NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
To clarify my view on the little horn, I am a Seventh-day Adventist and I believe the Roman Catholic Church is the little horn. I have always felt this way, and actually, I didnt know that anybody else thought otherwise until I was in this class, Studies in Daniel. In this report I will try to prove the little horn is the Roman Catholic Church and not Antiochus Epiphanes. What or whom exactly is the little horn of Daniel? Well, it depends on whom you talk to.
First lets look at the views of other religions than Seventh Day Adventists. According to James Hastings, who was a Scottish minister and editor, the Little Horn refers to Antiochus Epiphanes (Hastings, 587). Then further looking in the Wesleyan Bible Commentary, Bert H. Hall, Dean and Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Houghton College, claims, Much of the historical material leading to the conclusion of a literal fulfillment of Daniel 8; 9 - 12 is found in the book of I Maccabees, which led expositors as early as Josephus to interpret the little horn as the person and activities of Antiochus IV (Hall, 540).
Then moving to the views of the Roman Catholic Church, we find that they also believe Antiochus Epiphanes to be the little horn, This new symbolism for Antiochus IV Epiphanes is taken from [Daniel] 8: 9. Three of the previous horns were torn away to make room for it: This translation is based on the interpretation supposing that three of Antiochus IV Epiphanes predecessors died violent deaths so that he could succeed to the throne (Brown, 416). In fact every Bible Commentary I looked at other than Seventh-Day Adventist claimed Antiochus Epiphanes to be the little horn. Can all of these denominations be wrong and Seventh-Day Adventists be the only one with the truth about the little horn? Seventh-Day Adventists believe the little horn is not just one person, but the Roman Church, or papacy.
Its [Papacy] opposition to God and Christ is represented in the 2 d vision under the symbol of a little horn with a blasphemous mouth, in the 3 d by the little horn in its later phase, and in the 4 th - according to one interpretation as a willful king who exalts himself against God. So, who is right, Seventh-Day Adventists or the rest of the religious world? In this next section I will try to identify the characteristics of the little horn so that we can determine who or what really is the little horn. Lets start off with the characteristics that the Bible states about the little horn. There are eight characteristics or identifying marks of the little horn. 1. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.
Daniel 7: 25 2. The little horn was to think to change the times and the law. Daniel 7: 25 3. The little horn was to wear out the saints of the Most High. Daniel 7: 25 4.
The little horn had eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and it spoke words against the Most High. Daniel 7: 8 & 25 5. It put down three kings so, as it began to rise up, three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. Daniel 7: 8 & 24 6.
It was little at first, but later in time was greater than its fellows. Daniel 7: 8 & 20 7. It appeared after the other ten horns. Daniel 7: 24 8. It came out of the fourth beast.
Daniel 7: 8 & 24 Lets look at the name, little horn. The main reason I believe Antiochus Epiphanes cannot be the little horn is that in all of Daniels interpretations of visions, a horn always means a kingdom. We can find examples of this in Daniel 8: 5, 21, 22. Antiochus Epiphanes was only one person, a man. Now lets find out how the characteristic is The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.
How long is a time, times, and half a time? It equals 42 months as stated in Revelation 13: 5 or 1260 days as stated in Revelation 12: 6. And of course we know that 1 prophetic day equals 1 literal year as evidenced by Numbers 14: 34 and Ezekiel 4: 6. So, all we need to know now is how long Antiochus Epiphanes ruled.
He ruled from 175 - 164 AD (Freedman, pg. 270). Antiochus ruled for eleven years not 1260 and even if the 1260 days meant days instead of years, Antiochus ruled for a total of 4, 015 days and not 1260 days. Now if you look at the Roman Catholic Church and determine the 1260 days. Now if you look at the Roman Catholic Church and determine the 1260 days to equal years, the Roman Catholic Church meets the characteristic of the time, times, and half a time. The Roman Empire sprung up about 538 AD and had complete rule until about 1798 AD. In 1798 AD the French Revolution occurred and state affairs began to cease.
Of course the rise and fall of the Roman Catholic Church was a gradual thing, not instantaneous. But, if you subtract 538 from 1798 you get 1260 literal years. Now looking at the second characteristic of the little horn which is, the little horn was to think to change the times and the law. Antiochus Epiphanes could of course make and change laws as a king, but he didnt try to change Gods law. He disgraced God by the things he did, but he never attempted to change the Ten Commandments. The Roman Catholic Church did.
The Roman Catholic Church was given complete control and the distinction between pagan and papal Rome disappeared. In the year 1280 Peter Olive tried to render this papal decision irreversible when he asserted that the pope was an unerring standard for all Catholics on questions of faith and morals (Hasler, pg. 36). This was the first attempt for the Roman Catholic Church to try to gain absolute power but it actually did not gain absolute power until 538 AD. This movement of complete control was called the Ultramontane movement, which advocated a centralized authoritarian system of church government. So, which laws did they try to change?
In this report I will only discuss the change from Saturday to Sunday, but it should be noticed that there were other significant changes in the Ten Commandments besides the Sabbath Day. Constantine I changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday on March 7, 321 AD. All judges, city-people and craftsmen shall rest on the venerable day of the sun (Bettenson, pg. 26). What gave Constantine 1 the right to change the day of worship? No one did! The Catholic Church explains the change was to commemorate the Resurrection of Christ from the dead on the first day of the week (Hard, SJ pg. 314).
Any way the Roman Church tries to explain it cannot be right because God did not give the order to change the Sabbath. Only God can make a change in Gods law. The third characteristic of the little horn...
Free research essays on topics related to: gods law, roman church, ten commandments, roman catholic church, seventh day
Research essay sample on Roman Catholic Church Ten Commandments
