By Fransisco Msonge (MD), 2025

Content

  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The book of Daniel
  • 3.Daniel 7 and Antiochus IV Epiphanes
  • 4.Daniel 8 and Antiochus IV Epiphanes
  • 5.Daniel 9 and Antiochus IV Epiphanes
  • 6.Daniel 11 and Antiochus IV Epiphanes

1.INTRODUCTION

Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Greek king of the Seleucid Empire, played a central role in a major crisis in Jewish history. Around 167 B.C., he prohibited Jewish religious practices and replaced the daily offerings in the Jerusalem Temple with pagan sacrifices. This defilement of the sanctuary triggered the Maccabean Revolt and has long been associated with the prophetic “abomination of desolation.”

The Maccabean Revolt was a Jewish uprising that took place in the 2nd century BCE, led by the Hasmonean family, also known as the Maccabees. It was a major turning point in Jewish history. The revolt was triggered by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who outlawed key Jewish religious practices, including the observance of the Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, and Temple sacrifices.

He desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem by erecting an altar to Zeus and sacrificing pigs there—a major offense to the Jewish faith. Other key figures were: Mattathias, a Jewish priest from the town of Modi’in, who initiated the revolt by refusing to offer pagan sacrifices and killing a Hellenistic Jew who did; and Judas Maccabeus (“The Hammer”), Mattathias’s son, who became the military leader of the rebellion.

Almost universally, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is believed to be the desolator of the sanctuary referred to in Daniel 8:11–13, 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11. However, the Scriptures refer to this desolator as a different system arising after pagan Rome (Daniel 2,7,8 and 11). This difference in interpretation calls for careful study and a deeper understanding of the matter.

The pagan Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry (third century A.D.) is the earliest known source to support the Antiochus interpretation. According to Jerome, “Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel.” While Christ affirmed Daniel’s prophecy of a coming desolation (Matt. 24:15), Porphyry denied Daniel’s ability to predict the future.

He therefore dismissed a sixth-century B.C. date for the book’s composition, opting instead for a second-century B.C. date—so that, in his view, the prophecies were merely events recorded after the fact (vaticinia ex eventu). Porphyry’s ideas were rejected by early Christian scholars such as Jerome, Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinarius of Laodicea, and Methodius. However, many historical-critical scholars have since followed Porphyry’s approach in these matters

The basic difference between Christ and these critics is their worldview. Christ believed in a God who is in control of human history, who knows the end from the beginning, who can therefore predict future events, and who evidently inspired Daniel to present authentic predictions. In fact, this is a fundamental theme in the book of Daniel.

Recent scholarship provides evidence for a sixth-century B.C. date for Daniel, and therefore for its predictions. There are four schools of interpretation of Daniel. Some preterists and all historical-critical scholars believe the little horn was Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The other two views reject Antiochus, believing the little horn to represent either a present religious power (historicist) or some future antichrist (futurist).

There is only one little horn in Daniel, not two. But Daniel says the little horn “grew exceedingly great” (Dan. 8:9–11). Calvin believed the little horn in Daniel 7 was Julius Caesar and the other successive Caesars, and so only referred to the time up to the first advent of Christ.

By contrast, the little horn is shown in Daniel to have a history that reaches back to Roman times and forward into the eschatological future. Paul corroborates this view, speaking of an anti-God power already at work in the first century and to be revealed before Christ’s return (2 Thess. 2:1–12). This is different from preterism, historical criticism, and futurism.

The preterist and futurist views were invented by Jesuits during the Council of Trent (1545-1563), in which the pope commissioned an interpretation that would counter the historicist view that Reformation theologians asserted pointed out the papacy as the antichrist. Jesuit Luis de Alcazar came up with a preterist view, which placed the antichrist near the beginning of the Christian era. Jesuit Francisco Ribera came up with a futurist view of the antichrist, to be one person just before the second advent of Christ. The papacy preferred this view, which most Protestants have accepted.

The Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) is known as the father of Futurism for distorting the texts of Daniel 7:24–25 and Revelation 13:1–5. Like Ribera, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) vigorously opposed the principle of the day-for-a-year prophetic interpretation of Daniel 7:25, Revelation 11:3, and 13:5. He taught instead that the Antichrist must be a single individual, not a ruling ecclesiastical authority.

It should be known and remembered by all Christians that “Futurism is the mother of modern Dispensationalism”. Dispensationalism is the blueprint of today’s most world’s plans, culture, and religious beliefs about Israel and the end of time. Secondly, both Edward Irving (1792–1834), an early originator of the doctrine of the rapture and a pioneer of modern Pentecostalism, and John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), considered the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism, inherited teachings that were originally developed and promoted by Roman Catholic Jesuits.

In these end times, it is vitally important to have a clear biblical understanding of whether the book of Daniel refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes or the Papacy. In this article, we present a concise summary of an in-depth and earnest Bible study that explores the biblical connections and interpretations concerning both the Papacy and the Greek king Antiochus IV—particularly in relation to the “abomination of desolation,” the daily sacrificial services, and the sanctuary, as revealed in Daniel chapters 7, 8, 9, and 11.

Readers are encouraged to approach this article with open hearts and minds, reading prayerfully from the introduction to the final section. It is my sincere conviction that, through such a study, each reader will gain a clear biblical understanding of the relevant chapters in Daniel—especially as they relate to the Papacy, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the prophetic themes of the abomination of desolation and the little horn mentioned in Daniel (7:8, 21; 8:9).

2.THE BOOK OF DANIEL

In many parts of the world today—especially where people have free access to the Bible—Satan has employed subtle methods to weaken its influence. One particularly effective tactic has been through various scientific claims and even biblical scholarship that sometimes promotes views which, if accepted, would undermine confidence in the Word of God.

A key example is the dating of the Book of Daniel. Although Daniel explicitly dates itself to the mid-sixth century B.C, many modern scholars argue instead that it was written in the mid-second century B.C. These scholars claim that the book is a later pseudepigraphical work—written after the events it describes—rather than a genuine prophecy. Unfortunately, this theory is part of a broader effort to cast doubt on the Bible’s authenticity and divine inspiration.

Five Biblical Evidences Supporting a Sixth-Century B.C. Authorship of Daniel

1.Internal claims of Daniel as the author

Internal claims of the Book of Daniel support sixth-century B.C. authorship. The book explicitly attributes authorship to the prophet Daniel in several passages (e.g., Daniel 7:1; 9:1–2; 10:1–2). Notably, the narrative shifts to first-person perspective in the visionary sections, indicating that the author claims to be an eyewitness to the events described. For example:

  • Daniel 7:15 – “I Daniel was grieved in my spirit…”
  • Daniel 8:1 – “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel…”
  • Daniel 10:2 – “In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks.”

These consistent first-person references indicate:

  • The author claims to be Daniel, a Jewish exile living in Babylon.
  • He describes visions and experiences with firsthand immediacy, including specific dates tied to Babylonian and Persian kings.

Daniel is instructed multiple times to write down and seal up his visions (Daniel 8:26–27; 12:4–9), indicating the recording of authentic, divinely inspired revelations. Accepting a second-century authorship would not only make these references misleading, but it would also contradict the prophetic integrity of the book and its alignment with other books such as Revelation, Ezra, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

2.Jesus Christ’s endorsement

Moreover, Jesus Himself affirms Daniel’s authorship in Matthew 24:15, saying, “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel…” This statement is a clear endorsement by Christ of both the book’s content and the prophet who wrote it.

Jesus explicitly names Daniel as the author of the prophecy concerning the ‘abomination of desolation.'(Daniel 9: 24-27). He refers to Daniel as a prophet, not as a historian. Jesus affirms the predictive nature of Daniel’s writing, indicating that the prophecy points to events yet to come from His time—not past events in the time of Antiochus IV, who died around 164 B.C. This undermines the critical theory that Daniel was written after the events it ‘predicts,’ as fictionalized history during the Maccabean period.

Conservative scholars continue to hold that the prophet Daniel composed the book in the sixth century B.C. and that it contains true prophecies. The claims of the book itself (Dan. 7: I, 2, 15; 8: I; 9:2; 10:2; 12:4, 5), the testimony of Jesus (Matt. 24: 15), and the witness of Josephus all support this position.

3.Daniel a non-apocryphal book

Daniel is part of the Hebrew Bible, placed in the Writings (Ketuvim) alongside Psalms, Job, and Chronicles, rather than in the Prophets (Nevi’im). Its inclusion indicates that it was recognized as authoritative by Jewish communities long before the Christian era and before the Maccabean period. Jesus references Daniel as Scripture (Matthew 24:15), placing it on the same level as the other Old Testament prophets. Early Christians also treated Daniel as part of the inspired prophetic canon, not as an apocryphal or pseudepigraphal work.

If Daniel had truly been written in the second century B.C., it would belong among the apocryphal books (The books of Maccabees being an example). These apocryphal works, written during the so-called “400 Years of Silence” or “Intertestamental period”.  During this period, no new prophetic word came from God (cf. 1 Maccabees 9:27; 14:41), and the canon of the Old Testament remained closed with Malachi around 430 B.C. (Malachi 4:5).

The apocryphal books were not recognized by Jesus Christ or the apostles, and they were never quoted in the New Testament. They often contain doctrines inconsistent with biblical truth, such as the immortality of the soul, prayers and offerings for the dead, and salvation by works—none of which are taught in canonical Scripture. It is clear, then, that Daniel 1–12 is fundamentally different in style, substance, and spiritual authority.

4.Contemporary with sixth-century kings.

Daniel’s account presents him as a contemporary of sixth-century B.C. kings is another strong piece of evidence supporting sixth-century authorship. The book of Daniel contains detailed references to historical figures such as Nebuchadnezzar II (king of Babylon), and Darius the Mede. These figures are presented not merely as distant historical names but as contemporaries of Daniel—individuals he interacts with in real time.

All biblical and historical evidence supports the view that Daniel lived and ministered in the sixth century B.C., during the Babylonian and early Persian empires. He is portrayed as a contemporary of key figures such as Nebuchadnezzar (reigned 605–562 B.C.), Belshazzar (co-regent circa 556–539 B.C.), and Cyrus the Great (reigned 539–530 B.C.). This is substantiated by internal references within the book itself (see Daniel 2:1; 5:1–12; 7:1; 9:1–2; 10:1–2), which place Daniel at the royal courts of these rulers during significant events in Near Eastern history.

The structure of the book also supports this: Chapters 1–6 is primarily historical, while Chapters 7–12 are prophetic, containing visions that span from Daniel’s time to the end-time events affecting the entire world.

5.Bilingual structure of the book

Furthermore, only someone living in the sixth century B.C. could have accurately known certain historical details recorded in the book. Daniel demonstrates firsthand knowledge of sixth-century Babylonian and Persian life that would be difficult to forge in the second century B.C. The book of Daniel is written in two languages—Hebrew and Aramaic (Chaldee). This linguistic feature is natural if it was authored by Daniel himself, who was familiar with both languages.

Hebrew Sections:

  • Daniel 1:1 – 2:3 – God’s providence and Daniel’s faithfulness
  • Daniel 8:1 – 12:13 – Concerning the sanctuary gospel, physical Israel, spiritual conflict, and final deliverance.

 Aramaic (Chaldee) Sections:

  • Daniel 2:4–7:28 – Four-part statue prophecy, faith under fire, Nebuchadnezzar humbled, Belshazzar’s fall, Daniel in the lions’ den, four beasts, little horn, and judgment
  • It uses both historical narratives and symbolic visions to reveal the rise and fall of empires and God’s faithful involvement in human affairs.

This bilingual structure of the book, it would be unusual if the book were composed during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (second century B.C.). A forger writing in that later period would likely have used only classical Hebrew, as that would align with expectations for a prophetic Hebrew text attributed to Daniel.

In conclusion, both biblical evidence and historical interpretation confirm the sixth-century origin and prophetic authenticity of the Book of Daniel. Rejecting this undermines the credibility of Scripture as a whole and opens the door to a skeptical view of God’s Word.

3.DANIEL 7 AND ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES

Daniel 7:8 (KJV):

“I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things”.

Many scholars assume that the “little horn” mentioned in the book of Daniel (7:8, 21; 8:9) refers to the second-century B.C. ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Daniel 7 portrays this little horn as eventually being judged. This raises three key biblical questions:

  • When does the little horn come into the picture?
  • When does this judgment take place?
  • What happens after the little horn is judged?

Anyway, is there internal contextual evidence to support the idea that the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a time of judgment, or does Daniel 7 envision an eschatological (end-time) judgment of this little horn?

The key passage to answer these questions is Daniel 7:21-22.

Daniel 7: 21-22 (KJV) 

  • 21I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them
  • 22Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom

“Until” (‘ad; Dan. 7:22) is a temporal adverb and is used to introduce the second phase in the time sequence. This is the phase of judgment at the end of which a verdict, pronounced in favor of the saints. “At that time” (zeman) is another time expression, which introduces the third phase.

This sequence suggests that the judgment of the little horn ends when another “time comes,” the time of the “saints taking possession of the kingdom.” This same triple time sequence is repeated in Daniel 7:25-27. Clearly this repeated triple sequence connects the judgment of the little horn with the setting up of God’s kingdom at the end of the world.

Daniel 7:25-27 (KJV)

  • 25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
  • 26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
  • 27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Temporal Sequence in Daniel 2, 7, And 8

The judgment against the little horn, occurring just before the end of the world, is supported by the broader narrative arc of the book of Daniel. Throughout the book, Daniel traces the rise and fall of successive human kingdoms, all under the sovereign direction of God, who ultimately establishes His own everlasting kingdom. As Daniel 2:21 declares, it is God who “changeth the times and the seasons: He removeth kings, and setteth up kings.” This divine prerogative frames the entire prophetic sequence.

Note the parallel sequence in Daniel 2, 7, and 8 as indicated below.

Daniel explicitly identifies three kingdoms in his prophecies: Babylon (Dan. 2:24, 38), Medo-Persia (Dan. 8:20), and Greece (Dan. 8:21). The identification of Medo-Persia and Greece in chapter 8 clarifies the succession of empires following Babylon as introduced in chapter 2. This interpretation is consistent with historical records, which confirm the chronological sequence: Babylon, followed by Medo-Persia, then Greece, and subsequently Rome. Thus, both biblical prophecy and historical data support this fourfold succession of world empires.

According to Daniel 7:7–8, the “little horn” emerges after the fourth kingdom, which is widely identified as pagan Rome. This detail is crucial because, as seen in Daniel 7:14, 22, 26, and 27, the little horn is not the final power—it is ultimately succeeded by the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom. This sequence—Rome, the little horn, and then God’s kingdom—highlights the progressive unfolding of history in Daniel’s vision, emphasizing both the temporal nature of earthly powers and the eventual triumph of divine authority.

Thus, Daniel 7 reveals that a divine judgment is convened, resulting in two decisive outcomes: (1) the dominion of the little horn is taken away (Dan. 7:23–26), and (2) the everlasting dominion of God’s kingdom is established (Dan. 7:27–28). The removal of the former makes way for the installation of the latter. This sequence indicates that the judgment occurs just prior to the end of the world, encompassing both an investigative phase—in which decisions are rendered—and an executive phase, in which the verdicts are carried out.

The placement of the little horn within the prophetic sequence—emerging after the fourth kingdom (Rome) and followed by the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom—clearly situates it beyond the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Since Antiochus ruled during the era of the Greek Empire (the third kingdom), his reign precedes the fourth kingdom in Daniel’s vision. Thus, identifying the little horn as Antiochus IV fails to align with the prophetic timeline presented in Daniel 7.

Many scholars have recognized the close structural and thematic relationship between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. However, they have often overlooked the eschatological climax shared by both chapters (cf. Dan. 2:31–35, 44–45; 7:13–14, 17–18, 21–22, 27). Both visions culminate in the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom, marking the definitive end of human empires.

This eschatological horizon firmly situates the fulfillment of these prophecies in the time of the end, thereby disqualifying the events surrounding the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 B.C. from being the fulfillment of the little horn prophecy in Daniel 7. His reign occurred centuries before the Roman Empire and lacks the global and end-time characteristics attributed to the little horn in the prophetic sequence.

Maurice Casey’s assertion that the defeat of Antiochus IV Epiphanes inaugurates the eternal kingdom of the Jews lacks compelling empirical or exegetical support. This issue was notably addressed by Jerome in his response to the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry. Jerome questioned how, if Judas Maccabeus had defeated Antiochus—as Porphyry and others claimed—he could be identified with the figure in Daniel 7 who comes “with the clouds of heaven like a Son of Man” to the “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:13).

Jerome further challenged how dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom (Dan. 7:14) could be attributed to Judas, a human leader whose reign was clearly not eternal. These observations suggest that the prophetic vision of Daniel 7 transcends the historical conflict between Judas and Antiochus, pointing instead to eschatological fulfillment.

Daniel—and indeed the broader biblical narrative—identifies only one little horn and only one power as a little horn. The little horn identified in Daniel 7 is the same little horn described and found in Daniel 8. The language, symbolism, and trajectory of both passages suggest a thematic and prophetic continuity. Both chapters uphold the internal coherence of the text and the hermeneutical principle of consistency within prophetic literature. Any scholarly interpretation against this principle is misleading and a lie.

4.DANIEL 8 AND ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES

Daniel 8: 14 (KJV)

“And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”.

Introduction

The little horn is named in Daniel three times (7:8, 21; 8:9), and its attack on the daily (tamid) ministry of the sanctuary (Dan. 8:11) is linked to 2,300 “evenings and mornings” (Dan. 8:14). Both 1 Maccabees 1:54–3:1 and Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews (Book 12:181–183) describe the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

History shows that the cessation of sacrifices caused by Antiochus IV Epiphanes lasted for approximately three years—from late 167 B.C. to late 164 B.C. The temple was cleansed and rededicated in late 164 B.C. by Judas Maccabeus (commemorated as Hanukkah).

Historical-critical scholarship interprets the 2,300 “evening and morning” as the time during which sacrifices to God ceased due to the desecration of the temple altar by Antiochus. They suggest that the sacrifices ceased for either 2,300 literal days or 2,300 literal sacrifices.

The latter would compute to 1,150 days, accounting for the morning and evening sacrifices. Many scholars interpret the “evenings and mornings” as referring to daily sacrifices—thus, each day has two sacrifices. The problem is that 1,150 days equal only 3 years and 2 months, whereas the period calls for over six years (2,300 days). This is double the duration of the cessation of sacrifices caused by Antiochus—again, only if this claim were true.

 According to the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees, on the 15th day of the 9th month (Chislev) of the 145th year, Antiochus “set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar” (1 Macc. 1:54), and on the 25th day of the 9th month of the 148th year, the Jews “offered sacrifices according to the law upon the new altar of burnt offerings, which they had made” (1 Macc. 4:52).

“The hundred forty-fifth year” refers to 145 of the Seleucid Era, which corresponds to December 167 B.C. “The fifteenth day of the month Casleu (Kislev)” — This is the 9th month in the Jewish calendar, which corresponds to mid-December. 1 Maccabees 4:52–53 says the temple was cleansed and rededicated on the 25th of Kislev, 148 SE (Seleucid Era) — about three years later, in December 164 B.C. Total duration: approximately 3 years and 10 days.

Linguistic analysis

To suggest that the 2,300 “evening-morning” period is 1,150 days is not possible on linguistic grounds because the words ‘ereb bōqer are identical in their sequence with those in Genesis 1 for the days of creation (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). As the creation days were classified as ‘ereb bōqer, it is logical to equate the 2,300 days similarly. It is biblical to say that Daniel borrowed the phrase from Genesis 1.

Read Genesis 1.

  • 5. “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day”.
  • 8. “And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day”.
  • 13. “And the evening and the morning were the third day”
  • 19 “And the evening and the morning were the fourth day”
  • 23 “And the evening and the morning were the fifth day”.
  • 31 “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day”.

In Genesis 1 the Hebrew word translated as “evening and morning” is: עֲרָב־בֹּקֶ (‘ereb-bōqer)

Full Hebrew phrase (Genesis 1:13):
וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי
“And the evening and the morning were the third day.” — Genesis 1:13, KJV

Word breakdown:
• עֶרֶב (ʿereḇ) – “evening”
• בֹקֶר (bōqer) – “morning”
• יוֹם (yôm) – “day”

From these Bible verses (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), the phrase “the evening and the morning” refers to a full day. In the creation week, this phrase is used as a unit of time, meaning that “evening and morning” serve as the definition of a day. The Hebrew words for “evening” and “morning” are “ereb” and “bōqer”, respectively, and the Hebrew word for a “day” is “yôm“

Numeric qualifiers (“first day,” “second day,” “third day” — Gen. 1:4, 8, 13, 19, 24, 31) and sequential numbering suggest an ordinary, literal day. When the Hebrew word yôm (day) is used in the singular and is not part of a compound grammatical construction—as seen in Amos 5:18, Zechariah 14:1, and Genesis 2:4—it consistently refers to a literal 24-hour day or a portion thereof. Yôm is never used to denote an extended period of time exceeding a 24-hour day.

The normal meaning of the Hebrew word yôm (day) is usually a literal day; and the plural yamim (days), always refers to a 24hours day. Therefore, the predominant meaning is a literal, twenty-four-hour day. As noted previously, the use of the phrase “there was evening and there was morning” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) corroborates the literal interpretation. The creation of the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night on the fourth day (Gen. 1:16–18) requires that the days be literal. The one-day God blessed is called the “seventh day” by Christ (Gen. 2:2–3).

In Daniel 8:14, the Hebrew word translated as “days” is עֲרָב־בֹּקֶ (ʿereḇ-bōqer) and not “yôm“

Literal meaning:

  • עֶרֶב (ʿereḇ) = evening
  • בֹּקֶר (bōqer) = morning
  • Together: “evening-morning” or “evening and morning”

In both Genesis 1 and Daniel 8:14, the Hebrew phrase ʿereb bōqer, meaning “evening and morning,” conveys the structural framework of a full day, highlighting how time is measured and defined in the biblical context.

Biblically and historically, the Jews counted a day from sunset to sunset. This reckoning of time is based directly on Genesis 1, where the repeated phrase appears: “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5). It is also supported by Leviticus 23:32. The order of “evening and morning” indicates that the day began in the evening—at sunset—and continued through the night and the following daylight hours until the next sunset.

God called the light “Day,” and the darkness He called “Night.” According to the Scriptures, a complete day is composed of both a period of darkness (night) and a period of light (daytime), as seen in Genesis 1:3–5. This passage describes the first day of creation, where God separated light from darkness. The Bible then concludes, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

This phrasing establishes the biblical pattern for measuring a full day—not from midnight to midnight or from sunrise to sunrise, but from evening to evening, beginning with darkness (evening) and followed by light (morning). This divine order, introduced in the creation account, forms the foundation of the Hebrew day, which starts at sunset and continues through the next sunset.

It is interesting to note that the word “days” in Daniel 8:14 is clearly defined in Daniel 8:26. In both verses, the phrase “evening and morning” refers to a prophetic time period of 2,300 days. This symbolic language echoes the creation pattern found in Genesis, where a complete day (yôm) is described as consisting of evening and morning. Thus, it reinforces the biblical understanding of a day as a full cycle—beginning with evening (night) and followed by morning (daylight).

Daniel 8:26 (KJV) reads:

“And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.”

Hebrew Words:

  • (ʿereḇ) = “evening”
  • (bōqer) = “morning”

Key Points:

  • “Vision of the evening and the morning” refers to the 2,300 days mentioned in Daniel 8:14.
  • “Shut thou up the vision” means the vision was not for Daniel’s time but for a distant future-Time of the end.
  • “For many days” indicates a long period before fulfillment.

Daniel, being a Hebrew, uses the same principle of timekeeping found in the creation account. The word “days” in Daniel 8:14 is translated from the Hebrew phrase ʿereb bōqer, which literally means “evening-morning.” This phrase is typically understood to represent 2,300 full days, with each day consisting of an evening and a morning. In prophetic interpretation, these 2,300 days are generally understood to symbolize 2,300 years, based on the day-for-a-year principle commonly applied in biblical prophecy (see Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6).

Daily Sacrifices

Note the term “evening and mornings” (ereb bōqer, Dan. 8:14). Is this temple language? It is used in relation to tending the lamps (Exod. 27:20–21), but never for the daily sacrifices. Again phrase “The evening and the morning” never used in scripture for daily sacrifices. William H. Shea points out, the sacrifices are always spoken of as “morning and evening”—for example, “morning and evening burnt offerings” (1Chron 16: 40)

So, the division of the 2,300 “evening and mornings” into 1,150 literal sacrifices is not supported by the term, which stands only for a full day, and never for the sacrifice sequence. This is one of the reasons why the little horn in Daniel cannot be the second-century B.C. king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The Bible does command daily burnt offerings—but uses different terminology:

Exodus 29:39, KJV

 “The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even.”

Biblical analysis 

  • Morning offering (בַּבֹּקֶר, babboqer)
  • Evening offering (בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, bein ha-arbayim, literally “between the evenings” (i.e., twilight))
  • While Genesis 1 and Daniel 8 says “evening and morning”, Exodus 29: 39 says “morning and evening”
  • Exodus 29: 39 gives instructions for daily offerings (morning and evening)
  • Exodus 29: 39 is not description of the structure of day as in Genesis and Daniel

Numbers 28:3–4 (KJV):

  • Verse 3: “And thou shalt say unto them, This is the offering made by fire which ye shall offer unto the Lord; two lambs of the first year without spot day by day, for a continual burnt offering.”
  • Verse 4: “The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even.”

This system is called the “continual” or “daily” burnt offering, using the Hebrew word תָּמִיד (tamid), meaning “continual” or “regular.” Both passages describe the continual burnt offering, also known as the daily sacrifice (tamid in Hebrew), which was offered twice a day: once in the morning and once in the evening. This daily rhythm of worship is foundational in the sanctuary system.

The evening and the morning” in Genesis describes a 24-hour creation day, not sacrifices. Daily sacrifices are described using “morning and evening” or “continual” (tamid)—never “the evening and the morning.” Daniel 8:14’s phrase is unique and doesn’t prove a sacrificial reference unless imposed from outside the text.

1 Chronicles 16:40 (KJV):

“To offer burnt offerings unto the Lord upon the altar of the burnt offering continually morning and evening, and to do according to all that is written in the law of the Lord, which he commanded Israel;”

Biblical analysis

  • While Genesis says “evening and morning”, 1 Chronicles says “morning and evening”.
  • Genesis describes the structure of a day as beginning in the evening, followed by the morning, symbolizing a full 24-hour cycle.
  • 1 Chronicles 16:40 refers to the regular daily sacrifices, to be offered “morning and evening.”
  • In Genesis, it’s describing the structure of time — from darkness to light (the natural flow of a day).
  • In 1 Chronicles, it’s about the order of temple services — starting the day with the morning sacrifice (at dawn), and ending the day with the evening sacrifice (at twilight).
  • 1 Chronicles emphasizes the worship rhythm of “morning and evening” sacrifices to frame a life of daily devotion and not a cycle of day.

Day for a year principle

In an attempt to fit the 2,300 years of Daniel 8:14 to the abominable activities of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, many writers gloss over the biblical truth with creative human imagination. They claim, for instance, that “these 2,300 days cover approximately the period during which Antiochus Epiphanes committed his wicked deeds,” or that they refer to the time from the temple’s desecration by Antiochus until its deliverance by Judas Maccabeus

It is unfortunate that this imagination is primarily based on—and supported by—a non-biblical book, namely the apocryphal Book of Maccabees. Looking beyond such creativity, one must ask: if the Book of Daniel was written after the events (vaticinia ex eventu), as critical scholarship claims, then why do the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14 not align with the activities of Antiochus IV Epiphanes?

Only the historicist interpretation understands the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14 as representing 2,300 years. This view is grounded in the biblical “day-for-a-year” principle, which is affirmed within Scripture itself. It offers the most coherent explanation of the Messianic timeline in Daniel 9:24–27 and aligns with the historical placement of the little horn power—emerging between pagan Rome and the second advent of Jesus Christ.

Is there internal contextual evidence for the “day-for-a-year” principle? Yes, there is. In Daniel 8:13, the angel asks, “Until when?” (ʿad-mātay)—not merely “How long?” as rendered in some versions like the NIV—”will the vision be?” This vision includes the continual service and the transgression that causes desolation, which results in both the sanctuary and the host being trampled.”

What is the meaning of the “vision” in this context? Does it refer to the entire vision or only its latter part? The answer to this question determines the duration of the 2,300 “evenings and mornings.” Daniel 8:14 responds directly: “Unto 2,300 evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Internal contextual evidence indicates that the vision encompasses the entire prophetic sequence—not merely a final segment—thereby affirming the full span of 2,300 years.

The term “vision” in Daniel 8 is ḥāzôn, not marʾeh. While marʾeh refers to a specific appearance or subelement within the broader vision, ḥāzôn encompasses the entire prophetic sequence Daniel was shown. In Daniel 8:1–2, ḥāzôn appears three times, clearly indicating that it includes everything that follows. Thus, the ḥāzôn vision begins with the ram representing Medo-Persia (Dan. 8:3–4), continues with the goat symbolizing Greece (Dan. 8:5–8), and extends into the actions of the little horn (Dan. 8:9–12).

This is confirmed in Daniel 8:17, where the angel tells Daniel, ‘Son of man, understand that the vision (ḥāzôn) pertains to the time of the end.’ This affirms that the entire sequence, not merely a portion, is included in the 2,300-day prophecy.

Daniel 8: 17 (KJV)

“So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision”.

Daniel 8:17 is a pivotal verse for understanding the prophetic framework of Daniel chapter 8, especially in connection with the “time of the end.” Bible scholars highlight the phrase, ‘for at the time of the end shall be the vision’ (Daniel 8:17), as referring to the period when the events of the vision—especially the end of time and the cleansing of the sanctuary (Daniel 8:14)-begin to find their fulfillment.

The “time of the end” is a distinct prophetic period that begins in 1798 A.D. (cf. Daniel 7:25; Revelation 12:6; 13:5) and extends until the Second Coming of Christ. It is not a single moment or specific day, but a prophetic era marking the final phase of Earth’s history—during which end-time prophecies are fulfilled. This understanding provides yet another reason why the little horn in Daniel cannot represent Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the second century B.C., as his life and actions fall far short of reaching the ‘time of the end.’

The vision (ḥāzôn) spans from the beginning of the prophetic sequence to the “time of the end.” It encompasses the entire historical period from the Medo-Persian Empire through Greece, and includes the full development of the little horn power in both its pagan and ecclesiastical phases—extending all the way to the time of the end, as stated in Daniel 8:17. This confirms that the ḥāzôn vision is not limited to a segment but covers the entire timeline revealed to Daniel.

Thus, the 2,300 years is the only viable interpretation of Daniel 8:14, since the sequence of the question and answer demands that ‘evening and morning’ be understood as symbolic of literal years. No other time frame can reach from the Medo-Persian period to the ‘time of the end,’ when the sanctuary is to be cleansed.”

Rather than imposing a preconceived interpretation from the second century B.C. onto the biblical text, it is incumbent upon the careful biblical scholar to allow the Bible to interpret itself. This sola scriptura hermeneutic permits the true biblical meaning of prophetic numbers to emerge. When this method of biblical analysis is applied, the identification of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the subject of Daniel 8:14 becomes untenable.

5.DANIEL 9 AND ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES

Daniel 9: 27 (KJV)

  • “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate”

Many secular and liberal biblical scholars interpret Daniel 9:27 through the lens of events that took place during the 2nd century B.C., particularly under the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid king who:

  • Outlawed Jewish practices.
  • Desecrated the temple by offering pagan sacrifices (including swine) on the altar.
  • Erected an idol (likely of Zeus) in the temple.

These actions are seen as the “abomination of desolation” mentioned in Daniel 9:27 and elsewhere (e.g., Daniel 11:31; 12:11).

Under this interpretation:

  • The “he” in Daniel 9:27 is the Greek King Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
  • The “covenant” refers to a broken agreement with the Jewish people
  • The cessation of sacrifices is tied to Antiochus’ religious persecution.

The phrase “he” is Jesus Christ

Antiochus IV called himself “Epiphanes,” as he regarded himself as Zeus, a manifestation of a god. He set up an altar to Zeus over the altar of burnt offerings and offered pigs as sacrifices. He outlawed circumcision, required Jews to sacrifice to pagan gods, and also killed a great number of Jews and sold others into slavery.

Yes, what Antiochus IV did was evil and abominable to God. But Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27. His actions in the second century (167 B.C.) do not conform to the 70-weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24–27. His account does not align with the timeline, events, or fulfillment described in Daniel 9:24–27. His story in the second century (167 B.C.) does not match the biblical interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27.

It should be noted that the pronoun “he” in Daniel 9:27 refers to the Messiah (Jesus Christ), the anointed ruler, called “Messiah the Prince” (Daniel 9:25). The phrase Messiah the Prince is used only once in the Scriptures, and it refers solely to the Son of Man, the King of kings—Jesus Christ.

The covenant is God’s covenant with all nations

The covenant is God’s covenant with Israel, which “he” was to make or confirm with many tribes and nations. The seventy prophetic weeks were a probationary timeframe for the Jews and their city, Old Jerusalem. The end of this period marked the end of the Israelite era as a God-chosen nation.

It is biblically important to remember that this timeframe spanned 490 years, from 457 B.C. to A.D. 34, marked by the stoning of Stephen and the broader rejection of the gospel by the Jewish leadership—signaling the end of Israel’s corporate covenant role. After A.D. 34, the national role ended, but individual Jews could—and still can—be saved by accepting Jesus as the Messiah. (Romans 11:1–5).

The Book of Ezekiel was written between (593-571) B.C. during the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. Ezekiel moves from destruction to restoration, from the departure of God’s glory (Ezek. 10) to His return and dwelling with His people (Ezek. 43; 48:35). In Ezekiel (chapters 33–39), we see “Hope and Restoration for Israel.” While the immediate context of these chapters addresses Israel’s judgment, exile, and promised restoration in the sixth century B.C., the prophetic and theological themes in Ezekiel 33–39 extend far beyond national or ethnic Israel, whose corporate covenant role ended in A.D. 34.

The symbolism and typology of Ezekiel 33–39 apply beyond ethnic Israel, showing how these texts speak to spiritual Israelites (Rom 9:6–8; Gal 3:29, 1 Pt 2:9–10), the remnant people of God, and God’s cosmic redemptive plan. It is a vision of return, spiritual revival, and Messianic unity. This section points to spiritual renewal, the mission of the remnant, and an end-time confrontation—Gog and Magog representing eschatological powers, as echoed in Revelation 20:7–10.

The structure of Ezekiel reflects a redemptive arc that mirrors God’s cosmic plan. In Ezekiel (chapters 40–48), we encounter “The Vision of the New Temple and New Earth.” This is not a literal blueprint for rebuilding a physical temple; rather, the temple is visionary, symbolizing God’s spiritual presence, the heavenly sanctuary, and the purity of worship and character in the eschaton. These chapters echo the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21–22) and the restored Eden (Rev. 22:1–3)—not pointing to national Israel, but to “the remnant people of God“ (Galatians 3: 16, 28-29, Romans 9:6–8, 11:1-5, Rev12:17, 14: 12).

Ezekiel’s temple vision (chapters 40–48) is not to be taken literally. It also differs from Moses’ sanctuary and Solomon’s temple in many biblical aspects. Instead, it serves a symbolic, typological, and eschatological purpose. There is no biblical or historical evidence that this temple was ever built. The post-exilic temple, completed in 516 B.C. (Ezra 6:15, KJV), was smaller and lacked the features of Ezekiel’s vision. Ezekiel’s vision is conditional and idealized (cf. Jer. 18:7–10). Theologically, it is seen as a symbolic prophecy pointing to the spiritual restoration of God’s people, the heavenly sanctuary, and the final New Earth kingdom, where God’s presence abides forever.

Therefore, the seven-year covenant in Daniel 9:27a must be the last seven years of the 490-year prophecy. The verb translated as “confirm” (the covenant) is not a verb for making a new covenant, but for maintaining an existing covenant.

The Scripture says: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.” This is the covenant between Jesus and the people of all nations, which occurred in the final week of Daniel’s seventy weeks. The 70th week of Daniel 9:24–27 was the final period during which the Jews were still the chosen nation and the hosts of the gospel. “Thereafter, they were left desolate”.

Matthew 23:37–39 (KJV) reads;

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

Luke 13: 34-35 (KJV) reads;

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”.

Matthew 23:37–39 (KJV) and Luke 13:34–35 (KJV) reflects God’s long-suffering and persistent efforts to save His people throughout history—from the time of the prophets to Christ Himself. The image of a mother hen gathering her chicks illustrates Christ’s deep emotional and spiritual longing to protect and redeem, revealing the character of a loving God, even in the face of repeated rejection.

Israel’s continual refusal to accept the divine call, culminating in the rejection of the Messiah, led to the pronouncement of national desolation. The phrase “your house is left unto you desolate” signifies the end of Israel’s covenant privileges as a chosen nation (cf. Daniel 9:26–27).
Matthew 23: 39 is a future fulfillment, when spiritual Israel (including Jews who accept Christ) will see Jesus Christ at His second coming as King of kings and our Savior

In Mark 11:12–14, 20–21 and Matthew 21:18–19 (KJV), we read the account of Jesus cursing a barren fig tree. This event is widely understood by scholars as a symbolic or acted parable. The fig tree represents the Jewish nation, especially its religious leaders—such as the Pharisees and scribes—who displayed an outward appearance of holiness (symbolized by the leaves) but lacked the genuine fruits of repentance, righteousness, justice, mercy, and faith.

Though the tree was full of leaves, it bore no fruit, just as Israel professed piety but failed to produce the spiritual fruit that God desired. By cursing the tree, Jesus enacted a symbolic divine judgment, illustrating God’s rejection of hypocrisy and empty religion. (See also Romans 2:28–29, John 8:38–42 (KJV))

Gospel to all nations: Let us remember that Jesus Christ was baptized in A.D. 27 (Mark 1:9–11), at the age of 30. Soon after His baptism, Christ began His earthly ministry (Acts 10:37–38; Luke 3:21–23; Acts 4:17). We first see Him choosing His apostles (John 1:35–51; Acts 4:18–25), and then preaching in various places (Acts 4:17).

During the 70th week (A.D. 27–34), Jesus focused primarily on the Jews (Matthew 10:5–6). But after His resurrection, He commanded His disciples to begin preparing for global evangelism—not just to Israel.

The ministry of Christ on earth lasted for three and a half years (Daniel 9:26–27), from A.D. 27 to A.D. 31. These three and a half years represent the first half of the final seven years in Daniel 9. Jesus Christ was rejected, crucified, and killed in the year A.D. 31.

After His death, the apostles continued the gospel work, marking the second half of the final prophetic week—from A.D. 31 to A.D. 34. During this time, the gospel began to be preached to the Gentiles (Galatians 3:28; Acts 13:46).

After A.D. 34, Israel was no longer God’s exclusive covenant nation. At this point, the gospel was to go to “all nations” and “every creature.” This global expansion of the gospel is confirmed by one key event in the book of Acts: “The stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). This event, along with many other biblical examples, confirm that after A.D. 34, the message of salvation through Jesus Christ was no longer limited to Israel, but opened to the entire world.

The “he” in Daniel 9:27 is not Antiochus IV, but rather the Messiah introduced in Daniel 9:25–26. The structure of the prophecy is Messiah-centered. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus refers to the “abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” as something that would occur in His time—long after Antiochus was dead. This clearly indicates that Antiochus was not the intended fulfillment.

The verb “confirm” (Hebrew: gābar) is not used elsewhere in Scripture to describe Antiochus. However, it perfectly aligns with His (Jesus’) mission to “confirm the covenant with many” during His 3.5-year ministry and after His crucifixion and resurrection, during the second 3.5 years through the ministry of the apostles, the gospel continued to be preached to all nations and tribes.

After the 490-year prophecy ended in 34 A.D., God’s covenant was no longer limited to ethnic Israel. In Christ, all who believe—Jews and Gentiles alike—become spiritual descendants of Abraham. The promises made to Abraham now apply to all who are “in Christ.” Therefore, the church is the new “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), made up of all believers who walk by faith. Identity in Christ supersedes ethnicity. All believers—Jew or Gentile—are heirs of the Abrahamic covenant (Galatians 3: 16, 28-29).

Cessation of sanctuary sacrificial services

The word of God from the book of Luke 23: 44-46 a crystal clear about abolition of sanctuary sacrificial services and worship. Matthew 27: 50-51 (KJV) add on this by saying; “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent”

No one was allowed to enter the second-most holy place except the high priest once a year in a special service on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:15–17, 23:27–32). The rent of this curtain, leaving the second room (the Most Holy) open, meant the end of all this service of sanctuary. All the physical services in the sanctuary were no longer needed. Christ, as the Lamb of God, stood as Holy Priest, and only by His blood we are forgiven and saved.

The death of Jesus Christ on the cross brought an end to all the physical temple services, including the earthly sanctuary system and priesthood. His sacrifice abolished the Old Testament ceremonial practices, rendering the temple structure, priestly divisions, and associated services no longer necessary.

6.DANIEL 11 AND ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES

Daniel chapter 11 must be interpreted in light of chapters 2, 7, and 8. If the iron legs and feet mixed with iron and clay in Daniel 2 represent Rome, if the ten-horned beast and the little horn in Daniel 7 represent Rome, and if the little horn that waxed exceedingly great in Daniel 8 also represents Rome, then the King of the North in Daniel 11 likewise represents Rome and not the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Daniel 11:36 gives a clean description of the nature and the characteristics of this power: “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done”.

Typology of Daniel 11

At the end of time, the destruction of God’s people in Daniel 11 comes from the King of the North (Spiritual Babylon—the Papacy). In Daniel 11:40–45, the South attacks the North, the North retaliates against the South, the North also attacks the North (Daniel 11:42–43), and then the South allies itself with the North. This is followed by God’s final victory over the combined forces of evil. The interpretation of Daniel 11:40–45 goes beyond today’s literal nations—such as Turkey, France, Russia, China, Syria, or the modern nation of Israel.

King of the North: This title initially refers to the Seleucid dynasty in a geographical sense, but later it represents pagan Rome and, ultimately, papal Rome. Thus, it no longer describes a specific location but rather the spiritual enemy of God’s people. Additionally, it is important to note that the “king of the North” serves as a counterfeit of the true God, who in the Bible is symbolically associated with the North (Isaiah 14:13–14).

King of the South: This title initially refers to the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, located south of the Holy Land. However, as the prophecy unfolds, it takes on a theological dimension and becomes associated with secularism and atheism. Thus, it no longer describes a geographical location but rather represents a spiritual enemy of God’s people.

At the time of the end, the conflict between the King of the North and the King of the South is about the mindset. It is a battle for the mind, waged within our thoughts, with the ultimate goal of controlling our minds and determining whom we worship. “So, it’s about worship”

Both the King of the North and the King of the South are enemies of God, and as such, both are under the control of the arch deceiver—Satan. The King of the North (Papal system) operates with religio-political motives, while the King of the South promotes secularism, evolutionism and atheism . All of the King of the South’s motives exert their influence to eliminate God, promoting reliance on human strength, human wisdom, and human emotion alone.

The King of the North represents religio-political alliances that attempt to force God’s people to worship according to their dictates—just as Babylon tried to compel the Hebrews to worship in accordance with its commands. The King of the South, geographically represented by Egypt, enslaved God’s people and refused to acknowledge Yahweh or the Hebrews’ right to worship Him according to their conscience. However, Egypt did not force them to worship its gods.

Satan desires total subservience and worship. The King of the North is his avenue for securing worship, while the King of the South is his means of promoting unbelief and rebellion against God. In its immediate context, the King of the North refers to Babylon, and symbolically represents end-time spiritual Babylon (Revelation 17:1–5; 16:13–14; 14:6–12)—a fusion of the world’s religious systems under the control of the papacy.

The glorious holy mountain: In Old Testament times this expression referred to Zion (Jerusalem), the capital and heart of Israel and geographically located in the Promised Land. After the Cross, God’s people are no longer defined along ethnic and geographical lines. Therefore, the holy mountain must be a symbolic designation of God’s people spread throughout the world.

Time of the End: The expression “time of the end” appears several times in the book of Daniel (Daniel 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9). An examination of Daniel’s prophecies indicates that the time of the end began with the fall of the papacy in 1798—a prophetic milestone also referenced in Revelation (Revelation 11:2–3; 12:6; 13:3). This period extends until the second coming of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the dead, as foretold in Daniel 12:2.

Main themes
Three main themes of Daniel chapter 11 are

  • Conflict between north and south
  • Alliance between north and south
  • Conflict with the people of God

Parallelism of Daniel 8 and 11

Daniel 7 provides further explanation and symbolic detail to the prophecy in Daniel 2, using beasts to represent the same successive world empires depicted in the metallic image. It offers deeper insight into the character of these kingdoms, especially the fourth beast, the rise of the “little horn,” and the eventual establishment of God’s eternal kingdom.

Similarly, Daniel 11 expands and clarifies the vision given in Daniel 8, particularly concerning the conflict between earthly powers that oppose God’s people and the sanctuary. It presents a detailed historical and prophetic narrative, tracing the activities of the powers symbolized in Daniel 8—especially the “little horn”—and links them to the “king of the North” in Daniel 11. Both chapters converge on the theme of a final conflict at the time of the end, culminating in divine judgment and the deliverance of God’s people.

The King of the North is the Papal System—The Antichrist in Daniel 11

  • First, Opposition to the Holy Covenant (Dan. 11:30).
    • He will act “in rage against the holy covenant” (Dan. 11:30).
    • This must refer to God’s covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ alone, which this king actively opposes by promoting an alternative way of salvation.
  • Second, Attack on the Sanctuary and the “Daily” (Dan. 11:31, Dan. 8:11)
    • This king will raise forces that will “defile the sanctuary” and take away the “daily sacrifices” (Dan. 11:31).
    • As noted in Daniel 8, the little horn casts down the foundation of God’s sanctuary and takes away the “daily sacrifices” (Dan. 8:11).
    • This should be understood as a spiritual attack on the heavenly sanctuary ministry of Jesus Christ.
  • Third, The Abomination of Desolation (Dan. 11:31, Dan. 8:13)
    • As a consequence of his attack on the sanctuary, the king of the North sets up the “abomination of desolation” in God’s temple.
    • A parallel expression is the “transgression of desolation,” which points to the acts of apostasy and rebellion committed by the little horn (Dan. 8:13–14).
  • Fourth, Persecution of the Saints (Dan. 11:35, Dan. 7:25)
    • This power persecutes God’s people:
    • “Some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end” (Dan. 11:35).
    • This reminds us of the little horn’s persecution described in Daniel 7:25, which also parallels the time of the Reformation and the1260 years of papal dominance
  • Fifth, Self-Exaltation and Blasphemy (Dan. 11:36; Dan. 7:8, 25, 2 Thessa 2:3–4)
    • This king will “exalt and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods” (Dan. 11:36).
    • Similarly, the little horn speaks “blasphemous words” (Dan. 7:8) and “against the Most High” (Dan. 7:25).
    • This further reinforces the interpretation of the king of the North as the papal system.

DANIEL 11: 31 (KJV)

“And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.”

“Arms shall stand on his part”

  • “Arms” are interpreted as military or political powers supporting the Papacy.
  • This points to civil enforcement of ecclesiastical authority, especially during the rise of Papal Rome.

“Pollute the sanctuary of strength”

  • Refers to the corruption of the true gospel and heavenly sanctuary truth, especially through false teachings, such as:
    • Salvation by works or the sacraments
    • Confession to priests instead of Christ
    • Replacement of Christ’s priestly work in heaven with earthly rituals

“Take away the daily”

  • It refers to the continual burnt offering or daily priestly sacrifice that was part of the temple rituals in Jerusalem.
  • The taking away of “the daily” signifies a systematic substitution of Christ’s priesthood with a counterfeit (e.g., the Papal mass and earthly mediation).

“They shall place the abomination that maketh desolate”

  • This is the establishment of the Papal system—a union of church and state that brought about persecution, distortion of truth, and the “desolation” of spiritual understanding and faith.
  • The establishment of papal supremacy, often identified with 538 A.D., but 508 A.D. is viewed as the starting point of this transition.

HISTORICAL BASIS FOR 508 A.D.

The year 508 A.D. mark a major turning point in Church-State relations, laying the groundwork for papal dominance in Western Europe.

Key Event:

  • Clovis I, king of the Franks, had converted to Catholic Christianity by 496 A.D.
  • By 508, he had defeated the Arian Visigoths (who opposed the Papacy) and consolidated power in support of Roman Catholicism.
  • He is the first “Catholic” king to fully unite church and state by military force in the West.

508 AND THE 1,290-DAY PROPHECY

DANIEL 12:11 (KJV)

“And from the time that the daily shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”

Interpretation:

  • 1,290 prophetic days = 1,290 literal years
  • Starting from 508 A.D., the 1,290 years end in 1798 A.D., the year the Pope was captured by Napoleon’s general, marking the end of papal political power.
  • Thus, 508 becomes the starting point of this 1,290-year prophecy.

The world teaches that Daniel 11:31 refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who is also described as the “Antichrist.” It further emphasizes that the “abomination of desolation” in Daniel 11:31 refers to the pagan sacrifices offered by the 2nd-century B.C.E. Greek king Antiochus IV in the Jewish temple. However, the historical-biblical timeline and many other specific biblical characteristics show that this explanation and teaching is not accurate.

The Bible shows that the little horn—the Antichrist—originated and rose from the head of the fourth beast (the fourth kingdom), which is the Roman Empire (168 B.C. – 476 A.D.). In contrast, the 2nd-century B.C. Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes came from the third kingdom—the Greek Empire (331–168 B.C.). This disqualifies Antiochus IV Epiphanes from being the Antichrist referred to in Daniel 11:31

Here are some specific biblical characteristics that identify the Papacy (the King of the North) as the little horn, the Antichrist, and the beast of Revelation (Revelation 14:6–12). To be the true “Antichrist,” one must fulfill all nine biblical characteristics—and they are all fulfilled by the papal system, not by the Greek King Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

AMEN

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Verified by MonsterInsights