Did Jesus take the nature of Adam

Today God’s people are faced with a question that is designed in such a way as to deceive, if possible, the very elect. The question, “Did Jesus take the nature of Adam before the Fall or after the Fall” is asked in a way that will lead to one of two soul-destroying conclusions.

  1. We cannot overcome sin until Jesus comes.
  2. We unwittingly ascribe to the human nature of Christ the attributes of Satan.

Who Do Men Say …

In Matthew 16:13-18, Jesus asked His disciples a very important question, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” Their answer indicated that men only saw Jesus as a man; they did not discern His divinity, His divine nature.

Then Jesus asked His disciples, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” They recognized Christ as more than just a man; they recognized His divinity blended with His humanity in one Person, the Son (humanity) of the living God (divinity).

“Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one Person—the Man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Manuscript Releases, Vol. 21, 418

When two things are blended they become one. Jesus was fully human and fully divine; humanity and divinity were blended in one Person.

In the next verse, Jesus blessed Peter and said that flesh and blood did not reveal this truth to him. In other words, man cannot reveal to man the divinity of Christ, but God the Father revealed that the Man Christ Jesus was more than just a man; He was the Son of the living God and in His real and fully human body, “dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead.” This truth is what makes Christ the Rock, the foundation, upon which God’s church is built, and faith in this truth is essential to salvation.

The Scribes

There is another story, recorded in Mark 12:28–34, that directly relates to the divinity of Christ and complements the story in Matthew, but also adds the component of the law of God which is a transcript of God’s character. Together they begin to expose the error of the deceptive question that is facing God’s people today.

Scribe: “Which is the first commandment of all?”

Jesus: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.”

Scribe: “Well, Master, Thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but He: And to love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

The scribe recognized that love to God and man is the underlying principle, the foundation of all the commandments. But then what did Jesus say to the scribe?

Jesus: “And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, He said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.”

Why did Jesus tell the scribe that he was not far from the kingdom of God? Before looking at the answer we need to know what the kingdom of God is. Paul answers this question in Romans.

“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Romans 14:17

“And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever.” Isaiah 32:17

So why did Jesus tell the scribe that he was not far from the kingdom?

“The scribe was near to the kingdom of God, in that he recognized deeds of righteousness as more acceptable to God than burnt offerings and sacrifices. But he needed to recognize the divine character of Christ, and through faith in Him receive power to do the works of righteousness.” The Desire of Ages, 608

The kingdom of God is His righteousness and it is through faith in His righteousness that we receive power to do the works of righteousness. Faith in the righteousness of Christ is the basis of justification. But unless we recognize His righteousness in contrast to our unrighteousness, we cannot be justified and all efforts to obey the law of God will simply be legalism.

The Rich Young Ruler

Another individual in the Bible who is pointed out as not recognizing the divinity of Christ is the rich young ruler. His story pinpoints the very issue that prevents men from recognizing Christ, the Son of man, as also the Son of the living God. Matthew 19:16–22 records this story. The rich young ruler came to Jesus and asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” Before answering his question, Jesus asked him, “Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but One, that is God.” What is the problem with the way the young ruler addressed Jesus?

“The ruler had addressed Christ merely as an honored rabbi, not discerning in Him the Son of God. … On what ground do you call Me good? God is the one good. If you recognize Me as such, you must receive Me as His Son and representative.” Christ’s Object Lessons, 390

The word good in these verses refers to an “intrinsic goodness.” Jesus said that there is only One who is inherently good and that is God. The young ruler did not recognize the inherent goodness in Jesus and without recognizing His inherent goodness, we cannot recognize Him as the Son of God nor as His representative. Jesus came to this earth to represent His Father’s righteous character, and in order to represent His character, He had to possess it. So, did He?

“I delight to do Thy will, O my God: yea, Thy law is within my heart. I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, Thou knowest. I have not hid Thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared Thy faithfulness and Thy salvation: I have not concealed Thy lovingkindness and Thy truth from the great congregation.” Psalm 40:8–10

The law of God is a transcript of His character, the very essence of His goodness and righteousness. The law was written in the human heart of Jesus. Therefore, the righteousness of this holy law was manifested in His life.

“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. … For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” Matthew 12:33, 34, last part, 35

So, in addition to receiving Jesus as the Son of God, the rich young ruler needed to receive Him as His Father’s representative. But Jesus continued explaining what else was required, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” First, He essentially quotes the last six commandments but when He gets to the last commandment instead of saying, “Thou shalt not covet …” Jesus said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

What is covetousness?

“All covetousness is condemned as idolatry.” Christ’s Object Lessons, 261

“Put away all selfishness, all covetousness.” The General Conference Bulletin, October 1, 1899

Are we born selfish? Or do we become selfish sometime after we are born and if so, how?

“Under God, Adam was to stand at the head of the earthly family, to maintain the principles of the heavenly family [the principles of the law of God]. This would have brought peace and happiness. But the law [of self-sacrificing love] that none ‘liveth to himself’ (Romans 14:7), Satan was determined to oppose. He desired to live for self. He sought to make himself a center of influence. It was this [selfishness] that had incited rebellion in heaven, and it was man’s acceptance of this [selfish] principle that brought sin on earth. When Adam sinned, man broke away from the heaven-ordained center. A demon became the central power in the world. Where God’s throne should have been [in the heart of man], Satan placed his throne. The world [representing men] laid its homage [loyalty], as a willing offering, at the feet of the enemy.

“The transgression of God’s law brought woe and death in its train. Through disobedience man’s powers were perverted, and selfishness took the place of love.” Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, 33

Where does Inspiration say that God’s throne is to be?

“God has bought us, and He claims a throne in each heart.” Manuscript Releases, Vol. 18, 48

“When God has His rightful place on the throne of the heart, the right place will be given to our neighbor. We shall love him as ourselves. And only as we love God supremely is it possible to love our neighbor impartially.” The Desire of Ages, 607

“Until self is laid upon the altar of sacrifice, Christ will not be reflected in the character. When self is buried, and Christ occupies the throne of the heart, there will be a revelation of principles that will clear the moral atmosphere surrounding the soul.” The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 6, 1098

The heart of man is to be the throne of God, but when Adam sinned, the powers of man were perverted with selfishness because Satan placed his throne in man’s heart.

“All sin is selfishness. Satan’s first sin was selfishness. He sought to grasp power, to exalt self. A species of insanity led him to seek to supersede God. And the temptation which led Adam to sin was the false statement of Satan that it was possible for him to attain to something more than he already enjoyed—possible for him to be as God Himself. Thus, seeds of selfishness were sown in the human heart.” The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, 1763

Do the seeds of selfishness affect the nature or the character of man?

“We have hereditary tendencies to wrong. This is a part of self that no one need carry about. It is a weakness of humanity to pet selfishness, because it is a natural trait of character.” The Faith I Live By, 140

Yes, seeds of selfishness do affect the character of man, because selfishness is “a natural trait of human character.”

“By nature, man has no love for God. It is not natural for him to think of heavenly things. Satan has worked against God and His government, leading men to attribute to God the traits which belong to the power of evil. Christ came to this world to reveal the Father.” The Review and Herald, March 12, 1901

When Adam failed to maintain the principles of God’s law of divine love, the seeds of selfishness were sown in the human heart and selfishness took the place of love. Selfishness became the inherent, natural trait of character, the driving force in man’s nature.

Back to the rich young ruler

“Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language, He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life—the same condition that was required of Adam before his fall. The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of man in paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden—harmony with God’s law, which is holy, just, and good.” Christ’s Object Lessons, 391

“The lover of self is a transgressor of the law. This Jesus desired to reveal to the young man, and He gave him a test that would make manifest the selfishness of his heart. He showed him the plague spot in his character [thoughts and feelings]. The young man desired no further enlightenment. He had cherished an idol in the soul; the world was his god. He professed to have kept the commandments, but he was destitute of the principle [divine love] which is the very spirit and life of them all. He did not possess true love for God or man. This want was the want of everything that would qualify him to enter the kingdom of heaven. In his love of self and worldly gain, he was out of harmony with the principles of heaven [the law of God].” Ibid., 392

“A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things. God does not deal with actions so much as with the heart that prompts them.” Manuscript Releases, Vol. 4, 440

“Holiness of heart will produce right actions. It is the absence of spirituality, of holiness, which leads to unrighteous acts, to envy, hatred, jealousy, evil surmisings, and every hateful and abominable sin.” Testimonies, Vol. 2, 445

Is sin limited to our actions?

“Until the requirements of the holy law were applied as the rule of life, fallen man could not understand his own guilt, nor realize his condemned, lost condition. Jesus made application of the law directly to the soul, and laid under its jurisdiction the will and desires and works of man. Wrongdoing and all thoughts and feelings condemned by the law are to be overcome.” Manuscript Releases, Vol. 9, 235, 236

“The law of God takes note of the jealousy, envy, hatred, malignity, revenge, lust, and ambition that surge through the soul, but have not found expression in outward action, because the opportunity, not the will, has been wanting. And these sinful emotions will be brought into the account in the day when ‘God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.’ ” The Signs of the Times, April 15, 1886

The deeds of the law may be performed, there may be an outward obedience, but what is the principle in the heart that motivates the action? What is the principle in the heart that is being worked out in the life? The natural principle in the heart is what determines whether outward action is true obedience or legalism. Without the power to do the works of righteousness, obedience is legalism.

“Even the moral law fails of its purpose, unless it is understood in its relation to the Saviour.” The Desire of Ages, 608

Before looking at the purpose of the law we want to understand its relation to the Saviour.

The Requirement of the Law in Relation to Sinful Man and Christ

“The law requires righteousness—a righteous life, a perfect character; and this man has not to give. He cannot meet the claims of God’s holy law.” The Desire of Ages, 762

The law requires righteousness and a perfect character. Sinful man has neither one. What about Jesus’ finite human nature?

“Jesus volunteered to meet the highest claims of the law, that He might be the Justifier of all who believe on Him. We look to the cross, and see in Jesus a fully-satisfied and reconciled God. Jesus is righteousness. What fullness is expressed in these words!” The Review and Herald, September 2, 1890

“To human eyes, Christ was only a man, yet He was a perfect man. In His humanity, He was the impersonation of the divine character. God embodied His own attributes in His Son—His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His purity, His truthfulness, His spirituality, and His benevolence. In Him, though human, all perfection of character, all divine excellence, dwelt.” The Youth’s Instructor, September 16, 1897

In the next reference, notice how Inspiration uses the words character and nature synonymously in describing what happened when man sinned in Eden.

“When man sinned, all heaven was filled with sorrow; for through yielding to temptation, man became the enemy of God, a partaker of the satanic nature. The image of God in which he had been created was marred and distorted. The character of man was out of harmony with the character of God; for through sin man became carnal, and the carnal heart is enmity against God, is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” The Signs of the Times, February 13, 1893

At the Fall, man became a partaker of the satanic nature because the seeds of selfishness were sown in the heart of man. Selfishness is the very essence of Satan’s nature and this is the nature, the character, that we inherit from Adam.

The next two references refer to the humanity of Christ. Notice the contrast.

“The Sun of Righteousness, shining amid the moral darkness in such distinct rays, revealed the contrast between sin and holiness, purity and defilement, and such light was not welcome to them [the Jews]. Christ was not such a one as themselves.” The Review and Herald, July 12, 1898

“Christ points us to the key of all His suffering and humiliation—the love of God. We read in the parable, ‘Last of all He sent unto them His Son, saying, They will reverence My Son.’ Again and again, the Jewish nation had apostatized. Christ came to see what He could do for His vineyard that He had not done. With His divinity clothed with humanity, He stood before the people, presenting to them their true condition.” Ibid., July 17, 1900

Without recognizing His divinity, we cannot see our true condition. And if we do not see our true condition as a partaker of the satanic nature and then ascribe our condition to Christ, whose character, whose nature are we ascribing to Him?

“Satan has worked against God and His government, leading men to attribute to God the traits which belong to the power of evil.” Ibid., March 12, 1901

What is the purpose of the moral law?

“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Galatians 3:24

“Christ had repeatedly shown that His Father’s law contained something deeper than mere authoritative commands. In the law is embodied the same principle that is revealed in the gospel. The law points out man’s duty and shows him his guilt. To Christ he must look for pardon and for power to do what the law enjoins.” The Desire of the Ages, 608

The purpose of the law is to bring us to Christ that we might be justified. If we recognize Christ as the Son of God in human nature, we will recognize the contrast between His natural righteousness [divinity] and our natural unrighteousness [humanity]; the difference between self-sacrificing love and the plague of selfishness or covetousness. This is the only way that we can recognize our guilt and the only remedy for our guilt is Jesus. We must look to Him for two things: pardon and power to obey.

“Pardon and justification are one and the same thing. Through faith, the believer passes from the position of a rebel, a child of sin and Satan, to the position of a loyal subject of Christ Jesus, not because of an inherent goodness, but because Christ receives him as His child by adoption. The sinner receives the forgiveness of his sins, because these sins are borne by his Substitute and Surety.” Manuscript Releases, Vol. 9, 301

When we are justified, we become a loyal subject of Christ, not because of an inherent goodness. The law requires this inherent goodness and while we do not inherit this righteousness, Jesus did, and notice what He said in Matthew 5:17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Mrs. White explains what Jesus meant when He said that He came to fulfill the law.

“He here used the word ‘fulfill’ in the same sense as when He declared to John the Baptist His purpose to ‘fulfill all righteousness’ (Matthew 3:15); that is, to fill up the measure of the law’s requirement, to give an example of perfect conformity to the will of God.” Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 48, 49

Jesus is our substitute in fulfilling the law’s requirement of righteousness, just as His baptism fulfilled the requirement of baptism for the thief on the cross.

“His mission was to ‘magnify the law, and make it honorable.’ Isaiah 42:21. He was to show the spiritual nature of the law, to present its far-reaching principles, and to make plain its eternal obligation.” Ibid., 49

If we confess our guilt and recognize that Jesus is righteousness and as our substitute filled up the measure of the law for us, then He will pardon us. This is the very essence of justification by faith. But faith does not end here. We must look to Christ not only for pardon [justification], but also for power to do what the law enjoins. What is the power?

“Love is power. Intellectual and moral strength are involved in this principle, and cannot be separated from it. The power of wealth has a tendency to corrupt and destroy; the power of force is strong to do hurt; but the excellence and value of pure love consist in its efficiency to do good, and to do nothing else than good. Whatsoever is done out of pure love, be it ever so little or contemptible in the sight of men, is wholly fruitful; for God regards more with how much love one worketh, than the amount he doeth. Love is of God. The unconverted heart cannot originate nor produce this plant of heavenly origin, which lives and flourishes only where Christ reigns.

“Love cannot live without action, and every act increases, strengthens, and extends it. Love will gain the victory when argument and authority are powerless. Love works not for profit nor reward; yet God has ordained that great gain shall be the certain result of every labor of love. It is diffusive in its nature, and quiet in its operation, yet strong, mighty, to overcome great evils. It is melting and transforming in its influence, and will take hold of the lives of the sinful and affect their hearts when every other means has proved unsuccessful. Wherever the power of intellect, of authority, or of force is employed, and love is not manifestly present, the affections and will of those whom we seek to reach assume a defensive, repelling position, and their strength of resistance is increased. Jesus was the Prince of Peace. He came into the world to bring resistance and authority into subjection to Himself. Wisdom and strength He could command, but the means He employed with which to overcome evil were the wisdom and strength of love. …” Gospel Workers (1915), 311, 312

“The divine beauty of the character of Christ, of whom the noblest and most gentle among men are but a faint reflection; of whom Solomon by the Spirit of inspiration wrote, He is ‘the chiefest among ten thousand, … yea, He is altogether lovely’ (Song of Solomon 5:10–16); of whom David, seeing Him in prophetic vision, said, ‘Thou art fairer than the children of men’ (Psalm 45:2); Jesus, the express image of the Father’s person, the effulgence of His glory; the self-denying Redeemer, throughout His pilgrimage of love on earth, was a living representation of the character of the law of God. In His life it is made manifest that heaven-born love, Christlike principles, underlie the laws of eternal rectitude.” Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, 49

Rectitude involves both the mind and the conduct. Rectitude of mind is the natural inclination, the natural tendency or propensity to do what the law requires. Rectitude of conduct is doing what the law requires.

The issue in the controversy regarding the nature of Christ is justification. Jesus filled up the full measure of the law and brought into human nature the power of divine love, the power that we need to not only meet the law’s requirement of righteousness but also the power of divine love for true obedience to be sanctified. But before His divine love can be imparted to us in the life-long process of sanctification we must be justified; His righteousness must be imputed to us, put in our account. And before His righteousness can be applied to our record we must recognize our guilt of natural covetousness, natural selfishness, and confess this sin.

“If we say that we have [present tense] no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [justification] our sins, and to cleanse us [sanctification] from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:8, 9 (brackets added.)

Prior to the conversion of Paul, he was a stickler for outward obedience but when Jesus revealed His divine nature to Saul on the road to Damascus, Paul was convicted of his sin. And what commandment did Paul say convicted him? “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Romans 7:7

We have been warned

“The danger has been presented to me again and again of entertaining, as a people, false ideas of justification by faith. I have been shown for years that Satan would work in a special manner to confuse the mind on this point. The law of God has been largely dwelt upon, and has been presented to congregations, almost as destitute of the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His relation to the law as was the offering of Cain. I have been shown that many have been kept from the faith because of the mixed, confused ideas of salvation, because the ministers have worked in a wrong manner to reach hearts. The point which has been urged upon my mind for years is the imputed righteousness of Christ. I have wondered that this matter was not made the subject of discourses in our churches throughout the land, when the matter has been kept so constantly urged upon me, and I have made it the subject of nearly every discourse and talk that I have given to the people.” The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, 810

If we do not understand how the humanity of Christ is related to the law of God, we will have false ideas of justification by faith, which is the imputed righteousness of Christ. It is impossible to do the works of righteousness without first being justified, and before we can be justified we must be convicted that our condition of selfishness, our state of evil, is sin because it is an imperfection of character, out of harmony with the perfect character of God as manifested in His only begotten Son.

The law of God convicted the scribe of his duty that obedience [deeds of righteousness], is necessary for salvation, and because of this Jesus said that he was “not far from the kingdom of God.” But he also “needed to recognize that the divine character of Christ, that the kingdom of God was in Him.” This story does not reveal whether or not the scribe ever recognized His divine character and through faith in His righteousness received the power of divine love to obey. But Inspiration is crystal clear that without recognizing that His finite human nature possessed the divine attributes of His Father, the righteousness that the law requires, we will never gain an entrance into His kingdom, His righteousness.

Those who do not understand the difference between the human nature of sinful man and the human nature of the Son of God unwittingly ascribe to Jesus the attributes of the satanic nature, for that is what we inherit from Adam.

We may intellectually understand that it is our duty to obey the law of God, but until we are convicted of our guilt we will never receive the power, the divine love of God, to do the works of righteousness. And we will never be convicted of our guilt until we see the contrast between our condition of evil, our lack of righteousness, and the human condition of Jesus, full of righteousness and holiness. He was the personification of the law of God, the law of self-sacrificing love. Without His righteousness we are the personification of Satan’s law, the law of selfishness.

There are many scribes today in God’s church who recognize that deeds of righteousness are necessary; they profess to believe in obedience but they limit sin to a choice and thereby deny that our state or condition of evil is sin. Then they teach that the human nature of Jesus inherited all that we inherit from Adam. Lacking knowledge regarding the far-reaching principles of God’s law and how the humanity of Christ is related to His law, they unwittingly join Satan in working “against God and His government, leading men to attribute to God the traits which belong to the power of evil.” The Review and Herald, March 12, 1901

“Christ was the pattern minister. He was the greatest teacher the world ever saw.” Sermons and Talks, Vol. 2, 75

“Let it never be forgotten that the teacher must be what he desires his pupils to become.” The Review and Herald, January 10, 1882

“We are to look to the man Christ Jesus, who is complete in the perfection of righteousness and holiness. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. He is the Pattern Man. His experience is the measure of the experience that we are to gain. His character is our model.” Ibid., March 9, 1905

All scriptures are from the King James Bible.

Peggy Nixon has a deep love for the “truth as it is in Jesus.” She does not claim to be an expert on this subject but found that it opened to her a better understanding of righteousness by faith, both in justification and sanctification.  She can be reached at natureofchrist@gmail.com.

Holy Flesh & Celebration Music, Part II

Haskell’s Eye Witness Report

Steven N. Haskell and Elder A. J. Breed were sent by the General Conference to investigate what was going on in the Indiana Conference. They were also to be guest speakers at the 1900 Indiana camp meeting.

“The camp meeting at which this experience took place was held in Muncie, Indiana, while Ellen White was on board ship returning to the United States,” Arthur White wrote. “When James Edson White journeyed to the West Coast to greet his mother, he handed her a letter from Elder Haskell in which he described some of the things that had taken place.” The Early Elmshaven Years, 101, 102.

Haskell had written a second letter to Ellen White describing in more detail the teachings of the Holy Flesh advocates. This second Letter Haskell mailed from Battle Creek, Michigan, the same day he handed Letter #1 to Edson White to deliver to his mother in person. This document is known as the Haskell Letter #2, September 25, 1900.

Arthur White did not refer to the second Haskell letter in his narration of the history of the Holy Flesh Movement. Why? Could it have been because the second letter revealed what the Holy Flesh advocates really taught about the human nature Christ assumed while in the flesh? This second Haskell letter proves that the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church is now teaching the same false doctrine on the human nature of Christ as it was taught by the Holy Flesh advocates!

The Erroneous Holy Flesh Teaching of the Human Nature Of Christ

The Holy Flesh advocates taught that Jesus came to earth in a nature like that which Adam possessed before the fall in the Garden of Eden. Note carefully Haskell’s clear eye-witness description of this false teaching in his second letter to Ellen White.

“When we stated that we believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity, they would represent us as believing that Christ sinned,” Haskell wrote, “notwithstanding the fact that we would state our position so clearly that it would seem as though no one could misunderstand us.” Haskell Letter #2.

“Their point of theology in this particular respect seems to be this,” Haskell continued. “They believe that Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell; so He [Christ] took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden, and thus humanity was holy, and this is 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.” Ibid.

Notice the two important points in the above statements. Haskell stated that:

“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.” This problem still exists today. When anyone states that “Christ was born in fallen humanity,” he or she is accused of believing that Christ sinned.

The Holy Flesh advocates “believe that Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell; so He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden, and thus humanity was holy, and this is the humanity which Christ had.”

Ellen White had just returned from several years in Australia, and as she came ashore, the Haskell Letter #1 was handed to her in person by her son, James Edson White. Haskell’s Letter #2, arrived in the mail a few days later. Ellen White confronted the false teaching of the Holy Flesh Movement with dispatch. At the close of the 1901 General Conference session, on Wednesday morning, April 17, Ellen White arose and presented a testimony directly to the General Conference. R. S. Donnell, President of the Indiana Conference, and S. S. Davis, the Conference evangelist, who had led out in the false teachings, were present at this meeting.

Ellen White stated in part: “Instruction has been given me in regard to the late experience of brethren in Indiana and the teaching they have given to the churches. Through this experience and teaching the enemy has been working to lead souls astray.” General Conference Bulletin, 1901, 419–422: Selected Messages, Book 2, 31–35.

At the early morning workers’ meeting the following day, Elder R. S. Donnell, Indiana Conference President, confessed that he was wrong. (See “Confession, Donnell,” General Conference Bulletin, vol. IV, Extra No. 18, April 23, 1901, 422.)

Following the General Conference session in 1901, a local Conference session was convened in Indianapolis, Indiana, May 3–5, 1901, to elect new officers. Attending this conference business meeting were Elders A. G. Daniells, W. W. Prescott, A. T. Jones, P. T. Magan, and W. C. White. Ellen White also attended this meeting and addressed the delegates. At the close of her address Ellen White stated: “When I am gone from here, none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth. There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.” G. A. Roberts, The Holy Fanaticism, Ellen G. White Estate, Document File #190.

Notice that Ellen White warned that “none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth.” And further that, “There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.” Not a thread of truth in any point of the Holy Flesh doctrine. Not in their “celebration” type of music—not in their pre-fall of Adam human nature of Jesus Christ doctrine. Yet the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church is vigorously promoting both “celebration” music worship services, and the pre-fall nature of Christ, (as used by the Holy Flesh advocate)!

“Listen to the music, to the language, called higher education,” Ellen White counseled. “But what does God declare it?—The Mystery of Iniquity.” (An Appeal for Missions, 11.)

False Concept of Christ’s Human Nature

As noted above, S. N. Haskell, in a second letter, wrote to Ellen White that leaders of the Holy Flesh Movement in Indiana were teaching the false doctrine that Christ came to earth in the human nature of Adam before he fell in the garden of Eden. Ellen White stated that “none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth.” Why? Because, “There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.” White Estate Document, File #190. According to this statement, if one was to teach that Christ came to earth in the human nature of Adam before he fell in the garden of Eden, he would be teaching a doctrine held by the Holy Flesh Movement! Or if one was to teach the “celebration” music concepts in worship, they would also be teaching a doctrine held by the Holy Flesh Movement. If she were alive today, what would Ellen White say about the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church teaching both Holy Flesh concepts on music and the human nature of Christ?

Holy Flesh False Doctrines Taught Today

“He [Christ] was like Adam before his fall,” Leroy Edwin Froom wrote, “who was similarly without any inherent sinful ‘propensities.’ ” L. E. Froom, Movement of Destiny, 428.

“He [Christ] was perfect in His humanity, but He was none the less God, and His conception in His incarnation was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit so that He did not partake of the fallen sinful nature of other men,” Dr. E. Schuyler English, noted Evangelical leader wrote. (Froom, op. sit., Dr. E. Schuyler English, editor Our Hope, MD, 469.) In his reply letter to Dr. English, Froom stated, “That, we in turn assured him, is precisely what we [Seventh-day Adventists] likewise believe.” Ibid., 470.

“Although born in the flesh, He was nevertheless God, and was exempt from the inherited passions and pollutions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam.” Questions on Doctrine, 383.

“Jesus was not like you and me when He was here upon earth, for He was never a sinner,” Donald Reynolds wrote. “He came to this earth as Adam before Adam fell.” Donald G. Reynolds, “Adam and Evil”, Review and Herald, July 1, 1965.

The Church is now officially teaching a cardinal doctrine held by the Holy Flesh Movement in direct opposition to the Spirit of Prophecy which stated clearly that, “When I am gone from here, none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth,” for, “there is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric.”

Falsifying History To Sustain A Doctrinal Position

In 1958, Arthur White, then chairman of the Ellen G. White Estate, wrote a Compiler’s Note in Selected Messages, book 2. The Note is found on page 31, before the chapter titled, “The Holy Flesh Doctrine.” The statement in the Compiler’s Note that “during Christ’s agony in Gethsemane He obtained holy flesh comparable to that possessed by Adam before his fall,” is erroneous. The correct teaching of the Holy Flesh advocates was that “Christ came to earth [when He was born] in the nature of Adam before he fell in the Garden of Eden.”

“They [Holy Flesh advocates] believe that Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell,” Haskell had written to Ellen White, “so He took humanity as it was in the garden of Eden.” Haskell Letter #2.

The deception can be very subtle and confusing. An easy way to separate the confusion is to think of, 1) “the Garden of Eden,” versus, 2) “the Garden of Gethsemane.” The Garden of Eden was before man fell—the Garden of Gethsemane was after man fell.

Arthur White’s Historical Source For the Compiler’s Note

Arthur White’s source for the position in the Compiler’s Note was taken from a letter written by Burton Wade. The letter was dated January 12, 1962, and addressed to Arthur White. Wade had “attended the camp meeting held in Muncie, Indiana, in September of 1900.” Although Burton Wade was 86 years old at the writing of this letter, and was recalling an event that took place 62 years prior, he claimed to have a vivid and clear memory of that camp meeting. Wade stated that the Holy Flesh advocates “believed that, when Christ suffered in Gethsemane, he obtained ‘Holy Flesh’ such as Adam had in the beginning before the fall.”

“This position is a bit at variance with those of G. A. Roberts and S. N. Haskell,” Kenneth Wood wrote, “but how do we know which of these men was capable of making a definitive theological statement?” Kenneth Wood Letter, to William Grotheer, dated at Takoma Park, Maryland, March 13, 1968.

Think for a moment, dear reader, about Kenneth Wood’s question, “but how do we know which of these men was capable of making a definitive theological statement?” Three men gave eyewitness accounts of what the Holy Flesh advocates were teaching on the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. Let us consider the relative theological background of each of these three men carefully.

Elder Stephen N. Haskell

Elder Stephen N. Haskell was a well-known Seventh-day Adventist pioneer and writer. Four of his most famous works were, The Cross and Its Shadow, The Seer of Patmos, Daniel the Prophet, and, Haskell’s Handbook (a doctrinal study guide for the layman, published in 1919). Ellen White cited Haskell for his stand on truth in 1888. (Ellen G. White, Ms. 15, 1888, See Through Crisis to Victory, 301). He had been sent to the Indiana Conference to investigate the teaching of the Holy Flesh advocates by the General Conference and was a speaker at the 1900 camp meeting at Muncie, Indiana. Haskell was 67 years old at the time. Burton Wade was a young man of 24 years. Haskell wrote his account two days after the Muncie camp meeting. Burton Wade wrote his letter, recalling the event, 62 years later, and he was 86 years old at the writing of his letter. At this conference, Haskell had discussed doctrinal concepts directly with the leaders of the Holy Flesh Movement. Two days after returning to Battle Creek, Haskell wrote two letters to Ellen White reporting the teachings of the Holy Flesh advocates. One letter he mailed, the other he gave to Edson White, who was passing through Battle Creek on his way to meet Ellen White at the docking of the ship from Australia. Again, both Letter #1 and #2 are on file at the Ellen G. White Estate, of which Kenneth Wood was a trustee.

Elder G. A. Roberts

Elder G. A. Roberts, who later served as President of the Inter-American Division (1936–1941), was also an eyewitness of the Holy Flesh Movement. He had attended their meetings at Indianapolis. Roberts was also a close friend of R. S. Donnell, one of the leaders of the Holy Flesh Movement. Twenty-three years later he wrote his observations of the experience. About the position held by the Holy Flesh advocates on the doctrine of the Incarnation he stated in part: “It was taught that Jesus had holy flesh, and that those who followed Him through this garden experience would likewise have holy flesh; that the text, ‘A body hast thou prepared me,’ showed that Christ had a specially prepared holy body. The Scripture, Hebrews 2:7–14, was used to prove that Christ was born with flesh like ‘my brethren’ and ‘the church’ would have after they had passed through the garden experience.” G. A. Roberts, The Holy Flesh Fanaticism, June, 1923, Document File #190.

Notice that Roberts stated the Holy Flesh advocates believed that:

  • “Jesus had holy flesh”
  • “Christ had a specially prepared holy body” when He came to earth
  • “Christ was born with flesh like My brethren,”
  • “the church would have after they had passed through the garden experience.”

This statement clearly shows that the Holy Flesh advocates believed that Jesus came to earth in the nature of Adam before the fall, and that the Church would obtain this same flesh after passing through the “Garden of Gethsemane” experience. Then they would no longer sin and would be fit for translation.

Burton Wade

Burton Wade, the person who Kenneth Wood and other Seventh-day Adventist leadership depended on for their historical source, was a lay member from Denver, Indiana. In order for Kenneth Wood and the Adventist leadership to accept Wade’s testimony, they had to cast aside the testimony of the three reliable General Conference men, S. N. Haskell, A. J. Breed, and the testimony of G. A. Roberts. Haskell, Breed, and Roberts all agree. Burton Wade gave a different account. It will be left with the reader to decide which of these four men were capable of making “a definitive theological statement.”

Jesse Dunn, an older man who also lived at Denver, Indiana, and was the State Agent at the time, “understood the doctrine as taught by the Holy Flesh advocates in harmony with Haskell and Roberts.” William A. Grotheer, The Holy Flesh Movement, 59. Why did the compilers of the book Selected Messages, Book 2, choose the testimony of Burton Wade over Jesse Dunn, the other eyewitness from Indiana? More important, why did they choose Wade’s testimony over S. N. Haskell and A. J. Breed, the two men sent by the General Conference to investigate the teachings of the Holy Flesh advocates? Why did they ignore the testimony of G. A. Roberts, another reliable General Conference eyewitness?

Startling Discrepancy In Source Dates

The Burton Wade letter was stated to be the source for the Compiler’s Note in Selected Messages, Book 2. However, the book was copyrighted in 1958 and the Wade letter was dated 1962, four years after the book Selected Messages, Book 2, was published!.

“What then is the source of the Compiler’s Note?” Grotheer asked. “Or worse yet, perish the thought, were the first two paragraphs of the Wade letter `planted’ to give substantiation to the basic error in the Compiler’s Note?” William Grotheer, Letter to Kenneth Wood, dated at Florence, Mississippi, March 15, 1968. Grotheer stated further that, “Unless other proof can be offered to the source of the note, this last idea needs to be investigated further, for it would then have validity.”

The Compiler’s Note in the book Selected Messages, Book 2, was published in 1958. The Evangelical Conferences with Dr. Donald Barnhouse and Walter Martin took place two years prior in 1955–56. It was at these Evangelical Conferences that concessions were made on the “Atonement” and the “Human Nature of Christ.” The book Questions On Doctrine, in which these concessions were stated, was published the previous year in 1957.

The Objective Of the Compiler’s Note

Why does the leadership of the contemporary Seventh-day Adventist Church aspire to teach that the Holy Flesh advocates believed that Christ obtained the nature of the pre-fall Adam “during His agony in Gethsemane”—rather then “Christ obtained Adam’s unfallen nature when He came to earth”? Is it that the leadership now teaches that “Christ obtained Adam’s unfallen nature when He came to earth,” the very same false doctrine as the Holy Flesh advocates taught?

If the Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders accepted Haskell’s and Roberts’ testimony, they would have to concede that they are now teaching a doctrine held by the Holy Flesh advocates. Then the Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership would have to explain why they are teaching a doctrine in direct opposition to the Spirit of Prophecy. They would have to negate the statement by Ellen White that: “There is not a thread of truth in the whole fabric,” and again, “when I am gone from here, none are to pick up any points of this doctrine and call it truth.” Is it not curious that the Church leadership cannot see the truth on this point as both the G. A. Roberts’ document and the Haskell letters are in the files of the Ellen G. White Estate and are available for research?

In a letter to William Grotheer, Arthur White stated that to him the teaching of the Holy Flesh advocates on the human nature of Christ was, “a matter of little importance.” He added further that, “Except as there may be lessons in the experience for us today, it is not a matter of great interest or consequence to the church now.” Arthur L. White, Letter to William H. Grotheer, dated at Takoma Park, Washington D. C., December 13, 1968.

This, of course, is not true. Thirty years after Arthur White made this statement, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is divided in a debate over the human nature Christ assumed while in the flesh and the “celebration” music style of worship now prevalent throughout Adventism. Both of these false concepts were first advocated by the Holy Flesh movement. There are tremendous lessons for the Church today in relation to the Holy Flesh Movement of Indiana.

“We have nothing to fear for the future,” Ellen White counseled, “except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our past history.” Life Sketches, 196.

In his letter, Arthur White admitted that the truth on this matter could not be determined “without thorough, painstaking research (which seemed uncalled for in this case)” because only a brief historical note was being written. Ibid., White Letter, December 13, 1968. This statement reveals that historical inserts to the writings of Ellen G. White were made, “Without thorough, painstaking research.”

After Arthur White’s attention had been directed to the Haskell statement he admitted that, “Elder Haskell saw it differently than I have reported.” White observed further that, “The Wade testimony is interesting. I felt it was corroborative.” But what was it corroborative to? It was corroborative to the position White had presented in the Compilers Note! As an after thought, White admitted that the Wade letter “is not conclusive because of the time lapse (62 years).” He concludes the paragraph by stating, “One is led to say, ‘So what?’ ” Ibid.

So what? The Wade letter was written in 1962, four years after the Compiler’s Note was published in Selected Messages, book. 2, in 1958. How could Arthur White use the information in the Burton Wade letter, written four years after the Compiler’s Note was written?

In his letter, Arthur White promised to restudy the issue “and if I am convinced that the note does not correctly represent the facts, I shall request the Board of Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate to approve a rewording which we will ask the publishers to place in the next printing of the book.” Ibid. The book has been reprinted since this letter was written by Arthur White in 1968. Over 30 years have passed, and the Compiler’s Note remains unchanged.

Still Ignoring the Haskell Letter #2

In 1983, fifteen years after his letter to William Grotheer, Arthur L. White wrote a six volume set of books on the life of Ellen White. In volume 5, The Early Elmshaven Years, 1900–1905, pages 100-107, White covered the history of the Holy Flesh Movement of Indiana. On pages 101 and 102, White quoted from the Haskell Letter #1. Although for the past fifteen years he was aware of, and had access to, the Haskell Letter #2 in the Ellen G. White Estate Document Files, White still chose to ignore this second Haskell Letter. Why? It seems very probable to this author that it was because the second Haskell letter was theologically opposed to the present Seventh-day Adventist position on the human nature of Christ, and to the Compiler’s Note that White had written in Selected Messages, Book 2.

Today, in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we see not only the very same false doctrine of Christ’s human nature as taught by the Holy Flesh advocates, but also the very same “celebration music” services of the Holy Flesh advocates in many Seventh-day Adventist Churches. It is past time that we consider the seriousness of this matter and where it is leading us.

Note: If you would like more information about the danger of the Celebration movement in Adventism today, call Steps to Life and order our booklet titled No Time to Celebrate. Available in English and Spanish for $1.00 per booklet. Call for bulk prices.