Antiochus IV Epiphanes
The Madman

When Alexander the Great's empire broke up, it resolved into four major kingdoms. Seleucus was one of Alexander's generals, and came to control the Syrian portion of the empire. Syria was one of the two dominant divisions of the empire, and continued through twenty kings. Antiochus IV was the eighth of these twenty Seleucid kings. He ruled from 175 - 164 BC. Being somewhat impressed with himself, he took the name of "Epiphanes", meaning "Select of God." His subjects had a somewhat more realistic assessment of his character, and made a pun on his name, calling him "Epimanes" or "madman."

Before we consider the (de)merits of Antiochus IV, we need to consider his position in history. Antiochus IV was the son of Antiochus III Magnus, the sixth of the Seleucid kings. Antiochus III was an able general, and pursued numerous successful military campaigns. Unfortunately for him, in 189 BC, he was defeated by the Roman army at the Battle of Magnesia. In the Peace of Apamea which followed in 188 BC, Antiochus III was forced to give up all but ten of his warships, surrender outright the territory of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), and pay tribute of 15,000 talents (about $15,000,000 in pure silver, but worth much more in coin). Following this, although the remaining Seleucid kings enjoyed a great deal of autonomy, they were vassal kings of Rome. Since the prophecy deals with the dominant kings of the day, a subservient Seleucid king such as Antiochus IV is immediately disqualified from consideration. However, since so many interpreters consider him to be the fulfillment of prophecy, we will continue exploring his career.

Antiochus IV had two key passions which are worthy of note, since they bear on the prophecy: He hated the Jews, and he fancied himself a conqueror in the mold of his father, Antiochus III Magnus ("the Great"). Also notable is that he assumed the throne in an unorthodox (for Syria) manner. His uncle, the brother of Antiochus III, should have become king. Through some considerable intrigue on the part of his mother, Antiochus IV took the throne in 175 BC.

Antiochus IV promptly began to persecute the Jews. His father had not treated them well, but things now really got bad. In 170 BC he ordered the murder of the High Priest, Onias III. He issued a decree outlawing the Jewish religion. Antiochus didn't ignore his other ambitions, either.

In 169 BC, his army conquered most of Egypt. In 168, he returned to finish the job. Unfortunately for him, by then Egypt was a protectorate of Rome. As Antiochus entered Egypt, the Roman Governor, Popilleus Laenas, confronted him and demanded the he leave Egypt immediately. Antiochus played a typical middle Eastern game and told the Governor that he would think about it. Popilleus took a stick, drew a circle around Antiochus in the sand, then demanded an answer before Antiochus left the circle. Antiochus withdrew from Egypt without fighting a single battle.

Clearly, this was unsatisfactory for the egomaniacal Antiochus. Having no military adventures with any likely success, the Jews became the target of all his energy. All Jews were required, on pain of death, to sacrifice pigs to pagan gods on their altars. The failure of one family member to sacrifice was cause to execute the whole family. This led to the Maccabean rebellion.

In 167 BC he desecrated the Temple by instituting pagan services there, including the sacrifice of a pig on the altar. Of singular importance for our understanding of prophecy is that Antiochus did not destroy any part of the temple. He did build extra structures, including pagan "enhancements" to the altar of sacrifice. However, none of this can be considered "throw(ing) down" the foundations of the sanctuary.

Eventually the Maccabean revolt, with the help of the Romans, forced the Syrians out of Palestine. Of particular importance is the fact that in 164 BC, three years to the day after Antiochus IV desecrated the Temple, the Jews re-consecrated it to God's service. Twelve Seleucid kings succeeded Antiochus IV.

Where does this take us? We now must compare this infamous persecutor of Jews with the prophecy to see how he fits or fails to fit.

8 Then the male goat magnified himself exceedingly. But as soon as he was mighty, the large horn was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.
9 And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn...

The interpreters who support the Antiochus theory point to the English language of verses 8 and 9 to show that the little horn came out of one of the four divisions of Alexander's empire. Since Antiochus was a Seleucid, he fits. Unfortunately for them, that wasn't what Daniel wrote. As we noted before, the little horn came out of the winds of strife. It would be possible to make Antiochus fit, but it's a real stretch.

23 "And in the latter period of their rule, When the transgressors have run their course,...

When we examine the timing, it is still possible to bend the prophecy to make Antiochus acceptable, but again, it's not a very good answer. The phrase "out of one of (the winds)" indicates a new kingdom, not part of an existing kingdom. Antiochus was one of the Seleucids (one of the four horns), and they continued for a century after his death. On the other hand, Rome matches the prophetic specification since it was the ascendant power at the time of the crucifixion.

9 And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land.

The little horn conquered in three directions. Antiochus conquered most of Egypt, but was then thrown out simply by a demand of the Roman governor. So we can give him "south" on a technicality. When we look east, we come up empty. Antiochus did not conquer anything to the east. Likewise, "the Beautiful Land" is a loser for Antiochus. While he vigorously persecuted the Jews in Palestine, he did not conquer it. That honor falls to his father, Antiochus III Magnus.

Finally, we have to look at the "exceedingly great" achievements of the little horn. Frankly, other than his hatred for the Jews, which led to the Maccabean rebellion and the Jewish League with Rome, Antiochus is a footnote in history. In no conceivable way was he as great as the MedoPersians or Greeks. The prophecy requires a kingdom of greatness which is surpassing, extraordinary to a degree which is difficult to understand, and Antiochus just doesn't cut it.

10 And it grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down.
11 It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down.
12 And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper.

23 ...A king will arise Insolent and skilled in intrigue.
24 "And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power, And he will destroy to an extraordinary degree And prosper and perform his will; He will destroy mighty men and the holy people.
25 "And through his shrewdness He will cause deceit to succeed by his influence; And he will magnify himself in his heart, And he will destroy many while they are at ease. He will even oppose the Prince of princes, But he will be broken without human agency.

God shows us a picture of an entity of great evil, who imagines himself to be God, and "throws down the sanctuary". He is a schemer. His ascendance is not of his own doing. On several counts, Antiochus IV Epiphanes bears a superficial resemblance to the little horn. Unfortunately, his interpreters forget to read all of what Daniel wrote. The Hebrew shalak (7993) translated "cast down" implies destructive activity. Antiochus desecrated, but did not destroy the Temple in any way. Shalak is never used to imply desecration. Antiochus doesn't fit.

Many refer to his persecution of the Jews in "the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice", "And he will destroy to an extraordinary degree", and "He will destroy mighty men and the holy people." Unfortunately, the phrase they leave out "And prosper and perform his will" wipes out the possibility of Antiochus filling the bill. Getting kicked out of Egypt by a Roman Governor telling him to leave is not "perform(ing) his will".

To rescue their choice, Antiochus' interpreters point to "But he will be broken without human agency." They say that his death of natural causes satisfies the prophecy. Unfortunately, they once again forget to read what was written. Shabar (7665), translated "broken", implies a violent action against the object, much like breaking a glass, or "crushing" as in chapter 2:

45 "Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold,...

A death of natural causes just doesn't fill the bill.

One final point needs to be brought up, then we can lay Antiochus to rest in well deserved obscurity. Those who would have Antiochus IV Epiphanes be the little horn take verse 14

14 And he said to me, "For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored."

to mean 1,150 literal days. They erroneously count one for each evening and each morning to arrive at this conclusion. They then note that Antiochus desecrated the Temple for three years and call it close enough. The desecration lasted exactly three years (1,059 - 1,095 days, depending on detail of the Jewish calendar). This leaves Antiochus short by about two months. His expositors then use mathematical tricks that make the new math look simple to try to make the numbers fit, then still have to fudge to make them fit. This can only work if God is in the business of rough guesses in prophecy.

As we will see, there is a perfect fit available, and Antiochus isn't it. We aren't in a cosmic casino where God plays games of chance with us. God sees the end from the beginning (Is 46:9-10), and doesn't need to approximate. It's enough to make one wonder why anyone would think that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn. Many figures were evil in several respects, but only one fits perfectly, and we have shown that Rome is it. Is that what they want to avoid recognizing?