IS
IT ESSENTIAL OR NONESSENTIAL?
Dennis
Priebe
We
have experienced much discussion and debate on the subject of the humanity of Christ. Too
much, in the minds of many. "Enough of the arguing," they say. It is time to
concentrate on the essential thing--revealing a Christlike spirit to people around us. The
editors of Ministry and Adventist Review have called for an end to debate on
the nature of Christ.
In
August of 1989 the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference issued "An
Appeal for Church Unity." In this document is the following opinion: "The world
church has never viewed these subjects (nature of Christ, nature of sin) as essential to
salvation nor to the mission of the remnant church... There can be no strong unity within
the world church of God's remnant people so long as segments who hold these views vocalize
and agitate them both in North America and in overseas divisions. These topics need to be
laid aside and not urged upon our people as necessary issues."
Many
of us would like to follow this counsel. We too are tired of the seemingly endless debate
and would like to get on to other topics. It is discouraging to witness God's people being
divided over a topic on which there was essential unity for the first hundred years of our
existence. But a new situation has developed in the last forty years. New interpretations
of the humanity of Christ have been pressed to the forefront of discussion. These
interpretations have had their source outside Adventism, largely coming from conservative,
Protestant, Evangelical scholars. We have been much impressed with their arguments and
their sincerity. These new interpretations have seemingly carried the day for many
Adventist scholars, and as a result, we have seen many articles and books calling for a
change in our historical understanding of the nature of Christ.
It
is somewhat ironic that when some protested the acceptance of these new ideas within
Adventism, and began using the same methods of communication (sermons, books, articles,
tapes) as the proponents of the new views, the stigma of divisiveness and agitation was
placed on the protesters rather than the innovators. But I suppose that the same
phenomenon occurred during the early Christian centuries when some Christians began
protesting the gradual change of sacredness from Saturday to Sunday.
Irony
aside, the question before us is simple. Since the subject of the humanity of Christ has
become a divisive topic in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, should it be laid aside for
the sake of unity? Even if those protesting the new interpretations feel that the weight
of evidence is on their side, is the topic "essential" to the mission of the
remnant church? I, for one, would be delighted to cease discussion instantly if this topic
is one of the many interesting but nonessential subjects found in the Bible. We will
receive clear answers to many of our questions only after this earth closes its history.
Is this subject one of those questions?
It
is my opinion, carefully considered, that the subject of Christ's humanity is indeed
essential to the mission of the remnant church. In fact, the success or failure of
Christianity itself may he tied directly to this subject. Despite my feelings of reticence
to disregard the counsel in the previously quoted appeal for church unity, too much is at
stake here to he silent. If my silence allows a new viewpoint to win the day by default,
and this contributes to the defeat of God's purpose in raising up a remnant movement, then
the luxury of being silent and avoiding stigma carries a price tag far too high for my
conscience to pay.
The
issue of Christ's humanity is significant to two vital aspects of Christ's redemptive
work. The first is whether' Christ's death could function as a substitutionary sacrifice
for the sins of men. In other words, could His death legally and logically take the place
of my deserved death, so that I can be forgiven for my sins? The second aspect has to do
with the relation of His life to my daily living. What are the implications for my living
today because of Christ's life two thousand years ago? To put it simply, the nature of
Christ has significance to Christ as our Substitute and to Christ as our Example.
Did
Christ Meet Satan's Challenge?
When
Satan first challenged God's right to rulership, he chose God's laws as the focal point of
his attack. If God's laws could be shown to he faulty, then it would also he clear that
God's system of government was founded on a faulty foundation, and this would be very
persuasive evidence that God's character itself was flawed. (For a thoughtful and
insightful delineation of these issues, I would suggest the chapter in The Desire of
Ages entitled, "It Is Finished.")
When
Jesus came to earth, His most important task was to reveal the character of God to fallen
and unfallen beings, so that God could he completely cleared of the charges brought
against Him by Satan. When the Jews challenged Jesus’ mission, He responded, "He
that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of
Him." (John 8:26) In other words, the real issue was not Jesus, but the credibility
of God Himself. On another occasion Jesus told Philip, “The words that I speak unto
you I speak not of Myself: but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works."
(John 14:10)
Now
Satan had charged that God's law could not be kept by angels, unfallen beings, and newly
created mankind--Charge A. Satan also claimed
that fallen mankind could not keep God's law--Charge B.
Since it is Charge B that is not well
understood by most Christians, including Adventists, we need to review the evidence.
"Satan,
the fallen angel, had declared that no man could keep the law of God after the
disobedience of Adam. He claimed the whole race under his control." (3SM 136)
"Satan declared that it was impossible for the sons and daughters of Adam to keep the
law of God, and thus charged upon God a lack of wisdom and love. If they could not keep
the law, then there was fault with the Lawgiver. Men who are under the control of Satan
repeat these accusations against God, in asserting that men cannot keep the law of God.
Jesus humbled Himself, clothing His divinity with humanity, in order that He might stand
as the head and representative of the human family, and by both precept and example
condemn sin in the flesh, and give the lie to Satan's charges." (ST. vol. 3. 264)
Satan's
charge was clearly leveled against fallen man's ability to keep God's law. It should be
noted that Jesus voluntarily humbled Himself to the level where He could meet Satan's
charges as the representative of the human family, which, except for Adam and Eve, have
all been fallen.
"He
came to this world to be tempted in all points as we are, to prove to the universe that in
this world of sin
Clearly,
it was crucial to Christ's work of redemption that He refute the charges Satan had made
against the laws and character of God. Now, did Christ refute only Charge A, or did He
refute both Charges A and B? Only by refuting both charges could Christ accomplish His
redemptive work and fully reveal the character of God. Only by refuting both charges could
Christ stand as the head and representative of the human family, legally and persuasively
empowered to act as man's representative, able to die for all men in their place. Only by
refuting both charges could Christ's death in our place, as our Substitute, have any
validity in the court of the universe.
If
Christ took Adam's unfallen nature, what would He have proved? That unfallen man could
obey God's law, thus disproving Charge A. If Christ took a nature partly like Adam's and
partly like mine, what would He have proved? That anyone partly like Adam and partly like
me (no one who has ever lived!) could obey God's law. Only if Christ took man's fallen
nature could He refute Charge B. Only by taking the place of fallen humanity could Christ
fulfill His
If
Jesus had sidestepped the ugliness of man's fallen nature, and had been given a special
dispensation of nature to be only partially like us, then who in this universe has refuted
Satan's charges? Who has proved that "the fallen sons and daughters of Adam" who
live "in this world of sin" can actually "keep the law of God" and
"live without sin"? "All man have sinned, so no fallen human being has refuted
Satan. And if Satan's charges have not been refuted to this day, what right does Christ
have to represent the human race? The horrible truth would be that we are no closer to the
final resolution of sin on this planet than Adam was at the moment of his sin. The human
race would stand condemned without a Saviour.
In
other words, Christ taking man's fallen nature was essential to His mission of refuting
Satan's charges and standing at the head of fallen humanity. In The Desire of Ages,
pp. 311-312, this point is made dramatically. "Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw,
the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to
the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching the
earth, we should have been lost. But, Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature
and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome." The only way Christ
could be our Substitute was by “reaching the earth," and the only way He could
do that was by taking "our nature," which is clearly not Adam's nature. If
Christ is to be our legal Substitute, then it could only be through the dangerous path of
accepting our fallen nature as His nature for the entire period of the Incarnation.
Can
Man Obey God’s Law Perfectly?
The
issue here is really very simple. Revelation 14:5 describes the last generation in these
words, and in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne
of God." Can God really carry out this promise?
One
individual astutely observed many years ago, “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.” This is really a very
logical and simple deduction. If Christ was able to obey perfectly because of His perfect
nature, then as long as we have imperfect, fallen natures, perfect obedience is
impossible. In that case, the fulfillment of Revelation 14:5 is in real jeopardy.
Once
again, we are back to which charge Christ refuted. If Christ refuted Charge A, He proved
that the law can be kept perfectly after glorification. If Christ refuted Charge B. He
proved that the 144,000 can keep the law perfectly while living in fallen natures.
If
Christ did not prove perfect obedience in a fallen nature, then the perfect obedience of
the final generation remains only a theoretical possibility, because no one has ever done
it yet. But if Christ demonstrated that fallen nature can return perfect obedience to
God's law, then the victory of the 144,000 is much more than a theoretical possibility. It
becomes a promise based on real, tangible, factual evidence.
The
relation of Christ's obedience to our obedience is clearly revealed in the following
statements. God requires of man nothing that is impossible for him to do... Christ kept
the law, proving beyond controversy that man also can keep it. (RH, vol. 4, 293) Everyone
who by faith obeys God's commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which
Adam lived before his transgression. Christ took upon Himself the nature of man, and by a
perfect life demonstrated the falsity of the claims of him who constantly accuses those
that are trying to obey God's law. (ST. vol. 4, 253) God's promise of perfect obedience
rests upon very solid historical evidence--the obedience of Christ in our nature--and we
need not doubt its fulfillment.
Inspiration
has given us a strong warning also. “In our conclusions, we make many mistakes
because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human
nature a power that it is not possible. for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we
destroy the completeness of His humanity. (7BC 929) Make no mistake here. The power of
Adam's unfallen nature is a mighty power which is not possible for us to have this side of
the second coming. Are we in danger of destroying the completeness of Christ's humanity,
and thus nullifying His redemptive work for man?
In
Conclusion
To
summarize, the issue of the human nature of Christ is very essential to Christ's
victory in the great controversy and thus to the vindication of God's law and character
and the ultimate refutation of Satan's charges. The human nature of Christ is very essential
to the success of the final demonstration of loyalty and obedience, through the grace of
God, by those who live after the close of probation. We cannot be silent at this crucial
time in human history when the truth and beauty of Christ's redemptive work are in real
jeopardy of being blurred and even lost in a sincere but misguided attempt to become more
orthodox by Evangelical standards. Let us rather search for the unique Seventh-day
Adventist understanding of the gospel, the Incarnation, the great controversy, and the
issues at stake in the final-atonement cleansing of the sanctuary.