APPENDIX to Chapter 1
Matthew 26:29 Jesus said His
APPENDIX
One scholar has raised the following
helpful questions relative to chapter 1
(pages 8, 18, 19, 27):
Does Luke 1:33 refer back to
Dan 2? Does the kingdom of God
(heaven) that Jesus taught was
present with Him, go back to the
promise of an everlasting kingdom
in Daniel? Daniel by the way has
25% of the OT’s references to
“kingdom”. It’s clearly a Danielic
theme.
I presume these questions aim to
ensure that any interpretation of
‘stone’ and ‘mountain’ in Dan 2 not
limit itself to the second Advent but
should include the establishment of
God’s kingdom at the first advent.
If this is correct then my disquiet
about a minimal gap between the
advents is unfounded as the ‘stone’
and ‘mountain’ in Dan 2:34 and 44
could also represent the inauguration
of God’s kingdom at the first advent,
not the second advent. This view is
also evident in Dr Ford’s works1.
Luke 1:33 reads:
“And He will reign over the
house of Jacob forever; His
kingdom will never end”.
The angel’s assurance to Mary
appears to promise God’s kingdom at
the birth of Jesus. However in
1
‘Daniel’ (1978) Pp 85-87, 99. Also ‘Daniel
and The Coming King’ (1996) Pp 49-50.
i
kingdom was still future (confirmed
in 2 Tim 4:1 and Matt 25:31-34):
“I tell you, I will not drink of
this fruit of the vine from now
on until that day when I drink
it anew with you in my
Father’s kingdom”.
Clearly, distinctions must be made
between the:
(i) inauguration of God’s
kingdom at the first advent.
(Matt 3:2; 12:28; Luke 10:9).
(ii) consummation of the kingdom
at the second advent.
(Matt 16:28; 25:31-34; 26:29;
2 Tim 4:1).
(iii) establishment of the kingdom
after the millennium.
(Rev 20; 21:1-4).
Dr Ford’s vignettes of (i) ‘stone’ and
‘mountain’ and (ii) ‘stone and ‘son’
(footnote 2) are certainly interesting
but do they comply with the strict
panorama of Dan 2? In that chapter
God’s kingdom depicted by the stone
was not to exist contemporaneously
with any of the four kingdoms. It
was to succeed the fragmentation
following Rome. That fragmentation
had not yet occurred when Christ was
on earth at His first advent.
Dr Ford views the expression “in the
days of these kings” as Rome’s
absorption of qualities pertinent to
the kings of Babylon, Medo-Persia
and Grecia2 thus supporting the
arrival of God’s kingdom at the first
2
‘Daniel and The Coming King’ (1996) p50.
i
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
advent during Rome’s reign. For that
interpretation to hold, should there
not have to be an amalgam of gold,
silver and bronze with the iron and
clay in the image’s feet? (John the
Revelator used this approach in
describing a composite beast made up
of portions of prior symbols. See Rev
13:2).
Dan 2:41-43 clearly describes another
kingdom following on after the fourth
kingdom by the expressions
‘a divided kingdom’ and
‘the kingdom’. It would have been
helpful if the expression ‘a fifth
kingdom’ had been used but the
foregoing is sufficiently clear that the
expression ‘in the days of these
kings’ refers to the fifth ‘divided
kingdom’ following after Rome.
The plural ‘kings’ is consistent with
leaders of a ‘divided kingdom’.
The stone becoming a mountain was
to succeed the fragmentation
following Rome. That fragmentation
had not yet occurred when Christ was
on earth at His first advent.
The following points have also been
made in connection with my remarks
on page 21:
It is true that “them” in Dan 8:9 is
masculine and refers no doubt to
“heaven” as you say, but is that all
there is to it? It is rather a trite
thing to say a king or kingdom
arose from one of the four points of
the compass. In context we have
“four notable ones [horns] toward
the four winds of heaven”. It is
reasonable to assume that the little
horn which came up from out of
one of them means one of the four
ii
winds where the four notable horns
[powers] dispersed, that is, from one
of those Greek kingdoms. One
must be conscious of grammar but
context must also guide us. Daniel
is not simply giving the points of
the compass, he’s telling us that the
Greek generals took power and
possession of the four geographic
areas and out of one of these areas
of dynastic rule came the little
horn. (see v. 23). All of the
depictions we as Adventists make
that I have seen have the little horn
of Dan 8 growing out of one of the
four horns. I think that is correct,
so I disagree with you that “the
little horn is an entirely new
power”. He arises from one of the
areas of the Diadochi and that does
not really suit Rome”.
Pages 20-21 touched on this. Also
see pp xiv-xvi of this Appendix. We
must be guided by the chronology of
Dan 7 where the little horn arose
when the fragmentation following
Rome’s demise had been completed.
Antiochus Epiphanes was long dead
by that time.
The plea for contextual consistency is
unassailable. In compliance it is
arguable the expression ‘the four
notable horns grew towards the four
winds of heaven’ meant they grew
toward “the four points of the
compass”. This is safe and entirely
consistent with Jer 49:36; Eze 37:9;
Dan 7:2; 11:4; Zech 2:6; 6:5; Matt
24:31. It therefore follows
contextually that the little horn came
out of one of “the four points of the
compass” rather than from an area in
which one of the four horns had
previously operated. The post-
ii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
Alexander period split control four
ways3: Ptolemy had Egypt, Palestine
and part of Syria; Cassander had
Macedonia with nominal sovereignty
over Greece; Lysimachus had Thrace
and a large part of Asia Minor and
Seleucus had most of the former
Persian empire, part of Asia Minor,
northern Syria, Mesopotamia and the
East. Lysimachus was subsequently
eliminated. Rome absorbed the rest,
one by one. The little horn of Dan 8
truly arose from one of the four
points of the compass given Rome’s
piecemeal acquisition of the four
areas described (see xiv-xvi). That
this is the safer way forward is
confirmed by Dan 7 where the little
horn arose out of the fragmented
empire succeeding Rome and not out
of one of the leopard’s four heads
representing Grecia’s fragmentation.
(See xiv-xvi).
The four horns of the he-goat of Dan
8 parallel the hour heads of the
leopard in Dan 7. However Dan 7
presents the fourth beast as
subsequent to any one of the four
heads of the leopard (7:6). The little
horn of Dan 7 does not arise out of
the fourth beast but among the ten
horns after supplanting three. This is
entirely different to the little horn
emerging out of the Diadochi.
Many see Antiochus Epiphanes in the
little horn of Dan 8. I would also see
it were it not for the caveats of Dan 7
and the fact the little horn of 7 and 8
depict the same power. Nowhere
within the book of Daniel is the same
3
Willis Botsford: ‘Hellenic History’;
W.W Tarn: ‘Hellenistic Civilisation’.
iii
symbol used to depict two different
powers. Rather, different symbols
are used to depict the same power.
(brass girdle, winged leopard, he-
goat). Some rely on Dan 8:23 (the
little horn would arise during the
‘latter part’ of the reign of the four
horns) to support Antiochus, however
Antiochus Epiphanes did not emerge
in the latter part of the reign of one of
the four generals who succeeded
Alexander but around the mid-part of
the period of the divided Hellenistic
kingdoms. The text does not read
“after” the latter part of their reign.
(see pages 22-23 and xiv-xvi why
Antiochus is a poor fit for the little
horn of Dan 8).
Adventist artwork should therefore
not depict the little horn of Dan 8 as
emerging from one of the horns but
from one of the four winds. That
would align with the grammar and
context of Dan 8 and with the little
horn’s origin in Dan 7.
The reader should carefully study
pp xiv-xvi and ch 3 for it contains
compelling evidence that both the
origin and the work of the little horn
cannot apply to Antiochus:
Page 42: the little horn casts down
the place of the sanctuary. The
Hebrew for ‘cast’ is shalak and it is
not an act of contamination such as
committed by Antiochus.
Page 43: the little horn
misappropriates the Messianic
Prince’s continual work of mediation,
intercession and forgiveness of sins
which is the essence of the heavenly
sanctuary. The little horn rejects the
iii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
heavenly sanctuary’s foundation as
the centre of mediation and
forgiveness. Antiochus did no such.
Page 44: the Hebrew word used to
describe the little horn’s rebellion
against God is pesha’. It is the
strongest Old Testament term for sin,
meaning much more than rebellion
against God. It includes the notion of
breaking with Him, taking away what
is His, robbing Him, defrauding Him,
laying hands on what belongs to God.
In the context of Christ’s mediatorial
ministry in the heavenly sanctuary,
Antiochus did no such.
Page 45: The most revealing
evidence that Antiochus is not the
little horn of Daniel 8 is the question
of Dan 8:13 which literally reads:
“How long before the whole vision is
fulfilled and the daily in the sanctuary
and the rebellion against the
sanctuary comes to an end?”
This question does not limit itself just
to the work of the little horn but
embraces (i) the entire vision of
chapter 8 (ii) the work of daily
ministration in the heavenly
sanctuary and (iii) the pesha’ of the
little horn in attacking the sanctuary.
The question concerns itself with a
vast time span from the days of Medo
Persia to an event just prior to the
second advent and renders
incongruous by comparison
Antiochus’ three year reign.
More evidence is contained on pages
22-23 and xiv-xvi of this work:
1. The horn grew towards the
South, East and Pleasant land
of Palestine (v.9). Antiochus’
iv
advance into Egypt ended in
humiliation, his victories in
Palestine were short-lived, his
push to the East was cut short
by his death. His policy of
Hellenism failed. His ‘craft’
did not bring him ‘prosperity’
(v 12, 25).
2. Antiochus did not stand up
against any Jewish ‘Prince of
Princes’ (v. 25), his casting of
the truth to the ground was
temporary and then failed
because the Jews strengthened
their faith’s defence against
Hellenism.
3. The ‘abomination’ depicted in
Daniel is considerably worse
than that described in
1 Maccabees 1:54.
4. It is impossible to harmonise
the 2300 days (or 2300 half
days) with the historical period
described in the books of
Maccabees or Josephus. There
is no certainty about the dates
of Antiochus’ reign of terror.
5. Daniel’s prophecy is silent
about a re-dedication of the
sanctuary (which occurred
under Judas Maccabeaus after
Antiochus’s destruction)
because Daniel’s terminus
goes far beyond the
Maccabean era to the Second
Advent itself. (2:44; 7:14, 27).
Clearly the little horn of Daniel 8
(and 7) is “an entirely new power”.
After reading and re-reading all of
iv
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
Dr Ford’s works and 1 and 2
Maccabees and looking carefully at
those sections dealing with Antiochus
Epiphanes, with the greatest of
respect to Dr Ford I am under some
pressure to ask the question why
Antiochus should be shoe-horned into
the prophecy when he fails to meet
all of its specifications? The question
takes on an urgency when another
candidate for the little horn fulfills
(and fills full) all of the prophecy’s
specifications.
It has been suggested that I
correctly parallel Dan 2, 7 and 8
but that I should also add chapter
11 to my columns, including as it
seems to one scholar the clear
references to Antiochus Epiphanes
in chapter 11.
Dan 11 is often used to reinforce the
view that Antiochus is the little horn
of Dan 8. The language of Dan 11 is
more literal and less symbolic but
many interpreters find the language
more ambiguous than Dan 2, 7 and 8.
By comparison, the language of Dan
2, 7 and 8 is less literal and more
symbolic but much less ambiguous
because clues are provided for a
correct interpretation:
2 ‘thou art his head of gold’
7 ‘the four beasts are four
kingdoms’
7 ‘the ten horns are ten kings’
8 ‘the two-horned ram are the
kings of Media Persia’
8 ‘the goat is the king of
Greece’.
No such assistance is provided in
Dan 11. The heavenly messenger
cautions that the interpretation of Dan
v
11 is to be sealed until the “time of
the end” as Dan 12 is a continuous
narrative to Dan 11. The “time of the
end” is defined for us in 12:3 as that
time when those who “sleep in the
dust of the earth shall awake”. How
can Antiochus (a figure who
appeared briefly in 167-164 BC) be
included into a time just prior to the
first resurrection? (Dan 12:1-3)
For all the foregoing reasons,
attempts to use Dan 11 to interpret
Dan 8 must therefore be regarded
with some caution. Dan 7 and 8 are
sufficiently clear to allow accurate
interpretation without Dan 11
because of starting clues given which
are absent in Dan 11. That is not say
we should not apply our minds to
understand Dan 11 but while its
interpretation is less clear, it is hardly
appropriate to use it to interpret a
chapter that is comparatively clearer.
The Maccabean era is not without
interest and some parts of Antiochus’
short-lived reign share similarities
with the work of the little horn but
Antiochus Epiphanes is simply not a
‘best fit’ for the prophecy. Indeed
Dr Ford acknowledges this by
suggesting Antiochus Epiphanes
fulfilled the prophecy but did not “fill
it full”. I would not have used the
word ‘fulfilled’ but agree that
Antiochus did not fill the prophecy
full when regard is given to all of the
prophecy’s specifications.
Another scholar has chided me for
omitting reference to Daniel chapter
11 in chapter 1 of this work:
You understandably focus on Dan
2 in defending a historicist
v
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
approach to prophecy, but you
ignore Daniel 11. Given that the
crisis posed by Antiochus
Epiphanes was comparable with
those that occurred with Pharaoh,
Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar,
Haman and Titus (SDABC 4:868),
is it likely that Daniel would give
such detailed attention to the
Ptolemies and Seleucids as he does
in Daniel 11 (see SDABC 4:866-8)
but not mention Antiochus IV?
Daniel 11 is not as clear as Daniel 2,
7 and 8 because of its ambiguity
despite its more literal language and
we must exercise caution therefore in
using it to interpret previous chapters
where the meaning is clearer. That is
not to say that Dan 11 should be
completely ignored. I agree with Dr
Ford that Antiochus fulfills some
parts of the prophecy but does not fill
it full. For that reason our interest
should be in the power which both
fulfills the prophecy and fills it full.
Most commentators agree that:
Verses 1-3 cover the future
history of Persia from Daniel’s
time.
Verse 4 applies to Alexander
The Great.
Verses 5-20 depict the
four-fold break up of
Alexander’s empire with
principal focus on the ‘north’
(Seleucids) and the ‘south’
(Ptolemies) but only how they
affect God’s people and the
sanctuary.
Verses 21-35 best fit
Antiochus Epiphanes.
vi
Verses 36-39 depict the
church-state apostasy of the
Middle Ages.
Verses 40-45 depict a
resurgence of church-state
apostasy as a more ultimate
fulfillment in our time because
the narrative flows across to
12:1-3. (See Rev 13).
Having regard to this sketch of
Daniel 11 it is again apparent that
Antiochus fails to meet all of the
specifications of the little horn of
Daniel 7 and 8 despite some
similarities. In a micro-cosmic but
limited sense it could be said that
Antiochus pre-figured what pagan
and papal Rome achieved
macrocosmically. For that reason the
micro-cosmic Antiochus must not
find primary and detailed fulfillment
in the little horn’s macrocosmic work
as depicted in Daniel 7 and 8. It is
significant that Rome became
prominent in world affairs during the
events depicted in Dan 11:14. The
Romans were the guardians of the
young Ptolemy in 200 BC and they
declared war against Philip V of
Macedon who had joined Antiochus
III. Thus the same attacker foretold
in Dan 7 and 8 is depicted emerging
before the rise of Antiochus IV in
verses 21-35. The principal power
(and the power behind the principle)
is Rome pagan, not Antiochus IV.
That same power flowers into Rome
papal in verses 36-39. In 1978 Dr
Ford wrote: “A system is intended
that influences the world scene, not a
petty dictator in Palestine”4 and
4
Ford, D. ‘Daniel’ (1978). SPA. Page 272.
vi
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
“No mere incident in the days of the
Maccabees is in focus but rather the
conflict of the ages5” and “There can
be no denying that Christ Himself
had meditated on the very passage
which now concerns us [Dan 9:24-
27] and He did not associate it with
the times of Antiochus but rather
projected it into the future6”.
It is highly significant that no
mention is made in Dan 11:32-35 of
the “cleansing of the sanctuary”
under the Maccabees. The heavenly
messenger Gabriel does not consider
that the restoration of the temple by
the Jewish patriots in 165 BC under
Judas Maccabeus is the fulfillment
of Daniel 8:14. That event is
depicted in Daniel 12.
It is an exercise in myopia to fixate
on Antiochus IV as a full or partial
fulfillment of the little horns of Dan 7
and 8. It beclouds many a
commentator from recognizing the
real villain depicted and sets one up
for deception.
Page 41 reveals that the little horn is
at war with Messiah the Prince and
the heavenly host. Antiochus did no
such. Page 42 reveals that the little
horn usurps the mediatorial work of
the Prince in the heavenly sanctuary.
Antiochus did no such. Pages 42-43
reveal that the little horn would
reject, forsake and abandon the
essence of the sanctuary and not
contaminate it by a physical act.
Antiochus did the opposite. Pages
46-51 reveal that the cleansing of the
5
Ibid., page 245
6
Ibid., page 38
vii
sanctuary meant justifying,
acquitting, making righteous and that
this event would occur after the entire
vision of Daniel 8 was fulfilled
(p. 51). Judas Maccabeus did no
such thing and his actions in
physically cleansing the sanctuary in
165 BC did not occur after all the
events of the vision in Daniel 8 had
been fulfilled.
Readers by now should be
sympathetic with my difficulty in
accepting that Antiochus IV is the
little horn of Dan 8 and the
proposition that detailed fulfillment
of the little horn’s work is found in
historical aggression against literal
Israel and its historical sanctuary.
Table 1 on p.xiii summarises the
parallelisms of Daniel’s prophecies.
For those who wish to see where
Antiochus fits in, the Table reveals
that the primary suspect is Rome
pagan/papal despite those verses in
Dan 11 that apply to Antiochus.
ANTIOCHUS IV CANNOT BE
THE LITTLE HORN OF DAN 7
AND 8
Antiochus Epiphanes ruled for less
than 12 years (175 to 164-163 B.C.)
as the 8th king in the Seleucid line
covering the territory known as
Syria-Babylon. Is there Biblical and
historical evidence refuting the liberal
idea that Antiochus is the little horn
power? If indeed he is the little horn,
consider the implications:
• The time period in Dan 8:14
becomes literal, the sanctuary
in Dan 8:14 becomes historical
vii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
and the cleansing in Dan 8:14
becomes physical.
• it eliminates the predictions of
the papal change of the
Sabbath (Dan 7:25).
• it eliminates the persecution of
God’s people in the Dark Ages
(Dan 7).
• it eliminates the 2300-year
prophecy (Dan 8).
• it eliminates the Investigative
Judgment preceding the
Second Advent.
• it eliminates primary focus
away from the papacy in
prophecy onto a villain who
died 2,166 years ago.
Reasons liberals provide to support
Antiochus IV as the little horn
1. As a Seleucid king he could
have proceeded from one of
the four horns (Dan 8:8). But
we have already noted that the
grammatical construction of
Daniel 7:8-9 reveals the little
horn came out of a wind, not a
horn (see xiv-xvi). The little
horn arose out of territory not
under the control of any of the
four divisions of the Greek
Empire. For those who reject
the Hebrew grammar (see
p.40) and insist that the little
horn arose out of one of the
four horns, let it be
remembered that Rome first
conquered Macedon (one of
the four horns – see pp iii and
vi). Although it could be said
that the little horn arose out of
one the four horns, “winds” is
preferred because it is
grammatically correct and
viii
aligns with Dan 7. (see xiv-
xvi)
2. His succession as king was
irregular and unexpected, if
that is what “but not with his
power” means (welo bekoho)
in Dan 8:24. Philopator, a son
of Seleucus IV should have
succeeded after his father’s
assassination by Heliodorus.
However Antiochus IV came to
the throne instead, aided by the
armies of Pergamos, the king’s
brother.
3. He persecuted the Jews but for
a period far less than the
required 6 years, 4 months and
two-thirds of a month (which
are 2300 literal days). It does
not even fit the 2300 half days
(1150 days).
4. He polluted the Jerusalem
Temple and disrupted its
services for a time. But he did
not do all the things predicted
of the little horn in Dan 7 or in
Dan 8.
15 reasons why Antiochus cannot be
the little horn
1. The horn represents not
merely a king but a kingdom.
Liberals claim the little horn
(Antiochus) was not the
Seleucid Dynasty but only one
king. Dan 8:23 indeed
identifies the little horn as a
“king” but there are reasons
for recognizing the little horn
as a kingdom. The four
preceding horns were
kingdoms (8:22) and it is
viii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
reasonable they too would be
succeeded by another
kingdom. The two horns on
the Persian ram represented
the “kings of Media and
Persia” (8:20) but the dynastic
houses which ruled those
nations were not merely two
single kings. The four beasts
are referred to as “four kings”
(7:17) but they too represented
kingdoms and not individual
monarchs (7:23). In Dan 2,
Nebuchadnezzar is the head of
gold but the head represented
the Neo-Babylonian Empire
which continued for decades
after his death and he was told
he would be succeeded by
another kingdom (2:38-39).
The only place in the book of
Daniel where a horn is clearly
identified as a single person is
Alexander, the great horn of
the Grecian he-goat (8:21).
2. The predicted little horn power
is greater than that of
Antiochus. The Persian ram
“magnified himself” (8:4) and
the entire Persian Empire
which lasted several centuries
was indeed great. The Grecian
goat which conquered Persia
“magnified himself
exceedingly” (8:8) and was
powerful for still more
centuries (including when
Antiochus was alive). But the
little horn seeks and attains a
greatness greater than that of
its predecessors Medo-Persia
and Greece. It magnified itself
in several directions and tried
to grow great to the host of
ix
heaven, ultimately magnifying
itself up to the Prince of the
host (8:9-11). “To be great” or
gadal, occurs only once with
Persia and Greece but three
times with the little horn.
Antiochus ruled only one
portion of the Grecian Empire,
with little success and for only
12 years.
3. The question must be asked
why the heavenly court would
gather in majestic session with
vast numbers of angels (Dan
7:9-10) to pay attention to
Antiochus when no such
heavenly judgment scene is
recorded anywhere in the
Bible for similar villains such
as Pharaoh, Sennacherib,
Nebuchadnezzar, Haman and
Titus.
4. Antiochus accomplished little
during his reign. However the
little horn “grew exceedingly
great toward the south, toward
the east, and toward the
glorious land” (8:9).
Antiochus tried to extend his
southern border into Egypt
during the campaign of 169
B.C. The following year he
marched on Alexandria to
attempt a siege but was turned
back by a Roman diplomatic
mission. He had to abandon
the conquest.
5. Antiochus experienced
repeated failure. During the
last two years of his reign he
attempted to regain some of
the extensive territory lost by
ix
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
his predecessor. After some
diplomatic and military
successes in Armenia and
Media he was stopped by the
Parthians and died in the
winter of 163 B.C. His
military successes were less
than those of his successor
Antiochus III. He did not
grow “exceedingly great”
toward the south or east. He
did not conquer Palestine (the
west) as this was territory
Antiochus III had subjected in
198 B.C. He could not grow
“exceedingly” in taking over
Judaea for it was already part
of his kingdom as it was
inherited from Antiochus III.
Antiochus IV is mentioned in
1 Maccabees 1-6 as the
Seleucid ruler who desecrated
the Temple and persecuted the
Jews, but he did not grow
“exceedingly great toward the
glorious land.” His actions
against the Jews actually led to
their total revolt. Rather than
a conqueror of Palestine, the
defeats he suffered toward the
end of his reign in Palestine
started the course of events
which separated it from his
rule. The Jews subsequently
gained autonomy. While
campaigning in the East his
Palestinian forces experienced
defeats at Emmaus (1 Macc
3:57) and Beth-zur (1 Macc
4:29) in Judaea. Toward the
end of 164 B.C the Jews
liberated the polluted Temple
from Seleucid hands and
rededicated it
x
(1 Macc 5:52). Antiochus died
in the East in 163 B.C. (1
Macc 6:15). His net gains
amounted to very little. He
did not grow “exceedingly
great toward the south, toward
the east and toward the
glorious land” (8:9).
6. The little horn took away the
tamid (8:11) or the “continual”
(“daily” in KJV). The word
“sacrifice” (in 8:11-13; 11:31;
12:11) is not in the original.
Critics declare that “sacrifice”
should be the supplied word
and that it applies to Antiochus
who interrupted the Temple
services, although only for a
very short time. The fact is
the little horn took away the
daily (tamid). It refers to
Christ’s role as intercessor and
mediator in the heavenly
sanctuary. This is the object
of the little horn’s attack – not
a physical attack on a physical
sanctuary in literal Israel in
167 BC. This is the clearest
evidence that Antiochus
cannot be the little horn of
Dan 7 or 8. It is the gospel
which is under attack – not a
physical sanctuary on earth.
In removing the “daily” or the
“continual” (tamid) the little
horn usurps the work of the
Prince in the heavenly
sanctuary making His
mediation ineffective for those
who support its religious and
political aspirations. (See pp
41-43). This is the object of
the little horn’s attacks. Focus
on Antiochus is preterist
x
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
myopia, defying Gabriel’s
counsel that Daniel is sealed
until the time of the end as
defined in Dan 12:1-3.
7. The place of his sanctuary was
not “cast down” by Antiochus
(8:11). He did not destroy the
Temple building. The word
“place” (makon) occurs 17
times in the Hebrew Bible and
in every instance but one it
refers to the place where God
dwells or the site upon which
His throne rests.
8. He only ruled less than 12
years: 175 to 164/163 B.C.
The little horn’s work
continues right up to the time
of the Second Advent (Dan
7:11-13).
9. Antiochus was only a mid-
Seleucid king. The origin of
his kingdom does not fit the
prophecy as he did not arise
“at the latter end.” The little
horn arose after the four
kingdoms had come to power
and it was to come up “at the
latter end of their rule” (8:23).
The Seleucid Dynasty
consisted of more than 20
kings (311 to 65 B.C.).
Antiochus IV was the eighth in
line, ruling from 175 to
164/163 B.C. More than a
dozen Seleucid rulers followed
him. Less than a dozen
preceded him. He did not
arise “at the latter end of their
rule.”
xi
10. His activities did not fulfill the
time prophecy. Liberals assert
he disrupted the Temple
services and persecuted the
Jews for 2300 literal days. But
history disagrees: a pagan idol
was set up on the altar of burnt
offering on the 15th day of the
9th month of the 145th year of
the Seleucid Era and pagan
sacrifices began there 10 days
later (1 Maccabees 1:54, 59).
After a period of warfare on
the 25th day of the 9th month
in the 148th year of the
Seleucid Era, an altar newly
built by the Jews, was
consecrated and offerings
began. Celebrations continued
for 8 days (1 Maccabees 4:52,
54). We have here a period of
3 years and 10 days, during
which Antiochus IV stopped
the Temple services. That
time span is not 2300 literal
days (6 years, 4 months, and
two-thirds of a month). Nor
was it 1150 literal days (2300
evening mornings or 2300 half
days). The shorter figure is
two months too long. Various
attempts have been made to
solve this discrepancy. The
troops of Antiochus did pillage
the Temple on their way back
from Egypt two years earlier
but that still falls a year and a
half short of 2300 days. It has
been suggested that the 2300
days included sporadic
on-and-off persecutions of the
Jews by Jews but that does not
fit the prophetic specifications.
xi
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
11. His reign did not extend to
“the time of the end” as
defined in Dan 12:1-3. (See
Dan 8:17, 19). These time
periods had to extend to the
Messiah and beyond, but
Antiochus IV died in 164/163
B.C more than a century
before the Messiah was born.
12. The little horn’s end is brought
about by God: “But he shall
be broken without human
hand” (8:25). This phrasing is
similar to the end of the king
of the north in Dan 11:45: “He
shall come to his end and none
shall help him.” God
intervenes and destroys the
little horn power. In Dan 2 the
image was brought to an end
by a stone cut out without
human assistance (2:45). The
prophecies of Dan 2, 7, 8, and
11 conclude with direct
intervention by God in human
history. However Antiochus
died in Parthia during an ill-
fated military campaign, an
inglorious end after a 12-year
reign of repeated failure.
13. The prophecy of 9:24-27
requires that Antiochus totally
destroy the city of Jerusalem
(9:26). It was to come to an
“end” (9:26). Its desolations”
by a “desolator” (9:26-27)
were decreed. Antiochus did
not do this.
14. Antiochus was not Messiah
the Prince. Dan 9:26 says “the
Prince that shall come” would
destroy the entire city. But the
titles of Messiah Prince, the
xii
Messiah and the Prince (see
Dan 9:26) refer to Jesus
Christ. The Jews’ rejection of
the gospel resulted in
Jerusalem’s destruction (“the
people of the Prince ... shall
destroy the city”).
15. Antiochus did not live in the
first century A.D. The
prophecy of Dan 9:26 says the
rise of the Prince and the
destruction of the city must
occur in the first century A.D.
In removing the “daily” or the
“continual” (tamid) the little horn
usurps the work of the Prince in the
heavenly sanctuary making His
mediation ineffective for those who
support its religious and political
aspirations. (See pp 41-43).
This is the object of the little horn’s
attacks. Dr Ford counsels me:
“All Bible study must begin with the
preterist approach: what did the text
mean to those who first received it.
There is no other right way of
studying the Scriptures. You begin
with that and go on from there”.7
However any focus on Antiochus
Epiphanes is preterist myopia and
defies the plain statements of Gabriel
that the visions of Daniel are sealed
until the time of the end as defined in
Dan 12:1-3. There is little room for
the preterist approach in the sealed
portions of Daniel.
Further Reading
‘Why Antiochus Is Not The Little Horn
Of Daniel 8’. Selected Studies On
Prophetic Interpretation’ Vol 1
7
email from Dr Ford to the author dated
9 January 2004 page 3 point 9.
xii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xiii
DARCOM. (GC of SDA 1982. pp 30- Questions On Doctrine (Revised)
31). Clifford Goldsteins ‘Graffiti In The Question 28. Sections 317-337.
Holy of Holies’ (2003 R&H). Pp 21-44.

TABLE 1
Parallel depictions within Daniel’s Prophecies
Daniel 2 Daniel 7 Daniel 8 Daniel 9 Daniel 11 & 12

Babylon 32, 37, 38 4

Medo 32, 39 5 3, 4 25 11:2

Persia

Greece 32, 39 6 5-8 25-26 11:3-13

Antiochus no no no no 11:21-35
Epiphanes reference reference reference reference

Rome 40 7, 23 9 26, 27
(pagan)

Rome 41-44 8, 24 11-13 11:36-39 (first

(papal) phase)
11:40-45
(second phase)
Judgment 34, 35, 44, 9, 10, 22, 26, 14, 25 24, 27 11:45-12:3
& God’s 45 27
Kingdom

There are no references to Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel 2 and 7. In fact the little
horn of Daniel 7 arises out of the fragmented empire following Rome’s demise.
Why would Daniel use the same ‘little horn’ symbol for different powers in Daniel
7 and 8?

Some see Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel 8 but this Appendix argues against that
view and numerous reasons are given. See pages ii to vii and xiv to xxiv.

Antiochus Epiphanes is not seen in Daniel 9:26-27 because of the historical period
in view, namely the events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The
Antiochus of 165 BC cannot fit an event of AD 70. Pagan Rome is the villain here.

Antiochus Epiphanes may be seen in Daniel 11:21-35 but not in 36-45; the latter
verses are more in alignment with the work of the little horn than the former verses
particularly when they are read as a continuous narrative with 12:1-3.

xiii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
Contradiction? The little
horn’s origin in Daniel 7:7-8
and 8:8-9.
Daniel 7:7-8 portrays the little horn
arising from the fragmented empire
following Rome’s demise. Daniel
8:8-9 however seems to depict the
little horn arising out of one of the
four Grecian divisions following the
death of Alexander the Great. If this
is correct then both interpretations are
mutually exclusive: Dan 8 places the
little horn’s emergence before the
ascendancy of the Roman Empire and
Dan 7 places it after Rome’s demise.
The span between the two is some
650 years and cannot therefore be
depicting the same villain.
The point has been made that the
Hebrew grammar in Dan 8:8-9
supports the view in Dan 7:7-8,
namely that the little horn there
depicted arises out of one of the four
“winds” of the compass. (pp 20-21
and Appendix to Ch 1 pp ii-iii).
TABLE 1
Daniel 7
Grecia v.6 (leopard)
Division v.6 ( 4 heads)
Antiochus
Epiphanes
th
Rome v.7 (4 beast)
Division v.7, 24 (10 horns)
Little Horn v.8 (supplants 3 horns)
v.24 (“after them another
king will arise”)
xiv
A natural consequence of seeing the
horn’s origin from one of the four
areas of the Diadochi (i.e. Macedon)
is the recognition that Antiochus
Epiphanes is the primary fulfillment
of the little horn. Such interpretation
clashes with Dan 7:7-8 which places
the horn’s origin after Rome’s
demise, that is to say after 476AD.
By that stage Antiochus was long
dead (i.e. 164BC). See Appendix to
Ch 1 pp. iii-v.
Those who insist on seeing Antiochus
Epiphanes as the little horn of Dan 8
must also see him as the little horn of
Dan 7 but immediate difficulties arise
in so doing as Dan 7:24 states the
little horn appears after the
fragmentation following Rome’s
demise. It will not do to suggest the
little horn of Dan 7 depicts a different
power to that of Dan 8 as the book of
Daniel never uses the same symbols
to portray different powers, rather it
uses different symbols to portray the
same power. (i.e. gold head and lion;
silver chest, bear and ram etc).
Daniel 8 Approx Dates
v.5, 21 (goat) 331-168 BC
v.8, 22 (4 horns) 301-168 BC
175-164 BC
v.23-25 168 BC-476 AD
476 AD - current
v.9-12 Arises after 476 AD
(Dan 7:24 says “after
them ...)
xiv
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
Table 1 plainly shows that Antiochus
Epiphanes appeared as a historical
character well before the little horn is
foretold to appear as a historical
force. (Dan 7:24)
That I am not mistaken about this is
supported by the following: the
Hebrew grammar in Dan 8:8-9
supports the Dan 7:7-8 view, namely
that the little horn arises out of one of
the four ‘winds’ of the compass. (See
pp 20-21 and Appendix to Ch 1 pp ii-
iii). Furthermore the word ‘vision’ in
Dan 8:1-15 uses the Hebrew word
‘chazon’ (5 times) but the word
‘vision’ in the verses 16 to 27 use the
Hebrew word ‘mareh’ (4 times).
W. Shea accounts for this switch in
words by pointing out that verses
1-15 have to do with the totality of
the vision (chazon) whereas verses
16-27 have to do with a time element
of the vision (mareh).8 This is a
superb observation as the only use of
the word ‘time’ is from verse 16
onwards, occurring three times.
(verses 17, 19, 22). Table 2 on page
xvi summarises Hebrew usage of the
word ‘vision’ throughout the book of
Daniel.
The significance of all this is an eye-
opener: First, the question of verse 13
‘How long shall be the vision’ refers
back to verse 1 where in both cases
‘chazon’9 is used, thus providing an
8
See W. Shea ‘Selected Studies on Prophetic
Interpretation’ DARCOM (1982) pp 80-82.
9
chazon (pro: ‘khaw-zone’) from the primary
root ‘chazah’ (pro: ‘khaw-zaw’) which means to
gaze at, to perceive, to contemplate but
specifically means to have a vision of, behold,
look, prophesy, provide, see. Thus chazon
means literally a dream, a revelation, an oracle,
xv
invaluable clue that the ‘how long’
question of verse 13 takes in the
totality of the vision depicted in
verses 1-12. Thus the span of
centuries is in view and not a
confined historical period such as the
Maccabbean era. The answer to the
‘How long’ question in verse 14 must
logically accommodate such a vast
span, ruling out literal days, half days
and Antiochus Epiphanes. Second,
the only use of the word for vision
(chazon) after verse 15 is in the
second part of verse 26 in which
Daniel is told by the heavenly
messenger to shut up the ‘chazon’
(i.e. the entire vision depicted in
verses 1-12) on the grounds that “it
shall be for many days”. Here the
angel specifically locks up for the
future the entire vision, ruling out a
Maccabbean application. The old
argument of “let us determine what
the vision would have meant to the
readers in Daniel’s day” loses
considerable force under the angel’s
instruction. That the ‘many days’ is
eschatological and not historical is
obvious from the vast span of time in
view in verses 1-12. There is again
no room here for Antiochus
Epiphanes which insists on a
Maccabbean application.
In-depth analysis on this issue can be
mistaken for nit-picking or a point-
scoring exercise. Why the precision?
The sanctuary truth reveals much
detail about Christ’s daily (tamid)
a vision. mareh (pro: ‘mar-eh’) from the
primary root ‘ra-ah’ (pro: ‘raw-aw’) which
means ‘to see’. Thus mareh means the act of
seeing or an appearance, a vision, the thing seen.
xv
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xvi

ministration on our behalf and the literal and the cleansing is physical
need for our daily (tamid) penitence such as performed by Judas
to make it effective. This is the Maccabbees. The time is literal,
gospel in its fullest essence. It is the either full days or half days. If it is a
daily (tamid) which the little horn villain who emerges after the collapse
attacks aggressively (Dan 8:11-13) of the Roman empire subduing three
and its identity must be known. To of its fragmented successors, the
relegate primary fulfillment of the sanctuary is heavenly (the literal one
little horn to a historical figure who was destroyed in AD 70) and the
died over 2160 years ago does little cleansing is not related to physical
to safeguard multitudes from contamination.
deception in 2004.
One key that unlocks the correct
The correct identity of the little horn meaning of Dan 8:14 is to first
is mandatory to knowing the meaning unlock the identity and work of the
of Dan 8:14. If indeed it is Antiochus little horn. The reader may hopefully
Epiphanes then an entirely different forgive me for paying so much
interpretation is gleaned from Dan attention to the subject thus far but it
8:14. The sanctuary depicted there is is mandatory to all that is to follow.
TABLE 2
Dan 2 Dan 7 Dan 8 Dan 9 Dan 10 Dan 11
19 chezev 2 chezev 1 chazon 21 chazon 1 mareh 14* chazon
2 chazon 23 mareh* 7 mareh
2 chazon 24 chazon* 7 mareh
13 chazon 8 mareh
15 chazon 14 chazon*
16 mareh 16 mareh
17 mareh*
19 mareh*
26 mareh*
26 chazon*
27 mareh
* denotes Gabriel is the speaker

Verbal archaeology: First, the ‘echo principle’ is alive and

well today. Much written on the
‘nitsdaq’ and ‘taher’
verse today merely echoes what past
There is limited value in poring over
commentators wrote about it. There
past commentaries on Dan 8:14 or
is nothing new about the view that
taking at face value various English
Antiochus is seen as the horn power
translations of the Bible of the verse
of Daniel 8. Dr J.A Seiss taught it in
for a number of reasons:
his 1881 publication ‘Daniel’s

xvi
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
Prophecies or Voices from Babylon’.
(pp153-156) and he admits he picked
it up from earlier commentators (p
153). Jewish people today annually
celebrate ‘Hanukkah’ or Feast of
Dedication (see John 10:22) to mark
the victory of Judas Maccabbeus over
Antiochus Epiphanes in 164 BC
giving commentators such as Seiss
confidence that they are correct in
their view. However, regard must be
given to the fact that the Jewish
people are somewhat hamstrung in
interpreting Daniel 8:14 without the
benefit of the New Testament,
particularly the Book of Hebrews. It
is ironic that the successors of the
ancient Hebrews do not study the
Book of Hebrews to guide them to a
deeper understanding of Daniel 8:14.
Second, Jesus counseled whoever
reads the book of Daniel ‘let him
understand’ (Matt 24:15). Gabriel
cautioned that knowledge of Daniel’s
visions would be sealed until the time
of the end and that knowledge about
Daniel’s visions would increase at
that time. (Dan 12:4). If language
means anything this means that a
clearer view of Daniel’s visions will
emerge prior to the second advent,
rendering limited worth to the
commentaries of yesteryear.
Third, a word study of the Hebrew
word translated ‘cleansed’ in Daniel
8:14 and in 2 Chronicles 29 to 34
reveals evidence which fails to
support the “Antiochus echo
principle” that he is the horn power
of Dan 8 and the object of judgment
in Dan 8:14 (see Table 6). The
Hebrew word the KJV translates as
‘cleansed’ in Dan 8:14 is ‘nitsdaq’.
xvii
It comes from the verbal root
‘tsadaq’ which appears 521 times in
all forms as noun, verb and adjective
but appears 41 times in the Old
Testament as a verb (see Table 3). In
none of those 41 times is the verbal
form ‘tsadaq’ applied as judgment on
the wicked, rather in most cases it is
the righteous who are the object of
the judgment (see Table 3). This
creates a problem for those who
suggest the horn power of Dan 8 is
the object of the judgment in Dan
8:14 because it uses a word usually
reserved for the righteous. (cf Ex
23:7; Prov 17:15). Furthermore,
whatever the horn power is doing
must be the opposite of whatever
‘tsadaq’ means. Table 3 lists the full
inspired OT meaning of the word
‘tsadaq’ in its verbal form and it is
apparent the word conveys meaning
rich in judgment and grace, rich in
law and grace, rich in forensic and
atonement, rich in legality and
acquittal. These are the dominant
meanings of the word ‘tsadaq’; by
comparison ‘cleansed’ emerges as
inadequate.
It is highly significant that ‘tsadaq’
appears in Isa 53:11 which links
salvation with the justifying work of
the Messiah: “..my righteous servant
will justify (‘tsadaq’) many and He
will bear their iniquities”. Here is a
compelling use of ‘tsadaq’ in the
setting of justification by faith thus
eminently surpassing ‘cleansed’.
This theme is repeated in Isa 45:8 and
Zechariah 9:9. It is ratified in
Habakkuk 2:4. In all cases the word
‘tsadaq’ is used and we would do
well to import this inspired meaning
into Dan 8:14. For such reasons,
xvii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
‘tsadaq’ cannot be a judgment on the
wicked and Exodus 23:7 expressly
says so: “I will not justify (‘tsadaq’)
the wicked”. This is reiterated in
Prov 17:15 and Isa 5:23. There is no
Scriptural basis to suggest the wicked
are the primary object of judgment in
Dan 7:9-10, a scene paralleled in Dan
8:14, although they are condemned in
consequence.
‘Tsadaq’ is a word sculpture, not a
pencil sketch. Only a 360◦ viewing
captures its full meaning. This word
diamond has many faces and each
face must be viewed to capture the
full cluster. Clearly all English
translations to date have failed to
capture its full import (see Table 4).
It logically follows the horn’s work is
opposite to ‘tsadaq’. It opposes
justification by faith and
righteousness by faith (see Table 3)
by promulgation of the false gospel
of justification by works and
righteousness by works. It can be
distinguished from the mere
imposition of heathen worship
because it defiles existing Christian
worship. Hardly befits Antiochus.
2 Chronicles 29 to 34 depicts
circumstances almost parallel to what
Antiochus inflicted on the sanctuary
during the inter-testamental period
(see Table 6). There is no need to
step outside the Bible canon to gain a
parallel account of Antiochus’s
actions against the Sanctuary – you
will find it right there in 2 Chron 29
to 34. The sanctuary was defiled
under Ahaz. Morning and evening
services were suspended. Under
Hezekiah, it was cleansed and
xviii
restored. Then under Manasseh and
Amon, the sanctuary was again
defiled and services again suspended.
Manasseh introduced heathen
worship into the Sanctuary itself. (2
Chron 33:4, 7). As you read these
chapters in 2 Chronicles you will
surely marvel how similar the
accounts are to the actions of
Antiochus against the sanctuary in
167-164 BC. (cf 2 Kings 21:16). Yet
nowhere in 2 Chronicles do we find
the Hebrew word ‘tsadaq’ to depict
the cleansing/restoring actions under
Hezekiah and Josiah. To the
contrary, five alternative Hebrew
words are used (see Table 6 ) but not
‘tsadaq’. Clearly if Daniel intended
to warn his people of the sanctuary’s
future defilement under Antiochus he
would have used any of the five
Hebrew words used by his inspired
predecessors. That he used ‘tsadaq’
is evidence Daniel intended a
meaning much broader in scope - the
judgment of the righteous, those who
are justified by faith. All OT
references to justification and
righteousness are associated with
‘tsadaq’. (see Strong’s Concordance).
It has been suggested that I
illegitimately draw Day of
Atonement allusions from Dan 8:14
on the basis of ‘tsadaq’. He correctly
says that the word never takes the
sanctuary as its object and that words
such as ‘taher’ are ever reserved for
sacrificial cleansing (see Table 5).
He is correct. However he also sees
Antiochus in Dan 8, but the absence
in Dan 8:14 of any of the words listed
in Table 5 protest against such. One
cannot have it both ways: insisting on
words such as ‘taher’ for
xviii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xix

OT sanctuary cleansing and then is quite independent of the word

seeing sanctuary cleansing in Dan
8:14 (as a response to Antiochus’
defilement) when words such as
‘taher’ are absent. As ‘tsadaq’ is
used to depict justification by faith
(see Table 3) it is hardly a judgment
term one would apply to Antiochus.
Day of Atonement allusions in Dan
8:14 rest on use of the words
‘sanctuary’ and the word ‘tsadaq’ – a
word rich in judgment/atonement
meaning. The only place in the OT
where such an amalgam of judgment
and atonement occurs in a sanctuary
setting is Leviticus 16. Thus the link
‘cleansed’ in the KJV which
originally formed the Adventist
pioneer basis for seeing Day of
Atonement allusions in Dan 8:14.
Much stronger allusions emerge
when reliance is placed on the
Hebrew word ‘tsadaq’ and not its
KJV English equivalent.
Last, English translations of the Bible
fall short in delivering full meaning
of the word ‘nitsdaq’ in Dan 8:14
(see Table 4). All effort at verbal
archaeology on this Hebrew word
will be richly rewarded.

TABLE 3
‘tsadaq’ used to mean: “BE JUST”

KING JAMES VERSION NEW INTERNATIONAL

VERSION
Job 4:17 “Shall mortal man be more just than God? “more righteous”
Job 9:2 “How should man be just with God? “be righteous”
Job 33:12 “In this thou art not just” “not right”
‘tsadaq’ used to mean: “BE JUSTIFIED”

KING JAMES VERSION NEW INTERNATIONAL

VERSION
Job 11:2 “should a man full of talk be justified?” “be vindicated”
Job 13:15-19 “I have ordered my cause; I know I shall be justified” “be vindicated”
Job 25:4 “How then can man be justified with God?” “be righteous”
Psalms 51:4 “..be justified when thou speakest and be clear when thou judgest” “proved right”
“justified”
Psalms 143:2 “…in thy sight shall no man living be justified” “be righteous”
Isaiah 43:9 “…let them bring forth their witnesses that they may “prove they were right”
be justified”
Isaiah 43:26 “..that thou mayest be justified” “your innocence”
Isaiah 45:25 “in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified…” “be found righteous”

xix
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xx

TABLE 3 (continued)
‘tsadaq’ used to mean: “BE RIGHTEOUS”

KING JAMES VERSION NEW INTERNATIONAL

VERSION
Gen 38:26 “..she hath been more righteous than I” “more righteous”
Job 9:15 “Though I were righteous yet would I not answer ..” “were innocent”
Job 10:15 “if I be righteous yet will I not lift up my head..” “am innocent ”
Job 15:14 “What is a man…that he should be righteous?” “be righteous”
Job 22:3 “Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous?” “were righteous”
Job 34:5 “For Job hath said I am righteous and God hath taken away my “I am innocent”
judgment …”
Job 35:7 “If thou be righteous what givest thou Him? “be righteous”
Job 40:8 “that thou mayest be righteous?” “to justify”
Psalms 19:9 “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether” “righteous”
Ezek 16:52 “they are more righteous than thou” “righteous”
‘tsadaq’ used to mean: “JUSTIFY SELF”

KING JAMES VERSION NEW INTERNATIONAL

VERSION
Job 9:20 “if I justify myself mine own mouth shall condemn me” “innocent”

‘tsadaq’ used to mean: “JUSTIFY”

KING JAMES VERSION NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION
Job 32:2 “because he justified himself rather than God” “justifying himself”
Jer 3:11 “…hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah” “more righteous”
Job 33:32 “..speak for I desire to justify thee” “be cleared”
Ezek 16:52 “are more righteous than thou” “thou hast justified” “righteous” “righteous”
‘tsadaq’ used to mean: “DO JUSTICE”
KING JAMES VERSION NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION
2 Sam15:4 “ and I would do him justice” “justice”

Psalm 82:2,3 “do justice to the afflicted and needy” “maintain the rights”

xx
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xxi

TABLE 3 (continued)
‘tsadaq’ used to mean: “TO JUSTIFY”
KING JAMES VERSION NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION
Ex 23:6-7 “..I will not justify the wicked” “not acquit the wicked”
Deut 25:1 “justify the righteous and condemn the wicked” “acquitting”
1 Kings 8:32 “..judge thy servants …and justifying the righteous” “declare the innocent not guilty”
2 Chron 6:23 “..judge thy servants …by justifying the righteous “declare the innocent not
guilty..””
Job 27:5 “God forbid that I should justify you..” “in the right”
Prov 17:15 “justifieth the wicked ..are abomination to the Lord” “acquitting”
Isaiah 5:23 “..who justify the wicked for reward..” “acquit”
Isaiah 50:8 “He is near that justifieth me..” “vindicates”
Isaiah 53:11 “my righteous servant shall justify many for he shall bear their “justify”
iniquities”

To satisfy yourself on the points

made, please examine pp 752-755 of
‘Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament’ by Harris, Archer,
Waltke. (1980) Moody Bible
Institute. Other invaluable tools for
this word study are Strong’s
Concordance, JP Green’s ‘The
Interlinear Bible’ in
Hebrew/Greek/English, The Brown
Driver Briggs Hebrew/English
Lexicon and Verbrugge’s ‘The NIV
Theological Dictionary of The New
Testament’.

Table 4 lists seven English

translations of the Bible, the different
ways they interpret Daniel 8:14 and
the Hebrew word that should have
appeared in Daniel 8:14 to support
each translation:

xxi
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xxii

TABLE 4
Hebrew
word which
should have
been used
for
translated Sanctuary Hebrew word in
meaning Sources context? Dan 8:14
Lev 16:19; Num
8:21; 2 Chron
29:15, 16, 18;
taher Neh 13:9 yes nitsdaq

Ezek 45:18;
KJV "cleansed" chata Exodus 29:36 yes nitsdaq
Lev 16:19; Num
8:21; 2 Chron
29:15, 16, 18;
taher Neh 13:9 yes nitsdaq
Ezek 45:18; Ex
NKJV “cleansed" chata 29:36 yes nitsdaq

NIV "reconsecrated" qadash 2 Chron 29:5 yes nitsdaq

"restored to its Dan 9:25; 2 Sam
RSV rightful state" shub 16:3 no nitsdaq
Dan 9:25; 2 Sam
shub 16:3 no nitsdaq

"properly 2 Chron 29:35;

NASB restored" kuwn 35:20 yes nitsdaq

2 Chron 29: 15;

taher/qadash 30:19; 34:8 yes nitsdaq

Ezek 45:18; Ex
NAB "..purified" chata 29:36 yes nitsdaq
Mess
enger "...reconsecrated" qadash 2 Chron 29:5 yes nitsdaq

Table 5 lists five OT circumstances in purpose is cosmic – judgment of the

which the sanctuary (and associated
objects) are “cleansed” and the
Hebrew word used to depict the
“cleansing”. Nowhere is ‘tsadaq’
used. Daniel could not have
envisaged ceremonial cleansing of a
historical sanctuary as he does not
use the words ‘taher’ or ‘hata’. His
righteous prior to the 2nd Advent.
The apocalyptic nature of his vision
and the terminus described in 12:1-2
looks beyond AD 70 when a literal
sanctuary ceased to exist. For the
Antiochus case to hold together,
Daniel should have used any of the

xxii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1
Hebrew words listed in Table 5 but
TABLE 5
TEXT KJV
Exodus 29:36 "cleanse the altar"
Lev 16:19 "cleanse" the altar
Num 8:21 "cleanse them"
Neh 13: 9 ‘cleansed the chambers..”
Ezekiel 45:18 "cleanse the sanctuary"
Table 6 summarises two actions
against the sanctuary (see 2
Chronicles 29-34) similar to those
perpetrated by Antiochus Epiphanes
(cf 2 Kings 21:16). Nowhere is the
word ‘tsadaq’ used for the
‘cleansing’, ‘restoration’ or
‘reestablishment’ of the sanctuary
and its services. Five Hebrew words
are used interchangeably to convey
such meaning but Daniel chose not to
use any of them in Dan 8:14. Clearly
Daniel intended a meaning beyond
the mere physical cleansing and
re-consecration of a sanctuary. He
selects language used by his inspired
predecessors who only ever use it to
depict the judgment of the righteous.
Any penitent who believes in Christ’s
merits to save him is judged righteous
by God. That is what ‘tsadaq’
means. These facts pose an
impregnable inspired barrier to those
who persist in seeing Antiochus as
the horn power of the preceding
verses and the object of judgment.
xxiii
the reader will find none:
NIV Hebrew Word Object
"purify" hata altar
"cleanse" taher altar
"purify" taher Levites
“purify” taher sanctuary
"purify" hata sanctuary
It is somewhat excusable that
divergence of views arise when
working with symbols in apocalyptic
prophecy. It is not excusable to
sustain divergent views when
working with the narrow constraints
of the prophet’s original words
whose meaning is unlocked for us by
his inspired predecessors. Thus the
Bible serves as its own inspired
dictionary.
Let it not escape our notice that
‘tsadaq’ the verb means ‘to justify’
but the noun (‘tsedeq’ or ‘tsedaqa’)
means ‘righteousness’. There is a
strong message here: action precedes
the outcome. To gain the
righteousness Job sought (Job 25:4)
you must first be justified. You may
believe in justification by faith but
have you been justified by faith? If
so the outcome of the investigative
judgment for you is already known.
You are acquitted. That’s the gospel
of Daniel 8:14 and it is for us today.
xxiii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xxiv

TABLE 6
DEFILER KING AHAZ
RESTORER KING HEZEKIAH
EVENTS cleansing of sanctuary
resumption of evening morning sacrifices
re-dedication of sanctuary
KJV NIV Hebrew Strongs

2 Chron 29:5 "sanctify the house of God" "consecrate" qadash 6942

2 Chron 29:15 "cleanse the house of God" "purify" taher 2891

2 Chron 29:16 "cleanse" the temple "purify" tahor 2889

2 Chron 29:18 "cleansed" the temple "purified" taher 2891

2 Chron 29:35 "set in order" the temple "reestablished" kuwn 3559

DEFILERS KING MANASSEH; KING AMON
RESTORER JOSIAH
EVENTS cleansing of sanctuary
resumption of evening morning sacrifices
re-dedication of sanctuary
KJV NIV Hebrew Strongs

2 Chron 34:8 "purged" the temple "purify" taher 2891

2 Chron 34:8 "repair" the temple "repair" hazaq 2388

2 Chron 34:10 "repair" the temple "repaired" badaq 918

2 Chron 34:10 "amend" the temple "restored" hazaq 2388

2 Chron 35:20 "prepared" the temple "set in order" kuwn 3559

DEFILER TOBIAH the Ammonite
RESTORER NEHEMIAH
EVENTS cleansing of sanctuary
resumption of evening morning sacrifices
KJV NIV Hebrew Strongs
"cleansed" the chambers "purify" the rooms
Nehemiah 13: 9 (of the temple) (of the temple) taher 2891

xxiv
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xxv

CONCLUSION

The lines of evidence in this Appendix and the tables that follow below, describe ‘tsadaq’
as a judicial and soteriological process of judging and acquitting (saving) through God’s
mercy. This results in peace for the justified person (‘tsaddiq’) who is regarded as
innocent and morally pure by being cleared from guilt and is thus vindicated by Christ’s
atonement.

It is surely highly significant that when Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 he
translates ‘tsaddiq’ as ‘dikaios’ (used 13 times in his letters) and when he quotes Genesis
15:6 in Romans 4:3 he translates ‘tsedaqah’ as ‘dikaiosune’ (used 62 times in his letters).
Paul thus amplifies the OT doctrine of justification by faith by using the Greek equivalent
of ‘tsadaq’ derivatives. This is consistent with the LXX. Had Romans been written in
Hebrew instead of Greek, the evidence is substantial that Paul would have used ‘tsadaq’
derivatives instead of words from the dikaios word group.

You will be re-assured to learn that ‘tsadaq’ encompasses justification by faith which is
how God judges His people in the pre-advent judgment of Dan 7:9-10, a scene paralleled
in Dan 8:14.

It comes as no surprise therefore that the antidote for the Laodician condition is
righteousness by faith (Rev 3:18) without which a sleepy church simply will not willingly
witness.

It also comes as no surprise that the judgment announcement of Rev 14:7 coupled with
the ‘everlasting gospel’ can only be ‘good news’ if those judged have been acquitted.
The Greek word ‘krisis’ is used in Rev 14:7 which some folk limit to judgment of the
wicked and not the righteous. But the Hebrew word ‘righteousness’ in Isaiah 51:7
(‘tsedeq’) is translated as ‘krisis’ or ‘judgment’ by the Septuagint thus linking a member
of the ‘tsadaq’ word-group with the Greek word ‘krisis’ – the very word used in Rev
14:7 for ‘judgment’

I am indebted to the work of Jerome Justesen’s 1964 article “On the meaning of tsadaq’ in
preparing this section. (AUSS Vol 2 pp 53-61)

xxv
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xxvi

The‘tsadaq’ word-group
Verb tsadaq “to be just” 41 times (Qal 22x, Niph’al
“to be righteous” 1x, Pi’el 5x, Hiph’il 12x,
Hithpa’el 1x)
Masculine noun tsedeq “righteousness” 117 times (67 times used in
(abstract) connection with judgment)
Feminine noun tsedaqah “righteousness” (active) 155 times (45 times used in
connection with judgment)
Adjective tsaddiq “just” or “righteous” 208 times
‘tsadaq’ in other Semitic languages
10
Amarna Letter 287 adjective tsaduq “right”
11
Mari letters adjective tsaduq “right”
Ugaritic texts12 adjective Sdq “right” or “uprightness”
Aramaic inscriptions13 nouns tsedeq and tsedaqah “righteousness” or “justice”
14
Palmyrene root sdq “godly” or “pious”
15
Nabataean root sdq “qualified” or “entitled”
Phoenecian16 verb tsadaq “to be just” or “to vindicate”
Phoenecian17 noun tsedeq “justice” or “legality”
18
Phoenician adjective tsaddiq “just’ or “righteous”; other
uses: “legitimate heir” or
“legitimate offspring”
South Arabic19 verb tsadaq “to favor” or “to endow”
South Arabic20 adjective tsaddiq “just” or “excellent”
Classical Arabic21 verbal root sdq “to be truthful, sincere”, “to
tell the truth, to prove true”
Ethiopic22 verbal root sdq “to be just”, “to declare just”
(causative), “to see oneself
justified” (passive)

10
Samuel Mercer. The Tell El-Amarna Tablets (Toronto 1939), II, 711
11
Georges Dossin, Correspondence de Samsi-Addu (Paris 1950) pp 178-9
12
Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Manual (Rome, 1955) p. 315
13
Mark Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nordsmitschen Epigraphik (Weimar 1898) p.357
14
ibid
15
ibid
16
Zellig Harris, A Grammar of The Phoenecian language (New Haven, Conn., 1936) p.357
17
ibid
18
ibid
19
G. Ryckmans, les noms propres sud-semitiques (Louvain, 134-35) I, 182
20
ibid
21
F. Steingass, The Student’s Arabic-English Dictrionary (London, 1884) pp 576-577

xxvi
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xxvii

‘tsadaq’ word-group and the Septuagint (LXX)

Proverbs 17:15 verb ‘tsadaq’ Translated as ‘krinow’ (‘to judge’)
Isaiah 51:7 noun ‘tsedeq’ Translated as ‘krisis’ (‘judgment’)
Jeremiah 51:10 noun ‘tsedeq’ Translated as ‘krima’ (‘judgment’)
Deut 6:25; 24:13; Ps noun ‘tsedaqah’ Translated as ‘eleos’ (‘mercy’) in Isa 56:10; Ezek 18:19,
24:5; 33:5; 103:6; Isa 21 and as ‘eleaymosunay’ (‘acts of mercy’) in the 8 texts
1:27; 28:17; 59:16 listed)
Prov 12:12; Isa 24:16; adjective Translated as ‘eusebais’ (‘a devout one’ or ‘a holy one’)
26:7 ‘tsaddiq’
‘tsadaq’ and salvation parallels
Isaiah 56:1 “my salvation is near to come …my righteousness (tsaddiq) to be revealed”
Psalm 71:15 “my mouth will tell of your righteousness (tsaddiq), of salvation all day
long”
Psalm 98:2 “The Lord has made His salvation known and revealed His righteousness
(tsaddiq) to the nations”.
Isaiah 46:13 “I am bringing my righteousness (tsedeq) near, it is not far away and my
salvation will not be delayed”
Isaiah 51:6 “my salvation will last forever, my righteousness (tsedeq) will never fail”
Isaiah 51:8 “But my righteousness (tsedeq) will last forever, my salvation through all
generations”
Isaiah 59:16 “so his own arm worked salvation for him and his own righteousness
(tsedaqa) sustained him”
Isaiah 61:10 “For He has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a
robe of righteousness (tsedaqa)”
‘tsadaq’ and mercy parallels
Psalm 103:17 “But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them
that fear Him, and His righteousness (tsedeqa) unto children’s children”.
‘tsadaq’ and peace parallels
Isa 48:18 “thy peace been as a river and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea”
Isa 32:17 “The fruit of righteousness will be peace…” (compare with Romans 5:1)
‘tsadaq’ and removal of the guilt of sin
Isa 53:11 “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify (tsadaq) many for He
shall bear their iniquities”
Gen 44:16 “How shall we clear (tsadaq) ourselves?” (‘how shall we clear our guilt?)
Gen 38:26 “She has been more righteous (tsaddiq) than I” (Tamar in her deceit was
more free from guilt than Judah in his lust)

22
C.A. Dillmann, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae (New York, 1955) cols 1311-1313

xxvii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 1 xxviii

‘tsadaq’ and other Hebrew word parallels

1st couplet 2nd couplet
Text KJV Hebrew LXX KJV Hebrew LXX
Job 9:20 justify tsadaq dikaios perfect tam amemptos
Job 12:4 just tsaddiq dikaios upright tam amemptos
Ps 51:4 justified tsadaq dikaio clear zakah nikao
Job 15:14 clean zakah amemptos righteous tsadaq dikaios
st
Job 22:3 righteous tsadaq amemptos (In 1 couplet, LXX directly translates
tsadaq as amemptos)
Job 25:4 justified tsadaq dikaios clean zakah apokatharitzo
Job 22:19 righteous taddiq dikaos innocent naqi amemptos
Ps 94:21 righteous tsaddiq dikaios innocent naqi athon
Job 4:17 just tsadaq katharos pure tahar amemptos
Job 17:9 righteous tsadaq pistos clean tahar katharos
Ps 18:20 righteousness tsedeq diksaiosunai cleanness bor katharistas
See also Ps 18:24; 2 Sam 22:21, 25 which all have the same parallelism as Ps 18:20

xxviii