The Sanctuary: answering objections 

List of studies

1. Introduction

The doctrine of the Sanctuary in Heaven arouses more controversy and objections than probably any other doctrine.  The seriousness of these objections requires that they are addressed.  First we must be reminded of the Sanctuary doctrine. 

The Sanctuary on Earth is a representation of the true Sanctuary in Heaven (Ex 25:9; He 8:5) Therefore, the form (The Holy and the Most Holy compartments) and function (the Daily Ministration, and the annual Day of Atonement) of the earthly Sanctuary are an accurate depiction of the form and function of the Heavenly original.

The blood of animals: Both Ministrations on Earth were dependent on the sacrificial blood of animals, which were a figure, accepted for the time (He 9:8,9).  

The Blood of Christ: Both Ministrations in Heaven, however, are dependent on a better Blood Sacrifice (He 9:23): that of Christ (1Pe 1:18,19).  Since the Cross, Christ has offered His own Blood as an Atonement for sin (Re 1:5).

Christ's Ministry in Heaven: The Sanctuary doctrine states that after His ascension to Heaven, Christ, in keeping with the sequence of the earthly Ministry, began His ‘Daily’ Ministration.  This continued until the time of the end when Christ began His final Atoning Ministry in the Most Holy in Heaven, i.e. the Cleansing of the Sanctuary (in Heaven), which is equivalent to the Day of Atonement on Earth. 

The 2300 days prophecy: Critical to the Sanctuary doctrine is the 2300 days prophecy of Daniel chapter 8, the importance of which is indicated in that God's messenger was no less than Gabriel (verse 16 of Daniel 8), the very highest angel who stands in the presence of God (Lk 1:19) replacing Lucifer.  

By applying the year/day principle of prophetic time, the 2300 days are understood to denote 2300 actual years.  The start of this period is calculated from both Scripture and history to be the Autumn of 457 BC (see study: ‘The 2300 days prophecy: the end time in history’,4).  Thus the 2300 years reach to the Autumn of 1844 AD.  At that time Christ’s final cleansing Atonement, in which the sin of the redeemed is finally eradicated, began.

The Sanctuary controversy. The Sanctuary doctrine is contrary to mainstream Christianity.  It goes hand-in-hand with the doctrine of soul sleep, which denies the almost universally believed, though unscriptural (see study 'Death and the state of the dead',5,6) teaching that the soul survives death . Thus there are many mainstream detractors who oppose the Sanctuary doctrine. Additionally, even amongst those who do embrace soul sleep, there are many detractors. The main objections to the Sanctuary doctrine are discussed in this study. 

2. Objection: Atonement for sin was wholly completed at the Cross 

This objection states that Christ’s Atonement for sin was wholly completed on the Cross, and thus the concept of further atonement robs believers of the assurance of Salvation.

The Atonement not wholly completed on the Cross

Christ on the Cross made the once-for all Sacrificial Atonement for sin, thereby ending the sacrificial system in the earthly Sanctuary (‘it is finished’ - Jn 19:30).  However, Christ had not yet conquered death: the consequence of sin (Ro 6:23) - thus by ‘it is finished’ Christ could not have meant full Atonement.  Until the consequence of sin was indeed overcome by Christ in His Resurrection, salvation remained a promise - mankind was still in sin.

Scripture tells us clearly that this was the case - 1Co 15:17 confirms that if Christ was not resurrected, we would still be in our sin.  Furthermore, Christ’s resurrection, was for our justification (Ro 4:25).  Thus between the Cross and the Resurrection repentant sinners remained counted as justified by faith in the promise of a risen Saviour. Not until Christ's Resurrection did the promise become fact, and mankind was actually delivered from sin and its consequences. 

The Atonement for sin, therefore, was not wholly completed on the Cross.  This indicates the truth of the Sanctuary doctrine, which does wholly complete the Atonement for sin.

We need now to address the assertion that the Sanctuary doctrine removes the assurance of salvation.

Assurance of Salvation

God intends that those who respond to His call to repent of sin should have full assurance of salvation (He 6:11; 10:22), based on the Blood of Christ, which is an offering sufficient forever (He 10:14). Today we have the absolute certainty that in the Cross, the repentant sinner dies with Christ (2Co 5:14), and in His Resurrection the repentant sinner rises with Christ (Col 3:1). 

The Blood of the Cross

Christ’s Blood was shed once (Ro 6:10 et al), but is pleaded many times: i.e. each time a repentant sinner is accused by Satan (see Re 12:10). 

Christ pleads His Blood throughout both phases (see section 1) of His Heavenly Ministry, but especially in His final cleansing Atonement (the Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary).

The Sanctuary doctrine: final Cleansing Atonement

Importantly, Christ’s final Atonement in Heaven does not make an additional sacrificial Atonement.  Its purpose is to eradicate entirely the sin of the redeemed, fitting them wholly for entry into God’s Kingdom - as though they had never sinned. 

Christ’s final Atonement applies the Sacrificial Atonement of the Cross - it confirms and complements the Cross, putting the Cross into practice to render sinners ‘without sin’. 

The Cross did not wholly complete Christ’s Atonement - it is completed both by His Resurrection and His final cleansing Atonement in Heaven - the latter is Christ’s crowning Atonement  It eradicates the sin of the redeemed, rendering them as though they had never sinned, assuring them of their fitness to enter Heaven. 

Reassurance.  Thus, far from robbing believers of their assurance of salvation, Christ’s final cleansing Atonement reassures them of the saving power of the Blood of the Cross - thus they are doubly assured.

By Christ’s final cleansing Atonement alone believers know (see 2Ti 1:12, in which ‘know' is a completed fact) they will attain sinless perfection.  By it their redemption is confirmed openly, both before the Father, and before all unfallen Creation, who are witnesses to God’s infinite Grace - there could be no greater assurance.  

When the Sanctuary doctrine is understood fully, confidence in salvation is reinforced.  Only those who are false confessors, or those who have repudiated their faith, need fear condemnation.

3. Objection: Christ’s ‘Daily’ Ministry was conducted before the Cross 

This objection is raised to counter the post-Cross two-phase Sanctuary doctrine, which teaches that Christ began His ‘Daily’ Ministry upon His ascension to Heaven.

We see in Section 2 that Christ, throughout His Ministry, pleads His own Blood to save repentant sinners.

In the earthly Ministry (which was a depiction of Christ’s true Ministry) blood was offered in both phases: the Daily and the Annual.  This tells us that there are two phases in Christ’s true Ministry, and that blood has to be offered in both, i.e. Christ’s own Blood (Re 1:5).

Thus if Christ did perform His Daily Ministry before the Cross, it had to be with His own Blood.  However, Christ’s own Blood was not shed until the Cross, it simply was not available before then - that is why the blood of animals, as a figure for the time, had to suffice.  

It is impossible that Christ could have performed His ‘Daily’ Ministry before the Cross - the means to do so, His own blood, was not available.

Furthermore, if Christ’s true ‘Daily’ Ministry was indeed conducted before the Cross (i.e. if Christ had somehow offered His own Blood before He had shed it!), there would have been no need for a figurative ‘Daily’ ministry in the earthly Sanctuary.

This objection, therefore, does not stand.

4. Objection: the cleansing of the Sanctuary in Heaven began immediately upon Christ’s ascension 

This objection is the ‘companion’ to the objection stated in section 3.  If the section 3 objection was well founded it would be the natural situation.

Scripture states that upon His ascension to Heaven after the Cross, Christ took His place at the Right Hand of the Throne of the Father (1Pe 3:22; He 8:1) to begin His true Heavenly Ministry.

The Heavenly Thrones

This objection stands or falls on the location of the Father’s Throne in the Sanctuary in Heaven at the time of Christ’s ascension.

The prophetic books of Revelation and Daniel give us a clear picture of the location of the Heavenly thrones.

Opening a door, and opening the Temple in Heaven 

Re 4:1  After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven…

Re 11:19  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament…

In study: ’The Sanctuary on Earth’,4.1 we see that in the earthly Sanctuary the Ark of the Covenent (i.e. Ark of the Testimony - Ex 25:22) was located in the Most Holy (Ex 26:34).  

Thus because the earthly Sanctuary is a depiction of the Heavenly Sanctuary (Ex 25:9; He 8:5), we know that ‘the Ark of His Testament’ is in the Most Holy in Heaven. 

Thus the opening of the Temple of God that brought into view the original of the Ark of the Testament was the opening up of the Most Holy in Heaven - the door that was opened was the separation between the Holy and the Most Holy, depicted by the inner veil in the earthly Sanctuary. The scene was then set for the final cleansing Atonement prefigured by the Day of Atonement on Earth.

In keeping with the earthly Day of Atonement, to perform the final Atonement both the Father and the Son have to be together in the Most Holy.  Objectors claim that the Father was already in the Most Holy in Heaven at Christ’s ascension.  We must determine if that was indeed the case.

Note. In the earthly Sanctuary, the Father’s glorious presence had to be hidden away in the Most Holy, out of sight of sinful mankind - none could look upon the Father and live.  In the Heavenly Sanctuary, no such restriction exists - there is no sin in Heaven - all unfallen beings can look upon the Father in perfect safety.  He may thus be on open view in the outer compartment in Heaven, the Holy.

The Father enters the Most Holy in Heaven

After the opening of the Heavenly door to the Most Holy, we see a throne set in place:

Re 4:2,10  And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. 

10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne…

This was prophesied in Daniel, who saw ‘thrones cast down’:

Da 7:9  I beheld till the thrones [Strong’s H3764, throne, used in the plural] were cast down [Strong’s H7412, throw, set], and the Ancient of days did sit…

On one Throne, the ‘Ancient of Days’ (The Father) took His place.

Christ follows the Father into the Most Holy in Heaven

Da 7:13  I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 

In sequence in Daniel 7, Christ, who is addressed many times as the Son of Man, ‘came' to the Father, who was sitting on His Throne in the Most Holy. 

Thus both Christ and the Father were elsewhere before the opening of the Heavenly ‘door’.  In keeping with the earthly Sanctuary, 'elsewhere' can only be the outer compartment, the Holy, in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

Therefore both Christ and the Father, upon Christ’s ascension, were together in the Holy in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

What about Hebrews 6:19,20?

He 6:19,20  Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 

20  Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 

To understand this passage, we must take into account what else Paul says about Christ entering the Heavenly Sanctuary:

He 9:12  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 

In this verse, ‘holy place’ is in the Greek ‘neuter plural’ form, which is a collective noun, and thus refers to all parts (i.e. the whole) of the Sanctuary in Heaven (see study: ‘The Sanctuary in Heaven’,3). We see the same use of the ‘neuter plural’ in He 9:24.

Thus Paul, confirms that Christ did indeed enter the Heavenly Sanctuary, but he is not specific about which compartment.  We may therefore understand 'veil' in He 6:19 to mean the first (outer) veil between the Holy and the courtyard (see study: ‘The Sanctuary on Earth’,2.2, and He 9:3 in which Paul addresses the inner veil as the ‘second’ veil).  

We have already seen that both the Father and the Son re-located from the Holy to the Most Holy (in Heaven), thus confirming that Christ did not enter the Most Holy upon His ascension. 

We must, therefore, understand He 6:19,20 to mean that our hope in Christ is so certain that it reaches into the Heavenly Sanctuary with Christ, who, as High priest, is wholly qualified to enter there, even into the Most Holy, at the appropriate time.

We have seen how the Thrones in Heaven were moved from the Holy compartment to the Most Holy compartment in the Heavenly Sanctuary.  

This confirms that Christ, upon His ascension, entered the Holy in Heaven, where He sat at the Father’s right hand, There He began His ‘Daily’ ministry, not the final cleansing Atonement, which He began in the Most Holy at a later time. 

The objection addressed in this section, therefore, does not stand.

5. Objection: the 2300 days prophecy does not point to 1844 AD 

The 2300 days prophecy is at the heart of the Sanctuary doctrine (the Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary):

Da 8:13,14  Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 

14  And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

This prophecy is given in the context of the ‘little horn’ of Daniel chapter 8, which is a power that arises in the last days (which began immediately after the Cross), and which we identify as the Papacy (see study ‘Daniel 8 part 2: identifying the little horn’).  The Papacy’s power lasted for 1260 years, from 538 to 1798 AD (see study: ‘Confirming the identity of the Antichrist beast’,3.2).

This objection comes in two parts:

1. The start date of the 2300 days (457 BC, see section 1) is not warranted in Scripture.

2. If the 2300 days prophecy applies to the Papacy, there is a mismatch with the years of the prophecy (2300 v 1260, see above).  Thus the prophecy is misinterpreted, and the 2300 days are literal days - which many objectors apply to Antiochus Epiphanies, who ruled from175 to 164 BC (see study ‘The 2300 days prophecy: the end time in History’,3), and/or to a literal period of tribulation at some future time.

Understanding the start date of the 2300 days prophecy hangs upon one word in one verse: Da 9:24, which is the first verse of the 70 weeks prophecy that points to the Cross.  (The dates of the 70 weeks prophecy are calculated to be from 457 BC to 34 AD - see study: 'The 70 weeks prophecy: Christ in History',3.1). 

In Da 9:24, the word in question is 'determined', which is translated from the Hebrew word 'chatak' (Strong’s H2852), a primitive root that is used in Scripture just the once. 

Supporters of the 1844 AD end date of the 2300 days prophecy maintain that 'chatak' properly means 'cut off', and that the 70 weeks are 'cut off' from the 2300 days, thus giving the same start date for both prophecies: 457 BC. Objectors deny the 'cut off' meaning of 'chatak'.  Thus we need to investigate how ‘chatak’ is best understood.

'Chatak' is discussed in: The meaning of 'chatak', which concludes that because the use of ‘chatak’ is unique it has a unique meaning specific to Da 9:24. The only alternative meaning to ‘determined’ is ‘cut off’.  Thus 'chatak' is indeed better understood as 'cut off'. 

Conclusion, part 1: In the context of Da 9:24, understanding ‘cut off’ as the better meaning of the Hebrew ‘chatak’ confirms that the 70 weeks of the Daniel 9 (70 weeks) prophecy are ‘cut off’ from the 2300 days prophecy.  Thus both prophecies have the same start date: 457 BC, and thus the 1844 AD end date of the 2300 days/years is correct.

As we have seen in the studies on Daniel chapter 8, three powers are represented (verses 3-14): Medo-Persia, its successor Greece, and the ‘little horn’, which came 'out of' the Grecian power (verse 9).  This represents that the little horn (the Papacy), as the last of the three powers, incorporates the main attributes and purposes of the first two powers. The Papacy therefore continues in, and adds to, their pagan teachings.  For instance, the belief in eternal punishment in hell is a central doctrine of all three powers, which the Papacy disguises under a cloak of (apostate) christianity, rendering it more deadly.

Medo-Persia and Greece were dominant in the post-Babylonian-exile era before the Cross. They corrupted Israel with Zoroastrian and Hellenistic beliefs.  That period saw the rise of the Pharisees, whom Christ condemned for teaching their own rules and regulations (Col 2:20-22) in place of truth (Mk 7:5-7). 

The 'little horn' (the Papacy')

The 2300 days prophecy is given in the broader context of all three powers. Thus what is applied to the little horn applies also to corrupted Israel. Therefore, the pure religion of God was ‘trodden underfoot’ throughout the whole 2300 year period of the prophecy, beginning in Autumn 457 BC and reaching to Autumn 1844 AD (section 1).

The prophecy places emphasis on the ‘little horn’ power (the Papacy) because it is the dominating power at the time of the end, when the prophecy is intended to be understood (Da 8:17;12:4).  Also, because of its cloak of (apostate) christianity it is the most dangerous of the three powers, deceiving many. 

Additionally, the apostasies of the Papacy were established in Christianity soon after the Cross, well before its formalization in 538 AD (see study: ‘Confirming the identity of the antichrist beast’,3.1). Furthermore, the little horn (the Papacy) is the resurgent power that reaches to the very end of time - after the healing of its (apparent) deadly wound (see study: ‘Confirming the identity of the antichrist beast’,3.3). Thus the apostasies of the Papacy (its influence) begin well before and continue well after its formal dates (538-1798 AD).

Overall, the 2300 days prophecy is given in the broader context of all three powers (Medo-Persia, Greece, and the Papacy), and therefore the pure religion of God was ‘trodden underfoot’ throughout the whole 2300 year period of the prophecy, beginning in 457 BC (section 1).

Conclusion, part 2. The main thrust of the 2300 days prophecy is not to identify the years of the Papacy’s power - that is done elsewhere, e.g. in Daniel chapter 7. The main thrust is to identify the time when Christ will deal once and for all with the confessed and forgiven sin of the redeemed, and also to announce, and date, the time of the end in Heaven.

This two-part objection, is an attempt to cast doubt on God’s ‘timetable’ for Salvation.  In so doing, objectors undermine the certainty of al/ prophecy, which is Satan’s intent.

The 2300 days are correctly regarded as literal years, and are correctly calculated as running from 457 BC to 1844 AD.  It is the prophecy that informs today’s generations of the nearness of Christ’s second advent, which is, along with the Cross, the second of the two greatest events in Human history.

6. Objection: there is not a Heavenly Sanctuary with two compartments - there are just two phases in Heaven itself

This objection seeks to do away altogether with the concept of a Sanctuary in Heaven - objectors use He 9:24 to claim that Heaven is the Sanctuary.

This objection is largely answered in section 4, where we see in Re 11:19 that the Temple of God was opened in Heaven (the Greek preposition for ‘in’ [Strong’s G1722, ‘en’] is used).  Thus the Temple is an entity within Heaven. The Temple in Heaven is confirmed in Re 14:17.  

Now we need to determine whether the Temple in Heaven is in fact the Heavenly Sanctuary.

The Temple in Heaven and the Heavenly Sanctuary

The opening of the Temple in Heaven revealed the Heavenly Ark of the Testimony. On Earth the Ark of the Covenant (i.e the Ark of the Testimony - Ex 25:22) resided in the Most Holy compartment of the earthly Sanctuary (Ex 26:34).  

The earthly Sanctuary is a copy of the Heavenly Sanctuary (Ex 25:9; He 8:5). Thus the Heavenly Ark of the Testimony resides in the Most Holy compartment of the original Sanctuary in Heaven.  The Heavenly Temple and the Heavenly Sanctuary, therefore, are one and the same.  

Furthermore, in keeping with the earthly Sanctuary, there must also be an outer compartment, the Holy, in the Temple (the Sanctuary) in Heaven.

The Temple in Heaven has the same two compartments as the Sanctuary on Earth, which is a copy of the Sanctuary in Heaven. The Heavenly Temple is therefore the Heavenly Sanctuary, which is in Heaven, and is thus not Heaven itself.  Thus this objection does not stand.

7. Objection: the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary deals with the record of the ‘little horn’ power, not the record of the redeemed

The ‘little horn’ power of Daniel chapter 8 (which we identify as the Papacy, see section 5) is the main power addressed by the 2300 days prophecy, which points to the cleansing of the Sanctuary in Heaven at the time of the end. 

This objection states that the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary deals with the sins of the ‘little horn’ (the Papacy), and not with the sin of the redeemed.  Consequently, objectors maintain that the sins of the redeemed are not recorded in Heaven.

The cleansing of sin

Leviticus chapter 16 deals comprehensively with the Day of Atonement (abbr. DoA) in the Sanctuary on Earth. Because the earthly Sanctuary depicts the Heavenly Sanctuary (Ex 25:9; He 8:5), the DoA typifies the cleansing of the Sanctuary in Heaven. The purpose of the DoA was to deal with the sin of Israel accumulated in the earthly Sanctuary from the Daily sacrifice (see study: ‘The Day of Atonement’,2).

On the DoA, by the offering of the blood of the Lord’s goat for the people (Le 16:15,16) the sin of Israel held over from the Daily sacrifice was, in figure for the time, expunged. 

Sins recorded

We see in study: ‘Sin: definition, origin, and consequences’,7, that if a person who, having repented, subsequently repudiates their repentance, their sin is added back to them.

This confirms that sinners who repent are indeed deemed free of their sin (Ro 6:18; Ga 5:1).  However, the sins themselves are held on record - until the final cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary.

The DoA on Earth confirms that:

1. Sin, though repented of and forgiven, is held on record until the final cleansing;

2. The cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary deals with the sin of the repentant accumulated from Christ’s ‘Daily’ Ministry, not with the sin of any other entity. 

The sin of all apostate powers and individuals is dealt with at a later date (see study: ‘The end of sin and sinners’).

This objection, therefore, does not stand.

8. Objection: the Day of Atonement on Earth points to the Cross

This objection is in direct opposition to the Sanctuary Doctrine, which teaches that the Day of Atonement points, not to the Cross, but to Christ’s Final Atonement in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

Christ’s One Sacrifice (the Cross) is linked clearly to the Daily sacrifice on Earth:

He 10:11,12  And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 

12  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 

This is squarely in line with the Sanctuary Doctrine, which teaches that the Cross was prefigured by all the Ministry in the earthly Sanctuary, but to the Daily first, followed by the Annual - every animal sacrifice was replaced by the one Sacrifice of the Cross. 

Furthermore, as we see in section 1, the Sanctuary on Earth was a depiction of the form and function of the Original Sanctuary in Heaven, confirming that the whole earthly Ministry pointed to the whole Heavenly Ministry, and that the sequence of the earthly was determined by the sequence of the Heavenly.

The sequence of the earthly and Heavenly Ministries (the 'Daily' first) confirms, in conjunction with the above Scripture passage, that Christ’s ‘Daily’ Ministry began immediately after the Cross.  Thus if we were to specify which earthly Ministry pointed to the Cross, it would have to be the 'Daily', not the Day of Atonement.  Thus this objection does not stand.

9. Overall conclusion

The Heavenly Sanctuary and its cleansing is depicted clearly in Daniel: the Old Testament prophetic book that specifically addresses the time of the end (Da 8:17;12:4).  It is therefore meant to be understood - it cannot be denied or ignored. 

Christ, when He sacrificed Himself upon the Cross, made Atonement for sin freely available to all, but it is not automatically applied to all - Christ applies His Atoning Sacrifice to repentant sinners only, who, after the final cleansing in the Heavenly Sanctuary (Christ's crowning act of Atonement), will stand before God without sin - as though they had never sinned.

In the Sanctuary doctrine we see complete Atonement for sin.  In the Sanctuary doctrine, believers are doubly assured of salvation.

The many objections laid against the Sanctuary doctrine, are, upon careful study of Scripture, refuted firmly. Consequently, if the Sanctuary doctrine is at odds with mainstream belief, it is the mainstream that needs to be amended.

List of studies