow this line of interpretation also. In addition, they see Antiochus as a type of an end-time Antichrist who is to arise in the final years of earth's history before Christ's second advent.

Historicists, on the other hand, declare that the prophecies in Daniel portray an outline of human and ecclesiastical history and the story of the struggle between good and evil down to the end of time. Since a flow of history appears to be involved here, especially when this chapter is cornpared with the previous one, the historicist holds that the little horn represents Rome--pagan, papal, or both.

Just as there are three main identifications for the little horn, so three main applications have been made of the time period referred to in this passage. Preterists have proposed that the 2300 "evening-mornings" should be interpreted as 2300 individual morning and evening sacrifices, or 1150 literal days. These should be applied to events in the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century B.C.

Utilizing the day-for-a-year principle, historicists have held that this datum refers to a period of 2300 years which began sometime in the fifth century B.C. and ended in the nineteenth century A.D.

As a type of the work of the final Antichrist, some futurists have applied the "evening-mornings" as literal evenings and mornings, or 2300 days, which they claim have not yet begun, because the final manifestation of an Antichrist belongs to the future.

How is this prophecy dealing with a sanctuary to be interpreted? Preterists claim it refers to the purification of the temple in Jerusalem which was polluted by Antiochus in the second century B.C.

Since the earthly temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 (and this prophetic time period extends beyond this datum), historicists see in it a reference to the temple in heaven. As the principal representatives of historicist thought Seventh-day Adventists have understood the cleansing of Dan 8:14 as a reference to the heavenly antitype of the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary which occurred in ancient Israel on the Day of Atonement. Since this was a day of judgment in Israel, the antitypical cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary has been interpreted as the time for a pre-Advent investigative judgment of God's people.

This position is quite different from that of the interpreters of the futurist school who hold that during the final seven years of earth's history a literal temple (to be rebuilt in Jerusalem) will be polluted by an Antichrist. It will be cleansed or restored when Christ comes and puts an end to his nefarious reign.

These three views on the interpretation of the various elements in Dan 8:9-14 may be summarized as follows:

This brief review of the various interpretations, as proposed by the three main schools of prophetic interpretation, makes it clear that widely varying conclusions concerning the nature of the events predicted in this passage of prophecy have been reached. Of particular importance in this study is the nature of the event which is to occur at the end of the 2300 days.

If one follows the first school of thought, the prescribed purification was all completed before January 1, 164 B.C. If one follows the second line of interpretation, it refers to a judgment going on now in heaven. This has not yet happened, according to the third view. When it does, events in Jerusalem and Israel will be involved. Considering the magnitude of these differences in interpretation and the importance of the events to which they refer, it is evident that these verses in Daniel need to be carefully examined. They demand our closest attention.

In order to properly evaluate the passage dealing with the little horn in Dan 8 it is necessary to understand it in the context of the book. This is because the prophecies of Daniel parallel each other to a large extent. Consequently, a sound procedure would be to examine the prophecies of chs 7, 9, 11, and 12 where they are relevant to the discussion.

Back

**If anyone knows how to reach Mr. Shea, please have him contact us at webmaster@historicist.com