Author’s Note: The available space limits this review to a summary presentation.

On October 22, 1844, nothing happened. Or at least, so it seemed. William Miller had correctly counted the years based on Daniel 9 and Ezra 7. He had correctly identified that the Day of Atonement would be the close of probation (Lev. 23:29) and the end of earth’s history. Although he had resisted date setting, he had become convinced from the King James Version of Daniel 8 and 2 Peter 3 that in 1844 the sanctuary—the earth—would be cleansed by fire.

On October 23, Hiram Edson had a vision of Christ entering the inner apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. After discussing the vision, the remaining Millerites came to believe that Jesus had entered the inner apartment of the heavenly sanctuary on October 22 to begin to "cleanse the sanctuary" during the Day of Atonement in heaven. This belief became the core of the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment.

As with all new areas of biblical discovery, time allows us to review what we have thought we understood. Daniel 8:14 (KJV) says, "2,300 days, then the sanctuary will be cleansed." There are several problems with this.

First, Daniel 8:11 identifies the "little horn," an earthly power, "throwing down the place of the sanctuary (makon miqdash)" in heaven. This has to be a figurative attack, since he can’t physically reach into heaven. The best understanding is that he attacks the "foundation (alternate translation of makon) of the sanctuary," God’s holiness. His career continues in verse 12, and then in verse 13 one angel asks another how long he will be allowed to trample on the saints and qodesh. This context tells us that the Day of Atonement isn’t in view. The Day of Atonement deals with cleansing the saints (Lev. 16:30), not repelling a satanic attack.

The answer in 8:14 is "qodesh will be nitsdaq." Qodesh has an extended meaning of "sanctuary," but its primary meaning is "holiness," the foundation (makon) of the sanctuary. Since the Holy Ones used qodesh instead of miqdash, which always means "sanctuary," the better translation is that "holiness will be vindicated." This fits the context perfectly. The Day of Atonement is not in view.

Our next problem is the issue of heavenly fulfillment. The Millerites drew comfort from their working hypothesis, but it violates a biblical principle. When God gives prophetic landmarks, they take place on earth. Jesus told the disciples that prophecies were designed to build faith (John 13:19, 14:29). If we can’t see the fulfillment, there’s no way for it to build our faith. Ellen White strongly affirms the Investigative Judgment. But using her to confirm the Investigative Judgment violates both her admonitions and the Bible. She repeatedly advises that we are never to use her to prove anything. Furthermore, she is only one witness, and we are to verify using "two or three witnesses" (Deut. 19:15; Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1). No other witnesses exist.

The Millerites had one final problem. In their zeal to find the date, they neglected the prophecy’s starting point. The decree starting the twenty-three hundred days "went forth" (Dan. 9:25, lit.) on Nisan 1 (Ezra 7:9) and arrived in Jerusalem on Av 1, a month and a half before the Day of Atonement. If they were to be consistent, the Day of Atonement doesn’t fit the calendar.

We’ve already dealt with the translation of Daniel 8:14. But many hold the "cleansing of the sanctuary" language dearly. So we must consider what that phrase truly means. Hebrews 9 uses "cleansing" language (verse 9:23). The context looks to Moses cleansing the sanctuary and tabernacle when it was placed in service (Heb. 9:18–21, compare Exod. 24:4–8, Lev. 8). This happened in the first or second month (Num. 1:1ff), but the Day of Atonement is in the seventh month. Furthermore, Aaron was the high priest who performed the Day of Atonement service (Lev. 16), not Moses. (The sanctuary and tabernacle are separate items [see Num. 10:21]).

The problem Moses addressed wasn’t confessed sins. The tabernacle and sanctuary hadn’t been used yet. Rather, sinful men built it of ordinary stuff, and it had to be consecrated for service (Num. 7:1). The common had to be made holy so God could dwell there (Exod. 25:8).

Moses isn’t the only one who "cleansed the sanctuary." Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29) cleansed the sanctuary by rededicating it after it had fallen into disuse and idolatrous contamination. Josiah (2 Chron. 34) followed Hezekiah’s pattern. Nehemiah cleansed the second temple after an unqualified person was allowed to live in it (Neh. 13). If we include the Maccabees, we have five historical examples of cleansing the sanctuary, and all five are (re)-dedicatory events. None of them happened on the Day of Atonement.

In contrast, the Bible does not contain a single historical example of the Day of Atonement. The only "cleansing" associated with the Day of Atonement is the cleansing of the people (Lev. 16:30). The tabernacle is never said to be cleansed on the Day of Atonement. If we consider the Jewish view of the Day of Atonement, the case is even stronger. The Mishna tractate Yoma (The Day) refers to the cleansing of the people three times (citing Lev. 16:30), but never suggests a cleansing of the tabernacle.

What should we make of such statements as "he shall make atonement for (the altar)" (Lev. 16:18). This would seem to suggest that the altar required cleansing. The preposition "for" is the Hebrew prefix al. Its primary meaning is to indicate a direction such as "upon." And this is how it is used in other verses in chapter 16. As we will see in part 2, the altar doesn’t need atonement. Rather, the Hebrew simply says that atonement is done on the altar. It does not say that the altar is the beneficiary.

In short, there is no evidence that the Day of Atonement is considered to be a "cleansing of the sanctuary." The term properly refers only to a dedication of the sanctuary and tabernacle for service.

To be continued…

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE