The Chiasms of Daniel chapters 8 & 9.

Part 7 in a series of articles on the Little Horn of Daniel 8, and the Leopard-like beast of Revelation 13.

Perhaps the most sublime, yet misunderstood verse in the Bible is 1 John  4: 8: `He that loves not, knows not God, for God is love.'  The manner by which we perceive the love, or character of God directly affects the manner by which we perceive others and the salvation which has already been wrought for us at Calvary. It also directly affects how we perceive the manner by which God relates to us, for man's salvation is directly traced to the love which the Father has for us, in giving His dear Son to us in human form for eternity. If we misapprehend the love which the Father has for us, we then build an entire doctrinal edifice which is founded upon a misconception of the character of God. Fortunately, the Bible has provided us with a divinely inspired blueprint which we can draw upon so that we might understand the awesome love which the Father and Son have for us, which  is so stupendous that:

` . . . "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what  God has prepared for those that love Him."But it was to us that God revealed these things to us by His Spirit. For His Spirit searches out and shows us God's deep secrets.' (1 Cor. 2: 9,10 NLT)

The Chiasms of Daniel 8 and 9

The writers of the Bible often used a literary device called chiastic structure to emphasise details of particular importance and that divinely inspired blueprint is found in the chiasms of Daniel chapter 8, and more specifically in the chiasm of the `Seventy Weeks' of Daniel, found in Daniel chapter 9. A chiasm is a mirror image of itself, and reflects an A, B, C  . . . . C, B, A pattern and may be found in individual verses, an entire book, or in differing books that have a similar theme, and are thus related by subject matter. It is based upon the Greek letter chi, which looks like a cross in the form of the letter X. 

The text which is found in the centre of the chiastic structure reveals the central truth of the chiasm. One chiasm which depicts this is the prophecy of the `Seventy Weeks' of Daniel - which is also the focal point of the entire gospel:

A     Decree -Jerusalem & temple rebuilt - 9: 25

         B      Messiah `cut off, but not for Himself' - 9: 26a

A       Decree - Jerusalem and temple destroyed - 9: 26b

In this passage, the focal point of the chiasm is verse 26a - `Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself'. In the case of a chiasm not having an unpaired verse at the centre of it, the two verses at the centre of the chiasm then reflect the central thought of the text, such as in Genesis 1:27 -

A     God created man

        B     in his own image

        B     in the image of God 

A      He created him

Thus the central thought of Genesis 1:27 is that `in His own image; the image of God' (man was created).

The following table reveals that the Book of Daniel is a double chiasm, with the first chiasm being Daniel chapters 2 to 7, and the second being the entire book of Daniel, where the second half of the Book of Daniel is a reverse mirror image of the first half of the same book. All type which is in bold lettering accentuates the focal point of each chiasm: 

Table 1.1 Chiastic Structure Revealing the Unity and Emphases of Daniel ¹

The chiastic structure of the Book of Daniel reveals that it is inspired of God, for no human mind could structure this prophetic book in this fashion. While the first half of it deals with the prophecy of the four world empires, using unclean beasts as symbolic of these empires, the second half of the Book of Daniel, beginning with Daniel chapter 8, reveals these same prophecies very much in a different setting, using animals depicted in the Sanctuary Service to indicate this. The focus of the chiasm of Daniel chapters 2 to 7 is very much about judgement, the central theme being that `God gives and rules in the kingdom of men' (Dan. 4:25):

"The chiastic structure of [Daniel] chapter [2 and] 7 puts the judgement right at the center . . . . And since chapter 7 is at the middle of the book of Daniel, if follows that the judgment is at the center of the whole work of Daniel. Biblical tradition remembers the prophet in connection with the divine judgment. The Book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14: 14-20), the only other book in the Old Testament that refers to Daniel, associates the prophet with Job and Noah, two central figures of the theme of the judgement of God, in a context of judgment (verses 13, 17-22). Likewise, in the New Testament, the only passage referring to Daniel deals with the great day of judgment (Matt. 24: 15-21, 28, 39). Finally, Daniel himself testifies to the importance of divine judgement in the very name he bears: `Daniel' means precisely `judgment of God.' " (Jacques B. Doukhan, `Secrets of Daniel' Hagerstown MD.: Review and Herald, 2000, p. 112.)

As there is no focal verse or chapter to be used as a counterpoint in the chiasm of Daniel chapters 7 and 8, then the central focus is on both chapters - thus indicating that while each chapter focuses upon the same central point (in this case, the operations, or phases of the `little horn' power which are described in both chapters), it is with a different emphasis on the focal point of these chapters.

One indication that Daniel chapter 1-7 deals primarily with the Hebrew people and how they respond to the oppression by the `continual'  tamid paganism of the surrounding heathen nations (as described in article number 2), is that the first seven chapters of Daniel are written in Aramaic (the language of Babylon), and unclean beasts are represented:

`The use of two languages is not a mark of disunity but is, . . . a common ancient practice employed as "an alternative means of communication . . . . to a wider audience. Therefore, Daniel's use of the Hebrew language is directed toward the nation of Judah, and his use of the Aramaic language is a thoughtful appeal to a larger audience in order to reveal God's universal plan culminating in His final kingdom.'  (`Identification of Darius the Mede', G. Law, 2010, p. 11.)

But as the second half of Daniel is written in Hebrew, and a ram and a goat are represented; which are clean beasts which were used in the Sanctuary Service - this then indicates how the professed people of God deal with apostasy within their own ranks.  For the `lifting up' of tamid paganism into the early church (Daniel 8: 11) indicates that a change has taken place, and the focus is now on God's gentile people who profess Christ, and their relationship to the tamid paganism they are oppressed with by the papacy:

The chiasm of Daniel 7 and 8 depicts a sharp delineation in the operations of this `little horn' power, for while the first seven chapters of Daniel are written in Aramaic and depict the `continual' tamid oppression of Israel by her neighbours, and reassures us with the central theme that come what may, ultimately God triumphs over sin; the second half of Daniel depicts the result of the `lifting up' of tamid paganism into apostolic Christianity (Daniel 8: 11), and the apostasy of the early church and subsequent persecution of God's people `for the truths sake'; but also reassures us that ultimately God triumphs over sin. This delineation is further emphasised in the original syntax of the phrase `little horn'; for in Daniel chapter 7 a literal translation of the Aramaic reads `another horn (a little one)', while the translation of the Hebrew in Daniel 8: 9 reads `a horn from littleness'. The syntax of the original languages indicates that the phrases  `a horn from littleness' and `another horn (a little one)' describes differing phases, or operations of the same `little horn' power.

One example of a chiasm being found in two different books is the chiasm of Leviticus 16: 5, where a ram and goat are first depicted, and the imagery of Daniel 8, where a goat and a ram are depicted; thus indicating that Leviticus 16 is intimately connected to the typical `Day of Atonement' imagery found in Daniel 8. This is further accentuated by the imagery of the animals themselves:

`In the reign of Archelaus of Macedon [412 - 399 B.C], there occurs, on the reverse of a coin of that king, the head of a goat, having only one horn . . . . the custom of representing the type and power of a country under the form of a horned animal is not peculiar to Macedonia. Persia was represented by a ram. Ammianus Marcellinus [a fourth century Roman historian] acquaints us, that the king of Persia, when at the head of his army, wore a ram's head made of gold, and set with precious stones, instead of a diadem. (Lib. xix. cap. 1.) The type of Persia, the ram, is observable on a very ancient coin, undoubtedly Persian . . . .' ' (`Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible', 1832, p. 618. Art. `Macedonia'.)

Alexander the Great also used the imagery of animals to represent his kingdom and that of Medo-Persia. He had a signet ring fashioned for him which depicts the overthrow of the joint kingdom of the Medes and the Persians and has a ram and a goat depicted on it. The ram signifies the joint empire of the Medes and Persians, while the goat whose horn, or power presides over Medo-Persia signifies the Greeks, who vanquished Medo-Persia; 

`The relation of these emblems to Macedon and Persia is strongly confirmed by the vision in the prophet Daniel, (chap. viii. 3-8), which, while it explains the specimens of antiquity before us, receives itself in return no inconsiderable share of illustration. The whole of this vision is afterwards explained by the angel Gabriel, verses 21 - 23. Nothing, certainly, is more directly applicable to overthrow the joint empire of the Medes and Persians by Alexander the Great, than are these verses in the Book of Daniel; nor at the same time can better authority be required for the true meaning of the single-horned goat, than may be derived from the same source. There is a gem engraved in the Florentine collection, which , as it confirms what has already been said, and has not been hitherto been understood, I think worthy of mention. It will be seen by this drawing I have made of this gem, that nothing more nor less is meant by the ram's head with two horns, and the goat's head with one, than the kingdoms of Persia and Macedon, represented under their appropriate symbols. From their circumstance, however, of these characteristic types being united, it is extremely probable that the gem was engraved after the conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great.' (`Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible', 1832, p. 618. Art. `Macedonia'.)

While the ram was depicted in the Sanctuary Service during the `daily' cultic services by male lambs that were sacrificed `morning and evening', thus providing `the continual' (ha Tamid) daily `burnt offering' (Daniel 8: 11,12,13, 11: 31, 12: 11); the Lord's goat and the scapegoat were only ever utilized in the sanctuary services on the Day of Atonement. In a very real sense, this `continual' burnt offering represented the burning of the flesh of slain lambs on the Brazen Alter of Sacrifice twice daily, for the fire on the Brazen Alter never went out, and the smoke of the burning of the `daily' ascended continually to heaven, and was a pleasant aroma unto the Lord; for this represented Christ's sacrifice at Calvary,  and his blood being continually (ha tamid) offered for us in the Holy Place as a covering for our sins. This indeed is represented by the `Agape' motif; and when the Sanctuary was desecrated by King Nebuchadnezzars  army in 597 B.C and the pagan gods of Babylon were substituted for Jehovah - then Israel became subjected to the rank paganism and oppression of Babylon. The rule of the self-exulting character of `Eros' had begun.

It is also quite possible that the imagery of the goat which is depicted in Daniel chapter 8 represents Azazel, the scapegoat, as King Cyrus of Persia (who represents the Ram)  was depicted by the prophet Isaiah two centuries before he lived as a faithful shepherd of God who released Israel from bondage, so that they could return to Jerusalem and rebuild the ruined temple: 

`When I say of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd," he will certainly do as I say. He will command, "Rebuild Jerusalem", he will say, "Restore the Temple." (Isaiah 44: 28 NLT.)

In this he was a type of the self-less love of Christ. Not so with Alexander the Great, and in particular Antiochus Epiphanes IV (nicknamed `Epimanes', or `madman', as a wordplay on Epiphanes); who are represented collectively by the goat. Antiochus continued in Alexander's policy of Hellenization by aggressively Hellenizing Jewry; for if the underlying principle of `the daily' is the continual (tamid) exultation of self (as presented in article number two of this series of articles), or Eros; then in a deeper sense Cyrus was a type of Christ by presenting to us a demonstration of the selflessness which is found in the agape of Christ, while Alexander, and in particular Antiochus represented Azazel, or Satan, the scapegoat, by presenting to us a demonstration of Eros, or the self-exultation of Satan.

Antiochus may also be regarded as the little power from which the Papacy derived her Platonic philosophies; for the more educated classes of Jewry did not really begin to accept Greek philosophical conceptions of the unity of God and the Hellenistic conception of the immortal soul until Antiochus attempted to Hellenize Jewry.  He reigned at about 175 B.C, during the same time in which a Jewish philosopher by the name of Aristobulus (who was well versed in Aristotle and was active at that time) supported the Jewish priests who were instrumental in implementing Antiochus' policy of Hellenization:

`These Pythagorean [Platonic] similarities or associations with Jewish customs and beliefs include belief in the immortality of the soul (it should be borne in mind that Aristobulus was active at the time of the Hasmonaean revolt and during the reigns of the Hasmonaean brothers, when belief in the resurrection of the dead was already known among the Jews in the Holy Land and in the Egyptian diaspora) . . . ' (`The image of the Jews in Greek Literature', B. Bar-Kochva, 2010, fn. pp. 198, 199.)

Aristobulus can also be clearly linked with Philo of Alexandria, who heavily influenced the formation of doctrine among those who embraced Hellenization in the early Church:

`[Aristobulus] . . . . is the first Jewish interpreter to use allegory to any major extent and forms a clear predecessor of Philo; he also seems to have been, like Philo, from Alexandria, suggesting there is an organic link with the giant of Jewish biblical interpretation.' (` A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Vol. 2: The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE) ', L. Grabbe,2008,  p. 93.)

Philo of Alexandria was a contemporary of Christ, and is believed to have known of Mark and Peter, the disciples of Christ. Philo influenced the setting up of the Catechetical School of Alexandria by Pantanaeus in about 150 A.D, and directly influenced the philosophies of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, who were two of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church - and are also regarded as two of the worst allegorizers in its history; for both had a predilection for Plato. From the pen of Origen we have the six-column Hexapla, and it is Origen's Hexapla which influenced Jerome's Latin Vulagate, as well as Westcott and Hort's Revised Version of the Bible in 1881. Origen believed that `God is Eros' - and later theologians such as Augustine synthesised `Eros' with `Agape' and called it `Caritas' - thus completing the `lifting up' of `tamid' paganism into the early Church.

The `lifting up' of Tamid paganism into the early Church can therefore be directly traced back to Antiochus; and it is for this reason that Daniel chapter 8 describes the operations of the Papacy in a vertical (or spiritual) dimension. For the strictly Platonic belief which emphasises the bifurcation of the material and hence evil body with the divine and hence immortal soul, (which was believed to be a dim reflection of the goodness, and in a metaphysical sense, the beauty of God), encompasses all that can be conceived of when the Greeks declared that `God is Eros'. For `Eros' is the platform upon which all of her doctrines are built; and is a direct consequence of the Hellenization of Jews such as Aristobulus and Philo of Alexandria - with the catalyst being Antiochus' policy of enforcing Greek styles of worship onto Jewry, under pain of death if one dissented. 

Clearly, it is from the `little power' of Antiochus and the resulting pedigree of Hellenized Jews such as Aristobulus and Philo of Alexandria that the `little horn' of the Papacy has derived her Hellenic modes of thought which focus upon metaphysical conceptions of the Godhead. She is therefore described in the original Aramaic of Daniel 8 as `a horn from littleness', for the enforced Hellenization of Jewry by the `little power' of Antiochus led to Jews not only assimilating facets of Greek culture that were compatible with Hebrew social mores, but the Greek philosophical conception that `God is Eros' as well. This would not have been possible without the influence which the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) already wielded, the translation of which had commenced some seventy years before the ascension of Antiochus to the throne. For a colony of Jews had resided in the environs of Alexandria, Egypt since the Diaspora in ancient Babylon some three to four centuries earlier and after eventually losing the usage of their native tongue, Alexandrian Jews subsequently desired a translation of the Scriptures into the Greek which they now spoke. In the process, the translation of Sheol into Hades ultimately led to a confusion between the distinctly Hebrew conception of the body and soul resting in the grave at death until the resurrection, with the Greek conception of the afterlife. Thus, the translation of the Hebrew word Sheol to the Greek word Hades ultimately led to Jews imbibing of Hellenic conceptions of the afterlife which compromised their faith, but did not really gain momentum until Antiochus provided the catalyst which would lead to a general acceptance of Platonic philosophy amongst educated Jews of the upper classes. It might also be added that the conventional Ecumenical view of Antiochus Epiphanes as the `little horn' of Daniel 8 is one of the most subtle prophetic subterfuges foisted upon Christianity; for while Antiochus is not the `little horn' of Daniel 8, he is  the `little power' from which the `little horn' has derived her philosophies. (This premise will be expanded upon in greater detail in a later article.)  

The imagery of the `nails of brass' (Daniel 7: 19) - which are depicted as belonging to the nondescript beast of Revelation 13: 2 and is described as `like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear'; is also representative of the `horn from littleness' of Daniel 8, for just as this beast is described as having  `the feet of a bear', so also is Christ described in Revelation 2: 18 as having feet which are like `fine brass'. But as the Medes and Persians were depicted in Daniel chapter 2 as having a chest of silver, and it is Greece which is described as having legs of brass, then again we find that this particular characteristic of the beast is Grecian, just as the body of the beast is described as `like unto a leopard' and is also Grecian in character. As  this non-descript beast stands against Christ Himself, with the `little horn' of Daniel 7 and 8 and the apostate `woman' of Revelation 17 depicted as arising from it, then this same power which is depicted in Revelation 13: 2 as `having the feet of a bear' must be a counterfeit of Christ Himself, for although it seems to have its feet firmly planted in the gospel and appears to be Christ-like in nature, it has the `mouth of a lion' and `the eyes of a man', and speaks `great words against the Most High ( Rev. 13: 2, Dan. 7: 8,25). 

Just as the apostle Paul warned that the `man of sin' would arise in the Church itself, and `oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that as God he sits in the temple of God, showing that he is God (2 Thess. 2: 3) - so also did Martin Luther attribute this text to the Papacy during the Reformation. Moreover, the main component of the character of this counterfeit Christ is Grecian, as its body is `like a leopard', and its feet of brass are like the feet of a bear. There is only one power on earth that can be identified by all of these characteristics and `sits' upon a platform of belief that is also Grecian in character and that is the Papacy, for the basis of Catholic belief is firmly built upon the conception that `God is Caritas' -  the Catholic formula for the love of God is built upon a synthesis of Greek platonic philosophy (the idea that God is `Eros') with the apostolic description of the character of God - that `God is Agape'. But as I have noted earlier, this synthesis is impossible - for when `Agape' is adulterated with `Eros', it ceases to be `Agape' and reverts back to `Eros'. Thus the entire argument of `Eros' and `Agape' focussess upon  the nature of God:

`The long-standing interpretative paradigm . . . of modern theology, has been refined in twentieth century scholarship by attempts to define more precisely the differences between Hellenic modes of thought, on the one hand, and Hebraic (and therefore `authentically Christian') modes on the other. The consequence has been to liberate the gospel message from Hellenic `distortions'. Thus . . . . Greek theology concerned with abstract principles, Hebrew theology with a living person. . . . In terms of such discriminations, attempts are made to formulate systems of `Biblical' theology in opposition to the `metaphysical' theology of the Fathers, and patristic doctrine comes to be regarded as an illicit mixture of theology (conceived of in late medieval fashion as sola fide) and philosophy (sola ratione).

            A prime example of such anti-Hellenic, or anti-Platonic criticism of Augustine is Anders Nygren's vastly influential work on Eros und Agape . . . . in which Augustine's `caritas synthesis, is represented as an illegitimate amalgam of Platonic and Christian concepts, destined to distort western Christian thought and piety for a thousand years. . . . But in as much as according to Nygren, the human aspiration of eros and the divine gift of agape stand in mutual contradiction. Augustine's synthesis is impossible . . . . the argument [which Nygren provides upon the nature of eros when juxtaposed with agape] leads . . . . beyond the issue of Hellenism to a more universal theological question . . . . it is really an argument about the relation of nature to grace, and Augustine's `synthesis' expresses his conviction that grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it. Eros and Agape are not simply conflated in caritas: eros is elevated and transfigured by grace, not destroyed, but redeemed. `Amor tuus migret': `Your love migrates', says Augustine, and finds its focus in God. `Venit Christus mutare amorem': Christ came to transform love. For Augustine, it is a matter of dilectio ordinata: love re-ordered by grace.' (`Augustine and His Critics', R. Dodaro, G. Lawless, 2002, pp. 38, 39.)

