Samuel Whitefield – Why Antiochus is not Mentioned in the Book of Daniel

PDF: Samuel Whitefield – Why Antiochus is Not Mentioned in Daniel

Used under “fair use” from: http://samuelwhitefield.com/870/why-antiochus-is-not-mentioned-in-the-book-of-daniel

WHY ANTIOCHUS IS NOT MENTIONED IN DANIEL – SAMUEL WHITEFIELD

1. INTRODUCTION
   1. In order to properly understand Daniel 8 and Daniel 11, it is important to understand that Antiochus is never specifically referred to in either of these chapters even though many assume that he is. Rather than being either “a fulfillment” or “the fulfillment” of Daniel 8 and Daniel 11, Antiochus Ephinanes was only a prototype of the individual Daniel is referring to because there are similarities between what he did and what this evil individual will do.
      This is the premise of this article, which we will examine.  Pay attention to the difference between assertion and Scripture, between pretext and text.  Additionally be aware of certain statements which have some semblance of truth, but which do not carry out to what is being fully implied by them.  For instance, of course Antiochus is not expressly mentioned in the prophecies by “name”.  But, neither are any other characters in these prophecies.  He begins with his premise, yet this can only be arrived at through Scripture.  As we come to different conclusions, we will follow his development, and see if his development is sufficient, lacking, or simply short-coming.
   2. There is a difference from being a prototype due to similarities and being a fulfillment and it is important for us to understand that difference and therefore why Antiochus is not mentioned in Daniel. When we look at the text plainly we can see that, rather than describing the actions of Antiochus, Daniel is actually describing the specific activities of the individual generally known
      at the Antichrist.
      Again, the overall assertion is being asserted from a top-down emphasis here.  It may or may not be true, but the emphasis and assertion from the beginning could be an indication that too strong of a case is being made from the beginning, that will not then further be followed up by sufficient exegesis to make a sturdy case.  The assumption here is plain, however.  If Daniel is assumed, by liberal scholars who do not believe in predictive prophecy, to actually be written later (agreed by the writer here), then it stands to reason that the text (which is a predictive prophecy) must INDEED be written of Antiochus.  If the text is SO predictive that unbelievers attribute it to “after-the-fact”, you cannot then, in the same idea, conclude that it has nothing to do with Antiochus at all.  This makes, from the outset, the dissemination of this interpretation suspect.
   3. Even though a plain reading of Daniel excludes Antiochus from being the fulfillment of these two key chapters, Bible interpreters have often prematurely inserted Antiochus into Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 as a fulfillment, either in full or in part. This happens for two main reasons.
      Again, notice the pattern.  The premise, three times in a row, is discarded, before a single scripture is mentioned.  The intended conclusions is presented, enforced, and mandated, before any Scriptural foundation is ever presented.  We understand this to be the introduction, but no conclusion whatsoever can be derived.  This is not a development in the spirit of “Faith comes by hearing”.  It is, whether the facts are right or wrong, simply indoctrination to an ideology.  Plain and simple.
      1. Liberal scholars insert Antiochus into Daniel because of their belief that the book of Daniel was written either during or just after the conflict between Israel and Antiochus. Because they do not believe in predictive prophecy, they use Antiochus’ similarities to the Antichrist to demonstrate that the book of Daniel was written to encourage the Jews who experienced Antiochus’ rage. In their view, the difference between what Antiochus actually did and what the book of Daniel says the Antichrist will do amounts either to errors on the part of the author of the book of Daniel or the author using exaggerated language to encourage the Jews in their resistance of Antiochus. In short, they insert Antiochus into the text because they do not consider the Scriptures infallible and do not value predictive prophecy.
         Again, the problem is that the commentator is claiming on the one hand that the prophecies are so accurate that liberal (unbelieving) scholars attribute it to a historical writing rather than a prophetical one, yet then goes on to say that it cannot fit.  The answer will lie in the details.  The commentator claims “the difference” between the two.  This can be the only basis for the commentator’s claim.
      2. Unlike liberal scholars, conservative scholars generally hold to the idea that the Scriptures are infallible and place a high value on predictive prophecy. Because of their view of the Scripture and, in their zeal to prove the divine origin of predictive prophecy in the Bible, they use the similarity of some of Antiochus’ actions with the actions of the Antichrist to insert Antiochus into the text. They do this to prove that the book of Daniel is divinely inspired. While their motive is good, their interpretation ultimately undermines the book of Daniel because they are forced to ignore the fact that Antiochus clearly did not fulfill many of the key statements of Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 in order to advance their argument that Daniel correctly predicted history. Though they insert Antiochus into these passages in a genuine desire to be faithful to Scripture and to validate the prophetic witness, they ultimately obscure the point that God is emphasizing in the book of Daniel.
         The crux of the matter then, lies in this claim:  “Antiochus clearly did not fulfill many of the key statements of Daniel 8 and Daniel 11“.  This is the entirety of the basis of his claim.  It is agreed that Antiochus must fulfill this in order to fit the prophecy.  However, simply claiming the high ground of a right interpretation of Scripture is not the same as demonstrating the “clearly” from the statement above.  All else, at this point, short of demonstrating the key points which are “clearly” not in fulfillment, is, frankly, rhetoric.
   4. Ultimately both interpretations of Daniel that insert Antiochus into the text end up robbing God of the full glory of predictive prophecy and end up deemphasizing the primary message that Daniel is emphasizing in these two chapters.
      This is the key example.  This is not debated, and is simply repeating what is agreed upon if one takes a high-view of the text.  It makes the case of the commenator look better, without actually presenting that case.  Nothing of the next four statements has meaning outside of that.We are of the belief that “faith comes by hearing”.  Without a context for these statements, as in, specific examples of unfulfilment, these next four points are meaningless.  We agree with them on principle, as all should, but without an actual example, they don’t yet apply to anything.  They simply serve to up the wall of separation and raise the stakes, without even looking at the Word.
      1. God has staked His glory and honor, not on partially predicting the nature of the reign of Antiochus a few hundred years after Daniel, but on predicting in great detail precise events that occur thousands of years after the author first recorded them – events that are significant to God because they are significant to the finishing of His plan in this age. The predictions given to Daniel are going to be for His great glory at the end of the age and is precisely why He tells Daniel that what he has been given is to be sealed up until the end.
         9And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. (Daniel 12:9 NKJV)
      2. Not only does the insertion of Antiochus into the text rob God of the full glory of prophecy, it as serves to deemphasize the precise thing that God is emphasizing in Daniel. These two chapters were given to Daniel because God wants to emphasize the nature and life of the Antichrist. God considers this individual and what he will do important that he wants to give the church understanding of this dreadful and terrible individual before he takes the stage of history. Given the fact that He did not do this for Hitler or Stalin tells us just how terrible a man the Antichrist is and just how disastrous his reign will be.
      3. When we insert Antiochus into the text, and consider the text partially fulfilled we end up believing that something incredibly significant is part of the past when it is instead part of the future and this leaves the church unprepared. As dreadful as Antiochus was, there is a reason that Daniel was so undone at his revelation and when we think it refers, even in part, to events that are already past it makes it harder for us to feel what Daniel felt and what God intends us to feel about this revelation (Daniel 7:15, 19-20, 28; 8:27, 12:8).
         27And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days; afterward I arose and went about the king’s business. I was astonished by the vision, but no one understood it. (Daniel 8:27 NKJV).
         Anecdoctal outcomes must be based on the text.  Demonstrate the case first, and then describe the outcome.  At least, that is our preference.
      4. All of this is why Antiochus is not mentioned in Daniel. God is aiming for something future and far more glorious for the book of Daniel. It will both demonstrate the glory of God in prophecy far beyond anything we have considered and also be one of God’s tools for preparing the church for the final conflict of the age.
   5. Once we understand why Antiochus is often inserted into Daniel by commentators and why it is so critical that we are faithful to the text, it is important to briefly look at both of these chapters so that we can see why Antiochus is not the individual Daniel is referring to.
2. DANIEL 8  Here we should begin to see an exegesis of the failures of Daniel 8 to fulfill the prophecy.  However, as we will see, this section does anything but that.  I relies on a set of flimsy, easily defeated arguments, none of wihch establish the key premise that Antiochus did not fulfill these.
   
   1. Daniel 8 introduces the Antichrist as one who would begin as a “little horn.” A little horn is a ruler who initially appears insignificant because he rules a relatively insignificant area or people.
      9And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. (Daniel 8:9 NKJV)
      The “little horn” argument is popular with the sourcing organization of this commentator.  It is using a concensus building technique, relying on an already established argument, one that has already been presented, even if poorly, and attempting to build a good looking argument based on a pre-existing thought within the audience.  But, because the source argument is faulty, the claims of the entire argument are as faulty as it.  As confident as you make your claim, the veracity of your conclusions are based solely upon the arguments therein.
   2. This is the same way that Daniel 7 introduces the Antichrist.
      8I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words. (Daniel 7:8 NKJV)
   3. Because Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 introduce this individual in the same way, it tells us that the “little horn” of Daniel 7 and 8 are the same individual. This means you cannot interpret Daniel 8:9 as referring to Antiochus unless you also interpret Daniel 7:8 as Antiochus.
      This is easily and directly disproven.  It may be popular among the source organization’s participants, but there is little to no substance to it.  First, a cursory glance at Daniel 7 shows the “little horn” in the fourth beast.  In Daniel 8, it is clearly in the third.  Not only does this glaring difference go without comment (because it is really appealing to someone else’s argument), it is further without merit.  The claim is simply that the word “little” is sufficient to identify these two beasts as the same individual.  But, the assertion is wrong.  “little” is an insufficient adjective to uniquely identify anything. It is a common identifier, and on its own, it is insufficient to draw a water-tight case that these two individuals must be the same.  No honest scholarship would agree with this, outside of an organization that necessitates this interpretation.
   4. Because Daniel is so clear that the Antichrist begins as a “little horn” it is crucial to recognize that Antiochus was never a “little horn.” This simple fact is often completely overlooked by commentators.
      This case deals 100% with a seemingly intentional broken interpretation of “little”.  What does the symbol of a horn mean?  According to numerous footnotes in the NIV Bible, horns symbolize either strength or a ruler.  Throughout the Psalms and other places, this symbol repeatedly describes either of these, or, by combination, the “strength of a leader”.  The inherent claim here is that Antiochus never had a small empire.  While this is, of course, true, the size of the horn indicates his strength, effectiveness, and leadership as a leader.  The size of the beast to which the individual is attached to is the size of his empire.  But, the size of the horn indicates only his “leadership strength”.  Again, this glaring oversight and misinterpretation, at this point, seems almost intentional on the part of the commentator’s organization at this point.  May the Lord grant that we all are stripped of our blinders and “pet doctrines” which have little or nothing to do with what was written.
      1. Because the individual of Daniel 7 and 8 is first identified by a key characteristic that was never true of Antiochus, it not only precludes Antiochus as the ultimate fulfillment, it also precludes him even as a double fulfillment. Some prophecies are said to have a “double fulfillment,” because they begin with language that is true of a contemporary situation, but then also include language that expands the prophecy to a larger, future fulfillment as well.
         He does not elaborate here that Antiochus is was never a ‘little horn’, in his opinion, he merely builds the case on it.  But, to demonstrate his leadership, a brief history of his leadership and prominence is given.  He was a prisoner and became a hostage of the Roman Republic in 188BC.  His older brother took the throne first, and Antiochus was exchanged as a hostage for his nephew.  His brother was assasinated by someone else, and Antiochus ousted the assassin.  Antiochus was not the rightful heir to the throne, so he seized power with the help king Eumenes II of Pergamum.  He proclaimed himself as co-regent with another of the sons of his brother, an infant named Antiochus, whom he later murdered.   These acts are not those of decisive, strong leadership.  He might have become more powerful in his command, but he was certainly not demonstrating strength when he came to power.  While perhaps not by the unduly narrow definition of “little” by that of the commentator, Antiochus was clearly of “little import” in leadership matters, until he finally became the full ruler.  Perhaps this is why so many commentators do not spend much time on the “fulfillment” of Anitochus as a “little horn”, because he was?
      2. It is important that see that Daniel’s prophecy of the Antichrist prophecy is not that type of prophecy. When Daniel describes this individual, he does not begin by describing Antiochus as a historical figure and then enlarging his language to also include a final fulfillment in the Antichrist. In Daniel 8, and Daniel 11, He begins to describe the Antichrist with a description that Antiochus could never fulfill.
         Again, the commentator has based his entire argument in Daniel 8 thus far on the singular notion that Antiochus could not have been the Daniel 8 fulfillment because he was not “little”, in his narrow interpretation.
   5. Not only was Antiochus never a “little horn” he never did the very specific things that the little horn of Daniel 7 must do. He did not rise up as a small ruler among 10 other kings, nor did he depose 3 kings of a 10 king confederation to ultimately rule over 10 kings before whom he initially seemed insignificant.
      This is, of course, backwards logic.  He has already equated the Daniel 7:8 and Daniel 8:9 “little horns” in his exegesis, without establishing the cause.  He now, in rebuttal of Daniel 8, cites Daniel 7’s horn with the failure of fulfillment of Antiochus.  Not only that, he imposes his “end-result” interpretation on the nature and circumstances of Daniel 7.  Be it agreed, Daniel 7:8 is NOT talking about Antiochus, because Daniel 8:9 IS talking about him, and they are NOT the same person.  Be it also agreed that Antiochus did NOT fulfill Daniel 7, because Antiochus was the “little horn” of the THIRD KINGDOM, and Daniel 7:8 is, without a doubt, speaking of the fourth.  Reversals like this are confusing to the listener, and attempt to build a case that isn’t there.  Establish, further, that “little” is a specific enough indicator to equate Daniel 7:8 and Daniel 8:9.  Clearly, you cannot use the word “horn”, because there are 10 of those in Daniel 7 and more in Daniel 8.  So, if the only adjective you have to use is an adjective like “little”, and the text has already applied them to different beasts, your case is non-existent.
   6. Not only does Daniel 8 introduce the Antichrist using language that never applied to Antiochus, he continues to describe his activities in language that cannot be applied to Antiochus.
      He simply continues to use an un-proved premise.  These are not “key elements” left “unfulfilled” of the prophecy.  This is one pet idea, unconfirmed and even contradicted in the text, exalted to establish doctrine.  This is not exegesis, this is a wet-blanket thrown over the head.
      1. The Antichrist exalts Himself as high as the Prince of the host. Most conservative commentators take this as a reference to Messiah. However, Messiah did not appear before Antiochus, nor did Antiochus make Messianic claims. Therefore it was impossible for him to exalt himself as high as Messiah.
         11He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host… (Daniel 8:11a NKJV)
         He ruled over the Jews, and set himself up as “god manifest” (epiphanes was the title he gave himself).  Either of these would suffice for the fulfillment.
      2. We are also told that Antichrist will trample down the sanctuary (temple).
         11…and the place of His [Messiah’s] sanctuary was cast down. (Daniel 8:11b NKJV)
         Antiochus clearly defiled the temple–even the Jews agree with that.  But, the editorial insertion of “Messiah” here is misleading.  The KJV simply says the sancturary was cast down, which it was.  Alternatively, the NIV indicates the Lord as the antecedent.  While the NASB is more ambiguous as to who it is referring to, it is still talking about the same temple.  The place of the sancturary was cast down.  Not destroyed, but spirally defiled.
         13Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?” (Daniel 8:13 NKJV)
         1. Daniel is told that a transgression will happen that leads to desolation. That desolation clearly applies to the temple which is why the sanctuary is cast down and trampled underfoot.
            And, this is why the book so of Maccabees indicate Antiochus’ defilement of the altar of sacrifice as the abomination of desolation.
         2. The language of “cast down,” “trampled underfoot,” and “desolation” is clearly interpreted for us in Daniel. In Daniel 8:7 Daniel saw a vision of the goat casting down and trampling underfoot the ram. That picture helps interpret the prophecy Daniel is given just a few verses later. Just as the goat violently cast down and trampled underfoot the ram, so too the Antichrist will cast down and trample underfoot the sanctuary.
            If one wants to use that reference, one has to be consistent.  What happened when the Goat cast the Ram down?  Did it destroy all the cities and kill all the people?  No, it subjegated them.  In the same way, Antiochus subjugated the temple and Jerusalem to his rules, his laws, and his defilements.  But, “casting down and trampling” are only two parts.  This does not define “desolation”, which is another condition, as the commentator suggests.  They are two separate incidents.
         3. He is also told there will be a “transgression of desolation.” In other words the Antichrist will perform a transgression or abomination that will cause desolation. Again, Daniel interprets desolation for us in Daniel 9 where desolation is used to describe the condition of the temple after the Babylonian invasion.
            This is false.  Presumably, the commentator is referring to Daniel 9:2, and the “desolation” of Jerusalem.  But, no where in the entire Scripture does it describe an “abomination” leading up to that “desolation”.  They are simply separate.  Furthermore, the sin or abomination itself is not the desolation.  While you can use other instances of the word ‘desolation’ from the Scripture to get an understanding of what could be implied, the desolation and the sin are two separate things.  The plain fact is, Antiochus defiling the temple, with the culmination of him setting up a statue of Zeus and sacrificing pigs, was the abomination of desolation of that era.  It did bring desolation, even as described, albeit the temple was later cleansed.
         4. The individual being described in Daniel 8 must trample and bring desolation to the sanctuary. This is something that Antiochus never did. He defiled the temple, but did not make it desolate. Defiling the sanctuary is very different from trampling it down and causing desolation.
            This is, again, by his own very narrow interpretation of what, how, and when that desolating abomination must look like.  Yet, right in the text, it says the sanctuary is reconsecrated within a certain time-frame, and so it can never look like the 70 years of Jerusalem.  It can never look like buildings destroyed.  The strong desire of the commentator to disprove does not establish necessary grounds to dismiss Antiochus and his reign.  He is grasping at straws, and knows it.  These are the grounds for theories, suppositions, not “proof”.
      3. Daniel’s summary of the Antichrist’s reign of terror also does not apply to Antiochus.
         24His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; He shall destroy fearfully, And shall prosper and thrive; He shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people. (Daniel 8:24 NKJV)
         1. We are told the Antichrist will be mighty, but not by his own power. Antiochus’ strength was entirely his own. He took the family throne and sought to build an empire as its king.
            Again, the argument is not there.  There are simply too many things in the life of Antiochus that show that this could either be fulfilled by other powers in his life, or that he was empowered by some spiritual evil.
         2. We are also told that the king of Daniel 8 will also destroy mighty leaders and the holy people. While Antiochus persecuted the “holy people” fiercely, he did not destroy mighty and powerful leaders. He had a constant struggle with the Ptolemaic kingdom, backed down when threatened by Rome, and was ultimately challenged by the Parthians. He did not prosper and thrive against the mighty or “destroy them fearfully” in his failed attempt to build an empire.
            Again, not true.  Whether the “mighty” refers to separate individuals, or is another descriptor of the Jews as some translations appear to present, this is what Antiochus did.  The issue is that most commentators have no issue with the fulfillment of these by Antiochus.  These are not “clearly unfulfilled” portions of the text, but only constructs made for the defeat of seeing Antiochus in them.
      4. Daniel also indicates that the Antichrist must actually challenge the “Prince of princes” and the tone of this prediction is that he will challenge Messiah in battle. Of course, Antiochus did not even have the opportunity to challenge Messiah with his military. When the Antichrist challenges the “Prince of princes” we also find that he will be broken without human means indicating that his death is a supernatural event where God directly intervenes. This also does not apply to Antiochus. Antiochus ultimately died after defending himself against a Parthian invasion. He did not die through a unique divine intervention due to the fact that he directly challenged the “Prince of princes.”
         25″Through his cunning He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule; And he shall exalt himself in his heart. He shall destroy many in their prosperity. He shall even rise against the Prince of princes; But he shall be broken without human means. (Daniel 8:25 NKJV)
         The interpretation of the phrase “Prince of princes” to be the “Messiah” is by no means a given.  I’m sure it is popular among those who wish this to be a future prophecy, or dual fulfillment, but even those who see a dual see what Antiochus did to be it “as well”.  The interpretation has not bothered other commentators. But, it is the last point that is the most  clear.  The text says “without human means”.  No where is the extension of “divine means” indicated, even in the commentator’s version of the passage.  Antiochus died of disease, plain and simple.  This is what the passage means.
         But, this demonstrates the basic premise at work.  The plain language is extended with interpretation beyond what the simple text says.  It is corralled into a narrow meaning of interpretation that is specific to the interpreter’s own prejudice (their pre-judgment of what the text should say), and any explanation that does not fit their pre-determined end is not accepted.
         It is fully agreed that Antiochus did not do all the things that the commentator says the text should do, based on his narrow and additive interpretation of the text.  Yet, but a plain reading of what the text actually said, the text itself, the wide variety of commentators DO support that Antiochus did, in fact, fulfill all of these points. 
   7. From looking at what Daniel 8 says about the Antichrist is becomes clear that Antiochus is not in view at all in this chapter. There is no doubt that Antiochus is one of the most brutal of “many antichrists” that have come (1 John 2:18), but he is clearly not the individual of Daniel 8. To be faithful to the text, we must interpret it the way we are intended to – as a sober warning about the
      man who must come at the end of the age. Once we see the futurity of this chapter and the implications of it both for the church and for Israel, we will respond to this vision in the same way that Daniel did:
      27And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days; afterward I arose and went about the king’s business. I was astonished by the vision, but no one understood it. (Daniel 8:27 NKJV)
      Absolutely not.  A few additions to the text based on an interpretation is not a disproof of anything.  It can be a theory, a working platform, but it is certainly not a disproof of anything.  The fact that this is clearly the third kingdom, and not the fourth should be sufficient here.  This is speaking of Greece, in the interpretation of the passage.  Antiochus does fit, and is the only one who can fit.  Beyond being the fit, there is also no reason to see any future fulfillment of Daniel 8 in the passage.
      Anitochus was the little horn of Daniel 8, as many commentators agree, and the commentator here has done nothing at all, really, other than attempt to narrowly define certain of the terms to disqualify him.
3. DANIEL 11
   1. Daniel 11 introduces a “vile person” in Daniel 11:21, and when we consider the description of this individual, his rise to power, and the things he does we can see that Daniel is not talking about Antiochus.
      21And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue. (Daniel 11:21 NKJV)
      From the get go, we see Daniel 11:21-32 as depicting Antiochus, after which it then goes on to describe other rulers later in time.
   2. Because Daniel 11:2-20 describes events that occurred in antiquity and set the stage for the Seleucid Empire in the 2nd century BC, many have assumed that Antiochus is the individual highlighted in verse 20. However, this part of Daniel 11 serves two very important purposes – neither of which require the individual of verse 21 to be Antiochus.
      Actually, the correct interpretation (as developed elsewhere) leaves only Antiochus here.  Counting empires, we see that the second empire is where this prophecy starts.  It goes onto Greece, the third empire, and the four parts of that empire after Alexander the Great. The key phrase is in v4, where they are spread out to the “four compass points” (NASB).  This gives the identity, therefore, of the Kings of the North, South, East, and West to be historical Greece, and none other.  The end of ancient Greece mark the end of these thrones, and is depicted in the battle of Actium in Daniel 11:40-43.  Caesar Augustus, the first emperor of Rome begins the fourth empire in Daniel 11:36, “he must prosper until the time of indignation is complete”, indicating that this is the beginning of the fourth emprire which must continue until this time is done.
      Antiochus is the one that fits, the only one that fits, and there is no space for dual fulfillment here, as it must be part of the third kingdom, not the fourth.
      1. First it emphasizes the divine nature of predictive prophecy. Daniel was given very intricate details of things that would happen within a few centuries of his death. These details serve as God’s divine stamp of authentication on the book of Daniel. God predicted things that would happen shortly after the book was written to emphasize that, just as the historical details given were fulfilled in great detail, so also the prophecies relating to the end would be fulfilled in the exact same precision. God put His endorsement on the book of Daniel so soon after it was composed so that it would be taken seriously in every detail. This is one reason why it is so important to be true to the text of Daniel and realize just how many of the details in Daniel 11:21-45 do not match the reign of Antiochus.
         This doesn’t change the fact that the events of Daniel 11:21ff can only be fulfilled in the context of v1-20.
      2. Secondly, by emphasizing events that related to the ancient Seleucid Empire, God is emphasizing this geographic region and its significance to the rise of the “little horn” of Daniel 8:9 and the “vile person” of Daniel 11:21. Daniel 11:2-20 connects the narrative of Daniel 11 to the prediction of Daniel 8:23 that says the Antichrist will arise in the “latter time” of the Greek or Seleucid Empire. Daniel 8 and 11 both emphasize that this region plays a significant part in the rise of the Antichrist’s empire. Daniel 8:23 indicates a break in the storyline after the Greek Empire but before the rise of the Antichrist and Daniel 11:21 follows the same pattern. This is the same sequence of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 where the Antichrist empire is predicted as the fourth kingdom after the kingdom of Greece.
         On the contrary, by saying that the kings of Greece would be divided to the four compass points, God stated that the Kings of the North, South, East, and West refer to the rulers of Ancient Greece, which was conquered and overtaken by Rome in 29 BC.  The fact that Daniel 11:36-43 so clearly depict the takeover of Greece by Rome’s first emperor, Octavius at the time, later Emperor Augustus, shows that the fulfillment of these events (v21-32) lies only and completely the third empire, Greece.
         As Daniel 8 showed the transition from the Ram to the Goat, which was from Media-Peria to the empire of Greece, and was the transition from the 2nd to the third empire.  So, Daniel 11 begins in the 2nd empire, and emphasizes the transition between the 3rd and the 4th, while giving details of both.
         These are the same four parts of the statue of Daniel 2 and the same four beasts of Daniel 7.  The simple key to understanding which is which is found in the simple counting.  These beasts, which are four…  Daniel 7 communicates.  There are exactly four beasts empires depicted throughout the book.  The book, in a very simple and progressive manner, details each, as well as the transition from one to the next, throughout the visions and revelations of this book.
         The simplest way to read the book, then, is to see which kingdom you are looking at, first, second, third, or fourth, and begin your interpretation from that point, and no other place.
   3. It is important to notice that the same individual is in view from Daniel 11:21-45 and that there is a consistent sequence of specific events. In this section, Daniel records these events sequentially never hinting at a transition to a different or broader narrative. It is not a limited prophecy that suddenly takes on a larger scope, it is one consistent prophecy focusing on the actions of one specific individual. This means the individual that begins this section must also finish it and Antiochus’ reign falls short of fulfilling the events described in this passage.
      Unfortunately for the commenator, this is absolutely untrue.  Just as he attempted to use the argument that God is interested in the Geographical regions (which is only partly true), God is interested in the thrones of these individuals.  Just as the individual identity of the kings of the North, South, East, and West changes without a word, without a notice, covering hundreds of years without so much as informing us, so, clearly, the passage switches context both to and from Antiochus without explanation.  It is interested in the seats of power, the rulership positions, and does not always focus on the individual for more than a brief moment.
      After the text has concluded its discussion of Antiochus, there is a brief interlude (Daniel 11:33-35), but then it immediately changes the individual identity of these kings in history, and fast forwards to the roles of these thrones at a later date, namely, the transition to Rome.
      The king of the North beginning in v36 is Marc Antony, and the king of the South is Cleopatra in Egypt.
   4. It is also important to notice carefully how this individual emerges on the scene of history.
      21And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue. (Daniel 11:21 NKJV)
      Again, review the history of Antiochus above, or look it up on your own.  The statements of the commentator are false.
      
      1. First we are told a vile person will arise who will not be given the honor of royalty. This cannot refer to Antiochus because he was always given the honor of royalty. Even when imprisoned in Rome, he was in prison specifically because he was royalty and when he came to take the empire he was given the honor of royalty even beyond his birth position as he took command of an empire that should have gone to his brother’s son. In contrast, the prediction of Daniel 11:21 is a parallel to the description of Daniel 7:8 and Daniel 8:9 that calls the Antichrist a “little horn” or someone who initially appears insignificant. In Daniel 11 we find that he is such a “little horn” that he’s not initially given the “honor of royalty.” This indicates that the Antichrist somehow emerges outside of the ruling class. Here again, just as “little horn” does not describe Antiochus, neither does being not being given the honor of royalty.
         Absolutely not.  He even had to rule with an infant once he finally worked things out.  He was a hostage because he was related to the king, not because he was one.  And, even then, they wouldn’t give him the kingdom until he reigned with the more legitimate baby, finally taking it himself.
      2. Secondly we are told that this person will come in peaceably (“in a time of tranquility” NASB) to seize the kingdom by intrigue. This shows a similarity to the way the Antichrist is described in Daniel 8:25 as securing his rule by cunning and deceit. However, this does not describe the way Antiochus took the kingdom. Antiochus took the kingdom by force. He was given an army by the king of Pergamum and used that army to take the kingdom by force from the usurper Heliodorus. While there could be some “intrigue” in the way that Antiochus was possibly responsible for the murder of his younger nephew who was the rightful heir to the throne, he did not come in or take the kingdom peaceably by intrigue.
         Again, see above.  This is an overly narrow interpretive context, we believe, for the sole purpose of attempting to prove the premise.  This is a logical fallacy, because they construct an interpretation that he cannot fulfill for the purpose of excluding him.  It certainly isn’t honest, simple exegesis.
   5. When we examine carefully what Daniel 11 says, we see, just as in Daniel 8, that Antiochus is not actually the individual in view. Not only is Antiochus not the primary character, we find that the prophecy does not even begin with Antiochus. It consistently describes the actions of one individual. Neither Daniel 8 nor Daniel 11 begin with a narrow focus and then expand to a larger
      interpretation. Both contain a consistent storyline.
      Actually, what we find is that ONLY Antiochus can fulfill them, as being part of the third kingdom, and that Antiochus does fit the text perfectly well when rightly interpreted.  Simply adding your own interpretation and then saying he doesn’t fit that is not the same as saying he doesn’t fit the text.  It is at least once removed.
4. JESUS’ INTERPRETATION OF DANIEL
   1. Besides the evidence in the text of Daniel, we also have to consider how Jesus interpreted the book of Daniel because He is, obviously, the foremost interpreter of the book of Daniel. In Matthew 24, Jesus gave us His interpretation of the events of Daniel 8 and Daniel 11.
      15″Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), (Matthew 24:15 NKJV)
      This is an interesting condition.  Either Jesus was speaking of “dual fulfillment”, or something else is going on.  Unfortunately, for the Jews, the identity of the “abomination of desolation” lies squarely on Antiochus (see the non-authoritative books of Macabees where they identify this).
      It is our interpretation that both the abomination of Daniel 8 & 11 point to the Antiochus abomination, and the one Jesus spoke of is the one found in Daniel 12.  The first is followed by the rededication of the temple, the second, the destruction of the Jewish people.  Regardless, the understanding in Jesus’ day most certainly would have been Antiochus, and Jesus does not challenge this at all.  In fact, He simply mentions it and moves on.
   2. Jesus highlighted the abomination of desolation, which is a central event in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 and He placed it in the future. In doing that, He excluded Antiochus as a fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies because Antiochus had been dead for well over 150 years when Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 24. That alone should be enough to settle the issue because, as we have mentioned, each of these two chapters have one consistent story and has one specific individual in mind throughout the prophecy. The language in either chapter does not dramatically change in the middle of either chapter hinting at the possibility of a two-stage fulfillment, instead the language consistently tells the story of one man and, according to Jesus, the activity of that man would occur after the first century AD.
      The two possibilities of this not covered by the commentator are dual fulfillment and dual abominations.  Of course, the first is more common, and the second less, but by the first alone most interpret the passage.  While we can’t be sure why the commentator does not allow these, it appears he rules them out simply for the strengthening of his own case.  Again, this is not proper logical development of the text.  It is mere pretext, disguising itself as scholarship.
      These are not largely unknown interpretations that are widely accepted.  It is understandable if the commentator wishes to have narrower understandings of the text on particular pharses, but it does not necessitate their interpretation thus.  Nor, does it rule out glaring contradictions of placing the abomination of Daniel 8 & 11 into the fourth kingdom, instead of the third.
      Instead, we are led only to blindly conclude that these interpretive peculiarities are more normalizing than the flat reading of the text itself.  That the “desolating abomination” must look like Jerusalem vacant for 70 years, despite it being reconsecrated some number of days following.  That “little” is so normalized that it is sufficient for the determination of which horn is which, in the scope of numerous horns.  Despite, again, them belonging to separate beasts altogether.
5. CONCLUSION
   1. If Antiochus is not the individual that God is focusing on in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11, how does he relate to the book of Daniel? Antiochus’ attitudes and behaviors are remarkably similar to the individual in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 even if he did not fulfill the prophecies in these chapters. This similarity is not a mere coincidence. While we must be faithful to what Daniel actually says,
      we must also be aware of how Antiochus serves as a prototype and a foreshadowing of the terrible man of Daniel 8 and Daniel 11. God wants us to see a picture of what this terrible man will be like and we see it in the person of Antiochus while understanding that the prophesies of Daniel 8 and 11 refer to another man even more terrible than Antiochus. This man will do things Antiochus never did – the things recorded in the book of Daniel.
      The plain fact of the matter is that the development proves nothing.  Even the definition of ‘desolate’ doesn’t fit the model of what Greece did to Media-Persia (the Ram and the Goat), so it is self-defeating.
      The basic premise of the article is that Antiochus did not fulfill key elements of the prophecy.   While he may not have fit their interpretation, a great number believe that Antiochus did fulfill what was written in the book.
   2. When we understand the focus of Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 it becomes apparent that God has invested a lot in prophecies about the Antichrist. He had Daniel write down specific events and introduce each prophecy specifically so that we would realize that God was emphasizing a specific individual that would come at the end and not an individual in ancient history.
      Again, this is using the point to prove itself.  Having not established this, it is building the theory based on itself, rather than on the merits of the book.
   3. Daniel illustrates the dramatic power of prophecy. Though it contains some prophecies that have been fulfilled in exact detail, the majority of the book awaits future fulfillment. When the details predicted within the book of Daniel come to pass in the future, it will be a shocking display of the power of prophecy and that is why we must remain in the tension of staying faithful to Daniel’s prophecies until they are fulfilled. God gave specific details and we will not have to guess as to whether the events are fulfilled. It will happen just as Daniel predicted it would. Understanding the futurity of Daniel’s predictions is important both for the church and the world.
      Unfortunately, some need their interpretation to be true, too much to consider alternatives.
      1. We must hold to the futurity of these passages because God gave them for the church to be equipped for what will come. When we take what God has assigned to the future and assign it to the past, we disregard a key message God has given to the church.
         We must hold the passages themselves.  And, as they are fulfilled historically, and could not be fulfilled any other way (they must be part of Ancient Greece, and none other), we must agree with Scripture which says these are fulfilled, not to be fulfilled directly again.
      2. When we do not maintain the futurity of these passages we also fail to emphasize something that God has planned as part of His witness to the earth. God has, in large part, determined that fulfilled prophecy will be His primary apologetic for the Scriptures in the last days. When we do not emphasize the futurity and the literalness of Daniel’s predictions, we are failing to hold before the earth God’s primary apologetic for Scripture.
         God’s primary appologetic for Scripture is Scripture.  The simple case is, the prophecies were fulfilled literally, as written, not as how we imagined they should have been fulfilled.  This is more a culturing people to be afraid to look at what the text says, by using fear and shame tactics to bring people into a bondage to one’s interpretive framework, rather than to faith in God’s word itself.
   4. Like Daniel we are called to tremble before the record of what is recorded for us. The fact that Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 describe a fully future reign of a wicked man should cause our hearts to tremble. The wickedness of this man has not been enacted in ancient history – it remains for the church in the future. It is our portion to understand this, prepare the church for it, and warn the nations of it. This is why Antiochus is not mentioned in the book of Daniel – this task is still ahead of us.
   5. God does not want us trying to determine which parts of Daniel’s prophecy relate to ancient history and which relate to the future and, in that confusion, failing to understand a clear warning He gave of what is in front of us. This is why He left us with a clear record of future trouble. The fact that Antiochus was a prototype of the Antichrist and yet fell so far short of fulfilling any of Daniel’s prophecies should emphasize just how terrible this coming man is. God went to great lengths to make sure we would not think the prophecy was fulfilled in Antiochus. A man more dreadful than Antiochus will emerge and he will fulfill what Daniel wrote concerning him in every detail. We must prepare the nations for his brief reign of terror.
      The crux of this article, the real intent, appears to be shown here:  “God doesn’t want us trying to find a historical context for Daniel”.  That is a perversion of teaching into blind indoctrination, and is the essence of unspiritual indoctrination.
      God wants us to hear His Word, and believe it.  God wants us to know His Word.  God is not threatened by us inquiring as to whether these things are historically fulfilled or not.  God would rather us familiarize ourselves with them through a search, than to spend our time reading them once and blindly going along without understanding.
      The wisdom from above is easily entreated.   Statements like this are designed to deter people from honestly searching.  Our conclusion should be based on what the Word of God says, a fair interpretation of it, and an honest look at history.  The conclusion of futuricity should be a combination of these, plus prayer and revelation, so that we can conclude on the basis of faith, not human wisdom, that these are so.
      Our conclusion is that Antiochus does fit all of these criteria, and all those of these passages.  We agree with a wide scope of interpreters that Antiochus does fulfilly fit Daniel 8 as well as much of Daniel 11 up through v35.  After study, we conclude that the “little” is not a specific enough adjective to require equivocation between Daniel 7 and Daniel 8, as required by the commentator.  And, we do not believe God is put out by honest inquiry into the subject of prophecy by anyone who is looking to understand.
      The basic premise throughout the whole article was that Antiochus clearly did not fulfill these things.  On the contrary, we find that he likely did, and certainly, one cannot rule out the case, at least not on the basis of what was presented here.