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.UEGW 168.1
Joseph Turner and Apollos Hale, two prominent Millerites, established a modified shutdoor view for Bridegroom Adventists in their January 1845 Advent Mirror. Though they agreed with Miller that “sinners” who had “rejected the truth” could no longer be converted, 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 His [God’s] mercy.” 9A. Hale and J. Turner, “Has Not the Savior Come as the Bridegroom?” Advent Mirror, January 1845, 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.UEGW 168.2
Bridegroom Adventist theology was drawn from the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25. Turner and Hale made the parable symbolic and even typological 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. 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. 10Ibid., 1, 2.UEGW 168.3
Those 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 look to Jesus and patiently wait His return. 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” 11Ibid., 1, 3. Bridegroom Adventist theology was transitional and did not represent a fully thought out biblical hermeneutic. The metaphors of the parable closely matched Millerite Adventist experience.UEGW 169.1
By the summer of 1845 conflict 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 the heavenly sanctuary, while Samuel Snow, who had championed the fall 1884 Midnight Cry proclamation, aggressively argued for a single-day atonement. He believed that Jesus completed His work as High Priest in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary on that 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 there was a final shut door, and probation was entirely closed for the world after the tenth day of the seventh month in 1844. 12Samuel Snow, “Behold He Cometh!!” Day-Star, April 22, 1845, 41; quoted from Jubilee Standard.UEGW 169.2
Snow’s one-day atonement position was essentially the same as he had presented in August 1844 through his influential True Midnight Cry. 13Samuel S. Snow, “Behold, the Bridegroom Cometh; Go Ye Out to Meet Him,” True Midnight Cry, August 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): 331-339.Crosier’s and Clemons’s extended atonement view remained more flexible, theologically allowing for individual conversions. 14O. R. L. Crosier and F. B. Hahn, Day-Dawn, published on last page of Ontario Messenger, March 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): 317-330; O. R. L. Crosier, “From Bro. Crosier,” Hope of Israel, April 17, 1845, 4; Emily C. Clemons, “Letter From Sister Clemons,” Day-Star, April 15, 1845, 35. Ellen Harmon (later White) was solidly in this second camp and actually was among the first to articulate important aspects of that position. Those who later became Seventh-day Adventists followed Crosier’s view.UEGW 169.3