« AnteriorContinuar »
tabernacle--another sanctuary, or holy placem. another holy city, for those which existed under the Jewis dispensation ?
Of little avail will it be to admit these truths generally, if we do not follow them to all their consequences. “The Priesthood being changed “(Heb. vii. 12), there is made, of necessity, a “ change also of the law" and of every thing connected with it. The first covenant had a worldly sanctuary (Heb. ix. 1), and in this a place called, by eminence, “the holiest of all,” (ver. 3), into which the High Priest entered alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people (ver, 7): the Holy Spirit signifying that the way into the true holiest of all, was not made manifest while the first tabernacle was standing, which was only a figure for the time then present, until the time of the refor. mation by Christ. Now, if the Mosaic institutions were to continue only till the time of the reformation by CHRIST, and if Jerusalem, the temple, &c. had no other sanctity than the legal holiness derived from these institutions, is it not absurd in those who call themselves Christians, to continue, with blind Jewish predilection, to apply to that Jerusalem, which is in bondage " with her children,” (Gal. iv. 25), events which were to happen subsequently to the coming of Him, to whom Moses and all the Prophets bore
witness, as the end of the law ?-Have we not “a High Priest who is set on the right hand of the “ Throne of the Majesty of the Heavens; a Minister “of the SANCTUARY and of the TRUE TABERNACLE
which the LORD pitched, and not man?”(Heb. vii. 1, 2.) Hath not Christ come a High Priest of good things by a greater and more perfect tabernacle than the one inade with hands? (Heb. ix. 11). He hath not entered into “ the holy places “ made with hands, the figures of the true, but “ into Heaven itself.” (xi. 24.) Instead of the Jerusalem which is in bondage, have we not the Jerusalem which is above, and free? (Gal. iv. 26.) In one word-Has not the time come in which the true worshippers worship THE FATHER in the Spirit and Truth of all the figurative institutions of Moses (John iv. 23), being free from all bondage to the former weak, beggarly, worldly elements or rudiments ? (Gal. iv. 3, 9.)
From these few observations, it is evident that things spoken of the city, the sanctuary, the sacrifice, the oblation, &c. and referring to periods subsequent to the anointing of the Most Holy (Dan. ix. 24), have no relation to the city which formerly was called holy, or to the worldly sanctuary and to the ritual of Moses. They are mere adaptations of old terms to the time of the New Testament dispensation.
As to the term “ Prince of the Host,” it never
was applied, in the Scriptures, nor any similar term, to the Jewish High Priest; and to make such an application of it is not only arbitrary, but contrary to the express plan and tenor of both the Old Dispensation and the New. This is a point of some moment, but it will not require many words to set it in a clear light.Both of them were to have a High Priest, and (not to insist here on other characteristic differences), there was to be this distinguishing circumstance between the two-the Priests under the law could only be of the tribe of Levi, and could have none of the prerogatives of Royalty, which belonged to another tribe, that of Judah. The New Dispensation, on the contrary, bas a REGAL High Priest—" a High Priest after the “ order of Melchisedec,” (Heb. vii.) who was King of Salem, and also Priest of the Most High God. - The Christian Church has A GREAT High PRIEST, who is passed into the Heavens, Jesus the Son of God (Heb. iv. 14), whom God hath constituted both LORD (ruler, king, prince), and CHRIST (Acts ii. 36), agreeably to what had been before prophesied of him, “ I have anointed
my King upon Zion, the bill of my Holiness. ” He is the Prince OF THE Host-it is the name which he carries on his vesture and on his thigh
“King of Kings and LORD OF LORDS” (Rev. xix. 16); for “ the host,” in Daniel, as will be
proved in its proper place,' means the Kings of the Earth, and particularly the Kingdoms of Europe—the body, or proper territory of Daniel's fourth beast. But if Christ be the Prince of the Host, Antiochus Epiphanes can by no possibility be the one who made himself his equal, cast down his sanctuary, and took away the daily [service) (Dan. viii. 11); nor can the “ Sanctuary,” and
Daily” alluded to, be the daily sacrifice, and the Temple at Jerusalem; and the whole of the fabric, that has been reared by the numerous commentators and expositors who have gone upon this system, must fall to the ground. But to return
As the book of Daniel is the sealed book that was opened in the days of John, it follows that the same relation subsists between the writings of these two Prophets, as between a lock and its key. They are adapted to each other, and, if we would understand the words that were closed up and sealed till the time of the end, we must use them together; attending at the same time to what has been written upon the same subject by other Prophets and Apostles—for all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for instruction (2 Tim. iii. 16). If we wish to profit by them, we must take the result wbich they may offer, even if it should reprove and censure what we may have been taught, to re
spect and venerate. If we hearken to the reproof, we shall find that the same Scriptures also point out what is necessary to be attended to for the correction of those things which they condemn, and give ample instruction in every thing that regards our faith and practice. Instead of following the Jewish and antichristian interpretations of the Book of Daniel, which have been the principal causes that have prevented him from being understood, let us carefully attend to the explanation that has been given of this Prophet by “ THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WIT
NESS,” as recorded in the Apocalypse; in which the seals are removed from that book ; the time for which the vision, and the Prophet who saw it, were to continue sealed, having expired.
The Apocalypse being, as I persuade myself has been proved, quoted in every Epistle in which the subjects treated of could possibly admit of it, it follows, that this Prophecy was delivered before these Epistles were written ; nor is this a matter of trivial import, as viewed in connexion with rightly understanding the New Testament record. The very knowlege of the fact serves to account for many expressions