2012-05-17 22:13Z

Book Review: Touched With Our Feelings

This review authored by David Qualls and published on GreatControversy.org on November 1, 2004

Zurcher, J. R., Touched With Our Feelings: A Historical Survey of Adventist Thought on the Human Nature of Christ. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1999. 308 pp. Paperback, $15.99.

Introduction

Often, a good indicator of the importance of a topic is the amount of controversy surrounding it. If that is true, then the human nature of Christ must be enormously significant. Inspiration seems to agree.

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.¹

It should not surprise us that Satan would stir up confusion and debate on this topic. But within the Seventh-day Adventist Church it was not always so. In a published work of great significance, Jean R. Zurcher (1918-2003), seasoned theologian, carefully traces the Adventist history of the teachings regarding the human nature of Christ in his book, Touched With Our Feelings.²

Having held several high academic and administrative leadership positions in the church in Europe, including the position of chairman of the Biblical Research Committee of the Euro-Africa Division, Dr. Zurcher’s qualifications are impeccable. Published by the foremost, premier publishing house within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Review and Herald Publishing Association, this recent book testifies to the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

Three areas stand out clearly in Zurcher’s work:

The profound importance of this topic.
The unified voice and crystal clarity with which this topic was articulated by our church for the first 100 years of its history.
The utter chaos and confusion that has overtaken God’s remnant church as a result of the introduction of new views on the human nature of Christ in the past 50 years.

Zurcher not only provides us with a valuable history, he details his view of the topic based on Scriptures and the writings of Ellen White [285]. He also offers his own evaluation and critique of the issue, offering up solutions to the various areas of concern raised by some [269].

Besides an Introduction, the book is divided into five parts. Part 1, The Divine and Human Nature of Jesus Christ lays down a solid foundation for the full divinity of Christ as well as His taking on human flesh. Having established these facts, Zurcher moves to an analysis of the pioneer view in Part II, The Christology of the Pioneers of the Adventist Church. He then shows compelling evidence from official church publications in Part III, Extracts from Official Church Publications (1895-1952). Zurcher next turns to more recent history, detailing the radical changes that occurred in the 1950s and beyond in Part IV, The Christological Controversy at the Heart of the Adventist Church. He brings the book to a close with Part V, A Return to Sources of Adventist and Biblical Christology, where he offers insightful analysis, evaluation, and suggested solutions. The book ends on a triumphant and hopeful note of victory for those who allow Jesus to live out His perfect life in and through them.

In the preface to the book, Kenneth H. Wood, Chair of the Ellen G. White Estate Board of Trustees, states the following:

It is my deep conviction that before the church can proclaim with power God’s last warning message to the world, it must be united on the truth about Christ’s human nature. Thus I have long hoped that someone with impeccable spiritual and acedemic credentials would set forth in succinct, readable form a comprehensive view of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy-based Christology and of how the church deviated from that truth on this question 40 years ago. This book meets that hope [19].

The foregoing paragraph sums up the purpose and content of this book quite well. Zurcher sets forth a most compelling body of evidence to demonstrate unquestionably the unamimous acceptance by the church of the fallen, sinful nature of Christ (the post-fall view). From 1852 to 1952, the church spoke virtually with one voice on this topic. Only after 1952 did new views intrude onto the scene. As a result, confusion and controversy continue into our day on this and related topics.

The Issue

The issue, of course, is whether Christ took the nature of Adam before he sinned or the nature of Adam after he sinned (pre-fall, unfallen, pre-lapsarian; or post-fall, fallen, post-lapsarian). In recent years, the debate has become even more refined so that we have to specify whether we are talking about the higher nature (character) or the lower nature. We also have to differentiate between the physical nature (no one argues this point), the mental nature, and the moral nature. Zurcher recognizes the significance of which view we take:

This is a problem of major importance. If we are mistaken about the human nature of Jesus, we risk being mistaken about every aspect of the plan of salvation. We may fail to understand the redemptive reality of the grace bestowed upon humans by Jesus to set humanity free from the power of sin. Ellen White stressed this fundamental truth: ‘Christ’s overcoming and obedience is that of a true human being. In our conclusions, we make many mistakes because of our erroneous views of the human nature of our Lord. When we give to His human nature a power that it is not possible for man to have in his conflicts with Satan, we destroy the completeness of His humanity’ [42].³

Zurcher rightly recognizes the direct relation between one’s view of the human nature of Christ and one’s view of salvation—especially as it relates to completely overcoming sin. Correct belief in a particular doctrine will not necessarily save one, but an incorrect view surely hampers the prospects to a lesser or greater degree.

First Official Declaration

Zurcher makes a most interesting observation that perhaps few have noticed.

According to Ellen White, the human nature of Christ was defined at the very beginning by the early pioneers, along with other fundamental beliefs. ‘After the great disappointment… the truth was opened point by point, and entwined with their most hallowed recollections and sympathies. The searchers after truth felt that the identification of Christ with their nature and interest was complete’ [46].⁴

Zurcher points out that the first official declaration by the church on the human nature of Christ was right in line with what Ellen White reports above. In 1872, the church put forth, A Declaration of the Fundamental Beliefs Taught and Practiced by Seventh-day Adventists. We note the use of the term Fundamental Beliefs. In that document it declares “that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the One by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race…” [47, Zurcher’s italics]. Of course, the significant word is “nature” and the phrase “of the seed of Abraham.”

Zurcher notes that this remained the church’s official stand until 1931 when a similarly worded statement was put forth (without altering the essential meaning). The 1872 declaration forms the “cornerstone of pre-1950 Adventist Christology.” [48] However, a massive change was about to take place. Was this change initiated in response to a careful study of Scriptures and the writings of Ellen White? Zurcher continues:

About 1950, however, influenced by extrabiblical considerations [my comment: publication of QOD to pacify the evangelicals who were threatening to classify Adventists as a cult], another interpretation arose in Adventist circles, affirming that the human nature of Jesus was that of Adam before the Fall. This was clearly a return to the creeds of former centuries. This change was all the more surprising because at the same time, the most eminent Protestant theologians of the second half of the twentieth century were emancipating themselves from traditional positions and unwittingly confirming the interpretation that had prevailed until then in the Adventist Church [48].

Then follows a poignant observation by this trained theologian:

One can only be astonished at this sudden change in interpretation within the church, especially after presenting a unanimous front for a century of consistent teaching on this subject. In fact, since the beginning of the movement, the fallen nature of Christ had never been the subject of any controversy—unlike other doctrinal points, such as the divinity of Christ [48-49].

Strong words indeed from a church leader published in a book on the church’s longest operating, most well-known, and foremost publishing house. Having presented the incontrovertible evidence, the author writes with boldness.

Church Speaks with One Voice

Zurcher provides a long list of church pioneers who taught the fallen, sinful nature view. These include General Conference presidents, GC vice presidents, division presidents, GC secretaries, union presidents, union secretaries, conference presidents, college presidents, Review, Signs of the Times, and Bible Echo editors, and a host of others.

But most informative is his study of the views of Ellen White. Following is a brief sampling of her many statements on what to her was obviously a crucial topic (as quoted by Zurcher):

Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. But when Christ came to meet the temptations of Satan, He bore ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’ [55].⁵

We can’t help but note the contrast here presented. Adam was made pure and faultless with no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil. Inspiration then chooses a significant word: “But.” This conjunction, according to the dictionary, means “on the contrary,” “in contrast to.” Clearly she is contrasting Christ’s nature with that of Adam’s pre-fall nature in regards to the tendencies and corruption of the flesh. Mind you, He did not for one moment sin, yet His lower nature pulled Him toward sin. This gets at the very heart of the contemporary debate over the human nature of Christ, where proponents of the newer view hold forth the idea that Christ suffered the “innocent” infirmities of the flesh; the effects of sin; yet He, as they see it, did not feel the pull of temptation from within.

Zurcher includes another gem from the pen of Inspiration:

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life [55].⁶

There is that contrasting word, “but,” again. In contrast to Adam in his innocence in Eden, Christ partook of the results of the law of heredity. The DNA doesn’t lie. Jesus came to share our temptations in the same flesh and nature as we experience. It is in this context that Ellen White tells us that He came to give us the example of a sinless life. These are highly significant statements, pregnant with meaning.

Continuing, Zurcher provides more evidence from the Spirit of Prophecy:

[Adam had no effects of sin before he fell.] 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 [56].⁷

Here we note that the contrast is again made. This time, not only physical, mental, but moral power is contrasted between the pre-fall Adam and the humanity that Christ took upon Himself. And the last sentence significantly tells us that “only thus” could we be rescued. From where must He rescue us? From the “lowest depths of degradation.” Truly, He meets us where we are, yet without choosing our sins.

Some try to argue that, Yes, Jesus took my nature, but it was only the physical aspects with its weakness and infirmities (innocent infirmities that is). Note the following Ellen White quote:

It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and endure himself the strength of Satan’s temptations, that he might the better know how to succor those who should be tempted [58].⁸

Christ took upon Himself both the form and the nature of fallen man. That is what qualified Him to be able to “succor” or help and aid “those who are tempted.” The Bible makes it clear: “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Hebrews 2:17).

Zurcher observes that there is no better summary of Ellen White’s Christology than the following passage:

Christ is the ladder that Jacob saw, the base resting on the earth, and the topmost round reaching to the gate of heaven, to the very threshold of glory. If that ladder had failed by a single step of reaching the earth, we should have been lost. But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Rom. 8:3), He lived a sinless life. Now by His divinity He lays hold upon the throne of heaven, while by His humanity He reaches us. He bids us by faith in Him attain to the glory of the character of God. Therefore are we to be perfect, even as our ‘Father which is in heaven is perfect’ [64-65].⁹

This paragraph is tightly packed with profound truth; enough material to spawn many a discourse. That connecting ladder reaches me right where I am. It reaches all the way to heaven. It is in this context that Ellen White declares the nature of Christ, quotes Romans 8:3, and then sets before us our high aim. Evidently to her, this is the key to attain that lofty goal set before us.

Other gems from inspiration that Zurcher includes[58]:

Our Saviour came to this world to endure in human nature all the temptations wherewith man is beset.¹⁰

He knows by experience what are the weaknesses of humanity, what are our wants, and where lies the strength of our temptations.¹¹

He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart.¹²

Some may think that Christ, because he was the Son of God, did not have temptations as children now have. The Scriptures say he was tempted in all points like as we are tempted.¹³

If Christ had a special power which it is not the privilege of a man to have, Satan would have made capital of this matter…. The Lord Jesus came to our world, not to reveal what God in his own divine person could do, but what he could do through humanity [63].¹⁴

In a significant summary statement, Zurcher makes the following observation:

Ellen White consistently taught that the work of salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ was not confined to a single purely legal act, the pardon of our sins, but that this work also includes victory over temptation and sin. ‘The Saviour took upon Himself the infirmities of humanity and lived a sinless life, that men might have no fear that because of the weakness of human nature they could not overcome. Christ came to make us ‘partakers of the divine nature,’ and His life declares that humanity, combined with divinity, does not commit sin’ [63].¹⁵

“Does not commit sin” is a potent statement from the pen of inspiration. But that is what the humanity of Christ reveals to us. It is precisely on this point that the New Theology goes astray on this subject. This is the very area that Satan most wants to distort.

1888 Messengers Speak Out

Turning to the lucid and unmistakable testimony of 1888 messenger Ellet J. Waggoner, Zurcher brings out many fine quotes. Included here are just three.

A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon Himself the likeness of man, in order that He might redeem man, it must have been sinful man that He was made like, for it is sinful man that He came to redeem… Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of sinful man, that is, the flesh which He assumed had all the weakness and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject… [71].¹⁶

Zurcher recognizes that Waggoner’s Christology and his view of righteousness by faith, put forth so profoundly in the 1888 era, go hand-in-hand. The two cannot be separated. “The message of justification by faith as presented by Waggoner in 1888 is in reality only a practical application of his Christology” [73]. Quoting from Waggoner, Zurcher writes:

When Christ covers us with the robe of His own righteousness, He does not furnish a cloak for sin, but takes the sin away…. It actually clears him from guilt; and if he is cleared of guilt, is justified, made righteous, he has certainly undergone a radical change. He is, indeed, another person…. ‘He is a new creature’ (2 Cor. 5:17) [73].¹⁷

Waggoner certainly did not believe in a justification by legal declaration alone. The true message of 1888 went far beyond mere forensic righteousness, important as that is. God was preparing a people to reflect His image perfectly. In relation to this, Zurcher then includes a most profound statement by this heaven-sent messenger:

Before the end comes… there must be a people on earth, not necessarily large in proportion to the number of inhabitants of earth, but large enough to be known to all the earth, in whom ‘all the fulness of God’ will be manifest even as it was in Jesus of Nazareth. God will demonstrate to the world that what He did with Jesus of Nazareth He can do with anyone who will yield to Him [73].¹⁸

This is last generation theology clear and simple—the teaching that God will have a group of people on the earth who will perfectly reflect the character of Jesus; who will be able to stand without a mediator in earth’s darkest hour, while they themselves (reflecting Christ) will shine as the stars forever (Daniel 12:3).

If Waggoner was clear on this topic, his fellow 1888 messenger, Alonzo T. Jones was even clearer.

Thus in the flesh of Jesus Christ… there was just the same tendencies to sin that are in you and me [84]. ¹⁹

Zurcher summarizes:

He possessed our passions, but He never participated in them. The whole problem of Christ’s human nature lies in the understanding of this difference [86]. Ellen G. White confirms Jones’ point of view. On the one hand, she said that Christ did not possess ‘like passions… of our human, fallen natures’ (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, pp. 202, 508); on the other hand, that ‘He had all the strength of passion of humanity’ (In Heavenly Places, p. 155). [Footnote 44, p. 91]

A Radical Change

Movements underway in the 1950s brought about “a radical change” in the view of the human nature of Christ (among other things) [153]. Walter R. Martin, a Baptist theologian, considered an expert on cults, had undertaken an interest in Adventism as part of a research project. He, along with Donald G. Barnhouse, a Presbyterian pastor and editor of Eternity magazine, pressed the issue of the human nature of Christ with a small group of Adventist leaders.

As alluded to above, this radical change did not come about as a result of earnest Bible study, but instead resulted from dialog with Protestant theologians who did not look with favor on the Advent movement. The small group of Adventist leaders who met with the evangelicals sought to protect and enhance the reputation of the church by attempting to convince the questioning theologians that Seventh-day Adventists deserved to be considered authentic, mainstream Christians and not just another cult. Doubtless, these men were sincere, yet their efforts to steady the ark had devastating consequences. Once dialog was undertaken, the evangelicals demanded certain concessions in regard to long-held, consistent doctrines of the church.

What followed was some fast and loose footwork with the facts of history. Adventist representatives, apparently, tried to portray to the persistent evangelicals that the church had always taught the nature of Christ to be that of the unfallen nature of Adam, but that despite this “always held” view, there were some who had managed to get their writings into print to the contrary. Barnhouse, writing a report in Eternity, stated that the Adventist representatives had disclosed to Walter 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” [156].

This small group of leaders then set about to sell their new view to the church at large. Thus, a major shift was underway. Zurcher carefully traces the events of the 1950s when this tiny minority of leaders (four or so) entered into dialog with Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse and the other evangelical representatives who questioned the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church [161]. The subsequent publication of the book, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine (QOD), sent shock waves throughout Adventism and spawned a controversy that has intensified to our day.

Dr. Zurcher characterizes the changes that came into the church in the 1950s as “a drastic change of interpretation” [146], “a radical change” [153], “the new theology” [167], “the new interpretation” [167], an interpretation that “differed radically from traditional church teaching” [171], “a radically nontraditional view” [177], “the new Christology” [184], among others.

One prominent denominational historian recently stated that QOD “easily qualifies as the most divisive book in Seventh-day Adventist history. A book published to help bring peace between Adventism and conservative Protestantism, its release brought prolonged alienation and separation to the Adventist factions that grew up around it.” ²⁰ He further describes the work of these Adventist representatives as being “less than transparent,”²¹ on the church’s position on this subject in their dealings with the evangelicals and the church.

