As an Evangelical or Catholic Christian, it is likely that you identify the Little Horn in Daniel 8 as the Greek king who persecuted the Jews in the 2nd century BC known as Antiochus Epiphanes. As you may know, Seventh-Day Adventists maintain that this prophetic symbol refers to the Roman Empire.

In this article, I will utilize the information presented in the previous studies to summarize all the reasons why you should also believe that the Little Horn represents the Roman Empire rather than Antiochus Epiphanes. However, I will begin this article explaining why you and millions of other Christians believe the Little Horn is Antiochus Epiphanes.

Why the Antiochus Interpretation Seems Logical

The Bible and the book of Maccabees describe a king

that appears to come out of one of the Greek Empires

The Bible and the book of Maccabees describe a

king who waxed great towards the South

The Bible and the book of Maccabees describe a

king who waxed great towards the East

The Bible and the book of Maccabees describe a

king who waxed great towards the Pleasant Land

The Bible and the book of Maccabees describe a

king who waxed great towards the Pleasant Land

Although the author of the book of Maccabees is unknown, it appears that he lived through the  Antiochus persecution. And even though Antiochus doesn't fit the whole narrative of the Little Horn in Daniel 8, it's clear to me that the writer tried to match Antiochus with the actions of the Little Horn in order to show that prophecy had been fulfilled. This commonly happens when believers experience a tramatic event, however, as a result of this forced interpretation, many God-fearing Christians are misinterpreting Daniel 8.

Seven Critical Problems with the Antiochus Interpretation

1. The Little Horn didn't arise out of another horn

Daniel 8:8-9 states that the Little Horn came "out of one of them." The question is: what does "them" refer to?

While many assume "them" refers to the four horns (kingdoms), the sentence structure allows for another interpretation. Remember, verse 8 says, "Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven." Thus, "them" can refer to the four notable ones or the four winds of heaven.

In the Bible, I have yet to read about a horn arising out of another horn. This would mean that Antiochus is symbolized as rising from the Syrian Horn and existing as a horn separated and operating independently from the horn that he originated from. In my mind, this is simply void of logic.

However, when we consider the winds, we can see that people go into and arise out of the winds. Considering the winds are where

he passage mentions both "four notable ones" and "four winds of heaven." Through Hebrew gender analysis, scholars note that "them" is masculine, while both "horns" and "winds" are feminine. However, "heavens" is masculine, suggesting the little horn emerged from "one of the heavens" rather than from one of the existing kingdoms.

The Problem: If Antiochus came from one of the four Greek kingdoms (Syria), it would be unusual for prophecy to show him as a separate horn emerging from his own kingdom. Typically, a horn represents the king within his kingdom, not as a separate entity.

2. The "Exceeding Great" Problem

The Issue: Daniel 8:8 says Alexander "waxed very great," while verse 9 says the little horn "waxed exceeding great."

The Analysis: This indicates the little horn surpassed Alexander the Great in power and influence. However, verse 22 states that the four kingdoms arising from Alexander's empire would "not in his power" - meaning they would be weaker than Alexander.

The Problem: If Antiochus came from one of these weaker kingdoms, how could he become greater than Alexander? No historical metric supports Antiochus being more powerful than Alexander the Great.

3. Historical Inaccuracies in 1 Maccabees

The Southern Campaign: 1 Maccabees suggests Antiochus conquered Egypt, but historical records show he only occupied parts of it, never capturing Alexandria (the capital). In 168 BC, less than a year later, Roman ambassador Gaius Popilius Laenas forced him to evacuate Egypt immediately.

The Eastern Campaign: Antiochus's eastern victories were minimal. He briefly forced King Artaxias of Armenia to acknowledge his authority but didn't actually conquer the territory. His attempt to plunder the temple in Elymais (Persia) failed when locals drove him away.

The Problem: These limited military actions hardly constitute "waxing great" toward the south and east, especially compared to Alexander's conquests.

4. The Abomination of Desolation Sequence

The Issue: An "abomination of desolation" implies a specific sequence: an abomination (detestable act) that leads to desolation (emptiness/destruction).

The Analysis: According to 1 Maccabees, Antiochus first desolated Jerusalem (stripping the temple and destroying parts of the city) and then later set up pagan altars and idols.

The Problem: This sequence shows desolation followed by abomination, which is the reverse of what "abomination of desolation" requires. The desolation preceded the abomination, not the other way around.

5. The 2,300 Days Prophecy

The Issue: Daniel 8:14 speaks of 2,300 days until the sanctuary is cleansed.

The Analysis: Historical records indicate Antiochus desecrated the temple for approximately 3 years and 10 days (167-164 BC). However, 2,300 days equals about 6 years and 4 months using the Jewish calendar of 360 days per year.

The Problem: Some attempt to resolve this by claiming the 2,300 "days" are actually sacrifices (morning and evening), but this interpretation has several flaws:

• The text clearly says "days" (Hebrew: ereb boqer - evening morning)
• This phrase first appears in Genesis 1:5 describing literal days
• Biblical sacrifices were denominated as "morning and evening," not "evening and morning"

6. Wrong Time Period

The Issue: Daniel 8:23 states the little horn would arise "in the latter time of their kingdom."

The Analysis: The Seleucid Empire (one of the four Greek divisions) existed from approximately 312 BC to 64 BC. Antiochus ruled from 175-164 BC.

The Problem: This places Antiochus in the middle of the Greek period, not the "latter time." The latter time would be closer to 64 BC when Rome absorbed the last of the Greek kingdoms.

7. Transgressors Had Not Reached Their Limit

The Issue: Daniel 8:23 indicates the little horn would arise when "transgressors are come to the full."

The Analysis: While the Jews were certainly in apostasy during Antiochus's time, the punishment under Antiochus was limited compared to what came later under Rome.

The Problem: Daniel 9:24 speaks of "seventy weeks" to "finish the transgression," which extended well beyond Antiochus's time. The ultimate punishment came in 70 AD when Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple completely, scattering the Jewish people for centuries. This suggests the transgressors had not yet reached their full measure during Antiochus's era.

The Adventist Alternative: The Roman Empire

Seventh-Day Adventists propose that the little horn represents the Roman Empire, both in its imperial phase and its later papal phase. This interpretation addresses all the problematic elements:

Power and Expansion

Rome genuinely "waxed exceeding great," surpassing even Alexander's conquests. It emerged from the west (one of the four winds/heavens) and conquered:

• Egypt in the south
• The Seleucid Empire in the east
• Judea (the pleasant land)

Timing

Rome became the dominant superpower in 64 BC, which truly was "the latter time" of the Greek kingdoms.

The 70 Weeks Prophecy

The transgression reached its fullness during Roman rule, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Abomination of Desolation

Rome fulfilled this both in its pagan phase (desecrating the temple) and its papal phase (mixing paganism with Christianity, creating spiritual desolation).

Power "Not His Own"

This particularly applies to the papal phase, where religious authority was granted civil power by the Roman Empire rather than conquering it independently.

Conclusion

While it's understandable why the Antiochus interpretation appeals to many scholars due to surface-level parallels with 1 Maccabees, a comprehensive analysis reveals significant problems with this identification. The author of 1 Maccabees, writing during or shortly after a traumatic period, naturally sought to find prophetic meaning in contemporary events. However, when we examine all the prophetic elements collectively rather than focusing on isolated similarities, the Roman Empire emerges as the only power that fulfills all the criteria described in Daniel 8.

This interpretation doesn't minimize the suffering experienced under Antiochus Epiphanes, but rather recognizes that biblical prophecy often encompasses broader historical patterns than initially apparent. The little horn prophecy, viewed through this lens, provides a more complete and consistent understanding of the prophetic timeline described in Daniel 8.

As with all biblical interpretation, individuals are encouraged to study these matters personally, examining the evidence with prayer and careful consideration of the complete scriptural context.