Thoughts on the Book of Daniel.
By Uriah Smith
VERSES 9–12. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. A third power is here introduced into the prophecy. In the explanation which the angel gave to Daniel of these symbols, this one is not described in language so definite as that of Medo-Persia and Grecia. Hence a flood of wild conjectures is at once let loose. Had not the angel positively, and in language which cannot be misunderstood, stated that Medo-Persia and Grecia were denoted by the ram and the he-goat, it is impossible to tell what application men would have given us of those symbols. Probably they would have applied them to anything and everything but the right objects. Leave men a moment to their own judgment in the interpretation of prophecy, and we immediately have the most sublime exhibitions of human folly. There are two leading applications of the symbol now under consideration, which are all that need be noticed in these brief thoughts. The first is that the little horn here introduced denotes Antiochus Epiphanes; the second is that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy matter to test the claims of these two positions. Does it mean Antiochus? If so, this king must fulfill the specifications of the prophecy; If he does not fulfill them, the application cannot be made to him. The little horn came out of one of the four horns of the goat. It was then a separate power, existing independently of, and distinct from, any of the horns of the goat. Was Antiochus such a power? 1. Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of Alexander's empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these, in order, was Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings which constituted the Syrian horn of the goat. He was for the time being that horn. Hence, he could not be at the same time a separate and independent power, or another and remarkable horn, as the little horn was. 2. If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all; but Antiochus Epiphanes did not by any means sustain this character. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is, the illustrious, he was illustrious only in name; for nothing, says Prideaux, on the authority of Polybius, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus, could be more alien to his true character. For, on account of his vile and extravagant folly, some thinking him a fool and others a madman, they changed the name of Epiphanes, The Illustrious, into Epimanes, The Madman. 3. Antiochus the Great, the father of Epiphanes, being terribly defeated in a war with the Romans, was enabled to procure a peace only by the payment of a prodigious sum of money, and a surrender of a portion of his territory; and, as a pledge that he would faithfully adhere to the terms of the treaty, he was obliged to give hostages, among whom was this very Epiphanes, his son, who was carried to Rome. The Romans ever after maintained this ascendancy. 4. The little horn waxed exceeding great; but this Antiochus did not enlarge his dominion except by some temporary conquests in Egypt, which he immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy, and commanded him to desist from his design in that quarter. The rage of his disappointed ambition, he vented upon the unoffending Jews. 5. The little horn, in comparison with the powers that preceded it, was exceeding great. Persia is simply called great, though it reigned over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Esth. 1:1. Grecia, being more extensive still, is called very great. Now the little horn, which waxed exceeding great, must surpass them both. How absurd, then, to apply this to Antiochus, who was obliged to abandon Egypt at the dictation of the Romans, to whom he paid enormous sums of money as tribute. The Religious Encyclopedia gives us this item of his history: “Finding his resources exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia to levy tribute, and collect large sums which he had agreed to pay to the Romans.” It cannot take long for any one to decide the question which was the greater power, the one which evacuated Egypt, or the one which commanded that evacuation; the one that exacted tribute, or the one which was compelled to pay it. 6. The little horn was to stand up against the Prince of princes. The Prince of princes here means, beyond controversy, Jesus Christ. Dan. 9:25; Acts 3:15; Rev. 1:5. But Antiochus died one hundred and sixty-four years before our Lord was born. The prophecy cannot therefore apply to him; for he does not fulfill the specifications in one single particular. The question may then be asked how any one has ever come to apply it to him. We answer, Romanists take that view, to avoid the application of the prophecy to themselves; and many Protestants follow them, in order to oppose the doctrine of the second advent.