It would be wrong to think that the question of Christ's human nature is of interest and concern to theologians only. At present the question troubles many church members and threatens to divide churches. The following letter sent by a reader to the editors of the Adventist Review is a good indicator of that reality.
"The church that I attend is split down the middle on the subject of the nature of Christ. Arguments break out in the Sabbath school classes, after church, at Sabbath meals, in prayer meetings, on the telephone--everywhere. People are actually losing friendship debating the nature of Christ. Is it really necessary to decide this in order to be a good Adventist? It upsets me, but what can I do?"[1]
To answer these anguished questions, it is not sufficient to say, as was done in this case, that it is a matter of "great mystery," that we must "study the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy diligently, assume that the leanings of the church body on this subject are dependable, and avoid all acrimonious discussions."[2] The church must also have an answer adequate enough to bring comfort to the troubled conscience and to satisfy the mind eager to understand this vital truth about which Ellen White declares: "The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to be our study."[3]
Having understood the importance of Christ's human nature in the plan of salvation, Adventist pioneers made it the touchstone of their Christology, in harmony with the advice given by the apostle John: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus [come in the flesh] is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist" (1 John 4:2, 3)
Does this imply that we are dealing here with a doctrine upon which salvation depends? Or, to take up the question of our reader, "Is it really necessary to decide this in order to be a good Adventist?"
Is It Really Essential?
Since the controversy about Christ's human nature has now grown to major proportions, many Adventists have seriously asked themselves, Is it really essential to decide?
As early as 1978 the General Conference president, Robert Pierson, was wishing for an end to the division on a question that in his mind was not essential to salvation.[4] For the same reason, Article 4 of the Fundamental Beliefs concerning "the Son," voted at the General Conference session of 1980, is silent on the issue.
It is true that no one should consider as essential for salvation the correct intellectual understanding of any specific doctrine. As George Knight said quite appropriately: "It is not our theology that will save us, but the Lord of our theology."[5] Accepting Jesus as our personal Saviour and participating in His divine life make us authentic disciples of Christ. Few of the disciples of Jesus throughout the centuries have ever been concerned with the details of Christology that we discuss today. But, like the thief on the cross, they possessed the assurance of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. "We are not to praise the gospel, but praise Christ. We are not to worship the gospel, but the Lord of the gospel",[6] exclaims Ellen White.
However, that does not mean that the contents of the gospel or the doctrines are unimportant. Far from it! Christian living and spiritual growth are possible only through the knowledge of "the truth that is in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21). That is why Paul prays that God will grant the believers "the spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better" (Eph. 1:17). Every Christian is called upon to grow "in knowledge in the image of its Creator" (Col. 3:10). No one should stick only to "the elementary truths of God's word". Heb. 5:12). All should strive to understand always better "the secret things of God" (1 Cor. 4: 1), and in particular "the mystery of godliness," that is, to know Christ, "manifested in the flesh, ... vindicated by the Spirit" (1 Tim. 3:16, RSV).
Christian experience has shown a direct relationship between our understanding of Christ's human nature and His work of salvation--in other words, between Christology and Soteriology. To be mistaken about the meaning of the Incarnation and the reality of Christ's humiliation leads inevitably to the consequence of being mistaken about the reality of His work of justification.
The history of Adventist Christology shows that errors of interpretation have been made, especially in light of the fact that today we have at least three explanations dealing with the human nature of Christ. Obviously, they cannot all be in agreement with Scripture and Ellen White's teaching.
In our search for truth it is necessary to analyze and evaluate the conflicting theses. The basic arguments for each Christological position are briefly summarized below.
Summary of the Thee Current Interpretations
Lest some conclude that the Adventist Church is unclear in regard to its belief regarding the Person who is the centerpiece of their faith, let us review the common threads that link them before we examine their differences. Article 4 of the Fundamental Beliefs declares very clearly what Adventists have always believed about Jesus, Son of God and Son of man. Following is the entire text as it was voted at the General Conference session of 1980:
"God the Eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. 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. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things."[7]
Obviously this declaration does not express itself on the controversial point regarding Christ's human nature. However, the 1872 statement of beliefs, which remained unchanged until 1931, did specify that Christ "took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race."[8] Because of differences that arose on this particular point since the 1950s, the delegates at the General Conference session of 1980 judged it wiser to abandon this wording and substitute a formula that expressed the common belief.
This did not stifle the controversy, which only intensified until the different points of view were more clearly defined and an alternative interpretation arose. We choose to call it alternative because it borrows a basic argument from each of the other two Christologies, known to theologians as the postlapsarian and prelapsarian positions. Following is a summary of the three Christologies:
1. The Traditional, or Historical, Christology
This position has historical seniority in the Adventist Church. It is called postlapsarian because it teaches that Jesus came in fallen human nature, the nature of Adam after the Fall. Consequently Christ's flesh is considered like that of all human beings. Not a carnal flesh, but a flesh that, in accordance with the law of heredity, carries within it inherent tendencies to sin--tendencies to which Jesus, however, never succumbed. Although "tempted in every way, just as we are" (Heb. 4:15), He committed no sin. Hence, He not only "condemned sin in the flesh" but made it possible that "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:3, 4, KJV).
This teaching, though based on the New Testament, was contrary to the beliefs of mainline Christianity. This is why Adventists have often been considered as heretics, since some thought they were teaching that Jesus was a sinner by birth, like the rest of humanity.
Many Adventists today do not know that their church has taught, for a century--from the origin of the movement until 1950--the postlapsarian position. However, some Adventist theologians, not understanding how it could be possible for Jesus to live without sin in fallen human nature, believed it was necessary to formulate a new Christology.
2. The New Christology, or the Prelapsarian Position
The basic argument of the new Christology is well known: Jesus "took Adam's sinless human nature," that is to say, Adam's nature before the Fall. Actually, "in Him was no sin, either inherited or cultivated, as is common to all the natural descendants of Adam."[9] Even "if Christ was tempted in all points as we are," it was never from within, since He inherited from Adam none of our propensities to sin.
In short, "whatever Jesus took was not His intrinsically or innately. ... All that Jesus took, all that He bore, whether the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases and frailties of our human nature--all was taken and borne vicariously."[10] "Vicariously He took our sinful, fallen nature. ... He bore our weaknesses, our temptations vicariously, in the same way he bore our iniquities."[11]
It is difficult to understand why the traditional teaching was suddenly discarded. Apparently it was not so much a lack of awareness of the historical position as it was a desire on the part of some to be recognized as "authentic" Christians.
What is most surprising is that the promoters of the new Christology rest their case on Ellen White's writings. Thus the dispute boils down to differences of interpretation in regard to certain crucial Ellen White statements.
3. The Alternative Christology
The alternative Christology is the most recent, and probably the most widespread today. It is now promoted in the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe,[12] prepared by more than 200 representative church leaders and scholars drawn from the highest levels of the denomination.
In harmony with the traditional Christology of the pioneers, the alternative position teaches that Jesus took Adam's human nature after the Fall. Obviously, according to its promoters, Christ did not come "in power and splendor," or even with the sinless nature of Adan. On the contrary, He took the form of a servant, with a nature enfeebled by 4,000 years of degeneration of the race.
This does not imply, however, that Jesus inherited "evil tendencies" from Adam. Although the body of Christ was subject to physical deterioration and inherited the weaknesses of man's physical constitution, He inherited none of the inclinations to evil associated with fallen human nature.
Based on a formula borrowed from one of Ellen White's sources, the Anglican minister Henry Melvill, they maintain that Jesus inherited from Adam only "innocent infirmities," and "such characteristics as hunger, pain, weakness, sorrow, and death. Although these are consequences of sin, they are not sinful."[13] Thus, Christ was neither exactly like Adam before the Fall nor exactly like Adam after the Fall. Unlike all other fallen human beings, He was born without evil tendencies. On this point they agree with the new Christology.
Each of these Christologies is defined on the basis of human heredity. Obviously, the differences of interpretation suggest that mistakes have been made. Ellen White suggested the essential cause: "We make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity."[14]
This statement clearly suggests the criterion upon which an interpretation must be evaluated. We must reconsider any interpretation that lessens or obscures Christ's participation in sinful human nature if we wish for a return to a biblical Christology.
Errors of Appraisal
At the various Ellen G. White Estate annual consultations, we had the opportunity not only to study the Christology of the pioneers but also to critique certain aspects of the new Christology. Errors, some of them serious, had to be raised and corrected.
The first such error was overlooking the traditional teaching of the church. It is difficult to understand why the unanimous declarations made by Adventist leaders for more than a century should have been condemned without serious verification. If the promoters of the new Christology had examined the church's official literature ever so little, in the light of history, they probably would not have declared that only a minority of Adventists had written that Christ took a fallen human nature--that of Adam after the Fall. Moreover, they never would have dared to say that "this erroneous minority position" was that of a few "irresponsible lunatics."[15]
A more serious error of appraisal was made in interpreting Ellen White's teaching, which the promoters of the new theology relied upon to show that Christ had taken the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall. No such statement is found anywhere in Ellen White's writings; and the contrary is affirmed hundreds of times. How, then, could someone write that "in only three or four places in all these inspired counsels" of Ellen White are allusions made to the fallen human nature assumed by Christ?[16]
The evangelical inquirers, with whom the problem of the Incarnation was discussed in the 1950s, were not mistaken when they based the bulk of their criticism on the book Bible Readings for the Home Circle. This book stated that Christ came "in sinful flesh." Why were they made to believe that "this expression slipped into the book" by some unknown error?[17] Actually this book, up to when the Christology was changed around 1950, was the most representative one about general Adventist beliefs.
Finally, the way that the new Christology was presented constitutes in itself an additional error. Publishing it without the authors' names, and under the ride Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, could only trigger a justifiable reaction. Why should the new Christology of Questions on Doctrine be considered more in compliance with biblical truth than that formerly contained in Bible Readings? Only a critical examination of the different points of view can provide an answer.
A Doctrine Condemned by the Church
The new Christology was presented by its promoters as "the new milestone" of Adventism. Obviously, for Adventist believers this teaching was new, but not for other Christians. Actually it was a rather regrettable return to the old-time teaching of the mainline Christian churches.
In order to regard Christ as having a sinless human nature, like Adam's before the Fall, the councils of the Catholic Church believed it necessary to invent the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary. The Protestant churches, in contrast, based their Christology on the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, according to which all men are sinners and guilty by birth. Christ therefore could not resemble them, since He was neither a sinner nor guilty. Hence the general belief that Jesus, from His incarnation, had taken Adam's human nature before the Fall.
Adventist pioneers were opposed to the doctrines of the immaculate conception and original sin. Some new converts to Adventism sometimes had difficulties in understanding how Christ, with a fallen human nature, could live without sin, as the pioneers taught. Letters were written to Ellen White "affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if He had, He would have fallen under similar temptations." Here is her reply: "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."[18]
The new Christology is not only a return to these very old Christian beliefs; it is also a return to a belief openly rejected by the Adventist Church. Let us remember the unhappy experience of the holy flesh movement. This movement also taught that "Christ took Adam's nature before he fell; so He took humanity as it was in the Garden of Eden."[19]
This teaching was discussed and condemned at the General Conference session of 1901. When Ellen White was informed, she returned from Australia and in person opposed this doctrine of holy flesh. She did not hesitate one moment to describe it as "erroneous theories and methods" and as "cheap, miserable inventions of men's theories, prepared by the father of lies.[20]
The supporters of the new theology never mention this incident in their history of the Adventist doctrines. Whereas the author of Movement of Destiny retraces in minute detail how the pioneers surmounted their differences in regard to Christ's divine nature, he says not a single word about what they taught unitedly about His human nature. Likewise, he devotes several chapters to the 1888 message and to the role played by Waggoner and Jones, but maintains a significant silence as to their Christology. Yet this constituted the basis for their message of justification by faith.
