|
The Incarnation: As we approach the study of these sacred topics, it would be well to remember the words of Jesus: At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. (Matthew 18:1-5) If we expect to be instructed in spiritual things by God’s spirit, we must be willing to be taught. How true it is that “The sin that is most nearly hopeless and incurable is pride of opinion, self-conceit. This stands in the way of all growth.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 7, pp. 199, 200) If we wish to understand God’s truth, we must come with an open mind, willing to learn. “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.”(Isaiah 57:15) During the last half of this century, the topic of the incarnation of Jesus Christ has been extremely controversial within Adventism. We do not venture upon this examination to inflame these differences, but rather, with the purpose of bringing unity for those who really desire truth. The pioneers of this movement were very united concerning the teaching of the incarnation. The position of the pioneers was united and clear. They believed that Jesus accepted the working of the law of heredity and took upon Himself the fallen nature of man, defiled and degraded after 4,000 years of sin. Their understanding was published in the first Statement of Beliefs the church issued in 1872 as follows: That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice .... (A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by Seventh-day Adventists, Steam Press, Battle Creek, Mich., 1872, statement No. II) The history of the doctrine of the incarnation in the Adventist Church has been well documented. Two works stand out as being of special importance. First, An Interpretive History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, written by Elder William Grotheer. Secondly, Dr. Ralph Larson’s book, The Word was Made Flesh. Grotheer’s work of 105 pages gives an accurate and logical picture of the development of the doctrine of the incarnation from the beginning of our experience as a people to the time of the publication date of 1972. Larson’s larger (365 pages) and more current work (1986) chronicles “one hundred years of Seventh-day Adventist Christology.” (p. iii) Our goal will not be to reproduce all their work or the works of others, but to give a small sampling of the beliefs of the church on this subject. James White Let us begin with noting first the thoughts of Elder James White who served the church in many capacities such as: General Conference President, and editor of both The Review and Herald and The Signs of the Times. Elder White wrote: “... Christ, enfeebled with our nature ... enfeebled by the seed of Abraham ... takes upon Himself the weakness of the seed of Abraham, that He might reach those who are enfeebled by transgression.” (Review & Herald, Nov. 29, 1877) Uriah Smith “...He humbled Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, by consenting to take the fashion of puny, mortal, sinful man. In the likeness of sinful flesh, He reached down to the very depths of man’s fallen condition, and became obedient unto death, even the ignominious death of the cross.” (Looking Unto Jesus, p. 23) J. H. Waggoner “And he left that throne of glory and of power and took upon him the nature of fallen man. In him were blended ‘the brightness of the Father’s glory’ and the weakness of the ‘seed of Abraham.’” (The Atonement, p. 161) Stephen N. Haskell “Christ came the first time, clothed with humanity, taking not upon Himself the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham, that He might be made, like ourselves, subject to temptation, pain, and death, that by His connection with humanity He might sympathize with His fallen creatures.” (The Bible Echo, March 15, 1889) While these four men just cited were “first generation” Adventists, two “second generation” Adventists deserve notice due to the special calling they received. Elders A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner were two men that inspiration states were called of God. The Lord in His great mercy sent a most precious message to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones. This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. (Testimonies to Ministers, p. 91)1 E. J. Waggoner Waggoner wrote with clear logic and reasoning. In his most famous work, he noted: “A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man, in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem.” (Christ and His Righteousness, p. 26) Another typical statement of Waggoner comes from his study of Galatians. “So I say that his being born under the law was a necessary consequence of his being born in the likeness of sinful flesh, of taking upon himself the nature of Abraham.” (The Gospel in the Book of Galatians, pp. 61, 62) A. T. Jones Perhaps no Seventh-day Adventist minister spoke more on the subject of the incarnation than A. T. Jones. Elder Jones considered this subject of such importance that in his book, The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, he devoted six of the seventeen chapters to the subject. On page twenty-five we read: But to be the Redeemer He must be not only able, He must be a blood-relative. And He must also be not only near of kin, but the nearest of kin; and the nearest of kin by blood-relationship. Therefore, “as the children” of man—as the children of the one who lost our inheritance — “are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same”—took part of flesh and blood in very substance like ours, and so became our nearest of kin. And therefore it is written that He and we “are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call us brethren.” (The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, p. 25 - Emphasis is Jones’) Further in his book, after discussing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Jones writes: From this theory [the Immaculate Conception] it therefore follows as certainly as that two and two make four, that in His human nature the Lord Jesus is “very different” from the rest of mankind: indeed, His nature is not human nature at all. Such is the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the human nature of Christ. The Catholic doctrine of the human nature of Christ is simply that that nature is not human nature at all, but divine: “more sublime and glorious than all natures.” It is that in His human nature Christ was so far separated from mankind as to be utterly unlike that of mankind: that His was a nature in which He could have no sort of fellow-feeling with mankind. But such is not the faith of Jesus. The faith of Jesus is that God sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” The faith of Jesus is that “in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.” The faith of Jesus is that He “Himself took our infirmities,” and was touched “with the feeling of our infirmities,” being tempted in all points like as we are. If He was not as we are, He could not possibly be tempted “like as we are.” But He was “in all points tempted like as we are.” Therefore He was “in all points” “like as we are.” (Ibid., pp. 38, 39 - Emphasis is Jones’) Perhaps A. T. Jones is best known today for the sermons he delivered at the 1893 and 1895 General Conference sessions. One such message stated: In Jesus Christ alone is the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man; and in Jesus Christ we find the brotherhood of man only when we find Christ the Brother of every man. It is written, “For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” Not ashamed to call who brethren? Every one that is of flesh and blood, - ... It has been Satan’s work always to get men to think that God is as far away as possible. But it is the Lord’s everlasting effort to get men to find out that he is as near to every one as possible. The great trouble with heathenism was to think that God was so far away, - .... Then the papacy came in, the very incarnation of that enmity between man and God. Therefore [under Catholic theology] Mary must be born immaculate, perfect, sinless, ... then Christ must be so born of her to take his human nature in absolute sinlessness from her. But if he comes no nearer to us than in a sinless nature, that is a long way off; because I need somebody that is nearer to me than that. I need some one to help me who knows something about sinful nature; for that is the nature that I have; and such the Lord did take. He became one of us. Thus, you see, this is present truth in every respect, now that the papacy is taking possession of the world, and the image of it is going on in the wrong way, forgetting all that God is in Jesus Christ, and all that Christ is in the world—having the form of godliness without the reality, without the power. (General Conference Bulletin, 1895, pp. 310, 311) Some other influential Adventists who have held the post-fall view include: W. W. Prescott, M. C. Wilcox, G. B. Starr, Meade MacGuire, Dallas Young, W. B. Ochs, Carlye B. Haynes, W. H. Branson, and M. L. Andreasen. (See Ministry, June 1985, p. 21) Ellen G. White The writings of Ellen G. White carry several references to the doctrine of the incarnation. She, unlike some today, encouraged study on the humanity of Christ. She wrote: When we want a deep problem to study, let us fix our minds on the most marvelous thing that ever took place in earth or heaven—the incarnation of the Son of God. God gave His Son to die for sinful human beings a death of ignominy and shame. He who was Commander in the heavenly courts laid aside His royal robe and kingly crown, and clothing His divinity with humanity, came to this world to stand at the head of the human race as the pattern-man. He humbled Himself to suffer with the race, to be afflicted in all their afflictions. (Ms. 76, 1903 - 7 BC, p. 904) Within recent times, few doctrines within the Seventh-day Adventist church have been as hotly debated as the doctrine of the incarnation. Various views are presented with each group using the Bible as well as the writings of Ellen White to defend their position. In fact, Adventist Review editor William Johnsson wrote a series of editorials on the incarnation, plainly stating that within her writings the two main theological groups find “their main ammunition.” (Adventist Review, Aug. 12, 1993) While there are various Bible texts that seem to deal with some doctrines from multifaceted angles, it is generally agreed that the Bible is the inspired word of God which does not contradict itself.2 The passages that seem to differ are acknowledged to be parallel and will harmonize with proper study and research. However, the same concepts are not afforded to the writings of Sister White by Johnsson and others. Johnsson frankly states: Some Adventists have striven mightily to bring these apparently contradictory statements [on the incarnation] together under the post-Fall view. I do not think this can be done. (Adventist Review, August 19, 1993, p. 4) Johnsson and others say, in effect, that she spoke out of both sides of her mouth. While there are published statements that seem difficult to harmonize with some of her other writings and the Bible, it has been this writer’s experience that the more I have studied her writings, the more harmony I have seen. The release of the E. G. White compact disc has been a tremendous help for those researching her writings and learning to understand the phraseology and meaning of various passages. While we do not take the route of Johnsson that there cannot be harmony, we acknowledge that there are references today that do seem hard to understand and harmonize with other statements. Some have suggested possible problems with secretarial errors as well as deliberate changes made from within. We cannot say that these are the answers in any or every case. Our history is clear that there have been revisions and compilations of Sister White’s works used out of context in such a way as to imply the opposite of the original intent.3 To say that she was able to survey every jot and tittle while she was alive would be difficult. Not only that, but there is clear evidence that at times her testimonies were not always delivered by her son Willie as she requested.4 Therefore, how would Ellen White respond to the situation of today? Only God knows, but she did leave the following counsel: “He [God] requires of His people faith that rests upon the weight of evidence, not upon perfect knowledge.” (3T, p. 258) We also read: Satan has ability to suggest doubts and to devise objections to the pointed testimony that God sends, and many think it a virtue, a mark of intelligence in them, to be unbelieving and to question and quibble. Those who desire to doubt will have plenty of room. God does not propose to remove all occasion for unbelief. He gives evidence, which must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and a teachable spirit, and all should decide from the weight of evidence. (3T, p. 255) While some writings from the pen of Ellen White, such as the “Baker Letter,” seem out of harmony with the view of the pioneers, the great majority of the writings of Ellen White speak very plainly to the postlapsarian (post-fall)view. Rather than try to defend a small handful of statements which seem to speak counter to the main stream of early Adventism, (this has been done well by Elder Larson and Elder Grotheer) this paper will allow the weight of the evidence to make clear what she believed. Looking at it in very practical terms, if you or I spoke on a subject over a thousand times and there were ten to twelve statements that seemed out of harmony with the great majority of statements, what would you wish for people to do? I would, as Ellen White, ask them to look at the weight of the evidence! The weight of the evidence is clear that Ellen White’s view of the incarnation was the postlapsarian view. We will now present just a very small portion of her writings which constitute the great “weight of evidence”concerning this doctrine. From one of her earlier works we read: Jesus also told them [the angels] that they should have a part to act, to be with him, and at different times strengthen him. That he should take man’s fallen nature, and his strength would not be even equal with theirs. (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 25, 1858) Satan again rejoiced with his angels that he could, by causing man’s fall, pull down the Son of God from his exalted position. He told his angels that when Jesus should take fallen man’s nature, he could overpower him, and hinder the accomplishment of the plan of salvation. (Ibid., p. 27, 1858) It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satan’s temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted.( Ibid., vol. 4, p. 115, 1864) In this statement we “Note that Ellen White does not equate form with nature.” (The Word was made Flesh, p. 35) In these early statements Sister White used the term “fallen nature” to describe the “nature” that our Lord took upon Himself. She used this same expression in her later writings, proving consistency in this doctrine throughout her lifetime. Through his humiliation and poverty Christ would identify himself with the weaknesses of the fallen race, and by firm obedience show man how to redeem Adam’s disgraceful failure, that man by humble obedience might regain lost Eden. (Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Feb. 24, 1874) What love! What amazing condescension! The King of glory proposed to humble himself to fallen humanity! He would place his feet in Adam’s steps. He would take man’s fallen nature and engage to cope with the strong foe who triumphed over Adam. He would overcome Satan, and in thus doing he would open the way for the redemption of those who would believe on him from the disgrace of Adam’s failure and fall. (Ibid.) The holy angels were horror-stricken that one who had been of their number could fall so far as to be capable of such cruelty. Every sentiment of sympathy or pity which they had ever felt for Satan in his exile, was quenched in their hearts. That his envy should be exercised in such a revenge upon an innocent person was enough to strip him of his assumed robe of celestial light, and to reveal the hideous deformity beneath; but to manifest such malignity toward the divine Son of God, who had, with unprecedented self-denial, and love for the creatures formed in his image, come from Heaven and assumed their fallen nature, was such a heinous crime against Heaven that it caused the angels to shudder with horror, and severed forever the last tie of sympathy existing between Satan and the heavenly world. (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, pp. 183, 184 - 1878) Jesus took upon Himself man’s nature, that He might leave a pattern for humanity, complete, perfect. He proposes to make us like Himself, true in every purpose, feeling, and thought—true in heart, soul, and life. This is Christianity. (5T, p. 235, 1882) Though He had no taint of sin upon His character, yet He condescended to connect our fallen human nature with His divinity. By thus taking humanity, He honored humanity. Having taken our fallen nature, he showed what it might become, by accepting the ample provision He has made for it, and by becoming partaker of the divine nature. (Letter 81, 1896, Selected Messages, bk. 3, p. 134) These words of confirmation [”This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”] were given to inspire faith in those who witnessed the scene, and to strengthen the Saviour for His mission. 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. (Desire of Ages, p. 112, 1898) Christ assumed our fallen nature, and was subject to every temptation to which man is subject. (Ms. 80, 1903 - 17 MR, p. 29) There are over 300 references where Ellen White stated that Jesus “clothed His divinity with humanity.” (See Desire of Ages, p. 434, Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 126, etc.) She also stated the truth concerning the incarnation in the following manner: He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. (Letter 67, 1902 - Medical Ministry, p. 181) A search through her writings finds other usages of the term “sinful nature” to describe what Jesus accepted and took upon His sinless nature. Clad in the vestments of humanity, the Son of God came down to the level of those he wished to save. In him was no guile or sinfulness; he was ever pure and undefiled; yet he took upon him our sinful nature. Clothing his divinity with humanity, that he might associate with fallen humanity, he sought to regain for man that which, by disobedience, Adam had lost for himself and for the world. (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Dec. 15, 1896)5 There are hundreds of other statements that are just as clear and direct concerning the doctrine of the incarnation both from Ellen White and from the early Adventist pioneers. However, the most important question is: What does the Bible say about the incarnation of Christ? |
|
|