The influence of the new theology was growing. Although the support of traditional Christology were at first a bit stunned by the swiftness of the change, they eventually began to react more vigorously, mostly through the official channels of church media. Initially they made themselves heard in articles placed in the Review and Herald; then through the Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference level; later by means of the Sabbath school lessons, and several books. Following the publication of Movement of Destiny, the year 1970 marked the beginning of an awakening interest in the historical teachings of the pioneers of the church.
The Review and Herald Reacts
After the death of F. D. Nichol in 1966, Kenneth H. Wood, his associate, became chief editor of the Review and Herald. Under his leadership, from 1966 to 1982, the Review never stopped looking back at the historical teaching. And as president of the Ellen G. White Estate and chair of its Board of Trustees since 1980, Wood has done all he can to encourage the publication of articles bolstering the traditional position.
To this end, Wood called in two associate editors: Thomas A. Davis in 1970, and Herbert E. Douglass in 1971. Both revealed themselves to be strong defenders of traditional Adventist Christology. By way of articles, books, and occasional Sabbath school lessons they systematically opposed the teaching found in Questions on Doctrine and Movement of Destiny.
Even before he was called to the Review, Thomas A. Davis had published a book for daily meditations in 1966 that upheld the historical position. "The mighty Creator," he wrote, "who had placed that atom of a world spinning in space, Himself became a partaker of the flesh and blood of sinful man, and made His home upon that tiny planet He had create. Amazing condescension! Had He taken upon Himself the form of sinless Adam he would have made an infinite sacrifice. But He went far beyond that when He was made in the fashion of man degraded through thousands of years of sin."[1] In 1971 Davis repeated his convictions in his book Romans for the Every-day Man.[2]
Herbert E. Douglass also took a strong stand against the new tenets of Adventism. He was known as a seasoned theologian and respected Bible teacher, having served in several colleges of the United States. From 1967 to 1970 he served as president of Atlantic Union College. Called upon to join the staff of the Review and Herald as an associate editor, he became known as one of the most ardent defenders of the historical postlapsarian position.[3]
Upon arriving at the Review, he published a series of articles and editorials setting forth an aspect of the problem dear to his heart: "On that first Christmas," he wrote, "the glad-hearted angels knew that the dramatic moment had arrived. Their beloved Lord had personally entered the fray. ... He would prove that what He has asked fallen man to do would be done."[4]
In the second editorial Douglass explained why Christ had to take on Himself man's fallen nature. "All other steps in the plan of salvation, including the resurrection of the faithful during Old Testament times, depended absolutely upon the success Jesus would have as a fellow participant in the arena of temptation. For if Christ, before the watching universe, did not conquer under the same conditions all men must live with, then no man can hope to conquer."[5]
In the last article of the series Douglass showed that man can conquer temptation in the example of Jesus. "As man's substitute He proved that man could live without sinning. 'We also are to overcome as Christ overcame' (The Desire of Ages, p. 389). Jesus employed no advantages that are not available to every human being.
His faith atone constitutes the secret of His triumph over sin. 'Christ's overcoming and obedience is that of a human being. ... When we give to His human nature a power that is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity' (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, vol. 7, p. 929)."[6]
One of the concepts Douglass developed in his editorials was particularly dear to his heart. It had to do with the last generation, living at Christ's return. "The faith of Jesus produces the character of Jesus; such is the goal of all those who wish to be a part of that remarkable demonstration of Christ-like living by the last generation of Adventists."[7] "The last generation of those who 'keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus' will dissolve forever all lingering doubts as to whether man's will joined to God's power can throw back all temptations to self-serving and sin."[8]
For several years, between 1971 and 1974, Douglass published a Christmas editorial that drew attention to Christ's fallen human nature, and the reason for His taking humanity upon Himself.[9] When he was asked why he had written these editorials, Douglass replied: "Obviously it became a rallying point, or flag, for many who thought they would never again see the truth in print. ... I simply wanted to give warm support to a point of view that had been very prominent in the history of our church and was still prominent in the lives and thinking of many of the General Conference brethren with whom I fellow shipped from day to day."[10]
Reaction of the Biblical Research Institute
Shortly after the appearance of volume 7-A of The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary in 1970, the members of the General Conference Biblical Research Institute called for a revision of one of the appendices. This was done in a special supplement of Ministry in February 1972,[11] with the following introduction:
"With the publication of Questions on Doctrine ... considerable interest was stirred concerning the nature of Christ during the Incarnation, and the relationship of that nature to the nature of man, especially in man's battle with temptation and sin.
"As study followed the publication of Questions on Doctrine, the Suggestion was made that the Appendix B, entitled 'Christ's Nature During the Incarnation,' could be made more helpful if the elements of possible interpretation--emphasis by italicization, interpretation by title, etc.--could be minimized, so that the statements would stand before the reader in their own strength, speaking to his mind.
"The material in its present form was considered by the Biblical Research Committee of the General Conference and was approved as a more helpful form for future presentation. ... Readers of this material are encouraged to consider the balance in these statements between the divinity and the humanity of Christ, and the dangers inherent in making Him too exclusively divine or too completely human. The element of mystery in the Incarnation calls for constant recognition."[12]
The Biblical Research Institute eliminated the italics, reorganized the text itself, and deleted Some quotations. More important, it rewrote many of the titles and subtitles to make them less theologically tendentious. Thus, for example, Title III, which says Christ "took sinless human nature,"[13] was replaced by one that is more in agreement with the content of the quotations: "In taking human nature Christ did not participate in its sin or propensity to evil."[14] Thus, without entering into polemics with the authors of Appendix B, the members of the Bible Research Institute presented a neutral text, leaving the readers to draw their own conclusions.
In his report made public, Gordon Hyde, then director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference, noted, with regret, the growing influence of the new Christology. "It is generally known," he wrote, "that not all were happy with the emphasis given in Questions on Doctrine, and indeed, that one or two Bible students among us, as well as leaders of Some dissenting groups, took a negative attitude toward the emphasis given and argued strongly for the postlapsarian position. In general, however, the position of Questions on Doctrine seemed to prevail and was held by the leadership of the church to be a sound position. ... But in the last three or four years, there has been something of a revival of the issues both by certain of the editors of the Review in their editorials and in Some publications of dissenting groups."[15]
Herbert E. Douglass Reacts in the Sabbath School Lessons
About the time Herbert Douglass published his editorials in the Review and Herald, he was asked to prepare the Sabbath school lessons on "Christ Our Righteousness" for the first quarter in 1974.[16]
The problem of the human nature of Jesus is dealt with under the title "The Righteous Jesus."[17] The basic verse is (Romans 8:3), and the introduction of the topic shares this Ellen White quotation: "Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed."[18]
Having developed the theme of the divinity of Jesus in the first two parts of the lesson, Douglass proceeded with His humanity in the last four sections, under the following titles: "Jesus Was Man" (Phil. 2:5-7); "Mutual Understanding" (Heb. 2:17); "Jesus Was Tempted" (Heb. 4:15; 12:3, 4); "A Sinless Life" (Rom. 8:3; John 16:33). The comments for each text were drawn mostly from Ellen White. Considering that the new interpretation was supposedly based on statements by Ellen White, it was appropriate to refute that interpretation by relying on her writings. Hence, this classic quotation in connection with (Philippians 2:5-7) and (John 1:14): "Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did really take it ... (Heb. 2:14). He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent. He is declared to be a man, even the Man Christ Jesus." [19] Yet another: "For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation."[20]
Jesus was sinless not because He had sinless flesh, but because He lived without sinning in a "flesh in the likeness of sin." So Douglass concluded that Jesus had demonstrated that it was possible "to live without sin, in obedience to the law of heaven, by whosoever casts himself entirely on the hands of God."[21]
As we shall see again later, Douglass is particular about emphasizing the reason Jesus came in sinful flesh. For him there existed a relationship of cause and effect between Christology and soteriology. Indeed, he felt this was precisely what this whole controversy was about.
In an attempt to resolve the differences on the subject of justification by faith, the leaders of the General Conference felt that a special committee should be appointed. Obviously this committee could not consider the problem of justification by faith without also considering Christ's human nature. We will survey the reports of this committee to glean from them their conclusions concerning Christology.
Christology of the justification by Faith Committee
This committee was specifically appointed to examine a manuscript of Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short. For this reason it was first known as "The Wieland and Short Manuscript Review Committee."[22] As early as 1950 these two missionaries, upon their return from Africa, were first to give warning to the General Conference about new interpretations concerning the person and work of Christ that were threatening the church. Subsequently they were asked to present their concerns in writing, which they did in the form of a typescript handbook entitled 1888 Re-Examined.[23]
To facilitate the work of the committee, three commissions were requested to gather together certain needed documents. The committee itself met October 25, 1974, and again a second time from February 17 to 19, 1975. A third and final meeting from April 23 to 30, 1976, at Palmdale, California, included a substantial delegation from Australia.
It is interesting to note how the report of the February 17, 1975, meeting sums up the agreement reached with brethren Wieland and Short. First, they recognized the unique contribution of Jones and Waggoner in their message of justification by faith and the relationship that existed between the human nature of Jesus and justification by faith. The committee concluded, however, that Ellen White had not approved every one of the statements made by Jones and Waggoner.[24] Furthermore, it refused to enter into controversy on the subject of Christ's human nature.
In essence, these points were developed in the report of the Palmdale committee on justification by faith.[25] Meanwhile some Adventist theologians from Australia had challenged the traditional interpretation of justification by faith by affirming that according to the Bible, the expression meant justification only, without including sanctification. A delegation of 19 leaders of the Australian church, including Desmond Ford and Alwyn Salom, was invited to discuss the matter at the Palmdale conference. Both men had the opportunity to present their points of view, on both justification by faith and Christ's human nature. It was obvious that no one doubted the direct relationship between the two.
In the section dealing with Christ's humanity, the report summed up the conclusions of the committee as follows:
"1. That Christ was, and still is, the God-man--the union of true Deity and true humanity.
"2. That Christ experienced the total range of temptation at the risk of failure and eternal loss.
"3. That Christ overcame temptation, appropriating only those provisions God makes available to the human family.
"4. That Christ lived in perfect obedience to God's commandments and was sinless.
"5. That by His life and atoning death Christ made it possible for sinners to be justified by faith and therefore accounted righteous in God's sight.
"6. That through faith in Christ's redemptive act, not only a person's standing before God may be changed, but his character also, as he grows in grace and gains victory over hereditary as well as cultivated tendencies to evil. This experience of justification and sanctification continues until glorification."[26]
The report quotes the Ellen White statements most favorable to the traditional interpretation, emphasizing both Christ's participation. in man's fallen nature, and His sinless life. But obviously the participants at this conference were not unanimous in the interpretations of these statements. In fact as many supporters of the postlapsarian position were present as of the prelapsarian. So the conference report takes no stand on this issue but ends with an appeal for unity and an encouragement to pursue this study in a spirit of tolerance from both sides.
In effect, it was no longer a matter of deciding which of the two interpretations was correct but merely of recognizing that two different points of view existed. These deviations on such fundamental doctrines as justification by faith and Christ's human nature were considered by some as evidence of an acute theological crisis at the heart of the Adventist Church. Geoffrey J. Paxton's The Shaking of Adventism represents clearly the opinion of those who followed the discussions of the Palmdale conference from the outside.[27]
As seen from inside, Arthur Leroy Moore, an Adventist theologian, reached the same conclusion in his doctoral thesis, published in 1980 under the title of The Theology Crisis.[28] Moore refutes systematically the new interpretations of the "Reformists"--as he called them--on justification by faith and Christ's human nature on the strength of Ford's presentations at the Palmdale conference.[29]
Ford's Papers at the Palmdale Conference
Among the Australian delegates at the Palmdale conference in April 1976 was an influential theologian, Desmond Ford, who taught at the Adventist College of Avondale, in Australia.
For some years Ford had propagated his ideas on the doctrine of justification by faith, declaring that the church had nullified this doctrine by rejecting the doctrine of original sin. "This ... has given rise to three related heresies," he writes, "(a) that gospel includes sanctification as well as justification; (b) that the Christ took the fallen nature of Adam; and (c) that a 'final generation' must develop perfect characters before Christ's return."[30]
As these ideas had been widely spread throughout the United States, it was desirable that Ford should present them to the Committee of Justification by Faith, in order to arrive at an official statement if possible. So Ford was given the opportunity of presenting three papers at the Palmdale conference. The first was "The Scope and Limits of the Pauline Expression 'Righteousness by Faith"; the second, "The Relationship Between the Incarnation and Righteousness by Faith"; and the third, "Ellen G. White and Righteousness by faith."[31]
Ford took a position similar to that found in Questions on Doctrine,[32] but his position was more precisely defined: "Christ took on Adam's sinlessness but not his strength. He took on our weakness but not our sinfulness. Like Adam, He could have sinned but did not."[33]
From this Christology Ford developed his doctrine of justification by faith in the sense of a purely legal transaction, limited to imputed righteousness. "To put it yet in another way," he wrote, "justification, and not sanctification, is the Righteousness by Faith of the New Testament, and such righteousness is the gift of the incarnate, Crucified, an resurrected Lord."[34]
This teaching of a purely legal righteousness eventually led Ford and his followers to a form of evangelical Adventism,[35] which tended to downplay the importance of obedience as a condition of salvation, offered salvation without fear of a judgment to come, and denied all prophetic significance of the 1844 event.[36] These extreme conclusions are in logical harmony with their assumptions, but they are in radical opposition to traditional Adventist Christology and to the message of justification by faith proclaimed in 1888. It is not surprising that the reaction to these tenets was swift.
Herbert E. Douglass Reaffirms the Traditional Christology
Following the printing of his first Sabbath school lesson for the first quarter of 1974, Douglass was requested to prepare a second manuscript for the second quarter of 1977. He gave it the title "Jesus, the Model Man." This was a logical sequel to the preceding lessons on "The Righteous Jesus."
Such manuscripts are always submitted for examination to a worldwide committee responsible for maintaining doctrinal content in harmony with the tenets of the church. This second manuscript did encounter some opposition, but the General Conference Sabbath School Department approved the publication of the manuscript despite the criticisms.[37]
The dominant theme of these lessons can be summed by this Ellen White statement quoted in the general introduction: "We are to look to the man Christ Jesus, who is complete in the perfection of righteousness and holiness. He is the author and finisher of our faith. He is the pattern man. His experience is the measure of the experience that we are to gain. His character is our model. ... As we look to Him and think of Him, He will be formed within."[38]
Faithful to the basic concept of the traditional Adventist Christology, Douglass repeated that "Jesus, the Carpenter of Nazareth, came to this earth accepting 'the results of the working of the great law of heredity.' He was 'subject to the weakness of humanity ... to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss."[39] Relying constantly on Ellen White's teaching, Douglass took pleasure in restating that Christ's victory over sin could also be ours. "As one of us He was to give an example of obedience. ... He endured every trial to which we are subject. And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. ... His life testifies that it is possible for us also to obey the law of God."[40]
"If God had come to earth and only appeared to be a man, His performance would not have answered Satan's charges; the issue was not what God could do. The issue was whether man could keep the law and resist sin."[41] In support of his conviction he quoted Ellen White's statement that "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."[42]
In addition to the Sabbath school lessons, Douglass also published a sort of commentary on the different lessons in collaboration with Leo Van Dolson: Jesus--The Benchmark of Humanity.[43] For Douglass, Jesus was not only "the Model Man," but also "the benchmark of humanity"--in other words, the measure of what we could become by the grace of God in Jesus Christ.
Douglass had already developed this theme in a chapter of the book Perfection, the Impossible Possibility, published in 1975.[44] Under the title "The Showcase of God's Grace," Douglass reaffirmed the teaching of the pioneers and of Ellen White, whose writings he quoted profusely. He was pleased also to recognize leading theologians such as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, who, like him, had shown that the participation of Jesus in a state of fallen human nature was not only a Christological truth, but a soteriological reality of great importance. For Douglass, Christian perfection is possible only to the extent of one's acknowledgment that Jesus Christ Himself participated in the nature of sinful man.
Douglass is explicit: "In no way would Ellen White play down the triumph of Jesus and lend any support to the great Christian heresy that our Lord's human nature was as Adam's before his fall--unencumbered with the liabilities and degeneracy of sin."[45]
Of course, Douglass was not alone in recalling what was the foundation of Adventist Christology since the beginning of the movement. Other voices were also heard,[46] such as that of Kenneth H. Wood, editor in chief of the general periodical of the church, the Review and Herald.
Kenneth H. Wood Confirms the Traditional Christology
Kenneth H. Wood, currently the president of the Ellen G. White Estate, was the editor of the Review and Herald from 1966 to 1982. He did not express his views directly on the problem of Christ's human nature until 1977, when he published three editorials in parallel with the Sabbath school lessons of the second quarter, dealing with "Jesus, the Model Man."
The first appeared on May 5, 1977, timed to coincide with the study of the lessons prepared by Herbert Douglass. Wood considered these lessons to "have exceptional value." "These Sabbath school lessons emphasize that Jesus met fully every qualification necessary for the task of saving lost mankind. Except for His absolute sinlessness, Jesus identified completely with the human race (see Ellen G. White letter 17, 1878)."[47]
Alas, Wood observed, "not all Christians--even Seventh-day Adventists-agree on the interpretation of these and other inspired statements."[48] This was demonstrated at the Palmdale conference where, according to the report, the participants were divided between those who held for a nature of sinful humanity inherited by Christ, and those who believed His nature to have been that of sinless humanity.[49]
Wood believed that Adventists had been commissioned by God to exalt Christ. "Are they doing this? Not as fully as they should. And perhaps one reason is that for a number of years too many members and ministers have feared to discuss the humanity of Christ lest they appear irreverent and seem to make Christ 'altogether human' (which He was not; He also was divine). They have been disturbed when some church members and leaders have preached the Christ of historic Adventism, the Christ who lived as we must live, who was tempted as we are tempted, who overcome as we must overcame, and who has promised to live in us by His Holy Spirit (uniting our human nature with His divine nature)."[50]
Wood expressed his satisfaction: "Thus we rejoice that the General Conference Sabbath School Department, through the quarter's lessons, is leading the world to gaze long and hard at Jesus. We believe that as a result of these lessons the life and ministry of Jesus will have greater relevance for every believer, and that a climate of openness has been created in which study can be given to aspects of the Incarnation that must be understood thorougly before the third angel's message can swell into the loud cry."[51]
In the months fo11owing these editorials, Edward Heppenstall's book The Man Who Is God was published, subtitled "A Study of the Person and Nature of Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man."[52] We will elaborate on its contents later, but here we note that the two editorials from the pen of Kenneth Wood at the end of the year bear a relationship to the publication of this book.
In response to Heppenstall's arguments, Wood reaffirmed his position in a December 22, 1977, editorial entitled "The Gift Supreme." Wood first expressed his gratitude to God for this gift that surpasses all understanding. "The mind-boggling aspect of the Bethlehem story is that the infinite God would come to this world an join the human race."[53]
"But even more amazing than the fact that God the Son came to dwell with humanity, is the truth that He came to dwell with sinful humanity! It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. 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 earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life (The Desire of Ages, p. 49)."[54]
In a second editorial Wood explained how Jesus could live without sinning while in a sinful human flesh. Certainly, he remarked, it "challenges both faith and reason, but we dare not reject truth merely because we cannot understand or explain it."[55] other aspects of the Incarnation are also a mystery, yet we accept them--such as "how a divine nature and a human nature could be blended into one Person."[56]
Wood warned against two dangerous conclusions that some draw from the statement that Christ took a sinful nature. First, "that this made Christ only human, not divine." Second, "that He was thereby tainted with sin, or was inclined toward it."[57] Wood quoted Ellen White against this view: "'Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to temptation' (The SDA Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, vol. 5, p. 1128)."[58]
In fact, Wood stated, "(1) Taking man's sinful nature did not defile or taint Christ. (2) Jesus was totally loyal to His Father and hostile to rebellion, which is the very essence of sin."[59]
Wood justified the first statement with the following explanation: "Note what happened when Christ touched lepers. Was He defiled by touching them? ... No, instead, the lepers were cleansed." "When Deity touches humanity, Deity is not defiled; instead, humanity is blessed, healed, and purified." Christ was born of the Spirit, and when He was united to sinful human nature, "by the fact of His taking it, purged [it] from all its inherent depravity."[60]
As to the second statement, Wood explained that no trace of rebellion was found in Jesus. "He always was in complete harmony with His Father's will and law. ... Jesus said of Himself: 'The prince of this world cometh, and bath nothing in me' (John 14:30); also, 'I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me' (chap. 5:30). Jesus had a will of His own--as do all human beings--but it was surrendered to His Father--as should be the will of all who are born of the Spirit."[61]
When it is written that Jesus was tempted in all points like us without committing sin (Heb. 4:15), whom does the "us" describe, asks Wood? "He was not referring to pagans but to the people of God. ... Perhaps he was referring primarily to the people born of the Spirit (cf. John 3:3-8), people who are no longer carnally minded and 'in the flesh,' but people who are 'spiritually minded' and 'in the spirit' (see Rom. 8:4-9)."[62] Accordingly, "those who are born of the Spirit can, through the power of Christ, resist successfully every temptation, and be victorious in their fight against the enemy of their souls."[63]
By living victoriously in a fallen human nature, "Jesus provided an example of what His followers may achieve in their battle with sin."[64] In closing, Wood exclaimed: "What a wonderful God we serve. What a wonderful Saviour we have! What wonderful power is available to enable us to live a life of victory!"[65]
The Christology of Edward Heppenstall
Edward Heppenstall was a prominent professor of Christian philosophy for whom theology was not truly useful unless it led to a living relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Born in England, he taught in several American colleges, then at the SDA Theological Seminary in Washington, D. C., from 1955. At Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, he was in charge of systematic theology and Christian philosophy. In 1967 he accepted a call to Loma Linda University, in California, to teach in the Department of Religion until his retirement in 1970."[66]
Through the years Heppenstall was a faithful contributor to the various Adventist periodicals, in particular the Ministry, Signs of the Times, and These Times. The commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is from his pen. Several of his books, written during his retirement, are authoritative: Our High Priest (1972), Salvation Unlimited (1974), In Touch With God (1975), The Man Who Is God (1977), all published in Washington, D. C., by the Review and Herald Publishing Association.
As far as our subject is concerned, Heppenstall detailed his Christology in his book The Man Who Is Cod. It is perhaps the most systematic approach by an Adventist theologian on "the person and nature of Jesus, Son of God and Son of man" (the subtitle of the book). All aspects of Christology are treated: Christ in human history, the Incarnation, the birth of Jesus, the kenosis doctrine, the center of Christ's consciousness, Christ and sin, the sinlessness of Christ, the temptation of Christ, the uniqueness of Christ.
For Heppenstall, the Incarnation constitutes the greatest miracle of all time and eternity. It is truly the central fact of Christianity. "If one does not believe in the Incarnation, then it is impossible to understand what the Christian faith stands for",[67] because, "the substance of our faith lies in what Christ was and what He did, and not merely in what He taught."[68] "This union of the divine and the human resulted in two natures in one person, Jesus Christ. Hence the term used of Jesus--the God-man."[69] Having emphasized the miraculous birth of Jesus, Heppenstall continued to affirm both the perfect divinity of Christ and His perfect humanity: fully God and fully man.
Heppenstall believed that Christ's humanity was not Adam's sinless humanity before the Fall. "Christ came in the humble form of a servant at His incarnation, depicting servitude, subjection, subordination. He took a weakened human nature, not the perfect nature Adam had before he sinned. He did not come to earth as a new human being newly created in power and splendor. ... Instead of commanding and ruling in power and majesty, occupying a place of honor and pre-eminence among men, He humbled Himself. He trod the path of humiliation, which culminated in His death upon the cross."[70]
While Heppenstall differed from those who affirm that Jesus took Adam's human nature before the Fall he also differed from those who attribute to Jesus Adam's nature after the Fall. He saw a difference between having a sinful nature and a nature that carried only the results of sin. Obviously, "if the transmission of sin is by natural propagation, then Jesus must have inherited from Mary what we all inherit from our parents, unless we favor some form of immaculate conception doctrine."[71]
For Heppenstall sin was not something genetic. What human beings inherited from Adam by birth was the state of sin that separates from God, that is, "original sin." "Sin is a spiritual thing caused by the alienation of the whole person from God. We cannot apply this alienated condition to Christ. He was not born as we are, separate from God. He was God Himself. He could inherit from Mary only what could be transmitted genetically. This means He inherited the weakened physical constitution, the results of sin upon the body, that we all inherit. As concerning all other men, they are born without God. All men need regeneration. Christ did not. Here lies the great difference between Christ and ourselves."[72]
Because Heppenstall separated original sin from the genetic process, he could affirm that Christ did not have a sinful nature like the rest of mankind. Besides, he remarked, "This scripture [Rom. 8:3] does not say that God sent His Son 'in sinful flesh' but only 'in the likeness' of it. ... If Christ had been born exactly as we are, Paul would not have written 'in the likeness' but 'in sinful flesh.' Paul is very careful to make clear the sinlessness of Christ's nature."[73] "Christ was not born free from physical deterioration. He inherited all this from Mary. ... He was subject physically to the decline of the race; but since sin is not transmitted genetically, but as a result of man's separation from God, Christ was born without sin."[74]
Dealing with the problem of temptation, Heppenstall considered that "the possibility of being tempted is the same for a sinless as for a sinful person. Adam was tempted as a sinless person. He faced temptation in the full strength of a perfect physical and mental system. But Christ did not become flesh in the perfect state in which Adam was created. For Christ, the strength of temptation was vastly increased by virtue of His inheriting a physical constitution weakened by 4,000 years of increasing degeneracy in the race. The possibility of His being overcome was greater than Adam's because of this."[75]
Because of His trust in His heavenly Father and by the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ triumphed over sin. "In this He is our perfect pattern. Our union with God is by faith, and not by our own efforts. Christ had chosen to live as a human being in total dependence upon God. Nothing could change that. He walked with God by faith as we are to do."[76]
In conclusion, one can appreciate the effort of synthesis attempted by Heppenstall between the traditional Christology and that taught by the authors of the book Questions on Doctrine. More than once, he declared that Christ had taken upon Him, not Adam's human nature before the Fall, but rather human nature after 4,000 years of degeneracy of the race. However, if we affirm that sin is merely a spiritual thing akin to a religions nature, and not transmitted genetically, we are left with a Christ who has not really "condemned sin in the flesh," the very mission for which He had been sent by God to fulfill "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3).
Heppenstall's argument tended to be philosophical rather than biblical, and he did not cite Ellen White.
It should be obvious why, after the publication of The Man Who Is God, Kenneth Wood felt the burden to reaffirm historical Adventist Christology in his editorial of Christmas 1977. Far from clarifying the problem of Christ's human nature, Heppenstall made it more hypothetical. Recent discoveries in genetics appear to contradict his hypothesis. According to biblical anthropology human beings are a whole; and if the effects of sin are transferable, certainly the same should be true of sin as a power.
J. R. Spangler's Position on Christology While Editor of Ministry
We remember the role played by the editor in chief of Ministry, Roy Allan Anderson, when "the new milestone of Adventism" was published in 1956. J. R. Spangler succeeded him in 1966, but he managed to remain on the sidelines of the controversy, which was building in intensity through the years. It eventually reached such a point that many found it strange that the editor of Ministry would not commit himself on the issue.
The question was put to him: "Why don't the editors of Ministry have more to say on the current discussion regarding the nature of Christ and righteousness by faith? Where do you stand on these Issues.
Spangler's reply was frank, direct, and clear. During his 36 years of ministry His view had changed on these points. "Even now," he wrote, "I hesitate answering such questions for fear of leaving wrong impressions about the nature of the Lord."[78] But since for the moment there was no General Conference-voted declaration of faith on this subject, he felt free to express his point of view.
"Prior to publication of Questions on Doctrine and certain articles appearing in Ministry, I hadn't given much thought to the precise nature of Christ. I simply believed He was the God-man and presented Him as such in evangelistic campaigns. During the early years of my ministry, I leaned heavily toward the view that Christ had tendencies and propensities toward evil just as I did. I believed Christ possessed a nature exactly like mine, except that He alone never yielded to temptation. However, in the fifties, as the church focused on Christ's nature, my position changed. I now favored the idea that Christ was genuinely man, subject to temptations and failure, but with a sinless human nature totally free from any tendencies or predisposition toward evil."[79]
Having examined what the Bible taught on Christ's human nature, Spangler asked himself questions like these: "Was Jesus born with a corrupt nature like mine? Was He 'estranged from the womb'? Was He by nature a child of wrath? Did He receive wrong traits of character by birth? Did our Lord battle against strong hereditary tendencies to evil with which He was born? If so, which hereditary tendencies and perversions did He have, or did His nature possess every variety, although He never yielded?"[80] Some elements of Ellen White's letter to Pastor Baker, made public in Questions on Doctrine, finalized his position-particularly the statement "not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity."[81]
Was Jesus really like us? Spangler was not atone in wondering about this fundamental question: Thomas A. Davis, associate editor the Review and Herald, pondered it as well and attempted to offer an answer in his book Was Jesus Really Like Us? published in 1979.[82]
Thomas A. Davis: Was Jesus Really Like Us?
If Heppenstall's book had the distinction of being the most complete study among those who claimed that Jesus had a sinless human nature, Davis's book offered an interesting alternative. Thanks to his earlier publications, Davis's position was well known. His aim at this point was not to repeat his earlier position. In Was Jesus Really Like Us? the author tried instead to define who were the "us" that Jesus was supposed to resemble. That was the central point of this study.
Davis invited his readers to look attentively at (Hebrews 2:11-17). Verse 11 reads, "For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified and those sanctifies have all the same origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren." Verse 12 refers again to the "brethren"; in verse 13, "children God has given me"; in verse 14, "the children [who] share in flesh and blood." Verse 16 says Jesus came to help Abraham's descendants. This is why verse 17 specifies that Jesus was "like his brethren in every respect."[83]
Davis concluded that "those who are sanctified--set apart as children of God--are men and women who, in short, have been barn again."[84] In fact he added, "Latent in the term 'brethren' is, perhaps, one of the most vital clues to understanding of the human nature of Jesus to be found in all the Bible. The way in which the term is used in (Hebrews 2:11-17) opens a vast field of exploration, both in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy writings."[85]
From (Hebrews 2:17) Davis concluded that "Jesus was not incarnated with a nature common to all men. He did not come to this world to be in all aspects like all men. The human nature He was endowed with was not like that of unregenerate sinners. His human nature was common only with those who have experienced a spiritual rebirth. Then when we read that Jesus was in all respects like His brethren we understand that He had a nature like born again people."[86]
This position had been held by other Adventist theologians of the pastor Davis referred, among others, to W. W. Prescott, who had written in one of his editorials that "Jesus was born again by the Holy Spirit. ... When one commits himself to God and submits to be born of the Spirit, he enters upon a new stage of existence, just as Jesus did."[87] This concept had also been mentioned by Kenneth Wood in his editorial of December 29, 1977.[88]
This does not mean that Jesus might have had to go through a new birth, Davis specified. "Jesus was ever filled with the Spirit, pure, sinless, untainted in the minutest degree by sin. So He never needed that transforming experience. Thus, when we use the term with reference to Him, we do so in an accommodated sense for want of."[89]
"When we describe Jesus' spiritual and moral nature as 'barn again,' we would not convey the idea that it is just like the moral and spiritual nature of any regenerated person. Jesus is the ideal Man, the Absolute in perfection of character in every respect. A born-again person is still a flawed person from whom Christ is removing the defects."[90]
Davis interpreted (Romans 8:3) to mean "that there is a very close similarity between Christ's humanity and ours, but that they are not identical. There was a uniqueness in Him that could be found in no one else.[91]
In chapter 6, after examining some Ellen White statements particularly difficult for some to accept, Davis arrived at the "central point" of his argument. "We must keep before us the concept around which our whole investigation pivots, that Jesus had a nature like that of a born-again person. He was 'made like his brethren in every respect,' 'yet without sin' (Heb. 2:17; 4:15). Let us bear in mind that His human nature was 'identical with our own,"[92] that He 'assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried,"[93] and that He took 'upon Himself our fallen nature."[94,95]
"If this is true, if we agree that Jesus was not play-acting when He became a Man, then we must accept the concept that He had difficulties with His fallen human nature, just as a human being--a born-again human being-would have. To insist that Jesus' human nature was less than that of a born-again person, that it was like that of an unregenerate person, is unthinkable. ... On the other hand, to believe that His nature was superior to that of a born-again person is really to put Him above humanity itself, which is likewise inadmissible. It is to claim for Him advantages that no human being can have, for the new birth is the highest spiritual stage to which mankind can attain in his present state."[96]
For Davis, Jesus was truly the God-man. "He was a man with a 'fallen human nature,' which was 'degraded and defiled by sin,' in a 'deteriorated condition,' with the same 'susceptibilities, mental and physical,' that sinful man has, being subject to 'the weaknesses of humanity,' yet without Himself being sinful, and therefore without guilt. He was sinless, guiltless; His will was unremittingly in concord With His father's.
William G. Johnsson's Point of View
William G. Johnsson was appointed to. the position of editor in chief of the Adventist Review as of December 2, 1982. It is important for us to understand his point of view concerning the controversy over Christ's human nature.
He did not directly involve himself in the debate. However, he expressed his ideas in his book on the Epistle to the Hebrews, published in 1979: In Absolute Confidence: The Book of Hebrews Speaks to Our Day.[99] The preface explained that the book was not meant to be a commentary. "The purpose of the work is a basic one: to set out clearly the 'message' of Hebrews and to show its significance for Christians today. "[100]
One cannot explain Hebrews without speaking of Christology, since the first two chapters affirm both the divinity and the humanity of Jesus Christ. Johnsson considered Jesus to be fully God and fully man. As to His human nature, "the apostle wants us to be absolutely convinced of it [that Christ has become our Brother]. Indeed, his whole argument regarding Jesus as the heavenly High Priest will crash in ruins if he cannot show the humanity. So, while he argues most extensively for the point in (Hebrews 2:5-18), he comes to it over."[101]
But even if Jesus "identifies Himself with us," it is on "the basis of family blood ties." He is our blood brother, "not by adoption but by birth. And though His origins place Him far outside our pale, He is not ashamed of us, but ready to proclaim to the assembled universe that we are His brothers."[102]
In chapter 3 Johnsson saw Christ's sufferings and temptations as guaranteeing "the genuineness of the full humanity of Jesus Christ."[103] But he believed the Epistle to the Hebrews did not answer the modem questions at the Core of the debate over the nature of Jesus. "The problem is that the New Testament writers were not conscious of the distinction between 'sinful' and 'sinless' natures and so did not address it. We may be agitated over it, but not they. For them it was sufficient to affirm the reality of the Son's humanity and His testing, the certainty of His sinlessness throughout all temptations, and His ability to help the Christian to overcome in the hour of his testing.
In an explanatory note, Johnsson stated, "Only two verses of the New Testament directly address the issue of the 'nature' of Christ, (Romans 8:3) and (Philippians 2:7). Each verse, however, is ambiguous; so proponents of both sides use both in debate"[105]
Though Johnsson did not explicitly come down on one side of the issue in his book, his words suggest that he favors a sinless human nature, that of Adam before the Fall, as his later statements also suggest.[l06]
Edward W. H. Vick: Jesus, the Man
In 1979 yet another book appeared, remarkable in many respects: Jesus, the Man, by Edward W. H. Vick. Vick was known in Adventist circles by several of his books, such as Let Me Assure You.[107]
With diplomas from the universities of London and Oxford, and a Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University, Vick directed the Department "Of Religious Studies at Forest Fields College, at Nottingham, England, at the time when Jesus, the Man appeared in a series of studies on Adventist theology. In his own style Vick sought to reply to the numerous questions that theologians had raised on the subject of the person of Jesus: "Who do people say that I am?".
Quite naturally the problem of the human nature of Jesus was forced upon Vick. He addressed it in chapter 6: "Really, Truly Man." Then, having listed many similar expressions which lie at the root of the Christian faith, Vick remarked: "Notice that these statements do not claim that Jesus in the total range of His person is identical with us. They merely assert that with respect to His humanity He is like us and that this is essential. Essential for what? One influential answer suggests that the identity is necessary for man's salvation. It was said that what is not assumed cannot be saved. To save a human being must be instrumental."[108]
Vick concluded: "He is the agency of human redemption by virtue of His humanity."[109] Besides, "Jesus' humanity is a confession of faith. It was a presupposition of faith for the earliest believers and came to explicit statement as occasion demanded, when for example the threat of Docetism questioned it."[110] But obviously it is not easy to speak correctly about Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, "truly God and truly man," as the Council of Chalcedon defined Him. But Vick asked: "When one says that in Jesus Christ God and man are one, what sort of oneness does he mean? Is it right even to speak of a "sort" of oneness?[111]
To understand this unity, according to Vick, the problem of Jesus Christ must be considered from two viewpoints: one historical, the other experimental. By these two approaches Vick then managed to define the Incarnation in these terms: "Incarnation means that God participates in humanity. It means that although Jesus participates in the structures of sinful human existence as shaped by man, He is not overcome by such participation. ... Through him who is abandoned, God receives the world unto Himself. Such is the mystery of God's grace--a mystery experienced by the believer as he comes to find faith in God and as he participates in the renewal of faith from day to day. When man the sinner abandons God, God finds a way to reveal Himself to that man."[112]
Vick insisted that in Christ "God and man are together. The term 'Incarnation' expresses an objective reality. In Jesus manhood is realized, and He becomes the first-fruits, the paradigm, the exemplar, the enabling model, the mediator--no one symbol is adequate. ... Language which allows Jesus neither to be really God or to be really man" is "quite unacceptable." "Nothing must compromise Jesus' real humanity. We must allow no hybridizing of any kind."[113]
Such was Vick's viewpoint on the humanity of Jesus. In a sense he returns to Ellen White's definition: "The completeness of His humanity, the perfection of His divinity, form for us a strong ground upon which we may be brought into reconciliation with God."[114]
With Edward Vick's testimony the decade of the 1970s came to a close. During this period the Christology of the pioneers was reaffirmed in many ways by the dominant publications of the church. Confronted with this reinvigorated traditional teaching, those opposed to it tried various compromise formulas involving a mediating position as the key to the human nature Christ, or simply decided to live with both positions. This trend culminated in June 1985 with the simultaneous and side-by-side publication in Ministry magazine of the two opposing interpretations.
Notes: