Who is the Little Horn of Daniel 8? Can this be linked with the Little Horn in Daniel 7?

[adamjedgar]

I thought that rather than state my position, i would simply start with an abstract from a paper written by Ville Suutarinen where he makes the case that in Daniel 8 "it is more probable that the little horn comes from one of the four winds (the northern wind) than one of the four horns" (btw at present i do not personally hold this position)

Ville Suutarinen

• Newbold College of Higher Education

 

 

The Little Horn in Daniel 8: The defense of Historicism

November 2018, August 2019

The identity of the little horn power in Daniel 8 (and 7) is largely determined by the method of interpretation of that chapter, the book of Daniel as a whole, apocalyptic prophecies, and the entire Bible. The Maccabean thesis, which is built on preteristic interpretation method, believes that the little horn corresponds for a Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who stood against the Jews in the second century BCE. There is also a view, that claims that the little horn in Daniel 7 is not the same little horn as in Daniel 8, as André Reis argues (André Reis, “A Response to Glifford Goldstein on the Little Horn on Daniel 8,” ResearchGate, April, 2018, accessed August 18, 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324758761_A_RESPONSE_TO_CLIFFORD_GOLDSTEIN_ON_THE_LITTLE_HORN_OF_DANIEL_8.). However, this interpretation has many problems. For example, it breaks the unity and apocalyptic-universal and end-time characteristics of the book of Daniel. Historicism, on the other hand, stands on these characteristics. As a matter of fact, the principles of Protestant biblical hermeneutics point to the direction of historicism, as will be shown when textual, lexical, and theological areas are researched. The goal of this paper is to bring the following contributions: It establishes a chiastic structure for Daniel 7-12, which thematic peaks are Christ and the Day of Atonement. It offers answers for André Reis' grammatical, lexical, textual, and theological arguments for Antiochus Epiphanes being the little horn in Daniel 8. It shows that when the little horn continues the philosophical and spiritual legacy or continuum of the king of the north, it establishes the little horn's coming from the cardinal point of north, without the little horn needing to come from one of the four horns of the goat. The thesis statement: This research argues that Antiochus IV Epiphanes cannot be the little horn of Daniel 7 and/or 8 because: (1) The historicist view for the origin of the little horn is the most probable; (2) Epiphanes was not great enough and the preeminent in the land for the proportions of the little horn, but Rome was preeminent in its imperial stage, and was and is preeminent in its papal stage; (3) the time prophecies of Daniel do not fit into the reign of this Seleucid king; (4) Epiphanes did not rise at the latter period of the Seleucid kingdom; (5) the book of Daniel is mainly a universal book, and Christocentric interpretation model leads to that conclusion; (6) because the book is universal in scope, the little horn grants universal proportions, which are also seen in history; (7) it is more probable that the little horn comes from one of the four winds (the northern wind) than one of the four horns, because the little horn continues the philosophical and spiritual legacy or continuum of the king of the north; and (8) the “abomination of desolation”, ultimately, has a spiritual and end-time meaning, which is fulfilled in history. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335229819_The_Little_Horn_in_Daniel_8_In_Defense_of_Historicism
 

Edited December 8, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Charlie744]

23 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

I thought that rather than state my position, i would simply start with an abstract from a paper written by 

Ville Suutarinen

• Newbold College of Higher Education

The Little Horn in Daniel 8: The defense of Historicism

November 2018, August 2019

The identity of the little horn power in Daniel 8 (and 7) is largely determined by the method of interpretation of that chapter, the book of Daniel as a whole, apocalyptic prophecies, and the entire Bible. The Maccabean thesis, which is built on preteristic interpretation method, believes that the little horn corresponds for a Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who stood against the Jews in the second century BCE. There is also a view, that claims that the little horn in Daniel 7 is not the same little horn as in Daniel 8, as André Reis argues (André Reis, “A Response to Glifford Goldstein on the Little Horn on Daniel 8,” ResearchGate, April, 2018, accessed August 18, 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324758761_A_RESPONSE_TO_CLIFFORD_GOLDSTEIN_ON_THE_LITTLE_HORN_OF_DANIEL_8.). However, this interpretation has many problems. For example, it breaks the unity and apocalyptic-universal and end-time characteristics of the book of Daniel. Historicism, on the other hand, stands on these characteristics. As a matter of fact, the principles of Protestant biblical hermeneutics point to the direction of historicism, as will be shown when textual, lexical, and theological areas are researched. The goal of this paper is to bring the following contributions: It establishes a chiastic structure for Daniel 7-12, which thematic peaks are Christ and the Day of Atonement. It offers answers for André Reis' grammatical, lexical, textual, and theological arguments for Antiochus Epiphanes being the little horn in Daniel 8. It shows that when the little horn continues the philosophical and spiritual legacy or continuum of the king of the north, it establishes the little horn's coming from the cardinal point of north, without the little horn needing to come from one of the four horns of the goat. The thesis statement: This research argues that Antiochus IV Epiphanes cannot be the little horn of Daniel 7 and/or 8 because: (1) The historicist view for the origin of the little horn is the most probable; (2) Epiphanes was not great enough and the preeminent in the land for the proportions of the little horn, but Rome was preeminent in its imperial stage, and was and is preeminent in its papal stage; (3) the time prophecies of Daniel do not fit into the reign of this Seleucid king; (4) Epiphanes did not rise at the latter period of the Seleucid kingdom; (5) the book of Daniel is mainly a universal book, and Christocentric interpretation model leads to that conclusion; (6) because the book is universal in scope, the little horn grants universal proportions, which are also seen in history; (7) it is more probable that the little horn comes from one of the four winds (the northern wind) than one of the four horns, because the little horn continues the philosophical and spiritual legacy or continuum of the king of the north; and (8) the “abomination of desolation”, ultimately, has a spiritual and end-time meaning, which is fulfilled in history. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335229819_The_Little_Horn_in_Daniel_8_In_Defense_of_Historicism
 

Very  nice Adam. I have read Reis and do not agree with him on this topic. He certainly is a brilliant writer but as almost all the commentators on Daniel, they take a historical approach to Daniel from day 1. When if fact, the book is not a 6 chapter historical and 6 chapter prophetic, but an all 12 prophetic message threaded through the four kingdoms. The kingdoms are not the story, the kings are not the story, the story is all about the Messiah and His Plan of Salvation for mankind. 

Once again, God gave us the blue print - chapter 2. You have heard the phrase, 'If it happens in Vegas, it stays in Vegas'. Well, if it happened in chapter 2 it stays in the rest of Daniel - can not add or subtract actors or rulers or territorial kingdoms (Ptolemy, AE, etc), if they are not mentioned in chapter 2. AE is a relative nobody who certainly mistreated the Jews and the Temple but he was not a king of any kingdom or of the four identified in chapter 2. The 4 kingdoms in chapter 2 are the same as in 7 and 8. Further, they determine the meaning of where the 'little horn' will come from (area / territory). Without the rules and boundaries set by the metal man image in chapter 2 there would be no guidance for our interpretations in the later chapter. God does not do random or coincidence or disrupts His prophetic messages - they are hard enough to interpret... He is trying to keep us within the lines so we do not stray from His Word - and this specifically means that we have NO need of extra-biblical sources for a correct interpretation. Those white lines do not include any information from our history books. However, almost all commentators have approached Daniel that it must agree with our history books .... 

The ten toes come well after the 3rd kingdom. In fact they are at the bottom of the 4th kingdom of pagan Rome. The 'little horn' surfaces after the Stone strikes the foot of the image. There is no connection between the toes, the rising of the 'little horn' and the 3rd kingdom. It all takes place in the 4th kingdom. By the way, and this really gets deep, but the 10 toes existed before the Stone struck the foot yet the 10 toes continued on to the end of time... so does the 'little horn'.  There is so much to Daniel it is truly mind boggling - ONLY God to make this stuff up!!!!!!!!!!

But if you don't follow the rules and boundaries that God established in chapter 2, there are a gazillion different interpretations that can and have been made  - especially the later  chapters. It took me no less than 7 months to find the key to chapter 11. It was impossible until I went all the way back to chapter 2 and found His rules and boundaries for the four coming kingdoms. 

God has given us ALL information we will need to interpret Daniel WITHIN DANIEL (and with some help from Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.) . Once you go outside Daniel (or those books) you are on your own... lost forever because you will have to rely on the extra-biblical records (our flawed history books) to try and find the missing pieces (interpretations). The 'little horn' can be no other  than the pope / rcc who indeed 'think to have changed His times and laws'. Just my thoughts, Charlie

 

[Diaste]

2 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

The 4 kingdoms in chapter 2 are the same as in 7 and 8. Further, they determine the meaning of where the 'little horn' will come from (area / territory).

Interesting to me is Babylon, the Persians and Alexander all ruled from Babylon. As did the Seleucids. Quite the common thread. 

[Diaste]

3 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

it is more probable that the little horn comes from one of the four winds (the northern wind) than one of the four horns,

Would this be referring to:

"From one of these horns a little horn emerged and grew extensively toward the south and the east and toward the Beautiful Land." Dan 8

And:

"4But as soon as he is established, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven" Dan 11

[angels4u]

He will come from Europe..

[Marilyn C]

He will come from the old Assyrian Empire - Iraq, Syria & Jordan. (Isa. 31: 8)

[adamjedgar]

15 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Very  nice Adam. I have read Reis and do not agree with him on this topic. He certainly is a brilliant writer but as almost all the commentators on Daniel, they take a historical approach to Daniel from day 1. When if fact, the book is not a 6 chapter historical and 6 chapter prophetic, but an all 12 prophetic message threaded through the four kingdoms. The kingdoms are not the story, the kings are not the story, the story is all about the Messiah and His Plan of Salvation for mankind. 

Once again, God gave us the blue print - chapter 2. You have heard the phrase, 'If it happens in Vegas, it stays in Vegas'. Well, if it happened in chapter 2 it stays in the rest of Daniel - can not add or subtract actors or rulers or territorial kingdoms (Ptolemy, AE, etc), if they are not mentioned in chapter 2. AE is a relative nobody who certainly mistreated the Jews and the Temple but he was not a king of any kingdom or of the four identified in chapter 2. The 4 kingdoms in chapter 2 are the same as in 7 and 8. Further, they determine the meaning of where the 'little horn' will come from (area / territory). Without the rules and boundaries set by the metal man image in chapter 2 there would be no guidance for our interpretations in the later chapter. God does not do random or coincidence or disrupts His prophetic messages - they are hard enough to interpret... He is trying to keep us within the lines so we do not stray from His Word - and this specifically means that we have NO need of extra-biblical sources for a correct interpretation. Those white lines do not include any information from our history books. However, almost all commentators have approached Daniel that it must agree with our history books .... 

The ten toes come well after the 3rd kingdom. In fact they are at the bottom of the 4th kingdom of pagan Rome. The 'little horn' surfaces after the Stone strikes the foot of the image. There is no connection between the toes, the rising of the 'little horn' and the 3rd kingdom. It all takes place in the 4th kingdom. By the way, and this really gets deep, but the 10 toes existed before the Stone struck the foot yet the 10 toes continued on to the end of time... so does the 'little horn'.  There is so much to Daniel it is truly mind boggling - ONLY God to make this stuff up!!!!!!!!!!

But if you don't follow the rules and boundaries that God established in chapter 2, there are a gazillion different interpretations that can and have been made  - especially the later  chapters. It took me no less than 7 months to find the key to chapter 11. It was impossible until I went all the way back to chapter 2 and found His rules and boundaries for the four coming kingdoms. 

God has given us ALL information we will need to interpret Daniel WITHIN DANIEL (and with some help from Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.) . Once you go outside Daniel (or those books) you are on your own... lost forever because you will have to rely on the extra-biblical records (our flawed history books) to try and find the missing pieces (interpretations). The 'little horn' can be no other  than the pope / rcc who indeed 'think to have changed His times and laws'. Just my thoughts, Charlie

 

Such a great answer Charlie...I can see this is going to turn into a very wide ranging discussion, of course you are right Daniel is clearly a massively complex book that i think is intertwined into not only the immediate future of the captive Israelites, it meshes with the coming messiah and his gospel, and obviously the end of time thus a prequel to the book of Revelation.

I am not sure exactly how to start in my thoughts on your comment above...its a great response.

 

For example, i love this comment...

"he kingdoms are not the story, the kings are not the story, the story is all about the Messiah and His Plan of Salvation for mankind."

I would probably add that Daniel is aiming to set out of kind of timeline for the future fulfilment of the plan of salvation. I know this is going to diverge from your view a bit (i am sorry for that but i find it difficult to avoid) in that he [Daniel] is drawing a roadmap of the future given to him in vision by God. We know that roadmaps provide archeological and historical evidence and this will immediately taint your statement, thus my historicist view of this book...but I am not wanting to take anything away from your Gospel statement as that is really the essence of it i think. 

 

A second great statement you make that i agree with:

God gave us the blue print - chapter 2. You have heard the phrase, 'If it happens in Vegas, it stays in Vegas'. Well, if it happened in chapter 2 it stays in the rest of Daniel

This is think is the key that links all of the prophecies and timelines set out in the Book of Daniel. It is a real shame that scholars (such as Des Ford) missed that wonderful truth.

 

I think if i understand our previous discussion on this on another thread, this is the area that you were interested in exploring in detail. This is the point where i currently diverge from my own church beliefs somewhat, as also i tend to take the historicist view but strangely enough, my view that it begins with the Seleucids brings me into conflict with the SDA historicist view of the very same Chapters 7&8 of Daniel (how weird is that?). This also seems to be the place where a lot of scholars argue that the little horn in Daniel 8 cannot be Rome. 

"The 4 kingdoms in chapter 2 are the same as in 7 and 8. Further, they determine the meaning of where the 'little horn' will come from (area / territory)"

 

.

 

 

11 hours ago, Diaste said:

Would this be referring to:

"From one of these horns a little horn emerged and grew extensively toward the south and the east and toward the Beautiful Land." Dan 8

And:

"4But as soon as he is established, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven" Dan 11

yep thats the place. you have nailed it and i think this is also consistent with Charlies view that all of the chapters of Daniel are intimately linked so that would automatically sustain the view you above two verses are talking of the same entity.

[angels4u]

1 hour ago, Marilyn C said:

He will come from the old Assyrian Empire - Iraq, Syria & Jordan. (Isa. 31: 8)

Lol, we have to wait and see where's he's coming from..

[Charlie744]

26 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

Such a great answer Charlie...I can see this is going to turn into a very wide ranging discussion, of course you are right Daniel is clearly a massively complex book that i think is intertwined into not only the immediate future of the captive Israelites, it meshes with the coming messiah and his gospel, and obviously the end of time thus a prequel to the book of Revelation.

I am not sure exactly how to start in my thoughts on your comment above...its a great response.

 

For example, i love this comment...

"he kingdoms are not the story, the kings are not the story, the story is all about the Messiah and His Plan of Salvation for mankind."

I would probably add that Daniel is aiming to set out of kind of timeline for the future fulfilment of the plan of salvation. I know this is going to diverge from your view a bit (i am sorry for that but i find it difficult to avoid) in that he [Daniel] is drawing a roadmap of the future given to him in vision by God. We know that roadmaps provide archeological and historical evidence and this will immediately taint your statement, thus my historicist view of this book...but I am not wanting to take anything away from your Gospel statement as that is really the essence of it i think. 

First, very kind of you to say such things! I have been working on Daniel for the past 3.5 years and it is such a wonderful prophetic  book and the Good Lord has been more than kind.

I agree with you entirely. Daniel is a road map from Babylon to His second coming. No period is left unaddressed but every verse must fit within the boundaries and restrictions of the metal man image. These boundaries, rules and restrictions in chapter 2 set ALL  the rules for 7 -12. God has specifically told us His starting point - Babylon. He has also told us His ending point - His second coming (preceded by pagan Rome). In between these two points He has given us two internal kingdoms - Medes-Persia and Greece. Consequently, we have a 'closed' system if you will. Within the metal man God specifically identified 4 different metal types so we could not possibly confuse when one kingdom moved on to the next. There are absolutely no room or spaces between each metal type... consequently, all we have to do is to take each verse and decide where it belongs. Of course if you get this wrong you will find there will be pieces of the puzzle that are still in the box that do not fit with the pieces you placed on the board. We have all done that as a child with those 1000 piece puzzles. But we learned we have to remove some of those pieces that SEEMED to fit nicely because the remaining ones would not.  What I have seen in all the commentaries is there has been strong reluctance to remove those pieces but either force them into fitting the puzzle, leave them out and replace them with a piece from another puzzle (our history books), and then take those pieces still remaining in the box and claim they belong to another puzzle called Revelation (they don't fit here so  they must belong to the future).

Regarding your comment on not considering the 'evidence' found (historical view)... first, I am in total agreement with that but I approach  it differently. If you were standing in Jerusalem and your name was Saul or Paul, you would have the Scriptures available to you - nothing else. You too would have historical evidence available for the pervious 3 kingdoms and thus you could most likely place each verse that belongs to each of the kingdoms. What you could not do as Paul is to understand and interpret those verses that belong to those earlier kingdoms in a prophetic manner. He couldn't. All he could understand would be the outside of the metal man - the different 4 kingdoms but not the messages of each. He did not and could not possibly think to see the coming Messiah as a plain man who would be crucified - and neither could Daniel and he was the 'pen' for God. You remember when Daniel was absolutely sick to his stomach from the vision - he was so sickened because  he could not possibly understand it and what small parts he did THINK he saw made him deadly ill.  There was NO WAY God was going to allow him to understand what was going to happen to HIS God  - Daniel had been put through enough during his 70 years and he NEVER disobeyed or failed God despite death threats or the lion's den, etc. God protected him from such an understanding.

But here we are some 2.000 years later... and please understand this because apparently I have not conveyed my thoughts well enough - I do not ignore the historical evidence- NO... I ignore the historical evidence OUTSIDE THE SCRIPTURES.  This is what I meant when I said the 'historical' APPROACH will always result in misinterpretation, because they are using our history books to confirm the Scriptures (Daniel). We have the OT and NT where Paul did not - as long as we stay inside these boundaries and books we will have all the  'evidence' for the past 2500 years (since Daniel of course). So I do not think there is any difference just my need to correct my 'approach' to Daniel.

 

26 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

A second great statement you make that i agree with:

God gave us the blue print - chapter 2. You have heard the phrase, 'If it happens in Vegas, it stays in Vegas'. Well, if it happened in chapter 2 it stays in the rest of Daniel

This is think is the key that links all of the prophecies and timelines set out in the Book of Daniel. It is a real shame that scholars (such as Des Ford) missed that wonderful truth.

Trust me - I had NOTHING to do with it... literally nothing.  In the beginning of this project I attempted to try and understand the views and interpretations of all the scholars, academics and theologians who have produced 'today's accepted interpretations'. After all, they were or are absolutely brilliant individuals and this is THEIR field. They have already done the heavy lifting. All I had to do was to try and understand their writings and meanings since many wrote in a strong academic manner it was so difficult to understand. After a year or so I realized  that these brilliant people would produce usually two different interpretations on the MAJOR ISSUES within Daniel... how can that possibly be?  Finally, I realized that if there were two views, at least one had to be wrong.. So I took the two views side by side and attempted to study both with the actual verse - in many cases I could not agree with either side yet I had no alternative view... I knew nothing of Daniel. Then one night a thought came to me without me thinking about any specific verse in Daniel - and it simply was ' look for me in these verses'. That was it. Don't look at the outside of the metal man image, etc., focus on two things; can you find the Messiah in these verses (prophetically, spiritually) and can you identify the  different movements in HIS Plan of Salvation for mankind. In other words, I  have given you the literal markers not because they are the 'story' but to be the 'white lines' or boundaries and restrictions in finding the underlying messages.

26 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

I think if i understand our previous discussion on this on another thread, this is the area that you were interested in exploring in detail. This is the point where i currently diverge from my own church beliefs somewhat, as also i tend to take the historicist view but strangely enough, my view that it begins with the Seleucids brings me into conflict with the SDA historicist view of the very same Chapters 7&8 of Daniel (how weird is that?). This also seems to be the place where a lot of scholars argue that the little horn in Daniel 8 cannot be Rome. 

 

The 'little horn' is not pagan Rome. The legs of iron are pagan Rome. The 'little horn' comes out of the beast after the 10 horns come out of the beast. 

26 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

 

"The 4 kingdoms in chapter 2 are the same as in 7 and 8. Further, they determine the meaning of where the 'little horn' will come from (area / territory)"

yep thats the place. you have nailed it and i think this is also consistent with Charlies view that all of the chapters of Daniel are intimately linked so that would automatically sustain the view you above two verses are talking of the same entity.

I am not sure what Diaste is saying... I took it that the 'little horn' came from the post Alexander territories and WAS from the Greek kingdom - AE or the Seleucids or the Ptolemies, etc. -- was not sure. But once again, Greece is the  3rd of the 4 kingdoms in chapter 2. They are the same in 7 and 8. There is only ONE Horn, ONE dominate power / ruler in the 3rd kingdom and it certainly isn't some unimportant evil little thug like AE. If the Scriptures did not mention the 'four winds' there would not be any reason to consider the post Alexander rulers. God would use the 'four winds' to identify where the 'little horn' would come from but He never used the 4th kingdom or pagan Rome etc., The 'beast' is a composite of all the kingdoms including pagan Rome, therefore, he does not come directly out of pagan Rome but the territory of the post Alexander territories. Again, you will not find AE or the Ptolemy's or the Seleucids in chapter 2. The ' little horn' is buried in the 4th kingdom and will not be revealed until the 4th kingdom has been struck  by the Stone and has been 'divided". Out this 'little horned monster' arises. 

 

Again. these are just MY thoughts and I certainly am well aware they are in total conflict with today's accepted interpretations... but that is okay, Charlie

[Charlie744]

2 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

He will come from the old Assyrian Empire - Iraq, Syria & Jordan. (Isa. 31: 8)

Marilyn, if you do not mind, does your answer address:

1) who or where the 'little horn' will be and come from? or,

2) who or where the AC will be and come from? or,

3) are they the same entity perhaps?

Thanks, Charlie