Purpose
Revelation 13 mentions the Beast and its Mark. This article begins with an overview of that chapter. It then provides an introduction to the Mark. It is not possible to know what the Mark is unless one understands what the Beast is. Therefore, this article then identifies the Beast. It first shows that the Beast is the same as the evil horn in the Book of Daniel. It then identifies that evil horn. For that purpose, it discusses the visions in Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11. Once the evil horn, and, therefore, the Beast, had been identified, this article identifies its Mark by discussing the origin and nature of the Beast. This article is a summary of several other articles.
Overview of Revelation 13
The Sea Beast comes out of the Sea.
The Beast that comes out of the Sea (Rev 13:1) symbolizes a human organization. The sea symbolizes the people of the world (see Rev 17:15).
It receives its authority from a Dragon.
A Dragon gave the Beast its power, throne, and great authority (verse 2). The Dragon symbolizes another great human organization. It already existed, with great authority, when the Beast arose from the Sea.
It suffers a Deadly Wound.
The Beast suffered a deadly wound (verse 3). This symbolizes a time when this organization was unable to exercise its authority.
The wound was healed, meaning the Beast was once again able to act. Then the whole world followed after the Beast (verse 3).
People worship the Beast.
The people worshiped the Beast (verse 4). The term “worship” is translated from a term meaning “bowing down before another.” In other words, in this context, ‘worship’ may be understood as the people submitting to the Beast. They obey the Beast.
The people also worshiped the Dragon who gave the Beast its power and authority (verse 4). Since the Beast received its authority from the Dragon, when the people submit to the Beast, they effectively submit to the Dragon’s authority.
The Beast reigns for 42 months.
The Beast received authority for 42 months (verse 5). Since everything else in the chapter is symbolic, the 42 months must be symbolic as well.
During those 42 months, the Beast blasphemes God and persecutes God’s people (verses 6-7). That is why Revelation mentions the Beast. It is not merely a civil authority; it is the Antichrist. It exercises authority over all people, but it persecutes God’s people because they refuse to submit.
The Land Beast serves the Sea Beast.
Later, a second beast appears. While the first beast emerged from the sea, the second beast comes out of the land. In Revelation 12, the land protected God’s people against the flood of water. See Rev 12:16. In other words, the land was a place where God’s people are safe from their enemies. However, from that previously safe place, the second beast arises to trample God’s people.
The Dragon gave the Sea Beast its authority, and the Sea Beast will give its authority to the Land Beast (verse 12). In the end time, the Land Beast will exercise that authority.
The Land Beast will cause the people to worship the Sea Beast (verse 12). In other words, it will convince people to submit to the Sea Beast.
The Land Beast performs miracles.
The Land Beast will perform great signs, even making fire come down out of heaven (verses 12-13). The fire from heaven is symbolic. In the Old Testament, by bringing fire down from heaven, Elijah proved that he spoke for God. The fire that the Land Beast brings down from heaven symbolizes that it will convince the people that it speaks for God.
Through these signs, the Land Beast will deceive the people (verse 14). For that reason, it is also called the False Prophet. See Rev 16:13.
People will make an Image of the Beast.
By deceiving the people, it will cause the people to make an Image of the Sea Beast (verse 14). In other words, the people will create an organization that is like the Sea Beast in nature.
The Image will kill those who refuse to worship it (verse 15). It will imprison and even execute people who disobey it.
The Mark is the Name of the Beast.
The Image will force all people to receive a mark on their foreheads or right hands. Only people with this mark will be allowed to buy or sell (verses 16-17). In other words, the Image is an organization with civil authority. It is able to issue laws and enforce them.
The Mark is the name of the Sea Beast, or the number of its name, the number 666 (verses 17-18). The purpose of this article is to identify the Mark of the Beast. However, for that purpose, it first identifies the Dragon and the Sea Beast.
The Four Beasts of Revelation 13
This overview mentions four beasts: the Dragon, the Sea Beast, the Land Beast, and the Image of the Beast. They symbolize four human organizations. Authority passes from the Dragon, to the Sea Beast, to the Land Beast, and is ultimately fulfilled in the formation of the Image. Neither the Dragon nor the Sea Beast is the prime mover in the end time. The Land Beast exercises its authority in the presence of the Sea Beast (verse 12). Therefore, the Sea Beast is still around, but it is no longer the main antagonist of God’s people. The Land Beast and the Image are now the persecutors of God’s people.
Introduction to the Mark
1. It is the Mark of the Sea Beast.
In Revelation, there are three beasts with seven heads and ten horns each: the beast from the sea, the beast from the abyss (Rev 11:7), and the great red dragon from which the Sea Beast receives its power and authority (Rev 12:3). Since all three have seven heads and ten horns, they are related. They belong to the same family. But they are not the same.
It is not the mark of the Dragon. The Mark of the Beast is specifically the mark of the Sea Beast. In other words, it is not something the Dragon is known for, but it identifies the Beast.
2. The Image will enforce the Mark.
It is not the Sea Beast that forces people to accept the Mark. It is not directly involved in the end-time conflict. The Land Beast will deceive the people, the people will create the Image, and the Image will force everyone to receive the Mark. It will also be the Image, not the Beast, that will seek to kill God’s people and prevent them from buying and selling.
3. God’s people will refuse the Mark.
At the end of Revelation 13, the Image forces all to receive the Mark, which is the Beast’s name on the forehead. However, only three verses later, we will read about God’s people, symbolized as 144,000. They do not have the mark. They have God’s name on their foreheads (Rev 14:1). Revelation calls this the Seal of God (Rev 7:3). In other words, the Seal of God is the counterpart to the Mark of the Beast. God’s people will refuse to receive the Mark and receive the Seal.
4. What is the Forehead?
The Mark of the Beast is either the name of the beast, or the number of its name, on the right hand or on the forehead. However, it is not a literal name on literal foreheads:
As stated, the Seal of God, which the 144,000 have, is also a name on foreheads. But it is God’s name. Since the Seal is God’s counterpart of the Beast’s Mark, people will have either the Beast’s Mark or God’s Seal.
The Seal is not God’s literal name on literal foreheads. God’s people are sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30). The forehead symbolizes the mind. To have a name on the forehead means believing in the religious system and serving it with mind and heart.
Rev 14:4-5 explains God’s seal by describing God’s people as pure in mind. Therefore, God’s name on the forehead signifies an allegiance to God. That allegiance shapes the person’s mind more and more into God’s image.
As the counterpart of God’s Seal, the name of the Beast on the forehead symbolizes a mind formed in Satan’s image. The Beast’s principles shape the mind into the image of the Beast.
5. What is the Hand?
God’s Seal is only on the forehead. In contrast, the Beast’s Mark can be on the forehead or on the right hand:
While the forehead symbolizes the mind, the “hand” represents a person’s actions. To have the Mark only on the hand is to comply without a mind commitment. It is to comply merely to avoid the death penalty and economic boycott.
6. People are divided into three groups.
In other words, in the end-time conflict, people will be divided into three groups:
First, those with God’s seal on the forehead, meaning a mind commitment to God and His principles;
Second, those with the Beast’s mark on the forehead, symbolizing a mind commitment to Satan’s principles;
Third, those with the Beast’s mark on their hands only. They do not agree with the Beast’s principles, but they will still be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone (Rev 14:9-11).
The Seal of God is only on the forehead, never on the hand, because God never forces people to comply with His demands.
7. What is Buying and Selling?
God’s people will refuse the Mark, but will not be allowed to buy or sell (Rev 13:17). Revelation uses buying and selling as symbols. Selling means offering salvation, and buying means accepting salvation.
For example, in Revelation 3:18, Jesus sells refined gold and white garments. However, what He really offers is salvation. To buy His gold and white clothes means to accept salvation.
As another example, Jesus “purchased” people with His blood. This means He saved them.
Consistent with this concept, the seven letters use poverty and wealth as symbols of spiritual condition. Being wealthy symbolizes being right with God; being poor means being lost.
Therefore, in the end-time, when only those who have the Beast’s mark will be able to buy and sell, it means that only such people will be allowed to preach God’s word. God’s people will be silenced.
Consistent with this principle, another article identifies Babylon’s “merchants” as her false teachers (see here).
8. The Mark involves false worship.
The key concept in Revelation 13 and 14 is “worship.” That is the activity most often mentioned:
On the one hand, people worship the Dragon, the Beast, and the Image of the Beast (Rev 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:9, 11).
On the other hand, when the three angels give their warning, they command people to worship only the Creator (Rev 14:7).
This emphasis on worship implies that the end-time battle is about worship. At the time that people are forced to accept the Beast’s Mark, the three angels warn the world to worship only the Creator. This means that the three angels are warning against the mark. That means that the Mark involves false worship. Since the three angels warn that only the Creator must be worshiped, the Mark involves some other form of worship.
9. The Mark contravenes God’s Law.
Since God’s people refuse the Mark of the Beast, it must be some evil teaching or practice. Specifically, as indicated by the following, the Mark relates to the Ten Commandments:
Firstly, like the Beast’s followers have its mark on their foreheads and hands, in the Old Testament, God commanded Israel to keep His commandments on their foreheads and hands.
Secondly, in the end-time, God’s people are those “who keep the commandments of God” (Rev 12:17; 14:12).
Thirdly, the Beast and its followers explicitly contravene the Ten Commandments. For example, the Beast blasphemes God, the Image kills God’s people, and the Beast’s people worship the Beast and its Image. Revelation 14:7 possibly recalls the Sabbath Commandment.
10. The Mark makes a visible distinction.
Since only the people who do NOT have the Mark will be persecuted, the Beast’s Mark and God’s Seal will make a visible distinction between people.
11. We must first identify the Beast.
This discussion provided some general characteristics of the Mark, but did not specifically identify it. Since it is the Mark of the Beast, it is something the Beast is particularly known for. For that reason, to identify the Mark, we must first identify the Beast. For that purpose, we must also identify the Dragon, which gave the Beast its great authority. That is what the next section does.
The Beast is Daniel’s 11th Horn.
The purpose of this section is to show that the Beast in Revelation and the 11th horn in Daniel 7 are two symbols for the same human organization.
1. The Beast relates to Daniel 7.
The Beast comes out of the sea. It looks like a Leopard, has the feet of a Bear, the mouth of a Lion, and receives its power, throne, and great authority from a Dragon (Rev 13:1-2).
Daniel 7 describes the same four animals. It refers explicitly to a Lion, a Bear, and a Leopard. The fourth animal in Daniel 7 is not named. However, it is described as dreadful, terrifying, extremely strong, with large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled what remains of its enemies. That sounds like a Dragon. Furthermore, since Revelation 13 says that the Beast inherited from four animals, and since three of the animals are explicitly the same as the first three animals in Daniel 7, we have strong evidence that the fourth, the Dragon, is the same as Daniel’s fourth animal.
Another similarity is that both the Beast in Revelation and the four animals in Daniel 7 come out of the sea.
For these reasons, we conclude that Revelation’s Beast is strongly related to the animals in Daniel 7.
2. The main character is the 11th horn.
In Daniel 7, four animals symbolize four successive empires. From the fourth animal, ten horns grew. They are explained as ten kings that will arise out of the fourth empire (Daniel 7:24). In other words, while each of the first three empires would be replaced by another great empire, the fourth would not. Rather, it would fragment into multiple kingdoms.
After the first 10 horns, an 11th horn grows from the fourth animal, uprooting three of the horns as it comes up (Daniel 7:8). At first, it was small. However, it grew larger and eventually dominated the other horns (Daniel 7:20, 24). It blasphemes God, persecutes His people, and attempts to change God’s times and laws (Daniel 7:25). A court will sit in heaven to judge between it and God’s people (Daniel 7:8, 9-11, 14, 20-21, 25-26). It will only be destroyed when Christ returns (Daniel 7:26-27).
This 11th horn, therefore, is the Antichrist, God’s main enemy. It is the main character in Daniel 7. The only reason that this chapter mentions the preceding empires and horns is to enable the reader to identify the 11th horn.
3. The Dragon and Beast are family.
As mentioned, in Revelation, the Beast receives its power, throne, and great authority from a Dragon (Rev 13:2). Both the Dragon and Beast have seven heads and ten horns (Rev 12:3; 13:1). Therefore, they are related. They belong to the same family.
4. They are part of Daniel 7.
The Dragon and Beast in Revelation are part of the series of empires and kingdoms in Daniel 7. In other words, they explain the story of Daniel 7 in more detail. This is confirmed by the following:
First, as a general principle, later prophecies elaborate on earlier ones.
Daniel 2 is the base prophecy. Daniel 7 explains it in more detail. Daniel 8 and 11 provide still further details. Since the Book of Revelation is grounded in Daniel’s prophecies, this general principle implies that Revelation’s beasts provide more detail about the animal-empires in Daniel.
Second, the Dragon and Beast have the same number of heads and horns as Daniel’s animals.
Revelation’s Dragon and Beast each have seven heads and ten horns. The four animals in Daniel 7, in total, also have seven heads and ten horns:
The first three animals do not have horns. The fourth “had ten” (Daniel 7:7).
While the other three animals have one head each, the third animal, the Leopard, has four heads (Daniel 7:6), for a total of seven.
Third, Daniel’s animals and Revelation’s Dragon and Beast exist concurrently.
In Daniel 7, as stated, the four animals symbolize four empires. As discussed below, and as generally accepted, the first was the Babylonian Empire. The fourth empire fragments into multiple kingdoms. The main fragment, the 11th horn, continues until Christ returns. In other words, it still exists today.
In Revelation, the Dragon is first described before Christ’s birth (Rev 12:3, 5). It gives power and authority to the Beast, and the Beast continues until Christ returns (Rev 19:11, 19-20).
So, in both Daniel 7 and in Revelation, the animals exist from before Christ until His return.
5. The Beast is Daniel’s 11th horn.
The discussion above indicates that Revelation’s Dragon and Beast are part of the series of empires and kingdoms in Daniel 7. More specifically, for the following reasons, Revelation’s Beast is the same as Daniel’s 11th horn:
(a) Both are God’s main enemy, the Antichrist.
As stated, the 11th horn is the Antichrist, God’s main enemy, and the main character in Daniel 7. It blasphemes God, persecutes His people, attempts to change God’s times and laws, and will only be destroyed when Christ returns.
Similarly, in the Book of Revelation, the Sea Beast is the main character and God’s main enemy. Like the 11th horn, it blasphemes God and overpowers God’s people (Rev 13:5-7). As one indication that it is God’s main enemy, as stated, in the end-time crisis, his mark will be put on God’s enemies.
(b) Both reign for 42 months.
The 11th horn persecutes God’s people for “a time, times, and half a time” (Daniel 7:25). The Sea Beast persecutes them for 42 months (Rev 13:5). However, these two periods are the same:
(i) They are numerically the same. A time, times, and half a time = 3½ times = 3½ years = 42 months.
(ii) This period is mentioned seven times in Daniel and Revelation, and in all seven instances, it describes the persecution of God’s people (Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Rev 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14; 13:5).
(iii) Rev 12:6 and 14 describe the same wilderness period. For example, in both, the woman flees into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared for her, where she will be nourished. However, while one verse describes this period as “a time, times, and half a time,” the other verse describes it as 1260 days, which is again equal to 42 months, using the Jewish system of 30 days in a month. See here for a detailed discussion of this period.
(c) Both will exist until Christ returns.
Both Daniel’s 11th horn and Revelation’s Beast will only be destroyed when Christ returns (Daniel 7:26-27; Rev 19:11, 20). Specifically, therefore, both exist during the end-time crisis.
(d) Both exist AFTER the four animals in Daniel 7.
Revelation’s Beast looks like a leopard, a bear, and a lion (Rev 13:2). These are explicitly three of the animals in Daniel 7.
Furthermore, the Beast receives its power, authority, and throne from a ‘dragon’ (Rev 13:2). As stated, ‘dragon’ is a good name for Daniel’s fourth animal, described as dreadful, terrifying, and extremely strong. It devoured, crushed, and trampled its opponents (Daniel 7:7).
Therefore, the Beast inherits something from each of the four animal kingdoms in Daniel 7. It follows that it, similar to the 11th horn, exists AFTER the four animal-kingdoms.
See here for more on the identification of the Sea Beast as the 11th horn in Daniel 7.
6. The Dragon is Daniel’s 4th animal.
As argued above, the Dragon and Beast in Revelation are part of the animals in Daniel 7, and the Beast is the same as Daniel’s 11th horn. For the following reasons, Revelation’s Dragon is the same as Daniel’s 4th animal:
(a) Daniel’s 4th animal is described as like a dragon.
Daniel 7 does not say what kind of animal the fourth is. However, as already mentioned twice, Daniel 7 describes it as like a dragon.
(b) 13:2 mentions the Dragon with three animals from Daniel 7.
The Sea Beast receives something from each of four animals (Rev 13:2). Since the first three animals (the Lion, Bear, and Leopard) are explicitly the first three animals in Daniel 7, by mentioning the Dragon with them, Revelation implies that it is the fourth animal of Daniel 7.
See here for more on the identification of the Dragon as Daniel’s 4th animal.
7. The Beast continues the 4th Empire.
This conclusion, namely, that the Dragon is Daniel’s 4th animal, confirms that the Beast is Daniel’s 11th horn, for it shows that both (the Beast and the 11th horn) continue the authority of Daniel’s 4th animal. This is argued as follows:
In Daniel 7, the 11th horn grows out of the 4th animal. However, when Daniel describes the horn’s destruction, it says that “the beast was slain.” In other words, the 11th horn, more than any of the other horns, is the continuation of the 4th animal.
In Revelation, the Dragon gives the Sea Beast its throne, authority, and great power (Rev 13:2). Since the Dragon is Daniel’s fourth animal, the Sea Beast, just like the 11th horn, receives its authority from Daniel’s 4th empire.
8. We must next identify the 11th Horn.
These allusions to Daniel 7, in the description of Revelation’s Dragon and Beast, are perhaps the strongest allusions anywhere in Revelation. It is not a coincidence. It tells us that the Dragon and Beast are part of the series of kingdoms in Daniel 7. They explain Daniel 7 in more detail.
Since the Beast in Revelation is the 11th horn in Daniel 7, it cannot be identified solely from Revelation. It must primarily be identified from Daniel’s prophecies. To identify the horn, the animal from which it grows, the 4th animal of Daniel 7, must be identified. That is what the following main section does.
|
Summary of this section To identify the Mark of the Beast, one must first identify the Beast. This section identifies the Beast as Daniel’s 11th horn. The four animals in Daniel 7 symbolize four successive empires. The eleven horns that grew from the fourth animal are kingdoms that will arise out of the fourth empire. For the following reasons, the Beast of Revelation is part of the series of empires and kingdoms in Daniel 7: (1) It is described as a composite of the animals in Daniel 7. But the main character in Daniel 7 is the 11th horn. Specifically, the Beast in Revelation is the 11th horn because both: (1) Exist AFTER the four animals in Daniel 7, This section also identifies the Dragon in Revelation because it helps to identify the Beast. The Dragon is Daniel’s 4th animal because: (1) Daniel describes the 4th animal as like a dragon, and The Dragon gives the Beast its authority. If the Dragon is Daniel’s 4th animal, the Beast receives authority from Daniel’s 4th animal. This supports the conclusion that the Beast is the 11th horn. Therefore, to identify the Beast, one needs to identify the Horn. |
The Horn is from the Roman Empire.
The previous main section concluded that the Beast in Revelation is Daniel’s 11th horn. The current section shows that the 11th horn, and, therefore, the Beast, originates from the Roman Empire. For that purpose, this section interprets the visions in Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11.
Daniel 2
1. Daniel 2 divides history into 6 ages.
God gave King Nebuchadnezzar a vision of a statue of a man. The different parts of the statue divide history into six ages. The statue had four metal parts (Daniel 2:32-33), symbolizing four empires that will rule one after the other:
-
-
-
- First, a Head of Gold,
- Second, Breast of Silver,
- Third, thighs of bronze, and
- Fourth, legs of iron.
-
-
The statue’s feet and toes, made of iron and clay, symbolize the fifth era, described as a “divided kingdom.” In this period, multiple kingdoms exist concurrently (Daniel 2:41-3).
In the sixth and final phase, the world will again be ruled by a single king, but it will be God’s eternal kingdom, ruled by Jesus Christ. See here for more details on Daniel 2.
2. Daniel 7 describes the same 6 ages.
In Daniel 7, four animals symbolize four successive empires, followed by the 10 or 11 horns. For the following reasons, this vision depicts the same empires and kingdoms as in Daniel 2:
(a) In both visions, there are four empires.
(b) In both, the four empires reign one after the other.
(c) In both, the fourth animal is called the “fourth kingdom” (Daniel 2:40; 7:23).
(d) In both, the fourth kingdoms are associated with “iron” (Daniel 2:40; 7:7).
(e) In both, in the fifth phase, many kings will rule concurrently:
Daniel 2 refers to it as a “divided kingdom” (verses 33 and 41). That implies that it consists of concurrent parts. According to verses 42-43, some parts will be strong, others will be weak. The parts will attempt to combine through intermarriage, but they will remain separated. This description again confirms the existence of concurrent kingdoms.
The 11 horns in Daniel 7 also exist concurrently. For example, it says the 11th horn “came up AMONG” the first 10. It uprooted three of the first ten as it came up (Daniel 7:8).
(f) In both, the Divided Kingdom is followed by the Eternal Kingdom.
| Therefore, the two chapters may be compared as follows: |
|
| Daniel 2 | Daniel 7 |
| Head of Gold | Lion |
| Silver Breast | Bear |
| Bronze Thighs | Leopard |
| Iron Legs | Fourth animal, dreadful, terrifying, and extremely strong. |
| Divided Kingdom – Feet of Iron and Clay | 11 horns of the fourth animal |
| Eternal kingdom | Eternal kingdom |
3. Daniel 2 is the foundation.
In conclusion, the visions in Daniel 2 and 7 are parallel. Using different symbols, they describe the same empires and kingdoms. By implication, the visions in Daniel 8 and 11 also describe the same empires and kingdoms. Therefore, Daniel 2 is the foundation for interpreting Daniel’s prophecies. The identification of the Beast in Revelation, which is the same as the evil horn in Daniel, begins in Daniel 2 and continues in Daniel 7, 8, and 11.
The Antichrist is prominent in Daniel 7, 8, and 11. Daniel 2 does not mention the Antichrist, but provides a broad outline of history from Daniel’s time to God’s eternal kingdom, which serves as the framework for interpreting Daniel’s later prophecies.
4. The first empire is Babylon.
Daniel 2 identifies the first empire, the head of gold, as the ancient Babylonian Empire (626-539 BC – Daniel 2:37, 38). That means that the first empire in Daniel 7, symbolized as a Lion, is also the Babylonian Empire. Daniel 2 does not identify any of the subsequent empires.
5. The sixth era is the eternal kingdom.
In the eternal kingdom, to our great joy, not a trace of the current world order will be found (Daniel 2:35). The stone, which destroys the statue, describing Christ’s return, becomes a great mountain, a kingdom that will never be destroyed (Daniel 2:44). It is the everlasting kingdom (Daniel 7:27).
(See here for a more detailed discussion of Daniel 2.)
Comparing the Animals
1. Alternative Interpretations
As stated, since the Beast of Revelation is the same as the 11th horn of the 4th animal of Daniel 7, to identify the Beast, one must first identify that fourth animal. That is the purpose of this section:
Daniel 7 does not explain what these animals symbolize.
Daniel 2 identified the first as the Babylonian Empire, but none of the others.
Daniel 8:20-21 uses two animals as symbols for empires. These animals are explicitly identified:
-
-
-
- The Ram symbolizes “Media and Persia.”
- The Goat represents “Greece.”
-
-
In the Conservative interpretation, the Medo-Persian Ram in Daniel 8 is the same as the 2nd animal in Daniel 7, which is the Bear. Conservatives also identify the Greek Goat in Daniel 8 with the 3rd animal in Daniel 7, the Leopard. Consequently, in the Conservative interpretation, the 4th and last empire in Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire. Therefore, the Antichrist, the 11th horn, is of Roman origin.
In contrast, in the Liberal interpretation, the Antichrist is Greek. Liberals divide the Medo-Persian Ram of Daniel 8 into two distinct empires, the Medes and the Persians. They then identify the 2nd animal in Daniel 7, the Bear, as the Medes. The 3rd animal, the Leopard, is then the Persians. Consequently, the 4th empire is Greece, and the 11th horn, the Antichrist, is a Greek king. These views are illustrated by the table:
| Conservatives | Liberals | |||
| Daniel 7 | Daniel 8 | Meaning | Daniel 8 | Meaning |
| Lion | Babylon | Babylon | ||
| Bear | Ram | Medo-Persia | Ram | Medes |
| Leopard | Goat | Greece | Persians | |
| Fourth | Rome | Goat | Greece | |
2. The 2nd animal is Medo-Persia.
The six animals in Daniel 7 and 8 are described using symbols such as heads, horns, wings, sides, ribs, and teeth. This section identifies the four animals in Daniel 7 by comparing them to the two animals in Daniel 8.
On this basis, the second animal in Daniel 7, the Bear, is equivalent to the Medo-Persian Ram in Daniel 8:
The first indication is that both the Bear and Ram are higher on one side: The Bear is “raised up on one side” (Daniel 7:5). The Ram has two horns, one longer than the other. The two sides are the kingdoms of Media and Persia. The higher side describes the Persians. Initially, the Medes dominated Persia, but Cyrus reversed the relationship. At the time their combined forces conquered Babylon, Persia dominated the Medes.
A second indication is that both the Bear and Ram conquer three things. The Bear has three ribs between its teeth (Daniel 7:5). Since animals symbolize kingdoms, the ribs may represent conquered kingdoms or territories. Similarly, the Ram charges in three directions: West, North, and South (Daniel 8:4).
3. The 3rd animal is Greece.
The third animal in Daniel 7, the Leopard, is equivalent to the Greek Goat:
A first indication of this is that both are represented as fast. The Leopard has four wings (Daniel 7:6), and the Goat flies (Daniel 8:5). This refers to the speed with which Alexander the Great conquered the known world. He did it within 10 years.
A second indication is that both have four parts. The Leopard has four heads (Daniel 7:6). Four horns grow from the Goat’s head (Daniel 8:8). After Alexander died at the young age of 33, his empire was divided among four generals. The four heads and four horns symbolize these four Greek Empires.
4. The Liberal Interpretation is incorrect.
In the Liberal interpretation, the Ram in Daniel 8 represents both the Bear and Leopard in Daniel 7. However, there is no similarity between the Ram and the Leopard. In fact, they clearly differ: The Ram has two horns, indicating two divisions. In contrast, the Leopard has four heads, meaning four divisions.
Furthermore, in the Liberal interpretation, the 4th animal in Daniel 7 is the same as the Greek Goat in Daniel 8. However, nothing in the descriptions confirms that. On the contrary, they clearly differ:
In Daniel 7, the 4th animal first has ten horns. Then an 11th comes up, uprooting three of the 10 horns, leaving 8 horns standing.
In contrast, in Daniel 8, the Goat first has only one horn, and later four. Since horns symbolize the parts into which kingdoms are divided, the Goat and the 4th animal are not the same.
5. Medo-Persia is a single empire.
As stated, to make their interpretation fit the text, Liberals divide the Medo-Persian Empire into two.
Historically, the Persians conquered the Medes around 550 BCE. Eleven years later, the joint forces of the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon, with Cyrus the Great as their supreme king.
Contrary to the Liberal interpretation, the Book of Daniel always refers to the Medes and Persians as a single empire. For example:
(a) Daniel prophesied that the joint forces of the Medes and the Persians would conquer Babylon (Daniel 5:28).
(b) Daniel 6:9, 13, and 16 refer to the unchangeable law of the Medes and the Persians.
(c) Daniel identifies the Ram as “the kings of Media and Persia” (Daniel 8:20). It would be inconsistent to describe Media and Persia as a single beast in Daniel 8, but as two different beasts in Daniel 7, and as two different metals in Daniel 2.
6. The Antichrist is of Roman origin.
The comparison of the animals above confirms the Conservative interpretation. It shows that the dreadful fourth animal of Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire:
-
-
- The Lion symbolizes the Babylonian Empire.
- The Bear is the same as the Medo-Persian Ram.
- The Leopard is equivalent to the Greek Goat.
- Lastly, the dragonlike fourth animal of Daniel 7 symbolizes the Roman Empire.
-
It was argued above that the Dragon in Revelation is the same as Daniel’s fourth animal. It follows from the conclusions above that the Dragon symbolizes the Roman Empire.
It also follows that the ten horns, which grew from the fourth animal, symbolize the kingdoms into which the Roman Empire fragmented. The first three empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece) were replaced by the next great empire, but the Roman Empire fragmented into many kingdoms.
Finally, it follows that the 11th horn grew from the Roman Empire. It was a part of the Roman Empire, but became distinct when the Empire fragmented. Since the 11th horn is the same as Revelation’s Beast, it is the most important fragment of the Roman Empire. Since it received its authority from the Dragon, and since the Dragon is the Roman Empire, it continued the Roman Empire’s power and authority. According to Daniel 7, the 11th horn would be small at first but would grow in power, eventually dominate the other fragments, and be destroyed only when Christ returns! The Roman Empire is still with us!
The Evil Horn of Daniel 8
1. Brief Overview of the Vision
Daniel 8 does not mention the first kingdom in Daniel 7, identified above as the Babylonian Empire. It also does not mention the last (eternal) kingdom. It mentions only two animals, the Medo-Persian ram and the Greek goat (Daniel 8:20-21).
At first, the goat had one large horn, but this horn was “broken,” and four horns, extending to the four winds of heaven (the four compass directions), came up in its place (Daniel 8:8).
The one large horn represents the Greek kingdom of Alexander the Great. After his death, his generals divided the empire into four parts. These are symbolized by the four horns of the Greek goat.
However, the main character in the chapter is not the ram or the goat, but a little horn. Most of Daniel 8 is devoted to this little horn. Like in Daniel 7, the little horn symbolizes the Antichrist. It would blaspheme God, persecute God’s people, and profane the sanctuary for 2300 evenings and mornings (Daniel 8:9-14).
In Daniel’s vision, two heavenly beings discussed the vision. One asked how long the holy place and the holy people would be trampled. The other answered that the holy place would be restored after “2300 evenings and mornings” (Daniel 8:13-14).
2. The same Antichrist as in Daniel 7
For the following reasons, commentators agree that the evil horns in Daniel 7 and 8 symbolize the same power:
(a) The same symbol (a horn) is used. If a distinction had been intended, one way would have been to use a different symbol.
(b) They are described as similar. Both begin small, become great (Daniel 7:8 and 8:9), blaspheme God (Daniel 7:8, 25 and 8:11, 25), persecute God’s people (Daniel 7:21, 25 and 8:11, 25), are the main characters in their visions, and are eventually destroyed (Daniel 7:26 and 8:25).
(c) It is a general principle that later prophecies amplify the earlier ones.
The analysis above identified the 4th animal in Daniel 7 as the Roman Empire. Therefore, as stated, the Horn in Daniel 7 was part of the Empire but became distinct when the Roman Empire fragmented. The Horn in Daniel 8 symbolizes that same entity.
3. The Liberal View – Antiochus
However, the Liberal or Critical view, which is the view typically held in the academic world, is as follows:
(a) The fourth animal in Daniel 7 is the Greek empire.
(b) The Antichrist, the 11th horn, is the Greek king Antiochus IV. He reigned in the second century BC, persecuted the Jews, and defiled the temple.
(c) The preceding 10 horns are 10 Greek kings who reigned consecutively before Antiochus IV.
(d) The 2300 “evening-mornings” are 2300 individual morning and evening sacrifices, or 1150 literal days, describing a period during the reign of Antiochus IV.
(e) The sanctuary in Daniel 8 refers to the literal temple in Jerusalem, which Antiochus polluted, but the victorious Jewish rebels purified it before January 1, 164 B.C.
4. Futurist view – End-time Antichrist
In the Futurist view, the Horn in Daniel symbolizes an end-time Antichrist. Futurists generally follow the same line of reasoning as the Liberals, but regard Antiochus as merely a type of an end-time Antichrist, who will arise in the final years of earth’s history, just before Jesus returns.
Some futurists apply the 2300 “evening mornings” to the end time, interpreting it as a literal 2300 days, which will be the reign of the end-time Antichrist. In this interpretation, the Jews will rebuild a literal temple in Jerusalem. During the last seven years of Earth’s history, the Antichrist will pollute the temple. The 2300 days will end when Christ returns. He will end the Antichrist’s reign and restore the temple.
5. Historicist view – Roman Church.
In the historicist view, as was held by the Reformers, the Evil Horn is the Church of the Middle Ages. In this view:
(a) The apocalyptic prophecies, meaning the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, predicted the history of the ongoing struggle between good and evil, beginning at the time of Daniel, continuing to the end of this world.
(b) Daniel’s evil horn represents the Church of the Middle Ages, which distorted God’s message and persecuted God’s people.
(c) Assuming one prophetic day equals one literal year, the 2300 evening mornings symbolize 2300 literal years, beginning in the time of the Medo-Persian Ram and ending after the Middle Ages, when the persecuting power of the Church was broken, and Biblical truth was recovered.
(d) The purification of the sanctuary symbolizes the restoration of God’s people and their message.
6. The Three Views in a Table
These three views may be compared as follows: |
|||
| Liberal | Historicist | Futurist | |
| Little horn | Antiochus IV | Roman Church | End-time Antichrist |
| 2300 days | 1150 past days | 2300 historical years | 2300 end-time days |
| Temple | In ancient Jerusalem | God’s people | In end-time Jerusalem |
| Cleansing | Before 164 BC | After the Middle Ages | Return of Christ |
7. The Antichrist is not Greek.
While Conservatives base their conclusions mostly on Daniel 2 and 7, Liberals base their conclusions mostly on Daniel 8 and 11. Those later chapters describe the same evil power as in Daniel 7, but they do not explicitly mention the Roman Empire. The purpose of the discussion of Daniel 8 and 11 is to show that those visions do not support the Liberal view, and that they also describe a Roman Antichrist.
The following are arguments against the Liberal view, in which the Antichrist was the Greek king Antiochus:
(a) The comparison of the animals of Daniel 7 to those in Daniel 8, as discussed above, showed that the Antichrist in Daniel was part of the Roman Empire.
(b) In the Liberal view, the 11 horns are individual kings who reign DURING the fourth empire. However, the prophecy shows that the 11 horns exist AFTER, not during, the fourth empire. This is argued as follows:
In Daniel 2, the five parts of the statue symbolize five consecutive periods of history. Consequently, the fifth part, symbolized by the statue’s feet, called the divided kingdom, follows after the legs of iron, which symbolize the fourth empire.
Since the fourth empire in Daniel 7 is equivalent to the legs of iron in Daniel 2, and the 11 horns in Daniel 7 are equivalent to the divided kingdom in Daniel 2, the 11 horns follow AFTER the fourth empire.
(c) In the Liberal interpretation, the 11 horns, symbolizing 11 Greek kings, reign consecutively. However, in the prophecy, the horns exist concurrently. For example:
(i) Daniel saw the 11th horn among the other ten horns (Daniel 7:8).
(ii) The 11th horn uproots three other horns (Daniel 7:8). At least those three horns must have existed simultaneously.
(iii) The horns “will combine with one another in the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another” (Daniel 2:43), implying kings living concurrently.
(iv) In Daniel 8, there are two animals with horns, and, in both instances, the horns represent concurrent kingdoms (Daniel 8:20-22):
The ram has two horns, representing the Medes and Persians of the Mede-Persian Empire.
The goat grows four horns, representing the four divisions of the Greek Empire.
Out of One of Them (Dan 8:9)
1. Alternative Interpretations
Daniel 8 symbolizes the Greek Empire as a goat. See Daniel 8:21. The goat first had one large horn, but it broke off. In its place, “there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven” (Daniel 8:8). These four horns symbolize the four empires into which the Greek Empire was divided after Alexander’s death.
Verse 9 continues: “Out of one of them came forth a rather small horn” (Daniel 8:9). This small horn later grows great, persecutes God’s people, and defiles the sanctuary. But our question now is where the horn came from.
Verse 9 says it came “out of one of them.” What does this refer to? The previous verse said that the four horns came up toward the four winds of heaven. Therefore, there are two possibilities: Firstly, the little horn can come out of one of the four Greek horns. Secondly, it can come out of one of the four ‘winds,’ which means out of one of the compass directions.
2. Out of one Horn
In the Liberal interpretation, the small horn comes out of one of the four Greek horns. In other words, it comes out of the Greek empire. It could then be a Greek king, such as Antiochus IV.
One objection to this interpretation is that horns do not come out of horns. Horns grow on the heads.
Another objection is that the genders do not match. Daniel 8 was originally written in Hebrew. Hebrew nouns and pronouns have genders. These genders become invisible in English translations. In verse 9, in the phrase ‘one of them,’ the word ‘one’ is female and the word ‘them’ is male. That means the words ‘one’ and ‘them’ refer to two different things. It follows that the phrase ‘one of them’ cannot mean ‘one horn of the four horns.’ If that was the meaning, the genders of the two pronouns would have been the same.
3. Out of one Compass Direction
At the end of verse 8, the four Greek horns come up toward the four winds of the heavens. The four winds of the heavens are the four compass directions. That is the last thing mentioned. Verse 9 begins by saying the little horn came for one of them. Therefore, in the immediate context, the little horn comes out of one of the four compass directions.
This is confirmed by the genders. Both the words ‘winds’ and ‘one’ are female, and both the words ‘heavens’ and ‘them’ are male. Therefore, these two phrases align as follows:
| Feminine | Masculine | |||
| 8:8 | Four horns came up toward | the four winds | of the heavens. | |
| 8:9 | Out of | one | of them | came forth a small horn. |
4. Out of the Roman Empire
Since the small horn comes out of one of those ‘winds,’ meaning, from one of those compass directions, it did not come from one of the Greek horns. It is not of Greek origin.
Since horns grow on heads, it is the horn of some beast. Since the next empire after Greece was the Roman Empire, we conclude that the Horn came from that empire.
5. Where is Rome in Daniel 8?
Liberals object to this interpretation, arguing that Daniel 8 does not contain a symbol for the Roman Empire. Daniel 8 does not describe another empire between the Greek Empire and the Evil Horn. So, the question is: Where is the Roman Empire in this chapter? This is answered as follows:
(a) The Horn is the Roman Empire.
In Daniel 7, the Horn is the continuation of the fourth animal. The animal is only destroyed when the Horn is destroyed. On this principle, the Horn in Daniel 8 is equivalent to the fourth beast of Daniel 7, including its most prominent horn.
(b) In Daniel 8, the horn has two phases. The first phase is the Roman Empire. The second phase is equivalent to the horn in Daniel 7.
The horn in Daniel 8 has two phases of growth. Firstly, it grows horizontally, symbolizing a political phase, which is the Roman Empire itself. Secondly, it then grows vertically, representing a religious phase in which it opposes God and God’s people. The second phase is equivalent to the evil horn of Daniel 7.
(3) The reduced focus on the political phase is a trend in Daniel.
Daniel 2 describes the entire period, from the Babylonian Empire to the Return of Christ, without mentioning the Antichrist.
Daniel 7 also covers that entire period, but it adds the Antichrist. In fact, the Antichrist is now the main character. This chapter describes the beast itself in only two verses (Daniel 7:7, 19), but the Antichrist in about six verses.
Daniel 8 continues this trend:
It narrows the focus by not mentioning the first (Babylonian) or the last (eternal) kingdoms. Furthermore, it consolidates the animal and its horn into a single symbol. It omits some of the details because Daniel 8 is not a stand-alone prophecy. The visions in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 form a unit, each providing information not found in the others.
It focuses even more exclusively on the Antichrist because the Antichrist is the real purpose and focus of these visions. The only reason that the visions mention the political empires is to enable us to identify the evil anti-God power.
The Vile Person of Daniel 11
In the Liberal interpretation, the Antichrist is the Greek king Antiochus. Liberals emphasize Daniel 11 because it seems to best support that interpretation. Therefore, the purpose of this fairly long discussion of Daniel 11 is to show that it also identifies the Antichrist as of Roman origin. Some readers may prefer, therefore, to skip this discussion of Daniel 11 and go to the next section.
1. Introduction
The vision mentions the Persian kingdom by name (Dan 11:2), but does not name any of the later kingdoms or kings. There are no animals in Daniel 11. It refers to the Antichrist as “a despicable person” (Daniel 11:21).
Interpreters generally agree on the meaning of the first 20 verses, but interpretations begin to differ from verse 21 with the description of the ‘vile person.’
2. Overview of the first 20 verses
Interpreters generally agree that verses 1-13 describe some key events during the transition from the Persian to the Greek empire:
The chapter begins by describing individual Persian kings, concluding with Xerxes. His failed attack on the Greeks (verse 2) elevated the Greek nation onto the world scene.
The prophecy then jumps over the next 150 years of Persian rule to the first Greek king—the “mighty king” (Alexander the Great) (verse 3). After his death, his kingdom was divided into four parts (verse 4).
Verses 5-13 describe key events in the history of two of the four parts, namely those parts that threatened Judea:
The Seleucid kingdom of the Middle East is called the “king of the north” because it was to the north of Judea.
The Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt is called the “king of the south” because it was to the south of Judea.
The actions of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, as described in these verses, are fairly consistent with what we know today of their history.
Most interpreters agree that verses 14-20 describe Antiochus III, one of the Greek kings and the father and predecessor of Antiochus IV. Daniel provides more information about Antiochus III than about any previous king.
3. The Liberal Interpretation
Liberal scholars, also called critical scholars, argue as follows that the Antichrist in Daniel 11 is Antiochus IV:
(a) The emphasis on Antiochus III identifies the next king as his son Antiochus IV.
(b) Antiochus IV fits the sequence of kings in Daniel 11.
(c) Antiochus IV also fits the activities of the “vile person” in the verses after Daniel 11:21. These include his double invasion of Egypt (compare Daniel 11:25, 29) and the persecution of God’s people.
4. It is the same Antichrist.
Interpreters agree that the “vile person” of Daniel 11 is the same as the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and 8. This can be shown as follows:
(a) As a general principle, later prophecies in Daniel elaborate on the earlier ones. Daniel 11, therefore, although it does not use beasts and horns to represent kingdoms, but a series of individual kings, still describes the same kingdoms as in Daniel 7 and 8.
(b) The Antichrist Horn in Daniel 7 and 8 and the Vile Person in Daniel 11 do the same things. Both:
(a) Persecute God’s people (Daniel 7:25; 11:32-34)
(b) Rule for “a time, two times, and half a time” (Daniel 7:25; 12:7)
(c) Profane the temple (Daniel 11:31; 8:11);
(d) Set up “the abomination” (Daniel 11:31; 8:13);
(e) Remove the continual sacrifice (the tamid) (Daniel 8:11; 11:31);
(f) Use deceit (Daniel 8:25; 11:21-24); and
(g) “Magnify himself” (Daniel 8:11; 11:36-37).
Therefore, since Liberal scholars identify the ‘vile person’ as Antiochus IV, they also identify the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and 8 as Antiochus IV.
5. The Prince of the Covenant is Christ.
The “vile person” (Daniel 11:21) overflowed “the arms of the flood” and broke the “prince (nagid) of the covenant” (Daniel 11:21-22). The first argument against the Liberal interpretation is that the strong links between verse 22 and the vision in Daniel 9 imply that the Prince of the Covenant in verse 22 is Jesus Christ:
Flood – The word “flood,” as a noun, appears only in Daniel 9:26 and 11:22.
Nagid – The word ‘nagid’, which is translated as “prince,” occurs only in 11:22 and in 9:24-27. In Daniel 9, it describes “Messiah the Prince” (Dan 9:25) and “the prince who is to come” (Daniel 9:26).
Nagid killed – In both Daniel 9:26 and 11:22, the nagid-prince will be destroyed. He will be “cut off” (9:26) and ”broken” (11:22).
Prince of the Covenant – Only in 9:24-27 and 11:22 is a prince connected with the covenant:
The nagid-prince ‘makes strong’ the covenant for one week. (Daniel 9:27, See here)
The nagid-prince of the covenant is broken (Daniel 11:22).
Covenant, elsewhere in Daniel, always refers to God’s covenant (Daniel 9:4; 11:28, 30, 32). This implies that the covenant in Daniel 11:22 is also God’s covenant with Israel.
These parallels imply that the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is the same as the Prince who makes strong the covenant in 9:27, whom this website identifies as Jesus Christ (See here). Consequently:
(A) The Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is Jesus Christ.
(B) The shattering of the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 refers to Christ’s death on the Cross, 200 years after Antiochus.
(C) Since Jesus died 200 years after Antiochus, the “vile person,” who ‘broke’ the Prince of the Covenant (11:21-22), cannot be Antiochus.
6. Where is the Roman Empire?
Liberals argue that Daniel 11 does not mention the Roman Empire. Without an intervening empire, it continues from Antiochus III to the vile person.
However, the prophecy does mention the Roman Empire. The word links to Daniel 9, discussed above, imply that the ‘vile person’ is the Roman Empire:
Since 9:24-27 and 11:22 describe the same event, and since the word “flood,” as a noun, occurs only in 9:26 and 11:22, the two floods are the same. In other words, the flood that floods away another flood (11:22) is the same as the flood that destroys the city and the sanctuary (9:26). That ‘flood’ in Daniel 9 is the Roman Empire.
7. The reduced emphasis on the political
Daniel 2 does not mention the Antichrist at all. The focus is entirely on the political powers.
In Daniel 7, the political powers are still mentioned, but the Antichrist has become the major emphasis.
In Daniel 8, the political powers begin to fade. It mentions political Rome only indirectly in the initial horizontal expansion of the little horn (Daniel 8:9). But it emphasizes the subsequent vertical growth of the horn, which symbolizes the Antichrist. In other words, it uses the horn-king for both the Roman Empire and its Antichrist successor.
Daniel 11 continues this trend. It represents both the Roman Empire and the Antichrist with a single symbol: the “despicable person” (NASB). Political Rome is seen only as the flood that carries away the “overflowing forces,” and that cuts off the Prince of the Covenant. Almost the entire focus is on the Antichrist, the successor of the Roman Empire.
In summary, the sole purpose of these prophecies, including the descriptions of the first four kingdoms, is to identify the Antichrist. Moving from Daniel 2 to 7 to 8 to 11, the political powers progressively fade, while the focus on the Antichrist keeps increasing.
8. The emphasis on Antiochus III
Critical scholars argue that Daniel 11 emphasizes Antiochus III to identify the next king as Antiochus IV. In contrast, this article explains that the prophecy emphasizes Antiochus III because his unsuccessful war against Rome was the key turning point that shifted the balance of power to the next empire, Rome:
The reign of the fourth Persian king (Xerxes) was also emphasized earlier in Daniel 11:2, not to identify the Persian king that would follow after him, but because his unsuccessful wars against Greece were a key turning point in history that shifted the balance of power from Mede-Persia to Greece. After verse 2 mentioned Xerxes, the prophecy jumps over the next 150 years, during which seven Persian kings reigned (Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Xerxes II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, Arses, and Darius III), to the first Greek emperor, Alexander the Great (Daniel 11:3).
In the same way, Daniel 11 emphasizes Antiochus III, not to identify the Greek king who would follow after him, but because his unsuccessful wars against the Romans were a key turning point. It shifted the balance of power from the Greek Empire to Rome. Consequently, Antiochus and his sons had to pay penalties to the Romans. Their empire was left subject to Rome’s growing dominance. After Antiochus III’s unsuccessful war against Rome, the prophecy jumps over the next 170 years, during which several Greek kings reigned, to the next empire (Rome).
Therefore, both the reigns of Xerxes and Antiochus III were key turning points in history that shifted the balance of power to the next empire. It is for that reason that Daniel 11 emphasizes these two kings, not to identify the next kings. Once the key turning point has been reached, the prophecy jumps over the remaining kings of the empire to the next empire. Read this way, while verse 19 describes the death of Antiochus III, verse 22 describes Christ’s death 200 years later.
9. The vile person exceeds Antiochus IV.
Liberals claim that Antiochus IV fits the description of the ‘vile person’ of Daniel 11. However, that description exceeds him. The ‘vile person:
-
-
- Gain authority and rule through deceit (Daniel 11:21),
- Distribute the plunder (Daniel 11:24),
- Magnify himself above every god, and
- Has no regard for the god of his fathers nor any god (Daniel 11:36-37).
-
None of these things was true of Antiochus. And, as all agree, the events of the “time of the end” (Daniel 11:40-45) do not fit history at all. A separate article shows that Antiochus IV does not fit the profile. (see here). As Desmond Ford noted:
“Verses 21-35 fit his (Antiochus’s) time perfectly, but let it be noted that this interpretation by no means exhausts the passage.” [Desmond Ford, Daniel and the Coming King, p 144]
Antiochus IV was only a partial fulfillment of the Antichrist, a type of the ultimate fulfillment, the later and much greater Antichrist.
10. The Abomination of Desolation
Daniel 11:31 refers to the Abomination of Desolation. Jesus said:
“When you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet (Daniel 11:31 and 12:11), standing in the holy place …“ (Matt 24:15).
In other words, this abomination is something in the Church Age. It is not something Antiochus did two centuries before Christ. This is confirmed by the conclusion above that verse 22 describes Christ’s death, for that means that verse 31 describes something after His death. Jesus, therefore, also interpreted the “vile person” of Daniel 11 as an Antichrist that will arise AFTER His time.
Identity of the Beast
Summary of Conclusions
As argued above, the Beast in Revelation is the same as the 11th horn of the 4th animal in Daniel 7. They are two symbols for exactly the same historical reality. The 4th animal in Daniel 7 is the Roman Empire. The 11 horns, coming up from the 4th animal, symbolize the kingdoms into which the Roman Empire fragmented. The 11th horn and kingdom is the main character in Daniel 7. The only reason the vision mentions the preceding empires and kingdoms is to help the reader identify the 11th horn. It grew out of the Roman Empire, but it will only be destroyed when Christ returns. It is the Antichrist. The purpose now is to identify the 11th horn.
Characteristics of the 11th Horn
From Daniel 7, its characteristics can be listed as follows:
1. Since it is a fragment of the Roman Empire, it was part of the Empire.
2. It arose when the Empire fragmented. It was the last kingdom to form from the fragmenting Empire. It uprooted three other kingdoms as it came up.
3. It began small, meaning weak.
4. However, it grew very powerful, eventually dominating the other kingdoms.
5. It blasphemed God and persecuted God’s people. To blaspheme God means to insult Him.
6. It reigns for a time, times, and a half.
7. It attempts to change God’s times and laws.
8. It still exists today. It will only be destroyed when Christ returns.
These are the characteristics of the Antichrist in Daniel 7. Since the Beast in the Book of Revelation represents the same entity, its characteristics can also be listed from Revelation. In Revelation, as in Daniel, it blasphemes God, persecutes God’s people, and reigns for 42 months.
The Beast is the Roman State Church.
This article proposes that the only entity in history that matches this description is the Roman State Church. That was a Christian organization, formed in the Roman Empire, with the emperor effectively the head, and all Romans were members. All Romans were required, by law, to adopt its views. It was, therefore, an integral part of the Roman Empire. We need to clearly distinguish between this specific organization and God’s church, which is worldwide but includes only believers.
When the Empire fell, the Roman State Church survived. In fact, it grew in power and became the Roman Church, which dominated during the High Middle Ages. Again, the Roman Church, as a specific organization, must not be confused with God’s Church. It continued, without interruption, from the Roman State Church. Its theology was refined, but remained essentially the same as that of the Roman State Church.
The Arian Controversy
Origin of the Roman State Church
As stated, since the 11th horn emerged from the Roman Empire, it was part of the Empire. It became distinct only after the Empire fragmented.
The Roman State Church came into existence through the 4th-century Arian Controversy. For that reason, this main section provides an overview of that Controversy. The purpose is to explain what the Roman State Church was, what the opposing views were, and how the Church came into existence. Specifically, the purpose is to show that it was an integral part of the Roman Empire, as predicted by Daniel 7. The main section after this will discuss the history of the Roman State Church in the subsequent centuries, to show that it matches the description of the 11th horn.
First Three Centuries
Christianity was outlawed.
During the first three centuries, the Empire outlawed and persecuted Christianity. A primary task of the Roman emperor was to keep the empire united. Religious division endangered political unity. For that reason, the Roman emperors determined which religions to allow. That was the reason the Empire outlawed Christianity. During those centuries, Church and State were very far apart.
Logos-theology dominated.
While Christianity was persecuted, Greek philosophy was highly regarded by the Roman intellectuals. From the 2nd century onward, beginning with Justin Martin, the apologists presented Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this view, the preincarnate Son was a second divine Being, distinct from the Father. This was the majority view in the Gentile Church. It remained dominant into the 4th century. Origen refined it, but still described the Son as a second divine Being.
Monotheism was rejected.
Logos-theology was opposed by monotheism, the view that only one divine Being exists. In the 2nd century, monotheism appeared in the form of Monarchianism. In the 3rd century, the main form was Sabellianism. However, monotheism was rejected. For example, Sabellius was deposed in 220. In 268, Paul of Samosata was deposed by a council in Antioch for teaching a form of Sabellianism.
Rome had a Monarchian tradition.
However, the Church in Rome had a Monarchian tradition. In the 3rd century, while Christianity was still persecuted, it remained predominantly a Greek Eastern religion. Consequently, the role of the Church in Rome was limited. In the 4th century, however, the Church in Rome, as the Capital of the Empire and with its large population, became very important. Therefore, in the 4th century, it influenced churches in other centres with its Monarchian view.
As an example of the view of the Church in Rome, around the year 260, there was a dispute between Rome and Alexandria over the term homoousios. In this dispute, Alexandria opposed homoousios and regarded the Son as a second hypostasis or person. In contrast, Rome championed homoousios and had a Sabellian monotheistic view. It held that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis.
The Orthodox View was Arianism.
In the traditional account, Nicene theology (which later evolved into today’s Trinity doctrine) was the accepted orthodoxy at the beginning of the 4th century, but Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy.
In reality, as the conclusion of this brief overview of the pre-Nicene views, Arianism was the orthodox view at the end of the 3rd century. While the Nicenes believed that the Father and Son are a single Being, Arianism held that they are two distinct Beings. That is what Logos-theology, Origen, and the majority of the church believed in the 3rd century.
For example, Hanson wrote that ‘the conventional Trinitarian doctrine’, with which Christianity entered the fourth century, was to make the Son into a demi-god. In other words, the Trinity doctrine was not the conventional Trinitarian doctrine. Hanson then adds that Arianism does present the Son as in effect a demi-god, but the antecedents of this doctrine are found in Christian theology before the fourth century.
It used to be said that Arius was a heretic. However, since Arianism was the orthodox view, experts now describe him as a conservative. He defended a view that was traditional in Alexandria.
Factions in the 4th Century
After the Emperor Constantine became a Christian and legalized Christianity in 313, he found that Christianity was divided into factions.
The Controversy continued.
It is traditionally claimed that Arius caused the Controversy by formulating a new heresy. In reality, the Controversy was a continuation of the 3rd-century controversy. As stated, Arius was a conservative.
The Core Issue in the Controversy
The main factions were the Arians and the Nicenes. The main difference between them was whether the preincarnate Son is a distinct Being:
The Nicenes were monotheists. They believed that only one divine Being exists. In particular, they believed that the Son is an aspect of the Father, namely the Father’s only Wisdom. Without the Son, they said, the Father would not have any wisdom. In other words, in the original Nicene theology, only one divine Person, or hypostasis, exists.
In contrast, the Arians, following the traditional Logos-theology and Origen, believed in two distinct Beings in the Godhead: the Father and Son (see here). They believed that the Spirit is a Person, but they would not include Him in the Godhead.
All or most other differences between the Nicenes and Arians stemmed from this one core difference.
In all views, the Son is Subordinate.
Arianism is often identified as the view that the Son is subordinate to the Father. In reality, during the first 4 centuries, all theologians believed the Son to be subordinate to the Father. Since the Nicenes believed that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father, the Son is of the same substance as the Father, but ontologically subordinate to the Father. The Trinity doctrine, as we know it today, in which the three ‘Persons’ are equal, only became established in the fifth century.
In Arianism, the Son is divine.
It is often also said that the Arians held that the Son is a created being. That is a misunderstanding of the issue. See here what the real issue was. In the Arian view, the Son is the Second Being of the Godhead. They allowed worship of the Son, claimed that all personal appearances of Yahweh in the Old Testament were really Jesus Christ, and described Him as God and the Creator of all things.
The East was Arian, the West Nicene.
For most of the fourth century, the majority view in the West was Nicene, but in the East it was Arian. This division came from the 3rd century. As mentioned above, in the 3rd century, the Church in Rome in the Latin West had a Monarchian tradition, but the Greek East deposed the Sabellians, both Sabellius himself and Paul of Samosata.
The Role of the Emperor
To understand the nature of the Arian Controversy, it is critical to understand the role of the emperors. They decided which Christian factions to allow and which to squash. They forced the church to unite around their preferences. In this way, effectively, the emperors became the final judges in doctrinal disputes. Church and State were one. The emperor was, effectively, the head of the church. For example, R.P.C. Hanson, the most influential scholar of the 20th century on the 4th-century Arian Controversy, wrote:
“The truth is that in the Christian church of the fourth century there was no alternative authority comparable to that of the Emperor. The century did indeed see an increase in the power of the bishop of Rome, but he still could not be regarded as a figure even remotely as powerful as that of the Emperor” (Hanson, p. 854).
“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority” (Hanson, p. 849).
Phases of the Controversy
The following is a brief overview of the phases of the Controversy:
First Ecumenical Council
Arianism was the traditional view, particularly in the Eastern Church, where Christianity originated and where most Christians were. However, as stated, the important city of Rome in the West had a Monarchian tradition. At first, Constantine was only the Western Emperor. He took his seat in Rome and accepted the Church’s view in Rome. In other words, “Constantine had taken Alexander’s part” (Ayres, 89). In 324, he became emperor of the entire empire. In the next year, 325, he called the Nicene Council. Almost all delegates were from the Eastern Church. Nevertheless, Constantine’s presence and influence ensured that the council accepted a creed consistent with Western theology.
The Decade after Nicaea
However, in the decade after Nicaea, Constantine learned the other side of the story and switched to Arianism. Therefore, he allowed all exiled Arians to return, and all leading Nicenes to be exiled. Thus, the term homoousios disappeared from the Controversy. The Church returned to the Arian orthodoxy. The decisions at Nicaea were effectively reversed.
Mid-century
The Church in Rome, supported by Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, continued to oppose Arianism. Until 313, while Christianity was still illegal and persecuted, the influence of the Church in Rome was limited. However, during the 4th century, its influence grew. Nevertheless, most mid-fourth-century emperors sided with the Arians. Arian emperors, such as Constantius and Valens, exiled Nicene bishops to the other ends of the empire. Therefore, Arianism dominated the Church. Around the year 359, Jerome remarked that the whole Church had become Arian. However, in the 350s, Arianism evolved into factions, including the Heterousians, Homoiousians, and the dominant Arian view, the Homoians. The Homoians refused to refer to God’s substance because the Bible says nothing about it.
The Cappadocians opposed Athanasius.
The Nicenes were also divided into factions. The Meletian Schism was a dispute in the late fourth century between two Nicene groups. In this dispute, the two most prominent Nicenes of that era, Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea, found themselves in opposite camps:
“The opening of the year 375 saw the ironical situation in which the Pope, Damasus, and the archbishop of Alexandria, Peter, were supporting Paulinus of Antioch, a Sabellian heretic, and Vitalis, an Apollinarian heretic, against Basil of Caesarea, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy in the East, later to be acknowledged universally as a great Doctor of the Church” (Hanson’s Lecture).
Paulinus and the Eustathians were the traditional Nicenes. They accepted ‘homoousios’ as meaning ‘one substance,’ taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), and were supported by Athanasius and the bishop of Rome (Damasus). But Basil of Caesarea, the first of the Cappadocians, regarded this as Sabellianism:
Hanson describes Paulinus as “a Sabellian heretic” (Hanson’s Lecture). He was “Marcellan/Sabellian” (Hanson, p. 799)..
The Meletians and the Cappadocians also accepted homoousios but understood it as meaning two substances that are alike in all respects. Therefore, they believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (Person). But the Western pro-Nicenes thought that this was Arianism.
Edict of Thessalonica
The turning point came in 379, when a committed Nicene, Theodosius, became emperor in the traditionally Arian East. He did what no other emperor had done before him. In 380, with the support of the Western Emperor Gratian, he issued the Edict of Thessalonica. It required all Romans, not only Christians, to confess Nicene Christianity. This made Nicene Christianity the Roman State Religion. That meant not only that Nicene theology was now the only legal religion, but also that all Romans are now Christians, specifically Nicene Christians.
That same edict outlawed Arianism. Theodosius ruthlessly persecuted Arians. Their churches were confiscated, and they were prohibited from meeting and from living in cities and towns (see here).
Second Ecumenical Council
In the next year, 381, Emperor Theodosius called the so-called Second Ecumenical Council. However, it was not a Church Council. The so-called ecumenical councils of the fourth century were really the means through which the emperors ruled the Church. They also controlled the councils to ensure that they complied with the emperor’s wishes:
“The history of the period shows time and time again that local councils could be overawed or manipulated by the Emperor or his agents. The general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor. General councils, or councils aspiring to be general, were the children of imperial policy, and the Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (Hanson, p. 855).
The so-called Second Ecumenical Council was a meeting of the Roman State Church. For example, the emperor called the Council. Since he had already outlawed Arianism, he invited only Nicenes. Furthermore, he invited delegates from only a part of the Eastern Church. Nobody from the West attended. Furthermore, to ensure that the council abide with his decisions, the emperor appointed an unbaptized layman, a senior statesman, as chair of the council and as bishop of the Capital, Constantinople.
Therefore, the Controversy was not ended by a Church Council. It was ended by the Emperors.
Roman State Church
The Roman State Church is the organization that was subsequently formed within the Roman Empire. From the emperors, it received protection and authority over people. However, it was subject to the authority of the emperors. The emperor was effectively the head of the church. For example, Emperor Theodosius held another council at which all ‘sects’ had to present their theologies to him. He personally and unilaterally decided which were acceptable and which were not.
The Church, the collection of God’s true people, was never part of the Roman Empire or of any other specific organization. We must distinguish between the Church, as Christianity in general, and the Roman State Church, a specific organization formed within the Roman Empire.
In modern society, Church and State are often two distinct things. That was not the case in the Roman Empire. Church and State were united under a single head, the emperor.
The Revised Account
Readers who are only familiar with the traditional account of the Arian Controversy might be surprised by this brief analysis of the Arian Controversy. Based on an explosion of research over the last century, scholars today explain the Arian Controversy very differently from 100 years ago. The traditional account of the controversy is how the Nicenes explained it. However, it is history according to the winner and deeply biased:
“The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact” (Hanson, p. xviii-xix).
R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the most influential 20th-century scholar on that Controversy, stated that the traditional account of the Controversy, as it was still told in the 19th century, is a complete travesty and can be ignored today. He wrote in 1980:
“The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95-96).
The “conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty” (Hanson).
Authors Quoted
To avoid the errors of the traditional account, this website quotes almost exclusively from writings published over the last 50 years. They describe the Controversy very differently, in many respects, the opposite of what one finds in the traditional handbooks.
The Horn is the Roman Church.
The characteristics of the 11th horn were listed above. The first was that it was part of the Roman Empire. To show that the Roman State Church was integral to the Empire, the previous main section discussed the Arian Controversy. To confirm that the 11th horn is the Roman Church, this main section discusses the other characteristics.
1. It was Part of the Roman Empire.
This was discussed in the previous main section.
2. It came up last, by uprooting three others.
This point relates to the origin of the Antichrist, the 11th horn of the Roman Empire. In Daniel 7, the 11th horn symbolizes a kingdom that arose when the Empire fragmented. However, it came out last, after the other 10 kingdoms had already formed. Furthermore, it came up by uprooting three others. In other words, three other kingdoms, three other fragments of the Roman Empire, were destroyed when the 11th kingdom arose.
The Germanic nations of Europe converted to Christianity while Arianism dominated. Therefore, they were Arians. After the Roman Empire had made Nicene theology its State Religion, they remained Arian.
Consequently, in the 5th century, after these Arian Germanic tribes took control of the Western Empire from the Romans and divided it into several kingdoms, Arians ruled Europe. Daniel 7 symbolizes these kingdoms as ten horns growing out of the 4th animal.
These ‘Arian’ nations wished to remain part of the Roman Empire, to benefit from the protection and wealth it offered. Therefore, they allowed the Roman State Church, with its Nicene theology and hierarchy of bishops, to remain in the West. For several reasons, it even flourished. But it was under Arian rule. Two parallel hierarchies of bishops existed: Roman (Nicene) and Arian. (See here)
In the 6th century, Justinian, the Eastern Roman Emperor, sent troops to the West. His aim was to expand the Empire to its previous glory. He also intended to liberate the Roman State Church from Arian domination. His troops subjected the three Arian nations who were the most direct threat to the Papacy:
In 533–534, his troops dispersed the Vandals of North Africa to the fringes of the empire.
After a protracted war, Justinian defeated the Ostrogoths in Italy in 553. They returned to South Austria.
In 552, Justinian recovered a strip of land that barricaded the Visigoths from being a threat to the Roman Church in Italy. (See here)
These are the three horns that were uprooted when the 11th horn came up. According to the vision, this was the birth of the Antichrist. This was when the 11th horn came up. While the first 10 horns came up in the 5th century, the 11th appeared in the 6th.
See here for a discussion of Justinian and the Byzantine Papacy.
3. Began Small
In Daniel 7, at first, the 11th horn was small (Dan 7:8; 8:9).
Justinian’s conquests marked the beginning of a period of about two centuries known as the Byzantine Papacy. “Byzantine Empire” is another name for the Eastern Roman Empire. During the Byzantine Papacy, the Byzantine emperors ruled the Western Roman State Church. They appointed the popes. One Cambridge article explained the attitude of the Byzantine Empire as follows:
“The idea of papal sovereignty was foreign to the Byzantines. … unintelligible, unreasonable, and unhistorical. … (in) their concept of the order of the Christian world … The Christian Roman Emperor was the elect of God and … God’s vice-gerent [God’s agent on earth] on earth … His patriarchs or supreme bishops of the Christian Empire … were the spiritual heads of the Christian world, acting in harmony with him. Church and State were therefore one, indissoluble and interdependent.”
Therefore, the Roman Church remained “small.” It was now still subject to the authority of the emperor of the Eastern Empire. Authors often describe the Roman Church of this period as the Papacy. However, that name is misleading because the Pope was subject to the authority of the emperor in Constantinople. The emperor still had to approve the appointment of the Pope.
On the other hand, the Byzantine Empire also ruled the nations in the West. The dominance of the Eastern Empire, through its military forces and through the Byzantine Papacy (the Western Roman State Church), caused all Arian kingdoms to accept the Roman Church as their state church as well. This was the real end of Arianism. (See here)
In the 8th century, the Byzantine Empire lost its richest provinces to Islamic armies. This was the end of the Byzantine Papacy. The Byzantine Empire could no longer control or protect the Western Roman Church. Pope Zachary, in 741, was the last pope to seek the emperor’s approval for his election.
But the Roman Church in the West survived. In the ninth century, after a period of volatility, the popes found a powerful protector in the Frankish-dominated Carolingian dynasty. This was a large Frankish-dominated empire founded by Charlemagne (Charles the Great). Since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, three centuries earlier, Charlemagne was the first emperor to rule most of Western Europe. However, the Carolingians followed the example of their Roman predecessors by asserting “immense authority over the Western church” (Britannica).
Charlemagne claimed to govern both the church and the state. On the other hand, the pope exercised influence in Carolingian affairs by maintaining the right to crown emperors and by sometimes directly intervening in political disputes. Church and State were re-united.
After Carolingian power waned in the late 9th century, the Ottonian dynasty in Germany became the preeminent power in Latin Europe. Otto I was German king from 936. He consolidated the German Reich, revived Charlemagne’s empire in 962, and became the Holy Roman Emperor (962–973). He used the church as a stabilizing influence to ensure a secure empire. The Ottos treated churches as their property, appointed bishops, and forbade appeals to Rome (Britannica).
In summary, until the 10th century, the Roman Church was ruled by civil powers. The Roman Emperors ruled over it in the fourth century, the Arian kings in the fifth, the Eastern Emperors from the 6th to the 8th centuries, the Carolingians in the 9th century, and the Ottonians in the 10th century.
4. Grew in Power
However, Dan 7 indicates that it will become larger than the other horns (Dan 7:20, 24), meaning that it would dominate the other kingdoms.
In the 11th century, the Roman Church began to transform from being subordinate to the monarchs to being supreme over them. Beginning in the mid-11th century, in what is known as the Investiture Controversy, the popes challenged the authority of monarchs to control the appointment of popes and high-ranking church officials:
In 1059, the church established the College of Cardinals to limit political rulers’ interference in the election of new popes.
In 1122, representatives of the Church and the monarch met in the German city of Worms. They reached a compromise known as the Concordat of Worms. By its terms, the Monarch agreed that the Church itself would appoint its officials. However, the emperor retained the right to veto the appointment of bishops. This was a victory for the Pope, but the emperor also retained considerable power over the Church.
Powerful popes, such as Alexander III (r. 1159–81), Innocent III (r. 1198–1216), Gregory IX (r. 1227–41), and Innocent IV (r. 1243–54), claimed authority over emperors and kings. The Popes claimed the right to depose the kings of Western Europe and were sometimes successful.
The humiliation of King Henry IV before Pope Gregory VII illustrates how powerful the Papacy had become. Henry IV, the mightiest king in Europe at the time, had to wait for three days, stripped of his royal robes and clad as a penitent, barefoot in ice and snow, before Pope Gregory was willing to withdraw his excommunication.
In this way, in the High Middle Ages, beginning in the 12th century, the Roman Church attained power that rivaled and exceeded that of the Western Monarchs. No longer subject to the monarchs, it was able to appoint popes and bishops without outside interference. This is when the Horn became “larger” than the other fragments of the Roman Empire.
5. Blasphemes God and persecutes God’s people
According to Daniel 7:25, the 11th horn will “wear out the saints of the Most High.”
The Roman Church continued the principles of the Roman Empire, killing, torturing, and imprisoning countless numbers of God’s people. Through the civil rulers, the Roman Church engaged in brutal forms of coercion, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisition, and the Waldensian massacres, seeking to compel or exterminate God’s true people who dared to stand up against its evil innovations. For example:
Innocent III (1198–1216) called the Albigensian Crusade, which resulted in the massacre of Christians whom the Papacy classified as heretics.
The Inquisition was a powerful office set up within the Catholic Church to root out and punish heresy. It is infamous for the severity of its tortures. The Spanish Inquisition alone resulted in some 32,000 executions. (History.com)
The Catholic Church instigated the Waldensian massacres (see here). The Waldensians criticized Catholic beliefs and identified the Church as the harlot of the Apocalypse. In response, the Catholic Church called for the destruction of the Waldensians, absolving all who would perpetrate such crimes. In consequence, the Waldensians were looted, raped, tortured, and massacred.
The Reformers identified the Papacy as the harlot of Revelation, who is guilty of the violent deaths of God’s people (Rev 18:24). During the two or three centuries after the Reformation, many Protestants gave estimates of the number of people killed by the Papacy. The numbers vary from 50 million to 150 million. Roman Catholics typically give much smaller numbers.
Without persecution, the Roman Church might not have existed today. It began to exist in the 4th century, when Emperor Theodosius violently persecuted Arianism, was liberated from Arian domination when Emperor Justinian violently suppressed the Western Arian nations, and continued to use violence during the Middle Ages. That violence will resume. In the End Time, the Image of the Beast will kill those who refuse to worship it.
However, its brutal coercion reveals its true nature. It justifies calling it the Antichrist.
Blasphemy simply means to insult. To persecute God’s people in the name of God is probably the highest form of blasphemy imaginable.
6. Reigns for a time, times, and a half
“The saints of the Highest One … will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time” (Dan 7:25).
The ” time, times, and a half” is the same as the 42 months and the 1260 days:
For example, Revelation 12:6 and 14 describe the same event, but one verse counts it as 1260 days and the other as “a time and times and half a time.”
The three periods are also numerically equal (3½ years = 42 months = 1260 days, using the moon cycle of approximately 30 days per month).
This period appears seven times in five different chapters of Daniel and Revelation. It is, therefore, a very important period. Unless this period is understood, the prophecies cannot be understood.
This period is not the End Time. In the prophecies, it always precedes the End Time:
For example, in Revelation 12, after the 3½ times, the woman (God’s people) will be released from the wilderness of obscurity in which she was held during the 3½ times (Rev 12:16-17).
As another example, in Daniel 12, after this period, Daniel’s prophecies would be unsealed, studied, and understood (Dan 12:4, 9).
It is a symbolic period. It is not literally 1260 days:
Daniel and Revelation are symbolic books. Since the context is symbolic, the 3½ times must also be symbolic.
The apocalyptic time prophecies, literally interpreted, allow too little time for what must happen. For example, the ten horns are ten kings who will rule for “one hour” (Rev 17:12).
Since the 3½ times are found in prophecies that cover vast periods, it should also be a long period.
The Reformers interpreted a day in apocalyptic prophecies as a literal year. In other words, 1260 days symbolize 1260 years. There are many indications that support this approach. For example, Daniel 9 promises 70 weeks, but all commentators interpret this as 70 x 7 years. The question is, where do we locate the 1260 Years in history?
Since it is the period of the 11th horn of the 4th animal (Dan 7:25), it began when that horn came into existence. The 11th horn came up when it uprooted three of the other horns (Dan 7:8). That was in the mid-sixth century when the Eastern Emperor Justinian defeated and subjected three Arian Western kingdoms.
1260 years later bring us to the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, a decisive turning point in the history of Europe and the Western World. The 3½ times or 42 months, therefore, represent more or less the Middle Ages, the period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance.
See here for a more complete discussion of this period.
8. It still exists today.
According to Daniel 7, the 11th horn still exists today, for it will only be destroyed when Christ returns (Dan 7:26, 11).
The Roman Church still exists today. It is the same organization that was made the Roman State Religion by the Edict of Thessalonica, and that was liberated from Arian domination by Emperor Justinian.
9. The Beast is a Christian Organization
The above discusses the identity of the Antichrist from the Book of Daniel. Since the Beast in Revelation is the same as the 11th horn in Daniel, the Antichrist can also be identified from the Book of Revelation. In Revelation, the Beast also blasphemes God and persecutes His people, and it reigns for the same period, counted as 42 months in Revelation (Rev 13:5). Revelation implies further that the Beast is a Christian organization, a ‘church,’ not a political power:
(a) It is a deliberate counterfeit of Jesus Christ:
Like Jesus, the Beast has a ministry that lasts three and a half years (Rev 13:5), is killed, but is resurrected from the dead (Rev 13:3).
Like Jesus received His authority from the Father (Matt 28:18), the Sea Beast received its authority from the Dragon (Rev 13:2).
Like Jesus is the image of God (Col 1:15; John 14:9), the Beast is an image of the Dragon. Both have seven heads and ten horns.
(b) The Beast works through a lamb-like beast.
Revelation refers to Jesus as a lamb 28 times. Revelation 13:11-12 is the only instance in Revelation where “lamb” does not refer to Jesus. Since the beast from the earth is lamb-like, it looks like Jesus. However, it “spoke as a dragon” (Rev 13:11). To speak means to act. This beast looks like Christ but is dragon-like in nature! It claims to serve Jesus, yet its actions serve the Dragon!
10. It does not work in the end-time.
The first half of Revelation 13 describes the activities of the Beast. It says that the Beast reigns for 42 months, which has been interpreted above as roughly the Middle Ages.
The last half of Revelation 13 describes the end-time persecution of God’s people. The First Beast itself is not directly involved. Another Beast comes out of the Land, receives its authority from the First Beast, works in the presence of the Beast, performs miracles, and convinces the people to create an Image of the Beast. It is the Image that puts the Mark of the Beast on people. (Rev 13:12-16). The Beast, the Roman Church, is not directly involved because it reigns only during the the Middle Ages. The Image is an end-time replica of the system during the Middle Ages, when the Church ruled over the kings.
In the end-time, therefore, we must expect another organization that will do the work of the Roman Church.
Conclusion
The Roman Church is the only historical entity that fits both the timing and the characteristics of the 11th horn of Daniel 7.
The mainstream Church of today inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Church, which was the child of the Roman Empire, and inherited the Trinity doctrine from it. The Trinity doctrine is the legacy of the ancient Roman Empire.
The Mark of the Beast
Above, this article concluded that the Beast in Revelation is the same as the 11th horn of the 4th animal in Daniel 7, and that both symbolize the Roman Church, which originated during the 4th-century Arian Controversy as the Roman State Church. Then the question is, what is the Mark of the Beast? The following are some possibilities:
A Literal Mark
Some proposed that the mark will be a literal mark on literal foreheads, perhaps in a modern form, such as an implanted microchip. Such interpretations have no respect for the symbolic nature of apocalyptic prophecies. As discussed above, the forehead symbolizes the mind. A name symbolizes character
The Trinity Doctrine
Another possibility is that the Mark is the Trinity doctrine. This may be argued as follows:
The Mark is a sin.
Firstly, in Revelation 13 and 14, God’s people refuse the Mark. Therefore, the Mark must be some evil practice or teaching. This conclusion is supported by the description of God’s people, in the context, as those who keep the commandments of God (Rev 12:17; 14:12).
The reader may object that the Trinity doctrine is a sound Biblical teaching. This site maintains that it is not. The Trinity is discussed in more detail in another article (see here). It is camouflaged by misleading statements, such as the claim that God is one Being, existing in three Persons. In reality:
First, while the Bible clearly presents the Father and Son as two distinct Beings with two distinct minds, the Trinity doctrine teaches that they are a single Being with a single mind. Since they share a single mind, the term ‘three Persons’ is misleading.
Second, while the Bible states that the Son of God was incarnated as a human being, Jesus Christ, in the Trinity doctrine, the Son cannot become incarnate because He is indivisible from the Father. They share a single indivisible being. Furthermore, in the Trinity doctrine, the Son is as immutable and invisible as the Father. Immutable means that He cannot change. For these reasons, He cannot become incarnate.
Third, in the Trinity doctrine, Jesus Christ has two natures, undivided in one Person. In other words, He has both a divine and a human mind. Sometimes His divine mind spoke, for example, when He said He and the Father are one. At other times, His human mind spoke, for example, when He said He does not know the day or hour of His return. In the Bible, there is no evidence for two distinct minds in Jesus Christ.
Four, while the Bible declares that the Son suffered and died for the sins of the world, in the Trinity doctrine, the Son of God is impassible and immortal, meaning He cannot suffer or die. It was merely His human nature, a human body and mind, that died. This is in direct contradiction to Jesus’ statement, “I was dead” (Rev 1:18).
The Mark deviated from the Tradition.
Secondly, because the Mark is an evil practice or teaching, it deviates from the Church’s original teaching.
The Roman State Church came into existence in the 4th century. It was a new organization, but not a new theology. As discussed aboce, it was essentially the continuation of the Monarchian tradition of the Church in Rome.
But the original teaching of the Church, at least of the Gentile church of the second and third centuries, was Arianism. The heart and foundational principle of Arianism was that the divine Son of God became a human being, suffered, and died for the sins of the world. Arianism argued that since the Son could become incarnate, suffer, and die, He must have a lower level of divinity than the Father, who is immutable, impassible, and immortal. That means that the Son must be a second divine Being, distinct from the Father. That was the core issue between the Nicenes and Arians. In Nicene theology, Father and Son are a single Being. In Arianism, Father and Son are two distinct Beings. All other differences between the Nicenes and Arians stem from this core difference. See here
That the Son is a second divine being was also the majority view of the pre-Nicene church. For example, that is what Logos-theology and Origen taught. That is also the view of most theologians during the Arian Controversy, and was continued by the Arian kingdoms that ruled Europe after the Western Empire fragmented. The Roman State Church, established by the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, deviated from this tradition.
Associated with the Trinity Doctrine
Thirdly, further evidence, for the view that the Mark of the Beast is the Trinity doctrine, is the strong association of the Beast, the Roman Church, with the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine was and is the founding and core doctrine of the Roman Church. The following are examples of that strong association:
(a) The 4th-century Arian Controversy gave birth to the Roman State Church. That Controversy was about the nature of Christ. As explained, the core issue was whether the Son is an internal aspect of the Father, as the Nicenes held, or a distinct Being, as Arians believed. The Roman Empire put an end to the Controversy when it made Nicene theology, which later developed into the Trinity doctrine, the Roman State Religion. Since the Beast was formed during a Controversy over the nature of Christ, we have good reason to believe that the Trinity doctrine is the Mark of the Beast.
(b) The Edict of Thessalonica of 380 may be regarded as the founding statement of the Roman State Church. It defined the theology of that church. It defined God. That Edict was the first clear statement of the Trinity doctrine. It explicitly identified the ‘one God’ as the Trinity. In contrast, the Creed formulated the next year, 381, at the so-called Second Ecumenical Council, still identified the ‘one God’ as the Father.
(c) According to Daniel 7, the Roman Church began its distinct existence when the 11th horn rose up, uprooting three other horns. After the Western Roman Empire fragmented, it was divided between several Arian kingdoms. The three horns symbolize the three Arian kingdoms that the Eastern Empire had to defeat to liberate the Roman State Church from Arian domination. This fact, that the Beast became a distinct entity by defeating three Arian nations, supports the view that the Mark relates to the nature of the Son, which the Roman Church expresses with the Trinity doctrine.
(d) The Image will attempt to force all people to accept the Mark of the Beast. That implies that the Mark of the Beast is not something new that will be invented in the end-time. Rather, it is something we all know about today, for which the Roman Church has always been particularly known. That is most true of the Trinity doctrine, which is regarded as its foundational doctrine. The Trinity doctrine defines God and marks the boundary between insiders and outsiders.
The Trinity Doctrine in Revelation
So far, this section has argued that the Trinity doctrine contradicts sound Biblical teaching, deviates from the Church’s traditional teaching, and is at the core of the Roman Church. We will now discuss direct evidence in the Book of Revelation that the Trinity doctrine is the Beast’s Mark:
The frequent use of the term “worship” in Revelation 13-14 identifies worship as the key issue in the end-time crisis. While some people worship the Dragon, the Beast, and the Image of the Beast, others worship the Creator God. Worship is related to the Trinity doctrine, for the doctrine defines God, and, therefore, Christian worship.
Specifically, 14:7 defines God and true Christian worship. It is arguably the most important verse in the entire Book of Revelation, for it says what God’s people must do while the Image of the Beast forces people to accept the Mark. In other words, it gives the opposite of the Mark.
14:7 seems to warn against the Trinity doctrine. It commands all to fear and worship the Creator God (Rev 14:7). In Revelation, the Creator God as the Father alone (e.g., Rev 4:11). Revelation always distinguishes between God and Jesus (e.g., Rev 1:1), between the Almighty and Jesus (e.g., Rev 21:22), and describes the Father as Jesus’s God (Rev 1:6; 3:2, 12). In other words, the Son is not God and He is not the Almighty. Therefore, when 14:7 says that we must worship the Creator God alone, it means that we must worship the Father alone. This firstly confirms that worship is the core issue in the end-time controversy. It also seems to warn specifically against the Trinity doctrine, in which the Son is as much the Creator God as the Father is.
A Counterfeit Sabbath
The SDA Church holds that the Mark of the Beast will be a counterfeit Sabbath. 14:7 alludes to the Sabbath commandment when it says that all must worship the Creator.
It is argued that, when Jesus died, His followers kept the Sabbath, and the Sabbath command was never repealed, at least not explicitly. The Old Testament describes Sabbath-keeping as the norm of faithfulness to God, which is related to the Seal of God, the counterpart to the Mark of the Beast.
However, we should not assume that the Mark is simply the opposite of, or a counterfeit of, the Seal. The Mark is something the Beast is particularly known for. The Seal is something God marks His people with. Even if Seal is the Sabbath, the Mark could very well be something completely different.
Furthermore, the Roman Church is not known for Sunday worship, not in the same way it is known for the Trinity doctrine. For example, the Roman Church was not established as a result of a dispute about the Sabbath.
Final Judgment
The person will never change.
A further possibility is that the Mark is not a specific practice or doctrine, nor even a physical mark, but rather means that the person is doomed to eternal destruction. In support of this option:
A person who has received the Mark of the Beast will never repent. For example, the seven plagues will be poured out on the people with the Mark, but they will refuse to repent (Rev 16:2, 9, 11).
Similarly, a person who has received the Seal of God will never become unfaithful (Rev 7:3).
Name symbolizes character.
Another argument in support of this view is that both the Mark and the Seal are names on foreheads. ‘Name’ stands for character. For example, when the Beast blasphemes God’s name (Rev 13:6), it means that it insults God. Therefore, the name on the foreheads symbolize the character the person has developed, God’s character or Satan’s character. For example, Rev 14:4-5 describes the 144,000 as pure in mind.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Mark and the Seal could symbolize that the person has made a final decision, for or against God. The Image of the Beast kills those who refuse the Mark and prohibits them from buying and selling. In this way, each person is forced to make a final decision. Consequently, God’s people receive the Seal of God during and through the Persecution of Revelation 13 (see here).
The Mark identifies a person as permanently the Beast’s property, like the Seal identifies a person as God’s eternal property.
Conclusion
It may be dangerous to overspecify the Mark of the Beast. The more specific we are, the higher the probability of getting it wrong. It is preferable to state the Mark in general terms and to wait to see what specific form it will take.
However, it seems clear that people will be forced to accept a teaching of practice for which the Roman Church is particularly known, but which is not consistent with God’s will and law.
Force can take subtle forms, but it does not make it less brutal. Whenever people are forced to adopt a certain view, we see the Antichrist at work.
The end-time crisis will be a conflict between two Christian systems of worship. God’s people will worship the Creator God. The Beast’s followers will be the majority, and they will occupy the high places. However, theirs will be a false system of worship. The two systems of worship will have many similarities, but also many differences.
Other Articles
Other articles in this series
Trinity Doctrine
Arian Controversy
Pre-Nicene Fathers
Arius
-
-
- Arianism was orthodox when the Controversy began.
- Arius Scholarship over the Centuries
- What did Arius teach?
- Did Arius say time existed before the Son?
- Did he cause the Arian Controversy?
- Why do many regard him as an antichrist?
- How did he differ from the pre-Nicene fathers?
- Was Origen the ultimate source of his heresy?
-
The Nicene Council (AD 325)
-
-
- Emperor Constantine manipulated the Council.
- How Arians justified acceptance of the Creed
- Was the Creed a Sabellian victory?
- The Trinity doctrine did not exist in 325.
- The Trinity doctrine deviates from the Nicene Creed.
- Subordination in the Nicene Creed MP3
- What did homoousios mean?
- The Egyptian Origin of Homoousios
- Homoousios disappeared after Nicaea.
- All main Nicenes were deposed after Nicaea.
-
The Divided Empire (340s)
Arianism
Nicenes
-
-
- Athanasius was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian.
- Athanasius’s view of Incarnation
- Athanasius’ revised explanation of the Nicene Creed (362)
- Was Athanasius justly deposed for violence?
- What did the Sabellians teach?
- Basil of Caesarea taught three divine Beings.
- The Meletian Schism – Athanasius vs. Basil
-
Emperor Theodosius
Later Centuries