Introduction to all three parts of Toward a Levitic-Covenantal Apocalyptic. These three parts were first presented at the 1st Symposium of the Jesus Institute Forum in April of 2001, and again with revisions and updates at the 2nd Symposium of the Jesus Institute Forum in November of 2001. The Revised and Updated versions are linked from the schedules of both symposia (except the order of Parts II and III are inverted in the 2nd Symposium to follow a chronological format).

Toward a Levitic-Covenantal Apocalyptic:

• Part I – Covenant foundations: Exegesis of the vision of Daniel 8:1-14 (Below)
• Part II – Covenant foundations: 11Q13 (Qumran) and the Jubilee Day-of-Atonement Enthronement.
• Part III – Covenant foundations: Hebrews and the Jubilee Day of Atonement.

Abstract. Bible prophecy has been for many centuries interpreted by the historicist method especially among Protestants. Of all the methods the historicist school has attempted to be the most consciously faithful to Scripture. (In recent centuries of course the preterist and futurist approaches have been added). However none of these post-Biblical methods have adequately taken into account the explicitly Levitic-Covenantal framework within which the prophets wrote. Hence none of these methods adequately include the Covenant-conditional nature of prophecy (Deut. 28-34, Lev. 25-26, Jer. 18) and none portray the intimate link between eschatology and soteriology – i.e., the centrality and NT eschatological nature of justification by faith. However by restoring the Levitic Covenant-conditional framework of the prophets, the organic relation between eschatology and soteriology, their Gospel root, is discovered, the true conditional nature of prophecy is incorporated, and the best insights of the three schools are honored and preserved (with none of their corresponding negatives)! In three parts, we develop this in outline in Daniel (Part I), Hebrews (Part III), and in the ascension and enthronement of Christ – i.e., the New Testament treatment of this in its 1st century setting as further exemplified in Dead Sea Scroll fragment 11Q13 (Part II). Revelation in its consummative summation of the prophecies of Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, and Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Mark 13 = Matt. 24 = Luke 21) brings us down to the Second Advent and Final Judgment at Millenium's end.

In brief, all the post-biblical methods attempt to use history, speculation, or ideology to exegete prophecy, rather than first exegeting prophecy making use of its Levitic-Covenantal framework, and then allowing prophecy to illuminate history and theology.
 

Overall introduction to Covenant righteousness

What is God’s Covenant? All the covenants of Scripture, from the Edenic covenant, to the covenant with Noah and all living things, the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant with Isaac, the covenant with Israel, the Davidic covenant, and the new covenant or new testament are all based on God’s everlasting Covenant. The everlasting Covenant is God’s eternal unchanging righteousness. There are 45 texts that speak of the Ark of the Covenant or the Ark containing the Covenant. There are 16 texts that reference the Ark of the Testimony. Finally, there is one NT text which speaks of the Ark of His Covenant on the final judgment day of reward and wrath: “And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there appeared the Ark of His Covenant, and [there] came lightnings and voices and thunders and an earthquake and a great hail” (Rev. 11:19).

What did the Ark contain? God’s eternal Law. God’s eternal Law of righteousness is the everlasting Covenant. “Clouds and darkness surround Him: Righteousness and judgment [are] the foundation of His throne” (Ps. 97:2). All the individual covenants He makes are based on the everlasting Covenant. The specific promises and conditions of the various covenants may change from time to time, from Semitic nomad to Israelite king, from typical sacrifice to antitypical Sacrifice, but God’s eternal Covenant remains unchanged. And there is one Mediator of the everlasting Covenant, Messiah or Christ.

The key characteristic of the Covenant promises is conditionality. Primary conditions, the divine righteous requirements of the Covenant must be met to their fullest extent, otherwise God’s Covenant capitulates to sin. Secondary conditions, the believing sinner to whom the Covenant promises are made must have faith in their restorative provisions (propitiation and atonement) and so live accordingly. In the first, God’s will is vindicated; in the second the believing sinner is vindicated or justified and free will is restored. So whether the Covenant promise is manifest in type or prophecy, the final fulfillment is certain and inevitable because God meets the primary conditions. The when, where, how, and by whom of the fulfillment depends largely on the secondary conditions being met – the free will acceptance or rejection of the Covenant promises by the professed Covenant people. So the conditionality of promise and prophecy is a fundamental hermeneutic principle (Jer. 18:1-7-10; Jonah 1:2; 3:2, 4-10; 4:2, 11).

The following paradigm of 'promise, fulfillment, and consummation' recurring throughout prophecy in Scripture has become widely known because of George Eldon Ladd. We wish to note that the same pattern recurs with the sacrificial types:

The Covenant forges the link between eschatology and justification. "The heart of primitive Christian apocalyptic. . . . is the accession to the throne of heaven by God and by His Christ as the eschatological Son of man – an event which can be characterized as proof of the righteousness of God. . . . That is why the Pauline doctrine of the righteousness of God and our own justification must be derived from apocalyptic" (Koch, 1972 quoting Ernst Kasemann).

Our desire is to informally suggest a prophetic model of interpretation which we believe is implicit and often explicit in Scripture and which forges an organic link between eschatology and soteriology. It includes the incidental positives but excludes the inherent negatives of the various post-Biblical schools of prophetic interpretation: (a) historicist, (b) preterist, (c) futurist, or (d) idealist.

Abstract. By incorporating a Levitic-Covenental approach to the prophecies of Daniel, rather than the post-Biblical preterist, historicist, or futurist models, we immediately find a few vital results. (1) The Covenant-conditional nature of all prophecy is incorporated (Deut. 28-34, Lev. 25-26, Jer. 18). (2) All the prophetic sections of Daniel (chs. 2, 7, 8-9, 10-12) go from Daniel's time until the kingdom of God including Daniel 9, the Messianic section. (3) Daniel 9 provides the Levitic-Covenantal foundation, chronology, (Leviticus 25-26, II Chron. 36) and hence interpretive framework for all of the sections. (4) The central, pivotal vision of Daniel 8:1-14 is entirely explicated in chapters 8-12 within the 70 sabbatical 'weeks of years' framework. (5) Daniel 8:14 is the central symbolic text of Daniel followed by explanation (chs. 8-12). Also Daniel 8:14 is alluded to and explicated more than once in the NT.

When we exegete Daniel and all the prophets in their native Levitical-Covenantal framework, we are brought closer to the conclusion that the heart of the New Testament proclamation rests exegetically on the Hebrew Scriptures.

In this paper we will attempt to briefly show how the underlying principles of a Levitic-Covenantal Conditional model of prophetic interpretation allow us to deal exegetically rather than arbitrarily with the vision of Daniel 8:1-14. Such a model explains unifying features of the vision unaccounted for in any other approach. A fuller development of how a Levitic-Covenantal model would unify and Scripturally systematize Biblical prophetic interpretation is reserved for future papers.

A note on preterist or historicist interpretations. Our adherence to the text of Daniel in what follows is simply a recognition that exegesis (even if only in bare outline as below) is a requirement before any attempts to interpret from our standpoint 2,500 years later. Attempting to insert 'preterist or historicist interpretations' may not be legitimately attended to until after we have fulfilled our primary task to critically “hear the text” in its own historical context, apart from our own concerns and traditions.
 

Introduction

In order to understand the prophecies of Daniel in their biblical context, it is necessary to see them in their Covenant context (esp. Lev. 25-26). Daniel is set in a time of captivity that was the result of Israel’s abandonment of God’s Covenant and statutes – the Babylonian captivity (II Chronicles 36, Jeremiah, Lamentations). Their sins occasioned the destruction and desolation of their land, their city, and the temple of God built by Solomon. The heathen Babylonians actually did the desolating, but the sins of God’s people were largely responsible. They were not cast off however, since God's everlasting Covenant purposes were being worked out toward ultimate fulfillment and consummation.

Incarnational servanthood. It is noteworthy that the conflict between God and the forces of evil in Daniel was acted out on two different levels. The first is a horizontal level of servanthood: God’s servants versus the servants of evil. The second is a vertical, incarnational level: At crucial climaxes of the conflict, both the Incarnation of God and the incarnations of the evil one are manifested:
 

In Daniel we find a very distinctive motif where in the ephemeral ebb and flow of human kingdoms, the God of heaven ultimately intervenes within history to set up an everlasting kingdom (2:44-45; 7:13-14; 8:14=9:24-27; 12:1-3).

(i) Abomination, (ii) Judgment, (iii) Kingdom. It is significant that Daniel 1, 8-12 were written in Hebrew, while chapters 2-7 were written in Aramaic and are fraught with idols, images of heathen worship, and ceremonially unclean beasts. Correspondingly in ch. 2-7, the center of focus is the broad sweep of Gentile world empires and events, although the Covenant people are not forgotten. By contrast, Daniel 1, 8-12 were written in Hebrew and are replete with ritually clean, sacrificial, Day of Atonement beasts and allusions to Hebrew worship. The center of focus is more specifically the journey and ultimate vindication of the Covenant people. The recurring sequence motif in both the Aramaic and the Hebrew sections is (i) abomination, (ii) judgment-justification, and (iii) kingdom.
 

This recurring motif of abomination, judgment-justification, and kingdom is based squarely on the typical Levitical-Covenantal provisions of the Pentateuch, particularly as systematized in Leviticus.

Broad sketch: The internal coherence of Daniel. Daniel has an internally coherent world-view stretching from Daniel’s day till ‘the kingdom of God’ not only in Daniel 2, 7, 8, and 10-12, but also in 9. Chapter 9 furthermore provides the only anchored time framework in the whole book. The other prophetic chapters only provide a relative order of events – hard to realize unless we allow the text to speak for itself, instead of imposing our own historical perspective on it. Daniel gives many historical anchor points to guide us in interpreting it, but only within the Covenant framework that he also provides. Daniel describes a sequence of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia and its breakup / [Rome] and its breakup, the ‘incarnation’ of antichrist, and the kingdom of God. (Remember that the first manifestation of the antichrist power of Rome on Palestine was through a king whose father had been conquered by Rome, and who was prevented by Rome from attacking Egypt and therefore attacked Israel – Antiochus IV Epiphanes, after 168 BCE). Again, what is hard to see from our perspective is that the fourfold sequence constitutes a relative order not a chronology. The events connected with the final overthrow of the 4th kingdom under which Jesus lived could have happened a lot faster than they did. So Daniel 9 provides the Covenant time framework for what could have been had Israel and next the early church been faithful to the Covenant.
 

The Covenant

In Exodus, after the deliverance of Israel, God led them to Mt. Sinai where He spoke His moral law, the Ten Commandments prefaced by His identification as the God who delivered them from Egypt and the ‘house of bondage’ (Ex. 20; Deut. 5). The Ten Commandments are called the Covenant. Upon tables of stone, "the words of the Covenant, the Ten Commandments" are written down by God (Ex. 34:28). Also in Deuteronomy, Israel is reminded that God "declared to you His Covenant, which He commanded you to perform, [even] Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone" (Deut. 4:13). This obedience to God’s moral law is commanded of every man with a judgment to follow (Eccl. 12:13-14). What’s more, Jesus gave the ‘fine print’ on the Ten Commandments in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ (Matt. 5-7): He pointed out that their jurisdiction extended to thoughts and intents of heart. To the Ten Commandments were added ‘statutes and judgments’ for them as they went to the Promised Land. The Angel or Messenger of the Covenant was promised to lead them into the Promised Land, but they were counseled to "beware of Him, and obey His voice, provoke Him not; for He will not pardon your transgressions for My name is in Him" (Ex. 23:20-21). Despite this the people of Israel immediately agreed to obey the Covenant (Ex. 24:1-7; Deut. 5:27). YAHWEH their Suzerain replied with longing, "I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken to you: they have said well all that they have spoken. O that they had such a heart as this, to fear Me, and keep all My commandments all the days, that it might be well with them, and with their sons for ever!" (Deut. 5:28-29).

Dedication & Covenant. Just as immediately in Ex. 24, God gave them hope of His favor and peace with Him through a dedication of the people to Himself through substitutionary sacrifices. Upon an altar on a hill, burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed to YAHWEH (Ex. 24:5-7). The blood was sprinkled on all that had to be made acceptable to God: The altar, the people, and even the book of the Covenant which Moses had written (Ex. 24:5-8). Moses said, "This is the blood of the Covenant, which YAHWEH has made with you concerning all these words." Only after this dedication, was Moses called up into the Mount to receive the actual Covenant itself, written by God on tables of stone (Ex. 24:12) where he remained 40 days and nights with God. Consecration and dedication were also described in Lev. 8-9 and Numbers 7.

Sanctuary & Covenant. During this time when He received the Covenant or "the two tables of Testimony written by the finger of God" (Ex. 31:18), Moses received directions and the pattern (Ex. 25-31) for the building of a sanctuary: "And let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them" (Ex. 25:8). All of the sanctuary was a concentric arrangement to house God’s Covenant and provide the only way a righteous God could dwell among a sinful people.

• Outermost was the courtyard, around the "tabernacle of meeting," encircled by a white curtain, where were located a brass laver for the officiating priests and attendants (Levites) to wash, and a bronze altar of burnt sacrifice where a ‘daily’ sacrifice was to be kept smoldering from morning to evening, and from evening to morning.
• After the entrance into the tabernacle through a screen [masak] was the ‘holy place’ where there was a golden 7-branch candelabra kept burning with oil, a golden table with 12 loaves of bread changed daily, and a golden altar of incense in front of the veil [parokh] to the innermost sanctum – the ‘Holiest of holies.’ Priests sacrificed at the bronze altar and every day officiated in the ‘holy place’ keeping the bread fresh and offering incense. The High Priest with his jeweled ‘breastplate of judgment’ and turban every day would care for the continually burning lamps and would also offer incense at the golden altar.
• Within the veil was the ‘Holiest of holies’ wherein was the golden Ark of the Covenant. This ornate chest was overlaid with gold. On top was a solid gold lid called the ‘mercy seat’ with winged cherubim on each end. Their wings overshadowed the mercy seat. Under the mercy seat, within the chest were laid the two stone tables of the Covenant itself. Above the mercy seat over the Covenant, between the cherubim, God manifested His presence in the ‘Shekinah glory’. On one occasion in the year, the Day of Atonement, the High Priest in plain linen clothes (having shed his glorious pontifical robes and breastplate) approached the overshadowed mercy seat with the blood of special sacrifices and with incense in a golden censer. As ‘mediator of the Covenant’ he would sprinkle the ‘blood of the Covenant’ on the ‘mercy seat’ over the Covenant, and so make an atonement ‘covering’/expiation (kaphar) for all the sins and transgressions of Israel.

If they were to forsake the Covenant and their loyalty to Him, this whole typical service would become nothing but a mockery and a curse to condemn them. To follow it loyally was an act of faith in the antitypical Substitute to come, Messiah. After the antitype was fulfilled in Christ, then to continue following it was no longer an act of faith looking forward, but a denial based either on ignorance or unbelief of what had already been fulfilled. There is some evidence however in the book of Acts that Christians may have continued to offer sacrifices at the temple at times, perhaps as a commemorative of Christ's sacrifice.

The Covenant provisions of Leviticus (1-)16: The Day of Atonement

We return to the Day of Atonement, the crowning conclusion to the sacrificial year: "For on that day [the high priest] shall make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, [that] you may be clean from all your sins before YAHWEH" (Lev. 16:31). This day was however a culmination of many prescribed offerings and sacrifices throughout the year. All sacrifices and offerings were the only way in which a sinful, but believing Covenant people could approach and be accepted by faith before the God of the Covenant.

The sacrifices were to be without blemish. There were free will offerings for atonement, offerings by fire for an acceptable savor before the Lord, food offerings, burnings of frankincense, and sacrifices of peace offerings (Lev. 1). Then there were the sin offerings: The bullock of the sin offering for the priests and the whole congregation, the goat kid for rulers, the goat kid or a lamb for a common person (Lev. 2-4). There were also the trespass offerings of a lamb or a goat kid, or two doves or young pigeons. In every case the blood was applied in some way, usually on the altar of burnt sacrifice, but occasionally on the horns of the golden altar in the holy place or ‘before the veil’ in front of the Holiest. This way, a substitutionary atonement [kaphar] or ‘covering’ was imputed to the sinner to spare him or her from God’s justice. This way God could accept and forgive them. All of this culminated in the Day of Atonement when atonement was made for the whole congregation and for the sanctuary. The significance of the substitutionary animal sacrifice was explained in the prohibition of eating blood: "For the life of he flesh is in the blood: And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls. For it is the blood [that] makes an atonement [kaphar, covering] for the soul" (Lev. 17:11).

The daily or continual service (hatamid) involved a morning and evening burnt sacrifice (between the evenings) which were to be kept continually smoldering (tamid) on the bronze altar of sacrifice in the court. There was a burning of incense perpetually (tamid) on the golden altar of incense before the veil. A table of 12 loaves of bread was changed and daily displayed (tamid) before the Lord before the veil. Finally the arranging and dressing of the lamps always was ordered from evening to morning (Ex. 27:20; Lev. 24:3) every day continually (tamid) by Aaron and his sons. The daily (hatamid) services were like a mini-Day of Atonement, because repeatedly when a person was ceremonially defiled, he would remain 'unclean until the evening' (Ex. 27: 20-21; 30:7-8; Lev. 24:3; cf. manna Ex. 16:6-7; daily prayer Ps. 55:17). Uncleanness was atoned for at evening (Lev. 11; 14; 15; 17; 22; Num. 19). The daily (hatamid) was furthermore like a mini-Day of Atonement judgment. Judicial satisfaction, retribution, judgment were exacted and completed at evening (Josh. 7:6; 8:29; 10:26; Judg. 20:26, 28; 21:2…). As a mini-Day of Atonement, the evening sacrifice was more prominent that the morning sacrifice. All this was accomplished in the tabernacle court and the Holy Place before the veil. Within the veil was the Most Holy Place where was the Ark containing the Covenant covered by the Mercy Seat (Propitiatory) over the Covenant where a work was to go on once a year. To this we now turn.

Yom Kippur. The Day of Atonement had specific provisions (Leviticus 16). This day came once a year in the autumn on the 10^th day of the 7^th month. The sacrifices of this day were unique to the high priest, who alone was to enter the Holy of holies on this day. The high priest entered:

• Divested of his high priestly vestments and the gorgeous breastplate and turban, and clothed in simple linen clothes.
• As the ‘mediator of the Covenant’ with blood and incense into the Holiest where God was to appear in the glory above the mercy seat covering the Covenant. The cloud of incense was to cover the mercy seat so the high priest would not die (vs. 12-13).
• First, with the blood of the bullock for the sin offering to make atonement for himself and his family. This was sprinkled seven times eastward on the mercy seat (v. 14).
• Two goats for a sin offering were chosen and divided by lot. One for the Lord and one to be delivered to the adversary, Azaz'el.
• The Lord’s goat was sacrificed and its blood brought into the Holiest just as was the bullock’s blood.
• The scapegoat was presented alive before the Lord, to make atonement-covering with him by sending him away into the wilderness, a solitary land (vs. 10, 22).
• With the blood of the bull and goat, the priest made an atonement for the sanctuary [Holiest] and for the tabernacle of the congregation [Holy Place] which dwelt in the middle of their uncleanness:
• Because of Israel’s uncleanness
• Because of their transgressions in all their sins
• With blood of sprinkling, he would cleanse, hallow, and make the atonement (v. 33)
• For the holy sanctuary [the Holiest]
• For the tabernacle of the congregation [sanctuary tent; Holy Place]
• For the altar (cf. Ex. 30:20; also cf. 29:36 LXX)
• For the priests
• For all the people of the congregation
• Having finished atoning for the Holiest and for the tabernacle, he would bring the live goat for 'Azaz'el, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions and all their sins upon the head of the goat. The scapegoat would then be led by a fit man into the wilderness to wander and perish bearing all the sins (vs. 21-22).
• The high priest then re-entered the tabernacle, shed his linen garments, washed, and put on his high priestly vestments.
• He then offered a burnt offering for himself and one for the people to make an atonement
• The fat of the bull and goat sin offerings was burned on the altar (v. 25).
• Their skins, their flesh, and their dung were burned outside the camp (v. 27).
• The priest whom the Lord would anoint and consecrate to succeed his father as high priest would make the Atonement [on the 10^th day of the 7^th month] and wear the holy linen garments.
• The 10^th day of the 7^th month was a Sabbath of rest: While the high priest made the atonement for the congregation to cleanse them from all their sins before the Lord [Justification], they were to lay aside all work and ‘afflict their souls’ and humble themselves in repentance [sanctification].

The Day of Atonement justification and cleansing of the people and the sanctuary raises this question. How exactly in Scripture was the sanctuary defiled? Was it sins of omission and commission? Was it the confession of sin? The weight of evidence suggests that it was always the commission and existence of sin and evil especially open rebellion that defiled the sanctuary, not in the strictest sense the blood atonement made for sin. That blood atonement always signified cleansing and purifying. However, there is one sense in which the typical service of confession of sin transferred sins to the sanctuary and thus defiled it. That was because the blood of bulls and goats were typical and thus could never really take away sin. Hence the ‘yearly remembrance’ or Day of Atonement and the Holiest ‘within the veil’ were an explicit means by which the Holy Spirit foretold how God would deal with sin in the antitypical fulfillment in Christ (Heb. 9:7-11). Of course of central interest to us is exactly what 'defiled' or 'profaned' the sanctuary in Daniel 8.

The two words used in Hebrew to describe the desecration of the sanctuary are tameh = to be defiled, contaminated, unclean, impure (morally or ceremonially), and chalal = to pierce or wound; figuratively, to profane. Below, tameh is translated ‘defiled’ and chalal is translated ‘profaned’:
 

In conclusion, it was always the commission and existence of sin and evil especially open rebellion that defiled the sanctuary, not in the strictest sense the blood atonement made for sin. That blood atonement was always cleansing and purifying. In Daniel 8 it was explicitly the open rebellion of the 'little horn' (and by implication all sin) that defiled the sanctuary. However, because all these sacrifices were only types or pre-figures (Heb. 10) they could not actually cleanse the sanctuary and so therefore there remained a repetitive yearly 'remembrance of sins' (Heb. 10:1-4), i.e., a culminating blood atonement on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), a 49^th year Jubilee Day of Atonement (Lev. 25), and a multi-Jubilee Day of Atonement restoration after a time of Diaspora (Lev. 26). These types find their antitype in Christ (Daniel 8:1-14 = 9:24-27). Only the antitypical blood of Christ was in reality effectual in cleansing the sanctuary (Heb. 1:3; 9:1-28; 10:1-22).

To the typical Jubilee Day of Atonement we turn in outline.
 

The Jubilee Day of Atonement – Covenant provisions of Leviticus 25-26

The Day of Atonement was also the focal point for another typical service – the Jubilee which came every seven "Sabbaths of years" or seven "weeks of years" on the 49^th year on the 10^th day of the 7^th month. The Jubilee shofar horn would then be blown: All indebtedness was to be forgiven, all those in debt bondage were to be freed, and all who had lost houses, lands, and possessions through debt were to be restored to their patriarchal inheritance. The Covenant people were to forgive each other of their debts and wrongs were to be righted. The Jubilee "year of release," the 50^th year, was all inaugurated on the same day: On the 10^th day of the 7^th month of the 49^th year, i.e., the Day of Atonement when the high priest as ‘mediator of the Covenant’ made the blood atonement for redemption on the Mercy Seat above the Covenant in the Most Holy Place. In effect, on this Jubilee Day of Atonement YAHWEH God of Israel became Surety and Kinsman-Redeemer for all indebtedness and sin through the Substitutionary blood aspersions on the Mercy Seat above the Covenant. There was no default in payment! The justice of the Covenant was satisfied – Yahweh paid the debt.

Of course the reader will immediately recognize that this is none other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

As we shall see, all these elements – the captivity because of transgression, the Sabbath rest of the land from defilement during the captivity, the desolation of God’s heritage, the kinsman-redeemer, the sabbatical ‘weeks of years,’ the Jubilee Day of Atonement – all form the Levitical-Covenant context framework of Daniel. Only in this Covenant context-framework can Daniel be exegetically understood.

Other prophetic writings cite the Jubilee Day of Atonement imagery. Two passages in Isaiah are cited in detail to show their prophetic use of this motif. Both of these parallel elements in the Christ event in the New Testament. The first one is from Isaiah 63.
 

Furthermore, the following prophetic passage from Isaiah 61 was cited by Jesus in Nazareth (Luke 4). This opens an explanatory door on the Gospels in seeing Jesus’ activity and life in a Danielic Jubilee Day of Atonement context. This we believe to be an indispensable interpretive key to Daniel and the New Testament. This must be developed further elsewhere.
 

The Covenant context of both Daniel and the redemption realized in the New Testament is based on the Jubilee Day of Atonement and its cycle.

Daniel in its Jubilee Day of Atonement context

In every case so far, in the Gentile section of Daniel (ch. 2, 4, 5, 7) each vision, dream, or sign in Daniel was fully explained within the corresponding interpretive addendum. This holds true for the enigmatic Covenant vision of Daniel 8:1-14 and its unfolding development in the rest of Daniel 8-12. This pivotal vision (vs. 1-14) receives its full interpretation in the two explanations of Gabriel in chapters 8-9, and is enlarged with further details in chapters 10-12. As has been pointed out, Gabriel indeed fulfilled his commission to explain the vision (Dan. 8:15-16).

Every feature of the vision of Daniel 8 was explained in either or both Gabriel’s first and second explanations (chs. 8-9) in the context of the 70 ‘weeks of years’ and expanded in Gabriel's third explanation in chs. 11-12. We shall see this develop as we go. Daniel 8-12 form a Levitic-Covenant unit of vision and interpretation – The vision of Daniel 8:1-14 is explained three times.

A summary of parallels between Leviticus 16 and Daniel 8-12. As has been long recognized, we note that there is no explicit linguistic connection between nitz^edaq in Daniel 8:14 and taher in Leviticus 16. However, we do summarize some rather surprising but not coincidental parallels in Covenant imagery between Leviticus 16 (25-26) and Daniel 8-12:

The vision of Daniel 8:1-14

With brief comments and references we turn to the text of Daniel 8-9.

Daniel 8:13-14 – A question answered!

Here is the central question and its answer as well as the Covenant heart and climax of the whole book of Daniel:

Verse 14 is the answer to the question of v. 13! In assessing what exactly was asked in this momentous question and how it was answered, the usage and meaning of several key words and phrases must be examined.

The interchangeable words for 'vision'. The first usage of 'vision' in the passage is "a vision [chazon] appeared to me, Daniel" (8:1). A chazon is 'a perceived sight' especially a dream, revelation, or oracle. It comes from a verb chazah meaning to gaze, especially to perceive, contemplate, or have a vision. The OT king of Syria, Chatza'El, was literally named El sees or God sees. In 8:1, chazon of course is used to apply to all of vs. 1-14. In 8:13, chazon is used in connection with the question about the duration of the process of trampling the sanctuary and host. Chazon next appears in 8:15, "And so it was, when I Daniel had seen the vision [hechazon] then I sought for the meaning." Immediately Daniel saw the appearance of a man standing before him, who said, "Gabriel, make this (man) understand the vision [hamareh]" (8:16). Another term mareh, which is also applied to the whole vision, is now introduced. Mareh means 'a view,' an appearance, the act of having seen or the thing seen, coming from a verb ra'ah which is simply 'to see.' Abraham is told to sacrifice his son Isaac in "the land of the Moriah" [hamoriyah = the (person or thing) seen of Yah] (Gen. 22:2). The writer of Genesis 22 plays on the assonance and thematic linkage between Moriyah and Yahweh-yir'eh [= Yahweh sees/is seen] and cites an oral tradition "as the saying goes, 'on the Mount of Yahweh there is sight'" [Yahweh-yera'ah] (Alter, 1996). Abraham had told Isaac, "God will see for Himself [Elohim yire'eh-lo] the lamb for a burnt offering, my son" (Gen. 22:8). Literally the instruction in Daniel 8:16 is simply, "Gabriel, tell the man what he saw." Gabriel proceeds to go through the whole vision and begins to explain it in 8:17-26. So mareh is here applied to the whole vision of 8:1-14. In 8:16, chazon is again (as in 8:13) used to delimit the eschatological climax of the vision, "Understand, O son of man, the vision [hechazon] is for the end-time [le'eth qatz].... Look, I will make you know what shall happen in the last end [acharith] of the indignation [tza'am = fury or wrath] for [it must be at] the set time [mo'ed] of [the] end [qatz]" (8:16-19). The 'last end of the wrath' implies the concluding wrath of God because it is consummated in the 'set solemn assembly [mo'ed] of the end [qatz]'. The implication is immediately of the Day of Atonement and the final judgment and revelation of God's holy wrath against evil. Finally in the concluding remarks of Gabriel's first explanation, both mareh and chazon are specifically applied to the duration of the end time trampling of the sanctuary and host and their vindication (8:13-14), "And the vision [hamareheh] of the evening and the morning [ha'ereb vehaboqer] that was told is certain ['emeth]. But you! Shut up the vision [hechazon] for (it is) for many days [leyamim rebaim]" (8:26). Here again chazon is used for the third time to apply specifically to the eschatological ‘trampling-vindication’ portion of the vision. The eschatological vision of trampling and vindication is for many days in the future. So, both chazon and mareh are specifically used in Daniel 8 to apply to the whole vision and also specifically to the eschatological trampling and vindication of the sanctuary and host. Daniel summarizes by telling of his sickness, astonishment, and lack of understanding of the vision [hamareh], the eschatological part which he did not understand, for all the rest had been explained: "And I Daniel was sick. And I was sick for days. Then I arose and did the king's business. And I was stunned at the vision [hamareheh], but without understanding [it]" (8:27).

So in conclusion, chazon and mareh are both specifically and repeatedly used in application to the whole vision of vs. 1-14 as well as specifically to the eschatological portion concerning the trampling of the sanctuary by the little horn and the sanctuary's vindication (vs. 10-14). There is no evidence that these two words should be interpreted in contrast to each other as has all-too-often been done.

Details of the vision left unexplained in Dan. 8:16-26. It is important to understand exactly what were the several details of the vision left unexplained in Daniel 8 so as to clearly see how these formerly unexplained details were explained in Gabriel's second explanation (Dan. 9:23-27). Gabriel returned in answer to Daniel's Covenant prayer for an end to the 70 year sabbatical desolation of Jerusalem and the sanctuary by the Babylonians (Dan. 9:1-23; II Chron. 36; Leviticus 25-26). Gabriel returned to explicitly help Daniel to both "understand the matter [70 year sabbatical desolation] and understand the vision" [vebiyn vadabar vehabin vamareheh] (9:23), that is, especially the details of the vision of Daniel 8:1-14 previously left unexplained (8:15-27). Note the following, nearly identical charts on the same passages.

Or this nearly identical chart, which details more clearly exactly what happened in the 'little horn' assault on the Prince.

It is vitally important to note that all the unexplained details of the vision relate to the eschatological trampling and vindication of the sanctuary and host. Specifically listed (below and in the table above) are the eschatological unexplained details of the vision of Daniel 8:1-14:

• the taking / lifting away of the daily [hatamid]
• the setting up of the desolating transgression or abomination [hapesha' shemem]
• the [2300] evenings and mornings [ereb boqer of 8:14 and ha'ereb vehaboqer of 8:26]
• the vindication [nitz^edaq] of the sanctuary [qodesh]

The daily [hatamid] and its taking away. It is especially on 'the daily' that all the post-biblical schools of prophetic interpretation have fallen short in their explanations of Daniel. Rather than first letting a thorough Covenant exegesis of the prophecy help to illuminate history, these schools have in backward fashion attempted to use history (historicists, preterists) and speculation (esp. futurists) to exegete the prophecy! The preterists have interpreted 'the daily' and its taking away to refer to the removal of the daily temple sacrifice and service by Antiochus IV Ephiphanes in the 2nd century BCE. The historicists have variously interpreted 'the daily' and its taking away to refer to Roman paganism and its displacement by the Roman episcopate or to the replacement of the Gospel and the mediation of the ascended Christ by the interposition of the Roman episcopate and its system of mediation (6th century CE). The futurists have interpreted 'the daily' and its removal as the taking away of a future Jerusalem temple and its sacrifices by an antichrist in the middle of a 7 year tribulation split away from the 70 weeks and thrust far into the future. Tenaciously each school has held on to some facet dear to themselves and have each been wrong on important points.

The only (exegetical) Covenant explanation in Daniel of 'the daily' and its taking away is the "causing of the sacrifice and offering cease in the half of the [70th sabbatical] week" which is chronologically contiguous with the preceding 69 sabbatical 'weeks of years' (9:24-27). These unbroken and contiguous 70 sabbatical 'weeks of years' (Lev. 25-26; II Chron. 36; Dan. 9:1-23) start from the "word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (9:25) and extend to an anointed prince in climactic conflict with a 'coming prince' (9:25-27). It is this event and its resolution which is referred to in Dan. 8:13-14 and in Daniel 2, 7, and further developed in 11-12.

Some thoughts on the interpretation of the ‘the daily’. What is the hatamid or ‘the daily’? And how and when was it removed? Again especially once we recognize the underlying Covenant paradigm, there seems to be no difficulty in answering these questions. As a matter of fact exegetically there is only one single, non-repetitive event that constitutes the taking / lifting away of ‘the daily’.

There are indeed several reasons which unmistakably indicate that the removal of ‘the daily’ of Dan. 8:11-13 (and also of 11:31 and 12:11) cannot be anything else but the ‘causing of the sacrifice and offering to cease in the half of the week’ of Daniel 9:27. We summarize a few reasons below:

• The continual or daily [tamid ] sanctuary rituals included both blood sacrifices and non-blood oblationary offerings or rites, as a close reading of many sanctuary tamid references in the Torah will readily show. The phrase ‘sacrifice and offering’ in 9:27 and the comprehensive term hatamid in 8:10-13 perforce includes both.
• The removal of ‘the daily’ in both 8 and 9 is closely associated with the personal frontal attack against the Prince of the host, the Prince of princes, and Messiah the Prince Himself. When the Sar Himself is attacked, He is ‘left with nothing’ after being stripped of (1) the daily, (2) the place of His sanctuary, and (3) the host. This central assault is more significant than any secondary assaults either before or after the 1st century CE.
• The reckoning of ‘the daily’ in Daniel 8 is a unique high priestly reckoning. The only part of hatamid unique to the high priest and occurring within the sanctuary itself was always reckoned from evening to morning (Lev. 24:2-4; cf. Ex. 30:7-8). Hence the ereb-boqer formula in the answer (8:14) to the question in Daniel 8:13. (Please refer to the section below, “The evenings-mornings [ereb-boqer]”). Also it is worth noting in terms of the ‘Prince [Sar] of the host’ or ‘Prince [Sar] of princes’ that sar is used to refer to both military and religious leaders, including the high priest.
• In antichrist’s murderous assault on Messiah (cf. the crucifixion of Jesus by the Roman power, abetted by Jewish ‘forsakers of the holy Covenant’) the evil one removed, ‘lifted up,’ or took away ‘the daily’ or hatamid. And yes, at that very same point in time Messiah Himself laid down His own life and once for all, forever “put a Sabbath end to sacrifice and offering” (cf. Heb. 9-10, etc.). This counterpoint structure or ‘dance of the converses’ is a simple explanation for the different terms describing the taking away of ‘the daily’ between 8:11-13, 11:31, 12:11 and 9:27.
• The taking away of ‘the daily’ is always associated with the assault on either the Prince, the sanctuary, the sanctuary and fortress, the ‘glorious’ [land], the ‘glorious holy mountain’ [Zion, Daniel’s city and sanctuary], and the scattering of Daniel’s ‘holy people’ by captivity, fire, and sword.
• The taking away of ‘the daily’ is a pivotal one-time event in Daniel, and it is the start-point for every one of the antichrist-associated time periods in Daniel: 3½ times, 2300 ereb-boqer, 1290 days, and 1335 days. The climactic assault against both Messiah and his hatamid took place once for all in ‘the half’ of the 70th sabbatical ‘week.’ Associated attacks were against His people Israel and His ‘glorious holy mountain,’ Mount Zion.
• More reasons could doubtless be adduced, but these are adequate in summary. It is wonderful that an event as significant as the taking away of ‘the daily’ is not left to haphazard interpretation in Daniel – it is temporally and explicitly defined in Levitical Covenantal terms.

• Num. 9:15 tamiyd 'evening till morning' (Bob Knutsen, pers. comm.)
• The setting of the table of shewbread with dishes, spoons, covers, bowls (covered with pure gold) upon the table of shewbread before Me continually,
• the sons's of Israel to bring pure beaten olive oil to keep the 7-menorah burning continually
• the continual wearing of the high priest's breast plate in the holy place
• the continual wearing of the high priest's miter
• the lambs of the morning and evening continual burnt offering
• the high priest's evening lighting of the 7-menorah continually
• the high priest's burning of perpetual incense in the holy place cotninually
• the ever burning fire on the altar
• the continual evening and morning burning of the meat offering of fine flour
• the sons of Israel bringing pure olive oil for the 7-menorah to burn continually
• outside the veil of the Testimony the high priest orders the 7-menorah from evening to morning continually
• every Sabbath the high priest sets the bread and frankincense on the table of shewbread before YAHWEH continually
• on the table of shewbread, a blue cloth, spoons, bowls, and covers for the continual bread on it
• the continual covering of the sanctuary by the pillar of cloud by day and the appearance of fire by night
• the continual burnt offering as a soothing fragrance, an offering made by fire unto YAHWEH
• association of the drink offering (libation) and 'meat' (fine flour) offering with the continual burnt offering
• the eyes of YAHWEH your God and His care are upon the chosen promised land continually from the beginning of the year till the end of the year

It has furthermore been suggested that because the word rum (to lift up) is used in Daniel 8:11 to describe what the 'little horn' did to 'the daily,' that therefore Daniel 8:11 cannot be referring to the same event of causing ‘sacrifice and offering to cease [yeshevuat]’ (Daniel 9:27) or ‘the taking away [sur] of the daily’ in Daniel 11:31 or 12:7, 12, but instead to the 'exaltation' of paganism by the 'little horn.' Rather than this diversity of usage pointing to divergent events, it is significant and suggestive that these terms, rum, sur, and shevuat, have specific cultic-sanctuary, or divine activity associations (shevuat, Gen. 2:1-3) in the Torah. In fact whenever the verb rum is used in a sanctuary context (21 times) in the Torah (21 times; or as a noun t^erumah 'offering' in the OT, 76 times), it always signifies not a mere 'lifting up' but a technical cultic action of 'offering up' or 'lifting away' or 'presenting' so as to remove or separate 'an offering' or portion from the giver and his portion, and offer it up to the receiver, or as a separating cultic action.

As always, however, it is immediate context that is decisive. In Daniel, the immediate context and parallel usage of these culticly significant terms in connection with the sanctuary and 'the daily' establish that each of the visionary passages (Dan. 8, 9, 11, 12) describe the very same sequence of climactic sanctuary events connected with the eschatological demise of the 4th empire / 'little horn' and the setting up of the kingdom of God:

1. an incarnationally evil power and his forces,
2. a central action of cultic significance against ‘the daily,’
3. an attack against the sanctuary and host / city / holy people,
4. a setting up of a ‘desolating abomination’ for a divinely limited interval,
5. the incarnationally evil power meets his own just and final end

Using various parallel culticly significant terms, these passages each refer to the SAME sequence of events, and Daniel 9 provides the only Messianic and anchored, sabbatical, Covenant (conditional) time framework for these events – the 70th and last sabbatical 'week' from "the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:24, 27). Daniel 9 provides the only time-anchored Scriptural explanation of the sequence and in so doing lays the very foundation for the eschatological claims of the New Testament about Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ (Messiah) in the 1st century CE!

Now, it is interesting that rum, a word with specific, technical cultic / sanctuary associations in the Hebrew Torah is placed in Daniel 8:10. A very good reason emerges in the explanatory parallel in Daniel 9:27. When under the assault of the ‘little horn’ / ‘desolator,’ 'the daily' is lifted [rum] away, at the same moment, a complete Sabbath end [yeshevuat] is put to the ‘sacrifice and offering’ by Messiah. [Again we see an allusion to the converse representative counterpoint of YAHWEH's goat versus Azazel's goat (Leviticus 16; see the table above entitled "Parallels between Leviticus 16, 25-26 and Daniel 8-12")].

The prophetic significance is monumental and central to the Gospel. Is it a coincidence that when Satan the real ‘little horn’ and ‘coming prince of this world’ (John 16) assaulted 'the Prince of princes,' Messiah (the real Substance of all the sanctuary rituals), lifting Him up spiked to a Roman cross (i.e., under the 4th empire), so to cut Him off left with nothing, Messiah at that very moment voluntarily offered up his life and put a Sabbath end to sacrifice and offering (Hebrews 10)?! From that time, there remained only ‘a short time’ (oligon kairon, namely 3 ½ times) allotted to the enraged but defeated and cast out dragon (Rev. 12:5-6, 7-14), [i.e., a Covenant (conditional) parallel of the last 'half of the 70th week' (namely 3 ½ times) at the end of which the 'abominations of a desolator' come to an end forever (Dan. 9:24-27)].

So in summary, it should not escape our notice that Daniel 8 and 9 are indeed Messianic (Christological) and unequivocally refer to the SAME events. Both Daniel 8 and 9 refer to

• the SAME desolation and destruction of the sanctuary and city / host
• by the SAME attacking ‘little horn’ / ‘desolator,’ ‘people of a coming prince’
• the SAME personal attack on the SAME Prince / Messiah – ‘self-magnifies (against) the Prince of the host,’ ‘stands up against the Prince of princes’ / ‘Messiah a prince, cut off and left with nothing’
• the ‘lifting away’ / ‘putting an end’ to the SAME ‘daily’ / ‘sacrifice and offering’
• the SAME 'casting down of His sanctuary' / 'destruction of ... sanctuary'
• the placing of the SAME ‘desolating transgression... practicing and prospering’ = ‘the transgression,’ ‘upon the outskirts the abominations of a desolator even until the end’
• the SAME final overthrow of the ‘little horn’ / ‘desolator’ – ‘in last end of the indignation.... [the 'little horn'] shall be broken without hand’ = ‘even until the end, and that which is decreed shall pour out upon the desolator.’
• AND the SAME 'vindication [nitz^edaq] of the sanctuary' = 'Finishing the abomination,' 'Sealing an end to sins,' 'Atoning for iniquity,' 'Bringing in everlasting righteousness [tzedeq],' 'Sealing an end to vision and prophecy,' 'Anointing a Most Holy,' 'Bringing a Sabbath end  to sacrifice and offering,' and finally 'that which is decreed pours out upon the desolator.'

We will return to the Covenant time framework again.

The evenings-mornings [ereb-boqer]. "Until evenings-mornings two thousand and three hundred then shall the sanctuary be vindicated" (8:14) is the answer to the question, "Until when (is) the vision, the daily and desolating transgression, to give both sanctuary and host to be trampled?" (8:13). Ereb boqer 'evenings mornings' is used here without definite articles but in the explanation definite articles are used, 'the vision of the evening and the morning' [ha'ereb vehaboqer] (8:26). So it seems as though v. 14 speaks of evening-morning units and v. 26 may be speaking of evenings and mornings as separate, thus leading to a difference of 2300 units vs 1150 units. No other example can be cited in Scripture where evening and morning are separated into different time periods. There is apparently no compellingly interesting reason to do so here, except that 1150 units fit within the last half of the 70th week. It appears more likely that ereb-boqer is intended to denote, not 1150 units, but rather 2300 units. We should note that the 3½ times (1260 days, 42 months) are the only time period from Daniel imported into the New Testament.

The more pressing question then is why ereb-boqer is used rather than for example yamim, days? Some have argued that ereb boqer is a reference limited to the daily sacrifice. Others have suggested that it simply refers to day units like the days of Genesis 1-2 summarized as evening and morning, thus linking Creation and Judgment (Doukhan, 1987). If only simple calender days had been intended, yom and yamim could have served, especially since they are also used in Genesis 1-2. Some see these two self-limited possibilities as mutually exclusive. Of course they are not. Others have argued that ereb-boqer must be calendar days and cannot refer to the Levitical hatamid because the daily burnt sacrifices were only reckoned morning to evening. This we shall see is untenable.

Ereb boqer is used rather than yamim not because a calendar day as instituted in the Creation is excluded, but because the time units are not ordinary calendar days but rather hatamid calendar days invested with cultic significance by the very question of 8:13, "Until when (is) the vision, the daily [hatamid] and the desolating transgression, to give both sanctuary and host to be trampled?" Ereb boqer is used because it is the answer in reference to the removal of hatamid and the process of the trampling of sanctuary and host: "Until evenings-mornings two thousand and three hundred then shall the sanctuary be vindicated" (8:14).

In brief, there are three suggestive reasons and one conclusive reason for implying that ereb-boqer refers to the hatamid service of cultic calendar days rather than simply calendar days in Daniel 8:13-14:

• The daily sacrifice was not only reckoned from morning to evening, but also from evening to morning even as the day is reckoned from evening to morning. The evening sacrifice smoldered all night until morning. However the sacrifice is specifically and repeatedly referred to as being morning and evening, or morning and between the evenings.
• The hatamid includes more than sacrifices. There were also meal and drink offerings (Num. 29:16). Aaron the high priest was to wear the breastplate of judgment continually (tamid, Exod. 28:29-30). The 7-lamps in the holy place were to be kept burning continually (Lev. 24:2). The shewbread on the table was to be there continually (tamid, Num. 4:7; II Chron. 2:4).
• The evening part of the hatamid was more prominent as an expiation, and hence had a logical priority. Ceremonial "uncleanness" remained until evening (Lev. 11:24-25, 27-28, 31-32, 39-40; 14:46; 15:5-8, 10-11, 16-19, 21-23, 27; 17:15; 22:6; Num. 19:7-8, 19; 19, 21-22). Expiation and justice were done in the evening (Josh. 7:6; 8:29; 10:26; Judges 20:23, 26; 21:2; etc.).
• Most significant, given the Day of Atonement context of Dan. 8, is that the only part of the hatamid apparently unique to the high priest and occurring inside the sanctuary, was reckoned from evening to morning. The trimming and dressing of the lamps (and placing of the perpetual incense) were ordered from evening to morning: "Command the sons of Israel and they shall bring you pure olive oil beaten for the light of a lamp to cause to go up continually [tamid]. Without the veil of the Testimony in the tabernacle of meeting, Aaron shall arrange it from evening until morning [me'ereb ad boqer] before YAHWEH continually [tamid], a never-ending statute for your generations. On the pure [gold] lampstand he shall arrange the lamps before YAHWEH continually [tamid]" (Lev. 24:2-4; cf. Exod. 30:7-8). "And you shall command the sons of Israel, and let them bring to you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to set up lamps perpetually [tamid] in the tabernacle of the congregation from without the veil which [is] by the Testimony. And Aaron and his sons shall arrange it from evening until morning [me'ereb ad boqer] before YAHWEH, a never-ending statute for their generations from the sons of Israel (Exod. 27:20-21).

Tamid & mo'ed. Tamid is used repeatedly for what occurs continually, perpetually, and daily.Mo'ed is dozens of times to refer to periodic, seasonal, and especially religious festivals and solemn assemblies. The sanctuary tent was even called the "tabernacle of the mo'ed" or "set time" or "[solemn] assembly."

Until when...? [Ad ma'atiy]. This preposition ad or "until" and the prepositional phrase ad ma'atiy or "until when" when used as an adverb of time always connote the 'duration of a process' until its completion and never just the endpoint. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the adverbial construct of “Until when [ad ma’atiy]…?” in its context always infers (1) a starting point, (2) a specific process, (3) a duration, and (4) an end point. The duration, the process, and even the starting point are often explicitly identified and as we shall see, Daniel 8:13-14 are no exception.

Here we show a few examples from the 28 times that the interrogative 'ad ma'atiy' is used in the Hebrew Scriptures:

• A multipart question: "O sons of men, until when [ad ma'atiy] (duration) is My glory for reproach? Will you love vanity? Will you seek a lie? (processes 1-3)" (Ps. 4:2). The starting point = when the sons of men began to reproach God's glory, love vanity, and seek a lie.
• "Until when [ad ma'atiy] shall the wicked, O LORD, until when [ad ma'atiy] (duration) shall the wicked exult (process)" (Ps. 94:3). The starting point is when the wicked first began to exult.
• Moses said to Pharoah, "Thus says the LORD, God of the Hebrews, 'Until when (duration) will you refuse to bow before Me?' (process)" (Ex. 10:4). The starting point is when Pharoah first refused to submit to the Lord.
• Pharoah's servants said to Pharoah, "Until when [ad ma'atiy] (duration) shall this one [Moses] be a snare to us (process)? Send the men away that they may serve the LORD their God. Do you not yet know that Egypt is perishing?" (Ex. 10:7). The starting point = when Moses first began to be snare to them.
• The LORD said to Moses, "Until when [shall I bear with] this evil congregation (implied process 1) which murmer against Me (process 2)? I have heard (process 1) the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against Me (process 2)" (Num. 14:27). The starting point = when the children of Israel began to murmur and the LORD began to hear their murmuring.
• Eli misapprehending Hannah in the temple: "Until when (duration) will you be drunken (process)? Put away your wine from you" (I Sam. 1:14). Starting point = the beginning of her alleged drunkeness.
• Abner called to Joab, "Forever shall the sword devour? (process 1) Do you not know that it will be bitter in the end? (end point) And until when [ad ma'atiy] (duration) will you not call to the people (process 2) to turn back from pursuing their brothers? (process 3)" (II Sam. 2:26). Starting point = the beginning of the sword's devouring, Joab's not calling off the people, and the people pursuing their brothers.

• In Genesis 3:19, Adam after the Fall was to till the ground "in the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread (process) until [ad] you return to the ground (duration)." The starting point = from the divine sentence until death should come.
• In the Flood, "And the ark rested in the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month, on the heights of Ararat. And the waters were going and falling (process) until [ad] the tenth month (duration); in the tenth (month) on the first of the month the tops of the mountains were seen" (Gen. 8: 4-5). The starting point = from the resting of the ark, and the going and falling of the waters. The process = the going and falling of the waters. The end point = the first of the 10th month when the mountain tops were seen.
• "So may God do to the enemies of David, and may He do more so, if I leave any (process) of all that is his [Nabal's] until [ad] the morning light (duration), of [any]one who pisses against a wall" (I Sam. 25:22). The starting point = when David ceases to spare any of the males. Process = killing of the males. Duration = from the start of the killing until dawn.
• "And so it was, when Jehoram saw Jehu, he said, '[Is it] peace, Jehu?' And he replied, 'What peace (process 1), so long as [ad] (duration) the harlotries of Jezebel your mother, and her sorceries [are] so many?' (process 2)" (II Kings 9:22). The starting point = the first appearance of the many harlotries and sorceries of Jezebel. Process 1 = An ongoing lack of peace. Process 2 = the ongoing existence and multiplying of Jezebel's harlotries and sorceries. Duration = until Jezebel's harlotries and sorceries come to an end that peace may be restored.

The end point (4) is “the vindication of the sanctuary.” The duration (3) is “2300 evenings-mornings.” The specific process (2) is “the trampling of sanctuary and host.” And the starting point (1) is when the trampling begins, that is, from “the lifting / taking away of the daily.” That is why the duration (3) is explicitly expressed in terms of “evenings-mornings.” The phrase “evenings-mornings” organically links the nature of the starting point (taking away of the daily), the specific process (trampling of His sanctuary), and the Prince whose sanctuary and host were to be attacked.

• End point = the vindication of the sanctuary.
• Process = the trampling of sanctuary and host by the little horn
• Duration = 2300 evenings-mornings
• Starting point = The casting down of the sanctuary, the giving of the host with the daily into his hands, and the trampling of the sanctuary and host and truth, and thus the beginning of the 2300 evenings-mornings all begin with the lifting / taking away of 'the daily,' hatamid, and the placing of the desolating abomination.

“Until when [adma’atiy]…?” – Whole vision? Or a specific process in the vision? Does the questioner (v. 13) ask about the duration of the vision in general or about the duration of a specific process in the vision (8:10-12), namely the “little horn’s” trampling of sanctuary and host? A closer look indicates that the question is specifically about the duration of the trampling of sanctuary and host beginning with “the taking / lifting away of the daily” from “the Prince [sar] of the host.” This specific duration also brings the whole vision to a close. Throughout the OT, the Hebrew adverbial construct of “Until when [adma’atiy]…?” in its context always infers (1) a starting point, (2) a specific process, (3) a duration, and (4) an end point. Daniel 8:13-14 is no exception. The end point (4) is “the vindication of the sanctuary.” The duration (3) is “2300 evenings-mornings.” The specific process (2) is “the trampling of sanctuary and host.” And the starting point (1) is when the trampling begins, that is, from “the taking away of the daily.” That is why the duration (3) is explicitly expressed in terms of “evenings-mornings.” The phrase “evenings-mornings” organically links the nature of the starting point (taking away of the daily), the specific process (trampling of His sanctuary), and the Prince. In “the daily” sanctuary services the only role apparently unique to the high priest (also called a ‘prince’ sar) was always reckoned “from evening to morning” (cf. tamid in Ex. 27:21; Lev. 24:3). The attack of the “little horn” assaults not only the sanctuary and the host but also personally assault the Prince [sar] of the host – the real High Priest Himself. And the whole vision also comes to an end when the specific duration comes to an end – at the vindication of the sanctuary.

It is significant in understanding the question-answer of Daniel 8:13-14, to note that the one other use of “until when [ad ma’atiy]?”in Daniel seems superficially to refer to the whole vision, but the answer makes clear that it refers only to a specific eschatological process in the vision. In the final visionary section (Dan. 10-12), Daniel is told that the vision is 'shut up' and 'sealed' 'until the time of (the) end' [ad et qetz]. Daniel tentatively asks, "Until when [ad ma’atiy] (is) the end of the wonders?" (12:6), using the specific adverbial construct that implies specific starting point, process, duration, and end point. Immediately he heard "the Man clothed in linen...when He held up His right hand and His left to the heavens, and swore by Him who lives forever that '(It is) for a time, times, and a half [3 ½ times]; and when they finish scattering the power of the holy people [the host], all these (things) shall be finished" (12:7). This was the very interval introduced in Dan. 7:25 and placed in a Covenant time framework as the last half of the 70th sabbatical 'week' of Dan. 9:27 from the end of the 'sacrifice and offering.'

The question is definitively answered even though Daniel did not understand it (and was given further details):

• (1) a starting point = beginning of the 3 ½ times when the eschatological 'scattering of the power of the holy people' begins [already located in Covenant time reckoning as the last half of the 70th sabbatical 'week' beginning with the cessation of 'sacrifice and offering' (taking away of the daily) and ending when that which is 'decreed shall pour out on the desolator.']
• (2) a specific process = scattering the power of the holy people
• (3) a duration = 3 ½ times
• (4) an end point = at the end of the 3 ½ times when the aforesaid 'scattering' comes to end, all these things (ch. 10-12) will be finished [i.e., the end of the visionary sequence of Dan. 10-12].

• "...and he [the 'king of the north' / 'desolator' / 'little horn' ] shall plant his palatial tents between the seas [Dead and Mediterranean Seas], in the glorious holy mountain [Mount Zion], but he shall come to his end and none shall help him. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great Prince [Sar] who stands for the sons of your [Daniel's] people.... And at that time your [Daniel's] people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the Book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground shall awake, some to life everlasting and some to reproaches (and) to abhorrence everlasting. And those who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the skies, and those turning many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever" (Daniel 11:45-12:3 = 9:24-27 = 8:14, 17, 19, 24-26].

Then shall the sanctuary be vindicated [nitz^edaq]. Even before examining the meaning of nitz^edaq, it becomes obvious that 'the vindication of the sanctuary' must be the reversal of the onslaught of the 'little horn.'

The word nitz^edaq is in the passive Niphal form of tzedeq. Tzedeq and nitz^edaq denote judicial Covenantal righteousness and justice. They primarily center on forensic adjudication, justification, and vindication before God's Covenant or Law. Vindication of the sanctuary and host before God's Covenant always took place on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), especially the Jubilee Day of Atonement (Lev. 16, 25-26), which provides the whole Covenant framework of Daniel and especially the 70 year desolation and the 70 'weeks of years' of Daniel 9. So, in the context, the little horn (LH) has

• become great toward the S, E, and Glorious [land; W]
• became great toward 'the host of the heavens,' threw some of 'the host' and of the stars to the ground and trampled them
• magnified himself even to the Prince of the host
• by him (LH) was taken away the hatamid or daily services
• and the place of His sanctuary was cast down
• A 'host' was given [over to him] with the hatamid through transgression [pesha']
• The truth was cast to the ground as the LH practiced and prospered
• The 'desolating abomination' [pesha'] was placed
• Sanctuary and host are trampled for a set time [2300 evenings-mornings] until the 'mo'ed or solemn assembly of the end,' where God's justice and righteousness will be manifest for the vindication of both sanctuary and host

Daniel 8:14 is explained in Daniel 9:24, 27 and was to be fully accomplished within the 70 sabbatical 'weeks' of years.

A historical interpretive note. Let’s remember that from about 168 BCE onward, Palestine was already in effect under the control of Rome, and so the breakup of the 4th kingdom and ‘the kingdom of God’ could have happened at any time after that and would still fit Daniel’s prophecies about 4 world kingdoms. It need not have taken centuries. Even Revelation (ca. 95 CE) describes the ‘10 horns’ as kings not yet come who would at last ‘reign one hour with the beast’ (Rev. 17:12; cf. Dan. 7:7, 24) not centuries and centuries.

A quick chronology of the late inter-testamental period (see the SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 4: 823; Bartlett, 1993; McEvedy, 1988; Greer, 2001a):

• After the death of Alexander the Great (323 BCE) and the break up of his empire among his 4 generals, Palestine and Egypt came under the control of the Ptolemies (referred to initially as ‘the king of the south’ in Daniel 11:4 and onwards) who ruled over Israel for about 100 years. The faith and life of Israel was challenged and compromised by Greek Hellenistic culture (hellenization, compromising Jews were called hellenists).
• 199 BCE – Israel came under the rule of the Syrian Seleucid empire (referred to initially as the ‘king of the north’ in Daniel 11) and its king, Antiochus III (223-187 BCE) who had a son Antiochus IV (Epiphanes, 187-162 BCE).
• 197 BCE – Rome defeated Macedonia and the Greek city-states at the Battle of Cynoscephalae (marking the transition to the 4th kingdom of Daniel).
• 190 BCE – Rome defeated Antiochus III (223-187 BCE, Seleucid empire), the father of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes, 187-162 BCE), and extended her suzerainty to the Taurus Mountains in Asia Minor. The young Antiochus was sent as a hostage to Rome to ensure his loyalty and subservience – returning after his father's death to succeed him. The Seleucid empire (referred to in Daniel 11 as ‘the king of the north’) from this time forward became a vassal empire under the suzerainty and dominance of Rome (Daniel's fourth kingdom of iron, Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11).
• 168 BCE – Naval Battle of Pydna: Rome ended the monarchy of Macedonia completely and probably in this year warned Antiochus IV Epiphanes away from his attack on Egypt, thereby facilitating Antiochus’ devastating attack on Israel and temple. (Hence this initial ‘little horn’ / ‘king of the north’ attack came both from 1 of the 4 Grecian empire divisions [Dan. 8:23], and also not under 'his own power' [Dan. 8:24] but under the auspices of the power and authority of Daniel's 4th iron kingdom, Rome; à la Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11).
• 168-164 BCE – This vassal of Rome(!), Antiochus IV (who declared himself a god – Epiphanes!), on pain of death, prohibited the Sabbath and festival observance, the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and drink offerings of the sanctuary, circumcision, and even the possession of Torah. Many Jews forsook God’s Covenant, accepted idolatry and the leaders in Jerusalem collaborated with Antiochus IV.
• Kislev (Nov-Dec) 167 BCE – He defiled the sanctuary, temple, and priesthood – set up shrines to idols on Mt. Zion, offered up swine and unclean beasts, and erected ‘a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering’ in Kislev (Nov-Dec) 167 BCE (according to I Macc. 1:54; Josephus, Antiquities, book XII, chap. 11). About 40,000 Jews were slaughtered and another 40,000 went into captivity. (This initial, unprecedentedly vicious ‘little horn’ / ‘king of the north’ attack upon the entire faith and practice of Israel was launched by a vassal power, a minion, of Daniel's 4th iron kingdom, Rome).
• A man of the high priestly lineage named Mattathias and his 5 sons resisted, determined to be loyal to God and His Covenant with Israel. They (and their followers) became known as the Maccabeans (indicating that they were strong and “hammerlike”). Led by Judas Maccabeus, the most distinguished of Mattathias’ five sons, the Maccabeans, with a force much smaller than the powerful Seleucid Greek armies, finally triumphed in 164 BCE.
• On the 25th of Kislev (Nov-Dec) 164 BCE, the Maccabeans reclaimed Mt. Zion, cleansed the sanctuary, and rededicated the temple – origin of the feast of Dedication or Hanukkah, referenced in John 10:22, and still celebrated by the Jewish people to this day.
• It is important to note that neither Antiochus IV Epiphanes, nor the Roman Empire, nor the corrupt Medieval Roman church in and of themselves entirely fulfill all the specifications of the antichrist ‘little horn’ / ‘king of the north’ / ‘desolator’ of prophecy (Dan. 7, 8-9, 11), most importantly because the antichrist ‘little horn’ / ‘king of the north’ / ‘desolator’s greatest assault came upon the very person of the ‘Prince of the host’ / ‘Prince of princes’ / ‘Messiah’ Himself ‘cutting Him off’ and ‘leaving Him with nothing’ thereby ‘lifting away the daily’ / ‘causing the sacrifice and offering to cease’ and this only occurred ‘in the half of the [final 70th sabbatical] week’ of Daniel 9. All three of these powers (associated in one way or another with Rome, Daniel's 4th iron kingdom) were simply vassals of the real antichrist, the supernatural Luciferian ‘king of Babylon,' Satan himself, whose superhuman uprising is described in Isaiah 14 and in Daniel 8:10-12, and again by reference to both texts, in Rev. 12.
• 164 BCE – Rome annexed Macedonia as a province – the Seleucid kings (in Syria) and the Ptolemaic kings (in Egypt) were allowed to remain on their thrones as vassals until 64 and 30 BC respectively (i.e., the intial ‘king of the north’ and ‘king of the south’ of Daniel 11).
• 161 BCE – Jewish League with Rome was established for protection from the warring Seleucids and Ptolemies (i.e., the intial ‘king of the north’ and ‘king of the south’ of Daniel 11). What the Jews intended for protection, became a protection racket.
• 63 BCE – Rome annexed Judea under Pompey the Great, the last great Roman republican.
• 42 BCE – End of the Roman Republic came following the Civil War (49-46 BCE) victory by Julius Caesar (who was himself assassinated in 44 BCE on 'the Ides of March').
• Ca. 8-6 BCE – Caesar Augustus (Octavian): Direct Roman taxation of the Mediterranean world – Pax Romana (Luke 2).
• 26 CE – Direct Roman rule in Jerusalem and Judea under the brutal Pontius Pilatus prefectorate (26-36 CE) began ~ approximately the same time that Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed in the Galilee that “the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the Gospel” (Mark 1:15, where He directly alluded to the Septuagint of Dan. 2, 7, and especially the '70 (sabbatical) weeks' interval in chs. 8-9).
• 30-31 CE – Under (Daniel's fourth iron kingdom) Rome, Jesus of Nazareth called the Messiah or the Christ was personally assaulted (by antichrist), lifted up and crucified upon a Roman cross as 'the king of the Jews' ( – Three days later, His tomb was reported empty and He was testified to have arisen from the dead and ascended to God's throne).
• And so Messiah was "cut off and left with nothing" "in the half of the [70th sabbatical] week" thereby causing "sacrifice and offering to cease" and inaugurating the final eschatological interval when "until the end shall be war: Desolations are determined.... and upon the outskirts shall be the abominations of a desolator even until the end, and that which is decreed shall pour out on the desolator" (Dan. 9:25-27 = latter half of Dan. 11 and 12). This same final eschatological interval is referenced in Rev. 12 (and in 11 and 13, as well as in the Olivet discourse, Mark 13 = Matt. 24 = Luke 21) began with the assault of the '7-headed, 10-horned great red dragon' (allus. to Dan. 7:7-8, 23-24) who is really "that ancient serpent, the devil and Satan" whose "tail swept a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth" (allus. to Dan. 8:10-12) against the Son, a Male child (Dan. 7:10-11, 13-14) accession of the Male Child to God's throne to receive a kingdom (allus. to Dan. 7:13-14.... who now seeing the coming of the kindgom and power of Christ in judgment (see Rev. 4-5) is cast out of court and is come down with great wrath knowing that he has but a short time [oligon kairon] namely '3 and 1/2 times [kairous], when the gospel testimony will be given during a time of sackcloth and trampling of the outskirts by the Gentiles (Rev. 11 – 42 months, 1260 days, 3 ½ times or a broken 7)
• And the real Luciferian 'king of Babylon' (Isa. 14; Dan. 8; symbolized by the great red dragon in Rev. 12:5-17) is defeated at the ascension-accession of the Man-child and cast down defeated knowing he has only 'a short time,' namely '3 ½ times' which brings one from Calvary to the final crisis (v. 17), when the testimony of the Gospel witnesses will be complete (Rev. 11; 42 months, 1260 days, or 3 ½ times).

Scholars (whether liberal, evangelical, or fundamentalist) have failed to exegetically and adequately come to terms with this Covenant oath and prediction of Jesus. The problem was first fairly and courageously recognized by Albert Schweitzer more than 120 years ago. Perhaps one reason for this failure is that most scholars have approached it as they have other prophetic passages using various linear, deterministic, Greek conceptions of time foreign to the text, rather than the Covenantal-conditional paradigm of time in which the prophets and Jesus operated.
 

The Jubilee Day of Atonement
and the fine structure of the 70 sabbatical 'weeks of years' of Daniel 9:23-27

Just as we cannot separate the question (Dan. 8:13) from its answer (Dan. 8:14), or the vision (Dan. 8:1-14) from its interpretations (Dan. 8:15-27 and Dan. 9:23-27), so likewise we cannot separate the prayer (Dan. 9:1-22) from the answer to the prayer (Dan. 9:23-27).

The Prayer – A Covenant Litigation: Daniel's prayer specifically follows the penitential litigation process in the Covenant provisions of Leviticus 25-26, on behalf of Jerusalem and the children of Israel. The center of concern is always Jerusalem and Israel, God's scattered people. God's answer through Gabriel in verses 20-27 is to a large extent unintelligible without recognizing Daniel's central concern, and refusing to confuse it with our own.
 

It should not escape our notice as we examine Levitic Covenant language in Daniel 8-9 that the lawsuit-verdict of Daniel 9 is in the form of the Near Eastern suzerainty covenant-treaty.
 

The Covenant-treaty lawsuit and judgment of Daniel 9 contains Gabriel's explanation of the previously unexplained details of the Covenant vision of Daniel 8:1-14. This vision contains the central question and its answer which together make the Covenant heart and climax of the entire book of Daniel.

The Answer – A Covenant Judgment: God's answer also follows the Covenantal Jubilee Day of Atonement litigation process in Leviticus 25-26, and is likewise an inseparable intertwining of redemption, the Jubilee Day of Atonement, and Messiah with "your people and your holy city" Jerusalem (i.e., Daniel's central concern). There is no disconnect between the two as we have tended to imagine.

Any chiastic structures which may be present do not divide but rather tend to closely intertwine the destinies of the city, people, and Messiah. A few possible chiastic arrangements are suggested below.

i) And while I was speaking and praying and confessing my sin, and sin of my people Israel, and causing my supplication to fall before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God; and while I was speaking in prayer, then the man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision [chazon] at the beginning [when] exhausted in my exhaustion [me'aph phe'yaph], touched me about the time of the evening sacrifice. And he distinguished and talked with me, and said, 'O Daniel, now I have come to give you skill in understanding: At the beginning of your supplications a word came forth, and I have come to declare, for you are greatly beloved; so heed the matter and understand the vision:

Seventy weeks [10 Jubilee cycles] are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city

(a) To stop [kala’ or perh. kalah ‘finish’] the rebellion [pesha‘ = revolt, abomination]
    (b) To completely seal an end [khatam] [of] sins
        (c) To atone for [kaphair] iniquity ['avon]
(a’) To bring in everlasting righteousness [tzedeq]
    (b’) To completely seal an end [khatam] [to] vision and prophecy
        (c’) To anoint the Most Holy [qodesh qadashim]

                                            Or

(a) To stop [kala’] the rebellion [pesha‘ = revolt, abomination]
    (b) To completely seal an end [khatam] [of] sins
        (c) To atone for [kaphair] iniquity ['avon]
        (c’) To bring in everlasting righteousness [tzedeq]
    (b’) To completely seal an end [khatam] [to] vision and prophecy
(a’) To anoint the Most Holy [qodesh qadashim].
 

ii) Then know and understand:

(a) From the issuing of a word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem
    (b) Until Messiah a Prince (shall be) seven weeks and sixty-two weeks [one and nine Jubilees]
        (c) Again it shall be built (with) plaza and trench even in the affliction of the times
            (d) And after the sixty-two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off and not for Himself
        (c’) And the city and the sanctuary shall the people of a coming prince destroy
    (b’) And its end [qatz] (shall be) with the flood
(a’) And until (the) end [’ad-qatz] (shall be) war; desolations are decreed.

(a) And he shall confirm Covenant with many (for) one week [last sabbatical week of 10^th Jubilee].
    (b) And in the half of the week [End of 1^st half week or 3 ½ times] he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering
    (b’) And upon the outskirts (shall be) [the] abominations [of] a desolator even until (the) end [’ad-kalah]
(a’) And that which was decreed shall pour out upon the desolator. [End of 2^nd half week or 3 ½ times]

                                            Or

(a) And he shall confirm Covenant with many (for) one week.
    (b) And in the half of the week [End of 1^st half week or 3 ½ times] he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering
(a’) And upon the outskirts (shall be) [the] abominations [of] a desolator even until (the) end [’ad-kalah]
    (b’) And that which was decreed shall pour out upon the desolator. [End of 2^nd half week or 3 ½ times]

It is tempting to see in the Covenant answer one chiasm. At any rate, Daniel 9:23-27 is indeed the answer to Daniel's Covenant prayer (9:1-22) requesting messianic redemption for Israel and for Jerusalem, the holy mountain called by My name.

(a) To stop [kala’] the rebellion [pesha‘ = revolt, abomination] [s]
    (b) To completely seal an end [khatam] [of] sins [pl]
       (c) To atone for [kaphar] iniquity
            (d) To bring in everlasting righteousness [tzedeq]
                (e) To completely seal an end [khatam] [to] vision and prophecy
                    (f) To anoint the Most Holy [qodesh qadashim].
                        (g) From the issuing of a word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem
                            (h) Until Messiah a Prince (shall be) seven weeks and sixty-two weeks [1 & 9 Jubilees]
                                (i) Again it shall be built (with) plaza and trench even in the affliction of the times
                            (h') And after the sixty-two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off and not for Himself
                        (g’) And the city and the sanctuary shall the people of a coming prince destroy
                    (f’) And its end [qatz] (shall be) with the flood
                (e’) And until (the) end [’ad-qatz] (shall be) war; desolations are decreed.
            (d') And he shall confirm Covenant with many (for) one week [last sabbatical week of 10^th Jubilee].
        (c') And in the half of the week [End of 1^st half week or 3 ½ times] he shall put an end [yeshebuat] to sacrifice and offering
    (b’) And upon the outskirts (shall be) [the] abominations [of] a desolator even until [the] end [’ad-kalah] [plural]
(a’) And that which was decreed shall pour out upon the desolator. [End of 2^nd half week or 3 ½ times] [singular]

Do the suggested letters and their primes signify synonomous meanings or antonymous meanings? Or could it be both! The obviously paradoxical intertwining of the roles of Messiah and the evil 'coming prince' could well find their explication in the Levitical-Covenantal context of Lord's goat and the scapegoat in the Jubilee Day of Atonement ritual (Leviticus 16, 25-26).

Sabbath and sabbatical. An even more interesting possibility is that Dan. 9:23-27 follows a Creation-Sabbath pattern like that in Gen. 1-2: Prologue, days 1-6 corresponding (1-4, 2-5, 3-6), and 7th day (epilogue) as pointed out by Kikawada & Quinn (1985) and also the pattern later appearing in Revelation (Christoffel, 2002) such that the groups of 'sevens' are organized in a sequence of 6 items, an interlude, and the 7th item:

In Genesis 1-2, you a temporal prologue ('In the beginning'), six items having been accomplished, an interlude focused on man as ruler established, and a Sabbath. So likewise in Dan. 9:24-27, you have a temporal prologue ('Seventy weeks are decreed'), six items yet to be accomplished, an interlude focused on Messiah as ruler cut off, and a Sabbatical and Sabbath ending.

1. Prologue – Seventy weeks are decreed [by God] as to your people and as to your holy city
(i) To stop [kala’] the rebellion [pesha‘ = revolt, abomination] [s]
    (ii) To completely seal an end [khatam] [of] sins [pl]
        (iii) To atone for [kaphar] iniquity
(iv) To bring in everlasting righteousness [tzedeq]
    (v) To completely seal an end [khatam] [to] vision and prophecy
        (vi) To anoint the Most Holy [qodesh qadashim].
2. Interlude –           From the issuing of a word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem
                                Until Messiah [the] Prince [shall be] seven weeks and sixty-two weeks [1 & 9 Jubilees]
                                Again it shall be built [with] street and trench even in the affliction of the times
                                And after the sixty-two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off and not for Himself
                                And the city and the sanctuary shall the people of a coming prince destroy
                                And its end [qatz] [shall be] with the flood
                                And until [the] end [’ad-qatz] [shall be] war; desolations are decreed.
3. Epilogue – Sabbath/sabbatical:
(vii)  And he shall confirm Covenant with many [for] one week [last sabbatical week].
        And in the half of the week [1^st 3 ½] he shall put a Sabbath end [yeshebuat] to sacrifice and offering
        And upon the outskirts [shall be the] abominations [of] a desolator even until [the] end
        And that which was decreed shall pour out upon the desolator. [End of 2^nd 3 ½]

It is further fascinating to note that Creation accounts in Scripture are rich in allusion to ancient Near Eastern creation stories in which, the gods by creating earth and people, conquer the abyss, chaos and night (Job 9, 38; Ps. 104; and elsewhere). So likewise, Messiah conquers transgression, sin, and iniquity by being cut off, so putting a sabbath end to sacrifice and offering, establishing eternal righteousness, anointing the Holiest, and ending all evil.

A note on the pronoun antecedent in Daniel 9:27. Is the 'he' who confirms Covenant with many for one week Messiah or the evil 'coming prince'? A short quote:

• "Those who believe it is Antichrist who confirms the covenant connect the 'he' used in most translations of 9:27 with the prince named in verse 26. But the prince of verse 26 is only mentioned secondarily. The subject of the [prepositional] phrase is 'the people'– it is they, not the prince, who are named as the destroyers. It does not fit the Hebrew well to make the object of the preceeding [prepositional] clause ('of the prince'), confirming the covenant the subject in verse 27. This verse presents, in contrast, the true Christ, confirming the covenant and the false Christ, the abomination of desolation, threatening the holy city" (Ford, 1996).
• "See also Hebrews 10:5-7 for a further inspired commentary on 'making the sacrifice and offering to cease' (Ford, 1996).

The counterparts, the two opposing princes in Daniel 8-12 are the Prince of the host / Prince of princes / Messiah the Prince, and the evil ‘little horn’ /  ‘king of the north’ /  ‘coming prince’/ 'desolator.' The seeming intertwining of actions by the good prince and the dark prince parallel the intertwining counterparts of the Lord's goat and the goat for Azazel in Leviticus 16 (as cited in this same table earlier):

Below are some NT references to ‘Messiah the Prince’ and the evil ‘coming prince’ by Jesus and His contemporaries in the 1st century CE:

• Pharisees: Jesus’ power to exorcise comes from the prince of the devils (Mark 3:22; Matt. 9:34; 12:24)
• Jesus: ‘Prince of this world’ to be cast out in the judgment of this world at Christ’s death (John 12:31)
• Jesus before Gethsemane & Calvary: ‘The prince of this world is coming and has nothing in Me’ (John 14:30).
• Jesus in the context of the Comforter to come: "Of judgment because the prince of this world is judged" (John 16:11)
• Peter to his fellow Jews: "You denied the Holy One and the Just and requested a murderer [Barabas] to be given you; and killed the Prince of life whom God raised from the dead" (Acts 3:14-15)
• Peter to the Sanhedrin: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you killed and hanged on a tree; God has exalted Him by His right hand to be a Prince and Redeemer, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins" (Acts 5:30-31).
• Paul to the Ephesians: You were enslaved to the ‘the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now is working in the children of disobedience’ (Eph. 2:2-6)

John in the Revelation: And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood (Rev. 1:5; Jesus now as Prince after the judgment and victory of Rev. 12, John 12, 16, and Romans 3).

As we look closer we that there is an even more detailed counterpart and parallel structure between Messiah and 'little horn' / 'coming prince' unifying vs. 26 and 27. It further shows that Messiah was cut off not only after the 62 weeks but ‘in the half of the 70th week’ at the very time ‘sacrifice and offering’ were taken away:
 

Recognizing the tight counterpoint structure between Messiah and antichrist (as per the Covenant paradigm of Lev. 16), it becomes immediately obvious that vs. 26-27 concern the universal battle between Christ and antichrist between Cross and Advent, not mere local events like 'the stoning of Stephen,' the destruction of Jerusalem, or a localized endtime 'tribulation' scenario. The stage, the actors, and the events are far too vast. “Until the end” when “that decreed shall pour out on the desolator” is equivalent to ‘finishing the transgression and bringing in everlasting righteousness.’ It is equivalent to the breaking of the ‘dark ruler’ without hand when the sanctuary is vindicated (8:14, 25). It is equivalent to the kingdoms of earth being crushed and replaced by the growing mountain of the kingdom of God (2:44-45). It is equivalent to the Son of man receiving His kingdom when all peoples serve him and the opposing kingdoms of darkness being destroyed (7:13-14, 26). It is equivalent to the ‘king of the north’ coming to his end with none to help him when ‘Michael the prince standing for the sons of your people’ stands up (11:45-12:1).

Chattaq in Daniel 9:24 – What it does not mean. The usage of chattaq in Daniel 9:24 is unique in all of Scripture, a hapax legomena. "Seventy weeks are decreed [chattaq] upon your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression [pesha'], to seal an end [khatam] to sins, to atone [kaphar] for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness [tzedeq], and to seal an end [khatam] to vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Holiest [qodesh qadashim]." Chattaq in v. 24 is in the passive, Niphal form. Its concrete root meaning is literally "to cut" and it also seemed to have the more metaphorical meaning of "decree" or "determine" or "divide" or "allot" as in to "cut" a covenant or decree or allotment (see Shea, 1986; Ford, 1996). What it evidently does not mean is "cut off from." That a metaphorical meaning was already known by the time of Daniel (6th century BC), and may have always been present, is suggested by the Ugaritic Caananite cognate verb which was used to indicate the idea of "cutting" of a son from a father (13th century BC; Shea, 1986). It is potentially illuminating that a "covenant cutting" ritual seems to have been very old as alluded to in Gen. 15 (i.e., the cutting and dividing of the sacrificial animals until evening in God's Covenant with Abraham regarding his descendents). If such a custom had an influence on the Covenant nature of the verb, then from the very beginning, the literal thought of "to cut" might well have been linked to the more abstract Covenant conception of "to determine" or "allot."

While comparative usage is illuminating, the crucial question is, What meaning of chattaq is explicitly imposed by the context of Daniel? To be more specific, does Daniel hold that a certain time period cut off from a longer time period is alloted to "your people and to your holy city" after which the events prophesied refer to "another" Covenant people and holy city beside Israel and Jerusalem, as has been held by many Christian commentators? Or does Daniel recognize that the consummation and final triumph of good over evil is always in the context of "your people and your holy city," Israel and Jerusalem? Of course, the answer to this question is unambiguous and easily determined:

• The same 70 weeks which are decreed upon "your people and your holy city" are decreed to finish transgression, end sins, atone for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, to end vision and prophecy, These all extend "until the end" when what was decreed pours out upon the desolator (9:24, 27).
• In Gabriel's 3rd explanation of the vision (Dan. 8:1-14 in chs. 10-12), Daniel is informed that Gabriel has "now... come to make you understand what shall happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision [8:1-14] is for many days" (10:14).
• At the very end of time, just before the final vindication of the sanctuary, Daniel is told concerning the wicked 'king of the north' that "he shall plant [his] palatial tents between the seas [Dead & Mediterranean] in the glorious holy mountain [Jerusalem, Mount Zion, the very same 'glorious holy mountain' Daniel prayed about in 9:16, 20]. Yet he shall come to his end and none shall help him" (11:45).
• "And at that time [the consummation just before the great day of resurrection and vindication (12:1-3)] Michael shall stand up, the great Prince who stands for the sons of your people.... And at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone that shall be found written in the Book" (12:1) in contradistinction to the 'princes' of Persia and Grecia.

Note the following collection of New Testament texts on the Israel of God:

The faithful church was to distinguish and be distinct from those who say they are Jews but are not (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6).

The vast multitude of Rev. 7 which are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ all seem to be part of the 144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel (Neall, 2001). In the new heaven and new earth, the nations of the saved will all live in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21).

The objective Gospel and Jerusalem in the troublous 'times of the end'. Although the attack in Dan. 8:1-14 is against the very sanctuary, from the "taking away of the sacrifice and offering" in the middle of the 70th week until his final end [3 ½ times], the evil prince ['Atzatz'el] is already defeated, his dying attacks temporary [3 ½ times, 1260 days, 42 mos.] and always on the outside of the sanctuary (Leviticus 16). This is true not only in Daniel but also in the NT comments on Daniel. The Covenant people by faith alone are safe 'within the veil' where the atoning, covering, justifying blood of Christ rests on the Mercy-Seat above the Covenant:

• "And upon the outskirts shall be the abominations of a desolator even until the end [3 ½ times]; and that which is decreed shall pour out on the desolator" (Dan. 9:27d,e).
• "And when you see Jerusalem being encircled by armies, then know that its desolation has drawn near.... And Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled [3 ½ times]" (Luke 21:20, 24).
• "...'Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those worshipping in it. And the court outside the temple cast outside, and do not measure it, because it is given to the Gentiles, and the holy city they will trample 42 months [3 ½ times]'" (Rev. 11:1-2).
• "And her Child was caught up to God and to His throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared for her by God... [for] 1260 days [3 ½ times]. And there was war in heaven, Michael and His angels made war against the dragon...and his angels...and no more place was found for them in heaven... [they] were cast out to the earth.... And I heard a great voice speaking in heaven, 'Now has come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, because the accuser is cast down.... And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb.... Because of this be glad, O heavens and those tabernacling in them [heaven-dwellers; Neall, 2001]; woe to those inhabiting the earth and the sea because the devil came down to you having great anger, knowing that he has but a little time [3 ½ times]. And when the dragon saw that he was cast into the earth, he pursued the woman... who is nourished there [wilderness] a time, and times, and a half a time [3 ½ times], from the face of the serpent" (Rev. 12:5-14).
• "Now is the judgment of this world, now the prince of this world shall be cast outside, and I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, I will draw all to Myself" (John 12:31-32).
• "And He said to them, 'I saw Satan as lightning fall out of heaven....But in this do not rejoice, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice rather that your names are written in heaven'" (Luke 10:18-20).
• The devil and Satan bound by an angel from out of heaven and cast into the bottomless abyss (Rev. 20:1-3).
• "And they [Satan and the Gentiles, nations]  went up over the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from God out of heaven, and consumed them" (Rev. 20:9).

Covenant weeks: A Covenant seven (7) and a broken seven (3 ½). In Scripture there is a pattern of Covenant sevens (7) which are associated with Covenant goodness and completion, and also broken heptads, often associated with the work or duration of evil or punishment. In Elijah's day, the rain stops for 3 years. The pattern of full and broken sevens is potentially illuminating for our understanding of the time prophecies of Daniel. The first example of a complete Covenant heptad is the institution of the Sabbath after creation week (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11). In Gen. 29:27-28, in relation to his first wife Leah, Jacob was instructed by Laban to "fulfill her week" as husband, and he would also receive Rachel as his wife for "yet another seven years" of service. In the religious, cultic conquest of Caanan and the Ban, Israel was to march for seven days around Jericho, and seven times on the seventh day with sound of shofar, after which the city would fall (Josh. 6:4, 15). Covenant 'sevens' are also significant in Covenant restoration, healing, the verity of the word of the LORD, and the falling and rising again of the righteous man. Punishment "seven times for your sins" ends with hope of full Covenant restoration (Lev. 26:24). Naaman is to wash seven times in Jordan and be healed (II Kings 5:10). The "words of the LORD" are "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6). The righteous man "falls seven times" but rises again (Prov. 24:16).

In Daniel 4 and 7, the Aramaic word 'iddan translated 'time' or 'times' is a technical cultic term for a year as demarcated by a set festival. In Daniel 4, a Covenant of "seven times" (i.e. 7 cultic years, 'iddan, a Jubilee sabbatical week of years) is confirmed to Nebuchadnezzar, emperor of Babylon, until he comes to his senses and realizes that the Most High in the heavens rules (vs. 16, 23, 25, 32). This is strongly parallel to "He shall confirm Covenant with many for one week" the last Jubilee sabbatical week of years in Dan. 9:27. By contrast to Daniel 4, this same term ('iddan) is applied in Daniel 7 to a broken seven or broken sabbatical week in the "times, time, and dividing of time" (3 ½ times, 'iddan, i.e., 3 ½ cultic years or half of a sabbatical week) which is parallel with the "taking away of the daily" and the "setting up of the abomination making desolate" and "the scattering of the power of the holy people" for 3 ½ times ('iddan) till "the end of these wonders" (Dan. 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:6-11). In the exegetically parallel passage in Dan. 9:27, "the sacrifice and oblation" are caused to cease "in the half of the week, and upon the outskirts the abominations of a desolator...until the end" (half of 7 = 3 ½). The chart below summarizes the significance of this:

The Vision of Daniel 8 interpreted in Daniel 8-12. Chapters 10-12 simply provide a further 3rd explanation of the vision of Daniel 8:1-14 (as outlined in parallel below).