RUSSELL KELLY
In this document Russell Kelly presents classic Adventist teaching on the defilement and cleansing of the sanctuary quoted from Ellen White’s writings, and he contrasts her teaching with the biblical truth about the same doctrine.
1. The Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary
“The blood representing the forfeited life of the sinner, whose guilt the victim bore, was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil” (Great Controversy p. 418).
This statement is false. First, the blood of a sacrificial animal, like the blood of Jesus Christ, did not “represent the forfeited life of the sinner.” Rather, it represented the substituted sinless life of Jesus which effected the atonement. Sinless blood paid the price for sin. The sin stopped at the doorway and did not enter the tabernacle. Second, the sinless blood of a perfect sacrifice was brought into the sanctuary as a recorded receipt of the finished atonement—the sin had been redeemed by a sinless sacrifice! It did not transfer the sin itself (Jer. 17:1).
“By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary” (Great Controversy p. 418).
This is also false. First, the sinner did transfer the guilt of sins to the living sacrifice (Is. 53:6, 12; 2 Cor. 5:21). Second, that transfer of sins to the sacrifice ended in the sacrifice’s death. However, the “transfer of sin” stopped when the sacrifice died. That which went into the sanctuary through the blood was the sinless redemptive power of the perfect sacrifice—not the sins!
EGW concluded by quoting only the last half of Leviticus 10:17:
“‘God hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.’ Both ceremonies alike [eating and/or sprinkling the sin offering] symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary” (Great Controversy p. 418).
This is false because of what is omitted.
The entire quote of 10:17 is, “Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?” In the context of the entire verse, the sin offering was “most holy.” EGW took words out of context and described bearing the sin offering as bearing sin into the sanctuary to defile it.
“As anciently the sins of the people were placed by faith upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary” (Great Controversy p. 421).
This sentence teaches that Jesus Christ Himself—not the little horn nor the saints—is the One who defiles the Adventist version of the heavenly sanctuary by carrying sin into the Most Holy Place! However, nothing could be further from the truth. With this doctrine Adventists confer on Jesus’ blood the dual function of both washing away sins and of carrying sins into the sanctuary and defiling it. Adventism is wrong in teaching that the daily, weekly, monthly, and seasonal sacrificial blood defiled the temple while the yearly Day of Atonement sacrificial blood cleansed it.
Jesus arose from death because he had appeared once at the end of God’s age (not in 1844) and had put away sin once for all time (Heb. 9:26). Just as in the Old Testament sin stopped at the doorway to the tabernacle where the sacrificial animal died, even so in the new covenant the payment for sin ended at Calvary. It is inconceivable to think that Jesus appeared before the Father after His resurrection and handed Him “all the sins of the world” to store in the Most Holy Place until He would only very slowly begin to remove them in 1844.
2. Sanctuary defilement
Adventism teaches that the priests (and Jesus) carry the atoned sins of the penitent into the sanctuary, and sacrificial blood defiles it, thus requiring a “cleansing” of the sanctuaries both on earth and also in heaven (Great Controversy, p. 418, 421 above).
In the New Testament it is clear that sacrificial blood always refers to the sinless, perfect, most holy blood of Jesus Christ who was the “Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). There is not the slightest hint that Jesus’ blood defiled anything at any time. (See Rom. 3:24-25; 5:9.)
In the Old Testament, the blood of the sin offering and the trespass offering are always called “most holy.” In Exodus 12:13 the blood allowed the death angel to pass over all sin. In Exodus 24:4-8 sacrificial blood made holy both the covenant and the people. In Exodus 29:20-21 and Leviticus 8:14-15 and 30: 9:9, sacrificial blood made the priests and their garments holy and prepared the altar for use. Sacrificial blood is never described as carrying the unclean defilement (leaven) of sin beyond the doorway where the animal died.
3. Only un-atoned sins defile the sanctuary
Leviticus 15:31: “Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.”
Numbers 19:20: “But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.”
While Adventists teach that the sanctuaries on earth and heaven are defiled by sins which have already been confessed, atoned by a sacrifice, and pronounced forgiven, in reality un-atoned sins are the only sins committed by Old Testament believers which “defiled” the sanctuary on earth. And the heavenly sanctuary cannot be defiled in any manner. (See Lev. 15:31; 18:28; 20:3; Num. 5:2-3; 19:13, 20; 35:34; Ez. 2:62.)
Contrary to what Adventists teach, there is no Bible text which says that atoned sins defile the sanctuary. The land, the camp, and the tabernacle were all defiled either by deliberate sin or other sins which had not been atoned by sacrifice! The atoned sins were washed away by the sinless blood of the sacrificial animal, a type of Christ. This death occurred at the “doorway” of the inner court which was reserved for the sanctified Levites and priests (Lev. 1:3; 3:2; 4:4; etc).
4. Sins of ignorance
The only kinds of sins which were brought to the sanctuary for atonement were: sins of ignorance committed either inadvertently or accidentally (Lev. 4-5; Num. 15); sins of omission where one failed to do what was right (Lev. 6); theft requiring restitution (Lev. 6); sins of obligation where one was forced into defilement such as touching a dead relative (Lev. 11); leprosy (Lev. 13-15); other minor trespasses against God’s standards of holiness (Lev. 19), and jealousy over suspected marital infidelity (Num. 5). This discussion of what kinds of sins were actually brought to the sanctuary is not found in the Adventist sanctuary doctrine.
5. Willful sin
Premeditated (willful, deliberate, high-handed) sins were NOT brought to the sanctuary for atonement under the statutes and ordinances of the Law because pre-meditated sins could not be atoned by daily personal sacrifices. This fact is not found in the Adventist sanctuary doctrine, either.
When a person committed most pre-meditated sins, there was no prescribed sacrifice to bring. That person must suffer the disciplinary consequences of his/her sin. He/she was totally at the mercy of God, the judges, the accusers and those against whom he/she had sinned (Num. 15:30-31).
When a serious presumptuous sin had been committed, death (cutting off) or equal dismemberment (literal cutting off) was often the penalty of the judges—not the priests. Death—not a sacrifice—was often the punishment. (Ex. 21:24; 22:18, 20; 30:21; 31:14; Lev. 7:21, 25-27; 10 all; 18 all; 20 all; Lev. 24:16, 20; Deut. 19:21).
The judicial punishment of presumptuous sins explains why God did not command a sacrifice when Aaron allowed the golden calves to be made (Ex. 32), when Moses struck the rock (Num. 20), when Achan was caught stealing (Josh. 7), and when David was declared guilty of murder (2 Sam. 12). The guilty persons “bore their own iniquity.” (See Num. 5:31; 30:15; Ez. 18:20.)
Unlike the old covenant, however, the new covenant takes care of presumptuous and willful sins as explained in Acts 13:39.
These facts destroy the entire Adventist doctrine of sin transfer because (at least in the Old Testament) deliberate sins were never confessed over sacrificial animals and, therefore, were never brought by the priests into the sanctuary (as Adventism claims) to “defile” it. Therefore, when Adventists include confessed and forgiven presumptuous sins among those which (they say) defile the most holy place during the daily ministration of the sanctuary service, they blatantly misrepresent the nature of the sins involved in the sanctuary service. This easily places the entire Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary into even more confusion.
6. God’s holiness
Leviticus 22:3: “Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the LORD.”
Unclean priests who entered the sanctuary were put to death. The Adventist description of priests carrying sin-mingled sacrificial blood into the sanctuary, thus defiling it everyday, is also contrary to everything the Bible teaches about the holiness of God, His sanctuary, and His priests. (See also Ex. 12:19; 23:18; 29:44-45; 34:25; Lev. 2:11; 6:17; 10:12; 23:17).
All of the offerings, especially the sin offering, were called “most holy”, and the divine mandate for priests to be holy required them to maintain holiness in everything they did (Lev. 6:17, 25; 7:1; Num. 18:7-10).
God was very serious in keeping sin and defilement out of His sanctuary. In Leviticus 21:10-12 the officiating high priest was not allowed to be defiled even if his own father died. In Leviticus 21:21-23 a priest with any body blemish was forbidden to enter the sanctuary. In Leviticus 22:2-3 any separation from holy things would result in profaning God’s name. Sin and sinners stopped at the doorway where the sacrifice was slain, “atonement” was made, and the sinner was declared to be “accepted” (Ex. 29:42-43; Lev. 1:4), “cleansed” (Lev. 12:8; Num. 8:21) and “forgiven” (Lev. 4:20, 35; 5:10, 13; 6:7). There is no indication that those same atoned sins would ever be reintroduced to condemn the penitent. (See Ex. 33:18-23; Is. 6:3-5; 2 Chron. 26:19; Ez. 1:1-23 and Rev. 1:12-18.) Yet Adventists convert God’s most holy throne into the storage room for all confessed and atoned sins since Adam.
7. Clean-to-unclean law
Leviticus 5:2: “If a soul touch any unclean thing … and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean and guilty.”
Normal
- clean plus defiled = defiled
- touch dead animal = defiled
Under the normal day-to-day circumstances of Old Testament life, the “unclean” defiled anything “clean” which it touched.
8. Unclean-to-clean sacrificial law
Numbers 18:9: “This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every oblation of theirs, every meat offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every trespass offering of theirs, which they shall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons.”
It is extremely important to realize that the “clean to unclean” law was reversed when sacrificial offerings were involved. And this reversal destroys the Adventist logic about the priests carrying and transferring sin into the sanctuary! (Ex. 30:26-29; Lev. 6:17-18, 25, 27.)
Sacrificial
- defiled plus sacrifice = most holy
- touch dead sacrificial animal = holy
The “sin” and “trespass” offerings became “most holy” because, being innocent and holy, they could bear the guilt of sin by destroying it through their death.
9. Blood carried in is proof of payment
When the sacrifice died as a sin offering at the entrance of the sanctuary, the payment for the confessed sin was complete, and the sin itself was exterminated. The ministering “most holy” priest collected the “most holy” blood of the “now-most holy” sin and trespass offering and either placed it on the “most holy” altar or ate portions of the “most holy” sacrifice (Ex. 29: 37; 30:26-29; Lev. 6:17-18, 25-27; 12:8; Num. 18:9).
The blood was brought inside the sanctuary not to defile it, but as a proof (receipt of payment rendered) that the redemption price had already been fully paid. The priest announced to the penitent that “an atonement for him before the LORD” had been made and that he was “forgiven” of his “trespass” (Lev. 4:20; 5:6; 6:7).
The blood was not brought into the sanctuary, as Ellen White wrote, “to make satisfaction for its claims”(Great Controversy p. 420), because the satisfaction had already been made and announced when the sacrificial animal’s blood was shed!
Sacrificial blood is the redemption price for sin (Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12). Redemption blood brings the sinner “near” to God by reconciliation—not by defiling God’s dwelling place (Eph. 2:13). God could not declare “peace through the blood” if that same blood had separated him from God by defiling his throne (Col. 1:20).
10. Bearing sin
Exodus 28:43: And they [holy garments] shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute forever unto him and his seed after him.
Under normal circumstances a person, land, or even a building which was unclean or defiled was to “bear” the consequences of un-atoned sin by punishment from the judges, either by death or by destruction. This kind of “bearing iniquity” was sin and would lead to their death. (Lev. 22:14-16; Num. 18:22). Therefore, since any defiled person who entered the sanctuary was to be put to death, it is extremely illogical to teach (as Adventists do) that the most holy priests routinely transferred sin into it through most holy sacrificial blood.
Numbers 18:1: “…you shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary and you and your sons with you shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.”
In its sacrificial and intercessory sense, “bear the iniquity” clearly means “bear the responsibility of officiating during the ritual” where sin is atoned through sacrifices. The holy priest was only allowed to touch, handle, and work with holy things and most holy things.
For the priest, “bearing sin” as part of his service meant “bearing sin away.” Since no thing (nor person), unclean or defiled, was allowed to enter the sanctuary, the sanctuary was not defiled through the normal daily ministry itself. The substitute death of the innocent sacrificial animal allowed the priest to grant forgiveness (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:15).
11. Extent of the Day of Atonement cleansing
First, many have neglected the everyday cleansing of the sanctuary. Forms of “cleanse”, or the Hebrew word taher, are extremely common, occurring in descriptions of the everyday sanctuary routines over 60 times in Leviticus alone.
Second, the Adventist doctrine fails to explain why the Bible says that the entire sanctuary was cleansed on the Day of Atonement and not merely the Most Holy Place. In Leviticus 16:15-20, the Most Holy Place was cleansed first, and the remainder of the sanctuary followed. Yet in the Adventist sequence Jesus (at least) ministered in the Holy Place until 1844. This would have required that the Holy Place be cleansed first long before 1844. It also incorrectly teaches that part of the sanctuary can be un-defiled and usable while another part was defiled and unusable.
12. Residual sins in God’s camp
Leviticus 16:16 reveals the purpose of the cleansing, “and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness” (KJV, NKJV). The NAS and RSV read “which abides with them.”
God does not require that the same sins be cleansed twice. The Day of Atonement was preceded by the “affliction of soul” (Lev. 23:27-34). The days leading up to it were final opportunities to recall non-presumptuous sins which had prevented full fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:9). They were residual sins which had not been previously cleansed by sacrificial blood. The types of sins from Leviticus 1 to 15 are still valid.
The necessary cleansing was caused by the very presence of sinful humans where a holy God remained, abided, or dwelled “among them”—in their “midst.”
Unlike the heavenly sanctuary, the one on earth was surrounded by millions of sinners who regularly committed both presumptuous and ignorant sins. These sins defiled the sanctuary. In Numbers 5:3 those who had been defiled by unavoidable and un-atonable uncleanness were forced to leave the camp “that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.” In Leviticus 15:31 God said, “Separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.” And Deuteronomy 23:44 adds “For the LORD thy God walks in the midst of thy camp.”
This end-of-the-religious-year final cleansing is not a new idea. Barnes Notes; the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary; Keil and Delitzsch Commentary; Matthew Henry Commentary, and the New Unger’s Bible Dictionary all agree that the cleansing was of residual sins rather than a second cleansing of sins which had already been atoned by the daily sacrifices.
Finally, the yearly cleansing of the righteous on the Day of Atonement has no equivalent future fulfillment because a) the heavenly sanctuary is not located “in the midst” of several million sinners; b) Jesus’ death once and for all time fulfilled the Old Testament sanctuary shadows (Heb. 9:25-28; 10:1-3); c) The Old Testament sanctuary was only a figure for “the time then present” (9:9); d) the new covenant is “not according to the old covenant” (8:9), and e) a key difference in the new covenant is that God would no longer remember sins and iniquities as in the Day of Atonement (8:12). There would not even be a record of atoned sins in heavenly books! Yet Ellen G. White says that Hebrews 8:12 does not begin to have “complete fulfillment” until 1844 (Great Controversy 485). Moreover, we can be forgiven of willful sins in the new covenant—a provision not available in the old covenant (Acts 13:39). †
Russell Kelly has a B.A. from Southern Adventist Unviersity (1972), a PhD from Covington Theological Seminary (2000) and learned Chinese Mandarin at Yale University. A former Adventist pastor, he has written extensively on many subjects including Adventism, tithing and the resurrection. His writings can be found at www.tithing-russkelly.com. You may email him at russell-kelly@att.net.
- Stories of Faith: Journey From Fear To Faith - November 14, 2024
- Universalism: Assessing the Faulty Premises - November 7, 2024
- I missed out on cheeseburgers, but I found the feast! - October 31, 2024