Da 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
In 198 BC Ptolemaic (Egyptian) rule over Palestine was replaced by the Seleucids. In 175 BC the then Seleucid king, Seleucus IV Philopater was assassinated. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, his brother, usurped the throne to the exclusion of Philopater's son Demetrius, the rightful heir. Some historians have been amazed at how quickly Antiochus came to the throne.
"Antiochus was in his late thirties when he seized power ... [and] ... our sources agree that he was high-spirited, capable, energetic and self confident; he also was ambitious" (C. Habicht, The Seleucids and their rivals, Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd Edition, Vol.8 - Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p.341).
He "was by nature a genuine despot, eccentric and unpredictable, at one moment lavishly generous, affectedly fraternising with the common people, and then again, ferocious and tyrannical, as his treatment of Judea demonstrates... Polybius; Diodorus and Livy emphasise his love of luxury and his munificence. Brilliant spectacles, magnificent buildings, regal presents, these were his chief delights. But in everything he inclined towards senseless extremes" (Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ - 175 BC - AD 135, Revised and Edited by Geza Vermes & Fergus Millar, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd, 1973), pp.146-147).
"When Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne, the hereditary High Priesthood was held by Onias III, a 'zealot for the laws' (2 Maccabees 4:2). The leader of the pro-Greek faction was his brother Jesus, or, as he preferred a Greek name, Jason. The tendency to favour things Greek was already so strong that the pro-Greek faction could venture to seize power and attain their aims by force. Jason promised the king great sums of money ... if he would transfer the High Priesthood to him, permit him to erect a gymnasium, establish a corps of ephebes, and finally, consent to 'the inscription of the inhabitants of Jerusalem as Antiochenes' ... i.e. (probably) transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis called Antioch and draw up a list of its citizens. Antiochus agreed to everything. Onias was deposed and Jason was appointed as High Priest. The process of Hellenisation was now set in vigorous motion" (Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ - 175 BC - AD 135, p.148).
"Jason had enjoyed his ill-gotten office only three years when he was outbid for it by one Menelaus, ousted and obliged to flee to Transjordan (2 Maccabees 4:23-26). Who this Menelaus was is uncertain; some have doubted that he was even of priestly lineage. But his name indicates that he was also of the Helllenizing party. Menelaus soon showed that he had even fewer scruples than his predecessor" (John Bright, A History of Israel, (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1981), p.420).
In 170-169 BC Antiochus invaded Egypt: "As soon as the kingdom was firmly in Antiochus' hands, he began to think of becoming king over the land of Egypt so as to rule over both empires. He invaded Egypt with a strong army, with chariotry and elephants, and with a large fleet, and waged war against Ptolemy, king of Egypt. Routed by Antiochus, Ptolemy fled, [but later captured], and many of his troops fell slain. The fortified cities of Egypt were captured [except Alexandria], and Antiochus took the spoils of Egypt" (1 Maccabees 1:16-19, RSV).
After his campaign was over, Daniel recorded in advance that, "While returning to his own land with great riches, his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant; so he shall do damage and return to his own land" (Daniel 11:28).
It appears that when Antiochus was in Egypt a false report circulated that he had "passed away". "On the strength of this, Jason [the deposed High Priest] marched on Jerusalem with 1,000 men, took the city, and forced Menelaus to take refuge in the citadel... Jason soon alienated everyone by a senseless massacre and was driven once more from the city" (John Bright, A History of Israel, p.421).
"When news of what happened reached the king, he took it to mean that Judea was in revolt. So, raging inwardly, he left Egypt and took the city by storm" (2 Maccabees 5:11, NRSV).
"... Antiochus dared to enter the most holy temple in all the world, guided by Menelaus, who had becopme a traitor both to the laws and to his country. He took the holy vessels with his polluted hands, and swept away with profaned hands the votive offering that other kings had made to enhance the glory and honor of the place... So Antiochus carried off eighteen hundred talents from the temple, and hurried away to Antioch..." (2 Maccabees 5:15 & 21a, NRSV).
("The author of 2 Maccabees ... places the plunder of the Temple after the second invasion in 168 BCE... The author of 2 Maccabees thus seems to have run together two events: the plunder of the Temple after the first invasion [of Egypt] and the second attack on the Temple [after the second invasion of Egypt]" (Robert Doran, The Second Book of Maccabees, Leander E. Keck, Convener, The New Interpreter's Bible (NIB), (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), Vol.4, p.228).
(Menelaus is a type of the false prophet).
Da 11:29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
Da 11:30a For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant:...
"or as the latter - that mentioned in vv.42-43 [Tregelles]. Or, making this the third expedition, the sense is "not as the first or as the second" expeditions [Piscator]. Rather "not as the former, so shall be this latter" expedition [Grotius]" (A. R. Fausset, Daniel, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, & Practical on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, & David Brown (JFB), (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1993), Vol.2, pt.2, p.449).
In 168 BC Antiochus again invaded Egypt. But the Romans forced him to leave.
Da 11:30b ... he shall even return, and have intelligence with them [the Jews] that forsake the holy covenant.
Da 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
It appears, because of his humiliation by the Romans he was "Disposed to hate the Jews, he sent the Mysarch Apollonius with an army of twenty-two thousand, under orders to butcher all men who were of age and to sell the women as slaves. On his arrival at Jerusalem, Apollonius pretended to have peaceful intentions. He waited until the sacred Sabbath day. Sure that the Jews were resting, he ordered his troops to fall into armed formation and had them stab all who had gone out to see the spectacle. Then, dashing into the city with his soldiers, he laid a considerable multitude low" (2 Maccabees 5:23b-26).
"The city was looted and partially destroyed, and its walls pulled down. There was then erected, perhaps on the site of the old Davidic palace south of the Temple, perhaps the hill opposite it to the west, a citadel called the Acra. A Seleucid garrison was installed there - a hateful symbol of foreign domination - for some twenty-five years.
"The Acra was not merely a citadel with a military garrison, but something far more objectionable. It was a colony of Hellenized pagans (1 Mac 3:45; 14:36) and renegade Jews (1 Mac 6:21-24; 11:21) - a Greek polis with a constitution of its own, surrounded by walls, within the now undefended city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself was probably reckoned to the territory of this polis. This meant that the temple ceased to be the property of the Jewish people as such and became the shrine of the polis, which in turn meant - since the apostate Menelaus and his highly placed colleagues were involved - that all barriers to the thoroughgoing Hellenization of the Jewish religion were removed" (John Bright, A History of Israel, pp.421-22).
1 Macc 1:41 The king wrote to all his whole kingdom, that all should be one people
1 Macc 1:42 and all should give up their particular customs.
1 Macc 1:43 All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; and sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath.
1 Macc 1:44 And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange ["foreign," NAB] to the land. (NRSV).
"Both 1 Maccabees (1:41-51) and 2 Maccabees (6:1-2) mark as a new phase the arrival of instructions from Antiochus for the abolition of the Temple cult and of the observance of the Law, and the substitution of pagan cults. The observance of all Jewish ordinances, in particular those relating to the Sabbath and circumcision, was prohibited on the pain of death. In every town in Judea sacrifice was to be offered to the heathen gods. Overseers were sent every where to see that the royal command was carried out. Where the people did not comply willingly, they were obliged to do so by force. Once a month a check was made, and whoever was found with a scroll of the Torah or had a child circumcised, was put to death. On 15 Kislev of the Seleucid year 145 = December 167 B.C., a heathen altar was built in Jerusalem on the great altar of burnt-offering, and on 25 Kislev the first heathen sacrifice was offered on it (1 Maccabees 1:54,59); this is 'the abomination of desolation' ... to which the Book of Daniel refers... The sacrifice, according to 2 Maccabees, was offered to Olympian Zeus, to whom the temple in Jerusalem had been dedicated. On the feast of Dionysus, the Jews were compelled to walk in Bacchanalian procession with their heads crowned with ivy" (Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, p.155). (cp. Daniel 3).
Jerusalem was eventually retaken by the Jews. The temple was rededicated in December 164 BC three years to the day after the setting up of the abomination of desolation.
"In the summer of 166 or 165 Antiochus marched out from Antioch at the head of an army for the reconquest of the North and East" (Edwyn Robert Bevan, The House of Seleucus, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1966), Vol. 2, p.158). This is the near-future application of Daniel 11:44. "The facts so far related show that Antiochus regained control of Armenia and that he attempted to regain lost territories in Persis and Elymais ... Antiochus' ultimate goal, it seems, was the subjugation of the Parthians, but he died before hostilities began and his army was soon led home" (C. Habicht, The Seleucids and their rivals, Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd Edition, Vol.8, pp.352-53). He had died in his prime.
THE LITTLE HORNS
Da 7:8a I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn [NT Antichrist]...
Da 8:9a And out of one of them came forth a little horn [OT Antichrist]...
"At some point some observations are in order concerning the relationship between the "little horn" (qeren-'ahat misseira, lit., "a horn from a small one") in this passage (8:9) and the "little horn" in the previous chapter (7:8). The horn in chapter 7 emerged from the ten horns of the fourth beast, whereas this horn in 8:9 arrises from the four-horned beast that represents the third kingdom, the empire of Alexander and his Epigonoi... Now since the author of Daniel lays great emphasis on numbers and invests them with high significance, there is no possibility that he could have meant to equate a ten-horned beast with one bearing only four. The only really plausible explanation, therefore, is that the little horn arising from the third kingdom serves as a prototype of the little horn of the fourth kingdom. The crisis destined to confront God's people in the time of the earlier little horn, Antiochus Epiphanes, will bear a strong similarity to the crisis that will befall them in the eschatological or final phase of the fourth kingdom in the last days (as Christ himself foresaw in the Olivet Discourse [Matt 24:15]). In each case a determined effort will be made by a ruthless dictator to suppress completely the biblical faith and the worship of the true God... we are to understand the relationship between the little horn of the Greek empire and that of the latter-day fourth kingdom to be that of type and antitype similar to that between Joshua and Jesus (Heb 4:8) and Melchizedek and Christ (Heb 7). In Daniel 11 ... both the typical little horn (Antiochus) and the antitypical little horn appear in succession, the transfer from the one to the other taking place at 11:40 [the expositor's position], after which are predicted the circumstances of the destined death of the antitype that were not at all true of Antiochus himself. Therefore, the two figures cannot be identical..." (Gleason L. Archer Jr, Daniel, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (EBC), (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), Vol.7, p.99).
Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not the little horn of the fourth beast. But he has many things in common with him. The exploits of Antiochus are similar to those carried out by the 'little horn'/'beast' in the end-time.
"Suppose we imagine Daniel reflecting on his own vision...
"To a greater degree than was the case with my previous vision, the symbols were fairly transparent. The interpretative part mostly made explicit things that were not very mysterious, though they thus still reinforced the point, yet left the picture with a touch of mystery and allusiveness. There were several reasons for that. One was that I am not sure I was clear about it all myself. Another was that the vision did concern ultimate realities, and one cannot reduce these down-to-earth prosaic terms without losing something. A further ramification of this is that the significance of those symbols transcend the events we were involved in. People who have said my visions were about the pope or Antichrist are wrong in the sense that they were designed by God to speak at his word to the Antiochene period in terms that meant something to them. But keeping the metaphor even in the interpretative sections retained the hint of ultimate realities that were embodied for us in one particular historical situation. Those ultimate issues have surfaced on other occasions, and I cannot say that the people who lived in such circumstances did wrong to find themselves in my visions, even if I might prefer to speak of that process as one of reapplication or appropriation rather than as exegesis (Koch, Apocalypticism, 439)" (John E. Goldingay, Daniel, David A. Hubbard & Glenn W. Barker, General Editors, Word Biblical Commentary (WBC), (Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1989), pp.219 & 221).
It was noted earlier: "At vv.9 and 23 the description passes from the literal Antiochus to features which, though partially attributed to him, hold good in their fullest sense only of his antitype, the New Testament Antichrist" (A. R. Fausset, Daniel, JFB, Vol.2, pt.2, p.427).
Looking briefly at two points of the vision that Antiochus did not literally or completely fulfil, which implies a later fulfilment:
Da 8:25 ... he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes ["prince of the host," v.11];
Da 8:11 ... and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
(1) The metaphoric interpretation: "The term ["prince of the host"] cannot be a personification of the holy ones... since he is distinguished from the rest of the army ["host"]; nor does an attack on Israel thus constitute an attack on God, so that anti-Semitism is deicide (against Lacocque) [but see Acts 8:3; 9:1, 3-5]. It is an attack on the Jerusalem sanctuary that constitutes an attack on God" (John E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC, pp.210-211).
The literal sense: "And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him [Jesus Christ]" (Revelation 19:19).
(2) The metaphoric interpretation: the temple "was robbed of its valuables, emptied of its worshipers and defiled by the accoutrements of an alien cult (1 Macc 1:20-24, 39-40; 3:45; cf. 4:43-48). Its overthrow ['casting down'] consists in its being prevented from functioning as a place of worship of the true God" (John E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC, p.211). [As an aside see 1 Maccabees 4:42ff].
The literal sense: "... and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" (Dan 9:26).
The temple "was not strictly "cast down" by Antiochus. So that a fuller accomplishment is future. Antiochus took away the daily sacrifice for a few years; the Romans, for many ages, and "cast down" the temple; and Antichrist, in connection with Rome, the fourth kingdom, shall do so again..." (A. R. Fausset, Daniel, Vol.2, Pt.2, p.427). (cp. Daniel 9:26b).
Coming then to the interpretation of the vision, after the statement "And in the latter time of their kingdom", it appears that, if a more literal interpretation of the prophecy is taken, the prophecy jumps to the horn of Daniel 7, the one "who was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them". Though describing the antitype, these events are relevant for the latter part of the Seleucid kingdom because they describe in a more metaphoric type the events that took place then.
Before continuing, an expositor's note on an interpretative approach of seeing a partial fulfilment in Antiochus and a complete fulfilment in the Antichrist, and then concludes his note with his approach to interpreting Daniel eight:
"This interpretation has much to commend it, for Gabriel makes it clear through the assignment of the symbol of the "little horn" both to Antiochus of kingdom three and the Antichrist of the latter-day phase of kingdom four that they bear to each other the relationship of type-antitype. Insofar as Epiphanes prefigured the determined effort to be made by the Beast to destroy the biblical faith, that prophecy that described the career of Antiochus also pertained to "the time of the end." Every type has great relevance to the antitype. But the future dealing of Antichrist can only be conjectured or surmised. Therefore our discussion will be confined to the established deeds of Antiochus Epiphanes" (Gleason L. Archer Jr, Daniel, EBC, Vol.7, p.108).
Da 12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time ['eth] of the end [qets].
The other four "visions" of the book of Daniel have prophetic "leaps," from the near-future to the far-future, so it is reasonably likely that the Daniel 8 vision also follows the same pattern. In the end, whatever approach is taken, the vision has relevance for both the time of the 'type' and the time of the 'antitype'.
Looking now at the details of the interpretation, from a more literal fulfillment interpretation, which will also include references to the type:
Type - Near-Future - OT Antichrist
8:9a-c And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east,
8:23a And in the latter time of their kingdom,
Antitype - Far-future - NT Antichrist
8:23a when the transgressors are come to the full,
8:23b-d a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
8:24a And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power:
8:25a By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, (NRSV)
8:25b and he shall magnify himself in his heart,
8:9d and [waxed great] toward the pleasant land.
8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
8:25c and by peace shall destroy many:
8:24b and he shall destroy wonderfully,
8:24d and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
8:11b and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away,
8:11c and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
8:12d and it practised, and prospered.
8:24b and shall prosper, and practise,
8:25b and he shall magnify himself in his heart,
8:11a Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host,
8:25d he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes;
8:25e but he shall be broken without hand.
If a strictly metaphorical interpretation was applied, thereby limiting it the time of Antiochus, then v.11b and v.11c would follow v.11a in chart. Verse 12a has been left out - it is "full of difficulties" (William B. Nelson, Daniel, W. Ward Gasque, et al., General Editors, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (UBCS), (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012), p.205) - as the other verses describe Antiochus/Antichrist's action/s, that v.12 covers.
NOTE ON VERSE SUBDIVISIONS
"In identifying precise portions of material within verses, the standard system of punctuation found in the MT has been used as a basis. The Hebrew text carefully uses accents to divide a verse or sentence into two major divisions and each of the major divisions into smaller subdivisions. In the commentary, English letters refer to the major divisions and Greek letters to the subdivisions. Thus "v9a" refers to the first half of he Hebrew sentence and "v9aá" refers to the first subdivisions of the first half. Sometimes phrases or clauses have not been differentiated by accents. In that case, superior numbers are used to demarcate small portions of material, viz. "9aá1" " (Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1-19, David A. Hubbard & Glenn W. Barker, General Editors, Word Biblical Commentary (WBC), (Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1994), p.xvii).
This booklet roughly follows the above standard using "a" and "b" for the subdivisions in some cases; while using "a," "b," "c," and "d" for the subdivisions of the verse, which may or not follow the "accents" or the English text divisions, such as semi-colons. In some cases, depending on what part of the verse is up for discussion, there maybe three or five subdivisions; in the latter case the last subdivision is reference by the letter "e."
VISION AND INTERPRETATION
Da 8:19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed [mo'ed] the end [qets] shall be.
"Vv. 23-26 give the interpretation of the vision of the little horn (vv. 9-12), with a more special definition of certain elements not made prominent in the vision" (C. F. Keil, Daniel, Rev M. G. Easton, Translator, Commentary on the Old Testament, C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (KD), (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, 2006), Vol.9, p.702).
Da 8:23a when the transgressors are come to the full,
"The general thought may be paraphrased, "when sinful actions have reached a point where God cannot permit them to go further without bringing punishment... These transgressors are not the heathen oppressors, but the Jews themselves, who following their return from captivity, will have continued in sin to an extent causing God to permit their experiencing a punishing oppression" (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1973), p.225).
2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
"This does not hold good of the times of Antiochus, but of the closing times of the Christian era. Cf. Luke 18:8 as to the wickedness of the world in general just before Christ's second coming, also 2 Tim 3:1-9. Israel's guilt, too, shall then be at the full, when they who rejected Christ shall receive Antichrist; fulfilling Jesus words, John 5:43, "I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (cf. Gen. 15:16, "The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full;"..." (A. R. Fausset, Daniel, JFB, Vol.2, pt.2, p.429).
THE END-TIME HORN
Da 8:17b Understand, O son of man: for at the time ['eth] of the end [qets] shall be the vision.
"As anticipated in the discussion under verses seventeen and nineteen above ... the primary reference must be seen as being to the Antichrist, foreshadowed by Antiochus, in whom alone some of the following descriptions find complete fulfillment..." (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p.226).
Da 8:23b-d a king of fierce countenance ... shall stand up.
Dt 28:50 A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young:
"... hard of countenance, i.e., impudent, unashamed in trampling down, without fear of God or man" (C. F. Keil, Daniel, KD, Vol.9, pp.702-03).
"In the time of Moses, God threatened his people with covenant curses if they disobeyed his law. One curse is that he will bring against them "a fierce-looking nation" (Deut. 28:49-50). The Hebrew expression rendered "stern-faced" in Daniel 8:23 is the same as the one rendered "fierce-looking" in Deuteronomy" (William B. Nelson, Daniel, UBCS, p.212).
