February 15, 1846, Falmouth, Massachusetts 1EGWLM 96.1
Letter to Identity: Enoch Jacobs was editor of the Day-Star, a Millerite paper published in Cincinnati, Ohio. See Lt 1, 1845 (Dec. 20), note 1.
Enoch Jacobs.1
Transcribed from the Day-Star, vol. 10, no. 1, March 14, 1846, pp. 7, 8. See Ellen G. White, Early Writings, pp. 54-56.
Follow-up to Ellen Harmon's December 20, 1845, letter to Enoch Jacobs published in the Day-Star. This letter contains descriptions of her mid-February 1845 “Bridegroom” and October 1845 “time of trouble” visions. What follows is an unmodified transcription of the published text. 1EGWLM 96.3
Letter from Sister Harmon.
Falmouth, Mass., Feb. 15, 1846.
Bro. Jacobs:—
My vision which you published in the Day-Star2 Jan. 24, 1846, issue. See Lt 1, 1845 (Dec. 20). This is Ellen Harmon's first known account of her second major vision, sometimes referred to as her “Bridegroom” vision. According to her July 13, 1847, letter to Joseph Bates, it was received in Exeter, Maine, during her first trip to eastern Maine in mid-February 1845. See: Ellen G. White, Lt 3, 1847 (July 13). The vision's confirmation of the personality of God the Father and God the Son was in direct opposition to spiritualizing views gaining adherents among a small faction of post-1844 Millerites, eventually including Enoch Jacobs. See: Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts [vol. 2], pp. 72-74. Enoch Jacobs's transition to Shakerism and related spiritualized views is documented by Merlin Burt in “Sabbatarian Adventism From 1844 to 1849,” pp. 231-242. I.e., the Millerites, the professed Christian churches, and unbelievers. The “praying company” next brought to view appears to represent those among them who are earnestly seeking for truth. In Ellen White's first vision a “bright light” illumines the pathway of the Advent people, which an angel identified as the “Midnight Cry.” See Lt 1, 1845 (Dec. 20), note 6. This affirmation of the “Midnight Cry,” the proclamation during the summer and autumn of 1844 pointing to October 22, 1844, as the time of the Second Advent, was at odds with what was rapidly becoming the majority opinion in post-Disappointment Adventism, viz., that the October date was a mistaken calculation of no particular prophetic significance. Cf. the description in Ellen White's first vision of those on the path who “rashly denied the light behind them,” resulting in its going out and leaving their feet “in perfect darkness” (Lt 1, 1845 [Dec. 20]). This passage has been cited in partial support of the conclusion that this vision teaches the radical idea that the entire world, with the exception of the small Millerite group, was finally rejected by God. Note, however, the repeated qualifier made in this vision that it is those who are “careless,” who “resisted” and “did not cherish” light from God, who are left in darkness, not a blanket rejection of all non-Millerites. This “rejection” principle, which is found also in the first vision (Lt 1, 1845) but especially in this vision, undercuts the conclusion that these visions advocate the radical “shut door” standpoint (see Lt 1, 1845 [Dec. 20], note 7). On two points in particular this passage presents an understanding of the wedding parable of Matthew 25 quite at odds with the established Millerite interpretation: The coming of the Bridegroom to the marriage did not signify Christ's coming in glory to the earth to receive His waiting saints (the bride) at the close of the 2300 years, as the Millerites taught. Instead it signified the coming of Christ at that time to the Father in the Holy of Holies of the heavenly sanctuary, preparatory to the subsequent marriage. The “marriage” of the parable indicated not Christ's reception of His church at the Second Coming but rather Christ's reception of “the Kingdom” from His Father prior to the Second Coming. Thus the “marriage” precedes the Second Coming. Biblical support for this sequence of events is alluded to in the words “in a little while I will return from the wedding, and receive you to myself,” a clear reference to the wedding parable of Luke 12, in which Christ's followers are admonished to be “like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding.” The interpretation of the Matthew 25 marriage parable found in this vision represents one of several competing explanations for the Disappointment circulating among Adventists in the months following October 1844. It was first proposed in print in an extensive article by Apollos Hale and Joseph Turner a few weeks prior to the vision, in January 1845. This circumstance is probably what prompted Joseph Bates, two years later, to inquire whether Ellen Harmon had had “light on the Bridegroom's coming before” she saw it in vision. See notes on Lt 3, 1847 (July 13). See: A. Hale and J. Turner, “Has Not the Savior Come as the Bridegroom?” Advent Mirror, January 1845. For an indication of the range of ideas circulating by February 1845 regarding what really happened on October 22, 1844, see I. E. Jones to William Miller, Feb. 15, 1845, in The Millerites and Early Adventists, sec. 5, reel 11. The theologically significant statement that Jesus was a “great High Priest” was counter to mainline “shut door” thought that emerged by the summer of 1845 and was promoted by Joseph Turner and Samuel Snow. They argued that Jesus reigned as king and was no longer a priest. See introductory article “The ‘Shut Door’ and Ellen White's Visions.” Although not explicitly stated, there is a strong suggestion here of a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary with Jesus transiting from the holy place to the Holy of Holies in 1844, a theme later to become prominent in Seventh-day Adventist theology. Unlike the theme of the coming of the Bridegroom mentioned earlier, the theme of Jesus coming to the Holy of Holies in 1844 is not known to have appeared in print prior to this vision (mid-February 1845). Probably not until the following month, March 1845, did O.R.L. Crosier and F. B. Hahn publish a similar view. There is some evidence, however, that similar ideas had oral circulation in certain places. Thus I. E. Jones, in a letter to William Miller on February 15, 1845, speaks of some persons in the Boston area who believed that on “the tenth of the 7th month … the Saviour then came out of the Holie [sic] of Holies … others, that he never entered the Holie of Holies till then” (emphasis in original). See: O.R.L. Crosier and F. B. Hahn, reprint of early 1845 Day-Dawn issue published on last page of Ontario Messenger, Mar. 26, 1845; I. E. Jones to William Miller, Feb. 15, 1845, in The Millerites and Early Adventists. The vision's depiction of Satan's efforts to keep this group deceived implies that the door of probation was still open for believers who had not by faith followed Jesus into the Holy of Holies. It would take more time for the full ramifications of this view to be understood. In a note to “Dear Brethren and Sisters,” Ellen White later responded to misrepresentations of her comments about Satan's appearing before God's throne, and her descriptions of the movements of God the Father. See: E. G. White, “Dear Brethren and Sisters,” Review, Apr. 14, 1853, p. 192. Merlin D. Burt, “Ellen White and the Shut Door,” in “Ellen White and Current Issues” Symposium, vol. 1, pp. 82, 83.
About four months since, I had a vision of events, all in the future.11 There are good reasons to believe that this vision was given Ellen Harmon in October 1845 while on a visit to Carver, Massachusetts. According to James White, she received a vision at Carver, with similar content, in “the 7th month, 1845” of the Hebrew calendar, i.e., about October 1845. This harmonizes well with Ellen Harmon's statement that the vision was received “about four months since” the date of her letter, i.e., about mid-October 1845. James White recalls in A Word to the “Little Flock” that both he and Ellen Harmon were surprised at the main thrust of this vision, viz., “that the saints must pass through the ‘time of Jacob's trouble,’” still future but preceding the Second Advent. James White credits this vision with disabusing him of his conviction that Christ would be coming “a few days” later, “at the 7th month, 1845.” While most Millerite expositors in 1843-1844 agreed that the “time of trouble” lay in the future, they believed that it would take place after the Advent, not before. The next eschatological event was the Second Advent, or, as Apollos Hale put it in 1843, “We have nothing to look for but the appearing of our Lord.” Furthermore, only the wicked would have to suffer the “time of trouble,” since the saints had already been delivered. See: James White, ed., A Word to the “Little Flock,” p. 22. For examples of Millerite expositors prior to 1844 who placed “the time of trouble” after the Second Coming, see A. Hale, Herald of the Bridegroom!, pp. 21, 29, 33; E. Jacobs, “Seventh Seal,” Midnight Cry, Oct. 26, 1843, p. 81. See: EGWEnc, s.v. “Time of Trouble.” The predictions made in this passage seem to go counter to a radical shut-door position. First, the assertion that the Second Advent should not be expected momentarily because it would be preceded by “the time of Jacob's trouble.” Second, it is significant that the sealing of the saints is also described as a future event. This would directly contradict the most radical shut-door doctrine, i.e., that since October 22, 1844, the saints were permanently sealed and safe. See: Rolf J. Poehler, “‘… and the Door Was Shut,’” pp. 113, 134; EGWEnc, s.v. “Seal of God.” See: Lt 1, 1845 (Dec. 20), note 8. See: Lt 1, 1845 (Dec. 20), note 13.
Ellen G. Harmon.