Adventist view on the Nature of Christ

Adventists hold to the belief that Christ took on the nature of man after the Fall, in its weakened state. Adventists believe that Christ, the 'last Adam,' possessed on His human side, a nature like that of the 'first man Adam,' a nature free from every defiling taint of sin, but capable of responding to sin, and that nature was handicapped by the debilitating effects of four thousand years of sin's inroads on man's body and nervous system and environment. He took the flesh of sinful man, and overcame where man failed, overthrew sin in the flesh. He accepted the limitations and conditions of our common humanity.

Jesus took Adams human nature after the fall. But Jesus did not inherit sinful tendencies from Adam - that is, Jesus did not have a tendency to sin. Christ inherited our physical weaknesses, for example, Christ had to sleep when he got tired. He had to eat when he got hungry and drink when he got thirsty. He inherited our physical limitations but not our sinful inclinations.

Physically, Christ was like us - feeling pain, frail, weak, prone to get sick if we dont take care of our bodies, and under the consequences of aging. But morally, Christ could be tested by temptation as scripture shows us but did not have our ungodly desires or sinful inclinations.

Here is a explanation by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez on the Adventist church view of the nature of Christ :

Our Adventist Statement of Fundamental Beliefs summarizes that which the church holds to be biblical truth around the world. It says: "God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ [John 1:1-3, 14]. . . . Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ [Heb. 2:14]. . . . He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God [Heb. 4:15]. In infinite love and mercy "God made Christ who knew no sin, to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21).

Those statements attest that, first, Jesus was divine; second, that He became what He was not, truly human; and, third, that He knew no sin, and was without sin even though He faced severe temptations.

And here from the SDA Bible Commentary: "In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. {7ABC 447.3}

What the church holds on Christ as God the Son: https://adventist.org/beliefs/official/son​

God the Son​

God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged.
Forever truly God, He became also truly human, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God.
By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to heaven to minister in the heavenly sanctuary on our behalf.
He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things.
(Isa. 53:4-6; Dan. 9:25-27; Luke 1:35; John 1:1-3, 14; 5:22; 10:30; 14:1–3, 9, 13; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:18; 5:17-19; Phil. 2:5–11; Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 2:9-18; 8:1, 2.)

In Seventh‑Day Adventist theology, the nature of Christ refers to the human nature He assumed when He became flesh. The church holds that Jesus was fully human, yet without sin, and that His humanity was “like ours” as man.

Some of the key points of Adventist belief

• Eternal Nature: The Son is eternal, coexisting with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and is not created but part of the Godhead Adventist.org.
• Incarnation: He became truly human through the virgin birth, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of Mary (Luke 1:35; John 1:14). This event, called the incarnation, is seen as the ultimate act of God’s love and humility.
• Full God and Full Man: Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, living without sin, experiencing temptation, and perfectly embodying God’s righteousness and love.
• Messiah and Savior: By His miracles, teachings, and sacrificial death on the cross, Jesus manifested God’s power, atoned for humanity’s sins, and secured eternal life (Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:3–4).
• Resurrection and Ascension: He rose from the dead, ascended to the heavenly sanctuary, and now ministers in heaven for believers (Heb. 8:1–2; Phil. 2:5–11).
• Second Coming: The SDA faith teaches that Jesus will return in glory to deliver His people and restore all things (Isa. 53:4–6; Dan. 9:25–27).

The belief is rooted in passages such as:

• John 1:1–3, 14 – The Son is God, the Creator, and the one who became flesh.
• Colossians 1:15–19 – Jesus is the image of the invisible God and the one through whom all things were created.
• Philippians 2:5–11 – Jesus humbled Himself, becoming human, and was exalted by God.
• Hebrews 2:9–18 – Jesus experienced human life and temptation, yet remained sinless.
• 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 – The resurrection is central to the gospel message.

In Adventist teaching, Christ’s nature is:

• Fully human – body, mind, and spirit.
• Sinless – despite being tempted, He did not sin.
• Identical in form to humanity, but without inherited sinfulness.
• Unique – as the “only begotten Son” (John 3:16), His humanity was made in the likeness of sinful flesh for the purpose of redeeming humanity

This view balances the need for Christ to be a true representative of humanity with the necessity of His sinlessness for atonement. For Seventh-day Adventists, the incarnation of God the Son in Jesus Christ is the climax of God’s redemptive plan. It reveals God’s love, demonstrates His justice, and offers humanity the hope of eternal life through faith in Christ

Here is from the Church's page What Do Seventh-day Adventists Believe about God the Son?

Jesus was fully human​

Adventists believe that though Jesus Christ was fully God, He was also fully human.

But how could that be?

We don’t understand.

Just like we also don’t understand why the law of gravity works as it does. But our lack of understanding about how gravity works hardly means it doesn’t work.

And just like we can’t fully understand gravity, there are many things that we may not fully understand about our world and about the God who created it all. That’s the case when it comes to the nature of Jesus as both God and man.

Along with the deity of Christ, Scripture affirms Jesus’ humanity.

Several Bible verses in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of Man, pointing to His humanity (Daniel 7:13; Luke 21:27).

The Bible shows that though Jesus was always God, He wasn’t always human. He took on human form and was born among us in lowly circumstances (Luke 2:7).

He grew and learned as we do (Luke 2: 52); He had siblings as we often do (Mark 6:3); He wept as humans weep (John 11:35); He got tired like we do (John 4:6); He was tempted as humans are tempted. The only difference was that He never sinned (Hebrews 4:15).

Christ’s humanity was powerfully tested in the wilderness when the devil sought to take advantage of Him and tempt Him after He was hungry and weak from 40 days of fasting (Matthew 4:1–10).

What’s important to note is that Jesus was tempted as a human being. He had flesh, bones, blood, hormones, emotions, and desires. He was human. And yet in His humanity, Jesus didn’t submit to the temptation.

He used the Word of God as His defense against giving in and sinning.

For example, when the devil sought to make Him doubt His status as the Son of God, Jesus replied, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4:4, NKJV).

Not only did He overcome the temptations, He also showed us how we as humans can overcome too.

As a human, Jesus did not use any advantages of His divinity since we humans would not be able to do that. He relied completely on God the Father and the Holy Spirit, just the way we should.

Here are some more texts about the humanity of Jesus:

“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14, NKJV).

“Therefore, He had to be like His brothers and sisters in every way, so that He could become a merciful and faithful high priest in matters pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.” (Hebrews 2:17, ESV).

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5, NKJV).

Click to expand...

.....

Why Jesus Christ’s divinity and humanity is still relevant today​

Jesus’ humanity is the key link between God and us. And His divinity links us to heaven.

Together, between Christ’s deity and humanity, we have the assurance of God’s nearness and understanding of what we are going through. And that is because God Himself experienced the woes, temptations, and suffering in the person of Jesus.

Jesus came in human flesh, as a human being, to be both our perfect substitute and our perfect example.

He was the only human to live without sin. Which is why He alone could be our substitute and die on the cross to provide us with His perfect righteousness (Hebrews 4:15).

This is key to the plan of salvation.

We as human beings have sinned, and, as a result, face the penalty of death. We deserve it. As the Bible puts it, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23, NKJV).

But because Jesus came down and lived as one of us, He tasted death for us:

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9, NKJV).

Click to expand...

And He is our example because He showed us what it means to live by faith. John made it plain that we are to follow Jesus’ example when he wrote:

“He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked” (1 John 2:6, NKJV).

Click to expand...

In fact, in the final deceptions of the last days, God’s people are depicted as those who “keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 14:12, NKJV).

They will have a faith that reflects the faith of Jesus—the faith that enables them to keep God’s law of love. Just like Jesus did.

Here is some background and Biblical Scholars on this issue...

Scholars who agree​

This understanding is far from unique. Many Biblical scholars have challenged the so-called orthodox view that Christ somehow took Adam’s pre-Fall nature rather than the human equipment inherited by every other child of Adam. Among them are Edward Irving, Thomas Erskine, Herman Kohlbrugge, Eduard Bohl, Karl Barth, T. F. Torrance, Nels Ferre, C. E. B. Cranfield, Harold Roberts, Lesslie Newbigin, E. Stauffer, Anders Nygren, C. K. Barrett, and Eric Baker.17

Wolfhart Pannenberg wrote (1964): “The conception that at the Incarnation God did not assume human nature in its corrupt sinful state but only joined Himself with a humanity absolutely purified from all sin contradicts not only the anthropological radicality of sin, but also the testimony of the New Testament and of early Christian theology that the Son of God assumed sinful flesh and in sinful flesh itself overcame sin.”18

None of these men believed that Christ sinned in either thought or act or that because He took fallen sinful flesh He needed a Saviour. Generally speaking, the term sinful flesh means the human condition in all of its aspects as affected by the fall of Adam and Eve. Such a nature is susceptible to temptation from within as from without. Contrary to the Grecian dualism that early pervaded much of orthodox Christianity, the flesh is not evil, nor does it sin of itself. Although the flesh is amoral, it does provide the equipment, the occasion, and the seat for sin if the human will is not constantly assisted by the Holy Spirit. But a person born with sinful flesh need not be a sinner.19

It has been frequently observed that the New Testament presents a very uncomplicated, straightforward understanding that Jesus was a man in every sense of the word.20 True, New Testament writers remembered Him as possessing much more than human significance: They reverently referred to Him as God who became man. But their witness to Jesus does not suggest that they thought of Him as having physical, emotional, or moral advantages not available to His contemporaries.

At Pentecost, Peter simply called Him “ ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst’” (Acts 2:22, N.K.J.V.). And Paul says Jesus Christ “was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3, N.K.J.V.).

New Testament support​

Nowhere in the New Testament do we get the slightest impression that Jesus visited earth in some kind of heavenly space suit that insulated Him from the risks inherent in a sin-permeated world. Let us examine some of the New Testament references to our Lord’s humanity to see whether this observation can be supported.

A. The virgin birth (Matt. 1:16, 18-25; Luke 1:26-38; 3:23). The fact that one human parent was organically involved in the birth of Jesus is sufficient to indicate His indebtedness to human heredity. To suggest that He was born free from the liabilities of heredity is to go down the same road that Roman Catholicism started upon when it confused sin with physical substance. After this confusion, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception became a theological necessity. In turn, that doctrine led to the assumption that Christ took a pre-Fall human nature.

No Biblical evidence suggests that the stream of human heredity was broken between Mary and Jesus. The burden of proof lies with those who believe (1) that there was a physical break in the heredity stream between Mary and Jesus and (2) that because of some special insulation, He was “exempt” (a familiar word in Roman Catholic theology) from the full liability of fallen human nature.21 Some refer to Luke 1:35 as if that text conclusively indicates Christ had a pre-Fall nature. (See various English translations, such as the R.S.V.) But Luke is not discussing our Lord’s human nature. He simply states that Christ’s holy character would always distinguish Him as our sinless Saviour.

B. The Son of man (Matt. 8:20; 24:27; et al.). In this self-description, Jesus declared His identification and solidarity with mankind. The second Adam is not a special creation or a clone of the first—He is a hereditary descendant, born of a woman. Only by assuming the same fallen nature shared by those He came to save could He truly be the Son of man.

C. The Adam/Christ analogy (Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15). This first/second Adam analogy seems to be one of Paul’s significant theological motifs. The analogy is often considered Paul’s counterpart to our Lord’s self-identification, Son of man. In brief, it seems to suggest most strongly the solidarity and identification of both Adam and Jesus with the human race. In Adam we have the head of sinful humanity, and in Jesus, the head of the overcomers, humanity that conquers all temptations.22

Many consider Romans 5:12 as evidence that men and women are born sinners, but such is not Paul’s argument. He is simply stating an obvious fact—the stream of death began with Adam. But Adam’s descendants all die “because all men sinned.”

All men and women are “in Adam” through natural birth, but only those who choose can be “in Christ,” the second Adam. Our Lord has called everyone to be “in Christ,” and only those who frustrate His call will be ultimately lost.

The assumption that Jesus took Adam’s pre-Fall nature seems to destroy the force of Paul’s parallel and his principle of solidarity. Paul’s Adam-Christ analogy becomes relevant to mankind and to the great controversy only if Jesus incorporated Himself within fallen humanity—only if He met sin in the arena where all men are, “in Adam,” and conquered every appeal to serve self, whether from within or without. Jesus intended that those in Him would be united corporately with the results of His saving work. But to accomplish this, He must first have been corporately connected with humanity in its fallen condition.23

D. Paul’s use of sarx. Paul uses sarx (“flesh”) in a variety of ways,24 including (1) its ordinary meaning of flesh as a physical feature (1 Cor. 15:39; 2 Cor. 12:7; Col. 2:1); (2) in a metaphorical sense, as that which distinguishes man-kind from God (1 Cor. 15:50; cf. Eph. 6:12) or that which refers to human nature or earthly descent (Rom. 1:3; 4: 1; 8:3); and (3) as a synonym for sin (chaps. 6:19; 7:18; 8:4).

Paul flees from Hellenistic dualism and does not ascribe to sarx a substantive evil and sinfulness. Although sarx is morally neutral, Paul teaches that it does provide the seat and material in which evil may operate. It is the place where self-indulgence is expressed. Christians, though living in physical flesh (sarx), should no longer allow sin to rule their sarx (flesh); the Spirit provides power to the committed believer who chooses to control the desires that naturally arise in sarx. (See chap. 8:3-9.)

At times Paul uses sarx as a synonym for sin. And his doctrine of sin is as deep as his doctrine of creation is high. But he always keeps sin on the personal level, as a fractured personal relationship or an act of a responsible person (cf. James 4:17). The results of sin—fallen human nature— are given to all men and women at birth. But no one is held personally guilty or responsible for that fallen human condition (sarx).

E. “The likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Here we find Paul using words with great care. He states clearly the perfect sinlessness of Jesus. But he also emphasizes that our Lord overcame in the same sinful flesh (sarx) that since Adam all men and women have inherited. Paul’s message: Jesus remained sinless in the arena where sin had conquered all other human beings. In so doing, He exposed the nature and vulnerability of sin.

Anders Nygren commented: “It was to be right in sin’s own realm that the Son was to bring sin to judgment, overcome it, and take away its power. It is therefore important that with Christ it is actually a matter of ‘sinful flesh,’ of sarx hamartias.

“Christ’s carnal nature was no unreality, but simple, tangible fact. He shared all our conditions. He was under the same powers of destruction. Out of ‘the flesh’ arose for Him the same temptations as for us. But in all this He was master of sin.”25

Karl Barth adds that Christ’s perfect obedience in our fallen nature means that “the commission of sin as such is not an attribute of true human existence as such, whether from the standpoint of its creation by God or from that of the fact that it is flesh on account of the Fall.”26

“In every respect” (Heb. 2:17) He was “in the likeness of sinful flesh”—except that He did not sin. What better way could sin be condemned? How much clearer could Paul have said that possessing “sinful flesh” does not necessarily make a person a sinner? Jesus beat back Satan in sin-entrenched territory, Satan’s home field. Never again need anyone, anywhere in the universe, doubt the fairness of God’s laws or the adequacy of enabling grace and obedient faith.

Perhaps C. E. B. Cranfield, professor of theology at the University of Durham, has said it best. After taking into view all the possible interpretations of Romans 8:1-4, he wrote:

“By sarx hamartias Paul clearly meant ‘sinful flesh,’ i. e. , fallen human nature. But why did he say en homoi6mati sarkos hamartias [“in the likeness of sinful flesh”] rather than just en sarki hamartias (“in sinful flesh”]?”27

Cranfield summarizes five answers that have been suggested: (1) Paul did not wish to imply the reality of Christ’s human nature. (2) He wanted to avoid implying that Jesus assumed fallen human nature. Jesus really took flesh, but it was only like, and not identical with, our flesh. (3) Paul used homoi6ma to indicate that Jesus took our fallen human nature, but it was only like ours because ours is guilty of actual sin and He never sinned. (4) Homoi6ma here means “form” rather than merely “likeness.” (5) Homoi6ma here “does have its sense of ‘likeness’; but the intention is not in any way to call in question. . . the reality of Christ’s sarx hamartias. but to draw attention to the fact that, while the Son of God truly assumed sarx hamartias. He never became sarx hamartias and nothing more, nor even sarx hamartias indwelt by the Holy Spirit and nothing more (as a Christian might be described as being), but always remained Himself” (cf. Phil. 2:7).28

As to number 1, Cranfield notes that it attributes to the phrase a docetic sense inconsistent with Paul’s thought. And it is contradicted in this very verse (Rom. 8:3) by en te sarki. He objects to the traditional answer (number 2) by saying that it “is open to the general theological objection that it was not unfallen, but fallen, human nature which needed redeeming.”29 In regard to number 3, he points out that homoi6ma is related to the nature discussed and not the question of sinning. “The difference between Christ’s freedom from actual sin and our sinfulness is not a matter of the character of His human nature (of its being not quite the same as ours), but of what He did with His human nature.”30 As to number 4, he comments that if Paul meant to say this, it is difficult to understand why he did not simply say en sarki hamartias.

Cranfield says: “We conclude that. . . [5] is to be accepted as the most probable explanation of Paul’s use of homoi6ma here, and understand Paul’s thought to be that the Son of God assumed the selfsame fallen human nature that is ours, but that in His case that fallen human nature was never the whole of Him—He never ceased to be the eternal Son of God.”31

Like Nygren and Barth, Cranfield sees this passage as stressing where the conflict occurred. God’s “condemnation” of sin “took place in the flesh, i. e. , in Christ’s flesh, Christ’s human nature.....

. . .If we recognize that Paul believed it was fallen human nature which the Son of God assumed, we shall probably be inclined to see here also a reference to the unintermittent warfare of His whole earthly life by which He forced our rebellious nature to render a perfect obedience to God.”32

In a footnote to this, he says: “Those who believe that it was fallen human nature which was assumed have even more cause than had the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism to see the whole of Christ’s life on earth as having redemptive significance; for, on this view, Christ’s life before His actual ministry and death was not just a standing where unfallen Adam had stood without yielding to the temptation to which Adam succumbed, but a matter of starting from where we start, subjected to all the evil pressures which we inherit, and using the altogether unpromising and unsuitable material of our corrupt nature to work out a perfect, sinless obedience.”33

F. The High Priest’s solidarity with humanity (Hebrews). One of the principal lines of argument in Hebrews is that the high priest’s efficacy depends upon how closely he identifies with those for whom he mediates. Jesus is a perfect high priest because of His real identification with man’s predicaments, whether of the spirit (temptations) or of the body (privations and death).

1. Hebrews 2:11: “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” For specific soteriological purposes, Jesus and His fellow human beings had a common human heredity (this is clearly stated in verse 14) .

2. Hebrews 2:14: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature.” Paul is here more explicit and provides the specific context for the chapter. For Jesus to be truly man’s Saviour and effective High Priest, He had to enter man’s terrible predicament, the enemy-occupied territory of human flesh shared by all descendants of fallen Adam.

3. Hebrews 2:16,18: “For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.”

Here the person and work of Jesus are unified in a breathtaking statement. All the risks resident in assuming fallen human nature are recognized in this chapter, but in no place more clearly than in these verses. Paul’s inescapable message seems to be that Jesus completely identified with sinful men and women in the liabilities inherent in the human equipment received at their birth.

Jesus is called men’s “pioneer of their salvation [made] perfect through suffering” (verse 10). He was the first, from, birth to death, to break the power of sin, beating the path for all to follow. He broke down every subtle enticement to do things His way rather than His Father’s. He rose triumphant in the very arena where His human counterparts have fallen, employing no other weapons than fallen men and women have at their disposal.

In its most immediately obvious sense, verses 16-18 seem to say that Christ took the human nature common to all post-Fall humanity.

4. Hebrews 4: 15: “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus felt the full force of temptation because He never succumbed. Those who yield too soon never know the oppression of spirit caused by the full tug of a self-serving opportunity. From the standpoint of the theology of the great controversy, this text strongly suggests that because Jesus did not sin, no man must sin. Our High Priest was “made like his brethren in every respect,” was “tempted as we are,” yet He did not sin. “Let us then with confidence draw near” (verse 16) is a marvelous, intensely coherent, and tight transition of thought. What more could language say in getting across Paul’s argument: Jesus was victorious with the same liabilities and disadvantages common to all mankind; therefore, men and women can also be victorious with the same help He depended on if they too “draw near” in time of need.

When Paul refers to our Lord’s temptations, he employs simple language in order to be easily understood. Whatever the nature of temptations common to man, whether they arise from within (such as envy, self-will, self-exaltation, self-indulgence) or from without (such as direct appeal from Satan, or objects that elicit unholy desire), Jesus experienced them. He had the power of choice and the heredity that weakens and misdirects it. He had a nature wherein temptations common to men and women could find appeal. But in Jesus, evil found no response. In only one sense was Jesus exempt from being “tempted as we are”—He never had to contend with a willpower weakened by His own previous decisions to sin.

Paul does not support such ideas as that (1) Jesus was exempt from the clamor of humanity’s fallen nature or that (2) He never risked all or that (3) He didn’t really fight the battle of faith as every son and daughter of Adam has had to fight it. Despite His inherited human liabilities, Jesus did not sin—such is a substantial part of Paul’s simple good news.

5. Hebrews 5:7-9: “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.”

The followers of Jesus apparently remembered Him as a man such as they were, except that they could find no fault in Him (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22; Heb. 4:15; 9:14). He was known as a man who radiated unusual courage, integrity, personal freedom under all kinds of stress, and victory at every turn, under every circumstance.

But the New Testament does not indicate that His followers ever considered that this remarkable Man could not sin. It does not suggest that He possessed special advantages or that all His marvelous moral characteristics were precast in some other world. His disciples had eaten and slept with Him; they had listened to His most intimate prayers and heard His most confidential comments on circumstances and people in good times and bad. They knew that the counsel He was giving them was counsel He Himself was practicing.

His followers had every reason to believe that Christ’s goodness was a result of daily struggles with the same temptations they had to face. Paul could not say it more plainly: “He learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect. . .” In other words, His moral development was an example of how all men and women would develop a character such as His: They would be made perfect by learning obedience amid hard decisions. They must choose God’s will and reject the allure of temptations, whether from within or from without.

Barth wrote plainly regarding the inner temptations and struggles that Jesus had to face: “The New Testament has treated the vere homo so seriously that it has portrayed the obedience of Jesus throughout as a genuine struggle to obey, as a seeking and finding. In Luke 2:40 it speaks of a ‘growing and waxing strong,’ and in Luke 2:52 it speaks of a prokoptein (strictly speaking, an extension by blows, as a smith stretches metal with hammers. . .) of Jesus in wisdom, in stature, and in favour with God and men. Moreover the temptation narrative (Matthew 4:1ff.) obviously describes the very opposite of a mock battle, and it would be wrong to conceive of it as a merely ‘eternal molestation by Satan,’ to reject it as an ‘inward temptation and trial’ of Jesus. To the vere homo there also belongs what we call man’s inner nature.”34

As one modern scholar stated it: “It is hardly a picture [Heb. 5:7-9] that the early Christians would have invented: they would be more likely to have created a picture of effortless superiority to all human weakness, such as we find later. . . .In any case, its value lies in giving us the most forceful evidence that Jesus was remembered as a man of like passions with ourselves who had to win in the same way as everyone else.”35

In Hebrews 5 Paul refers to Christ’s “loud cries and tears” and to the fact that He “learned obedience.” We have only to review the texts that speak about Christ’s personal will and how He had to use it—deliberately and perhaps painfully—to understand Paul’s reference. At times Jesus had to struggle to subordinate His will to His Father’s. It is because of this that He becomes relevant to us, that He truly becomes our Saviour and Example.

The “‘nevertheless’” in the Gethsemane experience (Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42), for instance, is patently not playacting. Jesus could have recoiled from the cross and turned from His Father’s will. He could have sinned. But when the decision had to be made, He did not fail. “‘Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done’” (Luke 22:42).

Scripture says Jesus was “being made perfect” during His thirty-three years on earth. Perhaps not enough attention has been given to this important Biblical account of how He developed. Jesus emphasized His full humanity when He reminded His hearers: “‘I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me’” (John5:30). “‘For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me’” (chap. 6:38). Paul later recapitulated Christ’s experience as one who had to choose between His will and His Father’s: “For Christ did not please himself” (Rom. 15:3).

Sebastian Moore summed it up well: “If you have never seen Jesus, in your mind’s eye, as faced with inescapable political, social, and personal-integrity options, then you are a Docetist. Your Christ never existed. He is a puppet in a theologian’s puppet show.”36

The book of Hebrews constantly emphasizes that Jesus is our perfect high priest and sacrifice because He stood in the same arena where all sons of Adam stand. It stresses He fills those roles because He faced every temptation common to sinners, He experienced every need of helpless men—all without capitulating to sin.

In order to explain adequately how a perfect atonement could be made, Hebrews seems rather obviously to require not a pre-Fall but a post-Fall human nature of the Son of God. Jesus must be one with man in every respect from the standpoint of human equipment (the principle of solidarity), but He is not one with them as a sinner, that is, from the standpoint of human permance (the principle of dissimilarity).

These two principles describe a simple reality; they do not constitute a paradox, as if two irreconcilable truths must be kept in tension. These mutually supporting principles made Jesus into the divine fact that forms the basis for all the rest of the good news. In the Incarnation, the Saviour became a man in every a essential respect; He was beset with all the human liabilities. He has shown the universe that the sons and daughters of Adam, through His grace, can keep the law of God and prove Satan wrong.37 In n taking on man’s nature as it was when He became incarnate, Jesus spanned the gulf between heaven and earth, God and man. In so doing, He became the ladder that was both secure in heaven and planted solidly on earth, one that men and women could trust.38'... https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/articles/what-human-nature-did-jesus-take

The Liturgist said:

Now this is basically Nicene-standard, and is heavily reliant on terminology from the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus, and later Protestant documents which were derived from this Niceno-Constantinopolitan-Ephesian theology.

Now the question I have is what enforcement mechanisms exist in the Adventist church for the problem of non-Trinitarianism, and additionally how does the church deal with the fact that for many decades in the 19th century it or its precursors were predominantly non-Trinitarian or indifferent to the issue, for example under Miller who seemed to regard the Trinity as an optional belief (he believed it in himself but employed a secretary who didn’t).

Click to expand...

I dont think it matters what the people you employ believe as long as they are good Christians and love the Lord, then you can rely on their work and honesty, that is what I would want. Now, the GodHead or as you say 'Trinity' is a tricky subject, as the church of Rome used it to persecute fellow Christians, and it even appeared in America in 'Mary Land' or as its better known, Maryland. So we dont persecute our brothers and sisters with 'enforcement mechanisms' as you call it. We come together with those who have questions and study Gods Word and see if any divisiveness or off tangent paths can be resolved, that is our experience.

The Liturgist said:

The issue of course is that non-Trinitarians are not Christians per se. Rejection of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is rejection of the Gospel, because the Creed of 381 perfectly reflects the teachings of the Gospel.



Well, let’s be clear on this - all Christians persecuted by Rome were Nicene Christians, since the Church of Rome did not actually persecute anyone until after acquiring temporal power and then cultivating that power in response to the Carolignian Holy Roman Empire’s increasing interference in ecclesiastical affairs. Prior to that time, up to the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great, no Christians were persecuted by the Church of Rome itself but were in some cases persecuted by the government of the Western Empire or during the brief reunion under Justinian, or before the East-West split after the death of St. Theodosius, there was an incident where Emperor Theodosius ordered a non-Christian heretic executed for his heresy in Spain, and this was opposed by St. Ambrose of Milan and other bishops of the Western church who took the view that the state should not execute people for failing to properly adhere to doctrine.

However the views of St. Ambrose were not adhered to and thus in addition to a number of Pagans and adherents of heretical non-Christian sects, the Roman church also persecuted a great many Orthodox Christians, particularly during the Fourth Crusade, where a force gathered together with the intent of retaking Jerusalem from the Muslims was instead diverted at the request of the Republic of Venice to invade the Eastern Roman Empire (or Byzantine Empire) and which conquered Constantinople with the express intent of suppressing the Orthodox faith (this failed, but it did weaken the Eastern Empire. Likewise Lutherans and Anglicans and Calvinists and Zwinglians and other Protestants were persecuted (and many of them persecuted the Roman church back) leading to an ugly period of sectarianism.

Thus the issue is, is the Adventist church prepared to disfellowship members who reject the doctrine of the Trinity?



The article you linked to is historically very inaccurate, aside from being based on a false premise (that non-Nicene Christianity is Christianity; it is not - which is why on ChristianForums people who reject the Trinity are not allowed to post in the the theology forums). From a historical perspective it makes the mistake of assuming that the function of the Council of Nicaea was to persecute “Unitarians” which is incorrect - Unitarianism per se did not exist at the time, rather the function of the council was to settle a dispute that had arisen between the supporters of Arius, who claimed Jesus Christ was created by the Father and is not really God nor of one essence with the Father (and for that matter, not God incarnate), and the Church of Alexandria, which had deposed Arius as a presbyter and had anathematized him, but did not have, nor did it seek, criminal penalties to be applied to Arius (he was for a time exiled but was later recalled from exile by Emperor Constantine and indeed Constantine before his repose was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop who was not present at the Council of Nicaea, not to be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea, who was present). As for the British Protestant government discriminating against people who did not believe in the Trinity, I am opposed to that and to other forms of religious discrimination.

However, within the Christian Church, the fact that some Western Christians historically used violence against Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Christians, because the both use the Nicene Creed without the Filioque, and the Oriental Orthodox were falsely suspected of Monophysitism, and because both rejected Papal supremacy (but also incurred violent persecution from Protestants including the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Prussia, and the British East India Company, because the Orthodox refused to affiliate with the state churches and venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God in a manner the Prussians, who were Calvinists, found offensive, is no reason not to use the Nicene Creed as a standard of faith - that would be akin to saying that because the Samaritans worship on the Seventh Day and because their doctrines are false according to Christ and because they once attempted violence against Christians (with disastrous results) we should not worship on the Seventh Day - both arguments would be a non-sequitur, a kind of ad hominem fallacy.

With that established, let us return to my original point:

I would assume that Adventists would disfellowship someone who advocated worshipping on the FIrst Day in addition to the Sunday, is that correct?

If so, would Adventists also disfellowship someone who denies the eternal deity of Christ? Or who believes Him to be a creation of the Father, rather than to have been begotten of the Father before all ages? Or who denies his humanity, or claims that His nature is a hybrid of the divine and human natures? Or who denies the personhood and deity of God the Holy Spirit?

Also I’m concerned about your pushing back over the term ‘Trinity’ - while it is true that this term is not in the Bible, and was coined by Tertullian, who later became persuaded that Montanus was the Paraclete and joined that non-Christian sect (additionally Tertullian was motivated to do this by the Church of Rome having the policy of absolving sins committed after baptism - Tertullian was a rigorist, an ancient heresy which took the view that sins committed post baptism should not be forgiven and that anyone who sinned after being baptized was unregenerate and therefore damned), the term, which we can translate as “Oneness in Threeness”, has long been regarded, since the fourth century, by Nicene Fathers and later supporters of the Christian church who endured persecution under Arianism such as St. Ambrose of Milan, as an accurate description of one God in three persons as defined in the Nicene Creed and further clarified in its revision in 381.

Nominal opposition to the term “Trinity” often ferments into actual Arianism or other forms of non-Trinitarianism such as Unitarianism or neo-Macedonianism (Macedonius was a fourth century contemporary of the Arians who denied the deity and personhood of God the Holy Spirit). It tends to be a red flag, since it tends to lead people into the Nominal Fallacy of rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity because the word itself is not found in Scripture, a logical fallacy which in turn is related to the “regulatory principle” of worship which fails its own test (since there is no Scriptural instruction to limit ourselves to using terminology which appears in Scripture, and in the case of some subtle heresies which work by attempting to distort the meaning of Scriptural words, especially in translation, the additional terminology used by the Early Church Fathers (which is fairly minimal, by the way, since the Fathers mostly used Scriptural terminology - even such very technical terms as hypostasis, which is used in Christian theology to refer to the underlying fundamental reality of each person of the Godhead, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, can be found in Scripture) becomes extremely useful.

Click to expand...

So you decide who is a 'Christian' and who isn't, not good. I see great danger and persecution lurking in this mindset, and now we see what led to the Inquisition and the torture and death of so many of Gods people and how the church of Rome and the 'Magistrate' burned all those Christians at the stake..

Sophia7 said:

The answer is no. The Adventist Church tolerates non-Trinitarianism within its membership. There is a range of beliefs on this within Adventism and much confusion about what the Trinity actually is. Many Adventists who claim to believe in the Trinity are actually tritheists, believing that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings united in purpose, as in a marriage (an analogy they often use to illustrate their view). Many other Adventists are modalists; these tend to be the Adventists who consider themselves "progressive." On the other end of the spectrum, there are groups of very traditional or "historic" Adventists who hold to a more semi-Arian perspective (as did some of the early Adventist pioneers) or who view the Holy Spirit as merely an impersonal force. Much of the confusion comes from EGW herself since she wrote various statements that contradicted other statements and changed her mind over time but never clearly defined the Trinity and, in fact, used instead terms like "heavenly trio." These different views are all tolerated because the Adventist Church historically hasn't been clear in defining the Trinity and hasn't put as much emphasis on it as things like Sabbath-breaking or drinking (offenses which Adventists traditionally have been much more likely to see as grounds for removal from church membership).

Click to expand...

Good to see you Sophia, and as to the post. Its not a easy thing to explain the deep things of God, so you have to be as Christ told His disciples..

Here is what is written on the subject which most apply from the Spirit of Prophecy:

".. I. The Mystery of the Incarnation

The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to be our study. Christ was a real man; He gave proof of His humility in becoming a man. Yet He was God in the flesh. When we approach this subject, we would do well to heed the words spoken by Christ to Moses at the burning bush, "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place where on thou standest is holy ground." We should come to this study with the humility of a learner, with a contrite heart. And the study of the incarnation of Christ is a fruitful field, which will repay the searcher who digs deep for hidden truth.--The Youth's Instructor, Oct. 13, 1898. {7ABC 443.1}
The only plan that could be devised to save the human race was that which called for the incarnation, humiliation, and crucifixion of the Son of God, the Majesty of heaven. After the plan of salvation was devised, Satan could have no ground upon which to found his suggestion that God, because so great, could care nothing for so insignificant a creature as man.--The Signs of the Times, Jan. 20, 1890. {7ABC 443.2}
In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human mind cannot comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the more amazing does it appear. How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem's manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fullness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity and glory, and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and god became one. It is in this union that we find the hope of our fallen race. Looking upon Christ in humanity, we look upon God, and see in Him the brightness of His glory, the express image of His person.--The Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896. {7ABC 443.3}
As the worker studies the life of Christ, and the character of His mission is dwelt upon, each fresh search will reveal something more deeply interesting than has yet been unfolded. The subject is inexhaustible. The study of the incarnation of Christ, His atoning sacrifice and mediatorial work, will employ the mind of the diligent student as long as time shall last.--Gospel Workers, p. 251. {7ABC 444.1}
That God should thus be manifest in the flesh is indeed a mystery; and without the help of the Holy Spirit we cannot hope to comprehend this subject. The most humbling lesson that man has to learn is the nothingness of human wisdom, and the folly of trying, by his own unaided efforts, to find out God.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. {7ABC 444.2}
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. . . . {7ABC 444.3}
This is a great mystery, a mystery that will not be fully, completely understood in all its greatness until the translation of the redeemed shall take place. Then the power and greatness and efficacy of the gift of God to man will be understood. But the enemy is determined that this gift shall be so mystified that it will become as nothingness.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1113. {7ABC 444.4}
We cannot explain the great mystery of the plan of redemption. Jesus took upon himself humanity, that He might reach humanity; but we cannot explain how divinity was clothed with humanity. An angel would not have known how to sympathize with fallen man, but Christ came to the world and suffered all our temptations, and carried all our griefs.--The Review and Herald, Oct. 1, 1889. {7ABC 444.5}


II. Miraculous Union of Human and Divine

Laying aside His royal robe and kingly crown, Christ clothed His divinity with humanity, that human beings might be raised from their degradation and placed on vantage-ground. Christ could not have come to this earth with the glory that he had in the heavenly courts. Sinful human beings could not have borne the sight. He veiled his divinity with the garb of humanity, but He did not part with His divinity. A divine-human saviour, He came to stand at the head of the fallen race, to share in their experience from childhood to manhood. That human beings might be partakers of the divine nature, He came to this earth, and lived a life of perfect obedience.--Ibid., June 15, 1905. {7ABC 444.6}
In Christ, divinity and humanity were combined. Divinity was not degraded to humanity; divinity held its place, but humanity by being united to divinity, withstood the fiercest test of temptation in the wilderness. The prince of this world came to Christ after his long fast, when He was an hungered, and suggested to Him to command the stones to become bread. But the plan of God, devised for the salvation of man, provided that Christ should know hunger, and poverty, and every phase of man's experience.--Ibid., Feb. 18, 1890. {7ABC 445.1}
The more we think about Christ's becoming a babe here on earth, the more wonderful it appears. How can it be that the helpless babe in Bethlehem's manger is still the divine Son of God? Though we cannot understand it, we can believe that He who made the worlds, for our sakes became a helpless babe. Though higher than any of the angels, though as great as the Father on the throne of heaven he became one with us. In Him God and man became one, and it is in this fact that we find the hope of our fallen race. Looking upon Christ in the flesh, we look upon God in humanity, and see in Him the brightness of divine glory, the express image of God the Father.--The Youth's Instructor, Nov. 21, 1895. {7ABC 445.2}
No one, looking upon the childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just like other children. He was God in human flesh. When urged by His companions to do wrong, divinity flashed through humanity, and He refused decidedly. In a moment He distinguished between right and wrong, and placed sin in the light of God's commands, holding up the law as a mirror which reflected light upon wrong.--Ibid., Sept. 8, 1898. {7ABC 445.3}
As a member of the human family He was mortal, but as a God He was the fountain of life to the world. He could, in His divine person, ever have withstood the advances of death, and refused to come under its dominion; but He voluntarily laid down His life, that in so doing He might give life and bring immortality to light. . . . What humility was this! It amazed angels. The tongue can never describe it; the imagination cannot take it in. The eternal Word consented to be made flesh! God became man!--The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887. {7ABC 445.4}
The apostle would call our attention from ourselves to the Author of our salvation. He presents before us His two natures, divine and human. . . . He voluntarily assumed human nature. It was his own act, and by His own consent. He clothed His divinity with humanity. He was all the while as God, but He did not appear as God. He veiled the demonstrations of Deity which had commanded the homage, and called forth the admiration of the universe of God. He was God while upon earth, but He divested Himself of the form of God, and in its stead took the form and fashion of a man. He walked the earth as a man. For our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. He laid aside His glory and His majesty. He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for awhile relinquished. . . . He bore the sins of the world, and endured the penalty which rolled like a mountain upon His divine soul. He yielded up His life a sacrifice, that man should not eternally die. He died, not through being compelled to die, but by His own free will.--Ibid. {7ABC 446.1}
Was the human nature of the Son of Mary changed into the divine nature of the Son of God? No; the two natures were mysteriously blended in one person--the man Christ Jesus. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Christ was crucified, it was His human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1113. {7ABC 446.2}

III. Took Sinless Human Nature

Christ came to the earth, taking humanity, and standing as man's representative, to show in the controversy with Satan that man, as God created him, connected with the Father and the Son, could obey every divine requirement.--The Signs of the Times, June 9, 1898. {7ABC 446.3}
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.
(447) {7ABC 446.4}

In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but not the sinfulness of man. In heaven was heard the voice, "The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord."--The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901. {7ABC 447.1}

When Christ bowed His head and died, He bore the pillars of Satan's kingdom with Him to the earth. He vanquished Satan in the same nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature. The power of the Saviour's Godhead was hidden. He overcame in human nature, relying upon God for power.--The Youth's Instructor, April 25, 1901. {7ABC 447.2}

In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He "knew no sin." He was the Lamb "without blemish and without spot." Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. . . . We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. {7ABC 447.3}

Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.--Ibid., p. 1128.

(448) {7ABC 447.4}

The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. . . . Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam's place to bear the test he failed to endure.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. {7ABC 448.1}

Avoid every question in relation to the humanity of Christ which is liable to be misunderstood. Truth lies close to the track of presumption. In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a miracle of God. . . . 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. He was tempted in all points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing." It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain, a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children, but let every human being be warned from the ground of making Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot be.--The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129. {7ABC 448.2}

What opposites meet and are revealed in the person of Christ! The mighty God, yet a helpless child! The Creator of all the world, yet, in a world of His creating, often hungry and weary, and without a place to lay His head! The Son of man, yet infinitely higher than the angels! Equal with the Father, yet His divinity clothed with humanity, standing at the head of the fallen race, that human beings might be placed on vantage-ground! Possessing eternal riches, yet living the life of a poor man! One with the Father in dignity and power, yet in His humanity tempted in all points like as we are tempted! In the very moment of His dying agony on the cross, a Conqueror, answering the request of the repentant sinner to be remembered by Him when He came into His kingdom.--The Signs of the Times, April 26, 1905.

(449) {7ABC 448.3}


IV. Assumed Liabilities of Human Nature

The doctrine of the incarnation of Christ in human flesh is a mystery, "even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations." It is the great and profound mystery of Godliness. . . . {7ABC 449.1}

Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906. {7ABC 449.2}

He came to this world in human form, to live a man amongst men. He assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried. In His humanity He was a partaker of the divine nature. In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God.--The Signs of the Times, Aug. 2, 1905. {7ABC 449.3}

But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.-- The Desire of Ages, p. 117. {7ABC 449.4}

Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed.--The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874. {7ABC 449.5}

Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours.--The Desire of Ages, p. 311. {7ABC 449.6}

The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . {7ABC 449.7}

The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him.--The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.

(450) {7ABC 449.8}

As one with us, He must bear the burden of our guilt and woe. The Sinless One must feel the shame of sin. . . . Every sin, every discord, every defiling lust that transgression had brought, was torture to His spirit.--The Desire of Ages, p. 111. {7ABC 450.1}

The weight of the sins of the world was pressing His soul, and His countenance expressed unutterable sorrow, a depth of anguish that fallen man had never realized. He felt the overwhelming tide of woe that deluged the world. He realized the strength of indulged appetite and of unholy passion that controlled the world.--The Review and Herald, Aug. 4, 1874. {7ABC 450.2}

Entire justice was done in the atonement. In the place of the sinner, the spotless Son of God received the penalty, and the sinner goes free as long as he receives and holds Christ as his personal Saviour. Though guilty, he is looked upon as innocent. Christ fulfilled every requirement demanded by justice.--The Youth's Instructor, April 25, 1901. {7ABC 450.3}

Guiltless, He bore the punishment of the guilty. Innocent, yet offering Himself as a substitute for the transgressor. The guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the world's Redeemer.--The Signs of the Times, Dec. 5, 1892. {7ABC 450.4}

He took upon his sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted.--Medical Ministry, p. 181. {7ABC 450.5}

....https://text.egwwritings.org/read/97.57