Whereas Dr. Cottrell is asking us to set aside the traditional SDA teaching about Daniel 8:14 as an 'umbilical cord,' 'prosthetic device,' or a 'crutch' unnecessary after the birth of the Advent Movement, Pastor Larry Christoffel believes that  when Daniel 8:14 is re-investigated from a Christological (and Levitic Covenantal) perspective, it will invest Adventism with a renewed life and mission.

The traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14, that it points to an Investigative Judgment beginning on October 22, 1844, is like an umbilical cord, a prosthetic device and a crutch, instruments which once served a useful purpose but now are no longer useful. Dr. Raymond Cottrell calls for a reappraisal of the teaching. In some ways, Dr. Cottrell's position is like that of the October 27, 1979 Angwin Forum presentation of Dr. Desmond Ford, though he presents additional problems he has with the traditional Adventist position.

Dr. Cottrell mentions a number of problems associated with the traditional teaching which Dr. Ford also had cited: 1. Linguistically, the Hebrew word, "nitsdaq" translated "cleaned" in the King James Version (Daniel 8:14) ought to be rendered "restored to its rightful state". There is therefore no linguistic connection between "nitsdaq" of this verse and Leviticus 16 where the Day of Atonement services are described. 2. Considering Daniel 8:14 contextually, is not that the sins of God's covenant people that need to be blotted out from the sanctuary in heaven but rather that the sanctuary needs to be restored from the damage done by the evil little horn. Again, there is no basis for the idea that God has begun blotting out the sins of the saints in 1844. 3. The Scriptures do not teach that a day stands for a year in Bible prophecy. This is an idea first articulated by the Jewish scholar Nahawendi in the 9^th century. Inspired individuals living in New Testament times uniformly believed that the end was coming speedily. 4. The key verb in Daniel 9:24 in the phrase, "seventy sevens are determined upon your people and your city" means "determined" not "cut off". Consequently, there is really no linguistic basis for insisting that the two prophecies begin together.

While both Drs. Ford and Cottrell have challenged the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 as an Investigative Judgment beginning in 1844, they differ in their understanding of Daniel 9:24-27. Dr. Cottrell rejects the application of this text to events associated with Christ's first coming, although he believes Jesus applied the text to his 2^nd coming. Dr. Ford retains the traditional understanding of Daniel 9:24-27 as a 490 year prophecy beginning in 457 B.C. and pointing to the coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ in A.D. 27, to Jesus' crucifixion in A.D. 31 in the midst of the 70^th week, and to the end of the 490 year period in A.D. 34 when the Apostle Paul began to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.

According to Dr. Cottrell, the 70 7s (490 years) of Daniel 9:24-27 began in 538 B.C. at the moment Gabriel approached Daniel and announced a "word" from heaven. The end of the first 49 years (the "seven sevens") would witness the appearance of an anointed prince, and thus the civil leader would be installed in connection with the returned Jewish people to their land. 434 years later (62 7s) the dynasty inaugurated at the beginning of the period would come to an abrupt end. Daniel 9:26 which describes the end of the anointed one's rule declares that "nothing is to him," i.e., nothing more is said of him in the remainder of the passage.

From the middle of verse 26, nothing more is said of the anointed prince. Contrary to the way Adventists have usually understood the passage (also Ford's view), it is the wicked prince first mentioned in verse 26 who makes a covenant with the many for one week (7 years). This evil power is the same one represented in Daniel 8 as the little horn. A further explanation of this covenant is given in Daniel 11 as the King of the North enters into a covenant with renegade Jews.

It is not the anointed prince of verse 25 who causes the sacrifice and offering to cease (Daniel 9:27) but rather the wicked prince mentioned above in verse 26. Causing the sacrifice and offering to cease is identical to the little horn of Daniel 8 taking away the "daily" or "tamid".

The last half of the 70^th week of Daniel 9:24-25 portrays the final crisis to face God's people. It corresponds with the "time, times and half a time" of Daniel 7:25 and 12:7. The "2300 evenings and mornings" of Daniel 8:14 represent 1150 days, a period which fits within the period of 3 1/2 years or 1260 days. The 1290 days and 1335 days of Daniel 12:11,12 begin at the same time as the middle of the 70^th week of years.

Dr. Cottrell believes that both the Old and New Testaments envisioned the Eschaton, or End, coming no later than the first century after Christ's birth. The end was delayed, however, due to conditional factors, such as are described in Jeremiah 18:7-10. The prophecy of Daniel projected 490 years into the future beyond Daniel's day and described the way things should have wrapped up, had the Jewish nation responded favorably to Christ and the Gospel. Jesus believed that the end would occur within the lifetime of his contemporary generation as did Paul and John and all the New Testament witnesses.

There has been an attempt within the Seventh-day Adventist church by some church leaders to obscure the issues. Dr. Cottrell believes that the decade extending from 1969 to 1979 was "a decade of obscurantism" as Robert Pierson, General Conference president, Gerhard Hasel, seminary scholar, and Gordon Hyde, another administrator, attempted to enforce the traditional understanding at the expense of advancing scholarship. The formation of the Adventist Theological Society moved the church in the same direction of Dr. Hasel's hermeneutical and theological positions. Currently there is a move to force all employees of the church to pledge their allegiance to the 27 Fundamental Beliefs (part of the plan of the General Conference in connection with the International Board for Ministerial Training and Endorsement, abbreviated, IBMTE).

Dr. Cottrell calls for the Seventh-day Adventist Church to abandon the traditional understanding and redefine its sanctuary teaching along the lines of what the New Testament Book of Hebrews presents. Jesus offered an all-sufficient atonement at the Cross, now mediates its benefits for us and will return a second time to receive us unto himself. The church ought to emphasize the Gospel and the principles which Jesus taught for Christians to follow.

Dr. Cottrell, of course, is correct that the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 was once useful and now should be abandoned. He is also right on target to point out some of the problems of the traditional understanding of Daniel 8:14 such as the following: (1) "Nitsdaq" ought to be rendered "restored to its rightful state" rather than "cleansed"; (2) the so called "year-for-a-day principle" is not explicitly taught in Scripture; (3) there is no evidence that the "2300 evenings and mornings" of Daniel 8:14 and the "seventy sevens" of Daniel 9:24 ought to begin together and that the one time prophecy is "cut off" from the other; (4) Daniel 9:24-27 is the explanation of the previously unexplained portions of the vision of Daniel 8:1-14 and that Daniel 9:14 points to the same restoration as Daniel 8:14 does, i.e. the complete restoration of the kingdom. (5) Conditionality must be taken into account when we attempt to understand the meaning of these important prophecies, including the fact that the Jewish nation did not officially receive Jesus Christ which led to a delay in the fulfillment of some aspects of the prophecy. (6) The "time, times and half a time" of Daniel 7:25 and 12:7 correspond with the same period described as the 2^nd half of the 70^th 7 of Daniel 9:27. (7) The 2300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14 are the "tamid" or "morning and evening sacrifices" and that they represent a period extending over 1150 actual days and that the 1150 days are a part of the last half of the 70 7s of Daniel 9:24-27. The 1290 days and the 1335 days of Daniel 12:11,12 begin, as Cottrell says, in the middle of the 70^th 7 of Daniel 9:24-27. (8) The Old and New Testament project the end as coming no later than the end of the first Christian century and coming within the context of the Jewish nation, city and temple setting. (9) There have been efforts by Seventh-day Adventist leaders in the past to enforce the traditional interpretation of Daniel 9:24 and this was especially noticeable during the decade Dr. Cottrell calls the "decade of obscurantism" (1969 to 1979). (10) The present attempt to force employees of the church to pledge allegiance to the 27 Fundamental Beliefs is part of the ongoing attempt to install the traditional interpretation. This present plan ought to be resisted vehemently by all seekers of truth. The church has never regarded its "Fundamental Beliefs" as a creed (See the preamble to the 27 Fundamental Beliefs statement.) but rather as a current expression of what most Seventh-day Adventists believe. (11) The Seventh-day Adventist theological position in regard to eschatology should certainly comport with what the Book of Hebrews declares about the Heavenly Sanctuary. In a proposal I have to offer at the close of this critique, I will make some suggestions on how the Books of Hebrews and Revelation might be understood relative to the Book of Daniel and the Old Testament. Dr. Cottrell has placed us in his debt, as he almost always does, in his clear articulation of the principles to be followed in our understanding of Scripture.

As I have studied these important passages, I have come to disagree with Dr. Cottrell with respect to some things and have arrived at somewhat different conclusions than he. My differences lie in the following: (1) While it is true that the start of the prophecy appears to be linked with 538 B.C., the date when Daniel was visited by Gabriel and the date of Cyrus' first decree, the Old Testament itself seems to allow that the 490 year period just ending and the "seventy sevens" just beginning may be dated not at one precise point of time (such as 538 B.C.) but in connection with a transitional period extending from 538 B.C. to 457 B.C. (2) While the translation "an anointed prince" is possible, there is evidence that "Messiah the Prince" is preferable. (3) While the text could possibly be translated as Dr. Cottrell says to make the coming of an anointed prince occur after the first "seven sevens" of the prophecy, there are reasons to prefer a translation which would place the prince's coming at the close of sixty nine sevens instead. (4) The statement concerning the prince that "nothing is to him" may not mean that he is not to be heard of again in the explanation may not be correct; rather, this could refer to the extent of his rejection; indeed more is said concerning the prince. (5) There are reasons to understand the "he" of Daniel 9:27 as "Messiah the Prince" rather than as an evil power and that it is the Messiah who makes a covenant with the many for the final seven of the prophecy. (6) Following this same line of reasoning, it is the Messiah, not a wicked power, who causes the sacrifice and offering to cease. (7) If, as I am proposing, Daniel 9:24-27 is thoroughly Messianic and if it is the key interpretive tool of the meaning of Daniel 8:14, then rather than totally abandon Daniel 8:14 on account of our misperceptions of it in the past, Seventh-day Adventist ought to embrace this important eschatological text and embark on a new quest to discover its relationship to Jesus Christ both from the standpoint of inaugurated eschatology as well as consummated eschatology. The quest calls for a total re-examination of our understanding of Old Testament and New Testament passages as well as a reconsideration of historicism as the hermeneutical assumption of our prophetic system. Such a quest would not deny certain historicist dimensions of the prophecies, but would not allow historicism to control our understanding of the Biblical text in such a way that the Christological basis of the Scripture is eclipsed, denied or undermined.

I have observed that Dr. Cottrell's understanding of the New Testament interpretation of Daniel's prophecy has the New Testament personnel, including Jesus, Paul, and John, applying the kingdom prophecies to the kingdom's consummantion at the 2^nd coming of Jesus rather than to his first coming. Whether this is correct must be determined in the light of the New Testament evidence.

The advantage in pursuing a re-investigation of the meaning of Daniel 8:14 and the texts associated with it is that Seventh-day Adventists would retain their roots as a group of Christian believers committed to preparing the world for the 2^nd coming of Jesus Christ through the proclamation of the 3 angels' messages of Revelation 14:6-12 including an emphasis on the judgment and its relationship to the gospel.

There is one other area of disagreement, which may seem unrelated to our understanding of the eschatology of apocalyptic passages such as those in Daniel and Revelation. Dr. Cottrell claims that he found the key to distinguishing between exegesis and interpretation (homiletical understanding) as he studied the Law in Galatians in preparation for the North American Bible Conference of 1974. He was scheduled to prepare some talks on the Book of Galatians for those meetings. He claims that he came to the conclusion that exegetically, the Law in Galatians refers to the Ceremonial Law and that Ellen White at the beginning and close of her writing career maintained this position. The issue debated in connection with the 1888 General Conference over the meaning of the Law in Galatians found Butler and Smith arguing that the Law in Galatians was only the Ceremonial Law and Jones and Waggoner insisting that it was primarily, though not exclusively, the Moral Law of 10 Commandments. Now Mrs. White defended the position of Jones and Waggoner in the context of the debate! According to Cottrell, Mrs. White was supporting the meaning of the Law in Galatians homiletically, not exegetically, when she endorsed Jones and Waggoner's view. Out of this, for Cottrell, came the valuable distinction between exegetical and homiletical understandings of Scripture, both useful.

It is my contention that Cottrell is certainly correct to make the distinction between exegesis and homilical interpretation. I disagree with him, however, in his interpretation of the meaning of the Law in Galations. I suggest that Jones and Waggoner were correct in their declaration that the Law in Galatians was primarily the Moral Law and that Butler and Smith were entirely incorrect in their insistence that the Moral Law was excluded. In my estimation this is an important point since what is really at stake is the meaning of the Gospel itself. The issue is whether the statement that a person is justified through faith apart from the works of the law excludes from the article of Justification all works (including obedience to the moral law as well as following the ceremonial law) or whether it excludes from the article of Justification merely the works of the ceremonial law. If the latter is true, then there is room to insinuate within the article of justification the good works which Christians perform with the help of the Holy Spirit or the indwelling Christ. This position, as we have learned elsewhere, is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church based on the official dictates of the Council of Trent.

If, as it became increasing clear from the 1880s on, the article of Justification by Faith is the 3^rd angels' message in verity, as Mrs. White declared it to be, then Seventh-day Adventists are to continue and complete the Protestant Reformation by clearly articulating the Gospel and doing it in its proper relationship with the Moral Law of God.

While it may seem that some of these subjects are unrelated, in my opinion they are intimately connected. Thus, eschatology and salvation, while distinct can never be separated. The important teaching of the Judgment looks backward to a phase inaugurated with Christ's 1^st coming and forward to its completion in connection with the return of the Lord. In the meantime, we are connected through faith to the living Lord our saving Mediator.

Having stated my disagreements with Dr. Cottrell, I would like to expand the areas of disagreement by giving the evidence for my differences with this great scholar. It is not my purpose to present an exhaustive analysis of these points, but rather to present a sufficient case for my position.

According to Isaiah 44 and 45, it was Cyrus who would restore both the Temple and the City. There is room to understand the first year of Darius and the first year of Cyrus (since they were coregents) as the starting point for the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. The actual decree of Cyrus appears in Ezra 1 and in 2 Chronicles 36.

As Dr. Cottrell has pointed out, the starting point of the 70 7s corresponds with the going forth of a word from heaven at the very point when Gabriel brings the news to Daniel. This would correspond with the same year that Cyrus enacted his decree. It is true, as Dr. Cottrell suggests, that priority be given to the going forth of the word from heaven as the actual beginning point of the prophecy. However, there are a couple of other factors which should be considered.

First, there is one period of 490 years ending with the end of the 70 years of Babylonian Captivity as the next seventy sevens is beginning! The seventy years of Babylonian Captivity were regarded as Sabbatical Years (See 2 Chronicles 36 and Leviticus 25,26). The seventy years thus represent 1/7 of a longer period, i.e. 490 years. If this is true, that as one period ends the other begins, then it is important to try to establish the end of the 70 years. If we were to take into account only the Book of Daniel, it would appear that Dr. Cottrell is correct that the period of seventy sevens begins in 538 B.C. However, the Old Testament has more to say about the subject.

Secondly, according to Zechariah 1, the seventy years of Jeremiah were coming to an end with the 20^th year of Darius (in 520 B.C.)! This implies that the end of the period extended over a period of years, rather than ending at a point of time. Third, a statement in Ezra 6:14 declares that it was by the word of the Lord and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes that the temple was complete.

Putting it all together. The last statement includes the word of the Lord as inaugurating the process and includes also the decrees of three Persian monarchs as carrying out the process. It would seem then, from an Old Testament perspective, that the restoration of the Temple/City (ending the 70 year Captivity and beginning the new era) would occur on a continuum between 538 B.C. (Cyrus' decree) and 457 B.C. (Artaxerxes' decree mentioned in Ezra 7).

While this evidence does not establish the exegetical meaning of Daniel's understanding, it does prescribe the meaning for Old Testament believers and would also provide the extent of possible meaning which New Testament students of Scripture would have ascribed to the meaning of Daniel. It is not unreasonable, then, to find 457 B.C. as a possible beginning point for the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.

The text says literally, "an anointed, a prince". There are no articles before either "anointed" or "prince". It is also true that the establishment of civil authority would be important along with rebuilding the temple and the city. In spite of this, it is also true that without the article, "Messiah" might be a proper name or title as a number of the translations have rendered it. In fact, these verses seem to be the very root of the idea of the Messiah in the New Testament. "Messiah" or "anointed" can apply to a king, to a priest, or to a prophet. Here it is referring to a "prince". The Hebrew, "nagid" translated "prince" is used for kings and priests (see references). There would be nothing against the translation, "Messiah Prince".

It seems to me that in interpreting any part of the Book of Daniel, one needs to take into account the overall pattern of the Book. It can easily be established that a common theme runs through the entire book--establishing the kingdom of God. In chapter two the Stone symbolizes the kingdom. In chapter seven the Son of Man epitomizes the kingdom. In fact in these chapters the interpretation of the Stone and the Son of Man include reference to the kingdom. Some scholars have noted that "Ben" (Son) and "Eben" (Stone) involve a play on words and both denote Messiah who is to come! According to Daniel 8, the little horn opposed a prince (sar) and takes from him the "tamid" (daily sacrifice) and the "place of his sanctuary" is cast down. In order to do this, the little horn rises into heaven and even assaults some of the stars of heaven. This is no ordinary personage, but should be associated by the highest representative of God. While "sar" and "nagid" are two different Hebrew words, it is evident that they refer to the same person, one who is appointed to represent God in both cases. It is likely that in Daniel 10-12 when Michael is mentioned (also in explanation of the vision of Daniel 8:1-14 as Daniel 9:24-27 is also an explanation), we have a representative of God's covenant people who engages in exploits against the evil powers.

There is no good reason why Messiah Prince should not refer to the one who would effect the restoration of the kingdom. In the New Testament Jesus understood his divine ordination to be toward this end. In the New Testament Jesus accepted the designation "the Messiah". Where would this expression have come from in the Old Testament unless it be from the present context?

To relegate the "prince" here to some minor role as a local civic leader, rather than in the mainstream of the general theme of the Book of Daniel which is dealing with the struggle between good and evil on a cosmic dimension seems to be out of sink with common sense. If the little horn of Daniel 8 figures in the interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27, it seems reasonable that his nemesis, the prince, of chapter 8 also figure prominently.

It seems strange that appointing a local civil leader would wait for seven sevens (49 years) after the word goes forth to rebuild and restore the city. When the Persian monarchs issued their decrees, there was authority with the decree to carry out the work. It is also not right to play off the rebuilding of the temple against the rebuilding of the city, since the temple would be the heart of the city and since the city would be the defense of the temple.

Why, then does it mention "seven sevens" and to what does it refer? "Seven sevens" is reminiscent of the seven weeks between Passover and Pentecost. It also carries connotations of the Jubilee Year which occurs after every seven cycles of seven years. Given that 70 7s would total 490 (assumed to years), it is clear that 490 years represents 10 Jubilee cycles and could be called a Grand Jubilee. The one 490 year period ends as another begins, in other words, two Grand Jubilee cycles. If this is the case, then it is not surprising that a portion of the larger period would be associated with a single Jubilee cycle.

Dividing the total period of 490 into three parts, as Gabriel does makes prominent the Jubilee cycle at the beginning of the total period and makes prominent a Sabbatical Year cycle at the end of the total period. This kind of division certainly lets us know that we are dealing with the Hebrew liturgical patterns of time. Sixty-two is simply the difference when the beginning and end are subtracted from the total period.

It seems reasonable that if Messiah Prince of Daniel 9:25 is the same as Messiah in verse 26, and that if the Messiah in verse 26 is cut off by violent death "after sixty two sevens," then it would not make sense for him to appear 434 years earlier at the end of the first cycle of seven sevens. It is more likely that the first seven sevens refer to the rebuilding of the city and that the next sixty two sevens refer to the coming of the Messiah Prince.

If Daniel 9:24, with its six important accomplishments to occur within the seventy sevens, is the explanation of Daniel 8:14, then the following three verses (verses 25,26,27) each focus on the final seven of the total period. According to verse 25, Messiah comes at the end of sixty nine sevens. According to verse 26, after the sixty nine sevens, Messiah is cut off. According to verse 27, Messiah confirms a covenant with the many for the final seven. Why not allow the Messianic import of the entire passage to be felt? Why attempt to relegate what is said of Messiah to the installation of civil leadership at the beginning of the period (which Daniel 8 does not even to be concerned with) and to have the action of the Messiah disappear just as the final seven is commencing? This would be strange indeed!

In Daniel 9:26, after it says that the anointed will be cut off after 62 weeks (and that by violent death, it makes the statement that there is "nothing to him". Dr. Cottrell maintains that this means that the dynasty which was begun in the previous verse at the end of the first 7 weeks comes to an end and is not to be heard of again. It is to be recalled that in Daniel 8 the little horn power takes away from the prince (even prince of princes) the "tamid" or regular temple services and attacks the place of the sanctuary. There the evil power leaves the prince with nothing, even as the anointed one in the present verses is left with nothing (see the exegetical outline of Daniel 8:1-14).

The suffering of the saints is a prominent theme of the Book of Daniel (See Daniel 1-6; 7:25; 8:10-13; 12:7, etc.) The saints are linked with the Son of Man in Daniel 7. The Son of Man is triumphant though he is persecuted and shattered. If the final triumph is acknowledged to be described in Daniel 9:24 under the six expressions of triumph and victory, and if this climactic triumph parallels the Stone kingdom and the Son of Man of Daniel 2 & 7, the why should be assume, as Cottrell does, that the dynasty of the anointed prince ends after the 69 weeks and the prophecy has nothing more to do with him? Does not the desolating of the desolator have to do with the truimph of the Son of Man and the Stone kingdom? And if so, why would not the final ultimate truimph be at its very core related to Messiah the Prince?

The pattern of suffering, even martyrdom followed by victory is established throughout the Book of Daniel in the narrative portion. The pattern appears in what happens with the saints in Chapter 7. It is also the theme of the covenant curses followed by blessings. The Servant of Yahweh of Isaiah 40-66 presents the same picture of reality. That the Anointed is cut off in Daniel 9:26 is like the Servant's suffering of Isaiah 53. Notice how the key ideas of Daniel 9:24 seem to be found also in Isaiah 53! It will not do, therefore, to have the anointed of God simply cut off and nothing more is heard from him! Though he is cut off, he is at the heart of the reversal and the establishment of the kingdom of God.

Jesus Christ understood his vocation and mission to be linked with both the Servant of Isaiah and the Son of Man of Daniel. He believed that this vocation would involve both death and resurrection. While the Books of Isaiah and Daniel portray the Servant and the Son of Man in the collective sense, and this is undeniable, Jesus assumed the representative role in behalf of the covenant people and took the curses upon himself in order that the blessing might fall on the people. He assumed the liability of the people that the inheritance might be theirs. This, of course, is the heart of the Gospel.

Scholars are divided over whether the "he" of Daniel 9:27 is the "anointed" of verses 25 and 26, or whether "he" is the evil prince of verse 26. According to Dr. Cottrell, since "nothing to him" refers to the anointed, he does not appear in the remainder of the section. Moreover, according to the law of antecedents, a pronoun stands for the last noun appearing previously in the text. Since the last noun was the "prince" whose people were to destroy the city and the sanctuary, the "he" is that same wicked power. The "he" is also the same entity represented as the little horn of Daniel 8. It is this "he" who forms a covenant with the many and who takes away the sacrifice and offering.

There is evidence, I believe, which supports understanding the "he" of Daniel 9:27 as the Anointed of verses 25,26. First, the Messiah comes at the end of the 62 weeks and is cut off after the 62 weeks. In other works, it is at the end of and after the 69 weeks that the Messiah is portrayed as playing a role in the action. In verse 27, he confirms a covenant with the many for one week. This is the final seven, i.e. after the 69 weeks, just as verses 25 and 26 feature the action as occurring. Second, it is possible that the prince, whose people destroy the city and the sanctuary, is the Messiah. The word prince is used for messiah in verse 25. Why should the two not be linked in verse 26? Just as it was the transgressions of the covenant people which brought on the desolation of Daniel 8:10-13, so the sin of the covenant people, the people of the prince of Daniel 9:26, brings on the desolation and destruction of the covenant curse. So it is possible that although it is a foreign, even pagan, nation which does the actual destroying, God's covenant people are ultimately responsible by their defiling sin. Now, it the Prince, in this sense, be seen as the Messiah, then the law of antecedents would have the "he" refering to the Messiah, not some evil power.

Some have observed that the phrase, "people of the prince" places the word "prince" in a subordinate position as the object of the preposition rather than as the subject of the sentence, "people of the prince shall destroy the city and the sanctuary". In this subordinate position, the "he" of verse 27 may go back to Messiah, the previous noun, since the "prince" is only the object of a preposition. Whether we see "prince" as the Messiah or the evil power, it would be possible to still see the "he" of Daniel 9:27 as the Messiah.

There is one other important factor to observe. The entire passage relates to the Jubilee Cycle which centers on the Day of Atonement (see the exegetical outline of Daniel 8:1-14). Also, the items of Daniel 9:24 are from the Day of Atonement ritual. If this is true, then we need to consider the relationship of these concepts to the Day of Atonement. In Daniel 8 (which is being explained in Daniel 9:24-27) two animals appear, both of which appear on the Day of Atonement. The Ram and the Goat. While the Ram approaches from the West going East, the Goat travels from the East to the West. The path of the Goat, then, is the same direction the Scapegoat goes toward the end of the Day of Atonement service. The Ram is the offering for the High Priest and his family. In Daniel 9:24, transgression, sin and guilt are mentioned in connection with atonement. In Leviticus 16, these ideas come together in connection with the Scapegoat. On the Day of Atonement the Sanctuary was cleaned from all defilement. Daniel 9:24-27 describes how the defilement is removed. The anointed would be related to the High Priest and the evil power to Satan.

The passage Daniel 9:24-27 is enigmatic in that when read from one perspective it looks like it is the evil power which is being described, yet when read from another perspective what appears is the process from God. Is it possible that the enigma of the "he" in the present verse is part of a paradox in which the line between good and evil is very thin. With the blink of an eye, one may think what is being ascribed to evil is actually ascribed to the good. The Book of Revelation knows something like this when a false trinity (Dragon, Beast, False Prophet) apes the true trinity, and when the Dragon's two witnesses (the Sea Beast and the Land Beast) parody the Lord's two witnesses (See Revelation 11-14). In fact, the Sea Beast Anti-christ mocks Jesus' period of witness, death, resurrection and exaltation. Perhaps here in Daniel 9:27 we have a mystery in which the action of the Messiah is being described, and at the same time Satan will in response set into action his own plan. Could it be that the passage is stated in such a way that there is truth in seeing either the wicked power or the Messiah? If so, it will not do to exclude either possibility completely. Nevertheless, there is more evidence to see this as a statement about what the Messiah will achieve.

It will become clear that my position is along the lines of the traditional understanding of Seventh-day Adventist on the interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. I see this passage as referring to Jesus Christ the Messiah and what he would accomplish. Although this is true, I would agree with Dr. Cottrell that the 2300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14 and the seventy sevens of Daniel 9:24 end together rather than begin together. Contrary to Cottrell, I would argue that the prophecies of Daniel 8:10-14 and 9:24-27 are both primarily Christological pointing to the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus. While Cottrell would have the final defeat of evil (the subject of Daniel 9:24) as occurring in connection with the return of Jesus Christ, I would have the final defeat of evil (the subject of Daniel 9:24-27) as occurring inaugurally with the events associated with Christ's first coming and consummatively in connection with the Lord's 2^nd. Coming.

Dr. Cottrell believes that the covenant with the many for one seven is a covenant which the wicked power makes with renegrade Jews. He bases this on his identification of the "he" in the subject of the sentence with the "prince" of verse 26 whom he believes is the wicked power. He also notes that in Daniel 11, a covenant is made between the King of the North (associated with the little horn of Daniel 8) and renegade Jews.

There is evidence which militates against this position however. First, it does not say that a covenant is made, but rather that it is confirmed (yet the King of the North forms an alliance in Daniel 11). Second, the only covenant mentioned in the Book of Daniel is the holy covenant (note in the first part of Daniel 9 and in Daniel 11). In Daniel 11 it is those who are in opposition to the holy covenant who form an alliance. Given that the covenant which God made with Israel undergirds the entire narrative and prophetic parts of the Book of Daniel, it is likely that the covenant would be related to the one God initiated. Who better to carry it out than the Messiah or the Lord's anointed?

Finally, the final period of time is significant. As the 70 7s begins with a Jubilee, it ends with a Sabbatical Year period. The same period is referenced in verse 27 as is identified in verses 25 and 26. All that the 70 7s represents reaches its climax in the final period of 7! And it is the sovereign God who takes the initiative in bring this about.

It may be significant that Jesus Christ (and John the Forerunner of Christ) announced the coming of the kingdom (Mark 1:14,15) for instance. Jesus was dogmatic that the time for the kingdom's arrival had come. Jesus was not announcing some future entrance of the kingdom, but rather that the kingdom had been inaugurated. The portion which was based on God's initiative was the first half of the 70^th 7. And Jesus was as adamant about its end as he was about its beginning (See John 12). Yet Jesus was tentative about the final end, since it was based upon the conditional factor of the covenant peoples' response to the gospel and to the proclamation of the gospel to the world!

Dr. Cottrell believes that it is the wicked prince of Daniel 9:26 who is the "he" of Daniel 9:27, and he is the one who causes the sacrifice and offering to cease in the midst of the week. In Daniel 8, the wicked little horn takes away the "tamid" or "daily". In Dr. Cottrell's thinking, the causing the sacrifice and offering to cease is describing the same event. The action in Daniel 9:26 is also like that of the King of the North in Daniel 11:31: "Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation". Again, in Daniel 12:11 it states, "From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days." In this verse, as in Daniel 9:27, the taking away of the regular sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination of desolation occur simultaneously. The 1,290 days is slightly longer that the last half of the 70^th week, i.e. one month longer. Nevertheless, these ideas seem to be parallel. It should also be remembered that Daniel 11 and 12 is the 3^rd explanation of the unexplained parts of the vision of Daniel 8:1-14, just as Daniel 9:24-27 is the 2^nd explanation of the same material.

As air-tight a case as this seems to be, there are some other considerations. For instance, the word "tamid" is not used in Daniel 9:27 as it is in the other instances. Furthermore, in the other instances, the "tamid" is temporarily suspended rather than brought to permanent cessation. The verb for "cause to cease" is the same verb as appears in Genesis 2:1-3 describing God's ending his work of creation. It should also be remembered that the sacrifice and offering were not the whole of the "tamid," since the lighting of the lamps constituted another aspect of the "tamid". These irregularities certainly open the door of possibility that the text could have another meaning. It should be remembered also that the close proximity of the Lord's goat and the goat for Azazel, though representing opposite things, could suggest a subtle difference.

It is possible that the end of the sacrifice and offering could be its permanent cessation as it came to its anti-typical fulfillment. With a view to Isaiah 53, the Servant would give his life in behalf of the covenant people. Such a meaning may be suggested by the fact that the Messiah is "cut off" in Daniel 9:26, and "cut off" means to die by violent means, or execution. Again, the saints are persecuted for 3 1/2 times in Daniel 7:25, and are shattered in Daniel 11:33 and Daniel 12:7. The time period of 3 1/2 times in both instances seems to be parallel with the two 3 1/2 divisions of the 70^th week of Daniel 9:27!

Jesus seeing his destiny in terms of dying for his people, and that after 3 1/2 times suggests that he understood the passage in Daniel 9:26 and 27 to point to his sacrificial death. It should also be noted that the Book of Hebrews does understand Christ's death to be the end of the typological system. When Jesus died on the cross, the synoptic gospels mention that the veil between the holy place and the most holy place was torn asunder. The interpretation of Daniel 9:27 as pointing to Christ's atoning death is not foreign the New Testament Gospel. In fact, if Daniel 9:24 is expanded in verses 25-27, then the atonement for guild and the anointing of a holy of holies seems in line with the New Testament activity of the Messiah Jesus Christ.

Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple and its restoration three days later (John 2:19ff). At Jesus' trial, he was charged with saying that he would destroy the sanctuary and in three days build it up. Although he remained silent to this charge, when asked if he were the Messiah (and it is only in Daniel 9:25-27 that the Messiah as a title is mentioned in the Old Testament), Jesus affirmed that he was the Messiah, and he also combined this thought with the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven (from the parallel passage of Daniel 7:11-13) and with the idea of the Melchezadek priest king who would be seated on God's right hand of Psalm 110:1-4. For this affirmation, Jesus received the sentence of death. Nevertheless, it shows clearly how Jesus understood his vocation, his mission in terms of fulfilling the major prophecy of the Book of Daniel. This being the case, it is not unreasonable to see in Daniel 9:27 Jesus' death causing the sacrifice and offering to cease.

I would agree with Dr. Cottrell that we should not read what later writers wrote about a passage back into it as its exegetical meaning. However, there is something very great at stake in this issue. If the interpretation which Jesus Christ gave to Daniel's prophecies is contrary to valid exegesis of Daniel, then Jesus would prove to be a false prophet and a false Messiah! Why not suppose that Jesus' understanding is not contrary to the real meaning of Daniel! If Jesus was wrong, then Christianity is wrong! Prophyry is right! We cannot allow ourselves to entertain such notions.

Interestingly, Dr. Cottrell does believe that Jesus' understanding of the Book of Daniel is valid for the Christian. On one hand, the 490 year prophecy (and all of the other prophecies of Daniel) ought to have come to their conclusion 490 years after 538 B.C. However, Dr. Cottrell is willing to grant Jesus Christ's understanding of Daniel as the correct one. Thus, the Olivet Discourse becomes normative for understanding Jesus' understanding of Daniel's prophecies.

It become clear that Dr. Cottrell understands Jesus' statement in Mark 1:14,15 that the kingdom of God is at hand to be pointing to the kingdom which Daniel prophesied. To Dr. Cottrell, this kingdom is the one to be ushered in at Christ's 2n^d coming. Thus the Olivet Discourse describes the gospel going to the world, the time of trouble, the resurrection of the saints, all in connection with the Destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. When Dr. Cottrell is applying the principle of conditionality, he is suggesting that the 490 year prophecy had been delayed prior to Christ's first coming, and it would be delayed until the gospel had gone to the world. The prophecy of the Stone kingdom and the Son of Man kingdom and the restoration of the sanctuary and the 6 events described in Daniel 9:24-27 and the prophecy of Daniel 11 and 12 would be fulfilled when the kingdom of glory would come in connection with Jesus' 2^nd coming. Not only Jesus, but also Paul and John viewed the end in the same way.

It is my contention that the prophecies of Daniel reached their inaugural fulfillment in the events at the end of Christ's stay on earth in connection with his 1^st coming, and that they will reach a consummative fulfillment in connection with his 2^nd coming. Thus, all six of the items of Daniel 9:24 were fulfilled with Christ's first coming inaugurally, but they await a final fulfillment. Jesus is the Stone of Daniel 2. He is also the Son of Man of Daniel 7 who approached the Ancient of Days at his ascension. Jesus saw himself as fulfilling the prophecies in connection with the Temple. John 2:19ff. shows this clearly. And throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus is presented as the Temple.

In his recent commentary on Daniel, Daniel and the Coming King, Dr. Desmond Ford makes a most remarkable statement. "Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 9:24 are fulfilled inaugurally in connection with Jesus' first coming and consummatively in connection with his second coming." Though I have arrived at this position independently of Dr. Ford, it is gratifying to note that he also has seen this.

I believe that it is Dr. Cottrell's failure to acknowledge the inaugural fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies in Christ's first coming that has driven him to the particular understanding of Daniel that he has advanced. He has, however, acknowledged the possibility that the present explanation could be correct!

This is an important point not only in the discussion about Cottrell's position, but also with respect to the position of Seventh-day Adventism. Adventism has generally, like Dr. Cottrell now does, applied the kingdom prophecies beyond the time of Christ's first coming. The position I am advancing proposes that the prophecies be re-examined with the possibility that they point to Christ's first and second coming. In the proposal toward the conclusion of this critique, I will set forth a fundamentally new way of looking at the prophecies, but one which is in full harmony with both the Old Testament and New Testament.

Adventism may have been right all along in focusing on these important eschatological and apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel. Where they have not been complete, however, is in their failure to apply them as the New Testament applied them--to both inaugurated and consummated eschatology!

Dr. Cottrell prepared some talks on the Book of Galatians for the North American Division Bible Conference in 1974. During the preparation he realized that Mrs. Ellen G. White in her earliest exposition on the law in Galatians wrote that it was the ceremonial law. Then in 1890, after the 1888 General Conference, she declared that the law in Galatians was primarily the moral law. Then when when she published Acts of the Apostles, her last work on the subject, she reverted to her earliest view that the law in Galatians was the ceremonial law. When he approached Arthur White of the White Estate with what he regarded as a discrepancy, Elder White said he had been unaware of the problem.

Wrestling with this issue led Dr. Cottrell to the valuable distinction between exegesis and homiletical interpretation. When Mrs. White declared that the law in Galatians was the ceremonial law, Cottrell reasoned, she was providing the exegetical explanation. When she applied it to the moral law, he believed, she was making a homiletical application. It was necessary for her to side with A.T. Jones and J.H. Waggoner in the defense of the Gospel against what was being taught as works righteousness.

I believe that Dr. Cottrell has made a valuable contribution in drawing our attention to the distinction between exegetical and homiletical meanings of Scripture. However, it is my belief that the law in Galatians exegetically is the entire law, including and especially the moral law, as Mrs. White presented in 1890. During the New Testament times, the Galatians were arguing that justification was by faith plus works (any works). Those who insist, as did Uriah Smith and G.I. Butler in 1888, that the law is merely the ceremonial law, leave room for a certain interpretation of the statement, "one is justified by faith apart from the law". If this law is only the ceremonial law, then room can be made to say, "Yes, justification by faith is apart from the law, i.e. the ceremonial law. However, justification included the keeping of the moral law which Jesus does in us, inspiring us by his example."

A study of the relevant passages in Galatians drives one to the conclusion that the chief issue was that of how one is justified before God. During the Protestant Reformation the Roman Catholic scholars took the position that the law in Galatians was only the ceremonial law, while the Reformers insisted that it included the moral law as well. Dr. Cottrell is clear in his exposition of the Book of Hebrews that salvation is based on the all-sufficient atonement which Jesus Christ made. I believe that an understanding of justification by faith (which Mrs. White declared was the third angel's message in verity) demands that all works righteousness be excluded from the article of how one is justified before God.

Certainly, when it comes to explaining certain prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, it is clear that when one studies the text in the original language, and in its original historical and literary context, one arrives at a somewhat different understanding than if one makes history the criteria for interpreting the meaning of Scripture. Dr. Cottrell is right on when he insists that we first recover the original exegetical meaning of the text before we can entertain other possibilities.

Dr. Cottrell believes that Seventh-day Adventism used the best scholarly methods available to it when it developed its original interpretations of the prophecies. Now that educated Bible students have better tools, the church should admit that the traditional explanation of Daniel 8:14 is like a device which, though once useful, ought now to be discarded. We should focus on the Gospel and on the ethics of Jesus, such as is presented in the Sermon on the Mount.

While I agree with Dr. Cottrell that our traditional explanation of Daniel 8:14 is erroneous, and ought to be abandoned, I call for a re-investigation of the text from a biblical and especially from a Christological standpoint. It can be shown that Jesus Christ understood his own message and mission to be in harmony with the central meaning of the Old Testament in general and the Book of Daniel in particular. Kingdom of God, Son of Man, Stone, Temple were the central themes Jesus presented, and always in relationship to Himself.

The ethics of Jesus is always worthy of our study and our focus, but we must always seek to show the relationship of the Gospel to ethics. The relationship of law and gospel is a really important one and stands, I believe, at the heart of the contribution Adventism was raised up to make. When the Books of Daniel and Revelation are studied and explained, one will find that the individuals living during the first century had almost the same perspective on salvation which we do today. They looked back to the life, death, resurrection, ascension of Jesus Christ as the inauguration of the end times, and they looked forward toward a coming crisis in connection with Christ's 2^nd coming. Of course, they believed the end was near in their day, just as Christians today believe concerning the end coming in our day.

The central issue is not when Christ will come, and Jesus Himself warned against date setting for his return. Rather, the central issue is how one may stand in the judgment, and be forgiven, reconciled to God, justified in his sight. And closely associated with this is the question which Frances Schaffer raised, "How shall be then live?" The gospel demands a life of sanctification, though salvation is not based on it. The gospel mainspring bears fruit in personal and social ethical situations. Believers treat others with the same care, and mercy that they believe they have received from the Lors.

The Three Angels of Revelation 14 speak of the everlasting gospel, of a judgment which began at Calvary and will end with the entire collapse of the evil empire (Babylon). There is the most severe warning in all of Scripture to turn to God and be found loyal to his will (commandments). All of the concerns of Seventh-day Adventism are well founded: the perpetuity of the ten commandments, including the fourth commandment, the concern for stewardship of time and money, spiritual gifts and the like are all the logical fruitage of a gracious gospel.

Seeing Daniel 8:14 Christologically, inaugurated with the Cross and consummated with Christ's return would allow Adventism to retain its foundation of eschatology, bring it into focus centering on the Gospel and Jesus Christ, and provide a foundation for the rest of our important message. At its heart, Adventism is founded on the Bible and the Bible only. Moving into the new century and new millennium, this new approach would make Seventh-day Adventism a credible Gospel witness to our present generation. In this respect, Dr. Cottrell and I have a common concern, and we are striving toward the same end.

Seventh-day Adventists can continue in their heritage and tradition by giving serious consideration to the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian. This means that they best honor Mrs. Ellen G. White not when they use her writings as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, but rather insist that the Bible is its own interpreter.

Seventh-day Adventists need to declare a new quest for the fundamental meaning of prophecy in view of what scholars now know. It is time for Adventists to recognize, for instance, that historicism is not the only or even most fundamental tool for interpreting prophecy, though it is useful as a secondary method. The primary approach ought to be to take the Bible seriously when the New Testament uniformly holds that the end was to come within the first century. Based upon this fact, Bible students must recognize that the year-for-a-day principle is untenable as an explicit Biblical principle.

It is the position of the New Testament that the eschaton (end) had been inaugurated with the coming of the Messiah Jesus. The prophecy of Daniel 7:11-13 of One like a Son of Man taking his seat of authority with the Ancient of Days and coming to heaven on the clouds of heaven had happened by the time of Pentecost (See Acts 2; Psalm 110:1-4). According to John, the judgment of the world had occurred (John 12:31-33), Satan had been cast out (see also Revelation 12), and the task of the church was to proclaim the Gospel (Revelation 14:6; Matthew 24:14, etc.) A new accompanied the Gospel that included a new worship, a new fellowship and nurture, a new outreach, a new relationship with others from one's own family and neighbors to the society in which one lived.

The prophecies of Daniel are especially significant, since Jesus identified his mission and vocation in terms of the message of this Old Testament prophet above all others. It is now certain that Jesus understood his own mission in term of the Son of Man of Daniel 7. While the Son of Man may be considered corporate in one sense (in that it is interpreted as the "saints" after it is introduced in Daniel 7), it is as though Jesus took upon Himself the destiny of the Son of Man as the representative of the fallen race. He fulfilled the covenant stipulations and received for humanity the covenant blessings, but he also took upon himself the covenant curse (the 3 1/2 times of opposition from Satan the Little Horn of Daniel 7) in order to render it powerless. It is likely that Daniel is an interpretation of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as well as fulfilling the Servant of Yahweh description found in Isaiah 40-66.

The time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are based on the patterns of Creation Week and of the Jewish liturgical year. The number "7" stands at the heart of a teleological temporal system which projects God's purposes as clearly set forth in his sovereignty. Yet there is a tentativeness about the outcome, no doubt due to the conditionality of the human free will! The cryptic "2300 evenings and mornings" of Daniel 8:14, the "seven times" of Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4, the "time, times and half a time" of Daniel 7:25 and 12:7 somehow relate to God's teleological plans and purposes.

Daniel 9:24-27 provides the most complete picture of God's plans in the Book of Daniel. Although there are some unresolved questions connected with these verses, nevertheless, it is this, the 2^nd explanation of the vision of Daniel 8:1-14, which provides us the best historical anchors for deciphering the rest of Daniel's prophecies. First, since Daniel 9:24-27 is an explanation of Daniel 8:14, we would expect to find some association and connection between the two. Secondly, the division of the final period of "one seven" into two parts by the statement, "In the midst of the week," suggests a connection with the vision of Daniel 7:25 as well as the explanation of Daniel 12:7! Third, the "seventy sevens" commencing follow another period of "seventy sevens" ending with the termination of the Babylonian Captivity.

In order to understanding the meaning of Daniel's prophecies, we ought to grasp the point that the main theme of the Book of Daniel is the vindication of God and His kingdom. In each of the narrative stories of chapters 1-6, there is the pattern of evil attacking the people of God and of the people of God triumphing. This is also the subject of the revelations of Daniel 2, 4, 7, 8 and of the explanations of the end of the Book of Daniel. Now the purposes of God are expressed temporally in relation to Creation and the sacred Hebrew calendar. The purposes of God are expressed spatially in relation to Palestine, Jerusalem and the Temple, Daniel employs both dimensions of this expression, even combining them at times. The purposes of God relationally are expressed in relation to the saints, the covenant people and God's annointed, through whom He will accomplish his ultimate purposes.

The restoration of the Stone and of the Temple (Daniel 2 and 8) represent the vindication of the kingdom of God as He takes his rightful place in the midst of his people. Daniel 7 portrays the installation of the Son of Man a representative of the human race who takes authority and dominion over the lower bestial order of creation, the one which has previous been ruling. And of course, from Daniel 8:14 to the end of the Book, these things are explained more fully. Attacks on God and his government come as His anointed and His people, the saints, are attacked and as the Temple and its services are interrupted.

The idea of the number "7" as a symbol of God's purpose goes back to Creation Week. By the end of the week, God had accomplished his purpose of installing the male and female as co-regents with Himself over the lower orders of creation including the beasts, birds, fishes. On the 7^th day, God rested from all the work He had made and He blessed the 7^th day and hallowed it, i.e. set it aside for sacred use.

The number "7" appears in one of the earliest time prophecies in the Book of Genesis. According to Genesis 41, Pharoah had two dreams, both involving the number "7". The first dream was about two sets of "seven" cows, the first well fed and the second sickly. The second dream was about two sets of stalks of grain, the first healthy and the second thin and scorched. Joseph's interpretation to Pharoah was that the dreams should be interpreted that seven years of prosperity would be followed by seven years of famine! Joseph's interpretation of the dream immediately elevated him to a position of prominence in the government of Egypt. Joseph is like Daniel in the sense that he represents God to a pagan monarch, is elevated and is used of God to accomplish his purposes. And, of course, the revelations of both inspired prophets involve the number "7".

The Hebrew liturgical calendar uses the number "7" in many ways. They were to observe the 7^th day of the week in honor of Creation and of Liberation from Egyptian bondage. From the Sabbath following the Passover (on the 14^th day of the 1^st month), the Jewish people were to mark off 7 sabbaths leading up to Pentecost which they were to observe. The holidays of the 7^th month include the Blowing of the Trumpets on the 1^st day of the 7^th month, the celebration of the Day of Atonement on the 14^th day of the 7^th month, and the celebration of the Feast of Booth between the 15^th day and the 22^nd day of the month. The Jews were to let their land rest every 7^th year. Then after 7 sabbatical year cycles had passed, the 50^th year was to be a Year of Jubilee in which all debt were cancelled and land reverted back to its original owners. And the Day of Atonement marked the commencement of the Day of Jubilees. The Jubilee cycle was in years what the period between Passover and Pentecost was in days. It is clear that the number "7" seemed to entwine itself around every temporal phase of Israel's celebration.

There is an important connection to be made between the covenant and the observances of the various days. The Sabbath was to be a sign between God and his covenant people that He was their creator (Exodus 31:12-18). The Day of Atonement was the one yearly day of rest to be called a Sabbath (Leviticus 23:32). Leviticus 25 spells out exactly how the Jewish people were to calculate and observe both the Sabbatical Years as well as the Day of Jubilee in connection with the Day of Atonement. Then in Leviticus 26, Moses links the disobedience of the covenant to a 7-fold curse which would follow (Notice Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28 for instance.) It may not be merely coincidental that this same chapter mentions as part of the covenant curse that "I will also make your sky like iron and your earth like bronze" (verse 19). See a reference to the metal man of Daniel 2). Notice has part of the curse would be God's release of the beasts against Israel (verses 6 & 22). Moreover, the very situation Daniel was experiencing in his original setting as well as the future one which he was portraying is related to these words, "I will lay waste your cities as well and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your soothing aromas. I will make the land desolate, so that your enemies who settle in it will be appalled over it. You, however, I will scatter among the nations after you, as your land becomes desolate and your cities become waste." (Leviticus 26:31-33).

Then, significantly, Moses writes: "Then the land will enjoy its sabbaths all the days of the desolation, while you are in your enemies' land; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it will observe the rest which it did not observe on your sabbaths, while you were living on it." (verses 34,35). It seems clear that Jeremiah understood the connection between Israel's observance of her Sabbaths, including the Sabbatical Years, in Jeremiah 17 in which the blessings and curses of the covenant are repeated. The observing of the Sabbath was to a condition for Israel's continuing prosperity. "'But it will come about, if you listen attentively to Me,' declares the Lord, 'to bring no load in through the gates of this city on the sabbath day, but to keep the sabbath day holy by doing no work on it, then there will come in through the gates of this city kings and princes sitting on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their princes, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerualem, and this city will be inhabited forever." (verses 24-25). It later adds, "But if you do not listen to Me to keep the sabbth day holy bynot carrying a load and coming in through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem and not be quenched.'" (verse 27).

Ezra, writing after the Babylonian Captivity explained the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and 70 year captivity as the fulfillment of the Sabbatical Year principle. Notice: "Those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, untilthe land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete." (2 Chron. 36:20,21; See Jeremiah 25:8-11; 29:10). This type of thinking is foundational to our understanding of God's purposes in connection with the covenant and with regard to the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies in the Old Testament and the fulfillment of prophecies of the Book of Revelation in the New Testament.

It is the 70 years of Babylonian Captivity which was the subject Daniel was studying and which, therefore must inform us as we seek to understand the meaning of Daniel's prophecies. Notice Daniel 9:2. Apparently, Daniel on the eve of the end of the 70 year Captivity is petitioning God to allow the Jewish people to return to their land. He may have feared that on account of their sins, they may have to remain many more years in Babylon. The three previous revelations (Daniel 2,7,8) presented the triumph of the kingdom and the resolution of the problem of oppression only in the remote future.

As the number "7" stands for God's purposes, so the number "4" is the number of the earth. Here are the four directions of the compass, the four winds. So 4 beasts arise from the sea representing the domination of mankind by an inferior order of beings. Originally, the male and female were given dominion over the beasts, but not the beasts are ruling. The tragedy is that they are ruling to so-called covenant people!

The basic revelation of the Book of Daniel appears in chapter 2. 4 kingdoms arise, consecutively, beginning with Babylon. The 2^nd kingdom would have been known in Daniel's day--Medo-Persia. It is mentioned by name by Daniel in chapter 8 as is the third kingdom, Greece. At the time of the explanation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream recorded in chapter 2, only Babylon is names.

The brass and iron of the image of Daniel 2 remind the reader of the covenant curses. The image of a man in Nebuchadnezzar's mind was converted to an idol in Daniel 3. In chapter 2 it is significant that the Kingdom of God is represented by a Stone. Given that the Jerusalem temple had been destroyed, the Stone would have been seen as the cornerstone of a new Temple (See Psalm 118, Isaiah 8,28). The Babylonians themselves viewed mountains and the temples on them as the navels of the gods through which divine sustenance passed to mortals. The Stone cut out "without hands" would have reminded the Hebrew reader that here was the opposite of an idol which is described in the Old Testament as being made with human hands. (See also references to this notion of a temple made without human hands in Mark 14:58 & Acts 7:48.). With this Stone cut out from a mountain without human hands we have a parallel with the Kingdom and the Temple. Here is the reestablishment of God's rule. Here is the destruction of all enemies of Gods people. This is the fulfillment of theAdamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and the Davidic covenants. Here was hope for a beleagered people trapped in Babylonian bondage.

We should not quickly pass over the Fourth Chapter of Daniel. Note the "seven times," again, teleological. Nebuchadnezzar symbolized the human race to whom God originally granted authority to rule. See Ezekiel 28 for a similar pattern. Nebuchadnezzar had been chosen as God's agent to bring His covenant people into line. On account of pride the Babylonian king stumbles, receives the heart of a beast. The order of creation is reversed--beast over man rather than the original--man over beast. We cannot fail to see Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as prototypes of Satan/Lucifer. In Daniel 4 Nebuchadnezzar failed to acknowledge the Creator. At the end of the age humanity will glorify God and every knee will bow. The number "7" brings us to the final end typologically as chapter 2 ends human attempts to control the earth.

With Daniel 4 we have in miniature God's plan for the human race--to restore it to its rightful dominion and co-regency with himself. Daniel 9 describes the actual fall of the Babylonian Empire, a very significant happening. There is a chiastic pattern working in the Aramaic section of Daniel (chapters 2-7). Chapters 4 and 5 describe judgments on two Babylonian kings by God. Chapters 3 and 6 describe special trials God's covenant people experience and chapters 2 and 7 portray the sweep of history's 4 kingdoms followed by the installation of God's eternal kingdom. [The Book of Revelation moves outward in a similar pattern but in a different order. Central Section: Revelation 12-14, the sweep of history, parade of nations. Rev. 8-11 and Rev. 15,16, the kingdom of evil stands under God's judgment; the kingdom of evil falls, warnings. Rev. 4-7 and Rev. 17,18, God's people considered--the dominion of the saints, encouragement! Nevertheless, these are the same general ideas.]

Daniel's dream/vision of Chapter 7 repeats and enlarges Nebuchadnezzar's dream of Chapter 2. Now in Chapter 7, the period of iron and clay, weak and strong coalition, takes the form of an attack by a wicked little horn. There are echoes in the beasts of Chapter 7 of the man turned beast of Daniel 4. Chapter 5's judgment on Beltshazzar of Babylon is like the judgment of the world of Chapter 7. In Chapter 7, the Son of Man and God's saints are installed as rulers, given dominion by God. As in Chapters 4 & 5, so in Chapter 7, the dominion of the earth reverts back to God's intended rulers--the saints.

In this context the broken seven appears (Daniel 7:25) as "time, times and half a time," the period the little horn power oppresses the saints! A broken seven, in contrast with a full seven seems to indicate Satan's evil attempt to commandeer God's kingdom and replace it with another of his own devising. The resumption of the rule of mankind through the initiative of the Son of Man, fulfills the specifications of Genesis 3:15. The crushing of the head of the serpent is the casting of the beast with its little horn into the flames. The bruising of the heel is the 3 1/2 times during which the saints come under the little horn's attack! Thus, Daniel 7 is a further explanation of the gospel plans He first unveiled right after sin entered human history. So 3 1/2 times (half of "seven") suggests an opposite kind of program--Satan's program, and one in which the rightful heirs of the kingdom rather than reign are suppressed!

We get all of this within the Aramaic section (Daniel 2-7). This section's fundamental unity is shown by the chiastic structure which we have proposed. The final section of the Book of Daniel (Chapters 8-12) is in Hebrew and some of the differences should be noted. The shift in the language is significant. The medium of expression moves from Aramaic, the lingua franca of the secular world, to Hebrew, the language of God's covenant people. In Daniel 7, nations are represented as wild, ravenous beasts, whereas in Daniel 8, some of the same nations are depicted as the animals of the Hebrew sanctuary service, the Day of Atonement in particular (Ram and Goat). Daniel 7, as well as Daniel 2, seem to be written from the standpoint of an oppression of God's people by their enemies, but without implications of Israel's sins and the responsibility Israel bares toward the desolations which are coming.

Chapter 8 presents a crisis to come after the four-fold division of the Greek Kingdom then a power, represented by a little horn, attacks the stars of heaven, removed from the Prince the "Tamid" or regular temple worship and casts down the place of the sanctuary. A restoration does not come until the end of 2300 evenings and mornings. The atrocities would occur because of transgression on the part of God's covenant people, just as Nebuchadnezzar had brought the temple services to an end on account of Israel's transgressions in Daniel's day. The remainder of the Book of Daniel, following Daniel 8:14 contains three explanations of the meaning of the vision (Daniel 8:15ff; 9:24-27; 11&12).

In understanding the meaning of the important vision of Daniel 8:1-14 we would naturally assume continuity of all the sections of the Book. Each of the revelations ends in ultimate restoration, as do each of the explanations. Evil is brought to its knees. All parts of Daniel eventually lead to the restoration of God's government.

The 9^th chapter of Daniel features Daniel extending a prayer to heaven in the first year of Darius the Mede (presumably the first year of Cyrus of Persia also). This is the year that the city of Babylon has fallen to the Medo-Persian coalition. Daniel is anticipating that the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah 25 & 29 is drawing to a close. Daniel's prayer reflects his awareness that it was the sins of the Jewish nation which had led that people into captivity, and Daniel is praying for a reversal, a restoration, and a return. It is on this occasion that Gabriel returns to give Daniel the 2^nd explanation of the important vision of Daniel 8:1-14.

Gabriel explains that seventy sevens are determined upon God's people and their city. Given that Daniel was already considering the seventy years of Jeremiah's prophecy, Daniel would have assumed, as the RSV translates it, that there are "seventy weeks of years," i.e. 490 years. The captivity is extended 7-fold! Daniel would have been familiar with Leviticus 26 and the 7-fold punishment which would befall a sinful people. It is not that Gabriel was saying that the 70 years of captivity would not end or that the Jewish people would not be returning to their land and rebuilding their city and temple, for the revelation states that a decree had gone forth that the city be rebuilt! The message of Daniel 9:24-27 seems, rather, to be that the ultimate restoration of the kingdom would not occur during the Medo-Persian era but rather in the remote future. And the final restoration would be preceded by certain events which were outlined to Daniel.

According to Daniel 9:24, by the end of the seventy sevens six important accomplishments would occur: 1. Transgression would be restrained. 2. Sin would be sealed. 3. Guilt would be atoned. 4. Everlasting righteousness would enter. 5. The vision and the prophet would be sealed. 6. A holy of holies would be anointed. It is significant that, given the strong presence of the number 7 in the passage, there is a pattern like that of creation week: A,B,C,A1,B1,C1. These elements, like the work of God on the first six days of creation constitute that which needs to be done in order to restore the kingdom. Once these events have occurred, eternal rest is ushered in. It would be that the mentioning of the coming of Messiah in verse 25 would be analogous with the arrival of the 7^th day rest of the original week of creation. It would seem that Daniel 9:24 is the explanation of Daniel 8:14. For instance, the verb translated "shall be restored" in Daniel 8:14 and the noun, "righteousness" of Daniel 9:24 are from the same Hebrew root, indicating covenant faithfulness. Also, the "anointing of a holy of holies" (Daniel 9:24) seems to correspond with the restoration of the "sanctuary (Daniel 8:14). And the sealing of the vision and prophet (Daniel 9:24) appears to be referring to the vision of Daniel 8:1-14.

From all indications, that which would occur within the seventy sevens correspond with what would occur by the end of the 2300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14! Thus Daniel 9:24 and Daniel 8:14 point to the same climactic culmination of God's purposes in the establishment of his eternal kingdom.

The beginning point of the seventy sevens is clearly demarcated as the time when a word goes forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. This point of time would have been the very moment when Gabriel approached Daniel with the present explanation. My explanation of these important verses is found in my reaction to some of Dr. Cottrell's explanations of the text.

I will concede that the exegesis of the passage could proceed exactly as Dr. Cottrell says that it should, except that I believe that an explanation of the passage Christologically is possible! Unless Jesus' understanding of the passage in applying it to himself is exegetical, the Christian religion could be undermined. Given that parts of the Book of Daniel were to be sealed up until the future, and that Jesus applied the Book of Daniel to Himself, Christians must consider that Jesus' understanding of Daniel is within the limit of possibility of the meaning of the text.

Whether Jesus' understanding is within the acceptable bounds of exegesis of Daniel I am not certain. However, I feel that if Jesus were mistaken here, the Christian religion would collapse. Jesus projects a kingdom inaugurated with his first coming and consummated with his second coming. There is a real sense in which the kingdom was present with Jesus Christ and there was also a sense of expectation that Jesus would return visible in the near future.

From Jesus' standpoint, the beginning and end of his ministry was not negotiable. There was a sense of urgency even necessity about what he was to accomplish and when he would accomplish it (See Mark 1:14,15; Luke 22; John 12). Jesus was tentative, however, about the time of his return. It was this aspect of the prophecy which was tentative and which was dependent upon conditionality--when would the church proclaim the gospel to the world?

The end was not ushered in with 3 1/2 years of Christ's death, resurrection and ascension. Nor did it come by the time the City of Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in A.D. 70 by Titus and the Romans. The final canonical word we have about the meaning of the Book of Daniel is that we have from the writings of John. And the Gospel of John projects Jesus as the sanctuary and the restoration of the sanctuary in terms of Jesus' resurrection from the dead (See especially John 2:19.)

The Book of Revelation picks up on the cryptic language of the Book of Daniel related to time prophecies. It applies the 3 1/2 times, 42 months, 1260 days to the period between Christ's ascension into heaven (Revelation 12:5,6) and the final proclamation of the Gospel to the world (Revelation 11:5; 10:6). Like the Book of Hebrews (See Hebrews 9:27,28), it is the two comings of Christ which limit the extension of sin throughout the universe. Moreover, the Book of Revelation subsumes the 2300 evenings and mornings (i.e. the 1150 days of Daniel 8:14) under the expression "42 months" or 1260 days!

What we are left with, given this kind of reckoning, is a kingdom inaugurated with Jesus Christ's first coming and which will be consummated when He returns for the final time.

Seventh-day Adventists, therefore, should retain our heritage which contains the germ of Christological thought. Seventh-day Adventist have been right to focus on the prophecies though they have been wrong with respect to some of the meanings of the prophecies. Certainly, as modern scholarship has suggested, eschatology and soteriology belong together! Seventh-day Adventists have been basically correct, I believe, in their understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, but woefully wrong with regard to the meaning of Daniel 8:14. This text points, along with Daniel 9:24, to the inauguration of Christ's kingdom in connection with His first coming and to the consummantion of His kingdom in connection with His second coming.

And from this central truth a system of related truths emerges, which I have described above.