Daniel 8 Rome or Antiochus Epiphanes

Back in (2006) there was a Sabbath School lesson guide that has long gone into ARCHIVE but can still be found, which dealt with the horn of Daniel 8 -- Is it symbolic of Rome or is a prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes IV?

You can find the study guide in PDF form at:
Lesson 10, Rome or Antiochus

And the same study with teacher's comments at:
Rome or Antiochus comments

This is a subject very important to understanding the historicist interpretation, which under pins the key references to the heavenly sanctuary message.

Is this chapter (Daniel 8) speaking of the heavenly sanctuary or is it concerned with the earthly sanctuary?
Why do Adventists reject Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn?
Dispensationalists cling to the Epiphanes interpretation. Why?

Why do dispensationalists cling to the Epiphanes interpretation?
From what I can see --

Dispensationalism has a distinct view of the uniqueness of Israel as separate from the Church in God?s program. Israel has their covenant, while Christians are under a new covenant. Dispensationalists hold that the Church (spiritual Israel made up of all who believe in Christ) has not replaced literal Israel in God?s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Christianity and will all yet be fulfilled to literal Israel. So Epiphanes attack makes more sense to them since, for them, Daniel tends to become a book dealing with the Israelite nation, up to their rejection of the Messiah, and then skipping over the whole Christian era, to a supposed 7th week at the end of time, rather than a book that spans time from Daniel's day and all the way through the Christian era to the end of the world and the restoration under the everlasting gospel.

Why do Adventists reject Epiphanes?

There are many reasons, several are listed in the study guide; but of most importance (as far as I can see and I believe) is Adventists seeing more and more evidence that the sanctuary message is all through Daniel's messages. The earthly sanctuary pointed to Christ. Christ's death and confirming the covenant is explained. And Christ's (the Prince of host's) continual ministry in the heavenly sanctuary following His resurrection. Repeated several times are references of the antagonists attacks on the covenant and on the sanctuary. The horn grows exceedingly powerful not only on earth, but reaches up trying to gain power over heavenly things.

In Daniel 8, sanctuary language is all the way through! The war is against Christ's work as well as against Christ's people.

We see the pre-Christ, powers (Media/Persia and Greece) depicted as animals of sacrifice.
During their reign, the earthly sanctuary was in operation, offering sacrifices.

Then, as the horn stretches itself against heaven itself, we move into the Christian era. That horn is casting down the PLACE (not the sanctuary itself) but the place of the sanctuary from heaven to earth -- taking upon itself the priestly work that belongs to Christ alone.
The translators started thinking the "continual" or "daily" can't stand alone, so they added a noun (sacrifice). But that was not part of the original writings of Daniel. He does NOT use the word "sacrifice" in Daniel 8. Daniel 9 tells us Christ ended the sacrifices at His death. He is ministering His continuous ministry as our High Priest in heaven, based on the blood of His once and for all sacrifice. A fact the horn succeeds (if only in the minds of the people) to usurp and apply to itself.
Thus at the time of the end, this hijacking has to be dealt with -- a cleansing of the sanctuary. The true High Priest, uplifted and the false shone for what it is. A time of judgment, who are we worshipping and following?

Some reasons from the lesson Epiphanes is rejected:

1. The Medo-Persian ram became ?great? (vs. 4); the Grecian
goat ?very great? (vs. 8); the little horn became ?exceeding great?
(vs. 9). How does this description and comparison of empires
automatically disqualify Antiochus as the little horn?

2.According to Daniel 8:17, 19, 26, the prophecy dealt with endtime things, and the little horn was the last power presented in the vision. He died in 164 B.C., why can Antiochus not be the
little horn?

3. According to Daniel 8:25, the little horn would be ?broken
without hand,? a phrase we saw earlier that?through parallelism
with Daniel 2:34, 45?depicted a supernatural, cataclysmic
destruction. Why, given what?s written above about his demise,
does Antiochus not fit again?

More thoughts:
4. FROM ONE OF THEM -- out of one of the four winds (direction)
or out of one of the four horns (Grecian kingdoms)

Consider:
The ram came from the east pushing west, north, and south (vs 4)
The goat came from the west (vs 5)

"he great horn (Alexander the founder of Greek empire) was broken; and in his place, came up four notable ones toward the four winds (directions) of heaven.
8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant [land].

This is all about "directions" how many directions do you find named in those verses?
-- The little horn came from the west and pushed south and east and toward the pleasant land.

Why insist a horn rose out of a horn --
It came up from a "wind" or direction just like all the others.

5. Rome was already in ascendency and Greek empire in decline when Epiphanes became king.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, was a hostage in Rome when his father Antiochus III was assassinated, and he managed to take the throne. Epiphanes had no power against Rome, all his life he paid tribute to Rome. Epiphanes did try to take land in Egypt, but the Romans stopped him. Epiphanes did not take Palestine, his father Antiochus III took over Palestine from the Ptolemies. Epiphanes actual lost Palestine.
Yes, he did cause havoc in Jerusalem. And yes the Maccabees took Daniel's writings to refer to their time. But was he the subject of Daniel's writing?

6. Did chapter eight happen and reach it's climax, before Christ was born?
Or is chapter nine's 490 years "cut out" from the 2300 years, and the death of Messiah the Prince mark the end of sacrifices and sacrificial animals? Thus no sacrificial animal represents the time of the horn, nor is the word "sacrifice" actually linked to the "daily"?

Thank you for these posts dedication!!!! Indeed Daniel 8 was NOT dealing with Antiochus. As Daniel was "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion." he was not thinking about Antiochus. (by the way, he was not directly thinking about the Pope either, but the God who controls the cycles of history, we find Daniel's principles applying to Rome and the Pope, and since we are in Daniel 8, yes, 1844)

Daniel was focused on the restoration of the land. Scholars arguing for Antiochus points out historical facts about Daniel that if Daniel really lived in Babylon he would not have made, and some language a bit late for Daniel. However, the language is not much after Daniel's time or may even apply to the end of his life. And Daniel knew facts about Babylon that would have been long forgotten by the time of Antiochus.

Some scholars are suggesting that there was indeed a historical Daniel who lived as the book claims back in Babylon and went through the events. For the historical errors and late language; If the final version of the book was edited by Daniel's students shortly after the historical Daniel's death, that could explain the language and historical errors. There is also a suggestion that as the Hebrews returned to the land, and Zerubbabel did not get the Davidic house restored, that people would have considered Daniel a failed prophecy and put it on the shelf. Then when facing the Antiochus crisis, took Daniel off the shelf, and maybe a few marginal notes from the time of Antiochus eventually made it into the text, but the book itself came from the historical Daniel and his students.

Placing the text in the time of Antiochus it causes scholars to study the text in the WRONG historical context.

Antiochus came from one of the horns and traveled south west. The little horn: The 4 horns are written in the masculine tenses, while the 4 winds are written in the feminine tense, The little horn is also written in the feminine tense, indicating that she comes from one of the 4 winds, and travels south east. Rome came from one of the 4 winds and traveled south east, while as I wrote above, Antiochus came from one of the 4 horns and travels south west.

As to the 2300 evenings-mornings; Scholars who are dead set on Antiochus notice that the 2300 literal days is way to long for Antiochus, and to divide it in half to 1150 days still does not fit, but is a better fit than 2300. They divide it by by changing evenings-mornings to the morning and evening sacrifice; two sacrifices a day, so cut the 2300 into 1150 days.

However the term for the sacrifices are "morning and evening" NOT "evening-morning". I have read commentaries that insist that Daniel had dyslexia: that Daniel really meant to write "morning and evening" but his dyslexia caused him to instead write evenings-mornings.

Others have pointed out that the phrase "evenings-mornings" are ancient cyclic language. If anyone here gets a chance to buy (or borrow on interlibrary loan if your library does not carry it) "Before Philosophy" by Henri Frankfort and others, 1946 University of Chicago Press, you can get a fantastic background to cyclic thought , including the day=year principle. How I wish that Desmond Ford had read that book; his history would have ended up so differently. I'm willing to bet that this book was on the shelf of the PUC library when Ford said that there is no day=year principle. It is a shame that this book was someplace gathering dust on a shelf and everyone heard Ford's statement with an attitude of "Duh, OK" instead of someone standing up and quoting this book.) The Egyptian cycle considered a "day" as both the cycle of the sun and the annual cycle of the flooding of the Nile. If we lived in ancient Egypt and I borrowed some money from you; you would be equally happy if I paid you within the next cycle of the sun, or within the next cycle of the flooding of the Nile.

We find the Hebrew cycles in Leviticus 23 and 25 and here and there in Deuteronomy. Leviticus tells us what the Hebrew week was: 6 days and the Sabbath, The two growing seasons, or 6 months and either Passover or Yom Kippur, 6 years and the Sabbatical year, and 6 Sabbatical years and the Jubilee. Now, Deuteronomy does not have the same view of the Jubilee as Leviticus. Daniel's Bible teacher was Jeremiah, who is very connected to Deuteronimic thought (possibly the Deuteronomic historian who edited the history into the books Joshua through Kings) Thus Daniel probably shared the same lack of focus on the Jubilee that his teacher shared. This means that Daniel would have understood 2300 evenings-mornings to mean either 2300 literal days, 2300 literal months or 2300 literal years; thus ending all time prophecy at the 2300 literal year fulfillment.

Many of the theories of Daniel were formed prior to the birth of scientific study of Biblical Geography that was started with Edward Robinson in the late 1830s and was just published and starting to be read in the mid 1840s, that opened the door to Biblical archaeology and the rediscovery of the ancient world. In those days people did not have evidence that Belshazzar even existed, much less when his third year was. Today we know that Belshazzar did indeed exist, and a fairly good idea when his third year was.

In Daniel class the professor tried an experiment. He took the very likely date of Belshazzar's third year and added 1150 literal days, and it comes to a year of business as usual. Then he added 2300 literal days to the probable third year of Belshazzar, and he came to a year that Babylon had Medio-Persia at her gates, Belshazzar's feast and the fall of Babylon and the early days of Medio-Persia. This gives evidence that Daniel understood Daniel 8:14 to mean the 2300 days, months, and years cycles and not to be divided into 1150 days. And that Daniel was focused on the end of the exile and the restoration of the Davidic king; NOT Antiochus. (The roles of Rome and the Papacy fits in with the principles of Daniel's interests and history leading to the true Son of David to be the literal king of his people.)

Daniel 9 applies the 2300 cycles to the 70 weeks of years prophecy. Following this we find the day=year application of the 2300 cycles would be fulfilled in 1844.

You are right, Daniel was not thinking about Rome or the Papacy for that had not yet arisen.
Daniel was only a human man.
Daniel, a human man, did not have foreknowledge. I fully believe he was a real man, taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, as were his three friends.

But Daniel served and worshipped a powerful God, who knows the end from the beginning.
God knows the future! God has FOREKNOWLEDGE. It is He Who reveals the future to Daniel. And God knew all about Rome and the Papacy.

Daniel did not make these visions up, these visions came from the supreme, all knowing God.
These visions are not relying on what Daniel may or may not have known or thought. In fact we read that he didn't even fully understand them and God tells him not to worry about it, they would be understood in their time.
(Daniel 8:27, 12:8-10)


These visions and their interpretations didn't come from Daniel himself, they were revelations FROM GOD!
So what Daniel knew in his situation really isn't the issue here.
Nor do I follow the Dispensationalist logic, that everything must deal with literal Israel at that time and come to an end before the new covenant comes into effect, for dispensationalists need to keep literal Israel and Christianity separate.
So these visions are not just about Israel's return to Jerusalem, though God did reveal that to him in Daniel 9.
God revealed, the plan of salvation, Christ's ministry both on earth, His death and covenant and His work as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Then there is the opposition that would arise against God's covenant and Christ's heavenly ministry. These visions cover the whole span of coming history to Daniel! Though they start with Daniel's time, they deal quite extensively with Christian history

And yes, God knew Rome would arise. He knew the papacy would rise out of Rome and dominate the kings for 1260 years and persecute the saints. He knew this tyrannical "king" would recede and then come back in full vengeance at the time of the end.
He knew there would be a pre-Advent judgment to separate the true followers of Christ, and the followers of the pretensions christ figure who would dominate Christian history.

God KNEW all about the papacy, the power behind it, and how the gospel truths of Christianity would descend into darkness for over a thousand years. This is the theme in Daniel 7,8,11.
The theme high lights Christ's ministry, and shows the power that would try to obliterate it from the minds of men.

God knew all this and was revealing it through visions and angelic interpreters to Daniel.

Considering the importance of the book of Daniel, it shouldn?t be surprising that the enemy would hate it and has gone to extraordinary lengths to cast confusion and doubt on it thus to lessen its impact and its message.
For instance, though Daniel himself in various chapters dates his writing, higher critical scholars dismiss those dates as fabrications, and assume someone, a couple hundred years later, simply recounted Jewish history past, focusing on events that are not the concern of the visions in Daniel.
And yes, the Maccabees tampered with the writings to make it appear they were Israel's deliverers, thus gain the people's support not only in the war against Epiphanes, but also in the subsequent years when they ruled Israel
Others continually quibble over supposed "mistakes" as in -- there was no king Belshazzar. But yes, modern archeology is continually discovering evidence that Daniel didn't make up the narratives of his life in Babylon.

But what is the theme of Daniel 8 -- the theme is CHRIST and His ministry, and the opposition to that ministry launched on earth.

Indeed, Satan has special fear of Daniel so that he wants us to study the book in the context of Antiochus, instead of the context of Babylon, and maybe shortly after Babylon. I know that you worry about that being the heresy of Peterism, but I do see it as the steps of exegesis and analogy.

We find a oneness of God knowing the future; but also offering people the freedom of choice to spread the gospel and thus hasten the coming of the Lord. Ultimately we will see these prophecies fulfilled in a way that "God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

The other day I heard a Mark Twain quote that really impressed me. Apparently he said "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Over the dark ages, there was developed a principle that is not exact, but close enough to be incredibly useful. This is the idea of type and antitype. In a fuller sense the principle is exegesis and reapplication to similar situations through historical analogy, and that there will indeed be a final cycle, and we will recognize what we need when it is time as we are faithful to how the Lord has lead us in the past. This knowledge improves as we understand the original historical setting. We can see how Antiochus is TOO different from the principles in Daniel; yet both the Flavian emperors of Rome, and the Papacy fit. As we learn what fits and what does not fit, we will recognize the crisis when it comes. (Thus Satan desperately making people look to the wrong historical setting.)

God sees all the cycles, all the rhymes over history. God sees the final cycle. He sees how his people can make applications to the different times the principles cycle around. The original setting (and the applications over the cycles) we can say are the types that will meet the antitype in the final cycle,; maintaining the principle of God giving his people the chance to finish the work at the times these cycles come around, that the Lord could have come err this' and yet that God sees exactly how the final cycle will be where the work if finished and Jesus comes; and in the perfect timing to fulfill the promise "God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

?Christ could have come ere this ?.
That?s what Ellen White said. If I remember correctly she said it a number of times but always in the context of time after 1844 after the 2300 years had ended. Indeed she said there would be no more time prophesies between that date and Christ?s return.
She said it in the context of the splintering of the millerite movement indicating that had the believers in that movement accepted the view of the heavenly sanctuary and Christ's work there and embraced the sabbath to build up the breach in God?s law and all worked together to preach the three angels message , Christ could have come!! She said the same thing about 1888, had the believers embraced the message then So yes, we?ve been in the time of the end for 176 years already, wandering around in this wilderness of sin.

And yes the message has always been that it was ?soon? for no one has ever needed to wait longer than their own lifetime. Once death ends the earthly journey, time for that individual stops and their next conscious reality is the resurrection. Time indeed is short for everyone. No one knows how soon their life will end and their Choice is final

That all said, I do not see biblical support that the Second coming could have happened prior to the ending of the 2300 days. The fullness of time had not yet come. Christs first coming did not take place till the fullness of time had come. Galatian?s 4:4

Free will is not removed when God reveals his plan of salvation and how He works. The whole Jewish sanctuary was to teach that.plan of salvation But sadly they did not see that. Seems most don?t want to see Christ?s ministry unfolding over time in Daniel 8 & 9. From the earthly sanctuary to the cross and up to the heavenly sanctuary where Christ is our high priest. The prophecy includes the warning of a power that will oppose this work. That doesn?t remove free will. It does give warning so people will have a. Choice. And realize there is a choice to be made

The vision covers 2300 years The question is asked. How long the vision with its assaults on the sanctuary ? The vision started with media Persia included Greece and much more. The vision covers 2300 years.
Daniel 12 :11 gives other time periods for the events which take place within the 2300 years. The desolation is set up 1290 years the daily is usurped for 1260 years.
While the whole vision to the cleansing is 2300 years.
That is not cyclic happenings wih multiple fulfilment. That is a single line through history

Here are some interesting opposing views of why it is Antiochus Epiphanes and why Antiochus Epiphanes is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8...

"reasons why the little horn of Daniel 8 must be Antiochus. Here are some of them:

1. The little horn of Daniel 8 is a Greek horn. Unlike the little horn of Daniel 7, which emerges from the Roman beast, this horn is said to emerge from one of the four horns upon the Greek beast. It is crystal clear: while the horn of Daniel 7 emerges from the fourth world empire, the horn of Daniel 8 emerges from the third world empire. This fact is so plain and transparent that one can only wonder why some have overlooked it.

2. One of the first things that the angelic interpretation says about the little horn is that he is ??a king of fierce countenance?? (v. 23). According to the traditional Adventist view the horn represents a kingdom, namely the Roman Empire. It is hard to see how a kingdom could have ?a fierce countenance? and ?understand dark sentences.? The angelic interpretation allows no misunderstanding.

3. This king emerges from one of the fourfold divisions of the Greek Empire. ?Out of one of them came forth a little horn?? (v. 9). Antiochus emerged from the Seleucid horn which was a division of the Greek Empire. Rome did not; it emerged on the Italian peninsula to the west of the Greek Empire.

4. The horn would arise ?in the latter time? of the fourfold division, which pictures well Antiochus?s emergence. The fourfold division of Greece had passed the peak of its power when he emerged, and this is evidenced by the humiliation he suffered at the hands of the Romans while on his way to invade Egypt.

5. The horn would attack the south and east and the pleasant land i.e. Palestine. Antiochus did exactly that. However, when Rome came to power, it expanded in all directions including west to Britain and north to the germanic tribes. This little horn is clearly not Rome.

6. The horn would be noted for his cunning and intrigue. He would ?understand dark sentences? and ?cause craft to prosper? (v.25). Antiochus was renowned for his craftiness and cunning; Rome more for her brute strength and power.

7. The horn would destroy the mighty and holy people. History reveals that tens of thousands perished as Antiochus attempted to force the Jews to deny their faith.

8. The horn would take away the daily sacrifices (v. 11). Antiochus put a stop to the sacrifices for a period of over 3 years.

9. Antiochus ?cast down? the place of God?s sanctuary (v. 11) when he shut down its daily ministry and set up the abomination that caused horror, i.e. the image of Zeus Olympias, and slaughtered swine on the altar of burnt offering. The importance of the sanctuary service lay not so much in the building as in the daily sacrifices and offerings, and by taking these away Antiochus ?brought low? (NIV) God?s dwelling place.

10. Antiochus continued for approximately (possibly precisely, it is impossible to determine) 2300 days (v. 14) i.e. from the first attacks upon the sanctuary to his death in 164 BC. One of the world?s leading conservative scholars stated, ?In this year (i.e. 171BC) began the laying waste of the sanctuary. The termination would then be the death of Antiochus (164BC).?[2]

There is no convincing fulfilment of the 2300 days in the history of the Roman Empire and only by a fine-spun linking of the Roman Empire with the Roman church, and a further fine-spun linking of Daniel 8 with Daniel 9 (these two chapters are historically separated by at least 10 years) can Seventh-day Adventists arrive at a closing date for the 2300 days. This date is October 22, 1844 when Christ is said to have shifted his ministry from the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary into the second to begin a work of judgment.

11. In his desecration of the sanctuary and his persecution of true believers, Antiochus did ?practice and prosper? and ?was exceeding great? (v.9 & v. 12).

One of the major objections to Antiochus as the fulfillment of the prophecy is the fact that he was a relatively minor player on the stage of history. It is sometimes asserted he is not big enough to fulfill the prophecy. This objection fails to take into account the simple fact that this particular prophecy centers primarily on the fate of the people and religion of God. The great theme of this vision is an unprecedented and successful attack upon the saints and true worship. It is IN THIS SENSE that Antiochus practices and prospers and becomes exceeding great.

Another important point is that there is much to imply that more than Antiochus alone is portrayed here. Almost all conservative scholars agree that Daniel 8 portrays Antiochus as a type of the final antichrist. Many believe that the prophecy will have a further, fuller and final fulfillment in the future.

12. That Antiochus is the little horn of Daniel 8 is convincingly confirmed by a comparison with the final vision of chapter 11. This final vision covers much the same ground as chapter 8. Various Persian and Grecian kings, including Alexander the Great, are referred to, but all are dealt with briefly in just one or two verses. As the vision moves towards its climax, Antiochus is once again centre stage, and no less than fifteen full verses are devoted to him (see 11:21-35). Antiochus is clearly no minor player in this vision. There then follows an almost imperceptible blending of Antiochus with the one whom most conservative scholars consider to be the final manifestation of evil (see v. 36 onwards). It is clear, then, that this Old Testament tyrant, in his overt and unbridled opposition to the true God, his truth and his people, is a remarkable and fitting type of the even more horrifying figure of the antichrist to come."....

https://atoday.org/why-the-little-horn-of-daniel-8-must-be-antiochus-epiphanes/



"

And then we have why Antiochus Epiphanes is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8...

"Crucial to the interpretation of Daniel 8:9-14 is the identification of the little horn power, which dominates these verses.,,,,
The best way to understand the prophecy is to study it in context of other chapters in Daniel that parallel it, particularly Daniel 7. By comparing these two chapters, we can learn not only which school of prophetic thought best explains the vision of Daniel 8, but we can see why the identification of the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes simply isn?t tenable.

DANIEL 7
With the exception of some voices within the preterist camp, most conservative scholars depict the identity of the four beasts in Daniel 7 as follows:

(Lion) Babylon

(Bear)Media-Persia

(Leopard) Greece

(Beast with iron teeth) Rome

Historicists and futurists do diverge, however, when they come to the little horn that arises out of the fourth power, Rome (Daniel 7:8-9, 20-21, 24-25).

The former identify it as the papal horn, which came out of pagan Rome; the latter, holding to a gap in the flow of prophetic history, identify it as the still future anti-Christ.

While acknowledging (as all the schools do) that the first beast is Babylon, the preterist interpretation identifies the second and third beast of Daniel 7 as Media and then Persia, with the fourth beast being Greece (which arises after Persia) and the little horn coming out of Greece as

Antiochus Epiphanes. This argument, however, falls apart on numerous grounds, including the lack of historical data to warrant that separation of Media and Persia into two successive kingdoms.

In contrast, support for the interpretation of Daniel 7 as being Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome can be found in the interpretation of the ram in Daniel 8. Its two disproportionate horns are specifically identified as the kings of Media and Persia together (vs. 20), reflective of the duality found in the prophet?s view of the bear in Daniel 7, which was raised up one side (Daniel 7:5). Meanwhile, the three-directional nature of the ram?s conquests (Daniel 8:4) also parallels the three ribs depicted in the mouth of the bear (Daniel 7:5), since it expanded to the north (Lydia), to the west (Babylon), and to the south (Egypt), an accurate description of the Media-Persian expansion.

Thus, if in Daniel 7 Media-Persia is the second beast, and Greece the third, then the nondescript beast, the fourth beast in the prophecy, must represent Rome, the great power that arose after Greece. Therefore, the little horn that came from this fourth beast cannot represent Antiochus IV, who arose prior to, and not after, Rome.

Thus, if the little horn in Daniel 8 is an entity that came out of Rome, not Greece, what is its relationship to the little horn in Daniel 8? Could the little horn in Daniel 8 still be Antiochus Epiphanes, even though the little horn in Daniel 7 cannot? Though it?s certainly possible that it could be referring to two different powers, significant arguments exist in favor of identifying the little horns in these two chapters as the same historical entity.

1) Both are identified with the same symbol: a horn

7:8ff, Aramaic, qeren 8:9 ff, Hebrew qeren

2) Both are described as ?little? at the outset.

7:8, Aramaic, zerath 8:9. Hebrew, serath

3) Both are described as becoming ?great? later on.

7:20, Aramaic, rab 8:99ff, Hebrew, gadal

4) Both are described as persecuting powers.

7:21, 25 8:10, 24

5) Both have the same target group as object of their persecution.

7: 27 ?people of the saints, 8: 24 ?people of the saints?

Aramaic, am quaddise Hebrew, am qedosim Cf. vss. 21, 25

6) Both are described as self-exalting and blasphemous powers.

7:8, 11, 20, 25 8:10-12, 25

7) Both are described as crafty and intelligent.

7:8 ?eyes of a man? 8:25 ?cunning and deceit?

8) Both represent the final and greatest anti-God climax of their visions.

7:8-9, 21-22, 25-26 8:12-14, 25

9) Both have aspects of their work delineated by prophetic time.

7:25 8:13-14

10) The activities of both extend to the time of the end.

7:26-26, cf. 12:7-9 8:17, 19

11) Both are to be supernaturally destroyed.

7:11, 26 8:25

How much more evidence does one need? The little horn power of Daniel 7 and the littler horn power of Daniel 8 are both the same entity, and because the little horn in Daniel 7 cannot be Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn in Daniel 8 can?t be, either. Meanwhile, textual evidence within Daniel 8 itself also helps debunk the Antiochus interpretation for the little horn.

DANIEL 8
Because Antiochus IV is commonly identified with the little horn of Daniel 8, arguments favoring this identification will be considered first:

1) Antiochus was a Seleucid king. As one of this dynasty who assumed control in part of Alexander?s old empire, Antiochus did proceed from the breakup of the Grecian empire after the death of Alexander.

2) Antiochus? succession was irregular. According to the chapter, this little horn arose, ?but not with his power,? which suggests that the little horn came to power through an irregular succession. A son of Seleucus IV should have succeeded to the rule after his father?s assassination. However, the king?s brother, Antiochus IV, came to the throne instead, aided by the armies of Pergamos. It is possible to apply the phrase ?but not by his own power? to this course of events.

3) Antiochus persecuted the Jews.

4) Antiochus polluted the Jerusalem temple and disrupted its services. However, it remains to be seen whether he did all the things against the temple that Daniel 8 says the little horn did.

Meanwhile, there are a number of arguments from Daniel 8 against equating Antiochus IV with the little horn.

1) Comparative greatness of the little horn. In the chapter, the Persian ram ?magnified himself? (8:4); the Grecian goat ?magnified himself exceedingly? (8:8). By contrast the little horn magnified itself ?exceedingly ?in different directions. On the horizontal level it ?grew exceedingly great? toward the south, east, and glorious land. On the vertical plane it ?grew great . . . to the host of heaven,? and ultimately ?magnified itself . . . up to the Prince of the host? (8:9-11).

The verb ?to be great,? gādal, occurs only once each with Persia and Greece, but it appears three times with the little horn. In other words, the little horn was greater than the two powers that preceded it in the chapter, which means Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Media-Persian and Greek empires in greatness. Obviously, he didn?t. He wasn?t even close. Indeed, he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire, and did that with but little success. In this crucial point, Antiochus fails miserably.

2) Conquests. The horn ?grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land.?

a. To the south. The predecessor to Antiochus IV was the king who added Palestine to the territory ruled by the Seleucids when he defeated armies at Paneas in 198 B.C. Antiochus IV attempted to extend his southern frontier into Egypt with the campaign of 170-168 B.C. He was successful in conquering most of the Delta in 169 B.C. The following year (168 B.C.) he marched on Alexandria but was turned back by a Roman diplomatic mission and had to abandon his Egyptian conquests. Thus his partial success in Egypt was transitory, and it is doubtful that he really did grow ?exceedingly great toward the south.?

b. To the east. Antiochus IV?s predecessor, not Antiochus IV himself, subjugated the east with his victorious campaigns of 210-206 B.C. that took him to the frontier of India. Most of the territories involved rebelled and became independent, however, after the Romans defeated him at Magnesia. Antiochus IV attempted to regain some of this territory. After some initial diplomatic and military successes, his forces stalled. He died during the course of these campaigns, apparently from natural causes, in the winter of 164/3 B.C. Antiochus IV did have some initial successes, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area as his predecessor, and this project was left incomplete at Antiochus IV?s death. Thus his partial and incomplete military successes hardly match the prophetic prediction of the little horn ?growing exceedingly great? toward the east.

c. To the glorious land. Antiochus IV is noted in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the ruler who desecrated the temple and persecuted the Jews. This did not occur because of any conquest of his own, but because his predecessor had already taken Palestine. Antiochus IV, therefore, could not have ?grown exceedingly great toward the glorious land? (Judea, presumably) in any sense of military conquest. He could have ?[grown] exceedingly? only in the sense of exercising or abusing his control over what was already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.

Indeed, not only was Antiochus IV not the conqueror of Palestine, but defeats of his forces toward the end of his reign in the region eventually led to the complete independence of Judea. While he was campaigning in the east, his Palestinian forces were beaten (1 Macc 3:57; 4:29) in Judea. Toward the end of 164 B.C. the Jews liberated the polluted temple from their hands and rededicated it (1 Macc 5:52). Antiochus died in the east shortly thereafter, early in 163 B.C. (1 Macc 6:15).

In short, the net results of what Antiochus accomplished in these three geographical spheres was negligible, even (in some cases) negative. Thus he hardly fits the specification of this prophecy, which states that the little horn was to grow ?exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land.?

3) Anti-temple activities.

The phrase, ?the place of his sanctuary was cast down? (8:11, KJV) indicates what was done to the temple building, God?s dwelling place itself, by the little horn. According to Daniel 8:11, it was this ?place,? this māk?n of God?s sanctuary, that was to be cast down by the little horn, something that Antiochus never did. Though he did desecrate temple, as far as is it is known, he did not damage its architecture in any significant way.

4) Time factors for the little horn:

a. Time of origin. The little horn?dated in terms of the four kingdoms that came from Alexander?s empire?was to come up ?at the latter end of their rule? (8:23). The only problem is that the Seleucid dynasty consisted of a line of more than 20 kings who ruled from 311 to 65 B.C., and Antiochus IV was the eighth in line of those kings (he ruled from 175 to 164/3 B.C.). Because more than a dozen Seleucids ruled after him, and fewer than a dozen ruled before him, he hardly arose ?at the latter end of their rule.? The Seleucids ruled for a century and a third before Antiochus IV and a century after him, which places him within two decades of the midpoint of the dynasty and not ?at the latter end of their rule.?

b. Duration. The chronological time frame (?unto 2300 evening-mornings?) in Daniel 8:14 has been interpreted as the time that Antiochus IV had desecrated the temple or persecuted the Jews. The precise dates for this are well established, and they covered a period of exactly three years and ten days. Neither 2300 literal days (six years, four and two-thirds months) nor 1150 literal days (made by pairing evening and morning sacrifices to make full days) fits this historical period, since even the shorter of the two is two months too long.

c. The End. When Gabriel came to Daniel to explain the vision of chapter 8, he introduced his explanation with the statement, ?Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end? (8:17). At the beginning of his actual explanation Gabriel again emphasized this point by stating, ?Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation; for it pertains to the appointed time of the end? (8:19). The phrases, ?the time of the end? and ?the appointed time of the end,? are also essential for a correct identity of the little horn.

Because the third and final section of the vision is concerned mainly with the little horn and its activities, it seems reasonable to conclude that the horn relates most directly to the ?time of the end.? The end of the little horn, therefore, should coincide in one way or another with ?the time of the end.?

At a bare chronological minimum Daniel?s time prophecies (Dan 9:24-27) had to extend to the time of the Messiah, Jesus, in the first century AD. ?The time of the end? could arrive only some time after the fulfillment of that prophecy concerning Jesus (after all, how could there be ?the time of the end? before Christ came?). Therefore, there is no way that Antiochus, who died in 164/3 B.C., fits with ?the time of the end.?

5) Nature or the end or the little horn. According to the prophecy, the little horn was to come to its end in a particular way. ?But, by no human hand, he shall be broken? (8:25), similar to the language that brought and end to the statue in Daniel 2 (Daniel 2:34), indicating supernatural intervention. Given the nature of the statement in 8:25, how could Antiochus IV fulfill this particular specification? As far as is known, he died of natural causes?not from extraordinary circumstances?during the course of his eastern campaign in 164/3 B.C.

6) Origin of the little horn

Much ado is made regarding the origin of the little horn. The texts in questions are as follows: ?Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land? (Daniel 8: 8, 9). The question arises, when it says that ?out of one of them? came forth a little horn, what did the ?them? refer to?one of the ?four notable ones,? the four generals who divided Alexander?s empire (out of which Antiochus came), or was it from one of ?the four winds of heaven,? that is, simply, one of the compass points of the map? The evidence points strongly in favor of the latter, that is, the little horn came of out the ?four winds of heaven,? which is the immediate antecedent of the phrase, ?and out of one of them.? The original Hebrews reads, ?and from the one, from them,? the ?them? being the plural nouns closest to the phrase itself, which are ?the four winds of heaven? (in Hebrew ?heaven? is a plural noun). Much grammatical, syntactical, and contextual evidence points to ?the winds of heaven,? not the four ?notable ones,? as the origin point of the little horn power."...
https://1844madesimple.org/why-antiochus-iv-is-not-the-little-horn-of-daniel-8/

A bit of history on Antiochus Epiphanes

Rome defeated the Seleucid king Antiochus III at Magnesia in 190 BC.
Antiochus III was forced to pay a huge amount of money to Rome (ten thousand talents) and furnish hostages, including his son Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
This date according to (Columbia History of the World p. 190) marked the new era of Roman supremacy.

Not long after his defeat by the Romans, Antiochus III was assassinated and his son Seleucus IV took the throne. From this point on the Seleucid empire entered into decline. Seleucus IV was assassinated. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, was a hostage in Rome and was on the way home when news of his brother's death reached him and he hurried home and ousted the usurper Heliodorus, and took the throne.

During the problem years in the Seleucid government, Egypt was thinking of retaking her lost territory to the north. Antiochus Epiphanies embarked on a victorious campaign against Egypt. Since Ptolemy VI was his nephew, (his sister having married Ptolemy V), Antiochus Epiphanes set himself up as the young king's guardian.

However, Egypt didn't want a Seluecid king as the guardian of their king and they tried to set up a rival government, they appealed to Rome for help.

Antiochus Epiphanes invaded Egypt again in 168 and the "cards" seemed stacked in his favor, UNTIL ROME deprived Antiochus of the benefits of his victories.

"In Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria, the Roman ambassador, Gaius Popillius Laenas, presented Antiochus with the ultimatum that he evacuate Egypt and Cyprus immediately. He drew a circle in the earth around the king with his walking stick and demanded an unequivocal answer before Antiochus left the circle. Dismayed by this public humiliation, the king quickly agreed to comply."

Antiochus Epiphanes had no power against Rome, all his life he paid tribute to Rome. In fact, much of what he did was motivated by the NEED to raise money to keep the Romans happy.

Palestine at this time was still in Seleucid control, but it must be noted that it was NOT Antiochus Epiphanes that took Palestine from Ptolemies territory, it was his father Antiochus III the Great.

Palestine, at this time was governed mainly by the high priest, who was usually appointed by the governing Grecian party.

Antiochus Epiphanes appointed Menelaus who "out bid" Jason, as the high priest in Jerusalem.

While Antiochus was in Egypt on his first campaign, Jason tried to retake his position with armed forces and killed quite a few people.

Antiochus Epiphanes, already smarting after his humiliatingly encounter with the Romans, saw all this as rebellion against his rule and he descended on Jerusalem, looting the temple and re-establishing Menelaus in office as high priest.

In 167 Antiochus permanently garrisoned the city with Syrian soldiers and enforced Hellenization forbidding Jewish rites.

Against this oppression Judas Maccabeus, leader of the "pious" Hasideans Jews, led out in a guerrilla war, and in 164 was victorious in battles against Antiochus' general, Lysias, and re-consecrated the Temple, fortified Jerusalem and Bethzur to the south..


The Maccabees's eventually succeeded in expelling the Seleucids from Palestine and established an independent State.

Epiphanies then tries to expand eastward in order to "increase his revenue" has some successes but dies (of natural causes in 164 BC) in the attempt.
However the Maccabees continued to fight for independence, succeeded and actually built up quite a large Palestinian state.

SATAN A GREAT BIBLE STUDENT

Satan knows the prophecies in the Bible far better than we do!!
He studies them and then figures out how to implement COUNTERFEITS before the reality comes.

We see this has happened all through history, concerning Christ's virgin birth, death, resurrection and many other truths which have a counterfeit. Truth must push itself up through the confusion and show itself as the REAL thing.

The difficulty one encounters studying Daniel 8, is that ancient historians and peoples applied the prophecies to their day and began a tradition, a counterfeit fulfilment that has been accepted as fact. The book of Maccabees is the final word on the subject of this horn for many people. The Maccabees applied the horn to Epiphanes and people ever since think it was he who fulfilled the prophecy.

This was approximately 160 years before Christ was born, that Satan had already laid the foundation for his deceptions to make void the message for the time of the end.


But no way does his counterfeit interpretation fit.

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [saint] which spake, How long shall be the vision, the daily, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?


The time 2300 day (years) answers the question -- how long the vision. Vision starts with Ram,
includes Goat, and horn. Obviously this is in years.

Daniel 12 answers the "how long" concerning the "daily" and the "abomination" set up.
(1290 years)
None of those dates fit Epiphanes!