Matthew24:15

All the Jews of Jesus’ time knew that the statements made in Daniel were fulfilled between 169 and 167 BC by Antiochus IV. Here is the full quote from Josephus: “So he (Antiochus) left the temple bare; and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense,] and table [of shew bread,] and the altar [of burnt-offering:] and did not abstain from even the veils… He forbad them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law. And when the King had built an idol altar upon God’s altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be Gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village; and offer swine upon them every day” (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, chapter 5, #4, year 168).

Any sacrifice made on one of these newly built altars would proclaim Antiochus as Zeus.

Why would the Jewish priests agree to do this? Josephus indicates that some of the priests thought favorably of Antiochus and the changes he was making, plus Antiochus killed anyone who opposed him. Either way, the defilement of the temple was complete.

Don’t be confused if you notice some historians saying Antiochus thought he was Zeus and some say he thought he was Jupiter. Zeus was the Greek name and Jupiter was the Roman name for the same god. The point is that Antiochus thought he was Zeus/Jupiter and acted as if he were the supreme authority over all things.

Jesus was saying here that the words of Daniel would be fulfilled again, thus they knew they were looking for something as terrible as, or worse than, what Antiochus did. This was indeed fulfilled again at the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in AD 70 because unclean, uncircumcised Romans went into every part of the temple and during the battle it caught on fire. Later they dismantled every stone wall of the temple, something that Antiochus did not do.

Many think that a Muslim Mosque resting on the spot where the Jewish temple once stood is fulfillment of this statement again. Let’s look at each event to see which one best fits what Daniel Predicted. In all three of the passages in Daniel (Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11) we see defilement, we see desolation and we see the elimination of the daily sacrifices at the temple. Antiochus caused defilement and he temporarily eliminated the proper daily sacrifice, but he did not bring about true desolation (he destroyed everything in the building, but he did not destroy the building itself); the event of AD 70 included defilement, complete desolation, and permanent elimination of daily sacrifices. The Muslim Mosque fulfills the prediction of defilement, but the desolation and elimination of the daily sacrifice had already been affected almost 2,000 years earlier. Thus the destruction of the temple in AD 70 was the event that best fulfills all the predicted elements written by Daniel.

Will this happen again (a third time)? At this point in the discourse, I believe Jesus was still talking only about the confirmation provided by AD 70, not about His coming again which is still in the future. We know it was fulfilled at that time. However, is it possible that this prophecy will have a third fulfillment? The answer will depend on the answer to a couple other questions. 1) Is Israel at the center of prophetic statements, or is the world-wide church at the center? 2) Will the “holy place” (think Holy of Holies) be a physical place, or is this symbolism? I am of the opinion that the church is what is in focus here not the nation of Israel, and words like “temple,” and “Holy place” will have symbolic fulfilment if they are fulfilled yet again. I see the mention of the “holy place” as a method set apart for God’s work, i.e. a method God uses to connect with mankind. Prior to AD 70 the physical place also fulfilled that spiritual dynamic. In the future a physical fulfillment may not be required.

The meaning of the name Antiochus is difficult to discern with clarity. It appears to be a combination of the Greek preposition “anti” and the Greek verb “to hold, possess, keep, have charge of, and therefore, to rule over.” At first glance that combination would create a name which means “opposed to possessing something.” That would be a very strange name for the son of a monarch, yet there were 13 Seleucid monarchs who were known by that name. But there are other options. It is more likely that it meant “opposed to whoever possesses something” or “opposed to whoever rules over something.” A full description of the name would go something like this: “You think you control something because you own it, but you’re wrong, I will prove that it is not yours to control when I take it from you.”

His full name was Antiochus Epiphanes Ho Theos Victor, which means “Antiochus, god manifest, the victorious one.” Apparently, he actually thought he was the god Zeus/Jupiter and he tried to act like Zeus/Jupiter would act. His attempts to act like a god were so extreme that the common people changed one of his names from Epiphanes, which mean “to reveal or manifest,” to Epimanes, which means “madman.”