by
A
suggestion is made here that Daniel 7 and 8 may contain parallel information,
with
the consequence that the one may be shedding helpful light upon the other.
Introduction
Seventh-day Adventist Church article, “Why Antiochus IV Is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8”:
http://1844madesimple.org/why-antiochus-iv-is-not-the-little-horn-of-daniel-8
has seemingly managed to identify some enlightening
parallels between these two chapters of the Book of Daniel – irrespective of whether
or not the article has also arrived at the correct conclusion about Antiochus
IV.
It begins with an overview of opinions on the
matter:
Crucial to the interpretation of Daniel 8:9-14 is the
identification of the little horn power, which dominates these
verses. Attempting to identify this little horn, commentators have applied
three different methods (preterist,
futurist, and historicist)
of prophetic interpretation to the texts.
Preterists teach that the majority Daniel’s
prophecies have already been fulfilled and, therefore, have no present
significance. They hold that the little horn rose from one of the divisions of
Alexander’s empire; they specifically identify it with the reign of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.).
Futurists follow this basic line of interpretation
as well, though they see Antiochus as a type of an end-time antichrist
appearing in the final years of earth’s history.
Historicists declare that the prophecies in Daniel
portray an outline of human and ecclesiastical history from ancient Babylon
down to the end of time, with the little horn power being identified as the
Roman Empire, in both its pagan and papal stages.
….
Now,
skipping what immediately follows, we jump to what I would consider to be the core
of the article (whilst not necessarily agreeing with the identity of the four
beasts given below). For my preference on this much-debated subject, see e.g.
my article:
Four Metal Kingdoms of Daniel 2
(4)
Four Metal Kingdoms of Daniel 2
The Seventh-day
Adventist article continues:
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
…. 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 ….
Damien Mackey’s Comment: This succession in
Daniel 7, apparently finding its parallel confirmation in Daniel 8, makes a lot
of sense to me – {which doesn’t guarantee its correctness of course}.
But then I find myself failing to feel fully confident
about the next part of the article:
(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.
This is a too neat succession of kingdoms which is neither
chronologically nor factually correct.
New World Encyclopedia tells correctly
that Rome was already very well established at the time of Antiochus IV, and
that Rome was in fact calling the shots (not necessarily my BC dates here):
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes
Antiochus took power after
the death of Seleucus Philopator. He had been hostage in Rome following the peace of
Apamea in 188 B.C.E. but had recently been exchanged for the son and rightful
heir of Seleucus IV, the later Demetrius I of Syria. Taking advantage of this
situation, Antiochus was able to proclaim himself as co-regent with another of
Seleucus' sons, the infant Antiochus, whose murder he orchestrated a few years
later.
War with Egypt
Antiochus IV was ambitious
and wanted to expand both his territory and influence. He was able to make some
inroads into Egypt, ruled by the Ptolemies.
In 168 B.C.E. he almost
succeeded in conquering Egypt but was prevented from doing so as a result of Roman
intervention. The [Seleucids] generally continued Alexander's policy of
cultural integration but Antiochus IV was more interested in Hellenizing his
subjects. He was especially eager to Hellenize the Jews, who resisted the
process and he started to use force to pursue this policy. His father had
exempted the Jews from the Hellenizing policy. This led to the beginning of the
Jewish revolt of the Maccabees.
His infant son, Antiochus
V Eupator, succeeded him.
Because the guardians of
Ptolemy VI of Egypt were demanding the return of Coele-Syria, in 170 B.C.E. Antiochus
decided on a preemptive strike and invaded Egypt, conquering all but Alexandria. He then captured Ptolemy but agreed to let him continue
as puppet king. This had the advantage of not alarming Rome. Alexandria
thereupon chose Ptolemy's brother Ptolemy VIII (Ptolemy Euergetes) as King. In
Antiochus' absence, the two brothers came to an agreement to rule jointly.
Hence in 168 B.C.E. Antiochus again invaded and overran all Egypt but
Alexandria while his fleet captured Cyprus. Near Alexandria a Roman envoy met him and told him that
he must at once withdraw from Egypt and Cyprus. Antiochus said he would discuss
it with his council, whereupon the envoy drew a line in the sand round him.
Were he to step out of the circle, the envoy said, without having first
undertaken to withdraw, he would be at war with Rome. Antiochus agreed to
withdraw.
[End of quote]
I now return to the Seventh-day Adventist article, which
- while it has now disqualified king Antiochus IV from being Daniel’s ‘little
horn’ - provides a series of compelling parallels between the description of
the horn in Daniel 7 and 8.
Whoever this may represent - and I myself strongly
believe that it was Antiochus IV - the combination of descriptions in Daniel 7
and 8 ought greatly to enhance our efforts to arrive at an identification.
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 …
[End of quote
I think that this article has made an excellent case in
favour of the truth at least of this last statement.
Regarding Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ himself, though, I intend
to tackle that subject in my next article, on the little horn of Daniel 7:8.
