SERIES XIX

THE VISION OF THE RAM AND THE HE GOAT

"Then. 1 lifted up mine eyes and saw, and; behold, there stood before the river a ram, which, had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the. west, on the, face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes." -- Daniel 8:3, 5.

THIS second vision of Daniel was seen by him in the third, year of the reign of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, two years subsequent to the time he saw the vision described in chapter seven. This would be about 553 B. C. The statement by the Prophet that he was "at Shushan, in the palace, which is in the province of Elam, by the river Ulai," is understood by many noted expositors, not as denoting the place where he actually was in person, but rather the place to which he was transported in spirit in the vision -- that is where it seemed to him he was when he beheld the vision. If this be the correct thought, then it was the same with Daniel as it was with St: John when he beheld the wondrous visions of the Apocalypse. St. John in the spirit was sometimes on the earth and sometimes before the heavenly throne; at one time he was carried away in the spirit into the wilderness and at another time to a great and high mountain. In reality, however, St. John was on the Isle of Patmos all the time; and in the case of Daniel it would seem that he was all the time in Babylon. The reason why the vision was seen from Shushan seems to be that it was at this place that the seat of power represented by the "ram" (Persia) was to be located; also that it was with the power symbolized by the ram that the fulfillment of the vision was to begin.

THE KINGS OF MEDIA AND PERSIA

The Prophet says that as he lifted up his eyes be beheld standing before the river -- a ram having two horns on its head. The two horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. The great exploits of the ram are next described. He says, "I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, arid became great."

We are not left to conjecture what power the ram represents, for we are told by Daniel that when he "sought for the meaning" of the vision, he heard a man's voice which seemed to proceed from between the banks of the river, saying, "Gabriel make this man to understand the vision." The Prophet tells that the one addressed came near where he stood, and Daniel was so moved with fear that he fell on his face. He was then touched by the angel and made to stand on his feet. The angel then said: "The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia."

In the dream of Nebuchadnezzar this same great power is pictured by the silver breast and arms of the metallic image; and in the preceding vision, under the symbol of a hear. The change of the symbol to that of a ram, a more domestic and less harmful animal, may be because of the peculiar relation this power sustained to the Jewish people. The Medo-Persian kingdom viewed from this standpoint was not a devouring wild beast, but that of a somewhat friendly power. It vas this power that was instrumental in restoring the Jews to their own land after their captivity in Babylon; and it was by this power, that they were helped in many ways in rebuilding their temple, and in restoring their worship. Bible history also shows that many Jews continued long after their restoration to dwell among the Persians, and held positions of power and influence in the government. This is seen from the book of Esther.

The ram "pushing" violently with its head, has. reference to the military conquests of this, great Persian power. Its butting, so that no beasts were able to stand before it, signifies its conquests and supremacy over all other powers. In Dan. 6:I. it is recorded that under Darius the vast territory of the empire embraced 120 provinces, and in Esther 1:1, only about seventeen years after, we learn that seven provinces had been added to the120.

THE KING OF GRECIA

After the ram's exploits, a he goat appears upon the scene. He is represented as coining from the west, and moving with such speed that his feet seemed scarcely to touch the ground; and he had a "notable horn" between his eyes. The angel's explanation of this is: "And the rough goat is the king of Grecia; and the great horn. that is between his eyes is the first king." The same great power is represented in the preceding vision (Dan. 7), as a four-winged and four-headed leopard; and in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, as the belly and sides of brass of the great image. Considered as a world power in general, this Grecian kingdom possessed and used all the savage, ferocious qualities of a leopard. In its relation to the Jews, however, it was a mild, fostering power. To them it did not act as a beast of prey. This, as, in the case of the Persian kingdom, seems to account for the change in the symbol. An instance illustrating this relationship is related by Josephus. When Alexander was on his eastern expeditions, he laid siege to Tyre. Being in need of provisions for his army he sent messengers to the high priest, Jaddua, at Jerusalem to furnish him with the same: The high priest, however, refused on the ground of his allegiance to the king of Persia. Alexander in great rage vowed to have revenge on the Jews. As soon as he had captured Tyre and Gaza, Josephus informs us that he came to Jerusalem with his army, intending to destroy it. The high priest, when he learned of Alexander's approach called upon all the people to make supplications to God. In answer to their supplica-tions, the high priest, in a vision of the night, received directions what to do.

In accordance with these Divine instructions, when Alexander came near to the city, the high priest caused the gates to be thrown wide open, and arrayed in his priestly robes; with the miter on his head, with the golden plate on which was engraved the name Jehovah, followed by the under priests, arrayed also in their robes of office, and with them a large number of the people clothed in white garments, went out to meet the great conqueror. When Alexander saw this procession, he went to meet them, and approaching the high priest, saluted, him, and then offered worship to Jehovah. All this was a great surprise to Alexander's officers, particularly so to the Syrian kings, his allies; they supposing that he was disordered in his mind. Parmenio, one of Alexander's officers, inquired of him why it was that when all others adored him, he should adore the high priest of the Jews. Alexander replied, as stated by Josephus, "I did not adore him, but that God who honored him with his high priesthood. For I saw this person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I could obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians. Whence it is that having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream. I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind." After Alexander had spoken these words to Parmenio, he was conducted by the high priest into the city, and going into the temple he offered sacrifice to God according to the high priest's direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. The Book of Daniel was then brought out and the prediction that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of Persia was shown to Alexander, and he was caused to believe that he himself was the person referred to. The next day he called the high priest and all the others to him and bade them ask what favors they pleased of him. "Accordingly the high priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute the seventh year. This was readily granted. And when they intreated that the Jews in Media and Babylon be permitted to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he had said to the multitude that if any of them would enlist themselves in his army, on condition that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him to his wars."

THE GREAT HORN WAS BROKEN

The Prophet in the vision beheld the goat coming from the west, for it was to the far west from Persia, that the Grecian or Macedonian power originated. It struck the ram with terrible force, broke both his horns and trod him under his feet. This describes the overthrow of the Medo-Persian power by Alexander the Great, king of Macedon. It of course; required more than one battle to accomplish this, but that it was accomplished very quickly, all historians are agreed.

"Therefore," the Prophet records, "the he goat waxed very great, and when he was strong, the great horn was broken." It was in the time of its greatest strength that Alexander suddenly died. "On Alexander's death, B. C. 323, Philip Aridaeus, his half brother, was proclaimed king at a meeting of the chief generals, and, in conjunction with him, as soon as born, a son of Alexander, of whom Roxana was then pregnant, called afterwards Alexander Aegus. And during their lives the generals forbore from assuming the royal title; professing themselves simply governors under Alexander's son and brother:" However, "in the space of about fifteen years, they were murdered, and then the first horn or kingdom was entirely broken: The royal family being thus extinct, the governors of provinces, who had usurped the power, assumed the title of kings: and by the defeat and death of Antigonus, in the battle of Ipsus, they were reduced to four, Cassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy, and Seleucus, who parted Alexander's dominion between them, and divided and settled it into four kingdoms."* These four kingdoms constitute the four notable horns, which took place of the one great horn, the Alexander dynasty; and they are the same as is represented by the four heads of the leopard of the preceding vision. It is said in the vision, "four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power." This means that while they would be kingdoms of the Greeks, they would not be ruled by Alexander's own family: It is said also that these four kingdoms should extend "towards the four winds of heaven." History relates that Lysimichus had Thrace, Bithynia, and the northern regions; Ptolemy possessed Egypt and the southern countries; Seleucus obtained Syria, and the eastern provinces; and Cassander held Macedon, Greece and the western parts.

__________

* Bishop Newton.

___________

The foregoing is in perfect harmony with all expositors, without a dissenting voice. This cannot be said, however, of the portion of the vision that follows, which portion no doubt is by far the most important. Of this, as seen by the Prophet in the vision, he says: "And out of one of them [one. of the four horns] 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 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 practiced and prospered."

___________

** The word sacrifice is not in the original text.

_____________

FOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE "LITTLE HORN"

Before proceeding to consider the angel's explanation of this part of the vision it will be well to, notice that expositors as far back as the second century B. C. up to the present time have given a great deal of attention to the study of this vision, as may be seen from the writings that have come down to us. However, while there has been a very general agreement in applying the vision of the ram and the he goat and the latter's four horns to the Medo-Persian and Grecian kingdoms, and the fourfold division of the last, as is given in the foregoing, there does not exist such an agreement as to what power is represented by the "little horn" of the vision. Looking over the interpretations of this long line of expositors, we discover that with some few minor differences on some points, there exist four interpretations. By briefly stating these interpretations we may, by a comparison with the prophecy, be better able to judge as to which of these meets the requirements.

The first one we will mention is that which makes this "little horn" and its evil actions apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, a ruler of the Syrian dynasty, or Seleucidae, as the rulers of this dynasty are called from their founder, Seleucus, the one above mentioned. Jewish as well as many Christian expositors have thus applied the prophecy. Antiochus reigned from 175 to 164 B. C. and was a most terrible persecutor of the Jews, and a desecrator of their temple and worship. Others say that this "little horn represents the Roman kingdom, which it is claimed was a horn or power that came out of that division of Alexander's empire which was founded by Cassander, one of Alexander's generals. The claim is thus stated by one writer: "Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of the goat [168 B. C.], it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the Prophet, or may be properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat." This writer further says, "This little horn must be understood to symbolize Rome in its entire history, including its two phases, pagan and papal." (Uriah Smith, Daniel and The Revelation.) Adventist and a few other expositors have applied the prophecy in this way. There are others who apply this "little horn," to a yet future Antichrist. A modern Futurist expositor has thus expressed this view

"As Antiochus Epiphanes and his doings and successes met the prophetic description for that time, we may the better see and understand by his history how it will be in the last days. People sometimes wonder who the final Antichrist is, and how he shall come. Christian antiquity with one voice answers: 'He is Antiochus Epiphanes reproduced in larger proportions; and intensified energy, immediately before the great day of God Almighty.' And by observing after what manner, and for what reasons the calamitous inflictions of that Graeco-Syrian king fell upon the Jews of old, we may see and know how the final Antichrist will come." -- Joseph Seiss, Voices From Babylon.

The fourth and last view held respecting the application of this "little horn" of Daniel 8, is that it has met its fulfillment in the great Mohammedan apostasy, which sprang up very near the time when the "little horn" of Papacy of Daniel 7, appeared. These expositors distinguish between the two by designating them as the eastern and western "little horns."

CONCERNING THE APPLICATION 'To ANTIOCHUS

We will consider first the interpretation that applies this "little horn" power, which is distinctly stated in the vision to come out of one of the four divisions of the Grecian or Macedonian Empire, to Antiochus Epiphanes. The late Mr. Guinness has thus made reference to this application. He says it is clear "that it had a precursive fulfillment, on a smaller scale, in the person and history of Antiochus Epiphanes. His career," he says, "accords so closely with almost every feature of the prediction, as to leave little room for doubt that it was intended by the Holy Spirit as one subject of the prophecy. For seventeen centuries all expositors, Jewish and Christian, held that the prophecy referred to Antiochus. The books of Maccabees record his career with great detail, and trace in it, as does Josephus, the fulfillment of the predictions of this 'little horn.' But," Mr. Guinness goes on to say, "Antiochus never waxed 'exceeding great'; he never 'threw down the place of the sanctuary,' though he took away the daily sacrifice; and he lived too near the time when the prophecy was given, to be the full and proper, fulfillment of it, seeing it is said of the vision, 'it shall be for many days,' 'at the last end of the indignation.' Besides this, the time of the desolation effected by Antiochus -- just three years -- does not in any way, or on any system, correspond with 2300 days; so that we are driven to regard this as one of those prophecies which has undoubtedly had a double fulfillment, like Hosea 11:1 ; or Psalm 72."

Mr. Shimeali, another writer of note, has called attention to another most important feature of the prophecy which fails utterly to meet a fulfillment in Antiochus Epiphanes. His words are: "To those writers . . . who make the two little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 identical, we reply, first, that it cannot apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, for the reason that like all the other horns mentioned by Daniel, it must be the symbol of a continuous sovereignty a realm, governed, extended, protected and preserved by him and his successors . . . . Antiochus was only a single individual, who appeared upon the stage and passed away," at his death.

Mr. E. B. Elliott, author of Horae Apocalypticae, has thus noted this, point: "With regard to Antiochus -- while it consists [is consistent] with the prophetic description that he was a prince of the Syro-Macedonian line, and that he desolated the [Jewish] sanctuary, the following insurmountable objections occur: (1) That he was but an individual king of the dynasty, and therefore not a horn, in the sense in which the word horn is used both in this and other prophecies of Daniel. (2) That his kingdom instead of being 'exceeding great' on the scale of Alexander's, given in the prophecy, was at the greatest, scarce a third of that of the first Syro-Macedonian king, Seleucus, in fact it being little better than a Roman dependency. (3) That the Jewish transgressors could not be said to have then 'come to the full,' there being at that time many zealous for the law, some of whom constituted soon after, the noble army of the Maccabees; and Christ Himself having fixed the epoch of maturity of Jewish transgression much later. (4) That, whereas the fall of the little horn, the terminating act of the vision, was (on the year-day system) to be 2300 years distant from that which marked its beginning, probably the successful pushing of the Persian ram -- Antiochus' death happened only between 300 and 400 years after it; and that, even on the day -- day system, no satisfactory explanation is to be offered, by reference to his profanation of the temple and its cleansing, of the period of the 2300 days."

CONCERNING THE APPLICATION
TO PAGAN AND PAPAL ROME

We ask, then, Does it not seem from the fact that the interpretation which applies this little horn of Dan. 8 to Antiochus Epiphanes fails in so many points, that we must search further to discover a power which meets all the requirements of the vision.

We next consider that application that professes to discover its fulfillment in both Rome Pagan and Papal. Mr. Smith, whom we have quoted above, fairly states this interpretation. Sir, Isaac and Bishop Newton both apply it to Rome. Mr. Guinness' words concerning this application are certainly worthy of careful consideration, and seem to well accord with both the prophecy and the facts of history.

"Antiochus Epiphanes, the Romans; and the Mohammedans, have all taken part in accomplishing these predicted desolations of Jerusalem. The first two took away the daily sacrifice, the second cast down the sanctuary, all three have defiled the place of the sanctuary, and trodden it underfoot, and by the last two especially have the "mighty and, holy people" been 'cast down,' and 'stamped upon,' and 'destroyed.' But as the Roman power cannot be represented as 'a little horn' arising out of one of the four: kingdoms into which Alexander's empire was divided (Dan. 8:9); whereas both Antiochus and Mohammed can -- we conclude that they mainly are referred to in the prediction, and especially the latter."

Mr. Elliott on this matter calls attention to the fact known to. all students of history -- a fact which contains an insurmountable obstacle to an application of this little horn of Dan. 8 to Rome. He says on this point: "There meet us on the very face of the question two objections most palpable, and which no ingenuity can ever overcome. The first is that the old Roman power can never be considered as a little horn of the Greek he goat. For the local origin of its horn was from Latium in Italy, not any spot in Greece or Persia: and before it moved eastward, to intermeddle with the territories of the Greek he goat, it was (on the scale of Daniel's vision) a great horn [power] not a little one; Sicily and Spain and Carthaginian North Africa, besides all Italy, being comprehended in its dominions. Moreover it never rooted itself in the Grecian soil, under a separate and independent government, until, at the very soonest, the division of the empire by Diocletian or, accurately speaking, not till the final division of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western under Theodorus' two sons, a century later: that is, above two or rather three centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation by its armies under Vespasian. Second, even if the, symbol of the Macedonian he goat's little horn might by any possibility be allowed to represent the old Roman Pagan power, the idea of its representing also, . . . the extremely different power of Rome, Papal -- an idea forced on the expositors spoken of, by the fact of the little horn's having an assigned duration to the end of 2300 years I say this idea is one contrary both to the reason of the thing, and to the analogy of the three other admitted and notable prefigurations of Roman Pagan and Papal in the Apocalypse."

In concluding our examination of this application of the vision, we ask, Does it not seem clear that the application of this prophecy to Rome Pagan and Papal does not meet the requirements of the vision of the little horn of Daniel 8. It certainly seems so to us. Papal Rome, as we have endeavored to show in our last, is symbolized by the "little horn" of Daniel 7 that springs up among the "ten horns" on the fourth or Roman beast. This did not occur until the opening years of the, sixth century A. D. At whatever period in history the other "little horn" appears, it must be looked for in the East and not in the West. In other words it must rise out of one of the four kingdoms into which Alexander's empire was divided, whose territory is in the East and not in the West.

The Roman power, in the various forms and aspects it takes on as the centuries come and go, is described in more prophecies of Scripture than any other power,, except that of the Jews. It is, however, invariably represented as having its origin in the West, as well as' the seat of its authority and government, in the West. Shortly after Constantine removed his capital to Constantinople those provinces gradually became known as the Eastern or Greek Empire, to distinguish them from the old original Roman Empire with its never changing center at Rome, the eternal city. The Scripture prophecy is always consistent in this. In our study of the prophecies about the "fourth beast" or Roman Empire, we should always distinguish between the lands it conquered, and the never changing seat of power. We shall find the Roman power referred to in the next chapter of Daniel in connection with the wonderful prophecy of the seventy weeks. It is there pictured in its relation to the Jews.

Concerning the last application of this prophecy of Daniel 8, to a yet future Antichrist, a short-lived man who will repeat on a 'larger scale the wickedness of Antiochus Epiphanes, all that need be said, is that the same argument that applies in refuting the application of the "little horn" of Daniel 7 and the Man of Sin of 2 Thess. 2, to a future short -lived man, applies equally effective to this.