Larger font
Smaller font

Looking Unto Jesus

 - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font


    In view of the importance of the prophetic era just passed in review, and the interest which attaches to the movements that took place in connection with it, it must be a satisfaction to every earnest student of prophecy, if it shall be found that every embarrassment which is now generally supposed to attach to it, and the great failure under which it is now supposed to lie buried, can all be explained and cleared away, and the whole movement be shown to have been a clear and consistent fulfilment of prophecy. This can easily be done; and he who has carefully read the preceding pages, is even now prepared to anticipate the answer. But it will not be out of place to notice it in a more particular manner at this point.LUJ 202.1

    Why did not the Lord come in 1844, as the Adventists expected? Their arguments were careful and well-considered; their reasoning was deep and sound; their historical facts were well substantiated; and their application of the great prophetic period of 2300 days, showing that they would certainly end in that year, was founded on evidence as we have seen, which could not be overthrown. The days, consequently did there end; and if the prophecy had said that then the Lord would come, he would have come. But the prophecy only said “Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” From the retrospective view we are now able to take of the matter, it seems not a little surprising that they should seemingly have taken it for granted that the earth was the sanctuary, and then proceeded to reason and draw their conclusions from such premises. But so they did. They said, The earth is the sanctuary, and this earth is finally to be purified by fire; and so the burning of this earth is what the prophet means when he says that “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” But the earth is not to be burned till Christ comes; for he is to be revealed “in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel.” Hence they extended their deduction another degree, and said, Then the Lord will come. By this process of reasoning, they then had the text completely transformed so that it would read, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed - or which is the same thing, then shall the earth be burned - or which is an inseparable event, then shall the Lord come.” And considering this last that feature of the proposition which would be better understood, they made it the burden of their proclamation that the Lord would come at the end of the days in 1844.LUJ 202.2

    A portion of the evidence has already been presented to show what the true sanctuary is, and what the cleansing is, which the prophecy declared was to take place at the end of the days; but the field will not be entirely canvassed, and every objection receive its due share of attention until further evidence is offered to disprove the view on which Adventists went astray in 1844, and to show that the earth is not the sanctuary, neither the land of Palestine, not the church, to which some have tried to apply it. It will strengthen the evidence which shows what the sanctuary is, to show what it is not.LUJ 203.1

    The Earth not the Sanctuary? This is shown, -LUJ 203.2

    1. By the definition of the word “sanctuary,” which, according to Webster, Walker, Cruden, and the Bible, is defined to mean, “A holy place, a sacred place, a dwelling-place for the Most High.” Is the earth such a place? or has it been such since sin entered therein to mar and defile? Every one knows it has not; and this fact alone is sufficient to preclude forever the idea that this earth is the sanctuary.LUJ 204.1

    2. The antitypical nature of the new covenant sanctuary shows that it cannot be applied to this earth. As we have seen, the sanctuary of the former dispensation was a type of the sanctuary of the present dispensation. Is it now the earth? Then the former sanctuary prefigured it. But in what respect did that sanctuary represent this earth? Can it for a moment be supposed that Moses, when in the mount, was shown this earth as a pattern from which he was to erect the sanctuary, and that the nearest resemblance he could make of it was an oblong building ten cubits in width, and three times that number of cubits in length? And the same inquiry might be extended to the furniture of the sanctuary. Where on this earth is there any antitype of the ark, the altar of incense, the golden candlestick, and the table of showbread?LUJ 204.2

    3. The use of the term in the Scriptures shows that it cannot apply to this earth. The word “sanctuary” occurs one hundred and forty-four times in the Bible; but it is not in a single instance applied to the earth. The only texts which one could imagine to have even a shadow of an application to this earth, are Isaiah 60:13; Ezekiel 37:26-28; Revelation 21:1-3. But these refer not to the present, but to the future, and show simply that the earth renewed is the place where the tabernacle of God, whatever that may mean in the future state, will be located hereafter.LUJ 204.3

    4. But finally, if the earth is the sanctuary now, it was just as much the sanctuary in the former dispensation. No change has taken place by which it has become the sanctuary now, in any sense, more than it must have been then. But Paul says that the tabernacle built by Moses was the sanctuary then; hence the earth was not then the sanctuary, and therefore is not the sanctuary now.LUJ 205.1

    This view being so untenable, what shall be said of that view which makes this earth only a part of the sanctuary, and looks to heaven for the rest? It is strange that any one should conceive such an idea, or for a moment endeavor seriously to defend it. The only apology for such a view, is that its advocates, misled by our common translation, suppose that the Bible calls heaven the “most holy place.” But this is no apology; for no one can consistently set himself forth as a religious teacher, who, on a point so plain, is not acquainted with the correct reading.LUJ 205.2

    The Land of Canaan not the Sanctuary. - The principles already presented on the foregoing topic, go far toward proving the incorrectness of those views which apply the sanctuary to the land of Canaan or the church. (See reasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 above stated.) To prove the land of Canaan the sanctuary, appeal is made to Exodus 15:17. But if this text proves that Canaan was ever the sanctuary, it was the sanctuary at the time to which that text applies and the sanctuary of the old covenant. But here come these good words of Paul again, which declare, not that the land of Canaan was the sanctuary then, but that the tabernacle built by Moses was. This is sufficient to settle this point. But some will not be satisfied without a further notice of a few texts. Let Exodus 15:17, then be explained by Psalm 78:53, 54, 69. David here speaks of the same events to which Moses referred. Moses gave them as matters of prediction; David, living after their accomplishment, spoke of them as matters of history. What Moses, in the poetical license of his fervent song of triumph, speaks of as the inheritance and sanctuary, David says in more explicit terms was the border of sanctuary, and adds that the sanctuary was something which was built therein.LUJ 205.3

    Good King Jehoshaphat makes the same distinction. 2 Chronicles 20:7-9. He speaks of the land which had been given them, and the sanctuary which they had built therein, and then says that that sanctuary was the house (Solomon’s temple) before which they stood. There is no mistaking such language, and any confusion in regard to the relation of the sanctuary to the land of Canaan is certainly inexcusable.LUJ 206.1

    Isaiah 63:18 refers to the overthrow and treading down of the house of God, the sanctuary of that time, as stated in 2 Chronicles 36:17-20; and Isaiah 60:13 simply speaks of the new earth as the future glorious place of the sanctuary.LUJ 206.2

    The land of Canaan was not, and is not, the sanctuary, but simply the place where the typical sanctuary was located.LUJ 206.3

    The Church not the Sanctuary. - As regards the church, it is never once called the sanctuary. Psalm 114:2 speaks of Judah as God’s sanctuary. But this at most would only prove that a portion of the church not the whole, constitutes the sanctuary, as Judah was only one of the twelve tribes. But again, when was Judah thus called the sanctuary? - When Israel went “out of Egypt.” And what does Paul tell us was then the sanctuary? - The tabernacle built by Moses! This settles the question again. Why, then, is Judah called the sanctuary? -LUJ 206.4

    Simply because Mount Zion was located in Judah, and on Mount Zion the sanctuary was built.LUJ 207.1

    But if Judah or the whole church was the sanctuary then, it would not be the sanctuary now; for the sanctuary of that dispensation has given place to the sanctuary of the new.LUJ 207.2

    But if the church could be shown to be the sanctuary at any time, it could not even then be the sanctuary of Daniel 8:13, 14, the only one under discussion; for the church is expressly spoken of in connection with that as the “host” or the worshipers, connected therewith. Here the church and the sanctuary are certainly separate and distinct objects.LUJ 207.3

    The reader must now be able to see very clearly what the mistake was which was made in 1844. The prophecy did not refer to the earth, nor to the land of Canaan, nor to the church, and hence had no reference to any change to be wrought in reference to these objects and the coming of Christ. It therefore gave no warrant for expecting the Lord to come at that time. But the prophecy did have reference to the antitypical sanctuary in heaven, and the change to take place there, upon which great fact we now take hold by faith.LUJ 207.4

    Yet there seems to be a marvelous reluctance on the part of some to concede the fact that there is a true sanctuary in heaven, and that that is the sanctuary to which the prophecy applies. In sympathy with the object here maintained, to leave no point unexamined, the reader will have patience with two more considerations which are presented by way of objection. It is said that if there is a sanctuary in heaven, it cannot be the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14; for that is a sanctuary which is trodden underfoot; but a sanctuary in heaven cannot be trodden underfoot.LUJ 207.5

    This objection is surely uttered without thought. Where is Christ? - In heaven. Can he, while there, be trodden underfoot? If so, the sanctuary where he ministers can also be trodden underfoot. And Paul says emphatically that Christ is trodden underfoot by a certain class of sinners, crucified afresh, and put to an open shame. Hebrews 10:29: “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God?” How do they commit this great sin? - Simply by becoming apostate, and counting his blood as an unholy thing, and doing despite to the Spirit of grace. And how do they tread underfoot the sanctuary? - By erecting rival sanctuaries, and endeavoring to turn mankind away from the true. While the sanctuary was upon this earth, this sometimes involved the literal destruction of the tabernacle; but this was only a subsidiary feature, not the main circumstance in this work.LUJ 208.1

    The two powers which were to tread down the host and sanctuary were paganism and the papacy. How have they done it? - By maintaining rival sanctuaries, under the direct instigation of Satan. In the days of the judges and of Samuel, Satan’s rival sanctuary was the temple of Dagon, where the Philistines worshiped. Judges 16:23, 24. After Solomon had erected a glorious sanctuary upon Mount Moriah, in Jerusalem, Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin, erected a rival sanctuary at Bethel, and drew away ten of the twelve tribes from the worship of the living God to that of the golden calves. 1 Kings 12:26-33; Amos 7:13, margin. In the days of Nebuchadnezzar, the rival of the sanctuary of God was the temple of old Belus in Babylon. At a later period, there was the Pantheon, or temple of “all the gods,” at Rome, which, after the typical sanctuary had given place to the true, was baptized, and called Christian. Thenceforward Satan had at Rome a “temple of God,” in which was a being “exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped,” the man of sin, the son of perdition. And of this papal abomination it was expressly predicted that it should make war upon the saints, or tread underfoot “the host,” and make war upon the tabernacle of God in heaven, or tread underfoot the sanctuary above. Revelation 13:6. And it has done both these evil deeds by harassing to death millions of the saints of God, and by turning away them that dwell on the earth, over whom it had control, from reverence to the temple of God above to the worship of its own sanctuary at Rome. It has trodden underfoot the Son of God, the minister of the heavenly sanctuary, by making the pope the vicegerent of God upon earth and the head of the church instead of Christ, and by leading men to worship this son of perdition as one not only able like God to forgive past sins, but to go beyond what God ever proposed to do, in forgiving them before their commission. Surely there is propriety in speaking of this work as treading underfoot the host and the sanctuary, or “blaspheming God’s tabernacle and them that dwell in heaven.” And thus all the objection that can be urged on this score, to the position taken in this work, is removed out of the way.LUJ 208.2

    Still another consideration is presented, as a seeming objection to the view here offered. It is said that even if there is a sanctuary in heaven, to be at some time cleansed, it cannot be the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14; for that must be the very sanctuary that Daniel had in view, in the land of Palestine, not a sanctuary in heaven. In reply it would only seem necessary to point to the fact that there is no sanctuary now in Palestine. There was none there when the 2300 days ended, in 1844. And how can a sanctuary be cleansed that does not exist? It must first be shown that there is a sanctuary there, before one can talk of its cleansing.LUJ 209.1

    Still it is asked, If a man should promise to cleanse a meeting-house in Detroit which had become defiled, and then should go and cleanse one in Chicago, would that be fulfilling the promise? Such a question betrays at once an utter misapprehension of the question. In the first place, the cleansing of the sanctuary is not the rescuing it from its being trodden underfoot. It has reference to another feature of the question entirely. In the answer to the question by the angel, in Daniel 8:14, enough was given for us to know; namely, the time when the closing scene in the sanctuary work should commence, which after a brief but indefinite space of time would bring us to the end of the world. Secondly, the sanctuary in Palestine and the sanctuary in heaven are not like two meeting-houses, one in Detroit and the other in Chicago, having no connection with each other. The sanctuaries are counterparts of each other. They stand as type and antitype. When one had fulfilled its design, it gave place to the other, which thenceforward became the sanctuary. The first was given to lead us to the second, and instruct us in reference thereto. Therefore whatever is said in reference to the sanctuary which applies to the former dispensation, has reference to the sanctuary of that dispensation; and whatever applies to this dispensation, has reference to that which is the sanctuary of this dispensation; namely, the sanctuary in heaven. But as we have shown, the 2300 days reach far down into this dispensation; and consequently the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of those days is the sanctuary of this dispensation, not the sanctuary in old Jerusalem, which has been superseded, and has “vanished away,” but the tabernacle of God, on high.LUJ 210.1

    This is illustrated by what is said of the host. By the word “host,” of course, is meant the people of God. The host was to be trodden underfoot the whole length of time covered by the vision. Who were the host, the people of God, when Daniel wrote? - They were the Jews. But the vision reaches over into this dispensation; and who are the host, the people of God, now? The Jews? - No; but Christians, who are called in by the gospel. When the dispensation changed, the Jews were no longer recognized as the “host,” but Christians are now such, and to them Daniel 8:13 now applies. So, likewise, when the new covenant was introduced, the sanctuary of the vanished dispensation was no longer recognized as the sanctuary of the Bible, but the true sanctuary in heaven, which then took its place, became the sanctuary of the Bible; and to this, Daniel 8:14 now applies.LUJ 211.1

    To return to the illustration proposed above as an objection: If it were arranged that a meeting-house in Detroit should be the meeting-house of a certain society for ten years, and then it should be destroyed, and give place to a meeting-house in Chicago which should thenceforward for twenty years be the meeting-house of that same society, and then it was promised that at the end of thirty years the meeting-house of that society should be cleansed, to which would it apply? To the meeting-house in Detroit, which had been destroyed? or to the meeting-house in Chicago, which was the meeting-house of the society at that time? - To the one in Chicago, of course. This would be an illustration adapted to the subject of the sanctuary; for this is just what the Bible asserts in relation to it. It said that while the former dispensation lasted, the earthly sanctuary should be the sanctuary connected with God’s worship; that then that sanctuary should be destroyed and give place to the true tabernacle and sanctuary in heaven, which the Lord pitched, and not man, which should thenceforward be the sanctuary of God’s worship and of this dispensation; and finally, that at the end of 2300 days, which would bring us 1813 years and six months down in this dispensation, the sanctuary should be cleansed. What sanctuary? The earthly one, which had served its purpose, been destroyed, vanished away with the system to which it belonged, and had given place to the new? - No; but the sanctuary of this dispensation, of course. It is only when thus stated that this is a fair illustration of the subject. But thus stated, it is taken out of the hands of those who would try to use it as an objection to the view under consideration; for it sets forth just the points which are maintained in this work. The sanctuary in heaven is therefore the one to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days.LUJ 211.2

    Striking about for some other pretext to object to the conclusion that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary began in 1844, it is next asserted that the language, “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” means that the cleansing should be finished at the end of the 2300 days, whereas the position here maintained is that then it simply begins. The answer to this is not long nor difficult. The cleansing of the sanctuary, as we have seen, occupies a space of time; and in speaking of such events, the Bible brings us to the beginning of the work, not to its close. It does not say, Then shall the sanctuary have been cleansed, but, The shall it be cleansed. When the Scriptures speak of accomplished events, they so express it; as of the two witnesses (Revelation 11:7): “Then they shall have finished their testimony,” or of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:24): “When he shall have delivered up the kingdom.” But when they say, “Then shall be great tribulation” (Matthew 24:21), it means that it shall then begin, and continue; and when they say, “Then shall that Wicked be revealed” (2 Thessalonians 2:8), it means that then shall begin the period during which he will stand revealed before the world. So, “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” simply refers to the time when the work shall commence.LUJ 212.1

    Therefore we are held inevitably to the conclusion that at the end of the 2300 days, in the autumn of 1844, the ministration of the sanctuary above was changed from the holy to the most holy place. This is the momentous conclusion which is now ever to be kept in view. And this fact, and the nature of the work which it reveals as now in progress, should thrill with interest our inmost souls.LUJ 213.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font