It has always been a challenge to understand Christ's human nature, perhaps more so than to comprehend His divine nature. Christ's human nature has been the crux of controversy from the first centuries of the Christian Era until now, to the point that Christology is today confined mostly to the study of Christ's human nature. The critical question is whether the flesh of Jesus was that of Adam before or after the Fall. In other words, was Jesus' flesh free from the influences of sin or subject to the power of sin and death?
This is a problem of major importance. If we are mistaken about the human nature of Jesus: we risk being mistaken about every aspect of the plan of salvation. We may fail to understand the redemptive reality of the grace bestowed upon humans by Jesus to set humanity free from the power of sin.
Ellen White stressed this fundamental truth: "Christ's overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of the Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity."[1]
The Incarnation, a Mystery
Undeniably, the incarnation of the Son of God is a mystery. The apostle Paul declared, "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness, is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory" (1 Tim. 3:16).
This mystery concerns all aspects of the plan of salvation, not just the Incarnation. It is no wonder that Ellen White should declare: "The study of the incarnation of Christ, His atoning sacrifice and mediatorial work, will employ the mind of the diligent student as long as time shall last."[2] Concerning the Incarnation she writes similarly: "In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human mind cannot comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear.[3]
The fact that it is an unfathomable mystery does not imply that it is a forbidden subject, to be shunned as incomprehensible. Does not Paul speak of "the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints ... which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:26, 27)? He also announces that the mystery of godliness "was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world" (1 Tim. 3:16). This implies a progressive revelation of truths God wants to impart to humankind for the purpose of leading humanity to salvation.
Even though she asserts that Christ's incarnation was indeed a mystery, Ellen White invites us to study it in depth. She gives good reason why it is so important: "The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to be our study." But here she slips in a word of caution: "When we approach this subject, we would do well to heed the words spoken by Christ to Moises at the burning bush, 'Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground' (Ex. 3:5, KJV). We should come to this study with the humility of a learner, with a contrite heart." In closing she says: "The study of the incarnation of Christ is a fruitful field, which will repay the searcher who digs deep for hidden truth." [4]
The problem we seek to understand is not so much the method of the Incarnation how in Christ the divine nature was able to unite with human nature. That is a mystery that lies far beyond our comprehension. The problem Christology seeks to resolve is the why of Incarnation and in what kind of flesh Jesus was really manifested. This is the heart of the problem; in this regard the New Testament is not wanting for explicit information.
The Biblical Foundations of Christology
The only way the pioneers were able to dissociate themselves from the influence of their semi-Arian traditions was by trusting entirely the teaching of Scripture. By doing so, they opened the way to a Christology that the best exegetes of the twentieth century have only recently come to confirm in their studies.
Apart from the New Testament, it is difficult to specify what sources lay behind the early Adventist attribution of "sinful flesh" to Jesus. On the other hand, it is easy to retrace the biblical references used by early Adventist writers to define the nature of the flesh in which Jesus overcame the power of sin.
The most quoted text, and the most explicit, was Romans 8:3. No other passage seemed to explain better the reason for the Incarnation, and in what sort of flesh it was achieved. "God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man."
The first Adventist theologians quite naturally interpreted the KJV expression "in the likeness of sinful flesh" as Paul's definition of the flesh of Jesus at the time of His incarnation. They considered the word "likeness" to be used in precisely the same sense as in Philippians 2:7, which says that Jesus, after having divested Himself of the form of God and of His "equality" with Him, took "the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." That is to say, Jesus did not simply have a human appearance, but in fact a like nature, with "sinful flesh," sarkos hamartias, as Paul states in Romans 8:3 (KJV). This was not understood to imply that Jesus had been a sinner or that He had participated in the slightest in man's sin.
The expression "God ... condemned sin in the flesh" was interpreted to mean that Jesus, having lived a life without sin in "sinfull flesh," had actually "condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3, KJV). Accordingly, "he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him" (Heb. 5:9). Thus, from its very beginning the Christology of the pioneers was developed in direct relation to their Soteriology, the latter being a function of the former.
Among other texts often quoted, we also find Romans 1:3 (KJV), which defines the nature of Jesus through His ancestors: "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Hebrews 2:16 was also cited: "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." One writer mentioned some of the least praiseworthy of Abraham's posterity and commented, "A brief glance at the ancestry and the posterity of David will show that the line from which Christ sprang was such that would tend to concentrate in Him all the weaknesses of humanity."[5]
Several other passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews were cited that emphasized the identity of the human nature of Jesus with that of His human brethren. For example: "Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family" (Heb. 2:1l). "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity" (verse 14). "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way" (verse 17). Yet another: "We have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin" (Heb. 4:15).
Paul's declaration in Galatians 4:4, 5, was often quoted as implying a real and complete participation in fallen humanity as a condition for man's salvation: "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons." Likewise in 2 Corinthians 5:21: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
These are some of the key passages relied upon by Adventist theologians and writers prior to 1950 in defining the human nature of Jesus. In fact, the very first statements found in official church literature show that the meaning given to biblical expressions relative to the human nature of Jesus was clearly established.
The First Adventist Testimonies
According to Ellen White, the human nature of Christ was defined at the very beginning by the early pioneers, along with other fundamental beliefs. "after the great disappointment ... the truth was opened point by point, and entwined with their most hallowed recollections and sympathies. The searchers after truth felt that the identification of Christ with their nature and interest was complete.[6]
The first reference to the human nature of Jesus from the pen of chief editor James White is found in the Review and Herald of September 16, 1852. He writes in the editorial: "Like Aaron and his sons, He [Jesus] took upon Him flesh and blood, the seed of Abraham."[7] The following year, in an article signed "an English author," we read: "Jesus Christ, who tells you He is 'the Son of God,' one with the Father ... who 'took on Him the seed of Abraham;' our nature, and upheld it sinless."[8]
In 1854 J. M. Stephenson wrote a series of articles on the human nature of Jesus. "To say that God sent His own Son 'in the likeness of sinful flesh,' is equivalent to saying that the Son of God assumed our nature."[9] To answer the question "What blood was shed for the remission of sins?" Stephenson replies: "Was it not the identical blood which had flowed through the veins of Mary, His mother, and back through her ancestry to Eve, the mother of all living? Otherwise He was not 'the seed of the woman,' of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David.[10]
Apart from these three authors, no one wrote on the human nature of Jesus in the 1850s with the exception of Ellen White. Her first statement, dating back to 1858, occurs in the description of a dialogue between Jesus and His angels discussing the plan of salvation. Having revealed to them that He would abandon His celestial glory, would be incarnated on the earth, would humble Himself as an ordinary man, and would be tempted as a man in order to provide assistance to those who would be tempted, "Jesus also told them that they would have a part to act ...; He would take man's fallen nature, and His strength would not be even equal with theirs."[11]
In the Same account Ellen White declared that at the end of the revelation of Jesus, Satan "told his angels that when Jesus should take fallen man's nature, he could overpower Him and hinder the accomplishment of the plan of salvation."[12]
For Ellen White the whole plan of salvation depended on the human nature of Christ. "It was in the order of God," she wrote in 1864," that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man."[13] For her, "the great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam. ... The King of glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity. ... He would take man's fallen nature."[14]
The First Official Declaration
These first witnesses expressed not only their own personal points of view, but also the convictions of the whole community. That is why their view was included in A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by Seventh-day Adventists, published in 1872.
The preamble to this document explicitly states that the articles of faith did not constitute a creed, but simply "a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them."[15] We know, in fact, that James White as far back as 1847, expressed himself as being against any idea of confining the fundamental beliefs of the church in an inflexible creed. "The Bible is a perfect, and a complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice."[16]
That was not intended to prohibit any declaration of faith. On the contrary, the church was obligated to declare its beliefs as clearly as possible, for the benefit of members as well as non-members. But, "the Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed. ... Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible."[17]
Of the 25 articles of faith in this first official doctrinal statement of the church, the second one is about the person and work of Jesus Christ. It declares "that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the One by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he look on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men full of grace and truth."[18]
The declaration does not specify how Adventists of that time understood the expression "the nature of the seed of Abraham." However, we do have the interpretations of those who used this phrase before and after 1872. Not content with merely quoting literally the Bible text, James White wrote that Jesus "took upon Him flesh and blood, the seed of Abraham."[19] This is already an explanation of a sort. As we shall see, most of those who used the expression gave it the same meaning as Ellen White: "Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His early ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life.[2O]
It is interesting to note that the official declaration of 1872 on the human nature of Christ remained unchanged until 1931. At that time it was changed to express with different words the same basic conviction. "While retaining His divine nature, He took upon Himself the nature of the human family, and lived on the earth as a man."[21] Placed within the context of the writings of that period, this new formulation continues what had been the unanimous teaching of the church until 1950, namely, that the flesh of Jesus was "flesh like unto sinful flesh."
A Human Nature in a Fallen State
The official declaration of 1872 as to the human nature of Jesus constitutes the cornerstone of pre-1950 Adventist Christology. According to Ralph Larson, it has been reaffirmed up to 1,200 times by Adventist writers and theologians, of which about 400 are by Ellen White herself."[22]
About 1950, however, influenced by extra biblical considerations, another interpretation arose in Adventist circles, affirming that the human nature of Jesus was that of Adam before the Fall. This was clearly a return to the creeds of former centuries. This change was all the more surprising because at the same time, the most eminent Protestant theologians of the second half of the twentieth century were emancipating themselves from traditional positions and unwittingly confirming the interpretation that had prevailed until then in the Adventist Church.
One can only be astonished at this sudden change of interpretation within the church, especially after presenting a unanimous front for a century of consistent teaching on this subject. In fact, since the beginning of the movement, the fallen human nature of Christ had never been the subject of any controversy--unlike other doctrinal points, such as the divinity of Christ. A manuscript note of William C. White, as well as other documents emanating from the General Conference session at Minneapolis, confirms that "Christology was not the point of friction in 1888.[23]
Throughout the 1890s Christology became a favorite subject among Adventist preachers. Ellen White in particular continually insisted on the importance of the subject in all her writings while emphasizing the fallen human nature of Jesus. The reason is plain. First, it served the purpose of affirming the reality of Christ's humanity even more emphatically than other Christians, who tended to hold to the immaculate human nature of Jesus, namely that of Adam before the Fall.
As our study will verify, the work of redemption can be explained only with the proper understanding of the divine-human person of Jesus Christ. To be mistaken about Christology is to be mistaken about the work of salvation as accomplished in human beings, by Christ, through the process of justification and sanctification.
Finally, this topic proved to be important in the instruction of new converts to Adventism. It was so contrary to their belief that it represented for many a serious challenge. It is no wonder that so many questions were being asked of Ellen White and editors of various church publications. Their answers contain a wealth of valuable information.
Notes: