The Little Horn

[Nilloc]

Who is the Little Horn of Daniel 7? The most common answer I've heard is that it's Antiochus IV Epipanes, but I know some Conservatives resist that idea. What do you think?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Geneva Bible Notes:
Dan 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little (1) horn, before whom there were (2) three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were (3) eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

(1) Which is meant of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, etc., who were as kings in effect, but because they could not rule, except by the consent of the senate, their power is compared to a little horn. For Muhammad did not come from the Roman Empire, and the pope has no vocation of government: therefore this cannot be applied to them, and also in this prophecy the Prophet's purpose is chiefly to comfort the Jews until the revelation of Christ. Some take it for the whole body of antichrist.
(2) Meaning a certain portion of the ten horns: that is, a part from the whole estate was taken away. For Augustus took from the senate the liberty of choosing the deputies to send into the provinces, and took the governing of certain countries to himself.
(3) These Roman emperors at the first used a certain humanity and gentleness, and were content that others, as the consuls, and senate, should bear the names of dignity, so that they might have the profit. And therefore in election and counsels they would behave themselves according as did other senators: yet against their enemies and those that would resist them, they were fierce and cruel, which is here meant by the proud mouth.

 

[Nilloc]

Geneva Bible Notes:
Dan 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little (1) horn, before whom there were (2) three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were (3) eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

(1) Which is meant of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, etc., who were as kings in effect, but because they could not rule, except by the consent of the senate, their power is compared to a little horn. For Muhammad did not come from the Roman Empire, and the pope has no vocation of government: therefore this cannot be applied to them, and also in this prophecy the Prophet's purpose is chiefly to comfort the Jews until the revelation of Christ. Some take it for the whole body of antichrist.
(2) Meaning a certain portion of the ten horns: that is, a part from the whole estate was taken away. For Augustus took from the senate the liberty of choosing the deputies to send into the provinces, and took the governing of certain countries to himself.
(3) These Roman emperors at the first used a certain humanity and gentleness, and were content that others, as the consuls, and senate, should bear the names of dignity, so that they might have the profit. And therefore in election and counsels they would behave themselves according as did other senators: yet against their enemies and those that would resist them, they were fierce and cruel, which is here meant by the proud mouth.

How would this fit in with the Son of Man mentioned in the passage? It's implied that he is the one to defeat the fourth beast and the little horn.

(Dan 7:13 ESV) "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
(Dan 7:14 ESV) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

 

[sastark]

Geneva Bible Notes:
Dan 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little (1) horn, before whom there were (2) three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were (3) eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

(1) Which is meant of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, etc., who were as kings in effect, but because they could not rule, except by the consent of the senate, their power is compared to a little horn. For Muhammad did not come from the Roman Empire, and the pope has no vocation of government: therefore this cannot be applied to them, and also in this prophecy the Prophet's purpose is chiefly to comfort the Jews until the revelation of Christ. Some take it for the whole body of antichrist.
(2) Meaning a certain portion of the ten horns: that is, a part from the whole estate was taken away. For Augustus took from the senate the liberty of choosing the deputies to send into the provinces, and took the governing of certain countries to himself.
(3) These Roman emperors at the first used a certain humanity and gentleness, and were content that others, as the consuls, and senate, should bear the names of dignity, so that they might have the profit. And therefore in election and counsels they would behave themselves according as did other senators: yet against their enemies and those that would resist them, they were fierce and cruel, which is here meant by the proud mouth.

How would this fit in with the Son of Man mentioned in the passage? It's implied that he is the one to defeat the fourth beast and the little horn.

(Dan 7:13 ESV) "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
(Dan 7:14 ESV) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Did Christ not defeat the Roman Empire?

 

[Nilloc]

Geneva Bible Notes:
Dan 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little (1) horn, before whom there were (2) three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were (3) eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

(1) Which is meant of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, etc., who were as kings in effect, but because they could not rule, except by the consent of the senate, their power is compared to a little horn. For Muhammad did not come from the Roman Empire, and the pope has no vocation of government: therefore this cannot be applied to them, and also in this prophecy the Prophet's purpose is chiefly to comfort the Jews until the revelation of Christ. Some take it for the whole body of antichrist.
(2) Meaning a certain portion of the ten horns: that is, a part from the whole estate was taken away. For Augustus took from the senate the liberty of choosing the deputies to send into the provinces, and took the governing of certain countries to himself.
(3) These Roman emperors at the first used a certain humanity and gentleness, and were content that others, as the consuls, and senate, should bear the names of dignity, so that they might have the profit. And therefore in election and counsels they would behave themselves according as did other senators: yet against their enemies and those that would resist them, they were fierce and cruel, which is here meant by the proud mouth.

How would this fit in with the Son of Man mentioned in the passage? It's implied that he is the one to defeat the fourth beast and the little horn.

(Dan 7:13 ESV) "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
(Dan 7:14 ESV) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Did Christ not defeat the Roman Empire?

I guess it depends upon what you mean. If you mean did Christ triumph over the Romans by His Resurrection, then of course yes. But if you're talking about the fall of Rome in the fifth century (which is what I think you meant) then I would say I don't know. Is there some reason we should view the sacking of Rome as the fullfilment of the Daniel prophecy?

 

[sastark]

Geneva Bible Notes:
Dan 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little (1) horn, before whom there were (2) three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were (3) eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

(1) Which is meant of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, etc., who were as kings in effect, but because they could not rule, except by the consent of the senate, their power is compared to a little horn. For Muhammad did not come from the Roman Empire, and the pope has no vocation of government: therefore this cannot be applied to them, and also in this prophecy the Prophet's purpose is chiefly to comfort the Jews until the revelation of Christ. Some take it for the whole body of antichrist.
(2) Meaning a certain portion of the ten horns: that is, a part from the whole estate was taken away. For Augustus took from the senate the liberty of choosing the deputies to send into the provinces, and took the governing of certain countries to himself.
(3) These Roman emperors at the first used a certain humanity and gentleness, and were content that others, as the consuls, and senate, should bear the names of dignity, so that they might have the profit. And therefore in election and counsels they would behave themselves according as did other senators: yet against their enemies and those that would resist them, they were fierce and cruel, which is here meant by the proud mouth.

How would this fit in with the Son of Man mentioned in the passage? It's implied that he is the one to defeat the fourth beast and the little horn.

(Dan 7:13 ESV) "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
(Dan 7:14 ESV) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Did Christ not defeat the Roman Empire?

I guess it depends upon what you mean. If you mean did Christ triumph over the Romans by His Resurrection, then of course yes. But if you're talking about the fall of Rome in the fifth century (which is what I think you meant) then I would say I don't know. Is there some reason we should view the sacking of Rome as the fullfilment of the Daniel prophecy?

Why must Christ's victory over Rome be equated with the fall of a political empire? Christ is triumphant through the preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the nations. Was Rome converted? Does anyone still worship the gods of Rome? (now, arguably, the answer could be "yes" depending on how you view the Church of Rome today, but I believe my point still stands: Christ triumphed over the Roman Empire through the faithful preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the Roman Empire.) Rome fell in 313AD; a city was sacked a century later.

 

[Nilloc]

Why must Christ's victory over Rome be equated with the fall of a political empire? Christ is triumphant through the preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the nations. Was Rome converted? Does anyone still worship the gods of Rome? (now, arguably, the answer could be "yes" depending on how you view the Church of Rome today, but I believe my point still stands: Christ triumphed over the Roman Empire through the faithful preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the Roman Empire.) Rome fell in 313AD; a city was sacked a century later.

So was the brand of Christianity that Rome would later on adopt as the official state religion something that we should view as true Christianity? And who was the little horn and other ten horns if this view is correct? And since the Kingdom of God is what comes after the fourth kingdom, would that mean that the Kingdom of God came in some sense in the fourth century?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Why must Christ's victory over Rome be equated with the fall of a political empire? Christ is triumphant through the preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the nations. Was Rome converted? Does anyone still worship the gods of Rome? (now, arguably, the answer could be "yes" depending on how you view the Church of Rome today, but I believe my point still stands: Christ triumphed over the Roman Empire through the faithful preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the Roman Empire.) Rome fell in 313AD; a city was sacked a century later.

So was the brand of Christianity that Rome would later on adopt as the official state religion something that we should view as true Christianity? And who was the little horn and other ten horns if this view is correct? And since the Kingdom of God is what comes after the fourth kingdom, would that mean that the Kingdom of God came in some sense in the fourth century?

Does the Nicene Creed represent true Christianity? This was produced in the Roman Empire under the Emperor's presiding, by a counsel assembled at his request.

 

[Nilloc]

Does the Nicene Creed represent true Christianity? This was produced in the Roman Empire under the Emperor's presiding, by a counsel assembled at his request.

I don't know much about church history, but I've heard James White enough times to know what happenend after Nicea and how the decisions there were very unpopular in the empire. How councils with more bishops at them than Nicea condemned Athanasius, and how he stood alone againist almost everyone when the empire was majority Arian.

Now of course I consider the Nicene Creed to describe true Scriptural teachings, but if the majority of the church turned Arian within one generation of its writing, should we really view that as the fullfillment of the promises of the Kingdom of God found in Daniel 7?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Does the Nicene Creed represent true Christianity? This was produced in the Roman Empire under the Emperor's presiding, by a counsel assembled at his request.

I don't know much about church history, but I've heard James White enough times to know what happenend after Nicea and how the decisions there were very unpopular in the empire. How councils with more bishops at them than Nicea condemned Athanasius, and how he stood alone againist almost everyone when the empire was majority Arian.

Now of course I consider the Nicene Creed to describe true Scriptural teachings, but if the majority of the church turned Arian within one generation of its writing, should we really view that as the fullfillment of the promises of the Kingdom of God found in Daniel 7?

OK, so the issue was settled by the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. Use that as your date of Christ's victory if you prefer.

 

[puritanpilgrim]

Funny how this sounds so assured and dogmatic in the macro, but then in the micro it becomes abit more aloof.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Collin, welcome to PB!

I'm editing what I initially wrote, having spoken hastily!

I'm conservative amil and I think Antiochus is the one spoken of in Dan 8. I would refer you to a gem of a little book by Reformed Baptist Stuart Olyott, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained (Evangelical Press), who makes clear some of the complexities of the visions and dreams.

He posits that the little horn of chapter 7 is a figure who will appear at the end of the world, after the four beasts and the ten horns, and will savagely persecute the saints world-wide. This vision goes way beyond the time of Antiochus IV.

Concerning Antiochus in Dan 8, the angel has been telling Daniel the visions of that chapter; Olyott comments:

“ ‘You have heard the truth, Daniel,’ says the angel (26). ‘Now preserve the vision, because the future will need a record of what you have seen.’

“And it did. In those darkest of days, when the people of God were being hounded and killed in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, they needed and they had the comfort of this chapter of Daniel. Throughout that period they were consoled by knowing that this wicked man could not have stepped on to the page of history without divine permission and that everything he did, however awful, was nothing other than what God had predicted centuries earlier. They knew that in God’s time, and in fulfilment of verse 25, he would at last be removed. To know all this was an indescribable comfort to them in horrific times.” (p. 110)​

The other conservative amil commentators I am aware of concur with this understanding.

 

[Nilloc]

Hello Collin, welcome to PB!

Thanks!

I'm conservative amil and I think Antiochus is the one spoken of in Dan 8.

Ditto.

He posits that the little horn of chapter 7 is a figure who will appear at the end of the world, after the four beasts and the ten horns, and will savagely persecute the saints world-wide. This vision goes way beyond the time of Antiochus IV.

This I have a hard time accepting. While I do believe in a future antichrist based on passages like 2 Thess. 2 and the eight king of Rev. 17, I don’t see how the little horn of Daniel 7 can be him. It all depends upon whom the fourth beast represents. It’s either Greece or Rome; I can’t see how one can make it some kingdom in our future. I’ve also heard some more Preterist types say that the beast originally symbolized Greece, but was also typologically applied to Jerusalem (by implication) in Matt. 26:64 and its parallels.