Foreword

For the last several decades the human nature of Christ has been the subject of intense study in some scholarly Seventh-day Adventist circles. The publication of Questions on Doctrine (1957) set the stage for almost three decades of as yet unresolved debate, witnessed most recently in the two opposing views published side by side in the June 1985 issue of Ministry magazine.

Dr. Ralph S. Larson, for several years Coordinator of the Church and Ministry Department of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Far East, enters the debate with The Word Was Made Flesh, with a limited, rather specialized objective. Dr. Larson does not deal directly with the whole issue of Christ's human nature. He traces the understanding of this aspect of Christology within the Seventh-day Adventist Church from 1852 until 1952.

Dr. Larson provides here a fairly comprehensive survey of the historical evidence, and his contribution to the study of this important topic is extremely valuable. Whether we agree or not with his conclusions, we are all indebted to him for the painstaking work of assembling this extensive compilation of statements made in writing by Seventh-day Adventists for one hundred years.

For some readers, careful reading of The Word Was Made Flesh may not provide all the definitive answers sought. However, it will surely prove to be for all a most enriching and stimulating experience.

Werner Vyhmeister
President
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Far EastChapter 1

What Was Made Flesh?

Was It Logos or Dabar?

The New Testament was, of course, written in Greek, and the Apostle John wrote his gospel in that language. In doing so he used a Greek term logos which has occasioned much discussion.

In the beginning was the Word (logos). ... The Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God. (John 1:1, 2)

And the Word (logos) was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (verse 14)

So what is the problem? Would we not expect John to use a Greek term, since He is writing in the Greek language?

Granted. But the term logos in Greek is very heavily loaded with cultural implications.

Logos, as a technical term, seems to have originated with the Stoics, who used it to denote Divine Wisdom as the integrating force of the universe.[1]

This has led some scholars to conclude that John had been strongly influenced by Greek thought and philosophy, so that he was writing that it was the Greek logos who had come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. (The student will find a comprehensive survey of Greek thought about the logos in Kittel's Theological Dictionary.)[2]

Other scholars, however, have pointed out that while Greek readers of John's gospel might have appreciated his recognition of the worthiness of the logos, they would have been affronted by his statement in verse 14:

And the Word (logos) became flesh.

To the Greek mind, inbued with the dualism of the philosophers, such a transformation would be unthinkable, since logos is spiritual, therefore good, and flesh is physical, therefore intrinsically vile, corrupt, and evil. This is the background of the "good soul in a vile body" dualism of medieval Christian theology, the immortal soul concept, etc.

To the Greek mind, the statement "The logos became flesh," would be approximately equal to saying, "The good became evil"

There is another possibility. There was no need for John to reach out of Hebrew culture for the concept of a disembodied, fleshless word, that might introduce a significant and meaningful change by becoming flesh.

At the very heart of Hebrew culture and tradition was the mercy seat, in the most holy place of the sanctuary, overshadowed by the wings of the cherubim, whence issued forth bright rays of the glory of God, and from where was heard on supremely important occasions the audible word, the dabar (root form), that gave counsel and guidance to Israel.

The term dabar, first used to describe the disembodied word, eventually came to be used in reference to the place from which the word was heard - the holy Shekinah. The King James translators, struggling to carry this concept over into English, invoked the word oracle as a translation of (root form) dabar:

And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God. (2 Sam. 16:23)

And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims. (1 Kings 8:6)

Hear the voice of my supplications, when I cry unto thee, when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle. (Ps. 28:2)

(See also 1 Kings 6:5, 16, 19, 20-23; and 2 Chronicles 4:20.)

To re-read all of these scriptures, using the term word in each place where the term oracle appears, will provide a sense of the depth of meaning of the term word to the Hebrew mind. It was that divine, beneficent word that was heard from the place where no body, no flesh was seen, the holy Shekinah, the most revered place in all Israel. How deeply meaningful to the Israelite, then--the Jew of John's time, to hear his gospel read:

In the beginning was the Word.

(Of course. We know.)

And the Word was with God.

(Yes, yes. We know.)

And the Word was God.

(Undoubtedly. We understand.)

And the Word was made flesh.

(What? Do you really mean it? Can it really be true? Has that glorious, loving, and guiding word, the Shekinah presence, actually become flesh? Is that who Jesus is? Glory to God!)

So we may safely lay aside Greek philosophy in both of its dimensions. Our Lord Jesus Christ is not logos; He is dabar. And the flesh that humanity bears, and that Jesus assumed, does not carry the burden of intrinsic corruption and vileness ascribed to it by Greek philosophy. We are not Hellenists; we are Christians.

The flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.[3]

Notes: 

1. SDABC, 5:894
2. Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IV, pp. 69-137
3. Ellen White, The Adventist Home, p. 127Chapter 2

The Circumstances of the Search

In the spring of 1983 the graduating class of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Far East requested that I conduct a special church service for them. Sabbath School lessons dealing with the subject of the human nature of Christ had been creating questions and discussions in their home countries, and they expected to meet these questions when they returned to their respective fields of labor. They asked me to share with them the results of my research on that subject.

I presented to them the results of my own studies until that time, and added information that had been shared with me by others. Then, realizing that all of our efforts until that time had been fragmentary, dealing with small bits of the total mass of evidence, I resolved to devote as much time as possible to a more thorough examination of the statements about the nature of Christ to be found not only in the books and articles published by Ellen White but also in the writings of other Adventist leaders who had edited and contributed to the major church journals through the years.

This proved to be a most profitable experience. The search brought to light a great deal more material on the subject than I had supposed existed. Apparently the humanity of Jesus was seen as a tremendously important foundational doctrine by the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church, and they bore their testimony to it frequently and with unmistakable clarity.

It was also a pleasant surprise to discover that most, if not all, of the theological questions now receiving attention from the church had been examined carefully and thoroughly by our spiritual ancestors, who, although they may not have had academic degrees, were unquestionably competent in the scriptures.

A third item of interest that I report somewhat wistfully is that until the mid-1950's much of the theological writing in our church papers was done by our church administrators, who accepted the responsibility of being competent in theology as part of their administrative duty. It would seem that they considered theology too important a matter to be entrusted to theologians.

They may have been right.

Yet, I wish to emphasize that although the results of my research have compelled me to disagree with some Seventh-day Adventist theologians, it is not my intention to impugn either the sincerity or the integrity of those persons with whom I disagree.

Chapter 3

The Purpose and Scope of This Paper

The purpose of this inquiry is to ascertain what has been the consensus of opinion among Seventh-day Adventists in regard to the specific Christological question, Did the incarnate Christ come to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, or in the human nature of fallen man?

The inquiry is of necessity historical in nature, rather than being scriptural or theological. It seeks to establish what Seventh-day Adventists have believed, not why they have believed it. The scriptural and theological reasons for their beliefs are judged to comprise a subject matter too large for the parameters of this paper, and will need to be dealt with separately. However, a brief list of the scriptures most frequently used by Seventh-day Adventist writers will be found in Chapter 5.

The source materials have included articles published in the major Seventh-day Adventist journals: the Review and Herald, the Signs of the Times, the Southern Watchman, the Watchman, Our Times, These Times, the Youth's Instructor, the Bible Echo, the Australasian Signs of the Times, the Australasian Record, and the South African Signs of the Times; General Conference Bulletins, Sabbath School Quarterlies, books written by Seventh-day Adventist authors, and, with particular emphasis, the entire body of books, magazine articles, and unpublished manuscripts written by Ellen White.

The letters of Ellen White were not examined, but the paper does include a few items from these sources that were supplied to me by others. Chapter 4

Principles and Procedures: The Categories of Evidence

Research revealed that the statements made, both by Ellen White and other writers, fell rather naturally into five categories:

1. The strongest statements, that use the words sinful nature or fallen nature to describe the humanity of Jesus.

He took upon Him our sinful nature.[1] 

He took upon Himself fallen suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin.[2]

He condescended ... to take upon Himself fallen human nature.[3]

In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful fallen nature.[4]

2. Statements that do not use the terms sinful or fallen but do use unmistakable equivalencies:

... Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity.[5]

Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature.[6]

As Jesus was in h uman flesh, so God means His followers to be.[7]

Yes reader, the blessed Son of God ... took up His abode in flesh with the same desires that you have in your flesh.[8]

3. Statements that range from being difficult to understand to being utterly meaningless if applied to Christ in the nature of the unfallen Adam:

Christ declared, no single principle of human nature will I violate.[9]

An angel would not have known how to sympathize with fallen man, but ... Jesus can be touched with all our infirmities.[10]

He was subject to the frailties of humanity.[11]

Like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity.[12]

Infinitely superior in every respect to Boaz, yet He stooped to marry the lost race.[13]

4. Statements that specifically reject the idea that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam:

Christ was not in as favorable a position in the desolate wilderness to endure the temptations of Satan as was Adam when he was tempted in Eden. The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness.[14]

His human nature was created; it did not even possess angelic powers. It was human, identical to our own.[15]

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. but Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.[16]

The second Adam came not at the point where the fIrst Adam stood when he failed, but at the point at which mankind stood at the end of four thousand years of degeneracy.[17]

He did not come to this world and take upon Himself Adam's condition, but He stepped down lower, to meet man as he is, weakened by sin, polluted in his own iniquity.[18]

5. Statements that according to the principles of hermeneutics might have been included, but were so numerous that I was overwhelmed by the sheer mass of the evidence, so that I despaired of compiling or even counting them. The expression "clothed His divinity with humanity" occurs so often in the writings of Ellen White that it would take a research worker months to compile its appearances. And according to the principles of hermeneutics (rules of evidence) that a writer's statements must be clarified by other statements of the same writer, we should ask, each time we see these words, "What kind of humanity does she mean? Fallen or unfallen?"

The rules of evidence require us to answer, "Fallen," because of the frequency with which she made clear her position on that point, thus:

Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, clothing His divinity with humanity.[19]

We are not justified in placing any other meaning on her words, since she herself never supplies us with any other meaning.

However, the task of compiling all the appearances of that expression "clothed His divinity with humanity," is too great for me. Perhaps someone else will get the burden to do it.

The same principle applies to the few quotations of a general nature that have been included, those in which Ellen White simply states that Christ took "human nature" or "our nature. " Since these expressions are often found in a context which clearly describes that nature as fallen, and never in a context that describes it as unfallen, the rules of hermeneutics would permit us to include them as evidence. However, that would greatly increase the size of this paper; so, in the interests of brevity, only a sampling of such general statements has been included. (Compare the use of sabbath and tithe in scripture. The definition given in a few uses applies to all.)

In my presentation of evidence, I chose to organize it by years rather than by categories. It seemed that this might make it easier for the student to find a particular item of evidence if he were looking for it. This arrangement also serves to illustrate the close parallel between the thinking of Ellen White and the others who wrote for, and edited, the Review, the Signs, and other Adventist journals. The relationship could almost be called symbiotic. Whatever she wrote they faithfully echoed, both in subject matter and in supporting arguments. And she, as far as I can discover, never felt uncomfortable with their many strong statements about the nature of Christ.

The frequent use of ellipses (...) is admittedly unfortunate, but I could not find the time to copy more extended materials. For this reason there is a heavy loss sustained, both of the Biblical passages used to support the writer's positions and of the richness of the reasoning employed.

For the sake of consistency, I have capitalized all pronouns referring to the Deity, whether the original writers did or not.

All emphasis by underlining is mine, unless otherwise noted.

The counting of statements, simple as it might appear to be, was in fact a bit perplexing, since they ranged from simple to complex and compound, with several affirmations sometimes appearing in a single article, or even a single paragraph.

It was finally decided to follow as nearly as possible the apparent intention of the author. If his or her second statement appeared to be only an enlargement or a clarification of the first, it was not counted separately. If the second or following statements appeared to be intended as re-affirmations for the sake of force or emphasis, they were counted separately. In this I hoped to conform as closely as possible to the author's purpose, but it must be recognized that some variations in the count, as performed by different investigators, are to be expected.

Notes:

1. Ellen White, RH 12/15/96
2. Ellen White, YI 12/20/1900
3. C. T. Ellingston, RH 12/29/10
4. Bible Readings for the Home Circle, p. 115
5. Ellen White, ST 12/03/02
6. Ellen White, RH 7/17/1900
7. Ellen White, ST 4/01/97
8. J. H. Durland, ST 9/26/95
9. Ellen White, Ms. 65, 1899
10. Ellen White, RH 10/01/89
11. Ellen White, ST 4/22/97
12. DA, p. 49
13. E. Farnsworth, ST 5/06/97
14. Ellen White, RH 7/28/74
15. Ellen White, Ms. 94, 1893
16. Ellen White, DA p. 49
17. A. T. Jones, RH 2/18/96
18. Stephen Haskell, ST 4/02/96
19. ST 4/11/95
Chapter 5

A Bible-Based Christology

The texts of scripture most often employed by Ellen White and other Seventh-day Adventist writers in support of their view that the Lord Jesus Christ, in His earthly incarnation, took upon Himself the human nature of fallen man were:

First and foremost, Romans 8:3:

God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

They understood the words in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a literal description of the human flesh of the Saviour. They understood the word likeness to have been used in this passage in the same sense in which it was used in Philippines 2:7, made in the likeness of men, to indicate, not a surface or partial similarity, but a true and complete likeness, differing from ours only in that the flesh (nature) of Christ never became involved in sinning.

They understood condemned sin in the flesh to mean that Christ had lived a life without sin in sinful flesh in order to demonstrate that man, by using the same faith, trust, and God-dependency that He used, can successfully do the same thing. Thus at its very source their Christology (nature of Christ) was inseparably linked with their Soteriology (saving work of Christ). This scripture, Romans 8:3, was, by a wide margin, their most frequently quoted Christological text.

Other commonly employed texts were: (emphasis mine)

Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Romans 1:3)

For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: For which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren. (Hebrews 2:11)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Him self likewise took part of the same. (Hebrews 2:14)

For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. (Hebrews 2:16)

Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. (Hebrews 2:17)

These scriptures were seen a s the interpretive keys to the correct understanding of the words of John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-3, 14)

They saw both Peter's ladder (2 Peter 1:4-8) and Jacob's ladder (Gen. 28:12-15) as symbols of the fallen nature that Christ assumed (see Ellen White in Bible Echo--Australian Signs of the Times, 12/14/1903, et. al.)[1] The point was often made, as in this quotation, that if Christ had not come in the fallen nature--sinful flesh of man--the bottom rung of Jacob's ladder would not have reached the earth, and man would have had no effective salvation.

Ellen White uses the symbolism of the brazen serpent erected by Moses in the wilderness as a representation of the sinful flesh assumed by Christ in His incarnation (Numbers 21:9, as in Desire of Ages, pp. 174-175, and Letter 55, 1895).[2] She points out that as the hand of Jesus received no pollution in touching the flesh of a leper, so Jesus received no pollution by coming to dwell in humanity, a statement that would be nonsensical if applied to the nature of the unfallen Adam. (See Ministry of Healing, p. 70.)[3]

Thus the Adventist pioneers saw themselves as adhering closely to the plain testimony of the scriptures in believing and teaching that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man.

They were also adhering closely to the teachings of Ellen White, whom they believed to be an inspired messenger sent by God to the commandment-keeping remnant church of Revelation 12:17. As we shall see, Ellen White had deep and strong convictions about the humanity of Jesus, which she expressed freely and fully in her many books and magazine articles.

Notes:

1. Pages 64 and 123 of this paper.
2. Pages 69 and 119 of this paper.
3. Page 139 of this paper. 
Chapter 6

Definition of Terms: Usages Peculiar to Ellen White--"White-isms"

It is a well established principle of research that a writer's use of terms and/or expressions (groups of words) is to be understood in the light of the writer's other uses of the same terms or expressions. If an author's writings are not very extensive, comparisons may be difficult to make and word meanings difficult to establish.

This is emphatically not the case with Ellen White. She wrote twenty-five million words, and used terms and expressions with a remarkable uniformity of meaning. The student will note, however, that her usages, though clear, uniform and consistent in her own writings, are sometimes different from ours. In such cases we must let Ellen White speak to us in her own way, and take care that we do not force an alien interpretation, or our own interpretation, on to her words.

1. Of supreme importance to a correct understanding of Ellen White's statements about the humanity of Jesus must be the recognition of her rigid adherence to dictionary definitions in her use of such key words as sinful, sinless, sinfulness, and sinlessness. One gains the impression that she must have written with the dictionary at her elbow. An unguarded use of any of these terms in reference to the nature of Christ could be a cause of serious misunderstandings. She sought to avoid such misunderstandings by following dictionary definitions with undeviating precision.

Our first observation, as we approach this subject, is that Ellen White uses the terms nature and flesh as if, in the context of Christological discussions, they are interchangeable:

He took upon Him our sinful nature.[1]

He took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh.[2]

This is only a sampling of many such expressions. Next we observe her usage of the terms referred to above.

a. Sinful

Dictionaries offer as a meaning of the suffix -ful, to have a tendency toward.[3] This falls short of describing an actual act. The term sinful, according to this usage, does not refer to any act of sinning, much less to being full of sin, as some would read it. It means having a tendency toward sin, which accurately describes the flesh (nature) in which we fallen humans live. Ellen White consistently uses this term, sinful, to describe the flesh (nature) in which Christ made His earthly tabernacle. She saw His flesh (nature) as having the same tendencies (natural propensities, not evil propensities) that our flesh (nature) has. (See below on propensities.)

b. Sinless

The dictionaries define the suffix -less as meaning without and incapable of. Thus a fearless person is not capable of feeling fear, a remorseless person is not capable of feeling remorse, etc. , and a sinless nature is not capable of sinning. Ellen White repeatedly affirms that Christ never sinned, but she never describes the human flesh (nature) that He assumed as sinless, lest she be understood as saying that His human flesh (nature) was incapable of sinning. She did not stand with those who believe that it was impossible for Christ to sin. She believed that His temptations were real and that He could have sinned.

c. Sinfulness

The dictionaries define the suffix -ness as meaning a state of being. This is far beyond a tendency toward. It must involve the actual practice of sinning. Ellen White applies this term to humans, but never to Christ, lest she be understood as saying that Christ sinned. Observe:

In him was no guile nor sinfulness, ... yet He took upon Him our sinful nature.[4]

... taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man.[5]

She did not equate sinful with sinfulness, as some would do today, and in this it must be conceded that she is following the dictionary.

d. Sinlessness

Again, the dictionaries define the suffix -ness as meaning a state of being. Ellen White did not hesitate to apply this term to Christ, since she believed that He never sinned, and was never in the state of being a sinner. As she saw it, sinlessness in sinful nature was a real and practical possibility demonstrated by Christ and held before all Christians as a goal. Of some totally victorious Christians she predicts:

Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression.[6]

It is apparent that these persons will not have lost their fallen, sinful natures. Their condition will be sinlessness in sinful nature. This association of ideas is seen again in a statement about Christ:

In taking man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin ... We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.[7]

Unlike Ellen White, and less careful about dictionary definitions than she was, some would equate sinless with sinlessness in their descriptions of Christ's human nature, apparently unconcerned that they are running the risk of being understood as describing His human nature as being incapable of sinning by their use of the word sinless. Ellen White did not do this. She applies the term sinlessness to the human nature of Christ, but not the term sinless. It is extremely unfortunate that some of her interpreters have not recognized this fact, and stubbornly insist that when she wrote sinlessness she actually meant sinless.[8] I am proposing that she meant what she wrote, and wrote what she meant. The following are a few other typical " White-isms," word usages that are peculiar to Ellen White. Familiarity with these will greatly enhance our understanding of her writings.

2. Merits of Christ--not only justification.

Our righteousness is found in obedience to God's law through the merits of Jesus Christ.[9]

... through Christ's merits we may be elevated to keep God's commandments.[10]

... Make us victors through His merits.[11]

... We must lay hold of the merits of Christ and cease to sin.[12]

3. Imputed righteousness--not only justification.

... Through the imputed righteousness of Christ, all who receive Him by faith can show their loyalty by keeping the law.[13]

... Thus making it possible for man to keep the commandments of God through His imputed righteousness.[14]

He testifies that through His imputed righteousness the believing soul shall obey the commandments of God.[15]

4. Substitute and Surety--not only justification.

... As our substitute and surety, He might overcome the prince of darkness in our behalf, and make us victors through His merits.[16]

... Through the perfection of the sinless substitute and surety, (the Christian) may run in the race of humble obedience to all of God's commandments.[17]

5. Second Chance--Man is having it now.

Some have suggested that the reason Adam did not die as soon as he sinned is that the Hebrew verb form in Genesis 2:17 does not require an immediate death. Ellen White offers a different explanation. According to her, the reason Adam did not die immediately is that Christ intervened immediately, so that man might have a second chance for salvation. Thus man is now having his second chance.

After the fall, Christ became Adam's instructor. He acted in God's stead toward humanity, saving the race from immediate death.[18]

The instant man accepted the temptations of Satan ... Christ, the Son of God, stood between the living and the dead, saying, "Let the punishment fall on me. I will stand in man's place. He shall have another chance."[19]

6. The Fall--not new faculties, etc.

The fall did not create in man new faculties, energies, and passions, for this would have been a reflection on God. It was through disobedience to God's requirements that these powers were perverted.[20]

7. Our nature--not an excuse for sin.

Do not say, "It is my nature to do thus and so, and I cannot do otherwise. I have inherited weaknesses that make me powerless before temptation."[21]

But many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and we cannot overcome as He overcame. (She then quotes several texts of scripture to refute this error.)[22]

8. Besetments - not an ineradicable part of man's nature.

We must appropriate these promises to ourselves that we may overcome unbelief, and get the victory over every besetment.[23]

God will prove us again and again until we overcome our besetments, or are wholly given over to our rebellion and stubbornness.[24]

9. Transmission of sin--by contagion, and by influence, not by biological inheritance.

It is the nature of sin to spread and increase. Since the first sin of Adam, from generation to generation it has spread like a contagious disease.[25]

Through the medium of influence, taking advantage of the action of mind on mind, (Satan) prevailed on Adam to sin. ... And ever since then sin has continued its hateful work, reaching from mind to mind.[26]

10. Inherited fallen nature--not an excuse for sin.

There are many who in their hearts murmur against God. They say, "We inherit the fallen nature of Adam, and are not responsible for our natural imperfections. "They find fault with God's requirements, and complain that He demands what they have no power to give. Satan made the same complaint in heaven, but such thoughts dishonor God."[27]

11. The death of babies--not because of inherited guilt.

In order to possess an endless existence, man must continue to partake of the tree of life. ... None of the family of Adam were permitted to pass that barrier (see Genesis 3:22-24) to partake of the lifegiving fruit: hence there is not an immortal sinner.[28]

Adam could not transmit to his posterity that which he did not possess. ... Had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever. ... Not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the lifegiving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner.[29]

12. "Condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3)--A life without sin in sinful flesh.

Satan had declared that it was impossible for the sons and daughters of Adam to keep the law of God. ... Men who are under the control of Satan repeat these accusations against God, in asserting that men can not keep the law of God. Jesus humbled Himself, clothing His divinity with humanity, in order that He might stand as the head and representative of the human family, and by both precept and example condemn sin in the flesh, and give the lie to Satan's charges. ... He fulfilled every specification of the law, and condemned sin in the flesh. ... God was manifested in the flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, by manifesting perfect obedience to all the law of God.[30]

13. The Brazen Serpent--the sinful flesh that Christ assumed. 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.[31]

14. "Animal"--used in sense of biological. All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul.[32]

15. "Took upon"--Meaning made clear by parallel expressions.

Linked himself to the weakness of humanity.[33]

Unite the fallen race with Himself.[34]

One with the fallen race.[35]

Connected sinful man with his own divine nature.[36]

Embraces fallen humanity.[37]

Allied Himself with fallen human beings.[38]

The child of a fallen race.[39]

Identified itself with the weakness and wretchedness of fallen man.[40]

16. "Form"--Not identical with nature.

It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man.[41]

He was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.[42]

17. Christ the "Second Adam"--Not the same nature but the same temptations as the first Adam (see lengthy discussion in RH 7/28/74 on page 37 and quotation from ST 10/17/1900 on page 124.)

18. Passions and propensities.

These terms have been receiving so much attention in recent years that it seemed best to do an extensive word study on them. In particular, the term "propensities" as used in a personal letter from Ellen White while in Australia to a Pastor W. L. H. Baker who was laboring in Tasmania, has occasioned much discussion. Reference will be made to this letter in the next section of this paper and in Appendix B at the back of this paper, page 321. The letter itself may be seen in Appendix A, page 310.

Notes:

1. ST 7/30/02 (p. 132)
2. ST 9/03/02 (p. 133)
3. See Webster's Unabridged: The New American Handy College Dictionary. et al.
4. ST 7/30/02
5. ST 5/29/01
6. ST 7/23/02, p. 3, col. 1; BV 253
7. ST 6/09/98; SMI:256
8. As in Ministry, September, 1956, pp. 19-20 (page 225 of this paper.)
9. RH 2/04/90, p. 65, col. 2; BV 363
10. RH 8/18/91, p. 513, col. 2; BV 513
11. RH 9/27/92, p. 610, col. 1; BV 600
12. RH 6/17/90, p. 369, col. 1; BV 403
13. ST 4/07/98, p. 3, col. 1; BV 465
14. ST 6/18/94, p. 509, col. 1; BV 125
15. ST 1/16/96, p. 5, col. 3; BV 264
16. RH 9/27/92, p. 610, col. 1; BV 600
17. ST 8/22/92, p. 647, col. 2; BV 507
18. ST 5/29/01
19. Letter 22, Feb. 13, 1900, as in SDABC. Vol. 1, p. 1085
20. RH 3/01/87, p. 129, col. 1; BV 115
21. ST 6/17/89, p. 354, col. 3; BV 295
22. RH 3/01/92, p. 130, col. 1; BV 548
23. RH 5/08/13, p. 436, col. 1; BV 330
24. RH 6/18/89, p. 385, col. 2; BV 311
25. ST 4/01/86, p. 193, col. 1; BV 28
26. RH 4/16/01, p. 241, col. 1; BV 281
27. ST 8/29/92, p. 662, col. 3
28. Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 60
29. Great Controversy p. 533, 534
30. ST 1/16/96 (If it is possible, the student should read this entire article.)
31. Letter 55, 1895 (See also DA pp. 174, 175.)
32. AH 128
33. RH 4/01/75
34. ST 9/23/89
35. ST 4/25/92
36. RH 10/16/94
37. 6T 147
38. CPT 259
39. Letter 19, 1901
40. RH 8/04/74
41. SG 4:115 and RH 12/31/72
42. W-6-1896, (Letter 106, 1896)
Chapter 7

A Word Study: Passions and Propensities in the Writings of Ellen White

Ellen White wrote of the words used by Bible writers:

The Bible must be given in the language of men. ... Different meanings are expressed by the same word. There is not one word for each distinct idea.[1]

(This would also be true of her own inspired writings since they also are in the language of men.)

Passions--Control

In some passages, Ellen White uses the word passions to describe something that must be controlled:

His (Adam's) appetites and passions were under the control of reason.[2] (Note that the unfallen Adam was not without passions.)

(Paul's) words, his practices, his passions, all were brought under the control of the spirit of God.[3]

A man of like passion as ourselves, the pen of inspiration describes him (Daniel) as without fault.[4]

All circumstances, all appetites and passions, are to be servants of the God-fearing man.[5]

The appetite and passions should be restricted and under the control of an enlightened conscience.[6]

Every true Christian will have control of his appetite and passions.[7]

Our youth want mothers who will teach them from their very cradles to control passion.[8]

Propensities--Control

Likewise, in some passages Ellen White uses the word propehsities to describe something that must be controlled. In the first of these passages, notice the equation of passions with propensities, and the indication that Christ overcame by controlling both:

That your passions and appetites may be subject to the control of reason. ... Our natural propensities must be controlled, or we can never overcome as Christ overcame.[9]

Enabling men to bring all their propensities under the control of the higher powers.[10]

He brought his own family to his rigid rules, but he failed to control his animal propensities.[11] (Note: Ellen White uses animal in the sense of biological.)

All animal propensities are to be subjected to the higher powers of the soul.[12]

If enlightened intellect holds the reins, controlling the animal propensities, keeping them in subjection to the moral powers, Satan well knows that his power to overcome with his temptations is very small.[13]

It would therefore be this type of passions and/or propensities that Ellen White had in mind when she wrote of Christ,

Though He had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He yield to do one single act which was not pure and elevating and enobling.[14]

He was made like unto His brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical.[15] (Roget's Thesaurus lists susceptibilities and propensities as synonyms.)

So He had these passions and propensities but He controlled them, and so lived without sinning. This is the experience that is recommended to us.

We will now notice a very different use of the words passions and propensities.

Passions--Eliminate

In some passages, Ellen White uses the word passions to describe something that must be eliminated:

When (the grace of Christ) is implanted in the heart, it will cast out the evil passions that cause strife and dissension.[16]

Unholy passions must be crucified.[17]

The unsanctified will and passions must be crucified.[18]

Our ... evil passions ... must all be overcome.[19]

Whatever may be the evil practice, the master passion, which through long indulgence binds both soul and body, Christ is able and longs to deliver.[20]

Fretfulness, self exaltation, pride, passion ... must be overcome.[21]

And just as in the previous list we found an equation of passion with propensity, we find the same equation here:

(The wife) is made an instrument to minister to the gratification of low, lustful propensities and very many women submit to become slaves of lustful passion.[22]

Although the following usages are only descriptive, it is apparent that simply controlling them would not be an adequate solution to the problem.

Depraved passions; base passions, base, low passion; hellish passions.[23]

Corrupt passions.[24]

Bitter or baleful passions.[25]

Gross passions.[26]

Murderous passion.[27]

Perverted passions.[28]

Vicious passions.[29]

The Christian would accomplish little by simply limiting the indulgence of this type of passion, as would be indicated by the word control in the previous listing. This type of passion must be eliminated.

Propensities--Eliminate

Likewise, in some passages Ellen White uses the word propensities to describe something that must be eliminated:

But although their evil propensities may seem to them as precious as the right hand or the right eye, they must be separated from the worker, or he cannot be acceptable to God.[30]

Nonsense and amusement-loving propensities should be discarded.[31]

Although the following usages are only descriptive, it is apparent that simply controlling them would not be an adequate solution to the problem:

Money-loving propensities.[32]

Scandal-loving propensities.[33]

Selfish propensities.[34]

Scheming propensity.[35]

Lustful propensity.[36]

(Of these, it is encouraging to read:

We need not retain one sinful propensity.[37]

It would therefore be this kind of passions and/or propensities that Ellen White had in mind when she wrote of Christ.

He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature, but compassed with infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are.[38]

He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions.[39]

Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.[40]

Conclusions

1. Ellen White was aware of the fact that the same words must sometimes be used to express different ideas.

2. We find an example of this problem in her use of the words passions and propensities. She uses both words in two different ways.

3. She equates passions with propensities in each of the two different usages.

4. In one usage, both words, passions and propensities, are used to describe something that Christians must control, but that by the very nature of things, they must retain and cannot eliminate from their experience. In this usage she tends to link the word propensity with such descriptive terms as animal, human, natural, etc.

5. In the other usage both words, passions and propensities, are used to describe something that Christians need not retain but must eliminate. Here control is not an adequate solution to the problem. In this usage she tends to link the word propensity with such descriptive terms as evil, sinful, lustful, etc.

6. In her references to Christ, she indicates that He had one class of passions and propensities, but did not have the other. Thus her statements on that subject should be seen as complimentary and not contradictory. Let us place the statements together for comparison:

Passions

Though He had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He yield to do one act which was not pure and elevating and noble.[41]

He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the passions of our human fallen nature, but compassed with infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are.[42]

Propensities

He was made like unto His brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical. (Roget's Thesaurus lists susceptibilities and propensities as synonyms.)[43]

Our natural propensities must be controlled, or we can never overcome as Christ overcame.[44]

Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.[45]

(Note the distinction between natural propensities and evil propensities. These to her are separate categories.)

We should not force Ellen White to contradict herself by ignoring the fact that she clearly used both words in two different ways. Neither should we concentrate our attention on one usage and ignore the other. We should recognize the undeniable evidence that she saw Christ as having certain natural passions and propensities, and that He avoided sin by controlling them. The other type of evil passions and propensities, which are already sinning or the result of sinning, and which Christians must eliminate from their experience, Christ did not have at all. So to take her statement,

"Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity," and read it as if she had written natural propensity, and draw from that the conclusion that she believed Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam is unwarranted. It should rather be seen as an emphatic affirmation that He did not sin, which is also indicated by the construction of her sentence in its use of the conjunction but. This word is used, following a statement, to indicate that the opposite of that statement is true.

For example:

I could have gone, but I didn't.

She could have won, but she didn't.

This thought of contradistinction is not lost when other words are used in the second clause.

I could have gone, but I was busy.

No one, reading this, would conclude that I went.

She could have won, but she was tired.

No one, reading this, would conclude that she won. The contradistinction indicated by the conjunction but precludes such a conclusion. So when Ellen White wrote:

He could have sinned, He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity,

We should understand this to mean emphatically that:

He could have sinned, but He didn't.

Then we are not using her statement about propensities in contradiction of her many statements that Christ took the fallen nature of man.

The implications of the contrasting conjunction but should be held in mind as the student studies this passage:

Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin that caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright; in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil but when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh."[46]

See next chapter and also Appendix B, Ellen Wh ite Corrects Two Christological Errors, in the back of this volume for a discussion of the Baker letter in which the line, "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity," is found. For the text of the letter itself see Appendix A (page 310).

Notes:

1. 1 SM 20
2. PP 45
3. AA 315
4. PK 546
5. TM 421
6. 3T 491
7. 3T 569-570
8. 3T 564-565
9. 4T 235
10. 3T 491
11. 2T 378
12. AH 128
13. MYP 237
14. IHP 155
15. RH 2/10/85
16. DA 305
17. GW 128
18. 3T 84
19. 3T 115
20. DA 203
21. 4T 527
22. 2T 474
23. 2T 474
24. 2T 410
25. 2BC 1017
26. 3T 475
27. PP 658
28. CD 238
29. 2T 468
30. TM 171-172
31. MYP 42
32. 3T 545
33. 5T 57
34. 7T 204
35. 4T 351
36. CD 389
37. RH 4/24/1900
38. 2T 509
39. 2T 202
40. SDABC 5:1128
41. IHP 155
42. 2T 509; for examples of how this was understood by her contemporaries, see A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 327, col. 1 (page 83 of this paper) and J. H. Durland, ST 10/10195, p. 5, col. 2 (page 87 of this paper).
 
43. RH 2/10/85
44. 4T 235
45. SDABC 5: 1128
46. ST 10/17/1900
Chapter 8

An Explanation: The Baker Letter

At this point in our discussion, there may be questions beginning to form in the mind of the student. Why is so much attention being given to the use of the terms passions and propensities in the writings of Ellen White? And why is our next section divided in terms of its relation to something called the Baker Letter?

The answer is simple, yet mind-boggling. A personal and private letter was written near the end of the year 1895 (some say early 1896) from Ellen White, who was in Australia, to a young pastor in Tasmania, (an island to the south of Australia) whose name was W. L. H. Baker. In this letter Ellen White wrote of Christ:

He could have sinned, He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.

This letter has been seized upon by certain interpreters of Ellen White's writings, and used as the guiding principle (as interpreted) to which all of her other Christological statements, in books, magazine articles, or other private letters must be subordinated.

The steps in logic being followed by her interpreters seem to be these:

1. Ellen White wrote to Baker that Christ did not have an evil propensity.

2. By this she really meant to say that Christ did not have natural propensities, such as fallen men have.

3. If He did not have the natural propensities that fallen men have, it follows that He could not have had the same human nature that fallen men have.

4. Therefore, Ellen White was actually trying to say to Baker that Christ had come to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.

Having established this to their satisfaction, from their interpretation of her letter, they do not permit themselves to be disturbed by the fact that Ellen White nowhere wrote that Christ came to the earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam, nor yet by the fact that she often wrote that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man. We must remember that Ellen White had no formal education beyond the third grade, and no theological training at all, they seem to be saying. We should not, therefore, expect too much of her, but we should generously assist her to say what we realize that she really meant to say, but somehow was not able to express correctly in her own words, they imply.

As her interpreters they generously assist her by explaining to the world that when she wrote that Christ endured the same temptations that Adam endured, she really meant to say that Christ had the same human nature that the unfallen Adam had; that when she wrote of the sinlessness of the human nature of Christ, she really meant to say sinless human nature of Christ; that when she wrote that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of fallen man she really meant to say that only His physical nature was like that of fallen man; and that when she wrote that Christ took upon Himself all of the infirmities, all of the liabilities, all of the weaknesses and all of the susceptibilities of fallen human nature she really meant to say that He did this vicariously, but not actually. They remind their readers often that Christ's incarnation is a great mystery.

Having thus generously assisted her to say what they must have thought she meant to say but seemingly could not find the words to express correctly, they, her interpreters, can now fervently applaud the remarkable wisdom of her intentions, in expressions like these:

"Sublime in scope ... penetration, comprehensiveness, balance, dependability. No other writer in our ranks has ever approached it in coverage. ... Her declarations are refreshingly clear. ... Nothing to be ashamed of, everything to be proud of ... priceless ... remarkable ... terse ... comprehensive," etc., etc.[1]

We may be pardoned for wondering who most fully deserves these accolades of praise: Ellen White, who apparently was not able to say what she wanted to say, or her interpreters, who so generously assisted her. Whether her interpreters are actually applauding Ellen White or applauding themselves would seem to be a fair question.

It will be necessary, therefore, for us to move forward in our investigation while holding certain questions in our minds:

Might it be posssible, after all, that Ellen White meant what she wrote and wrote what she meant?

Do we find any statement, in her own words, that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam? If not, how can we be sure that this is what she actually believed?

Do we find any statement, in her own words, that Christ assumed only the physical nature of fallen man in His incarnation?

Do we find in her own words any statement that Christ assumed the weaknesses, liabilities, and susceptibilities of fallen human nature vicariously, but not actually?

Do we find any corrective letters written by Ellen White to the many prominent church leaders who were teaching that Christ had come to the earth in the nature of fallen man? Why would she correct Baker and not correct the others?

Do we find any change between the earlier and later statements of Ellen White regarding the humanity of Jesus?

Do we find any other area in which Ellen White so desperately needed the assistance of interpreters in order to say what she was trying to say?

With these questions in mind, let us turn to the records of history.

Notes:

1. Froom. Movement of Destiny. pp. 494-495.Chapitre 9

1852-1894 The Period Before the Baker Letter

1852

Like Aaron and his sons, He took upon Him flesh and blood, the Seed of Abraham.[1]

1853

Jesus Christ, who tells us He is "The son of God," one with the Father ... who "took on Him the seed of Abraham," our nature, and upheld it sinless.[2]

1854

To say that God sent His own Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh," is equivalent to saying that the Son of God assumed our nature.[3]

What blood was shed "for the remission of sins?" Was it not the identical blood which had flowed through the veins of Mary, His mother, and back through her ancestry to Eve, the mother of all living? Otherwise He was not "the seed of the woman," of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David. ...

He had all the sensations flesh is heir to ... He had all the innocent human passions.[4]

The Son, on His part, was to take upon Him the nature of man (sin only excepted.)[5]

He had all the innocent human passions.[6]

1858

Jesus also told them ... that He should take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs.[7]

1860

What infirmities more human, more severe, more humiliating shall He take, in order to be touched with the feeling of yours?[8]

1864

It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man. (Note that Ellen White does not equate form with nature.)[9]

1870

(He) took our nature that He might understand how to sympathize with our frailty.[10]

Christ humiliated Himself to humanity, and took upon Himself our natures ... that ... He might become a stepping-stone to fallen men.[11]

Christ steps in between fallen man and God, and says to man, you may yet come to the Father.[12]

1872

This was the reception the Saviour met when He came to a fallen world. He ... took upon Himself man's nature, that He might save the fallen race. Instead of men glorifying God for the honor He had bestowed upon them in thus sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.[13]

His work was to unite the finite with the infinite. This was the only way in which fallen men could be exalted. ... It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man.[14]

And He left that throne of glory and of power and took upon Him the nature of fallen man. In Him were blended "the brightness of the Father's glory" and the weakness of "the seed of Abraham. "In Himself He united the Lawgiver to the law-breaker--the Creator to the creature.[15]

So our Lord took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham. (Heb. 2:16)[16]

1873

Christ condescended to take humanity, and thus He unites His interests with the fallen sons and daughters of Adam here below.[17]

1874

Through His humiliation and poverty Christ would identify Himself with the weaknesses of the fallen race. ... The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam. ... The King of glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity. ... He would take man's fallen nature.[18]

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 earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses 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.

In what contrast is the second Adam as He entered the gloomy wilderness to cope with Satan single-handed. 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.[19]

The humanity of Christ reached to the very depths of human wretchedness, and identified itself with the weaknesses and wretchedness of fallen man.[20]

He humbled Himself to take man's nature, that ... He might reach man where he is. He obtains for the fallen sons and daughters of Adam that strength which it is impossible for them to gain for themselves. ... In Christ's humiliation He descended to the very depth of human woe in sympathy and pity for fallen man, which was represented to Jacob by one end of the ladder resting upon the earth. ... Angels may pass from heaven to earth with messages of love to fallen man.[21]

He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race.[22]

1875

What an act of condescension on the part of the Lord of life and glory that He might lift up fallen man.[23]

Satan showed his knowledge of the weak points of the human heart, and put forth his utmost power to take advantage of the weakness of the humanity which Christ had assumed. ... Because the Son of God had linked Himself to the weakness of humanity.[24]

God committed to His Son, in a special manner, the case of the fallen race.[25]

Christ became sin for the fallen race. ... Christ stood at the head of the human family as their representative. ... In the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh.[26]

1877

He had taken upon Himself the form of humanity with all its attendant ills.[27]

Christ, enfeebled with our nature ... enfeebled by the seed of Abraham ... takes upon Himself the weakness of the seed of Abraham, that He might reach those who are enfeebled by transgression.[28]

1879

(Satan) told his angels that when Jesus should take fallen man's nature, he could overpower Him.[29]

Here (at the Lord'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.[30]

1881

Our Redeemer perfectly understood the wants of humanity. He who condescended to take upon Himself man's nature was acquainted with man's weakness. ... Christ took upon Himself our infirmities, and in the weakness of humanity He needed to seek strength from the Father.[31]

The infinite stoop on the part of the Son of God to reach the very depth of human degradation and woe.[32]

That One, partaking of the same infirmities that invest human nature, walked this earth.[33]

1882

His work was in behalf of fallen man. ... He assumed our nature.[34]

The majesty of heaven held not Himself aloof from degraded, sinful humanity.[35]

Christ stooped to take upon Himself human nature, that He might reach the fallen race and lift them up. ... (He) partook of our human nature, that He might reach humanity.[36]

He renounced the divine form that He might take a form at the greatest possible distance below it.[37]

1883

Jesus took upon Himself man's nature, that He might leave a pattern for humanity, complete, perfect ... our fallen nature must be purified.[38]

Because the Son of God had linked Himself to the weakness of humanity.[39]

1884

In (the atonement) is involved the great central "mystery" of the gospel, "God manifest in the flesh," a divine being bearing the nature of the seed of Abraham.[40]

1885

He condescended to take upon Himself the weaknesses and infirmities of human nature.[41]

He left His throne in the courts of heaven, He laid aside His royal robe, clothed His divinity with humanity, and came to our world all seared and marred by the curse, to reach men where they were.[42]

He was made like unto His brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical.[43]

1886

Christ humiliated Himself to humanity, and took upon Himself our nature, that ... He might become a stepping stone to fallen men.[44]

Christ with His long human arm encircles the fallen race, while with His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Almighty, thus uniting earth with heaven and fallen, finite man with the infinite God.[45]

1887

(He) so pitied a fallen race that He laid aside His kingly robe, left the royal courts of heaven, and came down to this world of pollution and sin, and took upon Himself the form of man.[46]

(Christ) saw that man had become so weakened by disobedience that He had not wisdom or strength to meet the wily foe, and this is why the Son of God takes upon Himself man's nature.[47]

He might have helped His human nature withstand the inroads of disease by pouring from His divine nature vitality and undecaying vigor to the human. But He humbled Himself to man 's nature. (The unfallen Adam suffered no inroads of disease .)[48]

He took our nature upon Him that He might become acquainted with our trials and sorrows, and knowing all our experiences, He stands as Mediator and Intercessor before the Father.[49]

1888

He laid aside His royal robes, clothed His divinity with humanity, stepped down from the royal throne, that He might reach the very depth of human woe and temptation, lift up our fallen natures, and make it possible for us to be overcomers.[50]

He clothed His divinity with humanity. ... He reached down to the very depths of human woe and degradation, that He might lift fallen man to a place of joy and purity.[51]

He who was one with the Father stepped down from the glorious throne in heaven, and clothed His divinity with humanity, thus bringing Himself to the level of man's feeble faculties. ... The highest gift that heaven could bestow was given to ransom fallen humanity.[52] 

1889

Christ assumed humanity in order that He might reach mankind where they were. He came and worked in the form of a man for the sake of rescuing a fallen race.[53]

He was to come as a man of sorrows, to bear the infirmities of humanity.[54]

Christ was the ladder that Jacob saw. Christ is the link that binds earth to heaven, and connects finite man with the infinite God. This ladder reaches from the lowest degradation of earth and humanity to the highest heavens. ... (Christ) came into the world that He might understand all the needs of fallen humanity.[55]

The divine Son of God, who had ... come from heaven and assumed their fallen nature. ... He took upon Him our nature that He might reach man in his fallen condition ... He came ... to unite the fallen race with Himself.[56]

He was made a child that He might understand the temptations of childhood, and know its weaknesses.[57]   An angel would not have known how to sympathize with fallen man, but ... Jesus can be touched with all our infirmities.[58]

Jesus clothed His divinity with humanity that He might have an experience in all that pertains to human life.[59]

Before Christ could become a perfect mediator, He must take man's nature upon Himself, and be subject to all the human weaknesses and temptations to which fallen man had become heir. ... Angels, or beings that have never had man's fallen nature to contend with, would not be fitted for such a place.[60]

1890

We cannot conceive of the humiliation He endured in taking our nature upon Himself. Not that in itself it was a disgrace to belong to the human race.[61]

The heavenly Father gave His Son to assume humanity, to lift up the fallen race.[62]

With His human arm He reached to the very depths of human woe, in order that He might lift up fallen man. ... In assuming humanity, He exalted the fallen race before God.[63]

... it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it was 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." ... actually taking upon Himself sinful nature ... having suffered all that sinful flesh is heir to, He knows all about it.[64]

1891

... Jesus ... united the fallen world with heaven, linked finite man with the infinite God; upon the mystic ladder, Christ, every lost one may gain heaven.[65]

He humbled Himself that He might meet fallen men where they were.[66]

... Christ is the Son of God, the Redeemer of fallen man.[67]

... in His humanity He has become acquainted with all the difficulties that beset humanity.[68]

Jesus left the glory of heaven, laid aside His royal robes, and clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might uplift fallen man. ... Jesus freely devoted all His power and majesty to the cause of fallen humanity ... perfection of character is offered to fallen man.[69]

Christ was one with the Father from the beginning; He shared the glory of the Father, yet He consented to become fallen man's substitute and surety.[70]

(Jesus) is the "daysman" between a holy God and our sinful humanity--one who can "lay His hand on us both."[71]

And as Jesus was in human nature, so God means His followers to be.[72]

(Jesus) was made in all things like unto those whom He came to save.[73]

In all points He is made like His brethren.[74]

But what the law could not do, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh to do.[75]

... by His life He has shown that sin in the flesh is condemned, and He has destroyed it, for in Him the body of sin is destroyed.[76]

He has taken away this sinful nature,--taken it upon Himself that we might be delivered from it.[77]

God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, that He might condemn sin in the flesh.[78]

1892

But many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and that we cannot overcome as He overcame. But Paul writes, "Verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren.[79]

... with His human arm Christ encircles the fallen race, and with His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Infinite.[80]

He consented to take the habiliments of humanity, to become one with the fallen race.[81]

He assumed the likeness of sinful flesh.[82]

He came in the garb of our humanity.[83]

The Redeemer of the world clothed His divinity in humanity, that He might reach humanity; for it took the divine and the human to bring into the world the salvation that was needed by fallen man.[84]

He had all the strength of the passion of humanity.[85]

... divinity actually took upon itself humanity, with all its weakness and weariness, with all its passions and loves, and longings, and with all its temptations.[86]

1893

He was to take upon Himself our nature. ... He had taken upon Himself the nature of man. ... He took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of sinful flesh ... sinless and exalted by nature, the Son of God consented to take the habiliments of humanity, to become one with the fallen race. The Eternal Word consented to be made flesh.[87]

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, by a pure and holy life to condemn sin in the flesh.[88]

(Christ) humbled Himself in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but He did not take the taint of sin.[89]

His human nature was created; it did not even possess angelic powers. It was human, identical to our own. ... A human body and a human mind were His. He was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.[90]

He took upon Himself our sinful natures, yet without sin.[91]

That garment was woven in Jesus, in the same flesh that you and I have, for He took part of the same flesh and blood that we have.[92]

... in our flesh--it was my flesh that He had; it was your flesh that He had.[93]

The Lord Jesus Christ, who came and stood where I stand, in the flesh in which I live.[94]

(Quoting Ellen White, with emphasis) Christ took humanity with all its liabilities. ... He assumed human nature, bearing the infirmities and degeneracy of the race.[95]

1894

He laid aside His royal crown, His royal robe, clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might touch humanity. ... He did not come to our world as an angel of glory, but as a man. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and condemned sin in the flesh. With His human arm He encircled the race, and with His divine arm He grasped the throne of the Infinite, linked man with God, and earth with heaven.[96]

... human weaknesses, human necessities were upon Him.[97]

Let the children bear in mind that the child Jesus had upon Himself human nature, and was in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was tempted of Satan as all children are tempted.[98]

He ... connected sinful man with His own divine nature.[99]

Notes:

1. Editorial, RH 9/16/52, p. 76, col. 2
2. "English Author", RH 10/18/53, p. 115, col. 2
3. J. M. Stephenson, RH 11/09/54, p. 99, col. 3
4. J. M. Stephenson, RH 7/15/54, p. 106, col. 3
5. J. M. Stephenson, RH 10/17/54, p. 75, col. 1
6. J. M. Stephenson, RH 11/14/54, p. 107, col. 4
7. Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 25
8. Editorial, RH 5/10/60, p. 195, col. 3
9. Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 4, p. 115
10. Ellen White, RH 4/19/70, p. 139, col. 1; BV 95
11. Ellen White, RH 5/31/70, p. 185, col. 2; BV 97
12. Ellen White, RH 5/31/70, p. 186, col. 1; BV 98
13. Ellen White, RH 12/24/72, p. 118, col. 1; BV 118
14. Ellen White, RH 12/31/72, p. 119, col. 3; BV 119
15. J. H. Waggoner, Signs Editor, The Atonement (1872), p. 161
16. S. S. Griswald, RH 11/26/72, p. 186, col. 4
17. Ellen White, RH 1/21/73, p. 126, col. 1; BV 126
18. Ellen White, RH 2/24/74, p. 83, col. 2; BV 139
19. Ellen White, RH 7/28/74, p. 51, col. 1; BV 143 (Similar in DA 117.)
20. Ellen White, RH 8/04/74, p. 58, col. 1; BV 144
21. Ellen White, RH 8/18/74, p. 146, col. 1; BV 146
22. Editorial, James White, General Conference President, Review Editor, etc., ST 6/04/74
23. Ellen White, RH 3/04/75, p. 159, col. 2; BV 159
24. Ellen White, RH 4/01/75, p. 161, col. 2; BV 161, p. 162, col. 1; BV 162
25. Ellen White, RH 4/29/75, p. 163, col. 1; BV 163
26. Ellen White, RH 5/06/75, p. 164, col. 3, BV 164
27. Ellen White, ST 1/04/77, p. 1, col. 3; BV 41
28. James White, RH 11/29/77, p. 172, col. 2
29. Ellen White, ST 1/30/79, p. 85, col. 1
30. Ellen White, ST 8/07/79, p. 101, col. 3; BV 101
31. Ellen White, RH 10/11/81, p. 1, col. 2; BV 289
32. James White, RH 1/04/81, p. 2, col. 1
33. M. C. Wilcox, RH 8/02/81, p. 83, col. 1
34. Ellen White, 5T, 1882, p. 204
35. Ellen White, 5T, 1882, p. 346
36. Ellen White, 5T, 1882, pp. 746, 747
37. The Expositor, RH 8/22/82, p. 533, col. 1
38. Ellen White, ST 1/11/83, p. 14, col. 1; BY 327
39. Ellen White, ST 4/12/83, p. 169, col.2; BY 342
40. RH 12/16/84, p. 792, col. 1; Editorial - announcing a new edition of J. H. Waggoner's The Atonement (See p. 50.) 
41. Ellen White, ST 1/15/85, p. 33, col. 3; BY 480
42. Ellen White, ST 10/29/85, p. 642, col. 1; BY 506
43. Ellen White, RH 2/10/85, p. 81, col. 3; BV 505
44. Ellen White, RH 5/25/86, p. 1, col.2; BV 45
45. Ellen White, Ms. 16, 1896, p. 2
46. Ellen White, RH 1/04/87, p. 2, col. 1; BV 104
47. Ellen White, RH 3/15/87, p. 1, col. 3; BV 119
48. Ellen White, RH 7/05/87, p. 1, col. 3; BV 151 (An interesting comment on disease)
49. Ellen White, ST 11/24/87, p. 706, col. 1; BV 165
50. Ellen White, RH 7/17/88, p. 450, col. 1; BV 230
51. Ellen White, RH 8/28/88, p. 545, col. 2; BV 241
52. Ellen White, RH 12/11/88, p. 1, col. 1; BV 263
53. Ellen White, RH 6/11/89, p. 369, col. 1, 2; BV 308
54. Ellen White, ST 7/08/89, p. 402, col. 1; BV 301
55. Ellen White, ST 7/29/89, p. 450, col. 2; BV 307
56. Ellen White, ST 9/23/89, p. 577, col. 3; p. 578, col. 1, BV 322-323
57. Ellen White, ST 9/30/89, p. 594, col. 1; BV 325
58. Ellen White, RH 10/01/89, p. 609, col. 3; BV 335
59. Ellen White, RH 12/24/89, p. 801, col. 2; BV 351
60. R. A . Underwood, Union President, RH 9/24/89, p. 1, col. 1
61. Ellen White, RH 2/18/90, p. 97, col. 1; BV 367
62, Ellen White, RH 6/10/90, p. 353, col. 2; BV 401
63. Ellen White, ST 7/28/90, p. 429, col. 1; BV 399
64. E. J. Waggoner, Signs Editor, Christ and His Righteousness (Later Christ our Righteousness), 1890, pp. 26, 27, 28, 30
65. Ellen White, RH 2/10/91, p. 82, col. 1; BV 465
66. Ellen White, RH 7/21/91, p. 450, col. 1; BV 506
67. Ellen White, ST 4/13/91, p. 117, col. 2; BV 451
68. Ellen White, RH 4/28/91, p. 257, col. 2; BV 483
69. Ellen White, ST 5/18/91, p. 157, col. 1; BV 434
70. Ellen White, ST 6/15/91, p. 189, col. 2; BV 438
71. Ellen White, ST 8/24/91, p. 269, col. 3; BV 444
72. Ellen White, Ms. 7, 1891, p. 1
73. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1891, p. 156, col. 1
74. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1891, p. 156, col. 2
75. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1891, p. 187, col. 2
76. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1891, p. 187, col. 2
77. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1891, p. 187, col. 2
78. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1891, p. 245, col. 2
79. Ellen White, RH 4/01/92, p. 130, col. 1; BV 548
80. Ellen White, ST 4/18/92, p. 374, col. 3; BV 481
81. Ellen White, ST 4/25/92, p. 391, col. 1; BV 484
82. Ellen White, ST 8/08/92, p. 616, col. 2; BV 504
83. Ellen White, RH 9/27/92, p. 610, col. 1, BV 600
84. Ellen White, RH 11/01/92, p. 673, col. 3
85. Ellen White, ST 11/21/92, p. 39, col. 1; BV 526
86. G. E. Fifield, ST 7/25/92, p. 582, col. 1; BV 500
87. Ellen White, ST 2/20/93, p. 246, col. 3; p. 247, col. 1; BV 23-24
88. Ellen White, Ms. 1, 1893, p. 8
89. Ellen White, Ms. 93, 1893, p. 3
90. Ellen White, Ms. 94, 1893, p. 2
91. S. N. Haskell, GCB 1893, p. 214, col. 1
92. A. T. Jones, Signs Editor, Review Editor, General Conference Bulletin 1893, p. 207
93. A. T. Jones, GCB 1893, p. 301, col. 1
94. A. T. Jones, GCB 1893, p. 412, col. 2
95. R. A. Underwood, GCB 1893, p. 140, cols. 1, 2
96. Ellen White, ST 4/16/94, p. 372, col. 1, 2; BV 109
97. Ellen White, RH 4/24/94, p. 257, col. 2; BV 141
98. Ellen White, YI 8/23/94, p. 268, col. 2
99. Ellen White, RH 10/16/94, p. 641, col. 3; BV 193
Chapter 10

1886-1904 Special Section: The Australian Bible Echo

The Bible Echo was a missionary journal started by Stephen Haskell and J. O. Corliss as an adjunct to their pioneer preaching of the Seventh-day Adventist message in Australia. On November 2, 1885 they issued a trial edition by which they hoped to estimate its chances of success. Apparently satisfied, they began regular publication on a monthly basis in January, 1886. Eventually the journal became a bi-monthly, and then a weekly. Meanwhile its name metamorphosed from Bible Echo to Bible Echo and Signs of the Times to (finally) The Australasian Signs of the Times.

