Daniel 11:36-45
Objections against the Future Anti--Christ Interpretation.
1. "The King" must refer to "the" King in the preceding context. (Please read the context!).
A new King of the North would be introduced since there is the indefinite article___ "a"___ as in Dan. 11:3.
2. To skip 2000 years and hundreds of kings from verse 35 to verse 36, without some grammatical indication to justify such a "switch" is not "exegesis" but rather "eisegesis"__that is forcing a human theory on the text rather than accepting what the text actually says from a grammatical point of view.
3. The Destruction of Jerusalem of A.D. 70 comes after this king's death. Dan. 12:1___Matthew 24:21.
Objections Against Antiochus Answered__
Objection Answer
|
1. Verses 36-39 are not syncretic |
Verses 36-39 do not show syncretism but rebellion against all gods. I Macc. 1:43; 6:2; 9:1 |
|
2. Vs. 40_South did not invade North |
Does not say invasion but opposition, much like Iran and America today |
|
3. Vs. 42__Antiochus was not successful against Egypt after 168 B.C. |
This section is a review of things that have already happened. He was successful before 168 B.C.__1st Macc. 1:18-21 |
|
4. Vs. 43__Antiochus didn't gain control of the riches of Egypt. |
1st Macc. 1:20 says he did this in his successful battle. |
|
5. Vs. 43__Antiochus did not conquer Libyans and Ethiopians. |
Does not say conquer. They submit through alliances. Feared his victory of Egypt. |