After more than 25 years of controversy over Christ's human nature, a cooling off period might have been expected. On the contrary, the intensity of the discussion built to a crescendo in the period 1980 to 1985.
While the traditional Christology was gaining in popularity, the new theology appeared to be running out of steam, sending its proponents looking for new arguments. Faced with ever more compelling criticisms, the supporters of the new theology endeavored to harmonize the two opposing positions as though they were of equal worth and merit.
A Zealous Defender of Traditional Christology
As we have already shown, Wieland and Short were first to alert the church to the new interpretations regarding the person and work of Christ.[1] To study the issue, the General Conference appointed a special committee, whose findings were published in the report of the Palmdale conference after several meetings. Genuinely dissatisfied with the results, Wieland sought to clarify the issue by publishing in 1977 a book entitled How Could Christ Be Sinless as a Baby?[2] In 1979 he wrote again to answer additional questions regarding traditional Christology.[3]
Having been a missionary, Wieland was well versed in matters of African mores. He was invited back to Africa for the express purpose of preparing on location a variety of books catering to the spiritual needs of Christians in the sub-Saharan continent. While in Africa he published in 1981, among other works, a study of Christ's human nature entitled The Broken Link.[4]
In the preface Wieland stated that the purpose of his book was "to attempt to clear up apparent or supposed contradictions on the subject of the humanity of Christ. The full divinity of Christ is fundamental and is assumed to be understood. Our only problem under discussion here is what kind of humanity did Christ take or assume in His incarnation. That He retained His full divinity in His Incarnation is not questioned in the least."[5]
Wieland recognized that there appeared to be some contradictions in the many statements of Ellen White on the nature of Christ. "But when her statements are studied in context, the paradoxes demonstrate that she took her own advice seriously to 'be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ.' She did not avoid the subject and neither should we, for 'it is everything to us,' 'the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God,' there must be no broken link in the chain."[6]
For Wieland, "probably the clearest and most beautiful presentation of Christ as 'God with us' since apostolic times is found in the 1888 message of Christ's righteousness." But this message contained a stumbling block for many who feared that Christ's innocence would be violated. Not at all, Wieland affirms. "The 1888 messengers maintained that Christ's righteousness was lived by Him in a human nature identical to ours, and that when God's people truly understand and receive this 'righteousness by faith' they will be enabled to overcome as Christ overcame."[7]
Wieland posed 32 questions and responded with Scripture and Ellen White statements. First, Wieland showed that there was no internal contradiction in the Bible regarding Christ's human nature.[8] Then he demonstrated that Ellen White never opposed the teaching of Waggoner or Jones on this matter.[9] He went on to show that the letter written to Baker in 1895 was not intended to discredit their point of view.[10] His analysis of some statements contained in the Baker letter revealed that they were not contrary to teachings of Ellen White found elsewhere.[11]
Wieland replied to a series of inquiries from people who understandably could not accept the notion that Jesus might have lived a sinless life in a fallen human nature. Not only does he place some quotations contained in Questions on Doctrine in their proper context, but he refuted certain erroneous statements, such as "Jesus assumed a sinless human nature," pointing out that "Ellen White herself never wrote these words at any time; they are solely the suppositions of the editors."[12] In short, this study contained detailed answers to many of the basic questions that can be raised about Christ's human nature.
In 1983 the Pacific Press published the book Gold Tried in the Fire,[13] in which Wieland explained "what Christ needs in order to be our substitute," that is, "gold tried in the fire," as the title suggests. In fact, according to Wieland, "Christ cannot be our Substitute unless He has met our temptations as we must meet them. He must meet our enemy on his own ground, in His own lair, and there slay him."[14]
When commenting later on (Romans 8:3, 4), Wieland wrote: "Paul's word likeness cannot mean unlikeness, for it would be a monstrous fraud for Christ to profess to condemn sin in the flesh, the flesh in which Paul says we are 'sold under sin' where 'the law of sin' operates, if He counterfeited His Incarnation by taking only what appeared to be our sinful flesh but which was not the real thing at all. ... Paul uses the word likeness (with good reason) to denote the reality of Christ's full identity with us, yet making clear that He in no way participated in our sin. Christ's glorious victory lay in the fact that He was 'tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin' (Heb. 4:15)."[15]
Drawing from this "victory" the obvious conclusion, Wieland encouraged his readers to conquer temptation as Christ did: "No matter who you are or where you are, you can know that One has stood exactly in your place, 'yet without sinning.' Look at Him, 'see' Him, with all those clouds of deception blown away by the truth of His righteousness 'in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Believe that the sin that allures you has been 'condemned in the flesh.' You can overcome, through that faith in Him."[16]
The New Christology in the Sabbath School Lessons
As previously stated, the Sabbath school lessons prepared for 1977 by Herbert E. Douglass taught that Christ had assumed Adam's human nature after the Fall. In contrast, the lessons prepared by Norman R. Gulley, Bible teacher at Southern Missionary College, for the first quarter of 1983 taught that Christ's spiritual nature was pre-Fall but His physical nature was post-Fall. Indeed, Gulley attempted to prove that the two ways of understanding Christ's human nature actually enhanced each other.
To make His point, Gulley explained this enhancement theory in detail in his book Christ Our Substitute.[17] "Seventh-day Adventists believe that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man. But we can look at the phrase 'fully man' in two ways. Jesus had either (1) unfallen human nature, such as Adam possessed prior to the Fall, or (2) fallen human nature. Which is correct? He took both. For Christ took the spiritual nature of man before the Fall, and the physical nature of man after the Fall."[18]
Gulley attempted a synthesis of the two interpretations. He claimed the support of Ellen White. He wrote: "If she is defending His sinlessness, then the pre-fall nature is defended. If she is defending His limited humanity, then His post-fall nature is defended."[19]
The explanation may at first appear attractive. At least it has the merit of brunting the opposition between the two ideas. But some might argue that it creates more confusion by attributing to Christ two human natures in addition to His divine nature. Comments and objections abound in the letters from readers section of the Adventist Review. The following is taken from the pen of Donald K. Short:
"Ellen White speaks not a single word about 'the pre-Fall nature' of Christ, and to intimate such is to put words into her mouth and promote confusion. There is no place where she sets Jesus apart from His people and tries to have a 'balance' between the prelapsarian and postlapsarian natures. How dare this sort of confusion be promoted in the name of 'unity within our church,?"[20]
Herbert Douglass sent two articles to the editor of the Adventist Review, both to be published at Christmas in 1983 under the meaningful title "Why the Angels Sang Over Bethlehem."[21] Without rehashing Douglass's entire point of view, we note his list of distinctive expressions borrowed both from Ellen White and leading theologians regarding the human nature of Christ:
"Although Jesus ... [was] taking 'our fallen nature,' 'the place of fallen Adam,' 'human nature ... in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was tempted of Satan as all children are tempted,' 'the nature of Adam, the transgressor,' 'the offending nature of man,' and many other similar expressions, these scholars and Ellen White are clear that our Lord's fallen, degraded human equipment did not force Him to sin either in thought or act. He remained unsullied and untainted, even though He was tempted from within and without."[22]
Other protests were made directly to H. F. Rampton, director of the Sabbath School Department at the General Conference level. One of them, dated January 19, 1983, was sent by the leaders of the Anderson church in California. They expressed their concern about "serious doctrinal errors," introduced "subtly" via the medium of the Sabbath school lessons. "We feel these lessons represent a deliberate effort to 'soften up' the constituency and prepare the Sabbath school members to receive new theological concepts totally contrary to traditional Adventist beliefs, beliefs founded on sound biblical principles and the Spirit of Prophecy."[23]
"The lesson for January 15 leaves the human nature of Christ in the Incarnation in confusion, but with a decided bias to that of an 'unfallen' nature."[24] The choice of Ellen White quotations was criticized. "The doctrine of the 'unfallen nature of Christ' is vital to the new theology concept. Satan has labored diligently to introduce 'new theology' concepts into the Adventist Church. In the 1950s Satan worked through a group of leading theologians to promote this 'Christology,' but the church did not receive it. Is Satan now using the Sabbath school to accomplish his purpose?"[25]
The periodical Voice of Present Truth, though not a denominational publication, published letters from groups and church members scandalized by the introduction of "the new theology" into the church by way of the Sabbath school lessons. With the mission of "representing the foundation principles of the Advent Movement,"[26] this periodical devoted the March 1983 number entirely to the reaffirmation of the traditional teaching on the subject of Christ's human nature. To accomplish that goal, articles were requested of such authors as Herbert E. Douglass and Dennis E. Priebe.
The Voice of Present Truth
The article by Herbert Douglass bore the title written in large letters at the top of the first page: "The Model Man." There was in fact nothing in this article that Douglass had not previously said. The objective was not to present new truths, but to recall old ones.
Douglass wrote: "God did not come halfway to earth in His attempt to redeem men and women: He did not come as a sympathetic angel, or even as a superman, impregnable to all of humanity's troubles and weaknesses. The ladder from heaven to earth reached all the way down to where sinners are. 'If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. Bot Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome' (The Desire of Ages, pp. 311, 312)."[27]
Naturally, the aim of Douglass's article was to show that "Jesus entered the human family, taking the same nature as all other 'descendants of Abraham.' ... The real Jesus was a real Man, except He did not sin."[28] However, He was tempted as we are in all things. To make his point, Douglass quoted the most powerful statements of Ellen White on the subject.
Among others, Douglass recalled Ellen White's answer to those who had assumed that if Jesus had indeed possessed the same nature as all humans, like them He would have succumbed to temptations. "If He did not have man's nature, He could not be our example. If He was not a partaker of our nature, He could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for Him to yield to temptation, He could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 408)."[29]
The article by Dennys E. Priebe, at that time a Bible teacher at Pacific Union College in California, also deserves our attention. For him, "the pivotal doctrine, the issue which determines the direction of both systems of belief, the foundation and premise of the whole controversy, is the question 'What is sin?' You see, the gospel is all about how we are saved from sin. It is sin which has caused us to be lost, and the gospel is the good news of how God redeems us from sin. Now most of us have assumed that we know what sin is, without taking the time to define sin."[30]
First Priebe addressed the question of original sin. According to the Reformers, "original sin is simply the belief that we are guilty because of our birth as sons and daughters of Adam. This doctrine teaches that we are guilty by nature, before any choice of good or evil can enter the picture."[31] Priebe remarked accordingly: "In this view, weakness, imperfections, and tendencies are sin. It is an interesting and significant point that the Reformers built their doctrine of original sin on the premise of predestination. ... So it is a bit strange that white predestination has been rejected by most Christians today, original sin is still seen as the foundation of correct gospel teaching."[32]
"Obviously, He [Christ] must have a sinless nature, totally unlike the nature you and I inherit from birth. ... Because of the belief that sinful nature involves guilt in the sight of God, it is absolutely imperative that Christ have no connection with our sinful nature."[33]
Priebe's view on the nature of sin was quite different. For him, "sin is not basically the way man is, but the way man chooses. Sin is when the mind consents to what seems desirable and thus breaks its relationship with God. To talk of guilt in terms of inherited nature is to overlook the important category of responsibility. Not until we have joined our own will to mankind's rebellion against God, not until we have entered into opposition to the will of God, does guilt enter in. Sin is concerned with a man's life, his rebellion against God, his willful disobedience, and the disturbed relationship with God which ensues. Sin is concerned with a man's will rather than his nature. If responsibility for sin is to have any meaning, it cannot also be affirmed that fallen human nature makes the man inevitably guilty of sin. Inevitability and responsibility are mutually exclusive concepts in the moral sphere. Thus sin is defined as choosing willfully to rebel against God in thought, ward, or action. In this gospel, sin is our willful choice to exercise our fallen nature in opposition to God's will."[34]
Priebe applied his definition of sin to Christ's nature, for he wrote: "If sin is not nature but choice, then Christ could inherit our fallen nature without thereby becoming a sinner. He remained ever sinless because His conscious choice was always obedience to God, never allowing His fallen nature to control His choices. His inheritance was just the same as our inheritance, with no need to resort to special intervention by God to prevent Jesus from receiving human fullness from Mary. Christ accepted voluntarily the humiliation of descending not only to the level of unfallen man, but to the level to which man had fallen through the sin of Adam and the sins of succeeding generations. Man was not in the state of Adam before the Fall, so something fat more drastic was needed if the effects of Adam's fall were to be overcome. Christ must descend to the depths to which mankind had fallen and in His own person lift mankind from its depths to a new level of life. Jesus stooped from the very heights to the very depths to lift us up, to be our Saviour."[35]
Then Priebe considered what would have happened "if Jesus had assumed a perfect human nature," or Adam's nature before the Fall. He would have been "untouched by the Fall," "then He did not stand side by side with man in his need," "there would have been a great gulf between Jesus and those whom He represented before God. ... If Jesus assumed perfect human nature, He spanned the gulf between God and man, but the gulf between fallen and unfallen man still needed to be bridged. "[36]
"If, however," Priebe added, "Christ shared our fallen human nature, then His mediatorial work bridges the whole gulf from fallen man, in his dire need, to God. Only by entering into our situation in the deepest and fullest sense and identifying Himself fully with us was He able to be our Saviour. Any other conditions except in fallen flesh would have been challenged at once by the enemy and would have influenced the thinking of their universe."[37]
This way of understanding Christ's human nature, Priebe wrote, was that proclaimed by Waggoner and Jones in 1888, plainly supported by Ellen White. "In fact, this understanding of Christ's life was the accenting power of the message--the Lord Jesus Christ, who was loyal to God in fallen flesh."[38]
Considering the practical application of the message of justification, Priebe approached it on two fronts: "From here the gospel message moves to our situation. The gospel is the good news about God's character--that God both forgives and restores. The gospel is both God's declaration that we stand righteous in the merits of Christ and God's renovation of our sinful lives so that, gradually, we may be restored into His image. The gospel is both a legal verdict and transforming power. Union with Christ is the key to the faith through which justification must take place. The gospel includes justification, a uniting with Christ by faith on the basis of which we are declared righteous, and sanctification, a growing more like Christ through the daily exercise of a constantly growing faith on the basis of which we are made righteous."[39]
In 1985 Priebe developed in detail each one of his arguments in a book published by the Pacific Press, entitled Face to Face With the Real Gospel."[40] We cite only one very appropriate remark: "As a church, we have never formally defined our beliefs in these three critical areas--sin, Christ, and perfection. And because of our unclarity and divergent views in these areas, we have been wandering in the theological desert of uncertainty and frustration for these past forty years. Further, because we have held contradictory views in these areas, we have been unable clearly to define our message and mission."[41].
The contrast between the different Christologies found clarification in an excellent doctoral thesis Eric Claude Webster defended at the theological faculty of Stellenbosch University, Cape Province, in South Africa, and published in 1984 under the title Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology.[42]
Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology
Like a skillful surgeon, Eric Claude Webster.[43] laid bare the very heart of Adventist Christology in his voluminous work on the subject. In the first chapter Webster addressed the problem of Christology in its various historical settings. In succeeding chapters he analysed the Christologies of four eminent Adventist writers and theologians: Ellen G. White, Ellet J. Waggoner, Edward A. Heppenstall, and Herbert E. Douglass, two representing the generation of the pioneers and two contemporaries. In the final chapter he summarized his thoughts regarding these four Christologies, which are indeed representative of the different currents and crosscurrents in Adventist Christology.
We have already examined the position proposed by each of these authors and will avoid repetition here. Of special interest are Webster's unique personal insights regarding the controversy over Christ's human nature. For example, he classified Ellen White's and Heppenstall's Christologies as ontological; Waggoner's as speculative; and that of Douglass as functional.
Webster also extracted what he considered to be the dominant factor in each Christology. For Ellen White, Waggoner, and Heppenstall, it was the person of Jesus, whereas for Douglass it was the work of Christ. As to the main objective pursued by each, he contended that Ellen White focused on the manifestation of God's character, while Waggoner highlighted the completion of holiness in man, Heppenstall looked at the objective of salvation, and Douglass emphasized the likeness to Christ.
As for the human nature of Jesus, Webster confirmed the analyses we have made so far for each of these authors. However, his conclusions regarding Ellen White differed on certain important points: "In relation to sin we found that Ellen White has Christ coming to earth in the post-Fall nature of man with all the 'innocent infirmities and weaknesses of man,' together with the imputed sin and guilt of the world, thus bearing vicariously the guilt and punishment for all sin; and yet, in a nature that was sinless and without corruption, pollution, defilement, sinful propensities and tendencies or taint of sin."[44]
Webster, then, reaffirmed the postlapsarian position of Ellen White. However, he alluded to "innocent infirmities" in single quotes, as if this expression were from Ellen White. As previously stated, this expression was never used by Ellen White; as for the word "vicariously," she never used it at all in her writings. In presenting his own personal point of view, Webster seemed to agree essentially with Heppenstall.[45] He wrote: "During the Incarnation Jesus Christ exercised His divinity in order to be fully God, and ... His humanity in order to be fully Man." But above all, "Jesus Christ came into the world in the humanity of Adam after the fall and not before the fall. He assumed humanity affected by the laws of heredity and subject to weakness, infirmity and temptation.[46] "However," Webster added: "Jesus Christ, while coming in fallen human nature, was not infected by original sin and was born without any tendencies and propensities to sin, thus, we need have no misgivings concerning His absolute sinlessness."[47] Nevertheless, "Jesus Christ freely chose assume not only a nature like ours in all respects, sin excepted, but also a common situation of suffering, alienation and lostness, by coming in mortal flesh, vicariously taking our guilt, punishment and separation on Himself.[48]
Webster's study is a gold mine for those who wish for a better understanding of the current problem at the heart of the controversy in the Adventist Church. His position in favor of the post-Fall nature of Christ constitutes a positive vote in favor of the traditional Christology. However, some would see a contradiction within Webster's positions. On one hand, he affirms that "Jesus assumes humanity affected by the law of heredity," while on the other, he affirms that he was not "infected by original sin and was born without any tendencies and propensities to sin." Our objections regarding those who declare that Christ was without tendencies to sin, and inherited only "innocent infirmities," apply to Webster as well. In fact, these statements are neither biblical nor in harmony with Ellen White's teaching.
The Two Christologies Face-to-face
In response to the controversy, J. Robert Spangler, editor of Ministry, requested two theologians, each one a specialist in the subject, to present their points of view for the benefit of Adventist pastors. In an editorial dated June 1985 he wrote, "We have purposely avoided placing anything in our journal dealing with the nature of Christ for several years. My editorial in the April 1978 Ministry testified to my own struggle with this subject. I pointed out that I had been overwhelmed with feelings of inadequacy in attempting to express my convictions."[49]
"Yet, in view of the fact that there are those who earnestly believe that the church will fall or rise on its understanding of Christ and His nature, and in view of the renewed printing and verbal discussion on the subject, I feel that both sides of this question should be examined again. Therefore, we are setting forth two rather lengthy articles from two Adventist scholars."[50]
Spangler took pains to emphasize the common thread in the two interpretations. "Both sides believe that our Lord was fully human and fully divine; that He was tempted in all points like as we are; that He could have fallen into sin, thus aborting the entire plan of salvation, but that He never committed one sin. (It seems that to a large degree the difference in views may be attributed to different understanding of what constitutes sinful nature. There may be much less separating the two sides in this debate than there seems to be.)"[51]
After reviewing the points of agreements, the editor pondered a few fundamental questions upon which the debate hinged. "Did our Lord in His human nature begin where all the other children of Adam began? Did Christ take the human nature of pre-or post-Fall man? If the human race was affected by the Fall of Adam and Eve, was Christ also affected the Same way or was He exempt? If Christ accepted sinless human nature, did He have an advantage over us? Did He vicariously take upon Himself fallen human nature? If He took fallen human nature, was the 'fallen' element related only to the physical and not to His moral character? Is it possible to settle the issue of the nature of Christ, which the Christian church has struggled with for two thousand years? Is it necessary for us to have a very definitive and accurate understanding of Christ's nature in order to be saved? Must Christ have our fallen nature (without ever sinning, of course) in order for Christians to live the unsullied life that He lived?[52]
These were the questions to which the two appointed theologians had to respond. To avoid influencing the readers, the two presentations were published under pseudonyms. In a later issue the real names were revealed: Norman R. Gulley and Herbert E. Douglass.
1. Gulley: Human Nature Before the Fall
Gulley defended the prelapsarian position. But contrary to the custom of those who shared this view, he did not establish his position on the basis of Ellen White statements. His presentation hinged essentially on the exegetical study of Christological Bible verses.[53] He believed that all doctrinal truth should be founded on scriptural grounds.
Gulley did a linguistic and theological study to define the meaning of the Greek words sarx, hamartia, isos, homoioma, monogenes, and prototokos, and the significance of the expressions "Abraham' s descendants" (Heb. 2:16) and "descendant of David" (Rom. 1:3). His main premise: "Throughout the investigation we will document the overwhelming evidence that Jesus did in fact take a sinless human nature at birth (spiritually) while possessing a similar physical nature to others of His day.
Only one text, he claimed, directly related the flesh and sin: "It is sin living in me" (Rom. 7:17). "Therefore 'sarx' does not necessarily mean 'sinful.' ... In (1 Timothy 3:16) it is not soma but sarx. It merely means 'infleshment,' not 'Sinful.'"[55]
Then Gulley discussed the meaning of the word "likeness" in (Romans 8:3), (Philippians 2:7), and (Hebrews 2:17) to conclude that "Jesus was only similar to other humans in having a sin-affected physical human body, but not the same as other humans, for He alone was sinless in His spiritual relationship with God."
Dealing with sin, Gulley considered that it could not be defined just as an "act." "That is too superficial a definition. Though sin includes wrong choices, and therefore acts, and even thoughts (see Matt. 5:28), it also includes nature. If we were not born sinners, then we would not need a Saviour until a first act or thought of sin. Such an idea does terrible disservice to the tragic consequences of sin and to the mission of Christ, as the only Saviour for every human (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). It also means that if Jesus came with a sinful nature but resisted, then perhaps someone else will do the same, and that person would not need Jesus to save him."[57]
Quoting Psalms 51:7; 22:10; 139:13, and others, Gulley argued that all are sinners, with the exception of Christ. The fact that Jesus was sinless does not justify the immaculate conception. "But if God could perform such a salvific act for one human, why not for all? This would have saved Christ all the anguish of becoming human. Besides, if Mary became immaculate without Christ, this calls Christ's mission into question."[58]
According to biblical statements, Jesus was "unique," monogenes; "the firstborn," prototokos. Certainly these expressions should not be interpreted literally, Gulley specified. "They imply that He was one of a kind, unique. His mission was to become the new Adam, the new firstborn, or head, of the race. This qualified Him to be our representative, high priest, and intercessor in the great controversy. Jesus is our example in His life, but not in birth. ... He was born sinless to meet our first need of Him as Saviour, when we are born sinners."[59]
According to Gulley, the verses stating that Jesus is a "descendant" of Abraham and of David "are not considering the nature but the mission of Christ. They are not concerned with the type of flesh in which He was born (sinless or sinful). ... Mission and not nature is the context."[60] "Not until His death did He, 'who knew no sin,' become 'sin for us' (2 Cor. 5:21, KJV). Never before that moment did sin bring a separation from His Father, which caused Him to cry out, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' (Matt. 27:46, KJV). The man Jesus became sin for us in mission at death and not in nature at birth."[61]
In his "doxology," Gulley said forcefully that "Christology is the center and heart of theology, for Jesus Christ is the greatest revelation of God to man. He is also the best revelation of authentic man to man. Jesus Christ was unique not only as God with us but as man with us. He was sinless divinity united with sin-weakened human flesh, but He was equally sinless in both natures."[62]
But true Christology, Gulley explained, is not complete with adoration, obedience, and praise only. By contemplating Christ we become like Him (2 Cor. 3:18). Also, Gulley concluded, "Christology climaxes in the exclamation: 'I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me' (Gal. 2:20, KJV). Only in this dependent union can Jesus be our model man--never in His nature at birth."[63]
No one would blame Gulley for basing his demonstration solely on the Scriptures, while his predecessors had based theirs mainly on Ellen White's writings.[64] But his exegesis is similar to that found in the majority of orthodox Protestant theologians, which puts him in contradiction to the pioneers and Ellen White.
2. Douglass: Human Nature After the Fall
Herbert E. Douglass was quite correct when he told his readers that if they had lived before 1950 they would have been completely oblivious of the present controversy. For "until the third quarter of the twentieth century Adventist spokesmen consistently set forth Jesus as one who took our fallen nature."[65]
Douglass refocused the attention of his readers on the question of "why" rather than "how." According to him, "the salvation issue is not primarily how God became man, but why. ... Without question, mystery envelops the Incarnation. But the mystery is regarding how God and man were blended, not why."[66]
In fact, "the issue seems stalemated until we ask why He came the way He did. If we do not face this question correctly, every other Biblical theme seems to become distorted."[67] On the contrary, the plan of salvation appears in its simplicity when the question is asked: "Why did Jesus, like every baby two thousand years ago, take the condition of fallen mankind and not that of Adam 'in his innocence'"?[68]
Many non-Adventist theologians have challenged the traditional view that Christ took Adam's nature before the Fall and have taken the postlapsarian position. Douglass named about 15 of them.[69] "None of these men," he wrote, "believed that Christ sinned in either thought or act or that because He took fallen sinful flesh He needed a Saviour. Generally speaking, the term sinful flesh means the human condition in all of its aspects as affected by the fall of Adam and Eve. Such a nature is susceptible to temptation from within as from without. Contrary to the Grecian dualism that early pervaded much of orthodox Christianity, the flesh is not evil, nor does it sin of itself. Although the flesh is amoral, it does provide the equipment, the occasion, and the seat for sin if the human will is not constantly assisted by the Holy Spirit. But a person born with sinful flesh need not be a sinner."[70]
What are the implications of teaching that Jesus had a sinless nature? "To suggest that He was born free from the liabilities of heredity is to go down the same road that Roman Catholicism started upon when it confused sin with physical substance. ... No Biblical evidence suggests that the stream of human heredity was broken between Mary and Jesus."[71]
Nothing shows better the solidarity of Jesus with the human race than the manner of presenting Himself under the name of the Son of man (Matt. 8:20; 24:27, etc.), and the analogy that Paul established between Christ and Adam (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15) "Many consider (Romans 5:12) as evidence that men and women are born sinners, but such is not Paul's argument. He is simply stating an obvious fact--the stream of death began with Adam.
"But Adam's descendants all die 'because all men sinned.' ... The assumption that Jesus took Adam's pre-Fall nature seems to destroy the force of Paul's parallel and his principle of solidarity. Paul's Adam-Christ analogy becomes relevant to mankind and to the great controversy only if Jesus incorporated Himself within fallen humanity--only if He met sin in the arena where all men are, 'in Adam,' and conquered every appeal to serve self, whether from within or without. Jesus intended that those in Him would be united corporately with the results of His saving work. But to accomplish this, He must first have been corporately connected with humanity in its fallen condition."[72]
Douglass then made the point that Paul was very careful in his choice of words in (Romans 8:3). Why did he say in this case, "en homoiomati sarkos hamartias" (in the likeness of sinful flesh) rather than simply "en sarki hamartias" (in sinful flesh)?[73] Douglass quoted C.E.B. Cranfield, the professor of theology at Durham University: "The intention is not in any way to call in question ... the reality of Christ's sarx hamartias, but to draw attention to the fact that, while the Son of God truly assumed sarx hamartias, He never became sarx hamartias and nothing more, nor even sarx hamartias indwelt by the Holy Spirit." "We ... understand Paul's thought [concerning his use of homoioma here] to be that the Son of God assumed the selfsame fallen human nature that is ours, but that in His case that fallen human nature was never the whole of Him--He never ceased to be the eternal Son of God."[74]
Analyzing the Christological verses in the Epistle to the (Hebrews 2:11-18; 4:15; 5:7-9), Douglass showed the necessity of a high priest's being in solidarity with humanity. "One of the principal lines of argument in Hebrews is that the high priest's efficacy depends upon how closely he identifies with those for whom he mediates. Jesus is a perfect high priest because of His real identification with man's predicaments, whether of the spirit (temptations) or of the body (privations and death)."[75]
"For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. ... Let us then with confidence draw near (Heb. 4:15, 16)."[76] "Jesus was victorious with the Same liabilities and disadvantages common to all mankind; therefore, men and women can also be victorious with the same help He depended on if they too 'draw near' in time of need."[77]
For Christ to be a perfect high priest, the Epistle to the Hebrews demands that "Jesus must be one with man in every respect from the standpoint of human equipment (the principle of solidarity), but He is not one with them as a sinner, that is, from the standpoint of human performance (the principle of dissimilarity). ... In the Incarnation, the Saviour became a man in every essential respect; He was beset with all the human liabilities. ... In taking on man's nature as it was when He became incarnate, Jesus spanned the gulf between heaven and earth, God and man. In so doing, He became the ladder that was both secure in heaven and planted solidly on earth, one that men and women could trust."[78]
For Douglass there was not a shadow of doubt: "Until the third quarter of the twentieth century Adventist spokesmen consistently set forth Jesus as one who took our fallen nature. Like many non-Adventist scholars, they would have been appalled at the nonsequitur that to believe Jesus took fallen human nature necessitates believing also that He had to be a sinner. Or that He would need a Saviour!"[79] "In no way a taint of sim rest on Jesus--because He was never a sinner. He never had 'an evil propensity' because He never sinned. Genuine temptations, real enticements to satisfy worthy desires in self-centered ways-unquestionably our Lord experienced these with every possibility of yielding. But 'not for one moment' did Jesus permit temptations to conceive and give birth to sin. He too waged stern battles with self and against potentially sinfull hereditary tendencies, but He never permitted an inclination to become sinful (see James 1:14, 15). He kept saying No, while all other human beings have said Yes."[80]
In closing, Douglass once more posed the question that should direct all research into the human nature of Jesus: "Why did Jesus come to earth?" "The reason for His coming determined the way He came--or else His coming would not have fulfilled its purpose. He gloriously triumphed over evil; He became the suitable substitute, the pioneer man, mankind's model. And He achieved all this amid the worst of circumstances, exempt from nothing, in the same heredity shared by men and women He came to save."[81]
It is interesting to note that Douglass's presentation, like that of Gulley, is supported entirely by New Testament verses. However, to prove that his conclusions were in harmony with the traditional teaching of the church, Douglass was careful, in a note, to list 27 Adventist authors with supporting statements from them, along with telling statements from Ellen White.[82]
Reciprocal Review of the Thesis and Antithesis
Later the editor of Ministry requested the two writers to critique each other's articles in the August 1985 issue.[83]
Douglass, who was first, pointed out that Gulley's view arrived on the scene of the Adventist Church only in the 1950s. "The consequences of these changes have had much to do with the trauma and theological divisions the church has experienced in the past thirty years.[84]
Douglass pointed out that Gulley had "not differentiated between inherited human equipment and performance within the humanity degenerated by the consequences of sin.[85] In fact, what Gulley advanced as the human nature of Jesus corresponded with the holy flesh heresy "that Jesus took Adam's pre-Fall nature. Members of that movement believed that Jesus received from Mary a sin-weakened physical nature. But they also believed that He received from the Holy Spirit the pre-Fall spiritual nature of Adam and thus was spared the full impact of the law of heredity.[86] Now, "an erroneous understanding of the Incarnation has very unfortunate practical results, especially when one tries to harmonize error with truth."[87]
With respect to the theory of salvation, Douglass considered that Guiley had been strongly influenced by his Christology. "Why Jesus became man, it seems to me, can be understood only from the standpoint of the great controversy--a perspective largely missing in 'orthodox' Protestantism as well as in Catholicism. Jesus did not come to satisfy an offended God who needed blood before He would forgive, or to prove that God could keep God's laws, or even that Adam could have remained obedient."[88]
Gulley, in turn, tackled Douglass's argument that "Jesus was not a sinner in birth, because all men are sinless in birth. For one 'born with sinful flesh need not be a sinner.'"[89]
According to Gulley, the Bible opposes such an idea. "It indicates that all men are 'constituted sinners by Adam's transgression in a way similar to that by which they are constituted righteous by the obedience of Christ.' Precisely. Douglass overlooks this parallel in (Romans 5). We are sinners in birth and righteous in Christ. Only the two Adams entered planet earth sinless. All others are born sinners."[90]
Christ did not come into this world "as a prodigal but as the God-man. ... Hence, as the second Adam, He came, not in the image of man, but in the exact image of God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:1-3)."[91] Further, "Douglass's view on propensities is simply too superficial. Propensities are within fallen nature, by definition, before any act of sin. But Jesus didn't have these propensities. No wonder Satan found no evil in Him (John 14:30). ... The creative image of God has nothing to do with the Fall. That realm is confined to the image of man."[92]
Gulley pointed out the contradictions in Douglass's argument that "Christ took the post-Fall human nature," while admitting that there ; was no "'taint of sin,' no 'evil propensities,' or sin-weakened will like ours. ... These exemptions destroy His exact identity with us."[93]
"Douglass states that why Jesus became human is more important than how He became human. ... But all six reasons Douglass gives were fully satisfied by Jesus' coming as spiritually sinless in a sinweakened physical nature."[94] "We must never lose sight of the fact that Christ's identity as God is more important than His solidarity with humanity. He is not just another man, but God become man."[95]
In closing, Gulley agreed with Douglass "that Jesus was a real man, that He was really tempted and could have failed, and that His dependence upon God provides us an example. We agree that He remained sinless. ... Isn't Douglass' Jesus too human? Does he give adequate and appropriate recognition of His divinity?"[96]
The reciprocal response brought nothing new. Each writer stuck to his position. To some extent the standoff was a matter of semantics: the two writers gave different meanings to basic biblical and theological terms.
Reviews and Questions From Readers of Ministry
To widen the circle, Ministry freely opened its pages to its readers. The most significant comments were published in the December 1985 and the June 1986 issues.
The incisive criticism offered by Joe E. Crews deserves special mention.[97] "He [Gulley] not only confuses sin with the effects of sin, but moves into the area of making a sinful nature equivalent to sin itself. ... Since the fallen nature is the same as guilt and sin, every baby born is in need of redemption before it can think or speak or act. This means that Jesus would be guilty by just being born, unless His nature was different from all other babies."[98]
"In the same way that he confuses sin with the sinful nature, the results of sin with sin itself, and separation from God with the fallen nature, the author [Gulley] confuses evil propensities with natural propensities. He defines evil propensities as 'a leaning to sin.' He writes, 'Evil propensities (a leaning to sin) are acquired in two ways: through sinning and through being born a sinner. Christ did neither.'"[99]
"I don't know a single person who believes that Jesus sinned or was born a sinner. Neither do I know anyone who believes that Jesus had 'sinful propensities.' But I do know many who believe that He had 'natural propensities,' just as all of us do, as a result of being born like us, with a fallen nature. Evil propensities are those leanings toward sin that have been cultivated and strengthened by indulgence in sin. Natural propensities are those leanings that have been inherited. Guilt is involved in one, but not the other. It is not sinful unless one yields to the propensity.[100] Another reader, Anibal Rivera, was astonished that anyone would attempt to give credence to the idea that there are two possible points of view in Adventist theology concerning the human nature of Jesus.[l0l] "Our pioneers and the Spirit of Prophecy were not in conflict with respect to the question of the human nature of Christ. It's as if we as a people have decided to believe that Sunday-keeping and Sabbath-keeping are justified in the eyes of God. Obviously, there has been a change in our historic position.[102]
Some readers were simply amazed that Ministry would publish pro and con articles on a doctrine well established in the Seventh-day Adventist church.[103] For example, the forceful comment of R.R.D. Marks, an Australian teacher: "Our Sabbath school quarterlies for more than a quarter of a century before Ellen G. White died emphasized that Christ took our fallen nature, and although she studied them, as she advised others to do, she never spoke out against their emphatic teaching on the subject. Note the quarterly for the second quarter, 1909, page 8: 'The divine seed could manifest the glory of God in sinful flesh, even to absolute and perfect victory over any tendency in the flesh.'" [104]
A California reader, Ethel Wildes, advanced a unique argument: "If Christ had come in the nature of Adam before the Fall, man would have fled from His presence. Sin robbed Adam of his glory, 'If and he knew that he was naked. Moses' face glowed with a tiny portion of the purity and glory of God, and the people were afraid. He had to veil his face. When Jesus comes in His glory, which was veiled in humanity when He walked among men, many will call for the rocks and mountains to hide them from Him. That glory will destroy the wicked. God dwelt in a nature like mine and withstood every temptation. He can do the same for me by dwelling in my heart by His Spirit. Bless His holy name."[105]
An Alternate View From Thomas A. Davis
In the same Ministry Thomas A. Davis presented an alternative proposal on the human nature of Christ as contained in his, book Was Jesus Really Like Us?[106] He believed that his point of view could serve as a bridge between the interpretations of Douglass and Gulley and resolve adequately the problems raised by both.
Davis wrote: "We read in (Hebrews 2:17) that Jesus was 'made like his brethren [the born-again, sanctified ones] in every respect.' I suggest it is not doing harm to syntax to make this connection, and furthermore, we are simply applying the rule of first mention. This is merely the common-sense assumption that a stated or implied meaning given a word the first time it is used in a passage is the meaning to be maintained throughout the passage, unless otherwise indicated.
"In light of the foregoing we may conclude that there was something important about the incarnate nature of Christ that was like born-again people but unlike unregenerate people. I suggest that in this idea is a concept that could bring together the two viewpoints discussed in Ministry."[107]
Davis concluded, "Jesus, then, became man with a fully human nature (while also being fully God). Thus, of the flesh, He had the weakness of humanity, tom by temptations as we are, with the possibility of sinning. But in that condition He had an unfallen mind, heart, and will, and was totally and continually attuned to the Father and directed by the Holy Spirit. In this way He was like the unfallen Adam. And it is at this point that, I believe, the regenerate and Jesus meet on common ground."[108]
This interpretation seems attractive. However, in the context of the second chapter of the Epistle to Hebrews, it is questionable whether the ward "brothers" applies strictly to the regenerate. Moreover, the comparison made between Jesus and "His brothers" is intended not to compare their spiritual likeness of their underscore the natural likeness of their "blood and flesh" shared with Christ. "The children" (verse 14), here mentioned "all of one" (verse 11) origin, are all those for whom Jesus has suffered death (verse 9). "For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren" (verse 11).
Notes: