The Sanctuary of the Bible.
By John Nevins Andrews
A RECENT article in the World’s Crisis headed “Our High Priest,” and designed to show that our views of the sanctuary and of the work of Christ as High Priest therein are false, demands a brief notice. When men are on the side of truth they can afford to be candid. In fact, they cannot be uncandid, for that is to be so far untruthful. But if candor demands that we fairly state the views which we profess to refute, then this article in the Crisis is not candid. All Christians are necessarily interested in the subject of the sanctuary; that is to say, all are concerned in the great work therein accomplished for those who come to God through Christ. But in an especial sense all Adventists are interested in this subject; for the cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days, is one of the great events to which they have looked forward with intense interest. The Seventh-day Adventists believe that they have the Bible doctrine of the sanctuary. They have never yet been able to get the subject before the first-day Adventists to any considerable extent. It is rarely mentioned in their papers, and when it is mentioned it is always in a way to give a false or perverted view of it, or in such manner that the evidence from the Scriptures in its support is suppressed. The word sanctuary occurs in the common version of the Scriptures one hundred and forty-six times. With a very few exceptions, every one of these instances relates to the tabernacle erected by Moses or to the temple built by Solomon, which superseded the tabernacle, but which was only an enlargement and continuation of that temporary building, or to the temple of God in Heaven, which was the great original of the one on earth. These three structures are in an important sense only one; for the tabernacle and the temple were temporary buildings made after the pattern of the heavenly sanctuary, and designed to represent it while the typical system lasted. Ex. 25: 8, 9, 40; 1 Chron. 28: 11-19; Heb. 8: 1-5; 9: 9, 23, 24. The very few instances in which the word sanctuary is used that do not refer to the typical or antitypical tabernacle are generally either instances in which God is compared to a sanctuary (Isa. 8: 14; Eze. 11: 16) or in which the temples of idolatrous worship are called sanctuaries, as the rivals of God’s temple (Isa. 16: 12; Amos 7: 9, 13, margin), even as false deities are called gods, though no one is thereby misled as to the real meaning of the term God. Such being the facts with regard to the word sanctuary, the Seventh-day Adventists believe that there is no chance for successfully controverting the view that the earthly and heavenly temples or tabernacles, the centers of the typical and antitypical worship, or rather the places where the typical and the real atonement is accomplished by the priests of each dispensation, do constitute the sanctuary of the Bible. A multitude of plain testimonies confirm this doctrine. To state the case briefly we may affirm:— - There are two covenants, the first from Mount Sinai, the second from mount Zion. Gal. 4: 24-26.
- These two covenants cover the entire period from Moses to the present time, and thus cover the 2300 days.
- The sanctuary of the first covenant Paul expressly declares to be the tabernacle or temple made by the hands of men. Heb. 9: 1-6.
- The sanctuary of the second or better covenant is also plainly set forth by Paul as the true tabernacle pitched by God himself whereunto our great High Priest is entered. Heb. 8: 1-6.
These two sanctuaries, as we have shown, are really one. The sanctuary of prophecy must be the sanctuary which pertains to God’s covenant with his people. We cannot be mistaken in this. If the 2300 days of Daniel’s prophecy end in the latter part of the new-covenant dispensation, then the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of that period must be the new-covenant sanctuary. Will any one attempt to deny such a proposition? But how did Daniel himself understand the subject of the sanctuary? The ninth chapter of Daniel is plainly an exposition of the unexplained portions of the eighth chapter. That is to say, Gabriel, being commanded in the vision of chapter eight to explain what was there shown to Daniel, attended to this duty till the prophet, under the view of the destruction of the mighty and holy people, and of the death of the Prince of princes, fainted and was sick. Dan. 8: 24-27. Thereupon, Gabriel desisted for the time, but, in answer to Daniel’s prayer, came again in the manner related in chapter nine, and completed his work, explaining the sanctuary and giving the key to the reckoning of the 2300 days. In this explanation he sets forth the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, and the rejection and death of the Messiah, and then predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in these words: “The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Dan. 9: 26. By the sanctuary, beyond all dispute, is here meant the temple. We know from this that in Daniel’s vision the sanctuary of the first covenant is recognized by name as the sanctuary. His prophecy extends forward over the whole new-covenant dispensation. His predicted cleansing of the sanctuary occurs in the very conclusion of that dispensation. Now, does this prediction relate to the cleansing of the sanctuary of the old covenant some 1800 years after that sanctuary and that covenant have ceased to exist? It does not look very consistent; for the prediction that the sanctuary shall be cleansed must pertain to that which is the sanctuary of God’s covenant when that prophecy is to be fulfilled. But in the last days of this dispensation, the sanctuary of the new covenant is the only sanctuary of God, and must be the sanctuary of this prophecy. We are not, however, left to such facts as these. The angel told Daniel just how large a portion of the 2300 days belonged to old Jerusalem. “Seventy weeks [490 days] are determined [literally, cut off] upon thy people, and upon thy holy city.”21Then the entire vision of 2300 days does not pertain to the earthly sanctuary, but only 490 days of it. Now it is remarkable that this 490 days ends in close proximity to the point where the typical system gave place to the good things to come, and where the earthly sanctuary gave place to the heavenly. And it is also remarkable that at this very point the angel introduces the heavenly sanctuary. For in naming the closing events of the seventy weeks, he specifies the anointing of the most holy. This is literally the holy of holies. The typical system prescribed that before the service in the earthly sanctuary commenced, the entire building should be anointed by Moses. Ex. 40: 9; Lev. 8: 10. Now this anointing predicted at the end of the typical system cannot relate to the earthly sanctuary, which Christ said was left desolate (Matt. 23: 38), but must relate to the antitype, even to the heavenly sanctuary. So that the first 490 days of Daniel’s vision pertains to the earthly sanctuary, and as that period expires, the heavenly sanctuary is introduced, and the remainder of the vision pertains to the new covenant and relates to the sanctuary of that covenant. The cleansing of the sanctuary in the typical system was a well-understood work of the Levitical priesthood, at the conclusion of the yearly round of service, by which all the sins that had been borne into the sanctuary by the act of the priests in making atonement for sin were removed therefrom and placed on the head of the scapegoat. Lev. 16. Now, it is a fact of deep interest that Paul asserts the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary for the same reason that the earthly sanctuary was cleansed. It is also very remarkable that the Greek word used by the Septuagint in its version of Dan. 8: 14, for “cleansed” is the same one used by Paul for the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary in Heb. 9: 23. So that the act in each case may be fairly considered identical. These facts cannot be denied; why, then, should they be despised? The cleansing of the sanctuary predicted in Daniel is to take place in the closing part of the gospel dispensation. But the sanctuary of this dispensation is in Heaven. Moreover, the sanctuary of the new covenant is to be cleansed for the same reason that the sanctuary of the first covenant was cleansed. This cleansing takes place of necessity as our High Priest closes up his work, so that the heavenly sanctuary is cleansed at the very time that this takes place with the sanctuary of Daniel. But Daniel’s prediction that the sanctuary shall be cleansed must meet its fulfillment in the cleansing of the sanctuary described by Paul; for the two statements relate to the same time, and the sanctuary of St. Paul is the new-covenant sanctuary, and the only sanctuary in existence at the end of the 2300 days. Vague ideas of the temple of God constitute the best objections to the work in the heavenly sanctuary above set forth. Many suppose that there is no temple in Heaven; others assert that, though there is a temple, it can have only one apartment. But the Bible is very explicit in its statements that there is a temple of God in Heaven, and that the earthly sanctuary, with its two holy places, was a pattern of the heavenly. Ex. 25; Heb. 8 and 9; Rev. 11: 19; 16: 17. The Saviour at his ascension entered the presence of God, and sat down at his right hand. The glory of God was manifested in both apartments of the earthly sanctuary; for it was not only revealed between the cherubim, but also at the door of the first apartment. Ex. 29: 42. The Saviour at his ascension is certainly represented in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. John saw the throne of God, and Jesus near to that throne. Before the throne he saw seven lamps of fire which he was told were the seven spirits of God. Rev. 4 and 5. And when the Lamb had opened the book with seven seals, John saw an angel come and stand at the golden altar before the throne, having in his hand the golden censer. Rev. 8: 3, 4. Now the seven lamps and the golden altar were both in the first apartment. Ex. 25: 31-40; 26: 35; 40: 2-5. But at the sounding of the seventh angel, the temple of God is opened in Heaven and the ark of his testament is seen. Rev. 11: 19. That is to say, the second apartment of that temple is opened, for it is in that apartment that the ark of God’s testament was kept. Lev. 16. At the same time it is said that the time of the dead is come that they should be judged. Rev. 11: 18. This must pertain to the investigative judgment, which precedes the resurrection of the just. Luke 20: 35. In this part of the judgment the Father sits as Judge, and the Son here closes up his priesthood and receives his kingdom. It is announced by the proclamation of Rev. 14: 6, 7, that the hour of God’s judgment is come. It is marked by the ending of the prophetic periods. This judgment scene takes place within the second apartment by the ark of God. Rev. 11: 18, 19. The scene is described in Dan. 7: 9-14, where the Ancient of Days sits in judgment, and the Son of man approaches his throne and closes his priestly work by being crowned King of kings. Here is the place for the blotting out of sins as each case is examined before God; and this blotting out of sins is the grand idea of cleansing the sanctuary of God. Now Christ does not approach the Father in the manner described in Dan. 7: 13, 14, at his ascension, for the Father did not then sit in judgment; nor does he thus approach him in coming to our earth at the second advent, for the Father is not here on earth when the Son descends; and, moreover, the Son comes to our earth as King (Matt. 25: 31; Luke 19: 12, 15), and it is at this tribunal that he receives his kingdom and glory. There is but one consistent view that can be taken of this judgment scene in Dan. 7 at which Christ is crowned, and that is, that it is the work of investigative judgment in the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. The Crisis refers to this prophecy of Dan. 7: 9-14, as proving that we do not believe that Christ entered his Father’s presence till the end of the 2300 days in 1844, because we say that it was not fulfilled till then. Now, we might fairly retort by asking the Crisis whether it holds that God the Father did thus sit in judgment at Christ’s ascension? Of course it does not. Then it actually has the same difficulty to solve that it so unfairly urges against our views; for it will be obliged to place the fulfillment of Dan. 7: 13, 14, as late as we have it. We believe the scene transpires within the second veil; but we also believe that Christ had entered the Father’s presence when he ministered in that apartment in which was seen the seven lamps and the altar of incense. The Crisis quotes Paul with reference to Christ’s entrance within the veil. Heb. 6: 19, 20. From this, it argues that Christ at his ascension entered within the only veil which pertains to the sanctuary, and, of course, entered into the presence of God. But Paul recognizes two veils in Heb. 9: 3. That Christ while ministering in the first apartment was actually in the presence of Him who sat upon the throne, we firmly believe. The editor of the Crisis, in treating the subject as though we deny that Christ entered his Father’s presence at his ascension, does what he ought to know better than to do. Christ’s entrance into Heaven does not imply necessarily his entrance into the second apartment of the temple. The expression, “holiest of all,” in Heb. 9: 8, and “holiest” in Heb. 10: 19, are in the original “holy places,” in the plural. The editor of the Crisis speaks sneeringly of this subject. Yet he will find his Bible full of it. We respectfully ask him, before writing further upon this subject, to procure one of the sanctuary works published at this Office, and give it a candid perusal. If he will do so, he will not again treat this subject as he has in the article under consideration. Nor will he think it unreasonable that we so strongly urge that a knowledge of this subject is of the highest importance to those who would understand and work the work of God. We do not say others who do not understand this subject cannot receive God’s blessing, but we do say that those who are workers with Christ need to understand the sanctuary of the Bible.