As we have studied the expressions of deep conviction on the part of our church administrators, editors, and other writers, as well as of the inspired messenger to the remnant church, that Christ came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man, we have seen that they were convinced that if Christ had not come in the human nature of fallen man,
1. He could not have truly understood us,
2. He could not have been our example,
3. He could not have been our substitute,
4. He could not have been our priest,
5. He could not have been our Saviour.
(These points will be examined more carefully in chapter 21.)
I have found no voice of dissent from these views. The consensus of opinion seems to be complete. (The bizarre experience of the Holy Flesh movement in Indiana, whose leaders taught briefly that Christ took the nature of the unfallen Adam, was in no sense the voice of the church.)
Although there is need for the findings of this paper to be verified by competent scholars, I feel that the total results of my research to this point are impressive and impelling.
Expressed in terms of quantity, we have seen approximately 400 statements by Ellen White, and not less than 800 statements by other writers that Christ came to the earth in the human nature of fallen man. Included among these are at least 20 statements firmly rejecting the idea that Christ came in the human nature of the unfallen Adam. The grand total would clearly exceed twelve hundred statements.
Expressed in terms of quality, it seems that the matter has been stated so clearly and in such a number of different ways that a misunderstanding of the purpose and intent of the writers would not be possible.
It is for these reasons that I report with unbounded astonishment the stunningly non-historical statement that follows, that brought the epoch of clarity to its close and inaugurated the epoch of confusion.
Adventists believe that Christ, the "Last Adam," possessed, on His human side, a nature like that of the "First Man Adam."[1]
(The first man Adam is of necessity the unfallen Adam.)
This statement by the respected editor of the Review and Herald is perplexing for two reasons. First, it appears to take our history into no account at all. Second, its context is difficult to understand. Elder Nichol wrote a two-part editorial that was published in the issues of July 10 and July 17, 1952, in reply to critics who had charged Adventists with error in teaching that Christ came in the sinful nature of man and that it was possible for Christ to sin. Over against this (apparently) they taught that Christ came with a sinless nature and that it was not possible for Him to sin.
The major part of Elder Nichol's defense of our views is focused on the question whether Christ could sin. He argues cogently that His temptations, as described in scripture, would not have been real if it had been impossible for Christ to sin.
But when he turns his attention to the question of the human nature of Christ, we encounter difficulties. The first part of his sentence, shown on the previous page, affirms in unmistakable terms that Christ took the nature of the first (unfallen) Adam. But the last half of the same sentence seems to retreat from this position:
Adventists believe that Christ, the "last Adam," possessed, on His human side, a nature like that of the "first man Adam," a nature free of any defiling taint of sin, but capable of responding to sin, and that that nature was handicapped by the debilitating effects of four thousand years of sin's inroads on man's body and nervous system and environment. (Emphasis mine.)
This puzzling statement seems to affirm that Christ had both the unfallen nature of the first Adam, and the nature weakened by four thousand years of sin. This creates questions in our minds. We recognize that mankind can have such an elongated experience, starting with the unfallen nature of Adam and slowly deteriorating through four thousand years of sin, until the time of the incarnation. But how can one individual have such an extenuated experience? Does not each individual, including Christ, have to enter the human race at a specific point in time, and, barring miraculous intervention of some kind, accept human nature as he finds it at that moment of history? How can one individual have the nature of the unfallen Adam, and yet that nature be deteriorated by four thousand years of sin?
Are we encountering here a suggestion that Christ actually had three natures instead of the two usually attributed to Him, the human and the Divine? Are we to understand that Christ had in His incarnation, (1) the nature of God, (2) the nature of the unfallen Adam, and (3) the nature of fallen man?
We are not greatly helped by enlarging the context to include the entire editorial. Elder Nichol quotes with approval the words of Paul, that God sent "His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," (Romans 8:3) and that Christ "took on Him the seed of Abraham." (Hebrews 2:14)
We might conclude from this that he is agreeing with the historic position of the Church in applying these scriptures to prove that Christ came in the nature of fallen man. But then, in two other statements he seems to affirm that Christ at least started with the unfallen nature of the first Adam. (The student will encounter this strange dialectical device again.)
Whatever mark we may feel inclined to give this editorial for lucidity and cogency, we cannot fail to recognize its historical significance. In so far as I have been able to discover, it is the first dissent from the testimony of our spiritual ancestors regarding the nature of Christ. But it was not the last. From this point on, the epoch of clarity, when the church spoke with a single voice on this subject, will be displaced by the epoch of confusion, when the church speaks with two voices.
A more sobering suggestion in Nichol's editorial, viewed in the light of subsequent events, is this:
In conclusion a word of counsel to some of our Adventist writers and speakers may be in order. ... When we speak of the taint of sin, the germs of sin, we should remember that we are using metaphorical language. Critics, especially those who see the Scriptures through Calvinistic eyes, read into the term "sinful flesh" something that Adventist theology does not require. Thus if we use the term "sinful flesh" in regard to Christ's human nature, as some of our writers have done, we lay ourselves open to misunderstanding.[2] (Emphasis mine.)
The implications of this counsel should be kept in mind as the student considers the later attempts made by some Adventists to present the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrine of Christ in such a way as to make it acceptable to Calvinistic theologians.
We could wish that all might have remembered that the Adventist writer who was foremost in applying the term "sinful flesh" to the human nature of Christ was Ellen White. And we could also wish that they might have remembered this counsel from the Lord's inspired messenger to the remnant Church:
There is to be no compromise with those who make void the Law of God. It is not safe to rely upon them as counsellors. Our testimony is not to be less decided now than formerly; our real position is not to be cloaked in order to please the world's great men. ... You are not to look to the world in order to learn what you shall write and publish or what you shall speak. [3]
Nichol's editorial in July, 1952, was, metaphorically speaking, the Alpha. The Omega was not slow to follow.
We must mention here, however, that Kenneth Wood, who was associate editor of the Review with Nichol, and succeeded him as editor, reports that in conversations and discussions Nichol always gave firm support to the view that Christ came to earth in the human nature of fallen man.[4] This would seem to indicate that he put the greater emphasis on the last part of his statement, while some of his readers put the greater emphasis on the first part.
This might also explain why Walter Martin states that after a certain point in his discussions with the Adventist group in Washington, Nichol was no longer permitted to take part in the proceedings.[5]
Notes: