Facts and
Theories as to a Future State
APPENDIX 4
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM
The Seventh-Day Adventists are an off-shoot of the old
Millerites, the followers of William Miller of Low Hampton, N. Y., well known
as predicting the end of the world in 1844. They reasoned especially from Dan.
viii. 13, 14 - the prophecy of two thousand three hundred days to the cleansing
of the sanctuary, that, taking these days for years, they began in the seventh
year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, B. C. 457, and would therefore end in the
year named. The sanctuary to be cleansed was the earth, and the cleansing to be
by fire.
This very palpable mistake led, of course, to bitter
disappointment, which resulted in the scattering of many of their adherents,
and the division of the rest ultimately into three bodies, - the more orthodox
body, or Messiahs church, who deny, nevertheless, the heavenly portion of
Christians; another body, which ingrafted annihilationism and still more fatal
errors upon their adventist views; and the Seventh-Day Adventists.
These last have far outgrown the others in numbers, and claimed in the
United States at the end of 1887, nearly twenty-six thousand members, with
adherents in most European countries, as well as Australia, South Africa,
British Honduras, and Guiana. With a tithing system, which in 1887 produced
nearly $200,000, vigorous publishing houses, and an itinerant ministry, they
are increasing rapidly at the present time.
Unhappily, they are
annihilationists and materialists of the most pronounced kind. Mind is but the
product of organization: spirit is only a form of matter, and the inevitable
conclusion they do not seem to shrink from - that God is matter also. Indeed,
the image of God in man is for them a bodily one. They are not Trinitarians,
though holding that Christ is "the Son of the Eternal Father, the One by whom
He created all things, and by whom they consist;" while the Spirit is the
"representative" of God, by which His omnipresence is made good. Atonement was
not upon the cross, although Christ bore there "the sins of all the world;" but
He makes it in the heavenly sanctuary above; and when it is completed, He will
come again. It is the last stage of this work - the cleansing of the sanctuary
- which they believed began in 1844, and the time that will elapse before its
completion is uncertain, so that they are now left to expect the Lord at any
time.
Although the annihilation views are those with which we have
especially to do here, I shall allow myself to speak briefly of their other
peculiarities, which are often used as the thin end of the wedge to make way
for the rest to follow.
And perhaps the first by which they claim
attention is the doctrine which is connected with the name they have assumed -
not peculiar, indeed, to them even among professing Christians, although
strongly emphasized in their teachings - the obligation of the Jewish Sabbath.
Unhappily, they find everywhere the ground prepared for them. For the
obligation of the seventh day is but the natural outcome of a larger doctrine,
almost universally received, that the ten commandments given to Israel, the
words, as distinctly declared (Exod. xxxiv. 27, 28), of Gods covenant
with that people, are the rule of life for the Christian no less than for the
Jew. Grant them but this, and it is the most direct and simplest argument that
can be, to appeal to the law itself - that of which the Lord said, "I came not
to destroy the law, but to fulfill," and that "one jot or one title shall in no
wise pass from the law until all be fulfilled" - and ask, of what day does the
fourth commandment speak; of the first, or of the seventh?
Is not the
change of the day the causing even a "jot or title" of the law to pass away?
Who can say it is not? And where in your Bibles will you find the history of
the change? Who changed it; and where was their authority for doing so? You can
find no answer to these questions if you search your New Testament from end to
end.
Where will you find your Christian Sabbath? Where is the first day
of the week declared to be that? Where is it even commanded to be observed? And
yet, is it not Scripture only by which the man of God is to be "thoroughly
furnished unto all good works"?
Thus it is as easy as possible to
convict the mass of the Christian profession of plain breach of their
acknowledged rule. And though you may plead universal custom, the testimony of
Church history, and whatever else, it will not save you from a manifest
contradiction between your practice and your principles. While the Romanist
says, with a smile, as he looks on, "Both you and we do, in fact, follow
tradition in this matter; but we follow it, believing it to be a part of
Gods Word, and the church to be its divinely appointed guardian and
interpreter; you follow it, denouncing it all the time as a fallible and
treacherous guide, which often makes the commandments of God of none
effect. " (Quoted from "Who changed the Sabbath ?")
What, then,
shall we do? Must we accept these principles, or change the practice? Scripture
is clear enough: the truth is, we have not gone far enough with Scripture. If
the law of the ten commandments be our rule of life indeed, there is no more to
be said about it: we must not tamper with our statute-book; we must keep the
seventh day.
There is, however, a text which seems suggestive; but it
goes so far, that in general, Christians are afraid to entertain its
suggestions - have, indeed, - pretty much abandoned it as impracticable to be
used in this connection. It is bold enough, no doubt, and a bold man wrote it:
it is here: -
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His
cross; . . . .
"Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or
in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath; which are a
shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ" (Col. ii. 14-17).
If your obligation to keep the Sabbath has been indeed struck through -
cancelled with the nails of the cross, then, Christian reader, you are no
longer bound to the observance of the seventh day. Nay, if Christ has cancelled
the bond, you dare not surely go back to put yourself under it. You would be
denying in measure the value of the cross of Christ.
But here, alas! if
you take your stand here, voices on all sides will clamor against you. Let us
not fear, but abide the encounter. I have before me now a good-sized volume
upon this Sabbath-question by a prominent man in the body of which we are
speaking. And this is his demurrer to such a use of the passage -
"The
object of this action is declared to be the handwriting of ordinances. The
manner of its abrogation is thus stated:
1. Blotted out.
2. Nailed to
the cross.
3. Taken out of the way.
Its nature is shown in these words:
Against us and contrary to us. The things contained in
it were meats, drinks, holydays [Gr., "a feast-day"], new moons, and Sabbaths.
The whole is declared a shadow of good things to come; and the body which casts
this shadow is of Christ. That law which was proclaimed by the voice of God,
and written by His own finger upon the tables of stone, and deposited beneath
the mercy-seat, was altogether unlike that system of carnal ordinances that was
written by Moses in a book, and placed in the side of the ark. It would be
absurd to speak of the tables of STONE as NAILED to the cross; or to speak of
BLOTTING out what was ENGRAVED in STONE. It Would be blasphemous to represent
the Son of God as pouring out His blood to blot out what the finger of His
Father had written. It would be to confound all the principles of morality to
represent the ten commandments as contrary to mans moral nature. It would
be making Christ a minister of sin to represent Him as dying to utterly destroy
the moral law. Nor does that man keep truth on his side who represents the ten
commandments as among the things contained in Pauls enumeration of what
was abolished. Nor is there any excuse for those who would destroy the ten
commandments with this statement of Paul; for he shows, last of all, that what
was thus abrogated was a shadow of good things to come - an absurdity if
applied to the moral law."*
*"History of the Sabbath and First Day of the
Week," by J. N. Andrews; second edition, pp. 138, 139."
We will pause
here for the present, though there is more; but it will be wise, perhaps, to
inquire what damage this storm has done to our defences. Sooth to say, by all
we can perceive, it has but hurtled over our heads and done no harm. What a
safe shelter is the Word of God to all that will but fearlessly commit
themselves to it! Mr. Andrews has done all he could: he must be acquitted, if
after all the fortress was too strong for such an assault.
Let us
notice first his mistake as to the "handwriting of ordinances." He imagines we
must refer it to Gods handwriting upon the tables of stone, and would
refer it himself to the book which Moses wrote and placed in the side of the
ark. But this is a double error. The word "handwriting" (cheirographon) denotes
a "bond," an obligation to which one has signed ones name; and it is this
bond which has been stricken through and blotted out, - effectively cancelled
by the Lords death. It is this of which the apostle, speaking as a Jewish
believer, says, "was against us," and "contrary to us," as an obligation is
which we cannot meet. There is thus no disparagement done to the law itself,
which is "holy, just, and good," and certainly no such thought intended as that
it is contrary to mans moral nature! This is but a fancy, and a very
strange one, of Mr. Andrews himself. Does he not remember the words of this
same apostle - "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for
it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things
written in the book of the law to do them " (Gal. iii. 10)? Is not this a
sufficient reason why the law should be, just because of its holiness,
"against" sinful men?
A second mistake, in which Mr. Andrews has indeed
abundant support among those who dissent very widely from his final
conclusions, is in the division between a supposed "moral" and a "ceremonial
law." Not a text of Scripture can be cited for such a division, and the very
ten commandments to which he would appeal, as distinguished from the rest by
their place upon the tables of stone, are really proof on the other side. For,
the Sabbath itself, is it a moral or a positive precept? Surely, whatever moral
effect may be pleaded for it - and every divine command must have been intended
to have a moral effect - yet it is plain that it is the latter and not the
former.
Moreover, it was to the law of the two tables that Israel set
their hand. It was this that contained the terms, the words of that covenant
which they had subscribed (Exod. xix. 8), and to which their obligation was. No
similar obligation did they take to the rest of the law, and none such could
certainly be so "against" them, so "contrary to" them, as that by which the
very heart was searched out, and every lust of it forbidden" (Rom. vii. 7).
Thus it was this obligation of the covenant of works which confronted those who
were convicted of the breach of it, and that needed to be blotted out and taken
out of the way.
But with this went the whole ritual service which was
founded upon it, and which in fact, if it were in one way burdensome, alone
made the law tolerable by the mercy with which its rigour was abated. Thus only
could there be the remission (or passing over) of the sins done aforetime (R.
V.), through the forbearance of God (Rom. iii 25). To have cancelled this
merciful addition, and left in force the other, could have been only to lay the
basis for a gospel of despair.
The law as a whole being thus connected,
it is manifest how the apostle could draw from the doctrine of the fourteenth
verse the conclusion of the sixteenth. It does not follow that meat and drink,
and holydays, and new moons, and Sabbaths, were all the things, or the whole
class of things, to which the "ordinances" before mentioned extended; nor does
he speak of all, but only of these specified things, as being "shadows of
things to come."
On the other hand, when the apostle says, "Let no man
judge you in respect of . . . Sabbaths," he could not have meant to except just
that from which all other Sabbaths derived their name and significance. Think
of such an exhortation from a Jew not being meant to convey the very thing
which would have been first in every Jews mind on hearing it! What, a Jew
not guard the Sabbath from profanation! An inspired apostle not hint even so
important a restriction of his meaning! And not only so, but in all his
writings, not a word - not even one - about Sabbath-observances? No, nor in any
other epistle of the New Testament beside!
The Christian doctrine is
thus perfectly plain and consistent. Negatively and positively taken, its
consistency is apparent and conclusive. The more we are reminded of the
contrary position of the Old Testament prophets from first to last, - the more
we listen to their denunciation of transgressors of the law of the Sabbath, the
richer the promises to those who "keep My Sabbaths from polluting them," - only
the more marked becomes the difference, - only the more fundamental. It is not,
it cannot be, accidental. Some radical change must have taken place with the
change of dispensation - that is evident.
Nor are we left to surmise as
we may. What the change is is carefully explained to us. It is not that the law
is changed or destroyed or weakened. It is that "we are DEAD to the law by the
body of Christ;" and that "that we should be married to another, even to Him
who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God" (Rom.
vii. 4). And the law itself forbids, and the figure is used to enforce the
prohibition, that there should be two husbands at the same time (vv. 2, 3).
Will any say it is the ceremonial law only from which we are divorced?
Nay, it is the law by which we know sin; the law which is holy, just, and good;
the law which says, "Thou shall not covet" (vv. 7, 12). There is no doubt
permitted here at all as to whether what Mr. Andrews styles the moral law is
included. It most certainly is. Yet it is to this law that we are "dead" and
that not with regard to justification by it merely, but "that we should bring
forth fruit to God." This to many more than the writer I am meeting may be a
matter of profound astonishment. There are many, thank God, who realize the
deep necessity of it, and give God continual thanks for the deliverance. *
*Those who desire to pursue this subject may find help in a tract,
"Deliverance, what is it?" issued by the publishers.
We have had two
witnesses from the Word of God; let us add yet another. In the third chapter of
the second of Corinthians it will not be doubtful what is meant by "the
ministration of death, written and engraved in stones." Even Mr. Andrews here
can have no doubt. But it is the "ministration of death;" and notice what
follows (vv. 9-13): "For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much
more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. . . . For if that
which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
Seeing, then, that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech; and not
as Moses, who put a vail over his face, so that the children of Israel could
not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished" ("was passing away"
- R. V.).
With these unhappy Jews we must number, therefore, the
seventh-day advocates. Scripture is clear enough, and the absence of one
exhortation in the writings of the apostles as to Sabbath-observance agrees
with the injunction to let no man judge you in respect of Sabbaths, and with
the doctrine from which this springs.
But let it not be imagined that
this is any conflict with the design of the Sabbath, as made for man, as
undoubtedly it was - .a most merciful institution. Put upon this ground, we
readily accept all that can be said for it. Not only is the rest for man and
beast an immense benefit physically, but spiritually the break with ordinary
care and worldly business is beyond all price. No one with the least concern
for his own soul, or the souls of others, would think of lightly esteeming the
sanctification of the day of rest. But then this is not, it is plain, a reason
for the observance of the seventh day rather than the first. It suits well with
those intimations in the New Testament which invite us, by way of Privilege, to
the observance of this first day, to which, as recognized by Christians, the
title of the Lords day is, I doubt not, rightly given (Rev. i. 10).
We fully concede to the Sabbatarians that there is no ground for
calling it the Sabbath, and that they can find no command for its observance
such as the law contains for its day. For this there is the best of reasons.
When God took up Israel as His people, He separated them from the rest of the
nations to Himself. The whole land, and all in it, were subject to Moses
law. Thus an ordinance of the kind controlled the whole fabric of society from
the highest to the lowest: and this was necessary for its due observance. As a
law, such a command could be issued only by recognized authority, and that the
authority of the state. We may be thankful that we have laws to this end, but
it would be an entire mistake to look for them in the New Testament.
That the Sabbath commemorates the creation of the world, and is a rest
at the end of six days labour, only makes the reason for the observance
of the first day more evident. The law took men in nature, a nation, and tested
them as to their ability to "do and live." But the first creation is lapsed
into ruin, and Christians are a people by grace separated from the world, a
"new creation," "created in Christ Jesus unto good works" (Eph. ii; 10). The
principle of grace is not "do and live," but "live and do." Life begins for us
out of death. "God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved
us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, and
hath raised us up together" (vv. 4 - 6). Thus it was suited that a Jew under
law should observe the day of creation and legal rest; but how suited that a
Christian should observe the day of his Lords resurrection, with whom he
is raised, - the new beginning for him, and which he rightly calls "the
Lords day"! How suited that his keeping it should be enforced, not by
legal commandments, but by the joy and privilege of it!
More might be
said - much more, but we have not space for it, nor is there really need, for
those who will examine what has been already stated, prayerfully and before
God. My reason for saying so much is not only the importance of the subject in
itself, but also because their Sabbath-doctrine and their adventism are
undoubtedly the two chief elements of their successful proselytism. We must now
take up briefly the latter, more connected as it is also, with the subject of
our book.
They hold rightly that the personal coming of the Lord will
be before the millennium. At His coming, -
"the righteous dead will be
raised, the living righteous will be changed, and thus the subjects of the
eternal kingdom will be made immortal." These "will ascend with their Lord to
the eternal city, and reign with Him in the judgment of the wicked a thousand
years, during which time the earth will be desolate." "All wicked men will be
destroyed at the second advent." "At the close of the millennium, the wicked
will be raised up from the dead. But the rest of the dead lived not again
until the thousand years were finished (Rev. xx. 5). They will then be
destroyed. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured
them (xx. 9). Satan and all the fallen angels and all wicked men will
then be consumed by the fire of Jehovahs wrath. (Rev. xx. 10; Matt. xxv.
41; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6). In the general conflagration of that time, the old
earth and atmospheric heaven will pass away from the face of Him that sitteth
on the great white throne." "From the old earth, melted and cleansed from sin
and sinners, will come forth, moulded by the hand of the great Restorer, the
new earth, free from all the marks of the curse." "It is at the close of the
thousand years of Rev. xx., after the final destruction of all Gods
enemies, that the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and
possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever."*
*"Bible Adventism,"
by Elder James White, pp. 82-86.
A thousand years reign for the
saints over a desolate earth is certainly a view as to the prophetic future
somewhat startling, as it is undoubtedly new. Of course, to make room for the
promises to Israel, must be "spiritualized "and applied to the eternal state;
while the lake of fire lasts at most through the millennium (?), and the
"little season" at its close. The "forever and ever" does not trouble these
powerful reasoners: it can be compressed into as short a time as maybe
necessary, according to the simple rule which another writer explains
thus: -
[these words] "denote duration or continuation of time, the length
of that duration being determined by the nature of the objects to which they
are applied. When applied to things, which we know from other declarations of
the Scriptures are to have no end, they signify an eternity of being; but when
applied to things which are to end, they are correspondingly limited in their
meaning."
Uriah Smith in "Mans Nature and Destiny," p. 273.
That is, they tell us God lives eternally, when we know from other
sources that He does. And on the other hand, by the same rule you may say,
without deception, that a match will burn for ages of ages, if you know quite
well that it is in its nature to be consumed in a minute! Admirable perspicuity
of language which will thus positively assure you of what you know already, and
pledges itself to nothing about any thing you dont know! The gnats
life and the angels measured by the same "forever"!
But we are
familiar with views like these already, and gladly refer our readers to the
past discussion of them (pp. 265-267; 343, 344) for details. But the lake of
fire is not on earth at all, and the judgment to it does not take place till
the earth and the heavens flee away; only just before this is Satan cast in,
and then, with his two associates, adjudged to torment for the ages of ages.
To confound the multitudes who go up (deceived by Satan) against the
camp of the saints and the beloved city, and who are destroyed by fire, with
the whole company of the wicked dead raised up for judgment afterward, is an
egregious blunder, springing from the notion of a desolate millennial earth.
Scripture carefully distinguishes them. The millennial earth is not desolate,
any more than its inhabitants are all converted. (Ps. xviii. 43-45; Isa. lxvi.
15-21 Zech. xiv.) Think of the dead raised for judgment attacking the city of
God!
The truth is, that until the harvest is ripe, the sickle is not
put in. During the millennial reign of righteousness, those still in heart
unchanged are yet not manifested by external act. For this purpose Satan is
loosed, that they may be. They break out in open rebellion, and judgment falls
on them. This is not the violent effort of escaped convicts; nor is the
judgment the careful discriminative one of the great white throne. We have only
to read the Scripture without theories to uphold, and all is simple.
We
must spend more time upon what is (along with that of a desolate millennium)
their real peculiarity in doctrine - the cleansing of the sanctuary.
Their
doctrine as to this is professedly based upon the eighth chapter of Daniel, and
it will be well, therefore, first of all, ourselves to look at this, and see
what Daniel really says. We have not as yet to apply or interpret, however, but
to lay the ground-work only for true interpretation.
The points which
concern us can be briefly stated. The vision has to do with the Grecian power
in one of the kingdoms into which it was subdivided, in its relation to Israel
in the latter times. So it is expressly declared.
1. The history of
the Grecian power under Alexander is given, the overthrow of the Persians, the
division of the kingdom into four; out of one of which finally a king arises,
fierce, crafty, and mighty, but not by his own power, and he destroys
wonderfully, even the mighty and the holy people. Finally he stands up against
the Prince of princes, and then is broken without hand.
In the vision
itself, of which this is the inspired interpretation, it is said, "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. 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 on them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the
Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away; and the
place of his sanctuary was cast down. And a 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."
2. As to the time, it
is asked, "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the
transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and host to be trodden
underfoot?" And it is answered, "Unto two thousand three hundred days,"
literally, "evening-mornings;" "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."
Does
this time measure the whole time of the kingdoms spoken of? Of course, two
thousand three hundred days, if it be literally this, could not; and
"evening-mornings" - taken from the Jewish reckoning of days - seems literal
enough.
Is, then, the treading down of the sanctuary looked at as
lasting throughout the time of these kingdoms? or only during the prevalence of
the last "little horn"? Surely the answer must be the latter; and known history
confirms it. Neither the Persian empire nor Alexander trod down the sanctuary,
nor even oppressed the Jews.
Moreover, it is distinctly stated, "the vision
belongeth to the time of the end" (v. 17, R. V.); and "I will make thee know
what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth unto the
appointed time of the end." (v. 19, R. V.) Plainly, not the whole vision does,
but the special part about which inquiry is made, and for the elucidation of
which the vision is given.
3. "What is the sanctuary here
spoken of? It is Israels. The "indignation" is Gods anger against
them, which closes with their restoration and blessing, as seen here. And so it
is prophesied of Israel, in the day when her scattered tribes shall be reunited
- the stick of Ephraim with the stick of Judah - "Moreover, I will make a
covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and
I will place them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of
them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; and I will be their
God, and they shall be My people. And the nations shall know that I am the Lord
that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for
evermore" (Ezek. xxxvii. 26-28). The only sanctuary of God that could be
trodden underfoot was that in Israel, and thus shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
But this destroys the Adventist doctrine, root and branch. For them,
the two thousand three hundred days are years; they last from the days of the
Persian empire till 1844; they end with the cleansing of a heavenly sanctuary,
not an earthly: which cleansing is supposed, therefore, now to be going on, and
to end with the appearing of the Lord at a time uncertain. I shall briefly
follow Mr. Whites argument.
1. The little horn is the Roman
power: it "had made Macedon, one of the four horns of the Grecian goat, a part
of itself, B.C. 168, about seven years before its first connection with the
people of God. So that Rome could as truly be said to be out of one of
them as the ten horns of the fourth beast of the seventh chapter could be
said to come out of that beast, when they were ten kingdoms set up by the
conquerors of Rome."
That is, the mistakes of commentators are to
justify more mistakes. The ten horns of the Roman empire are not ten kingdoms
born of her destruction; and the Roman empire could not ever be a horn of the
Grecian power which she overthrew. How differently is the contest between
Persia and Greece presented in this very prophecy! What could be the object
supposed for making one empire grow thus out of another?
Moreover, "a
little horn" among the other horns would imply one smaller than the rest; but
Rome, when it conquered Macedon, was already mistress of Italy and of the
Mediterranean Sea; Carthage had been conquered, though not yet destroyed; and
the power of Antiochus broken on the field of Magnesia. There was no power in
the world so strong as that of Rome at the very time when Mr. White speaks of
it as a "little horn."
But he says, "It was to cast down some of the
host and of the stars. This is predicted respecting the dragon (Rev. xii. 3,
4). All admit that the dragon is Rome." Not quite. Scripture does not: the
dragon it interprets as "the old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan;" and
it tells us that twice over, that there may be no mistake (Rev. xii. 9; xx. 2).
The resemblance fails to prove the point.
But the strangest mistake is
where it is contended that "the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of
desolation represent Rome in its pagan and papal forms"!! "Sacrifice" is not in
the original, and Mr. White reads "the daily desolation." "The agents by which
the sanctuary and host are trodden underfoot are the daily, or continual,
desolation, and the transgression, or the abomination of desolation (Dan. viii.
13; xi. 31; xii. 11). These two desolations, as we have already seen, are
paganism and papacy."
For "seen" we should read "said," I suppose, for
Mr. White has given no proof, and gives none. Keil says, "Hattamid" - "the
daily," or rather "continual," - "is every thing in the worship of God which is
not used merely temporarily, but is permanent, as the daily sacrifice, the
setting forth of the show-bread, and the like. The limitation of it to the
daily morning and evening sacrifice in the writings of the Rabbis is unknown in
the Old Testament. The word much rather comprehends all that is of permanent
use in the holy services of divine worship" (Comm. on Daniel, p. 298).
Look at the passages: -
"By him the daily was taken away, and the place of
his sanctuary was cast down." This is a marginal reading of the Hebrew. That of
the text is preferred generally, as now in the R. V., "From Him" (the Prince of
the host) "it" (the little horn) "took away the daily."
Did Rome take
away paganism from the Prince of the host?
Again, -
"And a host was
given [him] against the daily by reason of transgression." Or take it, if you
will, as the R. V. - "And the host was given over to it, together with the
continual [burnt-offering], through transgression." Was the host given over to
Rome, along with paganism, through transgression?
It seems quite needless
to pursue this further, or I should have equally to question the application of
"the transgression of desolation" to papal Rome.
On the other hand, it
should be quite plain that the removal of the daily sacrifice implies this
transgression of desolation in which both sanctuary and host are trodden
underfoot.
Now, as to the time. Mr. White argues that two thousand three
hundred literal days could not cover the duration of one of these kingdoms,
much less of the three; therefore they must be years. But we have seen they do
not profess to give the duration of even one of the kingdoms, but of the
treading down of the sanctuary, as is plainly said. Then the argument is all
the other way: days seem more suited than years.
Nor is it true that
the time alone is what the prophet did not understand. He says it was the
vision (v. 27). Nor is the vision which he says he understood in chap. x. 1
this vision, plainly, but the one that follows in chap. xi. Nor again, if
Daniel understood all the vision of the eighth chapter except the time, could
he possibly have supposed, as Mr. White says he did, that now the two thousand
three hundred days were just accomplished? How had all that was predicted come
to pass in the meantime?
That the prophecies of the two chapters are
connected is surely true; for all these prophecies are so; but it is certainly
not as to the time that chap. ix. throws light on chap. viii., - for this plain
reason, that the times do not coincide in the way claimed at all. The seventy
weeks are not "cut off" from the two thousand three hundred days, as they are
evidently weeks of years, and therefore a much longer period. They begin with
the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, and
therefore do not define the time of treading down.
"Cut off" may be
right enough as the meaning of the word translated "determined," although the
latter meaning is preferred by the mass, and allowed by every one: so that to
build so large an inference on a doubt cannot be to build solidly. Yet "cut
off" can have the very simple meaning of "cut off from ordinary time" - as set
apart for a divine purpose. The application is therefore doubly insecure. But
when, in addition to this, the seventy weeks are clearly not the time appointed
"to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot," plainly the
whole scheme of prophetic interpretation we are considering collapses utterly.
We might refuse, then, to go further, but the view as to the sanctuary
and its cleansing is one so affecting their position, and in itself so
important, that it will be well to devote a brief space to it.
The
sanctuary with them is the heavenly one, typified by Israels earthly one;
its cleansing answers to the work done in the holiest on the day of atonement
once a year.
"In the first apartment stood the priests in a continual
course of ministration for the people. He that had sinned . . . laid his hand
upon the head of the victim, to denote that his sin was transferred to it. Then
the victim was slain on account of that transgression, and his blood, bearing
that sin and guilt, was carried into the sanctuary. . . . Thus through the year
this ministration went forward, the sins of the people being transferred from
themselves to the victims offered in sacrifice, and through the blood of the
sacrifices TRANSFERRED TO THE SANCTUARY ITSELF.
"On the tenth day of
the seventh month, the ministration was changed from the holy . . to the most
holy place. . . . In the most holy place, blood was offered for the sins of the
people, to make an atonement for them. The two holy places of the sanctuary,
and also the altar of incense, were on this day cleansed from the sins of the
people, which had been borne into the sanctuary means of the blood of the
sin-offering.
"The high-priest having by blood removed the sins of the
people from the sanctuary, bears them to the door of the tabernacle where the
scape-goat stands . . . and puts them upon the head of the goat and sends them
away."
Such is the type. Now the antitype: -
"The sins of the world
were laid upon the Lord Jesus, and He died for our sins according to the
Scriptures. The blood of the Lamb of God, which was shed for our transgressions
of Gods law, is that by which our High-Priest enters the heavenly
sanctuary, and which, as our Advocate, He offers for us in the sanctuary. His
great work . . . He here carries forward by pleading the cause of penitent
sinners, and presenting for them His blood. . . . As the sin of him who came to
God through the offering of blood by the high-priest was, through the blood,
transferred to the sanctuary itself, so it is in the substance.
"The
ministration in the holiest of all in the heavenly sanctuary begins with the
termination of the two thousand three hundred days. Then our high-Priest enters
the holiest, to cleanse the sanctuary. This work, as presented in the type, was
for the twofold purpose of the forgiveness of iniquity and the cleansing of the
sanctuary. And this great work our Lord accomplishes with His own blood;
whether by the actual presentation of it, or by virtue of its merits."
This accomplished, the Lord comes out of heaven. Atonement is now
completed, and the work of the Priest finished. At His appearing, the sins of
the pardoned "are borne away from the sanctuary and host forever, and rest upon
the head of their author, the devil. The azazel, or antitypical scape-goat,
will then have received the sins of those who have been pardoned in the
sanctuary, and in the lake of fire he will suffer for the sins which he has
instigated. . . . The cases of all men will then be forever fixed."
This, then, is the cleansing of the sanctuary. It is certain, however,
that the sanctuary in Dan. viii. is the Jewish one, which is not wholly set
aside, as they imagine, but is to be, as we have seen, and the sure word of God
teaches, in the midst of Israel yet. And the apostle assures us (Rom. IX. 3, 4)
that to these, his "kindred according to the flesh" - no spiritual Israel,
therefore - the [Old-Testament] "promises" belong. This, then, is as sure as
can be. No heavenly sanctuary, spite of all assertions, could be "trodden
underfoot," and the prophecy shows us the one who is to do this as to the
earthly one. When the Son of God is spoken of in this way (Heb. x. 29), He is
looked at as in His humiliation upon earth.
But now, as to the types of
atonement. It is not the fact that atonement was only made in the holiest of
all. The blood was given them upon the altar to make atonement for their souls
(Lev. xvii. 11). The burnt-offering, the blood of which never went into the
sanctuary at all, atoned (chap. i. 4). So did the ordinary sin-offerings, which
did not go in. (Lev. iv, v.) Only when there was the sin of the high-priest, or
of the whole congregation, did it go in (chap. iv. 7, i8); cases which were not
ordinary, but special and exceptional. Atonement ordinarily involved, then, no
entrance of the blood into what the apostle calls (Heb. ix. 2) "the first
tabernacle" at all. The basis of the whole theory is therefore wanting.
How strange, too, to be told that this atoning blood in the first
tabernacle could only defile it The sins, uncancelled were carried in with it
there. They were but transferred for adjudication, as it seems, to another
court! Not so speak the types. "The priest shall make atonement for them, and
it shall be forgiven them" (chap. iv. 20); "and the priest shall make an
atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him (chap.
1X. 26). So constantly: the sins were forgiven and gone; the blood shed did its
work; and that where there was no carrying it into the holy place at all. Hence
the bottom of these assertions has dropped out.
Where in Scripture is
there the least word about the blood carrying in the sins for which it was
shed? There is none. On the day of atonement it is said to be "for the
tabernacle of the congregation that remaineth among them in the midst of their
uncleanness" (Lev. xvi. 16). It is not that the uncleanness is in the midst of
the tabernacle, but the tabernacle in the midst of it - quite a different
thought.
The blood cleanses - atones - not defiles; and that wherever
it was applied, and not in the sanctuary alone. If it brought sin into the holy
place, how could it remove it? Can that which defiles cleanse? Surely not. But
then there is no atonement for the blood at all.
Now in the antitype,
will they dare to say that the precious blood of Christ has defiled the
heavenly places? That is the question which they will not plainly put. Will
they face it? And then, if it be so (though it were blasphemy to say so), how
could the same blood cleanse?
Again, the veil is rent, and the holy and
the holiest are now one. There is no "first tabernacle" now, as it is a great
point of the apostle in the Hebrews to prove (chap. ix. 8; x. 19, 20), and has
been none all through the dispensation. On the day of atonement the high-priest
did not perform a first service in the outer sanctuary and then go in to the
inner. His work was in the inner, and the service in the outer was that of the
ordinary priests, and not specifically that of the high-priest at all. Thus the
whole ground for these evil doctrines breaks down once more.
As to the
scape-goat, the foolish dream about Satan being the scape-goat has been adopted
from others, but foolish enough it is. The two goats are but one sin-offering
(Lev. xvi. 5), and of the scape-goat it is said expressly, "to make an
atonement with him." (v. 10.) The principle in it is what is quoted by the
apostle and applied to us already (Heb. x. 17), "Their sins and iniquities will
I remember no more." What is alleged in this matter is as wrong as all the
rest.
In a word, every peculiar feature of their system is false -
Sabbath-keeping, prophetic system, dates, sanctuary-cleansing, atonement,
desolate millennium, annihilation doctrines - all. It is a thoroughly evil
system, with neither a true God nor a true sacrifice, nor therefore a true
salvation for its adherents. Christians may no doubt be entangled with it, but
the system is unchristian and antichristian.
I know of nothing in their
annihilation views that requires fresh comment, except, perhaps, one point,
which in the former part of this book I had left unnoticed. I take it up now
for its own sake, not because there is any thing of importance as to it in the
book before me already cited, in which one chapter is devoted to it.*
*"Mans Nature and Destiny," chap. iii.
What is the "image of God"
in which man was created? That it was immortality, I leave to Mr. Smith to deal
with as he lists As it has never been my contention, I am not concerned with
it, and as no error helps the truth, if it be a popular argument, let it be
demolished, and the truth will gain.
But Mr. Smiths own view is
worse. If the other is false, this is dishonouring to God it is that it
consists in bodily likeness. "An image must be something that is visible to the
eye," he says. "Even an image formed in the mind must be conceived of as having
some sort of outward shape or form. In this sense, of having outward form, the
word is used in each of the thirty-one times of its occurrence in the Old
Testament."
Now, if an "image" must be something that is visible to the
eye, then we need not go to the Hebrew or Greek at all. But what, then, about
"Renewed in knowledge, after the image of Him that created him"? There is no
need to speak of eikon, as Mr. Smith does. Is "knowledge" something that is
visible to the eye? He will hardly say so. And there is another thing. The
apostle is, without doubt, thinking here of the original "image of God" in
which man had been created. Was he thinking of - do his words suggest - a
material image? There can be but one answer.
But Adam begat a son in
his own likeness - "after his image;" and "no one would think of referring this
to any thing but a physical resemblance"! I suppose none but materialists count
for anybody with Mr. Smith; so that it is useless to protest; nevertheless, I
am not convinced, and should deny it. The fact of the reference to the "image
of God," in which man was created, is enough to make it more than questionable
that it is merely physical.
"A spirit, or spiritual being, as God is in
the highest sense," says Mr. Smith further, "so far from not having a bodily
form, MUST possess it, as the instrumentality for the manifestation of his
powers." Again it is hard to answer one who speaks evidently from some superior
knowledge.
Merely common sense would imagine that it would be as easy
for a spiritual being to act upon (or produce) the matter of the world without
hands, as to make the hands first by which to act. He refers us to 1 Cor. xv.
44, - "There is a spiritual body." Truly. What then?
Again, we are told
of Moses and the elders having seen God. In some true sense, no doubt they did;
but Mr. Smith is again unfortunate in forgetting what the former says with
reference to this: "Take ye, therefore, good heed unto yourselves, for ye saw
no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of
the midst of the fire; lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image,
the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female," etc. Had they
only known that man was the bodily image of God! But did not Moses know it?
What becomes, then, of Mr. Smiths argument, whether he did or whether he
did not?
So collapses the bodily image. But in what, then, did the
image of God consist? Notice that man was created in it. It must be something,
then, in man himself, from which his dominion over the other creatures resulted
indeed, but his lordship over these was not the image.
Notice, again,
that it is only the third time that the word "created" appears in the
narrative. At first God "created" the heavens and the earth. Then you have it
no more till, on the fourth day, "God created every living soul
that moveth." (Gen. i. 21, Heb.) And then again, "God created man
in His own image."
Now, if creation speak of a production out of
nothing, or even if it speak of the production of quite a new thing merely, -
here are three steps, plainly:
The creation of material things; then of a
creature with soul; and then, finally, of one not only with soul but also
SPIRIT. And here the image of God is that in which he is created: the new
element of being characterizes him as that; he is spirit, the image of Him who
is spirit!
And mark, that the dominion over nature is found thus in
mans own constitution. In him, the spirit governs soul and matter. He is,
as he has been often styled, a microcosm - a little world; but he is more: he
is to this world the free and moral governor, representative of God Himself in
the sphere of the universe. This, I believe, is what is implied in his being
created in the image of God.
Go To Appendix Five
Home | Links | Literature