In view of the generally recognized significance of the Christological statement that was presented in various publications, it will be necessary for the purposes of this paper that we examine it carefully. Our first step will be to place before the student verbatim copies of (1) the original statement in Ministry, September, 1956; (2) the statement as it appeared in Questions On Doctrine; and (3) the condensed synopsis as presented in Leroy Edwin Froom's Movement of Destiny. Since the material as presented in Volume 7A of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is a photo-copy, identical to Questions On Doctrine, it will not be needlessly duplicated here.
We will focus our attention on the section of the Christological statement that deals with the human nature of Jesus. The other sections present truths about the nature and work of Christ in regard to which Seventh-day Adventists are generally agreed, and need not detain us.
The Original Statement As It Appeared In
Ministry, September, 1956
III. Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before the Fall
1. CHRIST TOOK HUMANITY AS GOD CREATED IT.--"Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son could obey every divine requirement."--[1]
2. BEGAN WHERE ADAM FIRST BEGAN.--"Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure."[2]
3. TOOK HUMAN FORM BUT NOT CORRUPTED SINFUL NATURE.--"In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. In heaven was heard the voice, 'The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.'"[3]
4. TOOK ADAM'S SINLESS HUMAN NATURE.-"When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan's kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour's Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power."[4]
5. PERFECT SINLESSNESS OF HIS HUMAN NATURE.--"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weak nesses by which man is encompassed, 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.' He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He 'knew no sin.' He was the lamb 'without blemish and without spot.' Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. ... We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ."[5]
6. INHERITED NO EVIL PROPENSITIES FROM ADAM.--"Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden."[6]
7. CONQUERED SATAN AS SECOND ADAM.--"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. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. ... Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure."[7]
8. GUARD AGAINST MAKING CHRIST ALTOGETHER HUMAN.--"Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God. ... 'That holy thing which shall be born of thee [Mary] shall be called the Son of God.' ... Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called 'that holy thing.' It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be."[8]
9. BECAME HEAD OF THE FALLEN RACE.--"What opposites meet and are revealed in the person of Christ! The mighty God, yet a helpless child! The Creator of all the world, yet, in a world of His creating, often hungry and weary, and without a place to lay His head! The Son of man, yet infinitely higher than the angels! Equal with the Father, yet His divinity clothed with humanity, standing at the head of the fallen race, that human beings might be placed on vantage ground! Possessing eternal riches, yet living the life of a poor man!
One with the Father in dignity and power, yet in His humanity tempted in all points like as we are tempted! In the very moment of His dying agony on the cross, a Conqueror, answering the request of the repentant sinner to be remembered by Him when He came into His kingdom."[9]
The Statement As It Appeared In
Questions On Doctrine, With the Section
Heading Shortened and the Paragraph Headings Deleted
III. Took Sinless Human Nature
Christ came to the earth, taking humanity and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement.[10]
Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure.[11]
In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. In heaven was heard the voice, "The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord."[12]
When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan's kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour's Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power.[13]
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. ... We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.[14]
Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.[15]
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. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. ... Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure.[16]
Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God. ... Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves: for it cannot be.[17]
What opposites meet and are revealed in the person of Christ! The mighty God, yet a helpless child! The Creator of all the world, yet, in a world of His creating, often hungry and weary, and without a place to lay His head! The Son of man, yet infinitely higher than the angels! Equal with the Father, yet His divinity clothed with humanity, standing at the head of the fallen race, that human beings might be placed on vantage-ground! Possessing eternal riches, yet living the life of a poor man! One with the Father in dignity and power, yet in His humanity tempted in all points like as we are tempted! In the very moment of His dying agony on the cross, a Conqueror, answering the request of the repentant sinner to be remembered by Him when He came into His kingdom.[18]
The Abbreviated Statement As It Appeared in Movement of Destiny
5. TOOK SINLESS NATURE OF ADAM BEFORE FALL.--During His Incarnation He stood as "man's representative, " just "as God created him"--that is, referring to Adam. As the "second Adam," He "began where the first Adam began." He "passed over the ground where Adam fell, and [He, Christ] redeemed Adam's failure." He took "the nature but not the sinfulness of man." He "vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory." He "did not in the least participate in its sin." He was "subject to the infirmities and weaknesses" by which man is encompassed. But we are to have no misgivings as to "the perfect sinlessnesss of the human nature of Christ." He did not have the "propensities of sin."
[These are fundamental declarations.]
Christ was like Adam before the Fall--"a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon Him." He "could fall." [That was possible--otherwise temptation would not have been an actuality, only a farce.] He "took ... human nature, and was tempted in all points" as human nature is tempted. But "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." When "Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin." Christ was "assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden." So "Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he [Adam] failed to endure." Nevertheless, Christ "took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness." But "never, in any way, leave the slightest impression" that "a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ." Then comes the strong admonition, "Let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be."[19]
As we consider these documents, our first observation is that they are purely historical in nature, containing no references to scriptures and no direct arguments.
Looking more closely, we see that the historical evidence presented is limited to excerpts from the writings of Ellen White. Neither the Bible nor any Adventist writer other than Ellen White is quoted. We would expect, therefore, that the document would reveal an awareness of the historical materials regarding the views of Ellen White that have been presented in Section Three of this paper. No such awareness is apparent.
We next consider the section heading,
Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall
and reflect that we do not remember having seen that thought expressed anywhere in the writings of Ellen White. Looking at the quotations that are presented under this section heading, we discover that none of them say it either, but that words written by Ellen White saying other things are interpreted to mean that. Particularly in Ministry, very generous assistance is given to Ellen White, in order to help her say what she apparently did not know how to say, in the section heading, followed by two paragraph headings:
Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall ...
Took Human Form But Not Corrupted Nature ...
Took Adam's Sinless Human Nature.
The deficiency in Ellen White's writings, as seen by her interpreters, seems to be her failure to ever apply the word sinless to the human nature assumed by Christ. We have seen that the dictionaries define the suffix -less as meaning without and incapable of. Since Ellen White believed that Christ was capable of sinning, she uses the term sinlessness to describe His non-sinning human nature, but not the term sinless. Thus she sought to avoid being misunderstood. Her interpreters, apparently unconcerned about these dangers, and fully convinced that they knew what she intended but failed to say, did not hesitate to say it for her. Where she wrote sinlessness they firmly and resolutely report sinless, dictionary definitions and Ellen White's own preferences notwithstanding.
Seeking to understand the reasoning of her interpreters, we observe that as they saw it, when Ellen White wrote that Christ endured the same temptations that Adam endured, she really meant to say that Christ had the same nature that the unfallen Adam had. Again they are very generous in assisting her to say what she did not say. The interpretive principle being applied seems to be that persons who have two different natures, the one unfallen and the other fallen, could not properly be described as having been similarly tempted. Hence, when Ellen White writes that Jesus was tempted as Adam was tempted, they feel that she is saying that Christ's human nature was the same as Adam's unfallen nature.
But here we encounter difficulties. This argument is a knife that cuts both ways. What happens when this interpretive principle is applied to Bible verses, as well as Ellen White statements, that Christ was in all points tempted like we are tempted? Consistency in applying the interpretive principle would require that these statements be seen as affirmations of the similarity between Christ's nature and our fallen natures. This would lead to the conclusion that Christ assumed a fallen human nature, a conclusion that her interpreters wish to avoid.
By means of the same interpretive principle, that two persons must have the same nature in order to be similarly tempted, we would come to opposite conclusions:
Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall
"(Christ) was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden." "He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure."[20] (Emphasis mine.)
Conclusion: Christ came in the nature of the unfallen Adam.
Took Sinful Nature of Man After Fall
"Therefore Jesus was 'in all points tempted like as we are.' (Heb. 4:15) He endured every trial to which we are subject."[21] (Emphasis mine.)
" By passing over the ground which man must travel, ... Christ prepared the way for us to gain the victory."[22]
Conclusion: Christ came in the nature of fallen man.
So the same principle, applied in the same way, brings exactly opposite results.
Such an interpretive principle as this cannot possibly be defended as valid, nor can conclusions based on such a principle be taken seriously.
Shifting our attention from the section headings to the content of the statement as it appears in Ministry and Questions On Doctrine, we see that it consists of nine quotations from Ellen White's writings, taken from seven different sources. Six of the sources are magazine articles dated from 1874 until 1905. The seventh source, with the largest quotations (31 lines out of a total of 92 lines in Questions On Doctrine) is credited to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Remembering that Ellen White died long before this commentary was written, we investigate further and learn that this heavily weighted piece of evidence is from a personal letter written by Ellen White to Pastor W. L. H. Baker, in Tasmania, in 1895. And the emphasized portions of this letter, involving the use of the word propensities, carry the burden of the interpreter's argument that Ellen White believed that Christ took the human nature of Adam before his fall.
The argument will be examined later. At this point we are concerned--deeply concerned--about the use of sources. We will examine the excerpts in relation to their sources as they are used in Movement of Destiny, since this presentation most clearly reveals the purposes to which the excerpts were applied in the construction of the argument, Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall. Nine of the twenty-two excerpts used by Froom are from the Baker letter.
Our first question is, Why is the major portion of the argument being based upon interpretations of words found in an unpublished private letter? What kind of a hermeneutic gives more weight as evidence to a private letter, written to an individual whose questions and/or problems are not known to us, than to the many published articles and books by the same author? And what of Ellen White's own appeal in Testimonies to the Church, Volume 5, page 696?
If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through (Ellen White), read her published works. (Emphasis mine.)
Although Ellen White lived, wrote, and published assiduously for twenty years after writing the Baker letter in 1895, she never saw fit to publish it.
(The student should not think of the hermeneutical principle that requires us to give more weight to published articles or books than to private letters as arbitrary. It is simply a recognition of the reality that in most cases it is not possible for us to have an accurate knowledge of the concerns of an individual that are being addressed in a private letter.)
Ellen White's famous The Desire of Ages must be regarded as her consciously and deliberately prepared and published Christological position paper, intended to inform the whole world as to her views concerning the nature and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. To subordinate this to interpretations of words found in a private letter is simply not permissable by any standard of scholarship. The apologist who finds it necessary to resort to such procedures as this is thereby tacitly admitting the weakness of his case. (For the relevant Christological views expressed in The Desire of Ages, see pages 118-119 of this paper.)
And let us remember that if personal letters are used at all, they must be used in their entirety, not by arbitrary individual selection. We see no indication that the authors of the document we are examining surveyed the entire mass of Ellen White's correspondence. They rather, it seems, selected an individual letter that appeared to be suitable for their purposes, and took no notice of other letters written in the same timeframe, 1895-1896, that contained such statements as these:
What a strange symbol of Christ was that likeness of the serpent that stung them. This symbol was lifted on a pole, and they were to look at it and be healed. So Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.[23]
It was not a make-believe humanity that Christ took upon Himself. He took human nature and lived human nature. ... He was compassed with infirmities. ... Just that which you may be He was in human nature. He took our infirmities. He was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.[24]
Yet, even if we should decide to lay aside our hermeneutical principles and admit the Baker letter as evidence, we would find that it falls short of meeting the evidential needs of the document. It no-where states that Christ came to the earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam, but certain other expressions are interpreted to mean that, and these interpretations are themselves open to question.
Again, we see that certain words in each Ellen White quotation are italicized for emphasis. As we look at the arrangement by Froom in Movement of Destiny, we observe that he uses these emphasized portions, or fragments of them, surrounded by words of his own, to construct his argument. His argument consists of nineteen sentences which contain twenty-two excerpts, some as small as two or three words.
Again we are troubled with questions. Is Ellen White speaking to us, or is the voice actually that of Dr. Froom? And in view of her extensive writings about the humanity of Jesus, why are we being limited to so minute a sampling?
We have seen that the other major sources from which several quotations each were drawn were a continued article by Ellen White that began in the Review issue of 7/28/74 (three quotations), and an article that appeared in the Signs issue of 6/09/98 (four quotations). The Review articles will be recognized as material that was later expanded and republished in The Desire of Ages in 1898. As we read these articles, we are confronted by a startling violation of context. Both of them contain direct, specific statements that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man.
It would be helpful, as we proceed, to keep in mind the difference between a statement and an interpretation. The sentences or clauses expressing the thought that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man are statements which actually say that. The excerpts from these same articles that are used to support the view that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam do not say that but are interpreted to mean that.
In the portions of her continued article about The Temptations of Jesus that appeared in the Review issues of 7/28/74 and 8/04/74 Ellen White had written:
The statements:
The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden. ...
Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man.
In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him.
In order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach Him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race.
The humanity of Christ reached to the very depths of human wretchedness, and identified itself with the weaknesses and wretchedness of fallen man.
The interpreted excerpts (see page 237):
(When) Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden, he was without the taint of sin.
Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he (Adam) failed to endure.
(Christ) took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness.--(Same source as above statements.)
Our first observation would be that the statements number five and the interpreted excerpts number three. Thus the scale of evidence is tipped in favor of the statements, especially in view of the fact that an interpretation cannot be assigned equal weight to a statement in an assessment of evidence.
Our next observation would be that other interpretations could be placed upon these excerpts. Those used in the document before us are by no means mandatory.
Next we must recognize that the interpretations placed upon these three excerpts, that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, sets them in a position of strong contradiction to the five statements in the same article. This constitutes an unacceptable violation of context.
Finally, as we consider the individual excerpts, we see that the first has no relevance to the proposition that Christ came to earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam. It says something about Adam, but nothing about Christ. The second excerpt compares the temptations of Adam with the temptations of Christ, but says nothing about the nature of either Adam or Christ. The third is the most surprising. What place does this excerpt have in an argument that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall, since it affirms precisely the opposite? Looking back, we see that it was one of those introduced by the word Nevertheless, in the construction which was used to explain away statements of Ellen White with which the interpreters were uncomfortable, a device whereby Ellen White was represented (actually misrepresented) as believing that Christ had both an unfallen and a fallen human nature.
So what weight as evidence can we give to these three interpreted excerpts? Unfortunately, none at all. Interpretations placed upon quotations used in violation of context, contrary to the apparent intention of the writer, are not admissible as evidence.
A similar problem appears when we compare the actual statements about the nature of Christ found in the Signs of 6/09/98 with the four interpreted excerpts. Observe:
The statements:
(Christ) took our nature in its deteriorated condition.
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition.
The interpreted excerpts:
... man's representative.
Did not in the least participate in its sin.
Subject to the infirmities and weaknesses.
Perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.
We recognize that the first two of these interpreted excerpts have no relevance to the argument being presented, since they could be used without discomfort by persons on either side of the discussion about the humanity of Jesus. The third would seem to lend support to the view that Christ came in the human nature of fallen man, since we do not think of the unfallen Adam as having infirmities and weaknesses. The fourth is rendered useless as evidence in support of the view that Christ came in the human nature of the unfallen Adam by two realities: First, as we have seen, Ellen White uses the suffixes -less and -ness in close conformity to dictionary definitions. Thus she does not apply the term sinless to the human nature of Christ, but the term sinlessness (a state of being), and she does not confuse or equate these terms. She often describes Christ as sinless, meaning that He never sinned, but she never describes His human nature as sinless, which would indicate that it was free from the weaknesses and tendencies of our fallen natures. Second, this excerpt appeared in its original context in a statement that began with the words:
In taking man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. (Emphasis mine.)
So our attempt to assess the weight of evidence represented by these four interpreted excerpts from a single article brings us to the conclusion that the "bottom line" again is zero. They fall far short of being strong enough to offset the clear and firm statements about the human nature of Christ that Ellen White had written in the same article.
And an even more startling phenomenon appears when this sentence is closely compared with the document we are examining. In this Signs article of 6/09/98 Ellen White had written the sentence like this:
"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin." (Emphasis mine.)
In the document that we are examining, the first half of her sentence, "In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, "was laid aside, and the last half of her sentence, "Christ did not in the least participate in its sin," was presented as a part of this construction:
Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall
He did not in the least participate in its sin. (Emphasis mine.)
We gaze at this in disbelief. A writer's thought, expressed in a single sentence, has been totally reversed. The writer is represented as having said the exact opposite of what she actually did say. This is the ultimate violation of context. A greater offense in the handling of evidence is hardly possible.
And by this arrangement a hopeless incongruity is created in the use of the pronoun its. In the mutilated construction that is set before us, the pronoun its is made to modify Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall. Thus Ellen White is represented as having made the nonsensical statement that Christ did not in the least participate in the sin of the sinless nature of Adam before the fall. This is a quite gratuitous insult to her intelligence.
Let the student ask himself whether he would care to undertake a defense of this arrangement of materials before a dissertation committee on either the master's or the doctoral level.
Any graduate student who has completed his required course work in Research Procedures would surely recognize that such an endeavor could only bring catastrophic results, and might cause him to lose his graduate standing.
So our examination of these two multiple sources is disquieting in the extreme. They set before us a violation of the immediate context with which we are acutely uncomfortable.
The remaining six excerpts, which are taken from individual magazine articles, do not present such a violation of immediate context. In those particular articles Ellen White did not happen to express her conviction that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man. But they must be viewed against the background of her other writings, in which we have found approximately 400 statements that Christ did come to the earth in the human nature of fallen man. These statements would constitute the general context with which the interpreted excerpts must be compared, and by this standard they too must be ruled inadmissible as evidence supporting the proposition that Christ "Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall." As research workers, we are not permitted to use evidence in violation of either its immediate or its general context.
Let the student bear in mind that should the research worker happen to discover in Ellen White's writings 400 statements that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man, and fifteen or twenty statements that He came to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam (which actually do not occur) the rules of evidence would require him to report the first as the best assessment of the writer's opinion. Here the weight of evidence would be the controlling principle. But in the case before us, we are not comparing statements with statements, but rather statements are being compared with interpretations. In such a case the weight of evidence is clearly on the side of the statements.
The only factor that might alter the above conclusions would be chronology. Should the research worker find the 15 or 20 (in this case mythical) statements later in time than the 400, he might be justified in setting them forth as the writer's matured or final conviction. But in the matter before us, we observe that all of the sources used are dated before the close of the year 1905, whereas between that time and her death in 1915, Ellen White published several statements of her belief that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man. Thus this must be recognized as her matured and final conviction on that subject.
So our examination of the sources used by the writers of the statement that we are studying leads to strongly negative conclusions. We have seen an inadmissible use of interpreted excerpts from a private letter, and a use of interpreted excerpts from magazine articles, all of which are in violation of the general context of Ellen White's writings, and some of which are in violation of the immediate context of the specific articles themselves. Conspicuously and curiously absent is evidence from her published books, especially her well-known The Desire of Ages, which was clearly written for the express purpose of informing the entire world as to her views regarding the nature and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We pause to reflect for a moment about an arrangement of materials that would best conform to the principles that are taught in graduate classes in research procedures. According to these principles, we would arrange evidence like this, in a descending order of importance :
First and most significant would be a book or books published by the author for the purpose of dealing with the subject under consideration. Thus Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will would be given the most weight as evidence in an investigation of his views regarding predestination, since it was written by Luther for the express purpose of setting forth his views on that subject. In the case before us, Ellen White's The Desire of Ages would properly be set forth as the weightiest evidence in an investigation of her Christological views, since it was written for the express purpose of dealing with that subject.
However, we have found that this volume was ignored in the preparation of the statement that we are studying, in regard to the human nature of Christ, and that in the supporting material with which the statement was published in the Ministry issue of September, 1956, The Desire of Ages was discounted as being misleading if not "counterbalanced" by other Ellen White statements to be found in "many other places. "[25] In our research we have found no such counter-balancing statements, but rather a variety of interpretations that do not themselves bear up well under investigation.
The second highest place on the list of materials used as evidence would be books published for the purpose of dealing with other subjects, but which might contain casual or incidental references to the subject under consideration. The authors of the document that we are examining made no use at all of such Ellen White books.
Third in the descending order of importance would be magazine articles. These are weighted less heavily than books in the scale of evidence on the assumption that a writer would be likely to invest more time and care in the production of a book than in the writing of a magazine article, recognizing that books are usually kept longer than magazines and have a more lasting influence.
Magazine articles would, of course, be arranged in a chronological pattern, in a descending order of importance, from the latest written to the earliest. This is in recognition of the fact that writers may, over a period of years, expand, revise, or even reverse their earlier expressed opinions. The latest expression would therefore be seen as most likely to reflect the matured or final judgment of the author. The longer the period of time in which the author wrote, the greater would be the emphasis placed upon this point.
But, as we have seen, the authors of the document we are examining reversed this procedure, passing by several Ellen White statements published in magazine articles during the years 1906-1915, and focusing their attention on articles published before that time, some as early as the year 1874.
Last in the descending order of importance, and in a distinctly separate category, would be private and personal letters written by the author whose views are being examined. Since these were not written for the intention of setting the author's opinions before the world, and since it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to know what questions or concerns of the recipient are being addressed, their value must be seen as chiefly corroborative. They would be used with caution and with qualification. If they should seem to be at variance with the views set forth by the author in a book, the weight of evidence would certainly be on the side of the book. To subordinate a published book to a personal letter in an arrangement of evidence on a given point would be unthinkable. Yet this is what was done by the authors of the document we are examining. Ellen White's Christological position paper, her well-known The Desire of Ages, was set aside as being potentially and dangerously misleading, and interpretations placed upon nine excerpts from an arbitrarily selected private letter to a Tasmanian pastor were given the greatest weight in the arrangement of evidence.
A Methodological Monstrosity
To summarize our examination of sources: The authors of the document that we are examining about the human nature of Christ discounted and rejected Ellen White's The Desire of Ages, ignored her other books, used her magazine articles in the reverse of a proper chronological order, and used interpretations placed upon nine excerpts from a single arbitrarily selected private letter as the weightiest evidence upon which their conclusions were based. When to this list of grievous procedural irregularities is added the glaring violations of both immediate and general context in their use of quotations, we are compelled to draw a most painful conclusion: The statement before us, insofar as its use of sources is concerned, must be regarded as a methodological monstrosity. It could reasonably be set forth by a teacher of research procedures as a classic demonstration of methods of handling sources that ought not to be used.
As the final step in our analysis of this Christo logical document we must endeavor to assess the value of each of its nineteen individual statements, with their brief excerpts from Ellen White's writings, to the stated thesis of the document, that Christ
Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall
We will now turn to an analysis of the evidence.
Notes: