Daniel Committee

A Response to the Daniel & Revelation Committee

Introduction
Good News Australia, special issue In these articles Dr Desmond Ford responds to the Daniel & Revelation Committee, affirming his position that the prophesies of Daniel do not prefigure an investigative judgement beginning in 1844.

Response to the Daniel & Revelation Committee: Part One
By Desmond Ford

Preface on prophecy
Daniel 9:24-27 is a prophecy about the Messiah and the gospel. The work of rebuilding Jerusalem is linked with the work of restoration Jesus would perform in his life, death, and resurrection. The prophecy also warns God’s people of a coming desolating ruler.

Daniel 9, like many other prophecies (Dt 18:15; Is 7:14; Joel 1-3; Mat 24; 2 Th2), covers more than one crisis for God’s people. It is a messianic prophecy, but also provides guidance and protection for faithful Jews during the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus’ persecution is typical of threats from later forms of antichrist – including pagan Rome and medieval and eschatological opponents of God’s people. (See my Daniel commentary, Southern Publishing Association, 1978, p.200.)

A prophecy can cover more than one historical crisis. Therefore, some prophetic details – including those of time – are sufficiently amorphous to preserve the prediction’s usefulness for saints in more than one era.

For example, the Hebrew word translated ‘weeks’ in Daniel 9:24 actually means ‘units of seven’ (see NASB margin). What kind of unit – days, weeks, months, or years – is not stated in the Hebrew. Nonetheless, scholars have rightly concluded that years are the primary meaning in view of the context (see Dan 9:2). This is one reason why the revised edition of the SDA Bible Commentary explicitly states that the year – day principle is not used in this prophecy.

Of course, the essence of Daniel 9:24-27 asserts that within 500 years – from the height of the restoration after the Babylonian captivity – the Messiah would come. This is an amazing prophecy. Trying to make it more amazing by introducing questionable dates is an unnecessary ‘enhancement’. (Acts 1:7 makes it clear that such absolute ‘enhancement’ is forbidden by our Lord).

The prophecy affirms that Messiah would die for the sins of the world and usher in everlasting righteousness. That is the gospel certainty that validates Daniel’s prophecy, not our times or dates.

Any tenuous doctrine that contrives to establish 1844 as part and parcel of Christ’s atonement disastrously changes the triumphant cry of Calvary from ‘It is finished!’ into ‘It is only begun!’.

Daniel and Revelation Committee series
The Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of SDA’s has recently published a series of books. The books consist of articles by members of the Daniel and Revelation Committee, which was formed after Glacier View. The purpose of the series is to defend the traditional denominational view of the Investigative Judgement and to establish 1844 as a biblical datum. I was sent the books through the kindness of an Adventist scholar and good friend. I feel obligated to respond to the books because they threaten the everlasting gospel (Rev 14:6).The best response
Perhaps the best response is the one made in advance: the Glacier View document known as Daniel 8:14: The day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgement.* The new series does not grapple firmly with the main arguments of my book; therefore, all lengthy perorations on peripheral issues must fail. This might explain why one of the best scholars of the church (waving his hand at the new books) exploded to me, ‘Don’t read them! Simply awful!’ He apparently viewed them as a ’snow job’.

I don’t altogether agree with that verdict.Some good things
For example, in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy (Volume 3 of the series) there is a splendid article by Ivan Blazen (pp.339-388). The article discusses the relationship between justification and the last judgement. Ivan can be faulted only in his attempt to drag in, by some thin threads of argument, the Investigative Judgement. But his attempt is so half-hearted no one could chide the author.

Also, Gerhard Hasel’s article, ‘Interpretations of the Chronology of the Seventy Weeks’ is excellent (pp.3-63). I am not persuaded by his conclusions, though there is one I fully accept. He says, in his next to last paragraph, ‘each of the four major current schools of interpretation of (Daniel) 9:24-27 has certain weaknesses’. Page 51 explains why Dr. Hasel can admit the Adventist interpretation – along with the others – has its problems. He clearly says, ‘the actual wording of the command of Artaxerxes I of 457 B.C. makes no explicit mention of any order to rebuild the city of Jerusalem.’ On the same page he also says, ‘the validity of applying the 457 B.C. decree depends upon an uncertain interpretation of Ezra 4:7-23.’

So there are good things in this series of books. I have by no means listed them all. What is lacking is a good case for the Investigative Judgement or 1844 as a biblical datum. I repeat: excellent work on peripheral matters is no substitute for grappling with the central issues.One typical chapter
I propose to look at one typical chapter from The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the nature of Prophecy. The chapter is the article by Arther J. Ferch, ‘Commencement Date for the Seventy Week Prophecy’ (pp. 64-74). Arthur is a former student of mine. He is a devout man and a good scholar.

In my view, the importance of the chapter consists of this: If no certain date can be established for the commencement of the seventy weeks prophecy, then, on Adventism’s own premises, there is no certainty for 1844. My book, Daniel 8:14, pp. 174-176, deals with the heart of this issue.Quotes reflect uncertainty
The most remarkable feature of Dr. Ferch’s chapter is its exceeding tentativeness. There is no certainty here, except for the certainty that the issues are complex and dogmatism impossible.

Some typical statements:

‘Unfortunately, no explicit proclamation is known . . .Interpreters, therefore, have been obliged to deduce . . .(’p.65).

‘Since the rebuilding of Jerusalem is not mentioned in this decree, the edict of Darius I – as a fulfilment of the ‘word to restore and (re)build Jerusalem’ is also ruled out.’ (p.67)

(Notice that on page 69 Dr. Ferch also says of the decree from Artaxerxes that ‘(it) mentions nothing about the rebuilding of Jerusalem.’ Therefore, by his own logic, it should be ruled out. Instead, he rules it in.)

‘. . . although the temple was completed in 515 B.C., the benefits which Artaxerxes I bestowed upon the temple in 457 B.C. were considered substantial enough to include this later Persian king as a benefactor in the list with his predecessor.’ (p.68).

(See Ezra 6:14). Thus Dr. Ferch recognises that Ezra 7 was indeed a temple decree. This is consistent with his comment that the decree said nothing about the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It weakens his case for beginning the seventy prophetic weeks in 457 B.C. (See Daniel 9:25, which calls for a command to rebuild the city).

Ezra 7 mentions a third decree, issued this time by the Persian king Artaxerxes I . . . Assuming that this king is Artaxerxes I . . . (p.68). [Emphasis supplied.]

(The fact is scholars are divided over the issue of the identity of these kings, and consequently over the date of Ezra 7.)

The return of Ezra and his group of fellow Jews described in Ezra 7 appears to be related to the events recorded in Ezra 4:7-23 (p.69). [Emphasis supplied.]

(Both Drs Ferch and Hasel hope such is the case – in that passage we do read of a rebuilding of the walls of the city. But there is no mention of Ezra. Even the very conservative New Bible Commentary Revised expresses the hope that Ezra 4 might refer to Ezra’s group. But then it says: ‘Ezra may have realised that no effective reform could be achieved without the securing of a wall, but he had no commission for this . . .’ [p. 401] Clearly, the commentary does not recognise Ezra 7 as a decree to rebuild the city).

An obvious problem
The obvious problem confronting Dr. Ferch and Dr. Hasel is the evident connection between verses 23 and 24 of Ezra 4. Here we read only of the temple being rebuilt. This connection precludes the case they desire to establish, which is that the decree of Artaxerxes is the decree for rebuilding the city as Daniel 9:25 requires. Furthermore, a book bearing the name of Ellen White as author takes the opposite position to Drs. Ferch and Hasel. If Prophets and Kings is correct, their argument is demolished.

‘During the reign of Cambyses, the work on the temple progressed slowly. And during the reign of the false Smerdis (called Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7) the Samaritans induced the unscrupulous impostor to issue a decree forbidding the Jews to rebuild their temple and city’ (PK 572-3).

The influential Pulpit Commentary takes the same position. It does so on the ground that the obvious sequence of Ezra 4:23-24 shows clearly that the events of the verses proceeding belong to the sixth century B.C., not the fifth.

Keep in mind that Persian kings often had more than one name. Today there is no unanimity as to which king the name Artaxerxes in chapters 4 and 7 belongs. Thus it is impossible to be dogmatic about the dates of the decree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes. (Many modern scholars espouse views that contrast with this older, conservative position expressed by the Pulpit Commentary.)

The Century Bible Commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah says: ‘Several things, . . . fall into a natural perspective if Ezra is seen to follow Nehemiah’ (p.30). And in The Anchor Bible we read: ‘It is, of course, certain that Ezra did his work in the reign of Artaxerxes but which Artaxerxes? There were three kings of Persia bearing that name . . . These observations do not permit us to fix a specific date for Ezra, but they do seem to suggest that Ezra came after Nehemiah’ (Ezra pp.xxxvi-xxxvii). Then from the revised Peake’s Commentary: ‘. . . the opinion that Ezra came a generation later (than Artaxerxes I)’ (p.374). And the New Jerome Biblical Commentary despairingly confesses: ‘We must leave as an insoluble enigma the date of chapter 4′ (p.388).

Personally, I am not persuaded by these recent opinions. I incline to the view that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 is Artaxerxes I. It remains quite clear, however, that dogmatism on 457 B.C. as the date for Ezra in Jerusalem is impossible. This is true also of the dates A.D. 27, 31 and 34, which we have involved for the other end of the seventy weeks. Neither can we be dogmatic about the supposed end of the seven weeks of years – 408 B.C. (see SDA Bible Commentary 5:246-247).Cyrus the Restorer
On page 70 Dr. Ferch speaks of the work of ‘restoration of the temple and city from the time of Cyrus (ca 537/536-530 B.C.) on into the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-423 B.C.).’ [Emphasis supplied.] This is a splendid statement and fully accurate. God had foretold that Cyrus would be responsible for the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. Clearly Scripture says, ‘Cyrus, “He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfil all my purpose”; saying of Jerusalem, “She shall be built,” and of the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid”’ (Is 44:28RSV). ‘He shall build my city’ (Is 45:13 RSV).

Please note: this is never said of Artaxerxes. The Adventist case for 1844 asserts that the decree for rebuilding the city predicted in Daniel 9:25 is the decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7. But Ezra 7 says nothing about rebuilding Jerusalem! Nor does any other passage attribute the rebuilding of the city to Artaxerxes or to Ezra. The whole Adventist case for 1844 depends upon missing evidence!Presumably
Again we quote from Dr. Ferch’s article (where he writes of Ezra 4):

‘ . . . Ezra turns from disturbances caused especially by the Samaritans in the time of Cyrus and Darius (vss. 1-5) to the frustration generated during the days of Ahasuerus, presumably Xerxes I . . . and in the days of Aretaxerxes, presumably Artaxerxes I, 465-432 B.C. (vss. 7-23.) (p.70.).’ (Emphasis supplied.)

Dr. Ferch’s tentative conclusions here may indeed be correct – it’s the presumablys that worry me. Many scholars are not convinced that Ahasuerus is Xerxes I, and Artaxerxes is Artaxerxes I. If, as Dr. Ferch clearly shows with his presumablys, doubts exist, on what grounds can he be sure about 1844? His date of 1844 depends upon his views about Ezra and Artaxerxes.

On page 71 Dr. Ferch discusses what is likely – and proceeds to build on that by adding ‘It would seem that . . .’ On the same page he grants that if these possibilities are correct, they yield a ‘puzzling’ result. That is, Artaxerxes is set forth as being both for and against the rebuilding of the city.

Trying to support his desired case, Dr. Ferch argues on page 72 that ‘it appears that the emperor disregarded normal protocol . . .’

There is no puzzle at all if the obvious sequence of events in Ezra 4 is accepted. Then the events are seen as belonging to more than half a century before the decree of Ezra 7. However, there are scores of biblical scholars who have worked on Ezra 4 who are not agreed among themselves on the true sequence of events in Ezra 4. Honesty should compel SDA scholars to admit that evidence for Ezra’s rebuilding the city is lacking. They should admit 1844 has no scriptural support. They should repudiate the many administrative actions around the world directed against those who are better informed than Adventist traditionalists.Apex of uncertainty
On the last page of Ferch’s article we reach the apex crowning his unsteady edifice of suppositions [we have by no means listed all of them]:

‘Hence, it would appear that although no explicit proclamation detailing the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem is available, the situation described in Ezra 4 . . . best fits the historical setting envisaged in Daniel 9:25 . . .

It would seem, therefore, that the rebuilding activity of the city of Jerusalem proper (Ezra 4:12) . . . suggests that the royal consent was implied in this decree . . . Consequently, Artaxerxes’ “word” or decree of 457 B.C. provides the best commencement date for Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy and the longer time span of the 2300 day – years (Dan 8-9 (p.74).’ (Emphasis supplied)

Here endeth the edifice of appears, seems, implies, etc., which suggest the possibility of 457 B.C. – and, on Adventist presuppositions, 1844.A final problem
But there is a final problem: even those scholars who believe Ezra 4 may refer to the time of Ezra and the decree of Ezra 7 do not accept the 457 B.C. date for the decree! The date most universally accepted by exegetes and archaeologists is 458 B.C., and in the spring – certainly not October 22. Sadly, 2,300 years from that date does not culminate in 1844.

Let it not be thought that Dr. Ferch is alone in his uncertainties. Almost all the church’s scholars I have talked to have the same doubts. Note how such uncertainties have crept into the Adventist Review (Vol. 158, No. 31, Special Issue on Bible Doctrines, 1981, pp. 26-27). As the Review desperately tries to bolster up the Investigative Judgement doctrine, it uses language such as:

‘it seems clear . . .’ ‘it seems clear . . .’ ‘Assuming . . .’ ’suggests . . .’ ‘The Scriptures do not offer a detailed explanation of the work that was to begin in heaven in 1844, . . .’ ‘it is reasonable to assume . . .’ ‘The term investigative judgement is not found in the Bible, . . .’Preaching an uncertain gospel
Imagine you are preaching the gospel to dying men and women. You wish to employ the strongest, most powerful argument from the Word for the certainty of God’s love. You have just read Dr. Ferch’s learned article. Because of the unsteadiness of the structure he has built, you find yourself repeating John 3:16 in his language:

‘It is possible, even likely, that God so loved the world, that it appears he gave his only begotten son. This presumably implies that whosoever believeth in Him (it seems) might not perish, but, in all likelihood, have the most acceptable reward – eternal life (though no explicit proclamation to this effect is available)’ (Jn 3:16, 1844 edition).

Response to the Daniel & Revelation Committee: Part TwoThose who are unyielding on prophetic dates must consider that Bible prophecy has meaning for past, present, and future – and what prophecy really fixes on is Jesus and the gospel.

Prophecy has more than one application
In order to avoid the primary application of Daniel 8:14 to the crisis in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Daniel and Revelation Committee series denies that apocalyptic prophecies have more than one application.

This is not the position taken by the best non-Adventist scholars. Nor is it the position taken by the SDA Bible Commentary.

In many ways the most significant commentary on Daniel in recent years is conservative Joyce Baldwin’s Daniel. Dr. Baldwin speaks of ‘cyclical concepts of repeated patterns’ ‘in the apocalyptic presentations’ (see p.57). she shows that the climactic prophecies of Daniel include the crisis of the second century B.C. The prophecies speak of Antiochus Epiphanes’ attack on the sanctuary and his suspension of the daily sacrifice while persecuting the believers. The prophecies also speak of the first and second advents of Christ.

SDA’s have admitted the principle that apocalyptic prophecy has more than one application. But admitted it only prior to Glacier View. SDA’s have always applied the little horn of Daniel 8 both to pagan Rome and the religious system of the papacy. They have always done the same with the prophecy of Matthew 24 and a multitude of others, including Joel 2:28-29.NT evidence conclusive
Conclusive evidence that the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel have more than one application is found in the New Testament. Elements of the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 are applied to successive crises.

Christ applies the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) to the future (Mat 24:15). He must have been well aware that 1 Maccabees had already applied the prophecy to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (see Jn 10:22).

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 the same prophecy is applied-not to A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem as in Mathew 24-but to the crises yet to come after Jerusalem’s fall (see the SDABC on this passage).

The Book of Revelation, with its references to the 1,260 days and the half-week of Daniel’s seventieth week, shows that the original prophecy of Daniel would also find a later fulfilment.Conditionality in prophecy
The apologetic series from the General Conference also denies that there is any element of conditionality in the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. This position is forth-rightly contradicted in the SDABC, where the introductory comments on Revelation include the following:

That a single prophetic passage may embrace more than one fulfilment is evident (see on Deut. 18:15). Some such prophecies have both an immediate and more remote fulfilment, and in addition contain principles that are generally applicable at all times. Furthermore, ‘it should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional’ (EGW Manuscript 4, 1883).

Thus certain predictions that might have met their complete fulfilment at an earlier stage of earth’s history have been deferred because of the failure of the church to measure up to its privileges and opportunities… (SDABC 7:726, 1957 edition).

See also SDABC 7:725 and 729; and SDABC 4:30-34.More examples of prophetic conditionality
Seven times the last book of Scripture has the promise, ‘I come quickly.’ In two instances the words are prefaced by ‘or else.’ This shows the conditional nature of these warnings of judgement.

Actually, all seven are conditional, just as surely as is Paul’s statement that some would be ‘alive and remain’ until the return of Christ (1 Th 4:17 KJV).

When our Lord quoted the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 and applied it to the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, he uttered these words, ‘If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace-but now it is hidden from your eyes’ (Lk 19:42).

In other words, their fate was not an inevitable one. Israel could have chosen peace instead of the devastations of war. Had Israel immediately accepted her Messiah, Daniel 9:26-27 would have had no need to be fulfilled. Our own Bible Commentary says this again and again (see SDABC 4:29-32; Prophets & Kings 712; The Desire of Ages 577).

Is the General Conference telling us that Israel could not have accepted her Messiah even had she wanted to? Were Christ’s invitations to Israel all sham and pretence? Is fate to override faith? Was this sin-weary world fatalistically destined to continue at least until 1844 before God’s people could hope for any rescue?

Why does the church now reject what it clearly taught (SDABC 4:29-32) prior to Glacier View?Elastic dates
We have seen that the Daniel and Revelation Committee’s series fails to tell the whole truth about the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. The series ignores the conditional nature of apocalyptic prophecy. Yet there is another failure.

The series fails to tell the church that exact dates for Daniel’s prophecies cannot realistically be given. Because the prophecies often point to successive levels of application (see Baldwin, p.68), the time elements had to be symbolically expressed. There had to be some elasticity…Jeremiah’s elastic example
For example, Daniel 9 begins with a reference to Jeremiah’s seventy years period (which was also elastic). The SDABC points out how difficult it is to be dogmatic about exactly pinpointing starting and finishing dates for Jeremiah’s prophetic period (SDABC 3:97 footnote). The era is both historical (though not with precision) and symbolic.

The author of Chronicles tells us that Jeremiah’s seventy years was a sabbatical period. Following the monarchy, after about 490 years of failure to obey the Sabbath law for people and land, Israel had all her Sabbaths at once (see 2 Chr 36:21). Similarly, in Daniel 9:24ff., Israel is warned of another period of probation, also approximately 490 years. At the end of this period judgement will fall again just as it did in 586 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. (There were other significant parallels with the temple’s burning again in A.D. 70) The only way to escape such a doom would be to enter into the monarchy (kingdom) of Messiah the Prince.

Again, the SDABC speaks on the nature of apocalyptic prophecy:

All this is portrayed in highly symbolic language, which may not always admit of exact interpretation… In some respects the figurative language of apocalyptic is similar to that of parable, and the same precautions are to be taken in interpreting both.

(SDABC 7:724).

Thus any endeavour to be dogmatic about 457 B.C. or A.D. 1844 is doomed to failure. Precise beginning and end points for the 490 years are impossible to fix, just as with the time period of the seventy years. Scholars have offered eleven different dates for the commencement, but not one of them is capable of demonstration.The gospel in Daniel
Sad indeed if an article in a Christian journal is merely polemical, including little of the Good News. Therefore, let us point out that Daniel 9:24-27 is rich in gospel elements.

First observe that the 490 years points to the eschatological joy of the Jubilee. The passage of seven times seven years preceded the great fiftieth year; the year of forgiveness and remission of debts; the year of release from slavery; the year of rest coupled with jubilation. These joyful notes run all through the beautiful symbolism of this prophetic passage with its week of seventies, its 7 x 7 x 10.

Our Lord used the language of the Jubilee early in His ministry, as recorded in Luke 4:16-21.

Seven is the sabbatical number, and seventy sevens points to the ultimate Sabbath when transgression is finished, sin is ended, iniquity is atoned for, everlasting righteousness ushered in, and all prophecy sealed by complete fulfilment. The glorious new era begins, opened by the special anointing of the Spirit upon all things holy.Daniel a type of Jesus
The great prophecy of Daniel 9 not only points to the vindication of the saints in Maccabean times and the recommencement of the temple services of atonement (both then and after the captivity). It also points especially to Christ’s kingdom inaugurated at the cross and consummated at the Second Advent.

In Daniel 9:4-19 we see Daniel in agonising prayer. This great prince of Judah, against whom no sin is recorded, takes the sins of the nation upon himself. (We are reminded of Christ in Gethsemane.) Daniel pleads for forgiveness from God.

At the time of the evening sacrifice he is visited and strengthened by the angel Gabriel. Six centuries later the greatest Prince of Judah, bearing the sins of the world, agonised in the garden, sweating great drops of blood. Jesus was visited and strengthened by the same angel.

Even the time of Daniel’s vision (Dan 9:21) is significant. This ‘time of the evening sacrifice’ points to the time of day of Christ’s great sacrifice at Golgotha. Now-God be praised!-we can say that the atonement for iniquity has taken place and everlasting righteousness brought in. Like the beams of the sun, all of it is for all who believe.A key to Daniel’s prophecy: first and last
Sheep are content to graze in the meadow. Giraffes seek the highest tips of the trees. For giraffes, there is a key that unlocks Daniel’s mighty prophetic passage.

Frequently in Scripture there is a meaningful parallel between the first and the last. This is true from the first mention of seven in the opening pages of Scripture to the last, where the number is used approximately fifty times as eternal rest is ushered in.

The first section of the 490 years-the seven weeks of years-covered the return from Babylon, the rebuilding of the city, and the re-establishment of the temple services (which were the outward parables of Christ’s death and priesthood).

All this pointed to the end of the seventy weeks: the kingdom of Christ both inaugurated and consummated, that is, both the first and second advents. (The two advents are never separated in the Old Testament.) With the first advent of Christ, the church-’the city of the living God’ (Heb 12:22)-was built. Those who heard the good news separated from all Babylonian systems of captivity and error, and the great atoning sacrifice was proclaimed. So, at the end of time, as the everlasting gospel is proclaimed, hearers are called out of Babylonian error (The chief error is that of trusting in human works to reach heaven, Genesis 11:4) This is the prelude to the setting up of the eternal city promised of old (Heb 11:10; Rev 21).

Thus, the grandest series of prophetic promises in Scripture, Daniel 9:24, found their symbolic enactment in the first section of the seventy weeks prophecy. That was the radiance of the golden sunset, before the long night of the sixty-two weeks with its dreadful persecution; and the consequent majesty of infinite glory when the Son of Righteousness dawned in the seventieth week, scattering all darkness forever.The cross blots out conceit
The towering events of Daniel 9:24-27 stand out bravely and clearly. God has made sure that they should not be obscured by human attempts to make concrete the chronological mists associated with those events. It is high time we surrendered the denominational conceit that has led us to use the calendar and 1844 to blot out the cross.

Shall we not, in view of God’s wondrous grace-from the chiefest of our church leaders to the least-known saint-resolve to be ‘honest to God’ in every word and deed? And that includes the words and deeds of religious discussion, disagreement, and controversy.

Then the great dyke which keeps out the mighty surges of God’s Pentecostal Spirit will be broken down. Inundated by the cleansing life-giving streams, we will be empowered to do what we have for so long ineffectually talked about – finish the work!

*(The Glacier View volume Daniel 8:14: the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgement is available from Desmond Ford Publications, c/- PO Box 6788, Tweed Heads South 2486 $14.95 plus PP&H.)