Daniel 8

Daniel’s Vision of Chapter 8 is from the Book of Daniel in the Bible.

In the third year of King Belshazzar's reign Daniel had a vision, 20 years after the one in chapter 7 and apparently just before Belshazzar is killed in chapter 5. He saw himself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam, beside the Ulai Canal.

The Vision

Standing before Daniel beside the canal was a ram with two long horns—one was longer than the other but grew up later. The ram charged toward the west and the north and the south. He did as he pleased and became great.

Suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. He charged the two-horned ram in great rage--furiously striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The goat knocked the ram to the ground and trampled on him. But at the height of the goat's power his large horn was broken off. In its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

Another horn came out of one of them. It started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host. It took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. Truth was thrown to the ground.

Someone in the vision asked "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled--the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?" He was answered, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."

Synthesis of the Dream and Interpretation

Parallel paraphrase of Dream and Interpretation. The text is arranged to read top-to-bottom, and parallel left-to-right. (Words in bold font indicate parallel phrases. Colors demarcate the different kingdoms.)

In the interpretation portion of the chapter the identification of the Ram and Goat is given.

The ram had two horns, the first representing Media and the one that came up second, the one that grew longer, representing Persia. It was to charge toward the west, then north, then south. It would do whatever it pleased and become great.

Representing Greece (more accurately, Macedonia), the Goat comes from the west, crossing the earth without touching the ground. Greece charges the ram in great rage. It shatters the horns (i.e. kings -- see below) of Media and Persia and knocks the ram to the ground and tramples it.

But at the height of Greece's power, its great horn--i.e. King ["The large horn between his eyes is the first king"]--is broken off and four other kings grow up toward the four winds.

Then an unidentified king, a stern-faced master of intrigue, comes on the scene. He starts small but will become very strong, yet not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will cause deceit to prosper. When they feel secure, he will destroy many.

He will grow to the south, then east and toward the "beautiful land" and destroy the mighty men and the holy people. He will consider himself superior to the "hosts of heaven' and claim to be as great as and take his stand against the "Prince of the princes."

He steals the 'daily sacrifice' and denigrates the "sanctuary" of the "Prince of hosts" The saints and sacrifice are put under his tyranny and truth is thrown down.

Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

Someone asks about how long that part of the vision that deals with the daily sacrifice, the rebellion, the surrender of the sanctuary and the host would last. It was to last 2300 "evening and mornings."

After that, the sanctuary, which had been debased and soiled, would be cleansed and reconsecrated.

Principles of Interpretation

Principles of interpretations are rules for interpreting Bible prophecies derived from the Bible by either direct explanation or derived from examples.

Beasts represent kingdoms

This principle comes from direct explanation:

• The two-horns of the ram represent the kings of Media and Persia. The ram is the population from which stemmed both the Medes and the Persians. (Daniel 8:20)

• The shaggy goat is the "king of Greece". (Daniel 8:21)

Note that the earliest (pre-Theodotion) Greek versions and the Qumran edition read "kingdom" at several points where Theodotion and the later Masoretic traditions have "king".

This principle is similar to that found in Chapter 7, though here Media and Persia are the two horns of the ram, while they are separate animals in Chapter 7.

An animal's horn represents a king or kingdom

This principle is derived from examples and by direct statement.

Three examples are given.

• the large horn ... is the first king. (Daniel 8:21)

• The four horns ... represent four kingdoms... (Daniel 8:22)

• Out of one of them came another horn... (Daniel 8:9)

This same principle is also found in Chapter 7.

Identifications of the Kingdoms and the Little Horn

Scholarly view

In Daniel 2, the first kingdom is identified as the existing realm at the time of the vision, i.e. Babylon. This vision occurred during the reign of Babylon's Belshazzar, but its first kingdom was the first horn of the ram, i.e. Media, followed by the second horn, the kingdom of Persia. This is probably because Babylon was soon to fall to Darius the Mede as recorded in the account of Chapter 5.

The Goat kingdom is identified as the kingdom of Greece and the "large horn" (Dan. 8:21) is believed to be Alexander the Great.

As Daniel put it, the little horn would come from 'one of them', usually understood as referring to one of the four horns that replaced the 'notable horn', though some maintain it refers to the four winds . A strong scholarly consensus, as well as most Jewish and Christian commentaries hold that the "little horn" refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, since he came from the Seleucid empire, which was one of the four empires that came to power after Alexander died. He seized the Seleucid Kingdom "through intrigue", took away the 'daily sacrifice' (Tamid) in 167 BC, and committed the 'abomination of desolation'. He made it illegal to follow the Judaic laws, with the penalty of death. The temple was reconsecrated in 164 BC, 2300 mornings and evenings, i.e. 1150 days, from the time Antiochus began his persecution of the Jews (167-164 BC).

The weight of scholarly opinion views the Book of Daniel as a pseudepigraphic apocalypse written around 167–164 BC and predated to enhance its credibility. Nonetheless, a substantial minority of mainly evangelical Christians hold to a 6th century date with the author being the prophet Daniel as the book itself claims (e.g. Dan. 1:1, 6; 4:8; 9:2). While Jewish tradition also accepted the prophet Daniel as the author (Sanh. 93b; Pirḳe R. El. lii.), it never included Daniel among the Prophets in the arrangement of Hebrew bible as Torah, Prophets and Books, but among the Books. In Matthew 24:15-16 Jesus accepted the prophet Daniel as the author and pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans as a fulfillment of the abomination of desolation: "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel-- let the reader understand-- then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains".

Daniel 11 as proof that the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes

Since Daniel 11 uses the same terminologies as Daniel 8, scholars have long recognized that both texts refer to the same events. Both liberal and conservative scholars agree that Daniel 11 contains strikingly accurate predictions of the whole sweep of events from the reign of Cyrus to the unsuccessful effort of Antiochus Epiphanes to stamp out the Jewish faith.

Chapter 8	Chapter 11
Goat/Large Horn(8:21)	A mighty king(Alexander the Great)(11:3)
The goat became very great(8:8)	He will rule with great power(Daniel 11:3)
His large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.(8:8)	His empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven(11:4)
Little horn:	Contemptible person: (Antiochus Epiphanes who was called Epimanes/madman):
He came from one of the 4 kingdoms that succeeded Alexander the Great(8:8–9, 8:21–23)	He came from the Seleucid Kingdom, one of the 4 kingdoms that succeeded Alexander the Great(Daniel 11:3–21)
He set himself up to be as great as the Prince of the host(8:11)	He will exalt and magnify himself above every god(11:36)
He will consider himself superior(8:24)	He will say unheard-of things against the God of gods(11:36)
He brought the sanctuary low and took away the daily sacrifice(8:11)	He will desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice(11:31)
He grew in power to the South and to the East and toward the Beautiful Land.(8:9)	He will invade the South(11:25–29) and the Beautiful Land(11:41)
He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people(8:24)	He will vent his fury against the holy covenant(11:30) The Godly and wise people who resist him, will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered.(11:32–33)
His rebellion causes desolation(8:13)	He will will set up the abomination that causes desolation(11:31)
He causes deceit to prosper(8:25)	He will act deceitfully(11:23)
He is a master of intrigue(8:23)	He will seize the kingdom through intrigue(11:21)
He will destroy many, when they feel secure(8:25)	He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure(11:21)
It grew until it reached the host of the heavens(8:10)	He will will exalt himself above all gods(11:37)
He will take his stand against the Prince of princes(8:25)	He destroyed the prince of the covenant(11:22)
He will become very strong, but not by his own power.(8:24)	With only a few people he will rise to power.(Daniel 11:23) He will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did(11:24)
He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does(8:24)	He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed(11:36)
He will be destroyed, but not by human power(Daniel 8:25)	He will come to his end, and no one will help him(11:45)

Adventist arguments against Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn and scholarly objections

According to Seventh Day Adventist apologist, Martin Weber and others, there are many points upon which Antiochus Epiphanes fails to fulfill the prophecies in Chapter 8. Here are some:

1. Antiochus did not appear at "the latter part" (vs 8:23) of the rule (312-30 BC) of the 4 Greek "horns" (vs 22), but approximately the middle (175-164 BC) of the Seleucid dynasty.

• Considering that three of the four kingdoms represented by the horns were still in vigor, and the vision of the writer was as though those times were the end times, this failure to fulfill a prophecy is overworked for little reward.

2. The Little horn is described as growing "exceedingly great" (NKJV), "grew in power" in NIV in comparison to the Large horn (Alexander the Great) who grew "very great" and the Ram (Medo-Persian Empire) who "became great". This would require the Little Horn power to be of greater strength to both the Medo-Persian Empire and the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great. This is clearly not the case with Antiochus who was a mediocre king. It was his father who restored Seleucid dominions and was called Antiochus the Great. Antiochus Epiphanes but inherited the kingdom. His 'growth' into Egypt was reversed by a mere warning, drawing a circle in the sand around him, by a Roman officer, and expeditions to increase his kingdom just resulted in his death. He was known by his contemporaries as -- "Epimanes" -- the madman. Objections to the effect that the Little Horn must be seen from the viewpoint of Jerusalem and that, as such, terms of greatness are relative, fail to consider that: (a) apocalyptic prophecy has a cosmic viewpoint precluding too local an application; and (b) even from Jerusalem's perspective Antiochus in no way compares with Alexander or some of the Persian kings.

• Daniel was written for Jews, which suggests one must consider the view from Jerusalem. The inhabitants saw an ever-growing Seleucid influence in Judea with bigger and bigger military incursions, culminating in the desecration of the temple, stoppage of daily sacrifice, the garrisoning of Jerusalem and a persecution of anyone caught observing the Jewish religion. (The notion of something called a "Medo-Persian Empire" has no basis in history whatsoever. Cyrus the Great reversed the vassal relationship between Persia and Media, so that Media paid Persia tribute.)

3. In verses 13 and 14, the temple was to be "surrendered" for 2300 days (or 6 years and 110 days) till its cleansing. According to 1 Maccabees, Antiochus disrupted the temple services for 3 years and 10 days, .

• However the text of Daniel 8:13 doesn't say 2300 days, but 2300 mornings and evenings, that is 1150 days, which is three years and sixty-two days, a three years plus duration closely related to the three and a half years ("a time, times and half a time") of Daniel Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 12:7, the 1290 days of Daniel 12:11, and 1335 days of Daniel 12:12. According to 1 Macc 1:20, 29, the persecution of Antiochus started in 167 BCE, and according to Josephus the persecution lasted for three years.

4. The directions of expansion of the Little Horn are given as the South, the East and the Glorious Land (Dan. 8:9). Antiochus' campaign to the South was frustrated on the mere command of a Roman official; no success here. He inherited the "Glorious Land" from his father and lost it to the Maccabees; no success here either. He campaigned to the East and died in the process; no success here either. By contrast, his only lasting success was his acquisition of Cyprus which lies to the West of his base, one of the directions of the compass not mentioned in the prophecy. So Antiochus does not meet the criteria of Daniel 8:9.

• If Daniel was written around 164 BCE (see "Dating and Context" above), what happens after that time is irrelevant for the understanding of the predictions contained therein and considerations regarding the Maccabees would be anachronistic. Antiochus died during his successful campaigns to the east: again what happened after that time would be anachronistic. Antiochus successfully held the whole Levantine coast, which is part of the south. Obviously in Jerusalem Antiochus IV did expand in all those directions.

5. While Antiochus loomed as a great enemy to the Jews in the decade 175-165, from a universal scope of biblical history he is a figure of secondary importance. The Jewish people, Jerusalem and the temple suffered much greater calamities under the rule of the Roman Empire. Jerusalem was razed twice in AD 70 and 135; the temple was desecrated by Pompey (who walked into the Most Holy place) and destroyed by Titus; hundreds of thousands of Jews perished according to Josephus in the AD 67-70 war alone. In the cosmic viewpoint of apocalyptic prophecy (Daniel is apocalyptic) Antiochus looms smaller and Rome greater.

• If Daniel was written around 164 BCE, considerations from "a universal scope" of hindsight would be irrelevant. The only figure specifically mentioned as having stopped the tamid, ie the daily sacrifice, is Antiochus IV. Antiochus burnt the city of Jerusalem, "tore down its houses and its surrounding walls",[2] and he persecuted the Jews for over three years.

6. Important for Christians is the statement of Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 which places the abomination spoken by Daniel the prophet and which is associated with the Little Horn (see Daniel 8:13 and compare with Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, an event that was still in the future (while Antiochus had already been dead for two centuries).

• If Daniel was written around 164 BCE, words from hindsight would be irrelevant. The abomination of desolation, שקוץ משומם, is a parody on the name of Baal, the lord of heaven, בעל שמים, a Syrian means of referring to the Olympian Zeus, the deity installed in the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus IV. [3]

7. In Daniel 8:17 the angel tells Daniel that the vision of the Little Horn is "to the time of the end". Antiochus does not fit this part.

• If Daniel was written around 164 BCE, the notion of "the end" being that of the time of the writer puts Antiochus at the time of the end.

8. The insistence of commentators to identify the Little Horn with Antiochus stems in great part from a rejection by some of the possibility of predictive prophecy. Quotations in other writings and textual evidence from Qumran indicate that the book of Daniel was written at the latest in the mid second century BC, though potentially much earlier. Since Daniel describes events much later than Alexander the Great and the division of his empire among the Diadochi (c. 300 BC) then those who deny predictive prophecy have to fit the Little Horn between 300-150 BC and the only persecuting power that can be considered is Antiochus, despite the many shortcomings of such an association. This is why objections to the Antiochus association are always met with very specific but assumed references to date of composition and a strong localization of the little Horn prophecy. However, if one accepts the possibility that the Bible can prophecy the future and accept the dating of the book in the time of Daniel (6th century BC), as maintained by the book itself, then the association of the Horn with Antiochus becomes untenable.

• This is not an argument against Antiochus IV as the little horn. Josephus believed Daniel was written in the 6th c. BCE, yet saw this little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes, A.J. 10.276.

Comparison between Antiochus and Rome in chart form

Scholarly arguments in favor of Antiochus as the little horn

The scholarly consensus view of the date of writing of this vision is shortly prior to the death of Antiochus and the re-dedication of the temple of Jerusalem in 164 BCE. If this is correct one could understand the writer from the perspective of seeing the Seleucid persecution first hand and preceiving that he was living in the end time.

Characteristics of the Little Horn	Antiochus	(Rome, not a king)
Dan. 8:9 Came out of “one of them” (ie horns)	Yes, Antiochus was from one of the four kingdoms	No, Rome was not from the Macedonian kingdom
Dan. 8:9 “grew exceedingly great” in the eyes of Judea	Yes, certainly at the time	Yes
Dan. 8:9 grew towards the south	Yes, fought two successful wars against Egypt	Yes
Dan. 8:9 grew towards the Glorious Land	Yes. Judea was left in peace until he invaded	Yes. The Romans conquered and controlled Palestine and Jerusalem for 500 years
Dan. 8:9 grew great towards the East	Yes, Antiochus had success against Media and Armenia	Yes, Rome conquered massive swathes of territory in the east and held it for centuries
Dan. 8:9 sequence of growth – south, east, Glorious Land	Yes, Antiochus' captured Egypt, invaded Judea, campaigned in the east	Rome conquered in all directions, not just those specified in Daniel
Dan. 8:10 threw down some of the host	Yes	Not some.
Dan. 8:11 sacrifices removed	Yes, Antiochus is the only king known to specifically have stopped sacrifices	This would be implied by Rome destroying the temple
Dan. 8:11 acted arrogantly against the prince of the host	Yes, Antiochus removed the high priest	No, the high priest acted in favor of Rome
Dan. 8:12 sanctuary cast down	Yes	Yes
Dan. 8:12 prospered	Yes, Antiochus collected great booty from Egypt then cleaned out the temple in Jerusalem	?
Dan. 8:14 timeframe, 1150 days	Duration of the persecution	?
Dan. 8:17 vision to time of the end	Yes, from the writer's viewpoint.	No, Rome in many manifestations continues to this day with no relevance here
Dan. 8:23 bold king shall arise	Yes, Antiochus	(not a king)
Dan. 8:23 a king.. skilled in intrigue	Yes [4]	(not a king)
Dan. 8:24 his power shall be mighty	Yes, at the time	(not a king)
Dan. 8:24 he will destroy fearfully; destroy the holy people	Yes, Antiochus tore down the walls and the houses [5] and had anyone who continued to worship God executed	(not a king or even an individual)
Dan. 8:25 he shall make deceit prosper	Yes. Those who connived with Antiochus made their own profit.	(not a king, not an individual)
Dan. 8:25 in his own mind he shall be great	Yes, Antiochus changed his name to Antiochus Theos Epiphanes Nikephorus, ie Antiochus the god manifest, the victory-bringer"	(not a king, not an individual)
Dan. 8:25 without warning he shall destroy many	Yes.	No.
Dan. 8:25 he shall be broken, but not by human hands	Yes, Antiochus died of a disease, not killed	No candidate.

Arguments in favor of Rome as the little horn

In Matthew 24:15-16 Jesus said: "Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." This statement indicates three things. First, Jesus believed that the book of Daniel was indeed written by Daniel, the 6th century BC prophet, not in 164 BC. Second, that the abomination of desolation (Daniel 8:13, 9:27, 11:31, 12:11) was still in the future ("when you see...") in which case it excludes Antiochus who had already been dead for 200 years. Third, commentators agree that Matthew 24 deals primarily with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70, and as such shows us that Jesus saw the Little Horn power and the abomination of desolation as Rome.

The association of the Little Horn with Rome has a long history of support among both Jewish and Christian scholars. Some manuscripts of the Septuagint, for example, render the "ships of Kittim" of Daniel 11:30 as "the Romans". The Talmud, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Hab. 3:17), the Midrash Rabbah on Gen 15:2, 9 and on Lev 13:5 all associate the last empire of Daniel as Rome (at times referred to as Edom). Yohanan ben Zakkai, Rabbi Akiva and Maimonides are some of the most prominent early and medieval rabbis who accepted the association. Within Christian circles a host of scholars through the ages, Catholic and Protestant, have also connected the Little Horn with Rome. To name a few: Joachim of Floris, Luther, Zwingli, Adam Clark.

The following chart represents some arguments in favor of identification of the Little Horn with Rome and some of the problems of identifying the Little Horn with Antiochus.

Characteristics of the Little Horn	Antiochus	Rome
Dan. 8:9 Came out of “one of them” possibly meaning "horns" but more likely "winds". There are two reasons why "winds" should be preferred. First, in the Hebrew the word "them" used is masculine, while the word "horns" is feminine. By contrast, the word "winds" can be either and so fits better. Second, in describing the growth of the horns two words are used: elahah for the four horns and yatsah for the Little Horn. While elahah denotes vertical growth, yatsah has the meaning of "going, moving, or coming forth in a sense of movement from one compass direction to another. A horizontal expansion, not a vertical growth is described."	Plausibly	Yes
Dan. 8:9 “grew exceedingly great” compared to Alexander (“very great”) and the Medo-Persian Empire (“great”)	No	Yes
Dan. 8:9 grew towards the south	No While in Egypt he was humiliatingly ordered out by the Romans and obliged	Yes
Dan. 8:9 grew towards the Glorious Land	No Antiochus inherited Jerusalem and lost it to the rebellious Jews	Yes The Romans conquered and controlled Palestine and Jerusalem for 500 years
Dan. 8:9 grew great towards the East	No After frustrating failures in his eastern campaigns Antiochus died defeated	Yes Rome conquered massive swathes of territory in the east and held it for centuries
Dan. 8:9 sequence of growth – south, east, Glorious Land	No Antiochus' failed military campaigns went south, Glorious Land, east	Yes Rome conquered first the south of Italy and Sicily, then Greece and Asia Minor towards its east, and then the Glorious Land
Dan. 8:11 sacrifices removed	Yes, for three years	Yes, permanently
Dan. 8:12 sanctuary cast down	Yes	Yes
Dan. 8:12 prospered	No Antiochus was frustrated in everything he did	Yes
Dan. 8:14 timframe, 2300 days	Possible suggestions	Possible suggestions
Dan. 8:17 vision to time of the end	No Antiochus was nowhere near the time of the end	Yes Rome in many manifestations continues to this day
Dan. 8:23 a king shall arise	Yes	Yes In the book of Daniel king and kingdom are almost synonymous (c.f. Daniel 2:38-39). In fact early manuscripts of the Septuagint had rendered "king" as "kingdom" in Daniel 7:17.
Dan. 8:24 mighty	Not really	Yes Probably the mightiest empire of antiquity
Dan. 8:24 he will destroy fearfully; destroy the holy people	Not really Antiochus' persecutions were short in duration and he soon lost interest – he certainly did not “destroy” the holy people	Yes During the Roman Empire hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians died for their faith
Dan. 8:27 Daniel could not understand the vision	No If the book was written in 164 BC as the persecutions had reached a climax, why could Daniel not understand the vision?	Yes Daniel could not fathom that an empire as mighty as Rome could wreak such havoc, because it was still far in the future

Other views

Some also speculate that the other horn that rises after Alexander is Muhammad or the Papacy, however none of these individuals came from one of the four kingdoms(Diadochi) that succeeded Alexander the Great.

Adventist view

Further information: Investigative judgment

Adventists teach "Rome" was the little horn power of Daniel 8:9-12 that defiled the heavenly sanctuary by substituting its own priesthood. At times, Adventist leaders challenged this view. For example, Seventh-day Adventist scholar Raymond Cottrell wrote:

"In 1958 the Review and Herald Publishing Association needed new printing plates for the classic book Bible Readings, and it was decided to revise it where necessary to agree with the Commentary. Coming again to the Book of Daniel I determined to try once more to find a way to be absolutely faithful to both Daniel and the traditional Adventist interpretation of 8:14, but again found it impossible. I then formulated six questions regarding the Hebrew text of the passage and its context, which I submitted to every college teacher versed in Hebrew and every head of the religion department in all of our North American colleges---all personal friends of mine. Without exception they replied that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14."

However, it should be noted that Cottrell did not question the identity of the Little Horn as Rome but rather the interpretation of the 2300 days aspect and its relation to the heavenly sanctuary.

During the 1980s Biblical scholars of the SDA Biblical Research Institute revisited the SDA interpretation. Their findings in the seven volume Daniel and Revelation Committee Series present a historicist approach to prophecy.

Derivation of 1844 date

The derivation of the 1844 date for the commencement of the investigative judgment is explained in detail in Adventist publications such as Seventh-day Adventists Believe.

Beginning of the 70 Weeks: The third decree in 457 BC marks beginning of 70 weeks. King reigns were counted from New Year to New Year following an 'Accession Year'. The Persian New Year began in Nisan (March-April). The Jewish civil New Year began in Tishri (September-October).

File:27AD.jpg

Ending of the 70 Weeks: Tiberius Caesar began ruling in the Fall of 13 AD. His 15th year began in the Fall of 27 AD, which also marks the end of the 69 weeks and the baptism of Jesus. The Gospel went to "My people" for 490 years, then it went to the Gentiles also.

The 2300 day prophecy time line.

Coming out of the 19th century Millerite movement, Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) placed strong emphasis on the prophecies of the 70 weeks and the 2300 days.

The beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy started with the decree by Artaxerxes that allowed for Jerusalem to be restored and rebuilt. Two previous decrees only dealt with the construction of the Temple. The beginning of the 70 weeks occurred in 457 BC during Artaxerxes' 7th year as counted by the Jewish civil calendar.

The length of the prophetic 69 weeks is 483 prophetic days. Citing other prophecies where a prophetic day represents a literal year, SDAs, following the Millerite lead, set the 483 prophetic days to 483 literal years. The ending year of the 69 weeks prophecy is calculated: -457 BC + 483 yrs + 1 yr (for switch from BC to AD) = 27 AD.

In Luke's narrative, Jesus began his ministry after his baptism by John. John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar which began, according to history, in 27 AD. Daniel 9:25 states that the Anointed One, the Messiah, would come at the end of the 69 weeks. The 69 weeks ended in 27 AD. The ministry of Jesus began in 27 AD.

After the 69 weeks the "Anointed One will be cut off." In 31 AD, after the end of the 69 weeks, Jesus died on the cross confirming the first Biblical covenant--"He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven."

Jesus was baptized in the Fall of 27 AD and died in the Spring (Easter) of 31 AD -- 3 1/2 years later. Daniel 9:27 says "In the middle of the seven he will put an end to sacrifice and offering." At the time of Jesus' death the 4 inch (10 cm) thick curtain between the Holy and Most Holy Places in the temple was ripped from top to bottom signifying the end of the earthly temple's sacrificial system. Type had met anti-type.

The stoning of Stephen and the conversion of Saul marked the beginning of the gospel to the Gentiles. The 70 weeks were for "My people", i.e., the Jewish nation. At the end of the 70th week in 35 AD, Paul began taking the gospel to the Gentiles also.

According to SDA eschatology, the 70 weeks were "decreed" (actually "cut off") for the Jewish people from the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. The 70 weeks, therefore, marks the first part of the 2300-day prophecy.

While no specific date is given in official belief statements, many Adventists hold October 22, 1844 as the starting date for the investigative judgment. Originally Miller set the end of the 2300 days between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. In Mid 1844, Miller stated "I confess my error, and acknowledge my disappointment: Yet I still believe that the day of the Lord is near." In February, 1844, Samuel S. Snow began preaching the end of the 2300 days to be in the Fall of 1844. He soon settled on October 22. In an August camp meeting, October 22 took hold of the Adventists in New England. Miller was one of the last to accept the date. Later, W. W. Prescott suggested that the investigative judgment occurred in the spring, and not autumn, but his view was rejected.

Criticism of the Adventist view and objections to the criticisms

According to Adventists, the 2300 days began in 457 BC and ended in 1844 AD. Adventists teach that the 1260 years "supremacy" of the little horn happened within the 2300 years which began with the Medes and Persian in 457 BC and ends with the "Cleansing of the Sancturary" in 1844. However, according to Daniel 8:9-12, the little horn of Daniel 8 is supposed to be "treading underfoot" the sanctuary during the entire 2300 evenings and mornings.

Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground. Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?" He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."

Seventh-day Adventists have never associated the 2300 days with the horn of Chapter 8. It doesn't matter if ellenwhiteexposed.com thinks SDAs should do so or if they misunderstand what SDAs say. Arguments should be against what someone actually says, not what someone says someone says. Such arguments are strawman arguments.

According to SDA teaching, this began with pagan Rome treading underfoot the earthly sanctuary, and then later became papal Rome treading underfoot the heavenly sanctuary. This presents a whole host of dilemmas:

• The Little Horn of Daniel 8 is a King, not an Empire. The Hebrew word for "king" in verse 23 is melek, and means "a king; king, royal" (Strong's). The word, melek, is never translated "kingdom, or world power, or empire."

But king and kingdom are closely related in Daniel (cf. Daniel 2:38-39). In Daniel 7:17 the Jewish translators of the LXX rendered "king" as "kingdom".

• Rome did not have any contact with the Jewish nation until 161 BC. How could the little horn have begun its desecrating work in 457 BC, 296 years before it even came into contact with the Jewish state? Rome had no part whatsoever in the activities of 457 BC and thus could not possibly be the "little horn" described in Daniel 8.

But the question asked is "how long the vision" i.e. the whole vision.

• Rome lived peacefully with the Jewish nation and did not even molest the Jews until after Palestine became a part of the Roman Empire in 63 BC. How could the little horn be "trampling underfoot" the Sanctuary for nearly 400 years when it never even interfered with the sanctuary service during that time period?

But again, the question asked is "how long the vision" i.e. the whole vision.

• If Papal Rome is the little horn of Daniel 8 during the latter part of the 2300 days, then what happened to papal Rome on October 22, 1844? Did the Papacy suddenly stop defiling the Sanctuary in 1844? Was it "broken without hand" (vs. 25) in 1844? Why is there no event in papal history to coincide with the end of the 2300 days?

Again, the question asked is "how long the vision" i.e. the whole vision. The 2300 days refer to the whole vision which includes the cleansing of the sanctuary.

• If pagan Rome neither persecuted the Jews nor stopped the sacrifices in 457 BC, and if there is no event in papal history to coincide with the close of the 2300 days in 1844, then how can we possibly attach Rome to this prophecy?

457 BC is the starting point of the whole vision, not just the activities of the Little Horn.

• Daniel 8 does not say that the four horns were absorbed by the little horn, as the four divisions of Alexander's empire were by Rome. The Roman application makes something quite different of the prophecy than is indicated by Daniel's symbols.

Neither does it say that the four horns continued. It doesn't say anything else about the four horns so the point is mute.

• The 'little horn' comes on the scene AFTER the division of Alexander the Great empire. One who reads the entire chapter cannot fail to see one event following another:

1. 1. The rise of the 'great horn' (Alexander) comes first
   2. He rules for a time, and is 'broken'
   3. His empire is divided into four new empires
   4. The 'little horn' comes on the scene AFTER this division

One event is dependent upon another, and we can follow the course of these events through history. Now, consider the following chronology carefully:

1. 1. Alexander died in 323 BC
   2. Alexander's kingdom was divided in 301 BC
   3. The little horn could not have come on the scene until AFTER 301 BC

How could the little horn be desecrating the Sanctuary in 457 BC when the prophecy does not even show it arising until after 301 BC.

Again, 457 BC is the starting point of the whole prophecy, not the activities of the Little Horn.

See also

• Book of Daniel
• Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2
• The writing on the wall
• Fiery Furnace
• Daniel's Vision of Chapter 7
• Daniel Prophecy Literary Parallels
• Prophecy of Seventy Weeks
• Daniel Chapter 11
• Abomination of desolation