Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission

A. The Vindication of the Seventh Month Movement

The Adventists were deeply disappointed that Jesus did not return at the end of the prophetic time calculations. Although some of them rejected the Advent movement altogether immediately after the passing of the expected time, the hopes of many continued to be strong, and there was for awhile a constant state of expectancy that Christ would return at any time. FSDA 104.1

This great disappointment was interpreted as another and “more searching test” than the first disappointment, and it was seen to be destined to purify the believers. ⁴ An analogy was drawn with the experience of Jonah in Nineveh. In the Jonah experience an explanation was found which “justified the preaching of time, although the event did not occur as predicted.” ⁵ It was pointed out that “we have done the will of God in thus sounding the alarm, as we believe that Jonah did when he entered into Nineveh.” ⁶ Another analogy which brought comfort was found in the experience of Abraham when he was going to offer Isaac on Mount Moriah. On the basis of typology it was argued that no one will say that Abraham was mistaken in believing that he was to slay his son; but God chose this very way to test his faith. Even so do we believe that God permitted the preaching of this last time for the same purpose respecting his children now, to test their faith. And we should have sinned none the less, had we desired in our hearts to delay the Lord’s coming, than Abraham would, had he withheld his son. God has brought us to mount Moriah, and he will deliver us, or provide for us a lamb. ¹ FSDA 104.2

Furthermore a topological significance was seen in the experience of the disciples who participated in the triumphal entry of Jesus, which was a fulfillment of prophecy (Mt. 21:1-11), but who were utterly disappointed at His crucifixion. J. B. Cook, ² an Adventist lecturer and a former Baptist minister, stated that the disciples “were disappointed, because they misconceived his design in fulfilling that predicted event. The prophecy was however, just as really fulfilled, as if they had correctly conceived God’s purposes, and realized their expectations.” ³ Through typological argumentation he pointed out that FSDA 105.1

the mistake was of precisely the same nature with that of the Holy Twelve, and others, Mat. 21:4. They overlooked the events which were to intervene between that prophetic fulfillment and the Kingdom. They mistook our Lord’s design in that fulfillment. It was however a fulfillment. So in our case precisely, God’s will was done. ⁴ FSDA 105.2

Cook’s argument was influenced by his philosophy of divine providence which said that God did not guide His people “into their mistakes, but He employs them, notwithstanding their mistakes. He verifies His promises to them in spite of all their weaknesses, and gradually brings them to ‘understand,’ both his word and Providence.” ⁵ FSDA 105.3

Hiram Edson, who became a pioneer among the Sabbatarian Adventists, interpreted the Disappointment in the context of Revelation 10:8-10, stating that “the seventh angel had begun to sound; we had eaten the little book; it had been sweet in our mouths, and it had now become bitter in our belly, embittering our whole being.” ⁶ FSDA 105.4

Interpretations of the Disappointment in the context of a shut door and Christ’s high-priestly ministry ¹ provided an additional reason why the Second Advent did not take place on the 10th day of the seventh month, 1844. Later, Sabbatarian Adventists pointed to the fact that the seventh-day Sabbath had to be restored before the return of Christ could occur. FSDA 105.5

1. The immediate soteriological-missiological consequences of the Disappointment

And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Mt. 25:10-12. FSDA 106.1

Immediately after the Disappointment there was among nearly all Adventists a feeling that the door of Mt. 25:10, which had been identified as the door of mercy for the churches and the world, had been shut forever on the 10th day of the seventh month, 1844. For a short period of time this “extreme” shut-door concept, which excluded the possibility of salvation for all who had not participated in the Seventh Month movement and separated themselves from the churches, ² brought nearly all missionary efforts of Adventists among non-Adventists to a complete stop. Some weeks after the Disappointment Miller wrote: FSDA 106.2

We have done our work in warning sinners, and in trying to awake a formal church. God in his providence had shut the door; we can only stir one another up to be patient; and be diligent to make our calling and election sure. We are now living in the time specified by Malachi 3:18, also Daniel 12:10, Revelation 22:10-12. In this passage we cannot help but see that a little while before Christ should come, there would be a separation between the just and unjust, the righteous and wicked, between those who love his appearing and those who hate it. And never since the days of the apostles has there been such a division line drawn, as was drawn about the 10th or 23rd day of the 7th Jewish month. ³ FSDA 106.3

The reaction of society in general against the Adventists was to them evidence of the correctness of their shut-door views. Miller described this reaction as follows: FSDA 106.4

The amount of scoffing and mocking at the present time, is beyond any calculation. We can hardly pass a man, professor or non-professor, but what he scoffingly inquires “You have not gone up,” or “God cannot burn the world,” etc., ridiculing the Bible itself, and blaspheming the word and power of God. And yet ministers and moral editors wink at it. And some of them are performing the same, to the no small joy of the most depraved characters in [the] community. ¹ FSDA 106.5

The reaction of Adventists who rejected the Advent movement immediately after the Disappointment was no less hostile than that of society at large, causing Miller to question whether this group had not “sinned against the Holy Ghost.” ² FSDA 107.1

In the January issue of the Advent Mirror, which was devoted to a new interpretation of the coming of the Bridegroom as a rationale for the Disappointment, the editors Apollos Hale and Joseph Turner ³ saw the shut-door concept confirmed by the contemporary religious situation. ⁴ At this time Turner advocated also the view that Christ’s atonement had been completed on October 22, 1844. ⁶ The attitude of both editors toward the possibility of new conversions must be interpreted against the contemporary polemic among Adventists regarding the validity of the Seventh Month movement. Toward the end of 1844 various Adventists began to question the correctness of the Seventh Month movement and the idea of the shut door on the basis of rumors regarding new conversions. It was therefore no surprise that in general the acceptance of the idea of new converts was equated with the rejection of the validity of the Seventh Month movement and the shut-door concept. In describing the attitudes of Adventists who reported new conversions, J. D. Pickands, a fervent supporter of the Seventh Month movement, said that these individuals were “already deeply committed in opposition” to the new interpretations which affirmed the divine guidance of this movement. According to him, Adventists were faced with the difficult dilemma either “to deny the reality of sound conversions as reported by our brethren, or to deny the whole history of Adventism. ¹ It is in this light that the rejection of reports about new conversions by Hale and Turner has to be interpreted. Their shut-door concept, which was associated with “the closing of the door of mercy,” was defined on the basis of the rejection of truth and signified “the exclusion from all farther access to saving mercy, those who have rejected its offers during their time of probation.” ² As a result they denied the possibility of genuine conversions among “sinners,” though “changes that may appear to be conversions may take place.” ³ This they supported through the following reasoning: FSDA 107.2

As it is a fundamental principle in the economy of heaven that “it is accepted according to what a man hath” [2 Corinthians 8:12], we know that at the closing of the door of mercy, all who fear God and work righteousness, according to the light they have, must be embraced by the arms of his mercy; though as the measure of light they have differs, the apparent form of their character must differ. And there may be changes in the form of their character, which we might call conversions, though it would imply no change in their inward character before God. That such may be found for whom we should labor, there can be no doubt; and in fact, it is with such a class only, few indeed is their number, that our labors are in any sense successful. ⁴ FSDA 108.1

This group seemed to consist of God’s children outside of the Adventists and formed the limits of their mission efforts, “but to think of laboring to convert the great mass of the world at such a time, would be as idle as it would have been for the Israelites, when they were down by the Red sea, to have turned about to convert the Egyptians.” ⁵ FSDA 108.2

However, the fact that Christ had not yet returned led many to the conclusion that the door of mercy was still open, so that the shut door had to be placed in the future. From this time onward Adventists entered into a period of confusion as to the interpretation of the meaning of the shut door. FSDA 108.3

The periodical which most stoutly affirmed the validity of the Seventh Month movement and published correspondence of several Adventists who later became Sabbatarian Adventists was the Day-Star. ¹ This periodical published a variety of shut-door views, which seems to indicate that it was possible to believe in the correctness of the Seventh Month movement without necessarily holding to shut-door views as originally advocated by Miller, Hale and Turner. Soon after the Disappointment its editor, Enoch Jacobs, a former Methodist minister, opposed the idea of proclaiming the end of human probation, or that Christ had left the mediatorial throne, because this was unbiblical. ² He stated that he always should feel it his duty “to point the enquiring penitent to Christ” but added that “now especially, do I believe it our duty to comfort God’s people.” ⁴ Several months later Jacobs concluded from the condition among Adventists and their absence of missionary zeal for sinners that the time described in Revelation 22:11, 12 had arrived. This implied, according to him, that the “ceasing of labor for an ‘apostate church and dying world’ a ‘little while’ before our mortal career is done, is not only a duty imposed upon those that ‘are alive and remain,’ but a process or exercise through which every child of God is called.” His shut-door concept, however, was not an extreme one, for he added that Revelation 22:11, 12 did not exclude the possibility of people changing “their character, IF they make use of the means provided.” Thus he still could accept an invitation from individuals who did not make any profession of religion to lecture in a place where the Second Advent had never been presented. In commenting on this meeting he said that “if God has any children in that place I doubt not that that occasion will bring them out where they will be ‘discerned.’” The door of Mt. 25:10 Jacobs defined as the door of the “Kingdom of heaven” and not as the door of mercy. He also interpreted it as “this gospel of the kingdom” (Mt. 24:14) or “the everlasting gospel” (Revelation 14:6), which was the proclamation immediately preceding the establishing of the kingdom, which led him to conclude that “the truths concerning the Kingdom are its door.” ¹ He further indicated that in the early 1840s the Lord opened the “effectual door” to the world so that the proclamation of the coming kingdom gained access to the people and millions of Second Advent publications were scattered on a world-wide scope. He felt that this successful missionary enterprise was a fulfillment of the words to the Philadelphian church in Revelation 3:8: “I have set before thee an open door, and no man CAN SHUT IT.” ² He added, however, that after October 22, 1844 the Adventists learned from experience that further mission efforts were unsuccessful because “there was no more access to the people-no more openings for proclaiming the ‘original ground of the Advent faith.’ ‘THE DOOR WAS SHUT’!” ⁴ This understanding of the shut door was a reason that the door of Mt. 25:10 was also called the “door of access.” As a theological reason behind the shutting of the door Jacobs pointed to a change in Christ’s ministry. The possibility of individual conversions, he said, had to be left in the hands of God. Cook, who joined the Sabbatarian Adventists for a while in 1846, stated emphatically that the door had been shut against those who had rejected the Advent truths. However, he felt that mercy was still available so that “honest souls, to whose minds these truths have not been fairly presented, may yet receive them.” He added that Christ had not left His mediatorial throne and had never pleaded for sinners in general, but still mediated as He had always done “for those only that commit their cause to him.” Soon after this Cook baptized several persons and through his influence a few others were persuaded to leave the Baptist Church. After having visited various groups of Adventists who affirmed the validity of the 1844 movement, he observed that different individuals expressed themselves differently regarding the shut door. ¹ Cook’s shut-door view was that “the great and effectual door that God had opened for proclaiming the ‘Everlasting Gospel’” (Revelation 14:6), the “door of access” to the world, was closed. ² He remarked that “our sympathies now belong to Jesus-His truth and His people.... Now it is not my duty, nor yours to run about giving invitations among those who have rejected the call.” ⁴ Yet at the same time he would attend a Baptist church service and afterward give a Bible study to the preacher. This indicated that his shut-door concept was not an extreme one and allowed for an outreach to non-Adventists who had not rejected the Advent doctrine. Later, however, he compared the contemporary situation of the Adventists with that of Noah after the animals were in the ark. Pickands argued that the door of Revelation 3:8 was the “door of access” which shut out the world and the churches from the Second Advent doctrine in the autumn of 1844, while the door of Mt. 25:10 would shut out the foolish virgins at the Second Advent. One correspondent suggested that in October 1844 the door of Mt. 25:10 was shut to the “foolish virgins” who had rejected the new interpretation of the coming of the Bridegroom but not to “the nominal professors of the different churches” and “unbelievers who made no profession of religion” in as far as they had not “sinned away their day of grace.” To another correspondent new baptisms were evidence that “God’s administration of grace for the salvation of sinners, is yet extended!” In 1846 the Day-Star published the first vision of E. G. Harmon. It seems that immediately after the Disappointment she held for a short time, “in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then for ever closed to the world.” ¹ However, before she received her first vision in December 1844, she “had given up the midnight-cry, and shut door, as being in the past.” ² It was through this vision that she became convinced of the validity of the Seventh Month movement and that there was a shut door on October 22, 1844. ⁴ Her shut-door view that was published pertained to Adventists who had rejected the Midnight Cry and also to the wicked world. FSDA 109.1

The Day-Star also printed articles advocating the “extreme” shut-door position. ⁶ One of them criticized the idea of some Adventists that, because of the refusal to accept truth, the church and the world had been rejected “as a whole” with the exception only of some parts of the world on the basis that “all have not had the same light that some have.” ⁷ This writer then proceeded to argue that such a shut-door concept was incorrect because it was based on the rejection of truth and not on the completion of Christ’s atonement on October 22, 1844. He insisted that “if the door is shut, it is done by finishing the atonement, on the 10th day of the 7th month, and if the atonement is not finished, then the door is not shut, and all who come to Christ, in any land, may yet be saved.” ⁹ This writer also implied that the mystery of God was finished. FSDA 112.1

According to other Adventists, the new interest in the Advent message and rumors of new conversions were evidence that probation for mankind had not yet been closed. In December 1844 an editorial in the Advent Herald stated: “The Tide Turning-Already our friends are sending in new subscribers” and “we are happy to know that the efforts of our enemies to destroy us have gained the sympathy of many who had been indifferent, have made us many new friends, and greatly strengthened our old ones.” ¹ FSDA 113.1

At the Low Hampton Conference of Adventists (December 28, 29, 1844) Himes urged three aspects of future missionary activity: (1) Comforting the saints who are still looking for the kingdom at hand; (2) arousing the professed Christian world once more to prepare for the Advent; (3) fully and freely proclaiming salvation to lost and perishing sinners. ² A few weeks later the Advent press was again in operation, and Himes declared, “I am more and more convinced that the door of salvation is open wide, and that we are to ‘preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to all the world,’ in the faith that sinners may and will be converted, until the end comes.” ³ In response to reports about new conversions ⁵ and pressure of some of his colleagues Miller became gradually less dogmatic on the extreme shut-door concept and after the Jewish Karaite year 1844 had passed he gave it up and returned to his original view of the Midnight Cry. FSDA 113.2

However, new interpretations of the Disappointment, relating it to Christ’s heavenly ministry, seemed to some to confirm the validity of the Seventh Month movement and some kind of a shut-door concept, and created a strong controversy-even fanaticism-among Adventists. FSDA 113.3

At the end of April 1845 at Albany, New York, a conference of Adventists was called together by Himes ⁸ with the object of ending the confusion and division. Miller commented, “It need not be replied that it was convened to deliberate respecting, and if possible to extricate ourselves from the anarchy and confusion of BABYLON in which we had so unexpectedly found ourselves.” ¹ At the Albany Conference, chaired by Miller, it was decided to reject all new theological interpretations which had been developed since the Disappointment. ² Thus the conference refused to accept the newly developed views which recognized the special significance of the Seventh Month movement in salvation history. FSDA 113.4

The Albany Conference was not very successful in uniting the believers. Some months later Hale was able to distinguish four major classes of Adventists: (1) Those who deplored or even condemned their past Advent experience and were strongly opposed to any further time calculations; (2) those who expressed confidence in the former calculations and felt that the predicted events had taken place; (3) those whose confidence had been shaken by the Disappointment so that they were now afflicted with doubt; (4) those who continued setting time, building their calculations upon anything they could find. ³ Hale’s own position and that of the Adventist leaders in general may be described as a modified form of the fourth group. Convinced that the period of 2300 days had not yet expired, they continued to look with much caution for a new date for the Second Advent. ⁴ The basic difference between the second and fourth group was that the former affirmed that the 2300 days had indeed ended on October 22, 1844, while the latter considered their fulfillment still in the future,-leading them to continue setting time for decades. ⁵ It is on the second group, which became a minority without much influence among other Adventists after the Albany Conference, that attention will be focused here, for out of it emerged the SDA theology of mission. From these groups there arose in time the following major bodies: Evangelical Adventists, SDA, Advent Christians, Life and Advent Union, and “Age-to-come” Adventists. ¹ FSDA 114.1

Adventists in Hale’s second group, which acknowledged the validity of the Seventh Month movement and the fulfillment of the time calculations, had in their search for a new interpretation of the Disappointment two major problems to solve: (1) What was the coming of the Bridegroom if the parable of Mt. 25:1-10 had its fulfillment in the Seventh Month movement and the coming of the Bridegroom did not signify the Second Advent? (2) What was the meaning of the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 if the 2300 days had terminated on October 22, 1844? In the search for a biblical solution to these two problems the subject of Christ’s high-priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary seemed to provide a key. The result was a development of two new interpretations: The coming of the Bridegroom (Mt. 25:10) signified Christ’s coming to the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary on October 22, 1844, and the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 indicated the nature of Christ’s ministry after that date. After the completion of this ministry it was thought that He would return to earth. Although both of these new interpretations could be described in an integrated way, the method followed below is to treat them as distinct (though related) as was generally done in the primary source material of 1845-46. FSDA 115.1

2. The sanctuary theology

From 1845-49 the second group mentioned above gradually declined in numbers. Although they were united on the validity of the Seventh Month movement, they were divided as to the significance of October 22, 1844 in salvation history. About the middle of 1845 Cook described his experience among this group: FSDA 115.2

The prevailing, nay almost universal conviction of the brethren is that the Lord has been leading us.... Different individuals express themselves differently relative to the Midnight Cry,-the shutting of the door, and the sounding of the 7th trumpet, yet the prevailing sentiment seems to have come from the same source,-our experience as molded by God’s word. ² FSDA 115.3

A survey of the divergence of opinion on some of the contemporary issues discussed immediately after the Disappointment provides ample evidence of the heterogeneous structure of this group. As has been noticed above, interpretations of the expression “the door was shut” (Mt. 25:10) were as follows: (1) The “extreme” position that the door of mercy was closed to all who had not participated in the Seventh Month movement. The underlying assumption here was that their non-participation in this movement was based on either their rejection of the Second Advent proclamation or on the completion of the atonement on October 22, 1844, or both; (2) the view that the door of mercy was closed to all who had consciously rejected the Advent truth. Those who had not participated in the 1844 movement because they were ignorant of its significance but who had lived up to such light as they had could still join the Adventists; (3) the position which rejected the use of the term “door of mercy” as being unbiblical; (4) the concept that the door of the kingdom or the door of access to the people was closed because missionary activity had no practical results. FSDA 116.1

The ministry of Christ on and after October 22, 1844, was also subject to a variety of opinions: (1) After the completion of the atonement on October 22, Christ came out of the most holy place of heaven and went as the Bridegroom to the Ancient of Days to the marriage to receive the kingdom; ¹ (2) before coming to the marriage Christ terminated His daily ministrations on October 22, entered into the “holiest of all” to make an atonement, and came out of that place on the same day; ² (3) the atonement on the antitypical Day of Atonement was not completed on October 22, but would continue for some time; ⁴ (4) the atonement began after October 22, when Jesus entered into the holy of holies; (5) the return of Christ was spiritual, not personal, and had already taken place in the hearts of the saints. FSDA 116.2

As to the sealing (Revelation 7:1-4), some felt that it had been completed on October 22, ¹ while others suggested that it was a present process or imminent reality. ² In regard to the judgment some of the following views were expressed: (1) The “judiciary” phase or the “sitting of judgment” had been accomplished because the antitypical Day of Atonement was also a day of judgment through which the fate of mankind had been decided; ⁴ (2) the “judiciary” phase of the judgment was a present reality and preceded the “executive” phase of the judgment; (3) the judgment was imminent. FSDA 117.1

From now on the development of the SDA theology of mission will be traced from this heterogeneous group of Adventists who all affirmed the prophetic role of the Seventh Month movement. FSDA 117.2

a. The Bridegroom theme. FSDA 117.3

One of the earliest interpretations of the Disappointment which endorsed the validity of the Seventh Month movement and the October 22, 1844, time calculations seems to have come from Hiram Edson. On the very day following the Disappointment he felt impressed, after prayer, that a mistake had been made in the manner in which the Adventists had expected Christ to come as the Bridegroom, but not in the predicted time. He stated: FSDA 117.4

After breakfast I said to one of my brethren, “Let us go and see, and encourage some of our brn [brethren].” We started, and while passing through a large field I was stopped about midway of the field. Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, that He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that He had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth. That he came to the marriage at that time; in other words, to the Ancient of days to receive a kingdom, dominion, and glory; and we must wait for his return from the wedding. ⁶ FSDA 117.5

In Edson’s interpretation, the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 was seen to be the heavenly sanctuary and not the earth or the church. He blamed “modern orthodoxy” for the interpretation of Mt. 25:10 which held “that the coming of the Bridegroom to the marriage would be fulfilled in the personal second advent of Christ to this earth.” ¹ The coming of the Bridegroom to the marriage he placed in the context of Daniel 7:13, 14 and related it to the coming of Christ as the High Priest to the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. Thus, according to Edson, on the 10th day of the seventh month, 1844, Christ came to the “marriage,” that is, to His reception of the kingdom, dominion, and glory. The time of the parousia he interpreted in the context of Luke 12:36, which calls on believers to wait until Christ returns from the marriage. For awhile he anticipated the Second Advent in 1845. ² FSDA 118.1

An editorial by Jacobs in the Western Midnight Cry, December 1844, alluded to the coming of Christ in the setting of the judgment and made a distinction between a pre-Advent judgment and an executive judgment at the time of the Second Advent. ³ FSDA 118.2

One of the most extensive early treatments of the Bridegroom theme appeared in the first and only issue of the Advent Mirror, January 1845. According to its editors, Hale and Turner, the parable of Mt. 25:1-13 had to be interpreted in a “spiritual or figurative sense.” ⁴ The current issue, they said, was whether Christ was represented in Mt. 25:10 as the Bridegroom coming as the “King of glory” to the earth or as the Bridegroom coming to the marriage in heaven. They resolved the issue by alluding to the heavenly marriage of the Lamb. From Revelation 21:9-14 they inferred that the bride was the “great city, the holy Jerusalem,” ⁵ citing as collaborative evidence the topological relationship between Galatians 4:26 and Ezek. 16: “What Old Jerusalem was to the Church under the old covenant, that the New Jerusalem is to be, to the Church under the new covenant in its perfected state. As Jehovah declares that he married the old Jerusalem, Ezekiel 16., so the Son of God is to be married to the new Jerusalem.” ¹ On the basis of Mt. 22:8-14 they said that the believers were the guests at the marriage of the Lamb. Their conclusion was that the marriage had to take place before Christ would come as the King of glory to this earth and that His actual return was symbolized by His return from the wedding (Luke 12:35-37). The marriage they defined as the inauguration of Christ as King of glory, at which occasion He would receive His “kingdom, city and throne,” ² and as “the actual investment of Christ with ‘the throne.’” ⁴ Therefore, they said, the coming of the Bridegroom (Mt. 25:10) denoted “that change in his [Christ’s] heavenly state, in which he comes to the Ancient of Days to receive dominion, and glory, which we know must take place before he can come in his glory.” FSDA 118.3

Because Adventists were guests at the heavenly marriage, the editors suggested that the believers were “now in the guest-chamber, where all depends on our keeping our garments,” ⁵ indicating an intimate relationship between the change in Christ’s work in heaven and a change in the believers’ responsibility on earth: FSDA 119.1

The coming of the bridegroom would point out some change of work or office, on the part of our Lord, in the invisible world; and the going in with him a corresponding change on the part of his true people. With him it is within the veil-where he has gone to prepare a place for us; with them it is outside the veil where they are to wait and keep themselves ready till they pass in to the marriage supper. ⁶ FSDA 119.2

In February and March of 1845 Hale published two articles on the same subject in which he provided a hermeneutical foundation for the new interpretation of Mt. 25:10 aimed at harmonizing the various passages regarding Christ’s marriage. He indicated that in the historicization of the parable of Mt. 25 Miller’s rules (IX, X, XI) ⁷ had not been applied consistently but the new interpretation had eliminated this inaccuracy by a more precise application of the principles of analogy of Scripture and of “good sense.” ⁸ Hale also stressed the necessity of a preparatory work to be done in the city in connection with the inauguration of Christ as King on His throne. This preparatory work he explained in the light of Christ’s atoning ministry for the purification of the “true tabernacle” (Hebrews 8:2; 9:23) which was identified with the “heavenly Jerusalem” (Revelation 21:2, 3). ¹ This work of purification, however, should not be identified with the sanctuary cleansing of Daniel 8:14, but was to precede that process. ² FSDA 119.3

For awhile even Miller was impressed by the various aspects of the Bridegroom theme as presented by Hale and Turner. In a letter to Marsh he admitted that Mt. 25:10 could not refer to the Second Advent, this event being referred to in Luke 12:36, but affirmed that Christ had come in the sense spoken of in Mt. 25:10. ³ After the Albany Conference, however, he gave up this view. FSDA 120.1

In January of 1846 the Day-Star published E. G. Harmon’s December 1844 vision which depicted a place in heaven similar to the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary and described it in the context of Hebrews 9:3-5 and the marriage supper of the Lamb, ⁴ which suggested the physical reality of a heavenly sanctuary. In March 1846 the Day-Star published another vision of E. G. Harmon received in February 1845, picturing the coming of the Bridegroom to the marriage, a view also held by Edson, Hale, and Turner. It described a transition in the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. Jesus, as the Intercessor for His people, was seen sitting on a throne with the Father in the holy place of the sanctuary. Both then left this throne and entered into the most holy place where Jesus as “a great High Priest,” standing before the place where the Father sat, would receive the Kingdom (Daniel 7:13, 14). ⁵ The commission given to the Adventists was to keep their “garments spotless,” for in “a little while” Christ would “return from the wedding” to His followers (Luke 12:36). Adventists who had been deceived, were ignorant of the view of the coming of the Bridegroom and were described as being under the influence of Satan. ¹ FSDA 120.2

Because these ideas had been communicated in a vision, they were accepted by some Adventists as a confirmation by God of the correctness of the Bridegroom theme and the Seventh Month movement. However, though Ellen Harmon’s revelations seem to have been “well known, and much talked about at that time,” ² most Adventists remained rather skeptical of visions. ³ FSDA 121.1

Although the Bridegroom theme enabled Adventists to adhere to the validity of the Seventh Month movement and the contemporary shut-door opinions, gradually it was rejected by most of them. They preferred to explain the Disappointment as an error in the time calculations and not as a mistake in the manner they had expected Christ to come. One of their main arguments for rejecting the interpretation of Mt. 25:10, that Christ as the Bridegroom had come to the Ancient of Days and that the door was shut, was that it was considered as a departure from the traditional view that this text symbolized the Second Advent. Opposing the new interpretations, Himes stated that “the recent movement, relating to the coming of the Bridegroom, and the shutting of the door of salvation, consequent on the cry of the seventh month we believe to be an error.” ⁴ After the Albany Conference Miller criticized those advocating the Bridegroom theme as “spiritualizers” because he thought they had renounced “the personal appearing of Christ.” ⁵ A strong controversy developed between those accepting the Bridegroom theme and a shut door, and those who rejected it. According to Eli Curtis, who had accepted this new view, there was “no other prophecy than that of the parable of the ten virgins” which caused so much opposition and division among Adventists.” ⁶ Toward the end of 1845 a correspondent of the Advent Herald stated: “I view the Bridegroom-come-theory, as the leading error of the dread train that has scattered ‘fire-brands, arrows, and death’ in our ranks.” ¹ For Sabbatarian Adventists, however, the Bridegroom theme was seen as one of the strongest evidences of the genuineness of the Advent experience. FSDA 121.2

b. New dimensions in soteriology. FSDA 122.1

After the Disappointment various Adventists restudied the subject of the sanctuary and its cleansing (Daniel 8:14) in an attempt to harmonize it with their time calculations and the delay of the Second Advent. Through a new interpretation of Daniel 8:14 new concepts of soteriology were developed. One of the earliest new interpretations was provided by Edson, who pointed out that Christ did not come out of the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary as generally had been expected, but that He entered for the first time into the second apartment to perform a special work-the reception of the kingdom, dominion, and glory. ² In February 1845 a corresponding view seems to have been known in Boston. ³ About the same time, E. G. Harmon received her Bridegroom vision with a similar content in Exeter, Maine. ⁵ Soon after this two Adventist periodicals, the Hope within the Veil and the Hope of Israel, which were published in Portland, Maine, where E. G. Harmon had related her views, began to circulate similar concepts and carried their influence as far as New York State and Ohio. The Hope within the Veil seems to have advocated the position that the two apartments of the tabernacle represented “two dispensations, or two divisions of the covenant,” and that Jesus had entered into the “holy of holies” to begin His atonement on October 22, 1844. The Hope of Israel said that now Adventists were “in the marriage, in the holiest with Jesus.” In April 1845 it published an article by Owen R. L. Crosier, who was a friend of Edson’s and a Sabbatarian Adventist for a short time, claiming that the antitypical Day of Atonement was not to be finished in one literal day but would continue for a year. ¹ Crosier remarked that “the last call of mercy to the world” was completed in the fall of 1844 and that on the 10th day of the seventh month Jesus had entered “upon the office of bridegroom as the final atonement for his people.... Our great High Priest is now making the atonement for his whole Israel.” ² The idea that Christ had “left the mercy seat, and hence that all access by prayer is cut off,” he rejected, stating that “the mercy seat is in the Holiest of all.... So that he has approached directly to the mercy seat.” With reference to Hebrews 10:19-27 he pointed out that “here Paul teaches us that now we have liberty (margin) to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus who is the High Priest over the house of God.” ⁴ In September 1845 Otis Nichols, who seems to have been familiar with the Bridegroom vision, employed the analogy-of-Scripture principle to the subject of the sanctuary and concluded that “the 10th of the 7th month is a landmark and a glorious light for us to look back upon” because at that time the Bridegroom “suddenly came to his temple, Malachi 3:1, which ‘was opened in heaven,’ [Revelation 11:19] after the 7th angel began to sound, Leviticus 16:33, Hebrews 9:3-4 to finish the atonement for the people, and cleansing of the Sanctuary, Hebrews 9:23.” FSDA 122.2

In March 1845 Hale had explained the delay of the Second Advent by referring to a purification (Hebrews 8, 9; Leviticus 16) of the heavenly Jerusalem-the true tabernacle and antitype of the earthly tabernacle-a process which he designated as “atonement” and believed must be accomplished before Christ’s return. ⁶ Around this time a view was published which tried by typology to harmonize the Levitical high-priestly ministry with the completion of Christ’s atoning ministry on the antitypical Day of Atonement. It was concluded that prior to October 22, 1844 Christ, as man’s advocate, fulfilled the antitype of the Jewish high priest in his daily ministry, but that on the 10th day of the seventh month Jesus as the antitype of the “dead and living goat” (Leviticus 16) entered into “the Holy place, or inner court ... and shut the door” to make the atonement. On the same day that the atonement was completed (October 22, 1844) He came out of that place as the Bridegroom to receive His kingdom. Since that day His work as Mediator and High Priest was confined to God’s people. ¹ Later G. W. Peavey, a strong defender of the Seventh Month movement, stated that Christ had “closed the work typified by the daily ministrations previous to the 10th day of the 7th month, and on that day went into the holiest of all, presenting his blood once for all for those who had accepted of his mediation that time.” ² He interpreted Daniel 8:14 in the context of Hebrews 9:23, 24 and Leviticus 16:16 and concluded that the “heavenly things” needed purification with Christ’s blood because of the “uncleanness of the children of Israel.” According to him, both the cleansing of the sanctuary and the termination of the atonement occurred on October 22, 1844. ⁴ It was through the influence of Turner that Snow had accepted the Bridegroom theme and the idea that the atonement was finished. Now Snow interpreted the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 as the Lord’s dwelling place-Zion, or the heavenly Jerusalem, which was “the inheritance of our Lord and his people.” Its justification, he said, was to be achieved “by the atonement or reconciliation.” Employing typological reasoning he stated that like the type in Leviticus 16, “so also in the antitype, the ‘HOLY SANCTUARY,’ i.e. Zion or Jerusalem must receive the atonement or reconciling on the same day, and thus be pardoned or ‘JUSTIFIED.’” After its completion at the end of the 2300 days Isaiah 40:1, 2 had a “binding force upon God’s ministers.” FSDA 123.1

In the search for a new interpretation of their former predictions, a current controversy among those affirming the validity of the Seventh Month movement, whether or not Christ’s atoning ministry in heaven had been finished since the autumn of 1844, was of specific missiological significance. In October 1845 Crosier again pointed out that the atonement had not been completed, ⁶ stating that “the brethren do not search it [atonement] close enough. It is not yet finished; but we are in the Antitype of the tenth day of Atonement.” ⁷ In February 1846, already familiar with many of the above mentioned positions, he published an extensive treatise on the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 in the light of Christ’s continuing atoning ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. This treatise, “The Law of Moses,” was quickly recommended by E. G. White ¹ and became of vital significance in the development of the SDA theology of mission. FSDA 124.1

This article, while affirming that “righteousness comes not by the Law, but by faith in the promises [of God],” advocated the relevance of the law of Moses for the period after the Disappointment. ² Crosier started out by modifying the Seventh Month movement position regarding the typological significance of the vernal Jewish festivals. ³ The complete fulfillment of these festivals, he said, did not take place at a point of time at the first Advent; the incarnation of Christ was only the beginning of their antitypical fulfillment which was to be completed after many years at the end of the “gospel dispensation,” at the Second Advent. Reasoning from analogy, he stated that the complete fulfillment of the autumnal Jewish festivals, in particular of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 23:26-32), would also cover “a dispensation of many years.” ⁴ In his opinion the antitype of the Day of Atonement, a time of restoration, would cover a period from the “end of the 2300 days” till the end of the millennium, when redemptive history would be complete. FSDA 125.1

Before discussing this period of restoration Crosier dealt with the interpretation of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 and the topological implications of the Old Testament sanctuary ministry to the priestly ministry of Christ. His interpretation rejected the previously held general opinion that at the end of the 2300 days Christ would come out of the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to the earth after completing the atonement in that place. ⁵ Instead, interpreting Daniel 8:14 in the context of Christ’s high-priestly ministry, he spoke of two phases of that ministry, one beginning at His ascension, when Christ entered the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, and a second beginning on October 22, 1844, when Christ for the first time entered the most holy place. FSDA 125.2

The biblical rationale for his interpretation he predominantly based on two hermeneutical principles: The analogy of Scripture and typology. Through the former he analyzed scriptural references on the subject of the sanctuary and its services, through the latter the relationship between the Levitical priestly ministry in the earthly sanctuary and the priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. ⁶ These hermeneutical principles led Crosier to interpret the true tabernacle or sanctuary of the new covenant in which Christ ministers (Hebrews 8:1, 2, 6) as a literal heavenly sanctuary. He associated it with the New Jerusalem, “like the Sanctuary of the first covenant was with Old Jerusalem.” ¹ FSDA 125.3

When interpreting Daniel 8:14 he introduced, in addition to the above hermeneutic, another principle which could broadly be described as follows: Old Testament prophetic symbolism ought to be interpreted in a New Testament new-covenant sense if these prophecies refer to a historical period after the Crucifixion. This principle led him to interpret the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 as the heavenly sanctuary of the new covenant. He stated that “the Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days is also the Sanctuary of the new covenant, for the vision of the treading down and cleansing, is after the crucifixion.” ² FSDA 126.1

Then he proceeded to the central issue of his presentation: The typological relevance of the Levitical atonement to Christ’s high-priestly ministry in heaven. In doing this he referred to the various aspects of the atonement in the Old Testament sanctuary service: FSDA 127.1

The atonement which the priest made for the people in connection with their daily ministration was different from that made on the tenth day of the 7th month. In making the former they went no further than in the Holy; but to make the latter they entered the Holy of Holies—The former was made for individual cases, the latter for the whole nation of Israel collectively—The former was made for the forgiveness of sins, the latter for blotting them out—the former could be made at any time, the latter only on the tenth day of the seventh month. Hence the former may be called the daily atonement and the latter the yearly, or the former the individual, and the latter the national atonement. ¹ FSDA 127.2

This distinction between the forgiveness of sins and the blotting out of sins was one of the major aspects of his argumentation. In the context of Leviticus 16 he stated that “the whole nation having had their sins previously forgiven by the atonement made in the Holy, now assemble about their Sanctuary, while the High Priest ... enters the Holy of Holies to make an atonement to cleanse them, that they may be clean from all their sins before the Lord, ver. 30.” ² FSDA 127.3

The antitype of the Levitical priesthood was fulfilled in Christ’s priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, the true tabernacle (Hebrews 8, 9). According to Crosier, the heavenly sanctuary, like the earthly, had two apartments, not one apartment as other Christians seemed to believe. Earlier, Edson and E. G. Harmon had already pointed to this division in the heavenly sanctuary. Crosier found scriptural support in Hebrews 9:8; 10:19. Referring to the Douai-Rheims Bible ³ he said that “the word in ch. 9:8, 10:19, is Hagion, ‘of the Holies,’ instead of ‘holiest of all’ [KJV]; and shows that the blood of Christ is the way or means by which he, as our High Priest, was to enter both apartments of the heavenly tabernacle.” ⁴ Thus, to be consistent with the topological relationship between the Levitical priestly ministry and that of Christ, Crosier understood the heavenly sanctuary to be divided into two different sections, reflecting two distinct phases of Christ’s atonement: the atonement of forgiveness of sins in the first apartment and the atonement of the blotting out of sins in the second. He stated that Christ’s atoning ministry did not commence on the cross but after His ascension when He entered the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary to begin the antitypical daily ministration. ¹ His atoning ministry would be completed with “blotting out of sin with all its direful effects” during the antitypical Day of Atonement. ² Crosier found New Testament evidence for two phases in Christ’s heavenly atonement in Peter’s appeal on the day of Pentecost: “Repent ye therefore; and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19). He interpreted this text as a statement of two successive chronological periods in which repentance and conversion pertained to Christ’s daily atoning ministry in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and the blotting out of sins to His atoning ministry that would cleanse both the sanctuary and God’s people during the antitypical Day of Atonement commencing on the 10th day of the seventh month 1844: ³ FSDA 127.4

The atonement of the Gospel dispensation is the antitype of that made by the priests in their daily service, and that prepared for and made necessary the yearly atonement, and cleansed the Sanctuary and the people from all their sins. It appears like certainty, that the antitypes of the daily ministration of priests and the vernal types stretch through the Gospel Dispensation, as that composed but part of the atonement and antitypes, we have good reason to believe that the remaining antitype, the autumnal, and the remainder of the atonement, the yearly, will be fulfilled on the same principle as to time and occupy a period or dispensation of at least 1000 years. ¹ FSDA 128.1

Crosier rejected the common contemporary view that Christ entered into the holy of holies after His ascension. ² FSDA 129.1

Christ’s cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (Daniel 8:14) before the Resurrection, ³ Crosier identified with the removal of the moral uncleanness which had defiled it. The sanctuary, he said, could only be “defiled by mortals through his [Christ’s] agency, and for them cleansed by the same agency.” ⁴ The cleansing he interpreted in the context of the reconciliation of the “things on earth” with the “things in heaven” (Colossians 1:19, 20), the preparation of a place for the believers (John 14:2, 3), and the purification of the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:23). ⁵ On the necessity of the purification mentioned in Hebrews 9:23 he remarked: FSDA 129.2

The necessity of cleansing the heavenly things, is induced by the atonement being made therein by the blood of Christ for the remission or forgiveness of sins and purifying of our consciences. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood. The patterns were purified “every year” (ver. 25) with the blood of bulls and goats; but in the antitype of that yearly expiation the heavenly things themselves must be purified with the blood of the better sacrifice of Christ himself once offered. This reconciles the “things in heaven” (Colossians 1:20) and cleanses the Sanctuary of the new Covenant, Daniel 8:14. ⁶ FSDA 129.3

Crosier opposed the common interpretation of the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:8, 10, 20-22) as a symbol of Christ and insisted, instead, that it was a type of Satan. ¹ After the cleansing of the sanctuary but before the beginning of the millennium “the antitype of confessing and putting the sins on the head of the scapegoat” would take place. ² FSDA 129.4

The antitypical Day of Atonement he identified with “the dispensation of the fulness of the times” ³ in which the Father “might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” (Ephesians 1:10). During this dispensation “the different and sundered parts of the kingdom, Capitol and King ‘in heaven,’ the subjects and territory ‘on earth,’ are to be redeemed or gathered again into one kingdom under one ‘Head,’ of the Son of David.” ⁴ This period he also named an “age to come,” an age of repairs, and a time of restitution and restoration. ⁶ Said he, “This is the period of inheritance and follows that of heirship, the dispensation of grace, ch. 3:2, 6 [Eph.].” During this period of restoration-“blotting out of sin with all its direful effects”-the following major events would occur: (1) The cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14; (2) the marriage between Christ and the New Jerusalem; (3) the transference of sin to the scapegoat; (4) Christ’s return; (5) the cleansing of God’s people; (6) the millennium. ¹ Although the dispensation of the fulness of the times began in the fall of 1844, the Gospel dispensation or dispensation of grace did not end at that time. The expression “there should be time no more” (Revelation 10:6) could not refer to the Second Advent, according to Crosier, for after this oath came the commission to prophesy again (Revelation 10:11). ² He pointed to Revelation 10:6, 7 for a description of “the manner in which time should close.” ⁴ The “days” in Revelation 10:7 indicated “a short period of time, in which not only the 7th angel begins to sound, but the mystery of God is finished. Thus we see that the mystery is finished, not in a point, but in a period, and while the mystery is finishing, the 7th angel is beginning to sound.” In other words, FSDA 130.1

as the Dispensation of the fulness of times begins with the 7th trumpet, and the Gos. Dis. reaches to the resurrection, it is manifest that the Dis. of the fulness of times, begins before the Gos. Dis. ends.-There is a short period of overlapping or running together of the two Dispensations, in which the peculiarities of both mingle like the twilight, minglings of light and darkness. ⁵ FSDA 131.1

These statements indicate that Crosier’s shut-door view was not of an extreme nature, for he advocated a continuation of the atonement process, the Gospel dispensation, and the mystery of God ⁶ after October 22, 1844. FSDA 131.2

Besides providing an explanation for the Disappointment, a major soteriological contribution of Crosier’s treatise was that it pointed out that the atonement was not yet finished. FSDA 131.3

Some months later Crosier expanded his view of the cleansing of the sanctuary, making it apply to both the sanctuary in heaven and the church on earth: FSDA 131.4

Many seem not to have discovered that there is a literal and a spiritual temple-the literal being the Sanctuary New Jerusalem (literal city), and the spiritual the church-the literal occupied by Jesus Christ, our King and Priest, Jno. 14:2, Hebrews 8:2, 911; the spiritual by the Holy Ghost, 1 Corinthians 3:17; 6:19; Ephesians 2:20-22. Between these two there is a perfect concert of action; as Christ “prepares the place” the Spirit does the people. When he came to his temple, the sanctuary, to cleanse it; the Spirit commenced the special cleansing of the people, Malachi 3:1-13. ¹ FSDA 132.1

Crosier’s interpretation of the antitypical Day of Atonement shed additional light on the nature of the pre-Advent judgment. ² It was also in harmony with the view of the conditional immortality of man-a doctrine which had been advocated by some Millerites and came to be one of the SDA teachings. ³ FSDA 132.2

Soon other Sabbatarian Adventists limited Crosier’s view on the duration of the antitypical Day of Atonement to Jesus’ cleansing ministry in the sanctuary before His return. The time of the blotting out of sins of the living believers was closely associated with the sanctuary cleansing and seen as a present or imminent event. ⁴ FSDA 132.3

3. Evaluation of the Seventh Month movement

The sanctuary theology provided an explanation of the Disappointment and interpreted the event as an important factor in God’s plan of redemption. A number of Adventists saw the importance of the Seventh Month movement not only confirmed by their personal experience but also by the first two visions of E. G. Harmon. The vision of December 1844 pictured the validity of the Midnight Cry of the Seventh Month movement and an 1844 shut door. ¹ The immediate results of the vision was that she and about 60 other believers in Portland, Maine, “acknowledged their 7th month experience to be the work of God.” ² FSDA 132.4

In February 1845 E. G. Harmon received another vision in which the Midnight Cry again was symbolized as a great light from Christ. It pictured a throne in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary with two groups of people before it. One group was bowed down and represented the Adventists; the other stood uninterested and careless, symbolizing the church and the world. Then an exceeding bright light passed from the Father to Christ and waved over the individuals before the throne. Many opposed this great light and came out from under it; a few accepted it and bowed down with the little praying company. Then Jesus went as the Bridegroom to the wedding in the second apartment, where He officiated as High Priest before the Father. Those who by faith followed the change of Christ’s ministry were blessed but those who, being deceived, did not know of the change came under the influence of Satan. ³ Thus, like Edson, E. G. Harmon placed the coming of the Bridegroom to the wedding in the setting of Christ’s high-priestly ministry. FSDA 133.1

In 1847 one of the earliest extensive historical evaluations of the Millerite movement was written by Joseph Bates, an active participant who accepted the Sabbath in 1845. He strongly stressed the validity of both the Millerite movement in general and the Midnight Cry of the Seventh Month movement as phases in salvation history. ⁴ Similar views were found in later Sabbatarian Adventist publications. During this time Miller had a dream ⁵ which J. White interpreted as being of divine origin and confirmed his confidence in the prophetic significance of the past Advent experience. ¹ FSDA 133.2

The majority of Adventists, however, gradually lost confidence in the new interpretations which emphasized the validity of the Seventh Month movement. This was especially evident after the Albany Conference in the spring of 1845, held after the termination of the Jewish Karaite year. During the summer of 1845 Miller remarked that FSDA 134.1

some are disposed to lay stress on the seventh month movement which is not warranted by the Word.... FSDA 134.2

I have no confidence in any of the new theories that have grown out of that movement, viz., that Christ then came as the Bridegroom, that the door of mercy was closed, that there is no salvation for sinners, that the seventh trumpet then sounded, or that it was a fulfillment of prophecy in any sense. ² FSDA 134.3

Miller, according to Himes, returned to his original view of the Midnight Cry as set forth in his lecture, “The Ten Virgins,” which Himes also considered as the correct interpretation. ³ Until his death in December 1849, Miller expressed confidence in the divine guidance of the Advent movement of the 1840s and felt that some minor error in the calculations would explain the Disappointment. FSDA 134.4

4. Summary

One of the most important problems which confronted Adventists after October 22, 1844, was how to evaluate and interpret the Seventh Month movement and the Disappointment. Initially the general opinion was that the Midnight Cry of the parable of Mt. 25 had met its fulfillment in the Seventh Month movement and that the Second Advent would take place at any time. The immediate soteriological and missiological consequences of the Disappointment were that Adventists thought their mission had been completed and the door of mercy closed against the churches and the world which had rejected the Advent proclamation of Christ’s imminent personal return. They also felt that their shut-door views were confirmed by the hostile reaction of the public after the Disappointment. As time continued and the Second Coming still tarried, Adventists entered a period of controversy which destroyed their unity. The majority of the approximately 50,000 Adventists lost confidence in the validity of the Seventh Month movement and all shut-door ideas. A gradually diminishing minority, from which the Sabbatarian Adventists arose, continued to express their belief that no mistake had been made in the time calculations of the Seventh Month movement, but only in the prediction of the event to take place at the end of the 2300 days. They explained their error as an incorrect application of some of Miller’s hermeneutical principles. The major questions which confronted them were that if the parable of the ten virgins had its fulfillment in the Seventh Month movement, what was the significance of the coming of the Bridegroom and that of the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14? To solve these questions the sanctuary theology was developed dealing with the nature of Christ’s heavenly ministry. Within the context of the sanctuary theology a variety of views emerged, contributing to the heterogeneous character of this minority. On the basis of a more consistent application of Miller’s hermeneutical principles, the early Sabbatarian Adventists concluded that the coming of the Bridegroom signified Christ’s coming to the marriage in the heavenly sanctuary on October 22, 1844, while Daniel 8:14 announced the beginning of Christ’s high-priestly ministry on the antitypical Day of Atonement. When these two aspects of Christ’s final ministry were completed, they expected the Second Advent to take place. Because of the fact that this interpretation presupposed the validity of the Seventh Month movement, its vindication became of crucial importance for Sabbatarian Adventists. FSDA 134.5

Most Adventists considered the new interpretation to be a spiritualization of the Advent expectancy; Sabbatarian Adventists, however, denied this charge. Those who did not accept the sanctuary theology but still adhered to the validity of the Seventh Month movement did advocate a spiritual return of Christ and not a personal one. Sabbatarian Adventists designated such interpretation as spiritualism. FSDA 135.1