Hi Sean,
I have a chapter on Daniel 7 in my book (The Antichrist and the Second Coming
http://www.amazon.com/Antichrist-Second ... ewpoints=1). Here is an excerpt. As a word of introduction, I believe that most of the rulers shown in Daniel and Revelation are spiritual rulers. Notice the kings and princes of Persia and Greece in Daniel 10:13, 21-22. Similarly, notice that the beast of Revelation comes out of the abyss (Revelation 11:7, 17:8). My basic thesis is that, What was destroyed by the coming of Jesus in Revelation 19:11-21 was not a physical ruler, but the beast from the abyss working through Titus. The beast destroys harlot Babylon in Rev. 17-18 (i.e., Jerusalem) and then is destroyed by the coming of Jesus in Rev. 19. This was the destruction of the demonic prince of the Roman people that would work through Titus in his destruction of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:26, cf. Dan. 12:1). Here is somehting from my ch. on Daniel 7.
ARE THE ELEVEN RULERS OF THE FOURTH BEAST SUCCESSIVE OR CONCURRENT?
As I mentioned in the previous chapter, some commentators point to the three rulers who are removed before the little horn (Dan. 7:8, 20, 24) as an indication that the kings of this fourth empire could not be successive rulers but must rule concurrently. If this were true, then the kings of this beast would have to point to some form of a future revived Roman Empire, since no ten-king confederation exists in Rome’s history. Noting the near impossibility that the eleven kings symbolized here represent successive rulers, Mickelsen writes:
“Ten kings will rise out of this kingdom, and a little horn arising from among the ten will put down three of them.” This factor makes nearly impossible the interpretation that the ten kings rise one after the other. One could hardly put down three kings (apparently at the same time) if they did not appear on the earthly scene at the same time (7:24). It seems more likely that the fourth kingdom is a federated world power.19
By a “federated world power,” Mickelsen means some form of an end-time revived Roman Empire. Mickelsen is correct in stating that it would be nearly impossible for this prophecy to be fulfilled by successive rulers; it would mean that four successive rulers had to be on the scene at essentially the same time. As unlikely as the chances of this happening are, it did happen in AD 69, one of the Roman Empire’s most turbulent years. The year of AD 69 saw the rapid-fire reigns of three successive emperors—Galba, Otho, and Vitellius—followed by the reign of Vespasian (see list below). At the beginning of the year, Galba was emperor. By the end of the year, Vespasian possessed the throne (although he would not make it back to Rome until approximately October of AD 70). Roman historians refer to AD 69 as the year of four emperors.
The following list provides the identity of the eleven physical rulers through whom the demonic kings that make up the fourth beast worked.
1. Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
2. Augustus (31 BC - AD 14)20
3. Tiberius (AD 14-37)
4. Gaius (Caligula) (AD 37-41)
5. Claudius (AD 41-54)
6. Nero (AD 54-68)
7. -------------------Galba (AD 68-69)>>>>
8. -------------------Otho (AD 69) >>>>>>>>> three horns pulled out
9. -------------------Vitellius (AD 69)>>>>>
10. Vespasian (AD 69-79)
11. Titus (in AD 70) the little eleventh horn21
When Nero died in June of AD 68, the Roman Empire was thrown into a state of chaos (cf. Rev. 16:10-11). Three short-lived successors to the throne (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) came and went in the space of a year-and-a-half. These were the three horns (rulers) that were pulled out before the little eleventh horn (Dan. 7:8, 24). During this time of chaos, Vespasian and Titus waged war against the Jewish nation. With the advent of civil war in Rome during AD 68-69, the Jewish war was put on hold as Vespasian and Titus made a bid to take over the Roman Empire. Late in AD 69, Vespasian became the victor in this struggle for Rome’s throne. With the three short-lived emperors dead (“pulled out,” Dan. 7:8), Vespasian was proclaimed emperor and returned to Rome for his coronation. Vespasian left his son Titus (the little eleventh horn), who would later become the eleventh Caesar of Rome, to finish the Jewish war. Thus, the near impossibility of the eleven horns being successive rulers finds clear support in history.
By the way, notice that with 3 rulers removed, the little 11th horn becomes an 8th ruler (11-3=8). This is how the Antichrist is shown in Revelation (cf. Rev. 17:9-11)
THE ANTICHRIST: THE LITTLE HORN OF DANIEL’S FOURTH BEAST
The appearance of the little horn in Daniel 7:8 is our first introduction to the Antichrist:
I was considering the [ten] horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.
In verses 23-24, we are given the following interpretation of the fourth beast and its horns/rulers:
Thus he said: “The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all other kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces. The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings.”
HE SHALL SUBDUE THREE KINGS
It could be argued that Titus did not personally subdue Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, as the little horn appears to do (Dan. 7:24, although notice that vv. 8 and 20 convey a sense of less direct action on the part of the little horn). While Titus did not directly defeat the three short-lived emperors, he was the major behind-the-scenes player in the Flavian quest for the Roman throne. Vespasian relied heavily on Titus’ powers of diplomacy and persuasion during this most critical time. Apparently Titus was the first of the Flavian camp to suggest taking over the Roman Empire; he was instrumental in determining the outcome of the civil war and his father’s ultimate accession to the throne. Regarding Titus’ role, Roman historian B. W. Jones observes that,
By the end of June 68, news of Nero’s death had reached Vespasian at Caesarea. The uncertainty of events in Rome and the attitude of the new emperor [Galba] demanded that he consult with the neighboring legati [generals] about problems of mutual safety and common policy; for this, Titus was his agent. Furthermore, Nero’s death was followed by a period of inactivity in Judaea and, in fact, during the next twelve months all efforts were directed toward the civil war, culminating in Vespasian’s proclamation as emperor by Ti. Julius Alexander on July 1 69. In these events, Titus’ role was not inconsiderable . . . It would seem that Titus was the first of the Flavian group to consider seizing the empire and he did so in February 69.22
Historian Barbara Levick similarly notes the importance of Titus’ actions in the Flavian takeover of the Roman Empire:
Titus’ ruthless grasp on power in the next ten years [following his father’s accession to the Roman throne] suggest that his diplomatic activity [during the civil wars of AD 69] was not due to disinterested concern for the ambitions of his 60-year-old father. His own ambitions and powers of persuasion played a role, perhaps decisive, in bringing Vespasian to act. We cannot know how hard he had to work: to remove either Otho or Vitellius would be legitimate but dangerous.23
Even though it was Vespasian who became emperor in AD 69, it was Titus, the little eleventh horn, who held the true power at this time. Titus was the one through whom the demonic prince to come (Dan. 9:26) worked his destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Although Titus may have just been a general in AD 70, he was the man through whom the Antichrist spirit (the beast from the abyss; Rev. 17:8) was working. As such, Titus was the focus of Satan’s power and authority at this time (cf. Luke 4:5-6; Rev. 13:4-5).
Of course, neither Titus nor the Roman Empire was destroyed in AD 70; instead, the demonic rulers who constituted Daniel’s fourth beast (Dan. 7:7-12) were destroyed at that time. It was upon the AD 70 destruction of these demonic rulers behind Titus and the first ten Caesars of Rome that the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of all “the kingdoms under the whole heaven” were given to the people of the Most High God (Dan. 7:23-27).
I was intrigued to learn that my interpretation of Titus as the little eleventh horn of the fourth beast harmonizes with the traditional Jewish interpretation. Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm writes the following on the eleven rulers of the fourth beast:
These ten horns were later (v. 24) identified by the angel as ten kings who would rule Rome before the destruction of the Holy Temple (Rashi). . . . During his father’s reign, Titus, son of Vespasian, destroyed the Holy Temple (Mayenei HaYeshuah 8:5) . . . Another horn, a small one. This refers to Titus (Rashi). [Vespasian’s son and eventual successor was in command of the Roman armies in the Holy Land and was responsible for the destruction of the Temple. He is referred to as another horn, a small one, probably because he was not yet emperor at this time.] . . . And a mouth speaking haughty [lit. big] words. Titus spoke and acted with great arrogance in the inner sanctum of the Holy Temple as recounted in Gittin 56b (Rashi).24 (brackets in original)
HE SHALL SPEAK POMPOUS WORDS AGAINST THE MOST HIGH
Regarding the little eleventh horn, Daniel 7:25 states:
He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.
Four times in Daniel 7 we are told about the “pompous words” (lit. “great things”) that the little horn speaks against God (vv. 8, 11, 20, 25). With this in mind, consider the following account from Jewish writings about the pompous words that Titus spoke when he destroyed the Temple:
Vespasian sent Titus who mocked, Where are their gods, the rock in whom they sought refuge? (Deut. 32:37). This was the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven. What did he do? He entered the Holy of Holies and with his sword slashed the curtain. Through a miracle blood spurted forth and he thought he had killed God Himself. He brought two harlots and, spreading out a scroll beneath them, transgressed with them on top of the altar. He began to speak blasphemies and insults against Heaven, boasting “One who wars against a king in a desert and defeats him cannot be compared to one who wars against a king in his own palace and conquers him.”25 (emphasis in original)
These words and actions against God attributed to Titus are extremely pompous and blasphemous. Revelation 13:5-6, alluding to Daniel 7:25 and the little horn, also describes the pompous and blasphemous words of the Antichrist:
And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.
The beast blaspheming God’s tabernacle could be taken as a reference to the profaning of the Temple (cf. Acts 24:6), something Titus obviously did in the course of destroying it.26
HE SHALL INTEND TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAW
In Daniel 7:25, we are told that the little horn would “intend to change times and law.” Enacting laws as well as setting the times of religious observation and seasons of the year was a function of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. As Jewish historian Gedaliah Alon observes:
The Sanhedrin was also to some degree a legislative body. It had the power to enact taqanot (regulations) and gezerot (ordinances) of a semi-permanent nature . . . Another function of the Sanhedrin was that of fixing the calendar. A number of tannaitic [Mishnah] traditions (and there is no reason to doubt their accuracy) tell us that during the last few generations before the Destruction of the Temple, the High Court in Jerusalem had the duty of announcing the New Moons, and of deciding when there should be a leap year by the intercalation of an extra month into the lunar year. This was a very important responsibility, because it determined the dates of the festivals, and was thus one of the primary links between the mother country and the Diaspora.27
Because the Jewish calendar was based on the moon, it had to be adjusted to stay in sync with the solar year. Not only did the Sanhedrin decide whether a given month was to have twenty-nine or thirty days, it would also determine when to add an extra thirteenth month to a particular year (a leap year) to keep their lunar calendar current with the seasons. Around the time that Titus was taking over the responsibilities of finishing the Jewish war from his father, the two of them allowed the equivalent of a new Sanhedrin to be established in the city of Yavneh (Jamnia). The result of this was a changing of both the times (of religious observation) and law by this new Flavian-approved Sanhedrin. Goldwurm writes the following on this:
Before the destruction of Jerusalem, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and his disciples were able to leave the doomed city and settle in Yavneh. Rabban Yochanan had asked of the Roman emperor [Vespasian]: “Give me Yavneh and its Sages,” a request that was granted. Yavneh became the spiritual center of the people, and the secret of its survival. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai reorganized the Sanhedrin, which fixed the date of each new month and the time of each leap year. From Yavneh he sent instructions to the scattered Jewish communities in matters of law and observance, and Jews from all over the Diaspora turned to Yavneh for answers and advice.28 (emphasis mine)
According to Jacob Neusner, “Yohanan, first, assumed the liturgical authority formerly vested de facto in the Temple priests to determine the proper calendar. Second, he exercised judicial and legal authority earlier held by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.”29 While surviving Jewish tradition gives the appearance that Yohanan’s changes in the law were not extensive, it is possible that his changes were more far-reaching than is recorded. Neusner writes:
To suppose that his [Yohanan’s] teachings and the action of his court were limited to the handful reported by rabbinic tradition is hardly reasonable. What is preserved of his legal record clearly represents what the members of the court of Gamaliel II saw fit to recall. Yohanan must have envisaged a legal reconstruction of Judaism along lines which were subsequently modified.30
The setting up of a reorganized Sanhedrin in Yavneh, which was allowed (possibly directed) by Vespasian and Titus, resulted in changes to both times and law. This fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 7:25. Although not much is known about the specifics of Roman involvement in the setting up of Yavneh, according to verse 25 Titus’ involvement may have been more extensive than is usually assumed.
HE SHALL PERSECUTE THE SAINTS OF THE MOST HIGH
Daniel 7:25 states that the little horn would “persecute” (literally “wear out, consume, afflict, humble”)31 the saints of the Most High. Daniel would have understood the saints of the Most High to be his people,32 the Jews (cf. Dan. 9:24; 12:1), although in the NT the concept of saints is expanded to include believing Gentiles as well as Jews (cf. Rev. 13:7).33 Sulpicius Severus, a fourth-century Christian writer, painted a picture of Titus that showed ill intent to both Jews and Christians. In his Chronica, Severus writes:
Titus is said to have first summoned a council and deliberated whether or not he should destroy such a mighty temple, for some thought that a consecrated shrine, which was famous beyond all other works of men, ought not to be razed to the ground. Their argument was that to preserve it would bear witness to the moderation of Rome, while its destruction would forever brand her as cruel. Others, however, including Titus himself, opposed this view and said that the destruction of the Temple was a prime necessity in order to wipe out more completely the religion of the Jews and the Christians; for they urged that these religions, although hostile to each other, nevertheless sprang from the same sources; the Christians had grown out of the Jews: if the root were destroyed, the stock would easily perish.34 (emphasis mine)
It is suggested that Severus’ source of information may have been the writings of Roman historian Tacitus, which are no longer extant.35 According to Severus’ account, Titus was intent on destroying both Judaism and Christianity. This would be consistent with the idea that the Antichrist spirit was working through Titus as a means of eliminating God’s kingdom, destroying both Jews and Christians, root and branch. Regarding Titus’ hatred of the Jews, Krauss writes:
Even Josephus was able to point to only scanty traces of mildness in the life of Titus, while, on the other hand, cruelties are recorded which must be attributed to personal hatred on his part, and not to the unavoidable harshness of war. In Caesarea in Palestine, in Caesarea Philippi, and in Berytus he forced the captive Jews to fight against wild animals and also against one another; and many thousand more were slain to please the revengeful Syrians and Greeks.36
“FOR A TIME AND TIMES AND HALF A TIME”
Daniel 7:25 says that the saints would be given into the hands of the little horn for “a time and times and half a time.” A time (=1) and times (=2) and half a time (“a time, two times, and half a time” according to the NRSV) is equal to three-and-a-half, although three-and-a-half of what span of time is not specified. This time period is the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week, the time of the coming of the one who would make the Jewish nation desolate (Dan. 9:27; cf. 12:7). Many commentators see this time of three-and-a-half as being three-and-a-half years. Revelation 13 lends credence to this idea.
In Revelation 13:5, the Antichrist (the beast) is said to speak “great things and blasphemies.” This corresponds to the “pompous words against the Most High” that the little horn speaks (Dan. 7:25). The beast in Revelation is allowed to “make war with the saints and to overcome them” (Rev. 13:7), which corresponds to the little horn “making war against the saints and prevailing against them” (Dan. 7:21; cf. 7:25). The timeframe in which the beast overcomes the saints is forty-two months (Rev. 13:5). Forty-two months is three-and-a-half years. This connects the “time and times and half a time” of Daniel 7:25 with the three-and-a-half-year period found in Revelation 13.
Three-and-a-half years is the length of time Titus spent waging war against the Jewish nation (March/April of AD 67 to August/September of AD 70). Rabbinic tradition, reflecting on this period of three-and-a-half, says that while the length of punishment of the wicked in Gehenna would be twelve months, Nebuchadnezzar and Vespasian would be punished for three-and-a-half years because that is the length of time each besieged Israel.37 In reality it was Titus, the little eleventh horn, who fought against the Jews for three-and-a-half years, not Vespasian. Vespasian only fought against the Jews for about two-and-a-half years (spring of AD 67 to summer of AD 69). In July of AD 69, Vespasian’s troops proclaimed him emperor, and from that time his attention was focused on securing the imperial throne. It was Titus who fulfilled the three-and-a-half years that the little horn waged war against the Jewish nation.
Daniel 12 supports the connection between “a time and times and half a time” in Daniel 7:25 and Titus’ three-and-a-half-year campaign of destruction against the Jewish nation. Daniel 12:7 gives the ending point of “a time, times and half a time” (which, according to Young, “is the exact Hebrew equivalent of the Aramaic expression” a time and times and half a time in Dan. 7:25)38 as when the power of the holy people was completely shattered. This occurred in AD 70 with Titus’ destruction of the Jewish State and old covenant order.39
With Daniel 12:7 in mind, Daniel 7:25 is stating that the little horn would wage war against Daniel’s people until AD 70, the time when the power of the holy people (the Jews) was completely shattered (cf. Dan. 11:36). This period of three-and-a-half years from AD 67-70 was the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week. It was the time when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the prince to come, leaving the Jewish nation desolate (Dan. 9:26-27; cf. Rev. 11:2).
EVALUATING TITUS’ INTENTIONS
Evaluating the actions and intentions of Titus in the Jewish war is not always an easy task. The reason for this is simple: Josephus, the one who supplies the vast majority of our information about Titus during this period, was an apologist for Titus. Josephus was so dedicated to Titus that he took the Flavian family name (Flavius). Flavius Josephus claimed that Titus did not intend to destroy the Temple. Josephus said that its burning was the action of some out-of-control troops.40 In evaluating this claim, it should be remembered that Josephus’ writings about the Jewish war were both financed and given final approval by Vespasian and Titus.
Something else that makes Flavius Josephus less than forthcoming on the actions and intentions of Titus is that Josephus had been Titus’ right-hand man in dealing with the Jews during the Jewish war. After the war, Josephus was concerned about how his fellow Jews (and no doubt posterity) would view him. In his writings he did not want to make himself look like a traitor to his countrymen. If Josephus had admitted he had been the right-hand man of the tyrant who willfully destroyed God’s Temple, he would have been even more hated by his fellow Jews than he already was. Imagine a Jew who had been Hitler’s right-hand man during the Holocaust who then wrote a history defending his and Hitler’s actions during that period. Imagine also that Hitler both financed and gave final approval of this history. Such a history would contain a considerable number of rationalizations and minimizations (and, no doubt, exclusions) of what actually happened. This is analogous to Josephus’ account of Titus’ actions during the holocaust of AD 70.
Most historians agree that Josephus whitewashed many of Titus’ activities and motivations regarding his hostility toward the Jewish religion. Commenting on the unlikely assertion that the Temple was destroyed contrary to Titus’ wishes, Paul Spilsbury writes:
The Jewish War’s description of the events surrounding the fateful burning of the Temple is notorious for its disingenuousness. Josephus reports that on the night before the event itself Titus held a council of war in which he argued against the advice of most of those present that the Temple should be spared. In the actual event, though, the Temple was burned to the ground after an unruly soldier, “moved by some supernatural impulse,” (War 6.252) threw a firebrand into the sanctuary. Titus’ personal efforts to extinguish the fire, we are told, were thwarted by the recalcitrance of his men (War 6.260). The majority of modern historians find this account of events implausible. G. Alon [Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud, trans. Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), 253] states unambiguously that “we cannot avoid the almost certain conclusion that the Temple was put to the torch at Titus’ behest.” [emphasis original to Alon]. His argument is based on: (1) comparison with other sources, most notably Sulpicius Severus’ Chronica, perhaps derived from Tacitus’ lost Histories, which attributes the decision to burn the Temple to Titus himself; (2) examination of the events immediately preceding and following the burning of the Temple, which indicate that it was always part of the Roman intention; and (3) indication in other parts of Josephus’ works where he seems to betray that he knew Titus was to blame for the burning of the Temple (e.g., War 7.1; Ant 20.250). Alon’s conclusion is that Josephus distorted the truth and “adjusted” his history to meet “the demands of his benefactors” [Vespasian and Titus].41
Roman historian Dio Cassius presents a very different picture of Titus’ intentions concerning the Temple. Dio said the Roman troops were afraid to violate the sanctity of the Temple and that it was Titus who compelled them to enter it: “. . . the Temple was now laid open to the Romans. Nevertheless, the soldiers because of their superstition did not immediately rush in; but at last, under compulsion from Titus, they made their way inside.”42
The suggestion that the Temple was destroyed by out-of-control troops is especially unlikely when you read Josephus’ own description of how disciplined the Roman army was: “Military law demands the death penalty not only for desertion of the ranks but even some slight neglect of duty . . . .”43 Burning the Temple in violation of a (supposed) direct order from Titus Caesar44 would have been far worse than some slight neglect of duty. Technically, this would have made the troops’ actions worthy of death.
An example of an obvious omission of Titus’ actions by Josephus can be found in his failure to even mention Titus’ relationship with the Jewish queen Bernice. Titus met Bernice in AD 67 when he first came to Judea. She lived with Titus and essentially became his common law wife, and yet Josephus fails to mention her or their scandalous relationship. The reason for this is that, since the time of Mark Antony’s disastrous relationship with Cleopatra, the Roman public was very leery of alliances between its leaders and foreign queens. If one depends only on Josephus’ record, the relationship between Titus and Bernice (who has been referred to as the “little Cleopatra”) never happened. This should make one suspicious of what other items Josephus left out of his account of Titus’ actions during this time.
TITUS’ EXTERMINATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD
One action that Josephus could not hide which speaks volumes about Titus’ intentions toward the Jewish religion was his extermination of the Temple priesthood. This act was especially heinous because the priests had been noncombatants in the war. When Titus captured the Temple, he ordered the execution of all the surviving priests. According to Josephus, he felt that the priesthood should perish along with the Temple.45 If this were not enough to reveal Titus’ true intentions, the Christian historian Eusebius (citing the second-century writer Hegesippus)46 recorded that, after the conquest of Jerusalem, Vespasian gave orders that all those who belonged to the line of David should be sought out and eradicated so that none of the lineage of the Messiah (who was to be a descendant of David) would remain.47 Vespasian’s order may have, in actuality, been given by Titus, as he was the one in charge of subduing the Jews after mid-AD 69 and possessed the authority to draft edicts in the name of his father.48
Titus’ actions to destroy the Jewish nation, its Temple, the priesthood, and any remnants of the messianic line are consistent with the little horn’s waging war against Daniel’s people for “a time and times and half a time” (Dan. 7:25). The outcome of this three-and-a-half-year period of AD 67-70 was the destruction of the Jewish nation and old covenant order (Dan. 12:7).
As one can imagine, the Jews had a very negative view of Titus, whom rabbinical literature refers to as “Titus the miscreant.”49 Josephus put the number of Jews killed in the Jewish war at 1,100,000, while 97,000 were taken prisoner and either sold into slavery or killed in gladiatorial games.50 While modern scholars (rightly or wrongly) consider the figure of a million-plus Jews killed to be inflated, the fact remains that many Jews were slaughtered by Titus’ three-and-a-half-year campaign in Judea.
Note that the length of time that Titus waged war against Israel was equal to the length of time that Jesus preached to Israel; each had a three-and-a-half-year ministry (cf. Luke 13:6-9). This is not a coincidence, as Jesus’ three-and-a-half-year ministry, which brought an end to the legitimacy of sacrifice (cf. Heb. 10:12), completed the first half of Daniel’s seventieth week, while Titus’ three-and-a-half-year “ministry,” which made the Jewish nation desolate, completed the second half of Daniel’s seventieth week (Dan. 9:26-27). It is also interesting to note that Titus began his campaign against the Jews in Galilee, the very place where Jesus began his own ministry. Moreover, Titus concluded his campaign while camped opposite Jerusalem’s Psephinus tower,51 located just a stone’s throw away from Golgotha, where Jesus finished his ministry.
One last point, the little horn of Dan. 7 is the same as the individual beast of Revelation. You can not say one is speaking of the first century and the other is the Papacy. See here. http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3203
Footnotes
19. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Daniel & Revelation: Riddles or Realities?, 135.
20. The fourteen-year gap between the reigns of Julius Caesar and Augustus (44-31 BC) was a period during which Augustus shared in the rule of the Roman Empire, first with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, and then just with Mark Antony. In 31 BC, Augustus became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Josephus did not recognize this gap (although he acknowledges that Augustus shared rule for the fourteen years, Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 2, 2) as he gives the length of Augustus’ reign as being fifty-seven years. See footnote 8 in chapter 3.
21. It should be noted that my interpretation has some similarities with that of James Jordan (i.e., that the first ten rulers of the fourth beast correspond to the first ten Caesars); my position significantly diverges from his at that point, however. Jordan, in his book The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, also sees the first ten kings of the fourth beast as representing the first ten Caesars (Julius-Vespasian), p. 382. He rather strangely, however, sees the little eleventh horn not as being Titus (the eleventh ruler in the sequence of Caesars), but as a corporate symbol representing the Herodian dynasty (i.e., Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, Herod Agrippa I, and Herod Agrippa II) as well as the Jews who rejected Jesus. He writes the following on this:
“. . . the Little Horn [of Dan. 7] is Herod the Great. Philip Mauro, in his The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, argues quite persuasively that the Godless King of Daniel 11 is Herod the Great. He does not make the connection to the Little Horn, but he might easily have done so because it fits admirably. Yet, as we have seen, the Little Horn here is not a particular king, but a group of people. This group is the false Jews with their king Herod. Because the Little Horn is first and foremost a corporate symbol and not a pointer to an individual, we cannot limit him to Herod the Great. At the very least, he is the line of Herods. But there is more. The Herods were true circumcised Jews, and were the kings of the Jews. They controlled who would serve as High Priest. Hence, the corporate symbol of the Little Horn must include not only the Herods, but all the false Jews who opposed Jesus, and the Jews and Judaizers who opposed the Apostolic Church.” p. 387
That is a lot of fulfillment to fit into such a little horn! I do not find Mauro’s interpretation of the king of the North to be persuasive at all; see my comments on his position on Daniel 11 in the first chapter of this book (for a more thorough refutation of the Herodian dynasty theory, see Thomas A. Howe, Daniel in the Preterist’s Den: A Critical Look at Preterist Interpretations of Daniel, 537-597). Even Mauro did not try to connect the Herodian dynasty with the little horn of the fourth beast. Jordan goes even further, however; he believes the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 refer to the same ruler. He thus also tries to connect the little horn of chapter 8 with the Herodian dynasty (which is even more farfetched).
22. B. W. Jones, The Emperor Titus (New York: St. Martins Press, 1984), 44-45.
23. Barbara Levick, Vespasian (New York: Routledge, 1999), 45.
24. Hersh Goldwurm, Daniel: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources, 201-203. Rashi’s commentary on Daniel 7 can be found here:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... pter-7.htm. I do not know how this traditional Jewish interpretation can escape the conclusion that the kingdom of God was fully established at AD 70. Daniel 7:17-27 shows the little horn overcoming the saints and then God coming to take away his dominion; it is at this time that the people of God possess the kingdom. If one says the little horn refers to Titus then it follows that God’s kingdom was fully established at AD 70.
25. Judah Nadich, The Legends of the Rabbis, vol. 1: Jewish Legends of the Second Commonwealth (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1994), 350. The story as given by Nadich is taken from various rabbinic sources that are woven together (e.g., Gittin 56b; Leviticus Rabbah 22:3, 20:5; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 5:8). Although the account is partly legend (it ends with a fanciful account of Titus’ death), I am inclined to believe that it is based upon at least a kernel of truth concerning Titus’ arrogance and blasphemy when he destroyed the Temple.
26. J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, The Anchor Bible, vol. 38, eds. William F. Albright and David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 222-223.
27. Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, ed. and trans., Gershon Levi (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Originally published: Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1980-1984), 201.
28. Hersh Goldwurm, History of the Jewish People: The Second Temple Era, ArtScroll History Series, eds., Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1982), 200-201.
29. Jacob Neusner, First Century Judaism in Crisis, Augmented Edition (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1982), 183.
30. Ibid., 191.
31. Edward J. Young, A Commentary on Daniel, 161.
32. “Saints” (lit. holy ones) can refer to angels (cf. Dan. 4:17). In Daniel 7:27, however, Daniel is told that the kingdom would be given “to the people, the saints of the Most High.” Saints in this context are people not angels. The NT clearly shows that it is God’s holy people, not angels, sitting on thrones and receiving the kingdom (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 3:21; Rev. 20:4). For a discussion of the meaning of holy ones as God’s people, see Joyce Baldwin, Daniel: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 151-152. For the counterview that the “holy ones” are angels, see J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 312-320.
33. The meaning of the holy people in Daniel is somewhat fluid. This is explained in the NT by the concept of physical Israel vs. true (or spiritual) Israel (Rom. 2:28-29). In light of the teaching of the NT, true Israel possessed the kingdom in AD 70 (Dan. 7:22) at the time that physical Israel’s power was shattered (Dan. 12:7; Rev. 11:15-18). All of Daniel’s people that were written in the book (Dan. 12:1, i.e., those of true Israel) were delivered at that time. In Revelation, we discover that the book described in Daniel 12:1 is the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev. 20:15; 21:27); thus, the people who were delivered were believers in Jesus, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:14-16; cf. Luke 2:34). God’s people possessed the kingdom at the destruction of God’s unfaithful old covenant people (cf. Matt. 21:33-43).
34. Sulpicius Severus, Chronica 2.30.6-7. Quoted from B. W. Jones, The Emperor Titus, 54.
35. B. W. Jones, The Emperor Titus, 54. Jones suggests that Severus’ source was probably the lost writings of the Roman historian Tacitus or, less possibly, M. Antonius Julianus, the procurator of Judea in AD 70.
36. Samuel Krauss, “Titus” in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. XII, ed. Isidore Singer (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1916), 163.
37. Midrash Rabbah Lamentations 1:12.
38. Edward J. Young, A Commentary on Daniel, 259. It should be remembered that Daniel 2:4 to 7:28 is in Aramaic while the rest of Daniel is in Hebrew. Young saw the time period of “a time and times and half a time” as not being a literal time period but a symbolic one.
39. After the destruction of Jerusalem, there were three isolated pockets of resistance in the vicinity of the Dead Sea (the most famous being Masada) that resisted Rome until AD 73 or 74. The putting down of these resistors was mop-up, however. The power of the holy people was broken definitively in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (cf. Dan. 9:26). With the destruction of Jerusalem, Titus began his victory celebrations. By mid-AD 71, Titus was back in Rome with his father celebrating their victory over the Jews.
40. Josephus, The Jewish War, 6, 4, 5-8.
41. Paul Spilsbury, “Josephus on the Burning of the Temple, the Flavian Triumph and the Fall of Rome,” The Preterist Archive;
http://www.preteristarchive.com/JewishW ... temple.pdf.
42. Dio Cassius, Roman History 15, 6, 2, in Dio’s Roman History, vol. VIII, trans. Earnest Cary (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), 269.
43. Josephus, The Jewish War 3, 5, 7, trans. Gaalya Cornfeld, 221.
44. Titus was given the title of Caesar by his father when Vespasian became emperor in AD 69.
45. Josephus, The Jewish War 6, 6, 6 (a most appropriately numbered reference for the Antichrist!).
46. Hegesippus was a second-century Jewish-Christian writer; most of his work is lost.
47. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3, 12.
48. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Titus 8.
49. Samuel Krauss, “Titus” in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. XII, ed. 163.
50. Josephus, The Jewish War, 6, 9, 3.
51. Josephus, The Jewish War. 5, 3, 5.
Let me make it a little shorter. 
Trust me, it will give you plenty to chew on.
