Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good
In this chapter we will give a short, biblical evaluation of the SDA doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. Those who wish a more thorough treatment of this study may purchase Dr. Ford’s 750-page book, Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment.1 However, a few, clear Bible references are more than enough to show beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgement is not supported by Scripture and is contrary to it at almost every point.
The “key text”: Daniel 8:14
Ellen White states that this is the key text and “central pillar” of Adventism.
The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” Daniel 8:14.2
It is beyond the scope of this book to do an in-depth study of Daniel 8, which others have already done.3 We must, nevertheless, look closely at the context of Daniel 8 and its meaning for those who hold the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment. In Daniel 8 we find several powers: a ram, a male goat with “a conspicuous horn between his eyes.”4 and then this conspicuous horn was broken and four horns came up in its place.5
And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down. And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper (Daniel 8:9-12).
These symbols are interpreted for us in Danil 8:15-27. The ram represented “the kings of Media and Perisa.”6 The male goat represented “Greece.”7 The large horn represented its first king, Alexander the Great.8 The four horns represented four kingdoms which would arise from Alexander’s nation, although not with his power. Up to this point all evangelicals, even Seventh-day Adventists, are agreed that these four horns represent the four divisions of Alexander’s empire.9 Now Scripture states:
And in the latter period of their rule, when the transgressors have run their course, a king will arise insolent and skilled in intrigue. And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power, and he will destroy to an extraordinary degree and prosper and perform his will; he will destroy mighty men and the holy people. And through his shrewdness He will cause deceit to succeed by his influence; and he will magnify himself in his heart and he will destroy many while they are at ease. He will even oppose the Prince of princes, but he will be broken without human agency (Daniel 8:23-25).
Nearly all Bible scholars believe the little horn to represent Antiochus Epiphanes IV.10,11 Daniel states that this power came from one of the divisions of Alexander’s empire. It is clear that this was a wicked power which did great havoc against the saints. Adventists make this little horn to be Rome.12 However, evidence that this has reference to Antiochus is overwhelming!
Many liberal scholars who do not believe in prophecy say that the Book of Daniel must have been written after 165 B.C., because it describes the persecutions of Antiochus with such exact detail.13
That this “little-horn” power is a wicked power is undeniable. We now confront the “sliver,” the teaching of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgement head on. Note well the context leading up to this SDA proof text of Daniel 8:14, which was and is “both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith.”
It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host; and it removed the regular sacrifice from Him, and the place of His sanctuary was thrown down. And on account of transgression the host will be given over to the horn along with the regular sacrifice; and it will fling truth to the ground and perform its will and prosper (Daniel 8:11, 12)
Now a question is asked about this wicked power, whom most scholars believe to be Antiochus.
Then I heard a holy one speaking and another holy one said to that particular one who was speaking, “How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?” (Daniel 8:13)
It is transparently clear that this question relates to activities of the wicked, “little horn” power, Antiochus. Note that the question specifically speaks about the regular sacrifice. The time part of the question deals with “while [a durative period of time, not a specific point in time, such as a date] the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host [people of God] to be trampled.” Again, we note that the question pertains to a wicked power, with reference to the literal Jewish sanctuary which Antiochus desecrated by offering a pig on the altar and erecting an image to Zeus.14 The question speaks of the time during which the sanctuary would be trampled. Now, we turn to the biblical answer to this question.
And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored” Daniel 8:14).
As we would expect, the answer addresses the question and the answer is clear. After 2,300 “evenings and mornings” then the holy place will be properly restored. The question refers to the “little horn” power and therefore the answer must be about the “little horn” power. Note what Adventists, building on Miller’s interpretation, have done with this text.
- They have made the starting point of this prophecy 457 B.C., long before Antiochus (or Rome) started desecrating the sanctuary.15 Yet the prophecy speaks of a time during which the sanctuary was to be desecrated.
- They have said that the sanctuary involved is the heavenly sanctuary when Scripture clearly shows it to be the literal, Jewish sanctuary desecrated by the wicked power, Antiochus.16
- They have said that the restoration, or “cleansing” of the sanctuary, was not the rededication of the sanctuary by Judas Maccabaeus as recorded in First and Second Maccabees, which the Jews still celebrate, but the antitypical Day of Atonement cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, which they say started October 22, 1844.17
- And here we come to gross error—many would call it outright heresy! It is clear in Daniel 8 that it is the wicked, “little horn” power which desecrates the earthly sanctuary. Adventists say that Daniel 8:14 speaks of the heavenly sanctuary that was desecrated by the sins of the righteous which were carried there by the blood of Christ.
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. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal or blotting out of the sins which are there recorded.18
Commenting upon the SDA interpretation, Dr. Raymond Cottrell, retired Seventh-day Adventist professor and scholar makes this insightful statement.
The context of Daniel 8:14 attributes the defiling of the sanctuary to the little horn. SDA’s interpretation attributes it to the transfer of confessed sins to the heavenly sanctuary by the priestly ministry of Christ. To pretend to ourselves that the SDA interpretation reads Daniel 8:14 in context then would thus be to identify the little horn as Christ. In other words, we can’t have both context and the Adventist interpretation in so far as the Bible itself is concerned. Similarly in [Daniel] chapter 9:27 we attribute the cessation of sacrifice in offering to Christ’s death on the cross. Whereas context equates it with the little horn taking away the continual burnt offering in chapter 8:11-13.19
It is evident that the doctrine of the SDA cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and investigative judgement is not supported by its one main proof text.
The heavenly sanctuary
The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgement teaches that Christ ministered in the outer apartment of the heavenly sanctuary until 1844, and then, for the first time, entered into the Most Holy Place20 to perform the antitypical Day of Atonement ministry. This too, is without any biblical support and is contrary to clear Bible teaching.
Hebrews 6:19, 20 states:
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
Notice that this text states that Christ has entered (Greek Aorist tense) within the veil. Hebrews was written in the first century after Christ and clearly states that at that time Christ had already entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. That “within the veil” means the Most Holy place is certain from Scripture. Every time the Old Testament uses this term in connection with the sanctuary services it always has reference to the veil separating the holy from the Most Holy Place.21 Every time the Old Testament uses the term “without the veil,” it refers to the veil separating the holy from the Most Holy Place.22 When the term “before the veil,” is used, it also refers to the veil separating the two apartments.23
That Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension is taught from a number of other references in Hebrews including the following:
The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing (Heb. 9:8 NIV)
He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12 NIV)
For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence (Heb. 9:24 NIV)
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain that is, his body…. (Heb. 10:19,20 NIV)
Note how Ellen White contradicts the clear teachings of Scripture. She redefines the term, “within the veil,” to be the door between the outer apartment and outer court, contrary to all Scriptural usage.
The ministration of the priest throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary, “within the veil” 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…So did Christ plead His blood before the Father in behalf of sinner, and present also, with the precious fragrance of His own righteousness, the prayers of penitent believers. Such was the work of ministration in the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven.24
The book of Hebrews says Christ entered the Most Holy Place at the ascension. Adventists teach He entered there for the first time in 1844.25 To do this, they must redefine the clear terms of Scripture.
A worthless, broken chain
The SDA doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgement cannot be found or proved logically anywhere in Scripture. It is dependent upon a proof-text, context-denying, reading-into-Scripture-what-is-not-there method of interpretation which uses a tenuous string of assumptions, most of which are contrary to biblical evidence. This is the heritage of Miller’s “perfect chain of truth” endorsed by Ellen White’s visions. As a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, so conclusions based upon a string of assumptions are no better than a long string of dubious assumptions are mathematically highly unlikely to be correct.
Dr. Ford points out that the doctrine of the investigative judgment hangs on twenty-two assumptions. These are listed below and are taken from Daniel8:14, the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment.26 In each of the following, Dr. Ford will state the assumption and give his evaluation which he encloses in parentheses. Following this, I give a short summary. My summary is simply to serve as a way to translate Dr. Ford’s summary into the visual image of a link in a chain. Please visualize each assumption as a link in a chain. For the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment to be correct, all twenty-two assumptions must be valid.27
1. That Dan.8:14 speaks of 2300 days (While Dan. 12 repeatedly uses the Hebrew word for days, it is not to be found in 8:14. Instead we have the ambiguous “evening-morning” which most apply to the evening and morning burnt offerings. Thus instead of 2300 days, if these exegetes are correct, only 1150 days are in view.)
—SDA assumption, probably incorrect. The first link in the chain is badly cracked.
2. That these 2300 “days” equal 2300 years. (Though it is quite impossible to prove that the year-day principle is a biblical datum, and even if we could, days28 are not mentioned in either 8:14 or 9:24, so there is no basis to apply the principle in these instances.)
—SDA assumption, probably incorrect. The second link in the chain is cracked.
3. That these 2300 years begin centuries before the “little horn” began his attack on the sanctuary. (Though in context, the 2300 has been understood by many as applying to the length of time the little horn is trampling the sanctuary underfoot and suspending daily offerings.)
—SDA assumption, definitely wrong. Daniel is clear that this time period refers to the time “while the transgression causes horror…” The third link in the chain is definitely broken.
4. That the 2300 years begin at the same time as the seventy weeks. (Though there is no scripture to say so. The Hebrew Chatchak means “cut” or “decree”, and there is no way of proving that the cutting off of the 490 from 2300 is intended.)
—SDA assumption, possible. The fourth link in the chain may or may not be cracked.
5. That it is possible to be certain of the exact year that the seventy weeks begin. (Though exegetes have been agreed on this point. Is the decree like that of 9:23 a heavenly one from God or one from an earthly king?)
—SDA assumption, possible. The fifth link in the chain may or may not be cracked.
6. That the decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 7 has to do with the restoring and building of Jerusalem. (Though there is nothing in Ezra 7 that says this. The context says that this decree, like those of Cyrus and Darius, had to do with the temple. The magistrates were to enforce the temple laws. See Ezra 6:14 which places this decree among the temple decrees.)
—SDA assumption, definitely incorrect. The sixth link in the chain is broken.
7. That the decree of Ezra 7 “went forth” in 457 BC when Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem and set to work. (Though Ezra never says this, and the decree had been announced at least six months earlier. There is nothing in Daniel to say that this decree should be dated from the time of its implementation rather than its enunciation.)
—SDA assumption, probably incorrect. The seventh link in the chain is badly cracked.
8. That we can show 408 to be the time when the restoration of the city was completed. (Admitted even by Adventist scholars to be an impossible task.)
—SDA assumption, possible, but unprovable. The eighth link in the chain is uncertain.
9. That we can show that AD 27 was the date of Christ’s baptism. (A similarly difficult feat.)
—SDA assumption, possible, but unprovable. The ninth link in the chain is uncertain.
10. That AD 31 was the date of the crucifixion. (Almost all scholars hold to other years, not this one. Evidence from Grace Amadon’s research, often used by SDA’s, is based on doubtful assumptions, as admitted by our own Commentary.)
—SDA assumption, probably incorrect. The tenth link in the chain is probably cracked.
11. That AD 34 was the date of the gospel going to the Gentiles. (Though there is no way of proving that AD 34 was the time of the stoning of Stephen and Acts 13:46 presents the turning to the Gentiles at a much later date.)
—SDA assumption, incorrect. The eleventh link in the chain is broken.
12. That the 2300 days end with the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement. (Though the Day of Atonement revolved around the sacrifice for sin, an event we believe took place about eighteen centuries earlier. The divesting of his glorious robes by the high priest prefigured the incarnation of Christ which did not take place in 1844. The book of Hebrews clearly applies the Day of Atonement in antitype to Christ’s priestly offering of Himself on Calvary, though the Christian era is included as we wait for our High Priest to come out.)
—SDA assumption, clearly contrary to evidence. The twelfth link in the chain is badly broken.
13. That until this date was reached, Christ was doing that work prefigured by the first apartment outside the veil. (Though Hebrews tells us that the work of that apartment symbolized the ineffectual offerings of the Levitical era when men had restricted access to God and experienced outward ceremonial cleansing rather than perfection of the conscience.)
—SDA assumption, clearly contrary to evidence. The thirteenth link in the chain is badly broken.
14. That the work symbolized by the second apartment of the Sanctuary was not to begin until over 1800 years after the cross. (Though Heb. 9:8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19, 20; 6:19, 20 says Christ entered “within the veil” at His ascension.) The sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat took place immediately after its shedding.
—SDA assumption, clearly contrary to evidence. The fourteenth link in the chain is badly broken.
15. That the sanctuary of Dan. 8:14 means the sanctuary in heaven. (Though the context is about the sanctuary on earth.)
—SDA assumption, clearly contrary to evidence. The fifteenth link in the chain is definitely broken.
16. That “cleansed” is an accurate translation of Dan. 8:14. (Though this is certainly not the case.)
—SDA assumption, probably wrong. The sixteenth link in the chain is broken.
17. That the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was cleansed from defilement occasioned by the confession of sin and ministration of blood. (Though Num. 19:13, etc., indicate that the sanctuary was defiled when a person sinned, regardless of whether confession was made. In most cases, blood never went into the sanctuary.)
—SDA assumption, clearly contrary to evidence. The seventeenth link in the chain is definitely broken.
18. That the cleansing of the sanctuary in Dan. 8:14 has to do with the sins of the professed believers in Christ. (Though the context has to do with the defilement accomplished by Antichrist, and the host of God’s people who are suffering, not sinning.)
—SDA assumption, clearly contrary to evidence. The eighteenth link in the chain is badly broken.
19. That this cleansing of Dan. 8:14 is also found in Dan. 7 in its judgment scene, and that the latter also has to do with investigation of the sins of the saints. (Though again in Dan. 7 as in 8, it is a wicked power which is the focus of the judgment.
—SDA assumption, clearly contrary to evidence. The nineteenth link in the chain is clearly broken.
20. That Rev. 14:7 has to do with the same investigative judgment of the sins of the saints. (Though John never uses the word krisis other than in a negative sense—for unbelievers, and though the very next verse tells us that it is Babylon which endures the judgement, as the later chapters of Revelation also testify.)
—SDA assumption, clearly contrary to evidence. The twentieth link in the chain is badly broken.
21. That the verses like Acts 3:19 point to the investigative judgment. (None of such verses studied in context yield any such conclusions.)
—SDA assumption, contrary to evidence. The twenty first link in the chain is badly broken.
22. That much depends upon Oct. 22, 1844, as the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement. (Though Oct. 22, 1844, was not the day observed by contemporary Jews, even the majority of the Karaites. Neither is there evidence that the baptism of Christ, or stoning of Stephen took place on the Day of Atonement, which would have been necessary if the 49 years, the 434, 490, and 2300 years are each precise in terminus. In contrast, observe that Ellen White would write: “I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in l843…Ministers were convicted of the correctness of the positions taken on the prophetic periods” 1SG 132.29 Observe she is talking about the 1843 terminus, not Oct. 22, 1844. Furthermore, she is speaking of periods ending then, not just one period. Miller had over a dozen, including the 6000 years, the seven times, the 1335 days, etc.)
—SDA assumption, clearly contrary to evidence. The last link in this “perfect chain of truth” is badly broken.
Consider the above assumptions as a chain of twenty-two links. On numerous occasions, as we have already seen, EGW makes the acceptance and understanding of the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary necessary for salvation. Would you trust your life—yes, your eternal life—to a chain of four questionable links, eight cracked links, and ten broken links?
Chapter Summary
- The one key text, Daniel 8:145, “the central pillar of Adventism” says nothing about 1844, the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, or the investigative judgment.
- EGW and the SDA church claim that Christ did not enter the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary until 1844. The book of Hebrews clearly teaches that Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary upon His ascension.
- For the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgement to be correct, as Ellen White taught, all of the twenty-two assumptions must be correct. Most of them are clearly in error.
- The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment doctrine is without any biblical support.
Endnotes
- This book is available from Desmond Ford Publications, 7955 Bullard Drive, Newcastle, CA 95658.
- E.G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 409.
- Ford, Daniel 8:14, p. 166ff.
- Dan. 8:5.
- Dan. 8:8.
- Dan. 8:20.
- Dan. 8:21.
- Ibid.
- Cassander Lysimachus, Ptolemy and Seleucus. See Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 98.
- Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 9, pp. 295-319; The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, pp. 96-108; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, X, 11,7; and almost every other commentary. See Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. A 69-75.
- It is also true that Christ, in Mt. 24:15, and Paul, in 2 Thess. 2:1-12, see Antiochus as a type of the coming antichrist. Please note, however, that neither Christ nor Paul see Antiochus as a type of the heavenly sanctuary nor in any way prefiguring the work of Christ. See Ratzlaff, Sabbath in Christ, pp. 351-357, where the author discusses the similarities between Mt. 24:15 and the experience of the Jews suffering under the persecutions of Antiochus.
- Adams, The Sanctuary, p. 97.
- The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 20f.
- See 1 Maccabees 1-4 and 2 Maccabees 4-10 for a detailed account of the desecration of the sanctuary, cessation of sanctuary services, restoration of the sanctuary, and the daily sacrifice.
- Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 410.
- Compare Dan. 8; 1 Maccabees 1-4, and E. G. White, Early Writings, p. 252.
- E. G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 410.
- E. G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, p. 266.
- Dr. Raymond Cottrell as quoted in Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. A-115, 116.
- Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 421. Note also EGW’s support of Crosier’s article. “The Lord shew (sic) in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary…I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra to every saint.” Ellen G. White, A Word to the “Little Flock,” p. 12, May 30, 1847, reproduced in Knight, Rise of Sabbatarian Adventism, p. 171.
- See Ex. 26:33; Lev. 16:2, 12, 15; Num. 18:7.
- See Ex. 26:35; 27:20, 21; 40:22.
- See Ex. 40:26; Lev. 4:5,6, 17; 24:1-3.
- Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 421. See also Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1 p. 159; Early Writings, p. 251.
- It should be noted that many SDAs, especially Evangelical Adventists, now believe Christ did enter the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at the ascension. However, that does not remove Ellen White’s endorsement of this “truth,” nor does it change the fact that her writings are still held as “a continuing and authoritative source of truth.”
- See Ford, Daniel 8:14, pp. 174-176.
- The 22 assumptions are all assertions made in the writings of EGW.
- Note: “days” are mentioned in the KJV, but the original simply says “evening-morning.”
- This is a well-known abbreviation in Adventist circles for Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 132.
- 10. A Broken Chain: A Biblical Evaluation - November 27, 2025
- 9. The Sliver—The Investigative Judgment - November 20, 2025
- 8. The Door Opens Again—Quietly - November 13, 2025