Daniel 9:24 - "Holy of Holies" vs. "An All-Holy"

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{tcl34}tcl33}tcl32}tcl31}tcl30}tcl29}tcl28}tcl27}tcl26}tcl25}tcl24}tcl23}tcl22}tcl21}tcl20}tcl19}tcl18}tcl17}tcl16}tcl15}tcl14}tcl13}tcl12}tcl11}tcl10}tcl9}tcl8}tcl7}tcl6}tcl5}tcl4}tcl3}tcl2}tcl1}  •  2 min. read  •  grade level: 9
Listen from:
Question: Dan. 9:24.-Having lately seen it stated (in print) that Dr. Posey denies “holy of holies” to be the right rendering in Dan. 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.” (Posey on Daniel, pp. 179, 180.)
Answer: I cannot find that any person is called in the Old Testament םקרש קרש(Dan. 9:24.) Things are, where characteristically described. The innermost part of the sanctuary is properly called הקרשם קרש(Ex. 26:33.) In Ezek. 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 Authorized 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 Authorized 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 Authorized Version as correct in making it the sanctuary, and not the Messiah. S.