The last of the three statements presented verbatim on pages 233-237 will be used for our analysis of the evidence since it most clearly reveals the use to which the quotations were put, and gives us the best insight as to what Dr. Froom and his companions would have said to Dr. Martin about these quotations in their conferences together. It is from Dr. Froom's Movement of Destiny, p. 497:
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 sinlessness 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." (Numbering mine.)
These paragraphs contain nineteen statements in support of the conclusion that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall. Within each statement is a small quotation (or quotations) from Ellen White.
We will discover that as Ellen White made these statements, none say that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall, and some say the precise opposite.
We will consider each of the statements in order:
1. During His incarnation He stood as "man's representative" just "as God created Him"--that is, referring to Adam. (Froom)
We observe:
a. As Ellen White wrote the statement, it makes no reference to Adam.
b. As she wrote the statement, it is preceded by the words: Christ ... took our nature in its deteriorated condition.[1] and followed by the words:
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition.
c. Ellen White's reference to Christ standing as man's representative in His incarnation must be compared with passages like these :
The Commander of all heaven, He humbled Himself to stand at the head of fallen humanity.[2]
He laid aside His kingly crown and royal robe, and stepped down from His high command to take His place at the head of a fallen race.[3]
The Son of God took human nature upon Him, and came to this earth to stand at the head of the fallen race.[4]
He took His stand at the head of the fallen race.[5]
Here (at Christ's baptism) was the assurance to the Son of God that His Father accepted the fallen race through their representative ... the Son of God was then the representative of our race.[6]
2. As the " second Adam" He "began where the first Adam began. " (Froom)
Ellen White wrote:
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.[7]
This statement indicates that Christ met the same temptations that Adam met. It does not say that being the second Adam means that He took the unfallen nature of Adam. This is an interpretation, but the interpretation must be compared with this:
The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam. ... He would take man's fallen nature.[8] (Emphasis mine.)
We must not force Ellen White to contradict herself by placing an unstated interpretation onto her words, "the second Adam." We must follow the hermeneutical principle that her words must be explained by her own writings, not by the conclusions of others.
3. He "passed over the ground where Adam fell, and (He, Christ) redeemed Adam's failure." (Froom)
This is from the same passage as the previous example, and the same principles apply to it. Ellen White's purpose was to state that Christ met the same temptations that Adam met. The expression "passed over the ground" should be compared with this:
... by passing over the ground which man must travel ... Christ prepared the way for us to gain the victory.[9]
If the lines used by Froom mean that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam, then the second reference would have to mean that He took the nature of fallen man. Difficulties of this sort may be avoided by accepting both expressions to refer to the temptations of Christ rather than to His nature.
4. He took "the nature but not the sinfulness of man." (Froom)
Ellen White wrote :
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 hut not the sinfulness of man.[10]
We have seen that the term sinfulness as used by Ellen White meant the presence of sinning. (See page 16.) She also wrote:
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.[11]
The reference to His position at the head of humanity should be compared with the similar expressions which identify this humanity as fallen. (See pages 250-251.)
5. He "vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory." (Froom)
Ellen White wrote:
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 on God for power. This is the privilege of all. In proportion to our faith will be our victory.[12] (Emphasis mine.)
It is apparent that Ellen White is here contrasting human nature with divine nature, rather than contrasting two different aspects of human nature. And it would be useless to argue that to overcome in the nature of the unfallen Adam is the privilege of all.
Since the quotations in the next three sentences are all from the same source, they will be considered together:
6. He "did not in the least participate in its sin."
7. He was "subject to the infirmities and weaknesses" by which man is encompassed.
8. But we are to have no misgivings as to "the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ." (Froom)
The quotations from Ellen White,
... did not in the least participate in its sin.
... subject to the infirmities and weaknesses.
... the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ,
were all taken from the same passage in an article by Ellen White in Signs, June 9 , 1898. It may be seen entire in Selected Messages, Volume 1, pages 252-256. If possible, the student should read the entire article. It is rich in assurances that Christ fully identified Himself with fallen man.
Lines like these will be observed:
What a sight was this for heaven to look upon! Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition.
And the passage from which the three excerpts are quoted begins with the words:
In taking upon himself man's nature in its fallen condition.
The student may decide for himself whether quotations that follow those words as a paragraph topic sentence may properly be placed under a topic sentence which says precisely the opposite:
Took sinless nature of Adam before fall.
In the last of these three statements we find an example of how we may go astray if we do not carefully follow the hermeneutical principle that a writer's words and/or expressions must be explained by the same writer's other word-usages if that is possible. Ellen White wrote:
We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.
Compare:
There should not be the faintest misgivings in regard to the perfect freedom from sinfulness in the human nature of Christ.[13]
It is apparent that the two expressions used in describing the human nature of Christ,
Perfect sinlessness, (and)
Perfect freedom from sinfulness,
meant the same thing to the writer, who introduced the subject by stating that Christ took the fallen nature of man and did not participate in its sin. The writer's distinction between sinlessness and sinful nature appears again in this passage:
Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.[14]
It is apparent that these persons will not have lost their fallen, sinful natures. Thus, according to Ellen White's use of the terms, the sinlessness of sinful nature is a practical possibility, because her word sinlessness refers to the absence of sinning.[15] This condition can be combined with fallen, sinful natures, as she saw it.
In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled, yet He took upon Him our sinful nature.[16]
We have seen a similar usage of terms by Ellen White in this statement:
He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man.[17] Here again it is apparent that to Ellen White sinfulness meant the presence of sinning, just as sinlessness meant the absence of sinning.
With these facts in mind, we recognize that Ellen White could write, if she chose to:
We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the sinful human nature of Christ.
As she used the words, that statement would be appropriate. It might appear singular to us, but it is our duty, as research workers, to let her speak to us in her own way, and not force our meanings onto her words. Thus we will avoid transgressing the additional hermeneutical principle that we must not force a writer to contradict herself. We must remember that the passage in question begins with the words:
In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.
Only moments later, the same hand and pen continued:
We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.
So it is clear that Ellen White believed in the perfect sinlessness of the sinful human nature assumed by Christ in His incarnation, a sinful nature in which there was never any sinning. The student should not overlook the fact that Ellen White used the suffixes -full and -ness in strict conformity to dictionary definitions. According to Webster's Handy Collegiate Dictionary -full means "a tendency toward" and -ness means "a state of being." Ellen White consistently applies sinful to Christ's nature, but not sinfulness.
9. He did not have the "propensities of sin." (Froom, emphasis his.)
We observe:
a. This excerpt is from the Baker letter, which is discussed elsewhere in this paper.
b. The word of is a derivative term, denoting origin or source; as tincture of merthiolate, spirit of ammonia, Claude of Turin , Ambrose of Milan, etc. "Propensities of sin" would therefore denote sin as the source of the propensities. A man may sin by getting drunk, and he will be likely to have a propensity of sin, a strong desire to do the same thing again. Christ never sinned, hence had no propensities of sin. This is altogether different from saying that Christ had no propensities to sin, which He might have inherited because of the sins of His ancestors. Although the words of and to are small words, they are loaded with meaning. To exchange one for the other in an expression like "propensities of sin" would bring about enormous changes in meaning.
c. A re-examination of the word study on Ellen White's uses of the terms passions and propensities will be helpful at this point. (See pp. 22-28.)
10. Christ was like Adam before the fall. "A pure sinless being, without a taint of sin upon Him." (Froom, emphasis his.)
We observe:
a. As Ellen White wrote the sentence, the subject is Adam, not Christ.
b. Webster's Super New School and Office Dictionary defines taint as follows:
Taint.
1. Corruption; disgrace. 2. Infection. 3. (Obsolete): A spot or stain. v.i. 1. To imbue or impregnate with anything noxious; infect. 2. To corrupt; v.i. 1. To become corrupted. 2. To become infected.
Remembering that the word of denotes origin or source, we are ready to quickly agree that there was no taint of sin either in Adam before his fall or in Christ at any time. This says something about sin, but it says nothing about the nature of either Adam or Christ. And Ellen White's intention in using the word "taint" is clearly revealed in this passage: (Christ) humbled Himself, in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but He did not take the taint of sin.[18]
11. He "could fall." (That was possible - otherwise temptation would not have been an actuality, only a farce.) (Froom)
We observe:
a. These two words are from the Baker letter.
b. Since all Adventists are agreed that it was possible for Christ to fall, this need not detain us.
c. This gives no support to the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall.
12. He "took ... human nature, and was tempted in all points" as human nature is tempted. (Froom)
We observe:
a. This excerpt is from the Baker letter.
b. It does not suggest that the human nature Christ assumed was sinless.
c. It is at least arguable that a sinless human nature could not be tempted in all points as human nature is (now) tempted.
13. But "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity." (Froom)
a. This is the most famous excerpt from the Baker letter, which is seen by Ellen White's interpreters as the absolute to which all of her other Christo logical statements must be subordinated.
b. We have seen in the word study on the use of passions and propensities in Ellen White's writings that she did not equate natural propensities with evil propensities, as her interpreters do.
c. The use of this sentence by her interpreters to prove that she did not believe that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man is possible only if
1. The word evil is read as natural; and
2. Her approximately 400 statements that Christ did come to the earth in the nature of fallen man are either ignored or subjected to violent and extremely artificial interpretations.
14. When "Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin." (Froom)
We observe:
a. This is disputed by no one.
b. It gives no support to the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall.
c. As it was written by Ellen White, the context was like this:
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. 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. He stood in the strength of his perfection before God. All the organs and faculties of his being were equally developed, and harmoniously balanced.
Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure. Here Christ overcame in the sinner's behalf, four thousand years after Adam turned his back upon the light of his home. Separated from the presence of God, the human family had been departing, every successive generation, farther from the original purity, wisdom, and knowledge which Adam possessed in 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 weakness of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.
Adam was surrounded with everything his heart could wish. Every want was supplied. There was no sin, and no signs of decay in glorious Eden. Angels of God conversed freely and lovingly with the holy pair. The happy songsters caroled forth their free, joyous songs of praise to their Creator. The peaceful beasts in happy innocence played about Adam and Eve, obedient to their word. Adam was in the perfection of manhood, the noblest of the Creator's work. He was in the image of God, but a little lower than the angels.
Christ as the Second Adam
In what contrast is the second Adam as He entered the gloomy wilderness to cope with Satan singlehanded! Since the Fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ's advent to the earth. And 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. He who knew no sin, became sin for us. He humiliated Himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that He might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him.
"For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings" (Heb. 2:10). [Heb. 5:9; 2:17, 18 quoted.]
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15.) (Emphasis mine)
The use of a line from this passage to support the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall is shocking.
15. Christ was "assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptation in Eden." (Froom)
We observe:
a. This excerpt is from the Baker letter.
b. It says nothing about the nature of either Adam or Christ.
16. So Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he (Adam) failed to endure." (Froom)
We observe:
a. This is from the same passage as number 14. The use made of it is equally shocking.
17. 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." (Froom)
We observe:
a. This excerpt is from the same passage as numbers 14 and 16. The use made of it is likewise shocking.
b. A new subtlety is introduced at this point by the use of the word nevertheless. By the context and the various discussions the reader is offered three choices of what it is alleged that Ellen White meant, but did not say:
1. These words refer only to the physical nature of Jesus. (or)
2. Christ accepted the infirmities of fallen man vicariously, but not actually. (or)
3. Christ actually had three natures: the nature of God, the nature of unfallen Adam, and the nature of fallen man.
We have found no hint in Ellen White's writings that she meant to say any of these things, nor that such thoughts had ever occured to her. This represents a grotesque effort on the part of Ellen White's interpreters to explain away the many statements of Ellen White that are not in harmony with their interpretations.
18. But "never, in any way, leave the slightest impression" that "a taint of, or, inclination to corruption rested upon Christ." (Froom)
We observe:
a. These two excerpts are from the Baker letter.
b. They are in a context in which Ellen White earnestly remonstrates with Baker that Christ never sinned. In her single letter to him she affirms that Christ never sinned a total of ten times. If counsel is given where counsel is needed, this would strongly indicate that Baker had become involved in the error of adoptionism, a view that Christ might have sinned in His early life, before He was adopted to be the Son of God. (See Appendix B.)
19. 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." (Froom)
We observe:
a. This, again is from the Baker letter.
b. The words "altogether human, such an one as ourselves," are almost literally the words used by some adoptionists to describe the nature of Christ before He was adopted to be the Son of God (See Appendix B.) There is no room for a divine nature in a Christ who is altogether human, such an one as ourselves. Ellen White often refers to Christ as the DivineHuman Saviour, but never as altogether human.
So our conclusion about the evidential value of each of these quotations to support the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before his fall is that they fall far short of making their case. Of the nineteen sentences, all of the statements point out facts that are accepted without question by persons on both sides of the discussion about the human nature assumed by Christ in His incarnation. Thus the weight of the argument must be carried by the interpretations, none of which can endure the light of investigation, and most of which are drawn from the Baker letter. Thus the entire structure crumbles at the slightest touch of the investigator's hand.
We must now consider a similar effort to persuade E. J. Waggoner to say that Christ came in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. The problem was that Waggoner, like Ellen White, had said precisely the opposite.
In 1901, at the General Conference Session, the Holy Flesh movement of Indiana was dealt with, and Waggoner, at an evening session, answered the following question:
Was that Holy thing born of the Virgin Mary born in sinful flesh, and did that flesh have the same evil tendencies to contend with that ours does?
Waggoner answered with a resounding yes to both questions, and challenged his hearers to make sure that they were truly out of the church of Rome.
Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know that ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary? ... God in Christ, 4000 years this side of creation, lived a perfect spotless life in sinful flesh.[19] (For more extended quotations from Waggoner's sermon, see pages 129-131.)[20]
In 1890 Waggoner had published a book called Christ and His Righteousness, in which we find these statements:
A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man, in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. ...
Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. ..."
Our blessed Saviour ... Himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man.
In 1897 Waggoner had said:
The Word was made perfect flesh in Adam, but in Christ was the Word made fallen flesh. Christ goes down to the bottom, and there is the Word flesh, sinful flesh.[22]
It would seem to be a rather formidable challenge to make this man testify that Christ came in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, but it was done, using methods similar to those used with the testimony of Ellen White.
The results may be seen in Movement of Destiny, p. 197. Small fragments of Waggoner's statements are given, and linked with the word vicariously, a word that Waggoner did not use and that could not, in any case, be properly applied to his message. (See p. 225) By a "Nevertheless" clause, the writer again falls back on the puzzling affirmation that Christ had both an unfallen and a deteriorated nature, in order to explain away some of Waggoner's statements. By this device, Waggoner, like Ellen White, is made to appear as a supporter of the doctrine that Christ came to earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam, a doctrine that both of them had in fact firmly rejected. The student will do well to carefully compare Waggoner's own message with the presentation on page 197 of the book Movement of Destiny. (See facsimile at the end of this chapter.)
In the same volume, on page 428, Dr. Froom dismisses the belief that Christ took the nature of fallen man as "an erroneous minority position," and goes on to say that Ellen White supports the "true position" that Christ took the nature of Adam before his fall. The student will wish to compare these allegations with the material provided in Section Three of this paper.
So the church now speaks with two voices, as the epoch of confusion is inaugurated. The same materials that were used in Ministry to support the idea that well-informed Adventists, (the majority,) had never believed that Christ took the fallen nature of man, were, as we have seen, reprinted in Questions On Doctrine, Movement of Destiny, and volume 7A of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. An entire generation of Adventist church workers has grown up believing that this is the whole truth of the matter. It is to be earnestly hoped that this report will encourage such workers to take another, closer look at the situation.
It is assumed that the student will not wish to proceed very much further before examining the materials in the above-mentioned volumes. Since these are standard works that are readily accessible in most Seventh-day Adventist school libraries, it is hoped that the student will avail himself of the opportunity to study them carefully. Their chief characteristics will be found to be:
1. They pay little heed to the record of history regarding the consensus of Christological beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. While it is true that attempts are made to fit the statements of Ellen White and E. J. Waggoner into the framework of Calvinistic Christological beliefs, the testimony of the host of other witnesses, which included General Conference presidents, vice-presidents and secretaries, Union presidents, Review and Herald editors, Signs of the Times editors, and many others, is simply ignored.
2. The violence with which the testimonies of White and Waggoner are wrested from their context and the apparent intention of the writers, and forced into the structure of Calvinistic Christology, is awe inspiring. It would appear to have made no difference at all what the writers actually said. It would be difficult to imagine what kind of a Christological statement might have been made that would have been able to withstand the pressure of such forceful methods. Consider, for example, the statement of Ellen White on page 49 of The Desire of Ages:
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. (Emphasis mine.)
If these words can mean that Christ came in the nature of the unfallen Adam, then we may as well lay aside all attempts to express belief in words, because any words can mean anything, which leads us to the next problem:
3. The curious and often employed dialectical device (is it after Schliermacher?) by which it is proposed that Seventh-day Adventists believe that the incarnate Christ had a nature that was both fallen and unfallen must be considered. The student will observe that the pattern was set by the statement of F. D. Nichol in the Review and Herald of July 10, 1952:
Adventists believe that Christ, the "last Adam," possessed, on His human side, a nature like that of the "first man Adam," ... and that that nature was handicapped by the debilitating effects of four thousand years of sin's inroads on man's body and nervous system."
Following this pattern, Froom typically sets forth a series of statements intended to prove that Christ came in the nature of the unfallen Adam, then introduces the word Nevertheless, and follows it with some of the statements made by Ellen White or E. J. Waggoner that Christ came in the nature of fallen man.[23] Seventh-day Adventist Christology is thereby represented as containing an incongruous and illogical impossibility, that a human nature can be at the same time both fallen and unfallen.
If it is possible to hold to both of these mutually exclusive propositions at the same time, then many other similar possibilities in the use of words are suggested:
The sun is hot (and, nevertheless) it is also cold.
The earth is round (and, nevertheless) it is also flat.
The accused is guilty (and, nevertheless) he is also not guilty.
The mind may be intrigued by the practical advantages inherent in some of these possibilities. If a bill may be properly described as being at the same time both paid and unpaid, or a man both married and unmarried, some might be inclined to see practical advantages in this arrangement. But it is apparent that such an unlimited extension in the meaning of words would make reality impossible to ascertain, and truth impossible to express or define in words. Some other means of expressing truth would have to be found.
We must remind ourselves at this point that the statements of White and Waggoner, taken by themselves, contain no such conundrums. They consistently and clearly express the conviction of their authors that our Saviour came to earth in the nature of fallen man, because this was required by the circumstances of His mission. Let us remember also that the much-abused Baker letter, which is discussed elsewhere in this volume, does not say that Christ came in the nature of the unfallen Adam, but is interpreted to mean that. The result of this interpretation has been to cause some, both inside and outside our church, to conclude that Ellen White contradicted herself, a conclusion that is by no means required by the evidence. The contradictions are the work of her interpreters, not the work of Ellen White.
Meanwhile, however, the task of revising our history in order to make it conform to the new Christology was pursued with vigor. The passage in Bible Readings was revised to conform to the new opinions. W. H. Branson's Drama of the Ages, which in its 1950 edition said that Christ took "man's sinful nature," was changed in the 1953 edition to read "man's actual nature." (Compare page 89 in the two editions.) In 1952 F. D. Nichol produced a book, Answers to Objections, in which he took the same position as in the editorial already discussed, the opposite of the position taken in an earlier book by another (associate) editor. (See page 150.)[24]
M. L. Andreason, in his Letters to the Churches, alleges that the White Estate officers were actually approached with the suggestion that some carefully worded footnotes be added to Ellen White's books in order to make sure that readers understood them "correctly."[25] As of now this report has not been confirmed by the White Estate office, nor, so far as I know, has it been denied.
Andreason lost his ministerial credentials over this matter, although it is my understanding they were later restored. Others who early protested against these new developments, and were disciplined in various ways, were William Grotheer, Donald Short, and Robert Wieland.
Within recent years two Sabbath School quarterlies have taken opposite views regarding the humanity of Christ. Adventist people around the world are caught up in the discussion, whether they will or no. Adventist workers are therefore faced with the necessity of being knowledgeable about the subject. With the publication of the bound volumes of Ellen White articles in the Review and the Signs, the most important primary evidence is within reach of all Adventist church members. There can be little hope that this question will go away, because it has too many ramifications. We will consider these in chapter 21.
An Analysis of Evidence (P. 265)
E. J. Waggoner Message at Minneapolis--No. 1--197
... of the incarnation" and the "resurrection," Waggoner says that we accept these "as true" by faith because "God has revealed" them, and "we delight in the infinite power and glory which the Scriptures declare belong to Christ. " Waggoner repeats again for emphasis, concerning Christ's witness with the Father, that-- being by nature of the very substance of God, and having life in Himself, He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One." (P. 23)
He is thus styled" in Jeremiah 23:56, where He is "known by the name of Jehovah-tsidekenu [sic]--Tke Lord, Our Righteousness." He is not to be given "less honor" than that accorded the Father. Waggoner now turns to Christ's "humiliation" during the Incarnation.
12. Became Flesh to Bear Our Sins and Redeem.--The next logical step is set forth in section 5 ("God Manifest in the Flesh"). Waggoner quotes John 1:14 as affirming that in the Incarnation "Christ was both God and man. Originally only Divine, He took upon Himself human nature." (P. 24) He lived on earth as a "mortal" man-- capable of dying--having taken the form of a servant, yet all the while "having all the attributes of God, being the Ruler of the universe, and the One whom all Heaven delighted to honor."
Divesting Himself of these powers, He "took upon Himself the nature of man, in order that He might redeem him." (P. 25) To accomplish this He became obedient "even to the death of the cross." The transcendence of it all is unfathomable truth, beyond the "human understanding" of "finite minds." (P. 26)
As to His humanity, Christ came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom 8:3, 4). God "laid on Him the iniquity of us all." He "took" all the "weaknesses" of man, and "suffered all the infirmities" of man. (Pp. 26, 27) More than that, he was actually "made"--vicariously--to "be sin for us, "that we" might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21). On this Waggoner comments :
"Here is the same mystery as that the Son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of Cod, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. He [sic] was made to be sin in order that we [sic] might be made righteousness." (Pp. 27, 28)
Such was the exchange--our sins for His righteousness.
13. Maintained Spotless Sinlessness on Earth.--Citing Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15, 16, Waggoner declares that, though Christ knew no sin, He nevertheless volontarily descended to the "level of sinful man" that ...
Christ and His Righteousness (P. 26)
... in the Bible concerning the nature of Christ, let him remember that it would be impossible to express it in terms that would enable finite minds to grasp it fully. Just as the grafting of the Gentiles into the stock of Israel is contrary to nature, so much of the Divine economy is a paradox to human understanding.
Other scriptures that we will quote bring closer to us the fact of the humanity of Christ, and what it means for us. We have already read that "the Word was made flesh," and now we will read what Paul says concerning the nature of that flesh: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8:3, 4)
A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man, in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden; and it could not have had any power over Christ, if the Lord had not laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Ps. 51:5)
The following statement in the book of Hebrews is very clear on this point:--
"For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. ["For verily not of angels doth He take hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham." Revised Version.] Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." (Heb. 16:18) If He was made in all things like unto His brethren, then He must have suffered all the infirmities, and been subject to all the temptations, of His brethren. Two more texts that put this matter very forcibly will be sufficient evidence on this point. We first quote: 2 Cor. 5:21:--
"For He [God] hath made Him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."
This is much stronger than the statement that He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." He was made to be sin. Here is the same mystery as that the Son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon Himself sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made righteousness. So Paul says to the Galatians that "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal. 4:4, 5)
"In that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." "For we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. 2:18; 4:15, 16)
One more point, and then we can learn the entire lesson that we should learn from the fact that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." How was it that Christ could be thus "compassed with infirmity" (Heb. 5:2), and still know no sin? Some may have thought, while reading thus far, that we were depreciating the character of Jesus, by bringing him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the "Divine power" of our blessed Saviour, who Himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man, in order that He might exalt man to His own spotless purity, which He retained under the most adverse circumstances. His humanity only veiled His Divine nature, by which He was inseparably connected with the invisible God, and which was more than able successfully to resist the weaknesses of the flesh. There was in His whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness, would tend to sin, yet His Divine nature never for a moment harbored an evil desire, nor did His Divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that men can possibly suffer, He returned to the throne of the Father as spotless as when He left the courts of glory. When He lay in the tomb, under the power of death, "it was impossible that He should be holden of it," because He "knew no sin."
But someone will say, "I don't see any comfort in this for me. To be sure, I have an example, but I can't follow it, for I haven't the power that Christ had. He was God even while here on earth; I am but a man." Yes, but you may have the same power that He had if you want it. He was "compassed with infirmity," yet He "did no sin," because of the Divine power constantly dwelling within Him. Now listen to the inspired words of the apostle Paul, and learn what it is our privilege to have:--
"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God." (Eph. 3:14-19)
Who could ask for more? Christ, in whom ...
Notes:
- ST 6/09/98, and also Selected Messages, 1: 252-256
- ST 12/20/99
- ST 11/06/01
- ST 12/09/03
- RH 6/15/05
- ST 8/07/79
- YI 6/02/98
- RH 2/24/74
- ST 5/27/97, p. 325, col. 3
- ST 5/29/01
- ST 6/09/98
- YI 4/25/01
- Ms. 143, 1897
- ST 7/23/02
- See also AA 562
- BE 4/05/97
- ST 5/29/01, p. 339, col. 2, BV 182
- Ms. 1, 1893, p. 3
- General Conference Bulletin, 1901, p. 403
- For earlier testimony of Waggoner, see pages 48-49
- pp. 26-29
- General Conference Bulletin, No. 5, p. 27
- See Movement of Destiny, pp. 197 and 497
- Nichol, Answers to Objections, pages 393
- Published at Leaves of Autumn Books, Payson, Arizona, 1982