What difference does it make whether Christ took the fallen nature of man or the unfallen nature of Adam?
This question was answered insightfully by Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century. He was looking at a different question about the nature of Christ than the one before us, but in responding to it he stated a principle that applies to both questions:
That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.[1]
From his time until now there have been witnesses to the belief that Christ came in the fallen nature of man, and the majority of them have seen it in the same perspective that Gregory did.
The student will find a convenient historical presentation of these witnesses in Harry Johnson's The Humanity of the Saviour, London: The Epworth Press, 1962 . We pause here only to note that the list includes some leading theologians of modern times, such as : Karl Barth, J. A. T. Robinson, T. F. Torrance, Nels F. S. Ferre, C. E. B. Cranfield, Harold Roberts, Leslie Newbegin, Rudolf Bultmann, Oscar Cullman, and Anders Nygren. We should not, therefore, conclude that our spiritual ancestors held to the view that Christ took the fallen nature of man because they were not very bright. Several of the men in the list above are regarded today as intellectual giants.
Neither can we dismiss it as a minority view. The names presented in Section Three include General Conference Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Secretaries, Union Presidents, Review Editors, including Uriah Smith, Lewellyn Wilcox, and, yes, Francis Nichol, and editors of the Signs. They were Adventist's first line of leadership.
And they believed, as Gregory believed,
That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.
As they saw it, if Christ had not come in the nature of fallen man,
1. He could not have truly understood us.
(He) took our nature that He might understand how to sympathize with our frailty.[2]
He took our nature upon Him that He might become acquainted with our trials and sorrows, and, knowing all our experiences, He stands as Mediator and Intercessor before the Father.[3]
An angel would not have known how to sympathize with fallen man, but ... Jesus can be touched with all our infirmities.[4]
Jesus clothed His divinity with humanity that He might have an experience in all that pertains to human life.[5]
It is apparent that no one living in the nature of the unfallen Adam could truly experience what we experience. Thus it was believed that it was necessary for Christ to come in our fallen nature that He might truly understand us.
2. He could not have been our example in victorious Christian living.
Jesus took upon Himself man's nature, that He might leave a pattern for humanity ... our fallen nature must be purified. [6]
He demonstrated the power of righteousness over sin, in sinful flesh.[7]
And as Jesus was in human flesh so God means His followers to be.[8]
He came in the likeness of sinful flesh to demonstrate before all parties in the controversy that it was possible for men in the flesh to keep the law.[9]
As (man) grasps the truth that there actually lived upon this earth One possessed of the same nature as himself, who "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," he realizes that there is hope for him.[10]
In the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh.[11]
3. He could not have been our substitute-sacrifice.
Christ became sin for the fallen race.[12]
Christ humiliated Himself to humanity, and took upon Himself our nature, that ... He might become a stepping stone to fallen men.[13]
The highest gift that heaven could bestow was given to ransom fallen humanity.[14]
The Divine Son of God, who had ... come from heaven and assumed their fallen nature ... to unite the fallen race with Himself.[15]
He consented to become fallen man's substitute and surety.[16] Had He not been fully human, Christ could not have been our substitute.[17]
4. He could not be our Priest--Mediator.
He took our nature upon Him ... and knowing all our experiences, He stands as Mediator and Intercessor before the Father.[18]
(Jesus) is the "Days-man" between a Holy God and our sinful humanity,--one who can "lay His hand upon us both."[19]
The Son of God was made in the likeness of sinful men, that He might be a merciful High Priest.[20]
With His human arm Christ encircles the fallen race, and with His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Infinite.[21]
Thus Christ from eternity was made the connecting link between the heaven (sic) and the fallen race.[22]
He ... clothed His divinity with humanity ... that divinity might lay hold of the power of God in behalf of the fallen race.[23]
Jesus was God acting in sinful flesh on behalf of the sinner.[24]
By assuming sinful flesh ... Jesus ... made it possible for Him to minister to sinful flesh.[25]
None but a human being--made in the likeness of sinful flesh--could serve as a Mediator on behalf of sinful men.[26]
He could not be a priest until He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.[27]
5. He could not have been our Saviour-Redeemer.
From the fallen race itself must arise the Deliverer ... the Son of God ... stood, not where Adam stood before the fall, but where man stands today.[28]
Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.[29]
Through His humiliation and poverty, Christ would identify Himself with the weakness of the fallen race. ... The great work of redemption could be carried out only by the Redeemer taking the place of fallen Adam. ... The King of Glory proposed to humble Himself to fallen humanity.[30]
This was the only way in which fallen men could be exalted. ... It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man.[31]
It was necessary for Christ to clothe His Divinity with Humanity. Only thus could He become the Redeemer of the fallen race.[32]
Whoever would save man must put himself in man's place. He must be subject to the same tendency ... to sin ... as man.[33]
But to be man's Redeemer, the Creator must become man. He must come in "the likeness of sinful flesh." (Romans 8 :3)[34]
In order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was.[35]
It is abundantly clear, then, that our spiritual ancestors agreed heartily with Gregory of Naziansus who said:
That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.
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. Thus Christians of the Arminian-Wesleyan heritage, including Seventh-day Adventists, have believed that Christ obeyed God's law in the flesh (and nature) of fallen man in order to show that we, by exercising the same faith and God-dependency that He exercised, can do the very same thing.
Christians of the Calvinistic heritage, on the other hand, have believed that since Christ came in the nature of the unfallen Adam, His obedience to God's law did not indicate that we can, even through faith and God dependency, do the very same thing. They maintain steadfastly that man can never, by any means, stop sinning while this life lasts. As they see it, God will by some kind of miracle make them so that they will never sin again at the moment when He takes them into the Kingdom. This is a concept against which Ellen White issued strong warnings:
The characters formed in this life will determine the future destiny . When Christ shall come, He will not change the character of any individual.[36]
(Satan) is constantly seeking to deceive the followers of Christ with His fatal sophistry that it is impossible for them to overcome.[37]
Let no one say, I cannot remedy my defects of character. If you come to this decision, you will certainly fail of obtaining everlasting life. [38]
It should be no great surprise to us, then, when we observe that within a very short time, as theological trends go, the appearance among Seventh-day Adventists of the Calvinistic idea that Christ took the unfallen nature of Adam was followed by the appearance among us of the Calvinistic idea that it is impossible for man to stop sinning. Cause and effect are as inexorable in theology as in any other field.
So let us close this section with an appeal for someone to write a doctoral dissertation on the Christological-Soteriological Co-relationships in the writings of Ellen White. There is much more than enough available material. Her classic statement, which appears in so many places that I despaired of counting them, goes like this:
The majesty (King, Prince, Commander) of Heaven left (stepped down from) His royal throne, and laying aside (divesting Himself of, removing, etc.) His royal robes, clothed (garbed, veiled, covered, etc.) His divinity with humanity (often fallen humanity) and gave perfect obedience to God's Holy Law, in order to show (demonstrate, prove, etc.) that fallen man, by using the same methods that He used (faith, trust, God-dependency) can do the very same thing.
So what difference does it make whether Christ came in the unfallen nature of Adam or in the fallen nature of man?
It makes all the difference, my friend.
That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.
The unavoidable linkage between the nature of Christ and the saving work of Christ is conceded by persons on virtually all sides of the present discussion. Witness the following prediction, that was written in the year 1964, by--are you ready for this?--Robert Brinsmead:
Those who teach that Christ took a superior human nature draw the logical conclusion that it is impossible for the rest of mankind to perfectly obey the law of Jehovah in this life ... Those who accept this "new view" of the Incarnation, logically take the side of Satan in the great controversy over the law, claiming that God has not made provision for us to perfectly obey it. If God's people accept this delusion, then there will be no third angel's message, no sealing of the saints, no finishing of the mystery of God, no cleansing of the sanctuary, no community of the saints prepared to live without a mediator, no first fruits of the harvest, and no people ready for translation - at least as far as they are concerned.
Ellen G. White saw that God had three steps to the platform of truth (EW 258). Satan has three steps down from the platform. The first step is the teaching that Christ took the human nature of man as it was before the Fall. This leads to the second step--to the teaching that man cannot find grace to perfectly obey the law of God in this life. This will inevitably lead to the third step--giving up the Sabbath. This last step must logically follow the original premise, for if it be conceded that we cannot obey all the law all the time, then there is no point in the Sabbath being a test question.[39]
We should not leave this topic without directing the student's attention again to the testimony of Jones and Waggoner, the leaders of the Righteousness By Faith emphasis in the General Conference of 1888. They, with Prescott, surpassed many of their contemporaries in the depth and clarity of their convictions about salvation through the righteousness of Christ.
They were no less emphatic and eloquent in their teaching that our Lord came to this earth in the human nature of fallen man. The intimate connection between the nature of Christ and the saving work of Christ was clearly perceived and forcefully taught by all three of these stalwarts of Adventist history.
The same would appear to be true of virtually all of those who wrote for our journals. While there must have been men in the field who were characterized by Ellen White's lament:
You have preached the law without Christ until our spirits are as dry as the hills of Gilboa,
we have found no evidence that these persons did any writing for our church papers.
Some have applied this statement in sweeping generalizations which seem to ascribe this deficiency to our entire church. I would urgently recommend that all such persons spend a few hours in the archives, where we have spent many days. I think they would emerge with a greatly enhanced understanding of the faith of our fathers, and a deeper appreciation and respect for their accomplishments.
The bright gospel light of righteousness by faith in Christ shines forth from those pages with undimmed luster, and in all of our research we failed to find a single article to which Ellen White's "Hills of Gilboa" description would apply.
Our conclusion is that those who glibly describe our early church as "legalistic" have not had the privilege of examining the published evidence.
Notes: