The Divinely Appointed Remedies:
"White Raiment" and "Eyesalve"
The "white raiment, that thou mayest
be clothed" is said to be a "spotless character made pure in the
blood of their dear Redeemer" (3T 254). "the righteousness of
Christ" (5T 233) or "the robe of Christ’s righteousness"
(ML 311). Ellen White made frequent applications of it to the 1888
"message of Christ’s righteousness". John himself says it is
"the righteousness of saints" (Rev. 19:8), obviously not their
own for they have none, but Christ’s at last fully imparted to them, not
merely imputed in a strictly and exclusively legal sense.
Had there been no "presentation of
the righteousness of Christ in the relation to the law as the doctor
[Waggoner] has placed it before us [in 1888] (cf. Ms. 15, 1888) the
Seventh-day Adventist ministry and church would have been embarrassingly
"naked’. We had preached the law until we were as "dry as the
hills of Gilboa". On the stage in view of the universe of God, we
were assuming that we were proclaiming the "everlasting gospel"
to the world when we did not even understand "the third angel’s
message in verity". The 1888 message was to invest "the Advent
message" with precious content and the church with precious
experience that would truly remove cause for "shame".
Was our nakedness clothed at that time?
Or are we still naked? Is "Christ’s righteousness" now a
meaningful concept to us? Is it a cliché, words that mask a void? Has His
"wife … made herself ready"? Does she know Christ so well that
she is at last fitted to be His mate? If not, then she is not yet
"clothed".
Is her knowledge of His righteousness as
superficial as that of the "seven women" who take hold of Him
and seek to be called by His name, who can never become His true Bride
(cf. Isa. 4:1-4)? Christ was not a mere shibboleth to the 1888 messengers.
They did not mouth His name and sprinkle their messages with histrionic,
emotional presentations calculated to impress. They had a distinct,
objective view of Christ that was communicable in terms of doctrinal
truth. They saw something that apparently none of their contemporary
brethren had ever seen. This is clearly evident from what Ellen White
said:
I see the beauty of truth in the
presentation of the righteousness of Christ in relation to the law as
the doctor [Waggoner] has placed it before us. You say, many of you, it
is light and truth. Yet you have not presented it in this light
heretofore. … If our ministering brethren would accept the doctrine
which has been presented so clearly -the righteousness of Christ in
connection with the law — and I know they need to accept this, their
prejudices would not have a controlling power, and the people would be
fed with their portion of meat in due season. (MS 15. 1888, Olson, Through
Crisis to Victory, p. 295).
When Brother Waggoner brought out these
ideas at Minneapolis. it was the first clear teaching on this subject
from any human lips I had heard, excepting the conversations between
myself and my husband. (MS 5, 1889).
The unique message these brethren brought
at that time was given a special name — "the doctrine … of the
righteousness of Christ in connection with
the law". It was a recognition that Christ’s righteousness was that
of a true divine human being who "condemned sin in the flesh",
having been sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3).
This was the focal point of their message, its dominant theme that gave it
a practical keynote. Without this "big idea" their message would
have been powerless. The character Christ developed we can develop, if we
only have His faith. In other words, righteousness is by faith!
Both messengers specifically denied that
Christ came in the nature of Adam before the fall (cf.. Waggoner, Christ
and His Righteousness, pp. 26-30; Jones, The Consecrated Way, pp.
21-44 together with the General Conference Bulletin, 1895, pp.
232-234, 265-270). They specifically stated that He "took’ the
nature of man after the Fall, and in the most explicit, emphatic way
affirmed a view of Christ entirely different from that which is ordinarily
and widely proclaimed today. (There are of course some exceptions here and
there, and in very recent years some publications have begun to present
the 1888 view of Christ’s righteousness). If our current popular view of
"Christ’s righteousness" is true, then the basic heart of
Jones’ and Waggoner’s message was positively wrong, and Ellen White
was wrong to endorse it as she did.
Earnest efforts are made to gather
statements from Ellen White that seem to affirm that she opposed the view
of Jones and Waggoner. These are pitted against numerous statements that
support Jones’ and Waggoner’s view. The net result is confusion. It
appears to this day that no theologian has arisen who is able to reconcile
the apparently contradictory nature of these two sets of statements.
Wherever the subject is discussed, one set of statements is
invariably used to cancel out the other. But Ellen White would be a false
messenger if she so contradicted herself!
None of us will be able to understand
these apparently irreconcilable statements until we study them in their
true context, the 1888 message brought by Jones and Waggoner.
"Letters have been coming to me, affirming that Christ could not have
had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under
similar temptations" (Morning Talk Jan. 29, 1890, R&H, Feb. 18,
1890; 1 SM 408). It is very obvious that these letters were criticisms
from the field regarding Jones’ and Waggoner’s presentation of the
"message of Christ’s righteousness". How can we understand her
comments on the letters unless we understand the controverted message?
Though the letters are probably unavailable, we still have access in the
archives to the important thing — what Ellen White endorsed as the
"beginning" of the Latter Rain and the Loud Cry.
Has
this generation seen such powerful presentations?
|
