We have seen that there have been approximately 1200 statements that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man that were found in the books, magazine articles, and unpublished manuscripts written by Ellen White and by other Seventh-day Adventist authors during the years 1852-1952. We have also observed that these authors constituted Adventism's first line of leadership. They included General Conference presidents White, Daniells, Spicer, Watson, McElhany and Branson. They included six of the seven Review editors who served during those years, and five of the six Signs editors.
They included all the editors of the Bible Echo during the years 1886-1904 and many writers who contributed to the Australasian Signs of the Times. They included a galaxy of General Conference vice-presidents, Division presidents, and departmental chairmen; Union presidents, Conference presidents, College presidents, College Bible teachers, and pioneer missionaries.
Against this background of fully documented information we must evaluate the claims made by the interpreters of Seventh-day Adventist history in general and of the writings of Ellen White in particular, and published in Ministry, Questions on Doctrine, Movement of Destiny, etc. that:
Claim no. 1. Only a poorly-informed minority of Seventh-day Adventists had ever believed that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man, and the better-informed majority had always believed that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.
We observe:
a. It is startling to hear Adventism's first line of leadership described as a poorly-informed minority. We suspect that they might have protested against this classification.
b. We are not told who were the members of the better-informed majority, and how their views have been ascertained. We search the pages of Seventh-day Adventist publications in vain for any trace of either their names or their opinions. Where may we go to learn about these people and about their relationship to the Church? Where may we find the record of their lives, their work, and their Christo logical views? Why have they so mysteriously vanished from the pages of that history where-in they allegedly played the dominant role? We are still awaiting the answers to these questions. No documentation has been offered.
Claim no. 2. The writings of Ellen White, properly read and understood, taught clearly that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.
We observe:
a. According to this definition, the record does not reveal that the writings of Ellen White were properly read and understood by anyone, either within the Adventist church or outside the church in the 100 year period under study. Without a single exception, insofar as we have been able to discover, both her friends and her critics understood her writings to mean that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man.[1]
b. The record is also silent in regard to any attempt by Ellen White to clear up so grievous a misunderstanding, although she taught and wrote on the subject for 57 years, from 1858 until her death in 1915. If all of her readers had so consistently and continuously misunderstood her, would she not have tried to do something about it, rather than to continue to publish the same expressions that had created the original mis-understanding?
Claim no. 3. The references Ellen White had made to Christ coming to earth in the human nature of fallen man (a) were few in number, and (b) were Uncounter-balanced" by statements that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam that were to be found in many places."[2]
a. We are presently aware of approximately four hundred statements by Ellen White to the effect that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man. This is rather more than a few.
b. We have yet to find our first uncounter-balancing" statement affirming otherwise . Without a single exception the u counter-balancing statements" have proven to be interpretations rather than statements, wherein Ellen White's words that say something else are interpreted to mean that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. Thus the product fails to live up to its advertising.
Claim no. 4. These few and "counter-balanced" statements should be understood to mean that, (a) Christ took the weaknesses and infirmities of fallen man, not actually, but vicariously; and (b) that He took the human nature of fallen man only in the "physical" sense, and not in the "theological" sense.[3] Thus Ellen White meant to say that only the physical nature of fallen man was assumed by Christ.
We observe:
a. We are left to wonder what other nature of Christ was thereby exempted from the influences that affected His physical nature. It is never defined or described. Was it His soul as distinct from His body? Such body-soul dualism was firmly rejected by Ellen White and other Adventist writers in their discussions of the nature of man.
Was it His spiritual nature as distinct from His physical nature? If so, how was He tempted in all things even as we are? Did He experience temptations of the flesh, but not of the spirit, such as envy, anger, pride, etc.?
Or, did He actually have three natures: (1) the nature of God, (2) the nature of the unfallen Adam, and (3) the nature of fallen man? This is never clearly explained.
b. We are left to wonder what Ellen White meant when she wrote: (All emphasis mine.)
Like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity.[4]
(Christ) came saying, No principle of human nature will I violate.[5]
It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man.[6]
He was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.[7]
He was made like unto His brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical.[8]
His human nature was ... identical to our own.[9]
We are caused to reflect upon her frequent use of the word all in describing the human nature that Christ assumed:
All our infirmities.[10]
All the difficulties.[11]
All our experiences.[12]
All its possibilities.[13]
All the temptations.[14]
All points except sin.[15]
All its attendant ills.[16]
All that pertains to human life.[17]
In all things like His brethren.[18]
In all points like unto His brethren.[19]
And one of the most thought-provoking statements:
Just that which you may be, He was in human nature.[20]
As for the misuse of the word vicarious to describe something that is done in pretense, but not in actual fact, see comments on page 225.
* * *
In 1983 I conducted evening services for the public and day-time classes for ministers in a large auditorium in Jakarta, Indonesia. The bus trip from my living quarters to the meeting place was made each morning in the company of some college students from the United States who were teaching English classes in the same building.
One morning a young lady sat beside me and asked if she could question me about something that was troubling her. She had heard me say, in an evening service, that our Saviour had come to the earth in the human nature of fallen man, whereas her college Bible teacher had taught her that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.
I suggested that possibly her teacher had taken some of the same seminary courses that I had taken and explained that it was my own research after leaving the seminary that had been the basis of my statement. I happened to have a partially finished manuscript with me so I suggested that she look it over and draw her own conclusions.
Sometime later she sat beside me again, and asked me to look at a letter she had received from her mother. She had written to her mother about the quotations she had seen in my manuscript, and her mother, after looking at Questions On Doctrine, had replied:
We just have to recognize that Ellen White contradicted herself.
This is a sampling of the tragic loss of confidence in the message brought to the Adventist people by Ellen White that has resulted from the work of her interpreters. They have set Ellen White against Ellen White, firmly insisting that she meant something that she never wrote , and not hesitating to wrap her words in their own words in order to reinforce this claim. Thus Ellen White's writings are made to appear something altogether different from the simple, clear, consistent testimony that they actually were, and are put together in such a way as to form a quagmire of confusing and contradictory statements that could apparently be understood only by those with sufficiently superior intelligence and theological perception to be able to appreciate their mysterious character and decipher their hidden meanings.
Some, like Walter Martin, concluded that she contradicted herself, yet accepted the representation of her interpreters that she really believed that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. Others, like Norman Douty,[21] concluded that she contradicted herself and rejected the representations of her interpreters. Apparently no one cared enough to examine the primary sources in order to ascertain what she had actually written.
Still others have concluded that by making careful choices one could prove anything that one desired to prove about the human nature of Christ from the writings of Ellen White . This was apparently the view of the Adventist theologian who examined a portion of this manuscript, then wrote to me that he felt that I had been very "selective" in my choice of quotations. This would seem to imply that by being equally selective in making other choices of quotations one could prove other than my conclusions.[22] So confidence in her message has given way to doubt and uncertainty.
Seldom in the history of the Christian faith has any religious writer suffered so greatly at the hands of her interpreters. By their work a testimony that was uncommonly clear, consistent, and undeviating over a period of 57 years of continually being re-stated and re-published was made to appear as similar to the wandering and convoluting thoughts of some modern theologians, uncertain as to meaning and open to many different interpretations.
We are reminded of an earlier occasion when some Adventist leaders were moved to set themselves up as interpreters of her writings. Ellen White declined their services with thanks.
There are some who think they are able to measure the character and to estimate the importance of the work the Lord has given me to do. Their own mind and judgment is the standard by which they would weigh the testimonies.
My Instructor said to me, Tell these men that God has not committed to them the work of measuring, classifying, and defining the character of the testimonies. Those who attempt this are sure to err in their conclusions. The Lord would have men adhere to their appointed work. If they will keep the way of the Lord, they will be able to discern clearly that the work which He has appointed me to do is not a work of human devising.[23]
I wish to here state, with emphasis, that in all of my research on this topic in Ellen White's writings I have found: