The Mark
Purpose
What mark will the Beast’s end-time followers receive? Commentators have speculated about it for centuries. After decades of study, building on others, but also going where no one else has, I think I have the answer.
In Revelation 13, we read:
And he causes all …
to be given a mark on their right hand
or on their forehead,
and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell,
except the one who has the mark,
either the name of the beast
or the number of his name. (Rev 13:16-17)
This is a fairly long article. It may be possible to follow the article by reading only the headers and the bold text in the green blocks, which are section summaries, and to only read the detailed text when more information is required.
| “The Beast” refers to the Beast from the Sea. |
There are several different beasts in Revelation (e.g., Rev 11:7; 12:3; and 17:3). “The beast” to which the mark belongs (13:17) is the Beast from the Sea. After its introduction (Rev 13:1), it is always referred to as either “the first beast” or simply “the beast” (Rev 13:12; 16:13; 13:14; 14:9, 11; 19:19-20; 20:4, 10).
| The Image of the Beast forces people to accept the Mark. |
The Beast itself is not directly involved in the end-time conflict. A second beast – the Beast that comes out of the Land – exercises all the authority of the Beast, performs great signs, and deceives the people to make an Image of the Beast, an end-time replica of the Beast. Then the Image forces everyone to receive the Mark (Rev 13:12, 13, 14, 15). [Show More]
| “All” (people) does not literally mean all. |
The Image forces “all” to receive the Mark. However, only two verses later, the 144,000 stand on Mount Zion with God’s name on their foreheads (Rev 14:1). In other words, the Image attempts but fails in marking all.
The Book of Daniel seems to describe all nations in the world, while it only describes the nations that impacted God’s Old Testament people. Similarly, we can expect the “all” in Revelation to refer only to those people who impact God’s people. In other words, the end-time crisis will be a civil war within Christianity alone.
| The Name of the Beast on the Forehead symbolizes a mind formed in Satan’s image. |
The mark is “either the name of the beast or the number of his name” (13:17) received “on their right hand or on their forehead” (13:16). However, it is not a literal name or number on literal foreheads:
The Seal of God is God’s name on the forehead (Rev 7:3-4; 14:1). Therefore, the Seal is the opposite of the Beast’s Mark. In the final conflict, people will have either the Mark or the Seal. But the Seal is also not a literal name on literal foreheads. In the New Testament, sealing generally represents the action of the Holy Spirit upon believers (Eph 1:13; 4:30). The forehead symbolizes the mind. Rev 14:4-5 explains God’s seal by describing God’s people as pure in mind. Therefore, to have God’s seal on the forehead has to do with character development. It signifies an allegiance to God that shapes a person more and more into God’s image. Such people have God’s character.
Since Beast’s Mark is the opposite of God’s Seal, to be marked on the forehead means an allegiance to the Beast that shapes a person more and more into the image of the Beast, developing Satan’s character in people’s minds.
| The Name of the Beast on the Hand means to comply without a heart and mind commitment to the Beast. |
While God’s Seal is only on the forehead (Rev 7:3-4, cf. 14:1), the Mark can be on the forehead or hand (Rev 13:16):
Since “forehead” represents the mind, the Mark or Seal on the forehead symbolizes genuine commitment, meaning to believe in the religious system and serve it with the mind and heart.
“Hand” symbolizes a person’s actions. To have the Mark of the Beast on the hand only means to comply with the demands of the Image without a heart and mind commitment to the Beast’s principles, but only to avoid the death decree and the economic boycott (Rev 13:15-17).
The Seal of God is only on the forehead, never on the hand, because God never forces people to comply with His demands.
| People without the Mark of the Beast will not be allowed to teach God’s word. |
Those who refuse the Mark will not be allowed to buy or sell (Rev 13:17). Revelation uses buying and selling as symbols. Selling means offering salvation, and buying means accepting salvation. For example:
Jesus sells refined gold and white garments (Rev 3:18), but He really offers salvation. To buy His gold and white clothes means to accept salvation.
Jesus “purchased” people with His blood, saving them (Rev 5:9). [Show More]
Consistent with this concept, the letters to the seven churches use poverty and wealth as symbols of spiritual condition. Being wealthy symbolizes being right with God; being poor means being lost. [Show More]
Therefore, in the end-time, when “no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark” (Rev 13:15), it means that those who have the Mark of the Beast will be allowed to preach God’s word. [Show More]
| The Mark is false worship: Worship other than the Creator alone. |
The key term in Revelation 13-14 is “worship:”
On the one hand, people worship the Dragon, the Beast, and its Image (Rev 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:9, 11).
On the other hand, when the three angels give their warning, they say that people must worship the Creator (Rev 14:7).
The emphasis on worship implies that the end-time battle is over worship. Since the warning to worship the Creator alone (14:7) is given while people are being forced to accept the Mark of the Beast (Rev 14:9), it is a warning against the Mark, implying that the Mark is false worship: Worship other than the Creator alone.
| The Mark contravenes the Ten Commandments. |
Since God’s people refuse the Mark of the Beast, it must be some blasphemous teaching or practice. The Mark of the Beast recalls the Ten Commandments:
Firstly, similar to the Mark, God commanded Israel to keep His commandments on their foreheads and hands (Deut 6:8; 5:7-21, Exod 20:3-17). [Show More]
Secondly, there is a strong emphasis on the Ten Commandments in the context of the Mark:
God’s people in the end-time war are those “who keep the commandments of God” (Rev 12:17).
In the context of people receiving the Mark of the Beast, the three angels describe God’s people as those “who keep the commandments of God” (Rev 14:12).
Combining the conclusions that the Mark relates to both worship and the Ten Commandments, the first four commandments regulate human relationships with their Creator. The first two particularly govern worship. Therefore, the Mark of the Beast is non-compliance with the first two commandments, either worshiping ‘other gods’ or ‘idols.’ [Show More]
| We can know what the Mark is only when we know what the Beast is. |
Since the people who do not have the Mark will be persecuted, the Mark of the Beast and the Seal of God will make a clear and visible distinction between those who are committed to God and those who are not.
Since it is the Mark of the Beast, it is something the Beast is particularly known for. For that reason, to identify the Mark, this article next identifies the Beast.
| Summary
The Beast comes out of the Sea. Its end-time followers will receive its Mark, which is the Name of the Beast, received on the right hand or forehead. However, it is not a literal name on literal foreheads. The opposite of the Mark is the Seal of God, for it is the Name of God on the forehead. While God’s seal on the forehead signifies an allegiance to God, the Beast’s mark on the forehead means a heart and mind allegiance to the Beast. Some people will have the Mark only on their hands, meaning they will comply with the Beast’s demands to avoid persecution, without a heart and mind commitment to the Beast’s principles. In the end-time crisis, only people with the Beast’s Mark will be allowed to teach God’s word. The core issue in the end-time crisis will be worship. The most important verse is 14:7, which says that only the Creator must be worshiped, implying that the Mark is worshiping anything other than the Creator alone. It contravenes the first two of the Ten Commandments, which are the worship commandments. Since the Mark is something the Beast is known for, we can know what the Mark is only when we know what the Beast is. Therefore, this article next identifies the Beast. |
The Beast
The Horn of Daniel 7
| This section shows that Revelation’s Beast is Daniel’s Horn and Revelation’s Dragon is Daniel’s 4th animal. |
The Beast, whose mark will be put on people (Rev 13:16), comes out of the sea (Rev 13:1). It looks like a Leopard, has the feet and mouth of a Bear and a Lion, and receives its power, throne, and great authority from a Dragon (Rev 13:2).
Daniel 7 describes history from ancient Babylon until Christ returns, using a series of four animals as symbols for four empires.
Ten horns grew from the fourth animal, explained as, “out of this kingdom ten kings will arise” (Dan 7:24). In other words, while each of the first three empires would be replaced by one single empire, the fourth would fragment into multiple kingdoms.
Then an 11th horn grew up, uprooting three previous horns. It was small initially, but grew bigger and eventually dominated the other horns. It blasphemes God and persecutes His people. It is the main character in Daniel 7 and will only be destroyed when Christ returns.
So, while Revelation’s Beast receives its power, throne, and great authority from the Dragon, Daniel’s 11th horn receives its existence from the 4th animal.
This section shows that Daniel 7 explains the Beast:
-
-
- Revelation’s Beast is Daniel’s 11th horn.
- Revelation’s Dragon is Daniel’s 4th animal.
-
| A) Revelation’s Dragon and Beast form part of the series of kingdoms in Daniel 7: |
The following are general indications that Revelation’s Dragon and Beast form part of the series of kingdoms in Daniel 7, and explain those kingdoms in more detail:
| (A1) As a general principle, later prophecies elaborate on earlier ones. |
Daniel 2 is the base prophecy. Daniel 7 explains it in more detail, and Daniel 8 and 11 provide still further details. Since the Book of Revelation is grounded in Daniel’s prophecies, this general principle implies that Revelation’s beasts provide more detail about the animal-empires in Daniel.
| (A2) Revelation’s Dragon and Beast have the same number of heads and horns as Daniel’s animals. |
Revelation’s Dragon and Beast each have seven heads and ten horns. The four animals in Daniel 7 have the same number of heads and horns in total: While the first three animals do not have horns, the fourth “had ten” (Dan 7:7). While the other three animals have one head each, the third animal (the Leopard) has four (Dan 7:6). So, Daniel’s four animals have seven heads and ten horns in total.
| (A3) Daniel’s animals exist at the same time as Revelation’s Dragon and Beast. |
In Daniel, the animals represent empires including ancient Babylon (Dan 2:37, 38), “Media and Persia”, and “Greece” (Dan 8:20, 21). The 11th horn of the fourth animal-empire continues to exist until Christ returns (Dan 7:26, 27). (The animals are identified below.)
In Revelation, while the Dragon is first described before Christ’s birth (Rev 12:3, 5), the Sea Beast is finally destroyed when Christ returns (Rev 19:11, 19-20). So, both groups exist from before Christ until His return.
| B) Revelation’s Beast is Daniel’s 11th horn. |
Secondly, the following specific indications identify the Beast as Daniel’s 11th horn:
| (B1) Both are the Antichrist. |
Like Daniel’s 11th horn is the main character and God’s main enemy in Daniel, the Sea Beast is the main character and God’s main enemy in Revelation. Both are described as the Antichrist. Both blaspheme God (Dan 7:8, 11, 20; Rev 13:5-6) and overpower God’s people (Dan 7:21, 25; Rev 13:7). [Show More]
| (B2) Both reign for a time, times, and half a time. |
The 11th horn persecutes God’s people for “a time, times, and half a time” (Dan 7:25). The Sea Beast persecutes for 42 months (Rev 13:5), which is the same period. [Show More]
| (B3) Both will exist until Christ returns. |
Both will only be destroyed when Christ returns (Dan 7:26, 27; Rev 19:11, 20). Specifically, therefore, both exist during the end-time crisis.
| (B4) Both exist AFTER the four animals in Daniel 7. |
Revelation’s Beast looks like a leopard, a bear, and a lion (Rev 13:2). These are explicitly three of the animals in Daniel 7 (Dan 7:5, 6, 7). Furthermore, the Beast receives its power, authority, and throne from a ‘dragon’ (Rev 13:2), which is a good name for Daniel’s fourth animal, described as:
“Dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong … It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet” (Dan 7:7).
Therefore, the Beast receives something from each of the four animal-kingdoms in Daniel 7. Consequently, similar to the 11th horn, it exists AFTER the four animal-kingdoms.
| (B5) Both continue the authority of their predecessors. |
The 11th horn grows out of the 4th animal. Daniel 7:11 describes the 11th horn but describes its destruction by saying, “the beast was slain.” It does not say that the horn was slain. In other words, the 11th horn is a continuation of the 4th animal.
The Sea Beast receives its throne, authority, and great power from the Dragon (Rev 13:2). Therefore, it also continues the authority of its predecessor.
Like Daniel’s 11th horn is the main character and God’s main enemy in Daniel, the Sea Beast is the main character and God’s main enemy in Revelation. Both are described as the Antichrist. Both blaspheme God (Dan 7:8, 11, 20; Rev 13:5-6) and overpower God’s people (Dan 7:21, 25; Rev 13:7). [Show More]
| C) Revelation’s Dragon is Daniel’s 4th animal. This confirms that the Beast is the 11th horn: |
Thirdly, the following specific indications identify the Dragon as Daniel’s 4th animal:
| (C1) Daniel’s 4th animal is described as like a dragon. |
Daniel 7 does not say what kind of animal the fourth is, but describes it as being like a dragon, namely, as “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong, and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet” (Dan 7:7). “Dragon” is a fitting name for it.
| (C2) 13:2 mentions the Dragon with three animals from Daniel 7. |
The Sea Beast receives something from each of four animals (Rev 13:2). Since the first three animals (the Lion, Bear, and Leopard) are explicitly the first three of the four animals in Daniel 7, mentioning the Dragon with them implies that it is the fourth animal of Daniel 7.
| (C3) Both Revelation’s Dragon and Daniel’s 4th animal give existence to the Antichrist. |
While Daniel’s 4th animal gives existence to the 11th horn, Revelation’s Dragon gives authority and power to the Beast (13:2). Since both Daniel’s 11th horn and Revelation’s Beast are the Antichrist, both Daniel’s 4th animal and the Dragon give existence to the Antichrist, which means that they are the same.
However, the Dragon is the 4th animal only when mentioned with the Beast. [Show More]
The identification of the Dragon as Daniel’s 4th animal confirms the identification of the Beast as Daniel’s Horn.
| Therefore, to identify the Beast, one must identify the Horn of Daniel and the animal from which it grows. |
These allusions in the description of Revelation’s Dragon and Beast to Daniel 7 are perhaps the strongest allusions to the Old Testament anywhere in the Book of Revelation. It is not a coincidence but tells us that the Dragon and Beast are part of the series of kingdoms in Daniel 7 and explain the animals, heads, and horns in Daniel 7 in more detail.
