Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission

Chapter II - The Controversy Around the Millerite Apocalyptic-Eschatology

The idealistic aim of reforming the churches on the subject of the Second Advent was soon put to the test. At first Miller’s prophetic exposition created widespread interest, but it was not long before their emphasis on the time of the end, Christ’s personal return “about 1843,” the Midnight Cry, and the Judgment Hour message, together with their polemic against postmillennialists and their criticism of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, resulted in opposition. Although many of Miller’s interpretations were criticized, the discussion here will be confined to the opposition directed against the central theme of his theology of mission: The imminent premillennial Second Advent and conflagration of the earth based on Daniel 8:14 and the time calculations associated with it. FSDA 57.1

One of the most crucial issues in the theological controversy was the significance of the little horn of Daniel 8, of which there were three major interpretations at that time. ¹ As pointed out above, the Millerites and some non-Millerite commentators, employing historicist hermeneutic, interpreted the little horn as the pagan and papal phases of Rome. Among the opponents of the Millerites who held a different view regarding the little horn were both historicists and those reflecting historical-critical trends. The first group of opponents (historicists) were evangelical Christians, ² who, in general, recognized that the prediction in Daniel 8:14 pointed to a significant event in the history of mankind. But mainly due to their millenarian views, ⁴ which were influenced by British millenarian thinking, they differed with the Millerites as to the nature of the predicted event. The second group of opponents, who did not so interpret Daniel 8, may be described as those who tended toward a historical-critical approach in the U.S.A. in so far as they seem to have taken into account some of the findings of European rationalistic theology. But although they interpreted Daniel 8 in the context of Jewish history, they still considered it predictive prophecy. In general the first group of opponents interpreted the little horn as Muhammadanism, or Islam, while the second group identified it with Antiochus IV, Epiphanes. FSDA 57.2

The major part of the discussion will be devoted to the Antiochus Epiphanes view, for the reason that though it did not dominate the American theological scene, it was considered by the Millerites as a most effective instrument to prejudice people against their views and hence was widely discussed in their literature. ¹ FSDA 58.1