C. S. Lewis said that "Heaven will display far more variety than hell." If heaven is the place where humans spend an eternity developing "the full richness which God intended when he made them," then hell is the place where one glimpses the leveling effect of a hungry egotism forever seeking to "dominate, almost to digest, one’s fellow."1

Adventists, of course, don’t believe in an eternally burning hell. But we do believe in the terrible reality of evil. And a Sabbath School lesson on Rome and Antiochus confronts us with precisely that.

Actually, the title of this week’s lesson contains an unintended subtlety, for the point of the lesson is to affirm the traditional Adventist view that the little horn power of both Daniel 7 and 8 was and is Rome, not Antiochus. In short, given a choice between the two, one would have to choose Rome.

But unwary Adventists who happen on one or more commentaries that do not share the Adventist perspective would discover that virtually all of them identify the little horn of Daniel 8, not as Rome, but as Antiochus Epiphanes, the small-time Seleucid king who invaded Jerusalem in 168/167 B.C.E., desecrated the temple, set up an altar to Zeus over the altar of burnt offering, and offered pig on that altar. Three years later the sanctuary was "cleansed."

Although there are a number of tantalizing aspects of Daniel 8 that could tempt the interpreter to see Antiochus as the little horn, Adventists have rightly affirmed, I believe, the inadequacy of the Antiochus interpretation. Most important are the explicit references in Daniel 8:17 and 8:21 applying the prophecy to the time of the end. Furthermore, not only have Adventists pointed to the four-kingdom parallels in chapters 2 and 7 as good reasons for preserving the primary focus on Rome, the New Testament adds weight to the argument by declaring that the "abomination of desolation" was still future in Jesus’ day (Matt. 24:15).

So why do different schools of interpretation part company here in Daniel 8? First, it must be said that they all agree on the key players in the first eight verses: Medo-Persia, Greece, Alexander, and his four generals. And the reason is simple: right in Daniel 8, the Bible itself names Medo-Persia and Greece and makes the other identifications perfectly clear.

But when it comes to the little horn of verse 9, interpreters go their own way: preterists look to the past (Antiochus), futurists look ahead (a future Roman prince), historicists draw parallels with Daniel 7 and identify it with a power that grows out of the fourth kingdom (Rome); idealists look at the character of the little horn and apply it wherever it fits. Even Adventists have disagreed with each other as to whether the little horn comes out of the four winds or out of the four horns. The Adventist alternatives are presented in the fourth volume of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Everyone ends up at Rome, but they arrive by different routes.

What is intriguing here, however, is how interpreters from different schools of thought almost converge when it comes to the application of the vision as a whole. Even highly structured futurists (dispensationalists) offer helpful insights. Leon Wood, for example, puts the little horn of Daniel 7 in the future but the little horn of Daniel 8 in the past: "In the first vision [Daniel 7] it was the Antichrist, still to appear in the future, and here [in Daniel 8] it is Antiochus Epiphanes of ancient history." But then Wood adds this tantalizing comment: "The reason for symbolizing both as a little horn is that the one prefigures the other. Antiochus Epiphanes is sometimes called the antichrist of the Old Testament.…From what Antiochus did to the Jews in his day, therefore, one may know the general pattern of what the Antichrist will do to them in the future."2

Joyce Baldwin’s Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, Daniel, takes a similar line. While avoiding the extreme preterist and futurist interpretations, she does show intriguing points of contact with all major schools of interpretation. She, too, distinguishes the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8, noting both similarities and differences. But then she states, "we are being introduced to a recurring historical phenomenon: the clever but ruthless world dictator, who stops at nothing in order to achieve his ambitions."3 Earlier she states that the "salient features" of the little horn "present a description which could apply to more than one political leader known from the history books."4

So although interpreters differ on the historical identity of the little horn, the essential nature of the evil entity is clear. For futurists, he is active when the new Jerusalem temple is being rebuilt on or near the site where a Moslem mosque now stands (Dome of the Rock). Adventists look to a more universal and final scene in which the heavenly sanctuary is the focus of attention and the power behind the throne of evil also comes on stage: the dragon, the serpent, the Devil, Satan (compare Rev. 12:9). Onto the same stage come all the stooges who have also served the dragon. Babylon, Antiochus, and Rome are all there. It doesn’t make a lot of difference how many end up in that rogues gallery for all the bad guys look alike.

But that’s also why the story turns scary here, for we can be so eager to pin the right label on horns and beasts that we forget to look in the mirror and recognize ourselves as potentially close relatives of the beast.

One author who illustrates this more painful process of practical application is Morris Venden. Possibly his approach could be called "applied historicism." In The Return of Elijah, for example, Venden states categorically, "We need not argue the question of what the beast represents historically and politically."5 In short, he supports the traditional interpretation. But then he moves from history to application and, in the process of explaining what the beast is and does, he states that it "represents a form of self-worship" that can apply to the individual Christian: "The person who does not have any time for a relationship with God day by day is a victim of self-worship, regardless of what church he belongs to."6 Thus the book stays alive for us in a very pointed way.

And such applications aren’t limited to ordinary people. Ellen White was not afraid to make an application to Adventist leaders. Writing to the brethren in Battle Creek from her place of banishment in Australia, she said:

When men who profess to serve God ignore His parental character, and depart from honor and righteousness in dealing with their fellow men, Satan exults, for he has inspired them with his attributes. They are following in the track of Romanism.7

In short, all bad guys really do look alike—even if they happen to be Adventists.

But the good news is that the dragon doesn’t have to rule over us. By God’s grace, we can belong to that joyous group of whom the "loud voice in heaven"declares: "They have conquered him by the blood of the lamb and by the word of their testimony" (Rev. 12:10–11).

For a guide to key terms used in this commentary, click here to see the author’s "Eschatology: Four Perspectives."

Visit Spectrum’s Message Board for an ongoing discussion of this quarter’s subject, "The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment"

Notes and References

1. C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm (1963; reprint, San Diego, Calif.: Harcourt Brace), 10; and The Screwtape Letters (New York, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1961), xi.
2. Leon Wood, Daniel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1973), 212.
3. Joyce Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1978), 162.
4. Ibid., 160.
5. Morris Venden, The Return of Elijah (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1982), 71.
6. Ibid., 72.
7. Ellen White, Testimonies to Ministers (1923; reprint, Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1944), 362.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE