The author has tried to write in a clear style that will be easily understood by anyone as yet unfamiliar with the prophecy of Daniel. This Appendix is intended for those who have questions to ask concerning some special points.
"Higher criticism" has said that the book of Daniel was written in the second century before Christ, not the sixth. The reason is that the "higher critics" don't believe in Bible prophecy. They say it is impossible for any prophet to "see" what will happen in the future. Therefore Daniel was written after the events it describes as "prophecy" took place, they say.
This makes the book to be a forgery by a writer who wanted to deceive his readers. The argument for this late dating is that the Aramaic language in Daniel (2:4 to 7:28) was allegedly the kind spoken in the second century B.C. and not the sixth. However, among the Qumram "Dead Sea Scrolls" the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon now provides evidence that Daniel's Aramaic is not that of the later period, but much older!
Daniel was included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), which was made about the second century before Christ, proving that the book had been known and accepted for a long time as "prophecy" before this.
Further, the book could not have been written during the century of the Maccabees, because it does not correctly reflect the historical events that took place then.
Only one major historical detail in Daniel remains to be confirmed by archaeology: the identity of "Darius the Mede" of chapter 5:31 and 6:1. Since the trustworthiness of Daniel has been established by so many other archaeological discoveries, is it not wise for us to trust him in this one little detail? Samuel Taylor Coleridge well said:
"When we meet an apparent error in a good author, we are to presume ourselves ignorant of his understanding, until we are certain that we understand his ignorance" (cited by Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses, p. 125).
Daniel 1:1-5
Archaeological evidence is clear that the Jews were taken to Babylon in Exile as Daniel says:
(1) Pottery dug up in Palestine from the period before the Exile is different than that found after the Exile, with none buried in between (William F. Albright, Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible, p. 171).
(2) The Cyrus Cylinder records in cuneiform the action of King Cyrus to allow captive people to return to their homelands, in harmony with Ezra 1:2, 3.
(3) The following is of interest:
"In the ruins of the vaulted building near the Ishtar Gate (of Babylon) ... some 300 cuneiform tablets were unearthed ... found to date between 595 and 570 B.C. and to contain lists of rations such as barley and oil paid to craftsmen and captives who lived in and near Babylon at that time ... But the name of most significance to us is none other than that of Yaukin, king of Judah, with whom also five royal princes are listed." (Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, p. 188. "Yaukin" is the same as Jehoichin of Judah, son of Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:4, 8).
"Further confirmation of the status of Jehoichin in Babylon comes from the discovery in Palestine of three stamped jar-handles which bore the words, 'Belonging to Eliakim, steward of Yaukin" (G. E. Wright, The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, p. 178).
"The invasions of Nebuchadnezzar in 605, 597, and 587-586 B.C. caused much damage and destruction in Judah. Archaeological evidence shows that many of the cities of Judah were destroyed and not rebuilt, a fact particularly evidenced in the excavations at Azekah, Bethshemesh, and Kirjath-sepher" (Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, p. 227. W. E. Albright says that excavations show that "the towns were not only completely destroyed by the Chaldeans in their two invasions, but were not reoccupied for generations—often never again in history.")
Daniel 1:12-16
In Western "developed" nations, over 50 percent of men now living are doomed to die of disease of the heart or blood vessels, largely due to eating meat or animal foods, that cause high cholesterol and clogging of the blood vessels. Other causes are refined foods, excessive fats, tobacco, alcohol, and insufficient exercise. Daniel's example of a simple vegetarian diet may mean longer, happier life for you.
Daniel 2:38-40
Gold was used more freely in Babylon than in Medo-Persia, Greece, or Rome:
"The walls of the cell of Merodach must be made 'to glisten like suns,' the hall of his temple must be overlaid with shining gold, lapis-lazuli, and alabaster; and the chapel of his lordship, which a former king had fabricated in silver, Nebuchadnezzar declares that he overlaid 'with bright gold.' The roofing of E-kua, the cell of Merodach, is also overlaid with 'bright gold'" (Charles Boutfiower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI: 1977, pp. 25, 26).
Medo-Persia was wealthy but did not use gold as extravagantly as Babylon. The Greek soldiers were noted for their free use of brass (or bronze) in their armor. Ezekiel mentions the traders of Greece dealing in "vessels of brass" (27:13).
Daniel 3:5, 7, 10
The names of these instruments of music give evidence that Daniel was indeed written in the time of the Babylonian empire. Instruments had been imported from Greece into Babylon as early as his time. No Hebrew instrument is included in this list.
The 1946 Encyclopedia Britannica article on Daniel suggested a late date for the writing of the book partly because of this list of instruments. But in a later edition, the new article on Daniel recognized the growing evidence from archaeology supporting the earlier date.
Daniel 4:33
Some critics have questioned whether this madness actually came upon Nebuchadnezzar, because no one has yet found any inscriptions from official Babylonian documents admitting it. However, everyone knows that anything as embarrassing as this would not be publicized. No tombstone anywhere records that the dead person was insane! And, further, only a small part of the official records of ancient Babylon have been discovered.
However, we do have an incident recorded by Ebydenus and reported by Eusebius that King Nebuchadnezzar uttered a mad prophecy and "forthwith disappeared and Evil-Merodach his son succeeded him on the throne." Berosus, another historian of the Babylonians, hints of something wrong when he tells how Nebuchadnezzar began a building project, then "fell sick and died, after a reign of forty-three years." There is more than a hint here that the Bible account is true.
Daniel 5:1, 30
It is almost amusing how "higher criticism" has been rebuked and refuted by the discoveries that Belshazzar was a real person to whom Nabonidus entrusted the kingship in the last days of the Babylonian Empire. A modern scholar says:
"Of all non-Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform in accuracy. ... It may be interpreted as excelling because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual relationship existed in the kingdom. Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth century B.C. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of ... the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon. ... Annals in the Greek language ranging from about the beginning of the third century B.C. to the first century B.C. are absolutely silent concerning Belshazzar, ... The total information found in all available chronologically fixed documents later than the cuneiform texts of the sixth century B.C. ... could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel" (Raymond P. Doughtery, Yale University, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, 1926, pp. 199, 200).
The story of how Babylon was captured is also documented from historical sources. Cyrus himself tells the story (Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by J. B. Pritchard, Princeton, 1955, pp. 312-316).
Over ten thousand inscribed clay tablets have been recovered from the sands of old Babylon that give us tremendous information about the city. Daniel stands the test.
Daniel 7:25
Further comments on the papacy presuming to change God's holy law:
"Either the law (the ten commandments) remains in all its force, to the utmost extent of its literal requirements, or it is passed away with the Jewish ceremonies. ... If it does not exist, let us abandon a mock observance of another day Sunday for it.
"'But,' say some, 'it was changed from the seventh day to the first day.' Where? When? and by whom? No man can tell. No, it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again; for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance can be changed! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio —I think his name is DOCTOR ANTICHRIST" (Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, February 2, 1824)."
(Question) What Bible authority is there for changing the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week?
"Who gave the Pope the authority to change a command of God?"
(Answer) If the Bible is the only guide for Christians, then the Seventh Day Adventist is right in observing ... Saturday. ... But Catholics learn what to believe and do from the divine, infallible authority established by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church ..." (Father B. L. Conway, The Question Box, p. 243, 1971 edition; Roman Catholic).
Daniel 7:9-11, 22, 26
There are links that bind Daniel 7 and 8 together. Both speak of "the little horn" that persecutes or tramples down God's people, and that blasphemes the God of heaven. Both describe the judgment that condemns the "little horn" and defends God's people. Daniel 7 makes clear that the judgment will come after the 1260 years of papal power, but take place before the Son of man receives His kingdom (verse 13). Daniel 7 does not give a time for the judgment, but chapter 8:14 does (2300 days or years). Thus Daniel 7 prepares the way for us to understand Daniel 8.
Some scholars do not understand the idea of an "investigative" or pre-Advent judgment. Note these comments from a scholar that support this truth:
"The common idea is ... that the dead will all be simultaneously resurrected, and all the living simultaneously changed, and that only then the judgement will sit for ... the eternal destiny of each ... But it is not according to the plain letter of the Scriptures. ...
"... There lurks in the popular idea a mischievous and confusing error. People take the resurrection as a mere preliminary of the judgement and view the judgement itself as something distinct from the resurrection, and coming after it. ... They consider that the dead are to be awakened for the purpose of being judged. "The truth is, that the resurrection, and the changes which pass 'in the twinkling of an eye' upon the living, are themselves the fruits and embodiments of antecedent judgement.
They are the consequences of adjudications then already made. ... Resurrections and translations are products of judgements previously passed, upon the dead as dead and upon the quick living as quick living. The dead in Christ shall rise first, because they are already adjudged to be in Christ; and the living saints are caught up together with them to the clouds (see 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17) because they are already adjudged to be saints, and worthy to attain that world [see Luke 20:35]" (J. A. Seiss, The Apocalypse, 12th edition, vol. I, pp. 322-326).
Daniel 8:9-14
Some commentators understand "the little horn" to be the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. Here are some well-reasoned thoughts refuting this confusion:
"These two thousand and three hundred days can by no computation be accommodated to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, even though the days be taken from natural days" (Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, London: Thomas Tego, 1846, p. 258).
"A horn of a beast is never taken for a single person; it always signifies a new kingdom; and the kingdom of Antiochus was an old one. Antiochus reigned over one of the four horns; and a little horn was a fifth, under its proper kings. This horn was at first a little one, and waxed exceeding great, but so did not Antiochus ... His kingdom on the contrary was weak, and tributary to the Romans; and he did not enlarge it. The horn was 'a king of fierce countenance, and destroyed wonderfully, and prospered and practised;'... but Antiochus was frightened out of Egypt by a mere message of the Romans, and afterwards routed and baffled by the Jews. ... The horn cast down the sanctuary to the ground, and so did not Antiochus; he left it standing. The sanctuary and host were trampled under foot two thousand and three hundred days; but the profanation of the temple, in the reign of Antiochus, did not last so many natural days" (Sir Isaac Newton, Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse, comments on Daniel 8).
Daniel 8:14
Are the 2300 days literal years? The Good News Bible renders this verse, "I heard the other angel answer, 'It will continue for 1,150 days. ..." Some scholars who see Antiochus Epiphanes as the "little horn" also think that the "2300 evenings-mornings" should be understood as 1150 literal days, or 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices. However, this is interpretation, not translation. The Hebrew is clear, "2300 evenings-mornings," and does not permit dividing it in half. When the Old Testament speaks of the daily sacrifices, it never says "evenings-mornings," but "burnt offerings continually morning and evening" (1 Chronicles 16:40). And these two offerings were considered as one unit (Numbers 28:4, 8) that could not be divided in half.
Further, the Hebrew phrase "evenings-mornings" is denned in the Bible as ordinary days:
"And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Genesis 1:5, RSV: see also Leviticus 24:3). C. F. Keil, a noted Hebrew scholar says of Daniel 8:14: "A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the period of time 2300 evening-mornings (to be) ... 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at creation constituted not the half but the whole day. ... We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e., understand them of 2300 whole days" (Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 1949, p. 304; most translations recognize these as 2300 "days").
No scholar has ever been able to fit either 2300 or 1150 literal days into the history of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is very obvious that the Holy Spirit never intended this prophecy to be applied to him. Symbolic prophecy in the Bible requires that each day equal a literal year. This key unlocks the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and makes sense of their time periods.
Some of the Bible reasons for the year-day principle are as follows:
(1) The year-day principle is in harmony with interpreting beasts to represent kingdoms, horns as powers, oceans as peoples, etc. It would be foolish to try to make an exception within these symbolic prophecies, and make the time periods to be literal.
(2) As stated in our text, the Bible upholds this principle (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6). The Lord Himself says, "I have appointed thee each day for a year." He speaks in both those texts.
(3) The 2300 "days" of Daniel 8:14 cover the history of the Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires, as the angel says in verses 19-26, "At the time of the end shall be the vision, ... for many days." These empires lasted many times more than 2300 literal days. Nothing can possibly fit except the year-day principle.
(4) The Hebrew word for day (yom) is found in two other related long time prophecies in Daniel, the 1290 and 1335 days of chapter 12:11, 12. This indicates that days-years should be understood for 8:14.
(5) Daniel 11 is obviously an expansion of the Daniel 8 prophecy, covering the same period of time. Yet chapter 11 is not symbolic; it is straightforward language. Three times it speaks of "years" (verses 6, 8, 13) as the parallel of "days" in Daniel 8:14. Thus Daniel 8 and 11 are wedded together and support the year-day principle.
(6) The angel repeatedly told Daniel that these prophecies concerned" the time of the end" (chapter 8:19, 26; 10:13, 14). If the "days" were literal, this would not make sense; it would mean that the book of Daniel was fulfilled before Christ's time and that His command to "understand" it would be meaningless.
(7) When the Old Testament speaks of literal time, it says plainly, "years." For example, David reigned in Hebron "seven years and six months" (2 Samuel 2:11). And he was in the Philistine camp "a year and six months" (1 Samuel 27:7). But in Daniel 7:25 we have the unusual expression, "a time, times, and half a time." The book of Revelation unlocks this for us by stating that that period is still fixture in John's day (see Revelation 12:24, 6; 13:5). Therefore, there is only one way to understand it: prophetic time, a day for a year. If it were a literal period, it would have been fulfilled long before John's day, and he would have had no reason to repeat it or discuss it.
(8) Further, when the Bible speaks of ordinary time, it never speaks of more than a year as so many days, for example, the natural expression, "three years and six months." But the prophecies never say that. They always say "1260 days," or "42 months," etc. Thus it is clear that symbolic time is meant, not literal.
(9) The "beasts" that symbolize kingdoms are short-lived animals, but they represent empires that lasted for hundreds of years. A day for a year is appropriate.
(10) The earth rotates on its axis once each day; but it revolves around the sun once each year. It seems natural that in prophetic symbols, the one should be a symbol of the other (see Genesis 1:14).
(11) God is wise to tell His people of events long future in their day, in such a way that their true length might not then be understood; but as the end should draw near, they would understand. Christ as Son of God knew and understood about the time that should elapse between His first coming and His second; yet He left His people from age to age to discover this from these prophecies.
These are "signs" that His second coming is near, and that this is indeed "the time of the end." These prophecies when read by themselves appear like a dry, worthless skeleton. But when they are studied in the light of history and the truths of the gospel message, and we see God's over-all purposes revealed, then they are clothed with flesh, beautiful as a complete living person standing before us. It is the divinely inspired year-day principle that makes it possible to understand them.
(12) The final test of Daniel's time prophecies is: do they fit the fulfillment of history? To understand the 2300 "days" as literal does not make sense in the history of Antiochus Epiphanes, nor of any other power. The 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 fit perfectly as literal 490 years from 457 B.C. to 34 A.D., and the 3-1/2 "times" of Daniel 7:25 fit as 1260 literal years. To deny the year-day principle is to make both Daniel and Revelation meaningless for our times today, and even to cast doubt on Christ's prophecy in Matthew 24.
What is the sanctuary to be cleansed? It cannot be the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, for that was destroyed in 70 A.D. and no longer has any meaning since the death of Christ. Neither can it be the land of Palestine or the land of Judah, for "cleansing" or "vindication" has no meaning in relation to land.
The Bible makes plain what the "sanctuary" of Daniel 8:14 means:
(1) Daniel 7:9, 10 speaks of the heavenly courtroom where the "thrones were placed," and "the judgment was set, and the books were opened." Since Daniel 8 further develops the truth of Daniel 7, it is clear that the "sanctuary" is the same courtroom of judgment.
(2) God's throne centers within His sanctuary in heaven (2 Chronicles 18:18; Psalms 11:4).
(3) The natural answer to our question is the New Testament book of Hebrews. Here we read that the Old Testament sanctuary of Moses' time (and later the temple in Jerusalem) was merely a "shadow" or type of the true heavenly sanctuary where Christ ministers as great High Priest (Hebrews 8:1, 2, 5; 9:1-24, etc.). Thus the heavenly sanctuary is the throne room of heaven, the center of God's government in relation to the "civil war" that Satan has started through inventing sin. The sanctuary is the headquarters of Christ's ministry in behalf of all who believe in Him, the nerve-center of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. What happens in that sanctuary is more important than any earthly political, military, or economic "news." Empires may rise and fall, civilizations come and go, but what really matters to the security of earth and heaven is the victory of God over the rebellion of Satan. The heavenly sanctuary is the focal point of this struggle. This is why all who believe "in Christ" will follow Him by faith in His closing work in the heavenly sanctuary.
What is the cleansing of the sanctuary? Is "cleansed" the correct translation for verse 14? The Hebrew word is nisdaq. Its root idea is "make right," "vindicate," or "restore." But "purify" or "cleanse" may be included in its meanings. The earlier translations (the Greek LXX, the Latin, the Syriac, and the Ethiopian Coptic) all have "cleansed." The Hebrew sadaq (related to nisdaq) is used in the Old Testament to mean the same as "cleanse" or "be pure" (Job 4:17; 17:9; 15:14; 25:4). In 1948 the Jewish Society of America published an essay by Dr. H. Louis Ginsberg in which he says that the Hebrew portions of Daniel were originally written in Aramaic, and that the original of 8:14 reads "cleansed."
Further, there are word links that join Daniel 8:14 to Leviticus 16, the chapter which describes the cleansing of the typical sanctuary on the day of atonement. The word for "sanctuary" in Daniel 8:14 (qodesh) is used several times in Leviticus 16 (vss. 2, 3, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27) and each time refers to the most holy apartment being cleansed. The same word qodesh is connected with "cleansing" or "purifying" in 1 Chronicles 23:28. And the angel's question in Daniel 8:13, "until when the vision concerning ... the transgression ... ?" contains the same word for "transgressions" in Leviticus 16:16, 21 that means the sins of the people of Israel that have polluted the sanctuary and must be "cleansed" on the day of atonement. These "links" in the chain join Daniel 8:14 with Leviticus 16 and provide evidence that what the angel is talking about is the antitypical cleansing of the true heavenly sanctuary where Christ is High Priest. (Compare Hebrews 9:23.)
Daniel 9:24-27
The "Gap Theory" of interpreting this passage has become widely popular. We need to consider it. The main points are:
(1) The 70th week of Daniel's prophecy must be separated in time from the 69 weeks by being pushed far into the future just before the second coming of Christ.
(2) The "he" of Daniel 9:27 who "shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" is the Antichrist, not the true Christ. The Antichrist is not the system of the papacy which has already appeared in history, but some mysterious future individual. (Jesuit theologians invented this theory).
(3) Israel and the Jews are still the true "chosen nation" of God, and the Christian church does not belong in this understanding of Daniel 9:24-27, nor in any of the prophecies.
(4) All the applications of Bible prophecy ground to a halt with the death of Christ on the cross, and the whole world has been in a state of suspension since. "The prophetic time clock stopped ticking" at that time and will not begin again until the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy starts up again with the end of what they call "the church age" and the restoration of the literal Jews as God's chosen people.
Here are some reasons why this "Gap Theory" of interpretation is contrary to the Bible:
(1) There is no hint in the prophecy that the 70th week should be separated from the proper sequence of the preceding 69 weeks. To try to create a "gap" between them is arbitrary. It is as unreasonable as to try to make a "gap" in Jeremiah's seventy years of captivity. Further, there is no gap between the "seven weeks" and the "sixty-two weeks;" why should there be one between the 69th and 70th?
(2) The "Gap Theory" is a child of the papacy. It is one of their attempts to turn away the finger of prophecy pointing to them as "the little horn" of Daniel 7 and 8, "the man of sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2, and the "beast" of Revelation 13. The Protestant Reformers of the 16th Century clearly recognized the papacy as the fulfillment of these prophecies. Multitudes of Christian people awakened to see in the papacy the true embodiment of the prophetic Antichrist. The papacy called the Council of Trent for the purpose of finding some way to get around this charge, for it was a very disturbing and convincing identification.
Louis Alcazar, a Spanish Jesuit, came up with the idea that not only was "the little horn" of Daniel Antiochus Epiphanes, but "the beast" of Revelation 13 was the pagan Roman empire persecuting the early Christian church. In other words, the "Antichrist" came long ago before the rise of the papacy. This was one way of turning away the prophetic finger from the papacy. The Jesuit Alcazar was a loyal servant of the Catholic Church. His view is known today as "Preterism."
On the other hand, Francisco Ribera, also a Spanish Jesuit, had an entirely contrary idea. He saw that there were grave difficulties with the Preterist views. Antichrist is a far in the future individual, he said, who will rule for three and one-half years of literal time, rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, deny Christ, abolish Christianity, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, etc., and thus fulfill the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. His view is called "Futurism."
Both of these theories practically destroy the prophecies, because they make Daniel and Revelation meaningless to us today. They twist Daniel 9:24-27 out of its true context. The theory is speculative and is a mere "private interpretation" not supported by Scripture, as we shall see.
Nowhere in the Bible do we read that Antichrist is to make a "covenant" with anybody in the last days, or at any time. Jesus quoted these words of Daniel as pointing to His own work, when He said to His disciples at the Last Supper, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28, RSV). We are much safer to follow Jesus' own application of this prophecy than that of the Jesuits.
Sad to say, many modern Protestants have unwittingly accepted this Jesuit doctrine known as "Futurism." They don't realize its true origin.
(3) The clear intent of Daniel 9:24-27 is to show that unless the Jews should repent, the 70 weeks (490 years) would be their last opportunity as a nation to fulfill their obligation as the true "chosen nation" of God. If they should reject and crucify their Messiah and go on to reject His apostles, they would seal their doom as God's Israel. According to the Bible, those who believe in Christ are the "true Jews" (Romans 2:28, 29; Galatians 3:28, 29). Therefore the faithful Christian church is God's "Israel" today.
Individual Jews can repent and believe in Jesus like anybody else, and Paul makes plain that God still loves the Jews (Romans 11:1-5). And there will be among them a "remnant" who in the end of time will accept the gospel. God has permitted the Jewish nation and race to continue as a witness to His ancient covenant; but the angel pointed out to Daniel that as a nation their final rejection of the Messiah would be the end of their special honor as God's chosen nation.
(4) The idea that the "prophetic clock" stopped ticking with the death of Christ makes the prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 to be meaningless. This is simply a clever device to turn God's spotlight away from the papacy as the "little horn" or Antichrist.
Daniel 11:36-45
We must frankly recognize that there are differing and conflicting interpretations of this passage. Very valuable truth may be lost to our understanding through controversy and confusion. And some may be discouraged by these disagreements and conclude that all of Daniel is likewise uncertain as to its meaning.
However, we have seen that the prophecies of chapters 2, 7, 8, and 9 are so clear and straightforward that it is impossible to avoid the conviction that the Bible indeed explains itself and is meaningful to us today. These prophecies are precious in their clarity. Because the closing part of one prophecy is not understood by all alike, shall we abandon our faith in the others that are so very clear?
We rejoice that so much is crystal clear up to this point. We hope and pray that soon all will see "eye to eye" on this remaining portion of Daniel 11.
"No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" and this includes Daniel 11 (2 Peter 1:20). Therefore, there must be a true understanding of it.
This book is not written in order to "invent" some new interpretation or to discredit what sincere, godly scholars have written in times past (or present). It is written with the prayer that we shall "come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" now in this time, "that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:13, 14).
This is the reason why the author has presented the views found in this book. While many voices have presented so-called "new light" on this passage during the past 80 years, the author has not been privileged yet to hear any that involves fewer problems than the "voices" that have spoken longest and most consistently in understanding Daniel and Revelation.
The author has received help from many books and commentaries in the writing of this book and this Appendix. Among them are the following:
Andrews, J. N., The Three Messages of Revelation. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association.
Bunch, Taylor G., The Book of Daniel. Mimeographed, 1950.
Charles, Robert Henry, The Book of Daniel. Edinburgh, T. C. 85 E. C. Jack. nd.
Ford, Desmond, Daniel. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1978.
Grotheer, William H., "Watchman, What of the Night?" Lamar, AR.: Adventist Laymen's Foundation.
Haskell, Stephen N., The Story of Daniel the Prophet. Battle Creek: Review and Herald, 1901.
Holbrook, Frank B., Editor, Symposium on Daniel. Hagerstown MD: Review and Herald.
Keil, C. F., Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1975.
Leupold, H. C, Exposition of Daniel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975.
Maxwell, Mervyn., God Cares, Pacific Press, 1981.
Montgomery, J. A., A Critical and Exegetical on the Book of Daniel. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964.
Newton, Thomas, Dissertations on the Prophecies. London: Dove, 1838.
Nichol, F. D., ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Washington: Review and Herald, 1953-57.
Price, George McCready, The Greatest of the Prophets. Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1955.
Shea, William H., "Daniel and the Judgment," unpublished manuscript. Berrien Springs, Michigan, 1980; "Time Prophecies of Daniel 12 and Revelation 12-13," Symposium on Revelation—Book 1, Hagerstown, MD: Reviewand Herald.
Smith, Uriah, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. Washington:Review and Herald, 1945.
Spangler, Robert, ed. "Christ and His High Priestly Ministry," Ministry Magazine, October, 1980. Washington: Review and Herald.
Wallenkampf, Arnold V., ed., The Sanctuary and the Atonement. Vol. I. Washington: Review and Herald, 1980.
Walvoord, John F., Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody, 1971.
Wright, Charles H. H., Daniel and His Prophecies. London: William & Norgate, 1906.
Young, Edward J., The Prophecies of Daniel. Grand Rapids: Eedrmans, 1949.