Nov-December (06)

Editor's Preface

The objective of each issue of "Watchman, What of the Night?" is to stimulate in-depth thought on a Biblical topic or doctrine. True, we challenge positions which we believe to be wrong and contrary to the historic teachings of the Church. In the current issue will be found certain concepts which we hope will stimulate some thinking in regard to the Incarnation as related to the subject of the Godhead. We are aware of the position of the Church as well as statements in the Writings which suggest a Tri-theistic position. Concepts stated in Genesis and Revelation and in the Shema of Israel, with connecting verses from Isaiah and Zechariah as well as Luke and Paul's view of the Incarnation, call for more study and thought about God as a Duality. We are then left with "the Spirit and the bride" (Rev. 22:17) to factor into the picture. "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness" (I Tim. 3:16) (Another 3:16 verse to study thoughtfully with John 3:16).

Page 2

The Incarnation
"Revisited"

The doctrine of the Incarnation was one of the key doctrines discussed and compromised at the Seventh-day Adventist-Evangelical Conferences held during 1955-1956. Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, the key Evangelical conferee, wrote at the conclusion of the meetings in Eternity magazine of which he was editor, that the majority Adventist position on the nature of Christ "while in the flesh" has always been held "to be sinless, holy, and perfect despite the fact that certain of their writers have occasionally gotten into print with contrary views completely repugnant to the Church at large. They further explained to Mr. Martin that they had among their number certain members of their 'lunatic fringe' even as there are similar wild-eyed irresponsibles in every field of fundamental Christianity" (p. 6, September 1956).

However, in regard to the doctrine of the Incarnation the change in thinking cannot be charged solely to the conferences, but was already beginning to appear in church publications in the prior decade.

Froom emphasized in Movement of the Destiny that --

And the reason is a matter of record: In 1932, Francis D. Nichol, then the associate editor of the Review and Herald wrote a book, Answers to Objections, in which he discussed various objections to the teachings of Adventist belief, but nothing in this first edition discussed the Incarnation. In 1952, within the shadows of the Conferences of 1955-1956, the book, Answers to Objections, was revised with a foreword by W. H. Branson, then president of the General Conference. Section V: Sanctuary and Atonement, was enlarged to include a detailed discussion of the Incarnation under "Objection 94." Nichol quoted from p. 49 of The Desire of Ages and wrote:

He cited certain references from the Pauline Epistles - Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14-17 - and made comment. (These references we will note later). He then wrote that "in holding this view of Christ" (coming in the likeness of sinful flesh) "Seventh-day Adventist agree essentially with the view expressed by various devout theologians through the years." Nichol quoted a number of them (pp. 394-396). He closed his discussion of the Incarnation with a note addressed to Adventist writers and speakers, which was passed unheeded by the Adventist conferees as well as others since. Observe it carefully:

Page 3

As Nichol observes, the issue of the incarnation involves Calvinism. In the 1955-1956 Conferences, the Adventist conferees were facing men who saw "the Scriptures through Calvinistic eyes." What then was the real motive of the Adventist Conferees in seeking to harmonize Adventist teaching with that of the Evangelicals? Acceptance by men? And this regardless of the truth committed to our trust? Had we forgotten that "we have a truth that admits of no compromise? Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth?" (Special Testimonies, #7, p. 40). This does not suggest two poles to truth, and viewing error in as favorable a light as possible!

In "revisiting" the conferences, and their fruitage, QOD, Leroy Moore introduces his personal conception of the Incarnation which places the doctrine of the incarnation once again on the "front burner" of the agitation within Adventism. One is handicapped in analyzing Moore's current book as it does not have an index and introduces concepts as controversial as any introduced in the original edition of QOD, such as, "two poles of truth" for each major doctrine discussed. He sets forth what he calls "paradoxical principles," which "cure both compromise and a judgmental spirit" (p.37), yet throughout the book, there are continual and vicious attacks on Andreasen. Two of those who place their "imprimatur" on Moore's current book (back cover eulogy) co-authored with John Reeve, a third Andrews University professor, a book on the Trinity. Paul and Luke, companions in travel, define the birth of Christ differently. No doubt, Moore would use this difference in language as evidence of "poles of truth" instead of noting what Gabriel revealed about God. Luke reported that the angel Gabriel told Mary (perhaps from a personal interview with her) "the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee" (1:35), while Paul states that Christ "emptied Himself" (Phil 2:7, ARV).

First, we shall observe Moore's position on the Incarnation, with comment, then focus on the New Testament, observing mostly Pauline references before commenting on the Godhead insight suggested in the difference of statements by Luke and Paul.

Moore, in defining his position on the Incarnation wrote:

Page 4

This is saying either that Jesus Christ in His humanity had a dual human nature, one sinless and the other sinful; or that He looked like a man - "in the likeness of men" [Phil 2:7], yet had in essence the nature of Adam before the Fall.

In "revisiting" the Incarnation it seems that in our past discussion of the doctrine we have overlooked a factor suggested in the Writings:

Factored into the incarnation, it means simply that as a pre-existent Being, Jesus Christ entered humanity-"Son of God" and "Son of Man"--both of which He was not, except by decree [Ps.2:7] and a mysterious human generation. He came as a babe without a human father but from a daughter of Eve, the first to sin.

The preface to John's Gospel emphasized the great mystery of Godliness -"God was manifest in the flesh" [I Tim. 3:16]. "In (the) beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and Divine was the Word. The same was in beginning with God. All things through him came into being„, and the Word flesh became and tabernacled among us" [1:1-3, 14 lit].

Paul declared plainly that He who existed "in the form of God, counted not being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped" but "took upon him the form of a slave (δουλουV)" Here it is clearly stated what Jesus assumed, but did not become. He took upon himself the "flesh of sin" (sarkoζ αμαρτιαζ). He did not sin in that flesh, rather He condemned sin in that flesh [Rom. 8:3].

The word translated "form" (μορφη) "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (See The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament by Moulton & Milligan, art. morphé) In the same scripture (verse 8) "in fashion (σχημα) as a man" is the contrasting Greek word, "schema," denoting the external appearance.

Paul was equally as clear as to the nature of the flesh of sin the Word took. He wrote that the "gospel of God" concerned "His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3),

As Paul continues to discuss "the gospel of God" concerning Jesus Christ committed to his trust, he reiterates the humanity assumed, and the glory that was His by divine right. In Romans 8:3, he declared that God sent His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin

Page 5

(Greek), not "sinful flesh." It could sin, there were risks. It had sinned in Adam, but in Christ Jesus, the second Adam that which had sinned and was weakened by four thousand years of sin, sinned not!

In Romans 9, Paul speaks of his own ancestral inheritance, the Israelites, the fathers, by whom "as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is overall, God, blessed forever". One has only to observe the genealogical record found in both Luke and Matthew to understand "the flesh" of the "fathers" He accepted upon Himself from the womb of Mary. Yet He was and is God over all, blessed forever. That transition from the form of God to the form of a slave which we designate the Incarnation remains an unexplainable mystery to the human mind.

The other reference cited was Hebrews 2:14-17. It reads:

There have been and are those in Adventism who interpret those verses as teaching that Christ took a sanctified human nature (verse 11) in assuming humanity. Such was the thinking of those who led the "Holy Flesh" movement in Indiana at the turn of the last century. This teaching appeared again following the SDA-Evangelical conferences as an alternate position to the two concepts in conflict: Whether Christ took the pre-Fall or Post-Fall nature of Adam. Thomas A. Davis advocated it in his book, Was Jesus Really Like Us? (ch.3.) Ron Spear likewise took the same position in his booklet, Waymarks of Adventism (p. 39). It was worded that Christ came "born, born-again." Now in this current revisit by Moore, both he and one who placed his approval on the back cover, Dr. Woodrow Whidden, want to get away from the pre-fall and post-fall terms. This is understandable. The two terms are not different poles of truth. They are antagonistic each to the other. QOD holds to the pre-fall, while Andreasen maintained the historic post-fall position of Adventism. Moore devoted Appendix C to the question, asking "Can we get away from pre-and post - fall terms?"

The Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity is noted in the original QOD, but there is little questioning by the Evangelicals. One question was asked - "Do you believe in the Trinity?" - and the Adventists responded by presenting the 1931 statement which had been placed in the Church's Yearbook. It read:

Dr. Moore in revisiting QOD emphasizes the Trinity in relationship to the Atonement. The Section is captioned:

The first paragraph reads;

Page 6

Between the first publication of QOD in 1957 and the current "revisit" by Dr. Moore, there has been much agitation concerning the doctrine of the Trinity by several independent ministries. A revisit of key scriptural references pertaining to the Godhead seems to be in order now that Dr. Moore has connected the Trinity to the Atonement, and two who placed their imprimatur on his book have themselves with a third professor at Andrews University published a book, The Trinity.

First, let us observe what conclusion can be drawn by placing side by side Paul and Luke's understanding of the Incarnation. Luke quotes Gabriel as telling Mary that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her, but Paul declared that Jesus Christ emptied himself in accepting the form of a servant. Jesus Christ who declared himself to be the truth said that he would pray the Father to give them another Comforter even the Spirit of truth and that in so doing he would not leave them "comfortless," but rather He would fulfill his promise, "I will come to you." This revelation of God is in the gospel whose introductory format parallels Genesis. Genesis 1:1 reads-- "In beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth."

This is further emphasized in their stated objective - "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." The question to be asked is - What is the image that God created? Was one of the Elohim, female? No. the emphasis in the creation of Eve for Adam is that they shall be one flesh. This oneness in duality is the whole theme of Genesis 1 - Elohim, (plural subject) bara (singular verb). It is the image seen in the creation of man. "They (two) shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24).

This perception of God is the same as is expressed in the Shema of Israel- "Hear, 0 Israel: the Lord thy Gods in one Lord." In the text the word which I have translated "Gods" (אלהינו) is plural, not singular. (See Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon by B. Davidson. He grammatically analyzed it as a masculine plural noun with a plural suffix.

This duality is also found in Isaiah 44:6. The Verse reads:

The Duality emphasis is carried over into the last book of the Bible:

One other text in the Old Testament emphasizes the duality of the Godhead - Zech. 6: 12-13:

Page 7

There is another factor or problem; however, one wants to look at it. Adam was an adult when confronted with the choice he made. Christ entered the world as a baby. Was he kept by the power of God from sinning until He, too, faced life as an adult? It is also of interest to take into consideration where each of the gospels begins it's record. Mark states "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God," - and begins his narrative with the proclamation of John the Baptist. Matthew begins with a genealogy tracing Jesus' earthly ancestry from Abraham and David, and then sets the record in book keeping format: Here is the prophecy; here is the fulfillment. A few brief episodes are given, and Jesus Christ enters the scene at the time of his baptism. Luke gives the largest number of experiences from his pre-adulthood, even citing an experience showing that he was not like other children. John reaches back into eternity, and declares that Jesus as the Word was with God from the very beginning. While no sinful act is recorded, no explanation is given in any of the gospels as to why and how he could live above sin. Neither is there found any charge on the part of the devil that Christ was given an advantage.