Research revealed that the statements made, both by Ellen White and other writers, fell rather naturally into five categories:
1. The strongest statements, that use the words sinful nature or fallen nature to describe the humanity of Jesus.
He took upon Him our sinful nature.[1]
He took upon Himself fallen suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin.[2]
He condescended ... to take upon Himself fallen human nature.[3]
In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful fallen nature.[4]
2. Statements that do not use the terms sinful or fallen but do use unmistakable equivalencies:
... Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity.[5]
Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature.[6]
As Jesus was in human flesh, so God means His followers to be.[7]
Yes reader, the blessed Son of God ... took up His abode in flesh with the same desires that you have in your flesh.[8]
3. Statements that range from being difficult to understand to being utterly meaningless if applied to Christ in the nature of the unfallen Adam:
Christ declared, no single principle of human nature will I violate.[9]
An angel would not have known how to sympathize with fallen man, but ... Jesus can be touched with all our infirmities.[10]
He was subject to the frailties of humanity.[11]
Like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity.[12]
Infinitely superior in every respect to Boaz, yet He stooped to marry the lost race.[13]
4. Statements that specifically reject the idea that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam:
Christ was not in as favorable a position in the desolate wilderness to endure the temptations of Satan as was Adam when he was tempted in Eden. The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness.[14]
His human nature was created; it did not even possess angelic powers. It was human, identical to our own.[15]
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.[16]
The second Adam came not at the point where the first Adam stood when he failed, but at the point at which mankind stood at the end of four thousand years of degeneracy.[17]
He did not come to this world and take upon Himself Adam's condition, but He stepped down lower, to meet man as he is, weakened by sin, polluted in his own iniquity.[18]
5. Statements that according to the principles of hermeneutics might have been included, but were so numerous that I was overwhelmed by the sheer mass of the evidence, so that I despaired of compiling or even counting them. The expression "clothed His divinity with humanity" occurs so often in the writings of Ellen White that it would take a research worker months to compile its appearances. And according to the principles of hermeneutics (rules of evidence) that a writer's statements must be clarified by other statements of the same writer, we should ask, each time we see these words, "What kind of humanity does she mean? Fallen or unfallen?"
The rules of evidence require us to answer, "Fallen," because of the frequency with which she made clear her position on that point, thus:
Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, clothing His divinity with humanity.[19]
We are not justified in placing any other meaning on her words, since she herself never supplies us with any other meaning.
However, the task of compiling all the appearances of that expression "clothed His divinity with humanity," is too great for me. Perhaps someone else will get the burden to do it.
The same principle applies to the few quotations of a general nature that have been included, those in which Ellen White simply states that Christ took "human nature" or "our nature." Since these expressions are often found in a context which clearly describes that nature as fallen, and never in a context that describes it as unfallen, the rules of hermeneutics would permit us to include them as evidence. However, that would greatly increase the size of this paper; so, in the interests of brevity, only a sampling of such general statements has been included. (Compare the use of sabbath and tithe in scripture. The definition given in a few uses applies to all.)
In my presentation of evidence, I chose to organize it by years rather than by categories. It seemed that this might make it easier for the student to find a particular item of evidence if he were looking for it. This arrangement also serves to illustrate the close parallel between the thinking of Ellen White and the others who wrote for, and edited, the Review, the Signs, and other Adventist journals. The relationship could almost be called symbiotic. Whatever she wrote they faithfully echoed, both in subject matter and in supporting arguments. And she, as far as I can discover, never felt uncomfortable with their many strong statements about the nature of Christ.
The frequent use of ellipses (...) is admittedly unfortunate, but I could not find the time to copy more extended materials. For this reason there is a heavy loss sustained, both of the Biblical passages used to support the writer's positions and of the richness of the reasoning employed.
For the sake of consistency, I have capitalized all pronouns referring to the Deity, whether the original writers did or not.
All emphasis by underlining is mine, unless otherwise noted.
The counting of statements, simple as it might appear to be, was in fact a bit perplexing, since they ranged from simple to complex and compound, with several affirmations sometimes appearing in a single article, or even a single paragraph.
It was finally decided to follow as nearly as possible the apparent intention of the author. If his or her second statement appeared to be only an enlargement or a clarification of the first, it was not counted separately. If the second or following statements appeared to be intended as re-affirmations for the sake of force or emphasis, they were counted separately. In this I hoped to conform as closely as possible to the author's purpose, but it must be recognized that some variations in the count, as performed by different investigators, are to be expected.
Notes: