Erroneous Views Concerning
the Sanctuary
As the sanctuary plays so important a part in all of Mrs. White's visions, and in the
Seventh-day Adventist faith generally, I will explain it briefly, without special
argument.
Moses erected a building called the tabernacle, or sanctuary. It
had two rooms. The first was called the Holy Place, the second, the Most Holy Place.
In the first was the table of showbread, the candlestick, and the altar of incense;
in the second, the ark. The two rooms were separated by "the veil."
At the door of the first room was a curtain. Outside, in the court, stood the altar
of burnt-offering.
In the court and in the Holy Place the priests ministered daily. No one
entered the Most Holy Place except the high priest once a year, on the tenth day of the
seventh month, the "day of atonement" (Lev. 23:37). The services of this
day were most important of all, and are fully described in Leviticus 16. On this day
the high priest went into the Most Holy Place with the blood of a general offering for all
the people, and made an atonement for all Israel. By sprinkling blood on and before
the mercy seat on the ark, on the altar of incense, and on the altar of burnt-offering, he
was said to "cleanse" the sanctuary from all the sins of the people.
All this was figurative and typical -- an object lesson pointing to
Christ.
Miller's time-setting views that Christ would come in 1844 were based on his
calculations regarding the time for the "cleansing of the sanctuary." When
the time passed, and Christ did not come, he, with all the leaders of the body of
Adventists generally, soon acknowledged that he had been mistaken in the time. But a
very few -- Elder White, Ellen Harmon (Later Mrs. White), Elder Bates, and a few
others -- still held that the set day had been right. But they could not
explain the failure.
About two years later, in 1846, one O.R.L. Crosier studied out the sanctuary
subject very much as it is now held by Seventh-day Adventists. His view was accepted
entirely by a few Adventists of that time, and Ellen Harmon (Mrs. White) shortly afterward
had a "vision" in which she said the Lord showed her that the Crosier view was
correct. She recommended its publication (see "A Word to the Little
Flock," pp. 11, 12). The theory was that the earthly sanctuary was a type of
one just like it up in heaven, and that this sanctuary in heaven, and that this sanctuary
in heaven was the one referred to in Dan. 8:14, upon which was based the 1844 time-setting
calculations; that Jesus, as our high priest, was to minister in the first room, or Holy
Place, in heaven, from his ascension until Oct. 22, 1844, receiving there the confessed
sins of believers, and that on Oct. 22, 1844, he finished his ministry in the Holy Place
and went into the Most Holy, and there began the "cleansing of the sanctuary,"
which they said was also the anti-typical atonement. Notice that in this theory the
atonement did not take place until over eighteen hundred years after Jesus died on the
cross!
In Crosier's theory it was held that the work in the first apartment of the
earthly sanctuary was for "forgiveness of sins" only; hence, when the work in
the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary closed (Oct. 22, 1844), there ended forgiveness
of sins for all the world! Probation for sinners ended there! So, after
1844, Christ's work of atonement in the Most Holy Place was for saints only!
Mr. Crosier states that the object of this article on the sanctuary was to
prove that probation ended in 1844, and Mrs. White endorsed it for that reason. See
the next chapter.
The Adventists new nothing of this sanctuary theory until about two years after
1844. But when Crosier's theory was adopted, they linked up the "shut
door" of the ten virgins parable, which they preached on in 1844, with what they now
called the "shutting of the door" of the first room of the heavenly sanctuary
when Jesus went into the second apartment.
It was not until 1849, five years after 1844, that they first invented the
"open" door theory. But this "open door" was for saints only --
the old Advent believers. This was the second step in the shut-door theory.
The Sanctuary
Seventh-day Adventists make everything turn upon their view of the
sanctuary. It is vital with them. If they are wrong on this, their whole
theory breaks down. The reader should, therefore, study this subject
carefully. They dwell upon it constantly, and affirm that they are the only ones in
all Christendom who have the light on the subject. I will devote only a few pages to
it, just enough to show the fallacy of their system.
They based their time of 1844 upon Dan. 8:14. "Unto two thousand and
three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The sanctuary was
the earth. It was to be cleansed by fire at the second advent. The 2300 days
ended in 1844. Hence, Christ must come that year. They proved it all by the
Bible; so there could be no mistake, they said. But Christ didn't come. Now
what? Fanaticism dies hard, positive men don't like to yield. So they now find
that the sanctuary does not mean the earth at all, as they had said, but a real building
in heaven, just like the tabernacle which Moses built. That was a tent with two
rooms, the Holy place, containing the table, a candlestick, and golden altar; the Most
Holy, containing the ark, in which were the tables of stone, and over which was the mercy
seat and cherubim. See Heb. 9:17. The priests ministered in the first place
every day in the year, but only the high priest went into the Most Holy, and he only on
the last day of the year. Lev. 16. On that day he cleansed the sanctuary of
the sins confessed there during the year. All this was a type of just such a
building in heaven, where Christ ministers. Heb. 8:1-5; 9:1-9,24. In 1844 he
left the first place and entered the Most Holy to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary, which,
really, is the judgment. This explains their disappointment. Jesus went into the
Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to begin the judgment in 1844, instead of coming to
earth, as they first expected and preached! To prove all this they make long,
inferential arguments, which are open to objections from all sides.
1. Do the Adventists know that they are right about this
question? No.
2. If this subject is as plain and as important as they say it is, it is
strange that nobody ever found it out before.
3. After being perfectly familiar with their view of it, and knowing all
their arguments, I feel sure they are mistaken about it.
1. God sent the Adventists with a last solemn message to earth upon which
the destiny of the church and the world depended. The very first thing they did was
to get the wrong year, '43 instead of '44. Then, when they got that fixed up,
instead of announcing the real event to take place, the change in Christ's work in the
sanctuary in heaven, they said he was to come to earth, raise the dead, and burn the
world, when nothing of the kind was to occur!
2. Not one in fifty of the original Adventists ever found out the real
mistake they had made. Not even one of the leading Adventists, like Miller, Himes,
Litch, etc., ever accepted this sanctuary explanation. Only a mere handful out of
the great mass of 1844 Adventists found out the truth about the sanctuary, and these were
men of no note in Miller's work.
3. Miller himself opposed the Seventh-day Adventist's move, rejecting the
idea of the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and the third angel's message. What a hopeless
tangle that Advent work was! No wonder people rejected it. What if Moses had
opposed Joshua, and John the Baptist had opposed Christ? Miller was sent to do a
work, got it wrong, and then opposed those who did finally get it right!
4. Instead of receiving the "light" of the sanctuary question
from Mrs. White's vision, or from heaven, they got it from O.R.L. Crosier. But he
soon gave it all up as an error, and has opposed the Seventh-day Adventists for many
years. It looks badly for a theory when its very author renounces it.
5. Seventh-day Adventists at first adopted the sanctuary theory to prove
that the door of mercy was shut in 1844, a theory which Mrs. White and all of them held at
that time. Here is my proof on this point:
Ann Arbor, Mich.,
Dec. 1 1887.
Elder D.M. Canright: --
I kept the seventh day nearly a
year, about 1848. In 1846 I explained the idea of the sanctuary in an article in an
extra double number of the Day Star, Cincinnati, O. The object of that article was
to support the theory that the door of mercy was shut, a theory which I and nearly all
Adventists who had adopted William Miller's views, held from 1844 to 1848. Yes, I know
that Ellen G. Harmon -- now Mrs. White -- held the shut door theory at
that time.
Truly yours,
O.R.L. Crosier
Now listen to Mrs. White:
Topsham, Me.,
April 21, 1847.
... The Lord showed me in vision more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true
light on the cleansing of the sanctuary, etc., and that it was his will that Bro. C.
should write out the view which he gave us in the Day Star (extra), Feb 7, 1846. I
feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that extra to every saint....
E.G. White.
A Word to the "Little Flock"
pages 11, 12.
Here you have the origin and object of that sanctuary theory. Before me
lies "The Present Truth," Vol. I, No. 6, December, 1849, by James White.
"The Shut Door Explained," is the leading article, in which it is argued from
the type Lev. 16:17, that when the high priest entered the Most Holy there could be no
more pardon for sin.
On this day of atonement he is a high priest for THOSE ONLY whose names
are inscribed on the bread-plate of judgment. Page 44.
No more salvation for sinners, is what their sanctuary theory was then used to
prove. The whole volume is full of this idea.