Since it appeared that some readers of this paper might wish to study the quotations from the Bible Echo separately, seeing the journal as part of the milieu in which W. L. H. Baker lived and worked, they are presented here in a section separate from the other quotations. It will be remembered that Ellen White was in Australia during the years 1891-1900.

1887

He who considered it not robbery to be equal with God, once trod the earth, bearing our suffering and sorrowing nature.[1]

The Romanists have been trying to get the human nature of Christ as far away from our humanity as possible, and hence have taught the immaculate conception of Mary. No so with the scriptures. They show that on His human side Jesus was the descendant of ancestors no better than other men; that among these ancestors were those who had been guilty of every vice and crime possible to humanity; that the blood which from the human side coursed through His veins had come down for centuries through the vilest of the vile. Yet in that humanity He had dwelt; His presence made and kept it pure and holy.[2]

1889

The God of the universe has given our cases in judgment into the hands of His Son, one who is acquainted with our infirmities. ... He has taken our nature upon Him.[3]

Christ came the first time, clothed with humanity, taking not upon Himself the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham, that He might be made, like ourselves, subject to temptation, pain, and death, that by His connection with humanity He might sympathize with His fallen creatures. (Heb. 2:16-18 quoted)[4]

(Christ) laid aside His royal robes, clothed His divinity with humanity, stepped down from the royal throne, that He might reach the very depths of human woe and temptation, lift up our fallen natures, and make it possible for us to be overcomers, the sons of God, the heirs of the eternal kingdom.[5]

Very few of us realize how nearly the Divine nature approached the human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. More properly speaking, it is impossible for us even to conceive of the infinite condescension that was necessary in order that the Son of God, the associate of the Father, should appear in mortal flesh and participate in human experiences, with all their trials and weaknesses. How fully this was accomplished was expressed by the apostle in Heb. 2:17: "Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to b e made like unto His brethren ."

In this way only could He be brought to feel the power of temptations. We cannot suppose that the temptations to which humanity is subject would impress the Godhead. But "He was tempted in all points like as we are:" consequently He must have partaken of our nature. Should any think this expression too strong, let them read verse 16 of Hebrews 2: "For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham." That He was subject to temptation we know, because it was said of Him, "For that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted." Temptations had their power with Jesus. Under them He suffered, against them He strove, and them He overcame. There is but little sympathy in the thought of Jesus having met our temptations in His divine capacity and nature. They would be but a thistledown wafted against a mountain. In this sense "God cannot be tempted."

But when we consider our Saviour in His humble station, "lower than the angels," meeting successfully the attacks of Satan and the malice of men, and struggling with innate weakness; and when we fully look upon our own faulty and often unsuccessful career, we wonder, how did He endure "such contradiction of sinners against Himself?" ... His faultless life under those circumstances becomes a constant reprover of our sins as well as an encouragement to our weakness. (Emphasis mine.)[6]

(Christ) prayed for us, that the same grace which strengthened His heart and ministered to His weaknesses might be our portion. ... Redemption ... is made necessary by His loving sympathy, His association with human woe and weakness. ... (Emphasis mine.)[7]

1890

(After quoting Hebrews 2:9, 14, 15) ... He ... was indeed a partaker of flesh and blood like unto us, and why? That He might know in His person and be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.[8]

1891

He related Himself to humanity by taking our nature and becoming one of us ... that which interests humanity, and that which humanity can appreciate is the fact that He partook of their nature, their interests, their joys and their sorrows.[9]

1892

By partaking of our nature, His human arm encircles the fallen race.[10]

He took upon Him sinful flesh to suffer and die for guilty man.[11]

He has experienced all our circumstances of trial and weakness.[12]

Christ showed His love for fallen man in leaving the heaven of bliss, the love and honor of the angels, to come to the world and meet man in his fallen condition.[13]

He took upon Him the nature of man and was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh" and became sin for us "that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."[14]

But many say that Jesus was not like us, that He was not as we are in the world, that He was divine, and therefore we cannot overcome as He overcame. But this is not true. "For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham." ... He took upon Himself our nature.[15]

The great work of redemption could be carried out by the Redeemer only as He took the place of fallen man. When Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon Him, but He was surrounded by the glories of Eden. But it was not thus with Jesus, for, bearing the infirmities of degenerate humanity, He entered the wilderness to cope with the mighty foe.[16]

He clothed His divinity with humanity, made Himself of no reputation, took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.[17]

1893

He was to take upon Him our nature. ... He ... was made in the likeness of sinful flesh ... sinless and exalted by nature, the Son of God consented to take the habiliments of humanity, to become one with the fallen race.[18]

When Christ came to this earth, He took man's nature. He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." (Rom. 1:3) Of his own nature David says: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. " (Ps. 51:5) John tells us that Christ, the Word, was "made flesh" (John 1:14), and Paul tells us that He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. 8:3)

The nature which Christ assumed, and the liabilities which He took when He came to this earth to rescue from the grasp of Satan what he had obtained at the fall, are thus stated by the apostle:

"For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; But He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved 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." (Heb. 2:16, 17)

Thus the scriptures declare as plainly as words can do so, that when Christ came to earth He took man's fallen, sinful nature. He was "in all things made like unto His brethren." He "was in all points tempted like as we are." (Heb. 4:15) In doing this, He put Himself in man's place. ...

In taking human nature, Christ did not become a sinner. "He assumed human nature, bearing the infirmities and degeneracy of the race." "He took the nature of man, capable of yielding to temptation." He "took humanity with all its liabilities." (All emphasis the editor's.)[19]

He came in the "likeness of sinful flesh." He was in all things "made like unto His brethren." He was tempted in all points "like as we are." He took human nature, with its weaknesses and liabilities.[20]

He took human nature with all its liabilities.[21]

1894

(After quoting Romans 8:3 and 4) ... Christ came to the earth in the form of sinful man.[22]

(Jacob's ladder) is a representation of Christ. He comes to our earth and meets men where they are; through His own merits He connects helpless men with the infinite God; through the sacrifice of Himself He draws the fallen race unto Him.[23]

1895

Jesus was one with the Father, and revealed the perfection of God, and yet He came to the world in the likeness of sinful flesh.[24]

But who did keep the commandments? Jesus Christ. And who can do it over again, even in sinful flesh? Jesus Christ.[25]

1896

(Here we will not repeat this sermon which was printed as Prescott preached it on Sunday evening, October 31, 1895, at the Armadale camp meeting. It contained twenty-five statements that Christ came to earth in the nature of fallen man, and two statements that Christ did not come to earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam. For the sermon and Ellen White's comments on it, see pp. 88 fr. We note with interest that in the following month Ellen White published her own endorsement of Prescott's position. See below.)[26]

(Christ) identified His interest with that of fallen humanity. Their weakness was His weakness. Their necessity was His necessity. ... The Son of God, having humanity upon Him, lived in our world as a human agent. He passed over the ground which man must travel.[27]

(Christ) living the life of God in sinful flesh that the sinner might live it after Him in sinful flesh.[28]

But this would mean a life of pain and temptation in sinful flesh ... (to) pass through every pain and temptation of sinful flesh.[29]

Do not forget that the mystery of God is not God manifest in sinless flesh but God manifest in sinful flesh. There could never be any mystery about God's manifesting Himself in sinless flesh, in one who had no connection whatever with sin. That would be plain enough. But that He can manifest Himself in flesh laden with sin and with all the tendencies to sin, such as ours is,--that is a mystery. (Emphasis his)[30]

(This startling expression, flesh laden with sin, which Jones used four times in his article, can perhaps be seen as an example of why Ellen White felt it necessary to warn Jones about creating wrong impressions by using too strong language [in his treatment of another subject, justification]. Apparently Jones had a tendency to overstate his case.)

1897

Thus He identified Himself with the fallen, sinful race.[31]

Christ ... was humbled in the shape of human flesh.[32]

Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness; He was ever pure and undefiled, yet He took upon Him our sinful nature.[33]

He took human nature. He became flesh even as we are. ... Every temptation that could be brought against fallen humanity, He met and overcame. ... Had He not been fully human, He could not have been our substitute. ...

As children of the first Adam, we partake of the dying nature of Adam.[34]

1898

It was necessary ... that the Word should be made flesh, and not merely that it should be made flesh, but that it should bear the same kind of flesh. And so God sent His Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh."[35]

1899

Man must be met in his weakness, and Christ took that weakness in order to meet him. The life of God must be revealed to man, but it must be done by a being subject to all the weaknesses and sorrows of man.[36]

As the Son of man, He was subject to the weaknesses that had been entailed upon the race through the degeneracy, personal and hereditary, of the successive generations of evil-doers.[37]

1900

In coming down from the throne of glory which Christ had with the father before the world was, to take upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, it was that humanity might be met where they were in their low state.[38]

He has clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might bear all the infirmities and endure all the temptations of humanity.[39]

The only conditions upon which that gift could be truly made was (sic) first, the giving up of all He possessed; second, the stepping down to the level of "sinful flesh;" and third, His union with human nature. ... He was made in the likeness of "sinful flesh."[40]

Jesus came to the world as a human being that He might become acquainted with human beings, and come close to them in their need. Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin that caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan He bore "the likeness of sinful flesh."[41]

When Adam's sin plunged the race into hopeless misery, God might have cut Himself loose from fallen beings. ... But He did not do this. Instead of banishing them from His presence, He came still nearer to the fallen race. He gave His Son to become bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. ... By His appointment He has placed at His altar an Advocate clothed with our nature.[42]

(The student who has read statements by Adventist writers to the effect that when Adam sinned God withdrew from the human race will be interested in the contrast between that view and the words of Ellen White that

He came still nearer to the fallen race.

These two points of view could hardly be reconciled.)[43]

In doing this, Christ took up the task upon the same conditions and with the same environments (sic) that attend human efforts; - He came "in the likeness of sinful flesh."

When Adam sinned, he was in the likeness of God, but there was no excuse for his sin, because Christ came in the very likeness of flesh dominated by sin, and in that flesh He resisted the evil.[44]

1903

(Christ) took humanity, uniting the offender with His divine nature[45]

(God) gave Him to the fallen race.[46]

(Christ) knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity.[47]

But in laying His hand upon the leper, Jesus received no defilement. ... Jesus, coming to dwell in humanity, receives no pollution.[48]

Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. ...

Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth. ... If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching the earth, we would have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," He lived a sinless life.[49]

(Jesus) took our nature upon Himself, and was subject to our temptations and infirmities.[50]

Henceforth the church was to look backward to a Saviour who had come;--who lived in sinful flesh.[51]

1904

He who was Commander of all heaven laid aside His royal robe and kingly crown, and realizing the helplessness of the fallen race, came to this earth in human nature to make it possible for us to unite our humanity to His divinity.[52]

Because we are partakers of flesh and blood, and heirs of its weaknesses, He became partaker of our nature.[53]

Christ, in order to reveal His father's love, took upon Himself our flesh, linked humanity with divinity, became subject to all our aches and pains ... "Himself took our infirmities."[54]

Christ stooped to take upon Himself human nature, that He might reach the fallen race and lift them up.[55]

Notes:

1. Ellen White, BE 8/87, p. 114, col. 1
2. Bishop Simpson, Yale Lectures on Preaching (Quoted), BE 12/87, p. 179, cols. 2, 3
3. Ellen White, BE 1/15/89, p. 17, col. 2
4. S. H. Haskell, BE 3/15/89, p. 89, col. 1
5. Ellen White, BE 4/15/89, p. 113, col. 3
6. Editorial (G. C. Tenney, ed.), BE 5/15/89, p. 152, col. 1
7. Editorial (G. C. Tenney, ed.), BE 6/03/89, p. 168, col. 1
8. D. Lacy, BE 4/01/90, p. 99, col. 39.
9. Editorial, BE 12/01/91, p. 361, col. 1
10. Stephen Haskell, BE 2115/92, p. 56, col. 3
11. A. W. Semmens, teacher at Melbourne School, Secretary of Australasian Conference, BE 5/15/92, p. 148, col. 3
12. Editorial, BE 8/15/92, p. 248, col. 2
13. Ellen White, BE 9/01192, p. 258, col. 2
14. Ellen White, BE 9/15/92, p. 274, col. 3
15. Ellen White, BE 11/01/92, p. 322, col. 2
16. Ellen White, BE 11/15/92, p. 338, col. 1
17. Ellen White (using Bible words as her own), BE 12/15/92, p. 370, col. 1
18. Ellen White, BE 8/01/93, p. 242, col. 2
19. (Front Page Editorial), BE 11/22/93, Columns 2 and 3
20. (Front Page Editorial), BE 12/01/93, Column 1
21. (Front Page Editorial), BE 12/08/93, Column 2
22. Editorial, BE 11/19/94, p. 354, col. 2
23. Ellen White, BE 11/19/94, p. 355, col. 3
24. Ellen White, BE 4/22/95, p. 123, col. 1
25. W. W. Prescott, BE 12/09/95, p. 380, col. 2
26. W. W. Prescott, BE 1/06/96 and 1/13/96.
27. Ellen White, BE 2/24/96, p. 1, col. 2
28. (Front Page Editorial), BE 4/27/96, p. 1, col. 3
29. (Front Page Editorial), BE 7/20/96, p. 1, col. 3
30. A. T. Jones, BE 11/30/96, p. 370, col. 3; See 1 SM, page 377.
31. Editorial, BE 2/08/97, p. 42, col. 1
32. (Front Page Editorial), BE 3/22/97, col. 1
33. Ellen White, BE 4/05/97, p. 106, col. 2
34. Ellen White, BE 8/02/97, p. 1, col. 3
35. W. W. Prescott, BE 5/02198, p. 138, col. 2
36. Editorial, BE 5/15/99, p. 162, col. 3
37. A. T. Jones, BE 7/10/99, p. 227, col. 3
38. S. McCullagh, first secretary of Australasian Conference, BE 1/15/1900, p. 43, col. 1
39. Ellen White, BE 5/21/1900, p. 330, col. 2
40. Editorial, BE 7/30/1900, p. 496, col. 1
41. Ellen White, BE 9/03/1900, p. 571, col. 1
42. Ellen White, AR 6/01/1900 (Australasian Record), p. 33, col. 2
43. Heppenstall, The Man Who Is God, page 121
44. Editorial, BE 10/08/1900, p. 657, col. 3
45. Ellen White, BE 2/02/1903, p. 51, col. 2
46. Ellen White, AST 4/27/03, p. 195, col. 1
47. Ellen White, AST 5/25/03, p. 247, col. 2
48. Ellen White, AST 6/08/03, p. 271, col. 3
49. Ellen White, AST 12/14/03, p. 600, cols. 1, 2
50. E. Hilliard, AST 10/12/03, p. 492, col. 2
51. E. W. Farnsworth (ed.), AST 11/23/03 p. 568, col. 2
52. Ellen White, AST 3/14/04, p. 127, col. 1
53. G. B. Starr, AST 7/04/04, p. 323, col. 3
54. W. H. Pascoe, AST 7/04/04, p. 324, col. 3
55. Ellen White, AST 10/17/04, p. 504, col. 1

Chapter 11

1895-1896 The Immediate Context of the Baker Letter

In order that the Baker letter may be viewed as clearly as possible within the setting of its own immediate context, we are focusing our attention in this section on the two year period 1895-1896. It was near or shortly after the end of the year 1895 that Ellen White wrote a letter from Australia to a pastor W. L. H. Baker in Tasmania, a letter which was to be used by others, after her death, to change the Christological position of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

It is apparent from the records that this twenty-four month period, 1895-96, constituted a "high water mark" in Christological discussion within the Seventh-day Adventist church and in its testimony to the world. We have just noted that in 1895-96 the Australian Bible Echo had published the opinion that Christ had come to the earth in the human nature of fallen man (sinful flesh) in:
Two statements by Ellen White;
Two front page editorials;
A statement by A. T. Jones;
A statement by W. W. Prescott; (and)
The full text of a sermon by Prescott in which he affirmed that opinion twenty-five times, while twice rejecting the view that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.

Meanwhile, the same subject was being given extended treatment elsewhere. In January, 1895, a statement by William Covert and another by J. H. Durland were published in the Review. In February, church delegates gathered for a General Conference session in the Battle Creek Tabernacle, in Battle Creek, Michigan. Here they listened to a series of messages by W. W. Prescott during which he stated at least twenty times that Christ had come to earth in the fallen nature (sinful flesh) of man.

This conviction was shared and reinforced by A. T. Jone s, who, in a series of talks on The Third Angel's Message made the same point not less than ninety times. (It is worth noting that Jones used several lines from an advance manuscript of Ellen White's yet unpublished "The Desire of Ages" to support his statements about the nature of Christ.)

These messages were taken down by stenographers and were reported in full to the church membership in the General Conference Bulletin. During the ensuing months of 1895 several additional statements (by Prescott, Starbuck, and Durland) were published in the Review and in the Signs.

Ellen White could not have come to the end of the year 1895, when she wrote the Baker letter, without being aware of these events. And when W. W. Prescott brought the same message, with strong emphasis, to the Armadale camp meeting in Australia in October-November, 1895, the record is clear that she rejoiced to hear it and commended it in unmistakable terms. She herself had been expressing the same thought in letters and manuscripts throughout the year, as well as in the manus cript for "The Desire of Ages", which she was preparing for publication.

In 1896, along with twenty statements of Ellen White and several by J. E. Evans, Stephen Haskell, etc., the Review published a series of articles by W. W. Prescott in which he restated his conviction about the human nature of Jesus at least twenty-five times.

So the combined testimony of the various spokesmen for the church, including Ellen White, during this two year period, 1895-1896, could not have been less than two hundred and fifty statements that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man.

Speaking in terms of chronology, we would see these two years, with their strong emphasis on Christological discussions, as the immediate context of the Baker letter. We cannot state with certainty how much of this discussion came to the attention of W. L. H. Baker, but we cannot doubt that most, if not all of it, was made known to Ellen White. And it would seem highly unlikely that Baker could have missed it all.

The records do not indicate that in any other two year period in the history of the church there was as much attention given to the subject of the nature of Christ as in the years 1895-1896, nor do the records give evidence of any disagreement on the subject. Therefore the question we must consider now is whether the emphasis placed on interpretations of a few lines from the Baker letter reflect accurately and adequately the tenor and consensus of these Christological discussions, or whether by the use made of these interpretations of the Baker letter the picture has actually been distorted, and the unfortunate impression created that Ellen White contradicted herself. Let us examine the evidence.

1895

He was clothed with a body like ours.[1]

He came to the world in the likeness of sinful flesh.[2]

Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh, clothing His divinity with humanity.[3]

He took upon Him the likeness of sinful flesh, and was made in all points like unto His brethren.[4]

H e stooped t o take human nature, i n order t o b e able t o reach man where he was.[5]

(He) humbled Himself so that He might meet man in his fallen, helpless condition.[6]

He came as a helpless babe, bearing the humanity we bear.[7]

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.[8]

Jesus assumed humanity that He might treat humanity ... making all feel that His identification with their nature and interest is complete.[9]

He came as a helpless babe, bearing the humanity we bear. "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." ... In His humanity He understood all the temptations that will come to man.[10]

He ... suffered every phase of trial and temptation with which humanity is beset.[11]

So Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.[12]

With man's nature upon Him ... He must be like His brethren in all points as to flesh and temptation, and yet live without sin. In the flesh He must be as weak as they. ... He must know the power of sin ... in sinful flesh ...in sinful flesh ... in sinful flesh ... the weakness of human flesh.[13]

Thus was Jesus of the flesh of David, and subject to all the infirmities of that flesh.[14]

Then (God) preached Christ in the flesh--a life--presenting before men, under the very circumstances under which they lived, and in the same flesh in which they lived.[15]

... it is because the children were partakers of flesh and blood that He also Himself likewise took part of the same flesh and blood.[16]

Divinity was manifested, put into humanity, clothed with a body; clothed with flesh, our flesh. ... How did He take upon Him that nature, that flesh and blood? He did it by birth, by being born of a woman.[17]

Christ took our flesh ... it was when Jesus Christ took our human nature and was born of a woman, that humanity and divinity were joined.[18]

Jesus Christ became flesh and blood relation--near of kin to every one of us ... He ... took part of our same flesh and blood.[19]

... the flesh which He took and in which He dwelt was our flesh. ... He took our flesh.[20]

... the condescension of Jesus Christ to come here and dwell in us! To take our flesh, our sinful flesh.[21]

... that body of flesh was a body of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3).[22]

Jesus Christ came, and by taking our nature, our sinful flesh ... He did unite Himself to sinful flesh.[23]

He took sinful flesh, flesh that is used for sinful purposes, and in that sinful flesh, He gave His thought, He revealed Himself ... it was in sinful flesh that He was revealed.[24]

Although Jesus Christ took sinful flesh,--flesh in which we sin, ... God was able to keep Him from sinning in that sinful flesh. So that although He was manifested in sinful flesh, God by His Spirit and power dwelling in Him, kept Him from sinning in that sinful flesh ... (God) made a perfect revelation of His mind in that sinful flesh.[25]

... the grace of God was able to reveal in sinful flesh the character of God. ... Even in sinful flesh there could be by the grace of God a revelation of the Divine character not marred by sin ... in sinful flesh to reveal perfectly the character of God. ... To show ... that God did not require of humanity, even in sinful flesh, any more than could be rendered through the grace of God in Jesus Christ.[26]

The Power which kept Jesus Christ in His life in sinful flesh, is for you and for me.[27]

To meet Satan it was necessary to meet Him in the flesh of fallen man. So when Jesus took up His abode in the flesh, it was not the flesh that man had before he fell, but it was the sinful flesh that man had after he fell. ... He came to save sinners, therefore He must take the flesh of sinners. ... He had all the weakness of the flesh that we have. The flesh which He took had the same desires that our own flesh has.[28]

The particular thought which will be the subject of our study at this time is that which is found in the 11th verse, second chapter of Hebrews: "Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one." It is men of this world, sinful men, whom Christ sanctifies--He is the Sanctifier. And He and these are all of one.

In this part of the chapter you will remember we are studying man. In the first chapter, as we have seen, there is shown the contrast between Christ and the angels, with Christ above the angels as God. In the second chapter the contrast is between Christ and the angels, with Christ below the angels. God has not put in subjection to the angels the world to come whereof we speak. He has put it in subjection to man, and Christ is the man. Therefore Christ became man; He takes the place of man; He was born as man is born. In His human nature, Christ came from the man from whom we all have come; so that the expression in this verse, "all of one," is the same as "all from one,"--as all coming forth from one. One man is the source and head of all our human nature. And the genealogy of Christ, as one of us, runs to Adam. (Luke 3:38)

It is true that all men and all things are from God; but the thought in this chapter is man, and Christ as man. We are the sons of the first man, and so is Christ according to the flesh. We are now studying Christ in His human nature. The first chapter of Hebrews is Christ in His divine nature. The second chapter is Christ in human nature. The thought in these two chapters is clearly akin to that in the second chapter of Philippians, verses 5-8:--

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

In that passage Christ in the two forms is set forth. First, being in the form of God, He took the form of man. In Hebrews, first two chapters, it is not the form, but the nature.

I repeat: In the second chapter of Philippians we have Christ in the two forms--the form of God and the form of man. In Hebrews, first and second chapters, we have Christ in the two natures, the nature of God and the nature of man. You may have something in the form of man that would not be of the nature of man. You can have a piece of stone in the form of man, but it is not the nature of man. Jesus Christ took the form of man, that is true; and He did more, He took the nature of man.

Let us read now the fourteenth verse of the second chapter of Hebrews. "Forasmuch then as the children [the children of Adam, the human race] are partakers of the flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." "Likewise" means in this wise, in this way, in a way like this which is spoken of. Therefore Christ took flesh and blood in a way like we take it. But how did we take flesh and blood?--By birth and clear from Adam too. He took flesh and blood by birth also; and clear from Adam too. For it is written: He is "the seed of David according to the flesh." (Rom. 1:3) While David calls him Lord, he also is David's son. (Matt. 22:42-45) His genealogy is traced to David; but it does not stop there. It goes to Abraham; because He is the seed of Abraham. He took on Him the seed of Abraham, as in the sixteenth verse of this second chapter of Hebrews. Nor does His genealogy stop with Abraham; it goes to Adam. (Luke 3:38) Therefore He which sanctifieth among men, and they who are sanctified among men are all of one. All coming from one man according to the flesh, are all of one. Thus on the human side, Christ's nature is precisely our nature.

Let us look at the other side again for an illustration of this oneness, that we may see the force of this expression that He and we are all of one.

On the other side, however, as in the first chapter of Hebrews, he is of the nature of God. The name "God" which He bears belongs to Him by the very fact of His existence; it belongs to Him "by inheritance." As that name belongs to Him entirely because He exists, and as certainly as He exists; and as it belongs to Him by nature, it is certain that His nature is the nature of God.

Also, in the first chapter of John, first verse, it is written: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." That word "with" does not express the reality of the thought as well as another. The German puts a word in there that defines the Greek closer than ours does. That says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was bei God;" literally, "The Word was of God." And that is true. The Greek word conveys the same idea as that my right arm is of me, of my body. The Greek therefore is literally, In the beginning "the Word was God."

This simply illustrates on that side the fact as to what He is on this side. For as on the divine side, He was of God, of the nature of God, and was really God, so on the human side He is of man, and of the nature of man, and really man.

Look at the fourteenth verse of the first chapter of John: " And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." That tells the same story that we are reading here in the first two chapters of Hebrews. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was of God, and the Word was God." "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," flesh and blood as ours is.

Now what kind of flesh is it? What kind of flesh alone is it that this world knows?--Just such flesh as you and I have. This world does not know any other flesh of man, and has not known any other since the necessity for Christ's coming was created. Therefore, as this world knows only such flesh as we have, as it is now, it is certainly true that when "the Word was made flesh," He was made just such flesh as ours is. It cannot be otherwise.

Again: What kind of flesh is our flesh, as it is in itself? Let us turn to the eighth chapter of Romans, and read whether Christ's human nature meets ours, and is as ours in that respect wherein ours is sinful flesh. (Romans 8:3): "What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son" did.

There was something that the law could not do, and that God, sending His own Son, did. But why was it that the law could not do what it desired, and what was required?--It was weak through the flesh. The trouble was in the flesh. It was this that caused the law to fail of its purpose concerning man. Then God sent Christ to do what the law could not do. And the law having failed of its purpose, because of the flesh, and not because of any lack in itself, God must send Him to help the flesh, and not to help the law. If the law had been in itself too weak to do what it was intended to do, then the thing for Him to have done to help the matter out would be to remedy the law; but the trouble was with the flesh, and therefore He must remedy the flesh.

It is true that the argument nowadays, springing up from that enmity that is against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, is that the law could not do what was intended, and God sent His Son to weaken the law, so that the flesh could answer the demands of the law. But if I am weak and you are strong, and I need help, it does not help me any to make you as weak as I am: I am as weak and helpless as before. There is no help at all in all that. But when I am weak and you are strong, and you can bring to me your strength, that helps me. So the law was strong enough; but its purpose could not be accomplished through the weakness of the flesh. Therefore God, to supply the need, must bring strength to weak flesh. He sent Christ to supply the need; and therefore Christ must so arrange it that strength may be brought to our flesh itself which we have to-day, that the purpose of the law may be met in our flesh. So it is written: " God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," in order "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Now, do not get a wrong idea of that word "likeness." It is not the shape; it is not the photograph; it is not the likeness in the sense of an image; but it is likeness in the sense of being like indeed. The word "likeness" here is not the thought that is in the second chapter of Philippians, where it is shape, the form, or likeness as to form; but here, in the book of Hebrews, it is likeness in nature, likeness to the flesh as it is in itself, God sending His own Son in that which is just like sinful flesh. And in order to be just like sinful flesh, it would have to be sinful flesh; in order to be made flesh at all, as it is in this world, He would have to be just such flesh as it is in this world,--just such as we have, and that is sinful flesh. This is what is said in the words "likeness of sinful flesh."

This is shown in the ninth and tenth verses of Hebrews 2, also: "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels"--not only as man was made lower than the angels when He was created.

Man was sinless when God made him a little lower than the angels. That was sinless flesh. But man fell from that place and condition, and became sinful flesh.

Now we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels; but not as man was made when he was first made a little lower than the angels, but as man is since he sinned, and became still lower than the angels. That is where we see Jesus. Let us read and see: "We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels." What for?--"For the suffering of death. " Then Christ's being made as much lower than the angels as man is, is as much lower than the angels as man is since he sinned and became subject to death. We see Him "crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him [it was appropriate for 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. "

Therefore, as He became subject to suffering and death, this demonstrates strongly enough that the point lower than the angels at which Christ came to stand; where He does stand; and where "we see him," is the point to which man came when he, in sin, stepped still lower than where God made him--even then a little lower than the angels.

Again: the sixteenth verse: "Verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the nature of Abraham. But the nature of Abraham and of the seed of Abraham is only human nature.

Again: "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren." In how many things?--All things. Then in His human nature there is not a particle of difference between Him and you.

Let us read the scripture. Let us study this closely. I want to see that we shall stand by it. Let us read it over: "Are all of one." He took part of flesh and blood in the same way that we take part of flesh and blood. He took not the nature of angels, but the seed, the nature, of Abraham. Wherefore,--for these reasons,--it became Him; it was appropriate. It behooved Him to be made in all things like unto His brethren. Who are His brethren, though?--the human race. "All of one;" and for this cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren. Because we are all of one, He is not ashamed to call you and me brethren. "Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren."

Well, then, in His human nature, when He was upon the earth, was He in any wise different from what you are in your human nature to-night? [A few in the congregation responded, "NO."] I wish we had heard everybody in the house say, "No," with a loud voice. You are too timid altogether. The word of God says that, and we are to say, That is so; because there is salvation in just that one thing. No, it is not enough to say it that way: the salvation of God for human beings lies in just that one thing. We are not to be timid about it at all. There our salvation lies, and until we get there we are not sure of our salvation. That is where it is. "In all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren." What for?--O, "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. " Then don't you see that our salvation lies just there? Do you not see that it is right there where Christ comes to us? He came to us just where we are tempted, and was made like us just where we are tempted; and there is the point where we meet Him--the living Saviour against the power of temptation.

Now the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter of Hebrews:--

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 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."

He could not have been tempted in all points like as I am, if He were not in all points like as I am to start with. Therefore it behooved Him to be made in all points like me, if He is going to help me where I need help. I know that right there is where I need it. And oh, I know it is right there where I get it. Thank the Lord! There is where Christ stands, and there is my help.

"We have not a high priest which cannot be touched"--two negatives there; have not a high priest which cannot be touched. Then what do we have on the affirmative side?--We have a high priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,--my infirmities, your infirmities, our infirmities. Does He feel my infirmities?--Yes. Does He feel your infirmities?--Yes. What is an infirmity?--Weakness, wavering,--weakness,--that is expressive enough. We have many of them; all of us have many of them. We feel our weaknesses. Thank the Lord, there is One who feels them also,--yea, not only feels them, but is touched with the feeling of them. There is more in that word "touched" than simply that He is reached with the feeling of our weaknesses, and feels as we feel. He feels as we feel, that is true, but beyond that He is "touched;" that is, He is tenderly affected; His sympathy is stirred. He is touched to tenderness and affected to sympathy, and He helps us. That is what is said in the words, "touched with the feeling of our infirmities." Thank the Lord for such a Saviour!

But I say again, He cannot be tempted in all points like as I am unless He was in all points like I am to start with. He could not feel as I do unless He is where I am, and as I am. In other words, He could not be tempted in all points as I am, and feel as I feel, unless He was just myself over again. The word of God says: "In all points like as we are."

Let us study this further. There are things that will tempt you strongly, that will draw hard on you, that are no more to me than a zephyr in a summer day. Something will draw hard on me, even to my overthrowing, that would not affect you at all. What strongly tempts one may not affect you at all. What strongly tempts one may not affect another. Then, in order to help me, Jesus must be where He can feel what I feel, and be tempted in all points where I could be tempted with any power at all. But as things that tempt me may not affect you at all, and things that affect you may not affect me, Christ has to stand where you and I both are, so as to meet all the temptations of both. He must feel all those which you meet that do not affect me, and also all those which I meet that do not affect you. He has to take the place of both of us. That is so.

Then there is the other man. There are things that tempt him to his overthrow, that do not affect you or me either. Then Jesus had to take all the feelings and the nature of myself, of yourself, and of the other man also, so that He could be tempted in all points like as I am, and in all points like as you are, and in all points like as the other man is. But when you and I, and the other man, are taken in Him, how many does that embrace?--That takes the whole human race.

And this is exactly the truth. Christ was in the place, and He had the nature, of the whole human race.--And in Him meet all the weaknesses of mankind, so that every man on the earth who can be tempted at all, finds in Jesus Christ power against that temptation. For every soul there is in Jesus Christ victory against all temptations, and relief from the power of it. That is the truth.

Let us look at it from another side. There is one in the world--Satan, the god of this world--who is interested in seeing that we are tempted just as much as possible; but he does not have to employ much of his time nor very much of his power in temptation to get us to yield.

That same one was here, and he was particularly interested in getting Jesus to yield to temptation. He tried Jesus upon every point upon which he would ever have to try me to get me to sin; and he tried in vain. He utterly failed to get Jesus to consent to sin in any single point upon which I can ever be tempted.

He also tried Jesus upon every point upon which he has ever tried you or ever can try you, to get you to sin; and he utterly failed there too. That takes you and me both then; and Jesus has conquered in all points for both you and me.

But when he tried Jesus upon all the points that he has tried upon both you and me and failed there, as he did completely fail, he had to try Him more than that yet. He had to try Him upon all the points upon which he has tried the other man, to get him to yield. Satan did this also, and also there completely failed.

Thus Satan had to try, and he did try, Jesus upon all the points that he ever had to try me upon; and upon all the points that he ever had to try you upon; and also upon all the points that he would have to try the other man upon. Consequently he had to try Jesus upon every point upon which it is possible for a temptation to rise in any man of the human race.

Satan is the author of all temptation, and he had to try Jesus in all points upon which he ever had to try any man. He also had to try Jesus upon every point which it is possible for Satan himself to raise a temptation. And in all he failed all the time. Thank the Lord! More than that: Satan not only had to try Jesus upon the points where he has ever had to try me, but he had to try Jesus with a good deal more power than he ever had to exert upon me. He never had to try very hard, nor use very much of his power in temptation, to get me to yield. But taking the same points upon which Satan has ever tried me in which he got me to sin, or would ever have to try to get me to sin, he had to try Jesus on those same points a good deal harder than he ever did to get me to sin. He had to try Him with all the power of temptation that he possibly knows,--that, is the devil I mean,--and failed. Thank the Lord! So in Christ I am free.

He had to try Jesus in all points where he ever tempted, or ever can tempt you, and he had to try Him with all the power that he knows; and he failed again. Thank the Lord! So you are free in Christ. He had also to try Jesus upon every point that affects the other man, with all his Satanic power also; and still he failed. Thank the Lord! And in Christ the other man is free.

Therefore he had to try Jesus upon every point that ever the human race could be tried upon, and failed; he had to try Jesus with all the knowledge that he has, and all the cunning that he knows, and failed; and he had to try Jesus with all his might upon each particular point, and he still failed.

Then there is a threefold,--yes, a complete,--failure on the devil's part all around. In the presence of Christ, Satan is absoutely conquered; and in Christ we are conquerors of Satan. Jesus said, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." In Christ, then, we escape him. In Christ we meet in Satan a completely conquered and a completely exhausted enemy.

That is not to say that we have no more fighting to do. But it is to say, and to say emphatically and joyfully, that in Christ we fight the fight of victory. Out of Christ, we fight,--but it is all defeat. In Him our victory is complete, as well as in all things in Him we are complete. But, O do not forget the expression: It is in Him!

Then, as Satan has exhausted all the temptations that he knows, or possibly can know, and has exhausted all his powers in the temptation too, what is he? in the presence of Christ, what is he?--Powerless. And when he finds us in Christ, and then would reach us and harass us, what is he?--Powerless. Praise and magnify the Lord!

Let us rejoice in this; for in Him we are victors; in Him we are free; in Him Satan is powerless toward us. Let us be thankful for that. In Him we are complete.[29]

And in noticing the other evening how He became one of us, we found that it was by birth from the flesh. He is "the seed of David according to the flesh." He took not the nature of angels, but the nature of the seed of Abraham; and His genealogy goes to Adam. ...

So all the tendencies to sin that are in the human race came from Adam. But Jesus Christ felt all these temptations; He was tempted upon all these points in the flesh which He derived from David, from Abraham, and from Adam. In His genealogy are a number of characters set forth as they were lived in the men; and they were not righteous. Manasseh is there, who did worse than any other king ever in Judah, and caused Judah to do worse than the heathen; Solomon is there, with the description of his character in the Bible just as it is; David is there; Rahab is there; Judah is there; Jacob is there,--all are there just as they were. Now Jesus came according to the flesh at the end of that line of mankind. And there is such a thing as heredity.[30]

Now that law of heredity reached from Adam to the flesh of Jesus Christ as certainly as it reaches from Adam to the flesh of any of the rest of us; for He was one of us. In Him there were things that reached Him from Adam; in Him there were things that reached Him from David, from Manasseh, from the genealogy away back from the beginning until His birth.

Thus in the flesh of Jesus Christ,--not in Himself, but in His flesh,--our flesh which He took in the human nature,--there were just the same tendencies to sin that are in you and me. ... And thus being in the likeness of sinful flesh, He condemned sin in the flesh. ...

That is simply saying that all the tendencies to sin that are in human flesh were in His human flesh, and not one of them was ever allowed to appear; He conquered them all. And in Him we all have victory over them all.[31]

We are no more responsible for these tendencies being in us that we are responsible for the sun shining; but every man on the earth is responsible for these things appearing in open action in him; because Jesus Christ has made provision against their ever appearing in open action.[32]

Jesus Christ, the second man, took our sinful nature.[33]

And Christ having taken our human nature in all things in the flesh. ... In all points it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren; and He is our brother in the nearest blood-relationship.[34]

He has demonstrated it in my flesh that He inclines,--leans over,--to listen to my cry.[35]

Weak as we, sinful as we,--simply ourselves,--He went through this world, and never sinned. He was sinful as we, weak as we, helpless as we. ...

The mystery of God is not God manifest in sinless flesh. There is no mystery about God being manifest in sinless flesh; that is natural enough. Is not God Himself sinless? Is there then, any room for wonder that God could manifest Himself through or in sinless flesh? Is there any mystery as to God's manifesting His power and His righteous glory through Gabriel, or through the bright seraphim or the cherubim? - No; that is natural enough. But the wonder is that God can do that through and in sinful flesh. That is the mystery of God,--God manifest in sinful flesh.

In Jesus Christ as He was in sinful flesh, God has demonstrated before the universe that He can so take possession of sinful flesh as to manifest His own presence, His power, and His glory, instead of sin manifesting itself.[36]

(The student will observe in this passage an unguarded expression by Jones, "He was sinful as we." This is quite different from saying that He had a sinful nature like ours but never sinned, which Jones said many times.

The careful and fair-minded reader, seeing this expression surrounded by statements that Christ never sinned, would not misunderstand the writer's intention, but would see this as an example of incautious wording. However, we cannot realistically expect all readers to be that careful and fair-minded. An expression like this, taken out of its context, could be very damaging. So let us carefully avoid the inadvertent use of any such expressions.)

Then let us respond, and sink ourselves in Him, that God may still be manifest in sinful flesh.[37]

Christ has allied Himself with every soul on the earth; He has linked Himself with every human being, with every one in sinful flesh.[38]

... the false idea that He is so holy that it would be entirely unbecoming in Him to come near to us, and be possessed of such a nature as we have,--sinful, depraved, fallen human nature. Therefore Mary must be born immaculate, perfect, sinless, and higher than the cherubim and seraphim; and then Christ must be so born of her as to take His human nature in absolute sinlessness from her. But that puts Him farther away from us than the cherubim and the seraphim are, and in a sinless nature.

But if He comes no nearer to us than in a sinless nature, that is a long way off; because I need somebody that is nearer to me than that. I need someone to help me who knows something about sinful nature; for that is the nature that I have; and such the Lord did take. He became one of us.[39]

Thus in His true holiness, Christ could come, and did come, to sinful men in sinful flesh, where sinful men are. Thus in Christ, and in Christ alone, is found the brotherhood of man. All indeed are one in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Some have found, and all may find, in the "Testimonies" the statement that Christ has not "like passions" as we have. The statement is there; everyone may find it there, of course.[40]

Now as to Christ's not having "like passions" with us: In the Scriptures all the way through He is like us, and with us according to the flesh. He is the seed of David according to the flesh. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. Don't go too far. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh; not in the likeness of sinful mind. Do not drag His mind into it. His flesh was our flesh; but the mind was "the mind of Christ Jesus." Therefore it is written: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus."[41]

Now Jesus Christ comes into the world, taking our flesh.[42]

Now the flesh of Jesus Christ was our flesh, and in it was all that is in our flesh,--all the tendencies to sin that are in our flesh were in His flesh, drawing upon Him to get Him to consent to sin. Suppose He had consented to sin with His mind; what then? Then His mind would have been corrupted, and then He would have become of like passions with us.[43]

Therefore Jesus Christ came in just such flesh as ours, but with a mind that held its integrity against every temptation, against every inducement to sin,--a mind that never consented to sin,--no, never in the least conceivable shadow of a thought.[44]

Jesus Christ came into this flesh Himself,--the glorious One,--He who made the worlds, the Word of God,--was made flesh Himself, and He was our flesh; and He, that divine One, who was in heaven, was in our sinful flesh. Yet that divine One, when in sinful flesh, never manifested a particle of His divine self in resisting the temptations that were in that flesh, but emptied Himself. ...

Jesus Christ, the divine one, the infinite One, came in His divine person in this same flesh of ours, and never allowed His divine power, His personal self, to be manifested at all in resisting these temptations and enticements and drawings of the flesh.

What was it, then, that conquered sin there, and kept Him from sinning? It was the power of God, the Father, that kept Him. ...

Christ Himself, who made the worlds, was all the time in that sinful flesh of mine and yours which He took.[45]

Now I read a few lines from the advance pages of the new "Life of Christ." - (Later entitled The Desire of Ages.)

"In order to carry out the great work of redemption, the Redeemer must take the place of fallen man. ...

When Adam was assailed by the tempter, He was without the taint of sin. He stood before God in the strength of perfect manhood, all the organs and faculties of His being fully developed and harmoniously balanced; and He was surrounded with things of beauty, and communed daily with the holy angels. What a contrast to this perfect being did the second Adam present, as He entered the desolate wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and deteriorating in moral worth; and in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he stood. He assumed human nature, bearing the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He humiliated Himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that He might sympathize with man and rescue Him from the degradation into which sin had plunged Him.

"Christ took humanity with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man with the possibility of yielding to temptation, and He relied upon divine power to keep Him."[46]

He was our sinful selves in the flesh, and here were all these tendencies to sin being stirred up in His flesh to get Him to consent to sin. But He Himself did not keep Himself from sinning. To have done so would have been Himself manifesting Himself against the power of Satan, and this would have destroyed the plan of salvation.[47]

Therefore Christ came in our flesh, and the Father dwelt with Him. ...

Christ came in that sinful flesh, but did not do anything of Himself against the temptation and power of sin in the flesh. He emptied Himself, and the Father worked in human flesh against the power of sin, and kept Him from sinning.[48]

Christ emptied Himself, in order that God might be manifest in the flesh, in sinful flesh.[49]

We have studied for several lessons the fact that He in human nature was ourselves.[50]

He has proven His ability to take us and fulfill His purpose concerning human nature, concerning sinful flesh as it is in this world.[51]

God has set before us in Christ His complete workmanship in sinful flesh. In Christ He has completed it, and set it there at His right hand. Now He says to us: "Look at that. That is what I am able to do with sinful flesh."[52]

When He was upon the earth, He was in our human, sinful flesh. ...

This is the same as we had in a previous lesson, that God manifest in the flesh, God manifest in sinful flesh, is the mystery of God--not God manifested in sinless flesh, but in sinful flesh. That is to say, God will so dwell in our sinful flesh to-day that although that flesh be sinful, its sinfulness will not be felt or realized, nor cast any influence upon others; that God will so dwell yet in sinful flesh that in spite of all the sinfulness of sinful flesh, His influence, His glory, His righteousness, His character, shall be manifested wherever that person goes.

This was precisely the case with Jesus in the flesh.[53]

A second Adam came, not as the first Adam was, but as the first Adam had caused his descendants to be at the time in which he came. The second Adam came at the point in the degeneracy of the race to which the race had come from the first Adam.[54]

The Lord Jesus entered upon the open field in contest with Satan, in human flesh at the point which human flesh had reached in degeneracy at the moment when He was born into the world. There, in the weakness of human nature as it was in the world when He came into the flesh, He fought the battle.

Human nature will never be any weaker, the world will never be any worse in itself; human nature will never reach any lower condition in itself, than it had reached when Jesus Christ came into the world.[55]

Jesus Christ came into the world in that weakest stage of human flesh, and in that flesh, as a man, He fought the battle with Satan. ...

Now when this second Adam comes into human flesh right at the point to which Satan had brought the whole race by sin, and there in all this weakness enters upon contest, Satan can never say that that is not fair. ... He can not do it, for there stood Christ in the very weakness of the flesh to which Satan had brought man. Christ came in the very weakness which Satan had brought upon the race.[56]

Jesus came here into Satan's territory, and took human nature at the point to which Satan himself had brought it.[57]

He put off the body of flesh by destroying the enmity in sinful flesh, by conquering all the tendencies of the sinful flesh.[58]

In His incarnation He was human in the fullest sense, for He had sinful flesh, with all its accumulated tendencies to evil. ...

It is not imputed to us as sin that we are borne (sic) with sinful flesh, or that we are tempted in that nature, for Christ voluntarily assumed that nature and was tempted in it, yet without sin. ...

He assumed our sinful flesh, with its inherent sinful tendencies.[59]

What was the nature of this flesh which He took? ... He must have had the same kind of flesh which we have ... Jesus Christ took "flesh of sin." ... Yes, reader, the blessed Son of God ... took up His abode in flesh with the same desires that you have in your flesh.[60]

None will ever be able to explain how the Son of God could leave heaven and come to this earth and be born as fallen humanity is born. ... He must take the same flesh that man had after the fall. ... He took neither the nature of angels, nor of man before the fall. ... Had He taken the nature of Adam before the fall, He would not have been under the death sentence which was passed upon all men. ...

He did not possess the passions of our fallen natures, caused by being overcome by sin. But the flesh which He took would soon have possessed all the passions that sin has brought upon us had He once yielded. He met the tempter in the weak, sinful flesh, and condemned it so that it was not able to overcome Him. ...

He took sinful flesh that He might subdue the corruptions of our old nature.[61]

On Sunday evening, October 31, 1895, W. W. Prescott preached a sermon at the Armadale Campmeeting, in Victoria, Australia. Ellen White heard this sermon, and his other sermons that followed it, and was so moved that she expressed her gratitude for his message in fervent terms in several different letters to various people.

Since the White Estate has not yet released all of these letters for publication, I cannot report them to you by specific identification, giving the precise location of each statement. I can, however, say that if the student will examine the following materials, he will find scattered through them expressions of approval for Prescott's messages like those on the next page(s):

Ms. 19, 1895 Letter W-25, 1895 Review and Herald Ms. 23, 1895 Letter W-32, 1895 Jan . 6, 1 896 Ms. 47, 1895 Letter W-83, 1895 (published and Ms. 52, 1895 Letter W-84, 1895 released)

(After reading the expressions of approval, the student will wish to read Elder Prescott's sermon, which immediately follows them.)

I have just been listening to a discourse given by Professor Prescott. It was a most powerful appeal to the people. ... Maggie Hare is reporting Professor Prescott's discourses and my talks, for publication. (His) sermons will never seem the same, I fear, as when given by the living preacher. For the words are spoken in the demonstration of the Spirit, and with power, his face all aglow with the sunshine of heaven. The presence of the Lord is in our meetings day by day.

The word obeyed is life, and hope, and salvation to all "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." I feel so grateful for these words; for if it were not possible for us to obey the commandments of God, these words would not have been spoken. ... (Emphasis mine.) through Christ Jesus giving us grace, ... we can keep the law of God_ The Lord has visited Prescott in a special manner and given him a special message for the people ... the truth flows forth from him in rich currents; people say the Bible is now a new revelation to them.

Those who since the Minneapolis meeting have had the privilege of listening to the words spoken by the messengers of God, A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner and W. W. Prescott. ... Heaven's light has been shining. The trumpet has given a certain sound. ... Light has been shining upon justification by faith and the imputed righteousness of Christ.

The Lord has sent Prescott, he is no empty vessel, but full of heavenly treasure. He has presented truths in clear and simple style, rich in nourishment.

W. W. Prescott has been bearing the burning words of truth such as I have heard from some in 1844; the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is upon him. Prescott has never had such power in preaching the truth.

Prescott has had outpouring of Holy Spirit since coming (sic) here; we distinguish voice of the true Shepherd. The truth poured forth from his lips as people never heard it before; people say that that man is inspired.

Prescott has spoken many times at the Armadale campmeeting under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The people wanted printed copies of Prescott's messages; they acted like a flock of half starved sheep, "beg for copy." They want to read and study every point presented.

Prescott's mind has been fruitful in the truth; may God guide us into all truth.[62]

In the evening (October 31) Professor Prescott gave a most valuable lesson, precious as gold. The tent was full, and many stood outside. All seemed to be fascinated with the word, as he presented the truth in lines so new to those not of our faith. Truth was separated from error, and made, by the divine Spirit, to shine like precious jewels. It was shown that perfect obedience to all the commandments of God is essential for the salvation of souls. Obedience to the laws of God's kingdom reveals the divine in the human, sanctifying the character.

The Lord is working in power through His servants who are proclaiming the truth, and He has given Brother Prescott a special message for the people. The power and Spirit of the truth come from human lips in demonstration of the Spirit and power of God. The Lord has visited Brother Prescott in a most remarkable manner. We are sure that the Lord has endowed him with His Holy Spirit, and the truth is flowing forth from Him in rich currents.

We cannot speak of all the meetings particularly, but they have all been characterized by a spirit of seeking after truth (on part of people).

The following pages contain the sermon preached by W. W. Prescott on Sunday evening, October 31, at the Armadale Campmeeting in Victoria, Australia. It was published in the Bible Echo on January 6, 1896, pages 4 and 5, Volume II, No. 1, and on January 13, 1896, page 12, Volume II, No. 2.

The italics and the numbering are mine. The student will wish to study carefully both this sermon and Ellen White's commendations of it, in view of the fact that shortly after hearing the sermon she wrote the celebrated Baker letter, to which reference was made in Section III: The Use of the Terms "Passions" and "Propensities" in the Writings of Ellen White.

The Word Became Flesh

Professor W. W. Prescott

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The Revised Version says, "The Word became flesh."

The theme of redemption will be the science and the song of the eternal ages, and well may it occupy our minds during our short stay here. There is no portion of this great theme that makes such a demand on our minds in order to appreciate it in any degree, as the subject we shall study to-night,--"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Through Him all things became; now He Himself became. He who had all glory with the Father, now lays aside His glory and becomes flesh. He lays aside His divine mode of existence, and takes the human mode of existence, and God becomes manifest in the flesh. This truth is the very foundation of all truth.

A Helpful Truth

And Jesus Christ becoming flesh, God being manifest in the flesh, is one of the most helpful truths, one of the most instructive truths, which humanity ought to rejoice in.

I desire this evening to study this question for our personal, present benefit. Let us command our minds to the utmost, because to comprehend that the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, demands all our mental powers. Let us consider, first, what kind of flesh; for this is the very foundation of this question as it relates to us personally. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.  Wherefore in all things it behoved 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 succour them that are tempted." (Heb. 2:14-18) That through death, being made subject to death, taking upon Him the flesh of sin, He might, by His dying, destroy him that had the power of death.

"Verily He took not on Him the nature of angels; but he took on Him the seed of Abraham." The margin says, "He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold;" and one version reads, "He helps not angels." We see the reason from the next verse: "Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest, in things pertaining to God." "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal. 3:16) Now verily, He helps the seed of Abraham by Himself becoming the seed of Abraham. God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the rightousness of the law might be revealed in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

So you see that what the Scripture states very plainly is that Jesus Christ had exactly the ·same flesh that we bear--flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, flesh, however, in which He did not sin, but He bore our sins in that &flesh of sin. Do not set this point aside. No matter how you may have looked at it in the past, look at it now as it is in the word; and the more you look at it in that way, the more reason you will have to thank God that it is so.

Adam's Sin Typical

What was the situation?--Adam had sinned, and Adam being the head of the human family, his sin was a typical sin. God made Adam in His own image, but by sin he lost that image. Then he begat sons and daughters, but he begat them in his image, not in God's. And so we have descended in the line, but all after his image.

For four thousand years this went on, and then Jesus Christ came, of flesh, and in the flesh, born of a woman, made under the law; born of the Spirit, but in the flesh. And what flesh could He take but the flesh of the time? Not only that, but it was the very flesh He designed to take; because, you see,the problem was to help man out of the difficulty into which he had fallen, and man is a free moral agent. He must be helped as a free moral agent. Christ's work must be, not to destroy him, not to create a new race, but to re-create man, to restore in him the image of God. "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Heb. 2:9)

An Undone, Helpless Race

God made man a little lower than the angels, but man fell much lower by his sin. Now he is far separated from God; but he is to be brought back again. Jesus Christ came for that work, and in order to do it, He came, not where man was before he fell, but where man was after he fell. This is the lesson of Jacob's ladder. It rested on the earth where Jacob was, but the topmost round reached to heaven. When Christ comes to help man out of the pit, He does not come to the edge of the pit and look over, and say, Come up here, and I will help you back. If man could help himself up to the point from whence he has fallen, he could do all the rest. If he could help himself one step, he could help himself all the way; but it is because man is utterly ruined, weak, and wounded and broken to pieces, in fact, perfectly helpless, that Jesus Christ comes right down where he is, and meets him there. He takes his flesh and becomes a brother to him. Jesus Christ is a brother to us in the flesh; He was born into the family. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,"

He had only one Son, and He gave Him away. And to whom did He give Him?--"Unto us a child is born,

Unto Us a Son Is Given."

(Isa. 9:6) Sin has made a change even in heaven; for Jesus Christ, because of sin, has taken upon Himself humanity, and to-day He wears that humanity, and will through all eternity. Jesus Christ became the Son of man as well as the Son of God. He was born into our family. He did not come as an angelic being, but was born into the family, and grew up in it; He was a child, a youth, a young man, a man in the full prime of life, in our family. He is the Son of man, related to us, bearing the flesh that we bear.

Adam was the representative of the family; therefore his sin was a representative sin. When Jesus Christ came, He came to take the place in which Adam had failed. "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. " (1 Cor. 14:45) The second Adam is the man Christ Jesus, and He came down to unite the human family with the divine family. God is spoken of as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, came Himself to this part of the family, that He might win it back again, that there might be a--

Reunited Family In the Kingdom Of God

He came and took the flesh of sin that this family had brought upon itself by sin, and wrought out salvation for them, condemning sin in the flesh.

Adam failed in his place, and by the offence of one many were made sinners. Jesus Christ gave Himself, not only for us, but to us, uniting Himself to the family, in order that He might take the place of the fIrst Adam, and as head of the family win back what was lost by the first Adam. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is a representative righteousness, just as the sin of Adam was a representative sin, and Jesus Christ, as the second Adam, gathered to Himself the whole family.

But since the first Adam took his place, there has been a change, and humanity is sinful humanity. The power of righteousness has been lost. To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity; He comes in sinful flesh, and takes the case where Adam tried it and failed. He became, not a man, but He became flesh; He became human, and gathered all humanity unto Himself, embraced it in His own infinite mind, and stood as the representative of the whole human family.

Adam was tempted at the very first on the question of appetite. Christ came, and after a forty days' fast the devil tempted Him to use His divine power to feed Himself. And notice, it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh in which Adam fell. This is wondrous truth, but I am wondrous glad that it is so. It follows at once that by birth, by being born into the same family, Jesus Christ is my brother in the flesh, "for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren." (Heb. 2:11) He has come into the family, identifIed Himself with the family, is both father of the family and brother of the family. As father of the family, He stands for the family. He came to redeem the family, condemning sin in the flesh, uniting divinity with flesh of sin. Jesus Christ made the connection between God and man, that the divine spirit might rest upon humanity. He made the way for humanity.

He Hath Borne Our Griefs

And He came right near to us. He is not one step away from one of us. He "was made in the likeness of men." (Phil. 2:7) He is now made in the likeness of man, and at the same time He holds His divinity; He is the divine Son of God. And so, by His divinity joining itself to humanity, He will restore man to the likeness of God. Jesus Christ, in taking the place of Adam, took our flesh. He took our place completely, in order that we might take His place. He took our place with all its consequences, and that meant death, in order that we might take His place with all its consequences, and that is life eternal. "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the rightousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:21) He was not a sinner; but He invited God to treat Him as if He were a sinner, in order that we, who were sinners, might be treated as if we were righteous. "Surely He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Isa. 53:4) The sorrows that He bore were our sorrows, and it is actually true that He did so identify Himself with our human nature as to bear in Himself all the sorrows and all the griefs of all the human family." He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our inquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and with His stripes we are healed." What was bruising to Him was healing to us, and He was bruised in order that we might be healed. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." (Isa. 53:6) And then He died because on Him was laid the iniquity of us all. There was no sin in Him, but the sins of the whole world were laid on Him. Behold the Lamb of God, which beareth the sins of the whole world. "And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

The Price Paid For Every Soul

I want your minds to grasp the truth, that, no matter whether a man repents or not, yet Jesus Christ has borne his griefs, his sins, his sorrows, and he is invited to lay them on Christ. If every sinner in this world should repent with all his soul, and turn to Christ, the price has been paid. Jesus did not wait for us to repent before He died for us. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Christ has died in behalf of every single soul here; He has borne their grief and carried their sorrow; He simply asks us to lay them on Him, and let Him bear them.

Christ Our Righteousness

Furthermore: every one of us was represented in Jesus Christ when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. We were all there in Jesus Christ. We were all represented in Adam after the flesh; and when Christ came as the second Adam, He stepped into the place of the first Adam, and thus we are all represented in Him. He invites us to step into the spiritual family. He has formed this new family, of which He is the head. He is the new man. In Him we have the union of the divine and the human.

In that new family, every one of us is represented. "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." When Melchisedec went out to meet Abraham returning from the spoil, Abraham paid to him a tenth of all. Levi was still in the loins of his father Abraham; but inasmuch as he was a descendant of Abraham, what Abraham did, the Scripture says that Levi did in Abraham. Levi descended from Abraham according to the flesh. He had not been born when Abraham paid tithe; but in that Abraham paid tithe, he paid tithe also. It is exactly so in this spiritual family. What Christ did as head of this new family, we did in Him. He was our representative; He became flesh; He became we. He did not become simply a man, but He became flesh, and every one that should be born into His family was represented in Jesus Christ when He lived here in the flesh. You see, then, that all that Christ did, every one who connects himself with this family is given credit for as doing it in Christ. Christ was not a representative outside him, disconnected from him; but as Levi paid tithe in Abraham, every one who should afterwards be born into this spiritual family, did what Christ did.

The New Birth

See what this means with reference to vicarious sufferings. It was not that Jesus Christ came from outside, and simply stepped into our place as an outsider; but by joining Himself to us by birth, all humanity was brought together in the divine head, Jesus Christ. He suffered on the cross. Then it was the whole family in Jesus Christ that was crucified. "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead," or as the Revised Version says, "All died." (2 Cor. 5:14) What we want in our experience is to enter into the fact that we did die in Him. But while it is true that Jesus Christ paid the whole price, bore every grief, was humanity itself, yet it is also true that no man receives benefit from that except he receives Christ, except he is born again. Only those who are twice born can enter into the kingdom of God. Those who are born in the flesh must be born again, born of the Spirit, in order that what Jesus Christ did in the flesh, we may avail ourselves of, that we may really be in Him.

The work of Christ is to bestow the character of God on us, and in the meantime God looks upon Christ and His perfect character instead of upon our sinful character. The very moment that we empty ourselves, or let Christ empty us, of self, and believe on Jesus Christ and receive Him as our personal Saviour, God looks upon Him as indeed our personal representative. Then He does not see us and all our sin; He sees Christ.

Our Representative In the Courts Of Heaven

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 2:5) There is a man in heaven now,--the man Christ Jesus,--bearing our human nature; but it is no longer a flesh of sin; it is glorified. Having come here and lived in a flesh of sin, He died; and in that He died, He died unto sin; and in that He lives, He lives unto God. When He died, He freed Himself from the flesh of sin, and He was raised glorified. Jesus Christ came here as our representative, travelled the path back to heaven in the family, died unto sin, and was raised glorified. He lived as the Son of man, grew up as the Son of man, ascended as the Son of man, and to-day, Jesus Christ, our own brother, the man Christ Jesus, is in heaven, living to make intercession for us.

He has been through every one of our experiences. Does not He know what the cross means? He went to heaven by the way of the cross, and He says, "Come." That is what Christ has done by becoming flesh. Our human minds stand appalled before the problem. How shall we express in human language what was done for us, when "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us"? How shall we express what God has given to us? When He gave His Son, He gave the most precious gift of heaven, and He gave Him never to take Him back again. To all eternity the Son of man will bear in His body the marks that sin made; forever He will be Jesus Christ, our Saviour, our Elder Brother. That is what God has done for us in giving His Son to us.

Christ Identified With Us.

This union of the divine and the human has brought Jesus Christ very near to us. There is not one too low down for Christ to be there with him. He identified Himself completely with this human family. In the judgment, when the rewards and punishments are meted out, He says, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me." One version reads, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My little brothers, ye have done it unto Me." Christ looks upon every one of the human family as His. When humanity suffers, He suffers. He is humanity, He has joined Himself to this family. He is our head; and when in any part of the body there is a throb of pain felt, the head feels that throb of pain. He has united Himself with us, thus uniting us with God; for we read in Matthew: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Unity In Christ

Jesus Christ thus united Himself with the human family, that He might be with us by being in us, just as God was with Him by being in Him. The very purpose of His work was that He might be in us, and that, as He represented the Father, so the children, the Father, and the Elder Brother might be united in Him.

Let us see what His thought was in His last prayer: "That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us." "And the glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them as Thou has loved Me. Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am that they may behold My glory, which Thou has given Me; for Thou lovest Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee; but I have known Thee, and these have known that Thou has sent Me. And I have declared Thy name unto them, and will declare it." And the last words of His prayer were: "That the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them." (John 17:21-26) And as He was ascending, His parting words to His disciples were, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matt. 28:20) By being in us, He is with us alway, and that this might be possible, that He might be in us, He came and took our flesh.

This also is the way in which the holiness of Jesus works. He had a holiness that enabled Him to come and dwell in sinful flesh, and uglorify sinful flesh by His presence in it; and that is what He did, so that when He was raised from the dead, He was glorified. His purpose was that having purified sinful flesh by His indwelling presence, He might now come and purify sinful flesh in us, and glorify sinful flesh in us. He "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself." (Phil. 3:21) "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Rom. 8:29)

The Election Of Grace

Let me say that in this idea is bound up the whole question of predestination. There is a predestination; it is a predestination of character. There is an election; it is an election of character. Every one who believes on Jesus Christ is elected, and all the power of God is behind that election, that he shall bear the image of God. Bearing that image, he is predestinated to all eternity in Christ's kingdom; but every one who does not bear the image of God is predestinated unto death. It is a predestination of God in Christ Jesus. Christ provides the character, and offers it to any one who will believe in Him.

The Heart And Life Of Christianity

Let us enter into the experience that God has given Jesus Christ to us to dwell in our sinful flesh, to work out in our sinful flesh what He worked out when He was here. He came and lived here that we might through Him reflect the image of God. This is the very heart of Christianity. Anything contrary to it is not Christianity. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." (1 John 4:1-3) Now that cannot mean simply to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was here and lived in the flesh. The devils made that acknowledgement. They knew that Christ had come in the flesh. The faith that comes by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus Christ is come in my flesh; I have received Him." That is the heart and life of Christianity.

The difficulty with the Christianity of today is that Christ does not dwell in the hearts of those professing His name. He is an outsider, one looked at from afar, as an example. But He is more than an example to us. He made known to us what God's ideal of humanity is, and then He came and lived it out before us, that we might see what it is to be in the image of God. Then He died, and ascended to His Father, sending forth His Spirit, His own representative, to live in us, that the life which He lived in the flesh we may live over again. This is Christianity.

Christ Must Dwell In the Heart

It is not enough to talk of Christ and of the beauty of His character. Christianity without Christ dwelling in the heart is not genuine Christianity. He only is a genuine Christian who has Christ dwelling in his heart, and we can live the life of Christ only by having Him dwelling in us. He wants us to lay hold upon the life and power of Christianity. Do not be satisfied with anything else. Heed no one who would lead you in any other path. "Christ in you, the hope of glory," His power, His indwelling presence, that is Christianity. That is what we need to-day; and I am thankful that there are hearts that are longing for that experience, and who will recognise it when it comes. It does not make any difference what your name or denomination has been. Recognize Jesus Christ, and let Him dwell in you. By following where He leads, we shall know what Christian experience is, and what it is to dwell in the light of His presence. I tell you, this is a wondrous truth. Human language cannot put more into human thought or language than is said in these words: "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." This is our salvation.

The object in these remarks is not merely to establish a line of thought. It is to bring new life into our soul, and open up our ideas of the word of God and the gift of God, that we may be able to grasp His love for us. We need it. Nothing short of that will meet what we have to meet,--the world, the flesh, and the devil. But He that is for us is mightier than he that is against us. Let us have in our daily lives Jesus Christ, "the Word" that "became flesh."

The student will observe that during this single sermon Prescott told the people twenty-five times that Christ came in sinful flesh, or its equivalent in other words. If his sermon were forty-five minutes long, which would be a normal camp meeting sermon of the time, that would mean that on an average of once every two minutes throughout the entire sermon he reminded the people that Christ came in sinful flesh. Twice he told them that Christ did not come in the nature of the unfallen Adam.

Ellen White rejoiced to hear this message and commended it in unmistakable terms. Shortly afterward she wrote the celebrated Baker letter, which some are now interpreting to prove that she believed that Christ came in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.

She heard this sermon and commented on it before writing the Baker letter. The following pages include twenty statements made by her about the nature of Christ after she wrote the Baker letter, still during the year 1896, plus thirty-five statements by other church leaders.

1896

Christ, the only-begotten of the Father, assumed human nature, came in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh.[63]

Christ, the spotless Son of God, honored humanity by taking upon Himself fallen human nature.[64]

(He) clothed His divinity in humanity in order to uplift the fallen race.[65]

Christ has united fallen man to the infinite God.[66]

Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. ... He took upon Him our sinful nature. Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity.[67]

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.[68]

He humbled Himself to become a member of the earthly family ... and a brother to every son and daughter of our fallen race.[69]

The human mind cannot conceive the depths of that love which induced the Son of God to leave the glories of heaven, and at the risk of losing all, take upon Him human nature, and with it the curse of sin, that He might redeem a fallen race.[70]

But who did keep the commandments?--Jesus Christ. And who can do it over again, even in sinful flesh?--Jesus Christ.[71]

The second Adam came not at the point where the first Adam stood when he failed, but at the point at which mankind stood at the end of four thousand years of degeneracy; not in the position of power and glory in which the first man stood when he failed, but in the condition of weakness and dishonor in which the race was involved at the end of this long period of the reign of sin; ... made "in all points" like sinful man.[72]

It is our study now to bring out the completeness with which Jesus Christ identifIed Himself with the human family which He came to save.[73]

... as He came to save us and lift us up, "He also Himself likewise took part of the same,"--the same flesh and the same blood.[74]

Jesus Christ identifIed Himself with us, by partaking of our flesh and blood and becoming one with us, a member of the human family, just as we are.[75]

The Scripture does not leave us in uncertainty as to what kind of flesh and blood this was ... God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. ... The flesh that Jesus Christ took when He came here was the only flesh that anyone could take by being born of a woman, and that was the flesh of sin.[76]

He (Jesus Christ) did not take the likeness of man just as Adam was before he fell, but He came down to the very plane to which man had fallen ... and took upon Himself the flesh of sin.[77]

... we find the divine Saviour right where fallen humanity is.[78]

... taking upon Himself all the conditions of fallen humanity.[79]

... He voluntarily took that place of weakness with us.[80]

He took a place where He would not obtain any strength in any other way than that open to us.[81]

Christ Jesus ... in our flesh.[82]

... the man Christ Jesus in our humanity.[83]

We have found Him (Christ) as our brother in the flesh, having been made in all things like unto His brethren.[84]

Jesus Christ ... came in our own humanity.[85]

He (Jesus) came here and joined Himself to our flesh.[86]

... (He was) to enter upon all the conditions of our fallen humanity.[87]

... Christ came ... to live in the flesh of sin.[88]

This is made possible by the fact that Jesus Christ lived in our flesh.[89]

He (Jesus) took humanity as we find it today,--fallen, sinful.[90]

The Scriptures emphasize the manner of His (Jesus) birth ... born of the seed of David.[91]

Christ dwelt in a body just like ours.[92]

God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. ... It (the law) was fulfilled in Him, that it might be fulfilled in us.[93]

Christ came in this same flesh as ours.[94]

Christ came here and wrought all this in our flesh.[95]

Jesus Christ ... who came as the Son of man in our flesh.[96]

He could not be priest until He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.[97]

He did not come to this world and take upon Himself Adam's condition, but He stepped down lower, to meet man as he is, weakened by sin, polluted in his own iniquity.[98]

Christ ... took not upon Himself the nature of angels, or even man as He was created, but our fallen nature.[99]

He lived our life in sinful nature, without sin.[100]

Thus Christ from eternity was made the connecting link between the heaven (sic) and the fallen race.[101]

He demonstrated the power of righteousness over sin, in sinful flesh.[102]

Christ in His humanity, subject to all the conditions and limitations of humanity.[103]

During the years 1895 and 1896 Ellen White had been putting the finishing touches on "The Desire of Ages", which she planned to publish in two volumes. On May 6, 1896 she wrote to her son Edson that the first volume was completed (Letter 150, 1896). In the first chapters of "The Desire of Ages", which would have been in the first volume, she had written:

He (God) gave Him (Christ) to the fallen race.--p. 25

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthy ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.--p. 49

Notwithstanding that the sins of a guilty world were laid upon Christ, not withstanding the humiliation of taking upon Himself our fallen nature, the voice from heaven declared Him to be the Son of the Eternal.--p. 112

Satan had pointed to Adam's sin as proof that God's law was unjust and could not be obeyed. In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.

Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.--p. 117

As the image made in the likeness of the destroying serpents was lifted up for their healing, so One made "in the likeness of sinful flesh" was to be their Redeemer. (Romans 8:3)--pp. 174-175

Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours. The Lord says of those who believe in Him, "I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (2 Corinthians 6:16)

Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made "in the likeness of sinful flesh " (Romans 8:3), He lived a sinless life. Now by His divinity He lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by His humanity He reaches us. He bids us by faith in Him attain to the glory of the character of God. Therefore we are to be perfect, even as our "Father which is in heaven is perfect."--p. 311-312

Her interpreters have proposed that in the midst of these publishing events of 1895-1896 Ellen White learned that a Pastor Baker in Tasmania, an island to the south of Australia, was teaching that Christ had come in the human nature of fallen man and wrote him an urgent letter for the purpose of correcting his error, near the end of the year 1895. This would appear to have been a marvelously mis-directed effort. If the teaching were an error that needed to be corrected, would not the pages of the Review and of the Signs and of the Bible Echo be the appropriate place for the correction to appear? And would not the prominent church leaders who were continuing to publicly promulgate that error be the persons to whom corrective letters should be addressed?

And would not Ellen White's own participation in the promulgation of that error in her articles and in her "The Desire of Ages" require a careful explanation? What would have been accomplished by directing a corrective letter to a pastor in Tasmania and ignoring the continued publishing of the error in the Review, in the Signs, and in the Bible Echo, and leaving "The Desire of Ages" unchanged? And why would she have ignored the extensive discussion of the subject by A. T. Jones and W. W. Prescott at the General Conference in February of 1895?

It was fifty-odd years after the Baker letter was written before the church became aware of it. If it had been intended as a warning to the church it was a dismal failure, a failure that Ellen White might have corrected before her death in 1915, twenty years after the letter was written.

If Pastor Baker did believe (which I do not doubt,) that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man, it would seem, as the old saying goes, that he might have come by that opinion quite honestly. Pastor Baker had no lack of opportunities to become acquainted with that particular view.

He was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church in Iowa and left that state in 1882 to become associated with the church's publishing work at the Pacific Press in Mountain View, California.[104] As an Iowa Adventist he would have been aware of the evangelistic work conducted in that state by J. H. Waggoner, whose strong opinion that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man had been published in his book, "The Atonement". He would have had the opportunity to read this book.

As a reader of the Review and Herald he would have had opportunity to examine thirteen statements that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man that were published in that journal by Ellen White during the years 1870-1882. He would also have had opportunity to read the similar statements in her book Spiritual Gifts, Volume 1, p. 25 (1858) and in Spiritual Gifts, Volume 4, p. 115 (1864). (See page 35.)

In 1881 J. H. Waggoner succeeded James White as editor of the Signs of the Times, the new missionary journal for the western states being published at the Pacific Press in California. In 1882 Baker was called to assist Waggoner in the publishing work, and continued his association with the Pacific Press until 1887. During this five year period he was associated with editor J. H. Waggoner during the years 1882--1885; with his son, associate editor and later editor E. J. Waggoner, during the years 1884-1887, and with associate editor and later co-editor A. T. Jones during the years 1885-1887. The strong convictions of E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man have been reported in the previous pages.

If Baker had taken the trouble to read the journal which was being published with his assistance, he would have had opportunity to consider five statements published in the Signs of the Times by Ellen White during the years 1882-1887, that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man, not to mention her six statements published in the Review and Herald during those same years. He would have had opportunity to read (and may have proof-read) her three similar statements in Testimonies to the Church, Volume 5, pp. 204, 346 and 746, since that volume was published by the Pacific Press in 1882.

In 1887 Baker was called to connect with the publishing work in Australia, where the Bible Echo, a missionary journal started by J. O. Corliss and S. N. Haskell in 1886, was still in its infancy. It is not clear when he left the publishing work to pioneer the church's activities in Tasmania, but he was an occasional contributor to the Bible Echo for several years. The strong convictions of Haskell that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man have also been reported in the previous pages.

There was an interim during which the president of the newly formed Australian Conference, G. C. Tenney, served also as editor of the Bible Echo. For a sampling of Tenney's strong convictions that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man, see the editorials for 5/15/89 and 6/03/89 (reported on pages 54-55). Then the editorial work was assumed by W. A. Colcord. His strong convictions that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man soon appeared in front page editorials (see pp. 57-58.)

Beginning in October, 1890, a series of nine advertisements for J. H. Waggoner's The Atonement published in the Bible Echo recommended that volume to the infant Australian church (200 members). During the years 1892-1895 thirty-one advertisements recommended E. J. Waggoner's "Christ Our Righteousness", surpassing by a wide margin the advertising space given to any other publication. We have seen that both of these books carried clear and strong statements, that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man. (See pages 36 and 46.)

And finally, during the years 1892-1895 Baker would have had opportunity to examine eight statements that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man that were published in the Bible Echo over the signature of Ellen White.

It would seem, therefore, that Pastor Baker would have had more than ample opportunity to become acquainted with the opinion that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man.

Since the view would have come to him with the highest of recommendations from both American and Australian leaders of his church, as well as from Ellen White, it would not be surprising if he had accepted it. It would be rather more surprising if he had not. But he surely would have been more than mildly surprised to have received a letter from Ellen White, warning him against that view, as some are now insisting that he did.

As the student reflects about these matters he may find him self inclined to agree with Robert Wieland, whose conclusion was that to believe this proposed interpretation of the Baker letter strains the credulity to the breaking point. It is difficult to understand how such a proposal could ever have been taken seriously.

For an alternate suggestion as to what may have been the problem of Pastor Baker that called for correction, see Appendix B at the back of this volume. For suggestions regarding the hermeneutical principles involved, see the following pages. For the actual text of the letter itself, see Appendix A (page 310.)

Suggestions Regarding the Baker Letter

The student should consider the hermeneutical principles (rules of evidence) that are involved.

a. A writer's use of words, or the meaning of a writer's statement, must be clarified by other usages and statements by the same writer, if that is possible.

b. Ellen White herself had pled that we look to her published works in order to ascertain her beliefs (5T 696). She did not publish the Baker letter.

c. We may not place an interpretation on a writer's words that forces her to contradict herself. We are required to proceed on the assumption that a writer will not contradict herself, until we find absolute, unmistakable evidence to the contrary.

d. The student should place the Baker letter, with its statement about propensities, in the general context of all Ellen White statements about the nature of Christ, which number approximately 400 in this compilation.

e. The student should place the Baker letter in the specific context of the time of its writing--shortly after the 1895 campmeeting at Armadale at which W. W. Prescott's preaching that Christ did not take the unfallen nature of Adam but did take the fallen nature of man, drew forth expressions of approval from Ellen White that appear to be without parallel in her writings. (See year 1895 in the compilation in this chapter, and note the statements that were issued in that entire year, and in the year 1896.)

f. The student should examine carefully those Ellen White statements about the nature of Christ that were made after the Baker letter was written, which number 110 in this compilation, plus approximately 60 in her unpublished manuscripts.

g. The student should examine closely the many statements by uninspired writers regarding the nature of Christ that apeared in the Review and Herald and in the Signs of the Times in close proximity to Ellen White's writings, and which made free use of the terms "propensities," "inclinations," " susceptibilities," "tendencies," etc . , in describing the human nature of Christ. We find no intimation in her writings that she was uncomfortable with these terms as applied to Christ. And she was not indifferent to what was written in the church papers. When articles appeared in the Review affirming that there are different degrees of inspiration, she reacted quickly with a firmly corrective letter. And when a disagreement about the book of Galations broke into the papers, she again reacted quickly with some firmly corrective letters.[105]

h. The student should ask himself whether the explanation sometimes offered that Ellen White intended to say only that Christ's body, or physical nature, was like that of fallen man, appears to be her own intention or one placed on her writings by others.

i. The student should ask himself whether Ellen White's concept of the intimate co-relationship between body, mind, and personality would. allow of the belief that Christ could accept the results of four thousand years of degeneracy of body and mind without having this affect His human nature.

j. The student should weigh carefully the implications of the Christological-soteriological linkage in the writings of Ellen White. (See chapter 21.)

k . The student should observe that the Baker letter does not say that Christ came in the nature of the unfallen Adam, but rather that it is interpreted to mean that.

j. The student should not fail to comprehend the full import of Ellen White' s warning to Baker:

Let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves.

Divin-human and altogether human are opposite poles in meaning. There can be no divine nature in a Christ who is altogether human, such an one as ourselves. (See page 321.)

Notes:

1. Ellen White, RH 2/05/95, p. 81, col. 3; BV 227
2. Ellen White, ST 3/07/95, p. 147, col. 1; BV 188
3. Ellen White, ST 4/11/95, p. 227, col. 2; BV 198
4. Ellen White, ST 5/16/95, p. 292, col. 2; BV 207
5. Ellen White, RH 12/03/95, p. 769, col. 2; BV 313
6. Ellen White, RH 12/17/95, p. 802, col. 1; BV 318
7. Ellen White, Ms. 21, 1895
8. Ellen White, Letter 55, 1895
9. Ellen White, GCB 1895, p. 338, col. 2
10. Ellen White, Ms. 21, 1895, p. 3
11. Ellen White, Ms. 35, 1895, p. 1
12. Ellen White, Letter 0-54-1895, p. 25
13. William Covert, RH 1/14/95, p. 18, col. 1, 2
14. J. H. Durland, RH 1/22/95, p. 51, col. 1
15. W. W. Prescott, College President, Conference President, General Conference Vice-President, Review editor, RH 2/19/95, p. 114, col. 3
16. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 9, col. 1
17. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 9, col. 2
18. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 10, col. 1
19. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 11, col. 1
20. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 24, col. 2
21. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 25, col. 2
22. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 26, col. 2
23. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 108, col. 1
24. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 200, col. 2
25. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 319, col. 2
26. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 384, col. 1
27. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1895, p. 384, col. 2
28. J. H. Durland, ST 9/12/95, p. 5, col. 3; BV 238
29. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, pp. 230-235
30. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 266, col. 1
31. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 266, col. 2; p. 267, col. 1
32. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 267, col. 2
33. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 269, col. 1
34. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 299, col. 1
35. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 300, col. 1
36. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 302, col. 2; p. 303, col. 1
37. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 303, col. 2
38. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 309, col. 2
39. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 311, col. 1
40. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 312, col. 1
41. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 327, col. 1
42. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 327, col. 2
43. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 328, col. 2
44. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 328, col. 2
45. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 330, col. 1, 2
46. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 332, col. 2; p. 333, col. 1
47. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 349, col. 1
48. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 349, col. 2
49. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 350, col. 1
50. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 365, col. 2
51. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 367, col. 2
52. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 368, col. 1
53. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 377, col. 2
54. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 436, col. 2
55. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 446, col. 2
56. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 447, col. 1
57. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 448, col. 1
58. A. T. Jones, GCB 1895, p. 496, col. 2
59. J. H. Starbuck, ST 9/19/95, p. 6, col. 1, 2
60. J. H. Durland, ST 9/26/95, p. 6, col. 2
61. J. H. Durland, ST 10/10/95. p. 5, col. 2; BV 245
62. Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Mich., Jan. 7, 1896
63. Ellen White, ST 7/02/96, p. 408, col. 1; BV 304
64. Ellen White, RH 9/29/96, p. 613, col. 1; BV 397
65. Ellen White, RH 11/10/96, p. 709, col. 2; BV 408
66. Ellen White, ST 12/10/96, p. 773, col. 2, 3; BV 344
67. Ellen White, RH 12115/96, p. 789, col. 2; BV 42 1
68. Ellen White, Letter 106, 1896
69. Ellen White, Ms. 58, 1896, p. 4
70. Alton V. Farnsworth, RH 1/21/96, p. 35, col. 2
71. W. W. Prescott, RH 1/28/96, p. 56, col. 3
72. A. T Jones, RH 2/18/96, p. 105, col. 1
73. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/10/96, p. 152, col. 2
74. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/10/96, p. 152, col. 3
75. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/10/96, p. 152, col. 3
76. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/10/96, p. 152, col. 3
77. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/10/96, p. 152, col. 3
78. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/17/96, p. 168, col. 2
79. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/24/96, p. 185, col. 3
80. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/24/96, p. 185, col. 3
81. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/24/96, p. 185, col. 3
82. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/24/96, p. 186, col. 2
83. W. W. Prescott, RH 3/24/96, p. 186, col. 2
84. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/07/96, p. 217, col. 3
85. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/07/96, p. 218, col. 1
86. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/07/96, p. 218, col. 1
87. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/07/96, p. 218, col. 1
88. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/07/96, p. 218, col. 1
89. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/07/96, p. 218, col. 2
90. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/14/96, p. 232, col. 1
91. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/14/96, p. 232, col. 1
92. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/21/96, p. 248, col. 3
93. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/21/96, p. 249, col. 1
94. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/21/96, p. 249, col. 1
95. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/21/96, p. 249, col. 1
96. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/21/96, p. 249, col. 2
97. J. E. Evans, RH 3/24/96, p. 179, col. 3
98. Stephen Haskell, Conference President, Missionary, Educator, Advisor, ST 4/02/96, p. 5, col. 1; BV 280
99. Stephen Haskell, ST 4/09/96, p. 7, col. 3; BV 282
100. W. H. Glenn, Signs associate editor, ST 5/14/96, p. 5, col. 1; BV 293
101. Stephen H askell, ST 5/28/96, p. 4, col. 3;  BV 295
102. A. T. Jones, ST 10/29/96, p. 4, col. 1
103. Sabbath School Quarterly, Fourth Quarter, 1896, pp. 11-12
104. I have gleaned the background material for this section from The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia.
105. See Rugged Heart, The Story of G. I. Butler, by Emmet K. Vande Vere, pages 65-69.

Chapter 12

1897-1915 The Period After the Baker Letter

Ellen White continued to write and publish, after writing the Baker letter, until the year 1915. The eighteen years from 1897 until the time of her death, (July 16, 1915), are the subject of our research in this chapter. We are holding in view, as we proceed, the following questions:

If in her letter to W. L. H. Baker in the year 1895 Ellen White had taken the position that Christ had come to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, why did she continue to express the opposite view, without qualification, in more than seventy-five separate letters, manuscripts, books and magazine articles published during the years 1897-1915? (See following pages.) The statements themselves number ninety.

Why did she raise no voice of protest against the frequently expressed opinions of other church leaders that Christ had come to the earth in the human nature of fallen man that were published during those same years, often in articles close to hers on the pages of the church's journals?

Why did she not arrange for the publication of the Baker letter, so that the corrective counsel that she had allegedly given to Baker might have been of benefit to other church leaders?

Why did no interpreters come to her rescue during those years, to help her by explaining to the world what she really meant, but could not find the words to express correctly?

The evidence in the following pages would seem to indicate that the belief that Christ had come to the earth in the human nature of fallen man was growing stronger in the church during those years, not weaker. We find no suggestion that this was a matter of concern to her.

1897

... Because Divinity alone could be efficacious in the restoration of man from the poisonous bruise of the serpent, God Himself in His only begotten son, assumed human nature and in the weakness of human nature sustained the character of God, vindicated His holy law in every particular.[1]

And as Jesus was in human flesh, so God means His followers to be.[2]

He was subject to the frailties of humanity.[3]

He knew that the enemy would come to every human being, to take advantage of hereditary weakness. ... And by passing over the ground which man must travel ... Christ prepared the way for us to gain the victory.[4]

As the Prince of Life in human flesh, He met the prince of darkness. ... Every temptation that could be brought against fallen humanity, He met and overcame. Had He not been fully human, Christ could not have been our substitute. ... Christ did nothing that human nature may not do if it partakes of the divine nature.[5]

He would clothe Himself in the garb of humanity, and live the life of man from the very beginning. ... Christ assumed humanity, with all its humiliation and service.[6]

In the gift of His son as a substitute and surety for fallen man, is an everlasting testimony to the world, to the heavenly universe, and to worlds unfallen. The wisdom of the divine purpose has shrouded in mystery the history of the earthly period of the life of Christ. Words can't espress the greatness of the love of God for man, but Christ has revealed it in His life in humanity. Only by Himself assuming human nature and reaching down to the very depths of human misery, could He lift the race from its darkness and despair.[7]

He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity.[8]

In order that the human family might have no excuse because of temptation, Christ became one with them.[9]

His humility did not consist in a low estimate of His own character and qualifications, but in humbling Himself to fallen humanity, in order to raise them with Him to a higher life.[10]

The human nature of Christ was like unto ours.[11]

The human nature of Christ was like unto ours.[12]

Christ stoops to take man's nature that He might reveal God's sentiments toward the fallen race. Divinity and humanity combined were brought within the reach of all, that fallen man might reveal the image of God. Christ assumed our nature to counterwork Satan's false principles.[13]

By overcoming in man's behalf, He was placing fallen man on vantage ground with God. In His human nature Jesus gave evidence that in every temptation wherewith Satan shall assail fallen man, there is help for him in God. ... Jesus stood forth in human nature as a conqueror in behalf of the fallen race.[14]

As the world's Redeemer, He understands all the experiences that humanity must pass through.[15]

(Christ) knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity, what are their wants, and where lies the strengths of their temptations; for He was tempted in all points like as we are, "yet without sin."[16]

Christ ... took our nature in its deteriorated condition.[17]

By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition. ... He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses of the flesh with which humanity is encompassed.[18]

There should not be the faintest misgivings in regard to the perfect freedom from sinfulness in the human nature of Christ.[19]

Infinitely superior in every respect to Boaz, yet He stooped to marry the lost race.[20]

He took our sinful natures, and our sinful flesh.[21]

Christ descended even to the lowest depths of human weakness.[22]

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.[23]

... if we shall confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, that He is come in our flesh ... we shall be saved.[24]

God took upon Himself sinful flesh ... (Christ) came in fallen humanity.[25]

We begin with the ninth verse: "We see Jesus."

Where are we looking?

(Voice) "To man in his fallen state."

Yes, our gaze is directed to man's first dominion; as we look, we see him fail, and, still looking, we see Jesus taking man's fallen condition.[26]

Christ has taken all our weakness upon Himself.[27]

In the likeness of sinful flesh, He reached down to the very depths of man's fallen condition, and became obedient unto death, even the ignominious death of the cross.[28]

He came in the likeness of sinful flesh to demonstrate before all parties in the controversy that it was possible for men in the flesh to keep the law. He demonstrated this by keeping it Himself. On our plane of existence, and in our nature, He rendered such obedience to every principle and precept, that the eye of Omniscience itself could detect no flaw therein. His whole life was but a transcript of that law, in its spiritual nature, and in its holy, just and good demands. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, by living Himself in the flesh and doing no sin, showing that it was possible for man thus to live.[29]

That the Son of God should lay aside all His glory and take upon Him the form of sinful man ... is a subject worthy of highest study.[30]

1898

By taking our nature, He bound Himself to us through the eternal ages.[31]

He assumed human nature, that He might elevate the human family. ... His every action had been in behalf of the fallen world.[32]

The Lord of glory clothed His divinity with humanity, and came to our world to endure self-denial and self-sacrifice, in order that the moral image of God might be restored in man.[33]

In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.[34]

It was compassion that led Him to clothe His divinity with humanity, that He might touch humanity. This led Him to manifest unparalleled tenderness and sympathy for man in his fallen condition.[35]

Jesus became ... bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. ... He was a man among men.[36]

He left the royal courts of heaven, and clothed His divinity with humanity, that humanity might touch humanity, and that divinity might lay hold of the power of God in behalf of the fallen race.[37]

He (God) gave Him (Christ) to the fallen race.[38]

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.[39]

Notwithstanding that the sins of a guilty world were laid upon Christ, notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon Himself our fallen nature, the voice from heaven declared Him to be the Son of the Eternal.[40]

Satan had pointed to Adam's sin as proof that God's law was unjust and could not be obeyed. In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.

Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.[41]

As the image made in the likeness of the destroying serpents was lifted up for their healing, so One made "in the likeness of sinful flesh" was to be their Redeemer. (Romans 8:3)[42]

Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours. The Lord says of those who believe in Him, "I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." (2 Corinthians 6:16)

Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made "in the likeness of sinful flesh " (Romans 8:3), He lived a sinless life. Now by His divinity He lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by His humanity He reaches us. He bids us by faith in Him attain to the glory of the character of God. Therefore are we to be perfect, even as our "Father which is in heaven is perfect."[43]

In itself the act of consenting to be a man would be no act of humiliation were it not for the fact of Christ's exalted pre-existence, and the fallen condition of man ... (He) clothed His divinity with humanity that He might meet man where he was.[44]

The Lord Jesus Christ took upon Him the form of sinful man, clothing His divinity with humanity.[45]

To save fallen humanity, the Son of God took humanity upon Him. ... He consented to an actual union with man. ... Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature, because by this act of condescension, He would be enabled to pour out His blood in behalf of the fallen race.[46]

The Lord Jesus Christ left His riches and His splendor in the heavenly courts and took humanity upon Himself that He might cooperate with humanity in the work of uplifting them.[47]

Christ clothed His divinity with humanity that He might associate with the fallen race. ... God has chosen that His only begotten Son shall come in the form of humanity to stand at the head of the fallen race.[48]

1899

He took our nature, and in it lived a life of perfect obedience.[49]

He pitied poor sinners so much that He left the courts of heaven and laid aside His robes of royalty, humiliating Himself to humanity, that He might become acquainted with the needs of men, and help them to rise above the degradation of the fall.[50]

He put off His crown, and divested Himself of His royal robe, to take upon Him human nature, that humanity might touch humanity. As the world's Redeemer, He passed through all the experiences through which we must pass. He found Himself in fashion as a man.[51]

Christ took upon Him the form of sinful man, clothing His divinity with humanity. But He was holy, even as God is holy. He was the sinbearer needing no atonement. Had He not been without spot or stain, He could not have been the Saviour of mankind. One with God in purity and holiness, He was able to make a propitiation for the sins of the world.[52]

The Son of God clothed His divinity with humanity, that humanity might touch humanity, and divinity lay hold of the throne of the Infinite.[53]

The commander of all heaven, He humbled Himself to stand at the head of fallen humanity.[54]

His only begotten Son, one equal with Himself, should stoop to human nature and reach man where He was.[55]

Christ declared ... no single principle of human nature will I violate.[56]

He who was sinless, the perfection of heaven, came to our world in human likeness to reach humanity. When He came He ranked Himself among the poor and suffering ones, that He might become acquainted with fallen humanity.[57]

He, the Majesty of heaven, disrobed Himself of His glory, and clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might pass through what humanity must pass through.[58]

Christ's identity with man will ever be the power of His influence. He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. ... He might have cut Himself loose from fallen beings. He might have treated them as sinners deserve to be treated. But instead, He came still nearer to them.[59]

He endured every test that man will ever be called upon to endure. He met all the temptations which man will meet in his life experience.[60]

1900

He did not even take the form of an angel. "Verily," the apostle says, "He took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

Divinity took humanity, that humanity might touch humanity. He showed that humanity can keep the law.[61]

In behalf of the beings He had created, who had through sin become a fallen race, He stepped from the throne which He occupied as Prince of heaven, and clothed Himself with the garments of humanity.[62]

He bore the weakness of humanity.[63]

Christ stooped to take man's nature, that He might reveal the sentiments of God toward the fallen race. Divine power was brought within the reach of all, that sinful human beings might reveal the image of God.[64]

Christ, who connects earth with heaven, is (Peter's) ladder. The base is planted firmly on the earth in His humanity; the topmost round reaches the throne of God in His divinity. The humanity of Christ embraces fallen humanity.[65]

The Lord of life and glory humbled Himself to partake of human nature, that in and through Him the fallen sons and daughters of Adam may become united with God.[66]

... clothing His divinity with humanity ... He came to live among fallen humanity.[67]

He clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might bear all the infirmities and endure all the temptations of humanity.[68]

Jesus came to the world as a human being that He might become acquainted with human beings. ... Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin that caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore the "likeness of sinful flesh." (The student would do well to read this passage several times, slowly and thoughtfully, giving close attention to the contrast intended by the use of the word "but.")[69]

Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature.[70]

He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin.[71]

He (God) gave His Son to become bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.[72]

In all the afflictions of humanity He (Jesus) was afflicted.[73]

Christ became one with the human family. ... Thus He assured them of His complete identification with humanity.[74]

The fallen nature of man is like the vine's tendrils grasping the stubble and rubbish. But Christ is represented as coming down from heaven and taking the nature of man, thus making it possible for the human arm of Christ to encircle fallen man.[75]

All the human family of God which Christ has taken into close relationship with His own humanity.[76]

When Adam's sin plunged the race into hopeless misery, God might have cut Himself loose from fallen beings. ... But He did not do this. Instead of banishing them from His presence, He came still nearer to the fallen race. He gave His Son to become bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. ... In all the afflictions of humanity He was afflicted.[77]

That body was His body of sinful flesh, taken in the womb of His virgin mother, and having within itself all the propensities to sin that the flesh of all the sons of Adam have. He was not only made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," (Rom. 8:3), but He bore the sinful flesh. The likeness was not merely outward. His flesh was the same as that of all humanity; for He "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Every crime in the catalog was manifest among those through whom Jesus received His heritage of the flesh. God prepared that body in which He would "in all things" be "like unto His brethren," of "the seed of Abraham," partaker "of flesh and blood." (Heb. 2:14-17) Have others inherited corrupt tendencies in the flesh?--So did He. Were the ancestors of others coveting, grasping, adulterous, given to pleasure?--So were His. He was made like us, that He might make us like Himself.

But, tho (sic) having the flesh, with all its sinful tendencies, He did not sin. Living faith made dominant the Spirit of God over all fleshly tendencies.[78]

He brought divinity from the courts of glory into fallen humanity.[79]

By His new birth He stepped down to the "likeness of sinful flesh." (Romans 8:3)

He was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." (Romans 1:3) Everybody knows what sins David, His ancestry, and His posterity were guilty of. Jesus took their flesh with all its heritage.[80]

When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned, notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.

Their point of theology in this particular respect seems to be this: They believe that Christ took Adam's nature before he fell; so He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden, and this humanity was holy, and this was the humanity which Christ had; and now, they say, the particular time has come for us to become holy in that sense, and then we will have "translation faith," and never die.

A concise description of the Holy Flesh Movement as found in 2SM 31:

[A fanatical teaching termed by its advocates "The Doctrine of Holy Flesh" was started in 1900 in Indiana, carrying away the conference president and various workers. Claiming that when Christ passed through the agony of Gethsemane He obtained holy flesh such as Adam possessed before his fall, this theory alleged that those who follow the Saviour must also acquire the same state of physical sinlessness as an essential preparation for translation. Eyewitness accounts report that in their services the fanatics worked up a high pitch of excitement by use of musical instruments such as organs, flutes, fiddles, tambourines, horns, and even a big bass drum. They sought a physical demonstration and shouted and prayed and sang until someone in the congregation would fall, prostrate and unconscious, from his seat. One or two men, walking up and down the aisle for the purpose, would drag the fallen person up on the rostrum. Then about a dozen individuals would gather around the prostrate body, some singing, some shouting, and some praying, all at the same time. When the subject revived, he was counted among those who had passed through the Gethsemane experience, had obtained holy flesh, and had translation faith. Thereafter, it was asserted, he could not sin and would never die. ...][81]

1901

God created Adam pure and noble, but through the indulgence of appetite He fell. Yet notwithstanding the great gulf thus opened between God and man, Christ loved the hopeless sinner. He left His royal throne, clothed His divinity with humanity, and came to our world to bridge the gulf which sin had made, and to unite divine power with human weakness.[82]

He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man.[83] (Note that Ellen White does not equates inful nature with sinfulness.)

He laid aside His kingly crown and royal robe, and stepped from His high command to take His place at the head of a fallen race. Clothing His divinity with humanity, He came to a world all seared and marred with the curse, to become one with humanity.[84]

We are compassed with the infirmities of humanity. So also was Christ. That He might by His own example condemn sin in the flesh, He took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh.[85]

As a representative of the fallen race, Christ passed over the ground on which Adam stumbled and fell.[86]

He (Christ) assumed human nature, and its infirmities, its liabilities, its tempations.[87]

"He was made in the likeness of men;" "found in fashion as a man." He (Christ) was in all things like unto us.[88]

The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus, the Son of God, and the Son of man.[89]

To keep His glory veiled as the child of a fallen race, this was the most severe discipline, to which the prince of life could subject Himself.[90]

Laying aside His royal crown, He condescended to step down, step by step, to the level of fallen humanity.[91]

One of the most potent factors through which humanity is overcome by sin, is the fact of dwelling in sinful flesh, obtained from many generations of sinning ancestry. But he who yields to sin now is without excuse; for Christ tabernacled in the flesh that had become weakened by four thousand years of degeneracy ... thus having been sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh."[92]

Christ has come in the flesh, my flesh. Why? Is it because I am so good? Oh no, for there is no good flesh for Christ to come into.[93]

With whom dost thou delight to dwell?--Sinners, taking on Himself sinful flesh, coming into your flesh and mine.[94]

(The Lord) sends Christ in the likeness of sinful flesh. ... He has condemned sin in the flesh, showing that even in sinful flesh He can live a sinless life.[95]

Is there anyone who doubts the reality of Christ's coming to live in sinful flesh, and showing Himself master? We all believe that ... Christ has power over all flesh, and He demonstrated this when He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and condemned sin in the flesh.[96]

(In this evening sermon of April 16, 1901, at the General Conference Session in Battle Creek, Waggoner was asked to deal with the 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 spent the entire evening in firmly rejecting the idea that Christ had not come in sinful flesh as a false Catholic doctrine of immaculate conception, and in affirming repeatedly that Christ did come to earth in sinful flesh. The entire sermon may be seen in the General Conference Bulletin for 1901, pages 403-408. To quote the entire sermon here would be impractical, but the following lines are excerpted from it.)

After speaking the last time that I was here, there were two questions handed me, and I might read them now. One of them is this: "Was that holy thing which was born of the virgin Mary born in sinful flesh, and did that flesh have the same evil tendencies to contend with that ours does?" ...

Before we go on with this text, let me show you what there is in the idea that is in this question. You have it in mind. Was Christ, that holy thing which was born of the virgin Mary, born in sinful flesh? Did you ever hear of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception? And do you know what it is? Some of you possibly have supposed in hearing of it, that it meant that Jesus Christ was born sinless. That is not the Catholic dogma at all. The doctrine of the immaculate conception is that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born sinless. Why?--Ostensibly to magnify Jesus; really the work of the devil to put a wide gulf between Jesus the Saviour of men, and the men whom He came to save, so that one could not pass over to the other. That is all.

We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not. There are a great many that have got the marks yet, but I am persuaded of this, that every soul who is here tonight desires to know the way of truth and righteousness. ... and that there is no one here who is unconsciously clinging to the dogmas of the papacy, who does not desire to be freed from them.

Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary? Mind you, in Him was no sin, but the mystery of God manifest in the flesh, the marvel of the ages, the wonder of the angels, that thing which even now they desire to understand, and which they can form no just idea of, only as they are taught it by the church, is the perfect manifestation of the life of God in its spotless purity in the midst of sinful flesh. O, that is a marvel, is it not?

Suppose we start with the idea for a moment that Jesus was so separate from us, that is, so different from us that He did not have in His flesh anything to contend with. It was sinless flesh. Then, of course, you see how the Roman Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception necessarily follows. ...

He established the will of God in the flesh, and established the fact that God's will may be done in any human, sinful flesh. ...

Then we shall no longer have to fight against the flesh, but that sinless life which we laid hold of by faith and which was manifest in our sinful bodies, will then by simple faith be continued throughout all eternity in the sinless body. That is to say, when God has given this witness to the world of His power to save to the uttermost, to save sinful beings, and to live a perfect life in sinful flesh, then He will remove the disabilities and give us better circumstances in which to live. But first of all this wonder must be worked out in sinful man, not simply in the person of Jesus Christ, but in Jesus Christ reproduced and multiplied in the thousands of His followers. ...

Jesus gives us the experience of the power of Christ in sinful flesh--to put under foot, and make subservient to His will, this sinful flesh. ...

The Lord has shown us this in that He did not conceal His own ancestry from us. We may have mourned over our inheritance; we have mourned the fact that we inherited evil tendencies, sinful natures, we have almost despaired, because we could not break with these inherited evils, nor resist these tendencies to sin; we could not do it ourselves, and often we have been ashamed of them, and of course, we may be ashamed of sin. Men like to conceal the fault of their ancestors, and if there be a blot anywhere in the family, that does not appear when the family record is written. Jesus Christ was "born of the seed of David, according to the flesh," and in the seed of David was Manasseh, who filled Jerusalem with innocent blood from one end to the other. In that line was Judah the adulterer, and the child born of incest, and likewise the harlot Rahab. All of that class who were set forth as the ancestors of Christ, show that Jesus was not ashamed to call sinful men His brethren; but He said to the Father, "I will declare thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation; I will sing praise to thee."

Thus we see that no matter what our inheritance may have been by nature, the Spirit of God has such power over the flesh that it can utterly reverse all this, and make us partakers of the divine nature, giving us freedom from the corruption that is in the world through lust; and so God manifests His power through us.[97]

In taking flesh He united divinity with humanity;--He united eternal life with our poor flesh.[98]

Jesus Christ came to this world and lived in human flesh nineteen hundred years ago that He might live in the flesh of every believer until the end of time. ... He sups with us, takes our human nature, is touched with the feeling of our infirmities.[99]

1902

He lived in the world the life that (men) must live.[100]

He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity.[101]

He is a brother in our infirm ities.[102]

Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile or sinfulness, He was ever pure and undefiled, yet He took upon Him our sinful nature. Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity, He sought to regain for man that which by disobedience Adam had lost.[103] (Notice Ellen White's distinction between sinfulness and sinful nature.)

