SDA Sanctuary Teaching Examined
By E.S. Ballenger*
What is the Sanctuary Teaching of SDAs?
These people have spent many years in studying the earthly sanctuary in order that they might understand the heavenly sanctuary. They teach that the former was an exact duplicate of the latter, and that what the priest did in the earthly sanctuary, Christ is now doing in the heavenly sanctuary. According to their teaching, when Christ ascended to the Father, He entered the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and remained there doing a like work to that of the earthly priests in the first apartment of the tabernacle. He remained in this place until Oct. 22, 1844, when He moved from the first apartment to the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, there to begin the final Day of Atonement.
The work Christ has been doing since 1844 is variously explained to be, to cleanse the sanctuary, to conduct the investigative judgment, to make atonement for and blot out sin.
They teach that when an Israelite was convicted of sin, he brought a goat or a lamb to the tabernacle, laid his hands on its head, confessed his sins, and then cut the lamb's throat, and the priest took some of the blood, carried it into the first apartment of the tabernacle, and sprinkled it before the vail, or as some teach, on the vail which divided the first apartment from the second apartment. By this means the confessed sins were transferred to the sanctuary, which thereby became defiled.
This ceremony necessitated a cleansing of the sanctuary which was accomplished on the Day of Atonement when the high priest took some of the blood of the Lord's goat, carried it into the most holy place and sprinkled it on or before the mercy seat under which was the law of God which he had been guilty of breaking. The high priest then gathered up, as one writer says, the sins that had been carried into the tabernacle by the blood, carried them out, placing them on the head of the scapegoat, which bore the confessed sins of the faithful repentant sinners, into the wilderness, and thus the sanctuary and the camp were freed from sin.
They apply this to the heavenly sanctuary which has become defiled by the confession of sin. From the ascension of Christ until 1844, Christ ministered only in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary; but, in 1844 He moved from the first apartment into the second apartment. Therefore, the Day of Atonement has been in progress ever since that date, from which time the Father and the Son with the holy angels, have been engaged in examining the records of all whose names were ever written in the Lamb's Book of Life, in order to determine who is worthy of the atonement, and therefore worthy of a part in the first resurrection, or to be translated at Jesus' coming.
This in brief is the teaching of the denomination regarding the sanctuary, and this theory is the very cornerstone of their creed. All of the above statements will be supported from their own documents as we progress in the study of the subject.
Was the Tabernacle a Model of the Heavenly Sanctuary?
We wish every reader could lay aside his entire knowledge of the sanctuary, both the earthly and the heavenly, and study the question with a perfectly open mind, using the Bible and the Bible only as his text-book.
Was the tabernacle built by Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai, a detailed reproduction of the temple in heaven? Inasmuch as it is quite impossible for one to blot from his mind scriptures that were memorized in earlier years, we recognize that many of our readers will at once call to mind some such text as Ex. 25:40:
"Look that thou make them after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount."
And Heb. 8:5,
"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount."
From these and other similar texts, a certain class of Bible students have taught that Moses was shown the heavenly temple while in the mount after which he constructed the tabernacle in the wilderness.
"He presented before Moses a miniature model of the heavenly sanctuary, and commanded him to make all things according to the pattern showed him in the mount." Mrs. E. G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, p. 269.
Unquestionably Moses had a view of the tabernacle and all of its parts before its construction, but this is no evidence that he was given a view of the heavenly temple. It is simply an evidence that what they constructed was an exact reproduction of what was shown to Moses.
According to the blueprint given to Moses, they were to make ten curtains of "fine twined linen," each one four by twenty-eight cubits; and eleven curtains of goat's hair, each four by thirty cubits; and then a covering of "rams' skins dyed red;" and another covering of badgers' skins. He was to make boards of shittim wood and overlay them with gold for the walls of the tabernacle. For the furniture of the tabernacle he was to make an ark of wood overlaid with gold, the cover of which was to represent the mercy-seat upon which were two golden images of angels; and the table of shew-bread, the altar of incense, and the candlestick. This structure was to be surrounded by a curtain wall five cubits high, making an enclosure fifty by one hundred cubits. In front of the tabernacle was to be placed the altar of burnt offerings with its grate, shovel, tongs etc. And between this altar and the tabernacle door was located a large brazen vessel for holding water.
What Bible student will contend for a moment that in heaven there is a structure made of wooden boards overlaid with gold, held together with bars and covered with red goats' skins and badger pelts? Who can bring his mind to conceive of a wooden box before the temple of God on which animals are burned? Or who will for a moment entertain the idea that it is necessary to have a water vat in the heavenly court in which the angels are to bathe?
Every Bible student recognizes that the tabernacle was constructed for easy transportation. But the same furniture was used in Solomon's temple. Was Solomon's temple a model of the things in heaven? If what Moses saw in vision was the reality in heaven, then the tabernacle, or the temple, was a miniature reproduction of things in heaven. It would be next to a travesty of God's plan of salvation to contend that there was an altar for burnt offerings in heaven with its grate and tongs and ash shovels and basins for catching the blood of victims, together with a layer for holding water for washing their bloody hands and tools. These things were made according to the pattern showed Moses in the mount. If we admit that any part of the tabernacle and its equipment was not reproductions of things in heaven, then we must conclude that God simply gave Moses directions for the construction of the tabernacle, and did not necessarily give him a view of heavenly things after which he was to make patterns.
If the layer and the altar of burnt offerings were not patterns of things in the heavens, then what right has any one to contend that any of the furniture or service was an exact duplicate of the heavenly?
But we hear someone quoting Heb. 9:23: "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."
An Object Lesson, not a Duplicate
This would seem to make the tabernacle and its furniture patterns of heavenly things. But the primary meaning of the Greek word from which "patterns" is translated in this text is not the meaning of the word pattern as used in our language. The Greek word is hupodeigma. It is used but six times in the New Testament, and in every case this is translated "example." Had the apostle intended to convey the idea of a pattern or model from which a duplicate was to be made, he would have used a different Greek word. The difference is well illustrated in Heb. 8:5. The word "example" in this verse is translated from the same Greek word as "patterns in Heb. 9:23, while the word "pattern" in this verse is translated from "tupos."
The Critical English Testament, in commenting on Heb. 9:23, says "Therefore—the conjunction implies that the things mentioned in ver. 18, are, as a matter of fact, included in this passage. (Delineations—that is, types, symbols; not as Eng. Ver., patterns. Alf.)"
The whole tabernacle service was a kindergarten lesson for the children of Israel to give them a right conception of heaven s method for the salvation of sinners. It was never intended to be a picture of things as they actually existed in heaven. The one central feature of the whole service, including the daily monthly, and yearly, was to picture to the human mind the love of God for sinful man as revealed by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus on the cross. This is the one over-powering lesson for which the tabernacle with all of its services was instituted. Any attempt to magnify the details of any of the services only detracts from the great lesson for which the service was instituted. Only a mistaken creed necessitates an exact duplicate of the earthly sanctuary in the heavenly court. And the exaltation of this mistaken creed has all but obscured the great truth to which it pointed, which culminated on the cross of Calvary.
It is impossible for the human mind to grasp heavenly things. We are limited in our understanding of things above to our experiences with things of this earth. God in His efforts to reveal Himself to us, is handicapped by our ignorance and our limited capacity. Some of the northern Eskimos had never tasted any kind of sweet before the white man came amongst them. What progress would he make in trying to explain to them the delicate flavors of honey or maple sugar? There is nothing in their experience to which he could compare them. There is no amount of education that the white man could pass on to the Eskimos that would give them any conception of the taste of any kind of sweet so long as they never had had the privilege of tasting these various sweets.
In the sight of God, we are the Eskimos. God tries to reveal to us heavenly things. In order to do so He uses object lessons. This was the purpose of the sanctuary; and when rightly understood it gave the worshippers a better conception of heaven's interest in man than he could get by any other method.
Kindergarten teachers use matches or toothpicks stuck in a piece of pasteboard to represent heavenly beings, and a block of wood to represent a temple in heaven. It would be just as consistent for the child to contend that the angels in heaven were toothpicks stuck in a board to hold them up as for the Bible teacher to contend that the tabernacle and its furniture were exact reproductions of things as they are in heaven.
All Bible students agree that the yearly service of the tabernacle was intended to be an object lesson of the completed work of salvation. That is, the Day of Atonement was the end of the entire service. It was intended to represent the end or completion of the heavenly service. There was nothing beyond service of the Day of Atonement. True, the daily service began the day after the atonement, but it was not a new service, it was simply a repetition of what had been carried on the year before.
The Holy of the Holies Represented the Presence of God
The holy of holies in the earthly tabernacle unquestionably represents something in heaven, and it is universally accepted among all Bible scholars that the earthly holy of holies was intended in some way to represent the presence or abode of God; but, can we conceive of confining God in any structure in heaven, much less confining Him in one room of an earthly structure, and that one room separated from an adjoining room by a curtain through which Christ was not privileged to pass for over eighteen centuries? Will any one contend that the heavenly sanctuary is lighted with seven wicks burning in golden bowls? Does God have on the other side of His dwelling-place a table on which a dozen loaves of bread are continually kept and changed each week? No one believes that heaven needs a vat for holding water, or an altar upon which victims are consumed, or a fence around the abode of God as was found surrounding the tabernacle in the wilderness. It is ridiculous to try to make the heavenly service an exact duplicate of the earthly. Every feature of the latter service was intended to teach some valuable lesson in the plan of salvation; but it was never intended to represent an actual duplicate service being conducted in heaven.
Christ's Priesthood is Not Governed by the Levitical Law
The denomination attempts to explain the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary in terms of the earthly sanctuary, and according to the Levitical law governing the priesthood. They seem to overlook the fact that Christ came from a different order of priesthood, viz, the Melchisedec and not the Aaronic. This is plainly stated in Heb. 7, and because there was a change of priesthood, "there is made of necessity a change also of the law." verse 12. Christ coming from an entirely different priesthood and serving under an entirely different law, cannot be confined or limited to the Levitical law governing the priesthood. At the crucifixion of Christ, the Levitical priesthood came to an end and the law governing the priesthood ceased to operate. Then why should the denomination insist in explaining the priesthood of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary after the pattern of the Levitical priesthood which not only ceased to have authority, but even the law governing that priesthood became inoperative?
Is it not plain to be seen that all attempts to reproduce the earthly type in heaven has a tendency to belittle God and His efforts for human salvation?
No Bible student, alive with the Holy Spirit ever separated Christ and the Father from each other, or confined Christ to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and moved God from one side of the curtain to the other until 1844. The pioneers themselves never even so much as imagined such a thing until years after the disappointment, and then it was invented as a means to escape acknowledging that they had been mistaken. Surely the sanctuary question needs a re-study.
How the Sanctuary was Defiled
The denomination bases its theory of the work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, upon the work of the priest in the earthly sanctuary. They teach that when a man was convicted of sin, he brought a lamb or a goat to the court of the tabernacle; laid his hands on the head of the animal, and confessed his sin. By this act his sin was transferred to the animal The victim was then slain, and the priest caught the blood, which they teach represented the sins of the individual; carrying it into the first apartment of the tabernacle, he sprinkled some of the blood on the altar of incense before the vail or as Elder Gilbert teaches, it was sprinkled on the vail.1
Inasmuch as only the blood of the lamb or goat over whose head an individual had confessed his sins was taken into the tabernacle, it was only confessed sins that defiled the tabernacle. They teach that the only way that sin could get into the tabernacle was by confession.2
This teaching that the sanctuary was defiled by the confession of sin, is confirmed by Mrs. White, and thus according to their teaching, their theory of the sanctuary question is confirmed by inspiration.3
It will be seen from these citations that had Israel never repented of their sins, the tabernacle would never have been defiled, and therefore there would have been no need of cleansing' the tabernacle. This interpretation is based upon two very serious errors, the first of which we will deal with in this chapter.
The Commission, not the Confession, of Sin Defiles
Should my child steal something from the village merchant that sin would reflect upon me; that sin would defile my sanctuary – it would dishonor my home and household. If a neighbor's child steals from the same merchant, that act does not defile my sanctuary – my home, for I am not responsible for the acts of that child. I am not her father; she is not my child. Again, when one member of a church sins, it casts a reproach upon the whole church and that church cannot be clean from that defilement unless the sinner repents and makes restitution or is cut off from the congregation. The family is not defiled by the child's confession of the sin; the confession belongs to the process of cleansing. The church is not defiled by the confession of the sinning member but by the sinning of the member.
When the father has punished the child for the sin which defiles the home, then that home is cleansed from that defilement; the people are able to see that the acts of the child are condemned by the father.
So, when Israel sinned, God, who had taken the position of Head of the family of Israel, must see to it that the sin which defiled His sanctuary was cleansed away. And this could only be done by the shedding of blood, for "without the shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22.
"Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death." "So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood it defileth the land; and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it." "Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel." Num. 35:31,33,34.
Here the whole question is clearly stated. The sin of murder, (represented by shedding the blood of the murdered man) defiled the land. And this sin could be cleansed from the land only by the death of the murderer, whose death was represented by his blood. The blood of the sinner or the sinner's substitute instead of defiling the land or the sanctuary, cleanses the land or the sanctuary.
The denominational theory of the defilement of the earthly sanctuary is not only not found in the Word of God, but is directly contrary to its teachings. There is no hint in the Word of God that confessed sins defiled anything. On the contrary, the Bible teaches very plainly that God's sanctuary was defiled by the sinning of the people.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say unto the children of Israel. whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name." Lev. 20:1-3.
This scripture plainly teaches that when a man in Israel offered his children in sacrifice to the idol Molech, this sinful act defiled the sanctuary of the Lord and profaned his holy name, because his name was associated with his sanctuary.
The defiling of the earthly sanctuary is used as a type of the defiling of the heavenly sanctuary.4 When they come to make this application, it leads almost to blasphemy. Inasmuch as, according to their theory, the earthly tabernacle was defiled by the confessed sins which were carried into the first apartment in the blood of the substitute victim, this necessitated a day of cleansing; therefore, to make the figure fit the heavenly service, they must in some way have the sanctuary defiled. The denominational teachers are not at all united in their explanation of the defilement of the heavenly sanctuary. Some of their teachers take the position that when a man confesses his sins, and accepts Christ as his atonement his sins are in some way transferred to the heavenly sanctuary where they were recorded and remain until the day of judgment.5
How Did Confessed Sins Get into the Tabernacle Before there was a Tabernacle?
By reading the explanation as given by vice president Branson, one is not just clear as to how the confessed sins get into the heavenly tabernacle, and again one is naturally confused in understanding how the confessed sins of God's people from Adam to Moses got into the heavenly sanctuary when there was no earthly sanctuary, and therefore no chance of carrying the blood which typified confessed sins into the tabernacle, and, as the denomination teaches that Christ never ministered in the heavenly sanctuary until after His ascension, how could the sins of the people for the 2500 years from Adam to Moses ever get into the heavenly sanctuary. We will leave this question for any defender of the denomination to answer. The denominational prophet is more specific in explaining how the sins of the redeemed get into the heavenly sanctuary, viz:
Making the Blood of Jesus Defile the Temple of God!
"As the sins of the people were anciently transferred in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ." Great Controversy (any edition until the ninth) p. 266.
Let the reader ponder this statement well. The Bible presents the blood of Christ as the cleansing medium for sin. It is never represented as defiling in any sense. To teach that the blood of Christ defiled the heavenly sanctuary is a close kin to blasphemy.
All the Christians of the world have always believed and taught that the blood of Christ cleansed from all sin, but the denomination, in order to maintain the creed, are driven to the extreme of making the blood of Christ a medium of defilement. No wonder this blasphemous statement has been eliminated from all recent editions of Great Controversy; but the fact still remains that this was published by the author and accepted by the denomination as a revelation from God.
We are quite convinced in our own mind that a large element in the denomination does not accept this awful teaching, but they are helpless to correct it because it is a fearful thing in the denomination to publicly disclaim that any statement in Mrs. White's writings is not inspired.
Not a Drop of Goat's or Lamb's Blood Was Ever Carried into the Tabernacle Except on the Day of Atonement
By way of introduction, we repeat that the whole system of their sanctuary doctrine rests on the supposition that the confessed sins of God's people were carried into the first apartment of the sanctuary in the blood and sprinkled before or on the vail, thus defiling the sanctuary, and consequently requiring a service of cleansing. Their position that the blood defiled the sanctuary is a piece of pure imagination entirely devoid of any scriptural evidence. Not a drop of goat's or lamb's blood was ever carried into the tabernacle except on the Day of Atonement.
There were but three cases when the blood of an animal was carried in and sprinkled before the vail. In each case it was the blood of a bullock, and not the blood of a lamb or goat. The first was when the high priest committed a sin and repented; he brought the blood of a bullock and sprinkled it before the veil. Lev. 4:3-6. The second was when the whole congregation sinned; a bullock was offered whose blood was sprinkled before the vail. Lev. 4:13-17. The third time the blood was taken into the first apartment was by the high priest in preparation for his entering into the most holy place on the Day of Atonement. Lev. 16:3-6.
Read the first nine chapters of the book of Leviticus, noting in part the burnt sacrifice 1:3-5; the peace offering 3:1-8; the case of the ruler committing sin, 4:22-25; the common people, 4: 27-34; the trespass offering, 5:6-9.
In every case, with the three above excepted, the blood instead of being carried into the first apartment of the tabernacle, was sprinkled on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and poured at the foot of the same altar. We reproduce one of the above examples which is practically the same in every case. This instruction is in case "when any one of the common people sinned through ignorance."
"And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
The Priests Never Ate any Flesh in the Tabernacle
It is also taught that the sins of those who made confession, were taken into the tabernacle by the priest eating the flesh of the sacrifice in the first apartment. This also is contrary to scripture. The expression "holy place" very frequently refers to the court of the tabernacle. The priests were instructed to boll the flesh of certain offerings in the holy place. Ex. 29:31, and to wash their garments in the holy place. Lev. 6:27; also, to take a bath in the holy place. Lev. 6:26 and to pour out wine in the holy place. Num. 28:7. No Bible student will contend that the first apartment of the tabernacle or temple was used as a kitchen to boil meat, or as a laundry to wash clothes, or a bathroom in which to take a bath or to dump a flagon of wine; neither was it used as a dining room. The scriptures define plainly where they were to eat the flesh of the offering. Lev. 6:26,
"The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation."
Until Elder John I. Easterly of Healdsburg, California, published his pamphlet, "The 2300 Day 1844 Doctrine Weighed and Found Wanting," no denominational publication, so far as we know, has ever recognized their mistake in regard to the blood being carried into the tabernacle. We have published it very widely since Bro. Easterly's pamphlet appeared. In some of the recent publications, the denomination teaches that the blood was sprinkled on the horns of the altar of burnt offering instead of being carried into the tabernacle. Others, in spite of all the evidence that has been produced, still teach this error. Prominent among them is Elder F. C. Gilbert, in his book "Messiah in His Sanctuary," published in 1937, and very warmly endorsed by the denominational paper, the Review & Herald. In a very recent book, The Sanctuary Service by M. L. Andreason, Pres. of Union College, and professor of Biblical Exegesis, SDA Theological Seminary located at Lincoln, Neb., he takes the true position that the blood of the daily sacrifices was not carried into the first apartment of the tabernacle.6
Although this defender of the faith recognizes that the old position is unbiblical in that the blood was not carried into the tabernacle, nevertheless he takes the position that the confessed sins did get into the tabernacle.7 In the old position it was easy to understand how the sins accumulated in the sanctuary. He simply asserts without proving that they did eventually get into the tabernacle.
This book The Sanctuary Service is prepared for the 1938 ministerial reading course of the denomination. Every minister in the denomination who can read English, is expected if not required to read this presentation of the sanctuary question. Every minister should have a copy of this issue of the Gathering Call as a supplement to their reading course. We will gladly furnish a copy to all who ask for it.
In the face of all the evidence that has been published for several years showing from the scriptures that the blood of the daily sacrifices was not taken into the tabernacle, neither was the flesh eaten in the tabernacle, the denomination in the current Sabbath School Quarterly – 4th quarter 1937, still teaches that the blood was carried into the tabernacle, and thus the holy place was defiled.7
"When this service had been faithfully performed, what was done with the sin of the individual? Lev. 4:35, last part.
This series of lessons is a disgrace to the denomination. Three times at least the statement is made that the blood of the daily offerings was carried into the first apartment and sprinkled before the vail. This is absolutely false, and we have good reason to believe that some of the committee who passed upon this series of lessons knew that these statements were false.
For over three years we have been calling attention to the fact that this was a false teaching, and we have at least three books published by the denomination, whose authors are leading officials in the denomination, and who have recognized in their books that the old teaching, that the blood Was carried into the first apartment of the sanctuary is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. It is shocking to think that the leaders of a denomination which makes such high claims as the SDAs do, could be guilty of continuing to teach what they know is not Biblical; that which they know is directly contrary to the teachings of the Bible.
It may be that some members of the examining committee were ignorant of this mistaken teaching, but we cannot believe that all of them were ignorant of this fact. Would to God we could get these facts before the honest laity. The common people should know that the Sabbath School Lessons are teaching falsehood. If the committee are knowingly teaching such untruths, then they should by all means be set aside, and honest men put in their places. If they are ignorant of the scriptures on this point, especially in view of the fact that it has been so repeatedly published, then they are in the category of the blind leaders of the blind, and should be retired.
Again, we say: this quarter's lessons are a disgrace to the denomination, and this disgrace cannot be removed except by a frank and humble confession. Such a confession would be a blessing to the confessors and to the denomination as a whole.
The American Standard Version which is supported by at least eight modern translations in our possession, renders Rev. 14:5 "there was no lie found in their mouth." It is not a lie to teach error unwittingly, but it certainly is a lie for people who know the truth to continue to teach error. Without a humble confession, none of the teachers who still knowingly continue to teach error regarding the sanctuary, can have any part with the 144,000.
One of the books that has recently come from the R&H publishing house should be placed in the same catalog as the Sabbath School Quarterly. We refer to Messiah in His Sanctuary by F. C. Gilbert. He is supposed to be the best authority on Hebrew in the denomination because of his Jewish nationality, and his special training in this field. He, like the Sabbath School Lessons, continues to teach that which is directly contrary to the teaching of the Word of God, and we know that his attention has been called to this error. He also continues, to teach that the blood of the daily offerings was carried into the first apartment of the tabernacle and by this means sins were transferred to the holy place. And this book is very highly recommended by the denominational paper. See R&H July 29, 1937.
Will anything but the judgment of God persuade the leaders to be honest with their people. Brethren, you will have an account to render before the judgment seat of God if you continue to be false shepherds to the flock. You may be able to quiet your conscience for the present by reasoning that it is expedient for the work to keep people in ignorance of the truth; but do you think that will work with God? Does God have to depend on deception to carry on His work? These things call loudly for reformation.
A most satisfactory method to make these corrections would be to heed the petition that came from the Australasian Committee, and call a council of Bible students to study this question; then publish to the denomination their findings.
How Did the Papacy Get into Heaven?
The denomination has another explanation of how the heavenly sanctuary was defiled. Our limited space will not permit our going into this in detail. In brief, the teaching is that the Roman Catholic Church defiled the heavenly sanctuary by its teaching that the means of salvation is according to their ritual.
This second position teaches that the little horn of Daniel 8 defiled the heavenly sanctuary by taking away the daily and "substituting its own mediatorial system for that of Christ" and thus "struck directly at the heavenly sanctuary and its service."
Another quotation will make this plainer. "The action which made the Pope the vicar of God and the high priest of the apostasy, really took away from Christ, as far as human intent and power were concerned, His place and work as the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), and this took away from Him, as far as man could take it away, the continual mediation, according to the prediction in this prophecy." Note on Dan. 8:11-13 in Bible Readings, p. 228.
In the study "A great prophetic period (the 2300 days of Dan. 8)" in Bible Readings, pp. 230-237, we find the following question and answer:
"17. What prophetic period, therefore, extends to the deliverance of God's people from the captivity in modem Babylon, and the restoration to them of the mediation of Christ?
We find the following note under this question:
"The commencement of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary marks the beginning of a new era in the experience of the people of God on earth; namely the deliverance from the power of modem Babylon, the restoration to them of the knowledge of the mediation of Christ for them in the heavenly sanctuary."
The same position is taken by the denomination in The Sanctuary Service prepared for the 1938 ministerial reading course. Speaking of the false teachings of the papacy, the author concludes with these words:
"All these claims would fall to the ground if men were only cognizant of the true ministry of Christ. A knowledge of the sanctuary truth is the only antidote to the false claims of the hierarchy of Rome. For this reason it is important to the papacy that the sanctuary subject remain unknown. For this reason God has made His people the depositaries of His truth concerning the sanctuary." p. 273
Luther Met the Papacy Without the Adventist Sanctuary
Will any one deny that Luther had an antidote for the false teachings of the papacy? History affords no greater nor more successful antidote to the false teachings of the papacy than were heralded to the world by Luther arid his followers, and none of them knew anything whatsoever of the sanctuary question as taught by SDAs. Millions of people since the days of Luther have successfully combated the teachings of the papacy without the slightest knowledge of the sanctuary question. Anyone depending on the teachings of the sanctuary question as presented by the denomination to meet the false position of the Roman Catholic Church, will meet with a most dismal failure.
Making the Papacy Defile the Sanctuary a Thousand Years Before It Came into Existence
This teaches that the heavenly sanctuary was defiled by the papacy. But how could the papacy get into heaven to defile it, the dwelling place of God? The teachings of the papacy had no influence in heaven whatever. None of the inhabitants of heaven were deceived by the false teachings of the papacy. The only deception that she practiced is here on the earth. The cleansing necessary to purge away the defilement of the papacy could not be carried on in heaven, for heaven was not defiled by the papacy. The cleansing most certainly should be applied where the defilement was made. The papacy took away the work of Christ in man's behalf from the minds of the people here on this earth, therefore the only cleansing that was necessary was to take away that deception from the minds of men, and not from the heavenly sanctuary. And the cleansing would certainly be after the order of defilement. If the papacy occupied the place of Christ and thus defiled the heavenly sanctuary, then the only way by which the heavenly sanctuary could be cleansed would be by removing the papacy from its false position. And that would be wholly confined to the sphere of men in earth and not in heaven. The enlightenment of the people in regard to the deceptions of the papacy was an earthly and not a heavenly work. True it was God who inspired human agents to do this work, but they did it on earth and not in heaven.
Again, it will be noted that nothing happened to the papacy in 1844 which removed her from her false position. This was accomplished by the great reformation and the introduction of the Word of God in the language of the common people. This was accomplished over three hundred years before 1844. This part of the creed needs to be corrected, and the only way it can be corrected is to completely abandon it as a piece of folly.
The Day of Atonement
So far as the record goes the Day of Atonement was never observed till the Israelites came out of Egypt, 2500 years after the fall of Adam. It is found but once in the New Testament (Rom. 5:11), but in all reliable translations it is rendered "reconciliation."
The work of the Day of Atonement is very plainly described in Lev. 16. The essentials of this day were the selection of two goats and their disposition. The high priest cast lots on these two goats; one for the Lord's goat and the other for the scapegoat.
After making prescribed preparations the high priest slew the goat that was selected for the Lord's goat, carried the blood into the most holy place and sprinkled the blood upon and before the mercy seat seven times. Following this service, he laid his hands on the head of the live goat and "confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of, Israel ... putting them upon the head of the goat and then sent him away" by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. This goat, it was said, "shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land of separation." Lev. 16:21, 22, margin.
This service was repeated once every year. It was all a type of something. All Christian Bible students agree that the slaying of the Lord's goat was an object lesson of the death of Christ on the cross. There is not such unity of opinion regarding the scapegoat; but all agree that they were both types which pointed forward to some future event. Few if any except Jews and SDAs deny that the typical services of the Day of Atonement came to an end at the cross.
The Atonement was Made During the 70 Weeks
The unanimous teaching of the denomination, including their prophet, placed the atonement this side of 1844, but this, like all of their sanctuary teaching, is contrary to the Bible. In the Septuagint translation Dan. 9:24 reads:
"Seventy weeks have been determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy."
This is a correct translation for it is in harmony with the original. The word "reconciliation" as found in the Authorized Version, is translated from the Hebrew word kaphar. It is found 95 times in the OT, and is translated atonement 73 times. This Hebrew word is found 16 times in the sixteenth chapter of Lev., the chapter giving directions for the Day of Atonement and it is translated "atonement" 15 times. In the 20th verse it is rendered "reconciling" but here it is translated "atonement" in the Septuagint version.
If Dan. 9:24 teaches anything about the atonement it certainly teaches that atonement was made before the close of the "seventy weeks," and therefore no place can be found for it this side of 1844. The NT writers are unanimous in teaching that the atonement was made on the cross. To this agree all the men of God, except SDAs, both before and after 1844.
A Knotty Question
Question: If the Day of Atonement did not begin until 1844 then why should the typical Day of Atonement have ceased to be celebrated by Christians this side of the cross?
Mrs. White says:
"The intercession of Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was his death upon the cross." Great Controversy, p. 489.
If the work which is now going on in the sanctuary above is as essential as Christ's death upon the cross, why then should not the type calling attention to that great essential have continued until that work (the atonement) began? If the typical service had been continued till 1844, when SDAs say the atonement began, the Christian world would not have forgotten it for 1800 years, and it would have been understood by those who gave the 1844 message hence they would have been spared the great mistake of 1844, and would have been kept from floundering for ten years or more before they discovered this alleged important truth.
Turn again to Lev. 16 and read afresh the doings of the Day of Atonement. How long did this day last? How much time elapsed between the killing of the goat and the taking of its blood into the most holy place and the sending of the live goat out of the camp? Can you find any eighteen centuries between the two? Mrs. White says: "We are now living in the great Day of Atonement." GC 490. And this day she teaches, began on Oct. 22, 1844. If the death of the Lord's goat met its antitype in the death of Christ on the cross, then why should we be expected to wait over 1800 years after the cross to begin the Day of Atonement? Where can you find anything in the type that hinted at such a lapse of time?
The ancient Day of Atonement lasted but 24 hours. Why should the beginning of that day in the antitype be delayed for 1800 years after Christ shed his blood and then when it did start, continue for nearly 100 years? And no telling how much longer it will continue. To any candid mind this seems to be altogether out of harmony with the type. The scapegoat was sent to the wilderness immediately after the blood of the goat was sprinkled on the mercy seat. If the Day of Atonement began in 1844, why shouldn't the scapegoat have been sent to the wilderness in 1844? If the type is any guide to our understanding of the antitype, we would be in great difficulty, for no goat could live that long, and the scapegoat would have died a natural death before he was sent out of the camp.
The denomination teaches that Christ closed a door of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844, (see Early Writings, pp. 42, 43, 251), but there is nothing on the earthly service to indicate the shutting of any door. The only antecedent for such a notion is found in the teaching for seven years that the "door of mercy" was closed in 1844 to all but Advent believers.
The pioneers, including Mrs. White, taught that as the Aaronic high priest carried the names of the twelve tribes of Israel into the most holy place on the Day of Atonement so Christ carried all the names of those who could be saved on His breast-plate as He entered the most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844. But this too, is contrary to the type, for the high priest did not wear the breastplate when he went into the holiest on the Day of Atonement. (See Lev. 16:4, 23.)
The many inconsistent and unscriptural interpretations of the sanctuary question, as taught by the denomination have troubled the thinking Bible teachers in their ranks for many years until some of them have ceased to discuss the question or to teach it in public. This question is sadly in need of a re-study.
This is one of the questions which prompted the Australasian delegation to petition the general conference to call a general council for the purpose of restudying. The failure or refusal of the general conference to call such a council is a strong indication that they recognize the weakness of their teaching on this subject and fear to have this fundamental feature of the creed exposed to the light of investigation.
For the consideration of those who have a desire to re-examine the sanctuary question, whether a council is called or not, we turn from the negative to the positive side of this question.
Bear in mind that the events of the ancient service of atonement were performed in one day of 24 hours. There is no warrant in separating these events. All agree that the death of the Lord's goat met its fulfillment on the cross, therefore if we are to be guided by the type we must find the fulfillment of that part which applies to the scapegoat not far removed from the death of Christ.
Details of the Day of Atonement
That we may better understand the evidence let us get the facts regarding the ancient service well in mind.
The scapegoat was not killed on the Day of Atonement, but he was taken to a land of separation on that day.
When he was taken to the wilderness, he was not expected to die an unnatural death. The wilderness was his natural habitat and he was free to wander at large. He was not bound.
The natural, and I believe, correct inference is that he was never allowed to return to the camp.
The Death of the Scapegoat Was no Part of the Day of Atonement
The death or end of the scapegoat is no part of the Day of Atonement, and is therefore not revealed in this day's service, neither was there any punishment pronounced upon him.
We will take it for granted that all believe that when Satan is introduced into sacred history he is represented as a fallen angel or a heavenly being whose dwelling place was in the presence of God and His Son Jesus Christ. That he had access to the councils of God while carrying on his work here on the earth, is a Bible fact.
"There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came also among them." Job 1:6 and 2:1. In commenting on this scripture Mrs. White says:
"The Scriptures declare that upon one occasion, when the angels of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan came also among them." GC 518.
This teaches that Satan had access to the presence of God and the angels in the time of Job, centuries after the fall of Satan.
That Satan was a member of the heavenly family before sin entered his heart, is affirmed by the denomination as is also the fact that he was cast out of heaven.
When Was Satan Cast Out?
We now come to the important feature of this discussion: When was Satan cast out of heaven? There are two phases of this question each of which can number its supporters among Bible students. First, he was cast out before the fall of man, but had access to heaven after he was cast to the earth. Second, he was permitted to remain in heaven long after his fall but was permitted to carry on his work among men on this planet.
I can recall no scripture that would indicate that he was cast to the earth at his fall, while there are texts which teach that he was cast out millenniums after sin entered his heart.
In speaking of the coming of the Holy Spirit Jesus said: "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." Jn. 16:8-11. This was to follow the ascension of Christ, when the Holy Spirit should come. There was some judgment to be pronounced against the prince of this world at the time of the crucifixion.
"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Jn. 12: 31. This was spoken just a few days before the crucifixion, and notice it says "NOW," not in the past. It was a current event. All agree that "the prince of this world" is Satan. From where was Satan cast out? Certainly not out of the world for he has been among us unto the present day. And it would have been of no special importance to cast him out of the heart of some believer, for this was an everyday event during Christ's ministry. Luke 10:18 evidently answers the inquiry: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven."
John the Revelator records some very convincing evidence on the question under consideration.
"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out; that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Rev. 12:7-9.
This plainly teaches that Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven into the earth, and the context indicates that this was an event connected with Christ's experience on this earth.
Satan Cast Out at the Time of the Crucifixion
That Satan was cast out of heaven this side of the fall is confirmed by Rev. 12:10. "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of the brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Before he was "cast down" he was in the presence of God "day and night" accusing the brethren.
This privilege ceased when "he was cast out into the earth." While he was in the presence of God, he was accusing the brethren. Before the fall of our first parents there were no brethren to accuse before God, therefore he must have been cast out of heaven this side of the fall.
There are two major topics in the twelfth chapter of Revelation; the history of the woman that brought forth "the man child" and the account of casting Satan out of heaven. The story of the woman begins with the chapter and continues to the 6th verse, when the account of the dragon is introduced in verses 7 to 13, and then the story of the woman is continued to the end of the chapter.
The casting out of Satan is therefore closely associated with the birth and ascension of Christ. The dragon stood ready to devour the child as soon as it was born. When the man child was "caught up to God" the dragon was cast down and 'when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child." Verse 13.
The casting out of Satan brought forth a chorus of praise from the host of heaven, "Therefore rejoice ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them." v. 12. But this rejoicing in heaven was mingled with woe because of the inhabitants of the earth. "Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth he hath but a short time."
This rejoicing was in heaven and was caused by the banishment of Satan from their midst, following the "war in heaven," and it was in connection with the birth and ascension of Christ. The denomination teaches, and rightly I think, that when Satan sinned the heavenly host not knowing the nature of sin held some sympathy for him, therefore, the Father was obliged to allow Satan to develop his character sufficiently to let the angels see the true character of the enemy. The enmity that he manifested toward Christ in putting Him to death so revealed his nature that all the host of heaven except his followers, had no more sympathy for him, and then he was cast out of heaven never again to be privileged to return.
When Satan was cast out of heaven, he at once began to persecute the woman that brought forth the man child. This locates the time. It was after the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. And truly history confirms this view.
A New Thing This Side of the Cross
Before the cross God's people were comparatively free from persecution. True, the Israelites were sorely oppressed by the nations around them, but this was not persecution for their righteousness, but punishment for their apostasy. When they were faithful to God no nation ever disturbed them. There is no example in the OT of the Israelites being persecuted for their loyalty to God. There are a few individual cases, but most of the recorded cases were events of great deliverance to the glory of God.
But how different this side of the cross. The whole history of God's people for over 1800 years has been one continuous persecution, not for apostasy but for righteousness, and the cruelty has been the most bitter that the Devil could invent. Truly the Devil "has come down having great wrath" and has "persecuted the woman" without mercy.
The Holy Spirit did not descend till after the ascension of Christ. Why shouldn't He have been sent immediately after the fall? There is a reason. A special emergency arose which necessitated His presence here, following the departure of the Lord. Satan was cast out of heaven and confined to this earth and he began a war on the people of God that was a thousand-fold more severe than was ever before known. The followers of Christ had to meet an unseen foe in a combat never experienced by theft fathers. Satan had, "come down having great wrath." "He persecuted the woman." "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed." The Holy Ghost was commissioned to this earth at the time the dragon was cast out of heaven to meet his new raging warfare. All these events fit perfectly together, and make one harmonious whole.
We certainly are warranted in believing that the death of Christ was the crowning point which led to the expulsion of Satan from heaven. He is not only guilty of the death of Christ but he is responsible for the sins of the entire human race, in that he was the one who tempted them to sin.
Day of Atonement complete at the Cross
Returning to the Day of Atonement, we find a complete fulfillment of the types in the events of the time of the crucifixion. Christ's death on the cross fulfilled the type of the slaying of the Lord's goat, and just following His resurrection He ascended to His Father and His sacrifice was accepted. Proof: After quoting Jn. 20:17, "Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to My Father," Mrs. White says:
"Jesus quickly ascended to His Father to hear from His lips that He accepted the sacrifice, and to receive all power in heaven and upon earth... The same day He returned, and showed Himself to His disciples." Early Writings pp. 187, 188.
Thus was completed the Day of Atonement so far as it applied to Christ. His blood was shed and immediately after His resurrection He entered the most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary and the Father accepted His sacrifice and pronounced it ample and complete. Following this, there "was war in heaven" and the scapegoat, Satan, was cast out of heaven "into a land of separation," this earth. And so, the entire Day of Atonement was completed in a very brief space of time in perfect harmony with the type.
The Investigative Judgment
History of this Doctrine
The first angel's message or "investigative judgment," as it is called in Advent parlance, was given by William Miller and his followers prior to Oct. 22, 1844. They gave the correct interpretation of this message. The idea that a cleansing work was to take place in heaven never entered their minds. They taught that the judgment of the first message was the destruction of the wicked.
After the great disappointment of Oct. 22, 1844, they lived in almost daily expectation of the Lord's return. As they continued to look and wait, they were plunged into deeper and deeper perplexity. Explanations of their disappointment multiplied. As new theories were advanced the Advent band was divided into many factions. There were two outstanding differences of interpretation which resulted in parting the Advent believers into two very hostile camps. These two teachings related to the close of probation and the termination of the 2,300 days. The seventh-day Sabbath came in a little later which widened the breach between the two factions.
Early in 1845 one group began teaching that they had made a mistake in their reckoning and therefore the 2300 days did not end in 1844. They readjusted their figures and continued to set dates for the termination of the prophetic period and the coming of the Lord. For a time, they also taught the "shut door" but in April 1845 they met in conference in Albany, NY, and repudiated the "shut door," and went to work to convert sinners. This group turned against the seventh-day Sabbath and were therefore called First-day Adventists.
The other group, led by James White and wife, Joseph Bates, and others, continued to stand stoutly for the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, the "shut door" and later for the seventh-day Sabbath. They of course were called Seventh-day Adventists. These outstanding differences which distinguished the two groups, no well-informed, honest Adventist will deny.
Both factions continued to set time for the Lord to return: the one by readjusting the time of the termination of the 2300 days; the other by speculation on what was going on in heaven.
The followers of the Whites never varied from their teaching that the 2300 days terminated Oct. 22, 1844. Having fixed the date their only explanation lay in the event that took place in 1844. Both groups were blessed with fertile imaginations and they made good use of them. One ran wild on shifting dates for the beginning and ending of the prophetic periods, while the other kept pace by portraying heavenly scenes, and by this means shifted dates for the Lord to come.
Early in their disappointment the SDAs taught that Christ went into the presence of the Father to receive His kingdom, and would therefore return to the earth after the coronation. This was of short life. Then He had gone into the most holy to make atonement; later they had to be sealed with the Sabbath. The last and most permanent theory, the one still taught, is known as the investigative judgment.
The investigative judgment as taught by the denomination is an invention, and not a discovery. It was the outgrowth of a series of very grievous disappointments. For brevity we will use IJ for investigative judgment.
The Investigative Judgment Defined
We will let the defenders of the doctrine define what they mean by the IJ.
"The investigative judgment takes place prior to the second advent, and the resurrection of the just, that it may be known who are worthy of the first resurrection." James White, Life Incidents, p. 323.
The Review and Herald, Oct. 29, 1931, affirms that the IJ is not to inform God, because He knows, "because He is infinite; but men and angels do not know because they, both men and angels, are finite. The reason for a judgment, then is that finite beings may not only believe that God is just, but that they may know both the perfection of His justice and the depth of His mercy."
In this statement the denominational paper puts itself squarely against their own prophet in two points. First, Mrs. White and all the denominational literature teach that the IJ is for the purpose of informing God; and second, Mrs. White repeatedly states that the angels do know as well as God. In Testimonies Vol. 1, p. 544, she says: "Heavenly angels are acquainted with our words and actions, and even with the thoughts and intents of the heart." See also Vol. 2, pp. 181, 442; G. C. p. 488.
The R. and H. teaches that the dead are unconscious till the first resurrection, therefore no IJ can inform the dead till after the coming of Christ when they are returned to life. Also, the denomination, including Mrs. White, teaches that the IJ is finished before the resurrection, that God "may know who is worthy of the first resurrection." If the IJ is all finished before the first resurrection, then poor finite men will never have the privilege of knowing either the "perfection of His justice" or "depth of His mercy."
Then how inconsistent to teach that an IJ began in 1844, if God and the angels know "every secret sin" and "the thoughts and intents of the heart" and the dead are unconscious till the IJ is all finished.
The Investigative Judgment in Progress Ninety-Three Years
"The judgment is now passing in the sanctuary above. Forty years has this work been in progress. Soon – none know how soon – it will pass to the cases of the living." Mrs. E. G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 315. Published in 1884.
If it had been in progress for forty years in 1884, it has now been in progress for over ninety-three years [as of 1937].
James White Stoutly Opposed the Investigative Judgment
The theory of the IJ is not only contrary to the Scriptures, but is also contrary to the teachings of the pioneers including Mrs. White. Capt. Bates taught the IJ not many years after the disappointment but James White vigorously combated the Bates theory. After quoting Matt. 25:31-33, he says:
"This scripture evidently points out the most important events of the day of Judgment. That day will be 1000 years long. 1 Pet 3:7, 8. The event which will introduce the Judgment day, will be the coming of the Son of Man, to raise the sleeping saints, and to change those that are alive at that time...
This was published in May, 1847, yet Brother Bates continued to teach his theory of the IJ.
IJ Contrary to the Visions
To meet this heresy of Capt. Bates, Mrs. White had a vision Jan. 5, 1849, in confirmation of her husband's stand on the judgment. In this vision she says:
"I saw that the anger of the nations, the wrath of God, and the time to judge the dead, were separate and distinct, one following the other." Early Writings, p. 36.
These quotations show that James White and his wife did not believe the IJ would begin until after the first resurrection.
Mrs. White defined the wrath of God to mean the seven last plagues. (See Early Writings p. 64). We can therefore substitute "seven last plagues" in the above quotation for the wrath of God.
It would then read,
"I saw that the anger of the nations, the seven last plagues, and the time to judge the dead, were separate and distinct, one following the other."
This was given Jan. 5, 1849. Therefore, the seven last plagues must have come before this date, or the IJ had not commenced.
IJ Without Foundation in the Word of God
But we have more positive evidence on the part of James White against the IJ in the Advent Review of Sept., 1850, James White says:
"Some have contended that the day of judgment was prior to the second advent. This view is certainly without foundation in the word of God...
Language could not be stronger to show that the Whites did not believe in an investigative judgment up to the close of 1850, six years after the disappointment. Notice some of the strong expressions in this article: "that the day of judgment was prior to the second advent...is certainly without foundation in the Word of God." Notice that he also states most positively that the first angel's message "does not prove that the day of judgment came in 1840, or 1844, nor that it will come prior to the second advent."
Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, 14.
Also, it is worthy of note that Elder White uses Dan. 7:9-11 to prove that the judgment could not begin prior to the second coming of Christ. For several years this scripture has been used by the denomination to prove that the IJ began in 1844; while Brother White uses it as forcibly to prove that it could not begin prior to the first resurrection.
Since about 1857 till a few years ago the denomination has united in teaching that Dan. 7:9, 10, 13, 14 announced the beginning of the IJ. Of the many proofs in support of this fact we cite but one. After quoting the above scripture Mrs. White says:
"Thus was presented to the prophet's vision the opening of the investigative judgment." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 307.
Some of the Bible students in the denomination have recognized the shallowness of such an application and have tried to correct the blunder. In the Sabbath School Quarterly for third quarter, 1927, page 30, is found a lesson on the IJ We reproduce two questions from this study:
"Question 17. Who are to be judged after the saints are taken with Jesus to Heaven? 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; 2 Pet. 2:9.
This is the true interpretation of Dan. 7:9, 10, and agrees with the position of James White in 1850.
IJ Not Indorsed for Ten Years After 1844
The investigative judgment as it is held today, was not introduced into the denominational literature aside from Capt. Bates' privately published pamphlets for at least ten years after the disappointment. In the spring of 1854 Elder Loughborough suggested the idea of the IJ in a private letter. The idea seemed to strike Uriah Smith, Assistant Editor of the R&H, favorably, as his published comments on Elder L's letter indicate. The idea lay dormant for about three years before it received any consideration in the R&H Smith and Loughborough were not among the pioneers until 1852, both being too young to take any part in the '44 movement. Evidently, they were not conversant with the position taken by James White and endorsed by Mrs. White in vision regarding this subject before they connected with the work.
James White and His Wife Contradict Themselves
The strong position taken by James White and his wife against the IJ, was too fresh in their minds, and too fresh in the minds of their followers, for them to reverse their position so soon. Elder White waited, therefore, for about three years before endorsing the suggestion.
In the R&H of Jan. 29, 1857, James White reversed himself and endorsed the teaching of an IJ. For a number of years after the 1851 disappointment they floundered without any definite message regarding the advent. They felt most keenly the lack of something to mark the close of the 2300 days. Every explanation thus far had proved a dismal failure. The First-day Adventists were teaching that the 2300 days did not terminate in 1844. This the SDAs most stoutly combated. The people were demanding an explanation of what did take place in 1844 if the 2300 days ended at that time. They were completely without an answer. They had to find something to mark the termination of this long period, or capitulate to their most bitter enemies, the First-day Adventists. The IJ offered their only escape. Therefore, James White shut his eyes to his former position and enthusiastically supported the IJ which a few years before he had stoutly combated.
After James White reversed himself and was teaching the I.J. Mrs. White had another vision in which she was shown that the IJ began in 1844. Her husband reversed himself in 1857, and Mrs. White followed suit in vision in 1858. SG, Vol. 1, p. 198.
The IJ stands or falls on the meaning of the term "within the vail." For over seventy years the denomination has taught that "within the vail," meant in the holy, or first apartment of the heavenly temple Proof of this is legion, but because of limited space we will introduce but one testimony—but one which no S.D.A. will dare to dispute, we quote from Great Controversy, p. 420.
"The ministration of the priest throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary, 'within the vail' which formed the door and separated the holy place from the outer court, represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at His ascension."
But if it can be shown from the Scriptures that the expression "within the vail" is applied to the most holy apartment of the sanctuary, then Christ entered the most holy at His ascension and the argument that He waited till Oct. 22, 1844 before entering the most holy apartment of the heavenly sanctuary falls to the ground.
Within the Vail
"Within the vail" is a Bible term, therefore we must go to the Bible to find what it means. My S.D.A. brother[/sister], are you willing to test your interpretation by this standard and abide by the evidence?
The phrase "within the vail" is found but once in the New Testament but it appears five times in the Old. It being a borrowed term from the time of the tabernacle service we must necessarily go to the Old Testament for an explanation of its meaning. For the convenience of the reader we reproduce every example of its use in the OT in the order in which they appear.8
Without the Vail
If within the vail refers to the second apartment then without the vail must apply to the first apartment in which were located the candlestick, the altar of incense, and the table of shew-bread. This expression is found four times in the Bible.9
As truly as the term "within the vail" refers to the most holy place, the term "without the vail," refers' to the holy place. There are no exceptions.
Before the Vail
"Before the vail," like "without the vail" always refers to the first apartment. It is used but four times.10
The word "vail" as applied to the tabernacle is found 25 times in the Old Testament, and in every case it is applied to the curtain between the first and second apartments. True, the door to the tabernacle was a curtain, but the 0. T. writers never called it a Vail, much less "the vail." It is called "the hanging for the door" or "the door of the tabernacle," and "before the door of the tabernacle" always refers to the court in front of the tabernacle.
The Vail In the New Testament
The word "vail" (or veil, as it is spelled) referring to the temple is found six times in the New Testament. In Matt 27:51 Mark 15:38, and Lu. 23:45 we find the account of the rending of the veil at the death of Christ. That the veil in these three gospels refers to the curtain between the first and second apartments no loyal S. D. A. will dare deny, for Mrs. White teaches that it refers to the curtain between the two apartments.11
These citations show that Mrs. White taught that when the NT uses the term "the vail" without qualification, it means the curtain between the two apartments. And let no one try to dodge the force of this fact by affirming that the temple in the time of Christ had but one curtain, for Mrs. White, at least twice speaks of the curtain that was rent at the time of Christ, as "the inner veil" see Desire of Ages, pp. 165, 765. If it was the "inner veil" then there must have been an outer vail.
The other three uses of the vail in the NT are found in the epistle to the Hebrews.
We now come to the climax of the controversy; what does "within the vail" mean in Heb. 6:19, 20? It reads, "Which entereth into that within the vail; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec."12
In every other place where the phrase "within the vail" is used in the entire Bible it always, without exception, refers to the most holy place. Wherever the word "vail" or "veil" is found in the entire Bible, used in connection with the sacrificial services, it also means the curtain between the first and second apartment, unless it is this one in Heb. 6:19. Mrs. White herself defines "the veil" when used without qualification, as the curtain dividing the two apartments.
With all this array of evidence what authority has anyone to teach that "within the vail" in Heb. 6:19 refers to the first apartment? There isn't a heresy in all the religious world so hopelessly without Bible foundation as the teaching that "within the veil" means in the first apartment. If the SDAs have a right to teach that "within the veil" means in the first apartment, then the Sunday advocate has an equal or greater right to teach that "Sabbath" in the N.T. means the first day of the week. And my brother[/sister], they may drive you into a very uncomfortable corner unless you correct this outstanding blunder.
What Does It Mean?
If "within the vail" means in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, then Christ was in the most holy place when Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews. If Christ was in the most holy place in the days of Paul, then He did not move from the holy to the most holy in 1844.
The idea that Christ waited till 1844 to go into the presence of the Father is not only an unadulterated piece of imagination without even the shadow of support in the entire Bible, but is contrary to the united teachings of the Scriptures. Whenever the position of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary is mentioned, He is always placed in the holy of holies. Mark says, "He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." 16:19. Peter places Him "by the right hand of God exalted." Acts 2:33; 1 Pet. 3:22. Stephen saw Him "standing on the right hand of God." Acts 7:55. Paul, no less than seven times recognizes Christ at "the right hand of God.". See Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2.
No Bible student this side of John, aside from SDAs, ever thought of retaining Christ in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary a single day after His ascension. All the apostles, reformers, and Bible teachers recognized Him "at the right hand of God." in the very presence of the Father; and there they directed their prayers. Mrs. White most certainly told the truth when she wrote that Satan answered all the prayers that were directed to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, (see Early Writings, p. 261) for no well-informed Christian ever thought of directing his prayers to any other place than the very presence of God, Who has always been in the most holy place. To accuse anyone who has ever prayed of directing his prayers to the first apartment is an insult to his intelligence; and for anyone to teach that Christ remained in the first apartment till 1844 and then moved into the second apartment is a disgrace to his intelligence.
SDAs Most Abusive of Other Churches
Seventh-day Adventists teach that the members of other churches are "children of their father, the devil;" that their prayers are answered by the devil; that "their prayers, and their exhortations, are an abomination in the sight of God," and that "God will not smell in their assemblies;" that "Satan has taken full possession of the churches as a body; and that they have "been filling up with every unclean and hateful bird."
"And by rejecting the two former messages, they can see no light in the third angel's message, which shows the way into the Most Holy place. I saw that the nominal churches, as the Jews crucified JESUS, had crucified these messages, and therefore they have no knowledge of the move made in heaven, or of the way into the Most Holy, and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of JESUS there. Like the Jews, who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which JESUS has left, and Satan, pleased with the deception of the professed followers of CHRIST, fastens them in his snare, and assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed Christians to himself, and works with his power, his signs and lying wonders... I saw false reformations everywhere. The churches were elated, and considered that God was marvelously working for them, when it was another spirit," Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, pp. 171, 172.
All of the above quotations from Spiritual Gifts are found in a modified form in Early Writings, pp. 261, 274, 228, 236.
When it Was Wrong to be Right and Right to be Wrong
And what is the cause of such a dreadful condition of all churches except the S.D.A. Church? It was because they were so familiar with their Bibles that they rejected Miller's unscriptural teaching; and some of the outstanding leaders pointed out to Miller, before the passing of the time, that his interpretation of the prophecies was wrong, and that he was doomed to a great disappointment.
Another cause of God's anger against them was because they did not know that James White, his wife, and Joseph Bates moved the throne of God and His Son from one side of a curtain in heaven to the other side, on Oct. 22, 1844. The whole praying world this side of the cross never thought of praying to the Father in the first apartment of the heavenly temple; they all, at all times directed their prayers to the inner sanctuary where God was. But SDAs committed all Christians – except themselves – to damnation for continuing to pray after Oct. 22, 1844 just as they did before Oct. 22, 1844. They also taught - and that by their brand of inspiration - that the devil answered prayers directed to the wrong side of a curtain in heaven. These believers, who continued after 1844 to direct their prayers to the same place that Peter, James, John, Paul, Luther, Wesley and all other followers of the Master directed their prayers, were classed as "children of their father, the devil," and called rebels against God for not changing the address on their prayer envelopes to the address Mrs. White gave them in vision, no, not to them but to a little group of her followers. They had no means of knowing that Jesus had moved, for Miller and his followers never mentioned such a move, neither did they believe such a doctrine; and Mrs. White did not know it for many months after the disappointment, and when she did find it out she and her group refused to teach, or labor for, or pray for any but the Advent believers, because "God had rejected all the wicked world."
Ignorance of Righteousness by Faith for 44 Years
But the worst is yet to follow. All the time they were boasting that they were "the only church," the special favorites of God, and were as "sure that they had the truth as that God lives," they were entirely ignorant of the great central truth of the gospel - righteousness by faith. They knew nothing of righteousness by faith until the Minneapolis conference in 1888, and the two men that brought that truth to them were degraded from the ministry and dismissed from the church for refusing to accept Mrs. White's writings as of equal authority with the Bible. And when this truth was brought to them, they refused to accept it.
Mrs. White says, "There is not one in one hundred who understands for himself the truth on this subject (justification by faith) that is so necessary to our present and eternal welfare." Review and Herald, Sept. 3, 1889. Quoted by A. G. Daniells in Christ Our Righteousness, p. 106.
Could anything be more ridiculous? Here is a church claiming to be called of God to carry the last message of mercy to the last generation and not knowing anything about the very foundation of saving truth for the first 44 years of their existence and when it was brought to them they rejected it and not one in a hundred understood it. And while they were barren of the great truth of righteousness by faith, they were condemning all other churches, who were teaching this saving truth, to perdition because they refused to accept Miller's errors and did not know that Jesus had moved into a smaller room in heaven. And with all their boasting and their abuse of other churches, they deny that the atonement was made on the cross. They are truly right in their application of the Laodicean message (Rev. 3:14-18) to themselves, for they teach that "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked."
Moving God to Fit the Creed
Their sanctuary theory leads into a labyrinth of error and confusion. Let us take a running view of this galaxy of confusion. In order to maintain this fundamental of their creed they are obliged to teach that, —
The sanctuary was deified by the confession of sin instead of the commission of sin. Only confessed sins were carried into the tabernacle, and that was done by carrying the blood of the sinner's substitute into the tabernacle. This, as we have shown, is all contrary to the teachings of the Bible.
Christ did not enter into the presence of God at his ascension but remained in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary until 1844, at which time "He was surrounded by angels, and in a flaming chariot He passed within the second vail." Early Writings p. 251. This position necessitates their teaching that the term, "within the vail," means without the vail. We have shown that "within the vail" is a Bible term which is never applied to any other place than the most holy, or second apartment of the sanctuary.
Recognizing the unanimous testimony of the New Testament that Christ "sat down at the right hand of the Father" at his ascension, they are driven to move God, the Father from the most holy into the first apartment of the sanctuary on Oct 22, 1844. This is contrary to the type, to the Bible, to reason, and to the united teaching of the prophets and all Bible students. They also teach that God moved His throne at the same time. According to the type there was nothing in the second apartment but the symbol of the throne of God. This puts them in the ridiculous position of teaching that an entirely empty room was most holy, or more holy than the first apartment where the throne of God was located with the Father and Son sitting thereon.
This leads to another very ridiculous situation. If any books were kept in heaven prior to 1844 they certainly were not kept in the most holy place, for according to type no one was allowed to enter the most holy place until the Day of Atonement. Then they must have been kept in the first apartment or outside of the sanctuary altogether. Why move the throne of God, together with God and the Son and all the books containing all the deeds of all the human race from the time of Adam to 1844, from the holy place into the most holy for no other purpose than to audit these books? What would a railroad company, or any other big business do with their president if he shut himself off for months or years to give his time to auditing the company's books? They hire men of less value to them to audit their books. Couldn't the angels, who, according to Mrs. White, kept the books, audit them without confining the Father for a hundred years or more to such menial work? And why should God institute "the greatest and most important religious movement this world has ever witnessed" to announce that He had moved from one side of a curtain to the other side to confine Himself to such menial work as auditing a set of books that would require His time for a hundred years?
About 1857, thirteen years after the disappointment, they fell back on what is called the investigative judgment as the only event which marked the close of the 2300 years. This feature of their creed degrades God to a level even below an ordinary book-keeper, for it teaches that God is obliged to examine the books Himself in order to know "who is worthy of eternal life." They deny that the investigative judgment is for the purpose of informing God, but we have produced evidence from a source which they claim is inspired, that the IJ is for the purpose of informing God.
The IJ is entirely contrary to type, for there was nothing on the ancient Day of Atonement that gave even a hint that the high priest examined any books while he was in the most holy place.
They Deny the Atonement Was Made on the Cross
In order to support their sanctuary theory, they are obliged to deny that the atonement was made on the cross. Says Elder Smith: "Christ did not make the atonement when he shed his blood upon the cross. Let this fact be fixed forever in the mind." Looking unto Jesus, p. 237. And this leads into another blind alley of superstition: that is that the atonement did not begin until 1844. And this places them in a most absurd position, contrary to both reason and the Bible. In the tabernacle service the high priest, on the Day of Atonement, took the blood of the Lord's goat while it was fresh and warm directly into the most holy place and sprinkled it on the mercy seat, but the SDAs teach that Christ kept his blood for over 1800 years after it was shed upon the cross before He sprinkled it in the heavenly tabernacle.
They are obliged to reverse the order of service of the type, for the high priest served in the first apartment for 364 days before beginning the Day of Atonement; but the denomination has Christ perform the first service of the Day of Atonement by shedding His blood and then make Him do service in the first apartment before entering the most holy to complete the Day of Atonement.
Rewarding the Devil for His Deviltry
Another absurdity of their sanctuary theory is that God rewards the devil for his deviltry. That means that God offers a premium to the devil for destroying souls, and it makes the devil man's sin bearer. Every soul that Satan can keep from salvation relieves him of that amount of punishment, for the sinner must bear the penalty of his own sins if he is lost, while Satan would have to bear them if he is saved.13
Here is an array of unscriptural teachings never before witnessed in the field of religious literature, and this false teaching is the very foundation of their creed. In spite of these facts their prophet says: "It is as certain that we have the truth as that God lives." Test., Vol. 4, p. 595. They teach that the subject of the Sanctuary is "the key to the great advent movement"; that they cannot do without it, that it is the "most timely truth that could be presented to men."14
Yet this church, built on such gross errors, lays claim to being "the only object on earth upon which Christ bestows His supreme regard." "There is but one church in the world who is at the present time standing in the breach, and making up the hedge, building up the old waste places." "God has a people in which all heaven is interested, and they are the one object on earth dear to the heart of God." Mrs. E. G. White in Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 48, 50, 41.
They not only boast that they are the only church, but they are the most abusive of all other churches; and the worst of the abuse is sealed, according to their teaching, as the very voice of God; inspired the same as is the Bible.
Building on a Faulty Translation
SDAs have been confirmed in their mistake by a superficial study of Acts 3:19. "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Upon this unfortunate translation they have fortified their belief that the sins of the righteous were not blotted out until just before the coming of the Lord, or during the IJ. Had they consulted any reliable translation they would have discovered their mistake. The R. V. and the A. S. V. render it, "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord." To this agree no less than a dozen other translations we have consulted; in fact, the Catholic translation is the only one that agrees with the Authorized Version.
"The seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord" is an immediate and frequent blessing to every Christian, and not a future event associated only with the coming of the Lord. One who has never experienced a "season of refreshing from the Lord" and is putting it off till the Master comes, knows little of the joy of the Christian life.
Does the Scapegoat Bear Our Sins?
Many honest Christians have been perplexed over the part Satan plays in the atonement, and SDAs teach, as we have shown, that he bears all the sins of the redeemed, thus making him our sin bearer. God does not require more than one substitute to bear our sins. Christ bore the sins of the whole world therefore Satan will never have to bear any of them. But we hear someone asking for the meaning of the high priest coming out of the tabernacle and placing sins upon the scapegoat.
The Bible plainly teaches that the devil is the instigator of sin. That is, he is behind every sin that ever has or ever will be committed. We will use a Bible illustration to make this plain. Absalom had many servants; for convenience we will call one of them Ziff. Absalom held a feast for all his brothers and sisters. While they were in their gayety, Ziff murdered Absalom's brother, Amnon. All will agree that Ziff committed a great crime; but Absalom was as guilty as Ziff if not more so, because he inspired Ziff to the crime. They were both deserving of punishment; one for committing the crime, the other for inspiring it. According to Mosaic law they both should have been stoned to death. If Absalom should have been stoned would he have borne Ziff's sin? If Ziff had been stoned, he would have died for murdering Amnon. Absalom would have died, not for Ziff's sin, but for his own guilt of ordering his servant to commit murder.
I have been guilty of sin and therefore the penalty of death rested upon me; but Jesus took my sin and paid the penalty of my sin on the cross, but He did not take upon Himself Satan's part in leading me to commit sin. His part of inducing me to sin rests upon him and. he must bear that penalty himself whether I am saved or not.
When the high priest came out of the tabernacle he didn't bring out the confessed sins of the children of Israel, because they were never taken into the tabernacle; but as a symbol of the complete eradication of sin from God's universe he placed Satan's part in leading people to sin upon the scapegoat, a symbol of Satan, and he was removed from the camp of Israel, never again to return. When rightly understood God's plan of salvation is most simple, glorious, and free from all absurdities. Let us accept it, rejoice in it and pass it on to others.
Can Sin be Transported Like Goods?
The childishness of making sin a commodity that can be carried from one place to another and stacked up like wheat in either earth or heaven, has no parallel in religious literature. Sin is a condition, not a commodity. Of course, Jesus bore our sins, but not in the sense in which He bore the cross upon which He was crucified. Yes, Isaiah says "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." 53:6. But Young gives the sense more clearly: "And Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, the punishment of us all."
When Abel brought his offering to the Lord do you think he had any idea of sending a bundle of sins somewhere to be put in cold storage for 6000 years? And if he did, where did he send them and how did they get there? There was no sanctuary on earth and according to the denominational teaching the sanctuary in heaven was padlocked for four thousand years during and after Abel made his offering. When Abel or any other penitent sinner brought his lamb to God, he did it because he recognized that he was a sinner and because he was a sinner under penalty of death. His only means of escaping this penalty was through a substitute; so, when he offered his lamb, he did it as an acknowledgement of his guilt and as an expression of his faith in the promised death of the Son of God. Paul tells us that "By faith Abel...obtained witness that he was righteous." And this was without an Investigative Judgment.
For a period of 2500 years, from Adam to Moses, there was no tabernacle into which to take confessed sins, and no Aaronic priesthood to receive or carry the sins to any place, and according to S.D.A. teachings Christ had not yet entered upon His duties as priest; yet the old worthies received pardon and peace.
The Work of Moody Condemned
Mrs. White, their prophet, says:
"I saw false reformations everywhere. The churches were elated, and considered that God was marvelously working for them, when it was another spirit." Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1 p. 172. Published in 1858.
"Everywhere" includes the whole world. At this time Charles G. Finney was conducting some of the most marvelous revivals the world has ever seen; yet, according to Mrs. White, "the spirit" that moved Finney and his converts was the spirit of the devil. The Judsons, William Carey, Robert Moffat, David Livingstone, and scores of other great missionaries and gospel workers were giving their lives to the Master, but according to this prophet (?) they were being led of the devil and their prayers were an "abomination to the Lord."
That this sweeping denunciation included God's great men is fortified by the united testimony of James White and Uriah Smith. In the spring of 1877 these two men held a "Biblical Institute" at Oakland, Cal. Their lectures were published in 1878 in book form and used in the Battle Creek College as a textbook for training ministers. In this book The Biblical Institute we find the following question and answer: "What can be said of the efforts of modern revivalists?" "The spasmodic and emotional efforts of Knapp, Hammond, Moody, and other modem revivalists, are not affording any permanent improvement. There is an advanced truth for this age, and no permanent work of religious reform can be accomplished except in connection therewith." p. 88.
This means that God cannot accomplish "any permanent reforms" or save men from their sins except through the instrumentality of the S.D.A. church. If this were true, we would feel most sorry for God.
These evangelists were teaching the greatest truth ever committed to man, righteousness by faith, which SDAs knew nothing about, and therefore were not teaching, yet they were the "favorites of God" in their ignorance, while the evangelists who were teaching this saving truth, were "children of their father, the devil," because they refused to accept Miller's mistakes, and knew not that these barren Laodiceans had moved Jesus and the Father from one side of a curtain to the other side on Oct. 22, 1844!
They cannot dodge the wickedness of the above denunciations by restricting them to the 1844 period, for in 1911 Mrs. White wrote: "The churches then experienced a moral fall...but that fall was not complete. As they have continued to reject the special truths for this time, they have fallen lower and lower." GC 389. Neither can they cover it up by saying this was not taught by Mrs. White but by her husband and Elder Smith, for she declares that "The Lord has seen fit to give me a view of the needs and errors of his people." Testimonies Vol. 4, p. 14.
* This article first appeared in the Nov./Dec. 1937 edition of Gathering Call (Vol. 24, no. 6), edited by Edward S. Ballenger. It was entitled "The Sanctuary Special – An Unbiased Examination of the Chief Cornerstone of the Seventh-day Adventist Creed." Minor editing was done to format the article for the web, to correct spelling errors and remove a small amount of material not relevant to the current era.
1. "The blood was sprinkled on the face of the veil. The veil became in this sense a preserver of records. That is, the blood sprinkled on this veil preserved the record of the sins of those who had confessed, who had brought their offering, and who had been forgiven of their wrongs. The veil was a typical record book, having preserved on the face of it the acknowledgment of guilt. Sin had been confessed and forgiven." Messiah in His Sanctuary by F. C. Gilbert, p. 56.
2. "The only way that sin can get into the sanctuary is by confession and the offering of a substitutionary sacrifice. Therefore only the sins of those who have accepted Christ as their redeemer are found there... Thus all confessed sins are transferred to the sanctuary, and in this manner the sanctuary is defiled." Reply to Canright by William H. Branson, p. 215.
3. "The most important part of the daily ministrations was the service performed in behalf of individuals. The repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle, and placing his hand upon the victim's head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. By his own hand the animal was then slain, and the blood was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the vail, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood transferred in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest... Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary.
4. "And what was done in type in the ministration of the earthly sanctuary is done in reality in the ministration of the heavenly sanctuary...
5. "When I do accept Him, I then confess my sins to God through Him, just as the man In Israel confessed his sins over his offering. And thus my sins are transferred from myself to the sanctuary above, where Christ ministers as priest on my behalf. He takes away my sins, and gives me His righteousness. But where does He take them? He takes them to the sanctuary, where He is ministering as priest: and although they are forgiven, the record of them must there remain until they are blotted out in the judgment." Reply to Canright, p. 235 by H. Branson, Vice President of the General Conference, published by the Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1933.
6. "The blood of the sacrificial victim was not always carried into the holy place, there to be sprinkled before the veil. This, as has been noted before, was done only in the case of the anointed priest and of the whole congregation. Lev. 4:5, 6, 16, 17. When an ordinary person or a ruler sinned, the blood was sprinkled on the altar of burnt offering outside the tabernacle. and the flesh was eaten by the priests. Levi. 4:25, 34; 6:30." The Sanctuary Service, p. 165, by M L. Andreasen. Prepared for the 1938 Ministerial Reading Course.
7. "The unconfessed sins are recorded on the altar of burnt offering outside the tabernacle. The confessed sins are recorded in the holy place, or else on the horns of the altar of burnt offering. However, all confessed sins eventually find their way into the sanctuary. As the priests partake of the flesh of the offerings, the blood of which is sprinkled on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, the sins are, through the priests' offerings as well as by the daily offerings of the high priest (Heb. 7:27), transferred to the holy place. We are therefore warranted in saying that all confessed sins – and only confessed sins are in the sanctuary proper. When the Day of Atonement comes, only confessed sins come in review before God, and only such sinners as have by repentance and confession already received forgiveness and have had their sins transferred to the sanctuary, receive the atonement, the blotting out of sins.
8. Dt. 26:13. "And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy."
9. Isa. 26:35. "And thou shalt set the table without the vail, and the candlestick aver against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south:
and thou shalt put the table on the north side."
10. Ex. 30:6 "And thou shalt put it [the altar of incense], before the vail that is by the Ark of the testimony."
11. "At the moment in which Christ died, there were priests ministering in the temple before the vail which separated the holy from the most holy place. Suddenly they felt the earth tremble beneath them, and the vail of the temple, a strong, rich drapery that had been renewed yearly, was rent in twain from top to bottom by the same bloodless hand that wrote the words of doom upon the walls of Belshazzar's palace. The most holy place, that had been sacredly entered by human feet only once a year, was revealed to the common gaze." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3 pp. 166, 167. See also Desire of Ages, pp. 165, 756.
12. Heb. 9:3. "And after the second vail, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all." All agree that this refers to the most holy place. The fact that it calls it "the second vail" has no significance whatever, only to show that there was a curtain at the door, which no one denies.
13. "It would have been far better for him if he had never led men into sin. But having entered upon this work, we see that he has a personal motive of the most powerful kind to induce him to hold the persons in sin to the last; for then they receive the punishment for their own sins which he otherwise must suffer. And every one who escapes from his power and secures salvation through Christ, adds an additional weight to his accumulating load of woe." Looking unto Jesus, p. 271.
14. "A correct and intelligent faith sees the adorable Redeemer in the most holy of the true tabernacle, offering his blood before the mercy seat for the sins of those who have broken the law of God beneath it in the ark... The subject of the cleansing of this sanctuary, then, is one of the most thrilling interest, especially to all Adventists. It is the key to the great Advent movement, making all plain, without it the movement is inexplicable."
Category: 1844 Movement
Please SHARE this using the social media icons below