[1879 368] Q. Daniel 9:24. — Having lately seen it stated (in print) that Dr. Pusey denies "holy of holies" to be the right rendering in Daniel 9:24, and asserts "an all-holy" (alluding to the Messiah) to be the true one — I should be glad of information on a point of so much prophetic importance. P.
"It cannot be spoken of the natural 'holy of holies,' which in contrast to the holy place is always 'the holy of holies,' never 'holy of holies.' Still less is it the material temple as a whole, since the temple, as a whole, is never called by the name of a part of it. 'Holy of holies,' that is, lit. 'holiness of holinesses.' All-holiness is a ritual term, used to express the exceeding holiness which things acquire by being consecrated to God. It is never used to describe a place, but is always an attribute of the thing, and in one place, of the person who is spoken of." — (Pusey on Daniel, pp. 179, 180.)
A. I cannot find that any person is called in the Old Testament qodesh hag-qodeshim (Dan. 9:24.) Things are, where characteristically described. The innermost part of the sanctuary is properly called qodesh hag-qodeshin (Ex. 26:33.) In Ezekiel 45:3 the sanctuary is called "holy of holies" without the article. For the prophet there writes of the most holy sanctuary, not of the sanctuary and the most holy place, as the Authorised Version would represent it. With Ezekiel, then, before us we have a precedent for Daniel, there describing the sanctuary; and, looking at the subject of his prayer for the sanctuary (ver. 17), city and people (vers. 18, 19), the answer of the angel is in full keeping with his request. Seven heptads are determined upon thy people, and upon thy city, at the end of which the sanctuary will be anointed. I take it the Authorised Version gives the sense, though the anarthrous form is not the usual one where the house is described. So I should dissent from Dr. Pusey's views. The context would lead me to accept the Authorised Version as correct in making it the sanctuary, and not the Messiah. S.
[1879 380] Q. Whose are the "offences" in this word? Offences in the world, or in the church? R. H.
A. 1. To judge from the scope of the chapter, it would seem to have to do with "them that are within," rather than with "them that are without." Its counsels and warnings are addressed by the Lord to "the disciples," not to "the multitude." It is manifestly offences on their own part that these are admonished to deal with in verses 8, 9; and if the denunciation against the offenders of the little ones in verse 6 be somewhat general in character, the warning of verse 10, with the parable employed to enforce it, are clearly for the admonition of the disciples.
Of the bearing of verses 15–20 on questions within the assembly, there can, I presume, be no doubt, and Peter's question in verse 21, "How oft shall my brother sin against me?" along with the Lord's own application in verse 35, "If ye from the heart forgive not everyone his brother," determine with sufficient precision the application of the intervening parable.
2. "The word "woe," though frequently denunciatory, as in the last clause, is not always so, but is also commiserative, as in Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17, Luke 21:23, Revelation 8:13; Revelation 12:12.
3. If I apprehend the word apo (from out of) aright, as indicating rather the source from whence, or occasion of, than the procuring cause or ground, this would confirm the thought that the world is not here the object of denunciation on account of its own misdeeds, but of commiseration, in view of evils to arise to it from, or out of, offences elsewhere.
4. If skandalon be that part of a trap or snare, by contact with which the game brings down the trapfall or causes the snare to close upon it, nothing could be more graphically descriptive of the effect upon the world (as well as on many within) of scandals in the professing church of God. Such "offences" are not in themselves the snares in which Satan entraps souls, but they are truly to thousands the stumbling-blocks or touch-pins which give effect to the snares, and serve to precipitate into the pitfalls of unbelief and infidelity.
5. Finally, this view finds confirmation in the following clause of the verse: "It must needs be that offences come." If offences in the world were in question, they were already around on every hand; but if offences in that new thing about to be set up, the assembly, or church of God, be the matter in hand — that thing in which, according to its ideal or theory, no offence should be found, then how needful and appropriate the warning.
In view of these things, I lean to the conclusion that the "offences" here are offences in the professing church, and that the opening "woe!" of the verse is a long-drawn sigh from the Lord's loving heart over the foreseen confusion among His own, and the consequent break-down and obscuration of the testimony that ought to have shone as the light of the world in His absence, that through it the world might have believed that the Father had sent Him. (John 17:21.) Alas! alas! how dreadfully prophetic has that compassionate "woe!" been — how much of blessing has been hindered by the scandals the world has seen among professing Christians! R. H.