The Sanctuary---An Objection Considered by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 1, 1864

The Sanctuary---An Objection Considered.

By Editor

To the Brethren Connected with the Review: I write you for the purpose of gaining, if possible, instruction concerning a certain matter wherein a difference exists between your views and those of others on the same point. It is relative to the "Sanctuary." While I am conversant with your views thereon, I am held in check by what has been published by Dr. John Thomas, with whose writings I judge you are acquainted. In his work, "Anatolia," or "Russia Triumphant," &c., he renders the query, "How long the vision," appealing to, and relying on, the original, "Until when the vision (khakzon) the evening-morning sacrifice, tahmid, and the rebellion causing desolation, to give both the holy (kodech) and the army a treading down?" He replies, "The original is not yahmin, 'days;' it is erev boker, an evening-morning." He says further, "'Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,' was no part of the answer given in Daniel's hearing. The words he heard were we-nitzdak kodech. The word kodech is not 'sanctuary,' but holy; designating what is holy connected with Judah, such as the Holy City, called emphatically 'The Holy;' and the Holy Land. Again, as to nitzdak, rendered cleansed in the common version, this is not its meaning. It signifies to be vindicated from injury and violence, or to be avenged. The word for to cleanse is tahhar, and is used several times in the sense of to cleanse Judea from the putrefying bodies of the slain in the prophecy of the Autocrat of Russia's overthrow in the breaking of the Latino-Greek Babylonian power. Ezek. xxxix, 12, 14, 16. 'Then the Holy shall be avenged,' is the only proper rendering of which the original is susceptible in this place." Pp. 24, 25.

Now, with due deference to all my superiors, when an author like Dr. John Thomas comes out with the original and declares before the world that the original is not susceptible of any other rendering, and subjects the character of his scholarship to the severest test, I have to stand back and wait to see if there is to be found a David who can meet this Goliath, and make a better disposition of this matter. If the above be true, then a great and irreparable rent is made in the theory of our "Advent Review" friends. But we are confident if there can be produced any counter understanding that may successfully contravene this position, they will with pleasure make it known for the benefit of their readers. We wait to see what may come to hand for our relief.

A remnant here in this city, in the temporary absence of our esteemed Bro., M. G. Kellogg, are striving for the unity of the faith of the gospel, and the keeping of the commandments of God.

Yours in the one hope of the gospel.

A. H. OTIS.

San Francisco, California.

REPLY. We are glad Bro. Otis has called attention to this subject, as others may be troubled on the same point. The criticism of Dr. Thomas has reference principally to the import of the original words used in Dan. viii, 13, 14. If we understand him, the only points which he endeavors to make are these: 1. That the vision has reference to the daily, evening and morning, sacrifice of the Jews. 2. That the word days, should be translated evening-mornings. 3. That the word rendered sanctuary does not mean sanctuary, but "the holy," referring especially to the holy city or the holy land. And 4. That the word cleansed means only "to be vindicated from injury and violence," referring also to the land. Let us look at these points in their order:

1. "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily [sacrifice] and the transgression of desolation," &c. Dan. viii, 13. By referring to this scripture the reader will see that the word sacrifice, is not in the original, but is a supplied word. Now unless there can be shown some necessity for supplying this word, we may set it down as settled, that the vision does not relate to the daily sacrifice of the Jews.

First, then, it is not implied in the word "daily," (tah-meed) which Dr. T. renders the "evening-morning sacrifice." By the aid of the Englishman's Hebrew Concordance we trace this word through the Old Testament, and find every instance of its use. It is rendered "always, continual, continually, perpetual, ever," and in a few instances "daily." Its usual and almost universal rendering is "continual." This word is used where such expressions as continual burnt offering, perpetual incense, &c., occur; but where it refers to sacrifice or offering, the word sacrifice or offering is in every instance expressed. The word used alone, as in Dan. viii, 13, never signifies an offering or sacrifice, according to the concordance; and it is more frequently applied to other things than to sacrifices and offerings.

Second. There is nothing in the context to demand that the word sacrifice should be supplied. The word first occurs in verse 11, where, speaking of the little horn that waxed exceeding great, Daniel says, "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down." Here the "daily" is introduced to us as a power, or something, that was in possession of a sanctuary. It would be altogether improper to apply the pronoun "his" to the daily sacrifice of the Jews, and represent it as in possession of a sanctuary where it worshiped. Again, verse 12, "And an host was given him against the daily [sacrifice]." This represents that the daily was something, against which a host must be given in order to supplant it. But this, again, could not properly be applied to the daily sacrifice of the Jews; for any power that was to overthrow that people, would be represented as coming against the people, not against one of their many ceremonies and sacrifices. This would be singular if not absurd. It is evident, then, that there are two great and opposing powers brought to view from verse 13. These appear face to face in verse 13, the one styled "the daily," the other the "transgression of desolation." The daily what? Sacrifice? No. There is nothing about sacrifice, nor any allusion to it, either in this verse or in the context. Then what? Answer, Desolation. We claim that the natural construction of the language demands that this word be supplied. Then we have, as the two powers brought to view, the daily [desolation] and the transgression of desolation.

What powers are referred to by these expressions? All must agree, or if not, it can be easily proved, that the little horn introduced in verse 9, is the Roman power. And as there is no new symbol of earthly governments brought to view in the chapter, but this reaches to the end, we conclude that the two antagonistic forces subsequently mentioned, represent the two great phases of the Roman power, namely its pagan and papal forms. When it first assumed the reins of empire, it stood forth as the embodiment and representative of paganism. Subsequently, in the same empire, paganism was obliged to yield to the papacy. And under these two divisions may be summed up the oppression of the people of God. Paganism and papacy are the two great desolating powers that have trodden under foot the church. The first, the "daily" or continual desolation, paganism, having from time immemorial oppressed and desolated the church; but latter, the transgression of desolation, papacy, finally supplanting the former, and imbuing its hands still deeper in the blood of the saints. Concerning these two powers, then, paganism and papacy, and not the daily sacrifice of the Jews, the vision is given, and the question is asked, How long shall the sanctuary and the host be trodden under foot by them?

2. The original in Dan. viii, 14, unto 2300 days, is not yahmin, "days," but erev-boker, evening-morning. Granted; the margin says the same; but what of that? There is no allusion in this to the evening and morning sacrifice. Taken alone, these words never mean that. Whenever the idea of offering and sacrifice is connected with them, it is always expressed, as in the case of the word daily, above examined. These are the words used to express the duration of a day in Gen.

1. The evening and the morning (erev-boker) were the first day (yohm). As denoting duration, then, we may set down erev boker as the equivalent of yohm. What matters it, therefore, which words are used in Dan. viii, 14? It matters not a particle. Under the word evening, Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon, says: "Erev boker, evening and morning, a day and night, i. e., the civil day of 24 hours. Dan. viii, 14." From this it must be evident to all that "days" is the correct rendering; and being given in connection with a symbolic prophecy, covering so long a period of both paganism and papacy, they must be symbolic, each day standing for a year. But,

3. "The word kodech," says Dr. T., "is not sanctuary, but holy; designating what is holy connected with Judah, such as the holy city, called emphatically, 'The Holy,' and the Holy Land." Let us look at this. It is true that the word kodech means holy; it also means sanctuary, Dr. Thomas to the contrary notwithstanding. The first three definitions of the word given by Gesenius are as follows: "1st. Holiness, sanctity. 2d. Concr. A holy thing, something sacred, consecrated, opposed to profane. 3d. A holy place, sanctuary, as the tabernacle, Ex. xxviii, 43; xxix, 30; xxxv, 19; xxxix, 1; the temple, Ps. xx, 2; Dan. viii, 14, al. Spec. of the temple itself as distinguished from its courts," &c. The word occurs in the Old Testament four hundred and twelve times, and is sixty-seven times rendered sanctuary, referring to the typical sanctuary of the Jews, and thirty-eight times holy or most holy (place), referring also to the temple. It is the word that is used when God speaks of his holy name, his Holy Spirit, holy city, holy land, holy mountain, &c.; but in every instance of this kind, the words name, Spirit, city, land, mountain, &c., are expressed. This word used alone as it is in Dan. viii, 14, is never used in the Bible to signify holy city, holy mountain, or holy land. An instance cannot be found. But it is used alone as in Dan. viii, 14, one hundred and five times to signify the sanctuary, or holy places of the sanctuary, the place where the Jews offered their sacrifices, and the priests performed their typical service. So far, therefore, as the definition of the word is concerned, Dr. T. certainly mistakes, in thinking that there is any reference in Dan. viii, 14, to the city of Jerusalem, or the land of Palestine.

Again, admitting that the word should be rendered simply "the holy," and that it was once used to signify Jerusalem and Judea, could it signify that now? It could not; for God has cast off that people, rejected that land, and discarded that city; and they are no longer "holy" unto him. What Dr. Thomas' views of the ending of the 2300 days, are, we do not know; but most of that class of Adventists place their termination still in the future. Very well. The text speaks of something called the sanctuary, or the holy, which is to be cleansed at the termination of those days; and if God does not now regard the city or land of the Jews as holy unto him, they cannot be the objects that are then to be cleansed.

But some are continually dwelling upon old Jerusalem, Judea and the Jews, as the especial favorites of Heaven, when God declares expressly that he regards them not. Such might much more appropriately be styled "Judaizers" than Seventh-day Adventists. How must God regard such a course? Let us test it by an illustration. Suppose a certain king for a good and just cause legally divorces his queen, and declares her separated from him forever. Suppose that before she had forfeited all her rights under the marriage relation, he had regarded her highly, and bestowed upon her magnificent favors, and still more magnificent promises. And suppose that after he had put her away, and thoroughly made known the fact, a class of persons should rise up and harangue the people from one end of his kingdom to the other, setting forth how highly he regarded the woman he had put away, what a favorite she was with him, and the magnificent promises he was going to fulfill for her benefit. How would he regard this? It would be a continual insult to him. No less so is it to the majesty of Heaven, to have people continually setting forth Jerusalem, Judea, and the Jews as objects of special affection with God, when he has declared that he has cast them off, and they are no longer his people. There is now

neither Jew nor Greek. Jesus Christ has leveled to the ground all these distinctions. A new covenant is made. A new bond of union is formed. Those only who are in Christ are now the heirs of the promises; and his name alone prevails, to procure for any person, be he Jew or Gentile, the favor or regard of the Almighty. Jerusalem or Judea now holy to God? No more so than Detroit or Michigan.

Once more: There is a "host" connected with this sanctuary to be trodden under foot. This host, all must admit, are the people who are connected with that object called the sanctuary whatever it is. But if the sanctuary is the land, on what ground shall we account for the host's being mentioned in connection with it? For let us inquire what it is to tread under foot a land. A land is literally trodden under foot by those who dwell upon it, be they friends or foes. This then, is not the sense in which it is used in the text under notice. It must be taken to denote the injury or oppression that is inflicted upon it. But how is a land oppressed? It is not by oppressing the stones and dirt that compose the country, but the people who inhabit it. But here are the "host" spoken of besides. Then from the Dr.'s view of Dan. viii, 13, we draw the following: The word sanctuary means the holy land. To tread it under foot means to oppress the people of the land. The host means the people, and treading them under foot means to oppress them. So the question that Daniel heard, divested of all figure, would be simply this: "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily and the transgression of desolation, to give both the people and the people to be trodden under foot?" This would be a nonsensical tautology of which the Scriptures are never guilty. Therefore, again, the word sanctuary in that scripture does not mean the land of Palestine.

But further: It being admitted that the host are the people that are connected with the sanctuary, let us inquire what people constitute this host. Verse 11 speaks of the "prince of the host." We know who this is: it is Jesus of Nazareth, against whom (margin), the little horn, the Roman power, magnified itself when it nailed him to the cross. If, then, Christ is the prince of the host, who are the host? Answer. His people: not the Jews, that is, the literal seed, but those who are Jews inwardly, true Christians. Christ is not the prince of the Jews, since his first advent: for they have rejected him, and been rejected themselves, in consequence. But what connection have Christians with the land of Palestine? None. Therefore, we conclude, again, that Christians being included in the "host" of Dan. viii, 13, the land of Palestine is not the sanctuary of that verse.

4. But, continues Dr. T., the word rendered cleansed does not mean cleansed, but "vindicated from injury and violence;" and this too he applies to the land of Canaan. But there is no more difficulty, except for himself, on this than on the other portions of his criticism. This word occurs forty-one times. Eleven times it is rendered righteous, twenty-eight times justice and justify, once cleansed, Dan. viii, 14, and once clear ourselves. From its use we see that there is an idea of freedom from guilt involved in the word which could not well be applied to the land of Judea.

The word kahphar, which he says is the word for "to cleanse," and which he declares "is used several times in the sense of to cleanse Judea from the putrefying bodies of the slain," &c., occurs ninety-nine times. Sixty-eight times it is rendered atonement. Only once, and that in Num. xxxv, 33, is it used in reference to cleansing the land; and there there is no allusion whatever to putrefying dead bodies. But this is not the word which is rendered cleansed in Dan. viii, 14. And the word there rendered cleansed, never has any reference to cleansing the land in any sense.

In the light of these facts, which any one having a copy of the Hebrew concordance can easily verify, the reader can judge for himself of the correctness of the Dr.'s position and statements.

Of our own views of the sanctuary, the transfer from the type to the antitype in Heaven, how is it trodden under foot, and how and when cleansed, it has not been our object here to speak. On these points we refer the reader to our published works on this subject. We have aimed simply to follow Dr. T.'s criticism, and instead of concluding with him that the rendering, "Then the Holy shall be avenged," is the only proper one "of which the original is susceptible," we conclude rather that it is by no means an allowable one in the sense in which he gives it.