Seventh-day Adventism’s Dogma of an Investigative Judgment Through Ellen White’s Eyes: A Brief Evaluation

DR. FRED MAZZAFERRI | Proclamation Contributor |

Seventh-day Adventism gleaned its prime dogma through a review of William Miller’s faulty forecast based on Dan. 8:14. Dr. Mazzaferri demonstrates that the SDA church may never have lost its way if it had not forced both Lev. 16 and the epistle to the Hebrews into its foolish mold.

PART ONE

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has long enjoyed the respect of many enlightened Christians as an organization making a good contribution to Christ’s global cause. Then why does it stand so far apart, even claiming to be God’s sole authentic church in the whole word, with a unique message to deliver to every last human inhabitant before Christ can return in glory to gather his elect?

The seventh-day Sabbath is not an issue as some other confessions like the Seventh Day Baptists respect it, too. Nor is the oblivious state of the dead, which is endorsed by respected, conservative Bible scholars like John Stott in Great Britain and Clark Pinnock in the United States of America. 

What really sets it largely apart is its unique teaching that Christ began a new phase of his High Priestly ministry in 1844, moving from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place of heaven’s sanctuary. There the record books were opened, we hear, so that the suitability of every person who has ever professed faith in God and/or Christ to enter their eternal Kingdom may be assessed, starting with Adam and moving in due course to the living. It closes by obliterating the sins of all who have repented, claimed Jesus’ atoning blood and perfected characters in harmony with God’s law. Then probation closes and, soon afterwards, Jesus returns, terminates the fearful, final Time of Trouble.¹

The history of this dogma’s development need not detain us, either as regards its genesis among Seventh-day Adventism’s pioneers, or its refinement because of the epochal Glacier View Colloquium.² What is of particular interest here is that, at least prior to the Desmond Ford watershed, the Seventh-day Adventist Church claimed that it was presented best of all in Ellen White’s writings.³ 

As the Seventh-day Adventist Church likewise stands apart from other denominations through its claim that Ellen White is its authoritative prophet,⁴ it is doubly convenient to assess its dogma of a selective judgment starting in 1844 through her eyes. For no appeal can be made here to mere casual reading of Scripture. She must be offering what she considers strictly major, literal interpretations of the Word when she addresses any theological point crucial to this unique dogma. If she was truly inspired by the very same Holy Spirit who inspired Holy Writ, the decisive fact will certainly be evident here.

…in a recent pamphlet to world-wide members, it boldly claims that, of all the Bible’s forecasts, those centering on Daniel 8 and 9 are the most critical for Seventh-day Adventists.

What comes to most Seventh-day Adventist minds when they speak of the investigative—more recently pre-Advent judgment—is their Church’s confident claim that Dan. 8:14 reveals the precise time when heaven’s sanctuary would begin to be cleansed of its amassed burden of human guilt. In fact, in a recent pamphlet to world-wide members, it boldly claims that, of all the Bible’s forecasts, those centering on Daniel 8 and 9 are the most critical for Seventh-day Adventists. Here we find the 2300 days, the sanctuary, and its cleansing. These prophecies focused the message of William Miller and the pioneers of our movement, and they are still vital for understanding our times.⁵

It was through the study of Daniel 8:14 as a point of departure that Adventism came into existence as a historical movement, developed its doctrinal identity, and identified its mission. We are confronted here with a foundational and vital aspect of Adventist thought.⁶

However, that is certainly not where we should begin our assessment of Ellen White’s treatment of this doctrine. First on the list is the foundation, if any, of this prime denominational “building”.

Blood within the tabernacle—what Ellen White claims

The crucial question that should be considered before that of cleansing God’s sanctuary is, when and how is it defiled by individual sins? That is, why must it be cleansed from their pollution at all? Looking back first to his earthly sanctuary, one of Ellen White’s fuller answers to this question is: 

The most important part of the daily ministration 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 veil, 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;* [asterisk sic] but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying, “God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.” Leviticus 10:17. Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary.

… The sins of Israel being thus transferred to the sanctuary, the holy places were defiled, and a special work became necessary for the removal of the sins. God commanded that an atonement be made for each of the sacred apartments, as for the altar, to “cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.” Leviticus 16:19.

Once a year, on the great Day of Atonement, the priest entered the most holy place for the cleansing of the sanctuary. The work there performed completed the yearly round of ministration.

On the Day of Atonement two kids of the goats were brought to the door of the tabernacle, and lots were cast upon them, “one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.” The goat upon which the first lot fell was to be slain as a sin offering for the people. And the priest was to bring his blood within the veil, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat…⁷

Ellen White here cites Lev. 16:16, then 21f., which treats the fate of the scapegoat. She then draws out the “important truths concerning the atonement” taught by these solemn ceremonies:

In the sin offerings presented during the year, a substitute had been accepted in the sinner’s stead; but the blood of the victim had not made full atonement for the sin. It had only provided a means by which the sin was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood, the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed the guilt of his transgression, and expressed his faith in Him who was to take away the sin of the world; but he was not entirely released from the condemnation of the law. On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having taken an offering for the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, above the tables of the law. Thus the claims of the law, which demanded the life of the sinner, were satisfied.⁸

Ellen White now turns to the scapegoat, which does not concern us here. A long section follows, utilizing typology to justify her belief that, like the earthly, heaven’s sanctuary has two apartments. She draws from this a doctrine of Christ’s two-phase ministry within heaven’s temple. These ideas will be assessed in due course. Whether or not biblical evidence supports them, she continues:

As Christ at His ascension appeared in the presence of God to plead His blood in behalf of penitent believers, so the priest in the daily ministration sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice in the holy place in the sinner’s behalf. The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement.

In the great day of final award, the dead are to be “judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” Revelation 20:12. Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary will be freed, or cleansed, from the record of sin. In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement—the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted.⁹

What the Word of God States—Blood for Individual Sins

How does Ellen White’s sectarian teaching compare with the sacred Word? Actually, an editorial note in the Appendix of her Patriarchs and Prophets all but concedes that she is quite astray here:

When a sin offering was presented for a priest or for the whole congregation, the blood was carried into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil and placed upon the horns of the golden altar. The fat was consumed upon the altar of burnt offering in the court, but the body of the victim was burned without the camp. See Leviticus 4:1–21.

When, however, the offering was for a ruler or for one of the people, the blood was not taken into the holy place, but the flesh was to be eaten by the priest,… Leviticus 6:26… See also Leviticus 4:22–35.¹⁰

This clarification can scarcely be faulted. Lev.4 details the offerings for the sins of a priest, 3–12, communal sins, 13–21, sins of a leader, 22–26, and sins of individuals, 27–35. I two cases alone, sins of a priest or of the whole community, the blood was taken inside the sanctuary, as Ellen White states, to be sprinkled in front of the inner curtain and put upon the horns of the altar of incense, 6f., 17f. The rest of the blood was poured out at the base of the external altar of burnt offering, 7b, 18b.

Yet in the case of individuals whom alone she specially discusses, “‘“the priest is to take some of the blood…and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar ”’”, 30.  That is, this blood never entered the sanctuary, so an individual’s sins never defiled it.

The Priest and his Consumption of Portion of the Sacrifice

Nor does Ellen White present any persuasive case for her claim that a priest’s eating the flesh of a sacrifice was any part of the process of atonement. For one thing, such food, ranging from flesh, Lev. 6:24–30; 7:1–6, to bread or grain, Lev. 6:14–18; 24:5–9; Nu. 18:8–19, was the regular food not only for the priests themselves—including those ineligible for sanctuary service through physical defects, Lev. 21:16–23!—but also for their families, 6:29; 7:6; 10:12–15, and even some of their slaves, 22:11. Nowhere here is there even the slightest hint that the eating itself had any cultic [ritual] import whatever. For another, the priests’ effecting atonement through sacrifice is mentioned repeatedly. But even where the service is detailed, as in Lev. 1; 4:22–26, 27–35; 5:7–10; 9:7–24, eating is never cited. Why not, if it contributes to the atonement which is the very point of every reference? For yet another, God himself specifically affirms that “‘“it is the blood that makes atonement ”’”, Lev. 17:11b. So the consumption of blood was totally taboo, 10–14. How, then, could any priest possibly make atonement for sin by eating the flesh of any sacrificial animal after its blood had been completely drained at the altar?

How, then, could any priest possibly make atonement for sin by eating the flesh of any sacrificial animal after its blood had been completely drained at the altar?

Regardless, first sight Lev.10:17 still seems to support Ellen White ’s case, above all because of the import of the verb n_s_’ and its object, the noun ‘_w_n, which it used here. Time and again they have the sense bear the guilt /iniquity /consequence, as in Gen. 4:13; Lev. 5:1,17; 7:18; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19; Nu. 5:31; 14:34; 30:15; Eze. 14:10; 44:10, 12. This obtains even in a vicarious sense, as when Ezekiel, Eze. 4:4–6, or the scapegoat, Lev. 16:22,“bears ” the iniquities of the people, or when God forgives a genuinely contrite sinner, as in Ex. 34:7; Nu. 14:18; Ps. 32:5; 85:2; Isa. 33:24; Hos. 14:2; Mic. 7:18. However, the use of this verb and noun in Lev. 10:17 is no proof that a priest bore the sin by eating his portion of a sacrifice. For one thing, simply by being a High Priest, Aaron was to “bear” his people’s sins, Ex. 28:38. And this duty fell upon every priest, Nu. 18:1. Yet nowhere is there even the slightest hint that eating their portion of the sacrifice was in any way crucial in this vicarious duty. In fact, God gives the priests the entire sacrifice “‘“to make atonement for yourselves on the altar ’””, Lev. 17:11, not by eating any of it. Maybe this is why, though no blood enters the sanctuary from the sin offering mentioned in 5:7–10, the priest is not directed to eat any portion of this sacrificial bird. 

For another, though Moses was angry with Aaron ’s sons for burning the sacrificial goat instead of eating it, nothing clarifies that his concern was that the efficacy of the atonement ceremony itself had been compromised. I fact, when Aaron clarified that he had assumed that being upset at the time over the death of his sons was an exceptional circumstance, 19, “Moses… was satisfied” !²⁰

There is no pathway, then, into the sanctuary for pollution from any individual’s sin. So Seventh-day Adventism appears to have no theological basis whatever for its distinctive dogma of cleansing heaven ’s sanctuary, polluted day by day by individual sinners. Yet a final decision is unwise until the Day of Atonement rituals are fully comprehended. Here the primary passage is Lev. 16, of course.

The Two Altars

In a broad perspective, Ellen White ’s case can still survive if the altar cleansed by blood, 18f., is the altar of burnt offering outside the sanctuary proper, as most commentators state, where the blood of a sacrifice for individual sins remained. But if it is the altar of incense within the Holy Place, her case has no Bible basis whatever. So it is crucial be quite clear about both the differences between these altars and the precise details of the High Priest ’s duties on the climactic Day of Atonement.

But if it is the altar of incense within the Holy Place, her case has no Bible basis whatever.

Several different altars feature in the history of the Children of Israel and the patriarchs. All that concerns this study, though, are the two distinct altars associated with the wilderness sanctuary. A number of subtle variances exclude even Solomon’s and Ezekiel’s theoretical, post-exilic temples.¹¹

First was the great bronze altar of burnt offering in the sanctuary’s courtyard. Measuring five by five by three cubits, with a projection at each corner, it was elaborately equipped, Ex. 27:1–8; 38:1–7. It perpetual fire, Lev. 6:8–13, received the evening and morning burnt offerings, 29:38–43; Nu.28:1–8, the special Sabbath offering, Nu. 28:9f., specific atonement offerings (different Hebrew nouns for burnt, guilt and sin offerings), Lev. 1; 4:1–6:13; 6:24–7:10; 9, grain offerings, Lev. 2; 6:14–18, and fellowship offerings, Lev. 3;7:11–21. Its special rôle on the Day of Atonement will be considered shortly. 

The second, smaller, golden altar was in the Holy Place, right before the curtain before the Most Holy Place. Measuring just one by one by two cubit, with horn on each corner, Ex. 30:1–6; 37:25–28, a specially prepared, fine-ground, fragrant incense, 30:34–38,was to be burnt on it every morning and evening, 7f. No burnt, grain or drink offerings were allowed, 9. However, it did receive some of the blood of the sin offering for any priest, Lev. 4:7, or for the entire nation,18. Its special contribution to the solemn ceremonies of the Day of Atonement will shortly be considered separately. Which of these was most important? Certainly the altar of incense. At very least, this is implied by the gold in comparison with the bronze. But above all, the sweet incense that ascended from it before the inner curtain of the sanctuary symbolized the prayers of the faithful, Ps. 141:2 (compare Rev. 5:8; 8:3f.).That is, the bronze altar focused on the external features of the ritual of dealing with the perpetual problem of human sinfulness, while the gold altar focused on its internal features. As Micah the prophet reminded his rebellious nation, Mic. 6:6–8,12 in pointed personal style:

With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God?

Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old?

Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil?

Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

In short: “‘Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices a much a in obeying the…LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams ’”, 1 Sam. 15:22.¹³

A final distinctive detail is that the golden altar is also designated at times as the one before the Lord, Lev. 4:7, 18; 16:12. In contrast, nowhere is it certain that the bronze altar is so designated. The significance of this phrase in Lev. 16:18 will be considered shortly, in its very instructive context.

The Day of Atonement Ritual

What, precisely, did the High Priest do during the climactic Day of Atonement?

The first Hebrew noun of interest is q_d_s, which makes manifest reference in Lev. 16:2 to the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary complex. This is so since it is “‘behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark ’”. This noun recurs in 3, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27, 33. It is also used in 4,32 for the sanctity of the High Priest’s attire. These apart, consistency implies that reference throughout this chapter is always to the inner room, except in 3, where the total complex, including the courtyard, appears to be in mind because the sacrificial animals were all slaughtered there, at the bronze altar. 

This conviction gains strength when it is observed that the sanctuary building itself is described throughout the chapter by the pair of nouns ’ohel mô‘ed (literally, tent of assembly), 7, 16, 17, 20, 23, 33. This specificity does not invite the lightest notion that on occasions the noun which denote the almost completely forbidden Most Holy Place is employed in its stead, thus creating confusion. 

Secondly, the various verbs of motion which describe the High Priest’s movements are of assistance in following him in his solemn duties. The fiest is bô, with the sense enter in 2, 3, 17, 23 [twice ], and the similar nuance carry in 12, 15, 23. In 17 alone are we not immediately confident that we comprehend precisely which part of the sanctuary complex the High Priest is entering.

The second verb, with the complementary sense emerge is y_s_, 17, 18, 24. But only in 24 is it immediately certain which part of the complex he exits, for sacrifice was made in its courtyard alone.

The prime question for this study, in brief, is this. For which altar was atonement made, 18f.? Was it the altar of incense, 12, or that of burnt offering, 25? The most popular choice by far among commentators is the latter, even though it depends on the sheer supposition that in 17 it is the sanctuary building, not just its Most Holy Place, which the High Priest enters then leaves. The Hebrew text certainly permits that reading in isolation. However, there are other pressing considerations.

For one thing, mention of the altar before the LORD 12, certainly suggests at least the possibility if not the probably that it is the very same altar before the LORD of 18, especially as the Hebrew text is virtually identical in both cases, while the bronze altar is never so denoted elsewhere. For another, twice over we have a survey of the day ’s solemn rituals as they relate to the sanctuary complex itself, atoning for “‘the Most Holy Place, (…) the Tent of Meeting and the altar ’”, 20, 23. By no means does this repetition hint that any salient feature of this aspect of atonement is excluded. Nor does it invite the notion that the one sprinkling of blood in the Most Holy Place atoned as well for the Tent of Meeting. The manifest meaning is that there were three distinct, sequential ceremonies.

The crucial question then becomes, Where does the ritual detailed in Ex. 30:10 fit? With specific reference, in context, to the altar of incense, the divine directive is: “‘Once a year Aaron shall make atonement on its horns. This annual atonement must be made with the blood of the atoning sin offering for the generations to come. It is most holy to the LORD.” Note carefully that both the bull and the goat sacrificed on the Day of Atonement were for sin offerings, Lev. 16:3, 9. The sacrifice for each burnt offering was a ram—one for the High Priest, 13, and one for the people, 5. But only the blood of the bull, mixed with that of the goat, provided atonement for the altar itself, 18f.

It is interesting to note here that, while Seventh-day Adventism naturally stands with the bulk of commentators in viewing the altar, Lev. 16:18f., as that of burnt offering,14 it follows its scholarly instinct to the reverse conclusion in carefully analyzing the atonement ceremony of Ex. 30:10: “This refers to the great Day of Atonement… when the high priest was to take the blood and put it on the horns of the altar of incense ‘and make an atonement for it’ (Lev. 16:18, 19).”15 More interesting still, G. F. Hasel, probably Seventh-day Adventism ’s most prestigious OT apologist for its distinctive dogma, faces the full force of the evidence with complete candor, albeit in a mere footnote: 

It is not entirely certain which altar is in view in Lev 16:18–19. The distinction between “tent of meeting” and “the altar” in vs 20 and 33 may suggest that the altar in view is that of the burnt offering in front of the sanctuary… It should be noted, however, that in Lev 4:7, 18 where the “sin offering” is brought in the daily service the only altar that is sprinkled is the “altar which is in the tent of meeting before the Lord.” Thus the “altar which is before the Lord” in Lev 16:18 can be understood as an abbreviation of the “altar which is in the tent of meeting before the Lord,” i.e., the altar within the sanctuary. In Ex. 30:10 the altar of incense is said to be cleansed on the day of atonement.¹⁶

It may be opined that this ceremony featuring the altar of incense is implied in the atonement of the Tent of Meeting. However, this conjecture survives no close scrutiny. For one thing, it is hardly conceivable that the detail of the solemn edict of Ex. 30:10 would be relegated t a mere inference when the lesser, bronze altar basks in replete detail. For another, the Hebrew text clearly indicates that the ceremony for the atonement of the Most Holy Place was repeated precisely in atoning for the Tent f Meeting per se “‘He is to do the same for the Tent of Meeting,’” Lev. 16:16b. That is, the entire Tent of Meeting as an entity was cleansed by sprinkling the sacrificial blood of both the bull and the goat the second time in its Most Holy Place. There is no compelling cause whatever, then, to include the bronze altar in the ritual of cleansing on the annual, climactic Day of Atonement.

There is no compelling cause whatever, then, to include the bronze altar in the ritual of cleansing on the annual, ­climactic Day of Atonement.

Yet the question remains, Why ignore it? W. H. Shea, another prominent apologist for Seventh-day Adventism ’s distinctive doctrine, offers us food for very careful thought in drawing instructive parallels between the corporate sin offerings of Lev. 4 and 16:

The corporate nature of these sin offerings should be compared and emphasized. Four categories of sin of offerings (not two) are listed in Leviticus 4. The first two involved the priest and the entire congregation; the latter two involved the individual… The manner in which the rites for the last two classes was conducted was also different. Thus the sin offering for the priest or for the whole congregation is emphasized by the parallels with the Day of Atonement blood rites. The Day of Atonement was not the time for dealing with individual sin (although… forgiveness was available through the morning and evening sacrifice). In a sense that opportunity had come and gone during the cultic year. Now, on the Day of Atonement, it was time to deal with all the sins of the children of Israel as a corporate activity.¹⁷

The Ritual in Summary

The flow of the day ’s ceremonies may therefore be summarized as follows:

• The High Priest brings a young bull for his own sin offering and a ram for his own burnt offering to the courtyard of the sanctuary, Lev. 16:3;
• He bathes in water, then dons sacred linen attire, 4;
• His people provide two male goats and a ram for their sin and burnt offerings respectively, 5; 
• He offers the bull for his sin offering, 6, 11;
• He casts lots over the goats at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, one for the Lord and one as the scapegoat, 7f.;
• He sacrifices the rest goat as the people ’s sin offering but preserves the other alive, 9f.;
• He enters the Most Holy Place with the bull’s blood, shielded from the atonement cover of the ark with incense activated by a censer of coals from the golden altar, 12f.;
• With his finger he sprinkles the bull’s blood about the ark, 14;
• He duplicates this sprinkling with the slaughtered¹⁹ goat ’s blood, thus atoning for the Most Holy Place, made necessary by the people ’s sins, 15f.;
• This complete ceremony is repeated within the Most Holy Place to atone for the Tent of Meeting itself, 16b, which must be otherwise empty of people at the time, 17;
• He exits from the Most Holy Place and, with a mixture of the bull’s and goat ’s blood, he sprinkles the altar of incense to cleanse it of the nation’s sinfulness, 18f.;20
• He emerges from the Tent to transfer the total burden of national sinfulness to the live goat, 20f.;
• He re-enters the Tent, sheds the sacred linen garb, bathes and re-robes in his regular clothes, 23f.;
• He leaves the Tent for the final time to further atone for himself and his people in turn by sacrificing the ram for his own burnt offering and the one for the people’s, 24a;
• Finally, he burns the fat of the sin offering on the bronze altar, 25;
• The scapegoat is released as an atonement into the desert, 10, 21bf., 26;
• The bodies of the sin-offering bull and goat are burned outside the camp, 27.

Conclusion

Ellen White is emphatic that day by day, the sins of individuals polluted both the earthly sanctuary and its heavenly reality, though thus far we have considered in detail no more than the former.

Scripture makes it quite clear, in stark contrast, that the blood of the sacrifice for the sins of individuals never entered the sanctuary building itself. Rather, all this blood went no further than the bronze altar in the courtyard outside the building. Before the Day of Atonement the only blood ever to enter the tent was that of the sacrifice for the priest or for the entire nation. Nor is there any definitive Bible evidence whatever that the sanctuary was polluted by a priest’s eating part of the individual’s sacrifice. That is, there is absolutely no pathway for individual sinners to pollute the sanctuary. Furthermore, as the bronze altar enjoyed no cleansing whatever on the Day of Atonement, there is no legitimate sense in which it can be said that the pollution of individual sins was cleansed at that time.

It follows that here we have another major theological error within the writings of Ellen White. The manifest inference is that, quite apart from the veracity of its interpretation of Dan. 8:14, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has no biblical basis, at least in the earthly sanctuary, for its dogma of a protracted review of the heavenly records of every believer, one by one, before Christ returns.

PART TWO

Having examined the foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist dogma of a pre-Advent judgment, it is time for a careful look at the structure itself. An open-minded observer always accepts the possibility that a perfectly sound building rests upon a flawed foundation. For example, if the NT teaches clearly and unambiguously that there will be a scrutiny of the saints before Christ returns, the nature and the timing of that pre-advent judgment concern this study. Too many critics throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water when rightly rejecting Seventh-day Adventist heresy. 

The “building” to be examined has three distinct parts. The first is the claim that, just as the OT sanctuary had two separate apartments, so does the heavenly original. Its corollary is that, just as the earthly priest served day by day in the Holy Place, while the High Priest alone served for only one day in the Most Holy Place as the year closed, so also Jesus ascended to serve for long centuries in heaven’s Holy Place, moving to its Most Holy Place for the brief time just before his Return.

The third part of Seventh-day Adventism “building” is its claim that Christ’s change of ministry fulfilled the forecast of Dan. 8:14 in 1844. Actually, this is where its pioneers began, under the quite sincere yet deluded leadership of William Miller, only looking backward to Leviticus and forward to Hebrews with their dogma firmly in place. Logical sequence offers a fresh, edifying perspective.

As we evaluate each of these unique, minor dogmas in that sequence, remember that our overall interest is what Ellen White claims, not where her Church may stand today, after its “fine tuning”.

How Many “Apartments ” in the Heavenly Sanctuary? 

What Ellen White Claims

Ellen White is extremely careful to remind her readers that, although the “Matchless splendor of the earthly tabernacle reflected to human vision the glories of that heavenly temple where Christ our forerunner ministers for us before the throne of God (GC 414) that temple, filled with the glory of the eternal throne, …could find, in the most magnificent structure ever reared by human hands, but a faint reflection of its vastness and glory.(Ibid.)

However, she still claims that God’s heavenly sanctuary “is the great original, of which the sanctuary built by Moses was a copy (Ibid., and PP 357) in accordance with the divinely revealed pattern. It was “A figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and offerings;” its two holy places were “patterns of things in the heavens;” Christ, our High Priest is “a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Hebrews 9:9, 23; 8:2. As in vision the apostle John was granted view of the temple of God in heaven, he beheld there “seven lamps of fire burning before the throne.” He saw an angel “having golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne.” Revelation 4:5; 8:3. Here the prophet was permitted to behold the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven; and he saw there the “seven lamps of fire” and the “golden altar” represented by the golden candlestick and the altar of incense in the sanctuary on earth. Again, “the temple of God was opened” (Revelation 11:19), and he looked within the inner veil, upon the holy of holies. Here he beheld “the ark of His testament” (Revelation 11:19), represented by the sacred chest constructed by Moses to contain the law of God.

There is no doubt whatever, then, that Ellen White insists that, detail by detail, a close copy of the heavenly sanctuary was constructed by Moses as the wilderness sanctuary.

Moses made the earthly sanctuary, “According to the fashion that he had seen.” Paul declares that “The tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry, “when completed, were “the pattern of the things in the heavens”. Acts 7:44; Hebrews 9:21, 23. And John says that he saw the sanctuary in heaven. (Ibid., 252f.)

Moreover, even Ellen White claims to have been given a “guided tour” of God’s heavenly temple:

I came to the first veil. This veil was raised, and I passed into the holy place. Here I saw the altar of incense, the candlestick with seven lamps, and the table on which was the shewbread. After viewing the glory of the holy, Jesus raised the second veil and I passed into the holy of holies.

In the holiest I saw an ark; on the top and sides of it were purest gold. On each end of the ark was a lovely cherub, with its wings spread out over it. Their faces were turned toward each other, and they looked downward. Between the angels was golden censer. Above the ark, where the angels stood, was an exceeding bright glory, that appeared like a throne where God dwelt. (EW 32, cf. 251f.)

She likewise claims to have viewed the earthly sanctuary for comparative purposes:

I was also shown a sanctuary upon the earth containing two apartments. It resembled the one in heaven, and I was told that it was a figure of the heavenly. The furniture of the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary was like that in the first apartment of the heavenly. The veil was lifted, and I looked into the holy of holies and saw that the furniture was the same as in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. (Ibid., 252f) 

There is no doubt whatever, then, that Ellen White insists that, detail by detail, a close copy of the heavenly sanctuary was constructed by Moses as the wilderness sanctuary. Most importantly, she asks then answers one of the chief questions for the paramount Seventh-day Adventist dogma:

What is the cleansing of the sanctuary? That there was such service in connection with the earthly sanctuary is stated in the Old Testament Scriptures. But can there be anything in heaven to be cleansed? In Hebrews 9 the cleansing of both the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary is plainly taught. [9:22f. cited] “…the cleansing, both in the typical and in the real service, must be accomplished with blood: in the former, with the blood of animals; in the latter, with the blood of Christ. Paul states “that without shedding of blood is no remission. Remission, or putting away of sin, is the work to be accomplished. (GC 417f.) 

The Reference Moses Employed in Building the Earthly Sanctuary

What the Word of God States

Ellen White’s basic surmise is that Moses was shown “a miniature representation of the heavenly temple” (K.A. Stand, “ ‘Victorious-introduction’ Scenes”, DARCOM 6, 55f., sees the point clearly, but still proceeds to defend SDA dogma. This struggle involves him and he bears silent testimony that John is scarcely sketching any two-roomed Temple.) like a scale model. Actually, the key Hebrew noun is tabnit, cognate with the verb bana, he builds, with the nuance “blueprint”. By no means, however, does this prove Ellen White’s case.

For one thing, in Ex. 26:30 the noun becomes misipat, common for justice, hence a specification, as in 1 Ki. 6:38. This implies an ideal, not a scale model. For another, alluding to Ex. 25:4, Acts 7:44 and Heb. 8:5 use the Greek noun typos. This invites us into the fascinating sphere of biblical typology.

All that needs to be said here is that Scripture does not teach the common lay idea that there is a point-by-point, positive correlation between type and antitype, quite apart from the fact that in Heb. 9:24 the earthly sanctuary is the antitype of the heavenly! For example, in Ro. 5:14 Adam is a type of the coming Christ. Yet the correspondence extends merely to their uniqueness. In al all other respects they diverge sharply: “just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous”, 19. Shortly this will become even more evident when Christ’s High-priestly service is compared with Aaron’s.

What the NT Reveals about the Heavenly Sanctuary

The NT has no unequivocal support for the notion that, like its earthly counter-part, heaven’s sanctuary consists of two separate rooms, even if the detailed evidence directly pertinent to Christ’s High-priestly ministry in that sanctuary still awaits open-minded consideration.

For example, note the sublime scene greeting John of Patmos as he peers through heaven’s open door, Rev. 4:1. Here is God’s throne, 2, which can only be in the Most Holy Place, if heaven’s temple does have rooms. Yet here, too, are the golden incense bowls depicting the prayers of the saints, 5:8, associated with “the golden altar before the throne” 8:3, where those prayers are cited again, 3f. And the altar of incense stood before the inner curtain in the Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary.

However, the seven lamps burning before the throne do not assist us to draw a plan of heaven’s temple, even if we ignore the paramount fact that they depict the Spirit of God, 4:5. For the earthly Holy Place contained a single, seven-branched lampstand, in the Greek designated lychnia, Heb. 9:2, while heaven’s temple contained seven separate lamps, in the Greek designated lampas, Rev. 4:5. Compare Ellen White’s counter claim that she saw only a single lampstand in that very temple.

If this is the prototype of the OT sanctuary, detail by detail, what about that “sea of glass, clear as crystal” before God’s throne?

Objectivity surely demands a candid reply, too, to the searching question, If this is the prototype of the OT sanctuary, detail by detail, what about that “sea of glass, clear as crystal” before God’s throne, 6, just like the seven lamps? If it has any earthly counterpart, the best option is the bronze basin between the bronze altar and the complex’s first curtain, outside in its courtyard, Ex. 30:17–21. (PP 343) 

Objectivity equally asks, What about the table on which the bread of the Presence was renewed each day, Ex. 25:23–30? Ellen White reports viewing it in heaven’s temple. In contrast, one searches the NT quite in vain for any hint at all that this item of furniture exists, in either reality or symbol. 

In short, if John were meant to give us an unambiguous glimpse of the heavenly sanctuary as the precise prototype of the earthly, he has made a very poor job of it! We think at times that we are in its Most Holy Place, at others in its Holy Place, and once even outside in its courtyard, with no hint of any partitions between. Clearly, he had no such intent. There is a temple in heaven, where the Father sits enthroned. But we cannot even be dogmatic that it has “bricks and mortar” in view of manifest symbolism associated with it. If Ellen White’s theology is to survive, it depends, then, entirely on the Book of Hebrews and its doctrine of Christ’s High-priestly ministry in heaven.

---

Endnotes

1. For a convenient summary, including historical developments of the teaching, see D. F. Neufeld, ed., “INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT”, Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, 19762 ), 669b–673b.
2. I. T. Blazen, “Justification and Judgment”, DARCOM 3, 339–388, seeks to remove all suspicion of salvation by works from the doctrine of judgment. Cf. fn. 5.
3. Neufeld, art. cit., 673a.
4. Fundamental Belief no. 17: “her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth”, stress supplied. In fact, this involves quite a striking elevation of her authority at the expense of Scripture! Prior to 1980, her life and ministry merely displayed “the gift of the Spirit of prophecy”, while God’s Word was the Church’s “all-sufficient revelation of His will and… the only unerring rule of faith and practice.” Ever since that epochal year, it has been merely “the infallible revelation of His will… the authoritative revealer of doctrines”. The exclusiveness has been totally spurned in Ellen White’s specific interests.
5. A. M. Rodríguez, “Daniel 8, 9: The Sanctuary and its Cleansing”, supplement, RECORD, 15th February, 1997, 2. He also endeavors to paint the investigative judgment in lofty, positive terms, 14f.
6. Ibid., 14a, stress supplied.
7. PP 354f. The asterisk is a pointer to a note in the Appendix, to be considered shortly. All stress is supplied here and in the following group of quotations. Cf. GC 418–422. At this point GC 419 adds: “The blood was also to be sprinkled upon the altar of incense that was before the veil.” All abbreviations are standard throughout.
8. PP 355f.
9. Ibid., 357f.
10. Ibid., 761, referring to the text at 354.
11. E.g., Eze. 43:13–2 7 describes the altar of burnt offering and its dedication ritual in considerable detail. The material is not specified, and it is far larger than Moses’ bronze altar. Within the Holy Place was to be a wooden altar, 41:22, far larger than his incense altar. But no ritual is described. In fact, the key word incense is absent.
12. Cf. Am. 5:21–24.
13. Cf. Hos. 6:6.
14. F. D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 1 (Washington, 1953), 776bf.
15. Ibid., 658b.
16. “Studies in Biblical Atonement II: the Day of Atonement”, The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. A. V. Wallenkampf (Washington, 1981), 127f.
17. “Literary Form and Theological Function in Leviticus”, DARCOM 3, 158, all stress supplied. However, my accepting this insight does not imply that I also accept all the parallels he suggests in support.

Republished from Proclamation!, January/February, March/April, 2001.