Thus, while Daniel chapter 8 is also primarily about judgment -  when combined with Daniel chapter 9, is also about salvation from sin; for the chiasm of the `Seventy Weeks' of Daniel was given because Daniel could not initially understand the vision found in chapter 8 (Dan. 8: 27), and the chiasm of the `Seventy Weeks' of Daniel was given as an explanation of this (Dan. 9: 20-23). This then clearly points to Daniel 9: 26a as being the focal point of the entire Book of Daniel, and the gospel itself, for the following table demonstrates that this verse reads `Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself'. As the phrase `cut off' means being cut off from the presence of God forever, then the focus of the gospel is that in being `cut off but not for Himself', Christ dared to die the `second death' for His people:

Table 1:2 - The chiastic structure of the `Seventy Weeks' of Daniel

In the Most Holy Place of the Sanctuary, we find that the Most Holy object was the Ark of the Covenant, in which was placed the Ten Commandments, Aaron's rod that budded, and the golden pot of manna. The Ark was covered by the mercy seat, upon which shed blood was sprinkled on the Day of Atonement. Situated above the mercy seat, were two Cherubim whose two wingtips touched, as they gazed down in awe at the shed blood on the mercy seat - indicating that they wer the `keepers', or protecters of the Law. The Shekinah Presence, or Spirit of the Lord dwelt slightly above and in between the Cherubim and signified the very real Presence of Christ dwelling with His people, by His Holy Spirit: 

`Moreover, brethren, I would not that all of you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.' (1 Cor. 20: 4).

Christ dwelt with His people in the earthly Sanctuary, which testified of the Sanctuary in Heaven, `which the Lord pitched, and not man' (Heb. 8:2). He could not dwell in His people until  His blood was shed at Calvary; for after He had risen and appeared to the disciples, we see him instructing Thomas to feel the nail-prints in His hands, for He was (and is) flesh and blood. He instructed the disciples that as He must go away and minister for their sins as as High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary, then therefore He could not be with them personally, but would instead send another Comforter - His own Holy Spirit, who would dwell in them: 

`I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.' (John 14: 18) 

The ministration of Christ in us by His Holy Spirit has been obscured by the succession of Popes and Priests who profess to provide forgiveness for sins, and are the result which testfy of the `lifting up' of the continual `tamid' paganism into the early Christian Church. In this way the principal of `Eros' - the exulatation of self - is presented to fallen man, for fallen man exalts `self' when he professes to do the work of God by professing to forgive sin. This principle of the exultation of `self' underlay all pagan religions (for all pagan religions are based upon the fear of being lost), and was `lifted up' straight into the early Church (Dan. 8: 11), which then became the Papacy. It is truly the `abomination that makes desolate'; for it destroys any conception of the Lamb of God ministering His shed blood for us in the Holy Places of the Sanctuary in heaven. At the same time it presents to us an entire doctrinal edifice which is based upon the principle of `Eros', with the Trinity as the foundation of this belief and the doctrine of the natuarl immortality of the soul supporting this, for not only does the the Trinity present us with a counterfeit `comforter' which cannot be Christ - but it also presents us with a plethora of supporting doctrines which tend to modalism, and the platonic idea that God cannot come all the way down from heaven to give us `help' where we need it most - which is `in the likeness of sinful flesh, and condemned sin in the flesh' (Romans 8: 3). For the `Agape' of Christ is that it behoved Him (compelled Him) to come all the way down from the lofty heights of heaven, and meet fallen man where he is,  for there was no other way by which He might save His people from their sins:

`Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him [was essential for Him] to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help them that are tempted.' (Hebrews 2: 14-18)

This entire process misrepresents His character by presenting Him to us as a God of fear (`Eros), instead of a God of `Agape' love (`Agape'). 

In a deeper sense the chiasms of the Book of Daniel present to us a time and motion study in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, for the focus of the chiasms of Daniel  - and in particular that of Daniel 9:26 - `Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself', we see the mind of `Agape', or selflessnes demonstrated by Christ daring to die the `second death' for us at Calvary, while the mind of selfishness (or `Eros') - which is the mind of Satan - is presented to us by the `lifiting up' of `tamid' paganism into the early Christian Church and thus obscuring the `Agape' of Christ from us. Daniel 8: 11 reveals to us that by his own actions, the devil demonstrates to us who he really is! 

When Daniel cried out to the Lord `O our God, hear the prayer of your servant, and his supplications, and cause your face to shine upon your sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake' (Dan. 9: 17), he was in fact pleading with the Lord for His Shekinah Presence to once again dwell with His people in the Sanctuary, `for the Lord's sake'. For he was astonished when he had formerly been instructed that `Unto 2,300 days and the and the Sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful place' (Daniel 8: 14; literal translation).   

Legend has it that shortly before King Nebuchadnezzar of  Babylon deposed King  Johaikim of Judah and carried him off in chains into captivity in 597 B.C; the Shekinah Presence of the Lord departed from the temple, and the prophet `Jeremiah came and found  a cave, and he brought the tent and the ark and the alter of incense, and he sealed up the entrance' (2 Maccabees 2: 5).  

The Shekinah Presence of Christ had fled the Sanctuary, and the continual `tamid' burnt offering in the Brazen Alter of Sacrifice, which represented Christ's blood continually applied to us as a `burnt offering' was no more. Christ no longer dwelt with His people in the Sanctuary, and as `tamid' paganism became `lifted up' into the early Church, so also did the knowledge of Christ dwelling in His people by His Holy Spirit, daring to die the `second death' and yet raised again by the same Spirit of the Father three days later also become obscured. Thus the Sanctuary could not be restored to its rightful place until 1844, for it was not until this time that vital doctrinal truths such as the seventh-day Sabbath and doctrine of the conditional immortality of the soul were recovered - thus paving the way for a deeper understanding of the ministration of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary. For the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul prevents the faithful from understanding the `Agape' love which the Father and Son have for us, by giving to us forever the Son, and the seventh-day Sabbath is a testimony of the identity of our Creator, who gives us rest!  

In `1844' we see a recovery of doctrine which paved the way for a recovery of the knowledge that `Agape' represents the true character of God - the beginning of this which was seen by that `most precious message' which was given to us by Ellen White, and Elders Jones and Waggoner at Minneaplois in 1888. By Ellen Whites own testimony, this was `the beginning of the latter rain'. If anything, these series of articles demonstrates why - that  a knowledge of the true character of God had been lost to us until 1844, at which we could finally begin to understand precisely who God is, and how much the Father and Son love us! `1888' was a partial recovery of these truths. 

One of the most precious revelations of the character of God is that Christ desires to dwell in us by His Holy Spirit, and perfect us by His `Agape' love which He promises to give us, if we only submit our will to His, and simply behold him, for `by beholding ye are changed'. This is truly a faith `which works by `Agape' (Gal. 5:6), and brings about the fruits of love, peace and joy and all other things which are in perfect conformity to the Law, for `against such there is no law' (Gal. 5: 23). As Christ cannot be with us personally in flesh and blood, for He is now ministering to us in the Most Holy Place for our sins, He instead sends His own Spirit to us, to dwell in us, guide us and lead us to the perfect paths of righteousness. Thus, the Sanctuary can only truly be understood in a non-Trinitarian sense, for when Christ finishes his mediation for our sins, leaves the presence of the Father to return to us, and we live in the sight of our Heavenly Father without an intecessor for our sins, we can live in boldness in the day of judgment, for the golden censor has already been cast down and intercession for sin has already ceased. Which is why the pronouncement is made in Revelation 22: 11:

`He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.'

And if we were to sin after probation has closed, then Christ still lives in us by His Holy Spirit, prompting us not to sin! These are truths which Lucifer has designed to keep from the children of God, by presenting himself as a counterfeit (Trinitarian) `holy' spirit in the first apartment of the Sanctuary, which Christ has already vacated. Thus we can live in confidence in the day of judgment, for `as He is, so are we in this world' (1 John 4: 17): 

`And as we live in God, our love grows more perfect. So we will not be afraid on the day of judgment, but we can face him with confidence because we live like Jesus here in this world. Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love. We love God, because he first loved us.' (1 John 4: 17-18 NLT)

Notes:  

<sup>1  `</sup>This chiastic outline for the Book of Daniel is built on Shea's original idea which can be found in William H. Shea, "The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27", in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, ed. by Frank Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, v. 3. (Washington, D.C: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 1986), 113.' - fn. `Identification of Darius the Mede', G. Law, p. 12.