Daniel 11 Archives » From Daniel to Revelation

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).

Tag: Daniel 11

The Antichrist in Daniel 11 is not Antiochus IV.

The Liberal View

Possible Objections

Conclusions

Other Articles

Daniel reveals the Antichrist – List of Articles