PART 2 (A): EXPOSING THE SDA SANCTUARY DOCTRINE

(Post-1844 till the official establishment of the SDA Church)

By Brian S. Neumann

Right at the start of this submission, I want to make a very important point. SDA's have many
teachings that are absolutely scriptural based on a sound interpretive methodology that has led
them to correct conclusions regarding such (e.g. the Sabbath, state of the dead, etc.). However,
regarding their sanctuary doctrine and other teachings linked to it, SDA's, via the faulty
interpretations of William Miller's end-time message (see Part 1 of this series), Hiram Edson and
the, so called, Divinely inspired insights of Ellen White, have invented a teaching that directly
contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture, even the very words of Christ, and has led many to
confusion and doubt regarding the present assurance of salvation, and in many cases, when the
realisation sets in that they might NEVER attain to the required perfection, a total rejection of
Christianity. What is the reason for this?

The reason is simple, yet complex, because so much of the erroneous teaching of Seventh-day
Adventism is blended with scriptural truth. Without understanding the foundation or origin of the
SDA sanctuary doctrine (post 1844), it is very difficult for most people to separate fact from fiction
solid biblical teaching from that which is not only based on a twisted hermeneutic but is actually
blasphemy against what Christ HAS accomplished, and thus, destructive to a healthy Christian
experience. The amount of ducking and diving, clever adaptation, and often, outright lying, that has
taken place to hide the truth regarding this teaching, in its original form and development over the
years, has bamboozled many. Sadly, pastors, and even many SDA scholars, honest though they
may be, have had the wool pulled over their eyes and genuinely believe this SDA/Ellen White
teaching.

Having said this, I must also add that there are many pastors and scholars who absolutely
disagree with Ellen White and the original teaching (even more recent attempts at adapting it) and
have readily confessed, to me personally, that their position is contrary even to the point of
admitting that they do not believe Ellen White was a true prophet, and that they believe she, on
numerous occasions, resorted to dishonesty to hide the truth from church members (much of this
evidence is shared in my book The White Elephant In Seventh-day Adventism).

It is the purpose of Part 2 in this series to examine the early origins of the SDA sanctuary doctrine
and the ideas connected to it so that the intellectually honest reader, who is earnestly seeking for
truth, can begin see if it stands up to what Scripture reveals. As I continue this series, more and
more evidence, historical and biblical, will come to light.

In Part 1 I concluded by stating: It was out of this milieu of end-time expectation [the Millerite
movement], visionaries, prophets, seers, religious fanaticism, revival based on spurious
interpretations of Scripture, disinformation, repeated non-events and a final climactic
disappointment, that, it is said, God's appointed oracle to His remnant people arose Ellen Gould
Harmon. I would like to start by taking a look at Ellen Harmon and her calling to become the oracle
(prophet, seer, visionary ) of God.

ELLEN GOULD HARMON BACKGROUND

Ellen was the daughter of Portland Maine hatter, Robert Harmon and his wife Eunice. They had 8
children, of which Ellen and her twin sister Elizabeth were the youngest. They were first exposed to
the teachings of William Miller in 1840, while members of the Chestnut Street Methodist Church.
Ellen's father, along with his family, accepted the message, and like many others in New England,
from then on, regularly attended the revival meetings, eagerly looking forward to the predicted
second coming of Christ and the end of the world. In 1837, when Ellen was 9, she received a near
fatal injury when one of the girls from her school threw a rock into her face, rendering her
unconscious. She remained in a coma for almost 3 weeks and was unable to continue formal
education in any significant way afterwards.

As a result of the injury, her facial features were completely distorted and her physical and mental
health greatly affected. Consequently, she turned more and more to finding reassurance and
answers in spiritual pursuits. She describes this time:

My life was often miserable, for my feelings were keenly sensitive how vain and empty
the pleasures of the earth looked to me But I began to turn to my Saviour where I found
comfort ... (Biographical books, Ellen G. White, The Early Years, 1827-1862, Arthur L.
White, p. 30).

It would appear that the spiritual comfort Ellen White began experiencing, coincided with her
hearing William Miller for the first time at the age of 12. On page 34 of the same book, quoted
above, her grandson Arthur writes: In March, 1840, a revival in Portland, Maine, brought some
hope to the twelve year old girl [Ellen].

Of this experience Ellen White writes:

... I was listening to the most solemn and powerful sermons to the effect that Christ was
coming in 1843 [Miller's earlier date for the second coming], only a few short years in the
future. The preacher traced down the prophecies with a keen exactitude that struck
conviction to the hearts of his hearers. He dwelt upon the prophetic periods, and piled up
proof to strengthen his position. Then his solemn and powerful appeals and admonitions to
those who were unprepared, held the crowd as if spellbound (Biographical books, Ellen G.
White, The Early Years, 1827-1862, Arthur L. White, p. 34, 35).

Arthur writes that Ellen fully accepted Miller's presentations (Ibid. p. 38). Once when Ellen's
brother Robert questioned their belief in Miller's message, exclaiming: Are we deceived? Is this
hope of Christ's soon appearing upon earth a heresy, that ministers and professors of religion
oppose it so bitterly? (Ibid. p. 42), Ellen immediately responded: I have no doubt but that the
doctrine preached by Miller is the truth ... (Ibid).

In spite of the fact, as addressed in Part 1 of this series, that one of the primary reasons ministers
and professors of religion opposed Miller's message, was that he was setting dates for Christ's
return when Christ and Scripture as a whole expressly says that no one can know the time, Ellen
and her family, along with the other 50 000 or so other believers, embraced his whole theology,
expecting Christ to return first in 1843, then in the spring of 1844, and finally, in the fall of 1844,
on October 22.

Regarding Miller's second visit to Portland Maine, in 1842, and the reaction of preachers to his
message, Ellen Writes: Many discourses from the various pulpits sought to expose the alleged
fanatical errors of the lecturer [Miller] (Ibid. p. 38. Emphasis supplied). Although Ellen White
speaks of other minister's scepticism in the negative sense, it must be emphasised again that they
had good reason for being skeptical. The key motivation for their skepticism, as stated by Ellen
White herself in the book The Great Controversy, was that Miller was setting dates for Christ's
return. Miller's errors, particularly in this regard, were not alleged, he was most emphatically
wrong, whether Ellen White and 50 000 other people believed in it or not.

Another interesting component of this period had to do with Ellen White's enthusiasm regarding the
prophetic ministry of one, William Foye (In SDA publications it is spelled Foy the correct spelling
is Foye). Most SDA's, including ministers and Bible scholars, have not done a comprehensive
study of Foye's visions. In fact, there are conflicting reports about the amount of visions Foye
received and what happened to him post 1844, in official SDA publications. The primary source for
the Foye story are the writings of SDA Church historian J. N. Loughborough, who reported that
Foye sickened and died shortly after the disappointment of 1844, which he did not. He died in
1893 (The Great Second Advent Movement, J. N. Loughborough, 1905, p. 145-147).

One of the the main problems with Foye, however, in spite of the fact that SDA's, and Ellen White
herself, regarded him as a genuine prophet, is that things were communicated to him in vision that
directly contradict SDA beliefs not the least of which was his revelations concerning the state of
the dead, which Ellen White claimed would be one of the final deceptions in the last days. All this is
covered in my book The White Elephant (Chapter III, Prophets and Pretenders). What is
significant about the Foye/Ellen White connection, according to SDA legend, is that God passed by
Foye, because he did not continue to give the message, and also Hazen Foss (a relative of
Ellen's), who also shrank from the calling, and then approached Ellen Harmon, the weakest of the
weak, to be His chosen vessel (Ibid).

October 22, 1844, came and went, Christ did not return and their was bitter disappointment among
the Millerite, Advent believers. Even though Ellen White writes that they were disappointed but not
disheartened, Arthur White records: ... during this period of uncertainty and bitter disappointment
that Ellen's health, already impaired, worsened rapidly (Biographical books, Ellen G. White, The
Early Years, 1827-1862, Arthur L. White, p. 55).

Ellen was suffering from tuberculosis, could only speak in a whisper or broken voice. Her heart was
seriously affected by this, there was bleeding in her lungs. It seemed that she might die. It was in
this condition of weakness, while visiting a friend, Mrs. Elizabeth Haines, that Ellen, while praying,
received her first vision (Ibid. p. 55, 56).

Before I discuss the significance of the insights that Ellen Harmon received while in vision and how
these visions affected the sanctuary teaching that grew out of those revelations, let me explain
my reason for emphasising Ellen's physical and mental condition.

More and more, as I have been doing extensive research into the reasons for Ellen White's
physical condition and the symptoms that typically accompany people who have suffered similarly,
for an upcoming book, The Hatter's Daughter, interesting and disturbing facts have emerged. I
am not the only one who has researched Ellen White's physical problems. There have been others
who have studied this, even medical doctors associated with Ellen White in her day, who worked at
SDA sanitariums. However, as is usually the case, SDA's choose to have a blind-spot on this
issue, and, on the whole, refuse to even consider the possibility that Ellen White's compromised
health might have been a catalyst that triggered her trances and were the actual cause for the
symptoms she manifest while in trance.

Following are a few indisputable facts: Ellen White grew up in an environment where her father,
Robert, in the very home they lived in on 44 Clark Street, on the west end of Portland Maine,
operated his hat-making business (he was a hatter). Ellen White and the other children often
helped their father in the production of hats. Anyone who has studied the hat-making process' of
that era will know that part of the procedure involved the use of mercuric solution, that was applied
to fur that had been pulled from the pelts (beaver fluff). Mercury is a highly poisonous substance,
and it was a known fact, many hatters and their helpers, ended up with serious nervous conditions,
mental issues and other health related problems, which in many cases led to death, as a result of
exposure to mercury hence the title given to the hatter in the fictional story, Alice in
Wonderland, the Mad Hatter, who had become delusional/mad because of exposure to this
substance.

Although the Alice story is fictional, the part about a hatter becoming delusional/mad as a result
of constant exposure to mercury, is based on solid medical/scientific evidence. The bottom line,
without doubt, is that Ellen was most certainly exposed to mercury while growing up. Not only did
she live in a home that was the venue for her father's hat production, she actually worked in the
room where the hat-making took place. Was she affected? Without doubt. To what degree? This
cannot be known in any exact sense. However, her physical and mental condition, of which there is
ample historical record, are certainly indicators. Indeed, because of her illness' and extended
recovery period after her injury, Ellen probably spent more time indoors than the other members of
her family.

In addition to her exposure to mercury, there are also the serious consequences that accompanied
the injury she suffered at the hand of the girl who struck her in the face with a rock this event
affected her on the physical level and also impacted her mental condition as it related to self-
esteem and attitude to life for many years. When one combines the potential effects of mercurial
poisoning, with the injury sustained as a child, it is hardly inconceivable that she was not seriously
impacted by such. Medical testimony, regarding the symptoms or effects on people who have
suffered, either serious head injuries, extended periods of comatose conditions, or mercurial
poisoning, record these effects and testify that with age they lessen (interestingly, as Ellen White
got older, she received less and less visions). The condition was known as hysteria in Ellen
White's day. SDA physicians, some who practiced at SDA sanitariums, who had the opportunity to
observe Ellen White, such as Dr. Fairfield who for years worked at Battle Creek sanitarium,
testified:

Dear Sir: You are undoubtedly right in ascribing Mrs. E.G. White's so-called visions to
disease. It has been my opportunity to observe her case a good deal, covering quite a
period of years, which, with a full knowledge of her history from the beginning, gave me no
chance to doubt her ('divine') attacks to be simply hysterical trances. Age itself has almost
cured her. W.J. Fairfield, M.D" (Letter to Canright, Battle Creek, Mich., Dec. 28, 1887).

Dr. W. M. Russell, who was a Seventh-day Adventist and a chief physician in the Sanitarium, wrote
July 12, 1869:

" Mrs. White's visions were the result of a diseased organization or condition of the brain
or nervous system." "When giving, to a conference at Pilot Grove, Ia., 1865, an
account of her visit at Dr. Jackson's health institute, she stated that the doctor, upon
a medical examination, pronounced her a subject of hysteria" (Mrs. White's Claims
Examined, p. 76. Emphasis supplied).

Experienced physicians, even in years past, clearly understood how people who suffered from
physical and mental conditions, that triggered hysteria, experienced trance states. Dr. George B.
Wood, in Practice of Medicine, page 721 of Vol. II., in treating of mental disorders, and explaining
the cause and phenomena of trances, says:

"Ecstasy is an affection in which, with a loss of consciousness of existing circumstances,

and insensibility to impression from without, there is an apparent exaltation of the
intellectual or emotional functions, as if the individual were raised into a different nature, or
different sphere of existence. The patient appears wrapped up in some engrossing thought
or feeling, with an expression upon his countenance as of lofty contemplations or ineffable
delight. . . Upon recovering from the spell, the patient generally remembers his thoughts
and feelings more or less accurately, and sometimes tells of wonderful visions that he has
seen, of visits to the regions of the blessed, of ravishing harmony and splendor, of
inexpressible enjoyment of the senses or affections" (emphasis supplied).

Another authority, G. Durant, M.D., Ph.D., former member of the American Medical Association
and fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine, describing ecstasy and catalepsy, says:

"It often happens that the two diseases alternate or coexist. In ecstasy the limbs are
 motionless, but not rigid. The eyes are open, the pupils fixed, the livid lips parted in
smiles, and the arms extended to embrace the beloved vision. The body is erect and
raised to its utmost height, or else is extended at full length in recumbent posture. A
peculiarly radiant smile illuminates the countenance, and the whole aspect and attitude
is that of intense mental exaltation. Sometimes the patient is silent, the mind being
apparently absorbed in meditation, or in the contemplation of some beatific vision.
Sometimes there is mystical speaking or prophesying, or singing, or the lips maybe
moved without any sound escaping ... Usually there is complete insensibility to
external impressions. Ecstasy is often associated with religious monomania"
(emphasis supplied).

There is more one could say regarding this question and many more medical resources that could
be consulted and quoted. The bottom line is this: These descriptions very adequately describe
Ellen White's condition. In fact, eye witness descriptions of the physical phenomena that
accompanied Ellen White while in vision are practically an exact replication of the conditions
described above.

Again, SDA's will want to ignore this because any admission that Ellen White's visions might have
been the result of such conditions, would seriously put her prophetic gift in question. However,
Ellen White's exposure to mercury, her head injuries as a child, her coma that lasted for three
weeks, her bout with tuberculosis and her ongoing physical condition, cannot be ignored without
wantonly turning a blind eye to the facts.

Are these considerations perhaps the reason why, at times, Ellen White herself expressed doubts
regarding her own visions? After all, as quoted earlier on, Ellen White, on her visit to Dr. Jackson's
institute, was diagnosed as having hysteria according to her own testimony. In Early Writings, p.
18, Ellen White writes that, I was sometimes tempted to doubt my own experience. Years later,
after she had had many years experience with her own visions, she wrote: "In the night I have
awakened my husband, saying, 'I am afraid I shall become an infidel' (Testimonies, Vol. I, p. 597).
Is there any Biblical prophet, on record, that ever expressed such doubt regarding the authenticity
of the visions they received from God?

All this being said, the evidence that has a direct impact on the sanctuary doctrine has to do with a
theology that does not agree with what Scripture reveals and the history of the teaching as
originally taught and developed by the SDA pioneers and Ellen White. These are the issues that
we will be examining next.

THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT, BIRTH OF THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE, & OTHER

INTERESTING FACTS

To get a proper understanding of how the great disappointment morphed into the sanctuary
doctrine of the SDA Church, one needs to learn about the experience of one, Hiram Edson. He
believed that he had been given power to heal the sick and had brought many to the advent,
Millerite message through his preaching prior to October 22nd, 1844. On the morning following the
disappointment (October 23rd), after a night of weeping and feelings of great loss, Edson and his
friends walked through the cornfield on his farm to meet with and encourage other believers. They
chose this route because they wanted to avoid the mocking jeers of the neighbours who had not
accepted the Advent message. While walking through the field, Hiram apparently received a view
of heaven. This is how he described the experience:

We started, and while passing through a large field I was stopped about midway of the
field. Heaven seemed opened to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of
our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this
earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, He for the
first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that He had
 a work to perform in the Most Holy Place before coming to the earth (The Midnight Cry. By
F.D. Nichol, p. 458. Emphasis supplied).

He shared this view with the other believers. Upon hearing this they were encouraged because it
gave them what they saw as a desperately needed explanation for why Christ had not returned.
Edson, on the inspiration of this revelation, started studying the Bible with O.R.L. Crosier and
Franklin B. Hahn, two other believers, and started formulating their ideas regarding all that had
taken place. They studied the parable of the ten virgins, which had been the rallying cry for Millers
messageespecially the part that dealt with the Bridegrooms delay. They also studied the
Jewish Day of Atonement celebration/feast-day and came up with their chronology of events. They
explained the sanctuary in heaven and how that Christ had moved from the holy to the most holy to
commence His work of cleansing the sanctuary. This, according to them, was what Daniel was
referring to in Daniel 8:14, when he said that unto 2300 days the sanctuary would be cleansed.
Crosier published the account of Edsons vision and this came into the possession of James White
and Joseph Bates. After reading the paper, Bates visited Edson in New York and converted him to
the seventh-day Sabbath.

According to Ellen Whites grandson, Arthur L. White, Ellen, still Ellen Harmon at the time, received
a vision somewhere between the winter and spring of 1845 regarding the sanctuary. Somewhere
during this time she also met James White (who had read a copy of Edsons vision), in Orrington.
He joined her and her woman travelling companion as they continued their ministry. It was also
during this time that the events in Atkinson, with Israel Dammon and the ensuing court-case
transpired (which I will address in my next submission). Arthur claims that she knew nothing
about Hirams vision at the time she received her revelation on the sanctuary. This cannot be
substantiated either way except for the fact that she received this vision at the time she met James
White, during the time she very specifically spoke of salvation being passed for sinners (the shut
door concepts) during the Israel Dammon meetings in Atkinson (February 1845 towards the end
of winter).

It seems almost certain though, based on the dates, that either she read the article of Hirams
vision (in which he speaks of a shut door) or that she received her own sanctuary vision, prior to
February (very early in her travels through Main). During the Dammon experience in Atkinson, she
is quoted by witnesses in the Dammon trial as having referred to the shut door a number of times.
The exact time-frames are not easy to determine. What can be certain however, discussed in an
earlier chapter in fair detail, is what Ellen Whites teaching on the sanctuary was all about. Based
upon the record of her visions, her view of what happened at the close of the 2300 years/days and
how it relates to the sanctuary in heaven, can be easily outlined. In the book The Great
Controversy, she starts off the chapter, In the Holy of Holies, by saying that: The subject of the
sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844 (The Great
Controversy, p.423). She wrote on p. 426 of the later edition of this book that:

The coming of Christ as our high priest to the most holy place, for the cleansing of the
sanctuary, brought to view in Dan. 8:14; the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of
days, as presented in Dan. 7:13; and the coming of the Lord to his temple, foretold by
Malachi, are descriptions of the same event; and this is also represented by the coming of
the bridegroom to the marriage, described by Christ in the parable of the ten virgins, of
Matthew 25 (Ibid).

The parable of the virgins, according to Christs own account, is an analogy for the second coming.
The coming of the Lord to His temple, as foretold in Malachi 3:1-3, 5 and the continuation of that
which was foretold culminate in verse 18 in God discerning between the righteous and the wicked
and the final annihilation of the wicked in Chapter 4:1. What Malachi says does not necessarily
compliment Ellen Whites description.

She often assigns scriptures to events or ideas that are not related. Such as the judgment scene of
Daniel 7:9-14 as a description of Christ moving into the most holy in 1844, for the start of the
investigative judgment. However, when one reads the interpretation of this scene from verse 15-18
and also verse 26, 27, it gives no indication that this is a description of heavenly events in 1844. In
fact, the language regarding the destruction of the beast and the possession of the kingdom by the
saints seem to parallel the stone kingdom that destroys the feet of iron and clay in Daniel 2, the
destruction of the Babylonian whore in Revelation 18 and Christs final judgment and conquest in
Revelation 19.

Whichever way one looks at it, the scriptures that Ellen White claims were fulfilled in 1844, seem to
more accurately fit the time of Christs second coming. There is simply no unquestionable way of
concretely proving that these things have anything to do with 1844. Of course, these comments by
Ellen White are not the summation of her revelations regarding the real events of 1844. She
offers a more comprehensive application of the parable of the virgins as further evidence:

In the summer and autumn of 1844, the proclamation, Behold, the Bridegroom
cometh, was given. The two classes represented by the wise and foolish virgins were
then developed, one class who looked with joy to the Lords appearing, and who had
been diligently preparing to meet him; another class that, influenced by fear, and acting
from impulse, had been satisfied with a theory of the truth, but were destitute of the grace
of God. In the parable, when the bridegroom came, they that were ready went in with him
to the marriage (Ibid. Emphasis supplied).

As already commented on, this parable is a metaphor for the second coming of Christ (this is
exactly the application Miller used). Thus, to get around the statement of Matthew 25:10 where
Christ says, they that were ready went in with him to the marriage, Ellen White resorts to some
fancy exegetical footwork. This is because nobody, not even in their imaginations, really WENT
anywhere at all. Indeed, NOTHING happened to offer ANY tangible/visible evidence that a GREAT
prophetic event, at the close of apparently the longest prophetic time-frame, had occurred. This is
Ellen Whites explanation:

At the appointed time the Bridegroom came, not to the earth, as the people expected,
but to the Ancient of days in Heaven [she is here referring to Daniel 7:13], to the
marriage, the reception of his kingdom. 'They that were ready went in with him to the
marriage, and the door was shut.' They were not to be present in person at the
marriage; for it takes place in Heaven, while they are upon the earth. The followers of
Christ are to 'wait for their Lord, when he will return from the wedding.' [LUKE 12:36.] But
they are to understand his work, and to follow him by faith as he goes in before God.
It is in this sense that they are said to go in to the marriage. In the parable it was those
that had oil in their vessels with their lamps that went in to the marriage. Those who, with a
knowledge of the truth from the Scriptures, had also the Spirit and grace of God, and
who, in the night of their bitter trial, had patiently waited, searching the Bible for clearer
light,these saw the truth concerning the sanctuary in Heaven and the Saviours
change of ministration, and by faith they followed him in his work in the sanctuary above
(Ibid, p. 246. Emphasis supplied).

There is literally NO evidence that anything at all occurred on October 22nd, 1844, nothing to mark
the day, no proof to vindicate Gods people or to clearly show a skeptical world that another one of
scriptures major predictions DID come to pass. The culminating date for the longest time
prophecy in the Bible is uneventful and mute. The world simply has to take the word of two
individuals who say they saw it take place in vision.

For almost 14 years William Miller, based on his interpretation, preached the second coming of
Christ at the close of the 2300 yearsa real verifiable event would have occurred if he was right.
Indeed, if it had it would have been the one event most easy to mark and prove, throughout
humanitys entire historythe culmination of history itself. From that potential status, it ended up
flickering and dying into the most unprovable, embarrassing non-event of all time.

Ellen White, in a statement recorded earlier, said that those who were the faithful/ready Advent
believers, went in with him [Christ] to the marriage, and the door was shut. They were not to be
present in person at the marriage; for it takes place in Heaven, while they are upon the earth
these saw the truth concerning the sanctuary in Heaven and the Saviours change of ministration,
and by faith they followed him in his work in the sanctuary above. NO, this was not so, those who
were ready did NOT go in with Him to the marriage, not even in faith. For obvious reasons ...

When He supposedly went in, which was on October 22nd, 1844 (the 10th day of the 7th month,
according to Hiram Edisons understanding of the Jewish calendara definite date), the faithful
Advent believers were looking up to heaven in expectation of the second coming and the end of
the worldthis was what they had faith in. To be sure, when that did not happen, at the stroke of
midnight, their faith suffered an almost unimaginable blow. Jesus had apparently passed into the
most holythe bridegroom was at the marriage and had shut a door that NO ONE could open
and NO ONE, not even in FAITH, entered in when HE went in. They had NO idea at all what had
happened. How could they enter in any way shape or form? Only the next day, once the door was
shut (unless Christ left it open a crack until their faith and knowledge could catch up with events)
did anyone (Hiram Edson) have any idea what supposedly occurred. The rest of the world has
been catching up ever since.

When, for example, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost, a heavenly event had
also occurred. In fact, because of the comments by those who were questioning what was taking
place, Peter gives a Bible-based response to convict his hearers recorded in Acts 2.

When the disciples went into the streets on Pentecost, after receiving the Comforter and people
heard them speaking in tongues, some of the hearers scoffed and said they were drunk (full of new
wine). Others were amazed and were in doubt, saying to one another, What meaneth this? (Acts
2:12, 13). Peter then responds to both classes of people, he presents evidence that confirms that
both a heavenly (unseen by human eyes and unheard by human ears) and earthly event
(witnessed by human eyes and heard by human ears) had taken place.

The earthly evidence was that they had received the Holy Spirit. People witnessed it and it is
recoded in Scripture for posterity and promise. Peter quotes the prophet Joel (verse 28-32), who
predicted this event and then quotes David (Psalms 16:8-11; 110:1), to provide prophetic evidence
that a significant heavenly component of these events had also taken place. A heavenly event took
place but God made sure that it was marked in a very obvious way on earthto prove to those
present and for generations to come that a momentous event on Gods calendar had TRULY taken
place.

The lesson one takes away from this, consistent with the rest of the important events on Gods
prophetic calendar, is that God does not fool His people, not to mention anyone else, by trickery
and disinformation into expecting something will take place, knowing that they will suffer greatly
when it does not and that possibly millions, because of deception and trickery, will lose their faith
altogether and be lost for all eternity. Is God trying to save as many souls as He can or is He doing
all He can to lose as many as possible? The implications of accepting the whole scenario, from
Miller to the Sanctuary doctrine as Ellen White presented it, is diabolical in the most extreme sense
and does not make God look like He is gracious, longsuffering, fair or honest.

Significant events on Gods calendar can be confirmed, either through the testimony of history
(which is more often the caseretrospectively), or in the same way, via Scripture. Something
happens to make it abundantly clear that God has acted.

A series of questions that never seem to be asked, that actually hold the key to either confirming or
totally nullifying the whole sanctuary doctrine as expounded by Ellen White are: what did
Christians prior to 1844 believe regarding Christs work and location in the heavenly sanctuary?
Where did people believe Christ was ministering after His ascension? Where does most of the
Christian world believe He is ministering at presentthe holy or the most holy?

Ellen White implies that Christians were focused on the holy place (first apartment) prior to 1844.
Then, when Christ transitioned on October 22nd, they (at least the majority) did not in faith follow
Him to the most holy but kept their focus on the first apartment. Her description, whether symbolic
or literal, was quite graphic and cannot be misunderstood:

I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne [in the holy]; they
did not know that Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on
the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, Father, give us Thy Spirit.
Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence (Ellen G. White, Early
Writings, p. 56).

On the same subject, in the book The Great Controversy, Ellen White writes about the Millerites
(the ones who in faith followed Christ) after October 22nd, 1844. She expounded, in regard to their
understanding of a door that was shut in the heavenly sanctuary (between the holy and the most
holy), as Christ transitioned:

But clearer light came with the investigation of the sanctuary question. They now
saw that they were correct in believing that the end of the 2300 days in 1844 marked an
important crisis. But while it was true that the door of hope and mercy by which men had for
eighteen hundred years [the time from Christs ascension to 1844] found access to God,
was closed, another door was opened, and forgiveness of sins was offered to men through
the intercession of Christ in the most holy It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the
great work of the atonement, who receive the benefits of His mediation in their
behalf; while those who reject the light which brings to view this work of
ministration, are not benefitted thereby (The Great Controversy, p. 429, 430. Emphasis
supplied).

She then draws a parallel between the Jews who rejected Christ at His first advent and the
rejecters of the sanctuary message after 1844:

The Jews who rejected the light given at Christs first advent, and refused to believe
on Him as the Saviour of the world, could not receive pardon through Him. When
Jesus at His ascension entered by His own blood into the heavenly sanctuary to shed upon
His disciples the blessings of His mediation, the Jews were left in total darkness, to
continue their useless sacrifices and offeringsThe door by which men had
formerly found access to God, was no longer open. The Jews had refused to seek Him
in the only way whereby He could be found, through the ministration in the sanctuary in
heaven. Therefore they found no communion with God. To them the door was shut
hence they could not receive the benefits of His mediation.

The condition of the unbelieving Jews illustrates the condition of the careless and
unbelieving among professed Christians, who are willingly ignorant of the work of
our merciful High Priest (Ibid. p. 430. Emphasis supplied).

The implications of these statements are as clear as day. Not only were the rejecters of the post
Millerite Advent sanctuary teaching left in darkness and lost but those who hear it and reject
[Christ]. They are left in total darkness. In the case of the Jews, they were left to continue their
useless sacrifices and offerings.

In the case of Christians who do not follow Christ into the most holy as He continues His work of
mediation there, the results are the same. For them the door is also shut and they continue to
practice their religion, a religion that by all implication is useless and empty.
Everything about what Ellen White is saying is built on a straw-man teaching that has absolutely
NO basis in reality AT ALL. It is hard to actually find words that express the point strongly enough.
Not only is what she is teaching based on a fictitious construction of past and present facts but it
is also judgmental and insultingnot only to Christians who are sincerely worshipping Christ but to
Christ Himself.

At least, when it came to the Jews, they were dealing with real events that were unfolding around
them. The Messiah was in their midst, He performed miracles. They had evidence of fulfilled
prophecies that were contained in their own scriptures even the time prophecy of Daniel 9. The
manifestations at the time of Christs trial, His resurrection and the miraculous events witnessed at
Pentecost, all were a testimony to Christ being the Messiah. A rejection, on the basis of such
overwhelming, tangible evidence, could be seen as hardly justifiable. To place the rejecters of the
Adventist sanctuary doctrine in the same boat as the Jews in Christs day and expect them, in
humble acceptance to take Ellen Whites word for it, is not simply ludicrous but practically insane.
They had absolutely NO evidence that ANYTHING was happening. The only thing that added any
significance to Millers event (after the fact) was that it was a non-event.

The fact is, based on a simple reading of Scripture, and in a primary sense the book of Hebrews,
Bible scholars since the earliest Christian era, understood that Christ had gone into the second
apartment (the most holy) after his ascension to mediate on mans behalf. Recent publications
such as the book: Hebrews (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), released in 2005 and
edited by Eric M. Heen and Philip D. W. Krey, cast ample light on early Christology, in particular
regard to what is revealed in the book of Hebrews and Christs work as our High Priest.

I would not necessarily consider all the scholars quoted in this work to be doctrinally sound on all
points, however, what is significant is what is revealed regarding the early churchs general
understanding of Christs priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary.

Excerpts that are included in the volume range in geography and time from scholars such as Justin
Martyr and Clement of Rome in the late first to early second century. It quotes people from the
eighth and ninth century such as, Isaac of Nineveh, Photius and John of Damascus. The
Alexandrian tradition is also represented in Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Didymus, Origen
and Cyril of Alexandria. The Antiochene tradition is represented in Ephrem the Syrian, Theodore of
Mopsuestia and Severian of Gabala, etc. Italy and North Africa are represented by Ambrose,
Cassiodorus and Augustine, and Constantinople and more.

From the early Christian era, throughout the years of the Reformation and Protestant era, Bible
scholars, primarily on the basis of Pauls writings in the book of Hebrews, understood that when
Christ went within the veil (Hebrews 6:19; 10:20), the holy places (10:24), sat down on the right
hand of God (10:12), or entered into the holiest (10:19), etc., He was, in the antitypical sense,
ministering as the earthly high priest did in the typical sense on the day of atonement in the
second apartment/ most holy of the heavenly sanctuary (9:7). This was taught and believed by
prominent Protestant Bible scholars, within one or two centuries prior to 1844 and was still taught
and believed post 1844. What separated them from the post-Millerite Adventist sanctuary teaching
was the question of WHEN Christ entered the most holy and a number of other Ellen White/SDA
teachings/ revelations that came as a consequence of adapting Millers message to fit the new
sanctuary doctrine. Bible commentators and well known preachers of the gospel such as Matthew
Henry, John Gill and later on, Charles Spurgeon, taught that Christ was ministering as our mediator
and high priest in the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary after his ascension. Matthew Henry
(1662- 1714) wrote in his well-known six-volume Exposition of the Old and New Testaments
(17081710) and Complete Commentary in connection with Christs ministry in the heavenly
sanctuary(http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthewhenrycomplete/hebrews/10.html).

Not only does Henry see Christ as being in the most holy, he also speaks of the privilege
Christians can enjoy by focusing on Christs ministry in that apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.
John Gill, another Bible scholar, an English Baptist pastor (1697-1771), wrote in his magnum opus,
Exposition of the Old and New Testaments:

(Hebrews 10: 19): Having thereforeboldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of
Jesus: the place saints have boldness to enter into is heaven, called the holiest, in
reference to the holy of holies, in the tabernacle; which was a type of it, for the
sacredness and invisibility of it, and for what was in it, went into it, or was brought
thither; as the Shechinah, or divine Majesty, which resided there; the high priest who
went into it once a year; the blood of sacrifices which was carried into it; the sweet incense;
the ark of the testimony, in which was the law; and the mercy seat; all which were typical of
Christ, his person, blood, sacrifice, righteousness, intercession, and the grace and mercy
which come through himChrist has in person entered into it by his blood, and
opened the way for his people; and believers in him may enter now, and they do,
when they exercise grace on him, who is there, and when they come and present their
prayers and praises to God by him; and they have now an actual right to enter into the
place itself, and will hereafter enter in person (Ibid. Emphasis supplied).

The very things Ellen White accused Christians of NOT doing, by faith, Gill says, a century before
1844, Christians were ALREADY doing, or at the very least were encouraged to do, in reference to
Christ and his work in the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. One might say, in a very
real sense, Christians were focused on Christ and His mediatorial work in the most holy long
before Ellen White was accusing Christians of missing the boat, post 1844.

At this point, it might be worthwhile quoting and evaluating some of Ellen Whites insights. She
claimed that God Himself covered a mistake in the reckoning periods. It was His plan, according
to her, to prove the people. She said:

God designed that His people should meet with a disappointment. The time passed,
and those who had looked with joyful expectation for their Saviour were sad and
disheartened, while those who had not loved the appearing of Jesus, but embraced the
message through fear, were pleased that He did not come at the time of expectation. Their
profession had not affected the heart and purified the life. The passing of the time was well
calculated to reveal such hearts (Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 238. Emphasis
supplied).

So, it would appear that God intentionally created a situation where disinformation would be
promulgated, information that literally contradicted Scripture. Then, when people did not believe it
or reacted negatively to it, when things did not occur as HIS messenger predicted they were, in
effect, judged unworthy. In fact, ultimately, they were adjudged to be fallen Babylon, placing
themselves in a position where they would not be able to see the light of the second angels
message when it came. The righteous, however, clung to the hope and left the churches.

Something very interesting is the fact that the watchword message was, behold the Bridegroom
cometh! It needs to be borne in mind that the very reason for using this message was because
Miller and others that proclaimed it knew, according to the scriptural evidence, that this parable of
Christ was an analogy for the second coming. Indeed, the additional message they added, also
part of the parable, was: go ye out to meet Him! This is how Ellen White describes it:

I heard the voices of angels crying, Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out
to meet Him. This was the midnight cry, which was to give power to the second angels
message. Angels were sent from heaven to arouse the discouraged saints and prepare
them for the great work before them. The most talented men were not the first to receive
this message [Miller, however, was among those who were educated and talented].
Angels were sent to the humble, devoted ones, and constrained them to raise the cry,
Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him! Those entrusted with the cry
 made haste, and in the power of the Holy Spirit sounded the message, and aroused their
discouraged brethren. This work did not stand in the wisdom and learning of men, but
in the power of God, and His saints who heard the cry could not resist it. The most
spiritual received this message first, and those who had formerly led in the work
were the last to receive and help swell the cry, Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye
out to meet Him! (Ibid. 238. Emphasis supplied).

The parable of the ten virgins is found in the book of Matthew (Matthew 25:1-13). The context
clearly reveals that this parable was a parallel for the second coming of Christa specific lesson
vis--vis this event. Christ describes scoffers as saying, My lord delayeth his coming, in reference
to the second coming in Chapter 24:48, a few verses before the parable of the virgins.

This attitude was the same attitude Peter used with reference to end-time scoffers. As already
stated, Miller used this parable and its message correctly because he believed, albeit wrongfully,
that Christ WAS going to comefor sure!

Incredibly, Ellen White ignores the scriptural context, and applies the message to Christ passing
from the Holy to the Most Holy in the heavenly sanctuary, to commence the start of the
investigative judgment.

Equally incredible is the fact that Ellen white actually claims that angels were part of the
disinformation strategy. They were crying: Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet
Him. Of course, no other human ears other than Ellen Whites, were privy to the angels crying out,
and, if in fact they were making this declaration, they did not apply it as Christ did in the original
context of the parable but were rather announcing that Jesus was moving from one room to the
next in the heavenly sanctuary.

However, it would seem that even though no human ears heard the angels, these heavenly beings
were sent to arouse the saints (inspire them and strengthen them) for the great work before them,
oblivious of what was really going to happen. Still, they were going to be aroused to the task of
echoing the same declaration: Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him!

And so, under the power/arousal, given of God, these people went out to call multitudes to meet
the bridegroom, in the full belief, based on the clear biblical context of that call, that the message
they were giving was a call to prepare for the actual second coming of Christ and the end of the
world. The picture that unfolds is this: God and the heavenly host are declaring a message, the
meaning of which THEY are fully aware. The people, Gods servants, are being inspired and
strengthened, by God and the heavenly hosts/ angels, to give the identical message, with no idea,
in spite of THEIR correct application of this biblical refrain that THEY do not even know what their
declaration really refers to. One expression describing the scene immediately springs to mind:
BIZARRE!