6. Their argument from the type on this point was right; in the type no
sin could be confessed and conveyed into the sanctuary after the high priest entered the
Most Holy. Lev. 4:1-7; 16:17,23,24. So if this was a type of the entrance of Christ
into the Most Holy in heaven in 1844, then truly the door of mercy did close there, and
all sinners since are lost.
7. No work whatever was to be done on the day of atonement, or day when
the sanctuary was cleansed. Lev. 23:27-32. The law was very strict. If the
Advent argument on the sanctuary is correct and the day of atonement began in 1844, then
they ought not to have worked a day since. Hence, many Adventists after 1844 held
that it was a sin to work; but time starved them out, and they had to go at it again.
8. Finally, being compelled to abandon the position that the door of
mercy was entirely shut against sinners in 1844, they next taught that only those
could be saved who knew of the change Christ made in the sanctuary in Heaven in
1844. Thus Elder Smith, in "Objections to the Visions Answered," pages
24-26, says:
A knowledge of Christ's position and work is necessary to the enjoyment
of the benefits of his mediation.... A general idea of his work was then (previous
to 1844) sufficient to enable men to approach unto God by him.... But when he
changed his position (in 1844) to the Most Holy place ... that knowledge of his work which
had up to that point been sufficient, was no longer sufficient.... Who can find
salvation now? Those who go to the Saviour where he is and view him by faith in the
Most Holy place.... This is the door now open for salvation. But no man can
understand this change without definite knowledge of the subject of the sanctuary and the
relation of type and anti-type. Now they may seek the Saviour as they have before
sought him, with no other ideas of his position and ministry than those which they
entertained while he was in the first apartment; but will it avail them? They cannot
find him there. That door is shut!
So Mrs. White:
They have no knowledge of the move made in Heaven, or the way into the
Most Holy, and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there. ... They
offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which Jesus has left.
Spiritual Gifts,
Vol. I, page 171, 172.
What abominable doctrine! No one can be saved unless they know of the
change which Christ made in Heaven in 1844. But no one except Seventh-day Adventists
has the slightest idea of that change. Reader, think of this.
9. But now they have abandoned this view of the sanctuary and hold that
all who honestly seek God may be saved without any of this "light" on the
sanctuary. Thus they have already held four different positions upon the sanctuary
question: 1. It was the earth. 2. The door of mercy was shut to all sinners in
1844. 3. It was open only to those who learned about Christ's change in 1844.
4. It is now open to all. What will they hold next?
After thoroughly investigating the whole subject of the sanctuary, I feel sure
that they are in a great error on that point.
1. God's throne was always in the Most Holy place of the sanctuary,
between the cherubim, over the ark, never once in the Holy place. For proof on this point
see Lev. 16:2; Num. 7:89; I Sam. 4:4; II Kings 19:15. Smith argues that God's throne
was sometimes in the Holy place and refers to Ex. 33:9. But here the Lord appeared outside
the tabernacle, and not in the Holy place at all. So his text fails him.
2. When Jesus ascended to Heaven, eighteen hundred years ago, he went
directly to the right hand of God and sat down on his throne. Heb. 8:1. Hence,
he must have entered the Most Holy then, instead of on 1844.
3. "Within the vail" is into the Most Holy place.
"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." Ex. 26:33. Also see Lev. 16:2,12,13.
None can fail to see that "within the vail" is in the Most Holy place
where the ark was. This is just where Jesus went eighteen hundred years ago.
Proof: "Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and
steadfast, and which entereth into that within the vail; whither the forerunner is for us
entered, even Jesus made a high priest for ever." Heb. 6:19,20.
As the high priest went "within the vail," so Jesus, our high priest, went
"within the vail," into the Most Holy place, to the right hand of God and sat
down on his throne. Nothing could be more plainly stated. This upsets the
whole Advent theory of 1844. For further proof see Ex. 27:21; 30:6; 40:22-26; Lev.
4:6,17; 16:15; 24:3; Num. 18:7; Matt. 27:51.
4. "Before the throne," Rev. 8:3. Elder Smith asserts
that "the throne of God was in the first apartment of the sanctuary," because it
is said that the seven lamps and the golden altar were "before the throne," Rev.
4:5; 8;3. It is as desperate cause which seizes upon such proof. The same
argument would prove that the ark and God's throne were always in the first apartment of
the earthly sanctuary, which we know to be false. As there was only a vail which
divided the Holy from the Most Holy, where God's throne was, things in the Holy place were
said to be "before the Lord," as they were so near to the throne, which was just
behind the curtain. Proof: Ex. 27:20,21; 30:6-8; 40:23-25; Lev. 4:6,15-18.
Even outside of the tabernacle entirely, where the beasts were killed, was "before
the Lord," as Lev. 4:15 shows. Abraham walked "before the Lord," Gen.
24:40, yet he was on earth, and the Lord was in heaven.
5. Not a single text can be found in all the Bible where the ark and
cherubim and throne were in the Holy place of the earthly sanctuary, the type; yet in the
antitype they have the throne of God in the Holy place, not on some special occasion, but
all the time for 1800 years, just contrary to the type!
6. Adventists always assume and say that "the temple of God is the
Most Holy place." Sanctuary, page 234, by U. Smith. But this is
false. The Most Holy place, or the oracle, was a room in the temple, but it
was not the temple itself. In fact the Scriptures carefully distinguished between
the temple and the oracle or Most Holy. See I Kings 6:5,16,17,19,23; 7:50. The
temple was the house, the whole building. I Kings 7:50; II Kings 11:13; I Sam. 3:3;
Matt. 21:12; Luke 1:9; Rev. 11:19.
7. When was the temple in heaven opened, Rev. 11:19? Adventists use
this text to prove that the Most Holy place in the heavenly sanctuary was not opened till
1844. But it fails them:
1. Because, as we have proved above, the temple is not the Most Holy
place, but the whole building.
2. Because the heavenly temple was opened when Christ began his ministry
there, 1800 years ago. Heb. 8:1,2; 9:8-12.
3. Because verse 19 of Rev. 11 properly belongs with Rev. 12, and begins
that new line of prophecy, instead of closing the line in Chapter 11. The Syriac
thus divides it. Clarke, Barnes, Scott, and every commentator I have consulted,
connects this verse with Chapter 12 as the introduction. Says Scott:
V. 19 -- This verse introduces a new subject, and should have
been placed at the beginning of the next chapter.
Certainly; for when was the temple in heaven opened? When Jesus went
there to begin his ministry, of course. Heb. 9:8-12. Thus fails the main
pillar of the Adventists sanctuary theory.
Thus far I have argued on their own grounds that there is a real building up in
heaven, just like the sanctuary on earth. But that whole thing is extremely
questionable.
1. As children are taught moral truths by object lessons, so God taught
the Jews spiritual truths by the object lessons of the types of worship. Hence, it
does not follow that in Christian worship there must be just such material things used up
in heaven. Rather the presumption is against it.
2. The whole temple service was for the Aaronic priesthood; but Christ is
not a priest after the order of Aaron, but is after that of Melchisedec, Heb. 7:11.
Melchisedec had no temple nor temple service, so Christ should have none. From Adam
till Moses there was no temple nor priestly service in heaven. Smith admits
this. "There were no holy places laid open, and no priestly work was
established in heaven." Sanctuary, page 238. Exactly; for that
was under the Melchisedec priesthood, just as now. If no temple was needed there for
4000 years, none is needed there now.
3. Paul directly states that the types of the law were "not
the very image of the things" they represent, Heb. 10:1. But Adventists make
their argument on the assumption that they were exact images of things in heaven, thus
ignoring Paul's statement.
4. Paul says that Christ is a minister of a greater and more perfect
tabernacle, Heb. 9:11. Then it must differ from the earthly one.
5. Paul says it is one "not made with hands," Heb. 9:11.
This shows that it is not a material building.
6. Paul says that Jesus' flesh is the vail, Heb. 10:20. This shows
that the temple was only figurative.
7. Scarcely one of the types had an antitype just like it. Thus
lambs and oxen were the type of which Jesus was the antitype. But he was a man
and they were beasts. The bodies of those beasts were burned, Heb.
13:11,12, but Christ, the antitype was not burned. They were slain at the door of
the sanctuary, Lev. 17:3,4, but Jesus was not slain at the door of the sanctuary.
Their blood was carried into the temple and put on the altar, Lev. 4:6,7, but the blood of
Christ was spilt on the ground. The Levitical priests made offerings daily, but
Christ only once for all, Heb. 9:25,26,28; 10:10,12,14. Elder Smith says:
The fact that Moses made two apartments in his likeness of the heavenly
temple is a demonstration that the latter has two apartments also.
Again:
The Priests here on earth, in both apartments, served unto the example
of a like service in heaven. Now Jesus is the only priest in heaven, and he must
perform this "like service."
The earthly priests offered, every day, the morning and evening sacrifice,
sprinkling the blood of fresh-slain victims in the outer sanctuary. So for more than
eighteen hundred years, Jesus, according to Mr. Smith, must have offered his own
fresh-shed blood in the outer apartment of the heavenly sanctuary twice every day; that is
more than 1,300,000 times from his ascension to 1844. This is the logical result of
Mr. Smith's "demonstration." The apostle says, Heb. 7:27: "This he
did once for all, when he offered up himself. Thus the 'demonstration' flatly
contradicts the scriptures." G.W. Morton. The law regulating the service
of the priests and the temple was changed, Heb. 7:12. Then certainly it is not
carried out in heaven now. Adventists would have the whole Levitical law of the
sanctuary service transferred to heaven and carried out there! This is the absurdity
of their system. In Heb. 7:11-28 Paul marks many points of difference between the
types and the antitypes. The table of the Lord was in the temple in the Jewish age,
Mal. 1:7, but now the Lord's table is in the church, I Cor. 10:21; 11:20. The seven
lamps in the temple of heaven "are the seven spirits of God," Rev. 4:4.
Then they are not literal lamps. So it is more than probable that none of the things
mentioned as being there are literal. In one place it is said that the saints in heaven
are "clothed in white robes," Rev. 7:9, but in another place this is explained
to be the righteousness of saints, Rev. 10:8.
In Rev. 8:3 it is said that the prayers of all saints are offered upon the
golden altar. Most evidently this is not to be taken literally, but only as a
reference to the Jewish mode of worship. Col. 2:16,17, says that the meats, drinks,
feast days, new moons and Sabbath days were a shadow of Christ. Reasoning as the
Adventists do about the early sanctuary, Heb. 8:5, we would expect to find something in
the gospel exactly like them, meats, drinks, yearly feast days, monthly holy days,
etc. But where are they? In the gospel there is nothing at all just like these
types.
Paul says directly that the place into which Jesus went was "heaven
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us," Heb. 9:24. The simple
truth of the whole is that the ages of types, object lessons, exact forms, set ceremonies,
consecrated places and holy vessels -- all this ended at the cross, Col.
2:17. The answer of Jesus to the woman at the well is exactly to the point.
She said:
"Our fathers worshipped in the mountain; and ye say that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."
Jesus said unto her,
"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet
at Jerusalem, worship the Father. ... But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to
worship him. God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and
in truth."
John 4:20-24.
Under the gospel one place is no more holy than another. With the holy
places went all the holy vessels, sacrifices, incense, tables of stone, and all.
Peter states it all in a word: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual
house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ." I Pet. 2:5. To the same effect, Eph. 2:20-22; I Cor. 6:19.
Now we are under a new covenant; Heb. 8:6-13, an high priest of a new order, Heb. 7:11, we
come to God by a new way, Heb 10:20, by new ordinances, Mark 15:15-16; I Cor. 11:23-26, by
a different temple, and a better sacrifice. Hence, there is no need of a temple in
heaven just like the old Jewish one.
The Adventists idea of the sanctuary in heaven is an absurdity. In Early
Writings, pages 114, 115, Mrs. White was taken to heaven and shown all about
it. She saw the building exactly like the one on earth. In it was the
candlestick, the table of show-bread, the altar, the curtains, the ark; and "in the
ark were tables of stone containing the Ten Commandments." Think, now; what use
for a literal candle in the immediate presence of God whose glory is above the light of
the sun. "They need no candle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God
giveth them light." Rev. 22:5. And what use for a literal table of
show-bread there? Do the angels or the Lord eat the bread? Then real tables of
stone in Heaven! And the Lord sitting on the ark over them! What puerile
ideas. Hear Paul veto that idea: "Not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables
of the heart." II Cor. 3:3. Then think of the absurdity of having the
Almighty God and all the "ten thousand times ten thousand" (one hundred million)
angels around his throne, dwelling in a literal building with curtains, lamps, tables,
walls, etc. It would need to be larger than a whole State. Let Adventists read
this: "Howbeit, the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands."
Acts 7:48.