THE SANCTUARY by Uriah Smith

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 15, 1876

THE SANCTUARY.

By Uriah Smith

Twenty-fourth Paper.—The Earth not the Sanctuary.

Having seen that the new covenant must have a sanctuary corresponding to that of the old, and that there must be something now recognized by the Bible as the sanctuary, the next step in the inquiry is to try to ascertain what this is. And here we are met by a variety of conflicting views which demand examination.

It is claimed by some that this earth is now the sanctuary.

By others, that it takes earth and Heaven together to constitute the sanctuary; the earth being the first apartment, and all Heaven the second.

By a third class it is claimed that the land of Canaan is now the sanctuary.

And a fourth class take the word in a more figurative sense, and apply it to the church.

Is the earth the sanctuary? We reply, No; and the reasons for this answer are at hand.

1. Definition of the word. According to Webster, Walker, Cruden, and the Bible, the term, sanctuary is defined to mean, “A holy place, a sacred place, a dwelling place for the Most High.” Is the earth such a place? or has it been such since sin entered therein to mar and defile it? We know it has not; and this fact alone is sufficient to strangle forever the idea that this earth is the sanctuary.

2. The antitypical nature of the new covenant sanctuary. As we have seen, the sanctuary of the former dispensation was a type of the sanctuary of the present, whatever it may be. Is it now the earth? Then the former sanctuary prefigured it. But in what respect did it represent this earth? Can it for a moment be supposed that Moses when in the mount was shown this earth as a pattern from which he was to erect the sanctuary, and that the nearest resemblance he could make of it was an oblong building ten cubits in width, and three times that number in length? And we might extend the same inquiry to the furniture of the sanctuary. What is there on this earth that answers as the antitype of the ark, the altar of incense, the golden candlestick, and the table of show bread? But this line of thought need not be pursued further to show the utter absurdity of such a view.

3. The use of the term. The word sanctuary occurs 146 times in the Bible, but is not in a single instance applied to the earth. The only texts which any one could imagine to have even a shadow of an application to this earth, are Isa. 60:13; Eze. 37:26–28; Rev. 21:1–3. But these refer, not to the present but to the future, and show simply that this earth renewed is the place where the tabernacle of God will be located hereafter.

4. But finally, if the earth is the sanctuary now, it was just as much the sanctuary in the former dispensation. No change has taken place by which it has become the sanctuary now any more than it must have been then. But Paul says that the tabernacle built by Moses was the sanctuary then; hence the earth was not then the sanctuary, and therefore is not the sanctuary now.

This view being such apparent folly, what shall we say of that view which makes this earth only a part of the sanctuary and looks to Heaven for the rest? It is strange that any person of common intelligence should conceive such an idea, or for a moment endeavor seriously to defend it. The only apology we can make for it is, that its advocates, misled by our common translation, suppose that the Bible calls Heaven the most holy place. But this is no apology; for no one has a right to set himself forth as a religious teacher, who on a point so plain is not acquainted with the correct reading.

The principles already presented on this subject go far toward proving the incorrectness of those views which apply the sanctuary to the land of Canaan or the church. See reasons 1, 2, 3 and 4 above stated. To prove the land of Canaan the sanctuary, appeal is made to Ex. 15:17. But if this text proves that Canaan was ever the sanctuary, it was the sanctuary then, and of that covenant. But here come these good words of Paul again, which declare that the land of Canaan was not the sanctuary then, but that the tabernacle built by Moses was. This is sufficient to settle this point. But some will not be satisfied without a further notice of a few texts. Let Ex. 15:17, then, be explained by Ps. 78:53, 54, 69. David here speaks of the same events to which Moses referred. Moses gave them as matters of prediction, David, living after their accomplishment, as matters of history. What Moses in the poetical license of his fervent song of triumph speaks of as the inheritance and sanctuary, David says in more explicit terms was the border of the sanctuary, and adds that the sanctuary was something which was built therein.

Good king Jehoshaphat makes the same distinction. 2 Chron. 20:7–9. He speaks of the land which had been given them, and the sanctuary which they had built therein, and then says that that sanctuary was the house (Solomon’s temple) before which they stood. There is no mistaking such language, and any confusion in regard to the relation of the sanctuary to the land of Canaan is wholly inexcusable.

Isa. 63:18 refers to the overthrow and treading down of the house of God, the sanctuary of that time, stated in 2 Chron. 36:17–20, and Isa. 60:13 simply speaks of the new earth as the future glorious place of the sanctuary.

The land of Canaan was not, and is not, the sanctuary, but simply the place where the typical sanctuary was located.

As regards the church, it is never once called the sanctuary. Ps. 114:4 speaks of Judah as God’s sanctuary. But this at most would only prove that a portion of the church constitutes the sanctuary, not the whole, as Judah was only one of the twelve tribes. But again, when was Judah thus called the sanctuary? When Israel went out of Egypt. And what does Paul tell us was then the sanctuary? The tabernacle built by Moses. This settles the question again. Why then is Judah called the sanctuary? Simply because Mount Zion was located in Judah, and on Mount Zion the sanctuary was built.

But if Judah, or the whole church was the sanctuary then, it would not be the sanctuary now; for the sanctuary of that dispensation has given place to the sanctuary of the new.

But if the church could be shown to be the sanctuary at any time, it could not even then be the sanctuary of Dan. 8:13, 14, the only one under discussion, for the church is expressly spoken of in connection with that as the host, or worshipers, related thereto. Here the church and the sanctuary are certainly separate and distinct objects.

U. S.