Thoughts on the Book of Daniel.
CHAPTER VIII. (VERSES 13, 14, CONTINUED.)
Respecting the 2300 days, introduced for the first time in verse 14, there are no data in this chapter from which we can determine their commencement and close, or tell what portion of the world's history they cover. We are obliged, therefore, for the present, to pass them by. Let the reader be assured, however, that they are not left in this indefinite condition. The declaration respecting them is a part of a revelation which is given for the instruction of the people of God, and is consequently to be understood. They are spoken of in the midst of a prophecy which the angel Gabriel was commanded to make Daniel understand; and which instruction we may be certain that the angel at some time carried out, and hence that somewhere the necessary information is given respecting this important period. We shall look for something further on this point in subsequent portions of the prophecy of Daniel; and we shall find that the mystery which hangs over these days in this chapter, is dispelled in the next. The Sanctuary. Connected with the 2300 days is another object of equal importance, which may at this point be legitimately made a subject of inquiry; namely, the sanctuary and its cleansing. As we examine this subject we shall see the importance of having an understanding of the commencement and termination of the 2300 days, that we may know when the important event called the cleansing of the sanctuary is to transpire; for all the inhabitants of earth, as will in due time appear, have a personal interest in that solemn work. Several objects have been claimed by different ones as the sanctuary here mentioned: 1. The earth. 2. The land of Canaan. 3. The church. 4. The sanctuary, the “true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man,” which is “in the Heavens,” and of which the Jewish tabernacle was a type, pattern, or figure. Heb. 8:1, 2; 9:23, 24. These conflicting claims must be decided by what the Scriptures say on the subject; and fortunately its testimony is neither meager nor ambiguous. 1. The word sanctuary occurs in the Old and New Testaments one hundred and forty-six times; and from the definitions of lexicographers, and its use in the Bible, we learn that it is used to signify a holy or sacred place, a dwelling-place for the Most High. If, now, the earth is the sanctuary, it will answer to the definition, and the Bible will somewhere speak of it as such. But we do not find a single characteristic pertaining to this earth which will satisfy the definition. It is neither a holy nor a sacred place, nor is it a dwelling-place for the Most High. It has no mark of distinction except as being a revolted planet, marred by sin, and scarred and withered by the curse. Moreover it is nowhere in all the Scriptures called the sanctuary. Only one text can be produced in favor of this view, and that only by a false application. Isa. 60:13, says: “The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.” This language undoubtedly refers to the new earth; but even that is not called the sanctuary, but only the place of the sanctuary, just as it is called the place of the Lord’s feet; an expression which probably denotes the continual presence of God with his people, as it was revealed to John when it was said, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.” Rev. 21:3. All that can be said of the earth, therefore, is, that when renewed it will be the place where the sanctuary of God will be located. It can present not a shadow of a claim to being the sanctuary at the present time, or the sanctuary of the prophecy. 2. Is the land of Canaan the sanctuary? So far as we may be governed by the definition of the word, it can present no better claim than the earth to that distinction. If we inquire where in the Bible it is called the sanctuary, a few texts are brought forward which seem to be supposed by some to furnish the requisite testimony. The first of these is Ex. 15:17. Moses in his song of triumph and praise to God after the passage of the Red Sea, exclaimed: “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.” A writer who urges this text, says, “I ask the reader to pause, and examine and settle the question most distinctly, before he goes further—What is the sanctuary here spoken of?” We think it would be safer for the reader not to attempt to settle the question definitely from this one isolated text, before comparing it with other scriptures. Moses here speaks in anticipation. His language is a prediction of what God would do for his people. Let us see how it was accomplished. If we find, in the fulfillment, that the land in which they were planted is called the sanctuary, it will greatly strengthen the claim that is based upon this text. If, on the other hand, we find a plain distinction drawn between the land and the sanctuary, then Ex. 15:17, must be interpreted accordingly. We turn to David, who records as a matter of history what Moses uttered as a matter of prophecy. Ps. 78:53, 54. The subject of the psalmist here, is the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian servitude, and their establishment in the promised land; and he says: “And he [God] led them on safely so that they feared not; but the sea overwhelmed their enemies. And he brought them to the border of his sanctuary, even to this mountain which his right hand had purchased.” The “mountain” here mentioned by David, is the same as the “mountain of thine inheritance” spoken of by Moses, in which the people were to be planted; and this mountain David calls, not the sanctuary, but only the border of the sanctuary. What then was the sanctuary? Verse 69 of the same psalm informs us: “And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established forever.” The same distinction between the sanctuary and the land is pointed out in the prayer of good king Jehoshaphat. 2 Chron. 20:7, 8: “Art not thou our God who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham, thy friend, forever? And they dwell therein, and have built thee a sanctuary therein for thy name.” Taken alone, the inference might be drawn from Ex. 15:17, that the mountain was the sanctuary; but when we take in connection with it the language of David, which is a record of the fulfillment of Moses’ prediction, and an inspired commentary upon his language, such an idea cannot be entertained; for David plainly says that the mountain was simply the border of the sanctuary; and that in that border or land, the sanctuary was built like high palaces, reference being made to the beautiful temple of the Jews, the center and symbol of all their worship. In view of this testimony, we must attribute the peculiar phraseology of Ex. 15:17 to the supposition either that in the first flush of his great triumph, or the freedom of poetic license, Moses applies the word sanctuary to the mountain where it was to be located, just as the tribe of Judah is called Mount Zion, because Mount Zion was the all-important place in that tribe, Ps. 78:68; or he uses the word sanctuary in an indefinite sense, to denote simply a consecrated place, or a hallowed spot, which is one of the definitions of the word ἁγίασμα which the Septuagint here use. The three texts, Ex. 15:17; Ps. 78:54, 69, are the ones chiefly relied on to prove that the land of Canaan is the sanctuary; but, singularly enough, the two latter in plain language clear away the ambiguity of the first, and utterly disprove the claim that it is based thereon. Having disposed of the main proof on this point, it would hardly seem worth while to spend time with those texts from which only inferences can be drawn. As there is, however, only one even of this class, we will refer to it, that no point may be left unnoticed. Isa. 63:18: “The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while; our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary.” This language is as applicable to the temple as to the land; for when the land was overrun with the enemies of Israel, their temple was laid in ruins. This is plainly stated in verse 11 of the next chapter: “Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire.” The text therefore proves nothing. Respecting the earth, or the land of Canaan, as the sanctuary, we offer one thought more. If they constitute the sanctuary, they should not only be somewhere described as such, but the same idea should be carried through to the end, and the purification of the earth, or of Palestine, should be called the cleansing of the sanctuary. The earth is indeed defiled, and it is to be purified by fire; but fire, as we shall see, is not the agent which is used in the cleansing of the sanctuary; and this purification of the earth, or any part of it, is nowhere in the Bible called the cleansing of the sanctuary. 3. Is the church the sanctuary? The evident mistrust with which this idea is suggested is a virtual surrender of the argument, before it is presented. One solitary text is adduced in its support: Ps. 114:1, 2; “When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language, Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion.” Should we take this text in its most literal sense, what would it prove respecting the sanctuary? It would prove that the sanctuary was confined to one of the twelve tribes; and hence that a portion of the church only, not the whole of it, constitutes the sanctuary. But this, proving too little for the theory under consideration, proves nothing. Why Judah is called the sanctuary in the text quoted, need not be a matter of perplexity when we remember that God chose Jerusalem, which was in Judah, as the place of his sanctuary. “But chose,” says David, “the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he loved. And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established forever.” This clearly shows the connection which existed between Judah, and the sanctuary. That tribe itself was not the sanctuary; but it is once spoken of as such when Israel came forth from Egypt, because God purposed that in the midst of the territory of that tribe, his sanctuary should be located. But even if it could be shown that the church is anywhere called the sanctuary, it would be of no consequence to our present purpose, which is to determine what constitutes the sanctuary of Dan. 8:13, 14; for the church is there spoken of as another object: “To give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot.” That by the term host, the church is here meant, none will dispute; the sanctuary is therefore another and a different object.