AT THE Minneapolis General Conference in 1888 a strong reaction developed among Seventh-day Adventists against the inroads of legalism in our teachings. A thrust was made for a clear restatement of the truth of righteousness by faith. Although there were several leaders who opposed this emphasis, more on personality issues than on doctrinal, a real change in direction was accomplished. This renewed emphasis on righteousness by faith was guided by Ellen G. White and most clearly described in her book Steps to Christ, which has become a Christian classic.
However, doctrinal understanding is not sufficient, as is too often attested in the personal practice of many Adventists. For the church to understand the teaching of righteousness by faith and yet too often be represented by members who are legalistic in practice is bound to create confusion not only in our ranks but outside them.
Equating teaching with practice, fellow Christian friends accuse us of legalism. Attempting to eradicate legalist threads woven into the fabric of our attitudes, some church members tend to call for a righteousness which has too little concern for Tightness. Concerned that true righteousness necessitates rightness, others demand changes in conduct and practice in a manner that threatens the love experience that forms the very heart of righteousness.
Our problem is not so much theological as practical. A theoretical redefinition of righteousness by faith, so persistently called for by some on both sides of the issue, threatens to rivet us more firmly on one or the other of the horns of dilemma we have long been fluctuating between, liberalism or legalism. Our great need is not understanding of this doctrine as much as it is serious and diligent practice in operating the transmission so graciously granted to each of us! Only through proper exercise of faith can we transmit the theory of righteousness by faith of Tightness and righteousness in our lives which the universe has long awaited and the world desperately needs to see.
But either naive or presumptuous exercise of faith can only intensify our problem by producing a more devastating brand of liberalism or of legalism.
The nature and function of faith must be clearly understood for, like a lethal weapon, it is capable of producing great havoc. Designed to banish demonic forces, when misused it often proves fatal. To talk of faith in Christ or of righteousness by faith without first determining whether we are in the faith, of which there are unnumbered counterfeits, is not only profitless, it is dangerous.
Because existential philosophy so penetrates the majority of religious discussion and because it appears to resolve our dilemma we should consider its potential impact upon our church in this crisis. It places great stress upon the experience of faith and opposes both ecclesiastical authoritarianism, which characterizes legalism, and the humanistic tyranny of liberalism. This earnest stress upon the need to re-establish the authority of "the Word of God," is refreshing and tends to sound authentic to Adventist ears, which have been outraged by the liberal's denial of divine authority for the faith experience. The existentialist's strong emphasis upon experience and insistence that an immediate personal relationship with God is more vital than legalistic formulas appear to harmonize with our concept of righteousness by faith.
We must beware, however, for existential thinking generally distinguishes sharply between Christ the Word and the Bible, which is considered to be but a witness to Christ. To indicate this distinction, most Christian existentialists refer to the Bible as "word," without capitalization and to Christ as the Word. This distinction when pressed unduly presents us with an urgent question. Placing authority for our faith directly in the individual experience is as dangerous as an "intellectual faith" that misuses the inscripturated Christ.
The Subject of Our Faith
There is no question but that Christ must be the subject of our faith. But whose Christ? If we are to avoid the extreme subjectivism that characterizes so much of Christendom today, our only authoritative basis for valid Christian experience must be the words and example of Christ in the Scriptures.
To be very blunt about it, the manner in which we individually resolve day-to-day questions concerning life-style and other divisive issues within the church reveals the nature of the authority upon which our faith is based. In this light, it doesn't require much wisdom or insight to conclude that, too often, there is an almost schizophrenic contrast between the theological and the actual authority for the faith of many Adventists today.
Do we habitually and prayerfully search the written Word to determine God's counsel on each issue, or do we exhibit a church-centered authority either by looking to church officials for our answers or to the current pattern of church conduct and approval? Or do we determine right and wrong on the basis of what we consider reasonable, thus rationalizing away the counsel of God? Or do we base our decisions upon what we feel is right? Faith is a personal matter, and this question can only be answered by us individually. But if we want to participate in a full restoration of the faith of Jesus, we must confront this issue in the light of the straight testimony and under the direction of the faithful and true Witness.
Result of Subjectivism
Subjectivism leads inevitably to the creation of false christs; what is then worshiped as Christ turns out to be anti christ. There is only one true Christ. Unless our understanding and worship conform to the specific realities He has revealed concerning His own person, nature, office, work, and purpose for our lives, we shall attempt to relate to a Christ who exists only in our imagination. This fact explains much of the con fusion in the lives of professed Christians. We can relate to reality but never to unreality. Only careful, prayerful, study of the specific nature of Christ and His current work as revealed in the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White can guarantee the integrity of our vital subjective relationship with Him.
Christ is a real person, with real de sires and purposes for a people He really loves and for whom He has provided a real plan for preparing them to stand in a real judgment in such a manner as to be completely ready for His coming. Only in recognizing His personhood can we experience valid relationships with Him. Any attempt to manipulate Him or His will through rationalization is suicidal. He knows and has declared what He desires. It rests with us to discover the specific content of those desires and His method for their implementation.
It is the height of presumption to insist on a close personal relationship with the faithful and true Witness, while neglecting His special delivery letters, filled as they are with impassioned pleas for us to accept His conditions and receive His power to escape the death trap so soon to snap eternally shut. And it is the greatest of follies, having delayed His coming for more than a century, to remain indifferent to the straight testimony designed to cure our backsliding and prepare us for His coming. After prolonged at tempts to replace legalism with personal faith relationships, so often accompanied by personal defeat and sagging, corporate morals, should we not seriously confront the question "Who are the legalists?"
A dangerous imbalance toward objectivism prior to 1888, in which the law became the focus of attention, produced a legalism that sapped faith's vitality, destroying its power to attain the righteousness of the law.
The pendulum now swings in the opposite direction. Fear of legalism threatens to take us full circle, entangling us in anti-legalistic legalism. Paradoxically, every attempt to avoid legalism that in any way encourages any standard other than that divinely revealed, involves us in legalism, no matter how strong the claim to righteousness by faith.
Christ offers saving power only to those willing to submit to His will and commit themselves to His standard of righteousness. Never will He honor sin and rebellion by granting power to attain any standard less than His own victorious life. Every effort toward reducing standards must fail. The dilemma facing the Christian world, which continually adjusts its standard downward, a dilemma with which we have reason to be sympathetic, furnishes dramatic evidence of this principle.
Our own tendency to legitimize our generally accepted life-style, which usually follows the world from afar, and sometimes not so far, as a means of authenticating our conduct and reducing the pain accompanying a sense of failure to attain Christ's standard, is both presumptuous and legalistic. Presuming to modify God's exalted purpose for our lives, we are unwittingly left with only human effort with which to attempt to reach our own objectives.
Obviously when we lower the standards we move farther away from the victorious pattern Christ set for us. What we need to do, instead, is by His saving grace, and through the acceptance of faith, partake of both Christ's Tightness and His righteousness. It is not a question of either/or. The true faith of Jesus embraces both.
Messianic Mileposts--Genesis 49
Genesis 49:10, 24: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come."
"By the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel)."
As Seen in the Targums
In these passages, there are two expressions that are underlined, namely "Shiloh" and "thence." "Shiloh" was understood by ancient Jewish writers to represent the Messiah.
In verse 24, the word "thence" of the K.J.V. is better under stood as given in the translation of M. Kalisch, i.e., "The Mighty God of Jacob, from Him, the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel." —Palestinian Targum, vol. 1, p. 336. For the expression "from Him" the Targumists give Memra (ibid., p. 728).
So in these verses we have the first prophetic utterance concerning Messiah and "stone" or Rock as foreviews of the Lord Messiah.
As Seen in the New Testament
There is very little definite reference to these texts in the New Testament. It is not quoted and there are but one or two allusions (see Rev. 5:5).
As Seen in Jewish Literature
There is little among ancient Jewish writings as to the Messianic meaning of these texts. Of later years, efforts have been made to establish a connection between "Shiloh" of Genesis 49:10 with the city of that name mentioned in Joshua 18:1, and other references. In the main the testimony given here is from the Targums, which in oral form go back to the days of Ezra.
From Isaac Husik—This editor and translator of Hebrew manuscripts writes, "Oukelos . . . refers the words, 'The sceptre shall not depart from Judah' ... to the Messiah. This is the traditional interpretation to this day, and we cannot deny tradition, because, if we were to deny tradition, then, we could deny even the fundamental principles of the faith." —Sefer Ha'Ikkarim—Book of Principles (Philadelphia: Jewish Publishing Society, 1946), Vol. IV, p. 423.
From M. Kalisch, Jewish scholar andtexegete (1828-1880's) "It is ... certain that the state of the manuscripts fully warrant the translation of Shiloh." —Commentary on Genesis, p. 750.
From Isaac Leeser—"The sceptre will return when the Shiloh, the King Messiah shall come." —Holy Bible, p. 63, text
and notes.
From the Talmud—"What is Messiah's name? . . . His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come."—Sanhedrin 98b, p. 667.
From the Targums—"How beauteous is the King Meshila who is to arise from the house of Jehuda . . . more beautiful are the eyes of King Meshila." —Palestinian Targum, vol. 1, p. 336.
