At the heart of the Christian faith is the affirmation that Christ, the Son of God, became man in order to be the Saviour of the world. Ellen White declared that "the humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden linked chain which binds our souls to Christ and through Christ to God. This is to be our study" (SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, 904). She also wrote:
In assuming humanity Christ took the part of every human being. He was the head of humanity. A Being divine and human, with His long human arm He could encircle humanity, while with His divine arm He could lay hold of the throne of the Infinite (Selected Messages, 1:252).
But mystery has always surrounded the coming of the Son of God in human flesh. We can never fully comprehend it, yet our finite minds must endeavor, within the limits of divine revelation, to grasp this central truth of our faith. For what Christ accomplished in His humanity is "everything to us," concerning our redemption—our justification, sanctification, and glorification.
If we are to appreciate the full significance of Christ's humanity to us, it is essential that we answer two vital questions concerning that humanity. First, "What was the primary purpose for which Christ was made flesh?" And second, "How did Christ, in His humanity, save mankind from sin?" Let's look at each question in turn.
What was the primary purpose for which Christ was made flesh? The answer to this question is the starting point of a true understanding of Christ's nature and of the incarnation. Within Adventism today, three answers are being given to this question. They are: (1) to prove human beings can keep God's law; (2) to be our example in sinless living; and (3) to redeem mankind from sin. Let us examine each of these three answers.
1. To prove human beings can keep Gods law. This answer is, of course, part of the "great controversy" doctrine, a unique understanding of Adventism. But in expounding this idea, many have often emphasized the letter of the law rather than its spirit. The result has been that a great number of God's people have failed to see the real issue in the great controversy. Instead, their understanding of the "great controversy" doctrine has led them into legalism.
The real issue between God and Satan in the great controversy is not so much a matter of obedience to the letter of the law as it is a battle between God's nature and character of agape love—a love that "does not seek its own" (1 Corinthians 13:5), and which is the law of His government (see 1 John 4:8, 16)—and the principle of self, introduced by Lucifer when iniquity entered his heart and he became Satan (see Ezekiel 28:15; Isaiah 14:12-14). Ellen White's opening and closing statements of her famous "Conflict of the Ages" series says it all:
"God is love." 1 John 4:16. His nature, His law, is love. It ever has been; it ever will be... Every manifestation of creative power is an expression of infinite love (Patriarchs and Prophets, 33).
The great controversy is ended. Sin and sinners are no more. The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation.... From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy, declare that God is love (The Great Controversy, 678).
Between these two sublime statements lies the great controversy between God, the Creator of the universe, and Satan, the originator of sin. This is the "Conflict of the Ages." So one reason Christ became a man was to manifest God's love, His glory, in human flesh (see John 1:14; 17:4). But the Bible does not present this as the primary reason Christ assumed our humanity.
Likewise, the fact that Christ perfectly kept the law in His humanity did prove that human beings, controlled by God's Spirit, can fully meet the law's demands, that is, fully reflect God's love (see Galatians 5:14; Revelation 14:12). But, again, the Bible does not teach that this is the primary reason Christ became a man.
2. To be our example in sinless living. This answer to the question of why Jesus became a man is the answer given by most of the independent ministries as they attempt to prepare God's people to stand in the final crisis "without a mediator." Of course, the Bible does point to Christ as our example (see 1 Peter 2:21; Philippians 2:5). However, as already pointed out in chapter 10, it does not present Him as the example for the whole human race, but only for believers who have accepted Him as their Saviour, who have experienced the "peace with God" that comes through justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and who are standing under the grace of God. To such, Christ's strength and power are made available because they have experienced the new birth (see 2 Corinthians 12:9; 2 Peter 1:1-4).
The independent ministries within Adventism that are presenting this answer to our question see themselves as standing against the "creeping compromise" that is infiltrating the church. But those who emphasize Christ as our Example, without first clearly presenting Him as the Saviour of the world, give the impression that they are teaching the "example theory" of the atonement—the idea that we are saved by following Christ's example rather than by what He did for us some 2,000 years ago. This is why they are often accused of the heresy of perfectionism or legalism (see, for example, "From Controversy to Crisis" by Kenneth Samples, Christian Research Journal, summer 1988, 9).
Again, although the Bible does present Christ as an example for born-again believers, it does not give this as the primary reason He assumed our humanity.
3. To redeem mankind 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. Scripture presents this as the primary reason the Son of God became a man (see Matthew 1:21; Galatians 4:4,5; Hebrews 2:14-17). Only to those who have first experienced that redemption, who have received Him as their Saviour, and who are basking in His righteousness as the only hope of their salvation—only to those, does Jesus stand in His humanity as an example.
Once we have established that the primary reason Christ became a man was to redeem fallen humanity from every aspect of sin, this leads us to the second important question raised above:
How did Christ, in His humanity, save mankind from sin? Christianity (and Adventism) have given two answers to this question: (1) Christ saved mankind "vicariously." (2) Christ saved mankind "in actuality." While the issue of vicarious and actual substitution was discussed in some detail in chapter six it deserves further attention here since each of these answers demands a different view on the human nature of Christ.
1. Christ saved mankind "vicariously." The word vicarious means "in the place of," or "one person acting in place of another." The Reformers in the sixteenth century believed that Christ saved mankind vicariously. So do most Evangelical Christians today. Most of those who hold this view teach that Christ took on the sinless human nature Adam had before the Fall. Here is their basic argument:
Sin, they say, is a dual problem. It is, first of all, a condition or a state of being. A sinful nature is, by definition, one that is indwelt by sin and that therefore stands condemned. So if Christ took on Himself the nature of Adam after the Fall—a nature that is indwelt by sin—He would have been a sinner Himself, even though He did not commit a single act of sin. Consequently, they argue, Christ had to assume a sinless human nature in order to vicariously substitute His sinless nature for our sinful nature which stands condemned. They insist that if Christ had taken our sinful nature as we know it, He would have needed a Saviour Himself.
Second, they say, sin is also an act, the transgression of the law. So the perfect life of Christ and His sacrificial death on the cross was the vicarious substitute for our sinful performance. Thus, according to this view, Christ's sinless human nature was the vicarious substitute for our sinful nature; His perfect performance, His doing and dying, was the vicarious substitute for our sinful performance. And on this basis, Christ redeemed mankind from sin (see diagram on page 73).
This is the traditional view of the Christian church, and it has been accepted by Adventism at large, especially by those who hold to the pre-Fall view of the human nature of Christ. But this vicarious view of how Christ saved mankind presents a twofold problem:
A. It makes the gospel unethical. No law, God's or man's, will allow guilt or righteousness to be transferred from one person to another. Therefore, those who teach "vicarious" substitution are rightly accused of teaching a "legal fiction" or a make-believe righteousness, an "as-if-passed-on righteousness." Osiender and Newman in the counter-reformation made these accusations against the idea of a vicarious substitution, as do Islamic scholars today.
For some Adventist scholars, too, these problems with the idea that Christ saved humanity by a vicarious substitution are becoming more of a real issue. So they are turning to a modified form of "the moral influence theory of the atonement" to answer the question: Why did Christ have to die? In The Remnant in Crisis, Dr. Jack Provonsha clearly rejects forensic justification as taught by the Reformation, charging that it is based on faulty Roman law (see pages 116-118). Incidentally, the "moral influence theory" is not heretical in what it teaches (that Christ died to influence us), since His death clearly does demonstrate God's love for sinners. Rather, it is heretical in what it denies (that Christ's death was legally essential for our justification).
How, then, do we answer the ethical problem created by the idea of a vicarious substitution as the basis for our salvation? How do we solve the ethical problem of an innocent man who died instead of sinful human beings?
All attempts to solve this ethical problem by saying such things as "Christ is above the law," or "it is ethical since He volunteered to die in man's stead as his Creator," are unacceptable. Not even God's law will allow sin to be transferred from the guilty to the innocent (see Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:1-20).
Yet, as we saw in chapter six, the idea of substitution is biblical. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ died "for us" and "in place of us." But the real question is: What qualified Him to die for us or instead of us?
Christ could die for us only if He assumed our self-same corporate humanity that needed redeeming. He had to be "made sin," "made under the law," before He could redeem humanity from the "curse of the law" (2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; 4:4, 5). Only when His humanity and our corporate humanity that needed redeeming are linked together, does Christ qualify to be the second Adam. Only then could he die for us or in our stead. This is the only context in which the substitution theory of the atonement becomes legally acceptable.
B. It very easily turns the gospel into cheap grace. This is the second problem with the "vicarious" view of how Christ redeemed mankind. If Christ did it all without having to identify Himself with us, if He lived and died instead of us without first assuming our sinful humanity that needed redeeming, then we can receive the blessings of His holy history without identifying ourselves with Him and Him crucified as true faith and baptism demand (see Galatians 2:19, 20; Romans 6:1-8; Colossians 2:11-13). We can be saved by a faith which is defined as a mere mental assent to truth. In short, the vicarious view can very easily turn the gospel into cheap grace.
The fruit of cheap grace has given Christianity a bad name and continues to be one of the reasons so many are turning their backs on Christ and accepting man-made religions, all of which teach salvation by works.
2. Christ saved mankind in actuality. This is the second answer Christianity (and Adventism) have given to the question of how Christ, in His humanity, has saved mankind from sin. This was the view presented in the 1888 message. Those who take this position generally teach the post-Fall view of the human nature of Christ. They argue that since Christ came to save fallen humanity, He had to assume the same fallen, sinful humanity that needed redeeming. Thus by identifying Himself in every way with our corporate, fallen humanity, Christ qualified Himself to be the second Adam; He was thus legally qualified to be our Substitute in His saving mission.
According to this view, Christ did not simply live a perfect life in our place; He did not simply die instead of us. Rather, His doing and dying, His perfect life and sacrificial death, actually changed mankind's history. All humanity was legally justified at the cross because all humanity was in Christ. When He lived a perfect life, all humanity lived a perfect life in Him. When He died, all humanity died in Him. This is very different than defining the gospel as only a provisional salvation, as do those who teach the vicarious view of substitution.
The concept of substitutionary atonement presently taught by evangelical Christianity, as well as within Adventism, does not take us far enough in understanding the profound truth of the atonement, especially as taught by the apostle Paul. Substitution, generally understood, is an exchanged experience. I once read of a woman who died under the wheels of a bus, saving the life of a child; her death can truly be described as substitutionary, since she died in order that the child might live. But this definition of substitution is inadequate when it comes to explaining the true meaning of the atonement. It is for this reason, I believe, the word substitute is not used in the Bible to explain the atonement.
Christ did not die so that in exchange we might live; rather He died and rose as us in order that we might by faith share in His death and resurrection. By assuming our corporate sinful condemned humanity that needed redeeming Christ was made sin, what we are, in order that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (see 2 Corinthians 5:21). As the second Adam (mankind) Christ took our place and died our death in order that we might be identified with Him, both in His death and resurrection. This is what our baptism was all about (see Romans 6:3-11).
This is where vicarious substitution and actual substitution part company. The former teaches an exchanged experience; while the latter teaches a shared experience. Only when we by faith identify ourselves with the cross of Christ does the gospel become the power of God unto salvation in our lives (see Galatians 2:20; 6:14). This is the true significance of baptism by immersion which saves (see Mark 16:15, 16).
But this actual substitution does not mean that all humanity is automatically saved experientially. This is the heresy of universalism. This legal justification is God's supreme gift to mankind (see John 3:16). In addition, God created human beings with a free will (see Acts 5:3, 4). His supreme gift demands a human response in order for it to be made effective (see Romans 5:17). That necessary response is faith. Justification by faith is making effective in the life of the believer the legal justification Christ achieved for all mankind by His actual substitution.
In this view, faith becomes more than a mere mental assent to the truth of the gospel. It is a heart-felt appreciation for what God did to us and for us in Christ. That appreciation, in turn, demands obedience, a total surrender of the will, to the truth as it is in Christ (see Romans 1:5; 6:17; 10:16; Galatians 5:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8). Such obedience of faith is the basis of true holy living, the fruits of justification by faith (see Galatians 2:20, Romans 6:10-13).
According to the apostle Paul, baptism, which is the believer's outward confession of his or her faith-obedience to the gospel, is always "into Christ" (see Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). He means that by this act, the believer is confessing what Paul expresses in these words: "In him [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Colossians 2:11, 12, NIV).
Clearly, this subjective experience of salvation is based on what God actually did to humanity in Christ. Our corporate, sinful nature that Christ assumed at the incarnation, was put off at the cross and replaced by the righteous life of Christ in the resurrection. This certainly could not have been done vicariously. This is what righteousness by faith is all about—"not I, but Christ," the fruits of which is holiness of living.
However, those holding the "vicarious" view make a serious charge against this idea that Christ saved mankind in actuality. They insist that if Christ fully identified Himself with our sinful human nature—which they believe stands condemned under sin—then we are dragging Christ into sin and making Him a sinner like us and in need of a Saviour Himself.
Note how William G. Johnsson, editor of The Adventist Review, put it:
In a penetrating analysis, Paul describes sin as a force, an indwelling principle, a state—'sin living in me' (Romans 7:14-20). So not only are our acts sinful; our very nature is at war with God....
Did Jesus have such a nature? ... No. If He had, He would Himself need a Saviour (The Adventist Review, August 26,1993).
This serious charge deserves an answer. Johnsson is correct in defining sin as "an indwelling principle" and not merely sinful acts. Paul clearly teaches that our sinful human nature is indwelt by sin (see Romans 7:17,20,23) and that therefore we are "by nature children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). Yet the Bible also clearly teaches that Christ assumed the same flesh as that of the human race He came to redeem (see Hebrews 2:14-17). So how do we solve the problem the Adventist Review editor raises?
The correct solution is not to water down Christ's full identification with the sinful race He came to redeem. Nor is the solution to undermine the sin problem, limiting it only to a choice or an act, as do some who teach the post-Fall view of the human nature of Christ. Instead, the solution lies in taking note of the qualifying word used by the New Testament writers when they refer to the humanity of Christ.
The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14, KJV).
When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law (Galatians 4:4, KJV).
He [God] hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:21, KJV).
These three key texts that refer to the humanity of Christ all use the word made in reference to the human nature of Christ. What does this word, made, mean?
The Greek words translated in these texts as made mean "to become." When Christ became a man, He actually became what He was not. The sinful nature He assumed was not His by native right, but something He took upon Himself, or assumed, or was made to be. He did this in order to redeem that sinful nature. Ellen White says, "He [Christ] took upon His sinless [divine] nature our sinful [human] nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted" {Medical Ministry, 181). The words took part (Hebrews 2:14) and the word likeness (Romans 8:3) carry the same connotation as the word made.
Had Christ consented to the sinful desires of that nature which He assumed, even by a thought, then He would have become a sinner in need of a Saviour Himself. That is why it must be stressed, as did Waggoner and Jones in the 1888 message, that in dealing with the human nature of Christ we must be "exceedingly careful" not to drag His mind or His will into sin, or say that He "had" a sinful nature. I believe this is the reason Ellen White condemned Baker for his views on the human nature of Christ. Apparently, this evangelist from "down under" was making Christ "altogether like us." Ellen White told him that this can never be. Christ was God who was "made flesh" in order that He could qualify to be the Saviour of the world. He fully identified Himself with our sin problem, but He did not in any way participate in our sin, not even by a thought (see Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:15; 1 Peter 4:1, 2).
The fact is that Christ did actually assume our condemned, sinful nature— the nature that "is enmity against God" and "not subject to the law of God" (Romans 8:7). But, in His case, He totally defeated "the law of sin and death" (verse 2) that resided in that sinful human nature, and then He executed that condemned nature on the cross. As we saw in chapter 9, this is Paul's main thought in Romans 8:1-3, which is his explanation of Romans 7:24, 25.
By assuming our corporate, sinful humanity at the incarnation, Christ was qualified to be the second Adam, the second head and representative of mankind (the word Adam in Hebrew means "mankind"). Thus in His doing and dying as our Substitute, He wrought out a redemption that was full and complete for all humanity (see 1 Corinthians 1:30, 31; Ephesians 1:3-6). This is the good news of the gospel.
But in identifying Himself with fallen humanity, He also demonstrated that man, as he is after the Fall, born and controlled by God's Spirit, can live a life of total obedience to the law of love (see 1 Corinthians 13). This is why the New Testament presents Christ also as the believer's Example. Such a life of complete obedience should be the hope and goal of Christian living (see John 13:34, 35). This was the emphasis of the 1888 message.
We may therefore conclude that the primary purpose of the Incarnation was to qualify Christ to be the second Adam, so that He could lawfully substitute Himself for, and represent, fallen mankind in His redemptive work. The secondary purpose for which He assumed our fallen humanity was to become the believer's Example and Surety in restoring God's image in man. This is the twofold purpose of the Incarnation we must keep in mind as we examine the humanity of Christ.
Key Points in Chapter Twelve The Significance of Christ's Humanity to Us