Daniel 11 – The Antichrist is not Antiochus IV.

This article discusses the Antichrist, as presented in Daniel 11. The purpose is to show that this was not the Greek King Antiochus IV in the 2nd-century B.C.

The Liberal View of Daniel 11

The Book of Daniel claims to be written by a person called Daniel in the sixth century B.C. However, it explicitly predicted the Greek Empire (Dan 8:20-21; 11:2), which rose to power some centuries later.

In the Liberal understanding, such accurate predictions of the future are impossible (🔗). Liberals argue that Daniel was written by an unknown writer after the things it claims to predict. In other words, Daniel is a history book written in the form of a prophecy.

In this view, Daniel was written AFTER the Greek empire was already established, specifically, during the reign of the Greek king Antiochus IV in the middle of the second century B.C. After Alexander the Great died, his Greek empire was divided into four parts, including the Seleucids of the Middle East. Antiochus IV was one of the Seleucid kings.

In the Liberal view, Antiochus is then identified as the Antichrist, the ‘vile person’ of Daniel 11, and Daniel was written in response to his persecution of the Jews.

It is generally agreed that the events in the first half of Daniel 11 fit known history until a point in time during Antiochus’s reign. However, in the Liberal view, the events described later in Daniel 11 do not fit known history and are the erroneous guesswork of the book’s uninspired writer.

This is called the Maccabean thesis. For example, one scholar stated:

“Daniel was written during the period of the Maccabees, in the middle of the 2nd century B.C., or about 400 years after the events it describes. Its origin is betrayed in chapter 11 when Daniel supposedly prophesies the future.”

See also Wikipedia for how Liberals, who dominate the academic world, understand the prophecies of Daniel.

The Vile Person is the Little Horn.

The main character in Daniel 11 is the “vile person” (Dan 11:21 – KJV), interpreted as the Antichrist. All schools agree that he is the same as the Antichrist Horn in Daniel 7 and 8, as shown by the following:

(1) As a general principle, later prophecies in Daniel elaborate on the earlier ones. Daniel 11, therefore, although it does not use beasts and horns to represent kingdoms, but a series of individual kings, still describes the same kingdoms and crises as in Daniel 7 and 8.

(2) The Antichrist Horn in Daniel 7 and 8 and the Vile Person in Daniel 11 do the same things:

(a) Both persecute God’s people (Dan 7:25; 11:32-34) for “a time, two times, and half a time” (Dan 7:25; 12:7).

(b) Both attack the temple. The Vile Person profanes the strong temple, while the horn casts down the place of the temple (Dan 11:31; 8:11).

(c) Both set up an “abomination” and remove the continual sacrifice (the tamid) (Dan 8:11, 13; 11:31). An abomination is a dreadful sin.

(d) Both use deceit (Dan 8:25; 11:21-24) and “magnify himself” (Dan 8:11; 11:36-37).

Daniel 11, therefore, describes the same Antichrist as Daniel 7 and 8, but adds detail. Consequently, in the Liberal view, the Antichrist in Daniel 7 and 8 is also Antiochus IV.

11:1-13 – From Persia to Greece

There are no symbolic animals in Daniel 11. The prophecy names the Persian and Greek Empires (Dan 11:2) but does not name any later kingdom or king. Instead, it uses the titles “king of the south” and “king of the north” to describe entire kingdoms, each consisting of a series of kings. The reader must identify individual kings by comparing the prophesied events with recorded history.

All schools generally agree that 11:1-13 describes some key events during the transition from the Persian to the Greek empire:

The chapter begins by describing individual Persian kings, concluding with Xerxes. His failed attack on the Greeks (Dan 11:2) elevated the Greek nation onto the ‘world’ scene.

The prophecy then jumps over the next 150 years of Persian rule to the first Greek king—the “mighty king,” Alexander the Great (Dan 11:3).

After his death, his kingdom was divided into four parts (Dan 11:4). 11:5-13 describes key events in the history of two of the four parts, namely those parts that threatened Judea:

The Seleucid kingdom of the Middle East is called the “king of the north” because it was to the north of Judea.

The Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt is called the “king of the south” because it was to the south of Judea.

The actions of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, as described in these verses, agree fairly with what we know about them from secular history.

11:14-20 – Antiochus III

Verse 14 refers to the “breakers of your people.” Here, interpretations start to diverge. However, most interpreters agree that verses 14 to 19 describe Antiochus III, one of the Greek kings and the father and predecessor of Antiochus IV. To quote a critical scholar:

“Daniel 11:2-20 is a very accurate & historically corroborated sequence of events from the third year (Dan 10:1) of the Persian era up to the predecessor of Antiochus IV: some 366 years! Only the names and dates are missing. Most details are about the conflicts between the kings of the South (the Ptolemies of Egypt) and the kings of the North (the Seleucids of Mesopotamia / Syria). The Seleucids are shown to become stronger and stronger (despite some setbacks) … Of course, Jerusalem was in the middle and changed hands (197, from Egypt to Syria).”