Since the Beast is the 11th horn of Daniel 7, it cannot be identified from Revelation alone. It must be identified from Daniel’s prophecies. To identify the horn requires that the animal from which it grows be identified. That is what the following sections do:
| The identification of the Horn (the Beast) begins in Daniel 2. |
The previous section showed that the Beast is the 11th horn of Daniel 7. The current section shows that Daniel 2 and 7 are parallel, which means that the identification of the Beast begins in Daniel 2.
| The vision of Daniel 2 divides history into 6 ages. |
In a dream, God gave Nebuchadnezzar a vision of the statue of a man. The different parts of the statue divide history into six ages:
It has four different metal parts (Dan 2:32-33), symbolizing four empires that will rule one after the other:
-
-
-
- Gold head
- Silver breast
- Bronze thighs
- Iron legs
-
-
Then follow the feet of iron and clay, symbolizing a “divided kingdom” (Dan 2:41), a period when multiple kingdoms exist at the same time.
In the sixth and final phase, the world will again be ruled by a single king, but it will be God’s eternal kingdom, ruled by Jesus Christ.
See here for a full discussion of Daniel 2.
| Daniel 7 describes the same six ages. |
The lion, bear, leopard, and dragon-like beast in Daniel 7 symbolize the same four successive empires as the golden head, silver chest, bronze belly, and iron legs of the statue in Daniel 2, because, IN BOTH DANIEL 2 AND 7:
1) There are four kingdoms. [Show More]
2) The four kingdoms reign one after the other. [Show More]
3) The fourth animal is called the “fourth kingdom” (Dan 2:40; 7:23).
4) The fourth kingdoms are associated with “iron” (Dan 2:40; 7:7).
5) The fifth phase is a “divided kingdom” when many kings will rule simultaneously. [Show More]
6) The fifth divided kingdom continues the fourth kingdom in a fragmented form. [Show More]
7) The Divided Kingdom ends with the Eternal Kingdom. [Show More]
| Therefore, the two chapters may be compared as follows: |
|
| Daniel 2 | Daniel 7 |
| Head of Gold | Lion |
| Silver Breast | Bear |
| Bronze Thighs | Leopard |
| Iron Legs | Fourth animal, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong. |
| Divided kingdom – Feet of Iron and Clay | 11 horns of the fourth animal |
| Eternal kingdom | Eternal kingdom |
| Daniel 2 provides a framework for interpreting Daniel’s later prophecies. |
Since Daniel 2 and 7 are parallel, describing the same empires and kingdoms with different symbols and emphases, it is implied that Daniel 8 and 11 are also parallel to Daniel 2 and 7. Therefore, the identification of the Beast, which is the 11th horn of Daniel 7, begins in Daniel 2 and continues in 7, 8, and 11.
Daniel 2 does not mention the Antichrist, who is so prominent in the later visions, but it provides a broad outline of history, from Daniel’s time until God’s eternal kingdom, which serves as the framework for interpreting Daniel’s later prophecies. [Show More]
| Daniel 2 identifies the first kingdom, the Lion of Daniel 7, as the ancient Babylonian Empire. |
Daniel 2 identifies the first kingdom (the head of gold) as the ancient Babylonian Empire (626-539 BC – Dan 2:37, 38). The parallels with Daniel 7 mean that the first empire in Daniel 7 (symbolized as a lion) also represents the Babylonian Empire. Daniel 2 does not identify any of the subsequent empires. [Show More]
| The fifth “divided kingdom” is a continuation of the fourth empire in fragmented form. |
The fifth era, symbolized as the feet with ten toes, is parallel to the ten or eleven horns in Daniel 7. It is a divided kingdom in which different kings rule different parts of the known world. Since the metal of the fourth kingdom (the iron legs) continues in the divided kingdom (Dan 2:33), the kingdoms of the fifth era are fragments of the fourth. Since the 11th horn is one of those fragments, to identify it, one must first identify the fourth empire.
| The sixth era is Christ’s eternal kingdom, which begins when Christ returns. |
In the eternal kingdom, not a trace of the current world order will be found (Dan 2:35). The stone, which destroys the statue, describing Christ’s return, becomes a great mountain, symbolizing a kingdom that “will never be destroyed” (Dan 2:44). It is the “everlasting kingdom” (Dan 7:27).
(See here for a more detailed discussion of Daniel 2.)
The Antichrist is Roman.
| To identify the Horn, one must identify the animal out of which it grows. |
Since Revelation’s Beast is the 11th horn of Daniel 7, which grows out of Daniel’s fourth animal, one must first identify that fourth animal. This section continues that quest:
Daniel 7 describes world history, from the Babylonian Empire until Christ’s return, using a series of four animals, symbolizing four successive empires, with the Antichrist growing out of the fourth, but it does not explain what these animals symbolize.
As stated, Daniel 2 identified the first as the Babylonian Empire, but none of the others.
Daniel 8 uses two animals as symbols for empires and explicitly identifies them:
-
-
-
- Ram = “Media and Persia”
- Goat = “Greece” (Dan 8:20, 21).
-
-
| Liberals claim that the Horn grows out of the Greek Empire. Conservatives think it is the Roman Empire. |
As shown by the table below, Conservatives align the Medo-Persian Ram (Dan 8) with the Bear (Dan 7) and the Grecian Goat with the Leopard. Consequently, the last empire, from which the Antichrist arises, is Roman. In contrast, Liberals (academics, critical scholars) divide the Medo-Persian Ram of Daniel 8 into two distinct empires so that it includes both the Bear and the Leopard of Daniel 7. In this way, the last empire is Greece, and the Antichrist is a Greek king:
| Conservatives | Liberals | |||
| Daniel 7 | Daniel 8 | Daniel 8 | ||
| Lion | Babylon | Babylon | ||
| Bear | Ram | Medo-Persia | Ram | Medes |
| Leopard | Goat | Greece | Persians | |
| Fourth | Rome | Goat | Greece | |
Comparison of the Animals
| This section identifies the four animals in Daniel 7 by comparing them to the two animals in Daniel 8. |
Daniel 7 and 8 describe these six animals with symbols such as heads, horns, wings, sides, ribs, teeth, etc. The analysis below compares the animals to determine which of these interpretations fits the text:
| The second animal in Daniel 7 (the Bear) is equivalent to the Medo-Persian Ram. |
The Bear of Daniel 7 is similar to the Medo-Persian Ram of Daniel 8:
The Bear is raised up on one side and has three ribs between its teeth (Dan 7:5)
The Ram has two horns—one higher than the other. The higher horn came out last. The Ram charges to West, North, and South (Dan 8:3-4)
Firstly, both the Bear and Ram are higher on one side: While the Bear is “raised up on one side” (Dan 7:5), the Ram has two horns, one longer than the other:
The two sides are the kingdoms of Media and Persia. Both the Ram’s horn that came out last but became longer than the other, and the higher side of the Bear describe the Persians. Initially, the Medes dominated Persia, but Cyrus reversed the relationship so that Persia dominated the Medes when their combined forces conquered Babylon.
Secondly, both conquer three things. While the Bear has three ribs between its teeth (Dan 7:5), the Ram charges in three directions (Dan 8:4—West, North, and South). [Show More]
Therefore, the Bear in Daniel 7 is equivalent to the Medo-Persian Ram in Daniel 8.
| The third animal in Daniel 7, the Leopard, is equivalent to the Greek Goat. |
The Leopard in Daniel 7 is similar to the Greek Goat in Daniel 8:
The Leopard has four heads and four wings (Dan 7:6).
The Goat comes from the west, not touching the ground. It has one conspicuous horn. The great horn was broken when strong and four horns came up to the four winds. (Dan 8:5, 8)
Therefore:
Both are represented as fast. The Leopard has four wings while the Goat flies. The speed of its conquests refers to the speed by which Alexander the Great conquered the known world (within 10 years).
Both consist of four parts. The Leopard has four heads, while four horns grow from the Goat’s head. The four heads and four horns symbolize the four Greek Empires that came into existence after Alexander’s death at age 33.
It follows that the Leopard is the same as the Greek Goat.
| The descriptions of the animals show that the Liberal alignment of the animals is wrong. |
In the Liberal interpretation, the Medo-Persian Ram in Daniel 8 represents both the Bear and the Leopard in Daniel 7. However, there is no agreement between the Ram and the Leopard. They clearly differ:
The Ram has two horns, which means it has two divisions (the Medes and Persians).
The Leopard has four heads, meaning four divisions.
Furthermore, in the Liberal interpretation, the fourth animal in Daniel 7 is equivalent to the Greek Goat in Daniel 8, but nothing in the descriptions of these animals implies they are the same. On the contrary, they differ clearly:
The fourth animal (Dan 7) first has ten horns. Then an 11th comes up, uprooting three of the 10 horns, leaving 8 horns.
The Goat first has only one horn and then later four. Since horns symbolize the divisions of kingdoms, the Goat and the fourth animal are not related.
| Contrary to the Liberal claim, Daniel always treats Medo-Persia as a single empire. |
As stated, to make their interpretation fit the text, Liberal scholars propose that the author of Daniel divided Medo-Persia into two empires. [Show More]
Therefore, another argument against the Liberal interpretation is that this is not correct, both historically and in Daniel:
Historically, the Persians conquered the Medes around 550 BCE, and it was the joint forces of the Medes and Persians that conquered Babylon eleven years later, with Cyrus the Great as their supreme king.
In the Book of Daniel itself, Daniel always refers to the Medes and Persians as a single entity. For example:
He prophesied that the joint forces of the Medes and the Persians would conquer Babylon (Dan 5:28).
Daniel 6:9, 13, and 16 refer to the unchangeable law of the Medes and the Persians.
He identifies the Ram as “the kings of Media and Persia” (Dan 8:20).
Furthermore, the author would be inconsistent in describing Media and Persia as a single beast in Daniel 8, but as two different beasts in Daniel 7, and as two different metals in Daniel 2.
| Therefore, the Antichrist is a fragment of the Roman Empire. |
This confirms the Conservative interpretation that the dreadful fourth animal of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire:
-
-
- Lion = Babylon
- Bear = Medo-Persian Ram
- Leopard = Greek Goat
- Dragonlike Beast = Roman Empire
-
Therefore, the ten horns that grew from the fourth animal, explained as “out of this kingdom ten kings will arise” (Dan 7:24), symbolize the kingdoms into which the Roman Empire fragmented. The first three empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece) were replaced by the next great empire, but the Roman Empire fragmented into many kingdoms.
After the first ten horns, an 11th one grew out of the 4th animal, uprooting three previous horns (Dan 7:8). It was small at first (Dan 7:8), but it grew and eventually dominates the other kingdoms (Dan 7:20). It is the main character and purpose of Daniel 7. Daniel 7 allocates more space to this 11th horn than perhaps to all four animals and ten horns put together. The only reason that Daniel describes the preceding four empires and ten kingdoms is to enable the reader to identify the 11th horn. It blasphemes God and persecutes His people (Dan 7:25), and it will only be destroyed when Christ returns. Like the other ten horns, it is a fragment of the Roman Empire.
Since Revelation’s Dragon (when mentioned with the Beast) is Daniel’s fourth animal, the Dragon also symbolizes the Roman Empire.
Since Revelation’s Beast is Daniel’s 11th horn, it is the final and most important fragment of the Roman Empire. Since it received its throne and authority from the Dragon (the Roman Empire – Rev 13:2), it is that fragment of that Empire that uniquely continued the power and authority of the Roman Empire. Although small at first, it grew in power and eventually dominated the other fragments (kingdoms), and it will only be destroyed when Christ returns! The Roman Empire is still with us!
The Antichrist is not Greek.
| The Antichrist is described in Daniel 7, 8, and 11. |
The Antichrist is symbolized by an 11th horn in Daniel 7. Daniel 8 also symbolizes it as a little horn. It blasphemes God, persecutes His people, and profanes the sanctuary for 2300 evening-mornings (Dan 8:9-14). Daniel 11 symbolizes the Antichrist as “a despicable person” (Dan 11:21).
| In the Liberal view, the Antichrist is the Greek king Antiochus IV (second century BC). |
In the Liberal (academic, or critical) view:
The fourth animal in Daniel 7 represents Alexander’s Greek empire.
The Antichrist (the 11th horn) is the Greek king Antiochus IV (second century BC), who persecuted the Jews and defiled the temple.
The preceding 10 horns are interpreted as 10 consecutive Greek kings who preceded Antiochus IV.
The 2300 “evening-mornings” are 2300 individual morning and evening sacrifices, or 1150 literal days, and describe a period during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
The sanctuary refers to the literal temple in Jerusalem that Antiochus polluted and the victorious Jewish rebels purified before January 1, 164 B.C.
The academic world does not accept the possibility of miracles, such as accurate prophecies of the future (see here). Therefore, the ‘prophecies’ of the book of Daniel have already been fulfilled and have no significance for the present day or the future. Since Daniel mentions the Greek Empire (e.g., Dan 8:21), the book must have been written after that empire already existed.
| In the Futurist view, the Antichrist is an end-time Antichrist. |
Futurists generally follow the same line of reasoning as the Preterists but regard Antiochus as a type of an end-time Antichrist who will arise in the final years of earth’s history, just before Jesus returns.
Some futurists apply the 2300 “evening-mornings” to the end time, interpreting it as literal evenings-mornings or the literal 2300 days of the end-time reign of this Antichrist. According to this interpretation, during the last seven years of Earth’s history, a literal temple (to be rebuilt in Jerusalem for the Jews) will be polluted by this Antichrist. The 2300 days come to an end when Christ returns, ends the reign of the Antichrist, and restores the temple.
| In the Historicist view, the Antichrist is the Roman Church. |
From a historicist’s perspective, which was the view of the Reformers, the Horn is the Church of the Middle Ages:
The prophecies in Daniel and Revelation outline the history of the ongoing struggle between good and evil down through the centuries, to the end of time.
The evil horn-king represents the Church of the Middle Ages.
Utilizing the year-for-a-day principle, the 2300 evening-mornings describe a period of 2300 literal years, beginning in the time of the Medo-Persian Ram and concluding after the Middle Ages, when the power of the Church to persecute God’s people was broken, with the recovery of Biblical truth after the distortions of the Middle Ages.
The purification of the sanctuary symbolizes the restoration of God’s people and their message.
These three views may be compared as follows: |
|||
| Liberal | Historicist | Futurist | |
| Little horn | Antiochus IV | Roman Church | End-time Antichrist |
| 2300 days | 1150 past days | 2300 historical years | 2300 end-time days |
| Temple | In Jerusalem | God’s people | In end-time Jerusalem |
| Cleansing | Before 164 BC | After the Middle Ages | Return of Christ |
| The following are indications in Daniel 2 and 7 that the Antichrist is not Greek. |
| (1) The 11 horns do not exist during the fourth empire but after it. |
In the Liberal view, the 11 horns are individual kings reigning DURING the fourth empire. However, as shown above, the “divided kingdom” in Daniel 2 is parallel to the 11 horns, and Daniel 2 shows that the “divided kingdom” follows AFTER the fourth empire. [Show More]
| (2) The horns do not exist one after the other; they exist concurrently. |
In the Liberal interpretation, the 11 horns reign one after the other (11 consecutive Greek kings). However, there are several indications that the horns exist at the same time. For example:
(a) Daniel saw the 11th horn among the other ten horns (Dan 7:8).
(b) The 11th horn uproots three other horns (Dan 7:8). At least those three horns must have existed simultaneously.
(c) The horns “will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another” (Dan 2:43), implying kings living concurrently.
(d) In Daniel 8, there are two animals with horns, and, in both instances, the horns represent kingdoms that exist concurrently (Dan 8:20-22):
The ram has two horns, representing the Median and the Persian branches of the Mede-Persian Empire (Dan 8:20), which existed concurrently.
The goat grows four horns, representing the four divisions of the Greek Empire, existing simultaneously.
See here for a more detailed discussion of Daniel 7.
| Liberals base their opposition to the conclusions above mostly on Daniel 8 and 11. |
Those chapters mention the same evil power as in Daniel 7, but they do not seem to mention the Roman Empire. The purpose of this section is to show that Daniel 8 does mention that empire.
| The main character in Daniel 8 is a God-opposing little horn. |
Daniel 8 does not mention the first kingdom of Daniel 7 (Babylon) or the last (eternal) kingdom. It mentions only two animals, the Medo-Persian ram and the Greek goat (Dan 8:20-21). At first, the goat has one large horn, but this horn was “broken,” and four horns, extending out to the four winds of heaven (the four compass directions), came up in its place (Dan 8:8). Commentators agree that the one large horn represents the Greek kingdom of Alexander the Great and the four horns are the four parts into which the Greek empire divided after Alexander’s death.
However, the main character in the chapter is another horn (“a little horn”). Most of Daniel 8 is devoted to this horn-king. It attacks God and His people. [Show More]
Daniel overheard two heavenly beings discussing the vision. One asked how long God’s holy place and God’s people will be trampled. The other answered that the holy place would be restored after “2300 evenings and mornings.” (Dan 8:13, 14)
| The horns in Daniel 7 and 8 describe the same God-opposing power. |
For the following reasons, commentators agree that the evil horns in Daniel 7 and 8 symbolize the same entity:
(a) The same symbol (a horn) is used for both. If a distinction had been intended, one way would have been to use a different symbol.
(b) They are described as similar. For example, both begin small and become great (Dan 7:8 and 8:9), blaspheme God (Dan 7:8, 25 and 8:11, 25), persecute God’s people (Dan 7:21, 25 and 8:11, 25), are the main characters in their visions, and are eventually destroyed (Dan 7:26 and 8:25).
(c) It is a general principle that later prophecies amplify the earlier ones. [Show More]
Above, the comparison of the animals in Daniel 7 and 8 showed that the fourth animal in Daniel 7 represents the Roman Empire, meaning that the Horn in Daniel 7 grows out of the Roman Empire. Since the Horns of Daniel 7 and 8 symbolize the same Antichrist, it follows that the Horn of Daniel 8 also grows out of the Roman Empire.
| However, Liberals interpret the phrase “out of one of them” (8:9) as ‘out of one of the Greek horns’. |
Daniel 8 symbolizes the Greek Empire as a goat (Dan 8:21). On this goat:
“There came up four conspicuous horns
toward the four winds of heaven” (Dan 8:8).
These four horns are the four empires into which the Greek empire divided after Alexander’s death (cf. Dan 8:22). Verse 9 continues:
“Out of one of them came forth a rather small horn” (Dan 8:9).
Liberals read the phrase “one of them” as saying that the small horn came out of one of the four horns. If true, then the small horn grew out of the Greek empire and is a Greek king, such as Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
| ‘One of them’ may refer to one of the four horns, or one of the four winds, or one of the ‘heavens. |
Verse 8 reads:
“There came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.” (Dan 8:8)
Therefore, “one of them” in verse 9 may refer to one of the four horns, or the four winds, or one of the heavens. (In Hebrew, “heaven” is always plural.) So, to what do the ‘one’ and ‘them’ refer?
| The genders of pronouns must agree with the genders of the nouns. |
Daniel 8 was originally written in Hebrew. [Show More]
Hebrew nouns and pronouns have genders, which disappear in English translations. Nevertheless, the genders of “one” and “them” in the phrase “one of them” must agree with the genders of the nouns they refer to. With the relevant words marked (f) for feminine or (m) for masculine, our text reads as follows:
8 … the large horn was broken; and in its place
there came up four conspicuous horns (f)
toward the four winds (f) of heaven (m).
9 Out of one (f) of them (m) came forth a rather small horn
This helps to determine out of what the little horn came:
| “Them” refers to the “heavens” because that is the only male plural in the preceding phrase. |
Not horns – Since the word ‘them’ is male in form, while the Hebrew word for ‘horn’ is always feminine, ‘them’ does not refer to the four horns. Furthermore, horns do not grow on horns. Horns grow on the heads.
Not winds – ‘Them’ also does not refer to the ‘winds’ because the word for ‘winds’ in Daniel 8:8 is written in the feminine form.
| “One” refers to “one of the winds,” meaning one of the four compass directions. |
Not one heaven – Since ‘one’ and ‘them’ have different genders, they do not have the same antecedent. Therefore, since ‘them’ refers to the heavens, ‘one’ cannot also refer to one of the ‘heavens.’
Not one horn – Both “one” and “horns” are feminine. However, since ‘them’ refers to the heavens, and since ‘heavens’ do not have horns, ‘one’ does not refer to the ‘horns.’ We do not say, ‘one of the horns of heaven.’
The only other feminine in the previous phrase is “winds.” Therefore, “one” refers to one of the “winds.”
| Conclusion: “Out of one of them” means “out of one of the winds of the heavens.” |
This means from one of the four compass directions. The immediate context confirms this conclusion. Verse 8 ended with the phrase:
“… the four winds of heaven”
Verse 9 then begins with:
“Out of one of them came …”
Therefore, these two phrases align as follows:
| Feminine | Masculine | |||
| 8:8 | There came up four horns toward | the four winds | of the heavens. | |
| 8:9 | Out of | one | of them | came forth a small horn. |
| If the Horn did not come from the Greek horns, it came from the next empire, which was the Roman Empire. |
Four horns appeared in the place of the great horn that was broken off. They extended “toward the four winds of the heavens,” that is, toward the four directions of the compass. From one of those ‘winds’ (compass directions) came the “small horn.” Therefore, it did not come from one of the Greek horns and is not of Greek origin.
Since horns grow on heads, it is the horn of some beast. Since the next empire after Greece was the Roman Empire, the Horn came from the Roman Empire.
| Liberals object that Daniel 8 does not refer to Rome. This section shows that it does. |
One objection to this interpretation is that Daniel 8 does not seem to describe another empire between the Greek Empire and the Evil Horn. So, the question arises: Where is the Roman Empire in this chapter? This is answered as follows:
| (1) The Horn is the Roman Empire. |
In the previous chapter (Daniel 7), the Horn is the continuation of the fourth animal. Therefore, the animal remains alive as long as the Horn is alive. Continuing this principle, the Horn in Daniel 8 is equivalent to the fourth beast of Daniel 7, including its most prominent horn. [Show More]
| (2) The Horn in Daniel 8 represents both Daniel’s 4th beast and its Horn. |
The horn in Daniel 8 has two phases of growth, a political and a religious phase:
Horizontal – It first grows horizontally (Dan 8:9), symbolizing the horn’s political phase. This parallels the description of the 4th beast of Daniel 7: “Devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it” (Dan 7:8, 23).
Vertical – It then grows vertically to “the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth” (Dan 8:10). It does not grow literally up to the stars. The stars symbolize God’s people, and trampling the stars symbolizes the persecution of God’s people, as also described by Daniel 7:21 and 25. [Show More]
Therefore, Daniel 8 does allow for political Rome. The first phase of growth is the 4th beast of Daniel 7. The vertical expansion is the animal’s religious phase, equivalent to the evil horn of Daniel 7.
| (3) The reduced focus on the political powers continues a trend in Daniel. |
Daniel 2 describes the entire period from the time of the Babylonian Empire to the Return of Christ without mentioning the Antichrist.
Daniel 7 also covers that entire period, but it adds the Antichrist. In fact, it is the main character in this prophecy. This chapter divides the fourth empire into a political phase, described in only two verses (Dan 7:7, 19), and a subsequent phase in which it becomes the Antichrist, described in about six verses.
Daniel 8 continues this trend:
It narrows the focus by not mentioning the first (Babylonian) or the last (eternal) kingdoms and by not explicitly mentioning the political phase of the Roman Empire. It can omit some of the details of the previous prophecies because Daniel 8 is not a stand-alone prophecy. It explains Daniel 2 and 7 in more detail. These three prophecies really are one single prophecy.
It focuses even more exclusively on the Antichrist because the Antichrist is the real purpose and focus of these prophecies. The only reason that the prophecies mention the political empires is to enable us to identify the evil anti-God power.
| Liberals emphasize Daniel 11 because it seems to identify the Antichrist as Antiochus. |
Liberal and conservative interpreters generally agree that 11:1-13 describes some key events during the transition from the Persian to the Greek empire. [Show More]
Most interpreters agree that 11:14-20 describes Antiochus III, one of the Greek kings and the father and predecessor of Antiochus IV. Daniel provides more information about Antiochus III than about any previous king. [Show More]
| Liberal or critical scholars argue as follows that the Antichrist in Daniel 11 is Antiochus IV: |
1. The emphasis on Antiochus III identifies the next king as his son Antiochus IV.
2. Antiochus IV fits the sequence of kings in Daniel 11. [Show More]
3. Antiochus IV also fits the activities of the “vile person” in the verses after Daniel 11:21. These include his double invasion of Egypt (compare Dan 11:25, 29) and the persecution of God’s people.
| Interpreters agree that the “vile person” of Daniel 11 is the same as the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and 8. |
This can be shown as follows:
(1) As a general principle, later prophecies in Daniel elaborate on the earlier ones. [Show More]
(2) The Antichrist Horn in Daniel 7 and 8 and the Vile Person in Daniel 11 do the same things. Both:
(a) Persecute God’s people (Dan 7:25; 11:32-34)
(b) For “a time, two times, and half a time” (Dan 7:25; 12:7) [Show More]
(c) Profane the temple (Dan 11:31; 8:11); [Show More]
(d) Set up “the abomination” (Dan 11:31; 8:13); [Show More]
(e) Remove the continual sacrifice (the tamid) (Dan 8:11; 11:31);
(f) Use deceit (Dan 8:25; 11:21-24); and
(g) “Magnify himself” (Dan 8:11; 11:36-37).
Therefore, since Liberal scholars identify the ‘vile person’ as Antiochus IV, they also identify the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and 8 as Antiochus IV.
| This article argues as follows against the Liberal View: |
| (1) The strong word links to Daniel 9 imply that the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is Jesus Christ. |
The “vile person” (Dan 11:21) overflowed “the arms of the flood” and broke the “prince (nagid) of the covenant” (Dan 11:22). The following words and concepts in 11:22 appear elsewhere in Daniel only in 9:24-27:
Flood – The word “flood” as a noun (Dan 9:26)
Nagid – The word ‘sar’ (translated “prince”) occurs 11 times in Daniel (Dan 8:11, 25; 9:6, 8; 10:13, 20, 21; 11:5; 12:1). But the word ‘nagid’, which is also translated as “prince,” occurs only in 11:22 and in 9:24-27, namely in “Messiah the Prince” (Dan 9:25) and in “the prince who is to come” (Dan 9:26).
Nagid killed – The nagid-prince will be “cut off” and ”broken” (Dan 9:26; 11:22).
Prince of the Covenant – The word “covenant” also occurs elsewhere in Daniel, but only in 9:24-27 and 11:22 is a prince connected with the covenant. In other words, only a nagid prince is associated with the covenant:
The nagid-prince makes strong the covenant for one week. (Dan 9:27, See here)
The nagid-prince of the covenant is broken (Dan 11:22).
Furthermore, elsewhere in Daniel, “covenant” always refers to the covenant between God and His people (Daniel 9:4; 11:28, 30, 32), implying that the covenant in Daniel 11:22 is also God’s covenant with Israel.
Based on these observations, the current article proposes that the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is the same as the Prince who makes strong the covenant in 9:27, whom this website identifies as Jesus Christ (See here). Consequently:
(A) The Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is Jesus Christ.
(B) The shattering of the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 refers to Christ’s death on the Cross, 200 years after Antiochus.
(C) Since verse 22 describes Jesus Christ, 200 years after Antiochus, the Antichrist (described as the “vile person” (11:21), who ‘broke’ the Prince of the Covenant (11:22)), cannot be Antiochus IV.
| (2) The prophecy does mention the Roman Empire. |
Liberals claim that Daniel 11 does not mention the Roman Empire. Without an intervening empire, it continues from Antiochus III to the vile person. However, the prophecy does mention the Roman Empire. These word links to Daniel 9 discussed above imply that the ‘vile person’ (11:21) is the Roman Empire:
Since 9:24-27 and 11:22 describe the same event, and since the word “flood,” as a noun, occurs only in 9:26 and 11:22, the two floods are the same. In other words, the flood that floods away another flood (11:22) is the same as the flood that destroys the city and the sanctuary (9:26), which is the Roman Empire.
| (3) The reduced emphasis on the political power is a trend moving from Daniel 2 to 7 to 8 to 11. |
As mentioned in the discussion of Daniel 8, the evil power in Daniel 8 and 11 symbolizes both the Roman Empire and its Antichrist successor. This is explained by the progression from Daniel 2 to 7 to 8, and to 11:
Daniel 2 does not mention the Antichrist at all. The focus is entirely on the political powers.
