The "white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed" is said to be a "spotless character made pure in the blood of their dear Redeemer" (3T 254). "the righteousness of Christ" (5T 233) or "the robe of Christ’s righteousness" (ML 311). Ellen White made frequent applications of it to the 1888 "message of Christ’s righteousness". John himself says it is "the righteousness of saints" (Rev. 19:8), obviously not their own for they have none, but Christ’s at last fully imparted to them, not merely imputed in a strictly and exclusively legal sense.
Had there been no "presentation of the righteousness of Christ in the relation to the law as the doctor [Waggoner] has placed it before us [in 1888] (cf. Ms. 15, 1888) the Seventh-day Adventist ministry and church would have been embarrassingly "naked’. We had preached the law until we were as "dry as the hills of Gilboa". On the stage in view of the universe of God, we were assuming that we were proclaiming the "everlasting gospel" to the world when we did not even understand "the third angel’s message in verity". The 1888 message was to invest "the Advent message" with precious content and the church with precious experience that would truly remove cause for "shame".
Was our nakedness clothed at that time? Or are we still naked? Is "Christ’s righteousness" now a meaningful concept to us? Is it a cliché, words that mask a void? Has His "wife … made herself ready"? Does she know Christ so well that she is at last fitted to be His mate? If not, then she is not yet "clothed".
Is her knowledge of His righteousness as superficial as that of the "seven women" who take hold of Him and seek to be called by His name, who can never become His true Bride (cf. Isa. 4:1-4)? Christ was not a mere shibboleth to the 1888 messengers. They did not mouth His name and sprinkle their messages with histrionic, emotional presentations calculated to impress. They had a distinct, objective view of Christ that was communicable in terms of doctrinal truth. They saw something that apparently none of their contemporary brethren had ever seen. This is clearly evident from what Ellen White said:
I see the beauty of truth in the presentation of the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law as the doctor [Waggoner] has placed it before us. You say, many of you, it is light and truth. Yet you have not presented it in this light heretofore. … If our ministering brethren would accept the doctrine which has been presented so clearly -the righteousness of Christ in connection with the law — and I know they need to accept this, their prejudices would not have a controlling power, and the people would be fed with their portion of meat in due season. (MS 15. 1888, Olson, Through Crisis to Victory, p. 295).
When Brother Waggoner brought out these ideas at Minneapolis. it was the first clear teaching on this subject from any human lips I had heard, excepting the conversations between myself and my husband. (MS 5, 1889).
The unique message these brethren brought at that time was given a special name — "the doctrine … of the righteousness of Christ in connection with the law". It was a recognition that Christ’s righteousness was that of a true divine human being who "condemned sin in the flesh", having been sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3). This was the focal point of their message, its dominant theme that gave it a practical keynote. Without this "big idea" their message would have been powerless. The character Christ developed we can develop, if we only have His faith. In other words, righteousness is by faith!
Both messengers specifically denied that Christ came in the nature of Adam before the fall (cf.. Waggoner, Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 26-30; Jones, The Consecrated Way, pp. 21-44 together with the General Conference Bulletin, 1895, pp. 232-234, 265-270). They specifically stated that He "took’ the nature of man after the Fall, and in the most explicit, emphatic way affirmed a view of Christ entirely different from that which is ordinarily and widely proclaimed today. (There are of course some exceptions here and there, and in very recent years some publications have begun to present the 1888 view of Christ’s righteousness). If our current popular view of "Christ’s righteousness" is true, then the basic heart of Jones’ and Waggoner’s message was positively wrong, and Ellen White was wrong to endorse it as she did.
Earnest efforts are made to gather statements from Ellen White that seem to affirm that she opposed the view of Jones and Waggoner. These are pitted against numerous statements that support Jones’ and Waggoner’s view. The net result is confusion. It appears to this day that no theologian has arisen who is able to reconcile the apparently contradictory nature of these two sets of statements. Wherever the subject is discussed, one set of statements is invariably used to cancel out the other. But Ellen White would be a false messenger if she so contradicted herself!
None of us will be able to understand these apparently irreconcilable statements until we study them in their true context, the 1888 message brought by Jones and Waggoner. "Letters have been coming to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations" (Morning Talk Jan. 29, 1890, R&H, Feb. 18, 1890; 1 SM 408). It is very obvious that these letters were criticisms from the field regarding Jones’ and Waggoner’s presentation of the "message of Christ’s righteousness". How can we understand her comments on the letters unless we understand the controverted message? Though the letters are probably unavailable, we still have access in the archives to the important thing — what Ellen White endorsed as the "beginning" of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry.
It can be questioned if this generation has seen such powerful presentations of "Christ’s righteousness in relation to the law" as in the 1895 Bulletin and in Jones’ The Consecrated Way. Never has the Book of Psalms been so revealed as the most Christ-centered book of the Bible as it is in those studies. Had it not been for the non-committal attitude and opposition of a great proportion of our brethren in the 1890’s, "the revelation of Christ’s righteousness" in these messages would have wrought a miracle in those days, and the church would have been clothed with "white raiment" as she went forth to proclaim the Loud Cry to the world. Christ would have been vindicated in His people as they demonstrated in their sinful flesh the faithful reflection of what He demonstrated in "the likeness of sinful flesh" when He was on earth. Having seen Jesus clearly revealed, they would have received "the faith of Jesus". Christ and His righteousness have not yet been clearly seen.
Another view has replaced the 1888 message of Christ’s righteousness: Christ had to take the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall, and therefore it is not possible for His perfect character to be manifested in our sinful flesh. This view is virtually identical to that held by those who observe Sunday and hold to the natural immortality of the soul. None of the "popular ministry" has any clear concept of "Christ’s righteousness", although a sincere effort to grasp it may be detected in such writers as Reinhold Niebuhr, C.S. Lewis, and some others. But no church or movement holds to the unique view that God gave to Seventh-day Adventists in 1888. We still have the field clear!
"What difference does it make?" is the question many ask. Only a legalistic frame of mind could ask such a question. The concept of "Christ’s righteousness" is meaningless to those motivated by an egocentric concern, except as a legalistic, judicial maneuver to cover up our continued unrighteousness. The emphasis on legally "imputed righteousness" has become so heavy that for the average Christian there remains no foreseeable possibility that he can ever become truly like Christ in character.
Such concepts make an actual preparation for Christ’s coming and translation seem to be an experience so visionary and remote as to belong in the next century or beyond.
The following quotation is often pressed into service to support the heavy emphasis on legally imputed righteousness. The first sentence is emphasized and the context slighted. Note carefully that this statement is not an oblique rebuke of the 1888 messengers — Ellen White firmly supported their message at this time. She is referring to the "popular ministry’s" counterfeit teaching on "righteousness by faith", and her true emphasis on imparted righteousness:
When it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man’s best service, and He makes up for the deficiency with His own divine merit But He will not accept those who claim to have faith in Him, and yet are disloyal to His father’s commandment. We hear a great deal about faith, but we need to hear a great deal more about works. Many are deceiving their own souls by living an easy-going, accommodating, crossless religion. But Jesus says, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself. and take up his cross and follow Me". (ST, June 16, 1890; 1 SM 382).
But this is commonly interpreted to mean, "if you say you love the Lord, ‘it is in the heart to obey God’, so just try a little to be good. You can’t obey the commandments, and the Lord knows it, so He’ll be satisfied and ‘make up’ for it all ‘with His own divine merit’".
Take the problems of sex, for example. While promiscuity, infidelity, and divorce make frightening inroads into the church, most of our well-intentioned ministers continue to hold to a view that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall, and by implication therefore He could not possibly have been tempted to fornication or adultery. Adam certainly was not so tempted! The official view taught in Questions on Doctrine is that Christ "was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam" (p. 383). This is a rather confused statement, for it implies a contradiction of both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy. The authors could have made it only because of ignorance or disregard of the 1888 concept of Christ’s righteousness.
Christ was not "exempt" from anything. Heaven forbid! The only reason He did not sin was that he chose not to sin, not because of any advantaged "exemption" that made temptation less tempting to Him than to us. He chose not to sin because He knew how to die to self and demonstrated it by dying on His cross. Thus he "condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3) including sexual sin, which He was as much tempted to "in the flesh" as anybody else. He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). If we deny this, there is no message of Christ’s righteousness, for Christ’s righteousness would be meaningless apart from the context of inheriting the "likeness of sinful flesh" that any son or daughter of Adam receives.
But many don’t understand this. Ignorance of this truth severs their bond of union and sympathy with Christ. This is why thousands have nothing to hold them in their hours of temptation and Christ is openly humiliated by a remnant church that offers no appreciably higher moral excellence than do the churches that hold to those "poisonous drafts of Babylon".
One needs only to wrestle with the problems found in mission fields or of a modern city church to realize that we are desperately "naked’ in this area of "righteousness", Our True Witness says, "I counsel thee to buy of Me. . . white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear" (Rev. 3: 18). We are not counseled to "buy" it of "the popular ministry", but of Him. How can we "buy" of Him? The following gives a clue:
The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. … It invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ, which is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. … This is the message that God commanded to be given to the world. (TM 91, 92).
Note the source of the message: "The Lord … sent". How better could we "buy" of Him except to surrender our false concepts and humbly accept the "message of Christ’s righteousness" that he sent to this people, but which is not understood today?
It is "the angel of the church" who is so counseled. It is not enough for us to stand idly by maintaining a neutral stance in a time of crisis. We are to "buy" of Him — actually receive. The message should be widely proclaimed by every means available, in our books, our periodicals, our youth magazines, proclaimed over the radio and TV, and taught in our institutions of learning, as well as Sabbath by Sabbath in our pulpits. The mere issuance of a few booklets containing the message will not suffice. In the 1888 decade, the messengers were permitted the opportunity of pro-claiming the message themselves in various ways available to them. But the movement failed because the ministry as a whole did not wholeheartedly throw themselves into the glorious proclamation of the message. Aside from Ellen White, the very best support the messengers were given was half-hearted. (One prominent historian recognizes that when the dark decade of the 1890’s turned into the 20th century, no effective messenger among us other than Ellen White was proclaiming the message. (cf. Norval Pease, By Faith Alone, p. 164).
Certainly a neutral stance today would be an improvement over outright opposition. But that would not answer the call of the True Witness. Neutrality will never ensure the finishing of Gods work in this generation. We must do better than the Persian government in the days of Queen Esther who stood neutrally and merely permitted the Jews to defend themselves. We have no illusions regarding our previous attitudes being infallible as the Medes and Persians considered their decrees that could never be altered. The time has come now to support the truth wholeheartedly.
Let the "tidings of Christ’s righteousness" permeate the church worldwide. Let the truth go to work And let our modern methods of communication be fully employed in proclaiming what Ellen White said is "a most precious message" which "the Lord in His great mercy sent", "just what the people needed".
Only then could it honestly be said that we did our best to obey our Lord so that we could confidently expect He would answer our prayers for revival and reformation in preparation for the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry.
Our Lord utters another sentence when He proposes a third remedy: "And anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see" (Rev. 3: 18).
The eyesalve is to enable us to:
"Detect sin under any guise" (4T88).
"Discern necessities of the time" (CT 42).
"Distinguish between truth and error" (ML 73).
"See and shun Satan’s wiles" (5T 233).
In this context our blindness is seen to be another term for being spiritually unconscious. The "eyesalve" is that which will bring unconscious sin to consciousness. "The message of the True Witness finds the people of God in a sad deception, yet honest in that deception" (3T 253).
If we will remember that the underlying sin of all humanity is participation in the crucifixion of the Son of God (cf. Rom. 3:19; DA 745; TM 38) we are prepared to see that the realization of this sin is buried beneath the surface for the simple reason that fallen men do not accept this conviction (ouk edokimasan, Rom. 1:28). And among the professed people of God in these last days there is much confusion about the nature and depth of their sin. "Thou knowest not."
Born of a virgin, Christ did not have the barrier of unconsciousness as we do. Knowing no guilt, He had nothing to repress or "sweep under the rug" as we do. What all men know unconsciously in repression, Christ knew consciously. John spoke of this miracle of the Saviour’s inheritance of our true nature and His knowledge of it: "Jesus did not commit Himself unto them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any man should testify of man: for He knew what was in man" (John 2:24, 25).
We are prevented from a full knowledge of our sin because the guilt would kill us. But God "bath made him [Christ] to be sin for us who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). (This is surely the opposite of an "exemption"!) Thus John told the truth when he said, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29). It is written that in a unique sense Christ "hated iniquity" (Heb. 1:18). But he could not hate iniquity if He did not understand it. Paul’s inspired insight presupposes for Christ a full knowledge of man’s unknown mind. Only thus could He understand and bear our iniquity. The "eyesalve" is original with Christ.
If the "angel of the church of the Laodiceans" will receive the "eyesalve" from Christ and use it, he will discern the full truth about himself and about the Saviour. Not only will he gain a full knowledge of his sin, but also a full or complete or "final" atonement for all the sin which is now unknown. The Laodicean message assumes success: "I stand at the door and knock … I will come in to him, and will sup with him and he with Me". (Verse 20). This is closer intimacy with Christ than has been known by any of the previous six churches. Will the ministry of the High Priest in the Most Holy Apartment ensure this ultimate success? Will Gods people at last truly become like Christ in character? The answer is an unqualified "yes":
Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us. we should seek to become perfect in Christ. Not even by a thought could our Saviour be brought to yield to the power of temptation. Satan finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some sinful desire is cherished by means of which his temptations assert their power. But Christ declared of Himself: " … the Prince of this world cometh. and hath nothing in Me". (John 14:30) Satan could find nothing in the Son of God that would enable him to gain the victory. He had kept His Fathers commandments. and there was no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of trouble. (GC 623. emphasis added).
For the first time in history, Laodicea as a corporate body perceives the full dimensions of Calvary in relation to the full dimensions of their own sin. Such a vision would truly annihilate them if they did not "behold Him whom they have pierced’ (Zech. 12:l0). But they confess and transfer to Christ the now fully conscious conviction of sin and guilt. The "final atonement" solves the conflict in the depths of the heart and guilt is reversed and annihilated. While the saints will still possess a sinful nature and are humble and contrite, sinning comes to an end.
At last the Lamb finds a "wife" who can appreciate Him. His experience of Calvary was the full drinking of the bitter cup of our human guilt. Now His Bride has come to understand and appreciate what He did. Nothing more is required. This at last is "faith" and the result is "righteousness" in harmony with the cleansing of the sanctuary. Is this not the end purpose of the Laodicean message?