Search
  • seventhdaypioneerm

The DAILY of Daniel 8, 11, & 12

THE DAILY of DANIEL 8, 11 & 12

“The Daily” is mentioned in five verses of the Bible, all found in the book of Daniel.

(a) 8:11 Yea, he magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

(b) 8:12 And an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.

(c) 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [saint] which spake, How long [shall be] the vision [concerning] the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

(d) 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily [sacrifice], and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

(e) 12:11 And from the time [that] the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, [there shall be] a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

1. Who is the “HE”, “HIM” and “HIS” of verse 11?

2. Who is the “prince of the host”?

3. What is the Daily [sacrifice] that was “taken away”

4. What is “the place of his sanctuary” that “was cast down”?

1. Who is the “HE”, “HIM” and “HIS” of verse 11?

The “HE” of verse 11 is referring to the little horn of verse 9:

verse 8: Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

verse 9: And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

The He goat is identified in Daniel 8 as the kingdom of Grecia v 21. The kingdom of Alexander the Great was resolved into four kingdoms (“four notable ones” - four horns stood up) when Alexander died. As noted previously, Horns represent kingdoms in prophecy.

The little horn which came out of one of the four winds (directions of the compass and not out of one of the four horns) is the power which followed Grecia and that power is ROME. The book of Daniel outlines the kingdoms of this world repetitiously in chapters 2, 7, 8 and 11 adding more detail to the prophecy as one progresses from chapter 2 to 11

DANIEL 2

BABYLON (GOLD)

MEDO-PERSIA (SILVER)

GRECIA (BRASS)

ROME (IRON)

DANIEL 7

BABYLON (LION)

MEDO-PERSIA (BEAR)

GRECIA (LEOPARD)

ROME (4TH BEAST)

DANIEL 8

BABYLON CEASED

MEDO-PERSIA (RAM)

GRECIA ( HE-GOAT)

ROME (LITTLE HORN)

DANIEL 11

BABYLON CEASED

MEDO-PERSIA

GRECIA

ROME (KING OF THE NORTH)

Daniel 8:8-13, which describe the little horn, have unusual gender changes. Nouns (words for objects) in Hebrew have grammatical gender (they are considered to be either masculine (m), feminine (f), or neuter (m or f)). It is a rule in the many languages that use grammatical gender, that the pronouns (words standing for something) must agree with their antecedent nouns (the thing they stand for) in being similarly masculine, feminine, or neuter. e.g. in English we think of a ship (the noun) as feminine and must refer to a ship with the feminine pronoun 'she' and 'her.'

In this passage in Hebrew the pronouns for the little horn alternate back and forth from masculine (m) to feminine (f). It appears that as the little horn represents Rome in both its Pagan & Papal phases in verses 9-12, Daniel, through an inspired use of gender, distinguishes between those things done by Pagan Rome versus those by Papal Rome. In verses 9-12 he appears to use the masculine pronouns for Pagan Rome and the feminine for Papal Rome. The gender of the various words will be indicated by (f), or (m).

verse 8: Therefore the he goat [Kingdom of Grecia - see Daniel 8:21] waxed very great [greater in extent than Medo-Persia. cf. v4]: and when he was strong [at the height of his power], the great horn (f) was broken [Alexander the Great died]; and for it came up four notable ones (f) [four horns] toward the four winds [(m) or (f) usually feminine. [Four winds - the four points of the compass] of heaven [Alexander’s Empire was divided into four territories. cf. Dan 7:6; 11:4].

verse 9: And out of one (f) of them (m) [Out of one of the four winds. In the phrase “out of one of them,” the pronoun “them” is masculine and goes with “winds” which is masculine or feminine but it does not go with “horns” which are feminine. This means that “out of one of them (m)” must refer to the “winds” and not the “horns.” However “one” (Heb. Achath) is feminine suggesting “horns” as the antecendant. Achath could, of course refer back to “winds” which occurs most frequently in the feminine. But it would be unusual for the writer to assign two different genders to the same noun in such close grammatical relationship.

The fact remains that the genders certainly allow for the view that the little horn arose from the winds. See SDABC, Vol. 4, p 840-841]

came forth [Heb. Yatsa, went forth, proceeded. See Strong’s. The word describes the little horns expansion in contrast to the normal word for a horn simply growing in place, Heb. Alah, used in Dan 8:3, 8. This word Yatsa is used five times for military movements (Deut 20:1; 1 Chron 5:18; 20:1; Prov 30:27; Amos 5:3) or for a king moving with his army (1Sam 8:20; 2Chron 1:10)] a little horn, [Horns = kingdoms (See note Dan 8:20, 22)

The “HE” of Daniel 8:11 is therefore the little horn, which was first made mention of in Daniel 7 and that power is ROME.

The Little horn (Rome) which succeeded Grecia arose from the western direction (one of the four winds) of the four points of the compass and not from one of the four horns of Alexander’s kingdom as some suggest in order to try and justify Antiochus Epiphanes being the little horn. See Study on Revelation 13 regarding the little horn.

“The field of Daniel’s prophecy embraces five universal kingdoms. These are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia and Rome, and the eternal kingdom of God. The ground of the four perishable kingdoms, reaching to, and introducing the immortal kingdom, is covered by four distinct lines of prophecy. These are given in chapters two, seven, eight and eleven. The eleventh chapter of Daniel closes with the close of the fourth monarchy with these words: [Dan. 11:45 and 12:1-3 quoted] “The student of prophecy is thus borne down the stream of time from Babylon in the height of the glory of that kingdom, past Media and Persia, the kingdom of Grecia, and the Roman empire which comes to its end at the second coming of Christ”. James White R&H 29.11.1877

Who is the Prince of the Host? - Jesus.

Picture

The prince of the host is the “Prince of princes” (cf. Daniel 8:25), a term similar to the “Lord of lords” (Ps 136:3) and the “King of kings” (Rev 19:16). Joshua 5:14, margin shows the Prince of the host is the Lord. Pagan Rome crucified Christ.

What was the daily [sacrifice] that was taken away?

and by him (m) [or as the margin reads, “from him”, i.e. from Pagan Rome] the daily [Heb. tamid - “continual” Tamid is used frequently in reference to the things of the sanctuary. “Continual burnt offering,” (Num 28:3) “continual bread” (Num 4:7 etc.). However, tamid is also used in reference to evil, “upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually (tamid)?” Nah 3:19. “...thine enemies...those that rise up against thee increaseth continually (tamid).” Ps 74:23. “...saith the LORD; ...my name continually (tamid) every day [is] blasphemed.” Isa 52:15. “] sacrifice [Note: The word “sacrifice” is in italics in the K.J.V showing that it has been added by the translators and is not in the Hebrew. The R.V. renders it “the continual burnt offering.” but “burnt offering” is also not in the text. The literal reading is simply “the continual.”] was taken away.

"ruwm" means to "take up", "lift up", "exalt", "held up"

Picture

The words “taken away” is a mistranslation. The Hebrew word translated “taken away” is the word “ruwm” which means to “set up”, “to lift up”, “taken up, lifted up”. In every other instance where Daniel used “ruwm” it clearly meant, and has been translated, “lifted up,” “exalt,” & “held up” (e.g. Dan 11:12, 36; 12:7).

Strongs Concordance 07311 Mwr ruwm {room}

a primitive root; TWOT - 2133; v

AV - (lift, hold, etc...) up 63, exalt 47, high 25, offer 13, give 5, heave 3, extol 3, lofty 3, take 3, tall 3, higher 2, misc 24; 194

1) to rise, rise up, be high, be lofty, be exalted

1a) (Qal)

1a1) to be high, be set on high

1a2) to be raised, be uplifted, be exalted

1a3) to be lifted, rise

1b) (Polel)

1b1) to raise or rear (children), cause to grow up

1b2) to lift up, raise, exalt

1b3) to exalt, extol

1c) (Polal) to be lifted up

1d) (Hiphil)

1d1) to raise, lift, lift up, take up, set up, erect, exalt, set on high

1d2) to lift up (and take away), remove

1d3) to lift off and present, contribute, offer, contribute

1e) (Hophal) to be taken off, be abolished

1f) (Hithpolel) to exalt oneself, magnify oneself

2) (Qal) to be rotten, be wormy

Daniel 11:31 & 12:11 speak of the taking away of the daily but those texts use the Hebrew word “suwr” which literally means “taken away”. Apparently the translators decided to equate ruwm with suwr.

Therefore what we have thus far is this - the little horn, Rome, stood up to the prince of princes (crucified Christ) and FROM Rome, the daily [this thing called the continual] was taken up, lifted up, to take up, held up or exalted. Thus Daniel 8:11 looks something like this:

What is the place of his sanctuary that was cast down? Whose sanctuary was it that was cast down? ROME's “...and the place” [Heb. ‘makown.’ In the seventeen OT instances makown is translated as “place (14)”, “habitation (2)” and “foundations (1).

Solomon said of the earthly sanctuary “I have built an exalted house for You and a place (makown) for You to dwell forever.” 2 Chron 6:2. Again in Exo 15:17 it speaks of “...the place (makon) You have made O Lord for Your dwelling, the sanctuary, O Lord, Your hands have prepared.” Makown is equated again with dwelling and sanctuary.

The translators of the K.J.V. were on sure ground when they translated makown as “place.”] of his (m) [Pagan Rome’s] sanctuary

THE SANCTUARY WHOSE PLACE WAS CAST DOWN

“Sanctuary,” here is from the Hebrew miqdash which can refer to a pagan sanctuary. According to Strong’s Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary it means “A consecrated thing or place ...whether of Jehovah or of idols.” e.g. Moab’s sanctuary (Isa 16:12) Tyre’s sanctuary (Eze 28:18).

This sanctuary, whose place was cast down, is NOT the sanctuary (Heb. quodesh) to be cleansed in Daniel 8:13-14. The Hebrew word quodesh ALWAYS refers to God’s true sanctuary. By using different words in such close proximity, Daniel clearly wanted us to understand that the sanctuary of Daniel 8:11 was not the sanctuary of Daniel 8:13-14. As the sanctuary of Daniel 8:13-14 is Christ’s sanctuary, evidently the sanctuary of Daniel 8:11 belongs to another. As the little horn (Rome) and Christ are the only possible owners, it must be Rome’s.

Perhaps Rome’s most famous temple or sanctuary would be the Pantheon. The name signifies “the temple or asylum of all the gods.” The idols of the nations conquered by the Romans were sacredly deposited in some niche or apartment of this temple, and in many cases became objects of worship by the Romans themselves. This temple of paganism would be well described as “his sanctuary.”

"the place of his sanctuary was cast down"

The “place” (Heb. makon, “location”) of this sanctuary is the city of Rome which was cast down.

"was cast down [Heb. shalak. AV - cast 77, cast out 15, cast away 11, cast down 11, cast forth 4, cast off 2, adventured 1, hurl 1, misc 3; 125” Strong’s Concordance.

The city of Rome, the place or habitation of pagan Rome's sanctuary, was cast away, or given up, when Emperor Constantine “abandoned Rome” (Croley, p 207-208) and shifted the capital to Constantinople in 330 AD. Without a strong ruler in Rome the Papacy slowly rose to prominence and the Pope ascended to the seat of Caesar and seized the scepter.

In Daniel 7:9 THRONES were “cast down” (placed) for those who were to preside in the judgement. Here Rome, the SEAT of the beast was “cast down” prior to presiding in its own judgment. The Dragon (Pagan Rome) had given the Beast his power, SEAT (place from which he ruled, i.e. Rome) and great authority (Rev.13:2)

HEAVEN CAST DOWN?

Some believe that the sanctuary (miqdash) whose place was cast down (v 11) is God’s heavenly sanctuary. In order to avoid the implication that the little horn cast down the place or location of the heavenly sanctuary, that is heaven itself, they clam that makown here means “basis” rather than “place or location.” They appeal to the three instances where makown could possibly be translated “foundation,” Ps. 89:14; 97:2 & 104:5 and then claim foundation = basis. It is suggested that in all three instances and in all O.T instances "makown" consistently means habitation or place.

Rome was given up by the emperor Constantine when he moved his abode to Constantinople. But what of THE DAILY, the continual? There are three views as to what constitutes THE DAILY.

THREE VIEWS on THE DAILY - 1. The Antiochus View

1. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES & THE JEWISH SACRIFICES

Many have taught that the “daily” refers exclusively to the sacrifices offered in the Temple in Jerusalem. Some who hold this view apply the taking away of the “daily” to the interruption of the Temple services for several years by Antiochus Epiphanes. They claim that sacrifices were stopped for 2300 days (Dan 8:14) and that the cleansing of the sanctuary referred to the rededication of the sanctuary and the resumption of the sacrifices by the Jews at the end of the 2300 days. Josephus seems to have held this view.

There are serious problems with this view:

1. The taking away cannot be what Antiochus did because the taking away of the daily was done by the little horn and Antiochus was not the little horn. (See proof later).

2. The word sacrifice is not in the original text indicating that the daily is not the sacrifices of the Jews.

3. The Hebrew word “ruwn” translated “taken away” in Dan 8:11, means “take up” or “exalt” As Antiochus did not take up or exalt the Jews sacrifices, the Jews sacrifices cannot be the “daily.”

4. Two prophetic periods, the 1290 days and 1335 days begin (Dan 12:11-12) from the time that the daily was taken away. Those who hold that the taking away of the daily referred to the taking away of the daily sacrifices of the Jews are at a loss to satisfactorily explain these two periods as well as the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14.

5. 490 years were cut off these 2300 days. (See notes on Dan 9:24). As Antiochus did not stop the Jews’ sacrifices for even 2300 days, the taking away of the daily cannot refer to his 3 year interruption of the Jew sacrifices.

6. History shows that Antiochus did not stop the sacrifices for 2300 days, not even 1200 days. The most nearly contemporary account, in Maccabees 1:54; 4:52-54, is very precise in stating that Antiochus interrupted the temple services for three years and ten days (from Chislev 15, 168, to Chislev 25, 165), which is way short of 2300 days.

2300 DAYS OR 1150 DAYS?

In an effort to reduce the 2300 days to 1150, which is nearer the time that Antiochus stopped the Jew’s sacrifices the following reasoning has been employed:

They claim that the 2300 evening mornings referred to 2300 ‘sacrifices,’ one in the morning and one in the evening of each day, thus 2300 sacrifices would occur in only 1150 days. It is then alleged that Antiochus stopped the Jews’ daily sacrifices 1150 days.

However, the 2300 days (literally evening mornings) cannot be referring to sacrifices as the sacrifices were never referred to as “evening & morning” in the Bible. The sacrifices are ALWAYS called “morning & evening” sacrifices (Exo 29:38-39).

Furthermore the Bible always refers to the morning evening sacrifices as a unit. It is a singular and continual “burnt offering,” not plural “offerings” cf. Num 28:3-6. This means that even if the evening morning were actually morning evening sacrifices, 2300 of them would mean 2300 days.

Furthermore the word “sacrifices” is not in the text. The taking away of the “daily” was not the taking away of the Jewish sacrifices. The little horn is Papal Rome and it took away the “daily.” As there were no sacrifices during the history of the Papacy it is clear that the daily cannot be referring to sacrifices.

The literal Hebrew of Dan 8:14 is “2300 ereb boqer” - “2300 evening morning.” In Genesis 1 we have the exact same words, “ereb boqer” - “evening morning” refer to the full days of creation. Thus 2300 “evening mornings” is 2300 days.

Conclusion: The actions of Antiochus Epiphanes were not the taking away of the daily and THE DAILY is not the sacrifices of the Jews.

ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES NOT THE LITTLE HORN.

Many claim that Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) was the little horn. Antiochus was one of the Seleucid kings who reigned for 12 years (174-163/163 BC.) He came to power unexpectedly. A son of Seleucus IV, Philopater should have succeeded to the rule after his father’s assassination by the courtier Heliodorus. However, aided by the armies of Pergamos, the king’s brother, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), came to the throne. Some see Antiochus’ unexpected rise to power in the word, “but not by his own power” Dan 8:24.

Antiochus polluted the Temple at Jerusalem by setting up a pagan idol on the altar of burnt offering on the 15th day of the 9th month of the 145th year of the Seleucid Era and pagan sacrifices began there 10 days later. (1 Maccabees 1:54, 59).

After a period of warfare, on the 25th day of the 9th month in the 148th year of the Seleucid Era, an altar was newly built by the Jews, was consecrated and offerings began. Celebrations continued for 8 days (1 Maccabees 4:52, 54). Thus we have a period of 3 years and ten days between the years 168-165 BC. but this far short of the 2300 days (6 years 4 months), and two thirds of a month) of Dan 8:14. Nor was it 1150 literal days (made by pairing the morning & evening sacrifices, to make full days). 1150 days is still many weeks longer than anything Antiochus did.

Various attempts have been made to solve this serious discrepancy but all have failed. It is true that Antiochus’ troops pillaged the Temple (on their way back from Egypt two years earlier), but that still falls a year and a half short of 2300 days.

It has been suggested that the 2300 days included persecuting of Jews by Jews but that would not fit the prophetic picture.

In discussing his activities, 1 & 2 Maccabees, two of the books of the uninspired Apocrypha, quote phrases from Dan 8 & 9. But of course the Bible does not state that Antiochus was the little horn.

Antiochus is mentioned by the Roman Historian Livy (History of Rome, books 44, 45), the Greek Historian Polybius (The Histories, books 26, 27), and the anonymous writer of 1 & 2 Maccabees.

Antiochus Epiphanes could not be the little horn for the following reasons:

On the principle and precedent that succeeding visions in Daniel parallel and amplify earlier visions we see that the little horn cannot be Antiochus. Daniel 2 & 7 describe four powers under various symbols:

DANIEL 2

BABYLON (GOLD)

MEDO-PERSIA (SILVER)

GRECIA (BRASS)

ROME (IRON)

DANIEL 7

BABYLON (LION)

MEDO-PERSIA (BEAR)

GRECIA (LEOPARD)

ROME (4TH BEAST)

DANIEL 8

BABYLON (PASSED ON)

MEDO-PERSIA (RAM)

GRECIA (HE-GOAT)

ROME ( LITTLE HORN)

DANIEL 11

BABYLON (PASSED ON)

MEDO-PERSIA_

GRECIA

ROME (KING OF THE NORTH)

In Daniel 2:34 a stone cut out of the mountain "without hands" representing Christ, strikes the image after the period of divided Rome (the feet) destroying all earthly kingdoms. The statement that the little horn of DanIEL 8 will be destroyed "without hands," (Dan 8:25), connects it with the fourth power of Daniel 2 and 7, namely Rome.

2. Horns represent kingdoms, not just individual kings so king Antiochus could not be the little horn.

The four horns in Dan 8:22 are said to be “four kingdoms,” therefore the “little horn” which followed them likewise represented a “kingdom.” The fact that Dan 8:23 say the little horn was a “king,” (Hebrew, “melek.”), does not prove that the horn was just one king: The four beasts of Daniel 7 were said to be four kings (melek) (Dan 7:17). However, the fourth beast is also said to be the fourth “kingdom” (malkuw) (Dan 7:23). Thus Daniel uses melek (king) as a synonym for malkuw (kingdom). With this understanding the prophetic symbol of a horn retains one meaning, it represents a kingdom.

The horns on the Ram of Daniel 8 are called “kings”, (melek), yet once again melek must here represent the “kingdoms” of Medo Persia for the following reason: The Ram existed from the beginning of its conquests (Dan 8:3-4) till they were broken by Grecia (Dan 8:7). As this period spans the entire existence of the Medo-Perisan empire the horns cannot represent just two individual kings.

Furthermore as this little horn arose in the latter time of the four Grecian divisions (see point 2), stood up against Christ (see point 8) and reached into "the time of the end" (see point 11) it cannot refer to one king as no king has lived that long. Therefore because Antiochus was only a king and not a kingdom he cannot be the little horn.

3. Verse 23 said that the little horn was to arise “in the latter time” of the kingdom.

The Seleucid dynasty, one of the original four horns, ran from 312/311-65 B.C.. Antiochus reigned slightly before the middle of the dynasty, 175-164 B.C. as eighth of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Seleucid horn (kingdom). Therefore Antiochus could not be the other little horn which arose in the “latter times” as he didn't live in the latter times of the kingdom.

4. The little horn was not one of the four horns into which the kingdom of Greece divided, but another fifth, separate and distinct horn/kingdom. However Antiochus Epiphanes was simply one of the kings who constituted the Seleucid horn (kingdom) of the goat. He was for a time that horn; hence he could not be at the same time a separate and independent kingdom, as the little horn was. The little horn did not arise from one of the four horns, it arose from one of the four winds. This is evident in the original language based on the use of gender. The little horn cannot therefore be Antiochus because he arose from one of the four horns.

5. Verse 9 said that the little horn would "PROSPER" (verse 12) and become “EXCEEDING great...” These statements are made relative to the Medo Persian and Grecian kingdoms.

Medo-Persia was "great" v 4, referring to its power and dominion which lasted centuries.

Greece was “very great” v 8, referring to its power and dominion which also lasted centuries

The little horn was "exceeding great."v 9, likewise referring to its power and dominion.

An escalation of power is seen showing that the little horn would exceed in power the previous kingdoms. However Antiochus was most certainly not greater than Medo-Persia or Grecia. Antiochus was king over only one part of what was Alexander’s empire. Far from being exceedingly great, some of his contemporaries even sarcastically called Antiochus, “Epimanes,” - "the mad man."Polybius, The Histories, 26.1

6. Verse 9 said that the little horn “waxed exceeding great...TOWARD THE SOUTH, EAST, and pleasant land.” Again this statement is made in comparison to the exploits of Medo Persia and Greece. Antiochus certainly did not wax exceeding great when compared to the preceding powers. After a short lived triumph in the "south," (Egypt), Antiochus was totally defeated when the Roman ambassador, C. Popilius Laenas, merely informed him that the Roman Senate wanted him to leave. The grim Roman drew a circle around Antiochus with his cane and demanded a decision before he stepped out of it. See: The Classic Account in Livys, History of Rome, 45.12

In the “East” Antiochus died under obscure and sorry circumstances. Even in “the glorious land” (Palestine), where at first he seemed successful, all his ambitions came to nothing within his lifetime. Antiochus did not conquer Palestine, he inherited it from Antiochus III who had subjected it in 198B.C.

7. Verse 25 said that the little horn was to be destroyed or “be broken without hand.” Heb 9:11; Dan 2:34; 2 Thess 2:8, show that the term, “without hand,” means by divine or supernatural power. There is no proof that the death of Antiochus over 2100 years ago, was supernatural! No inspired writings say that Antiochus' death was supernatural.

The passage in Dan 2:34, which mentions things done without hand, is most significant as it leads on to the next point.

8. The little horn would “magnify himself against the Prince of the host,” and stand up against the “Prince of Princes” (Dan 8:11, 25). The Prince of the host is Jesus (See Josh 5:14 margin). As Antiochus died over 160 years before Christ was born he cannot be the little horn. Some attempt to spiritualize this but context is against it:

Daniel 8:10 -11 concern the little horns literal actions, i.e. "cast down some of the host (Gods people v 24)...taking away the daily...sanctuary cast down.” As the context refers to literal events it is natural to understand that the standing up against Christ was also a literal event.

Peter said, “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ...both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together” Acts 4:26. Clearly Rome fulfills the prophecy, not Antiochus.

9. While the dragon of Rev 12 primarily represents the Devil (Rev 12:9) it also represents an earthly kingdom through which Satan worked to try to kill baby Jesus (Rev 12:4-5). That power was the Roman Empire. Scripture teaches that beasts, like this dragon, represent kingdoms (See Dan 7:23). The little horn of Dan 8 has the same characteristics as the dragon of Rev 12...

1. Both said to be "great" (Dan 8:10; Rev 12:3)

2. Both cast down some of the stars to the ground (Dan 8:10; Rev 12:4)

3. Both attacked Jesus (Dan 8:11, 25; Rev 12:4-5)

4. Both attacked God's people (Dan 8:24; Rev 12:13)

5. Both exist at the end of the world (Dan 8:18, 25 see point 6 on Dan 8:25; Rev 12:17)

As this power literally attempted to kill baby Jesus (Rev 12:4) it could not be Antiochus Epiphanes who died over 160 years before Jesus was born!

10. Verse 23 said that the little horn spoke a language that the Jews did not understand, or “dark sentences.” Deut 28:49-50 describe the same power which God brought against his disobedient people as “a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue [language] thou shalt not understand; A nation of fierce coutenance...” Daniel called this power “a king [kingdom] of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences” Dan 8:23. However as Antiochus spoke Greek which was very familiar to the Jews, he cannot be the little horn. Note also that the power is called a nation in Deut 28.

11. Verse 17 said “for at the time of the end shall be the vision.” K.J.V.. Translations are consistent on this rendering:

Even the N.I.V & R.S.V. agree with the K.J.V.

“the vision concerns the time of the end.” N.I.V.

“the vision is for the time of the end.” R.S.V.

As the vision concerns events at the "time of the end" it cannot possibly refer to Antiochus who died over 160 years before Christ.

12. The little horn took up the “daily.” The term “take away” is from the Hebrew word “ruwm,” which means “take up, exalt, raise up, lift up.” See Strongs. This is also the way Daniel used this word everywhere else in his book (e.g. Dan 11:36). Therefore the little horn raised up, lifted up and exalted the “daily.” Therefore the “daily” cannot possibly be the Jewish daily sacrifices as Antiochus certainly did not raise up, lift up or exalt the Jewish sacrifices, rather he stopped them. Antiochus actions are not therefore the taking away of the daily. Furthermore, the word “sacrifice” is not in the original text.

13. All attempts to fit the desecration of the Jewish Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, into “2300 evenings and mornings” have uniformly failed. The most nearly contemporary account, in Maccabees 1:54; 4:52-54, is very precise in stating that Antiochus interrupted the temple services for three years and ten days (from Chislev 15, 168, to Chislev 25, 165), which is far short of 2300 days.

All attempts to reduce the 2300 days (evening mornings) to 1150 literal days are likewise faulty.

The 2300 “evening morning” cannot refer to the twice daily sacrifices of the Jews, & thus be shortened into only 1150 days, as the sacrifices were never referred to as evening & morning in the Bible. The sacrifices were only ever called morning & evening sacrifices (Exo 29:38-39).

14. The taking away of the daily was to set up the abomination of desolation (Comp. Dan 8:11 with Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11 margin). Paul who had been reasoning with the Thessalonians out of the Scriptures about the taking away and the setting up of the man of sin and the mystery of iniquity, taught that this “taking away” to set up the abomination was FUTURE of his time (2 Thess 2:6-8).. Thus those who maintain that Antiochus was the power which took away the daily to set up the abomination of desolation are in opposition to the teachings of Paul who taught that this would take place AFTER his time.

1 Maccabees 1:54 applies the phrase “desolating sacrilege” (bdelugma eremoseos Dan 9:27, Greek) to what Antiochus Epiphanes did to the altar in the Jewish temple. (He evidently erected an idol on it and sacrificed a pig, to the horror of all devout Jews, for whom pigs have always been unclean.) But Jesus in the Olivet discourse said that Daniel's “desolating sacrilege” was still FUTURE of His day. He told His disciple “When ye therefore SHALL see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet...flee” (Matt 24:15) and added, “whoso readeth, let him understand.” So to understand the identity of the little horn of Daniel 8 we shall have to conclude with Jesus that it cannot have been Antiochus Epiphanes.

15. Were we to apply the little horn to any one of the twenty-six Syrian kings, it should be to the most illustrious and powerful one of them all. But this was not Antiochus Epiphanes. For historians inform us that his name, “Epiphanes,” the “Illustrious,” was changed to “Epimanes,” the “fool,” on account of his vile and extravagant folly. Antiochus the Great was perhaps the most famous of the Syrian kings, but the specifications of the prophecy would not fit him either.

16. We will see that the 70 weeks of Dan 9 are cut off the 2300 day period. As the 70 weeks represented 490 years it is obvious that the 2300 days cannot be literal days but must also represent years reaching to "the time of the end." Dan 8:17. The little horn therefore cannot be Antiochus.

17. The actions of the real little horn are of sufficient importance and scale to bring about a vast judgment scene in heaven with millions of angels in attendance as described in Dan 7:9-14. The actions of Antiochus were not sufficient to bring about such a scene. An evil far greater than Antiochus is clearly described

18. The little horn cast down the place of God’s sanctuary. Antiochus did no damage to the sanctuary or the place (Heb. Makon) it stood.

As long ago as 1733, Sir Issac Newton wrote: “This last horn is by some taken for Antiochus Epiphanes, but not very judiciously. A horn of a beast is never taken for a single person: it always signifies a new kingdom, and the kingdom of Antiochus was an old one. Antiochus reigned over one of the four horns, and the little horn was a fifth under its proper kings. This horn was at first a little one, and waxed exceeding great, but so did not Antiochus. It is described great above all the former horns, and so was not Antiochus. His kingdom on the contrary was weak, and tributary to the Romans, and he did not enlarge it. The horn was a King of fierce countenance, and destroyed wonderfully, and prospered and practiced; that is, he prospered in his practices against the holy people; but Antiochus was frightened out of Egypt by a mere message of the Romans, and afterwards routed and baffled by the Jews. The horn was mighty by another's power, Antiochus acted by his own. The horn stood up against the Prince of the host of heaven, the Prince of Princes; and this is the character not of Antiochus but of Antichrist. The horn cast down the sanctuary to the ground, and so did not Antiochus; he left it standing. The sanctuary and Host were trampled underfoot 2300 days; and in Daniel's Prophecies days are put for years; but the profination of the Temple in the reign of Antiochus did not last for so many natural days. These were to last till the time of the end, till the last end of the indignation against the Jews; and this indignation is not yet at an end. They were to last till the Sanctuary which had been cast down should be cleansed, and the sanctuary is not yet cleansed.” Sir Isaac Newton's Daniel and the Apocalypse, ed., Sir William Whitla (London: John Murray, 1922), p222.

Sir Isaac Newton's observations contrast greatly with the note to Dan 8:1 in the 1967 edition of the Scofield Reference Bible, which refers to the “remarkably precise predictions in chapter 8 and 11 about the reign, character, and antecedents of Antiochus Epiphanes.”

2. CHRIST'S MINISTRY "TAKEN AWAY" VIEW.

Many believe that the “daily” refers to the continual priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1) and to the true worship of Christ in the gospel age.

The word tamid, “daily,” is frequently found describing aspects of the Jewish sanctuary services and ministration. e.g. “,,,the continual [tamid] shewbread...” 2 Chron 2:4 “ “...the continual [tamid] meat offering, and for the continual [tamid] burnt offering...” Neh 10:33 “...a perpetual [tamid] incense...” Exo 30:8

“Tamid” was used to indicate the continual nature of these things which typified Christ’s continual ministry. Christ “ever liveth to make intercession” (Heb 7:25).

Some have been led to conclude that the term “ha tamid [the daily] refers to the entire sanctuary ministration, and not just the sacrifice, although admittedly, the word tamid is never used on its own any where in Scripture, to refer to the sanctuary ministration, unless it is here in Daniel.

The sanctuary services were a type of Christ’s ministry in heaven (Heb 8:2-5) and many believe that the daily refers to Christ’s continual heavenly ministry. Therefore the taking away of the daily would refer to the taking away or obscuring the truth of, Christ’s heavenly ministry. This, papal Rome is said to have done by substituting a counterfeit human ministry on earth etc. by diverting men’s attention from Christ and the benefits of His ministry.

The taking away of the “daily” refers to the substitution, by the Papacy, of:

1. Compulsory unity in a visible church in place of the voluntary unity of all believers in Christ.

2. A visible authority and visible head - the Pope - in place of Christ, the invisible authority & head of the church.

3. A priestly hierarchy in place of direct access to Christ our only Mediator (1 Tim 2:5).

4. A system of salvation by works ordained by the church in place of salvation by faith in Christ (Eph 2:8-9).

5. Most particularly, the confessional and the sacrifice of the mass in place of the Christ’s once for all sacrifice (Heb 10:10) and His mediatorial work as our great high priest in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 8:1; 9:11).

By these things the Papacy completely diverted men’s attention from Christ and thus deprived them of the benefits of his ministry. As this view maintains that the little horn is a symbol of imperial Rome AND papal Rome, predictions concerning its activities may also be understood as applying to BOTH Pagan Rome and Papal Rome. Thus the “daily” may also refer to the earthly temple and its services, and the taking away of the “daily” to the desolation of the Temple by Roman legions in A.D. 70 and to the consequent cessation of the sacrificial services. It was this aspect of the activity of “the abomination of desolation” to which Christ referred in Matt 24:15.

THE CHRIST’S MINISTRY POSITION CONSIDERED

1. While papal Rome has substituted a counterfeit earthly ministry, this did not take away Christ’s heavenly ministry. At best, the little horn could only “THINK to” take away Christ’s ministry in the same way that it could only “THINK to” change God’s law (Dan 7:25). However it did more than just think to take away the daily so the daily cannot be Christ’s ministry.

2. Those who believe that the daily refers to Christ’s ministry say that the Papacy took away the knowledge of Christ’s ministry from the people. This however creates problems for this view. According to their reading of the verse (Daniel 8:11) the daily was taken away from him, the Prince of the host, NOT from the people. If it be replied that by taking away Christ’s ministry from Christ, it was also taken away from the people, we reply that the Papacy could no more take away Christ’s ministry from Him than it could change His law. Christ’s ministry has never been caused to cease and there have always been faithful souls who have had a knowledge of His heavenly ministry.

3. Christ’s ministry, “continueth ever...unchangeable...he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Heb 7:24-25. As Christ’s ministry “continueth ever” it cannot have been the “daily” which was “taken away.”

4. “...the everlasting gospel...” Rev 14:6. As the gospel, which includes the truth of our sin pardoning Saviour’s ministry in heaven is “everlasting” it cannot be the “daily” as the daily was “taken away.”

5. While Dan 11:31 & 12:11 show that in one sense the daily was literally taken away, Dan 8:11 tells us that the little horn also “took up” or “exalted ” the “daily” for this is the meaning of the Hebrew word “ruwm”. As the Papacy never “took up or exalted” Christ’s heavenly ministry but rather “cast down the truth to the ground” verse 12, and exalted themselves, the daily cannot refer to Christ’s heavenly ministry.

6. To say that the “taking away” refers to the Papacy “obscuring” the knowledge of Christ’s ministry is unsound as “obscuring” is not one of the meanings of the Hebrew word “ruwm” translated “taken away” in Dan 8:11.

This further exposes the confusion of the Christ’s ministry view. Is the daily supposed to be Christ’s actual ministry, or is the daily supposed to be the knowledge of Christ’s ministry?! The above points are based on a poor exegesis of the word “ruwm” which means to exalt, lift up and not literally “to take away” or remove from something or someone.

7. Dan 12:11 says, “And from the time that the daily shall be taken away ...there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days [1290 days]”

“Those who hold to the view that the ‘daily’ refers to the continual priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary and to the true worship of Christ in the gospel age find no satisfactory explanation of this text.” SDA Bible Commentary, Vol 4, p881.

Such a view would mean that we could not understand the 1290 days, yet Christ said in reference to Daniel’s book, “whoso readeth let him understand.” Matt 24:15.

8. The daily treads underfoot both God’s sanctuary and the host in verse 13: “...the vision concerning the daily, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot?” The daily here cannot be Christ’s ministry as Christ’s ministry does not tread underfoot his people (the host) and his sanctuary.

9. Christ’s sacrifice is central to His heavenly ministry. The fact that the word sacrifice is not associated with the daily in the original Hebrew and is not to be associated with the daily (Early Writings 74) could be taken as a point against the daily representing Christ’s heavenly ministry.

10. The daily was taken away by an “host” that was “given” to the Papacy. These were the “arms” or military forces which fought for the Papacy. See Dan 8:12; Dan 11:31. No armed host took away Christ’s heavenly ministry.

11. The little horn “cast down” the “place of his sanctuary.” Those who hold that the daily refers to Christ’s heavenly ministry believe that the sanctuary here referred to is Christ’s sanctuary. The conclusion then would be that the little horn cast down heaven for heaven is the place of God’s sanctuary.

3. THE DAILY IS PAGANISM - ITS SELF EXALTING SPIRIT.

THE PAGANISM POSITION CONSIDERED:

“I read on, and could find no other case in which it [the daily] was found, but in Daniel. I then [by the aid of a concordance] took those words which stood in connection with it, ‘take away;’ he shall take away,’the daily; ‘from the time the daily shall be taken away’, &c. I read on, and thought I should find no light on the text; finally, I came to 2 Thess. 2:7, 8. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked be revealed,’ &c. And when I had come to that text, oh! how clear and glorious the truth appeared! There it is! That is ‘the daily!’ Well now, what does Paul mean by ‘he who now letteth,’ or hindereth? By ‘the man of sin,’ and the ‘wicked,’ popery is meant. Well, what is it which hinders popery from being revealed? Why, it is paganism; well, then, ‘the daily’ must mean paganism.” - Miller, Second Advent Manual, page 66.

In Acts 17:1-3 Paul reasoned with the Thessalonians “out of the Scriptures.” He reasoned about the falling away from the truth, the man of sin sitting in God’s temple and the taking away of the power which withheld the rise of the papal power. How do we know this? Because when Paul later wrote to these Thessalonians he wrote about all these things and said, “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth...For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [Gr. katecho, withholds] will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed.”

What in Paul’s day withheld “that Wicked,” the man of sin, the papal power, from being revealed? Paganism. Therefore the daily was Paganism. From which Scriptures did Paul reason about the “taking away” to “set up,” the papal abomination? The answer is Dan 8:12 and Dan 11:31 “And arms shall stand on his part...and they shall take away the daily [Pagan Roman dominion], and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate [Papal Rome].”

1. Rome has not taken up and exalted anything of Christ. So the daily must have been taken up from Rome.

2. As the daily appears to be evil it cannot be taken up from Christ because Christ has no evil which the Papacy could take up. Rome has evil which could be taken up.

“The more Christianity supplanted the heathen worship the more it did absorb the elements of paganism.” The History of the World, p617.

“Paganism...became the conqueror. Her spirit controlled the church. Her doctrines [e.g. Sunday], ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ.” GC 50.

The Daily is the continual, that pagan “religion” which is manifestly antichrist and which began in heaven with Lucifer (Satan) and has been manifested in every false religion and worldly kingdom since sin entered this world. It is the great antithesis of the truth and self sacrificing spirit of Jesus and these two opposing spirits are the subject of the great controversy.

The taking away of the daily has nothing to do with Antiochus Epiphanes or Christ’s ministration in the heavenly sanctuary.

The taking away of the daily was to set up the abomination of desolation (cf. Dan 8:11; Dan 11:31; Dan 12:11 margin). Christ & Paul taught that the setting up of this abomination or “man of sin,” was to occur AFTER them ie. in the future (Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2:4-8). As Antiochus lived BEFORE Christ & Paul, he cannot be involved in any consideration of the Daily.

Yea, he [the little horn, Rome] magnified [himself] even to the prince of the host, [Jesus] and by him [margin - "from him", i.e. from pagan Rome] the daily [sacrifice] [the continual, Paganism] was taken away, [taken up, exalted, lifted up, adsorbed by the Papacy]and the place of his [Rome's] sanctuary [the city of Rome] was cast down. [cast off, given up to the Papacy] Daniel 8:11

"And an host was given [him] against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered." Daniel 8:12

1. What is this HOST that was given [him] against the Daily?

Strongs Concordance gives the following meaning to the word “tsaba” which is translated as “Host” 06635 abu tsaba' {tsaw-baw'} or (fem.) ts@ba'ah {tseb-aw-aw'}

from 06633; TWOT - 1865a,1865b; n m

AV - host 393, war 41, army 29, battle 5, service 5, appointed time 3, warfare 2, soldiers 1, company 1, misc 5; 485

1) that which goes forth, army, war, warfare, host

1a) army, host

1a1) host (of organised army)

1a2) host (of angels)

1a3) of sun, moon, and stars

1a4) of whole creation

1b) war, warfare, service, go out to war

1c) service

Daniel 11:31 describes this “host” as “arms”.

verse 31* “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily [sacrifice], and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.”

The word “arms” is from the Hebrew “zeroah”. Daniel used this word in the same chapter to refer to military forces (Dan 11:15, 11:22). Military forces working on behalf of the Papacy literally “took away” the daily to set up or place the abomination that maketh desolate (Papal Rome).

In other words, a military host or arms, supporting the Papacy took away the daily in order to establish the power of Papal Rome. Clovis, the King of the Franks was the first barbarian king to convert to Catholicism. He gave the support of the Franks to the Papacy against all outward forms of paganism and helped the Papacy fully realize its power by helping wipe out all opposition.

In Daniel 8:11,12, we see the transition from Pagan Rome to Papal Rome as this system takes up, lifts up, exalts the Daily. Paganism was undergoing a metamorphosis into Papalism, repackaging itself as a “Christian” religion while in reality continuing its pagan rites in the various forms of church worship and doctrine. The Papacy is the epitome of pagan idolatory hidden beneath a Christian veneer.