In Daniel 7, the political powers are still mentioned, but the Antichrist has become a major emphasis. It describes the fourth empire in only two verses but allows six verses for the Antichrist.
In Daniel 8, the political powers begin to fade. It mentions political Rome only indirectly in the initial horizontal expansion of the little horn (Dan 8:9), symbolizing the Antichrist phase by the subsequent vertical growth of the horn. In other words, it uses the horn-king for both the Roman Empire and its Antichrist successor.
Daniel 11 continues this pattern. It represents both the Roman Empire and the Antichrist with a single symbol: the “despicable person” (NASB). Political Rome is seen only as the flood that flows away the “overflowing forces,” and that cuts off the Prince of the Covenant (Dan 11:22). The focus is almost entirely on the Antichrist, successor of the Roman Empire.
In summary, the sole purpose of these prophecies, including the descriptions of the first four kingdoms, is to identify the Antichrist. Moving from Daniel 2 to 7 to 8 to 11, the political powers progressively fade into the background, while the focus on the Antichrist keeps increasing.
| (4) The prophecy emphasizes Antiochus III because his reign shifted the power to the next empire, Rome. |
Critical scholars argue that Daniel 11 emphasizes Antiochus III to identify the next king as Antiochus IV. In contrast, this article explains that the prophecy emphasizes Antiochus III, not to identify the next Greek king as Antiochus IV, but because his unsuccessful war against Rome was the key turning point that shifted the balance of power to the next empire, Rome:
The reign of the fourth Persian king (Xerxes) was also emphasized earlier in Daniel 11:2, not to identify the Persian king that would follow after him, but because his unsuccessful wars against Greece were a key turning point in history that shifted the balance of power from Mede-Persia to Greece. After Xerxes was mentioned in verse 2, the prophecy immediately jumps over the next 150 years, during which seven Persian kings reigned (Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Xerxes II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes Ill, Arses, and Darius III), to the first Greek emperor; Alexander the Great (Dan 11:3).
Similarly, Antiochus III is emphasized, not to identify the Greek king that would follow after him but because his unsuccessful wars against the Romans were a key turning point in history that shifted the balance of power from the Greek Empire to Rome. Consequently, Antiochus and his sons had to pay penalties to the Romans, and their empire was left subject to the growing dominance of Rome. After Antiochus III’s unsuccessful war against Rome, the prophecy jumps over the next 170 years, during which several Greek kings reigned, to the next empire (Rome).
Therefore, both the reigns of Xerxes and Antiochus III were key turning points in history that shifted the balance of power to the next empire. It is for that reason that Daniel 11 emphasizes Xerxes and Antiochus III, not to identify the next kings. Once the key turning point has been reached, the prophecy jumps over the remaining kings of the empire to the next empire. Read this way, while Daniel 11:19 describes the death of Antiochus III, Daniel 11:22 describes the death of Christ 200 years later. [Show More]
| (5) The description of the “vile person” exceeds Antiochus IV. |
The ‘vile person:
-
-
-
- Gain authority and rule through deceit (Dan 11:21),
- Distribute the plunder (Dan 11:24),
- Magnify himself above every god, and
- Has no regard for the god of his fathers nor any god (Dan 11:36-37).
-
-
None of these things was true of Antiochus. And, as all agree, the events of the “time of the end” (Dan 11:40-45) do not fit history at all. A separate article shows that Antiochus IV does not fit the profile. (see here).
As Desmond Ford noted:
“Verses 21-35 fit his (Antiochus’s) time perfectly, but let it be noted that this interpretation by no means exhausts the passage.” [Desmond Ford, Daniel and the Coming King, p 144]
While Liberals claim that Antiochus IV fits the description of the ‘vile person’ of Daniel 11, that description exceeds Antiochus IV. Antiochus IV was only a partial fulfillment of the Antichrist, a type of the ultimate fulfillment, the later and much greater Antichrist.
| (6) Jesus said that the Abomination of Desolation (Dan 11:31) describes something in the Church Age. |
Since Daniel 11 describes events chronologically and since the abomination (Dan 11:31) and the persecution of God’s people (Dan 11:32-34) are described AFTER verse 22, describing Christ’s death, the abomination and persecution do not describe Antiochus IV, 200 years before Christ. Jesus confirmed this when He put the abomination in His future:
“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet (Daniel 11:31 and 12:11), standing in the holy place …“ (Matt 24:15)
Jesus, therefore, also interpreted the “vile person” as an Antichrist that will arise AFTER His time, not as the Greek king Antiochus IV, who died about 200 years earlier.
The Eleventh Horn
| The Eleventh Horn is the Church of the Roman Empire. |
So far, this article has shown that Revelation’s Beast is the same as Daniel’s 11th horn, which symbolizes one of the kingdoms into which the Roman Empire fragmented. Daniel describes that 11th fragment as follows:
First, ten horns grew out of the Roman Empire, symbolizing the fragmentation of that Empire.
The 11th horn came up after the first ten. It was the last fragment to separate from the Roman Empire and came up by uprooting three other horns.
It was small initially, but grew in power and became larger (more powerful) than the other fragments, persecuted God’s people for a time, times, and a half, attempted to change times and laws, and will be destroyed only when Christ returns.
This article proposes that only one historical entity fits this description, namely the Church of the Roman Empire (the Roman Church), defined as follows:
The Church was divided between Arian and Nicene factions, but Arianism dominated during the first 5 centuries or more.
In the Roman Empire, the emperors decided which religions to allow. The Romans were a pagan nation, but legalized Christianity in 313. And since Christianity was divided, the emperors also decided which Christian factions to allow.
Most fourth-century emperors sided with the Arians. However, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made, through Roman Law, Nicene Christianity the sole legal or state religion of the Roman Empire, outlawing all other factions of Christianity. Through severe persecution, the Empire destroyed Arianism among the Roman people. The church organization that resulted is the ‘Roman Church.’ It was part of the Roman system of authority, with the emperor as its head.
However, the other European nations remained ‘Arian.’ In the fifth century, these nations took control of the Western Roman Empire and fragmented it into several Arian kingdoms. Daniel 7 symbolized this as ten horns growing out of the 4th animal. Now Christianity in Europe was ‘Arian’ again. The Roman Church, with its Nicene theology and hierarchy of bishops, survived as a distinct entity but was now subject to Arian rule. Two parallel hierarchies of bishops existed: Roman (Nicene) and Arian.
In the sixth century, the Eastern Emperor Justinian liberated the Roman Church from Arian domination by subjecting the three Arian nations that were the most immediate threat to it. This fulfilled the prophecy that the 11th horn would grow up later, uprooting three of the other fragments of the Roman Empire.
Justinian’s conquests began a period of about two centuries known as the Byzantine Papacy. “Byzantine Empire” is another name for the Eastern Roman Empire. During the Byzantine Papacy, the Eastern Empire ruled the West through the Roman Church. This transformed the Roman Church into a very powerful political organization. The dominance of the Eastern Empire, through the Byzantine Papacy (the Roman Church), caused the Arian kingdoms to convert to Nicene Christianity during this period.
After the Eastern Empire, in the eighth century, lost large parts of its territory to Muslim conquests, Roman influence in the West evaporated. However, the Roman Church not only survived but grew in strength to become the Church of the Middle Ages, persecuting God’s people and reigning over the kings of Europe. This is when the Horn became “larger” than the other fragments of the Roman Empire.
Therefore, “Roman Church” does not refer to Christianity in general but to that specific church organization that existed as part of the Roman Empire, survived its demise, and grew in power to become the Church of the Middle Ages.
By providing an overview of the history of Christianity, the following sections confirm this brief overview and show that the Roman Church, as defined above, fits all the characteristics of Daniel’s 11th horn and Revelation’s Beast.
The Arian Controversy
| The traditional account of that Controversy is a complete travesty. |
The fourth-century Arian Controversy was:
“The most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced” (Williams, p. 1).
“The process whereby the traditional and Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity was finally formed and established” (Hanson, p869-70).
However, RPC Hanson, perhaps the most influential 20th-century scholar on that Controversy, concluded that the traditional account of that Controversy is a complete travesty:
The “conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty.” (Hanson) [Show More]
The fundamental problem in understanding the Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the documentary evidence from this period. It was a dispute between Arians and Nicenes, which the Nicenes won. Consequently, over the many centuries, the Church copied mainly the writings of the Nicene writers. [Show More]
Therefore, when the serious study of this Controversy began in the 19th century, scholars relied mainly on the writings of Nicene writers. However, in the 20th century, scholars discovered that these ‘orthodox’ writers presented a very biased view of that Controversy. It is the history according to the winner and is fundamentally flawed. [Show More]
Therefore, the scholars of the last 50 years present the Controversy very differently. In many respects, the reality is the opposite of the traditional 19th-century version. [Show More]
Therefore, this site relies on the work of scholars from the last 50 years. [Show More]
Arianism Dominated
| This section will show that ‘Arianism’ dominated the Church during the first five centuries. |
In the traditional account of the Controversy, Nicene theology (which later evolved into today’s Trinity doctrine) was accepted orthodoxy when the Arian Controversy began, but Arius caused the 4th-century Controversy by developing a novel heresy. That is what Athanasius wrote and what many today still believe. [Show More]
In reality, ‘Arianism’ was the traditional teaching of the church and dominated at least during the first five centuries. Arius was a conservative Alexandrian. He resisted the growing trend to a ‘Nicene’ theology in Alexandria. In other words, the 4th-century Controversy continued the Controversy of the previous centuries. Therefore, this analysis begins with the history of the Controversy in the preceding centuries. [Show More]
Second Century
The Old Testament speaks of only one divine Being, but the New Testament seems to present the Son as a second divine Being. This left the Church with the task of determining how the Son relates to the Father.
Logos-Theology
| Second-century Logos Theology described the Son as a distinct Being, subordinate to the Father. |
Logos Theology dominated in the 2nd century. At the time, Greek philosophy was still highly regarded in the Roman Empire. Therefore, while the Roman Empire still persecuted Christianity, the Apologists (the pre-Nicene fathers) found it easier to explain Jesus as the Logos of Greek philosophy. Following Greek philosophy, Logos Theology maintained that the Son (the Logos) always existed as an aspect of God but became a distinct divine Being when God decided to create. Therefore, the Logos did not always exist as a distinct Being. The Logos is subordinate to the high God. Through the Logos as His agent, God created all things. Since God is invisible, all personal appearances of Yahweh in the Old Testament are really the Son of God. [Show More]
Monarchianism
| Second-century Monarchianism taught that ‘Father’ and Son’ are two names for the same Being. |
Monarchianism (also called Modalism) opposed Logos theology. It argued that Logos theology violated the monotheism of the Old Testament by an unbiblical division of God’s substance. Monarchianism claimed that the Bible teaches only one divine Being. Therefore, ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are merely two names for the same Being, and the Father died on the Cross. [Show More]
Conclusion
Therefore, in the second century, the core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Being. Logos-theology said that He is distinct and subordinate to the Father. Monarchianism claimed that the Father and Son are a single Being.
Third Century
Origen
| Origen taught three distinct divine Beings, with the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father. |
In the third century, Origen, the most influential theologian of the first three centuries, fundamentally reworked Logos-Theology and made it more consistent with the Bible. He taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct divine Persons (three hypostases), with the Son and the Spirit subordinate to the Father. (The Greek word hypostasis means an individual existence.) He rejected the idea from Logos theology that the Son previously was an aspect of God and said that the Son has always existed as a distinct Person.
Sabellius
| Sabellius explained the Father, Son, and Spirit as three distinct aspects of the one divine Person. |
A criticism against Modalism is that the Bible clearly distinguishes between the Father and the Son. Therefore, Sabellius, in the early third century, reworked Modalism to distinguish between them while still explaining them as a single Person (a single hypostasis). He distinguished between the Father, Son, and Spirit as three forms, aspects, or portions of one divine Person. He said they can be distinguished within the one God, like the body, soul, and spirit can be distinguished within one person. He used the term homoousios to explain his theory. [Show More]
Third-century Controversy
| The third-century Controversy was a dispute between the views of Origen and Sabellius. |
We see evidence of this Controversy in the struggle between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria (both called Dionysius) in the middle of the third century. A group of Sabellians in Egypt, who were under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria, used the term homoousios (same substance). The Bishop of Alexandria taught three hypostases and opposed the Sabellians and their term homoousios. The Sabellians complained to the bishop of Rome, who believed in one hypostasis and condoned the term homoousios. After the bishop of Rome put pressure on the bishop of Alexandria, the latter accepted the term homoousios, but only if understood as two distinct substances of the same kind. [Show More]
Already in the third century, this Controversy seemed to be and East/West divide:
In the West, as stated, the Bishop of Rome defended the ‘one hypostasis’ view and the term homoousios. Hanson refers to the “traditional Monarchianism” of the “Western bishops.” (Hanson, p. 272).
In the East, a council in 268 in Antioch, the main site of Eastern Christianity at the time, deposed Paul of Samosata for teaching a ‘one hypostasis’ view. The same council also condemned the use of the term homoousios, implying that Paul used this term.
Since the Church began in the East, most Christians of the first three centuries were in the East. [Show More]
Tertullian
| Tertullian also described the Son as subordinate. |
Tertullian is often claimed as an early Trinitarian. He used words that later became important in Trinitarian theology, like one substance, three Persons. However, he was a Logos theologian, which was the dominant view in his time, and, like other Logos theologians, he believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father and that there was a time when the Son did not exist, a view for which Arius was later criticized. Tertullian thought of the Son as part of the Father and, therefore, as subordinate to the Father. [Show More]
Conclusion
| Arianism dominated when the Church entered the fourth century. |
The third century continued the controversy of the second century. The views were refined, but the core issue remained whether the Son is a distinct Being (hypostasis):
Origin and his followers described the Son as distinct from and subordinate to the Father.
Sabellius and his followers maintained that the Father and Son are a single Being.
Sabellianism and the term homoousios were rejected. Both Sabellius and Paul of Samosata taught that the Father and Son are a single Being and used the term homoousios. Both were deposed, respectively, in 220 and 268. Therefore, the standard or orthodox view of the Church during the first three centuries, with which it entered the fourth century, was that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the view that is today known as ‘Arianism:’
“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” [Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.]
“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.” (Hanson, p. 64). [Show More]
This article is a Work in Progress.