I. Shut-Door Views From 1844 to 1852

To correctly understand Ellen White's perspective on the shut door, we must understand its origin and development between 1844 and the early 1850s among those who later became Sabbatarian Adventists. During those years the shut-door view progressed through five stages: (1) Millerite disappointment view, (2) Bridegroom view, (3) sanctuary view, (4) sealing message view, and (5) theological integration. The theological meaning of the shut door progressively moved through these five stages, from a simple belief that probation had closed for the world to an open-door view based on the Most Holy Place ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary, requiring an extensive and distinctive evangelistic mission to the world.1EGWLM 42.1

Millerite Disappointment View (October 1844 to About January 1845)

The longstanding Millerite pre-1844-disappointment belief on the shut door originated with William Miller. He first published his view in the seventh lecture of his 1836 Evidence From Scripture. He referenced the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25 and the close of probation language in Revelation 22:11.^{2William Miller, Evidence From Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About the Year 1843 (Troy, N.Y.: Kemble & Hooper, 1836), pp. 97, 98.} Millerites generally believed that probation would close for the world just before the second coming of Jesus. In October, soon after Miller accepted the autumn 1844 date for the fulfillment of the 2300 days, he concluded that probation had already closed.^{3William Miller, “Brother Miller's Letter, on the Seventh Month,” Midnight Cry, Oct. 12, 1844, p. 122; idem, “Letter From William Miller,” Advent Herald, Nov. 27, 1844, p. 127.} Until early in 1845 he continued to believe that “God in His providence has shut the door; we can only stir one another up to be patient. … We are living in the time specified by Malachi 3:18, also Daniel 12:10, and Revelation 22:10-13.”^{4William Miller, “Letter From Bro. Miller,” Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844, p. 142; see also idem, “Letter From Mr. Miller,” Advent Herald, Feb. 12, 1845, pp. 2, 3.} The last text, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still” (verse 11), is a clear reference to the close of probation. Miller held to this view much longer than his closest associate and publicist, Joshua V. Himes. Miller's position undoubtedly gave strength to the shut-door movement and contributed to the schism that developed among Millerites.1EGWLM 42.2

By the end of 1844 Himes concluded that the October 1844 date was incorrect and that Millerites needed to again take up their evangelistic work of proclaiming the soon coming of Jesus. It greatly distressed him that Miller, Apollos Hale, and others whom he respected and with whom he worked continued to hold to a shut-door view. Hale, an associate editor of the Advent Herald, even joined Joseph Turner in publishing the Advent Mirror, a seminal and definitive paper on the shut door that first defined the Bridegroom view.1EGWLM 42.3

Joseph Turner was credited by Himes and Isaac Wellcome as being the principal promoter of the shut-door view after the autumn 1844 disappointment.^{5Joseph Turner, Hope of Israel, Jan. 24, 1845, quoted in Defence of Joshua V. Himes, pp. 18, 19; Isaac C. Wellcome, History of the Second Advent Message and Mission, Doctrine and People, pp. 397, 398.} A Millerite minister from Poland, Maine, and most active in Portland, Maine, Turner served for a time as editor of the Hope of Israel.^{6“The Hope of Israel,” Advent Herald, Aug. 7, 1844, p. 5.} In Turner's paper the idea of a pre-Second Advent judgment and sealing was particularly promoted in the months before the autumn 1844 disappointment. This led to his close of probation position.^{7“The Advent Herald,” Advent Herald, Oct. 30, 1844, p. 93; see Josiah Litch on the close of probation before the Second Coming: Josiah Litch, “The Doctrine of the Millennium: The Order of the Resurrection and Order of the Judgment,” Second Advent Tracts, No. XII, June 1841, pp. 11, 12. See also P. Gerard Damsteegt, “Historical Background: Early Nineteenth Century,” in Doctrine of the Sanctuary: A Historical Survey, 1845-1863, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 1989), pp. 1-16; Robert Haddock, “A History of the Doctrine of the Sanctuary in the Advent Movement: 1800-1915” (B.D. thesis, Andrews University, 1970), pp. 91-94; C. Mervyn Maxwell, “The Investigative Judgment: Its Early Development,” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981), pp. 545-581; idem, Magnificent Disappointment: What Really Happened in 1844 … and Its Meaning for Today (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1994), pp. 71-85.} Turner traveled to various places promoting the shut door, convincing Samuel Snow in New York that the door was still shut.^{8Samuel S. Snow, “Letter From Br. Snow,” Voice of Truth, Apr. 16, 1845, p. 20.} Snow had been the principal promoter of the “seventh-month” movement, becoming through the Jubilee Standard an important advocate of the shut door. Interestingly, after Ellen Harmon (later White) rejected Turner's proffered sponsorship, he became her greatest antagonist through the fall of 1845 and during 1846.1EGWLM 42.4

The Bridegroom View (January 1845 to About January 1847)

Though Bridegroom Adventists inherited William Miller's original position on the shut door, they significantly modified it. By adding post-1844 details to the Matthew 25 parable of the Bridegroom and ten virgins, they explained why Jesus had not come in 1844. Many argued that though their general work for the world was finished, probation was not closed for everyone.1EGWLM 43.1

Joseph Turner and Apollos Hale established the baseline shut-door view for Bridegroom Adventists in their January 1845 Advent Mirror. They agreed with Miller that “sinners” who had “rejected the truth” could no longer be converted, but they were more specific in defining who “sinners” were. The Advent Mirror did not teach that the “door of mercy” was closed for everyone. It specifically allowed that some individuals could be saved, even from outside the Millerite movement—if they had not spurned the light of the Advent message, and were still “subjects of [God's] mercy.”^{9A. Hale and J. Turner, “Has Not the Savior Come as the Bridegroom?” Advent Mirror, January 1845, pp. 3, 4.} In other words, those who were rebellious against God could not be converted, but those who were walking in the light they had received could still be saved. This shut-door view largely defined Bridegroom Adventism during 1845 and 1846. The Advent Mirror also may have influenced Miller's view on the shut door. He wrote in support of its position until March of 1845.^{10William Miller, “Letter From Bro. Miller”; idem, “Letter From Mr. Miller”; idem, Voice of Truth, Feb. 19, 1845, quoted in James White, Life Incidents, p. 201; idem, “Letter From Bro. Miller,” Voice of Truth, Mar. 26, 1845, p. 49; J. V. Himes, “Canadian Tour,” Morning Watch, Apr. 3, 1845, p. 110.}1EGWLM 43.2

For Bridegroom Adventists the basic theological argument was drawn from the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25. They made the parable allegorical of their 1844 experience, and believed that on or about October 22, 1844, Jesus had gone into a heavenly wedding. The Advent Mirror divided the marriage into two steps: the actual marriage and the marriage supper. The marriage, it was argued, occurred in heaven and preceded the literal Second Coming. Turner and Hale presented the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, 14, as describing events connected with a heavenly marriage. The Ancient of Days—God the Father—sat in judgment and gave to the Son of man—Jesus—“dominion, glory and a kingdom.” Christ was made king as He received the New Jerusalem at the marriage. Then, as king, Jesus went from the wedding to the “marriage supper,” which occurred when He gathered His saints at the Second Coming. Thus they linked the autumn 1844 date to the marriage that they believed confirmed the soon return of Jesus. The Advent Mirror placed post-Disappointment Advent believers in the “guest chamber” waiting for the marriage supper. The guest-chamber concept came from another parable found in Matthew 22:1-14. The “guests,” or the faithful ones on earth, were waiting for Jesus to come literally to the earth from the heavenly wedding. They further argued that the “guests,” or virgins, had responded to the call leading up to the tenth day of the seventh month on October 22, 1844, “Behold, the bridegroom cometh.” They had trimmed their lamps and had gone figuratively to meet the Bridegroom.^{11A. Hale and J. Turner, “Has Not the Savior Come as the Bridegroom?” Advent Mirror, January 1845, pp. 1, 2.}1EGWLM 43.3

The foolish virgins, who were not ready, were shut out. “While they [the foolish virgins] went to buy [oil], the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut” (Matt. 25:10). The guests, or Advent believers, were waiting only for the “final examination of the King.” Their work was to keep their garments and wait. With emphasis the Advent Mirror concluded: “The judgment is here!” Interestingly, the paper drew no specific conclusions about just what the judgment was or how it pertained to Advent believers who were waiting in the “guest chamber.”^{12Ibid., pp. 1, 3.}1EGWLM 44.1

By the summer of 1845 conflict had developed among Bridegroom Adventists over whether the significance of October 22, 1844 (or the “tenth day of the seventh month”), centered on that day alone or on a period of time beginning on that date. O.R.L. Crosier, Emily Clemons, and others began to argue for an extended final atonement period in a heavenly sanctuary, while Samuel Snow aggressively argued for a single-day atonement. He believed that Jesus completed His work as a high priest in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary on one day, “the tenth day of the seventh month.” Having laid aside His priestly robes, He put on His kingly robes and began to reign. Thus for Snow probation was entirely closed for the world after the tenth day of the seventh month in 1844.^{13Samuel S. Snow, “Behold He Cometh!!” Day-Star, Apr. 22, 1845, p. 41. Quoted from Jubilee Standard.}1EGWLM 44.2

Snow's one-day atonement position was essentially the same as he had presented in August 1844 through his influential True Midnight Cry.^{14Samuel S. Snow, “Behold, the Bridegroom Cometh; Go Ye Out to Meet Him,” True Midnight Cry, Aug. 22, 1844. For an evaluation of the Bridegroom Adventist struggle over a one-day versus extended atonement, see Merlin D. Burt, “The Extended Atonement View in the Day-Dawn and the Emergence of Sabbatarian Adventism,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Fall 2006, pp. 331-339.} Crosier's and Clemons’ extended atonement view remained more flexible, theologically allowing for individual conversions.^{15O.R.L. Crosier and F. B. Hahn, Day-Dawn published on last page of Ontario Messenger, Mar. 26, 1845, republished in Merlin D. Burt, “The Day-Dawn of Canandaigua, New York: Reprint of a Significant Millerite Adventist Journal,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Fall 2006, pp. 317-330; O.R.L. Crosier, “From Bro. Crosier,” Hope of Israel, Apr. 17, 1845, p. 4; Emily C. Clemons, “Letter From Sister Clemons,” Day-Star, Apr. 15, 1845, p. 35.} Ellen Harmon (later White) was solidly in this second camp and actually was among the first to articulate important aspects of that position. Although there was a great deal of diversity within Bridegroom Adventism during 1845 and 1846, with many ideas on the shut door, there was unity on at least one significant point: the October 1844 experience had been a fulfillment of prophecy.1EGWLM 44.3

In addition to differences held regarding the length of the final atonement (one day or “extended”), 1845 Bridegroom Adventists were divided over whether the events predicted for the “tenth day of the seventh month” should be interpreted literally or spiritually. The spiritualizers, who became the dominant group by the end of 1845, held that Jesus had actually come spiritually on the tenth day of the seventh month in 1844. They further argued that the resurrection had taken place and that the saints were spiritually living in the New Jerusalem. Some even argued that Jesus was not a literal person. This view was most clearly expressed through the pages of the Voice of the Shepherd, published in Utica, New York.^{16Orlando Squires, “Where is Heaven?” Voice of the Shepherd, March 1845, pp. 4, 5; C. H. Fenton, “The Harvest of the Earth,” Voice of the Shepherd, March 1845, p. 1; S. Fenton, “The Resurrection,” Voice of the Shepherd, March 1845, p. 8; Orlando Squires, “This Same Jesus,” Voice of the Shepherd, March 1845, p. 5.}1EGWLM 44.4

A minority of Bridegroom Adventists held to a literal view. They agreed that Jesus had done something tangible and real in heaven in connection with a heavenly wedding in 1844, and that soon Jesus would return literally and visibly at the Second Coming. Then there would be a literal resurrection, and the saints would live in a literal city known as the New Jerusalem in the recreated new earth. All of those who later became key leaders in Sabbatarian Adventism and the Seventh-day Adventist Church were opposed to the spiritualizing view. Unfortunately, mainline Adventists like J. V. Himes and Josiah Litch failed to make any distinction among Bridegroom Adventists, and considered all of them to be spiritualizers.^{17J. V. Himes, “A Word to the Advent Brethren Scattered Abroad,” Morning Watch, Feb. 13, 1845, p. 56. See also idem, “A Word to the Advent Brethren Scattered Abroad,” Advent 60Herald, Feb. 19, 1845, p. 13; Josiah Litch, “Did the Bridegroom Come in 1843?” Morning Watch, Apr. 10, 1845, p. 119.} This misunderstanding continues to the present among critics of Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventists.1EGWLM 45.1

The Sanctuary View (January 1847 to Fall 1848)

After the collapse of spiritualizing Bridegroom Adventism toward the middle of 1846, the only remaining Adventists who still held to the prophetic significance of 1844 were the literalist Bridegroom Adventists. Very quickly, under the influence of Joseph Bates, most adopted the seventh-day Sabbath, so they might more appropriately be named Sabbatarian Adventists. Beginning in January 1847 Bates linked the Sabbath to the heavenly sanctuary and particularly to the Most Holy Place, where the ark of the covenant contains the law of God, of which the Sabbath is central.^{18Joseph Bates, The Seventh Day Sabbath, 2nd ed., pp. iii, iv.} The open door to the Most Holy Place of Revelation 11:19 revealed the ark of the covenant and the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath, therefore, became “present truth” with eschatological significance.1EGWLM 45.2

During 1847 the shut door began to be defined in terms of the heavenly sanctuary, and specifically regarding the door between the holy place and Most Holy Place. The Bridegroom view, based on an allegorical interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25, became a secondary argument, thus allowing for the developing sanctuary understanding to take the fore. This necessarily gave new emphasis to Jesus’ continued work as a high priest, resulting in an increasing discontinuity between the earlier idea of a shut door for “sinners” and the growing realization of the need for an evangelistic proclamation of the Sabbath.1EGWLM 45.3

The Sealing Message and the Open Door (1849 Through 1852)

It was the theology of the sealing message that opened to Sabbatarian Adventists the need for a broader mission to the world and finally removed the earlier restrictive idea regarding the shut door. During 1849 the focus shifted from the shut door of the holy place to the open door of the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. The linkage of the Sabbath to the ark in the Most Holy Place during 1847 and 1848 gave rise in 1849 to the understanding of the Sabbath as the seal of God. By 1852 Sabbatarian Adventists had begun to consider the need to evangelize even “sinners” on “present truth,” based on Revelation 7 and the sealing of the 144,000. Again Joseph Bates led the way into these important new theological concepts.1EGWLM 45.4

For Bates the idea of 144,000 sealed people at the end of time seemed almost unimaginable in light of the “little flock” of Sabbatarian Adventists who numbered a few hundred at most. Connecting the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14 to the sealing of the 144,000 in Revelation 7, Bates described two classes of people who comprised the “living saints”:^{19Joseph Bates, A Seal of the Living God, pp. 39, 65.} “Now all advent believers that have, and do, participate in the advent messages as given in Rev. 14:6-13, will love and keep this covenant with God, and especially his Holy Sabbath, in this covenant; this is a part of the 144,000 now to be sealed.1EGWLM 46.1

“The other part are those who do not yet so well understand the advent doctrine; but are endeavoring to serve God with their whole hearts, and are willing, and will receive this covenant and Sabbath as soon as they hear it explained. These will constitute the 144,000, now to be sealed.”^{20Ibid., pp. 61, 62.}1EGWLM 46.2

With these words Bates argued for an expanded presentation of the sealing message beyond “advent believers.” He believed that the sealing message needed to go to the whole world, in a manner similar to the Millerite message of 1843 and 1844. He wrote: “Our judgment hour cry message was to preach to every nation. I ask how this was done? why, by sending publications to every missionary station. We proved that [sending publications] was preaching it to foreign nations, except England and perhaps a few other nations in Europe [that had actual preachers]. Now as this was the way that we have given the character of the message to every nation in ’43 and ’44, so we believe it may be here in the [Rev] vii: chapter [the sealing message].”^{21Ibid., p. 34.}1EGWLM 46.3

Bates even believed that the 144,000 would include slaves in the Southern States who were “living present truth.”^{22Joseph Bates, A Vindication of the Seventh-day Sabbath, p. 93.} They were living up to the light they had received and were God's children.1EGWLM 46.4

Theological Integration

By 1848 and 1849 the term shut door had moved from its original meaning in 1844 (that probation had closed) to an evangelistic term representing “present truth”—as it related to the sealing message and a final proclamation to the world. During the Sabbath Conferences of 1848, James White could triumphantly report: “The brethren are strong on the Sabbath and shut door.”^{23James White to “My Dear Brother and Sister Hastings,” Aug. 26, 1848.} What he meant by shut door was very different from the earlier views of Miller or even of the Advent Mirror. For Sabbatarian Adventists the shut door had become a general term referring to Jesus’ ministry in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary.1EGWLM 46.5

In 1851 James White defined three categories of people that could be converted—erring brethren, children, and “hidden souls.” The hidden souls were those who were “living up to what light they had” and who, when they hear the “third angel … will gladly receive the whole truth.”^{24[James White], “Conversions. … ,” Review and Herald, Apr. 7, 1851, p. 64.} For a short time he continued to believe that Sabbatarian Adventists were not to actively evangelize these people. But by 1852 the remaining theological tension between the shut door and the sealing message had dissolved. James White would write: “The Open Door we teach, and invite those who have an ear to hear, to come to it and find salvation through Jesus Christ.”^{25[James White], “Call at the Harbinger Office,” Review and Herald, Feb. 17, 1852, pp. 94, 95.} He observed that the number of “advent brethren” in the state of New York had grown from “about a score” to “near one thousand.”^{26[James White], “The Work of the Lord,” Review and Herald, May 6, 1852, pp. 4, 5.} White and others believed that new conversions were occurring because Jesus was before the mercy seat of the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary.1EGWLM 47.1

James White wrote after quoting Revelation 3:7, 8: “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, or has passed within the second vail, and now stands before the Ark containing the ten commandments. ‘And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament.’ Rev. xi, 19. 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.”^{27[James White], “Call at the Harbinger Office,” Review and Herald, Feb. 17, 1852, p. 95.}1EGWLM 47.2

Thus for those Millerites who became Bridegroom Adventists, then Sabbatarian Adventists, and who would eventually become Seventh-day Adventists, the term shut door moved from meaning that probation had closed in the autumn of 1844 to an open door evangelistic mission to take the gospel to the world in the context of the Sabbath and the work of Jesus in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. The meaning of the shut door had been progressively redefined to theologically integrate the Millerite movement and the October 1844 experience with the “present truth” of the Sabbath, heavenly sanctuary ministry of Jesus, and the sealing message.1EGWLM 47.3