Characteristics of the Little Horn Daniel 7

[brakelite]

Hi. In this thread I would like to present a series of articles detailing comprehensive descriptions of the little horn that grew from the 4th beast of the vision of Daniel in Daniel 7. While you are welcome to comment, I would rather not get bogged down too much in discussion or debate....this thread is mainly to offer a perspective and understanding of prophecy very few, if any, of you may have considered....and that is all I ask of you....to give it your most serious consideration, and the possible consequences if what I am presenting to you if true. So, with prayers for God's blessing on your reading, here goes.

The first characteristic is
1) The little horn arises from the fourth beast (Daniel 7:8). The fourth beast represents Rome, the little horn power grows out of Rome, therefore

the little horn must be a Roman power.

Allow me at this juncture to let you in on a little secret to understanding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.

The prophecies of both books are incredibly revealing. They are intricately detailed, providing specific information and points of character and events regarding the history of nations, beginning from Daniels time and unfolding throughout history and progressing throughout all generations right down to the close of time and the second coming. And the Antichrist is a prominent feature throughout. This is not an accident. God desires that we are thoroughly informed of the nature and character of the Antichrist. Let us take heed. I will begin with Daniel 2.

All of Daniels visions are built on the one previous. Each one is a magnification, or an enlargement of the one before. And even the composite beast of Revelation 13 is merely a more mature and advanced description of those empires revealed in Daniel 2. The vision of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniels explanation regarding the statue forms the foundation for all the subsequent visions. Once we establish the foundation, we must take care that our understanding of later visions are built on that foundation. Our conclusions and interpretations must not deviate nor contradict or we shall soon lose our way, and our understanding become darkened.

Daniel 2:31 ¶ Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
32 This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

We have here a statue made of 5 different components. Gold, silver, bronze, iron, and a mixture of iron and clay. This statue was then completely destroyed by a rock ‘made without hands’, which became a mountain which filled the whole earth.No trace was found of the former materials. Nebuchadnezzar was so convicted by the Holy Spirit, he demanded his wise men (soothsayers and occultists for the most part) to give him the interpretation.Perhaps knowing their duplicity, he demanded they give him the dream also; whether Nebuchadnezzar had indeed forgotten the dream, or was testing them, I don’t know.Daniel was finally given the opportunity to give the interpretation.

36 This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.
37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain.

Four empires, beginning with the current administration, Babylon, who will dominate earth’s history. Each one closely followed by the next, the final one being changed and weakened although it lasts right up to the end. Note that there are no gaps, no times between in which there is no empire ruling. Throughout history it is possible to see the influences and lasting impressions that have been brought to even the present generation by these empires.History has thus far without equivocation confirmed the veracity of this vision.
Babylon is the only kingdom at that stage named, “thou art this head of gold”.
One very important thing we must take note of. When the rock destroys the statue,” it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold“. All the components are still there at the end!!! Even though the empires are long gone, there remains at the end a vestige, a remnant, a trace of the original within the final entity that is destroyed.
This is important, and I will discuss this important point a little later.

Now remember, the legs were of iron, but the feet were of iron and clay. What does the clay represent? We know the iron represents pagan Rome. In fact, throughout history Rome has been recognised as the ‘Iron Kingdom’ or Empire. But what of the clay that is in union with the iron, but unable to cleave to one another?
The Bible is its own best expositor, so we shall go to the word of God to find our answer.

Isa 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
Jer 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

So according to the above evidence, we see that clay represents God’s people, or His church. Therefore we can justifiably conclude that the feet of the image in Daniel 2, made of iron and clay, is a union of church and state. We see also in the text of Daniel 2 that the clay is miry clay. Miry clay is unworkable. It cannot be shaped by the potter into anything useful; it is fit only to be discarded. It may have begun its life as suitable clay for the fashioning of the potter, but became miry. This is therefore signifying the apostasy Paul spoke of that would take place after he had gone and before Christ comes. Thus it is an apostate church in union with the Roman power. Apostasy as most would appreciate is a falling away from grace, a state where previously the church was in a right relationship with God, but is now separated, the word apostasy in the Greek originally suggesting divorce. Understandable then when we later see the rock of Christ destroying the image, including the iron /clay union.
So according to Daniel 2, there is a union of church and state, and this union is Roman, and continues to be Roman, without pause or break, from the time of paganism to the present day and on until the second coming. However, because the scripture says 'they shall not cleave one to another, just as iron does not cleave to clay', we must believe that this union, although declared as such, is unnatural, forced, artificial, and can only be of a very temporary nature, as history I believe will bear out.
There is only one viable candidate that answers to the description. There is only one church power that grew out of Rome, there is only one church/state union that grew out of the Roman Empire, and continues to the present time. And that is the Roman Catholic Church.
The religion of Rome was adopted by the church. It is well known that Constantine the Great brought all sorts of pagan practices into the church. This is recognised by both secular and church historians. In fact, the name “Supreme Pontiff” (Pontifex Maximus) was used by the pagan Roman emperors. After the Edict of Milan was signed in the year 312 A. D., Christians were restored as bona fide citizens of the Roman empire.

Constantine, emperor of the Roman empire, was the architect of this Edict of Milan.
Regarding Constantine,Dave Hunt remarks:
“A brilliant military commander, Constantine also understood that there could be no political stability without religious unity. Yet to accomplish that feat would require a union between paganism and Christianity. How could it be accomplished? The Empire needed an ecumenical religion that would appeal to every citizen in a multi-cultural society. Giving Christianity official status was not enough to bring internal peace to the Empire: Christianity had to undergo a transformation so that pagans could ‘convert’ without giving up their old beliefs and rituals.
Constantine himself exemplified this expediency. He adopted Christ as the new god that had given him victory in the crucial battle at Milvian Bridge in 312 A. D., and brought him into Rome as its conqueror. Yet, as Caesar, he continued to function as the Pontifex Maximus of the Empire’s pagan priesthood, known as the Pontifical College. . . As a ‘Christian’ Emperor, he automatically became the de facto civil head of the Christian church and seduced her with promises of power. Thus began the destruction of Christianity and the process that created Roman Catholicism as it is today.” (Dave Hunt, Global Peace, pp. 106-107) .
“It was ‘Christianity’, in fact, which gave the Empire a unity and continuity that held it together culturally and religiously. When the Empire later disintegrated politically under the onslaught of the Barbarians, it was held together religiously by the all-pervasive presence of the Roman Catholic Church with its ingenious ecumenical blend of paganism and Christianity still headquartered in Rome.” (Dave Hunt, Global Peace, p.110).

John Henry Cardinal Newman makes this admission:
“We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments; the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleisen, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the church. (Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 373).

Philip Schaff, one of the greatest church historians ever to wield a pen, wrote the following:
“But the elevation of Christianity as the religion of the state presents also an opposite aspect to our contemplation. It involved great risk of degeneracy to the church. The Roman state, with its laws, institutions, and usages, was still deeply rooted in heathenism, and could not be transformed by a magical stroke. The christianizing of the state amounted therefore in great measure to a paganizing and secularizing of the church. The world overcame the church, as much as the church overcame the world, and the temporal gain of Christianity was in many respects cancelled by spiritual loss. The mass of the Roman empire was baptized only with water, not with the Spirit of the gospel, and it smuggled heathen manners and practices into the sanctuary under a new name. The very combination of the cross with the military ensign by Constantine was the most doubtful omen, portending an unhappy mixture of the temporal and the spiritual powers.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, p. 93).

“St. Thomas. . . says that the Roman Empire has not ceased, but is changed from the temporal into the spiritual. . . It was, then, the Apostolic Church, which, spreading throughout the nations, already combined together by the power of the heathen empire of Rome, quickened them with a new life. . . the temporal power in the old heathen empire of Rome, and the spiritual power in the supernatural kingdom of God met together. . . these two powers were blended and fused together; they became one authority, the emperor ruling from his throne within the sphere of his earthly jurisdiction, and the Supreme Pontiff ruling likewise from a throne of a higher sovereignty over the nations. . . the material power which once reigned in Rome [was] consecrated and sanctified by the investiture of the Vicar of Jesus Christ with temporal sovereignty over the city where he dwelt. And now for these twelve hundred years the peace, the perpetuity and faithfulness of the Christian civilization of Europe, has been owing solely in its principle to this consecration of the power and authority of the great empire of Rome, taken up of old, perpetuated, preserved, as I have said, by the salt which had been sprinkled from heaven, and continued in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, and in that order of Christian civilization of which he has been the creator.” (Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, pp. 123-128).

Notice the following amazing declaration by Cardinal Manning:
“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire [remember this fact of history. Protestant futurists rewrite history and deny that the Roman Empire was ever divided]. The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.” (Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

This might well be the time to speak of the mysterious “restrainer” that the Apostle Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2. The early church Fathers were practically unanimous in the opinion that the “restrainer” was a reference to the Roman empire in general and the emperors in particular. Paul indicates that the Church at Thessalonica knew who the restrainer was. And yet Paul speaks in veiled language. And why would this be? Simply because Paul could not speak openly about the empire which was governing in his day. If he had publicly stated that the Roman empire was going to be taken out of the way, the emperors would have had grounds to accuse Paul of sedition. So Paul had to be cautious in his comments. If the restrainer was the Holy Spirit, as many futurists believe, then why was Paul so cautious? It is clear that Paul could not define the “restrainer” openly. It was not necessary to do so because the Thessalonians knew what he was talking about.

So without doubt the Roman Catholic church rose out of Rome, inherited much of the pagan religion of Rome, and is in fact a mere continuation of the Roman Empire, only in another form. A further affirmation of this is in Daniel 8:9,10 which horn represents the whole Roman epoch both pagan and papal, and in which we see a change in direction. Whereas at first its conquests are on a horizontal plane, in verse 11 it changes direction and focus and adopts a vertical focus, toward heaven.

 

Characteristic 2 to follow in a few days....enough time perhaps for ya'll to chew on this.

[Last Daze]

The fourth kingdom was spawned by an evil angel prince like Persia and Greece were according to Daniel 10.

Just because Rome was the seat of power for his first endeavor doesn't mean it has to be significant for his second.

[WilliamL]

5 hours ago, brakelite said:

So without doubt the Roman Catholic church rose out of Rome, inherited much of the pagan religion of Rome, and is in fact a mere continuation of the Roman Empire, only in another form. A further affirmation of this is in Daniel 8:9,10 which horn represents the whole Roman epoch both pagan and papal, and in which we see a change in direction. Whereas at first its conquests are on a horizontal plane, in verse 11 it changes direction and focus and adopts a vertical focus, toward heaven.

I agree with your general thesis, basically saying, as Rev. 17-18 puts it, that the Roman church became the Great Whore, by prostituting itself to the Roman state, which state's power was founded upon pagan beliefs.

I disagree that the Roman church is "a mere continuation of the Roman Empire." They remain separate institutions, both having morphed over the centuries to suit the times.

I also disagree that the "little horn" of Daniel 8 is the same as the "little horn" of Daniel 7. The Hebrew in fact uses two different words: the word in Daniel 8 literally means diminutive, and refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. He was a precursor to the god-man office of the papacy.

5 hours ago, brakelite said:

this thread is mainly to offer a perspective and understanding of prophecy very few, if any, of you may have considered...

Being a new member, you are obviously unfamiliar with the depth of knowledge of others on the board. Be careful not to underestimate what people here know.

[brakelite]

13 hours ago, WilliamL said:

I agree with your general thesis, basically saying, as Rev. 17-18 puts it, that the Roman church became the Great Whore, by prostituting itself to the Roman state, which state's power was founded upon pagan beliefs.

I disagree that the Roman church is "a mere continuation of the Roman Empire." They remain separate institutions, both having morphed over the centuries to suit the times.

I also disagree that the "little horn" of Daniel 8 is the same as the "little horn" of Daniel 7. The Hebrew in fact uses two different words: the word in Daniel 8 literally means diminutive, and refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. He was a precursor to the god-man office of the papacy.

Being a new member, you are obviously unfamiliar with the depth of knowledge of others on the board. Be careful not to underestimate what people here know.

I agree that the Roman church is a different kettle of fish to the pagan empire that preceded it, but Biblically, and prophetically, there was enough principle and philosophical agreement between the two (originating in fact from Babylon and passed down through each subsequent empire) to be classified as a continuation. "The Two Babylons" by Hislop is a remarkable study of this.

As for the horn of Daniel 8 being Antiochus, I cannot agree with this, however will deal with that in detail a little later on. No argument however that there were some parallels.

As for me underestimating others knowledge, I apologize if I gave that impression. I am sure there are many with far greater knowledge and understanding in many aspects of Biblical knowledge than I could ever hope for. I think later in the study you may realize where I am coming from and why the perspective on this particular subject  I am revealing is not as well appreciated as perhaps it should be, hence the reason why so few share that perspective. That may sound arrogant, as if only I know the "truth", but I make no apologies for that. If I didn't believe what I present is truth, trust me, I wouldn't be presenting it.

[Diaste]

Welcome to the board if indeed you are new here.

To begin, I see you make the mistake most make when looking at the statue. You are beginning with a false premise. Where in all of scripture is Rome named as part of the statute in Dan 2? Since Daniel is all about the end of days and the succession of pertinent empires, one would think Rome would be named, or at least there would be enough evidence to support the claim. But there simply isn't. From my experience the idea the Roman empire is the Iron Kingdom comes from a misinterpretation of Rev 17:10. End time prophecy teachers conclude 'one is' must be Rome by rationalizing, because John penned the words at a certain historic moment when there was an emperor on the throne in Rome, the 'one is' must be a Roman emperor. After that, and here's the ludicrous part, prophecy teachers conclude, sans biblical evidence, Rome is now the Iron Kingdom. The big problem here is whether John penned the words in 70 ad or 90 ad if one is to conclude that the 8 from Rev 17:10 are kings and not empires as some conclude, but that's a different discussion. There is no biblical link between Dan 2 and Rev 17:10 proving Rome is the Iron Kingdom, or any kingdom, or is involved in the beast empire or produces the beast. 

The specious reasoning behind this is thus: Because Rev 17:10 says there are five fallen, one is, the short lived king, then the 8th, this sentence fragment must be related to the Great Image in Dan 2. Then they force two empires into the statue to make the math work. Egypt and Syria are inserted previous to Babylon so that Rome becomes the 6th, or Iron Kingdom. More logical somersaults are employed at this point. Prophecy teachers contend that the commonality between three of the empires, Babylon, Persia and Greece is the persecution of the people of God. This argument is extended to include three other empires to fill in the blanks in Rev 17:10 and Dan 2. But a look at history shows this supposed commonality does not extend to Rome.  Rome did not persecute the Jews. A look at scripture shows the Jews had religious freedom under Roman rule; and the Jews began the persecution of christians by demanding the death of Jesus. Paul records he received 39 lashes 5 times at the hands of the Jews. In fact, Roman leaders exonerated Jesus and tried to exonerate Paul. So that argument fails to prove the common thread meaning the conclusion Rome is the 6th of Rev 17 and the 4th of Dan 2 is based on one or more false premises.

In reality the bible explains just who the beast is, what kingdom he rules, and from whence cometh this kingdom and the beast.  In Dan 2 we see the succession of empire beginning with Babylon. We know from history that Medo-Persia came directly after Babylon, and the Grecian empire defeated the Persian Darius. Naturally one would expect the Iron kingdom would flow from, or replace, the Grecian empire, and indeed that is the case. In Dan 8 we see this succession from the Medes and Persians to the mighty Grecian forces under Alexander. After Alexander, the great horn, four notable horns arise to rule the Grecian domain, but not in Alexanders power, they ruled as individuals and the Grecian empire was broken up. Further, the little horn comes from one of the four notable horns that replaced Alexander. This cannot be Rome nor a Roman emperor. The little horn must come from one of the four notable horns as recorded by the the One with all knowledge;

Dan 8 

8 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. 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.

In 300 bc the generals of Alexander controlled all of the former Grecian empire while Rome had just finished battling for their lives against the Samnites  and the Etruscans around 310 bc. The only natural succession is from Alexander to the Diadochi as clearly set forth in scripture. From one of these the beast will arise. That means Rome is out of consideration and we must look to Greece, Asia Minor, Seleucidstan or Egypt. Dan 11 and 12 shows us the little horn arises from a succession of rulers in the former Seleucid empire, not Rome. But more on that later.

D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[brakelite]

On 12/08/2016 at 0:58 AM, Diaste said:

Welcome to the board if indeed you are new here.

To begin, I see you make the mistake most make when looking at the statue. You are beginning with a false premise. Where in all of scripture is Rome named as part of the statute in Dan 2? Since Daniel is all about the end of days and the succession of pertinent empires, one would think Rome would be named, or at least there would be enough evidence to support the claim. But there simply isn't. From my experience the idea the Roman empire is the Iron Kingdom comes from a misinterpretation of Rev 17:10. End time prophecy teachers conclude 'one is' must be Rome by rationalizing, because John penned the words at a certain historic moment when there was an emperor on the throne in Rome, the 'one is' must be a Roman emperor. After that, and here's the ludicrous part, prophecy teachers conclude, sans biblical evidence, Rome is now the Iron Kingdom. The big problem here is whether John penned the words in 70 ad or 90 ad if one is to conclude that the 8 from Rev 17:10 are kings and not empires as some conclude, but that's a different discussion. There is no biblical link between Dan 2 and Rev 17:10 proving Rome is the Iron Kingdom, or any kingdom, or is involved in the beast empire or produces the beast. 

The specious reasoning behind this is thus: Because Rev 17:10 says there are five fallen, one is, the short lived king, then the 8th, this sentence fragment must be related to the Great Image in Dan 2. Then they force two empires into the statue to make the math work. Egypt and Syria are inserted previous to Babylon so that Rome becomes the 6th, or Iron Kingdom. More logical somersaults are employed at this point. Prophecy teachers contend that the commonality between three of the empires, Babylon, Persia and Greece is the persecution of the people of God. This argument is extended to include three other empires to fill in the blanks in Rev 17:10 and Dan 2. But a look at history shows this supposed commonality does not extend to Rome.  Rome did not persecute the Jews. A look at scripture shows the Jews had religious freedom under Roman rule; and the Jews began the persecution of christians by demanding the death of Jesus. Paul records he received 39 lashes 5 times at the hands of the Jews. In fact, Roman leaders exonerated Jesus and tried to exonerate Paul. So that argument fails to prove the common thread meaning the conclusion Rome is the 6th of Rev 17 and the 4th of Dan 2 is based on one or more false premises.

In reality the bible explains just who the beast is, what kingdom he rules, and from whence cometh this kingdom and the beast.  In Dan 2 we see the succession of empire beginning with Babylon. We know from history that Medo-Persia came directly after Babylon, and the Grecian empire defeated the Persian Darius. Naturally one would expect the Iron kingdom would flow from, or replace, the Grecian empire, and indeed that is the case. In Dan 8 we see this succession from the Medes and Persians to the mighty Grecian forces under Alexander. After Alexander, the great horn, four notable horns arise to rule the Grecian domain, but not in Alexanders power, they ruled as individuals and the Grecian empire was broken up. Further, the little horn comes from one of the four notable horns that replaced Alexander. This cannot be Rome nor a Roman emperor. The little horn must come from one of the four notable horns as recorded by the the One with all knowledge;

Dan 8 

8 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. 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.

In 300 bc the generals of Alexander controlled all of the former Grecian empire while Rome had just finished battling for their lives against the Samnites  and the Etruscans around 310 bc. The only natural succession is from Alexander to the Diadochi as clearly set forth in scripture. From one of these the beast will arise. That means Rome is out of consideration and we must look to Greece, Asia Minor, Seleucidstan or Egypt. Dan 11 and 12 shows us the little horn arises from a succession of rulers in the former Seleucid empire, not Rome. But more on that later.

D.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your perspective is not without some merit, and you are not the first to suggest it. I do however have a different view, for the following reason. Let us look at the particular verse in question...8 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. 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.

Please note three very important things....

a. It is not entirely conclusive that the 'little horn' grew from any of the previously mentioned four horns. Not only is this unatural, and distorts the prophetic picture, but the things last mentioned before the phrase "and out of one of them came forth", were the four winds. So it actually makes more sense for the little horn to come out of one of the four directions of the wind.

b. Coupled with the above, and in a sense affirming it, is the fact that the horn just mentioned is immediately spoken of with reference to direction, moving south, east, and toward the pleasant land. History also bears this out with Rome coming from the west, growing south (Egypt), Palestine, and east (the provinces of Syria and Asia Minor).

c. No power arose from any of the divisions of Greece rose to any such greatness as could be described as "exceeding great", which description is far in excess as thoase granted any of the empires previously mentioned, Babylon, Media/Persia, or Greece. Only Rome fits the description. None of the above has any reference to Revelation 17. That is another matter entirely, and I am not one to give the prophecies of Revelation a relationship to any "revived Roman Empire" as is preferred by many.

[brakelite]

Characteristic 2.

So my previous article was to present my evidence for the rise of the Little horn power of Daniel 7 from pagan Rome. This presentation is to show evidence from a variety of historical sources affirming that the little horn not only rose from pagan Rome, but also revealing the identity of the ten horns among whom it grew, and thus confirming its Roman roots.

The little horn arises among the ten horns. The ten horns are the divisions of western Europe, so the little horn must arise in western Europe (Daniel 7:8). Notice that these first two characteristics restrict the geographical location of the little horn to western Europe.

That the little horn was to rise up among ten future kings was understood by the early church fathers. They saw and understood that what Paul meant when he said….

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

….Was the Roman power. They understood that when the Roman power was taken out of the way, the antichrist would appear among the ten kings, and would subdue 3 of them.

First, let us read what the well known Catholic historian Cardinal Manning had to say:
“Now the abandonment of Rome was the liberation of the pontiffs. Whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have made, and whatsoever compliance the Pontiff may have yielded, the whole previous relation, anomalous, and annulled again and again by the vices and outrages of the emperors, was finally dissolved by a higher power. The providence of God permitted a succession of irruptions, Gothic, Lombard, and Hungarian, to desolate Italy, and to efface from it every remnant of the empire The pontiffs found themselves alone, the sole fountains of order, peace, law, and safety. And from the hour of this providential liberation, when, by a divine intervention, the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of St. Peter, as once before from his own, no sovereign has ever reigned in Rome except the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”
(Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Power of The Vicar of Jesus Christ, Preface, pp. xxviii, xxix. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862).

According to Manning, there was a restraint that inhibited the Bishops of Rome from exercising full authority as the temporal and spiritual leaders they believed was their destiny. That restraint was the pagan Roman power. Note also one very salient fact. Paul, in his letter to the Thessalonians, did not name the actual power, but did remind his readers that he had previously told them who it was when he ministered to them in person. So why did he not reveal it in writing? There can be only one answer to that. He was aware that if his letter was to find its way into Roman hands, it would be immediate evidence as sedition and treason. Inviting an early retirement from his evangelical profession clearly was not in Paul's plans. If the 'restrainer' was the Holy Spirit or any other heavenly entity, Paul would surely have mentioned it without fear or favor.
Now let us see what some of the early church fathers believed would take place soon according to their understanding of the prophecies. In believing as they did, it was obvious they were in full agreement with Paul on this subject. It is a great pity that modern theologians digress from not only the clear teachings of Paul, but ignore the evidence of history, and have thus gone off on many tangents and diversions and entered into guessing games which miss the mark.

Tertullian 160-240AD
“‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? ‘And then shall be revealed the wicked one.”
“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” chapter 24; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, p. 563

“The very end of all things threatening dreadful woes is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.”
(“Apology,” chapter 32; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, p. 43).

Lactantius (early fourth century):

“The subject itself declares that the fall and ruin of the world will shortly take place; except that while the city of Rome remains, it appears that nothing of this kind is to be feared. But when that capital of the world shall have fallen, and shall have begun to be a street, which the Sibyls say shall come to pass, who can doubt that the end has now arrived to the affairs of men and the whole world? It is that city, that only, which still sustains all things.”
(“The Divine Institutes,” book 7, chapter 25; Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 220).

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386 A. D.):

“But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman Empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after those an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, ‘three he shall humble,’ and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself.”
(Catechetical Lectures,” section 15, on II Thessalonians 2:4; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, p. 108

Ambrose (died in 398):

“After the falling or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist shall appear.”
(Quoted in, Bishop Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463)

Chrysostom (died in 407):

“When the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [the Antichrist] shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God.”
“Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XIII, p. 389

So after the restraint of Rome was removed, first ten kings arose from within, and the empire was divided between them.

From the historian Barnes we read the following very interesting remark regarding other historians.

“Even the Romanists themselves admit that the Roman Empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms (Calmet on Revelation 13:1; and he refers likewise to Berangaud, Bossuet, and DuPin. See Newton, p. 209); and Machiavelli (‘History of Florence,’ 1.i) with no design of furnishing an illustration of this prophecy, and probably with no recollection of it, has mentioned these names: 1. The Ostrogoths in Moesia; 2. The Visigoths in Pannonia; 3. The Sueves and Alans in Gascoign and Spain; 4. The Vandals in Africa; 5. The Franks in France; 6. The Burgundians in Burgundy; 7. The Heruli and Turingi in Italy; 8. The Saxons and Angles in Britain; 9. The Huns in Hungary; 10. The Lombards at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy.”
(Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel, p. 322.)

“Antichrist, then (as the Fathers delight to call him), or the little horn, is to be sought among the ten kingdoms of the western Roman Empire. I say of the western Roman Empire, because that was properly the body of the fourth beast; Greece, and the countries which lay eastward of Italy belonged to the third beast; for the former beasts were still subsisting, though their dominion was taken away.
‘As concerning the rest of the beasts,’ saith Daniel, ‘they had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.’ Daniel 7:12.
‘And therefore,’ as Sir Isaac Newton rightly infers, ‘all four beasts are still alive, though the dominion of the three first be taken away. The nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast. Those of Media and Persia are still the second beast. Those of Macedon, Greece and Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, are still the third. And those of Europe, on this side of Greece, are still the fourth. Seeing therefore the body of the third beast is confined to the nations on this side the river Euphrates, and the body of the fourth beast is confined to the nations on this side of Greece; we are to look for all the four heads of the third beast among the nations on this side the river Euphrates; and for all the eleven horns of the fourth beast, among the nations on this side of Greece.”
(Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, pp. 239, 240).

The above quote is also very pertinent to Revelation 13 and the beast that arises from the sea having all the composite parts of the beasts of Daniel. All four beasts are still alive in composite form of the Revelation beast, the antichrist. Notice also the steady progression in a westerly direction of each power. First Babylon, then Media/Persia, then Greece, then Rome and Europe. In Revelation 13 the beast of the sea being composite of all these, is followed by a new beast that rises from out of the earth. There are many who believe this power that rises chronologically after the European composite, is that power which lies further westward, namely America. But that subject is for another day.

[Diaste]

32 minutes ago, brakelite said:

Your perspective is not without some merit, and you are not the first to suggest it. I do however have a different view, for the following reason. Let us look at the particular verse in question...8 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. 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.

Please note three very important things....

a. It is not entirely conclusive that the 'little horn' grew from any of the previously mentioned four horns. Not only is this unatural, and distorts the prophetic picture, but the things last mentioned before the phrase "and out of one of them came forth", were the four winds. So it actually makes more sense for the little horn to come out of one of the four directions of the wind.

b. Coupled with the above, and in a sense affirming it, is the fact that the horn just mentioned is immediately spoken of with reference to direction, moving south, east, and toward the pleasant land. History also bears this out with Rome coming from the west, growing south (Egypt), Palestine, and east (the provinces of Syria and Asia Minor).

c. No power arose from any of the divisions of Greece rose to any such greatness as could be described as "exceeding great", which description is far in excess as thoase granted any of the empires previously mentioned, Babylon, Media/Persia, or Greece. Only Rome fits the description. None of the above has any reference to Revelation 17. That is another matter entirely, and I am not one to give the prophecies of Revelation a relationship to any "revived Roman Empire" as is preferred by many.

Lest look at the verse in more depth. 

Dan 8 

8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great:

So this is the ruling power of Greece as as the angel said in Dan 8:21 "The shaggy goat is the king of Greece," No mistake can be made here as to what or who the 'he goat;' represents.

and when he was strong, the great horn was broken;

Right at the time of the greatest power of the Grecian empire Alexander died. Dan 8:21 "... and the large horn between its eyes is the first king." Now the angel says, "...the first king..." since there had been many rulers in Greece before Alexander, how can he be the first King? Obviously the great horn is the first King in the secession of kings the angel is going to reveal in Dan 8 and continues in Dan 11. We are being told to look to this King, the great horn that was broken, as the beginning of the line of kings that are coming. This is where it all begins concerning the little horn or beast.

 "...and for it..."

This can only be interpreted as, "...then, in place of the great horn..." the conjunction 'and' means 'then', 'in addition' or 'following'. The verse could be read, "...following the breaking of the great horn and taking its place are...

"...came up four notable ones..."

...four notable horns." The angel says in Dan 8:22 "22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation (Greece under Alexander) but will not have the same power." Meaning the four 'notable ones' can only be actual powers that emerge from the Grecian Empire. History tells us from the Kingdom of Greece under Alexander, four strong generals rose to claim the Grecian Empire. There were dozens of generals in the army of Alexander but after the wars of the Diadochi only four emerged to rule. These four great generals defeated  and consolidated the many satrapies into a single entity. Ptolemy in the south. Cassander in Greece. Antigonus in Asia Minor, and Seleucus in the Mideast and Asia proper. So far we have a clear line of kings from the interpretation given by the angel: Greece, the great horn(Alexander) and the four notable ones that replaced Alexander and ruled the Grecian Empire.

"...toward the four winds of heaven."

I don't think the idea here is that the little horn came from the wind. That really makes little sense even for a casual read. "Toward the four winds of heaven" is a descriptive phrase applied to the four notable ones. "...toward the four winds of heaven." cannot stand on it's own as you are thinking. The first question is, "What is 'toward the four winds of heaven'?" The only subject of this phrase is the four notable ones. The word 'toward' is descriptive of four notable ones 'facing' or maybe 'reaching'. The Diadochi ruled the old Grecian empire in all directions of the compass. Since the focus of the chapter is on Greece, and the angel has not left off the narrative of Greece and the succession of power after the death of Alexander, there is no reason to insert Rome in the middle of this interpretation. And even if the idea the little horn comes from the four winds is correct, how do you force Rome in here? The four winds could mean anything and could apply to Greece, Rome, South America, Europe, Russia, China or 200 other countries. You just picked Rome arbitrarily. When there is a clear succession from Alexander to the Diadochi, you really believe the wind produces the little horn? It would seem you want the little horn to be Rome and will do anything to make it so.

 9 "...And out of one of them came forth a little horn..." 

The succession continues to the little horn. So far we have Greece, Alexander, then the  four divisions of Greece, now a little horn. The four notable ones that ruled the Grecian empire toward the four winds are the only areas from whence the little horn can emerge. Rome is not a consideration. As presented before Rome was little more than a third world country in the 3rd century B.C. and has no part in the 'four notable ones'. Even if Rome was a power at the demise of Alexander it would not fit the prophecy as the angel says, Dan 8:22, "The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power." The four that rule must come from Greece in their own power. Therefore, the little horn can only come from one of four areas: Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt, or the former Seleucid Empire of the Mideast and Asia.

which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

The idea here is the little horn "...waxes exceeding great..." not one of the Diadochi. From history Rome could only rival the great Grecian Empire. Rome did not surpass the Greeks in terms of geography as the Macedonian Empire ruled more land area. In fact, during Roman rule, the Caliphates of the Umayyad and the Abbasid ruled twice the land area and about the same amount of people, fought against the Romans and defeated the Roman armies many times. Your contention that  Rome waxed exceeding great, far above Babylon, Persia and Greece is not borne out by history. And the Muslim Empire exceeded the Roman Empire in terms of size by a factor of two, during the rule of Rome, and outlasted the Roman empire. If any empire 'waxed exceeding great' after the fall of Greece it would be the Caliphates.

 

[ghtan]

On 8/8/2016 at 6:16 PM, brakelite said:

There is only one viable candidate that answers to the description. There is only one church power that grew out of Rome, there is only one church/state union that grew out of the Roman Empire, and continues to the present time. And that is the Roman Catholic Church.

I take it then that you think the rock that is cut out from the mountain is the millennial kingdom which Jesus will set up after his return. Why then does the dream picture it growing subsequently into a huge mountain to fill the whole earth? Sounds to me more like the spread of the gospel after Jesus' first coming.

[brakelite]

12 hours ago, Diaste said:

Lest look at the verse in more depth. 

Dan 8 

8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great:

So this is the ruling power of Greece as as the angel said in Dan 8:21 "The shaggy goat is the king of Greece," No mistake can be made here as to what or who the 'he goat;' represents.

and when he was strong, the great horn was broken;

Right at the time of the greatest power of the Grecian empire Alexander died. Dan 8:21 "... and the large horn between its eyes is the first king." Now the angel says, "...the first king..." since there had been many rulers in Greece before Alexander, how can he be the first King? Obviously the great horn is the first King in the secession of kings the angel is going to reveal in Dan 8 and continues in Dan 11. We are being told to look to this King, the great horn that was broken, as the beginning of the line of kings that are coming. This is where it all begins concerning the little horn or beast.

 "...and for it..."

This can only be interpreted as, "...then, in place of the great horn..." the conjunction 'and' means 'then', 'in addition' or 'following'. The verse could be read, "...following the breaking of the great horn and taking its place are...

"...came up four notable ones..."

...four notable horns." The angel says in Dan 8:22 "22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation (Greece under Alexander) but will not have the same power." Meaning the four 'notable ones' can only be actual powers that emerge from the Grecian Empire. History tells us from the Kingdom of Greece under Alexander, four strong generals rose to claim the Grecian Empire. There were dozens of generals in the army of Alexander but after the wars of the Diadochi only four emerged to rule. These four great generals defeated  and consolidated the many satrapies into a single entity. Ptolemy in the south. Cassander in Greece. Antigonus in Asia Minor, and Seleucus in the Mideast and Asia proper. So far we have a clear line of kings from the interpretation given by the angel: Greece, the great horn(Alexander) and the four notable ones that replaced Alexander and ruled the Grecian Empire.

"...toward the four winds of heaven."

I don't think the idea here is that the little horn came from the wind. That really makes little sense even for a casual read. "Toward the four winds of heaven" is a descriptive phrase applied to the four notable ones. "...toward the four winds of heaven." cannot stand on it's own as you are thinking. The first question is, "What is 'toward the four winds of heaven'?" The only subject of this phrase is the four notable ones. The word 'toward' is descriptive of four notable ones 'facing' or maybe 'reaching'. The Diadochi ruled the old Grecian empire in all directions of the compass. Since the focus of the chapter is on Greece, and the angel has not left off the narrative of Greece and the succession of power after the death of Alexander, there is no reason to insert Rome in the middle of this interpretation. And even if the idea the little horn comes from the four winds is correct, how do you force Rome in here? The four winds could mean anything and could apply to Greece, Rome, South America, Europe, Russia, China or 200 other countries. You just picked Rome arbitrarily. When there is a clear succession from Alexander to the Diadochi, you really believe the wind produces the little horn? It would seem you want the little horn to be Rome and will do anything to make it so.

 9 "...And out of one of them came forth a little horn..." 

The succession continues to the little horn. So far we have Greece, Alexander, then the  four divisions of Greece, now a little horn. The four notable ones that ruled the Grecian empire toward the four winds are the only areas from whence the little horn can emerge. Rome is not a consideration. As presented before Rome was little more than a third world country in the 3rd century B.C. and has no part in the 'four notable ones'. Even if Rome was a power at the demise of Alexander it would not fit the prophecy as the angel says, Dan 8:22, "The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power." The four that rule must come from Greece in their own power. Therefore, the little horn can only come from one of four areas: Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt, or the former Seleucid Empire of the Mideast and Asia.

which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

The idea here is the little horn "...waxes exceeding great..." not one of the Diadochi. From history Rome could only rival the great Grecian Empire. Rome did not surpass the Greeks in terms of geography as the Macedonian Empire ruled more land area. In fact, during Roman rule, the Caliphates of the Umayyad and the Abbasid ruled twice the land area and about the same amount of people, fought against the Romans and defeated the Roman armies many times. Your contention that  Rome waxed exceeding great, far above Babylon, Persia and Greece is not borne out by history. And the Muslim Empire exceeded the Roman Empire in terms of size by a factor of two, during the rule of Rome, and outlasted the Roman empire. If any empire 'waxed exceeding great' after the fall of Greece it would be the Caliphates.

I appreciate your perspective, and indeed it presents problems if it be accepted in the manner you have presented it. May I offer an alternative? Let us assume on your own suggestion that Rome coming from the winds, is unacceptable, and that whatever entity the little horn may be, it must arise from one of the original four. You appear to be a much more scholarly person than myself, so I am sure you are aware that nations and empires as such are in prophecy for only one reason...they all in some way directly impacted God's people....whether Israel in the OT, or the church in the new. So with that in mind, may I suggest that Rome, rather than arbitrarily being introduced out of thin air as you suggested,   may justifiably introduced into the mix here, because of the famous "Jewish League" compact between Rome and Israel in 161BC. It was 7 years prior to this that Rome conquered Macedonia, the last remaining vestige of Antigonus' kingdom. So from Daniel's perspective, the horn he saw impacting His people and His nation may have very well looked to have grown from one of the four horns, that of Antigonus.

If however we were relying solely upon that one aspect of prophecy in identifying the little horn, then I would agree that the evidence thereof would be rather thin. But that is not the case. There are at least 10 significant other identifying features, all of which point unmistakably to first, pagan Rome, and second, the church of Rome, thus the one horn in two distinct phases, as being the only viable candidate on offer to meet all the criteria of the prophecies. But as you will see, more on that later. I have no doubt you will offer more alternatives as we progress through the study, but that is fine. Its great to discuss these things, and flesh them out. Could be a very long thread.