POSITION OF THE ADVENT HERALD ON THE SANCTUARY QUESTION.
By John Nevins Andrews
A correspondent of the Herald writes as follows: [See Herald of April 16th.] BRO. BLISS:—You are presenting constantly in various numbers of the Herald overwhelming and indubitable proof derived from history, Ptolemy’s Canon, various eclipses, etc., that the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign dated in the year B. C. 457–8, holding each and every other date to be utterly unfounded. This may be correct. Again, you still maintain as did the entire body of Adventists previous to 1843–4, that the seventh of Artaxerxes is the only true date for "the going forth of the commandment" mentioned in Dan. ix. 25, and for the commencement of the seventy prophetic weeks. And you will not for a moment allow of any other. Furthermore, you have hinted but once—I believe—and then in a monosyllable to J. M. Orrock, that the seventy weeks and 2300 years have different dates. Now, generally speaking, prima facie, each and all of your chronological deductions and arguments go to prove that the 2300 years ended in 1844. And there is a numerous class of persons scattered throughout the country who are characterized by keeping a "seventh day Sabbath," and who contend that the 2300 years run out in that year, and the heavenly Sanctuary then began to "be cleansed," who go to your writings and the Herald for all their proof. In their Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, their discourses, and in all their publications, assuming the connection between the seventy weeks and 2300 years—you are endlessly and copiously quoted to prove their position. And we up here in the country who have perpetually to combat the error, you have and do completely disarm, while our opponents every week go down to Boston to headquarters—where you furnish them with heavy weapons to fight us. What do you mean? Are the 2300 years ended? or do they reach till the Lord comes? A full answer and explanation would very much oblige hundreds of careful and interested readers of the excellent Herald. We have not space to present the answer of the Editor, which occupies about two columns of that paper. We therefore refer to some of its leading features.—He first states that the 2300 years have not ended, and that they will extend to the coming of the Lord. He then attempts to prove that the land of Palestine is the Lord’s Sanctuary; and that the cleansing of the Sanctuary is the event described in 2 Pet. iii, viz: the melting of the elements, and the burning of the earth, with the works which are therein. This he puts forth as an absolute demonstration that the 2300 years extend to the coming of the Lord. He next asserts that Daniel could have had no idea of the heavenly Sanctuary; and that the idea of cleansing the heavenly Sanctuary originated with the Devil. As the commencement of the 70 weeks with the going forth of that decree, B. C. 457, is established by "overwhelming and indubitable proof," and as the intermediate dates, and final termination of that period of 490 days are established by such an array of evidence, that, to use the language of the Herald in this very article, an alteration of these dates "would hopelessly change all chronology, and effectually destroy its authority," the only alternative is to deny the connection of the 70 weeks and 2300 days. But to satisfy the most incredulous that the 70 weeks are not the first 490 days of the 2300, the Herald affirms that "the termination of the days cannot be in the past;" [because in that case the earth would have been burned before this;] and as all can understand that 1810 prophetic days, [the number left after the 490 are cut off] could only extend from A. D. 34, where the 490 days terminated, to 1844, it will not do to admit that the two periods begin together; for the days in that case have ended, and yet, the earth is not burned! Such is the general outline of the position of the Herald. To prove that the land of Palestine is the Sanctuary, the Editor omits almost every instance in which the word Sanctuary occurs in our English version of the Holy Scriptures, and presents an argument from the original Hebrew. This seems like a virtual admission that there is no tenable ground in the English Bible for the view that Palestine is the Sanctuary. Relative to the argument drawn from the Hebrew, we of course say nothing. We have only to remark that if the question, What constitutes the Sanctuary? can be answered from the English version of the Bible, it can be settled beyond all controversy that the tabernacle of God (typical and antitypical) is the only thing that God recognizes as his Sanctuary. On the cleansing of the Sanctuary, the Herald first argues that the cleansing of the Sanctuary is its justification, and then, somewhat singularly, contends that this act of justifying the Sanctuary is performed by burning it up, with all the rest of the material globe! after which, new heavens and new earth are created. But admitting that the land of Canaan is the Sanctuary, and that the burning of the earth is the cleansing of the Sanctuary, there is not even then, a single testimony in the Holy Scriptures that the conflagration of our globe will occur at the second Advent. On the contrary, this event is evidently located among the closing scenes of the day of God. See Rev. xx; xxi. And as a matter of consequence the 2300 years cannot reach to that event. But the idea of justifying a thing by consuming it in the fire, is very singular, and extraordinary indeed. Certain it is, that whether the Bible recognizes any such justification of a thing or not, the idea of cleansing or justifying the Sanctuary by fire, is never once hinted; the only method there recognized is by blood. Lev. xvi. The assertion of Bro Bliss that Daniel could have no idea of the heavenly Sanctuary has been, we think, sufficiently met in former articles in the Review, in which we have shown that Gabriel in his explanation of the vision of the eighth chapter, did in chapter ix, bring to Daniel’s view the anointing of the true tabernacle, as the closing event of the 70 weeks. We have cited various testimonies on this point; but perhaps that of Bro Bliss himself, as given in the Midnight Cry, April 13, 1843, may be as much to the point.—Speaking of the day of Pentecost, he says: "Then also the Most Holy had been anointed—the last event of the 70 weeks; for then Christ had entered into the Holiest of all, and sprinkled it with his own blood." Then according to the testimony of the Editor of the Herald, the heavenly Sanctuary was presented to Daniel’s mind. The statement of the Herald that the cleansing of the heavenly Sanctuary is a doctrine which originated with the Devil, directly charges Paul with writing, not by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but under the direct influence of the Devil. For the Apostle establishes this doctrine in the most satisfactory manner. He testifies thus: "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. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Heb. ix, 23, 24. But that the Advent Herald should deny the connection of the 70 weeks and 2300 days is that which causes us the greatest surprise. If this is to be considered as its future position, we think its conductors should no longer claim to be the advocates of the peculiar views of Wm. Miller. Whoever wrests from Mr. Miller the view that the 70 weeks are the first 490 days of the 2300, robs him of the great argument by which he aroused the world on time, and without which he would have been able to effect but little.—As the Herald chooses to deny the connection of these two periods, rather than to admit that we may have been mistaken respecting the Sanctuary, we would respectfully present the following questions for its consideration:205 Was not Gabriel commanded to explain to Daniel that vision in which the period of 2300 days was given? Did not Gabriel on that occasion explain every part of the vision to Daniel, with the exception of the Sanctuary and 2300 days? Does not Daniel say, however, at the close of the chapter, that he was "astonished at the vision but none understood it?" If none understood it, had Gabriel fulfilled the divine mandate, "Make this man to understand the vision?" Did not that charge still rest upon him, accomplished only in part? Was not Daniel in Chap. ix earnestly seeking God, with reference to the Sanctuary? Does not the man Gabriel whom he had seen in the vision of Chap. viii, in answer to this prayer, say to Daniel, "I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding?" Does he not then charge him to understand the matter, and to consider the vision? Is not this a clear and unanswerable testimony, that Gabriel has now come to complete the charge given him in chapter viii, which was, "Make this man to understand the vision?" Does he not begin his explanation with the subject of time? Is not the phrase "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city," literally rendered, "Seventy weeks are cut off upon thy people" &c? Have you not proved this point at length from the testimony of such men as Dr Gill, Hengstenberg, Gesenius, and many other scholars of high standing, and also from the Septuagint and Vulgate? What are the 70 weeks "cut off" from? From nothing? or from indefinite space? As the great period of 2300 days had been given in the vision of chapter viii, is it not certain, when Gabriel comes to finish the explanation of that vision, and testifies that 70 weeks are cut off, that they are cut off from the only period which had been given, viz: the 2300 days? Is there then the least ground for a reasonable doubt that the 70 weeks are the first 490 days of the 2300? And as the commencement of the 70 weeks in B. C., 457—the termination of 69 of them in A. D. 27, of 69 and a half in the Spring of A. D. 31, and of the whole period in the Autumn of A. D. 34—is established beyond all controversy, can there be the least question that 1810 days (the number left after cutting off 490) would extend to the Autumn of 1844 and no farther? And is it not true that Gabriel does explain the fact to Daniel, that only 490 of the 2300 days belong to the earthly Sanctuary? And does not Gabriel name the anointing of the heavenly Sanctuary as the last event of the 70 weeks? Does not the ninth chapter of Hebrews plainly and distinctly testify that about that time, the earthly Sanctuary was superseded by the heavenly, even as the Levitical priesthood gave place to that of the order of Melchisedec? If the ninth of Daniel is an appendix and explanation of the eighth, can the conclusion be avoided, that Gabriel did explain the transfer from the earthly Sanctuary to the heavenly, and that the 2300 days expired in 1844? If the ninth of Daniel is not an explanation of the eighth, how can the wise at the time of the end, understand the 2300 days, when no starting point for the period has ever been given? Finally, can any criticism set aside the fact that the Sanctuary of the first covenant was the tabernacle which Moses erected as the pattern of the true, [Heb. ix, 1–5.] and that the Sanctuary of the new covenant is the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man? Heb. viii, 1–5.