The year 1915 does not mark any change of interpretation in the Adventist doctrine of the Incarnation. However, it does mark the death of Ellen White. With her passing, the last survivor of the 1844 group of pioneers had disappeared.
Ellen White repeated a vibrant warning near the end of her life: "We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching in our Past history."[1]
All of the extant documents for the period of 1916 to 1952 bear uniform witness to the position always taught in the church about the human nature of Jesus, namely, that Jesus took upon Himself Adam's nature after the Fall--in other words, fallen nature--but without ever committing any sin.
Extracts From Church Periodicals
An index of some 200 statements from the church's official periodicals shows no variation from this traditional position. Pastors, professors, editors, administrators, General Conference executives, including several presidents, all speak with one voice.
On September 6, 1917, Joseph E. Steed wrote in the Review and Herald: "It was necessary that Christ should have an experience as a man, in order that He might succor man in his temptations, and also act as man's intercessor. ... It has already been shown that this Saviour became a man subject to all the ills of the flesh, being born into sinful flesh; and while in that flesh, He suffered as other men suffer in His conflict with sin."[2]
The testimony of R. S. Owen is also interesting: "Christ's work in the flesh was the condemning of sin in the flesh. Sin dwells in our sinful flesh, and Christ condemned it by dwelling in the very house of sin, but never yielding to its unlawful clamors, never responding to its evil invitations. He demonstrated that a man may obtain help from God, which will enable him to live in the flesh, and yet live for God."[3]
In the same month, J. A. Rippey wrote in the Australian periodical Signs of the Times: "Nothing then, could be clearer than that the same kind of flesh that David had was the kind that Jesus had.
Who was David? He was the son of Jesse. But who was Jesse? He was the son of Ruth. Ruth was a Moabitish girl, a descendant of Moab; and Moab was a son of one of Lot's daughters. Gen. 19:36, 37. We find as we study the character of the progenitors of Jesus that they are the darkest of any upon the earth, and have gone to the greatest depths in sin.
"When Jesus was born into the world, He took upon Himself sinful flesh after it had been weakened by nearly four thousand years of wickedness. He might have come through another line, but He through the weakest of the weak that He might prove to the world that man never plunged so deep into sin but that the power of God is sufficient to enable him to live a victorious life. He 'was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin' (Heb. 4:15) He was not only tempted, but His temptations were so strong that he even suffered when He was tempted. (Chapter 2:18) Although Jesus had in His flesh all the desires that were in the flesh of His ancestors, yet He never once yielded to sin."[4]
On March 22, 1927, L. A. Wilcox published in Signs of the Times, an article that addresses the question: "Is there hope of overcoming our hereditary tendencies toward evil?" Wilcox replies, first by having recourse to the genealogy of Jesus: "And I am glad for that [Christ's genealogy]. For it helps me to understand how He can be 'touched with the feeling' of all my infirmities. He came where I was. He stood in my place. In His veins was the incubus of a tainted heredity like a caged lion ever seeking to break forth and destroy.
Four thousand years the race had been deteriorating in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of humanity at its worst. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation."[5]
Then Wilcox quotes in support of his declaration a passage from Ellen White taken from the book Desire of Ages: "If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured."[6]
"It is good to know that, Wilcox remarks." He, the son of God, became the Son of man, that I, a son of man, might become a son of God. He became as I am that I might become as He is. He partook of my human nature that I might partake of His divine nature. In every temptation that assails, it is strength to know that just such a temptation in all its overwhelming force attacked Him--attacked Him where, by heredity, He was weakest--attacked Him in unexpected times and ways; and that, with equal tendencies toward evil, in spite of bad blood and inherited meanness, by the same power to which I have access, He conquered. He won for me. He offers me His victory for my own--a free gift. And so in all these things I am more than conqueror through Him that loved me."[7]
Later F. M. Wilcox, editor of the Review and Herald (1911-1944), also cofounder of the Ellen G. White Estate and member of the original board of trustees, explained why he felt it was important to identify Christ's flesh with that of fallen humanity. "The ground of our assurance in coming to the Lord Jesus is the fact that He took upon." Himself the nature of man, and in this human form conquered Satan, thus bridging the gulf which sin had made between God and humanity. Going through this experience in behalf of the lost race, He became a perfect Saviour. ... He became identified with man in all His trials and temptations. ... Christ was sorely and severely tempted, tempted as no other human being has ever been tempted, yet He endured all this without sin. Not once did He yield to the tempter's power. In every conflict He was victorious. With a mind stayed upon God, trusting in the love and power of His heavenly Father, He resisted at every turn the attacks of the enemy. This, the heritage of victory over sin, He likewise bequeaths to us in addition to the sympathy which He affords us in times of trial. As He took hold of divine power, it is our privilege to do the same. The resources which were open to His demand, are also open to our demand."[8]
This teaching was not restricted to the editors of various periodicals of the denomination. It was also that of the highest authorities of the church such as division presidents, vice presidents, and presidents of the General Conference. It was indeed the most authentic expression of the faith found in the Adventist community on the question of Christology. Without having to quote each one individually, we wish to make reference to a few testimonies of the most presentative authors.
Throughout this period W. W. Prescott was certainly the most prolific and most competent. Then as general secretary and vice president of the General Conference from 1915 to 1937, he continued to promulgate the teaching of the denomination in his numerous articles. His interpretation has already been fully presented, so it will not be repeated here. Later W. H. Branson, who was to be General Conference president from 1950 to 1954, proclaimed the same convictions in articles published in different periodicals."[9]
Several times he wrote: "In order for Christ to understand the weakness of sinful nature He had to experience it. ... Therefore He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. ... God must first come down to man in order to lift man up to Himself."[10] "It was not the nature of angels that He assumed, but that of Abraham. He was made 'like unto His brethren.' "[11] "Oh, the shame of it, that the great God should design to come to dwell with men, tabernacling in their own flesh."[12]
Two presidents of the Southern European Division, whose headquarters were in Bern, Switzerland, did their best to spread in Europe the Christology taught in the United States. A. V. Olson."[13] was first to express himself on the subject of the fallen human nature that Christ took upon Himself: "Jesus inherited ... the nature of His mother, "he wrote."A man named Jesus, made of flesh and blood like other men, had actually lived in their midst."[14] "Thus in this sense the second Adam was not physically identical with the first Adam. It was also in this sense of depreciation in size and vitality that Christ by the law of heredity is said to have taken upon Himself our 'fallen nature' (The Desire of Ages, p. 112), 'our nature in its deteriorated condition' (Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898)."[15]
M. V. Campbell likewise was president of the Southern European Division (1954-1958), and later became vice president of the General Conference. Here is how he expressed himself at a time when some were beginning to formulate a new interpretation regarding the nature of Jesus: "In coming to our world the Saviour did not descend out of the sky like an angel or a being from another world. He took His place as a member of the human race by birth into a family whose ancestry was known. He was born as helpless as any other babe. ... Jesus did not come into the world as did the first Adam, who left the Creator's hands with no bent toward sinning, but rather He came 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' (Rom. 8:3, KJV). His divinity did not diminish His humanity. It filled it, overflowed it, and surrounded it, but in no way destroyed it. The Saviour was influenced toward sin through heredity, environment, and the strongest temptations of the devil. ... In overcoming sin, Jesus did not use any spiritual power which was His by virtue of being the Son of God. He used only the weapons which are in the hands of even His humblest followers."[16]
Extracts From Adventist European Literature
The testimonies of these two Southern European Division presidents--both Americans --are representative of the teaching at that time in the English--speaking Adventist churches of the world. But what was the general belief on the subject in continental Europe where the message had been officially introduced in 1874?[17]
As we know, the journal Signes des Temps (Signs of the Times) was founded by John N. Andrews in the city of Basel in 1876. It is interesting to note that no mention is ever made of the fallen human nature of Christ until 1938. Evidently this aspect of Christology did not constitute at the time an important feature of Adventist teaching."[18] It could be that Adventists on the continent shared the view of most Protestants on this issue. Support for this comes from the chief editor of Signes des Temps: "To save mankind, it was necessary, according to God's justice, that Christ should be placed under the same conditions as Adam at the creation, that is to say, free from sin, but susceptible of falling into temptation."[19]
Thus, traditional Adventist Christology as taught in the English--speaking world was not completely obscured, but its introduction was delayed on the European continent until the English translations of Ellen White's books and articles became available.
The first mention of traditional Christology is found in the Revue Adventiste, the information bulletin of the Seventh-day Adventist churches for Latin Europe. The article is dated November 15, 1923. It was written by Tell Nussbaum, former president of the French Conference."[20] Titled: "Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man," it summarizes the teaching of the Adventist Church on the subject of the person and work of Christ. Here is an extract:
"Jesus was declared with power to be the Son of God through the spirit of holiness, by His resurrection from the dead. (Rom. 1:4) Having come in our flesh of weakness, born under the law, capable of sinning, He did not commit any sin. It was there that sin was seen to be conquered, and that man, in his fallen nature, was put back into a state where holiness was made possible. He could live the life of God which is found only in Jesus Christ, and which He grants to us continua1ly by faith.
"For the purpose intended by Jesus Christ was fulfilled: to transmit His perfect nature to His posterity. But this will not be completely achieved until the day when we see Him as He is now in heaven (John 17:22). Today, accepting by faith what Christ has done for us, we walk by the spirit of Jesus Christ. ... The Spirit of life, who is in Jesus Christ, has freed us from sin. By His death, He has triumphed over sin, in order to give us this power."[21]
It is doubtful this statement truly represents what most Adventists of continental Europe believed. The aim of the author was apparently to make known more widely the accepted teaching of the Adventist Church. Another series of articles with the same intent appeared in the Revue Adventiste between 1925 and January 1926.[22]
These were later reprinted in the form of a pamphlet with this meaningful title: A Touchstone: Jesus Christ Come in the Flesh.[23]
Its author was Jules-Cesar Guenin, then president of the French Conference. He had a perfect knowledge of the teaching of Christology as established by Ellen White and the pioneers, to which he makes references. To introduce the subject, he relies on the verses in 1 John 4:1-3, claiming that "every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus has come in the flesh" is of God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus has come in the flesh is of antichrist.
But, Guenin asks, "what does the Bible mean when it speaks of 'Jesus come in the flesh'?" After considering the main passages dealing with the Incarnation (phil. 2:5-8; John 1:14; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15), he concludes: "This doctrine is of such importance that it is, as it were, the doctrine of doctrines, the high point of apostolic and evangelistic preaching, the touchstone of authentic Christianity."[24]
Addressing the problem of Christ's human nature, Guenin sides with his American colleagues: "The redemption of humanity could be achieved only by a God becoming man. It was clothed in flesh like ours that Christ encountered moral struggles, ran the same risks as we do, in order to prove that the righteousness of the law could be attained by man. The Son of God came into this world with flesh like unto our sinful flesh. ... In this way sin was gloriously overcome, finally condemned, and holiness had been realized in human flesh."[25]
In speaking of the temptations to which Jesus had been subjected, Guenin referred to several declarations of Ellen White, such as the following: "If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured."[26]
Furthermore, J. C. Guenin also quoted Protestant theologian E. de Pressense on the subject of the temptations Jesus faced in the wilderness: "The Redeemer passed through this great test of freedom without which no moral destiny is achieved. It is here that we must accept the complete mystery of His humiliation. If we attribute sinlessness to Him, we separate Him from the actual conditions of an earthly existence; His humanity is then nothing more than an illusion, a transparent veil through which is seen His unconcerned divinity. Not being like us, He is no longer with us. To the stirring drama of the moral struggle follows an indescribable metaphysical phantasmagoria. We must no longer speak of temptations or trials on this subject."[27]
From the victory of Jesus over sin, Guenin draws the following practical lesson: "Christ conquered sin to prove that each believer can himself also conquer sin; but He conquered because He wanted to do so, and for that He had to struggle, to suffer, using only the weapons of faith and prayer. It is by these same means, with these weapons that the believer can conquer. ... This is what it means: to confess Christ come in the flesh."[28]
This doctrine of the Incarnation constitutes for J. C. Guenin "the vital point of the regenerative and redemptive religion of Jesus; to deny this is at the same time to cause Christianity to lose all its efficacy and its practical value."[29]
In an article about the two Adams, published in the Revue Adventiste in 1942, J. C. Guenin reemphasizes the importance of Jesus to have participated in our complete humanity. "If Jesus had come with the impossibility of sinning, as certain believers and a certain theology regard it, how could He have become the Father of a new humanity, victorious, a 'great high priest' who could sympathize with the weaknesses of mankind, and a proof of the possibility of living a victorious life? Jesus did not come into the world only to take away sin, to atone for the guilt of sinners, but He also came to give mankind the example of a perfect obedience to the divine will, to prove that such obedience is possible to the one who sincerely desires it. To do that it was necessary that Christ lived an absolutely holy life, without sin."[30]
Wishing to explain the doctrine of the Incarnation to non-Adventist readers, J. C. Guenin published a series of three articles in Signes des Temps."[31] It was the first mention of Adventist Christology in this magazine after 62 years of publication. The contents of these articles is clearly suggested by their titles; "Jesus Christ Come in the Flesh"; "Jesus Christ, Ideal of Humanity"; "Was Jesus a Sinner?" In them we find repeated the teaching developed in the brochure A Touchstone: Jesus Come in the Flesh.
Other authors made similar references to this belief common to Adventists of that time. In an article by James Howard, translated from English and published in the Revue Adventiste, we find the following on the subject of the temptation of Christ: "The hereditary tendency to sin is certainly strong. The mother of Jesus Christ inherited 'the form and the resemblance' of her ancestors; she had been born in sinful flesh; and that being so, her Son Jesus Christ inherited human nature.[32]
Likewise, in the report of a sermon given in Geneva on July 11, 1928, on "the price of our redemption," B. E. Beddoe, a transient visitor, spoke of the human nature of Jesus who, being like us, "knew the tendencies of the flesh, desires which lead to sin." And to the question: "Could He sin?" the preacher replied without hesitation "Certainly."[33]
Lastly, it is appropriate to repeat what Charles Gerber[34] wrote in his evangelistic tracts, distributed by the thousands, later compiled and rearranged as a book entitled Le Chemin du Salut (The Path to Salvation)."[35] In the section dealing with the "mystery of the Incarnation," he confirms the accepted Adventist Christology. "To save mankind, God gave His Son who assumed our nature and was identified with us. The Son of God consented to become the Son of man. 'God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law' (Gal. 4:4, ASV). 'The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us' (John 1:14). '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' (Rom. 8:3)."
"It is a miracle, it is a mystery, it is God coming down among us and becoming man, it is heaven humbling itself to earth, it is Jacob's ladder binding earth to heaven and heaven to earth. ... Jesus was made man. ... He suffered hunger, thirst, and fatigue as we do. He was 'in all things ... like unto his brethren,' He had to face similar temptations; He shed tears, and finally He died."[36]
Extracts From the Sabbath School Lessons
As already stated, the Sabbath school lessons are the best official of Adventist Church teaching. Prepared by specialists and verified by a worldwide committee, they are indeed the most authentic expression of the Adventist faith. Every time the lessons touch on the human nature of Jesus, the explanatory notes invariably present the traditional teaching. Examples for the period from 1916 to 1952 are so few that it is possible to quote them all. The first one dates from the first quarter of 1921, and is relevant to a question on the Incarnation.
"Christ assumed, not the original unfallen, but our fallen humanity. In this second experiment, He stood not precisely where Adam before Him had, but, as has already been said, with immense odds against Him--evil, with all the prestige of victory and its consequent enthronement in the very constitution of our nature, armed with more terrific power against the possible realization of this divine ideal of man--perfect holiness. All this considered, the disadvantages of the situation, the tremendous risks involved, and the fierceness of the opposition encountered, we come to some adequate sense both of the reality and greatness of that vast moral achievement; human nature tempted, tried, miscarried in Adam, lifted up in Christ to the sphere of actualized sinlessness."[37]
In another lesson for the same year, on the priesthood of Christ, we find this commentary about the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews: "He who is introduced in the first chapter as Son, God, and Lord, whose deity and eternity are emphasized, meets us in the second chapter as the Son of man, with all the limitations of our common humanity. He is known by His earthy, personal name, and as one who can taste of death (Heb. 2:9), and can be made 'perfect through sufferings' (verse 10). He partook of the same flesh and blood which we have (verse 14), becoming just as truly man (verse 17) as He is truly God."[38]
In the third quarter of 1921 the same concept is found prominently: "When the Son of God was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4) and partook of our sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3), the eternal life was manifested in a human body (1 John 1:2)."[39]
In 1928 the lessons of the first quarter were based on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Here is the explanatory note in connection with Ephesians 2:15: "Carnal, natural man cannot abolish his enmity against God. It is a part of his nature. It is intertwined in every fiber of his being. But Jesus took upon Himself our nature of flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), 'in all things ... to be made like unto His brethren' (Heb. 2:17), 'of the seed of David according to the flesh' (Rom. 1:3); 'He met and abolished in His flesh the enmity,' the carnal mind' (Rom. 8:7), 'the mind of the flesh' (Rom. 8:7, ASV). He conquered sin in the flesh for us forever."[40]
Extracts From Selected Books
During the period from 1916 to 1952, several books dealing directly or indirectly with the doctrine of the Incarnation were published by the different publishing houses of the church such as: the Review and Herald Publishing Association, the Pacific Press Publishing Association, and the Southern Publishing Association. All the books published by these publishing houses had to receive the prerequisite stamp of approval by a reading committee certifying the contents to be in harmony with Adventist faith and doctrines.
The Doctrine of Christ, by W. W. Prescott
Recall that Prescott, in his 1920 book The Doctrine of Christ, argued that without participating in "the flesh and blood" of those whom He came to deliver from the power of sin and death, Christ could not have been their Saviour. This truth, in the mind of Prescott, was the central truth of the gospel.
The Life of Victory, by Meade MacGuire
In 1924 Meade MacGuire's book The Life of Victory appeared. The author was also the founder of the Youth Department at the General Conference level. He was successively secretary of the Home Missionary and Ministerial departments."[41] In the chapter dealing with the "frightful nature of sin," MacGuire answers the problem raised by Paul in Romans 7:23: "But I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members."
There is only one means of deliverance from this inherent law of sin. That is Christ. He took humanity upon Him. He conquered sin while in a body which had come under the hereditary law of sin. He now proposes to live that same sinless life in my members. His presence completely counteracts the power of the law of sin."[42]
In another chapter MacGuire writes: "When Jesus bore the cross, He acknowledged the death sentence upon the sin nature. He took our nature, the Adam nature, the Saul life, and agreeing with the Father that this nature was fit only to die, He went voluntarily to the cross, and bore that fallen nature to its inevitable and necessary death. ... By this great sacrifice Christ made provision for the death of the Adam nature in you and me, if we are willing to bring this degenerate nature of ours to His cross and nail it there."[43]
Facts of Faith, by Christian Edwardson
In 1942 Edwardson took up the subject of the Incarnation and Christ's human nature from a different angle. He discusses 2 John 7, which states that deceivers and the antichrist "do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh." In opposition to the argument that the Papacy could not be the Antichrist since Catholicism does not deny Christ's Incarnation, Edwardson writes:
"This argument, however, is based on a misunderstanding, caused by overlooking one word in the text. Antichrist was not to deny that Christ had come in flesh, but was to deny that He had 'come in the flesh, in 'the same' kind of flesh, as the human race He came to save. ... On this vital difference hinges the real 'truth of the gospel.' Did Christ come all the way down to make contact with the fallen race, or only part way, so that we must have saints, popes, and priests intercede for us with Christ who is removed too far from fallen humanity and its needs to make direct contact with the individual sinner? Right here lies the great divide that parts Protestantism from Roman Catholicism."
Edwardson elaborates on the secret of man's salvation: "Through sin man has separated himself from God, and his fallen nature is opposed to the divine will. ... Only through Christ, our Mediator, can man be rescued from sin, and again brought into connection with the source of purity and power. But in order to become such a connecting link Christ had to partake bath of the divinity of God and of the humanity of man, so that He with His divine arm could encircle God, and with His human arm embrace man, thus connecting both in His own person. In this union of the human with the divine lies the 'mystery' of the gospel, the secret of power to lift man from his degradation."
Edwardson sought to explain the why of Christ's Incarnation: "It was fallen man that was to be rescued from sin. And to make contact with him Christ had to condescend to take our nature upon Himself (not Some higher kind of flesh). 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.' ... 'Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.' (Hebrews 2:14, 17) This text is worded in a way that it cannot be misunderstood. Christ 'took part of the same flesh and blood as ours'; He came in 'the' flesh. To deny this is the mark of antichrist."[44]
The Wine of Roman Babylon, by Mary E. Walsh
As suggested by the title, this book contrasts Catholic teaching with that of the Scriptures. Mary E. Walsh, the author, had been for 20 years a fervent Catholic.[45].
In the charter devoted to the immaculate conception, Mary Walsh writes: "All that Mary gave to Christ was His human body. It is a law of nature that one cannot give what one does not possess, and Mary, being human in every aspect of the word, could not impart to her Son the nature of divinity."[46]
Then, having shown both the divine and the human aspect of the nature of Jesus, Mary Walsh quotes Romans 8:3 and Hebrews 2:14, 17, 18, to conclude: "In the genealogy of Christ as given in Matthew we find Jesus called the Son of David and also the Son of Abraham. One has to study only the characters of Abraham and David to learn that they were very human and had a tendency to sin. Thus we see what kind of human nature Christ inherited from His progenitors."[47]
At the beginning of the 1950s several other works were published seeking to explain the why of the Incarnation, and what Christ had accomplished by living a sinless life in a sinful flesh. A. B. Lickey's book Christ Forever and W. B. Ochs's book This I Believe, bath published in 1951 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association,[48] maintained the traditional Adventist teaching of the past 100 years.
To complete our examination, we will survey two more authors whose testimony is particularly valuable because it came at a time when a radical change was being implemented: F. D. Nichol, editor in chief of the Review and Herald from 1945 to 1966, and author of many books; and W. H. Branson, president of the General Conference from 1950 to 1954.
Answers to Objections, by F. D. Nichol."[49]
In 1952 Nichol felt compelled to reply to a criticism often leveled against Adventists in these terms: "Seventh-day Adventists teach that, like all mankind, Christ was born with a sinful nature. This plainly indicates that His heart, too, was 'deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked' (Jer. 17:9). In harmony with this they also teach that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour--that He came into the world 'at the risk of failure and eternal loss.' But the Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'he knew no sin,' and that He would 'not fail nor be discouraged.' "[50]
Nichol's answer is found, first of all, in two articles in the Review and Herald, then reproduced in the book Answers to Objections,"[51] published in the same year. The preface was written by W. H. Branson, then president of the General Conference. "This volume," he wrote, "gives a clear-cut, convincing answer to the objections most frequently raised by critics of the doctrines held by the Seventh -day Adventist Church. ... With hearty approval, therefore, we recommend this book to every gospel worker. It will prove a ready helper in meeting bath the attacks of the theological critics and sincere questions of the perplexed inquirer."[52]
In his reply, Nichol did not say that the critics were mistaken as to the beliefs of Adventists on the subject. He simply sought to show that these critics were mistaken in concluding that "Seventh-day Adventists are guilty of fearful heresy."[53] In truth, remarked Nichol, "Adventists have never made a formal pronouncement on this matter in their statement of belief. The only pronouncement in our literature that could be considered as truly authoritative on this is what Mrs. E. G. White has written."[54] Moreover the objectors quote an extract from the book The Desire of Ages to prove that they were not mistaken in their judgment, and Nichol does the same to confirm that "Christ had to be made in all things like unto His brethren."
"This is Adventist belief And we hold this belief because we feel it agrees with revelation and reason." Relying on the usual biblical texts (Rom. 8:3; Hebrews 2:16, 14, 17; and 4:15), Nichol avers, "The objector seeks to avoid the force of these passages by declaring that so far as Christ was concerned 'tempted' simply meant 'tried' or 'tested.' But the texts before us emphasize the fact that the nature of Christ's temptation was exactly the same as that which comes to mankind. True, these scriptures do note one difference--when Christ was tempted He did not sin. That cannot be said of mankind. To a greater or less degree we have all fallen before temptation. The text does not say that Christ could not sin, but that He did not sin. If in His human nature it was impossible for Him to sin, why did not Paul so reveal these texts before us? It would have been a great revelation."[55]
Then Nichol goes on to show that Adventists are not the only ones to hold this point of view. He quotes a galaxy of theologians of different Protestant denominations before concluding: "The Adventist belief concerning Christ is that He was truly divine and truly human, that His human nature was subjected to the same temptations to sin that confront us, that He triumphed over temptation through the power given Him of His Father, and that He may most literally be described as 'holy, harmless, undefiled' (Heb. 7:26)."[56]
Some of Nichol's expressions elsewhere have led some to think he was a supporter of the new interpretation which arose about this time."[57] But what he wrote on the subject of the temptations of Christ suggests this was not the case. Note his comparison between the two Adams: "Christ won despite the fact that He took on Him 'the likeness of sinful flesh,' with all that that implies of the baleful and weakening effects of sin on the body and nervous system of man and its effects on his environment--'can there any good thing come out of Nazareth.' "[58]
In a note added to Objection 94, Nichol explained the expression "sinful flesh": "Critics, especially those who see the Scriptures through Calvinistic eyes, read into the term 'sinful flesh' something that Adventist theology does not require. Thus if we use the term 'sinful flesh' in regard to Christ's human nature, as some of our writers have done, we lay ourselves open to misunderstanding. True, we mean by that term simply that Christ 'took on him the seed of Abraham,' and was made 'in the likeness of sinful flesh,' but critics are not willing to believe this."[59]
According to the testimony of Kenneth H. Wood, long-time associate editor under F. D. Nichol, and his successor as editor in chief from 1966 to 1982, Nichol always supported, in conversations and discussions, the belief that Christ came into this world with man's fallen nature. That would explain why Walter Martin declared: "The General Conference wisely separated Nichol from myself. He was prohibited from making contact with me."[60]
The Atonement and Drama of the Ages, by W. H. Branson
The point of view expressed by W. H. Branson in various articles is confirmed in two of his books. In the first, The Atonement, published in 1935, he states what had always been the teaching of the church up until then. "Christ, the Son of God, the Creator of the universe, took upon Himself our nature, and became a man. He was born of a woman. He became 'the seed of Abraham.' He became one of us."[61]
In 1953, while Branson was president of the General Conference, and probably aware of an emerging new interpretation, he wrote in his last work, Drama of the Ages: "It was of man's flesh and blood that Jesus partook. He became a member of the human race. He became just like men. ... This, then, was real humanity. It was not the nature of angels that He assumed, but that of Abraham. He was 'in all things made like unto his brethren.' He became one of them. He was subject to temptation; He knew the pangs of suffering, and was not a stranger to man's common woes."[62]
Then W. H. Branson explains his position with regards to the why of Christ's participation in the fallen nature of mankind: "In order for Christ to understand the weakness of human nature, He had to experience it. In order for Him to be sympathetic with men in their trials, He also had to be tried. He must suffer hunger, weariness, disappointment, sorrow, and persecution. He must tread the same paths, live under the same circumstances, and die the same death. Therefore He became bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. His Incarnation was in actual humanity."[63]
Conclusion
Our research covering a century of Adventist Christology from 1852 to 1952 allows us to affirm that the theologians and administrators of the church have spoken with one voice on the subject of the person of Christ and His work on behalf of man's salvation.
Although at first we find semi-Arian sentiments on the subject of Christ's divine nature among church leaders, these were abandoned prior to the turn of the century. On the other hand, on the point of the human nature of Jesus there was no divergence. Since the beginning the Adventist Church showed remarkable unanimity in its systematic teaching on this subject. Their study of the New Testament led the pioneers of the message and their followers to understand the Incarnation as not merely involving the belief that Jesus came in the flesh, but above all in "a flesh like unto sinful flesh." And because this teaching was radically opposed to the tradition of established churches, it was necessary to repeat it consistently for the benefit of the new converts to the Adventist message. This doctrine was considered as "the touchstone of authentic Christianity," as "the golden chain in which are set the jewels of doctrine," "as the doctrine of doctrines," in short, as "the vital point of the regenerative and redemptive religion of Jesus."
About 1950, however, a new interpretation arose: Christ did not take the fallen nature of humanity but rather that of Adam before the Fall. Of course, such a drastic change of interpretation met with spirited reaction. It is therefore very important to consider this new step in the history of Adventist Christology to understand the actual causes of the controversy eating away at the very heart of the church.
More important, it is necessary to sharpen the ability to discern between teaching that agrees with the gospel from that which does not. This is a consequential point indeed, because according to the apostle John, the test of the true Spirit of God centers precisely upon the concept of Christ come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-3).
Notes: