Early deceitful dealings with Israel are mentioned in verses 22 and 23, establishing his way of working with the Jews early in his career. In verse 25 his complete mastery of the South (Egypt) is foretold, but also the whittling away of that power at conference tables (26-27). Also see in verse 27 another mentioning of “the appointed time” as though the Spirit is readying the reader for something unusual. Though these two liars sit at the same table and make their schemes for annihilating the other in public, it is God who rules over the affairs of men, and the plans He has made for Israel will happen His way, and at His time.

In verse 28 we see a rich and powerful Antiochus, happy about how life is treating him, going into Israel to add to his riches by stealing from the Temple treasury .

But in verse 29 there is an immediate reversal. Antiochus returns. And from here until verse 35 is a troubling series of verses. Most historians agree that Antiochus did make a second excursion approach toward Egypt. Surely the incident of verse 30, his rebuff by a Roman commander, has been documented. His subsequent desire to dump on Israel has been verified also. The ensuing martyrdom and exploits of the Maccabees can all be made to fit into this passage.

But there are some curious features about what is said from 29-35 also. The passage begins with “at the appointed time.” From Daniel 8:19 to 10:1 to 11:27 and later to 11:35, and 11:40, the “appointed time” or “time of the end” is where the Divine Originator seems to be going.

“He shall return” gives one pause also. Yes, he returned to Egypt, or tried to. Is it possible that hidden in this text is the idea that he shall return to earth?

He approaches Egypt but the writer tells us that it will not be like the “former” (time he came here) , that is, he will not succeed this time. He also says that it will not be like the “latter”. What does that mean? That can only mean that another trip is in view by the angel. Indeed, such a campaign is mentioned in verse 40. And by the time we get to verse 40, no one doubts that we are talking about an end-time series of events. Our only struggle is 29-35, when it could be that history must be repeated.

The ships from Cyprus of verse 30 remind me of the ongoing evacuation this very week of American citizens to that island from Lebanon, where there is a struggle being funded by a king of the North of our own day in Iran. I am not stating that antichrist lives now in Iran. I only suggest that situations of ancient days can easily be re-lived in our own.

It is verse 31 that gives us the largest clue that this passage, fulfilled already or not, must come again to the world stage. Another look at chapter 8:11-13 which has already been defined by Gabriel as an end-time scenario, and a comparison of phrases used there to ones used here in 11:31 will remind us, I hope, that we are in search of “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” which was future in Jesus’ day and cannot therefore be tied to history already passed. Look at what is said:

8:11, “by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. 11:31, “ they shall defile the sanctuary fortress… then shall they take away the daily sacrifices…

8:12, “Because of transgression, an army was given over to him to oppose the daily sacrifices…11:31, “Forces shall be mustered by him…

8:13, “… transgression of desolation…” 11:31, “...the abomination of desolation.”

Historical, you say? Already done in history, you say? Yes, that can be proved. And it was done again in A.D. 70. And history will repeat itself one more time…Jesus said that when we see the event Daniel spoke of, it’s quitting time. And that same event is here before us. The army. The defiling. The removal of sacrifices. The abomination in place. The chaos. The desolation. The martyrs. The heroes. Daniel spoke of end time events here and in chapter 8 and 9 and 12. To be consistent, I suggest that the events of verses 29-35 will be back.

Consider: Antiochus, like his father of the same name, is out to conquer the world. He is stopped by Rome and Jewish desire for independence. He dies an utter failure, diseased and heavily in debt. It seems to me that his return is very significant to him and it makes sense that one of his first moves will be “South”, to pick up where he left off. This time he must conquer Rome, control it, and claim the planet as his own.

Perhaps the reason we have had such difficulty in the past identifying the man of sin is because he has been hiding in plain sight in the book of Daniel. Nowhere is this more true than in these few verses. Notice that nowhere, even yet, are we told exactly what the abomination is! Checking history you will find a pig and an idol. But Daniel does not say that. He deliberately keeps the end-time option open. We’ll not know exactly what it is until we hear Paul’s revelation at the end of this work (Yes, I said Paul’s).

Verses 32-35, referring to the way antichrist uses the Jewish people, and the suffering of other Jews who will not compromise, can easily be seen historically or prophetically. A savvy leader knows how to win people to his cause, in any generation. But God’s people will forever be strong and creative, whether they are called Maccabee or modern saint. And as throughout church history, the Lord’s army is willing to die at the hands of those who hate them.

Verse 35 is yet another key to the dual role of this passage. It is linked by word usage to chapter 12, verse 10. Look at them:

11:35, “...those of understanding shall fall to refine them, purge them, and make them white…” 12:10, “Many shall be purified, made white, and refined…”

Yes, chapter 12 is in the column of end-time events. The linkage between chapters 11 and 12 is important. Another such link is 11:31 and 12:11. Between these two passages we learn of the abomination of desolation, its happening, its duration, its placement at the end.

From verse 36 on through the rest of chapter 11 and 12, there is general agreement among Bible believers that the subject is the end of history. Our job now is to find clues that the man being described from 36-45 is the same man as was pointed out from verse 21. And once that is established, our crisis is no longer one of understanding, but believing.

The traditional line of thought here is that Daniel is referring in the earlier verses to Antiochus Epiphanes, a great “type” of the antichrist, but that the last verses are the antichrist himself, totally disassociated from the prior verses. It is that thinking I am asking readers to challenge, based on the text itself, and some mysteries that the book of Revelation and the letter to Thessalonica point out.

Yes, I am saying that Antiochus Epiphanes could well be the antichrist, not just a type of him.

To the evidence in Daniel: