It is quite obvious that there cannot be two incongruous truths about Christ's human nature. Yet some attempt to harmonize both positions as if the differences were of little importance. Still others suggest that the two points of view actually enhance each other.
Regardless of merit, it seems that attempts at reconciliation often promise little chance of success. On the contrary, the strong reactions by members of the church, and the ever-more-pointed critiques by some theologians, show that the controversy is far from over. However, the period from 1986 to 1994 appears to mark a certain revival of the traditional Christology.
If it is true that a large number of Adventists today do not know the historical position of the church on this issue, it is also true that recent studies by contemporary researchers are now available to remind them.
A Century of Adventist Christology
The first study, published in 1986, was that of Ralph Larson: The Word Was Made flesh: One Hundred Years of Adventist Christology, 1852-1952.[1] This book is clearly the most complete work on the subject from a purely historical point of view.
Ralph Larson studied theology at Andrews University, then obtained his doctorate at the Andover-Newton Seminary in Boston. For 40 years he served the Adventist Church, as pastor, evangelist, departmental secretary, missionary, and professor of theology. His last position before retiring was that of president of the theological seminary in the Philippines.
For many years Larson systematically analyzed the official literature of the church between 1852 and 1952, collecting carefully the statements bearing on Christology. Thus he was able to index some 1,200 quotations, of which more than 400 came from Ellen White's pen, arranged in chronological sequence. By doing so, Larson hoped to provide verification for what had been the Adventist belief about Christ's human nature between 1852 and 1952.
Larson's aim was not to make a scriptural or theological study, but simply "To establish what Seventh-day Adventists have believed, not why they have believed it."[2] More important, he wanted all to be aware of the main question and subject of the controversy: "Did the incarnate Christ come to earth in the human nature of the unfallen Adam, or in the human nature of fallen man?"[3]
First, Larson attempted to clearly define the key expressions used by the pioneers, particularly those used by Ellen White, such as "Sinful nature," "fallen nature," "Inherited sinful nature," etc.,[4] and to clarify the words "passion" and "propensity" depending upon whether they are attributed to Christ or kept separate from His nature.[5] Finally, he attempted to place certain statements contained in Ellen White's letter to W.H.L. Baker in their literary and historical context.[6]
Based on his collection of quotations, Larson sees an "Epoch of clarity," during which "The church speaks with a single voice" (1852-1952), after which comes "the epoch of confusion" (section 4), from 1952 onward. The last three sections are dedicated to emphasizing the close connection between Christology and soteriology.[7]
It goes without saying that Larson did not come down gently on the new theology.[8] He considered that its promotion in Ministry, Questions on Doctrine, and Movement of Destiny had an "Incalculable" degree of influence, bringing confusion among Adventists the world over. It made it appear that Ellen White had spoken in contradictory terms, and that historical Adventism had been mistaken on the doctrine of salvation. Larson proclaimed his belief that "Christology, the nature of Christ, and soteriology, the saving work of Christ, are inseparably and intimately linked together. When we speak of one, we unavoidably speak of the other. When we change one, we inevitably change the other."[9]
Larson's work provides an unprecedented source of information. His historical and critical analysis is enlightening to anyone who wishes to be informed regarding the unanimous teaching of the church from 1852 to 1952 and the change that took place in the 1950s.
In conclusion, Larson invited his readers to verify the results of his research, and not simply accept or reject it without personal study. If errors of interpretation had been made, he felt that the church should have the courage to admit and correct them.[10]
The Ellen G. White Estate Is Requested to Take a Stand
As a member of the Ellen G. White Estate Board of Trustees,[11] I could not remain indifferent to the developing controversy, particularly since its origins were founded on the many statements of Ellen White regarding Christ's human nature. I believed that the Ellen G. White Estate, commissioned to care for Ellen White's writings, should clearly speak out, as it had done on many other occasions.[12]
In September 1985 I accepted an invitation to teach a course in Christology at the Adventist faculty of theology in France. It appeared imperative to update my students about the controversy in the English-speaking part of the Adventist world. For their benefit I prepared a manual, which was the first draft of a history of Adventist Christology in the French language.[13]
This was a unique opportunity for me to assess the magnitude of the problem and to nurture hope for a solution. I felt that the Ellen G. White Estate should discuss the matter and declare itself in regard to Ellen White's Christology. I suggested to its president, Kenneth H. Wood, that the item should be added to the agenda of its annual consultation.[14]
My letter of July 9, 1986, was not a suggestion to attempt a new exegesis of Ellen White statements or to formulate a criticism of one or the other of the theses in vogue. I proposed, rather, to take a closer look at Ellen White's own position as well as her evaluation of the teaching of her contemporaries on the subject: Waggoner, Jones, Prescott, and Haskell, whose position she approved.
By return mail Kenneth Wood advised me that he agreed with my recommendation and that the item would be on the agenda of consultation IV. At the same time, however, Robert W. Olson, secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate, informed me that this was not a question that the White Estate should attempt to resolve.
"The White Estate has never issued a paper on Christology. I suppose one reason is that we do not agree among ourselves on the final conclusion. ... Considering the fact that there are at least two different schools of thought among us, I have felt that it might not be wise for the White Estate to try to decide who is right and who wrong. Once we do this, we place ourselves in a confrontational position with all those that disagree with us."[15]
However, while favorable to the idea of a discussion at Consultation IV, Robert Olson wished to have the two points of view represented. He himself proposed the presentation of a paper in which he would express his own point of view. Without waiting for a reply, he sent me a summary of its content in two letters, which I received in April and September 1986.
Robert Olson's Point of View
In his letter of April 21, 1986, Robert Olson summarized, for my benefit, his understanding of the problem. "My personal view on the key aspect of this entire question is that Christ did not have in herited tendencies to sin Himself, but as my substitute He was able to experience all of my feelings so that He understands fully the nature of my temptations."[16]
"Personally, I feel that Christ was different from the rest of us at birth. Luke 1:35 settles that for me. He was holy when He was born; on the other hand I was unholy when I was born. Christ never needed conversion, but the rest of us do I Know the subject is full of many mysteries that are really incomprehensible to us. I do believe, however, that if He was able to take my sins upon Him and experience the sensations of the lost soul on the cross, that it was possible for Him to experience my natural bent to evil without having taken that bent Himself.[17]
In his second letter of September 3, 1986, Olson once again went to the heart of the problem: "I am thinking in particular of the question as to whether Jesus inherited sinful tendencies from His mother. Elder Wood feels He did have these sinful tendencies; my opinion is that He did not, but that on certain occasions in His life He did experience vicariously what it was to have sinful tendencies. In other words, I believe that He accepted at times my sinful tendencies vicariously in the same way that He accepted my guilt vicariously. If I can explain one, I can explain the other. It may be that we are talking about something here that is inexplicable."[18]
Olson publicized his view during a seminar held at Andrews University from July 14 to 24,1986. After the two contradictory articles published in Ministry in June 1985, and the criticism they triggered, the subject of Christ's human nature had become a burning question. In response, Olson prepared a three-page syllabus comprising questions answered simply by the use of texts from the New Testament and from the writings of Ellen White.
In 1989 Olson published a more elaborate brochure, The Humanity of Christ,[19] in the same format as the syllabus. "The purpose of this little book," he wrote, "is to present an accurate picture of our Lord in His humanity. Since Ellen G. White knew Jesus so well and since she even conversed Him in vision, ... we have quoted heavily, but far from exhaustively, from her writings, as well as from the Holy Scriptures."[20]
Because this compilation was made in the name of the Ellen G. White Estate, its secretary attempted to remain as neutral as possible. This brochure constitutes an excellent source for anyone wishing to know Ellen White's answers to Robert Olson's questions. However, since anyone is at liberty to interpret at will the quotations provided as answers, the problem remains.
Christology Discussed at the Ellen G. White Estate
Consultation IV was to have been held in Williamsburg, Virginia, from January 23 to 25, 1987. Because of an unusual snow-storm that paralyzed all traffic on the east coast of the United States, the meeting was held in Columbia, Maryland. Further, it was shortened to only one day, Sabbath, January 24. The entire session was devoted to the problem of Christ's human nature, based on my presentation, the only one that could be presented.
The content of that presentation was essentially that of the second part of this study, devoted to the Christology of the pioneers.[21] It also contained a criticism of the new theology, which will be discussed in more detail in the fifth part of this book.[22]
Other papers had been prepared but could not be presented for lack of time. However, the texts were included in the voluminous record of Consultation IV. Two of them in particular have a direct bearing on our subject and deserve consideration.[23]
Tim Poirier and the Sources of Ellen White's Christology
Tim Poirier, associate secretary and archivist of the Ellen G. White Estate, prepared a comparative study between Ellen White's Christology and that of authors whose language she had apparently borrowed. According to Poirier, these sources would be helpful in clarifying Ellen White's Christology.[24]
Henry Melvill (1798-1871), an Anglican preacher, was one of the sources from whom Ellen White borrowed to write her article entitled "Christ, Man's Example," published in the Review and Herald, of July 5, 1887. The White Estate retains Ellen White's personal copy of the Sermons of Melvill.[25] Poirier found Melvill's sermon "The Humiliation of the Man Christ Jesus" of particular value in clarifying the meaning of some of Ellen White's expressions regarding Christ's humanity.
According to Melvill, Adam's fall had two fundamental consequences: (1) "innocent infirmities"[26] and (2) "sinful propensities." By "innocent infirmities" Melvill included hunger, suffering, weakness, sorrows, death. By "sinful propensity" he understood "tendency to sin." At the close of his argument Melvill concluded: "Before the Fall Adam had neither 'innocent infirmities' nor 'sinful propensities'; we are born with both and Christ took the first but not the second.[27]
Hence "Christ's humanity was not Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen, because it never descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without sin."[28]
Poirier also compared Ellen White's language with that of Octavius Winslow[29] to show that both used the words propensity, handicap, and tendency in the same sense and in agreement with Melvill. Poirier placed Ellen White passages alongside passages from Winslow's Christology[30] in which she had plainly borrowed words, expressions, and even concepts.
But does this mean that Ellen White had an identical point of view? A careful examination of the evidence allows us to conclude otherwise. In his argument Winslow reached the conclusion that in Christ's human nature "there was no appeal to the existence of any corrupt principles or propensities; no working upon any fallen desires and tendencies in his nature; for, until the moment that the blast swept him to the earth, no angel in heaven stood before the throne purer or more faultless than he (The Glory of the Redeemer, pp. 129, 132-134)"[31]
In the comparative extract presented by Poirier, Ellen White employed essentially the same language, but applied it to Adam before the Fall and not to Christ. "There were no corrupt principles in the first Adam, no corrupt propensities or tendencies to evil. Adam was as faultless as the angels before God's throne."[32] And in the preceding quotation, also placed in parallel with Winslow's text, Ellen White wrote on the subject of Jesus: "Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, 'fallen' but not corrupt, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God."[33]
It is true that Ellen White used the words and expressions of other theologians. But that does not necessarily imply that she used them to say the same things, for example, Winslow affirmed that "our Lord's exposure to temptation and His consequent capacity of not yielding to its solicitations, has its foundation in His perfect humanity"[34] Ellen White used the same expression this way: "Christ's perfect humanity is the same that man may have through connection with Christ"[35] In other words, while Winslow applies the expression to the human nature Christ inherited from birth, Ellen White says we can have the same "perfect humanity" that He had.
In regard to Melville's argument that Christ had only "innocent infirmities," it is important to point out that a search of the Ellen G. White CD-ROM indicates that she never employed that expression. Certainly, she did make multiple mentions of the "infirmities" borne by Christ, but never qualified them as "innocent." On the contrary, she says repeatedly that "Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity"[36] Or that "Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man"[37] Thus it is not enough to compare words and expressions; the use that is made of them must also be verified.
D. A. Delafield Confirms Ellen White's Christology
The third paper contained in the record of Consultation IV was from the pen of D. A. Delafield, one of the veterans of the Ellen G. White Estate. As associate secretary he was known worldwide for having held seminars on the Spirit of Prophecy and by his numerous articles touching various aspects of Ellen White's writings. In Europe he and his wife are especially remembered because of the year they spent teaching churches about the gift of prophecy, and because of his book dealing with Ellen White's visits in the different countries of Europe.[38]
The study prepared for Williamsburg bore the following title: The Credentials of the True Prophet. Among the credentials of the true prophet, Delafield quoted the verses of 1 John 4:1-3, which he considered to be the seal of the Christian witness. According to Delafield, Ellen White made of Christology her permanent subject, as indicated by the Index to the Writings of Ellen G. White. "Under the word 'Christ' are 87 pages of references, all devoted to Christ as incarnate, and sinless, and who died for men's sins."[39]
Delafield wrote: "Whenever we study the subject of the Incarnation, we should keep in mind our central fact: namely, Jesus lived victoriously in true human flesh--flesh that was fallen, but not corrupt."[40] Then, relying on an Ellen White statement, he specified: "Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. ... Here, the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God."[41]
Delafield underscored the fact that Christ was "fallen but not corrupted" by citing the Baker letter: "'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 corruption. ... Let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.' (The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129)"[42]
For Delafield, "Jesus accomplished what no other human being had done before Him: to live a life without sin and without stain, uncorrupted in His human flesh. ... Even His enemies recognized His innocence. Pilate (Luke 23:14), his wife (Matt. 27:19), and demons also (Mark 1:24) declared Him 'the Holy One of God.'"[43]
Delafield concluded with a quotation from Ellen White: "'He met all temptations by which Adam was assailed, and overcame these temptations because in His humanity He relied upon divine power. ... Christ's life is a revelation of what fallen human beings may become through union and fellowship with the divine nature' (The Faith I Live By, p. 219)"[44] Delafield expressed his conviction that this was the Christology of the pioneers of the Adventist Church.
George R. Knight Confirms the Christology of the Pioneers
Among statements on the subject of the history of Adventist Christology, those of George R. Knight are especially valuable. Professor of church history at Andrews University, Michigan, Knight is clearly in a position to give an objective opinion about the Adventist belief about Christ's human nature from the birth of the movement. Most of his books are devoted to various aspects of the history of the Adventist Church.[45]
The work that led him to write about Christ's human nature was that arising out of the case of A. T. Jones. A complete chapter is de voted to the detailed analysis of Jones's teaching as to Christ's nature.[46] But of particular interest here are Knight's remarks on the history of Adventist Christology in general. He confirmed that "Waggoner, Jones, and Prescott ... would develop the concept that Christ was just like every other child of Adam--including a tendency to sin--into a central feature of their doctrine of righteousness by faith."[47]
But, he observed, "their view of Christ's nature created no controversy in the Adventism of the 1890s. It was a generally accepted theological nonissue. That would all change in the 1950s when it would become the theological subject for many Adventists on both sides of the question."[48]
"M. L. Andreasen, one of the denomination's foremost theologians in the 1950s, held that the doctrine of Christ's 'sinful' nature is one of Adventism's 'foundation pillars.' To change that position, he suggested, was not only to give up historic Adventism, but to surrender belief in the testimonies of Ellen White. Many have followed his lead. Others in the church believe that an adequate Christian belief in Christ must recognize that He was different from other humans in His tendencies toward sin. For 30 years Adventism has experienced a war of war of words over the topic."[49]
"The nature of Christ did not become a divisive issue in Adventist circles until the 1950s. Up through that time the denomination's writers had been fairly well in harmony with Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott that Christ had come in human flesh that had, like the fallen Adam's, all of mankind's tendencies to sin."[50]
According to Knight, two factors motivated the theological change in the 1950s. One was the discovery in 1955 of Ellen White's letter to W.L.H. Baker. Another was the sensitivity of certain leaders of the church to the criticisms of certain evangelicals that the "Adventists' sinful tendencies" Christology was less than adequate.[51]
However, said Knight, there were plenty of Ellen White statements on the other side of the ledger affirming that Christ "took upon, Him our sinful nature," or even that "He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." And to add: "Those were not isolated statements." In the same year as the letter to Baker, she wrote that "Christ took on fallen human nature."[52]
Knight finally stated, "There is not the slightest doubt that Ellen White believed that Christ took upon Himself fallen, sinful human nature at the Incarnation. Whatever that consisted of, however, it is clear that it did not include any evil propensities to sin--those 'thistles and briars' of selfishness, self-love, and so on."[53]
It is not easy to ascertain Knight's personal point of view on the subject. His objective analysis as historian confirms, however, what the supporters of the historical Christology have always asserted. The aim of his book was not to say what he himself believed but to affirm what Adventists had believed at first and then to explain how the radical change in their Christology came about in the 1950s.
A Biblical Exposition in Seventh-day Adventists Believe ...
During the General Conference session of 1980 a new statement of beliefs was prepared. Several times since the first declaration of faith in 1872 Seventh-day Adventist Church leaders realized the need of restating their fundamental beliefs in order to make them even more clear. To this end, the General Conference Ministerial Association assumed the initiative of making "a biblical exposition of the 27 fundamental beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventists"[54] in a book that came out in 1988 and was translated and distributed into many of the leading languages of the world.
Various authors were chosen to prepare articles, while a committee of 194 individuals, chosen from the 10 world divisions, were commissioned to critique each chapter. A smaller committee of 27 church leaders, theologians, and pastors met regularly to supervise the preparation of this book.[55]
Although the book might have appeared to be an official declaration, the editors took care to emphasize: "While this volume is not an officially voted statement--only a General Conference in world session could provide that--it may be viewed as representative of 'the truth ... in Jesus' (Eph. 4:21) that Seventh-day Adventists around the globe cherish and proclaim."[56]
Because of differences of opinion, the declaration voted at the 1980 General Conference session avoided defining Christ's human nature in a precise manner. It merely affirmed that Jesus was "forever truly God" and "truly man." "He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God."[57]
The related section found in chapter 4 of Seventh-day Adventists Believe, however, did not lack for precise details on the various aspects of Christology. In particular, Christ's human nature was developed here in a systematic manner from biblical texts. Jesus was presented as "truly man."[58] "He could claim true humanity through His mother"; "throughout His boyhood He was subject to His parents (Luke 2:51)"; "the name Son of man emphasizes His solidarity with the human race through His Incarnation."[59]
The controversial question was clearly addressed: "To what extent did He [Christ] identify with or become identical to fallen humanity? A correct view of the expression 'the likeness of sinful flesh,' or sinful man, is crucial. Inaccurate views have brought discussion and strife throughout the history of the Christian Church."[60]
The chapter used the typical expressions of the traditional teaching of the Adventist Church: "He clothed His divinity with humanity, He was made in the 'likeness of sinful flesh,' or 'sinful human nature,' or 'fallen human nature' (cf: Rom. 8:3). This in no way indicates that Jesus Christ was sinful, or participated in sinful acts or thoughts. Though made in the form or likeness of sinful flesh, He was sinless and His sinlessness is beyond questioning.[61]
The human nature of Jesus was not identified with that of Adam before the Fall. "Christ took a human nature that, compared with Adam's unfallen nature, had decreased in physical and mental strength--though He did so without sinning. When Christ took the human nature that bore the consequences of sin, He became subject to the infirmities and weaknesses that all experience. His human nature was 'beset by weakness' or 'compassed with infirmity' (Heb. 5:2, KJV; Matt. 8:17; Isa. 53:4)."[62]
In reference to the statement of the Anglican bishop Henry Melvill, it was stated: "Christ's humanity was not the Adamic humanity, that is, the humanity of Adam before the fall; nor fallen humanity, that is, in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen. It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was, therefore, most literally our humanity, but without."[63]
Finally, concerning the problem of temptation, "the way He experienced temptations proves that He was truly human. That Christ was 'in all points tempted like as we are' (Heb. 4:15, KJV), shows that He was a partaker of human nature. Temptation and the possibility of sinning were real to Christ. If He could not sin He would have been neither human nor our example. Christ took human nature with all its liabilities, including the possibility of yielding to temptation."[64]
To underline the reality of the temptations to which Christ was subjected, two well-known theologians were cited. "We agree with Philip Schaff, who said, 'Had He [Christ] been endowed from the start with absolute impeccability, or with the impossibility of sinning, He could not be a true man, nor our model for imitation: His holiness, instead of being his own self-acquired act and inherent merit, would be an accidental or outward gift and His temptations an unreal show.' Karl Ullmann adds, 'The history of the temptation, however it may be explained, would have no significancy; and the expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews "he was tempted in all points as we," would be without meaning.'"[65]
Following these statements, one can only be astonished to read that "Christ's human nature was portrayed as sinless"; that "Jesus Christ took upon Himself our nature with all its liabilities, but He was free from hereditary corruption or depravity and actual sin." Or again, that "Jesus had no evil propensities or inclinations or even sinful passions."[66]
Certainly Jesus had nothing of the sort. He gives us "the example of a sinless life."[67] But this was accomplished in "man's fallen nature"[68] subject to the "working of the great law of heredity."[69] Even if He did not have evil inclinations, "He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart."[70] And why speak, with Melvill, of "innocent infirmities" when Ellen White declares that "Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity"?[71]
At any rate, in other respects the Christology presented in Seventh-day Adventists Believe confirmed the post-Fall position. However, by limiting Christ's heredity only to physical consequences--to the "innocent infirmities"[72] the authors moved away from the traditional position on a very important point. By doing this, Seventh-day Adventists Believe established a mediating interpretation of Christ's human nature, which Roy Adams attempted to propagate by means of his articles in the Adventist Review and his book The Nature of Christ: Help for a Church Divided Over Perfection.
Roy Adams Seeks to Revive the Debate
After the debates of the eighties, the Adventist Review published a series of six articles from the pen of Norman R. Gulley under titles such as "Model or Substitute, Does It Matter How We See Jesus?" and "Pressing Together." These articles included concepts that are clearly his own, such as "Jesus became sin for us vicariously"; "Jesus did not experience temptations like ours because His nature was unlike ours"; and Ellen White "saw Christ's mission in two dimensions. She speaks of a pre-Fall and a post-Fall dimension."[73]
In the spring of 1990 Roy Adams, a Review associate editor, renewed the debate by publishing three editorials on the current problem of knowing if Christ was like Adam (before the Fall) or like sinners, entitled "Like Adam or like US?[74] "When we want a deep problem to study," Adams quoted Ellen White, "let us fix our minds on the most marvelous thing that ever took place on earth or heaven the Incarnation of the Son of God."[75] "This is the central doctrine of the Christian faith. Without it," Adams declares, "the whole canon of Scripture becomes a meaningless document, a non-sense."[76]
"The problem we face here is similar to that which confronted our Christian pioneers in the early centuries--the lack of any definitive statement in Scripture. This is the reason that Adventists have leaned so heavily on the writings of Ellen G. White on this question."[77]
Adams showed that Ellen White strongly affirmed on one hand that Christ was in all things like us, and on the other, that He was at the same time "different from us." The difficulty lay in this apparent contradiction. "If Christ did in fact become human, how was He able to bypass the universal infection of sin?"[78]
To explain this paradox Adams called upon Henry Melvill, the Anglican minister who affirmed that the two essential results of the fall were (1) "innocent infirmities" and (2) "sinful propensities." Now, according to Melvill, "before the fall Adam had neither 'innocent infirmities,' nor 'sinful propensities.' We are born with both, and ... Christ took the first but not the second."[79] Adams concluded, as Melvill did, that "the incarnate Christ was neither just like Adam before the Fall, nor just like us. He was unique."[80]
This is the solution suggested by Adams in his 1994 book on the nature of Christ.[81] Having criticized the Christology of Some "rebel brethren" of the heritage of Jones and Waggoner, as well as of the sharp reaction of Andreasen against the new theology,[82] he developed the ideas contained in his editorials.[83] In particular, he restated in detail Melvill's explanation. And, like Tim Poirier, he considered that Ellen White, having used the same expressions, must have given the same meaning.[84]
Like others before him, Adams justified his of view by quoting extensively from Ellen White's letter to Baker. Further, he indicated that his interpretation corresponds with that of his seminary teachers.[85]
We recognize that Roy Adams' interpretation represents fairly the position held by a large proportion of Adventists today. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that this point of view is shared by the majority in the worldwide Adventist Church.
The European Situation
As we have shown,[86] up to the 1950s the Adventist Christology in the countries of the Southern European Division was in line with the teachings of the church at large. Since then, despite the importance given to the problem of Christ's human nature in the literature of English-speaking Adventists, no controversy had yet surfaced on that side of the Atlantic. Apart from a few specialists, not many Adventists indulged in the reading of theology books in English. Furthermore, specialists who took an interest in the subtleties of the problem in question were even more scarce. In 1969 the editor of the Revue Adventiste, Jean Caseaux, was first to make known elements of the new theology.[87]
Alfred Vaucher, the father of French-speaking Adventist theologians,[88] likewise devoted an article on "The twofold divine-human nature of Christ," in which he analyzed the various trends of thought in the Adventist Church.[89] The only personal remark expressed in this article concerned the word "likeness," which for him was not "synonymous with identity" "And if one held that Jesus assumed a sinful nature, that signified uniquely that He accepted the reality of temptation and the possibility of sinning."[90] The question of knowing whether Christ had the nature of Adam before or after Fall did not seem to be of concern to Alfred Vaucher. Even in his masterly works Histoire du Salut (History of Salvation), he was content to affirm the mere reality of His humanity and of His temptations.[91]
It is difficult to determine exactly when the new theology became known to pastors and church members in Europe.[92] In the teaching given at the Adventist Seminary of Collonges, where pastors of many countries are trained,[93] the two trains of thought were presented by teachers who came in succession: Raoul Dederen until he left for Andrews University in 1963; Georges Stéveny from 1967 to 1980; and I, from 1960 to 1970 and from 1985 to 1998.
When he was contacted recently, Raoul Dederen assured me that his point of view on Christ's human nature was, in substance, exactly the same as that expressed by Edward Heppenstall. In other words, Christ took Adam's nature after the Fall, but without the participation of the natural tendencies to sin--a flesh like that of sin, but not identical.[94] As to Georges Stéveny's point of view, we now have it in writing and in great detail, thanks to his recent book: A la découverte du Christ (Seeking the Discovery of Christ).[95]
Georges Stéveny in the Wake of the Pioneers
Georges Stéveny studied theology at the Adventist Seminary of Collonges-sous-Salève and received a postgraduate diploma in philosophy from the University of Geneva. After several years of teaching, he served the Adventist Church for 18 years as a pastor-evangelist in France and Belgium. A brilliant speaker, he captivated large audiences at times with his philosophical and biblical topics. Called upon to become a theology professor at the Adventist Seminary of Collonges-sous-Salève in 1967, he was later entrusted with the leadership of the seminary from 1970 to 1980. He continued his ministry as president of the Swiss French Conference and as general secretary of the Euro-Africa Division of Seventh-day Adventist from 1985 to 1990.
Although he had written many articles and helped in the editing of several published works, he had to wait until his retirement to put in writing his work À la découverte du Christ, representing the harvest of knowledge and spiritual contemplations of his entire life. These were presented in the form of a Christology on two levels. First as a "lower Christology," rooted in history enabling us to discover Christ in the life He lived on earth. Then, on a second level, a "higher Christology," which was the revelation of the Christ of our faith. This portion of his work is of particular interest because it deals directly with the Incarnation, its implications and consequences.[96]
The method followed is a presentation of systematic exegesis for each Christological text, beginning with the Prologue of John's Gospel, followed by the key passages of Paul's epistles. It is a Christology based entirely on the study of the biblical revelation. The study takes the reader through a demonstration that "Jesus was God before His Incarnation" and that "He remained God inevitably up to His humiliation.[97] "But in Christ, God Himself came to dwell with us. He was made man, a second and last Adam. One question therefore arises, doubtless delicate, but legitimate: How far did the identification Jesus with us really go? Did He take Adam's nature before the fall or Adam's nature after the fall?[98]
Georges Stéveny rejected categorically the notion that Christ had a nature like that of Adam before the Fall. The Pauline expression "in the likeness [or similitude] of sinful flesh" could not be attributed to Adam before the Fall. But "it is not sufficient to denounce the difference between two situations, those experienced by the two Adams--that is quite obvious. What we must recognize as well is that they did not live in the same flesh, nor in the same nature.[99]
"To say that Jesus lived in a flesh like that of Adam before the fall is therefore not in agreement with the divine revelation. But it would be another mistake to imply that He was identical with that of Adam after the fall. We tie ourselves up in false alternatives by wanting to define the nature of Jesus simply in relation to Adam, before or after the fall. An enormous, essential difference separates Jesus from man, who became a sinner separated from God ontologically."[100] Jesus was not only God; He was not only man. He occupies a different place, a new position, at the beginning of a new era."[101]
But then, "what exactly is the flesh of Christ and His inner inclinations? How far does His identification with us extend?[102] To renew the human state, He had to take it entirely. A purely external resemblance is not in harmony with Paul's declaration that God had sent His Son in "the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3, KJV). "It was in the flesh that God condemned sin by Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul's demonstration is valuable only as to a formal condition, to know that Jesus resisted under the same conditions as ours. Failure to admit this means that all reasoning is faulted and the conclusion unacceptable: 'in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit' (Rom. 8:4).[103]
"If Jesus had not faced temptation under the same condition as us," Stéveny asserted, "the struggle would be unequal and His example inadequate.[104] But the power of the Spirit, through whom Christ condemned sin in the flesh, is offered to all who receive Him by faith. Hence, "thanks to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit works in our behalf the same ministry that He fulfilled on behalf of the Son of God. Therein lies an essential aspect of the Gospel. ... How comforting it is to know that humanity, compromised by Adam its leader, can be regenerated by Jesus Christ in whom all things are made new.[105]
William G. Johnsson Attempts Harmony
In a series of five editorials published in the Adventist Review, William G. Johnsson, chief editor, attempted to calm the debate over Christ's human nature in his articles "Our Matchless Saviour."[l06] "My purpose in these editorials isn't to try to prove that one side is 'right' and the other 'wrong.' I hope to draw us all together by presenting the concerns of each camp fairly, and showing how much we hold in common after all. ... I don't expect to change every mind; I aim to appeal to the wisdom and common sense of our people, in whom I have great confidence."[107]
Having pointed out that Adventists confess the complete and eternal divinity of Jesus Christ, Johnsson emphasized the fact that His humanity is equally vital. But precisely there lay the point of debate among contemporary Adventists. Johnsson objectively recapped both points of view, then asked, "What does the Bible tell us about Jesus' humanity?"[108] His response was exactly that given in his book on the Epistle to the Hebrews.[109] "The silence of the New Testament on this specific point of debate is deafening. In my judgment we as a church are wise in our fundamental beliefs not to attempt to define Christ's human nature more closely than scripture".[110]
"But what did Ellen White tell us about Jesus?"[111] Johnsson asked. She emphasized His divinity as much as His humanity, and the miraculous unity of the two. "He experienced sorrow, suffering, and temptation; His tests were real--He risked failure and eternal loss But throughout He remained perfectly sinless: He is our matchless saviour."[112]
If Ellen White encouraged us to study the humanity of Jesus, she also took pains to remind us to do it with meticulous care: "Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ." But what did she say about whether His nature was that of Adam before or after the Fall? To know this, "we need to note what she did not write as well as what she wrote."[113]
Ellen White, who made multiple references to the "foundations" or to the "pillars" of the Adventist message, never mentioned Christ's human nature as being one of them. Further, it is easy to find Ellen White statements to sustain either point of view. In fact, Johnsson noted, Ellen White affirmed that "while Jesus became truly human and passed through our experiences, He was unlike us in key respects. He was the God-man; and He did not share our passions, our bent to evil, our propensities to sin. He was like us; yet He was unlike us. Only by holding these two facts in tension can we do justice to her.[114]
Too often, Johnsson remarked, the arguments do not touch the real problem--the nature of sin. "The issue behind the issue is the concept of sin. Those who want to understand more clearly Jesus' human nature would get further if they stopped debating whether Jesus came in humanity's pre-Fall or post-Fall nature and spent time looking at what the Bible says about sin itself."[115]
Johnsson maintained that the Bible did not restrict the definition of sin to the transgression of the law. In a penetrating analysis, Paul describes sin as a force, an indwelling principle, a state--'sin living in me' (Rom. 7:14-20). So not only are our acts sinful; our very nature is at war with God."[116]
"Did Jesus have such a nature? No. If He had, He would Himself need a Saviour. He had no propensity to evil, no warping of His moral nature that predisposed Him to temptation. He is the One utterly sinless--in deed, but also in His inner being. He is 'holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners' (Heb. 7:26)".[117] "But I need a Saviour who is different, one who is not part of the sin problem, who does not Himself need a Saviour. And my Saviour must not only be free from taint of sin but must be God Himself! Only God Can take away my sins."[118]
Johnsson's attempt to solve the problem is certainly praiseworthy. Without question, the first step toward a solution lies in a biblical definition of the concept of sin. The apparent contradictions between the fallen, suffering, and degraded human nature that Christ assumed and the pure, holy, and sinless nature that everyone attributes to Him will not otherwise find an explanation capable of reconciling the two radically opposite points of view.
However, to achieve this purpose, it is not enough to state what Christ is or is not.[119] Every Adventist believes that Jesus was sinless, that He did not have in Him evil propensities, and that He could be our Saviour only in that state. It must still be explained how He could be tempted in all things like us in flesh like unto sinful flesh without committing sin. This is the very essence of the problem. But when the problem is resolved, Christ will appear even more genuinely as our matchless Saviour.
Jack Sequeira and the Problem of Sin
In his book Beyond Belief[120] Jack Sequeira seeks the solution to the problem of Christ's human nature in the biblical definition of sin. As suggested in the title, the author wishes to lead his readers "beyond belief," toward "the promise, the power and the reality of the everlasting gospel."
Sequeira is more interested in soteriology than in Christology; he seeks to put "the plan of salvation in a new light."[121] But since one cannot speak of the work of Christ without speaking of His person, Sequeira is compelled to take a position on Christ's human nature and the nature of sin. For him, "the gospel is God's solution to the sin problem. So it is important to begin our study of the gospel by first understanding sin. Too often we try to understand the solution God has prepared for us in Christ (the gospel) without first recognizing the full extent of the problem. ... Only when we truly understand our complete sinfulness in both nature and action will we truly understand God's solution. Not until we understand the depraved nature of sin will we lose confidence in self and turn to Christ as our only righteousness. The gospel becomes meaningful, then, only against the background of a full understanding of sin:"[122]
Sequeira then traces the origin and development of sin. "As descendants of Adam and Eve, we are all in slavery to sin. We are born self-centered, and our natural inclination is to want to live independently of God (see John 8:34; Rom. 1:20-23; 6:17)".[123] The Old Testament uses up to a dozen different words for sin. But in Psalm 51:2,3 we find the basic concepts expressed in three key words: iniquity, sin, and transgression: "a. Iniquity. This does not primarily refer to an act of sin, but to a condition of sinfulness; by nature, we are spiritually 'bent' (see Ps. 51:5; Isa. 53:6; 64:6). b. Sin. Literally, 'to miss the mark.' This refers to our failures to measure up to God's ideal (see Rom. 3:23; 7:15-24; Isa. 1:4-6). c. Transgression. This is a deliberate violation of God's law, a willful act of disobedience (see 1 John 3:4; Rom. 7:7-13)."[124]
Commenting on Isaiah 53:6, Sequeira writes: "First, every one of us has gone astray because we have all followed the natural bent to 'our way.' Second, this bent to follow our own way, this self-centeredness, is the iniquity that was laid upon Christ, our Sin Bearer. When He 'condemned sin in the flesh' on the cross (Rom. 8:3), it was this bent to sin that He condemned."[125]
God sent His Son in sinful flesh, not to prove to His children that they could likewise obey the law of God, or to serve as an example for them, but to free them from sin. "At the very heart of the doctrine of Christology is the glorious truth that Christ assumed humanity so that He could be the Saviour of the world. Only to those who have first received Him as Saviour does He become an Example."[126]
Having explained the why of the Incarnation, Sequeira also considers the how. "How did Christ save mankind in His humanity?" Was it vicariously, with Christ acting in the place of humankind, or actually, that is, with Christ assuming humanity's fallen nature? Sequeira opts for the latter, rejecting the idea of vicarious substitution, which, he claims, "makes the gospel unethical." That an innocent man should die in the place of a guilty one is unacceptable. Further, it very easily reduces the gospel to "cheap grace."[127]
According to Sequeira, "Christ, in his humanity, saved men and women in actuality--not vicariously. Those who take this position teach that Christ took the human nature Adam had after his fall. They argue that since Christ came to save fallen humanity, He had to assume the sinful human nature that needed redeeming. By thus identifying Himself with our corporate fallen humanity, Christ qualified Himself to be the second Adam and legally gained the right to be our Substitute."[128]
That does not mean for Sequeira that Christ in His humanity would have been exactly like us in our fallen humanity. Certainly "Scripture teaches that Christ actually did assume our condemned sinful human nature as we know it. But He totally defeated 'the law of sin and death' (Rom. 8:2) that resided in that sinful human nature and then executed it on the cross. Had Christ consented, even by a thought, to the sinful desires of that nature which He assumed, then He would have become a sinner in need of a savior Himself. That is why, in dealing with the human nature of Christ, we must be exceedingly careful not to drag His mind or His choice into sin or to say that He 'had' a sinful nature."[129]
With respect to the problem of sin, Sequeira emphasizes that we should not go beyond what the Scriptures say. "We must not teach that in Adam all humanity also inherits his guilt. This is the heresy of 'original sin' introduced by Augustine and adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. Guilt, in a legal sense, always includes personal volition or responsibility, and God does not hold us personally responsible for something in which we had no choice. Only when we personally, consciously, deliberately, persistently, and ultimately reject the gift of eternal life in Christ does the guilt and responsibility of sin and the second death become ours (see John 3:18, 36; Mark 16:15; Heb. 2:1-4; 10:14,26-29)."[130]
Sequeira's Christology is only a foundation for his theology regarding how sinners are saved "in Christ." His non-traditional stand against substitutionary atonement has proved to be controversial, but he clearly takes a stand in favor of traditional Christology, basing his arguments on Scripture and not Ellen White.
Ellen White's Latest Statement on Christ's Human Nature
We began this study of history focusing on 150 years of Adventist Christology with an early statement of Ellen White. We shall add the finishing touch to this history with one of her later statements. This intriguing statement was discovered only recently and deals with the most controversial portion of the issue: whether Christ was subjected to all the "evil tendencies" of humanity or if He was exempt from them.
Our research confirms George Knight's that Ellen White never used the expression "sinful tendencies" in relation to Christ's human nature. According to Knight, it was "the teachings of Prescott, Waggoner, and Jones on the tendencies of Christ's human nature" that "permeated the Adventist air in the mid-nineties."[131] But the newly discovered letter raises the question of whether she used an even stronger term.
The Adventist Review of February 17, 1994, announced that a previously unpublished letter from Ellen White had just recently been discovered.[132] Written on August 29, 1903, at Elmshaven, St. Helena, California, this letter was addressed to Dr. J. H. Kellogg.[133] It appears that it may never have been sent, as was the case with several other letters held back by Ellen White while waiting to see how the controversy with Kellogg would develop between the years 1902 and 1908. Whatever the reason, this letter, or its copy, was misfiled. Archivist Tim Poirier discovered it quite by chance in December 1993. When the announcement of its discovery was made, the White Estate offered a copy to anyone who wished to have it.
Like the majority of Ellen White's letters, it dealt with various topics of a practical nature. But one of the paragraphs touched on Christ's humanity in terms that are particularly significant. While proofreading the passage in which she speaks of the fallen human nature assumed by Christ, Ellen White made several alterations by hand to the typed text. These handwritten alterations are included below in italics. This sample of her writing testifies to her concern for clarity on a point particularly sensitive and liable to misinterpretation. Here is the paragraph in question:
"When Christ first announced to the heavenly host His mission and work in the world, He declared that He was to leave His position of dignity and disguise His holy mission by assuming the likeness of a man, when in reality He was the Son of the infinite God. And when the fullness of time was come, He stepped down from His throne of highest command, laid aside His royal robe and kingly crown, clothed His divinity with humanity, and came to this earth to exemplify what humanity must do and be in order to overcome the enemy and to sit with the Father upon His throne. Coming as He did, as a man, to meet and be subjected to with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, working in every conceivable manner to destroy his faith, He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan, the rebel who had been expelled from heaven."[134]
This text parallels something Ellen White had published in Early writings.[135] There she used, for the first time the expression "man's fallen human nature" to describe the nature assumed by Christ. In the statement of 1903 she wanted to be still more precise. At first she had written: "Coming as He did, as a man, with all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan." This would appear to be clear support for a human nature subjected to "all the evil tendencies" but to which Christ never succumbed.
But evidently Ellen White, upon rereading the typewritten text, felt that this was not quite the thought she intended to convey. So she added the two handwritten phrases that are italicized above. With the interlineated text added, the passage would read: "Coming as He did, as a man, to meet and be subjected to all the evil tendencies to which man is heir, working in every conceivable manner to destroy His faith, He made it possible for Himself to be buffeted by human agencies inspired by Satan." Some would say that this revision is a significant change of meaning, making it appear that the evil tendencies were in others that were arrayed against Christ, though this is debatable.
In publishing this important passage, the editor of the Adventist Review wrote quite appropriately: "Students of Ellen White's writings will be interested in the final sentence of this paragraph. They will observe how she was concerned not to be misunderstood and, upon reading the typed draft, made changes in her own hand that attempted to make her meaning clearer. This statement will take its place among the many others she wrote about the human nature of Jesus."[l36]
According to Paul Gordon, at that time director of the Ellen G. White Estate, "any new letter or letters are not likely to change significantly Adventists' understanding of her [Ellen White's] teachings. We already have such a large collection of her writings in books, letters, diaries, and manuscripts, that we can be confident of knowing what she believed."[137]
In the following paragraphs Ellen White explained the secret of Christ's victory over the "evil tendencies." "As the Head of humanity, Christ lived on this earth a perfect, consistent life, in conformity with the will of His heavenly Father. When He left the courts of heaven, He announced the mission that He designed to fulfill. 'Lo, I come,' He declared: 'in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God.' Always uppermost in His mind and heart was the thought 'Not My human will, but Thy will, be done.' This was the infallible principle that actuated Him in all His words and works, and that molded His character."[138]
Thus, having conquered "all the evil tendencies to which man is heir," Christ Jesus our Lord "gave us an example of what men and women must be, if they are accepted as His disciples and hold the beginning of their confidence firm unto the end."[139] For "throughout His experience, during the thirty-three years He spent on this earth, Christ was beset with all the temptations wherewith the human family are tempted; yet He was without a stain of sin."[140]
Having reached the end of a study embracing 150 years of Adventist Christology, our purpose is to proceed with a synthesis of the knowledge gained so far and to lay the groundwork for an evaluation of the different positions. Ultimately, we hope to suggest a Christology that harmonizes with biblical teaching, and to reconcile the different points of view.
Notes: