The Narrow Path Ministries

Preterists seem to attempt to make the fourth beast of Daniel seven and the little horn equal the Seleucids and Antiochus Ephiphanes. However, given the sequence of the beasts and the characteristics of the fourth beast, it seems right to identify it as Rome, and therefore, in a Preterist framework, point to Domitian as fulfilling the role of the little horn. I know that Preterists tend to point to Nero, and tend to prefer the early date of Revelation, but the late date and the characteristics and actions related to Domitian do seem to be the best way of identifying the early form of the Roman antichrist.

Domitian was the 11th Emperor. He did attempt to change times and laws. He called himself a god. He persecuted the saints. And his body was burnt.

Preterists seem to attempt to make the fourth beast of Daniel seven and the little horn equal the Seleucids and Antiochus Ephiphanes. However, given the sequence of the beasts and the characteristics of the fourth beast, it seems right to identify it as Rome, and therefore, in a Preterist framework, point to Domitian as fulfilling the role of the little horn.

This is not the way I understand this chapter. I agree that Antiochus does not fit into the prophecy of Daniel 7. The "little horn" there is either contemporary with, or subsequent to, the fourth beast (Rome). I do not personally identify him with Nero or Domitian.

The "little horn" in Daniel 8, however, is quite obviously Antiochus—and I don't think there would be many who could miss that identification.

Preterists tend to point to Nero, and tend to prefer the early date of Revelation, but the late date and the characteristics and actions related to Domitian do seem to be the best way of identifying the early form of the Roman antichrist.

In turning from Daniel to Revelation, I think, we are talking about another "beast," and there is no "little horn" there. I believe the Roman Emperor at the time of Revelation was Nero, but in this I obviously disagree with your conclusions about the date of its writing.

Hi BP,

I had posted a reply but it turned into an article. It is here http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4289

Thanks Duncan.

The limitation of prophecies to Nero, Vespasian and Titus rather than allowing them to apply beyond 70 AD marks a distinct difference in theology.

If the prophecies are merely regarding the destruction of Jerusalem as the focal point, then there is not necessarily any Christian element to it, other than to thwart the Jewish persecution of Christianity.

Whereas, if the antichristian power is manifest beyond 70 AD, e.g. with Domitian, it would therefore regard the persecution by the pagans against Christianity as the focal point, and that the "temple" would be the Church.

This is not to deny that Nero persecuted Christians, or that the 1260 days could apply to his persecution or the military operations against Jerusalem, but I find merit in the late date view (of Revelation), and since Revelation is expressly prophetic, it cannot much be about Nero.

However, since Daniel 7 is talking about a general spirit, and giving an all-encompassing picture, I think it would be valid to be able to see elements, types and applications to Nero, Vespasian and Titus.

steve wrote:I agree that Antiochus does not fit into the prophecy of Daniel 7. The "little horn" there is either contemporary with, or subsequent to, the fourth beast (Rome). I do not personally identify him with Nero or Domitian.

The "little horn" in Daniel 8, however, is quite obviously Antiochus—and I don't think there would be many who could miss that identification..

For clarification, your opinion Steve is that the "little horn" in Daniel 7 and the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians is the office of the papery right?

Would you be willing to explain why the "little horn" in Daniel 8 is Antiochus and the horn in Daniel 7 isn't? I can see why the horn in Dan 7 would be the papery, but what are the reasons for the differing "little horn's" in your view?