|
Antiochus or Rome
|
Ron Corson
|
Dec 01, 2004 21:53 PST
|
This is interesting from Kenneth Hart’s Lesson guide. What I find so
interesting is how very specific they want to be with regard to
Antiochus and how incredibly vague they are with their preferred view of
Rome. They assume that Rome the nation is continued in the Roman
Catholic church. Which is not accurate really. Rome the nation continued
through the Byzantine empire after they moved their capital from Rome to
Byzantium. The church of Rome would then be defined as the Eastern or
Greek Orthodox church. Of course in the SDA church we hear nothing of
that religion. Nor about the split in 1054 from connections with the
Papacy.
------------------------
Daniel SS#9 - page 2 of 6
12. Who was the “little horn?” At least seven major reasons have been
found why Antiochus Epiphanes IV could not be the little horn. We will
note three of the most important ones:
These four kingdoms were represented in the prophecy by the four horns
that came up in place of the one great horn (Alexander) which was broken
off. After these kingdoms were established a “little horn” grew out of
one of them. One group of interpreters teachers that this “little horn”
represents Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucids. The other group
believes that this “little horn” more correctly represents Rome. There
are several reasons why this “little horn” does not fit Antiochus.
Consider three of these:
a. Progression in power. “First, the vision presents a progression in
terms of the power utilized by the kingdoms involved. The Persian ram
“hath exerted itself.” (vs. 4, YLT). The Greek goat “hath exerted itself
very much” (vs. 8, YLT). The little horn then “exerteth itself greatly
toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the beauteous land;
10yea, it exerteth unto the host of the heavens,” (vss. 10, 11, YLT).
This progression from the comparative to the superlative would be true
in terms of the Roman Empire, but it would not be true in terms of an
individual ruler such as Antiochus Epiphanes.
As we know the Roman empire did in 70 AD destroy the temple but prior to
that time Rome allowed the complete practice of the Jewish Religion. The
Papacy was never really a power in the area of Israel and in fact lost
any hold on the area with the rise of Islam in the area about 700 AD.
In fact when looked at from the perspective of Israel Antiochus and the
power he exerted over the area and the purposeful degradation of the
Jewish religion and the temple he would very much exerted himself.
b. Time of arising. “Second, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-163 B.C.) ruled
in Syria about the
middle of the Seleucid dynasty, which lasted from 301 B.C. until 64 B.C.
He was the seventh
king out of twenty-seven in the Seleucid dynasty. The little-horn power,
however, appears on
the scene of action “in the latter part of their reign” (vs. 23), that
is, at the latter end of the rule of the four Greek kingdoms. In
contrast, Rome did appear on the scene at the latter part of the rule of
these four kingdoms, conquering each in turn—Greece in 168 B.C., Asia
Minor in 133 B.C. (by inheritance from the king of Pergamum), Syria in
64 B.C., and Egypt in 31 B.C. Thus Rome fulfills this characteristic of
the vision, but Antiochus Epiphanes does not.
Here Antiochus matches better then Rome since the little horn arises in
the latter part of the 4 horns. Dan 8:22 The four horns that replaced
the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge
from his nation but will not have the same power.
23 "In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become
completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise.
Notice how the account in Hart’s lesson guide removes the phrase “in the
latter part of their reign” from the context which is the four horns and
instead places it at the latter part of the Seleucid dynasty.
-------------
c. The little horn’s conquests. “Third, we should note the direction of
conquest specified by the vision. The little horn was to conquer to the
east, the south, and the beautiful land (vs. 9).
Antiochus IV had some success toward the south. In 169 B.C. he conquered
the eastern half
of the Egyptian delta. In 168 B.C. he came back to finish the job, but
he was not able to do so. Instead, he was turned back by a Roman
ambassador and never returned to Egypt again. On his eastern campaign,
Antiochus had some initial success, but he later died on this campaign.
His record was even worse with regard to the “beautiful land,” or Judea.
When he came to the throne, this province belonged to his kingdom. But
because of his persecution of the Jews, they rose up in revolt and threw
off the Syrian yoke. In contrast to what the vision states, Antiochus
Epiphanes did not conquer the “beautiful land,” rather, he was the one
responsible for losing it. Rome, on the other hand, made major conquests
in all three of the directions specified by the vision. Here again, Rome
fits the characteristics of the vision, but Antiochus does not...The
first thing the small horn did after its appearance was to make
conquests toward the east, the south, and the “beautiful land.” These,
as we have seen, correspond to the territorial conquests of Imperial
Rome. In terms of conquering the four Greek horns, Rome conquered to the
east in 168 and 133 B.C.; it conquered the “beautiful land” of Judea at
the same time it conquered Syria in 63 B.C.; and it conquered Egypt to
the south in 31 B.C.” (Daniel 7-12, Bible Amplifier Series, by William
Shea)
Now clearly if his persecution of Judea caused the Jews to rise up and
drive him out he must have had control of the area. Of course this is
the whole story of the Maccabees. How could he be sacrificing pigs in
the temple if he did not control the land? Also notice how Rome does not
fit the double dealing aspects of the stern faced king whereas Antiochus
does.
For the Opposing view which holds Antiochus as the fulfillment here is a
section from the Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
11 This verse describes how the megalomania of Antiochus will advance to
such extremes that he will declare himself equal with God (who is here
referred to as sar- hassaba, "Prince of the host," i.e., the Lord of the
army of saints referred to in the previous verse). He will halt the
regular morning and evening sacrifice (hattamid). (This tamid or olat-
hattamid, "the burnt offering of continuity"--was the standard daily
burnt offering ordained in Num 28:3, consisting of one lamb presented at
sunrise and one presented at sunset, together with a quantity of flour
and oil [Num 28:5].) This offering presented the atonement of the
believing nation, whether or not any other sacrifice was brought before
the Lord on that particular day. But the Seleucid tyrant commanded these
offerings to be suspended in 168 and substituted a heathen sacrifice
presented to an idol of Zeus, after the altar of Yahweh had been
destroyed and his temple pillaged and desecrated ("and the place of his
sanctuary [mekon miqdaso] was brought low").
12 Judah's three-year tribulation period, during which the temple would
be defiled and prostituted to heathen use, is now described. The host of
Jewish believers will be "given over" (tinnaten)--viz., to the
oppression of Antiochus--along with, or possibly on account of, the
continual burnt offering because of transgression; and it (the little
horn) will cast truth to the ground and perform its work and prosper.
(NIV translates this as a simple past rather than as a prophetic
perfect.) This indicates that Antiochus will be successful for that
brief interval and will have everything his own way. The phrase al-
hattamid is somewhat ambiguous on account of the versatility of the
preposition al before hattamid; it may mean "concerning" (which clearly
does not fit here) or "in addition to," "along with" the regular burnt
offering (NIV, "daily sacrifice") or else "because of" (NIV). But since
the preposition be before pesa ("transgression," "rebellion") seems to
indicate the cause of this dreadful humiliation of Israel, it seems best
to render al as "along with (so NASB; Young has "together with,"
likewise Wood). Therefore the verse as a whole should be interpreted as
follows:
And on account of transgression [presumably the transgression of
Jason and Menelaus and the pro-Syrian faction among the worldly minded
Jews of the Maccabean period] the host [of God's people, the Jewish
believers] will be given up [to the persecuting power of Antiochus IV]
along with the [suspended] continual burnt offering; and the horn
[Antiochus] will fling the truth [of the scriptural faith and service of
God] to the ground [by forbidding it on the pain of death], and he will
perform [his will, or carry out his program of enforcing idolatry] and
will [for the three-year period] prosper.
2. Gabriel's Interpretation of the Vision (8:13-27)
13-14 Verse 13 states that there were two or possibly even three "holy
ones" (qados, "holy one," in this instance being clearly a heavenly
being rather than a sanctified human believer) involved in a
conversation about the prophetic meaning of the vision just described.
Apparently it was the second angel ("another holy one") who posed the
question to the third (lappalmoni hamedabber, "that particular one who
was speaking"; NIV, "to him") as to the duration of the terrible period
during which the temple and altar of the Lord would be desecrated, as
suggested by the words of v. 11: "And it took away the daily sacrifice
from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low." The answer
given in v. 14 by the third angel was that this condition would last for
"2,300 evenings and mornings" (ad ereb boqer alpayim uselos meot).
This apparently precise period of time has been understood by
interpreters in two different ways, either as 2,300 twenty-four-hour
days (understanding (ereb boqer, "evening morning," as indicating an
entire day from sunset to sunset, like the similar expression in Gen 1),
or else as 1,150 days composed of 1,150 evenings and 1,150 mornings. In
other words, the interval would either be 6 years and 111 days, or else
half of that time: 3 years and 55 days. Both views have persuasive
advocates, but the preponderance of evidence seems to favor the latter
interpretation. The context speaks of the suspension of the tamid
("sacrifice"), a reference to the olat tamid ("continual burnt
offering") that was offered regularly each morning and evening (or, as
the Hebrews would reckon it, each evening, when the new day began, and
each morning). Surely there could have been no other reason for the
compound expression ereb boqer than the reference to the two sacrifices
that marked each day in temple worship.
Wood's suggestion (p. 218) that tamid referred to all the ceremonial
observances in general rather than to this one in particular is belied
by the fact that the lexicons record no use of tamid alone in a cultic
context except as an abbreviation for olat tamid, which is defined as a
twice-a-day observance in Exodus 29:42, and is thus used at least
sixteen times in Numbers alone (esp. chs. 28-29). Consequently we are to
understand v. 14 as predicting the rededication of the temple by Judas
Maccabaeus on 25 Chislev (or 14 December) 164 B.C.; 1,150 days before
that would point to a terminus a quo of three years, one month, and 25
days earlier, or in Tishri 167 B.C. While the actual erection of the
idolatrous altar in the temple took place in Chislev 167, or one month
and 15 days later, there is no reason to suppose that Antiochus
Epiphanes' administrators may not have abolished the offering of the
tamid itself at that earlier date. (Delitzsch [KD, Daniel, p. 302]
favors this view; so also does Aalders, p. 165.)
Keil himself (KD, Daniel, p. 304) insists that the 2,300
evening-mornings would only be understood by the Hebrew reader as a
locution for 2,300 days (likewise Wood, p. 219). But none of the
scholars espousing this view can give any convincing explanation as to
why this peculiar expression should have been used here for "day."
Moreover, there is not the slightest historical ground for a terminus a
quo beginning in 171 B.C. While it is true that the interloper Menelaus
murdered the legitimate high priest Onias III in that year, there was no
abridgement of temple services at that early date. It was not till the
following year that Antiochus looted the temple of its treasure, and the
abolition of the tamid (predicted here in v. 12) did not take place till
167. Keil objects to the 165 date for the terminus ad quem and suggests
that we should rather look for it in the defeat of Nicanor at Adasa in
161 B.C. (overlooking the fact that one month after that victory Judas
fell in a disastrous conflict with Bacchides [1 Macc 9:1-22]). Verse 14
simply specifies that when the 2,300 evenings and mornings have elapsed,
"then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated." That certainly is what
happened when the first Hanukkah was celebrated on 25 Chislev 164.
15-18 These verses describe the awesome confrontation between Daniel and
the angel Gabriel, who is here named for the first time (v. 16). Some
other heavenly being, not otherwise specified, commissioned Gabriel--who
later appeared to the Virgin Mary to announce the coming of Jesus--to
explain the meaning of the vision to the swooning prophet (v. 17).
Gabriel was instructed to identify the coming world empires and the
climactic events of the "time of the end" (et- qes). The overwhelming
splendor of Gabriel's presence affected Daniel somewhat as John on
Patmos was to be affected by the angelic appearance (Rev 22:8); Daniel
was rendered completely helpless and unable even to speak (v. 18). Yet
the angel's transforming touch restored Daniel to consciousness.
19-22 This passage furnishes a general summary of the rise of the second
kingdom (here explicitly named as Medo-Persian) and of the third kingdom
(Greece). Gabriel gave no details about the Persian era beyond
indicating its compound character as Medo-Persian (v. 20). But he did
identify the large single horn between the goat's eyes as the first king
of the Greek Empire (v. 21). This mighty conquerer was soon replaced by
four other horns (v. 22), which (cf. comment at 7:8) were the Diadochi
who took over Macedon-Greece, Thrace-Asia Minor, Egypt-Palestine, and
Syria-Persia. He added that none of these four would "have the same
power" (i.e., of Alexander). History, of course, proved this true.
23-25 This passage depicts the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is
described (v. 23) as a "stern-faced king, a master of intrigue" (mebin
hidot literally means "understanding hidden things," i.e., craftiness;
Charles [in loc.] suggests "skilled in double dealing"), who will at
first enjoy much success (v. 24). He will manage to crush "mighty men"
(presumably nobles and regional commanders of his own realm who
supported rival claimants to the throne) and also "the holy people,"
i.e., the believing Jews.
Two noteworthy traits will characterize Antiochus's rule: (1) his
treachery and intrigue (v. 25), in order to catch his victims unawares
and unprepared (as he did in Jerusalem in 168-167 B.C.); (2) his
overweening pride, which led him to claim divine honors (v. 25). In
fulfillment of this, the coins of Antiochus actually bore the title
theos epiphanes ("God manifest"). This clearly exhibited his character
as the typical "little horn," a model for the antitypical "little horn"
referred to in 7:8 ("this horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a
mouth that spoke boastfully"). We are reminded of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4,
which states that the Day of the Lord will not come "until the rebellion
occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to
destruction. He opposes and exalts himself over everything that is
called God or is worshiped, and even sets himself up in God's temple,
proclaiming himself to be God."
While we are not definitely told whether Antiochus made a formal
claim to deity while enthroned in splendor in the court of the Jerusalem
temple, he certainly did assume the right to determine what gods his
subjects should worship, feeling that he was the earthly embodiment of
the powers of heaven and that all rule and authority was given him. Like
Nebuchadnezzar, he expected all his subjects to bow down to the great
image he had set up. But he went even beyond Nebuchadnezzar in trying to
abolish the ancestral religion of the Jews, forbidding them on pain of
death to circumcise their children and making the possession of the
Hebrew Scriptures a capital offense. By erecting the statue of Zeus
Olympius (or Capitolinus) in the temple of Yahweh and sacrificing swine
on the altar, he committed the greatest possible sacrilege and affront
to the Jewish people.
Yet v. 25 predicts Antiochus's sudden destruction, not by human
means, but by God's intervention. As a condign penalty for having taken
"his stand against the Prince of princes" (the Lord God Almighty),
Antiochus would be removed from the scene. He was. After making an
unsuccessful attempt to pillage Nanaea, a wealthy temple in Elymais, he
died of a sudden malady.
Ancient sources have somewhat diverse accounts of Antiochus's fatal
illness. 1 Macc 6:4, 8-16 says that he withdrew to Babylon after his
repulse at Elymais, that he became deathly ill after hearing of the
victories of Judas Maccabaeus, and that he died many days later. 2 Macc
9:1-28, however, states that Antiochus had attempted to raid a temple in
Persepolis (rather than Elymais), and that it was at Ecbatana that he
heard the disturbing news of the Maccabean victories. Then, as he was
uttering dire threats of reprisal against them, he was seized with
severe abdominal pains that never left him; and thus he fell out of the
chariot in which he was riding. Finally, as a result of his severe
injuries from the fall and the attack of worms on his bowels,
accompanied by a revolting stench, he finally died with vain petitions
on his lips, imploring the God of Israel to spare his life. Josephus
affirms that it was the temple of Artemis that Antiochus attacked in
Elymais (as in 1 Macc 6) and then follows in general the description of
2 Macc 9 in regard to the fatal illness and the final admission of wrong
in opposing the God of the Hebrews (cf. Antiq. XII, 354-59 [ix.1]). At
all events, these accounts agree in stating that the tyrant met his end
by a nonhuman agency, whether by a chariot fall, by abdominal cancer, or
by some other illness. (Roger Simpson [EBr, 14th ed., 2:77] suggests
that Antiochus died of "consumption" in Gabae, or Isfahan, in Persia.)
This question of the place and manner of Antiochus's death becomes a
matter of special importance in 11:45.
|
|
 |
|
