OUR PRESENT POSITION.—[Continued.]
By James White
THE SANCTUARY.—Daniel was told that the cleansing of the Sanctuary would be at the end of the 2300 days. "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."—Dan. viii, 14. There is no intimation of a space of time between the end of the days and the cleansing of the Sanctuary. Whatever it may be, the work of cleansing it immediately follows the end of the days. Now if the 2300 days commenced B. C. 457, as published to the world by Adventists up to 1844, and as clearly shown by the "Advent Herald" of 1850, then they terminated in 1844, and we, as consistent men and Christians, should look to that point of time for the work of cleansing the Sanctuary to commence.
If the days ended in 1844, and we believe that they did, then, certainly, the Sanctuary to be cleansed at their end is not the land of Canaan, for the simple reason that that land is not being cleansed. Therefore, it is inconsistent to hold on to the view that the land of Canaan is the Sanctuary, while successfully proving the commencement of the days B. C. 457, the crucifixion in the spring of A. D. 31, consequently the end of the seventy weeks in the autumn of A. D. 34, and the termination of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844. We do not believe that there is a blank space of already more than six years between the end of the days and the cleansing of the Sanctuary. By a careful investigation of this subject we have been led to believe that the Sanctuary, mentioned in Dan. viii, 14, is not the land of Canaan; but the New Jerusalem Sanctuary spoken of by the Apostle as follows: "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the SANCTUARY, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."—Heb. viii, 1, 2. In fact we do not know of one text of Scripture in all the Bible where the land of Canaan is called the Sanctuary. The definition of the word Sanctuary is, "a sacred place." The land of Canaan is not such a place. No one will attempt to prove that it is. We are aware that many are ready to reject the view that the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the days is in heaven, for want of information on the point, for, say they, "there can be nothing that needs cleansing in heaven." We will here give one text from Paul's clear commentary on the law, where he speaks of the earthly and heavenly Sanctuaries, and will notice the objection more fully in another place. This one text, however, fully answers the objection. "It was therefore necessary that the patterns [worldly Sanctuary] of things in the heavens should be purified ['cleansed'] with these; but the heavenly things themselves [heavenly Sanctuary] with better sacrifices than these."—Heb. ix, 23. Here we see38that the "heavenly things," which can refer to nothing but the Sanctuary in heaven, was to be "purified," "cleansed," by "better sacrifices" than that of beasts. They were to be cleansed by virtue of the atoning blood of the Son of God. Those, therefore, who are at war with the idea of the heavenly Sanctuary being cleansed, differ widely with the Apostle Paul, and are at war with his comment on the law. The word Sanctuary occurs more than one hundred times in the Bible, and in most cases it applies to the tabernacle and temple of the Jews, sometimes to a part, and sometimes to the whole. It is mentioned four times in the New Testament, all in the epistle to the Hebrews. In chapter ix, 1, 2; xiii, 11, it refers to the Sanctuary of the first covenant, and in chapter viii, 2, it applies to the second covenant Sanctuary, which the "Lord pitched" in heaven. In three texts only [Ex. xv, 17; Ps. lxxviii, 54; Isa. lxiii, 18] it is supposed by some that the word Sanctuary applies to the land of Canaan. But by a close examination of these texts we may see that such a view rests upon a mere supposition. The "Advent Herald" for April 27, 1850, says: "What are we to understand by the 'cleansing the sanctuary?' To 'understand' this correctly we must ascertain what is meant by 'the sanctuary.' The word sanctuary is used by the inspired writers in the following significations. 1. It is the name of a particular part of the temple.—Heb. ix, 2. 2. The different apartments of the temple.—Jer. li, 51. 3. The temple itself.—1 Chron. xxii, 19; xxviii, 10. 4. Places of worship generally, true or false.—Amos vii, 9; Eze. xxviii, 18; Dan. viii, 11. 5. Heaven is called the sanctuary.—Ps. cii, 19. 6. The promised land.—Ex. xv, 17; Ps. lxxviii, 54; Isa. lxiii, 18. 7. The tabernacle of God in the heavenly state.—Eze. xxxvii, 26, 28.—These are the principal significations of the word sanctuary, in the word of God. According to which of these significations is the word to be understood in the text before us? I think the most obvious sense is that which points out the promised land; for it must be evident to every one that the sanctuary here spoken of must be capable of being 'trodden under foot,' and of being 'cleansed,' and as I think we shall see, of being cleansed at the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the righteous dead. The text should also be understood in a sense that will harmonize with other cases in which the word is used by Daniel in particular, with the views of the other prophets, and the word of God generally." With the first four, and the seventh and last, "significations" of the word Sanctuary, as given above, we agree. The texts are plain and afford positive testimony; but with the fifth and sixth we widely differ. There is no positive testimony that "heaven" is called the Sanctuary. That God's Sanctuary, the "true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man," the "greater and more perfect Tabernacle" of which Christ is a "minister," is IN HEAVEN, we have abundance of plain Scripture testimony. See Heb. viii, 1—4; ix, 11, 23, 24; Rev. i, 12, 13; xi, 19; xv, 5. The text referred to above, to prove that heaven is called the Sanctuary, is as follows: "For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary: from heaven did the Lord behold the earth."—Ps. cii, 19. The most natural, and the obvious meaning of this text is, that the Sanctuary, from the "height" of which the Lord "looked down" to "behold the earth," is the "Temple of God in heaven" in which "was seen" the "ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT." This view is sustained by a mass of plain Scripture testimony, while the other view has only an inference from Ps. cii, 19, to sustain it. We object to the sixth definition of the word Sanctuary, that it is "the promised land," because that view has no other foundation than weak and unwarrantable inferences from only three texts of Scripture. We have never seen but three texts quoted to sustain this view. These we will now examine. The first is Ex. xv, 17, "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." This is a part of the prophetic song of Moses sung by Israel upon the banks of the Red Sea, in praise to God for their deliverance, and in prospect of their settlement in Canaan. Its fulfillment is declared in Ps. lxxviii, 54, which is the second text claimed as proof that the promised land is the Sanctuary. "And he brought them to the border of his sanctuary, even to this mountain, which his right hand had purchased." Cruden says—"By Sanctuary here [Ex. xv, 17] may be understood the temple on Mount Moriah, which God would certainly cause to be built and established." This view is shown to be correct from the context of Ps. lxxviii, 54. After declaring in verse 54, that God brought his people to the border of his Sanctuary, the Psalmist in verses 68, 69, tells us what the Sanctuary was which his hands established, as follows. "But chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he loved. And he BUILT his SANCTUARY like HIGH PALACES." The "border," or "place" of the Sanctuary, where God planted his people, was one thing, and the Sanctuary itself, which he caused to be built "like high palaces," was entirely another thing. The people were planted; and dwelt in the former, but God dwelt in the latter, among his people. "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel: . . . Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them." That Sanctuary was "a sacred place." There the Lord placed his name, and manifested his glory. It is clear that no other Sanctuary is brought to view in Ex. xv, 17; Ps. lxxviii, 54, than the pattern of the "true Tabernacle" in heaven, which God caused to be built "like high palaces." Why should we confound the "border" or "place" of the Sanctuary, which was the promised land, with the typical Sanctuary itself? Certainly there is no necessity for us doing. And there is no more propriety in such a course, than there would be in asserting that a house, and the yard or farm around it were one and the same thing. And to say that Ex. xv, 17; Ps. lxxviii, 54, which speak of "the place," and "the border" of the Sanctuary, as well as the Sanctuary itself, prove that the promised land is the Sanctuary, is equal to asserting that a farm and a house are only a house. We use this simple figure to make the error, that the land of Canaan is the Sanctuary, appear in its true light. We see that these two texts, when examined by the light of truth and reason, are found to contain, in themselves, sufficient proof to condemn the view that the promised land is called the Sanctuary. The other text that is quoted to sustain this position is Isa. lxiii, 18. "The people of thy holiness have possessed it [the promised land, or the 'inheritance'] but a little while; our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary." The history of the Jews shows a perfect fulfillment of this text, therefore, the Sanctuary mentioned in the text refers to the typical Sanctuary. There is no more necessity for, or propriety in, confounding the "inheritance," with the Sanctuary in this text, than in Ex. xv, 17, and Ps. lxxviii, 54. It is true that the "tribes" of Israel "possessed" the promised land "but a little while," and it is also true that their "adversaries" did tread down their Sanctuary, by desecrating and desolating their Temple. Says the "Herald,"—"It must be evident to every one that the sanctuary here spoken of must be capable of being 'trodden under foot,' and of being 'cleansed.'" No one believes that the words "trodden under foot," and "trodden down," mean that the entire land of Canaan has been literally trampled down by the feet of wicked men, any more than the text, "I will tread down the people in mine anger," Isa. lxiii, 6, means that the Almighty is to literally trample on men. Those that teach that "the promised land" is the Sanctuary must, therefore, admit that the words "trodden under foot," and "trodden down," are figurative expressions, and mean that the promised land has been overrun with "the wicked agents of its desolation." Then they should not object to our using the expressions figuratively, in applying the words "trodden down" [Isa. lxiii, 18] to the typical Sanctuary, and the words "trodden under foot" [Dan. viii, 13] to "the true Tabernacle" or "Sanctuary" in heaven. It may be said that the heavenly Sanctuary is not "capable of being trodden under foot." But we ask, is it not as capable of being trodden under foot as "the Son of God," who is the "MINISTER" of the same Sanctuary? Says Paul: "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath TRODDEN UNDER FOOT THE SON OF GOD, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace."—Heb. x, 29. We say, then, that the Sanctuary in heaven has been trodden under foot in the same sense that the Son of God has been trodden under foot. In a similar manner has the "host," the true church, also, been trodden down. Those who have rejected the Son of God have trodden him under foot, and of course have trodden under foot his Sanctuary. The Catholic Church have trodden under foot, not only the "Holy City," but the Sanctuary, and the Minister, or Priest, "the Son of God." Rome has been called "the Holy City," and the "Eternal City," which can only be said of the City of the living God; the New Jerusalem. The Pope has professed to have "power on earth to forgive sins," which power belongs alone to Christ. The people have been taught to29look to "the man of sin," seated in his temple, or as Paul says—"so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God," &c.—instead of looking to Jesus, seated at the right hand of the Father, in the heavenly Sanctuary. In thus turning away from Jesus, who alone could forgive sins, and give eternal life, and in bestowing on the Pope such titles as MOST HOLY LORD, they have "trodden under foot the Son of God." And in calling Rome the "Eternal City," and the "Holy City," they have trodden down the City of the living God, and the heavenly Sanctuary. The "host," the true church that have looked to Jesus in the true Sanctuary for pardon of sins, and eternal life, has, as well as their Divine Lord and his Sanctuary, been trodden under foot. Yes, the true worshipers have been rejected and persecuted, and some of the brightest "stars," or gospel ministers, in the church have been "stamped upon" by the little horn. The Protestant sects, with their spiritualizing views, in denying the existence of the person of God the Father, the personality of the "Son of God," the literal City and Sanctuary, have also acted their part in treading under foot the Sanctuary. Adventists who reject the true Scripture light on this subject, and teach that the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days is the "promised land," notwithstanding they have not one text to prove it, are also, engaged in this work of treading under foot the Sanctuary. It is supposed by some that the heavenly Sanctuary is not capable of being cleansed, for the reason that there can be nothing filthy in heaven. But we are aware that this objection is often urged for want of an understanding of this important subject. No sane person believes that the heavenly Sanctuary needs cleansing from physical uncleanness, as we would cleanse a room or a garment. The type will give light on this point. And here we will observe that we have the example of our Divine Master, and the Apostle Paul, for referring to the type. Said Jesus to his disciples,— "These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the LAW OF MOSES, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me."—Luke xxiv, 44. When Paul was a prisoner at Rome, he "called the chief of the Jews together," "unto his lodging," "to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the LAW OF MOSES, and out of the prophets."—Acts xxviii, 23. Here we see that Jesus and Paul both refer to Moses, evidently to the law of types. And we believe that if those who preach Christ would more closely follow the example of the Great Teacher, and the Apostle Paul, and trace each shadow to its glorious substance, the "good things to come," the true light would blaze all about them. And they and their hearts would be enlightened and comforted, as were the two lonely disciples traveling to Emmaus, who exclaimed, "Did not our heart burn within us while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures." But some that profess to preach Christ at this day are, no doubt, much more blind and "slow of heart" to believe, and guilty than those that Jesus rebuked as follows: "O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory! And beginning at MOSES and all the prophets he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."—Luke xxiv, 25, 26, 27. The typical Sanctuary [see Lev. xvi,] was cleansed, not from physical uncleanness, but from the sins of Israel. "And he shall make an atonement for the holy [holiest, place, is supplied,] because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins."—Verse 16. The holiest of all was cleansed once a year, then no one entered it, not even the high priest, till a year had expired, when it needed cleansing again. This is sufficient to show every candid person that the cleansing of the typical, and also the antitypical, Sanctuary is the removal of the sins of God's people from it. This is done in the type and antitype, by the people first confessing their sins, second, the priest makes atonement for their sins and confesses them on the head of the scape-goat, and third, they are borne away into the land of separation. Then the Sanctuary is "cleansed." We have not space to examine this subject in a thorough manner, therefore, we refer the reader to the "Advent Review," a pamphlet of 48 pages. Pages 37—48, contain a clear and valuable exposition of the atonements, by O. R. L. Crosier. We would also refer the reader to a divine comment on the law. It is the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, from which we will here give a few extracts. "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the Sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man. . . . For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, [Here is positive proof that Christ's priesthood was not fulfilled on earth at the time of the first advent, but, that it was to be fulfilled in heaven, after his ascension,] seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law. Who serve unto the example and shadow of HEAVENLY THINGS, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for see (saith he) that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount."—Chapter viii, 1—5. The "pattern" that was shewed to Moses was the "TRUE TABERNACLE," or Sanctuary in heaven, of which Christ is now a "Minister" or Priest. Did Moses obey God, and follow the "pattern"?—He certainly did. Thus what overwhelming evidence we have before us that the type is a perfect guide to the substance, a guide to lead us to a correct view of the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly Sanctuary.—O, what a wide field of living truth this view spreads out before us. "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread; which is called the sanctuary.—And after the second vail, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God: But into the second went the high priest alone once every year."—Chapter ix, 1—7. These things mentioned by the Apostle were all made according to the pattern shewed to Moses while in the Mount. The place for the "candlestick" was in the Holy. John, therefore, had a view of Jesus while ministering in the Holy Place of the heavenly Sanctuary, a mediator for all the world. "And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks: {'And thou shalt make the seven lamps thereof; and they shall light the lamps thereof, &c.'—Ex. xxv, 37.} And in the midst of the seven candlesticks, one like unto the Son of man, &c."—Rev. i, 12, 13. John also saw, while looking down the stream of time, in prophetic vision, to the sounding of the seventh angel, Jesus our Great High Priest move aside the second vail, and pass into the Most Holy, where "was seen the ark containing the ten commandments," or to use Paul's words, "the tables of the covenant." "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament."—Rev. xi, 19. Will any one try to spiritualize these things? and say that there is no literal Sanctuary, with its Holy, and Most Holy, the Ark containing the ten commandments, the candlestick, &c., in heaven? Such as do this can as well spiritualize the "Son of man," seen by John, and deny his personality. We have seen the sad fruits of the spiritualizing system, and have also seen that it is safest to take the word of God as it reads. "But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands." "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."—Chap. ix, 11, 23. These extracts from the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, (who understood the law,) make the subject clear. Moses made the Tabernacle, with its apartments and furniture, according to the pattern shewed him in the mount. That pattern was the "true Tabernacle" in heaven, with its apartments and furniture. Men of infirmity ministered in the worldly Sanctuary, but the Son of God in the heavenly. The worldly Sanctuary was cleansed yearly by the blood of beasts, but the heavenly, at the end of the 2300 days, by virtue of the blood of the Son of God. The following is from "Advent Herald," Sept. 7, 1850:— "R. R. YORK.—We have no new light respecting the connection between the 70 weeks and 2300 days. The only argument against their connection is, the passing of the time. Why that has passed is a mystery to us, which we wait to have revealed. Should we hear any sound reasons for explaining the disappointment, we shall be prompt to present them. In the meantime, we can substitute no guess or supposition, which may be wrong, and only mislead. We have that to others." As long as the "Herald" holds on to the unscriptural view that the promised land is the Sanctuary, "the passing of the time" will still remain a "mystery." But let the Herald take the plain scripture view of the cleansing of the Sanctuary, and the "mystery" is at once explained, and explained so as to perfectly harmonize with the Advent movement in the past. Certainly their present position is a "mystery," and must remain such, unless they change their views very much on some points. Well, what else can the "Herald" do to explain this "mystery," so as to be able to give satisfactory light, to answer the inquiry that is now being awakened on this subject? Many are saying, "Watchman what of the night?" and they will not be satisfied, by being told that why the30time "has passed remains a mystery," &c. Will the "Herald" try to prove that the 2300 days will end at some future date? This we think it will not do; for it has already proved, beyond all controversy, that the days began B. C. 457, and terminated in 1844. And it has, for a few years, been opposed to this perpetual stretching out the 2300 days, from spring to fall, and from fall to spring. All must see that such a course must disgust the people, and destroy the faith of those who are thus flattered on, from one point of time to another, to find the end of the days, and are as often disappointed. We see no way to explain this "mystery" but by the light of present truth. The belief that the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days is the promised land, and that it is to be cleansed at the coming of Christ; and that the 70 weeks commenced B. C. 457, consequently, the 2300 days terminated in 1844, certainly must be a "mystery" to those who live in 1851! Dear brethren and sisters, we will humbly thank our gracious Father that in the present truth there are no such mysteries, and contradictions, as are seen in the position of those who reject their past experience, and present light. Amen. W.