Trapped by Logic

The 1970s super group Supertramp’s biggest hit, “The Logical Song,” was about childhood wonder being whittled and narrowed away by an education that taught you how to be “sensible, logical, responsible, and practical.” Overstated perhaps, but logic and reason have forced me into some exceedingly “narrow” positions, and I admit that they are narrow, but, well, logic has trapped me there.

When first immersed into the Seventh-day Adventist cosmos, I heard much about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who in the second century B.C. persecuted the Jews, even sacrificing swine on the Temple grounds.

Outside of Adventism, Bible commentators all but unanimously claim that the little horn of Daniel 8—who, among other things, “exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down” (Dan. 8:11)—was this King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, even though he does not fit the text in any way.

In Daniel 2 one power arises after ancient Greece and exists until supernaturally destroyed by God at the end of the world. In the parallel prophecy of Daniel 7 one power arises after ancient Greece and exists until supernaturally destroyed by God at the end of the world. In the parallel prophecy of Daniel 8 one power arises (the little horn) after ancient Greece and exists until supernaturally destroyed by God at the end of the world. What power arises after ancient Greece, a power that repeatedly appears in the New Testament and that remains to this day? Of course, it’s Rome, solely, totally, and only Rome (pagan, then papal)—and not Antiochus Epiphanes, who died about 200 years before the New Testament was even written.

I’m wrestling with the logic of some Seventh-day Adventists who think that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is, in fact, the little horn of Daniel 8.

In Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation[*] William Shea, in a chapter titled “Why Antiochus IV Epiphanes Is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8,” proves why Antiochus IV Epiphanes is not the little horn of Daniel 8. My point here, however, is not to argue against Antiochus. Instead, I’m wrestling with the logic of some Seventh-day Adventists who think that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is, in fact, the little horn of Daniel 8.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded upon a belief that, like Daniel 2 and 7, Daniel 8 goes from ancient times to end-times, and that the cleansing of the sanctuary (Dan. 8:14) is a gospel-centered expression of the pre-Advent judgment in heaven, depicted in Daniel 7 (verses 9, 10, 22, 26, 27), and ushering in God’s “everlasting kingdom” (Dan. 7:27). The time prophecy of the 2,300 “evening mornings” (Dan. 8:14) comes to the nineteenth century A.D., specifically 1844. Far from the periphery of Adventist theology, the pre-Advent judgment remains crucial, not only to our identity as Seventh-day Adventists but to the justification for our existence.

But if the little horn of Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then the Seventh-day Adventist Church was not only founded on error but continues to promote that error. If these Adventists believe correctly, then our entire “sanctuary message”—i.e., Christ’s two-apartment (or two-phased) ministry in heaven, the pre-Advent judgment, 1844—is all false. In their thinking, Daniel 8 has nothing to do with Christ standing in our place in a heavenly judgment, but instead dealt only with a Seleucid king named Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who ran roughshod over the Judeans from 167 B.C. to 164 B.C. before dying, likely from disease, in Persia in 164. B.C. That’s it, period.

Now, here’s where logic gets a vise grip on me. Why would I stay in a church teaching a doctrine as false as Scientology’s belief that we are all “thetans,” immortal beings trapped in human bodies until Scientology “auditing” courses, about $5,000 a shot (cheaper in bulk), make you “clear”?

I wouldn’t. How could I? Especially because—despite attempts to make the church see the “error” of turning texts about a minor pagan king into a cosmic judgment that leads to the second coming of Jesus and to the end of this world—the official Seventh-day Adventist Church adheres to our 1844 “pre-Advent” judgment teaching. It is, in fact, fundamental belief 24, thank you.

Logic alone would narrow me to one option: leave. Yet many Antiochus folk, some of my good friends, stay in the church, and though I’m glad they’re here, I don’t understand why.

[*] William Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1982),pp. 24-55.