THE CLEANSING OF THE SANCTUARY.
By John Nevins Andrews
Does this Work Commence at the end of the 2300 Days?
THE subject of the Sanctuary has been the cause of much discussion among the professed believers in the immediate second advent. It was once believed by most of them that the earth was the Sanctuary, and that the burning of the earth as predicted by Peter, was the cleansing of the Sanctuary which was to transpire at the end of the 2300 days. The disappointment which those who entertained this faith were subjected to, has led many of them to investigate the testimony of the Scriptures relative to this question, for themselves. This has resulted in convincing some at least that the earth is not the Sanctuary, because that God has never called it such; and consequently that the burning of the earth has nothing to do with the cleansing of the Sanctuary. And they have further seen that the tabernacle of the Lord is his Sanctuary, or habitation; that during the typical dispensation the pattern of the true tabernacle, by the will of God, existed in the midst of his chosen people. See Ex. xxv, and a multitude of parallel scriptures. And that at the close of the typical dispensation the true tabernacle of God in heaven and the more excellent ministry of our great High Priest in that tabernacle took the place of the pattern and shadow. Heb. viii; ix. The tabernacle of God is therefore the subject of prophecy as the Sanctuary of the Bible. That this Sanctuary is to be cleansed with blood is plainly stated in Heb. ix. And this is precisely the nature of the cleansing referred to in Dan. viii, 14. For the word rendered "cleansed" in that text, is in the margin rendered "justified," and signifies, not the removing of physical uncleanness, but the removing of sin and iniquity. This is an important fact, and one that of itself goes far toward proving that the cleansing of the Sanctuary in Dan. viii and Heb. ix are the same. But a singular question is now being discussed, and an effort being made to "overthrow the faith of some." The doctrine is now advocated that the 2300 days do not extend to the cleansing of the Sanctuary. If this is the truth of God, then the prophecy of Daniel cannot be a part of Divine truth for the one is in direct contradiction to the other. But this view cannot be truth for two reasons. 1. It is not supported by the Bible. 2. It is directly opposed by the words of inspiration. 1. This doctrine that the cleansing of the Sanctuary does not commence at the end of the 2300 days is not supported by the Bible. For the only means that we have of knowing when the work of cleansing the Sanctuary commences is by the termination of that great prophetic period. "Thy word," says a man of God, "is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." The light from that lamp shines with clearness upon the termination of the 2300 days as the time for the cleansing of the Sanctuary. To deny the commencement of that work at the termination of that period is as unreasonable as it would be to deny the commencement of Christ's ministry at the termination of the sixty-nine weeks; the death of Christ at the termination of the sixty-nine and a half; or the turning of the apostles to the Gentiles at the expiration of the seventy weeks. Dan. ix. God had said that these events should transpire at the times specified. To insert the eighth part of a century between the termination of the sixty-nine weeks and the commencement of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, or to insert the same period between the expiration of the sixty-nine and a half weeks and the crucifixion of Christ would prove that Jesus was not the true Messiah, because he did not occupy his place at the predicted time; or if Jesus was the true Messiah then the prophecy of Daniel was not divinely inspired because the true Messiah did not appear until long after the period predicted by Daniel. No one can deny that one of these conclusions must result from the addition of twelve years to the prophetic periods of Dan. ix. Why an addition of twelve years to the prophetic period of Dan. viii would not be equally fatal to the truth of that prophecy, we cannot see. But it is said that there was other work performed on the day of atonement besides the cleansing of the Sanctuary; and as this might have been earlier in the day than the cleansing of the Sanctuary, it is claimed that there must be a long period between the expiration of the 2300 days and the cleansing the Sanctuary, in which the antitype of that work may be fulfilled. This is reasoning from unlike to unlike. For that which appears in the conclusion is not a necessary deduction from the premises. For, we ask, how does it follow that there must be many years inserted between the end of the 2300 days and the event which the prophet said should transpire at their termination, when there is no authority for inserting such period except an inference drawn from the fact that there were other services performed on the day of atonement besides the cleansing of the Sanctuary? There were other services performed on the day of the passover besides the slaying of the paschal lamb—the type of Christ's death. Now the prophet as we have already seen, foretold the death of Christ at the termination of the sixty-nine and a half weeks. But the principle of interpretation which we are examining would correct the prophet and say, "No, the sixty-nine and a half weeks extend to the antitypical day of passover, and after years165of preparatory work, the Messiah was cut off." This is precisely the kind of reasoning which is applied to the day of atonement; but if it be applied to the day of the passover it proves as we have already shown either that Daniel was a false prophet or that Jesus was not the Messiah. But this doctrine should be further examined. It will necessarily lead those that hold it, into the greatest absurdities. We must according to this theory have the antitype of the offerings mentioned in Num. xxix, 7-11, between the ending of the 2300 days and the cleansing of the Sanctuary. What then did the slaying of those sacrifices typify? We answer, the death of the Son of God. See Heb. ix; x. This cannot be disputed. And we may add that whenever blood was shed in the typical system, for the sins of men, it pointed directly to the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. But as Christ was to die once for all, there could be but one of these sacrifices that should typify the death of Christ, as to its time, and that was the passover. This was always sacrificed on the fourteenth day of the first month—the day of Christ's death. But let us return to the offerings made on the day of atonement. If these are to have distinct antitypes, and that too, after the 2300 days have ended, it unavoidably follows that our Lord must again be put to death! The victims were slain in the court of the tabernacle. Hence our Lord must according to this doctrine return to earth and die in a manner similar to that in which he died at the first, and after that return to heaven and complete the work in the holiest of all! This absurdity is not all. Our Lord must die as many times as there were different times of offering sacrifices specified in the law. He must indeed offer himself often, instead of once for all. Let those who now occupy the position here discussed, seriously consider the conclusions which follow from their own premises. 2. We have shown the unscriptural character of this position. But we will quote in conclusion the words of inspiration which directly meet and demolish the fabric which ingenious men are trying to rear. "And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed." Dan. viii, 14. Brethren, let us not be carried about with divers and strange doctrines. J. N. Andrews.