Tendentious Methods
The original statement of the new Christology as it appeared in the Ministry, September 1956, section 111, depends on nine Ellen White quotations, without comments or biblical references. The general title announces the basic concept of the new theology: "Took Sinless Nature of Adam Before the Fa1l." Then, to introduce each one of the quotations, there is a subheading intended to reinforce the main idea conveyed, such as "Christ Took Humanity as God Created It"; "Took Human Form but Not Corrupted Sinful Nature"; "Took Adam's Sinless Human Nature"; "Perfect Sinlessness of Human Nature"; etc.[21]
One does not have to be an expert to notice that not one of the Ellen White quotations cited in this document truly agrees with the subheadings. Ellen White never wrote what the subheadings insinuate. On the contrary, she affirms exactly the opposite. But none of those statements are mentioned. Having accepted the position common to mainline Christianity with regard to Christ's human nature, and apparently convinced that this was also Ellen White's position, the editors published a tendentious selection of quotations to justify their point of view without an objective textual foundation.
The abbreviated statement in Movement of Destiny constitutes another typical example. Each statement, quoted without a reference, deserves to be carefully examined, placed in its immediate context, and explained in the light of Ellen White's general teaching.[22] We will limit our demonstration to the following sentence: "Christ was like Adam before the Fall--'a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him.'"[23]
But this does violence to the original text. The first part, "Christ was like Adam before the Fall," is presented as if it were from Ellen White's pen, whereas it is actually by the author of the text. The second part: "a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon Him," is actually Ellen White's description of Adam, not Christ. Here is the statement in its original context: "The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. ... But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted."[24]
If this statement from Ellen White's letter to W.H.L. Baker were not sufficiently explicit, the following Desire of Ages statement leaves no doubt as to what she taught on the subject: "In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam's failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden. ... It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation."[25]
Another example of "erroneous methods" is ignoring clear statements from The Desire of Ages in favor of others in the letter to Baker. Only someone who had lost all sense of proportion could write that the statements contained in the letter to Baker "strongly counter-balanced" "the three or four places" in which Ellen White uses the terms "fallen nature" and "sinful nature," to describe the human nature assumed by Christ.
In the face of these "erroneous methods and theories," only a healthy exegesis, taking into account all available sources and the meaning of the terms employed, will make it possible to re-establish a unity of interpretation regarding Christ's human nature. It is true that very few of the current supporters of the new Christology still follow the erroneous methods of their founders. Today a single argument--in fact, one single word--is used by many of them to justify their point of view. But will this argument stand up to careful scrutiny?
A Fictitious Argument, a Misleading Expression
The method and the system of interpretation employed in the book Questions on Doctrine differ somewhat from those used in the basic document of the new Christology. Here, proponents no longer affirm explicitly that "Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the Fall," though they firmly maintain that "in His human nature Christ was perfect and sinless."[26] They no longer deny that "He was the second Adam, coming in the 'likeness' of sinful human flesh (Rom. 8:3)."[27] They even recognize that Ellen White "occasionally" used expressions Such as "sinful nature" or "fallen nature" of Christ.[28]
However, they are eager to specify that "whatever Jesus took was not His intrinsically or innately. ... All that Jesus took, all that He bore, whether the burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases and frailties of our human nature--all was taken and borne vicariously."[29] According to the authors of Questions on Doctrine, "it is in this sense that all should understand the writings of Ellen G. White when she refers occasionally to sinful, fallen, and deteriorated human nature."[30]
If Ellen White had really written that Christ took our fallen human nature simply vicariously, as well as taking vicariously the sins of the whole world, that would be a weighty argument. Actually, Ellen White never used the word "vicariously",[31] nor did she ever write that Christ "took sinless human nature.[32]
On the other hand, Ellen White did use, but only once, the word "vicarious" with regard to Christ's redemptive sacrifice.[33] Certainly Jesus could not pardon sins and impute His righteousness to repentant sinners other than by substitution. But to state that He took fallen human nature vicariously means that He took it only apparently and not in reality. It would also mean that Christ's death should be understood vicariously, since the wages of sin are death, and that the human nature of Jesus was sinless. In brief, this kind of reasoning leads ultimately to docetism, that is, a Christology in which Jesus is a human being only in appearance.
For us it is unthinkable that Ellen White should have insisted on the reality of Christ's participation "in the flesh and blood" of humanity, "in the likeness of sinful flesh," while meaning that this participation was ultimately only vicarious. This expression is found nowhere in her writings, so there is no support for such an interpretation. On the contrary, Ellen White did not cease to emphasize the reality of humanity's fallen nature assumed by Christ.
How could she have said it more clearly? "Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature." And to leave no doubt on the kind of human nature, she adds: "'As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same' (Heb. 2:14). He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent. He is declared to be a man, even the Man Christ Jesus."[34] "He did not have a mere semblance of a body, but He took human nature, participating in the life of humanity".[35] "He was not only made flesh, but He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh."[36]
Ellen White does not, as a rule, use symbolic or metaphorical language with a double meaning. The principle she expressed regarding the interpretation of biblical language applies likewise to her own: "The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed".[37] She wrote in plain language that means exactly what she wanted to say. This was all the more necessary with regard to the delicate and difficult topic of Christ's human nature.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Alternative Christology
Our evaluation would be incomplete if the basic concepts of the alternative Christology were not also submitted to a critical examination. On the one hand, this mediating position has the merit of reinforcing the postlapsarian position; but on the other hand, it perpetuates the chief error of the prelapsarian position by declaring Christ's human nature sinless.
Indeed, the supporters of the alternative Christology affirm, as did the pioneers, that Christ's humanity is not Adam's innocent humanity before the Fall. In order to accomplish the work of salvation for which the Father had sent Jesus in a flesh "like that of sin," it was necessary that He come in the humble form of a servant at His Incarnation, depicting servitude, subjection, subordination. He took a weakened human nature, not the perfect nature Adam had before he sinned."[38]
This position makes great strides in the direction of a return to the central truth of the gospel. But it still clings to the erroneous idea of the doctrine of original sin, according to which human beings are born sinners. Since Jesus cannot be allowed to inherit sin, He must be born with an impeccable nature. Thus, they say that Christ inherited only the weaknesses of human physical constitution, "the innocent infirmities": "Hunger, pain, weakness, sorrow, and death," but no "tendency to sin" or "sinful propensities".[39]
These conclusions mask several regrettable misunderstandings. The first involves the mission of Jesus. The purpose of the Incarnation was not to liberate humanity from all "innocent infirmities," but to deliver from indwelling sin which "brings me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members" (Rom. 7:23, KJV). It is to set us free from the slavery of sin that Jesus was sent in "the likeness of sinful flesh" and had to be "made like unto his brethren" (Heb. 2:17, KJV).
There is also a misunderstanding of certain terms, such as "inherent propensities" and "evil propensities." These expressions are not analogous in Ellen White. A propensity is a tendency, a bent, an enticement to temptation. If resisted, it is not sin. "Inherent propensities" become "evil propensities" only after yielding to temptation. Ellen White says, "Do not set Him [Christ] before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him. ... Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature. ... Not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.[40] Of course, "He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity, what are our wants, and where lies the strength of our temptations; for He was 'in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin' (Heb. 4:15)."[41]
Likewise, there is a misunderstanding between the expressions "evil tendencies" and "evil propensities." Ellen White makes a clear distinction between the two expressions. While she solemnly declares that Jesus never had "evil propensities",[42] she also affirms that He had to "meet and be subjected to all the evil tendencies to which man is heir working in every conceivable manner to destroy his faith."[43]
As William Hyde observe "although burdened by the weakness of fallen humanity, Jesus never allowed the tendencies and propensities of the human race to become evil propensities. He never permitted a human weakness to become a personal sin. Although He was tempted with sin, He never participated in sin, He never developed evil or sinful propensities."[44]
To justify the view that Jesus had a sinless human nature, Heppenstall affirmed that sin was not transmitted "by natural propagation." Being "a spiritual thing," sin itself cannot "be transmitted genetically."[45] If this were true, it should be valid for all mankind, which is clearly not the case. By declaring that Jesus was "born of woman, born under law" (Gal. 4:4) Paul confirms that Jesus inherited, as all men, "the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life".[46] The difference between Jesus and the rest of humanity does not come from the fact that all humans are sinners by heredity. They are sinners "because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12). Only Jesus never sinned, although He came "in the likeness of sinful flesh."
Obviously, Christ's ancestors possessed more than mere "innocent infirmities." Ellen White affirmed that "Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus, could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation."[47] "In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin."[48]
To explain this paradox, it is imperative that we free ourselves from the errors of the immaculate conception and of original sin. This is what we shall attempt to accomplish in the final chapter on the basis of Scripture.
Notes: