"Investigative Judgment" background

[Many thanks to Loren Seibold for his editorial work. AToday print issue, 12/2016]

When most Seventh-day Adventists think of the history of the Investigative Judgement, they think of Hiram Edson’s iconic insight in the cornfield after the night of the Great Disappointment. But Edson's vision of Christ entering the Most Holy Place didn't mention the investigative judgment. Edson, along with O.R.L. Crosier, and Dr. Hahn, developed the teaching about Jesus entering the most holy place, which was set forth in an article by Crosier in The Day Star. (1) There is no mention of the Investigative Judgment in that article, or in Edson's account of the cornfield experience. Edson saw that Jesus had a "work to perform" in the Most Holy Place, but he wasn’t sure what it was. (2)

It should be noted that Josiah Litch, in 1841, set forth the concept of a pre Advent judgment, although he did not use the term “investigative judgment.” He summarized his argument for a pre advent judgment by saying: “Nor is there a text which presents the judicial scene of judgment after the resurrection. On the contrary, the Scriptures can be harmonized on no other principle than that every man's doom is fixed before his resurrection.” (3)

Our narrative on the investigative judgment begins with another early believer, Elon Everts. During the New Haven, Vermont conference of 1853 Elon Everts had been ordained to the gospel ministry. His name was a familiar one in the Review, with several letters describing his evangelistic labors in Vermont. He eventually migrated to Round Grove, Illinois where he continued his evangelistic work, including time with J.N. Loughborough, and died in February of 1858 at age 51 (4).

James and Ellen White first discussed the investigative judgment with Everts during a wagon ride in Illinois in 1856.(5)  Everts had been puzzling over the work of Christ in the sanctuary. He was quite certain Jesus was in the heavenly sanctuary, but he was unsure about what he had been doing there for more than a decade.

Everts began to flesh out his ideas in a “communication” published in the January 1, 1857 issue of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. He worked from 1 Peter 4:5, 6:

“Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead. For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.”

Since the Scripture speaks of a judgment of both the living and the dead, Everts reasoned that Jesus had been judging the dead of the ages since 1844, offering this text as evidence that judgment must take place before Christ’s return during the final generation of life on earth. Here Everts first floated the expression "investigative judgment" to attempt to explain what Jesus was doing—the first time it appeared in an Adventist publication. (6) He followed this with another article on the investigative judgment, dated June 4, 1854 but not printed in the Review until June 11, 1857.

The first actual article on the investigative judgment published in the Review came from James White, who picked up the themes of Everts “communication” just a month later, in the January 29 Review, with an article entitled “The Judgment”.

James White’s argument was based on his understanding of the blotting out of sin, the record of sin in heaven, and the “lot” of Daniel 12:13: “For thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.”  He listed more than seventy Old Testament passages from The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance, some of which indicated that “lot” referred to the position of the judged. Daniel in his “lot” was a reference to his already having been judged. James White followed Everts in the idea that Scripture taught that there would be a judgment of both the living and the dead based on 1 Peter 4:5-6, and that this judgment had started with the righteous dead in 1844.(7)

A pamphlet was later issued by the Battle Creek Steam Press in 1872. Entitled Fundamental Principles of Seventh Day Adventists which refers to the investigative judgment as principle XVIII:

“That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary (see proposition X), synchronizing with the time of the proclamation of the third message, is a time of investigative judgment, first with reference to the dead, and at the close of probation with reference to the living, to determine who of the myriads now sleeping in the dust of the earth are worthy of a part in the first resurrection, and who of its living multitudes are worthy of translation-points which must be determined before the Lord appears.” (8)

Uriah Smith wrote at length about the investigative judgment in his 1877 work The Sanctuary and the 2300 Days, which saw in Daniel 7:9-10 the basis for the investigative judgment:

“Thus the cleansing of the sanctuary involves the examination of the records of all the deeds of our lives. It is an investigative Judgment. Every individual of every generation from the beginning of the world thus passes in review before the great tribunal above. So Daniel, describing the opening of this scene, calls it a work of judgment, and expressly notices the fact that the books were opened” (9).

In a sweeping statement, Smith joined several Biblical motifs: “We have already seen that the cleansing of the sanctuary, the investigative Judgment of the saints, the blotting out, or remission, of sin, and the finishing of the mystery of God, are all one and the same thing. We now make the additional statement that this is also the atonement” (page 275). (10)

The Biblical Institute, an 1878 synopsis of SDA doctrines by Uriah Smith and James White also identified the cleansing of the sanctuary with the investigative judgment and the finishing of the mystery of God (p. 72). On page 84 of the same work, they stated that the investigative judgment takes place as the sanctuary is cleansed. (11)

Prior to his death in 1883, J.N.Andrews wrote the Sanctuary of the Bible. He mentions the investigative judgment twice, saying it is identical with the cleansing of the sanctuary. Wrote Andrews,

 “The nature of that work we will now briefly indicate. The work of the Judgment is divided into two parts. The first part is the investigative judgment, which takes place in the heavenly sanctuary, God the Father sitting in judgment. The second part is the execution of the judgment, and is committed wholly to Christ, who comes to our earth to accomplish this work. John 5:22-27; Jude 14, 15. It is while the investigative judgment is in session that the cleansing of the sanctuary takes place. Or, to speak more accurately, the cleansing of the sanctuary is identical with the work of the investigative judgment.” (12)

His posthumously published The Judgment. Its Events and their Order includes an entire chapter on the “investigative judgment.” (13)

Because Ellen White’s The Great Controversy is the most widely-read source for this part of Adventist history, it may be easy to assume that the Investigative Judgment teaching started with her. Yet it’s clear here that several Adventist scholars had already written upon the topic for 30 years before she took it up. Her first address of the investigative judgment isn’t until 1884, in Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, chapter 23. While her husband found evidence for an investigative judgment in the “lot” of Daniel 12:13 and the judgment of the living and the dead referred to in 1 Peter 4: 5-7, Ellen White mentions neither, relying instead, like Smith, on Daniel 7 (which James hadn’t mentioned) arguing that verses 9-10,13-14 portray the opening of the investigative judgment in heaven.

Ellen White expanded her investigative judgment teaching in the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy, introducing a unique array of passages to support and illustrate her doctrine: “The coming of Christ as our high priest to the most holy place, for the cleansing of the sanctuary, brought to view in Daniel 8:14; the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of days, as presented in Daniel 7:13; and the coming of the Lord to his temple, foretold by Malachi, are descriptions of the same event; and this is also represented by the coming of the bridegroom to the marriage, described by Christ in the parable of the ten virgins, of Matthew 25”  (GC88 426). She also appealed to Matthew 22:11 to support her investigative judgment teaching (GC88 427).

Other early treatments include the influential Daniel and Revelation (1897) by Uriah Smith, S.N. Haskel’s The Story of Daniel the Prophet (1901), The  Story of the Seer of Patmos (1905), and The Cross and its Shadow (1914), each covering the investigative judgment doctrine.

Ellen White’s 1911 edition of the Great Controversy remains the primary source for the investigative judgment teaching, but she was largely silent on the subject of the investigative judgment until 1884, long after it had been studied and written on by Elon Everts, James White, J.N. Andrews, and Uriah Smith, who were the principal proponents of the teaching among Seventh Day Adventists. While Ellen White enhanced and gave credibility to the teaching, she did not originate it.

Endnotes

1.Crosier, O.R.L. “The Law of Moses” Day Star Extra, vol.9, February 7, 1846, 37-43.

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, EllenWhite Writings Infobase, 2002.

2.Edson, Hiram. “Hiram Edson Manuscript (DF 588)” accessed Sept 2016. Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, Maryland,

www.ellenwhite.org/Hiram Edson/10,11 Hiram Edson Manuscript (DF 588).

3. Litch, Josiah. “An Address to the Public and Especially the Clergy” Published by Joshua V. Himes, Boston, 1841, p. 39.

4. White, James. “Eastern Tour,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol 4, no. 19, Nov. 15, 1853; John Lindsey, “Obituary,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald; vol. 11. No. 17, Mar. 11, 1858; J.N. Loughborough, E. Everts, J. Hart, “Tent Meeting in Green Vale,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 10, no. 13 July 30, 1857,

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, EllenWhite Writings Infobase, 2002.

5. White, A.L. Ellen G. White, vol 1. Review and Herald Publishing Association,Takoma Park Maryland, 2002,  pp. 353,354

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, EllenWhite Writings Infobase, 2002.

6. Everts, Elon. “Communication From Bro. Everts,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 9, no. 9, Jan. 1, 1857, p.72.

www.adventistarchives.org/onlinearchives/magazines and journals/official SDA periodicals/Review and Herald

7. White, James. “The Judgment” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 9 no. 13, Jan. 29, 1857, p. 100.

www.adventistarchives.org/onlinearchives/magazines and journals/officialSDA periodicals/Review and Herald

8. Seventh day Adventist Publishing Association. “A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by Seventh day Adventists.” Steam Press: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, Battle Creek Michigan, 1872

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, EllenWhite Writings Infobase, 2002.

9. Smith, Uriah, The Sanctuary and the Twenty three Hundred Days of Daniel 8:14. Seventh day Adventist Publishing Association, Battle Creek, Michigan, 1877 p. 276

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, EllenWhite Writings Infobase, 2002.

10. ... p. 275

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, EllenWhite Writings Infobase, 2002.

11. Smith, Uriah, James White. “The Biblical Institute, A Synopsis of Lectures on the Principal Doctrines of Seventh Day Adventists,” Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing House, Oakland, CA, 1878, pp. 72,84

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, Ellen White Writings Infobase, 2002.

12. Andrews, J.N. “The Sanctuary of the Bible.” “Bible Tracts” No.5, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Battle Creek MI, p.14.

www.adventistarchives.org/tracts and pamphlets/other tracts.

13. … The Judgment. Its Events and their Order. Pacific Press Publishing Company, Oakland. CA, 1890, Ch. 1.  

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, Ellen White Writings Infobase, 2002.

14. White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy. Pacific Press Publishing Association, Mountain View, CA, 1888, p. 426.

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, Ellen White Writings Infobase, 2002.

15. White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy. Pacific Press Publishing Association, Mountain View, CA, 1888, p. 427.

Ellen G. White Writings, Comprehensive Research Edition, Ellen White Writings Infobase, 2002.

The Blessing of Abraham, A.T. Jones

"The Blessing of Abraham," The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, October 12,1897

"CHRIST hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. . . that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Gal. 3:13, 14. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.1}

We are redeemed from the curse of the law, in order that we may have the blessing of Abraham; and we receive the blessing of Abraham, in order that we may receive the promise of the Spirit. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.2}

Without being redeemed from the curse of the law, we cannot have the blessing of Abraham. And without the blessing of Abraham, we cannot have the promise of the Spirit. Without the blessing of Abraham no one need ask for the gift of the Holy Spirit; for without that it cannot be given. However much a person may desire the gift of the Spirit, and however much he may ask, he cannot have it unless he has the blessing of Abraham first. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.3}

Not that the Lord does not want to give his Spirit to whomsoever asks; not that he fixes a hard standard, and compels every one, as a sort of penance, to come to that, or else he will not give his Spirit. No, no; but because that for the Lord to give his Holy Spirit to any person who has not the blessing of Abraham would be only to put his seal upon sin, and baptize sin for righteousness. This, of course, God never can do; and this, of course, no one would ever knowingly ask him to do. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.4}

It is, therefore, all-important to know what the blessing of Abraham is, and to have it in possession. For when this is so, to all such the Holy Spirit is freely given, and without measure; and every such one that asketh receiveth: for he asks in faith, he asks according to the will of God, and knows that he receives. The blessing of Abraham is the key that opens into the fulness of the Holy Spirit: with this we may enter freely, and enjoy all his treasures; without this we must stand without, and, even though longing for it, can never obtain. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.5}

What, then, is the blessing of Abraham? In that same chapter of Galatians, verse 9, we read: "They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." They which be of faith are blessed,—the blessing comes by faith. And they "are blessed with faithful Abraham." Abraham obtained the blessing by faith. Faith itself is not the blessing; it is by faith that the blessing is received. It has to be so; for, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.6}

So, then, the blessing came to Abraham by faith,—the blessing of Abraham is received by faith. What did Abraham receive by faith?—"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Verse 6. The blessing that Abraham received by faith was righteousness. Is righteousness by faith, then, the blessing of Abraham?—It look like it, doesn't it? {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.7}

Let us see further, whether this will hold good: "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?" Rom. 4:1. We know he found a blessing: for the Scripture speaks of the "blessing of Abraham," and it comes on us through Jesus Christ. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.8}

If we are correct in thinking that righteousness by faith is the blessing of Abraham, then when the Scripture would tell us what Abraham found, we should expect it to take up this thought first of all. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.9}

How is it, then?—It is even so; for the Scripture proceeds (Rom. 4:2): "For is Abraham were justified [counted righteous] by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." Anything in which a man cannot glory before God is no blessing at all. And as if Abraham had been counted righteous by work, he could not have gloried before God, it is perfectly plain that righteousness by works is not the blessing of Abraham. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.10}

What then? "What saith the Scripture?—Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth [counteth righteous] the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." This, then, is righteousness by faith—exactly what Abraham found. Abraham found a blessing; righteousness by faith, then, must be the blessing of Abraham. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.11}

But does the Scripture speak of this as a blessing, in such a way that we may be perfectly sure that just this is the blessing of Abraham? Read on: "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works." The word says that Abraham received a blessing by believing God. And then, continuing directly on that subject, the same word says that David describes the blessedness of the man who receives what Abraham received. It is certain that there was only "blessedness" in what Abraham received; what Abraham received was righteousness, and he received it by believing God; therefore it is certain that righteousness by faith is the "blessedness," the blessing, of Abraham. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.12}

How does David describe the blessedness of Abraham, and of all other men who receive what Abraham received?—Thus: "Blessed are they who iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.13}

The word "forgiven" is made up of "for" and "given." When iniquities are "forgiven," something is given for them. What is it that is given for them?—Righteousness, to be sure; for God has set forth Christ "to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past." And, blessed are they "whose sins are covered." "He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness." {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.14}

What is imputed to the man to whom sin is not imputed?—Righteousness only; for he is describing the man "unto whom God imputeth righteousness." {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.15}

God gave Abraham righteousness for his iniquities; him who was sin, God covered with the robe of righteousness; and to him the Lord imputed righteousness instead of sin. It was all the righteousness of God, through and through. This is what Abraham received, and he received it by faith. there was in it blessedness to Abraham. And David describes the blessedness of all other men who receive it. This, then, is the blessing of Abraham. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.16}

But the Scripture tells it yet again: "Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness." There can be no shadow of doubt, therefore, that the righteousness of God which is by faith is in very truth the blessing of Abraham. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.17}

Now have you the blessing of Abraham? Where did you get the righteousness that you claim, and upon which you depend for acceptance and approval with God? Did you get it from God himself? Did you get it by believing God? or did you get it by "doing your best"? {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.18}

If you have any righteousness that you did not get from God, then you have no righteousness that you did not get by believing God, then you have none at all. If you have any other righteousness than the righteousness of God, then you have none at all. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.19}

It is the righteousness of God, and that alone, which men must seek. None other will avail. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness." It is a free gift to every soul in the world. "Being justified [counted righteous] [sic] freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth. . . to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past." "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference." {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.20}

Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. "Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." And you do believe on him. Then accept his righteousness freely, and in all its fulness, as freely and fully as it is given. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.21}

The righteousness of God, which is by faith, is the blessing of Abraham. They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Thank the Lord for it, and thus accept the blessing of Abraham. For Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law,—he has done it,—that the blessing of Abraham might come on us. Please do not, by unbelief, keep that blessing away. Cast away unbelief. Believe God, and let the blessing of Abraham, the righteousness of God, flow in, and fill all the life with its power and its sweet savor. {October 12, 1897 ATJ, ARSH 646.22}

E.J. Waggoner, To Make Righteous

[Note: Waggoner emphasized that justify meant "to make righteous." He also said it could mean "to declare righteous." The following list includes all the E.J. Waggoner references listed on the Pioneer disk from the White Estate s.v., "to make righteous."]

"Righteousness and How Obtained" The Bible Echo 13, 12.

E. J. Waggoner

"The doers of the law," says Paul, "shall be justified." To justify means to make righteous, or to show one to be righteous. It is evident that perfect obedience to a perfectly righteous law would constitute one a righteous person. It was God's design that such obedience should be rendered to the law by all His creatures; and in this way the law was ordained unto life. Rom. 7:10. {March 21, 1898 EJW, BEST 89.1}

But for one to be judged "a doer of the law" it would be necessary that he had kept the law in its fullest measure every moment of his life. If he had come short of this, he could not be said to have done the law. It is a sad fact that there are in all the human race no doers of the law, for both Jews and Gentiles are "all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unpardonable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Rom. 3:9-12. The law speaks to all who are within its sphere; and in all the world there is not one who can open his mouth to clear himself from the charge of sin which it brings against him. Every mouth is stopped, and all the world stand guilty before God. Verse 19. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Verse 23. {March 21, 1898 EJW, BEST 89.2 [The Bible Echo}

###

Take the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The apostle tells us of some "whose god is their belly." Phil. 3:19. But gluttony and intemperance are self-murder, and so we find that the first commandment runs through to the sixth. This is not all, however, for he also tells us that covetousness is idolatry. Col. 3:5. The tenth commandment cannot be violated without violating the first and second. In other words, the tenth commandment coincides with the first, and we find that the Decalogue is a circle having a circumference as great as the universe and containing within it the moral duty of every creature. In short, it is the measure of the righteousness of God, who inhabits eternity. {1890 EJW, CHR 50.4 [Christ and His Righteousness]}

This being the case, the correctness of the statement that "the doers of the law shall be justified," is obvious. To justify means to make righteous or to show one to be righteous. Now it is evident that perfect obedience to a perfectly righteous law would constitute one a righteous person. It was God's design that such obedience should be rendered to the law by all His creatures, and in this way the law was ordained unto life. Rom. 7:10. {1890 EJW, CHR 51.1 [Christ and His Righteousness]}

###

"Justified."

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law," "we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified," said the apostle. The meaning of the word "justified" is "made righteous." This is the exact term that appears in other languages, which are not composed of foreign terms. The Latin word for righteousness is justitia. To be just is to be righteous. Then we add the termination fy, from the Latin word, meaning "to make," and we have the exact equivalent of the simpler term, "make righteous." In an accommodated sense we use the term "justified" of a man who has not done wrong in a thing whereof he is accused. But, strictly speaking, such an one needs no justification, since he is already just; his righteous deed justified him. He was justified in his deed. But since all have sinned, there are none just or righteous before God; therefore they need to be justified, or made righteous, which God does.

