“LIGHTENED WITH HIS GLORY”

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE 1888 MESSAGE

Robert J. Wieland

Chapter 3

Questions About Christ’s Coming in the Flesh

I hear it said that it doesn’t matter what one believes about the nature of Christ. Is this true?

We will let one of the 1888 messengers answer this question. Waggoner makes it clear how necessary it is for us to see Christ as He truly is. These are the first words of the first book he published after the Minneapolis Conference, showing how prominent this idea was in his message:

In the first verse of the third chapter of Hebrews we have an exhortation which comprehends all the injunctions given to the Christian. It is this: “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.” To do this as the Bible enjoins, to consider Christ continually and intelligently, just as He is, will transform one into a perfect Christian, for “by beholding we become changed.” (Christ and His Righteousness, p. 5).

In a few words, what was the view of the 1888 messengers on the human nature of Christ?

Both understood that Christ took upon His sinless nature the fallen, sinful nature of mankind. This was so that He might be tempted in all points like as we are, conquer Satan, condemn sin in the flesh, and “succor” and save us in temptation. Yet He did no sin (Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:15). There was never the slightest doubt about Christ’s full divinity; that was never an issue.

Why was this view so essential to their message?

This view was essential to their message of righteousness by faith because it saw Christ as “a Saviour nigh at hand, and not afar off,” as Ellen White characterized it. Their idea of the gospel was glorious Good News of a Saviour who can save from sin, and prepare a people for the coming of the Lord.

As they saw it, if Christ had taken only the sinless nature of Adam before the fall, He could be Adam’s Saviour, but we fallen sons and daughters of Adam would lack the assurance that He can save us from sin.

But seeing clearly that Christ took our identical nature, was tempted in all points like we are yet without sin, we can hope to overcome, even as He overcame. Sin is no longer the all-prevailing monster who (as multitudes think) has successfully proven God to be wrong. This issue is essential to resolving the great controversy.

Both Jones and Waggoner understood that the great controversy cannot be resolved simply by Christ paying a legal debt and legally substituting for our continued sinning. His people must also overcome even as He overcame.

How did the 1888 messengers reply to the charge that this idea is “perfectionism”?

Waggoner answers this question as follows:

Now, do not get a mistaken idea. Do not get the idea that you and I are ever going to be so good that we can live independently of the Lord; do not think that this body is going to be converted. If you do, you will get into grave trouble and gross sin. … When men get the idea that their flesh is sinless, and that all their impulses are from God, they are confounding their sinful flesh with the Spirit of God. They are substituting themselves for God, putting themselves in his place, which is the very essence of the papacy (E. J. Waggoner, General Conference Bulletin, 1901, p. 146).

This sinful, mortal body will struggle for the mastery as long as we are in the world, until Christ shall come, and make this corruptible body incorruptible, and this mortal immortal. But 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; and so when we consciously live by the faith of Christ, when he is in us by his own life, living in us, he represses the sin, and we are masters, instead of the flesh being the master (Ibid., p. 223).

How did this view of the nature of Christ get translated into simple, practical godliness?

It gave the sinner hope that the great controversy between Christ and Satan could come to an end, that sin is indeed “condemned in the flesh,” that God’s people can overcome, that He can have a people who honor Him in these last days. The prevailing Roman Catholic and Protestant view assumed that as long as human beings have a sinful nature, they can never truly overcome sin. Yet we are constantly told not to sin. Thus a never-ending tension is set up in the soul that leads invariably either to discouragement and fear that we can never measure up, or to presumption that it’s impossible to overcome and therefore sin is OK.

The 1888 view sees Christ as fighting our battle with the enemy head-on, not “exempt” from the real struggle as the other view insists. It was this that so rejoiced the soul of Ellen White when she first heard it.

Jones expressed it thus:

Conversion, then, you see, does not put new flesh upon the old spirit; but a new Spirit within the old flesh. It does not propose to bring new flesh to the old mind, but a new mind to the old flesh. Deliverance and victory are not gained by having the human nature taken away, but by receiving the divine nature to subdue and have dominion over the human,—not by the taking away of the sinful flesh, but by the sending in of the sinless Spirit to conquer and condemn sin in the flesh.

The Scripture does not say, Let this flesh be upon you, which was also upon Christ; but it does say, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” Phil. 2:5.

The Scripture does not say, Be ye transformed by the renewing of your flesh; but it does say, “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Rom. 12:2. We shall be translated by the renewing of our flesh; but we must be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Lessons on Faith, p. 91).

