Antiochus IV Epiphanes may not have accomplished much during his frustrating, unsuccessful reign as seventh king of the Seleucid dynasty (175-164 B.C.), but he seems to pay permanent posthumous rent in the minds of those critical of classic Seventh-day Adventist prophetic interpretation.
Recently an online article by one of these critics insists that if only Ellen White and the early Adventist pioneers had paid more attention to the views of Hippolytus, a Christian bishop of the early third century after Christ (c. 170-c. 235 A.D.) [1], they would have given more credibility to the identification of Daniel’s little horn power with Antiochus Epiphanes, rather than with pagan and papal Rome [2]. The article in question claims that the teachings of Hippolytus go far toward demolishing the classic Adventist belief that the Antiochus interpretation of the little horn was invented by a blend of pagan skeptics and Catholic opponents of Protestantism [3].
Of course, Hippolytus wasn’t the only ancient writer who offered this particular interpretation of Daniel’s little horn prophecy. Flavius Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, also proffered this understanding [4], though not many cite him as a credible authority because most scholars regard his opinions—in the words of one historian—as “tendentious, contradictory and thoroughly unreliable” [##5|Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 137.##]. The issue before us is neither the source nor the antiquity of the Antiochus interpretation of this important Bible prediction, but rather, its Biblical and historical credibility.
Why Antiochus Epiphanes Can’t Possibly Be Daniel’s Little Horn
A recent article on this site briefly addresses the Antiochus interpretation of Daniel’s little horn power [6], as some of our readers may recall. But for four (4) decisive reasons, totally aside from the arguments raised by the article in question, Antiochus Epiphanes can’t possibly qualify as the little horn in Daniel’s prophetic writings:
1. Antiochus didn’t “wax exceeding great” (Dan. 8:9) in any direction. The little horn is described in Daniel 8, verse 9 as a power that “waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land (Palestine).” (We will omit reference here to the brief occupation of Judea by Antiochus, as the dialogue and circumstances cited in Daniel 8:10-14 take place in the context of the crisis allegedly caused by the Seleucid invasion of Palestine, which was soon thereafter repulsed. Antiochus’ previous adventures are thus our primary focus as to whether they qualify as “exceeding great”).
Following a temporary success in an earlier campaign against Egypt [7], Antiochus led his army to Egypt a second time, only to be ordered to leave by the Roman general Gaius Popilius Laenus, who drew a line in the sand with his sword around Antiochus’ feet, declaring that if Antiochus didn’t leave both Egypt and Cyprus at once, he would be considered in a state of war with the Roman Republic [8]. Antiochus, humiliated by the confrontation, retreated with his army [9], and soon thereafter withdrew from Cyprus as well [10].
While Antiochus was embroiled in his Judean campaign, King Mithridates I of Parthia took advantage of Antiochus’ troubles by attacking from the east, seizing the city of Herat in 167 B.C. and disrupting the direct trade route to India, effectively splitting the Greek world in two [11]. Antiochus died soon thereafter, the exact cause of which remains uncertain [12].
In other words, far from “[waxing] exceeding great toward the south, and toward the east” (Dan. 8:9), Antiochus experienced humiliation and defeat from both directions, as well as from the west in his eviction from Cyprus. Rome, by contrast, exercised domination and won victories in these and in other directions as well, dominating the Western world for centuries as both republic and empire.
2. The account of the Jewish revolt against Antiochus as recorded in First Maccabees completely disallows a fulfillment of Daniel’s 2,300-day prophecy during this event in Israel’s history. Critics of the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine, such as the late Desmond Ford, have insisted—in Ford’s words—that “the 2,300 evenings-mornings met their original fulfillment when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem” [13]. But there is no way this time period can fit that in which the Jerusalem temple experienced defilement at the hands of Antiochus.
Whether one understands the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14 as referring to 2,300 literal days, or to 2,300 individual morning and evening sacrifices and thus 1,150 literal days—the latter being alleged by such as Robert Brinsmead [##14|Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 78.##]—neither is able to fit the period during which the Jewish temple was polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes. The book of First Maccabees specifies exactly how long this time period lasted, in the following passage regarding the temple’s rededication subsequent to the Seleucid expulsion:
Then, early on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, the month Kislev, in the year 148 (164 B.C.), sacrifice was offered as the law commands on the newly made altar of burnt-offering. On the anniversary of the day when the Gentiles had profaned it, on that very day, it was rededicated, with hymns of thanksgiving, to the music of harps and lutes and cymbals (I Macc. 4:52-54, NEB).
In other words, the temple was defiled for exactly three years, to the day. The article in question makes a vague reference to Hippolytus’ quoting of First Maccabees 2-11, but seems oblivious to the above passage, which makes impossible any application of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 to the Maccabean experience. Jewish reckoning was known for its exactitude; there is no way those recounting the restoration of the temple services would have missed two whole months in recording this event. The time frame of 1,150 days couldn’t possibly fit this period, to say nothing of 2,300 days.
3. Jesus’ reference to “the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (Matt. 24:15), places this prophecy in the future from His day, with no reference anywhere in Scripture to any past or alternative fulfillment. One would think the words of Jesus would carry at least some weight with Christian Bible students, even theological liberals. The Savior was absolutely clear, in His survey of end-time events with His disciples just before His death, as to the application of the prophecy of Daniel 8 to the future:
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand) (Matt. 24:15).
Antiochus Epiphanes had been dead for nearly two centuries when Jesus uttered this prophecy. The notion that this prophecy could have been fulfilled at any other time is entirely without support in the Biblical record. The classic Adventist identification of the power here described with Rome (first pagan, then papal) is thus congruent both with the overall sweep of prophetic history as outlined in Daniel and Revelation, as well as this pivotal prediction of our Lord.
The article in question makes no reference whatsoever to the above statement by Jesus.
4. The overthrow of the little horn power is foretold by Daniel as being followed by the total conquest of and expulsion of evil from this world, with all nations serving and obeying the Lord thereafter (Dan. 7:25-27). Daniel’s little horn power first appears in chapter 7 of the book that bears his name. And its activity, overthrow, and aftermath are described in the following verses:
And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand for a time and times and the dividing of time.
But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him (Dan. 7:25-27).
The dominion of Antiochus Epiphanes (which wasn’t much) ended more than 2,100 years ago, and without the saints possessing an everlasting kingdom or the whole world—or even the world then known to Israel—acknowledging God’s rulership. The article in question quotes Hippolytus as seeking to connect Daniel’s antichrist prophecy not only with Antiochus Epiphanes, but with a number of related events during the same period:
Hippolytus then recounted another disastrous dynastic marriage arrangement concerning a Cleopatra, which took place in 150 BCE, intertwining references from Daniel 11 and 1 Maccabees 10-11. A certain Alexander, “the son of Philip arose” against Antiochus and killed him. He proposed to Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to let him marry Cleopatra. But Ptolemy and Alexander plotted against each other. Alexander lost and fled to the king of the Arabs who cut off his head and sent it to Ptolemy. But Ptolemy died shortly thereafter and did not enjoy his ill-gotten gains. Shortly after this event Hippolytus introduced the Antichrist into the narrative, believing that the previous events marked “the end of times.” He quoted a long passage from Daniel 11:36-45, and asserted that the antichrist would fulfill these verses. This was the “abomination of desolation” which the antichrist would inflict in distinction to the “abomination of destruction” for which Antiochus was responsible [15].
How the events here described could possibly relate to “the end of times,” the author of the above piece does not explain. Nor does he explain how the “abomination of desolation,” clearly depicted by our Lord as future from His day (Matt. 24:15), could have had anything to do with the events or persons here recounted. We saw earlier how Daniel’s prophecy of the little horn’s demise speaks of the ultimate, eternal triumph of God’s people to follow the horn’s destruction, that the divine kingdom to then rule the nations will be an “everlasting” one, under whom “all dominions shall serve and obey” the Lord” (Dan. 7:27).
None of this, quite obviously, happened during the second century B.C.
Conclusion
Antiochus Epiphanes was a petty, pathetic tyrant in his day, a passing nuisance who didn’t merit mention in the prophetic writings of Holy Scripture. Theologically liberal Adventists seem less interested in the hard facts of history than in their persistent crusade to discredit classic Adventism in general and Ellen White in particular. The moral summons of Adventism’s distinctive message and prophetic narrative disturbs their spiritual comfort zone, and that they simply cannot abide, regardless of what Scripture or the historical record says.
The article in question asks, “What if Ellen White had followed Hippolytus, not William Miller?” [16]. Answer: she would have been wrong, instead of Biblically and historically right as her perspective has proved to be. The inspiring Holy Spirit didn’t allow this to happen. No matter how many others, past or present, have equated the little horn of Daniel with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the evidence for this claim simply doesn’t hold up.
REFERENCES
1. “Hippolytus of Rome” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolytus_of_Rome
2. Donald E. Casebolt, “What If Ellen White Had Followed Hippolytus, Not William Miller?” Spectrum, Feb. 6, 2026 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/analysis/what-if-ellen-white-had-followed-hippolytus-not-william-miller/
3. Ibid.
5. Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), p. 137.
6. Kevin Paulson, “Other Challenges to the Sanctuary Doctrine—And the Bible’s Response,” ADvindicate, April 7, 2023 https://advindicate.com/articles/2021/9/2/justification-and-perfection-aembc-l9bng-h3pls-8wb32-te4k3-6epdj-ms96e-kzs7l-w2tdn-tz53d-yklz7
7. “Antiochus IV Epiphanes” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
11. “Antiochus IV Epiphanes” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes
12. Ibid.
13. Desmond Ford, “Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement,” Spectrum, November 1980, p. 32. https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/Spectrum/1980-1981_Vol_11/22253171.READER_036.pdf
14. Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 78.
15. Casebolt, “What If Ellen White Had Followed Hippolytus, Not William Miller?” Spectrum, Feb. 6, 2026 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/analysis/what-if-ellen-white-had-followed-hippolytus-not-william-miller/
16. Ibid.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan