Segment 4 -
Daniel 8
The Antichrist
____________________
page l 1 l 2 l 3 l 4 l 5 l 6 l 7 l
page 4/7
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.
- The Bible says
the goat in Daniel 8
represents Grecia.
- The Bible says
the great horn represents the
first king of Grecia,
Alexander the Great.
- The Bible says
the four horns represent the
four generals that gained
control of Alexander’s
empire.
- One of the
four generals was Seleucus.
He was the first in a long
line of succeeding kings.
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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:
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- “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
page 4/7
[TOP]
|
