SRR #68 | Antiochus IV and the Abomination of Desolation Part 1 (Eschatology And The Danielic Imperative Part 6)

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast.

Polemical Ministry and the Battle Over Justification by Faith Alone

The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield exposing the air and combating the air.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillium toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as fashion is itself fashion. It's not hate. It's history. It's not fashion. It's the Bible. Jesus said, Woe to you when men speak well of you. For their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way.

As opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle.

Daniel 11 as a Continuous Greek-Period Narrative

At the time appointed, he shall return and come toward the south, but it shall not be as the former or as the latter. For the ships of Kittim shall come against him. Therefore he shall be grieved and return and have indignation against the Holy Covenant.

So shall he do. He shall even return and have intelligence with them that forsake the Holy Covenant. 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. Daniel chapter 11 verses 29 through 31. All right. I want to welcome you to the show. My name is Tim Shaughnessy and you are listening to Semper Reformanda radio.

So as you could probably already tell from me reading from the book of Daniel. This is going to be an eschatology episode with Timothy Kaufman. This is number 6 in our series. I definitely would encourage everybody to go back and listen to the previous episodes.

Kaufman is very thorough and it's such a blessing that we have him on our podcast. So we're going to get into that. I'm going to ask him to give us an introduction and then we're going to read some questions from an email that we got.

But first I want to let everybody know about something. The Reformation at 500 book sale from the Trinity Foundation has been extended to the end of the year, December 31st. So I would encourage everybody out there to go on to the Trinity Foundation and check out some of these books.

I will highlight a couple of them. Some of them against the church, the Trinity Foundation Review. And against the world, the Trinity Foundation Review. Have been marked down significantly. One of them has been marked down from $39 to $19.

The other one has been marked down from $34 to $26. So you can definitely save some money and get some great books. The Atonement has been marked down from about $9 to about $6. Let me see. Here's a really great one.

Christian Philosophy of Education has been marked down from $12 to $6. Oh look. Christian Philosophy of the Works of Gordon Clark. Volume 4. This is an excellent book. Has been marked down from $21 to $10.

This is an excellent book. So definitely go on there and check it out. We really appreciate Tom Giodatos and all that he does. And one of the reasons that we've been so busy is because I've been helping the Trinity Foundation.

They are going to start a podcast. A gentleman by the name of Steve Matthews is going to head that up. He's going to be doing the podcast. And as a matter of fact, we were privileged to be part of the first episode.

So that should be coming real quickly. I did the intro music for them. And we did an interview with Steve, Timothy Kaufman, and I. And it had to do with our article on John Piper, which Tom Giodatos published on the Trinity Foundation.

He took both of the articles that Tim and I wrote. And we published it on the Trinity Foundation. The review is called John Piper on Final Justification by Works. And you can find it there. So it is pretty lengthy.

Definitely encourage you to check that out. And also be sure to check out what other people like Rachel Miller have written. But anyways, so we are going to hopefully interview Steve Matthews. He's got a great podcast.

It's a Clarkian podcast. So I want to bring him on to interview him. And so there are some really great things happening. But today we are going to get into eschatology. So I want to hand it over to Tim.

And Tim, can you just give us an introduction into what we are going to be talking about today?

Okay, thank you. It is great to be back. We're going to pick up where we left off from our previous episodes. This is now Episode 6 of Eschatology and the Danielic Imperative. By way of brief summary, we have spent a lot of time in our previous episodes establishing an Alexandrian frame of reference.

In which North, South, and East are used consistently to refer to the same geographic areas throughout Daniel Chapter 11. And further that the boundary between North and South in Daniel's prophecies in Chapter 11 is actually the Taurus Mountains.

And that leaves a small sliver of land on the southern coast of Asia Minor that actually technically in Daniel's prophecies is actually part of the Kingdom of the South. We've also showed that the Kingdom of the North in Daniel Chapter 11 refers to whomever occupies and rules Asia Minor and Thrace.

