PREFACE

Today’s post is the final article of a series that JN Andrews wrote regarding The Sanctuary. A link to parts 1-3 can be found at the end of this article. The original publication took place on February 3, 1853 in the Review and Herald.

This writing carries a great deal of importance with it as it addresses the sanctuary in heaven and Christ’s ministration being carried out there.

I hope this series has been a blessing to all that have read it. This last article is definitely worth reading.

God Bless,

Charles

ORIGINAL WRITING

(Any bolding of text has been added by me and is not part of the original writing)

THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY

BY J. N. ANDREWS

Concluded

THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY HAS TWO HOLY PLACES. - The following testimony on this point is conclusive. We gather it from the Old and New Testaments, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

1. The tabernacle erected by Moses, after a forty days inspection of the one showed to him in the mount, consisted of two holy places,1 and is declared to be a correct pattern or model of that building. Exodus 25:8-9, 40; compared with Exodus 39:32-43. But if the earthly sanctuary consisted of two holy places, and the great original from which it was copied, consisted of only one, instead of likeness, there would be perfect dissimilarity.

2. The temple was built in every respect according to the pattern which God gave to David by the Spirit.2 And Solomon in addressing God says, “Thou hast commanded me to build a temple upon thy holy mount, and an altar in the city wherein thou dwellest, a resemblance of the holy tabernacle which thou hast prepared from the beginning.”3 - The temple was built on a larger and grander scale than the tabernacle; but its distinguishing feature, like the tabernacle, consisted in the fact that it was composed of two holy places.4 This is clear proof that the heavenly tabernacle contains the same.

3. Paul plainly states that “the holy places [plural] made with hands” “are the figures [plural] of the true.” And that the tabernacle, and its vessels, are “patterns of things in the heavens.”5 This is direct evidence that, in the greater and more perfect tabernacle, there are two holy places, even as in the “figure,” “example” or “pattern.”

4. The Apostle actually uses the word holies, [plural] in speaking of the heavenly sanctuary. The expression “holiest of all,” in Hebrews 9:8; 10:19, has been supposed by some to prove that Christ began to minister in the most holy place at his ascension. But the expression is not “hagia hagion,” holy of holies, as in chapter 9:3; but is simply “hagion” holies. It is the same word that is rendered sanctuary in Hebrews 8:2. In each of these three texts,6 Macknight renders the word, “holy places.” The Doway Bible renders it “the holies.” And thus we learn that the heavenly sanctuary consists of two “holy places.”

VESSELS OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY. - We have noticed particularly the vessels of the earthly sanctuary, and have cited divine testimony to show that they were patterns of the true in heaven. This is strikingly confirmed by the fact that in the heavenly sanctuary we find the like vessels.

1. The ark of God’s testament, and the cherubim.7

2. The golden altar of incense.8

3. The candlestick with the seven lamps.9

4. The golden censer.10

This heavenly sanctuary is called by Jesus “my Father’s house;”11 by David, Habakkuk and John, “the temple of God in heaven;”12 God’s “holy habitation;”13 “greater and more perfect tabernacle;”14 “the sanctuary and true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man.”15

THE TREADING DOWN OF THE SANCTUARY

The agents by which the sanctuary is trodden under foot are the daily, or continual desolation, and the transgression, or abomination of desolation.16 These two desolations, as we have already seen, are Paganism and Papacy. It is often urged as a sufficient argument against the view of the sanctuary of God in heaven, that such a sanctuary is not susceptible of being trodden under foot. But we answer, this is not impossible, when the New Testament shows us that wicked men (apostates) tread under foot the minister of the heavenly sanctuary, our Lord Jesus Christ.17 If they can tread under foot the minister of that sanctuary, then they can tread under foot the sanctuary itself. It is not impossible that the Pagan and Papal desolations should be represented as treading under foot the heavenly sanctuary, when the same vision represents the little horn as stamping upon the stars.18 And when it is expressly predicted that the Papal power should war against the tabernacle of God in heaven.19 The language of this vision, that these blasphemous powers should cast down the truth to the ground, stamp upon the stars, and tread under foot the sanctuary and the host, is certainly figurative, as it would otherwise involve complete absurdities.

Let us now briefly trace the manner in which Satan has, by Paganism and Papacy, trod under foot the sanctuary of the Lord. We have already seen that he has done this by erecting rival sanctuaries, where in the place of the only living and true God, he has established “new gods that came newly up.”20 In the days of the Judges and of Samuel, Satan’s rival sanctuary was the temple of Dagon, where the Philistines worshiped.21 And when they had taken the ark of God from Israel, the Philistines deposited it in this temple.22 After Solomon erected a glorious sanctuary upon Mount Moriah, Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin, erected a rival sanctuary at Bethel, and thus drew away ten of the twelve tribes from the worship of the living God, to that of the golden calves.23 In the days of Nebuchadnezzar, the rival to the sanctuary of God was the temple of Nebuchadnezzar’s god at Babylon. - And into this temple he carried the vessels of the Lord’s sanctuary, when he laid it desolate.24 At a still later period, Satan established at Rome a temple, or sanctuary of “all the gods.”25

After the typical sanctuary of the first covenant had given place to the true sanctuary of God, Satan baptized his Pagan sanctuary and heathen rites and ceremonies, calling them Christianity. Thenceforward he had at Rome a “temple of God,” and in that temple, a being exalted above all that is called God or that is worshiped.26 And this Papal abomination has trod under foot the holy city,27 by persuading a large portion of the human family that Rome, the place of this counterfeit temple of God, was “the holy city,” or “the eternal city.” And it has trod under foot, and blasphemed God’s sanctuary or tabernacle28 by calling its own sanctuary the temple of God, and by turning away the worship of them that dwell on the earth, from “the temple of God in heaven,” to the sanctuary of Satan at Rome. It has trod under foot the Son of God, the minister of the heavenly sanctuary,29 by making the Pope the head of the church, instead of Jesus Christ,30 and by leading men to the worship of that “son of perdition,” as one able to forgive past sins, and confer the right to commit them in the future, and thus turning men from him who alone has power on earth to forgive sins, and to pardon iniquity and transgression. Such has been the nature of the warfare which Satan has maintained against the sanctuary and the cause of God, in his vain attempts to defeat the great plan of redemption which God has been carrying forward in his sanctuary. In order to present the cleansing of the sanctuary of God in heaven, it is necessary to notice briefly

THE MINISTRATION AND CLEANSING OF THE EARTHLY SANCTUARY

We have before shown that the earthly sanctuary consisted of two holy places, and that it was a pattern of the true tabernacle of God in heaven. - We shall now present, in a brief manner, the work of ministration in both those holy places, and also the work of cleansing that sanctuary, at the end of that ministration, every year, and shall prove that that ministration was the example and shadow of Christ’s more excellent ministry in the true tabernacle.

The ministration in the earthly sanctuary was performed by the Levitical order of priesthood.31 The act, preparatory to the commencement of the ministration in that earthly tabernacle, was the anointing of its two holy places, and of all its sacred vessels.32 The entire work of the priests in the two holy places is summed up by Paul as follows: “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, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.”33 The ministration in the earthly sanctuary is thus presented before us in two grand divisions. First, the daily service in the holy place, which consisted of the regular morning and evening burnt-offering,34 the burning of sweet incense upon the golden altar, when the high priest lighted the lamps every morning and evening,35 the special work upon the Lord’s Sabbaths, and also upon the annual sabbaths, new moons and feasts,36 and beside all this, the special work for individuals as they should present their particular offerings through the year.37 And second, the yearly work, in the most holy place, for the sins of the people, and for the cleansing of the sanctuary.38 Thus each of the two holy places had its appropriate work assigned. The glory of the God of Israel was manifested in both apartments. When he entered the tabernacle at the first, his glory filled both the holy places.39 See also 1 Kings 8:10-11; 2 Chronicles 5:13-14; 7:1-2. In the door of the first apartment, the Lord stood and talked with Moses.40 In this place, God promised to meet with the children of Israel, and to sanctify the tabernacle with his glory.41 In the holiest, also, God manifested his glory in a special manner.42

In the first apartment, stood the priests in a continual course of ministration for the people. He that had sinned, brought his victim to the door of this apartment to be offered up for himself. He laid his hand upon the head of the victim to denote that his sin was transferred to it.43 - Then the victim was slain on account of that transgression, and his blood, bearing that sin and guilt, was carried into the sanctuary, and sprinkled upon it.44 Thus, through the year, this ministration went forward. The sins of the people being transferred from themselves to the victims offered in sacrifice, and through the blood of the sacrifices, transferred to the sanctuary itself.

On the tenth day of the seventh month, the ministration was changed from the holy place, where it had been continued through the year, to the most holy place.45 The high priest entered the holiest with the blood of a bullock, as a sin-offering for himself.46 He then received of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin-offering. Upon these goats he cast lots; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scape-goat.47 He next proceeded to offer the goat, upon which the Lord’s lot fell, as a sin-offering for the people.

We shall now show that he offered this blood for two purposes:

1. “To make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins.”

2. To cleanse, or “make an atonement for the holy sanctuary.”

Let us read a portion of the chapter.

We have here read several important facts.

1. On the tenth day of the seventh month the ministration was changed from the holy place to the holiest of all.48

2. That in the most holy place, blood was offered for the sins of the people to make an atonement for them.49

3. That the two holy places of the sanctuary, and also the altar of incense were on this day cleansed from the sins of the people, which, as we have seen, had through the year been borne into the sanctuary and sprinkled upon it.50

4. That the high priest, having by blood removed the sins of the people from the sanctuary, bears them to the door of the tabernacle51 where the scape-goat stands, and putting both his hands upon the head of the goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel in all their sins, he puts them upon the head of the goat, and sends him away, with all their iniquities, into a land not inhabited.52 The sanctuary was then cleansed from the sins of the people, and those sins were borne by the scape-goat from the sanctuary.

The foregoing presents to our view a general outline of the ministration in the worldly sanctuary. The following scriptures show that that ministration was the example and shadow of Christ’s ministry in the tabernacle in heaven:

The facts stated in these texts are worthy of careful attention.

1. We have a High Priest in the heavens.

2. This High Priest is a minister of the sanctuary or true tabernacle.

3. As the earthly high priests were ordained to offer sacrifice for sins, so it is of necessity that our High Priest should have something to offer for us in the heavenly sanctuary.

4. When upon earth he was not a priest.

5. The ministry of the priests in that tabernacle, made after the pattern of the true, was the example and shadow of Christ’s more excellent ministry in the true tabernacle itself.

6. The entire typical service was a shadow of good things to come.

7. In the greater and more perfect tabernacle, Christ is a minister of these good things, thus shadowed forth. With these facts before us let us now consider that more excellent ministry in the temple of God in heaven.

THE MINISTRATION AND CLEANSING OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY

At the close of the typical services, He of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, came and laid down his life for us. - The death of the Lord Jesus is the dividing point between the two dispensations, as it put an end to the typical services, and was the great foundation of his work as a priest in the heavenly tabernacle. On Jesus was laid the iniquity of us all, and he bare our sins in his own body on the tree.53 He was raised from the dead for our justification, and ascended into heaven to become a great High Priest in the presence of God for us.54

The ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is performed by the Melchizedek order of priesthood, in the person of our Lord.55 We have already proved that the temple of God in heaven consists of two holy places, as did the earthly tabernacle; and that the ministration in the two holy places of the worldly sanctuary was the example and shadow of Christ’s ministry in the true tabernacle. But it is contended by some that Christ ministers only in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. Let us examine this point.

1. His anointing the most holy place of the true tabernacle, at the commencement of his ministration, may be urged as proof that he ministers only in the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.56 But this objection vanishes at once if we consider that before the Levitical priesthood began to minister in the earthly sanctuary, that entire building, the holiest as well as the holy place and all the sacred vessels, were anointed.57 - And when this anointing was accomplished, that ministration began in the first apartment.58 And this order, let it be remembered, was “the example and shadow of heavenly things.”

2. It has been urged by some that the text, “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God,”59 forbids the idea of his ministering in the two holy places. But we answer, that so far as the idea of sitting down is concerned, it would be equally proper to represent him as standing on the Father’s right hand.60 And if the Saviour is at “the right hand of the power of God” when descending from heaven, as he testifies respecting himself,61 then he certainly can be at the Father’s right hand, in both the holy places. But we have direct testimony here. Paul says that Christ is a “minister of the sanctuary.”62 That the word “hagion,” here rendered sanctuary, is plural, no one can deny. It is literally rendered by the Doway Bible, “the holies.” As translated by Macknight,63 it reads thus: “Now of the things spoken the chief is, we have such a High Priest as became us, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the holy places, namely, of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man.” We draw two conclusions from the foregoing. - (1.) Our Lord can be a minister of the two holy places, and yet be at the Father’s right hand. (2.) He must minister in both the holy places, or Paul’s language that he is a minister of the holies or holy places, [plural,] is not true. An high priest that should minister simply in the holiest of all, is not a minister of the holy places.

3. But another argument to prove that Christ ministers only in the most holy place, has been urged by some, from the following texts: “The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing.”64 “Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.”65 But as has been before remarked, the word rendered “holiest of all,” is the same that is rendered “sanctuary” in chapter 8:2, and is not “hagia hagion,” holy of holies, as in chapter 9:3, but is simply “hagion,” holies, plural. The rendering of Macknight, which correctly translates the word in the plural, removes all difficulty. He translates these two texts as follows: “The Holy Ghost signifying this, that the way of the holy places was not yet laid open, while the first tabernacle still standeth.” “Well then, brethren, having boldness in the entrance of the holy places, by the blood of Jesus.” These texts, therefore, do not favor the doctrine that Christ is a minister of only one of the holy places. With a literal rendering of the word, giving it in the plural in our language, just as it was written by Paul, the objection to Christ’s ministration in the two holy places of the heavenly sanctuary is entirely removed. The way into the holy places of the heavenly sanctuary was not laid open, while the ministration in the earthly tabernacle continued; but when that ministration was abolished, the way of the heavenly holy places was laid open, and we have boldness to enter by faith, where our High Priest is ministering for us.

It may be proper to add, that the phrase rendered, “into the holy place,” in Hebrews 9:12, 25, and “into the sanctuary,” in chapter 13:11, is the same that in chapter 9:24 is literally rendered in the plural, “into the holy places.” Macknight renders them all in the plural. Then the heavenly tabernacle, where our Lord Jesus Christ ministers, is composed of holy places, as really as was its pattern or image, the earthly tabernacle; and our great High Priest is a minister of those holy places while at the Father’s right hand.

Let us now examine those scriptures which present our Lord’s position and ministry in the tabernacle in heaven. In vision at Patmos, the beloved disciple has a view of the temple of God, the heavenly sanctuary. A door was opened in heaven. - This must be the door of the heavenly tabernacle, for it disclosed to John’s view the throne of God, which was in that temple.66 It must be the door of the first apartment, for that of the second apartment (which discloses the ark containing the commandments) is not opened until the sounding of the seventh angel.67 And the view, that John was looking into the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, when he saw the Lord Jesus take the book from the hand of him that sat upon the throne, is strikingly confirmed by what he saw before the throne. He testifies that “there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.”68 He also saw the golden altar of incense before the throne, and witnessed the ministration at that altar with the golden censer.69 In the earthly tabernacle, which was the pattern of things in the heavens, the golden candlestick with its seven lamps, and the golden altar of incense, were both represented, and, by God’s express direction, placed in the first apartment.70 The scene of this vision is the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Here it was that John saw the Lord Jesus.71

Let us read Isaiah’s description of this place.

That this was a view of the heavenly tabernacle, and not of the temple at Jerusalem, may be proved by comparing John 12:39-41, with Isaiah 6:8-10. Words written by Isaiah, while looking into the temple of God, are quoted by John with the declaration that Isaiah spake them while beholding Christ’s glory. That John and Isaiah both beheld the same place is evident;

• both beheld the throne of God, and him that sits upon it;72

• both beheld the living beings with six wings;73

• each heard from these beings a like song;74 and

• both beheld the golden altar before the throne.75

That John and Isaiah both saw our Lord Jesus Christ we have already proved. And the scene of their visions was in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, the place of the golden candlestick with its seven lamps, and the golden altar of incense. And in this apartment our High Priest commenced his ministration, like the priests in the example and shadow of heavenly things. In the shadow, each part of the work was many times repeated; but in the substance, each part is fulfilled once for all. Once for all, our Sacrifice is slain;76 and once for all, our High Priest appears in each of the holy places.77 Hence, our Lord must continue his ministration in the first apartment until the period arrives for his ministration within the second vail, before the ark of God’s testament.

The sins of the world were laid upon the Lord Jesus, and he died for those sins according to the Scriptures. The blood of the Lamb of God, which was shed for our transgressions of God’s law, is that by which our High Priest enters the heavenly sanctuary,78 and which, as our advocate, he offers for us in that sanctuary.79 His great work, which began with the act of bearing the sins of the world at his death, he here carries forward by pleading the cause of penitent sinners, and presenting for them his blood which had been shed as the great sacrifice for the sins of the world. The work in the earthly sanctuary was essentially the same thing. The sins were there laid upon the victim, which was then slain. The blood of that sacrifice, bearing that guilt, was sprinkled, in the sanctuary to make reconciliation for the sinner.80 And thus in the shadow of heavenly things, we see the guilt of the people transferred to the sanctuary itself. This can be easily understood. And it is a plain fact that its great design was to give an example of heavenly things. As the sin of him who came to God, through the offering of blood by the high priest, was, through that blood, transferred to the sanctuary itself, so it is in the substance. He who bore our sins at his death, offers for us his blood in the heavenly sanctuary. But when he comes again, he is “without sin;”81 his great work for the removal of sin is fully completed before he comes again.

We now inquire respecting the removal of the sins of the church, or host, from the sanctuary. - We have seen that only 490 of the 2300 years belonged to the earthly sanctuary, and that the remaining 1810 years, belong to the true sanctuary, which Gabriel introduces to Daniel in his explanation in chapter 9; consequently, the sanctuary to be cleansed from the sins of the church, or host, at the end of the 2300 years, is the heavenly sanctuary. We have also examined those portions of the Bible that explain how and why the earthly sanctuary was cleansed, and have seen that that cleansing was accomplished, not by fire, but by blood. - We have seen that that work was ordained for the express purpose of shadowing forth the work in the heavenly sanctuary. And we have also seen that the sins of those who come to God through our great High Priest are communicated to the sanctuary as was the case in the type. But we are not left without direct testimony on this important point. The Apostle Paul states the fact of the cleansing of the earthly and the heavenly sanctuaries, and plainly affirms that the latter must be cleansed for the same reason that the former had been. - He speaks as follows:

Two important facts are stated in this portion of scripture.

1. The earthly sanctuary was cleansed by blood.

2. The heavenly sanctuary must be cleansed by better sacrifice, that is, by the blood of Christ. It is plain, then, that the idea of cleansing the sanctuary by fire has no support in the Bible.

These words, as rendered by Macknight are very clear: “And almost all things according to the law, are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. There was a necessity, therefore, that the representations indeed of the holy places in the heavens, should be cleansed by these sacrifices; but the heavenly holy places themselves, by sacrifices better than these. Therefore Christ hath not entered into the holy places made with hands; the images of the true holy places; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God, on our account.”82 Then the fact of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is plainly taught by the Apostle Paul in his commentary on the typical system. And this great truth, plainly stated, is worthy of lasting remembrance.

By many, the idea of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, will be treated with scorn, “because,” say they, “there is nothing in heaven to be cleansed.” Such overlook the fact that the holy of holies, where God manifested his glory, and which no one but the high priest could enter, was, according to the law, to be cleansed, because the sins of the people were borne into it by the blood of sin-offering.83 And they overlook the fact that Paul plainly testifies that the heavenly sanctuary must be cleansed for the same reason.84 See also Colossians 1:20. It was unclean in this sense only: the sins of men had been borne into it through the blood of sin-offering, and they must be removed. This fact can be grasped by every mind.

The work of cleansing the sanctuary, changes the ministration from the holy place to the holiest of all.85 As the ministration in the holy place of the temple in heaven began immediately after the end of the typical system, at the close of the sixty-nine and a half weeks,86 so the ministration in the holiest of all, in the heavenly sanctuary, begins with the termination of the 2300 days. Then our High Priest enters the holiest to cleanse the sanctuary. The termination of this great period, marks the commencement of the ministration of the Lord Jesus in the holiest of all. This work, as presented in the type, we have already seen was for a twofold purpose, viz: the forgiveness of iniquity, and the cleansing of the sanctuary. And this great work our Lord accomplishes with his own blood; whether by the actual presentation of it, or by virtue of its merits, we need not stop to inquire.

No one can fail to perceive that this event, the cleansing of the sanctuary, is one of infinite importance. This accomplishes the great work of the Messiah in the tabernacle in heaven, and renders it complete. The work of cleansing the sanctuary is succeeded by the act of placing the sins, thus removed, upon the head of the scape-goat, to be borne away for ever from the sanctuary. The work of our High Priest for the sins of the world, will then be completed, and he be ready to appear “without sin unto salvation.” The act of placing the sins upon the head of the scape-goat, in the type, has already been noticed.87 The following valuable remarks on this important point are from the pen of O. R. L. Crozier, written in 1846.

“THE SCAPE-GOAT. - The next event of that day, after the sanctuary was cleansed, was the putting of all the iniquities and transgressions of the children of Israel upon the scape-goat, and sending him away into a land not inhabited, or of separation. It is supposed by almost every one that this goat typified Christ in some of his offices, and that the type was fulfilled at the first Advent. From this opinion I must differ, because,

1. That goat was not sent away till after the high priest had made an end of cleansing the sanctuary.88 Hence that event cannot meet its antitype till after the end of the 2300 days.

2. It was sent away from Israel into the wilderness, a land not inhabited, to receive them. If our blessed Saviour is its antitype, he also must be sent away, not his body alone, but soul and body, for the goat was sent away alive, from, not to, nor into, his people; neither into heaven, for that is not a wilderness, or land not inhabited.

3. It received and retained all the iniquities of Israel; but when Christ appears the second time he will be ‘without sin.’

4. The goat received the iniquities from the hands of the priest, and he sent it away. As Christ is the priest, the goat must be something else besides himself which he can send away.

5. This was one of two goats, chosen for that day, of which one was the Lord’s, and was offered for a sin-offering; but the other was not called the Lord’s, neither offered as a sacrifice. Its only office was to receive the iniquities from the priest, after he had cleansed the sanctuary from them, and bear them into a land not inhabited, leaving the sanctuary, priest and people, behind, and free from their iniquities.89

6. The Hebrew name of the scape-goat, as will be seen from the margin of verse 8,90 is Azazel. On this verse, Wm. Jenks, in his Comp. Com. has the following remarks: ‘Scape-goat. See diff. opin. in Bochart. Spencer, after the oldest opinion of the Hebrews and Christians, thinks Azazel is the name of the devil; and so Rosenmire, whom see. The Syriac has Azazel the angel (strong one) who revolted.’

7. At the appearing of Christ, as taught in Revelation 20, Satan is to be bound and cast into the bottomless pit, which act and place are significantly symbolized by the ancient high priest sending the scape-goat into a separate and uninhabited wilderness. –

8. Thus we have the scripture, the definition of the name in two ancient languages both spoken at the same time, and the oldest opinion of the Christians in favor of regarding the scape-goat as a type of Satan. In the common use of the term, men always associate it with something mean, calling refugees from Justice, scape-goats. Ignorance of the law and its meaning is the only possible origin that can be assigned for the opinion that the scape-goat was a type of Christ.

Because it is said, ‘The goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited,’91 and John said, ‘behold the Lamb of God, that taketh [margin, beareth] away the sin of the world,’ it is concluded without further thought that the former was the type of the latter. But a little attention to the law will show that the sins were borne from the people by the priest, and from the priest by the goat.

1. They are imparted to the victim.

2. The priest bore them in its blood to the sanctuary.

3. After cleansing it from them on the tenth day of the seventh month, he bore them to the scape-goat.

4. The goat finally bore them away beyond the camp of Israel to the wilderness.

This was the legal process, and when fulfilled, the author of sins will have received them back again, (but the ungodly will bear their own sins,) and his head will have been bruised by the seed of the woman; ‘the strong man armed’ will have been bound by a stronger than he, and his house (the grave) spoiled of its goods, the saints.”92

The great work of atonement is now complete, and the work of our Lord as priest, accomplished. The sins of those who have obtained pardon through the great sin-offering, are, at the close of our Lord’s work in the holy places, blotted out,93 and being then transferred to the scape-goat, are borne away from the sanctuary and host for ever, and rest upon the head of their author, the devil. The Azazel, or antitypical scape-goat, will then have received the sins of those who have been pardoned in the sanctuary, and in the lake of fire, will suffer for the sins which he has instigated. God’s people, the host, will then be free for ever from their iniquity.

CAUSE OF OUR DISAPPOINTMENT

Why were those disappointed, who looked for Jesus in 1844? This important question, we believe, can be answered in the most satisfactory manner. Our disappointment did not arise from mistaking the commencement of the 70 weeks. The argument by which the original date is sustained, is, as we have seen, invulnerable. Nor did our disappointment arise from a mistake in believing that the 70 weeks form a part of the 2300 days; for every fraction of that argument, as we have shown, still stands good. These two points being susceptible of the clearest proof, we were not mistaken in believing that the 2300 days would terminate in the seventh Jewish month, 1844. Neither did our disappointment arise from believing that at the end of the 2300 days the work of cleansing the sanctuary would take place. For it is plainly stated, “Unto 2300 days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

But when we said that this earth, or a part of this earth, was the sanctuary, and that Christ must descend from heaven at the end of the 2300 days, to purify the earth by fire, we looked for that which the Bible did not warrant us to expect. Here was the cause of our disappointment. For we have seen that there is no scriptural authority to support the view that any part of the earth is the sanctuary, or that the burning of the earth, and the melting of the elements,94 is the cleansing of the sanctuary. By a multitude of witnesses, we have proved that the tabernacle of God is the sanctuary to be cleansed, and that its cleansing is a work performed in the holiest of all, with blood, and not with fire. Our disappointment, then, arose from a misunderstanding of the work to transpire at the end of the days.

Our evidence established two points:

1. The fact that the sanctuary should be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, and that they would terminate at the seventh month, 1844.

2. The types in the example and shadow of heavenly things, set before us the work of the high priest in the seventh month, viz: his act of passing from the holy place to the holiest of all, to cleanse the sanctuary. We reasoned, that as the paschal lamb, which was slain on the fourteenth day of the first month, met its antitype in the death of the Lamb of God, on that day;95 and the offering of the first fruits on the sixteenth day of that month, met its antitype in the resurrection of Christ, on that day, the first fruits of them that slept;96 and the feast of Pentecost met its antitype on the day of its occurrence;97 so the cleansing of the sanctuary in the seventh month,98 at that time in the year when the 2300 days would end, we believed would meet its antitype at the end of that period.

Could we then have understood the subject of the heavenly sanctuary, our disappointment would have been avoided. Our evidence did not prove that our High Priest would descend from the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, in flaming fire to burn the earth, at the end of the 2300 days; but so far from this, it did prove that he must, at that time, enter within the second vail, to minister for us before the ark of God’s testament, and to cleanse the sanctuary.99 Such has been the position of our High Priest since the end of the days, and this is the reason that we did not behold our King in 1844. He had then ministered in only one of the holy places, and the termination of the 2300 days marked the commencement of his ministration in the other. For believing in a literal sanctuary in heaven, consisting of two real holy places, and that our High Priest, while at the Father’s right hand, is a minister of both these holy places, we are ranked as spiritualizes, by our enemies. From this unjust charge we appeal to the Judge of all the earth, who will do right.

When John, who saw the door of the first apartment of the heavenly tabernacle opened at the commencement of Christ’s ministry, was carried in vision down the stream of time to “the days of the voice of the seventh angel,” he saw the most holy place of God’s temple opened. “And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament; and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.”100 Here, by the ark of God’s testament, is where our High Priest ministers, since the close of the 2300 days. To this open door in the heavenly sanctuary,101 we invite those to come for pardon and salvation, who have not sinned away the day of grace. Our High Priest stands by the MERCY-SEAT (the top of the ark,) and here he offers his blood, not merely for the cleansing of the sanctuary, but also for the pardon of iniquity and transgression. But while we call men to this open door, and point them to the blood of Christ, offered for us at the mercy-seat, we would remind them of the LAW OF GOD beneath that mercy-seat, which made the death of God’s beloved Son necessary in order that guilty man might be pardoned. That ark contains God’s commandments, and he that would receive the blessing of God, at the hand of our High Priest, must keep the commandments contained in the ark, before which he ministers. Many affirm that God has abolished his law; but this is so far from the truth, that that law occupies the choicest place in heaven. It is that “justice and judgment,” which are the habitation of God’s throne.102

Two of the three messages of Revelation 14, had been given prior to the end of the days in 1844, as nearly all Advent believers once admitted. The third angel, with the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, gives this last message of mercy, while our High Priest ministers for us before the ark containing the commandments. While he is thus ministering, the host, or church, are waiting the completion of the great work, the putting away of their sins. They are “in the last end of the indignation,“ which occupies a space of time, as is evident from Daniel 8:19.

The close of the third angel’s message is marked by the Son of man taking his position upon the white cloud.103 The last message of mercy will then have closed, and there will be no intercessor between an offended God and guilty, offending man. The angels with the vials of God’s wrath, who are now stayed by the ministration of our great High Priest, will then come out of the temple of God, and pour out the vials of unmixed wrath upon the heads of all the wicked. - The plagues, the earthquake, and the great hail, “every stone about the weight of a talent,” will follow; the enemies of God will be destroyed, and the little horn will be broken without hand.104 The sanctuary and the host will then be vindicated, and all opposing power overwhelmed in irretrievable ruin.

Beyond this time of trouble, such as never was, the scenes of the earth made new, rise before us. - In the midst of that Paradise of God, where his saints will ever remain, we behold his glorious sanctuary;105 and here we leave it, content, if we may be of the number who shall serve God in that temple, for ever and ever.106 The prophetic views of Moses, and of Nathan, respecting God’s sanctuary, will then be fully realized; the Lord will reign for ever and ever, and Israel will be planted to be removed no more.107

Reader, would you escape the things that are coming on the earth? The warning voice of the third angel points out the way. Know for yourself that you have a personal interest in that work which our High Priest is consummating before the ark of God’s testament, and when he shall come again, it will be without sin unto your salvation. We entreat you, heed not the voice of those who break the commandments, and teach men so, for they will soon receive their reward; but rather unite with those who teach and keep them, and you will have life eternal, and free admittance through the gates into the Holy City.

Rochester, N. Y., February, 1853.

OTHER PARTS IN THIS SERIES

• Part 1

• Part 2

• Part 3

Subscribe now

SCRIPTURE INDEX

PREFACE

Today, we are posting Part 3 of J.N. Andrews writing on The Sanctuary. A link to parts 1 and 2 can be found at the end of this article. The original publication took place on January 20, 1853 in the Review and Herald.

In this writing, Andrews covers the history of the earthly sanctuary, then shows how, as a type, it pointed to the heavenly sanctuary and the fulfillments of the types that would take place there.

God Bless,

Charles

ORIGINAL WRITING

(Any bolding of text has been added by me and is not part of the original writing)

THE SANCTUARY

BY J. N. ANDREWS

Continued

THE history of the sanctuary is stated very fully in the books of Kings, and in 2 Chronicles. But we can only quote those texts in which it is called the sanctuary. In 1 Chronicles 9:29, we read of “the instruments of the sanctuary,” referring either to the tabernacle, or the temple. In 1 Chronicles 24:5, we read of “the governors of the sanctuary,” or “house of God.”

The Psalmist prays that God would send “help from the sanctuary.”1 He lifted up his hands “toward the oracle of thy sanctuary.”2 He calls upon the saints to “worship the Lord in his glorious sanctuary.”3 He prays “to see thy power and thy glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary.”4 He speaks of “the goings of my God, my King, in the sanctuary.”5 In Psalm 78:54, he styles the land of Canaan “the border of the sanctuary.” And in verses 68, 69,6 he testifies that God “built his sanctuary like high palaces” at Mount Zion in Judah. He “went into the sanctuary of God,” and saw the end of the wicked.7 He testifies that “thy way O God is in the sanctuary.”8 He predicts the future desolation of God’s temple, or sanctuary.9 In Psalm 96:6, he declares that “strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.” - And in verse 9,10 margin, he says, “O worship the Lord in the glorious sanctuary.” “Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the Lord.”11 “Praise God in his sanctuary.”12

From the period in which the Psalms were written, we pass down the history of the kings of Judah to Jehoshaphat. In prayer he states that God gave the land of Canaan to the people of Israel, “and they dwelt therein, and have built thee a sanctuary therein.”13 And in verse 9,14 he quotes the words used at the dedication of the temple.15

After this, we read that Uzziah, king of Judah, being lifted up with pride, went into the temple to burn incense. And the priests ordered him to go out of the sanctuary.16 Still later we read that Hezekiah offered a sin-offering for the kingdom, and for the sanctuary, and for Judah.17 And he called upon all Israel to yield themselves unto the Lord, and enter into his sanctuary. And he prays for those who were not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.18

About this time, God says by Isaiah, “I have profaned the princes of the sanctuary, and have given Jacob to the curse, and Israel to reproaches.”19 Next, Zephaniah complains that her prophets are light and treacherous persons; her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.20

After this, Ezekiel says, “Thou hast defiled my sanctuary.”21 And in his view of the men with the slaughtering weapons, they were charged to “begin at my sanctuary.” “And they began at the ancient men which were before the house.”22 And in chapter 23:38, 39,23 he says, “Moreover, this they have done unto me: they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house.” And in chapter 24:21,24 God says, “I will profane my sanctuary.”

GOD FORSAKES HIS SANCTUARY

What did God do to the sanctuary at Shiloh? “When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel: so that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which he placed among men: and delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy’s hand:”.25 Then when God told the people that he would do to the temple, as he had done to the tabernacle at Shiloh, it was a solemn declaration that he would forsake it.26 That this prediction was accomplished we shall now show.

THE SANCTUARY DESTROYED

The predictions of Asaph,27 of Isaiah,28 and of Ezekiel,29 were now verified. The heathen then entered “into the sanctuaries [the holies] of the Lord’s house.”30 “The heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation.”31 And the Lord “cast off his altar,” and “abhorred his sanctuary:” and the priest and the prophet were “slain in the sanctuary,” and “the stones of the sanctuary were poured out in the top of the street.”32 In this time of their dispersion, and of their sanctuary’s desolation, God promises to be to them “as a little sanctuary.”33 The sanctuary thus destroyed, lay desolate till the reign of the kingdom of Persia.34 It was near the close of the seventy years captivity that Daniel prayed, “cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate.”35

EZEKIEL OFFERS TO ISRAEL A SANCTUARY

It was fourteen years after the sanctuary had been destroyed, that God gave Ezekiel the “pattern” of another, to show to the house of Israel.36 Like the tabernacle and the temple, this building consisted of two holy places.37 And the most holy place was of the same size with that in the temple of Solomon.38 To this building the word sanctuary is applied in the following texts. Ezekiel 41:21, 23; 42:20; 43:21; 44:1, 5, [verses 7, 8, refer to Solomon’s temple,] 9, 11, 15, 16, 27; 45:2, 3, 4, 18; 47:12; 48:8, 10, 21. It was offered to the house of Israel then in captivity on this condition, that they should be “ashamed of their iniquities, and put them away. If they did this, God would cause this building to be established, and would cause “the twelve tribes” to return.39

But the house of Israel were not at all ashamed. For when the decree for Israel’s restoration went forth, all Israel could go up to the land where God’s abundant blessing was promised. See the decree of Cyrus.40 But the ten tribes slighted the offer of Cyrus, as well as the promised blessings of God, and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with a portion of the tribe of Levi, and a few others, were all that went up.41 Thus the house of Israel rejected the gracious offer of the Lord, and slighted the inestimable blessings which God would have given them.42 Hence this sanctuary was never erected. But that this prophecy does not belong to the future reign of Christ and his saints, the following facts demonstrate:

1. The Prince that shall reign over God’s people Israel, for ever, is none other than Jesus Christ. There is to be but one Prince and Shepherd that shall be the King over Israel in the glorified state, and that one is Jesus.43 But the prince here spoken of by Ezekiel is not Christ, but a poor frail mortal. For

   1. He is commanded to offer a bullock as a sin-offering for himself.44 But Jesus Christ is himself the great sin-offering for the world.45

   2. He was to offer all manner of offerings for himself.46 But Jesus Christ caused all this “to cease” at his death.47

   3. God says to these princes, “Take away your exactions from my people.”48 But when Christ reigns, there will be nothing oppressive, for the officers will be peace, and the exactors righteousness.49

   4. And this prince is to have sons and servants to whom, if he will, he may give an inheritance. But that which he gives to his servants will return to the prince in the year of Jubilee.50 And he is forbidden to oppress the people.51 Surely, it would be blasphemous to apply this to our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, Ezekiel is not predicting the future reign of Christ over the house of Israel.

2. Christ says, “the children of this world [or age] marry, and are given in marriage; but they which shall be counted worthy to obtain that world, [or age,] and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.”52 Now hear Ezekiel: “Neither shall they [God’s priests] take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away; but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.”53 In the prediction of Christ, respecting that age, or world to come, he positively affirms that there shall be no marrying or giving in marriage there; but in Ezekiel we find the Lord’s priests marrying, and have intimations, even that divorce and death are not unknown! Therefore it is evident that Ezekiel does not refer to the age to come. Certain it is that had those priests been “counted worthy to obtain that world,” they would not be represented as marrying in it! And this, too, in the promised land, the very heart of the future kingdom!

3. And Christ adds: “Neither can they die any more; for they are equal unto the angels.”54 And Paul testifies that at the last trump, “this mortal shall put on immortality,” and death shall be swallowed up in victory.55 But Ezekiel has deaths, even in the families of God’s priests, and they, themselves defiled by attending their burials, and obliged to offer for themselves a sin-offering!! See Ezekiel 44:25-27. Are such persons equal to the angels? Are they where they can die no more? Surely they are not. Then it is demonstrated that Ezekiel does not refer to the world or age to come.

That the sanctuary, priesthood and offerings, with the accompanying blessings, would have been realized in the Mosaic dispensation, had the twelve tribes of Israel accepted the proffered boon, we will now show.

1. It was to be fulfilled while circumcision was in force.56 But that was abolished at the first Advent.57

2. It was while divorce was allowed.58 But that is now done away.59

3. The distinction between meats, clean and unclean, is recognized.60 But no such distinction is now recognized by the Bible.61

   1. [CK: It is worth noting that although Andrews expresses this statement here in 1853, by the end of the 19th century many eventually recognized the importance of distinguishing between clean and unclean meats, not on the basis of the Levitical law, but rather as a true Biblical principle and how it relates to natural law, health principles, and the very real harmful effect that the meats, which the Bible classifies as unclean, have upon the human body.]

4. Sacrifice, offerings, burnt offerings and sin-offerings, of bulls and goats, were then in force.62 But they are not now acceptable to God.63

5. The feasts and the Jubilee were then in force.64 But they were nailed to the cross.65 The Levitical priesthood was then in force.66 But the priesthood of Melchisedec, which passeth not to another, has taken its place.67 “The middle wall of partition” then existed, as all these ordinances prove, as well as the acknowledged distinction between “the seed of the house of Israel” and the stranger.68 But it is now broken down.69

But we leave the sanctuary offered to the twelve tribes that we may follow the history of Judah and Benjamin.

THE SANCTUARY REBUILT

Cyrus, the king of Persia, in the first year of his reign, put forth a decree for the restoration of God’s sanctuary which had so long been in ruins.70 And in this decree he not only gave permission to the whole house of Israel to go up to the city of their fathers, where God had chosen to place his name, but he actually provided help for those who needed aid to go up. And yet, ten of the twelve tribes chose to remain in their iniquity, and dwell with the heathen. But we learn in verse 5,71 that the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, and a few others, went up. The vessels of God’s house, which had been in Satan’s sanctuary at Babylon,72 were delivered to them to carry up to the temple of God which they were to rebuild at Jerusalem.

And in the second year of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem, with Zerubbabel for their governor, and Jeshua for their high priest, they laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord.73 After many serious hindrances, it was completed in the sixth year of Darius, its building having occupied a period of twenty years.74 The decree from which the 2300 days are dated did not go forth until the seventh year of the grandson of Darius. So that the sanctuary was in existence when that period commenced.75

This temple of Zerubbabel was but the temple of Solomon rebuilt, as we may learn from Ezra 5:11, though it seems to have been larger than that building.76 Hence it was but a continuance of the pattern of the true, which Solomon had erected. And thus we understand Paul’s language in Hebrews 9, as referring to these buildings, which, as a whole, make up the sanctuary of the first covenant, when he pronounces that sanctuary a figure or pattern of the true.

While Zerubbabel was building the Lord’s house, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah encouraged the builders.77 Haggai promised that though it were not as rich in silver and gold as was the first house, yet the glory of this latter house should be greater than of the former, as the Desire of all nations would come to it.78

GOD DWELT IN THIS SANCTUARY

Nehemiah calls this building the sanctuary, and declares that “we will not forsake the house of our God.”79 While God’s house lay in ruins, Daniel prayed that God would cause his face to shine upon his sanctuary that was desolate. In answer to his prayer, the angel Gabriel is sent to inform him that at the end of 69 weeks from the going forth of the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem, the Messiah would come, and would finally be cut off. And after this, the city and the sanctuary, which we have now seen rebuilt, would be destroyed, and never again be rebuilt, but left in ruins till the consummation.80 At the end of the 69 weeks, A. D. 27, the Messiah the Prince came, and began to preach.81 Israel proceeded to “finish the transgression,” for which God would cut them off from being his people, by rejecting the Messiah.82

GOD FORSAKES THE SANCTUARY

After uttering these words, Jesus departed from the temple, which was no longer God’s habitation. And as he went out, he declared that it should be thrown down, and not one stone left upon another.83 And what Gabriel and Jesus had thus predicted, the Romans in a few years fulfilled, and the “worldly sanctuary” ceased to exist.

DATES. - Moses erected the sanctuary, (according to the chronology in the margin,) B. C. 1490. It was forsaken at Shiloh, B. C. 1141. Solomon erected the sanctuary, B. C. 1005. It was forsaken of God. B. C. 588. Rebuilt by Zerubbabel, B. C. 515. Forsaken and left desolate, A. D. 31.

We have now followed the typical sanctuary to its end. And here let us pause for reflection and inquiry. Why did God ordain this extraordinary arrangement? The sacrifices offered in this building could never take away sins. Why then were they instituted? The priests which here ministered were so imperfect that they had to offer for themselves. Why then was such a priesthood ordained? The building itself was but an imperfect, temporary structure, though finished to the perfection of human art. Why then was such a structure erected? Surely, God does nothing in vain, and all this is full of meaning. Nor will the student of the Bible be at a loss to answer these questions. The building itself was but a “figure of the true,” a “pattern of things in the heavens.” The priests which there ministered, served “unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” and the sacrifices there offered, continually pointed forward to the great sacrifice that should be made for the sin of man. These great truths are plainly stated in Hebrews 8-10. We shall now pass from the shadow to the substance.

THE TYPICAL SANCTUARY GIVES PLACE TO THE TRUE

1. The sanctuary of the first covenant ends with that covenant, and does not constitute the sanctuary of the new covenant.84

2. That sanctuary was a figure for the time then present, or for that dispensation.85 That is, God did not, during the typical dispensation, lay open the true tabernacle; but gave to the people a figure or pattern of it.

3. When the work of the first tabernacle was accomplished, the way of the temple of God in heaven was laid open.86

4. The typical sanctuary and the carnal ordinances connected with it, were to last only till the time of reformation. And when that time arrived, Christ came, an high priest of good things to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle.87

5. The rending of the vail of the earthly sanctuary at the death of our Saviour evinced that its services were finished.88

6. Christ solemnly declared that it was left desolate.89

7. The sanctuary is connected with the host.90 And the host, which is the true church, has had neither sanctuary nor priesthood in Old Jerusalem the past 1800 years, but has had both in heaven.91

8. While the typical sanctuary was standing, it was evidence that the way into the true sanctuary was not laid open. But when its services were abolished, the tabernacle in heaven, of which it was a figure, took its place.92

9. The holy places made with hands, the figures or patterns of things in the heavens, have been superseded by the heavenly holy places themselves.93

10. The sanctuary, since the commencement of Christ’s priesthood, is the true tabernacle of God in heaven. This is plainly stated in Hebrews 8:1-6.

11. These points are conclusive evidence that the worldly sanctuary of the first covenant has given place to the heavenly sanctuary of the new covenant. The typical sanctuary is forsaken, and the priesthood is transferred to the true tabernacle. Now, unless it can be changed back from the true to the type again, the old will never be rebuilt.

GABRIEL’S EXPLANATION OF THE SANCTUARY

But the most important question in the mind of the reader is this. How did Gabriel explain the sanctuary to Daniel? Did he point out to him the transition from the “figure” or “pattern,” to the “greater and more perfect tabernacle,” the true holy places. We answer he did.

1. Gabriel explains to Daniel how much of the 2300 days belonged to Jerusalem and the Jews. “Seventy weeks have been cut off upon thy people, and upon thy holy city.” Whiting’s Translation.94 Then the whole of the 2300 days does not belong to Old Jerusalem, the place of the earthly sanctuary, nor do they all belong to the Jews, the professed people of God in the time of the first covenant.

2. For in that period of 70 weeks, the transgression was to be finished, that is, the Jewish people were to fill up their measure of iniquity, by rejecting and crucifying their Messiah, and were no longer to be his people or host.95

3. Gabriel showed Daniel that the earthly sanctuary should be destroyed, shortly after their rejection of the Messiah, and never be rebuilt, but be desolate till the consummation.96

4. The angel brings the new covenant to Daniel’s view. “He [the Messiah] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”97

5. He brings to Daniel’s view the new covenant church or host, viz: the “many” with whom the covenant is confirmed.98

6. He brings to view the new covenant sacrifice, viz: the cutting off of the Messiah, but not for himself.99 And also the Prince or mediator of the new covenant.100

7. He brings to Daniel’s view the new covenant sanctuary. Gabriel informed Daniel that before the close of the 70 weeks, which belonged to the earthly sanctuary, the Most Holy should be anointed. That this “Most Holy” is the true tabernacle in which the Messiah is to officiate as priest, we offer the following testimony:

“‘And to anoint the Most Holy;’ kodash kodashim, the Holy of holies.” - Adam Clark. Daniel 9:24.

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and the city of thy sanctuary: that sin may be restrained, and transgression have an end; that iniquity may be expiated, and an everlasting righteousness brought in; that visions and prophecies may be sealed up, and the Holy of holies anointed.” Houbigant’s translation of Daniel 9:24, as cited in Clark’s Commentary.

“‘To anoint the Most Holy.’ Hebrew, literally ‘Holy of holies.’ Heaven itself, which Christ consecrated, when he ascended and entered it, sprinkling or consecrating it with his own blood for us.” Litch’s Restitution, page 89.

“And the last event of the 70 weeks, as enumerated in verse 24, (Daniel 9:24) was the anointing of the ‘Most Holy,’ or the ‘Holy of Holies,’ or the ‘Sanctum Sanctorum.’ Not that which was on earth, made with hands, but the true tabernacle, heaven itself, into which Christ, our high priest, is for us entered. Christ was to do in the true tabernacle, in heaven, what Moses and Aaron did in its pattern. See Hebrews 6; 7; 8; 9. And Exodus 30:22-30. Also Leviticus 8:10-15.” - Advent Shield, No.1, page 75.

The fact is plain, then, that of the vision of 2300 days concerning the sanctuary, only 490 pertained to the earthly sanctuary; and also that the iniquity of the Jewish people would in that period be so far filled up, that God would leave them, and the city and sanctuary would soon after be destroyed, and never be rebuilt, but left in ruins till the consummation. And it is also a fact that Gabriel did present to Daniel a view of the true tabernacle,101 which about the close of the 70 weeks did take the place of the pattern. And as the ministration of the earthly tabernacle began with its anointing, so in the more excellent ministry of our great High Priest, the first act, as shown to Daniel, is the anointing of the true tabernacle or sanctuary of which he is a minister.102

It is therefore an established fact that the worldly sanctuary of the first covenant, and the heavenly sanctuary of the new covenant, are both embraced in the vision of the 2300 days. Seventy weeks are cut off upon the earthly sanctuary, and at their termination the true tabernacle, with its anointing, its sacrifice and its minister, are introduced. And it is interesting to notice that the transfer from the tabernacle made with hands, to the true tabernacle itself, which the Lord pitched and not man, is placed by Gabriel at the very point where the Bible testifies that the shadow of good things to come ceased, being nailed to the cross.103 Where the offering of bulls and goats gave place to the great sacrifice;104 where the Levitical priesthood was superseded by that of the order of Melchisedec;105 where the example and shadow of heavenly things was terminated by the more excellent ministry which it shadowed forth.106 And where the holy places, which were the figures of the true, were succeeded by the true holy places in heaven.107 In the first part of this article we saw that Gabriel did not explain the 2300 days and the sanctuary in Daniel 8. We now see that in Daniel 9, he explained both. With Gabriel’s explanation of the sanctuary, and the time, we are entirely satisfied.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

OTHER PARTS IN THIS SERIES

• Part 1

• Part 2

• Part 4

Subscribe now

SCRIPTURE INDEX

PREFACE

Today, we are posting Part 2 of J.N. Andrews writing on The Sanctuary. A link to part 1 can be found at the end of this article. The original publication took place on January 6, 1853 in the Review and Herald.

In this part of the writing, Daniels opens with a brief explanation of the desolations, hosts, and sanctuaries in Daniel 8, as well as how we are to understand “the daily” that was taken away.

Following this, he then focuses the rest of the article on clearing up what the sanctuary is and isn’t, as well as describing the details related to the sanctuary that was located upon the earth.

God Bless,

Charles

ORIGINAL WRITING

(Any bolding of text has been added by me and is not part of the original writing)

THE SANCTUARY

BY J. N. ANDREWS

Continued

THERE ARE TWO “DESOLATIONS” IN Daniel 8. - This fact is made so plain by Josiah Litch, that I present his words:

“‘The daily sacrifice’ is the present reading of the English text. But no such thing as sacrifice is found in the original. This is acknowledged on all hands. It is a gloss or construction put on it by the translators. The true reading is, ‘the daily and the transgression of desolation,’ daily and transgression being connected together by ‘and;’ the daily desolation and the transgression of desolation. They are two desolating powers, which were to desolate the sanctuary and the host.” - Prophetic Expositions, Vol. I, page 127.

It is plain that the sanctuary and the host were to be trodden under foot by the daily and the transgression of desolation. The careful reading of verse 131 settles this point. And this fact establishes another, viz: that these two desolations are the two grand forms under which Satan has attempted to overthrow the worship and the cause of Jehovah. Mr. Miller’s remarks on the meaning of these two terms, and the course pursued by himself in ascertaining that meaning, is presented under the following head:

THE TWO DESOLATIONS ARE PAGANISM AND PAPACY

“I read on, and could find no other case in which it [the daily] was found, but in Daniel. I then [by the aid of a concordance] took those words which stood in connection with it, ‘take away;’ he shall take away the daily; ‘from the time the daily shall be taken away,’ etc. I read on, and thought I should find no light on the text; finally I came to 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked be revealed,’ etc. And when I had come to that text, O, how clear and glorious the truth appeared! There it is! That is the daily! Well, now, what does Paul mean by ‘he who now letteth,’ or hindereth? By ‘the man of sin,’ and the ‘wicked,’ Popery is meant. Well, what is it which hinders Popery from being revealed? Why, it is Paganism; well, then, ‘the daily’ must mean Paganism.” - Second Advent Manual, page 66.

It needs no argument to prove that the two grand forms of opposition, by which Satan has desolated the church, and trod under foot the sanctuary of the living God, are none other than Paganism and Popery. It is also a clear point that the change from one of these desolations to the other did occur under the Roman power. Paganism, from the days of the kings of Assyria down to the period when it became so far modified that it took the name of Popery, had been the daily [or, as Prof. Whiting renders it, “the continual”] desolation, by which Satan had stood up against the cause of Jehovah. And, indeed, in its priests, its altars and its sacrifices, it bore resemblance to the Levitical form of Jehovah’s worship. When the Christian form of worship took the place of the Levitical, a change in Satan’s form of opposition, and counterfeit worship, became necessary, if he would successfully oppose the worship of the great God.

And it is in the light of these facts that we are able to understand our Lord’s reference to the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15. It is evident that he there cites Daniel 9:26-27. Now, although we do not understand that Paganism in the year 70 had given place to Popery, we do understand that that same power which then appeared, modified somewhat in name and form, was the very power that should, as the abomination of desolation, wear out the saints of the Most High.

The language of Paul is to the point: “For the mystery of iniquity [Popery] doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.”2 That Paul refers to Paganism and Popery, none question. - And here is direct proof that Popery, the abomination of desolation, had in Paul’s day, already began to work. Nor was it a very great change of character when Satan transformed his counterfeit worship from Paganism to Popery. The same temples, altars, incense, priests and worshipers were ready, with little change, to serve as the appendages of the Papal abomination. The statute of Jupiter readily changed to that of Peter, the prince of the apostles; and the Pantheon, which had been the temple of all the gods, without difficulty became the sanctuary of all the saints. Thus the same abomination that desolated Jerusalem, in a degree changed and modified, became the wonderful desolator of the saints and martyrs of Jesus. And in its so called temple of God, it set at naught and trod under foot the true temple of Jehovah, and he who is its minister, Jesus Christ.

The change from Paganism to Popery is clearly shown in John’s view of the transfer of power from the dragon of Revelation 12, to the beast of Revelation 13. - And that they are essentially the same thing, is evident from the fact that both the dragon and the beast are represented with the seven heads; thus showing that, in a certain sense, either may be understood to cover the whole time. And in the same sense we understand that either abomination covers all the period. - Christ’s reference to the abomination of desolation3 is an absolute demonstration that Rome is the little horn of Daniel 8:9-14.

Having shown that there are two desolations, by which the sanctuary and the host are trodden down, we now notice the fact that there are

TWO OPPOSING SANCTUARIES IN Daniel 8

To the careful reader this fact will at once appear. They are as follows: First, the sanctuary of the daily desolation.4 Second, the sanctuary which the daily and the transgression of desolation were to tread under foot.5 The one is the sanctuary of Satan; the other is the sanctuary of Jehovah of hosts. The one is the dwelling place of “all the gods;” the other is the habitation of the only living and true God.

If it be said that a sanctuary is never connected with heathen and idolatrous worship, we cite the direct testimony of the Bible. Heathen Moab had a sanctuary. And that sanctuary was a place of prayer and worship for that heathen nation.6 The chapel erected by the king of Israel at Bethel, as a rival to the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem7 was called his sanctuary.8 And the places in which idolatrous Israel [the ten tribes] worshiped, are called sanctuaries.9 The same is true of idolatrous Tyre.10 Attention is called to the following from Apollos Hale:

“What can be meant by the ‘sanctuary’ of Paganism? Paganism, and error of every kind, have their sanctuaries, as well as truth. These are the temples or asylums consecrated to their service. - Some particular and renowned temple of Paganism may, then, be supposed to be here spoken of. - Which of its numerous distinguished temples may it be? One of the most magnificent specimens of classic architecture is called the Pantheon. The name signifies ‘the temple or asylum of all the gods.’ The ‘place’ of its location is Rome. The idols of the nations conquered by the Romans were sacredly deposited in some niche or apartment of this temple, and in many cases became objects of worship by the Romans themselves. Could we find a temple of Paganism that was more strikingly ‘his sanctuary?’ Was Rome, the city or place of the Pantheon, ‘cast down’ by the authority of the state? Read the following well-known and remarkable facts in history: ‘The death of the last rival of Constantine had sealed the peace of the empire. - Rome was once more the undisputed queen of nations. But, in the hour of elevation and splendor, she had been raised to the edge of a precipice. Her next step was to be downwards and irrecoverable. The change of the government to Constantinople still perplexes the historian. Constantine abandoned Rome, the great citadel and throne of the Caesars, for an obscure corner of Thrace, and expended the remainder of his vigorous and ambitious life in the double toil of raising a colony into the capital of his empire, and degrading the capital into the feeble honors and humiliated strength of a colony.’” - Second Advent Manual, page 68.

And not only did Satan possess himself of a rival to the sanctuary of Jehovah in the period of Pagan worship, but, throughout the Christian dispensation, has that arch fiend possessed a rival temple of God.11 Thus much for the rival sanctuary of Satan. The sanctuary of Jehovah remains to be noticed at length. Connected with these two sanctuaries,

THERE ARE TWO HOSTS IN Daniel 8:9-13.

The one is the host that was given to the little horn against the daily, when it had filled its measure of transgression; and by the aid of this host, the little horn was able to cast down the truth.12 This host is mentioned in Daniel 11:31. By this host, the sanctuary of the daily desolation, and its services, were transferred to the transgression, or abomination of desolation. This host is the forces of Satan, and it is intimately associated with his sanctuary.

The other host is “the host of heaven.”13 Michael is the Prince of this host.14 Against the Prince of this host the little horn stands up.15 [Prof. Whiting remarks that in the original, “Prince of the host” occurs in Joshua 5:14.] None dispute that the host of whom Michael [Christ] is Prince, is the church of the living God.16 This host, the true church, is fitly represented by a green olive tree.17 And when some of the branches [members of the Jewish church] were broken off through unbelief, others were grafted in from the Gentiles, and thus the host continues to exist.18 This host, or church, is the worshipers of Jehovah, and is intimately connected with his sanctuary. That sanctuary we are now prepared to consider.

WHAT IS THE SANCTUARY OF JEHOVAH?

Before answering this question, we present the definition of the word sanctuary: “A holy place.” - Walker. “A sacred place.” - Webster. “A holy or sanctified place, a dwelling-place of the Most High.” - Cruden. A dwelling-place for God.19 Thus much for the meaning of the word. We now inquire respecting its application.

IS THE EARTH THE SANCTUARY?

To this question we answer emphatically: It is not. And if we are requested to prove a negative, we offer the following reasons:

1. The word sanctuary is used 145 times in the Bible, and it is not in a single instance applied to the earth. Hence there is no authority for this view, except that of man.

2. Every one knows that the earth is neither a dwelling-place of God, nor yet a holy, or sacred place. Those, therefore, who affirm that it is the sanctuary of God, should know better than to make such a statement.

3. In almost every instance in which the word sanctuary occurs in the Bible, [and the exceptions nearly all refer to Satan’s rival sanctuary,] it refers directly to another definite object which God calls his sanctuary. Hence, those who teach that the earth is the sanctuary of the Lord of hosts, contradict the positive testimony of Jehovah, an hundred times repeated.

For the benefit of those who think that the earth will become the sanctuary after it has been cleansed by fire, we add that God does not even then call it his sanctuary; but simply “the place” of its location.20 The earth, then, is not the sanctuary, but merely the place where it will be located hereafter.

IS THE CHURCH THE SANCTUARY?

We answer: It is not. The following reasons in support of this answer are to the point:

1. The Bible never calls the church the sanctuary.

2. In a great number of texts, God has called another object his sanctuary, and has uniformly associated the church with that object, as the worshipers; and that sanctuary itself, as the place of that worship, or toward which their prayer was directed.21

3. The following inference is all that we have ever seen urged in favor of this view. God has many times called the tabernacle or temple, which are the patterns of the true, his “sanctuary.” And because that the church is spiritually called the temple of God, some have supposed that they were at liberty to call the church the sanctuary.

4. But there is one text that some may urge. - It is this: “When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language; Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his dominion.”22 But, at most, this would 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,23 which was in Judah,24 as the place of his sanctuary,25 we think the following from another Psalm will fully explain the connection between Judah and the sanctuary of Jehovah, 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,26 like the earth which he hath established for ever.”27

5. But if a single text could be adduced to prove that the church is called a sanctuary, the following plain fact would prove beyond controversy that it is not the sanctuary of Daniel 8:13, 14. The church is represented in Daniel 8:13, by the word “host.” This, none will deny. “To give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot.” Then the church and the sanctuary are two things. The church is the host or worshipers; the sanctuary is the place of that worship, or the place toward which it is directed.

IS THE LAND OF CANAAN THE SANCTUARY?

Of the 145 times in which the word sanctuary occurs in the Bible, only two or three texts have been urged, with any degree of confidence, as referring to the land of Canaan. Yet strangely enough, men have claimed that the supposed meaning of these two or three texts ought to determine the signification of the word in Daniel 8:13-14, against the plain testimony of more than a hundred texts! For none can deny that in almost every instance in which the word does occur, it refers directly to the typical tabernacle, or else to the true, of which that was but the figure or pattern. But we now inquire whether the two or three texts in question do actually apply the word sanctuary to the land of Canaan. They read as follows:

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 500 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,”28 and omit those texts which inform us that mount Zion was the city of David, a part of Jerusalem29 and was located in Judah, as one of its cities.30

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 Chronicles 29:1.

1. The land of Canaan was the mountain of the inheritance.31

2. That mountain was the border of the sanctuary.32

3. In that border God built his sanctuary.33

4. In that sanctuary God dwelt.34

5. In that border the people dwelt.35

These facts demonstrate that the same Spirit moved both those “holy men of old.” These texts perfectly harmonize, not only with each other, but with the entire testimony of the Bible, respecting the sanctuary. If the reader still persists in confounding the sanctuary with its border, the land of Canaan, we request him to listen while a king of Judah points out the distinction:

This language is a perfect parallel to that of Psalm 78:54-55, 69. In the clearest manner it points out the distinction between the land of Canaan, and the sanctuary which was built therein; and it does clearly teach that that sanctuary was the house erected as the habitation of God.

But there is another text by which some attempt to prove that Canaan is the sanctuary.

No one offers this as direct testimony. As it is only an inference, a few words are all that is needed.

1. When the people of God’s holiness were driven out of the land of Canaan, (as here predicted by the prophet, who uses the past tense for the future,) not only were they dispossessed of their inheritance, but the sanctuary of Jehovah built in that land, was laid in ruins. This is plainly stated in 2 Chronicles 36:17-20.

2. The next chapter testifies that the prophet had a view of the destruction of God’s sanctuary, as stated in the text quoted from 2Chronicles. This explains the whole matter.36

A fourth text may occur to some minds as conclusive proof that Canaan is the sanctuary. We present it, as it is the only remaining one that has ever been urged in support of this view.

This text needs little comment. The place of God’s sanctuary, we fully admit, is the land of Canaan, or the new earth, for Isaiah refers to the glorified state. And as God has promised to set his sanctuary in that place,37 the meaning of the text is perfectly plain. But if any still assert that the place of the sanctuary is the sanctuary itself, let them notice that the same text calls the same “place” the place of the Lord’s feet; and hence the same principle would make the land of Canaan the feet of the Lord! The view that Canaan is the sanctuary is too absurd to need further notice. And even were it a sanctuary, it would not even then be the sanctuary of Daniel; for the prophet had his eye upon the habitation of Jehovah.38 Canaan was only the place of God’s sanctuary or habitation.

We have found that the earth is not the sanctuary, but simply the territory where it will finally be located. That the church is not the sanctuary, but simply the worshipers connected with the sanctuary. And that the land of Canaan is not the sanctuary, but that it is the place where the typical sanctuary was located. Now we inquire for the sanctuary itself.

BIBLE VIEW OF THE SANCTUARY

The sanctuary of the Bible is the habitation of Jehovah. It includes, first, the tabernacle pitched by man, which was the pattern of the true; and second, the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. The tabernacle erected by man, as the pattern of the true, embraced, first, the tabernacle of Moses, second, the temple of Solomon, and, third, the temple of Zerubbabel. The true tabernacle of God is the great original of which Moses, Solomon and Zerubbabel erected “figures,” “patterns” or “images.”

We trace the pattern of the true from the time it was erected by Moses, until it was merged in the larger and more glorious pattern which Solomon caused to be established. We trace this building down to the period when it was overthrown by Nebuchadnezzar, and suffered to remain in ruins through the Babylonish captivity. And from the time that Zerubbabel rebuilt the sanctuary, we trace the history of the pattern until we reach the true tabernacle, the great sanctuary of Jehovah. - We trace the history of the tabernacle from the time that our Lord entered it to minister in “the holy places” for us, forward to the time when it shall be located on the New Earth, when the tabernacle and sanctuary of God shall be with his people for ever.

We are compassed about with a great cloud of witnesses. To the law and to the testimony. We gather our first instruction respecting the sanctuary, from the book of Exodus. In chapter 24, we learn that Moses went up into the cloud that enshrouded the God of Israel, upon the Mount Sinai, and that he was there forty days. It was during this period that the building of the sanctuary was explained to Moses, and the pattern of it shown to him in that mount.39 The next chapter commences with

THE COMMANDMENT TO ERECT THE SANCTUARY

We have here learned several important facts.

1. The sanctuary was the habitation of God. It was erected for this express purpose, that God might dwell among his people. And Moses had his eye upon this habitation, or sanctuary, in that very chapter in which he is supposed by some to teach that the land of Canaan is the sanctuary. “He is my God,” says Moses, “and I will prepare him an habitation.”40 It is plain that even then, Moses understood the difference between the habitation of Jehovah, and the place of its location.

2. The Sanctuary, which God commanded Moses to erect, was the tabernacle. The tabernacle of witness was the sanctuary of God.

3. Moses was solemnly enjoined to make the sanctuary, and all its vessels, according to the pattern showed to him in that place. Hence, we are now to have a model of the habitation of God set before us.

THE PLAN OF THE SANCTUARY

Its walls on the north, the west, and the south sides, were formed of upright boards, set in sockets of silver. These boards were ten cubits in length, by one cubit and a half in breadth. And as there were twenty of them on each of the two sides, we learn that it was thirty cubits in length and ten in height. In the same manner we ascertain that it was about ten cubits in width.41 The sockets in which the boards were set, are termed, “the sockets of the sanctuary.”42 Five bars running the length of the sides, and passing through rings in the boards, joined them all together. And the whole was overlaid with gold. The sanctuary was covered with four different coverings. The east end was closed by a vail, or hanging, called the door of the tent, or tabernacle. A second vail divided the tabernacle into two parts called the holy place, and the holiest of all.43

THE VESSELS OF THE SANCTUARY

These were all made after the pattern which the Lord showed to Moses.44 They were as follows:

1. THE ARK. This was a small chest about four feet six inches in length, and about two feet six inches in width and height, overlaid with pure gold, within and without. This was made for the express purpose of containing God’s testament, the ten commandments.45

2. THE MERCY-SEAT. This was the top of the ark. On either end of it stood a cherub. The cherubim and the mercy-seat being one solid work of beaten gold.46

3. THE ALTAR OF INCENSE. This was overlaid with gold, and was about three and a half feet in height, and nearly two feet square. It was for the purpose of burning incense before God.47

4. THE GOLDEN CENSER. This was used to burn incense before the Lord, particularly in the holiest.48

5. THE CANDLESTICK, with its seven lamps, was one solid work of beaten gold, about the weight of a talent. It was made after the express pattern shewed to Moses.49

6. THE TABLE OF SHEW-BREAD. This was about three and a half feet in length, two and a half in height, and two in width. It was overlaid with pure gold, and on it shew-bread was always kept before the Lord.50

7. THE ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERING. This was about nine feet square, and nearly five and a half feet in height. It was overlaid with brass, and was, as its name implies, used for the purpose of offering up sacrifices to God.51

8. THE LAVER. This was made of brass, and contained water for the use of the priests.52 The court of the tabernacle was one hundred cubits in length, by fifty in breadth, and five cubits, or about nine feet, in height.53

God called by name those who were to execute this work, and filled them with the spirit of wisdom.54 They knew “how to work all manner of work for the service of the sanctuary.”55 They received the offering of the children of Israel for “the service of the sanctuary.”56 They came from “the work of the sanctuary,”57 and testified that more was offered than could be used. And Moses commanded that none should “make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary.”58 The construction of every part of the sanctuary is minutely described in [Exodus] Chaps. 36 - 39.59 Every thing was then submitted to Moses for inspection, and he pronounced the work such as God commanded, viz: a true pattern.60 God then commanded Moses to set up the sanctuary, and to place every thing in order.61

MOSES ERECTS THE SANCTUARY

And Moses reared up the tabernacle, and set up its boards in the sockets of silver, and united them together by the bars, and spread over the whole the covering of the tabernacle. He then placed the testimony in the ark, and set the mercy-seat upon it, and carried the ark into the tabernacle.62 He then hung up the vail in front of the ark, and thus divided between the holy places.63 He placed the table without the vail, on the north side of the holy place, and set the bread in order upon it.64 He then placed the candlestick on the south side of the holy place, and lighted its lamps before the Lord.65 He placed the golden altar before the vail, in the holy place, and burned sweet incense upon it.66 He set up the hanging for the door of the sanctuary, and he placed the altar of burnt offering at the door, and set the laver between the tabernacle and this altar, and around the whole, he set up the court of the tabernacle.67

The sanctuary erected for the habitation of Jehovah68 is now ready to receive the King Eternal.

GOD TAKES POSSESSION OF THE SANCTUARY

We now have found the habitation or sanctuary of the Lord. In the book of Exodus, Moses calls this building the sanctuary, at least eleven times. But do you ask for the words of the New Testament on the point? Then listen.

PAUL’S VIEW OF THE SANCTUARY OF THE FIRST COVENANT

It is settled, therefore, that we have the right view of this subject thus far, and that the tabernacle of God, and not the land of Canaan, was the sanctuary.

THE WORLDLY SANCTUARY WAS THE PATTERN OF THE TRUE

From these texts we learn two important facts.

1. We are many times certified that the tabernacle of witness was made according to the pattern which God shewed to Moses.

2. That that pattern was a representation of the heavenly sanctuary itself.69

We trace the history of the sanctuary in the book of Leviticus. Every instance in which the word occurs, it is admitted, refers to the tabernacle of the Lord. The blood of sin-offering was sprinkled “before the vail of the sanctuary.”70 For offering strange fire before the Lord in his tabernacle, two of the sons of Aaron were slain. They were then carried “from before the sanctuary.”71 The unclean were not to “come into the sanctuary,” or tabernacle.72 “The holy sanctuary” was to be cleansed.73 “Ye shall keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.”74 Those who worshiped Molech, defiled the Lord’s sanctuary.75 “Sanctuaries,” used for the two holy places.76 - See also Jeremiah 51:51. God commanded that the high priest should not “go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God,” to mourn for the dead.77

God placed his tabernacle in the charge of the tribe of Levi, who pitched around it.78 Under the standard of Judah on the east, of Reuben on the south, of Ephraim on the west, and of Dan on the north, the tribes of Israel were to pitch around the tabernacle in four great bodies, during their sojourn in the wilderness.79 God then divided the tribe of Levi according to his three sons, Gershon, Kohath and Merari. These three divisions were to pitch severally on the west, south and north sides of the tabernacle.80 The Kohathites were to keep “the charge of the sanctuary,” and also of “the vessels of the sanctuary.”81 And Eleazar the priest was to have the oversight of those who thus kept “the charge of the sanctuary.”82 But on the east side of the tabernacle, Moses, Aaron and his sons were to encamp and keep “the charge of the sanctuary.”83

When the camp was to set forward, the priest were to take down the tabernacle,84 and cover the sacred vessels, and “all the instruments of ministry wherewith they minister in the sanctuary;”85 “and when they have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary,” the sons of Kohath came near to bear it.86 And God commanded that Eleazar should have “the oversight of all the tabernacle, and of all that therein is, in the sanctuary.”87 “The service of the sanctuary,” belonging unto the Kohathites, was to bear it upon their shoulders.88 The Levites were given to Aaron to do the service of the tabernacle, that there be no plague “when the children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary.”89 “The Kohathites set forward bearing the sanctuary.”90

The priests were to “bear the iniquity of the sanctuary.”91 The Levites were not to “come nigh the vessels of the sanctuary.”92 And the priests should “keep the charge of the sanctuary.”93 The man that neglected purification “defiled the sanctuary of the Lord.”94 “The shekel of the sanctuary,” or tabernacle, was the standard in Israel. The word sanctuary, meaning the habitation of God, occurs in this connection twenty-five times.95

The word sanctuary does not occur in the book of Deuteronomy. One chapter refers to it as “the tabernacle of the congregation.”96 We have traced the history of the sanctuary, from the time that it was erected, through the period of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness. From Acts 7:45, we learn that the tribes of Israel carried it with them into the promised land. In the book of Joshua it is called the house of God, or tabernacle, and we learn that it was set up at Shiloh.97 It is called the Lord’s tabernacle.98 It is called “the sanctuary of the Lord.”99 In the book of Judges it is simply called “the house of God,” located at Shiloh.100 In 1 Samuel it is termed the house of the Lord.101 In 1 Samuel 1:9; 3:3, it is called the temple of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 2:32, it is called by God, “my habitation,” or tabernacle, margin. It still abode in Shiloh.102

GOD FORSAKES THE SANCTUARY

For the gross wickedness of the priests and people,103 God forsook his habitation, and gave his glory [the ark of his testament] into the hands of the enemy, the Philistines.104 It does not appear that after the ark of God was taken from the tabernacle at Shiloh, and God there forsook his habitation, that his glory, or the ark of his covenant, ever returned to that building. The other sacred vessels remained with the tabernacle, which in the days of Saul seems to have been located at Nob;105 and in the days of David, at Gibeon.106 And here we leave it for the present to follow the ark.

The ark was taken by the Philistines, and kept in their land seven months. In which time they were smitten with sore plagues, and Dagon, their god, twice fell before it. They then returned it to Israel to Beth-shemesh. At this place 50,000 of Israel were smitten for looking into the ark.107 From thence it was removed to Kirjathjearim to the house of Abinadab, where it abode twenty years.108 In this period it is said that all Israel “lamented after the Lord.” - From this place it was removed to the house of Obed-edom where it abode three months.109 From this place David removed it to his own city, Jerusalem, and placed it in a tabernacle which he had pitched.110 It was at this time, when the Lord had given David rest from all his enemies, and he dwelt securely in his own house, that the habitation of his God came before his mind.

DAVID DESIRES TO BUILD A GLORIOUS SANCTUARY

The situation of God’s house came into the mind of David, and he “desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.”111 He set this matter before Nathan the prophet, who told him, “Do all that is in thy heart, for God is with thee.” But that night God charged Nathan to say to David, “Thus saith the Lord, thou shalt not build me a house to dwell in.”112 This was because David had been a man of war, and had shed blood abundantly. But God promised that Solomon, his son, should build the house.113 Then David proceeded to make great preparation for the building.114 The place where the angel of the Lord appeared to David, at the time when the plague was stayed, viz: the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite,115 upon Mount Moriah,116 which was near to Mount Zion, was the place of God’s habitation.117 And here, “like high palaces,” God’s sanctuary was built.118

SOLOMON AND THE PRINCES CHARGED TO BUILD THE SANCTUARY

Then David gave to Solomon explicit directions respecting the building of the sanctuary.119 A full account of the erection of this glorious sanctuary may be read in 1 Kings 6; 7; 2 Chronicles 3; 4:1 it occupied seven years and six months in building, and when finished was of wonderful magnificence. It principally differed from the tabernacle, in being an enlargement of that plan, and in being a permanent, instead of temporary building. The vessels of the sanctuary were also increased in size and number.

THE TABERNACLE GIVES PLACE TO THE TEMPLE

Every thing being finished in the temple of the Lord, and all Israel assembled at its dedication, we read as follows:

The tabernacle which had been at Gibeon for a long while, was as we have here read, brought up to the temple of the Lord, and the sacred vessels, and the priesthood, were transferred to that more glorious sanctuary. The ark which had for some time been kept at Jerusalem, was carried into the most holy place in the temple. And now the habitation for the God of Jacob, is complete.

GOD TAKES POSSESSION OF THE SANCTUARY

The Shekinah, or visible glory of God, which had dwelt in the tabernacle, has now passed into the temple, and that temple is thenceforward the sanctuary of the Lord God.

THE TEMPLE WAS A PATTERN OF THE TRUE SANCTUARY

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

OTHER PARTS IN THIS SERIES

• Part 1

• Part 3

• Part 4

Subscribe now

SCRIPTURE INDEX

PREFACE

The following writing comes from an article originally written by J.N. Andrews in the December 23 edition of the 1852 Review and Herald publication. It is was Part 1 of a series titled “The Sanctuary.”

Psalm 77:13 says “Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary.” A proper understanding of the heavenly sanctuary and the ministration of Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest,1 should be a matter of great importance to all Christians.

In Part 1, Andrews focuses on establishing the true prophetic fulfilments of the powers in Daniel 8, and links the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 with the 2300 days prophecy of Daniel 8.

Join us during the coming weeks with this series on “The Sanctuary” as we seek to restore truth to its proper place.

God Bless,

Charles

ORIGINAL WRITING

(Any bolding of text has been added by me and is not part of the original writing)

THE SANCTUARY

BY J. N. ANDREWS

IN presenting this most important subject to the consideration of the people of God, we bespeak the candid and prayerful attention of all who have ears to hear. It is well understood by thousands, that the great disappointment of the Advent believers, arose from the fact that they believed the cleansing of the sanctuary to be the burning of the earth, or some event to transpire at the second Advent of the Lord Jesus; and as they could clearly establish the fact that the 2300 days would terminate in the seventh month 1844, they looked with the full assurance of faith and hope, for the glorious appearing of the Son of God at that time. Painful and grievous was the disappointment; and while the heart of the trusting was bowed with sorrow, numbers were not wanting who openly denied the hand of God in the Advent movement, and made utter shipwreck of their faith.

As the subject of the sanctuary of the Bible involves the most important facts connected with our disappointment, it is worthy of the serious attention of all who wait the consolation of Israel. Let us then examine again with care, the vision of the man greatly beloved, recorded in Daniel 8. We call attention to the symbols presented in this chapter. The first thing presented to the eye of the prophet, was the

[SCRIPTURES]

VIEW OF THE RAM

VIEW OF THE GOAT

VIEW OF THE LITTLE HORN

VIEW OF THE SANCTUARY AND 2300 DAYS

GABRIEL COMMANDED TO EXPLAIN THIS VISION

[EXPLANATIONS OF POWERS]

SYMBOL OF THE RAM EXPLAINED

Then the meaning of the first symbol cannot be misunderstood. By it, the Medo-Persian empire was presented to the eye of the prophet. Its two horns denoting the union of these two powers in one government. This vision, therefore, does not begin with the empire of Babylon, as do the visions of the second and seventh chapters, but it commences with the empire of the Medes and Persians at the height of its power, prevailing westward, northward and southward, so that no power could stand before it. The explanation of the next symbol will show what power overthrew the Persian empire and succeeded to its place.

SYMBOL OF THE GOAT EXPLAINED

The explanation of this symbol is also definite and certain. The power that should overthrow the Medes and Persians, and in their stead, bear rule over the earth, is the empire of the Greeks. Greece succeeded Persia in the dominion of the world B.C. 331.

THE GREAT HORN** is here explained to be the first king of Grecia; it was Alexander the great.

THE FOUR HORNS** that arose when this horn was broken, denote the four kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander was divided after his death. - The same was represented by the four heads and four wings of the leopard.2 It is predicted without the use of symbols in Daniel 11:3-4. These four kingdoms were Macedon, Thrace, Syria and Egypt. They originated B.C. 312.

SYMBOL OF THE LITTLE HORN EXPLAINED

To avoid the application of this prophecy to the Roman power, Pagan and Papal, the Papists have shifted it from Rome to Antiochus Epiphanes, a Syrian king who could not resist the mandates of Rome. See notes of the Douay [Romish] Bible on Daniel 7; 8; 11. This application is made by the Papists, to save their church from any share in the fulfillment of the prophecy; and in this, they have been followed by the mass of opposers to the Advent faith. The following facts show that

THE LITTLE HORN WAS NOT ANTIOCHUS

1. The four kingdoms into which the dominion of Alexander was divided, are symbolized by the four horns of the goat. Now this Antiochus was but one of the twenty-five kings that constituted the Syrian horn. How, then, could he, at the same time, be another remarkable horn?

2. The ram, according to this vision, became great; the goat waxed very great; but the little horn became exceeding great. How absurd and ludicrous is the following application of this comparison:

   1. Great [→] Very Great [→] Exceeding Great

      Persia [→] GRECIA [→] ANTIOCHUS

      

   How easy and natural is the following:

   1. Great [→] Very Great [→] Exceeding Great

      Persia [→] GRECIA [→] ROME

3. The Medo-Persian empire is simply called great.3 The Bible informs us that it extended “from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred seven and twenty provinces.”4 This was succeeded by the Grecian power, which is called VERY GREAT.5 Then comes the power in question which is called EXCEEDING GREAT.6 Was Antiochus exceeding great when compared with Alexander, the conqueror of the world? Let an item from the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge answer:

   “Finding his resources exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia, to levy tributes and collect large sums which he had AGREED TO PAY TO THE ROMANS.”

4. Surely we need not question which was exceeding great, the Roman power which exacted the tribute, or Antiochus who was compelled to pay it.

5. The power in question was “little” at first, but it waxed or grew “exceeding great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.” What can this describe but the conquering marches of a mighty power? Rome was almost directly northwest from Jerusalem, and its conquests in Asia and Africa were, of course, towards the east and south; but where were Antiochus’ conquest? He came into possession of a kingdom already established, and Sir Isaac Newton says, “He did not enlarge it.”

6. Out of many reasons that might be added to the above we name but one. This power was to stand up against the Prince of princes.7 The Prince of princes is Jesus Christ.8 But Antiochus died 164 years before our Lord was born. It is settled, therefore, that another power is the subject of this prophecy. The following facts demonstrate that

ROME IS THE POWER IN QUESTION

1. This power was to come forth from one of the four kingdoms of Alexander’s empire. Let us remember that nations are not brought into prophecy, till somehow connected with the people of God. Rome had been in existence many years before it was noticed in prophecy; and Rome had made Macedon, one of the four horns of the Grecian goat, a part of itself B. C. 168, about ten years before its first connection with the people of God. See 1Mac.viii. So that Rome could as truly be said to be “out of one of them,” as the ten horns of the fourth beast in the seventh chapter, could be said to come out of that beast, when they were ten kingdoms set up by the conquerors of Rome.

2. It was to wax exceeding great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. [Palestine.9] This was true of Rome in every particular. Witness its conquests in Africa and Asia, and its overthrow of the place and nation of the Jews.10

3. It was to cast down of the host and of the stars. This is predicted respecting the dragon.11 All admit that the dragon was Rome. Who can fail to see their identity?

4. Rome was emphatically a king of fierce countenance, and one that did understand dark sentences. Moses used similar language, when as all agree, he predicted the Roman power.12

5. Rome did destroy wonderfully. Witness its overthrow of all opposing powers.

6. Rome has destroyed more of “the mighty and the holy people,” than all other persecuting powers combined. From fifty to one hundred millions of the church have been slain by it.

7. Rome did stand up against the Prince of princes. The Roman power nailed Jesus Christ to the cross.13

8. This power is to “be broken without hand.” How clear the reference to the stone “cut out without hand” that smote the image.14 Its destruction then does not take place until the final overthrow of earthly power. These facts are conclusive proof that Rome is the subject of this prophecy. For an extended notice, see Advent Library, No. 33.

THE FIELD OF VISION,** then, is the empires of Persia, Greece and Rome.

That part of the vision that now engages our attention is the time - the reckoning of the 2300 days.

[EXPLANATIONS OF TIME]

THE 2300 DAYS NOT EXPLAINED IN Daniel 8

Gabriel did explain to Daniel what was meant by the symbols of the beasts and of the horns, but did not in this vision explain to him the 2300 days and the sanctuary. Hence, Daniel tells us at the end of the chapter that he “was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.” But there are several facts that will give us some light on this matter.

1. It is a fact that 2300 literal days [not quite seven years] would not cover the duration of a single power in this prophecy, much less extend over them all. Therefore, the days must be symbols, even as the beast and horns are shown to be symbols.

2. It is a fact, that a symbolic or prophetic day is one year.15 Hence, the period is 2300 years.

3. It must begin with “the vision;” consequently it commences in the height of the Medo-Persian power.

But the angel has not yet explained the “manner of time,” or given its date to the prophet. If Gabriel never did explain this subject to Daniel, he is a fallen angel; for he was commanded in plain terms thus to do.16 But he is not a fallen angel as appears from the fact that some hundred years after this, he was sent by Jehovah to Zacharias and to Mary.17 Gabriel did explain to Daniel at that time more than he could bear,18 and at a later period, as we shall now show, he did make Daniel understand the vision.

GABRIEL EXPLAINS IN Daniel 9 WHAT HE OMITTED IN Daniel 8

As we have seen, the charge had been given to Gabriel to make Daniel understand the vision.19 But in the last verse of the chapter we learn that “none understood” the vision. This must refer particularly to the 2300 days, and to the sanctuary, as the other parts of the vision had been clearly explained.

But in the first verse of chapter 1020 he informs us that a thing was revealed to him; “and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long; and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.” Hence, it is evident that between chapters 8 and 10,21 he must have obtained the desired understanding of the time. In other words the explanation must be found in chapter 9.22

Daniel 9 commences with the earnest, importunate prayer of the prophet, from the reading of which it is evident that he had so far misunderstood the vision of chapter 8,23 that he concluded that the 2300 days of treading under foot the sanctuary would terminate with the 70 years desolation of the city and sanctuary predicted by Jeremiah. Compare verses 1 and 224 with verses 16 and 17.25 The man Gabriel is now sent to undeceive him, and to complete the explanation of the vision.

Note these facts:

1. In verse 21,27 Daniel cites us to the vision of chapter 8.28

2. In verse 22,29 Gabriel states that he had come to give Daniel skill and understanding. This being the object of Gabriel’s mission, Daniel, who at the close of chapter 830 did not understand the vision, may, ere Gabriel leaves him, fully understand its import.

3. As Daniel testifies at the close of chapter 831 that none understood the vision, it is certain that the charge given to Gabriel, “Make this man to understand the vision,” still rested upon him. - Hence it is that he tells Daniel, “I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding,” and in Daniel 9:23 commands him to “understand the matter and to consider the vision.” This is undeniable proof that Gabriel’s mission in chapter 9,32 was for the purpose of explaining what he omitted in chapter 8.33 If any ask further evidence, the fact that Gabriel proceeds to explain the very point in question, most fully meets the request. That he does do this, we will now show.

GABRIEL’S EXPLANATION OF THE TIME

“DETERMINED” IN VERSE 24, MEANS CUT OFF.

“‘Seventy weeks are determined,’ literally ‘cut off.’ The Hebraists all admit that the word determined, in our English version, does signify ‘cut off.’ Not one has disputed it.”

Josiah Litch. Midnight Cry, Vol. IV, No. 25.

“Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the earliest versions, the Septuagint and Vulgate, give the single signification of ‘cutting off’ to this verb. Should it be inquired why a tropical sense has been attributed to it, such as ‘determining’ or ‘decreeing,’ it may be answered that the reference of the verse (in which it occurs) to Daniel 8:14, was unobserved. It was therefore supposed that there was no propriety in saying ‘seventy weeks are cut off,’ when there was no other period of which they could have formed a portion. But as the period of 2300 days is first given, and verses 21 and 23, compared with Daniel 8:16, show that the ninth chapter furnishes an explanation of the vision in which Gabriel appeared to Daniel, and of the ‘matter’ (the commencement of the 2300 days) - the literal (or rather, to speak properly, the only) signification demanded by the subject matter, is that of ‘cut off.’”

Prof. Whiting. Midnight Cry, Vol. IV, No. 17.

The facts which are set before us in the above, from Litch and Whiting, should not be forgotten.

1. The word rendered “determined,”34 literally signifies “cut off.”

2. “The vision” which Gabriel came to explain, contained the period of 2300 days; and in the explanation he tells us that “seventy weeks have been cut off” upon Jerusalem and the Jews. This is a demonstration that the seventy weeks are a part of the 2300 days. Hence the commencement of the seventy weeks is the date of the 2300 days. And the fact that the seventy weeks were fulfilled in 490 years, as all admit, is a demonstration that the 2300 days from which this period of 490 days was cut off, is 2300 years.

THE ANGEL’S DATE OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS

We have seen that the seventy weeks are cut off from the 2300 days. Hence, when the date of the seventy weeks is established, the key to unlock and understand the reckoning of the days is in our hand. The date for the commencement of the weeks is thus given by Gabriel:

[ADVENT HERALD QUOTES]

We present the following important testimony from the Advent Herald. It is a calm, dispassionate vindication of the original dates, which establishes them beyond dispute. It was written in the years 1850 and 1851; and, consequently, cannot be supposed to be given with a desire to prove that the days ended in 1844, as the Herald is not willing to admit that fact. Therefore it must be regarded as candid and honorable testimony to important facts. That it demolishes every view which has been put forth to re-adjust the 2300 days, no one, who can appreciate the force of the arguments presented, will fail to perceive. For further testimony, the reader is cited to a very valuable work by S. Bliss, entitled, “Analysis of Sacred Chronology.” The Herald speaks as follows:

“The Bible gives the data for a complete system of chronology, extending from the creation to the birth of Cyrus, a clearly ascertained date. From this period downwards we have the undisputed Canon of Ptolemy and the undoubted era of Nabonassar, extending below our vulgar era. At the point where inspired chronology leaves us, this Canon of undoubted accuracy commences. And thus the whole arch is spanned. It is by the Canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetical period of seventy weeks is fixed. This Canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B.C. 457; and the accuracy of the Canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. - The seventy weeks date from the going forth of a decree respecting the restoration of Jerusalem. - There were no decrees between the seventh and twentieth years of Artaxerxes. Four hundred and ninety years, beginning with the seventh, must commence in B.C. 457, and end in A.D. 34. - Commencing in the twentieth, they must commence in before B.C. 444, and end in A.D. 47. As no event occurred in A. D. 47 to mark their termination, we cannot reckon from the twentieth; we must, therefore, look to the seventh of Artaxerxes. This date we cannot change from B.C. 457 without first demonstrating the inaccuracy of Ptolemy’s Canon. To do this, it would be necessary to show that the large number of eclipses by which its accuracy has been repeatedly demonstrated, have not been correctly computed; and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave the settlement of epochs and the adjustment of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guesswork. As the seventy weeks must terminate in A.D. 34, unless the seventh of Artaxerxes is wrongly fixed, and as that cannot be changed without some evidence to that effect, we inquire, What evidence marked that termination? The time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles harmonizes with that date better than any other which has been named. And the crucifixion, in A.D. 31, in the midst of the last week, is sustained by a mass of testimony which cannot be easily invalidated.”

Advent Herald, March 2, 1850.

“The Saviour attended but four passovers, at the last of which he was crucified. This could not bring the crucifixion later than A.D. 31, as is recorded by Aurelius Cassiodorius, a respectable Roman Senator, about A. D. 514: ‘In the consulate of Tiberius Caesar Aug. V. and AElius Sejanus, [U.C. 784, A.D. 31,] our Lord Jesus Christ suffered on the eighth of the Calends of April.’ In this year, and in this day, says Dr. Hales, agree also the Council of Caesarea, A.D. 196, or 198, the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus Monarchus, Nicephorus Constantinus, Cedrenus; and in this year, but on different days, concur Eusebius and Epiphaneus, followed by Kebler, Bucher, Patinus, and Petavious.”

Advent Herald. August 24, 1850.

“There are certain chronological points which have been settled as fixed; and before the seventy weeks can be made to terminate at a later period, those must be unsettled, by being shown to have been fixed on wrong principles; and a new date must be assigned for their commencement based on better principles. Now, that the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus was B.C. 464-3, is demonstrated by the agreement of above twenty eclipses, which have been repeatedly calculated, and have invariably been found to fall in the times specified. Before it can be shown that the commencement of his reign is wrongly fixed, it must first be shown that those eclipses have all been wrongly calculated. This no one has done, or ever will venture to do. Consequently the commencement of his reign cannot be removed from that point.

The seventy weeks must date from some decree for the restoration of Jerusalem. Only two events are named in the reign of Artaxerxes for the commencement of those weeks. The one is the decree of the seventh year of his reign, and the other, that of the twentieth. From one of these, those four hundred and ninety years must reckon. As his reign began B.C. 464-3, his seventh year must have been B.C. 458-7; and his twentieth, B.C. 445-4. If the seventy weeks date from the former, they cannot terminate later than A.D. 34; and if from the latter, they cannot have terminated earlier than A.D. 46-7.

In addition to the above, sixty-nine of the seventy were to extend to the Messiah the Prince. It does not read that they are to terminate when he is called the Prince, or that he is to begin to be the Prince when they terminate. They were to extend to the MESSIAH - the words, the Prince, being added to show who was signified by the Messiah. Sixty-nine weeks of years are four hundred and eighty-three years. Beginning these with the seventh of Artaxerxes, they extend to A.D. 26-7: dating from the twentieth, they terminate in A.D. 39-40. Was there anything in either of those years which would make the words, ‘unto the Messiah the Prince,’ appropriate? When Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan, a voice was heard from heaven, acknowledging the Saviour as the Son of God, in whom the Father was well pleased. Consequently he was ‘the Messiah the Prince,’ whose coming had been predicted. With that baptism, the Saviour commenced the work of his public ministry - the Messiah the Prince had then come, as it was predicted he should at the end of the sixty-nine weeks. When he was acknowledged as the Son of God - the Messiah - he went into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled.’ The time then fulfilled, must have been some predicted period. There was no predicted period which could then terminate but the sixty-nine, or seventy weeks. Did either of these then terminate? We have seen that the former, reckoned from the seventh of Artaxerxes, as it is fixed by astronomical calculations, would end in A.D. 26-7; and A.D. 27 we find is the precise point of time when the Saviour must have been about thirty years of age, when he was baptized of John, and declared the time fulfilled. At the first passover the Saviour attended, which could not have been later than the Spring of his second year, the Jews told him that the temple had then been forty-six years in building: reckoning back forty-six years from A.D. 28, they began B.C. 19, which is the precise year when Herod began the work of rebuilding the temple. From the eclipse which marked the death of Herod, before which the Saviour had been born, his birth could not have been later than B.C. 4, which would make him about thirty at the very time of his baptism of John. - Such a concurrence of chronological, astronomical, and historical testimony, can only be set aside by testimony still more conclusive.

Your argument that he was not called a prince till after his crucifixion is of no weight; for the Jews could not have crucified ‘the Prince of life,’ as Peter accused them, if he was not the Prince of life till after his crucifixion. Nor is your argument respecting the midst of the week any more to the point. Your criticism has respect only to the English word midst. If you wish to show that it does not mean middle in the present case, you must first show that the Hebrew word chatzi, which is here translated midst, from the verb chatzah, has no such meaning; and that its verb has not ‘a special signification of dividing into two parts, or to halve;’ and that it has not ‘a general sense of dividing into any number of equal parts,’ as Hebraists tell us it has. Till you show this, you make no progress whatever towards proving that it does not mean ‘middle.’—But what was to occur in the midst of the week? The ‘sacrifice and oblation’ were then to cease.—Those Jewish ordinances could only cease actually or virtually. They did not actually cease till A.D. 70. They ceased virtually only at the crucifixion: they then ceased to foreshadow the sacrifice then offered. Was that in the midst of the week? 3½ years from A.D. 27 bring us to the Spring of A.D. 31, where Dr. Hales has demonstrated the crucifixion took place. The week during which the covenant was confirmed, was that in the ‘midst’ of which the sacrifice and oblation virtually ceased. Consequently it could not extend beyond A.D. 34—the latest time to which seventy weeks from the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus could reach.”

Advent Herald, Feb. 15, 1851.

“Eusebius dates the first half of the Passion Week of years as beginning with our Lord’s baptism, and ending with his crucifixion. The same period precisely is recorded by Peter, as including our Lord’s personal ministry: ‘All the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of [or by] John, until the day that he was taken up from us,’ at his ascension, which was only forty-three days after the crucifixion.35 And the remaining half of the Passion Week ended with the martyrdom of Stephen, in the seventh, or last year of the week. For it is remarkable, that the year after, A.D. 35, began a new era in the church, namely, the conversion of Saul, or Paul, the Apostle, by the personal appearance of Christ to him on the road to Damascus, when he received his mission to the Gentiles, after the Jewish Sanhedrin had formerly rejected Christ by persecuting his disciples.36 And the remainder of the Acts principally records the circumstances of his mission to the Gentiles, and the churches he founded among them.”

Dr. Hales, as quoted in the Advent Herald, March 2, 1850.

The foregoing testimony from the Herald establishes the following important points:

1. The decree referred to in Daniel 9, from which the 70 weeks are dated, is the decree of the seventh of Artaxerxes, and not that of his twentieth year.37 And to this point we deem it duty to append an extract from Prof. Whiting:

   “We are informed in Ezra 7:11, ‘Now this is the copy of the letter that king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel.’ The letter then follows, written not in Hebrew, but in Chaldaic (or the Eastern Aramaic) the language then used at Babylon. At the 27th verse, the narrative proceeds in Hebrew. We are thus furnished with the original document, by virtue of which Ezra was authorized to ‘restore and build Jerusalem;’ or, in other words, by which he was clothed with power, not merely to erect walls or houses, but regulate the affairs of his countrymen in general, to ‘set magistrates and judges which may judge all the people beyond the river.’ He was commissioned to enforce the observance of the laws of his God, and to punish those who transgressed, with death, banishment, confiscation or imprisonment. See verses 23-27.38 No grant of powers thus ample, can be found in the case of Nehemiah, or in any other instance after the captivity. That the commission given to Ezra authorized him to proceed in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, is evident from the fact that in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, who was then in the Persian court, received information that ‘the remnant who were left of the captivity, then in the province, were in great affliction and reproach; the wall of Jerusalem was broken down, and the gates thereof burned with fire.’ See Nehemiah 1:1-3. The fact is, that Ezra and his associates met with continued opposition from the Samaritans, so that during the whole of the seven weeks, or forty-nine years from the time that Ezra went up, to the last act of Nehemiah in obliging the Jews to put away their strange wives, the prediction of the prophet was verified - ‘the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times.’ After Nehemiah reached Jerusalem, he examined the city by night. The result of his examination is thus stated, Nehemiah 2:13, ‘And I went out by night, by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon-well, and to the dung-port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.’ It is evident that ‘the walls and gates’ which had been destroyed, were the works of Ezra. The impropriety of referring the language of Nehemiah to the destruction of the city by Nebuchadnezzar will be seen at once, if we recollect that he reduced it to ruins on the capture of Zedekiah, B.C. 588, one hundred and forty-four years previous to the time when Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem.”

   Advent Shield, No. I. Article, Prophetic Chronology, pages 105-6.

   That Ezra understood that power was conferred upon himself, and upon the people of Israel, to rebuild the street of Jerusalem and the wall, is certain from his own testimony recorded in chapter 9:9.39

2. The second point in the evidence which the Herald has adduced, is this: the seventh year of Artaxerxes from which the decree is dated, is fixed beyond dispute in B.C. 457.

3. The commencement of Christ’s ministry in A.D. 27 is clearly established, being just 69 weeks, or 483 prophetic days from the decree in B.C. 457.

4. The crucifixion in the midst of the week is proved to have occurred in the Spring of A.D. 31, just three and a half years from the commencement of Christ’s ministry.

5. And it further demonstrates that the remaining three and a half years of the seventieth week, ended in the Autumn of A.D. 34. Here the seventy weeks, which had been cut off upon the Jews, in which they were “to finish the transgression,” close with the Jewish Sanhedrin act of formally rejecting Christ by persecuting his disciples, and God gives the great Apostle to the Gentiles his commission to them.40

These important dates are clearly and unequivocally established by historical, chronological and astronomical testimony. Sixty-nine of the 70 weeks from the decree in B.C. 457, ended in A.D. 27, when our Lord was baptized, and began to preach, saying, “The time is fulfilled.”41 Three and a half years from this, brings us to the midst of the week in A.D. 31, where it is demonstrated that our Lord was crucified. Three and a half years from A.D. 31, the period of 70 weeks terminates in the Autumn of A.D. 34. Or to be more definite, the first three and a half years of the seventieth week ended in the first Jewish month [April] in the Spring of A.D. 31. The remaining three and a half years would therefore end in the seventh month, Autumn of A.D. 34.

Here then we stand at the end of the great period which Gabriel, in explaining the 2300 days to Daniel, tells him was cut off upon Jerusalem and the Jews. Its commencement, intermediate dates, and final termination are unequivocally established. It remains then to notice this one grand fact: the first 490 years of the 2300 ended in the seventh month, Autumn of A.D. 34. This period of 490 years being cut off from the 2300, a period 1810 years remains. This period of 1810 years being added to the seventh month, Autumn of A.D. 34, brings us to the seventh month, Autumn of 1844. And here, after every effort which has been made to remove the dates, all are compelled to let them stand. For a moment let us recur to the events of 1843 and 1844. Previous to the year 1843, the light on the going forth of the decree in B.C. 457 had been clearly and faithfully set forth. And as the period of 457 years before Christ, subtracted from the 2300, would leave but 1843 years after Christ, the end of the 2300 years was confidently expected in 1843. - But if the 2300 years began with the commencement of B. C. 457, they would not end till the last day of A.D. 1843, as it would require all of 457, and all of 1843, to make 2300 full years.

But at the close of 1843, it was clearly seen that as the crucifixion occurred in the midst of the week, in the Spring of A.D. 31, the remainder of the seventieth week, viz: three and a half years, would end in the Autumn of A.D. 34. And as the seventy weeks, or 490 years, end in the seventh month, Autumn of A.D. 34, it is a settled point that the days began, not in the Spring, with Ezra’s starting from Babylon, but in the Autumn, with the commencement of the work at Jerusalem.42 And this view, that the days begin with the actual commencement of the work, is much strengthened by the fact that the first seven weeks, or 49 years, are manifestly allotted to the work of restoration in “troublous times.” And that period could only begin with the actual commencement of the work.43

When it was seen that only 456 years and a fraction had expired before Christ, it was at once understood that 1843 years and a portion of 1844, sufficient to make up a full year when joined to that fraction, was required in order to make 2300 full years. In other words, the 2300 days in full time would expire in the seventh month 1844. And if we take into the account the fact that the midst of the seventieth week was the fourteenth day of the first month, and consequently the end of the seventy weeks must have been at a corresponding point in the seventh month A.D. 34, we are at once shown that the remainder of the 2300 days would end about that point in the seventh month 1844.

It was with this great fact before us, that the 2300 days of Daniel, which reached to the cleansing of the sanctuary, would terminate at that time, and also with the light of the types, that the high priest in “the example and shadow of heavenly things,” on the tenth day of the seventh month, entered within the second vail to cleanse the sanctuary, that we confidently expected the Advent of our Redeemer in the seventh month 1844. The prophecy said, “Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” - The type said that at that season in the year the high priest should pass from the holy place of the earthly tabernacle to the most holy, to cleanse the sanctuary.44

With these facts before us we reasoned as follows: (1.) The sanctuary is the earth, or the land of Palestine. (2.) The cleansing of the sanctuary is the burning of the earth, or the purification of Palestine, at the coming of Christ. (3.) And hence, we concluded that our great High Priest would leave the tabernacle of God in heaven and descend in flaming fire, on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the Autumn of 1844.

It is needless to say that we were painfully disappointed. And, though the man does not live who can overthrow the chronological argument, which terminates the 2300 days at that time, or meet the mighty array of evidence by which it is fortified and sustained, yet multitudes, without stopping to inquire whether our conceptions of the sanctuary and of its cleansing were correct or not, have openly denied the agency of Jehovah in the Advent movement, and have pronounced it the work of man.

AN INEXPLICABLE POSITION

The position of those Adventists who have attempted to re-adjust the 2300 days, in order to extend them to some future period in which Palestine should be purified, or the earth be burned, has been, to say the least, extremely embarrassing. In the Herald for Dec. 28, 1850, Josiah Litch remarks as follows:

“Chronologically, the period is at an end, according to the best light to be obtained on the subject; and where the discrepancy is, I am unable to decide. But of this we shall know more in due time.

‘God is his own interpreter

And he will make it plain.’”

But not being able to longer maintain a position in denying the termination of the 2300 years in the past, while at the same time they were setting forth an unanswerable vindication of the original dates for the commencement of the period, the Herald has at last denied the connection between the 70 weeks and the 2300 days. We write this with deep regret. A correspondent asks the following questions, and the Editor of the Herald gives the answers which are enclosed in brackets:

“In your ‘Chronology’ the cross is placed A.D. 31. What are the principle objections which bear against its being placed in A.D. 39?

[Ans. 1. The absence of any evidence placing it there. 2. The contradiction of the wonderful astronomical, chronological, and historical coincidences which show beyond the shadow of controversy, that the seventh of Artaxerxes was in B.C. 457-8, that the birth of Christ was B.C. 4-5, that the thirtieth year of Christ was 483 years from the seventh of Artaxerxes, that the crucifixion was in A.D. 31, and that that was the point of time in the last week, when the sacrifice and oblation should cease.]

If the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 do not commence in the twentieth of Artaxerxes, how can the 2300 days begin at the same time with them, and yet terminate in the future?

[Ans. They cannot.]

Must we not henceforth consider that they have different starting points?

[Ans. - Yes.]”

Advent Herald, May 22, 1852

That this is a serious departure from the “original Advent faith,” let the following, which once formed a part of a standing notice in the Advent papers under the head of “points of difference between us and our opponent”, answer:

“We claim that the ninth of Daniel is an appendix to the eighth, and that the seventy weeks and the 2300 days or years commence together. Our opponents deny this.”

See Signs of the Times, 1843

“The grand principle involved in the interpretation of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, is, that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 are the first 490 days of the 2300, of the eighth chapter.”

Advent Shield, page 49. Article, The rise and progress of Adventism.

If it is not a serious defection from the original Advent faith to deny “the grand principle involved in the interpretation of the 2300 days of Daniel 8,” and in its place to take the position of “our opponents” then we greatly err. Hear the opinion of Apollos Hale in 1846:

“The second point to be settled, in explaining the text,45 is to show what vision it is which the seventy weeks are said to seal. And it should be understood that this involves one of the great questions which constitute the main pillars in our system of interpretation, so far as prophetic times are concerned. If the connection between the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, and the 2300 days of Daniel 8, does not exist, the whole system is shaken to its foundation; if it does exist, as we suppose, the system must stand.”

Harmony of Prophetic Chronology, page 33.

Then the act of those who deny the connection of the seventy weeks and the 2300 days, is of a fearful character. It is a denial of “one of the main pillars in our system of interpretation so far as prophetic times are concerned. If the connection between the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, and the 2300 days of Daniel 8, does not exist, the whole system is shaken to its foundation.” And now reader will you listen to their reasons for denying the connection between those two periods, which as we have seen is fortified by a mass of direct testimony. They are as follows:

“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.”

Advent Herald, Sept. 7, 1850

“Before 1843 we became satisfied of the validity of the arguments sustaining their connection and simultaneous commencement. There has nothing transpired to weaken the force of those arguments, but the passing of the time we expected for their termination. We now have no other fact to advance against their connection; and therefore can only wait for the mystery of the passing of time to be explained. But of the commencement and termination of the 70 weeks, we are satisfied that they cannot be removed from the position which Protestants have always assigned them.”

Advent Herald, Feb. 22, 1851

In its appropriate place, we offered conclusive testimony to prove the connection of the 70 weeks and 2300 days. And it is submitted to the reader’s judgment whether the reasons offered to disprove that connection are entitled to any weight or not. It will be seen that they grow out of the assumed correctness of the view that the earth, or land of Canaan is the sanctuary, and that the cleansing of the sanctuary is the burning of the earth, or the purification of Palestine at the coming of Christ. Before the reader adopts the conclusion that the 70 weeks, which Gabriel says were “cut off,” are no part of the great period contained in the vision which he was explaining to Daniel, we request him to follow us in the inquiry: What is the sanctuary, and how is it to be cleansed? This we shall presently follow out, and in doing it we may discover the cause of our disappointment.

OTHER PARTS IN THIS SERIES

• Part 1

• Part 2

• Part 3

• Part 4

Subscribe now

SCRIPTURE INDEX

PREFACE

The following writing comes from an article originally written by J.N. Loughborough in the March 26 edition of the 1857 Review and Herald publication. It was titled “A Letter to a Friend on the Seven Churches” and addresses the prophetic nature of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 and how they relate to the seven distinct periods of church history (most of which have been completely fulfilled now).

This very important truth is largely missed in Protestantism, and it has a particular relevance to those of us who are living today. I hope you enjoy this writing as we seek to restore truth to its proper place.

God Bless,

Charles

ORIGINAL WRITING

(Any bolding of text has been added by me and is not part of the original writing)

A LETTER TO A FRIEND, ON THE SEVEN CHURCHES

BY J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH

(Concluded)

We shall now endeavor to give the chronology of the seven states of the gospel church, as set forth by the seven churches.1 We shall not pass into all the minute details of events connected with these churches, in this investigation; for they have been, heretofore set before the readers of the Review; but will try and notice some prominent points which seem to have a bearing in giving the chronology of each church. As we have before stated, we shall locate the prophecy of the seven churches in the same manner that we would locate any other prophecy that has not a definite time specified for its events to transpire; i.e., by the fulfillment of its specifications.

CHURCH OF EPHESUS

This name, or church we understand covers the apostolic church, from its rise till it began to fall away to that extent that it became obnoxious in the sight of the Lord, and he by his Spirit and truth called out a people from the apostate mass to form a second church. The Ephesus church had “tried them that say they are apostles and are not.”2 Trying apostles was the work of the whole apostolic church, and not simply of a single church located in the city of Ephesus. The case recorded in Acts 15, was at Jerusalem, and the church which found that the decision of that convention proved those professed apostles who had taught them to keep the law of Moses, to be liars, was not the church of Ephesus. Letters were sent to Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It seems also that the church at Corinth had been troubled with false apostles. See 2 Cor. 11:13. But Paul records no such trial of apostles in the city of Ephesus in his testimony to them. This work we understand, as we have already stated, was the work of the whole apostolic church.

The Ephesus church had suffered for his name’s sake. The great testing truth in the apostolic age was to confess the name of Jesus, and “whosoever would confess that Jesus was the Christ should be put out of the synagogue.”3

“For my name’s sake thou hast not fainted.”4 This we understand shows the zeal with which the apostolic church had labored, enduring privations and afflictions, to introduce the gospel. Paul after summing up all his trials, could call them a “light affliction which is but for a moment.”5

“Thou hast left thy first love.”6 I understand this testimony describes the majority of the members of that church, just as the Lord was about, to set them aside. Even while the apostle Paul was alive the “mystery of iniquity,”7 was at work. And as Enfield says in his Philosophy, The first witness of Christianity had scarcely left the world when some of the fathers seemed intent on uniting heathen philosophy with Christianity. And thus they early commenced to clothe the doctrines of Christianity in an allegorical dress. Moshiem says that in this manner they had (in the third century) “degenerated much from primitive simplicity.” “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.”8 They are a fallen church and about to be set aside when this testimony has its application to them. When this church as a mass refused to arouse from their fallen state, it was just as necessary that the true hearted ones should come out in a reform, as it is that God’s people should be called out of modern Babylon. And thus we understand it was that the Ephesus candlestick was set aside, and the Smyrna candlestick brought in. The time of this transition we understand was near the close of the third century.

THE CHURCH OF SMYRNA

We understand to be the second state of the church. This word Smyrna is transferred from the Greek to the English—not translated. It signifies myrrh. This church then was a sweet smell in the nostrils of the Lord. This church was to have “tribulation.” “The Devil should cast some of them into prison.”9 They were to be destroyed by violent means, and tribulation was to continue ten days. This being prophetic time would signify ten years. We understand that this had its accomplishment from A.D. 303 to 313, during the tenth persecution of the church under Diocletian. Probably “the Devil,” which performed his work against them, has particular reference to the “Dragon, that old serpent, the Devil,”10 Pagan Rome; for we understand that the Devil persecuted through that power as he had done through no other power before. For the history of this ten years’ persecution on the church, see the article in the Review, [Vol. IX, No. 15,] on “The Seven Churches, Seven Seals, and Four Beasts.

No accusation is brought against the Smyrna church. Neither is the Pergamos church which followed it, said in so many words to have continued faithful while the mass of the Smyrna church fell away; yet there is testimony made to the Pergamos church which conveys the idea to my mind that the mass out of which they had been called did fall, and thus conveys the idea that in that manner the second candlestick was removed.

THE PERGAMOS CHURCH.

The manner of the transition of the true church into the Pergamos state is conveyed to my mind by Rev 2:13: “I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is, and thou holdest fast my name.” Here is proof that there had been a falling away by some. “Thou holdest fast my name,” (some then had not held fast,) “and hast not denied my faith, even in those days when Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.” Then there had been those in the days when this church arose, that had denied Christ’s name, or apostatized. This work was said to have been accomplished “where Satan’s seat is.” Now there is no evidence that occurs to my mind that Satan had taken his seat in the city of Pergamos; but the seat of that power called, “the Devil, and Satan,” [Rev 12,] through which the Devil wrought so effectually, was the city of Rome. And here was the great focal point where, from the ascension of Constantine A.D. 312, to the establishment of the Papacy, decrees went forth against those who held the gospel truths as sacred, which that power was persecuting.

The following will show that our supposition in regard to the falling away of the Smyrna church, while some held fast, is not without foundation. It is stated by the historian, that when Constantine proposed to assist the christians, and protected them from their persecutions; if they would come and enlist under his banner, and help fight his battles, the young men immediately consented to it, but the old men shook their heads, saying, “It’s a bad omen.”

On the word Antipas used in the testimony to this church says Wm. Miller, “It is supposed that Antipas was not an individual, but a class of men who opposed the power of the bishops, or popes in that day, being a combination of two words, Anti, opposed, and Papas, father, or pope.” We find by tracing the history of the church during the fourth and fifth centuries, that many decrees went forth from that power enforcing under severe penalties, doctrines now peculiar to the Papal see.

As an illustration of the manner in which we understand the Pergamos period of the church was introduced, we might take the introduction of the advent doctrine among the other sects up to 1843. By the promulgation, and belief of the doctrine of the advent near, a new church was being developed, and yet it stood in the midst of the other churches. But when the sects began to reject the glorious light which had shone forth concerning the near approach of the end, and to oppress those who had embraced the doctrine, they soon arose, and as one man raised the cry, “Babylon is fallen,” and out rushed out about fifty thousand from their midst, and thus the Philadelphia candlestick was developed as the true church of God at that period.

But to return to the Pergamos period. We have already given the chronology of this church, or the age in which we supposed it to apply, from about the time of the accession of Constantine, till the development of the Papal beast, A.D. 538. This was a fearful age for the Christians, when human policy was introduced in the church. Image worship, and many other peculiar tenets of the Catholic church, were introduced before the people, and an attempt was made for the conversion of the Pagans, not by the plain, cutting truths of the gospel, but by lowering down the standard to make the way of their conversion easy. As expressed in verse 14,11 they held “the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols.” Peter, speaking of the work of Balaam, says, [2 Pet 2:15] “Following the way of Balaam, the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.” What a complete comparison is this to the attempt that was made during the Pergamos period of the church to blend the Pagan and Christian religion together, and the great object seemed to be to increase the number of the church, and thus increase the revenue of the church.

Verse 15.12 “So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.” This (supposed to be a doctrine promulgated by Nicholas, one of the seven deacons) was, according to the Religious Encyclopedia, promulgated to some extent again in the fourth century, therefore this testimony is given to the church in the Pergamos period, some of whose members had been drawn away by the heresy. Here again is evidence to my mind that the seven churches do not all exist at the same time. The doctrine of Nicholas was promulgated quite extensively in the close of the first century. If the seven churches applied in that age, but two of them had taken their stand in regard to the doctrine of Nicholas. One hated the doctrine, and another had some members that held it. But with the view that these churches apply in different periods, this matter is plain. The apostolic church had taken a bold stand against Nicholas, but in the fourth century when the doctrine came up again, some of the true church were drawn away into the doctrine, and were reproved by the testimony to the Pergamos church.

Verse 16.13 “Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and fight against them with the sword of my mouth.” Here again, as in the Ephesus church, the Lord is exhorting an apostate church to repent, and denounces a judgment upon them except they repent. He would “fight against them with the sword of his mouth,” except they repented. Of course when they came to that point that the Lord fought against them, they ceased to be his church. We understand the mass heeded not the warning, but went on in their vile ways, and brought the frown of God upon them; while on the other hand a reform commenced with some, which brought out:

THE THYATIRA CHURCH

This church we understand occupied the stage of action as the true church of God from 538 till about 1798. We have already made some remarks in regard to this church, and shall say but little here. Verse 1914 shows that this church had endured tribulation: (for tribulation worketh patience:) “I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience.” The great persecution that this church endured had brightened up their christian graces, as we read in the above verse. Although the Waldenses and others endeavored to maintain their principles pure during this period, they suffered themselves to be taught by Papal monks; which was displeasing to God.

Verses 24. 25.15 “ But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden but that which ye have already, hold fast till I come.” We learn from this, that a new burden is to be laid on some one, but the faithful ones in the Thyatira church who overcome, although they may be required to believe the light that should shine forth, yet the great burden of that work would be laid upon others. This church carries us down beyond that point where Christ told the church [Luke 21:28] “Lift up your heads and look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.” He here charges them to “hold fast till I come.” The Thyatira church I understand ends fully when we come to the end of the 1260 years in 1798.

THE SARDIS CHURCH

We understand began to be developed prior to 1798, but stands forth as the only true church of God from that time until they fell in rejecting the doctrine of the Advent. “Thou hast a name that thou livest and art dead.”16 They had a name. The true church of Christ was the name which they assumed. But they were dead. Were running after the fashions and forms of the world, which are sure to kill spirituality in any church, (if any remains when they take such a course.)

“Strengthen the things which remain.”17 A long scene of persecution had been upon the church, and Christ had said in Matt 24:22 “Except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved.” A few remained, and it was the work of the Sardis church to strengthen them.

“Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.”18 In the above verse is proof that the Sardis church, before the Lord rejected them, heard the doctrine of the advent near. The exhortation in this verse we understand has its application at the point where the nominal churches were commencing to reject the light on the Lord’s coming. It seems if they did not remember how they had received and heard, they would not watch for Christ’s coming. Then the things they had heard were relative to Christ’s coming. But if they held fast that which they had received, (the churches at first received the doctrine,) and repented, they would be watching, and Christ would not come on them as a thief. There were a “few names even in Sardis who had not defiled their garments.”19 The mass did not heed the testimony, but rejected the light and fell. The true-hearted ones raised the cry, “Babylon is fallen,” broke off from the mass, and thus came forth:

THE PHILADELPHIA CHURCH

This church, as signified in its name, was a church of brotherly love. Men from different denominations holding peculiar religious tenets on other points, were united in love, on the great theme of the coming of the Lord. We understand the date of the development of this church as a distinct candlestick was at the promulgation of the second angel’s message. Rev 14.

The address to this church (verse 7,20) is made by him “that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” This (as has been shown in the Review) we understand applies to Christ who has the power or throne of David, and had shut the door of the first apartment of the Sanctuary, and opened the door of the second apartment to enter upon his work there, which is represented in the parable of Matt. 25, as going into the marriage. The Lord had set before the Philadelphia church “an open door.” We find as we have already claimed that the Advent church had an open door set before them. It was not a door that man could shut, but the door of the heavenly Sanctuary. He says to this church, “Thou hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.”21 While the mass after the prophetic period terminated in 1844, rashly denied that this move was of the Lord, a few held on and claimed that it was the work of God, and that he himself would in due time justify the disappointment they had met with. They kept his word, claimed that the word read the same, and sustained the position they had taken, although they had been disappointed. And they did not deny the name of Jesus in that movement. Then commenced the work of smiting the fellow-servants, and the Lord had threatened those that engaged in that work, [Matt. 24,] that he would appoint them their portion with hypocrites and unbelievers. Then their act of rashly denying the work of God cut them off from the “brotherly love” church. From that point I understand the Philadelphia church consisted of those who held on, and claimed that God was in the work of 1843-4. Those who rejected the work of God, and yet called themselves the true church of God, and were ready to charge mesmerism, &c., upon their brethren who still held that this was the Lord’s work, will yet know (as expressed in verse 922) that God’s love has been great toward the true Philadelphia church.

“Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation.” This church that stood after the passing of the time needed patience. They were the ones Paul addressed when he says, [Heb 10:36-38,] “For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith.” This is then the position the true church were exhorted to occupy when they came into a point where Christ’s coming was near, and they needed great patience after having done the will of God in reference to the matter. This too is the position the true church did occupy after their disappointment in 1844. Verse 11.23 “Behold, I come quickly, hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” They have had an experience, and believed God was with them in that time. The Lord does not require of them to throw that away; but says, “hold fast.” Verse 12.24 “Him that overcometh, will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God.” The name of God is connected with one of his commandments. Mal. 2:1-2. “O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not bear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory to my name, saith the Lord of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you.” In Rev 14:1-5, we have a description of “one hundred forty and four thousand” which are to he redeemed from among men at the appearing of Jesus. Verse 125 says of them, “ A Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having HIS FATHER’S NAME written in their foreheads.”

In Rev 7, we have a description of this marking of the servants of God in their foreheads. An angel comes forth, “and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea.” These four angels are represented [verse 126] as holding the four winds of the earth. These winds began to blow in the revolution of 1848, but the angels of God have restrained them, and are still restraining them that the work of sealing his servants may be accomplished. The seal of the living God, or the sign of his royalty is contained in the fourth commandment of the ten. Those ten commandments began to be enforced upon the people under the third angel’s message, [Rev 14:9-12,] near the time of the restraining of the four winds. We understand the Laodicean period began about 1848, and the third angel’s message which develops:

THE LAODICEAN CHURCH

Aroused those Philadelphians who were still watching and waiting for the Lord to justify the past. A question, you remember, arose with us at this point, which was, How did the Philadelphians get into the Laodicean period of the church? We supposed it must have been by backsliding. I think that was not the way. My difficulty on that point all grew out of the supposition that a Laodicean must necessarily be lukewarm. It is true the Laodiceans got into a lukewarm state, by backsliding from the love they cherished for God and his cause.

To settle the question, how we got into the Laodicean period, I would ask, how did we get among that church that have found themselves with us lukewarm? It was by the preaching of the Third Angel’s Message. That is the manner, I understand, (as already claimed,) that the Laodicean church was developed. The third message probably agrees with the third call to supper.27 There we find, after the third call had gone forth, the king came in to see the guests.” This address to the church of the Laodiceans has its application when the church have got into that lukewarm state. The place where the Spirit of God powerfully sets home these exhortations to each of the churches, is when they get to that point that the Lord’s messengers begin to array these exhortations and cutting reproofs before them, they are then exhorted to “hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

If we should claim that we got into the Laodicean period of the Church by backsliding; we might claim that the Sardis church was developed by the Thyatira church dying. The first address made to them is, “Thou hast a name that thou livest and art dead.” They had once been a living church or they could not have died. The exhortation we understand had its application to them after they had backslidden from God. So we understand these exhortations to the Laodiceans have their application after the truths of the Third Angel’s Message have gone forth, and gathered a church together.

Dear brother, I believe with all my soul we are in that church called Laodicean, and in that state of the church called lukewarm. The awfully solemn declaration of Jesus, “I will spue thee out of my mouth,” is to you and I, and all the commandment-keepers. We have boasted of the glorious light we have received from the book of God, and yet we are “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” Miser-like we have made a wrong use of these truths. The wise man says, “There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing.”28 We have been truly rich in the truths of the word of God, but yet those riches tended to make us poor, because we did not enjoy their sanctifying power. Those glorious truths we have so long held should inspire in our hearts faith, holy living; and it would become us, seeing we look for such things as are here portrayed, to live near to God, where his gentle Spirit could anoint our eyes. But thank the Lord, the light has come if we will heed it. The Saviour by his Spirit is setting home these truths to the hearts of his people. He threatens. He will drop our cause and not intercede for us, if we remain lukewarm. He counsels us. He rebukes, and chastens, if perchance we will be in earnest. He knocks at the door of our hearts, he wants to come in. He stands imploring us to let him in. Shall we not listen to his voice, arise and open the door? Who will try?

Round Grove, Ills., Mardi 2d, 1857

Subscribe now

SCRIPTURE INDEX