HOW SDAs SHOULD DEFEND 1844 HISTORICISM!!

gillespie9669

A Biblical Defense OF OUR SANCTUARY DOCTRINE - Part 1

I apologise for the length of this presentation, but must give details to support my stance. Part 2 will follow, which will address directly 1844 and historicism.

SUBHEADINGS IN THIS PRESENTATION

LINKING THE CHAPTERS IN DANIEL
Links between chapters 2 and 7
Links between chapters 7 and 8
Linking chapters 7, 8, 9, and 12
Chapters 7, 8, and 9 closely linked

THE LITTLE HORN
Connecting the two little horns
The preterism and futurism attack
Identifying the little horn
Why Antiochus is not the little horn

— LINKING THE CHAPTERS —

LINKS BETWEEN CHAPTERS 2 AND 7
The first step in the opposition's attack on those chapters is to split them apart and say that Daniel 7, 8, and 9 are not connected. In this way, they hope to destroy their message. We must not let them do this.
Because Daniel 7, 8, and 9 are heavily attacked by liberals opposed to our historic positions, those three chapters deserve our special attention.
Critics charge that the metal man of chapter 2 and the beasts of chapter 7 have nothing in common. However, there is actually a close correlation between these two chapters.

Factors linking chapters 2 and 7—Both contain four “kingdoms” (2:39-40; 7:4-7, 23). There is an eventual division in the fourth kingdom. God’s kingdom is established at some point subsequent to the division of the fourth kingdom.
There is a parallel sequence of metals and beasts: the former moves downward from great worth (gold) to great strength (iron). The order of beasts goes from high honor (the lion as king of the beasts) to crushing power (the nondescript beast, wilder than any natural animal).
More parallels—It is also significant that several points in the later chapters, which would not have had special meaning to Nebuchadnezzar, were not told to him in chapter 2: the blasphemous little horn, the heavenly judgment, and the fact that the “saints” of the most High would eventually “possess the kingdom.”

In chapter 2, we find that a great Stone brings the wickedness of this world to an end (2:34-45) and an eternal kingdom is established (2:44).

In chapter 7, the little horn’s attack on God’s people is followed by an investigative judgment. As a result of it, the saints inherit the new kingdom (7:14), which they shall possess “forever and ever” (7:18). Although the judgment is in behalf of the saints (7:22), it results in ending the little horn’s dominion (7:26-27).

These linkages not only strengthen the importance of the message of Daniel 7, but help tie both chapters 1 and 2 to parallel sections in chapter 8. These relationships also point to the fact that the judgment in chapter 8 will occur in the last days, not at some earlier time.

LINKS BETWEEN CHAPTERS 7 AND 8
Actually, all the visions in the book, which extend down to the end of time, are closely intertwined. Here are the relationships between chapters 7 and 8.
Daniel 7—Unlike the dreams in chapters 2 and 4, this is the first vision given directly to Daniel. It is also a basic vision on which, in several ways, his later visions are built. Being the first of the four main prophecies given to Daniel, the vision of Daniel 7 stands out as a major outline of the future. The subsequent visions amplify its details.
Factors linking chapters 7 and 8—In the visions of Daniel 7 and 8, Daniel’s attention shifts back and forth between events on earth and events in heaven. In both, Daniel is startled by what he sees and asks questions, to which he receives additional information (7:15-16 and 8:15-19). At the end of each vision, he is deeply concerned over what he has seen and learned (7:28 and 8:27). A sizeable portion of both chapters consist of explanations to Daniel’s questions.

At the end of chapter 7, Daniel is distraught over what he has viewed (7:28). At the beginning of Daniel 8, Daniel mentions a connection of this second vision to the preceding one (8:1). This locks them together.
A focus on the little horn—The vision in chapter 8 is a shortened form of the vision in chapter 7. Omitting Babylon, the first beast, it reviews and adds to later history while focusing on the heavenly Sanctuary, its Prince, and the intruding little horn. Chapter 8 provides additional information about the attack by the little horn. It describes in symbolic terms the horn’s casting down some of the stars of heaven, opposing the Prince, and casting down of both the foundation of His Sanctuary and the truth to the ground to be trampled upon.

