Jesus Christ’s Humanity In The Contexts of the Pre-Fall And Post-Fall Natures of Humanity: A Comparative and Critical Evaluative Study of the Views of Jack Sequeira, Millard J Erickson and Norman R Gulley
by Emmanuel Mwale, PhD
Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the subject of Theology at the University of South Africa
Supervisor: Prof J M Wood
December 2019
The below quote comes from the 2015 dissertation titled “Jesus Christ’s Substitutionary Death: An Attempt to Reconcile Two Divergent Seventh-Day Adventist Teachings” (link) written by Emmanuel Mwale (PhD). It is a remarkably interesting summary of the dissertation and his final conclusion based on the careful review of various non-Adventist and Adventist salvation theories:
“Having lived a life of perfect obedience in the fallen human flesh that Christ assumed at the incarnation, He voluntarily and willingly bore the sins of the entire human race and died the second death for, and in our place; thereby paying the penalty for sin. Jesus Christ bore our sins (acts or behaviors) vicariously (instead of us), while sin as nature or a law residing in the fallen human flesh that He assumed was condemned in that flesh (in the fallen representative human flesh Christ took) and received eternal destruction on the cross. Thus, on the cross, in Christ, God saved the entire humanity. On the cross, the condemnation that the entire humanity had received by being genetically linked to Adam was reversed in Christ. Thus, the entire human race stands legally justified. But this is a gift, which can either be received or rejected. Therefore, salvation is not automatic.” (link)
It basically means that according to the author’s understanding, Christ saved us vicariously (instead of us, or in our place) from our sins (transgressions of the law). At the same time, He saved us corporately, actually (as us) from our singular sin (sinful nature including the indwelling law of sin and selfishness). He took that representative “sin of the world” (fallen human nature) at the incarnation, perfectly overcame it in His life as Second Adam (second representative of entire sinful humankind), and carried it to the cross, where that representative sin was condemned by God (Rom 8:3) and punished with eternal death.
The above conclusion seems to correspond also with the understanding of the same subject by Jack Sequeira who wrote that “Christ, in His humanity, saved men and women in actuality-not vicariously… It may be possible for Christ to bear our many sins vicariously on His cross-although that would be illegal-but, it is impossible for Him vicariously to overcome and condemn the principle of sin that resides in our sinful flesh… Christ’s life and death actually changed humanity’s past; Christ’s life and death became our life and death. In Him we lived a perfect life; in Him we died the penalty for sin (2Corinthians 5:15)… As the Second Adam (humankind) Christ took our place and died our death in order that we might be identified with Him, both in death and resurrection… This is where vicarious substitution and actual substitution part company. The former teaches an exchanged experience; while the latter teaches a shared experience… Yes, we accept salvation as individuals, but humanity was condemned corporately in Adam and redeemed corporately in Christ.”
According to Mwale, Sequeira differs from other theologians because he dichotomizes Christ’s substitutionary death. On one hand, Christ died vicariously (instead of us). On the other hand, Christ died in actuality (He died as us and all humanity was obedient and punished with eternal death in Him). This is the way he solves the problem of how Christ dealt with our sins (what we do) and sin (our nature). He argues that since Christ himself never committed any sin (in thought, word, or deed), we can say that He vicariously took the sins of all of us and vicariously redeemed all sinners from their sins (sinful behavior). On the other hand, Christ dealt with sin as nature by identifying Himself personally with the sin problem by assuming our representative, corporate sinful human nature, was perfectly obedient as us and carried that “sin of the world” onto the cross where it was condemned by God in Christ’s flesh with eternal death (Rom 8:3)” (link).
Sequeira agrees that the term “vicarious” is also a form of substitution but it refers only to salvation from sins as acts and not from sin as nature (the core of the sin problem). He also believes that Ellen G. White used the term “vicarious” only to refer to how Christ redeemed humanity from sins as acts but she never used it with reference to sin as nature. She also never used the term to refer to the human nature that Christ assumed. (link)
CONCLUSION
PREE-FALL MODEL
This study has established that Gulley’s alternative or unique or ‘neither pre-fall nor post-fall’ model of Jesus’ human nature is actually also the one proposed by Erickson.
Gulley and Erickson are proponents of what can be called a unique, pre-fall (prelapsarian) model of Jesus’ human nature. There does not seem to be a strictly pre-fall model of Jesus’ human nature, for such a model would have meant that Jesus has assumed Adam’s pre- fall nature, both spiritually and physically – a view that Gulley and Erickson correctly do not support.
Evangelical scholars such as Thiessen and Grudem are in harmony with Erickson’s pre-fall model of Jesus’ human nature.
SDA scholars such as Webster and Adams argue that the alternative or unique or ‘neither pre-fall nor post-fall model’ of Jesus’ human nature proposed by Gulley and a number of other Adventist scholars, is post-fall.
However, this study has established that, since this model omits ‘propensities or drives caused as a result of Adams fall’ from Jesus’ human nature, it is pre-fall.
Therefore, this study concludes that the Adventist model of Jesus’ human nature in Seventh-day Adventists Believe (General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists 2005) and Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (2000) is pre-fall and not post-fall as some Adventist scholars claim.
Thus, in harmony with the Adventist history of Christology, which reveals that they had conversations with Evangelicals 1955-1956, resulting in Adventists revising their model (although not in an official statement) to reflect the popular Evangelical Christological model, this study concludes that many Adventists are proponents of the Evangelical model of Jesus’ human nature as represented by Erickson.
I have noted that both Gulley’s and Erickson’s model of Jesus’ human nature is not consistent with the NT data. It fails to adequately resolve the dual problem of sin and makes Jesus the pre-fall Adam’s substitute.
This model also makes Jesus the pre-fall Adam’s example in temptation, obedience, and suffering.
In this model, Jesus becomes the pre-fall Adam’s High Priest.
It suggests that Jesus had three natures: A divine nature, a pre-fall spiritual human nature, and a post-fall physical human nature.
I have therefore rejected that model.
POST-FALL MODEL
Sequeira’s post-fall (postlapsarian) model of Jesus’ human nature reflects the NT data better than Gulley’s and Erickson’s pre-fall model.
In Sequeira’s model, Jesus is a post-fall Adam’s substitute.
The model adequately resolves the dual problem of sin.
In this model Jesus is the post-fall Adam’s example in temptation, obedience, and suffering.
This model also suggests that Jesus is the post-fall Adam’s High Priest.
It preserves the biblical teaching that Jesus had two natures.
I have observed, however, that, since Jesus became what He was not by native right, it is important to revise the post-fall model of His human nature so that it reflects this fact.
Jesus was not conceived in the natural way, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. He was not born spiritually dead but was filled with the Holy Spirit right from His mother’s womb.
He was the God-Man. He was and still remains the only human being who is also God, with the divine and human natures blended in such a way that, while they remain distinct, He is not two persons in one, but one Person with two natures.
Although He assumed a human nature, which was indwelt by the law of sin, He did not commit any sin throughout His life.
Thus, I have proposed what I have called a unique, post-fall (postlapsarian) model of Jesus’ human nature.
In this study, I have argued that Christologists should not be restricted by the creedal statements formulated at Nicaea and Chalcedon, for they reflect the views of the theologians of the first five centuries of the Christian Church and not necessarily what the Bible teaches. Christologists should freely study the NT in light of the OT and decide for themselves what the Bible conveys about Jesus’ human nature. Taking both the pre-fall and post-fall human natures into consideration, they will be able to appreciate God’s solution to the dual problem of sin, which actually involved the incarnation of the second Person of the Godhead…
The unique, post-fall model of Jesus’ human nature that I have proposed in this study preserves the uniqueness of Jesus. I have contended that Jesus assumed a post-fall human nature without being a sinner in need of a saviour.
I have also contended that it is possible to teach that Jesus assumed a post-fall human nature, without getting into the trap of perfectionism or absolute sinlessness in nature and performance. It is possible to be a post-fall Christologist and still advocate Jesus’ absolute perfection and the believer’s relative perfection.
Sequeira does this in his Christology. I equally espouse the post-fall view of Jesus’ human nature, but I do not support the ‘holy flesh’ heresy and the so-called believer’s ‘absolute perfection’. I totally reject legalism.
Jesus is our Saviour before He is our Example. He had to save us before He could be our Example. He is our substitute before He is our Example.
This is my view of salvation in light of Jesus’ unique post-fall human nature that I have proposed in this study.
– HUMANITY-OF-CHR-MWALE-PHD
– DOWNLOAD PDF
https://www.salvation1.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/HUMANITY-OF-CHR-MWALE-PHD.pdf
– SAVIOR OF THE WORLD (JACK SEQUEIRA)
– ELLEN WHITE ON HUMANITY OF CHRIST