And the title, King of the North, follows the geography, not the dynasty. That is why Daniel Chapter 11 verses 4 to 18 refers to the Seleucid line of kings as King of the North. Because during that period the Seleucids occupied and controlled Asia Minor within the Taurus Mountains.

But after the events described in Daniel Chapter 11 verse 18, the Seleucids were forever kicked out of Asia Minor and Europe after the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. And the Treaty of Apamea in 188 BC.

We're going to come back to that treaty in this episode, so I want people to be reminded of it. So in the following verses, that is from Daniel 11 verses 19 through 39, the Seleucid line of kings is still in view.

But they are no longer called King of the North because they have been actually evicted from the Northern Territory. By the time we get to Daniel 11 verse 40, the Roman Republic, which is not yet an empire, was the King of the North because it occupied and ruled Asia Minor north of the Taurus Mountains plus Thrace.

In fact, the Egyptian territories by then had long since been bequeathed to Rome anyway. And that left the pirates of Pamphylia, whose home port was the narrow crescent of land between the Taurus Mountains and the Mediterranean Sea, south of the Taurus Mountains, as the last remaining southern autocracy in the Alexandrian frame of reference.

When we say Alexandrian frame of reference, we're talking about the north-south-east-west division that was set up after Alexander's death. Now that made the Pamphylian pirates the King of the South.

So Daniel 11 verses 40 to 45 is about the battle between the Roman Republic and the pirates of Pamphylia. And Rome's champion in that battle was the great general Pompey. We ended our last episode with Pompey's death after he, quote, planted the tabernacles of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain.

That's basically a quote from Daniel 11 verse 45. And then died the year after Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. That was an absolutely formative event in the rise of the Roman Republic to become the next empire.

We have intentionally covered Daniel 11 verses 1 to 18 and Daniel 11 verses 40 to 45 to show that Daniel 11 is in fact a continuous narrative under the Greek period of Daniel's timeline. From the waning days of the Medo-Persian Empire to the rise and fall of Alexander, through the waning days of the Greek period when the remnants of Alexander's dominions would be divided four ways by his successors, the Diadochi, and would then be, quote, plucked up even for others besides these, Daniel 11, 4.

We have now provided the bookends of the Greek period in Daniel chapter 11. And we have done so for a very specific purpose, to show the actual fulfillment of events in history. Daniel 11 verses 1 to 18 refers to actual events in recorded history.

And Daniel 11 verses 40 to 45 also refers to actual events in recorded history. What that does for us is show us exactly when the intervening verses, that is Daniel 11 verses 19 to 39, actually took place.

They must have occurred between the Treaty of Apamea in 188 BC, when the Seleucids got kicked out of Asia Minor, and the beginning of the Pirate War in 68 BC, when the pirates sacked Ostia, a suburb of Rome, at the mouth of the Tiber River, provoking General Pompey's sweeping response to that pirate threat.

As we have noted previously, one of the artificial difficulties that have been introduced to the chapter is that it has been historically assumed that the frame of reference in Daniel changes to an eschatological frame of reference, dealing with the end times, in the latter part of Daniel chapter 11.

One of those reasons is that, broadly speaking, apart from what we showed in our preceding episode, the last six verses of Daniel 11 have for many centuries, even millennia, appeared to record events that are largely believed never to have actually taken place.

Historians and eschatologists could not put a finger on any historical events that match the prophecy. Thus, it has traditionally been assumed that the framework of Daniel's vision must have shifted to distant future events sometime before the end of the chapter.

However, as we showed last week, those events really did occur in history between 68 BC and 48 BC, ending with Pompey's death just when Caesar was about to become the first king of the Roman Empire. We believe we can correct the traditional assumption by showing that the last six verses of the chapter refer to those historical events, showing that Daniel truly had foreseen actual events that actually took place in history.

The reason this matters to us is that the intervening passage, that is, from Daniel 11, 19 -39, refers to the reign of Antiochus IV, one of the kings of the Seleucid dynasty, and also refers to his abomination of desolation.

That abomination is utterly crucial to any eschatology, since Jesus himself uses it as a reference point for the time immediately following his earthly ministry. He references that abomination in Matthew 24, 15 and Mark 13, 14.

And what we're going to prove today is that those verses, Daniel 11, 19 -39, actually occurred in recorded history, and thus the abomination of desolation was truly a Greek phenomenon occurring under the Greek empire during the Greek period of Daniel's visions.

But the question we need to ask is, how is it possible that the abomination of desolation could take place under the Greek period of Daniel's visions, even though Jesus was born during the Roman period and taught plainly that the abomination was yet future?

That's the question we're going to answer. And to answer it, we have to prove first that the abomination of desolation really occurred under Antiochus IV, one of the kings of the Seleucid line in Alexander's divided Greek empire.

Until we can establish that time frame and the identity of the abomination itself, we will not understand Jesus' appeal to a Danielic chronology in the Gospels. Okay, so that's what we're going to talk about today.

But before we go much further, let's take some questions from our listeners regarding the previous episode.

Answering Questions About Daniel 11:40 and Daniel 12:1-2

Okay, well, we got some emails, and let me go ahead and pull these up. Well, actually, we got an email from an individual asking a question that I couldn't answer. If you'd like to email us, our email address is semper .refermanda .radio at gmail .com.

Let me go ahead and pull this email up. The email is from Phil Goodman.

He says,.

Okay, so he was referring to me in the first one. He says, He says, He says,.

Okay, thank you, Tim. Phil's question is about Daniel 11, verse 40, and the grammatical reference to him, as in, then shall the king of the south push at him. Who is the him in that verse? Daniel had just been talking about the king who shall do according to his will, in verse 36, and shall not regard the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, in verse 37.

And will honor the God of forces, in verse 38, and acknowledges a strange God, in verse 39. The next thing Daniel writes is, Okay, so who is the him, or rather, who is the king of the south pushing against?

In the English, it sounds like the king of the south is pushing against the antagonist of the preceding verses, because the king of the south pushes against him. But as it turns out, this is an interpolation or a gloss in the English that does not actually exist in the Hebrew.

The Cambridge Bible for schools and colleges explains, for example, that what we have in English as the king of the south shall push at him, is more correctly rendered, the king of the south shall show himself one that pushes, or literally, show himself one that butts, as in the way a goat butts against his enemy.

What's missing in the original text is what gets rendered in the English as, at him. That English rendering would have suggested that the king of the south was pushing at the him, or the he, of Daniel 11, verses 36 to 39.

But as it turns out, in the literal rendering, the grammar does not take us back to verse 36 at all, because it doesn't say that he will butt or gore at him. What it says is that the king of the south shall prove himself to be a nuisance, such that the king of the north will be provoked to respond.

What we know from the scriptures is that the Seleucids did not possess the northern territory of Thrace plus Asia Minor within the Taurus Mountains, but the Roman Republic did. That's why it is so important to determine Daniel's original frame of reference, north, south, east, and west, and then determine from that who was king of the north at Daniel 1140.

As we established in our previous episodes, the title, king of the north, does not follow the dynasty of the Seleucids, but rather sticks with the territory of Asia Minor north of the Taurus Mountains, and whoever rules the territory is king of the north.

At that time, the Roman Republic ruled it. The king of the south showed himself to be a nuisance, that is, the pirates of Pamphylia. They showed themselves to be a nuisance or one who butts or gores, and the king of the north was provoked to respond.

That's exactly what happened in the pirate wars when the Pamphylian pirates actually started to invade the Italian peninsula, and General Pompey was authorized by the Republic to respond with the full force and treasure of the Roman Republic.

What Daniel does not say is that the king of the south pushes at the king identified in verse 36, and as we showed previously, the king of the Seleucids was not king of the north by that time anyway. So, that's why we needed to spend our time looking at who was actually king of the north when the title was used.

So, that's the first question. I understand that Phil had a second question, so let's go on to Phil's second question.

Okay, and the second question is, he says, Phil continues, he says, my second question is in regards to Daniel chapter 12 verse 1. Quote, now at that time, close quote, that to me, as I understand it, represents a time of resurrection at the end of the age, i .e. future.

See Daniel chapter 12 verse 2. So, if Daniel chapter 12 verses 1 and 2 is future, why isn't Daniel 11, 45? When Daniel 12 verse 1 is quote, at that time, close quote. Once again, thank you for a great podcast.

Regards and blessings, Phil. So, Phil, thank you very, very much for writing us. And Phil wrote this email back in October, and we're barely getting to it. So, Phil, thank you for your patience, and we appreciate Tim coming on today, and hopefully he can answer these questions.

Okay, thanks, Tim. This question has to do with why, after the death of the king of the north in Daniel 11, 45, Daniel continues by talking about things that happen at the time of the end. The resurrection of the just, the time of trouble, the deliverance of the people of God, the resurrection of the damned.

I'll include in that Archangel Michael's defensive posture on behalf of God's people, which is stated in Daniel 12, 1, which is also mentioned in Revelation 12 verses 7 to 10. Let's look at the passage going all the way back to Daniel 10, 1.

So, Daniel 10, 1 through 11, 2 is a cursory and passing description of some of the events that are identifiably Medo-Persian, but without the details of the Medo-Persian Empire that were presented in Daniel 8.

Then the Greek Empire happens, and there's a lot of detail in it in this chapter, from the rise of the Greek Empire to a global power as it destroys the Medo-Persian Empire, all the way through its last whimpering strains, just as the Roman Republic is about to rise and become the next global empire, which happened largely because of the stage that was set by General Pompey in his last campaign against the pirates of Pamphylia, and against Tigranes of Armenia, who's in the east, and Mithridates of Pontus in the north, as depicted in the last six verses of Daniel 11.

Daniel's very next words are about the Roman Empire, but without the detail that was present in Daniel chapter 7. He mentions Michael, a time of trouble for Jerusalem, the deliverance of the people of God, the preaching of the gospel, and two resurrections, which we discover later, to be about a thousand years, well, to be a thousand years apart.

That's Revelation 20, verse 5. So what do all these events have in common? Well, they are things that occur in what is depicted as a Roman period, according to Daniel's visions and in Revelation. The significance here is that we have just gone through the entire Greek period, and then the very next thing that happens is Roman.

If we look at the Roman period as depicted in the statue of Daniel chapter 2 and the four beasts of Daniel 7, it starts with iron legs. That is, after the golden Babylonian era, the silver Medo-Persian era, and the bronze Greek era, we have iron legs depicting the Roman period.

Those iron legs transition to iron and clay feet, and finally to iron and clay toes. As Daniel says, it is during the period of those feet, in the days of those kings, when the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.

That's a quote from Daniel 2, verse 44. This, of course, is the reference to the heavenly kingdom Jesus came announcing during the period of the fourth empire, which, of course, is Roman. According to Daniel 7, the Babylonian lion gives way to the Medo-Persian bear, which gives way to the Greek leopard, and which in turn is trampled underfoot by the last beast with ten horns, which, for reference, we will equate to the toes of the statue of Daniel chapter 2.

That's the fragmented period of the Roman empire. From among those horns, and therefore from among the toes of the feet, comes the little horn of Daniel 7, which has an earthly empire that oppresses the saints of God.

Again, the events are characteristically Roman in nature. Now, as depicted in Daniel 7, the saints of God do not possess an earthly kingdom under heaven until after that little horn is finally destroyed in Daniel 7, 27.

What is important to us here is that Daniel depicts in chapter 2 a heavenly kingdom of God's people during the fourth empire in the period of the feet prior to the fragmentation of Rome, but in chapter 7 depicts another kingdom, an earthly kingdom, the kingdom of Antichrist, emerging from among the horns of the fourth empire after that fragmentation.

In a future episode we're going to address the significance of those two kingdoms, but let it suffice to say for now that it is very important to distinguish between those two kingdoms, one of which is heavenly and one of which is earthly.

Many people have stumbled into the arms of Antichrist thinking that they had found the former kingdom, which is the heavenly one, but in reality had embraced the latter, which is the earthly one. One of the most important things we would emphasize in this series is that the saints of God should be trained to recognize the difference, and we'll come back to that in a future episode.

But there's another point we've been making from the first episode, and that is the number of horns of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 that still remain when Christ returns. There are still ten horns at the very end, even in Revelation 20, verse 10, at the time of Christ's return.

In other words, after the Greek period of Daniel's visions, everything after that point is pretty much Roman in nature. All the way until Christ himself establishes an actual earthly kingdom after destroying that little horn which came up from the fragments of Rome.

That Roman period is simply overflowing with eschatological significance and events, and that is the period immediately following the Greek period. So, to answer Phil's question, which was, if chapter 12, verses 1 and 2 is future, why isn't Daniel 11, 45 also future when Daniel 12 is at that time?

My answer is that, from Daniel's perspective, Daniel 12 is not so much future as it is next after the Greek period. That's the only point he's making. It is future, but it's future because it's next after the Greek period.

Daniel has simply concluded the record of the Greek period, and he is saying what follows immediately upon the end of the Greek period, which is to say, the Roman period. At that time, the angel Michael will stand up.

Note that Michael was also involved in the transition from the Medo-Persian to the Greek period back in Daniel 10, 21. And there shall be a time of trouble, that is, when Jesus comes and is rejected by his people, and your people shall be delivered, referring to Christ's death and resurrection, that is, to preach deliverance to the captives, which is what Jesus says in Luke 4, 18.

In other words, at that time, that is, at the time of the final end of what we'd call the Greek period, the Roman period will begin, and a lot of interesting things happen in the Roman period. In fact, the most interesting things happen in Daniel's prophecies in the Roman period.

All Daniel has recorded is that after the terrible things that will happen under the Greek period, even worse things will happen under what we'd call the Roman period. It is a continuous narrative that started with the Medo-Persian empire, walked all the way through the minute details of the Greek empire, and concludes with the very beginning of the Roman empire.

And Daniel has simply recorded what has been revealed to him, which is what happens under the next empire. He doesn't get into all the details here as he does in Daniel chapter 7, but it is a continuous narrative.

And when he says in 12, 1, at that time, he's saying when the Roman empire arises, this is what's going to happen within that Roman empire. Now, before we leave Phil's questions, I want to highlight something that occurs in Daniel 11 and 12 that is worth further discussion.

And that is the meaning of the word that is translated as the end. It occurs repeatedly in Daniel, and especially in the narrative of Daniel 11 and 12, but also in Daniel chapter 8. It is important to acknowledge that the end is determined by its context and does not always refer to the end of time.

I want to review the occurrences of the end, or the transliteration would be kets, because it will matter to us greatly in the coming episodes. So let's review some of the uses of the word the end, because we are going to come back to this and we'll contextualize each use of the end.

In Daniel 11, 6, at the beginning of the passage, it says that the kings of the north and south shall form an alliance in the end of years. And here, the end just means after a passage of time, but still well within the Greek period.

In fact, toward the beginning of the Greek period, but after the division of Alexander's empire. In Daniel 11, 35, it says, and some of them of understanding shall fall to try them and to purge and to make them white, even to the time of the end.

Now, in context here, the end refers to the end of the indignation, referring to the indignation that had yet to be accomplished. And in fact, in the next verse, it explains that the time of the end is the time when, quote, the indignation shall be accomplished, as Daniel 11, 36.

We have a similar confirmation in Daniel 8, verses 17 to 19, that shows us that, quote, the end of the indignation, unquote, has that very precise meaning. It says, understand, O son of man, for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

And he said, behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation. For at the time appointed, the end shall be. So here, end of the indignation is not the end of time, it's just simply the end of an indignation that we're actually going to spend a good amount of time studying in a coming episode.

But for now, we're just going to point out that the end here refers to the end of the indignation, and the end of the indignation actually takes place under the Seleucid dynasty during the Greek period after the fall of Alexander.

Now Daniel 11, 40 says, and at the time of the end, again, it's the same word, at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him. Here, the end refers to the final demise of the period under discussion, the final end of the Greek period, because what's about to be recounted in Daniel 11, 40 to 45 is simply the last dying gasps of what can be construed as a Greek period as the Roman Republic begins to take over.

Then Daniel 12, 4 says, but thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even to the time of the end, which is clearly a reference to the end of the series of empires, and has its own unique meaning there in that context.

Daniel 12, 6 says, and one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, how long shall it be to the end of these wonders? From the context of the angel's response, we have pretty good evidence that we're still talking about things that are taking place under the Greek period, and we'll come back to that a little bit later when we discuss this in another episode.

Daniel 12, 9 says, and he said, go thy way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed to the end of time. And Daniel 12, 13 says, go thou thy way till the end, for thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

So that's obviously talking to the very, very, very end of time. So we're looking at all these different uses of the word end in this chapter. And the point is that the term the end really just means distant or after or later or afterward.

It does not always refer to what we would call the end times, but sometimes it does. Context has to be our guide here, because there are things that happen at the beginning of the Greek Empire that are described as happening at the end of years, and then things that happen in the middle of the Greek Empire that are described as at the end of the indignation.

And then at the end of the Greek Empire is at the time of the end. And then things that happen during the Roman Empire are called things that happen at the time of the end. So context has to be our guide on this, and we'll start our exploration of that concept a little bit in this episode.

So thanks to Phil for the great questions, and thanks for listening. If there are more questions, we'll gladly entertain them and just send them on in as you listen to the episodes. And again, we appreciate everybody listening.

Antiochus IV, the Seleucid Line, and the Rise of the Little Horn

So Tim, let's complete our analysis of Daniel chapter 11. And that is to say, let us evaluate what is between the bookends that we have addressed in episodes 4 and 5. Daniel 11 starts with the rise of Alexander the Great and the period of Greek dominance of Daniel's visions, and it ends with the last whimpering strains of post-Alexandrian Hellenism as Pompey sets the stage for the Roman Republic to become the Roman Empire.

Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon the year before Pompey died and then took the purple, which is to say, became the first emperor of Rome just four years after Pompey died. Daniel 11 simply walks us all the way up to the point when Rome was about to become an empire in its own right.

In between those two bookends stands the intrigue and exploits of Antiochus IV, who reigned in Syria and therefore over Jerusalem from 175 BC until his death in 164 BC. So, to set the stage, let's start with a short biography of the Seleucid line and in particular the childhood of Antiochus IV because it factors heavily into Daniel's description of the events in Daniel chapter 11.

I should say it factors heavily into our understanding of what Daniel had foreseen. Of the four nations that came up toward the four winds of heaven, and that's described for us in Daniel 8 .8 and 11 .4, Seleucus I formed the eastern kingdom, reigning over the eastern territories from Syria to India.

Seleucus I was succeeded in 281 BC by his son Antiochus I, surnamed Soter or Savior. Antiochus I was succeeded in 261 BC by his son Antiochus II Theos, which means God. Antiochus II was succeeded in 246 BC by his son Seleucus II or Callinicus, which means gloriously triumphant.

Seleucus II was succeeded in 225 BC by his son Seleucus III or Keranos, which means thunderbolt. Seleucus III was succeeded in 222 BC by his son Antiochus III Magnus or the Great. And we recall that until his historic defeat at the hands of the Romans at Magnesia in 190 BC, Antiochus III was safely in control of Asia Minor within the Taurus Mountains, plus the Thracian Peninsula in Europe.

At the Treaty of Apamea in 188 BC, Antiochus III gave in to Roman demands for his surrender, and the terms of surrender included his eviction from Asia Minor in Europe and an extremely burdensome annual tribute that had to be paid to Rome to cover the costs of the war, as well as the downsizing of his navy and the destruction of his war elephants.

Additionally, in order to guarantee his ongoing cooperation, Antiochus III had to send his younger son Antiochus IV to Rome as a hostage. Now before we continue with the family line of the Seleucids, this context is crucial to our understanding of the chapter for at least three reasons.

First, Antiochus IV's father, Antiochus III, died in the east trying to raid temples to raise money for the war tribute, as depicted in Daniel 11 .18. And then the following verses of Daniel 11 speak of sending a tax collector into the provinces.

That tax collector was necessary to raise the funds for the annual war tribute, and knowledge of the terms of the Treaty of Apamea helps us understand the context of the need for a tax collector. Second, the Syrian kingdom, and particularly its military activity, was now under the scrutiny of the Roman Republic, which is why we find portrayed for us in this narrative a Roman intervention after Antiochus IV gets too belligerent in the region.

Third, Antiochus IV, a Greek by ethnicity, has been raised in Rome in the shadow of Jupiter Capitolinus, the god of the capital of the Roman Republic. This, too, is important to our context because a significant portion of the narrative in chapter 11 is about Antiochus IV giving up his native gods for a foreign god, which is understandable since he was raised under a Roman pantheon rather than a Greek one.

We'll keep those matters in mind as we proceed through the chapter. Now, with Antiochus IV as a hostage in Rome, Antiochus III was succeeded in 187 BC by his son, Seleucus IV, Philopator, which means one who loves his father.

And as king, Seleucus IV produced an heir, Demetrius I, surnamed Soter, which means savior. At that point, in compliance with the terms of the 188 BC Treaty of Apamea, Demetrius I was sent to Rome as the new hostage to replace Antiochus IV, and Antiochus IV was released to return to Syria.

So this sets the stage for the rise of Antiochus IV to become, as it turns out, the illegitimate king of the Syrian kingdom. So Seleucus IV was then assassinated in 175 BC by Heliodorus, his own courtier, who in fact had been the very tax collector he'd sent into the provinces to raise money for the war tribute.

Heliodorus' coup did not last long, and Eumenes, the king of Pergamon, removed him and installed Antiochus IV in his place. This is recorded for us in Appian's History of Rome. It says,. Thus Antiochus, the son of Antiochus the Great, ascended the throne of Syria.

That's Appian's History of Rome, the Syrian Wars, paragraph 45. With that knowledge of the background of how we ended up to the point where Antiochus IV is even a player on this stage, let's proceed with chapter 11, starting at 1119.

What we want to do is go from 1119 to 39 and show that the whole section deals with the rise of Antiochus IV to power in his persecution of the Jews, and also, in particular, his desecration of the temple with the abomination of desolation.

So, starting at Daniel 1119, immediately after the death of Antiochus III, who died in the east raiding temples, attempting to raise funds for the war tribute for Rome. Keep in mind, from our previous discussions, that the Seleucids have been kicked out of the north, and from this point forward in the text, they are still in view, but they are simply no longer referred to as king of the north.

So, Daniel 1119. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom, but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle. That's the King James Version.

Now, what's interesting here is that the other translations and Young's literal translation takes it to mean, and stood up on his station, hath one causing an exactor to pass over the honor of the kingdom, and in a few days he is destroyed, not in anger nor in battle.