THE LITTLE HORN OF DANIEL 8 IS NOT ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES
Updated: Dec 31, 2022
No "horn" (symbolic of kingdoms) in Bible prophecy ever arose or grew from another horn. "Horns" always arise or grow from the head of a beast.
Daniel 8 repeats and enlarges on Daniel chapters 2 & 7
DANIEL CHAPTER 2
DANIEL CHAPTER 7
Lion - Babylon
Bear - Medo-Persia
Leopard - Grecia
Terrible Beast - Rome
Little Horn - Papal Rome
Babylon of Daniel 2 falls to Medo-Persia in Daniel chapter 5.
Medo-Persia falls to Grecia in Daniel 8.
Grecia is divided into four kingdoms at the death of Alexander the Great.
Antiochus Epiphanes was one of the kings of the SYRIAN HORN of Alexanders divided Kingdom
The Little Horn, Rome, appears after the division of the Grecian Empire.
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES WAS NOT THE LITTLE HORN
Many claim that Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) was the little horn of Daniel 8. Antiochus was one of the Seleucid kings who reigned for 12 years (174-163/164 BC.) He came to power unexpectedly. A son of Seleucus IV, Philopater should have succeeded to the rule after his father’s assasination by the courtier Heliodorus. However, aided by the armies of Pergamos, the king’s brother, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), came to the throne.
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 Eara 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 falls 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 200 days included on 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 Daniel 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 IS NOT THE LITTLE HORN
20 Reasons against Antiochus being theLittle Horn
1. On the principle and precedent that succeeding visions in the Book of Daniel parallel and amplify earlier visions we see that the little horn cannot be Antiochus.
Daniel 2 & 7 describe four powers under various symbols
Babylon off the scene of prophecy
2. Medo-Persia (Silver)
3. Grecia (Brass)
4. Rome (Iron) / Papal Rome (Iron & Clay)
Rome (4th Beast / Little Horn - Papal Rome)
Rome (Little Horn - Pagan & Papal Rome)
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 Daniel 8:22 are said to be “four kingdoms,” therefore the “little horn” which followed them likewise represented a “kingdom.”
The fact that Daniel 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 (melek) kings (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 represents 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 lived so long or can live 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 divided Grecian 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, seperate 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, known as the little horn.
The little horn did not arise from one of the four horns, it arose from one of the four winds or directions of the compass. This is evident in the original language based on the use of gender. The little horn cannot therefore be Antiochus because he arose or was king of one of the four horns (kingdoms).
5. Verse 9 said that the little horn would "PROSPER" (verse 12) and become “EXCEEDING great...” These statements are made releative 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 exceding great when compared to the preceeding powers. After a short lived triumph in the "south," (Egypt), Antiochus was totally defeated when the Roman ambasador, 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 Daniel 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 fulfils the prophecy, not Antiochus.
9. While the dragon of Revelation 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 Daniel 8 has the same characteristics as the dragon of Rev 12...
1. Both are 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 pt 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 “taken away” in Daniel 8:11 is translated from the Hebrew word “ruwm,” which means “take up, exalt, raise up, lift up.” See Strongs Concordance. 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.” Hence, 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 even in the original text, hence the Daily has nothing to do with sacrifices.
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 these 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 Daniel 9 are cut off this 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.
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 Daniel 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
19. 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 til 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 sanctaury 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.”
20. The little horn of Daniel 8 grows from the head of a beast. In Daniel 7 we see the little horn grow from the head of the fourth beast. Hence one can logically conclude that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 from which the little horn arises is in fact symbolically represented in Daniel 8 in the form of the little horn here, but not specifically mentioned as such. The little horn here in chapter 8 represents both pagan Rome and Papal Rome where in chapter 7 they are presented by the fourth beast and the little horn. Therefore, the little horn of Daniel 8:8,9 arises from "out of one of them" i.e. of the four winds of heaven (one of the four directions of the compass) rather than from one of the four horns of the He-Goat. No horn in Bible prophecy in Daniel & Revelation ever arose from another horn. They always arise or grow out of the head of a beast.
No horn in Daniel and Revelation has ever arisen from another horn. Horns always arise or grow from the head of a beast. The Little Horn of Daniel 8 is not Antiochus Epiphanes but Rome.
THE DAILY, THE 2300 DAYS AND ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES
“the daily,” Hebrew Ha Tamid, is literally “the continual”
Of its 103 occurences tamid is translated “daily” only in Num 4:16 & Daniel’s book.
There is no subject to which tamid is necessarily associated and Daniel here gave no subject. Because of this the translators have guessed at a subject. The K.J.V translators added the word “sacrifice” but “sacrifice” is not in the text as is seen by the fact that it is in italics. The R.V. renders it “the continual burnt offering.” but “burnt offering” is not in the text.
1. PAPAL ROME “TOOK UP” THE DAILY
The little horn “TOOK UP” the “daily” for that is the meaning of the word “ruwm” translated “take away.” Strong's Hebrew Dictionary give many shades of meaning and virtually all mean “took up.” That this is the correct meaning can be seen by the fact that Daniel uses ruwm as “took up or similar elsewhere in his book:
This word Ruwm in found in Dan 11:36 “He shall exalt [ruwm] himself...” Dan 11:12 “his heart shall be lifted up [ruwm]..." Dan 12:7 "He held up [ruwm]...”
Had Daniel meant “take away” in Dan 8:11 he could have used one of the other words which he used in other places in his book. For example:
“Thus Melzar took away [Heb. nasa] the portion of the kings meat...” Dan 1:16.
“And when he hath taken away [Heb. nasa] the multitude...” Dan 11:12.
The fact that Daniel avoided these words and used ruwm, take up, shows that he almost certainly meant “take up”, NOT “take away.”
Why then did the translators render it “take away” instead of “take up”?
Because in two other instances (Dan 11:31; 12:11) referring to the daily Daniel used a word suwr which means take away, not take up. It appears that the King James translators saw no significance in Daniel’s use of two different terms and gave them both the meaning of taken away.
Why did Daniel use two different words meaning quite different things when referring to the taking away of the daily?
Apparently he intended us to realize that the daily would in one sense be “taken up” (ruwm) and in another sense that it would be “taken away” (suwr)? How this took place will develop as we continue this study.
2. THE DAILY WAS TAKEN AWAY BY ARMED FORCES
Daniel 8:12 & Daniel 11:31
a “host” (Heb. tsaba, i.e. army, soldiers) were given the little horn against the daily “by reason of [through] transgression,” (Dan 8:12) and these forces, took away the daily. The daily is evidently something armed forces could take away.
3. THE TAKING AWAY OF THE DAILY WAS A DATEABLE EVENT
As two prophetic periods begins with the taking away of the daily we must therefore be able to locate the event in order to understand these periods.
4. THE TAKING AWAY OF THE DAILY PRECEEDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PAPAL POWER
As the taking away of the “daily” was to set up the papal abomination which occurred in A.D.538, the “daily” must have been taken away BEFORE A.D.538.
1. The papacy took up / exated the daily - Paganism transitioned from Rome to Papal Rome.
2. The taking away of the daily was a dateable event
3. The daily was taken away by an armed host - armies.
4. The daily was taken away before A.D.538. “to set up the abomination of desolation.” (Daniel 12:11 margin).
“THE CONTINUAL” IN DANIEL
“The daily,” Heb. Ha Tamid, is literally “the continual.”
Daniel’s term, “the continual,” without stating the subject, suggests that he has already made obvious reference to the subject and need not mention it here.
What “continual” thing is seen in earlier chapters of his book? A summary of the chapter gives a clue:
Dan 1: Nebuchadnezzar makes Israel subject to himself.
Dan 2: Kingdoms continually striving for supremacy.
Dan 3: A monument to Nebuchadnezzar’s self-exaltation.
Dan 4: God humbles Nebuchadnezzar because of his self-exaltation (Dan 4:30-31).
Dan 5: Belshazzar’s self exaltation (Dan 5:23) ends in the loss of his life & kingdom.
Dan 6: Selfseeking governers seek Daniel’s higher position.
Dan 7: Kingdoms continually striving for supremacy.
Dan 8: Kingdoms continually striving for supremacy.
The “continual” theme throughout all these chapters is Satanically inspired pagan self-exaltation. From Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon saying, “Is not this great Babylon which I have built...for the honour of MY majesty” to the “man of sin” (Papal Rome) who blasphemously “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God...shewing himself that HE is God,” this spirit of antichrist continues through. (Dan 5:30; 7:25; Dan 11:36-38; cf. 2 Thess 2:4).
“Sin originated in self seeking...the desire for self exaltation” DA 21. Self exaltation was “found in” Satan (Eze 28:15) and it has continued since. It entered our world in Eden and has continued throughout every earthly kingdom, false religion, and unconverted soul. The “continual” of the book of Daniel is the continual spirit of self exaltation as seen in Paganism and the lie first told in the Garden - ye shall be as Gods - Genesis 3:5.
PAST UNDERSTANDING OF THE DAILY?
1. 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 re-dedication 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.
THE JEWISH SACRIFICES POSITION CONSIDERED.
Was the taking away of the daily the forced cessation of the daily sacrifices of the Jews?
1. The taking away cannot be what Antiochus did because the taking away of the daily was done by the little horn andAntiochus was not the little horn. (See proof later).
2. The word sacrifice is not even 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. From the time that the daily was taken away two periods of 1290 days and 1335 days began (Dan 12:11-12). 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 days.
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 interuption 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 bee nemployed:
They claim that the 2300 evening mornings refered 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, 23oo 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 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 scarifices of the Jews.
2. CHRIST’S MINISTRY
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.
“,,,the continual [tamid] shewbread...” 2 Chron 2:4 “
“...the continual [tamid] meat offering,..." Neh 10:33
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 admitedly, 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) so 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 heirarchy 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 sanctu ary (Heb 8:1; 9:11).
By these thing the papacy quite 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.
Could the taking away of the daily refer to the taking away of Christ’s heavenly ministry by the Papacy?
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 do 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 the daily was taken away from 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 Christ 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 “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?!
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 God’s sanctuary and 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" and "the transgression of desolation" are two destructive powers which attempt to destroy God's people and the sanctuary. The "daily" here cannot be Christ’s ministry as Christ’s ministry does not tread upon (destroy) his people or 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 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. PAGANISM VIEW
That the “daily” stands for “paganism,” in contrast with “the abomination that maketh desolate” (ch. 11:31), or the papacy. Both terms identify persecuting powers. The word “daily,” refers to the “continual,” opposition of Satan to the work of Christ through the medium of paganism. The taking away of the daily and the setting up of “the abomination that maketh desolate” represents the removal of pagan supremacy and the setting up of Papal supremacy. This event is the same as that described in 2 Thess. 2:7 and Rev. 13:2.
As this view maintains that the little horn is a symbol of pagan AND papal Rome, predictions concerning its activities may also be understood as applying to BOTH pagan AND papal Rome. Thus pagan Rome took up the continual spirit of self exaltation while it cast down God’s people and desolated the earthly sanctuary in A.D. 70. It was this aspect of the activity of “the abomination of desolation” to which Christ referred in Matt 24:15.
In like manner papal Rome took up the continual spirit of self exaltation of paganism while it cast down or persecuted God’s people and trod upon the truth of the heavenly sanctuary and Christ's medition in that sanctuary.
THE PAGANISM POSITION CONSIDERED:
The daily refers to Paganism.
In the 1830 William Miller came to a revolutionary view:
“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.” - William Miller, Second Advent Manual, page 66.
Could you please put that another way.
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 Daniel 8:12 and Daniel 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].”