Mrs. White claims that those with wisdom and learning did not get the message and that it was
those who had formerly led in the work that ended up being the last to receive and help spread
the message. The humble, devoted and most spiritual, were the ones who received and first
proclaimed it.

Could it be perhaps, that the people who once led out in the work (obviously the work of the
gospel) were applying the Scripture contextually and were rightly, fully aware that it was wrong to
call people to meet Christ at His second coming while declaring a very specific time-frame in which
this would happen? If so, were they wrong or deceived in coming to this conclusion? Were the
humble devoted ones perhaps so caught up in the emotion of the message that they simply could
not see the forest for the treesthe clear scriptural evidence that contradicted what they SO badly
wanted to believe was true? Which class was really deceived?

The Bible declares that the way to test if a message is from God or not is by the law and the
testimony (Isaiah 8:20), all of the scriptures. It also says: When a prophet speaketh in the name
of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the Lord hath not
spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him
(Deuteronomy 18:22).

Miller might not have been a prophet, however he DID prophesy and predict. His message,
notwithstanding the fact that he might at least partially have correctly interpreted Scripture, was
tested by other Bible scholars (students of the Word), according to the scriptural standard and
found to be inconsistent with what it revealed.

Even though they might not have been able to come up with another better way of interpreting
the 2300 day/year prophecy (at least the time aspect of it), they could not apply it to the second
coming of Christ. The simple reason being that Scripture DID clearly indicate that no human being
COULD know the time. Bear in mind, by the time 1844 came along, a definite day, month and year
had been set. Of course, as usual, at least so it would seem, Ellen White knew what motivated the
hearts of the people who did not accept Millers message:

the great mass manifested the spirit of Satan in their opposition to the message.
They mocked and scoffed, repeating everywhere, No man knoweth the day nor the
hour. Evil angels urged them on to harden their hearts and to reject every ray of
light from heaven, that they might be fastened in the snare of Satan. Many who
professed to be looking for Christ had no part in the work of the message. The glory of God
which they had witnessed, the humility and deep devotion of the waiting ones, and the
overwhelming weight of evidence, caused them to profess to receive the truth; but they
had not been converted; they were not ready for the coming of their Lord (Ibid.
Emphasis supplied).

A few things become painfully clear when reading this. Indeed, when one chooses not to judge the
hearts and motives of the people, the FACTS become obvious.

FACT 1: The Bible DOES say: No man knoweth the day nor the hour. This is a simple
fact. Even if a devil made this statement, it still remains a biblical fact. Like when the
demons declared Christ to be who he wasthey were demons, true, but what they said
was FACT.

FACT 2: Regardless of what might have motivated some people who were simply
professing to follow the truth, the FACT remains: firstly, it was NOT the truth. The
message to go and meet Christ because He was coming and the world was going to end on
October 22nd, 1844, was a lienot even supported by Scripture. They were NOT ready to
meet their Lord because the simple FACT is, CHRIST WAS NOT COMING THEN.
Period!

Some might be tempted to argue that it was later revealed by Ellen White that Christ DID come (in
an invisible coming), into the most holy and that they were NOT ready to meet Him when He
arrived there. Anybody with a modicum of logic should be able to see how senseless this line of
reasoning is. SDAs, who try to point out the unbiblical, senseless teaching of the secret rapture,
should consider how equally senseless and scripturally baseless Christs invisible 1844 coming
is. The simple FACT is that Ellen Whites sanctuary message (holy to most holy) is NOT the
message they were given and asked to believe at the time before October 22nd, 1844. The
URGENT message given at the time was that the bridegroom was coming on the clouds of heaven
and that the world was going to end there was NO second option on what to believe! Indeed, not
even the so-called devoted and waiting ones (the wise virgins) were any the wiser to what they
were actually waiting for. They, like the foolish ones were also waiting for the second coming of
Christ and the end of the world. Indeed, the foolish ones seemed to have had it more right than
the wisenothing was going to happen!
Only AFTER October 22nd, 1844, AFTER the Bridegroom, as claimed by Hiram Edson and
endorsed by Ellen White, allegedly entered the most holy, AFTER HE HAD purportedly come, did
anyone know what supposedly had happened! The cry: Go ye out to meet him! was redundant
they were meeting Him for totally the wrong reason! How could anyone, wise or foolish, go out to
meet the Bridegroom when, by the time they even had an inkling of what had happened, He had
ALREADY arrived?

The distinction, in the parable that Christ told, was that both the foolish and wise virgins knew
EXACTLY what event they were expecting. The only difference was that five of them missed out on
it. On the other hand, in the case of the great disappointment, it would appear that NO ONE had
ANY idea at all what was really going to happen and thus missed it, regardless of whether they
were wise OR foolish! Bizarre indeed!

Again I emphasise, by any standard, in view of all the facts surrounding this whole debacle, if it
was as Ellen White said, then should this not be branded as entrapmenta snare of the highest
degree, commissioned by Highest Decreean edict of deceit that was framed by God Himself?
Absolute drivel could not reach a more sublime level of absurdity than is propagated via Ellen
Whites account of what was really going on in the build-up to October 22nd, 1844. Yet, her
description of what Christ really was doing in heaven and the implications of that event for those
here on earth, believers and unbelievers alike, in light of clear, down-to-earth scriptural proof,
elevates the ridiculous to the altitude of absolutely preposterousundeniably, a GREAT
disappointment of enormous consequence.

In my next submission which is really a section (B) to Part 2 in this study on the sanctuary, we
will take a deeper look at the shut door teaching and see when this specific doctrine came into
being, and, for how long Ellen White actually believed and taught it.