It takes too much interpreting of scripture as metaphorical for that to make sense to me.
The tricky thing about prophecy is that things happen that foreshadow the ultimate fulfillment. An Anti-christ did set up an abomination and bring an end to temple sacrifice. But there's too much that didn't happen for it to be the Anti-christ.
I understand your 'metaphorical' objection. I applaud all efforts to allow scripture to speak plainly and for itself in context only. But we need to distinguish between metaphors, which are clearly used as teaching aids everywhere in the Bible (Heb 12:29KJV), and fables. Jesus spoke in parables; metaphors. He taught that His kingdom was not of this world and that it did not come by observation. He called Himself the light of the world and the bread of life. He used many opportunities to let His disciples know that His message was spirit/truth as opposed to expecting a physical outcome. Metaphor is not a dirty word.
But you have piqued my curiosity as to why you would think that an anti-Christ set up an abomination and ended the temple sacrifice.
The scribes and Pharisees, Jerusalem, the temple, and the whole Jewish system had nothing about it that was remotely Christian and that is what was targeted. An anti-Christ would surely want to destroy that which was specifically Christian would it not? How could Rome, or its army, be an anti-Christ if it knew nothing about Christianity, or Jesus, and it did not attack Christians?
Is it not possible that God Himself chose Rome as His instrument of abomination to show the world that He had vacated the temple because Jesus was the only sacrifice He would now accept for sin?
In Matthew 23 Jesus specifically pronounced the physical house of God as desolate.
