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

SUMMARY

Introduction

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. Critical scholars are convinced that this is Antiochus IV; a Greek king that reigned in the middle of the second century B.C.

Since they think that Daniel was written by some uninspired but partisan Jew, liberal scholars have a high tolerance for differences between Antiochus IV and the evil king in Daniel. But for those who accept the reliability of the book, Antiochus does not fit the profile:

The Antichrist is Roman; not Greek.

The two beasts in Daniel 8 are explicitly identified 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. The fourth beast in Daniel 7, therefore, must be the Roman Empire. It follows that the Antichrist, symbolized as the 11th horn coming out of that fourth beast, comes out of the Roman Empire. Therefore, it cannot be a Greek king.

Antiochus’ methods do not fit.

Antiochus IV did not “seize the kingdom by intrigue,” as the Antichrist is predicted to do (Dan 11:21). After the previous king (his brother) was killed, He became king with the help of the Pergamene monarch.

He did not “cause deceit to succeed” (Dan 8:25) any more than any other Greek king.

He did not “distribute plunder, booty and possessions” (Dan 11:24). On the contrary, he owed huge sums of war debt following his father’s defeats against the Romans and needed all the money he could lay his hands on.

He did not grow.

He did not begin small (Dan 7:8; 8:9) or weak (Dan 11:23). He was a Seleucid prince who became king after his oldest brother was killed.

He was not greater than all of his predecessors (Dan 7:20), who, in the liberal interpretation, would include Alexander the Great. Daniel 8 describes Alexander the Great as “very great” but the Antichrist as even greater (Dan 8:8-9).

He did not 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. 

He did not kill the Prince.

He did not kill “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, but Antiochus had no direct involvement in Onias’ death. The high priest whom Antiochus appointed (Menelaus) killed Onias.

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. Antiochus also did not kill Jesus either.

He does not fit the periods.

In the liberal interpretation, all the periods in Daniel, including the “time and times and the dividing of time” (Dan 7:25), the 2300 “evening morning” (Dan 8:14), and the “seventy weeks” (Dan 9:24) describe the evil king. However, Antiochus does not fit these periods.

For example, in Daniel 9, the first 483 years are from the “decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince” (Dan 9:25). In the critical interpretation, these 483 years preceded Antiochus IV. But 483 years before Antiochus brings us to about 50 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. There was no decree to rebuild Jerusalem at the time.

The history of Antiochus also does not explain the differences between these periods.

He did not oppose God.

Antiochus’ heart was not “set against the holy covenant” (Dan 11:28, 30) and he did not “speak monstrous things against the God of gods” (Dan 11:36). Antiochus IV was not principally opposed to the God of the Bible. He ordered the various nations of his empire to abandon their particular customs and robbed temples of various gods; not only the Jews.

He appointed the high priest in Jerusalem because he appointed rulers for all nations in his empire and the high priest was the ruler of Judea.

The Maccabean War began in 167 BC as a Jewish rebellion against the pro-Hellenistic Jews that ruled Judea. When the Jewish rebels forced the high priest to hide in the citadel, Antiochus IV saw this as a revolt against his authority (2 Macc 5:11). That is why he attacked Jerusalem (II Macc 5:5-16). He did not attack Jerusalem because it worshipped God.

He did not serve strange gods.

He did not:

    • “Exalt and magnify himself above every god” (Dan 11:36),
    • “Show no regard for the gods of his fathers” (Dan 11:37), or
    • Served a “strange god,” unknown to his fathers (Dan 11:38).

Antiochus’ aim was the opposite, namely that all people should serve the gods of his fathers. For example, it was a statue of Zeus that he set up in the temple in Jerusalem.

Jesus placed the abomination 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 liberal interpretation not only destroys the book of Daniel. It discredits Jesus Christ and the entire Bible. Revelation, in particular, picks up on various aspects in Daniel, such as 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.

Antiochus does not exhaust the passage.

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. There are also many similarities between Antiochus IV and the predicted evil king. But Antiochus IV by no means exhausts the passage. Antiochus IV is not the complete fulfillment of Daniel’s predicted evil king. He was only a type of the Antichrist. For complete fulfillment, we must search for a later and much more powerful Antichrist.

END OF SUMMARY –


HIS METHODS

He did not rule by Deceit.

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 not only becomes king through deceit; he also 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. To the contrary, he had owed huge sums of war debt to Rome following his father’s defeats against the Romans and needed the money.

HIS GROWTH

He did not start small.

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 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.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

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 existing occupied area. 

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.

HIS GODS

He did not oppose God.

The Antichrist in Daniel is a tyrant who principally opposes God and His saints: “His heart will be set against the holy covenant” (Dan 11:28, 30). He “will speak monstrous things against the God of gods” (Dan 11:36).

Antiochus IV was not principally opposed to the God of the Bible. His 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 the Jewish temple but, to pay his debt to the Romans, he also robbed other temples (2 Macc 9:2).

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). Antiochus IV appointed rulers for all nations in his empire. He also appointed the high priest in Jerusalem. Since Judea was a temple kingdom, the high priest effectively was the king of Judea. A pro-Hellenistic group of Jews ruled Judea. The Maccabean War began in 167 BC as a Jewish rebellion against the Jewish ruling party. 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). That is why he attacked Jerusalem (II Macc 5:5-16). He did not attack Jerusalem because it worshipped God.

He did not honor a strange god.

“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.

PRINCE OF THE COVENANT

He did not kill the Prince.

The Antichrist “shattered … the prince of the covenant” (Dan 11:22). The article on Daniel 11 shows, based on word links, that “the prince of the covenant” is the same “prince” who “confirms the covenant with many for one week” (Dan 9:27). These are the only princes “of the covenant” in Daniel. The articles on Daniel 9 prove that the prince in 9:27 is Jesus Christ. “The prince of the covenant,” therefore, is also Jesus Christ. Antiochus died 180 years before Jesus and had nothing to do with His death.

The Prince is Jesus.

That “prince of the covenant” refers to Jesus can 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 who was murdered during the reign of Antiochus IV. 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. 

Antiochus did not kill Onias.

Critics claim that “the prince of the covenant” refers to the high priest Onias and that Antiochus killed him, but that is not true. 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.

PROPHETIC PERIODS

Overview of the Periods in Daniel

Through the prophecies in Daniel, God gave us information to identify the “vile person;” the Antichrist in Daniel. The only reason Daniel mentions the preceding four kingdoms is to enable us to identify the Antichrist. In the liberal interpretation, all the periods in Daniel describe the Antichrist:

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

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

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

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

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.

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 they 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 liberal scholars, 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. Critics have several very 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 it does 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

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

Firstly, the 1290 days, therefore, explain the 3½ years.

Secondly, since Daniel 12:11 only specifies a beginning event, it is implied that the 1290 days and the 3½ years end at the same time. Since the 3½ years is equal to 1260 days (cf. Rev 12:6, 14), the 1290 days are 30 days longer than the 3½ years, and therefore start 30 days before the beginning of the persecution. (The alternative interpretation, which understands the 1260 days to be equal to 1290 days by playing around with leap years, makes a mockery of Daniel 12:11.)

The taking away of the “daily” and the setting up of the “abomination of desolation” (Dan 12:11), with which the 1290 days begin, is the desecration of the sanctuary. Since the 1290 days begin 30 days before the persecution begins, the sanctuary is desecrated 30 days before the beginning of the persecution of the saints. 

Liberals cannot explain the periods.

A related point is that, in the interpretation as proposed by the critics, the periods in Daniel conflict with one another:

Critics assume that the 2300 “evening morning” is equal to 1150 real days and that this is the duration of the defilement of the sanctuary. But then the 1150 days and the 1290 days begin at the same time, namely when the sanctuary is defiled, which means that the 1150 days end 140 days before the end of the 1290 days. This means that the saints are persecuted for 140 days after the sanctuary has been cleansed. This is not logical.

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.

Jesus placed the 1290 days in His future.

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)

Jesus, therefore, placed the 1290 days in the future. It cannot refer to something Antiochus IV did.

CONCLUSION

The liberals’ writer made factual errors.

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 Daniel 11 article, Daniel 11:2-19 correlates well with secular history until the death of Antiochus III in verse 19 and there are many similarities between Antiochus and the vile person, but Antiochus IV by no means exhausts the passage. Antiochus IV is not the complete fulfillment of Daniel’s Antichrist. Antiochus IV is a type of the Antichrist. For the complete fulfillment of the prophecies, we must search for a later and much more powerful Antichrist.

 

OTHER ARTICLES

The purpose of this series is to identify the Mark of the Beast. First, it identifies the Beast. The Antichrist in Daniel, symbolized as the Sea Beast in Revelation, arises out of the Roman Empire:

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Daniel 2 sets the stage to identify the Antichrist.
  • 2
    The four beast-kingdoms reign one after the other but the ten horns exist at the same time; after the fourth empire.
  • 3
    Daniel 8 identifies the two animals as Mede-Persia and Greece but not the horn. This article explains the alternative interpretations.
  • 4
    A comparison of the animals of Daniel 7 and 8 identifies the fourth kingdom, from which the Antichrist arises, as the Roman Empire.
  • 5
    The genders in Daniel 8 show that “one of them” means one of the compass directions of the heavens, which means the horn came out of Rome.
  • 6
    Critical scholars propose that Antiochus IV is the Antichrist in Daniel but he was only a type of a later and much greater Antichrist.
  • 7
    This article lists several differences between the Antichrist of Daniel 7, 8, and 11 and Antiochus IV.
  • 8
    The Dragon is one of Revelation’s three seven-headed beasts. In Rev 13:1-2 – the birth of the Sea Beast – the Dragon is the Roman Empire.
  • 9
    It is a fragment of and the continuation of the authority of the Roman Empire. It is also the Antichrist. People will receive its mark.
  • 10
    The Sea Beast has a fatal wound on one of its heads. Revelation 17 describes the same fatal wound and identifies it as the sixth head.

Critical scholars are convinced the evil king in Daniel is Antiochus IV. 

This article has been replaced by the summary in the main article on Antiochus.

This is a summary of the article Antiochus IV and Daniel’s Evil King.  It provides an overview of the evidence that is more fully discussed in the main document.

Critical scholars are convinced that the evil king predicted by Daniel chapters 7, 8 and 11 points to Antiochus IV.  The article Daniel’s evil horn has shown that this evil king comes out of the Roman Empire.  The evil king, therefore, cannot refer to Antiochus IV. Antiochus furthermore does not fit the profile of the predicted evil king:

His immediate predecessor (Seleucus IV) is not known as “a raiser of taxes” (11:19); any more than his father.

Seleucus IV was further not destroyed “within few days” (11:19), but reigned for 13 years.

Antiochus IV did not “seize the kingdom by intrigue” (11:21). He became king with the help of the Pergamene monarch.

History also does not identify him to “cause deceit to succeed” (8:25), any more than other Greek kings.

He was not greater than all his predecessors (7:20), which included Alexander the Great. His father lost major battles against the Romans. Consequently, he grew up as a hostage in Rome, and his whole life he was subject to increasing Roman ascendancy.

He did not start small (7:8; 8:9), later to expand exceedingly great (8:9). Immediately after the death of his brother he was made king of the entire kingdom.

Neither did he expand his kingdom “toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” (8:9).

He was not a tyrant that opposed God and His saints as first principle. He ordered all peoples of his empire to abandon their particular customs, robbed temples of various gods and attacked Jerusalem because it revolted against his authority, not because it worshipped God.

He did not kill “the prince of the covenant”; identified by the links in Daniel 8 and 9 as Jesus Christ. Antiochus died 180 years before Jesus and had nothing to do with His death.

He did not appear on the scene 483 years after a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9).

He did not take away the “daily” and set up the “abomination of desolation” 30 days before he started to persecute the saints (12:11). Antiochus did it the other way round; the persecution commenced before the temple was desecra­ted.

Interpreting Antiochus as the predicted evil king, critics have no acceptable explanation for the differences between the times periods; the 2300 “evening morning”, the 3½ times and the 1290 and 1335 days.

Jesus said to the disciples that the 1290 days will start in the future (compare Mat 24:15 to Dan 12:11). The 1290 days therefore cannot relate to the time of Antiochus.

Antiochus IV did not “distribute plunder, booty and possessions among them” (11:24).

He did not “exalt and magnify himself above every god” (11:36). Neither could it be said that he had no regard for the gods of his fathers (11:37).

He also did not serve and promote a “strange god”, unknown to his fathers (11:38). To the contrary, he ordered all in his kingdom to serve his gods.

Critics may argue that Daniel describes Antiochus as more evil and as more powerful than what he really was because their second-century Jewish author was emotionally wrapped up in the destruction of everything that was sacred to the Jews, with a consequential loss of objectivity. However, if the predicted evil king 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:

    • His immediate predecessor was destroyed within few days.
    • He started small, with few supporters, but eventually became exceedingly great.
    • He appeared on the scene 483 years after a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.
    • He promoted a “strange god”, unknown to his fathers.

Daniel 11:2-19 correlates well with the history until the death of Antiochus III in verse 19 and there are many similarities between Antiochus and the predicted evil king, but Antiochus IV by no means exhausts the passage. Antiochus IV is not the complete fulfillment of Daniel’s predicted evil king. Antiochus IV is a type of the predicted evil king, but for the complete fulfillment of the prophecies, we must search for a later and much more powerful evil king. Daniel 11 may therefore be understood as two stories intertwined.  The text seems to describe the history up to and including Antiochus IV, but while discussing Antiochus IV it jumps to a future and worldwide evil king.

ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES

1. The metal man of Daniel 2 divides world history into six ages.
2. The four beasts of Daniel 7
3. Three possible interpretations of the little horn
4. To identify the fourth kingdom, compare Daniel 7 and 8.
5. Daniel correctly predicted HOW the Roman Empire will fall.
6. Daniel 8: The evil horn does not come out of a Greek horn.
7. Daniel 11’s Vile Person: Antiochus or Antichrist?
8. Antiochus IV does not fit the profile of Daniel’s Evil King.
9. Critical scholars attack Daniel to attack the Book of Revelation.