A special judgment—The earlier vision, chapter 7, had described a “little horn” that “made war with the saints [holy ones] . . until the Ancient of days came” (7:21-22a) and “the judgment shall sit” [Greek, “the court sat in judgment”] (7:26). In the last days the faithful ones enter into this judgment; after which, “the time came that the saints possessed [Hebrew: received] the kingdom” (7:22c; cf. 7:27). This heavenly judgment takes place prior to the time that the saints receive the kingdom. So it is a pre-advent judgment which involves investigation and cleansing.

Chapter 8:13-14 provides still more information about this judgment. Chapter 7 had described the judgment scene, but chapter 8 explains when it was to begin. It also reveals that a cleansing would take place. This leads the careful Bible student back to the type—which is the day of atonement cleansing in Leviticus 16. This end-time judgment occurs in heaven before the witnessing universe (7:9-10, 13-14, 22, 26). It results in fully restoring the Sanctuary (8:14) which was attacked and supplanted by the rival system of the little horn. The best single description of this judgment is given in Great Controversy, chapter 28 (479-491).

LINKING CHAPTERS 7, 8, 9, AND 12
Link to chapter 9—At the end of chapter 8, Daniel is even more disturbed by additional information he has received (8:27). At the beginning of chapter 9, Daniel prays for further guidance concerning Jerusalem (which at that time was in ruins) and also about the earthly sanctuary. In response, the same angel (Gabriel) that appeared to him in the preceding vision again appears (9:21) and says he has arrived with important information (9:22) which will help explain what Daniel earlier learned in the vision (9:23). Therefore, what the angel had told him in 9:25-27 was based on what Daniel had been told in chapter 8.
Link to chapter 12—On the basis of this judicial process in the Sanctuary, “Michael . . the great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people” is able to come forth victoriously in the time of trouble and physically deliver the saints (12:1). Who are the ones delivered? “every one that shall be found written in the book” (12:1) as a result of the pre-advent investigative judgment.
Every end-time vision in the book of Daniel (chapters 2, 7, 8 with 9, and 11-12) moves forward toward this grand climax. And the judgment is central to making it work out all right. It is an extremely important event in the history of the plan of salvation and the eternal safeguarding of the universe.
Always the same destination—Every vision in the book of Daniel ultimately leads us to the last days; every one, without an exception.

Each of these presentations—chapters 2, 7, 8 with 9, and 11-12—ends with mammoth consequences which will forever affect the entire universe. The focus is not on a minor second century B.C. Syrian king, named Antiochus. More on him later.

CHAPTERS 7, 8, AND 9 CLOSELY LINKED
Of them all, the three visions of Daniel 7, 8, and 9 almost form one successive, connected vision.
Both the interpretation of 7:23-27 and the prophecy of 9:24-27 are given by the angel Gabriel. He is referred to in 9:21 as the one whom Daniel had seen “in the vision at the beginning” (Hebrew, tehillah). Which vision was that? Daniel 8 was the preceding vision. But, when we turn to 8:1, we find that in the words, “vision . . at the first” (tehillah), it refers us back to the still earlier vision of chapter 7.
Since the same Hebrew word is used in Daniel 8 and 9, we may assume that the mention of the vision given “at first” in Daniel 9 refers to the vision of Daniel 7! So it must have been Gabriel who appeared to Daniel in the vision of chapter 7 as his angel interpreter. All three visions are closely linked together, and each succeeding vision helps explain the earlier ones.
(Actually, the vision of chapters 10-12 is also based on the connected visions of chapters 7, 8, and 9. But in this study on Daniel our focus must be on chapters 7, 8, and 9. This is because they are the chapters undergirding special basic beliefs which have been especially attacked.
We now turn our attention to the “little horn.” Identify it is extremely important! Critics charge that the little horn of Daniel 8 is about some two-bit king that lived thousands of years ago. If we accept that, both the 2300-day prophecy and the truth of what the papacy has done throughout history are eliminated. The next several studies will deal with the meaning of the little horn.

— THE LITTLE HORN —
CONNECTING THE TWO LITTLE HORNS

The little horn of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8 refer to the same power.
One horn, not two—The two horns refer to the same historical entity. The same symbol was used for both—even though the vision of chapter 7 was originally written in Aramaic and the vision of chapter 8 was in Hebrew. (Day after day, in his secular work, Daniel continually spoke and wrote in both languages.) If a historical distinction was intended here, different names would have been used. But the symbol remained the same.
Connecting similarities—Both horns appear to arise at the same time in history; both begin small and become great (7:8 and 8:9). Both persecute the saints of God (7:21, 25 and 8:11, 25). Both appear to endure for lengthy periods of prophetic time (7:25 and 8:14). Both eventually suffer similar fates (7:26 and 8:25).
The visions of chapters 7 and 8 come together as one pair grouped two years apart (7:1; 8:1). The prophecies in chapters 9-12 form a unit as a second pair, a decade later, also grouped two years apart (9:1; 10:1).

THE PRETERISM AND FUTURISM ATTACK
We need to identify this terrible little horn power; but, first, we should briefly look at how some of the critics tried to keep the people from learning its identity.
The Reformers of the sixteenth century, including Martin Luther, Melanchthon, Ulric Zwingli, John Calvin, Menno Simons, and their associates declared that the papacy was the antichrist of Bible prophecy.
Prior to that time, Rome had tried to destroy copies of the Scriptures, so the truths of Daniel and Revelation would not be discovered. But, with the invention of printing, the circulation of Bibles, and the preaching of the Reformers—something had to be done!

In response to Luther’s anti-papal protest, two Catholic theologians, Prierias and Eck, declared the Catholic Church to be the fifth (the stone) kingdom portrayed in Daniel 2. A very proud boast from the little horn.
The chapters which point to Rome—But what could they do about the prophecies which pointed directly to Rome as the antichrist power? In the book of Daniel, it was chapters 7, 8, and 9 which identified when Rome would arise as an international power. It was those three chapters which unmasked its vicious attempts to destroy the law of God and slay His people.
Sunday, the basis of papal authority—From A.D. 1545-1563, the Council of Trent met intermittently to devise ways to annihilate Protestantism, either by direct warfare or by infiltration. Its earlier change of the Sabbath to Sunday was declared to be the foundation of its doctrine of Tradition (the words of men) as superior to Scripture. In addition, the Jesuits were assigned the task of infiltrating palaces, schools, and Protestant churches. Jesuit theologians were given the task of reinterpreting Bible prophecies which pointed to the papacy.

Ribera’s Futurism—Two Jesuits were especially successful in this latter task. The first was Francisco Ribera, who in 1537-1541, developed what we today call Futurism. He declared that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation would not be fulfilled until the very last days when, for 2300 literal days or about 7 years, an antichrist would appear. It was theorized that, at that time, a Jewish temple would be rebuilt in old Jerusalem. (In reality, the Muslims will never permit such a temple to be built on the Temple Mount.)
Samuel Maitland, William Burgh, John Darby, James Todd, and John Henry Newman were later leading Protestant theologians which infiltrated Jesuits used to spread this error throughout modern Protestantism. The Plymouth Brethren, the High Church Oxford Movement in the Anglican Church, and the Scofield Bible especially helped in this work.
A variant of this futurism was the development of dispensationalism, one form of which pushes many of the prophecies to the last days, to be fulfilled by the Jewish people.

Alcazar’s Preterism—Another Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613) developed the opposite position, known as Preterism. This is the teaching that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were fulfilled in ancient times by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Nero, and/or pagan Rome.
Hugo Grotius, of Holland, and Hammond, of England, helped further this error. Anti-Christian, German rationalists heavily endorsed it. This included J.C. Eichhorn, G.H.A. Ewald, G.C.F. Lucke, W.M.L. De Wette, Franz Delitzsch, and Julius Wellhausen. Since 1830, many British and American Bible teachers have taught it to their students.
The true belief—In contrast, it should be mentioned that many faithful Christian Bible scholars held that Rome was the antichrist of Daniel and Revelation. This included all the Reformers and, later, such men as Manuel de Lacunza and Joseph Wolff (both mentioned in Great Controversy), Sir Isaac Newton, Adam Clarke, Henry Drummond, and Edward Irving.

Ignatius Loyola founded the so-called “Society of Jesus” (the Jesuits) in 1534. Approved by Paul III in 1540, it immediately set to work to either destroy Protestantism or dilute its teachings, when assassination and warfare were not feasible. For over 450 years, its agents (brilliant men selected for their tenacity) have infiltrated governments, schools, and churches. These men gradually rose to higher positions as additional agents were hired into the ranks.

IDENTIFYING THE LITTLE HORN
What is the truth about the little horn power of Daniel 7 and 8? How can we identify it? How can we be certain of our identification?
Reasons why it is the papacy—There are several reasons why we can clearly identify the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 as the papacy. Statements by historians which verify this can be found in the present author’s low-cost book, Mark of the Beast (pp. 12-17).
Fourteen identifying points—Here are 14 identifying factors, each of which point directly to Rome as the little horn power of Daniel:
It has been suggested that 8:9-10 refers to pagan Rome and 8:11-12 to papal Rome. But, actually, this is not a dual or simultaneous fulfillment in this one horn, but a sequential fulfillment. The authority of the first gradually became the authority of the second.
• It arises among the ten—Pagan Rome (which later became papal Rome) arose among the ten horns of the fourth beast (7:7-8). It came to power after the ten divisions of the fourth beast had already been established.
• It did not arise out of the four horns—This is a very important point, for reasons which we will consider later. The grammatical construction of the phrases in 8:8-9 indicates that the horn was viewed as moving out from one of the four winds; that is, from one of the four points of the compass.
The horn did not move forth from one of the other horns; that is, it did not originate from a previous horn. Therefore it cannot represent Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Dynasty, which was one of the four horns of the divided Grecian Empire. Instead, the horn came out of “one of them”; that is, out of one of the four winds. Rome arose a thousand miles west of the territory of the four Grecian kingdoms (the four horns of the he-goat).
After emerging, it moved north, east, and south; which is exactly what Rome did. Here is this Hebrew grammatical construction:
Daniel 8:8: “to the four” (le’arba) winds of (ruhot; feminine) the heavens (hassamayim; masculine).
Daniel 8:9: “and from” (umin [“out of” in KJV]) the one (ha’ahat; feminine) from them (mehem; masculine).
Thus we have “Out of one (feminine) of the four winds (feminine) of them (masculine; that is, the heavens).”
“Winds” and “one” are both feminine, and “horns” is masculine. So the new horn emerged from one of the winds, not from one of the pre-existing horns.
To say it another way, according to Hebrew grammar in 8:8-9, the antecedent of “one” is “winds” (ruhot; feminine in 8:8) and not “horns,” because “winds” is feminine; while “horns” is only masculine. Since the word for “one,” ‘achath is feminine, it points to “horns” as the antecedent.

• Expands broadly in several directions—The verb, yasa’, is used to describe the activity of this horn. Yasa’ means “expansion,” not “growth.” Instead of “growing up out of,” it is “spreading forth outward.” It is describing the horn’s horizontal, geographical movement or expansion southward and eastward.
Therefore, the horn originated in, and moved, from the west. This was historically true of Rome, but not of Antiochus. This verb, yasa’, means “to go out” or “to come, move forth.” It is not the typical Hebrew word for “growth” of a horn. It is true that actual horn growth is mentioned twice (8:3, 8; ‘alah, “to come up, grow up”). However, those two verses refer, not to the little horn, but to the four horns growing up in place of the great horn that was broken off.
In contrast, the yasa’ motion of the little horn is out-moving, from one compass direction to another. This is a perfect description of the emergence of Rome. Instead of growing up out of the territory of a preceding monarchy, Rome invaded from the west while retaining its headquarters in the west.
Note that this Old Testament word, yasa’, is used five times for military movements (Deut 20:1; 1 Chron 5:18; 20:1; Prov 30:27; Amos 5:3) or for a king moving out with his army (1 Sam 8:20; 2 Chron 1:10).

• The prediction may have included a northward expansion—“toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” (8:9). Instead of “pleasant land,” it could be translated “the north.”
The Hebrew word is “glorious land,” and the Septuagint translates it as “northward.” The ancient Septuagint (the Greek, third/second-century translation of the Hebrew Bible) has the “north” in place of “the glory.” This substitution of “north” in place of “glory” is a translation error. The scribe may have misread the Hebrew hassebi (“the glory”), and thought it said hassapon (“the north”).
However, if “northward” were correct here, the direction of the compass from which the little horn moved forth could still be only from the west. In contrast, Antiochus was in the east country and remained there.
Actually, either translation would be correct (the present author prefers “glorious land”; that is, the conquest of Judaea): (1) Eastward: In 63 B.C., Palestine and Jerusalem (“the pleasant land”) came under the control of the Roman Empire when General Pompey conquered it. (2) Northward: The Roman Empire extended its control over Gaul and much of what is now modern Europe. That fact, of course, agrees with our interpretation of the territory included in the ten toes of the great image (2:33-34, 41-44).

• It came out of the Roman empire—The papacy came out of the Roman empire—pagan Rome—just as the little horn came out of the fourth beast (pagan Rome) of chapter 7 (7:7:8, 19-20; 23-25).
The fourth beast is clearly Rome; the little horn that arises out of it cannot be Antiochus (who was already dead by the time the fourth beast came into power).

• It plucked up three other horns—Ten horns come up and then another little horn, which quickly plucks up three of them (7:8, 20, 24). The three, which had been obstructions to papal supremacy and were eliminated, were these: the Heruli in A.D. 493, the Vandals in 534, and the Ostrogoths in 538.

• The little horn and the 1260/1290-year prophecies—These are important identifiers of the little horn power. They are discussed later in this book in the section, A.D. 508, 538, and 1798.

• Nearly two thousand years as a powerful church-state—The papacy is the only entity which, for nearly two millennia, has been both a kingdom and a religious power. In contast, Pagan Rome had rule over a large area less than 600 years.

• A man-centered religious power—It is a religion of a “man” who speaks “great things” (7:8, 20, 25). The man at the top of this religious power is both the center and key to the whole organization. Every Roman Catholic knows that the pope is the center of the church.

• Speaks words of blasphemy—His “great words” are words of “blasphemy” (7:25; cf. Rev 13:1, 6 and 2 Thess 2:4). He defies God and claims to be God. No other nation, ruling for over a thousand years, has ever done this.

• Slays many of God’s people—He “shall wear out the saints of the most High” (7:25; 8:13; cf. Rev 12:13-15; 13:7). Millions of martyrs died. Historians tell us that more people were slain by the papacy than by any other institution in history (see the authors book, Mark of the Beast).

• Defies God and His law—The little horn is more than a combined church and kingdom which has defied God and, for over 1600 years, has tried to eradicate the principles of His law. It was predicted that this power would try to change the law of God and, in its place, substitute laws of its own (7:25).

• Specifically tries to change the ten commandments—The wording of 7:25 indicates that it was the ten commandments and the Sabbath which were countermanded by the little horn. In the passage, the “times” are closely linked with God’s law. The Aramaic word for “law” in this instance is dat. In view of its other Biblical occurrences (the Hebrew of Esther 1:8, 13, 15, 19; 3:8; 4:11, 16 / Aramaic: Ezra 7:12, 14, 21, 25, 26; Dan 6:5, 8, 12, 15), this reference in 7:25 should not be applied to the torah or general instructions. It should be understood as a decree or legislation issued directly by God Himself. Such an interpretation of “the law” in 7:25 would emphasize the Sabbath in that verse.
It is God who sets the time for the “times,” and it is the counterfeit religious authority which seeks to change them. The little horn will “think to change times and laws” (7:25).
The word, “time,” comes from the Aramaic zeman. Zimnin (in the plural) means a stated or fixed time (as in 3:7, 8; 4:36; 6:10, 13) or a time span (2:16; 7:12). The times are in God’s hands—the times of our lives, the time we are to worship Him, and the time when future events shall occur. For the little horn to attempt to change any of these times (7:25) is but another of its deliberate attempts to act as if it were God.

• The judgment begins in the latter days of the little horn, before its destruction—This little horn has become a blasphemous and deadly power; and God predicted that it would be destroyed (7:11-12, 26). But, before that occurs, the judgment must sit. The description given is clearly a massive courtroom procedure which takes place in heaven (7:9-10). Therefore, this judgment takes place after the major span of the little horn’s existence has elapsed; for the judgment comes after the 1260 years (7:25-26), which is after the end of the 2300 years (8:13-14) and before the end of the dominion of the little horn (7:26). It takes place just before the Second Advent (7:26-27, 14, 22).

WHY ANTIOCHUS IS NOT THE LITTLE HORN
Today, liberals frequently teach that Antiochus is the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8. When we are confronted with this charge, how can we meet it? Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the eighth king in the Seleucid line, which covered the territory of Syria-Babylon. He only ruled for less than 12 years (175 to 164/163 B.C.). Keep that in mind: less than 12 years. Since Antiochus is almost universally identified by the other churches as the little horn power, we want to know if there is Biblical and historical evidence refuting the claim. Such an identification would eliminate the predictions of the papal change of the Sabbath (7:25), the persecution of God’s people in the Dark Ages (Dan 7), the 2300-year prophecy (Dan 8), and the investigative judgment preceding the Second Advent. It would also conveniently help eliminate the papacy from Bible prophecy.
Antiochus as the little horn is part of a plan—Throughout history, from the earliest times, the identification of Antiochus as the little horn has been made as part of a plan to move the writing of the book of Daniel down to the second century B.C., with the idea that all of it is merely historical (written after the events) rather than prophetic. Satan hates the book of Daniel.
After Rome came to power, it used the Antiochus theory to hide the truth of who the vicious, blasphemous little horn actually was.
Here are four reasons which favor the identification of Antiochus IV as the little horn:

• A Seleucid king—He was a Seleucid king, therefore he could have proceeded from one of the four horns (8:8).
But we earlier noted that the grammatical construction of Daniel 7:8-9 reveals that the little horn came out of a wind, not a horn. The little horn arose out of territory not under the control of any of the four divisions of the Greek Empire.

• Irregular succession—It was not expected that he would become king, if that is what “but not with his power” (welo bekoho; 8:24) means. A son of Seleucus IV, Philopator should have succeeded to the rule after his father’s assassination by the courtier, Heliodorus. But, aided by the armies of Pergamos, the king’s brother, Antiochus IV, came to the throne instead.

• Persecuted the Jews—He surely did fight with the Jews, but for a period of time far less than the required 6 years, 4 months, and two-thirds of a month (which are 2300 literal days). It did not even fit the “1150 literal days” theory (more on that later).

• Polluted the Temple—He polluted the Jerusalem Temple and, for a time, disrupted its services. But he did not do all the things predicted of him, not in chapter 7 nor in chapter 8.
There are eighteen reasons why the little horn cannot be Antiochus. In view of the fact that defending Antiochus as the little horn is a key point in the liberal attack on Daniel 8:14—it is surprising how many solid reasons there are for rejecting him.

• The horn represents not merely a king, but a kingdom. It is claimed that the little horn was not the Seleucid Dynasty, but only one king, Antiochus. Although 8:23 identifies the little horn as a “king,” there are 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 chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar was told he was the head of gold; yet the head represented the 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 a horn is clearly identified as a single person is Alexander, the great horn of the Grecian he-goat (8:21).
We have already found that the qualifications of the little horn positively identify it as the papacy, not as a single king (7:8, 11, 19-20, 24-25).

• The predicted little horn power is simply too great!—The Persian ram “magnified himself” (8:4)—and the entire Persian Empire, lasting several centuries, was indeed great. The Grecian goat, which conquered Persia, “magnified himself exceedingly” (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 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 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, but with little success and for only 12 years.

• Antiochus was not important enough for a major court session—Why would the court in heaven gather in majestic session, with vast numbers of angels (7:9-10)—in order to pay attention to Antiochus? Something far less glorious, such as Micaiah ben Imlah’s prediction concerning Ahab (1 Kgs 22) should have been adequate for Antiochus.

• History reveals that Antiochus did not accomplish very much during his
reign—The little horn “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 his successor, 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 “exceedingly” in taking over Judaea; for it was already part of his kingdom (inherited from Antiochus III).
Antiochus IV is mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the Seleucid ruler who desecrated the Temple and persecuted the Jews. But he 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 Palestine, the defeats his 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.
While he himself was campaigning in the east, his Palestinian forces experienced defeats at Emmaus (1 Maccabees 3:57) and Beth-zur (1 Maccabees 4:29) in Judaea. Toward the end of 164 B.C., the Jews liberated the polluted Temple from Seleucid hands and rededicated it (1 Maccabees 5:52). Antiochus died in the east shortly thereafter, early in 163 B.C. (1 Maccabees 6:15).
The net gains, accomplished throughout his reign, amounted to almost nothing; the net losses were severe. He did not grow “exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land” (8:9).

• Antiochus and the prophecy of the tamid—The little horn took away the tamid (8:11), which means the “continual” (“daily” in KJV). The word, “sacrifice” (in 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:11) is a supplied word and not in the original. The critics declare that “sacrifice” should be the supplied word, and that it applies to Antiochus, who interrupted the Temple services—yet only for a very short time.

• Place of the sanctuary not destroyed—“The place of his sanctuary was not cast down” by Antiochus (8:11). He did not damage the Temple building, much less destroy it. The word, “place” (makon), used here is important. It occurs 17 times in the Hebrew Bible; and, in every instance but one, it refers to the place where God dwells or the site upon which His throne rests.

• Only ruled less than 12 years—Antiochus’ reign lasted less than 12 years (175 to 164/163 B.C.).

• Antiochus only a mid-Seleucid king—The origin of Antiochus’ kingdom does not fit the prophecy; he did not arise “at the latter end.” The little horn arose after the four kingdoms had come to power, and it was to come up “at the latter end of their rule” (8:23).
The Seleucid Dynasty consisted of more than 20 kings (311 to 65 B.C.). Antiochus IV was the eighth in line, and he ruled from 175 to 164/163 B.C. More than a dozen Seleucid rulers followed him and less than a dozen preceded him. He did not arise “at the latter end of their rule.”

• Antiochus’ activities did not fulfill the time prophecy—Liberals declare that Antiochus IV disrupted the Temple services and persecuted the Jews for 2300 literal days. But history has a far different story to tell us:
A pagan idol was set up on the altar of burnt offering on the 15th day of the 9th month of the 145th year of the Seleucid Era and pagan sacrifices began there 10 days later (1 Maccabees 1:54, 59).
After a period of warfare, on the 25th day of the 9th month in the 148th year of the Seleucid Era, an altar, newly built by the Jews, was consecrated and offerings began. Celebrations continued for 8 days (1 Maccabees 4:52, 54).
We thus have here a period of 3 years and 10 days, during which Antiochus IV stopped the Temple services.
That time span was not 2300 literal days, which would be 6 years, 4 months, and two-thirds of a month.
Nor was it 1150 literal days (made by pairing evening and morning sacrifices, to make full days). That shorter figure would still be two months too long.
Various attempts have been made to solve this discrepancy, but they have all failed. It is true that the troops of Antiochus did pillage the Temple (on their way back from Egypt two years earlier), but that still falls a year and a half short of 2300 days.
It has been suggested that the 2300 days included sporadic on-and-off persecutions of the Jews by Jews. But that, of course, would not fit the prophetic specifications.
Thus neither the 2300 days or the 1150 days fits Antiochus’ desecration of the Temple or his persecution of the Jews.

• Antiochus’s reign did not extend to “the time of the end”—The end of the little horn would extend down to “the time of the end.” The end of Antiochus did not extend to that time. When Gabriel came to Daniel to explain the vision of chapter 8, he began by saying, “Understand, O son of man, for at the time of the end shall be the vision” (8:17). This point is repeated in 8:19. The end specified here was the end of the little horn.
From the specifications of the prophecy, it is obvious that these time periods had to extend to the Messiah and beyond. But Antiochus IV died in 164/163 B.C., over a century before the Messiah was born.

• Antiochus did not end in a special, remarkable way—The little horn was to end in a special way: “But he shall be broken without human hand” (8:25). This phrasing is similar to the end of the king of the north in Daniel 11:45: “He shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” It would be God who would directly interfere and destroy the little horn power. In Daniel 2, the image was brought to an end by a stone cut out without human assistance (2:45). The prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11 conclude with direct intervention by God in human history. In contrast, Antiochus died while camped out in Parthia in the winter, during an ill-fated military campaign. A very inglorious end, after a 12-year reign of repeated failure.

• Antiochus arose from among one of the horns—The little horn came out of one of the winds, not out of the four horns. This was discussed in detail earlier. The Roman Empire arose in territory not controlled by any of the four divisions of the Greek Empire. Antiochus was a petty ruler in one of the Greek divisions.
As mentioned earlier, grammatically, in 8:8-9, the antecedent is “winds” (ruhot; feminine in 8:8) and not “horns,” since “winds” is feminine while “horns” is masculine. On the other hand, the word for “one,” ‘achath, is feminine and points to “winds” as the antecedent.

• Antiochus does not fit into the 70-week prophecy—Because the 70-week prophecy (9:24-27) is closely linked to the 2300-day prophecy (8:13-14), there is no possible way to fit Antiochus into it.

• Antiochus did not destroy the city—The prophecy of 9:24-27 would require that Antiochus totally destroy, not only the Temple, but the city of Jerusalem (9:26a)! It was to come to an “end” (9:26b), and its “desolations” by a “desolator” (9:26c-27) were decreed. Antiochus did not do this.

• Antiochus was not Messiah the Prince—Chapter 9:26 said “the Prince that shall come” would destroy the entire city. But careful examination reveals that the titles of Messiah Prince (9:26), the Messiah (9:26a), and the Prince (9:26b) refer to the same person: Jesus Christ. It was because of the Jews’ rejection of the gospel, brought by Christ’s followers, that Jerusalem was destroyed (“the people of the Prince . . shall destroy the city.”)

• Antiochus did not live in the first century A.D.—According to the prophecy of 9:26, the rise of the Prince and the destruction of the city must occur in the first century A.D., not earlier.

• The little horn does not appear in chapter 11 until after Christ’s earthly ministry—It is generally agreed that the later prophecies in Daniel help explain the earlier ones. The title, Prince (nagid), is the special title for the Messiah in chapter 9 (9:25-26). When the use of this title in Hebrew is compared with chapter 11, it can be seen that the nagid of the covenant, or Christ, appears in 11:22. This correlation provides us with a chronologically fixed point when enables us to interpret the prophetic history of chapter 11. However, it also helps us see that the activities of the little horn, as described in chapter 8, do not appear in chapter 11 until verse 31, or some historical time after Christ’s earthly ministry and death. We can then see that the persecution of 11:32-34 is identified with the persecution conducted by the little horn, or Medieval Rome, in chapter 7.
Since Antiochus IV ruled Seleucia briefly during the second century before Christ, he cannot be the little horn; for that horn’s anti-temple attack did not occur until some time after Christ’s death.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)