Recently, I have been disenchanted with the standard preterist (and virtually only) interpretation of Daniel 8 and 11, that it has already been fulfilled in Antiochus, or as some argue that it is “already-not yet.”
Instead, I think a futurist interpretation of these chapters is beginning to make a whole lot of sense. In my reflection on the book of Daniel the past twenty years, I will be writing a book on Daniel addressing these issues. It will not be a verse-by-verse commentary, but an issue-by-issue commentary addressing questions that are relevant to biblical prophecy and prewrath eschatology.
Samuel Clough has written a helpful article showing the deficiency of the preterist interpretation on Daniel 8 and 11. The title of his article is a bit misleading since it sounds like the absence of the name “Antiochus” is his main argument. Incidentally, I would not use that point as an argument in the first place because it is not a good argument. Just because the name “Antiochus” is not mentioned does not support the argument that it does not apply to Antiochus. Only the obverse would be true: The mention of his name argues for its fulfillment in him. It is very similar to the word-concept fallacy.
Nevertheless, do not allow that to distract you from his other sound points in his article. He only gives an outline of his points on Daniel 8 and 11. He does not give a linguistic analysis, as I will do based on the Hebrew, but it is still very helpful and challenges the traditional interpretation on these two chapters.
Here is his thought-provoking article:
Here is an excerpt from his conclusion:
Like Daniel we are called to tremble before the record of what is recorded for us. The fact that Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 describe a fully future reign of a wicked man should cause our hearts to tremble. The wickedness of this man has not been enacted in ancient history – it remains for the church in the future. It is our portion to understand this, prepare the church for it, and warn the nations of it.