DANIEL 8, AND INTERPRETATION ERRORS CONNECTED WITH IT!

gillespie9669

ERRORS CONNECTED TO THE “LITTLE HORN OF GREECE” THEORIES
The following is a series written in response to the main points of the theory that “the little horn” of Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV (“Epiphanes”) of Greece, one single person, and not the kingdom of Rome. This writer hopes that the errors in this “little horn of Greece” theory will be now made plain.

ERROR No. 1. “The vision of Daniel 8 has nothing to do with Daniel 9 and 7…It is the Greek kingdom with which the vision ends.”

The brazenness of this claim and the shockingly poor Bible scholarship exhibited, in order to support this claim, is very easy to see. Notice carefully that Daniel, at the end of Chapter 8, was STILL “astonished at THE vision, but none understood it” (Dan. 8: 27). But the angel had been sent to make him specifically understand THE vision” (Dan. 8:16) since “he [Daniel] sought for the meaning” (Dan. 8:16). Now did the angel fully accomplish this on Daniel’s behalf? Only dishonesty would declare that the angel was successful in giving Daniel clear understanding in everything. Or is it that Daniel is not being believed when he himself said he was “astonished at THE vision, but NONE [including himself] understood it”?

Now, I have purposefully highlighted the word “the” in the expression “the vision”, because any basic understanding of English dictates that once the word “the” is used, it specifies and excludes. Now move over to Daniel 9, which many claim is not connected to Chapter 8. What do we find there? Daniel is in prayer, and is perplexed over a matter. What matter? Obviously the same vision “none understood”, or the same vision he was “astonished at”. But it must have been clear who the ram represented. It was clearly said- Medo-Persia!! It was likewise clear who the he-goat represented- Greece!!

It was clear about the “notable horn”, which “broke” and then four others grew up in its place- the kingdom of Greece would be divided into four “sub-kingdoms” after its first phase of glory under Alexander.However it is clear that it was the TIME element of the vision which Daniel did not understand, because in Daniel 9 notice carefully that he is seeking answers in the TIME prophecies of Jeremiah (regarding “seventy years in the desolation of Jerusalem”). However, notice that he “UNDERSTOOD by the books the numbers of years” (70 years) that which Jeremiah had prophesied in another prophecy (Daniel 9:2). What he needed to understand, obviously, *was there a connection to the “2300 evenings and mornings” TIME aspect of the prophecy in the Daniel 8 vision; the same aspect of the vision he was “astonished at”, and “none understood it”?

What then happens during his prayer? Immediately an angel is dispatched who came to give him “UNDERSTANDING” (Daniel 9:23). But understanding of what? Daniel 9:21 clearly says: “Gabriel, whom I HAD seen in THE vision [not just an earlier vision, but “the vision”] at the beginning” had come to give “understanding”.

Only the most Satanic spirit of willful twisting of Scripture, and demonic denial of the obvious (heresy) would claim that this expression “whom I had seen in THE VISION AT THE BEGINNING” [specific and exclusive] does not signal a connection between Daniel 8 and 9. “At the beginning” clearly refer to the circumstances causing Daniel’ perplexity over TIME ISSUES, and “the vision” (specific and exclusive) can only refer to the specific vision Daniel had already seen Gabriel in. Which vision fulfilled all these specifications? THE VISION IN DANIEL 8 WHICH MANY DISHONESTLY (OR BECAUSE OF POOR BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP) CLAIM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DANIEL 9!!

The real truth clincher, proving that Gabriel came to explain, not Jeremiah’s prophecy, but the earlier vision of Daniel 8, is clearly seen by his explanation bringing “70 weeks” or 490 prophetic “days” (not 70 years) into focus, and showing how this prophetic time (490 years) extended down to the time when Messiah would be “cut off” (Strong’s- ka^rath ; kaw-rath'- to cut off, down or asunder; by implication to destroy or consume). Thus the time issue of the earlier vision (Daniel 8) went way past the time of the Greek world domination, and finds itself in the Roman period- a period in which it was the Romans who “cut down” Jesus, who died, “but not for himself” (Daniel 9:26). Compare the similar shade of meaning of the “cut off” expression in Gen 9:11 and Is. 53:8. Make sure you do.

Notice too that the angel even went as far as saying “the people of the prince [ruler, king] that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”. Was this in the vision of Daniel 8? Certainly! In Daniel 8:7 the actions of the “he goat” shows that to “cast to the ground”, and trample underfoot or “stamp upon” IS THE SAME AS TO DESTROY (DEMOLISH) OR TOTALLY CONQUER. Thus it is clear that the “little horn” in Daniel 8 (called a king, ruler, or prince, or na^gi^yd, na^gid in Hebrew, BUT STILL REPRESENTING A KINGDOM) would also “cast down” (verse 10) the [not “some of”, but “THE”]“stars” (people) of God. The word “some” in verse 10 is added, and is not in the original text; just like the word “sacrifice” in verses 11 and 12. This means he (the kingdom) would “destroy the mighty and holy people” (Daniel 8:24). It would also “cast down” (destroy) the “place [Strong’s- ma^ko^n- or maw-kone' -foundation, habitation, dwelling] of His [the Messiah’s] sanctuary”! Daniel 8:11. The expression “the people of the prince” (ruler, king) is evidently nothing more than the kingdom of the “little horn” itself, because a “king” (prince, ruler) or “kingdom” in prophecy (as in Daniel) acts through its people. Clearly only the Romans (prophesied of in Daniel 7) fully accomplished this *destroying of the Jewish city, the sanctuary, and conquering of the holy people, NOT ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, as many claim. Antiochus of course left the sanctuary standing, and the Jews themselves chased him out of their land after his years of persistent harassment of them (he did not destroy them as a nation).

In summary it can be said that the reason so many labor to show that Daniel 7, 8 and 9 are not connected is simply because it would cut across the grain of their Antiochus Epiphanes interpretation, and would bring them face to face with not just Rome as the “little horn” fully operational in Jesus’ time, but also face to face with the truth that the “2300 evenings and mornings” (Daniel 8:14, 17, 26) may just relate to a symbolically long tome period, and another sanctuary event extending to and climaxing at the time of the end, BUT NOT ON EARTH.

It is interesting that Daniel’s vision of the four beasts in Daniel 7, and Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue in Daniel both extended into the future (to the time of the end), and both had their first portions being fulfilled in Daniel’ time, but the entire book was to be sealed until the time of the end, when knowledge of it’s contents shall be increased, as with everything else in the world (Dan. 12:4, 9). Clearly too, Satan is on the warpath to keep the Book sealed, or confuse the issues, so his deceptive schemes (mystery of iniquity) in the Great Controversy with “Michael” (Rev. 12:7) will be kept from the people! God help us to contend for his truth.

Error No. 2: Antiochus represented an entire horn of Greece, and waxed exceedingly great in three directions.

Here now is proof of this pitiful fallacy.•
A horn represents not merely a king, but a kingdom. It is claimed that the “little horn” of Daniel 8 was not a new and distinct kingdom but only one single person, the king Antiochus IV. Although 8:23 identifies the little horn as a “king,” there are compelling reasons for recognizing it as a kingdom. The four preceding horns were said to be kingdoms (8:22); so we would expect them to be succeeded by another kingdom. The two horns on the Persian ram represented the “kings of Media and Persia” (8:20); that is, the dynastic houses that ruled those nations—not merely two single kings.

The four beasts are referred to as “four kings” (7:17); yet they represented kingdoms and not individual monarchs (7:23). In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar was told he was “the head of gold”; yet the head represented the entire Neo-Babylonian Empire which continued for decades after his death. He was specifically told that he would be succeeded by another kingdom (2:38-39).The only place where an entire “horn” is traditionally identified, even in Adventism, as a single person is the “notable horn” of the Grecian he-goat (8:21) being Alexander the Great.

HOWEVER THIS WRITER CONTENDS THAT EVEN ADVENTISM SHOULD ENDEAVOR TO ADVANCE IN TRUTH AS MORE LIGHT IS DICOVERED; IT CAN ONLY BE THE BETTER FOR IT. HERE NOW ARE SOME NEW, OR REVOLUTIONARY, AND, WHAT I HOPE, HOLY SPIRIT- FILLED THOUGHTS ON THIS ISSUE!! *This writer now proposes that THIS VIEW NEEDS REVISION, because the general rule that a horn is a kingdom need not be broken, or compromised, as it concerns Alexander the Great. Why? If the he-goat in Daniel 8 represented the entire course of the Macedonian-Greek world domination, THEN THE “HORNS” MUST REPRESENT THE SUCCESSIVE PHASES OF THAT KINGDOMS ACTIVITY. THUS THE FIRST "NOTABLE HORN", BEING IT’S “FIRST KING" SIMPLY SHOULD MEAN THE FIRST PHASE OF THAT KINGDOM, WHICH JUST HAPPENED TO BE REALIZED UNDER ONE LITERAL LEADER, ALEXANDER! Remember, Nebuchadnezzar was “the head of gold” (Daniel 2), but he was just representative of the entire kingdom itself! Alexander was therefore just representative of the first phase of the he-goat’s power. As the Strong’s lexicon clearly shows concerning the words, “first king” (for the “notable horn”), the word “first” (Hebrew, rishon) means ‘first in rank’, but it also means ‘first in time’!! And thus if the word “king” means kingdom, then the he-goat’s first “horn”, or Greece’s “first king” simply means the first phase of its world dominion, and also the most notable phase (highest ranking or most effective phase) of it’s history.

IF THIS POSITION IS TAKEN THEN ALL DIFFICULTIES VANISH, AND NO PRECEDENCE IS SET FOR THE OPPOSITION TO ASSUME THAT ANTIOCHUS, ONE PERSON, COULD ALSO BE AN ENTIRE HORN!!! Thus in the closing moments of the he-goats (Greece’s) world domination, out of one of the directions (“four winds”), where its four divided kingdoms (horns) had spread themselves, came a new, and distinct kingdom, Rome. Why was it not another Greek kingdom? Because after the four divided kingdoms of Greece, the he-goat HAD NO OTHER PHASE OF POWER, and because Rome rose to power (after this second and final phase of Grecian world domination) of by descending on the Greeks from the North West direction of the divided he-goat kingdom, that is, from the direction of Italy. Rome thus appeared to the prophet Daniel to be coming out of the he-goat as a horn, BECAUSE IT ABSORBED GREECE’S TERRITORIES, AS IT MOVED FROM THE NORTH WEST (ITALY), AND WAXED EXCEEDINGLY GREAT TOWARDS THE SOUTH, THE EAST, AND EVEN TOWARDS THE LAND OF GOD’S PEOPLE (“THE PLEASANT LAND”), CONQUERING AND DESTROYING EVERYTHING IN IT’S PATH!!

Antiochus failed miserably in fulfilling this part of the prophecy!!

Remember what I said the last time? And here I quote:

"the only seeming ‘problem’ (if it can be called that) for Rome fulfilling every specification of Daniel’s “little horn” would probably be the argument that the “little horn”, seemingly, was to grow out of one of the four divisions (four “notable horns”) of the Greek empire. Since the “he goat” (representing Greece) should have only Greek horns growing out of it, then some believe the fifth horn (the “little horn”) could be nothing but Greek; it certainly could not be Roman (or so they argue). However, a little analysis of the Hebrew language structure shows that the focus of the language in Daniel 8 was that “the little horn” grew out of one of the “four winds” (directions) where the Grecian kingdom had spread. Also how would one explain the “fourth beast” of Daniel 7 (Rome), uprooting “three horns” from its head, which were later found to be GERMANIC TRIBES OR KINGDOMS (fighting against it), and not really Roman at all (in the true sense of the word ‘Roman’)? Thus the argument that a horn of unrelated race or of a distinct and new kingdom (e.g. the Romans) could not grow out of the body of the beast (he goat) representing the Greeks is proved faulty by this foregoing, and the following illustration. LOOK AT EVEN ENGLAND (THE “ANGLO-SAXONS”) WHICH BECAME AN INFLUENTIAL MODERN WORLD POWER (BRITISH EMPIRE) ON ITS OWN, AND YET IT WAS ONCE PART OF “THE TEN KINGDOMS” OF DIVIDED ROME (AFTER 476 A.D.), AND GREW OUT OF THE ROMAN KINGDOM INTO A PHASE OF ITS OWN DOMINANCE (even if it was not powerful enough to be worthy of mention in Bible prophecy).” End of Quote, and enough said on that!! The predicted little horn power is simply too great! TO BE ANTIOCHUS!!—The Persian ram “magnified himself” (8:4)—and the entire Persian Empire, lasting several centuries, was indeed great. Notice that for just simply “pushing [waxing, i.e. moving and or conquering] westward, and northward, and southward” (Dan 8:4) the Persians were describes as “GREAT”. The Grecian goat, which conquered Persia, “waxed VERY GREAT” (8:8) and was powerful for still more centuries (including when Antiochus was alive). But the little horn sought for—and attained—even more greatness. It magnified itself “EXCEEDINGLY GREAT” IN SEVERAL DIRECTIONS and even tried to grow “great ... to the host of heaven,” ultimately to magnify “itself ... up to the Prince of the host” (8:9-11).

The comparative greatness among ram, the he-goat, and the little horn is based upon their directions of conquest, and the degree of their success, probably extending to even their years of domination. Remember that! The verb, “to be great” (gadal) occurs only once with Persia and Greece, but three times with the little horn. In reality, Antiochus ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire (i.e. inside one horn), but with little success and for only 12 years!!!

• History reveals that Antiochus did not accomplish very much during his reign—compared to the little horn, which “grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land” (8:9). In contrast, the exploits of Antiochus IV fell far short of that. Antiochus attempted to extend his southern border into Egypt during the campaign of 169 B.C. The following year (168 B.C.), he marched on Alexandria to undertake its siege, but was turned back by a Roman diplomatic mission. He had to abandon the conquest entirely.

• He experienced repeated failures—During the last two years of his reign, Antiochus IV attempted to regain some of the extensive territory won and then lost, by his predecessor. After some initial diplomatic and military successes in Armenia and Media, he was stopped by the Parthians and died in the winter of 164/163 B.C. during the campaign against them. Although he had a few military successes, they were far less than those of even Antiochus III. He did not grow “exceedingly great” toward the south or east. Antiochus IV did not conquer Palestine (the west) either. It was territory Antiochus III had subjected in 198 B.C. Antiochus could not grow or “wax exceedingly” in taking over Judaea; for it was already part of his kingdom (inherited from Antiochus III before him), AND THIS EXPRESSION DENOTES CONQUERING NEW TERRITORIES ON YOUR OWN.

Antiochus IV is mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1-6 (uninspired Apocryphal books) as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated the Temple and persecuted the Jews, thus fulfilling (according to its uninspired author) Daniel’s “little horn” prophecy. But Antiochus did not grow “exceedingly great toward the glorious land.” Far from it! He just succeeded in stirring up a hornet’s nest; for his actions against the Jews led to their total revolt. Instead of being the conqueror of Palestin, the defeats Antiochus’ forces suffered toward the end of his reign in that land started the course of events which separated that territory from Seleucid control. The Jews became completely independent. That is why the book of the Maccabees are regarded as uninspired (apocryphal), yet so many try to appeal to their writings for inspired doctrinal insights, not just historical accounts. God help the foolhardy in this matter is my prayer! Amen.

Author and editor- Derrick Gillespie
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)