The cleansing of the earthly sanctuary during the annual Day of Atonement, as described in Leviticus 16, holds a significant place in Seventh-day Adventist theology. This chapter serves as a foundational text from which the organization seeks to derive typological support for its distinctive doctrine of the investigative judgment. This doctrine, unique to Seventh-day Adventism, originated in the aftermath of the failed prophecy of Christ’s return in 1844, an event that became known as the Great Disappointment. The doctrine was initially developed following an alleged vision experienced by Hiram Edson, one of the movement’s early pioneers.
To critically assess the Adventist interpretation of Leviticus 16 and its application to their theology, it is essential to first understand the historical and theological context of the investigative judgment. This includes examining the movement’s roots, the circumstances surrounding its doctrinal development, and the broader framework within which Adventists understand the relationship between the earthly sanctuary, the heavenly sanctuary, and eschatological judgment.
The Roots of the Belief
As Seventh-day Adventist theologian P. Gerard Damsteegt notes in a paper titled How Our Pioneers Discovered the Sanctuary Doctrine:
When October 22 passed with no appearance of the High Priest, the Adventists felt acute disappointment. Why had Christ not come? Was their method of Bible study incorrect? Was their study of prophetic time off? Did anything significant happen to Christ’s mediatorial ministry on October 22? What was the precise nature of His ministry in heaven? What was His role as Priest? Was the delay in His return caused by some kind of preparatory work He had to perform before His return? Was there anything relevant in the Old Testament typical sanctuary ministry that they had overlooked regarding Christ’s antitypical service?…
The Adventists’ daily searching and praying was not in vain. Beginning with Hiram Edson’s remarkable experience of perception regarding Christ’s sanctuary ministry on the very morning of their disappointment, they went on to discover in the Bible amazing light that gave them strength, comfort and profound insights into Christ’s closing work for the salvation of humanity.
P. Gerard Damsteegt, How Our Pioneers Discovered The Sanctuary Doctrine
Ellen G. White would later go on to give the divine stamp of approval on Edson’s “vision” where she stated:
I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days [Daniel 8:14], is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint.
Ellen G. White, A Word To The Little Flock, pg. 12 (WLF 12.8)
The Millerite interpretation of Daniel 8:14, which speaks of the sanctuary being restored, was reinterpreted by early Adventists to refer not to the earth but to a heavenly sanctuary. Contrary to William Miller’s original claim that the prophecy indicated the earth would be cleansed by fire at Christ’s Second Coming, this new understanding proposed that, at the conclusion of the 2300 “evenings and mornings,” Jesus began the work of cleansing the “heavenly sanctuary.”
This reinterpretation led early Sabbatarian Adventists to reconsider the significance of the Old Testament sanctuary services. As P. Gerard Damsteegt noted, they began to explore whether they had overlooked key aspects of the “typical sanctuary ministry” described in the Old Testament. Their study ultimately brought them to Leviticus 16, which outlines the cleansing of the sanctuary on the annual Day of Atonement, a pivotal text in shaping their theology.
The Primary Adventist Claim
In order for their 1844 doctrine to stand, they must be correct around their understanding of this part of scripture. In the February 25, 2020 Sabbath School Quarterly, titled The Cleansing of the Sanctuary, the SDA Church writes:
The earthly sanctuary was modeled after its heavenly counterpart and served to illustrate the broad contours of the plan of salvation. Every day, sinners brought their sacrifices to the sanctuary, where the people were forgiven their confessed sins as the sins were, in a sense, transferred to the sanctuary. As a result, the sanctuary became contaminated. Therefore, a periodic process of purification was needed in order to cleanse the sanctuary from the sins recorded therein. It was called the Day of Atonement and took place once a year (see Leviticus 16).
Why should the heavenly sanctuary need cleansing? By analogy, we can say that the confessed sins of those who have accepted Jesus have been “transferred” to the heavenly sanctuary, just as the sins of the repentant Israelites were transferred to the earthly sanctuary. On the earthly Day of Atonement, numerous animals were slain, symbolizing the future death of Jesus, which is how sinners were able to stand in the Day of Atonement.
Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath School Quarterly, February 25, 2020
They are simply reiterating Ellen G. White’s interpretation and application of the Bible, which they believe is divinely inspired and corrects inaccurate interpretations of scripture. In her famed Great Controversy, she writes:
As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed 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. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigation—a work of judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem His people; for when He comes, His reward is with Him to give to every man according to his works. Revelation 22:12
Thus those who followed in the light of the prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming.
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pg. 421 (GC 421.3)
And again in Patriarchs & Prophets:
In the great day of final award, the dead are to be “judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” Revelation 20:12. Then by virtue of the atoning blood of Christ, the sins of all the truly penitent will be blotted from the books of heaven. Thus the sanctuary will be freed, or cleansed, from the record of sin. In the type, this great work of atonement, or blotting out of sins, was represented by the services of the Day of Atonement—the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which was accomplished by the removal, by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, of the sins by which it had been polluted.
Ellen G. White, Patriarchs & Prophets, pg. 357 (PP 357.6)
While there are elements of truth in these claims, individuals unfamiliar with the Levitical system may overlook subtle distortions that significantly alter the biblical message.
The Adventist claim is that the earthly sanctuary service serves as a model for what occurs in heaven. According to this view, during the daily rituals of the earthly sanctuary, Israelite sinners would bring animals as sacrifices for their sins. They would confess their sins over the animal, after which the priest would kill it and sprinkle its blood before the veil inside the sanctuary. This act, in their interpretation, symbolized the transfer of the individual’s sins into the sanctuary, where they would remain on record until the Day of Atonement, when the sanctuary was cleansed.
Adventists assert that this earthly system typifies the New Testament believer’s experience. Just as Israelites confessed their sins over a sacrifice and symbolically transferred those sins into the sanctuary, Christians are said to do the same. However, instead of transferring sins into an earthly sanctuary, the Chrsitians sins are transfered into the heavenly sanctuary through Jesus, the High Priest. They claim this process culminates in the “cleansing” of the heavenly sanctuary, which began on October 22, 1844—the supposed fulfillment of Daniel 8:14—marking the start of the antitypical Day of Atonement.
However, this interpretation directly contradicts Scripture.
Leviticus 4 explicitly outlines the circumstances under which blood was taken into the sanctuary during the daily ministry of the priests for individual, penitent Israelites. Blood entered the sanctuary in only two specific cases: (1) when the priest himself sinned (Leviticus 4:3–6), and (2) when the entire Israelite community sinned unintentionally (Leviticus 4:13–17). For individual penitent Israelites, the procedure differed. Leviticus 4:27–31 specifies that the blood of their sacrifices was not brought into the sanctuary but was instead applied to the altar of burnt offering. Consequently, the earthly sanctuary was not defiled by the daily transfer of sins into its structure, nor were sins stored on record within it.
This misreading undermines the Adventist type/antitype framework. By imposing their assumptions onto the Levitical system, they develop a theological construct that not only misrepresents the biblical text but also conflicts with the explicit instructions for the sanctuary’s daily ministry.
Why Did The Sanctuary Need Cleansed
If sins weren’t being stored up for individual, penitent Israelites in the daily ministry all year—then why was the sanctuary cleansed on the Day of Atonement?
In his biblical theology textbook on Leviticus, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord, Professor L. Michael Morales does an excellent job succinctly explaining what the cleansing of God’s house was about and why it was done:
The Day of Atonement was the day of purgation: the tabernacle and its furnishings, the high priest, and the priesthood, and all the Israelites were purged from Israel’s uncleanness, atonement being made by the high priest for Israel’s sins. Consequently, this festival was understood both as a day of judgment and a day of reconciliation. Cleansing God’s house of the pollution caused by Israel’s uncleanness was the main focus of the ceremony, with the ultimate purpose of maintaining God’s tabernacling Presence in their midst.
The double use of the root for ‘clean’ (thr) in Leviticus 16:30 underscores the chapter’s function as the culmination of the clean/unclean laws of chapters 11–15, as well as how those laws and the Day of Atonement are set within a fundamental goal of abiding with YHWH: ‘For on this day, he [the high priest] will make atonement for you to cleanse you from all your sins. Before YHWH, you will be clean.’
Dr. L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord, pg. 169
The cleansing of the earthly sanctuary on the Day of Atonement wasn’t due to the daily transference of sin into it by means of blood, but rather because the individuals conducting the work were themselves unclean as sinners (Leviticus 16:16). The picture for us is that the mere presence of a sinner tainted God’s presence and house. Which is really a microcosm picture of the entire Cosmos which man defiled by letting sin into.
Furthermore, the Day of Atonement ceremony was also necessary to deal with sins that had been committed throughout the year in ignorance and/or rebellion. As Dr. Morales also notes:
Moreover, while the individual Israelite who with true contrition had offered purification offerings throughout the year had indeed been forgiven already, the Day of Atonement, beyond atoning for transgressions and sins which had not been remedied (through ignorance or rebellion), also served to cleanse Israelites from the stain of their sins, beyond forgiveness.
Dr. L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord, pg. 171
Throughout the year, individuals in ancient Israel would inevitably commit sins in ignorance, for which no specific sacrifice had been offered. The Day of Atonement, as described in Leviticus 16, served as an all-encompassing means of addressing these unacknowledged sins, symbolically cleansing both the people and the sanctuary. This annual observance effectively “reset” the nation’s covenantal relationship with God, ensuring that even unintentional sins were accounted and atoned for.
However, the early Seventh-day Adventist pioneers appear to have misinterpreted the detailed instructions in Leviticus 4 and 16, leading to the development of a type/antitype framework that is both theologically and exegetically flawed. By misunderstanding the role of blood in the sacrificial system, they posited that it served as a vehicle for transferring sin into the sanctuary, where those sins would remain “on record” until the Day of Atonement. This interpretation not only diverges from the text, which specifies that blood was brought into the sanctuary only under limited circumstances, but it also introduces a concept of sin “movement” that is absent from the Levitical system.
The resulting doctrine, which underpins their theology of the investigative judgment, rests on a shaky foundation of misapplied typology and unsupported assumptions. A closer and more faithful reading of Scripture reveals that the biblical sacrificial system does not align with the Adventist interpretation. Instead, it underscores the sufficiency and completeness of Christ’s atoning work, pointing to a final and perfect cleansing accomplished through His death, resurrection, and kingly-priestly intercession.
