Tentative Theology: The Nature of Christ
Former PUC professor Dennis Priebe, in his notable sermon/paper against past G.C. President Robert Folkenberg and the “QOD-adopters” has really polished his rhetoric when it comes to the nature of Christ. The nature of Christ is a hotly contested issue among so-called “Traditional” Adventists and their “Evangelical” Adventist brothers. Priebe claims that the only difference between the Evangelical understanding of the nature of Christ and the Catholic understanding of an immaculate conception is “one generation removed.” With this he poo-poo’s the idea that Jesus was born with Adam’s pre-fallen nature, as QOD suggests.
The idea of a pre-Fall Christ threatens LGT in two ways: (1) If Christ had Adam’s nature, then he couldn’t be tempted like us; (2) If Christ had Adam’s nature, then His example of a sinful life is not available for us to emulate (because Christ had an unfair advantage). It all boils down to privileged perfection vs. earned perfection.
But the idea that Christ had Adam’s pre-Fall nature does not necessarily nullify the fact that Christ was “tempted in every way” (Heb. 4:15, NIV). Regardless of what nature He had, it is obvious that He wasn’t tempted with every single temptation anyone has ever faced. Likely, we can interpret “in every way” as being tempted in principle to lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. More basically, we can just say that Christ was tempted to sever His connection with the Father in one way or the other. If that’s true, then He can identify with us perfectly. Even sinless Adam was tempted. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place. How can you say it’s an unfair advantage? Clearly it wasn’t for Adam.
“If Christ did not take our fallen nature,” Priebe argues, “then who in the universe has yet proved that Satan is a liar?” If Adam wouldn’t have sinned, he would have proved Satan a liar. Thus, if Christ, as the Second Adam and standing in his place, can conquer where Adam failed then He can prove that God’s law can be kept. Ellen White wrote: “The nature by which the enemy was overcome is the same nature over which in Eden he obtained an easy victory” (12MR 410). I rest my case.
As to the second point, on the potential for human sinlessness, I am unsure. Personally, I think the whole debate is framed incorrectly. I think “perfection” needs to be carefully defined. One can be perfect and sinless, or one can be perfectly in Christ, abiding in Him. Noah, for one, was called perfect though he had committed sin. (More on this later.)
I’m not sold on the nature of Christ yet. It’s a tough issue. I only seek to prove by this post that Priebe’s desperate presuppositions are ultimately shallow. I could easily rebuke the other side while I sort this out. This is theological teething…
“Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willingly He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam’s failure.” The Youth’s Instructor, June 2, 1898.
“He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory.” The Youth’s Instructor, April 25, 1901.
“He began where the first Adam began,” is immediately interpreted to mean that He began in the same condition. If this was the intended meaning, the statement, to be accurate, would have read, He began as the first Adam began. The word where, could mean at the same place as far as actual condition is concerned, but it is not the only possible meaning. It can also mean the beginning was at the same point in each case with no reference to the comparative conditions of each beginning.
Illustrating this is the following account of beginning a modern journey as compared to two hundred years ago. “Settling into the air-conditioned comfort of the express, we began the journey where great-great grandfather had begun his trek to his first homestead far to the north.” The word “where” indicates nothing more than the geographical point from which each journey began. Beyond this there is little in common, for the two conditions are vastly different. The first journey long ago was under most trying conditions, while the modern one is made in the greatest comfort and convenience.
We must look further than this statement to find if “where” means in the same condition, or something else. Reference to the statement from The Desire of Ages, 117, and others of like nature, shows there is a vast difference in the condition of the two Adams as they began their battle with temptation.
“Satan had pointed to Adam’s sin as proof that God’s law was unjust, and could not be obeyed. In our humanity, Christ was to redeem Adam’s failure. But when Adam was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, and in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of his degradation.” The Desire of Ages, 117.
The statement cannot be interpreted to mean that the second Adam began as the first Adam. To take this meaning one would have to ignore other statements given by inspiration, or admit that the Word of God was contradictory.
Christ did begin where the first Adam began. This is not a point of geography but an identical spiritual battle ground. Adam’s first great test was on the question of appetite and it was on this battle ground that Christ first met and conquered Satan. On that same point where the battle began for Adam, it began for Christ. “With Christ, as with the holy pair in Eden, appetite was the ground of the first great temptation. Just where the ruin began, the work of our redemption must begin. As by the indulgence of appetite Adam fell, so by the denial of appetite Christ must overcome.” The Desire of Ages, 117.
This statement clarifies the one under consideration and shows in what sense, and in what respect, Christ began where Adam began.
In the last statement Christ gained the victory in the same nature over which Satan triumphed in the Garden. That nature was human nature.
The statement assures us that Christ did not come to this earth as an angel to fight the good fight of faith, but as a man. The nature He took was the same as that of Adam’s in the sense that both natures were human nature, but it was not in the same condition of perfection and purity, as other statements show. This distinction is the key to understanding these otherwise difficult statements.
Do Adventist teach that christ might have failed while on his mission to earth as MAN’S savior-that He came into the world “at the risk of failure and eternal loss?