I think AI provides a good analysis of Daniel 9:24-27.
That's an important interpretation to consider, because many scholars see at least a partial fulfillment of Daniel's "abomination" language in the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the second century BC.
In about 167 BC, Antiochus outlawed aspects of Jewish worship, desecrated the temple in Jerusalem, and set up pagan worship there. The temple was later cleansed and rededicated in 164 BC, which is commemorated by the Hanukkah.
The Maccabees were a group of Jewish rebel warriors who successfully fought against the Seleucid (Syrian-Greek) Empire in the 2nd century BCE. Led by the priestly Hasmonean family—most notably Mattathias and his son Judas Maccabeus—they drove out occupying forces, restored the desecrated Jerusalem Temple, and established an independent Jewish kingdom.
John 10:22-23
At that time
the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon.
The reason many connect Antiochus to Daniel is that Daniel 8 explicitly describes a ruler who:
and
Daniel 11, in particular, tracks the conflicts between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms with remarkable detail up to the time of Antiochus IV. Because of that, many readers see Daniel 11:31 as a direct reference to Antiochus' desecration of the temple.
The question then becomes whether Daniel 9:27 is also referring to Antiochus.
There are several difficulties with making Daniel 9:27 exclusively about Antiochus:
- The chronology of the seventy weeks.
Daniel 9 presents a specific seventy-weeks framework tied to the coming of the Messiah:
Antiochus lived before Jesus, whereas Daniel 9 seems to move toward the appearance and death of the Messiah.
- Jesus spoke of the abomination as still significant in the future.
In Matthew 24:
Jesus spoke nearly two centuries after Antiochus. That suggests Antiochus did not exhaust the meaning of Daniel's prophecy.
- Daniel itself may use typology.
Antiochus can be understood as a pattern or foreshadowing of later desolating rulers. Many interpreters see:
- Antiochus → near fulfillment.
- Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 → further fulfillment.
- A final end-times opponent of God → ultimate fulfillment.
From a purely scriptural perspective, Daniel 8 and 11 fit Antiochus very naturally. Daniel 9 is less straightforward because of its strong Messianic context.
So one common way of harmonizing the passages is:
- Daniel 8 and 11: Antiochus IV is the primary fulfillment.
- Daniel 9:27 points principally to Christ (or, in another view, a future antichrist).
- Antiochus serves as an earlier historical example of the "abomination of desolation" motif that later prophecies and Jesus' own teaching build upon.
If your approach is that Daniel 9 is centered on the atoning work of the Messiah—which fits with the emphasis of verses 24–26—then Antiochus is probably better understood as fulfilling aspects of Daniel 8 and 11 rather than being the main referent of Daniel 9:27. The strongest argument for that conclusion is that Daniel 9's timeline explicitly climaxes in "Messiah" being "cut off," a feature that does not naturally fit Antiochus.