Da 8:23b-c a king ... understanding dark sentences [hidot]
Da 5:12 Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences ['ahidan], and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel
"The word for "riddles" (hidot), used in its corresponding Aramaic form in 5:12, means "something twisted, involved." The overall thought is that this king would be both fierce in manner and capable of solving difficult problems of the kingdom. Some expositors take the latter aspect to refer to deceiving tactics, which could surely be included in the total thought. It is better, however, to take it basically in the sense used for its corresponding Aramaic form in 5:12, where it refers to Daniel's ability to solve difficult problems. Antiochus was not particularly outstanding in this ability, but the Antichrist will be (cf. 11:36, 39; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:7,8; 17:13). Both persons qualify as practitioners of deceit" (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p.226).
Da 8:24a And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power:
"The descriptive set forth in this verse and the next were all true of Antiochus in a limited way, but will be true of the Antichrist in a fuller sense" (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p.226).
"The contrast here is not: by the power or permission of God... The context much rather relates to the audacity and the cunning by which, more than by his power, Antiochus raised himself to might" (C. F. Keil, Daniel, KD, Vol.9, p.703).
"Literally, the Hebrew text says, "his power [will be] great, but not by his power," which seems self-contradictory. The phrase ... is therefore, suspect [if applyed to Antiochus]..." (William B. Nelson, Daniel, UBCS, p.213).
Lk 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Lk 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
"But not by his own power: ... is particularly significant in reference to the Antichrist. The Antichrist will be Satan's counterfeit world ruler, whom he attempts to place in this position prior to God's introduction of His own world Ruler, Christ. Revelation 13:2 states specifically, "And the dragon (Satan) gave him (the beast, Antichrist) his power, and his seat, and great authority." It is easy to believe that Satan had much to do with the rise and anti-Jewish activities of Antiochus, too, all under the permissive will of God. This is not stated directly of him, however, as it is of the Antichrist" (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, pp.226-27).
Da 8:25a By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, (NRSV).
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
2Th 2:10a and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. (NIV).
"The word for "cunning" (root, sakal) normally means "to be wise," but here, used with "will cause deceit," clearly carries the idea of treacherous wisdom. Will cause deceit to prosper: The king will employ deceit as a planned, often-used way of achieving his goals. He will be willing to use it not only in an emergency, but as a way of rule. Antiochus was known for his deceiving way of deceiving tactics, and the Antichrist will be also (cf. 2 Thess. 2:9,10; Rev 13:12-14)" (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p.227).
Da8:25b and he shall magnify himself in his heart,
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
"Shall be lifted up with pride, or esteem himself of great consequence" (Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Daniel, e-sword.net).
Da 8:25b and by peace [shalvah] shall destroy many:
"shalvah does not mean in deep peace, but in careless security, and thus unexpectedly" (C. F. Keil, Daniel, KD, Vol.9, p.703).
"But never had Antiochus been more genial and charming. He put his own palace at their [the Roman mission] disposal, he surrounded them with the state of kings. They returned declaring that is was incredible that this man could be cherishing serious designs. There were few who could cover so deadly hate with such disarming manners (Polybius xxxi. 5; 6,7)" (Edwyn Robert Bevan, The House of Seleucus, Vol. 2, p.147).
"Without warning. These words may be translated literally, "in security." That is, when men think themselves secure and safe from attack, this one will bring destruction upon them. The thought fits well with the practice of deceit. He will endeavor to make men believe that he comes in peace, pretending friendship, and then will come instead to destroy them" (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p.228).
1 Macc 1:29 Two years later the king sent to the cities of Judah a chief collector of tribute, and he came to Jerusalem with a large force. (NRSV).
1 Macc1:30 He spoke to them deceitfully in peaceful terms, and won their trust. Then he attached the city suddenly, in a great onslaught, and destroyed many of the people in Israel. (NAB).
"... 1 Maccabees 1:29-32 .... illustrates this manner of tactic by Antiochus, and the Antichrist will work in this manner fits all else that is stated concerning him" (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p.228).
Da 8:24b and he shall destroy wonderfully,
Job 37:5 God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.
"... in an astonishing, wonderful way, he will work destruction" (C. F. Keil, Daniel, KD, Vol.9, p.703).
"The idea is that this king will destroy in a manner and extent unique to himself, meaning, no doubt worse than any other. This was true of Antiochus in reference to the Jews of his day; but it will be true in a greater measure of the Antichrist" (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p.227).
Da 8:24d and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
The "mighty" may refer to (1) the holy people or to (2) mighty Gentiles.
(1) "Before God, the people of Judea are mighty ones" (John E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC, p.218).
1 Macc 1:30b ... he ["a chief collector of tribute"] suddenly fell upon the city, dealt a severe blow, and destroyed many people in Israel (NRSV).
1 Macc 1:60 Women who had their children circumcised were put to death, in keeping with the decree,
1 Macc 1:61 with babies hung from their necks; their families also and those who had circumcised them were killed.
1 Macc 1:62 But many were determined and resolved in their hearts not to eat anything unclean;
1 Macc 1:63 they preferred to die rather than to be defiled with unclean food or to profane the sacred covenant; and they did die. Terrible affliction was upon Israel.
(2) "Antiochus killed many "holy people," i.e., God's holy people, the Jews, but history does not record that very many who could be called "mighty men" were among his victims [at least relative to the Antichrist]... The Antichrist, on the other hand, does destroy "mighty men" as well as "holy people." The first vision, for instance, has already depicted him uprooting three who were kings before him, as he propels himself to power (7:8, 20), as well as "wearing out" the saints (7:25). It is easy to believe that many more leading people will be disposed of as he forces his will over all the world" (Leon J. Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p.227).
Da 8:11b and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away,
Da 8: 11c and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
See under the heading the "Little horns" above.
Da 8:12d and it practised, and prospered.
Da 8:24b and shall prosper, and practise,
For over two-and-a-half years the Antichrist will do as he pleases, succeed in his endeavours, and none will really oppose him. This includes taking over Great Britain and, at a minimum, a sizable portion of North America.
"Antiochus then mounted a campaign against the Parthians who were threatening the empire in the east, recovered the income from that area, forced Artaxias of Armenia - who had defected - to recognize his suzerainty, founded the city of Antioch on the Persian Gulf, set out on an expedition to the Arabian coast, and, at the end of 164, died of an illness at Tabae (or Gabae, probably present Isfahan) in Persis. Many believers saw his death as a punishment for his attempt to loot the shrine of Nanaia in Elam (in modern Iran)" (britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/28380/Antiochus-IV-Epiphanes).
Rev 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
(Revelation here picturing cosmic activity that has its counterparts in earthly activity).
History, typology and implications from the Book of Revelation suggest that the Antichrist, like Antiochus, Napoleon and Hitler before him, will start to become undone when his invasion of "the east" begins to falter.
Da 8:25d he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes;
Da 8:25e but he shall be broken without hand.
"Taken as a whole, the principle problem with this passage [vv.23-25] when interpreted as prophecy fulfilled in Antiochus is the allusions to the end of the age. These are hard to understand as relating to Antiochus in view of the larger picture of Daniel 7 which concludes with the second advent of Christ...
"It may be concluded that this difficult passage apparently goes beyond that which is historically fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes to foreshadow a future personage often identified as the world ruler of the end time... This interpretation of the vision may be regarded as an illustration of double fulfillment of prophecy or, using Antiochus as a type, the interpretation may go on to reveal additional facts which go beyond the type in describing the ultimate king who will oppose Israel in the last days. He indeed will be "broken without hand" at the time of the second advent of Jesus Christ" (John F. Walvoord, Daniel - The Key to Prophetic Revelation, pp.198-99).
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet ... These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Finally the Beast/Antichrist comes to his end when the Christ returns to the earth to destroy him and his kingdom forever. Where Antiochus, Napoloen, Hitler and the Antichrist fail in establishing their rule over "the east" the Christ will succeed, with His kingdom filling "the whole earth" (Daniel 2:35).