REVISITING THE

Sanctuary
AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN ADVENTISM

Roy Adams

Publishing Association
Nampa, Idaho | www.pacificpress.com
 Contents

Preface 7

Acknowledgments 11

Introduction 13

Chapter 1: The Sanctuary Doctrine in the

Adventist Church—A Quick Overview 19

Chapter 2: Cottrell’s Objections—Part 1 24

Chapter 3: Cottrell’s Objections—Part 2 51

Chapter 4: Answering Cottrell: On the

Emasculation of Daniel’s Message 75

Chapter 5: Answering Cottrell: On Running Afoul

of Old Testament Perspectives 93

Chapter 6: Answering Cottrell: On Missing the Genius

of Biblical Eschatology 108

Chapter 7: The Sanctuary Saga—and the Intrigue of Daniel 8:14 125

Chapter 8: The Sanctuary Saga—and the Cosmic Cry for Justice 139

Chapter 9: The Sanctuary Message: Assurance

and the “Investigative” Issue 154
Chapter 10: The Heavenly Temple and Its Magnificent Priest.
So Why Aren’t We Singing? 167

Chapter 11: The Millerite Fumble—Dare We Still Hope? 179

 CHAPTER 1

The Sanctuary Doctrine in the

Adventist Church—A Quick Overview
It’s always prudent to look back on the path we’ve traveled.

T he story of the sanctuary doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventist Church

began with William Miller, a nineteenth-century New England farmer
turned Baptist preacher. After extensive study of Bible prophecy (with a
special focus on the book of Daniel), Miller eventually arrived at a conclu-
sion that would change his life and that of countless others and lead, in the
end, to the birth of Seventh-day Adventism.
It all arose from his concentration on Daniel 8:14: “And he said unto
me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary
be cleansed” (KJV). Based on his interpretation of that text, he “came to
the shocking conclusion,” as far back as 1818, “that Jesus Christ would
personally and visibly return to earth . . . in about twenty-five years—1843,”
at the end of the 2,300 days (or years) mentioned in the text.1
And regarding “the sanctuary” indicated in the text, “Miller concluded
that the only things [it] could represent in the 1840s were the earth and the
church,” and that its cleansing, in keeping with Bible passages like 2 Peter
3:7, would be by fire, at the second coming of Christ.2
Miller and his followers were not alone in their understanding that 1843
would be a critical historical and prophetic marker. There was a sense of
expectation surrounding that year among American thinkers, religious and
secular, far beyond the bounds of the Millerite Movement. The movement
19
20 Revisiting the Sanctuary

stood virtually alone, however, in associating the date with the second
coming of Jesus. Others, in scholarly circles and in the general public, viewed
the date in connection with the beginning of a millennium of prosperity
and peace here on earth.3
As the Jewish year that began in 1843 ended in the spring of 1844 with
nothing to show for it, some among Miller’s followers began reappraising
his calculations, coming to the conclusion, by the summer of 1844, that
“the correct computation of the 2300 years and the 70 weeks [of Daniel
9:24] would lead to an ending date in the autumn, on the day of the
month the ancient sanctuary was cleansed, the tenth day of the seventh
Jewish month, which they understood to fall in 1844 on Oct. 22. . . . On
this day they believed that Christ would end His priestly ministry and
emerge from the holy of holies . . . to return to the earth.”4 Remarkably,
it was only “about two weeks before the fateful day of Oct. 22” that
Miller and other top leaders in the movement got on board with this new
calculation.5
But October 22 came, followed in regular order by October 23. And
instead of finding themselves in heaven, the Millerites, alas, were still here
on earth, facing what’s come to be known in American religious history as
“the Great Disappointment.”
In the wake of the devastating experience, many of Miller’s followers
abandoned the movement in disillusionment. But amid the fiasco, two
distinct groups emerged—the Advent Christians and Seventh-day Advent­
ists. And the Adventists would go on to adopt a recalibrated version of
Miller’s basic message.
That recalibration came to embrace sentiments first expressed by Hiram
Edson, a member of the group that had just gone through the disappoint-
ment. As the awful reality hit them the morning of October 23, Edson
said, intense weeping broke out, lasting until daybreak. Later that morning,
while walking through a cornfield with fellow Millerite O. R. L. Crosier,
as Edson later told it, he experienced something akin to a vision. “Heaven
seemed open to my view,” he wrote, “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 [on October 22, 1844, as they’d come to interpret
it], that 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 before
coming to this earth.”6
The Sanctuary Doctrine in the Adventist Church—A Quick Overview 21

The post-Millerite group that came to be known as Seventh-day Advent­

ists went on to reformulate their sanctuary position along the lines of Edson’s
cornfield affirmations, seeing Revelation 10:9–11 as a description of their
1844 experience. In the passage, John was commanded to eat the “little
scroll” in the angel’s hand. “It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth,” John
said, “but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour.”
Applying the Revelation passage to their experience, these post-Millerite
believers saw their (Millerite) message of Jesus’ coming as the “sweet” part,
to be followed by the “sour” stomach, namely, the crushing disappointment
they’d experienced. Eventually, to morph into the entity known as Seventh-
day Adventists, this group garnered new impetus from John’s “little scroll”
vision, especially from the Angel’s concluding message in the passage: “You
must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings”
(Revelation 10:11).7
The years and decades following were to see an ever-increasing elaboration
and elevation of the sanctuary doctrine among this group, with the Day
of Atonement in ancient Israel becoming a pivotal point of emphasis. The
ceremonies on that day would be seen as pointing specifically to the work
believed to have begun in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary
in 1844. And the expression investigative judgment would early come into
vogue among them to describe the process believed to have begun in heaven
at that time. This process was a judgment in which all professed followers of
Jesus would be examined for their fitness to inherit eternal life.
Beginning with believers who have died from the creation of the world,
they taught, this judgment will eventually come to include believers alive
today. Therefore, like ancient Israel on the Day of Atonement, Christians
must “afflict” their souls, remaining in a state of penitence and readiness.
When that judgment ends, human probation closes, paving the way for the
second coming of Jesus.
That, in essence, is what Adventists have generally believed.

Resistance
The sanctuary doctrine is a teaching that has generated sharp criticism and
much resistance over the years from Adventists and non-Adventists alike.
In the late 1970s, while doing research for a doctoral dissertation on the
Adventist sanctuary doctrine, I had the occasion to observe the doctrine’s
development from the earliest period of Adventist history—through the
works of larger-than-life author and general church paper editor Uriah
22 Revisiting the Sanctuary

Smith; through the writings of Albion Fox Ballenger, prominent preacher

and evangelist toward the end of the nineteenth century; and through
the ministry and writing of Milian L. Andreasen—pastor, evangelist, and
college/seminary professor.8
On the part of Uriah Smith and M. L. Andreasen, confidence in the
sanctuary doctrine ran so deep that, far from feeling the need to defend it,
they each used the teaching as a basis for advocating and advancing other
Adventist beliefs and theological concerns. For Smith, it was the imminence
of the Second Coming, his argument based on a comparison of the all-year
services in the Holy Place in the ancient tabernacle system with the single-
day service in the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. This means,
Smith reasoned, that the time for Jesus to be in the Most Holy Place of the
heavenly sanctuary would be proportionally shorter and that, therefore, His
coming would be very soon after 1844.9
For his part, Andreasen used the doctrine to support his particular
concern for righteousness by faith and the perfection of end-time believers
based on Christ’s example of perfect holiness.10
For Ballenger, however, certain aspects of the sanctuary teaching brought
exasperation, leading him to modify or reinterpret the doctrine at several
points, putting himself at loggerheads with the leadership of the church and
eventually resulting in his ministerial credentials being revoked.11
Collateral reading for the dissertation also led me to encounter reac-
tions that amounted to outright derision in certain non-Adventist religious
circles—expressions of ridicule, scorn, and contempt. But what initially
surprised me was that reactions within the church were often equally as
strident and disdainful, sometimes in whispers and innuendos, other times
openly.
Cottrell belongs to that second category. His concerns were many years in
the making, but eventually, he concluded that “our traditional interpretation
of Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment as set forth
in Article 23 [currently Article 24] of Fundamental Beliefs [of Seventh-day
Adventists] does not accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture with respect
to the ministry of Christ on our behalf since His return to heaven.”12 After
years of restless silence, he went public with it, eventually publishing his
views in the 25,000-word manuscript under consideration in this book.
For Cottrell, what Adventists teach about the sanctuary amounts to a
“pseudo-biblical doctrine”13 and stands in need of a complete revamp. “In
terms of sola Scriptura,” he says, the church’s “sanctuary witness to the gospel
The Sanctuary Doctrine in the Adventist Church—A Quick Overview 23

is grossly defective and alienates the confidence and respect of biblically liter-
ate people, Adventist and non-Adventist alike.”14 “In the years immediately
following October 22, 1844,” he says, “the traditional sanctuary doctrine
was an important asset for stabilizing the faith of disappointed Adventists.
Today, it is an equally significant liability.”15
Accordingly, Cottrell undertook to do three things in his manuscript:
First, to point out in what ways the Adventist fundamental statement on
the sanctuary is “defective”; second, to explain how it might be revised to
reflect the biblical teaching more accurately; and third, to suggest a process
to avoid future explosive developments on the question.16
Cottrell’s approach amounted to an almost complete reinterpretation
and reformulation of the sanctuary teaching. I take his objections with utter
seriousness. That’s why I wrote this book.

1. George Knight, William Miller and the Rise of Adventism (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press®,
2010), 13.
2. Knight, 14, 15. See also Don F. Neufeld, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Com-
mentary Reference Series, vol. 10 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald®, 1966), s.v. “Millerite
Movement.”
3. Knight, William Miller, 14, 17.
4. Neufeld, “Millerite Movement,” 795.
5. Neufeld, 792.
6. Hiram Edson, undated manuscript fragment, Heritage Room, James White Library,
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.
7. See Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern
Publishing Association, 1944), 527–529; Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commen-
tary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 331, 332.
8. See Roy Adams, The Sanctuary Doctrine: Three Approaches in the Seventh-day Adventist
Church (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981).
9. See Adams, 84–89.
10. See Adams, 187–191.
11. See Adams, 108–131.
12. Raymond F. Cottrell, “The Sanctuary Doctrine: Asset or Liability?” (paper presented at the
JIF Symposium, November 2–4, 2001), 6.
13. Cottrell, 18.
14. Cottrell, 18.
15. Cottrell, 18.
16. Cottrell, 6. Toward the end of his manuscript, under the subhead “A Permanent Remedy
for Doctrinal Obscurantism,” Cottrell advocates for a new permanent entity in the church,
comprising its “qualified Bible scholars” “in partnership with church administrators,” to look
into all matters of biblical exegesis and doctrinal problems on a continuing basis, listing a mul-
titude of criteria that might govern such an organization. Cottrell, 17.