Earlier text: General ArticlesTHOUGHTS ON DANIEL.
By Uriah Smith
CHAPTER VIII.—THE SANCTUARY.
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? 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. 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 Daniel 8:14 have reference to that sanctuary? That depends upon the time to which it applies. Whatever declarations respecting the sanctuary apply under the old dispensation, they have respect to the sanctuary of that time; and whatever declarations apply in this dispensation, they have reference to the sanctuary of 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 time. This is a point which can only be determined by a further argument on the 2300 days. 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. Unto 2300 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. 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 such work as pertaining to this earth, the land of Caanan, 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. Does 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 with Paul, who positively affirms this fact. But before he decides against the apostle, 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 paraphrased thus: "It was therefore necessary that the tabernacle, 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 true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man, must be cleansed with better sacrifices, even with the blood of Christ." 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 of which he speaks. The reason Paul assigns why this cleansing is performed with blood, is because without the shedding of blood there is no remission. 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 sin attached to the sanctuary, either the earthly or the heavenly? This can be ascertained from the ministration connected with the type, to which we now turn. 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 is to 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 his victim, for a moment, he placed his hand, 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 obedience; 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 law demanded life, and its demand is 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. The sin of the individual was thus, by his confession, by the slaying of the victim, and the ministration 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. This accumulation of 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 its 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 that all was typical. 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 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, plural, 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. Therefore Christ's ministration in the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary must be a work of like nature, and constitute the cleansing of that sanctuary. As through the sacrifices of the 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 legitimately 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 we have remission of sins in fact, which was obtained only in figure through the blood of calves and goats. 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 come to him by faith, in this dispensation. This 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. HE is not only idle who does nothing, but he is idle who might be better employed. Christian Life Versus Polemics
POLEMICS have their place, and we would not underestimate their value. After all is said, however, it may be doubted whether they ever won a heart to Christ. They may have silenced, but have they ever convinced the doubting? But the power of a Christian life, which reproduces in some degree, however faint, the life of Jesus himself—that is an argument that the deafest must hear and the blindest must see.—Sel. It shows how American ingenuity and skill are entering into the mechanic and other arts that diamond cutting has been so admirably developed here that diamonds cut in Amsterdam are sent to New York for re-cutting. Hitherto Amsterdam has monopolized the work of diamond cutting; and the aim there has been to remove in cutting the least possible weight of the gem. The American plan is to cut mathematically, according to recognized laws of light, so as to secure the utmost brilliancy for the finished stone. The greater loss in weight, as compared with the Amsterdam cutting, is thus more than made good by the superior brilliancy of the product. It appears that the average increase of value given to diamonds by the New York cutting is $5,000 for each person employed for twelve months; also, that our dealers are receiving the best Amsterdam-cut gems from abroad to be re-cut here and returned. ONE of the commonest mistakes of a Sabbath-school teacher is in supposing that telling a thing to a scholar is teaching that thing to the scholar. Telling a thing may be a part of the process of teaching; and again it may not be; but in and of itself telling is never teaching—it cannot be. Until a teacher realizes this truth he is not a teacher; therefore we want to tell this truth to all teachers and to all who want to be teachers, although we are very well aware that telling it in this way will not teach it to anybody. If the scholar is deaf, and you tell him a truth by word of mouth, with your head down so that he cannot see the movement of your lips, it is very clear that you have not taught him what you have told him. If he has ears, but they are intent on something else than your words while you are talking to him; or if you talk in a language which he does not understand,—it is equally clear that your telling is no teaching to him. So far all will agree at the start, but the principle involved has a profounder reach than this. No person learns at once everything that is told to him; and no person is taught until he learns; nor more than he learns. To tell a child for the first time all the letters of the alphabet does not teach him his alphabet. To tell a scholar in a secular school all the rules of grammar or of arithmetic, all the boundaries of all the States of the Union, or all the principles of natural or moral philosophy, does not, by any means, teach him all those things. Teaching would be a very simple matter, if telling were teaching; but no one thinks of counting the two processes identical—except in the sphere of purely religious truth. Who would think of teaching an apprentice to shoe a horse, or to set type, or to make a watch, by simply telling him how? Who would expect artists, or authors, or soldiers, to be taught in their profession by the mere telling of their duties? If men and women knew all the valuable truths which have been told them, from the lecture platform, in social converse, and by direct personal instruction, how wise the world would be! If the children had been taught all the good things that have been told to them at home and elsewhere, how much more they would know than their parents—who have not always been taught by simply being told! And what learned congregations we should have, if all that some of these wise and venerable preachers have told their people, had been learned by their people! That telling has not been teaching in every case, all will see at a glance, whether they are ready or not to agree that telling is never teaching, nor ever can be. The wisest preachers and teachers have recognized this truth, even though it has, by no means, found general acceptance as yet. "Nothing is more absurd," says an eminent English teacher, "than the common notion of instruction, as if science were to be poured into the mind, like water into a cistern." And a well-known American educator has said, in a similar vein, concerning silent pupils in a Sabbath-school class: "You may pour your stream of knowledge upon them till you drown them, or till they run away, and not get a drop of it into them, because their mouths are shut." It is as if in comment on this very figure, that Thomas Carlyle has said: "To sit, as a passive bucket and be pumped into, can in the long run be exhilarating to no creature, how eloquent soever the flood of utterance that is descending." So brilliant and witty a preacher as Dr. Robert South put the same truth, although by a different figure, two centuries ago, when he described preaching to passive hearers as "a kind of spiritual diet upon which people are always feeding but never full; and many poor souls, God knows too, too like Pharaoh's lean kine, much the leaner for their full feed." And of the teaching or training process in the church, he adds: "To expect that this should be done by preaching or force of lungs, is just as if a smith or artist who works in metal, should expect to form and shape out his work only with his bellows." A vast deal of what is called "Bible-class teaching" is talking, but not teaching. It might pass for fourth-rate, or third-rate, or second-rate, or at the very best and rarest—as first-rate preaching, or lecturing; but it never ought to be called "teaching." The teacher talks; the scholars listen. The teacher is a gainer in his mind and heart by what he says; but not so his silent scholars. They hear, but do not learn. The "exercise" is an exercise only to the exerciser. The whole thing is a pocket-edition in poor type of a pulpit-led service, with many of the disadvantages and few of the benefits of the full-page edition. And not a little of the ordinary class-teaching in the Sabbath-school is of the same character. The teacher talks; the scholars listen. There is a "teacher," but no teaching. There are "learners," but no learning. It is not a pleasant thing to face such a fact as this; but if it is a fact, it ought to be faced by those interested. Telling a thing may be an important part of the process of teaching a thing. The telling may in itself interest or impress even where it fails to instruct. A teacher may teach in other ways than by his telling truths that are worthy of his scholars' hearing and learning. However this may be, it is important that every teacher should understand, at the first and at the last, that telling a thing is not in itself teaching a thing; and that if he is a teacher at all it will be through some other agency than merely his talking.—S. S. Times. PUNTUALITY IN TEACHERS.
By Hart
It seems as if some people came into the world a little behind time, and they never catch up. They are always and everywhere a little late. The habit is a grievous misfortune to any one. In a teacher, it is mischievous in the extreme. It betrays, too, a lack in the character, which it is difficult to describe by its true name without giving offense. If a teacher is not in his seat at the proper time, he thereby throws the care of his class upon some one else. Either some other teacher, or the superintendent, must do what properly belongs to the one absenting himself. But the superintendent and the other teachers have duties of their own to attend to. Is it right for one person thus, without leave or warning, to throw his own responsibilities upon the shoulders of another? Is there uprightness, or honesty, or any proper and conscientious sense of one's responsibility to the class, to the school, to the superintendent, thus to leave the matter at sixes and sevens, just at the most critical moment in the whole session, namely, at the time of opening? With what face can a teacher who is late himself admonish his pupils for lateness? Is not such a habit a sin? Does not the teacher who takes a class enter into a virtual engagement to be present, and to be present in time? Because the engagement is voluntary, or informal, is it any less binding on the conscience? Is it not rather, like vows to the Lord, of which no human tribunal can take cognizance, for that very reason all the more sacred? In a worldly point of view, what conduces more to the pleasantness and the success of every kind of enterprise, than punctuality on the part of all engaged? What on the other hand, is more damaging both to character and prospects, than the want of punctuality? With what unfailing exactness does our heavenly Father observe all his engagements even with sinners! How, without the failure of a second, he brings forth the sun, and the stars, and the seasons at their appointed time! Shall we not, in this as in other things, aim to be perfect, as our Father which is in heaven is perfect? There is, in the minds of Sabbath-school teachers, not only a woful apathy on this subject, but a singular misapprehension as to what constitutes punctuality. Many teachers seem to suppose that they are in time, if they are present just at the moment when the school begins. It is a great mistake. If the school begins at nine, and the teacher enters exactly at nine, he is late! He is at least ten or fifteen minutes late. That a teacher should be in his place some considerable time before the opening of school, is a truth so obvious that it seems hardly worth while to argue it. In many of the public schools, where the theory of what is right and needful takes the form of legal enactment, teachers are required to be in their school-rooms half an hour before the time of beginning school. The superintendent is not able, and does not wish, to play the school director. But surely we all serve a Master who will take cognizance of shortcomings in duty, and who has a right to something more than a half-way, grudging, scanty service. There is no time, in the session of a large school, when it is so difficult to maintain order, as in the few moments just before the bell gives the signal for school to begin. Pupils will begin to assemble half an hour before the time. They become more and more numerous as the time advances, and for the last few minutes before school-time, the main body of the scholars will be present. Yet many teachers seem to think that they are fully up to time, if they are present at the moment for opening school. Suppose every teacher should take this ground, what would be the state of the school for the fifteen minutes previous to opening? I recollect once visiting a large city-school, about fifteen minutes before the time for its opening. There were at least two hundred scholars present, and not one teacher on the premises. The scene may be easily imagined. It was a perfect bear-garden. It took half the session of that day to correct the disorder engendered in that fifteen minutes of riot.—Hart. FRONT ROW CHRISTIANS.
By Bene-Berak
EVERY pastor, and, for that matter, every public speaker knows how difficult it is to get the front tier of seats occupied. Oftentimes there is good reason why this should be so. It sometimes happens that it brings the hearers too near the speaker. There are many other reasons why front seats are avoided, but modesty is not one of them. Somewhere near the center of the audience room is the favorite location. This gives the listener an opportunity to see as well as hear, and a great many of even those who go to church had rather see and be seen than to hear. If hearing were the only object in attending church, then it would be desirable to get as near the speaker as possible, in order not to lose any of the sermon. In some churches, where there are a great many aged people, front seats are in demand. There used to be an Episcopal Church in Baltimore where this was notably the case, and such seats brought in the largest rentals of any. But the young, and even the middle aged, do not take the front seats in church. They like to take their gospel at a respectable distance. Perhaps they think they would not relish the hard knocks they might receive if they were nearer. It is a waste of money, as things go, to have any seats very near the pulpit. But I notice that no matter how much area there may be between the platform and the front tier, it is very seldom that the first row of seats has its proportion of occupants. Perhaps if Christians got a little closer to their pastors in the public services a more reciprocal feeling might be created. We do not telephone our sympathy when it is possible to express it in a less formal manner. Pastors like the sympathy of their people, and better sermons are the invariable result of a close rally around the preacher. —Bene-Berak, in Herald of Truth. Ralph Waldo Emerson says: "The best part of health is a fine disposition. It is more essential than talent. Nothing will supply the want of sunshine to preachers; and to make knowledge valuable, you must have the cheerfulness of wisdom. Whenever you are sincerely pleased you are nourished. The joy of the spirit indicates its strength. All healthy things are sweet-tempered. It is observed that a depression of spirits develops the germs of a plague in individuals and nations." Watching and Waiting for Christ
LORD, keep us watching, waiting,
Till the blest hour shall come
When thou in clouds of glory
Shall take thy people home.
We crave thy loving welcome,
Thy tender, sweet "Well done,"
Whether thou tarry longer,
Or come ere set of sun. THE YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR.
By Editor
AN ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY PAPER FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN, DEVOTED TO MORAL, MENTAL, AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE.
This paper is not devoted to insipid stories and religious fiction, but is filled with a great variety of that kind of reading which tends to the healthful development of the youthful mind. Its pages are made bright by the choicest illustrative pictures, and its columns are always full of useful information. As a Sabbath-school and Lesson paper, it is suited to the wants of scholars and teachers, and is calculated to increase the interest of all who read it, in thorough Bible study. The Sabbath-school Department contains two series of lessons, one for children and one for youth. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, 75 CENTS A YEAR. All new subscribers paying the above price will receive the "Child's Poems" as a premium without extra charge. TERMS TO CLUBS, PAID IN ADVANCE. Price per Copy, Post-paid. 5 to 10 copies...............................60 cents a year. 10 copies and upward ...................50 cents a year. Subscription for 5 to 10 copies will be taken for six months. Larger clubs may be paid for quarterly. Address YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR, Battle Creek, Mich. Or, PACIFIC PRESS, Oakland, Cal.