Sanctuary Bible Study

Sanctuary Bible Study Lesson 10: “The Sanctuary and Its Dissenters”

Introduction

New Testament Christians believed that after Jesus ascended to heaven, He began ministering on behalf of His followers in the presence of God the Father in the heavenly sanctuary. However, with time Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary became obscured, and the attention of Christian believers was largely directed to an earthly counterfeit. The daily ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary was lost sign of and largely forgotten, replaced by the confessional, the mass, saints, and the virgin Mary.

But prophecy foretold that the heavenly sanctuary would once again come to the forefront of attention in the eyes of true believers. At the end of the 2300 days Christ’s all-sufficient ministry on behalf of repentant sinners would become the focus of attention of faithful believers and the sanctuary would be cleansed and vindicated (Daniel 8:11-14).

The most prominent contribution to theology made by Seventh-day Adventists has been the doctrine of the sanctuary. But our teaching on the sanctuary has opened us up as a church to more ridicule and scorn from other Christians than any other doctrine we hold. In the eyes of many Christians, the sanctuary doctrine denigrates the atonement. It has also caused many departures from our faith, including some who were once leaders in evangelizing our faith around the world.

In this study we will summarize the major challengers of the sanctuary doctrine and their criticisms. We will examine three criticisms put forth by one dissenter in particular, A.F. Ballenger. And we will answer with a Bible study the common objection to the sanctuary doctrine that states that when Christ ascended to heaven He entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, and not in 1844 as Adventist’s believe.

Ellen White’s Predictions of Dissent on the Sanctuary Doctrine

For more than half a century the different points of present truth have been questioned and opposed. New theories have been advanced as truth, which were not truth, and the Spirit of God revealed their error. As the great pillars of our faith have been presented, the Holy Spirit has borne witness to them, and especially is this so regarding the truths of the sanctuary question. Over and over again the Holy Spirit has in a marked manner endorsed the preaching of this doctrine. But today, as in the past, some will be led to form new theories and to deny the truths upon which the Spirit of God has placed His approval. --Manuscript 125, 1907. (Evangelism, pg. 224)

In the future, deception of every kind is to arise, and we want solid ground for our feet. We want solid pillars for the building. Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. Where shall we find safety unless it be in the truths that the Lord has been giving for the last fifty years? --Review and Herald, May 25, 1905 (Evangelism, pg. 224)

The time is near when the deceptive powers of satanic agencies will be fully developed. On one side is Christ, who has been given all power in heaven and earth. On the other side is Satan, continually exercising his power to allure, to deceive with strong, spiritualistic sophistries, to remove God out of the places that He should occupy in the minds of men. Satan is striving continually to bring in fanciful suppositions in regard to the sanctuary, degrading the wonderful representations of God and the ministry of Christ for our salvation into something that suits the carnal mind. He removes its presiding power from the hearts of believers, and supplies its place with fantastic theories invented to make void the truths of the atonement, and destroy our confidence in the doctrines which we have held sacred since the third angel's message was first given. Thus he would rob us of our faith in the very message that has made us a separate people, and has given character and power to our work. --Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7, p. 17. (1905) (Evangelism, pg. 225)

Internal Challengers of the Sanctuary Doctrine

Internal challengers of the sanctuary doctrine have included many who were once defenders and promulgators of the Adventist faith. These dissenters have included the following:

a. O.R.L. Crosier (1820-1913) – published the first articles on the sanctuary doctrine after having studied and developed it with Hiram Edson and Dr. F.B. Hahn. He soon rejected both it and the seventh-day Sabbath. But it was not primarily because of his disagreement with the sanctuary teaching that Crosier left the church, rather it was disenchantment with SDA teachings in general.

b. D.M. Canright (1840-1919) – An ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister who in 1887 severed his connection with the church and became a Baptist minister. He wrote the widely circulated book Seventh-day Adventism Renounced. About the pivotal significance of the sanctuary doctrine to Seventh-day Adventists, he says that “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.”

c. A.F. Ballenger (1861-1921) – A Seventh-day Adventist minister who was deprived of his ministerial credentials because of his changed views on the sanctuary. He set forth his views on the heavenly sanctuary and its services in the book Cast Out for the Cross of Christ. According to Ballenger the Day of Atonement began when Jesus made atonement for the sins of man by presenting His own shed blood before the Father within the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27. Thus, immediately after His ascension to heaven Jesus began His ministry in the Most Holy Place where Ballenger believed God’s immovable throne is located.

d. William W. Fletcher (1879-1947) – An evangelist, administrator, and Bible teacher in Australia. It was during his years of teaching that Fletcher developed new convictions regarding Christ’s position and work in the heavenly sanctuary. Fletcher rejected the doctrine of the investigative judgment as a type of the services of the Day of Atonement. He also believed that Christ entered the Holy of Holies in heaven at the time of His ascension. Fletcher further argued that one must not hold “too rigidly to the word ‘cleansed’” in Daniel 8:14. He pointed out that “cleansed” would be equally correctly rendered “justified” and referred to the ministry in the heavenly sanctuary that had been misrepresented or perverted by the papacy. At the end of “2300 evenings-mornings” it would come into its own again, he said, or be justified. Upon leaving the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Fletcher associated with the Sidney Bible Training Institute and the Free Evangelical Fellowship.

e. Louis Richard Conradi (1856-1939) – Vice president of the General Conference and president of the European Division until 1922, and a prolific writer, forceful speaker, and able scholar. Conradi’s doubts with reference to the denomination’s sanctuary teaching began early and rested chiefly on the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:13-14. He believed that the 2300 days have nothing to do with the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary; they refer to Islam. He finally came to believe that the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of an investigative judgment was mere fiction. Conradi ultimately became a Seventh Day Baptist minister.

f. Desmond Ford (born 1929) – An Australian theologian and biblical scholar who taught at Avondale College in Australia and Pacific Union College in the United States. Around 1970, there was a major controversy among Australian Adventists over whether righteousness by faith included both justification and sanctification, and Ford became caught up in it. Tensions over Ford and the theology he was teaching at Avondale more generally led to him being sent to Pacific Union College in 1977 to teach religion. In 1979 Ford gave what is now an infamous talk at the College on the topic of Hebrews 9 and its implications for the doctrine of the investigative judgment. The talk was titled, “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?” The talk criticized some aspects of the traditional Adventist understanding and in response the General Conference gave him six months to write up his views. The resulting manuscript consisted of nearly 1000 pages, and was an attack on the doctrine of the investigative judgment, the historicist approach to Bible prophecy interpretation, the day-year principle, the Adventist understanding of the Day of Atonement, and the authority of Ellen White in doctrinal matters. The culmination of all of this was that Ford lost his employment with the Adventist church as a minister and theology professor. Ford ultimately formed his own non-denominational gospel ministry called Good News Unlimited, and continues to write and speak at various engagements around the world. Ford continued to maintain his membership in the Seventh-day Adventist church, at least until recently.

It might be further noted that at the heart of Dr. Ford’s theology is the idea that justification is only declared righteousness (not making righteous), that sanctification is never 100 percent in this life, and that the removal of the presence of sin will only occur with glorification at the second coming.

External Challengers of the Sanctuary Doctrine

There is very little toleration of the sanctuary doctrine among evangelical Christians, even with those who regard us charitably and count us as Christian brethren. Evangelicals in general find it difficult to believe that the records of forgiven sins will remain in the heavenly sanctuary until a preadvent investigative judgment that began in 1844. Prominent external challengers to the sanctuary include the following:

a. Walter R. Martin (1928-1989) – In his book The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism, Martin objects strongly to our view of the sanctuary. Martin believed that the early Seventh-day Adventists fabricated the doctrine about the heavenly sanctuary and its cleansing “to compensate for errors in prophetic interpretation” after the disappointment of October 22, 1844. He wrote, “Holding as they do to the doctrine of the investigative judgment, it is extremely difficult for us to understand how they can experience the joy of salvation and the knowledge of sins forgiven.”

b. Donald G. Barnhouse (1895-1960) – To Barnhouse the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary “is most certainly exegetically untenable and theologically speculation of a highly imaginative order…We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable!” He goes on labeling the doctrine of the investigative judgment as “unimportant and almost naïve.” (Donald G. Barnhouse, “Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?” Eternity 7(September 1956):44)

c. Norman F. Douty (1899-1993) – A Christian author who was convicted that the Seventh-day Adventist and Ellen White definition of atonement connected with the sanctuary and the investigative judgment is blurred, incomplete, and at best negative and inconsistent. (Norman F. Douty, Another Look at Seventh-day Adventistm (Grand Rapids, 1962), p. 95)

d. Anthony Hoekema (1913-1988) - A Christian theologian who served as professor of Systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary for twenty-one years. Hoekema also believed that acceptance of the Seventh-day Adventist sanctuary and the investigative judgment doctrine makes it impossible for Seventh-day Adventists to believe in salvation by grace. He said that “while seeking to maintain that men are saved by grace alone, Seventh-day Adventists have cast a shadow over that claim by their view of the investigative judgment.” He believed that the investigative judgment doctrine “arose as the result of a mistake” and that the “Seventh-day Adventist teaching on the investigative judgment was simply a way out of an embarrassing predicament,” when the Millerite prediction of Christ’s return in glory on October 22, 1844 did not occur. (Anthony H. Hoekema. The Four Major Cults (Ann Arbor, MI, 1963), pp. 122, 144)

Ballenger’s Three Arguments Against the Sanctuary

A. F. Ballenger found three primary objections against the Adventist position on the sanctuary. W.W. Prescott, an influential administrator, educator, and scholar in the early Seventh-day Adventist church, wrote in a letter that Ballenger’s arguments against the sanctuary had never been well-refuted. In more recent times, an editorial appeared in the Adventist Review in which the author also complained that Ballenger’s arguments still have not been adequately refuted. Ballenger’s three arguments and their simple rebuttals are as follows:

1. Jesus must have been in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary during the time of the Old Testament because you find Him, for example, in Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 10&11, in the sanctuary. So if Jesus was in the holy place in the Old Testament, surely He would be in the most holy place in the New Testament.

Answer: In Isaiah 53 it speaks about Jesus as He was already bearing our sins as the Lamb (i.e. “He is despised and rejected of men…He hath born our griefs…He was wounded for our transgressions”). Was this true during the time of Isaiah? According to Romans 4:17 God speaks of those things which are not as though they were. God knows the end from the beginning. He knows what will occur and He can speak of things that will occur as though they have occurred already. The examples in Isaiah and Ezekiel that Ballenger gave are prophecies of the end of time, and we find in these prophecies that Jesus is in the sanctuary because these prophecies are about the New Testament period of time.

2. The New Testament repeatedly refers to Jesus as being the One that is at God’s right hand. Ballenger asked the question, where is God’s throne in the heavenly sanctuary? He answered that it is obviously in the most holy place, after all that is where the shekinah glory is. So if Jesus is at God’s right hand, and has been so since His ascension, then which apartment is Jesus in? To Ballenger, the answer was clearly the most holy place.
Answer: From Daniel 7 and Ezekiel 1-2 we learn that God’s throne has wheels. It literally moves from one part of the sanctuary to another. Jesus was at God’s right hand when He was in the holy place and when the Father comes to the most holy place Daniel portrays that scene and Jesus is brought near before Him. The answer is simple: Jesus and the Father are on thrones that have wheels. They are moveable structures!

3. Adventists talk about the phrase “within the veil” in Hebrews 6 as though it is in the holy place. But if you do a word study on “within the vail” in the Old Testament (note the spelling) you’ll find that it appears about 20 times, and each time it is clearly referring to the most holy place. So the Adventist interpretation of “within the veil” in Hebrews 6 as referring to the holy place must be erroneous.

Answer: There is a reason why the words “vail” and “veil” in the King James Version are spelled differently in those Old Testament passages and the New Testament passages in Hebrews. One word gives the idea of a curtain, and the other word gives the idea of a covering. In the Old Testament, the Bible speaks about hangings that were the doors of the earthly sanctuary, for the entrance to the courtyard (Exodus 25:17), separating the courtyard from the holy place (Exodus 39:38), and the holy place from the most holy place (Exodus 40:5). Those doors are also described as curtains (Numbers 3:26). But between the two sanctuaries, the second curtain was not just a curtain, it was a covering. The Bible has a special word that refers to that second curtain that means “covering.” This word is translated “vail” in the Old Testament (Exodus 34:33). So if you were to say “within a curtain” you would need to clarify which curtain you are referring to, the first or the second. But if you say “within the covering” there’s only one of those two curtains that is called the covering and that is the one between the two holy places. So in the Old Testament when you read “within the vail” you’re reading “within the covering” which would be within the most holy place (Exodus 26:33). But in Hebrews, the Greek word that is used for “veil” means “a veil spread out, a curtain”. So in Hebrews 6:19 Jesus is spoken of as entering within the veil, referring to the first curtain, and then in Hebrews 9:3 He enters within the second veil or curtain.

The Sanctuary in Revelation

The two books of the Bible dealing primarily with last-day events are Daniel and Revelation. Revelation is the key to unlocking the meaning of the sealed book of Daniel. Therefore, whatever light is shed upon the subject of the heavenly sanctuary in Revelation is also light shed upon the book of Daniel and specifically upon Daniel 8:14. The key question we must ask about the book of Revelation is this: Is Christ portrayed in the visions of John as ministering in the Holy Place or in the Most Holy Place at the time of the writing of the book (A.D. 96)? In other words, does John picture Christ as entering his antitypical Day of Atonement ministry at the cross or at a later time? To answer this extremely crucial question, we must analyze each allusion to the heavenly sanctuary in the 22 chapters of Revelation and note where in the sanctuary the activity is taking place.

Reference	Vision	Courtyard	Holy Place	Most Holy Place
Rev 1:13, 20	Christ among 7 lampstands
2:1, 5	Christ among 7 lampstands
4:2	God's Throne
6:9	Souls under the altar
8:3	Incense mingled with prayers
8:5	Throwing downs the censer
9:13	Four horns of golden altar
11:1	Measurement of the Temple
11:4	Two lampstands
11:19	Ark of God's covenant
14:15, 17	Angel coming from the Temple
14:18	Angel coming from the Altar
15:5, 6; 16:1	Temple of the covenant opened
16:7	Altar crying
20:11	Great white throne
22:1	The throne of God

Christ’s Inauguration as High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary

Many texts in the New Testament speak of Jesus as being at the right hand of God after His resurrection and ascension to heaven (Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22). Other texts tell us that it was in the role of High Priest that He sat down at His Father’s right hand and began the heavenly phase of His ministry (Hebrews 4:14-16; 8:1-2; 9:11, 24). The question we want to consider is whether the Bible gives us a picture of this very important event. If so, we want to look for clues within this picture that help us to know where it was in heaven that Christ joined His Father to commence the work of applying the benefits of His atoning death and resurrection.

Revelation chapters 4 and 5 are a picture of the ascension of Christ and His inauguration and installation as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. A careful study of these chapters reveals that it was in the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary that Christ met His Father and began His work as High Priest.

a. The word “throne” (Gr. thronos) appears 14 times in Revelation 4 and five times in the next chapter. The throne, therefore, is central to the heavenly vision that John sees and all activity is oriented to it. As you read through chapter 4 you’ll note that activity takes place “on the throne” (4:2, 4, 9, 10), “around the throne” (4:3, 4, 6), “out from the throne” (4:5), “in front of the throne” (4:5, 6, 10), and “in the midst of the throne” (4:6). A throne represents the right to rule. Thus, the emphasis of the throne in these two chapters highlights their concern with the controversy between God and Satan over the dominion of the universe.

b. Revelation chapter 4 is full of allusions to the OT sanctuary and its services:

i. Door: The word for “door” in verse 1 (Gr. thura) is used scores of times in the Greek OT (LXX) in relation to the sanctuary, although the word itself gives no information on which sanctuary door might be in view.

ii. Trumpet: Trumpets were used in connection with the sanctuary for burnt offerings and peace offerings (Numbers 10:10).

iii. Precious stones: The three precious stones (jasper, sardine, emerald) are found in the breastplate of the high priest (Exodus 28:17-21).

iv. Twenty-four elders: The number twenty-four recalls the twenty-four courses into which the priests were organized by King David in OT times (1 Chronicles 24:4-19).

v. Seven lamps: The seven lamps of fire burning before the throne recalls the candlestick in the holy place.

vi. Sea of glass: The sea of glass reminds of the “molten sea” in Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 7:23-24).

vii. Four beasts: The four beasts bear resemblance to the four living creatures in Ezekiel 1 and 10 and remind us of the cherubim associated with the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:18-20; 1 Kings 6:23-28). Cherubim were also visible in the holy place of the OT sanctuary (Exodus 26:1, 31-35).

c. Revelation chapter 5 repeats many of the images in chapter 4, but with some additions:

i. The slain Lamb: The Lamb as it had been slain is reminiscent of Isaiah 53:7 and reminds us of the morning and evening sacrifices (Exodus 29:38-42) or the Passover Sacrifice (1 Corinthians 5:7).

ii. Golden bowls of incense: The 24 elders hold golden bowls of incense which are interpreted as the prayers of the saints. Incense and prayers of saints are associated with the morning and evening sacrifices of the sanctuary (Psalm 141:2; Exodus 29:38-43; 30:7-8; Luke 1:9-10).

iii. Blood of the Lamb: The blood of the Lamb provides the means to purchase the people of the earth for God. They in turn serve God in analogy to the priests of the OT sanctuary (Revelation 5:9).

d. Chapters 4 and 5 contain a larger quantity and a wider variety of allusions to the sanctuary than any other part of the book of Revelation. The entire heavenly sanctuary seems to be brought into view, though the emphasis is perhaps more towards the holy place and its services. In the OT sanctuary system, there were only two occasions when the entire sanctuary was involved: the Day of Atonement and the service of inauguration (Exodus 40). Given that Revelation 4-5 presents such a strong sanctuary scene, to which of these rites should it be linked?

i. Revelation 3:21 – In this text Christ promises to reward the overcomer with a share in His throne. The Father’s throne, the overcoming of Christ, and Christ joining the Father on His throne are the central themes of Revelation 4 and 5. These chapters are therefore an elaboration of the latter part of 3:21, concerning Christ’s overcoming and enthronement.

ii. In Revelation 4:2 the tense of the Greek verb translated “was set” in reference to the throne attests that the prophet does not understand the throne to be recently set up, but rather it had been continually in that place until that time. This is in contrast with Daniel 7:9 where thrones are “set up,” a clear signal that John does not perceive this scene to be a duplicate of that found in Daniel.

iii. The language of judgment in Revelation 11:18-19 is absent in Revelation 4 and 5.

iv. The implicit structure of Revelation places the Day of Atonement in the latter half of the book

The scene in Revelation 4 and 5 is therefore best understood as a portrayal of the inauguration of the entire heavenly sanctuary in A.D. 31.

e. Revelation chapter 4 focuses on God, seated on His throne, surrounded by intelligent beings that render praise in His honor.

i. How many are there represented as seated on the throne? Note the references to a single person who is sitting on the throne in verses 3 and 10, and to whom praise is given in verse 11.

ii. Who is that Person who is seated on the throne? Note that Jesus, the Lamb that was slain, does not appear until chapter 5 and there He is described as standing.

iii. The Holy Spirit is present in heaven at this moment, represented as the seven Spirits of God.

iv. Conspicuously absent is the angelic host – the multitude of angels that are seen in the similar throne room scene of Daniel 7.

v. In the vision of the heavenly sanctuary of Revelation 4, God the Father is the One seated on the throne and Jesus has not yet arrived. Jesus is being borne to heaven by the angelic host who are also missing from the scene because they have gone to earth to receive Him and escort Him back to heaven (Acts 1:9).

f. In Revelation chapter 5 the attention shifts from God the Father who is seated on the throne to the Lamb. In this chapter we find several more clues indicating that the scene in these chapters is a picture of Jesus’ arrival in the heavenly sanctuary upon His ascension from earth and His inauguration as High Priest.

i. Jesus appears in verse 6 as a Lamb as it had been slain. He is also spoken of as the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” and the “Root of David”. Christ was slain as a sacrificial Lamb, but had overcome death and now stands before His Father’s throne as the triumphant One. In Romans 5:12 Paul applies the title “Root of Jesse” to Jesus, implying that Christ is a second David. David was Israel’s greatest king and military hero. Christ’s victory in the great controversy with Satan restores the kingdom of God to His people.

ii. The seven Spirits of God, which in chapter 4 were before the throne, have now been sent out into all the earth (verse 6). Jesus had told His disciples that when He left them the Father would send them the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Galatians 4:6).

iii. The angelic host suddenly appears in verse 11, whereas they had been absent in chapter 4.