by
Damien F. Mackey
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 - 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 consider to be the core of
the article (whilst not necessarily agreeing with the identity of the four
beasts given below):
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 ….
Mackey’s Comment: So far so good, I think.
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
or 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)
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 think that Antiochus IV may actually be
a frontrunner for it - 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 this article has made an excellent case in favour of the truth at
least of this last statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment