II. The Controversy Over the “Shut Door”

The controversy as to whether the seventh-month movement was the logical and legitimate climax of the Millerite message, or whether it was a tragic mistake, hinged on what came to be known as the “shut door” doctrine. The seventh-month movement, it will be remembered, ^{5See chap. 38.} was based on two premises: (1) The typical cleansing of the ancient sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month; and (2) the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, who, after passing the expected time of the wedding, fell asleep and were roused at midnight by the cry, “Behold, the bridegroom cometh!” The wise virgins, who are ready to meet the coming bridegroom, enter with him into the wedding, where the door is shut after them. But the foolish ones, who failed to use their opportunity to be ready, then find themselves outside.PFF4 829.1

1. THE “TRUE MIDNIGHT CRY.”

It is to be remembered that, in the midsummer of 1844 the cry went forth at “midnight” that the heavenly Bridegroom was to come, not within the Jewish year 1843, but in the seventh month of 1844; and that the cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of the 2300 year-days, six months later than the spring expectation, was to be expected on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month-the day of the ancient annual cleansing of the sanctuary. The ranks of the Millerites were swept by the conviction that they were in the “tarrying time,” after the first call to the wedding, that the end of time was due on the twenty-second of October, and that on that day the wise virgins-who were ready with their lamps trimmed and burning—would go with their returning Lord to the marriage of the Lamb, and enter the blessings of eternity with their Saviour. This, rather than the general advent message of the whole Millerite movement, they regarded as the true “Midnight Cry.”PFF4 829.2

When the final disappointment came, there were two obvious courses open to those who refused to throw away their faith entirely and brand the whole message as a delusion. Something clearly was wrong: Either the time was a mistake, in which case the 2300 days had not yet ended, or else the period had ended but the event anticipated was wrong.PFF4 830.1

2. MIDNIGHT CRY INVOLVES “SHUT DOOR.”

Those who decided, after October 22, that the time was a mistake and the seventh-month movement a great blunder, naturally concluded that the “Midnight Cry” and the “shut door” were yet future, for if the parable of the Bridegroom was yet to be fulfilled in the second advent, at a future ending of the 2300 days, they would be right in saying that the Bridegroom had not come and the door of the parable had not yet been shut. But if the time calculation had been correct—if the 2300 days had really ended in October, 1844—and the “Midnight Cry” of the seventh month had been the true climax of the God-given message of a great prophetic movement, then those who held this view must necessarily believe that the parable of the virgins and the prophetic Day of Atonement had been fulfilled and that the “door” of the parable-whatever it might be-had been “shut.”PFF4 830.2

What did the door in this parable represent?PFF4 830.3

3. MILLERITE VIEW OF THE “DOOR.”

The Millerites had taught that it meant the door of salvation that was to be closed at the actual coming of Christ, when every human being would be either ready or unready to meet Him. Even after the Disappointment, Miller and 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. The scoffers, who had made the lives of the Millerites miserable, seemed to them to represent the attitude of the world at large concerning the coming of Christ, and they could not see how there was any further chance to work for the unsaved before the end.PFF4 830.4

Back in 1840, Himes and Litch had held that after the sixth vial and trumpet ended, when the seventh trumpet began to sound, the mystery of God was to be finished, the dispensation of grace would end, and the day of probation close. ^{6Editorial, “The Closing Up of the Day of Grace,” Signs of the Times, Aug. 1, 1840, p. 69; Litch, “Events to Succeed the Second Woe,” Signs of the Times, Aug. 1, 1840, p. 70.} This Miller had approved in a general way, adding that there must be a little time to separate the good from the bad. ^{7“Miller’s Letters-No. 8,” Signs of the Times, Sept. 1, 1840, p. 81.} And immediately after the Disappointment most of the Millerites felt that the door of opportunity was then closed. No one would listen to them. No sinner approached them seeking salvation, and no conversions were recorded. They felt that their work was done and the “door” was shut. Thus Miller wrote:PFF4 831.1

“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.” ^{8The Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844, p. 142.}PFF4 831.2

4. MILLER’S GROUP DECIDES DOOR Is STILL OPEN

But as time passed they abandoned this view. Himes, for one, had never, since the Disappointment, held that their work for the world had ended, and Miller and other principal leaders soon came over to his opinion. The main group decided that the end of the 2300 days was still future, extending to the literal advent. And they naturally concluded that the “Midnight Cry” and “shut door” of the parable were also future.PFF4 831.3

5. VARIOUS VIEWS OF THE “SHUT DOOR.”

But those who retained their faith in the integrity of the October 22, 1844, ending of the 2300 days, held that the event which fulfilled the prophecy was not the actual coming of Christ, but something preceding that event by an unknown but presumably short interval. Since they believed that the 2300 years had ended, it was logical that they should continue to hold that the door of the parable had been shut in fulfillment of the prophecy, and consequently that they should regard those who had given up “the time” as turning their backs on the truth and denying the Lord’s leading in the whole movement. It was therefore natural that these should hold longer to the idea that their work for the world was finished. Some thought the door was that of ‘mercy,” others that it was the door of “access” to listeners. In either case there was no chance of winning acceptance of their message by the world at that time, and for some time after 1844 they expected the end very shortly.PFF4 831.4

The extremists on the shut-door doctrines, who excluded any further chance for salvation, soon went off into fanaticism of various kinds. But the moderates, although they still connected the “door” with the earlier Millerite idea of the opportunity of salvation, came to believe that only those were excluded who had willfully and finally turned away from known light—who had sinned away their day of grace in the great test of their readiness for the advent. As time passed they saw gradually that an enlarging work for the salvation of men lay ahead of them. Eventually they interpreted the door as that mentioned in Revelation 3:7, 8; 4:1, in connection with the heavenly sanctuary (Revelation 11:19), as will be seen later.PFF4 832.1

6. CONTROVERSY LEADS TO EXTREMES

But 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. Those who held that the 2300 days were ended and the door of the parable was shut-even those who denied that they meant the “door of mercy”—were accused indiscriminately of fanaticism. This was natural in view of the fact that most of the actual fanatics harped on an extreme “shut door,” and those who held to the correctness of the time sought various solutions, some of them fanciful, to the problem of fulfillment.PFF4 832.2

On the other hand, the majority, who threw overboard the whole time scheme of Miller, said that there had been no fulfillment, because the literal coming of Christ to usher in eternity had not occurred; that it was in the near but as yet unknown future, and that no door whatever had ever been shut. These were looked upon by their opponents as apostates from the Miller movement and message, and repudiators of their own interpretations. Further, this section, by placing the end of the 2300 years in the future, rendered themselves susceptible to various further time-setting schemes. Strong and hasty language was used on both sides of the “shut door” in attempting to bring their opponents into line. And, to disregard the short-lived fanatic offshoots, many on both sides came to retreat later from untenable positions.PFF4 833.1