Conservative Interpretation

While Liberal scholars base their interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies mainly on Daniel 11, Conservatives base their interpretation of Daniel 11 mostly on the earlier prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, and 8, which, as discussed in previous articles, identify the Little Horn as of Roman origin.

The Prince of the Covenant

In Daniel 11, a “vile person” (Dan 11:21) overflowed “the arms of the flood” and broke the “prince (Hebrew nagid) of the covenant” (Dan 11:22).

The main point of the current article is to show that this Prince of the Covenant is Jesus Christ. It follows that the vile person, who broke Him, cannot be a person who lived two centuries before Christ. This is shown as follows:

1. Strong Word Links

Firstly, the strong word links to Daniel 9 imply that the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is Jesus Christ. The following words and concepts in 11:22 appear elsewhere in Daniel only in the vision of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9:24-27:

Flood – The word “flood” as a noun (Dan 9:26)

Nagid – The word ‘sar’ (translated “prince”) occurs 11 times in Daniel (8:11, 25; 9:6, 8; 10:13, 20, 21; 11:5; 12:1). But the word ‘nagid’, which is also translated as “prince,” occurs only in 11:22 and twice in 9:24-27, namely in “Messiah the Prince” (9:25) and in “the prince who is to come” (9:26).

Nagid killed – In both Daniel 9 and 11, the nagid-prince will be killed: “cut off” and ”broken” (9:26; 11:22).

Prince of the Covenant – The word “covenant” also occurs elsewhere in Daniel, but only the vision of the 70 weeks in 9:24-27 and 11:22 speak of a prince of the covenant. In other words, only a nagid prince is associated with the covenant:

In Daniel 9, the nagid-prince makes strong the covenant for one week. (9:27, 🔗)

In Daniel 11, the nagid-prince of the covenant is broken (11:22).

2. God’s Covenant

Furthermore, elsewhere in Daniel, “covenant” always refers to the covenant between God and His people (Daniel 9:4; 11:28, 30, 32), implying that the covenant in 11:22 is also God’s covenant with Israel.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 is the same as the Prince who makes strong the covenant in the vision of the 70 Weeks in 9:27, whom previous articles identified as Jesus Christ. Consequently, the shattering of the Prince of the Covenant in 11:22 refers to Christ’s death on the Cross, 200 years after Antiochus.

The Vile Person

It follows that the Antichrist, the “vile person” of verse 21, who ‘broke’ the Prince of the Covenant, cannot be Antiochus IV. In fact, these links to Daniel 9 imply further that the ‘vile person’ is the Roman Empire, argued as follows:

Since the visions in Daniel 9 and 11 describe the same event, and since the word flood, as a noun, occurs only in these two visions (9:26 and 11:22), the two floods are the same. In other words, the flood that floods away another flood is the same as the flood that destroys the city and the sanctuary in Daniel 9:26, which is the Roman Empire.

The “vile person” is a symbol and not a literal person, just like the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 is not a literal horn. As was also argued in the article on Daniel 8 (🔗), and as is discussed in more detail below, this article proposes that the vile person symbolizes BOTH the Roman Empire and its Antichrist continuation.

The Abomination of Desolation

Since Daniel 11 describes events chronologically and since the abomination (Dan 11:31) and the persecution of God’s people (Dan 11:32-34) are described AFTER verse 22, these events occur after Christ’s death. They do not describe Antiochus IV, 200 years before Christ. Jesus confirmed this when, in Matthew 24:15, He put the abomination in His future. He said:

“When you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet (Daniel 11:31 and 12:11), standing in the holy place …“

Jesus, therefore, also interpreted the “vile person” as an Antichrist that will arise AFTER Him, not as the Greek king Antiochus IV, who died about 200 before Him.

The Visions Compared

Based on this conclusion, and based on the previous articles in this series, Daniel 11 can be compared as follows with the earlier prophecies:

Daniel 7	Daniel 8	Daniel 9	Daniel 11
Bear	Ram	Persian decree (v25)	Persian Empire (v2)
Leopard	Goat		Greek Empire (v3)
Leopard’s four heads	Goat’s four horns		Kings of North and South
Fourth Beast	Horn’s horizontal expansion	Nagid cut off (vv25-27)	Roman flood breaks Nagid of the covenant (v22)
11th Horn	Horn’s vertical expansion		Vile Person

Possible Objections

This section responds to possible objections to the interpretation proposed above.

1. Antiochus III precedes the Vile Person.

Daniel 11, in verses 14-19, emphasizes Antiochus III, the father and predecessor of Antiochus IV. Daniel provides more information about Antiochus III than about any previous king. Liberals argue that this emphasis identifies the next king (the Vile Person) as his son Antiochus IV. However, this article explains this emphasis on Antiochus III differently:

Earlier in the chapter, verse 2 emphasized the reign of the fourth Persian king (Xerxes), but not to identify the Persian king that would follow him. The text emphasized Xerxes because his unsuccessful wars against Greece were a key turning point in history that shifted the balance of power to the next Empire, from Medo-Persia to Greece. After Xerxes in verse 2, the prophecy jumps over the next 150 years, during which seven Persian kings reigned (Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Xerxes II, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III, Arses, and Darius III), to the first Greek emperor, Alexander the Great (Dan 11:3).

Similarly, it is proposed here that the vision in Daniel 11 emphasizes Antiochus III, not to identify the next Greek king, but because his unsuccessful wars against the Romans were a key turning point in history that shifted the balance of power to the next Empire, from the Greek Empire to Rome. After Antiochus III’s unsuccessful war against Rome, he and his sons had to pay penalties to the Romans, and their empire was left subject to the growing dominance of Rome. For that reason, the prophecy jumps over the next 170 years, during which several Greek kings reigned, to the next empire, Rome.

Read this way, while verse 19 describes the death of Antiochus III, verse 22 describes Christ’s death 200 years later.

2: No mention of the Roman Empire

A second possible objection is that Daniel 11 does not mention the Roman Empire. Without an intervening empire, it seems to continue from Antiochus III to the vile person.

In response, it is proposed here that the vile person IS the Roman Empire. Consider the following: Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 11 must be read as a unit:

Daniel 2 does not mention the Antichrist at all, but emphasizes the political powers.

In Daniel 7, the political powers are still mentioned, but the Antichrist has now become a major emphasis. It describes the Fourth Empire in only two verses but the Antichrist in six.

In Daniel 8, the political powers begin to fade. It mentions political Rome only indirectly in the initial horizontal expansion of the Little Horn (Dan 8:9). The emphasis is now on the Antichrist, which it symbolizes by the subsequent vertical growth of the Little Horn. In other words, Daniel 8 uses the horn-king for both the Roman Empire and its Antichrist successor.

Daniel 11 continues this pattern. It represents both the Roman Empire and the Antichrist with a single symbol: the vile or “despicable person” (NASB). Political Rome is seen only as the flood that flows away the “overflowing forces,” and that cuts off the Prince of the Covenant (Dan 11:22). The focus is almost entirely on the Antichrist, which is the successor of the Roman Empire.

The sole purpose of these prophecies is to identify the Antichrist. That is the only reason the prophecies describe the first four kingdoms. Moving from Daniel 2 to 7 to 8 to 11, the political powers progressively fade into the background, while the focus on the Antichrist keeps increasing.

3: Antiochus IV fits the description.

A third possible objection is that Antiochus IV fits the sequence of kings in Daniel 11 and the description of the “vile person.”

If Daniel 11:20 describes Seleucus IV (and not Heliodorus), it is true that Antiochus IV fits the sequence of kings. There are also several similarities between Antiochus and the vile person, including his double invasion of Egypt (cf. Dan 11:25, 29) and the persecution of God’s people. However, the description of the “vile person” exceeds Antiochus IV. For example, the vile person:

Gains authority and rules through deceit (Dan 11:21).
Distributes the plunder (Dan 11:24).
Magnifies himself above every god.
Has no regard for the god of his fathers nor any god (Dan 11:36-37).

None of these things were true of Antiochus. And, as all agree, the events of the “time of the end,” verses 40-45, do not fit history at all. The next article will show that Antiochus IV does not fit the profile. As Desmond Ford noted:

“Verses 21-35 fit his (Antiochus’s) time perfectly, but let it be noted that this interpretation by no means exhausts the passage” [Desmond Ford, Daniel and the Coming King, p 144].

Final Conclusions

Antiochus IV was a partial fulfillment.

Daniel 11 may be understood as two stories intertwined: The first story starts with Persia and continues until Antiochus IV. But while discussing Antiochus IV, it jumps to the second story, which is about the Antichrist. This second story continues until Michael stands up at the beginning of the next chapter (Dan 12:1-3). We see many other examples of a double fulfillment of a prophecy elsewhere in Scripture. For example:

Joel describes a local locust plague, but unexpectedly jumps to the Day of the Lord.
Isaiah 14 similarly, without interruption, jumps from the king of Babylon to Lucifer (Isa 14:4, 12).
Ezekiel 28 moves from the king of Tyre to an “anointed cherub who covers” (Ezek 28:12, 14).
Jesus combined the description of the temple’s destruction in 70 AD and the end of the world into a single story (Matthew 24).
John the Baptist was the first representation of the Elijah who was prophesied to come.

Therefore, Antiochus IV was only a partial fulfillment and a type of the ultimate Antichrist.

God is in control. He knows the future.

The conclusions of this article support the view that the book of Daniel was written before the time of Antiochus IV, that the prophecies are real predictions of future events, and that God is in control of history:

“There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days” (Dan 2:28).

“The Most High God is ruler over the realm of mankind and that He sets over it whomever He wishes” (Dan 5:21).