time, may have a later or recurring, or consummated fulfillment. The ultimate fulfillment is the most comprehensive in scope, though details of the original forecast may be limited to the first fulfillment" (p. 485).

      Details are limited to the first fulfillment, and the first fulfillment is said to have occurred by the end of the first century (see p. 295). The last fulfillment then is the consummated one. In the words of Dr. Ford, "We are saying that Antiochus did fulfill the little horn prophecy, but he did not fill it full. . . . A.D. 70 witnessed the first fulfillment of the prophecy of Matthew 24, but not its consummation." "As apocalyptic the prophecies of this book (book of Daniel) are not the snapshot variety of the other prophets, but offer a continuum with its climax in the last crisis and the kingdom of God" (Glacier View manuscript, pp. 392, 391, italics Dr. Ford's).
      What is being said here is that the climax or consummation occurs at the Second Advent and the setting up of the kingdom. If this is true of Daniel's prophecies and those of Matthew 24, then it should be equally true for Daniel 8:14; the climax, therefore, must occur at the setting up of the kingdom in the last days, and not in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. If it is true that "the ultimate fulfillment is the most comprehensive in scope, then certainly the judgment described in Daniel 7 and 8:14 could not find its consummation within the narrow scope of the Maccabean revolt of the second century B.C. Nor could it find its fulfillment in the time of Christ when judgment was pronounced upon the Jewish nation for their sin of rejecting Christ as Saviour. It must find its ultimate fulfillment in an event of cosmic scope-the judgment preceding the Second Advent of Christ. Ford denies this, and in denying this he sides with the preterist who wishes to keep the consummation or ultimate fulfillment as close as possible to the time when the prophecy was originally given.
      The following observations on the apotelesmatic principle add extra weight to the suggestion that Dr. Ford is basically a preterist at heart:
      a. The apotelesmatic principle has no Scriptural support. Dr. Ford does not offer any rationale as to how this "principle" can be derived from Scripture; he just defines it, and then uses it.
      b. The apotelesmatic principle offers no guidelines as to determining primary fulfillment from secondary. Dr. Ford states that Joel 2:28-32 can be applied apotelesmatically. It is true that Seventh-day Adventists have made two applications of Joel-first, to the former rain, and second, to the latter rain, but we sometimes forget that the first is merely a partial fulfillment, and that the details of the prophecy do not all apply to Pentecost. For example the prophecy links the turning of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood with the outpouring of God's Spirit. No one has suggested that these natural phenomena occurred seven weeks after the resurrection. If Joel 2 were indeed interpreted apotelesmatically, then one would have to say that it was first fulfilled by events in the time of Joel in a partial sense, and then was to have a "recurring or consummated fulfillment" just after the ascension and another just prior to the second advent. With Dr. Ford there should be three fulfillments then for Joel.
      c. The apotelesmatic principle does not give any clue as to when a prophecy may have just one fulfillment, a dual fulfillment, or multiple fulfillments. This is determined arbitrarily and subjectively. It offers no internal or external controls. If one scholar offers seven interpretations for a particular prophecy, and another seventy times seven, who is to say which one has gone too far and which one has stopped short of good exegesis?
      d. The apotelesmatic principle provides no guidelines for determining when the details are applicable and when they are not. Dr. Ford is consistent in applying the details of Daniel's prophecies to their first fulfillment, but who is to say that a later fulfillment cannot have the details incorporated? Who is to say that the chronological details of the "little horn" cannot apply to the period from 538 to 1798, and those of Daniel 8:14 cannot find their fulfillment in the date 1844? If the apotelesmatic principle were true to its basic definition, then it could allow for application of details to 18th and 19th century events.
      e. The apotelesmatic principle fails to harmonize the preterist, futurist and historicist schools, because they are mutually exclusive. No commentator to date has achieved the herculean task of harmonizing all the basic views of the three main schools of prophetic interpretation, and Dr. Ford merely selects a few isolated aspects of each arbitrarily and shows how they can be and will be fulfilled in certain historical events. Any scholar can find "truth" in all three viewpoints, otherwise if one or two of them were totally "false," then there would be no scholars seriously advocating them.
      f. The apotelesmatic principle is unworkable with most Old Testament prophecies. If the principle is applied to one Messianic passage, namely Daniel 9:24-27, then for the sake of consistency it must be applied to all. How can one have a "recurring fulfillment" of Micah 5:2? Is there going to be another incarnation, and is Bethlehem again to have significance? Are the events predicted in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 to be repeated? Is there going to be another Messianic figure who will vicariously suffer for the sins of his people? As far as I am aware of and as far as I know what scholars are saying, there is just one fulfillment for these Messianic passages. Why should not Daniel 9 also have just one fulfillment?
      g. The apotelesmatic principle overlooks the fact that the book of Daniel was a sealed book. According to Daniel 12:4, 9 the words of the book of Daniel were to be sealed "until the time of the end." The time of the end did not begin before the first century or the first advent of Christ (Acts 2:17; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 1 John 2:18; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 Cor 10:11). The preterist view teaches that prophecies have immediate fulfillment at the time they were first given or in the near future. Ford states that the schools of thought are right in what they affirm, so he likewise agrees that prophecy has immediate or nearly immediate fulfillment. The difficulty is that the prophecies of Daniel could not have been fulfilled or understood by Jews living in either the 6th century B.C. or 2nd century B.C. because the "time of the end" had not yet arrived!
      h. The apotelesmatic principle fails to differentiate between fulfillment and application. Fulfillment, according to its original meaning in the Greek, has the idea of bringing to fruition, to completion, or to a climax an event that has been foretold in advance. After its completion, there can be no later fulfillment. Application is the taking of a Bible prophecy and making it relevant to certain situations, which do not exhaust its full meaning. With application there can be later events which meet the prophecy's specifications. An example of this distinction is Matthew 2:15-the passage dealing with the Christ child's sojourn in Egypt: "This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.'" Here is a direct quote from Hosea 11:1, but the problem is that Hosea is referring to the Exodus of Israel from Egypt and is not a prophecy of the future. Just as Matthew here is making application, not defining fulfillment, he does also in Matthew 24:15, where he speaks of the "desolating sacrilege" entering the Temple, a reference to Daniel 8;13. The fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 to the Roman armies was not a fulfillment of Daniel 8:13, 14, no more than is Matthew 2:15 a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. We are dealing with application here, and there can be hundreds of applications of a given Scriptural passage to various settings. There cannot be hundreds of fulfillments, however. Application, then, is more of a homiletical tool. For example, Ford's interpretation of Daniel 8:14:

      It applies also to every revival of true religion where the elements of the kingdom of God . . . are proclaimed afresh, as at 1844. (P. 356, italics Dr. Ford's)

      This is application, not fulfillment, otherwise we would have to say that the preaching of Paul, Wycliffe, Jerome, Luther and Wesley are a fulfillment of Daniel 8:14! The apotelesmatic principle is a misnomer; it should be called the "multiple-application principle," rather than the "multiple-fulfillment principle."
       i. The apotelesmatic principle may work in principle, but it does not work in practice. It is summarized in the following words: "All are right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny" (Glacier View manuscript, p. 505). The fact is that some systems of interpretation are more right than others, and the interpreter cannot possibly give equal weight and emphasis to each school; there will always be favorites. So in actuality there is no such thing as a true apotelesmaticist. Every interpreter will either be basically a historicist, a futurist, a preterist, or an idealist, who accepts some of the views of the other schools, and who wears some of the trimmings of the other view points.
      Because of these inconsistencies and internal difficulties in the apotelesmatic principle, it is suggested here that the apotelesmatic principle is merely a smoke-screen to introduce whatever novel views an interpreter wishes to introduce. Desmond Ford wishes to introduce the preterist views on Antiochus Epiphanes as found in the book of Daniel, but at the same time he creates more problems than he solves. For example, he links Daniel 8 and 9 very closely (as Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally done), and goes one step further by suggesting that Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27 are discussing identical events (which Adventists generally have not done). In doing this, he makes Daniel 8:14 apply to events during the Maccabean revolt around 165 B.C. as well as to events surrounding the cross. If the two passages are identical in their subject matter and over-all content, then to be consistent one would likewise have to apply Daniel 9:24-27 to events during the Maccabean revolt. This is what the short-range preterists do, but what Dr. Ford refuses to do. He does not give the apotelesmatic principle a chance when it comes to Daniel 9:24-27, which is a purely arbitrary decision on his part.
      There is one even greater inconsistency on his part when it comes to the correlation of Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27. He correctly links both passages with the Day of Atonement of Leviticus 16 (Glacier View manuscript, p. 397), and points out that the five key terms of 9:24-transgression, sin, iniquity, atonement, and the Most Holy Place-all occur in Leviticus 16. The question here arises, When was the antitypical Day of Atonement fulfilled? By linking 8:14 tightly with 9:24-27 and with the Day of Atonement, does Dr. Ford wish to have the fulfillment of the antitypical Day of Atonement occur nearly two centuries before the cross? It is impossible that the Jewish feasts and ceremonies could have met their anti-typical fulfillment before the moment when the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom (Matt 27:51). So now Dr. Ford will have to withdraw his view that Daniel 8:14 met its first fulfillment in 165 B.C., or else disavow any connection of 8:14 and 9:24-27 with the Day of Atonement. This is just one example of the types of problems encountered by the application of the apotelesmatic principle. It sounds great in theory, but it falls apart in application.
      The question then may be asked, Are you saying that both Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27 were fulfilled at the cross? In response to this question I would like to suggest that the sacrificial aspects of the Day of Atonement as well as all the other feasts were fulfilled at the moment when Christ died. No Seventh-day Adventist would teach that the sacrificial aspects of the antitypical Day of Atonement were not fully fulfilled until 1844! The question as to when Christ began his antitypical work in the Most Holy Place is dealt with in Appendix A.
      Another question can be legitimately raised, Is the preterist position biblical or unbiblical? Dr. Ford suggests that all the major schools are true in what they affirm, and false in what they deny, but nowhere does he attempt to justify the validity of the preterist position. It seems to have been assumed. The fact is that preterism cannot be supported from the internal evidence of Scripture. Revelation was given as a key to unlock the sealed book of Daniel. A careful comparison of the major themes in the books of Daniel and Revelation turns up the surprising fact that preterist interpretation of Daniel is not supported by Revelation. Many of the events described in visions in the book of Daniel are said to be yet in the future from the standpoint of Revelation. The opening words indicate with certitude that the book of Revelation is a description of events that "must soon take place," that is, events beginning in the year 96 A.D. and stretching on to the second advent and the establishment of God's eternal kingdom. Revelation does not focus on the past, but on the immediate and long-range future beginning in 96 A.D. The only part of Revelation that deals with events prior to 96 A.D. is chapter 12, which describes the casting out of Satan from heaven and the birth of Christ to serve as a backdrop for the 1260-years of warfare between the dragon and the woman. This being the case then everything from the book of Revelation must find its fulfillment subsequent to A.D. 96.
      Appendix B indicates the parallels between the two books, and immediately it becomes clear that the portions of the books of Daniel which re-appear in Revelation were yet for the future at the time that John wrote the book, thus they could not have been interpreted according to the preterist view, but only according to historicism or futurism. For example, the great image of Daniel and its four respective metals do not appear as symbolisms in Revelation, while the stone that dashes the image to powder has its contrast in the millstone that is cast into the sea (Dan 2:34, 35 cf., Rev 18:21). It is significant that the first three beasts of the Daniel 7 vision-the lion, the bear and the leopard-do not appear anywhere as distinct animals in Revelation, while the fourth beast-the dragon-does appear in various symbolic forms. This is simply due to the fact that the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece were already in the past at the time Revelation was written. Likewise, neither the ram, nor the he-goat of Daniel 8 re-appear in Revelation, because the empires of Medo-Persia and Greece had met their demise long before the end of the first century. It is highly significant that the description in detail of the little horn's activities and length of rule are found in both apocalyptic books (Dan 7:8, 19-25; 8:9-14; 11:29-35; Rev 12:13-16; 13:1-10; chaps 17 and 18). If Revelation is a book of events that were shortly to come to pass, then the fulfillment of the little horn prophecy could not have been prior to A.D. 96! The inspired interpretation of Daniel's prophecies by the apostle John provides the death-knell of preterism.
      One final question that should be dealt with is the following, Does Scripture teach that all men are judged individually at the time they accept or reject Christ, or is there pictured a special time in which the cases of the righteous are all examined as a group? To phrase it another way, Is there any investigative, preadvent judgment which deals with the records of the righteous? Again, the key to answer this is to compare the two most complete pictures of judgment scenes found in Scripture-Dan 7:9-12, 26, and Rev 20:11-15. The parallels between the two accounts are striking: a) both accounts mention a throne or thrones used for judgment; b) both accounts mention a supreme Being who sits on the throne; c) both describe those being judged as individuals or powers on earth; d) both mention record books being used; e) both mention fire as the agency for providing punishment for those who fail to pass the divine standard. However, there is one basic difference between the two accounts: the judgment pictured in Daniel is only partial, because the lives of the beasts are prolonged for "a season and a time" (7:12), while the judgment in Revelation is final, because at the end even death itself is cast into "the lake of fire" (20:14). Here are two different but parallel judgments.
      The setting given for the judgment in Revelation provides the key in determining whether it is the righteous or the wicked or both that are being judged. Revelation 20:4 describes the judgment as being committed to the saints who have a thousand years to complete it![19] Who is being judged then? It could not be the saints, because they are the ones doing the judging. It must be the wicked, those who did not have a part in the first resurrection.
      The point is that there are two resurrections according to Revelation, each taking place at either end of the millennium. If there are two resurrections, why are there not two judgments? Revelation 20 describes only the judgment of the wicked, which takes place before the resurrection of the wicked (the second resurrection). If the judgment of the wicked precedes the second resurrection, then by analogy there must be a judgment of the righteous to precede the first resurrection, the resurrection of the righteous. Where can such a judgment be found? The answer is simple: Daniel 7:9-12. According to the inspired interpretative key that unlocks the book of Daniel, the judgment of Daniel 7 must be that of the righteous which precedes the resurrection of the righteous, and thus would be aa preadvent judgment (see 1 Thess 4:16, 17). However, the immediate context of Daniel 7 suggests that it is the "little horn" that is being judged. There is no contradiction here because the "little horn" includes those who profess to honor and serve Christ, some of whom are righteous in heart and most of whom are apostate Christians.
      Here again Revelation becomes the key to solving an apparent contradiction. The only ones in the Revelation 20 judgment who are being rewarded are those being cast into the lake of fire-the wicked, because the righteous have already received their rewards. In contrast, those in Daniel who are being rewarded at the close of the judgment are both righteous and wicked, and these two groups are described in 7:26, 27. The judgment on the wicked, that is the "little horn," is only a partial judgment, for its "dominion shall be taken away" just as the dominion of the other beasts will be taken away (verse 12). Neither the beasts nor the little horn are to be burned with fire until at the close of the millennium.
      The entire focus on the Daniel 7 judgment is the ultimate rewarding of the saints, not the ultimate destruction of the little horn. The climax is reached in verse 27 when the saints are rewarded with an "everlasting kingdom," which provides an exact parallel to the climax of the dream in Daniel 2. Since the ultimate focus of Daniel 7 is upon the saints, not upon the wicked, we can safely conclude that the focus of the judgment in verses 9-12 is likewise upon the saints. This conclusion is confirmed by Scripture which gives ample supportive evidence that the saints as well as the wicked must appear in judgment before God (see Appendix C). The judgment of Daniel 7 could not be a judgment against Antiochus Epiphanes, because this vainglorious king who styled himself THEOS EPIPHANES (the manifestation of God), never was a professed follower of God or a believer in Scriptural truths. So again to use the prophetic key of Revelation, if the focus of the judgment in Revelation 20 is the rewarding of the wicked, then that judgment must deal solely with the wicked who had not received their rewards yet. And if the focus of the judgment in Daniel 7 is upon the righteous, then that judgment must likewise deal with the cases of the righteous who are to be rewarded immediately after the judgment at the second coming (Rev 22:12).
      To conclude this analysis, I wish to point out that the purpose here has not been to critique points A through P of Dr. Ford's positions. Many of these have already been dealt with in the October 1980 issue of Ministry and in some of the Glacier View documents. First of all, we have attempted to summarize in logical fashion the development of Dr. Ford's thinking on the subject of the investigative judgment as it relates to the sanctuary and Daniel 8:14. Second, we have pointed out that Dr. Ford is a preterist basically, who wears the hat of a historicist and the cloak of a futurist. No apotelemasticist can give equal weight to all schools of interpretation, and every interpreter has his favorites. Dr. Ford's favorite is preterism. Third, we have pointed out that preterism is anathema to adventism. A strict preterist holds no hope for a future literal and visible return of Christ to this earth. In defense of Dr. Ford, let it be said that he is not a strict preterist. However, a person who travels down the road of preterism will ultimately discover that that road leads to a denial of the second advent. (God forbid that this should ever be the case with Dr. Ford.) Fourth, we have suggested that Dr. Ford has used preterism as the most readily available and easily used tool in denying the historic teaching of Seventh-day Adventism-that of the investigative judgment.[20]

Appendix A
The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Book of Revelation

      The two books of the Bible dealing primarily with last-day events are Daniel and Revelation. Revelation we believe is the key to unlock the meaning of the sealed or locked book of Daniel (Dan 12:4, 9; Rev 1:1, 2; 5:1-5). Therefore, whatever light is shed upon the subject of the heavenly sanctuary in Revelation is also light shed upon the book of Daniel and specifically upon Daniel 8:14.
      The key question which we must ask of the book of Revelation is this: Is Christ portrayed in the visions of John as ministering in the Holy Place or in the Most Holy Place at the time of the writing of the book (A D 96)? In other words, does John picture Christ as entering his antitypical Day of Atonement ministry at the cross or at a later time? To answer this extremely crucial question, we must analyze each allusion to the heavenly sanctuary in the 22 chapters of Revelation. (see chart below).
 

      The whole theme of the book of Revelation is Christ (1:1), and the visions described in it are primarily those of Christ and his salvatory activity on behalf of man. Whenever we find specific fulfillment of any vision within the historical framework of events here on earth, then we also will find a corresponding activity of Christ in heaven. The two are closely inter-related. This leads us to the following conclusions:
      1. Before the messages were to go out to the seven churches beginning in A D 96, Christ is pictured as ministering in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary (1:12, 13, 20). The fact is that chapter 1 is the prelude to chapter 2 because the descriptions of Christ in chapters 2 and 3 (note especially 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14) are all echoed from the description of Christ in chapter 1.
      2. The first 5 seals and the first 6 trumpets all occur while Christ is ministering in the Holy Place (not the Most Holy Place) of the heavenly sanctuary. The souls under the altar of incense (6:9) had not been vindicated yet during the time of the 5th seal. Vindication takes place during the antitypical Day of Atonement. The first six trumpets are blown while Christ is ministering on behalf of his people in the holy place (8:3, 4). The use of incense here cannot refer to the use of incense on the Day of Atonement, as Lev 16:12 might suggest, because the vision of Rev 8:2-5 provides the backdrop for the blowing of the seven trumpets. The blowing of trumpets is reminiscent of the Jewish feast of trumpets, which occurred 10 days before the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:24, 27), and thus must be distinguished from the Day of Atonement.
      3. The only reference to an article of furniture found in the Most Holy Place of the earthly tabernacle is Rev 11:19, which portrays the ark of the 10 commandments in the heavenly sanctuary. This is highly significant. Here is the only passage in Revelation where we might obtain a clear-cut reference to Christ's high priestly ministry in the Most Holy Place in the prophetic book. The timing is the critical key to interpretation-the time of the 7th trumpet. The preterist view is bankrupt in being able to offer a specific, tangible fulfillment for the 7th trumpet in the time of John, in contrast with the historicist view, which applies this trumpet to "the time of the end." If we apply the 6th trumpet to the rise of the Ottomon or Moslem Turks, and if we convert "the day, the month, and the year" into prophetic time based on the year-day principle, then we can conclude that the 6th trumpet begins blowing in 1453 A.D. at the fall of Constantinople, the capital of the eastern Roman empire, just as the 4th trumpet sounded at the fall of Rome, the capital of the western empire. Converted into prophetic time, the 391 days (=391 years) takes us down to the year 1844. The seventh trumpet begins blowing in 1844-the very time that the Most Holy Place in the sanctuary is opened to expose to view the ark (11:19) and the very time for the beginning of the judgment (11:18). Thus, according to Revelation the antitypical Day of Atonement begins in 1844!
      4. The "great white throne" of Rev 20:11 is the throne of judgment, and this throne is located in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, according to the Psalms (11:4; 99:1; 103:19), Isaiah (6:1), Ezekiel (1:26), Daniel (7:9), Hebrews (numerous references), and Revelation (7:15). Judgment is connected with the establishment of this throne, which is connected with the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. Nowhere does John picture the heavenly judgment as occurring in his day.
      5. It is interesting that nowhere is the altar of burnt offering or the laver mentioned or even alluded to in the book of Revelation. The reason is simply that this prophetic book is a portrayal of future events (1:1), and one would not expect it to deal with the cross in detail. The furniture and ceremonies of the courtyard are absent from this prophetic book, and the man with the measuring rod is instructed to omit the measurements of the courtyard (11:2). The focus is on the temple itself.
      In summary, we can assert that Christ does not enter the work of the anti-typical Day of Atonement until the 7th trumpet blows (Rev 11:15-19), and that Christ is pictured as the high priest in the holy place during the first 6 trumpets, according to Rev 8:3, 4, and at the beginning of the messages to the 7 churches, according to Rev 1:12, 13, 20.

Appendix B
Comparison of Daniel and Revelation

      The following table compares the prophetic portions of the book of Daniel with the book of Revelation. The whole purpose is to discover what elements and symbolisms of Daniel re-appear in Revelation, and then to relate these comparisons to the ultimate question, Is preterism sustained as a biblical principle of interpretation? The evaluation hinges around the opening passage in Revelation: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place" (1:1, italics supplied). Revelation is a book of the future, not of the past, according to its prologue. If that be the case, then the elements in the book of Daniel which are also dealt with in Revelation are prophecies of the future from the standpoint of 96 A D. They cannot be sustained by a preterist system of interpretation.

      The question can be rightly asked, Could not there be allowance made for multiple fulfillments; thus some of the prophecies fulfilled in Daniel's time or shortly thereafter could also be prophecies of the future in John's time? The answer is that there cannot be two equal and complete fulfillments for one given prophecy. If there is more than one fulfillment, there must be a primary and a secondary fulfillment. One takes precedence over the other. Scripture never provides us with an example of three or more fulfillments of prophecy. The primary fulfillment could not have been both prior to the first century and after the first century at the same time. If preterism is true, then there would have to be two primary fulfillments-the first in Daniel's time (or shortly thereafter) and the other in John's time (or shortly thereafter). But Scripture never makes allowance for two primary fulfillments of prophecy.

Appendix C
Whose Records Are Investigated?

      The question being asked relative to the investigative judgment pictured in Daniel 7:9-14 is this, Who are being judged?-the saints or the little horn or both? A further question is this, If the saints are not judged in the Daniel 7 preadvent judgment, are they judged at all? The answer to these crucial questions can be discovered by classifying all the New Testament judgment texts according to subject matter. The following classification is not intended to be exhaustive.

___________

[1].   The investigative judgment refers to a preadvent judgment in which the cases of all those who have ever accepted Christ are examined from the record books, and the sins of those accounted righteous are blotted out. This judgment began in 1844 and will end with the close of probation.
[2].   Pp. 5, 34, 124, 132, 376, 469, 470, 474.
[3].   Pp. 481-82. See also Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology (1972).
[4].   Pp. 9, 136, 295, 297, 304, 305, 307ff.
[5].   Pp. 306, 311, 388.
[6].   Preterism teaches that all Biblical prophecy must find its fulfillment within either the lifetime of the prophet or within near proximity; thus, prophecy has its primary meaning only for the contemporaries of the prophet.
[7].   Pp. 345, 390-395, 422, 484-506, 517. See Desmond Ford, Daniel (1978), p. 49.
[8].   Pp. 35, 132-133, 144, 295, 326ff.
[9].   P. 323.
[10]. Pp. 376-96.
[11]. Ibid.
[12]. Pp. 29, 469, 651.
[13]. Pp. 284,357,399, 412-13, A-73 to A-77, Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology, p. 122.
[14]. Pp. 181-95, 228-29.
[15]. Pp. 307-9, 311.
[16]. Pp. 390-91, 517, 537-39.
[17]. Pp. 619-20, 623, 631.
[18]. Pp. 278, 469-76.
[19]. Sometimes it is argued that God does not need 136+ years in which to complete the investigative judgment because he can judge all mankind in a microsecond. But the same logic would have to be applied to the millennium—God does not need 1000 years in which to judge the wicked. But the fact is that created beings have a part in the judgment—angels and saints—and these created beings cannot perform such momentous tasks in microseconds.
[20]. Note: The pages given are from Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Washington, DC, 1980), unless otherwise indicated.

A heartfelt thanks for this info goes to Professor Johns is serving on the faculty of Newbold College, Binfield, Bracknell, Berks., in Great Britain.