As Seventh-day Adventists, we share the same Bible with other Christians, yet our interpretation of the biblical passages about the heavenly sanctuary sets us apart. How have others before us understood those passages? And how did we come to interpret them differently?
A Spiritualized View
During the intertestamental period (the time between the Old and New Testaments) the notion of a timeless, immaterial heaven began to compete with the belief in a temporal-spatial heavenly sanctuary. By the early sixth century A.D. this belief had largely been replaced by the notion of a timeless and immaterial heaven, with a focus on earthly manifestations of the sanctuary, including their altars, priests, and sacrifices. The Protestant Reformers protested against ascribing sacred value to earthly entities and revived the focus on Jesus as our personal intercessor and high priest, yet they retained the spiritualized interpretation of the biblical passages about the heavenly sanctuary.
To understand how we came to interpret those passages differently, we need to delve into the history of Adventist thought. This includes examining how the Millerites, the disappointed Adventists, and the early Sabbatarian Adventists viewed the sanctuary. Their journey through intense study of Scripture led to our unique perspective on the heavenly sanctuary’s role in the plan of salvation.
Partial Insight
The Millerite revival of the Second Great Awakening turned attention to Daniel 8, a passage rich in sanctuary language, yet it did not break with the spiritualized perception of heaven. In 1818 the Baptist farmer William Miller read, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” (Dan. 8:14, KJV). To identify that sanctuary, he studied every biblical reference to “sanctuary,” “temple,” or “tabernacle.” He identified seven sanctuaries: Jesus Christ, heaven, Judah, the Jerusalem temple, the Holy of Holies, the earth, and the saints.1
Because Jesus and heaven were pure, Judah was no longer God’s people, and the temple in Jerusalem was lying in ruins, Miller concluded that only the earth and the saints needed cleansing. He believed that this cleansing would occur at Christ’s second coming, when the earth would be cleansed by fire and the saints would be transformed.2
Applying the year-day principle to the 2,300 days and starting the count from 457 B.C., Miller concluded that they would end “about the year 1843,” predicting Christ’s second coming. As that year approached, he defined it more precisely as running from March 21, 1843, to March 21, 1844. Meanwhile, Samuel S. Snow proposed the coming of Christ in the fall of 1844. It was only after the “year 1843” had ended with the Millerites being disappointed that they became open to Snow’s proposal of a fall date.
Linking Miller’s interpretation of the Jewish festivals, Snow interpreted the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 as the antitypical day of atonement (Lev. 16; 23:26-32), yet he still maintained the idea that this event would mark the return of Christ. The Millerites gradually united around proclaiming the return of Jesus on October 22, 1844, which, according to the calendar of the Karaite Jews, marked the Day of Atonement. Judging from the reactions of the public against the proclamation of the Second Coming, the Millerites concluded days before the expected event that the door of probation had closed (Matt. 25:10). Yet when Jesus did not return, the Millerites were deeply disappointed.
Paradigm Shift
Whereas most believers retained the Millerite interpretation of Daniel 8:14 but endeavored to find new starting and ending dates for the 2,300 days, some Millerites realized they had missed the biblical teaching about the heavenly sanctuary. (Neither Miller nor Snow had entertained the idea of a temporal-spatial sanctuary in heaven needing cleansing.) The failure of Christ to return as expected pressed them to reevaluate their interpretation, laying the groundwork for a new understanding of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 and a revival of the belief in a sanctuary in heaven.
As Hiram Edson prayed for understanding on the morning after the disappointment, he felt impressed that “the sanctuary to be cleansed is in heaven.” Unable to grasp the meaning of that impression, he was driven to the Bible, where he found in Hebrews 9 that there was a sanctuary in heaven and that it required cleansing (Heb. 9:23). Studying the Bible with his friends O.R.L. Crosier and Franklin B. Hahn, he concluded that Christ entered the most holy place in heaven on October 22, 1844, starting a new phase of His ministry. They promoted their findings in the Day-Dawn and the Day-Star in March 1845 and February 1846, respectively.
Meanwhile, in February 1845 Ellen Harmon had a vision in which she saw that Jesus had entered the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary and that believers should follow him there in faith. More important, she saw that He was still interceding for them, implying that the door of probation was not yet closed.3 Similarly, Emily C. Clemons encouraged believers in her paper, Hope Within the Veil, to enter the new covenant experience as Christ performed His extended atonement ministry.4
Unlike Snow, who presumed that the Day of Atonement had occurred on October 22, 1844, and that Christ had ended His priestly ministry, they believed this date marked the beginning of an extended Day of Atonement, with grace and mercy still available. The sanctuary doctrine not only explained the disappointment but also introduced a philosophical paradigm shift—returning the focus from heaven as a sanctuary to a sanctuary in heaven.5 This view of a temporal-spatial sanctuary aligned with their belief that the saints would receive immortality at Christ’s second coming and be with Him in heaven in their bodies during the millennium.
Integrative Message
This paradigm shift would have significant ramifications for the identity, message, and mission of the new fledgling movement.
In January 1847 Joseph Bates published a second edition of his tract The Seventh Day Sabbath, A Perpetual Sign, in which he linked the Sabbath with the heavenly sanctuary and the third angel’s message. The revelation of the ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary (Rev. 11:19) was followed by the depiction of a group of people, a remnant, who keep the commandments of God (Rev. 12:17) after the proclamation of the first and second angels’ messages (Rev. 14:12), a fitting description of their recent experience. Bates believed Christ’s move to the most holy place in October 1844 revealed the importance of the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath.
In April 1847 Ellen White had a vision that confirmed the special relevance of the Sabbath commandment, thus supporting Bates’ insights.6 Emphasizing the “tender love that God has for His people” in January 1849, she saw that Jesus, as our heavenly high priest, pleads His blood to delay the releasing of the winds of trouble until the sealing has been completed.7 While He had opened the door to the most holy place, some people were trying to keep that door shut and suppress the revived relevance of the Sabbath truth.8
Bates identified the Sabbath as the seal of God and argued that the 144,000 would be sealed with the Sabbath truth before the winds of trouble would be released (Rev. 7 and 13).9 Their discoveries gradually moved them beyond their early shut-door view.
The integrated sanctuary message made Sabbatarian Adventists aware of their duty to share the Sabbath more broadly to prepare people for the final events. Integrating these doctrinal elements gave them a prophetic identity, a coherent message, and an urgent mission that pushed them to the ends of the world.10
Conclusion
The discovery of the sanctuary doctrine has “opened to view a complete system of truth.”11 Many of our doctrines are directly or indirectly connected to the belief in a sanctuary in heaven, Christ’s high-priestly ministry (Heb. 8), and the pre-Advent judgment in our favor (Dan. 7; 8). Instead of being a judgment to fear, the day of atonement judgment confirms God’s justice and mercy based on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, thus providing us with assurance of salvation. This doctrine has not only set us apart from other Christians through its philosophical and theological paradigm shift, but also turned us into a global mission movement.
1 William Miller, Letter to Joshua V. Himes, on the Cleansing of the Sanctuary (Boston: J. V. Himes, 1842), pp. 4-14.
2 Ibid.
3 Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1882, 1945), pp. 54-56.
4 See O.R.L. Crosier, “Letter From Bro. O.R L. Crosier,” Day-Star, Oct. 11, 1845, p. 50.
5 Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1884), vol. 4, pp. 268-270; Ellen G. Harmon, “Letter From Sister Harmon,” Day-Star, Mar. 14, 1846; Ellen G. White letter 3, 1847, to Joseph Bates, July 13, 1847, in Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, Md.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1990), vol. 5, pp. 95-98.
6 Ellen G. White to Joseph Bates, Apr. 7, 1847, published in A Word to the “Little Flock,” ed. James White (Brunswick, Maine: James White, 1847), p. 18.
7 Ellen G. White, “To Those Who Are Receiving the Seal of the Living God,” broadside, Jan. 31, 1849, in The Ellen G. White Letters and Manuscripts With Annotations (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 2014), vol. 1, p. 150.
8 Ellen G. White, “Dear Brethren and Sisters,” Present Truth, August 1849, p. 21.
9 Joseph Bates to Leonard and Elvira Hastings, Aug. 7, 1848; Joseph Bates, A Seal of the Living God: A Hundred Forty-four Thousand of the Servants of God Being Sealed in 1849 (New Bedford, Mass.: Benjamin Lindsey, 1849).
10 George R. Knight, William Miller and the Rise of Adventism (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 2010), pp. 264-267, 284, 285.
11 E. G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, p. 268.