SYNOPSIS OF THE PRESENT TRUTH.
THE SANCTUARY. (CONTINUED.)
WE closed last week with the inquiry on our hands, What is the sanctuary of the new covenant? When Paul speaks of a first covenant, [Heb. 9,] he necessarily implies a second; and when he connects with that first covenant a sanctuary and ordinances of divine service, he as clearly implies that the second will have a sanctuary with divine service also. But on this point we draw direct testimony from the prophecy of Daniel. There was a period of 2300 years revealed to him, at the end of which the sanctuary should be cleansed; but only 490 of those years were allotted to the first covenant, to the worldly sanctuary, and to the Jewish church. At the end of that period, the confirmation of "the covenant," (the new or second covenant) should, according to the prophecy, be finished. Then should the old covenant have passed away, and the new one have been introduced. Then should the services of the worldly sanctuary have forever ceased. Then the Jewish church should no longer have pre-eminence as the children of God, above any other people. But 1810 years still remain before 2300 are completed, and yet at the end of that period, the sanctuary is to be cleansed. Therefore the second covenant has a sanctuary and ordinances of divine service also, and to this sanctuary this prophecy must apply. As we pursue our inquiries to ascertain what constitutes this sanctuary, the opinions that already exist upon the subject, demand attention; for we have no right to deviate from these upon any question, provided they are sound and true; and we have no right to introduce any new views upon any question till we have first shown the fallacy of the old. Four prominent views have been entertained upon this subject. It is claimed by some that the land of Canaan is now the sanctuary. Others contend that the sanctuary comprises the whole earth. Still others take the word in a more spiritual, but no less unauthentic-ated sense, and say that it means the Church. While the fourth view, which draws largest on the imaginary and the marvelous, makes out this rolling earth to be only the first apartment of the new-covenant sanctuary, and all Heaven the second. If we would form correct views on this question, there is one thing which we must keep constantly before us, and that is, the relation which the sanctuaries of the two covenants sustain to each other; namely, that of type and antitype. By keeping our eye steadfastly fixed upon this, is will be almost as hard to arrive at wrong conclusions, as it would be easy, were we to lose sight of it. To this end we call attention to the numerous instances in which the worldly sanctuary is declared to be a pattern of the true. "Let them make me a sanctuary," said the Lord to Moses, "according to all that I show thee after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it." Ex. 25:8, 9. "And look that thou make them after their pattern which was shown thee in the mount." Verse 40. "And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was showed thee in the mount." Chap. 26:30. "As it was showed thee in the mount, so shall ye make it." Chap 27:8. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen." Acts 7:44. "While as the first tabernacle was yet standing, which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices," &c. Heb. 9:8, 9. "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true." Verse 24. From this testimony but one conclusion can be drawn; namely, that the true sanctuary is the pattern from which the earthly tabernacle was erected, and that whatever object we may find of which this earthly sanctuary was a true type or figure, that object is the sanctuary of the better covenant under which we live, and the cleansing of which the unerring word of the Lord locates at the termination of the 2300 days. We are therefore prepared for the following questions:— 1. IS THE EARTH THE SANCTUARY? To this question, we reply emphatically in the negative. It is not; and if we are requested to prove a negative, we offer in its support, the following reasons: 1st. The word sanctuary occurs 144 times in the Bible and is not in a single instance applied to the earth. Now if it was really the intention of the Holy Ghost to teach us that the earth was the sanctuary, it seems that it ought, at least once to have called it so 2d. The definition of the term, sanctuary, according to Walker, Webster Cruden, and the Bible, is, a holy place, a sacred place, a dwelling place for the Most High; but every one knows that the earth is neither a dwelling place for God, nor yet holy, or sacred place. This fact alone should forever exclude the idea of its being the sanctuary. But 3d. Take into consideration the typical and antitypical natures of the sanctuary, and the absurdity of this view will appear in a still stronger light. The earthly sanctuary was a type or figure of the true; but pray tell us in what respect it pre-figured this rolling earth? Can it for a moment be supposed that Moses, when in the mount, was shown this earth, as the 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 pursue this train of thought still further and inquire what on earth answers as antitype to the golden candlestick? Is it the leaning tower of Pisa, or the pyramids of Egypt? And what to the altar of incense? Is it mount Vesuvius, or Hecla? And what to the table of shewbread? The pampas of South America, or the steppes of Russia? But we need not spend time longer to write, nor trouble the reader longer to read, concerning a view so manifestly absurd. 2. IS THE EARTH A PART OF THE SANCTUARY? There is another class (if they are numerous enough to be called a class), who contend that the first apartment of the sanctuary embraces the whole earth, and that it takes all Heaven to make the second apartment. The reasons for not calling the earth the sanctuary, stated above, will apply just as forcibly to this view; and that is a sufficient refutation. Some additional absurdities may however be noticed when we come to speak of the ministration or service which was ordained to be performed in the sanctuary. 3. IS THE LAND OF CANAAN THE SANCTUARY? The arguments which show that the earth is not the sanctuary of the new covenant, bear with equal force against the view which would claim that honor for the land of Canaan. But as there are, out of the 144 times of the occurrence of the word sanctuary in the Bible, some two or three texts which are urged in favor of this view, we will examine them and see if they will bear the meaning which they have been supposed to convey. The first is Exodus 15:17, and reads as follows: "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." Before it is decided however that this text fixes the application of the sanctuary to the land of Canaan, let the Psalmist's commentary on this very passage be taken into consideration.236He says: "And he 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, and he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established forever." Ps. 78:53, 54, 69. On these passages we offer the following extract from "The Sanctuary," by J. N. Andrews:— "The first of these texts, it will be noticed, is taken from the song of Moses, after the passage of the Red Sea. It is a prediction of what God would do for Israel. The second text was written about five hundred years after the song of Moses. What Moses utters as a prediction, the Psalmist records as a matter of history. Hence the Psalm is an inspired commentary on the song of Moses. If the first text be read without the other, the idea might be gathered that the mountain was the sanctuary, though it does not directly state this. Even as one might get the idea that the tribe of Judah was Mount Zion, were they to read only the expression, 'but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he loved,' [Ps. 78:68,] and omit those texts which inform us that Mount Zion was the city of David, a part of Jerusalem, [2 Sam. 5:6, 7,] and was located in Judah, as one of its cities. Ezra 1:3; Ps. 69:35. But if the second text be read in connection with the first, it destroys the possibility of such an inference. The Psalmist states that the mountain of the inheritance was the border of the sanctuary. And that God, after driving out the heathen before his people, proceeded to build his sanctuary like high palaces. See 1 Chron. 29:1. 1. The land of Canaan was the mountain of the inheritance. Ex. 15:17. 2. That mountain was the border of the sanctuary. Ps. 78:54. 3. In that border God built his sanctuary. Ps. 78:69. 4. In that sanctuary God dwelt. Ps. 74:7; Ex. 25:8. 5. In that border the people dwelt. Ps. 78:54, 55. These facts demonstrate that the same Spirit moved both those 'holy men of old.'" Listen also to the distinction between the land of Canaan and the sanctuary as pointed out by a king of Judah: "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 dwelt therein and have built thee a sanctuary therein for thy name, saying, If, when evil comes upon us, as the sword, judgment or pestilence, or famine, we stand before this house, and in thy presence (for thy name is in this house) and cry unto thee in our affliction, then thou wilt hear and help." 2 Chron. 20:7-9. There is another text claimed by some as proof that Canaan is the sanctuary: Isa. 63:18. "The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary." It is by no means certain that the land is here referred to, since anything else may be trodden down as well as the land. Nothing therefore but an inference can be drawn from it; and one plain fact is sufficient to demolish this to its lowest foundations: when God's people were driven out of the land of Canaan (as the prophet here predicts, using the past tense for the future) they were not only dispossessed of their inheritance, but the sanctuary of God built in that land was laid in ruins. This fact is plainly stated in 2 Chron. 36:17-20, which divests the passage of all mystery. Only one text more remains to be urged in favor of the land of Canaan. As such we present it. "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." Isa. 60:13. Had the distinction ever been kept in view, between the sanctuary and the place of the sanctuary, we should have had no occasion to notice this text. But if people persist in ignoring this distinction, we would remind them that the same text calls the place of the sanctuary, the place of the Lord's feet also; and if by being the place of the sanctuary it becomes the sanctuary itself, by being the place of his feet, it becomes, by a parity of reasoning, his feet also. When any just grounds can be shown for avoiding this conclusion, it will be time to notice the passage further. We can only conclude then, not that the land of Canaan is the sanctuary, but that it is simply the place where the typical sanctuary was located. But it is claimed by some that at least Mount Zion or the holy city, if not all Palestine must constitute the sanctuary, since the same word, Kodesh, is applied
(Continued on last Page,) SYNOPSIS OF PRESENT TRUTH.
(Continued from page 235.) to them; as "my [Kodesh] holy mountain," "my [Kodesh] holy city," &c. Our friends have the misfortune to have made here an utterly incorrect statement. Kodesh is never translated holy city, holy mountain, &c. The facts are these: Kodesh alone is translated sanctuary in a multitude of instances, meaning the tabernacle or temple. It is also used with an adjective signification and applied to the mountain, city, garments, things, &c., as holy mountain, holy city, holy garments, holy things, Kodesh in these expressions being simply translated holy, and other words being used to denote the mountain, city, garments, or things. The fallacy of the claim herein noticed is sufficiently shown by these facts. 4. IS THE CHURCH THE SANCTUARY? We answer, It is not. Do you ask for our reasons? One fact alone is sufficient to annihilate the idea: It is never once in the word of God called the sanctuary. Another definite object is invariably called the sanctuary, and the church is uniformly connected with that object as the "host" or worshipers; the sanctuary itself being the place of that worship, or towards which their prayer was directed. There is one text that may be urged on this point and we therefore notice it: "When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language, Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion." Ps. 114:1. This would however only prove that one of the twelve tribes was the sanctuary and that the whole church was not. But if the fact be remembered that God chose Jerusalem which was in Judah, as the place of his sanctuary, we think the following from another psalm will fully explain the connection between Judah and the sanctuary of God, and show that Judah was the tribe with which God designed to locate his habitation: "But chose the tribe of Judah the Mount Zion which he loved. And he built his sanctuary like high palaces (see 1 Chron. 29:1) like the earth which he hath established forever." Ps. 78:68, 69. If Ps. 114:1 proves that Judah was the sanctuary, this text proves that Judah was Mount Zion. But these absurd conclusions are not necessary when we consider that by a well recognized figure of speech, Judah is called Mount Zion simply because that mountain was within the territory of that tribe; and it is likewise called the sanctuary simply because the sanctuary was located among them. But could a single text be produced in favor of the view that the church is the sanctuary, it could not even then be the sanctuary of Dan. 8:13, 14; for the church is there represented by the word "host." This none will deny. "To give both the host and the sanctuary to be trodden under foot." The church and the sanctuary then, are two very separate and distinct things.