Nature of Christ 2008e.jpg 


 

An Adventist reflects on the Nature of Christ in 2008

  

(by koot van wyk      Seoul    South Korea  23 November 2008)

 

To take off our shoes on this subject since it is holy ground is a good philosophy.

Why? Simply because we are not Christ and deal only with witnesses to Christ who wrote their  thoughts down under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

What they wrote about facets of the nature of Christ is reliable and should be read with  literalness in interpretation.

There are not four faces to the nature of Christ, Matthean, Markean, Lukean and Johannine.  They all witness to the same Christ from various angles. What separates them is incompleteness of observation and not contradiction of views. They all tell harmoniously the same story.

A major source of what is to follow is the insightful dissertation published as a book of this researcher's teacher at Helderberg College, dr. Eric Claude Webster, Crosscurrents in Adventist Christology (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1984). The position may not be necessarily that of Webster in everything that is said here, but his book is an excellent source on Christology and the Nature of Christ in Adventism. Anyone who has read his dissertation would agree that this jewel should have been picked up by Andrews Universities at least since the middle 1980's. However, none of my professors in the Theology Faculty of Helderberg College were ever called to Andrews University Seminary. Other departments like business, education, communication were called but not theology. A book like this makes one wonder.

 

TERMINOLOGY

 

A. human nature

The human nature that Christ took was not a fake human nature. It was a real human nature.

Says Ellen White: "Christ did not make-believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature" EGW Review and Herald April 5 1906.

 

(i) sinful human nature

"He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man" (EGW Signs of the Times May 29 1901 (see SDABC 7: 912).

EGW says that Christ took upon Himself sinful human nature and yet He never needed the purification of blood or of a mediator to make His prayers acceptable to the Father (EGW ms 50 1900 in SDABC 6: 1078 cited by Webster 1984: 125).

 

(ii) sinless human nature

In 1957 Questions on Doctrine on "Incarnation" (50-65) by L. E. Froom, W. Read and R. A. Anderson they tend to emphasize both (i and ii) as taken on by Christ. However, M. L. Andreasen reacted that they overemphasized that Jesus had (ii) (Webster 1984: 121 at footnote 218). That Froom was thinking of (ii) more than (i) is evidenced by his book Movement to Destiny 1971: 497 that Jesus took Adam's pre-fall nature (Webster 1984: 122 at footnote 218).

"We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ" EGW Signs of the Times June 9 1898 (see SDABC 5: 1131)

Reformed Tradition: Abraham Kuyper said: "This intimate union of the Son of God with the fallen human nature does not imply the least participation of our sin and guilt" (Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit [London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1900]: 84-85).

 

B. divine nature

Ellen White held to the divine nature of Christ. One of her presumed sources: Henry Melvill (1798-1871) also claimed the divinity of Christ.

E. J. Waggoner in Signs of the Times January 21 1889 claimed that "yet His divine nature never for one moment harboured an evil desire" (Webster 1984: 130 footnote 233). In 1980 R. J. Wieland in The 1888 Message: An Introduction (Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Association, 1980): 59-63 discussed the Baker Letter of Ellen White in 1895 written in Australia and claimed that she is also speaking like Waggoner of the divine nature of Christ. Webster (1984) is correct by indicating that Waggoner is speaking of the divine nature of Christ while Ellen White is speaking of the human nature of Christ. Wieland stands under correction here and Waggoner is making a non-essential statement since the divine nature of Christ is not an issue on the table from the start.

Says Ellen White: "Though He had humbled Himself to humanity, the Godhead was still His own" (EGW DA 663-664).

 

A. innocent infirmities

Henry Melvill (1798-1871) one of the sources from the library of Ellen White, held that one should distinguish between innocent infirmities and propensity to sin (Webster 1984: 127).

Innocent infirmities are characteristics such as hunger, pain, weakness, sorrow and death (according to Mellvill [1844] a source of EGW).

 

B. propensity to sin

Christ "possessing our nature, though unstained by sin" EGW "The Great Standard of Righteousness," Review and Herald May 7, 1901.

Henry Melvill said "..whilst he [Christ] took humanity with the innocent infirmities, he did not take it with the sinful propensities" (Melvill's Sermons by Henry Melville B.D. ed. C. P. McIlvaine [New York: Stanford & Swords, 1844]: 47 as cited by Webster 1984: 128 footnote 230).

Propensity to sin is a proneness or tendency to sin according to Melville (Melvil as cited by Webster 1984: 128).

Adam had not innocent infirmities nor a propensity to sin says Melvili (Webster 1984: 128). This is true but only in the pre-fall state. In the post-fall state he had both. We thus refer in our diagram to Adam 1 and Adam 2a. Adam 2a is the Adam unconverted and Adam 2b is the converted Adam.

Although the three students of Andrews University allocated a citation in this regard from Henry Melvill in 1844 for Ellen White to have presumably cited later than 1844, one of the participants, Tim Poirier wrote an essay one month earlier in April of 1982 actually saying that it is not proven that Ellen White did cite his words but that she might have just reflect independently her own conviction. They claim that of the 55 sermons of Melvill only 18 she did not taken ideas from (Webster 1984: 127).

Says Ellen White about the propensity to sin and Christ in the Baker Letter of 1895: "Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensity of sin" (EGW Letter 8 1885 in SDABC 5: 1128 cited by Webster 1984: 130). She continued to this Australian pastor W. L. H. Baker: "He could have sinned, He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity".

 

tendencies to evil

R. J. Wieland argued in 1980 that Ellen White tried to say that Christ had not the propensity to sin but that he could have had the tendency or inclinations to evil "Ellen White did not equate 'evil propensities' with 'tendencies' or 'inclinations' which all have as 'the results of the working of the great law of heredity' and which Christ 'took upon Himself' in His battle with temptation as we must fight it. She stated that Christ had 'to resist the inclination'" (Wieland 1980: 62-63 cited by Webster 1984: 132 footnote 236). Webster correctly pointed out that in the letter of 1899 she does not equate propensity to evil with tendency to evil. "There were no corrupt propensities or tendencies to evil" (EGW Letter 191 1899 in SDABC 1: 1083 cited by Webster 1984: 132).

 

corrupt fallen nature

"Never, in any way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that He in any way yielded to corruption" (EGW Letter 8 1895 in SDABC 5: 1128 cited by Webster 1984: 131).

 

infirmities and weaknesses of human nature

"He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities and was in all points tempted like as we are" EGW Signs of the Times June 9 1898 (see SDABC 5: 1131)

 

sinful flesh

When Ellen White uses this word, she wants to indicate that He could have died. She probably meant the affected human nature and not infected human nature.

Says Ellen White: "He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made in the likeness of sinful flesh, He lived a sinless life" EGW DA 311-312. The word "sinful flesh" in EGW vocabulary does not mean having a propensity to sin or having any sinful thoughts in Him.

 

results of 4000 years of sin

Desire of Ages by Ellen White indicates that Jesus took upon him a weak flesh of the results of sin of 4000 years. He experienced suffering, pain, anguish and all our emotions exactly like we do.

 

A. affected nature

"Christ took upon himself all the effects of sin without being infected by sin" (Webster 1984: 124).

The previous item that Christ took human weak flesh after 4000 years of the results of sin means that He was affected by sin but not infected by sin.

 

B. infected nature

"Christ had no inherent corruption" (SDABC 6: 1078 citing EGW ms 50 1900)

"In what consisted the strength of the assault made upon Adam, which caused his fall? It was not indwelling sin..." (EGW Letter 191 1899 in SDABC 1: 1083 cited by Webster 1984: 132).

 

A. homo-ousios     identity

These are two Greek words that are necessary for reading some texts in the Bible regarding the kind of nature Jesus took.

 

B. homoi-ousios    similarity

In this case one has to see Phillipians 2:7 and Hebrews 4:15 that are both using this word and not the previous one. The distinction is of utmost fundamental importance for a proper understanding as to the kind of human nature Jesus took.

"...but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be" (EGW Letter 8 1895 in SDABC 1129 cited by Webster 1984: 131).

 

A. hermeneutics of affirmation

Anyone who is supporting the Bible truths in a literal reading when literal demands it is doing hermeneutics of affirmation. The process is not only rationalistic but also spiritual and with faith. They resort to a faith based on a person and Scriptural facts or doctrines. Feelings is not the norm for the basis of their Christian life.

 

B. hermeneutics of suspicion

Anyone who is whining about the Bible truths and tries to change a literal reading when literal demands it into an allegorical reading is doing hermeneutics of suspicion. The process is not only rationalistic and fall short of spirituality or faith. They easily resort to a faith based on feeling for a person instead of faith based upon Scriptural doctrines or facts plus a person.

 

higher criticism of Ellen White

(Source, Redaction, Literary, Genre criticism of EGW)

A study that was done in this regard is that of Ron Graybill, Warren H. Johns and Tim Poirier, Henry Melville and Ellen White: A Study of Literary and Theological Relationships Ellen G. White Estate, Washington, D.C. May 1982. Johns recently (now 2008) graduated with his doctoral at Andrews. He is the son of the famous Semitic linguist Alger F. Johns who wrote the Aramaic Grammar.

 

A. sinful human being

View of some that Christ took post-fall human nature with same equipment but different performance (Webster 1984: 121) e.g. M. L. Andreasen (1957); Robert J. Wieland; Kenneth H. Wood (1976); Herbert E. Douglass and Thomas Davis (1979) (Webster 1984: 121 footnote 216).

 

B. sinless human being

"He is our brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil" EGW Testimonies 2: 201-202.

L. E. Froom Movement to Destiny 1976: 497 said that Christ took the sinless nature of Adam before the fall (Webster 1984: 122 footnote 218).

Holy flesh movement

 

 

A. fatalistic view of propensity to sin

 

B. latent view of propensity to sin

 

C. absent view of propensity to sin

 

 

A. perfection impossible (telic perfection [eschatological])

B. perfection every level (processional perfection)

C. perfection attainable (goal perfection [pre-telic] [pre-eschatological])

 

constant merits of Christ needed (SDABC 6: 1078 citing EGW ms 50 1900)

This seems to support the view of processional perfection although maybe all three views will claim this essential element in Christian sanctification.

 

Christ our Substitute

The Reformed tradition has a debate between 1950-2008 still ongoing whether the true aim of Jesus coming was to be our substitute or to be our example.

Christ was only one time a substitute and the absolute substitute that cancels all others or make all others a fake. There cannot be a vicar of Christ as a human. Only the Holy Spirit is the vicar of Christ.

It is not correct to emphasize Christ our Substitute to the extend of cancelling Christ our Example and vice versa. The apostle Paul seems to focus a lot on Christ our Substitute in the book of Romans but he did not cancel Christ our Example. It is wrong to polarize Christ our Substitute and Christ our Example. Both are biblical.

 

Christ our Example

The Reformed tradition has a current strong view that Christ came to be our example. In a pluralistic global push-drive they find themselves in the neo-liberal Reformed camp more comfortable to push for Christ our example since it means for them that Christ is no longer God and that he is just the best human. Thus, Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Jews and whoever can find a role-model in Him even if they do not believe in His divinity.

For Seventh Day Adventists Christ is our only Substitute and also our Example in Sanctification. Christ overcame Satan at all corners and that means also we can overcome Satan at all corners.

It is not correct to emphasize Christ our Example to the extend of cancelling Christ our Substitute.

The apostle James seems to focus a lot on Christ our Example in the book of James but he did not canc디 Christ our Substitute. It is wrong to polarize Christ our Substitute and Christ our Example. Both are biblical.