Some say that the nature of Christ was not a part of the presentations at the General Conference Session of 1888 in Minneapolis. Is there evidence that proves this true or false?

There is evidence that it is not true:

1. Waggoner presented this view in his Signs of the Times articles beginning January 21,1889. They were later published almost word for word as Christ and His Righteousness (Pacific Press, 1890). He could hardly have gotten home from Minnesota to Oakland, California in time to have the January 21 article ready for publication unless he had written it at the time of the Minneapolis Conference or immediately after. L. E. Froom reports that in his interview with Waggoner’s widow she informed him that she had taken his Minneapolis talks down in shorthand, transcribed them, and that they became the basis of those articles (cf. Movement of Destiny, pp. 200, 201).
2. In 1887 Waggoner wrote a reply to G. I. Butler’s book The Law in Galatians, entitling it, The Gospel in Galatians. He did not publish it until shortly before the 1888 Conference, and gave a copy to each delegate. In it he clearly articulates this view of the nature of Christ (p. 60-64).

The fact that W. C. White did not include in his handwritten notes at Minneapolis any mention of this subject proves nothing. The notes are far from being complete.

3. The question is really immaterial, because both Jones and Waggoner continued to teach this view throughout the decade following 1888 while Ellen White’s continuing endorsements extended through 1896 and even into 1897.

Does the General Conference recognize that the 1888 view of the nature of Christ may possibly be true?

Since the Palmdale Conference of 1976 the General Conference has recognized that both views of the nature of Christ are acceptable in the church. General Conference personnel are on both sides of the issue. Some strongly oppose the 1888 view; others openly proclaim it. Neither side can deny the other side the liberty of proclaiming either view.

Thus the General Conference grants liberty to those who believe the 1888 view because there is a trust that the Holy Spirit will bring a resolution of our differences as we “press together” in this time so close to the end. There is some evidence that this coming together is already beginning.

Was Christ tempted from within as we are tempted? Or was He tempted only from without as the sinless Adam was tempted in the Garden?

Scripture says that He was “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). How are we tempted? Both from within and without. Frequently Jesus makes clear that He was tempted from within, even as we are (John 5:30; 6:38, and Matthew 26:39). It was necessary for Him to deny self, for He says that in order for Him to follow His Father’s will, He must deny His own will. Thus He bore the cross all His life on earth.

But the sinless Adam was not so tempted. He knew no inner struggle to deny self, for in his innocent state he was naturally in harmony with God without the necessity of bearing the cross. He was tempted only from without.

In 1894 Ellen White published a little booklet, Christ Tempted As We Are. On page 11 she specifically says that our strongest temptations come from within, and Christ was likewise so tempted. Confusion comes when our people think that temptation is the same as sin. Christ proved that it is possible to be tempted and yet not sin.

Some say that I John 4:2, 3 has nothing to do with the nature of Christ discussions, but that it refers only to ancient Gnosticism. How did the 1888 messengers understand John’s warning?

Let us look at the text:

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 (KJV).

Both Jones and Waggoner understood this warning from John to apply to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the nature of Christ and to the similar popular Protestant view that Christ took upon Himself only the sinless nature (or flesh) of Adam before the fall.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception declares that when the Virgin Mary was conceived in the womb of her mother, a miracle exempted her from inheriting the fallen, sinful flesh or nature of mankind. Thus the genetic link was broken in her case so that she could not be “of the seed of David according to the flesh.” In this way she could pass on to her Son a sinless nature or sinless flesh, different from that of all mankind. The Catholic evangelist Fulton Sheen says she must be “desolidarized” from the human race so Christ can also be separated from us.

In the light of 1 John 4:1-3, does this ring some bells?

Why is their doctrine so important to Roman Catholicism?

We have seen that this dogma means that Mary’s Son, Christ Jesus, also was “exempt” from the genetic inheritance of all mankind and took only sinless flesh or a sinless nature. The basic idea is rooted in the doctrine of “original sin” which understands that if a person has a sinful nature it is impossible for him or her not to sin.

A little thought will show how the idea logically justifies sin. If there is indeed a great controversy raging between Christ and Satan, this dogma is a vote in favor of the enemy of Christ. And that is precisely what John says—it is the insignia of antichrist. It discloses the essence of the issue in the great controversy between Christ and Satan, in which the “little horn” of Daniel 7 and 8 figures so prominently. Satan’s primary contention is that human beings who by nature have sinful flesh cannot truly obey God’s law (cf. The Desire of Ages, p. 24).