Now the law of God is righteousness. See Rom.7:12; 9:30,31; Ps.119:172. Therefore Paul did not disparage the law, although he declared that no man could be made righteous by the law, meaning, of course, the law written on stones or in a book. No; so highly did he appreciate the law, that he believed in Christ for the righteousness which the law demands but can not give. "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. The law, which declares all men to be sinners, could not justify them except by declaring that sin is not sin; and that would not be justification, but a self-contradiction in the law.  {1900 EJW, GTI 77.1 [The Glad Tidings]}

###

"Being Justified."-In other words, being made righteous. To justify means to make righteous. God supplies just what the sinner lacks. Let no reader forget the simple meaning of justification. Some people have the idea that there is a much higher condition for the Christian to occupy than to be justified. That is to say, that there is a higher condition for one to occupy than to be clothed within and without with the righteousness of God. That cannot be. {August 30, 1894 EJW, PTUK 549.3 [The Present Truth UK]}

###

Justification Is Righteousness.-A friend has forwarded to me a severe condemnation of a statement made some time ago, to the effect that to justify means to make righteous. The criticism was based on the fact that "Grove's Greek Lexicon" does not so define the Greek word from which justify is translated. Opening Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, I find the very first definition of the word in question is "to make righteous." But that is only by the way. Appeals to Greek Lexicons do not edify people. It was stated that "being justified" means "being made righteous," because that definition is patent from the reading of the English Bible. In addition to what has already been presented, read the following:- {April 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 259.5}

"Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. v. 1. But peace is for those only who love and keep the commandments, which are righteousness. See Isa. xlviii. 18; Ps. cxix. 165, 172. Moreover, "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness." Rom. x. 10. {April 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 259.6}

We are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," through faith in His blood, because His righteousness is declared "for the remission of sins that are past." Justification is therefore the forgiveness of sins. {April 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 259.7}

Forgiveness Makes Righteous.-But to be forgiven is to be made righteous. Forgiveness is not an imaginary thing, but is real. If I forgive a fellow-man, it makes no difference in him; the effect is only upon himself. But when God forgives us, He continues the same, but the forgiveness effects a change in us. It takes away the sin. But when sin is taken away, righteousness must take its place. A new life-the righteous life of Christ-is given in place of the old life of sin. {April 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 259.8 [The Present Truth UK]}

Forgiveness and Cleansing.-The same precious truth is taught in the oft-quoted words of John: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John i. 9. Note that the forgiveness and the cleansing are immediately consequent upon the confession. When we confess we are forgiven and cleansed. We have already seen that we have forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ (Col. i. 14), and we read also that "the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John i. 7. So we find that forgiveness and cleansing are really one and the same thing, wrought by the appropriation of the life of Christ. The life of Christ is all righteousness, and so its reception cleanses from all sin; but nothing less than the life of Christ can cleanse a single sin. {April 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 259.9 [The Present Truth UK} }

###

"The Just Shall Live by Faith." -This is proof that no one is justified by the law; for if one were righteous by works, then it would not be by faith. There is no exception, no dividing up. It is not said that some of the just shall live by faith, or that they shall live by faith and works, but, "The just shall live by faith." All of the just shall live by faith alone. The law and the works of the law have nothing whatever to do in the work of justifying men, although the law itself "is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Rom. vii. 12. {March 3, 1898 EJW, PTUK 131.6 [The Present Truth UK]}

Who Are the Just?- In other versions than the English, as, for instance, the German and Danish, these texts are made much plainer, because they use the word which conveys the idea more perfectly than the word "just" does to us. This is the way it is: "But that no man is made righteous by the law in the sight of God it is evident; for, the righteous shall live by faith." The words "just" and "righteous" really mean the same thing, but in the word "justify" the majority of readers do not readily recognise the phrase "to make righteous." We see, therefore, that righteousness is the end to be attained. Righteousness means right doing, and the law is the standard of right doing. The only question before us is how this desired object is to be attained. How is the sinner to be made righteous-to be made a doer of the law? Not by the law itself, for that does nothing; it simply points out the right way; but we ourselves are "without strength." Righteousness therefore must come from without, from some living thing, and when attained in genuineness will be "witnessed by the law and the prophets." Rom. v. 21. {March 3, 1898 EJW, PTUK 131.7 [The Present Truth UK]}

###

2. But "there is none righteous, no, not one." Rom. 3:10. "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Verse 12. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Verse 23. Consequently, all are guilty before God. Verse 19. Now a good law cannot justify a wicked man. To justify means to make righteous, or to show that one is already righteous. But a righteous law cannot do this for a wicked man; for if it should say that he had done no wickedness, it would bear false witness, and thus show that it was not good itself; and it cannot take away his sin, so as to make him righteous. Therefore since "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Rom. 7:1;2), and since all men have broken the law, it is very evident, as Paul says, that "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God." Gal. 3:11; Rom. 3:20. {June 30, 1890 EJW, SITI 391.5 [Signs of the Times]}

###

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin." {September 1, 1890 EJW, SITI 466.16 Signs of the Times]}

This is the grand conclusion of the apostle's argument, so far as the law alone is concerned in its relation to sinful men. It is so reasonable that anybody can see it, and so just that no one ought to lay anything to the charge of the law, on account of it. It is a fact that every soul, both of Jews and Gentiles, is guilty before God. Now what can the law do? Can it justify them? To justify means to make righteous, or to declare righteous. But they are not righteous, therefore the law cannot say that they are. If it did, it would not be a good law. The fact that it will not justify sinners-will not declare them righteous-is a standing proof that it is good. So, instead of burying the law because it will not justify sin for us, we should applaud it. {September 1, 1890 EJW, SITI 467.1 [Signs of the Times] }

###

"Being Justified." -In other words, being made righteous. To justify means to make righteous. God supplies just what the sinner lacks. Let no reader forget the simple meaning of justification. Some people have the idea that there is a much higher condition for the Christian to occupy than to be justified. That is to say, that there is a higher condition for one to occupy than to be clothed within and without with the righteousness of God. That can not be. {January 23, 1896 EJW, SITI 51.41 [Signs of the Times]}

###

Who Are the Just?- In other versions than the English, as, for instance, the German and Danish, these texts are made much plainer, because they use the word which conveys the idea more perfectly than the word "just" does to us. This is the way it is; "But that no man is made righteous by the law in the sight of God it is evident; for, the righteous shall live by faith." The words "just" and "righteous." Really mean the same thing, but in the word "justify" the majority of readers do not readily recognize the phrase "to make righteous" really mean the same thing, but in the word "justify" the majority of readers do not readily recognize the phrase "to make righteous."

We see, therefore, that righteousness is the end to be attained. Righteousness means right-doing, and the law is the standard of right-doing. The only question before us is how this desired object is to be attained. How is the sinner to be made righteous-to be made a doer of the law?-Not by the law itself, for that does nothing; it simply points out the right way; but we ourselves are "without strength." Righteousness, therefore must come from without, from some living thing, and when attained in genuineness will be "witnessed by the law and the prophets." Rom. 5:21. {February 1, 1899 EJW, SITI 83.7 [Signs of the Times]}

EGW against Uriah Smith, "Our Righteousness."

In a sermon given in Rome, New York, Ellen White made the following remark: "Brethren, do not let any of you be thrown off the track. “Well,” you say, “What does Brother Smith’s piece in the Review mean?” He doesn’t know what he is talking about; he sees trees as men walking. Everything depends upon our being obedient to God’s commandments. Therefore he takes those that have been placed in false settings and he binds them in a bundle as though we were discarding the claims of God’s law, when it is no such thing. It is impossible for us to exalt the law of Jehovah unless we take hold of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. { 1888 348.1 } My husband understood this matter of the law, and we have talked night after night until neither of us would sleep. And it is the very principles the people are striving for. They want to know that Christ accepts them as soon as they come to Him. I want to tell you, brethren, that light is sown for the righteous, and truth for the upright in heart." {Sermon given in Rome, NY on June 19,1889; 1888 348.2}

The following editorial was written about a week before

 EGW's comment:

OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS

SOME of our correspondents are beginning to drop

remarks leaning very suspiciously toward the view

that any attempt on our part to keep the commandments,

is simply an attempt to make ourselves better, which we can never do; that it is an attempt to be righteous, which is simply to cover 

ourselves with filthy rags ; for the prophet says that " all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. "Isa. 64: 6.

Just how much they intend to express, we are

unable to determine ; but it seems to us that they

are unconsciously turning their steps toward a position

held by a class of bitter opposers of our cause

and work, and who draw largely on this line of

thought for their material. It recalls a conversation

we once listened to between the late Eld.

James White and a Methodist minister. The minister

was denouncing our efforts to lead men to the

observance of all the commandments and particularly

to return to the Sabbath of the decalogue, as

turning men back to legalism. We have nothing

to do with the law, said he ; we cannot keep it anyway,

and to attempt to do so, is to turn away from

Christ, and trust in legality; every effort we make

to keep the commandments is to try to make ourselves

righteous, and to cover ourselves with filthy

rags; for the prophet says that all our righteousnesses

are filthy rags. So all your Sabbath-keeping

and law-preaching is only filthy rags.

Those who were acquainted with Bro. White can

imagine about how long it would take him to demolish

such an objection, and close the lips of such

an objector. It would be one of the shrewdest

strokes of policy ever devised against the law if people

could be led to associate in their minds that

holy instrument and all attempts to keep it, with

the idea of " filthy rags." Men, to be sure, have

enough filthy rags about them ; but no such rags

were ever manufactured out of love and reverence

for the law of God or the sincere and earnest efforts,

of any one to regulate his life by the holy

precepts of that law.

Nor do we think the text above referred to can

be fairly construed into any such meaning. Let us

look at the subject upon which the prophet is speaking.

In the last part of chapter 63 he refers pathetically

to, the fact that the sanctuary of Israel was

trodden down by their enemies, that the people of

God's holiness had possessed it but a little while;

but we, he says, are thine, and they are not called'

by thy name. Then in chapter 64 he lifts up an

earnest appeal to God that he would come down

and interpose in their behalf and make his adversaries

tremble at his presence. In verse 3 he refers

to the mighty works that God had wrought, especially

his coming down at Sinai ; and in verse 4

to the great things which he has promised to do ;

and pleads these as reasons why they may hope, for

his help. He then speaks of the different manner

in which God regards righteousness and sin. Verse

5: "Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh

righteousness." Boothroyd translates, this: "Thou

meetest him with joy that worketh righteousness."

The Lord is pleased with such an one. The

prophet continues :  “Those that remember thee in

thy ways” —those who bear in mind God's goodness

and mercy and strive to serve him. Then he speaks

of how God regarded them, and why : "Behold

thou art wroth; for we have sinned. “That was

the trouble With them and the condition they were

in. The last clause of the verse reads: “In those

is continuance, and we shall be saved." That is,

God's ways are unchangeable, consequently his

mercy endures forever, and by repentance men can

regain his favor and be saved.

Then comes the text in question in which the

prophet again recurs to their sad moral and political

condition :" But we are all as an unclean thing,

and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and

we all do fade as a leaf ; and our iniquities like

the wind have taken us away." In this condition

of guilt and condemnation, of course they had no

righteousness to plead before God. Their robe of

character was spotted and defaced and soiled and

torn. It was, as he says, only filthy rags. But

they had not got into that condition because they

had tried to the best of their ability to obey God

and keep his commandments, purifying their lives

by love and obedience, but for the very reason that

they had not done these things.

Daniel, in his wonderful prayer (chapter 9) makes

a similar presentation of the case. A few expressions

will serve as samples : " We have sinned

and committed iniquity." “O Lord, righteousness

belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of

faces." "Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law,

even by departing that they might not obey thy

voice." " We do not present our supplications before

thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great

mercies," etc.

He puts in no plea for any good works nor acts

of obedience; but his whole burden was for their

transgressions of God's law, and their failure to

obey his voice. And this was all the righteousness

they had to present; and this of course was

but filthy rags. But we say again, it was their

wanton acts of disobedience, not their efforts to do

right, which had brought them into this condition.

And although what was true of the Israelites applies

to all persons in a similar condition, it is a

manifest misapplication of the text to use its description

of a condition which comes from not keeping

the law, as a discouragement against all efforts

to keep it, on the ground that we thereby clothe

ourselves with filthy rags.

The law is spiritual, holy, just, and good, the

divine standard of righteousness. Perfect obedience

to it will develop perfect righteousness, and

that is the only way any one can attain to righteousness.

If neither Adam and Eve nor any of their

posterity had ever broken the law, the human

family would have developed righteousness by the

law alone. Sin not only broke the union between

man and God, but imbued man with a nature

such that it must be replaced by a new nature

before he can return to the path of obedience ; for

the carnal mind, the offspring of sin, is not subject

to the law of God, and cannot be.

Christ comes in and closes up the gulf between

us and God by providing a sacrifice to cancel past

sin, and gives us a new spiritual nature, through

which he proposes to dwell in us to bring us back

into harmony with the law, lead us to love and delight

in it, and walk in all its precepts. Right here

is where our Methodist friend made a mistake, and

many others are doing likewise. Because the work

Christ does for us is so radical and essential, they

fly to the extreme of dropping and discarding the

law, refusing to study what it requires, or to try to

follow in the way it directs, but thinking they are

to leave everything thereafter to Christ; not perceiving

that the whole object of Christ's work for

us is to bring us back to the law, that its righteousness

may be fulfilled in us by our obedience to it,

and that when at' last we stand beside the law,

which is the test of the judgment, we may appear

as absolutely in harmony with it, as if we had never

belonged to a sinful race who had trampled it in

the dust.

And yet though so dependent on Christ, we are

not to rest on the stool of do-nothing, as a mass of

inertia in the hands of the Redeemer. We must

be living stones in the temple, actively co-operating

with the Master-builder. But does not Christ say

that " without me ye can do nothing " ?--Yes, and in

that very language he teaches us that with him we

can do something, and when it is done, it is " we "

that do it. But does not Paul say (Phil. 2 :13)

that " it is God which worketh in you both to will

and to do of his good pleasure" ?--Yes; and in the

very same epistle (4 :13) he says, "I can do all

things through Christ which strengtheneth me." So

he does not leave everything for God and Christ to

do, but enters into the work himself, and without

his co-operation it would not be done.

When we pick up a piece of red-hot iron, what is

it that burns us ? We say the iron burns us. But

the iron of itself possesses not enough heat to burn

us; it must first be charged with fire ; and then it

is the fire after all which burns us, is it not ? And

yet we say truly that the iron burns us. The iron

is actively co-operating with the fire. It first receives

and then gives off the heat.

So a soul raised to a white heat in the service of

God, charged with the love of Christ, is an active

agent ; it keeps the commandments, not in a merely

passive and negative manner, but aggressively ; it

resists sin; it strikes right and left against temptation;

 it looks into the law to read its duty; it rests

and worships on the Sabbath of the Lord, and goes

forward in every good work; and in doing all this

it is not clothing itself with filthy rags.

But, it is asked, if a man undertakes to keep the

law in his own strength and work out his own

righteousness, can he do it ? Is he not clothing

himself with filthy rags ? To what class of people

such a query would apply, we do not know. We

do know, however, that there is not a Seventh-day

Adventist in the land who has not been taught

better than to suppose that in his own strength he

could keep the commandments, or do anything

without Christ ; and it is a waste of time to build

an argument for any people on premises which they

never assume. We doubt if even the Pharisees

rested their self-righteousness on the perfection of

their personal obedience to the ten commandments.

If we understand the teachings of Paul in his

epistles, the trouble with the Jews was that they

had come to look upon their ceremonial system as

all-sufficient in itself  'to atone' for' their sins, and

take away all their guilt. So if they outwardly

complied with the Decalogue and scrupulously

attended to their ceremonial requirements, they

imagined themselves righteous in the sight of God.

This left them in their sins (for the blood of their

offerings could not take away sin, Heb. 10: 4), 

outwardly clean and fair, tithing mint, anise, and cumin,

but within full of corruption and uncleanness ;

and it also hedged up the way of their acceptance

of Christ, as' they could see no necessity for him ;

for if the services of their law took away sin, why

should a Redeemer come and die for them too ?

To rid them of this deception, Paul had to labor,

as he did in the epistle to the Galatians, and other

ways, before they could be brought to receive the

gospel; for they were thus seeking righteousness

and justification by the works of the law, instead of

through faith in Christ, the only efficacious sacrifice.

Rom. 9: 32 ; Gal. 5: 4; etc.

There is a righteousness we must have, in order to

see the kingdom of heaven, which is Called " our

righteousness; " and this righteousness comes from

being in harmony with the law of God. In Dent.

6 : 24, 25 we read : " And the Lord commanded us

to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God

for our good always, that he' might preserve us

alive as it is this day. And it shall be our righteousness

if we observe to do all these commandments

before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded

us." The Lord would not command them

to do what he had not made adequate provision for

them to do ; and if they did do it, it would be their

righteousness. And "our righteousness" cannot in

this case be filthy rags. How would it sound if we

should read it thus: " And it shall 'be filthy rags,

if we observe to do all these 'commandments . . .

as he hath commanded us" ?

Again, in that' memorable Sermon on the Mount,

our Lord says: "For I say unto you that except

your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of

the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter

into the kingdom of heaven. " Matt. 5: 20. And

this is the same as to say that if it does exceed

it (to the requisite degree of course), we shall see

the kingdom of heaven. And what we are to do

thus to possess the kingdom of heaven, he plainly

told the young man when he said, " If thou wilt

enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt.

19: 17. But, says one, of ourselves we cannot

keep them, That doesn't affect the case at all.

If we cannot keep them of ourselves, and God has

made provision for us to keep them some other

way, as he has done in Christ, then we are to keep

them that way; but we are to keep them just the

same.

Suppose we try the "filthy rag" construction on

Matt. 5: 20: "For I say unto you that except your

filthy rags' shall exceed the filthy rags' of the

scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no ease enter the

kingdom of heaven." That surely would not be

very edifying reading to any one. There is then

a righteousness that we must have, to be secured

by doing and teaching the commandments. Verse

19. And the scribes and Pharisees did some things

which were righteous, or Christ could not have introduced

the comparison he did, and said, except

yours shall exceed theirs.  He that doeth righteousness,"

says John, "is righteous." 1 John 3: 7. And if he does not

do righteousness, he is not righteous.

We, feel sorry for the man who can say, as one

says who some time since went out from us in

Battle Creek, "I keep the commandments not

from obligation, but because I think it will please.

the Lord for me to do so; but if I should not do it,

though the Lord might not be so well pleased, he

would overlook it, in me, as I am adopted as a son,

and it would not affect my prospects for salvation."

We feel sadly sure that it would.

 Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, June 11, 1889