The ark was central object of all the furnishings of the sanctuary. At first it contained only the stone tables of the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:21; Deut 10:3, 5); but later Aaron’s rod that budded, a pot of manna, and the "book of the law" were placed "before the testimony" or "in the side of" the ark (Ex 16:33, 34; Num 17:10; Deut 31:24–26). The first two items may actually have been preserved inside of the ark (Heb 9:4), but were apparently removed at a later period in the troubled history of Israel, as the author of Kings indicates (1 Ki 8:9).

As Israel journeyed from Sinai toward the Promised Land, the ark "went before them" (Num 10:33). Its bearers stood in the midst of Jordan’s parted waters while the people passed over (Jos 4:9–11). The ark was carried 7 days around Jericho in the march that preceded the city’s fall (ch 6:1–20). After the conquest of Canaan it remained in the tabernacle in Shiloh (ch 18:1), apparently until captured in the time of Eli. In the hope that the ark’s presence would turn the tide of war against the Philistines, Eli’s sons, neglecting to consider the conditions under which God cooperates with men, carried it into battle, only to have it captured by the enemy (1 Sa 4:1–11). It was returned to Hebrew territory (chs 5:1 to chs 6:15) and resided successively at Beth-shemesh (ch 6:15–21), Kiriath-jearim (ch 7:1, 2), and in the house of Obed-edom at Perez-uzzah (6:1–11; 13:5–14). David finally removed the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sa 6:12–17; 1 Chr 15:25 to 16:1), where it was placed "in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it" (2 Sa 6:17; 7:1, 2; 16:1, 4–6). Later it was placed in the Most Holy Place of Solomon’s Temple (1 Ki 8:1–9), where it remained until the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The Scriptures are silent concerning its fate at that time or its subsequent history -- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary.

Some early Adventists, basing their definition of the term on its OT meaning with reference to the ancient sanctuary service, and believing that the ancient priests served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things" (Heb. 8:5), stressed this high-priestly aspect of Christ’s atoning ministry to the point of seeming to deny that His sacrifice on the cross could properly be called a work of atonement. William Miller, for instance, wrote that Christ’s shedding of His blood on Calvary for a sinful world was "the propitiatory sacrifice to God," but that the atonement "is made by his life and intercession in heaven (Heb. 7:25)," "so that through his intercession we can be saved by his life (Rom. 5:10; 1 John 5:11)" (letter of Nov. 22, 1844, in Western Midnight Cry 4:26, Dec. 21, 1844).

The misunderstanding arising from the denial by Miller and by some early SDA writers that atonement was made on the cross is a matter of semantics. None of those who denied this denied either the fact or the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice made on the cross, nor did they believe that He offered another sacrifice in heaven. They were simply using the word "atonement" in its original, biblical sense rather than in the popular theological sense. They pointed out that in the ancient sanctuary service atonement was made for the sinner, not by the slaying of the sacrificial offering, but by the priestly ministry performed within the sanctuary after the sacrifice had been slain: "And he [the penitent] shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

"And the priest shall take of the blood thereof. . . . And the priest shall burn it [the fat] upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him" (Lev. 4:29–31; cf. v. 27).

They contended that the atoning ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary since His ascension—and not His sacrifice on Calvary—was the biblical counterpart of the atoning ministry of the priest in the earthly sanctuary after the sacrifice had been slain (Heb. 9:11–15, 23–26; 10:11–14; cf. Lev. 4:27–31, etc.). Thus when Miller and other early Adventists spoke of the atonement as being made not on the cross, but by Christ after His ascension to heaven, they were technically correct insofar as the use of the word "atonement" in ritual law was concerned. However, contemporary theological usage of the word "atonement" does not include its biblical application to the priestly ministration of the blood of a sacrifice that had already been slain. This is the reason the Seventh-day Adventist position on the atonement has sometimes been misunderstood and misrepresented. In any discussion of the atonement, it is important that this distinction between biblical and modern theological use of the word be recognised.

The relationship between Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and His priestly ministry in heaven since His ascension is explained thus by Ellen G. White: "The intercession of Christ in man’s behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven" (GC 489).

"The great sacrifice had been offered, and had been accepted, and the Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried the minds of the disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where Jesus had entered by His own blood, to shed upon His disciples the benefits of His atonement" (EW 260; first published in 1858 in 1SG 170).

But that this position in no sense depreciates the atonement provided at the cross is evident from her further comments: "The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster" (Ellen G. White, in SDACom 5:1137).

"The cross must occupy the central place because it is the means of man’s atonement and because of the influence it exerts on every part of the divine government" (6T 236).

"Christ’s words on the mountainside [in Galilee after the Resurrection] were the announcement that His sacrifice in behalf of man was full and complete. The conditions of the atonement had been fulfilled; the work for which He came to this world had been accomplished" (MS 138, 1897).

When SDAs speak of Christ’s work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary, they refer to the application to each individual believer, according to his/her need, of the benefits of salvation provided for all at Calvary.

In the ancient sanctuary the solemn services of the annual Day of Atonement brought the yearly ritual cycle to a close (Lev. 16). The work of atonement, or reconciliation, performed on that day brought to completion all that the sanctuary and the priests could do for repentant sinners, and cleansed the sanctuary and the people. On the basis of the clear analogy drawn by the inspired writer of Hebrews between the earthly sanctuary and that in heaven, SDAs recognise in the final phase of the heavenly ministry of Christ a counterpart of the earthly Day of Atonement service. SDAs refer to this concluding phase of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation as the "great antitypical day of atonement," and the "investigative judgement" (see also Sanctuary).

The need for a reconciliation, or atonement, between God and humanity derives from the fact that when Adam sinned "sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12; cf. 3:23). Disobedience separated human beings from their Maker, and the outraged divine law demanded the death of the transgressors. God’s justice required that all imperfection must be eradicated. But since humans were the offspring of a loving Creator, almighty love planned a way of escape for those who had fallen into the trap of sin set for them by Satan.

Being a reflection of the character of God, the moral law is immutable. There is nothing sinners can do to recommend themselves to God or to bring about reconciliation. Accordingly God made provision for reconciling sinners to Himself should the need arise. The plan was devised before the creation of Adam (1 Peter 1:20), and explained to him before his expulsion from Eden (Gen. 3:15). This plan called for the Son of God to lay aside His divine power, to be clothed with a human body, to meet temptation as humans must meet it, yet without sin, and to die a vicarious death in the sinner’s place. He would be treated as the worst of sinners, and experiencing separation from the love and presence of the Father, He would suffer for all sinners. He paid the price of sin and offered humanity His righteousness.

John 3:16 summarises the plan of the atonement: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The love of God is free, but it must be believed and accepted voluntarily. It is available to all, but not all accept it. There can be no atonement for those who "neglect so great salvation" and refuse to "live by faith" (Heb. 2:3; Rom. 1:17). A complete atonement must not only afford pardon for past sins but also provide human beings with power to overcome temptation. For this reason Christ lived among humans as their example and also offers them the Holy Spirit to enable them to live sinless lives -- Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopaedia.

Another important event connected with the Day of Atonement was the blowing of the trumpet on that day to announce the 50th year of the sabbatical year cycle, the year of jubilee (Lev 25:9, 10). Presumably, then, the sabbatical years, running in the same series with the jubilee years, also began at that time. The Day of Atonement services represented cleansing from sin and reconciliation to God (ch 16:16, 33, 34). The ritual began with the high priest bathing his body and putting on the holy linen garments (v 4). For himself and his house he offered a bull for a sin offering (v 6). After this personal preparation a goat designated "for the Lord," previously chosen by lot from two acquired for the service (vs. 5, 7, 8), was sacrificed (v 9). Then, amid clouds of incense ascending from the altar before the second veil (vs. 12, 13) the high priest entered the Most Holy Place and sprinkled the blood first of the bull, then of the goat, upon and before the mercy seat (v 15), which covered the ark containing, among other things, the tables of the Decalogue (Heb 9:4). In this manner the holy place was cleansed, and atonement made for the sins of the people (Lev 16:16). In a similar manner the altar was cleansed (vs. 18, 19). Later, but not until the work of reconciliation for the holy place, the altar, and the people was ended (v 20), the transgressions of the people were transferred ritually to the goat, described as being "for Azazel," (v 10, RSV). This goat was then led into the wilderness (vs. 20–22).

The high priest was a type of Christ, the high priest in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 8:1). The earthly priest performed his services "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things" (v 5). The author of Hebrews explains that by the high priest’s entering only once a year into the second apartment the Holy Spirit signified that "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing" (ch 9:8) -- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary.

To be sure, God does not need to investigate the records in order to learn or to determine who is eligible to be saved. It is for the benefit of all created beings that the facts with respect to each person’s fate should be known, as an assurance to all that justice has been done and as a guarantee of the eternal stability of the divine government. The Bible writers speak of "books" in which God keeps a record of character-of good and evil deeds as measured by a person’s knowledge of, and voluntary relationship to, divine grace and God’s revealed will (Ex. 32:32; Mark 16:16; Phil. 4:3; James 4:17; Rev. 20:12, 13; 22:11, 12).

The doctrine of the investigative judgement is an integral part of the sanctuary doctrine, and relates especially to the fulfilment in antitype of the ancient Day of Atonement service. In brief, the Day of Atonement consisted, in figure, of a review of the individual records of God’s people-of their personal relationship to God through the sanctuary ministration. At the close of the special service of the day a final disposal of all sins that had been confessed, forgiven, and transferred in figure to the sanctuary during the preceding year was made; the sanctuary was "cleansed" of the record of these sins removed (see Lev. 16).

Persons whose sins were included in this work of cleansing were released from further responsibility for their past record of sin, and their status under the covenant relationship was revalidated. Those no longer eligible to continue in the covenant relationship were to be "cut off" from Israel. The ancient Day of Atonement was thus a day on which the eligibility of each individual Israelite to continue under the covenant relationship was reviewed, and it was therefore a day of judgement (see SB, Nos. 111–118; SDADic, "Atonement, Day of").

Development of Seventh-day Adventist View. William Miller based his 1843/1844 message chiefly on the text (Dan. 8:14) "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," holding that the period of time here specified terminated in that year (see Sanctuary; Twenty-three Hundred Days). He understood this cleansing of the sanctuary to involve a work of judgement and to consist in the purification of this earth by the fires of the last day, at the second coming of Christ in power and glory. When, after the disappointment of 1844, those who later became Seventh-day Adventists reviewed Miller’s interpretation of Dan. 8:14, they became convinced of the validity of Miller’s exposition of the time period, but concluded that the sanctuary here referred to is the sanctuary in heaven, mentioned in the book of Hebrews, where Christ now ministers as our great high priest. Inasmuch as the earthly sanctuary and its services were types of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:2, 5; 9:6–9, 23; cf. Ex. 25:8, 9), as the earthly sanctuary was cleansed on the ancient Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), and as the earthly sanctuary ceased to exist in A.D. 70, early SDAs concluded that the cleansing of the sanctuary foretold in Dan 8:14 must refer to a counterpart of the ancient Day of Atonement to be conducted in the heavenly sanctuary. The SDA understanding of a cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, of a great antitypical day of atonement, and of an investigative judgement is based on this analogy drawn in the book of Hebrews between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries.

The view that the sanctuary to be cleansed in 1844 is the one in heaven was first written out by Owen R. L. Crosier, in the Day-Dawn in 1845 and in the Day-Star Extra of Feb. 7, 1846. Crosier emphasised two aspects of the antitypical cleansing-the blotting out of sins and the disposal of sins by placing them, in figure, on the head of the scapegoat. This he based on Acts 3:19: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

Crosier connected this blotting out of sins with the cleansing of the sanctuary from the sins of the people on the ancient Day of Atonement. "A little attention to the law will show that the sins were borne from the people by the priest, and from the priest by the goat. 1st, They are imparted to the victim. 2nd, The priest bore them in its blood to the Sanctuary. 3rd, After cleansing them from it on the 10th day of the seventh month, he bore them to the scape-goat. And 4th, The goat finally bore them away beyond the camp of Israel to the wilderness. This was the legal process, and when fulfilled the author of sins will have received them back again, (but the ungodly will bear their own sins,) and his head will have been bruised by the seed of the woman" (ibid. 43).

About the time Crosier was first writing his view concerning the heavenly sanctuary William Miller wrote a letter (Mar. 20, 1845) in which he applied the judgement-hour message to the closing ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary: "That the prophetic numbers did close in 1844, I can have but little doubt. What then was there worthy of note that could be said to answer to the ending of the periods under these numbers so emphatically describing the end? I answer. The first thing I will notice is, ‘The hour of his Judgement is come.’ I ask, is there any thing in the scriptures to show that the hour has not come, or in our present position to show, that God is not now in his last Judicial character deciding the cases of all the righteous, so that Christ (speaking after the manner of men) will know whom to collect at his coming or the angels may know whom to gather when they are sent to gather together the elect, whom God has in this hour of his Judgement justified? Rom. 8:33. . . . It also seems by John’s description of this event, Rev. 19:1, 2, 11, that the scene of the Judgement begins in heaven, and the first thing mortals on earth will see will be the messenger of God, Rev. 20:1, who is Jesus Christ, descending from God, to execute the Judgement written in heaven, and fulfil the decrees and promises made in heaven by him who sitteth on the great white throne. . . . If this is true, who can say God is not already justifying his Sanctuary, and will yet justify us in preaching the time?" (Day-Star 5:31, Apr. 8, 1845).

Judging by their writings, Adventists who later formed the Seventh-day Adventist Church did not notice William Miller’s suggestion relating the judgement of Rev. 14:6, 7 to the cleansing of the sanctuary mentioned in Dan. 8:14.

In his initial explanation of the October 1844 disappointment, Hiram Edson had spoken of Christ’s having "a work to perform" in the heavenly sanctuary after the end of the 2300 days and before His return, but he gave no further explanation. Crosier’s expanded discussion of the sanctuary in his 1846 article did not connect the cleansing of the sanctuary with the judgement. The nearest approach to the idea was an allusion to "the breast-plate of judgement" worn over the heart of the high priest when he went into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, "that he may bear their judgement" (Day-Star 9:40, Extra, Feb. 7, 1846).

He may or may not have derived this from Enoch Jacobs, who in November 1844 spoke of the names of the children of Israel on the "breast-plate of judgement" as typifying the people whose sins are put away before Christ personally returns, and suggested the possibility that on the antitypical Day of Atonement, the tenth day of the seventh month, Jesus had begun to sit in judgement and was on His way to execute the judgement in person (Western Midnight Cry 4:19, Nov. 29, 1844).

Neither is it clear whether Jacobs derived this idea of the final putting away of sins from a letter he had received from William Miller (dated Nov. 22) in which Miller, replying to an inquiry, wrote that Christ would come as judge, to bear our sins away; "that our sins cannot be blotted out until Christ comes to judge His people is evident from . . . Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 2:6" (ibid. 4:26, Dec. 21, 1844).

Nor is it possible to find a connection between the SDA view and the earlier reference by Josiah Litch (Prophetic Expositions [1842], vol. 1, pp. 49–54) to a preliminary phase of the judgement-the examination, or trial, of every person preceding the resurrection, and the execution of the judgement at the Second Advent. The various elements-the blotting out of sins, the putting away of sins, the examination of the books, the cleansing of the sanctuary from the sins-were all present in Millerite thinking, but the synthesis cannot be traced exactly.

By 1849, when the early Seventh-day Adventist group had well established its identity, Ellen White wrote: "I saw that Jesus would not leave the Most Holy Place until every case was decided either for salvation or destruction" (Present Truth 1:22, August 1849; reprinted in EW 36), yet she did not call it the judgement.

In the same year David Arnold (Present Truth 1:43–45, December 1849) and the next year Joseph Bates (Review and Herald 1:22, December 1850) echoed the phrase "breast-plate of judgement," and carried the idea further, to equate the coming of the Bridegroom to the wedding with the entrance of the high priest into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, blotting out the sins of those whose names are on the breastplate (in the antitype, the Israel of God), but neither mentions the judgement. James White did not mention the breastplate of judgement in his article in Present Truth 1:75–79, May 1850; and in another discussion of the sanctuary doctrine (Review and Herald 1:29, January 1851), he mentioned only the removal of sins by placing them on the head of the scapegoat. In 1853 J. N. Andrews wrote a series of articles on the sanctuary. When he came to the cleansing on the Day of Atonement, he mentioned only the blotting out of sins and the transfer of sins to the scapegoat (Review and Herald 3:147, 148, Feb. 3, 1853).

However, in 1854 J. N. Loughborough, like William Miller in 1845, connected the cleansing of the sanctuary as a work of judgement with the message of the first angel of Rev. 14: "The hour of his judgement is come." He asked: "What was that work of cleansing? Is the work of cleansing the Sanctuary fitly heralded by the first angel’s message? in other words, Is it a work of judgement? For light on this subject, we shall be obliged to go to the type. Let us look at the type. See the high priest preparing himself to cleanse the Sanctuary; almost the first thing he did was to gird upon him the breast plate of judgement. For what does he put that on? It certainly looks as though he was going to do a judgement work. . . .

"Now read 1 Pet. iv. Verse 5 declares that Christ is ready to judge the quick and the dead. Verse 7. ‘But the end of all things is at hand.’ Verse 11. ‘If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God.’ (Oraclesten commandments. See Acts vii, 38.) Why speak as the oracles of God? Because the oracles are the duty brought out by the third angel’s message. Verse 17. ‘The time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God.’ Verse 19. Commit the keeping of your souls to God. 1 Tim. v, 24. ‘Some men’s sins are open before-hand going before to judgement.’ We see by this what the judgement is that the first angel of Rev. xiv refers to" (ibid. 4:30, Feb. 14, 1854).

The next year Uriah Smith formally developed the idea of judgement, building also on the connection between the cleansing of the sanctuary and the judgement-hour message: "The work of cleansing the earthly sanctuary was a work of judgement. The high priest went into the most holy place, bearing the breast-plate of judgement, and on that breast-plate the names of the twelve children of Israel, to make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and for all the people of the congregation. Lev. xvi, 33. This prefigured a solemn fact; namely, that in the great plan of salvation, a time of decision was coming for the human race; a work of atonement, which being accomplished, God’s people, the true Israel, should stand acquitted, and cleansed from all sin. . . . We read in Dan. vii, 10, that the judgement was set, and the books were opened. Again in Rev. xx, 12, the books were opened, and the dead were judged out of those things written in the books, according to their works. From this we learn that a record is kept of the acts of all men; and from that record, their reward is given them according to their deserts. There is no judgement in this sense of the term, independent of these books of record; but we read [1 Pet. iv, 17] that there is a time when judgement must begin at the house of God; when some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgement; [1 Tim. v, 24;] and if, says Peter, it first begin at us what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God. This must be a judgement of the same nature and can refer to no other work than the closing up of the ministration of the heavenly Sanctuary, hence that work must embrace the examination of individual character; and we conclude that the lives of the children of God, not only those who are living, but all who have ever lived, whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life, will during this time pass in final review before that great tribunal. We see, therefore, how in this respect, the work of the type is infinitely surpassed by that of the antitype. . . .

"The first angel proclaimed, Fear God and give glory to him; for the hour of his Judgement is come. At the end of the 2300 days, when that message closed, had that time come? If the judgement scene which takes place in the second apartment of the Sanctuary, to which this proclamation doubtless refers, did not then commence, it had not come; and the first angel with his message, was too fast. But we believe that work did there commence; that there was the time when judgement began at the house of God, and the time came when Daniel, and all the righteous in the person of their Advocate should stand in their lot" (ibid. 7:52–54, Oct. 2, 1855).

Finally, in 1857, James White rounded out the doctrine, using "investigative judgement": "The time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God, and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 1 Pet. iv, 17, 18.

"This text we must regard as prophetic. That it applies to the last period of the church of Christ seems evident from verses 5–7, 12, 13. In the judgement of the race of man, but two great classes are recognised-the righteous and the sinner, or ungodly. Each class has its time of judgement; and, according to the text, the judgement of the house, or church, of God comes first in order.

"Both classes will be judged before they are raised from the dead. The investigative judgement of the house, or church, of God will take place before the first resurrection; so will the judgement of the wicked take place during the 1000 years of Rev. xx, and they will be raised at the close of that period.

"It is said of all the just, ‘Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection,’ therefore all their cases are decided before Jesus comes to raise them from the dead. The judgement of the righteous is while Jesus offers his blood for the blotting out of sins. Immortal saints will reign with Christ 1000 years in the judgement of the wicked. Rev. xx, 4; 1 Cor. vi, 2, 3. The saints will not only participate in the judgement of the world, but in judging fallen angels. See Jude 6.

‘Some men’s sins [the righteous] are open before hand, going before to judgement, and some men [the wicked] they follow after.’ 1 Tim. v, 24. That is, some men lay open, or confess their sins, and they go to judgement while Jesus’ blood can blot them out, and the sins be remembered no more; while sins unconfessed, and unrepented of, will follow, and will stand against the sinner in that great day of judgement of 1000 years.

"That the investigative judgement of the saints, dead and living, takes place prior to the second coming of Christ seems evident from the testimony of Peter. ‘Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick [living] and the dead.’ . . . 1 Pet. iv, 5–7.

"It appears that the saints are judged while some are living and others are dead. To place the investigative judgement of the saints after the resurrection of the just, supposes the possibility of a mistake in the resurrection, hence the necessity of an investigation to see if all who were raised were really worthy of the first resurrection. But the fact that all who have part in that resurrection are ‘blessed and holy,’ shows that decision is passed on all the saints before the second coming of Christ. . . .

"When will the cases of the living saints pass in review in the investigative judgement of the house of God? This is a question worthy the candid and most solemn consideration of all who have a case pending in the court of heaven, and hope to overcome. In the order of heaven, we must look for their judgement to follow that of the dead, and to occur near the close of their probation" ("The Judgement," ibid. 9:100, Jan. 29, 1857).

Summary of Seventh-day Adventist View. The best presentation of the investigative judgement in current SDA literature is the chapter entitled "The Investigative Judgement," in The Great Controversy, by Ellen White, from which the following summarising sentences are taken:

"The work of the investigative judgement and the blotting out of sins is to be accomplished before the second advent of the Lord" (p. 485).

"He comes to the Ancient of days in heaven . . . at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844. . . . Our great High Priest enters the Holy of Holies, and there appears in the presence of God, to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man-to perform the work of investigative judgement" (p. 480).

"Jesus will appear as their [His people’s] advocate, to plead in their behalf before God" (p. 482).

"The intercession of Christ in man’s behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross" (p. 489).

"In the great day of final atonement and investigative judgement, the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God" (p. 480).

"Beginning with those who first lived upon the earth, our Advocate presents the cases of each successive generation, and closes with the living" (p. 483).

"Every man’s work passes in review before God, and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness" (p. 482).

"The books of record in heaven, in which the names and the deeds of men are registered, are to determine the decisions of the judgement" (p. 480).

"The law of God is the standard by which the characters and the lives of men will be tested in the judgement" (p. 482).

"All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life" (p. 483).

"When any have sins remaining upon the books of record, unrepented of and unforgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life, and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God’s remembrance" (p. 483).

"When the work of the investigative judgement closes, the destiny of all will have been decided for life or death" (p. 490).

"When the investigative judgement closes, Christ will come, and His reward will be with Him to give to every man as his work shall be" (p. 485) -- Seventh-day Adventist Dictionary.

Since archeology has found no examples of 7-branched lampstands in OT times, but only of lamps consisting of a bowl with 7 spouts for the wicks, many believe that the lampstands of the tabernacle and of Solomon’s Temple were in appearance and form quite unlike that of Herod’s Temple. However, the description in Ex 25:31–37 specifies 7 branches. The 7-branched lampstand became a frequent symbol in later Jewish art on sarcophagi, on tombstones, over the doors of houses, and especially in synagogue decorations, of which the 3rd cent. a.d. synagogue of Dura Europus on the Euphrates is one of the earliest examples -- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary.

In applying the type to Christ, Ellen White declared: "Then Jesus rose up and shut the door in the holy place, and opened the door in the Most Holy, and passed within the Second Veil, where He now stands by the ark; and where the faith of Israel now reaches. I saw that Jesus had shut the door in the holy place, and no man can open it; and that He had opened the door in the Most Holy and no man can shut it: (Rev. 3:7, 8); and that since Jesus has opened the door into the Most Holy Place, which contains the ark, the commandments have been shining out to God’s people, and they are being tested on the Sabbath question" (Present Truth 1:21, August 1849; also EW 42).

This application corrected, not immediately but eventually, a misunderstanding of the "shut door" of the parable of the wise and foolish virgins—a misconception that had been derived from the Millerite movement of 1844.

The Millerites had based their expectation of the return of Christ principally on Daniel’s prophecy of the cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of 2300 prophetic days (Dan. 8:14). At the climax of the movement, in 1844, they specifically connected this prophecy with the purification ceremony of the ancient Day of Atonement as typifying the ending of Christ’s mediation for sins (though they saw the cleansing of the sanctuary as the purging of the earth in the final fires). At the same time they gave increased and specific emphasis to the prophetic parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Matt. 25).

William Miller had likened his message of the expected Second Advent to the "midnight cry" of the parable ("Behold, the bridegroom cometh"), and had emphasised the point that the wise virgins, who were ready to meet the arriving bridegroom, entered with him into the wedding, where the door was shut after them, leaving the tardy foolish virgins outside. The virgins he interpreted as those summoned to meet the returning Lord; the wedding, the eternal kingdom, from which the unready would be forever excluded. "The door was shut," he said, "implies the closing up of the mediatorial kingdom, and finishing the gospel period" (William Miller, Evidence . . . of the Second Coming of Christ [1840], p. 237).

Unlike most others who were then looking for the near advent of Christ, the Millerites placed strong emphasis on the doctrine that at the coming of Christ every human being would be either ready or unready to meet Him, and that opportunity for salvation would then cease. This in theological parlance was called the close of human probation. The Millerites taught "that the notion of a probation after Christ’s coming is a lure to destruction, entirely contrary to the Word of God, which positively teaches that when Christ comes the door is shut, and such as are not ready can never enter in" ("Boston Second Advent Conference," The Signs of the Times 3:69, June 1, 1842; reprinted in SB, No. 1083).

Because they expected Christ to return at the close of the 2300 prophetic days, they had emphasised the close of probation at the end of that period. Therefore, for a short period after the disappointment of October 1844, Miller and many others thought that their work for the world was done, that there was only a little "tarrying time" left—perhaps but a few days or months—until Christ would come. In December 1844 Miller wrote: "We have done our work in warning sinners, and in trying to awake a formal church. God, in his providence has shut the door, we can only stir one another up to be patient; and be diligent to make our calling and election sure. We are now living in the time specified by Malachi iii:18, also Daniel xii:10, and Rev. xxii:10–12. In this passage we cannot help but see, that a little while before Christ should come, there would be a separation between the just and unjust, the righteous and wicked, between those who love his appearing, and those who hate it. And never since the days of the apostles, has there been such a division line drawn as was drawn about the 10th or 23rd day of the 7th Jewish month" (William Miller letter, in Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844, p. 142; reprinted in Western Midnight Cry 4:25, Dec. 21, 1844).

Others expressed themselves similarly at first. But J. V. Himes, Miller’s most prominent colleague, and others held that since Christ had not come, the 2300–day prophetic period must not have ended in 1844; that it must extend to some other date in the future, and therefore that the fulfilment of the "midnight cry" of the parable of the virgins was also still future; and that the October 1844 movement (see Seventh-Month Movement) was a mistake, and was not a fulfilment of prophecy. By the spring of 1845 the main Millerite group, including Miller, had come to this view. This group, still possessed of the idea that the "door" of the parable of the virgins was none other than the "door of salvation," argued thus: Since Christ has not come, the door of salvation is still open; therefore, the parable of the virgins has not yet met fulfilment. They concluded that anyone who taught that this parable had been fulfilled must believe that probation had ended, and must, therefore, be ipso facto a "no-mercy" heretic. The phrase "shut door" became an epithet.

But a minority continued to hold that the time had been correct; that the mistake had been in the nature of the prophetic fulfilment; that in October 1844 the 2300 days had ended in the symbolic Day of Atonement and the parable had been fulfilled (though not in the way that they had expected); and therefore that the door of the parable—whatever it might mean—had been shut in fulfilment of the prophecy. To them the phrase "shut door" was equivalent to the affirmation of belief that the "true midnight cry" had been the climax of a God-given message and the 1844 movement had been led of God and permitted, in His providence, as a test of their consecration and willingness to be ready to meet their Lord. Naturally these regarded the majority, who had given up "the time," as turning their backs on the truth and denying the Lord’s leading in the "midnight cry."

Some continued to hold—as Miller had taught—that the door was that of salvation, for they still expected Christ to return very shortly. As time passed, some held that it was the door of "access" to listeners—that obstinate and wilful individuals had closed their ears to God’s message for that day; in either case there was no chance of winning acceptance of their message by the world at that time. The unfortunate controversy over the "shut door" magnified the subject unduly and prolonged the misunderstanding. As might be expected, feelings ran high in this time of disillusionment and confusion.

The extremists on the shut-door doctrine declared that Christ had come, not literally, but "spiritually". But the small group that formed the nucleus of the future Seventh-day Adventist Church opposed alike the vagaries of those who declared that Christ had come spiritually and the position of the majority who "denied their past experience" in the 1844 movement. They retained their confidence in the 1844 fulfilment, and concluded that the mistake lay in the event they had expected.

They accepted the explanation of the Disappointment that was first advanced by Hiram Edson on the day after the Disappointment, namely, that the ministry of Christ as our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary had not ended with the 2300 days, but had entered another phase, as symbolised (1) by the high priest’s entry into the Holy of Holies, the beginning of the symbolic cleansing of the sanctuary, and (2) by the coming of the bridegroom to the wedding (not to the earth); and that the end of this phase, symbolised by the priest’s coming out of the sanctuary and the bridegroom’s return from the wedding (Luke 12:36), was yet to come, and would be followed by the Second Advent.

Their retention of the belief in the 1844 ending of the 2300 days and their separating of the Second Advent from that prophetic period saved them from the error to which the majority group was susceptible—that of seeking future dates for the end. But it left them with the dilemma of either accepting the no-mercy doctrine or correcting their view of the "shut door" from the initial Millerite definition of it. They gradually came to see the opening of the final phase of Christ’s ministry as the shutting of the door of the holy place and the opening of the door to the Holy of Holies—the opening of a new message of the Sabbath, and the opening of a broadened ministry to the world preceding the Second Advent. But this took time.

It is interesting to trace the steps by which the little groups that later became the Seventh-day Adventists moved out of the shut-door dilemma and solved the double problem: (1) Is the door shut? and (2) What is the door?

Ellen G. Harmon (later White) was accused of claiming divine revelation for the no-mercy doctrine. This she denied. She stated later: "With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in forty-four I did believe no more sinners would be converted. But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. . . . I was shown that there was a great work to be done in the world for those who had not had the light and rejected it. Our brethren could not understand this with our faith in the immediate appearing of Christ" (letter 2, 1874, in 1SM 74).

Her first vision (December 1844) portrayed the "Advent people" journeying along a path to the Holy City with the light of the "midnight cry" behind them, and entering the city at the Second Advent. This, to those who accepted it, meant reassurance that the 1844 message and movement had not been a delusion; or to put it another way, that the 2300 days had ended and the parable, with its "shut door," had been fulfilled, and that very shortly they would see their Lord, who was delaying His appearance to test their faith.

Her view in February 1845 was in agreement with Edson’s explanation—Christ, the high priest, going from the holy place to the Most Holy Place, within the veil, explained as His going to receive the kingdom after which He would "return from the wedding" to receive His waiting ones at the Second Advent. In 1847 she connected this entering of the Holy of Holies with the shutting of the door.

Thus both Hiram Edson and Ellen Harmon taught that Christ’s work in the sanctuary had not ended, but was continuing in another phase. However, they thought that this phase would represent only a brief period.

When in 1848 she described a vision depicting the future SDA publications as "streams of light that went clear round the world," the little group could not comprehend that there was either the time or the possibility for them to bear a message to the world at large.

In 1849 Ellen White had a vision of the heavenly sanctuary that further depicted the significance of the "open and shut door," in connection with the Sabbath message and in connection with Rev. 3:7, 8 (see extract quoted near the beginning of this article). The shutting of one door meant the opening of another.

In 1850 James White reported the accession of one man who "had made no public profession of religion" before 1845. By the next year there was a noticeable change. In April, White stated that the door was shut to "those who had heard the everlasting gospel message and rejected it," but he held that the following classes may be converted: (1) "erring brethren" in the Laodicean church (the majority group of ex-Millerites), (2) children now coming to the age of accountability, and (3) "hidden souls" compared with the biblical "seven thousand" who had "not bowed unto Baal" (1 Kings 19:18), who would be converted in the future "in His own time," when they hear the message; but at present, he said, the message was for those in the Laodicean church (editorial note in Review and Herald 1:64, Apr. 7, 1851).

In September he reported some converts from this third class. In December G. W. Holt, a fellow minister in New York, wrote that "in some places where but a few months since there was seemingly no sign of there being one child of God, they are now springing up." The next February White reported "many," and by May "a large portion," of those who had had no connection with the 1844 movement. These accessions seem to have changed the picture. White wrote in February, setting forth a new view of the "shut door": "It however represents an important event with which the church is connected, that was to occur prior to our Lord’s return from the wedding. That event shuts out none of the honest children of God, neither those who have not wickedly rejected the light of truth, and the influence of the Holy Spirit" (editorial note 1 in Review and Herald 2:94, Feb. 17, 1852).

After quoting Isa. 22:22 and Rev. 3:7, 8 on the shut and open door, he continued: "This Open Door we teach, and invite those who have an ear to hear, to come to it and find salvation through Jesus Christ. There is an exceeding glory in the view that Jesus has OPENED THE DOOR into the holiest of all.

. . . If it be said that we are of the OPEN DOOR and seventh day Sabbath theory, we shall not object; for this is our faith" (ibid. 95) -- Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopaedia.

In addition to administering the sacred ritual the priests were appointed to be the religious teachers of the people (see Lev 10:11; Deut 33:10; Eze 44:23; cf. Ezr 7:25). At the conquest of Canaan they received no tribal inheritance, though they were assigned 13 towns with surrounding pasture and garden lands (Jos 21:10–19; 1 Chr 6:57–60). They were not to engage in any gainful occupation, but were to be supported exclusively by the tithes and certain prescribed offerings (Lev 10:12–15; 23:17–20; Num 18:11, 20; Deut 18:3–5). Even physically defective persons of priestly families, who might not minister at the altar, were entitled to this sustenance (Lev 21:21–23). At least in the time of Ezra the priests were exempted from taxation (Ezr 7:24).

When serving at the sanctuary the common priest was to wear a uniform made of fine linen (Ex 28:40–42). A linen ephod was the special symbol of the priestly office, but the ephod of the common priest was less elaborate than that worn by the high priest (1 Sa 2:18; 1 Sa 22:18). The high priest’s distinctive garb was the blue robe with bells on the hem, the colourful ephod with its embroidered girdle and its breast-piece with the 12 precious stones and the Urim and Thummim, and the mitre, or turban, with its gold plate engraved "Holiness to the Lord" (Ex 28:1–39).

From earliest times, prior to the establishment of a regularly organised priesthood, private individuals such as Cain and Abel (Gen 4:3–5) offered sacrifices and thus performed the essential function of a priest (cf. Ex 19:21, 22). Even after the organisation of a regular priesthood, individuals offered sacrifices under special circumstances (see Jgs 6:18, 24, 26; Jgs 13:16). Throughout patriarchal times the head of the family or tribe usually served as its priest. Thus Noah (Gen 8:20), Abraham (ch 22:13), Jacob (ch 35:3), and Job (Job 1:5) served, each as representative priest of his family.

With the establishment of the theocracy at Sinai and the erection of the tabernacle, God appointed the tribe of Levi to its sacred service in place of the first-born, or head of each family (Num 3:6–13). The tribe of Levi was chosen because of its loyalty at the time of the worship of the golden calf (Ex 32:26–29). Aaron and his sons were set apart to the priestly office, and thenceforth they alone were to serve regularly in this capacity (Num 3:10). The priesthood was hereditary in Aaron’s family (Ex 28:1; 40:12–15; Num 16:40; 17; 18:1–8); each of Aaron’s male descendants thus automatically became a priest, and served in this capacity unless physically defective (Lev 21:17–21) or temporarily "unclean" (ch 22:3). In Lev 21:10; Num 35:25, 28; etc., Aaron’s office is described as that of "high priest," and in Lev 4:3, 5, 16 as that of "anointed" priest. As "the priest" (Ex 31:10) for life, he passed on the right to that sacred office to his eldest qualified descendant. Thus he was succeeded by his son Eleazar (Num 20:28; Deut 10:6), and the latter, in turn, by his son Phinehas (Num 25:11), in whose time the succession to the high priesthood was fixed (vs. 12, 13). In a special sense the high priest represented all Israel, and the subordinate priests ministered in his name and as his representatives. The high priest might perform any of the duties required of the common priest, but the right to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement was his exclusively (Lev 16:2, 3, 17, 33, 34). See Atonement, Day of.

In David’s time the number of priests had so increased that David divided them into 24 courses, or divisions (1 Chr 24; cf. Jos. Ant. vii. 14. 7; Lk 1:5, 9). At least 2 of the great prophets of the OT, Jeremiah (Jer 1:1) and Ezekiel (Eze 1:3), were priests, and probably Zechariah (see Ezr 5:1; cf. Neh 12:16); some think possibly also Haggai.

Not much is known of the activities of the priests during the monarchy after Solomon, although it is evident that they apostatised at times and supported evil kings (Jer 1:18; 2:8, 26; etc.) Yet, a statement made by Ezekiel seems to indicate that they did not fall so deeply into idolatry as did the Levites (Eze 44:10–15). The priests seem to have retained their professional consciousness during the Exile, and thousands could by means of documents prove their status when the Exile ended (Ezr 2:36–39). They were most probably the chief religious leaders during the exile in Babylonia, among them being Ezekiel (Eze 1:3; 8:1; 14:1–4 cf. 2 Chr 17:8, 9; 23:16; 30:27), and they continued this function in the restoration period after the Exile (Neh 8:2; Hag 2:11, 12). After the return from Babylon only 4 families were at first recognised as legitimately belonging to the priesthood, but the other 20 families eventually succeeded in re-establishing their rights and position, with the result that according to Josephus (Ant. vii. 14. 7) in NT times all the 24 courses which had existed in the time of David were again functioning as priests.

Almost nothing is known of the history of the priesthood under the Persians. Under the Ptolemies and early Seleucids the high priest held both religious and civil power, subject to the foreign king. The priestly aristocracy, living from the tithe of the people and receiving other contributions, became wealthy, and consequently sought eagerly to preserve the political status quo of the nation and to prevent any rebellion that might endanger their lucrative position. They embraced Hellenism under the Seleucids. Yet it was a minor priest, Mattathias, who led the revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes’ enforcement of Hellenistic paganism; and his sons, the Maccabees, rallied the nation to win independence from the foreign yoke. Jonathan the Maccabean, and after him his brother Simon, though not of a high-priestly family, gained the office, and the Hasmonaean (Maccabean) line became priest-rulers and later priest-kings of Judea. They became increasingly worldly and considerably Hellenised. Though the majority of the people sided with the Pharisees (the party of strict observance of the Law) the priests were leaders of the religio-political party of the Sadducees. That they could maintain their office under such circumstances was due to the fact that the people by tradition and education were accustomed to rendering honour to the holders of high ecclesiastical offices closely connected with the Temple and the Temple services.

When the Romans came they left the Hasmonaean priest-ruler in office, but later set up Herod the Great as vassal king. During the reign of Herod the Great, high priests were appointed by the king, and this custom continued until the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70. During this period of 106 years (37 b.c. to a.d. 70) not less than 28 high priests held office. Most of them belonged to 5 leading families, and some were extremely mean and unfit for the office they occupied. Even after a high priest was deposed he was usually considered as high priest or chief priest by the people, hence the plural form "chief priests" in the NT (Mt 2:4; 16:21; 20:18; etc.). Though the "chief priests" sought Jesus’ death there were many pious priests, such as Zacharias (Lk 1:5, 6), and many of them joined the infant church (Acts 6:7). With the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70, the Jewish priesthood vanished, never to experience a revival.

The ministry of the Aaronic priesthood was typical only (Heb 8:4, 5) and, in and of itself, had never been truly effective in securing the forgiveness of sins (ch 10:11). Like the sanctuary in which they served, Aaronic priests were only "a figure for the time then present" (ch 9:9). The ritual law of sacrifices could never "make the comers thereunto perfect" (ch 10:1), since "the blood of bulls and of goats" had no power to "take away sins" (v 4). That priesthood was part of the system "imposed" only "until the time of reformation," when Christ Himself should become "an high priest of good things" (ch 9:10, 11). Only by virtue of His sacrificial death, at the close of the Levitical era, when He "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (v 26), could the transgressions of OT times be forgiven (v 15). Throughout OT times salvation was provisional, in the sense that it was conditional upon the yet future death of Christ.

Upon the rejection of the Jewish nation as God’s chosen people at their rejection and crucifixion of their Messiah (see Mt 21:40–43), God no longer honoured the Temple as His "house," and henceforth its services ceased to have meaning in His sight (see ch 23:38). Accordingly, the priesthood was changed (Heb 7:12; cf. vs. 15–17; ch 6:20).

Having made one great sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, Christ ascended into heaven and "sat down on the right hand of God" (Heb 10:12), consecrated as our great High Priest and set apart to minister on our behalf in the very presence of the Father (ch 8:1, 2). Only after Christ had offered Himself a sacrifice for sin could He enter upon His special ministry (chs 8:3; 10:12). Only after He Himself had partaken of flesh and blood and been "made like unto his brethren" "in all things" (Heb 2:17), only after He had been "in all points tempted like as we are" and could thus be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (ch 4:15; cf. ch 2:14, 18), was He qualified to become "a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (ch 2:17). Upon His ascension, therefore, Christ entered "into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" (ch 9:24). "The way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing" (v 8). Like Aaron, He was "called of God" (ch 5:4) and did not assume the high-priestly office of His own volition (v 5). By an oath (ch 7:21), God ordained Him "an high priest after the order of Melchisedec" (ch 5:10; cf. v 6). Thus the priesthood was "changed" (ch 7:12) from earth to heaven, and "seeing he ever liveth to make intercession" (v 25), His priesthood continues forever (v 24). By virtue of His own perfect sacrifice He "needeth not daily … to offer up sacrifice, … for this he did once, when he offered up himself" (v 27). His is "a more excellent ministry," since He is "the mediator of a better covenant" (ch 8:6), which in the strict sense of the word came into force only at his death (ch 9:15–17). This is the "new and living way, … consecrated for us" following His incarnation, "through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" (ch 10:20). We now have a great High Priest over the household of God (v 21) and are invited to "draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith" (v 22), to "come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (ch 4:16) -- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary.

A ceremonially unclean person was barred from the sanctuary or Temple (cf. Lev 12:4; Num 19:13, 20), and might not touch any sacred object for the duration of his uncleanness (cf. Num 19:22). Anyone who touched an unclean person during this time also became unclean and must bathe himself, wash his clothes, and be unclean for the remainder of that day. Then he was clean again "at even" (ch 19:19), that is, "when the sun is down" (Lev 22:6, 7).

Whatever the unclean person might touch similarly became unclean. And anyone who touched what an unclean person had touched was also considered ceremonially unclean for the remainder of that day. For each category of uncleanness a ritual procedure of purification was specified.

1. Purification from uncleanness incurred by contact with a corpse (Num 19). Procedure for the removal of ceremonial defilement incurred from touching a dead body, a bone, or a grave, was as follows: In preparation for the ceremony proper, an unblemished red heifer which had never worn a yoke was taken to the priest, who accompanied the heifer and its master to an appropriate spot outside the camp. The heifer was then slaughtered in the presence of the priest, who dipped his finger into the blood that had been preserved and sprinkled the blood toward the sanctuary 7 times. The whole animal was then burned with fire, into which the priest cast cedarwood, scarlet material, and hyssop. A ceremonially clean person then gathered up the ashes of the heifer and stored them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. The man who slew the heifer and the priest who participated in this ritual thereby became ceremonially unclean, and accordingly were to wash their clothing, bathe, return to camp, and regain ceremonial cleanness at the close of the day. A person ceremonially defiled by contact with a dead body, bone, or grave, remained ceremonially unclean for 7 days. On the 3rd and 7th days he was to be sprinkled with water mixed with ashes of the red heifer, by any ceremonially clean person. A bunch of hyssop was used for sprinkling the water. On the 7th day the person defiled by contact with the dead was to bathe, wash his clothes, and regain ceremonial cleanness at the close of the day. The clean person officiating in this rite was to wash his clothes, but continued to be ceremonially unclean for the remainder of the day. The tent and furnishings of the unclean person were likewise to be sprinkled with water containing the ashes of the red heifer, and after 7 days were again considered ceremonially clean. This water is called "water of separation" (KJV) and "water for impurity" (RSV).

A Nazirite defiled by contact with a corpse was likewise to remain unclean for 7 days. But on the 7th day he was to shave his hair, the sign of the vow he had taken, and on the 8th day to present 2 young turtledoves or pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and a lamb for a trespass offering. He forfeited credit for the days of his vow prior to the defilement, and was required to begin the entire period over again (Num 6:9–12).

2. Purification from contact with the carcass of an unclean animal (see Lev 11:29–31, 39). No ritual was specified for the person thus defiled, but he was to be ceremonially unclean until the close of the day (cf. v 40).

3. Uncleanness incurred by issues from the generative organs (Lev 15). These issues might be either normal or abnormal. A person thus defiled was considered unclean for 7 days from the time that the issue stopped. On the 7th day he was to bathe in running water and wash his clothes. At the close of the day he again became ceremonially clean. On the 8th day he was to present himself at the sanctuary, later the Temple, with two turtledoves or pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. Physical contact with someone thus in a state of ceremonial uncleanness, or contact with anything he had touched, rendered another person unclean. The latter, however, was to bathe himself, and he regained ceremonial cleanness at the end of that day.

4. Purification of a mother at childbirth (Lev 12). The mother was to remain ceremonially unclean for 7 days in the case of a male child, and 14 days in the case of a female child, plus 33 additional days for a male child and 66 additional days for a female child. At the close of the specified period of time the mother was to present a lamb for a burnt offering and a turtledove or a pigeon for a sin offering. If she was poor, only young birds were required, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering (see Lk 2:21–24).

5. Purification from defilement by leprosy (Lev 14). When cure from leprosy had been certified, "two birds alive and clean," together with cedarwood, scarlet material, and hyssop, were presented. One bird was killed over an earthen vessel filled with running water and its blood was permitted to drain into the water. The priest then dipped the living bird, the cedarwood, the scarlet material, and the hyssop into the water containing the blood of the bird that had been killed. This water was then sprinkled upon the leprous person 7 times, and following that the living bird was set free. The healed leper was then to wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, bathe, and return to camp, but was forbidden to enter his tent or house for 7 days. On the 8th day he was to present himself at the sanctuary with 2 male lambs, one for a trespass offering and the other for a burnt offering, together with a ewe lamb for a sin offering. He was also to bring a portion of flour mingled with oil for a meal offering, together with an extra container of oil. The trespass offering was slain and waved before the Lord, together with the pot of oil. The priest next touched some of the blood of the trespass offering to the right ear, right thumb, and right great toe of the offerer. He then sprinkled the oil 7 times before the Lord, and touched it also to the healed leper’s right ear, thumb, and toe. The remainder of the oil he poured upon the head of the offerer. Finally, he offered the sin offering, and the burnt offering and its accompanying meal offering. In case of poverty, 1 lamb with the oil and flour, would suffice for a trespass offering, and 2 turtledoves or pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering -- Seventh-day Adventist Dictionary.

The OT sacrifices and offerings may be classified variously as to: (1) purpose, (2) offerer, (3) kind.

1. Purpose. (1) The "burnt" offering expressed worship, gratitude, and dedication. It represented the unbroken, uninterrupted adoration, worship, and devotion of the entire congregation to the Lord. (2) "Sin" offerings represented the confession of, and atonement for, what have been termed Godward sins, while the "trespass" or "guilt" offering represented the confession of what have been termed manward sins, and restitution for injury or loss, though the precise difference is not always clear. (3) "Peace" offerings expressed gratitude, good will, brotherhood, or the fulfillment of vows.

2. Offerer. A distinction was made between sacrifices offered for the entire nation and those for individuals. (1) Those representing the entire congregation included: the regular burnt offerings (that is, those offered upon regularly recurring occasions); all regular sin offerings; and those presented for specific instances of sin on the part of the entire congregation; special burnt offerings that were presented with the sin offering for the congregation; the regular peace offering offered with the bread at Pentecost. (2) Those offered by individuals included: all the special burnt offerings and sin offerings (those required by specific circumstances), with the exception of the special burnt offerings and sin offerings for congregational sin; all trespass, or guilt, offerings; and all special peace offerings. A ruler’s sin offering was more elaborate than that required of the common people, in keeping with his responsible position; the same was true for a priest, for whom there were, in addition, special specified burnt offerings at the time of consecration. Otherwise, all special burnt offerings, sin offerings, and peace offerings, and all trespass offerings were always for individuals.

3. Kind of offering presented. Except in the case of a sin offering for a desperately poor person, specific "clean," unblemished animals from the flock or herd, or sometimes pigeons or turtledoves, were prescribed for the various offerings. Some were to be male, others female, and still others either male or female. Of the flock, certain types of lambs and goats were specified, and in some instances a lamb or goat might be used interchangeably. Of the herd, oxen and bullocks were specified. With all burnt offerings, peace offerings, and certain other offerings, were prescribed cereal offerings—sometimes called "meat" (KJV) or "meal" offerings—of grain, flour, or meal, often made into some type of bread. These were accompanied by salt, oil, and incense and by drink offerings, or libations, of wine (Lev 2:2–7, 13; Num 15:4–11). The cereal offerings, after a portion was offered, were generally eaten by the priest or the offerer. Nothing is said about the drink offering; some think that it was at first poured over the sacrifice that it accompanied; Josephus relates that in his time it was poured around the altar (Ant. iii. 9. 4).

A regular, or daily, burnt offering was offered morning and evening throughout the year, including days when other offerings were prescribed. Additional burnt offerings were required on Sabbaths, on new moons, at the 3 great annual festivals—the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Feast of Tabernacles—and on New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement. Special burnt offerings were offered: with the sin offering for the congregation, at the dedication of priests, with the Nazirite vow, with the sin offering of the poor, for purification from bodily issues, from leprosy, or after childbirth, and by individuals at will or as prescribed to accompany certain other offerings.

Regular sin offerings were specified for the entire congregation at the time of the new moon, on New Year’s Day, and the Day of Atonement; and at the 3 great national festivals. Special sin offerings were required: (1) at the dedication of priests and Levites, (2) for the accidental violation of the Nazirite vow and upon the completion of the vow, (3) for congregational sin or (4) that of a priest or ruler, and (5) for individual sins. A sin offering was also required in connection with a bodily issue, at childbirth, or for purification from leprosy.

A trespass (guilt) offering was always individual. It was prescribed for offenses such as perjury, ignorant sacrilege, fraud, theft, and in some cases required restitution and a penalty payment.

Regular peace offerings were required at Pentecost. Special peace offerings were offered in connection with the fulfillment of vows, particularly the Nazirite vow, and at the dedication of priests. Otherwise, peace offerings might be presented by anyone at any time.

A distinction was also observed in the procedure followed in disposing of the various offerings. A burnt offering was always fully consumed upon the altar, and its blood was sprinkled separately upon (in one case, beside) the altar (Lev 1). In the case of a sin offering for a priest or for the congregation the blood was always sprinkled before the veil and placed on the horns of the golden altar (ch 4). Blood from the individual sin offering of a ruler or of the common people was placed on the horns of the altar of burnt offerings. In both instances the remainder of the blood was poured out at the foot of the altar of burnt offerings. Certain specified portions of animals presented for sin offerings were burned on the altar, and the remainder, in the case of the priest or the congregation, was burned outside the camp (ch 4); however, in the case of individual sin offerings for a ruler or one of the common people, the priest was to eat the flesh of the animal (ch 6:25, 29). Animals presented as trespass offerings were disposed of like those of the sin offering, except that the blood from such animals was sprinkled round about upon the altar instead of being put on the horns of the altar (ch 7:1–7). In the case of animals presented as peace offerings (ch 3) the blood was also sprinkled on the altar round about. Specified portions of the animals were "waved" or "heaved" before the Lord and given to the priest (ch 7:29–34), and the rest was to be eaten by those who presented the peace offerings, with their households (Lev 7:11–21; cf. Deut 12:6, 7; 27:7). For sins done with a "high hand," that is, in rebellion against the covenant and its provisions, no sacrifice was provided (Num 15:30).

A sacrifice was presented at the door of the sanctuary, where the offerer laid his hands upon the victim’s head, dedicating it to God and making it his own true representative and substitute. He—in later times, the priest—shed its blood and the priest symbolically applied the blood. This was followed by the burning of the sacrifice, or portions of it, or the eating of it as specified in different cases.

The sacrificial system was an educational device adapted to the understanding of the people of that time and was designed to help them develop right concepts concerning the holiness of God, the heinous character of sin, and how they might approach God and become reconciled to Him. But both the OT (Mic 6:6–8) and the NT (Mt 9:13; 12:7) make clear that the sacrifices were subordinate in importance to practical godliness. During the life of Christ on earth the sacrificial system was in full operation, and He sanctioned it (Mt 5:23, 24; 8:4; 23:2, 3; cf. Gal 4:4). He also attested its typical nature (26:28). Paul similarly speaks of the sacrifices as types of Christ’s true sacrifice (1 Cor 5:7; cf. Heb 10:1–11) -- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary.

NT writers describe Christ’s atoning work for sinners in the terms of the OT types and symbols. Christ is "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). He is "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession" (Heb. 3:1). The tabernacle on earth was "a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" (Heb. 8:5, RSV), "the true one" where "Christ has entered . . . to appear in the presence of God on our behalf" (Heb. 9:24, RSV). He enters into this holy place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but His own blood, thus procuring eternal redemption for us (v. 12). Each sacrifice typified the infinite sacrifice of Christ upon Calvary, and the priest who offered it represented the priestly ministry of Christ in heaven above. In and of themselves, the sacrifices could not atone for sin (Heb. 10:11). Only as penitent sinners grasped by faith the reality of the atonement yet to be provided by the Messiah did they find release from their sins (Heb. 9:15).

The ancient sanctuary service consisted of two distinct phases—the regular services conducted day by day throughout the year, by which repentant sinners were released from the guilt of their sins (for which the sanctuary assumed responsibility), and the yearly service on the Day of Atonement, when atonement was made for the sanctuary because of the sins from which release had been granted during the year.

Seventh-day Adventists see in these daily and yearly ritual services a type of two phases of Christ’s priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. They consider that the various services conducted day by day represent Christ’s ministry for individual sinners, from the time of His ascension until the antitype of the Day of Atonement—the ceremonies of which, they believe, point to a special work accomplished by Christ toward the close of the Christian Era—a work of judgement that results in the blotting out of confessed sins from the record books of heaven, and the blotting out from the book of life of the names of those who have renounced Christ. This final phase they believe has been going on in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary since 1844, a date derived from the prophetic period in Dan. 8:14 (see Twenty-three Hundred Days).

The Epistle to the Hebrews presents the ancient sanctuary service as a type of Christ’s vicarious atonement on Calvary and His postascension mediatorial ministry. For this reason, Seventh-day Adventists consider a knowledge of the ancient service to be of importance and value to an understanding of the plan of redemption. In fact, a number of the distinctive Seventh-day Adventist teachings can be understood fully only in relationship to the sanctuary service and the ministry of Christ as the Christian’s great High Priest as set forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

History of the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine. Background in Millerite View of Sanctuary. Seventh-day Adventists arose out of the Millerite movement of the 1840s. William Miller, founder and leader of the movement, based his teaching that the Second Advent would occur "about A.D. 1843," primarily on the declaration of Dan. 8:14: "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Miller originally defined the sanctuary as the church (MS to Elder Andrus, 1831, p. 1; Evidences . . . on the Second Coming [1838], pp. 36–38), later as the earth and the church (Cleansing of the Sanctuary [1842], p. 8, cf. pp. 9–14). He concluded that its cleansing would be accomplished by the fires of the last day, in connection with the second coming of Christ. "In accordance with the opinions of all standard Protestant commentators," as he expressed it, he accepted the principle, based on Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:4–6, that a day in symbolic prophecy stands for a year of literal time (Apology and Defence, p. 11). Accordingly, beginning the 2300 years in 457 B.C., he arrived at what he termed "about the year 1843," that is, 1843/1844, from spring to spring, as the time to expect the Second Advent.

Later an adjustment in Miller’s chronology and time computation led to the expectation of the Second Advent in the autumn of 1844 on Oct. 22 (see Seventh-Month Movement).

With this seventh-month movement came an expanded understanding of the sanctuary types and symbols.

This broadened understanding is reflected in the following summary of the fulfilment of the types of the autumnal festivals at the Second Advent: "Thus the blowing of the great trumpet in the year of Jubilee, on the tenth day of the seventh month—a type of the trump of God, the last trump; the release of all captives, the cancelling of all debts, and restoration of every man to his possessions, on the same day—typical of the great release; and the atonement of the High Priest for the sins of all Israel, his intercession therefore in the Holy of Holies, and his coming out from thence to bless the waiting congregation—typical of the completion of the intercession which Christ is now making, and of his coming out of heaven itself, to appear the second time unto those that looked for him without sin unto salvation, it was argued, fully demonstrated, that a day thus selected and set apart of God for the observance of so many ceremonials, typical of the greatest of all events, must be honoured in the completion of the plan of salvation by the event itself" ([S.] B[liss], in Advent Shield 1:269, January 1845).

On the basis of Lev. 9:23, which is part of the record of Aaron’s inauguration to the high priesthood, the Millerites held that at the close of the Day of Atonement the high priest came out and blessed the waiting congregation. Similarly, they held, Christ would come out of the Holy of Holies at His second advent to bless His waiting people. In the subsequent emphasis (in the seventh-month movement) on Christ’s coming out of the Holy of Holies, that is, heaven, no one explained how the Holy of Holies—a part of the sanctuary—could be heaven itself, and yet the sanctuary could be the earth, to be cleansed by fire at the Second Advent.

Litch had, immediately after the spring disappointment, raised a doubt concerning the earth as the sanctuary, but this was not followed up, and the earth-sanctuary concept persisted. As late as 1847 Crosier, in the Day-Dawn, felt it necessary to argue this point at length before stating his conclusion: "There is no Scripture authority for calling any thing else the Sanctuary under the Gospel dispensation, but the place of Christ’s ministry in the heavens. . . . If there be, let it be produced" (Day-Dawn 2:3, Mar. 19, 1847).

This unresolved paradox of the earth, or Palestine, as the sanctuary to be cleansed by the last-day fires, along with heaven as the Holy of Holies, needing no cleansing, still appears in 1853 in the editorials (presumably of Bliss) in the Advent Herald in controversy with J. N. Andrews in the Review and Herald (2:204, 205, May 12, 1853).

Edson’s Idea and Crosier’s Articles. The first step toward the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the sanctuary came the day after the Great Disappointment. On the morning of Oct. 23, 1844, Hiram Edson and a Millerite friend after earnest prayer decided to visit the other Adventists in the neighbourhood and encourage them. As they walked across Edson’s cornfield, Edson dropped behind as his companion walked on. The conviction had suddenly come to him 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, 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" (Hiram Edson, MS, "Life and Experience," fol. 9 verso).

It now became clear to Edson that the sanctuary to be cleansed was not the earth or some portion of it, but the heavenly sanctuary; that Oct. 22 marked the beginning and not the ending of the antitypical Day of Atonement.

Edson, Owen R. L. Crosier, and Franklin B. Hahn spent several months studying the subject of the sanctuary. Crosier wrote out their findings, which he published, according to Edson, in 1845 in the Day-Dawn (Canandaigua, New York), then more fully in the Day-Star Extra (Cincinnati), Feb. 7, 1846; also in the Day-Dawn, 1847, as already quoted (see reprint in Review and Herald 1:78–80, May 5, 1851). The 1845 Day-Dawn is extant only as a part of the Mar. 26, 1845, Ontario Messenger, a Whig newspaper published in Canandaigua. These articles discuss various uses of the term sanctuary in several Old Testament books, concluding that it is properly applied to the tabernacle built by Moses and to the Temple built by Solomon. This was the typical sanctuary. They then discuss the New Testament sanctuary as revealed in the book of Hebrews—the true sanctuary being in heaven, of which the Mosaic tabernacle was only a copy. Since, as Crosier reasoned, the heavenly sanctuary was the only one in existence at the end of the 2300–day prophecy, it must be the sanctuary to be cleansed.

Concerning Crosier’s article in the Day-Star Extra, Ellen G. White wrote (in a letter to Eli Curtis, Apr. 21, 1847, which was printed in A Word to the "Little Flock") that "Brother Crosier had the true light on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c.," and highly recommended the Day-Star Extra.

Seventh-day Adventist View Developed. Crosier’s expansion of Edson’s heavenly sanctuary idea thus became the basis of the standard position of early Seventh-day Adventists. In one of the earliest extended discussions of the subject of the sanctuary in early SDA publications David Arnold wrote: "But what shall we understand by the cleansing of the antitypical sanctuary?

"The Mosaic priesthood, sanctuary and services were all types or shadows, here on earth, of a heavenly priesthood, sanctuary and services; yet there is this difference between them. By reason of death the earthly had many priests, the heavenly but one: the earthly had many victims, the heavenly but one; the earthly sanctuary was cleansed at the end of every 364 days, the heavenly at the end of 2300 years. . . .

"In the earthly, sins were daily imputed, or laid upon the altar through the blood of the victims during the 364 days, and then the daily ministration ceased, and the cleansing commenced. In the heavenly sanctuary sins were daily imputed, or laid upon the altar through the blood of Christ, our victim, during the Gospel dispensation, or time of the Gentiles, which ended with the 2300 days, and then the cleansing commenced. In the earthly, when the daily ministration ceased, and the day of atonement came, the high priest prepared for the atonement, or cleansing, by shutting the door of the outer apartment [see Lev. xvi, 17,] and by putting on the holy garments, with the breast-plate of judgement, and opening the door into the inner apartment or most holy place, then proceeded to cleanse the sanctuary as recorded in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. So in the heavenly; when the daily ministration for the world ceased, and the 2300 days, and time of the Gentiles ended, and the time to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary came, Christ our High Priest prepared for the atonement, or blotting out of sins of all Israel, and cleansing the sanctuary. . . .

"An objection is frequently raised that there can be nothing in heaven that needs cleansing. But let us hear Paul on this point. Speaking of the same sanctuary, he says, ‘It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these: but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.’ Heb. ix, 23. Here Paul gives us clearly to understand that it was necessary that the earthly sanctuary, made from patterns of the heavenly, should be cleansed with the blood of beasts; (for so the law required,) therefore it was also necessary that the heavenly sanctuary, from which the patterns were taken, should be cleansed with better sacrifices. Then there is a sanctuary in heaven to be cleansed ‘with better sacrifices,’ and the ‘Wonderful Number’ places the cleansing of this sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days" (Present Truth 1:60, 61, March 1850).

In August 1850 James White began the publication of a new periodical named the Advent Review, of which he issued five numbers. In numbers 3 and 4 he reprinted from the Day-Star almost the entire Crosier article on the sanctuary.

In November 1850 James White began the regular publication of the Review and Herald. This periodical became the recognised organ of the Adventists who accepted the seventh-day Sabbath and the heavenly-sanctuary explanation of the Millerite disappointment. In its pages a continuing debate was carried on with other Adventists who took opposing views. The first purpose of these articles was to prove that the earth is not the sanctuary intended in Dan. 8:14, but the sanctuary in heaven, the sanctuary of the new covenant.

Later the idea was developed that the cleansing of the sanctuary involved a work of judgement -- Seventh-day Adventist Dictionary.

1) Praise as you enter the gates of prayer

2) Repentance and confession at the altar of sacrifice

3) Daily cleansing, rebaptism, emptying of self and sin at the altar

4) Daily asking for the fullness of the Holy Spirit at the Lampstand

5) Growth: obedience and action as we eat at the table of shewbread

6) Intercession for others at the altar of incense

7) Judgment: investigation, discipline, and instruction, in the Most Holy Place

This model keeps my prayer time interesting. Like King David I  have discovered more about God through the sanctuary illustration.

"I have seen You in the sanctuary,"  David said,
" and beheld Your power and Your glory.
Because Your love is better than life,
my lips will glorify You.
I will praise You as long as I live,
and in Your name I will lift up my hands." Ps. 63:2-4

Carrol Johnson Shewmake, author of Sanctuary Secrets to Personal Prayer.

Among Christian scholars there have been and still are wide variations of opinion as to the significance of the scapegoat in its relationship to the services of the Day of Atonement, in both type and antitype. One view, among many others, holds that the scapegoat is a type of Christ. Another and opposite view is that the scapegoat is a type of Satan. Although the Adventists in 1844 preached much about the Day of Atonement, they apparently gave little attention to such details as the significance of the scapegoat.

As later Seventh-day Adventists studied the sanctuary, they gave more thorough consideration to the details of the Day of Atonement ritual by which the ancient sanctuary was cleansed. The unanimous conclusion of Seventh-day Adventist scholars has been that the scapegoat, or Azazel, represented Satan.

The many reasons for this conclusion are discussed rather extensively by the early SDA writers. (See Uriah Smith, The Sanctuary [Battle Creek, Mich., 1877], p. 308; J. H. Waggoner, The Atonement [Oakland, Calif., 1884], p. 232.) Inasmuch as the atonement for the sanctuary was already completed before the confessed sins were transferred, in figure, to the scapegoat (Lev. 16:20, 21), they concluded that Christ must therefore have completed the work of atonement before Satan—the antitypical scapegoat—could suffer the fate reserved for him as set forth in Rev. 20:9, 10.

The identification of the scapegoat also involved the meaning of the word "Azazel" (ibid., pp. 234–237). On this point many non-Adventist scholars, such as Jenks, Spencer, Charles Beecher, and Matthew Henry, were quoted extensively. It was pointed out that both the Hebrews and the early Christians considered Azazel as the name of the devil, or a demon, and that the Syriac Azzail paralleled this usage. It was pointed out, further, that the use of the preposition "for," in the Hebrew of Lev. 16:8, implies that the lots were cast for a person—one for YHWH and one for Azazel. This would rule out Azazels being an impersonal name for evil. Also, it was pointed out that the Targums treated Azazel as a proper name, and that the Septuagint rendered it by apopompaios, a Greek word applied to a malign deity. This was also the position of the early Church Fathers. Origen said, "He who is called in the Septuagint apopompaios, and in the Hebrew Azazel, is no other than the devil."

A brief note in the Review and Herald (32:48, July 7, 1868) cites Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185) as quoting "that divine elder," who characterised him as "that fallen and yet mighty angel" (Against Heresies 1. 15).

Ancient Jewish writers consistently cast Azazel in the role of an evil spirit being. The pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch, for instance, comments: "Azazel . . . hath taught all unrighteousness on earth" (9:6). "The whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin" (10:8).

The first discussion of the scapegoat appearing in an SDA publication was the reprint of O.R.L. Crosier’s treatise on the sanctuary (Day-Star Extra 9:43, Feb. 7, 1846, reprinted in the Advent Review 1:62, 63, September 1850). Probably the first discussion by a Sabbathkeeping Adventist writer was an editorial by James White (Review and Herald 9:28, Nov. 27, 1856), giving essentially the same explanation, identifying the scapegoat as Satan.

In the Review and Herald for July 3, 1883 (60:424), Uriah Smith develops the subject at considerable length, listing reasons for considering Azazel as Satan: "The scape-goat having once been selected, it never after performed any office involving dignity or honour, or calling for any thing which would symbolise perfection of life or character. . . . The atonement is all made, sins are remitted, the records of the evil deeds of God’s people are blotted out, and they are forever freed from them, and these sins are all borne from the sanctuary, before ever Satan is called into requisition at all. God then simply uses him as the vehicle by which to make a final disposition of these sins in the lake of fire. Thus, so far as the work of atonement itself is concerned, the plan and work of mercy by which God’s people are forgiven their sins, Satan has no part to act."

Years later A. T. Jones emphasised the fact that Azazel must be considered a personal spirit being who stands in opposition to the Lord, and therefore is Satan. He bases this on the fact that lots are cast for two goats, one "for the Lord" and one "for Azazel," who must therefore be as real a personality as the Lord. Jones cites a number of contemporary sources for this view (ibid. 76:460, July 18, 1899).

Seventh-day Adventist belief (note Smith’s statement above) that the scapegoat represents Satan does not in any way involve him in the atonement for sins. Christ’s atonement was full and complete for all, and He alone bore the sins of the righteous and atoned for them. Even theologians who omit Satan from the picture of the Day of Atonement, and thus restrict the symbolism of both goats to Christ, agree that the expiation was effected by the blood of the first goat and that the ceremony with the other goat appears as a mere addition made for special reasons, a kind of complement to the wiping away of sins that had already been effected by the means of the sacrifice.

In summary, Seventh-day Adventists believe that the scapegoat, or Azazel, is a type of Satan. As, anciently, the sins of repentant Israelites were placed on the head of the scapegoat before it was sent away into the wilderness, so "when the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary has been completed, then in the presence of God and heavenly angels, and the host of the redeemed, the sins of God’s people will be placed upon Satan; he will be declared guilty of all the evil which he has caused them to commit. And as the scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, so Satan will be banished to the desolate earth, an uninhabited and dreary wilderness" (GC 658). See also Investigative Judgement; Sanctuary -- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary.

The year 1844, instead of 1843, was arrived at by Apollos Hale, Sylvester Bliss, and others through the correction of a one-year error in computation from B.C. to A.D. dates. The month and day, worked out chiefly by Samuel Snow, were selected because (1) the expectation of the Advent was based chiefly on the calculation of the 2300 days (counted as years), according to the prophecy, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" (Dan. 8:14); (2) the annual ritual cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary took place on the tenth day of the seventh month, called the Day of Atonement (see Lev. 16:16–19, 29–34); and (3) this Jewish calendar date was computed—not according to the current Jewish calendar, but according to an older form attributed to the Karaite Jews—as the equivalent of Oct. 22 in 1844.

This interpretation was developed principally by Snow out of Miller’s suggestion (letter of May 3, 1843) that just as the ancient Hebrew spring festivals (Passover, Pentecost) were types of the death and resurrection of Christ, so the autumn festivals (Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles) typified the Second Advent.

Miller had mentioned several events occurring on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month (the Day of Atonement), such as the cleansing of the sanctuary, its furnishings, and its worshipers; the sounding of the jubilee trumpet signalling the release of all Israelites in bondage, a type of the final redemption; and the atonement made on that day, followed by the coming of the high priest out of the Holy of Holies, typical of Christ’s priestly ministry ending at His second coming. Thus many looked to the autumn of 1843 "with much interest." Then, as Himes relates: "Snow fully embraced the opinion that, according to the types, the advent of the Lord, when it does occur, must occur on the tenth day of the 7th month; but he was not positive as to the year. He afterwards saw that the prophetic periods do not actually expire until the present 1844; he then planted himself on the ground that about the 22nd of October—the tenth day of the seventh month of this present year—must witness the advent" (Advent Herald 8:93, Oct. 30, 1844).

The autumn expectation was based on the idea that the 70 weeks of years (beginning synchronously with the 2300 years) began and ended in the seventh month; and on the application to Christ of the types of the ancient Mosaic festivals. The date was based on the following reasoning: Since Christ, our Passover, was crucified on the fourteenth of the first Jewish month, the day prescribed for the slaying of the Passover lamb, and because He rose again on the day of the wave sheaf (the sixteenth of the same month), it was logical to expect that Christ our great High Priest would fulfil the antitype of the Day of Atonement by coming from the Holy of Holies, or heaven, on the tenth day of the seventh month to bless His waiting people and to announce the beginning of the year of jubilee—the millennium.

It was in February 1844 that both Hale and Snow published their revised reckoning, ending the 2300 years in 1844, and soon afterward Snow fixed on the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844. But acceptance was slow. Not until after midsummer, when Snow began to preach on the subject, notably at the camp meeting at Exeter, New Hampshire, in August, did the movement catch fire.

In addition to the Day of Atonement type, Snow used the parable of the ten virgins in a new way as evidence for his dating. The Millerites had expected the Second Advent at least by the spring of 1844. Between that first expectation (in the spring of 1844) and the second (in the autumn) there were six months—half a year, or half a prophetic day. This, said Snow, was the "night" of waiting, when the Bridegroom delayed His coming; and at midsummer, the midway point of this interval, corresponding to midnight, came the seventh-month message, representing the cry, "Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him." The Millerites had called their message the midnight cry, but this new message was called by its adherents the true midnight cry, to which the other had been preliminary.

As the date approached, enthusiasm mounted, though not all the Millerites joined the seventh-month movement. One by one the Millerite leaders, who had been the last to take part in it, accepted the seventh-month message. William Miller and J. V. Himes, his lieutenant, came to the conclusion early in October that the movement must be the Lord’s doing, and they too looked for the Advent on that October day.

Just as the great surge of enthusiasm over the October date separated the Millerites most completely from the world at large, so after the Great Disappointment, when that day passed, it was the question of the significance of this seventh-month movement, the "true midnight cry," that drew the sharpest line of cleavage between the Millerites themselves. Had it been a colossal blunder, or had it been truly a fulfilment of prophecy-though not the fulfilment they had expected-and had God indeed been leading them in it, testing their devotion and their readiness to meet Christ?

In the aftermath the majority, including most of the leaders, came within a few months to the conclusion that it was "not a fulfilment of prophecy in any sense," that their prophetic chronology had been wrong, and that the fulfilments were yet in the future. Those who held that the movement had been led of God concluded that the timing was right and sought other explanations of their disappointment.

From the latter came the little groups that later became the Seventh-day Adventists. These refused to "deny their past experience," as most of the others seemed to them to have done. They sought another meaning in it and arrived at the conclusion that the cleansing of the sanctuary was not the return of Christ, but involved another phase of His priestly ministry before His return to this earth (see Sanctuary) -- Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopaedia.

The tabernacle proper was a quadrangular tent, 30 cu. long by 10 cu. wide and 10 cu. high. The over-all dimensions are not precisely stated in the Exodus account, but are computed from the specifications given for the curtains and the boards, or frames, used in the walls of the tabernacle and from the corresponding but larger dimensions of Solomon’s Temple (1 Ki 6:2). The tent was divided into 2 apartments, the 1st being known as "the holy place" (Ex 28:29), and the 2nd as "the most holy [place]," literally "Holy of Holies" (ch 26:33). The latter was a cube, 10 cu. on a side, and the holy place 10 cu. by 20 cu. The tabernacle was surrounded by a courtyard 50 cu. wide and 100 cu. long, enclosed by linen hangings 5 cu. high (see ch 27:18). This curtain-wall was suspended from 60 "pillars," probably of acacia wood (cf. ch 26:37) filleted with silver and resting in "brass" (that is, bronze) sockets. At the middle of the east end of the court was the entrance, which was formed by a separate curtain 20 cu. in length (see ch 27:9–17). In the eastern half of the court, near the entrance, were the altar of burnt offering (vs. 1–8) and the laver (ch 30:17–21). The tabernacle proper occupied a central position in the western half of the court. Its entrance likewise faced eastward. This portal consisted of a linen curtain suspended from 5 pillars of shittim (acacia) wood, which were overlaid with gold and rested in brass (bronze) sockets (ch 26:36, 37). Within the holy place, to the right (or north) as one entered, was the table for the "shew-bread," or bread of the Presence. This table was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold (ch 25:23–30). To the left (or south) was the 7-branched candlestick (actually a lampstand, which was made, together with its lamps and utensils, from a talent of pure gold (vs. 31–40). Before the veil that divided the holy place from the Most Holy Place—but considered as belonging to the latter (Heb 9:3, 4)—was the altar of incense, also made of acacia wood overlaid with pure gold (Ex 30:1–10). Entrance into the Most Holy Place was through an elaborately embroidered linen curtain suspended from 4 "pillars" (ch 26:31–33). The only object within the Most Holy Place was the ark of the covenant, a chest made of acacia wood overlaid with pure gold, covered with a lid known as the "mercy seat," and surmounted on either end by a golden cherub (ch 25:10–22). The tabernacle structure consisted of a wooden framework and a threefold tent covering (ch 26:1–37). There were 48 acacia boards, or frames, each 10 cu. long by 11/2 cu. broad, overlaid with gold. These were held in place by tenons and anchored in silver sockets, 2 to a board, and bound together laterally by transverse wooden bars, 5 on each side. The innermost covering, which constituted walls and ceiling and was draped over these upright boards, was made of linen cloth skilfully embroidered with cherubim in blue, purple, and scarlet (vs. 1–6, also see The Mosaic Tabernacle). Outside of this linen curtain was another, of goat’s hair, in 11 sections, each 30 cu. by 4 cu. Over this covering of goat’s hair was a 3rd, or outer, tent (v 14) made of rams’ skins from the flock, and another kind of leather, "badgers’ skins" (KJV), "goatskins" (RSV). Into the courtyard came the priests and the Levites, as duty required, to conduct the services and to supply its needs. Members of the congregation also, apparently, entered within the gate of the court to present their sacrifices and to confess their sins.

During the original conquest of Canaan the tabernacle remained at Gilgal—the initial camp in Canaan and Joshua’s headquarters—near Jericho (Jos 4:19, 20; 5:9, 10; 10:43; 14:6). With the completion of the conquest the tabernacle was moved to Shiloh, where it remained through the period of the judges (Jos 18:1; 1 Sa 1:3) until the capture of the ark by the Philistines; then Shiloh was evidently destroyed and ceased to be a centre of worship (1 Sa 4:3, 11, 21, 22; Ps 78:60–64; cf. Jer 7:12–14; 26:6, 9). During the reign of Saul the tabernacle was at Nob (1 Sa 21:1, 6), and during a considerable part of David’s reign and until the dedication of Solomon’s Temple it was at Gibeon (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29; 2 Chr 1:3–6). With the erection of the latter the tabernacle was brought, along with the ark and the sacred vessels, to the new structure (1 Ki 8:4; 2 Chr 5:5).

For further information on the various parts of the sanctuary see names of structural parts and of equipment and furnishings. For the priestly ministration and various services conducted in the sanctuary see Priest; Sacrifices and Offerings; Temple -- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary.

All ancient nations built temples to their gods. Some of them were elaborate structures, covering many acres of land, and consisted of magnificent buildings and courts. One of the largest well-preserved ruined temples is the great temple of Amon at Thebes in Upper Egypt . In the region of Palestine no temple ruins from pre-Roman times have survived above ground, but several earlier ones have been excavated. They reveal that most of the pre-Israelite temples in Canaan consisted of 3 main rooms: (1) an anteroom through which the worshiper or priest had to pass before he could enter; (2) the sanctuary in which he presented his sacrifices, prayed, or performed other religious duties; (3) beyond this, usually on a raised level, the most holy place containing a pedestal on which the image of the god stood. The temple of Dagon at Ashdod, to which the Philistines took the captured ark of God (1 Sa 5:2–4), was probably a structure like those excavated at Beth-shean. The temple of the god El-berith (KJV "Berith") at Shechem (Jgs 9:46), which has been excavated, was similar in layout to the temples already described, and the temple of Baal at Samaria (2 Ki 10:21), may not have differed from those excavated at various places in Palestine and Syria.

Although the OT says very little about the pagan temples of Canaan, it gives detailed descriptions of the Temple of Solomon and of the ideal temple of Ezekiel’s vision, and also some information about Zerubbabel’s Temple. Herod’s Temple, the scene of Christ’s ministry, is described in detail in the writings of Josephus and in the Mishnah.

I.The Temple of Solomon. David had originally planned to build the Temple at Jerusalem (2 Sa 7:1–3), and when he was not permitted to erect it (vs. 5, 6), he amassed during his lifetime a tremendous amount of building material and precious metal (1 Chr 22:2–16) which, together with detailed plans (ch 28:11, 12), he gave to his son Solomon, charging him with carrying out the project. David had already bought the Temple site, the threshing floor of Araunah (1 Chr 21:25 to 22:1), on what had formerly been called Mount Moriah, the scene of the offering of Isaac.

Although the OT gives a detailed description of the Temple building and its furniture, some terms are obscure, and consequently, most conjectural reconstructions made before the accumulation of archaeological evidence concerning the building methods, techniques, and architectural details of Solomon’s time are incorrect. Much more is now known, but uncertainties with regard to some of the details remain, as the following discussion will show.

The north-eastern hill of Jerusalem, on which Solomon erected the Temple and most probably the palace structures, is irregularly shaped; and doubtless a great deal of time, expense, and effort was expended to provide first a level platform on which the various buildings could be erected. This accounts to some extent for the long span of time—20 years (1 Ki 9:10)—required to build the Temple and the palaces. Examples of such artificial platforms are plentiful in the Near East, the most famous of which are those of Persepolis and Pasargadae in Persia, and of the great Sun temple at Baalbek in the Lebanon. In fact, the present platform of the Temple area at Jerusalem, now a Moslem sacred precinct , gives a good idea of the platform erected by King Solomon, although the present structure consists of Herodian and later masonry. Some of the subterranean vaults in the present platform structure at Jerusalem are used as cisterns, and Solomon’s platform most likely contained similar cisterns for the storage of rain water, for Jerusalem has always suffered from a shortage of water.

The Temple and its auxiliary buildings were erected in 7 years (1 Ki 6:37, 38). Besides the sanctuary structure, the Temple precinct contained 2 courts (2 Ki 23:12): (1) a "great court" (2 Chr 4:9) to which everyone had access, and (2) an "inner court" (1 Ki 6:36)—also called "the court of the priests" (2 Chr 4:9) and the "upper court" (Jer 36:10)—which was mainly the domain of priests and Levites. Nothing is said concerning their size or shape. The Bible mentions a number of gates that seem to have given access to the Temple area, but it does not specify which of them led into the outer court and which from the outer court into the inner one, nor does it give their exact locations. The gates mentioned by name are: (1) the "king’s gate" (1 Chr 9:18), on the east side, (2) the "new gate" (Jer 26:10; 36:10), probably on the south side, (3) the upper Benjamin Gate (ch 20:2), probably on the north north side, (4) the "higher gate," built by Jotham (2 Ki 15:35), probably in the north wall and possibly identical with the upper Benjamin Gate (Jer 20:2), (5) another "higher gate" connecting the Temple precinct with the palace area (2 Chr 23:20), hence probably on the south side, and (6) the gate of Shallecheth on the west side (1 Chr 26:16). Nothing is known of the wall of the outer court; it was apparently—in the north and east, at least—the outer wall of the city. The wall of the inner court was lightly built and consisted of 3 courses of stone with 1 course of cedar beams laid in the walls (1 Ki 6:36), an unusual method of building attested in Hittite ruins excavated in northern Syria, and in structures at Megiddo erected in Solomon’s time (H. C. Thomson, PEQ 92 [1960], 57–63).

The temple had a length of 60 cu., a width of 20 cu., and a height of 30 cu. These measures most probably apply to the interior. It is not known whether the builders employed the common cu. or the longer royal cu. The building, which faced east, consisted of (1) a vestibule or porch, 20 cu. wide and 10 cu. deep; (2) the "holy place," 20 cu. wide and 40 cu. long; and (3) the "Holy of Holies" or "most holy [place]," which was 20 cu. in each direction, hence a perfect cube (1 Ki 6:2, 3, 16, 17, 20).

The walls were of stone cut to size in quarries (1 Ki 6:7), and the ceiling was of beams and planks of cedar (v 9). The walls were covered with cedarwood, and the floor with cypress wood (v 15). The whole interior was carved with figures of cherubim, palm trees, and flowers, and overlaid with gold (1 Ki 6:18, 20–22, 29, 30, 32, 35; 2 Chr 3:7). Underneath the roof were series of windows with recessed frames (1 Ki 6:4, RSV), perhaps with latticework that gave access to the sunlight.

The partition between the holy place and the Most Holy Place was of cedar boards overlaid with gold, with a door consisting of 2 leaves of olivewood and decorated with cherubim, palm trees, and flowers, and covered with gold (1 Ki 6:31, 32). A gold chain was hung in front of the partition, evidently to support a curtain patterned after that which had been in the tabernacle (1 Ki 6:21; Chr 3:14). It is uncertain whether the Most Holy Place lay on the same level as the holy place, or at an elevation to be reached by a stairway. Some scholars think that the lower height given for the smaller room, 20 cu. against 30 for the holy place, indicates that its floor level was 10 cu. higher, with the same roof level for both , thus following the pattern of temples excavated elsewhere, which frequently show the innermost part of the sanctuary on a higher level than the other rooms. Other scholars, believing that the floors of all rooms lay on the same level and that the part of the roof covering the Most Holy Place lay 10 cu. lower than the rest of the roof, or that there may have been upper chambers between the ceiling of the Most Holy Place and the roof, find in 1 Chr 28:11 and 2 Chr 3:9 some support for such a view.

Against the outside walls of the sanctuary on the north, west, and south were built 3 stories of small chambers that were probably used as offices for administration officials, and as storerooms (1 Ki 6:5–10). Many scholars believe that the front of the Temple had either 2 high monumental towers or a pylonlike entrance. The monumental towers find some basis in Chr 3:4, which speaks of the height of the vestibule, or porch, as 120 cu. If this figure is correct, only high towers can be meant. In front of the Temple stood 2 bronze pillars with richly decorated capitals, each 18 cu. high (1 Ki 7:15–22; 2 Chr 3:15–17). Their names, Boaz and Jachin, may have been the initial words of Hebrew inscriptions carved in the pillars. Archaeological evidence shows such free-standing pillars as a common feature of Phoenician temples.

In the Most Holy Place stood the ark with its lid (called "mercy seat"). This was the original ark made at Mount Sinai under the direction of Moses. It was canopied by the extended wings of 2 large gold-overlaid cherubim that were new products of Solomon’s artisans (1 Ki 6:23) 28). In the holy place, but belonging to the inner sanctuary, was the golden altar of incense (1 Ki 6:20, 22; ch 7:48); 10 lampstands instead of the one in the tabernacle (ch 7:49); and "tables" of showbread (1 Chr 28:16; 2 Chr 4:18, 19; 13:11). In the inner court stood the large bronze altar of burnt offering (1 Ki 8:64; 2 Ki 16:14), 4 times the length and width of that which had served in the tabernacle (2 Chr 4:1; cf. Ex 27:1); also the large bronze sea, or tank, standing on the backs of 12 cast-bronze oxen, and 10 movable lavers (1 Ki 7:23–39). See names of specific items.

Solomon’s Temple was repaired several times (2 Ki 12:5–14; 2 Ki 22:5–7) and stood for about 400 years. It was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s army in 586 b.c.: the pillars and the sea were broken up and the bronze taken to Babylon, along with all the other metal vessels (ch 25:9–17).

II. The Temple of Ezekiel. The temple described in Eze 40:1 to 43:27 was seen by the prophet in vision, and it is not clear whether or to what extent Zerubbabel built his Temple according to its plans and specifications, or whether the vision temple merely represented a plan for a temple that was to have served a restored, obedient people—a plan never realised because the people did not meet God’s expectations and requirements.

It has been recognised for a long time that in its essential features Ezekiel’s temple was patterned like Solomon’s Temple, and recently discovered archaeological evidence indicates that Ezekiel’s gates, described in great detail, almost exactly matched gates built by Solomon’s architects at Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer . C. G. Howie (BASOR 117 [1950], 13–19) was the first to recognise that the layout and measurements given by Ezekiel for the east gate of his temple in all essential features agreed with a city gate of Megiddo, excavated in the Solomonic level of that city. In 1957 Y. Yadin discovered an identical city gate during the excavations at Hazor in the Solomonic level, which indicated that it had been planned by the same architect who had been responsible for the Megiddo gate. In 1958 Yadin showed that a Solomonic gate of about the same dimensions had been uncovered during excavations of Gezer many years ago, although its true character had not been recognised, because of the imperfect archaeological methods employed at that time (Y. Yadin, IEJ 8 [1958], 80–86; G. E. Wright, BA 21 [1958], 103, 104). This gate, completely excavated by the American Gezer expedition from 1966 to 1969, turned out to be an identical replica of the Solomonic gates of Megiddo and Hazor (W. G. Dever, EAEHL II:436, 437, 441). These discoveries show that the description of either Solomon’s Temple or of Ezekiel’s ideal structure can be used to clarify structural and architectural details of the other.

Since Ezekiel’s temple never existed in reality, only a brief summary of its essential features will be given here. Its main feature is the perfect symmetry prevailing throughout. The whole precinct, 500 cu. square, faces the east. It consists of an outer court surrounded by a wall broken by 3 identical gates, one in the north wall, one in the east wall, and one in the south wall. A number of structures serve as partitions between the outer and inner courts, and 3 gates identical to those already mentioned are located opposite the outer gates and give access to the inner court. In this court stands a large altar of sacrifice, of which exact dimensions are given, and the temple structure itself, built on a raised platform and reached by steps in front of the vestibule. The temple consists of a (presumably towered) vestibule, the holy place, and the Most Holy Place (all having measurements approximately like those given for Solomon’s Temple), surrounded by side chambers in 3 stories on the north, west, and south sides of the building. In front of the temple are 2 free-standing pillars.

III. The Temple of Zerubbabel. The postexilic Temple at Jerusalem was built with the permission of Cyrus. According to the royal grant it was to have a breadth of 60 cu. and a height of 60 cu., but its length is not mentioned in the preserved document (Ezr 6:3). The building was begun in the 2nd year after the return of the exiles from Babylon, but the builders encountered so much opposition from enemies in their homeland that the work soon came to a virtual stop and remained interrupted until the reign of Darius I. In the 2nd year of his reign the prophets Haggai and Zechariah encouraged Zerubbabel, the governor, and Joshua, the high priest, to make another effort to rebuild the Temple. They responded, and with the enthusiastic support of the whole nation and the good will of the Persian officials and of the king himself, the new Temple, usually referred to as the Second Temple, was finished, along with its auxiliary structures, in a period of about 41/2 years, from 520 to 515 b.c. (Ezr 3:8 to 4:5; 4:24; to 6:15).

The dimensions of this Temple are unknown, although it is reasonable to assume that the general outline of Solomon’s Temple was followed. The buildings were less lavishly decorated, and those who had seen the old Temple wept in sorrow over the simpler layout when no more was seen than the foundation stones (Ezr 3:12; cf. Hag 2:3). The fact that it took the Jews about 2 years less time to build the new Temple was due not only to its poorer construction but also to the existence of the old Solomonic platform (see above), large parts of which could probably be utilised after some repair work. Since the building of such a platform must have consumed much time, effort, and money, a rebuilding of the superstructures on the same site could certainly profit from whatever was left of the substructures of the former Temple precincts.

For the construction of the Temple cedarwood was obtained from the Lebanon Mountains (Ezr 3:7), and precious metals for decorations were provided by freewill offerings of the people and the leaders (chs 1:6; 2:68, 69). Many of the vessels of the former Temple, taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar’s army (ch 1:7–11), were returned by Cyrus to the Jewish officials, and were taken back to Jerusalem. The Temple building was, as before, divided into a holy place and the Holy of Holies, perhaps by a wall as before, but at least by a curtain (1 Macc 1:22). The interior walls were covered with gold.

The Most Holy Place was empty (Tactics Hits. v. 9; Cicero Pro Flack 28), because the ark of God and the cherubim had disappeared at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem in 586 b.c.. The Jews have preserved a tradition that Jeremiah and some of his followers had hidden the ark in a cave. After their return from the Exile all efforts to recover this sacred emblem were fruitless, and to the present day have been without success. In the holy place stood the golden altar of incense, one lampstand, and one table of showbread (1 Macc 1:21, 22). Various passages indicate that offices and miscellaneous storerooms were attached to the Temple building, or were situated in buildings surrounding the courts (Ezr 10:6; Neh 10:37–39; Neh 12:44; Neh 13:4; 1 Macc 4:38). Mention is also made of the courts of the Temple (Neh 8:16; Neh 13:7; Jos. Ant. xiv. 16. 2). In the inner court stood, as before, an altar of sacrifice (Ezr 7:17), this time built of stone and not of bronze like that in Solomon’s Temple (1 Macc 4:44–47). Also in this court was a "sea," probably of bronze (Ecclus 50:3). Access to the Temple area was obtained through gates (Neh 6:10; 1 Macc 4:38) whose number and location are not known.

It appears that the religious rites of the Mosaic law were performed uninterruptedly during the Persian period and also during the 1st 150 years of the Hellenistic domination of Palestine. Alexander the Great is said to have visited the Temple (Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 5), as did at least 2 of the Ptolemies (Ptolemy III, Jos. Against Apion ii. 48; Ptolemy IV, 3 Macc 1:9, 10). Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Temple in 168 b.c. by erecting an altar dedicated to Jupiter Olympius in the Temple court and sacrificing swine on it. He stole the sacred furniture from the holy place and removed all Temple treasures (Jos. Ant. xii. 5. 4; 1 Macc 1:21–23). However, the Temple was repaired, refurnished, and rededicated in 165 b.c., after the Maccabean forces took Jerusalem (1 Macc 4:43–59). The Feast of Dedication (Jn 10:22) originated at that time. When Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 b.c. the Temple was spared any damage (Jos. Ant. xiv. 4. 4), but it was later pillaged by Crassus (ibid. 7. 1). It may have suffered some further damage in the conquest of Jerusalem by Herod in 37 b.c. (ibid. 16. 2, 3). By this time the Temple, being now about 500 years old, needed a thorough overhauling or rebuilding, and Herod decided to build a new Temple which would exceed in splendour and beauty every other structure in the country (see Mt 24:1; cf. Lk 21:5).

IV. The Temple of Herod. When Herod announced his intention of building a new Temple, the Jews feared he would tear down the old one and then fail to rebuild it. Consequently, Herod devised a method of reconstruction by which the old was demolished only as the new construction progressed; it appeared at the different stages as if he were doing nothing but repairing the older structures, while in reality a completely new complex of buildings was erected without interrupting the services. He first rebuilt the Temple proper. This work was begun in 20/19 b.c. and lasted 18 months. He had all building material finished to size before it was brought to the Temple area, and employed only priests to work on the inner Temple structure. After that was finished, most of the outer buildings, including the cloisters, were completed during the next 8 years, but the work of decoration and embellishment went on until the procuratorship of Albinus (c. a.d. 62–64), immediately before the outbreak of the Jewish war (Jos. Ant. xv. 11; War v. 5). Since building activities were still going on during Christ’s ministry, it is understandable that the Jews said the Temple had been in building for 46 years (Jn 2:20). It was this Temple of Herod in which Jesus was dedicated as an infant, in whose halls He met the teachers of the Law as a boy of 12 years, and from whose outer court He drove away the moneychangers. Its halls saw Him, and later His apostles, teach and preach, and at one of its beautifully decorated gates Peter and John healed a crippled man. The whole Temple with all its buildings was destroyed by fire during the capture of Jerusalem by the forces of Titus in a.d. 70. Although strict orders had been given to spare it, a soldier threw a torch in the sanctuary and set it on fire. Thus was destroyed one of the most beautiful buildings of its time (Jos. War vi. 4).

Although the Temple built by Herod the Great was actually a new structure, the Jews always referred to it as still the Second Temple, considering his work no more than a repair and remodelling. Because of the Jews’ hatred for him, the orthodox Jewish writings, like the Mishnah, which gives detailed descriptions of this Temple, never mention the name of its builder. From the descriptions of Josephus (Ant. xv. 11; War v. 5) and of the Mishnah (Middoth,) and from the archaeological evidence of the present site, a fairly good idea of the Temple precinct of Herod can be obtained. The following description is based on these sources .

The old Temple area was enlarged to twice its former size, including also the palace grounds of Solomon’s time. Archaeological investigations show that the present Moslem enclosure, the Haram esh-SheréÆf, almost exactly covers Herod’s Temple area, and large parts of the present walls rest on foundations or wall stumps of Herod’s time. This outer wall surrounded the Court of the Gentiles, to which everyone had access. Covered colonnades, usually called porches (porticoes, cloisters), ran around the inner portion of the enclosure wall. They were constructed after the pattern of the Greek stoae, colonnaded halls that flanked the agora (market place) of every Greek city. The southern portico, called the Royal Porch, had 162 gigantic columns arranged in 4 rows, thus forming 3 corridors—the middle one being higher and wider than those on each side. All other porticoes surrounding the outer court had 3 rows of columns. The southern portion of the eastern portico was called Solomon’s Porch (Jn 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12).

Eight gates gave access to this outer court. One, the Shushan Gate, lay on the east side, at the site of the present Golden Gate, and one in the north. The 2 southern gates, called Huldah gates, gave access to the Temple court from the lower part of the city through stairways that ended inside the court. These two gates, still visible in the preserved wall portions, show that one had 2 doors and the other 3 doors. The western wall was broken by 4 main gates and one small entrance, of which the southernmost was a gate reached by means of an L-shaped stairway and a bridge (Robinson’s Arch), which crossed the street that ran at the bottom of the western wall in the Tyropoeon Valley, which flanked the western wall. This gate with its stairway and bridge, which has been fully uncovered in the excavations of B. Mazar from 1968 to 1977, is not mentioned in ancient records. Another gate was reached via a bridge that spanned the valley. The greater part of this bridge, now known as Wilson’s Arch, is still preserved, although most of the valley has been filled with debris. Between the south inner gate and the porch of the house there was another small entrance at street level in the Tyropoeon Valley. A stairway from that entrance led to the inside of the court. Not much is known about the 2 other western gates. At the north-western corner were stairways which led up to the Castle, or Barracks, of Antonia, which was located on a rock platform higher than the Temple court. It had been built by John Hyrcanus at the site of the old citadel, called bérah by Nehemiah (ch 2:8). Herod had enlarged it and transformed it into a fortified palace.

In the centre of the whole enclosure was the sacred precinct, on a higher level than the large outer court, reached from the north, east, and south sides by flights of 14 steps each. Outside this terrace was a wall, 3 cu. high, surmounted by pillars, with entrances to the sacred enclosure at 9 places exactly in front of the 9 gates of the inner wall. Warning tablets inscribed in Greek and Latin contained the following text: "No stranger (=non-Jew) is to enter within the balustrade and enclosure around the Temple. Whoever is caught will be responsible to himself for his death, which will ensue." One such tablet with a complete Greek inscription was found by Charles Clermont-Ganneau in 1871; it is now in a museum at Istanbul . Part of a 2nd one, discovered in street-building operations at Jerusalem in 1935, is now in the Jerusalem Archaeological Museum (QDAP 6 [1936], 1–3). The apostle Paul was accused of having brought a Gentile within this wall, and thus of having transgressed this ordinance, when he was arrested in the Temple (Acts 21:28, 29).

Upon the terrace stood the inner wall, 25 cu. high, which separated the inner courts from the outer one, and also the sanctuary proper from the world. Access to the inner courts was obtained through 9 gates, of which one was in the east and 4 each on the north and south sides. Against the inner side of this wall were built storage chambers and offices opening onto colonnades. The eastern portion, or about one third of the whole sacred area, was separated from the rest by a wall. It was the Court of the Women, so called because Jewish women and children had access to this court. The "treasury," a place mentioned as the scene of Christ’s teaching in the Temple (Jn 8:20), lay within the Court of the Women. The name is applicable either to the colonnade around the court, in which were located the contribution boxes, called "trumpets" because of their shape, or to those rooms in which gifts and offerings were deposited. One large gate lay between this Court of the Women and the next one, which lay on a higher level. Fifteen steps, semicircular in form, led to this great gate, which was 40 cu. wide and 50 cu. high. It is not certain whether this gate or the one that led into the Court of the Women from the outer court was the Beautiful Gate (Acts 3:2), where Peter healed a crippled beggar.

The western portion of the sacred enclosure contained the Court of the Priests, next to the Temple building. Around it on 3 sides was the Court of Israel, also called Court of, to which all Jewish men had access. The 2 courts were separated from each other by a wall about 1 cu. high. Within the Court of Israel was a series of storage chambers, and also the hall in which the Sanhedrin, or Supreme Court (see Acts 5:21), had its sittings.

The Court of the Priest contained the altar of sacrifice and the "sea" of bronze. Only priests were allowed to enter this court, except that Jews were permitted to enter and come before the altar for the presentation of their offerings. The altar of unhewn stone was, according to the Mishnah, 15 cu. high and 32 cu. square at its base, with a ramp leading up. However, these measures can hardly be correct. It is generally believed that this altar of sacrifice stood at the spot now covered by the Moslem Dome of the Rock, often erroneously called the Mosque of Omar . Underneath this rock is a cave to which access can be gained by means of a stairway. There was a hole through which the priests could drop into the cave the discarded parts of the sacrificial victims, as well as the ashes and bones, which could then be removed from the cave during the night, so that the worshipers in the Temple area would not be offended by the door of this waste material .

Twelve steps led up from the Court of the Priests to the vestibule of the Temple building. This vestibule was 100 cu. high, 100 cu. broad, and 20 cu. deep, containing spiral staircases in its side wings. The monumental portal was 70 cu. high and 25 cu. wide, without doors, so that the great doorway to the sanctuary itself was visible from the outside. This doorway contained 2 golden doors, 55 cu. high and 16 cu. wide, opening into the holy place, which was the same size (40 x 20 cu.) as that of Solomon’s Temple, except that it was 60 cu. high (instead of 30). It contained the usual equipment: a golden altar of incense, a table of showbread, and a lampstand. The Most Holy Place, which was empty, was separated from the larger room (according to the Mishnah Yoma 5. 1) by two parallel curtains. The rending of this partition at the death of Christ (Mt 27:51; Heb 6:19; 10:20) gave proof that the shadow service of the sacrificial system had come to an end.

Attached to the north, west, and south sides of the Temple building were side chambers in 3 stories, like those in Solomon’s Temple.

Lit.: W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore, 1953), pp. 142–155; M. Ben-Dov, "Temple of Herod," IDBS, pp. 870–872; T. A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem (Leiden, 1970); P. L. Garber, "Reconstructing Solomon’s Temple," BA 14 (1951), 2–24; J. Quellette, "Temple of Solomon," IDBS, pp. 872–874; A. Parrot, The Temple of Jerusalem (London, 1957); W. F. Stinespring, "Jerusalem Temple," IDB IV: 534–560; L.-H. Vincent and F.-M. Abel, Jerusalem Nouvelle (Paris, 1914–1926); Vincent and A.-M. Steve, Jerusalem de Ancien Testament (Paris, 1954, 1956); G. E. Wright, "Solomon’s Temple Resurrected," BA 4 (1941), 17–31; "The Temple of Solomon," ibid., 7 (1944), 73–77.Top: Ground plan of the Temple building. Centre, left: East-west section. Centre, right: Cross-section through the sanctuary. Bottom: Side and front elevations -- Seventh-day Adventist Dictionary.

The 1st command enjoins monotheism, or the exclusive worship of the one true God, Yahweh, in contrast with polytheism, or the worship of many gods. The 2nd command forbids idolatry of all kinds, that is, attempts to worship the invisible God through visible forms (cf. Hos 8:6; Col 1:15–17). The 3rd command forbids all irreverence, especially the needless mention of God’s name in ordinary conversation, and perjury accompanied by an invocation of the divine name. The 4th command enjoins the observance of the Sabbath and identifies the true God as Creator of heaven and earth. By keeping the Sabbath men were to remember Him as such, and they would thus be protected against all false worship. The 5th command enjoins respect and submission to parents as God’s appointed agents for the transmission of His revealed will to succeeding generations (see Deut 4:9; Deut 6:7). The 6th command protects life as sacred. The 7th command enjoins purity and thus safeguards the marital relationship in order that the home may realize its divinely appointed objectives. The 8th command safeguards property. The 9th command safeguards truth and protects against perjury. The 10th command goes to the root of all human relationships by providing that man shall not covet that which belongs to another, much less deprive him of it by force.

A fragmentary papyrus sheet, the famed Nash Papyrus, contains the Decalogue in the form presented in Deut 5, together with the "Shema," a quotation of Deut 6:1. This famous Hebrew document, originating in the 1st cent. b.c., is now in Cambridge, England. Up to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls it was the earliest Hebrew document containing any part of the Bible -- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary.