Tag: Daniel 2

Posted on

The Fall of Rome shows the Book of Daniel to be true prophecy.

ABSTRACT: The Book of Daniel itself claims to have been written in the 6th century B.C. but critical scholars believe that it was written in the second century B.C. This article shows that the Fall of Rome proves Daniel to be true prophecy, for Daniel correctly predicted HOW the Roman Empire would break apart in many kingdoms in the fifth century A.D.

SUMMARY

PURPOSE

Daniel the prophetsThe Book of Daniel claims to have been written in the 6th century before Christ as a prediction of future events. Critical scholars, however, do not believe that Daniel is true prophecy. They argue that Daniel describes past history in the form of prophecy. However, that would mean that Daniel is a fraud. The purpose of the current article is to support the view that Daniel is true prophecy by showing that it correctly predicted HOW the Western Roman Empire would fall in the fifth century after Christ.

THE FALL OF ROME PREDICTED

Consider HOW Daniel predicted the Fall of Rome would occur:

The vision of Daniel 2 presents the Roman Empire as the iron legs of an image of a man, followed by “feet partly of iron and partly of clay.” The feet “will be a divided kingdom.”

Daniel 7 depicts the Roman Empire as a fourth beast that will be “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong.” “It devoured and crushed and trampled down.”  Eleven horns grow out of it.  These are eleven “kingdoms” are equivalent to the “divided kingdom” in Daniel 2.

These prophecies predict that:

      • The Roman Empire will be very cruel;
      • It will be subdivided into many kingdoms; and 
      • These kingdoms would be a continuation of the Roman Empire. 

The purpose of the current article is to show that historians confirm these three facts. 

FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

The vast Roman Empire was a unity of many different nations; enforced by violence.  The emperors and Roman aristocrats became very wealthy by looting other nations.  

DECLINE AND FALL OF ROME

It is possible to identify major milestones or events in the decline of the Roman Empire, but it is more important to identify the underlying trends. 

The first major trend was the immigration of Germanic tribes into the Empire throughout the 4th and 5th centuries.  The immigrants did not intend to destroy the Roman Empire or to replace it with something new, but to become part of it and to enjoy the benefits offered to citizens of the Roman Empire.  They sought permission to settle in Roman territory, and Imperial Authorities also granted such permission.  However, severe conditions were set for them which made them second-class citizens. 

The second major trend was that many ‘barbarians’ were recruited into the Imperial Forces.  To make things worse, the ‘barbarians’ eventually controlled the Roman military machinery.  Some of them became top generals.  Since the real power of the Empire always was its army, the top general in the Roman Army often became the emperor.  For ‘barbarians’ to become top generals, therefore, meant that ‘barbarians’ effectively became the real rulers of the Western Empire, even though they were not allowed to become emperors.  The consequence was that the emperors in the West Roman Empire in the 5th century became mere figureheads.

‘CATASTROPHIC’ FIFTH-CENTURY EVENTS

‘Barbarians’ sacked Rome in 410 and again in 455.  They deposed of the last Western Emperor in 476.  These major events did NOT CAUSE the Empire to fall or decline.  These events should rather be seen as indications of how weak the Empire has become by then.  These ‘catastrophes’ subdivided the Empire into separate political entities.  But, what really happened? 

Firstly, it was not foreign armies that sacked Rome in 410 and 455, or that deposed the last Roman Emperor in 476: It was the Gothic component of the Roman Army that revolted.

Secondly, it was the severe conditions under which the ‘barbarians’ were allowed to reside in the Empire that triggered these ‘catastrophes’. 

Thirdly, the Goths did not aim to replace the Roman Empire with something new. Their demand was to be treated as equal citizens; as part of the Empire.

Fourthly, the Empire approved the ‘Barbarian’ Rule. After Odoacer conquered Italy in 476, the Eastern Emperor Zeno granted Odoacer the title of patrician, effectively recognizing his rule as King of Italy in the name of the Eastern Empire. A few years later, Zeno appointed the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great to be king of Italy. 

The Western Roman Empire, therefore, did not come to an end in 476, when Odoacer deposed the last emperor.  Deposing the emperor was simply a formality that aligned outward form to existing reality, for the ‘barbarians’ were already in control of the Western Empire since soon after the beginning of the fifth century.  Roman power, practices, economy, and culture continued after Odoacer deposed the emperor.  Even the Roman Church, whose bishops were appointed by and accountable to the emperor, was allowed to continue to function. 

CONTINUATION OF WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE

After the ‘barbarians’ assumed control of the Western Roman Empire, there always remained a desire and pressure to reunite the empire:

In the fifth century, after the Western Roman Empire was divided into many fairly independent ‘nations’, the Roman Church played a cohesive role between the ‘barbarian’ nations and the Empire.  

In the sixth century, to strengthen the Church in Rome, and to strengthen Roman control of the Western Empire through to church, Justinian I neutralized some of the Arian ‘barbarian’ nations.  This resulted in the Byzantine Papacy; about two centuries during which the Eastern Roman Empire controlled the nations in the West through the church.

Francia at its greatest extent in 814

The Kingdom of the Franks (481–843), which at its greatest expanse covered much of the previous Western Roman Empire, actually was a continuation of the Roman Empire.  

The civilization of Medieval Europe emerged from a SYNTHESIS between the Graeco-Roman world and the Germanic civilizations penetrating the Roman Empire.

CONCLUSION

In summary, over centuries, ‘barbarians’ migrated into the Empire and were absorbed into the Empire.  Many of them were recruited into the Imperial Forces until they controlled the military machinery.  From that point forward, the ‘barbarians’ were the real rulers of the Western Empire, but they were still treated as second-class citizens. In the fifth century, they rebelled against their Roman overlords and took by force what the Empire was not willing to award them voluntarily, namely permanent residency and equal rights. 

The Western Roman Empire did not fall in the fifth century.  The ‘barbarians’ did not replace the Roman Empire with a different political system.  They did not drive the Graeco-Roman population or the Roman church out of their territories.  Their purpose was to remain part of the Empire.  What happened, in reality, was that the ‘barbarian’ immigrants wrestled control of the Empire from the original Graeco-Roman population. 

The ‘barbarians’ simply contributed to an ongoing process of transforming Roman institutions. It was a complex cultural transformation of Rome, rather than the Fall of Rome.

PROVES DANIEL AS TRUE PROPHECY

This confirms Daniel’s prophecies:

Daniel predicted that the Roman Empire will be very cruel: The vast Roman Empire was a unity of many nations, held together by violence; by military force.  “It devoured and crushed and trampled down.” 

Daniel predicted that Rome will be subdivided into several kingdoms.  It is amazing that Daniel could predict, a thousand years before it happened, that the fourth empire would not be conquered and replaced by another mighty empire, but would be subdivided.

Daniel predicted that these kingdoms would be a continuation of the Roman Empire: The substance of the Roman Empire continued in the kingdoms that arose from it; particularly in the form of The Evil Eleventh Horn.

– END OF SUMMARY –

PURPOSE

IS DANIEL A FRAUD?

The Book of Daniel itself claims that it was written in the 6th century before Christ (e.g. Dan 2:4).  It presents itself as a prediction of future events.  For example, the book explicitly refers to “the kingdom of Greece” (Dan 9:20-21; cf. 11:2), which only became a ‘world empire’ in the fourth century BC (see Alexander the Great). 

However, many, perhaps even most, theologians do not believe that God knows the future.  Many accept that God knows everything, but argue that the future does not yet exist, and is therefore not knowable.  The point is, if true prophecy does not exist, then Daniel is a fraud, for then it was written after the events it pretends to predict. 

The article Daniel is not a Fraud presents much evidence from within Daniel (internal evidence) and from outside Daniel that argues against the view that Daniel is a fraud. 

Correctly predicts the Fall of Rome

In the fifth century, the vast territory of the Western Roman Empire was divided into several independent ‘nations’, each controlled by a different ‘barbarian’ group, such as the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Alans and the Sueves, Lombard or Huns.

The purpose of the current article is to provide further evidence of the reliability of the Book of Daniel by showing that it correctly predicts HOW the Roman Empire will fall in the fifth century after Christ.  Copies of the book of Daniel are available that have been dated undeniably to the second century BC.  If Daniel correctly predicts events in the fifth century AD, then it is a true prophecy, and God does know the future.

DANIEL 2 – DIVIDED KINGDOM

The vision of Daniel 2:30-35 depicts the history of mankind using an image of a man, consisting of various metals:

Daniel explained the head of gold as the Babylonian empire (v38).  The phrase “another kingdom” in verse 39 indicates that the head of gold does not refer to King Nebuchadnezzar himself, but to his entire empire.

The other parts of the man are identified in the article series on the Prophecies of Daniel as follows:

        • The “breast and its arms of silver” represent Medo-Persia.
        • Its “belly and its thighs of bronze” represent Greece.
        • The “legs of iron” are the Roman Empire.
        • The “feet partly of iron and partly of clay” is a historical period after the Roman Empire came to an end.

All these kingdoms are destroyed by the Return of Christ (Dan 2:34, 44-45).

The important point, for the current article, is the difference between what happened after these empires:

The first three empires are replaced by the next empire.  For example, “After you there will arise another kingdom” (Dan 2:39-40).

But the fourth empire becomes divided.  The iron of the legs continues into the feet, but the feet are a mixture of iron and clay.  “It will be a divided kingdom” (Dan 2:41). “It will have in it the toughness of iron” (Dan 2:41). In other words, the nature of the Roman Empire will continue after the demise of that empire. See Daniel 2 for a more detailed discussion.

DANIEL 7 – ELEVEN HORNS 

Daniel 7 elaborates on the prophecy of Daniel 2.  It presents the same four empires, but now as beasts of prey.  We focus on the fourth beast, which is the same as the fourth metal (iron) in Daniel 2.  The fourth beast is not identified as any known animal but is described as “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong” (Dan 7:7). “It had large iron teeth” (v7), which is the same metal as the fourth empire in Daniel 2.  “It devoured and crushed and trampled down” (v7), which describes its cruel nature.

Eleven horns grow out of that fourth beast.  These are eleven “kingdoms” (Dan 7:24) into which the Roman Empire subdivides.  (See Daniel’s evil horn.)  These eleven horns are equivalent to the “divided kingdom” in Daniel 2.

These prophecies contain at least the following predictions concerning the Roman Empire:

It will be very cruel. It “devoured and crushed and trampled down.”

Second, while the previous ‘world’ empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece) were all replaced by another single large empire, but the Roman Empire will be subdivided into many empires.

Third, since the eleven horns grow out of the fourth beast, they are a continuation of that beast.

HISTORIANS CONFIRM THESE PRINCIPLES

Lately, I have been studying the development of the Trinity doctrine, from the very earliest church fathers, through the fourth, fifth, and later centuries.  In the process, I read up on the Fall of Rome, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that historians confirm the three principles above.  The purpose of the current article is to reflect on the Fall of Rome, as explained by historians.  The goal is for the reader to understand that the Empire did not really fall but simply was transformed and continued to exist even into the Middle Ages. 

For that purpose, much of the information in this article is a summary of Wikipedia’s articles about that period, particularly the articles about the Events and the Historiography of the Fall of Rome, but also a summary of many other Wikipedia articles. The Events article has an excellent animated map showing the growth and decline of the Roman Empire.  The events described by the Wikipedia articles are summarized on this website by the article on the Decline and Fall of Rome.

FALL OF ROME

ORIGINATING RATIONALE

The vast Roman Empire was a unity of many different nations.  These nations were not held together by culture or religion or economy.  It was a unity that was enforced by violence.

Rome became prosperous, not through trade or manufacturing, but by looting other nations.  The Roman Empire reached its peak in the 2nd century. There-after, when it no longer expanded, and therefore no longer was able to derive wealth from looting other nations, it started to decline.  It slowly declined over many centuries. 

IN-MIGRATION

It is possible to identify major events in its decline, but it is more important to identify the underlying trends.

The Roman Empire conquered the previous Greek (Macedonian) Empire and established an empire that was much larger than the Greek Empire. Still, there always were areas and peoples outside of the Roman Empire that it was not able or interested to conquer.

The first major trend was the migration of Germanic tribes from outside its borders into the Empire.  Historians mention the year 376 and the Crossing of the River Rhine in 406 as decisive events, but throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, in what is known as the Migration Period, large numbers of ‘barbarians’ migrated into Roman territories.  It was one of the first signs of weakness, for it means that the Empire became unable to repel invading ‘barbarians’. 

What did the immigrants want?

Henri Pirenne published the “Pirenne Thesis” in the 1920s. This thesis remains influential to this day. It holds that the Germanic ‘barbarians’ migrated into the Empire not to destroy it or to replace it with something new, but to take part in its benefits, and thus they tried to preserve the Roman way of life.

They sought permission to settle in Roman territory, and Imperial authorities also granted such permission, on certain severe conditions.  As early as 376, Emperor Valens allowed Goths to settle within the borders of the Empire.

Second Class Citizens

‘Barbarians’ were accepted into the Empire, but as second-class citizens; as cheap labor, or even as slaves.  Alaric, for example, through his siege of Rome in 408, liberated 40,000 Gothic slaves in Rome.  As another example, it was the foederati that revolted and deposed the last emperor in 476. Foederati were ‘barbarians’ whom the Roman Empire allowed to remain in the Empire in exchange for military assistance. 

There always remained friction and even hatred between the original Graeco-Roman inhabitants of the Empire and the increasingly dominant ‘barbarian’ peoples.  At times, the Graeco-Romans massacred the ‘barbarians’.  For example:

In 400, the citizens of Constantinople massacred 7000 armed Goths and as many of their people and their families as they could catch.

In 408, the western Graeco-Roman population massacred tens of thousands of wives and children of Goths serving in the Roman military.

RECRUITED INTO THE ARMED FORCES

The second major trend was that many ‘barbarians’ were recruited into the Imperial Forces.  For example, the great Roman General Stilicho urged Roman soldiers to allow their slaves to fight beside them.  And, after he defeated the Gothic invaders, he drafted 12,000 prisoners from the defeated invaders into his service.

One may speculate about the reasons for this dangerous practice, for its armed forces were the basis for the Empire’s power.  Perhaps the armed forces were insufficiently funded, and only second-class citizens, such as these ‘barbarians’, were willing to work for such low wages.  Other historians estimate that the Graeco-Roman population in the Western Empire declined, and became too small for the size of the army required by the Empire.  Therefore the Imperial Forces became dependent on the service of Goths. 

Goths became Top Generals

A related trend was that the ‘barbarians’ eventually controlled the military machinery.  They became generals and even top generals.  For example:

Gainas was a Goth but was promoted to magister militum (literally, master of the military) in the Eastern Roman Empire.  For a few months in 399, he was in control of Constantinople; the Eastern capital. 

Stilicho’s mother was Roman but his father was a Vandal cavalry officer. Nevertheless, after Theodosius died in 395, Stilicho came to be the commander-in-chief of the Roman armies in the west.  In a few years, he became the most powerful man in the Western Roman Empire. 

Alaric also was a Goth but Theodosius appointed him as leader the army’s 20,000 Gothic troops.  After Alaric became a threat to the eastern capital, the emperor appointed him as magister militum (master of the military).

Fifth Century Western Emperors were figureheads.

The real power of the Empire always was its army.  As stated, the Empire was a unity of many different nations which was enforced by violence.  Consequently, in the Roman system, the top generals often became emperors:

For example, both Constantine the Great and Theodosius, two key emperors in the fourth century, first earned their reputations as top generals. 

As another example, in 475, Orestes, the Magister militum (master of the military) in the west, drove the emperor out of Italy and proclaimed his own young son Romulus as emperor.

For ‘barbarians’ to become to top generals, therefore, was a most significant development.  It means that ‘barbarians’ have progressively become the real rulers of the Western Empire.  

Note that the examples above (Gainas, Stilicho and Alaric) are all from the few years after Theodosius’ death.  It is perhaps true to say that the ‘barbarians’ were in control of the Western Empire as from Theodosius’ death.

The consequence was that the emperors in the West Roman Empire in the 5th century became mere figureheads: The military power came to reside in the hands of ‘barbarians’, but they were not allowed to become emperor.

When Odoacer—a Germanic chieftain—deposed the last emperor in Italy (Romulus Augustus) in 476), he chose neither to assume the title of Emperor himself nor to select a puppet emperor.  This confirms that the position of Emperor in the West no more had any value.

MAJOR EVENTS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY

‘Barbarians’ sacked Rome in 410 and again in 455.  They deposed of the last Western Emperor in 476.  These major events did NOT CAUSE the Empire to fall or recline.  They should rather be seen as indications of how weak the Empire has become by then. 

Under Theodosius, the entire Roman Empire—east and west—was still controlled by a single emperor.  He died in 395.  Fifteen years later, Rome was sacked.  The decisive events of THOSE 15 YEARS WERE A TURNING POINT in the history of the Roman Empire.  But the causes of these events have existed for much longer. 

A separate article discusses the causes of the Fall of Rome.  These must include Theodosius’ decree that his two underage sons would rule the Empire after his death.  These boys were not capable of keeping the nations of the vast empire united, which was a very difficult task.

