“Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes” (Daniel 8:3,5).
This second vision of Daniel was seen by him in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, two years subsequent to the time he saw the vision described in Chapter Seven. This would be about 553 BC. The statement by the Prophet that he was “at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam … by the river of Ulai,” is understood by many noted expositors, not as denoting the place where he actually was in person, but rather the place to which he was transported in spirit in the vision — that is, where it seemed to him he was when he beheld the vision. If this be the correct thought, then it was the same with Daniel as it was with St. John when he beheld the wondrous visions of the Apocalypse. St. John in the spirit was sometimes on the earth and sometimes before the heavenly throne; at one time he was carried away in the spirit into the wilderness, and at another time to a great and high mountain. In reality, however, St. John was on the Isle of Patmos all the time; and in the case of Daniel it would seem that he was in Babylon all the time. The reason the vision was seen from Shushan seems to be that it was at this place that the seat of power represented by the ram (Persia) was to be located; also that it was with the power symbolized by the ram that the fulfilment of the vision was to begin.
The Prophet says that as he lifted up his eyes he beheld standing before the river a ram having two horns. The two horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. The great exploits of the ram are next described. Daniel says, “I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.”
We are not left to conjecture what power the ram represents, for we are told by Daniel that when he “sought for the meaning” of the vision, he heard a man’s voice which seemed to proceed from between the banks of the river, saying, “Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.” So Gabriel came near where the Prophet stood, and Daniel was so moved with fear that he fell on his face. He was then touched by the angel and made to stand on his feet. The angel then said: “The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia” (Daniel 8:20).
In the dream of Nebuchadnezzar this same great power is pictured by the silver breast and arms of the metallic image; and in the preceding vision, under the symbol of a bear. The change of the symbol to that of a ram, a more domestic and less harmful animal, may be because of the peculiar relation this power sustained to the Jewish people. The Medo-Persian kingdom viewed from this standpoint was not a devouring wild beast, but that of a somewhat friendly power. It was this power that was instrumental in restoring the Jews to their own land after their captivity in Babylon; and it was by this power that they were helped in many ways in rebuilding their temple, and in restoring their worship. Bible history also shows that many Jews continued long after their restoration to dwell among the Persians, and held positions of power and influence in the government. This is seen from the Book of Esther.
The ram “pushing” violently with its head, has reference to the military conquests of this great Persian power. Its butting, so that no beasts were able to stand before it, signifies its conquests and supremacy over all other powers. In Daniel 6:1 it is recorded that under Darius the vast territory of the empire embraced 120 provinces, and in Esther 1:1, only about seventeen years after, we learn that seven provinces had been added to the 120.
After the ram’s exploits, an he goat appears upon the scene. He is represented as coming from the west, and moving with such speed that his feet seemed scarcely to touch the ground; and he had a “notable horn” between his eyes. The angel’s explanation of this is: “And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.” The same great power is represented in the preceding vision (Daniel 7), as a four-winged and a four-headed leopard; and in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, as the belly and thighs of brass of the great image. Considered as a world power in general, this Grecian kingdom possessed and used all the savage, ferocious qualities of a leopard. In its relation to the Jews, however, it was a mild, fostering power. To them it did not act as a beast of prey. This, as in the case of the Persian kingdom, seems to account for the change in the symbol.
An instance illustrating this relationship is related by Josephus. When Alexander was on his eastern expedition, he laid siege to Tyre. Being in need of provisions for his army he sent messengers to the high priest, Jaddua, at Jerusalem to furnish him with the same. The high priest, however, refused on the ground of his allegiance to the king of Persia. Alexander in great rage vowed to have revenge on the Jews. As soon as he had captured Tyre and Gaza, Josephus informs us that he came to Jerusalem with his army, intending to destroy it. When the high priest learned of Alexander’s approach, he called upon all the people to make supplications to God. In answer to their supplications, the high priest, in a vision of the night, received directions what to do. In accordance with these Divine instructions, when Alexander came near to the city, the high priest caused the gates to be thrown wide open, and arrayed in his priestly robes, with the mitre on his head, with the golden plate on which was engraved the name Jehovah, followed by the under priests, arrayed also in their robes of office, and with them a large number of the people clothed in white garments, went out to meet the great conqueror. When Alexander saw this procession, he went to meet them, and approaching the high priest saluted him, and then offered worship to Jehovah. All this was a great surprise to Alexander’s officers, particularly so to the Syrian kings, his allies, who supposed that his mind was affected. Parmenio, one of Alexander’s officers, inquired of him why it was that when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews. Alexander replied, as stated by Josephus:
“I did not adore him, but that God who hath honored him with his highpriest-hood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind.”
After Alexander had spoken these words to Parmenio, he was conducted by the high priest into the city, and going into the temple he offered sacrifice to God according to the high priest’s direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. The Book of Daniel was then brought out, and the prediction that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of Persia was shown to Alexander; whereupon he was caused to believe that he himself was the person referred to. The next day he called the high priest and all the others to him and bade them ask what favors they pleased of him. Accordingly “the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute on the seventh year. He granted all they desired. And when they intreated him that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he had said to the multitude that if any of them would list themselves in his army, on this condition, that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars.”
The Prophet in the vision beheld the goat coming from the west, for it was in the far west from Persia that the Grecian or Macedonian power originated. It struck the ram with terrible force, broke both his horns and trod him under his feet. This describes the overthrow of the Medo-Persian power by Alexander the Great, king of Macedon. It of course required more than one battle to accomplish this, but that it was accomplished very quickly, all historians are agreed.
“Therefore,” the Prophet records, “the he goat waxed very great; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken.” It was in the time of its greatest strength that Alexander suddenly died.
“On Alexander’s death, BC 323, Philip Aridaeus, his half brother, was proclaimed king at a meeting of the chief generals, and, in conjunction with him, as soon as born, a son of Alexander, of whom Roxana was then pregnant, called afterwards Alexander Aegus. And during their lives the generals forbore from assuming the royal title; professing themselves simply governors under Alexander’s son and brother. [However,] in the space of about fifteen years they were all murdered, and then the first horn or kingdom was entirely broken. The royal family being thus extinct, the governors of provinces, who had usurped the power, assumed the title of kings: and by the defeat and death of Antigonus in the battle of Ipsus, they were reduced to four, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, who parted Alexander’s dominions between them, and divided and settled them into four kingdoms” (Bishop Newton).
These four kingdoms constitute the four notable horns, which took the place of the one great horn, the Alexander dynasty; and they are the same as is represented by the four heads of the leopard of the preceding vision. It is said in the vision, “four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.” This means that while they would be kingdoms of the Greeks, they would not be ruled by Alexander’s own family. It is said also that these four kingdoms should extend “towards the four winds of heaven.” History relates that Lysimachus had Thrace, Bithynia, and the northern regions; Ptolemy possessed Egypt and the southern countries; Seleucus obtained Syria and the eastern provinces; and Cassander held Macedon, Greece, and the western parts.
The foregoing is in perfect harmony with all expositors, with not a dissenting voice. This cannot be said, however, of the portion of the vision that follows, which portion no doubt is by far the most important. The Prophet continues:
“And out of one of them [one of the four horns] came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice1 was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.”
Four Interpretations of the “Little Horn”
Before proceeding to consider the angel’s explanation of this part of the vision it will be well to notice that expositors as far back as the second century BC up to the present time have given a great deal of attention to the study of this vision, as may be seen from the writings that have come down to us. However, while there has been a very general agreement in applying the vision of the ram and the he goat and the latter’s four horns to the Medo-Persian and Grecian kingdoms, and the fourfold division of the last, as is given in the foregoing, there does not exist such an agreement as to what power is represented by the “little horn” of the vision. Looking over the interpretations of this long line of expositors, we discover that with some few minor differences on some points, there exist four interpretations. By briefly stating these interpretations we may, by a comparison with the prophecy, be better able to judge as to which of these meets the requirements.
One interpretation applies this little horn and its evil actions to Antiochus Epiphanes, a ruler of the Syrian dynasty, or Seleucidae, as the rulers of this dynasty are called from their founder, Seleucus. Jewish as well as many Christian expositors have thus applied the prophecy. Antiochus reigned from 175 to 164 BC and was a most terrible persecutor of the Jews, and a desecrator of their temple and worship.
Others say that this little horn represents the Roman kingdom, which, it is claimed, was a horn or power that came out of that division of Alexander’s empire which was founded by Cassander, one of Alexander’s generals. Thus states one writer: “Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of the goat [168 BC], it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the Prophet, or may be properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat.” Continuing he says, “This little horn must be understood to symbolize Rome in its entire history, including its two phases, pagan and papal.”¹ Adventist and a few other expositors have applied the prophecy in this way.
There are others who apply this little horn, to a yet future Antichrist. A modern Futurist expositor has thus expressed this view:
“As Antiochus Epiphanes and his doings and successes met the prophetic description for that time, we may the better see and understand by his history how it will be in the last days. People sometimes wonder who the final Antichrist is, and how he shall come. Christian antiquity, with one voice, answers: ‘He is Antiochus Epiphanes reproduced, in larger proportions and intensified energy, immediately before the great day of God Almighty.’ And by observing after what manner and for what reasons the calamitous inflictions of that Greco-Syrian king fell upon the Jews of old, we may see and know how the final Antichrist will come.”²
The fourth and last view held respecting the application of this little horn of Daniel 8, is that it has met its fulfilment in the great Mohammedan apostasy, which sprang up very near the time when the little horn of Papacy of Daniel 7, appeared. These expositors distinguish between the two by designating them as the eastern and western little horns.
We will consider first the interpretation that applies this little horn power, which is distinctly stated in the vision to come out of one of the four divisions of the Grecian or Macedonian Empire, to Antiochus Epiphanes.
The late Mr. Guinness has made reference to this application, and says, it is clear “that it had a precursive fulfilment, on a smaller scale, in the person and history of Antiochus Epiphanes. His career,” he says, “accords so closely with almost every feature of the prediction, as to leave little room for doubt that it was intended by the holy Spirit as one subject of the prophecy. For seventeen centuries all expositors, Jewish and Christian, held that the prophecy referred to Antiochus. The Books of the Maccabees record his career with great detail, and trace in it, as does Josephus, the fulfilment of the predictions of this little horn. But,” Mr. Guinness goes on to say, “Antiochus never waxed ‘exceeding great’; he never ‘threw down the place of the sanctuary,’ though he took away the daily sacrifice; and he lived too near the time when the prophecy was given, to be the full and proper fulfilment of it, seeing it is said of the vision, ‘it shall be for many days,’ ‘at the last end of the indignation.’ Besides this, the time of the desolation effected by Antiochus — just three years — does not in any way, or on any system, correspond with 2300 days; so that we are driven to regard this as one of those prophecies which has undoubtedly had a double fulfilment, like Hosea 11:1, or Psalm 72.”
Mr. Shimeal, another writer of note, has called attention to another most important feature of the prophecy which fails utterly to meet a fulfilment in Antiochus Epiphanes. His words are: “To those writers … who make the two little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 identical, we reply, first, that it cannot apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, for the reason that like all the other horns mentioned by Daniel, it must be the symbol of a continuous sovereignty — a realm, governed, extended, protected and preserved by him and his successors. Antiochus was only a single individual, who appeared upon the stage and passed away,” without the above requirement.
Mr. E. B. Elliott, author of Horae Apocalypticae, has thus noted this point:
“With regard to Antiochus — while it consists [is consistent] with the prophetic description that he was a prince of the Syro-Macedonian line, and that he desolated the [Jewish] sanctuary, the following insurmountable objections occur: (1) That he was but an individual king of the dynasty, and therefore not a horn, in the sense in which the word horn is used both in this and other prophecies of Daniel. (2) That his kingdom, instead of being exceeding great on the scale of Alexander’s given in the prophecy, was at the greatest scarce a third of that of the first Syro-Macedonian king, Seleucus; it being in fact little better than a Roman dependency. (3) That the Jewish transgressors could not be said to have then ‘come to the full’; there being at that time many zealous for the law, some of whom constituted soon after, the noble army of the Maccabees; and Christ himself having fixed the epoch of maturity of Jewish transgression much later. (4) That, whereas the fall of the little horn, the terminating act of the vision, was (on the year-day system) to be 2300 years distant from that which marked its beginning, probably the successful pushing of the Persian ram — Antiochus’ death happened only between 300 and 400 years after it; and that, even on the day-day system, no satisfactory explanation is to be offered, by reference to his profanation of the temple and its cleansing, of the period of the 2300 days.”
Concerning the Application to Pagan and Papal Rome
We ask, then, does it not seem from the fact that the interpretation which applies this little horn of Daniel 8 to Antiochus Epiphanes fails in so many points, that we must search further to discover a power which meets all the requirements of the vision.
The interpretation that claims to discover the fulfilment in both Rome Pagan and Papal is fairly stated by Mr. Smith, whom we have quoted foregoing. Sir Isaac and Bishop Newton both apply it to Rome. Mr. Guinness’ words concerning this application are certainly worthy of careful consideration, and seem to well accord with both the prophecy and the facts of history:
“Antiochus Epiphanes, the Romans, and the Mohammedans, have all taken part in accomplishing these predicted desolations of Jerusalem. The first two took away the daily sacrifice, the second cast down the sanctuary, all three have defiled the place of the sanctuary, and trodden it underfoot, and by the last two especially have the ‘mighty and holy people’ been ‘cast down,’ and ‘stamped upon,’ and ‘destroyed.’ But as the Roman power cannot be represented as ‘a little horn’ arising out of one of the four kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire was divided (Daniel 8:9), whereas both Antiochus and Mohammed can, we conclude that they mainly are referred to in the prediction, and especially the latter.”
Mr. Elliott on this matter calls attention to the fact known to all students of history — a fact which contains an insurmountable obstacle to an application of this little horn to Rome:
“There meet us on the very face of the question two objections most palpable, and which no ingenuity can ever overcome. The first is that the old Roman power can never be considered as a little horn of the Greek he goat. For the local origin of its horn was from Latium in Italy, not any spot in Greece or Persia: and before ever it moved eastward, to intermeddle with the territories of the Greek he goat, it was (on the scale in Daniel’s vision) a great horn [power] not a little one; Sicily and Spain and Carthaginian North Africa, besides all Italy, being comprehended in its dominions. Moreover it never rooted itself in the Grecian soil, under a separate and independent government, until, at the very soonest, the division of the empire by Diocletian; or, accurately speaking, not till the final division of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western under Theodosius’ two sons, a century later: that is, above two or rather three centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, by its armies under Vespasian. Second, even if the symbol of the Macedonian he goat’s little horn might by any possibility be allowed to represent the old Roman Pagan power, the idea of its representing also, the extremely different power of Rome Papal — an idea forced on the expositors spoken of by the fact of the little horn’s having an assigned duration to the end of 2300 years — I say this idea is one quite contrary both to the reason of the thing, and to the analogy of the three other admitted and notable prefigurations of Rome Pagan and Papal in Daniel and the Apocalypse.”
The facts of history, therefore, do not seem to admit of the application of this prophecy to Rome Pagan and Papal as meeting the requirements of the vision of the little horn of Daniel 8. Papal Rome, as we have endeavored to show, is symbolized by the little horn of Daniel 7 that springs up among the ten horns on the fourth or Roman beast. This did not occur until the opening years of the sixth century AD. At whatever period in history the little horn of Daniel 8 appears, it must be looked for in the East and not in the West. In other words it must rise out of one of the four kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire was divided, whose territory is in the East and not in the West.
The Roman power, in the various forms and aspects it takes on as the centuries come and go, is described in more prophecies of Scripture than any other power, except that of the Jews. It is invariably represented, however, as having its origin in the West, as well as the seat of its authority and government in the West. Shortly after Constantine removed his capital to Constantinople those provinces gradually became known as the Eastern or Greek Empire, to distinguish them from the old original Roman Empire with its never changing center at Rome, the Eternal City. The Scripture prophecy is always consistent in this. In our study of the prophecies about the “fourth beast” or Roman Empire, we should always distinguish between the lands it conquered, and the never changing seat of power.
Concerning the last application of this prophecy of Daniel 8, to a yet future Antichrist, a short lived man who will repeat on a larger scale the wickedness of Antiochus Epiphanes, the same argument that applies in refuting the application of the little horn of Daniel 7 and the Man of Sin of 2 Thessalonians 2, to a future short lived man, applies equally effective to this.
“The Little Horn” — The Eastern Apostasy
“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” (Daniel 8:9).
Having had the evidence before us, we believe, that the little horn power of Daniel 8:9 cannot possibly have met its fulfilment in Rome, either in its Pagan or Papal aspect, or in both; nor yet in Antiochus Epiphanes, except possibly in a precursive sense, we will look elsewhere in our endeavor to discover what power is referred to. In searching the records of history we must of course be guided by the prophecy itself, and particularly the angel’s explanation of the same. Most naturally and appropriately our first inquiry should be, Where or in what part of the world shall we look for a power meeting all the characteristics of this little horn? We note first that the chronological feature requires some power of long duration; this for the reason that in no other way and in no other power that has yet appeared in history, can it be found that the chronological period of 2300 literal days (verse 14), has met a fulfilment. It has never been satisfactorily applied on this scale to Antiochus Epiphanes, nor to any power that has appeared since. The scale, therefore, must be that a day represents a year, and therefore signifies 2300 years. The chronological limits of the whole vision, then, extend from some date in connection with the rule of the Persian power down into the period designated in prophecy as the “time of the end.”
The geographical limits are also, not only extensive, but definite. These limits cover no less a range of territory than that covered by Alexander’s empire in its four divisions among his generals, after his death: “And out of one of them,” the prophecy reads, “came forth a little horn” (verse 9). While it does not say from which one of these four powers it will rise, the statement is sufficiently clear to exclude our looking for it on the territory of the Western Roman Empire, and cannot, therefore, be applied to either Pagan or Papal Rome.
In order to discover from which one of the four divisions of Alexander’s empire this Eastern little horn was to rise, it will be necessary to trace briefly the history of these four powers. It is definitely stated that it was to rise in the “latter time of their kingdom.” Examining the records of history we discover that these four powers were all brought into subjection to the Roman Empire before the Christian era began; and as out of none of them prior to this do we find that a power rose up that in any sense or degree met the requirements of the prophecy of this little horn, we are forced to conclude two things: first, that at least one of these kingdoms would at some time subsequent to its subjection gain its independence of Rome; and second, that this would be after Christianity had become established in the world. Tracing the history of these powers we find that this was the case.
Consulting the records of history we find that Lysimachus, one of Alexander’s generals, was given Thrace, and a few minor provinces. In connection with the wars waged by Rome against the Macedonians, the territories of Thrace passed into the hands of the Romans in BC 168; and “subsequently shared the vicissitudes of the Roman Empire.”
Macedonia (which fell to Cassander) after a series of conflicts, became in 148 BC, a Roman province. It is positively certain that no such power as that described by the little horn of Daniel 8 came out of either of these two divisions of Alexander’s empire prior to the Christian era.
It will also be recalled that in the division of Alexander’s empire, the Persian and extreme eastern territory was given to Seleucus. He became the first one of a dynasty of kings called the Seleucidae. This dynasty constituted one of the four horns of the “he goat.” Neither did it exist long, for by a succession of revolts, covering a period of years, it broke in pieces, until at last in BC 65, its territory also came into possession of the Roman Empire. However, we find that in the Christian Age, its history is resumed again. Rome’s hold on the Persian territory was not a strong one, and Persia soon gained her independence. We find it to be a fact of history that in 218 AD it was independent of Rome, and as a result of a great battle fought on the plain of Hormuz (not with Rome, however), in which the Persians were victorious, she attained such a mighty power and influence that in a few centuries after, she more than once imperiled the existence of the Eastern Roman Empire — often called the Greek Empire. In 636 AD, however, Persia’s last king was driven from the throne by the Arabs, or Mohammedan power, frequently referred to as the Saracenic Empire. During the reigns of Omar, Othman, Ali, and the Ommiades (the first of the Arab rulers of Persia) 636-750, Persia was regarded as an outlying province of the Mohammedan or Saracenic Empire, and was ruled by deputy governors, and in 750 AD, Persia came to be considered as the center and nucleus of the Caliphate. (See International Encyclopedia, under Persia). It is very evident that it was at this time, or about this period, that the Mohammedan power had become the prophetic horn.
The angel’s words: “In the latter time of their kingdom when the transgressors are come to the full,” seem also designed to locate the time of this little horn’s desolating influence. The “transgressors” referred to would seem to be both Christian and Jewish, as we shall endeavor to show. This would indicate that this little horn would rise and accomplish its desolating work during the Christian dispensation.
The history of the Mohammedan power, which seems to us to be the one referred to by this little horn, began with Mohammed, who was born at Mecca in Yemen in 570 AD. Yemen was a part of Arabia. At the time of his birth as well as at the time when he began to propagate his religion, Yemen was a province of the Persian Empire (see Gibbon, Volume IV, page 323). Viewed from one standpoint it can be said that the incipient beginnings of this little horn came out of that division of Alexander’s empire originally given to Seleucus. Generally in Scriptural usage a horn symbolizes more than one individual; it represents, rather, the power or government established by one or more individuals and perpetuated by a succession of individuals or kings. On this account, not until all the Arab tribes had been conquered and united under Mohammed; indeed, not until after he had died and a successor was appointed to carry on his work, can it be said that the vision of the little horn began, in its complete sense, to meet its fulfilment. Concerning the gradual incipient beginning of the little horn, a quotation from Gibbon is to the point. After describing Mohammed’s early experiences in connection with his receiving the so-called visions at Mecca, Mr. Gibbon says:
“The religion of the Koran might have perished in its cradle had not Medina embraced with faith and reverence, the holy outcasts of Mecca… In the first, ten Charegites and two Awsites united in faith and love, protested in the name of their wives, their children and their absent brethren, that they would forever profess the creed and observe the precepts of the Koran.”
This describes the beginning of the religious system of Mohammedanism. Gibbon next describes the beginning of the political aspect of this power:
“The second [phase] was a political association, the first vital spark of the empire of the Saracens. Seventy-three men and two women of Medina held a solemn conference with Mahomet, his kinsmen, and his disciples; and pledged themselves to each other by a mutual oath of fidelity. They promised in the name of the city, that if he should be banished, they would receive him as a confederate, obey him as a leader, and defend him to the last extremity. …
“From his establishment at Medina, Mahomet assumed the exercise of the regal and sacerdotal office. … After a reign of six years, fifteen hundred Moslems, in arms and in the field, renewed their oath of allegiance. The choice of an independent people had exalted the fugitive of Mecca to the rank of a sovereign; and he was invested with the just prerogative of forming alliances, and of waging offensive or defensive war.”
The Historian Myers says that, “Within ten years from the time of the assumption of the sword by Mohammed, Mecca had been conquered, and the new creed established among all the tribes of Arabia.” Thus we have the rise and growth of a combination of a temporal and religious power that marked the beginnings of an empire which extended all over the territories of Alexander’s eastern possessions, and at one time threatened the whole civilized world. It had its beginnings in Arabia, which at the time constituted one of the provinces of Persia; the latter kingdom being a revival of that of the Seleucidae.
The Two Prophetic Little Horns
The language of the late Mr. Guinness will be found to be very important as it relates to this interpretation:
“The place of paramount importance in this prediction is given to the career and actings of an Eastern ‘little horn’; and our knowledge that the Papacy was the power predicted under the symbol of the Roman or Western ‘little horn’ affords a clue to the meaning of this sister symbol.
“The whole range of prophecy presents two, and only two, ‘little horns’; and the whole range of history presents two, and only two, powers, which exactly answer to the symbols; powers which, small and insignificant at first, gradually acquire empire on the ground of religion, and wax exceeding great by so doing; proudly oppose Christ, and fiercely persecute his people; repress and exterminate his truth; enjoy dominion for many long centuries (during which they tread down Jerusalem, either spiritual or literal), and perish at last under the judgment of God.
“The Papacy does not stand out more distinctly as the great Apostasy of the West, than does Mohammedanism as the great parallel Apostasy of the East. The one originated from within the Church, the other from without; but they rose together in the beginning of the seventh century; they have run chronologically similar courses; they have both based their empire on religious pretensions; the one defiled and trampled down the Church, and the other defiled and trod down Jerusalem [and we would add, apostate Eastern Christians]. In their life, they have been companion evils, and in their death they are not divided; for the one has just [in 1870] expired, politically, and the power of the other is fast expiring.
“The Mohammedan power is, we think, unquestionably the main fulfilment of this symbol; but it is almost equally clear that it had a precursive fulfilment, on a smaller scale, in the person and history of Antiochus Epiphanes.”
There have been two grand divisions of the Mohammedan horn or power — the Saracens and the Ottoman Turks. As the chronological feature covers 2300 years from some point of time in the kingdom of Persia, we should look for the fulfilment of this little horn of the East, in both these divisions. Their origin was in the East. The two were alike in their religion, both being Mohammedan — and alike also in that they both made their religion the inspiring motive of their conquests. Both were scourges of the so-called Christian nations and peoples; both waged a war for the conquest of the world, the object being to bring all mankind to embrace their religion, pay tribute, or suffer death. The first sought to obtain possession of the eastern capital, Constantinople; the second accomplished this. Both in their day desolated and trod down Jerusalem and the holy land. In the Apocalypse we have these two divisions more fully described in the fifth and the sixth trumpets. This is in harmony with the method of revelation — the later predictions always giving fuller details of the power mentioned. This is a characteristic that applies also to the vision of the little horn of the West — the later vision assisting to a clearer understanding of the one first given.
Those special features which describe the actions of the little horn come next for consideration. The first one is contained in the words: “And by him [the little horn] the daily sacrifice was taken away.” It will be noted that in our Common Version the word sacrifice is in italic, which denotes that it is not contained in the original Hebrew text. It is supplied by the translators, who seem to have thought it necessary to convey the meaning, supposing that the morning and evening Jewish sacrifice is referred to. A careful examination, however, of other Scriptures where the word “daily” is used in connection with Jewish worship, shows that the word daily represents everything in the worship of God which is not merely temporary, but permanent. The noted translator, Mr. Keil, says: “The limitation of it to the daily morning and evening service in the writings of the Rabbis is unknown in the Old Testament. The word [daily] much rather comprehends all that is of permanent use in the holy services of Divine worship.” In other words, “All that had continuance in the Mosaic worship.” See Numbers 4:16, 29:6. A word that may be supplied that gives the sense better is “service.”
The passage is rendered by the eminent translators, Hengstenberg, Havernick, Hoffman, Kranichfeld, Kliefoth, Keil, and Zockler: “And by him the daily service was taken away.” As applied to Antiochus Epiphanes as a precursive fulfilment, this feature is in full accord with history. In 1 Maccabees 1:44-50 we read:
“For the king [Antiochus] had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, that they should follow the strange laws of the land, and forbid burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings, in the temple; and that they should profane the sabbaths and festal days: That they should also leave their children uncircumcised, and make their souls abominable with all manner of uncleanness and profanation: to the end they might forget the law, and change all the ordinances. And whosoever would not do according to the commandment of the king [Antiochus], he said, he should die.”
The above quotation from the Book of Maccabees we make, not as from sacred and inspired history; nevertheless we would think reasonable that its reliability so far as historical data is concerned may be considered equal to that of other secular or profane historical accounts of those times.
As pertaining to the Christian dispensation, then, where the word “sacrifice” is not employed with it, the word “daily” would represent all the services instituted by Christ and the Apostles; indeed all that goes to make up Christian worship. It should be remembered, however, that these at the time referred to in the vision had become perverted and defiled. The taking away of these services, and the substitution of the Mohammedan religious rites in their place, was, as all students of history know, a characteristic of the Mohammedan conquests in those eastern countries. We find that in verse 12, the translators have also supplied the word “sacrifice.” Keil, De Witte, Lengerke, Havernick, Kranichfeld, and Mauver, render these words: “A host shall be given up, together with the daily service, because of transgressions.” In the explanation of these words by the angel, recorded in verse 23, it is stated that in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, this little horn power’s ravaging desolations were to meet their fulfilment. The statement is also made (verse 12) that it will be because of transgressions that this depredation is permitted.
All these features met their fulfilment in the great Mohammedan power in its conquests of Eastern Christendom. The power was given him by reason of the transgression, and by the use of this power the Mohammedan little horn sought to destroy the mighty and the holy people. Considering these statements together it is clearly implied that these mighty ones would be by profession holy ones, Christians, but from the standpoint of possession, they would be transgressors of their covenant. Thus we are enabled to understand the expression: Power shall be given him (the little horn), “by reason of transgression.” In other words this Mohammedan power became a judgment scourge. The word “woe” is the word employed to describe its doings against apostate Christendom under the fifth and sixth trumpets of the Apocalypse.
This little horn is described by the angel as “a king of fierce countenance.” The Turkman’s fierceness of countenance is proverbial. “Fierce as a Turk” is the language employed by Gibbon more than once. “The body of the Turkish nation,” he says, “still breathed the fierceness of the desert.”
In evidence of how, having waxed great even to the host of heaven, it cast the host and the stars to the ground and stamped upon them, and how by it the daily service was taken away, and the place of the Lord’s sanctuary was cast down, and how it magnified itself against the Prince of the host, and cast down the truth to the ground and practised and prospered, and caused craft to prosper in his hand, we quote from Gibbon, when describing the conquests of Soliman, one of the Turkish Sultans:
“By the choice of the Sultan Nice was preferred for his palace and fortress; … and the Divinity of Christ was denied and derided in the same temple in which it had been pronounced by the Catholics. The unity of God and the mission of Mohammed were preached in the mosques; and the Cadhis judged according to the law of the Koran. On the hard conditions of tribute and servitude, the Greek Christians might enjoy the exercise of their religion; but their most holy churches were profaned, and their priests and bishops insulted; they were compelled to suffer the triumph of the Pagans, and the apostasy of their own brethren; many thousand children were marked by the knife of circumcision, and many thousand captives devoted to the service of the pleasure of their masters.”
Mr. Elliott says:
“As to the manner in which, after a temporary disruption of the Turkish power, and then its revival under a new dynasty, the Othmanic, it not only conquered other of the [Eastern] Greek provinces, but at length destroyed the [Eastern] Greek Empire itself — ‘the mighty ones and the holy people’ … Suffice it therefore to add that the Apocalyptic pre-intimation of the cause of the Euphratean horsemen [Revelation 9] being thus let loose on Greek Christendom to destroy it, namely that of its sanctuary being polluted with transgressions, and pertinaciously unpurified and unatoned for, agrees precisely with Daniel’s intimation of the cause of the he goat’s little horn being commissioned, and receiving power against the then mighty and holy people, namely the fact of the transgressors (now their designative) having come to the full. Therefore it was that the Turk became great, like Sennacherib [see Isaiah 37:24], and not ‘by his own power — therefore that he became, according to his own self-assumed appellative, Hunkiar, the Destroyer.”
The following from the above writer, as showing the origin of this particular dynasty of Mohammedan rulers, that is, that it came out of one of the four kingdoms of the Greek Empire, is most significant:
“That famous capital of Mohammedanism, whence the Seljukian Turk first issued on his mission against Christendom, and which in their very titles has been ever since remembered by the Turkish Sultans, was not only notable for its Euphratean site, agreeable with the Apocalyptic prophecy, but also for certain remarkable local associations with earlier history, agreeably with Daniel’s. When the Caliph Almanzor, little thinking what he did, chose it for his new capital, it bore the humble name of Bagh-Dad, or Dad’s Garden; a name derived from a hermit so called, its then only inhabitant. But ruined heaps betokened that it had once been populous. And as the monk turned from those ruins to contemplate the buildings of the new rising city, like the one standing in the void between two distant ages, he might have told the Caliph that his chosen site was that of the capital of a once mighty kingdom of earlier conquerors of Asia — that there, nearly 1100 years before, Seleucia had been founded; and there for some 500 years had flourished, with all the pomp and pride of its half million and more of inhabitants; the Eastern capital of the greatest of Alexander’s four successors, Seleucus Nicator. Thus, with regard not merely to the more distant Parthian provinces of Seleucus’ ancient kingdom, where the Seljuks first formed into a little power, but also to the Seleucian capital (thenceforward the Seljuks’ religious metropolis) where they received, and whence they issued on their predicted commission against Christendom, it was out of the chief of the four horns into which the first great horn of the Macedonian he goat broke, that (‘in the latter time of the Greek Empire’) the little horn of the Turk might be said to have sprung.”
The 2300-year Cycle
“Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” (Daniel 8:13,14).
The words “how long” evidently do not have reference to the duration of the little horn’s career. This is seen from the fact that the 2300 days cannot possibly be applied either on the day for a day or the year for a day scale to any existing interpretation of the little horn. It certainly cannot be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes, the Romans, or the Mohammedan power, on either of these scales. This, of itself, should cause us to examine carefully the translation.
In the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate the words “how long” are made to signify “till when.” Mr. Elliott translates the words, “Till when shall be the vision.” The words, “concerning” and “sacrifice” are both interpolations, being supplied by the translators of our Common Version. These words omitted would make the question, “Till when shall be the vision? [till when] the daily? [till when] the desolating abomination?” Wintle translates it, “To how long, or to how distant a period will be the vision?” Mr. Elliott says, “I prefer this, ‘Till when’ to the ‘How long’ of the authorized translation as a more exact rendering of the Hebrew; and with the not unimportant difference of marking the little horn’s terminating epoch, not duration.” It will thus be seen that the 2300 days (years) have reference to the period of time covered by the entire vision, which began with the Medo-Persian Empire.
An unanswerable argument that these 2300 days are to be understood as years, is thus stated by Mr. Guinness:
“This period of 2300 years is a most exact and beautiful cycle, as was discovered by a Swiss astronomer, M. de Cheseaux, last century [the 18th]; a very wonderful cycle, and of a kind that had long been unsuccessfully sought for by astronomers; a cycle thirty times longer than the celebrated cycle of Calippus, and having an error which is only the seventeenth part of the error of that ancient cycle. It is a period as distinctively marked off as a unit of time, as is a month or a year. Yet in the days of Daniel this fact cannot of course by any possibility have been known, as there were no instruments in existence capable of measuring solar revolutions with sufficient accuracy to reveal its cyclical character.
“The selection and employment of this period consequently in this place [vision] is an unanswerable proof of the inspiration of the Book of Daniel, and was felt to be such by M. de Cheseaux when he discovered the astronomic nature of this period. It would be a million chances to one that such a cycle could have been employed by accident. If selected intentionally as a cycle, it must have been by Him who timed the movements of the sun and moon in their orbits.”
It is very evident that these 2300 years run parallel with the 2520 years of Gentile times; the date of the beginning of the 2300 years, however, being at a later period — in that of the Persian instead of the Babylonian Empire. And, as already noted, the events predicted to take place in this period are to be sought for in Eastern countries and not on the territory of Western Rome.
The Book of Daniel opens in Hebrew, but from Chapter Two, verse four, to the eighth chapter is written in Aramaic; the remainder of the book is in Hebrew. The significance of this seems to be that the marvelous visions prophetic of the “times of the Gentiles,” are given in Gentile language; while those which foretell events that are viewed more from the Jewish than from the Gentile standpoint, and have a more direct reference to the Jewish people and the Holy Land, are given in the Hebrew language. The Western Empire of Rome is alluded to in these latter visions only when the Roman power becomes an oppressor of the Jewish people.
It is necessary to bear in mind that during the past 3500 years the Lord has dealt with two distinct peoples. The first, the nation of Israel, was a typical people; their land, their sanctuary, and their worship foreshadowing things to come concerning the Church, the second class. The history of the obedient and disobedient, the faithful and the unfaithful of the two peoples, are both subjects of prophecy. Some seem to have obtained the erroneous idea that since the First Advent the Jews have no longer been dealt with as a distinct people, and that their land was lost to them forever when they rejected their Messiah. However, this is not the teaching of the Scriptures. They are to occupy that land again as their own. The long period of their dispersion amongst the Gentiles, and the condition of their land during this period, were foretold, as also their gradual return to God’s favor. We will not consider this subject here, except as the Jewish land and people are referred to in this prophecy of Daniel 8.
In our exposition thus far of this chapter we have noted the prophecy’s application to the antitypical people, the professed Christian people of Eastern lands. The Mohammedan conquests as they relate to these professed Christian lands and peoples in the East are more particularly described in the Revelation visions of Chapter Nine. Since the capture of Jerusalem by the Mohammedans in AD 637, their conquests have affected also the Jewish land and its scattered peoples. It is our thought that the eighth chapter of Daniel, indeed the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth as well, have a more important bearing upon the Jewish people and land than upon the Gentile Christian people. It is as the desolator of Jerusalem and the Holy Land that the predictions of this Mohammedan little horn have special reference. According to the prophecy it was to wax great toward the pleasant land — Palestine.
Since AD 637, when the Caliph Omar captured the city of Jerusalem and brought the land under subjection, until 1917, the Moslem power, except in one brief period in connection with the crusaders, has held possession of the Holy Land, and trodden down the Holy City, and the site of the temple or sanctuary. In 1888 Mr. Guinness said:
“Now just as the Papacy could not be developed while the emperors were ruling at Rome, so the Jews cannot be restored while the Turks are masters in Jerusalem; the one power must needs fall before the other can rise. The promised land must be free from Moslem occupation before it can revert to its lawful heirs, the seed of Abraham. Hence the Mohammedan power has a double relation: it has been, and is, the cruel foe of Christians; it has been, and is, the obstacle in the way of Israel’s restoration. Its removal, under Divine judgment, must therefore figure prominently in prophecies of Jewish restoration in the last times; just as largely as the removal of the Papal Apostasy [the Western little horn], under similar judgments, in the predictions of the deliverance of the Gentile Church, prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.
“The Moslem power has merited judgment as much as the Roman Apostasy. Its cruelties, its corruptions, its massacres, and its oppressions, its opposition to the truth, its persecutions, its wide dominion and long duration make it a marvelously suitable companion to the Papacy. But its sphere is the East, and not the West; its city is Constantinople, and not Rome; and its destruction bears a closer relation to Jewish questions than to Christian ones.”
The appellations, “daily,” “sanctuary,” “host,” and “transgression of desolation” have reference to both the typical and antitypical worship of God — more particularly in this prophecy, however, to the typical, the Jewish.
It is a matter of note that just as we find a difference in the language and historic features of the two portions of Daniel’s prophecy, we also find a difference in the chronological. The “times of the Gentiles,” are referred to as “seven times,” or 2520 years. In this eighth chapter we have a period of 2300 years mentioned. They both expire in the period of the “time of the end” at, or at least very near, the same time. The 2300 years of course begin later than the 2520 years. In the succeeding vision of the “seventy weeks” (chapter 9) we learn that the starting point of the 2300 years is some time in the reign of one of the kings of Persia. The 2300 years, then, do not begin with Nebuchadnezzar, which was the captivity era, but with the restoration era, of Ezra and Nehemiah, under Persia.
“The predicted 2300 years must consequently date from some point in the restored national existence and ritual worship of the Jews [after the return from Babylon], and they include, not only the whole of that period — the whole of the ‘seventy weeks,’ or 490 years to Messiah — but also the whole duration of the present second dispersion [since 70 AD], accompanied by a second desolation and defilement of the sanctuary [the place of the temple]. This second dispersion commenced with the fall of Jerusalem under Titus, and was completed by Hadrian, at the close of the Jewish war, AD 135. The whole period has lasted therefore, not only through nearly five centuries before Christ, but through all the eighteen centuries since; and as eighteen and five are twenty-three, must be very near its close.”
The reference to these 2300 years in the vision is not intended, we believe, so much to point out the closing year of the Age as a closing era. That closing era is several times mentioned in the prophecies of Daniel as the “time of the end,” and in the vision under consideration as “the last end of the indignation.” This point has been well illustrated by a noted writer in this way:
“Of a garden it might be said, ‘Let it lie fallow for the winter months; then shall it be cleansed and cropped.’ In the early weeks of March there might be few signs that the prediction would be fulfilled, though laborers might be digging and leveling here and there. An observer might say, ‘Spring has come, but the garden is not cleansed and cropped.’ Gradually however appearances change; plot after plot is brought into order and duly sown. Presently the seeds begin to spring, and by the end of May the garden is clad in verdure, it is cleansed and stocked. Thus the expression, ‘Unto 2300 years, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,’ seems to mean, then shall the cleansing process begin, not then shall it come to an end. Jewish restoration is going on gradually and by stages, as Jewish decline and fall did 2520 years ago, and as the former Persian restoration did 2300 years ago. The process is naturally a slow one. The once mighty Ottoman Empire could not be overthrown in a year, nor in a decade, nor in a century. Empires that spring up gourd-like in a night may perish in a night, as did the empire of Napoleon III; but in the case of mighty and extended ones, consolidated by powerful bonds and ages of duration, decay is as slow as growth. The oak, that is a century in attaining maturity, and lives for many centuries, takes centuries also to perish” (H. G. Guinness).
It is not our purpose here to call to notice the many events that have occurred in connection with the decay of the Ottoman Turkish Empire which have fulfilled this and other predictions of Mohammedan decay. These will be considered more fully in connection with our exposition of the eleventh and twelfth chapters of this prophecy, where the last days and final overthrow of the Moslem power we believe are portrayed. Suffice it here to say that within the past century there have been some remarkable events bearing upon the matter of the decline of Mohammedanism and the conclusion of the 2300 years. In the year 1844 an event occurred of vast importance in connection with the loss of power of this great empire, particularly as it related to the liberation of its Jewish and Christian subjects. It was in this year that the allied powers of Europe compelled the Turkish government to sign a declaration which was contrary to all its former claims; indeed which was in conflict with the laws of the Koran. This was that the Turkish government should cease the practice of putting apostates to death — cease persecuting on religious grounds. This was contrary to the fundamental principles of Mohammedanism, and would never have been conceded could it have longer resisted the nations that proposed to end this state of affairs. It was not without the exhibition of the utmost firmness on the part of the ambassadors that the Turkish government yielded, and signed the following declaration:
“The Sublime Porte engages to take effectual measures to prevent henceforth the execution and putting to death of the Christian who is an apostate. Hence forward neither shall Christianity be insulted in my dominions, nor shall Christians be in any way persecuted for their religion.”
This decree is dated March 21, 1844. Now note the significance:
“This date is the first of Nisan in the Jewish year, and is exactly to a day, twenty-three centuries from the first of Nisan BC 457, the day on which Ezra states that he left Babylon in compliance with the decree given in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes.”
The closing words of the revealing angel were, “Be sure the vision of the evening-morning that you were told is true; but shut up that vision, for it is far distant.” Daniel then informs us that he “fainted, and was sick for days. I afterwards arose and did the king’s business. But I was astonished at the revelation, and could not understand it” (verses 26,27, Fenton translation).
(1) The word sacrifice is not in the original text.
(1) Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation.
(2) Joseph Seiss, Voices From Babylon.