That He might by His own example condemn sin in the flesh, He took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh.[104]

That He might accomplish His purpose of love for the fallen race, He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. ... Christ might, because of our guilt, have moved far away from us. But instead of moving farther away, He came and dwelt among us, filled with all the fulness of the Godhead, to be one with us, that through His grace we might attain unto perfection. ... He revealed to the world the amazing spectacle of God living in human flesh.[105]

Christ came to this world as a man. ... Our Saviour took the nature of man with all its possibilities. ... In the wilderness Christ and Satan met in combat, Christ in the weakness of humanity. ... Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.[106]

He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature.[107]

The Son of God took human nature upon Him, and came to this earth to stand at the head of the fallen race. He dwelt on this earth a man among men.[108]

Satan claimed that it was impossible for human beings to keep God's law. In order to prove the falsity of this claim, Christ left His high command, took upon Himself the nature of man, and came to this earth to stand at the head of the fallen race, in order to show that humanity could withstand the temptations of Satan.[109]

He (Christ) took the nature of man, with all its possibilities. We have nothing to endure that He has not endured.[110]

Adam had the advantage of Christ, in that when he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth, and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.[111]

(He) clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might stand among the human family as one of them.[112]

With His long human arm Christ encircles the fallen race, while with His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Infinite.[113]

Christ is acquainted with our necessities and weaknesses.[114]

Jesus Christ came to this world and lived and overcame in human flesh nineteen hundred years ago. ... (Romans 8:3, 4 and Hebrews 2:16-18 quoted.) Because of the weaknesses of the flesh in which He overcame, He condemned sin in the flesh by demonstrating that it can be overcome, and is therefore without excuse. ...

Jesus Christ was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," that He might overcome sin in its own stronghold.[115]

The Saviour sups with us by partaking of our poor human nature; He is touched with the feeling of our infirmities.[116]

He was to demonstrate ... that it is possible for man in sinful flesh to live without sinning, by the power of God.[117]

1903

It was necessary for Christ to clothe His divinity with humanity. Only thus could He become the Redeemer of the fallen race.[118]

He clothed His divinity with humanity that He might stand among men as one of them. ... He came to bear the trials that we must bear.[119]

He ... came to our world to stand by the side of fallen beings.[120]

He placed Himself on a level with human beings.[121]

The Son of God took human nature upon Him, and came to this earth to stand at the head of the fallen race. He lived here as a man among men.[122]

The Saviour came to the world in lowliness, and lived as a man among men. On all points except sin. Divinity was to touch humanity.[123]

The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity, and on this earth lived a sinless life that men should have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they would not be able to overcome.[124]

Christ assumed our fallen nature, and was subject to every temptation to which man is subject.[125]

Christ, the second Adam, came in the likeness of sinful flesh.[126]

Christ became one with the human family - bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. ... He pledged Himself to endure all the temptations that man must endure that He might know how to succor those who are tempted.[127]

(He) clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might take on Himself the weakness of human nature. ... He was to suffer being tempted in all points upon which fallen men are tempted.[128]

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity. ... He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. ... In His strength men and women can live the life of purity and nobility that He lived.[129]

His divinity was veiled with humanity. ... So Christ was to come in "the body of our humiliation," "in the likeness of men."[130]

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even as it was when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity as weakened and defiled by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. ...

... into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity.[131]

"In the likeness of sinful flesh" He dwelt among the human family. ... In this world of sin He was like us in humanity.[132]

1904

The Saviour came to the world in lowliness and lived as a man among men. On all points except sin, divinity was to touch humanity.[133]

He humbled Himself, taking the nature of the fallen race.[134]

In the person of His only begotten Son, the God of heaven has condescended to stoop to our human nature.[135]

Our Saviour identified Himself with our needs and weaknesses.[136]

In order to embrace every human being in the plan of salvation ... He (Christ) came in the likeness of mankind.[137]

Christ calls Himself the root and the offspring of David,--in His human nature the offspring, and in His divine nature the root. Thus by being connected with the Root, we become partakers of the divine nature.[138]

Christ clothed His divinity with sinful flesh in order that as our priest in the flesh.[139]

1905

He came to be acquainted with all the temptations wherewith man is beset.[140]

Equal with the Father, yet His divinity clothed with humanity, standing at the head of the fallen race.[141]

He knows the weaknesses and the infirmities of the flesh.[142]

He took His stand at the head of the fallen race.[143]

He came to stand at the head of the fallen race, to share in their experience from childhood to manhood.[144]

When this man came to Jesus, he was "full of leprosy." Its deadly poison permeated his whole body. The disciples sought to prevent their Master from touching him; for he who touched a leper became himself unclean. But in laying His hand upon the leper, Jesus received no defilement. The leprosy was cleansed. Thus it is with the leprosy of sin,--deep-rooted, deadly, impossible to be cleansed by human power. "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it: but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores." But Jesus, coming to dwell in humanity, receives no pollution.[145]

The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome.[146]

Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with humanity. ... He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh even as we are.[147]

(Exactly the same in 8T 286).

Christ brought to men and women power to overcome. He came to this world in human form, to live a man among men. He assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried.[148]

A divine-human Saviour, He came to stand at the head of the fallen race.[149]

He took His stand at the head of the fallen race.[150]

He took our sinful nature, lived our life, died our death.[151]

Christ learned obedience as a Son of man ... being tempted as man in his sinful flesh is tempted.

The enemy had a wonderful advantage in that he sought through the weakness of our sinful flesh, to gain access to the Son of God.[152]

And it is further declared that the flesh which Jesus took and in which He was tempted was the same as the flesh of the other members of the family, sinful flesh ... having lived in our sinful flesh, without sin, the son of man, He has formed such a union between divinity and humanity that He is able to live the same life in us. ...

It was the experience of Jesus in being preserved from sin although dwelling in sinful flesh, by casting Himself upon His Father, that has made it possible for any member of the human family to have the same experience in the same way.[153]

A reader of the Review has written to the editor at some length concerning the statement made in a recent editorial to the effect that the flesh which Jesus took was sinful flesh. Many questions are asked, but the most of them will be answered by settling the main question at issue.

The paragraph to which objection is offered reads as follows:--

And it is further declared that the flesh which Jesus took, and in which He was tempted, was the same as the flesh of the other members of the family, sinful flesh. Here is the direct statement: "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."

Referring to this paragraph, our correspondent says:--

I notice that this scripture does not say that God sent His own Son "in sinful flesh," but "in the likeness of sinful flesh. " To me this seems a very different statement. How could one in sinful flesh be perfect, be holy, be unblemished (free from stain)?

There are two ways in which we might deal with this inquiry. We might introduce positive proof in support of our view, or we might show that such consequences would follow from the position taken by our correspondent as would forbid us to accept it. To make assurance doubly sure, we shall do both of these things.

Let us, then, consider some of the positive statements of the Scriptures bearing directly upon this matter. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." The natural and legitimate conclusion from this declaration would be that the flesh and blood of Jesus were the same as the children had. This is further emphasized in the same connection: "For verily he taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold (margin). Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren." The mission of Jesus was not to rescue fallen angels, but to save fallen man. He therefore identified Himself with man, and not with angels, and He became "in all things" like unto those whom He proposed to help. The flesh of man is sinful. In order to be "in all things" like unto man, it was necessary that Jesus should take sinful flesh.

Again we have the statement previously quoted: "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." The suggestion is made that the expression "in the likeness of sinful flesh" does not mean the same as "in sinful flesh." We might then properly ask, What does it mean? Does it mean "in sinless flesh"? If so, why did it not say so? Why are the words "flesh of sin," as it reads in the margin of the Revised Version, introduced, if it is not the intent to convey the meaning that the flesh of Jesus was the same sinful flesh which we have? It seems to require a forced interpretation in order to attach any other meaning to the statement.

But we may apprehend the meaning of this passage more clearly if we compare it with another statement in which a similar form of expression is used. Here is one: He "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." Do we not rightly conclude that Jesus was really a man when we read that He was made "in the likeness of men"? - Most certainly. The only way in which He could be "in the likeness of men" was to become a man. That He did really become a man, and that He still is a man, is shown by the assertion that there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Is it not equally clear that the only way in which God could send His Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh" would be for that Son to have sinful flesh? How would it be possible for Him to be "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and yet His flesh be sinless? Such an interpretation would involve a contradiction of terms.

It should, of course, be remembered that although Jesus was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh," yet He did not commit sin. "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him."

We now turn to consider some of the consequences which follow if Jesus did not take sinful flesh. We must remember that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, being both Son of God and Son of man. This is the great central truth of Christianity, and from it come blessed results to believers. "The Saviour was deeply anxious for His disciples to understand for what purpose His divinity was united to humanity. He came to the world to display the glory of God, that man might be uplifted by its restoring power. God was manifested in Him that He might be manifested in them." In order that the character of God might be manifested in sinful men who should believe on Him, it was necessary that Jesus should unite divinity and humanity in Himself, and that the flesh which He bore should be the same as the other men in whom God was thus to be manifested. Another way of expressing it would be to say that the Son of God tabernacled in the flesh when He appeared in Judea, in order that the way might be prepared for Him to dwell in the flesh of all believers, and that it was therefore necessary that He should take the same kind of flesh as that in which He would afterward dwell when He should take up His abode in the members of His church.

This is not a mere matter of theory. It is intensely practical in its bearings. If the Son of God did not dwell in sinful flesh when He was born into the world, then the ladder has not been let down from heaven to earth, and the gulf between a holy God and fallen humanity has not been bridged. It would then be necessary that some further means should be provided in order to complete the connection between the Son of God and sinful flesh. And this is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church has done. The creed of that organization is in perfect harmony with the view taken by our correspondent. The formal expression of this doctrine is called the dogma of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, according to which the mother of Jesus was "by a special privilege preserved immaculate, that is, free from the stain of original sin, from the first moment of her conception. "As the mother was thus entirely different from other women, so the flesh which Jesus took from her would be different from the flesh of other men, and there would still be a separation between Jesus and men in sinful flesh. The Roman Catholic Church, having created this separation by its creed, has introduced a system of mediation between the Son of God and men in sinful flesh. First come the priests on earth, which are known to have sinful flesh; then come those who did dwell in sinful flesh, but are now canonized by the church as saints in heaven; next the angels; and lastly the mother of Jesus. Thus the door into heaven is not Jesus, but the church, and such a price is charged for opening the door as it is believed the sinner or his friends can pay. These are the consequences which naturally follow the doctrine that Jesus did not take sinful flesh, and we avoid these consequences by denying the doctrine and holding to the plain teaching of the Scriptures.

Furthermore, our correspondent asks, "How could one in sinful flesh be perfect, be holy?" This question touches the very heart of our Christianity. The teaching of Jesus is, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." And through the apostle Peter comes the instruction, "Be ye holy, for I am holy." No one will deny that we have sinful flesh, and we therefore ask how it will be possible to meet the requirements of the Scripture if it is not possible for one to be perfect or holy in sinful flesh. The very hope of our attaining perfection and holiness is based upon the wonderful truth that the perfection and holiness of divinity were revealed in sinful flesh in the person of Jesus. We are not able to explain how this could be, but our salvation is found in believing the fact. Then may be fulfilled the promise of Jesus: "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." It is the crowning glory of our religion that even flesh of sin may become a temple for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Much more could be said in reply to the question of our correspondent, but we hope that the principles involved and their relation to Christian experience have been made clear, and we trust that none of our readers will accept the doctrine of the papacy because they are unable to explain the mystery of godliness. It is safe to believe the plain teaching of the Scriptures.[154]

1906

He did in reality possess human nature. ... He was the Son of Mary, He was the seed of David, according to human descent. ... to bring the fallen race into oneness with divinity, is the work of redemption.[155]

Made "in the likeness of sinful flesh, "He lived a sinless life. (Emphasis hers.)[156]

He is our Elder Brother, compassed with human infirmities, and in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.[157]

Jesus laid down His life in glory, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and in sinful flesh humbled Himself as a man.[158]

1907

He emptied Himself of His glory, and clothed His Divinity with humanity, that humanity might touch humanity, and reveal to fallen man the perfect love of God.[159]

Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those He wished to save. In Him was no guile nor sinfulness, He was ever pure and undefiled; yet He took upon Him our sinful nature. Clothing His divinity with humanity, that He might associate with fallen humanity, He sought to redeem for man that which by disobedience Adam had lost.[160]

He (Christ) took humanity upon Himself. ... He identified Himself with man's weakness.[161]

In order to save the fallen race, Christ, the Majesty of heaven, the King of Glory, laid aside His royal robe and kingly crown, clothed His divinity with humanity, and came to this earth as our Redeemer. Here He lived as a man among men, meeting the temptations that we must meet, and overcoming through strength from above. By His sinless life He demonstrated that through the power of God it is possible for man to withstand Satan's temptations.[162]

He humbled Himself, taking the nature of the fallen race. ... He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity ... and where lies the strength of our temptations.[163]

He left Heaven, and took His place in the ranks offallen beings.[164]

That He might accomplish His purpose of love, He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. (Several verses from Hebrews 2 quoted.)[165]

Forasmuch as the fallen children of Adam were partakers of flesh and blood, "He also Himself likewise took part of the same," that He might be made a perfect Saviour for mankind. This is a truth the devil would most gladly cover up. His great effort is to separate humanity from Christ, to interpose something between them. In the Catholic system this is done by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which declares that the Virgin Mary was without the taint of original sin, that Christ had no contact with sinful flesh.[166]

1908

He identified Himself with our weakness.[167]

He clothed His divinity with humanity. He designed that the fallen humanity might touch His humanity.[168]

Christ ... humbled Himself as a man. ... He passed over the ground that every man must tread who takes His name.[169]

He who was commander in the heavenly courts ... came as a little child to our world to experience all the ills that humanity is heir to.[170]

The Son of God laid off His Kingly crown and royal robe, and clothing His divinity with humanity, came to the earth to meet the Prince of evil, and to conquer him. In order to become the advocate of men before the Father, He would live His life on earth as every human being must. ... He would become one with the race. ... Christ in the weakness of humanity was to meet the temptations of (Satan).[171]

... that is, He took our nature. He laid hold upon our sinful flesh. ... Clothed with the weakness of "sinful flesh." ... In the weakness of your flesh He met every temptation and trial that you meet, and conquered.[172]

... that character ... which He has brought within the reach of sinful men by Himself being made in the likeness of sinful flesh.[173]

1909

Christ in the weakness of humanity was to meet the temptations of one possessing the powers of the higher nature that God had bestowed on the angelic family.[174]

He gave His only begotten Son to come to the earth as a little child and to live a life like that of every human being.[175]

He laid aside His royal crown, laid aside His royal robe, and came to this world, born of humble parentage. ... He united in Himself Divinity and Humanity, that He might be the connecting link between fallen man and the Father.[176]

The Son of God came in sinful flesh, lived a perfect life, and died as a ransom for lost man.[177]

He bore in His flesh ... all the weaknesses, all the infirmities, all the susceptibilities to all the temptations to which humanity is subject.[178]

Divinity tabernacled in the flesh of humanity. Not the flesh of sinless man, but such flesh as the children of earth possess. That was the glory of it. The divine Seed could manifest the glory of God in sinful flesh, even to absolute and perfect victory over any tendency of the flesh.

Jesus was God acting in sinful flesh on behalf of the sinner. He made Himself one with humanity. He took upon Himself the woes, the needs, and sins, of humanity, so that He felt the consciousness and keenness of it as no other soul ever felt it.[179]

Jesus took on the same flesh that you and I have. (Heb. 2:10-14 quoted.)[180]

1910

He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity.[181]

He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham.[182]

Christ had to come as a man, take upon Himself the form of a servant in sinful flesh.[183]

It is a fundamental teaching of Roman Catholicism that Jesus Christ did not take the same flesh that we bear. (Prescott rejects this concept.)

... in Himself uniting divinity with humanity ... and that too in sinful flesh.[184]

Because we dwell in flesh that is mortal, corruptible, temptable, having in it the accumulated tendencies of centuries of sin, "He also Himself likewise took part of the same."[185]

He condescended ... to take upon Himself fallen human nature.[186]

1911

He came in human form that He might come close to the fallen race.[187]

In this step the eternal Logos "became flesh, "the same as we; for He was "born of a woman, born under the law," under its condemnation, as a human, having the flesh with all the human tendencies; a partaker of the "flesh and blood" of humanity; " in all things" "made like unto His brethren," "suffered being tempted." And He met all the temptations even as you and I must meet them, by faith in the will and Word of God. There is not a tendency in the flesh of humanity but what dwelt in His. And He overcame them all.[188]

He took our nature. ... He met, in the weakness and infirmity of the flesh, all the temptations to which man is subject, and overcame them all.[189]

Christ came lower and took the estate of man with all his degeneracy. (Quoting Ellen White) "The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen man."[190]

He sent His own Son ... into this world in the likeness of sinful flesh.[191]

1912

He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham.[192]

It will be the wonder of the ages that the Word was made sinful flesh.[193]

1913

... it is time that all Christians should wear His yoke, and work in His line, identifying themselves with human sympathy in the way in which He identified Himself with the fallen race.[194]

... to meet the necessities of human nature He took humanity upon Himself. ... He ... mysteriously allied Himself with fallen human beings.[195]

In order to establish the relation between God and sinful flesh, it was necessary for the Son of God to take sinful flesh and thus was bridged the gulf which separated sinful man from God.[196]

He is also the Son of man ... the link between divinity and poor, weak, sinful humanity. ... He was very God and very man ... man in the incarnation of sinful flesh ... the Eternal Jehovah in the flesh of weak, sinful man.[197]

It was necessary for the Son of God to take sinful flesh.[198]

By assuming sinful flesh ... Jesus ... made it possible for Him to minister to sinful flesh.[199]

By the dogma of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, Rome teaches that the mother of Jesus was preserved from the stain of original sin, and that she had sinless flesh. Consequently she was separated from the rest of humanity. As a result of this separation of Jesus from sinful flesh, the Roman priesthood has been instituted in order that there may be someone to mediate between Christ and the sinner.[200]

Christ was, therefore, of the royal line through His mother. But He was more than this; He was the same flesh as the seed of David, in and through which for generations had flowed the blood of sinful humanity: Solomon, and Rehoboam, and Ahaz, and Manasseh, and Amon, and Jeconiah, and others. The Son of God took this same flesh in order that He might meet temptation for us, and overcome with divine power every trial we must meet. Christ is our Brother in the flesh, our Saviour from sin.[201]

He took our nature, and became like His brethren. ... The only thing that God could do to save the race was to let (Christ) ... come and live the holy life, amidst the fallen creatures, live in their flesh.[202]

When Adam and Eve yielded to that adversary in Eden, sin became incarnated--infleshed. ... The promise was that there should come into the flesh of an offspring of the woman a seed from above the human.[203]

1914

Through Mary, Jesus partook of our human nature.[204]

(The Australian Signs for the period 19 14-23 were not available to us.)

That Son took the flesh of sinful man.[205]

1915

He made Himself of no reputation, took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. ... Sinless and exalted by nature, the Son of God consented to take the habiliments of humanity, to become one with the fallen race. The eternal Word consented to be made flesh. God became man.[206]

(She died on July 16, 1915. Later quotations from her are reprints. The student should compare this last statement with her first in 1858.)

6. How fully did Christ share our common humanity? "Wherefore in all things it behoved 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." Verse 17.

Note.--In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not "made like unto His brethren," was not "in all points tempted like as we are," did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits,--a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage-ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way everyone who is "born of the Spirit" may gain like victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. (Rev. 3:21) Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. (John 3:3-7) (Emphasis theirs.)[207]

The evil tendencies of the flesh were His, as they are ours. ... Our strongest temptations come from within. Then it must have been so with Him ... the veil of human weaknesses, of sinful tendencies of the flesh, was between Him and the Father, the same as it is between us and the Father.[208]

Notes:

1. Ellen White, Y1 2/11/97, p. 42, col. 2
2. Ellen White, ST 4/01197, p. 196, col. 2; BV 372
3. Ellen White, ST 4/22/97, p. 244, col. 3; BV 375
4. Ellen White, ST 5/27/97, p. 325, col. 3; BV 386
5. Ellen White, ST 6/17/97, p. 3, col. 2; BV 390
6. Ellen White, ST 7/22/97, p. 435, col. 1, 2; BV 400
7. Ellen White, Y1 8105197, p. 242, col. 2
8. Ellen White, ST 10/7/97, p. 613, col. 2; BV 421
9. Ellen White, ST 10/14/97, p. 627, col. 2; BV 422
10. Ellen White, ST 10/21/97, p. 645, col. 5; BV 424
11. Ellen White, ST 12/09/97, p. 755, col. 3; BV 436
12. Ellen White, Ms. 42, 1897, p. 9
13. Ellen White, Ms. 43, 1897, p. 3
14. Ellen White, Ms. 49, 1897, p. 8
15. Ellen White, Ms. 128, 1897, p. 11
16. Ellen White, Ms. 15, 1897, p. 7
17. Ellen White, Ms. 143, 1897, p. 1
18. Ellen White, Ms. 143, 1897, p. 3
19. Ellen White, Ms. 143, 1897, p. 3
20. Elgin Farnsworth, ST 5/06/97, p. 1, col. 1; BV 380
21. G. E. Fifield, GCB 1897, p. 13, col. 1
22. H. P. Holser, GCB 1897, p. 55, col. 1
23. E. J. Waggoner, Signs editor, General Conference Bulletin, 1897, No. 5, p. 57
24. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1897, p. 12, col. 1
25. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1897, p. 45, col. 2, p. 46, col. 1
26. E. J. Wagoner, GCB 1897, p. 67, col. 2
27. E. J. Wagoner, GCB 1897, p. 89, col. 1
28. Uriah Smith, College teacher, General Conference Secretary, Review editor Looking Unto Jesus (c. 1897), p. 23 
29. Uriah Smith, College teacher, General Conference Secretary, Review editor Looking Unto Jesus (c. 1897), p. 30
30. M. C. Wilcox, GCB 1897, p. 277, col. 2
31. Ellen White, ST 1/27/98, p. 50, col. 3; BV 448
32. Ellen White, RH 2/15/98, p. 101, col. 1; BV 503
33. Ellen White, ST 2/24/98, p. 115, col. 1
34. Ellen White, ST 6/09/98, p. 2, col. 2
35. Ellen White, ST 8/25/98, p. 530, col. 1; BV 499
36. Ellen White, RH 9/20/98, p. 598, col. 2; BV 608
37. Ellen White, ST 10/13/98, p. 643, col. 2; BV 509
38. Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, p. 25; Although these statements are recorded twice to show Ellen White's thinking at the time they were written and at the time of their publication. they are not counted twice.
39. Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, p. 49
40. Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, p. 112
41. Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, p. 117
42. Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, pp. 174-175
43. Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, pp. 311-312
44. Ellen White, Ms. 67, 1898, p. 4
45. Ellen White, Ms. 164, 1898, p. 1
46. Ellen White, Ms. 166, 1898, p. 9
47. Ellen White, Ms. 177, 1898, p. 4
48. Ellen White, Ms. 193, 1898, p. 1
49. Ellen White, ST 1/25/99, p. 66, col. 3; BV 14
50. Ellen White, ST 5/17/99, p. 322, col. 3; BV 35
51. Ellen White, ST 7/12/99, p. 453, col. 3; BV 44
52. Ellen White, YI 9/21/99, p. 478, col. 2
53. Ellen White, ST 11/15/99, p. 739, col. 2; BV 76
54. Ellen White, ST 12/20/99, p. 818, col. 1; BV 82
55. Ellen White, Ms. 23, 1899, p. 5
56. Ellen White, Ms/65/1899
57. Ellen White, Ms. 85, 1899, p. 4
58. Ellen White, Ms. 147, 1899, p. 5
59. Ellen White, Ms. 185, 1899, p. 2
60. Ellen White, Ms. 196, 1899, p. 2
61. Ellen White, YI 2/22/1900, p. 62, col. 2
62. Ellen White, ST 4/04/1900, p. 210, col. 3; BV 107
63. Ellen White, ST 5/09/1900, p. 290, col. 3; BV 115
64. Ellen White, ST 5/16/1900, p. 305, col. 1; BV 117
65. Ellen White, 6T, 1900, p. 147
66. Ellen White, ST 5/30/1900, p. 341, col. 1; BV 120
67. Ellen White, ST 6/13/1900, p. 371, col. 2; BV 123
68. Ellen White, ST 6/27/1900, p. 401, col. 3; BV 126
69. Ellen White, ST 10/17/1900, p. 658, col. 2, 3; BV 153
70. Ellen White, RH 7/17/1900, p. 449, col. 3; BV 201
71. Ellen White, YI 12/20/1900, p. 394, col. 2
72. Ellen White, Ms. 21, 1900, p. 2
73. Ellen White, Ms. 21, 1900, p. 8
74. Ellen White, Ms. 53, 1900, p. 1
75. Ellen White, Ms. 88, 1900, p. 3
76. Ellen White, Ms. 89, 1900, p. 10
77. Ellen White, AR 6/01/1900, p. 3, col. 2; BV 34
78. Editorial, M. C. Wilcox, Signs editor, ST 1/03/1900, p. 1, col. 2
79. S. N. Haskell, ST 1/17/1900, p. 35, col. 3; BV 87
80. W. N. Glenn, Signs Assistant Editor, ST 1/17/1900, p. 5, col. 1
81. Stephen Haskell, Letter to EGW regarding Holy Flesh Movement in Indiana, September 25, 1900
82. Ellen White, ST 1/30/01, p. 66, col. 2; BV 166
83. Ellen White, ST 5/29/01, p. 339, col. 2; BV 182
84. Ellen White, ST 11/06/01, p. 706, col. 2; BV 207
85. Ellen White, Ms. 125, 1901, p. 14
86. Ellen White, Ms. 126, 1901, p. 17
87. Ellen White, Ms. 41, 1901, p. 2
88. Ellen White, Ms. 141, 1901, p. 4
89. Ellen White, Ms. 141, 1901
90. Ellen White, Letter 19, 1901
91. Ellen White, General Conference Bulletin, 4/25/01, p. 422, col. 3
92. G. W. Reaser, ST 6/05/01, p. 356, col. 1; BV 184
93. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1901, p. 70, col. 2
94. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1901, p. 81, col. 1
95. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1901, p. 146, cols. 1, 3
96. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1901, p. 200, col. 3; p. 223, col. 1
97. E. J. Waggoner, GCB 1901, pp. 403-408
98. W. W. Prescott, GCB 1901, p. 194, col. 2
99. J. E. White, Editor, Gospel Herald, April 1901, p. 28, col. 3
100. Ellen White, ST 1/08/02, p. 18, col. 3; BV 216
101. Ellen White, ST 4/16/02, p. 242, col. 3; BV 234
102. Ellen White, ST 6/18/02, p. 386, col. 1; BV 245
103. Ellen White, ST 7/30/02, p. 482, col. 2; BV 254
104. Ellen White, ST 9/03/02, p. 562, col. 3; BV 260
105. Ellen White, ST 9/24/02, p. 610, col. 2, 3; BV 264
106. Ellen White, ST 12/03/02, p. 770, col. 3; BV 271
107. Ellen White, Medical Ministry, 1902, p. 181
108. Ellen White, Ms. 11, 1902, p. 6
109. Ellen White, Ms. 77, 1902, p. 3
110. Ellen White, Ms. 113, 1902, p. 1
111. Ellen White, Ms. 113, 1902, p. 2
112. Ellen White, Ms. 115, 1902, p. 8
113. Ellen White, Ms. 155, 1902, p. 16
114. Ellen White, AR 12/15/02, p. 1, col. 1; BV 102
115. Editorial Gospel Herald 1/08/02, p. 4, col. 1
116. Editorial Gospel Herald 12/24/02, p. 404, col. 2
117. L. A. Phippeny, ST 7/16/02, p. 3, col. 3
118. Ellen White, ST 1/14/03, p. 20, col. 1; BV 277
119. Ellen White, ST 4/29/03, p. 258, col. 1, 2; BV 288
120. Ellen White, ST 6/03/03, p. 338, col. 1; BV 292
121. Ellen White, ST 6/17/03, p. 370, col. 2; BV 294
122. Ellen White, ST 12/09/03, p. 770, col. 3; BV 314
123. Ellen White, Ms. 9, 1903, p. 9
124. Ellen White, Ms. 51, 1903, p. 4
125. Ellen White, Ms. 80, 1903, p. 12
126. Ellen White, Ms. 99, 1903, p. 4
127. Ellen White, Ms. 102, 1903, p. 7
128. Ellen White, Ms. 107, 1903, p. 5
129. Ellen White, Ms. 124, 1903, p. 111
130. Ellen White, Ms. 124, 1903, p. 111
131. Ellen White, AR 12/15/03, p. 1, col. 2; BV 141
132. D. A. Fitch, Southern Watchman 9/22/03, p. 411, cols. 1, 2
133. Ellen White, RH 1/07/04, p. 8, col. 2; BV 7
134. Ellen White, ST 1/13/04, p. 18, col. 2; BV 321
135. Ellen White, RH 3/17/04, p. 8, col. 2; BV 25
136. Ellen White, RH 12/08/04, p. 12, col. 1; BV 98
137. Ellen White, Ms. 110, 1904, p. 10
138. Mrs. N. A. Honeywell, YI 3/01/04, p. 4, col. 1
139. Weekly Study, YI 4/19/04, p. 4, col. 3
140. Ellen White, RH 3/09/05, p. 8, col. 2; BV 120
141. Ellen White, ST 4/26/05, p. 264, col. 1; BV 383
142. Ellen White, ST 6/14/05, p. 376, col. 1; BV 388
143. Ellen White, RH 6/0l/05, p. 13, col. 2; BV 139
144. Ellen White, RH 6/16/05, p. 8, col. 3; BV 141
145. Ellen White, Ministry of Healing, 1905, p. 70
146. Ellen White, Ministry of Healing, 1905, p. 180
147. Ellen White, Ministry of Healing, 1905, p. 422
148. Ellen White, Ms. 22, 1905, p. 2
149. Ellen White, Ms. 54, 1905, p. 4
150. Ellen White, Ms. 58, 1905, p. 3
151. Elsie Hollingsworth, Southern Watchman 4/04/05, p. 219, col. 3
152. T. E. Bowen, The Watchman 10/24/05, p. 692, col. 1, 2
153. Editorial, RH 11/09/05, p. 4, col. 1
154. Editorial, RH 12/21/05, pp. 3-4
155. Ellen White, RH 4/05/06, p. 8, col. 1, 2; p. 9, col. 1; BV 227-228
156. Ellen White, The Watchman 11/13/06, p. 707, col. 2
157. Ellen White, Ms. 9, 1906, p. 2
158. H. A. St. John, ST 4/04/06, p. 8, col. 3
159. Ellen White, RH 6/06/07, p. 8, col. 3; BV 333
160. Ellen White, RH 8/22/07, p. 8, col. 1; BV 353
161. Ellen White, Ms. 49, 1907, p. 3
162. Ellen White, The Watchman 2/26/07, p. 131, col. 2
163. Ellen White, The Watchman 9/03/07, p. 563, col. 1
164. Ellen White, The Watchman 9/24/07, p. 611, col. 1
165. Ellen White, The Watchman 10/22/07, p. 676, col. 1
166. L. A. Smith, Editor, The Watchman 10/08/07, p. 649, cols. 2, 3
167. Ellen White, ST 7/15/08, p. 451, col. 2; BV 457
168. Ellen White, RH 7/16/08, p. 8, col. 1; BV 433
169. Ellen White, Ms. 23, 1908
170. Ellen White, Ms. 99, 1908, p. 7
171. Ellen White, Ms. 117, 1908, pp. 3, 4
172. G. B. Thompson, Conference President, General Conference Departmental, Secretary, General Conference General Secretary, RH 1 1/19/08, p. 9, col. 2; p. 10, col. 1
173. Editorial, RH 12/10/08, p. 1, col. 2
174. Ellen White, RH 1/28/09, p. 7, col. 3; BV 491
175. Ellen White, Ms. 49, 1909, p. 4
176. Ellen White, Ms. 103, 1909, p. 2
177. M. E. Kern, YI 11/23/09, p. 12, col. 2
178. E. H. Adams, ST 12/15/09, p. 6, col. 1
179. Sabbath School Quarterly, Second Quarter, 1909, p. 8
180. R. A. Underwood, GCB 1909, p. 299, col. 2
181. Ellen White, The Watchman, September 1910, p. 541, col. 2
182. Uriah Smith, South African Signs of the Times, 1910, No. 3, p. 118
183. Editorial, South African Signs of the Times, 1910, No. 4, p. 151
184. W. W. Prescott, RH 1/13/10, p. 4, col. 3
185. C . M. Snow, Review and Signs Associate Editor, Australian Signs Editor, RH 6/02/10, p. 12, col. 2
186. G. T. Ellingson, RH 12/29/10, p. 6, col. 1
187. Ellen White, Ms. 33, 1911, p. 19
188. Milton C . Wilcox, Signs Editor, Questions and Answers, pp. 19, 20
189. South African Signs of the Times, 1911, (Quoting American Signs of the Times), No. 2, p. 68
190. Clarence Santee, Minister, writer, conference administrator, The Watch man, June 1911, p. 360, col. 1
191. George W. Rine, Signs of the Times, South Africa, 1911, No. 4, p. 159
192. Uriah Smith (Quoted), In an Earlier Statement of Faith, RH 8/22/12, p. 4, col. 3
193. R. A. Underwood, RH 12/05/12, p. 4, col. 3
194. Ellen White, AR 6/23/13, p. 2, col. 1; BV 528
195. Ellen White, Councils to Parents and Teachers, 1913, p. 259
196. "Incarnation and Priesthood", YI 1/21/13, p. 15, "notes," col. 1
197. J. F. Tolson, ST 8/26/13, p. 516, col. 3; BV 523
198. Sabbath School Quarterly, First Quarter, 1913, p. 14
199. Sabbath School Quarterly, First Quarter, 1913, p. 15
200. Sabbath School Quarterly, Second Quarter, 1913, p. 25
201. Sabbath School Quarterly, Fourth Quarter, 1913, p. 6
202. V. B. Watts, The Watchman, July 1913, p. 339, col. 2; p. 340, col. 1
203. M. G. Wilcox, Minister, editor, AST 12/22/13, p. 806, col. 2
204. A. H. AST 4/06/14, p. 214, col. 1
205. Sabbath School Quarterly, First Quarter, p. 16
206. Ellen White (Her Last Testimony), ST 1/05/15, p. 3, col. 2, 3; BV 531
207. Bible Readings for the Home Circle (1915), p. 115
208. Clarence Santee, The Watchman, September 1915, p. 427, col. 2Chapter 13

1916-1952 The Afterglow of Clarity and Unity

"And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua." (Joshua 24:31)

As William Grotheer has pointed out,[1] there is an interesting parallel between the long-lasting influence of Joshua and that of Ellen White insofar as her teaching about the humanity of Jesus is concerned. It is apparent from the written records that her conviction that Christ had come to the earth in the nature of fallen man, because this was the only way that He could accomplish the salvation of the fallen race, had thoroughly permeated the church by the time of her death in 1915.

The influence of her strong conviction continued after her death for a third of a century, approximately as long there remained in the active service of the church men who might have been personally acquainted with her life and work. They continued to print and publish opinions that were not different from hers until the 1950's, as the following pages will reveal.

1916

As a man He was one with humanity, and was called the Son of Man.[2]

1918

From the fallen race itself must arise the Deliverer. ... the Son of God ... stood, not where Adam stood before the fall, but where man stands today.[3]

1919

God's Son declared that He would Himself become a man, would take the nature of sinful flesh.[4]

1920

Christ assumed, not the original unfallen, but our fallen humanity.[5]

He took the same kind of flesh that you have--sinful flesh. ... He came "in the likeness of sinful flesh" and lived a sinless life.[6]

1921

Jesus came into the world (and) took upon Him "the likeness of sinful flesh. ..."[7]

Christ came from heaven in the likeness of sinful flesh. ... He had flesh just like ours.[8]

Christ assumed, not the original unfallen, but our fallen humanity. In this second experiment, He stood not precisely where Adam before Him had, but, as has already been said, with immense odds against Him--evil, with all the prestige of victory and its consequent enthronement in the very constitution of our nature, armed with more terrific power against the possible realization of this divine idea of man--perfect holiness. All this considered, the disadvantages of the situation, the tremendous risks involved, and the fierceness of the oppositon encountered, we come to some adequate sense both of the reality and greatness of that vast moral achievement; human nature tempted, tried, miscarried in Adam, lifted up in Christ to the sphere of actualized sinlessness.[9]

He who is introduced in the first chapter as Son, God, and Lord, whose deity and eternity are emphasized, meets us in the second chapter as the Son of man, with all the limitations of our common humanity. He is known now by His earthly, personal name, and as one who can taste of death (Heb. 2:9), and can be made "perfect through sufferings" (verse 10). He partook of the same flesh and blood which we have (verse 14), becoming just as truly man (verse 17) as He is truly God.[10]

He was made in the "likeness of sinful flesh." He took part of the same flesh and blood that those had whom He came to redeem, was made in all things "like unto His brethren."[11]

Christ took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh.[12]

(Jesus) became flesh and blood, even as we are.[13]

1922

And so Christ, taking upon Him the likeness of sinful flesh, became subject to death.[14]

1923

He ... clothed His divinity with humanity ... that He might reach men where they were.[15]

To meet the necessities of humanity, He took on Him human nature. ... Mysteriously He allied Himself to human nature.[16]

The great plan of the redemption of a fallen race was wrought out in the life of Christ in human flesh.[17]

And so Christ, taking upon Him the likeness of sinful flesh, became subject to death.[18]

But He took our nature, shrouded His divinity in our humanity, came in "the likeness of sinful flesh." (Romans 8:3; Phillipians 2:7-8 quoted)[19]

As (man) grasps the truth that there actually lived upon this earth One possessed of the same nature as himself, who "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," he realizes that there is hope for him.[20]

None but a human being--"made in the likeness of sinful flesh"--could serve as a mediator on behalf of sinful men. All the attributes of the Godhead, and those of sinful humanity, must be made to meet in the one who should effect the reconciliation.[21]

1924

... partaking of the same flesh and blood, becoming near of kin as a member of the family. ... Christ became "a near kinsman" to us, our brother in the flesh.[22]

He was a man. "The Word was made flesh." He was made in the "likeness of sinful flesh." ... He is a brother to us in our weakness.[23]

As seen by the world, Jesus of Nazareth was like other men of His time, for He had the same flesh and blood.[24]

There are many people in the world today who feel that because of the weakness of the flesh they never can lead a life of victory over sin. And then there are others who think of Christ as a friend afar off, one whom they feel they cannot approach. Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, said that "both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren." (Chapter 2:11) I firmly believe that this means that He was not only one with His followers while here upon earth, but that He is one with them now; and that no matter how deep into sin one has plunged, He is not ashamed to call that one His brother.

I further believe that our chance for eternal life is just as bright as that of the Son of God when He was here among men. We read that "the Word [Christ] was made flesh, and dwelt among us." (John 1:14) We may ask ourselves the question, How was the Word made flesh? This is answered in (Gal. 4:4) He was "made of a woman" as is any other person who comes into the world; yet He was begotten of God, and was indeed the Son of God, made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. 8:3) The question would then naturally arise, Whose flesh was He like? for there is a great difference in sinful flesh. Some men have plunged into the depths of sin and the result of their indulgence is seen in their offspring, while others have never been so very indulgent. Whose flesh was Jesus like? He was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." (Rom. 1:3)

Made of Sinful Flesh

Nothing, then, could be clearer than that the same kind of flesh that David had was the kind that Jesus had. Who was David?--He was the son of Jesse. But who was Jesse?--He was the son of Ruth. Ruth was a Moabitish girl, a descendant of Moab; and Moab was a son of one of Lot's daughters. (Gen. 19:36, 37) We find as we study the character of the progenitors of Jesus that they are the darkest of any upon the earth, and have gone to the greatest depths in sin. When Jesus was born into the world, He took upon Himself sinful

flesh after it had been weakened by nearly four thousand years of wickedness. He might have come through another line, but He came through the weakest of the weak, that He might prove to the world that man never plunged so deep into sin but that the power of God is sufficient to enable him to live a victorious life. He "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. " (Heb. 4:15) He was not only tempted, but His temptations were so strong that He even suffered when He was tempted. (Chapter 2:18) Although Jesus had in His flesh all the desires that were in the flesh of His ancestors, yet He never once yielded to sin.

The question often arises, How could He be a partaker of Joseph's or David's flesh and yet be the Son of God? The answer is this: Mary was of the same lineage as Joseph or David. They were not permitted to marry outside of their tribes. Thus Jesus was of the same flesh as Joseph, even though He was not Joseph's own son.

While Christ was here upon earth, despite the fact that He was the Son of God, He exercised no power in His own behalf that is not also freely offered to us. He emptied Himself, for He said, "I can of Mine own self do nothing." (John 5:3) He depended upon the Father for all His power and strength to overcome and live the victorious life.

Thus by His having partaken of the weakness of the human family, He is able to care for those who are sorely tempted and to be "a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2:17, 18) In the three temptations He met in the wilderness is wrapped up every temptation that comes to man, and by conquering, He thus made it possible for the entire human race to be victors over sin. All who receive Him have the power to become the sons of God. (John 1:12)

Let me ask: Have you received Him? If not, why not do so today? Take Him at His word. Step out on His promises, and He will never forsake you. (John 10:27-29)[25]

He conquered sin in a body which had come under the hereditary law of sin. He now proposes to live that same sinless life in my members.[26]

When Jesus bore the cross, He acknowledged the death sentence upon the sin nature. He took our nature, the Adam nature ... and bore that nature to its inevitable and necessary death.[27]

So in the veins of Jesus flowed the blood of many antecedent characters, some good and some bad.[28]

Christ united Himself to man in his fallen condition. When He took our nature He did not take it as it was originally created, before sin entered, but as it was after four thousand years of the ravages of sin. He came to us where we are. ...

If Christ did not come in sinful flesh, to men just where they are, He did not need to come at all, for He could bring them no help otherwise. If He came only to where men were in their original innocence and purity ... then He might just as well have remained in heaven ... for in this way He could not reach men. ...

He partook of the essential nature of fallen humanity. ... The Bible very clearly teaches that Christ was truly human, that He partook of human nature as it now is. ...

Paul makes it clear that this flesh that Christ partook of was "sinful flesh," (Romans 8:3 quoted). ... He did bear our sinful nature for thirty-three years. ...

In the weary, sinful, fallen, helpless nature of humanity ... Christ worked out the perfect way of human salvation.[29]

1925

Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" for me.[30]

Christ's victory over the flesh which He, the Word, became , has made possible free and full communication of God with man. ... His love for me led Him to take my nature.[31]

He ... took upon Himself the flesh of man, "the seed of David" (Rom. 1:3), "the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3), the form of the creature. The Creator became a Brother man. The Infinite God became human.[32]

(He) became man (Phil. 2:5-11)--not man as He came from God's hand in Eden, of sinless flesh, but man after he had sinned. He took the flesh that we possess ... with all the woe and misery, longing and despair, conflict and struggle, of fallen, sinful humanity,such as we are.[33]

The Son of God took our flesh, became our Brother, and assumed certain obligations in behalf of fallen humanity. ... Jesus had Gentile blood in His veins: He is our Redeemer, our Substitute, our Kinsman.[34]

He has been through all the experiences that have come to humanity.[35]

1926

"Jesus" is the name of the babe born of woman in the likeness of sinful flesh.[36]

The Promised One must be born of the seed of the woman--a carnal woman, mark you--a woman of sinful flesh like ours.[37]

"Jesus" is the name of the babe born of woman in the likeness of our sinful flesh.[38]

Our Christ today is "the offspring of David." (Rev. 22:16)[39]

Christ has conquered. He live a life free from sin, and He did it while in the same sinful flesh that we ourselves have to contend with.[40]

But no one outside of God and His Son could fathom the depths of Divine Love that would lead the Christ actually to step down from the throne of the universe to be united with fallen humanity by partaking of our fallen flesh.[41]

He was made flesh, and just such flesh as we know about,--our own kind.[42]

He took upon Him our flesh, and became in all things like as we are.[43]

He (Christ) came as a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. ... the blessed Christ met life's peril in common with every human soul ... as every child of humanity must fight. ... He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity.[44]

This body was that body which was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. 8:3)[45]

Christ as the "Son of God," the begotten of the Highest, bore the perfect divine nature, but as the son of Mary, the Son of man, He inherited the human and fallen nature. ... It should be remembered that man being born with a sinful nature does not make sin a necessary result, for ... Christ "knew no sin."[46]

Christ came and tabernacled in our sinful flesh.[47]

1927

Christ stooped to take upon Himself human nature, that He might reach the fallen race and lift them up.[48]

Christ took upon Himself our sinful flesh.[49]

Oh blessed victory thus achieved in human flesh. ... It was wrought in flesh like ours.[50]

As man, He lived a perfect life, enduring, under exactly similar conditions, every experience through which the human family must pass. ... (He had) a human mother, a human birth, a human nature, feeling all the infirmities of the flesh. ... Christ overcame by making His humanity depend absolutely not on His own, but His Father's divinity.[51]

"You know, it's easy for her to be a Christian, She was born good."

"I'm sorry I flew off the handle the way I did, but I'm really not to blame for it; I inherited an awful temper."

Did you every hear anyone talk that way? Did you ever talk that way?

I wonder if you know the "Begats." I think everyone ought to know the "Begats." As a typical American, I have scant interest in genealogies. Some friends of mine are very proud to trace their Editorial pedigrees back to royalty or nobility in Europe. Most Americans have descended from John Smith, Pocahontas, Miles Standish, or Priscilla, or somebody who came over on the Mayflower. I'm not particularly interested in my genealogy. But there is one record that I am intensely interested in. There is one family tree that does not bore me. There is one lineage that is glorious. I used to call it the "Begats."

"Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat--" (Matthew 1:1-17, A.R.V.)

Well, those are the "Begats. " And to me they are not a dry, uninteresting, attenuated genealogy. They are alive and vivid, and aglow with interest. For that is the way that Christ the Saviour is introduced to the reader of the New Testament.

There are two things about His ancestry which, as revealed by the "Begats," are very interesting and very striking. The first is that He came of a line of kings; and the second, that He came of a line of crooks.

Some poet has written in a verse of satire,

"My ancient but ignoble blood Has crept through scoundrels since the Flood."

That was true of Jesus.

We do not worship the Christ to-day because He had royal blood in His veins. Kings have been from the very beginning, on the whole, not a very respectable lot. And it seems to me that one lesson of the "Begats" is the truth that even in the most high-sounding genealogy, there is none righteous, not one.

Let us look for a moment at this pedigree. There was Jacob the supplanter; and Judah, whose children were born of an impure woman; there was Rahab, the harlot of Jericho; there was Ruth, once the pagan woman of Moab; there was David, whose son and heir was begotten by a woman whose husband he murdered in order that he might have his wife; there was Rehoboam, Abijah, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Amon, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, of whom uniformly it is recorded that they "did evil in the sight of the Lord;" there was Ahaz, the leader of apostasy; and the wicked and cruel Manasseh, who caused his sons to pass through the fire. Yes, Jesus came of a line of sinners.

And I am glad for that. For it helps me to understand how He can be "touched with the feeling" of all my infirmities. He came where I was. He stood in my place. In His veins was the incubus of a tainted heredity like a caged lion ever seeking to break forth and destroy. For four thousand years the race had been deteriorating in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of humanity at its worst. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation. Editorial

"If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured."--Desire of Ages, p. 117.

It is good to know that. He, the Son of God, became the Son of man, that I, a son of man, might become a son of God. He became as I am that I might become as He is. He partook of my human nature that I might partake of His divine nature. In every temptation that assails, it is strength to know that just such a temptation in all of its overwhelming force attacked Him--attacked Him where, by heredity, He was weakest,--attacked Him in unexpected times and ways; and that, with equal tendencies toward evil, in spite of bad blood and inherited meanness, by the same power to which I have access, He conquered. He won for me. He offers me His victory for my own--a free gift. And so in all these things I am more than conqueror through Him that loved me.

Where sin abounds, grace does much more abound.[52]

The Roman Catholic doctrine that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was sinless, "immaculate," is a denial of the possibility of His being "in all points tempted like as we are." The inherited tendency to sin is indeed strong. The mother of the man Christ Jesus inherited the "image and likeness" of her ancestors; she was "made" or "born" in sinful flesh; and Christ, as her Son, inherited that human nature.[53]

He is "the seed of the woman, " and so the Son of man, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, "one near of kin" to us.[54]

He became one of us, He was one with us. He was made bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh.[55]

Sin is without excuse, since it has been overcome (by Jesus) in "sinful flesh" ... but taking upon Him--or in other words, being Himself "made flesh"--human flesh, with all its weaknesses, and overcoming sin in the flesh, Jesus condemned sin by utterly disproving and utterly destroying its only possible justification.[56]

Jesus took a human body and a personality, the same as ours.[57]

There alone (on the cross) the Saviour could achieve that union with fallen men which was necessary to become their Substitute and Redeemer.[58]

The amazing condescension of Christ in uniting His divinity with our poor fallen humanity is difficult to grasp.[59]

Jesus ... had come to earth as a little babe, thus identifying Himself with sinful humanity.[60]

1928

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.[61]

Christ came in the weakness of the flesh.[62]

He was upon earth as a member of the human household, cumbered with our flesh ... knowing the frailties of our being.[63]

In the life of Christ we have God manifest in the flesh, living with man, subject to all his infirmities and suffering all his disadvantages in this mortal life.[64]

How could Christ in any worth-while and adequate sense be a sharer in our "flesh and blood" unless He shared the inherent possibility toward evil, the possibility to sin, which is in our flesh and blood? ... Could He be made "like unto us" in "all things" if He did not have that same dominant, powerful urge to commit sin?[65]

(Reprinted without change on August 21, 1928, p. 6, cols. 2, 3.)

Not only did the Father give His Son to a fallen world, but He gave to His Son the human family as an inheritance.[66]

But so great is that love that He is willing to leave His home, willing to lay aside His superiority, willing to empty Himself, and take upon Himself the like flesh of the children of clay. He is born a child of flesh in Bethlehem's manger. (Hebrews 2:14-17 quoted in part.)[67]

He must come to this sin-polluted world, become clothed with the flesh of humanity, conquer the inherited tendencies to sin, and then pay the supreme penalty for man as man's substitute.[68]

He has access to no more power than that to which we have access; for He was made in the likeness of man, was partaker of the same flesh and blood. ... He became truly man, our Kinsman after the flesh. ... He identified Himself fully with our weakness. ... Being fully identified with us as a man. ...[69]

God does not condemn us for being shapen in iniquity, and for being born with sinful propensities.[70]

(This statement is here included because it offers an insight as to how these writers understood David's words in Psalms 51, and Ellen White's word, propensities.)

Jesus took humanity with all of its liabilities. ... He took my infirmities.[71]

And He who was the highest became the lowest,--became a man, taking our sinful flesh.[72]

Carnal, natural man cannot abolish his enmity against God. It is a part of his nature. It is intertwined in every fiber of his being. But Jesus took upon Himself our nature of flesh and blood (Reb. 2:14), "in all things ... to be made like unto His brethren" (Reb. 2:17), "of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3); He met and "abolished in His flesh the enmity," "the carnal mind" (Rom. 8:7), "the mind of the flesh" (Rom. 8:7 ARV). He conquered sin in the flesh for us forever.[73]

1929

(God) gave Him to the fallen race.[74]

Jesus entered into the conditions of our fallen humanity. (Prescott then quotes Ellen White:)

But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities.[75]

We have seen the Son of God, who was God, assuming our humanity, taking the same flesh and blood that we have, made in all things like unto His brethren.[76]

(Reprinted with slight change in issue of 2/12/29, p. 13, col. 1)

(Quoting Ellen White) Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are . (Salton comments) Yet, praise His name, in our sinful humanity He led a sinless life. (Emphasis his.)[77]

He came and lived among us, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. ... He bore our infirmities in the flesh before He bore our sins on the tree. ... He knows the way we must go, for He has been over every inch of it Himself.[78]

(God) gave His only Son, that He might show humanity how those divine principles could be lived in sinful flesh upon this earth.[79]

Son of man ... made "like unto His brethren" ... He came here as a man made like you and me. ... This same Jesus, who was a man like me, who shared the joys and sorrows, and temptations to which I am heir.[80]

Christ, our Elder Brother, Who knows all about our weaknesses and our frailties.[81]

... in His humanity, He was just as we are. He took upon Himself the weaknesses and frailties of humanity. (He quotes DA, p. 152.)[82]

But Christ came to this world and became one of us, taking our human flesh with its weaknesses and temptations.[83]

It is from the standpoint of His humanity that He enters into the closest of His relationships with us. ... He knows me just as I stand in all the weaknesses of my humanity.[84]

Jesus, the Son of the Infinite God, became the son of a sinner for me.[85]

He partook of the same flesh and blood that we have ... when He assumed humanity, He became man, generic man, racial man, the new head of the human family.[86]

(Christ) stooped low to assume the flesh of sin.(87)

The Son of the Eternal God became the Son of a sinner ... the Son of the Highest became the Son of a sinner.[88]

If Jesus would come to earth and take the same of kind of flesh we all have ... then He could die on the cross a perfect sacrifice.[89]

He took upon Himself humanity. ... He became the Son of man. ... He became a member of the earthly family. ... He became one flesh with us. ... He took our nature and overcame.[90]

(He was made) like you--like me. ... Having triumphed over sin in sinful flesh.[91]

He brought perfection of character down to the very lowest plane of humanity and successfully placed it in human flesh.[92]

1930

... it was necessary that He should step down from His glorious condition and not only take the form of man, but empty Himself of His glory and take the nature of the human race just where He found it. (Emphasis his.)

... born of the seed of David after the flesh, of the seed of Abraham--human flesh subject to human necessities.[93]

(Quoting Ellen White) (God) gave Him to the fallen race.[94]

Hence Jesus Christ Himself, though the Infinite Son of God, did not trust Himself to mere theories, but took upon Himself the form of humanity, so that as a man, He might enter into the experiences of men.[95]

Just as the brazen serpent was a Deliverer to the Israelites in the likeness of the fiery serpent that destroyed, so Christ came as the Saviour of the world in the likeness of men that sin. Just as the brazen serpent, though in the form of a fiery serpent, was without venom, so Jesus, though in the form of sinful man, was without sin.[96]

That He might become bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, He left His Father's house.[97]

(He took) the nature of the human race just where He found it. ... Nay, He stripped Himself of His glory, and took on Him the nature of a bond servant by becoming a man like other men ... human flesh subject to human limitations.[98]

He stepped down from the glories of the eternal, and took upon Him the likeness of our sinful flesh.[99]

He became flesh that He might know our frame. ... He knows our infirmities.[100]

In His alliance with man, in His humanity, He was just as human as you and I. (Then quoting from Twentieth Century New Testament:) What Law could not do, in so far as our earthly nature weakened its action, God did by sending His own Son, with a nature resembling our sinful nature to atone for sin. (Rom. 8:3)[101]

Jesus took the same flesh that I have and lived a truly human life. ... He met the same temptations that are common to you and me. In these respects He differed in no way from His brethren. ... Christ is the only one who has experienced all the temptations that befall humanity.[102]

He ... became our Elder Brother, made in all points like unto us.[103]

Then was formed that union between the Divine and the human nature in the person of the Son of God who became the Son of man, having the same flesh and blood that we have.[104]

Whoever would save man must put himself in man's place. He must be subject to the same tendency ... to sin ... as man.[105]

Jesus came into this world on human plane. ... In his human nature Jesus stands on our ground.[106]

1931

It would have been an almrost infinite humilitation 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.[107]

... the force of temptation and the strength of sinful passions and evil desires would not be properly understood; therefore our Divine Substitute must also become human. ... All this could be wrought only by an incarnation of the Son of God into our sinful human flesh.[108]

The Son of God, born in Bethlehem, became the Son of man, our near kinsman--bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. Made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." He is the mystic ladder uniting earth and heaven.[109]

With none of the effects of sin upon him, in the Garden of God Adam had failed. With four thousand years of degeneration in physical strength, mental power, and moral worth behind Him, Christ, the second Adam, in the wilderness won. Taking humanity with all its liabilities, taking the infirmities of our degenerate sinful nature, He won.[110]

1932

In order to apply this all sufficient remedy it was necessary for Christ to come the first time veiled in human form and flesh. He tested out the plan in contact with sin from every angle that human beings have to meet it.[111]

God has revealed Himself to man and proved His own existence by the Incarnation of the Son of God, who lived in the likeness of our sinful flesh.[112]

He partook of sinful flesh, yet He did no sin. Jesus Christ was incarnated in sinful flesh so that sin might be overcome in human flesh.[113]

Our sinful flesh became His. In His veins flowed the tainted blood of Adam's race. Somewhere between the manger and the cross He experienced every emotion that touches my heart.[114]

... touching His humanity Christ came of the line of David, He was a Jew.[115]

Oh, the shame of it, that the great God should design to come to dwell with men, tabernacling in their own flesh.[116]

Jesus, our Elder Brother, linked Himself to His family upon earth with ties that can never be broken. He partook of flesh and blood and clothed Himself with humanity that He might be one with us. He does not hold Himself aloof from us, for He took upon Himself our nature. He is not ashamed to call us brethren.[117]

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was subject to the same disabilities as man. Jesus Himself said, "Of mine own self I can do nothing. "That statement revealed that there was no power at all in the sinful flesh that He took on.[118]

The Scriptures make it very clear that Jesus took upon Himself human nature with its physical needs and infirmities. ... There are many statements in the Scriptures showing that our Saviour reached down to man just where sin had placed him.[119]

He sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.[120]

He was subject to human temptations, also to human limitations. ... Jesus took on human nature just where He found it, with its physical needs and infirmities. ... He was flesh of our flesh. ... Our Saviour reached down to man just where sin had placed him.[121]

1933

He (Christ) knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity, and where lies the strength of our temptations.[122]

So He took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses. ... He gave Himself to us wholly.[123]

Jesus Christ took upon Himself the weakness, the tendencies, toward sin, that He might prove Himself a brother to His fellow men. (Hebrews 2:16-17 quoted.)[124]

So came the Messiah, taking upon Himself man's nature and its penalty, death.[125]

In order for Christ to understand the weakness of sinful nature, He had to experience it. ... Therefore He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. ... God must first come down to man in order to lift man up to Himself.[126]

Jesus Christ ... clothed Himself in our sin-smitten flesh.[127]

In order for Christ to understand the weakness of human nature, He had to experience it. ... Therefore He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.[128]

1934

God gave His son to enter into man's estate and take upon Himself man's nature.[129]

Since we are human, He must be born a human. He must be subjected to the same limitations, tempted in all points like we are.[130]

When man was hopelessly lost, ... Christ entered into man's estate. He took upon Himself the nature of man. ...[131]

(After quoting Hebrews 2:14, 7, 9 and 17, in that order, with emphasis on the words "like unto His brethren" in verse 17, Walker writes):

In His human nature Jesus stood on our ground.[132]

(After quoting Hebrews 2:14-15) As the Son of God did not intervene to prevent the three Hebrews from being cast into the fiery furnace, but joined them in their trial and brought them safely through it, so He united Himself with the human family through the incarnation, assuming all their liabilities.[133]

Now, because fallen sinners are partakers of flesh and blood, "He also Himself likewise took part of the same" flesh and blood. ... that He might identify Himself fully with the status of mankind ... to sense the weakness of human flesh in the terrible combat with sin and Satan.[134]

He took upon Himself the likeness of man--sinful, fallen man. He ... felt the weakness that transgression had brought.[135]

... it was necessary that the Word take upon Himself the garb of sinful flesh.[136]

He came to earth and took our flesh. ... In the likeness of sinful flesh, the Lord Jesus hung upon the cross in man's stead.[137]

1935

The Son of God, the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15) in the divine plan took the place of the fallen Adam.[138]

In the likeness of sinful flesh, the Lord Jesus hung upon the cross in man's stead.[139]

Encouraged in the discovery of One born in the likeness of sinful flesh who did not sin.[140]

The Son of God stepped down from His place upon the Father's throne, and was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, that, because of sin, He might condemn sin in the flesh.[141]

1936

Jesus Christ took upon Himself sinful flesh.[142]

In what form did Jesus come into the world? "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Romans 8:3 (Emphasis his.)[143]

God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.[144]

Jesus took the same flesh that I have. ... He was my brother in the flesh.[145]

If He were to tabernacle in our flesh, to take our nature upon Him, and understand our temptations and trials, it would be necessary for Him somehow to be born into this world. ... Let us be glad that He came into our world in such a wonderful way and took our flesh upon Him.[146]

To meet the trouble at its source, the Author of the law came to this earth, made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and, experiencing every difficulty that man must meet, lived victoriously by the power that men may claim.[147]

Jesus Christ took the same flesh that I have. ... He lived a truly human life. ... He was my brother in the flesh.[148]

He came to live as a man, subject to weakness ... having no power from heaven that the weakest son of Adam might not command.

Thus He came into the world, as one of the human family, entering it in the same manner that every other son of Adam has done, as a helpless babe. ... As the Son of man, living a perfect and victorious life in a frail human body, never failing in one point, though compassed with infirmity, Christ provided a perfect example of human life. (Emphasis hers.)[149]

It was planned that His only begotten Son should come down to this world of sin and be born in human, fallen flesh.[150]

It was not the nature of angels that He assumed, but that of Abraham. He was made "like unto His brethren." ... In order for Christ to understand the weakness of our nature, He had to experience it. ... Therefore He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.[151]

When He came to seek me and to save me, He humbled Himself to my low estate.[152]

As (man) grasps the truth that there actually lived upon this earth one possessed of the same nature as himself, who "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," he realizes that there is hope for him.[153]

Born To Be Bad

"Born To Be Bad" was the title of a motion picture being shown at a theatre as I passed its doors recently. The caption stood out brilliantly to challenge my attention. The phrase continued to haunt my mind as I walked on down the street. "Born to be bad"--was such a view of life actually true? "Born to be bad"--who are the unfortunate individuals doomed to such a fate? Who ordained their career?

This philosophy of determinism has penetrated much of the modern literature of European and American authors. It has been imbibed by the reading youth, until they, too, have declared their path is determined for them, and they cannot change it, so why not eat, drink, and be merry, since tomorrow we die, and our fate is inevitable? Theodore Dreiser, famous contemporary novelist, writes with this viewpoint in mind: "It is a grim world we are all born into. ... Who was to straighten out the matter of the unjust equipment with which most people began? Who was to give them strong minds in place of feeble ones? able bodies instead of wretched ones? Where were they to get pure tendencies instead of impure ones, as the world looked on these things?" These rhetorical questions linger in one's mind with the author's answer--"There is no hope."

Or again, Frank Norris describes one of his characters drawn to illustrate this pre-destined philosophy of life: "Below the fine fabric of all that was good in him ran the foul stream of hereditary evil, like a sewer. The vices and sins of his father and his father's father, to the third and fourth and five hundred generations, tainted him. The evil of an entire race flowed in his veins. Why should it be? He had not desired it. Was he to blame?

Can We Overcome Heredity?

This outlook upon life and individual destiny, well expressed in the statement, "Born to be bad," would be the natural conclusion of the human heart without the saving power of Jesus Christ. We freely admit that there is no hope of overcoming hereditary and cultivated tendencies aside from Him. But when we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, and who took upon Himself "the seed of Abraham," we begin to realize the significance of the statement in Heb. 4:15: "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."

Jesus Christ was born into the world on the level of all men. He clothed His divinity with humanity, and took the liabilities and the frailties of "the seed of Abraham." He knew what it meant to hunger, to thirst, to weep, to sink exhausted from the strain of labour. There are many persons who believe that Jesus Christ never could have sinned, and, therefore, that He could not realize the temptations through which mortals must pass. There are also those individuals who believe that their hereditary weaknesses and environment background are so contaminated that they cannot overcome certain temptations to evil.

But the Scriptures plainly declare that Jesus was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." No man can be tempted if it is impossible for him to sin. If a man is totally blind, you cannot tempt him to look upon an evil picture or to sit down and read a pernicious book. Jesus Christ could have sinned, for His life was marked with struggle from the pull of temptation toward sin, toward following a path different from that which His Father marked out for Him.

The challenge to hereditary weakness is also taken up by the Saviour of men. Is anyone bequeathed a legacy of evil by his ancestors which cannot be conquered? It is recognized that hereditary influences may hinder or help the character of the individual. Sins of the fathers may be inherited by the sons. But is there no remedy for this disease of sin?

When the Son of man took upon Himself "the seed of Abraham," He brought upon Himself one of the vilest and most corrupt lines of ancestors that it would be possible to inherit. His ancestry through Mary was such that He might rightly have thought, "I am born to be bad." He was from a royal line, it is true, but that line was blotted with every foul crime and evil deed. Search His lineage for a Daniel, an Isaiah, an Elijah, a Moses, or a Jeremiah. They are not there. His forefathers include Jacob, the supplanter; Judah, the man of licentious conduct; and David, adulterer and murderer. Rahab, the harlot, and Ruth, the heathen Moabitess, are in His family. The later kings of Judah were notoriously bad men. Rehoboam, Abijam, Ahaz, Jehoram, and Manasseh form a portion of the "rogues' gallery" of whom it is constantly said that they did evil in the sight of the Lord." The seed of Abraham" was indeed corrupt. Yet Jesus Christ overcame every temptation, and lived without sin!

"A Man Like Other Men"

In the clear statement of Weymouth's translation, we see the complete humanity of the Master revealed, for "He stripped Himself of His glory, and took on Him the nature of a bondservant by becoming a man like other men. " (Phil. 2:7) Therefore, He knew fully the longings, the cravings, and the appetites of carnal man. He knew the strong pull toward evil. Yet He sinned not.

"Born to be bad." No man can throw such an excuse before the Judge of heaven, for Christ answers that challenge by proving that a man may live above the accumulations of iniquity that have been left him by his ancestors.

Yet again someone may say, "I am born to be bad; look at my surroundings. I can't be good where I am forced to live. My associates are such as make it impossible for me to do right." Now, environmental conditions are known to affect the development of character. Every man is not born equal in his surroundings. The child born into a cultured, religious home has advantages which a boy growing up in the slums, which exude its vice, cannot know. Where can an individual find spiritual help if he is placed in evil situations? Is it possible for him to excuse his evil by saying, "I am placed in an environment which causes me to be bad"?

Study again the example of Jesus Christ, and find strength and succour for every sitution in life. The Gospel of Matthew declares that the family of Jesus "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." (Matt. 2:23) Among the hills north of Jerusalem, in despised Galilee, was this city's location. It was a garrison for Roman soldiers--an immoral, profligate group of men. There must have been numerous dens of vice, and much fighting, swearing, and gambling. Immorality was rampant. The associates of Jesus must have been tainted by these environmental evils. So notorious was the unrighteous city of Nazareth that when Philip told Nathanael of the Messiah from this city Nathanael at once exclaimed "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46)

But if Christ's associates were evil, it did not mar His life. For almost thirty years He lived in this atmosphere--yet without sin. His growth was positive and certain. He "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." (Luke 2:52) As a lily remains in its purity amid the dust of the coal mines, so the Son of man remained pure and free from contaminating sin. He answers for all time the query, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"

God's Grace Is Sufficient

Again, the Scriptures declare to us that God takes into account where a man has been born (Ps. 87:6), and that the grace of God will be sufficient for the need of the individual. This divine power may be received by everyone who asks for it.

The philosophy of determinism, or "born to be bad," is not compatible with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. He is declared to be able to "save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him." (Heb. 7:25) No hereditary or environmental situation need cause any man to despair of righteousness. As a great religious writer has pertinently declared of the saving grace of God, "Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His character upon His church." There is dynamic power, with omnipotent resources, for the individual who will draw upon heaven. There is living, vitalizing spiritual power in the life of the individual who will use this strength to demonstrate the powerful triumph of a Christian life over sin. It was through temptation, suffering, and death that the Son of God for ever linked Himself with humanity. It is this sympathetic bond which unites our love with His mercy before the throne of God. "Wherefore in all things it behoved 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 succour them that are tempted." (Heb. 2:17, 18)

Jesus Christ is not ashamed to call us brethren. The human lineage of the Saviour of men makes it possible for Him to plead for man before the Father. He can remain cognizant of the deep valleys of temptation through which man passes, for He, too, has endured them. The wilderness experience left Him weak, emaciated, and in need of heavenly ministration. The barren intervals of life demand that we seek the ministration of the Christ who invites us, "Follow Me."

The Remedy For Despair

Without a saving Jesus, the vicissitudes of life cause despair in the heart of the individual. There is no remedy to lift him out of this, but God. "Born to be bad" epitomizes this despair of heart. Paul describes the condition of the carnal man without God in this text: "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." (Eph. 2:12) Can you imagine an individual more hopeless than the man who feels that he is born to be always bad? This is the result of overwhelming doubt, and of failing to know the Christ, for Paul adds, "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh [to God] by the blood of Christ." (Verse 13)[154]

In order that Jesus might be "near of kin" to helpless sinners, what was needful?

He was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." (Romans 8:3)[155]

A Saviour who can enter into every experience of humanity, who would be touched with the feelings of human infirmity, was to come.[156]

1937

(Christ) knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity.[157]

Jesus is our elder brother. He has linked Himself to His family upon earth with ties that will never be broken. He partook of flesh and blood, and clothed Himself with humanity, that He might be one with us. He does not hold Himself aloof from us, for He took upon Himself our nature. He is not ashamed to call us brethren.[158]

... the Son of God ... assumed humanity with all its liabilities due to sin.[159]

(Christ) took the form and the frailty of fallen man.[160]

Christ was a man--He bore our flesh and endured our infirmities.[161]

Our God dwells with men. He was manifest in the flesh. ... He stooped down to where we are, that we might be lifted up to where He is. He partook of our human nature, that we might be partakers of His divine nature.[162]

He was born of a virgin, and thus assumed our human nature.[163]

It would have been an infinite sacrifice for the Son to have taken man's nature before the fall in Eden, for man was created lower than the angels. ... But the Son stooped even lower; He was born in the likeness of sinful men, and became a servant among men.[164]

Jesus took upon Him the frailties of the flesh, the tendencies to sin, and the exposures to temptation common to men.[165]

The son of God came into this world to share the common lot of mankind.[166]

The Son of God was made in the likeness of sinful men, that He might be a merciful High Priest.[167]

(He was willing) to take the form of humanity degraded by two thousand (sic) years of sin and rebellion.[168]

The ground of our assurance in coming to the Lord Jesus is the fact that He took upon Himself the nature of man, ... thus bridging the gulf which sin had made between God and humanity.[169]

In order for Christ to understand the weakness of our nature He had to experience it. ... Therefore He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. His incarnation was in actual humanity.[170]

(Quoting Ellen White , thus:) He was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. (Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 256)[171]

He became partaker of our flesh and blood that He might tabernacle among us and be one of us. In all things He was made like unto His brethren.[172]

1938

The Son of God took Adam's place, and was made in the likeness of sinful man.[174]

(Quoting Ellen White.) Christ would identify Himself with the weakness of the fallen race ... the great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer--taking the place of fallen Adam. ... The King of Glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity. ... He would take man's fallen nature. (from Redemption, pp. 14- 15)[174]

He took our sins and our sinful nature.[175]

The life of the Son of Man having our flesh and our fallen nature, lived in this world of sin, constitutes the righteousness by which we are justified.[176]

Sin is without excuse, since it has been overcome (by Jesus) in "sinful flesh." ... By taking upon Him human flesh with all its weaknesses ... and overcoming sin in the flesh, Jesus condemned sin by utterly disproving and utterly disqualifying its only possible justification.[177]

In fact, as one writer says, These thirteen verses (John 1:1-13) were intended "to raise the reader to the altitude of this climax, "The Word was made flesh." And in several other scriptures, "Flesh" denotes man's present frail, mortal condition. ...

By His incarnation He became married to our human nature, and is as conscious of our infirmities, weaknesses, and frailties as He is of all that is properly divine. ...

Jesus, to redeem us, reached down to humanity's lowest depths. He took our nature. He became man ... Christ "came where he (man) was" by His humanity. ... For taking our nature, thus He is "touched with the feeling of our infirmities." ...

With His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Infinite, and with His human arm He encircles the fallen race. ...

(John 1:51) Jesus is the ladder. This ladder is set upon earth. He is the Son of man, and by His humanity He is linked to humanity. The ladder is within our reach.[178]

He understands our human frailties, for He was "made in the likeness of men. "[179]

1939

... it was in a still higher sense His sinless life that "condemned sin in the flesh" by showing that sin is without excuse, since it has been overcome in "sinful flesh." ... But taking upon Him human flesh with all its weaknesses ... and overcoming sin in the flesh, Jesus condemned sin by utterly disproving and utterly destroying its only possible justification.[180]

Beloved, the plan and program that involved the cross, separated the Son of God from His father, and linked Him up forever with a race of sinners, by the ties of blood, ties never to be broken.[181]

Jesus laid aside the glory He had with the Father when He took upon Himself the human form and human nature. As a man, He possessed the frailties, the tendencies, the likes and the dislikes, of human nature.[182]

It is as a Son of God and a Son of man, a human being "made in all points like unto His brethren," that our Saviour fulfilled every possible requirement of the plan of salvation.[183]

Christ identified Himself with man in every sense.[184]

Yes, He came, the only man in history whose lineage can be definitely traced back to Adam. He was "the woman's seed," because born of a virgin, yet the "Son of Man" because of His descent from Adam. (Emphasis mine. )[185]

It would have been ignominy for Him to leave His throne and take even the place of Adam as a sinless, perfect man. Yet we find that He was willing to take man's place after the human race had suffered four thousand years of degradation and sin. He took upon Himself our nature, with all the legacy of heredity that every human being has to face.[186]

1940

He came from Heaven to earth, clothed His Divinity with humanity, and bore the curse as surety for the fallen race. ... He was to take upon Himself our nature. ... Satan and His angels exulted as they discovered that the Son of God had taken upon Himself the nature of man ... humanity needed divinity, that a power from above might restore man to the likeness of God. ... (Christ) ... was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. ... Sinless and exalted by nature, the Son of God consented to take the habiliments of humanity, to become one with the fallen race.[187]

He knows by experience all that man must pass through. ... It was necessary for Him to be made like His brethren in all things.[188]

1941

He took upon Himself our sinful nature.[189]

But to be man's Redeemer, the Creator must become man. He must come in "the likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. 8:3)[190]

And yet it was not until He came in the " flesh" and became the "Son of man" that there was that closest union with humanity, in that He was made like unto us, whom He terms His "brethren," and thus became our "merciful and faithful High Priest." It was not until that Natal day in Bethlehem, when Jesus was born a Savior that Heaven came so near to mankind. On that day Jesus became our Elder Brother, our own flesh. As one of us, sharing man's experiences, He could be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities."[191]

1942

(Quoting Ellen White) 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 working of the results of the great law of heredity. ...

Into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity.[192]

Nothing less than the Son of God ... taking on the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might demonstrate before the universe the reasonableness of the principles enunciated in His Father's Word.[193]

Jesus inherited ... the nature of His mother. ... A man named Jesus, made of flesh and blood like other men, had actually lived in their midst.[194]

In Him the character of God was revealed in human flesh. ... That revelation was made in Him, who in all points was made like unto us.[196]

Before God sent His Son to this world to live in the likeness of sinful flesh ... Satan had ... taught the nations of earth that God was a terrible, cruel Being.[197]

In the second chapter (of Hebrews) He is the Son of man, a partaker of human nature, of our flesh and blood.[197]

This argument, however, is based on a misunderstanding, caused by overlooking one word in the text. Antichrist was not to deny that Christ had come in flesh, but was to deny that He had "come in the flesh," in "the same" kind of flesh, as the human race He came to save. ... On this vital difference hinges the real "truth of the gospel." Did Christ come all the way down to make contact with the fallen race, or only part way, so that we must have saints, popes, and priests intercede for us with Christ who is removed too far from fallen humanity and its needs to make direct contact with the individual sinner? Right here lies the great divide that parts Protestantism from Roman Catholicism. ...

Through sin man has separated himself from God, and his fallen nature is opposed to the divine will. ... Only through Christ, our Mediator, can man be rescued from sin, and again brought into connection with the source of purity and power.

But in order to become such a connecting link Christ had to partake both of the divinity of God and of the humanity of man, so that He with His divine arm could encircle God, and with His human arm embrace man, thus connecting both in His own person. In this union of the human with the divine lies the "mystery" of the gospel, the secret of power to lift man from his degradation. "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." (1 Timothy 3:16) The "mystery," or secret of power to live a godly life in human flesh, was manifest in the life of Jesus Christ while on earth. ...

But mark! It was fallen man that was to be rescued from sin. And to make contact with him Christ had to condescend to take our nature upon Himself (not some higher kind of flesh). "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. ... Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren." (Hebrews 2:14, 17) This text is so worded that it cannot be misunderstood. Christ "took part of the same" flesh and blood as ours; He came in "the" flesh. To deny this is the mark of Anti-Christ.[198]

1943

It would have been almost an infinite humiliation for Him to have laid aside His divine form and to have clothed Himself in flesh before man fell,--while man was still in his Edenic purity--but the Son of God was "manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16), after humanity had been scarred and marred by the curse of sin four thousand years. ... Like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity, and He triumphed over sin in that kind of flesh where sin had reigned and was triumphant.[199]

... the Son of God must understand, in His own experience, as one of us, the seductive power of sin enticing men to death ... suffering our "weakness."[200]

He then qualified (to be our priest) by living a sinless life in sinful flesh.[201]

Christ ... was born into this world as a babe, born of a human mother, and thus partook of man's human nature.[202]

(a) The Son ... was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh, ...

(c) When Christ "in the likeness of sinful flesh" resisted every temptation to sin,".[203]

In harmony with the great plan of redemption, Jesus was born of a woman into the human family. He accepted our humanity with its weaknesses, and became our brother.

(Hebrews 2:14-17 quoted)

Christ became a man equal to men in all things, with the exception of sin.[204]

(Christ) was born into the fallen human family. He became possessed of human nature.[205]

1944

Men seem to forget that Christ ... divested Himself of His kingliness and clothed Himself in sinful flesh.[206]

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the only One who has ever lived a sinless life in sinful flesh, the only One who ever can. ... Christ lived a sinless life in sinful flesh: and He can and will do this in your flesh and in mine if we will permit Him, and will work with Him.[207]

1945

In His earthly nature was found all the needs and passions of men. ... Bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, life of our life, experience of our experience. ... The humanity of Christ is more than a fact in and of itself. It is the meeting point of a holy God with sinful man.[208]

To reach and redeem fallen men the Redeemer must be one with them. He must share their weakness. ... He must enjoy no privilege that is not within the reach of the weakest of His fellows. ... He came and took upon Himself the flesh He had made, not as it was when endowed with original strength, but after it had been weakened and corrupted by centuries of sin.[209]

He (Jesus) had no advantage over others, for "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" made Jesus take man's nature that He might reach man's needs.[210]

Jesus took upon Himself the nature of man. ... As the son of David, the descendant of David, He inherited all the frailties and weaknesses of His ancestral line ... (Hebrews 2:14-17 quoted). ... This scriptural doctrine of the incarnation is absolutely essential to a true conception of the atonement. ... Rome teaches that Jesus and even Mary, His mother, were "immaculate" in their conception. They were not born of the same flesh--subject to sin--as are the multitudes of men who inherit the weakness of Adam.[211]

He (Jesus) was born into this world like the rest of us. ... He took upon Him our nature and passed through our experiences. ... He united Himself with humanity--with the race that He came to save--by the ties of flesh and blood ... tied to us by the bonds of flesh and blood.[212]

1946

Though He was the Son of God, yet He had become a member of the human race, that He might endure the same trials and temptations as we, and understand by personal experience the trials of men who need a Savior.[213]

... The Son of God was born of a woman. He was born into this world like the rest of us. ... He took upon Him our nature and passed through our experiences ... taking upon Himself human nature, Christ was fitted to understand man's trials. ... He united Himself with humanity--with the race that He came to save--by the ties of flesh and blood. ... He took upon Him the seed of Abraham. "In all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren." As Son of God, yet tied to us by the bonds of flesh and blood, the Child that was born to us is not ashamed to call us brethren.[214]

1947

He would take man's fallen nature.[215]

Christ must partake of man's sinful nature.[216]

(Quoting Ellen White) "It would have been almost an 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. " ...

Our first parents bequeathed to their descendants a legacy of temptation of sin. We pass through the same ordeal, and the Son of man was not excepted.[217]

Thus it was when God sent His Son into the world, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," and the Son of God became also the Son of man. In the Son, the Father was united to the fallen race.[218]

(Quoting Ellen White) He "accepted humanity when the race was weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors."[219]

He came to this world in the likeness of our sinful nature, at the risk of failure, to save us.[220]

1948

... while Mary was chosen by God to be the earthly mother of Jesus in His incarnation, the sole and only purpose of this choice was that Jesus might become a partaker of the flesh and blood of Adam's race.[221]

But the Scriptures have placed the identity of antichrist beyond either guesswork or confusion. The Bible has clearly named the guilty one. John says that he denies that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." (2 John 7) Let this be the first mark of antichrist by which his identity will be placed beyond dispute. The verse does not say that antichrist denies that Jesus is come, but that he denies "He is come in the flesh." Far from denying the existence of Christ, the text suggests that antichrist teaches that Christ has come but teaches a doctrine about his coming which denies that "He is come in the flesh." If the Catholic Church is guilty, as the Protestant Reformers claimed her to be, then her teaching concerning the nature of Jesus in His incarnation into this world as a babe will reveal it. Let us examine that teaching in the light of the text before us.

The Bible teaches that Jesus was born into the world through Mary, who was a direct descendant of Adam. By inheritance she partook of Adam's nature. Adam's nature was mortal and subject to death as a result of the transgression of God's will in Eden. His flesh was by nature that of the "children of wrath." Mary partook of this nature in all its aspects. She was a representative of the whole human race, and in no way different from others descended from Adam's line. She was "favoured among women" only because she was the one chosen of God through whom the "mystery of godliness was to be made manifest," and through whom Jesus was to be incarnated into the fleshly state of Adam's race. It was God's purpose that through a divine miracle Jesus should be brought from heaven, where He had been one with the Father in the Godhead, to be born into the human family, there to partake of all the temptations to which Adam's race is subject. This was possible only as He would partake of the nature of Adam's race. Of this Paul says, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. ... Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren." (Heb. 2:14-17)

If further evidence were needed the same writer supplied it. In 1 Tim. 3:16 he records: "Great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh." Here, he says, is the mystery of godliness, the ability of Jesus to come from heaven, suffer Himself to be manifest in human flesh, and yet to live sinlessly.

This latter fact antichrist was to deny. He was to deny that Jesus came in a divine manifestation which brought Him in all phases of His nature to partake of the weakness of Adam's race. He would deny that Jesus came "in the flesh," the same flesh as that of mortal men.

On this first count, the denial that Jesus "is come in the flesh," the Catholic Church stands convicted of guilt and thus is identified by the marks of antichrist. Through the teaching of the "Immaculate Conception of Mary," that she was preserved from all original sin, they in theory provide "different flesh" from that of the rest of Adam's race to be the avenue through which Jesus was incarnated into the plan of salvation. To state their teaching with authority, it will be the best to quote our evidence from Catholic authors.

Our first proof will be from the pen of Cardinal Gibbons in his book, "Faith of Our Fathers," pages 203, 204. He says: "We define that the blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her conception ... was preserved free from the taint of original sin. Unlike the rest of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary was never subject to sin."

Cardinal Gibbons has here clearly stated the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary. It is a teaching not taught in the Bible, but which has been introduced by Catholic teachers who claim to have authority even above that of the Scriptures, in matters of doctrine.

Here I would ask my readers, both Protestant and Catholic, to ponder carefully what this teaching does to the gospel plan. It means that if Mary was born without sin and was preserved from sin for the express purpose of bringing Jesus into the world, then Jesus was born of holy flesh, which was different from that of the rest of Adam's race. This means that He did not take upon Himself our kind of flesh and blood, and in His incarnation did not identify Himself with humanity. It means, too, that He was not tempted "in all points" as we were. It means that Paul was all wrong when he wrote the Book of Hebrews in which he declares that Jesus "also Himself likewise took part of the same" flesh as the rest of Adam's race, that "in all things" He was made "like unto His brethren." (Heb 2:14, 17) But above all this, if the Catholic teaching is true, then Jesus, not having come within reach of humanity by partaking of man's nature, cannot be the "one mediator between God and men." Nor can we "come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. 4:16) All this plays conveniently into the hands of the Catholic plan of salvation. It opens wide the door for the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the respective "saints," who form part of the papal mediatorial system. And moreover, it places in the hands of the priesthood the power to usurp authority which God in the Scriptures has never delegated to them--that of being controllers of the approaches to the throne of mercy.

At this stage of our review of the subject of antichrist, I believe all fairminded people will acknowledge that if the Papacy is not the antichrist it has been singularly unfortunate in being so like the scriptural description of him. In the papal claim that Jesus was born of one who had been "preserved from every taint of original sin" and who, "unlike the rest of the children of Adam ... was never subject to sin," we find the first mark of antichrist indelibly implanted. The Papacy certainly teaches that Jesus Christ did "not come in the flesh."[222]

As the Son of man, He, who in the beginning possessed all power and revealed all glory, stripped Himself of this, and became "A man like other men."[223]

He will descend to the level of mankind--not to the level of man in His pristine purity--and He will take upon Himself sinful flesh. He will make Himself heir to all the weaknesses which sin has caused in the human family.[224]

He was made in the likeness of our sinful flesh. ... In our sinful flesh He lived a sinless life. (Emphasis his.)[225]

1949

(This statement is included, not because it says anything directly about the nature of Christ, but because it firmly rejects the concept of original sin defined as inherited guilt which gives rise to the need of a doctrine that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam, in order to escape the guilt of original sin.)

Many teachers today have built an erroneous conception of the sinful nature of man on their misinterpretation of these verses in Romans 5 (verse 19). They call it "total depravity" or "original sin" ... (this) makes all guilty not because of what they have done but because of what Adam did when he first sinned.

How different from this false gospel is the spiritual freedom and victory taught by Romans.[226]

... it was the same flesh that we as children of the human family possess. (Emphasis his.)[227]

... the Son of God became the Son of man. ... Dressed in human flesh, united with the one fallen race in the universe.[228]

When we read His (Christ's) genealogy as given by Matthew and Luke, we know that His earthly forbears were men who were marked with human weakness.[229]

He was born as a babe in Bethlehem, subject to like passions as we are. ... If Christ had been exempt from temptation, without the power and responsibility to choose, or without the sin-filled inclinations and tendencies of our sinful nature, He could not have lived our life without sin.[230]

1950

(Reprint) I think of Jesus, who left the courts of Heaven, laid aside His royal robe, took off His kingly crown, and clothing His divinity with humanity. ... He humbled Himself that He might meet fallen men where they were.[231]

The Son of God ... wrought out a perfect life in human nature--the same weak nature that is common to us all.[232]

(Quoting Meade MacGuire) "The amazing condescension of Christ in uniting His divinity with our poor, fallen humanity, is difficult to grasp."[233]

(Quoting Ellen White) "Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh even as we are."[234]

1951

9th April, 1951

The Editor, Signs Of the Times

Dear Sir,

Your article in the March issue of the Signs on "New Papal Dogma" has interested me. I am especially concerned in the Dogma of Immaculate Conception.

I have asked many Protestants to explain this to me but nobody seems able to do so. We would therefore be grateful indeed if you could find a little space in your "May" issue to explain this--perhaps in your column "The World Moves On." "Interested."

(We regret that the May number had already been printed when this was received, and the copy for the June number was already made up. This is the first opportunity we have had to reply. -ED.)

The Catholic Encyclopaedia, vol. 7, pages 674, 675, has this to say regarding the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception:

"In the Constitution, 'Ineffabilis Deus' of 8 Dec., 1854, Pope Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

The object of this teaching is to destroy the belief based on Scripture that Jesus was born into the human family heir to the same physical and spiritual disabilities as all other men, and that His victory over sin and temptation was achieved in spite of this mortal handicap. The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that Jesus, Himself, was conceived without original sin. "Our Lord, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, was, by virtue of His miraculous conception, ipso facto, free from the taint of original sin."--Ibid., page 676.

To make it even more certain that He could not have inherited original sin through His mother, this dogma was proclaimed. She, it claims, was also conceived free from the taint of hereditary sinfulness, and hence Jesus was a whole generation removed from His forebears' heritage of a sinful nature. Mary, it declares, was conceived in such a manner that "the formal, active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul ...; it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin, the state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift, every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded."--Ibid.

Thus, this dogma asserts categorically that Mary was a sinless being and hence did not share the normal human nature, which is inherently sinful. Since Jesus was conceived of her by the Holy Ghost, He is doubly immune to all stain or taint of natural human weakness. If this is true, then He was not a man in the sense in which we have been taught to regard Him, but a super-man who was easily able to conquer temptation to sin, since there was in Him only a divine hatred of evil and no natural human urge towards sin. But this is directly opposed to the plain statements of Holy Scripture, and hence should not be accepted by any Christian.

This is what God's Word declares: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. ... For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved 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 succour them that are tempted." (Heb. 2:14-18)

The sinlessness o f Jesus was achieved at the expense of anguish of soul and strong crying and tears to God. It was victory won on a hard field of battle, and not a simple push-over natural to a naturally sinless being, "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) "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Heb. 5:7-9)

Jesus had to endure every temptation natural to mankind, and felt the strong urge to indulgence which is born in each one of us. But by the grace of God, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and His own indomitable determination to obey God, He was able to conquer every temptation and win for Himself, and for all mankind, a glorious victory. By His death on Calvary He paid the price of original sin, and freed all humanity from its guilt. But He also expiated the individual sins of men, so that all who accept His sacrifice are freed from their own guilt as well as from the blight of original sin.

In order to rescue humanity from its desperately sinful plight, Jesus had to share our humanity, In order to obtain redemption and victory for mankind, He had to enter the conflict bearing the same nature as those He came to redeem. He had to inherit the naturally sinful nature of all the sons of Adam that His victory over temptation should be of value and significance for mankind. If He was born, as taught in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, with a nature that was insulated from all taint of original sin, He was not made in all points like unto His brethren, and His example is one which we can not follow, or even attempt to emulate.

This dogma would destroy Christ's essential link with humanity and so remove Him from His position as a sympathetic Mediator between man and God. Not having borne the pangs of temptation under the weight of a sinful nature by birth, He could not understand or enter into our experiences. So, having destroyed the basis for His mediation, but recognizing the necessity of one to link mankind with God, the Roman Catholic Church has exalted His mother, Mary, to be mankind's mediatrix between humanity and her divine Son.

It was against just such "damnable heresies" (2 Pet. 2:1) that the apostle John warned the church. He gave a test for truth: "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:2, 3)[235]

H e (Jesus) had to inherit the naturally sinful nature of all the sons of Adam that His victory over temptation should be of value and significance for mankind. If He was born, as taught in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, with a nature that was insulated from all taint of original sin, He was not made in all points like unto His brethren, and His example is one which we cannot follow, or even attempt to emulate. This dogma would destroy Christ's essential link with humanity and so remove Him from His position as a sympathetic Mediator between man and God. Not having borne the pangs of temptation under the weight of a sinful nature by birth, He could not understand or enter into our experiences.[236]

(The Bible And Our Times, published in England, was available to us only for the years 1950, 1951, and 1952.)

1952

The birth of Jesus was the fullest demonstration of the love of "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh."[237]

He is "touched" with our feelings and infirmities because He shares our nature.[238]

Only as a man with the same handicaps and limitations as other men, could Jesus be a perfect example for other men. It was necessary that there should be no natural difference between Himself and the men He came to save.[239]

1953

The controversy of the ages was on. Its issue was to be determined in the person of Him who became partaker of the same flesh and blood with fallen humanity.[240]

The Son of God also became the Son of man and He was man in every respect excepting that He committed no sin. And because He became man and was given to man He belongs to us.[241]

1954

Every day of His humiliation in sinful flesh was a day of suffering.[242]

1957

Jesus in His infinite sacrifice took fallen humanity, including yours and mine, to the cross.[243]

He became flesh and blood just as we are, and inherited from His mother the human nature that we inherit, but He did not sin.[244]

1958

Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man ... with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him. ... Since the fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth ... 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.[245]

The humanity of Christ reached to the very depths of human wretchedness, and identified itself with the weaknesses and necessities of fallen man.[246]

Notes:

1. Grotheer, An Interpretive History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation ..., page 56.
2. N. J. Waldorf, The Watchman, April 1916, p. 39, col. 2
3. C. P. Bollman, Conference President, Review Assistant Editor, RH 1/31/18, p. 9, col. 1
4. Editorial, The Watchman, April 1919, p. 26, col. 2
5. W. W. Prescott, The Doctrine of Christ, p. 53
6. J. L. Schuler, Evangelist, ministerial secretary, conference president, The Watchman, July 1920, p. 18, col. 2
7. G. B. Thompson, RH 2/24/21, p. 10, col. 1
8. Percy Brokner, RH 3/17/21, p. 12, col. 1
9. Sabbath School Quarterly, First Quarter, 1921, p. 16
10. Sabbath School Quarterly, Second Quarter, 1921, pp. 13, 14
11. G. B. Thompson, RH 9/01/21, p. 8, col. 2
12. E. Hilliard, RH 9/15/21, p. 18, col. 1
13. Millard Fillmore Thorn, RH 12/22/21, p. 4, col. 1
14. C. P. Bollman, RH 10/05/22, p. 5, col. 2
15. Ellen White, Testimonies to Ministers, 1923, p. 177
16. Ellen White, Fundamentals of Education, 1923, p. 400
17. Ellen White, Fundamentals of Education, 1923, p. 408
18. Calvin P. Bollman, Editor, AST 2/26/23, p. 6, col. 2
19. A. L. King, Associate Editor, AST 3/05/23, p. 4, col. 2
20. F. D. Nichol, Signs assistant editor, Review editor, RH 3/01/23, p. 7, col. 2
21. Asa T. Robinson, Conference President, pioneer missionary, RH 12/20/23, p. 4, col. 1
22. W. W. Prescott, AST 1/07/24, p. 12, col. 2
23. R. S. Owen, College teacher, College president, RH 3/20/24, p. 10, col. 1
24. W. W. Prescott, RH 5/01/24; p. 10, col. 1
25. John A. Rippey, AST 5/05/24, p. 13
26. Meade MacGuire, General Conference Department Secretary for Youth and Associate Secretary for Ministerial Department, The Life of Victory, 1924, p. 18
27. Mead MacGuire, The Life of Victory, 1924, p. 43
28. Answers to Questions, The Watchman, September 1924, p. 32, col. 3
29. Carlyle B. Haynes, Evangelist, author, administrator, The Watchman, November 1924, p. 14, col. 2
30. B. H. Shaw, RH 1/01/25 p. 11, col. 2
31. Edwin K. Slade, Conference Administrator, AST 2/09/25, p. 15, col. 2
32. Milton C. Wilcox, RH 2/19/25, p. 5, col. 1
33. Milton C. Wilcox, RH 4/30/25, p. 11, col. 1
34. P. C. Poley, AST 5/18/25, p. 2, col. 1
35. M. B. Van Kirk, AST 9/28/25, p. 12, col. 1
36. Stemple White, ST 1/05/26, p. 10, col. 2
37. Stemple White, AST 4/19/26, p. 8, col. 1
38. Stemple White, AST 4/19/26, p. 9, cols. 2-3
39. Allen Walker, The Watchman, April 1926, p. 29, col. 3
40. Editorial (Asa Oscar Tait, Alonzo L. Baker, Francis D. Nichol), ST 4/20/26, p. 7, col. 2
41. Editorial, Asa Oscar Tait, College teacher, Signs editor, General Conference, Departmental Secretary, ST 4/27/26, p. 10, col. 1
42. L. A. Hansen, Life and Health editor, ST 6/08/26, p. 14, col. 2
43. R. D. Quinn, RH 6/11/26, p. 14, col. 2
44. George W. Wells, The Watchman, July 1926, p. 25, col. 1
45. L. A. Hansen, ST 8/17/26, p. 14, col. 2
46. W. Howard James, AST 9/13/26, p. 11, col. 3
47. R. A. Salton, AST 11/15/26, p. 13, col. 1
48. Ellen White, AST 11/14/27, p. 1, Box
49. I. H. Evans, ST 1/18/27, p. 5, col. 1
50. M. B. Van Kirk, ST 4/12/27, p. 12, col. 3
51. W. J. Gilson, AST 5/23/27, p. 12, col. 2
52. L. A. Wilcox, ST 3/22/27, p. 5, col. 3, 4
53. W. Howard James, RH 5/26/27, p. 5, col. 1
54. C. P. Bollman, RH 6/16/27, p. 8, col. 2
55. F. C. Gilbert, General Conference General Secretary, ST 10/04/27, p. 13, col. 1
56. C. P. Bollman, RH 12/01/27, p. 7, col. 2
57. Meade MacGuire, His Cross and Mine, 1927, p. 17
58. Meade MacGuire, His Cross and Mine, 1927, p. 77
59. Meade MacGuire, His Cross and Mine, 1927, p. 79
60. Meade MacGuire, His Cross and Mine, 1927, p. 97
61. Ellen White, AST 10/15/28, p. 7, col. 3
62. I. A. Crane, RH 1/12/28, p. 8, col. 1
63. Editorial, AST 2/06/28, p. 12, col. 2, 3
64. H. E. Giddings, College teacher, College President, RH 11/22/28, p. 6, col. 1
65. William Wirth, ST 3/06/28, p. 6, col. 1
66. Leonard R. Harvey, AST 6/04/28, p. 9, col. 1
67. M. H. Whittaker, AST 7/23/28, p. 11, col. 2
68. C. M. Snow, Editor, AST 8/06/28, p. 7, col. 2
69. F. G. Rampton, AST 8/06/28, p. 9, col. 3, p. 10, col. 1
70. Louis F. Were, AST 8/06/28, p. 13, col. 1
71. L. A. Wilcox, ST 12/18/28, p. 9, col. 1, 2.
72. L. A. Reed, ST 12/18/28, p. 9, col. 2
73. Sabbath School Quarterly, First Quarter, 1928, p. 15
74. Ellen White, AST 7/22/29, p. 1, Box
75. W. W. Prescott, ST 1/15/29, p. 13, col. 2
76. W. W. Prescott, ST 1/22/29, p. 13, col. 1
77. R. A. Salton, AST 2/11/29, p. 7, col. 3
78. C. M. Snow, Editor, AST 3/04/29, p. 7, col. 2
79. Joseph E. Steed, RH 6/20/29, p. 13, col. 3
80. W. J. Gilson, AST 6/24/29, p. 8, col. 1, 2, 3
81. F. L. Sharp, AST 6/24/29, p. 11, col. 1
82. E. F. Hackman, Conference President, Union President, Division President, RH 7/04/29, p. 24, col. 1
83. Meade MacGuire, ST 7/09/29, p. 10, col. 2
84. W. J. Gilson, AST 7/15/29, p. 11, col. 1
85. A. R. Bell, ST 7/16/29, p. 10, col. 2
86. W. W. Prescott, RH 7/18/29, p. 8, col. 2
87. W. W. Prescott, RH 8/22/29, p. 5, col. 2
88. A. R. Bell, RH 9/05/29, p. 5, col. 2, 3
89. John R. Jones, ST 10/08/29, p. 11, col. 1
90. F. L. Sharp, AST 10/28/29, p. 2, cols. 1, 2
91. A. G. Daniells, Conference President, Union President, General Conference, President, RH 11/07/29, p. 5, col. 3
92. G. A. Roberts, RH 11/28/29, p. 7, col. 2
93. Joseph E. Steed, AST 1/27/30, p. 5, col. 2, 3
94. Alfonso N. Anderson, Missionary, administrator, teacher, editor, The Watchman, February 1930, p. 34, col. 2
95. Oscar Tait (Editorial), ST 4/08/30, p. 7, col. 1
96. William Wirth, ST 4/22/30, p. 6, col. 3
97. M. H. Whittaker, AST 5/19/30, p. 1, col. 1
98. Joseph E. Steed, RH 5/29/30, p. 8, col. 2
99. R. A. Salton, AST 6/30/30, p. 14, col. 3
100. Lionel Turner, AST 8/04/30, p. 2, col. 3
101. J. M. Hopkins, RH 9/18/30, p. 7, col. 1
102. James E. Cormack, AST 10/06/30, p. 13, col. 2
103. Raymond Reye, AST 10/20/30, p. 2, col. 2
104. W. W. Prescott, RH 11/06/30, p. 4, col. 2
105. A. R. Bell, ST 11/11/30 p. 3, col. 1
106. Allen Walker, ST 11/25/30, p. 11, col. 2
107. Ellen White (Reprint), ST 12/22/31, p. 10, col. 3
108. R. A. Salton, RH 1/08/31, p. 4, col. 2
109. A. T. Robinson, RH 5/21/31, p. 11, col. 2
110. Llewellyn A. Wilcox, ST 12/01/31, p. 2, col. 3
111. Walter E. Hancock, ST 2/16/32, p. 5, col. 2
112. R. A. Salton, AST 4/25/32, p. 10, col. 3
113. L. Ervin Wright, The Watchman, May 1932, p. 17, col. 1, 2
114, Elva Zachrison, ST 6/07/32, p. 3, col. 1
115. William H. Branson, The Watchman, July 1932, p. 17, col. 3
116. William H. Branson, The Watchman, July 1932, p. 35, col. 2
117. Nels P. Nielsen. ST 7/19/32, p. 12, col. 2
118. Marion R. McLennan, AST 8/13/32, p. 9, col. 1
119. Joseph E. Steed, AST 10/31/32, p. 9, col. 3
120. Amelia L. Jones, AST 11/07/32, p. 9, col. 2
121. Joseph E. Steed, AST 11/28/32, p. 8, col. 3; p. 9, col. 1
122. Ellen White, AST 9/25/33, p. 3, col. 1
123. Llewellyn Wilcox, ST 1/03/33, p. 13, col. 2
124. Merlin L. Neff, Educator, author, editor, ST, 1/24/33, p. 5, col. 1
125. I. H. Evans, Administrator, General Conference vice-president, author, RH 4/06/33, p. 7, col. 2
126. William H. Branson, The Watchman, August 1933, p. 12, cols. 1, 3
127. C. M. Snow, Editor, AST 9/18/33, p. 8, col. 3
128. W. H. Branson, Evangelist, author, conference administrator, General Conference president, AST 10/30/33, p. 11, col. 2
129. I. H. Evans, Administrator, General Conference vice-president, author, AST 1/01/34, p. 9, col. 1
130. T. H. Jeyes, RH 3/01/34, p. 7, col. 2
131. I. H. Evans, RH 4/05/34, p. 6, col. 2
132. Allen Walker, RH 4/26/34, p. 10, col. 1
133. W. W. Prescott, Educator, administrator, ST 6/12/34, p. 14, col. 1
134. W. E. Howell, College President, General Conference Departmental Secretary, RH 8/02/34, p. 16, col. 2
135. Elva Zachrison, ST 10/30/34, p. 3, col. 2
136. Alfred S. Jorgensen, AST 12/17/34, p. 11, col. 1
137. C. H . Watson, Conference President, Union President, General Conference President, The Atoning Work of Christ, 1934, pp. 59, 64
138. C. P. Bollman, RH 2/07/35, p. 9, col. 1
139. C. H. Watson, RH 2/14/35, p. 3, col. 1
140. W. G. Turner, Conference President, Division President, General Conference, Departmental Secretary, RH 11/07/35, p. 4, col. 3
141. C. P. Bollman, RH 11/21/35, p. 12, col. 2
142. Leonard S. Barnes, AST 1/13/36, p. 5, col. 1
143. Bible Study, W. R. Carswell, AST 2/17/36, p. 13, col. 3
144. Carlyle B. Haynes, Author of forty-five books, Conference President, Division President, General Conference Departmental Secretary, RH 2/20/36, p. 4, col. 2
145. W. W. Prescott, RH 2/27/36, p. 7, box
146. A. L. King, Editor, AST 3/02/36, p. 4, col. 3; p. 5, col. 1
147. Marian M. Hay, Associate Editor, AST 3/02/36, p. 6, cols. 2, 3
148. W. W. Prescott, Educator, Administrator, AST 5/04/36, p. 7, col. 2
149. Marian M. Hay, AST 7/06/36, p. 6, col. 3, p. 7, col. 2
150. G. T. Smisor, ST 7/21/36, p. 11, col. 3
151. W. H. Branson, Union President, Division President, General Conference President, ST 8/11/36, p. 11, col. 1, 2
152. W. W. Prescott, AST 8/24/36, p. 12, col. 3
153. F. D. Nichol, RH 9/03/36, p. 4, col. 2
154. Merlin L. Neff, AST 9/14/36, pages 11, 12
155. W. W . Carswell (Bible Study), AST 10/19/36, p. 13, col. 2
156. Marian M. Hay, AST 11/23/36, p. 6, col. 3
157. Ellen White, AST 1/25/37, p. 7, col. 2
158. N. P. Nielsen, Mission Treasurer, RH 1/07/37, p. 1, box
159. W. W. Prescott, RH 1/07/37, p. 18, col. 1
160. Marian M. Hay, AST 1/11/37, p. 6, col. 3
161. Gwynne Dalrymple, Educator, author, AST 3/29/37, p. 2, col. 1
162. N. P. Nielsen, RH 4/08/37, p. 7, col. 1
163. W. W. Prescott, RH 4/15/37, p. 1, box
164. T. M. French, College teacher, RH 6/03/37, p. 8, col. 1
165. T. M. French, RH 6/10/37, p. 9, col. 1
166. T. M. French, RH 7/08/37, p. 8, col. 2
167. T. M. French, RH 7/15/37, p. 5, col. 1
168. Ida M. Raines. RH 7/29/37, p. 8, col. 1
169. F. M. Wilcox, Review editor, RH 9/30/37, p. 2, col. 1
170. W. H. Branson, AST 11/01/37, p. 8, col. 2
171. J. L. McElhany, Conference President, Union President, Division President, General Conference President, RH 11/04/37, p. 21, col. 1
172. N. P. Nielsen, AST 11/22/37, p. 11, col. 3
173. C. P. Bollman, AST 1/03/38, p. 6, col. 2
174. C. Lester Bond, Conference President, General Conference Departmental Secretary, RH 2/24/38, p. 8, col. 1
175. E. K. Slade, Conference President, Union President, RH 4/21/38, p. 3, col. 2
176. E. K. Slade, RH 4/28/38, p. 8, col. 2
177. C. P. Bollman, RH 6/09/38, p. 10, col. 1
178. J. E. Fulton, Missionary, Administrator, AST 9/05/38, p. 1, cols. 2, 3; p. 2, col. 1
179. J. W. Harvey, AST 12/05/38, p. 10, col. 3
180. C. P. Bollman, AST 1/09/39, p. 6, col. 3
181. A. R. Bell, RH 1/12/39, p. 5, col. 1
182. Dr. D. H. Kress, Physician, AST 7/24/39, p. 7, col. 1
183. W. Howard James, AST 8/07/39, p. 10, col. 3
184. Frederick Lee, Missionary, RH 11/02/39, p. 8, col. 1
185. Robert Hare, Evangelist, Writer, Editor, AST 11/20/39, p. 8, col. 2
186. D. A. R. Aufranc, AST 12/18/39, p. 2, col. 1
187. Ellen White (Reprint), ST 4/30/40, p. 10, col. 2; p. 11, col. 1
188. M. L. Andreason, Conference President, College President, Seminary Professor, RH 10/10/40, p. 5, col. 2
189. N. P. Nielsen, ST 5/27/41, p. 8, col. 1
190. J. C. Stevens, ST 8/05/41, p. 11, col. 1
191. J. E. Fulton, Missionary, Conference President, Union President, Divison President, RH 11/06/41, p. 13, col. 2
192. W. G. Turner, The Watchman, February 1942, p. 2, col. 2
193. L. H. Wood, AST 6/15/42, p. 2, col. 2
194. A. V. Olson, Conference President, Union President, Division President, General Vice-President, RH 8/06/42, p. 4, col. 1; p. 5, col. 1
195. Howard G. Davis, AST 8/17/42, p. 11, col. 1
196. J. K. Jones, AST 9/14/42, p. 9, col. 1
197. R. F. Cottrell, Missionary, Author, ST 10/13/42, p. 10, col. 2
198. Christian Edwardson, Author, Facts of Faith, 1942, pp. 204, 205
199. J. C. Stevens, ST 1/19/43, p. 14, col. 1
200. A. R. Bell, RH 2/11/43, p. 3, col. 2
201. J. C. Stevens, ST 3/02/43, p. 6, col. 2
202. F. M. Wilcox, RH 4/15/43, p. 2, col. 1
203. Bible Study No. 24, AST 4/26/43, p. 5, col. 3
204. J. B. Cooks, Signs of Times (South Africa) June, 1943, p. 4, col. 1
205. E. K. Slade, RH 11/04/43, p. 5, col. 1
206. S. George Hyde, AST 3/27/44, p. 1, col. 1
207. A. W. Truman, College teacher, RH 6/08/44, p. 8, col. 2, 3
208. A. Wellington Clarke. Signs of Times (South Africa), April, 1945, p. 5, col. 1
209. F. G. Clifford, Signs of Times (South Africa), June, 1945, p. 6, col. 2
210. J. A. Charlton, AST 9/3/45, p. 4, col. 2
211. Varner Johns, RH 11/01/45, p. 11, col. 2
212. A. R. Bell, The Watchman, December 1945, p. 14, col. 1
213. Leonard C. Lee, Minister, Author, Radio Speaker, AST 6/24/46, p. 8, col. 3
214. A. R. Bell, AST 12/23/46, p. 8, cols. 2, 3
215. Ellen White, Story of Redemption, 1947, p. 44
216. A. G. Stewart, Missionary, Administrator, Author, RH 1/09/47, p. 8, col. 1
217. Raymond Bullas, AST 10/06/47, p. 5, col. 1
218. Llewellyn Jones, AST 11/10/47, p. 5, col. 3
219. R. A. Grieve, Signs of Times (South Africa), Dec. 1947, p. 10, col. 1
220. R. A. Salton, AST 12/15/47, p. 4, col. 3
221. J. B. Conley, AST 5/10/48, p. 5, col. 2
222. J. B. Conley, AST 5/24/48, pages 4-6
223. W. G. Turner, RH 7/15/48, p. 8, col. 1
224. Dallas Youngs, RH 8/26/48, p. 9, col. 2
225. R. A. Salton, AST 11/22/48, p. 11, col. 3
226. L. H. Christian, Conference President, Union President, Division President, General Conference Vice-President, RH 1/20/49, p. 10, col. 2
227. Berthold H. Swartzkopf, AST 3/21/49, p. 7, col. 1
228. Robert Hare, AST 6/20/49, p. 7, col. 2
229. Mary Walsh, Bible Instructor, AST 10/24/49, p. 11, col. 1
230. Fenton Edwin Froom, Our Times, December 1949, p. 4, col. 2
231. Ellen White, RH 5/18/50, p. 7, col. 1
232. Marian M. Hay, AST 8/21/50, p. 5, col. 3
233. Mary Miles, Our Times, November 1950, p. 21, col. 1
234. W. E. Read, GCB 1950, p. 154, col. 3
235. Editorial, Signs of Times (South Africa), July, 1951, Pages 2, 3
236. G. Stevenson, editor, Signs of Times (South Africa) July, 1951, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 2, 10
237. J. A. McMillan, The Bible and Our Times (England) 12/11/52, p. 7, col. 2
238. J. A. McMillan, The Bible and Our Times (England) 12/11/52, p. 13, col. 1
239. G. Stevenson, editor, Signs of Times (South Africa), Vol. 20, No. 2, p. 3
240. Benjamin P. Hoffman, Missionary, College teacher, Seminary Professor, RH 4/09/53, p. 4, col. 1
241. G. J. E. Coetzee, Signs of Times (South Africa), Dec., 1953, p. 4, col. 1
242. H. L. Rudy, Conference President, General Conference Vice-President, RH 10/14/54, p. 3, col. 2
243. Meade MacGuire (Reprint), RH 2/14/57, p. 4, col. 2
244. Meade MacGuire (Reprint), RH 2/21/57, p. 6, col. 1
245. Ellen White (Reprint), Selected Messages, 1958, Vol. 1, pp. 267-268 (This entire chapter should be studied.)
246. Ellen White, Selected Messages, 1958, Vol. 1, p. 272-273
Chapter 14

Reflection: How Many Ways Could She Say It?

Writers who frequently return to a theme that is central in their thinking have a tendency to express it in different ways. It is interesting to note the varied expressions of her views regarding the nature of Christ that occur in the writings of Ellen White.

He should take man's fallen nature.[1]

Take the form and nature of fallen man.[2]

A stepping-stone to fallen man.[3]

Between fallen man and God.[4]

The likeness of sinful flesh.[5]

Unites His interests with the fallen sons and daughters of Adam.[6]

Taking the place of fallen Adam.[7]

Humble Himself to fallen humanity.[8]

The weaknesses of fallen man upon Him.[9]

Bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race.[10]

Identified itself with the weakness and wretchedness of fallen man.[11]

Reach man where He is.[12]

Linked Himself to the weakness of humanity.[13]

The form of humanity with all its attendant ills.[14]

Not aloof from degraded, sinful humanity.[15]

To the level of man's feeble faculties.[16]

To unite the fallen race with Himself.[17]

An experience in all that pertains to human life.[18]

To lift up the fallen race.[19]

He exalted the fallen race.[20]

United the fallen world with heaven.[21]

To meet fallen men where they were.[22]

The "Daysman" between a Holy God and our sinful humanity.[23]

One with the fallen race.[24]

All the strength of the passion of humanity.[25]

Nature ... identical to our own.[26]

Connected sinful man with His own divine nature.[27]

Bearing the humanity we bear.[28]

United fallen man to the infinite God.[29]

Took upon Him our sinful nature.[30]

Passing over the ground which man must travel.[31]

Fully human.[32]

Taking ... man's nature in its fallen condition.[33]

Like every child of Adam, He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity.[34]

At the head of fallen humanity.[35]

No single principle of human nature will I violate.[36]

Embraces fallen humanity.[37]

In reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature.[38]

Took upon Himself, fallen suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin.[39]

Taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man.[40]

The child of a fallen race.[41]

Down to the level of fallen humanity.[42]

Brother in our infirmities.[43]

Down to the level of those He wished to save.[44]

Bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh.[45]

Took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity.[46]

Stand among men as one of them.[47]

To stand by the side of fallen beings.[48]

As a man among men.[49]

Became flesh even as we are.[50]

Of the seed of David, according to human descent.[51]

Not only made flesh, but made in the likeness of sinful flesh.[52]

Mysteriously allied Himself with fallen human beings.[53]

... a representative of the fallen race.[54]

He assumed human nature, and its infirmities, its liabilities, its temptations.[55]

He was in all things like unto us.[56]

... took human nature upon Him ... to stand at the head of the fallen race.[57]

Christ assumed our fallen nature.[58]

Christ came to be one with humanity.[59]

So Christ was to come in "the body of our humiliation."[60]

He assumed the liabilities of human nature.[61]

He identified Himself with man's weakness.[62]

... to live a life like that of every human being.[63]

... the connecting link between fallen man and the Father.[64]

... He identified Himself with the fallen race.[65]

(God) gave Him to the fallen race.[66]

And the most meaningful expression of them all :

The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus, the son of God and the son of man.[67]

Notes:

1. SG 1, p. 25
2. SG 4, p. 115
3. RH 5/31/70
4. RH 5/31/70
5. RH 12/24/72
6. RH 1/21/73
7. RH 2/24/74
8. RH 2/24/74
9. RH 7/28/74
10. RH 7/28/74 
11. RH 8/04/74
12. RH 8/18/74
13. RH 4/01/75
14. ST 1/04/77
15. 5T, p. 346
16. RH 12/11/88
17. ST 9/23/89
18. RH 12/24/89
19. RH 6/10/90
20. RH 7/28/90
21. RH 7/10/91
22. RH 7/21/91
23. ST 8/24/91
24. ST 4/25/92
25. ST 11/21/92
26. Ms. 94, 1893
27. RH 10/16/94
28. Ms. 21, 1895
29. ST 12/10/96
30. RH 12/15/96
31. ST 5/27/97
32. ST 6/17/97
33. ST 6/09/96
34. DA 49
35. ST 12/20/99
36. Ms. 65, 1899
37. 6T, p. 147
38. RH 7/17/1900
39. YI 12/20/1900
40. ST 5/29/01
41. Letter 19, 1901
42. GCB 4/25/01
43. ST 6/18/02
44. ST 7/30/02
45. ST 9/24/02
46. ST 12/03/02
47. ST 4/29/03
48. ST 6/03/03
49. ST 12/09/03
50. MH 422
51. RH 4/05/06
52. Letter W-6, 1896
53. CPT 259
54. Ms. 126, 1901
55. Ms. 141, 1901
56. Ms. 141, 1901
57. Ms. 11, 1902
58. Ms. 80, 1903
59. Ms. 124, 1903
60. Ms. 151, 1903
61. Ms. 22, 1905
62. Ms. 49, 1907
63. Ms. 49, 1909
64. Ms. 103, 1909
65. AR 6/23/13
66. AST 7/22/29
67. Ms. 141, 1901Chapter 15

July 10, 1952 and July 17, 1952 - An Editorial in the Review and Herald

As we have studied the expressions of deep conviction on the part of our church administrators, editors, and other writers, as well as of the inspired messenger to the remnant church, that Christ came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man, we have seen that they were convinced that if Christ had not come in the human nature of fallen man,

1. He could not have truly understood us,

2. He could not have been our example,

3. He could not have been our substitute,

4. He could not have been our priest,

5. He could not have been our Saviour.

(These points will be examined more carefully in chapter 21.)

I have found no voice of dissent from these views. The consensus of opinion seems to be complete. (The bizarre experience of the Holy Flesh movement in Indiana, whose leaders taught briefly that Christ took the nature of the unfallen Adam, was in no sense the voice of the church.)

Although there is need for the findings of this paper to be verified by competent scholars, I feel that the total results of my research to this point are impressive and impelling.

Expressed in terms of quantity, we have seen approximately 400 statements by Ellen White, and not less than 800 statements by other writers that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man. Included among these are at least 20 statements firmly rejecting the idea that Christ came in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. The grand total would clearly exceed twelve hundred statements.

Expressed in terms of quality, it seems that the matter has been stated so clearly and in such a number of different ways that a misunderstanding of the purpose and intent of the writers would not be possible.

It is for these reasons that I report with unbounded astonishment the stunningly non-historical statement that follows, that brought the epoch of clarity to its close and inaugurated the epoch of confusion.

Adventists believe that Christ, the "Last Adam," possessed, on His human side, a nature like that of the "First Man Adam."[1]

(The first man Adam is of necessity the unfallen Adam.)

This statement by the respected editor of the Review and Herald is perplexing for two reasons. First, it appears to take our history into no account at all. Second, its context is difficult to understand. Elder Nichol wrote a two-part editorial that was published in the issues of July 10 and July 17, 1952, in reply to critics who had charged Adventists with error in teaching that Christ came in the sinful nature of man and that it was possible for Christ to sin. Over against this (apparently) they taught that Christ came with a sinless nature and that it was not possible for Him to sin.

The major part of Elder Nichol's defense of our views is focused on the question whether Christ could sin. He argues cogently that His temptations, as described in scripture, would not have been real if it had been impossible for Christ to sin.

But when he turns his attention to the question of the human nature of Christ, we encounter difficulties. The first part of his sentence, shown on the previous page, affirms in unmistakable terms that Christ took the nature of the first (unfallen) Adam. But the last half of the same sentence seems to retreat from this position:

Adventists believe that Christ, the "last Adam," possessed, on His human side, a nature like that of the "first man Adam," a nature free of any defiling taint of sin, but capable of responding to sin, 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 and environment. (Emphasis mine.)

This puzzling statement seems to affirm that Christ had both the unfallen nature of the first Adam, and the nature weakened by four thousand years of sin. This creates questions in our minds. We recognize that mankind can have such an elongated experience, starting with the unfallen nature of Adam and slowly deteriorating through four thousand years of sin, until the time of the incarnation. But how can one individual have such an extenuated experience? Does not each individual, including Christ, have to enter the human race at a specific point in time, and, barring miraculous intervention of some kind, accept human nature as he finds it at that moment of history? How can one individual have the nature of the unfallen Adam, and yet that nature be deteriorated by four thousand years of sin?

Are we encountering here a suggestion that Christ actually had three natures instead of the two usually attributed to Him, the human and the Divine? Are we to understand that Christ had in His incarnation, (1) the nature of God, (2) the nature of the unfallen Adam, and (3) the nature of fallen man?

We are not greatly helped by enlarging the context to include the entire editorial. Elder Nichol quotes with approval the words of Paul, that God sent "His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," (Romans 8:3) and that Christ "took on Him the seed of Abraham." (Hebrews 2:14)

We might conclude from this that he is agreeing with the historic position of the Church in applying these scriptures to prove that Christ came in the nature of fallen man. But then, in two other statements he seems to affirm that Christ at least started with the unfallen nature of the first Adam. (The student will encounter this strange dialectical device again.)

Whatever mark we may feel inclined to give this editorial for lucidity and cogency, we cannot fail to recognize its historical significance. In so far as I have been able to discover, it is the first dissent from the testimony of our spiritual ancestors regarding the nature of Christ. But it was not the last. From this point on, the epoch of clarity, when the church spoke with a single voice on this subject, will be displaced by the epoch of confusion, when the church speaks with two voices.

A more sobering suggestion in Nichol's editorial, viewed in the light of subsequent events, is this:

In conclusion a word of counsel to some of our Adventist writers and speakers may be in order. ... When we speak of the taint of sin, the germs of sin, we should remember that we are using metaphorical language. Critics, especially those who see the Scriptures through Calvinistic eyes, read into the term "sinful flesh" something that Adventist theology does not require. Thus if we use the term "sinful flesh" in regard to Christ's human nature, as some of our writers have done, we lay ourselves open to misunderstanding.[2] (Emphasis mine.)

The implications of this counsel should be kept in mind as the student considers the later attempts made by some Adventists to present the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine of Christ in such a way as to make it acceptable to Calvinistic theologians.

We could wish that all might have remembered that the Adventist writer who was foremost in applying the term "sinful flesh" to the human nature of Christ was Ellen White. And we could also wish that they might have remembered this counsel from the Lord's inspired messenger to the remnant Church:

There is to be no compromise with those who make void the Law of God. It is not safe to rely upon them as counsellors. Our testimony is not to be less decided now than formerly; our real position is not to be cloaked in order to please the world's great men. ... You are not to look to the world in order to learn what you shall write and publish or what you shall speak. [3]

Nichol's editorial in July, 1952, was, metaphorically speaking, the Alpha. The Omega was not slow to follow.

We must mention here, however, that Kenneth Wood, who was associate editor of the Review with Nichol, and succeeded him as editor, reports that in conversations and discussions Nichol always gave firm support to the view that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man.[4] This would seem to indicate that he put the greater emphasis on the last part of his statement, while some of his readers put the greater emphasis on the first part.

This might also explain why Walter Martin states that after a certain point in his discussions with the Adventist group in Washington, Nichol was no longer permitted to take part in the proceedings.[5]

Notes:

1. Francis D. Nichol (Editor), Review and Herald, 7/10/52, p. 15, col. 2
2. Granted that "taint of sin" and "germs of sin" may be called metaphorical language. But is "sinful flesh" only a metaphor, or is it a stem reality?
3. 2SM p. 371, From General Conference Daily Bulletin, April 13, 1891
4. Private correspondence
5. Adventist Currents, July, 1983, page 18
Chapter 16

September, 1956 and April, 1957 - Articles in Ministry Magazine

In the April, 1957, issue of Ministry magazine the student will find an editorial announcing a "new milestone" in the history of our church. "Evangelical brethren in Christ" (read Calvinistic) had accepted our position regarding the human nature of Christ and had agreed to no longer classify us as a "cult."

In the same issue the student will find two articles on the nature of Christ. Both give great emphasis to the mysterious character of Christ's incarnation.[1] Both strongly affirm the divinity of Christ. Both strongly affirm the humanity of Christ. But the clear voice of Adventism in regard to Christ taking the fallen nature of man is no longer heard in either, and one firmly states that

When the incarnate God broke into human history and became one with the race, it is our understanding that He possessed the sinlessness of the nature with which Adam was created in Eden.[2] (Emphasis mine.)

So the new milestone in the history of the Adventist Church turns out to be a direct repudiation of what had been the clear and consistent testimony of the church from 1852 until 1952, a full one hundred years, in regard to the humanity of Jesus.

One of the articles asks us to refer back to eight pages of Spirit of Prophecy statements about the nature of Christ to be found in the Ministry of September, 1956. Dutifully following this instruction, we turn to that issue, and find, to our astonishment, a paragraph heading which reads:

"III. Took sinless nature of Adam before fall"

The supporting statements will be analyzed in detail in the pages that follow. At this point we will observe the overall methodology used in these three presentations:

1. Quotations from her writings are carefully arranged, and emphasized, to make it appear that Ellen White believed that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam, although not one of them actually says that.

2. The statements from her writings that refer to "fallen nature" and "sinful nature" which are included are interpreted to mean only His physical nature, nothing else. The student who has read the material in Section Three is prepared to decide for himself whether this was the apparent purpose and intent of the writer. Compare: "He was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh."[3]

3. Further explanation is made that Ellen White meant to say that Christ took our fallen nature vicariously, but not actually.

This proposal must be considered carefully. That which one does for another is done vicariously. The important points to remember are that when something has been done for you vicariously, that means you don't have to do it for yourself, provided it has been actually done, with no pretense.

If I pay a fine for you, vicariously, you do not have to pay it. If I meet an obligation of any kind for you, vicariously, you do not have to meet it. If Jesus pays the price for your sins, vicariously, you do not have to pay the price for your own sins. In all of these examples we see a proper use of the word vicarious. That which another does for you, vicariously, you do not have to do for yourself. This is the test of the right usage of the word. In no case may the word vicarious be properly used to describe a pretense of performance rather than a real performance.

Consider, then, the proposition that Jesus has taken your fallen nature, vicariously. Then, you should rejoice in your freedom from taking that fallen nature yourself. You should rejoice that it is your privilege to go through life with an unfallen nature, like that of Adam before his sin. But is this possible? Do you have an unfallen nature? Or do you find that your fallen nature is still with you, in spite of well-meaning assurances that Jesus has taken it for you, vicariously?

To ask the question is to answer it. What one of us can lay claim to an unfallen nature? How seriously, then, can we take this assurance that Christ has taken our fallen nature, not actually, but vicariously? And let us remember, too, that when it is properly stated that something has been done for us vicariously, the thing must be actually done, with no pretense. [4] And if Ellen White had meant that Christ took our fallen natures vicariously, why, in her many statements, did she never remember to say it?

In this same issue of Ministry (September, 1956) we find a lengthy editorial entitled, Human--Not Carnal. It is a strong supportive statement for the proposition that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall. The student should, if possible, study the entire article. We will have space here to comment on a few excerpts only. After emphasizing the mysterious character of the incarnation, the writer refers to the error, as he sees it, that a few of our brethren have fallen into regarding the nature of Christ. He proposes that they have mistakenly believed that Christ assumed the fallen nature of man because of a hasty reading of two or three statements by Ellen White: A hasty reading of the two or three statements from The Desire of Ages, without the repeated counterbalancing statements found in so many other places, has led some to conclude that Christ, during His incarnation, partook of our corrupt, carnal nature, and therefore was no different from any other human being. (Editorial)

We observe:

a. The student who examines the material in Section Three will find it to be much more extensive than is here implied. We have found no "counter-balancing" statements in all of our exhaustive examination of Ellen White's writings.

b. The student will observe that Ellen White and her companions used the words sinful, fallen nature rather than carnal, corrupt nature when speaking of the humanity of Christ.

c. The student will observe that Ellen White and her companions did believe that the humanity of Christ was like our own in all things except our sinning. The article continues:

In fact, a few have declared that such would have to be the case in order for Him to be "in all points tempted like as we are," that He would have to share our corrupt, sinful nature, in order to understand our needs and sympathize with lost mankind. On the surface such reasoning sounds somewhat plausible. (Editorial, emphasis mine.)

We observe:

a. The student will notice the continued use of the word corrupt in a way unlike Ellen White.

b. The student will find in Section Three abundant evidence that the "surface" reasoning referred to was strongly characteristic of Ellen White.

If He had been born with a carnal nature, with all its propensities to evil, as is the case with every natural son and daughter of Adam, then He Himself would have needed a Saviour, and under no circumstance could He have been our Redeemer ... in Him was no sin, either inherited or cultivated, as is common to all the natural descendants of Adam. (Editorial, emphasis his.)

We observe again that:

a. Adventist writers do not apply the word carnal to Jesus.

b. The crux of the writer's problem is now seen to be the doctrine of original sin defined as inherited guilt plus inherited weakness. Protestants have been divided on this point for centuries. Those of the Calvinistic persuasion insist that all humans inherit guilt from Adam, along with weakness. Those of the Arminian-Wesleyan persuasion reject the doctrine of inherited guilt and accept only the doctrine of inherited weakness. (For comments on the doctrine of original sin, see Appendix C at the back of this volume.) Seventh-day Adventists have never believed in the doctrine of inherited guilt. (See Ezekiel 18:20.)

Therefore, Seventh-day Adventists have never believed that Christ would have acquired guilt simply by being born into the human race, as Calvinists believe. And so Seventh-day Adventists have not been required, as were the Calvinists, to devise a doctrine whereby Christ could take the unfallen nature of Adam in order to escape that inherited guilt.

When He took upon Him sinless human nature. (Editorial, emphasis mine.)

We observe:

The firm, bold contradiction of the Ellen White statements that He took upon Him sinful nature is sobering.

Many years ago a statement appeared in Bible Readings for the Home Circle (1915 edition) which declared that Christ came "in sinful flesh." Just how this expression slipped into the book is difficult to know. (Editorial)

We observe:

a. It is far more than an expression; it is a lengthy, closely reasoned paragraph. (See page 154). It would indeed be difficult to imagine under what circumstances it could "slip into" a book.

b. The paragraph is in full harmony with the published statements of the church, as reported in Section Three.

But when the book was revised in 1946 this expression was eliminated, since it was recognized as being out of harmony with our true position.[5] (Editorial)

We observe:

It would be nice to know by whom our so-called "true position" was defined, and what evidence was used as the basis for that definition. Apparently Ellen White and her fellow writers had been out of harmony with our "true position" throughout the entire history of the church.

We dare not take an isolated expression and build a doctrine upon it. (Editorial)

We observe:

With this statement we may heartily agree. The student will wish to remember this statement as he observes the incessant use of interpretations of a few excerpts from a private letter to a Tasmanian pastor, the "Baker Letter," as the absolute authority to which any and all other statements of Ellen White are subordinated, both in the editorial before us, and in the other literature that promotes the view that Christ came to earth in the unfallen nature of Adam. (For a discussion of the Baker Letter, see Appendix B at the back of this volume.) We turn now to consider the material as presented in two books that were published in 1957.

Notes:

1. The incarnation of Christ is one mystery; unclear human statements about it are quite another. These two mysteries ought not to be confused, one with another.
2. Ministry, April 1957, p. 34 
3. Letter 106, 1896, et. al.
4. Compare: "Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature." Ellen White, RH 7/17/1900
5. This date, 1946, would suggest that some covert changes in Seventh-day Adventist Christology were being attempted prior to the public statement by Nichol in 1952.Chapter 17

1957 - Questions on Doctrine and The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary

In 1957, to the accompaniment of the above mentioned articles in Ministry and full page advertisements in the Review and Herald, the book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine was presented to the church and the world. The eight pages of Ellen White quotations that had appeared in Ministry, September, 1956, were copied into this book in an Appendix dealing with the nature and work of Christ. The headings that had introduced the individual quotations in Ministry were deleted, and minor changes were made in the section headings that were retained. "Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall" was reduced to "Took Sinless Human Nature." In the same year the material as presented in Questions On Doctrine was photo-copied into volume 7A of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary.

Authorship of the book Questions On Doctrine has never been disclosed by Adventist church leaders. Although Dr. Froom states that the manuscript was read and approved by 225 Adventist thought leaders,[l] their names have also been withheld.

We may be pardoned for desiring to ask, Why the secrecy? Were the Adventist thought leaders chosen by random selection, as a careful methodology would require? Or were they chosen because of their previously ascertained opinions?

Were all of them living close enough to the White Estate library in Washington, D. C. so that they could examine the relevant source materials, or were they scattered about the world, as seems more likely? If they were at their far-flung posts of duty, we may safely assume that they had Bibles in their possession, and could readily compare the theological statements in the book Questions on Doctrine and their supporting scriptural quotations, with their own understanding of those scriptures.

But the statement in Questions On Doctrine referring to the human nature of Jesus contained no references to scripture. It was constructed entirely of excerpts from magazine articles written by Ellen White before the year 1905, and from a private letter written by Ellen White to W. L. H. Baker in 1895. Scattered Adventist leaders would have had no access to these articles and probably would not have been aware of the existence of the private letter. Their "approval," then, could not have been based on an examination of the evidence. So what would be its value?

And again, why the secrecy? If the Christological material in Questions On Doctrine was, as it was represented to be, a historical report of the views of all Seventh-day Adventists except a "poorly informed minority" about the humanity of Jesus, why was such caution felt to be necessary? Were the members of the mistaken minority perchance persons of large influence in the Adventist community? If so, why were their opinions ignored in the historical assessment? Or if they were persons of small influence in the Adventist community, why need their reaction be feared?

At any rate, the strictest secrecy in regard to the names of those who wrote and those who approved the book has been and is still being exercised. Why?

Yet the book Questions On Doctrine has been very widely circulated and is considered by many to be unquestionably authoritative in its pronouncements.

The importance of its Christological statement must not be underestimated. Its influence has been incalculable, first outside the Seventh-day Adventist church, then within the church. It was on the basis of this statement and the assurances that accompanied it, that Walter Martin and his colleagues concluded that the Seventh-day Adventist people, aside from a poorly-informed minority, had never believed or taught that Christ came to this earth in the nature of fallen man, and published that conclusion to the world. It is on the basis of this statement that virtually every Bible department in Seventh-day Adventist colleges is now teaching that Christ came to the earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam, and that this was the position held by Ellen White.

This statement is widely regarded in Seventh-day Adventist circles today as the absolute and final truth regarding the church's view of Christ's human nature, an authoritative pronouncement from which no reasonable appeal or dissent is possible. It is widely assumed that any who would presume to question it are thereby demonstrating either their lack of education or their lack of intelligence, or perhaps both.

In 1971 Leroy Edwin Froom published Movement of Destiny in which he reports with satisfaction the acceptance by "many thousands of scholars, of many faiths and in many lands," of the book Questions On Doctrine, and indicates that its Christological statement is the portion of the book that carried the greatest weight with these scholars.[2]

Froom then goes on to present a synopsis of that portion of the statement which appeared under the section heading "Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before Fall." It consists of smaller excerpts, roughly corresponding to the emphasized portions, from the same quotations published in Ministry, Questions On Doctrine, and Volume 7A of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. In the next chapter these will be presented verbatim for the benefit of students who may not have access to the publications themselves.

Notes:

1. Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 481, footnote
2. Froom, Movement of Destiny, page 492Chapter 18

The New Christological Pronouncement: An Examination of Sources

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 vantageground! 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 admissable 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 inadmissable 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 inadmissable 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:

1. The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898
2. The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898
3. The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901
4. The Youth's Instructor, April 25, 1901 
5. The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131
6. Ibid., p. 1128
7. The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874
8. The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129
9. The Signs of the Times, April 26, 1905
10. The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898
11. The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898
12. The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901
13. The Youth's Instructor, April 25, 1901
14. The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131
15. Ibid., p. 1128
16. The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874
17. The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129
18. The Signs of the Times, April 26, 1905
19. L. E. Froom.
20. Ellen White as in Questions On Doctrine, pp. 650-652
21. Ellen White in DA 24
22. Ellen White in ST 5/27/97
23. Ellen White, Letter 55, 1895
24. Ellen White, Letter 106, 1896
25. Ministry, September, 1956, page 12.
Chapter 19

The New Christological Pronouncement: An Analysis of Evidence

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.

1. During His Incarnation He stood as "man's representative," just "as God created him"--that is, referring to Adam.

2. As the "second Adam," He "began where the first Adam began."

3. He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and (He, Christ) redeemed Adam's failure."

4. He took "the nature but not the sinfulness of man."

5. He "vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory."

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."

9. "He did not have the "propensities of sin."

(These are fundamental declarations.)

10. Christ was like Adam before the Fall--"a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon Him."

ll. He "could fall." (That was possible--otherwise temptation would not have been an actuality, only a farce.)

12. He "took ... human nature, and was tempted in all points" as human nature is tempted.

13. But "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."

14. When "Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin."

15. Christ was "assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden."

16. So "Christ, in the wilderness of temptation stood in Adam's place to bear the test he (Adam) failed to endure."

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."

18. But "never, in any way, leave the slightest impression" that "a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ."

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." (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 suflixes -ful and -ness in strict conformity to dictionary definitions. According to Webster's Handy Collegiate Dictionary -ful 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 work ing 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. More over, 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 knoledge, that ye might be filled  with all the fulness of God." (Eph. 3:14-19)

Who could ask for more? Christ, in whom ...

Notes:

1. ST 6/09/98, and also Selected Messages, 1: 252-256
2. ST 12/20/99
3. ST 11/06/01
4. ST 12/09/03
5. RH 6/15/05
6. ST 8/07/79
7. YI 6/02/98
8. RH 2/24/74
9. ST 5/27/97, p. 325, col. 3
10. ST 5/29/01
11. ST 6/09/98
12. YI 4/25/01
13. Ms. 143, 1897
14. ST 7/23/02
15. See also AA 562
16. BE 4/05/97
17. ST 5/29/01, p. 339, col. 2, BV 182
18. Ms. 1, 1893, p. 3
19. General Conference Bulletin, 1901, p. 403
20. For earlier testimony of Waggoner, see pages 48-49
21. pp. 26-29
22. General Conference Bulletin, No. 5, p. 27
23. See Movement of Destiny, pp. 197 and 497
24. Nichol, Answers to Objections, pages 393 
25. Published at Leaves of Autumn Books, Payson, Arizona, 1982
Chapter 20

Conclusion: An Unsound Methodology Has Led to Invalid Interpretations - An Offer of Reward

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 A ustralasian Signs of the Times. They included a galaxy of General Conference vicepresidents, 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 Ucounterbalanced" by statements that Christ had come to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam that were to be found uin 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 ucounter-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 h uman 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 mis-use 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 fa llen 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.

Some time 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 suff ered 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:

1. Not the slightest deviation from her crystal clear conviction that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man.

2. Not the slightest degree of self-contradiction or confusion in her witness to that Bible truth.

3. Not the slightest hint that she ever believed that Christ came to earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam.

4. Not the slightest indication that she meant to say that Christ took our weaknesses and infirmities vicariously, in the same way that He bore our sins.

5. Not the slightest suggestion that she meant to say that only the physical nature of Christ was like that of fallen man.

My conclusion is that the confusions and contradictions are entirely the work of her ill-advised interpreters and emphatically not the work of Ellen White . An alien interpretation was forced upon her writings, thereby producing confusion and contradiction.

But how can I extend the benefIts of my research to others?

There is a time-honored method, hallowed by uses without number, and still outstandingly successful. For more years than I have lived, when Seventh-day Adventist evangelists have met seekers after truth who just could not believe that a mistake regarding Sunday observance had been made by church leaders, and felt confIdent that somewhere there must be a Bible text giving evidence of an authorized change of the day of divine appointment, they have offered a cash reward of $ 1000.00 for that text. This method has cleared away questions and resolved doubts with remarkable efficiency.

The situation before us is singularly similar. Untold numbers of Seventh-day Adventists just cannot believe that a mistake was made by the authors of Questions On Doctrine, et. al. , and they feel confident that somewhere there must be a statement by Ellen White that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.

Very well.

I hereby offer a reward of $1000.00 to the first person who will find that quotation and deliver it to me.

This offer is made subject to the following conditions:

1. The quotation must be a statement and not an interpretation.

2. It must clearly refer to the human nature assumed by Christ in His incarnation, and not to His divine nature.

3. It must be as direct, simple, and clear as the many statements by Ellen White that Christ, in His incarnation, took upon Himself the human nature of fallen man.

4. It must be from her denominationally published writings, and on record in the White Estate libraries, so as to eliminate the possibility of forgery.

5. This offer will be kept open for a period of one year from the date which appears by my signature.

I will hope by this means to lay to rest forever the suspicion that Ellen White contradicted herself on this point, and to place the responsibilty for our present problem squarely upon the shoulders of her ill-advised interpreters, where it properly belongs.

Ralph Larson
(Signed)
May 1, 1986

Notes:

1. Unless we take seriously the opinions of the weird Holy Flesh movement of Indiana, which I am not able to do.
2. Ministry, September, 1956, page 12
3. Ministry, April, 1957, page 33
4. DA, p. 49
5. Ms. 65, 1899
6. SG 4, p. 115
7. Letter 106, 1896
8. RH 2/10/85
9. Ms. 94, 1893
10. RH 10/01/89
11. RH 4/28/91
12. ST 11/24/87
13. ST 12/03/02
14. RH 3/09/05
15. RH 1/07/04
16. ST 1/04/77
17. RH 12/24/89
18. RH 5/01/92
19. ST 5/16/95
20. Letter 106, 1896
21. Douty, Another Look at Seventh-day Adventism, pages 48-64.
22. This is an implication that I firmly reject. I do not believe that it has any foundation in fact whatever. (see page 274.)
23. 1SM, p. 49
Chapter 21

The Unavoidable Linkage Between the Nature of Christ and the Saving Work of Christ

What difference does it make whether Christ took the fallen nature of man or the unfallen nature of Adam?

This question was answered insightfully by Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century. He was looking at a different question about the nature of Christ than the one before us, but in responding to it he stated a principle that applies to both questions:

That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.[1]

From his time until now there have been witnesses to the belief that Christ came in the fallen nature of man, and the majority of them have seen it in the same perspective that Gregory did.

The student will find a convenient historical presentation of these witnesses in Harry Johnson's The Humanity of the Saviour, London: The Epworth Press, 1962 . We pause here only to note that the list includes some leading theologians of modern times, such as : Karl Barth, J. A. T. Robinson, T. F. Torrance, Nels F. S. Ferre, C. E. B. Cranfield, Harold Roberts, Leslie Newbegin, Rudolf Bultmann, Oscar Cullman, and Anders Nygren. We should not, therefore, conclude that our spiritual ancestors held to the view that Christ took the fallen nature of man because they were not very bright. Several of the men in the list above are regarded today as intellectual giants.

Neither can we dismiss it as a minority view. The names presented in Section Three include General Conference Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Secretaries, Union Presidents, Review Editors, including Uriah Smith, Lewellyn Wilcox, and, yes, Francis Nichol, and editors of the Signs. They were Adventist's first line of leadership.

And they believed, as Gregory believed,

That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.

As they saw it, if Christ had not come in the nature of fallen man,

1. He could not have truly understood us.

(He) took our nature that He might understand how to sympathize with our frailty.[2]

He took our nature upon Him that He might become acquainted with our trials and sorrows, and, knowing all our experiences, He stands as Mediator and Intercessor before the Father.[3]

An angel would not have known how to sympathize with fallen man, but ... Jesus can be touched with all our infirmities.[4]

Jesus clothed His divinity with humanity that He might have an experience in all that pertains to human life.[5]

It is apparent that no one living in the nature of the unfallen Adam could truly experience what we experience. Thus it was believed that it was necessary for Christ to come in our fallen nature that He might truly understand us.

2. He could not have been our example in victorious Christian living.

Jesus took upon Himself man's nature, that He might leave a pattern for humanity ... our fallen nature must be purified. [6]

He demonstrated the power of righteousness over sin, in sinful flesh.[7]

And as Jesus was in human flesh so God means His followers to be.[8]

He came in the likeness of sinful flesh to demonstrate before all parties in the controversy that it was possible for men in the flesh to keep the law.[9]

As (man) grasps the truth that there actually lived upon this earth One possessed of the same nature as himself, who "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," he realizes that there is hope for him.[10]

In the likeness ofsinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh.[11]

3. He could not have been our substitute-sacrifice.

Christ became sin for the fallen race.[12]

Christ humiliated Himself to humanity, and took upon Himself our nature, that ... He might become a stepping stone to fallen men.[13]

The highest gift that heaven could bestow was given to ransom fallen humanity.[14]

The Divine Son of God, who had ... come from heaven and assumed their fallen nature ... to unite the fallen race with Himself.[15]

He consented to become fallen man's substitute and surety.[16]   Had He not been fully human, Christ could not have been our substitute.[17]

4. He could not be our Priest--Mediator.

He took our nature upon Him ... and knowing all our experiences, He stands as Mediator and Intercessor before the Father.[18]

(Jesus) is the "Daysman" between a Holy God and our sinful humanity,--one who can "lay His hand upon us both."[19]

The Son of God was made in the likeness of sinful men, that He might be a merciful High Priest.[20]

With His human arm Christ encircles the fallen race, and with His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Infinite.[21]

Thus Christ from eternity was made the connecting link between the heaven (sic) and the fallen race.[22]

He ... clothed His divinity with humanity ... that divinity might lay hold of the power of God in behalf of the fallen race.[23]

Jesus was God acting in sinful flesh on behalf of the sinner.[24]

By assuming sinful flesh ... Jesus ... made it possible for Him to minister to sinful flesh.[25]

None but a human being--made in the likeness of sinful flesh--could serve as a Mediator on behalf of sinful men.[26]

He could not be a priest until He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.[27]

5. He could not have been our Saviour-Redeemer.

From the fallen race itself must arise the Deliverer ... the Son of God ... stood, not where Adam stood before the fall, but where man stands today.[28]

Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only th us could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.[29]

Through His humiliation and poverty, Christ would identify Himself with the weakness of the fa llen race.... The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam. ... The King of Glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity.[30]

This was the only way in which fallen men could be exalted. ... It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man.[31]

It was necessary for Christ to clothe His Divinity with Humanity. Only th us could He become the Redeemer of the fallen race.[32]

Whoever would save man must put himself in man's place. He must be subject to the same tendency ... to sin ... as man.[33]

But to be man's Redeemer, the Creator must become man. He must come in "the likeness of sinful flesh." (Romans 8 :3)[34]

In order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was.[35]

It is abundantly clear, then, that our spiritual ancestors agreed heartily with Gregory of Naziansus who said:

That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.

Christology, the nature of Christ, and soteriology, the saving work of Christ, are inseparably and intimately linked together. When we speak of one, we unavoidably speak of the other. When we change one, we inevitably change the other. Thus Christians of the Arminian-Wesleyan heritage, including Seventh-day Adventists, have believed that Christ obeyed God's law in the flesh (and nature) of fallen man in order to show that we, by exercising the same faith and God-dependency that He exercised, can do the very same thing.

Christians of the Calvinistic heritage, on the other hand, have believed that since Christ came in the nature of the unfallen Adam, His obedience to God's law did not indicate that we can, even through faith and Goddependency, do the very same thing. They maintain steadfastly that man can never, by any means, stop sinning while this life lasts. As they see it, God will by some kind of miracle make them so that they will never sin again at the moment when He takes them into the Kingdom. This is a concept against which Ellen White issued strong warnings:

The characters formed in this life will determine the future destiny . When Christ shall come, He w ill not change the character of any individual.[36]

(Satan) is constantly seeking to deceive the followers of Christ with His fatal sophistry that it is impossible for them to overcome.[37]

Let no one say, I cannot remedy my defects of character. If you come to this decision, you will certainly fail of obtaining everlasting life. [38]

It should be no great surprise to us, then, when we observe that within a very short time, as theological trends go, the appearance among Seventh-day Adventists of the C alvinistic idea that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam was followed by the appearance among us of the Calvinistic idea that it is impossible for man to stop sinning. Cause and effect are as inexorable in theology as in any other field.

So let us close this section with an appeal for someone to write a doctoral dissertation on the Christological-Soteriological Co-relationships in the writings of Ellen White. There is much more than enough available material. Her classic statement, which appears in so many places that I despaired of counting them, goes like this:

The majesty (King, Prince, Commander) of Heaven left (stepped down from) His royal throne, and laying aside (divesting Himself of, removing, etc.) His royal robes, clothed (garbed, veiled, covered, etc . ) His divinity with humanity (often fallen humanity) and gave perfect obedience to God's Holy Law, in order to show (demonstrate, prove, etc . ) that fallen man, by using the same methods that He used (faith, trust, God-dependency) can do the very same thing.

So what difference does it make whether Christ came in the unfallen nature of Adam or in the fallen nature of man?

It makes all the difference, my friend.

That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.

The unavoidable linkage between the nature of Christ and the saving work of Christ is conceded by persons on virtually all sides of the present discussion. Witness the following prediction, that was written in the year 1964, by - are you ready for this? - Robert Brinsmead:

Those who teach that Christ took a superior human nature draw the logical conclusion that it is impossible for the rest of mankind to perfectly obey the law of Jehovah in this life ... Those who accept this "new view" of the Incarnation, logically take the side of Satan in the great controversy over the law, claiming that God has not made provision for us to perfectly obey it. If God's people accept this delusion, then there will be no third angel's message, no sealing of the saints, no finishing of the mystery of God, no cleansing of the sanctuary, no community of the saints prepared to live without a mediator, no first fruits of the harvest, and no people ready for translation - at least as far as they are concerned.

Ellen G. White saw that God had three steps to the platform of truth (EW 258). Satan has three steps down from the platform. The first step is the teaching that Christ took the human nature of man as it was before the Fall. This leads to the second step--to the teaching that man cannot find grace to perfectly obey the law of God in this life. This will inevitably lead to the third step--giving up the Sabbath. This last step must logically follow the original premise, for if it be conceded that we cannot obey all the law all the time, then there is no point in the Sabbath being a test question.[39]

We should not leave this topic without directing the student's attention again to the testimony of Jones and Waggoner, the leaders of the Righteousness By Faith emphasis in the General Conference of 1888. They, with Prescott, surpassed many of their contemporaries in the depth and clarity of their convictions about salvation through the rightousness of Christ.

They were no less emphatic and eloquent in their teaching that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man. The intimate connection between the nature of Christ and the saving work of Christ was clearly perceived and forcefully taught by all three of these stalwarts of Adventist history.

The same would appear to be true of virtually all of those who wrote for our journals. While there must have been men in the field who were characterized by Ellen White's lament:

You have preached the law without Christ until our spirits are as dry as the hills of Gilboa,

we have found no evidence that these persons did any writing for our church papers.

Some have applied this statement in sweeping generalizations which seem to ascribe this deficiency to our entire church. I would urgently recommend that all such persons spend a few hours in the archives, where we have spent many days. I think they would emerge with a greatly enhanced understanding of the faith of our fathers, and a deeper appreciation and respect for their accomplishments.

The bright gospel light of righteousness by faith in Christ shines forth from those pages with undimmed luster, and in all of our research we failed to find a single article to which Ellen White's "Hills of Gilboa" description would apply.

Our conclusion is that those who glibly describe our early church as "legalistic" have not had the privilege of examining the published evidence.

Notes:

1. Johnson, op. cit., page 129
2. EGW, RH 4/19/70
3. EGW, ST 11/24/87
4. EGW, RH 10/1/89
5. EGW, ST 9/30/90
6. EGW, ST 1/11/83
7. A. T. Jones, ST 10/29/96
8. EGW, ST 4/01/97
9. Uriah Smith, Looking Unto Jesus, p. 23
10. F. D. Nichol, RH 3/01/23
11. EGW, RH 5/06/75
12. EGW, RH 5/06/75
13. EGW, RH 5/25/86
14. EGW, RH 12/11/88
15. EGW, ST 9/23/89
16. EGW, RH 6/15/91
17. EGW, ST 6/17/97
18. EGW, ST 11/24/87
19. EGW, ST 8/24/91
20. T. M. French, RH 7/15/37
21. EGW, ST 4/18/92
22. Stephen Haskell, ST 5/28/96
23. EGW, ST 10/13/98
24. Sabbath School Quarterly, Second Quarter, 1909, p. 8
25. Sabbath School Quarterly, First Quarter, 1913, p. 14
26. Asa T. Robinson, RH 12/20/23
27. J. E. Evans, RH 3/24/96
28. C. P. Bollman, RH 1/31/18
29. EGW, ST 12/03/02
30. EGW, RH 2/24/74
31. EGW, RH 12/31/72
32. EGW, ST 1/14/03
33. A. R. Bell, ST 11/11/30
34. J. C. Stevens, ST 8/05/41
35. EGW, Selected Messages, Volume 1, p. 268 ff
36. 4T 429
37. GC 489
38. COL 331
39. The Incarnation of Christ, "Adam's Human Nature versus Fallen Human Nature," pp. 7, 8); Supplied to me by Robert Wieland.
Chapter 22

The Increasing Tension - Something Has to Give

In the 1970's the Seventh-day Adventist church found itself facing a theological challenge, created by the insistent and aggressive teaching of certain Bible teachers and ministers that it is not possible for Christians, by themselves or with divine assistance, to stop sinning. It followed, as they saw it, that justification, i. e., forgiveness, was the hope of salvation, since sin would continue in the Christian life until it was miraculously removed by divine power at the moment of entry into the Heavenly Kingdom. Justification was seen as an act of God for the benefit of man, in which man himself had no part.

This Calvinistic teaching was accepted by some and rejected by others. The tension increased until, at the celebrated Glacier View conference in Colorado in 1979, church leaders rejected the teaching, according to some reports; or more or less by-passed it while defending the doctrine of the sanctuary, according to other reports.

In any case, there is a significant number of Seventh-day Adventist ministers today who are concerned, and who feel ill at ease over the whole situation.

They are suffering from the tension of being asked to embrace two propositions that are mutually exclusive.

1. Christ came to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. He was therefore exempt from all those weaknesses, tendencies, hereditary handicaps, etc., with which we must contend in order to live without sinning.

2. Nevertheless He was tempted in all things as we are, and has given us an example that we should imitate by living without sin as He did.

The glaring contradiction in these two incompatible propositions may best be seen by examining a description of the handicaps that we have, according to this view, and that Christ did not have.

The description of man:

This state of sin into which all men are born is ... an inherited disposition to sin ... (The act of sin springs from this disposition) ... Actual sinning on man's part is the natural expression of this alienation ... We come into the world a depraved species ... As concerning all other men (except Christ), they are born without God ... The specific condition to which Adam brought all men, is original sin ... Ours is a fallen nature. This fallenness involves all our desires and susceptibilities.

The description of Christ:

The connection of all other men with Adam has produced in them a fallen, human nature with tendencies to sin. Christ is the one exception ... His desires, inclinations, and responses were spontaneously and instantly positive to righteousness and automatically negative toward sin. There was nothing in Him that responded to sin. ...[1]

To thus describe man, in contrast with Christ, and yet to maintain that Christ had no advantage over us is manifestly ridiculous. What one of us would not gladly trade his nature for a nature that is spontaneously and instantly positive to righteousness and automatically negative toward sin? To maintain that a person with such a nature was tempted in all things as we are is preposterous.

Something has to give. Either the view that Christ came to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam must be held together with its logical corollary , that He was so different from us that we cannot be expected to overcome as He overcame; or the view that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man must be held together with its logical corollary, that we can, by using the same methods that He used, (faith, trust, God-dependency) overcome as He overcame.

To intermingle these two views is to set up a tension in logic that will, sooner or later, become unbearable.

Glacier View has by no means solved the problem. As long as our seminary and our colleges continue to teach that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, we will continue to see an increasing number of our ministers and members abandon the historic faith of the Adventist church and embrace the doctrine of modern Calvinism, that it is not possible, by any means, for man to overcome.

We must in fairness recognize that historic Calvinism was somewhat different from modern Calvinism in its teaching on this point. In the famous Westminster Confession of 164 7 , a statement of faith that is widely regarded as being the most comprehensive and valuable of the early Calvinistic confessions, and from which large portions have been carried over into other creeds, there is a section on the law of God in which we read:

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.[2]

However, modifications of this view appeared early in the postreformation years, and were the occasion of much disagreement between Protestants. Arminius of Holland was among the first prominent opponents of the "Justification only" theology of the modified Calvinism, hence the term "Arminian theology" which is used by scholars to describe the school of thought that stood over against "Calvinistic theology. "

To adequately discuss the differing opinions of the two theological schools would require another volume at least as large as this one, but perhaps a brief outline would be helpful.

The Calvinistic school of thought looks back to Augustine for some of its major pre-suppositions, and to Calvin and Luther in Reformation times. (It must be remembered that Luther was as firmly committed to the doctrine of predestination as Calvin was, although the name of Calvin is more commonly associated with that doctrine in our time.) The Calvinistic School has been represented since Reformation times (generally speaking) by the Anglican, Reform..d, Presbyterian, some Congregational, and some Baptist churches. In our time probably most of those Christians who call themselves evangelicals would prefer to be thought of as Calvinistic in their theology, rather than Arminian.

The Arminian School looks back to the Ana-Baptists for many of its pre-suppositions, and to Erasmus, Zwingli, and Arminius in Reformation times. Since then it has been represented by the Methodists, some Congregational, and some Baptist churches, and by the Seventh-day Adventist church.

The outline that follows is necessarily over-simplified, for the sake of brevity, and does not describe the nuances of difference w ithin schools of thought, such as the various concepts of predestination among Calvinists, or of sanctification among Arminians, but is a rough and general classification.

General Features of Calvinistic Theology:

1. Absolute predestination

2. Original sin defined as inherited guilt and weakness.

3. Man does not have free will

4. Christ came in nature of unfallen Adam

5. Emphasis on Christ as our substitute

6. Man cannot stop sinning by any means

7. "Justification only" saves man. Sanctification as fruit of justification is nice but not necessary to salvation.

8. Instant sanctification occurs when Christ comes.

General Features of Arminian Theology:

1. Conditional predestination

2. Original sin defined as inherited weakness only 

3. Man does have free will

4. Christ came in nature of fallen man

5. Emphasis on Christ as our example and substitute

6. Man can stop sinning through the power of Christ

7. "Justification only" does not save man. Sanctification as fruit of justification is necessary to salvation.

8. Instant sanctification does not occur at any time.

Each of these two theological systems must be credited with internal logical consistency, which is to say that the propositions within each system are logically compatible with the basic pre-suppositions of that system. But it would be exceedingly difficult to reach within either system to pull out an isolated doctrine and fit it into the other system. To do so would be to set up all kinds of problems of logical inconsistency and contradiction.

Yet this is what a number of Seventh-day Adventists are trying to do at the present time.

Attracted by the pleasing possibility of gaining a better acceptance from evangelical churches, or by the alluring concept of salvation in sin, they have attempted to take proposition number four, that Christ came to the earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam, out of the Calvinistic system and fit it into the Seventh-day Adventist (Arminian) system. The results have ranged from confusion to chaos.

In the limited space that we may here give to this subject, let us compare the two "bottom lines."

Calvinist-Evangelical

8. Instant sanctification occurs when Christ comes

Arminian-Adventist

8. Instant sanctification does not occur at any time.

It is apparent that the method by which instant sanctification might occur would have to be manipulation, that is, something mechanical or physical, by-passing human weakness and human will. If a man has been sinning up to a certain point in time, and if at that point in time God does something to him that immediately makes him so that he will never sin again, that could not be called either justification or sanctification. The proper term would be manipulation, a process, shall we say, in which God takes the celestial screwdriver from His heavenly tool chest, inserts it into the ear of the believer, and makes an adjustment, saying,

There, my beloved. You will never sin again!

This "screwdriver salvation" might not be offensive to the Calvinist, who believes that man has no free will in any case, so that all of his experiences in salvation are predetermined by the will of God, which simply overrides man's will, and could be classified as manipulation. But how could this " screwdriver salvation" be combined with the free will principle of Arminian-Adventist theology? According to Ellen White, such a combination of ideas is impossible.

When Christ shall come, He will not change the character of any individual.[3]

When He comes He is not to cleanse us of our sins, to remove from us the defects of our characters, or to cure us of the infirmities of our tempers and dispositions. If wrought for us at all, the work will be accomplished before that time. When the Lord comes, those who are holy will be holy still. Those who have preserved their bodies and spirits in holiness, in sanctification, and honor will then receive the finishing touch of immortality. But those who are unjust, unsanctified, and filthy will remain so forever. No work will then be done for them to remove their defects and give them holy characters. The refiner does not then sit to pursue His refining process and remove their sins and corruption. This is all to be done in these hours of probation. It is now that this work is to be accomplished for us.[4]

Ellen White consistently and clearly identifies the idea that God has given a law that His creatures cannot obey, even through His grace, as the first and biggest lie told about God by Satan.[5] It is astonishing and disheartening to listen to Seventh-day Adventist theologians, as I have done, assuring Seventh-day Adventist congregations that:

1. They firmly believe that the writings of Ellen White are inspired by God; and

2. They firmly believe that it is impossible for man to stop sinning, even through the power of God. (One of them even goes so far as to suggest that it is God's will that His people continue sinning, so that He may continue to graciously forgive them.)[6]

Yet this is the condition in which we presently find ourselves. It is my conviction that this is the natural fruit of the tree that was planted by the publication of the inaccurate Christological statement in Questions on Doctrine, in 1957.

I strongly suspect that Ellen White, who did, after all, have a saving sense of humor, might have surveyed all of these endeavors of her interpreters, and reflected:

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Notes:

1. Heppenstall, The Man Who Is God, pages 107 ff.
2. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, page 643. (Note, however, that this was quickly contradicted by the Shorter Catechism.)
3. 4T, p. 429
4. 2T, p. 355
5. As in PP, p. 69, 77, 88; DA, p. 24, 29, 117, 309, 761; GC, p. 489; ST 1/16/96; ST 3/17/95; ST 4/07/93; ST 4/27/93, etc.
6. Edward Heppenstall. Perfection, a syllabus used in a class for ministers of Southeastern California Conference, December 1961, page 2.
Chapter 23

How Shall We Understand?

How can we understand what happened in the 1950's? The elements of the experience have been reported by so many participants that we may feel relatively secure in reconstructing an outline of events like this:

1. Donald Grey Barnhouse, editor of Eternity, a magazine for Protestant evangelical ministers, cooperates with a young scholar, Walter Martin, who is studying American "cults." Some of Martin's findings are printed in Eternity.

2. Dr. Barnhouse presents a radio sermon, which is heard by a Seventh-day Adventist minister, T. E. Unruh. Unruh writes Barnhouse a letter of appreciation.

3. Reminded of the existence of Seventh-day Adventists by the letter, Barnhouse suggests to Martin that this group should be the next subject of his investigations.

4. Martin approaches the Seventh-day Adventist world leaders in Washington, D . C . , and requests their cooperation. After some hesitancy, the request is granted.

5. An extensive series of conversations and comparisons of views between Martin and a small group of Adventists finally results in his conclusion that Seventh-day Adventists are not a "cult."

6 . One of the major influences leading to this conclusion is the assurance by the Adventist group that the Seventh-day Adventist church, aside from a poorly informed minority, had always believed, like Martin and his evangelical colleagues, that the Lord Jesus Christ had come to this earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam. The evidence supplied to Martin centers in the document that we have examined in Section Four and found to be grossly erroneous.

How could it happen?

Let us resolutely require ourselves to consider, without fl inching, all of the possibilities:

1. The Adventist group and Walter Martin were alike dishonest persons who collaborated in deliberately deceiving the world.

This would be contrary to all that we know of them. Walter Martin's record of service would certainly not give support to any such indictment. And those of us who are familiar with the Adventist's life-long devotion to the cause of Christ find this conclusion utterly unacceptable. We may point out in this connection (though some, charging collusion, might reject this evidence) that until this day Martin has remained convinced of the Adventist's sincerity and integrity, as they have remained convinced of his.

2. Either the Adventists were dishonest, and Martin was honest; or Martin was dishonest and the Adventists were honest.

Here we must recognize that we are treading upon a mine field. Smoldering resentments of past decades are likely to burst forth into new explosions, as persons on both sides decide the issue in harmony with their previous conceptions and/or misconceptions.

We are compelled to recognize that both the Seventh-day Adventist community and the Protestant-evangelical community have long regarded each other with great suspicion, and it might be safe to describe that as the outstanding understatement of this paper. Can we unflinchingly face the facts? Many Protestant-evangelicals have long regarded Seventh-day Adventists as dishonest, for reasons that I will let them supply (while not conceding their validity). And on their part, many Seventh-day Adventists have long regarded Protestant-evangelicals as dishonest, for reasons that I am well able to supply. I have a drawer full of papers, pamphlets, and books that have been written and circulated about Adventists by Evangelicals which are literally filled with gross mis-statements of fact, not excepting the hideously false allegation that we Seventh-day Adventists believe that Satan is our Saviour.

It is doubtful that a reasoned inquiry into the nature of the problem before us will be possible if we permit these ancient misunderstandings and prejudices to be revived. And must we not concede that questions regarding the sincerity and integrity of human hearts are largely beyond human judgment? Would we not be best advised to concern ourselves with the work of human hands, and leave the judgment of human hearts to the Lord? We might consider at this point the counsel of the Adventist writer, F. D. Nichol, who asked us to remember that men may hold in sincerity to preposterous propositions; and the counsel of Ellen White, who urged that we always assume that those who disagree with us are sincere in their beliefs. The third possibility would be this:

3. The members of the Adventist group were not as well informed about their own ch urch h istory as they should have been, and Walter Martin was not as carefu l about examining primary sources as he should have been.

This appears to be the most acceptable and defensible explanation of what happened. As we consider the role played by the Adventist group, we discover that the plural term is hardly appropriate.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the arrangement of evidence was mostly done by one person, Dr. L. E . Froom, and that the others simply published his findings to Martin and to the world. Their explanation might be that because of the heavy responsibilities they were carrying, they did not have time for extensive research activities. In any case, effective checks and counter-checks regarding the discovery, selection, and arrangement of materials were obviously lacking.

Dr. Froom, it is equally apparent, had not become as expert in the historical theology of the Seventh-day Adventist church as in European historical theology. Again, he might plead that the massive research that he was doing in European historical theology, which resulted in his monumental works, The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, and The Conditionalist Faith Of Our Fathers, left him inadequate time for a detailed examination of Seventh-day Adventist historical records.

Thus a few items that came to light were quickly shaped into a statement that did not reflect an awareness of the total existing evidence.

As for Dr. Martin, it does not appear that he made a careful enough personal examination of the relevant primary source material, or that the properly critical attitude that a careful scholar m ust assume toward all arrangements of evidence was functioning in this case. We remember that the statement set forth by Froom and his companions was entirely historical in nature, and consisted entirely of interpretations of statements by Ellen White. It would seem that if Dr. Martin had systematically examined these statements in their original context he surely would have had misgivings about procedural irregularities, and that if he had thoroughly surveyed all of the statements Ellen White had published in books and magazine articles about the humanity of Jesus, he would not have been able to escape the conclusion that she believed, with great conviction, that Jesus Christ came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man, and emphatically not in the nature of the unfallen Adam.

In drawing this conclusion, we need not be critical of anyone's motives. If the Adventists were motivated by a desire to improve the relations between the Seventh-day Adventist church and other churches, we would not fault them for that. And if Walter Martin were motivated by a desire to move the Seventh-day Adventist church toward theological positions that he believes to be correct, we would not fault him for that. But it is surely neither unreasonable nor unChristian to insist that there be no compromise of historical accuracy in the seeking of these goals. It is on the point of historical accuracy, in my judgment, that both the Adventists and Walter Martin should have been more careful.

This leaves us with the question, How did the erroneous conclusions of this small group find acceptance among Adventists?

It would appear that the answer may be given in a single word, authority. There were several dynamics working in the situation.

The anti-authority, anti-establishment attitudes of the 1960's had not yet appeared in American life in the 1950's. Respect for authority in all areas was much more common then than now.

The majority of Seventh-day Adventist ministers at that time had received no seminary or graduate school training, but had gone into the ministry immediately after graduating from college with a major in religion.

The source materials required for a historical analysis of the Adventist church's and Ellen White's Christo logical views were available only at the church's world headquarters in Washington, D.C. They had not been distributed among libraries around the world (by micro-film) as they now have been.

Those who had questions, as some did, found themselves looking into the two barrels of a double-barrelled shot-gun of authority. By what right would they presume to disagree with leading scholars of their own church? And by what right would they presume to disagree with Dr. Walter Martin, whose scholarly qualifications were represented as being impeccable?

So when the book Questions On Doctrine was published by a Seventhday Adventist publishing house in 1957 , supported by a very strong advertising program in Adventist journals, purportedly approved by many Seventh-day Adventist thought leaders, and bearing the stamp of approval of General Conference officers, what Adventist minister or teacher would presume to raise objections?

(There were a very few knowledgeable persons, including an outstandingly competent Adventist scholar named M. L. Andreason, who did raise objections. They were dealt with firmly, if not ruthlessly, as being trouble makers who were violating the principles of church order. Others undoubtedly found their experience an instructive object lesson.)

And when Dr. Martin's book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists, was published by Zondervan's (1960) and supported by his impressive scholarly credentials, who would have supposed that such a wildly inaccurate document a s the one which w e have examined could have survived his professional scrutiny?

Dr. Martin himself reports that when the editors at Zondervan's expressed misgivings about his manuscript, he calmed their fears by affirming his scholarly authority rather than by setting forth evidence.[1] From this distance it would appear that it might have been better for the church and for the world if the editors at Zondervan's had stubbornly insisted on examining the evidence.

Note:

1. Adventist Currents, July, 1983, page 19.Chapter 24

What Shall We Do Now?

So there would appear to be guilt enough for everyone. What shall we now say to the world?

It is doubtful that Seventh-day Adventist world leaders can adequately deal with a problem of this magnitude by making the traditional scholarly statement that we are " not comfortable" with the conclusions reached by Dr. Froom. The seriousness and the scope of the misunderstanding that has been created would seem to require an announcement that while we recognize that Dr. Froom and his companions set before the world a statement that. t.hey believed to be correct, nevertheless continuing investigation and research have rendered their conclusions untenable.

What shall Dr. Martin say to the world? We will not presume to speak for him, but it appears that some kind of a corrective statement is indicated. Will he then proceed to re-designate Seventh-day Adventists as a "cult"? That question must be settled in his own conscience. For my part, I must confess that my powers of comprehension are not equal to the challenge of understanding the thinking of a theologian who would read the following Bible verses and then denounce the members of a Christian group who desire to accept them as they are written, without emendation, as a cult.

Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. (Romans 1:3)

God, sending H i s own Son i n the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3)

For both H e that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren. (Hebrews 2:11)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. (Verse 14)

He took on Him the seed of Abraham. (Verse 16)

Wherefore in all th ings it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. (Verse 17)

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. (Hebrews 4:15)

... was made in the likeness of men. (Phil. 2:7)

Those who question whether Paul's expression in Romans 8:3, in the likeness of sinful flesh, might mean only an apparent likeness and not a real likeness should ponder carefully the results of consistently applying that interpretive principle to Phillipians 2:7. The church struggled with this question in the Christological controversies of the early centuries of the Christian era and finally, firmly rejected the idea of apparent but not real likeness as a faulty Christology, resulting from a wrong understanding of Paul's word " likeness," and not compatible with the true Christian faith. Should we gratefully accept their interpretive principle , that Paul's Greek word homoioma means real and not only apparent likeness, as we look at Phillipians 2:7, then reject the same principle as we look at Romans 8:3?

The conclusion that these verses may be properly understood to mean that Christ came to the earth in the nature of fallen man, rather than the nature of the unfallen Adam, appears to me to be not an unreasonable, much less a cultic conclusion. But I must live with my conscience and let others live with theirs.

And what shall the present generation of Seventh-day Adventists say to the world? We may avoid direct primary responsibility by pointing out that we were not party to the original discussions and conclusions. But what is our responsibility now?

At the risk of offending the non-Adventist readers of this paper, I would like to introduce an illustration that I think will be meaningful to my Adventist readers. When we Adventists discuss our understanding of the Sabbath with non-Adventists, one of the questions most likely to be asked is this:

What of my grandfather (or grandmother, or father or mother, etc.)? He (she) was a sincere Christian, but did not keep the Sabbath. What about him (her)?

Times without number, we have answered the question with an illustration that is hoary with age, yet still effective. It goes like this:

Let us suppose that your grandfather owned a country store, and that on a certain counter he had a mark for measuring off yards of cloth. He sold yardage according to this measurement for twenty years. Then you inherit the store and sell yardage in the same way for ten more years. But one day a customer returns to the store and complains that the yard of cloth she bought from you was only thirty-five inches long, not thirty-six.

You are indignant. You point out, with feeling, that your grandfather sold yardage according to that mark for twenty years, and yourself for ten years, and that no one has ever made such a complaint before. Your customer replies that she is not impugning the moral integrity of either your grandfather or yourself, but she would appreciate it if you would check that measurement on the counter.

From another part of the store you secure a yardstick, lay it on the counter, and experience a shock. It is true. The "yard" measurement is only thirty-five inches long! The carpenter who installed the counter had apparently made a mistake. So now we ask:

Was your grandfather guilty? No. He didn't know.

Have you been guilty? No. You didn't know.

But now, what is your responsibility? How many more thirty-five inch yards can you sell without being guilty?

The self-evident answer is always quickly forthcoming. Not one. Not a single yard.

As I see it, the responsibilities of the present Seventh-day Adventist scholarly community are these:

1. Verification of the findings of this paper. The conclusions of one person should not be accepted without question, even though they are my conclusions, lest we run the risk of repeating the same regrettable experience that now confronts us. In order to facilitate this work, I have been careful to include magazine column numbers in my documentation. I feel that the process of verification can therefore be done in a relatively short time.

2 . When these findings have been verified, a properly corrective statement should be presented to the world.

3. An extensive re-education process within the Adventist church should be undertaken without delay. The dimensions of this problem are indicated by the fact that the erroneous statement was first prepared and published by seminary professors, and that they and their successors presented it to students who are now teaching in Seventh-day Adventist colleges and preaching in Seventh-day Adventist churches. Thus the confusion has been compounded. Yet I believe that an adequate correction could be made within a relatively short time . It has taken almost thirty years for the situation to reach its present degree of tension. I doubt that more than a year or two would be required to set the matter straight. Our church members, generally speaking, have not been caught up in this misunderstanding to the extent that our seminary and college communities have been.

But it will be necessary for us to address ourselves to an awesome question: Are we capable of adm itting that a m istake has been made? Human nature recoils from such a responsibility.

Let us, while struggling with this question, consider the example of some of the Jewish leaders in the time of Christ. According to Ellen White's analysis, they first rejected the shepherd's story about the birth of Jesus from conviction, believing that it could not be true. But later events convinced them that it had to be true. Yet, rather than accept the humiliation of admitting that they had been mistaken, they chose to crucify Christ. To such lengths human beings may go in order to protect their reputations.

Are we capable of admitting an error?

Think it over, brother scholar, brother teacher, brother preacher. Think it over.

Special Note For Church Members

If you who are members of the Seventh-day Adventist church are convinced, as I am, that the situation before us needs to be corrected, will you please reflect with me about the manner in which the correction can be accomplished.

Can we expect our administrators to take the lead? Not really. They are like the rider who comes into the circus ring standing with each foot on the back of two different horses. Naturally, their chief concern is that the horses stay together. To initiate an action that they would see as a potential danger to the unity of the church would be very difficult for them.

Our church pastors? They are between a rock and a hard place. Even though they might be convinced by the evidence that a correction is needed, they also know that if they try to initiate a change without administrative support, they will be branded as "controversial " and " divisive," and this can be professional suicide.

Our educators? Of all our church workers, they are the most deeply involved in the problem. The error was transmitted to them through academic channels, apparently with the stamp of denominational approvaL They have passed it on to their students. Administrators and pastors might be able to stand aside from the issue, but educators can not. Their students pose questions that they must answer, and so they have made public and written statements defending Questions On Doctrine. It would be deeply embarrassing for them to now retreat from these positions.

So who is left?

You.

You have freedom of action. You are not hampered by the organizational restrictions that limit the freedom of our church workers. My hope is in you. Ours is a democratic organization, and we should all try to move together.

As I write these words (March, 1986), the people of the Philippines have just provided the world with an impressive example of what can be accomplished by an aroused public opinion. Do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that anyone take to the streets or agitate for a change in leadership. Those methods are for the world, not the church. And changing leaders at this time would accomplish little. Few, if any, administrators would be willing to move out very far ahead of their people on an issue of this kind.

What, then, can we do?

Educate, educate, educate.[1] The evidence speaks for itself. Argument is not needed. No scholar would dare to defend the procedural irregularities in the Questions On Doctrine statement about the humanity of Jesus, and the records of history can not be controverted. Our problem is simply that we have not known these things. We have focused our attention on the thinking of Calvin and Luther and have neglected our own theological history.

And please, my fellow-believer, do not entertain suspicions that the problem before us is a lack of integrity or sincerity. In the spring of 1985 an Adventist minister from Australia spoke at the Seminary chapel in the Philippines where I was teaching. A student asked him what the Adventist ministers in Australia were teaching about the nature of Christ. As I listened to his answer, I realized that if the same question had been put to me ten years ago, I would have given exactly the same answer that he was giving. In effect he said:

If you want to know what we are teaching about the nature of Christ, look at Questions On Doctrine.

Ten years ago I would have given precisely the same answer.

The point I am trying to establish is this: Insofar as I am able to judge, I was no less earnest and sincere ten ye ars ago than I am today . My problem was not lack of sincerity. It was lack of information. I had been given no opportunity to examine the evidence. I believe the same is true of most of my fellow workers in the Adventist church. Let us not suspect, much less accuse, anyone of insincerity. Having completed forty years of service to the Adventist church, I will here state with conviction that I regard the "workers" of the Seventh-day Adventist church as among the most sincere and most dedicated individuals to be found anywhere in the world today. I have counted it a privilege to live and work among them.

So let us educate, educate, educate. Let the evidence speak for itself. Try to avoid argument. When you have read this book, share it with someone else. Lend it to your pastor, and let him know how many of your fellow members are as concerned as you are about the purity of our faith. Let the evidence work like a leaven throughout our entire world church. When enough people have seen the evidence, we can be sure that the right things will be done. We need entertain no doubts about that.

I am optimistic about this. I believe our church is going to correct its course and go on to fulfill its God-ordained destiny . I have had the temerity to predict that there will be at least a hundred million Seventhday Adventists waiting for our Lord when He returns. But that is another subject.

Courage in the Lord!

Note:

1. 5T, p. 590
Epilogue

There Has Been a Voice Among Us

We have seen that there once existed an almost symbiotic relationship between the writings of Ellen White and the writings of our church leaders, lasting through the major portion of our church's history. What she wrote they believed. They internalized it, appropriated it, and expressed it anew in their own writings. There was a voice among them that was more than human, they were convinced. It transmitted messages sent to them in infinite mercy from the living, loving God. They rejoiced that the voice was among them. They happily recounted the trials of the church that the voice had led them safely through. They considered themselves the most privileged of all religious groups, because the voice was among them.

They did not misunderstand the cautions about the use of spiritual gifts. They recognized that counsels from the Spirit of Prophecy would be meaningless to those who did not understand the Bible doctrine of spiritual gifts, but they used the counsels freely as an aid to understanding their own theology.

As I finish the preparation of this manuscript for publication, I have just returned to the " States" from a term of service overseas, and I have been privileged to view a videotape of an earlier discussion between Dr. Walter Martin and Dr. William Johnson on the Ankerberg program. Two distinct impressions have remained with me: First, I was again forcibly reminded of the principle that debates are won by tricks, not by evidence. I hope to find time to write more on that subject later. Second, I was made very sad by the spectacle of a theologian making an issue of the question,

Do you believe that Ellen White is infallible?

and repeatedly demanding an answer.

Can it be possible that there could be a theologian anywhere on earth who would not know that the term infallible can be properly applied to God alone? No human being who has ever lived upon this earth has been infallible. No human being will ever be infallible. If any inspired messenger of either the Old or the New Testament eras were challenged with the question, "Are you infallible?", they could only answer, " No." And to base our acceptance or rejection of their messages on their answer to that question would be to establish a new level of absurdity.

The important and relevant question is whether the Bible prophets and/or Ellen White told the truth when they reported that God had given them information to be shared with the rest of us. I believe that there is abundant evidence to prove that both the Bible prophets and Ellen White did tell the truth. Let others challenge them with the question, "Are you infallible?" if they wish. I would prefer to have no part in such absurdities.

When I was a growing boy my father at times sent messages to me which were delivered by my older sister. On a few occasions I responded somewhat recklessly by asking my sister the challenging question, "Are you the boss?"

She would look at me thoughtfully and say, "We'll see about that." In this way I learned certain things: (1) My father did not take kindly to the suggestion that if he had something to say to me he should deliver the message to me personally. He seemed to feel that it was within the limits of his prerogatives to make use of a messenger if he chose to do so. (2) My father was even less sympathetic with my challenging question to the messenger, "Are you the boss?" He had a word for this. A "Smart-Alec" question, he called it. He strongly discouraged the asking of such questions.

I deemed it prudent to heed his counsel.

I also deem it prudent to heed what God chooses to tell me through a chosen messenger. I will not question His right to use a messenger, nor will I attempt to restrict Him in regard to the subject matter of the messages. These are His prerogatives, not mine. And I will certainly not challenge the messenger with the altogether inappropriate "Smart-Alec" question, "Are you infallible?"

There are valid questions to ask messengers. It is proper to expect all messengers who carry important messages to have credentials, by which they are "certified" to us as God's messengers. These would include: (1) Lack of contradiction with other messages o f previously certified messengers; (2) Ethical and moral purity; (3) Evidence of supernatural influences; (4) Consistency; (5) Accuracy of prediction, etc.

The list could be extended, but it has already become quite limiting. Few, if any, of the self-proclaimed messengers of our era could meet even these qualifications.

Ellen White could and did. The early Adventists concerned themselves first about her credentials, her certification as a messenger of God. When they were satisfied that she was an authentic messenger, they accepted with gratitude the information she passed on to them, seeing it as light from the better world.

They did not attempt, as some would do today, to draw a line between matters of faith and matters of procedure. Nor did they presume to tell God on what subjects He might send information to them and on what subjects He should not. They left that to His discretion.

Neither did they invent inplausible doctrines regarding degrees of inspiration or partial inspiration which defy all attempts at definition. How might we read a partially inspired message? Should we regard alternate paragraphs as inspired and uninspired? Or alternate sentences, or alternate words? Are all of the odd-numbered words in a sentence perchance inspired and all of the even numbered words not inspired? Or vice versa? Should we divide each word with a horizontal line and regard the upper portion as inspired and the lower portion as uninspired? Or, are those portions of the message that agree with my thinking inspired, and the other portions not inspired?

I have not yet met a person who was able to set forth anything like a lucid definition of partial inspiration. Have you?

Ellen White properly scorned all such futile endeavors. "This work is of God or it is not," she said. "The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God or of the Devil."[1] Thus she firmly ruled out the possibility that they might be the product of her own mind.

I can understand how inspired persons can be given different assignments. Isaiah was not sent to Ninevah. Jeremiah was not assigned the task of building an ark. Ellen White, along with the prophets Gad and Iddo and the daughters of Phillip the evangelist, (and others) were not assigned the task of adding portions to the Bible . But each had his or her own assignment, and each in the fulfillment of that assignment shared equally in the gift of inspiration. This I can understand. Partial inspiration I can neither define nor understand.

The early Adventists accepted the information that God sent to them through His chosen messenger and were benefitted enormously through using it. So may we be. It is perhaps not only a coincidence that the areas of the world where our church is weakest today are also the areas where the messages of Ellen White are held in least respect. The early Adventists held the writings of Ellen White in great respect.

But in our time continuing demands for advanced education have brought changes. More and more use is made of the thinking of theologians, less and less of the inspired counsels of God's chosen messenger to the remnant church. It is not unusual today, in the halls of our higher educational institutions, to hear the protest made:

Ellen White was not a theologian!

The validity of this statement would perhaps depend on one's definition of a theologian.

Do we say that she was not a theologian because she did not attend any theological seminaries?

Neither did Jesus Christ, the apostles, or the prophets.

Because she did not earn any theological degrees?

Neither did Jesus Christ, the apostles, or the prophets.

Because she did not discuss religion in learned, abstract, or philosophical terms?

Neither did Jesus Christ, the apostles,[2] or the prophets.

Because she was not accepted as one of their kind by the theologians of her time?

Neither were Jesus Christ, the apostles, or the prophets.

How many, might we suppose, of the men who wrote the Scriptures would be admitted as members of their select fraternity by the theologians of modern times?

Moses, Isaiah, and Paul? Probably. Daniel, John? Possibly . Certainly not Mark. Probably not Matthew or Luke. Peter? Well--maybe yes, maybe no. Amos, Hosea, Joel? You must be kidding.

But they told the truth about God. And so did Ellen White. Her understanding of God's will and purpose for His people was unexcelled. Her knowledge of scripture was profound.

As far as I am concerned, Ellen White is the best theologian the world has seen this side of the apostle Paul, for the simple reason that she is the first inspired theologian that the world has seen this side of the apostle Paul. Calvin, Luther, Wesley, etc., made their great contributions and their equally great mistakes. She somehow avoided their errors and gave witness only to the purity of truth.

A weakness of compilations, such as this one, is their brevity. The student who will take the time to examine the quotations presented here in their context will find them supported by a large and insightful use of scripture . Ellen White's Christological views were not extra-biblical. They were emphatically rooted and grounded in scripture.

She herself was warned, and passed the warning on to us, that

The very last deception of Satan, will be to make of none effect the testimony of the spirit of God.[3]

I invite the student to compare the use being made of her writings by those who are promoting Calvinistic doctrines among us with the above statement and draw his own conclusions.

There has been a voice among us, and that voice may still be heard, if not as clearly as it once was. If we will but listen, that gentle, persistent voice may yet lead us out of the wilderness of confusion in which we presently find ourselves.

The nature of God, whose law had been transgressed, and the nature of Adam, the transgressor, meet in Jesus, the Son of God, and the Son of man.[4]

Notes:

1. 4T, p. 230
2. The original twelve apostles. I except the apostle Paul, who was highly educated.
3. 1SM, p. 48
4. Ms. 141, 1901Appendix A

The Actual Text of the Baker Letter

The student who has examined the materials presented in this paper thus far has been made aware of the astonishing effect upon the history of the Seventh-day Adventist church of a single letter written in 1895 from Ellen White in Australia to Pastor W. L. H. Baker in Tasmania. Interpretations placed upon a few lines from this letter, and in particular upon a single line,

Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity,

have been used as the lever whereby the Seventh-day Adventist church has been pried loose from a firmly established Christo logical position and moved to another, altogether different, Christological position. To change the figure, an enormous business has been conducted upon an incredibly small capital.

We would therefore encourage the student to carefully examine the letter itself (Appendix A), and the suggested alternate interpretation (Appendix B), in the context of the historical material presented in Section Three of this paper, in order that he may decide for himself whether the letter has been used in harmony with the purpose and intention of its author.

Pastor W. L. H. Baker, as we have seen, was associated with the publishing work at the Pacific Press in California from 1882 until 1887, when he accepted a call to connect with the newly-founded publishing work in Australia. After a term of service with the publishing house, the length of which has not been clearly established, he entered into pastoral-evangelistic work in Tasmania.

He apparently found the transition from the more scholarly activities of writing and publishing to public preaching and house-to-house teaching somewhat difficult, and in late 1895 (or early 1896) Ellen White wrote him a letter of counsel and encouragement.

The letter, as released by the White Estate (elipses theirs) is presented in this Appendix. Of its thirteen pages, ten and all but a fraction of the eleventh are given over to practical professional counsel, rich material that may be studied with profit by every minister of the gospel.

Two and a fraction pages are devoted to what may be called Christological counsel. Comments on this portion of the letter will immediately precede those pages (4-6 of the manuscript paging).

Manuscript Release--414

Dear Brother and Sister Baker:

In the night season I was conversing with you. I had a message for you, and was presenting that message. You were cast down and feeling discouraged. I said to you, The Lord has bidden me speak to Bro. and Sr. Baker. You are considering your work as almost a failure, but if one soul holds fast to truth, and endures unto the end, your work cannot be pronounced a failure. If one mother has been turned from her disloyalty to obedience, you may rejoice. The mother who follows on to know the Lord will teach her children to follow in her footsteps. The promise is to father, mothers, and their children. (Acts 2:39) These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt and death. The Lord has given to the world Jesus Christ, and His work was to restore to the world the moral image of God in man, and to reshape the character.

The truth is to be proclaimed in all places, and the human agents are to be co-laborers with Christ, building up a wall of security about the children, and cutting off as far as possible the strong current of evil. Parents who are thoroughly converted will seek the salvation of their children, training them to be sons and daughters of God. In doing this work in wisdom they are co-laborers with God. ...

My brother, my sister, you can help parents to educate and train their famlies. By your earnest appeals, show them that they can illustrate to the world the power and influence of a well-ordered, well-disciplined family. Thorough Christian influence in the home will demonstrate to the world that the greatest amount of good can be done by sanctified, parental example, and religious training.

The Lord will not judge you by the amount of success manifested in your efforts. I was bidden to tell you that your faith must be kept revived and firm, and constantly increasing. When you see that those who have ears will not hear, and that those who are intelligent will not understand, after you have done your best, pass on to regions beyond, and leave the result with God. But let not your faith fail.

There might be some improvement made in your delivery. Cultivate earnestness and positiveness in addressing the people. Your subject matter may be excellent, and just what the people need, but you would do well to mingle a positiveness with the persuasive entreaties. ...

There is a need of decided personal effort to reach the people in their houses. Present the plain "Thus saith the Lord" with authority and exalt the wisdom of God in the written word. Bring the people to a decision; keep the voice of the Bible ever before them. Tell them you speak that which you do know, and testifY that which is truth, because God has spoken it. Let your preaching be short and right to the point, and then at the proper time call for a decision. Do not present the truth in a formal manner, but let the heart be vitalized by the Spirit of God, and let your words be spoken with such certainty that those who hear may know that the truth is a reality to you. Your manner may be educated, and your words may be of that character that they will voice the words of Peter: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. " With just as much assurance you may declare the message of God's truth. Those who believe sacred, eternal truth, must put their whole soul into their efforts. We must be stirred to the very heart as we behold the fulfilling of prophecy in the closing scenes of this earth's history. As our vision extends still further into the glories of eternity, the coming of Christ with power and great glory, and the scenes of the great day of judgment, we should not remain tame and unmoved. "I saw the dead," says John, " stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

After a short discourse, keep fresh, that you may give a Bible reading on the points spoken of. Come right to the hearts of your hearers, urging them to present their difficulties to you, that you may explain the Scriptures which they do not comprehend. Throw off all appearance of apathy, and lead the people to think that there is life or death in these solemn questions, according as they shall receive or reject them. As you present testing truth, ask often, who is now willing, as they have heard the words of God, pointing out their duty, to consecrate their hearts and minds, with all their aff ections to Christ Jesus. "He that is not for me, is against me. " As the Lord lays out before us the stirring scenes to be enacted in the last great conflict, can we contemplate them without catching enthusiasm, ardor, and zeal, knowing that heavenly angels are by our side.

Come close to the people; get into the families when you can; do not wait for the people to hunt up the shepherd. Bear with you the confidence and assurance of faith which evidences that you are not trusting in idle tales, but in a plain "Thus Saith the Lord. "

The Christological Counsel

The next two and a fraction pages contain the Christological counsel that Ellen White gave to Baker. She expresses these concerns:

1. The danger of giving people the understanding that Christ might have sinned. This is clearly her chief concern. She firmly asserts that Christ never sinned in ten separate expressions. She employs her eloquence to completely rule out the possibility of even a single sin in Christ's experience:

Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.
Never, in any way ...
Leave the slightest impression ...
That He in any way yielded ...
Did not waver for one moment ...
"Hath nothing in me" ...
Noth ing to respond to temptation ...
Not one occasion has been given in response ...
Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground ...
Satan found nothing in Him ...

Never; nothing; nothing; not one; not once; nothing;--why? Why would the inspired counsellor labor so diligently to convince Baker on this point? Is it reasonable to assume that inspired counsel is given where such counsel is needed?

2. The closely related danger of making Christ "altogether human, such an one as ourselves." Over against this she sets forth two great contrasts between Christ and ourselves:

a. His miraculous birth as the Son of God;

b. His immaculately sinless life.

She does not contrast His nature with ours, but rather compares:

He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted.

He did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset.

She does not contrast His temptations with ours, but rather compares:

He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted.

Tempted in all points like as we are.

Thus, if we permit Ellen White to speak for herself in this Christological counsel, she points out two great differences between Christ and ourselves, His miraculous birth and His sinless life. She also points out two great similarities between Christ and ourselves, His temptations and His human nature . She then characteristically affirms her logical conclusion, that the secret of His success may also be the secret of our success:

" It is written" was His weapon of resistance, and it is the sword of the Spirit which every human being is to use.

And let it be remembered that there is no room for a divine nature in a Christ who is altogether human, such an one as ourselves.

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.

Bro. Baker, 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; for, said the angel, " Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his Father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

These words are not addressed to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite 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 th ing. 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 mak ing Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves: for it cannot be. The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the rock, Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity.

I perceive that there is danger in approaching subjects which dwell o n the humanity o f the Son o f the infinite God. H e did humble Himself when He saw He was in fashion as a man, that He might understand the force of all temptations wherewith man is beset.

The first Adam fell: the second Adam held fast to God and His word under the most trying circumstances, and His faith in His Father's goodness, mercy, and love did not waver for one moment. "It is written" was His weapon of resistance, and it is the sword of the Spirit which every human being is to use. "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me "--nothing to respond to temptation. Not one occasion has been given in response to His manifold temptations. Not once did Christ step on Satan's ground, to give him any advantage. Satan found nothing in Him to encourage his advances.

As teachers we need t o understand that the object and teaching of our Lord was to simplify in all His instructions, the nature and the necessity of the moral excellence of character which God through His Son has made every provision that human agents should obtain, that they may be laborers together with Jesus Christ. This God requires, and to this end the ministers of the gospel should work, both in their education of the people, and in the ministry of the word.

There are many questions treated upon that are not necessary for the perfection of the faith. We have no time for their study. Many things are above finite comprehension. Truths are to be received not within the reach of our reason, and not for us to explain. Revelation presents them to us to be implicitly received as the words of an infinite God. While every ingenious inquirer is to search out the truth as it is in Jesus, there are things not yet simplified, statements that human minds cannot grasp and reason out, without being liable to make human calculations and explanations, which will not prove a savor of life unto life.

But every truth which is essential for us to bring into our practical life, which concerns the salvation of the soul, is made very clear and positive. The question asked Christ by the lawyer was turned over to himself to answer; for Christ knew that the law was understood by him. "He said unto him , What is written in the law? How readest thou?" To the lawyer's plain scriptural statements, Christ said, "Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." To his question, "Who is my neighbor," Christ answered by the parable of the good Samaritan.

Christ revealed to His hearers their deficiency in fulfilling the law of God. With them self-love was supreme. These same principles Christ had spoken to Moses from the pillar of cloud: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy might. Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and his testimonies and his statutes, which he hath commanded you. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us."

This corresponds with the instruction given to the multitude in answer to the lawyer's question, "What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" The same answer was given to the young ruler who asked a similar question, "Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And he said unto him, ... "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." By quoting the precepts of Jehovah He showed that He referred to the ten holy precepts.

The young man claimed to have kept all these, and asked, "What lack I yet?" Jesus then pointed him to duties he had not done, which the law of God plainly specified--to love God supremely, and his neighbor as himself. "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. " This man loved his possessions above God and His service and more than the souls of his fellow-men. Riches were his idol.

Then let none say that there are no conditions to salvation. There are decided conditions, and everyone is put to the strenuous task of diligently inquiring and searching for the truth from God's word. At the peril of our souls we must know the prescribed conditions given by Him who has given His own life to save us from ruin. We will certainly be lost if we float along with the current of the world, receiving the sayings of men. By our selfish love of ease and by our indolence we endanger our souls and the souls of others. We are to seek earnestly to know what saith the Lord.

Human assertions, even from priests and rulers, will not help rr.y case. I must know what conditions are imposed on me, that I may cooperate with God in the saving of my own soul. I cannot satisfy the claims of God upon me as His human agent, by meeting the ideas and opinions of even teachers of doctrines, unless they harmonize with the voice of God. "What saith the law? How readest thou?" is the question from the greatest of all teachers.

The popular opinion of what saith the Fathers will not help my case. My work is given me of God to know and understand His will for my own individual self. By thoughtful, prayerful study, I must seek to know for myself the true meaning of the Scriptures. We should thank God every day that we are not left to human traditions and man-made assertions. We cannot be safe in trusting to any other word except "It is written." We cannot float with the current; we cannot build our faith on any human theory, lest we come under condemnation as did the Jews. " Ye teach for doctrine the commandments of men , " said Christ t o them. And this statement is made decidedly plain to us in these last days.

In Sunday observance the commandments of men are made supreme. Human authority and church pretension are made as the word of God, to which all must bow. Should we do this, we would be laborers together with the man of sin, who thought to change times and laws, and who exalted himself above God and all that is written in the word of God.

All who would have the zeal of the living God, must be laborers together with God to make up the breach that has been made in the law of God by the man of sin, and to raise up the foundation of many generations. "Ye are laborers together with God." They will turn away their feet from trampling on the law of God, and by precept and example turn the feet of many others from the path of disobedience. They will keep the Sabbath from polluting it; they will call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable, and will honor Him, not doing their own ways, nor finding their own pleasure, nor speaking their own words. "Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."

We are living in a perilous time, and we need that grace that will make us valiant in fight, turning to flight the armies of the aliens. Dear Brother, you need more faith, more boldness and decision in your labors. You need more push and less timidity. You will ever meet with disappointment unless you move forward with determination. You must not fail nor be discouraged. You need in every place to study the situation. Read less, and do more actual service. Circulate round, and practice the truth you do know. Our warfare is aggressive. Your efforts are too tame; you need more force in your labors, else you will be disappointed in its results. There are times when you must make a charge against the enemy. You must study methods and ways to reach the people. Go right to them and talk with them. Study tact, how you can reach them: and be determined you will not fail nor be discouraged.

God help you to daily hang your helpless soul on Jesus Christ. Speak the truth in no hesitating, halting style; but speak it with boldness and assurance and with the spirit of the Holy Ghost resting upon you. Let the people understand that you have a message that means life, eternal life to them if they accept it. If any subject should enthuse the soul, it is the proclamation of the last message of mercy to a perishing world. But if they reject this message it will be to them a savor of death unto death. Therefore there is need to work diligently, lest your labors be in vain. Oh that you would realize this, and that you would urge the truth upon the conscience with the power of God. Give force to your words, and make the truth appear essential to their educated minds. Please make your labor a subject of earnest prayer, that it may be approved of God, and that you may be a successful worker in His vineyard.

Your ideas are altogether too narrow, too bound about; you need to widen and broaden. Do not educate your mind to see afar off, thus making the subjects on which you dwell not of enough consequence to engage immediate attention. C arry your hearers with you. You can change your manner of labor; you can put energy and deep interest into your subject. You can allow the Holy Spirit to work the man. You can bear responsibilities which you are inclined to neglect. ...

When a laborer is set in a certain portion of the Lord's vineyard, his work is given him as a faithful laborer together with God to work that vineyard. He is not to wait to be told at every point by human minds what he must do, but plan his work to labor wherever he is needed. God has given you brain power to use. The wants of the believers and the necessities of unbelievers are to be carefully studied and your labors are to meet their necessities. You are to inquire of God and not of any living man what you shall do. You are a servant of the living God, and not a servant of any man. You cannot do the work of God intelligently and be the shadow of another man's thoughts and directions. You are under God. ...

As the shepherd is to go after the lost sheep, he is not to have merely a casual interest, but an earnest travail for souls. This calls for most earnest heart searching, most earnest prayerful seeking for God, in order that we may know Him and the power of His grace. "That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us, through Christ Jesus."

Our religious history should not be tame and common place, but an experience marked by the grace and decided working of the power of God with our efforts. Please read Eph. 3:7-21. Read carefully and prayerfully; for this is for you, and for me, and for every minister in every Conference, whether they have or have not been formally ordained to the work.

Bear in mind that no living man can tell the precise work, or bound the work of a man who is in God's service. No one can prescribe the days, the weeks that one should remain in a certain locality before pushing on to another place. Circumstances must shape the labors of the minister of God, and if he seeks God, he will understand that his work embraces every part of the Lord's vineyard, both that which is nigh and that which is afar off. The laborer is not to confine his work to a specified measurement. He must have no circumscribed limits, but extend his labors wherever necessity demands. God is his co-laborer; he should seek wisdom and counsel of Him at every step, and not depe nd upon human counsel.

The work has been greatly hindered in many fields because the laborers ask counsel from those who are not working in the field, and who see not and fe el not the demand, and therefore cannot understand the situation as well as the one who is on the ground.

Your labors, Bro. Baker, need to be improved in order to be successful. ...

There is danger, great danger with all men of becoming selfdeceived. There are certain circumstances when Satan will cunningly and with artful talent, work to hinder the cause of God. Some influence not proceeding from the throne of God will introduce itself. Inborn and cultivated tendencies are fostered that Satan finds a chance to stir up and strengthen. If not discerned by the possessor these will lead to a development of weakness. When a man is not steadfastly following the Light of Life, he knoweth not at what he stumbleth.

Men must keep their own souls in the love of God, else they will fa il to teach others these precious lessons, and will prove their worthlessness and power to fo rm a character after the divine similitude. Great learning and talent will not make a man sufficient for a re sponsible position which will make him a wise master workman, unless he is proportionately balanced by a symmetrical character, and by making Jesus his heavenly guide, not trusting to his supposed smartness or his talents. Men should never exchange the heavenly Guide for an earthly guide , who is himself only a part of the great web of humanity , like unto themselve s, finite and fallible.

We often find in human character strong contrasts of light and darkness. The only safety for men and women to whom God has given reason, is to subdue an ambition that is earth-born, and they themselves feel the necessity like Mary, of choosing the better part, which shall never be taken from them; sitting at the feet of Jesus and learning of Him meekness and lowliness of heart; dying to self, that their life may be hid with Christ in God.

We all need and must have pure religion, not borrowed from another, but from Christ Je sus, the source of all heavenly grace. Then we are to honor God by looking to God, trusting in God, and keeping the truth in the heart pure and undefiled, having that fa ith that works by love and purifies the soul . The truth, when pract iced, is a guide. Christ is truth. We must yield to Him who alone is truth, and who alone can give to the troubled heart assurance and peace. To every one of the human fa mily, confident, boasting, or desponding, God the searcher of hearts declares, "I know thy works." God speaks. "Know him." There can be hyprocrisy on the one hand or deception on the other. God sees and knows.

My dear Bro. and Sr. Baker, whom I love in the Lord, the Lord will guide you if you will only trust in Him.

Released
Washington, D.C.
February 12, 1975

Note:

1. Letter 8, 1895--To W. L. H. Baker and wife.
Appendix B

An Analysis of the Baker Letter

What were the problems in the experience of Pastor w. L. H. Baker that called forth the letter of counsel from Ellen White?

In regard to the practical professional counsel that occupied the major portion of the letter, we need not speculate, because she wrote to Baker:

You were cast down and feeling discouraged ... You are considering your work as almost a failure ...

But Ellen White's interpreters apparently felt that her two and a half pages of Christological counsel to Baker did not include an adequate statement of the problem, so they ventured to supply one for her. In essence it would be:

You have been mistaken in believing that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man.

I am suggesting that this endeavor, however well meaning, was quite unnecessary. I find Ellen White's own statement of the problem abundantly clear and satisfactory. She wrote:

Let every human be warned away from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves.

Let us try to fully internalize this statement, taking care that no eisegesis (putting our meaning into the text) is mingled with our exegesis (getting the writer's meaning from the text.) These points would appear to be beyond question:

a. The message is intended as a warning.

b. The warning, although primarily addressed to Baker, is widened to include "every human being."

c. The subject matter of the warning is Christology, the doctrine of Christ.

d. The warning is not limited by its wording to either the human nature of Christ or the divine nature of Christ. The writer is speaking of Christ in His totality, the complete Christ, the entire Christ, the divine-human Saviour who is both God and man. This is made clear by the wording of the sentence itself, and by the context, in which care is urged lest we 

... lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity.

e. The specific content of the warning is that we be careful to not present Christ to the people as

1. Altogether human,

2. Such an one as ourselves.

This warning closely follows statements that Christ's birth was a miracle of God, and that the Bible description of Christ as the Son of God cannot be applied to any human being other than Christ.

Need we point out that there is no room for a divine nature in a Christ who is altogether human?

Need we point out that there is no room for a divine nature in a Christ who in His totality is such an one as ourselves?

Why do we have difficulty in recognizing that Ellen White's warning to Baker was to take care lest his strong emphasis on the humanity of Christ cause his hearers to lose sight of the equally important divinity of Christ, and to draw the conclusion that there could have been sin in the life of Christ? (Let us not forget that this warning is accompanied by not less than ten strong affirmations that Christ never sinned, not even once. See previous chapter.)

Is our hesitancy to accept the obvious meaning of the writer's warning because we cannot conceive of any Christian believing that there could have been sin in the life of Christ?

Actually there have been a great many Christians who have believed that there could have been sin in the life of Christ. They have been generally classified into two groups:

A. The so-called Modernists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (This term has largely fallen into disuse and has been replaced by the more general term Liberal.) They taught that scientific advances had made the Biblical record of the miraculous birth of Christ untenable, and saw Christ as simply a great and good man, not the Son of God. They would not hesitate to concede the possibility of sin in the life of Christ (unless they also denied the reality of sin, as some did.) These people were vigorously opposed by the Adventist leaders of their time as well as by other conservative Christians. They were seen as among the worst enemies of Christ and the gospel. It would be difficult to conceive of Baker being continued in the Adventist ministry if he had espoused the doctrines of the Modernists.

B. The Adoptionists of earlier church history. These were a significant body of Christians who believed that Christ began His earthly life as a being who was altogether human, such an one as ourselves, but who was eventually adopted to become the Son of God. They would not have been concerned about sin in the life of Christ during the period before His adoption. Their opinions are found in the writings of the church Fathers, about which Ellen White cautioned Baker.

My analysis of the Baker letter, presented in the next few pages, has led me to the conclusion that Adoptionism was the error against which Ellen White was warning Baker. It appears to me that the construction placed upon this letter by Ellen White's interpreters is entirely artificial and alien, a construction which can only be made by ignoring Ellen White's own clear statement of the problem.

* * *

It is common knowledge that the pioneers of the Adventist church came from a wide variety of religious and theological backgrounds, and that after the great disappointment of 1844 they devoted much time and study to the development of a platform of Bible truth upon which they could unite . In their early Bible conferences they reached a common understanding of the nature of God, the nature of man, the Sabbath, justification by faith, etc. They did not, however, successfully resolve all of their different understandings of the nature of Christ.

Arianism

As late as the turn of the century there were still a few voices among us which were advocating in various ways limited views of the divinity of Christ.[l] These views, generally speaking, fell within the category of what theologians have called Arianism, after a certain Arius who strongly advocated similar opinions in the great Christological controversies of the fourth century.[2]

According to Arius, and those who followed his thinking, Christ had not co-existed with the Father throughout all eternity, but had been created by the Father at some point in time before the history of the world. Christ was seen as the greatest and highest of God's created beings. Thus He was not "Very God of Very God, " but a lower and lesser form of deity.

Ellen White did not use the technical term Arianism, but she did testify to the eternal deity of Christ in her great The Desire of Ages in such a way that the specific Christological errors of Arianism were unmistakably refuted.[3] Thus:

From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father. ... (page 19)

The name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence, had been claimed as His own by this Galilean Rabbi. He had announced Himself to be the self-existent one. ... (page 469)

In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. (page 530)

In the light of this clear testimony the Arian Christological errors gradually faded away, and it is doubtful that there are any Seventh-day Adventist Bible students who now believe that Christ was a created being.

Adoptionism

In like manner, without identifying the Christological error by its specific technical name, Ellen White found occasion to refute the principles of Adoptionism. This was a view that Christ was not the Son of God at birth, nor during the first phase of His earthly life, but became the Son of God by adoption. This idea was taught in Rome during the years 189-199 by a leather merchant from Byzantium named Theodotus:[4] It was developed and amplified by Paul of Samosata who served as bishop of Antioch from 260 to 269. Because of Paul's strong influence, the opinion became quite popular in the eastern churches and in the Armenian churches, where it was held for centuries.[5] In the eighth century it was advocated among the we stern churches by Elipandus of Spain.[6]

Although there were nuances of difference in the views of individual Adoptionists, there were three basic opinions that were generally shared. Ellen White's response to and refutation of these opinions is found not only in The Desire of Ages but also in a personal testimony to W. L. H. Baker, a pastor who was laboring in the Tasmanian district while Ellen White was living in Australia and working on the manuscript for The Desire of Ages.[7]

In this interesting letter we find ( 1 ) a warning to Pastor B aker about spending too much time in reading, (2) a caution against accepting the traditions of the Fathers (a term which when capitalized as in the letter, is understood to refer to the church Fathers) and (3) a warning about teaching speculative theories that would not be of benefit to the church members. She also presents a specific, point-by-point refutation of the errors of Adoptionism.

1 - Adoptionist view: Jesus was not the Son of God at birth. He was born of a woman as all men are. Though He may have been born of a virgin, this fact would have had no theological significance. He was born as a son of man, not as the Son of God.

Ellen White wrote to Baker:

But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God ... His birth was a miracle of God; for, said the angel, "Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

These words do not refer to any human being, except to the Son of the Infinite God. Letter 68, 1895.

2 - Adoptionist view: Jesus was not the Son of God during the first phase of His earthly existence. He was a normal human being with exalted concepts of purity and holiness, toward which He strove heroically, but He was in no sense divine. During this phase of His existence, since He was altogether and exclusively human, He would have had the same propensities of sin, and taints of corruption, that all humans have. He could have even been overcome by temptation and actually sinned. None of these things, in view of His continuing heroic struggle to achieve holiness, would have disqualified Him to become the adopted Son of God at the climax of His spiritual progress. Paul of Samosata expressed it like this:

Mary did not bring forth the Word, for Mary was not before the ages. But she brought forth a man on a level with ourselves.[8] 

Ellen White wrote to Baker:

... let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.

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.

Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin.

He could have sinned, He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. (Ibid.)

This interesting expression, "not for one moment" would seem to indicate that Ellen White was recoiling in horror from the above stated view of the Adoptionists. Perhaps they could contemplate with equanimity the possibility of evil propensities, corruption, or even sin in Christ's early life, but she could not. This appears to be her chief concern in the letter to Pastor Baker. In it she affirms repeatedly that Christ did not sin, mentioning it a total of ten times, and carefully ruling out the possibility of even a single yielding to temptation on His part.

On not one occasion was there a response to his (Satan's) manifold temptations. (Ibid.)

3 - Adoptionist view: As a result of His heroic struggles to achieve holiness, Jesus was eventually adopted to be the Son of God. There were different opinions as to when this happened. Some saw it as a gradual process, others felt that it happened at the baptism of Jesus, and still others at His resurrection. Mter His adoption, humanity was blended with divinity.

Ellen White wrote to Baker:

The exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. (Ibid.)

In addition to this precise and specific rejection of the errors of Adoptionism in her letter to Pastor Baker, Ellen White expanded on the themes of the divinity and pre-existence of Christ as well as His complete sinlessness throughout His entire life in The Desire of Ages.

Some have studied the letter from Ellen White to Pastor Baker, and, perhaps because of a lack of familiarity with the specific Christological errors of Adoptionism that she was so forcefully rejecting, have had difficulty with the expression

... not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.

Some have seen in this an evidence that she believed that Christ assumed in His incarnation the nature of Adam before his fall. Others, comparing it with her comments on that subject in The Desire of Ages, have drawn the unfortunate conclusion that she talked on both sides of that particular question. Neither conclusion is required by the evidence. Once it is recognized that the Baker letter is a point-by-point refutation of Adoption ism, which Pastor Baker had apparently become involved in through his reading of the church Fathers, her line of reasoning in that letter becomes crystal clear. And we are certainly not required to use a fragment from a personal letter to a Tasmanian pastor to offset her statements about the human nature of Christ as found in The Des ire of Ages, which is clearly her conscious and deliberate Christological position paper addressed to the whole world. To do this would be questionable hermeneutics, to say the least.

As to the human nature of Christ, Ellen White, consciously departing from Reformation Christology, takes the same position that the Swiss theologian Karl Barth does, and for the same reason. Compare:

Karl Barth:

Flesh (which the Word became) is the concrete form of human nature marked by Adam's fall. ...

But there must be no weakening or obscuring of the saving truth that the nature which God assumed in C hrist is identical with our nature as we see it in the light of the fall. If it were otherwise, how could Christ be really like us? What concern would we have with Him?

... Jesus did not run away from the state and situation of fallen man, but He took it upon Himself, lived it and bore it Himself as the Eternal Son of God.[9]

Ellen White:

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.[10]

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.[11]

In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin.[12]

It is this writer's conclusion that a careful use of correct hermeneutical principles would make it impossible to use the B aker letter to offset the book The Desire of Ages. A comparison of the human nature of Christ with the nature of Adam before the fall as distinct from the nature of man after the fall simply was not the purpose of the writer. She was apparently responding to the needs of an entirely different problem, Pastor Baker's unfortunate involvement with the Christological errors of Adoptionism.

And the evidence certainly does not require that we accuse Ellen White of talking on both sides of the question about the human nature of Christ. When proper hermeneutical principles are applied, her writings on that subject are clear, consistent, and unequivocal. Any and all attempts to draw a line of demarcation between Christ's human nature and our human nature must be shattered by this simple yet profoundly meaningful statement:

Just that which you may be He was in human nature.[13]

Notes:

1. LeRoy Edwin Froom, Movement of Destiny (Washington, D.C., 1971), pp. 148-166.
2. Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, 1953), Vol. 3, pp. 618-621.
3. Ellen White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, 1940).
4. Phillip Carrington, The Early Christian Church (Cambridge, 1957), Vol. 2, p. 415.
5. Albert Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History (Philadelphia, 1933), Vol. 2, pp. 379-380.
6. H. R. Mackintosh, The Person of Jesus Christ (New York, 1962), p. 223 ff.
7. Ellen G. White, Letter No. 8, 1895, unpublished. Heritage Room of Loma Linda University Library, Loma Linda, California. A portion appears in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D. C., 1953), Vol. 5, pp. 1128-1129.
8. Newman, op. cit. , Vol. K, p. 199.
9. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. 151-158.
10. White , op. cit., p. 49.
11. White, Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.
12. White, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, D.C.), Vol. 5, p. 1131.
13. White, Letter No. 106, 1896.
Appendix C

Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin

Since it is common knowledge that Augustine's doctrine of original sin is now being recommended for addition to the theology of the Seventhday Adventist church, it would appear that a careful examination of that doctrine should be undertaken by all who share a concern for the purity of the Adventist faith. Major changes in our theology would be required by the addition of the doctrine of original sin because the nature of God, the nature of the incarnate Christ, the nature of man and the nature of salvation itself are all involved in the Augustinian doctrine.

Significant changes would be required in the cherished doctrine of righteousness by faith. The student may easily verify the close relationship between the concepts of original sin and the doctrine of righteousness by faith by asking advocates of the so-called "new theology" two questions:

1: Why do you believe that it is impossible for Christians to stop sinning, even through the power of Christ?

2: Why do you believe the incarnate Christ had to take the nature of the unfallen Adam rather than a nature like ours?

The same answer will be given to both questions: Because of original sin. Since the corruption of original sin remains in all believers until they die, it is impossible for them to ever stop sinning, even through the power of Christ. And since the inherited guilt of original sin would have disqualified Christ from becoming the Saviour of the world, He had to be protected from original sin by assuming the nature of the unfallen Adam.

So the basic issue in the present discussion is not the doctrine of righteousness by faith; it is the doctrine of original sin. Before making their decision whether to add the doctrine of original sin t o the theology of the Seventh-day Adventist church, careful students of the subject will wish to examine that doctrine in its historical context. Somewhat abbreviated summaries of the various debates over the doctrine may be found in standard textbooks of systematic theology, such as those prepared by Berkhof, Shedd, Strong, and others.[1] For more expanded reviews I would suggest the following:

The Doctrine of Sin, R. S. Moxon; George H. Doran Co., New York, 1922. The opinions of the principal opponents in the discussion from Augustine's time until the present are simply and clearly stated.

The Ideas Of The Fall And Of Original Sin, N. P. Williams; Longman's, New York, 1927. Similar to the above, but with more detail concerning the various opinions.

Original Sin, Henri Rondet; Alba House, New York, 1972. The same material viewed from the perspective of a Roman Catholic writer.

A Guide To The Thought Of St. A ugustine, Eugene Portalie; Henry Regnery Co. , Chicago, 1960. A strongly interpretive work by a Jesuit writer.

Changing Conceptions Of Original Sin, H. Shelton Smith; Scribners, New York, 1960. A detailed discussion of the debates over original sin between theologians on the American continent.

These are adequate to give the student a general understanding of the nature of the debate and the positions of the various Catholic and Protestant theologians who have struggled with Augustine's doctrine through the centuries.

Aurelius Augustine (354-450) was born in Tagaste, North Mrica, to a pagan father and a Christian mother. A brilliant student, he excelled in philosophy and rhetoric, and eventually served as a professor of rhetoric in Tagaste, Carthage, Rome, and Milan. Under the influence of Ambrose of Milan he became a Christian and then a priest, and finally the bishop of Hippo in North Mrica. His philosophical and rhetorical skills made him the dialectical giant of the church fathers.[2]

He had a highly passionate nature, and as a student in Carthage gave himself up enthusiastically to the practise of the pagan vices that abounded there. ttl was ashamed to be shameless," he later wrote of these years.[3] He took a concubine, who bore him two sons, and lived with her for fifteen years, then put her away as he began to move toward the church.[4] He found himself unable to control his feelings, however, so he took a second concubine and lived with her during the two years that he was listening to the preaching of Ambrose in Milan.[5] Finally becoming convinced that it was his Christian duty, he put this second concubine away and committed himself to the lifelong tensions and frustrations of priestly celibacy.

Given these conditions, we are not altogether surprised to learn that he soon announced to the world a profound theological discovery, that there is in man an ineradicable evil that makes it utterly impossible for him to live without sinning, even through the power of Christ, and that this ineradicable evil is--have you guessed it?--concupiscence, sexual desire. He eventually extended the term to include most of man's other spiritual problems, but concupiscence was always at the heart of them.

... Augustine seems obsessed with the ravages which unbridled sexuality produces in human beings. ...[6]

The worst feature of Augustianism is the continual and undue attention it has drawn to the sphere of sex.[7]

He became convinced that all sexual desire is sinful, even within marriage, and that the ideal for both single and married persons was total abstinence from sexual expression. The very act of procreating a child was necessarily sinful, he taught.

Since he now believed that man's hope for salvation must somehow overcome the handicap of a character that could not be free from sinning, he found it necessary to establish some ground for hope. He finally discovered what he was seeking in the idea of predestination, the " sovereign decrees" of God. If God had by His irresistible decree foreordained your salvation before the world began, then you need not worry about deficiencies in your character. You would be saved anyway, through the grace of justification, simply because God had predestined you to be among His elect. Nothing that you could or could not do would have any effect on the final result--your salvation was assured, irrespective of your life and character. In this highly artificial theological device Augustine found rest for his tormented spirit.[8]

We are moved to wonder at this point what the world might have been spared in terms of endless theological debate if this highly passionate and desperately frustrated man had understood it to be God's will for him to have a wife, a home, and a family, so that his natural feelings might have been properly expressed. But unfortunately for the world, Augustine conceived it to be God's will for him to be a celibate priest, and the consequences of that committment to a life for which he obviously was not qualified by the gift of continence were to be written h ugely in the pages of church history, for he was without question the greatest dialectician of his time.

Neither of the two companion doctrines, predestination and original sin, was fully originated by Augustine. Catholic writers tend to see more of the " germ" of these ideas in the writings of the earlier church fathers than Protestants do, but it is generally agreed that he was the first to develop the doctrines and their implications into a system,[9] which included the following points:

1 . God imputes guilt for the sin of Adam to every human being born upon this earth in addition to their inherited moral weakness.

2. The guilt of original sin is terminated at baptism, but the moral weakness continues throughout life.

3. Because of this continuing moral weakness of original sin, it is not possible for Christians to stop sinning, even through the power of Christ.

4. Since God imputes the guilt of Adam's sin to all infants, and this guilt is terminated only at baptism, it follows that all infants who die before being baptized are lost and condemned to the never ending tortures of hell fire. This horrifying dogma was a problem even to its author. Augustine tried during one period to soften its shocking impact by proposing that the punishment of infants might be less severe than that of adults. He appealed desperately but fruitlessly to Jerome for help in solving the problem. But in the end he returned with fanatical determination to the logical consequences of his theological presuppositions, that unbaptized infants will fully experience the torturing fires of hell throughout all eternity.[10]

5 . Because the guilt of original sin is terminated only at baptism, it follows that all unbaptized heathen are lost and condemned to the eternal flames.

6. In obvious self-contradiction Augustine maintained that God's sovereign will expressed i n His decrees of predestination is absolutely irresistible by the will of man, yet the will of man remains totally free. As Williams has remarked, in this teaching Augustine was clearly trying to run with the hare while at the same time chasing with the hounds.[11]

Augustine was soon challenged by Pelagius, a British monk who had moved to Rome, and who was temperamentally the opposite of Augustine. For him Christian living was apparently easy, and he was baftled by Augustine's pressing need of an accommodation with sin, which accommodation he felt was neither necessary nor scriptural . Unfortunately he over-reacted and went to the extreme of denying that either guilt or weakness descended from Adam to his descendants.[12] As he saw it, every child born upon the earth has the same start that Adam had.

(The student should remember, however, that we have very little material from the pen of Pelagius himself. Most of our understanding of his views is gained by studying the challenges to those views written by his opponents, always a somewhat precarious procedure.)

Thus the battle lines were drawn, and in succeeding ages there would be a tendency to identify all views on the subject in terms of their relation to the early views of Augustine on the one side or Pelagius on the other, calling them Augustinian, Pelagian, Semi-Augustinian or Semi-Pelagian. For purposes of classification historians have generally referred to the position of the Eastern church as Pelagian, the position of the medieval Western church as Semi-Pelagian (or Semi-Augustinian), and the Reformation churches of Calvin and Luther as truly Augustinian.

There had been a gradual retreat from the extreme views of Augustine in the Western church as they were modified to various degrees by John Cassian of Gaul (360-395), Peter Abelard (1079-1142), Thomas Aquinas (1224- 1274), Duns Scotas (1266-1308), and finally the all important Council of Trent (1545-1563).

Semi-Pelagian views were thus definitely adopted and stated in exact form by the Council of Trent, and they held full sway until the Reformation, when the Protestants revived the Augustinian anthropology and reinstated Augustinianism in the churches of the west.[13]

These " Semi-Pelagian" views consisted of such changes as more emphasis on the freedom of man's will, a modification of the tortures of infants, and a tendency to define original sin more in terms of weakness than in terms of guilt.

It is generally agreed that Calvin and Luther elevated the doctrines of Augustine to a height far above their place in the Catholic theology of Reformation times.

Calvin was essentially Augustinian. ... [14]

Speaking generally, the Reformers were in agreement with Augustine.[15]

The Reformers fall back on Augustine's theory.[16]

... in the Reformed section (Augustinian influence) rushes steeply and suddenly upwards, like the edge of Matterhorn's silhouette ... [17]

But the Reformers' grim emphasis upon the extreme views of Augustine brought about a reaction among Protestants, as it had earlier among Catholics. Zwingli of Switzerland (1484-1531) refused to endorse Augustine's doctrine of predestination, and defined the doctrine of original sin more in terms of weakness than of guilt. Arminius of Holland (1560-1609) followed the example of Zwingli, as did the great John Wesley of England (1703-1769). Until about 1750 the stern Puritans of New England held to strict Calvinistic (Augustinian) views regarding the inherited guilt of original sin, but reactions against it eventually launched a prolonged controversy that lasted over a hundred years in the Calvinistic Congregational, Reformed, and Presbyterian churches of America.[18]

So through the centuries since Augustine launched his doctrine a vast repository of literature has been accumulated in the recording of the conflicting views of its defenders on the one side and its opponents on the other. It has been without question one of the most intensely debated issues in the history of Christianity. The student will find it instructive to spend a few hours examining this material.

Certain general observations are possible. First, due to the paucity of scriptural evidence on the subject of original sin, the arguments tend to be philosophical rather than scriptural, consisting of page after page of desperately labored human reasoning which makes rather tedious reading. Second, the awareness of enormous problems pervades this literature, much of which is devoted to elaborate explanations intended to defend the character of God against the implications of injustice and cruelty. It is apparent that these explanations have taxed the ingenuity of their authors to the utmost.

Third, the dissatisfaction of each group of theorists with arguments advanced by other followers of Augustine is likely to remind the Seventhday Adventist of the confusion and disagreement which exists among the defenders of Sunday worship. Some of the arguments advanced are simply incredible and speak eloquently of the desperate plight of their authors.

The problems facing those who wish to support Augustine are indeed formidable. How can men be involved in the wrong-doing of a man who died thousands of years before they were born? How can a just God impute the guilt of an adult to an innocent infant? How can a just God consign that infant to the agonies of a fire that will never stop burning? And if men acquire guilt simply by being born into the human race, what happens when that guilt rests upon Jesus at His birth?

Regarding our involvement in Adam's sin, pros have argued that we were all present in Adam's body when he sinned, to which cons have replied that if this were true we would inherit the sins of all of our ancestors, and not only Adam's, since we were equally present in all of their bodies.

Pros have argued that Adam had a covenant with God which involved us, and that he broke it, thus implicating us. Cons have replied that scripture knows nothing of such a covenant, and there can be no covenant without agreement, which we neither entered into nor authorized Adam to negotiate for us.

Pros have argued that Adam represented us as our head or ruler. Cons have replied that subjects of a ruler are not responsible for his personal crimes, and in any case Adam ceased to be ruler long before we were born.

Pros, including some in our own church, are arguing that men are born into a state or condition (as yet undefined) that causes them to receive something that is equivalent to guilt without inheriting it. A systematic statement of this argument would be:

Because of the sin of Adam, all men are born into (but do not inherit) a state or condition (undefined) which causes them to fall under the judgment and condemnation of God (but it is not guilt).

To this marvelous arrangement I can only respond that the disposition to run with the hare while at the same time chasing with the hounds did not die with Augustine. To be born into something is to inherit it, and that which places men under the judgment and condemnation of God is guilt, word-games notwithstanding.

In response to the many horrified protests that the doctrine of original sin is a blasphemous indictment of the character of God, the pathetic rejoinder has often been made that what is unjust for men may be just for God, so we should not expect God to abide by principles of justice as understood by men. But has not God invited us to evaluate His justice?[19] Calvin and Luther both sought refuge in the plea that it is not proper for created beings to ask any questions about the justice of their Creator.

And in order to keep Christ, the child of Mary , from being contaminated by original sin, two ingenius schemes have been devised. Catholic theologians proclaimed a doctrine of immaculate conception which called for a special miracle that kept Mary free from original sin, so that she would not pass it on to Christ. Protestants, not to be outdone, invented a slightly different doctrine of immaculate conception which called for a special miracle that made it possible for Christ to be born as the son of Mary, yet not inherit her human nature but rather the nature of Adam before the fall.

Demurrers have pointed out that both of these schemes are extra-Biblical , since scripture knows nothing of either miracle, and the humanity of Christ, the hope of our salvation, is effectively destroyed by either of them. It was primarily for this reason that our pioneers firmly rejected the doctrine that Christ came to earth in the nature of the unfallen Adam. They spared us involvement in this enormous controversy by following Wesley, Arminius, and Zwingli rather than Calvin, Luther, and Augustine.

They observed that the scriptures advanced in support of the doctrine of original sin do not bear up well under investigation. Exhibit A has been Romans 5:12:

Wherefore, a s by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men. ...

Let us observe that at this point we have a statement of fact with no explanation offered. The explanation comes in the next clause:

... for that all have sinned.

"For that" means because. The verse does not say because all have inherited guilt from Adam. It says because all have sinned. They therefore have guilt of their own and have no need to borrow any from Adam. Consider also 1 Corinthians 15:22:

For as in Adam all die, in Christ shall all b e made alive.

Proponents of the doctrine of original sin are required to break up the natural parallelism between in Adam and in Christ and give these two phrases altogether different meaning. In Adam is taken to mean an organic relationship of nature which man has of necessity and about which he has no choice at all. But the phrase in Christ, instead of being ascribed a similar meaning as natural parallelism would require, is given an altogether different meaning. We all know that we are not in Christ by a natural or organic relationship without any choice or decision of our own. We are in Christ because we have deliberately chosen to follow Him and make Him our leader, model, and guide. This is the only thing that in Christ can mean.

Surely it is an unwarranted wresting of scripture that takes two phrases that are set up by a writer in a parallel construction and gives them altogether different meanings. The purpose of the writer is best preserved when both phrases are read alike. In Christ means to follow and imitate Christ. In Adam means to follow and imitate Adam. There is no reason to say that in Adam means a natural unchosen relationship and in Christ means the opposite. And finally, consider Psalms 51:5:

Behold I was shapen i n iniquity, and in sin did m y mother conceive me.

Augustine seized upon this as evidence that the very act of procreating a child is sinful, but Paul writes in Hebrews 13:4:

Marriage is honorable in all , and the bed undefiled.

And if we take Psalms 51:5 as a statement of original sin, this contradicts David's words in Psalms 71:5-6:

For thou art my hope, 0 Lord God, thou art my trust from my youth. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art He that took me out of my mother's bowels. ...

An Exegetical Exercise on Psalms 51:5

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Question

Answer by Exegesis
(Getting meaning out of text)

Answer by Eisegesis
(Putting meaning into text)
 
1. Who is speaking?
1. David.
1. All men.

2. Who is he talking about?
2. His mother and himself.
2. All mothers and all men.

3. What act is he talking about?
3. His own conception.
3. The conception of all men.

4. What does he say about it?
4. It was done in sin.
4. It is always done in sin.

5. Whose sin was it?
5. His mother's.
5. All mothers.

6. What was its nature?
6. We are not told.
6. Original sin and guilt.

7. What are the possibilities?
7. Adultery, concubinage, an evil mother, the condition of the race.
7. Original sin and guilt.

8. Who was his mother?
8. We are not told.
8. The wife of Jesse.

9. Was she Jesse's lawful wife?
9. We are not told.
9. Yes, she was.

10. Was she a concubine?
10. We are not told.
10. No, she was not.

11. Was she an adulteress?
11. We are not told.
11. No, she was not.

12. Was her union with Jesse lawful?
12. We are not told.
12. Yes, it was.

13. What can we conclude?
13. Any of #7 would be possible.
13. This proves the doctrine of original sin and guilt.

14. How does exegesis compare with eisegesis?
14. Every statement above is a fact.
14. Every statement above is an assumption.

So the conclusion that Psalms 51:5 proves the doctrine of original sin and guilt is based on thirteen assumptions, and not a single fact.

And in any case, as has been pointed out, if David were speaking of a personal sin, it was his mother's, not his. So we had best see this verse as a more poetic way of expressing Paul's thought that all have sinned. Then we force no contradictions on scripture.

The student who has studied Hebrew will wish to examine the words "in sin" in the Hebrew text and in various lexicons. It will be observed that the preposition " in" is translated from a Hebrew prefix consisting of one letter and a subscript, and that it is used in a great variety of prepositional arrangements. The meaning can be in, on, among, or even without, depending on the context. Some lexicons list eight different translations of the word (prefix). It is apparent that such a word provides a less than adequate base on which to build a major theological doctrine, such as the doctrine of Original Sin.

I have not been able to find any use of the term original sin in reference to guilt or weakness imputed to us for the sin of Adam in the writings of Ellen White, but I do find clear evidence that she was familiar with the concept and the uses made of it:

There are many who in their hearts murmur against God. They say, "We inherit the fallen nature of Adam, and are not responsible for our natural imperfections." They find fault with God's requirements, and complain that He demands what they have no power to give. Satan made the same complaint in heaven, but such thoughts dishonor God.[20]

One of the major emphases in Ellen White's writings is her understanding that the claim that God's law could not be obeyed by His creatures was Satan's first, greatest, and most persistent attack against the character of God. The student will find references to it in DA 29, DA 69, DA 117, DA 308-9, DA 311-13, DA 618, ST 1/16/96, and ST 7/23/02, to mention only a few. Her own response to this claim is best given in her own words:

Therefore he (Satan) is constantly seeking to deceive the followers of Christ with his Fatal Sophistry that it is impossible for them to overcome.[21]

Let no one say, I cannot remedy my defects of character. If you come to this decision, you will certainly fail of obtaining everlasting life.[22]

Seventh-day Adventists, therefore, have historically preached a doctrine of inherited weakness, but not a doctrine of inherited guilt. As we consider this subject, we will do well to remember that theological systems may be compared to a chain-mesh, that is, a net formed of metal chain links that connect with other links around them. Few doctrines exist in isolation with no connection with other doctrines.

Thus, those who accept the doctrine of original sin defined as inherited guilt are required to develop some sort of immaculate conception doctrine in order to keep that guilt from reaching Jesus. Having done this, they are required to define Christ's role as our example in harmony with this separation of His experience from ours, which leads to the conclusion that we cannot overcome temptation as He did. This in turn leads to the conclusion that man is saved by justification only, since it is not possible for him to stop sinning. And this leads to a doctrine of salvation by manipulation, whereby God will perform a mechanical adjustment to man's brain in order to eliminate sin from his experience when He takes man into the heavenly kingdom.

All of this is contrary to the platform of truth developed by our pioneers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and is foreign to Seventh-day Adventist theology.

In concluding this section, may we offer a few thoughts regarding the subject of guilt for the student to consider:

At the beginning of the history of sin in human experience, we see a woman looking at a forbidden fruit, taking it into her hand, and eating it. Which, may we ask, was most guilty--the eye for looking, the hand for taking, or the mouth for eating the fruit?

We pose the question only to demonstrate its lack of appeal to the reason. No intelligent person would assign any of the burden of guilt to the eye, the hand, or the mouth of Eve. These fleshly instruments were all under the control of Eve's will, and could not do other than obey. The option of making other choices was not theirs; indeed, they possessed no equipment for the making of choices. The choice and the decision were acts of Eve's w ill, and her will must therefore carry the burden of responsibility, the guilt.

There was never any guilt in the flesh of Eve.

The human will, that had set itself in opposition to the will of its Creator-God, was guilty . Ellen White, with characteristic perception, writes:

... the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the will of God.[23]

If the flesh cannot act contrary to the will of God, then it is certain that the flesh cannot be guilty.

In the next scene of this cosmic tragedy we see Adam looking at the fruit, taking it, and eating it. Shall we ascribe guilt to the eye, the hand, the mouth, or any other part of the flesh of Adam, such as the genes or chromosomes?

The answer can only be, No. It was the will of Adam that sinned, and it is the will of Adam that must carry the burden of responsibility, the guilt.

There was never any guilt in the flesh of Adam.

The flesh of my stomach desires food. The moral distinction between eating the food in my neighbor's lunch and eating the food in my own lunch is not meaningful to my flesh. The will must direct the flesh to not eat my neighbor's lunch and to be content with my own. With every need, appetite, or desire of the flesh the same principle holds. All voluntary actions of the flesh are controlled by the choices and decisions of the will. All involuntary actions are controlled by mechanical relationships. The flesh makes no choices and no decisions, either in voluntary or involuntary actions, hence has no responsibility, and no guilt.

There is never any guilt in the flesh of any human being. How unprofitable, then, to endeavor to discover by what means guilt is transferred from flesh to flesh; from the flesh of Adam to the flesh of his descendants, or from the flesh of any parent to the flesh of any child.

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. (Ezekiel 18:20)

Flesh cannot transmit to flesh that which flesh does not and cannot possess.

What, then, of the will? Is it not also flesh?

Apparently not.

This is one of the major mysteries of human existe nce . The flesh (of the brain) produces the wi ll, and then the will apparently stands apart fr om and controls the flesh, even including the flesh of the brain.

Inspiration has not revealed to us how this can be, and scientific investigation has not yet been able to explain it. Yet is is clearly and demonstrably true.

That the flesh of the brain produces the will we cannot doubt. Many examples have proven that damage to the flesh of the brain can impair, or even destroy, the function of the will. These examples would also indicate that the tlproduction" of the will by the flesh of the brain is a continous process. The will does not outlast the brain, or survive the destruction of the brain. So the brain continuously produces the will, which in turn continuously controls (or should control) the brain.

This, again is observable in our own experience, and in the experiences of all around us. Thought control is to some extent practiced by everyone. And in every experience wherein the will instructs the brain to start thinking along a certain line, or to stop thinking along a certain line, or to accept certain ideas, or to reject and dismiss them, we see that mysterious phenomenon, the will giving instruction to the flesh of the brain which is producing it.

I decided to stop thinking about that.

That simple and often heard statement reflects one of the major mysteries of human existence, the control of the flesh of the brain by the will that is itself produced by the flesh of the brain.

No, the will is not flesh. To define the will in terms of its essence or nature does not seem to be possible at the present time, but to define it in terms of its function is both possible and instructive. This is Ellen White's approach to the subject. She tells us what the will is by telling us what it does.

The will is the governing power in the nature of man, bringing all the other faculties under its sway. ... It is the deciding power. ...[24]

... it is the choice ... the Kingly power. ...[25]

Logically and consistently, therefore, Ellen White assigns the responsibility for sinning exclusively to the will.

But while Satan can solict, he cannot compel to sin ... the tempter can never compel us to do evil. ... The will must consent. ...[26]

The flesh of man, then, has never known guilt, has never carried guilt, and can never transmit guilt from flesh to flesh. The transmission of guilt has always been and must always be from will to will, and only by the consent to sin of the receiving will.

Which leads us, at length, to a definition: What, precisely, is guilt?

I am proposing that the most useful and defensible definition is this:

Guilt is an assignment of responsibility by the will of a law-maker to the will of a law-breaker.

This definition carefully avoids ascribing to guilt any mechanical, organic, or intrinsically legal qualities, for these reasons.

1. Those who would ascribe to guilt mechanical or organic qualities, which would make it possible for the guilt to reside in the flesh and be transmitted from flesh to flesh by biological inheritance, must struggle to answer the questions about the transmission of guilt to innocent infants, the transmission of guilt to the infant Jesus, etc., that have been examined earlier in this book, and the larger question lying behind them: If that is the way it is, who made it that way? Thus the responsibility inevitably goes back to God.

2. Those who seek to avoid these difficulties by discussing the problem in quasi-legal terms (some even avoid using the word guilt, but refer to a state or condition that produces the same result) fail to deal adequately with the larger underlying question, If that is man's state or condition, who made it that way? Who established those conditions? Again the responsibility inevitably goes back to God.

The problem shared by both groups is that their concept of guilt and its transmission contains so many gross inequities, even cruelties, that it simply will not do to let the responsibility for it go back to God. Yet until now no effective way has been found to prevent this result.

Why not lay aside these futile endeavors to prevent responsibility for a cruel and unjust concept of guilt being traced back to the Creator of the universe, and rather resolve the problem by accepting a concept of guilt in which there are no cruelties or inequities? We will then have no need to endeavor to deny reality by pretending that God is not responsible for the assignment of guilt to His created beings.

If the will of man is in control of all his other faculties, and if Satan cannot compel that will to sin, it follows that sinning is always a free choice or decision of a free will, which may be expressed by either an inward attitude or by an outward act, or by both.

There can never, then, be anything unjust or cruel in holding the free will of man responsible for its choices and decisions, particularly if hwnan inabilities to perform the good that is willed are matched or exceeded by the enabling grace of God.

As we reflect about the nature of guilt, let us keep in mind these basic scriptural truths:

1. Sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

2. Where there is no law, there is no sin. (Romans 4:15)

3. The times of this ignorance God winked at. (Acts 17:31)

Thus guilt is not automatically incurred by a violation of God's law. There can be wrong-doing without guilt, if the act is ignorant rather than willful. The deciding factor is the attitude of the will of the law breaker. Did he will to violate the law of his Creator God? Or did he violate an unknown or misunderstood precept of God's law while willing to serve and obey God? The Creator-God takes into account these extenuating circumstances in deciding whether or not to assign guilt.

And it is the will of the law-maker, the Creator-God, that decides whether to hold the will of the law-breaker responsible, i. e., guilty. Remove from this equation either the decision of the law-breaker's will to sin or the decision of the law-maker's will to assign responsibility for sinning, and guilt cannot exist. The action of both wills must be present.

This definition of guilt, then, would seem to be accurate, fair, and reasonable:

Guilt is an assignment of responsibility by the will of a law maker to the will of a law-breaker.

With this definition of guilt there is no need for elaborate defences of the character of God. We need not struggle to explain how a God of love and justice can hold babies responsible for the sin of someone who died long before they were born, and punish them for the sin that they did not commit. There is no need to explain God's condemnation and destruction of persons in heathen lands who followed all the moral light that shone upon their pathways. And there is no need to construct elaborate schemes for the purpose of keeping the guilt of Adam from resting upon the infant Jesus.

There can be no sin without an act of the will of the law-breaker. There can be no guilt without an act of the will of the law-maker. When Ellen White makes reference to a reception of guilt, or an inheritance of guilt from Adam, she does not leave the will-factor out of the picture.

It is inevitable that children should suffer from the consequences of parental wrongdoing, but they are not punished for the parents' guilt, except as they participate in their sins. It is usually the case, however, that children walk in the steps of their parents. By inheritance and example the sons become partakers of the father's sin. Wrong tendencies, perverted appetites, and debased morals, as well as physical disease and degeneracy, are transmitted as a legacy from father to son, to the third and fourth generation. This fearful truth should have a solemn power to restrain men from following a course of sin.[27]

These dear children received from Adam an inheritance of disobedience, of guilt, and death.[28]

Ellen White wrote in careful conformity to dictionary definitions, and according to the dictionaries an inheritance is something that can be retained, rejected, divided, bought, sold, or lost, according to the choices of the recipient's will. Calvinistic concepts of inherited guilt as something that no human can avoid or escape would need to be described as a biological, or flesh to flesh, inheritance of guilt. In that case the inheritance could not be rejected or disposed of by any means since it would be in the flesh. No such expression and no such thought can be found in the writings of Ellen White. She never describes guilt or its transmission in terms of flesh, nor in terms of an unavoidable state or condition.

According to the teaching of Ellen White, and of the Seventh-day Adventist church in general until recent years, all earth-born children, including Jesus, inherit the fallen nature of Adam as weakness, not as guilt. At the point in time when the will of the child chooses to sin, guilt enters the picture. (Ellen White attributes the death of infants to separation from the tree of life, not to inherited guilt.[29]

The will of the child Jesus never chose to sin, therefore never experienced guilt. According to Ellen White, this possibility is open to all:

He has demonstrated that a lifelong obedience is possible.[30]

There is no excuse for sinning.[31]

Let the children bear i n mind that the child Jesus had upon Himself human nature, and was in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was tempted of Satan like all children are tempted.[32]

Just as firmly as Ellen White rejects the concept that we unavoidably inherit guilt from Adam, she also rejects the concept that we inherit such a severe weakness from Adam that sinning is unavoidable.

Since the sin of Adam, men in every age have excused themselves from sinning, charging God with their sin, saying that they could not keep His commandments.[33]

There are many who in their hearts murmur against God. They say, "We inherit the fallen nature of Adam, and are not responsible for our natural imperfections . " They find fault with God' s requirements, and complain that He demands what they have no power to give. Satan made the same complaint in heaven, but such thoughts dishonor God.[34]

Finally, let us consider this question: Do we know of any unavoidable inheritance other than biological inheritance?

Since this is a supremely important question, let us carefully define our terms.

By b iological we mean something that resides in the flesh of man in such a way that it can be transmitted from flesh to flesh, as from the flesh of the parent to the flesh of the child.

By inheritance we mean something that we receive from our ancestors by reason of being born.

By unavoidable we mean something that no human being on earth can escape, since it is an ever-present consequence of being born, with no exceptions (except by the miraculous intervention of God).

With our definitions established, let us return to our question:

Do we know of any unavoidable inheritance other than biological inheritance?

First, is biological, flesh-to-flesh inheritance actually unavoidable?

We must concede that it is. There is no way that we can reject the chromosonal conditions that in our very conception set us up for blue or brown eyes, black or blond hair, white or brown skin, etc. Biological inheritance is altogether, unconditionally unavoidable, it would seem.

Second, are there other types of inheritance that are equally unavoidable?

We cannot conceive of any.

Let the student test this proposition by making a list of all of the types of inheritance that he can call to mind. It will be immediately apparent that each and every one of them can be avoided.

An inheritance of money? We don't have to accept it, or keep it.

An inheritance of land or property? We can reject it, or dispose of it.

An inheritance of citizenship in a certain country? We can renounce it.

Though the list be ever so long, the result will be the same. We are forced to the conclusion that there is no universally unavoidable inheritance other than biological inheritance.

Therefore for us to say that man's inheritance of guilt from Adam is unavoidable, and in the same sentence say that it is not biological, is to fondly contradict ourselves in a single sentence. An unavoidable, non-biological inheritance simply does not and cannot exist.

It follows, then, that if a baby is born with guilt inherited from Adam, this must be for one or the other of two, and only two reasons:

1. The inheritance is biological and therefore unavoidable. In this case, it is generally conceded that the responsibility traces back to the Creator of human biology, who made the flesh of man in such a way that it can and does carry and transmit guilt.

2 . The so-called inheritance is by the direct will of God, reflecting an administrative attitude on the part of the Ruler of the universe, and is therefore unavoidable. In this case the responsibility is obviously and unquestionably God's, but the word inheritance must be re-defined, since the guilt comes from God, and not from the parents. Thus it is not a genuine inheritance.

Those who have tried to invent a third arrangement by which man is born into (but does not inherit) a state or condition (undefined) which unavoidably places him under the judgment and condemnation of God (but is not guilt) have only muddied the waters. This is an attempt to describe something as unavoidable, yet neither biological nor the applied will of God, and this is impossible. No such thing exists. Hence to follow this argument requires us to depart from reason and reality, and take a flight into the realm of sheer fantasy.

At the risk of being tedious, we must pause to consider this unusual use of the terms, state and condition.

These, we recognize, are both appositional terms, that have no specific meaning unless they are used in connection with other words. We may speak of a state of health, or a condition of the weather or of a condition of the economy, but it is meaningless to speak of a state or of a condition, period. These words must modify something, and they cannot modify themselves. This may appear to the student to be absurdly technical, but the level on which the arguments are now being presented forces us to point out that there is no state of state, there is no state of condition, there is no condition of state, there is no condition of condition. Yet when I have sought carefully to find in those arguments an answer to the essential question, State of what! Condition of what!, I have found nothing that goes beyond this:

Original sin is a state or condition of original sin.

I do not find this very helpful.

Describe guilt or define guilt however we may, I see no way that we can escape the conclusion that if it is neither a biological inheritance nor the applied will of God, it is not unavoidable.

There is no unavoidable non-biological inheritance. And if it is the applied will of God, the word inheritance is hardly applicable. Judgment would be the more appropriate term.

This is no problem to the Adventist, who does not visualize the Lord applying a judgment of guilt to tiny infants, including the infant Jesus. It is a problem to the Calvinist, and has required him to invent an altogether extra-Biblical theory that the Lord Jesus Christ came to this earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, in order to keep the guilt of Adam from resting upon the infant Jesus.

May I respectfully and I hope not unkindly suggest that this is the Calvinist's problem, and not ours. We would be well advised to stay completely away from it. We would have nothing to gain and much to lose by accepting into our theology an artificial problem: the unavoidable transmission of guilt from Adam to all of his descendants, including Jesus; a problem that can only be remedied by an equally artificial solution: the doctrine that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam.

Our position that all men inherit weakness from Adam but do not inherit guilt is, I am convinced, by far the best understanding of scripture, and is the only possible understanding of the inspired counsels that have come to us through Ellen White, such as this, one of her most simple and clear and yet most meaningful statements:

Just that which you may be, He was in human nature.[35]

Notes:

1. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1976); William G. T Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House); Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, Fleming H. Revell, 1975).
2. N. P. Williams, The Ideas Of The Fall And Of Original Sin (New York, Longman, Green & Co., 1927), p. 320.
3. Eugene Portalie, A Guide To The Thought Of St. Augustine (Chicago, Henry Regnery & Co., 1960), p. 7.
4. Ibid.
5. Portalie , op. cit., p. 13.
6. J. N. D . Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York, Harper & Bros., 1960), p. 365.
7. Reginald Steward Moxon, The Doctrine Of Sin (New York, George H. Doran Co., 1920), p. 138.
8. Ibid.
9. Kelly, op. cit., pp. 361-369.
10. Williams, op. cit., p. 376.
11. Williams, op. cit., p. 370.
12. Henri Rondet, Original Sin (New York, Alba House, 1972), pp. 123-132.
13. Moxon, op. cit., p. 135.
14. Strong, op. cit., p. 621.
15. Berkhof, op. cit. , p. 245.
16. Moxon, op. cit., p. 165.
17. Williams, op cit., p. 424.
18. H. Shelton Smith, Changing Conceptions Of Original Sin (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955).
19. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, Pacific Press, 1958), p. 42.
20. White, "They That Have Done Good," Signs of the Times, August 29, 1892.
21. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, Pacific Press, 1950), p. 489.
22. White, Christ's Object Lessons (Washington, Review and Herald Publishing Co., 1941), p. 331.
23. Adventist Home, p. 127.
24. 5T, p. 513
25. MH, p. 318
26. DA, p. 125
27. PP, p. 306
28. Baker Letter, p. 1
29. See page 19.
30. Ms. 1, 1892
31. DA, pp. 311-312
32. YI 8/23/94
33. AST 9/14/03
34. ST 8/29/92
35. Letter 106, 1896
Appendix D

I Alone - The Predicament of Paul in Romans7

We have seen that one of the favorite texts used by Ellen White and her contemporaries in their discussion of the nature of Christ and the closely related saving work of Christ was Romans 8:3:

Go d sending His own Son i n the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

They understood "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to mean that Christ came to this earth in the nature of fallen man. They understood "condemned sin in the flesh" to mean that Christ met the enemy and overcame him in his own stronghold, the sinful flesh of man. By this means He made clear to all that man in sinful flesh can live without sinning, through the power of God.

They therefore understood Romans 7 in the light of these two great realities. Since Calvinists offer an altogether different interpretation of Romans 7, the following material is supplied for purposes of comparison.

* * *

The apostle Paul was involved. He was concerned. He cared so deeply about the people for whom he labored, and identified himself so completely with their interests, that he could write:

If meat maketh my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth. (1 Corinthians 8:13)

His ardent affection for his converts is expressed in Philippians4:1:

Therefore, my brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, m y joy and my crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

His sensitive nature was hurt to its depths by a temporary estrangement from the Corinthians, whom he had brought to Christ, and when the misunderstandings between them were cleared away, his joy knew no bounds. (See 2 Corinthians 7)

But his heaviest heart burden was for the Jews, Israel, the chosen people, the tree of God's own planting. As often as he went forth to preach to the Gentiles, so often he returned to the Jews, hoping, praying, yearning for their salvation.

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. (Romans 9:1-3)

The book of Romans, in which these poignant words were written, reflects Paul's earnest efforts on the Jews' behalf. In its seventh chapter we find a classic example of the sympathy, the empathy, the devotion to the good of the Jewish people that is expressed in 1 Corinthians 9:20, 22:

Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law ... I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

This seventh chapter of Romans has often been analyzed by Christian writers since it was first penned by Paul. In it we see a graphic picture of a man in difficulty, a man in distress, a man who seems to be doomed to failure and defeat in his spiritual life. He appears to be caught up in a tension between his own sinful tendencies and desires, and the just requirements of God's holy law. The chapter speaks in moving terms of temptations resisted but not overcome, of goals not reached, of purposes unfulfilled, of ideals held but not attained, of a victory that is longed for but not gained, of a conflict that is sore and that uniformly ends in defeat. And this unfortunate man is identified by the first personal pronoun "I". In a substantive, objective, or possessive form the first personal pronoun singular appears 46 times in verses 7-25, which describe the predicament of this born loser, this defeated man.

So who is this person, this man? Who is the "I" of Romans 7?

Let us proceed carefully. Profound theological implications are involved in our conclusion. Our view of the very nature of salvation itself can depend on our answer to this question. The chapter is clearly a case study, set before us in such specific detail that we sense that it is intended to be definitive--but of what? Who is this man of Romans 7 who continually yearns for what he cannot achieve, and lives in an unbroken continuum of frustration and defeat?

Two main suggestions have been offered by Christian writers through the centuries:

1. The man of Romans 7 is the unregenerate, unconverted man, whose heart is naturally in rebellion against God and His holy law. Since we have no reason to believe that Paul was ever in this rebellious condition, it is proposed that Paul was simply identifying himself with the rebellious, unregenerate man for purposes of communication, just as preachers often do now. (or)

2: The man of Romans 7 is Paul himself in his regenerate, converted experience, after he has come to know Christ. It therefore proves that victory over temptation and sin are not available to Christians in this life. If Paul could not stop sinning, even through the power of Christ, it is certain that no one else can stop sinning.

The problem that we encounter as we consider these two alternatives is that neither is easy to defend. Neither bears up very well under investigation.

If we prefer the first option, that the man of Romans 7 is the unregenerate, unconverted, rebellious sinner, we have difficulty answering questions like these:

Do unregenerate sinners confess that God's law is holy, just, and good (verse 12)?

Do such men acknowledge that the law is spiritual, but uI am carnal" (verse 14)?

Do unregenerate men plead that it is not by themselves that the evil is done (verse 17)?

Do unregenerate men will to do good (verse 18)?

Do unregenerate men say, uThe good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do" (verse 19)?

Do unregenerate men say, uI delight in the law of God after the inward man" (verse 22)?

It would be difficult to answer yes to any of these questions. In our human experience we do not hear unregenerate men praising God's holy law. They are more likely to curse it. Neither do they admit that God's law is spiritual but they are carnal. They tend to be defensive about their condition. They do not hate the evil that they do; they rather love it. They do not will to do good; they will to do evil. And they certainly do not "delight in the law of God after the inward man." They hate the law, they feel condemned by it, and they fear it. Those of us who have lived in an unregenerate condition realize that Paul's word picture would not correctly describe our experience.

So, finding it difficult to defend the first option, that the man of Romans 7 is the unconverted, unregenerate man who lives in rebellion against God, we turn to consider the second, that the man of Romans 7 is the converted, regenerate Christian man who finds that although he is in Christ he still cannot stop sinning.

We quickly encounter problems. How shall we answer questions like these?

Why would Paul say, "I am carnal" (verse 14) and in the same discussion say, "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Romans 8:7)?

Why would Paul say, " I am sold under sin" (verse 14) and in the same discussion say, "being then made free from sin" (Romans 6:18)?

Why would Paul say that he found it impossible to stop doing the evil that he hated (verses 15-23) and in the same discussion write

that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Romans 8:4)?

Why would Paul describe himself as being "in captivity to the law of sin" (verse 23) and in the same discussion write

but now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness ... (Romans 6:22)?

And translating the matter from abstract discussion to real life, are we to believe that Paul wanted to quit swearing, but couldn't; that he wanted to quit stealing, but couldn't; that he wanted to quit committing adultery, but couldn't? Or even that he wanted to quit imagining himself doing these things, but couldn't? How then could he write in 2 Corinthians 10:5:

Casting down imaginations ... and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ?

If we widen the context to include all of Paul's writings, we are impressed by the absence of defeatism and the note of victory that pervades them. Space limitations preclude the listing here of all of Paul's victory texts, but a representative sampling might include:

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. (Philippians 4:15)

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I , but Christ liveth in me. ... (Galatians 2:20)

Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us. (Ephesians 3:20)

And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (Ephesians 4:23, 24)

(See also 1 Corinthians 10:13; 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5; Galatians 5:16, 20-25; Ephesians 2:1-6; Ephesians 5:25, 27; Ephesians 6:10-17; Philippians 2:13, etc.)

So we find that the second choice, that the man of Romans 7 is the converted, regenerate Christian, i. e., Paul himself, is also difficult to defend. Is there nothing else?

Fortunately, there is. We are not limited to these two choices. A third suggestion has been made, and has been subscribed to by such reformation theologians as Arminius and Wesley, and by such earlier witnesses as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cypolian, Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexander, Macarius, John of Damascus, Theophylact, Ambrose, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Vigilius, Procopius of Gaza, Bernard of Clairveaux, Leo the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the early Augustine.[1]

What is perhaps more to the point, this third view i s strongly supported by Paul's own words in the original Greek.

What is the third view? That the man of Romans 7 is neither the unregenerate rebel against God, nor yet the converted, regenerate Christian, but is the man "under law," the Jew who wants to do God's will but does not accept Christ; just such a man as Paul was before his experience on the Damascus road. Paul can write about this man as "I" with precise accuracy, because he is describing such an experience as JIe himself had before he knew Christ. Although it does not describe his present experience, he empathizes and identifies himself with this man and his predicament as indicated in 1 Corinthians 9:20:

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under law, that I might gain them that are under the law.

We will do well to remember that in Paul's world view all human beings were divided into three groups: those without law, those under law, and those under grace, (also described as under the law to Christ.) (Compare 1 Corinthians 9:20, 21 with Romans 6:15, Galatians 4:4, 5, and Galatians 5:18, etc.)

Those without law were the pagan, unregenerate rebels against God; those under law were the Jews who professed to be doing God's will while rejecting Christ; and those under grace were those from either pagan or Jewish backgrounds who had accepted Christ.

We find this third position much less vulnerable than the other two. We have no trouble with either the characterization or the description. Any man, we judge, who would try to do God's will without a relationship with Christ would be likely to have such an experience as Paul sets forth. We do not find ourselves struggling to harmonize apparent discrepancies or contradictions in either the immediate context of Romans or the larger context of Paul's other writings.

We do have one question, but, as was suggested earlier, it can be readily answered by an examination of Paul's words in the original language. The question is this:

Paul's long and graphic description of the man who wants to do God's will but finds it impossible to succeed reaches its climax in Romans 7:24:

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

In the first part of verse 25 there is a response, in answer to the question:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Then the last part of verse 25 presents a thought that calls for reflection:

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

This is an easy and natural conclusion to the entire line of thought that has been presented. But our question is about its relation to the words just preceding:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Those who believe that the man of Romans 7 is the regenerate Christian see these words as their strongest evidence. They feel that proof is here provided that Paul is writing about his own experience as a Christian, able to serve God's law with his mind only and unable to stop sinning in his real life experience.

Those, however, who believe that the man of Romans 7 is the man who tries to do God's will while rejecting Christ see the words:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord

as parenthetical, a spontaneous outburst of praise which interrupts Paul's line of thought, to which he returns immediately.

Is it possible to know which of these two understandings is correct? Yes. An examination of a few words in the original language will answer our question satisfactorily. This is the passage under consideration, the last part of verse 25:

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Let us begin with the subject of the sentence, the two words I myself. These two words fall a bit short of expressing the full meaning of the words from which they are translated. The two Greek words are ego autos. The first word, ego, means simply I. But what about autos? It has considerably more meaning than the English self. Let us observe the definitions given in several Greek-English lexicons:

Self: intensive, setting the word it modifies oft' from everything else, emphasizing and contrasting.--Gingrich.

Self, as used to distinguish a person or thing from or contrast it with another.--Thayer.

Of oneself, by oneself, alone.--Lidell and Scott.

Of oneself, of one's own motion, alone.--Greenfield.

Ego autos, then, would never be used to describe a joint effort or action, or a cooperative relationship between two persons . It means, emphatically, I alone. In the context of Romans 7 it means I without Christ. Paul is saying:

I alone, without Christ, with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

This harmonizes perfectly with the view that in the entire chapter he is describing the experience of the man who is not a rebel against God, but i.. trying to do God's will while rejecting Christ. Arndt and Gingrich, in a definition that uses Romans 7:25 for an example, give as the true meaning in this context, of ego autos:

Thrown on my own resources, I can only serve the law of God as a slave, with my mind.

Autos is a word that has been carried over into the English language in a number of ways that reflect its true meaning:

Automobile--a self propelled vehicle.
Automatic--a self acting device.
Augo-suggestion--self hypnosis.
Autonomy--self government.
Autograph--a self writing.
Autobiography--a self written life history.
Autopsy--a seeing for oneself.

So the words ego autos, I alone, would never be used to describe the experience that is pictured in such passages as:

Galatians 2:20: Christ liveth in Me;
Philippians 4:13: I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me;
Ephesians 4:23: The power that worketh in us;
Romans 8:10: His spirit that dwelleth in you.

These experiential Pauline expressions are all the precise opposites of ego autos in that they speak of the resources of Christ which are made available to the believer, whereas ego autos means thrown on my own resources, I alone. They speak of togetherness, the united life and effort of the Christian with Christ; ego autos speaks of individual, solitary life and effort.

The intensive-reflexive meaning of autos: the subject and no other, is indicated in several scriptures where it is translated into the weaker English self.

David himself said. Mark 12:36
Jesus Himself drew near. Luke 24:15
Jesus Himself stood i n the midst. Luke 24:36
The Father Himself loveth you. John 16:27
They themselves also allow. Acts 24:15
Judge in yourselves. 1 Corinthians 11:13

The action is always individual, as distinct from the actions or assistance of others; so when Paul says ego autos in Romans 7:25, his meaning is:

I on my own resources, I without Christ, I alone, with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

This is emphatically not the experience of the regenerate man the Christian who does all things in the spiritual realm in and with and through the power of Christ.

We now turn to another expression in verse 25, and the two words so then:

So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

The first two words of the sentence in Greek are ara oun. Again we establish quickly the meaning of the first word, ara, which is simply therefore, or so then. But what of the word oun? Unfortunately, the King James translators did not bother to translate it into English. This may be because the first major usage of this word is identical with that of ara: therefore, or so then. Apparently the translators felt that there was no need to write in English, therefore therefore, or so then, so then, or even therefore so then. One such word is enough.

But what of the Greek? Paul did use both words, as we may ascertain by looking at the verse in any Greek New Testament. Paul did not just say ara, he said ara oun. Are we to suppose that Paul just forgot that he had already used ara, so added oun by mistake? Or that he actually meant to say therefore therefore, or so then so then ? Neither of these suppositions seems likely. What then?

Returning to our lexicons, we note with interest that they give a second major usage of the word oun, and they agree as to its meaning. They say that oun is used:

To connect a discourse after a digression.--Donnegan
To resume an interrupted subject.--Follet
When a speech has been interrupted by parenthetic clauses oun serves to take it up again.--Lidell and Scott
To resume a subject once more after an interruption.--Arndt and Gingrich
To resume a thought or a subject interrupted in intervening matter.--Thayer
(Dun is used) where a sentence has been interrupted by a parenthesis or intervening clauses, and is taken up again.--Robinson
To mark the resumption of a discourse after an interruption by parentheses.--Moulton

So we see that our understanding of Romans 7 would have been greatly enhanced if the good translators of the King James version had not left oun out of their translation. What we now recognize is this:

Paul is developing a line of thought that begins in Romans 7, verse 7. In this lengthy passage he describes with accuracy and eloquence the frustrations and failures of the man who is "under law . " He is the man who is neither a rebel against God nor yet a born-again Christian, but who is trying to do God's will while refusing the help that can only come from Christ. This is just such a man as Paul himself once had been. And in harmony with the zealous missionary spirit that led him to say,

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law,

Paul identifies himself with this unfortunate man, as if it were his own predicament, as indeed it once had been. His description continues and builds through verses 22 and 23:

For I delight i n the law o f God after the inward man, But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

At this point the intensity of his feelings, combined with his actual personal knowledge of the frustration of the poor man, cause him to burst out in a question and answer which interrupt the line of thought and are parenthetical:

(O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.)

Then, realizing that his line of thought has been interrupted, he advises the reader of this fact, as well as of his intention to return to his line of thought, by using the word oun. Oun is used to return to a line of thought that has been interrupted. Having taken this precaution, he uses the words that should be unmistakably clear to indicate that he is still talking about the same person who is trying unsuccessfully to do God's will apart from Christ: the two words ego autos, I alone, thrown on my own resources.

A faithful translation of this last part of verse 25 would look like this:

So then (to return to my line of thought, which was interrupted), I alone with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Moffat's translation of the New Testament indicates the sense of ego autos like this:

Thus, left to myself, I serve the law of God with my mind but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

And lest the English reader fail to understand the full meaning of Dun this translation places the above verse before the interruption, instead of after it.[2]

The careful student will want to compare other Bible examples of the use of oun to resume a line of thought after it has been interrupted, such as the following:

(The parentheses are in some cases supplied; the identification of the word that is translated from oun is in all cases supplied.)

Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

(Now Jacob's well was there.)

Jesus therefore (oun), being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. (John 4:5, 6)

* * *

The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one wl".ereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;

(Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after the Lord had given thanks:)

When the people therefore (oun) saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaurn, seeking for Jesus. (John 6:22-24)

* * *

And he (John) came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins:

(As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias, the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough shall be made smooth;

And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.)

Then (oun) said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Luke 3:3-7 * * * And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which is lost.

(And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because they thought that the Kingdom of God should immediately appear.)

He said therefore (oun), A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. (Luke 19:9-12)

* * *

Now as touching things offered unto idols we know that we all have knowledge . Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

(But if any man love God, the same is known of him.)

As concerning therefore (oun) the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. (1 Corinthians 8:1-4)

* * *

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you, and I partly believe it.

(For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.)

When ye come together therefore (oun) into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. (1 Corinthians 11:18-20)

* * *

From these examples we can see that the united opinion of the Greek language experts who prepared the lexicons, that Dun is used to resume a line of thought after an interruption, is well sustained by the Biblical evidence.

We have seen that this third understanding of Romans 7, that the unfortunate man identified by the first personal pronoun is the man who tries to do God' s will while refusing to accept Christ, even as Paul had once done, was held by many early Christian writers and by the Reformation leaders, Arminius and Wesley. This view was also held by Ellen White. Here is a typical example of her use of verses from Romans 7:

Sin did not kill the law, but i t did kill the carnal mind i n Paul. "Now we are delivered from the law," he declares, "that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. " (Romans 7:6). "Was that then which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful" (Romans 7:12). Paul calls the attention of his hearers to the broken law, and shows them wherein they are guilty. He instructs them as a schoolmaster instructs his scholars, and shows them the way back to their loyalty to God.

There is no safety nor repose nor justification in transgression of the law. Man cannot hope to stand innocent before God, and at peace with Him through the merits of Christ, while he continues in sin. He must cease to transgress, and become loyal and true.[3] 

When Arminius was defending his understanding of justification and sanctification in the light of Romans 7, he was asked, "If it is not necessary for Christians to sin, why is it that they do sin?" His carefully considered answer was that Christians sin because they do not make use of the power that God has made available to them.[4] Therefore their sin can never be chargeable to God as a failure to supply them with adequate grace and strength. Again, we note the similarity with this view in the writings of Ellen White:

Our heavenly Father measures and weighs every trial before He permits it to come upon the believer. He considers the circumstances and the strength of the one who is to stand under the proving and test of God, and He never permits the temptations to be greater than the capacity of resistance. If the soul is overborne, the person overpowered, this can never be charged to God, as failing to give strength in grace, but the tempted one was not vigilant and prayerful and did not appropriate by faith the provisions God had abundantly in store for him. Christ never failed a believer in his hour of combat. The believer must claim the promise and meet the foe in the name of the Lord, and he will not know anything like failure.[5]

Ego autos, then, I alone, is definitely not the secret of success. That which is done through power supplied by God could not be described by the words ego autos. The believer who fails to recognize his need of the forgiving and enabling grace of Christ is doomed to frustration and defeat in the Christian life. This is the message of Romans 7 . It is a warning message, sounding its clarion call across the centuries, telling us that we must never be found in the attitude of ego autos; I alone.

Notes:

1. Bangs, Carl. Arminius. A Study in the Dutch Reformation, pp. 191-192. See also The Writings of James Arminius, translated by James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall, Volume 2, pp. 553-574.
2. Moffat, James, The New Testament, A New Translation, p. 387.
3. White, Ellen, Selected Messages, Volume 2, pp. 212-213.
4. The Writings of James Arminius, Volume 3, pp. 312-320.
5. White, Ellen, Mind, Character, and Personnality, Volume 2, p. 473.