The Aramaic ‘iddan, here translated “time,” occurs also in ch. 4:16, 23, 25, 32. In these passages the word ‘iddan undoubtedly means “a year” (see on ch. 4:16). The word translated “times,” also from ‘iddan, was pointed by the Masoretes as a plural, but scholars generally agree that it should have been pointed as a dual, thus denoting “two times.” The word translated “dividing,” pelag, may also be translated “half.” Hence the more acceptable translation of the RSV, “a time, two times, and half a time.”

 A comparison with parallel prophecies calling attention to this same time period, but by other designations, enables us to calculate the length of time involved. In Rev. 12:14 the period is denominated “a time, and times, and half a time.” The same period is referred to earlier in the chapter by the designation “a thousand two hundred and threescore days” (Rev. 12:6). In Rev. 11:2, 3 the expression “a thousand two hundred and threescore days” is equated with “forty and two months.” Thus it is clear that a period of three and a half times equals 42 months, which in turn equals 1260 days, and that a “time” represents 12 months, or 360 days. This period may be denominated a prophetic year. However, a prophetic year of 360 days, or 12 30-day months, must not be confused either with a Jewish calendar year, which was a lunar year of variable length (with both 29-day and 30-day months), or with a solar calendar year of 365 days (see Vol. II, pp. 111, 112). A prophetic year means 360 prophetic days, but a prophetic day stands for a solar year.

 This distinction may be explained thus: A 360-day prophetic year is not literal, but symbolic; hence its 360 days are prophetic, not literal, days. By the year-day principle, as illustrated in Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6, a day in symbolic prophecy stands for a literal year. Thus a prophetic year, or “time,” represents 360 literal, natural years, and similarly a period of 1260 or 2300 or any other number of prophetic days means as many literal, actual years (that is, full solar years as marked off by the seasons, which are controlled by the sun). Although the number of days in each lunar year was variable, the Jewish calendar was corrected by the occasional addition of an extra month (see Vol. II, p. 104), so that for Bible writers—as for us—a long series of years always equaled the same number of natural solar years. For the historical application of the year-day principle see pp. 39-76.

The validity of the year-day principle has been demonstrated by the precise fulfillment of various prophecies calculated by this method, notably the 1260 days and the 70 weeks. A period of three and a half literal years falls absurdly short of fulfilling the requirement of the 1260-day prophecies in regard to the papacy. But when, by the year-day principle, the period is extended to 1260 years, the prophecy meets a unique fulfillment.

In July, 1790, thirty Roman Catholic bishops appeared before the leaders of the revolutionary government of France to protest legislation designed to free the French clergy from the jurisdiction of the pope and to make them directly responsible to the government. Were the leaders of the Revolution, they inquired, going to leave all religions free “except that which was once supreme, which was maintained by the piety of our fathers and by all the laws of the State, and has been for twelve hundred years the national religion?” (A. Aulard , Christianity and the French Revolution, p. 70).

 The prophetic period of the little horn began in A.D. 538, when the Ostrogoths abandoned the siege of Rome, and the bishop of Rome, released from Arian control, was free to exercise the prerogatives of Justinian’s decree of 533, and thenceforth to increase the authority of the “Holy See” (see on v. 8). Exactly 1260 years later (1798), the spectacular victories of the armies of Napoleon in Italy placed the pope at the mercy of the French revolutionary government, which now advised him that the Roman religion would always be the irreconcilable enemy of the Republic, and added that “there is one thing even more essential to the attainment of the end desired, and that is to destroy, if possible, the centre of unity of the Roman Church; and it is for you, who unite in your person the most distinguished qualities of the general and of the enlightened politician, to realize this aim if you consider it practicable” (Ibid., p. 158). In response to these instructions and at the command of Napoleon, Berthier, with a French army, entered Rome, proclaimed the political rule of the papacy at an end and took the pope prisoner, carrying him off to France, where he died in exile.

The overthrow of the papacy in 1798 marks the climax of a long series of events connected with its progressive decline, and also the conclusion of the prophetic period of 1260 years. For a more complete outline of the rise and decline of the papacy, see Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

 Aramaic dath, used of both human (chs. 2:9, 13, 15; 6:8, 12, 15) and divine (Ezra 7:12, 14, 21, 25, 26) law. Here it is evident that divine law is referred to, inasmuch as human law is changed at will by those in authority, and such changes would hardly become the subject of prophecy. Inquiring as to whether the papacy has endeavored to change divine law, we find the answer in the great apostasy of the early Christian centuries that introduced numerous doctrines and practices contrary to the will of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. The most audacious change was in the matter of the weekly day of worship. The apostate church freely admits it is responsible for the introduction of Sunday worship, claiming that it has the right to make such changes (see GC 446). An authoritative catechism for priests says: “But the Church of God [that is, the apostate church] has in her wisdom ordained that the celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to ‘the Lord’s day’” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Donovan translation, 1829 ed., p. 358). This catechism was written by order of this great council, and published under the auspices of Pope Pius V.

 Throughout NT times Christians observed the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath (see on Acts 17:2). The transition from Sabbath to Sunday was a gradual process that began sometime before A.D. 150 and continued for some three centuries. The first historical references to the observance of Sunday by professed Christians occur in the Epistle of Barnabas (ch. 15) and in Justin Martyr’s First Apology (ch. 67), both dating from about A.D. 150. Both denounce Sabbath observance and urge that of Sunday. The first authentic references to Sunday as the “Lord’s day” come from the apocryphal Gospel According to Peter and from Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, v. 14), toward the close of the 2d century.

Prior to the Jewish revolt under Bar Cocheba, A.D. 132-135, the Roman Empire recognized Judaism as a legal religion and Christianity as a Jewish sect. But as a result of this revolt Jews and Judaism were discredited. To avoid the persecution that followed, Christians henceforth sought by every means possible to make it clear that they were not Jews. Repeated references by Christian writers of the next three centuries to the observance of the Sabbath as “Judaizing,” together with the fact that no historical references to the Christian observance of Sunday as a sacred day occur prior to the Jewish revolt, point to the period A.D. 135-150 as the time when Christians began to attach Sabbath sacredness to the first day of the week.

The observance of Sunday did not, however, immediately replace that of the Sabbath, but accompanied and supplemented it. For several centuries Christian observed both days. Early in the 3d century, for instance, Tertullian observed that Christ did not rescind the Sabbath. A little later the apocryphal Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 36) admonished Christians to “keep the Sabbath and the Lord’s day festival.”

By the early 4th century Sunday had achieved definite official preference over the Sabbath. In his Commentary on Psalm 92 Eusebius, foremost church historian of the period, wrote, “All things whatsoever it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.”

The first official action of the Catholic Church expressing preference for Sunday was taken at the Council of Laodicea, in the 4th century. Canon 29 of this council stipulates that “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [Sabbath], but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.” This council made provision for Sabbath worship, but designated the day as a work day. It is worthy of note that this, the first ecclesiastical law enjoining the observance of Sunday, specifies Judaizing as the reason for avoiding the observance of the Sabbath. Furthermore, the stern injunction against Sabbath observance is evidence that many were still “Judaizing” on that day. Indeed, the writers of the 4th and 5th centuries repeatedly warn their fellow Christians against this practice. About the year 400, for instance, Chrysostom observes that many were still keeping the Sabbath in the Jewish manner, and thus Judaizing.

 Contemporary records also reveal the fact that the churches in Alexandria and Rome were chiefly responsible for promoting Sunday observance. About A.D. 440 the church historian Socrates wrote that “although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this” (Ecclesiastical History v. 22). About the same time Sozomen wrote that “the people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.”

Three facts are thus clear:

 (1) The concept of Sunday sacredness among Christians originated, primarily, in their effort to avoid practices that would tend to identify them with Jews, and thus lead to persecution.

 (2) The church at Rome early developed a preference for Sunday; and the increasing importance attached to Sunday in the early church, at the expense of the Sabbath, closely parallels Rome’s gradual rise to power.

 (3) Finally, Roman influence prevailed to make the observance of Sunday a matter of church law, as it did with many other practices such as the worship of Mary, the veneration of saints and angels, the use of images, and prayers for the dead. Sunday sacredness rests upon the same basis as these other nonscriptural practices introduced into the church by the bishop of Rome.

Aramaic sebar, “to mean to,” “to intend,” “to strive,” “to endeavor.” A deliberate attempt is indicated (see GC 446).

 Or, “wear away.” The event is earlier described in the words, “the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them” (v. 21). The phrase depicts continuous and relentless persecution. The papacy acknowledges that it has persecuted, and defends such acts as a legitimate exercise of power presumably granted her by Christ. The following is from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

“In the Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ (1252) Innocent IV says: ‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them.’ ... Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions ‘Commissis nobis’ and ‘Inconsutibilem tunicam.’ The aforesaid Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or re-enforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake” (Joseph Blötzer, art. “Inquisition,” Vol. VIII, p. 34).

 Aramaic leṣad. Ṣad literally means “side.” Leṣad may be interpreted as meaning “over against,” implying that in its opposition to the Most High the little horn would set itself up as being equal with God (see on 2 Thess. 2:4; cf. Isa. 14:12-14).

Ecclesiastical literature is replete with exhibits of the arrogant, blasphemous claims of the papacy. Typical examples are the following extracts from a large encyclopedic work written by a Roman Catholic divine of the 18th century:

“The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God....

“The Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.... “The Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been intrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom....

“The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws.... “The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing his sheep.

“Whatever the Lord God himself, and the Redeemer, is said to do, that his vicar does, provided that he does nothing contrary to the faith” (translated from Lucius Ferraris, “Papa II,” Prompta Bibliotheca, Vol. VI, pp. 25-29).

 Aramaic millin (singular millah), simply, “words.” The word “great” is supplied. The expressions “great things” (v. 8) and “very great things” (v. 20) are translations of the Aramaic rabreban. Millah is translated “thing” in chs. 2:5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17; 4:33; 5:15, 26; 6:12; “matter” in chs. 2:23; 7:1, 28; “word” in chs. 2:9; 3:28; 4:31; 5:10; 7:11, 25; and “commandment” in ch. 3:22.

 Aramaic zimnin (singular, zeman), a term denoting fixed time, as in chs. 3:7, 8; 4:36; 6:10, 13, or a period of time, as in chs. 2:16; 7:12 (where zeman is translated “season”). A suggestion as to the meaning of the expression of the expression “to change times” is given in ch. 2:21, where the identical Aramaic words for “change” and “times” are again coupled together. However, Daniel there ascribes to God the prerogative to change times. It is God who has the destiny of nations under His control. It is He who “removeth kings, and setteth up kings” (ch. 2:21). “Above, and through all the play and counter-play of human interests and power and passions, the agencies of the all-merciful One, [are] silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will” (Ed 173). It is God who determines also the “time” (Aramaic zeman) that the saints shall possess the kingdom (ch. 7:22). For the little horn to endeavor to change times would indicate a deliberate attempt to exercise the prerogative of God in shaping the course of human history.