It is because of the great misunderstanding of the nature of sin of the previous chapter that we find such confusion on the subject of the nature of Christ. For if one believes that man is guilty and condemned because of the nature with which he was born, then it would be impossible for Jesus to have taken our nature, for He would have been guilty of sin simply by being born into the human family.
It is because of this erroneous understanding of sin that the Catholic Church invented the teaching of the immaculate conception. This doctrine teaches that Mary, not Jesus, was immaculately conceived without sin. For if Jesus had been born of a fallen, sinful woman, He would have inherited her fallen nature, and that nature would have made Him guilty of sin and unable to keep from sinning. Thus, the necessity of His having a mother with an unfallen nature, free from the taint of sin.
The vast majority of all Protestants totally reject this great error realizing that when carried to its logical conclusion, one would have to affirm that if Mary had an unfallen nature, the same would have had to be true of her mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and so on back to the time of Eve. Then they would be forced to say there was never a fall.
However, because of their misunderstanding of the nature of sin, that same vast majority, including many Seventh-day Adventists, have also said that Jesus could not have taken upon Himself our fallen nature, for if He had, He, too, would have had to commit sin. Thus, while rejecting the immaculate conception, they nonetheless claim that Jesus could not have taken the fallen nature of His mother. And in order to find a solution to their dilemma, they have gone past His mother to His earliest earthly ancestor and triumphantly declare, "He inherited the unfallen nature of Adam."
Now remember, if we believe that man bears the guilt of Adam's sin, then Jesus would have, of necessity, had to have Adam's nature before the fall, but if it is only the result of Adam's sin that we bear, then Jesus could have taken our fallen nature. So, as we can see, before one can begin to understand the human nature of Christ, it is first necessary to understand the nature of sin.
With the above thoughts in mind, there are several questions that have become issues and which demand answers.
- Did Jesus become a real man or not?
- Was He some sort of superman?
- Did He have powers to live a righteous life that you and I do not have available to us?
- Did He really take upon Himself "the likeness of sinful flesh"?
Our understanding of these questions is vital to our understanding of sanctification and the victory we can have through Jesus Christ to overcome sin in our lives. Ever since the fall, Satan has charged that human beings could not live without sin, and he still speaks to and through many today to make the same accusations.
It was nearly 2000 years ago that Jesus came to prove Satan a liar and a voice was heard in heaven declaring: "a body hast thou prepared me. ... Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God" (Hebrews 10:5, 9). The Apostle John declared: "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). Did he really mean what he said? Did Jesus really become flesh or was this merely a metaphorical musing? In the early centuries of the Christian church, there was a sect known as Docetists (derived from the Greek word meaning "to seem") who taught that it was not possible for Jesus to have actually become flesh, for if He had, He would have, as a natural consequence, been evil Himself and not a sinless person. Since they believed that the flesh itself was evil, they could not accept what John said, but rather attempted to make John say what they believed -- that is, Jesus only appeared or seemed to have become flesh.
Do you believe the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy are trustworthy, accurate accounts from God, or should portions of it be re-written? Did God speak through the prophets to give us information that is reliable, or must we add or delete words in order to make inspiration fit our preconceived ideas?
What does it mean when it says He became flesh? What kind of baby was it that was born in that stable? Had He really come to set us an example? Was He really made like us? If not, could He truly be our example? These are questions we shall seek to find answers to and shall begin by exploring some very significant statements.
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Hebrews 2:14-17). Jesus was, without question, "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3). He took part of the "same" flesh; it was not the "nature of angels," but the "seed of Abraham" (not Adam), and in "all things" He was "made like unto His brethren." Can we believe this or not? Does being in this flesh make us guilty of sin? It is not being born of the flesh that condemns us, but rather it is walking after the flesh that brings condemnation.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Romans 8:1-4).
Never, ever, should we doubt the perfect sinlessness of our Saviour. Never once did He choose to transgress the will of God. Neither should we ever doubt the word of God when it says, Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh." To doubt or reject this Bible doctrine is to partake of the very spirit of antichrist. John warns believers: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (1 John 4:3). The Greek word here translated "flesh" is "sarx" and never once is it used to refer to sinless flesh, but always refers to flesh that has been touched by the fall.
For years there have been two schools of thought as to what nature Christ took while in His human form. Was it the nature of Adam before the fall, or was it man's fallen nature? Now remember, if we believe that man bears the guilt of Adam's sin, then Jesus would have, of necessity, had to have taken Adam's nature before the fall, because He was guilty of no sin. Yet, if it is only the results of Adam's sin we bear, then Jesus could have come with our fallen human nature.
Several years ago I heard a very dedicated and well respected minister speak on this subject at a camp-meeting in Oklahoma. This dear brother gave the clearest, most forthright and honest presentation I had ever heard from a General Conference leader. He clearly detailed how, when he was a young man, every minister in the Seventh-day Adventist Church preached that Jesus had taken upon Himself the fallen nature of Adam, that every school within the denomination had taught this doctrine, and that all of our publishing houses printed material advocating this position. He then went on to tell how in the 1950s we entered into dialogue with the evangelicals and this resulted in a "new teaching" within Adventism, so that today we have "two camps within the Adventist Church, prelapsarianism and postlapsarianism, those who believe that Jesus took the nature of Adam before the fall and those who believe He took man's nature after the fall." I was truly excited to hear this man so openly and honestly present this historical truth, but was sorely disappointed as he concluded his message by stating: "I want to tell you brethren today, it makes no difference which of these two beliefs you choose to accept." As soon as he left the platform, I went to him in the side chamber and asked: "My brother, how could you present such a powerful and forthright message on the history of the human nature of Christ, and then tell the people that it does not matter whether they believe the Bible doctrine held by this church for nearly 150 years or a new teaching which quietly crept into its midst through evangelical encounters." His startling response was: "Joe, you must understand that this is a peripheral truth and really doesn't matter." I still do not understand today how anyone can claim that what is declared to be the truth of God's word can be called "peripheral," and thus, so valueless that it can be discarded as so much debris. And who is it that has either the audacity or authority to decide what truth is to be retained and what is to be rejected? Is this not what the mainline churches of today say about the Sabbath of the fourth commandment?
As far back as 1900, this question had arisen during the "Holy Flesh" movement. In a letter written to Ellen White in September of that year, Elder S. N. Haskell stated, "We believed that Christ was born in fallen humanity." He then went on to say that "They [the Holy Flesh movement] believe that Christ took Adam's nature before the fall." Which of them was right, the church or the faction within the church? Three years prior to this, the Lord had already informed His people that "The human nature of Christ was like unto ours."[1] Who was right, Elder Haskell and Ellen White or the false and fanatical movement within the church?
Notice what the position of the Prophet of the Lord and His Remnant Church have always been.
"It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life."[2]
"Notwithstanding that the sins of a guilty world were laid upon Christ, notwithstanding the humiliation of taking upon Himself our fallen nature, the voice from heaven declared Him to be the Son of the Eternal."[3]
"In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses' (Matt. 8:17). He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He knew no sin."[4]
"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. ... It was not thus with Jesus. ... 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. ... Our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured."[5]
When Jesus came to this earth "in the likeness of sinful flesh," He "made himself of no reputation [emptied Himself], and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7). What did Jesus have to empty Himself of, when He took upon His divine nature our fallen human nature?
The first thing Jesus had to lay aside was His omnipotence or His all-powerfulness. Repeatedly, He declared: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself," "I can of mine own self do nothing," "I do nothing of myself" (John 5:19, 30; 8:28). Jesus was totally, wholly dependant upon the power of the Father working through Him to do what He did. "He rested not in the possession of almighty power. It was not as the 'Master of earth and sea and sky' that He reposed in quiet. That power He had laid down, and He says, 'I can of Mine own self do nothing.' (John 5:30). He trusted in the Father's might."[6] He had laid aside His divine power and now rested solely in the keeping power of His Father.
In addition to laying aside His omnipotence when becoming man, Jesus also emptied Himself of His omniscience or the ability to know all things. This is why, when speaking of His second coming, He said, "of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark 13:32). The only things Jesus knew of the future were those revealed to Him by the Father. Neither could Jesus, in the darkness of the cross, see beyond the tomb and cried out in agony, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
As an infant through manhood, Jesus had to learn as we do. He had to learn how to walk, talk, read, write, and everything else in life. Imagine Him as a toddler in the fields with Mary, learning at His mother's knee. Picture Him as He comes running to her with a small bunch of wild flowers in His chubby little fists and says, "Here Mommy these are for you. They sure are pretty, what are they?" He had made them; He was the Creator, yet He did not know. And perhaps as they were talking, an eagle soars overhead and as its shrill screech pierces the solitude, little Jesus grabs His mother's skirt and in surprise says, "Mommy, what is that?" He was the Creator, "all things were made by him" (John 1:3), and yet He had laid aside His divine powers, gave back the scepter into the Father's hand, and started as we start, knowing nothing and having to learn it all. And "since He gained knowledge as we may do, His intimate acquaintance with Scriptures shows how diligently His early years were given to the study of God's word."[7]
While on this earth Jesus remained submissive to the Father's will, allowing Him to work out His will in Him. He openly proclaimed that He "came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (John 6:38). This is why, in Gethsemane, He cried out: "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" and "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done" (Matthew 26:39, 42). If we follow Jesus' example of "not my will," we can stay in the Spirit and choose right even when we don't feel like it. Jesus was able to live the life He did in "the likeness of sinful flesh," because He kept His will submissive to the will of the Father, allowing Him to work in and through Him.
The third thing Jesus emptied Himself of when He took our humanity was His omnipresence. He could not be everywhere at once while confined in a human body. This is why He said, "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (John 16:7). Many do not realize the extent of the sacrifice of the Son of God in "emptying Himself" of His omnipresence, for this He has laid aside for all eternity. He carried back into heaven, in a glorified form, our humanity, never to be omnipresent again. "'God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.' He gave Him not only to live among men, to bear their sins, and die their sacrifice. He gave Him to the fallen race. Christ was to identify Himself with the interests and needs of humanity. He who was one with God has linked Himself with the children of men by ties that are never to be broken. Jesus is 'not ashamed to call them brethren'; He is our Sacrifice, our Advocate, our Brother, bearing our human form before the Father's throne, and through eternal ages one with the race He has redeemed, -- the Son of man."[8]
Jesus became a real person. He bore the results of Adam's sin, but not the guilt. He also "was in all points tempted like as we are" (Hebrews 4:15). He was born of the flesh as we are born of the flesh, but it is not the flesh that condemns us, rather it is the walking "after the flesh" that brings condemnation (Romans 8:1-4). It is here that we find the secret of our success.
"In our conclusions, 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 is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity."[9] Remember, the sinless nature of Adam is not a power that is possible for us to have in our conflict with Satan.
Notice the absolute clarity of these statements. "He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God."[10] "He overcame in human nature relying upon God for power."[11] "With the same facilities that man may obtain, (Jesus) withstood the temptations of Satan as man must withstand them."[12] "The obedience of Christ to His Father was the same obedience that is required of man. ... The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what a God could do, but what a man could do, through faith in God's power to help in every emergency ... Jesus, the world's Redeemer, could only keep the commandments of God in the same way that humanity can keep them."[13] "Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was."[14] Is this true? Can we demonstrate in our lives the perfect obedience of Christ? Dear reader, believe it, for God said it, and God cannot lie. If we believe that sin is by choice (and we have seen that this is true), then we must also believe that we can choose not to sin. If Jesus overcame the promptings of His human nature by being in subjection to the Father's will and controlled by the Holy Spirit, then this same method of victory is available to each of us by faith. However, the important thing to keep ever before us is that the issue is never what we can do, but rather what God can do in us. "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
The reason Christ took upon Him our nature is that we might become partakers of His divine nature. His word declares: "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" (2 Peter 1:3, 4). "It is the privilege of every believer in Christ to possess Christ's nature, a nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression."[15]
Notes:
- Signs of the Times, December 9, 1897.
- White, The Desire of Ages, p. 49.
- Ibid., p. 112.
- White, Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 256.
- White, The Desire of Ages, p. 117.
- Ibid., p. 336.
- Ibid., p. 70.
- White, Steps to Christ, p. 14.
- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 929.
- White, The Desire of Ages, p. 24.
- The Youth Instructor April 25, 1901.
- White, Selected Messages, Vol. 2, p. 252.
- Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 929.
- White, The Desire of Ages, p. 664.
- White, The Upward Look, p. 170.