THE
LOWER AND HIGHER NATURES |
The
Key to Resolving the Adventist Christology Debate
Three
Ellen White statements are often used by some to prove that the human
Christ didn’t inherit the same fallen tendencies we inherit.
Once these three statements are understood, in the light of both
Scripture and the whole of Ellen White’s writings, the current
Adventist discussion on the nature of Christ is easily
settled.
These three statements are as follows:
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 could have sinned, He could have
fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity
(1). He (Christ) is a brother in our infirmities, but not in
possessing like passions. As the sinless one, His nature recoiled
from evil (2). He was a mighty Petitioner, not possessing the
passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like
infirmities, tempted in all points like as we are (3).
Other
statements seem, on the surface, to teach just the opposite:
Though
He (Christ) had all the strength of passion of humanity, never did He
yield to temptation to do one single act which was not pure and
elevating and ennobling (4).
The words of Christ
encourage parents to bring their little ones to Jesus. They may be
wayward, and possess passions like those of humanity, but this should
not deter us from bringing them to Christ. He blessed children that
were possessed of passions like His own (5). By a word Christ could
have mastered the powers of Satan. But He came into the world that He
might endure every test, every provocation, that it is possible for
human beings to bear and yet not be provoked or impassioned, or
retaliate in word, in spirit, or in action (6).
It
is obvious that the passions described in the last three statements
refer to sinful passions, those that tempt to impurity, waywardness,
and provocation. We read that though Jesus had all the strength of
human passion, He never yielded to temptation to do anything impure
or ignoble. We read that even if our children are wayward, possessing
passions like those of humanity, this shouldn’t discourage us
from bringing them to Christ, since He blessed children who had these
very passions, which were “like His own.”
Are
these two sets of statements contradictory? Or do we need to dig
deeper into what God is saying?
God Explains Himself
According
to the Bible’s own testimony, the Bible is its own interpreter.
All Scripture is inspired by God (II Tim. 3:16), the product of holy
men moved by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:20-21). And what the Spirit
inspires is to be understood by comparison with itself (I Cor.
2:12-14). According to Ellen White, her writings are to be understood
in the same way:
The testimonies themselves will be the key
that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by
scripture (7).
Every disagreement Adventists have with
other Christians over the Bible—regarding the Sabbath, the
state of the dead, salvation, the sanctuary, etc.—is the result
of other Christians failing to follow the Bible’s own method of
Bible study, as stated above. Either the whole of Scripture is not
considered before a doctrinal conclusion is reached, or the Bible
isn’t allowed to interpret itself.
Current doctrinal controversies within Adventism are largely the result of failing to permit either Scripture or Ellen White to explain themselves. No doctrinal understanding can be valid which fails to demonstrate the harmony existing between all inspired statements. Once we let Ellen White explain herself regarding the statements quoted earlier on the nature of Christ, her meaning becomes clear.
Two Forces in Human Nature
In
order to resolve the apparent conflict in the statements quoted at
the beginning, we need to look closer at what Scripture and Ellen
White teach regarding the structure of human nature.
Jesus
declared to His disciples in Gethsemane, “The spirit indeed is
willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41). Paul declared:
“I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection” (I
Cor. 9:27), and speaks of the weapons of Christian warfare “bringing
into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II
Cor. 10:5). Contrary to what some believe, this has nothing to do
with the body/soul dualism of Greek or popular Christian thought, nor
does it have anything to do with what happens to people when they
die. When Seventh-day Adventists teach a wholistic view of man, they
do not deny the Biblical teaching that different forces exist within
man.
Ellen White makes this distinction very clearly:
The will is not the taste or the inclination, but it is the deciding power (8).
In
numerous other statements she describes the need for the lower
passions and propensities to be subject to the higher powers of the
being (9). The Bible is clear that to be tempted by our lower,
fleshly desires is not sin:
But every man is tempted, when
he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath
conceived it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished,
bringeth forth death (James 1:14-15).
Notice that only
when lust conceives—when the will gives consent—does sin
occur. Ellen White agrees:
There are thoughts and feelings
suggested and aroused by Satan that annoy even the best of men; but
if they are not cherished, if they are repulsed as hateful, the soul
is not contaminated with guilt and no other is defiled by their
influence (10).
Ellen White is equally clear that the
lower nature of itself cannot sin:
The lower passions have
their seat in the body and work through it. The words “flesh”
or “fleshly” or “carnal lusts” embrace the
lower, corrupt nature; the flesh of itself cannot act contrary to the
will of God. We are commanded to crucify the flesh, with the
affections and lusts. How shall we do it? Shall we inflict pain on
the body? No, but put to death the temptation to sin. The corrupt
thought is to be expelled. Every thought is to be brought into
captivity to Jesus Christ. All animal propensities are to be
subjected to the higher powers of the soul (11).
Notice
how carefully Ellen White distinguishes the lower passions from the
higher powers. Once this distinction is understood, we can better
understand the two types of Ellen White statements on passions and
propensities as they relate to human beings, as well as the two types
of statements we have seen relative to the humanity of Christ. Evil
Passions and Propensities: Controlled or Cast Out? In some of her
statements, Ellen White speaks of the need to control evil passions
and propensities:
The body is to be brought into
subjection. The higher powers of the being are to rule. The passions
are to be controlled by the will, which is itself to be under the
control of God (12). Our natural propensities must be controlled, or
we can never overcome as Christ overcame (13).
However,
other statements speak of the need to cast out evil passions and
propensities:
The only power that can create or perpetuate
true peace is the grace of Christ. When this is implanted in the
heart, it will cast out the evil passions that cause strife and
dissension (14). 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 before God
(15). Nonsense and amusement-loving propensities should be discarded,
as out of place in the life and experience of those who are living by
faith in the Son of God, eating His flesh and drinking His blood
(16). We must realize that through belief in Him it is our privilege
to be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption
that is in the world through lust. Then we are cleansed from all sin,
all defects of character. We need not retain one sinful
propensity.
As we partake of the divine nature, hereditary and
cultivated tendencies to wrong are cut away from the character, and
we are made a living power for good (17).
But from where
are evil passions cast? Where are sinful propensities not to be
retained? Ellen White gives the answer in two of the above
statements. She speaks of evil propensities as out of place in the
life and experience of the faithful, that as we partake of the divine
nature, hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong are cut away
from the character. The character is the higher nature, where choices
are made. Notice she doesn’t say these tendencies will be cut
away from the lower, fleshly nature, so that we won’t feel the
urge to sin any more. According to Ellen White, that change will not
happen until Jesus comes:
So long as Satan reigns, we shall
have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life
shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can
reach and say, I have fully attained (18). Appetite and passion must
be brought under the control of the Holy Spirit. There is no end to
the warfare this side of eternity (19).
During
the Holy Flesh controversy of the early 1900s, Ellen White wrote the
following:
When human beings receive holy flesh, they will
not remain on earth, but will be taken to heaven (20).
We
need to notice carefully what these statements say, and what they
don’t say. They aren’t saying that complete victory over
sin is unattainable this side of eternity. They are simply saying
that war with the flesh will not cease this side of eternity, which
means the fleshly urges will still be present in the lower natures of
believers. Continuous warfare doesn’t necessarily mean
occasional defeat. (The Russians learned this during World War II,
when they experienced hard-fought but consistently victorious warfare
against the Germans in the two years between the aftermath of
Stalingrad and the conquest of Berlin.) Complete victory over the
fleshly nature is promised to the Christian in this life (Rom.
8:4,13; II Cor. 7:1). But while complete victory does mean the
absence of failure, it does not mean the absence of conflict until
our earthly life is past.
Settling the Issue
In
short, Jesus had sinful passions and evil propensities in His lower
nature, where He kept them under the control of a sanctified will—as
indeed we may, through His power. But He did not have these passions
and propensities in His higher nature, where we need not retain them
either. Another statement by Ellen White regarding Christ and sinful
propensities helps us understand this point more clearly:
We
must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted
ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to Satan’s
temptations degraded His humanity and that He possessed the same
sinful, corrupt propensities as man (21).
We might reach
the wrong conclusion if we stopped there. But in the very next
paragraph she explains what she means:
Christ took our
nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless
He received the words of Satan in place of the words of God (22).
So
what does she mean when she says Jesus never had the same corrupt
propensities we have? Simple. She means He never chose to sin, and
thus never acquired a taste for sin. Notice she doesn’t say His
nature wouldn’t be corrupted unless He was born with the same
fallen nature other humans are born with. Rather, the corruption here
described would occur only if He received the words of Satan in place
of the words of God. Choice, not birth, is the source of the
corruption here described. We see this same principle further
illustrated in the more than 200 statements where Ellen White speaks
of hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil (23). These are Ellen
White’s terms for what we hear today regarding the difference
between nature and nurture in human development. Ellen White is clear
that Jesus took our fallen hereditary tendencies, since she writes
that “He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and
temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life”
(24). In other words, His heredity would be a source of temptation to
Himself, as it is to us. But very clearly, Jesus didn’t take
our fallen cultivated tendencies to evil, since to do this would have
required Him to sin.
More on the Lower and Higher Natures
When
we understand the role of these lower and higher forces in human
nature, it becomes clear how the various, seemingly contradictory
statements of Ellen White on the nature of Christ fit together
beautifully. Let us review again one of the statements quoted
above:
We must not become in our ideas common and earthly,
and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of
Christ to Satan’s temptations degraded His humanity and that He
possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man (25).
And
yet, we have the following statement:
Think of Christ’s
humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature,
degraded and defiled by sin (26).
But as we saw when we
read the paragraph following the first of the above statements, the
corruption and degradation being described in this statement is a
matter of choice, not something involuntarily received at birth. But
in the statement just quoted, which says the human nature Christ took
was “degraded and defiled,” the lower nature is being
referred to. In other words, Jesus’ higher nature was not
degraded, since that is where choice, character, and the will exist.
But His lower nature was in fact degraded, because He had taken on
Himself the same fallen heredity all men and women inherit.
Many
who hold the pre-Fall view of Christ’s humanity will quote
Hebrews 7:26, which speaks of Christ being “holy, harmless,
undefiled, separate from sinners.” Yet Ellen White declares
that Christians, who according to her still have fleshly natures to
subdue (27), are to achieve through heaven’s power the same
state of purity:
Cherish those things that are true, honest,
just, pure, lovely, and of good report; but put away whatever is
unlike our Redeemer. . . . Every soul that gains eternal life must be
like Christ, “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from
sinners.” (Heb. 7:26) (28). The grace of Christ alone can
change your heart and then you will reflect the image of the Lord
Jesus. God calls upon us to be like HimÑpure, holy, and
undefiled. We are to bear the divine image (29).
The context
of both of the above statements makes it clear that the earthly
process of sanctification is being referred to, not the removal of
the fleshly nature at glorification. In other words, according to
Inspiration, you don’t need an unfallen fleshly nature in order
to be holy, harmless, undefined, separate from sinners. Some have
alleged that when Ellen White, referring to Jesus, writes that there
was “no sin in Him,” that this means He did not inherit
the same nature all humans inherit at birth. One of the statements
thus used is the following:
There was no sin in Him that
Satan could triumph over, no weakness or defect that he could use to
his advantage. But we are sinful by nature, and we have a work to do
to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement (30).
But
another statement, which uses similar language, helps us understand
what “no sin in Him” means:
Satan
finds in human hearts some point where he can gain a foothold; some
sinful desire is cherished, by means of which his temptations assert
their power. But Christ declared of Himself, “The prince of
this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.” John 14:30. Satan
could find nothing in the Son of God that wold enable him to gain the
victory. He had kept His Father’s commandments, and there was
no sin in Him that Satan could use to his advantage. This is the
condition in which those must be found who shall stand in the time of
trouble (31).
Thus, “no sin in Him” means no
cherished sinful desires, not the absence of such desires in the
lower nature. The statement we quoted earlier, which speaks of our
being “sinful by nature” and needing “to cleanse
the soul temple of every defilement” (32), clarifies this point
again. Elsewhere Ellen White is clear when this cleansing is to
occur:
Not
one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have
one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects
in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement.
Then the latter rain will fall upon us as the early rain fell upon
the disciples on the day of Pentecost (33).
Obviously this
refers to the cleansing of the will and character, which will take
place prior to the end-time sealing and latter rain. This does not
refer to the cleansing of the lower, fleshly nature, since the same
author maintains we must contend with that nature till Jesus comes
(34). Thus, when she writes in the earlier statement of our being
“sinful by nature” in contrast with Jesus who had “no
sin in Him” (35), she is speaking in context of the higher
nature. She is not denying that Jesus inherited a fallen lower nature
at birth, with its tendencies and desires. We see this point further
clarified in another Ellen White statement, where she writes of our
Lord: “The prince of darkness found nothing in Him; not a
single thought or feeling responded to temptation” (36). Yet in
another statement which we saw earlier, Ellen White is clear that it
is not the arousal of sinful thoughts and feelings that constitutes
the response to temptation here described, but rather, the cherishing
of these thoughts and feelings:
There
are thoughts and feeling suggested and aroused by Satan that annoy
even the best of men; but if they are not cherished, if they are
repulsed as hateful, the soul is not contaminated with guilt and no
other is defiled by their influence (37).
In another
statement, Ellen White says Jesus had to struggle with sinful
thoughts:
Some realize their great weakness and sin, and
become discouraged. Satan casts his dark shadow between them and the
Lord Jesus, their atoning sacrifice. They say, It is useless for me
to pray. My prayers are so mingled with evil thoughts that the Lord
will not hear them. These suggestions are from Satan. In His humanity
Christ met and resisted this temptation, and He knows how to succor
those who are thus tempted (38).
All
are accountable for their actions while upon probation in this world.
All have power to control their actions. If they are weak in virtue
and purity of thoughts and acts, they can obtain help from the Friend
of the helpless. Jesus is acquainted with all the weaknesses of human
nature, and if entreated, will give strength to overcome the most
powerful temptations (39).
In
a pamphlet devoted specifically to sexual indulgence, Ellen White
offers hope to the tempted with these words:
Elsewhere we
read:
His (the Christian’s) strongest temptations
will come from within, for he must battle against the inclinations of
the natural heart. The Lord knows our weaknesses (40).
And
how does He know our weaknesses?
He knows by experience
what are the weaknesses of humanity, what are our wants, and where
lies the strength of our temptations, for He was “in all points
tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15)
(41).
Yet in another statement she informs us of the way
in which Jesus did not know our weaknesses:
Our Redeemer manifested no human weakness or imperfection (42).
The
key word here is “manifested.” That refers to choice, the
consent of the will, the higher nature. Jesus most assuredly
struggled with human weaknesses in His lower nature, which the above
statements clarify beyond dispute. But He never consented to such
weaknesses through choice. Elsewhere we see this contrast when Ellen
White writes concerning Jesus:
He was perfect, and
undefiled by sin. He was without spot or blemish” (43).
But then we remember another statement where she says:
He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin (44).
The
first statement refers to His higher nature, the second to His lower
nature.
In another statement, from the famous Baker letter,
Ellen White says of Christ:
His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin” (45).
But
other Ellen White statements make it clear that the spiritual nature
is the same as the higher nature:
Professed followers of
Christ are today eating and drinking with the drunken, while their
names stand in honored church records. Intemperance benumbs the moral
and spiritual powers and prepares the way for indulgence of the lower
passions (46).
The faculties of the mind, as the higher
powers, are to rule the kingdom of the body. The natural appetites
and passions are to be brought under the control of the conscience
and the spiritual affections (47). By such misuse of the marriage
relation, the animal passions are strengthened; and as these grow
stronger the moral and intellectual faculties become weaker. The
spiritual is overborne by the sensual (48). The indulgence of natural
appetites and passions has a controlling influence upon the nerves of
the brain. The animal organs are strengthened, while the moral and
spiritual are depressed (49).
Ellen White declares elsewhere, regarding Jesus:
He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family” (50).
Many
have alleged that this means He was born without the inherited sinful
nature common to all humans. But at least two other statements make
it clear that His being “born without a taint of sin”
refers to His divine nature, not to the absence of fleshly desires in
His lower, human nature:
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
(51).
Though He had no taint of sin upon His
character, yet He condescended to connect our fallen human nature
with His divinity (52).
In other words, all Ellen
White means when she says Christ was “born without a taint of
sin” (53) is that He came from heaven pure. In no way does she
ever imply that anyone is tainted with sin just by being born. This
point helps us clarify what Ellen White means in other statements
where she says: “He (Christ) took upon His sinless nature our
sinful nature” (54). The sinless nature here described refers
not to His inherited human nature, but to His divine nature. This
becomes clearer yet in another statement:
Sinless and
exalted by nature, the Son of God consented to take the habiliments
of humanity, to become one with the fallen race (55).
Other
statements likewise clarify that when Ellen White says Jesus had no
taint of sin, she is talking about His choices, not the human nature
He took at birth:
One unsanctified act on the part of our Saviour would have marred the pattern, and He could not have been a perfect example of us; but although He was tempted in all points like as we are, He was yet without one taint of sin (56).
Christ,
the second Adam, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. In man’s
behalf, He became subject to sorrow, to weariness, to hunger, and to
thirst. He was subject to temptation, but He yielded not to sin. No
taint of sin was upon Him (57).
Not
one impure word escaped His lips. Never did He do a wrong action, for
He was the Son of God. Although He possessed a human form, yet He was
without a taint of sin (58).
The
Baker Letter and the Signs Article
A bit more attention is deserved by the so-called Baker letter, which forms a major part of the case built by some Adventists for the pre-Fall understanding of Christ’s humanity. What we must remember, as we noted at the beginning, is that inspired statements can only be understood in the light of each other. This is true with Scripture (Isa. 28:9-10; I Cor. 2:12-14), and it is true with Ellen White. Let us review her words again on this point:
The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture (59).
With
this principle constantly in mind, which it must be as we study any
spiritual topic, we cannot view the Baker letter, or any other
inspired materials, except in the light of the totality of inspired
teachings. No inspired document or statement ever stands alone. The
language of one inspired statement must not only be understood in its
own context, but also in the light of other inspired statements. We
have already observed Ellen White’s use of the terms passions
and propensities and their different roles within human nature. But
the picture becomes clearer when we place the wording of an article
from the Signs of the Times alongside the relevant lines from the
Baker letter:
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 transgression. 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 (60). Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell.
It was not indwelling sin which 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 with temptations of
Satan, He bore the “likeness of sinful flesh” (61).
Notice how both these statements put the tempted Adam and the tempted Christ alongside each other. But it is important to note the difference in the way Adam and Christ are contrasted in one statement, as distinct from how they are contrasted in the other statement. Even if one concludes—as I believe the weight of evidence demands—that the “propensities of disobedience” in the early part of the first statement refer to the lower nature, while the “evil propensity” at the end of the statement refers to the cherishing of such tendencies by the higher nature, there is still sufficient contrast between Adam and Christ so that the statement makes sense. Adam was capable of falling, and he did. Christ was also capable of falling, but He didn’t.
This point is further clarified as this letter continues, with Ellen White’s denial that “a taint of, or inclination to, corruption, rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption” (62). “Rested upon” implies choice every bit as much as yielding to corruption. The higher nature is the issue here, not the lower. Her denial that Christ “in any way yielded to corruption” implies that there is more than one way to do this, that for Him to have cherished such tendencies in His mind—even with no manifestation in outward deeds—would have involved a yielding to corruption.
In other words, one need not see a contrast between Adam’s children being “born with inherent propensities of disobedience” and Christ not having “for one moment” an evil propensity, in order for this statement to make sense. There is enough contrast simply between her statement that Adam yielded to temptation, but Christ did not. Her other statements which we noted earlier, regarding sinful propensities being present or absent from the mind through choice (63), further clarify this point.
The inordinate attention given by some to the Baker letter, to the neglect of so many other Ellen White statements on this subject, cannot but remind us of F.D. Nichol’s statement that if the only Bible verse on the state of the dead were Philippians 1:23, which speaks of Paul’s desire to “depart and be with Christ,” we might be justified in accepting the popular doctrine of the intermediate state after death (64). It is the inspired consensus which helps to explain what individual passages and their occasionally imperfect language might not always say by themselves. Based on this consensus, on the totality of inspired teachings concerning the lower and higher natures and their role in the struggle with evil, we can safely say that the “inherent propensities of disobedience” described in the Baker letter refer to the lower nature (which Christ possessed), while the “evil propensity” in the latter part of this statement refers to the potential control of the higher nature by such tendencies, which Christ never experienced because He never sinned. In the same way the consensus of Scripture tells us that the time of our departure (death) and the time we go to be with Christ are widely separated events, even though Philippians 1:23 states the two in a single phrase.Yet another Ellen White statement helps us understand this need to put all inspired evidence together before reaching a conclusion. This is the one we noted earlier where she says of Jesus:
Never did He do a wrong action, for He was the Son of God” (65).
Taken by itself, this statement might lead us to believe Jesus didn’t sin because He was God. But other statements make it clear that while—as the above statement says—He maintained His dignity as the Son of God by not sinning, it was not His Deity that prevented Him from sinning, but rather, the same imparted power available to us (66).
Let us now consider the second of the two statements under discussion in this section—the one from the Signs article. Put simply, this passage makes no sense unless we acknowledge that Christ had tendencies to evil in His lower nature. Note again that it says Adam had no “indwelling sin,” “no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil.” Then the next sentence reads, “But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore the “likeness of sinful flesh’” (67). All the arguments we often hear about the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) are beside the point so far as this statement is concerned, since the expression is used here to draw a contrast with the unfallen Adam—who, the statement tells us, had no indwelling sin, corrupt principles, or tendencies to evil. Certainly such terms as “indwelling sin” and “corrupt principles” could not apply to Jesus, but at least it must be acknowledged that Jesus’ fleshly nature included tendencies to evil. Otherwise the statement offers no contrast with Adam, and makes no sense at all.
We must ever bear in mind the premise stated at the beginning—that no explanation of inspired materials can be valid unless it brings all inspired materials together. The pre-Fall view of Christ’s human nature simply cannot bring together all relevant Ellen White statements—or Bible verses—on this topic. Most of its advocates have given up trying. The evidence suggests this is one key reason so many of them seek to reduce Ellen White’s doctrinal role in this and other discussions (68).
The
Melvill Explanation
Certain
Adventists who defend the pre-Fall view of Christ’s humanity
have tried to use one of the authors from which she seems to have
borrowed some language, as the true explanation of what she taught on
this subject (69). In
the words of one contemporary Adventist author:
While
Ellen White did not quote the words (of Melvill, such as “innocent
infirmities,” “sinful propensities,” and “prone
to offend”) the sentiments of Melvill could very well reflect
Ellen White’s own convictions (70).
This method of explaining inspired materials can only be described as speculative and dangerous. While it is true that Ellen White, like many Bible writers, made occasional use of uninspired sources, to allow such sources to interpret the inspired writings themselves is perilous in the extreme. For example, it has been demonstrated that the apostle Paul used language from the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon in writing some of his epistles (71). Should we therefore go to this uninspired book to find what Paul really meant?
Other evidence indicates that Christ may have borrowed the words of the Golden Rule from the famed Rabbi Hillel (72). Should we then go to Rabbi Hillel’s writings to learn the true meaning of what Christ taught, on this or any subject?
Whenever an inspired writer uses the words of an uninspired writer, the words used cannot be understood except in the setting where the inspired writer places them. Such language then assumes whatever meaning the inspired consensus imposes upon it. No hint can be found, either in Scripture or Ellen White, that uninspired sources ever provide the key to understanding inspired passages. Again, from her own words:
The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture (73).
Condemning
Sin in the Flesh
The
apostle Paul writes, in the book of Romans:
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).
We spoke earlier of the arguments some have raised regarding the “likeness of sinful flesh,” whether this means sameness or simulation. Both linguistic and contextual evidence in Scripture indicate that the word “likeness”—homoiomati in Greek—means sameness (see also Acts 14:11, 15; Phil. 2:7). The prefix “homo,” which this word contains, is obviously where we get such English words as “homogenous” and “homosexual.” “Homo” means same, as distinct from “hetero” which means different. But aside even from this argument, the surrounding verses in Romans 8 which we cited above make it clear that the flesh, as described in these verses, is something hostile to the Holy Spirit and to God’s will. Jesus “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 (verses 3-4). We read that “they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (verse 8), that “if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die” (verse 13). But the apostle also states, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you” (verse 9). Paul, like Ellen White (74), isn’t saying in the above verse that Christians no longer have a fleshly nature to contend with. That much is clear when he writes elsewhere, “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection” (I Cor. 9:27). He is simply saying that Christians refuse to live after the flesh, declaring that “if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (verse 13). Clearly, according to Paul, it is possible to subdue the flesh and overcome sin through the Spirit’s power. And it is Jesus who “condemned sin in the flesh” (verse 3), in the same fleshly nature we inherit, who has shown us how to “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (verse 4).
Summary
In sum, the writings of Ellen White, like the Bible, interpret themselves (75). As with Scripture, whenever certain Ellen White statements seem to disagree with each other, we must look further into her writings for an explanation.
Both Scripture and Ellen White teach that lower and higher forces exist in human nature (Matt. 26:41; I Cor. 9:27) (76), and that in the sanctified Christian’s life, the lower forces must be controlled by the higher (77). Keeping in mind this inspired view of the structure of human nature, it becomes clear that when Ellen White says Jesus had sinful passions and tendencies to evil (78), she is speaking of the lower, fleshly nature which all humans—including Jesus—inherit at birth. By contrast, when she writes that He didn’t have sinful passions and propensities (79), she is speaking of the higher nature, the seat of character and the will, where we need not retain such passions and propensities either (80). Like Jesus, the Christian must always contend with the lower, fleshly nature throughout his earthly sojourn (81). But because Jesus consistently trusted His Father’s strength and never yielded to the lower nature’s sinful urges, the sanctified Christian is ableÑthrough the same divine strength—to do as Jesus did (Rom. 8:3-4; I Peter 2:21-22; Rev. 3:21).
Practical
Relevance
Where we stand on this issue makes all the difference in the practical struggles of our lives. Its relevance is heard in the privacy of the predawn devotional hour, as a young man pleads for strength to defeat the forces of lust, only to be comforted by the awareness that His Saviour vanquished these very temptations (82). Its importance is felt in the executive office and construction yard, as frustrations and irritations are met with the confidence that our Lord subdued these very feelings (83). Its splendor breaks like sunshine in the heart of a teenage daughter whose family has a history of incest, as she learns that this was part of Jesus’ family lineage also (Gen. 19:32-38; Ruth 4:10; Matt. 1:5). A few years ago a denominational editor wrote, regarding the continuing debate on this subject in the church: “How I wish that we could turn our energies from fighting over Him (Christ) and instead contemplate Him” (84). I appreciate his concern. I too wish we would all contemplate Christ more. But it will do not good to contemplate a false christ, a sterilized saviour who never contended with the frustrations, urges, and hormones of fallen humanity. As we find our way through the veritable minefield that is life, the inspired assurance of a truly relevant Saviour becomes more precious than all beside.
This is not, as some believe, some abstract quarrel over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! It is an issue of supremely practical relevance. For this reason, not for any perverse love of argument, this issue will not go away. We close with the following promise from the inspired pen:
In our own strength it is impossible to deny the clamors of our fallen nature. Through this channel Satan will bring temptations upon us. Christ knew that the enemy would come to every human being, to take advantage of hereditary weakness, and by his false insinuations to ensnare all whose trust is not in God. And by passing over the ground which man must travel, our Lord has prepared the way for us to overcome. It is not His will that we should be placed at a disadvantage in the conflict with Satan. He would not have us intimidated and discouraged by the assaults of the serpent. “Be of good cheer,” He says, “I have overcome the world.” John 16:33 (85).
REFERENCES
1:
Ellen G. White, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128.
2:
Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 201-202.
3: Ibid, p. 509.
4: In
Heavenly Places, p. 155.
5: Signs of the Times, April 9, 1896.
6:
Christ Triumphant, p. 260.
7: Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
8: Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 513.
9: Ministry of Healing, p.
130; Counsels on Health, pp. 41-42;
10: Adventist Home pp.
127-128; Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 354; Messages to Young
People, p. 237; Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 491; vol. 5, p. 335;
11:
Review and Herald, Aug. 11, 1887; Dec. 1, 1896.
12: That I May
Know Him, p. 140.
13: Adventist Home, pp. 127-128.
14:
Ministry of Healing, p. 130.
15: Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 235.
16: Desire of Ages, p. 305.
17: Testimonies to Ministers, pp.
171-172.
18: Messages to Young People, p. 42.
19: SDA Bible
Commentary, vol. 7, p. 943.
20: Acts of the Apostles, pp.
560-561.
21: Counsels to Teachers, p. 20.
22: Selected
Messages, vol. 2, p. 33.
23: Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p.
182.
24: Ibid (italics supplied).
25: Desire of Ages, p. 671;
SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 943, etc. See the Ellen White CD-ROM
for a full listing of statements using this language.
26: Desire
of Ages, p. 49.
27: Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182.
28:
SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 4, p. 1147.
29: Acts of the Apostles,
pp. 560-561; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20.
30: In Heavenly Places,
p. 160.
31: Sons and Daughters of God, p. 102.
32: Review and
Herald, May 27, 1884.
33: The Great Controversy, p. 623.
34:
Review and Herald, May 27, 1884.
35: Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 214.
36: Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Counsels to Teachers, p.
20.
37: Review and Herald, May 27, 1884.
38: Testimonies,
vol. 5, p. 422.
39: That I May Know Him, p. 140.
40: In
Heavenly Places, p. 78.
41: A Solemn Appeal, p. 78, quoted in Our
High Calling, p. 337.
42: Bible Echo & Signs of the Times,
Dec. 1, 1892.
43: Ministry of Healing, p. 71 (italics supplied).
44: Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 480.
45: Review and Herald,
Dec. 17, 1872.
46: SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 4, p. 1147.
47:
Ibid, vol. 5, p. 1124.
48: Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 101.
49:
Ministry of Healing, p. 399.
50: Christian Temperance & Bible
Hygiene, p. 130.
51: Signs of the Times, Aug. 11, 1887.
52:
SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 925.
53: Selected Messages, vol.
1, p. 253.
54: Ibid, vol. 3, p. 134.
55: SDA Bible
Commentary, vol. 7, p. 925.
56: Medical Ministry, p. 181.
57:
Signs of the Times, Feb. 20, 1893.
58: Sons and Daughters of God,
p. 148.
59: Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 141-142.
60:
Ministry, p. 287.
61: Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
62:
SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128.
63: Signs of the Times,
Oct. 17, 1900.
64: SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128. Ibid,
vol. 7, p. 943; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 171-172; Messages to
Young People, p. 42.
65: F.D. Nichol, Answers to Objections
(paperback edition) (Washington, D.C:
66: Review and Herald
Publishing Assn, 1952), p. 345.
67: White, Welfare Ministry, p.
287.
68: Desire of Ages, pp. 311-312; SDA Bible Commentary, vol.
7, pp. 929, 930; Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 136-141; Review and
Herald, April 1, 1875.
69: Signs of the Times, Oct. 17, 1900.
70: See Roy Adams, “Divided, We Crawl,” Adventist
Review, February 1995, p. 2; George R. Knight, Angry Saints: Tensions
and Possibilities in the Adventist Struggle Over Righteousness by
Faith (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1989), p.
107; Martin Weber, Adventist Hot Potatoes (Boise, ID: Pacific Press
Publishing Assn, 1991), pp. 100-113;
71: Who’s Got the
Truth? Making sense out of five different Adventist gospels (Silver
Spring, MD: Home Study International Press, 1994), pp. 187-211.
72:
Tim Poirier, “Sources Clarify Ellen White’s Christology,”
Ministry, December 1989, pp. 7-9; “A Comparison of the
Christology of Ellen White and Henry Melvill,” Shelf Document,
Washington, D.C: Ellen G. White Estate, 1982; Woodrow W. Whidden II,
Ellen White on the Humanity of Christ (Hagerstown, MD: Review and
Herald Publishing Assn, 1997), pp. 48-49.
73: Poirier, quoted by
Whidden, Ellen White on the Humanity of Christ, p. 49.
74: Bruce
Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1957), pp. 159-160,162. Robert W. Olson, “Ellen
G. White’s Use of Uninspired Sources” (White Estate
Paper), p. 17.
75: White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
76:
Acts of the Apostles, pp. 560-561; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20.
77:
Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
78: Testimonies, vol. 5, p.
513.
79: Ministry of Healing, p. 130; Counsels on Health, pp.
41-42;
80: Adventist Home, pp. 127-128; Christ’s Object
Lessons, p. 354; Messages to Young People, p. 237; Testimonies, vol.
3, p. 491; vol. 5, p. 335; Review and Herald, Aug. 11, 1887; Dec. 1,
1896.
81: In Heavenly Places, p. 155; Signs of the Times, April
9, 1896; Oct. 17, 1900; Christ Triumphant, p. 260.
82: SDA Bible
Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128; Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 182;
Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 201-202,509; Desire of Ages, p. 305; SDA
Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 943;
83: Testimonies to Ministers,
pp. 171-172; Messages to Young People, p. 42; Acts of the Apostles,
pp. 560-561; Counsels to Teachers, p. 20.
84: A Solemn Appeal, p.
78, quoted in Our High Calling, p. 337.
85: Desire of Ages, pp.
88, 734-735. William G. Johnsson, “Our Matchless Saviour—V,”
Adventist Review, Aug. 26, 1993, p. 4. White, Desire of Ages, pp.
122-123.