now come once more, says Dr. Clarke,
to the Hebrew,
the Chaldee part of the book being finished. As the
Chaldeans had a particular interest both in the history
the prophecies from chapter 2:4 to the end of
the whole is written in Chaldee; but as the
which remain concern times posterior to the Chaldean
monarchy, and principally relate to the church and people
of God generally, they are written in the Hebrew language,
this being the tongue in which God chose to reveal all his
counsels given under the Old Testament relative to
New. p. 145, Para. 2.
1. In the third year of the reign of king
Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel,
after that which appeared unto me at the first. p. 145,
prominent characteristic of the sacred writings, and
one which should forever shield them from the charge of
being works of fiction, is the frankness and freedom with
which the writers state all the circumstances connected
with that which they record. This verse states the time
when the vision recorded in this chapter was given to
Daniel. The first year of Belshazzar was B.C. 540. His
third year, in which this vision was given, would
consequently be 538. If Daniel, as is supposed, was about
twenty years of age when he was carried to Babylon in the
first year of Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 606, he was at this time
about eighty-eight years of age. The vision he speaks of as
which appeared unto him at the first, is
doubtless the vision of the seventh chapter, which he had
in the first year of Belshazzar. p. 145, Para. 4.
2. And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when
I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace which is in the
province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the
river of Ulai. p. 146, Para. 1.
As verse 1 states the time when, this verse gives the place where, the vision was given. Shushan, as we learn from Prideaux, was the metropolis of the province of Elam. This was then in the hands of the Babylonians, and there the king of Babylon had a royal palace. Daniel, as minister of state, and employed about the king's business, was accordingly in that place. Abradates, viceroy or prince of Shushan, revolted to Cyrus, and the province was joined to the Medes and Persians; so that, according to the prophecy of Isaiah [21:2], Elam went up with the Medes to besiege Babylon. Under the Medes and Persians it regained its liberties, of which it had been deprived by the Babylonians, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, chapter 49:39. p. 146, Para. 2.
THE RAM - SYMBOL OF MEDO-PERSIA
VERSE 3. Then I lifted up
mine eyes, and saw, and,
behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two
horns; and the two horns were high; but one was higher than
the other, and the higher came up last. 4. I saw the ram
pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no
beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that
could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his
will, and became great. p. 146, Para. 3.
verse 20 an interpretation of this symbol is given us
in plain language:
The ram which thou sawest having two
horns are the kings of Media and Persia. We have only,
therefore, to consider how well the symbol answers to the
power in question. The two horns represented the two
nationalities of which the empire consisted. The higher
came up last. This represented the Persian element, which,
from being at first simply an ally of the Medes, came to be
the leading division of the empire. The different
directions in which the ram was seen pushing, denote the
directions in which the Medes and Persians carried their
conquests. No earthly powers could stand before them while
they were marching up to the exalted position to which the
providence of God had summoned them. And so successfully
were their conquests prosecuted that in the days of
Ahasuerus [Est. 1:1], the Medo-Persian kingdom extended
from India to Ethiopia, the extremities of the then known
world, over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces. The
prophecy almost seems to fall short of the facts as stated
in history, when it simply says that this power
according to his will, and became great. p. 146, Para. 4.
THE HE-GOAT - SYMBOL OF GRECIA
VERSE 5. And as I was considering,
behold, an he-goat
came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and
touched not the ground; and the goat had a notable horn
between his eyes. 6. And he came to the ram that had two
horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran
unto him in the fury of his power. 7. And I saw him come
close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against
him and smote the ram, and brake his two horns; and there
was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast
him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was
none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. p. 147,
As I was considering, says the prophet; and in
sets an example for every lover of the truth, and all who
have any regard for things higher than the objects of time
and sense. When Moses saw the burning bush, he said,
will now turn aside, and see this great sight. But how few
are willing at the present time to turn aside from their
pursuit of business or pleasure to consider the important
themes to which both the mercy and the providence of God
are striving to call their attention. p. 147, Para. 2.
The symbol here introduced is also explained by
to Daniel. Verse 21:
And the rough goat is the king [or
kingdom] of Grecia. Concerning the fitness of this symbol
to the Grecian or Macedonian people, Bishop Newton observes
that the Macedonians,
about two hundred years before the
time of Daniel, were called AEGEADAE, the goats' people:
the origin of which name he explains, according to heathen
authors, as follows:
Caranus, their first king, going with
a great multitude of Greeks to seek new habitations in
Macedonia, was advised by an oracle to take the goats for
his guides to empire: and afterward, seeing a herd of goats
flying from a violent storm, he followed them to Edessa,
and there fixed the seat of his empire, and made the goats
his ensigns, or standards, and called the city AEGAE, or
the goats' town, and the people AEGEADAE, or the goats'
The city of Aegeae, or Aegae, was the usual
burying-place of the Macedonian kings. It is also very
remarkable that Alexander's son by Roxana was named
Alexander Aegus, or the son of the goat;
and some of
Alexander's successors are represented in their coins with
goats' horns. -- Dissertation on the Prophecies, p. 238.
p. 147, Para. 3.
The goat came from the west. Grecia lay west of Persia. p. 148, Para. 1.
On the face of the whole earth. He covered all
ground as he passed; that is, swept everything before him;
he left nothing behind. p. 148, Para. 2.
touched not the ground. Such was the
celerity of his movements that he did not seem to touch the
ground, but to fly from point to point with the swiftness
of the wind; the same feature is brought to view by the
four wings of the leopard in the vision of chapter 7. p.
148, Para. 3.
The notable horn between his eyes. This explained in verse 21 to be the first king of the Macedonian empire. This king was Alexander the Great. p. 148, Para. 4.
VERSES 6 and 7 give a concise account of the
the Persian empire by Alexander. The contests between the
Greeks and Persians are said to have been exceedingly
furious; and some of the scenes as recorded in history are
vividly brought to mind by the figure used in the prophecy,
-- a ram standing before the river, and the goat running
unto him in the fury of his power. Alexander first
vanquished the generals of Darius at the River Granicus in
Phrygia; he next attacked and totally routed Darius at the
passes of Issus in Cilicia, and afterward on the plains of
Arbela in Syria. This last battle occurred in B.C. 331, and
marked the conclusion of the Persian empire, for by this
event Alexander became complete master of the whole
country. Bishop Newton quotes verse 6:
And he [the goat]
came to the ram which I had seen standing before the river,
and ran unto him in the fury of his power; and adds:
can hardly read these words without having some image of
Darius's army standing and guarding the River Granicus,
of Alexander on the other side, with his forces
in, swimming across the stream, and rushing on the enemy
with all the fire and fury that can be imagined. -- Id.,
p. 239. p. 148, Para. 5.
Ptolemy begins the reign of Alexander B.C. 332;
but it was
not till the battle of Arbela, the year following, that he
became, according to Prideaux [Vol. 1, p. 378],
lord of that empire to the utmost extent in which it was
ever possessed by the Persian kings. On the eve of this
engagement, Darius sent ten of his chief relatives to sue
for peace; and upon their presenting their conditions to
Alexander, he replied,
Tell your sovereign . . . that the
world will not permit two suns nor two sovereigns! p.
149, Para. 1.
The language of verse 7 sets forth the completeness of the subjection of Medo-Persia to Alexander. The two horns were broken, and the ram was cast to the ground and stamped upon. Persia was subdued, the country ravaged, its armies cut to pieces and scattered, its cities plundered, and the royal city of Persepolis, the capital of the Persian empire, and even in its ruins one of the wonders of the world to the present day, was sacked and burned. Thus the ram had no power to stand before the goat, and there was none that could deliver him out of his hand. p. 149, Para. 2.
VERSE 8. Therefore the he-goat waxed
very great: and when
he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came
up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. p.
149, Para. 3.
The conqueror is greater than the conquered. The ram, Medo-Persia, became great; the goat, Grecia, became very great. And when he was strong, the great horn was broken. Human foresight and speculation would have said, When he becomes weak, his kingdom racked by rebellion, or paralyzed by luxury, then the horn will be broken, and the kingdom shattered. But Daniel saw it broken in the very prime of its strength and the height of its power, when every beholder would have exclaimed, Surely, the kingdom is established, and nothing can overthrow it. Thus it is often with the wicked. The horn of their strength is broken when they think they stand most firm. p. 149, Para. 4.
Alexander fell in the prime of life. [See notes
39 of chapter 2.] After his death there arose much
confusion among his followers respecting the succession. It
was finally agreed, after a seven days' contest, that his
natural brother, Philip Aridaeus, should be declared king.
By him, and Alexander's infant sons, Alexander AEGUS and
Hercules, the name and show of the Macedonian empire were
for a time sustained; but all these persons were soon
murdered; and the family of Alexander being then extinct,
the chief commanders of the army, who had gone into
different parts of the empire as governors of the
provinces, assumed the title of kings. They thereupon fell
to leaguing and warring with one another to such a degree
that within the space of twenty-two years from Alexander's
death, the number was reduced to -- how many? Five? -- No.
Three? -- No. Two? -- No. But four -- just the
specified in the prophecy; for four notable horns were to
come up toward the four winds of heaven in place of the
great horn that was broken. These were  Cassander, who
had Greece and the neighboring countries;  Lysimachus,
who had Asia Minor;  Seleucus, who had Syria and
Babylon, and from whom came the line of kings known as the
Seleucidae, so famous in history; and  Ptolemy, son of
Lagus, who had Egypt, and from whom sprang the
These held dominion toward the four winds of heaven.
Cassander had the western parts; Lysimachus had the
northern regions; Seleucus possessed the eastern countries;
and Ptolemy had the southern portion of the empire. These
four horns may therefore be named Macedonia, Thrace [which
then included Asia Minor, and those parts lying on the
Hellespont and Bosphorus], Syria, and Egypt. p. 150, Para.
THE LITTLE HORN OF DANIEL 8
VERSE 9. And out of
one of them came forth a little horn,
which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward
the east, and toward the pleasant land. 10. And it waxed
great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of
the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon
them. 11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of
the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away,
and the place of this sanctuary was cast down. 12. And an
host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of
transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground;
and it practiced and prospered. p. 150, Para. 2.
A third power is here introduced into the prophecy. In the explanation which the angel gave to Daniel of these symbols, this one is not described in language so definite as that concerning Medo-Persia and Grecia. Hence a flood of wild conjecture is at once let loose. Had not the angel, in language which cannot be misunderstood, stated that Medo-Persia and Grecia were denoted by the ram and the he-goat, it is impossible to tell what applications men would have given us of those symbols. Probably they would have applied them to anything and everything but the right objects. Leave men a moment to their own judgment in the interpretation of prophecy, and we immediately have the most sublime exhibitions of human fancy. p. 151, Para. 1.
are two leading applications of the symbol now under
consideration, which are all that need be noticed in these
brief thoughts. The first is that the
little horn here
introduced denotes the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes;
the second, that it denotes the Roman power. It is an easy
matter to test the claims of these two positions. p. 151,
I. Does it mean Antiochus? If so, this king must fulfil the specifications of the prophecy? If he does not fulfil them, the application cannot be made to him. The little horn came out of one of the four horns of the goat. It was then a separate power, existing independently of, and distinct from, any of the horns of the goat. Was Antiochus such a power? p. 151, Para. 3.
1. Who was Antiochus? From the time that Seleucus made himself king over the Syrian portion of Alexander's empire, thus constituting the Syrian horn of the goat, until that country was conquered by the Romans, twenty-six kings ruled in succession over that territory. The eighth of these, in order, was Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, then, was simply one of the twenty-six kings who constituted the Syrian horn of the goat. He was, for the time being, that horn. Hence he could not be at the same time a separate and independent power, or another and remarkable horn, as the little horn was. p. 151, Para. 4.
If it were proper to apply the little horn to any one of
these twenty-six Syrian kings, it should certainly be
applied to the most powerful and illustrious of them all;
but Antiochus Epiphanes did not by any means sustain this
character. Although he took the name Epiphanes, that is,
The Illustrious, he was illustrious only in name; for
nothing, says Prideaux on the authority of Polybius, Livy,
and Diodorus Siculus, could be more alien to his true
character; for, on account of his vile and extravagant
folly, some thinking him a fool and others a madman, they
changed his name of Epiphanes,
The Illustrious, into
The Madman. p. 152, Para. 1.
3. Antiochus the Great, the father of Epiphanes, being terribly defeated in a war with the Romans, was enabled to procure peace only by the payment of a prodigious sum of money, and the surrender of a portion of his territory; and, as a pledge that he would faithfully adhere to the terms of the treaty, he was obliged go give hostages, among whom was this very Epiphanes, his son, who was carried to Rome. The Romans ever after maintained this ascendency. p. 152, Para. 2.
4. The little horn waxed exceeding great; but this Antiochus did not wax exceeding great; on the contrary, he did not enlarge his dominion, except by some temporary conquests in Egypt, which he immediately relinquished when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy, and commanded him to desist from his designs in that quarter. The rage of his disappointed ambition he vented upon the unoffending Jews. p. 152, Para. 3.
The little horn, in comparison with the powers that
preceded it, was exceeding great. Persia is simply called
great, though it reigned over a hundred and twenty-seven
provinces. Est. 1:1. Grecia, being more extensive still, is
called very great. Now the little horn, which waxed
exceeding great, must surpass them both. How
to apply this to Antiochus, who was obliged to abandon
Egypt at the dictation of the Romans, to whom he paid
enormous sums of money as tribute. The Religious
Encyclopedia gives us this item of his history:
his resources exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia to
levy tribute, and collect large sums which he had agreed to
pay the Romans. It cannot take long for any one to decide
the question which was the greater power, -- the one which
evacuated Egypt, or the one which commanded that
evacuation; the one which exacted tribute, or the one which
was compelled to pay it. p. 152, Para. 4.
6. The little horn was to stand up against the Prince of princes. The Prince of princes here means, beyond controversy, Jesus Christ. Dan. 9:25; Acts 3:15; Rev. 1:5. But Antiochus died one hundred and sixty-four years before our Lord was born. The prophecy cannot, therefore, apply to him; for he does not fulfil the specifications in one single particular. The question may then be asked how any one has ever come to apply it to him. We answer, Romanists take that view to avoid the application of the prophecy to themselves; and many Protestants follow them, in order to oppose the doctrine that the second advent of Christ is now at hand. p. 153, Para. 1.
II. It has been an easy matter to show that the little horn does not denote Antiochus. It will be just as easy to show that it does denote Rome. p. 153, Para. 2.
The field of vision here is substantially the same as
that covered by Nebuchadnezzar's image of chapter 2, and
Daniel's vision of chapter 7. And in both these prophetic
delineations we have found that the power which succeeded
Grecia as the fourth great power, was Rome. The only
natural inference would be that the little horn, the power
which in this vision succeeds Grecia as an
great power, is also Rome. p. 153, Para. 3.
2. The little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat. How, it may be asked, can this be true of Rome? It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not introduced into prophecy till they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League, B.C. 161. 1 Maccabees 8; Josephus's Antiquities, book 12, chap. 10, sec. 6; Prideaux, Vol. II, p. 166. But seven years before this, that is, in B.C. 168, Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its empire. Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of the goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat. p. 153, Para. 4.
3. The little horn waxed great toward the south. This was true of Rome. Egypt was made a province of the Roman empire B.C. 30, and continued such for some centuries. p. 154, Para. 1.
4. The little horn waxed great toward the east. This also was true of Rome. Rome conquered Syria B.C. 65, and made it a province. p. 154, Para. 2.
5. The little horn waxed great toward the pleasant land. So did Rome. Judea is called the pleasant land in many scriptures. The Romans made it a province of their empire, B.C. 63, and eventually destroyed the city and the temple, and scattered the Jews over the face of the whole earth. p. 154, Para. 3.
6. The little horn waxed great even to the host of heaven. Rome did this also. The host of heaven, when used in a symbolic sense in reference to events transpiring upon the earth, must denote persons of illustrious character or exalted position. The great red dragon [Rev. 12:4] is said to have cast down a third part of the stars of heaven to the ground. The dragon is there interpreted to symbolize pagan Rome, and the stars it cast to the ground were Jewish rulers. Evidently it is the same power and the same work that is here brought to view, which again makes it necessary to apply this growing horn to Rome. p. 154, Para. 4.
7. The little horn magnified himself even to the Prince of the host. Rome alone did this. In the interpretation [verse 25] this is called standing up against the Prince of princes. How clear an allusion to the crucifixion of our Lord under the jurisdiction of the Romans. p. 154, Para. 5.
By the little horn the daily sacrifice was taken away.
This little horn must be understood to symbolize Rome in
its entire history including its two phases, pagan and
papal. These two phases are elsewhere spoken of as the
daily [sacrifice is a supplied word] and the
transgression of desolation; the daily [desolation]
signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of
desolation, the papal. [See on verse 13.] In the actions
ascribed to this power, sometimes one form is spoken of,
sometimes the other.
By him [the papal form]
[the pagan form]
was taken away. Pagan Rome was remodeled
into papal Rome. And the place of his sanctuary, or
worship, the city of Rome, was cast down. The seat of
government was removed by Constantine in A.D. 330 to
Constantinople. This same transaction is brought to view in
Rev. 13:2, where it is said that the dragon, pagan Rome,
gave to the beast, papal Rome, his seat, the city of Rome.
p. 154, Para. 6.
A host was given him [the little horn] against the
daily. The barbarians that subverted the Roman empire in
the changes, attritions, and transformations of those
times, became converts to the Catholic faith, and the
instruments of the dethronement of their former religion.
Though conquering Rome politically, they were themselves
vanquished religiously by the theology of Rome, and became
the perpetrators of the same empire in another phase. And
this was brought about by reason of
is, by the working of the mystery of iniquity. The papacy
is the most cunningly contrived, false ecclesiastical
system ever devised; and it may be called a system of
iniquity because it has committed its abominations and
practiced its orgies of superstition in the garb, and under
the pretense, of pure and undefiled religion. p. 155,
10. The little horn cast the truth to the ground, and practiced and prospered. This describes, in few words, the work and career of the papacy. The truth is by it hideously caricatured; it is loaded with traditions; it is turned into mummery and superstition; it is cast down and obscured. p. 155, Para. 2.
this antichristian power has
practiced, -- practiced
its deceptions upon the people, practiced its schemes of
cunning to carry out its own ends and aggrandize its own
power. p. 155, Para. 3.
prospered. It has made war with the saints,
and prevailed against them. It has run its allotted career,
and is soon to be broken without hand, to be given to the
burning flame, and to perish in the consuming glories of
the second appearing of our Lord. p. 155, Para. 4.
Rome meets all the specifications of the prophecy. No other power does meet them. Hence Rome, and no other, is the power in question. And while the descriptions given in the word of God of the character of this monstrous system are fully met, the prophecies of its baleful history have been most strikingly and accurately fulfilled. p. 156, Para. 1.
VERSE 13. Then I heard one
saint speaking, and another
saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long
shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the
transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and
the host to be trodden under foot? 14. And he said unto me,
Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed. p. 156, Para. 2.
time. These two verses close the vision proper of
chapter 8; and they introduce the one remaining point which
of all others would naturally be of the most absorbing
interest to the prophet and to all the church; namely, the
time the desolating powers previously brought to view were
to continue. How long shall they continue their
oppression against God's people, and of blasphemy against
high Heaven? Daniel, if time had been given, might perhaps
have asked this question himself, but God is ever ready to
anticipate our wants and sometimes to answer even before we
ask. Hence two celestial beings appear upon the scene,
holding a conversation, in the hearing of the prophet, upon
this question which it is so important that the church
should understand. Daniel heard one saint speaking. What
this saint spoke at this time we are not informed; but
there must have been something either in the matter or the
manner of this speaking which made a deep impression upon
the mind of Daniel, inasmuch as he uses it in the very next
sentence as a designating title, calling the angel
certain saint which spake. He may have spoken
the same nature as that which the seven thunders of the
Apocalypse uttered [Rev. 10:3], and which, for some good
reason, John was restrained from writing. But another saint
asked this one that spake an important question: How long
the vision? and both the question and the answer are placed
upon record, which is prima-facie evidence that
this is a
matter which it was designed that the church should
understand. And this view is further confirmed by the fact
that the angel did not ask this question for his own
information, inasmuch as the answer was addressed to
Daniel, as the one whom it chiefly concerned, and for whose
information it was given.
And he said unto me,
said Daniel, recording the answer
to the angel's question,
Unto two thousand and three
hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. p.
156, Para. 3.
The daily sacrifice. We have proof in verse 13 that sacrifice is the wrong word to be supplied in connection with the word daily. If the daily sacrifice of the Jewish service is here meant, or, in other words, the taking away of that sacrifice, as some suppose, which sacrifice was at a certain point of time taken away, there would be no propriety in the question, How long the vision concerning it? This question evidently implies that those agents or events to which the vision relates, occupy a long series of years. Continuance of time is the central idea. And the whole time of the vision is filled by what is here called the daily and the transgression of desolation. Hence the daily can not be the daily sacrifice of the Jews, the taking away of which, when the time came for it, occupied comparatively but an instant of time. It must denote something which occupies a series of years. p. 157, Para. 1.
word here rendered daily occurs in the Old
according to the Hebrew Concordance, one hundred and two
times, and is, in the great majority of instances, rendered
continual or continually. The
idea of sacrifice does not
attach to the word at all. Nor is there any word in the
text which signifies sacrifice; that is wholly a supplied
word, the translators putting in that word which their
understanding of the text seemed to demand. But they
evidently entertained an erroneous view, the sacrifices of
the Jews not being referred to at all. It appears,
therefore, more in accordance with both the construction
and the context, to suppose that the word daily
refers to a
desolating power, like the
transgression of desolation,
with which it is connected. Then we have two desolating
powers, which for a long period oppress, or desolate the
church. The Hebrew, (a Hebrew word), justifies this construction; the
desolation, having a common relation to the two
preceeding nouns, the perpetual and the transgression
which are connected by the conjunction and.
Literally, the text may be rendered,
How long the
vision [concerning] the continuance and the transgression
of desolation? -- the word desolation being related to
both continuance and transgression, as though it were
expressed in full thus:
The continuance of desolation and
the transgression of desolation. By the
desolation, or the perpetual desolation, we must
understand that paganism, through all its long history, is
meant; and when we consider the long ages through which
paganism had been the chief agency of Satan's opposition to
the work of God in the earth, the propriety of the term
continuance or perpetual, as applied to it, becomes
the transgression of desolation is meant the
papacy. The phrase describing this latter power is stronger
than that used to describe paganism. It is the
transgression [or rebellion, as the word also means] of
desolation; as though under this period of the history of
the church the desolating power had rebelled against all
restraint previously imposed upon it. p. 157, Para. 2.
a religious point of view, the world has presented
only these two phases of opposition against the Lord's work
in the earth. Hence although three earthly governments are
introduced in the prophecy as oppressors of the church,
they are here ranged under two heads;
the daily and the
transgression of desolation. -- Medo-Persia was pagan;
Grecia was pagan; Rome in its first phase was pagan; these
all were embraced in the
daily. Then comes the papal
form, -- the
transgression of desolation -- a marvel of
craft and cunning, an incarnation of fiendish blood-thirstiness
and cruelty. No wonder the cry has gone up from
suffering martyrs, from age to age,
How long, O Lord, how
long? And no wonder the Lord, in order that hope might not
wholly die out of the hearts of his down-trodden, waiting
people, has lifted before them the vail of futurity,
showing them the consecutive future events of the world's
history, till all these persecuting powers shall meet an
utter and everlasting destruction, and giving them glimpses
beyond of the unfading glories of their eternal
inheritance. p. 158, Para. 1.
Lord's eye is upon his people. The furnace will be
heated no hotter than is necessary to consume the dross. It
is through much tribulation we are to enter the kingdom;
and the word tribulation is from tribulum,
sledge. Blow after blow must be laid upon us, till all the
wheat is beaten free from the chaff, and we are made fit
for the heavenly garner. But not a kernel of wheat will be
lost. Says the Lord to his people,
Ye are the light of the
the salt of the earth. In his eyes there is
nothing else on the earth of consequence or importance.
Hence the peculiar question here asked, How long the vision
respecting the daily and the transgression of desolation?
Concerning what? -- the glory of earthly kingdoms? the
skill of renowned warriors? the fame of mighty conquerors?
the greatness of human empire? -- No; but concerning the
sanctuary and the host, the people and worship of the Most
High. How long shall they be trodden under foot? Here is
where all heaven's interest and sympathy are enlisted. He
who touches the people of God, touches not mere mortals,
weak and helpless, but Omnipotence; he opens an account
which must be settled at the bar of Heaven. And soon all
these accounts will be adjusted, the iron heel of
oppression will itself be crushed, and a people will be
brought out of the furnace prepared to shine as the stars
forever and ever. To be one who is an object of interest to
heavenly beings, one whom the providence of God is engaged
to preserve while here, and crown with immortality
hereafter -- what an exalted position! How much higher than
that of any king, president, or potentate of earth? Reader,
are you one of the number? p. 159, Para. 1.
Respecting the 2300 days, introduced for the first time in verse 14, there are no data in this chapter from which to determine their commencement and close, or tell what portion of the world's history they cover. It is necessary, therefore, for the present, to pass them by. Let the reader be assured, however, that we are not left in any uncertainty concerning those days. The declaration respecting them is a part of a revelation which is given for the instruction of the people of God, and is consequently to be understood. They are spoken of in the midst of a prophecy which the angel Gabriel was commanded to make Daniel understand; and it may be safely assumed that Gabriel somewhere carried out this instruction. It will accordingly be found that the mystery which hangs over these days in this chapter, is dispelled in the next. p. 159, Para. 2.
The sanctuary. Connected with the 2300 days is another subject of equal importance, which now presents itself for consideration; namely, the sanctuary; and with this is also connected the subject of its cleansing. An examination of these subjects will reveal the importance of having an understanding of the commencement and termination of the 2300 days, that we may know when the great event called "the cleansing of the sanctuary" is to transpire; for all the inhabitants of the earth, as will in due time appear, have a personal interest in that solemn work. p. 160, Para. 1.
objects have been claimed by different ones as the
sanctuary here mentioned:  The earth;  The land of
Canaan;  The church;  The sanctuary, the
tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man, which is
in the heavens, and of which the Jewish tabernacle was a
type, pattern, or figure. Heb. 8:1, 2; 9:23, 24. These
conflicting claims must be decided by the Scriptures; and
fortunately the testimony is neither meager nor ambiguous.
p. 160, Para. 2.
the earth the sanctuary? The word sanctuary
in the Old and New Testaments one hundred and forty-four
times, and from the definitions of lexicographers, and its
use in the Bible, we learn that it is used to signify a
holy or sacred place, a dwelling-place for the Most High.
If, therefore, the earth is the sanctuary, it must answer
to this definition; but what single characteristic
pertaining to this earth is found which will satisfy the
definition? It is neither a holy nor a sacred place, nor is
it a dwelling-place for the Most High. It has no mark of
distinction, except as being a revolted planet, marred by
sin, scarred and withered by the curse. Moreover, it is
nowhere in all the Scriptures called the sanctuary. Only
one text can be produced in favor of this view, and that
only by an uncritical application. Isa. 60:13 says:
glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the
pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of
my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet
glorious. This language undoubtedly refers to the new
earth; but even that is not called the sanctuary, but only
place of the sanctuary, just as it is called
place of the Lord's feet; an expression which probably
denotes the continual presence of God with his people, as
it was revealed to John when it was said,
tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them,
and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with
them, and be their God. Rev. 21:3. All that can be said of
the earth, therefore, is, that when renewed, it will be the
place where the sanctuary of God will be located. It can
present not a shadow of a claim to being the sanctuary at
the present time, or the sanctuary of the prophecy. p.
160, Para. 3.
the land of Canaan the sanctuary? So far as we may
be governed by the definition of the word, it can present
no better claim than the earth to that distinction. If we
inquire where in the Bible it is called the sanctuary, a
few texts are brought forward which seem to be supposed by
some to furnish the requisite testimony. The first of these
is Ex. 15:17. Moses, in his song of triumph and praise to
God after the passage of the Red Sea, exclaimed:
shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of
thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou has
made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which
thy hands have established. A writer who urges this text,
I ask the reader to pause, and examine and settle
the question most distinctly, before he goes further. What
is the sanctuary here spoken of? But it would be far safer
for the reader not to attempt to settle the question
definitely from this one isolated text before comparing it
with other scriptures. Moses here speaks in anticipation.
His language is a prediction of what God would do for his
people. Let us see how it was accomplished. If we find, in
the fulfilment, that the land in which they were planted is
called the sanctuary, it will greatly strengthen the claim
that is based upon this text. If, on the other hand, we
find a plain distinction drawn between the land and the
sanctuary, then Ex. 15:17 must be interpreted accordingly.
We turn to David, who records as a matter of history what
Moses uttered as a matter of prophecy. Ps. 78:53, 54. The
subject of the psalmist here, is the deliverance of Israel
from Egyptian servitude, and their establishment in the
promised land; and he says:
And he [God] led them on
safely, so that they feared not: but the sea overwhelmed
their enemies. And he brought them to the border of his
sanctuary, even to this mountain, which his right hand had
mountain here mentioned by David is the
same as the
mountain of thine inheritance spoken of by
Moses, in which the people were to be planted; and this
mountain David calls, not the sanctuary, but only the
border of the sanctuary. What, then, was the
Verse 69 of the same psalm informs us:
And he built
sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath
established forever. The same distinction between the
sanctuary and the land is pointed out in the prayer of good
king Jehoshaphat. 2 Chron. 20:7, 8:
Art not thou our god,
who didst drive out the inhabitants of the land before thy
people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy
friend forever? And they dwelt therein, and have built thee
a sanctuary therein for thy name. Taken alone, some try to
draw an inference from Ex. 15:17 that the mountain was the
sanctuary; but when we take in connection with it the
language of David, which is a record of the fulfilment of
Moses's prediction, and an inspired commentary upon his
language, such an idea cannot be entertained; for David
plainly says that the mountain was simply the
the sanctuary; and that in that border, or land, the
built like high palaces, reference being
made to the beautiful temple of the Jews, the center and
symbol of all their worship. But whoever will read
carefully Ex. 15:17 will see that not even an inference is
necessary that Moses by the word sanctuary means
mountain of inheritance, much less the whole land of
Palestine. In the freedom of poetic license, he employees
elliptical expressions, and passes rapidly from one idea or
object to another. First, the inheritance engages his
attention, and he speaks of it; then the fact that the Lord
was to dwell there; then the place he was to provide for
his dwelling there; namely, the sanctuary which he would
cause to be built. David thus associated Mount Zion and
Judah together in Ps. 78:68, because Zion was located in
Judah. p. 161, Para. 1.
The three texts, Ex. 15:17; Ps. 78:54, 69, are the ones chiefly relied on to prove that the land of Canaan is the sanctuary; but, singularly enough, the two latter, in plain language, clear away the ambiguity of the first, and thereby disprove the claim that is based thereon. p. 163, Para. 1.
disposed of the main proof on this point, it would
hardly seem worth while to spend time with those texts from
which only inferences can be drawn. As there is, however,
only one even of this class, we will refer to it, that no
point may be left unnoticed. Isa. 63:18:
The people of thy
holiness have possessed it but a little while: our
adversaries have trodden down the sanctuary. This language
is as applicable to the temple as to the land! for when the
land was overrun with the enemies of Israel, their temple
was laid in ruins. This is plainly stated in verse 11 of
the next chapter:
Our holy and our beautiful house, where
our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire. The text
therefore proves nothing for this view. p. 163, Para. 2.
Respecting the earth or the land of Canaan as the sanctuary, we offer one thought more. If either constitutes the sanctuary, it should not only be somewhere described as such, but the same idea should be carried through to the end, and the purification of the earth or of Palestine should be called the cleansing of the sanctuary. The earth is indeed defiled, and it is to be purified by fire; but fire, as we shall see, is not the agent which is used in the cleansing of the sanctuary; and this purification of the earth, or any part of it, is nowhere in the Bible called the cleansing of the sanctuary. p. 163, Para. 3.
the church the sanctuary? The evident mistrust with
which this idea is suggested, is a virtual surrender of the
argument before it is presented. The one solitary text
adduced in its support is Ps. 114:1, 2:
When Israel went
out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange
language; Judah was his sanctuary, and Israel his
dominion. Should we take this text in its most literal
sense, what would it prove respecting the sanctuary? It
would prove that the sanctuary was confined to one of the
twelve tribes: and hence that a portion of the church only,
not the whole of it, constitutes the sanctuary. But this,
proving too little for the theory under consideration,
proves nothing. Why Judah is called the sanctuary in the
text quoted, need not be a matter of perplexity, when we
remember that God chose Jerusalem, which was in Judah, as
the place of his sanctuary.
But chose, says David,
tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he loved. And he built
his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he
hath established forever. This clearly shows the
connection which existed between Judah and the sanctuary.
That tribe itself was not the sanctuary; but it is once
spoken of as such when Israel came forth from Egypt,
because God purposed that in the midst of the territory of
that tribe his sanctuary should be located. But even if it
could be shown that the church is anywhere called the
sanctuary, it would be of no consequence to our present
purpose, which is to determine what constitutes the
sanctuary of Dan. 8:13, 14; for the church is there spoken
of as another object:
To give both the sanctuary
host to be trodden under foot. That by the term host
church is here meant, none will dispute; the sanctuary is
therefore another and a different object. p. 164, Para. 1.
the temple in heaven the sanctuary? There now
remains but this one claim to be examined; namely, that the
sanctuary mentioned in the text is what Paul calls in
true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and
not man, to which he expressly gives the name of
sanctuary, and which he locates in
the heavens; of which
sanctuary, there existed, under the former dispensation,
first in the tabernacle built by Moses, and afterward in
the temple at Jerusalem, a pattern, type, or figure. And
let it be particularly noticed, that on the view here
suggested rests our only hope of ever understanding this
question; for we have seen that all other positions are
untenable. No other object which has ever been supposed by
any one to be the sanctuary -- the earth, the land of
Canaan, or the church -- can for a moment support such a
claim. If, therefore, we do not find it in the object
before us, we may abandon the search in utter despair; we
may discard so much of revelation as still unrevealed, and
may cut out from the sacred page, as so much useless
reading, the numerous passages which speak on this subject.
All those, therefore, who, rather than that so important a
subject should go by default, are willing to lay aside all
preconceived opinions and cherished views, will approach
the position before us with intense anxiety and unbounded
interest. They will lay hold of any evidence that may here
be given us as a man bewildered in a labyrinth of darkness
would lay hold of the thread which was his only guide to
lead him forth again to light. p. 164, Para. 2.
will be safe for us to put ourselves in imagination in
the place of Daniel, and view the subject from his
standpoint. What would he understand by the term sanctuary
as addressed to him? If we can ascertain this, it will not
be difficult to arrive at correct conclusions on this
subject. His mind would inevitably turn, on the mention of
that word, to the sanctuary of that dispensation; and
certainly he well knew where that was. His mind did turn to
Jerusalem, the city of his fathers, which was then in
ruins, and to their
beautiful house, which, as Isaiah
laments, was burned with fire. And so, as was his wont,
with his face turned toward the place of their once
venerated temple, he prayed God to cause his face to shine
upon his sanctuary, which was desolate. By the word
sanctuary Daniel evidently understood their temple
Jerusalem. p. 165, Para. 1.
Paul bears testimony which is most explicit on this
point. Heb. 9:1:
Then verily the first covenant had also
ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
This is the very point which at present we are concerned to
determine: What was the sanctuary of the first covenant?
Paul proceeds to tell us. Hear him. Verses 2-5:
was a tabernacle made; the first [or first apartment],
wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the
showbread; which is called the sanctuary [margin, the
holy]. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is
called the Holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and
the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold,
wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod
that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it
the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which
we cannot now speak particularly. p. 165, Para. 2.
There is no mistaking the object to which Paul here has reference. It is the tabernacle erected by Moses according to the direction of the Lord [which was afterward merged into the temple at Jerusalem], with a holy and a most holy place, and various vessels of service, as here set forth. A full description of this building, with its various vessels and their uses, will be found in Exodus, chapter 25 and onward. If the reader is not familiar with this subject, he is requested to turn and closely examine the description of this building. This, Paul plainly says, was the sanctuary of the first covenant. And we wish the reader carefully to mark the logical value of this declaration. By telling us what did positively for a time constitute the sanctuary, Paul sets us on the right track of inquiry. He gives us a basis on which to work. For a time, the field is cleared of all doubt and all obstacles. During the time covered by the first covenant, which reached from Sinai to Christ, we have before us a distinct and plainly defined object, minutely described by Moses, and declared by Paul to be the sanctuary during that time. p. 166, Para. 1.
But Paul's language has greater significance even than this. It forever annihilates the claims which are put forth in behalf of the earth, the land of Canaan, or the church, as the sanctuary; for the arguments which would prove them to be the sanctuary at any time, would prove them to be such under the old dispensation. If Canaan was at any time the sanctuary, it was such when Israel was planted in it. If the church was ever the sanctuary, it was such when Israel was led forth from Egypt. If the earth was ever the sanctuary, it was such during the period of which we speak. To this period the arguments urged in their favor apply as fully as to any other period; and if they were not the sanctuary during this time, then all the arguments are destroyed which would show that they ever were, or ever could be, the sanctuary. But were they the sanctuary during that time? This is a final question for these theories; and Paul decided it in the negative, by describing to us the tabernacle of Moses, and telling us that that -- not the earth, nor Canaan, nor the church -- was the sanctuary of that dispensation. p. 166, Para. 2.
And this building answers in every respect to the definition of the term, and the use for which the sanctuary was designed. p. 167, Para. 1.
It was the earthly dwelling-place of God.
make me a sanctuary, said he to Moses,
that I may dwell
among them. Ex. 25:8. In this tabernacle, which they
erected according to his instructions, he manifested his
presence. 2. It was a holy, or sacred place, --
sanctuary. Lev. 16:33. 3. In the word of God it is over
and over again called the sanctuary. Of the one hundred and
forty instances in which the word is used in the Old
Testament, it refers in almost every case to this building.
p. 167, Para. 2.
The tabernacle was at first constructed in such a manner as to be adapted to the condition of the children of Israel at that time. They were just entering upon their forty years' wandering in the wilderness, when this building was set up in their midst as the habitation of God and the center of their religious worship. Journeying was a necessity, and removals were frequent. It would be necessary that the tabernacle should often be moved from place to place. It was therefore so fashioned of movable parts, the sides being composed of upright boards, and the covering consisting of curtains of linen and dyed skins, that it could be readily taken down, conveniently transported, and easily erected at each successive stage of their journey. After entering the promised land, this temporary structure in time gave place to the magnificent temple of Solomon. In this more permanent form it existed, saving only the time it lay in ruins in Daniel's day, till its final destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70. p. 167, Para. 3.
is the only sanctuary connected with the earth
concerning which the Bible gives us any instruction or
history any record. But is there nowhere any other? This
was the sanctuary of the first covenant; with that covenant
it came to an end; is there no sanctuary which pertains to
the second, or new covenant? There must be; otherwise the
analogy is lacking between these covenants; and in this
case the first covenant had a system of worship, which,
though minutely described, is unintelligible, and the
second covenant has a system of worship which is indefinite
and obscure. And Paul virtually asserts that the new
covenant, in force since the death of Christ, the testator,
has a sanctuary; for when, in contrasting the two
covenants, as he does in the book of Hebrews, he says in
chapter 9:1 that the first covenant
had also ordinances of
divine service, and a worldly sanctuary, it is the same as
saying that the new covenant has likewise its services and
Furthermore, in verse 8 of this chapter he speaks of the
worldly sanctuary as the first tabernacle. If that was the
first, there must be a second; and as the first tabernacle
existed so long as the first covenant was in force, when
that covenant came to an end, the second tabernacle must
have taken the place of the first, and must be the
sanctuary of the new covenant. There can be no evading this
conclusion. p. 168, Para. 1.
then, shall we look for the sanctuary of the new
covenant? Paul, by the use of the word also in Heb.
intimates that he had before spoken of this sanctuary. We
turn back to the beginning of the previous chapter, and
find him summing up his foregoing arguments as follows:
Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We
have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of
the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the
sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, and not man. Can there by any doubt that we have
in this text the sanctuary of the new covenant? A plain
allusion is here made to the sanctuary of the first
covenant. That was pitched by man, erected by Moses; this
was pitched by the Lord, not by man. That was the place
where the earthly priests performed their ministry; this is
the place where Christ, the High Priest of the new
covenant, performs his ministry. That was on earth; this is
in heaven. That was therefore very properly called by Paul
worldly sanctuary; this is a
heavenly one. p. 168,
view is further sustained by the fact that the
sanctuary built by Moses was not an original structure, but
was built after a pattern. The great original existed
somewhere else; what Moses constructed was but a type, or
model. Listen to the directions the Lord gave him on this
According to all that I show thee, after the
pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the
instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. Ex. 25:9.
And look that thou make them after their pattern, which
was showed thee in the mount. Verse 40. [To the same end
see Ex. 26:30; 27:8; Acts 7:44.] p. 169, Para. 1.
of what was the earthly sanctuary a type, of figure?
Answer: Of the sanctuary of the new covenant, the
tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man. The
relation which the first covenant sustains to the second
throughout, is that of type to antitype. Its sacrifices
were types of the greater sacrifice of this dispensation;
its priests were types of our Lord, in his more perfect
priesthood; their ministry was performed unto the shadow
and example of the ministry of our High Priest above; and
the sanctuary where they ministered, was a type, or figure,
of the true sanctuary in heaven, where our Lord performs
his ministry. p. 169, Para. 2.
these facts are plainly stated by Paul in a few verses
to the Hebrews. Chapter 8:4, 5:
For if he [Christ] were on
earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are
priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve
unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses
was admonished of God when he was about to make the
tabernacle; for, See, saith he, that thou make all things
according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount. This
testimony shows that the ministry of the earthly priests
was a shadow of Christ's priesthood; and the evidence Paul
brings forward to prove it, is the direction which God gave
to Moses to make the tabernacle according to the pattern
showed him in the mount. This clearly identifies the
pattern showed to Moses in the mount with the sanctuary, or
true tabernacle, in heaven, where our Lord ministers,
mentioned three verses before. p. 169, Para. 3.
chapter 9:8, 9, Paul further says:
The Holy Ghost this
signifying, that the way into the holiest of all [Greek,
holy places, plural] was not yet made manifest, while as
the first tabernacle was yet standing; which was a figure
for the time then present, etc. While the first tabernacle
stood, and the first covenant was in force, the
ministration of the more perfect tabernacle was not, of
course, carried forward. But when Christ came, a high
priest of good things to come, when the first tabernacle
had served its purpose, and the first covenant had ceased,
then Christ, raised to the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens, as a minister of the true sanctuary entered by his
own blood [verse 12]
into the holy place [where also the
Greek has the plural, the holy places], having obtained
eternal redemption for us. Of these heavenly holy places,
therefore, the first tabernacle was a figure for the time
then present. If any further testimony is needed, he
speaks, in verse 23, of the earthly tabernacle, with its
apartments and instruments, as patterns of things
heavens; and in verse 24, he calls the holy places made
with hands, that is, the earthly tabernacle erected by Moses,
figures of the true; that is, the tabernacle in
heaven. p. 170,
view is still further corroborated by the testimony
of John. Among the things which he was permitted to behold
in heaven, he saw seven lamps of fire burning before the
throne [Rev. 4:5]; he saw an altar of incense, and a golden
censer [chapter 8:3]; he saw the ark of God's testament
[chapter 11:19]; and all this in connection with a
in heaven. Rev. 11:19; 15:8. These objects every Bible
reader must at once recognize as implements of the
sanctuary. They owed their existence to the sanctuary, and
were confined to it, to be employed in the ministration
connected therewith. As without the sanctuary they had not
existed, so wherever we find these, we may know that there
is the sanctuary; and hence the fact that John saw these
things in heaven in this dispensation, is proof that there
is a sanctuary there, and that he was permitted to behold
it. p. 170, Para. 2.
However reluctant a person may have been to acknowledge that there is a sanctuary in heaven, the testimony that has been presented is certainly sufficient to prove this fact. Paul says that the tabernacle of Moses was the sanctuary of the first covenant. Moses says that God showed him in the mount a pattern, according to which he was to make this tabernacle. Paul testifies again that Moses did make it according to the pattern, and that the pattern was the true tabernacle in heaven, which the Lord pitched, and not man; and that of this heavenly sanctuary the tabernacle erected with hands was a true figure, or representation. And finally, John, to corroborate the statement of Paul that this sanctuary is in heaven, bears testimony, as an eye-witness, that he beheld it there. What further testimony could be required? Nay, more, what further is conceivable? p. 171, Para. 1.
So far as the question as to what constitutes the sanctuary is concerned, we now have the subject before us in one harmonious whole. The sanctuary of the Bible -- mark it all, dispute it who can -- consists, first, of the typical tabernacle established with the Hebrews at the exode from Egypt, which was the sanctuary of the first covenant; and, secondly, of the true tabernacle in heaven, of which the former was a type, or figure, which is the sanctuary of the new covenant. These are inseparably connected together as type and antitype. From the antitype we go back to the type, and from the type we are carried forward naturally and inevitably to the antitype. p. 171, Para. 2.
We have said that Daniel would at once understand by the word sanctuary the sanctuary of his people at Jerusalem; so would any one under that dispensation. But does the declaration of Dan. 8:14 have reference to that sanctuary? That depends upon the time to which it applies. All the declarations respecting the sanctuary which apply under the old dispensation, have respect, of course, to the sanctuary of that dispensation; and all those declarations which apply in this dispensation, must have reference to the sanctuary in this dispensation. If the 2300 days, at the termination of which the sanctuary is to be cleansed, ended in the former dispensation, the sanctuary to be cleansed was the sanctuary of that time. If they reach over into this dispensation, the sanctuary to which reference is made is the sanctuary of this dispensation, -- the new-covenant sanctuary in heaven. This is a point which can be determined only by a further argument on the 2300 days; and this will be found in remarks on Dan. 9:24, where the subject of time is resumed and explained. p. 171, Para. 3.
What we have thus far said
respecting the sanctuary has
been only incidental to the main question in the prophecy.
That question has respect to its cleansing.
thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary
be cleansed. But it was necessary first to determine what
constituted the sanctuary, before we could understandingly
examine the question of its cleansing. For this we are now
prepared. p. 172, Para. 1.
Having learned what constitutes the sanctuary, the question of its cleansing and how it is accomplished, is soon decided. It has been noticed that whatever constitutes the sanctuary of the Bible, must have some service connected with it which is called its cleansing. There is no account in the Bible of any work so named as pertaining to this earth, the land of Canaan, or the church; which is good evidence that none of these objects constitutes the sanctuary; there is such a service connected with the object which we have shown to be the sanctuary, and which, in reference to both the earthly building and the heavenly temple, is called its cleansing. p. 172, Para. 2.
the reader object to the idea of there being anything
in heaven which is to be cleansed? Is this a barrier in the
way of his receiving the view here presented? Then his
controversy is not with this work, but with God's Word,
which positively affirms this fact. But before he decided
against this view, we ask the objector to examine carefully
in reference to the nature of this cleansing, as he is here
undoubtedly laboring under an utter misapprehension. The
following are the plain terms in which Paul affirms the
cleansing of both the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary:
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood;
and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was
therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly
things themselves with better sacrifices than these. Heb.
9:22, 23. In the light of foregoing arguments, this may be
It was therefore necessary that the
tabernacle as erected by Moses, with its sacred vessels,
which were patterns of the true sanctuary in heaven, should
be purified, or cleansed, with the blood of calves and
goats; but the heavenly things themselves, the sanctuary of
this dispensation, the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, and not man, must be cleansed with better
sacrifices, even with the blood of Christ. p. 172, Para.
We now inquire, What is the nature of this cleansing, and how is it to be accomplished? According to the language of Paul, just quoted, it is performed by means of blood. The cleansing is not, therefore a cleansing from physical uncleanness or impurity; for blood is not the agent used in such a work. And this consideration should satisfy the objector's mind in regard to the cleansing of the heavenly things. The fact that Paul speaks of heavenly things to be cleansed, does not prove that there is any physical impurity in heaven; for that is not the kind of cleansing to which he refers. The reason Paul assigns why this cleansing is performed with blood, is because without the shedding of blood there is no remission. p. 173, Para. 1.
Remission, then; that is, the putting away of sin, is the work to be done. The cleansing, therefore, is not physical cleansing, but a cleansing from sin. But how came sins connected with the sanctuary, either the earthly or the heavenly, that it should need to be cleansed from them? This question is answered by the ministration connected with the type, to which we now turn. p. 173, Para. 2.
The closing chapters of Exodus give us an account of the construction of the earthly sanctuary, and the arrangement of the service connected therewith. Leviticus opens with an account of the ministration which was there to be performed. All that it is our purpose to notice here, is one particular branch of the service, which was performed as follows: The person who had committed sin brought his victim to the door of the tabernacle. Upon the head of this victim he placed his hand for a moment, and, as we may reasonably infer, confessed over him his sin. By this expressive act he signified that he had sinned, and was worthy of death, but that in his stead he consecrated his victim, and transferred his guilt to it. With his own hand [and what must have been his emotions!] he then took the life of his victim on account of that guilt. The law demanded the life of the transgressor for his disobedience; the life is in the blood [Lev. 17:11,14]; hence without the shedding of blood, there is no remission; with the shedding of blood, remission is possible; for the demand of life by the law is thus satisfied. The blood of the victim, representative of a forfeited life, and the vehicle of its guilt, was then taken by the priest and ministered before the Lord. p. 174, Para. 1.
The sin of the individual was thus, by his confession, by the slaying of the victim, and by the ministry of the priest, transferred from himself to the sanctuary. Victim after victim was thus offered by the people. Day by day the work went forward; and thus the sanctuary continually became the receptacle of the sins of the congregation. But this was not the final disposition of these sins. The accumulated guilt was removed by a special service, which was called the cleansing of the sanctuary. This service, in the type, occupied one day in the year; and the tenth day of the seventh month, on which it was performed, was called the day of atonement. On this day, while all Israel refrained from work and afflicted their souls, the priest brought two goats, and presented them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. On these goats he cast lots; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scape-goat. The one upon which the Lord's lot fell, was then slain, and his blood was carried by the priest into the most holy place of the sanctuary, and sprinkled upon the mercy-seat. And this was the only day on which he was permitted to enter into that apartment. Coming forth, he was then to lay both his hands upon the head of the scape-goat, confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, and, thus putting them upon his head [Lev. 16:21], he was to send him away by the hand of a fit man into a land not inhabited, a land of separation, or forgetfulness, the goat never again to appear in the camp of Israel, and the sins of the people to be remembered against them no more. This service was for the purpose of cleansing the people from their sins, and cleansing the sanctuary and its sacred vessels. Lev. 16:30,33. By this process, sin was removed, -- but only in figure; for all that work was typical. p. 174, Para. 2.
The reader to whom these views are new will be ready here to inquire, perhaps with some astonishment, what this strange work could possibly be designed to typify; what there is in this dispensation which it was designed to prefigure. We answer, A similar work in the ministration of Christ, as Paul clearly teaches. After stating, in Hebrews 8, that Christ is the minister of the true tabernacle, the sanctuary in heaven, he states that the priests on earth served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. In other words, the work of the earthly priests was a shadow, an example, a correct representation, so far as it could be carried out by mortals, of the ministration of Christ above. These priests ministered in both apartments of the earthly tabernacle, Christ therefore ministers in both apartments of the heavenly temple; for that temple has two apartments, or it was not correctly represented by the earthly; and our Lord officiates in both, or the service of the priest on earth was not a correct shadow of his work. But Paul directly states that he ministers in both apartments; for he says that he has entered into the holy place [Greek, the holy places] by his own blood. Heb. 9:12. There is therefore a work performed by Christ in his ministry in the heavenly temple corresponding to that performed by the priests in both apartments of the earthly building. But the work in the second apartment, or most holy place, was a special work to close the yearly round of service and cleanse the sanctuary. Hence Christ's ministration in the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary must be a work of like nature, and constitute the close of his work as our great High Priest, and the cleansing of that sanctuary. p. 175, Para. 1.
As through the sacrifices of a former dispensation the sins of the people were transferred in figure by the priests to the earthly sanctuary, where those priests ministered, so ever since Christ ascended to be our intercessor in the presence of his Father, the sins of all those who sincerely seek pardon through him are transferred in fact to the heavenly sanctuary where he ministers. Whether Christ ministers for us in the heavenly holy places with his own blood literally, or only by virtue of its merits, we need not stop to inquire. Suffice it to say, that his blood has been shed, and through that blood remission of sins is secured in fact, which was obtained only in figure through the blood of the calves and goats of the former dispensation. But those sacrifices had real virtue in this respect: they signified faith in a real sacrifice to come; and thus those who employed them have an equal interest in the work of Christ with those who in this dispensation come to him by faith, through the ordinances of the gospel. p. 176, Para. 1.
The continual transfer of sins to the heavenly sanctuary [and if they are not thus transferred, will any one, in the light of the types, and in view of the language of Paul, explain the nature of the work of Christ in our behalf?] -- this continual transfer, we say, of sins to the heavenly sanctuary, makes its cleansing necessary on the same ground that a like work was required in the earthly sanctuary. p. 176, Para. 2.
An important distinction between the two ministrations must here be noticed. In the earthly tabernacle, a complete round of service was accomplished every year. For three hundred and fifty-nine days, in their ordinary year, the ministration went forward in the first apartment. One day's work in the most holy completed the yearly round. The work then commenced again in the holy place, and went forward till another day of atonement completed the year's work. And so on, year by year. This continual repetition of the work was necessary on account of the short lives of mortal priests. But no such necessity exists in the case of our divine Lord, who ever liveth to make intercession for us. [See Heb. 7:23-25.] Hence the work of the heavenly sanctuary, instead of being a yearly work, is performed once for all. Instead of being repeated year by year, one grand cycle is allotted to it, in which it is carried forward and finished, never to be repeated. p. 176, Para. 3.
One year's round of service in the earthly sanctuary represented the entire work of the sanctuary above. In the type, the cleansing of the sanctuary was the brief closing work of the year's service. In the antitype, the cleansing of the sanctuary must be the closing work of Christ, our great High Priest, in the tabernacle on high. In the type, to cleanse the sanctuary, the high priest entered into the most holy place to minister in the presence of God before the ark of his testament. In the antitype, when the time comes for the cleansing of the sanctuary, our High Priest, in like manner, enters into the most holy place to make a final end of his intercessory work in behalf of mankind. We confidently affirm that no other conclusion can be arrived at on this subject without doing despite to the unequivocal testimony of God's word. p. 177, Para. 1.
do you now see the importance of this subject? Do
you begin to perceive what an object of interest for all
the world is the sanctuary of God? Do you see that the
whole work of salvation centers there, and that when the
work is done, probation is ended, and the cases of the
saved and lost are eternally decided? Do you see that the
cleansing of the sanctuary is a brief and special work, by
which the great scheme is forever finished? Do you see that
if it can be made known when this work of cleansing
commences, it is a solemn announcement to the world that
salvation's last hour is reached, and is fast hastening to
its close? And this is what the prophecy is designed to
show. It is to make known the commencement of this
Unto two thousand and three hundred days;
then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. p. 177, Para. 2.
In advance of any argument on the nature and application of these days, the position may be safely taken that they reach to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, for the earthly was to be cleansed each year; and we make the prophet utter nonsense, if we understand him as saying that at the end of 2300 days, a period of time over six years in length, even if we take the days literally, an event should take place which was to occur regularly every year. The heavenly sanctuary is the one in which the decision of all cases is to be rendered. The progress of the work there is what it especially concerns mankind to know. If people understood the bearing of these subjects on their eternal interest, with what earnestness and anxiety would they give them their most careful and prayerful study. See on chapter 9:20 and onward, an argument on the 2300 days, showing at what point they terminated, and when the solemn work of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary began. p. 178, Para. 1.
15. And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had
seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold,
there stood before me as the appearance of a man. 16. And I
heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which
called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the
vision. p. 178, Para. 2.
now enter upon an interpretation of the vision. And
first of all we have mention of Daniel's solicitude, and
his efforts to understand these things. He sought for the
meaning. Those who have given to prophetic studies their
careful and earnest attention, are not the ones who are
unconcerned in such matters. They only can tread with
indifference over a mine of gold, who do not know that a
bed of precious metal lies beneath their feet. Immediately
there stood before the prophet as the appearance of a man.
And he heard a man's voice; that is, the voice of an angel,
as of a man speaking. The commandment given was to make
this man, Daniel, understand the vision. It was addressed
to Gabriel, a name that signifies
the strength of God, or
the mighty one. He continues his instruction to Daniel in
chapter 9. Under the new dispensation he was commissioned
to announce the birth of John the Baptist to his father
Zacharias [Luke 1:11]; and that of the Messiah to the
virgin Mary, verse 26. To Zacharias, he introduced himself
with these words:
I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence
of God. From this it appears that he was an angel of high
order and superior dignity; but the one who here addressed
him was evidently higher in rank, and had power to command
and control his actions. This was probably no other than
the archangel, Michael, or Christ, between whom and Gabriel
alone, a knowledge of the matters communicated to Daniel
existed. [See chapter 10:21.] p. 178, Para. 3.
17. So he came near where I stood: and when he
came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto
me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end
shall be the vision. 18. Now as he was speaking with me, I
was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he
touched me, and set me upright. 19. And he said, Behold, I
will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the
indignation; for at the time appointed the end shall be.
p. 179, Para. 1.
similar circumstances to those here narrated, John
fell down before the feet of an angel, but it was for the
purpose of worship. Rev. 19:10; 22:8. Daniel seems to have
been completely overcome by the majesty of the heavenly
messenger. He prostrated himself with his face to the
ground, probably as though in a deep sleep, but not really
so. Sorrow, it is true, caused the disciples to sleep; but
fear, as in this case, would hardly have that effect. The
angel gently laid his hand upon him to give him assurance
[how many times have mortals been told by heavenly beings
fear not!], and from this helpless and prostrate
condition set him upright. With a general statement that at
the time appointed the end shall be, and that he will make
him to know what shall be in the last end of the
indignation, he enters upon an interpretation of the
vision. The indignation must be understood to cover a
period of time. What time? God told his people Israel that
he would pour upon them his indignation for their
wickedness; and thus he gave directions concerning the
profane wicked prince of Israel:
Remove the diadem, and
take off the crown. . . . I will overturn, overturn,
overturn it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose
right it is; and I will give it him. Eze. 21:25-27, 31.
p. 179, Para. 2.
Here is the period of God's indignation against his covenant people; the period during which the sanctuary and host are to be trodden under foot. The diadem was removed, and the crown taken off, when Israel was subjected to the kingdom of Babylon. It was overturned again by the Medes and Persians, again by the Grecians, again by the Romans, corresponding to the three times the word is repeated by the prophet. The Jews then, having rejected Christ, were soon scattered abroad over the face of the earth; and spiritual Israel has taken the place of the literal seed; but they are in subjection to earthly powers, and will be till the throne of David is again set up, -- till He who is its rightful heir, the Messiah, the Prince of peace, shall come, and then it will be given him. Then the indignation will have ceased. What shall take place in the last end of this period, the angel is now to make known to Daniel. p. 180, Para. 1.
20. The ram which thou sawest having two horns are
the kings of Media and Persia. 21. And the rough goat is
the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his
eyes is the first king. 22. Now that being broken, whereas
four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of
the nation, but not in his power. p. 180, Para. 2.
the disciples said to the Lord, so may we here say of
the angel who spoke to Daniel,
Lo, now speakest thou
plainly, and speakest no proverb. This is an explanation
of the vision in language as plain as need be given. [See
on verses 3-8.] The distinguishing feature of the Persian
empire, the union of the two nationalities which composed
it, is represented by the two horns of the ram. Grecia
attained its greatest glory as a unit under the leadership
of Alexander the Great, a general as famous as the world
has ever seen. This part of her history is represented by
the first phase of the goat, during which time the one
notable horn symbolized Alexander the Great. Upon his
death, the kingdom fell into fragments, but soon
consolidated into four grand divisions, represented by the
second phase of the goat, when it had four horns which came
up in the place of the first, which was broken. These
divisions did not stand in his power. None of them
possessed the strength of the original kingdom. These great
waymarks in history, on which the historian bestows
volumes, the inspired penman here gives us in sharp
outline, with a few strokes of the pencil and a few dashes
of the pen. p. 180, Para. 3.
23. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when
the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce
countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand
up. 24. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own
power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper,
and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy
people. 25. And through his policy also he shall cause
craft to prosper in his hand: and he shall magnify himself
in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall
also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall
be broken without hand. p. 181, Para. 1.
This power succeeds to the four divisions of the goat kingdom in the latter time of their kingdom, that is, toward the termination of their career. It is, of course, the same as the little horn of verse 9 and onward. Apply it to Rome, as set forth in remarks on verse 9, and all is harmonious and clear. p. 181, Para. 2.
king of fierce countenance. Moses, in predicting
punishment to come upon the Jews from this same power,
a nation of fierce countenance. Deut.
No people made a more formidable appearance in warlike
array than the Romans.
Understanding dark sentences.
Moses, in the scripture just referred to, says,
tongue thou shalt not understand. This could not be said
of the Babylonians, Persians, or Greeks, in reference to
the Jews; for the Chaldean and Greek languages were used to
a greater or less extent in Palestine. This was not the
case, however, with the Latin. p. 181, Para. 3.
the transgressors are come to the full. All along,
the connection between God's people and their oppressors is
kept in view. It was on account of the transgressions of
his people that they were sold into captivity. And their
continuance in sin brought more severe punishment. At no
time were the Jews more corrupt morally, as a nation, than
at the time they came under the jurisdiction of the Romans.
p. 181, Para. 4.
but not by his own power. The success of the
Romans was owing largely to the aid of their allies, and
divisions among their enemies, of which they were ever
ready to take advantage. Papal Rome also was mighty by
means of the secular powers over which she exercised
spiritual control. p. 182, Para. 1.
shall destroy wonderfully. The Lord told the Jews by
the prophet Ezekiel that he would deliver them to men who
skilful to destroy. How full of meaning is
such a description, and how applicable to the Romans! In taking
Jerusalem, they slew eleven hundred thousand Jews, and made
thousand cuptives. So wonderfully did they destroy this once
mighty and holy people. p. 182, Para. 2.
what they could not accomplish by force,
they secured to artifice. Their flatteries, fraud, and corruption
were as fatal as their thunderbolds of war. And Rome, finally, in the
person of one of its governors,
stood up against the Prince of princes, by giving sentence
of death against Jesus Christ.
But he shall be broken
without hand, an expression which identifies the
destruction of this power with the smiting of the image of
chapter 2. p. 182, Para. 3.
26. And the vision of the evening and the morning
which was told is true; wherefore shut thou up the vision;
for it shall be for many days. 27. And I Daniel fainted,
and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the
king's business: and I was astonished at the vision, but
none understood it. p. 182, Para. 4.
vision of the evening and the morning is that of the
2300 days. In view of the long period of oppression, and
the calamities which were to come upon his people, Daniel
fainted, and was sick certain days. He was astonished at
the vision, but did not understand it. Why did not Gabriel
at this time fully carry out his instructions, and cause
Daniel to understand the vision? -- Because Daniel had
received all that he could then bear. Further instruction
is therefore deferred to a future time. p. 182, Para. 5.
© by S. D. Goeldner,