In addition to the pioneers whose writings we have studied, the position of the Adventist church on christology is clearly illustrated by the contents of Official publications such as Journals, quarterly Sabbath School lessons, General Conference bulletins, and a wide variety of books published by denominational publishing houses.
This chapter will deal with statements between 1895 and 1915, beginning at a time when the doctrine of the Incarnation began to be viewed as central to a proper understanding of the plan of salvation, and ending with the year marked by Ellen White's death. In the following chapter we will cover the period from 1916 to 1952, after which a new interpretation surfaced and some writers began to question the traditional position of the Adventist Church on the subject of Christ's human nature.
Extracts From Church Journals
During the years 1895 and 1896 more than 250 statements were made in various journals by church leaders, all clearly affirming that Jesus took upon Himself the human nature of fallen human beings.
From 1897 to 1915 more than 200 statements can be found, of which about 100 are from Ellen White, not including an additional 75 or so scattered throughout her letters and manuscripts.[l] However, since we have already discussed Ellen White, Waggoner, Jones, and Prescott, in this chapter we shall ignore statements by these writers.
In 1895 a series of articles from the pen of J. H. Durland appeared in the Signs of the Times that reflected the Christology of Jones as presented at the General Conference session some months previously. "To meet Satan it was necessary to meet Him in the flesh of fallen man, "Durland wrote. "So when Jesus took up His abode in the flesh, it was not the flesh man had before he fell, but it was the sinful flesh that man had after he fell. ... He came to save sinners, therefore He must take the flesh of sinners. ... He had all the weakness of the flesh that we have. The flesh which He took had the same desires that our own flesh has."[2]
Some months later, in another article, Durland put the following questions to his readers: "What was the nature of this flesh which He took? Was it free from all tendencies to sin? Was it free from temptations? One scripture answers the latter question. ... (Heb. 4:15). So the flesh which the Logos took was subject to temptation, just as the flesh we possess. ... The flesh without any of the desires for evil is not subject to temptation. But Christ was tempted like as we are, so He must have had the same kind of flesh which we have."[3]
Not content with asserting that Christ took sinful flesh, Durland also wished to explain the reason for it. "Jesus came in the flesh to meet Satan in his stronghold and drive him forth. ... To do this He must take the same flesh that man had after the fall. ... He took neither the nature of angels, nor of man before the fall, but He was born 'under the law,' to redeem them that were under the law. ... Had He taken the nature of Adam before the fall, He would not have been under the death sentence which was passed upon all men."[4]
Nevertheless, Durland remarked: "He did not possess the passions of our fallen natures, caused by being overcome by sin. But the flesh which He took would soon have possessed all the passions that sin has brought upon us had He once yielded. He met the tempter in the weak sinful flesh, and condemned it so that it was not able to overcome Him. ... Jesus Christ was sent into the world to condemn sin in the flesh. He took sinful flesh that He might subdue the corruptions of our old nature."[5]
Recall that A. T. Jones had said, "Jesus had the same passions that we have." However, Jones explained, He never surrendered to them. Durland writes that "He did not possess the passions of our fallen natures," in that He never gave in to sin. Durland's view is much closer to that of Jones than might first appear. Jones considered the problem from the point of view of an inherited nature, whereas Durland looked at it from the point of view of a cultivated nature. Potentially, "Jesus possessed the same passions as we do"; in actuality, "Jesus did not possess the same passions as we do" because He had not succumbed to the power of the sinful human nature which He had inherited from His ancestors.
Likewise, Ellen White constantly made a difference between the inherited sinful nature and the cultivated sinful nature. On the one hand, she wrote that Jesus "had all the strength of passion of humanity."[6] On the other hand, she declared that "He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions."[7] "Not possessing the passions of our human, fallen natures."[8] It may be that she had in mind the difference between inherited tendencies to sin, for which we are not guilty, and cultivated tendencies, which make sinners of us. For Ellen White as for her Adventist contemporaries, "like every child of Adam He [Christ] accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity,"[9] but without ever giving in to these tendencies.
Other statements on the topic appear in the Australian journals Bible Echo and the Australasian Signs of the Times. G. C. Tenney, who was in charge of the journal Bible Echo, stated in an editorial: "Very few of us realize how nearly the divine nature approached the human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. More properly speaking, it is impossible for us even to conceive of the infinite condescension that was necessary in order that the Son of God, the associate of the Father, should appear in mortal flesh and participate in human experiences, with all their trials and weaknesses. How fully this was accomplished was expressed by the apostle in Hebrews 2:17: 'Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren' {KJV)."
"In this way only could He be brought to feel the power of temptations. We cannot suppose that the temptations to which humanity is subject would impress the God-head. But 'He was tempted in all points like as we are:' Consequently He must have partaken of our nature. ... There is but little sympathy in the thought of Jesus having met our temptations in His divine capacity and nature. They would be but a thistle-down wafted against a mountain. In this sense 'God cannot be tempted."
"But when we consider our Saviour ... struggling with innate weakness; and when we fully look upon our own faulty and often unsuccessful career, we wonder, how did He endure 'such contradiction of sinners against Himself."[10]
Many similar declarations could be quoted, as indicated by Ralph Larson's. The Word Was Made Flesh, in which the author has indexed in chronological order many statements dealing with Adventist Christology."[11]
Extracts From the Sabbath School Lessons
In 1889 the quarterly pamphlet of the Sabbath school lessons first appeared. The lessons were prepared to provide for daily Bible study and as a topic for discussion on Sabbath morning in conjunction with the worship service.
The introduction states, "The Adult Sabbath School Lessons are prepared by the Sabbath School Department of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. The preparation of the lessons is directed by a worldwide Sabbath School Lesson committee, the members of which serve as consulting editors." The role of this committee was to ensure that the explanatory notes in each lesson were in harmony with the church's official teaching.
During the period from 1895 to 1915 many statements are found in the Sabbath school lessons that leave little doubt on the subject of Adventist belief regarding Christ's human nature. An example is the following explanation in one of the lessons of the second quarter of 1896: "In order to meet man where he was after the fall, Christ emptied Himself of all His glory and power, becoming just as dependent on the Father for life and daily strength as sinful man is dependent upon Him.[22]
In 1909 one second quarter lesson dealt with John 1:1-18. Here is the commentary on verse 14: "Divinity tabernacled in the flesh of humanity. Not the flesh of sinless man, but such flesh as the children of earth possess. That was the glory of it. The divine seed could manifest the glory of God in sinful flesh," even to absolute and perfect victory over any tendency of the flesh."[13]
In this lesson, the same explanation occurs again: "Jesus was God acting in sinful flesh on behalf of the sinner. He made Himself one with humanity. He took upon Himself the woes, the needs, and sins of humanity, so that He felt the consciousness and keenness of it as no other soul ever felt it."[14]
Among the topics of the first quarter of 1913 was a study on the relation between the incarnation and the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
This statement is found in the first note: "It is very important that we should have a clear understanding of the relation of the incarnation of Christ to His mediatorial work. He was made priest 'after the power of an endless life,' in order that He might minister grace, mercy, and power to the weak and erring. This is accomplished by making such a close union with those needing help, that divinity and humanity are brought into personal relation, and the very Spirit and life of God dwell in the flesh of the believer. In order to establish this relation between God and sinful flesh, it was necessary for the Son of God to take sinful flesh; and thus was bridged the gulf which separated sinful man from God."[15]
Note 3 of the same lesson ends with these words: "By assuming sinful flesh, and voluntarily making Himself dependent upon His Father to keep Him from sin while He was in the world, Jesus not only set the example for all Christians, but also made it possible for Him to minister to sinful flesh the gift of His own Spirit and the power for obedience to the will of God."[16]
This view of the Incarnation was also contrasted to the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, which was, to Adventist thinking, a negation of the incarnation of Christ. "This denial of the perfect union of Christ with sinful flesh opens the way for a series of subsidiary mediators whose duty it is to bring the sinner into saving touch with Christ."[17]
The lessons for the 'second quarter of 1913 were devoted to the sanctuary and the mediation of Christ. In one of the lessons Catholic teaching was discussed: "What is the teaching of modern Babylon concerning this same fundamental doctrine? By the dogma of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, Rome teaches that the mother of Jesus was preserved from the stain of original sin, and that she had sinless flesh. Consequently she was separated from the rest of humanity. As a result of this separation of Jesus from sinful flesh, the Roman priesthood has been instituted in order that there may be someone to mediate between Christ and the sinner."[18]
Then, replying to a quotation from a Catholic source that called the belief that Christ had taken sinful flesh "revolting," the note concludes: "Thus by shutting Christ away from the same flesh and blood which we have ... modern Babylon really denies the vital truth of Christianity, although pretending to teach it. Such is 'the mystery of iniquity."[19]
The fourth quarter in 1913 was devoted to the study of the Epistle to the Romans. In the first lesson there is a question about Christ "born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3, KJV). Note 5 comments: "Christ was, therefore, of the royal line through His mother. But He was more than this; He was the same flesh as the seed of David, in and through which for generations had flowed the blood of sinful humanity--Solomon, and Rehoboam, and Ahaz, and Manasseh, and Amon, and Jeconiah, and others. The Son of God took this same flesh in order that He might meet temptation for us, and overcome with divine power every trial we must meet. Christ is our Brother in the flesh, our Saviour from sin."[20]
The Epistle to the Romans was again the subject of study during the first quarter of 1914. Here is the commentary given on Romans 8:3, 4: "What the law in sinful man could not do, God did by sending His own Son. That Son took the flesh of sinful man, and overcame where man failed, overthrew sin in the flesh; and so He can come into the flesh of those who will open their hearts to receive Him, with that same power, and conquer sin there."
These extracts from Sabbath school quarterlies are in harmony with all that was taught by Adventist writers who had expressed themselves on Christ's human nature through the years.
Extracts From Several Books
Just as with the Sabbath School Lessons, no book is ever printed by officially owned publishing houses of the church without a prior review of the manuscript by a designated reading committee. This ensures the contents of the book to be in harmony with official teaching. It is not our purpose here to repeat the works of Waggoner, Jones, Prescott, or Ellen White, which have been dealt with in preceding charters. It will suffice to mention the most representative works.
1. Looking Unto Jesus, by Uriah Smith
Uriah Smith was not only the editor of the Review and Herald for 35 years and author of many books on prophecy, but also the second in command at the General Conference for 21 years in his position of secretary. Here are two extracts from his book Looking Unto Jesus, published in 1897.
"In the likeness of sinful flesh ... He reached down to the very depths of man's fallen condition, and became obedient unto death, even the ignominious death of the cross."[22]
"He [Jesus] came in the likeness of sinful flesh to demonstrate before all parties in the controversy that it was possible for men in the flesh to keep the law. He demonstrated this by keeping it Himself. On our plane of existence, and in our nature, He rendered such obedience to every principle and precept, that the eye of Omniscience itself could detect no flaw therein. His whole life was but a transcript of that law, in its spiritual nature, and in its holy, just and good demands. He thus condemned sin in the flesh and doing no sin, showing that it was possible for man thus to live."[23]
2. Questions and Answers, by Milton C. Wilcox
At first Milton C. Wilcox was assistant editor of the Review and Herald, in association with Uriah Smith. Later he became the first editor of Present Truth in England, then of Signs of the Times for a quarter of a century at the Pacific Press in California. In 1911 he published Questions and Answers, a compilation of replies given by the editor to questions from readers, while he was in charge of Signs of the Times.
Here is a typical extract, an answer given to a question posed by a reader on the subject of the verses in Hebrews 2:14-17, KJV, declaring that Jesus was "made like unto his brethren." "The eternal Logos 'became flesh,' the same as we; for He was 'born of a woman, born under the law,' under its condemnation, as a human, having the flesh with all the human tendencies; a partaker of the 'flesh and blood' of humanity; 'in all things' 'made like unto His brethren,' 'suffered being tempted.' And He met all the temptations even as you and I must meet them, by faith in the will and Word of God. There is not a tendency in the flesh of humanity but what dwelt in Him. And He overcame them all."[24]
3. Bible Readings for the Home Circle
In 1915 the Review and Herald Publishing Association published a book of Bible studies entitled Bible Readings for the Home Circle."[25] By the Time of the second edition in 1936 more than 1.25 million copies had been distributed in the world. A third edition appeared in 1946."[26]
For about a half century this book constituted the basis for the biblical teaching of the church. Most Adventists used it to increase their knowledge of church doctrine and to help share the message with others. No other denominational publication was branded with a more official seal of approval than this book. The Bible readings were "contributed by a large number of Bible students." The introduction to the 1946 edition states that "the work has recently been thoroughly revised and rewritten, much enlarged ... by a large committee of able critics and Bible students."[27]
One could hardly find a more representative document of church teaching. The lessons are presented in the form of questions and answers, with occasional explanatory notes. The doctrine of the Incarnation, entitled "A Sinless Life," is here reproduced in its entirely:[28]
1. What testimony is borne concerning Christ's life on earth? "Who did no sin neither was guile found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:22)
2. What is true of all other members of the human family? "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)
3. With what question did Jesus challenge His enemies? "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" (John 8:46)
4. To what extent was Christ tempted? "[He] was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)
5. In His humanity, of what nature did Christ partake? "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise look part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil." (Hebrews 2:14)
6. How fully did Christ share our common humanity?
"Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." (Verse 17)
Note: In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful, fallen nature. If not, then He was not "made like unto His brethren," was not "in all points tempted like as we are," did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour that man needs and must have to be saved. The idea that Christ was born of an immaculate or sinless mother, inherited no tendencies to sin, and for this reason did not sin, removes Him from the realm of a fallen world, and from the very place where help is needed. On His human side, Christ inherited just what every child of Adam inherits--a sinful nature. On the divine side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit. And all this was done to place mankind on vantage-ground, and to demonstrate that in the same way everyone who is "born of the Spirit" may gain like victories over sin in his own sinful flesh. Thus each one is to overcome as Christ overcame. (Rev. 3:21) Without this birth there can be no victory over temptation, and no salvation from sin. (John 3:3-7)
7. Where did God, in Christ, condemn sin, and gain the victory for us over temptation and sin? "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." (Romans 8:3)
Note: God, in Christ, condemned sin, not by pronouncing against it merely as a judge sitting on the judgment-seat, but by coming and living in the flesh, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and yet without sinning. In Christ, He demonstrated that it is possible, by His grace and power, to resist temptation, overcome sin, and live a sinless life in the flesh.
8. By whose power did Christ live the perfect life? "I can of mine own self do nothing." (John 5:30) "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John 14:10)
Note: In His humanity Christ was as dependent upon divine power to do the works of God as is any man to do the same thing. He employed no means to live a holy life that are not available to every human being. Through Him, everyone may have God dwelling in him and working in him "to will and to do of his good pleasure." (1 John 4:15; Philippians 2:13)
9. What unselfish purpose did Jesus ever have before Him? "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38)
This lesson deals only briefly with the various aspects of Adventist Christology. Nevertheless, question 6 was obviously considered to be of prime importance, so much so that it mandated an explanatory note. These notes were in harmony with Adventist Christology as it had been taught consistently by the pioneers of the message, since the origin of the movement all the way to the Time of the third edition of this work in 1946.
As we shall see, it is precisely on the basis of these explanatory notes in 6, 7, and 8 that a number of evangelical theologians have condemned Adventists for not being authentic Christians, because they attributed a sinful human nature to Jesus. But they were correct in considering that the statements made in this lesson were truly representative of the church.
Notes: