Segment 4 - Daniel 8
The Antichrist
____________________

page l 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l 5 l 6 l 7 l

The History of Antiochus IV

A brief history of Antiochus IV may be helpful because millions of people believe Antiochus IV is a fulfillment of the horn power in Daniel 8. Let us closely examine the logic that produces this conclusion.

1. The Bible says the goat in Daniel 8 represents Grecia.

2. The Bible says the great horn represents the first king of Grecia, Alexander the Great.

3. The Bible says the four horns represent the four generals that gained control of Alexander’s empire.

4. One of the four generals was Seleucus. He was the first in a long line of succeeding kings.

5. Just before the Grecian empire fell to Rome, Antiochus IV came to power as the king of Syria (175-164 B.C.). After his father, Antiochus the Great, died, the Romans, who controlled the Middle East at this time, allowed Antiochus IV to become the eighth king in a line of kings whose lineage dates back to Seleucus. Antiochus IV exalted himself by adding “Epiphany” to his name. An epiphany is “a great manifestation of God.” The Romans mocked the pompous little king by calling him Antiochus Epimanes IV. Epimanes sounds similar to Epiphany, but it means “mad man.”

6. About 168 B.C. Antiochus sent his army to Egypt to steal some wealth. He desperately needed to replenish his empty treasury. Antiochus had squandered the assets of his kingdom on foolish endeavors and Syria was near the point of bankruptcy. He defeated the cowardly Ptolemee, king of Egypt, but Rome sent an envoy to inform Antiochus IV that he could not rule over Egypt. Antiochus knew that any sign of rebellion against Rome was fatal. Thwarted and humiliated, but happy with the loot he had stolen, he returned home.

7. Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, the high priest, Jason, had initiated a rebellion against the rigid control of conservative Jews. He wanted to adopt some of the more liberal Hellenistic ways of the Greeks and build a Greek gymnasium where nude bodybuilding and sensual exercises could be conducted. While this conflict was unfolding, Menelaus, a wealthy Jew, offered Antiochus IV a large bribe if he would send soldiers to overthrow Jerusalem’s leadership and appoint Menelaus as high priest. This bribe gave Antiochus a “golden” opportunity to quell Jason’s rebellion and plunder the Jewish temple of its gold and silver. Gold and silver from the Jewish temple would help replenish his ever-empty treasury.

8. Antiochus loved the decadent and sensual ways of the Greeks. When the king arrived in Jerusalem, he showed contempt for the conservative Jews by erecting a statue of the Greek god, Zeus, on the Altar of Burnt Offering on Chislev 15, 167 B.C. Ten days later, on Chislev 25, Antiochus ended daily services (including the daily sacrifices) at the temple when he offered a pig (or some unclean animal) on the Altar of Burnt Offering. This abominable act led to a series of wars between Antiochus forces and conservative Jews. This series of wars became known as the Maccabean revolt because a conservative priest, Judas Maccabeus, led the Jews against the forces of Antiochus IV.

9. A year or so later, Antiochus ran out of money again. This time he decided to raid portions of Persia to finance his excessive spending habits. Therefore, he turned his management of his kingdom over to his friend, Lysais, instructing him to destroy the Jews and Jerusalem as quickly as possible. However, Judas Maccabeus and the Jews eventually defeated Lysais and his generals. The victory over Lysais did not end the wars between the Jews and their enemies. Three years after offering a pig on the altar, to the very day, on Chislev 25, 164 B.C., a new altar was installed and dedicated in the temple at Jerusalem and the daily services resumed. The Jews have celebrated the restoration of temple services on this day ever since. (See John 10:22,23) It is called Hanukkah, which means ‘the dedication.”

10. Meanwhile, in Persia, Antiochus IV experienced a number of sound defeats, and when he learned that the Jews had defeated Lysais and robbed him of his armament, Antiochus IV became heartsick. After a period of suffering from illness (perhaps from too much drinking), Antiochus uttered these words, “I perish through great grief in a strange land.” (1 Maccabees 6:13) After giving his close friend, Philip, his crown, robe, and signet, he gave instructions that he was to raise his son Antiochus V, to take his throne. Then, Antiochus IV died.

 What Is Wrong with the Antiochus Interpretation?

Because there are valid rules of interpretation, no prophecy stands alone. Daniel 8 is not isolated from the historical matrix that unfolds in the book of Daniel. Because there are so many variables in the study of prophecy, we have to follow a set of valid rules if we want to know the intended meaning of prophecy. If we do not follow a valid set of rules, the outcome will be a private interpretation. Even though a private interpretation may be exciting and very reasonable, and even though millions of people may accept it as truth, a private interpretation never produces God’s intended meaning in apocalyptic prophecy.

Because God sealed the book of Daniel until the time of the end, the intended meaning of Daniel’s visions could not be known until the time of the end arrives. (Daniel 12:4,9) When it comes to apocalyptic prophecy, there is one fulfillment of prophecy. There is one meaning and there is one time-line. Apocalyptic events do not occur more than once. Rule One prohibits multiple fulfillments because there is a beginning point in time and an ending point in time for each prophecy and the events within the prophecy occur in the order in which they are given. God’s foreknowledge is perfect. A fulfillment is the ful-filling of all that God has said would come to pass. If all of the specifications of a prophecy are not met in an interpretation, the student has two options: (a) ignore the specifications and accept an interpretation that merely sounds good, or (b) reject the interpretation because it does not satisfy all of the specifications. Given these two choices, let us compare some of the supporting arguments for Antiochus IV with Scripture:

1. Gabriel said, “It [the horn power] set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host [Jesus Christ]; it took away the daily sacrifice from him [Jesus Christ], and the place of his sanctuary was brought low.” (Daniel 8:11, insertions mine) History indicates that whatever Antiochus lacked in intelligence, he compensated with insolence and arrogance. No doubt, his ego was so delirious that he believed he was greater than the Prince of the host, Jesus Christ. Remember, Antiochus IV claimed to be an epiphany, but history reveals he was anything but an epiphany. Antiochus IV caused the daily services at the temple in Jerusalem to stop for a period of three years when he desecrated the Altar of Burnt Offering, but Antiochus was neither the first nor the last to defile the temple. Nebuchadnezzar (586 B.C.) and Titus (A.D. 70) did the same thing. Consider the specifications in the text. Verse 11 requires Antiochus IV to take the daily services away from Jesus Christ, the Prince of the host. Did Antiochus take away the daily away from the Jews or from the Prince of the host? The answer to this question is obvious. Antiochus took the daily away from “the Jews.” The daily ceased in Jerusalem for three years, but Antiochus did not take away the daily intercession of our High Priest in Heaven’s temple. (Hebrews 7:25-27) The termination of the daily in Heaven does not occur until the appointed time of the end arrives! (Daniel 12:11,12; Revelation 8:2-5)

2. Gabriel said, “The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power. In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue, will arise.” (Daniel 8:22,23) Many advocates of the Antiochus theory say these two verses describe Antiochus IV because he rose to power during the fading years of the Grecian empire. The Bible says, “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked…” People defending Antiochus IV claim “the latter part of their reign” applies to the final days of the four divisions of the Grecian empire because Antiochus IV came to power with Rome’s permission in 175 B.C. and Grecia fell about seven years later in 168 B.C. Does the phrase “the latter part of their reign” point to the final days of the Grecian empire or does it point to the reign of those kings who will be ruling at “the appointed time of the end?” Does the stern-faced king arise while Grecia is falling or at the end of the world? These pivotal questions need answers.

In an effort to give Antiochus every advantage to fulfill this prophecy, let us apply the phrase, “In the latter part of their reign…” to the last days of Grecia, so that Antiochus might be able to satisfy this specification. If we do this, the next phrase, “… when rebels have become completely wicked,” would have to apply to the rebels in Jerusalem who, like Jason and the renegade Jews, wanted to adopt the sensual ways of Antiochus IV and the Greeks.

            The next specification reveals: “… a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue will arise.” Historians say that Antiochus IV was a hoodlum, basically a leader of bandits, not a stern-faced king and a master of intrigue. History says he was a self-indulgent and temperamental nitwit. If he had not inherited the kingdom from his father, historians are confident that he would not have been able to build one.

Because Antiochus IV was inept as a king (remember, even the Romans called him a madman), advocates of Antiochus IV claim he was perhaps more stern- faced (as in pouting) than a master of evil manipulation. They claim that 

Antiochus IV has to be a fulfillment of the horn power at the end of the Grecian period and he caused the daily services in Jerusalem to cease for three years. This claim may sound convincing for people who have not examined Daniel 8, but obviously Antiochus could neither take the daily away from the Prince of the host (Jesus) nor did Antiochus live at the appointed time of the end.

3. Gabriel said, “He [the horn power] will become very strong, but not by his own power. He [will be empowered by God as a destroyer and he] will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men [who stand in opposition] and the holy people [the saints of God]. [Because he is an evil despot and totally lawless] He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior [above every god]. When they [the wicked] feel secure [with him], he will destroy many [of his own people] and take his stand against the Prince of Princes [Jesus Christ]. Yet he [this invincible and awesome being] will be destroyed, but not by human power.” (Daniel 8:24,25, insertions mine) Paul explains how Lucifer will be destroyed, “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.” (2 Thessalonians 2:8) These verses bring the Antiochus interpretation to an abrupt halt. Antiochus never became a strong king. He did not cause astounding devastation during his nine years on the throne. In fact, Antiochus had very few successes. We have to put Antiochus within the confines of historical perspective.  At best, he ruled over a tiny “state” kingdom with Rome’s permission. Did Antiochus cause deceit to prosper throughout the world more than any other pagan king? Did Antiochus take his stand against the Prince of princes (the Lord Jesus) during the appointed time of the end? If so, when did this battle occur? Who won the battle? Did the Lord Jesus destroy Antiochus with the brightness of His coming or did he die in Persia from too much liquor? The Antiochus interpretation does not come close to meeting all the specifications given in Daniel 8. If any doubt remains about Antiochus IV fulfilling the specifications given in Daniel 8, the next specification should remove it.

4. “Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, ‘How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled – the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?’ He said to me, ‘it will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be recons crated.’” (Daniel 8:13,14) The 2,300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8 have proven to be an insurmountable mystery for thousands of years and rightly so. Without valid rules of interpretation and an understanding of the doctrine of God’s use of parallel temples, the purpose, the meaning and the timing of the 2,300 days cannot be accurately determined! Because many Christian’s scholars believe the horn power of Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV, consider how they explain the 2,300 evenings and mornings.

Scofield’s Explanation of the 2,300 Days

Cyrus I. Scofield (1843-1921), was a writer whose theological and prophetic views dramatically influenced Protestants during the twentieth century. Dr. Scofield was not the first to suggest that Antiochus IV was the horn power of Daniel 8, but he was arguably the best. To prove that Antiochus IV was the horn power, Dr. Scofield claimed the 2,300 days in Daniel 8:14 began with the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem (Kislev 15, 167 B.C.; 1 Maccabees 1:57) and terminated with the death of general Nicanor on March 27, 160 B.C. According to 1 Maccabees 3, Nicanor was one of the generals that Lysais appointed to destroy the Jews while Antiochus was looking for someone to plunder in Persia. According to 1 Maccabees 4:52-54, the temple was cleansed and services resumed three years and ten days after its desecration. (See also 2 Maccabees 10:1-8.) In other words, the number of days between the defilement of the temple by Antiochus IV and the reconsecration of the temple by Judas Maccabeaus was 1,096 days, less than half of the needed 2,300 days. Because Daniel 8:14 specifies 2,300 days, Scofield realized there was a problem, so he began searching for some of the events that occurred 2,300 days after Antiochus desecrated the temple in Jerusalem. The death of a nondescript general was the only thing that Scofield could find that came close to 2,300 days. Rather than abandon the Antiochus IV interpretation for a better interpretation of the horn power, Scofield declared the 2,300 days were fulfilled by two events that do not have 2,300 days between them. No doubt, Dr. Scofield was a sincere man, but if a person does not use valid rules of interpretation, eventually he will end up in a corner where he has no choice but to twist or distort the Word of God to make pieces fit. God said there would be 2,300 evenings and mornings – not more or less – before the sanctuary would be cleansed.

During the last half of the twentieth century, defenders of Scofield’s position have been forced to acknowledge that temple services resumed long before the 2,300 days expired. Therefore, they argue with weasel words that temple services were free of “destructive threat” after general Nicanor died. The problem with this claim is that God says nothing about the temple being free of threat or about the Jews enjoying freedom from destruction in Daniel 8:14. The King James Version of Daniel 8:14 simply states, “Unto two thousand three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” (Or reconsecrated, NIV) The following chart shows how Scofield defined the 2,300 days. The dates are taken from 1 Maccabees 1:57; 4:52 and 7:43.

page l 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l 5 l 6 l 7 l