The major events of the fifth century divided the Empire up into separate political entities.  The question is, what really happened?  Did the ‘barbarians’ replace the Roman system, or did they remain part of the Roman system?  Did they seek to control the Empire or did they merely want to have equal rights with the Graeco-Roman population? 

Not Foreign Armies

Firstly, it was not foreign armies that sacked Rome in 410 and 455, or that deposed the last Roman Emperor in 476: It was a part of the Roman Army that rebelled.  It was, namely, the Goths in the Roman army that rebelled.

To become equal citizens

What triggered these decisive events? 

It was after the massacre of tens of thousands of wives and children of Goths serving in the Roman military that the Gothic soldiers defected to Alaric, and they sacked Rome in 410.

It was the foederati, under Odoacer’s leadership, that deposed the last Western Roman Emperor in 476 because they were no longer willing to suffer the harsh conditions set for them to remain in Italy. 

Furthermore, what motivated the Goths? The following are indications that the Goth rose up—not to make an end of the Roman system, but to be treated as equals with the Graeco-Roman population:

In 399, the Ostrogoths in the Eastern Empire demanded to be allowed to settle within the boundaries of the Empire.

The Visigoths laid siege to Rome in the years 408 to 410 to secure rights to settle within Roman territory.

Our second conclusion is therefore that the Goths did not aim to replace the Roman Empire with something new but to be treated as equal citizens with the Graeco-Roman population, as part of the Empire.

The Empire approved the ‘Barbarian’ Rule.

It has been traditional to refer to the year 476, when Odoacer—a ‘barbarian’ soldier and statesman—deposed the last western emperor, conquered Italy, and proclaimed himself ruler of Italy, as the Fall of Rome.  However, the following indicates that this is not an appropriate view of history:

After Odoacer conquered Italy, the Eastern Emperor Zeno granted Odoacer the title of patrician, effectively recognizing his rule as King of Italy in the name of the Eastern Empire.

Odoacer issued coins with both his image and that of the Eastern Emperor Zeno. 

In 484 Zeno appointed the Ostrogoth Theodoric the Great to be king of Italy.  Zeno, thereby, turned one troublesome, nominal vassal against another. Theodoric invaded Italy in 489 and by August 490 had captured almost the entire peninsula.

Peter Brown concluded that the Ostrogothic rulers of Italy considered themselves upholders of the Roman tradition.

JB Bury (see Odoacer) wrote that 476 stands out prominently as an important stage in the process of the division of the Empire into different parts, but that it is not more important than other similar events, such as:

The largely powerless but still influential Western Roman Senate continued to exist in the city of Rome under the rule of the Ostrogothic kingdom.

The Goths did not drive the Graeco-Roman people out from their territories.  Not did they persecute the previous citizens: The two groups existed fairly peacefully on the areas conquered by the ‘barbarians’.

The Roman Empire did not Fall.

The Western Roman Empire, therefore, did not come to an end in 476, when Odoacer deposed the last emperor.  Deposing the emperor was simply a formality that aligned outward form to existing reality, namely that the ‘barbarians’ were already in control of the Western Empire since the beginning of the fifth century.  The ‘barbarians’ were no longer scared of the Eastern Roman Empire but still submitted to it.  Roman power, practices, economy, culture, and religion continued after the emperor was deposed.  

CHURCH IN ROME

There are at least two reasons why the ‘barbarians’ should have made an end to the Church in Rome. 

Firstly, the Church was part of the State. The separation of Church and State is a modern concept. After Christianity was legalized in 313, the emperors became the real heads of the church and the church became part of the Roman Government. Bishops received their appointment and duties from the emperors and were accountable to the emperors. 

Secondly, in those years, Christology was the main controversy in the church. The Church in Rome accepted Nicene Christology but the Goths were Arian Christians.  In the fourth century, the emperors persecuted people with opposing Christological views. 

Despite these factors, when the ‘barbarians’ took control of the Western Empire, they allowed the Nicene Church in Rome (the Papacy) to continue unhindered in their areas.  One may ask why, but it is at least an indication that the ‘barbarians’ did not intend to destroy or replace the Roman system.  Rather, they continued it, and the Church in Rome was part of the system which they continued.

ROMAN EMPIRE MORPHED INTO THE MIDDLE AGES

After the ‘barbarians’ assumed control of the Western Roman Empire, there always remained a desire and pressure to reunite the empire.

The Roman Church played a cohesive role.

In the fifth century, after the Western Roman Empire was divided into many fairly independent ‘nations’, the Roman Church played a cohesive role among the ‘barbarian’ nations.  The Church was better organized than the ‘barbarian’ nations and the bishops continued to play a political role, even though they now had to depend on the Arian ‘barbarian’ nations for military protection.

In the sixth century, to strengthen the Church in Rome, Justinian I neutralized some of the Arian ‘barbarian’ nations.  This resulting in the Byzantine Papacy; about two centuries during which the Church in Rome was both protected and controlled by the Eastern Roman Empire (also called the Byzantine Empire).  To some extent, Roman control was re-established in this period, namely that the Byzantine Empire ruled the nations in the West through the church.

The Frankish Empire continued the Western Empire.

The Pirenne thesis was published in the 1920s. It remains influential to this day and has been supported by recent historians such as François Masai, Karl Ferdinand Werner, and Peter Brown.  This thesis:

Regards the rise of the Kingdom of the Franks (481–843) as a continuation of the Roman Empire.  (This empire was the largest post-Roman barbarian kingdom in Western Europe and the predecessor of the modern states of France and Germany.  The greatest expansion of the Frankish empire was secured by the early 9th century.  By this point dubbed as the Carolingian Empire.)

Validates the crowning of Charlemagne (AD 800), one of the main kings of the Franks, as the first Holy Roman Emperor as a successor of the Roman Emperors. 

Morphed into the Middle Ages

The Pirenne thesis also concludes that the Roman world underwent a gradual (though often violent) series of transformations, morphing into the medieval world.  In other words, the transformed Roman Empire continued right into the Middle Ages.

The French historian Lucien Musset argued that the civilization of Medieval Europe emerged from a SYNTHESIS between the Graeco-Roman world and the Germanic civilizations penetrating the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire did not fall or decline; it just TRANSFORMED. The same applies to the Germanic populations which invaded it.

Late Antiquity – Period of Transition

Traditionally, historians spoke of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire as the marker of the end of the Ancient Era and the beginning of the European Middle Ages.  Since historians have largely turned away from the idea that the Roman Empire fell, accepting instead Pirenne’s thesis of the CONTINUITY of the Roman Empire before and after the Germanic invasion, more recently they have defined a period which they call Late Antiquity. This is the period of transition from classical antiquity to the Middle Ages, with the roots of MEDIEVAL culture contained in Roman culture.  They see a gradual process of TRANSFORMATION, with no clear breaks, occurring over centuries. 

Brown proposed that Late Antiquity stretches more or less from the 3rd to the 8th centuries. 

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, what happened, over centuries, is that ‘barbarians’ migrated into the Empire.  They were absorbed into the Empire and its culture and many were recruited into the Imperial Forces until, eventually, they controlled the military machinery, soon after Theodosius died in 395.  From that point forward, the ‘barbarians’ were the real rulers of the Western Empire.  They were still treated as second-class citizens; often without the assurance of permanent residency. But they continued to tolerate figurehead emperors for some centuries before they deposed the last emperor in 476.  They successfully rebelled against their Roman overlords and took by force what the Empire was not willing to award them voluntarily, namely permanent residency.  This was a gradual (though often violent) process of decline over centuries. 

The ‘barbarians’ did not intend to replace the Roman Empire with different political or legal structures and they did not drive the Graeco-Roman population or the Roman church out of their territories. Their purpose was to remain part of the Empire.  The nations into which the Roman Empire was divided, continued Roman culture and economy in most parts of the former Western provinces into the 6th century and beyond (Historiography). 

The Western Roman Empire, therefore, did not fall.  What really happened was that the ‘barbarian’ immigrants wrestled control of the Empire from the original Graeco-Roman population.

Observing the cultural and archaeological continuities between the Roman Empire and the post-Roman Germanic kingdoms, Fustel de Coulanges (1875–89) argued that the ‘barbarians’ simply contributed to an ongoing process of transforming Roman institutions. (Histoire des institutions politiques de l’ancienne France)

Bowersock (2001), similarly, described the process as a complex cultural transformation, rather than a fall. (Bowersock 2001, pp. 87–122)

CONFIRM DANIEL’S PROPHECIES

Daniel describes the fourth beast as “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong.” “It devoured and crushed and trampled down” (Dan 7:7).  The Roman Empire was a unity of many nations, held together by violence; by military force.

In Daniel 2, the fourth “iron”-empire goes over into the “divided kingdom” of the feet.  In Daniel 7, eleven horns (kings – Dan 7:24) come out of the fourth empire.  “Horns” in Daniel do not represent individual kings, but empires, each consisting of a series of kings (Dan 8:20-22). (For a detailed discussion, see the article series on the prophecies of Daniel, including Daniel 2, Daniel 7, and the Evil Horn.)  The fourth empire in Daniel, therefore, subdivides into ten + one kingdoms.  (The number “ten” should be understood as “many;” not as exactly ten (cf. Dan 1:20).  The Roman Empire did divide into many different empires.  The exact number varied continually.  Since previous empires were conquered by a new empire, it remains amazing that Daniel could predict, centuries before it happened, that the fourth empire would not be conquered by another mighty empire, but that it would subdivide.

Since the eleven horns grow out of the fourth beast, they are a continuation of that beast.  Historians confirm that the Roman Empire, in reality, did not fall or decline, but continued right into the Middle Ages.  This was particularly in the form of The Evil Eleventh Horn. In Revelation that horn is the Sea Beast (Rev 13:1).  It received a deadly wound (Rev 13:3), but in the end-time, an image to the beast will be made and come alive (Rev 13:14-15).  In other words, the culture of the Roman Empire will be revived, and it will again devour and crush and trample down (Dan 7:7). 

OTHER AVAILABLE ARTICLES

Posted on

Is Daniel’s Evil Horn part of the Greek or the Roman Empires?

This article was replaced by the following series of articles:

The Metal Man of Daniel 2 divides world history into six successive ages. 

The Four Beasts of Daniel 7 represent four successive empires. The ten horns exist simultaneously; after the fourth empire.  An eleventh horn becomes more powerful than the others, blasphemes God and persecutes His people. 

The Three Alternative Interpretations of the evil eleventh horn are, (1) the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, (2) an end-time Antichrist, or (3) the Church.

A Comparison of the beasts of Daniel 7 and 8 identifies the fourth empire, from which the evil horn-king arises, is the Roman Empire.

Many centuries earlier, Daniel correctly predicted HOW the Roman Empire will fall in the fifth century after Christ

The evil horn comes “Out of One of Them” (Daniel 8). An analysis of the grammar shows that the small horn comes out of one of the winds of the heavens; not out of one of the Greek horns.

Daniel 11:22 describes the death of Jesus Christ. The abomination and the persecution of God’s people—later in that same chapter—therefore do not describe Antiochus IV.

Antiochus IV does not fit the profile.  He did not start small, expand his territory, become greater than his predecessors, use deceit, principally oppose God, introduce a strange god, kill the prince of the covenant, or reign for a time, times and half a time.

A Word copy of this article is available for download:
Daniel’s evil horn–Greek or Roman

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Purpose

2. Daniel 2; Overview

3. Daniel 7; Overview
      a The Four Kingdoms
      b The Horns
      c The Eleventh Evil Horn

4. Daniel 8
      a  The horn equivalent is to the evil horn in Daniel 7
      b  Three Interpretations of the evil horn
      c  Beasts compared
      d  Separate Mede kingdom?
      e  Darius the Mede
      f  From one from them
      g  Where is Rome in Daniel 8?

5. Daniel 11
      a  Critics’ interpretation is based on Daniel 11
      b  Daniel 11; the first 20 verses
      c  The vile person is the evil horn
      d  Prince of the covenant (11:22)
      e  Relative chronology
      f  Emphasis on Antiochus III
      g  Where is Rome in Daniel 11?
      h  Antiochus as type

6. Conclusion

PURPOSE

The Macedonian (Greek) Empire, which encompassed the nation of Israel (Judea), ruled from about 330 B.C. for nearly 300 years.  Antiochus IV was a king of this empire.  He ruled between 168 and 165 BC.  He defiled the temple in Jerusalem in the year 168 B.C. and persecuted the Jews. 

In academic circles (critics) it is believed that he was the evil king presented in the prophecies of Daniel chapters 7, 8 and 11, and that the book Daniel was compiled after Antiochus defiled the temple.  The purpose of this document is to oppose this view and to show that the evil king in the book of Daniel arises in time after Rome has become the dominant power and therefore cannot be Antiochus IV.

Academics base their view on their belief that accurate long term predictions are impossible.  Since particularly Daniel 11 depicts historical events very accurately, they conclude that the book of Daniel must have been written after these events.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and other resources prove that Daniel was written before Rome has become the dominant power.  If it can be shown that the evil king in Daniel, according to the prophecies of Daniel, arises after the Roman Empire, it also proves that the book of Daniel contains real long-range predictions.

An article has already been published on this website in which it was argued that the cutting off of the Messiah Prince of Daniel 9 refers to the death of our Creator, Jesus Christ.  Since He was killed after Rome became the dominant power, that article also proves that the book of Daniel contains real long-range predictions.

Daniel 2

This section is a summary of the article, The metal man of Daniel 2.  The vision in Daniel 2 uses the statue of a man to divide human history into six successive periods:

Its head of gold (2:32) represents the Babylonian Empire.

Its breast of silver (2:32) is “another kingdom inferior to” the Babylonian Empire (2:39), which will follow “after” the Babylonian Empire (2:39).

Its belly and thighs of bronze (2:32) is “another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth” (2:39).

Its legs of iron (2:33) is “a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces” (2:40).

Its feet partly of iron and partly of clay (2:33) is “a divided kingdom” (2:41).  Many kings will rule at the same time over different kingdoms.

“A stone was cut out without hands” (2:34).  “Without hands” means supernatural.  This stone completely evaporates the entire image.  “Not a trace of them was found” (2:35).  “But the stone … became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (2:35).  This is a “kingdom which will never be destroyed” (2:44).

Daniel 7

This section is a summary of the article The four beasts of Daniel 7.  In the vision of Daniel 7, four beasts (a lion, a bear, a leopard and a dreadful beast) come out of the sea (v3).

The sea is the people of the world, for verse 17 explains that these kings will “arise from the earth.”

Each of the four beasts is a “kingdom”, consisting of a series of kings.  For instance, verse 23 explains that the “fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth.”

These kingdoms will not reign at the same time, but—like the metal-kingdoms of Daniel 2—they will reign one after the other.  For instance, the fourth beast “was different from all the beasts that were before it” (verse 7).

The beasts are the same kingdoms as in Daniel 2, for both Daniel 2 and 7 have four successive kingdoms, followed by a divided period, followed by the eternal kingdom (2:44; 7:24-27).

The ten horns

Ten horns grow out of the fourth beast-kingdom.  These horns are the same as the divided kingdom of Daniel 2:

Both are a multitude of kings.
Both grow out of the fourth empire.
Both continue until eternal kingdom.

The following can, therefore, be concluded:

Since the divided kingdom in Daniel 2 follows after the fourth kingdom, the ten horns also follow after the end of the fourth kingdom.

Since the divided kingdom consists of many kings that reign at the same time, the ten kings also do not exist one after the other, but at the same time.

Eleventh Evil Horn

The descriptions of the beasts in Daniel 7 give additional information about the kingdoms in Daniel 2.  But the most important additional information in Daniel 7 is about an evil king that will reign during the time of the horns.  It is symbolized by an eleventh evil horn that “came up among them” and uproot three of the other horns (7:8).  It persecutes the saints, blaspheme God, and intend to change times and law (7:25).

DANIEL 8

Daniel 8 uses only two animals—a ram and a goat:

RAM:  The ram appears first in the vision, conquering to the north, west, and south (vss. 3-4).  The ram is explicitly identified as Mede-Persia (8:20).

GOAT:  The goat with its principal horn came on the scene of action next. By defeating the Persian ram it became the dominant power (vv. 5-7).  The ram is explicitly identified as Greece (8:20-21).

Daniel 8 then explains the horns:

FOUR HORNS:  The principal horn of the goat was broken and four horns, extending out to the four winds of heaven, came up in its place (vs. 8).  Commentators generally concur that these four horns are the four kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire was divided.  The interpretation of the following character is more controversial:

LITTLE HORN:  Another horn (“a little horn“) appeared on the scene.  It did not attack the other beasts or kingdoms, but was:

against God’s people, identified as “the host of the stars” (vv. to, 24).
against God’s work of redemption, described as the tamid (daily or continual) and the temple (vv. 11-12), and
against God’s principal representative: “the Prince of the host” or “the Prince of princes” (vv. 11, 25).

Daniel then heard two heavenly beings discussing the vision. One asked:

For how long is the vision concerning the [tamid], the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?

The other answered:

Unto 2300 evening-mornings, then the sanctuary shall be cleansed/restored.

Daniel 8 mentions neither the first kingdom of Daniel 7 (Babylon) nor the last (eternal) kingdom but provides additional information about the key figure—the evil horn-king.  Most of Daniel 8 is about this king.

THE HORNS ARE THE SAME

It is generally agreed that the evil horn of Daniel 8 is equivalent to the evil horn of Daniel 7, for the following reasons:

HORNS:  The same symbol (horn) is used for both.  If a historical distinction had been intended here, the best way would have been to use a different symbol.

ACTIONS:  They do the same things.  Both begin small and become great (7:8 and 8:9); both are blasphemous powers (7:8, 25 and 8:11, 25); both persecute the saints of God (7:21, 25 and 8:11, 25); for both a period of time is described (7:25 and 8:14); both are the last in a series of symbols and they eventually suffer similar fates (7:26 and 8:25).

AMPLIFY:  Virtually all commentators accept that, in the book of Daniel, the later prophecies amplify the earlier ones.  For instance, the four empires of Daniel 2 were repeated in Daniel 7, with additional information.  Additional details are given about them and their divisions, in particular through the use of horns to represent their major divisions.  The book itself also mentions this principle at least twice.  In 9:22-23 Gabriel says that he came to give Daniel an understanding of “the vision”, which would be the vision in the previous chapter.  In Daniel 10-12 Daniel receives a “message” (10:1).  The purpose of the message was to explain the “vision” (10:1, 14).  This therefore also refers to the vision in Daniel 8, as that is the last “vision” in the book of Daniel.  The later chapters all explain that vision.  If this principle is applied to Daniel 8, the vision of Daniel 8 becomes an amplification of the vision of chapter 7.

THE EVIL HORN: THREE INTERPRETATIONS

The key character in Daniel 8:9-14 is a little horn that blasphemes God and persecutes His people.   Commentators have applied the preterist, futurist, and historicist schools of prophetic interpretation in their attempt to identify this little evil horn, its period of 2300 evening-mornings and the sanctuary which it will profane:

Preterists are committed to the view that the majority of the prophecies of the book of Daniel have already been fulfilled and, therefore, have no significance for the present day. Thus they hold that the little evil horn rose from one of the divisions of Alexander’s empire. They conclude that the activities of the little horn unmistakably point to Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  They have proposed that the 2300 “evening-mornings” should be interpreted as 2300 individual morning and evening sacrifices, or 1150 literal days. These should be applied to events in the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century B.C.  Preterists claim the sanctuary refers to the temple in Jerusalem which was polluted by Antiochus and later purified by the victorious Jewish rebels.  The purification was completed before January 1, 164 B.C.

Futurists generally follow this line of interpretation also.  In addition, they see Antiochus as a type of an end-time antichrist who is to arise in the final years of earth’s history before Christ’s Second Advent.  As a type of the work of the final antichrist, some futurists have applied the “evening-mornings” as literal evenings and mornings, or 2300 days, which they claim have not yet begun because of the final manifestation of an antichrist belongs to the future.  During the final seven years of earth’s history, a literal temple (to be rebuilt in Jerusalem for the Jews) will be polluted by an antichrist.  The temple will be restored when Christ comes and puts an end to the reign of the antichrist.

Historicists declare that the prophecies in Daniel portray an outline of history and the story of the on-going struggle between good and evil down to the end of time. Since a flow of history appears to be involved here, especially when Daniel 8 is compared with Daniel 7, the historicist holds that the little horn represents Rome—in its papal phase (the Roman Church).  Utilizing the day-for-a-year principle, historicists have held that the 2300 evening-mornings refer to a period of 2300 literal years, commencing with the Persian Ram and concluding with the recovery of the message of the Bible after the distortion of the Middle Ages.  The purification of the sanctuary is interpreted symbolically as the restoration of God’s people and/or their message—of which the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary in ancient Israel on the Day of Atonement was a symbol.

These three views on the interpretation of the various elements in Daniel 8:9-14 may be summarized as follows:

Element Preterlst Historicist Futurist
1. Little horn Antiochus IV Roman Church Future Antichrist
2. 2300 days Literal days 1150 past 2300 years Literal future 2300 days
3. Temple In Jerusalem God’s people To be re-erected
4. Cleansing Before 164 BC God’s people/message Return of Christ

To evaluate these views, the kingdom from which this horn arises must be identified:

BEASTS COMPARED

Historicists and futurists (conservatives) align the beasts of Daniel 7 as follows to the symbols of Daniel 8 and 2:

Daniel 2

Gold

Silver

Brass

Iron

Daniel 7

Lion

Bear

Leopard

Dreadful beast

Daniel 8

  

Ram (Mede-Persia)

Goat (Greece)

  

If this is correct, and the bear is Mede-Persia and the Leopard is the Greek empire, then the Dreadful Beast must represent Rome, because that was the next empire in history. Then the little horn comes about in the Roman period.

The Preterist School, which is essentially comprised of critical scholars, effectively read Daniel backward.  They first identify the “despicable” of Daniel 11 (v21) as Antiochus IV.  Then, since the evil horns of Daniel 7 and 8 are the same as the “despicable” (as we agree), they identify the evil horns of Daniel 7 and 8 also as Antiochus IV.  But since Antiochus was a Greek king, this means that the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7 (the dreadful beast) must be the Greek Empire.  But then the question is: What are the Bear and Leopard kingdoms between the Babylonian and Greek empires?  To solve this problem Critics split the Mede-Persian Empire into two separate empires and align the symbols as follows:

Daniel 2

Gold

Silver

Brass

Iron

Daniel 7

Lion

Bear

Leopard

Dreadful Beast

Daniel 8

Ram (Medes)

Ram (Persia)

Goat (Greece)

In this schema, the Ram of Daniel 8 is equal to both the Bear and the Leopard of Daniel 7, and the Goat of Daniel 8 is equivalent to the Dreadful Beast of Daniel 7.  One way to determine which schema best fits the text of Daniel is to compare the descriptions of the animals in Daniel 7 and Daniel 8.

Firstly, contrary to the proposal by the critics, the Ram and the Leopard do not appear similar.  Consider their descriptions:

Leopard

Ram

Four wings (v6);
Four heads (v6);

Two horns—one higher (v3);
Higher horn came out last (v3);
Charges to West, North and South (v4);

The Ram has two horns while the Leopard has four heads.  The heads and horns seem to indicate the divisions of the kingdom.  The Ram and the Leopard, therefore, do not seem to be related.

Secondly, also contrary to the proposal by the critics, the Goat and the Dreadful Beast do not appear similar.  Consider their descriptions:

Dreadful Beast Goat
Terrible & very strong (v7);
Iron teeth (v7);
Bronze claws (v19);
It devoured; broke in pieces (v7);
Stamped residue with its feet (v7);
Different from the other beasts (v7);
Ten horns (v7);		 From the west (v5);
Not touching the ground (v5);
One conspicuous horn (v5);
Great horn broken when strong (v8);
Four horns to the four winds (v8)

The Goat has one horn at first and then later four.  The Dreadful Beast first has 10 horns, and then an 11th comes up which “pluck out” three of the ten horns by their “roots”, leaving 8 horns.  Since horns symbolize the divisions of these kingdoms, the Goat and the Dreadful Beast are not related.

Thirdly, consistent with the conservative view, the Ram and the Bear are similar in appearance: 

TWO SIDES: For both their two sides are emphasized, with one side higher than the other.  The Bear is “raised up on one side” (7:5) while the Ram has two horns; one being longer than the other.

CONQUERED THREE: Both conquered three others:  The Bear has three ribs between its teeth (7:5).  Since animals are used as symbols for kingdoms, the ribs represent the kingdoms or territory conquered.  The Ram pushes in three directions (8:4—West, North and South).

This implies that the Ram and the Bear represent the same empire.  The Ram is explicitly identified as “the kings of Media and Persia” (8:20).  Its two disproportionate horns are specifically identified as the kings of Media and Persia (vs. 20), expressing the same duality that is found in the bear.  The two horns of the ram and the two sides of the bear symbolize the composite nature of the kingdom formed by a fusion of the Medes and Persians.  The longer horn that came out last and the higher side of the bear refers to the Persians.  Initially, Medes dominated Persia, but Cyrus reversed the relationship so that Persia dominated the Medes when their combined forces conquered Babylon.

The Medes and Persians are of the same race (Iranians).  Their kingdom expanded from the East towards Babylon and Judea.  The three ribs in the Bear’s mouth and the three directions in which the Ram pushes (West, North and South) may reasonably be taken as representing the three major conquests of the combined forces of the Medes and Persians in the sixth century BC: Lydia in the north in 547, Babylon in the west in 539, and Egypt in the south in 525.

Fourthly and lastly, consistent with the conservative view, the Goat and the Leopard are similar in appearance:

FAST: Both are represented as very fast.  The Leopard has four wings while the Goat flies.

FOUR: Both consist of four parts.  The Leopard has four heads, while four horns grow from the Goat’s head.

This implies that the Goat and the Leopard represent the same empire.  The Ram is explicitly identified as “the kingdom of Greece” (8:21), or the Macedonian Empire as it is known.  The speed of its quests refers to the speed by which Alexander the Great conquered the known world—within 10 years—and the four heads and four horns symbolize the four Greek Empires that came into being after Alexander’s death at the age of 33.

Conclusion

The comparison of the characteristics of the animals, therefore, does not support the preterist view but supports the conservative interpretation, which identifies the third as the Greek Empire and the Fourth as the Roman Empire.  On the basis that the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 refer to the same historical entity—as argued above, it follows that the horn comes out of Rome.  It cannot be Antiochus IV.

MEDIA AND PERSIA

One can also evaluate the validity of the critics’ separation of the Medes and Persians into two separate empires.  Critics propose that the author of Daniel inserted the Medes as a separate empire because of the predictions in Isaiah and Jeremiah that Babylon would fall to the Medes.  They consequently propose that, according to Daniel, the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell to the Medes under “Darius the Mede” (5:30-31; 6:28), preceding the reign of the Persian king, Cyrus the Great (10:1).

Historically this would be wrong.  The Medes were conquered about 550 BCE by the Persians.  It was the joint forces of the Persians and the Medes that conquered Babylon eleven years later, with Cyrus the Great as their supreme king.

It is also not consistent with Daniel.  Daniel’s author consistently viewed the Medes and Persians as a single entity, as indicated by the following:

FORCES: Daniel prophesied that Babylon would be conquered by the joint forces of the Medes and the Persians (5:28).

LAW: Daniel 6:9, 13 and 16 refers to the unchangeable law of the Medes and the Persians.

RAM: The ram is identified as “the kings of Media and Persia” (8:20).

MEDES: Daniel never refers to a separate Median kingdom.  He only refers to a person (Darius) as a Mede, but within the context of the Persian Empire (compare 10:1 to 11:1-2).

CONFLICT: There is no indication in Daniel of a conflict between the Medes and the Persians which resulted in the dominance of Persia.

Furthermore, the author would be inconsistent to describe both Media and Persia by a single beast in Daniel 8, but as two different beasts in Daniel 7 and as two different metals in Daniel 2.

DARIUS THE MEDE

Critics argue that the author of Daniel committed a historical blunder when he referred to Darius the Mede in 5:31-6:28 and 9:1. The argument runs as follows:

Although no such figure is known from history, Daniel’s reference to him thereby allowed for a separate Median kingdom between the Neo-Babylonian rulers, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, on the one hand, and the Persian king, Cyrus, on the other.

In a separate article on this website it is argued that Darius might have been the throne name for Ugbaru (Greek Gobryas), the general who conquered Babylon for Cyrus, and who was appointed by Cyrus as king over the “kingdom of the Chaldeans” (9:1)—one of the kingdoms in the Persian Empire—but who died three weeks after the conquest of Babylon.  He ruled only for one week, which explains why archaeologists have not yet found him in recorded history.

FROM ONE FROM THEM (Daniel 8)

Critics argue that 8:8-9 confirms that the little horn comes from one of the four Greek horns, and must, therefore, be a Greek king, like Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  

Nouns and pronouns in Hebrew have genders which require agreement.  The last phrase in 8:8, together with the beginning of 8:9, which specifies where the horn came from, with the relevant words marked (f) for feminine or (m) for masculine, reads as follows:

… the great horn was broken; for it came up four notable ones (horns (f) NASB) toward the four (f) winds (f) of heaven (m).  And out of one (f) of them (m) came forth a little horn (KJV)

To understand where the little horn comes from, we need to understand what the words “one” and “them” refer to:

The “them” in 8:9 must agree in gender and number with its antecedent (the previously mentioned noun to which it refers).  The word “them” in 8:9 is masculine plural and the only masculine plural in the previous verse is “heaven”.  (“Heaven” is always plural [heavens] in biblical Hebrew.  The Hebrew word for “horn” is always feminine.  The word for “winds” is written in 8:8 as a feminine plural.)

The numeral “one” is feminine in form.  Firstly, it, therefore, does not have the same antecedent as the word “them”.  The first and second nouns must be different.  It, therefore, cannot refer to “one” of the heavens.  Secondly, the “one” can either refer to one of the horns or to one of the winds.  (The word “winds” means the four directions of the compass.)  Putting the above together, the phrase “out of one of them” can therefore either mean:

      1. Out of one of the horns of the heavens, or
      2. Out of one of the winds (compass directions) of the heavens

These options satisfy the gender requirements.  However, the first option is not acceptable because heavens do not have horns and horns nowhere else in Daniel come out of horns.  Since “the four winds of heaven” is the last phrase in verse 8, the second option is preferred.  The first phrase of 8:9 lines up as follows with the last phrase of 8:8:

  Feminine Masculine  
8:8 there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of the heavens  
8:9 from the one from them came forth a rather small horn

To summarize, verse 8 states that four horns appeared in the place of the great horn that was broken.  They extended “toward the four winds of the heavens.”  Verse 9 begins by saying that the little horn came from one of these four winds of the heavens, that is, from one of the directions of the compass.  It, therefore, did not come from one of the Greek horns and is therefore not Greek in origin.

WHERE IS ROME IN DANIEL 8?

Critics challenge the conservative interpretation by asking: Where Rome is in Daniel 8?  Daniel 8 does not seem to describe another empire between the Greek Empire and the evil horn. 

Firstly, one needs to understand that Daniel 7 did not present the little horn as an entirely new entity, but as a continuation of the beast.  The beast remains alive as long as the horn is alive:

Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire. (7:11)

The beast and its dreadful horn are therefore described by Daniel 7 as a single entity.

Secondly, Daniel 8 does allow for political Rome.  The growth of the horn in Daniel 8, as described in verses 9 to 11, consists of two phases.  The first phase is horizontal growth:

a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land. (8:9)

The second phase is vertical growth:

It grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host, and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down. (8:10-11)

The horn does not literally grow up to the stars.  The stars are symbols of God’s people, and the trampling of the stars is the same as the persecution of God’s people described by Daniel 7 (7:21, 25).  The Commander of the host is God—“Him who lives forever” (12:7).

The horizontal expansion of the horn is its political phase, and parallels the fourth beast of Daniel 7 when it “devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it” (7:8, 23).  The vertical expansion is the horn’s religious phase, parallel to the evil horn of Daniel 7.  Daniel 8, therefore, merges the beast and its prominent horn into a single symbol—the horn.

This may be explained as follows:  Daniel 2 does not mention any anti-God activities, but Daniel 7 divides the fourth empire into a political phase, described in two verses (7:7, 19), and a subsequent phase during which an anti-God power will reign, described in about six verses.  Daniel 8 includes both phases under the symbolism an evil horn.  This indicates that religious power is more important than the political power from which it came.  In fact, that religious power is more important than all four political empires.  The prophecies only mention the political empires to enable us to identify the evil anti-God power.

INTERPRETATION BASED ON DANIEL 11

The vision in Daniel 10-12 is important because, as mentioned above, critics actually derive the Antiochus-interpretation (the Maccabean thesis) from this vision, and then apply this interpretation to the earlier chapters.  As one critic wrote:

Daniel was written during the period of the Maccabees, in the middle of the 2nd century B.C., or about 400 years after the events it describes.  Its origin is betrayed in chapter 11, when Daniel supposedly prophesies about the future.

DANIEL 11; FIRST 20 VERSES

There are no animals in the vision in Daniel 10-12.  The Persian kingdom is identified by name (11:2), but none of the later kingdoms or kings is named.  Instead, the names “king of the south” and “king of the north” are used; each for an entire kingdom consisting of a whole series of kings.  The reader has to identify the relevant king by comparing the events described by the prophecy with actual history.

While many prophetic details in Daniel 11 are difficult to interpret, interpreters are in general agreement in interpreting verses 1- 13:

Verse 2 predicts four more Persian kings, and that the fourth will attack Greece.  This was the Persian king Xerxes.  By virtue of his failed attack on the Greeks, he brought the Greek nation onto the ‘world’ scene.

Then verse 3 jumps 150 years over the remaining Persian kings to the first Greek king—the “mighty king” (Alexander the Great) (11:3).

Verse 4 refers to the four divisions into which Alexander’s kingdom was divided after his death.

Under the names “king of the north” and “king of the south” verse 5 onwards describes the two divisions of Alexander’s empire that were threats to Judea.  The “king of the north” was the series of Seleucid kings of the Middle East and the “king of the south” refers to the series of Ptolemaic kings of Egypt.  From verse 5 to 13, the Ptolemies and Seleucids follow in an order that can be determined with reasonable certainty down to the Seleucid Antiochus III.

Beginning with the troublesome reference to the “breakers of your people” in verse 14, however, interpretations diverge.  Critics agree that verses 14 to 19 describe Antiochus III.  To quote a critical scholar:

Daniel 11:2-20 is a very accurate & historically corroborated sequence of events from the third year (10:1) of the Persian era up to the predecessor of Antiochus IV: some 366 years!  Only the names and dates are missing.  Most of the details are about the conflicts between the kings of the South (the Ptolemies of Egypt) and the kings of the North (the Seleucids of Mesopotamia/ Syria).  The Seleucids are shown to become stronger and stronger (despite some setbacks) …  Of course, Jerusalem was in the middle and changed hand (197, from Egypt to Syria).

THE VILE PERSON IS THE HORN

The remainder of Daniel 11 describes the activities of a “vile person” (KJV; 11:21).  It is generally agreed that this “vile person” is the same as the horn of Daniel 8 and Daniel 7, argued as follows:

ELABORATE:  As argued above, the later prophecies in Daniel elaborate on the earlier prophecies.  Therefore, in chapter 11, where we no longer have beasts and horns representing kingdoms and their division, but rather a series of selected individual kings who ruled those kingdoms, it is still the same kingdoms.

PERSECUTION:  Both the horn and the vile person persecutes God’s people (7:25; 11:32-34);

3½ TIMES:  Both the horn and the vile person persecutes God’s people for a period of 3½ times (7:25; 12:7).  (The persecution by the vile person is described in 11:32-34, but when Daniel asked “How long shall it be?” (12:6), the answer is given “it would be for a time, two times, and half a time; and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be accomplished” (12:7).  This verse is not entirely clear, but it seems to say that the prophetic period “a time, two times, and half a time“, —a total of 3½ times—is the period of persecution for the holy people.  Since this question-and-answer dialogue comes at the end of the prophecy of Daniel 11·12, it relates to the previously mentioned persecution, which is the persecution in 11:32-34.

These 3½ times of Daniel 12:7 also occur in the Aramaic portion of Daniel—in Daniel 7:25—where it is also a time of persecution for the saints of the Most High, namely by the little horn.)

ABOMINATION: Both set up “the abomination (transgression/sin) that makes desolate” (11:31; 8:13).  (An abomination is a sin.  In Deut. 7:25 “graven images of their gods” are called “an abomination to the LORD your God”.) Both of these expressions tie in with the tamid (continual) in their respective contexts (compare 11:31 with 8:11-12).

TEMPLE:  The vile person profanes the strong temple (11:31), which is equivalent to the casting down of the place of the temple of the prince of the host by the horn in 8:11. 

TAMID:  Both remove the continual (tamid) (8:11; 11:31).

DECEIT:  Both work through deceit (8:25; 11:21-24) and both “magnify himself” (8:11; 11:36-37).

Daniel 11, therefore, covers the same ground as Daniel 8, and provides additional information for the interpretation of Daniel 8, and therefore also for the question of whether the little horn of Daniel 8 is Roman or Greek.

11:22; PRINCE OF THE COVENANT

The following is a rather literal translation of verse 22:

the arms of the flood are overflowed from before him, and are broken; and also the leader (nagid; prince–NASB) of the covenant (berit) (11:22; YLT)

The text presents a picture of inferior forces (“the arms of the flood“) being overwhelmed and defeated by the superior forces of the vile person. The lesser flood was to be flooded by an even greater flood of arms.

This verse is related to the prophecy of the death of Jesus Christ in Daniel 9:24-27, in a number of ways:

FLOOD: The word “flood” as a noun occurs only twice in Daniel—in 9:26 (“Its end shall come with the flood, and to the end there shall be war“) and 11:22.

NAGID:  The word ‘sar’ (translated “prince”) occurs 11 times in Daniel in various chapters (8:11, 25; 9:6, 8; 10:13, 20 [twice], 21; 11:5; 12:1), but the word ‘nagid’, which is also translated “prince” occurs only in 11:22 and in the prophecy of 9:24-27. In the prophecy of 9:24-27 it occurs first with the Messiah in verse 25 and then again alone in verse 26, where it refers to the prince “who is to come“.  The implication is that the “Messiah the Prince” (9:25), the “prince who is to come” (9:26) and “the prince of the covenant” (11:22) refer to the same individual—the Messiah Prince; Christ in His earthly incarnate state.

CUT OFF: In both 9:24-27 and 11:22 the nagid will be destroyed.  He is “cut off” (9:26) and ”broken” (11:22).

BERIT: The word berit (covenant) occurs in both passages.  Berit also occurs elsewhere in Daniel, but a prince is connected with the covenant only in these two passages.  In other words, only the nagid-prince is connected with the covenant.  In 9:26-27 it is the nagid who makes strong the covenant for one week. (See article on Daniel 9.)  In 11:22 the nagid of the covenant is broken.  “Covenant” elsewhere in Daniel always refers to the covenant between God and His people (9:4; 11:28, 30, 32).

It is therefore concluded that the nagid in these two passages is the same individual, that the flood in the two passages refers to the same power and that the two passages refer to the same events.  Since 9:24-27 refers to the death of Jesus Christ in the first century AD, the prophecy of Daniel 9 is fulfilled in the Roman period.  The same must, therefore, apply to 11:22.

Since the events in Daniel 11 are given in their chronological order, everything that follows after verse 22 must be sought sometime after the first century AD.  Just how long afterward is immaterial at this point since we are only concerned here with the question whether the evil horn is Roman or Greek. 

In particular, the setting up of the abomination (11:31) and the persecution of God’s people (11:32-34) follows after 11:22, and therefore somewhere after the crucifixion of Jesus.  This was confirmed by Jesus when He said:

Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), (Mat 24:15)

This phrase “abomination of desolation” comes from Daniel 11:31 and 12:11.  Jesus therefore also interpreted the vile person not as the Greek king Antiochus IV between 168 and 165 BC, but as an anti-God ruler that will arise later.

RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

We are now able to establish a relative chronology between Daniel 11 and the earlier prophecies:

Daniel 11

Dan. 9

Dan. 8

Dan. 7
Persian kings (v2) Persian decree (v25) Persian ram (v2-4) Persian bear (v5)
Greek king (v3)   Greek goat (v5-7) Greek leopard (v6a)
Kings of North and South   Four horns (v8) Leopard’s four heads
Roman flood breaks Nagid of covenant (v22) Nagid cut off (v 25-27) Horizontal expansion (8:9) Fourth beast (v8, 23)
Vile person: profanes temple, set up abomination (v31), persecute for 3½ times (v32-34; 12:7)   Little horn: casts temple down, removes daily, the transgression of desolation (v8-13) Little horn: persecute God’s people for 3½ limes;  (v25)

ANTIOCHUS III

Daniel 11 is quite brief about the earlier kings, but provides much detail about Antiochus III; the father and predecessor of Antiochus IV.  Critics argue that this emphasis on Antiochus III is a clear indication that the prophecy of the vile person points to Antiochus IV.

To this we respond as follows:  the fourth Persian king (Xerxes) was also highlighted earlier in Daniel 11 (v2), not to identify the Persian king that would follow him, but because his unsuccessful wars against Greece was a key turning point in history that shifted the balance of power in the known world from Mede-Persia to Greece.

In the same way, Antiochus III’s unsuccessful war against the Romans, which is described in Daniel 11, was the key turning point that shifted the balance of power from the Greek Empire to Rome.  As a result, he and his sons had to pay penalties to the Romans and were left subject to the growing dominance of Rome. 

This explains the significant attention to Antiochus III in Daniel 11.  It was for the same reason that Xerxes was emphasized in 11:2.  The purpose was not to identify the king that follow after Antiochus III, but rather that his reign was the key turning point for the shift in dominance from the Greek to the Roman Empires.

WHERE IS ROME IN DANIEL 11?

But the critics ask: Where is the Roman Empire in Daniel 11?  Daniel 11 seems to continue, without an intervening empire, from the Greek Empire (Antiochus III) to the vile person. 

To respond, we again refer to the key turning points, which shift the balance of power in favor of the next empire.  It is proposed, as a principle, that Daniel’s prophecies, once the key turning point has been reached, do not mention the previous empire anymore, and jump right over the remaining kings to the next empire.

This is best explained by means of an example.  It was mentioned above that Xerxes’ war against the Greeks was a key turning point in history.  He is mentioned in verse 2.  Then the prophecy 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 (11:3).

It is proposed that this principle equally applies to the shift from the Greek to the Roman empires.  Antiochus III’s war against Rome was another key turning point in history.  Then the prophecy jumps over the next 170, during which several Greek kings reigned, to the next empire (Rome).

This principle is also visible in Daniel 7 and 8.  The vision is Daniel 7 mentions Babylon, but the vision in Daniel 8, which was received only two years later (7:1; 8:1) does not.  It is proposed that the reason is that the key turning point, that shifted the balance of world power from Babylon to Mede-Persia, was between these two dates.  In this case Babylon was not involved.  In this case, the war between the Medes and the Persians, which resulted in the prophesied Cyrus becoming supreme ruler of the Medes and the Persians, was the key turning point.

Applying this principle makes it quite possible to interpret 11:19 as a description of the death of Antiochus III and 11:22 as a description of the death of Christ 200 years later in the first century AD. 

Where is Rome?  Similar to Daniel 8 the vile person serves as a symbol for both the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7 (Rome) and the evil horn that arise from or after it:

Daniel 7 describes a fourth empire, followed by a ruler that wants to exterminate God’s people and God’s message.  But even in Daniel 7, the emphasis is on this anti-God ruler.  Daniel 7 describes the fourth empire in only two verses but allows 6 verses for the evil horn.

Daniel 8 does not mention the Roman Empire directly, but only indirectly and in only a single verse (8:9).  It uses the same symbol for both the Roman Empire and worldwide anti-God ruler; namely, the little horn that first expands horizontally (politically) and then vertically (religious growth).  Nearly all the attention is on the religious phase. 

Daniel 11 continues this trend by representing both the Roman Empire and the anti-God ruler as a single symbol; the despicable person.  Political Rome is only seen as the flood that flows away the “overflowing forces” and also flows away the “prince of the covenant” (11:22).  By far most of the description in Daniel 11 is about the subsequent anti-God king.

As mentioned before, the sole purpose of these prophecies and the first four kingdoms is to locate to the worldwide anti-God ruler.  This is the reason for the ever reducing emphasis of the political phase of the fourth empire and an increasing emphasis on its religious phase.

DANIEL 11; ANTIOCHUS AS TYPE

But the critics are still not convinced.  They correctly argue that Antiochus IV fits the sequence of kings in Daniel 11:

Studies by the current author (comparing Daniel 11 to the history of the Seleucids kings as it is available on the internet) have confirmed this.  It confirmed the majority interpretation up to 11:19, where Antiochus III dies.  The description of the vile person starts in 11:21.  Therefore, if 11:20 describes Seleucus IV (not Heliodorus), then Antiochus IV fits the sequence of kings. 

Critics also correctly argue that the history of Antiochus IV, such as the double invasion of Egypt (11:25, 29), and the persecution of God’s people, fits the descriptions of the “vile person” in the verses after 11:21 quite well.

For critics, these are conclusive evidence that the vile person is Antiochus IV, and not the Roman Empire or some later ruler.

In response, it is very important to realize that the description of the “vile person” exceeds Antiochus IV.  For instance, Antiochus never gained authority or ruled through deceit (v21).  He did not distribute the plunder (v24).  He did not magnify himself above every god or not have regard for the god of his fathers, nor have regard for any god (v36-37).  And, as all agree, the events of the “time of the end” (v40-45) do not fit history at all.  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 (p 144; Daniel and the coming King).

Daniel 11 may, therefore, be understood as two stories intertwined.  The text describes the history up to and including Antiochus IV, but while discussing Antiochus IV it jumps to a future and worldwide evil king.  This also happens in Joel, where the prophet describes a local locust plague, but then suddenly jumps to the day of the Lord.  Isaiah 14 jumps from the king of Babylon to Lucifer, with no interruption (14:4, 12).  Ezekiel 28 jumps from the king of Tyre (v12) to an “anointed cherub who covers” (v14).  It is also similar to Matthew 24, where Jesus combined the description of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the end of the world.

The first story starts with the time of Persia and continues until Antiochus IV under the symbolism of the vile person.  The second is the story of a later worldwide evil king, also with the vile person as a symbol, and continues until Michael stands up (12:1-3).

Understood this way, Antiochus IV is only a partial fulfillment of Daniel 11, to be followed by the final and fuller fulfillment by a much later and much larger anti-God ruler, in the same way as John the Baptist was the first representation of Elijah to come.  Understood in this way Antiochus IV serves as a type of the later anti-God ruler.

The vile person is, therefore, a double merge.  It merges the Roman Empire and its anti-God successor into a single symbol, but then also merges Antiochus IV into this symbol.

Why would God do this?  It is possible that God also reflected the events of Antiochus IV in Daniel 11 so that when the Jews see these events fulfilled in Antiochus IV they would accept the book as inspired and expect the coming of the Messiah as predicted in Daniel 9. 

CONCLUSION

The Critical View

Critics do not accept the possibility that the minutely accurate descriptions in Daniel of historical events up to the time of Antiochus IV could have been written in the sixth century BC.  They assume that these descriptions were written after the fact in the form of prophecies.

But since the New Testament refers a number of times to the book of Daniel, and since it takes a long time for a book to become accepted as inspired Scripture, the book of Daniel must have been written centuries before the NT.

Antiochus IV fit the sequence of kings and the activities of the evil king in Daniel 11 quite well.  Critics, therefore, propose that the book of Daniel was written in the time of Antiochus IV, that it was written in response to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV, and that the evil king in Daniel represents this Antiochus.  Therefore Daniel would have been written approximately two centuries before the NT.

With this as the accepted view, critics have to interpret the prophecies accordingly.  To fit this view to Daniel 11, critics explain the prince of the covenant in 11:22 as the high priest Onias.  He was killed in the time on Antiochus.  But to fit this view to Daniel 2 and 7 is more difficult. To do that critics have a rather forced interpretation of the prophecy of those chapters.

Daniel 7

This document has provided proof that the forced interpretation of Daniel 2 and 7 is incorrect:

By comparing the beasts of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8, it has been shown that the fourth empire of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire.  Consequently, the evil horn comes out of the Roman Empire, and cannot represent the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Critics propose that the horns are individual kings of the fourth kingdom.  But it has been shown above, mostly on the basis of Daniel 2, that the horn-kings of the fourth beast in Daniel 7 rule after the fourth empire.

Critics propose that the author of Daniel split the Mede-Persian Empire into two empires, but it was shown above that the author of Daniel consistently treated the Mede-Persian Empire as a single empire.

Daniel 8

It has also been shown above that Daniel 8 does align well to the logical interpretation of Daniel 7:

Critics propose that 8:8-9 indicates that the little horn in Daniel 8 comes out of one of the Greek horns.  However, the antecedents of the pronouns in Daniel 8:8-9 indicate that the little horn comes out of one of the four directions of the compass, not from one of the four Greek horns, and is therefore not Greek.

Critics argue that the evil little horn in Daniel 8 is mentioned immediately after the Greek horns, with no intermediate empire.  However, it has been shown above that the little horn in Daniel 8 first grows horizontally, which is equivalent to the political phase of the fourth empire.  The horn of Daniel 8, therefore, represents both the fourth kingdom and the horn of Daniel 7. 

Daniel 11

Conservatives base their interpretation mostly on Daniel 7 and 8, and often find it very difficult to explain Daniel 11.  The approach adopted in this document is as follows:

The linguistic links between Daniel 9:24-27 and 11:22 imply that the breaking of the prince of the covenant in 11:22 refers to the death of Jesus Christ in the first century AD.  Therefore the flood that shatters the nagid-prince of the covenant in 11:22 (and destroys the city and the sanctuary in 9:26) is the Roman Empire.

This means that the anti-temple activities and the persecution of God’s people later in Daniel 11 must occur some historical time after Christ’s death, and therefore during or after the Roman period.

In response to the criticism of this interpretation this article further argues as follows:

Daniel 11 emphasizes Antiochus III because of his unsuccessful war against the Romans was the critical turning point that shifted the balance of power in the known world from the Greeks to the Romans.

Although Antiochus IV fits the sequence of kings in Daniel 11, Daniel 11:19-22 can be interpreted as a jump from Antiochus III to the Roman Empire because, as soon as a key turning point in history has been reached, the prophecies jump to the next empire.

The evil horn-king is the main purpose and main player in these prophecies, and in Daniel 11 the symbol of the evil king includes the fourth kingdom, symbolized by the flood (11:22). 

The history of Antiochus IV is reflected in the prophecies of Daniel, but Antiochus does not exhaust the prophecies.  The prophecies of Daniel simultaneously predict the persecutions of Antiochus and a much larger and much later anti-God ruler that will arise after the time of the Roman Empire.

For a more specific identification of the evil horn-king, please read the article on the Seven-Headed Beasts of Revelation.

God is in control

This document, therefore, supports the view that the book of Daniel was written before the time of Antiochus IV, and that the prophecies are real predictions of future events.  God is in control of history:

there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days (2:28).

the Most High God is ruler over the realm of mankind and that He sets over it whomever He wishes (5:21)

Proudly powered by WordPress