The Compatibility of Christs Ascension I PDF

ABSTRACT
THE COMPATIBILITY OF CHRIST’S ASCENSION IN THE EPISTLE TO THE

HEBREWS AND THE THEOLOGY OF
PRE-ADVENT JUDGMENT
By
Lalnuntluanga Ralte
Adviser: Dr. Paul Bhaggien

ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH
Thesis
Spicer Adventist University
Department of Religious Studies
Title: THE COMPATIBILITY OF CHRIST’S ASCENSION IN THE EPISTLE OF

HEBREWS AND THE THEOLOGY OF PRE-ADVENT JUDGMENT
Name of researcher: Lalnuntluanga Ralte

Name and degree of faculty adviser: Paul Bhaggien, Ph. D.
Date completed: March 2019
The Topic
The doctrine of pre-advent investigative judgment has come under scrutiny since
some critical scholars and church leaders in the late 19th century began to question it and
asserted that it is merely a traditional view of the Seventh-day Adventist which does not
have a firm scriptural basis. The major reason for asserting the unbiblical nature of pre-
advent judgment was its incompatibility with the epistle to the Hebrews in the New
Testament where the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus seems to become the
fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.
The Purpose
The purpose of the study is to provide a scriptural evidence that the concept of
pre-advent investigative judgment is prevalently occurred in the Bible and that it is,
indeed, compatible with the other truths of the Bible. Moreover, the study attempt to find
the compatibility of the pre-advent judgment in the book of Daniel and Christ’s ascension
in the epistle to the Hebrews. It is necessary to do a brief survey on the meaning of the
texts such as Hebrews 6: 19 and Hebrews 9: 12 in their contexts because it seems to be in
contradiction with the theology of pre-advent judgment. The finding solutions is
primarily for providing an apologetical response to the problems of the subjects.
Conclusions
The findings shows that the context of Hebrews 6: 19 demands Jesus as to enter to
the most holy place, however, the context also brings out that the Day of Atonement is
not the most favorable background to be applied. Instead, the most preferable context is
the day of inauguration where Moses entered within the veil as a king-priest for the
dedication of the sanctuary. In this context, Jesus also went inside the veil as a king-priest
like Moses in the order of Melchizedek to anoint the sanctuary in heaven which marked
the beginning of His ministry.
As in the case for inauguration of the sanctuary, the only chapter that has the same
context is Number 7 where Moses as a ruler and a priest inaugurated the earthly
sanctuary. Thus, Jesus entered inside the veil as to inaugurate the sanctuary and not in the
Day of Atonement motif. The survey of the phrase τὰ ἅγια also confirms that Jesus did
not entered into the sanctuary to perform the eschatological Day of Atonement because
the survey of the phrase shows that τὰ ἅγια is primarily employed for nomenclating the
whole sanctuary and not solely the most holy place. Therefore, there is no incompatibility
between the doctrine of pre-advent judgment and the matter of Christ’s ministry in the
epistle to the Hebrews.

Spicer Adventist University
Department of Religious Studies
THE COMPATIBILITY OF CHRIST’S ASCENSION IN THE EPISTLE TO

THE HEBREWS AND THE THEOLOGY OF
PRE-ADVENT JUDGMENT
A Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Degree
Master of Arts in Religion
By
Lalnuntluanga Ralte
March 2019
© Copyright by Lalnuntluanga Ralte 2019
All Rights Reserved
To my brother in Christ
Gemechu Negesso
For encouraging me to pursue my Master studies.
ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ

πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ
αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον
περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν
ἐλπίδος
(1 Pet 3:15)
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement ...................................................................................... 5
Purpose Statement ....................................................................................... 6
Significance of the study ............................................................................. 6
Delimitation of the Study ............................................................................ 7
Methodology and Procedures ...................................................................... 7
Selected Review of Literature ..................................................................... 10
Sources of Liberal Adventist Approach ............................................. 10
Sources on Mainstream Adventist Approach ..................................... 12
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF INVESTIGATIVE

JUDGMENT, ITS DEVELOPMENT, AND ITS CRITICS ....................... 16
History of Investigative Judgment and its origin ........................................ 16

Development before the Great Disappointment. ................................ 16
Development After the Great Disappointment ................................... 19
The Development of Investigative Judgment Among the
Sabbatarian Adventists .................................................................... 21
Crosier and the Investigative Judgment. ..................................... 22
Ellen White and the Three visions Relating to the
Investigative Judgment ........................................................... 24
Joseph Bates and the Investigative Judgment ............................. 26
James White and the Investigative Judgement. .......................... 30
Summary ............................................................................................ 32
iv
Ellen White and her Role on the Investigative Judgment ........................... 33
An Overview of Ellen G. White’s Initiating Evidences
on Investigative Judgment ............................................................. 33
Ellen White’s theological concept of Investigative judgement .......... 35
The Theology of Heavenly Sanctuary. ....................................... 35
Sanctuary in Heaven. ........................................................... 35
Earthly Sanctuary as a Typology......................................... 37
God’s Basis of Judgment ..................................................... 38
The Concept of Investigation ...................................................... 39
Judgment from the Record Book......................................... 39
Order of Judgment ............................................................... 41
Christ the Judge........................................................................... 41
Summary ............................................................................................ 43
History of Internal and External Challengers to the Adventist
Teaching of the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment. ................... 44
The Theological Concept of the Internal Challengers ........................ 44
Owen R. L. Crosier (1820-1913) ................................................ 44
Dudley M. Canright (1840-1919) ............................................... 45
Albion Fox Ballenger (1861-1921) ............................................. 47
William W. Fletcher (1879-1947)............................................... 49
Louis Richard Conradi (1856-1939) ........................................... 52
Ernest Bradshaw Jones (1919-1949) .......................................... 55
Desmond Ford (1929-2019)........................................................ 57
Dale Ratzlaff ............................................................................... 64
Summary ............................................................................................ 67
The Theological Concept of the External Challengers ...................... 69
Walter Martin (1928-1989) ......................................................... 69
Herbert S. Bert (1911-1996) ....................................................... 72
Norman Franklin Douty (1899-1993) ......................................... 73
Anthony A. Hoekema (1913-1988) ............................................ 75
Summary ............................................................................................ 79
Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................... 80
3. BIBLICAL BASIS ON THE PRE-ADVENT JUDGMENT AND

THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST IN HEBREW’S EPISTLE ..................... 83
The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Bible .......................................................... 83

The Heavenly Sanctuary in the OT .................................................... 84
The Heavenly Sanctuary in the NT .................................................... 86
v
Investigative Judgment in the Bible as a key to Understand
the Biblical Concept of the Pre-advent Judgement ................................. 89
Investigation concept in the OT ......................................................... 90
Investigative Judgment on Judah (Ezekiel 1-10) ........................ 90
The background of the Judgment ........................................ 91
The Motif of Investigation on Judah ................................... 92
The Scene of Departure ....................................................... 93
The Pre-advent Judgment Scene on the Vision of Dan 7 ........... 94
The Sequential Order of the Vision ..................................... 94
The Investigating Nature of the Judgment .......................... 96
Daniel 8 in Relation to the Earthly Sanctuary in Leviticus ........ 97
The Linkage of the Vision in Daniel 8 and 9 .............................. 100
Time factor Involved in Dan 8 and 9 .................................. 100
The Interpretation of the 70 weeks ...................................... 101
Investigation Concept in the NT ........................................................ 103
Investigative Judgment Concept in the Teaching of Christ ........ 103
Investigative Judgment Concept in the Writings of Paul............ 104
Investigative Judgment Concept in the Book of Revelation ...... 106
Christ’s Ascension and His Ministry in Heaven ......................................... 107
The Biblical Understanding of Christ’s Ascension ............................ 107
The Significance of Jesus Sitting at the Right Hand of God .............. 109
The Inauguration of Jesus as a High priest ......................................... 111
The Intercessory Ministry of Christ and its Significance ................... 112
The Meaning of Intercessory Ministry of Christ ........................ 113
Summary ..................................................................................................... 115
Summary on the Heavenly Sanctuary in the Bible............................. 115
Summary on the Concept of Investigative Judgment in the Bible .... 116
Summary on Christ’s Ascension and His Ministry in Heaven ........... 118
4. THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF CHRIST’S ENTRANCE

INTO THE SANCTUARY IN THE EPISTLE OF HEBREWS ................ 120
Contexts of the Epistle to the Hebrews ....................................................... 120

Historical Setting of the Epistle to the Hebrews ................................ 121
Structure of the Epistle ....................................................................... 122
Homiletical Nature of Epistle ..................................................... 123
The Theme of the Epistle ................................................................... 124
Καταπετάσμα in Hebrew 6: 19.................................................................... 125
Survey on the Exegetical note of “Within the Veil” in Hebrews 6:19 127
Grammatical Significance of τὸ ἐσώτερον ................................. 128
Hebrews 6: 19 in the Context of OT Typology .................................. 131
The Order of Melchizedek as the Background of
Hebrews 6: 19 ........................................................................ 131
The Chiastic Parallels as Medium of Interpretation ........................... 132
Grammatical Significance of ἐνεκαίνισεν .................................. 134
Theological Implications of Hebrews 6: 19, 20 ................................. 136
vi
Τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12 ............................................................................ 137
Translation Variants of τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12 .............................. 138
Τὰ ἅγια in LXX and its Usage ............................................................ 139
Usage of ἅγιος and its Variants Outside the Bible ............................. 141
Usage of ἅγιος in the OT Pseudepigraphy .................................. 141
ἅγιος and its Variants in Sibylline Oracles .......................... 142
ἅγιος and Its Variants in The Testament of Levi and Asher 142
ἅγιος and Its Variants in The Psalms of Solomon ............... 143
Usage of ἅγιος in the Works of Philo ......................................... 144
Usage of ἅγιος in the Works of Josephus ................................... 146
Summary ..................................................................................... 148
The Word σκηνή as a Medium of Interpretation ................................ 149
Intertextual Studies on τράγων and μόσχων....................................... 153
Theological Implications of Hebrews 9: 12 ....................................... 155
Summary ..................................................................................................... 156
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................... 160
Summary ..................................................................................................... 161

Summary on Chapter 1 ....................................................................... 161
Summary on the Origin and Development of
Investigative Judgment ........................................................... 163
Summary on the Role of Ellen White ......................................... 164
Summary on Conflicts and Issues on Investigative Judgment.... 165
Summary on the Heavenly Sanctuary ......................................... 166
Summary on Concept of Investigative Judgment ....................... 167
Summary on Christ’s Ascension ................................................. 169
Summary on the Context of the Epistle to the Hebrews ............. 170
Summary on Καταπετάσμα in Hebrews 6: 19 ............................ 171
Summary on Τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12 ...................................... 173
vii
Conclusions ................................................................................................. 174
The Development of Investigative Judgment and
its Issues in Regard to the Epistle of Hebrews. .............................. 175
Biblical Reliability of Pre-Advent Judgment and
its Compatibility With the Ministry of Christ in His Ascension. ... 176
The Compatibility of Inauguration Motif in Hebrews 9: 12 and
Hebrews 6: 19 With the Theology of Pre-Advent Judgment. ........ 177
Future Study ................................................................................................ 180
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 183
viii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Literary Parallels in Hebrews 6: 19-20 and 10: 19-20 ............................... 135
2. Various Translation of τὰ ἅγια in the epistle to the Hebrews .................... 139
3. The Use of τὰ ἅγια in the LXX .................................................................. 141
4. The Usage of ἅγιος by Itself for the sanctuary in the OT

Pseudepigraphy, Philo, and Josephus .................................................. 150
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A. J Antiquitates judaicae
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
AR Advent Review
ARSH Advent Review and Sabbath Herald
ASV Authorized Standard Version
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
B. J Bellum Judaicum
BDAG Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich.

Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago, 1979.
CWSD The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament
DBY Darby Bible
DS Day Star
ENDT Exegetical Dictionary of New Testament
ERV English Revised Version
FP Faculty Publications
Fug. De fuga et invention
Goodspeed The New Testament: An American Translation
GTJ Grace Theological Journals
x
Her. Quis rerum divinarum heres sit
ISV International Standard Version
J. W The Jewish Wars
JATS Journal Adventist Theological Society
JUB Jubilee Bible
KJV King James Version
LCL Loeb Classical Library
Leg. Legum Allegoriae
Legat. Legatio ad Gaium
LXX Septuagint
Migr. De migratione Abrahami
Mos. De vita Mosis
MT Masoretic Text
Mut. De mutatione nominum
NASB New American Standard Bible
NEB The New English Bible
NIGTC The New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV New International Version
NKJV New King James Version
NovT Novum Testamentum
NT New Testament
NTS New Testament Studies
OT Old Testament
xi
OTP Old Testament Pseudepigraphy
PD Perspective Digest
PNT Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English
Post. De posteritate Caini
Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
SDA Seventh-day Adventist
SDABC Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
SDABD Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary
SDAE Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia
Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles
Somn. De somniis
Spec. De specialibus legibus
ST Signs of the times
T. Ash Testament of Asher
T. Levi Testament of Levi
TDNT Theological Dictionary of New Testament
TDOT Theological Dictionary of Old Testament
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
YLT Young’s Literal Translations
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background
The Bible provides stories of ascension to heaven. Three people are recorded to
have ascended to heaven: Enoch (Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5); Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1–12); Jesus
(Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9). Paul claimed that he ascended to heaven, but he is uncertain that
he ascended to heaven physically or not. (2 Cor 12:2–4). John ascended to heaven in the
vision. (Rev 4:1). There are accounts in which the throne in heaven is granted to
humanity: Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel (Exod 24:9–11); Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:19–
23; 2 Chr 18:18-21); Isaiah (Isa 6:1–13); and Ezekiel (Ezek 1, 10).1
Of all the accounts of ascension in the Bible, the ascension of Jesus is the most
important event in the history of salvation of humankind. Jesus’ intercession and parousia
is unexplainable without the ascension of Christ. The doctrine of God is incomplete
without it.2 According to J. G Davies, “the witness of the New Testament writings to the
ascension of Christ is remarkable in its universality.”3 Thus, it is not a surprise that
1
James D. Tabor, “Ascent to Heaven,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, vol. 3
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992), 91–94.
2
Brian K. Donne, “The Significance of the Ascension of Jesus Christ in the New Testament,”
Scottish Journal of Theology 30 (1977): 567.
3
J. G Davies, He Ascended into Heaven: A Study in the History of Doctrine (Cambridge, UK:
James Clarke & Co., 2004), 45.
1
“belief in the ascension was universal in the early church, both East and West.”1 In the
16th century, Melanchthon attempted to harmonize the ascension with science for the first
time, but most Bible scholars and theologians after him rejected it.2 Since then, until the
19th century, systematic theologians and the biographies of Jesus barely mention the
significance of Jesus’ ascension. Friedrich Schleiermacher shunned it as not a part of the
doctrine of Christ, along with the resurrection and the return of Jesus as a judge.3 Karl
Barth opposed picturing the ascension as a “literal event.”4 Even the New Testament
(NT) describes that the witness event is merely an assumption rather than description and
discussion.
The NT itself has only three descriptions of Christ’s ascension which is quite a
problem, because Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9 seem to have a difference in their account on
the circumstances of ascension. In addition, Mark 16:19 is widely believed not to be a
part of the original text.5 It is understandable when John F. Jansen claimed that the
doctrine of ascension suffered negligence in the Christian faith.6 It is apparent that the
1
A.B Swete, The Ascended Christ (London: 1910), 1, quoted in Norman R. Gulley, “Ascension of
Christ,” in ABD, ed. David Noel Freedman, vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992), 473.
2
Victorien Larrañaga, L’ascension de Notre-Seigneur dans le Nouveau Testament, Scripta
pontificii instituti biblici (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1938), quoted in Felix H. Cortez, “The
Anchor of the Soul That Enters within the Veil": The Ascension of the ‘Son’ in the Letter to the Hebrews,”
Faculty Publications 15 (2008): 3, n. 2.
3
Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, ed. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928), 417–24.
4
Karl Barth, “Doctrine of Creation,” in Church Dogmatics, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Thomas
F. Torrance, vol. 3/2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960), 453.
5
Bruce M Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 102–6.
6
John F Jansen, “The Ascension, the Church, and the Theology,” Theology Today 16 (1959): 17.
2
ancient Christianity believes in the doctrine of ascension without any dispute, however,
today, due to several questions in cosmology, criticism of the Bible and secularization,
the consideration of this doctrine had been neglected.1 In these lights, Felix Cortez did a
tremendous works regarding the ascension of Christ in the epistle to the Hebrews.2
However, though the interest in the work regarding the ascension is now renewed, studies
concerning the interrelation and the theological compatibility between the subject of the
book of Daniel is somehow neglected. In addition to this, since Christ’s heavenly
ministry in the book of Daniel as understood by the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church
is prophetic in nature,3 the SDA church thus understands that the fulfillment of 2300 days
prophecy in Daniel is 1844 (Dan 8:14)4 which leads to an assumption that this SDA
belief may not be compatible with the ascension theology of the NT and mainly in the
epistle to the Hebrews. Moreover, as Ellen white5 affirmed with a statement about the
heavenly sanctuary and its functions which is stated below, saying:
1
Gulley, “Ascension of Christ,” ABD, 1:473.
2
Cortez, “The Anchor of the Soul That Enters within the Veil": The Ascension of the ‘Son’ in the
Letter to the Hebrews.”
3
Daniel 8:14 contain 2300 year-day prophecy, which, according to the calculation ends at 1844
that proceeds the pre-advent judgment. See. William Shea, “Supplement Evidence in Support of 457 B.C.
as a Starting Date for 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14,” Journal of Adventist Theological Society (JATS) 12,
no. 1 (Spring, 2001): 89–96.
4
Roy E. Gane, “Christ’s Heavenly Sanctuary Ministry,” Perspective Digest 15, no. 3 (2010).
Daniel 8:14 says, ‘And he said unto me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be
cleansed” (The version of the Bible is NKJV). Ezek 4:6 explained the interpretation of the prophetic time
known as the year-day principle, in which, one day is equal to one year. Thus, the prophecy of Dan 8: 14
became 2300 years. Based on Daniel 9:25-27, the prophecy started with an order to rebuild of Jerusalem
from the King, Artexerxes. Subsequently, counting from the date of the order to rebuild Jerusalem, the
prophetic timeline of 2300 year-day prophecy ended up at 1844. See Shea, “Supplement Evidence in
Support of 457 B.C.” JATS 12/1, 89-96.
5
Ellen White is one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church. She received a prophetic
gift which is believed to lead the church into the right direction. See, Alberto R Timm, “Inspiration of Ellen
3
The subject of the Sanctuary was the key which unlocked the
disappointment of 1844.1 It opened to view a complete system of truth,
connected and harmonious, showing that God's hand had directed the
great advent movement and revealing present duty as it brought to light
the position and work of His people.2
It is imaginable that the doctrine of the so-called pre-advent judgment in Daniel is
deeply rooted with the SDA church. Therefore, it is not astonishing to attempt to
harmonize the heavenly sanctuary ministry of Christ in the book of Daniel and the
ascension of Christ in the epistle of Hebrew since no major work had been devoted to this
subject so far.3
Problem Statement
One may easily agree that Jesus in His ascension went to heaven and became a
High priest for us because the author of the epistle to the Hebrews is clear that Jesus
White,” PD 15, no. 3 (2010). See also, Uriah Smith, “Do We Endorse Bible by the Vision,” Advent Review
and Sabbath Herald, January 16, 1863, 52.
1
William Miller, a Baptist ministers, was the leader of the Millerite movement who proclaimed
that Jesus would return to the Earth by 1844. His insight on Daniel 8 led to this conclusion that ‘Cleansing
the Sanctuary’ was Cleansing the Earth. However, Jesus did not come back on the expected date which led
to the great disappointment day of 1844. See Elizabeth Lechleitner, “Seventh-Day Adventist Church
Emerged from Religious Fervor of 19 Century,” Adventist News Network, February 2, 2013. Accessed
March 6, 2019, https://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/-/seventh-day-adventist-church-emerged-
from-religious-fervor-of-19th-century.
2
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press Publishing Association, 1950), 432.
3
Mostly, the studies on Christ ascension and His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary are narrowed
down to the study of Daniel and the epistle to the Hebrew separately. e.g., Felix Cortez wrote a dissertation
which is a major work on the epistle to the Hebrew concerning Christ Ascension (See Cortez, “The Anchor
of the Soul That Enters within the Veil": The Ascension of the ‘Son’ in the Letter to the Hebrews.”;
Gerhard F. Hasel, “‘The “Little Horn,” the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8,’” in The Sanctuary and
the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard
Lesher (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 177, is the brief studies of Daniel 8; William Shea,
“The Relationship Between the Prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9”,” in Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical,
Historical and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1981), 228, is another material for the book of Daniel. However, the interstudy of
Daniel and the epistle to the Hebrew is rarely found.
4
became a high priest for us as an advocate in the heavenly Sanctuary.1 However, the
issues occurs concerning which compartment Jesus enters in His ascension generally in
the mind of the SDAs. Can it be the second compartment known as the Most Holy place
or the first compartment known as the Holy place, or, can it be that the author of the
epistle to the Hebrews had not divided the compartments of heaven and narrated it as
merely one Holy Sanctuary in heaven?
Hebrew 6:19 seems to show that Jesus as a High priest enters within the veil, in
which, the nuance concerning the veil occurs. The question arises: Does “Within the veil”
refer to the Most Holy place or the Holy place? In Hebrew 9:12, τὰ ἅγια2 has been
translated variously.3 Consequently, one will obviously ask, whether τὰ ἅγια is the Most
Holy place or the Holy place? Or can there be another definition? In spite of all the
questions being asked, on the other hand, the heavenly ministry of Christ in the book of
Daniel explained that Jesus entered the Most Holy place at 1844 to commence the
Investigative Judgment or the pre-advent judgment.4 With these issues, it is identifiable
that the ascension of Christ and His entry to the Most Holy place just after His ascension
1
Hebrew 3:1; 4:14; 7:25; 8:2; 9:24; 9:12; 10:12.
2
τὰ ἅγια is the phrase used for sanctuary, holy place, holy of holies, most holy place, etc., based on
the version of the Bible. See Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg, and Kurt Aland, in Analytical Greek New
Testament: Greek Text Analysis (Cedar Hill, TX: Silver Mountain Software, 2001), s. v. “Hebrews 9: 12.”
3
American King James Version, Emphasized Bible, King James 2000 version, New Heart English
Bible: Aramaic Names New Testament Edition and World English Bible translated as ‘the holy place,
Darby Bible, Modern Literal Version, Voice in the Wilderness 2008 Bible, translated as ‘the holy of
holies’, English Majority Text version 2011 Edition, the Logos Bible, Modern King James Version, and
Smith’s Literal Translation translated as the ‘Holies’, New English Translation, Unlocked Literal Bible,
New International Version and New King James Version translated as ‘the Most holy place,’ Open English
Bible translated as ‘Sanctuary’ and Young Literal version translated as ‘the holy places.’
4
Daniel 7:9-13; 8:14; 9,25-27.
5
is seems to be incompatible with the interpretation of Daniel 8.1 However, Bible cannot
contradict itself. Thus, there may be an error in interpretation of the passages in the
epistle to the Hebrews which is not in line with the understanding of Christ’s ministry in
the heavenly sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in the book of Daniel.
Purpose Statement
The main purpose of the study is to achieve the following goals: 1) To attempt
finding the solutions for the nuance of which compartment did Christ enters in his
ascension to heaven. 2) To explore the meaning of the two texts: Hebrew 6:19 and 9:12.
3) To study the literary relationship of Hebrew 6 and 9 along with the OT typology, and
the texts from the LXX. 4) To search for compatibility between “the ascension theology”
in the epistle to the Hebrews with “the ministry of Christ” mentioned in the book of
Daniel. Old testament (OT) theology will, therefore, be compatible with the NT theology.
Significance of the study
The study is significant at least due to these two reasons: First, the study will
provide the historical materials of the issues emerging from within and without the SDA
Church. The materials will briefly cover the conflict issues between the understanding of
Christ’s ascension, His heavenly ministry, and the investigative judgment. Second, this
study will attempt to make the theology of Investigative Judgement in the book of Daniel
compatible with the ascension of Christ and his ministry in the epistle to the Hebrews.
1
According to the interpretation of Daniel 8:14, Jesus entered the Most Holy place only by 1844
and not in His ascension. See Shea, “Supplement Evidence” JATS 12/1, (Spring, 2001): 89-96.
6
Delimitation of the Study
The study is delimited in the following ways: First, though the study in regard to
the epistle to the Hebrews is Christ’s ascension, the study is specifically focused on
Hebrews 6 and 9.1 Thus, other varieties of ascension theology are not included.2 Second,
the study of investigative judgment in the book of Daniel is only focus based on the
underlying issues on Christ’s ascension and His ministry in the heavenly Sanctuary.3
Thus, the study will be centered on the compatibility of the ascension theology in the
epistle to the Hebrews and the heavenly ministry of Christ in the book of Daniel.
Methodology and Procedures
Since the aim of the study is to provide a sound biblical compatibility between the
conflicting theological issues or passages in the epistle to the Hebrews and Daniel. The
study will attempt to achieve the purpose by employing a historical-theological approach
as a major study and exegetical approach as a minor study. Though the purpose of the
study is on the compatibility of the Bible passages, the study also attempt to provide a
brief historical materials concerning the existence of these issues from the late 19th
century to the late 20th century. Moreover, there are two limitations in regard to the
1
The study mainly highlight on Hebrews 6:19 which expounded on ‘Christ within the veil’ and
Hebrews 9: 12, which described that Christ entered to τὰ ἅγια (see earlier footnote) once and for all.
Christ’s ascension theology was mentioned in the introduction part, in which, the disciples saw Jesus
ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9) and the other story was found in Luke 24:51, when Jesus blessed them, and
He was taken to heaven. However, the texts merely describe the nature of His ascension and the function of
His ministry and not the location of the sanctuary. In these lights, one of the purpose of the study is to
specify on whether Jesus went into the Holy place or the Most Holy place in His ascension.
2
See page 1.
3
One can study a vast open subject of investigative judgment. However, the thesis will primarily
focus on the investigative judgement, the sanctuary service, its type, and antitype, so that one may
understand the compatibility of Christ ascension theology in the epistle to the Hebrews with the other
theology in the other part of the Bible and particular in the book of Daniel.
7
research methodology, both of them are dealing with problems regarding language. First,
since the study covers subjects regarding the epistle to the Hebrews, some of the highly
regarded scholarly works are written in German and French, in which, the English
translations are not always available. In these cases, the researcher is limited to these
languages, thus, indirectly citing the works through the English-speaking scholars who
understand the language of German and French. Second, since the researcher is not
expert in transliteration of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the researcher decided to write
the original letters without transliteration.
The organization of the study is as follows: Chapter 1 introduced the statement of
the problem, the purpose, the significance, delimitation, and the methodology of the
study. Chapter 2 addresses the origin of the doctrine of investigative judgment and the
role of Ellen G. White on this subject. It gives the historical conflicts of the theologies
concerning Christ ascension and His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary among the SDA
and the non-SDA as well. This chapter employs narrative and historical-theological
approach. The structure of the study is mostly in a chronological order in regard to
historical materials.
Chapter 3 start with biblical basis of the heavenly sanctuary from the OT and NT,
but survey is focus only on crucial texts which shows evidence on the subjects. This
section also give a basic biblical concept of typology of the earthly sanctuary and the
antitype-ness of the heavenly sanctuary because the typology background is essential for
understanding the Christ’s ascension and His ministry in the epistle of Hebrews. The
study is followed by another sections with an analysis of investigative judgment from the
biblical viewpoints which presents the thorough interpretation of it from the OT and NT.
8
Most particularly, the book of Daniel is focused to show the nature of Christ’s ministry in
heaven and its relationship with the pre-advent judgment. The third section covers a
minor portion on the biblical foundation of Christ’s ascension along with the significance
of Christ’s sitting at the right hand of God, the inauguration of Jesus as a High Priest and
His intercessory ministry. This section aim to provide a background understanding for
Christ ascension in the epistle to the Hebrews which is elaborated in a more detail matter
in chapter 4.
Chapter 4 begin with the historical settings of the Hebrews’ epistle, with its
theme and nature of the epistle which will show the reader a perspective on the method of
approach. The subsequent section provides an analysis of καταπετάσμα in Hebrew 6:19,
which includes the survey on the exegetical notes and the typological background of the
text. This study is to convey the meaning of “within the veil” according to the larger
context of the Bible. The last section is an analysis of τὰ ἅγια Hebrews 9:12 which
provide the various variant of translations on the text and several usage of τὰ ἅγια in the
LXX and the Jewish contemporary. The study aim to provide the best possible translation
of τὰ ἅγια. This section also provides an analysis on the word σκηνή, τράγων and
μόσχων, that is closely related to Hebrews 9: 12. The intertextual studies of these words
provide an understanding of the text. Thus, chapter 4 is the main chapter to reconcile the
theology of Christ’s ascension in the epistle of Hebrews with the heavenly ministry of
Jesus in the book of Daniel. This chapter primarily surveys on the exegetical notes and
give theological meaning of the texts. Chapter 5 provides the summary and conclusions
of the study as well as the recommendation for further studies.
9
Selected Review of Literature
The study on the issue of Christ’s ascension and His heavenly ministry in relation
to the pre-advent judgment can be divided into two approaches: Liberal Adventist
approach and mainstream Adventist approach. Under Liberal Adventism approach, the
scholars are more inclined to the larger Christian evangelical theology in regard to the
doctrine of Christ’s ascension in the epistle of Hebrews. There are some non-SDA’s
evangelical scholars who actually contributed several works with this kind of approach
concerning the subject of sanctuary. Consequently, this group did not find a compatibility
between the pre-advent judgment and Christ’s ascension in the epistle of Hebrews. On
the other hand, the mainstream Adventist approach includes the scholars who attempted
to harmonize the truth and particularly in the matter of issues regarding the SDA
doctrines. Thus, theological, and biblical conclusion of this group become the conclusion
of the church in regard to any issues of the church.
Sources of Liberal Adventist Approach
Early from the late 19th century, the issues regarding the sanctuary had emerged in
the SDA church, there are several people from the church who employed this approach
and rebel against the beliefs of the church.1 There are evangelical scholars who attacked
1
Dudley Marvin Canright, Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate,
2001); Albion F. Ballenger, Before Armageddon (Riverside: CA: Author, 1918); Albion F. Ballenger, Cast
Out for the Cross of Christ (Tropico, CA: Author, 1909); Albion F. Ballenger, An Examination of Forty
Fatal Errors Regarding the Atonement (Riverside: CA: Author, 1913); Albion F. Ballenger, Power for
Witnessing (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1900); E. B. Jones, Forty Bible-Supported Reasons Why You
Should Not Be a Seventh-Day Adventist, 5th ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Author, 1946); E. B. Jones, The
Answer, and the Reason (Minneapolis, MN: The Guardian of the Faith, 1950); William W. Fletcher, The
Reason of My Faith: An Appeal to Seventh-Day Adventists, Concerning Vital Truths of the Gospel (Sydney,
Australia: Brooks, 1932); Calvin W. Edwards and Gary Land, Seeker after Light: A.F. Ballenger,
Adventism, and American Christianity (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2000); Dale
Ratzlaff, The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventist “Truth” (Glendale, AZ: LAM Publications, 2007); Dale
10
the sanctuary doctrine, thus, they represented other Christian denominations by their
contributions on the view of pre-advent judgment.1 Among these people, the most
influential person who developed the issues of sanctuary into a larger context is Desmond
Ford, who stirred up a confusion in the church. In his book, Daniel 8:14: The Day of
Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment,2 he formulated 22 points of why pre-advent
judgment cannot be biblical,3 this book provide a lot of legitimate argument in a biblical
and theological manner. Ford employed more on preterist school of interpretation to
argue with the traditional Adventist beliefs. For example, he interpreted that Daniel 8: 14
is fulfilled in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes when the Maccabees attacked him and
cleanse the sanctuary.4 Ford proposes a new principle known as Apotelesmatic principles
where any school of interpretation such as preterist, futurist, and historicist can be applied
at once in the texts or passages.5 He summarized this book and republished with a new
title of the book, Seventh-Day Adventism: The Investigative Judgment and the
Ratzlaff, Sabbath in Crisis (Glendale, AZ: LAM Publications, 2003); Dale Ratzlaff and Kenneth Samples,
Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-Day Adventism: An Evangelical Wake-up Call (Glendale, AZ: LAM, 2009).
1
Walter Martin, The Rise of the Cults: An Introduction to Non-Christian Cults (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1955); Walter Martin and Ravi K. Zacharias, The Kingdom of the Cults, Rev., updated, and
expanded ed (Minneapolis, MI: Bethany House Publishers, 2003); Anthony A Hoekema, The Four Major
Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1988); Anthony A Hoekema, Seventh-Day Adventist (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961);
Norma F. Douty, Another Look at Seventh-Day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1962); Herbert S.
Bert, Theology of Seventh-Day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961); Walter Martin, The Truth
About Seventh-Day Adventism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1960).
2
Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment (New
Castle, CA: Operation Glacier View, 1980).
3
Ibid., 287-291.
4
Ibid., 382.
5
Ibid., 485, 505.
11
Everlasting Gospel; A Retrospective on October 27, 1979,1 in 2016 which become a
foundational based book for the Adventists who walk away from the church.
The other well-known scholar in the evangelical circle who contributed many
works on forming the Adventism from traditionalism to biblical is Walter Martin. In his
book, The Rise of the Cults: An Introduction to Non-Christian Cults, he classified
Adventist as a cultic movement which is satanic in nature.2 In the other book, The
Kingdom of the Cults, he change his opinion on the SDA again.3 This book is important
because it gives the new perspective on the SDA whether they are cult or they can be
counted as a part of Christian body. However, the book accused SDA as basing their
doctrine on the so-called Spirit of Prophecy,4 it also argued with the doctrine of
investigative judgment as a lack of biblical basis.
Sources on Mainstream Adventist Approach
The sources are the selected few which are considered as the primary Literature
used for an apology against the heresies in the church. Though not discussed in this paper
in a broader sense, the book that defended the beliefs of SDA church is Questions on
Doctrines, which presents the basic faith and beliefs of the SDA’s with biblical basis and
arguments. The sixth Chapter of Questions on Doctrine dealt with “Questions on
1
Desmond Ford, Seventh-Day Adventism: The Investigative Judgment and the Everlasting Gospel;
A Retrospective on October 27, 1979 (Scotts Valley, CA: Create Space, 2016).
2
Martin, The Rise of the Cults: An Introduction to Non-Christian Cults, 12.
3
Martin and Zacharias, The Kingdom of the Cult, 621.
4
Martin and Zacharias, The Kingdom of the Cults, 602–603.
12
Prophecy, Daniel 8 and 9, and the 2300 Days” which clarify these questions by giving
biblical evidences. Accordingly, chapter 7 covers the questions on the Christ’s ministry in
the sanctuary.1 Another contribution that is extremely crucial in regard to the issues of the
sanctuary doctrine is a formulation of Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, which
contain seven volumes of biblical evidences on the sanctuary doctrine.2 Among these
volumes, Issues in the Book of Hebrews provide an insightful materials for the epistle to
the Hebrews. In regard to investigative judgment,3 Selected Studies on Prophetic
Interpretation gives a detail specifically on the interpretation of Daniel 8: 14, year-day
principle and biblical concept of investigation.4
Another literature one cannot just overlooked is the writings of Ellen White on the
subject of the Sanctuary and investigative judgment. For collection of these literatures,
the work of Robert W. Olson is honorable and helpful, in his book, The Investigative
Judgment in the Writings of Ellen G. White, there are several collections of quotes and
1
Questions on Doctrines (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1957), 205–317; 341-402.
2
Issues in the Book of Hebrews, vol. 4, 7 vols., Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989); Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies,
vol. 2, 7 vols., Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1986);
Symposium on Revelation- Book I, vol. 6, 7 vols., Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown,
MD: Review and Herald, 1992); Symposium on Revelation- Book II, vol. 7, 7 vols., Daniel and Revelation
Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1992); William Shea, Selected Studies on
Prophetic Interpretation, vol. 1, 7 vols., Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Silver Spring, MD:
Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 1992); Doctrine of The
Sanctuary: A Historical Survey, vol. 5, 7 vols., Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD:
Review and Herald, 1989); The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, vol. 3, 7 vols.,
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1986).
3
Issues in the Book of Hebrews.
4
Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation.
13
few explanations on each of the writings of Ellen White.1 There are several materials
such as books and articles where Ellen White mentioned about the investigative
judgment.2 These writings provides an understanding on the sanctuary. After 1980,
apparently the controversy was subsided, however, a NT scholar by the name, Norman H.
Young from the Avondale College in Australia came up fresh with an argument in his
article, “Where Jesus has Gone as a Forerunner on our Behalf,’ (Hebrews 6: 19),” where
he argue that “within the veil,” refers to the inner shrine of the sanctuary.3 In response to
the argument of Young , Richard M. Davidson prepared an article, “‘Within the Veil,’ in
Hebrews 6: 19, 20: the Old Testament Background,” which supplied an insightful biblical
perspective on the context of Hebrews 6: 19, 20.4 In fact, Davidson contributed such as
typology of the scripture, which are foundational for the doctrine of the sanctuary.5
1
Robert W. Olson, The Investigative Judgment in the Writings of Ellen G. White (Silver Spring,
MD: Ellen G. White Estate Inc., 2018). However, these literature is an online publication from the White
Estate which is available in a form of Pdf.
2
Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1882); Ellen G. White,
“Letter from Sister White,” DS, March 14, 1846; Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1 (Battle Creek, MI:
SDA Publishing, 1858), 162, 197, 198; Ellen G. White, Christian Experience and Teachings (Mountain
View, CA: Pacific Press, 1922), 91; Ellen G. White, Life Sketches of Ellen White (Mountain View, CA:
Pacific Press, 2002), 278; Ellen G. White, Patriarch and Prophets (Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1890), 357-358; Ellen G. White, “Lesson from the Life of Daniel,” The Youth Instructor, April 5, 1905;
Ellen G. White, “Let Him Take Hold of My Strength,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, September 16,
1890; “Angels Marking Deeds of Men,” Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary (SDABC), rev., ed.
Francis D. Nichol (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), 7: 987; Ellen G. White, Testimonies for
the Church (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1909), 6: 130; 9:185; Ellen G. White, “The Ark of
Covenant,” ARSH, November 1905; Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1898), 210; White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, 423-426.
Norman H. Young, “Where Jesus Has Gone as a Forerunner on Our Behalf,’ (Hebrews 6: 19),”
3
Andrews University Seminary Studies 39, no. 2 (2001): 165–73.

4
Richard M. Davidson, “Christ’s Entry ‘Within the Veil’ in Hebrews 6:19-20: The Old Testament
Background,” AUSS 39, no. 2 (2001): 175–90.
5
Richard M. Davidson, “Typology in the Book of Hebrews,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews,
vol. 4, 7 vols., Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989).
14
Another insightful papers regarding the study of the word τὰ ἅγια is “The Use of ἅγιος
for the Sanctuary in the Old Testament Pseudepigraphy, Philo and Josephus,”1 which
concluded that τὰ ἅγια was considered as the sanctuary as a whole.
In regard to the sanctuary related theology in the epistle of Hebrews, Felix H.
Cortez contributed a tremendous work on study of Hebrews, in his dissertation, "The
anchor of the soul that enters within the veil": the ascension of the "son" in the letter to
the Hebrews,”2 he provide a thorough study of the epistles to the Hebrews, by intertextual
studies from the OT. His works provide the larger context on the epistle of Hebrews
where Christ is the center of the theology. Among his works, he touch the part of
Hebrews 6: 19, 20 and 9: 12, where one can see the larger context of the texts. From
these chapters, it gives an idea of the phrase “within the veil” and the meaning of τὰ ἅγια
in Hebrew 9:12. The study provides a wider understanding of Jesus ministry in heaven
from a different perspective of the Bible.
1
Carl P. Cosaert, “‘The Use of Ἅγιος for the Sanctuary in the Old Testament Pseudepigraphy,
Philo and Josephus,’” Andrews University Seminary Studies 42, no. 1 (2004): 91–103.
2
15
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT, ITS

DEVELOPMENT, AND ITS CRITICS
This chapter provides the origin of the doctrine of investigative judgment and its
development. The role of Ellen White will also be presented as she played a crucial role
in clarifying the doctrine. The purpose of this chapter is to bring the historical and
theological progression of the doctrine of investigative judgment in sequential manner
and to expose occurrence of the controversy during the past century concerning the
ascension of Christ and His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.
History of Investigative Judgment and its Origin
This section presents the chronological order of the development of the
investigative judgment or which is known as the pre-advent judgment. It begins with the
development prior to great disappointment, continues with the development after the
great disappointment, followed by the development among the Sabbatarian Adventists.
Development before the Great Disappointment
The birth of the doctrine of investigative judgment occurred during the second
advent awakening. William Miller, a leader of the American branch of the awakening
was a preacher who influences America to prepare for the second coming of Jesus.1
1
According to Miller, after two years of study, he came to conclusion that the second advent was
“premillennial than postmillennial”. Miller started preaching in public from 1831, the same year he
prepared an article for a Baptist weekly, The Vermont Telegraph, and these articles were merged in a
pamphlet, Evidences from History and History of the Second Coming of Christ About a Year A.D 1843,
16
According to William Miller, based on Daniel 7, 8, and 9, the termination of 2300 days
prophecy ends at 1844. At first, the teaching of Miller was not pre-advent judgment, it
was rather the executive judgment of the world.1 He concludes that Daniel 8:14 indicated
the cleansing of the earth. However, Miller’s Bible reads, “the sanctuary shall be
justified,” He believed that “the whole church will be cleansed from all uncleanness, and
presented without spot and wrinkle, and will then be clothed with fine linen, clean and
white.”2
In the early 1840s, Josiah Litch, one of the most influential Millerite expositor
and a Methodist theologian taught that the judgment in Rev 20 must be before the coming
of Jesus. He assumed that the judgment should be solely for the dead and not for the
And of His Personal Reign of 1000 Years, see William Miller, Evidences from History and History of the
Second Coming of Christ About a Year A.D 1843, And of His Personal Reign of 1000 Years (Brandon, FL:
Vermont Telegraph Office, 1831). In 1834 he received his preaching license from the Baptist church. Since
then, he gain many followers and they were known as “Millerites,” According to Damsteegt, Out of the
Millerites, about 200 minister accepted Miller’s view and grew to approximately 50,000 believers. See P.
Gerard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-Day Adventist Message and Mission (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1977), 14–15.
C. Mervyn Maxwell, “The Investigative Judgment, Its Early Development,” in The Sanctuary and
1
Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard
Lesher (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 549. Miller and his associates believed that Jesus will
come back at the end of 2300 days-years just like He came at His first Advent, with the prediction of the
seventy weeks prophecy. See also, Richard W. Schwarz, Light Bearer to the Remnant (Mountain View,
CA: Pacific Press, 1979), 42.
2
William Miller, Letters to Joshua V. Himes, on the Cleansing of the Sanctuary (Boston, MA:
Joshua V. Himes, 1842), 57. Knight narrated how Bates conclude his findings. He said Bates would
practically sit down with his Bible and concordances, and he listed down seven things that can be referred
to the sanctuary: “Jesus, Christ, Heaven, Judah, The Temple of Jerusalem, the holy of holies, the earth and
the church.” He started analyzing the seven discoveries to which the sanctuary in Dan 8:14 would match.
He knows, it is not Christ because Christ is not impure, and not heaven because it is not unclean, and so on.
Thus, Miller concluded that the sanctuary refers to the earth and the church which need cleansing. See
George R. Knight, A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-Day Adventist Beliefs, Adventist
Heritage Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 45. See also, Merlin D. Burt, “The
Historical Background, Interconnected Development and Integration of the Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the
Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s Role in Sabbatarian Adventism from 1844 to 1849” (PhD Diss., Andrews
University, 2002), 37.
17
living. 1 He refined his view later, by considering that there must be a trial before the
second coming to enact the executive judgment. He relates this trial with Dan 7,
explaining it starting point at 1798, which is the end of 1260 year-days prophecy.2 Litch
influenced many believers that the judgment has begun.3
In 1843, Miller discovered that the (Passover, wave-sheaf, and the Pentecost)
were fulfilled during Christ’s first advent. He noted that the fulfillment of Passover was,
particularly in A.D 31. Subsequently, he reasoned that the coming of Jesus will be at the
end of 2300 year-days prophecy, which will bring to fulfillment of the (trumpets,
atonement, and tabernacles) festivals. However, during the summer of 1844, Samuel
Snow expanded upon the work of Miller concerning the date of Jesus’ coming. He
observed that the day of atonement will occur at the fall of October 22, 1844.4 However,
Jesus did not return on the expected date.
1
Litch focus on the last five verses of Rev 20, in which, the white throne Judgment occurred. He
said that vs 11-12 is before resurrection. Because he did not find any judicial scene of judgement after the
resurrection. He claimed that there is no single text in the Bible where the resurrecting bodies stands before
the judgment. Litch said that if the angels were to gather the elects for the second coming, then the election
itself need a pre-advent judgement before the resurrection of the elect. Josiah Litch, An Address to Public,
and Especially to Clergy, on the near Approach of the Glorious, Everlasting Kingdom of God on Earth, as
Indicated by the Word of God, The History of The World, and Signs of the Present Times (Boston, MA:
Joshua V. Himes, 1842), 37–39. See also, Daniel David Royo, “Josiah Litch: His Life, Work, and Use of
His Writings, on Selected Topics, by Seventh-Day Adventist Writers” (MA Thesis, Andrews University,
2009), 89.
2
He said this trial took place “in the invisible and spiritual world, before Jesus Christ comes in the
clouds of heaven.” Josiah Litch, Prophetic Exposition, vol. 1 (Boston, MA: Joshua V. Himes, 1842), 49–
54.
3
Litch influences Apollos Hale, one of the famous editor of those days. Subsequently, he
published an article for him. See A. Hale, Herald of the Bridegroom! (Boston, 1843), 22–24. See also
Joshua V. Himes, “The Present and The Past,” The Midnight Cry, October 1844, 140.
4
Maxwell, “The Investigative Judgment,” in The Sanctuary, 550. See also, William Miller,
Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About a Year A.D 1843, And of His
Personal Reign of 1000 Year (Brandon, FL: Telegraph Office, 1833), 16–18.
18
Development After the Great Disappointment
Since Jesus did not return on the expected date, the great disappointment led to
three groups of people divided from the Millerites group, in fact, it has resulted in the rise
of several denominations.1 However, the third group who were later known as the
Sabbatarian Adventist re-studied the event and concluded that October 22, 1844, was the
commencement of the pre-advent judgment.2 Enoch Jacobs, an editor of the Western
Midnight Cry of Cincinnati, was struggling with the issue of the great disappointment, in
which, he concluded that the judgment is for the people of God.3
In 1845, the two editors of the Millerite group, Hale and Turner collaborated to
generate a new publication, The Advent Mirror. In their editorial, they made a title, “Has
Not the Savior come as a bridegroom?” They pointed to the wedding parable in Luke 12,
which mentioned the necessity to wait Jesus until he comes back from the wedding, the
other parable in Matthew 22 was the basis of pre-advent judgment, in which, the king
1
The great disappointment resulted in the rise to several denominations such as Advent Christians,
Church of God (Oregon, Illinois), Church of God ( Seventh-day) and The Seventh-day Adventist who were
active till today. See George R. Knight, Millennial Fever, and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite
Adventism (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1993), 327. Merlin D. Burt, “‘Historical Introduction,’ to the Facsimile
Reprint of Memoirs of Wm. Miller by Sylvester Bliss” (Boston, MA: Joshua V. Himes, 1853; reprint,
Berrien Springs: Andrews University, 2005), vii.
2
According to Maxwell, it was assumed that the total number of Millerites were approximately
100,000, in which, half of the people gave up right away on the day of disappointment. The second group
were about thirty to fifty thousand. These group remain to belief the 2300 days prophecy and fixed the date
again, they are date fixer. However, the third group were the so-called the Sabbatarian Adventist who
discovered that the event was the investigative judgement which occurred in heaven. See Maxwell, “The
Investigative Judgment,” in The Sanctuary, 551, see also, Whitney R. Cross, The Burned-Over District:
The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800-1850 (New York:
Harper & Row, 1965), 287. Knight, Millennial Fever, and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite
Adventism, 213.
Maxwell, “The Investigative Judgment,” in The Sanctuary, 551. For further details, see, Burt, “
3
Sabbatarian Adventism,” (PhD Diss, Andrews University, 2002), 72-74.
19
looks for the wedding garments to examine his guest.1 On February 15, 1845, Miller
wrote a letter, which is published in Daystar of March 11, of supporting what Hale and
Turn had written, he said, “Christ had risen up from His mercy-seat and now stand as a
Judge at a door.”2 The article, “To the Believer Scattered Abroad” was reprinted in the
Day Star for March 25, 1845, from The Hope of Israel. In this article, Turner also related
the wedding parable with Dan 7, the reception of the kingdom. He said that Christ serves
initially at the right hand of the Father, in the first tabernacle (Hebrew 8 and 9).
Subsequently, Christ shifts to the inner court (Dan 7) to receive His kingdom. The
movement of Christ ministry here is not based on Leviticus but Hebrew and Daniel.3
Samuel Snow, the person who set the date of October 22, 1844, is now become
the editor of The Jubilee Standard. In April 24, 1845, he drafted an article entitled, “And
the door was Shut.” Snow also expressed his understanding of pre-advent judgment it this
article, by relating the wedding garment parable with Dan 7, he explained that Jesus went
to the wedding to receive His kingdom. (Dan 7). He also said the identification of the
wedding garment is in the process.4 Hale and Turner, with this perspective, also
1
Apollos Hale was an editor of The Advent Herald in Boston, and Joseph Turner was an editor of
The Hope of Israel in Portland. See Schwarz, Light Bearer, 57.
2
Miller agrees with Hale and Turner that the personal coming of Christ is impossible, he quoted
Luke 12: 36 to explained that the Lord will come back from the wedding which implies that His coming is
after the wedding. He also quoted Matt 26: 29 referring to Jesus second coming as the supper at the
Father’s house. See William Miller, “Extract of A Letter From Bro. Miller,” Day Star, March 1845, 14.
3
Turner mentioned that Christ as a bridegroom stood before the Ancient of Days in Dan 7, he
asserted that Christ was coronated as the King of Kings, he said it is “like” a wedding. He also quoted from
Rev 3:10-20 to clarify that Christ comes to the supper as a King of Kings and not like a Bridegroom
anymore. Implicitly, Turner agreed that the marriage is the time of trial for the people of God. See Joseph
Turner, “To the Believer Scattered Abroad,” DS, March 1845, 22.
4
Snow quoted Rev 21:9 which indicated that the bride is the Holy Jerusalem in heaven. Thus, the
wedding ceremony occurred in heaven according to him. He refers to the wedding time as a trial time for
the people of God, relating Dan 7 concept of judgment, he said, “The judgment of the living and the dead
20
explained the events allegorically. Since Christ did not return as expected, they also
considered Him as a Bridegroom and New Jerusalem in Heaven as a Bride.
Thus, according to them, the events was happened in heaven where Jesus went to
the wedding to marry His bride, in which, they are like the ten virgins.1 According to the
view of these pioneers, the concept of final judgment can be divided into two parts, “a
pre-advent trial and a second-advent execution” which was earlier introduced by Josiah
Litch in the 1840s. The fact that Jesus shift His ministry from the right hand of the Father
to the Father’s throne, and the need of God’s people to put their wedding garments to
remain spotless was a “good news for the saints.” said Maxwell.2 Thus, they have a good
sense of understanding of the pre-advent judgment and the second coming by this time.
The Development of Investigative Judgment Among the Sabbatarian Adventist
According to Maxwell, Joseph Bates and the other Sabbatarian Adventist embrace
the concept of pre-advent judgment. They related this subject to the Sabbath, the seal of
God, and the third angel message before 1850 in a way that it would be applicable to
must precede the appearing of the Son of man to execute judgment.” See Samuel S. Snow, “And the Door
Was Shut,” The Jubilee Standard, April 1845, 52–53.
1
Merlin D. Burt, “The Extended Atonement View in the Day-Dawn and the Emergence of
Sabbatarian Adventism,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 44, no. 2 (2006): 333. Hale and Turn focus
on the meaning of the marriage. Their Article in The Advent Mirror was divided into two parts: the
marriage and the marriage supper. The marriage was linked with the ancient of Days sitting on the Throne,
and the son of man was given a dominion (Dan 7:9-10; 13-14). They said that this event was the heavenly
marriage, in which Jesus got married to the Bride (New Jerusalem). The subsequent event was the marriage
supper, which, according to them, was the second coming (Rev 19:7-9; 11-16). Thus, they linked the great
disappointment day as the marriage in heaven, which indicate that Jesus is coming soon. See A. Hale and
Joseph Turner, “Has the Savior Come as the Bridegroom,” Advent Mirror, January 1845, 1–2.
2
Maxwell, “The Investigative Judgement”, in The Sanctuary, 554.
21
daily life.1 Hiram Edson, one of the founders of SDA left an “undated manuscript” which
explained about the understanding of the son of man coming to the Ancient of Days and
not on the earth. He also related the parable of Luke 12:35-37, by saying that Jesus went
to heaven in the most holy place to marry the bridegroom. His idea is like Jacobs, Hale,
and Turner.2 After the disappointment, Edson, F.B Hahn, and Crosier were the one who
understood the event first, Edson wrote it in his manuscript:
Br. Hahn and myself held a consultation with regard to the propriety of
sending out the light on the subject of the sanctuary. We decided it was
just what the scattered remnant needed; for it would explain our
disappointment and set the brethren on the right track. We agreed to
share the expense between us, and said to Crosier, "Write out the subject
of the sanctuary. Get out another number of the Day Dawn, and we will
try to meet the expense." He did so, and the Day Dawn was sent out
bearing the light on the sanctuary subject. It fell into the hands of Elder
James White, and Joseph Bates, who readily endorsed the view....3
Thus, there was a commencing of literature expressed through the magazines
those days, giving a glimpse of the understanding the judgment before Christ’s coming.
Crosier and the Investigative Judgment.
In 1845, the first issue of Day Dawn, published in Canandaigua, New York
contains Crosier’s idea of sanctuary. The main contribution of Crosier was that October
1
One must know that most of the concept of pre-advent judgment was originally understood by
people prior to the establishment of the church and in a way independent to the vision of Ellen White. Most
of the materials are before Ellen White received a vision concerning the Bridegroom, in February 1845. See
Ibid., 555.
2
Ibid.
3
Hiram Edson, Handwritten manuscript related to disappointment,” quoted in Donald Karr Short,
“A Study of the Cleansing of the Sanctuary in Relation to Current Denominational History” (MA Thesis,
Andrews University, 1958), 12.
22
1844 was a “new and extended heavenly sanctuary by Jesus in the Most Holy place.”1 In
April 1845, Crosier began to understand more about the subject, he wrote:
On that day (Oct. 23, 1844), Jesus closed the tarrying time by entering
upon the office of the bridegroom or the final atonement. Our great High
Priest is now making the atonement for the whole Israel, while we should
be engaged in the most important work of prayer. Some supposed that if
Christ entered upon the work of atonement on the tenth, he has left the
mercy seat, and hence that all access by prayer is cut off. But the mercy
seat is in the Holiest of all…. so that he has approached directly to the
mercy seat….To encourage us in this crisis he says, let us draw near with
a true heart in full assurance of faith.2
Crosier published another article again in Day Star Extra on February 1846. The
article consist of the title, “The Law of Moses” which explains that the sanctuary of
Daniel 8:14 is one in heaven. His argument is mostly based on Lev 16 and 23 ( on the day
of Atonement) and the explanation of the two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary
(Hebrew 8).3 He used Hebrew 9 to expound the necessity of the sanctuary in heaven for
cleansing. In this article, Crosier mentioned Jesus who enters into the most holy place to
participate the pre-advent wedding.4 Another Crosier’s point was that the cleansing in
1
Crosier came to know the advent message at the age of 23, and in 1843 he accepted the message
and join the advent movement. He used to be a member of Wesleyan Church. One of the close associates
that he had was Franklin B. Hahn of Canandaigua, an Adventist medical doctor. Crosier collaborated with
Hahn in Publishing the article in Day Dawn, Hahn will take up the finances of publishing and Crosier will
do the writings. Crosier will often travel to New York and on the way, he will stay in the Home of Hiram
Edson in Port Gibson. See O.R. L Crosier, “Early History of Ontario County Revealed in Story of Late
Owen R. L Crosier,” Daily Messenger, November 1923, 17, 22, quoted in Burt, “The Extended
Atonement,” 334.
O.R. L Crosier, “From Bro. Crosier,” Hope of Israel, April 1845, 4.

2
3
Crosier explained that the fulfilment of Day of atonement did not take place at the first Advent.
Considering from an analogy, he said that the complete fulfilment of Yom Kippur during the Jewish
festival in Autumn will cover many years. In this manner, the fulfilment of the antitypical day of atonement
will also begin from 1844 to the end of the millennium, when salvation of humanity is complete. See O.R.
L Crosier, “The Law of Moses,” Day Star Extra, February 7, 1846, 37.
4
Ibid.
23
Dan 8:14 was not a cleansing by fire, but a cleansing of sin by blood.1 This work of
Crosier became one of the foundational doctrine of the SDA church.
According to Maxwell, Crosier equates the “New Jerusalem” and the “church”
with the work of Christ in heaven and the work of the Holy Spirit on earth. He said that
other Sabbatarian Adventist accepts this view and produced a purification theology, in
which, one must experience the purification to endure the pre-advent judgment. This
experience is indeed understood as the pre-advent judgment. Bates and other
Sabbatarians adopted that the “patience” of the saints (Rev 14:12) is referring to the
“trying time”, the word “trial” was emphasized. They believe that the pre-advent
heavenly trial is in process.2
Ellen White and the Three visions Relating to the Investigative Judgment.
Meanwhile, Ellen White received visions in relation to the pre-advent
investigative judgment that can be divided into three parts: the first of these, she received
in December 1844, which approved the millerite experience and the message carried was
to be passed down till the time of the end, the findings of Samuel Snow concerning the
end of 2300 days prophecy at October 1844 was labeled as “Bright light” that lead the
saints into the Holy City.3 Second of these visions was in February 1845, which pictured
1
Ibid., 40.
2
Maxwell, “The Investigative Judgement,” The Sanctuary, 558. For further detail, see Burt,
“Sabbatarian Adventism,” (PhD Diss., Andrews University, 2002), 242-250. See also Schwarz, Light
Bearers, 168-170.
3
This is the first vision of Ellen White about the advent people walking in the narrow way to New
Jerusalem. Ellen White considered the “Bright light” as the midnight cry which is the message of William
Miller. See Roger W. Coon, The Great Visions of Ellen G. White, vol. 1 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald, 1992), 18.
24
the Father moving into the Most Holy Place in 1844, and the Son following Him as the
Bridegroom who is about to marry the bride (New Jerusalem). Third of these visions, was
in October 1845, portraying of the end of Christ Ministry in heaven and the subsequent
events of the plague, and the second coming.1
Grouping up the three visions, it approved the authenticity of the 1844 experience
and open the new understanding of Jesus ministry in the most holy place proceeding with
the last day events and the second coming of Christ. In 1846, James White group these
visions and printed on April 6, two weeks later, Otis Nichols sent this material to William
Miller. Nichols explained that the first angel message is pointing to 1844 in commencing
the judgment, he said that there was a change which took place in heaven where the
Ancient of days shifts to the most holy place. Thus, Jesus also changes his ministry of
sitting at the right hand of God to the throne in the most holy place for judgment referring
to Dan 7:9. Metaphorically, Jesus as a bridegroom and a master of the house (Luke
13:25) stood up and came to the Ancient of days, to fulfill the “legal types” of the day of
atonement in Leviticus 16.2
1
Maxwell, “The Investigative judgment,” The Sanctuary, 557. These first and the second visions
can be read on the book, Early Writings, See White, Early Writings, 13–30; 54–56. Gordon mentioned that
Ellen White came into conclusion about the presence of the heavenly sanctuary after she received these
three visions. See also Paul A. Gordon, The Sanctuary, 1844, and the Pioneers (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1983), 27, 28.
2
Maxwell, “The Investigative Judgment,” The Sanctuary, 559. Otis Nichols is a lithographer, in
Dorchester (now part of Boston) who accept the message of Sabbath from Joseph Bates, Ellen White
associated with him and considered his home as her home. See White, Christian Experience and
Teachings, 116. See also Ellen G. White, The Gift of Light, ed. Roger W. Coon (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen
G. White Estate Inc., 2018), 22; A. Hale and Joseph Turner, “Has Not the Savior Come as a Bridegroom,”
The Advent Mirror, January 1845.
25
Joseph Bates and the Investigative Judgment
Among the Sabbatarian, Joseph Bates was the one in the forefront in developing the
doctrine of investigative judgment. In May 1846, Bates published a book, The Opening
Heavens. It was basically the endorsement of Crosier article concerning the heavenly
sanctuary published on February 7 Day Star.1 In this book, he rejected the idea of
“spiritualizing” the heavenly sanctuary like Enoch Jacob and his followers did. He
specifically rejected the idea that the second coming had come to pass in a spiritual sense
among the early believers.2 Bates, does not mentioned explicitly about the pre-advent
judgment, however, he explained the “fiery trial” and “Daniel’s trouble” (Dan 12) that
the one who keeps the commandment will endure till the sealing (Rev 7). When the
sealing work is done, Bates said that the New Jerusalem will be cleansed, citing Joel
3:16,17.3 Here, he used Joel 3 in order to explain the pre-advent judgment implicitly.
Bates’s second book is known as The Seventh-day Sabbath, The Perpetual Sign,
which was published in August 1846. This book did not make many clues for heavenly
judgment, but the second revision in January 1847 made a crucial point. In the second
edition, he said that the first angel message had been proclaimed at the hour of judgment.
Citing Rev 11: 19, he referred the temple in heaven as new Jerusalem, explaining the ark
and the testament inside the inner temple, he suggested the significance of Sabbath in a
1
This was the article Crosier publish in the Day Star periodical. See Crosier, “The Law of Moses.”
2
Joseph Bates, The Opening Heaven (New Bedford, MA: Press of Benjamin Linsey, 1846), 22.
3
Ibid., 36-37.
26
relationship with Christ entering in the most holy place.1 The interrelation of Christ
ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and the Sabbath commandment was confirmed by the
similar visions of Ellen White on March 6 and April 3, 1847. The visions portrayed Jesus
standing in the most holy place since 1844 calling special attention to the Sabbath
commandment.2
After a month, Bates made the third book, Second Advent Waymarks and High
Heaps. The purpose of this book is to urge the people to keep the Sabbath commandment
to prepare for the second coming. Bates explained that the second coming could not be at
the end of 2300 days prophecy, he mentioned two essential things which will take place
between 1844 and the second advent:
1)Respecting ‘the hour of God’s judgment is come, “there must be order

and time,’ for in His Judicial character decide the cases of all the
righteous that their names may be registered in the Lamb’s book of life,
and 2) they be fully prepared for that eventful moment of their change
from mortal to immortality.3
According to Bates, the pre-advent judgment is presented as the King examining
his guest whether they are wearing the linen garment, and the guest who did not wear the
garments are the people whose “Sacrifice and obedience” are “Incomplete.” On the other
1
Joseph Bates, The Seventh-Day Sabbath, A Perpetual Sign (New Bedford, MA: Press of
Benjamin Linsey, 1847), 56. For further detail, see Knight, Search for Identity, 68-70.
2
Ellen White saw a significant vision about the heavenly sanctuary at Fairhaven in March 6 and at
Gorham in April 3, 1847. She was just 19 years old. Paul A Gordon divide the three visions that led White
to the basic understanding of the heavenly sanctuary (Feb 1845; Oct 1845; and between Feb and April in
1846) before the two significant vision in March 6 and April 3, 1847. See Gordon, The Sanctuary, 1844,
and the Pioneers, 27, 28. In these visions, she personally visited the heavenly temple and was in the most
holy place. See also Coon, Great Vision, 41.
3
Joseph Bates, Second Advent Way Marks, and High Heaps (New Bedford, MA: Press of
Benjamin Linsey, 1847), 48.
27
hand, God will seal the people whose sacrifice and obedience are developed through the
keeping of the Sabbath. Bates said that all the “remnant” will be the Sabbath keepers.1
The fourth book of Bates is the apology for the Sabbath: A Vindication of the Seventh-day
Sabbath and the Commandments of God. It is a special book for the Sabbatarian
Adventist. In the case for investigative judgment, Bates referred to “all-absorbing subject
of Christ coming to judgment.”2 He mentioned that the first angel’s message was
preached because the judgment was at hand.3 He used the wedding and day of atonement
imagery again, but this time with more emphasis on the preparation of the believers by
mentioning that Jesus work in the most holy place for the perfecting of the saints.4
While Jesus is in the sanctuary in this day of atonement, Bates said that the
believers are “in their trials” as in Rev 14:12. He also explained the delay of the second
advent, he said: “God will give His people sufficient time to accept or refuse the light
presented to them….by voluntarily entering into the Sabbath.”5 Bates mentioned that this
is the reason of lengthening the antitypical day of atonement than twenty-four hours. In
November 1848, in the conference held in Dorchester, Massachusetts, Ellen White
advised Bates to develop another booklet to explain the Sabbath itself. Thus, in January
1
Ibid., 107.
2
Joseph Bates, The Vindication of the Seventh-Day Sabbath and The Commandment of God (New
Bedford, MA: Press of Benjamin Linsey, 1845), 191.
3
Ibid., 220.
4
Ibid., 187.
5
Ibid., 226.
28
1849, Bates published a pamphlet, which was known as The Seal of The Living God.1
Bates made a connection with the revolution that occurred in Europe and claimed that it
is the fulfillment of the seven trumpets, he cited Rev 11:18, “The nations are angry, thy
wrath has come.”2 Bates asserted that the pre-advent judgment is just for the saints, and
the righteous people from Abel to the resurrection time will join together with the
144,000 who are sealed.3
In January 1849, Ellen White received a vision, which affirmed that the
fulfillment of the judgment mentioned in the seven trumpets is still in the future, her
vision narration concerning the judgment is mention below:
I was taken off in a vision to the most holy place, where I saw Jesus still
interceding for Israel…I saw that Jesus would not leave the most holy
place until every case was decided either salvation or destruction and that
the wrath of God could not come until Jesus had finished His work in the
most holy place, laid off His priestly attire, and clothes Himself with the
garments of vengeance….. I saw the anger of the nations, the wrath of
God, and the time to judge the dead were separate and distinct, one
following the other, also that Michael had stood not stood up, and that
the time of trouble, such as never was, had not yet commenced. The
nations are now getting angry, but when the High Priest had finished His
Maxwell, “The Investigative” in The Sanctuary, 563.

1
2
Joseph Bates, The Seal of The Living God (New Bedford, MA: Press of Benjamin Linsey, 1849),
48. The revolution was at start caused by severe failure in agricultures and crops which led to the downfall
in economy continued with discontentment among the liberal and the nationalist against the government.
See, The Columbia Encyclopedia, s.v. “Revolutions of 1848,” accessed November 21, 2018,
https://www.encyclopedia.com. The revolution movement began with the local people in Sicily, Italy, in
Jan 1848. Continued with the revolution in France, in Feb 24, which was extended throughout the whole
Europe later. The German government agreed to combine the three constituent assemblies at Berlin,
Vienna, and Frankfurt in which the new constitution were to be made for Prussia, Austria, and Germany.
The repression by the soldiers was first done in Paris against the insurgence in June. Thus, the repression
continued against the Czechs in Prague, followed in Lombardy and Vienna, Berlin and so on. See
Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. “Revolution in 1848,” accessed November 21, 2018,
https://www.britannica.com/event/Revolutions-of-1848.
3
Ibid., 38.
29
work in the sanctuary, He will stand up, put on the garments of
vengeance, and then the seven last plagues will be poured out.”1
After this vision, the Sabbatarian Adventists cease to use Rev 11:18 to interpret
the concept of investigative judgment. Bates also took this seriously and produced the
other book, An Explanation of the Typical and Antitypical Sanctuary, he reexplained his
biblical based arguments such as Lev 16 and 23, Dan 7 and 8, “the imagery and the first
angel message.”2
James White and the Investigative Judgement.
James was the first to coin the term “Investigative Judgment” according to
Maxwell.3 At first, he rejected the idea of investigative judgment and said, “Some have
contended that the day of judgment was prior to the second advent….This view is
certainly without the foundation of the word of God.”4 Maxwell seems to point out that
James was not in agree with Josiah Litch argument, by saying that God does not need
judgment for the saints before the second coming “because the names of the saints are
written in heaven.”5
In June 1851, James started to accept the concept of Investigative judgment
gradually which is almost similar with Bates idea of pre-advent judgment, he said:
1
White, Early Writings, 36.
2
Joseph Bates, An Explanation of the Typical and Antitypical Sanctuary, By the Scripture, with
Chart (New Bedford, MA: Press of Benjamin Linsey, 1850).
3
Maxwell, “The investigative” in The Sanctuary, 567.
4
James White, “The Day of Atonement,” Advent Review, September 1850, 49.
5
30
As we are now in the time of Marriage, we may expect a message to be
given, that will test and try who have been called out….the work of this
message will compare with the examinations of the guests in the
marriage. And we believe that the third angel’s message is such a test,
by which the guest are now being examined. If there has no danger of
some losing their garments in this trying time, in which the saints were
to wait for the return of the Lord from the wedding, then there would
have been no need of the caution.1
James understanding is that the Sabbath is the trial for the saints before the second
coming. In 1857, White produced an article “The Judgment” where he used investigative
judgment for the first time, he used four time in the article. In this article he quoted, “In
this awful hour, either sins or names will be blotted out….O Church of Christ awake!
awake! The judgment is passing.”2 James connect the judgment with the message of the
Laodicean church, saying Jesus will spew the church out of His mouth unless they repent
which convey the judgment process before the second coming.3 Apparently, James did
not express his understanding of the pre-advent judgment earlier because of Ellen’s
visions of January 5, 18504 where Ellen was told in the vision that the judgment
concerning the seven trumpet was to be in the future. In addition, her statement was sort
of the rebuke to Joseph Bates and his false interpretation. However, in 1868, in his
autobiographical Life Incidents, he make a firmed statement of his believe in the pre-
advent judgement:
We solemnly believe that it was the design of God that definite time
should be proclaimed, and that the 2300 days reached to the Judgment,
1
James White, “The Parable, Matthew 25: 1-12,” 1851, 22, quoted in Maxwell, “The
Investigative” in The Sanctuary, 568.
2
James White, “The Judgment,” ARSH, January 29, 1857, 100–101.
3
4
White, Early Writings, 36-38; 52-54.
31
referred to in the words of the first angel, ‘Fear God and give glory to
him, for the hour of his Judgment is come’…..The grandeur of the sitting
of the great court of heaven in the investigative Judgment is described
by the prophet thus (Daniel 7: 9,13, 14 quoted)1
White added another trial of judgement based on the Bible, which is the judgment
of the wicked by the saints during the millennials followed by the execution of the
judgment at the end of the Millennium.2 Therefore, James White emphasized on the two
judgment: one, which is pre-advent judgment and the other, millennial judgment. In fact,
he connects the Laodicean message with the concept of Investigative Judgment.
Summary
In summation, the section had presented the origin and development of the
doctrine of investigative judgment in a chronological sequence. It started with the
understanding of the pioneers before the great disappointment event in 1844 and followed
with the development after the disappointment. Basically, the pioneers had the concept of
investigation before Christ second advent though it was not implicitly understood. On the
other hand, the study also exposed that the concept of SDA on investigative judgment
among the Sabbatarian Adventist is based on Dan 7 and 8, Day of Atonement (Lev 16
and 23), Matthew 22 (wedding parable imagery). Bates, as the main author, from 1846-
50, developed the understanding that while the trial is in Heaven with Jesus in the most
holy place, there is an endurance trial of the Sabbath-keeping saints on earth. In addition,
1
James White, Life Incident: Connections with the Great Advent Movement, as Illustrated by The
Three Angels of Revelation XIV (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of SDA, 1868), 322, 323.
2
White used Rev 20:4 as to when the millennial judgment will take place, he based on 1 Cor 6:2,3
and Jude 6 to explained that the saints will judge the wicked before the resurrection. Thus, the sins of saints
are open before hand and finished while the sins of the sinners follows during the millennium (1 Tim 5:24).
See James White, “The Judgment,” AR, 100.
32
Bates emphasis on Sabbath in connections with the trials or the pre-advent judgment is
another development of this doctrine.
Ellen White and her Role on the Investigative Judgment
This section will provide a comprehensive understanding of Ellen White
concerning the heavenly Sanctuary, the investigative judgment, and the ministry of
Christ. It will supply the historical overview of Ellen White’s view on the investigative
judgment, and followed by her concept concerning the motif and order of judgment in the
heavenly sanctuary.
An Overview of Ellen G. White’s Initiating Evidences on Investigative Judgment
One must be certain that Ellen White did not formulated the doctrine of
investigative judgment as being mentioned in the earlier sections. However, Ellen White
got a vision from God to affirm the truth that Crosier and his friends had exposed. She
wrote the Lord confirmation on the article this way:
The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother
Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, 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.1
From this point, she began to understand the truth gradually. In 1845, she got a
vision known as “Bridegroom Vision” relating Dan 7 as an event in the heavenly
sanctuary.2 She explained that Jesus having entered the most holy place to marry the
1
James White, A Word to the Little Flock (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1847), 12.
2
White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, 423–26.
33
bridegroom (Kingdom), He urge His people to keep their garments without spot.1 In
January 1849, she had said that Jesus will not leave the most holy place until every case
is decided.2 In 1858, she mentioned a judgment which had been started for the “righteous
dead” and soon to be continue to the “living righteous.” She referred Sabbath as a test
which will separate the true believer from nominal believers.3
Apparently, White did not articulate the concept of investigative judgment in a
detail in her articles and books until 1880’s, it is interesting to know that she
particularized the subject only after forty or more years.4 Ellen was already sixty years of
age when they published The Great Controversy. In 1905, this book was republished
when White was about eighty years of age. Consequently, in the Review of November
1905, she wrote, “Solemn are the scenes connected with the closing work of the
atonement. Momentous are the interests involved therein. The judgment is now passing in
the sanctuary above. For more than sixty years this work has been in progress.”5 The
phrase “more than sixty years” implies that the judgment had been occurred for sixty
years ago which points back to 1844 approximately.
1
White, Early Writings, 55–57.
2
Ibid., 36-38.
3
Ibid., 42-43.
4
She explicitly explained the concept of Investigative Judgment in the twenty third chapter of The
Spirit of Prophecy, Vol 4 (1884) and enlarged the edition into The Great Controversy (1888).
White, “The Ark of Covenant,” 10.

5
34
Ellen White’s theological concept of Investigative judgement
This section will supply the theological understanding of Ellen White on
Investigative Judgment. The following subjects will be put it order: First, the theological
concept of heavenly sanctuary under which Sanctuary in heaven, the typology of earthly
sanctuary as compared to the heavenly sanctuary and the basis of God judgment will be
included. Second, the idea of investigation in heaven under which the motif of
judgement, the heavenly court and order of judgement will be provided and concluded
with Christ the judge.
The Theology of Heavenly Sanctuary.
Ellen white has produced an understanding on the heavenly sanctuary and its
literalness, this section will specifically identify her concept on the sanctuary in heaven,
the typology of earthly sanctuary as compare to the antitype of the sanctuary in heaven,
and the basis of God’s judgment as mentioned previously.
Sanctuary in Heaven.
On February 1845, Ellen was shown in the vision concerning the heavenly
sanctuary, and she labeled as “the precious light in regard to the heavenly sanctuary.” She
wrote to Enoch Jacobs on The Day Star on February 15, 1845 which was published in
March 14, 1846. She wrote:
“God showed me the following, one year ago this month: I saw a throne
and on it sat the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.... I saw the Father rise
from the throne and in a flaming chariot go into the Holy of Holies within
the veil and did sit.... And I saw a cloudy chariot with wheels like flaming
35
fire. Angels were all about the chariot as it came where Jesus was. He
stepped into it and was borne to the Holiest where the Father sat.”1
One can see the glimpse of the ministration going on in the heavenly sanctuary. In
April 3, 1847, while Ellen White and other advent believers worship on the sabbath day,
at the house of Mr. Stockbridge, she was taken to vision. In this vision, she was shone the
sanctuary in heaven. Her narration to the vision implies the literalness of the sanctuary as
stated below:
I saw an angel flying swiftly to me. He quickly carried me from the earth
to the holy city. In the city I saw a temple, which I entered. I passed
through a door before I came to the first veil. This veil was raised, and I
passed into the holy place. Here I saw the altar of incense, the candlestick
with seven lamps, and the table on which was the showbread. After
viewing the glory of the holy, Jesus raised the second veil, and I passed
into the holy of holies. In the holiest I saw an ark; on the top and sides of
it was purest gold.2
In her earlier publication concerning the great controversy between Christ and
Satan in 1858, she elaborate the reason of Christ entrance into the most holy place. She
asserted that Jesus went into the most holy place at the end of 2300 days in 1844 like the
priest in the earthly sanctuary entered once in a year to purify the sanctuary.3 Later, she
adopted the term “investigative judgment” for Christ’s ministry, though James White had
1
White, “Letter from Sister White,” 7. See also White, Early Writings, 55; Letter 2, 1847.
2
White, Christian Experience and Teachings, 91.
3
“I saw that every case was decided for life and death. Jesus had blotted out the sin of the
people…. While Jesus had been ministering in the sanctuary, the judgment had been going on for the
righteous dead, and for the righteous living.” To cleanse the sanctuary means to blot out the sins of the
people on earth. See Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1 (Battle Creek, MI: SDA Publishing, 1858), 162,
197, 198.
36
already used it.1 White urged the believers not to show indifference regarding Christ’s
ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, she said “we should not rest until we become
intelligent in regard to the subject of the sanctuary”2 She indeed strongly suggested that
the people of God should thoroughly understand the subject of the sanctuary and the
investigative judgment and able to give an answer to the ones who ask the reason of why
ones believe.3
Earthly Sanctuary as a Typology
Ellen White believes that the early sanctuary was designed on the pattern of the
heavenly sanctuary, which indicate that she believed in the literalness of the heavenly
sanctuary as mention in the previous page.4 She understand that the earthly and heavenly
sanctuary needs to be cleanse according to (Heb 9:22,23) in which, one may understand
that the rituals on the earthly points to the reality in heaven. Thus, the heavenly sanctuary
system is God’s design to eradicate the sin from the universe systematically through the
sacrificed blood of Jesus Christ just like the earthly sanctuary system does.5 Comparing
the earthly and heavenly sanctuary, she wrote:
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
1
Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, Complete Published Ellen G. White’s Writings
[CD-ROM] (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate Inc., 2008), 266; for James White used on
“Investigative Judgment,” see White, “The Judgment,” 100–101.
2
White, Life Sketches of Ellen White, 278.
3
White, The Spirit of Prophecy, 4:313.
4
White, Spiritual Gifts, 1:161.
5
White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, 417.
37
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.1
She explained that in the earthly sanctuary, “the blood of sin offering removed the
sin from the penitent, but it rested on the sanctuary until the day of atonement.” The same
system applies in the heavenly sanctuary, “the blood of Christ, while it was to release the
repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would
stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement.”2 Thus, it is understandable
that the earthly rituals of the sanctuary exemplifies the reality of the heavenly sanctuary.
God’s Basis of Judgment
White’s contribution regarding the basis of God’s judgment may shows the
biblical soundness of the doctrine. Though one may concur that God in his infinite
wisdom can decide by Himself the true judgment on any individual. White suggested that
the criterion for judgment is “the law of God” which is the standard principle of
judgment. She provides an evidence from the scripture (Eccl 12:13,14; Jas 2:12; Rom
2:12-16) to support her view and added that the faith in Jesus is vital for a person to keep
the law of God, and that “without faith it is impossible to please God.3
1
Ibid., 421.
2
White, Patriarch and Prophets, 357–58. See also White, The Great Controversy between Christ
and Satan, 420.
3
White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, 436, 482.
38
On the other hand, White put it clear that the judgment though will be according
to God’s law, God will judge everyone according to the “measure of light given.”1 She
said, “None will be condemned for not heeding the light and the knowledge that they
never had, and they could not obtain.”2
The Concept of Investigation
This section will provide the understanding of Ellen White on the concept of
investigation. The picture of how the heavenly court decides to conclude the judiciary act
for each individual. Thus, there are two topics namely judgment from the record book
and the order of judgment.
Judgment from the Record Book
On the basis of the scripture, White understand that the investigation in heaven is
through the record book. According to her, there are at least three books in heaven, first,
citing Revelation 20:12, Philippians 4:3, she points out that there is a book of life, and
second, for the book of remembrance, she refers to Malachi 3:16. Third, for the book
1
White, The Desire of Ages, 210.
2
White, Testimonies for the Church, 2: 619. She clearly explained the definition of “light”, she
asserted that a “light” is not considered as a “light” if one does not understand. She stated, “We shall not be
held accountable for the light that had not reach our perception, but for that which we have resisted and
refused.” See “‘Light That Had Shone, Will Condemned’ [John 15:12],” in Seventh-Day Adventist Bible
Commentary (SDABC), rev. ed. Francis D. Nichol (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), 5: 1145.
See also Ellen G. White, “Notes on Travel,” ARSH, November 25, 1884, 738.
39
which contain all the sins of men, she gave the references from Ecclesiastes 12:14,
Matthew 12:36,37.1
She explained each book and its significance, the book of life comprises of “the
names of all who have entered the service of God”2 and “the good deeds of the saints.”3
Consequently, the book of remembrance record all the good deeds of the saints as well as
their bad actions. In 1905, she wrote to the youth to encourage them:
Men may forget, men may deny their wrong course of action, but a
record of it is kept in the book of remembrance, and in the day of
judgment, unless men repent and walk humbly before God, they will
meet this dread record just as it stand.4
She also mentioned about the “book of death” where all the deeds of the wicked
are recorded.5 Another time, she used general terms like “book of records.”6Apparently,
this book is equivalent to the third book mentioned in the previous page where the deeds
of the wicked are recorded.
1
White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, 480–81. For more detail on the book of
remembrance, see White, “Let Him Take Hold of My Strength,” 561. See also, “Angels Marking Deeds of
Men,” SDABC, 7: 987.
2
Ibid.
3
4
White, “Lesson from the Life of Daniel,” 2.
5
6
Ellen G. White, “God’s Abhorrence and Treatment of Sin,” The Signs of The Times (ST), May 27,
1880, 229. She said, “When individuals commit sins which are too grievous for the Lord to pardon, their
names are erased from the book, and they are devoted to destruction.” Thus, this book seemed to be for the
wicked. See also “A Just Punishment for the Sinner,” SDABC , 7: 988.
40
Order of Judgment
White related the concept of the earthly sanctuary with the judgment in heaven.
On this matter, she wrote that only the believers are counted for the judgment:
“In the typical service, only those who had come before God with
confession and repentance, and whose sins, through the blood of the sin
offering, were transferred to the sanctuary, had a part in the service of
the Day of Atonement. So, in the great day of final atonement and
investigative judgment the only cases considered are those of the
professed people of God. The judgment of the wicked is a distinct and
separate work and takes place at a later period.”1
White understand that the investigative judgment is only for “the professed people
of God,” “Children of God,” “all who have believed on Jesus,” and “those who in all ages
professed to be a follower of Christ.”2 She understood that the judgment commenced
from 1844, in which, the righteous dead are judgment first, and “soon” she says, “none
knows how soon- it will pass to the cases of the living.”3 In 1900, she stated that the
judgment of the living is about to begin though no one know when it will start.4
Christ the Judge
White understood that the Father is the judge during the investigative judgment,
And Christ as the intercessors for the sinners (1 John 2:1, Hebrew 9:24). In July 4, 1892,
in her article published in the Signs of The Times, she wrote, “Jesus stands in the holy of
1
White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, 480.
2
Ibid., 428, 480, 483. An implicit explanation on the “Children of God,” see “The Book of Life,”
in SDABC, 7: 988. See also Ellen G. White, “The Power of The Truth,” ST, August 6, 1885, 466.
3
Ellen G. White, Selected Messages (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1980), 1: 125, see
also, White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, 490.
4
White, Testimonies for the Church, 6: 130.
41
holies, now to appear in the presence of God for us. There He ceases not to present His
people moment by moment.”1 Thus, only by the end of the investigative judgment, Jesus
will be a judge. Concerning this, she wrote:
The One who has stood as our Intercessor; who hears all penitential
prayers and confessions; who is represented with a rainbow, the symbol
of grace and love, encircling His head, is soon to cease His work in the
heavenly sanctuary. Grace and mercy will then descend from the throne
and justice will take their place. He for whom His people have looked
will assume His right, the office of Supreme Judge.2
She said Christ will be the one appointed to “execute the judgment” and will
declare whom to be rewarded and to be punished.3 In 1898, She wrote concerning Christ
as the judge in The Review and Herald, “In that day of final punishment and reward, both
the saints and sinners will recognize Him who was crucified the judge of all living.”4 She
made it more clear on the issue of January 19, 1905 saying that there is “only one judge,”
who died for humanity, in which, she pointed to Christ.5 In 1909, in her book, she wrote
that the “Father is not the Judge,” and even the “angels are not.” Explaining the only
reason Christ is the judge, she said, “Christ took humanity that He might be our Judge.”6
1
White, The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, 479, 482. For the quote, see Ellen G.
White, “Accepted in Christ,” ST, July 4, 1892, par. 7. See also, “Jesus Stands in The Holy of Holies,”
SDABC, 7: 933.
2
“Christ Intercession Soon to Cease,” SDABC, 7: 989. See also Ellen G. White, “The Present
Crisis,” ARSH, January 1, 1889.
3
White, The Desire of Ages, 210.
4
Ellen G. White, “The Day of Reckoning,” ARSH, November 22, 1898, 745.
5
Ellen G. White, “The College View Council,” ARSH, January 19, 1905, 9.
6
White, Testimonies for the Church, 9: 185.
42
Thus, according to her, the function of Christ’s ministry is more on the intercessory part
during the investigative judgment. However, at the end of the investigative judgment, He
will return to the earth as a judge to “execute” the final “judgment.”
Summary
In the summation of this section, one may understand that Ellen White does not
formulate the doctrine of investigative judgment. However, she approved the doctrine by
receiving the vision from God. She made her own statement on this subject
approximately after forty years.1 The subsections explains briefly about the theological
concept of Mrs. White on the doctrine of investigative judgment under which three
subjects are introduced.
First, the theological concept of the heavenly sanctuary, in which, the presence of
the literal sanctuary in heaven was mentioned. Besides, the typology of the earthly
sanctuary was clearly explained and concluded with “the law of God” as the basis of
judgment during the investigation. Second, the idea of investigation was elaborated in a
way that the case will be only among the believers of God, and the books of record will
be the part of the judgment scene in which, the deeds of humankind was recorded in a
detail. Lastly, the section ended with Christ as the judge. However, White made it simple
that Jesus’ ministry is an intercession during the investigation. However, at the end of the
investigation, He will cease to be an intercessor and become a judge to execute the final
of humanity.
1
See earlier page, 34.
43
History of Internal and External Challengers to the Adventist Teaching of the
Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment.
This section presents the historical and theological views of the critics to the
teaching of sanctuary and the investigative judgment among the SDA and non-SDA. It
traces people who were against this truth from the birth of this doctrine. The section is
divided into two subsections: one is the theological criticism from the internal
challengers, and other is from the external challengers, respectively.
The Theological Concept of the Internal Challengers
This section provides the view of several SDA ministers on the doctrine of
Investigative Judgment and the Sanctuary. The challengers are considered in a
chronological sequence namely Owen R. L Crosier, Dudley M. Canright, Albian Fox
Ballenger, William W. Fletcher, Louis Richard Conradi, E. B Jones, Desmond Ford, and
Dale Ratzlaff. They represents several points of view from various positions in the
church such as pastor, administrator, lay member, editor, lecturer, and missionary. Most
of them eventually left the church. However, their role is significant because most of
them published a book to present their views on this subject.
Owen R. L. Crosier (1820-1913)
As mentioned earlier in the earlier section, Crosier published an article on the
concept of the investigative judgment and the sanctuary which was accompanied by
Hiram Edson and F.B Han.1 He was known as the first writer concerning the concept of
the sanctuary doctrine. His discoveries convinced James White, Joseph Bates and other
1
See the earlier section, 23-25.
44
“New England Adventists.”1 However, surprisingly, he rejected what he had believed in
the beginning along with the seventh-day Sabbath which he kept for a time being and
advocated in the article as well.2 His refutation of his published material concerning the
sanctuary article on February 7, 1846 was published in 1899, in The Sabbath Advocate.3
Since he cannot agree with these teachings, eventually, it led him to leave the church.4
Dudley M. Canright (1840-1919)
Dudley M. Canright was the prominent minister in his time. He was ordained in
his age of 25 and had been working as church administrator, General Conference
committee member, and a writer. However, in 1887, he left the position in the church and
became a Baptist minister. As a result of his disagreement, he wrote a book which was
widely known, The Seventh-day Adventism Renounced.5 In this book, he asserted that the
whole teachings of SDA is based on proving that the 70 weeks of Dan 9 is a part of the
2300 day-year prophecy of Dan 8:14.6 In explaining the vital importance of Sanctuary
doctrine to the SDA, he said, “Seventh-day Adventists make everything turn upon their
1
Don F. Neufeld, Seventh-Day Adventist Encyclopedia (SDAE), 2nd ed. (1995), s. v “Crosier.”
2
J. N Andrews replied to Crosier concerning his article on the Day Dawn issued on December
1846. See Neufeld, SAE, s.v. Crosier, see also, J. N Andrews, “The Sabbath,” ARSH, May 6, 1852.
3
O.R. L Crosier, “The ‘Shut-Door’ in 1844,” The Sabbath Advocate, March 7, 1899. The Sabbath
Advocate is the magazine published by the Church of God Seventh Day.
4
Arnold V. Wallenkampf, “A Brief Review of Some of the Internal and External Challengers to
the Seventh-Day Adventist Teachings on the Sanctuary and the Atonement,” in The Sanctuary and The
Lesher (Washington DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 583.
5
Ibid. for the reference of the book, see, Canright, Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced. Norman F.
Douty, a present-day critic on the teaching of sanctuary commented on Canright’s book, saying, “It has
perhaps done greater injury to the Adventist cause than any other book ever published.” See Norman F.
Douty, The Case of D.M Canright (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1964), 108.
6
Canright, Adventism Renounced, 128.
45
view of the sanctuary. It is vital with them. If they are wrong with this, their whole theory
breaks down.”1
As an authentic evidence on condemning the sanctuary doctrine of the SDA
church, Canright asserted that the leading pioneers do not support the doctrine, in
observing this:
Not even one of the leading Adventists, like Miller, Himes, Fitch, etc.,
ever accepted this sanctuary explanation. Only a mere handful out of the
great mass of 1844 Adventists found out the truth about the sanctuary,
and these were men of no note in Miller’s work….Miller himself
opposed the Seventh-Day Adventists’ move, rejecting the idea of the
sanctuary.2
He had further accusation on the early pioneers for choosing the writings of O.W.
L Crosier to formulate the doctrine of Sanctuary “instead of receiving the ‘light’ on the
sanctuary question from Mrs. White’s vision, or from heaven…” Mentioning how
Crosier gave up to the doctrine he himself formulated and opposing the SDA church for
many years, Canright said that the theory looks so bad when the author himself
renounced it.3 Thus, he repudiated the doctrine of the Sanctuary and investigative
judgment by saying, “The Adventists (Sic) idea of the sanctuary is an absurdity.”4
1
Ibid., 117.
2
Ibid., 118.
3
Ibid., 119.
4
Ibid., 127.
46
Albion Fox Ballenger (1861-1921)
Albion Fox Ballenger was born in Illinois when his father was just becoming an
Adventist minister. He followed his father footsteps and became a minister and went to
Battle Creek College. He did a large evangelism in Great Britain and become the
President of the Welsh and Irish Missions. However, he started preaching about his
disenchantment on the sanctuary doctrine.1 Thus, he was called to present his view in
front of the Executive committee of the British Union Conference in 1905. Since his view
is not in line with the belief of the church, he was not allowed to work as a superintendent
of the Irish Mission. In addition, the British Conference suggested him to present his
view in the coming General Conference (GC) at Washington, D. C.2 After he presented
his view at the General Conference session, his ministerial credentials was taken away
and he retired to a farm.3 After four years of being refuted by the GC, he published a
book, Cast out for the Cross of Christ.4 He claimed that he wrote the book out of new
conviction gained through studying the word of God carefully. He suggested a lot of
changes concerning the belief of sanctuary doctrine. Most importantly, he argued against
1
Wallenkampf, “Brief Review,” in The Sanctuary, 584; Gary Land, “Ballenger, Albion Fox,” in
The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia (EGWE), ed. Denis Forth and Jerry Moon (Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald, n.d.), 302–3; See also SDAE , s.v. “Ballenger, Albian Fox.”
2
Ballenger, An Examination of Forty Fatal Errors Regarding the Atonement, i; See also Edwards
and Land, Seeker after Light.
3
Ibid., iii.
4
Albion F. Ballenger, Cast Out for the Cross of Christ (Tropico, CA: Author, 1909), Ballenger
expressed his view on the Sanctuary and its services for the first time in this book. It is an apology of his
views. See Edward and Land, Seeker After Light, 77. In response to Ballenger’s book, Andross published a
book, E. E. Andross, A More Excellent Ministry (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1912); In replying this
book, Ballenger wrote another book, Ballenger, An Examination of Forty Fatal Errors Regarding the
Atonement; He wrote few more books on the sanctuary: Ballenger, The Proclamation of Liberty and the
Unpardonable Sin; Ballenger, Power for Witnessing; Ballenger, Before Armageddon.
47
the concept of Christ’s entrance into the most holy place only at 1844 and not when he
ascended to heaven.1
Ballenger asserted that Christ entrance in the most holy place did not occurred in
1844 but in his ascension. He further explained that “Within the veil” in (Heb 6:19-20) is
a simple evidence that Christ enter into the second apartment of the sanctuary. According
to him, the availability of atonement is based on Christ entrance to the inner veil. Thus,
the cross become anti-typical day of atonement.2 He believed in the cleansing of the
sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days prophecy, that is 1844. However, though he
believed that the cleansing is an “atonement which was made in the judgment,”3 he
asserted that the judgment is for the wicked and particularly Satan.4 He further explains
the judgment in Rev 14: 6-7 as the judgment for the wicked, he asserted that the
judgment here is a gospel because it deliver the saints from there persecutions.5 Thus the
1
Ballenger, Cast Out for the Cross of Christ, 159.
2
Ballenger, Cast Out for the Cross of Christ, 5,7, 14, 19-21. See also Roy Adams, The Sanctuary:
Understanding the Heart of Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1993), 111–12;
Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White (Nampa: ID: Pacific
Press, 1998), 205; Schwarz and Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist, 618.
3
Ballenger, Cast Out for the Cross of Christ, 44.
4
Ibid., 43, 46, 47; Though Ballenger believed that the judgment is for the wicked and Satan, there
is no doubt that his idea is based on the typical day of Atonement, because he said, “We are now in the
typical Day of Atonement, and if our cases are reached while sin smoulders in the heart, we are lost.” See
Albion F. Ballenger, “Camp-Meeting Notes,” Review and Herald, October 11, 1989, 653; Desmond Ford, a
prominent scholar of SDA brought out that Ballenger believed in the judgment of Dan 8:14 as the judgment
of the wicket and not the saints. Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment,
64, 73.
5
Ballenger, Before Armageddon, 119; Ballenger claimed that the word gospel in Rev 14 do not
have any connection with the salvation of humanity through Christ’s dead. He asserted that it is the good
news of judgment that will be on the wicked. See Roy Adams, The Doctrine of the Sanctuary in the
Seventh-Day Adventist Church: Three Approach, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation
Series 1 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), 139.
48
motif of judgment is destructive or punitive and must be for the future.1 Ballenger also
disagreed with the blotting out of sin at the end of the age, he rather believed in the
immediate forgiveness of sin when one confess it.2
In a summary, Ballenger said that Christ enter directly into the most holy place
when he ascended in heaven and the judgment which was commenced in heaven from
1844 was the judgment decision for the wicked and Satan. In addition, the judgment in
Rev 14 is the final judgment and not investigative judgment.
William W. Fletcher (1879-1947)
The most prominent Adventist minister who was against the doctrine of
investigative judgment after Ballenger was William Warde Fletcher. This man worked as
an evangelist and administrator in Australia and also worked as a secretary in the
Southern Asia Division for some time. Subsequently, he worked as a professor at
Australian Missionary College from 1924 till 1926. During these years of lecturing in the
college, he got the new understanding of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary
which is against the doctrine of the church.3 In 1929, he exposed his findings two the
1
The passage of the judgment dealt with the punitive motif is also appeared in Rev 16:4-7; 17:1,
18; 18:6-10, 20; 19:1-6. Apparently, Ballenger used these passages to get his idea of punitive judgment.
Adams, Three Approach, 139. He referred to this future judgment as the battle of Armageddon and claimed
that there is no clue for the Investigative judgment. See Ballenger, Before Armageddon, 122-123; 120.
2
Ballenger, The Proclamation of Liberty, and the Unpardonable Sin, 126-127.
3
Wallenkampf, “Brief Review,” in The Sanctuary, 588.
49
Australian member. Later he presented his written letter to the W. A Spicer, the president
of General Conference.1
In 1932, he published his view in a form of book, which is known as The Reason
of my Faith: An Appeal to the Seventh-day Adventists, Concerning Vital Truth of the
Gospel. The main argument of this book was that the Adventist view is in contradictory
with the gospel. He claimed that his findings are much closer to the truth.2 He asserted
that Adventist teachings on the sanctuary is a mistake.3 Along with Ballenger, he
believed that “Christ did not enter upon His ministry in the Holy of Holies until 1844” is
not in line with the gospel.4 Further, he emphasized that there is no evidence of
investigative judgment from the SDA sanctuary doctrine which is “typified by the
services of the Day of Atonement.”5
For him, the judgment upon the people on the Day of Atonement can only happen
“outside the sanctuary,” where people who do not respect God through their disobedience
are excluded from the community.6 In other words, the judgment is not for the righteous.7
1
Ibid.
2
Fletcher, The Reason of my Faith: An Appeal to Seventh-day Adventists, Concerning Vital Truths
of the Gospel, 5-10.
3
Ibid., 164.
4
Ibid., 9.
5
Ibid., 138.
6
Ibid., 139.
7
Ibid. Fletcher addresses the sinful deeds mentioned during the time of Israelites which led to the
exclusion from the community such as eating leaven bread during the Passover (Exo 12: 15, 19), and
neglecting the Passover (Num 9:13).
50
Fletcher also have another understanding of the word cleanse in Dan 8:14, and he
accused the idea of connecting the Day of Atonement with Dan 8:14.1 Fletcher believed
that the cleansing of the sanctuary is more of the “original dedication, or restoration,” of
the holy places.2 Subsequently, he translated the word tsadaa as “to be right,” “to
vindicate,” and “to justify.”3 For him, the cleansing of the sanctuary in Dan 8:14 is the
restoration or vindication of Christ mediatorial work that was down trodden by the false
teaching of the papacy.4 According to Fletcher, the cleansing event began during the
reformation when the papacy lose its power and supreme authority. Thus, the ministry of
Christ replace the erroneous system of papacy through the protestant reformation.5
Fletcher suggest another understanding of the “cleansing” in the background of
the Jews. By depicting the cleansing of the sanctuary in Dan 8:14 from the book of
Maccabees, he asserted that the cleansing is more concerned with the removal of idols
and any profane object from the sanctuary. Thus, he concluded that the “cleansing” is not
1
Ibid., Fletcher asserted that the Hebrew word tsadaa in Dan 8:14, which means “cleansed,” is
never used in connection with the annual ceremony in the sanctuary (Day of Atonement). According to
him, the cleansing in the Day of Atonement is done on the altar rather than in the sanctuary (Lev 16:9).
Thus, the cleansing of the sanctuary is not in connection with the Day of Atonement in Lev 16. Ibid., 115,
Fletcher also referred to White, Patriarch and Prophets, 341.
2
Ibid., 116. Fletcher maintained that the Hebrew word of “cleansing” in Dan 8:14 has no parallel
in the other part of the Bible since the appearance of this word is only once. Thus, the “cleansing” in Dan
8:14 is now in connection with the Day of Atonement. He mentioned the cleansing of the sanctuary from its
uncleanness in the book of Ezekiel, 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah (Ezek 45: 18; 2 Chro 29:5, 15,16, 18. Neh
13: 7-9) and he said that the cleansing in Dan 8:14 is completely different from these cleansing. Ibid., 117.
3
Ibid., 108.
4
Ibid., 110-111. Fletcher added that the concept of the cleansing of the sanctuary as Christ
heavenly ministry is a wrong application for Dan 8:14.
5
Ibid., 113. He also explained that the cleansing of the sanctuary does not deals with the removal
of sins of the believers which is recorded in the heavenly sanctuary.
51
related to the Day of Atonement.1 He also interpreted Rev 14: 6-7 as a punitive judgment
for the three persecuting powers: the dragon, the beast, and the false prophets.2 For him,
the judgment of the little horn is the primary concern and there is no judgment of the
believers.3 In explaining the phrase, “the book were opened,” he said that the book were
dealing about the wicked deeds of the little horn who was against God.4
In summary, Fletcher believed in the investigative judgment, but not in the
investigation of the saints. It is the investigation of the little horn and the papacy power.
He did not find a connection between the investigative judgment and the Day of
Atonement in Lev 16. According to him, Dan 8:14 signifies the continuation of the
ministry of Christ in mediating on behalf of His people before God. Thus, for him, the
judgment in Dan 7, 8, and Rev 14 is a punitive judgment which will be upon the apostasy
of the papacy which will in turn release the people of God from persecution.
Louis Richard Conradi (1856-1939)
Louis Richard Conradi was born in Germany, and at the age of 17, he migrated to
United States. In 1878, he became the member of SDA church and joined the Battle
Creek College to study ministry. After his graduation, he worked in the mid-west of
Germany. Thus, under General Conference he worked in Europe for several years. In
1901, he was the first chairperson in the General European Conference. In 1903, he
1
Ibid., 118.
2
Ibid., 145.
3
Ibid., 150.
4
Ibid., 51.
52
became the vice president of the General Conference. Later, he worked as the president
of European Division till 1922.1 Conradi was a prolific writer, a powerful speaker who
travel many parts of the world. Among his works, the revised version of J. N Andrews
on The History of the Sabbath, and the exposition of Daniel and Revelation was
included.2
Conradi does not agree with the interpretation the SDA church on Dan 8:13-14.
As a student of history, he believed in the “reformation teaching” on Dan 8:13 that the
papal power substitute the mediatorial work of Jesus as a counterfeit and Dan 8:14
indicate that Christ received back his mediatorial ministry.3 He interpreted the 2300 days
prophecy with connections to the Islam and claimed that the 2300 days prophecy has no
relationship with the “cleansing of the sanctuary.” About explaining the prophecy, he
stated:
The Lord Avenged Himself on Islam because it suppressed God’s people

in the East, elevated Muhammed as the False prophet above Christ, and
defile the temple rite till today. He did this at the end of 2300 year-days,
in that He compelled the Turks, in 1844, to exercise tolerance toward all
who would be Christians.4
Wallenkampf, “Brief Review,” in The Sanctuary, 589. See also Gary Land, Historical Dictionary
1
of the Seventh-Day Adventists, 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Roman & Little Field, 2015), 80; For his biography,
see Louis Richard Conradi, The Impelling Force of Prophetic Truth (London, UK: Thynne, 1932).
2
Ibid., 590.
3
Ibid.
4
“Statement of The Conradi Case,” Translation of part of Conradi’s “Wahrheit, Licth, Leben,” No.
1, Vol. 1, 1933 in Record Group 11, G. C. A., quoted in Wallenkampf, “Brief Review,” in The Sanctuary
(Review and Herald, 1981), 601.
53
Thus, the understanding of SDA church on this prophecy and their connections
with the investigative judgment is delusional for Conradi. Moreover, like Ballenger and
Fletcher, he believed that Christ enter into the most holy place in His ascension to
heaven.1
Accordingly, when he present this view by “voice and pen,” he started a conflict
in the church. Subsequently, in August 1932, the Central European Division Committee
voted for a recommendation of Conradi to the General Conference to withdraw his
credentials. The General Conference received this recommendation on August 13, 1932
through cablegram.2 As a result, at the age of 76, he was separated from the Seventh-day
Adventist Church and became a Seventh-day Baptist Minister.3 One reason of Conradi’s
divergent view is because he cannot agree with the views on Ellen G. White on a matter
of doctrine. In October 16, 1931, at Omaha, he stated that “when Sister White tells us
how we ought to live, then I accept such counsel. But when it comes to a matter of
doctrine, then this is another matter altogether.”4 Therefore, in the summation, Conradi
does not believed in the investigative judgment at 1844, rather he interpreted the
prophecy fulfilled through the events related with Islam.
1
Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment, 79.
2
3
SDAE, s.v. “Conradi, Louis Richard.”
4
54
Ernest Bradshaw Jones (1919-1949)
E.B Jones is an Adventist Missionary who did not agreed with the sanctuary
doctrine. In 1943, he repudiated the Adventist understanding of the investigative
judgment because it does not base on the Bible for him.1 Jones refused to believe that
Christ enter into the most holy place only in 1844. Instead, he believed that Christ enter
into the most holy place at his ascension in heaven and began his intercessory ministry.2
For Jones, the Adventist understanding of the sanctuary marred the purpose of Christ
ministry on behalf of God’s people.3
Jones opposed the idea of year-day principle and rejected that the 2300 days is
equivalent to 2300 years. As a result, he did not believe in the prophecy of Dan 8:14 as
fulfilled in 1844. For him, 2300 days is not a symbolical time period but a literal day,
which is 1150 days. According to him, the word “day” is not an appropriate translation.
Thus, it is not appropriate to apply the year-day principle.4 Jones did not agree with the
teaching of the blotting out of sin which will take place at the end of the investigative
judgment. He said that the scripture is clear in forgiveness of sin as soon as the sinner
1
Ibid., 592. See also, Jones, The Answer and the Reason, 61.
2
Jones, Forty Bible-Supported Reasons Why You Should Not be a Seventh-day Adventist, 12. Jones
provide scriptural references (Acts 7:55-56; Heb 8:1; Rev 3:21; Rom 8:34) to support his view.
3
Ibid., 14. Jones make parallel comparison of his view with the view of Ellen White saying that the
Sanctuary is not the place of defilement, but it is the most sacred place. See White, Great Controversy,
421-422.
4
Ibid., 13.
55
repent. For him, God blots out the sin of a believer forever as soon as the believer confess
and repent.1
Jones introduces John 5:24 stating that the people of God will not come into
judgment.2 For him, Jesus as an atoning sacrifice died on the cross which led to the
remission of sin for eternity for those who believe.3 Subsequently, Jones cannot agree
with the concept of Investigative judgment that a believer have to pass through in order to
be worthy of salvation.4 Thus, according to him, there is no judgment for the believer.
Another argument of Jones is the concept of investigative judgment in relation to Rev
14:6-7. He asserted that the judgment message from the first angel is not the investigative
judgment which started in 1844. Such concept was misguiding and not biblical for him.5
In the summation, one may understand that Jones did not accept that the
investigative judgment is biblical. Besides, he believed that Christ enters to the most holy
place when we ascended to heaven. He disagree with the concept of applying the year-
day principle to the 2300 days prophecy of Dan 8:14, instead, he believed in the
literalness of the 2300 days. In addition, he believed that there is no judgment for the
1
Ibid., 5.
2
Ibid., 15. He used biblical references (1 John 2:12; Acts 10:43; Col 2:13) to support his concept.
3
Ibid. Jones asserted that the scripture clearly teach that God will not remember the sins of the
believer (Heb 10:17; cf. Ps 103:10-12; Isa 43:25), see also John 3:18 (RV); John 5:24 (RV); 1 Pet 3:18;
Rom 8:1.
4
Jones, The Answer and the Reason, 61.
5
Jones, Bible-Supported Reasons Why You Should Not be a Seventh-day Adventist, 34.
56
believers because Jesus made an atonement for the remission of sin. Thus, the blotting
out of sin take place the moment a person believe in Christ.
Desmond Ford (1929-2019)
The most prominent scholar who contributed a significant work against the
Adventist understanding of the investigative judgment was Desmond Ford.1 In spite of
his diversion from the church, he used to believe in this doctrine and claimed that it is
easy to convince this truth to others.2 In 1960, Ford received his first PhD in the
“rhetorical analysis of Paul’s letter” from the Michigan State University.3 In 1972, he
completed his second PhD from University of Manchester. He finished his PhD in
expertise on biblical eschatology.”4 After he proposed his divergent views, in August
1980, the theologians and administrators of the SDA church came together at Glacier
View Ranch in Colorado to analyze Ford’s view.5 As a result, Ford loses his credentials
and employment from the church.6
1
Ford produced a document which is more than 900 pages to support his view against the
sanctuary doctrine. See Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative
Judgment (Newcastle, CA: Operation Glacier View, 1980).
2
Desmond Ford, “The Century in a Nut Shell,” Ministry, May 1974, 12.
3
Desmond Ford, “Rhetorical Study of Certain Pauline Addresses” (PhD Diss., Michigan State
University, 1960).
4
Desmond Ford, “The Abomination to the Desolation in Biblical Eschatology” (PhD Diss.,
University of Manchester, 1972).
5
Rosier John, “Desmond Ford’s Historic Glacier View Document, Republished,” Adventist Today
(blog), November 29, 2018, accessed March 12, 2019, https://atoday.org/reflection-on-desmond-fords-
historic-glacier-view-document-recently-republished/.
6
Richard N. Ostling, “Religion: The Church of Liberal Borrowings,” Time, August 1982; For more
details on Ford’s Biography, see Milton Hook, Desmond Ford: Reformist Theologian, Gospel Revivalist
(Riverside: CA: Adventist Today, 2008).
57
The massive document that he presented in 1980 contain several arguments
against the doctrine of Investigative judgment. Ford’s claimed that several Adventist
ministers had left the church because of this doctrine.1 He anticipated that many more
members will leave the church in the future.2 For him, the doctrine of investigative
judgment has marred the assurance of salvation.3 He said that the believers received the
assurance of salvation the moment they accept the gospel.4 Ford agreed that the judgment
upon the believer is prior to resurrection, but he argue that the investigation of the
believer is not required. Instead, the pre-advent judgment will be only the “recognition
and acknowledgement” of Christ before the Father.5
He argue that the “time” of judgment has no significance. Subsequently, 1844 is
not biblical. Though the pre-advent judgment is indisputably existed, he disagree with the
time of its commencement as the traditional Adventist would understand.6 He asserted
1
Ford mentioned several names such as A. F Ballenger, E. S Ballenger, W. W Fletcher, L. R
Conradi, R. A Greive and so on. Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative
Judgment, 5.
2
Ford, Seventh-Day Adventism, 5.
3
4
Ibid., 477-478, 650, 652. Ford understand pre-advent judgment with the justification by faith. He
supplied references (John 3:18, 36; Rom 1:18; 1 and Cor 4:4). See Ford, Seventh-day Adventism, 22.
5
Ibid., 650. Ford said that the investigation does not required a century-long procedure of
Investigation. In a contrary, the judgment of God will be revealed at the eng of the age. See Desmond Ford,
The Time Is at Hand! An Introduction to the Book of Revelation (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2009), 4.
6
Ibid., 349, 477.
58
that there are at least 22 errors in the formulation of the sanctuary doctrine. Consequently,
the doctrine is highly arguable.1
Ford major argument on the investigative judgment is the recipient of the
judgment both in Dan 7:9-13 and 8:14. He provided that this texts deals with the
judgment of the little horn.2 For him, the little horn is pointing to Antiochus Epiphanes
and not Rome.3 He maintained that the word “2300 days” is unfitting to interpreted as
2300 years. Thus, it must be interpreted as 1150 days as it is 2300 evening and morning
burnt offerings, because the focus of the vision is on the daily sacrifice.4
Another argument of Ford is the definition of the Hebrew word chathak in
relation to the passage in Dan 8:14 and 9:24, he defined it as “determined” or “cut” but in
a sense “allot” or “decree”. He said that the word does not necessarily be translated as
“cut off from” because there is no proof of cutting off the 490 years from 2300 days
prophetic period.5 He provided that the cleansing of the sanctuary in Dan 8:14 is not
dealing with the sins of professed believer. Alternatively, the sanctuary in Dan 8:14 refers
1
Ford disagree with the biblical basis of investigative judgment (Dan 7:9-13; 8:14; John 5:24; Acts
3:19-20; Heb 9:12, 22; 1 Pet 4:17; Rev 14:6-7). He claimed that the SDA understanding of this doctrine is
based on “a prolonged series of assumptions and inference.” Ibid., 287-291.
2
Ford noticed that the preceding and succeeding chapters of the texts (Dan 7:8-9, 21-22; Dan 8:13)
are dealing with the court scene of the horn. It is portraited as a wicked power who is against God’s people.
Ibid., 6, 369. See also Desmond Ford, The Coming Worldwide Calvary: Christ Versus Antichrist
(Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2009), 13.
3
Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment, 377-379. Antiochus
Epiphanes desolated and defile the sanctuary from 171 BC to 165 BC. Ford, Coming Worldwide, 8.
4
Hook, Desmond Ford, 356.
5
Ibid., 288, 345. Ford, Seventh-Day Adventism, 36.
59
to the earthly temple, in Jerusalem.1 He condemned the interpretation of Dan 8:11-13 and
14 as SDA would interpret, because the angel’s inquiry was the length of the rule of the
little horn and not the believers.2 Thus, Dan 8:14 is the punishment of the little horn and
the vindicate of God’s people from their suffering.3 According to Ford, the cleansing of
the sanctuary deals with the defilement made by the little horn rather than the sins of
believers of God.4 He concluded that the vindication of the sanctuary in Dan 8:14 is
fulfilled when the Maccabees attacked Antiochus Epiphanes and cleanse the temple from
its defilement. They took away the hidden altar in 165 BC. Ford claimed that the Jewish
feast is celebrated as a remembrance of the events, it is called “the Feast of Dedication”5
However, He also interpret the cleansing of the sanctuary for the future events. It
points to the removal of sins from the universe.6 Ford proposes the Apotelesmatical
principle of interpretation as a true hermeneutical principle concerning the interpretation
of this subject. This method of interpretation applies the dual fulfillment to the prophecy.7
He pointed out that Ellen White also support the Apotelesmatical principles and used in
1
Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment, 290; Ford, Seventh-
Day Adventism, 39.
2
Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment, 346-347; Ford, The
Coming Worldwide, 13.
3
Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment, 353, 415-416.
4
Ibid., 652; Ford, Seventh-Day Adventism, 39; Hook, Desmond Ford, 343-344.
5
Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment, 382. According to
Ford, this celebration was done to celebrates the end of the prophetic period of 2,300 days. It began in 171
BC and lasted in 165 BC. This celebration lasted for 8 days.
6
Ibid., 417.
7
Ibid., 485, 505.
60
several places of her writings.1 Ford gave an example in the light of this principle that
“to finish the transgression does not merely mean the end of Israel’s rebellion which had
resulted in their captivity but the end of the sins of all mankind.”2 He said that it is
fulfilled at the cross and it will be culminated at the end time, in which, all the sins will
be removed from the Universe.3
In October 27, 1979, Ford delivered a sermon in Sydney which dealt with his
understanding of Hebrew 9. In this transcript, he mentioned that Albion Ballenger was
“put out of the work” due to his different view in Hebrew 9. He also mentioned W. W.
Fletcher and showed his empathy on the man to the audience by saying that he is a man
of God in spite of the rejection of the church.4 Ford stated that Hebrew 9 and 10 is the
only place in the NT where Day of Atonement is spoken. Quoting Hebrew 9:12 and 24,
he asserted that the word “holy place” is the most holy place, because the Septuagint
version used the same Greek word for the term “holy place” in Lev 16 which is the Day
1
Ibid., 358, 549-556; Ford, Seventh-Day Adventism, 28. Ford pointed out that Ellen White used
the principle in the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement by applying to the cross and the second coming of
Christ. He cited several passages of Ellen White’s writings that is related to the application of the Day of
Atonement to the cross. These references are White, Early Writings, 253; White, Testimonies for the
Church, 4:122; White, Desire of Ages, 24, 757; Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons (Hagerstown, MD:
Review and Herald, 1941), 386; Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press, 1911), 33; He provide the references for the Day of Atonement fulfilled at the second coming. These
references included White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 358; Early Writings, 251-253; and White, Great
Controversy, 417-432.
2
3
Ibid. Ford said that it is evident that Ellen White interpreted the cleansing of the sanctuary as not
merely applied to the 1844 events but even to the final removal of sins from the Universe. White,
Patriarchs and Prophets, 358, quoted in Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative
Judgment, 358, 536.
4
Ford, Seventh-day Adventism, 12.
61
of Atonement setting.1 Quoting from Hebrew 6:19, 20, he said that the expression “within
the veil” is used only for the second apartment in the OT.2
The unique argument of Ford is his usage of Ellen White’s writing to support his
views as mentioned in the earlier page. In Christ entering to the most holy place in His
ascension, he quote her reference, “Still bearing humanity, he ascended to heaven,
triumphant and victorious. He sprinkled the blood of atonement on the mercy seat.”3 He
also quote from Christ Object Lesson, “Christ came to demolish every wall of partition,
to throw open every compartment of the temple.” Ford said that the book of revelation
does not portray the heavenly temple with a veil separating the two apartments.4 He quote
her from the book, The Desire of Ages, saying:
The earth trembles and quakes, the Lord himself draws near. With a
rending noise, the inner veil of the temple is torn from top to bottom by
an unseen hand, throwing open to the gaze of the multitude a place once
filled with the presence of God. In this place the Shekinah had dwelled.
Here God had manifested his glory above the mercy seat. No one but the
high priest ever lifted the veil, separating this apartment from the rest of
the temple. He entered in once a year to make an atonement……
1
Ford said that the following passage cannot be prove from the Greek. However, he claimed that
the blood of bulls and goats makes it obvious that it is the Day of Atonement setting, and in that day, the
high priest went into the most holy place. Ibid., 13.
Ford introduces Number 18:7 which can be the possible expression of “within the veil” but the
2
exception is too weak for foundation. He said that SDA are trying to solve this problem with a moveable
throne. However, he claimed that the Spirit of prophecy is noticeably clear about the place of divine
atonement, that is the most holy place. Ibid., 14.
3
Ibid., 15. Ford mention E. Andross, an Adventist devoted scholar, who in his book, A More
Excellent Ministry, wrote that “within the veil” does means “the most holy place.” However, he said that
Dross has to make it compatible with Adventist view. Thus, Andross said, “He went in and came out again
and went back into the first.” See Andross, A More Excellent Ministry. For Ellen White’s quote, see Ellen
G. White, “With Power and Great Glory,” ST, April 19, 1905, 9.Ellen White, “With Power and Great
Glory,” ST, April 19, 1905, 9.
Ibid., 16 For Ellen White reference, see White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 386.
4
62
Type has met antitype. The great sacrifice has been made. The way into
the holiest is laid open (quoting Hebrews 9 and 10). A new and living
way is prepared for all (do read it in its setting, Hebrews 10:19 and 20, a
new and living way through the veil).1
Ford explain the above quote by saying that White used the available version of
the Bible which says, “holy place,” however, she was referring to the holiest of all.2 Ford
introduce an “inaugurated eschatology” by giving examples such as, the kingdom at
hand, the kingdom comes, the judgement is now, an everlasting life for those who
believed, the devil destroyed at the cross and so on. He said that the end of the world had
somehow comes during the first advent of Christ.3 The other is the “consummated
eschatology” where the eschatological prophecy will be fulfilled again at the end of the
age such as “judgment, eternal life, the destruction of satan, new Creation, out pouring of
the spirit…” Ford also applied this eschatological principles to the case of Day of
Atonement.4 Thus, according to him, Day of atonement happened during Christ ascension
and it will happen again at the end time. The main point he had made was that Jesus went
into the most holy place in His ascension.
In the summation, Ford asserted that investigative judgment spoiled the assurance
of salvation to the believer. He did agree that investigative judgment prior to Christ
coming will occurred, but, it does not require century long procedure, the
acknowledgment of Christ before the Father is just enough. He said the time of judgment
1
White, Desire of Ages, 756-757.
2
Ford, Seventh-day Adventism, 17.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
63
is irrelevant, thus, 1844 has no significance. For him, the recipient of the judgment is a
little horn, which refers to Antiochus Epiphanes. Hence, the cleansing of Dan 8:14 has to
do with the Maccabees attacking the temple rather than the events in 1844. Lastly, he
provide several quotes of Ellen White to prove that Christ enter into the most holy place
in His ascension.
Dale Ratzlaff
Dale Ratzlaff is the former minister of SDA and the latest figure who attacked the
SDA doctrine of sanctuary and the investigative judgment in the late 20th century to this
day. As the previous critics would argue, his argument is that the doctrine is not based on
scriptural evidence. He left the church in 1980.1 Recently in 2009, he published a book,
which is a significant work against the doctrine of the sanctuary, the book is entitled,
“Cultic Doctrine of Adventism: An Evangelical Wake-Up Call.”
Similar to Ford, Ratzlaff did not agreed that God and the heavenly beings has to
do investigation on humanity under a record book prior to Christ’s second coming to
clarify that a person is worthy to be saved. The judgment occurred only according to
one’s response to the gospel truth.2 Just like Ford, he cannot accept the fact that Christ
enter into the most holy place in 1844, he believe in Christ entering the most holy place at
1
Dale Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine of Adventism: An Evangelical Wake-Up Call (Glendale, AZ:
LAM, 2009), 175, 182. Ratzlaff produces several works such as Ratzlaff, The Truth about Seventh-Day
Adventist “Truth”; Dale Ratzlaff, Truth Led Me Out (Glendale, AZ: LAM, 2012); Ratzlaff, Sabbath in
Crisis.
2
Ratzlaff, Cultic Doctrine, 284-285.
64
His ascension.1 He also claimed that the phrase “within the veil” in Hebrew 6:19,20 is the
most holy place because the term “veil” is better understood in the OT as the curtain
which separated the holy place and the most holy place.2 Quoting John 5:24, he
maintained that a person is not brought into judgment after he or she believe in Christ.3
Christ’s death on the cross is enough to assured ones salvation and it provides confidence
to stand on the judgment day. In other words, the believer has already judge in Christ.4
Like Ford, Ratzlaff asserted that the judgment in Dan 7 and 8 is for the little horn
and not for the people of God.5 Thus, he claimed that Antiochus Epiphanes is the
fulfillment of the little horn because the scripture said that it will appear “from one of the
divisions of Alexander’s empire. In addition, when Epiphanes defiled the temple, it is
obvious that he is the little horn.6 Ratzlaff cannot agree with the view of traditional SDA
that the sins of the believer are recorded in heaven and will not be blotted out until the
end of the investigative judgment. Because, for him, a person is forgiven when he repent
and the blotting out of sin take place right away.7 He said that the term “blot out” is
1
Ibid., 173, 175, 210. Ratzlaff mention several passages (Heb 9:8, 12, 24; 10:19-20) and argue
with a Greek grammar, saying that it is in an aorist tense.
2
Ibid., 174. He gave references such as Exod 26:33; Lev 16:2, 12, 15; Num 18:7.
3
Ibid., 205.
4
Ibid., 281.
5
Ibid., 217.
6
Ibid., 169-171. Antiochus defiled the temple by offering pigs on the altar. Ratzlaff claimed that
both Christ and Paul interpreted the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes by citing Matt 24: 15, 2Thes 2:1-12.
7
Ibid., 217-218.
65
similar to forgiveness of sins. Thus, he concluded that the blotting out of sin does not
occurred at the end of investigative judgment.1
Another argument of Ratzlaff is concerning the early development of the
sanctuary with the SDA church. He asserted that Ellen White endorsed the erroneous
view of Miller concerning the heavenly sanctuary and it ended with the miscalculation of
the prophecy that was on October 22, 1844.2 Thus, he condemned Ellen White on her
approval to the misinterpretation fo Miller.3
In the summation, Ratzlaff concluded that there is no investigation in heaven and
the doctrine of investigative judgment is unbiblical. When a person believe in Christ,
there is no more judgment. Like Ford, his understanding of pre-advent judgment is
depending on the decision of the person toward responding to the truth. In addition, the
judgment is Dan 7 is not the judgment of the God’s people but the judgment of the little
horn which is referred to Antiochus Epiphanes. He claimed that the investigative
judgment is contradictory to John 5:24. When a person repents, his or her sins blotted out
right way. Thus, Ratzlaff concluded investigative judgment is not compatible with the
center of Christian doctrine, that is justification by faith.
1
Ibid., 208-209. Ratzlaff supply the reference (Ps 51:1-2, 9; Isa 43:25; 44:22; Heb 8:12; Jer 31:34;
1 John 1:9) to proof his points.
2
Ibid., 46.
3
Ibid., 79.
66
Summary
All the Adventist ministers who are mentioned in this section end up disagreeing
with the concept of the sanctuary and investigative judgment. They contributed their
articles and books to criticize the doctrine in their respective period of ministries. Since
most of them are prominent leaders and ministers of the church, they have a tremendous
impact on the church. Among them, Desmond Ford is a one fine scholar who made an
impact even to the level of General conference. His massive document in 1980 led to
contention which is difficult to resolve till today. Many ministers had left the church
because of these objections that Ford provided in his documents.
The main arguments of the critics can be categorized into three parts: biblical
theological and historical. The biblical basis of their argument (Dan 7:9-13; 8:14; and
Rev 14:6-7) can be describe as the judgment to the little horn, which is referred to
Antiochus Epiphanes and not the believers. The judgment is more of the justice for the
persecuted believers and a punitive judgment for the papacy. However, some of them
like Ford and Ratzlaff, believed in pre-advent judgment but in a unique way. The pre-
advent judgment begins when a person believe in Christ, but it not necessary to be a long
procedure, it is just the recognition of Christ before the Father’s throne. Thus, the pre-
advent need not to start in 1844.
Ford introduced Apotelesmatical principle which changes all the traditional
interpretation of the 2300 days prophecy. According to him, there are two types of
eschatology, one is inaugurated eschatology which refers to “the kingdom at hand, the
kingdom comes, the judgement is now, an everlasting life for those who believed, the
devil destroyed at the cross,” and the consummated eschatology which refers to the
67
prophecy to be fulfilled in the end such as “judgment, eternal life, the destruction of
satan, new Creation, out pouring of the spirit…” Thus, the same application is on the Day
of Atonement. As a result, Christ entered into the most holy place in his ascension.
Another similar argument for these critics is the phrase “within the veil” in Heb 6:
19, 20. They asserted that the phrase is referring to the second apartment of the heavenly
sanctuary. Thus, Christ entered to the second apartment in his ascension. Critic like
Ballenger agreed the commence of Dan 8:14 is 1844, but he believed it as the judgment
of Satan and the wicked people who did not responded to God. However, Conradi and
Fletcher, interpreted as the recovering of Christ mediatorial work on earth and not in
heaven. Conradi assumed that the 2300 days prophecy fulfilled in God’s judgment on
Islam and not the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. Ford asserted that the 2300 days
have dual fulfillment, one is when the Maccabees attack Antiochus Epiphanes and the
other will be at the end time.
Theologically, the critics did not agree with the concept of Investigative judgment
because it is not compatible with the omniscience of God, God does not need to take that
long for investigations. They also asserted that the doctrine of investigative judgment is
in contrary to concept of justification by faith. It is not necessary for a believer to go
through an investigation to be worthy of heaven because Christ had already justified a
believer. Thus, investigative judgement is an allude to salvation by work. In addition,
since the salvation of a person depends on the investigation, it is not compatible with the
doctrine of salvation as there is no assurance of salvation.
68
Historically, Ford and Ratzlaff claimed that the doctrine of investigative judgment
is not the pillar of SDA Church because of its late emergence in 1857. They said that the
doctrine is never taught by the early Sabbatarian Adventist and claimed that there is no
references in their early documents that is particularly in support of this doctrine. Thus, it
was not the doctrine of our pioneers.
The Theological Concept of the External Challengers
This section presents the non-Adventist ministers who have opposed the doctrine
of investigative judgment. These ministers are considered in a chronological1 sequence
namely Walter Martin, Anthony H. Hoekema, Herbert S. Bird, and Norman F. Douty
who presented that the doctrine of the sanctuary and the doctrine of investigative
judgment is unbiblical. Most of them claimed that the SDA church adopt a cult system.
Walter Martin (1928-1989)
Walter Martin was a director of cults Apologetics publications with Zondervan
publishing. He is also the Editor of Eternity magazine. In his early evaluation of the SDA,
he classified them as one of the cultic movements, and a ‘Satanic’ movement.2 However,
during 1955-1956, there are several Evangelical conferences which are held.
Subsequently, after having the dialogue with some of the Adventist leaders of that time.
He changed his position and categorized SDA as an “evangelical Christian body”.3
1
The chronology is based on the year of their publications rather than their age.
2
Martin, The Rise of the Cults: An Introduction to Non-Christian Cults, 12.
3
Walter R. Martin, Martin and Zacharias, The Kingdom of the Cults, 621. Martin and Donald Grey
Barnhouse, claimed that the SDA are in the evangelical camp. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Handbook
69
Eventually, he said it is inappropriate to call the SDA “non- Christian cultists” or
“Judaizers” because they are grounded in the biblical foundation of truth, which is
salvation by grace and through the faith in Jesus Christ.1
On the other hand, Martin recognize that the SDA church have heterodoxical
concepts.2 One of them is the investigative judgement in the heavenly sanctuary, he said
that the doctrine is based on the “spirit of prophecy.”3 According to Martin, the Biblical
basis is not sound.4 The main objections of Martin on the doctrine of investigative
judgement is its lack of biblical foundations. He disagreed with the SDA understanding
of John 5:24 that the believers will come into judgement to have the assurance of their
salvation. In a contrary, he interpreted John 5:24 as when one accepted the salvation
offered by Jesus Christ, one receives eternal life. Thus, the believer does not enter into
judgement.5 Martin also argue with the texts Dan 7:9-10; 8:14; and Rev 14:7 does not
provide any evidence for the investigative judgement in the heavenly sanctuary. Instead,
Martin explained that does not deal with the on-going judgement in the heavenly
of Today’s Religions (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1983); Martin mentioned in his book that McDowell
and Stewart did not categorize the SDA Church as a cult system.
1
Ibid. Martin mentioned that the SDA also believes in the similar biblical teachings of the larger
evangelical Christian, such as the dead and resurrection of Jesus, the trinity, the virgin birth, the divinity of
Jesus, and so on. Walter Martin, “What Seventh-Day Adventists Really Believe,” Eternity, November
1956, 43.
Walter Martin, “Seventh-Day Adventism,” Christianity Today, December 19, 1960, 14. Martin
2
and Zacharias, The Kingdom of the Cults, 535. Martin argued that the SDA Church have some
heterodoxical concepts such as, the Atonement, the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, the second
coming of Christ, the Resurrection, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctuary and the Investigative
Judgment, the spiritual nature of man, the scapegoat teaching, and “the Remnant Church.”
3
Martin and Zacharias, The Kingdom of the Cults, 602-603.
4
Ibid., 605. Martin, The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism, 205.
5
Martin and Zacharias, The Kingdom of the Cults, 602.
70
sanctuary, for him, neither the grammatical construction nor the context of the passages
support the teaching.1
Martin also denied the Adventist explanation of Acts 3:19, which is about the
blotting out of sin of God’s people. According to him, the removal of sin and the
forgiveness of sin is the same. In other words, the sin of the person is automatically
blotted out as soon as one asked for forgiveness.2 He denied the doctrine of investigative
judgement based on its theology. His first concern was the blotting out of sins of God’s
people. Martin disagreed with the theology of the sins remaining in the heavenly
sanctuary until the removal of sins on the final atonement.3 He introduced a text that will
oppose this theology, that is, 1 John 1:9 that stated that when a person confesses, one is
cleanse through the blood of Jesus. According to him, the Greek word katharismon,
meaning “purge” and “purification” support this text.4 He said the theology of
investigative judgement contrasts with the theology of God’s Sovereignty. He quoted the
scripture which says that God knows who are His (2 Tim 2:19), which means that God
does not requires investigative judgement to ascertain his people to be saved.5 He
asserted that the doctrine of investigative judgement in not in line with the biblical
1
Martin and Zacharias, 604; Martin, The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism, 180.
2
Martin and Zacharias, The Kingdom of the Cults, 602; Martin, The Truth About Seventh-Day
Adventism, 178.
3
Adventism, 179.
4
Martin and Zacharias, The Kingdom of the Cults, 605.
5
Martin and Zacharias, 603; Martin, The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism, 179.
71
doctrine of God judgement by supplying the text (Heb 9:27) as a conclusive evidence that
there is no investigative judgement on going for the believer of God.1
In summary, Martin reject the doctrine of investigative doctrine in two areas:
biblically and theologically. He claimed that the biblical basis is not enough to support
the doctrine. On the theological basis, he charges that the doctrine of Investigative
judgement contradicts the doctrine of God’s omniscience and the biblical understanding
of the blotting out of sin.
Herbert S. Bert (1911-1996)
Herbert S. Bert is a Christian missionary in Eritrea who opposed the doctrine of
investigative judgment through biblical and theological objections.2 The main argument
of Bird is the phrase “within the veil” in Heb 6:19-20, in which, according to SDA, is
referring to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Bird asserted that the phrase try
to convey the readers that Christ entered into the holiest of all when he ascended to
heaven.3 For Bird, The Greek word katapetasma which is translated as “veil” is used for
separating the holy place and the most holy place. Thus, “within the veil” can be only
referred to the most holy place.4
1
Adventism, 178.
2
Bert, Theology of Seventh-Day Adventism, 92. He made this publication in response to the book,
Questions on Doctrine. See Questions on Doctrines.
3
Ibid., 87. He disagreed that Christ entered into the holiest of all only in 1844.
4
Ibid., 86, 88.
72
Bird condemned the concept of investigative judgment because its emphasis is
more on keeping the law of God in order to be saved. Thus, he assumed that the SDA
neglected the doctrine of salvation by grace and embrace on justification by work rather
than justification by faith.1 In summation, Bird disagree that Jesus went into the most
holy place only after 1844, instead, he concluded that Christ went to the Most holy place
in His ascension. In addition, he was totally disagreed with the emphasis on keeping the
law of God in order to earn salvation, which is a part of investigative judgment.
Norman Franklin Douty (1899-1993)
Norman Franklin Douty was a Baptist pastor, a famous author who was against
the doctrine of the sanctuary. He said that this doctrine oppose the truth of the gospel and
turn out to have some serious errors both biblically and theologically.2 The main
objections of Douty is the misinterpretation of 2300 days prophecy in Dan 8:14. He
identified the mistake as counting the days as year with the year-day principle. This, he
said has no biblical support.3
Douty asserted that Dan 7:9-13 refers to the second coming of Christ because the
expression, “the coming of the son of man on the cloud of heaven,” is employed in the
passage.4 Thus, he cannot agree with the commencement of the judgment when Christ
came to the Father’s throne. He also rejected on the record of sins of the believer based
1
Ibid., 91.
2
Douty, Another Look at Seventh-Day Adventism, 120. The purpose of this book is also a response
to the book, Questions on Doctrine. See Questions on Doctrines.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., 122. He gave references such as Matt 24:30 and Matt 26:64.
73
on Dan 7:10. As he study the context of the chapter, he concluded that the judgment is
upon the wicked power of the little horn and not the believers.1 Douty also rejected that
Acts 3:19 points to the blotting out of sin at the end of investigative Judgment. For him,
the remission of sin in Acts 2:38 is similar to blotting out of sin in Acts 3:19.2 Thus the
removal of sin is happened when a person believe in Christ. In the case of blotting out of
sin, Douty presents the example of David’s transgression in Ps 103:12 and said that SDA
misunderstood this concept. He claimed that God remove the sins of David when he
repented which is similar to the expression “blotting out of sin.”3
He also disagreed with the purpose of investigative judgment because a person is
worthy of eternal life the moment he or she believe in Jesus. Thus, there is no need of
investigation of the believer. In addition, God knows who will be saved and lost because
he is Omniscient, and he does not need to make assurance for any person for Him to
decide their destiny.4
In summary, Douty disagree with the teaching of SDA in two areas: biblical and
theological areas where he noticed that the interpretation of 2300 days prophecy is error
because of the application of the year day principle. Thus, he disagree that the 2300 days
was fulfilled in 1844. He also argue that Dan 7:9-13 is the second coming of Christ rather
than the event happen in heaven. Theologically, he disagreed with the purpose of
1
Ibid., 124.
2
Ibid., 125.
3
Ibid., 122.
4
Ibid., 121.
74
investigative judgment because God is omniscience and does not need to investigate
anyone to assure their salvation. In addition, he said that the blotting out of sin
immediately occurred when a person repent.
Anthony A. Hoekema (1913-1988)
Anthony A. Hoekema is one of the most prominent evangelical scholar, a
systematic theologian, a professor at Calvin Theological Seminary. He was famous for
his publications1, and one of his works includes a book, The Four Major Cults: Christian
Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism.2 Hoekema asserted
that the SDA teaching of investigative judgment is unbiblical, and he warned the SDA
members not to believe in this teaching. He divided his objections into three areas:
biblical theological and historical.3
In the biblical basis, he argue that the passages (Dan 8:14; 7: 9, 10; 1 Pet 4:17-18)
does not deal with the judgment of the righteous people and claimed that the cleansing of
the sanctuary did not take place in October 22, 1844.4 He also interpreted that the word
tsadaa in Dan 8:14 must be translated as “to be right, to be restored,” and not “to be
1
Anthony published books such as Anthony A Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1989); Anthony A. Hoekema, Holy Spirit Baptism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972);
Anthony A Hoekema, What About Tongue-Speaking? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1966); Anthony A.
Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986).
2
Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, 403.
3
Ibid., 147.
4
Hoekema, Seventh-Day Adventist, 74, 78,79.
75
cleansed.”1 Thus, he suggested that the translation should be “then the sanctuary shall be
restored to its rightful state.”2 He also points out Dan 8:13 explaining that the little horn
is the one to judge rather than the saints because the little horn is the one defiling the
sanctuary.3
Concerning the 2300 days prophecy, Hoekema asserted that the 2300 days must
be interpreted as 2300 morning and evening which means 1150 days. This, he said is
because the earlier passage is dealing with the daily burnt offering. He interpreted this
prophecy as fulfilled when Judas Maccabees restored the temple which was defiled by
Antiochus Epiphanes in 165 BC. Thus, Dan 8:14 is not pointing to 1844.4 Even for the
passage of 1 Peter 4:17-18, he interpreted as God’s discipline to make His people holier
and not referring to a judgment.5 Hoekema did not agree with the SDA concept of
blotting out of sin because God keep record of sins and did not forgive it completely. He
said it is completely unbiblical because the word removed in Psalms 103:12 and Isa 44:22
implies that the actions is complete because the verb used in this word is a perfect tense.
1
Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, 146. He refers to the sanctuary being restored after the
desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes.
2
The Bible version is Revised Standard Version (RSV).
3
Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, 145. Hoekema interpreted the little horn as Antiochus
Epiphanes. He also said that the passage is pointing to the earthly power that stood against God. Thus,
concluded that it is the judgment of the wicked power. Ibid., 154-155.
4
Ibid., 146.
5
Ibid. 154.
76
Thus, his understanding of the blotting out of sin is not after 1844, instead, it is at the
moment when a sinner repent.1
Theologically, Hoekema presents the doctrine of investigative judgment is not
compatible with the doctrine of God’s sovereignty because the doctrine of Investigative
judgment implies that God and Christ does not know who will be saved or lost till the end
of the judgment.2 He said that it is unnecessary for God to investigate the case of the
believer because he is omniscience and will know who will be saved.3 He also points out
that the SDA embrace more on the obedience of the law to received salvation because
they assumed that judgment is dealing with the work of the believers. He argue that the
doctrine is opposed by Paul’s teaching, in which, salvation is by faith alone. He claimed
that the doctrine of investigative judgment damage the concept of salvation because one
will depend on obedience of the law rather than salvation by grace.4
Another objection of Hoekema is concerning the nature of Christ’s ministry in the
heavenly sanctuary. He explained that Christ is doing an interceding ministry and not a
judgment. He based his argument with the Greek verb entugchanoo, which means “to
1
Ibid., 152. He does not agree that the SDA make a difference between “forgiveness” and “blotting
out of sin,” because the word employ for forgiveness in Greek is aphieemi, which means “to forgive” and
the meaning of the root word is “to send away, to let go.” He supplies Matt 9:2 as an example, that when
Jesus healed the paralytic, He also forgive him and blot out his sin. Ibid. He concluded that the concept of
SDA concerning blotting out of sin is strange to the Bible. Ibid., 153; Wallenkampf, “Brief Review,” in The
Sanctuary, 595.
2
Ibid., 122.
3
Ibid., 156. Hoekema refers to these passages (Eph 1:4; Rom 8:29-30; John 10:27-28; 17:9; 6: 39).
to support his view.
4
Hoekema, Seventh-Day Adventist, 84. See also William H. Branson, Drama of the Ages
(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1950), 351.
77
intercede for someone,” in which, he asserted that the word did not fit the idea of
judgment at all.1 For him, the judgment will occur at the second coming of Christ, he
called that an “investigative judgment” of God.2
On the historical ground, Hoekema asserted that the doctrine is built on the
mistaken interpretation of William Miller on Dan 8:14. He said Miller predicted that
Christ will come back at the end of 2300 days. He added that Miller noticed his mistakes,
however, the early Sabbatarian adopt the wrong interpretation of the passage.3
In a summary, Hoekema interpreted tsadaa as “to be right,” or “to be restored,”
thus, it must be translated as the sanctuary to be restored. He concluded that the little horn
is Antiochus Epiphanes, and the fulfillment of 2300 days prophecy already happened
during the time of Judas Maccabees when they restored the earthly temple. He did not
believe in blotting out of sin as to be at the end of the investigative judgment because it is
unbiblical to him. He also argue that theological understanding of the doctrine is not
compatible with the sovereignty and omniscience of God. He proposed that salvation is
attained only by grace through faith and not by works or judgment, he condemned the
SDA church because they embrace the obedience of the law rather than justification by
faith. Eventually, he asserted that the doctrine originated from the erroneous
interpretation of William Miller on Dan 8: 14.
1
Ibid. A reference he based was Heb 7:24 and Rome 8:34 which verb is a continuous form. In Heb
7: 25, he said the Greek word phrase eis to entugchanein imply that the intercession is in favor of the saints
and not the judgment.
2
Ibid., 89.Hoekema, Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, 154.
3
Ibid., 144-145.
78
Summary
This section had provided ministers like Walter R. Martin, Anthony A. Hoekema,
Franklin Douty and Herbert S. Bird who were the most prominent challengers of the
doctrine of investigative judgment of the SDA church from the Evangelical circle. They
are the ones who mold the view of Christian world on the way they understand the SDA
church and their beliefs. Most of them concluded that the SDA church is not a cult but a
denomination with a divergent belief. They opposed the doctrine of investigative
judgment because of its unsoundness in its theology, and lack of biblical evidences.
Biblically, they concluded that the prophecy in Dan 8:14 is not the cleansing of
the heavenly sanctuary occurred in 1844 because the year-day principle of 2300 day into
2300 years is inapplicable to the text. They cannot find a sound compatibility of the
scripture to support the doctrine of investigative judgment.1 According to them, Christ
entered into the most holy place in His ascension because Heb 6: 19, 20 provide an
evidence with the phrase, “within the veil” which points to Jesus entering the Most holy
place in the 1st century. Besides, they all claimed that the expression “blotting out of sin”
is equivalent to forgiveness of sin. Thus, the sin of a person is blotted out when he or she
believe in Christ. They also concluded that the believer should not come to judgment
until the second coming of Jesus.
Theologically, since God is omniscience, He knows the destiny of the believers.
Subsequently, there is no requirement for God to investigate the believer in order to
1
References such as in Acts 3:19; 2 Cor 5:12; and Dan 7:9-13 are not strong enough to support the
doctrine.
79
assure their salvation. In addition, the doctrine of investigative judgment has more
emphasis on salvation by works rather than salvation by grace. Hence, it degrades the
central pillar of the Bible, that is, the doctrine of salvation.
Summary and Conclusion
This chapter had presented the origin and development of the doctrine of
Investigative judgment along with the ministers who had attacked this doctrine from the
inside and the outside. The chapter is divided into three sections: the first section is about
the history of investigative judgment and its origin, the second section provides Ellen
White and her role on the investigative judgment, and the third section presents the
history of internal and external challengers to the Adventist teaching of the sanctuary and
the investigative judgment.
The first section provides a chronological order of the development of
investigative judgment which begins with the development prior to the great
disappointment, proceeding with the development after the great disappointment, which
is followed by the development among the Sabbatarian Adventists. In conclusion from
the findings, the understanding of investigative judgment is based on the scripture such as
Dan 7 and 8, Lev 16 and 23 ( Day of Atonement), Matthew 22 (wedding parable
imagery) and so on. One can understand that the Sabbatarian Adventist like Bates
connect the judgment with the sabbath which is still vital for the church today.
The second section provide the general overview of Ellen White’s view on
investigative judgment. It had provided the comprehensive understanding of Ellen White
on the heavenly sanctuary, the investigative judgment, and the ministry of Christ in
80
heaven. It is divided into two sub-sections: First, the historical overview of Ellen White’s
on the investigative judgment and second, her concept concerning the motif and order of
the judgment in the heavenly sanctuary.
In conclusion from the research, one may understand that the doctrine is not
formulated by Ellen G. White, but her role is approving it through the vision from God.
According to the findings, White had made her on statement on the subject of the
investigative judgment only after forty years of its origin.1 After earnest study, White
introduced a firm theological concept with a scriptural evidence on the doctrine of
investigative judgment. This concept can be divided into three subjects: First, the
literalness of the sanctuary was clearly mentioned along with the typology of the earthly
sanctuary and concluded with “the law of God” as the basis of judgment. Second, White
supply that the judgment will be only for the believers through the books of records
mentioned in the scripture. Third, she clarify that Christ is an intercessor for humanity
until the end of investigative judgment. However, he will become a judge at the end of
the age when He come the second time.
The third section presented the views of the ministers who attacked the doctrine
of investigative judgment from the late 19th century to this day. There are people from the
SDA church as well as the evangelical Christians who disagree with the doctrine. The
challengers from the church are considered in a chronological sequence namely Owen R.
L Crosier, Dudley M. Canright, Albian Fox Ballenger, William W. Fletcher, Louis
Richard Conradi, E. B Jones, Desmond Ford, and Dale Ratzlaff. In conclusion from the
1
See earlier section, page 34.
81
findings, the ministers disagreed the doctrine of investigative judgment in three areas:
biblical, theological, and historical. Their views are mostly the same in many areas, but
there are a little nuance in their understandings. All of them concluded that Christ entered
in the most holy place in His ascension. Thus, the 1844 events has no significance in
fulfilling the bible prophecy.
The other challengers from the evangelical circles are Walter R. Martin, Anthony
A. Hoekema, Franklin Douty and Herbert S. Bird. These ministers are important people
who mould the understanding of their fellow evangelical Christians in their view to the
SDA church. They also disagreed the doctrine of investigative judgment in the same
areas. However, the firmest argument one can considered from them is that Jesus entered
the most holy place in his ascension according to the scripture, and thus, the 2300 days
prophecy was not fulfilled in 1844.
In conclusion, the history had made known that the doctrine of investigative
judgment had passed through many challenges, trials, and even rejections from various
kinds of people, from scholars to missionaries, SDA and non-SDA. It is astonishing to
know that the doctrine keep its biblical soundness, and the SDA church still considered
the doctrine as the vital pillar of the truth. For this reason, one may ask how firmed and
authentic the doctrine would be. Is the scriptural references theologically sound to
rationally understand the concept of the doctrine? The next chapter will supply the
biblical foundation of this doctrine to confirm the relevancy and the theological
soundness of the subject.
82
CHAPTER 3
BIBLICAL BASIS ON THE PRE-ADVENT JUDGMENT AND THE ASCENSION

OF CHRIST IN HEBREW’S EPISTLE
This chapter presents the basis of biblical belief on the doctrine of pre-advent
judgment and the ascension of Christ in the epistle of Hebrews. The first part introduce
the biblical authenticity of the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary since it is deeply related
with the doctrine of pre-advent judgement. It start with a section presenting the literalness
of the heavenly sanctuary and its typology of the earthly sanctuary. The later section
supply the scriptural basis of investigative judgment in the OT and the NT. The concept
of investigation in the Bible further explain the meaning of pre-advent judgment in
Daniel 7 and 8. Subsequently, considering the ascension of Christ in the epistle to the
Hebrews, the biblical exposition will cover Christ’s Inauguration as a king-priest, the
significance of Jesus’ sitting at the right hand of God, and the identification of His
ministry right after His ascension.
The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Bible
The existence of the heavenly sanctuary appears in the OT and the NT. This
section will supply the literalness of the heavenly sanctuary in the Bible. The purpose of
this section is to present the scriptural references to make evidence that earthly sanctuary
was the typology of the heavenly sanctuary. The exposition begin with the OT and
continue with the NT, and thus, ended with the intertextual studies of both the scripture
from the OT and NT.
83
The Heavenly Sanctuary in the OT
There are several passages in the OT which refers to the presence of the sanctuary
in heaven. However, some are implicitly stated, and others are explicitly understandable
as well. Among the passive reference of the heavenly sanctuary is when God told Moses
to build a sanctuary for Him to dwell according to the pattern which God shown him on
the mount (Exod 25:8,9). The word “pattern” is tabniyt in original Hebrew, which can be
also translated as form, or a plan.1 The root word comes from a verb banah, which means
build or rebuild (Ezek 36:36), it is also translated as “set up or erect, or a construction”
(Gen 8:20; Judg 6:28; Num 13:12), sometimes translated as producing something new by
“using prior materials” (Gen 2:22).2 Thus, the root word implies construction,
establishment of something according to the material existed, in which, the word tabniyt
is formed. Hence, there are occasions where the word tabniyt is employed, in one
occasion, it was used in relation to “altar,” in which, it is translated as replica or pattern
(Josh 22: 28; 1 Kgs 16:10). In other context, it is an image of the pattern of something
such as an image of their gods (Deut 4:16-18), the “calf of Horeb” (Ps 106: 20),
“daughters as pillars” in a metaphoric form (Psalms 144:12), “figure” of a man (Isa 44:
13).3 The synonym for tabniyt is temunah which means likeness, similitude or image,4
and demut, which has the same meaning such as likeness, similitude, fashion and
1
Warren Baker and Eugene E. Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament,
(CWSD) Word Study Series (2003), s. v . “tabniyt.”
2
James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old
Testament) (1997), s. v. “‫בָּ ָּנה‬.” See also James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, s. v.
“banah.”
3
Baker, CWSD, s. v. "tabniyt.
4
Strong, Exhaustive Concordance, s. v. “temunah.”
84
manner.1 In analyzing the meaning of the Hebrew words relating to the word “pattern” in
Exodus 25:9 seems to indicate that the word is understood as a replica or pattern of which
was taken out of the original or the earlier substance. Consequently, one can assume that
there is a sanctuary, in which, the pattern is originally taken.2
On the other hand, another view was that the pattern was referring to the “divine
direction” for the establishment of the “desert sanctuary.” Thus, according to them, the
pattern does not refer to the heavenly sanctuary.3 The later view supply reason to their
defense. Because, the archaeologist had discovered that the earthly sanctuary along with
Solomon’s temple is similar to the Syrian and Palestinian Temple.4 However, the
majority of the commentators and even the NT writers supports in the existence of the
heavenly sanctuary based on Exodus 25:9.5
1
Strong, Exhaustive Concordances, s. v. “demut.”
2
Several scholars supported this view, such as B. Childs, The Book of Exodus (London, UK: SMC,
1974), 535; C. Rylaarsdam, “Exodus,” The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1952),
1021; R. L Honeycott Jr, “Exodus,” in Broadman Bible Commentary, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville, TN:
Broadman, 1969), 416. Walther Eichrodt et al., The Old Testament Library., vol. 1 (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1961), 423. All these supporters believed in the heavenly realities of the
sanctuary.
3
Niel Erik Andreason, “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament,” in The Sanctuary and The
Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard
Lesher (Washington DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 69. Scholars who support this view are, Carl Friedrich
Keil and Franz Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, vol. 2 (London, UK: T & T Clark, 1864), 165; and W Harrelson,
“The Significance of Cosmology in the Ancient Near East,” in Translating and Understanding of The Old
Testament, ed. H. T Frank and W. L Reed (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1970), 249.
Y. Aharoni, “The Israelites Sanctuary at Arad,” in New Direction in Biblical Archaeology, ed.
4
David Noel Freedman and J. C Greenfield (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 25–39.
5
Harrelson, “Significance of Cosmology,” 249; In the NT, the epistle to the Hebrews supports the
idea of heavenly sanctuary.
85
David also said, “The LORD is in His Holy temple, The LORD’s throne is in
heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the son of men” (Ps 11:4), reading the passage,
one sees that the temple could denotes the heavenly abode of God,1 which give an
imagery that there is heavenly sanctuary. On the other hand, the phrase, “The Lord is in
His holy temple” can also refers to God’s residence in the temple of Jerusalem, the
“throne room” of the temple (Ps 5:8; 79:1; 138:2). However, several passages have
synonyms which indicate that God is in his holy temple in heaven (Mic 1:2; Hab 2: 20;
Ps 18:7).2 Therefore, though the passages in the OT only supplies few instances of
explicit explanation on the sanctuary in heaven, one cannot deny that the OT implicitly
convey that the heavenly sanctuary existed. Henceforth, the evidence seem to be clearer
in the NT.
The Heavenly Sanctuary in the NT
The NT make it clearer that the temple is in heaven. The earlier section has
mentioned that God had shown the pattern of the earthly sanctuary to Moses (Exo 26:9).
To get the complete understanding of the “pattern,” the epistle to the Hebrews mentioned
about the reality of the pattern in three statements (Heb 8: 2-5; 9: 11-12, 2-24). The
heavenly sanctuary, according to the epistle of Hebrews, is not set up by man (Heb 8:2)
or made by human beings (Heb 9:11,24). The author of the epistle to the Hebrews
compares the heavenly and earthly by mentioning that Moses was the constructor of the
1
“Temple…heaven” [Psalm 11:4], Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, A
Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos
Research Systems, 1997).
2
Charles A Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Psalms, vol. 2, The International Critical Commentary (Fifth Avenue, NY: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 90.
86
earthly (Heb 8:5), while God pitch the heavenly.1 William G. Johnson, commenting in
the epistle to the Hebrews in regard to the reality of the heavenly sanctuary, he stated:
While he (the author) does not enter upon a description of the heavenly
sanctuary and liturgy, his language suggests several important
conclusions. First, he holds to their reality. His concern throughout the
sermon is to ground Christian confidence in objective facts, as we have
seen. Real deity, real humanity, real priesthood–and we may add, a real
ministry in a real sanctuary.”2
The relationship between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary was portrayed in
the epistle to the Hebrews by means of copy and original, shadow and substance. Thus,
the earthly sanctuary was a “copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary” (Heb 8:2-5).
Subsequently, the author of Hebrew said that “it was necessary for the copies of the
heavenly things to be purified” with a better sacrifice, which indicate that the sacrifice is
better than animals (Heb 9:23). The author continue to say that “Christ has entered, not in
a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into the heaven itself,” which
refers to the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:24). Due to this, “we have confidence to enter the
sanctuary (in heaven) by the blood of Jesus” (Heb 10:19).3 One must understand that the
author of Hebrew’s epistle was intending to comfort the recipient because the Jewish-
Christian had suffered an opposition from their own people. Moreover, A. P Salom in
commenting this situation, he said, “as seems likely, the destruction of Jerusalem and its
temple was near, all the more they need such assurances. These verses (Heb 10:1, 8:2-5)
1
Samuel Bacchiocchi, “The Heavenly Sanctuary: Real or Symbolic?” End Time Issues, no. 103
(2003): 4.
2
William G. Johnsson, In Absolute Confidence: The Book of Hebrew Speaks to Our Day
(Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing, 1979), 91.
3
Bacchiocchi, “Heavenly Sanctuary,” 4.
87
told them that they had access to superior “temple,” a heavenly sanctuary where Christ
ministered.”1 Thus, the epistle to the Hebrews supplied a clear picture of the true
tabernacle in heaven.
The book of Revelation also confirms that the heavenly sanctuary existed. The
word naos is usually translated as temple with an occurrence of 45 times in the
Authorized Version. Apart from this, it was translated as shrine for once.2 It is used
metaphorically as a community (Rev 3:12; 21:22) which is an exceptional case. But, in
all other occurrence referred to the temple such as temple in Jerusalem (Ps 45:15; Mk
15:38; Acts 7:48), the pagan’s temple (Acts 19:24), and the body as a temple in the
epistles of Paul (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16-17). However, John’s vision in the book of
Revelation provide a picture of the heavenly temple which was opened (Rev 11: 19).3
Moreover, since John saw the ark of covenant inside the temple (Rev11: 19), it must be
the most holy place because the ark of covenant was located in the most holy place (Heb
9:3-4). However, Bacchiocchi asserted that the heavenly sanctuary must not be
necessarily be “bipartite structure” like the earthly sanctuary because the ark of covenant
typifies mercy and justice which is symbolic. Thus, according to him, God had shown
John the representation of the heavenly sanctuary under the typology of the earthly.4 John
also used the word “tabernacle of the testimonies” when he saw that the heavenly temple
1
A. P Salom, “Sanctuary Theology,” in Issues in The Book of Hebrews, vol. 4, Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989), 206.
2
Strong, Exhaustive Concordance, s. v. “naos.”
3
Gerhard Kittel, G. W Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 626.
4
Bacchiocchi, “Heavenly Sanctuary,” 5.
88
was opened. This phrase is used in the OT to designate the earthly sanctuary (Num 1:50).
As a result, the ties between the earthly and heavenly was seen here. Thus, one may
understand that God used the typology of the earthly to make known the reality of
heaven. In this light, one understand that Jesus as an intercessor is performing a ministry
on behalf of the human race in the heavenly sanctuary ( 1 John 2: 1-2; Heb 8: 1-2).
Subsequently, Jesus’s heavenly ministration prior to His second coming has specific
function which is known as investigative judgment.1 The next section will attempt to
expose this concept.
Investigative Judgment in the Bible as a key to Understand the Biblical Concept of

the Pre-advent Judgement
This section presents the occurrence of investigation in the Bible which God has
done before He execute the judgment upon anyone. It also gives one an understanding of
the necessity of investigative judgment for humankind in the last days before the second
coming of Christ. The section will begin with the concept of investigation in the OT,
particular from the creation account in the book of Genesis and the judgement on Judah
in the book of Ezekiel. Subsequently, in the light of the concept of investigative
judgment, a brief biblical survey on the pre-advent judgment in Daniel 7 and 8 will be
done. From this point, the pre-advent judgment in the NT will follow.
Investigation concept in the OT
The beginning of Genesis started with the “judicial procedure” of God to Adam
and Eve when they fell into sin. Gerhard Pfandl, commenting on this, said that the
1
W. E. Read, “The Investigative Judgment: Does This Teaching Have Any Biblical Basis,”
Ministry, July 1960, 4–8.
89
investigation was began with the question, “where are you?” “who told You?” “have you
eaten the tree?” (Gen 3:9-13) and end with the proclamation of the verdict (Gen 3: 14-
19). Pfandl said that there are several divine investigations such as Cain (Gen 4: 9, 10),
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18, 19), in which, God performed the work of investigation
before His punitive act. It is significant, he said, to know that the NT consider the
judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah as the type or example of the judgment at the end (2
Pet 2: 6; Jude 7).1 During the time of the prophets, when the nation of Israel sin, God
each time made an investigative act before the verdict is finally announced (Isa 5:1-7;
43:8-13; 43: 22-28). The order will always be an act of sin, investigation and finally
judgment.2 Thus, though the word for Investigative judgment is not present in the
scripture, it is clear that the concept is found in several occasions. The sub-sections below
provides the investigative judgment scene in the book of Ezekiel and Daniel.
Investigative Judgment on Judah (Ezekiel 1-10)
The purpose of presenting the judgment of Judah is to bring to light that the motif
of God’s investigative judgment is found in Ezekiel, which could be in parallel with the
judgment in Dan 7. Thus, this section supplies the sequential motion of God during his
judgment in the land of Judah.
The background of the Judgment
The ministry of Ezekiel began when God came to him in vision near the river
Chebar, in “the fifth day of the fourth month of the fifth year of exile”, which could be a
1
Gerhard Pfandl, “The Pre-Advent Judgment: Fact or Fiction?” Ministry, February 2004, 28.
2
Eric Livingstone, “Investigative Judgment: A Scriptural Concept,” Ministry, April 1992, 12.
90
month of July, 592 B. C, according to fall-to-fall calculation of the calendar (Ezek 1: 1-
3). In order to tune up with the dates, one must know that the siege of Jerusalem began in
January, 588 BC, that is, four and half years after Ezekiel was called to ministry. After
two and half years, the Babylonian defeated the city completely in July, 586 BC.1
The onset of Ezekiel’s vision was an appearance of a great whirlwind from the
north (Ezek 1:4). The location of this appearance is significant, which will be known
later. Amidst of the whirlwind or the storm cloud, comes the four living creatures (Ezek
1: 5-14), which is identified later as the cherubim (Ezek 10). These creatures reappeared
before the throne in heaven (Rev 4). There are significant characteristic that one have to
note about these four creatures. First, they have wings (Ezek 1: 6, 8, 11, 14), and they are
in motion (Ezek 1: 9, 12, 14), second, they have something like a torch of burning coal
between them (Ezek 1:13), and third, each of them have wheels for motion on the ground
(Ezek 1: 17, 19-21). Thus, the wings, the wheels, and the motions implies that there are
going towards something.
The vision also shows that the firmament is upon the head and wings of the four
living creatures, which is in motion (Ezek 1:24-25). The firmament is to carry the throne
of God (Ezek 1: 26), over which, God sit and appears like a human form. The glory in
God is describe as, “gleaming bronze, like the appearance of fire,” (Ezek 1: 27), in which,
Ezekiel fell upon his face in the brightness of God’s glory. In analyzing this, Shea
1
William Shea, “The Investigative Judgment of Judah, Ezekiel 1-10,” in The Sanctuary and
Lesher (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 283. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic
Interpretation, 1:16.
91
asserted that the motion of God implies that God is going somewhere and that “is the
point of this vision.”1 He said that the motion of the four living creatures is “intentional
and directional” because God is the one who command the wheels to certain directions.2
Thus, this brings a question of where God is heading. Aforementioned, God came from
the north in the earlier verse (vs 40), being coming from north, the possible direction is
south-east, to the exiles in Babylon and the south-west, to Judah and Jerusalem. The later
location is supported by chapter 9 and 10 of Ezekiel. Thus, the vision in chapter 1 signify
the transition of God’s throne to the earthly sanctuary.
The Motif of Investigation on Judah
Ezekiel, as God’s prophet, become a medium to proclaim the judgment and the
charges which followed (Ezek 2, 3, 4-7). Subsequently, the vision on the corruption of
temple is dated in the sixth month of the sixth year of the exile, which is September 591
BC (Ezek 8:1). Connecting Ezekiel’s vision in chapter 1 when Yahweh transit to the
earthly residence, it has been 14 months when he received the vision of the temple in
chapter 8. That brings a crucial question on why God needs to abode on the earth in the
first place. In addition, the shekinah glory is already present to indicate God’s presence,
then, why the visions implicitly conveyed that God’s dwelling on earth is about 14
months. Shea, in explaining this vision, he give the evident answer that God has a special
work to do in the land of Judah.3
1
Shea, “Judgment of Judah,” in The Sanctuary, 285.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid., 286.
92
Chapter 9 further supports that God is doing a work of investigation, it divides the
people of Judah into two groups, one, who are crying for the abomination done in the
temple, and others, who are responsible for the abomination. Apparently, this division is
recorded by the angel as a scribe. The angel was instructed to write the Hebrew letter taw
in the forehead of the first group (Ezek 9:4). The letter taw is the last alphabet of Hebrew,
thus, indicate the remnant who will be saved at the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem.1
This judgment came to pass when the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar sieged Jerusalem
(1 King 25:9). Thus, it is significant to note that the execution of Judah is based upon the
investigation done in the temple earlier, during the session of judgment.
The Scene of Departure
After every case have been decided, there is no reason for God to remain in the
temple. Subsequently, God raised the rhetorical question during the vision in Chapter 8,
“Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abomination of the house of Israel
are committing here, to drive me far from the sanctuary?” (Ezek 8:6). The scene of God
departure from His temple is mentioned three times (Ezek 9:3; 10:4; 10:18). When God is
about to leave His temple, “the sound of the wings of the cherubim is heard” (Ezek 10: 5)
and the wheels are ready to move ( Ezek 10:13). Subsequently, the divine chariot appears
at the threshold of the temple, “The glory of the Lord went up from the cherubim to the
threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of
brightness of the glory of the Lord.” (Ezek 10: 4). The Cherubim moved to the east gate
of the temple (Ezek 10:19) and finally departed from the city through Kidron valley
1
Ibid., 287.
93
(Ezek 11: 22-25). Thus, the vision from chapter 9 to 11 is an opposite of chapter 1,
because in chapter 1, God ascended to the earth to judge and remain on earth for
investigation for 14 months, and in chapter 9 through 11, God finished his judgment and
departed from the temple.1
The Pre-advent Judgment Scene on the Vision of Dan 7
Daniel 7 provides a judgment scene which describes the commencement of the
judgment (vs 9-10), the closing scene (vs.13-14) and the explanation of the judgment
scene (vs. 26- 27). Daniel saw the thrones were put into places and the Ancient of Days
sat on the throne. Before the court, were the books opened, and one like the son of man
came before the Ancient of Days. After the court made decision, the Saint and the Son of
man received the kingdom.2
The Sequential Order of the Vision
The vision started with four beasts namely a lion, a bear, a leopard, and the
indefinable creature which possessed ten horns (vs 4-7). Out of the ten horns of the
creature, came out a little horn and uprooting the existing three horns. This little horn
arises from the creature spoke against God, persecuting the saint for three and half times3,
1
Ibid., 289.
Angel Manuel Rodriquez, “Response To: “The Investigative Judgment: A Bible Based
2
Doctrine?,” The Watchtower, July 1997, 6.

3
The three and half times refers to 1260 years. This is to be calculated with a year-day principle,
which is seems to be reliable and a correct way of interpreting apocalyptic literature like Daniel because
they are symbolic. The biblical reference for this method of interpretation is found in Number 14: 34 and
Ezekiel 4: 6, where God literally used a day for a year. For instance, Number 14: 36 stated, “According to
the number of days in which you spied out for a land, forty days, for each day you shall bear your guilt for
one year, namely forty years, and you shall know my rejection.” Accordingly, three and half times or three
and half years (360x3+180= 1260) is 1260 days. Thus, applying day as a year, the little horn rule for 1260
years. For more understanding of the historicist method of year-day principle, see Thomas R. Birks, First
94
and “attempted to change the law and the times” (vs. 25).1 While the little horn is
speaking against God, one can recognized that the heavenly judgment scene had started
(vs. 11, 25)2, after Daniel had heard the “pompous word,” the attention of the passage is
shift to the heavenly scene of judgment (vs 8-10). Studying the passage, one can catch
that the time of the little horn and the heavenly judgment corresponds to each other.
Accordingly, it cannot be a final executive judgment of Rev 20. Thus, it is “preliminary
judgment” that is happen before the second coming.3 The result of the judgment is
Elements of Sacred Prophecy (London, UK: William E. Painter, 1843); H. G. Guinness, The Approaching
End of the Age, Viewed in the Light of History, Prophecy, and Science, 8th ed. (London, UK: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1882); Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing, 1978), 300–305; Shea,
Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, 1:64–104.; For understanding from the Jewish Literature, see
O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 39.
Ibid. The little horn opposed the saints and the Most High, Pfandl, “The Pre-advent Judgment,”
1
2.
Pfandl, “The Pre-advent Judgment,” 2.

2
3
Ibid. The fact of Dan 7 judgment being a preliminary judgment had been noticed by several non-
SDA commentators, for instances, the roman catholic author, F. Dusterwald stated:
Without question, the prophet Daniel here, describes God’s judgment concerning the
hostile powers. The judgment ends with the total condemnation of the world empires
and the triumph of the cause of God. However, what is described here is not as many
old interpreters (Theodoret and others) have assumed the general judgement of the
world, it is not God judgment here on earth, rather the place of judgment is in heaven.
The context indicates, that it is preliminary judgment which is later confirmed in the
general judgment of the world.
See F. Dusterwald, Die Weltreiche Und Das Gottesreich (Freiburg: Herder’sche Verlagsbuch-
handlung, 1890), 177. T. Robinson wrote in his commentary that the judgment is sat in the 19 th century,
concerning this, he stated:
As already observed, this is not the general judgment at the termination of Christ’s reign
on earth, or, as the phrase is commonly understood, the end of the world. It appears
rather to be an invisible judgment carried on within the veil and revealed by its effects
and the execution of its sentence. As occasioned by the ‘great words’ of a Little horn
and followed by taking away of his dominion, it might seem to have already sat. As,
However, the sentence is not yet by any means fully executed, it may be sitting now.
95
followed by the dominion of the Son of man and the saints receiving the kingdom
forever and ever (vs 27). Subsequently, the little horn power is destroyed.
The Investigating Nature of the Judgment
The nature of investigation is clearly expressed in reference to the presence of
book during the judgment (vs 10). The OT and NT contain several references in regard to
the heavenly book, almost all of them are related to God’s people.1 Thus, one understands
that the book is in heaven, for investigating the cases. Accordingly, the question arises of
who will be judged in the judgment? Concerning this, the judgment is exercise in favor of
the saints (Dan 7:22), this judgment is God’s vindication of His people.2 It is a judgment
that declares a believer who is worthy of salvation. The court involves of the Son of Man,
the angels and the universe who are the witnesses to the case decided. In vindicating the
saints, God is also vindicated (Ps 51:4).
See Thomas Robinson, The Preacher’s Homiletical Commentary, vol. 19 (New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1892), 139. See also, S.P Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel, 8th
ed. (Chelmsford, UK: The Sovereigns Advent Testimony, n.d.), 35–38.
1
Several references are present in the OT that are in association with God’s people. For instance,
there is a “book of a living” mainly dealt with the righteous (Ps 69: 28), the lives of humanity is written in
God’s book, the days and length of lives are recorded (Ps 139: 16), the struggles and pain are recorded (Ps
56: 8), their thoughts (Mal 3:16), their good deeds (Neh 13:14), their sins are recorded (Ps 109: 14; Isa 65:
6). Even in the NT the heavenly book is mentioned several times (Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20: 12, 15)
and this book is known as the book of life (Rev 21:27). The Jewish literature also contain the heavenly
book (1 Enoch 47: 3)
2
Shea beautifully explained the vindication of the saints this way, “From time to time some of
these saints have been adjudged guilty of various crimes by the earthly tribunals when actually they were
serving God and man faithfully. In the pre-advent judgment, these unjust sentences by the earthly court will
be reversed by the courts of heaven. In this way, God will vindicate his saints.” See William Shea, “A
Theological Importance of the Pre-Advent Judgment,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of
Prophecy, vol. 3, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1986),
328.
96
On the other hand, the “internal contextual evidence suggests that the saints and
the little horn equally share in pre-advent judgment verdict,”1 subsequently, the little horn
is judged in a different way, since the saints are vindicated, the little horn is the one to be
condemned with a crime. Rodriguez said that the scene in Daniel 7 must be understand in
a sense that an innocent person is accused incorrectly in the court.2 Then, the little horn is
considered to be the accuser since it was against the saints during the judgment (Dan
7:25). As a result, the saints are vindicated, and the dominion of the little horn is taken
away (Dan 7: 27) which implies that the little horn is condemned as the saints are
vindicated ( Dan 7: 22). Therefore, Daniel 7 is a judgement prior to Christ’s second
coming, and it is about the judgment of the saints and the little horn. The ultimate
decision of the judgment declares the dominion of the Son of man along with the saints
who are vindicated and the little horn being judged which will succeeds with the second
coming (Dan 7:26-27).
Daniel 8 in Relation to the Earthly Sanctuary in Leviticus
The prophet saw the vision in Daniel 8 in relation to the earthly sanctuary in
Leviticus. Daniel saw a ram with two horns, attacking toward west, north, and south.
Then, he-goat from the west which have one horn between the eyes appeared in the
scene and attacked the ram and defeated it. Subsequently, the horn of he-goat magnified
itself exceedingly and broke into four which developed to the four winds of heaven
1
Norman R. Gulley, Christ Is Coming! A Christ-Centered Approach to Last-Day Events
(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998), 413. See also Arthur J. Ferch, “The Pre-Advent Judgment:
Is It Scriptural?,” Australasian Record, August 28, 1982, 5–7.
2
Rodriguez, “Investigative Judgment,” 8.
97
(Daniel 8: 3-9). Another horn known as the “little horn” came to the scene and grew
exceedingly great “toward the south, east and the glorious land (Dan 8:10). The
horizontal expansion (vs. 9-10) of the horn was followed by the vertical expansion (vs.
11-12). The little horn “exalted himself as high as the Prince of the Host,” took the daily1
away and cast down the place of the sanctuary (vs. 11), it is in this context that the holy
one inquiring, “For how long will the vision be?” and Daniel heard the answer, “For two
thousand and three hundred mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful
state” (vs. 14).2 The political kingdom was portrayed with several animals in the Dan 7.
However, in explaining the same kingdom here, the prophet used the “linguistic and
theology of the structure in the book of Leviticus” which is related with the service of the
Israelite sanctuary.3
The symbol of the political power used in Daniel 8 is interestingly a ram and a he-
goat (vs. 20-21) which are sacrificial animals. Moreover, the term “daily” was used in the
old testament for several times in relation to the daily work in the sanctuary.4 Thus,
1
The word “the daily” is taken from the Hebrew word hatamid, in which, the Hebrew word is
composed by the article ha and the root word tamid, the word ha simply means “the,” and tamid signifies
something which is done in a regular basis without any interruption, the usage in the OT is 104 times, uin
which, most of them are used in an adjectival genitive form for mentioning the continual burnt offering
made to God in the sanctuary every morning and evening (Exo 29:42; Num 28:6, 10, 15, 23;Ezr 3:5; Neh
10: 6; Ezek 46: 15). See R. Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1980), 493; James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), s. v “tamiyd.” See also, W. E.
Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New
Testament Words: With Topical Index (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996), 1:47.
2
Revised Standard Version is used.
Rodriguez, “Investigative Judgment” 2.

3
4
All the usages of hatamid are relating with the sanctuary and are translated as a “continual or
regular burn offering” several times (Num 29: 6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Neh 10: 34; Dan 11: 31;
12:11), a continual bread offering (Num 4: 7), and a daily grain offering (Num 4: 16).
98
according to Rodriquez, Daniel was writing in expectation of the reader to know the
Israelite sanctuary because the passages are in the terminology of the sanctuary. 1 The
usage of the language of the sanctuary services helps one to understand the work of the
little horn, the political reign is not the main concerned, rather, the focus was the little
horn attacking the sanctuary and overthrew the prince of host ( Dan 8:11, 12).
Subsequently, the holy one asking the time of transgression by the little horn in
taking away the daily, this is when the answer came to Daniel, “Unto 2300 evenings and
mornings,” shall the sanctuary be vindicated or cleansed (Dan 8: 14). There is only one
reference in the Bible where the phrase, “evening and mornings,” is employed, that is, in
Genesis 1, the account of creation. Accordingly, 2300 evenings and mornings can be
counted as 2300 days. Since, the time period from Daniel 8:1 to the time of the little horn
covers more than 2300 days,2 2300 days is not applicable for literal interpretation, thus,
year-day principle3 is applied here, in which, 2300 days will become 2300 years. The
presupposition will be more likely right because the little horn power is judge before the
second coming. Thus, 2300 years is more likely applicable to the time of the end.
Rodriguez, “Investigative Judgment” 3.

1
2
Daniel 8: 1 started with the political kingdom of ram representing Medo-Persia and he-goat
representing Greece, one can compare this with Dan 7, where the sequences of the kingdom are clearly
seen, and the sequences are repeated three times. Accordingly, the four beasts in Daniel 7: 3 are the
kingdom the earth (vs. 13), The little horn power reigned just before the dominion is given to the saints
and the Son of Man (Dan 7: 26, 27).
See page 3 in this paper. See also Shea, “Supplement Evidence” JATS 12/1, (Spring, 2001): 89-
3
96.
99
The Linkage of the Vision in Daniel 8 and 9
Interestingly, there is no newly given vision in Daniel 9, instead, Gabriel came to
explain the vision (mareh) to Daniel ( Dan 9: 23), in which, the word mareh1 is the
identical usage of the word “vision” that deals with 2300 days prophecy that Daniel did
not understand (Dan 8: 26). Daniel 9 also provides a similar subject of the sanctuary
regarding the sacrificial offerings and the inauguration of the sanctuary. The messiah has
to be anointed and became a sacrificial victim, which proceeds with His priestly work
(Dan 9: 25, 27). Daniel 8 presents Jesus as the priest regarding the daily ministration in
the pattern of the earthly sanctuary. Thus, Dan 7 is the starting point of the work of the
Messiah which is chronologically followed by the vision in Dan 8.
Time factor Involved in Dan 8 and 9
As aforementioned, both the chapters are linked together in terms of vision,
literary structure, and theme. Consequently, one can recognize the time factor involve
regarding the apocalyptic vision. The prophetic time period in Daniel 8: 14 was left
uninterpreted,2 however, Dan 9 provide the commencement date of the prophecy in Dan
8. It presents the beginning of the Messiah and His inaugurated to be the high priest in the
heavenly sanctuary. The ministry of the Messiah will begin once there is an anointing of
the sanctuary ( Dan 9: 24). Both the chapter started with the empire of Medo-Persia, but
Dan 9 stresses more specifically on the commencement date of 2300 day-year prophecy.
1
The term Mareh is a vision that specifically deals with the representation of truth as enacted by
God to His prophets which is can be used interrelatedly to the other term of vision chazon, which indicate a
general divine communication of God. Siegfried H. Horn, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary
(SDABD), rev. ed. (1979), s. v. "vision."
2
The longest prophecy of the Bible is noted to be ended after 2300 days in Daniel 8: 14. Thus, it
signifies only the time for its fulfillment of the prophecy but do not notify the commencement of the
prophecy.
100
When the decree to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem begins, that is the starting point of the
prophecy ( Dan 9: 25). According to the angel, “70 weeks are determined or cut off ”
concerning the people of God and the Holy city. The word used for determined is chathak
which can be translated as “cut off” or “determined” according to the Canaanite literature
and Jewish Hebrew literature.1 However, the term “cut off” is preferably because Daniel
8 and 9 is connected to each other. Accordingly, one can presuppose that 70 weeks is cut
off from 2300 days prophecy.
The Interpretation of the 70 weeks
The content of the 70 weeks has two significance, one is the decree of rebuilding
the walls of Jerusalem and the other is the purpose of the coming of the Messiah and the
detail description of His work.2 Concerning the interpretation of the week, the Hebrew
word employed here in Daniel 9 always designates the seven-day time period even in the
other places of the OT.3 Accordingly, applying the year-day principle, the 70 weeks is
1
William Shea, “The Relationship Between the Prophecies of Daniel 8 and Daniel 9,” in The
Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf
and W. Richard Lesher ( Washington, D. C: Review and Herald, 1981), 241-246.
2
Messiah will die towards the end of 70 weeks, and His death would end up the transgression by
bringing an everlasting righteousness; He will put an end to sin through forgiveness, seal up the vision by
fulfilling the prophecy; make an atonement for sin through His sacrifice; anoint the heavenly sanctuary;
make an everlasting covenant with many people and the making an end to the earthly sanctuary service
(Dan 9: 24-27). In addition, the destruction of the temple and the holy city must be decreed during the 70
weeks (vs 26, 27), this was fulfilled when Jesus announced the destruction fo the city of Jerusalem (Matt
24: 1, 2).
3
Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Hebrew Masculine Plural for ‘Weeks’ in the Expression ‘Seventy Weeks’
in Daniel 9:24,” AUSS 31 (1993): 105–18. The word weeks employed in Dan 9 is shabucim, which is
taken from the root word, shabua, meaning sevenfold, a period of seven, a week, a time period of seven
days (Gen 29: 27, 28; Lev 12: 5; Deut 16: 9; Dan 10: 2, 3). According to Strong’s Lexicon, the word
“weeks” occurs for 20 times. Most of the usage designates the seven unit of days (Exod 34: 22; Num 26:
28; Deut 16: 10, 16; 2 Chro 8: 13; Jer 5: 24; Dan 10: 2, 3). See Robert L Thomas and W. Don Wilkins, New
American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries
(Anaheim, CA.: Foundation Publications, 1998), s.v. “weeks.” See also, Strong, Strong’s Concordance, s. v
101
490 years (70×7 = 490). One may take notice that the prophecy have a beginning and
ending date. It begins during the reign of Medo-Persia and end with the death of the
Messiah.1 The beginning date of the decree to build the walls of Jerusalem is most
preferably concluded to be in 457 BC because the death of the Messiah in 31 AD is
correctly calculated with this date.2 Thus, the end of 70 weeks end at 34 AD if one begins
with 457 BC. Subsequently, cutting off the 490 years from 2300 years, becomes 1830,
thus, the end of 2300 years fall in 1844 when 34 years is added to 1830. However, one
may ask the reason why the date falls on October 22, this question is resolved through the
Babylonian counting of calendar during the time of Daniel.3 Thus, October 22, 1844 is
the right date of the fulfillment of 2300 prophetic years.
“Shabua,” Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 898.; Swanson,
Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), s. v “sabua.”
William Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9: 24-27,” in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the
1
Nature of Prophecy, vol. 3, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald, 1986), 75–118.
2
There are several decrees given by certain rulers such as a decree from Cyrus in 537 B. C (Ezra 1:
1-4), decree by Darius in 520 B. C (Ezra 6: 1-12), Artexerxes in 457 B. C (Ezra 7: 12-26), and the renewal
of the decree in 444 B. C during the time of Nehemiah (Neh 1). Among these, 457 B. C is the most suitable
one because the calculation is right according to these about the prophecy of the Messiah. The Messiah
must die in the middle of the last week, which is 31A. D (Dan 9: 27). See Angel Manuel Rodriquez, “The
Sanctuary and Its Cleansing,” Adventist Review, September 1994, 47; See also Shea, “Supplement
Evidence” JATS 12/1, (Spring, 2001): 89-96.
3
Shea explained that the early Millerites came up to the conclusion of October 22, 1844 according
to Karaite Calendar which is the most reliable calendar in their times. However, Shea suggested the modern
calculation system because every resource is available now. Accordingly, he used the Babylonian calendar
which was used in the time of Daniel which can concluded that the ending period of 2300 days prophecy is
in October 22, 1844. For detail calculation of calendar, see Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic
Interpretation, 1:169–71.
102
Investigation Concept in the NT
This section presents the concept of pre-advent judgment which are not explicitly
stated in the NT. However, these passages point to the judicial act that occurs before the
second advent of Christ. The section is classified into three parts: Investigation concept in
the teachings of Jesus, in the writings of Paul and in the book of Revelation.
Investigative Judgment Concept in the Teaching of Christ
Jesus teach about reward for those who obey him, which implies evaluative
judgment before rewarding a person. The beatitudes sermon is promises of reward (Matt
5: 1-12), the phrase, “If you love those who love you, what reward have you?” implicitly
proposed a notion of pre-evaluation process.1 Looking at the time of reward, it is always
at the second coming (Matt 16: 27), which implies that the time apart from the second
coming is not a time for evaluation or investigation. When Jesus described about
resurrection, he make certain that the ones who did good deeds will be resurrecting to
life, and the evil ones to judgment (John 5:28-29), this implies that one does not resurrect
to be judge but the judgment had finished. The other presupposition of investigative
judgment before second advent is seen in Christ commanding to separate the wheat and
the tares, the evil and the righteous (Matt 13: 30, 49). The context of the passage implies
1
Samuel Bacchiocchi, “The Pre-Advent Judgment,” End Time Issues, September 2003, 3. The
notion of reward is found in many places of the Gospel, for instance, “Beware of practicing your piety
before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven,” (Matt 6:1; cross reference, 6:2, 4, 5, 16, 18; 10:41, 42; Mark 9:41; Luke 6:23, 35).
103
that there is no evaluation during the time of harvest, it is rather a separation of the
decided ones.1
The parable wedding garments also seems to portray the investigative concept of
judgment. In this parable, the king sent invitation for the wedding of his son (Matt 22: 2).
The wedding invitation though is for special people, since they did not response to it, the
king sent the invitation to everyone, thus, the wedding hall was filled with guest (Matt
22: 3- 10). The investigation concept is seen when the king came to check for the
wedding garments, he found a man without the wedding garment (Matt 22: 11).2 The
parable seems to indicate an allusion of what will happen before the second coming.
Investigative Judgment Concept in the Writings of Paul
Paul considered the second advent as the revelation of God’s judgment and not
the time of judicial evaluating process (1 Cor 4: 5), it is the time of revelation of God
1
Similarly, the separation of sheep and goat at the time of advent presuppose that it is only the
time of executing the judgment of which had been decided earlier (Matt 25: 32-33).
Rev 19: 7, 17 regard the coming of Christ as the “marriage of the lamb.” Ellen White,
2
commenting on Matthew 22, she stated:
In the parable of Matthew 22, the same figure of the marriage is introduced, the
investigative judgment is clearly represented as taking place before marriage. Previous
to the wedding the kings comes in to see the guests, to see if all are attired with the
wedding garment, the spotless robe of character washed and made white in the blood
of the lamb… the work of examination of character, of determining who are prepared
for the kingdom of God, is that of the investigative judgment, the closing work in the
Sanctuary above.
See White, The Great Controversy, 428.
104
righteous judgment (Rom 2: 5), which will be followed by the executive act of Jesus who
will give eternal life to the good and punishment to the disobedience (Rom 2: 7-8; 2
Thess 1: 8-9). The incident presuppose that the judicial act of investigation is prior to
second advent. Paul follow the same pattern regarding the judgment of the dead (1 Tim 4:
1) like Jesus which implies that the attendance of a person is not required since the other
passage in the Bible explicitly provide an existence of record book for deeds (Dan 7: 10;
Ps 69: 28; Mal 3: 16; Rev 20: 12).1 Paul provides several passages concerning the manner
of Christ coming ( 1 Thess 1: 7-10; 1 Thess 4: 13-18; 1 Cor 15: 51-58). One can easily
presuppose that the judicial judgment will take place at the second advent. However, the
writings of Paul does not support this manner of judgment. For instance, 1 Thessalonians
4 provides the manner of the events, in which, the imagery according the passage
signifies only the transformation of the believers and the eternal communion of God (1
Thess 4: 16, 17). There is absence of judicial investigating process when Christ decent
from heaven. It is rather the executive act of Christ changing the believers with the power
1
Concerning the sequence of events in 1 Tim 4: 1-2, Barclay notes the order in three parts: 1)
Judgment 2) Appearance 3) Kingdom. He mentioned that the events follows the logical progression which
leads to the consummated history of salvation. Thus, the judgment is followed by the appearance of Christ.
See William Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 3rd ed. fully rev. and updated, The New
Daily Study Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 232–34. The King James Version
reads, “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the
dead at his appearing and his kingdom,” which is rejected by many modern translation today because it
does not accurately render the Greek conjunction “kai….kai” which would imply “and by His appearing
and his Kingdom,” (RSV). The New International Version also render the Greek text appropriately, “IN the
presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing
and his kingdom I give you this charge.” See Bacchiocchi, “Pre-Advent Judgment,” 7. Dibelius and
Conzelman also notice that the charge of Paul is to be considered as a formulaic, this principle is seen in 1
Tim 5: 21, “In the presence of God, and of Christ and of the elected angels I charge you…” which
Bacchiocchi named “liturgical formula.” Thus, the pattern of charge in 1 Tim 4 and Tim 5 is similar which
is sequentially stated by Paul. Accordingly, the judgment, the appearing, and the kingdom seems to be in
sequence. See Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the
Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972), 120.
105
of glorification.1 Subsequently, the judicial evaluation process needs to be done before
the second coming. Thus, presuppose the pre-advent judgment.
Investigative Judgment Concept in the Book of Revelation
The concept of pre-advent judgment is clearly portrayed in Revelation 14, the
chapter provide three phases of events and all the events began with the phrase, “Then I
looked,”( Rev 14: 1, 6, 14). The first vision started with the 144000, their character and
their benefit of being in the group ( Rev 14: 3, 4). The second vision continues with the
announcement of the judgment of God (14: 6-13), and the third with the executive
judgment (14: 14-20). The second vision particularly deals with the investigation concept
of judgment, where the three angels proclaim the messages. The first message announce
the warning, “Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come….
(Rev 14: 7), the second message declares the judgment of God upon the spiritual Babylon
( Rev 14: 8), and the third message deals with the judgment upon the people who worship
the beast and its image (14: 9-11).
The third vision points to the second coming of Christ where the imagery portrays
the angel harvest the ripen cluster of vines with a sickle which symbolize the executive
1
J. A. Seiss, a Lutheran minister, comment on the passage of Paul on the manner of Christ coming,
he came to the same conclusion:
The truth is, that the resurrection, and the changes which pass “in the twinkling of an
eye” upon the living, are themselves the fruits and embodiments of antecedent
judgment. They are the consequences of adjudications then already made. Strictly
speaking, men are neither raised nor translated, in order to come to judgment.
Resurrections and translations are products of judgment previously passed, upon the
dead as dead, and upon the quick as quick.
See Joseph August Seiss, The Apocalypse: Lectures on the Book of Revelation (New York, NY:
Cosimo Classics, 2007), 18.
106
judgment of God for the wicked and the harvest of grains which indicated the people of
God ( Rev 14: 14-20). The significance of the sequence of the vision is that the harvest is
preceded by the sounding of the judgment, “the hour of the judgment has come,” (Rev
14: 7). Thus, the judgment comes before harvest.1
Christ’s Ascension and His Ministry in Heaven
This section provides the significance of Christ’s ascension and his ministry as He
ascended to heaven. The study aspire to understand the biblical application of Christ
ministration in heaven for the Christian believers. The study is not solely focus on the
doctrine of ascension as a whole, but it focused on the studies of Jesus’ ministry in the
heavenly sanctuary as he ascended to heaven. The study is divided into three parts: the
biblical introduction of Christ’s ascension, the significance of Jesus’ sitting at the right
hand of God, inauguration of Jesus as a king-priest and under which, the intercessory
ministry of Christ is explained.
The Biblical Understanding of Christ’s Ascension
The NT interpretation of Christ’s ascension is rooted upon the ascension in the
OT like Enoch (Gen 5: 24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2: 1-12),2 After the exile from Babylon,
while the Jewish were hoping for the Davidic Kingdom to restore, the two motifs
1
John A. Bollier, commenting on the passage, he said that the pre-advent judgment in the book of
Revelation “are educative in purpose rather than vindictive and retributive. They are meant to bring both
the church and the world to repentance.” See John A. Bollier, “Judgment in the Apocalypse,” Interpretation
(Int), January 1953, 18. According to Bollier, the hour of judgment in Revelation 14 comes between the
series of judgment. The seven seals and trumpets (6-13) followed by the judgment in Revelation 14 and
succeeded by the seven last plagues, the judgment of Babylon, the beast, the false prophets and the wicked
(Rev 15-20). Thus, the investigative judgment is before the second coming. See Ibid., 22.
2
Martha Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993).
107
emerges: one, the apocalyptic “Son of Man” who will sit at the right hand of Yahweh, to
restore the Davidic Kingdom (Ps 110: 1) and which will be an eschatological fulfillment
with a result of everlasting dominion of the Son of Man among the nations, kindred and
tongues (Dan 7: 13-14), the other is, the “suffering servant” (Isa 52: 13, 53: 12) who will
sacrifice Himself as a lamb, fulfilling the priestly work who will in turn become the
eternal high priest. In Matthew, the final appearance of Jesus dealt will a theme, “all
authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” (Matt 28: 18), however, the
actual ascension of Christ is not explicitly recorded in Matthew. Thus, only Luke among
the Gospel is accepted to have the ascension story accurately among the gospel (Luke 24:
50-51), because the gospel of Mark is believed to be later insertion.1 Acts is the only
book in the NT depicting the scene of ascension where Jesus was taken up in heaven after
telling the disciples to wait for the promise of the Holy Spirit, thus, two men with a cover
of white robes appears to the disciples and notify them that the same Jesus will come
back again (Acts 1: 7, 8). The epistle also mentioned that Christ is not merely raised from
the dead, but also seated at the right hand of God and those who are baptized will also be
raised like Jesus and be seated at God’s right hand in the heavenly places ( Ephe 2: 6; Col
2: 12; 3: 1).
In the gospel of John, Jesus told Nathanael the ascending and descending “of the
angel of God upon the son of man” to imply that he will be exalted (John 1: 51), He also
told Nicodemus that “no one has ascended into heaven but He who came down from
Lois E. Malcolm, “He Ascended into Heaven and Is Seated at the Right Hand of God the Father
1
Almighty,” in Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles’ Creed, ed. Roger Van Harn (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2004), 161–72.
108
heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven,” (John 1: 31). Though Jesus was
glorified on the cross (Phil 2: 6-11), His glorification was not completed till He return to
His Father (John 7: 39; 12: 16, 23; 13: 31, 32; 17: 5). One can notice when Mary was
weeping near the tomb, she mistakes Jesus as a gardener, and as she recognized that it
was Jesus, she attempt to touch Him, in responding to her, Jesus says, “Do not hold on
me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father,” and admonished her to spread the
message that He will ascend to the Father. (John 20: 17).
In the epistle of Hebrew, Jesus was depicted as a sacrifice and high priest who sat
down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven and who is superior than the angels ( Heb
1:1-4; 8: 1; 10: 12; 12: 2). Accordingly, He minister in the heavenly sanctuary which God
pitch (Heb 8: 1,2) and become a veil through His flesh (Heb 9: 11-14; Ps 50: 13; Isa 1:
11). The first epistle of Timothy mentioned Christ as “received up in glory,” and finally
in the book of revelation, for those who overcome and conquer, Jesus declare His
promise, “I will give a place with me on my throne, just as I myself conquered and sat
down with my Father on His throne.” (Rev 3: 20-22). Thus, one can presuppose that to sit
with the Father in heaven is for the ones conquering their life with Jesus.
The Significance of Jesus’ Sitting at the Right Hand of God
When Christ ascended to heaven, he sat at the right hand of God (Ephe 1: 20), and
God had put everything under his feed (Ephe 1: 21). The expression “sit at God’s right
hand” occurs about 20 times in the NT.1 This statement is solely taken from Psalm 110,
1
Matthew 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; Luke 20:42-43; 22:69; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56;
Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22.
109
David writes, “ The Lord (Yahweh) says to my lord (Adonai): ‘Sit at my right hand, till I
make your enemies your footstools’” it is clear that the later word “lord” refers to the
Messiah according to the conversation of Jesus and the pharisees (Matthew 22:41-45;
Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). The expression “sit at my right hand” means a “place or
position of honor” but the intention of the expression is not about physical presence of
where Jesus sit in the sanctuary.1 Thus, Jesus sitting at the right hand of God indicate His
kingship when he ascended to heaven, accordingly, the question may arise: of what
nature did Christ reign? Concerning this, he said, “My kingship is not of this world; if my
kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to
the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world” (John 13: 36). Thus, the kingdom of
Christ is the kingdom of grace and the requirement for entrance is repentance and grace
(Mark 1: 15). While the pharisees were expecting the worldly kingdom, Jesus said to
them, “the kingdom is within you,” (Luke 17: 21).
After Christ ascension, he reign from the throne of grace in the heavenly
sanctuary (Heb 4: 16), the NT authors understand that the time of Christ is the climax of
the ages, (Heb 9: 26) for this reason, they considered the era of Christ as last days (Heb 1:
2; Acts 2: 17). However, this present time is also referred in the scripture as the time that
1
Holbrook explained the meaning of sitting at the right hand of God this way:
To sit at God’s right hand” is a figurative phrase indicating the Saviour’s new, exalted
dignity, full authority and majesty, His rank and preeminence over the created universe.
Christ Himself speaks of the glorified redeemed in a similar manner when He promises:
“They will sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my
Father on his throne” (Rev 3:21). Obviously, the phrasing speaks of their dignity as
“fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17) and not of a sitting on a single, literal throne
which would be impossible for the millions of redeemed persons.
See Frank B Holbrook, “Christ’s Inauguration as King Priest,” JATS 5, no. 2 (1994): 139.
110
will be ended with the second coming (Matt 24: 32-33; Heb 9: 28). Thus, when Christ
seated at the right hand and rule from the throne of grace, the kingdom extends through
his body, the church (1 Cor 12: 12-14; 27; Ephe 5: 23). In addition, the rulership of Christ
would always be subordinate to the Father, because of his incarnated nature which he
chose to be for eternity (1 Cor 15: 28).
The Inauguration of Jesus as a High priest
On the day of the Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit is the result of Christ enthronement in heaven. He said:
This Jesus God raised up…Being therefore exalted at the right hand of
God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,
he has poured out this which you see and hear. For David did not ascend
into the heavens; but he himself says, `The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at
my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ Let all the
house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both
Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:32-36)
Weeks later, Peter made a statement which indicated that Jesus was enthroned in
the heaven not merely as a king but also a priest, he said that Jesus Christ is the one God
had exalted as prince and He granted repentance and forgiveness of sins (Acts 5: 31).
Peter implies the priesthood of Jesus here because in the OT, the work of priest is
concerning sin and repentance. The author of Hebrew made it more clear in stating that
Jesus became a high priest: “Now the point in what we are saying is this, we have such a
High priest, one who sit at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven, a minister in the
sanctuary and a true tent which is set up not by man but by Lord.” (Heb 8: 1-2). One can
understand that Jesus was not only enthroned as a king but also as a priest.
111
The priesthood of Jesus signifies that on behalf of humanity, he can represent
them before the throne in heaven, the author of Hebrew put it rightly this way: “Therefore
he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become merciful
and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of many
people. For he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are
tempted” (Heb 2: 17-18). John the beloved also said, “We have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours
only but for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 1: 2). Thus, when Jesus ascended to
heaven, He became our advocate as who understand all our needs, suffering and pain, the
author of Hebrew stated this way:
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into
heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our
weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just
as we are yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace
with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us
in our time of need (Heb 4: 14-16).
Thus, the priestly work in the OT was perfectly fulfilled in Jesus when he
ascended to heaven, sitting at the right hand of God, and intercede on behalf of humanity.
The Intercessory Ministry of Christ and its Significance
The NT declares that there is only one intercessor between God and humanity, the
man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2: 3-6). As mentioned in the earlier section, the bible is clear
that Jesus is in heaven and intercede for humans in the heavenly sanctuary.1 The author of
1
Mark 16: 19; Luke 24: 50-51; Acts 1: 9-11; Rom 5: 10-21; Rom 8: 34; 1 John 2: 1; Heb 4: 15-16;
8: 1-2.
112
the epistle to the Hebrews make plainly that Jesus is the High Priest and the intercessor of
humanity who is presently advocating for sinners in heaven (Heb 7: 25). The OT had also
mentioned the Suffering servant who intercede for His people (Isa 53: 12), it was
recognized by the early church as Jesus the Messiah (Acts 8: 27-35). Jesus Himself in His
time prayed for the believers and the gospel of Luke particularly points out that he prayed
for Peter (John 17; Luke 22: 32). The book of Daniel mentioned about Michael and his
act of standing up, which implies according the context of the chapter that He will save
his people from their oppression (Dan 12: 1), similarly, when Stephen was stone to death,
Jesus was standing for him, which indicate His intercessory ministry.1 Many biblical
scholars had come to same conclusion regarding Jesus as the intercessor in heaven,2
however, can one find a genuine reason for his intercessory ministry?
The Meaning of Intercessory Ministry of Christ
The notion that Jesus has to beg to the Father on behalf of humanity is in not
appropriate. Reasons for this is seen in the gospel of John, “ In that day you will asked in
my name, I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself
1
There is a difference between standing and sitting regarding the act of Jesus near the throne in
heaven, According to Moskala, standing refers to the intercessory ministry and sitting refers to the victory,
honor, kingship of Jesus ( Matt 26:64; Mark 16:19; Rom 8:34; Ephe 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 12:2; cf. Ps 110:1).
Moskala further explained that standing could also be defined as the action of judging. See Jiří Moskala,
“The Meaning of the Intercessory Ministry of Jesus Christ on Our Behalf in the Heavenly Sanctuary,” JATS
28, no. 1 (2017): 7.
2
Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, trans. Olive
Wyon (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1947); Edward Heppenstall, Our High Priest:
Jesus Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary (Washington DC: Review and Herald, 1972); G. C. Berkouwer,
The Work of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965); Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New ed
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996); Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical
Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994); Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013).
113
loves you because you have loved me and have believed me that I came from God” (John
16: 26-27). The famous verse of John says that God loves the world that he gave his only
son (John 3: 16). It is not God who need to change His attitude but human beings who
has to reconcile with Him, Paul exhort that one should reconcile to God (2 Cor 5: 20)
because He died for humanity while there are sinners (Rom 5:10).1
The intercessory ministry can be classified in two parts: “revelatory and
redemptive,” first, for revelatory intercession, since Jesus is divine (John 1: 1-3; Rom 9:
5; Col 1: 15-16), He represented Godhead to humanity, as a mediator and intercessor, he
reveals the character of the Father to humanity perfectly (Matt 11: 27; Luke 10: 22; John
17: 6).2 Even in the OT, God intercede for His people (1 Sam 2: 25; Job 16: 20), Jesus
also explained the ministry of the Holy spirit as an advocate (John 14: 16-17; 16: 7-15).
Proverbs 8: 22-31 also gave a hint that Jesus is the intermediator between the Triune God
and the created beings. Christ was the one who represent the principle and character of
Love from the beginning of Creation.3 Second, Jesus in going through the experience of
humanity (Matt 4: 1-11; John 1: 14; Rom 8: 3; Phil 2: 5-11; 1 John 4: 2-3), and suffers
like us (Heb 4:15-16), thus, can be a representative of human beings before the Father in
1
Moskala pointed out of what intercessory ministry of Christ does not mean: 1) Christ does not
need to beg the heavenly Father to led him forgive the sinners, 2) God is not angry and Christ is not
attempting to appease God who is angry, 3) Intercessor does not mean Christ will change the attitude of the
Father towards humanity 4) Jesus does not try to reconcile God to humanity, but reconcile humanity to
God. See Moskala, “Intercessory Ministry,” 8.
2
Torrance support this by saying, “Thus as both to incarnate revelation of God and the embodied
knowledge of God, Jesus constitutes in himself the Way, the Truth and the Life through whom alone the
access to God the Father is freely open for all people of humanity. That is to say, as the incarnate Word and
Truth of God Jesus Christ in His own personal Being is identical with the Revelation which he mediates.”
See Thomas F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, Rev. ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 19.
Richard M Davidson, “Proverbs 8 and the Place of Christ in the Trinity,” JATS 17, no. 1 (2006):
3
33–54.
114
heaven (1 Tim 2: 5). Thus, the definition of intercessory ministry of Jesus is bridging
divine and human through himself for the cause of salvation and restoration of humanity,
and to reveal the true loving character of God.
Summary
This section summarize the biblical data systematically and gather the conclusive
statements with a solid and plain explanation. The summary section is divided into three
parts: 1) The heavenly sanctuary in the Bible 2) Investigative judgement concept in the
Bible as a key to understand the biblical concept of pre-advent judgment. 3) Christ’s
ascension and His ministry in heaven.
Summary on the Heavenly Sanctuary in the Bible
The OT provided some hints on the heavenly sanctuary (Mic 1: 2; Hab 2: 20; 18:
7) and though it is not explicit, one can still understand that there are passages that could
still explain that there is a sanctuary in heaven. For example, in a case of Moses, he was
instructed to build the earthly sanctuary according to the pattern (Exo 25: 8, 9), here, the
pattern is translated from the Hebrew word tabniyt, meaning to produce something new
by using a prior material or original. Accordingly, one can presuppose that there must be
the original one in heaven.
However, the passage concerning Moses and the pattern, though not clearly
expressing the meaning in the OT, the solution of the problem comes with the author of
the epistle to the Hebrews who plainly connect the OT typology with the exposition on
the NT where Jesus ministered in the heavenly sanctuary which is not made by man but
by God (Heb 8: 1, 2; 9: 24). The phrase “not made by man but by God” affirmed that
115
there is a sanctuary in heaven. The NT writer continue to elaborate on it that the earthly
sanctuary is the “copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary” (Heb 8: 2-5) which made it
plain that the pattern that God showed to Moses must be the pattern of the sanctuary in
heaven. In addition, John the beloved also saw the heavenly temple and the ark of
covenant inside it (Rev 11: 19) which confirm the literalness of the sanctuary in heaven.
Summary on the Concept of Investigative Judgment in the Bible
The idea of investigation was introduced right from the beginning of the Bible
where God condescend to Adam when they disobey God. God investigate the situation by
asking them questions (Gen 3: 9-13, 14-19). However, God’s investigation does not
imply that God does not know the situation, for he is omniscience (Ps 139: 1-4; 147: 5; 1
John 3: 20; Isa 46: 9-10) but He investigate for the sake of the Universe and for an act of
justice so that no one will question God concerning his execution (1 Cor 4: 9). The
prophetic vision in the OT help one to understand the motif of investigative judgment of
God: First, the judgment of Judah in the book of Ezekiel shows that God came down to
the earth for the session of judgment. The passage shows that God remain in Judah for 14
months before he execute the judgment.1 The book of Daniel is more precise concerning
the eschatological investigative judgment, known as the pre-advent judgment. The
sequence of judgment is portrayed in Dan 7 where the kingdom will rise on earth. The
creature representing the kingdom are Lion, bear, leopard, and the indescribable beast
which possess the ten horns (Dan 7: 4-7), out of the ten horns comes a little horn, and
uprooting the three existing horns. This little horn speak against God and attack the saints
1
See page 93 in this paper.
116
(Dan 7: 25), while the little horn is in power, comes the judgment, which is for two
parties, the saints, and the little horn. However, the judgment is in favor of the saints,
which indicate that the judgment is to vindicate the saints of the Most high (Dan 7: 22).
One can know the heavenly judgment is not a final judgment since it happen
before the dominion of the son of man. The kingdom of God proceed after the judgment,
which infer that it is a judgment or evaluation before the second coming (Dan 7: 27).
Thus, one called the investigative judgment of God. In addition, the interrelation between
the sacrificial service of the sanctuary in the book of Leviticus and the sanctuary
language (Ram and Goat as a kingdom) in Daniel 8 explicitly explained that the
investigation occurs in the heavenly sanctuary. Regarding the time of investigative
judgment, Dan 8 and 9 provide an evidence that the judgment commenced in October 22,
1844.1 It is also compatible with the parable that Jesus spoke in the NT such as the
concept of investigation on the parable of the wedding feasts where the King has to
check his guest whether they wear the wedding garments (Matt 22: 11). When Jesus
speak about the reward for the believer, the time of reward is always the time of second
coming, which also infer that the judgment of the believers is done before the second
coming.2 The writings of Paul support the same concept that evaluation is done before the
second coming (1 Cor 4: 5; Rom 2: 5; 2: 7-8; 2 Thess 1: 8-9).
The book of Revelation, the 14th chapter in particular, contain a clear link with
Dan 8: 14, where one can find two kinds of judgment in a sequential order: 1) The
1
See page 101-3 in this paper.
2
117
investigative judgment in a form of three angel’s message (Rev 14: 6-12) followed with
2) the executive judgment in a form of harvest where the wicked are symbolized with the
harvest of grape vines and the people of God as the harvest of grains. Therefore, the
concept of investigative judgment is clearly portrayed in the Bible. In addition, the pre-
advent investigative judgment is biblically evidential with the time of the judgment, the
nature, and the sequences.
Summary on Christ’s Ascension and His Ministry in Heaven
This section intended to provide an evidence for Christ’s ascension and His
ministry on heaven. The NT plainly narrate that Jesus was taken up in heaven (Luke 24:
50-51; Acts 1: 7, 8) and sat at the right hand of God (Ephe 1: 20; 2: 6; Col 2: 12; 3: 1;
Heb 1:1-4; 8: 1; 10: 12; 12: 2). However, the expression “sitting at the right hand of God”
needs intertextual studies to find the true meaning of it. This expression occurs about 20
times in the NT.1 The passage is quoted from Psalm 110, where the messianic prophecy
was mentioned. According to the context of Psalm 110, sitting at the right hand shows
place or position of honour, kingship, and rulership. Jesus fulfilled it when He ascended
to heaven, apostle Peter acknowledged this kingship of Jesus (Acts 2: 32-36). However,
His kingdom is not of this world, He reign from the throne of grace in heaven, and the
requirement for the entry is repentance and forgiveness (John 13: 36; Acts 5: 31).
When Jesus ascended to heaven, he was not merely inaugurated as a king but also
a priest ( 1 John 1: 2; Heb 2: 17-18), and his priestly ministry is to intercede and mediate
between the triune God and the creatures. Regarding intercession of Christ there are two
1
118
kind: one is revelatory and the other is redemptive, the revelatory ministry deals with
Jesus representing the character of the Father to human beings such as love, mercy, and
grace (Heb 1: 1,2). The redemptive ministry deals with representing the humanity before
the triune God because He is also a human being (John 1: 14) and understand the
experience of humanity in all point (Matt 4: 1-11; John 1: 14; Rom 8: 3; Phil 2: 5-11; 1
John 4: 2-3) and suffers like us (Heb 4: 15-16). Thus, it shows the function of Christ’s
intercessory ministry as to unite God and the fallen creatures.
119
CHAPTER 4
THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF CHRIST’S ENTRANCE INTO THE

SANCTUARY IN THE EPISTLE OF HEBREWS
This chapter attempts to find the true meaning of what the text says in Hebrew
6:19 and Hebrew 9: 12, which deals with the entrance of Christ in the inner veil and in
the τὰ ἅγια with His own blood. It begins with the investigation of the context of the
epistle to the Hebrews, which covers the historical background, literary genre, and theme
of Hebrews’ epistle. The analysis of Hebrew 6: 19 will follow, with a focus on the
meaning of the “Veil,” the section is concluded with the theological meaning of Hebrew
6:19. The next sections follows the analysis of Hebrew 9: 12, in which, the context of
Hebrew 8-10 is summarily studied. This is followed by an introduction on Inauguration
theology, which in turn will analyze whether Christ entrance into the sanctuary in
Hebrew 9 points to His inauguration in heaven or the antitypical Day of Atonement.
Accordingly, the intertextual studies on the words, “blood of goats, calves, and bulls” in
Hebrew 9:12,13 follows, which concludes the meaning of the texts analyzed.
Contexts of the Epistle to the Hebrews
Though the main focus of the study is solely on two texts mentioned above.
Knowing the intent of the author and the condition of the recipients is important, which is
a help for the analysis of the chapters. Thus, the section provides the back up for the
future digging work on the texts. The section divided into three parts: historical setting,
literary structure, and theme of the epistle of Hebrews.
120
Historical Setting of the Epistle to the Hebrews
One can presuppose the recipient of this epistle in three ways: First, since the
word “Hebrews” itself implies the Hebrews, it can be referring to the Jewish Christian.
Second, it may refer to the Jewish in a spiritual sense, as a new Israel in a spiritualizing
manner (1 Peter 1: 1; 2: 4-9; cf. Gal 3: 29). Third, William Johnson points out the
suggestion of C. Spicq who refers the epistle in a metaphorical sense, with the analogy of
Deuteronomy 26: 5, which define that “to the Hebrews” would mean, “to the
wanderers.”1 Thus, according to the references of the OT “priesthood and cultus” in the
epistle to the Hebrews, it is possible that the author is referring to the Jewish Christian.
However, the author argue from the OT Pentateuch sanctuary system and not from the
sanctuary service on his day.2 Besides the book refers Jesus as “Lord” which implies
there are not merely Jews but Jewish Christian (Heb 2:3).
The external evidences implies that the Jewish Christian were confused on
whether they will be detached from the rituals of the temple or not, because they practice
this cultic act their whole lives. It seems that they did not recognized the fulfillment of
the antitype concerning the sanctuary when Christ died and become a high priest for
them in heaven ( Matt 27: 50-51). The council of Jerusalem in A. D 49 clearly stated
that there is no Jew or gentiles pertaining to salvation (Acts 15: 7-11), the council made a
policy for the gentiles Christian and did not made a requirement for the practice of
1
William G. Johnsson, “Hebrews: An Overview,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, vol. 4, Daniel
and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989), 15. See also C Spicq,
L’Epitre Aux Hebreux, vol. 1 (Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, J Gabalda, 1952), 269–80.
2
Ibid., 16.
121
worship in the temple (Acts 15: 13-21,28,29). However, the Jewish Christian were not
given any instruction concerning their ritualistic worship in the temple (Rom 14: 5-6).1
The internal evidence also shows that the Jewish Christian were weary on their faith, as a
result, they have less confidence on the returning of their Lord. Thus, there is a danger for
them to turn back to Judaism.2 Apparently, in this condition, the author attempt to
explain that there is a hope, and concerning the sanctuary, the antitype has come.
Structure of the Epistle
According to Johnson, there are at least four points that can be drawn out
concerning the structure of the epistle. First, in the epistle Hebrew, the High Priestly
Christology is dominant. One may find few hints on Jesus as a high priest in the NT (for
example, Romans 8: 34; 1 John 2: 2; Rev 1, 4 and 5), however, the entire argument of the
epistle centered on the priesthood of Christ.3 Second, is the cultic terminology, the epistle
comprises of the terminology such as “tabernacles, sacrifices, priests, blood, and
ablutions.”4 Thus, the theological argument of the epistle is majorly based on this cultic
terminology. Third, Johnson pointed out that the author of Hebrews is systematic in
preparing the epistle, which means the author wrote the epistle with a wise intent, of
changing a system. Fourth, as reading the epistle, the climax of the argument is fully
expressed from Hebrew 7: 1-10:18. For instance, the Levitical priesthood is completely
1
“Daniel and Revelation Committee Report,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, vol. 4, Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989), 1.
2
Ibid., 2.
3
Ibid., 21.
4
Ibid., 22.
122
fulfilled in Christ and He became a better priest. Chapter 8 points out that the author has
come to the main point of the argument, that Christ is a better high priest in the better
sanctuary in heaven, with a better covenant. Another significance of the epistle to the
Hebrews is the author’s dependence on the LXX version to quote the Old testament.
Thus, the author seems to read the OT in Greek.1 William lane stated on this matter, “A
virtual consensus has been reached that the writer read his Bible in Greek.”2 Thus, one
must borrow the eye of the author when reading the text in the epistle to the Hebrews.
Homiletical Nature of Epistle
Analyzing the structure of epistle, Steve Stanley suggested that the literary genre
is homily in nature.3 On the other hand, Manson argue that the epistle is not a sermon due
to its epistolary ending.4 Davis also concluded that the epistle is best considered as a
letter because it meets the needs of the recipients.5 However, a major number of scholars
finds that the epistle of Hebrews is homily in nature.6 The evidence for the argument of
1
Paul Ellingworth comment on the subject saying, “There is very general agreement that the
author drew is quotations, not directly from a Hebrew text, but from the LXX….There is no compelling
evidence that the author had access to any Hebrew text,” see Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews:
A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC) (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 37.
2
William L. Lane, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, Hebrews 1 - 8, vol. 47A, Word
Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1991), cxviii.
3
Steve Stanley, “The Structure of Hebrews From Three Perspectives,” Tyndale Bulletin 45, no. 2
(1994): 247.
4
W. Manson, The Epistle of Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration (London,
UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951), 3..
5
J. H Davies, A Letter to Hebrews (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 2.
6
For Instance, R. Mc. L. Wilson, Hebrews, The New Century Bible Commentary (Basingstoke,
UK: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1987), 16–17; H .W Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia
Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1989), 13; F. F Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrew, New
International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 25–26.
123
homiletical nature of the epistle is the phrase in 13: 22, where the author considered his
epistle aa a “word of exhortation” (ὁ λόγος τῆς παρακλήσεως), there is only one usage of
the same phrase in the NT, which is Acts 13: 15, where the passage explicitly portrayed
the speech or sermon in the synagogue.1 Hartwig Thyen also suggested that the epistle of
Hebrews is written in a genre of Jewish-Hellenistic homily, the homiletical pattern he
discover is the frequent change of “we” to “you” and to “I,” he added that the style of
introducing the OT witnesses as the evidences is homiletical.2 David Aune also observed
that Hebrew 11: 32 is an evidence for its homily, which says, “And what more shall I say,
for time will fail me if I tell of..(NASB)”3 Thus, it seems reasonable to consider that the
epistle to the Hebrews is written in a form of homily, which is written to be read out loud
before the congregation.4
The Theme of the Epistle
Another concern for the epistle to the Hebrews is the theological theme of the
epistle, Merland Ray Miller supply seven theological theme that is in the epistle such as
faith, perfection, promise, endurance, superiority, witness, and inheritance. He also
1
J Swetnam, “On the Literary Genre of the ‘Epistle’ to the Hebrews,” Novum Testamentum, no. 11
(1969): 261. See also David Allan Black, “The Problem of Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation
and a Proposal,” Grace Theological Journal (GTJ), no. 7 (1986): 167.
2
Hartwig Thyen, Der Still Der Judisch-Hellenistischen Homilie ( FRLANT, n. s 47; Göttingen,
1955), 10-23; 43-50; 62-72, quoted in Stanley, “Structure of Hebrews,” 249-250.
3
David Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster,
1987), 212-214.
4
J. L Bailey and L.D. Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament (London, UK: SPCK,
1992), 193.
124
pointed out that Hebrew 11: 1- 12: 2 contain the themes of the epistle in a compact form.1
However, Johnson provide a theme which is throughout the epistle, he said that the key
word is “better,” under which he provided the following examples: “better name (1: 4),
better hope (7:19), better covenant (7: 22), better promises (8:6), better sacrifices (9: 23),
a better country (11: 16), a better resurrection (11: 35), and a better blood (12: 24).”2
Thus, as one reads the epistle to the Hebrews, one can know the intent of the author who
attempts to provide a “better” things for the Jewish Christian rather than the rituals and
cultic practices which is the type that has met the antitype in Jesus.
Καταπετάσμα in Hebrew 6: 19
The NASB version of Hebrews 6: 19-20 reads, “This hope we have as an anchor
of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil (εἰς τὸ
ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος), where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having
become a high priest forever according to the priest of Melchizedek.” In 1987, George
Rice, in his article, concluded that the LXX word καταπετάσμα in Hebrews 6: 19 could
be referred to any of the three veils of the Israelites sanctuary, such as inner veil that
separate the holy and the Most holy place (Exod 26: 31, 33, 34, 35), outer veil at the
entrance of the holy place (Exod 26: 37; 37: 5), and the screen of the court (Exod 37:16).3
Merland Ray Miller, “Seven Theological Themes in Hebrews,” GTJ 8, no. 1 (1987): 131.
1
Johnsson, “Hebrews: An Overview,” 28.

2
George Rice, “Hebrews 6: 19: Analysis of Some Assumptions Concerning Katapetasma” AUSS
3
25 (1987): 65-71. The idea of καταπετάσμα as possibility to refer to inner and outer veil is well known. For
example, see Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 184; Bruce, Hebrews, 199; M. Dods, “The Epistle to the
Hebrew,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1956), 305. C. Schneider, “Καταπετάσμα,” TDNT, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 629. Early
Adventist scholars agreed the same; see William G. Johnsson, “Day of Atonement Allusion,” in Issues in
the Book of Hebrews, vol. 4, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald, 1989), 105–20; P. Gerard Damsteegt, “Among Sabbatarian Adventists, 1845-1850,” in Doctrine of
125
After supplying the variety of meanings, Rice asserted that one should not rely on the
general views especially on their conclusions and assumptions on Heb 6: 19 as the second
veil.1 Accordingly, he interpret the passages as a metaphor of Jesus entering into the
heavenly sanctuary as a whole.2 However, in 2000, Roy Gane, re-study the passage and
brought a new conclusion in the light of exegetical studies,3 in which, Norman Young, a
NT Adventist scholar expanded the study in 2001, to affirm that Katapetasma refers to
the inner veil.4
The Sanctuary: A Historical Survey, vol. 5, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD:
Review and Herald, 1989), 17–54.
1
For the scholars who concluded that the inner veil in Hebrews 6: 19 is the most holy place, see
Attridge, Hebrews, 184; Bruce, 155, 250-251; B. F Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrew: The Greek Text
with Notes and Essays, 2th ed. (London, UK: Macmillan, 1892), 163; G. W Buchanan, To the Hebrews:
Translation, Comment and Conclusions, Anchor Bible 36 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972), 116; Otto
Michel, Der Brief an Die Hebraer, 12th ed. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 253–54; H.
Braun, An Die Hebraer, Handbuch Zum Neuen Testament 14 (Tubingen: J. C. B Mohr, 1984); P. Gordon
and W. Horbury, “Better Promises: Two Passages in Hebrews against the Background of the Old
Testament Cultus,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 48 (Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1991); Ellingworth, Hebrews,
347; Simon J Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
(Welwyn, Herts: Evang. Pr., 1984), 176; Donald Alfred Hagner, Hebrews, New International Biblical
Commentary 14 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 98–99; Lane, Hebrew 1-8, WBC 47a, 154;
Thomas G Long, Hebrews (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 78-80; Beverly Roberts
Gaventa and David L. Petersen, eds., The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010), 12:
81-82.
2
Rice, “Hebrew 6: 19,” 70-71; George E. Rice, “Within Which Veil?,” Ministry, June 1987, 20–
21; For the scholars who have the same idea about the metaphorical notion of the inner veil in Heb 6: 19 as
a figurative for heavens as a whole. See Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament.
(Charleston, SC: Nabu Press, 2010), 453; Long, Hebrews, 78-79; Kistemaker, Exposition, 176; Walter
Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), rev.
and edited by Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed., trans. and augmented by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur
Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 416.
3
Roy E. Gane, “Re-Opening Katapetasma ‘(Veil)’ in Hebrew 6: 19,” AUSS 38 (2000): 5–8.
4
Norman H. Young, “‘Where Jesus has Gone as a Forerunner on our Behalf,’ (Hebrews 6: 19),”
AUSS 39/2 (2001): 165-173.
126
Survey on the Exegetical note of “Within the Veil” in Hebrews 6:19
The phrase ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος, “within the veil” occurs four times
(Exod 26:33; Lev 16: 2, 12, 15) in the LXX, and for each occurrence, the meaning is the
same.1 Gane observes that each occurrences of the Greek phrase ἐσώτερον τοῦ
καταπετάσματος renders the Hebrew phrase ‫ ִמ ֵּ֣בית ַלפ ָֹּ֔רכֶת‬which refers to the inner veil of
the sanctuary. He sees that the LXX word καταπετάσμα can points to various veils,
however, the rendered word ‫ פ ָֹּ֔רכֶת‬clearly refers to the inner veil.2 One exception that
Gane observes was the usage of ‫ מָּ סָּ ך‬translated as a screen or veil at the entrance of the
tabernacle (Exod 26: 37-38; 38: 18),3 The word ‫ ָּפ ֹ֥רכֶת‬in relation to the word ‫מָּ ָּ ָֽסך‬
specifically served as the screen that separate the most holy place and the holy place. For
example, the Masoretic Text (MT) provided that the phrase ‫ ָּפ ֹ֥רכֶת הַ מָּ ָּ ָֽסך‬refers to the inner
veil (Exod 35: 12; 39: 34; 40: 21; Num 4: 5), thus, according to Gane, ‫ פ ָֹּ֥רכֶת‬almost
always refers to the inner veil within the category of ‫ מָּ ָּ ָֽסך‬which is in accordance with the
etymology of the Sumerian word bara, that is a loan-word from Akkadian word parakku,
which means “cultic base/ pedestal, high seat; shrine/ apartment (of deity).”4
1
Gane, “Katapetasma,” 6; Ballenger, Cast out, 28.
2
Gane, “Katapetasma,” 6.
3
Ballenger and Bruce notice these differences in terminology, see Ballenger, Cast Out, 20-27; and
Bruce, Hebrews, 199.
4
Roy E. Gane and J. Milgrom, “‫פ ָֹּ֥רכֶת‬,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G.
Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, trans. Douglas W. Stott, vol. 12 (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 95–97. The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University
of Pennsylvania, ed. Sjoberg (Philadephia, PA: Babylonian Section of the University Museum, 1984), 2:
134-143.
127
Gane also provided that there are various spatial terminology concerning the veil,
in which, one can clearly make the differences of the terms. For example, for the location
of the ark of covenant, the Hebrews phrase uses ‫“ ִמבֵּ֣ית ַלפ ָֹּ֔רכֶת‬within the veil,” in which,
LXX translated as ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος (Exod 26: 33), whereas, for the
location of the lampstand and the table, the MT rendered ‫ ִמ ֵּ֣חּוץ ַלפ ָֹּ֔רכֶת‬which means
“outside the veil,” and the LXX translated as ἔξωθεν τοῦ καταπετάσματος (Exod 26: 35;
27: 21), another usage of spatial term is ‫ לִ פְ נֵּ֣י הַ פ ָֹּ֔רכֶת‬which means “before the veil,” and
the LXX put as ἀπέναντι τοῦ καταπετάσματος (Exod 30:6).1 Thus, Gane concluded that
the phrase ‫( בֵּ֣ית ַלפ ָֹּ֔רכֶת‬LXX, ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος) rendered only for the inner
veil in contrast to the other spatial term such as “outside the veil” and “before the veil.”2
Grammatical Significance of τὸ ἐσώτερον
Rice in his article, “Hebrews 6: 19: Analysis of Some Assumptions Concerning
Katapetasma,” he asserted that ἐσώτερον is merely a positive adjectival degree, which
means that it must be simply translated as “within” that indicate the outer veil of the
sanctuary implicitly. However, Young argued with this conclusion by supplying that
ἐσώτερον is a comparative adjective, and if it has to be translated as a positive adjective,
it word must only renders ἐσώ.3 Thus, Comparing the usage of ἐσώτερον in the other
1
Gane and Milgrom, TDOT, 96.
2
Gane, “Katapetasma,” 8. Young also affirmed that the word ‫ פ ָֹּ֔רכֶת‬rendered for the phrase “inner
veil” in MT for twenty-five times ((Exod 2631,33 (Thrice), 35; 27:21; 30:6; 35:12; 3635; 3827; 39:34;
40:3,21,22,26; Lev 4:6,17; 16:2,12,15; 2l:33; 24-3; Num 4:5; 187; 2 Chr 3:14), in which, twenty two of
these passages rendered καταπετάσμα in LXX. See Young, “Our Behalf,” AUSS 39/2 (2001): 167.
Young, “Our Behalf,” 168; For Rice, see George E. Rice, “Hebrews 6: 19: Analysis of Some
3
Assumptions Concerning Katapetasma,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, vol. 4, Daniel and Revelation
Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989), 232–33.
128
texts, it is impossible to restrict the translation of ἐσώτερον to a positive adjectival
degree.1 The NRSV seems to translate Acts 16: 24 in the right manner, its reads,
“Following these instructions, he put them in the innermost cell and fastened their feet in
the stocks,” in which, LXX rendered τὴν ἐσωτέραν φυλακὴν. Young also pointed out that
the Hellenistic Greek would usually consider the comparative adjective with an article as
a superlative degree, for instance, as in the case for Hebrews 6: 19.2 One must also note
that the phrase ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος occurs for only five times in the Greek
Bible, one in the NT (Hebrews 6: 19) and four in the LXX (Exod 26: 33; Lev 16: 2, 12,
15). According all the four occurrences in the LXX refers to the most holy place.
Therefore, the meaning of “within the veil’ in Hebrews 6: 19 unequivocally denotes the
veil separating the most holy and the holy place.
In the light of this conclusion, Young strongly suggested that the context of
Hebrews 6: 19 is the Day of Atonement setting, he pointed out that there is only one
place in the OT that described the high priest going into the veil (Lev 16), and it is all
related to the Day of Atonement, he disregard Exodus 26: 33 because it dealt with the
command of God to Moses to set up the Tabernacle, which, according to him, is not a
1
For Example, in 1 Samuel 24: 4, David and his men sit in the innermost part of the cave
(ἐσώτερον τοῦ σπηλαίου), 2 Chronicles 4: 22 uses the word as to describe the inner door of the most holy
place (ἡ θύρα τοῦ οἴκου ἡ ἐσωτέρα εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων), likewise the word ἐσώτερον is almost always
employed as the inner part of the court (Esth 4: 11; Ezek 44: 27; 45: 19; 46: 1; 1 Macc 9: 54; 2 Chro 23:
20). See Horn, SABD, s. v. “temple,” 1098.
2
Young, “Our Behalf,” 169; For the grammar, see Archibald T Robertson, A Grammar of the
Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919),
667-668; Friedrich Wilhelm Blass, Albert Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, trans. and revised by and Robert W Funk (Chicago; London: University of
Chicago Press, 1961), 32-33.
129
“cultic service.”1 Another argument he brought out for the case of supplying the evidence
for the Day of Atonement setting in Hebrews 6: 19 is the aorist tense employed in the
passage. For example, “having become an high priest” ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος has an aorist
tense which denotes something happened only once in the past. it is similar in the case for
the phrase, “Jesus entered,” (εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς), thus, Young argue that the event of Jesus
in his entering within the veil is not repetitive.2 In 1981, Rice wrote a scholarly article
presenting that the chiastic parallel of Hebrews 6: 19-20 and 10: 19-20 shows that the veil
referred in Hebrews 6: 19 must be similar with the veil in Hebrews 10: 20.3 Thus, he
concluded that the veil could also refers to outer veil as the language preference in
Hebrews 10: 20 implies. However, Young rejected this conclusion by pointing to the
context of Hebrews 10: 20 asserting that the background is the Day of Atonement settings
which is solely relative with Aaronic priesthood and the entrance to the inner veil. In
addition, he provided that any first century Jew would support his argument concerning
the usage of Day of Atonement as the background of Hebrews 6:19.4 Due to Young’ s
conclusion on Hebrews 6:19 as the accomplishment of Day of Atonement, Richard M.
Davidson provided a sound interpretation regarding this subject.
1
Young, “On Our Behalf,” 171.
2
Ibid.
3
Young, “On Our Behalf,” 172; For the reference to Chiastic parallel of Hebrews 6: 19 and 10: 20,
see George E. Rice, “The Chiastic Structure of the Central Section of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Andrews
University Seminary Studies 19, no. 3 (1981): 243–46.
4
For the articles by Young on attempting to provide evidence that the Day of Atonement as the
background of Hebrews 6: 19, see Norman H. Young, “Tout Estin Sarkos Autou,’ Heb X. 20: Apposition,
Dependent and Explicative?,” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 100–104; Norman H. Young, “The
Gospel According to Hebrew 9,” NTS 27 (1981): 198–210.
130
Hebrews 6: 19 in the Context of OT Typology
Davidson points out that Hebrews 6: 19 uses the OT references, as in the case for
“the coming priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalms 110: 4) and not after the order
of Aaronic priesthood.”1 Moreover, he finds that Number 18: 7 has a similar usage of the
phrase “within the veil” with Hebrews 6:19, 20, subsequently, he disclosed that Number
18:7 may not merely refers to the second veil, because the passage described about Aaron
and his sons entering within the veil. As a result, the phrase “within the veil,” in Number
18: 7 may indicate both the veils at the first entrance and the second. Thus, remain
ambiguous to Davidson because only Aaron can enter to the inner veil and not his sons.2
The Order of Melchizedek as the Background of Hebrews 6: 19
Davidson provided that Melchizedek is a king-priest which can encompass both
the OT character, Moses the ruler, and Aaron the priest. Accordingly, Jesus as the
antitypical priest according to the order of Melchizedek required to fulfills the roles of
Moses and Aaron together. Accordingly, the author of Hebrew draws a parallel between
the faithfulness of Moses and Jesus in the house of God (Heb 3: 1-6), which is expounded
again in Hebrews 10: 20 where the “High priest over the house of God” is the subject
dealt. Hebrew 9 also had the same motif where Moses was compared to Jesus in terms of
Priesthood (Heb 9: 16-24). Thus, as Jesus is the priest “according to order of
Melchizedek” in Hebrew 6: 19, one cannot merely apply to Aaronic priest.3
1
Davidson, “Within the Veil,”176.
2
Ibid., 175.
3
Ibid., 177.
131
Consequently, the Day of Atonement with its Aaronic priesthood cannot be the favorable
background of Hebrews 6:19.
Davidson supplied another possible background apart from the Day of Atonement
motif in Lev 16 which Young had strongly introduced,1 Davidson expose the only
occurrence in the OT where one enters to the most holy place apart from the day of
Atonement, that is, when Moses inaugurated the sanctuary. Moses did the priestly work
of anointing before Aaron was a priest (Exod 40: 1-9 ; Lev 8: 10-12; Num 7: 1). Hence,
one can conclude that Moses did the king-priest ministry at this time of inauguration
which is analogous to the dedication of the sanctuary during the reign of Solomon (2
Chro 6: 12-43; 7: 5). Subsequently, Exodus 26: 33 also provide an event when the ark
was brought to the most holy place “within the veil,” in which, the inauguration was
carried out. In explaining the aorist participle of Hebrews 6: 19, Davidson plainly stated
that the aorist participle would indicate that Jesus inaugurate the sanctuary once in the
past and became a high priest (once).2
The Chiastic Parallels as Medium of Interpretation
The presence of chiastic parallels in Hebrews 6: 19-20 and Hebrews 10: 19-20
was early identified by Albert Vanhoye.3 William Shea also identified these parallels in
1
Young, “On our Behalf,” 171-172.
2
Davidson, “Within the Veil,” 177.
3
Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Subsidia Biblical 12
(Rome, IT: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989), 40a-40-b. See also, Albert Vanhoye, La Structure
Litterairedel’ Epitre Aux Hebreux, 2nd ed. (Bruges, BE: De Brouwer, 1976), 228–29.
132
the epistle and produced a more detailed chiastic structure.1 Subsequently, Davidson
expanded the work of William Shea with a minor change in the Chiasm as illustrated
down below:
Chiastic Structure of Hebrews 6: 19-20 to 10:19-20
A. The Veil – 6: 19-20

B. The Priesthood – 7: 1-25
C. The Sacrifice – 7:26-28
D. The Sanctuary – 8: 1-5
E. The Covenant – 8: 6-13
F. The Sanctuary – 9: 1-10
F′. The Sanctuary – 9: 11-14
E′. The Covenant – 9: 15-22
D′. The Sanctuary – 9: 23-28
C′. The Sacrifice – 10: 1-10
B′. The Priesthood – 10: 11-18
A′. The Veil – 10: 19-202
Concerning the members, A and A′ above, one may notice that they constitute the
two parallels regarding the “veil” (6: 19-20 and 10: 19-20). Davidson pointed out the
conclusion of Vanhoye in analyzing these passages regarding “the veil”, because
Vanhoye suggested that A′ is the reiteration of the same point into more explicit
exposition.3 Utilizing the argument of Vanhoye, Davidson disclosed that the parallels is
not merely applied to “the veil” but also to the overall background of the event. Thus, just
as LXX is significant for the interpretation of Hebrews 6: 19, he maintain that the same
1
William Shea, “Literary and Architectural Structures in the Sanctuary Section of Hebrews (6: 19-
20 to 10: 19-20),” (unpublished Paper), n.d., 2.
2
3
Ibid; Vanhoye, La Structure, 228-229; See also George Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A
Text Linguistic Analysis, Supplement to Novum Testamentum 73 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 99–100.
133
equity concerning the usage of LXX as a background must also be applied to Hebrews
10: 19-20.1 Accordingly, he asserted that Hebrews 6: 19 in itself does not provide a clear
understanding on the meaning of the passage, thus, suggested that Hebrews 10: 19-20 is
the key to interpret Hebrews 6: 19-20.2
Grammatical Significance of ἐνεκαίνισεν
The NASB version reads, “by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us
through the veil, that is, His flesh (Heb. 10:20), the term “inaugurated” in the passage is
ἐνεκαίνισεν as the LXX rendered, which means “to bring about the beginning of
something, with implication that it is newly established, to ratify, inaugurate, dedicate”3
LXX mostly used the nominal derivatives as a cultic term for the inauguration of the
temple.4 In LXX, the Pentateuch has only four occurrence of the root word which deals
with the sanctuary cultus, all these words are from Number 7, and all of them are in the
context of inauguration of the sanctuary. The noun ἐγκαινισμὸν is found in Number 7:
10, 11, 84; and the other noun ἐγκαίνωσις occurs in Number 7: 88. Davidson points out
that all this inauguration is done in the context of Number 7: 1, which describe about
Moses as the one who inaugurate the sanctuary.5 There are some scholars who agreed

1
2
Ibid.
Bauer, BDAG, s. v. “enkainizo,” 272.

3
4
For example, 1 Kings 8: 63 and 2 Chro 7: 5 described about the dedication of Solomon’s temple,
in which the verb ἐνεκαίνισεν is employed, 2 Chro 15: 8 also dealt with the rededication of the temple after
they had defiled. This passage uses the same verb. In Ezra 6: 16, 17, the noun form ἐγκαίνια is employed
when there was a rededication of the temple in the postexilic period.

5
134
with this conclusion.1 Thus, Davidson suggested that the author had intentionally used the
cultic term of inauguration instead of using the common Greek term “open.” In addition,
the translation of ἐνεκαίνισεν as “Inaugurated” is compatible with the only other
occurrence of the word that is found in Hebrews 9: 18, which unequivocally denotes the
cultic meaning of “inauguration/dedication.”2 In regard to the entering motif in Hebrews
6: 19, 20 and 10: 19, 20; the literary parallels can be noticed as illustrated in the Table
Table 1. Literary Parallels in Hebrews 6: 19-20 and 10: 19-20
6: 19-20 10: 19-20
This hope we have as an anchor of the Since therefore, brethren, we have

soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and confidence to enter the holy place by the
one which enters within the veil, where blood of Jesus, by a new and living way
Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, which He inaugurated for us through the
having become a high priest forever veil, that is, His flesh.
according to the order of Melchizedek.
Vs. 19, εἰσερχομένην ( go in, enter), Vs. 19, εἴσοδον (entrance, access), non-
present participle of εἰσέρχομαι temporal noun of εἴσοδος
Vs. 20, εἰσῆλθεν (go in, enter), aorist Vs 20, ἐνεκαίνισεν (to inaugurated)
form of εἰσέρχομαι aorist form of ἐγκαινίζω
1
For Example, Erich Grasser, An Die Hebraer, Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar Zum Neuen
Testament (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997), 14–15; and Ellingworth, Hebrews, 518; N. A Dahl,
“A New and Living Way: The Approach to God According to Hebrews 10: 19-25,” Int, 1951, 401–92.
2
Davidson, “Within the Veil,” 180; see also, Dahl, “Living Way,” 405.
135
In the table above, Hebrews 6: 19 used the common root word for “entering,”
εἰσέρχομαι,1 and Hebrews 10: 19 employed εἴσοδος which is more of the nature of
entrance, it means, “acceptance, entrance, access,”2 both verses in Hebrews 6:19 and 10:
19 describe about the access that is bestowed upon humanity. Subsequently, Hebrews 6:
20 employed the aorist form of εἰσέρχομαι, which is a common usage word of “enter”
again, however, the aorist tense indicate its completeness and unrepetitive nature,
accordingly, Hebrews 10: 20 deals on the nature of entrance again, using the aorist form
of ἐγκαινίζω, which means “to bring about the beginning of something, with an
implication that it is newly established, ratify, inaugurate,”3 both verses in Hebrews 6: 20
and 10: 20 elaborates on the nature of Christ entrance to the heavenly sanctuary for
inauguration, in a specific point of time (as aorist form of the word would indicate).
Therefore, the whole parallels informs that believers have an on-going access to the
heavenly sanctuary because Christ had entered and open an access for humanity.
Theological Implications of Hebrews 6: 19, 20
Since Hebrews 6: 19,20 is not adequate in itself to give out the meaning of the
passage, the cultic parallel in Hebrews 10: 19, 20 can help elaborate the theology of the
author. Accordingly, if one notice, the context of Hebrews 10: 19-20 primarily points to
inauguration of the new covenant. For instance, Hebrews 10: 1-10 describes about the
establishment of the new system through the sacrificial body of Christ and the
abolishment of the earthly sacrificial system (vs 9, 10), the passage continued with Jesus
1
Bauer, BDAG, s. v. “εἰσέρχομαι”
2
Ibid., s.v. “εἴσοδος.”
3
Ibid., s.v. “ἐγκαινίζω.”
136
as being sitting at the right hand of God (the author is quoting Psalms 110) in vs 12, and
vs 16 describe the establishment of the new covenant (cf. Jer 31: 33, 34), followed by the
his dedication of the new covenant, “new living way,” in the sanctuary in vs 20 (cf.
Hebrews 9: 18). Davidson observes the background and give a chronological terminology
namely “sacrificial system, covenant, high priesthood, and sanctuary.”1 According to the
context, the inclination of the chapter is more on the inauguration of the sanctuary. Thus,
in the light of Hebrews 10: 19-20 as a context, Hebrews 6: 19-20 implies that Jesus
entered within the veil to inaugurate the sanctuary and open an access for the believers.
Jesus as the high priest, became the forerunner2 for humanity, thus inviting the believers
to boldly enters in the heavenly sanctuary through the merit of Christ.
Τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12
The NASB reads, “and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His
own blood, He entered the holy place (τὰ ἅγια) once for all, having obtained eternal
redemption (Heb 9:12). The word τὰ ἅγια in regard to Christ’s ascension plays an
important role in defining the geographical location and the nature of Christ entry to
heaven and the sanctuary in particular. Subsequently, it requires a careful study on the
intertextual usage of LXX and the NT on the phrase. A study on the context of the
1
2
Felix Cortez rightly points out that the word “forerunner” has the same function to the word
ἀρχηγὸν in Heb 2: 10, meaning “pioneer,” and ἀπόστολος in Heb 3: 1, meaning “one who is sent.” Thus,
according to him, Jesus is the forerunner as a pioneer from humanity who leads “many children to glory.”
See Cortex, “Letter to the Hebrews,” 301, n. 1.
137
chapter also provides the theological implication of the text. This section will attempt to
provide the true meaning of τὰ ἅγια.
Translation Variants of τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12
The word ἅγιος (root word of τὰ ἅγια) could denotes something dedicated to God,
holy, sacred in a cultic sense.1 The opposite word will be κοινός which means not
consecrated, common.2 The phrase τὰ ἅγια and its variants occurred only ten times in the
NT and all of them are in the epistle to the Hebrews.3 Moreover, the table below will
show about the variety in translation:
Table 2. Various Translation of τὰ ἅγια in the epistle to the Hebrews
τὰ ἅγια Different kinds of Bible Versions.
Holy place KJV ASV ERV
holy places YLT _ _
Sanctuary JUBT Goodspeed NEB
Holy of DBY Wuest’s Expanded PNT

holies translation of NT
Most Holy NIV NLT ISV
place
1
Bauer, BDAG, s. v. “ἅγιος,” Ἅγιος occurs 230 times and distributed all over the NT except from
Galatians, James and 2,3 John. It occurs 20 times in Luke, 53 times in Acts, 20 times in Romans, 18 in
Hebrews. See Robert Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol.
1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 16.
2
Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2000), 32.
3
Hebrews 8:2; 9: 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 24, 25; 10: 19; 13: 11. A.P Salom in his article clearly portraits that
different sort of translations had been done by different scholars. See A. P Salom, “Ta Hagia in the Epistle
to the Hebrews,” AUSS 5, no. 1 (1967): 59–70.
138
The table identifies that there is a vast area of variants in translation of the word
τὰ ἅγια into English. For instance, while Jubilee, Goodspeed and New English Bible
translate as “Sanctuary,” Darby, Wuest, and Phillips NT translate as “Holy of holies.”
The common usage of translation for today could be NIV, NLT, and ISV which rendered
the phrase, “Most Holy Place.”
Τὰ ἅγια in LXX and its Usage
The survey on the usage of τὰ ἅγια and their meanings in the LXX is a crucial
step to understand the concept of τὰ ἅγια because the author of Hebrews seems to
weightily rely on LXX as a primary source.1 Salom, in his survey on the usage of τὰ ἅγια
and its variants across the LXX, he found that 170 uses of the phrase and its variants are
related to the “Tabernacle or Temple,” out of which 142 refers to the sanctuary in
general. He noticed that τὰ ἅγια usually occurs randomly in a form of plural or singular,
in which, plural is about twice more frequent than singular. He also recognized that
singular form of the phrase is merely employed for specifying the outer and inner part of
the sanctuary as in the case of spatial term, he added that there are only four exceptions
1
For scholars who concluded that the author of Hebrews rely on the LXX as a primary source, see
Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 469-480; R. A Steward, “The Old Testament Usage in Philo,
Rabbinic Writings, and Hebrews” (M. Litt. Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1947); F. C Synge, Hebrews,
and The Scriptures (London, UK: SPCK, 1959); Kenneth J. Thomas, “The Old Testament Citations in
Hebrews,” New Testament Studies 11 (1965): 303–25; Kenneth J. Thomas, Use of the Septuagint in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Manchester, UK: University of Manchester, 1959); Susan E. Docherty, The Use of
the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (Tubingen, DE: Mohr
Siebeck, 2009); Markus Barth, “The Old Testament in Hebrews,” in Current Issues in NT Interpretation,
ed. W. Klassen and G. F Snyder (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 53; George Howard, “Hebrews and the
Old Testament Quotations,” NovT 10 (1968): 208–16; Gert J. Stein, A Quest For the Assumed LXX Vorlage
of the Explicit Quotations in Hebrews (Gottingen, DE: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011).
139
without a singular, and these exceptions are with article.1 Among the 98 expression that
denotes sanctuary as a general in the LXX, Salom pointed out that 36 of them had the
same Hebrews expression ‫ ִמקְ ָּ ָּ֑דׁש‬which has the expression of sanctuary in general. The
remaining 62 are translated from ‫ ָּ֑קדֶ ׁש‬which is similar to ἅγιος.2 Thus, most of the usage
suggested that the phrase and its variants are employed to define the sanctuary as a
whole. Salom organize a table which may be easier to understand, the table is illustrated
down below:
Table 3. The Use of τὰ ἅγια in the LXX
Sanctuary Outer Inner

Compartment Compartment
Total number of uses 142 19 9

Singular 45 13 8
Plural 97 6 1
Articular 138 19 9
Anarthrous 4 - -
Source: A. P Salom, “Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” AUSS 5/1 (1967): 59-70.
According to the table above, the expression of τὰ ἅγια as a sanctuary in general is
142 which outnumbered the other expressions such as 19 for the outer compartment and 9
for the inner compartment. Thus, τὰ ἅγια is highly expressed as a whole sanctuary in
LXX. Salom also points out that τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews, chapter 9 in particular, must be
connected with the seven uses of the phrase in Leviticus 16, because Hebrews 9 has an
allusion of the Day of Atonement setting. In relating this, he shows that Lev 16 uses
Salom, “Ta hagia,” 60; For discussion on the plural form of τὰ ἅγια, see F. Blass and A.
1
Debrunner, Greek Grammar of the NT, 78.

2
Salom, “Ta hagia,” 62.
140
singular form for the inner sanctuary, while the Hebrews expression uses plural form with
one exception. Thus, he argue that if the author borrow the words from Lev 16, the author
must surely employ singular form. He concluded that the author is influenced by “the
general tendency of the LXX,” which denotes τὰ ἅγια predominantly to the sanctuary as a
whole bipartite structure.1
Usage of ἅγιος and its Variants Outside the Bible
Surveying the usage of ἅγιος outside the Bible is another crucial step for
understanding the meaning of τὰ ἅγια, since τὰ ἅγια is the plural articular variants of
ἅγιος. Carl P. Cosaert had published an article on this subject, supplying an evidence that
τὰ ἅγια in the Jewish contemporary world refers to the sanctuary as a whole.2 Based on
Cosaert’s work, a quick survey on the usage of τὰ ἅγια in the OT Pseudepigraphy, the
works of Philo and Josephus will be done.
Usage of ἅγιος in the OT Pseudepigraphy
The survey on the usage of ἅγιος in the OT Pseudepigraphy is significant since it
is the Jewish Literature in the contemporary of LXX and covers between 200 BCE to 200
CE.3 Thus, it defines the perspective of the Jews in this duration of time. There are four
1
Ibid. Salom clearly supplied that there are specific terms used for the inner compartment of the
sanctuary in the LXX, for example, the phrase τῷ ἁγίῳ τῶν ἁγίων in Exodus 26: 34, is used only for the
inner sanctuary, out of which four of them are (plural/plural) and the remaining seven are (singular/plural).
For the biblical references see,1 Kgs 6: 16; 7: 36; 8: 6; I Chro 6: 49; 2 Chro 3: 8, 10; 4: 22; 5: 7; Ezek 41: 4;
Dan 9: 24; Lev 16: 33; Num 18: 10. Ibid., 63. This clearly shows that LXX uses different terms for inner
sanctuary.
2
Carl P. Cosaert, “The Use of ἅγιος for the Sanctuary in the Old Testament Pseudepigraphy, Philo
and Josephus,” AUSS 42/1 (2004): 91-103.
3
Ibid., 92.
141
books among the OT Pseudepigraphy where ἅγιος occurs 11 times in relation to the
sanctuary.1 A quick survey concerning the occurrence of ἅγιος and the variants will be
done on these books such as Sibylline Oracles, Testament of Levi and Testament of Asher,
and Psalms of Solomon.
ἅγιος and its Variants in Sibylline Oracles
In the book, Sibylline Oracles, there is only one reference of ἅγιος which refers to
the sanctuary in heaven. The story narrates that the Babylon will receive the judgement
from heaven.2 J. J Collins translated this as “the holy ones,”3 however, Cosaert argues
that the context is more likely implying on the heavenly sanctuary because the judgment
normally comes from the heavenly sanctuary.4
ἅγιος and Its Variants in The Testament of Levi and Asher
Another book in relation to the usage of ἅγιος in the OT Pseudepigraphy is The
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, this book is seems to be closer to the Jewish
community than LXX itself during the time it was composed.5 Among the twelve
patriarch, The Testament of Levi and The Testament of Asher contain the variants of
1
Sibylline Oracles 3: 308; Testament of Asher 7: 2; Testament of Levi 8: 17, 9:9, 11; 18: 2b, 18, 19,
53; Psalms of. Solomon 1:8; 2: 13; 8: 11.
2
Sib. Or. 3: 308.
3
J. J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles: A New Translation and Introductions,” in Old Testament
Pseudepigraphy, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 369.
Cosaert, “OT Pseudepigraphy,” 93. For the concept of judgment that comes from heavenly
4
sanctuary, he supply reference such as Isaiah 26: 21; Jeremiah 25: 30, 32: 20; and Psalms 20: 2, 19: 3;
which are taken from the LXX version.
5
H. C Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A New Translation and Introduction,” in OTP,
ed. J. H. Charlesworth, vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 777–78.
142
ἅγιος, it occurs four times with a plural form (T. Levi 18:2b, 18, 19, 53), once with a
singular form in Levi (T. Levi 8: 17) and occurs once in Asher (T. Ash 7: 2). The one with
the singular in Testament of Levi describe about the vision given to Levi concerning their
responsibilities for Hebrew cultus, it reads, “From among them will be high priests,
judges, and scribes, and by their word the (τὸ ἅγιον) sanctuary will be administered.” (T.
Levi 8: 17). Baruch Levine commented on this the passage saying that it is an allusion to
Number 3: 38 (LXX), in which, Moses and Aaron were given a responsibility of the
sanctuary (which is expressed as a sanctuary in general).1 The plural form expression is
found in T. Levi 9:9 and 11 where Isaac warned Levi to beware of fornication which will
defile the sanctuary (τὰ ἅγια) in the future. Isaac told Levi to marry a virgin and bathe
before entering the τὰ ἅγια. Thus, the plural form refers to the sanctuary in general.
ἅγιος and Its Variants in The Psalms of Solomon
The last book for this section that contain a variant of ἅγιος is The Psalms of
Solomon, the collection of 18 Psalms which the Jews composed in their response to the
Roman when Pompey capture Jerusalem in 63 BCE.2 The plural form of ἅγιος is
employed three times in regard to the sanctuary in this book (Pss. Sol 1: 8; 2:3: 8: 11).
Pss. Sol 1: 8 refers to the wickedness of Romans in profaning the τὰ ἅγια. Pss. Sol. 2: 3
also refers to God’s judgment to the “sons of Jerusalem” through the actions of the
Romans and Pompey in particular, because the people of God had desecrated the τὰ ἅγια.
1
Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 161.
2
R. B Wright, “Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction,” in Old Testament
Pseudepigraphy, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, vol. 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 639.
143
With the examples of references being given, τὰ ἅγια is most likely referred to the
sanctuary in general. Additionally, in T. Levi 3: 4, the author employed the phrase ἁγίῳ
ἁγίων which is used for the inner part of the sanctuary in the LXX (Exod 26: 34), which
implies that the author uses this phrase to describe the inner sanctuary.1
Usage of ἅγιος in the Works of Philo
Cosaert pointed out that Philo employed several terms for sanctuary such as ναὸς,
ἱερὸν, σκηνὴ, ἁγίασμα2, however, the survey will merely cover the usage of ἅγιος in a
plural and singular form. The singular form of ἅγιος has only two occurrences in Legum
Allegorige.3 However, though Philo quotes “the holy place” from Exodus 28: 30, he used
the verse to clarify his Allegorical explanation. Thus, it is not helpful for the evidence on
the usage of the ἅγιος. On the other hand, the plural usage has twelve occurrences,4 one
of them is Post 173, where Whitaker and Colson translated this way, “He (Moses), the
seventh from Abraham, does not, like those before him, haunt the outer court of the Holy
Place (τῶν ἁγίων) as one seeking initiation, but as a sacred Guide has his abode in the
sanctuary (ἐν τοῖς ἀδυτοῖς).” Philo expounded on the seventh seed of Abraham, Moses,
who did not need to relate God from the outer sanctuary but can actually talk to God in
the inner sanctuary. Cosaert recognized that Whitaker and Colson failed to make a
difference between τῶν ἁγίων and τοῖς ἀδυτοῖς. He asserted that Philo used the two terms
1
For more discussion on the inner sanctuary in T. Levi, see Kee, “Twelves Patriarchs,” 789.
2
Cosaert, “OT Pseudepigraphy,” 96.
3
Leg., 3: 119, 125.
4
Post. 173; Her. 226; Somn. 1. 207, 216; Migr. 104; Fug. 93; Mos. 2. 87, 114, 155; Spec. 1. 115,
296.
144
to refer to the outer sanctuary and the holy of holies respectively.1 Hence, τοῖς ἀδυτοῖς is
an unique usage to refer to the Holy of Holies.
Cosaert points out the remaining 11 occurrences speak of the sanctuary in general
with one exception in Her. 226, where Philo employed τοῖς ἁγίοις to the sanctuary
containing “the candlestick, table and the alter of incense,” which can imply to the outer
part of the sanctuary. However, the works of Josephus supply another possibility that it
refers to the entire sanctuary.2 In regard to the Holy of Holies, the noteworthy point is
that Philo used a specific terms such as ἀδυτοῖς3 and τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων4, in which the
later in particular, Philo used it to referred to the Holy of Holies in Lev 16: 17 LXX,
where LXX in Lev 16: 17 renders τῷ ἁγίῳ as to referred to the Most Holy place. This
shows that Philo use different terms for referring to the Holiest of Holy.5 Thus, the work
of Philo indicate that the plural from of ἅγιος most likely speak of the sanctuary as a
whole bipartite structure of the building.
Similar differentiation occurs in Mos. 2: 87. Cosaert, “OT Pseudepigraphy,” 97, n. 29.
1
2
Another possibility that Cosaert draws out was the work of Josephus which narrates that when
Pompey had taken the city of Jerusalem, Pompey reported that “the lampstand and the lamps, the table, the
libation cups and censers… and a great heaps of spices and the sacred money” was all he saw in the
sanctuary. Cosaert suggested that Josephus’ later description of the Holy of Holies can be related to the
report of Pompey, Josephus states, “Nothing at all was kept in it; it was unapproachable, inviolable, and
invisible to all, and was called the Holy of Holies,” Thus, according to Josephus, the only ritualistic
material that had been there may be “the candlestick, the table, and the alter of incense.” See ibid. For the
quote of Josephus and Pompey, see Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged,
trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008); J. W.1.152; 5. 219. Note that all the
translation of Josephus are taken from the translation of William Whiston. See also, Flavius Josephus, The
Jewish War, trans. G. A. Williamson, rev. ed, (Random House Tower, NY: Penguin, 1981), 491.
3
Legat. 306 and Somn. 1: 216.
4
Leg. 2: 56; Her. 84; Mut. 192; and Somn. 2: 189, 231.

5
145
Usage of ἅγιος in the Works of Josephus
Josephus is a very crucial person for identifying the usage of ἅγιος and its
variants, because he is the contemporary of the author of Hebrews and could contribute
on the terminology which the Jewish nation at that time as a community would use for
nomenclating the sanctuary, the Holy place, or the Most Holy place. Cosaert provided
that the first work of Josephus namely The Jewish War employed different variants of
ἅγιος forty times in the book which dealt with the sanctuary. However, the second work,
The Antiquities of the Jews, contain merely two occurrences, and the final works, such as
The Life and Against Apion surprisingly cease to use ἅγιος, but employed other terms for
a sanctuary such as ναὸς and ἱερὸν.1
Josephus uses a singular form of ἅγιος thirteen times2 in The Jewish War. Cosaert
asserted that though Josephus uses ἅγιος as to refer to the sanctuary in general, he also
use the term for describing the Most Holy place. As a result, Cosaert concluded that the
singular form is not likely employed for the Holy place.3 However, when Josephus
describe about the temple of Jerusalem, he make a distinction between the court of the
Gentiles and the inner court where Gentiles are not allowed to enter. In his narration, he
states, “For the second court of the temple (ἱερὸν) was called the sanctuary (ἅγιόν).4
Thus, Josephus used ἅγιόν to refer to the inner court, in which, one can assume that he
1
Ibid., 99.
2
J. W. 1. 26; 152; 4.150, 151, 159; 5.194, 195, 385, 394; 6.73, 95, 99, 260.

3
4
Bellum Judaicum 5. 184-247. See also, E Mary Smallwood, “Introduction, Notes, and
Appendixes to Josephus,” in The Jewish War, trans. G. A Williamson (Random House Tower, NY:
Penguin, 1981), 448.
146
may refer to the whole sanctuary precinct as compare to the Gentile’s court outside or it
is possible that he referred to the inner court only. Another reference is found in B.J 1.
152, where Josephus portrays about Pompey entrance to the Jewish sanctuary, saying,
“But there was nothing that affected the nation so much, in the calamities they were then
under, as that their holy place (τὸ ἅγιόν), which had been hitherto seen by none, should
be laid open to strangers.” Here, the usage of τὸ ἅγιόν may seems to be only the Most
holy place, but the later description narrates that what Pompey saw was “the candlestick,
with its lamp and the table.” Thus, while the singular form is also used for the Most Holy
place (Lev 16 LXX), the description of Josephus suggested that it can refer to the whole
sanctuary.1
Apparently, Josephus seems to use another terminology to differ the inner most
part of the sanctuary. In B.J 1.25-26, in his plan to explore the sanctuary for his work, he
make an outline for “the defense of the city and the plan of the sanctuary (τοῦ ἱερὸῦ) and
the Temple (τοῦ ναὸῦ); and the exact measurement of these and of the alter… and a
description of the Holy of Holies (τοῦ ναὸῦ τὸ ἅγιόν).”2 Translators like Whiston,
Williamson and Thackeray translated τοῦ ναὸῦ τὸ ἅγιόν as the Holy of Holies.3
Smallwood translated these words to make it simple, for instance, she suggested that ναὸς
is best translated as “central shrine” of the sanctuary and ἱερὸν as the “enclosure and
1
For more reference on the usage of the singular form which refers to the entire sanctuary, see B.J
5. 194-195; A. J. 3. 125; 12. 413.
2
B.J 1. 25-26;
3
Whiston, The Work of Josephus, 545; Williamson, The Jewish War, 30; and Josephus, B. J 1. 26
(Thackeray, LCL).
147
everything within.”1 Thus, one can assume the τοῦ ναὸῦ τὸ ἅγιόν refers to the Holy of
Holies since Josephus employed unique words together.2
ἅγιος in its plural form occurs for twenty-three times in the book, The Jewish
Wars, and all the passages refers to the sanctuary in general.3 For example, the Roman
leader Cestius sent Neopolitanus to assess the attitude of the Jews in Jerusalem, the story
provided that Neopolitanus was impressed by the positive spirit of the Jews, thus, “after
paying his devotions to the sanctuary (τὰ ἅγια) of God from the permit area, he returned
to Cestius.”4 The “permitted area” here refers to the court of the gentiles.5 Another
interesting unique term that Josephus employed for describing the Holy of Holies is ἁγίου
δὲ ἅγιόν, which is the only place in OT Pseudepigraphy, LXX, and even in the works of
Philo where δὲ (Conjunction) is between the word ἅγιος.6
Summary
According to the quick survey on the usage of ἅγιος in the OT Pseudepigraphy,
the works Philo and Josephus, it is apparent the plural form of ἅγιος is never employed to
refer to the Holy of Holies alone. In fact, the plural form of ἅγιος almost always points to
the reference of the sanctuary in general. Besides, the terminology for nomenclating the
Most Holy place seems to be different in most of the cases, for instance, Philo employed
Smallwood, “Appendixes to Josephus,” 409-410.

1

2
3
J.W. 2. 341, 401, 539; 4. 162, 171 (2), 173, 182, 183, 191, 201, 242, 323, 397; 5. 406, 412; 6.
104, 120, 124, 128, 165, 267, 346. See, Cosaert, “OT Pseudepigraphy,” 101, n. 44.
4
J. W. 2. 341.
Smallwood, “Appendixes to Josephus,” 432-433.

5
B. J 5. 219; see Cosaert, “OT Pseudepigraphy,” 102.

6
148
ἀδυτοῖς and τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων to refer to the Holy of Holies and Josephus use the phrase
such as τοῦ ναὸῦ τὸ ἅγιόν which is quiet unique compare to the typical variants of ἅγιος.
Therefore , it is evident that the plural form of ἅγιος and specifically the phrase τὰ ἅγια is
understood as the sanctuary as a whole during the first century. Cosaert provided a table
for the usage of ἅγιος in the OT Pseudepigraphy.
Table 4. The Usage of ἅγιος by Itself for the sanctuary in the OT Pseudepigraphy, Philo,
and Josephus.
Sanctuary in Holy Place Most Holy Place

General
Singular 14 2 2
Plural 44 0 0
Total no. of Uses 58 2 2
Source: Carl P. Cosaert, “The Use of ἅγιος For the Sanctuary in the Old Testament Pseudepigraphy, Philo
and Josephus,” AUSS 42/1 (2004): 103.
The above table clearly portrayed that the plural and singular usage of ἅγιος is
understood most likely as the whole sanctuary. Thus, one can assume that the Jewish
understanding τὰ ἅγια in the epistle to the Hebrews and Hebrews 9: 12 in particular, must
be the entire sanctuary.
The Word σκηνή as a Medium of Interpretation
To understand the meaning of τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12, it is essential to study the
usage of the word σκηνή in the context of chapter 9, this section supplies the appropriate
understanding of τὰ ἅγια according to the study on the usage of σκηνή in relation to in τὰ
ἅγια in the epistle to the Hebrews. Thus, the word σκηνή occurs in the NT for 20 times
149
and 10 times in the epistle to the Hebrews.1 In the LXX, it translates the word as shelter.
For example. from the cultural-historical perspective, Abraham’s faith was manifested by
his dwelling in tents (Heb 11:9). Σκηνή is also the sacrificial tent of the Levites and the
gentiles (Heb 13:10; Acts 7:43). The book of Revelation also described σκηνή as the
heavenly tabernacle (Rev 15:5).2 Thus, one can define σκηνή generally as tent or
tabernacle. Consequently, in order to understand the meaning of τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9:
12, one requires to understand the elaboration of σκηνή from the immediate context.
Firstly, it is clear that the author employed σκηνή as a whole part of the earthly
sanctuary and described the articles inside the bipartite sanctuary (Heb 9: 2).3 Moreover,
for the second compartment after the second veil ‘δεύτερον καταπέτασμα’ (deuteron
katapetasma), the author term it as a part of the tent (Heb 9: 3). Thus, it does not indicate
that the second compartment is the other tent (σκηνή), the author implied that the second
apartment is a part of the general σκηνή (Heb 9: 2-3).4 After these, it seems that the
Σκηνή occurs 4 times in the Gospel (Matt 17: 4; Mark 9: 5; Luke 9: 33; 16: 9), 6 times in Acts of
1
Apostles and Revelation (Acts 7: 43, 44; 15: 16; Rev 13: 6; 15: 5; 21: 3), and 10 times in the book of
Hebrews (Heb 8: 2, 5; 11: 9; 13: 10) , in which, most of it occurrences is in Hebrews 9 (Heb 9: 2, 3, 6, 8,
11, 21).
2
Balz and Schneider, EDNT, 3:251.
3
The author explained that the tabernacle (σκηνή) has two compartments, and the first section
contain the candlestick, the table and the shewbread, and the author called the first section as Ἅγια,
meaning the holy place as NASB rendered (Heb 9: 2), and the author identified the second compartment
located after the second veil, which he termed as ἅγια ἁγίων, meaning the Holy of Holiest as NASB
rendered (Heb 9:3).
Here the author introduced a σκηνή as a whole in Hebrews 9: 2.

4
150
author is not focusing on the detail of the sanctuary, the author “ends abruptly with a
declaration, ‘We cannot speak in detail now about these things.”1
Secondly, the author employed the word “Now”, which “marks the minor step of
the argument,”2 elaborating the function of the cultus in the earthly sanctuary, where two
services namely, daily, and yearly ministration of the priest and high priest are mentioned
respectively (Heb 9: 6, 7). The author continues to use the term σκηνή in vs. 6, but
adding the word πρώτην, meaning “first, outer, anterior,”3 which referred to the outer
part of the sanctuary. Accordingly, the passage in vs. 7 begins with the word δὲ, a
conjunction, which indicates that the verse “completes and develops the contrast (δὲ)
with vs. 6.”4 In vs. 7, the author did not employ σκηνή but the usage of δευτέραν
implicitly connotes the second tent. Thus, separates the priestly functions of the first and
the second part of the tent by using terms such as first tent and the second.
Thirdly, in proceeding to elaborate the argument of Hebrews 9: 6-7, the author
explained that the Holy Spirit indicate (as in a form of constituting a special insight
which is not “previously available to readers of the OT,”)5 that the way into τοῦ ἁγίου
(the holy place, NASB) was not revealed yet while the first tent is standing (Heb 9: 8).
The concern here is about the first tent, one can noticed from the earlier explanation that
1
Lane, Hebrews 9-13, WBC 47b, 220.
2
Paul Ellingworth and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews (New York:
United Bible Society, 1994), 183.
3
Bauer, BGAD, s. v. “πρῶτος.”
4
Ellingworth, Hebrews, 434.
5
Lane, Hebrews 9-13, WBC 47b, 223.
151
the author defined the first tent as in spatial term and clearly refers to the outer
compartment (Hebrews 9: 2, 6). However, here the author uses the first tent as a
metaphor of the “cultic ordinances” in the Israelites sanctuary, signifying that an access
to the heavenly true tent is possible only after the first tent is set aside (Hebrews 8:2,
9:11)1. The author clarifies in vs 9 that the description of the first tent in the earlier verse
is a symbol or parable for them in their time. Thus, the outer compartment metaphorically
“represents the sanctuary as a sphere of cultic activity, which constitute a barrier to the
presence of God.”2
Subsequently, Hebrews 9: 11 has now introduced Christ as the High Priest who
came with a more perfect σκηνή, reiterating the argument in Hebrews 8: 2, which
described about the true σκηνή in heaven. Thus, comparing vs 8 and 11, there are two
σκηνή, namely, the metaphorical “first tent” that is the barrier into the holy place, and the
true perfect tent where Jesus minister. In the light of the immediate contexts, the author
come to the climax that Jesus with his own blood entered into the τὰ ἅγια (Hebrews (9:
12), it is clear that the author points to the true and more perfect tent than the first tent
which has a limitation in its cultic activity. Thus, that true tent is τὰ ἅγια where Jesus
ministered as our High priest (Heb 8:2). Another mediate context that confirms the nature
of Jesus entrance to the true tent is Hebrews 9: 21, where Moses inaugurate the sanctuary
with the blood of animals. The author was paralleling the old covenant inaugurated by
1
Hebrews 9: 8 explained that the author employed a temporal particle ἔτι, meaning “while,” which
renders a temporal significance to the passage. Thus, the author uses the first tent as a metaphor to
represent the early sanctuary and its services. The first tent “showed the limitation of the Levitical system.”
See Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament., 4: 478.
2
Ibid.
152
Moses and Jesus in his inauguration of the new covenant in the heavenly sanctuary
(Hebrews 9: 19-20). Hence, Jesus went into the τὰ ἅγια to inaugurate the new covenant
with his own blood.
Intertextual Studies on τράγων and μόσχων
The NASB reads, “and not through the blood of goats (τράγων) and calves
(μόσχων), but through His own blood, He entered (εἰσῆλθεν) the holy place (τὰ ἅγια)
once for all, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb 9:12). Commentators had
recognised that the sacrificial animals mentioned in Hebrews 9: 12 such as “goats and
calves,” are the allusion of Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16, because these similar
animals are used for sacrifices on that day.1 However, though it seems that Hebrews 9: 12
has only the allusion of Lev 16, another background for Hebrews 9: 12 concerning “goats
and calves” is also possible. Thus, through intertextual analysis, it will provide the best
possible context of Hebrews 9: 12 in the LXX.
The word μόσχος is employed commonly for the Day of Atonement and the
inauguration day in relation to the cultic services.2 On the other hand, the word τράγος
has the occurrence of 13 times in the Pentateuch, and all of them are in Number 7, which
1
For discussion on Hebrews 9: 12 as a Day of Atonement allusion, see “goats…calves” [Hebrews
9: 12], Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997); Lane, Hebrews 9-13, WBC
47b, 238; J. J Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 120;
Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 260; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 452; Aelred Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary
and the Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews (St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960), 170–72; The SDA
commentary also give a cross reference to Lev 16 suggesting the Day of Atonement allusion, see “Blood of
goats and calves” [Hebrews 9: 12], SDABC, 7: 453.
2
For a references on the word μόσχος usage in the inauguration services, see Number 7 and 8 (7:
3, 15, 21, 27, 33, 39, 45, 51, 57, 63, 69, 75, 81, 87; 8: 8, 8, 12) which occurs 17 times in LXX, and for the
Day of Atonement, see Leviticus 16 (16: 3, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18, 27), which appears 7 times.
153
solely describe about the inauguration of the sanctuary and not the Day of Atonement.1
Subsequently, the term “goat” used in Leviticus 16 as in the context of Day of Atonement
is χιμάρους which occurs thirteen times2 and the Hebrew word rendered for χιμάρους
is ‫ שָּ ִ ִ֖עיר‬which has different noun. The word χιμάρους did not appear at all in the NT in
spite of its known usage as “goat” in the first century including in the works of Josephus
and Philo,3 and τράγος only appear in the Hebrews in the NT which imply that the author
of Hebrews intended to use the term in the context of inauguration of the sanctuary in the
LXX. Moreover, the only chapter where τράγος and μόσχος appears together with a
background of cultic service in the LXX OT is Number 7, which, in fact, is the chapter of
inauguration. Davidson rightly comment on this matter saying that “the author of
Hebrews intertextually links with the OT inauguration service and not the Day of
Atonement.”4
In addition, the only other place where μόσχος and τράγος appears in the same
phrase is Hebrews 9: 19, and the passage clearly describe about Moses and his
inauguration services which unambiguously suggest the best possible background for
Hebrews 9: 12, the mediate context of Hebrews 9: 12 also supports the context of
1
For reference of the word τράγος usage in Pentateuch, see Number 7 (7: 17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47,
53, 59, 65, 71, 77, 83, 88. There are other occurrence of τράγος outside the Pentateuch such as Jacob’s
animals (Gen 30: 35; 31: 10, 12; 31: 15), the promises of God expressed in the song of Moses (Deut 32:
14). Ellingworth rightly comment on this subject saying, “The only reference in the Pentateuch to the
sacrifice of goats is in Nu. 7:17–88, of peace offerings (θυσίαι σωτηρίου) at the dedication of the altar,” see
Ellingworth, Hebrews, 452.
2
Lev 16: 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 (2), 26, 27.
Bauer, BDAG, s. v. “χιμάρους.” The other term for “goat” is rendered in the Gospel (Matt 25: 32,
3
33; Luke 15: 29) which is ἔριφος, however, this word can be translated as kid or goat alternatively
according to the context and did not have any cultic background, see Ibid., s. v “ἔριφος.”
4
154
inauguration as well as the implication the passage.1 Therefore, one can conclude that
blood of bulls and goats points back to the inauguration service also and not only the day
of Atonement.
Theological Implications of Hebrews 9: 12
Earlier, the transition of the old covenant into the new covenant in the immediate
context had been elaborated through the word study on σκηνή (Hebrews 9: 1-11).2
Commentators also supported this idea of transition.3 Therefore, having been
understanding the context, the theological implication in Hebrews 9: 12 is the efficacy of
the blood of Christ in compare to the blood of animals, where Jesus enter into perfect tent
(Heb 9: 11) in heaven (Heb 8: 2). MacArthur suggested three significant points on
Hebrews 9: 12: First, Christ went into the heavenly sanctuary with his own blood, thus,
“the Sacrificer is the sacrifice.” Second, His sacrifice is only once, which is sufficient for
the whole generation of humanity. Third, Christ’s redemption is permanent, and eternal
1
Hebrews 9: 13 and 10: 14 also supported that Hebrews 9: 12 has a context of Inauguration service
in the OT LXX. These two passages employed the phrase τράγων καὶ ταύρων instead of using τράγων καὶ
μόσχων as in Hebrews 9: 12. Here, there is a change in the term for bulls, that is, μόσχων is not employed
anymore in Hebrews 9: 13, instead, the author used ταύρων. Now, the phrase τράγων καὶ ταύρων occurs
only in four places in the OT and NT. Obviously, two occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 9: 13; 10:
24), one in Deuteronomy which is not related to cultic activity, and the last one occurs in Isaiah, which
says, “And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats” (Isa 1: 11, 12), in this passage, God
used the blood of bulls and goats for describing the whole sacrificial services. Thus, imply that the usage of
this phrase τράγων καὶ ταύρων implicitly indicate the whole sanctuary sacrificial system and not the day of
Atonement.
2
See earlier section, 150-153.
3
For discussion on the transition of old covenant to new covenant, see Richard M. Davidson,
“Typology in the Book of Hebrews,” in Issues in the Book of Hebrews, vol. 4, Daniel and Revelation
Committee Series (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989), 179–83; Cody, Heavenly Sanctuary, 147-
148; Dahl, “Living Way,” 405; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 194-195; Ellingworth, Hebrews, 438;
Jean Hering, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, UK: Epworth, 1970), 70–75.
155
unlike the old cultic service of Atonement.1 In addition, Hebrews 9: 13 mentioned about
“the ashes of heifer,” which has the OT background in Numbers 19, the ashes of heifer is
use for ceremonial cleansing specially for people who come in contact with the dead
corps so that they will continue in the “tabernacle or temple worship,” with this mediate
context, the author of Hebrews expounded on the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus
which can clean the internal conscience in contrary to the ceremonial or external
cleansing.2 This again had added the significance of Christ’s entrance to the heavenly
sanctuary once with His blood to cleanse us completely. The author uses an argument
“from the lesser to the greater,” the lesser is the blood of bulls, goats, and ashes of heifer,
which is offered by the high priest in the earthly sanctuary, the greater is “blood shed by
Christ”3
Summary
The chapter categorized the theological analysis of Christ Ascension and entrance
to the heavenly sanctuary into three main sections: 1) Contexts on the epistle to the
Hebrews 2) Καταπετάσμα in Hebrews 6: 19 and 3) Τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12. The first
section had supplied the external and internal Historical setting of the epistle to the
Hebrews by exposing that the recipients were the Jewish Christians who understand the
Pentateuch and mainly the sanctuary cultus. Moreover, it seems that the recipients were
weary and confused on whether they will continue to practice the cultic activity or not. In
1
John MacArthur, Hebrews (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1996), 229.
2
Jon Courson, Jon Courson’s Application Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003),
1486.
3
Luder G. Whitlock et al., The Reformation Study Bible: Bringing the Light of Reformation to
Scriptures (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1995), s. v. “Hebrews 9: 13.”
156
this context, the author wrote this epistle to them to explain to them that Christ is the
antitypical accomplishment of the sanctuary cultus. In writing the epistle, the centre of
theology that the author employed is the High Priestly Christology, the cultus based
terminology, and the done away of the cultic activity. Thus, key word for the theme of
the epistle is “better” where the author emphasis is on the better hope, better covenant,
better promises, better sacrifice, better country, better resurrection and better blood.
The second section provided that Roy Gane and Norman Young had proof from
the biblical standpoint that the phrase ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος in Hebrews 6: 19
refers to the inner veil which makes them concluded that Hebrews 6: 19 is to be
interpreted in the context of Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. However, Richard M.
Davidson had revealed from his study that the background of Hebrews 6: 19 is not the
Day of Atonement but it is the inauguration services in pointing out that Jesus entered
within the veil according to the order of Melchizedek who represents king-priest and not
the priesthood in the order of Aaron. Davidson rightly pointed out that Moses as king-
priest went into the inner sanctum in the day of inauguration performing the priestly work
(Exod 40: 1-9; Lev 8: 10-12; Num 7: 1). Moreover, Davidson provide a chiastic parallels
of Hebrews 6: 19-20 and Hebrews 10: 19-20 which explore that the result of the chiasm
demands the inauguration motif when Christ enters within the veil. Hence, according to
the context of Hebrews 10: 19-20, and under the analysis of the words dealing with the
entering motif of Christ, the study clearly shows that Christ went into the heavenly
sanctuary to anoint and inaugurate the heavenly realities. Thus, the inauguration of the
heavenly sanctuary implies the establishment of the new covenant through Christ.
157
The third section dealt with meaning of τὰ ἅγια in relation to Christ ascension in
Hebrews 9: 12, the study had a quick survey on the usage of τὰ ἅγια in the LXX, OT
Pseudepigraphy, and the works of Philo and Josephus. The result of the survey indicates
that τὰ ἅγια is most likely to be employed as the sanctuary in general because the
majority of the phrase surveyed denotes the terminology of the sanctuary as a whole. The
result of the survey implies that the author of Hebrews may have this term in mind to
refer to the sanctuary as a whole with the understanding of his contemporary.
Accordingly, it means that τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12 is not referring to the holy place or
the most holy place in particular, but the bipartite sanctuary.
Another study in this section is the analysis of the word σκηνή in order to
understand the meaning of τὰ ἅγια. This study trace down the usage of σκηνή from the
epistle to the Hebrews and mainly in Chapter 9. The result of this analysis shows that
there are two σκηνή which the author employed: First, the πρώτην σκηνή, meaning the
first tent, which metaphorically refers to the earthly cultic services, second, the perfect
σκηνή which is in heaven where the High Priest is ministering for humanity (Hebrews 9:
11, 8: 2). The author use these two tents to identify the old covenant in relation to the
sacrificial rituals and the new covenant established through Christ. The elaboration of
these two tents as a parable is the background of Hebrews 9: 12, thus, it is compatible
with the earlier conclusion that the author did not intended to point to the particular place
in the heavenly sanctuary regarding the new establishment of the covenant, but plainly
stated the efficacy of the new covenant, the blood of Christ, and the reality of the
antitype.
158
The last part of the section covers an intertextual study on τράγων and μόσχων.
The study of these two words is crucial step because these words are always assumed to
point back to the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16.1 However, the study give evidence
that the words “τράγος and μόσχων” do not merely refers to Leviticus 16 but have wider
context. Thus, the results of the study indicate that μόσχων is a common word that related
with Day of Atonement and the inauguration services as well. In other words, in terms of
cultic services, it is employed in most of the places. On the other hand, the word τράγος
appears only in Number 7 throughout the Pentateuch and surprising does not have any
occurrence in Leviticus 16.
Number 7 is a chapter of inauguration service where Moses dedicated the
sanctuary according to the instruction of God, whereas Leviticus 16 is the chapter dealing
with the Day of Atonement. In this light, one can understand that the word τράγος is not
relating to the Day of Atonement service in Leviticus 16. Besides, τράγος and μόσχος
appears together only in Number 7 which implies that the phrase employed in Hebrews 9:
12 has a weighty meaning of inauguration rather than Day of Atonement. Therefore, the
theological implication that the author attempt to bring out is the efficacy of Christ’s
blood which can cleanse the conscience inside out in contrary the ceremonial cleansing in
the cultic rituals. The focus of the author is on the superiority of the new covenant and its
function.
1
See earlier sections on page 154, n. 1.
159
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The concept of Christ’s ascension and His ministry in heaven could be considered
as one of the foundations of every Christian churches around the world, because without
resurrection there is no meaning for the Gospel, in like manner, without ascension, the
meaning of resurrection is not complete, and thus, without High Priesthood ministry of
Jesus in heaven, the idea of mediation and forgiveness of sin is also marred. Thus, these
interrelated doctrines had been a basic belief for most of the Christian denominations.
Meanwhile, after the Millerites experience of the great disappointment in 1844,
the early Sabbatarians witnesses the progressiveness of truth in regard to the concept of
heavenly sanctuary and its ministration. One of the most precious truth that one will
considered is the most holy place ministry of Jesus after 1844, majorly on the basis of the
book of Daniel and Revelation, which points to the pre-advent judgment theology.
However, in spite of its biblical firmness of this doctrine, questions on this matter had
been raised from time to time, with an assertion on its errancy and incompatibility with
the other doctrines of the Bible such as the ascension, the intercessory ministry, and the
High priesthood ministry of Christ in the NT.
According to the history surveyed, it seems that most of the assumed
contradictions regarding the doctrine of pre-advent judgment is from the epistle to the
Hebrews. The various questions that had been raised from the epistle to the Hebrews is
160
particularly focused on this study. Moreover, this study has provided the appropriate
possible biblical rationale. This chapter supplies the brief summary of the document
materials presented and the conclusions which answers the purpose and problem
statement.
Summary
This section presents a brief overview on the first four chapter of this study. In
regard to historical survey, the focus is on the chronological progression of the ideas that
had been established from time to time. For other matters in relation to the study, the
focus is mostly on the issues between the pre-advent judgment and the ministry of Christ
in the epistle to the Hebrews. After the discussion of the conflicts, will be the summary
on the biblical evidence on the doctrine and the possible solution for the problems.
Summary on Chapter 1
Chapter 1 introduce the issues regarding the relationship between the doctrine of
Christ’s ascension and the pre-advent judgment theology, it gives the problem of the
study with a purpose and plan for the solutions, it also provides the method of the study
where the research are done with historical, theological and exegetical studies. It is
obvious that the ascension of Jesus is the most important event comparing to other
ascension stories in the Bible. However, though its universality of the doctrine, modern
scholars began to question the nature of Jesus’ ascension, Bart did not believe in a
literalness, besides, there are only three explicit narration of the ascension events, out of
which Mark 16: 19 is not believed to be a part of the original text. In spite of the critical
assessment on the ascension doctrine, some scholars hold the view that the doctrine is
161
still relevant for Christian faith. Scholars such as John F. Jansen and Felix Cortez wrote
on the importance of this doctrine.
Meanwhile, the doctrine of investigative judgment from the Bible seems to
contradict the ascension doctrine in the area concerning the nature of Jesus’ ministry in
heaven. The main issue is that Jesus entered within the veil, in the Most holy place of the
heavenly Sanctuary in 1844 according to the historicist interpretation of Daniel 7, 8 and
9. However, if one attempts to compare with the ascension motif in Hebrews 9: 12 and
Hebrews 6: 19-20, where Jesus seems to enter the veil in the first century AD, there is a
nuance and apparently, it may look incompatible to each other. Thus, the whole paper
dealt with both the book, Daniel in OT and Hebrews in NT. There is only one Spirit
behind the inspiration, subsequently, the passages in the Bible should not be contradicted
to each other because the Holy Spirit guide all the writers of the Bible. Therefore, all the
scriptures must be compatible to each other. Chapter 1 ends with a review of prior
research which actually provides an overview of the whole paper. Through the review,
one can see the argument, the flow and the presuppose solution of the study.
Chapter 2 covers the origin, development, and the conflict ideas of the
investigative judgment in the Christian circles and among the SDA in particular. The
chapter can be divided in three sections: 1) Origin and development of investigative
judgment. 2) The role of Ellen White 3) A brief survey on the internal and external
challengers of the investigative judgment.
162
Summary on the Origin and Development of Investigative Judgment
The Millerites were the ones who discovered the glimpse of truth about the pre-
advent judgment early from the 1840s even before the great disappointment. For
example, Josiah Litch taught that the judgment in Revelation 20 must be prior to the
second coming of Christ, he connects the judgment with Daniel 7 by explaining that the
judgment has started at the end of 1260 days, that is 1798 AD. He influenced many
people to believe that the judgment has come. However, after the great disappointment,
the Sabbatarian were the ones who dig deeper into the truth about the pre-advent
judgment. They began to find a deeper meaning on the parable of Jesus such as Luke 12
and Matthew 22 which convey that the judgment is prior to second coming. Among the
Sabbatarian who embrace the doctrine of pre-advent judgment are Joseph Bates, James
White, Ellen G. White, F. B Han, Crosier, Hiram Edson and so on.
In 1845 and 1846 Crosier drafted the article which provide the biblical foundation
for the heavenly ministry of Christ in the sanctuary and its relationship with the
judgment. In his article he employed Hebrews 9 to explain the necessity of cleansing in
the heavenly sanctuary. A prominent Sabbatarian like Bates also connects the judgment
with the Sabbath in his pamphlets and books such as The Opening Heaven, The Seventh-
day Sabbath, A Perpetual Sign, Second Advent Way Marks, and High Heaps, A
Vindication of the Seventh-day Sabbath and the Commandments of God and The Seal of
The Living God which give an insightful thought on the judgment before the second
coming. Thus, they gradually began to find the idea of judgment in connection to the
sanctuary in heaven.
163
Summary on the Role of Ellen White
The vision of Ellen White is also one of the noteworthy instruments of God to
affirm the truth that the Sabbatarian pioneers discovered. For example, White affirmed
the findings of Samuel Snow concerning the fulfilment of 2300 days prophecy through
visions and called it as the “Bright light” that leads to the Holy City. This section on the
role of Ellen White provides her comprehensive understanding of the heavenly sanctuary,
the investigative judgment and Christ’s ministry in relation to the judgment. It affirms
that Ellen White did not formulate the doctrine of investigative judgment, in fact, she
herself said that the progression of this truth took a long time and claimed that she made
her own statement on this subject only forty years after the great disappointment. After
she agreed with the truth of investigative judgment, she published the book, The Spirit of
Prophecy in 1884, and put the subject in the twenty third chapter of the book.1 This book
was enlarged into The Great Controversy later in 1888.
Apparently, White, after her earnest observations, research, and studies,
concluded that the doctrine of investigative judgment is biblical and theologically sound
because she presented in a form of literature. It is evidence that she supported the
literalness of the sanctuary in heaven, which is portrait to human beings as a typology
during the time of Moses. In terms of the criteria for the judgment, White concluded that
“the law of God” is the rule of measurement. Subsequently, the judgment, according to
White, is only for the believers. Most importantly, she had more emphasis on Christ as
the intercessor for humanity until the end of the investigative judgment. However, she
1
See earlier page 34, n. 4.
164
asserted that Jesus will be a judge at the end of investigation when he come for the
second time. Therefore, her role as mentioned is not to formulate the doctrine of
investigative judgment but to strengthen the trustworthiness of the subject through the
vision from God and harmonized with the bigger picture of the great controversy between
Jesus and Satan.
Summary on Conflicts and Issues on Investigative Judgment
This section presents the ministers from inside and outside the SDA church who
had conflicts with the idea of investigative judgment or pre-advent judgment from the
late 19th century. The challengers from the church can be considered in a chronological
sequence namely Owen R. L Crosier, Dudley M. Canright, Albian Fox Ballenger,
William W. Fletcher, Louis Richard Conradi, E. B Jones, Desmond Ford, and Dale
Ratzlaff. These ministers disagreed with the teachings of the church as in the nature of its
theology, lack of biblical evidences and from the historical background and condition, in
which, the doctrine emerged. Most of their views are similar in many ways, such as the
entrance of Christ into the Most Holy Place in His ascension, and the insignificance of
1844. According to them, to interpret Daniel 8: 14 as to be fulfilled in 1844 is a vague
conclusion, because the context of the text does not support the conclusion. In addition,
most of them asserted that the prophetic interpretation of Daniel is not compatible with
the ministry of Christ in the epistle to the Hebrews. Among them, Desmond Ford is one
of the notable person who formulated thesis against the doctrine of investigative
judgement. Apparently, to these days, his works and arguments still remain as the basic
foundational evidence for the ones who did not believe in the doctrine of investigative
judgment.
165
In the meantime, the doctrine of investigative pre-advent judgment also receives
criticism from outside of the church. Ministers like Walter R. Martin, Anthony A.
Hoekema, Franklin Douty and Herbert S. Bird were the prominent ones who disagree
with investigative judgment in their time. These challengers disagrees with the same
issues such as the incompatibility of Christ’s ascension in the epistle to the Hebrews with
the pre-advent judgment. Martin, one who put efforts on his dialogue with the SDAs in
the mid-20th century, does not agree with the judgment theology. By basing on John 5:
24, he said that one receive assurance of salvation when one believes in Jesus and not the
judgment. The issues underlying the subject of the sanctuary is seems to be the judgment
theology because these challengers did not agree that there is a judgment after one
believe in Christ. However, the doctrine of Investigative judgment, in spite of its
criticism, still survive today because it is biblically sound. The next section will cover the
summary on the biblical soundness of this doctrine.
The chapter focuses on the biblical root of heavenly sanctuary, the investigative
judgment concept along with the pre-advent judgment, and the ministry of Christ’s
ascension. It aim to provide the trustworthiness of both the doctrines from the OT and the
NT. The chapter is divided into three sections: heavenly sanctuary, Investigative
judgment and Christ’s ascension in the Bible.
Summary on the Heavenly Sanctuary
The section provide that there are several hints in regard to the presence of the
sanctuary in heaven, one can see implicit reference from the OT (Mic 1: 2; Hab 2: 20; 18:
166
7). However, the case of Moses when God told him to build the sanctuary, He asked him
to build the sanctuary according to the pattern, which in the Hebrew word convey
something produced from the things that existed or the product from the prior material
(Exo 25: 8, 9). Though not explicit in this passage, one can still anticipate that the word
“pattern” refers to something that is more original than the earthly sanctuary itself.
This passage become a definition of the literalness of the sanctuary through the
exposition of the Hebrews’ author in the NT. According to the author of Hebrews, Jesus
ministered in the heavenly sanctuary which is not made by man but by God (Heb 8: 1, 2),
one may assert that the whole heaven is the sanctuary, however, the intent of Hebrews 8:
2 seems to convey that God pitch a sanctuary in the heaven. The book of Revelation also
played a role on providing the literalness of heavenly sanctuary. John saw that the heaven
has a temple, in which, he saw the ark of covenant inside it. This seems to imply that
John saw the original scene of the “pattern” that was shown to Moses.
Summary on Concept of Investigative Judgment
According to the biblical survey, the idea of investigation seems to occur right
from the beginning in the garden of Eden. One can notice the concept of investigation in
the questions of God such as “where are you?” and “who told you?” (Gen 3: 9-13, 14-
19). However, the concept does not nullify the omniscience of God (Ps 139: 1-4; 147: 5;
1 John 3: 20; Isa 46: 9-10), the investigation is not for God but for the living creatures in
the whole Universe (1 Cor 4: 9). Therefore, God investigate the situation, even in the case
of Adam and Eve, to witness the event to the whole Universe.
167
Another book in the Bible that points to the concept of investigation is Ezekiel.
The first 10 chapter is mostly the judgment on Judah, the narration support the scene of
God who came down from heaven for the judgment session in Judah. The narration
shows that God sit for the judgment for 14 months in the land of Judah.1 The vision raises
the questions of why God has to come down from heaven to the earth for a judgment. The
only plausible answer is that God came to witness the sin of Judah to clarify to the
Universe that they are worthy of judgment. The book of Daniel is more precise in
drawing a concept of investigative judgement and mainly the pre-advent judgment. The
concept of investigation revolve around Daniel 7, 8 and 9, where the judgment comes
while the little horn was dominating the world, attacking the saints and so on. According
to the study, scholars recognized that the judgment is not the final executive judgment
since it happens before the dominion of the son of man. Thus, the kingdom of God
follows the judgment which imply that the judgment is before the second coming.
In the light of the judgment that must happen before the second coming, the
questions arises of when the judgment will begin, the intertextual studies in Daniel 8 and
9 shows that the judgment commenced in October 22, 1844.2 This is compatible with the
NT parable such as the wedding feasts of the King (Matt 22: 11), and the writings of Paul
also supports it(1 Cor 4: 5; Rom 2: 5; 2: 7-8; 2 Thess 1: 8-9). In regard to the sequence of
the judgment, Revelation 14 started with the judgment in a form of three angel’s message
which is followed with the reaping events of which indicates the executive judgment
1
2
168
(Rev 14: 6-12). Accordingly, the judgment during the three angel’s message prior to the
reaping denotes the investigating concept of judgment. Therefore, the biblical concept of
Judgment prior to second coming is evidential along with the time of the judgment, the
nature, and the sequence.
Summary on Christ’s Ascension
In contrast to the previous section, this section provides the biblical concept of
Christ’s ascension and the significance of His ministry in heaven. The NT plainly
describes that Jesus was caught up in heaven (Luke 24: 50-51; Acts 1: 7, 8) and he was
seated at the right hand of God (Ephe 1: 20; 2: 6; Col 2: 12; 3: 1; Heb 1:1-4; 8: 1; 10: 12;
12: 2). The expression “sitting at the right hand of God” was taken from Psalm 110, in
the prophecy of the coming Messiah, thus, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy by ascending in
heaven. The expression designates honor, kingship and rulership. The apostles also
acknowledged the kingdom and the kingship of Christ after His ascension (Acts 2: 32-36;
John 13: 36; Acts 5: 31).
Another nature of Christ’s ministry is His priesthood ministry, when he ascended
to heaven, he was not only inaugurated as a king but also a priest (1 John 1: 2; Heb 2: 17-
18) that make him a mediator between God and man. In regard to his mediatory ministry,
there are two kinds of ministry namely revelatory and redemptive ministry, the revelatory
ministry includes the revelation of God through His son Jesus so that man knows the
love, grace, and mercy of God. The redemptive ministry aim to convey the Word of God
coming in a form of flesh, so that He will become the high priest for humanity (John 1:
14), because being in the flesh make Him understand and experience humanity at all
points (Matt 4: 1-11; John 1: 14; Rom 8: 3; Phil 2: 5-11; 1 John 4: 2-3). The mediatory
169
ministry of Jesus makes ones understand the concept of what Jesus is doing in his
ascension from the 1st century AD to this day. The objective of this section is to provide
evidence for Jesus ascension and ministry in heaven which seems to be in contrast with
the pre-advent judgment, because Jesus in his ascension already make an intercession for
humanity, he was seated at the right hand of God, becoming a king-priest in the order of
Melchizedek which somehow seems to nullify the significance of 1844 event according
to the book of Daniel. The next chapter shows the solution of this problems.
This chapter is centered on the apologetic responses on the arguments and
theological conflicts that had been provided in the earlier chapters, however, it does not
attempt to response all the issues concerning Christ’s ascension and pre-advent judgment,
but this chapter mainly focuses on the compatibility of Hebrews 6: 19-20 and Hebrews 9:
12 with the pre-advent judgment theology in Daniel. However, on the meantime, the
issues on Daniel had been resolves in chapter three in regard to the concept of
investigative judgment in the Bible, thus, this chapter specifically explained the meaning
of the two passages in the epistle of Hebrews in the context of the OT. The theological
analysis in this chapter is categorized into three sections: 1) Historical settings and
structure of Hebrews 2) Καταπετάσμα in Hebrews 6: 19 and 3) Τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12.
Summary on the Context of the Epistle to the Hebrews
This section provided the historical settings for the book of Hebrews, the purpose
of providing the background is for better reading approach to the epistle. The historical
setting can be divided into two parts: external and internal setting. The one with external
170
setting convey the reader that the recipient of the epistle were familiar of the sanctuary
cultus and it is no doubt that there are Jewish Christians. The problem that occurred with
the Jewish Christians was their confusion on whether the practice of the sanctuary rituals
should continue or not. Since sanctuary and the cultic activities were so attached with
them, it is not usual to stop practicing those rituals. Thus, they are confused with this
issue since they are not given any instruction about it. The internal setting would point
the reader to the weariness of the Jewish Christian because their Messiah had gone and
ascended to heaven, and they lack the faith that He will come back again. In these
settings, the author intended to encourage the recipient by pointing to the ministry of
Christ in heaven.
The epistle to the Hebrews is a homiletical letter, where the author employed
structure which are suited with sermons. The nature of this epistle is more of an
exhortation to encourage the recipient to go to Christ who is an intercessor in heaven.
Moreover, the author centers the theology on High priesthood Christology, sanctuary
cultus and the accomplishment of the typology in the OT. Another notable theme that is
employed through the whole epistle is the “better” things such as the better hope, better
covenant, better promises, better sacrifice, better country, better resurrection, and better
blood. In other words, tha author attempt to convince the recipients that Jesus is the
antitype of the OT, and the ministry that relates with Him is better than any OT rituals or
rites in the sanctuary.
Summary on Καταπετάσμα in Hebrews 6: 19
This section provide the scholarly debate on Hebrews 6: 19 and provide the most
appropriate biblical rationale for the solutions. In 1987, George Rice, one of the SDA
171
scholars penned an article, “Hebrews 6: 19: Analysis of Some Assumptions Concerning
Katapetasma” which asserted that “within the veil” in Hebrews 6: 19 is solely not the
most holy place. However, this assertion was not accepted by some other scholars like
Roy Gane and Norman H. Young, Gane from the OT perspective cannot find the same
conclusion with Rice, in like manner, Young as a NT scholar supported the argument of
Gane. As a result, Young authored another article in supporting Gane which concluded
that the phrase ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος in Hebrews 6: 19 solely refers to the most
holy place and it is in the context of Day of Atonement from Leviticus 16.
However, Richard M. Davidson find an inconsistency on Young’s article and
penned an article for the response. In his study, as an OT scholar, he exposed that the
context of Hebrews 6: 19 is not the Day of Atonement but an inauguration service which
further indicate that Jesus inaugurate the sanctuary when he ascended to heaven in the
order of Melchizedek as a king-priest and not the order of Aaron, as to be the High Priest
only. Davidson pointed out the more appropriate context of Hebrews 6: 19 by referring to
Moses in his cultic act of services as a king-priest in the day of the inauguration of the
sanctuary. In this day, Moses as a king-priest went in to the inner most sanctuary to
inaugurate the place which is more compatible with Hebrews 6: 19 (Exod 40: 1-9; Lev 8:
10-12; Num 7: 1). Davidson also provide a chiastic parallels of Hebrews 6: 19-20 and
Hebrews 10: 19-20 which expose that the results of the chiasm demand a context of
inauguration motif that the Day of Atonement motif. Therefore, according to Hebrews
10: 19-20, the context solely explained that Christ enters within the veil to inaugurate the
sanctuary which implies the new establishment of the covenant in heaven.
172
Summary on Τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12
This section focuses on the meaning of τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12 which relates
with Christ’s ascension in Hebrews. The study provides a survey on the usage of τὰ ἅγια
in the LXX, OT Pseudepigraphy and the works of Philo and Josephus. The outcome of
the survey point out that τὰ ἅγια is primarily employed as the whole sanctuary and not
the particular apartment in the sanctuary. This result indicate that the author along with
his contemporary and the primary usage of LXX in Hebrews would have in mind to refer
τὰ ἅγια as the whole sanctuary. Thus, τὰ ἅγια could be most appropriately referring to the
bipartite sanctuary as a whole.
This section also provide an exegetical note on the word σκηνή which is an
important background study for interpreting the intend of the author in Chapter 9. The
survey of the word σκηνή shows that there are two types of σκηνή: First, πρώτην σκηνή,
meaning the first tent, which symbolized the cultic activity of the earthly sanctuary.
Second, the perfect σκηνή where Jesus entered to be a High priest in Heaven (Hebrews 9:
11; 8: 2). The author employed these two tents to symbolize the old covenant and the new
covenant. The old covenant points to the earthly sanctuary services and the new covenant
refers to the dead, resurrection, ascension and heavenly ministry of Christ. The author
intended to use these two tents as a parable to set the background of Hebrews 9: 12, thus,
it purpose of the author is to point out that Jesus went into the sanctuary to inaugurate it.
The author plainly explain the efficacy of the blood of Christ for establishing a new
covenant in entering the heavenly sanctuary. Thus, one should know that τὰ ἅγια is
equivalent with the perfect σκηνή in the mind of the author, because perfect σκηνή in
173
Hebrews 9: 11 follows τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9: 12, and both of them has a narration of
Jesus entrance and ministration in the heaven.
The last part of the section is an intertextual study on τράγων and μόσχων. These
texts is a part of Hebrews 9: 12, and it is important to understand the usage of these texts
in the Bible because these words together in the passage is assumed to point to the Day of
Atonement context in Leviticus 16. However, the study convey that τράγων and μόσχων
do not merely refers to the Day of Atonement background in Leviticus but contain a
wider context. The word μόσχων is a common word employed for both the Day of
Atonement and the day of inauguration as well. Thus, this word does not have
significance by itself in regard to the issue. Thus, the word τράγος become an essential
element to solve the issue. Surprisingly, the τράγος occurs only in Number 7, a chapter
that only deals with the day of inauguration, in fact, τράγος had no single occurrence in
Leviticus 16. Even in a case for the occurrence of both words, τράγος and μόσχων occurs
together only in Number 7 where Moses as a king-priest dedicated the sanctuary which
implies that the parallel usage of the words in Hebrews 9: 12 had a context of
inauguration than the Day of Atonement. This is compatible with the intent of the author
in expounding the efficacy of the blood of Christ and the new covenant that is established
in heaven.
Conclusions
The Thesis has addressed the issues regarding the doctrine of pre-advent
judgment from the historical perspective, expand it to the biblical reliability and provide
biblical solutions. The study also presents the ascension of Christ in the epistle of
Hebrews as the other side of a coin with the pre-advent judgment because the passages
174
such as Hebrews 6: 19-20 and Hebrews 9: 12 are the core issue which cause the pre-
advent judgment as an unreliable, and unbiblical doctrine. Thus, the purpose of the study
is to provide an apology for the doctrine of pre-advent judgment and give an evidence
that Christ’s ascension in the epistle to the Hebrews is biblically, theologically, and
reasonably compatible to the theology of pre-advent judgment. There are three sections
of conclusive statements according to the chapters respectively: 1) The development of
investigative judgment and its issues in regard to the epistle of Hebrews. 2) Biblical
reliability of pre-advent judgment and its compatibility with the ministry of Christ in His
ascension. 3) The compatibility of inauguration motif in Hebrews 9: 12 and Hebrews 6:
19 with the theology of pre-advent judgment.
The Development of Investigative Judgment and its Issues in Regard to the Epistle
of Hebrews.
Apparently, the most notable conclusion for the origin of Investigative or the so-
called pre-advent judgment is that it was neither formulated by Ellen White nor seen from
her the vision to formulate it. However, the doctrine came from a serious study of God’s
word for several years. Moreover, the theology seems to be a highly discussing subject
during the time our pioneers and apparently, it takes a long period of time for the
theology to come into being. According to the witness of Ellen White, the doctrine of
investigative judgment is not so clear until 1884, that is forty years after the great
disappointment.
On the other hand, the conflicts in regard to the subject of the sanctuary happened
as early in the time of D. M Canright, the conflict is mainly on the pre-advent judgment.
The ones who are not against this theology are most likely to be the ones more inclining
175
on the larger Christian evangelicals. It is observable that the majority of the arguments
against the pre-advent judgment are from the epistle of Hebrews. Moreover, analyzing
the personality of the challengers, it seems that the majority of them are leaders which in
turn implies that these conflicts regarding the sanctuary is the issue that has to do more
with the mature Christians who critically able to study the Bible. The observation has
concluded that this conflict increased after the Evangelical scholars began to attack the
doctrine of investigative judgment during the mid-20th century. Thus, the most conclusive
thought that seems compatible to this subject is that there are nuances which is hard to
discern that led to doubt for a critical minded person.
Biblical Reliability of Pre-Advent Judgment and its Compatibility With the

Ministry of Christ in His Ascension.
This section is in concern to the third chapter where the biblical reliability of pre-
advent judgment was surveyed. According to the survey in the Bible, the concept of
investigation is frequent from the OT to the NT. However, among the references of the
Bible concerning the concept of investigation, the pre-advent judgment is primarily found
in the book of Daniel. The observation on the study shows that there are several non-SDA
scholars who implicitly support the judgment before Christ’s second coming. It is
undeniable that the doctrine of pre-advent judgment is biblical on the basis of Daniel 7, 8,
and 9; the book of revelation also shows an explicit sequence of the pre-advent judgment
(Rev 14). It is, therefore, undisputable plausible that the doctrine is a biblical base.
However, the primary concern of the thesis is the compatibility of Hebrews’
epistle with the pre-advent judgment. A minor study of Christ’s ascension in the NT and
the epistle to the Hebrews in particular, give a supportive significance on why the two
176
sides of the coin may be compatible to each other. It is clear enough that Jesus ascended
to heaven, but the problem is particularly on the location of Jesus ministry in heaven. The
expression such as “seated at the right hand of God” give a presupposition that Jesus
must probably seated in the Most holy place where the thrones are set up, this idea may
lead to a conclusion that the expression “seated at the right” is not compatible with the
pre-advent judgment at all. The other subjects like intercessory ministry and High priest
Christology has no conflict with the pre-advent judgment because when one can conclude
that Jesus in His ascension started His heavenly ministry and at 1844, he continued his
ministry in the most holy place. The nuances that one may ask is the expression of
Christ’s sitting at the right hand of God which would seems to incline more on the
conclusion that Jesus ministry started from the most holy place. However, this doubt will
be solved in the next section because the third chapter, though, supplying efficient
evidence for both the theology of pre-advent judgment and Christ’s ascension, does not
provide much clue on the compatibility of this doctrines.
The Compatibility of Inauguration Motif in Hebrews 9: 12 and Hebrews 6: 19 With

the Theology of Pre-Advent Judgment.
This section contain a precise conclusion in regard to the ultimate resolution on
the problem statement of the study. The statement of the problem focuses on Hebrews 6:
19-20 and Hebrews 9: 12 which seems to bring out a puzzling questions on which
compartment in the heavenly sanctuary Christ entered? The findings of the study
provides the best possible biblical resolution. In regard to Hebrews 6: 19-20, the
contextual study of the text demands that the Jesus must have indeed went inside the
inner veil, that is, the most holy place. However, the results clearly shows that the context
is more likely not to be the Day of Atonement, but the day of inauguration, this
177
conclusion is achieved through surveying the possible contexts of Hebrews 6: 19-20 such
as the OT typology, the immediate context of the text, the chiastic parallels, and through
intertextual study. According to all these surveys, one may conclude that Jesus entered
within the veil in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron priesthood,
these differences are significant because Aaron is only a High priest comparing to
Melchizedek who is a king-priest. The only possible OT typology that relates to cultic
activity is the day of inauguration of the sanctuary in Number 7 where Moses as a ruler
and a priest dedicate the sanctuary, the notable point here is that Moses entered within the
veil to inaugurate the sanctuary and it is before the Levitical priesthood was established.
Thus, Hebrews 6: 19-20 concluded Jesus in His ascension entered within the veil for the
inauguration of the sanctuary.
In addition to this, Hebrews 9: 12 had the same conclusion with Hebrews 6: 19,
the researcher reach the same conclusion through surveys on the word τὰ ἅγια, along with
contextual and intertextual studies of the text. According to the survey on the usage of the
phrase τὰ ἅγια through the LXX, OT Pseudepigraphy, Philo and Josephus, the meaning of
the word is dominantly the sanctuary as a whole and not the most holy place. Moreover,
the contextual study support it too, the word study on σκηνή explicitly indicate that the
author intended to employ τὰ ἅγια as the general term for the heavenly sanctuary.
Furthermore, the intertextual studies on τράγων and μόσχων fairly support an
inauguration motif in Hebrews 9: 12. Therefore, Hebrews 9: 12 concluded that Jesus
went into the perfect tabernacle, the heavenly sanctuary and not necessarily the most holy
place.
178
Now, one may ask the question on the compatibility with the pre-advent
judgment. The basic measuring rule that the researcher constantly employ is the
inspiration of the scripture (2 Tim 3: 16) and that there is only one Spirit who moved the
biblical writers as the produce the Holy writ (2 Peter 1: 21). Thus, the same Author of the
scripture should not contradict Himself. In these contexts, the inauguration motif of
Hebrews 6: 19-20 and Hebrews 9: 12 is compatible with the prophecy of the Messiah in
the book of Daniel where it was predicted that the Jesus will anoint the Most Holy (Dan
9: 24). In history, Jesus died on the cross and ascended to heaven (Acts 1: 9), and the
prophecy was fulfilled. This prophecy is a part of the longer time prophecy, that is the
2300 day-year prophecy (Dan 8: 14). Subsequently, one understand that 70 weeks is cut
off from the larger prophecy, and it ends at 34 A. D, which further indicate that the end of
2300 day-year prophecy is 1844, to be precise on October 22.
Therefore, when Jesus ascended to heaven, He anointed the heavenly sanctuary,
and became an intercessor for humanity. Furthermore, Jesus began the antitype of the
Day of Atonement in 1844, which is called the pre-advent judgment. In this way, Christ’s
ascension is compatible with the pre-advent judgment because the epistle of Hebrews
explained about Christ early ministry from His ascension, and the pre-advent judgment is
the second phase of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. However, the nature of
the ministry is still the same in regard to the mediatory ministry, but the only difference is
the changes in the OT typology, that is from the Holy place ministry to the Most holy
place ministry, the daily to the yearly, inauguration day to the Day of Atonement. Here,
the geographical location of the ministry is not the primary concern, but the emblematic
function of the daily and yearly priestly ministry is more focused. In other words, the
179
commencement of pre-advent judgment in 1844 must not be understood as the literal
shifting of the location of Christ’s ministry from the Holy place to the Most holy place. It
is only a symbolic indicator which explained that the pre-advent session had been started
(Rev 14: 6). Moreover, in regard to the most holy place in the earthly sanctuary, the only
reason for its superlative term of holiness is God’s presence, that is the shekinah glory,
thus, since God is Holy, His dwelling place must be Holy. In other words, the location of
the place is not the matter of concern, but the Most Holy Place is counted to be the Most
holy place merely due to God’s presence. In this light, there is no problem in regard to
the location of Jesus’ ministry from His ascension, however, the function of ministration
is changed from 1844. Therefore, the pre-advent judgment is not in contradiction with the
ascension of Christ in the epistle of Hebrews.
Future Study
The theses is solely focus on finding the resolution for the two problem texts from
the epistle to the Hebrews which seems to be in contradiction with the pre-advent
judgment theology in Daniel. Accordingly, the thesis covers a very small portion of
studies which primarily focus on the apologetical response to the issues. Due to this
reason, the topic can be highly expandable, because it deals primarily with the sanctuary
doctrine. The future study can be divided into two parts:1) The study of the pre-advent
judgment in relation to the sanctuary and 2) The study of Christ ascension in the epistle to
the Hebrews.
First, though the concept of investigative judgment had been provided in the
study, it was provided in a summarize form to only convey the readers the basic argument
of the matter and its biblical reliability. Thus, The whole concept of investigative
180
judgment, and pre-advent judgment in particular, can be studied further. There are series
of books which is worthy of studying such as Daniel and Revelation Committee Series,1
which covers a vast area of studies in regard to the doctrine of the sanctuary in its biblical
and theological perspectives. Another book that required a thorough studying is The
Sanctuary and the Atonement,2 this book provides the historical perspective of the issues
related with the pre-advent judgment. In regard to the typology of the OT, one may study
the dissertation of Richard M. Davidson,3 which provides the hermeneutical studies of
τύπος in the Bible. In addition to this, for the typology concerning the sanctuary, a
dissertation Elias Brasil de Souza will be helpful.4 Since, the issues with the pre-advent
judgment is also dealt with the movement of thrones in the heavenly temple, a study on
this subject may be helpful for a clearer concept of pre-advent judgment, there are some
works that are available for future study.5 These studies will provide a broader
understanding the thesis.
1
Doctrine of The Sanctuary: A Historical Survey; Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and
Exegetical Studies; Symposium on Revelation- Book I; Symposium on Revelation- Book II; The Seventy
Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy; Issues in the Book of Hebrews; Shea, Selected Studies on
Prophetic Interpretation.
2
Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher, eds., The Sanctuary and Atonement: Biblical,
Historical and Theological Studies (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1981).
3
Richard M. Davidson, “Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermenautical Τύπος Structure” (PhD
Diss., Andrews University, 1981).
4
Elias Brasil, “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible : Function and
Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts” (PhD Diss., Andrews University, 2005).
5
Daegeuk Nam, “The ‘Throne of God’ Motif in the Hebrew Bible” (PhD Diss., Andrews
University, 1989); Laszlo Gallusz, “Thrones in the Book of Revelation Part 1: Throne of God,” JATS 23,
no. 2 (2012): 30–71.
181
Second, in regard to the epistle to the Hebrews, in spite of several scholars who
have specialty in these areas, I would like to suggest a serious study on the dissertation of
Felix Cortez,1 which covers almost the whole letters with an understanding in the context
of the OT. Desmond Ford introduced an Apostelesmatic principle which became an issue
for interpretation, thus, this principle requires a deeper study, Roberto Ouro had given an
overview of this principle which will be helpful.2 The alter of Incense in Hebrews 9 is
inconsistent with the OT, which requires another area of research, Harold S. Camacho
had done a basic studied on it.3 In addition to this, for the theme of the epistle to the
Hebrews, Ekkehardt Mueller provides a brief cover which would help to understand more
on the theological implication of the epistle to the Hebrews.4 These are few suggested
studies in regard to the theses.
1
Roberto Ouro, “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application,” JATS 9, no. 1–2 (1998):
2
326–42.
Harold S. Camacho, “The Altar of Incense in Hebrews 9:3-4,” AUSS 24, no. 1 (1986): 5–12.
3
4
Ekkehardt Mueller, Come Boldly to the Throne: Sanctuary Theme in Hebrews (Nampa: ID:
Pacific Press, 2003).
182
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Roy. The Doctrine of the Sanctuary in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church: Three
Approach. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 1. Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981.
———. The Sanctuary: Understanding the Heart of Adventist Theology. Hagerstown,

MD: Review and Herald, 1993.
Aharoni, Y. “The Israelites Sanctuary at Arad.” In New Direction in Biblical

Archaeology, edited by David Noel Freedman and J. C Greenfield. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1971.
Andreason, Niel Erik. “The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Old Testament.” In The Sanctuary
and The Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, edited by
Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher. Washington DC: Review and
Herald, 1981.
Andrews, J. N. “The Sabbath.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, May 6, 1852.
Andross, E. E. A More Excellent Ministry. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1912.
Attridge, H .W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia Commentary. Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press, 1989.
Bacchiocchi, Samuel. “The Heavenly Sanctuary: Real or Symbolic?” End Time Issues,
no. 103 (2003).
———. “The Pre-Advent Judgment.” End Time Issues, September 2003.
Bailey, J. L, and L.D. Vander Broek. Literary Forms in the New Testament. London, UK:
SPCK, 1992.
Baker, Warren, and Eugene E. Carpenter. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old
Testament. Word Study Series. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003.
Ballenger, Albion F. An Examination of Forty Fatal Errors Regarding the Atonement.

Riverside: CA: Author, 1913.
———. Before Armageddon. Riverside: CA: Author, 1918.
———. “Camp-Meeting Notes.” Review and Herald, October 11, 1989.
———. Cast Out for the Cross of Christ. Tropico, CA: Author, 1909.
183
———. Power for Witnessing. Oakland, CA: Pacific Press, 1900.
Balz, Robert Horst, and Gerhard Schneider. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament.
Vol. 1. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Barclay, William. The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 3rd ed. fully rev. and
updated. The New Daily Study Bible. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2003.
Barth, Karl. “Doctrine of Creation.” In Church Dogmatics, edited by Geoffrey W.

Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance, Vol. 3/2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960.
Barth, Markus. “The Old Testament in Hebrews.” In Current Issues in NT Interpretation,

edited by W. Klassen and G. F Snyder. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
Bates, Joseph. An Explanation of the Typical and Antitypical Sanctuary, By the Scripture,
with Chart. New Bedford, MA: Press of Benjamin Linsey, 1850.
———. Second Advent Way Marks, and High Heaps. New Bedford, MA: Press of
Benjamin Linsey, 1847.
———. The Opening Heaven. New Bedford, MA: Press of Benjamin Linsey, 1846.
———. The Seal of The Living God. New Bedford, MA: Press of Benjamin Linsey,
1849.
———. The Seventh-Day Sabbath, A Perpetual Sign. New Bedford, MA: Press of
Benjamin Linsey, 1847.
———. The Vindication of the Seventh-Day Sabbath and The Commandment of God.
New Bedford, MA: Press of Benjamin Linsey, 1845.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. New ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.
Berkouwer, G. C. The Work of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965.
Bert, Herbert S. Theology of Seventh-Day Adventism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1961.
Birks, Thomas R. First Elements of Sacred Prophecy. London, UK: William E. Painter,
1843.
Black, David Allan. “The Problem of Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a
Proposal.” Grace Theological Journal, no. 7 (1986): 163–77.
Blass, Friedrich Wilhelm, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W Funk. A Greek Grammar of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago; London:
University of Chigago Press, 1961.
184
Bollier, John A. “Judgment in the Apocalypse.” Interpretation, January 1953.
Branson, William H. Drama of the Ages. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1950.
Brasil, Elias. “The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible : Function and
Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts.” PhD Diss., Andrews University, 2005.
Braun, H. An Die Hebraer. Handbuch Zum Neuen Testament 14. Tubingen: J. C. B

Mohr, 1984.
Briggs, Charles A, and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Psalms. Vol. 2. 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary. Fifth
Avenue, NY: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1906.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrew. New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.
Brunner, Emil. The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith.
Trans. Olive Wyon. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster John Knox Press, 1947.
Buchanan, G. W. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions. Anchor Bible

36. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972.
Burt, Merlin D. “‘Historical Introduction,’ to the Facsimile Reprint of Memoirs of Wm.

Miller by Sylvester Bliss.” Boston, MA: Joshua V. Himes, 1853; reprint, Berrien
Springs: Andrews University, 2005.
———. “The Extended Atonement View in the Day-Dawn and the Emergence of
Sabbatarian Adventism.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 44, no. 2 (2006):
331–39.
———. “The Historical Background, Interconnected Development and Integration of the

Doctrines of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, and Ellen G. White’s Role in Sabbatarian
Adventism from 1844 to 1849.” PhD Diss., Andrews University, 2002.
Camacho, Harold S. “The Altar of Incense in Hebrews 9:3-4.” AUSS 24, no. 1 (1986): 5–
12.
Canright, Dudley Marvin. Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced. Nashville, TN: Gospel

Advocate, 2001.
Childs, B. The Book of Exodus. London, UK: SMC, 1974.
Cody, Aelred. Heavenly Sanctuary and the Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews. St.
Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960.
185
Collins, J. J. “Sibylline Oracles: A New Translation and Introductions.” In Old Testament
Pseudepigraphy, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, Vol. 1. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1983.
Conradi, Louis Richard. The Impelling Force of Prophetic Truth. London, UK: Thynne,
1932.
Coon, Roger W. The Great Visions of Ellen G. White. Vol. 1. Hagerstown, MD: Review
and Herald, 1992.
Cortez, Felix H. “The Anchor of the Soul That Enters within the Veil": The Ascension of
the ‘Son’ in the Letter to the Hebrews.” Faculty Publications, no. 15 (2008).
Cosaert, Carl P. “‘The Use of Ἅγιος for the Sanctuary in the Old Testament
Pseudepigraphy, Philo and Josephus,’” Andrews University Seminary Studies 42,
no. 1 (2004): 91–103.
Courson, Jon. Jon Courson’s Application Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
2003.
Crosier, O.R. L. “Early History of Ontario County Revealed in Story of Late Owen R. L
Crosier.” Daily Messenger, November 1923.
———. “From Bro. Crosier.” Hope of Israel, April 1845.
———. “The Law of Moses.” Day Star Extra, February 7, 1846.
———. “The ‘Shut-Door’ in 1844.” The Sabbath Advocate, March 7, 1899.
Cross, Whitney R. The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of
Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800-1850. New York: Harper &
Row, 1965.
Dahl, N. A. “A New and Living Way: The Approach to God According to Hebrews 10:
19-25.” Interpretation, 1951.
Damsteegt, P. Gerard. “Among Sabbatarian Adventists, 1845-1850.” In Doctrine of The

Sanctuary: A Historical Survey, Vol. 5. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series.
Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989.
———. Foundations of the Seventh-Day Adventist Message and Mission. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1977.
“Daniel and Revelation Committee Report.” In Issues in the Book of Hebrews, Vol. 4.
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
1989.
186
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Revised and edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed.
Translated and augmented by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Davidson, Richard M. “Christ’s Entry ‘Within the Veil’ in Hebrews 6:19-20: The Old
Testament Background.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 39, no. 2 (2001):
175–90.
Davidson, Richard M. “Proverbs 8 and the Place of Christ in the Trinity.” Journal
Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 1 (2006): 33–54.
Davidson, Richard M. “Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermenautical Τύπος

Structure.” PhD Diss., Andrews University, 1981.
———. “Typology in the Book of Hebrews.” In Issues in the Book of Hebrews, Vol. 4.
Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald,
1989.
Davies, J. G. He Ascended into Heaven: A Study in the History of Doctrine. Cambridge,

UK: James Clarke & Co., 2004.
Davies, J. H. A Letter to Hebrews. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the
Pastoral Epistles. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1972.
Docherty, Susan E. The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case Study in Early
Jewish Bible Interpretation. Tubingen, DE: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Doctrine of The Sanctuary: A Historical Survey. Vol. 5. 7 vols. Daniel and Revelation
Committee Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989.
Dods, M. “The Epistle to the Hebrew.” In The Expositor’s Greek Testament, edited by
W. R. Nicoll, Vol. 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956.
Donne, Brian K. “The Significance of the Ascension of Jesus Christ in the New
Testament.” Scottish Journal of Theology, no. 30 (1977).
Douglass, Herbert E. Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White.
Nampa: ID: Pacific Press, 1998.
Douty, Norma F. Another Look at Seventh-Day Adventism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
1962.
Douty, Norman F. The Case of D.M Canright. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1964.
187
Dusterwald, F. Die Weltreiche Und Das Gottesreich. Freiburg: Herder’sche Verlagsbuch-
handlung, 1890.
Edwards, Calvin W., and Gary Land. Seeker after Light: A.F. Ballenger, Adventism, and
American Christianity. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2000.
Eichrodt, Walther, Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, Martin Noth, James Luther Mays, F.
Alberto Soggin, William McKane, Otto Kaiser, et al. The Old Testament Library.
Vol. 1. 2 vols. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1961.
Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The
New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1993.
Ellingworth, Paul, and Eugene Albert Nida. A Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews.
New York: United Bible Society, 1994.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013.
Ferch, Arthur J. “The Pre-Advent Judgment: Is It Scriptural?” Australasian Record,

August 28, 1982.
Fletcher, William W. The Reason of My Faith: An Appeal to Seventh-Day Adventists,

Concerning Vital Truths of the Gospel. Sydney, Australia: Brooks, 1932.
Ford, Desmond. Daniel. Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing, 1978.
———. Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment. New
Castle, CA: Operation Glacier View, 1980.
———. “Rhetorical Study of Certain Pauline Addresses.” PhD Diss., Michigan State
University, 1960.
———. Seventh-Day Adventism: The Investigative Judgment and the Everlasting

Gospel; A Retrospective on October 27, 1979. Scotts Valley, CA: Create Space,
2016.
———. “The Abomination to the Desolation in Biblical Eschatology.” PhD Diss.,

University of Manchester, 1972.
———. “The Century in a Nut Shell.” Ministry, May 1974.
———. The Coming Worldwide Calvary: Christ Versus Antichrist. Bloomington, IN:
iUniverse, 2009.
———. The Time Is at Hand! An Introduction to the Book of Revelation. Bloomington,

IN: iUniverse, 2009.
188
Friberg, Barbara, Timothy Friberg, and Kurt Aland. In Analytical Greek New Testament:
Greek Text Analysis. Cedar Hill, TX: Silver Mountain Software, 2001.
Friberg, Timothy, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller. Analytical Lexicon of the Greek
New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2000.
Gallusz, Laszlo. “Thrones in the Book of Revelation Part 1: Throne of God.” Journal
Adventist Theological Society 23, no. 2 (2012): 30–71.
Gane, Roy E. “Christ’s Heavenly Sanctuary Ministry.” Perspective Digest 15, no. 3
(2010).
———. “Re-Opening Katapetasma ‘(Veil)’ in Hebrew 6: 19.” Andrews University

Seminary Studies 38 (2000): 5–8.
Gane, Roy E., and J. Milgrom. “‫פ ָֹּ֥רכֶת‬.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, Vol.
12. Trans. Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
Gaventa, Beverly Roberts, and David L. Petersen, eds. The New Interpreter’s Bible One-
Volume Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010.
Gordon, P., and W. Horbury. “Better Promises: Two Passages in Hebrews against the
Background of the Old Testament Cultus.” In Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the
Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 48. Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1991.
Gordon, Paul A. The Sanctuary, 1844, and the Pioneers. Washington, DC: Review and
Herald, 1983.
Grasser, Erich. An Die Hebraer. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar Zum Neuen

Testament. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand

Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
Guinness, H. G. The Approaching End of the Age, Viewed in the Light of History,
Prophecy, and Science. 8th ed. London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton, 1882.
Gulley, Norman R. “Ascension of Christ.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David

Noel Freedman, Vol. 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992.
———. Christ Is Coming! A Christ-Centered Approach to Last-Day Events.

Guthrie, George. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text Linguistic Analysis. Supplement to

Novum Testamentum 73. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
189
Hale, A. Herald of the Bridegroom! Boston, 1843.
Hale, A., and Joseph Turner. “Has Not the Savior Come as a Bridegroom.” The Advent
Mirror, January 1845.
———. “Has the Savior Come as the Bridegroom.” Advent Mirror, January 1845.
Happenstall, Edward. Our High Priest: Jesus Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary.
Washington DC: Review and Herald, 1972.
Harrelson, W. “The Significance of Cosmology in the Ancient Near East.” In Translating

and Understanding of The Old Testament, edited by H. T Frank and W. L Reed.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1970.
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Leonard Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago, IL: Moody Publ, 1980.
Hasel, Gerhard F. “The Hebrew Masculine Plural for ‘Weeks’ in the Expression ‘Seventy
Weeks’ in Daniel 9:24.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 31 (1993): 105–18.
———. “‘The “Little Horn,” the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8.’” In The
Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies, edited
by Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher. Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1981.
Hering, Jean. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London, UK: Epworth, 1970.
Himes, Joshua V. “The Present and The Past.” The Midnight Cry, October 1844.
Himmelfarb, Martha. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
Horn, Siegfried H. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Rev. ed. Washington, DC:
Review & Herald, 1979.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
———. Holy Spirit Baptism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Saved by Grace. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.
———. Seventh-Day Adventist. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961.
———. The Four Major Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism,
Seventh-Day Adventism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.
———. What About Tongue-Speaking? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1966.
190
Holbrook, Frank B. “Christ’s Inauguration as King Priest.” Journal Adventist Theological
Society 5, no. 2 (1994): 136–52.
———, ed. Issues in the Book of Hebrews. Vol. 4. 7 vols. Daniel and Revelation
Committee Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Pub. Association, 1989.
Honeycott Jr, R. L. “Exodus.” In Broadman Bible Commentary, edited by Clifton J.

Allen. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1969.
Hook, Milton. Desmond Ford: Reformist Theologian, Gospel Revivalist. Riverside: CA:
Adventist Today, 2008.
Howard, George. “Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations.” Novum Testamentum 10
(1968): 208–16.
Jansen, John F. “The Ascension, the Church, and the Theology.” Theology Today, no. 16
(1959).
John, Rosier. “Desmond Ford’s Historic Glacier View Document, Republished.”

Adventist Today (blog), November 29, 2018. https://atoday.org/reflection-on-
desmond-fords-historic-glacier-view-document-recently-republished/.
Johnsson, William G. “Day of Atonement Allusion.” In Issues in the Book of Hebrews,

Vol. 4. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald, 1989.
———. “Hebrews: An Overview.” In Issues in the Book of Hebrews, Vol. 4. Daniel and
Revelation Committee Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989.
———. In Absolute Confidence: The Book of Hebrew Speaks to Our Day. Nashville, TN:
Southern Publishing, 1979.
Jones, E. B. Forty Bible-Supported Reasons Why You Should Not Be a Seventh-Day

Adventist. 5th ed. Minneapolis, MN: Author, 1946.
———. The Answer, and the Reason. Minneapolis, MN: The Guardian of the Faith,
1950.
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by

William Whiston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Josephus, Flavius, G. A. Williamson, and E. Mary Smallwood. The Jewish War. Rev. ed.
The Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England ; New York, N.Y.,
U.S.A: Penguin, 1981.
Kee, H. C. “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A New Translation and Introduction.”

In Old Testament Pseudepigraphy, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, 1:777–78.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.
191
Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. Vol. 2. 3 vols. London, UK: T
& T Clark, 1864.
Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistle to the

Hebrews. Welwyn, Herts: Evangelical Press, 1984.
Kittel, Gerhard, G. W Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich. Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964.
Knight, George R. A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventh-Day Adventist

Beliefs. Adventist Heritage Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000.
———. Millennial Fever, and the End of the World: A Study of Millerite Adventism.
Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1993.
Land, Gary. “Ballenger, Albion Fox.” In The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia (EGWE),
edited by Denis Forth and Jerry Moon. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, n.d.
———. Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-Day Adventists. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD:
Roman & Little Field, 2015.
Lane, William L., David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. Hebrews 1 - 8. Vol. 47A. 61
vols. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1991.
Lechleitner, Elizabeth. “Seventh-Day Adventist Church Emerged from Religious Fervor

of 19 Century.” Adventist News Network, February 2, 2013.
Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary. Anchor Bible 4. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993.
“‘Light That Had Shone, Will Condemned’ [John 15:12],” In Seventh-Day Adventist
Bible Commentary, Rev. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976.
Litch, Josiah. An Address to Public, and Especially to Clergy, on the near Approach of
the Glorious, Everlasting Kingdom of God on Earth, as Indicated by the Word of
God, The History of The World, and Signs of the Present Times. Boston, MA:
Joshua V. Himes, 1842.
———. Prophetic Exposition. Vol. 1. Boston, MA: Joshua V. Himes, 1842.
Livingstone, Eric. “Investigative Judgment: A Scriptural Concept.” Ministry, April 1992.
Long, Thomas G. Hebrews. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.
MacArthur, John. Hebrews. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1996.
Malcolm, Lois E. “He Ascended into Heaven and Is Seated at the Right Hand of God the
Father Almighty.” In Exploring and Proclaiming the Apostles’ Creed, edited by
Roger Van Harn, 161–72. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.
192
Manson, W. The Epistle of Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration.
London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951.
Martin, Walter. “Seventh-Day Adventism.” Christianity Today, December 19, 1960.
———. The Rise of the Cults: An Introduction to Non-Christian Cults. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1955.
———. The Truth About Seventh-Day Adventism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1960.
———. “What Seventh-Day Adventists Really Believe.” Eternity, November 1956.
Martin, Walter, and Ravi K. Zacharias. The Kingdom of the Cults. Rev., Updated, and
Expanded ed. Minneapolis, MI: Bethany House Publishers, 2003.
Mary Smallwood, E. “Introduction, Notes, and Appendixes to Josephus.” In The Jewish

War, translated by G. A Williamson. Random House Tower, NY: Penguin, 1981.
Maxwell, C. Mervyn. “The Investigative Judgment, Its Early Development.” In The

Sanctuary and Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies, edited by
Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher. Washington, DC: Review and
Herald, 1981.
McDowell, Josh, and Don Stewart. Handbook of Today’s Religions. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, 1983.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006.
Michel, Otto. Der Brief an Die Hebraer. 12th ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1966.
Miller, Merland Ray. “Seven Theological Themes in Hebrews.” Grace Theological

Journal 8, no. 1 (1987): 131–40.
Miller, William. Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ
About a Year A.D 1843, And of His Personal Reign of 1000 Year. Brandon, FL:
Telegraph Office, 1833.
———. Evidences from History and History of the Second Coming of Christ About a
Year A.D 1843, And of His Personal Reign of 1000 Years. Brandon, FL: Vermont
Telegraph Office, 1831.
———. “Extract of A Letter From Bro. Miller.” Day Star, March 1845.
———. Letters to Joshua V. Himes, on the Cleansing of the Sanctuary. Boston, MA:
Joshua V. Himes, 1842.
193
Moskala, Jiří. “The Meaning of the Intercessory Ministry of Jesus Christ on Our Behalf
in the Heavenly Sanctuary.” JATS 28, no. 1 (2017): 2–25.
Mueller, Ekkehardt. Come Boldly to the Throne: Sanctuary Theme in Hebrews. Nampa:
ID: Pacific Press, 2003.
Nam, Daegeuk. “The ‘Throne of God’ Motif in the Hebrew Bible.” PhD Diss., Andrews
University, 1989.
Neufeld, Don F. Seventh-Day Adventist Encyclopedia. Washington DC: Review and

Herald, 1995.
Nichol, Francis, ed. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Rev. ed. Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976-1980.
Olson, Robert W. The Investigative Judgment in the Writings of Ellen G. White. Silver
Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate Inc., 2018.
Ostling, Richard N. “Religion: The Church of Liberal Borrowings.” Time, August 1982.
Ouro, Roberto. “The Apotelesmatic Principle: Origin and Application.” Journal Adventist
Theological Society 9, no. 1–2 (1998): 326–42.
Pfandl, Gerhard. “The Pre-Advent Judgment: Fact or Fiction?” Ministry, February 2004.
Questions on Doctrines. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1957.
Ratzlaff, Dale. Sabbath in Crisis. Glendale, AZ: LAM Publications, 2003.
———. The Truth about Seventh-Day Adventist “Truth.” Glendale, AZ: LAM
Publications, 2007.
———. Truth Led Me Out. Glendale, AZ: LAM, 2012.
Ratzlaff, Dale, and Kenneth Samples. Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-Day Adventism: An

Evangelical Wake-up Call. Glendale, AZ: LAM, 2009.
Read, W. E. “The Investigative Judgment: Does This Teaching Have Any Biblical
Basis.” Ministry, July 1960.
Rice, George E. “Hebrews 6: 19: Analysis of Some Assumptions Concerning

Katapetasma.” In Issues in the Book of Hebrews, Vol. 4. Daniel and Revelation
———. “The Chiastic Structure of the Central Section of the Epistle to the Hebrews.”
———. “Within Which Veil?” Ministry, June 1987.
194
Robertson, Archibald T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research. London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919.
Robinson, Thomas. The Preacher’s Homiletical Commentary. Vol. 19. 38 vols. New
York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1892.
Rodriquez, Angel Manuel. “Response To: “The Investigative Judgment: A Bible Based
Doctrine?” The Watchtower, July 1997.
———. “The Sanctuary and Its Cleansing.” Adventist Review, September 1994.
Royo, Daniel David. “Josiah Litch: His Life, Work, and Use of His Writings, on Selected
Topics, by Seventh-Day Adventist Writers.” MA Thesis, Andrews University,
2009.
Rylaarsdam, C. “Exodus.” The Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1952.
Salom, A. P. “Sanctuary Theology.” In Issues in The Book of Hebrews, Vol. 4. Daniel

and Revelation Committee Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1989.
———. “Ta Hagia in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Andrews University Seminary Studies
5, no. 1 (1967): 59–70.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. The Christian Faith. Edited by H. R. Mackintosh and J. S.

Stewart. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1928.
Schneider, C. “Καταπετάσμα.” In Theological Dictionary of New Testament, Vol. 3.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964.
Schwarz, Richard W. Light Bearer to the Remnant. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press,
1979.
Seiss, Joseph August. The Apocalypse: Lectures on the Book of Revelation. New York,
NY: Cosimo Classics, 2007.
Shea, William. “A Theological Importance of the Pre-Advent Judgment.” In The Seventy

Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, Vol. 3. Daniel and Revelation
———. “Literary and Architectural Structures in the Sanctuary Section of Hebrews (6:
19-20 to 10: 19-20).” (Unpublished Paper), n.d.
———. Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation. Vol. 1. 7 vols. Daniel and

Revelation Committee Series. Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute,
General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 1992.
195
———. “Supplement Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as a Starting Date for 2300 Day-
Years of Daniel 8:14.” Journal of Adventist Theological Society 12, no. 1 (Spring
2001): 89–96.
———. “The Investigative Judgment of Judah, Ezekiel 1-10.” In The Sanctuary and
Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies, edited by Arnold V.
Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher. Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1981.
———. “The Prophecy of Daniel 9: 24-27.” In The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the
Nature of Prophecy, Vol. 3. Daniel and Revelation Committee Series.
———. “The Relationship Between the Prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9”.” In Sanctuary
and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies, edited by Arnold
V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher. Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1981.
Short, Donald Karr. “A Study of the Cleansing of the Sanctuary in Relation to Current
Denominational History.” MA Thesis, Andrews University, 1958.
Smith, Uriah. “Do We Endorse Bible by the Vision.” Advent Review and Sabbath
Herald, January 16, 1863.
Snow, Samuel S. “And the Door Was Shut.” The Jubilee Standard, April 1845.
Spicq, C. L’Epitre Aux Hebreux. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, J Gabalda, 1952.
Stanley, Steve. “The Structure of Hebrews From Three Perspectives.” Tyndale Bulletin
45, no. 2 (1994): 245–71.
Stein, Gert J. A Quest For the Assumed LXX Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in
Hebrews. Gottingen, DE: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Steward, R. A. “The Old Testament Usage in Philo, Rabbinic Writings, and Hebrews.”
M. Litt. Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1947.
Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Peabody, MS:

Hendrickson Publishers, 2006.
Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew

(Old Testament). Oak Harbor, OH: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 1997.
Swetnam, J. “On the Literary Genre of the ‘Epistle’ to the Hebrews.” Novum
Testamentum, no. 11 (1969): 261–69.
Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies. Vol. 2. 7 vols. Daniel and
196
Symposium on Revelation- Book I. Vol. 6. 7 vols. Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1992.
Symposium on Revelation- Book II. Vol. 7. 7 vols. Daniel and Revelation Committee
Series. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1992.
Synge, F. C. Hebrews, and The Scriptures. London, UK: SPCK, 1959.
Tabor, James D. “Ascent to Heaven.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel
Freedman, Vol. 3. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992.
“Temple…heaven” [Psalm 11:4]. In Jamieson, Robert., Fausset A. R., Brown, David. A

Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak
Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997.
“The Book of Life.” In Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Rev. Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1976.
The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy. Vol. 3. 7 vols. Daniel and
The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania.

2B: ... Philadephia, PA: Babylonian Section of the University Museum, 1984.
Thomas, Kenneth J. “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews.” New Testament Studies
11 (1965): 303–25.
———. Use of the Septuagint in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Manchester, UK: University
of Manchester, 1959.
Thomas, Robert L, and W. Don Wilkins. New American Standard Exhaustive

Concordance of the Bible: Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries. Anaheim,
CA.: Foundation Publications, 1998.
Timm, Alberto R. “Inspiration of Ellen White.” Perspective Digest 15, no. 3 (2010).
Torrance, Thomas F. The Mediation of Christ. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1983.
Tregelles, S.P. Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book Od Daniel. 8th ed.
Chelmsford, UK: The Sovereigns Advent Testimony, n.d.
Turner, Joseph. “To the Believer Scattered Abroad.” Day Star, March 1845.
Vanhoye, Albert. La Structure Litterairedel’ Epitre Aux Hebreux. 2nd ed. Bruges, BE:
De Brouwer, 1976.
———. Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Subsidia Biblical 12.
Rome, IT: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989.
197
Vincent, Marvin Richardson. Word Studies in the New Testament. Charleston, SC: Nabu
Press, 2010.
Vine, W. E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White. Vine’s Complete Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: With Topical Index. Vol. 1.
Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1996.
Wallenkampf, Arnold V. “A Brief Review of Some of the Internal and External

Challengers to the Seventh-Day Adventist Teachings on the Sanctuary and the
Atonement.” In The Sanctuary and The Atonement: Biblical, Historical and
Theological Studies, edited by Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher.
Washington DC: Review and Herald, 1981.
Wallenkampf, Arnold V., and W. Richard Lesher, eds. The Sanctuary and Atonement:
Biblical, Historical and Theological Studies. Washington, DC: Review and
Herald, 1981.
Westcott, B. F. The Epistle to the Hebrew: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. 2th ed.
London, UK: Macmillan, 1892.
White, Ellen G. “Accepted in Christ.” ST, July 4, 1892.
———. Christian Experience and Teachings. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1922.
———. Christ’s Object Lessons. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1941.
———. Early Writings. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1882.
———. “God’s Abhorrence and Treatment of Sin.” The Signs of The Times (ST), May
27, 1880.
———. “Lesson from the Life of Daniel.” The Youth Instructor, April 5, 1905.
———. “Let Him Take Hold of My Strength.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald,
September 16, 1890.
———. “Letter from Sister White.” Day Star, March 14, 1846.
———. Life Sketches of Ellen White. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 2002.
———. “Notes on Travel.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 25, 1884.
———. Patriarch and Prophets. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1890.
———. Selected Messages. 3 vols. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1980.
———. Spiritual Gifts. Vol. 1. 4 vols. Battle Creek, MI: SDA Publishing, 1858.
———. Testimonies for the Church. 9 vols. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1909.
198
———. The Acts of the Apostles. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911.
———. “The Ark of Covenant.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 1905.
———. “The College View Council.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 19,
1905.
———. “The Day of Reckoning.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November 22,
1898.
———. The Desire of Ages. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1898.
———. The Gift of Light. Edited by Roger W. Coon. Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White
Estate Inc., 2018.
———. The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press Publishing Association, 1950.
———. “The Power of The Truth.” The Signs of the Time, August 6, 1885.
———. “The Present Crisis.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 1, 1889.
———. The Spirit of Prophecy. Vol. 4. 10 vols. Complete Published Ellen G. White’s
Writings [CD-ROM]. Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate Inc., 2008.
———. “With Power and Great Glory.” The Signs of the Times, April 19, 1905.
White, James. A Word to the Little Flock. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1847.
———. Life Incident: Connections with the Great Advent Movement, as Illustrated by
The Three Angels of Revelation XIV. Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of SDA,
1868.
———. “The Day of Atonement.” Advent Review, September 1850.
———. “The Judgment.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 29, 1857, 100–
101.
Whitlock, Luder G., R. C Sproul, Bruce K. Waltke, and Silva Moiss. The Reformation
Study Bible: Bringing the Light of Reformation to Scriptures. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, 1995.
Wilson, R. Mc. L. Hebrews. The New Century Bible Commentary. Basingstoke, UK:
Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1987.
Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees: A New Translation and Introduction.” In The Old Testament

Pseudepigrapha, edited by James H. Charlesworth, Vol. 2. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1985.
199
Wright, R. B. “Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction.” In Old
Testament Pseudepigraphy, edited by J. H. Charlesworth, Vol. 2. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1985.
Young, Norman H. “The Gospel According to Hebrew 9.” New Testament Studies 27
(1981): 198–210.
———. “Tout Estin Sarkos Autou,’ Heb X. 20: Apposition, Dependent and
Explicative?” New Testament Studies 20 (1974): 100–104.
———. “Where Jesus Has Gone as a Forerunner on Our Behalf,’ (Hebrews 6: 19).”
200

The Compatibility of Christs Ascension I PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Compatibility of Christs Ascension I PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Compatibility of Christs Ascension I PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the topic and purpose of the thesis?

What is the topic and purpose of the thesis?

What are the major conclusions of the study?

What are the major conclusions of the study?

ABSTRACT

THE COMPATIBILITY OF CHRIST’S ASCENSION IN THE EPISTLE TO THE

Adviser: Dr. Paul Bhaggien

Spicer Adventist University

Department of Religious Studies

Title: THE COMPATIBILITY OF CHRIST’S ASCENSION IN THE EPISTLE OF

Name of researcher: Lalnuntluanga Ralte

fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.

texts such as Hebrews 6: 19 and Hebrews 9: 12 in their contexts because it seems to be in

contradiction with the theology of pre-advent judgment. The finding solutions is

primarily for providing an apologetical response to the problems of the subjects.

the beginning of His ministry.

epistle to the Hebrews.

Department of Religious Studies

THE COMPATIBILITY OF CHRIST’S ASCENSION IN THE EPISTLE TO

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement for the Degree

Master of Arts in Religion

For encouraging me to pursue my Master studies.

ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... x

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF INVESTIGATIVE

History of Investigative Judgment and its origin ........................................ 16

3. BIBLICAL BASIS ON THE PRE-ADVENT JUDGMENT AND

The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Bible .......................................................... 83

4. THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF CHRIST’S ENTRANCE

Contexts of the Epistle to the Hebrews ....................................................... 120

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................... 160

Summary ..................................................................................................... 161

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................ 183

1. Literary Parallels in Hebrews 6: 19-20 and 10: 19-20 ............................... 135

2. Various Translation of τὰ ἅγια in the epistle to the Hebrews .................... 139

3. The Use of τὰ ἅγια in the LXX .................................................................. 141

4. The Usage of ἅγιος by Itself for the sanctuary in the OT

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

ARSH Advent Review and Sabbath Herald

ASV Authorized Standard Version

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

BDAG Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich.

CWSD The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament

DBY Darby Bible

ENDT Exegetical Dictionary of New Testament

ERV English Revised Version

Fug. De fuga et invention

Goodspeed The New Testament: An American Translation

GTJ Grace Theological Journals

ISV International Standard Version

J. W The Jewish Wars

JATS Journal Adventist Theological Society

JUB Jubilee Bible

KJV King James Version

LCL Loeb Classical Library

Leg. Legum Allegoriae

Legat. Legatio ad Gaium