A little thought will also show how this is the prominent issue in the great controversy.

What specifically did Jones and Waggoner say about 1 John 4:2, 3?

Here is what Jones said about the text we are discussing:

In the view of the Catholic Church and of the dogma of the immaculate conception, the nature of Mary was so “very different from the rest of mankind,” so much “more sublime and glorious than that of all natures,” … [that it was] infinitely beyond any real likeness or relationship to mankind. …

It therefore follows … that in his human nature the Lord Jesus is “very different” from mankind,... infinitely beyond any real likeness or relationship to us as we really are in this world. …

But... the scripture says, “He is not far from every one of us.” Acts 17:27. … The Lord Jesus … took our nature of flesh and blood just as it is. … Having found that the papacy puts Christ as far away from men as possible, it will be well to know how near to men he really is [quotes Hebrews 2,4]. …

To deny this, to deny that Jesus Christ came not simply in flesh, but in the flesh, the only flesh that there is in this world, sinful flesh,—to deny this is to deny Christ. [Quotes 1 John 4:1-3]. … Therefore this is the spirit of antichrist.

This tract was published by the Review and Herald in 1894, entitled The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (pp. 11, 12). Ellen White’s most enthusiastic and comprehensive endorsements of Jones’ message and ministry are dated 1894, 1895, and 1896 (see for example, The 1888 Ellen G. White Materials, pp. 1240-1255). She often specifically supported Jones’s, Waggoner’s, and Prescott’s presentations of the nature of Christ.

It is impossible to deny that the Catholic view of the nature of Christ contradicts Scripture and is the keystone of the great apostasy. Waggoner fully agreed with Jones:

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 means that Jesus Christ was born sinless. That is not the Catholic dogma at all. The doctrine 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 (General Conference Bulletin, 1901, pp. 404, 406).

Is there a relationship between this Roman Catholic dogma and the popular view of the Evangelical churches?

Jones and Waggoner both said yes, there is a relationship between the popular Protestant view of the nature of Christ and that of Romanism.

Theirs was not an extreme or unreasonable view. We all know that Sunday-keeping by Protestants is a doctrine inherited directly from the Roman Catholic Church (and paganism). Likewise, the widely prevalent doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul has the same origin. It is not surprising that the popular Evangelical view of righteousness by faith is also infiltrated by the Roman Catholic concept.

Waggoner comments as follows in reply to this question:

We need to settle, every one of us, whether we are out of the church of Rome or not. … 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? …

It is so strange that it takes us so long to come to the very simple A B C of the gospel (idem).

If 1 John 4:1-3 does relate to the Roman Catholic dogma, it must also apply equally to any teaching which denies that Christ in His incarnation took the fallen, sinful flesh of mankind. (John’s word “flesh” is sarx, which in the New Testament always means the fallen, sinful flesh that all mankind possess).

Some of our prominent Adventist speakers have ridiculed the 1888 view of the nature of Christ, saying that it makes us the “laughingstock” of the Evangelical churches. Why would Ellen White endorse such a message if it deserves ridicule?

Ridicule is often more difficult to endure than outright persecution by force. The apostle Peter thought himself strong to endure opposition, yet readily withered and denied his Lord before the ridicule of a girl. But ridicule does not overthrow truth.

The 1888 view of the nature of Christ may be ridiculed by some Evangelicals, but so is the Sabbath truth, and the sanctuary doctrine that is the “foundation of our faith.” We would be very unwise to abandon a truth simply because some opponents ridicule it.

As soon as she heard the 1888 message of the nature of Christ Ellen White was courageous and bold enough to stand firmly for what she recognized to be truth. Both she and A. G. Daniells have written that she had to stand at Minneapolis “almost alone.” While she urges us all to be “careful, exceedingly careful” how we speak of the human nature of Christ, she unhesitatingly approved of the way Jones and Waggoner presented it.

In this as in all other issues, the important question to ask is, What does the Bible say?

Was the Jones-Waggoner view of the nature of Christ something new that they discovered?

According to Ellen White, they found it in the Bible. Whether they read it in other authors of past centuries we do not know. But Harry Johnson, a Methodist scholar at the University of London, found evidence that all through the centuries there have been a minority of scholars and reformers who believed that truth, often at the expense of suffering intense persecution for it. His doctoral dissertation was published under the title, The Humanity of the Saviour (Epworth Press, London, 1962).

Some of these whom Johnson cites were: Gregory of Nyssa (330-395 A.D.), Felix of Urgel (f. 792), Antoinette Bourignon (1616-1680), Peter Poiret (1646-1719), Christian Fende, Johann Konrad Dippel (1673-1734), Gottfried Menken (1768-1831), Hermann Friedrich Kohlburgge (1803-1875), Edward Irving (1792-1834), Erskine of Linlathen (1788-1870), and Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann (1810-1917), and Karl Barth. There was another whom Johnson did not cite—J. Gamier, author of a two-volume set entitled The True Christ and the False Christ (London: George Allen, 1900). Gamier set forth the theological implications of the sinless-nature theory and demonstrated that it is the fulfillment of the apostle’s warning in 1 John 4.

Mezgebe A. Berhe, a student at the Andrews University Theological Seminary, has cited others whom Johnson missed: Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory Nazianzan, St. Hilary, Victorinus Afer, Ambrose, Gregory Bishop of Elvira, and Anselm of Canterbury (The Sinful Human Nature of Christ, unpublished manuscript).

By no means did all of these scholars clearly articulate the full New Testament concept, any more than they fully understood the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. But they did at times make statements that indicate a leaning in the direction of this truth.

But what about the present time? Do all Sunday-keeping Evangelicals, without exception, reject the view that Christ took our fallen, sinful flesh?

By no means. The facts are that some very thoughtful Evangelical scholars are coming more and more to the view of Jones and Waggoner, simply as the result of more careful Bible study. Harry Johnson says:

The humanity of Jesus is being taken seriously. We can heartily agree with D. M. Baillie’s remark: “It may safely be said that practically all schools of theological thought today take the humanity of our Lord more seriously than has ever been done before by Christian theologians.” (p. 201).

At the same time some Evangelical scholars are coming to recognize that natural immortality is not Bible truth.

In fact, Baillie uses almost the same words as Waggoner used in 1895 to describe the inadequacy of the sinless-nature theory, saying the church in previous ages

... was continually haunted by a docetism which made [Christ’s] human nature very different from ours and indeed largely explained away as a matter of simulation or ‘seeming’ rather than reality” (Idem., emphasis supplied).

Said Waggoner of the usual view of Romans 8:3:

There is a common idea that this means that Christ simulated sinful flesh; that he did not take upon himself actual sinful flesh, but only what appeared to be such. But the Scriptures do not teach such a thing (Waggoner on Romans, p. 128; emphasis supplied).

What factors have led these modem scholars to come to this view on this subject?

The answer has to be: simple Bible study. The Bible is as clear on the nature of Christ as it is on the seventh-day Sabbath. In fact, all one has to do is to let the following Scriptures be free to have their say, without comment or contradiction: John 5:30; 6:38; Romans 8:3, 4; 15:3; Matthew 26:39; Ephesians 2:14, 15; Colossians 1:21, 22; Hebrews 2:9’ 18; 4:15; Revelation 3:21, etc.

Some of these modern non-Adventist scholars who have come to virtually the same view as our 1888 messengers are: Andrew Bandstra, Oliva A. Blanchette, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Vincent P. Branick, C. E. B. Cranfield, Oscar Cullman, James D. G. Dunn, Francis T. Fallon, Victor Paul Furnish, David G. George, Florence Morgan Gillman, Roy A. Harrisville, Jean Hering, Morna D. Hooker, Ernst Kasemann, Richard J. Lucien, Reinhold Niebuhr, Anders Nygren, Alfred Plummer, H. Ridderbos, John A. T. Robinson, Martin H. Scharlemann, J. Schneider, J. Weiss, Charles A. Scott, Robin Scroggs, Robert H. Smith, David Somerville, James S. Stewart, and Harold Weis (see Berhe, op. cit. ).

Does this mean that this impressive array of scholars are clearly teaching the 1888 message?

No, it must be stressed that not all of these scholars consistently maintain the view held by the 1888 messengers. Often they show that they are wrestling with the concept; but Berhe has assembled statements from them that clearly show how an honest conscience has motivated them at times to recognize it. There are other 1888 concepts that apparently few if any of them have as yet come to see.

Are the Evangelical churches accepting the view of these scholars on the nature of Christ?

It must be stressed that in general the Evangelical churches do not teach what these scholars are coming to recognize. If the 1888 view deserves to be a “laughingstock,” it would follow that the above cited scholars deserve the same ridicule. But it is clear that the direction in which many are moving is toward the same view that “the Lord in His great mercy sent” to us a century ago.

We have no reason to condemn this view for fear of our Sunday-keeping brethren. If we had the courage to proclaim this “message of Christ’s righteousness,” many Evangelicals would see and gladly accept it, and it could make the Sabbath truth easier for them to see. Perhaps we Seventh-day Adventists have been woefully behind the keen cutting edge of modern Biblical scholarship in this area.

For sure, there is a widespread hunger for “the third angel’s message in verity.” Will not the Holy Spirit will bless its proclamation?

You proclaim the 1888 idea about the nature of Christ. In view of the fact that there is strong opposition to it, is this not divisive?

The clear Bible statements, the Ellen White comments, and the actual words of the 1888 messengers themselves, are not divisive. The contention and divisiveness arise from those who condemn what is so clearly the heart of the actual 1888 message.

Others have a right to their own views and deserve the religious liberty to proclaim them as they wish. We do not seek to silence them; we have confidence that as the result of free and open discussion based on full information, the church can arrive at truth.

If that “most precious message” of 1888 is actually error and if Ellen White was naive and mistaken to endorse it as she did, clear cogent reasons should be forthcoming from those who oppose it. But they should not seek to silence the message without refuting it with clear Bible evidence.

Isn’t the nature of Christ a minor matter that should be laid aside for the sake of church unity?

The New Testament presents the nature of Christ as tremendously important, as can be seen by reading Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:35; John 5:30; 6:38; Matthew 26:39; Romans 1:3; 8:3, 4; Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 1:21, 22; Hebrews 2:9-18; 4:15; 1 John 4:1-3, etc., etc.

Ellen White says that “the humanity of the Son of God is everything to us” (Youth’s Instructor, October 13, 1898). And the 1888 messengers regarded it as the keystone of their message.

Is it not disrespectful to Christ to say that He was tempted like we are? People are tempted to do terrible things!

The Bible says He was tempted “in all points” like we are (Hebrews 4:15). We know for example that He was tempted to take drugs, for no one was ever more tempted to relieve pain than He was on His cross, yet He refused a drug (Matthew 27:34). Temptation itself is not sin. The sin comes in yielding to temptation, and Christ never yielded.

If there is some sin that people are tempted to commit for which Christ was not tempted, in that respect the sinner can feel that he has no Saviour: “In that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18). God “hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). On the cross that terrible reality was fulfilled. On the cross He realized to the full the evil of human sin.

Writing to a youth who was tempted as all youth are tempted, Ellen White said: “I present before you the great Exemplar. … As really did He meet and resist the temptations of Satan as any of the children of humanity. … Jesus once stood in age just where you now stand, your circumstances, your cogitations at this period of your life, Jesus has had. … He is acquainted with your temptations” (Our High Calling, p. 57). It is useless to say that Christ “met and resisted temptation” if He was not tempted.

Is any significant progress being made in the direction of unity?

We are all too close to the trees to see the forest very clearly. More important than any human judgment is the Biblical assurance that as we near the end of time God’s people will come into unity. Truth unifies; error divides. Steadily, day by day, the knowledge of truth is bringing conviction to hearts everywhere throughout the church.

The encouraging word is that in the final disposition of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, truth will emerge fully triumphant. Thus there is every reason for confidence.

How is the “in Christ” idea of the New Testament related to the humanity of our Saviour?

Because “in Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22), Christ had to take the nature of fallen Adam in order to qualify as the second or “last Adam.” If He had taken the sinless nature of Adam before the fall, He could not have been our true Substitute, nor have died in order to redeem us.

In order to save the fallen sons and daughters of Adam, He must enter into the corporate stream of their fallen humanity, take their nature and mortality upon himself, live therein the sinless life the law demands, submit to be “made … sin for us,” and die the death that the broken law demands. There must be a reason why Jesus continually called Himself the Son of man! He must partake of the “flesh and blood,” the nature, of “the children” of Adam (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 2:9-14).

As “all men” are legally in one man “in Adam,” so all men are in One Man, in Christ. His life and His death are corporately ours to the benefit of the human race, our sin was “made to be” His so that we might be “made” the righteousness of God in Him. This union becomes effective in a change of heart and life when we believe.

Biblical justification by faith therefore is closely linked with the humanity of Christ. Failure to see this distorts the gospel itself.

Read Chapter 4—Questions About the History of the 1888 Message

Articles Index | Robert J. Wieland Index | Lightened With His Glory Index