Antiochus IV Archives » From Daniel to Revelation

2025-03-182025-05-05

The Antichrist in Daniel 11 is not Antiochus IV.

The Liberal View

In the Liberal view, Daniel was written after the things it ‘predicts.’

According to the Book of Daniel, it was written in the sixth century B.C. However, it explicitly predicted the Greek Empire (Dan 8:20-21; 11:2), which rose to power only some centuries later.

Critical (liberal) scholars do not accept that such accurate predictions of future events are possible. Consequently, they believe an unknown writer wrote Daniel AFTER the events that can be verified from secular history. Specifically, in this view, Daniel was written AFTER the Greek empire was established. In this view, Daniel is a history book written as a prophecy.

In the Liberal view, the Antichrist in Daniel 11 was Antiochus IV.

The main character in Daniel 11 is the “vile person” (Dan 11:21 – KJV), understood as the Antichrist.

After Alexander the Great died, his Greek empire was divided into four parts. One of these was the Seleucids of the Middle East. Antiochus IV was one of the Seleucid kings, reigning in the middle of the second century BC.

Liberal or Critical scholars claim that the events described in the first half of Daniel 11 fit known history until a point in time during Antiochus’ reign, but events described later in Daniel 11 do not fit known history. For that reason, they propose that:

(1) The Book of Daniel was written during the reign of Antiochus IV and in response to his persecution of the Jews,

(2) The Antichrist ‘predicted’ in Daniel 11 is Antiochus IV, and

(3) The events described later in Daniel 11, which do not fit the history after Antiochus IV, are the erroneous guesswork of Daniel’s uninspired writer. (For example, see – Wikipedia.)

This is called the Maccabean thesis. For example, one scholar wrote:

Daniel was written during the period of the Maccabees, in the middle of the 2nd century B.C., or about 400 years after the events it describes. Its origin is betrayed in chapter 11 when Daniel supposedly prophesies the future.

All interpreters agree that the “vile person” of Daniel 11 is the same as the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and 8.

This can be shown as follows:

(1) As a general principle, later prophecies in Daniel elaborate on the earlier ones. Daniel 11, therefore, although it does not use beasts and horns to represent kingdoms, but a series of individual kings, still describes the same kingdoms as in Daniel 7 and 8.

(2) The Antichrist Horn in Daniel 7 and 8 and the Vile Person in Daniel 11 do the same things. Both:

(a) Persecute God’s people (Dan 7:25; 11:32-34)

(b) For “a time, two times, and half a time” (Dan 7:25; 12:7) [Show More]

(d) Set up “the abomination” (Dan 11:31; 8:13); [Show More]

(e) Remove the continual sacrifice (the tamid) (Dan 8:11; 11:31);

(f) Use deceit (Dan 8:25; 11:21-24); and

(g) “Magnify himself” (Dan 8:11; 11:36-37).

Daniel 11, therefore, covers the same ground as Daniel 8 but provides additional detail.

Liberal scholars identify the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and 8 also as Antiochus.

Since the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and 8 is the same Power, and since Liberal scholars identify the Antichrist in Daniel 11 as Antiochus, they also identify the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and 8 as Antiochus IV.

Conservatives interpret Daniel 11 based on earlier chapters.

While Liberal scholars base their interpretation of all of Daniel’s prophecies mainly on Daniel 11, Conservatives base their interpretation mostly on the earlier and easier-to-understand prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, and 8, but often find Daniel 11 challenging to explain.

11:1-13 describes the transition from the Persian to the Greek empire.

There are no animals in Daniel 11. The prophecy names the Persian kingdom (Dan 11:2) but does not name any of the later kingdoms or kings. Instead, it uses the titles “king of the south” and “king of the north” to describe entire kingdoms, each consisting of a series of kings. The reader must identify kings by comparing the prophetic events with recorded history. [Show More]

11:14-20 describes Antiochus III, the father of Antiochus IV.

Verse 14 refers to the “breakers of your people.” Here, interpretations start to diverge. However, most interpreters agree that verses 14 to 19 describe Antiochus III, one of the Greek kings and the father and predecessor of Antiochus IV. To quote a critical scholar:

Daniel 11:2-20 is a very accurate & historically corroborated sequence of events from the third year (Dan 10:1) of the Persian era up to the predecessor of Antiochus IV: some 366 years! Only the names and dates are missing. Most details are about the conflicts between the kings of the South (the Ptolemies of Egypt) and the kings of the North (the Seleucids of Mesopotamia / Syria). The Seleucids are shown to become stronger and stronger (despite some setbacks) … Of course, Jerusalem was in the middle and changed hands (197, from Egypt to Syria).

The strong word links to Daniel 9 imply that the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is Jesus Christ.

A “vile person” (Dan 11:21) overflowed “the arms of the flood” and broke the “prince (nagid) of the covenant” (Dan 11:22). The following words and concepts in 11:22 appear elsewhere in Daniel only in 9:24-27:

Flood – The word “flood” as a noun (Dan 9:26)

Nagid – The word ‘sar’ (translated “prince”) occurs 11 times in Daniel (Dan 8:11, 25; 9:6, 8; 10:13, 20, 21; 11:5; 12:1). But the word ‘nagid’, which is also translated as “prince,” occurs only in 11:22 and in 9:24-27, namely in “Messiah the Prince” (Dan 9:25) and in “the prince who is to come” (Dan 9:26).

Nagid killed – The nagid-prince will be “cut off” and ”broken” (Dan 9:26; 11:22).

Prince of the Covenant – The word “covenant” also occurs elsewhere in Daniel, but only in 9:24-27 and 11:22 is a prince connected with the covenant. In other words, only a nagid prince is associated with the covenant:

The nagid-prince makes strong the covenant for one week. (Dan 9:27, See here)

The nagid-prince of the covenant is broken (Dan 11:22).

Furthermore, elsewhere in Daniel, “covenant” always refers to the covenant between God and His people (Daniel 9:4; 11:28, 30, 32), implying that the covenant in Daniel 11:22 is also God’s covenant with Israel.

Based on these facts, the current article proposes that the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is the same as the Prince who makes strong the covenant in 9:27, whom this website identifies as Jesus Christ (See here). Consequently:

(A) The Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is Jesus Christ.

(B) The shattering of the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 refers to Christ’s death on the Cross, 200 years after Antiochus.

(C) Since verse 22 describes Jesus Christ, 200 years after Antiochus, the Antichrist (described as the “vile person” (11:21), who ‘broke’ the Prince of the Covenant (11:22)), cannot be Antiochus IV.

These links to Daniel 9 imply further that the ‘vile person’ (11:21) is the Roman Empire.

The current article proposes, similar to the article on Daniel 8 (see here), that the evil power in Daniel 8 and 11 symbolizes both the Roman Empire and its Antichrist successor:

Since 9:24-27 and 11:22 describe the same event, and since the word “flood,” as a noun, occurs only in 9:26 and 11:22, the two floods are the same. In other words, the flood that floods away another flood (11:22) is the same as the flood that destroys the city and the sanctuary (9:26), which is the Roman Empire.

The Abomination of Desolation (11:31) is after Christ, as Jesus also confirmed.

Since Daniel 11 describes events chronologically and since the abomination (Dan 11:31) and the persecution of God’s people (Dan 11:32-34) are described AFTER verse 22, these events occur after Christ’s death and do not describe Antiochus IV, 200 years before Christ. Jesus confirmed this when He put the abomination in His future:

“Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet (Daniel 11:31 and 12:11), standing in the holy place …“ (Matt 24:15)

Jesus, therefore, also interpreted the “vile person” as an Antichrist that will arise AFTER His time, not as the Greek king Antiochus IV, who died about 200 years earlier.

Therefore, Daniel 11 can be compared as follows to earlier prophecies:

With this conclusion, and with the assistance of the previous articles in this series, we are now able to compare Daniel 11 with the earlier prophecies:

DANIEL 11	DANIEL 9	DANIEL 8	DANIEL 7
Persian kings (Dan 11:2)	Persian decree (Dan 9:25)	Ram (Dan 8:2-4)	Bear (Dan 7:5)
Greek king (Dan 11:3)		Goat (Dan 8:5-7)	Leopard (Dan 7:6a)
Kings of North and South		Goat’s four horns (Dan 8:8)	Leopard’s four heads
Roman flood breaks Nagid of the covenant (Dan 11:22)	Nagid cut off (Dan 9:25-27)	Horn’s horizontal expansion (Dan 8:9)	Fourth beast (Dan 7:8, 23)
Vile person profanes temple, sets up abomination, persecutes for 3½ times (Dan 11:31-34; 12:7)		Horn casts temple down, removes daily, transgression of desolation (Dan 8:8-13)	Little horn: persecutes God’s people 3½ times (Dan 7:25)

Possible Objections

This section responds to possible objections to the interpretation proposed above.

Objection 1: The emphasis on Antiochus III identifies the next king as Antiochus.

Daniel 11, in verses 14-19, emphasizes Antiochus III, the father and predecessor of Antiochus IV. Daniel provides more information about Antiochus III than about any previous king. Critical scholars argue that this emphasis identifies the next king (the Vile Person) as his son Antiochus IV.

Response: The prophecy emphasizes Antiochus III because his reign shifted the power to Rome.

This article explains the purpose of this emphasis differently:

The reign of the fourth Persian king (Xerxes) was also emphasized earlier in Daniel 11:2, not to identify the Persian king that would follow after him, but because his unsuccessful wars against Greece were a key turning point in history that shifted the balance of power from Mede-Persia to Greece. After Xerxes was mentioned in verse 2, the prophecy immediately jumps over the next 150 years, during which seven Persian kings reigned (Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Xerxes II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes Ill, Arses, and Darius III), to the first Greek emperor; Alexander the Great (Dan 11:3).

Similarly, Antiochus III is emphasized, not to identify the Greek king that would follow after him but because his unsuccessful wars against the Romans were a key turning point in history that shifted the balance of power from the Greek Empire to Rome. Consequently, Antiochus and his sons had to pay penalties to the Romans, and their empire was left subject to the growing dominance of Rome. After Antiochus III’s unsuccessful war against Rome, the prophecy jumps over the next 170 years, during which several Greek kings reigned, to the next empire (Rome).

Therefore, both the reigns of Xerxes and Antiochus III were key turning points in history that shifted the balance of power to the next empire. It is for that reason that Daniel 11 emphasizes Xerxes and Antiochus III, not to identify the next kings. Once the key turning point has been reached, the prophecy jumps over the remaining kings of the empire to the next empire. Read this way, while Daniel 11:19 describes the death of Antiochus III, Daniel 11:22 describes the death of Christ 200 years later. [Show More]

In summary, the prophecy emphasizes Antiochus III because his unsuccessful war against Rome was a turning point in history, not to identify the next king.

Objection 2: Daniel 11 does not mention the Roman Empire.

A second possible objection is that Daniel 11 does not mention the Roman Empire. Without an intervening empire, it continues from Antiochus III to the vile person.

Response: The vile person is the Roman Empire.

Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11 forms a unit:

Daniel 2 does not mention the Antichrist at all. The focus is entirely on the political powers.

In Daniel 7, the political powers are still mentioned, but the Antichrist has become a major emphasis. It describes the fourth empire in only two verses but allows six verses for the Antichrist.

In Daniel 8, the political powers begin to fade. It mentions political Rome only indirectly in the initial horizontal expansion of the little horn (Dan 8:9), symbolizing the Antichrist phase by the subsequent vertical growth of the horn. In other words, it uses the horn-king for both the Roman Empire and its Antichrist successor.

Daniel 11 continues this pattern. It represents both the Roman Empire and the Antichrist with a single symbol: the “despicable person” (NASB). Political Rome is seen only as the flood that flows away the “overflowing forces,” and that cuts off the Prince of the Covenant (Dan 11:22). The focus is almost entirely on the Antichrist successor of the Roman Empire.

The sole purpose of these prophecies, including the descriptions of the first four kingdoms, is to identify the Antichrist. Moving from Daniel 2 to 7 to 8 to 11, the political powers progressively fade into the background, while the focus on the Antichrist keeps increasing.

Objection 3: Antiochus IV fits the description.

A third possible objection is that Antiochus IV fits the sequence of kings in Daniel 11. Studies by the current author (comparing Daniel 11 to the history of the Seleucid kings) concur with the majority interpretation up to Daniel 11:19, where Antiochus III dies. The description of the vile person begins in Daniel 11:21. Therefore, if Daniel 11:20 describes Seleucus IV (and not Heliodorus), Antiochus IV fits the sequence of kings.

Critics also correctly argue that the description of the “vile person” in the verses after Daniel 11:21 fits the actions of Antiochus IV. These include his double invasion of Egypt (compare Dan 11:25, 29) and the persecution of God’s people.

Critics believe these are conclusive evidence that the vile person is Antiochus IV and not some later ruler.

Response: The description of the “vile person” exceeds Antiochus IV.

The ‘vile person:’

- - Gain authority and rule through deceit (Dan 11:21).
  - Distribute the plunder (Dan 11:24).
  - Magnify himself above every god.
  - Have no regard for the god of his fathers nor any god (Dan 11:36-37).

These things were not true of Antiochus. And, as all agree, the events of the “time of the end” (Dan 11:40-45) do not fit history at all. A separate article shows that Antiochus IV does not fit the profile. As Desmond Ford noted:

“Verses 21-35 fit his (Antiochus’s) time perfectly, but let it be noted that this interpretation by no means exhausts the passage.” [Desmond Ford, Daniel and the Coming King, p 144]

Conclusions

Antiochus IV was a partial fulfillment of the Antichrist.

Daniel 11 may, therefore, be understood as two stories intertwined: The first story starts with Persia and continues until Antiochus IV. But while discussing Antiochus IV, it jumps to the second story, which is about the Antichrist. This second story continues until Michael stands up (Dan 12:1-3). We see other examples of a double meaning elsewhere in Scripture:

- - Joel describes a local locust plague but unexpectedly jumps to the Day of the Lord.
  - Isaiah 14 similarly jumps from the king of Babylon to Lucifer without interruption (Isa 14:4, 12).
  - Ezekiel 28 moves from the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:12) to an “anointed cherub who covers” (Ezek 28:14).
  - Jesus combined the description of the temple’s destruction in 70 AD and the end of the world into a single story (Matthew 24).
  - As another example of a double meaning, John the Baptist was the first representation of Elijah to come.

Therefore, Antiochus IV was only a partial fulfillment and a type of the ultimate Antichrist.

Other conclusions:

The “vile person” is a symbol and not a literal person, just like the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 is not a literal horn.

The “vile person” of Daniel 11 symbolizes both the Roman Empire and its Antichrist successor.

God is in control. He knows the future.

This article, therefore, supports the view that the book of Daniel was written before the time of Antiochus IV, that the prophecies are real predictions of future events, and that God is in control of history:

“There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days” (Dan 2:28).

“The Most High God is ruler over the realm of mankind and that He sets over it whomever He wishes” (Dan 5:21).

Antiochus IV does not fit Daniel’s description of the Antichrist.

PURPOSE

Critical scholars believe that the Antichrist in Daniel is Antiochus IV. The purpose of this article is to show that that is not true.

It is generally agreed that the 11th horn of Daniel 7, the little horn of Daniel 8, and the “vile person” in Daniel 11 refer to the same Antichrist. (see here) Critical scholars are convinced that this is Antiochus IV; a Greek king that reigned in the middle of the second century B.C.

Since liberal scholars believe that some uninspired but partisan Jew wrote the Book of Daniel, they have a high tolerance for differences between Antiochus IV and the evil king in Daniel. The purpose of this article is to show that, for those who accept the reliability of the book, Antiochus does not fit the profile:

ANTIOCHUS DOES NOT FIT.

The Antichrist is Roman.

Previous articles have shown that the Antichrist grew out of the Roman Empire.

Daniel explicitly identifies the two beasts in Daniel 8 as Medo-Persia and Greece (Dan 8:20-21). By comparing the beasts of Daniel 7 and 8, another article shows that the two beasts in Daniel 8 are parallel to the second and third beasts in Daniel 7. Therefore, the 4th beast in Daniel 7 must be the Roman Empire. It follows that the Antichrist, symbolized as the 11th horn coming out of that 4th beast, comes out of the Roman Empire. Therefore, it cannot be a Greek king.

Antiochus did not rule by Deceit.

The Antichrist will “seize the kingdom by intrigue” (Dan 11:21). This Antiochus did not do. After the previous king (his brother) was killed, He became king with the help of the Pergamene monarch. The Antichrist will also “cause deceit to succeed” (Dan 8:25). Antiochus did not use deceit more than any other Greek king.

Daniel 11:21 describes how the predicted “vile person” (“despicable person” in the NASB) becomes king:

… a despicable person will arise,
on whom the honor of kingship has not been conferred,
but he will come in a time of tranquility
and seize the kingdom by intrigue.

“By intrigue” means plotting, conspiracy or trickery. Antiochus IV did not seize the kingdom by intrigue. Ancientmacedonia.com describes how he became king:

Seleucus was murdered by Heliodorus, his treasurer (B.C. 176) … On the death of Seleucus, the throne was seized by Heliodorus; but it was not long before Antiochus, the brother of the late king, with the help of the Pergamene monarch, Eumenes, recovered it.

The evil king in Daniel 11 becomes king through deceit and he rules through deceit: “cause deceit to succeed” (Dan 8:25). History does not identify Antiochus IV as any more deceitful than other Greek kings.

He did not distribute Plunder.

The predicted evil king “will distribute plunder, booty and possessions among them” (Dan 11:24). This was not true of Antiochus IV. On the contrary, he owed huge sums of war debt to Rome following his father’s defeats against the Romans and needed all the money he could lay his hands on.

He did not start small.

The Antichrist will begin small. This does not fit Antiochus. He was a Seleucid prince who became king after his oldest brother was killed.

The vile person of Daniel starts small (Dan 7:8; 8:9) and weak (Dan 11:23; supported by few), but later becomes “exceedingly great” (Dan 8:9). Antiochus IV did not start small. He was a Seleucid prince and the brother of the murdered king. After his brother’s murderer seized the throne, he was made king with the support of a neighboring king.

He was not greater than others.

The Antichrist will be greater than his predecessors, including Alexander the Great. Antiochus IV was weak compared to Alexander the Great, Seleucus I, and his father, Antiochus III.

The eleventh horn of Daniel 7 also symbolizes the Antichrist. This horn is much larger than the other 10 (Dan 7:20). In the liberal interpretation, this means that he is greater than the other kings of the Greek empire. In Daniel 8, the horn is even larger than Alexander the Great: Alexander is described as “very great” (Dan 8:8) but the horn is “exceedingly great” (KJV; RSV, Dan 8:9).

This does not fit Antiochus IV. He cannot be described as greater than Alexander the Great. Antiochus IV was not greater than the Seleucid kings that preceded him. Seleucus I Nicator was the first king of the Seleucid branch of the Greek Empire after Alexander’s empire split up. He had significant military successes. A few generations later, Antiochus III was called ‘the Great’ because he expanded the domain of the Seleucid kingdom to close to its original size. His military successes are described in Daniel 11:15 but later the Romans defeated him and left his empire, particularly in the west, subject to Rome’s growing power. Because of these defeats, Antiochus IV, as a boy, grew up a hostage in Rome.

Antiochus IV was weak compared to Alexander the Great, Seleucus I, and his father, Antiochus III. He had success against the Ptolemy branch of the Greek kingdom (Egypt), but by the time Critical scholars say Daniel was written (165 BC), the Romans had already ordered him to leave Egypt, and he had to oblige. On the eastern side of his kingdom, the Parthians were taking Iran from his empire, and the need to attend to this threat later allowed the Jewish revolt to succeed; the Maccabees were soon able to drive his soldiers out of Israel and reinstate temple services.

He did not expand his kingdom.

The Antichrist will expand his kingdom “toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land (Judea)” (Dan 8:9). Antiochus IV did not expand his kingdom to Judea. It was already part of his kingdom when he became king. And, by the time Daniel was written according to liberals, the Romans already ordered Antiochus to leave Egypt.

Daniel 8:8 uses the word “elahah” to describe the growth of the four Greek horns. This means vertical growth. This word is appropriate because the four Greek horns did not expand the Greek territory. They simply subdivided the area already occupied by Alexander the Great amongst themselves. In symbolic language, the horns ‘grew up’ in an area that was already occupied.

In contrast, Daniel 8:9 uses the word “yatsah” to describe the growth of the little horn (Dan 8:9). This means horizontal growth and implies that the horn expands the area it occupies. The horizontal expansion of the predicted evil king is more specifically described as “toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land (Judea)” (Dan 8:9). Antiochus IV did not expand his kingdom into those three directions.

He did have some success in the south (Egypt), but in 165 BC, when Daniel was supposedly written, the Romans already ordered him to leave Egypt.

He also did not invade Judea. Judea was part of the kingdom when he became king.

In the east he invaded nothing. At best he strengthened his control over the areas which his father already occupied.

And if the south can be mentioned, then also the West, because he also invaded Cyprus.

He did not oppose God.

The Antichrist will be “set against the holy covenant” (Dan 11:28, 30) and “speak monstrous things against the God of gods” (Dan 11:36). Antiochus IV was not principally opposed to the God of the Bible. What he did for Judea, he did for all nations within his empire.

Antiochus IV’s objective was merely to maintain control over his empire. He ordered all peoples of his empire to abandon their particular customs; not only the Jews:

“Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, each abandoning his particular customs. All the Gentiles conformed to the command of the king, and many Israelites were in favor of his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath.” (1M1:41-43).

Antiochus IV did rob only the Jewish temple. He also robbed other temples (2 Macc 9:2) to pay his debt to the Romans.

He appointed the high priest in Jerusalem because he appointed rulers for all nations in his empire and because Judea was a temple kingdom, effectively making the high priest the king of Judea.

After nearly 200 years of Hellenistic dominance over Israel, the influence of the Hellenistic culture was strong, even without Antiochus IV forcing it down the throats of his subjects (1 Macc 1:11-14). The Maccabean War began in 167 BC as a Jewish rebellion against the pro-Hellenistic Jews ruling Judea. When the rebels attacked Jerusalem and forced the high priest to hide in the citadel, Antiochus IV saw this as a revolt against his authority (2M 5:11). For that reason, he attacked Jerusalem (II Macc 5:5-16). He did not attack Jerusalem because it worshipped God.

He did not serve a strange god.

The Antichrist will magnify himself above every god, not show any regard for the gods of his fathers, and honor a god of fortresses. But Antiochus’ purpose was that all people should serve the gods of his fathers.

“The king … will exalt and magnify himself above every god and … He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers … nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all” (Dan 11:36-37). “But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know” (Dan 11:38).

This Antiochus did not do. His aim was rather the opposite, namely that all people should serve the gods of his fathers. It was a statue of Zeus that he set up in the temple in Jerusalem.

He did not kill the Prince.

The Antichrist will kill “the prince of the covenant.” Critical scholars identify this prince as the high priest Onias, but Antiochus had no direct involvement in Onias’ death. This site identifies this prince as Jesus and Antiochus also did not kill Jesus. Jesus died 200 years later.

The Antichrist “shattered … the prince of the covenant” (Dan 11:22).

Critics claim that “the prince of the covenant” refers to the high priest Onias and that Antiochus killed him. As already stated, the high priest was effectively the king of Israel, and in the same way that Antiochus IV appointed kings for other nations, he appointed the high priest in Israel. Antiochus replaced Onias III as high priest with Onias’s brother Jason and a few years later he also replaced Jason with Menelaus. Menelaus resented Onias’ criticism and had him killed in 171 BC. It would therefore not be valid to claim that Antiochus broke or shattered Onias. It was the Jewish high priest who arranged his death.

Based on word links, another article shows that “the prince of the covenant” (Dan 11:22) is the same as the “prince” who “confirms the covenant with many for one week” (Dan 9:27), namely, Jesus Christ. (see here) Antiochus also did not kill Jesus either. Antiochus died 180 years before Jesus.

That “prince of the covenant” refers to Jesus may be confirmed as follows:

The “prince of the covenant” in Daniel 11 is arguably the same as the “prince of the host” in Daniel 8:11 because both are leaders of God’s people. Critics propose that this “prince of the covenant” in Daniel 11 is the high priest Onias III. Indeed, the Bible sometimes refers to the high priest as a prince, but never as the “prince of the host.” The only other reference in the Bible to the “prince of the host” is in Joshua 5:14-15, where He is worshiped:

14 He said, “No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth … 15 The captain of the LORD’S host said to Joshua, “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” … (The word translated as “captain” in Joshua is the same word translated as “prince” in Daniel 8:11, namely ‘sar’.)

This implies that “the prince of the host” is Jesus Christ, which implies that the “prince of the covenant” also refers to Jesus.

PROPHETIC PERIODS

Overview of the Periods in Daniel

Daniel mentions several periods, namely the “time and times and the dividing of time” (Dan 7:25), 2300 “evening morning” (Daniel 8:14), “seventy weeks” (Dan 9:24), 1290 days (Dan 12:11), and 1335 days (Dan 12).

In the liberal interpretation (Critical scholars), all the periods in Daniel describe the Antichrist:

Daniel 2 does not mention the Antichrist. Therefore, there is no prophetic period in that chapter.

The first period in Daniel is the “time and times and the dividing of time” (3½ times) during which the Antichrist persecutes the saints (Dan 7:25).

While the first period relates to persecution, the second, in Daniel 8:14, relates to the temple. It announces that the sanctuary will be cleansed after 2300 “evening morning.” The KJV translates this as 2300 “days,” equal to more than 6 years. Therefore, it does not fit the time of Antiochus IV. To get closer to the period of Antiochus’ defilement of the temple, Critics interpret this as 2300 ‘evening morning’ sacrifices, of which there was one each morning and one each evening, giving 1150 full days.

The third period is the “seventy weeks” of Daniel 9:24, subdivided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks, and the final 1 week. (As interpreted by this website, this period does not relate to the Antichrist. See – here.)

To explain and link the other periods, Daniel 12 provides two further periods, namely 1290 days and 1335 days.

Antiochus did not fit these periods.

In the liberal interpretation, all the periods in Daniel describe the Antichrist. However, Antiochus does not fit these periods.

Antiochus IV does not fit these periods but liberals argue that Daniel was written before the end of these periods, and the writer was simply wrong with his predictions. Critics, therefore, do not require the periods to fit history exactly. But at least two of the periods preceded the pollution of the temple by Antiochus IV, and should fit history exactly:

The first is the 483 years in Daniel 9. This prophecy requires 483 years from the “decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince” (Dan 9:25). In the view of the liberals, the last week describes the time of Antiochus IV, which means that the preceding 483 years were past when their unidentified second-century author wrote. The 483 years must, therefore, correspond to actual history, but to fit 483 years between the possible decrees and Antiochus IV is not possible. 483 years before Antiochus brings us to about 50 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. There was no decree to rebuild Jerusalem at the time. Critics have several creative solutions, but the article on the Liberal-critical interpretation of Daniel 9 shows clear flaws in such proposals.

The other period that was past when the critics’ second-century author wrote, is the first 30 days of the 1290 days in Revelation 12:11. The 1290 days began with the desecration of the temple. 30 days later, the persecution of the saints begins and lasts for 1260 days. (See below for an explanation.) In the view of the Critics, the second-century author completed the book of Daniel while the sanctuary was still defiled and the saints were still being persecuted. These 30 days must, therefore, fit the history of Antiochus IV exactly, but do not. It was rather the other way around. According to I and II Maccabees, the persecution of the Jews began before the temple was desecrated.

1290 Days = 30 + 1260

This section explains the statement above that, according to Daniel, the temple would be desecrated 30 days before the persecution began.

Daniel 7:25 predicts persecution of 3½ times, which is equal to 1260 days (cf. Rev 12:6, 14).

After Daniel was reminded of the 3½ years of persecution (Dan 12:7), he asked for more information (Dan 12:8) and was told:

“And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away,
and the abomination that maketh desolate set up,
there shall be a 1290 days.” (KJV; Dan 12:11)

Note that this means that the 1290 days explain the 3½ years. Furthermore, since Daniel 12:11 only specifies a beginning event, it is assumed that the 1290 days and the 1260 days years of persecution have the same endpoint. Therefore, the events are as follows:

- - Day 0 – The “daily” is taken away and the “abomination of desolation” set up (Dan 12:11). This is the desecration of the sanctuary.
  - Day 30 – persecution and 1260 days start,
  - Day 1290 – temple cleansed and persecution stops.

In other words, the sanctuary would be desecrated 30 days before the beginning of the persecution of the saints.

Liberals cannot explain the periods.

Critics have no acceptable explanation for the differences between the periods; the 2300 “evening morning,” the 3½ times, and the 1260, 1290, and 1335 days.

In the interpretation proposed by the critics, the periods in Daniel conflict with one another. For example:

Critics assume the 2300 “evening morning” are equal to 1150 real days and this is the period of the sanctuary’s defilement. But then the 1150 days and the 1290 days (Dan 12:11) begin at the same time, which means that the 1150 days of temple defilement end 140 days before the end of the 1290 days, which is also the end of the 1260 days of persecution. In other words, the saints are persecuted for 140 days after the sanctuary has been cleansed, which is not logical.

Jesus placed the 1290 days in His future.

Jesus referred to “the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel” as something in His future (compare Matt 24:15 to Dan 12:11). It, therefore, cannot refer to something that Antiochus IV did.

The 1290 days begin with “the abomination that maketh desolate set up”. Critics interpret this as the setting up of a statue of Zeus in the Jewish temple by Antiochus IV, but Jesus said:

Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand). (Matt 24:15)

The liberal interpretation not only destroys the book of Daniel. It discredits Jesus Christ and the entire Bible. Revelation, in particular, is built on the foundation of Daniel’s prophecies, for example:

- - The beasts (Dan: 7:4-8; Rev 13:2),
  - The “time, times, and half a time” (Dan 7:25; Rev 12:14), and
  - The oath (Dan 12:7; Rev 10:6).

If Daniel falls, Revelation falls as well.

CONCLUSION

The Liberals’ writer made factual errors.

.Liberals argue that the differences between the Antichrist of Daniel and Antiochus are due to the writer’s lack of objectivity but not all differences can be blamed on a lack of objectivity.

Critics may argue that Daniel describes Antiochus as more evil and powerful than he was because their second-century Jewish author was emotionally wrapped up in the destruction of everything sacred to the Jews, with a consequential loss of objectivity. For this reason, they may argue, that he described Antiochus as ruling by deceit, being more powerful than all other Greek kings, and principally opposing God. However, if the “vile person” is supposed to be a description of Antiochus, then Daniel includes factually incorrect information that cannot be ascribed to a lack of objectivity, such as:

- - He started small.
  - He appeared on the scene 483 years after a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.
  - He promoted a “strange god”, unknown to his fathers.

Antiochus was a type of the Antichrist.

As discussed in the article on Daniel 11, Daniel 11:2-19 correlates well with known secular history until the death of Antiochus III in verse 19. Furthermore, there are also many similarities between Antiochus IV and the predicted evil king. But Antiochus IV by no means exhausts the passage. He was only a type of the later and much greater Antichrist.

Tag: Antiochus IV