Jeffro, it is impossible to
fit Dan. 11:40-45 into the reign of Antiochus. It is rather predictive
prophecy, deferred to the end time, some future time. Here’s a short summary of Antiochus' reign:
History of the Hellenizing
Antiochus IV Epiphanes: When he returned from Egypt in 167
BCE, he took Jerusalem. The city had to forfeit its privileges and would be
permanently garrisoned by Syrian soldiers. The worship of Yahweh as well as all
Jewish rites would be banned on the pain of death. In the temple an altar to
Zeus Olympios would be erected.
The desecration of
Jerusalem’s temple would lead to a Jewish uprising under the Maccabees. Judas
Maccabeus, leader of the Hasideans, led the people in open revolt. He and his
followers would conquer Judaea. They tore down the altar of Zeus, and reconsecrated
the temple in December 164 BCE. He and his followers would conquer Judaea. They
would tear down the altar of Zeus, and reconsecrate the temple on the
anniversary of the desecration in December 164 BCE. The festival of
dedication—Hanukkah—was instituted.—John 10:22.
Accordingly the reign of
Antiochus falls into two parts, divided by the Roman victory over Perseus of
Macedon at Pydna, 169 B.C., when Rome came in position to lay down the law to
Antiochus and force him out of Egypt. The history of the first
period is taken up with the Syrian wars against Egypt, the second half, after
169, finds Antiochus confined to the role of an Asiatic monarch, the history of
which years we know chiefly from the documents of the Jewish people, with whom
he became engaged in petty warfare. Antiochus IV battled them for three years.
During this time, Antiochus founded the city of Antioch on the Persian Gulf,
set out on an expedition to the Arabian coast. Towards the close of 164 BCE, he
died at Tabea, Persia. During the last year of his life he pursued obscure
campaigns against Armenia and the Parthians, and was killed ingloriously when
attempting to loot a temple of ‘Anaitis’ in the Elymais.
Time of [the] end (= [the] end time). This phrase occurs six
times in the Bible and is exclusive to the book of Daniel. “The expression qēş
in the book of Daniel (8:17, 19; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9; cf. Hab. 2:3) clearly
aims to convey a juxtaposition of the present and the eschatological future;
for, although “the time of the final phase” refers primarily to the period of
persecution by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, this period is also the time of
tribulation that marks the opening phase of the eschaton” (TDOT, vol. XI, p.
450).
In the majority of cases the
phrase “(in) the latter part of the days” could be defined as “the end of human
history as we know it” (cf. Jer. 30:24; Is. 2:2; Mic. 4:1; Ezek. 38:8, 16).
More specifically, in the book of Daniel: “(God in heaven) has made known to
King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the ’acharith of the days (2:28).
The point of the vision does not lie in the course of future events, but in the
destruction of the colossus and in the coming of an indestructible kingdom (v.
44). As seen, modern scholars and critics would apply Dan. 9:24-27 to Antiochus
IV Epiphanes according to Maccabean history. Antiochus would defile the
sanctuary, but he and his troops never destroyed the city or sanctuary. This
flood can only be applied to the Roman siege of 70 CE. Under the leadership of
General Titus, it would be instrumental in devastating Jerusalem (and the
sanctuary). This is also the application made by Jesus in the Sermon on the
Mount of Olives (cf. Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20-24).
Thus the outcome of the future is what is
intended, and not the future in general. Similarly, 10:14 says: “I (the angel
that had appeared) came to make you understand what is to befall your people in
(at) the ’acharith of the days. For the vision is for days yet to come.”
Since the following material deals with the stages of history from Cyrus to
Antiochus IV, the meaning “future” cannot be excluded here; but the real
purpose of the vision is to show how history will culminate, thus its outcome.
Therefore, this passage has in mind the end, and not merely the future.” (TDOT,
vol. I, pp. 211, 212)