The Baker Letter

On occasion, Ellen White saw the need to address special situations with specific individuals to ensure that they did not leave the impression with others that Christ partook in sin itself. For example, from the Baker letter, Ellen White warns:

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 exact time when humanity blended with divinity, it is not necessary for us to know. We are to keep our feet on the rock, Christ Jesus, as God revealed in humanity [164].²²

Zurcher recognizes that the 1955 discovery of this unpublished, personal letter, provided grist for the mill for the massive changes that were already underway in the evangelical conferences of the 1950s. Being the well-trained scholar that he was, Zurcher rightly points out that a few paragraphs from the unpublished, handwritten letter to an individual, of whom little is known regarding his teachings in this area, when stacked up against her voluminous, undeniably clear statements in well-publicized works such as The Desire of Ages (her complete and published explanation of Christ and His life), provide little reason to change the course of history in the Adventist teaching on this subject. Nevertheless, that is what happened.

Reaction to the New View

Reaction to the new view was swift. Zurcher, quoting M. L. Andreasen, Adventism’s most eminent scholar on the book of Hebrews—a book that goes into considerable detail concerning the nature of Christ—states: “The choice of the devout Adventist is therefore between Questions on Doctrine and Desire of Ages, between falsehood and truth” [174]. ²³ The publication of QOD caused such a stir that “a chorus of voices was raised almost everywhere against the book” [174]. Controversy only intensified as the years passed.

The original Adventist view made a comeback in the 1970s with strong support from Robert H. Pierson, General Conference president, Kenneth H. Wood, editor of the Review, and Herbert E. Douglass, editor of the adult Sabbath School lessons, and others, writing important documents in its support. This was a time of revival and reformation especially with the 1973 and 1974 appeals coming from the General Conference. Grand movements were underway. In America, a new era of religion entangled with politics was about to take center stage; a new pope was about to be crowned, one who would prove to be one of the most influential popes of all time; the charismatic movement was sweeping across the religious world; western culture was spiralling into intensifying immorality during that era; and within Adventism, the seed of the theological error of the 1950s was starting to bear fruit in the gospel of Desmond Ford and others.

Since the mid-1980s, the two sides have essentially entrenched themselves behind their respective philosophies. Both have refined their arguments. One popular view put forth by the pre-fall side is that Jesus took upon Himself our “innocent infirmities” yet had no “tendency to sin.” But as Zurcher astutely points out, this view misses the very mission of the Incarnation. Jesus did not come “to liberate humanity from all ‘innocent infirmities,’ but to deliver from indwelling sin which ‘brings me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members’ (Romans 7:23). It is to set us free from the slavery of sin that Jesus was sent in ‘the likeness of sinful flesh’ and had to be ‘made like unto his brethren’ (Hebrews 2:17)” [281].

Significantly, Zurcher points out that the holy flesh movement of 1900, taught that “Christ took Adam’s nature before he fell.” ²⁴ This teaching and movement was discussed and condemned at the General Conference session of 1901. Ellen White described the movement as one involving “erroneous theories and methods” and as “cheap, miserable inventions of men’s theories, prepared by the father of lies” [276].²⁵

Zurcher answers the postulation put forth by some that Henry Melvill’s formulation of “innocent infirmities” and “sinful propensities” are the answer to Ellen White’s use of these or similar terms. Melvill was one of the authors that Ellen White had in her library. Zurcher rightly points out that Ellen White, when she used language similar to Melvill, (in at least one primary example) applied it to Adam before the fall and not to Christ.

Furthermore, while Ellen White did use words and expressions from other theologians such as Melvill, she does not necessarily use them with the same meaning. Zurcher gives examples where she used words but often put a different and sometimes opposite meaning to them than as used by others [242].

Back to the Scriptures

Ultimately, Zurcher finds his clearest basis for the truth concerning the nature of Christ in the Scriptures. The Incarnation may be a mystery. But that mystery is contained in the how, not in the what. How Christ was made a human is truly a mystery; what flesh and nature He became, the Bible leaves us with no doubt. Listen to the record:

Christ was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3-4). What kind of flesh? “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). And where did Jesus condemn sin? He “condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3).

What nature did He take? “but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant [slave]” (Philippians 2:7, NIV).

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same [so that He could] deliver them who were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Hebrews 2:14-15).

Once again, what nature did Jesus take? “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:17).

How much like us was He? “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Hebrews 2:18).

What does this particular nature qualify Him to do? “that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:17-18).

Did Christ share in my temptations and weaknesses? He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).

What was the purpose of the Incarnation? The Messiah came “to make an end of sins” (Daniel 9:24). John the Baptist, at Christ’s baptism and annointing, proclaimed Him as the “Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

The Last Word

Zurcher concludes the book with this powerful set of quotes from the pen of Inspiration.

Christ…had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin…. Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings…. But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man. The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan’s temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ’s humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings.²⁶

According to inspiration, Christ took our nature, “perfectly identical with our own.” Notice also the type of corruption here spoken of is that corruption of character or the higher nature that is brought on by choice and not that which is brought on by birth. The fallen nature with its tendencies to sin are part of our birthright, but these are not of themselves sinful needing forgiveness. Only as we partake in sin by choice do we become corrupted in our character. (See The Lower and Higher Natures article on this website for further information on this topic.)

Now for the really good news from the pen of Ellen White,

Christ’s perfect humanity is the same that man may have through connection with Christ.²⁷

Zurcher ends this monumental book with the following inspired reminder,

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.²⁸

Summary and Recommendations

Jean Zurcher’s book, Touched With Our Feelings, provides a valuable resource for anyone interested in a comprehensive, accurate portrayal of the Adventist history of this most important of teachings—the humanity of Christ. Zurcher’s scholarly credentials are impeccable. He is well-qualified to deal with this subject.

The book has many strengths including its logical layout, its accessibility to a wide audience (it is an easy read with minimal jargon or theological terms), its deeply spiritual appeal, and its relevance to issues facing the contemporary church. Covering 150 years of Adventist Christology (1844-1994), this book provides a solid basis for understanding this topic.

For those wanting more in-depth coverage of certain areas such as the detailed account of the events surrounding the publication of QOD and related events will want to supplement this book with other resources. This website offers resources that can assist in the area of the issues surrounding the publication of QOD. Additionally, Zurcher’s book does not address every detail of every objection raised. Furthermore, it does not address the most recent events of this on-going struggle between truth and error. For more up-to-date information, this website offers resources (Nature of Christ, The Lower and Higher Natures, What is the New Theology, etc.) that can help.

We highly recommend Zurcher’s book for anyone wishing to understand these issues. Authored by a reputable, denominationally-employed theologian, and published by the premier denominational publishing house of the church, this book will provide insights both profound and deeply spiritual. For a life-changing event, read, Touched With Our Feelings. GCO

ENDNOTES

Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 244. Zurcher recognizes that Inspiration, in this same paragraph, counsels us: “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 whereon thou standest is holy ground’ (Ex. 3:5). 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.”
Zurcher, J. R., Touched With Our Feelings (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1999).
Ellen G. White, Manuscript 1, 1892, SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 929, para. 5.
_______, Selected Messages, vol. 2, pp. 109-110 (emphasis supplied by Zurcher).
_______, “Help for the Tempted,” Signs of the Times, October 17, 1900 par. 10.
_______, The Desire of Ages, p. 49.
_______, Ibid., p. 117.
_______, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4, pp. 115, 116 (emphasis supplied throughout this document unless otherwise stated).
_______, The Desire of Ages, pp. 311, 312.
_______, Sons and Daughters of God, p. 230.
_______, Ministry of Healing, p. 71.
_______, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 177.
_______, The Youth’s Instructor, April 1, 1873 par. 1.
_______, Signs of the Times, April 10, 1893 par. 3.
_______, Ministry of Healing, p. 180.
Waggoner, Ellot, J., Christ and His Righteousness, pp. 26, 27 (emphasis supplied).
_______, Ibid., p. 29.
_______, Everlasting Covenant, p. 366 (emphasis supplied).
Jones, A. T., General Conference Bulletin, 1895, pp. 266, 267.
George R. Knight, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Annotated Edition (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2003), p. xiii.
Ibid., p. xv.
Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, p. 19.
Milian L. Andreasen, Letters to the Churches (Conway, MO: Gems of Truth, n.d.), pp. 55, 56.
S. N. Haskall to Ellen G. White, Sept. 25, 1900 (emphasis is Zurcher’s).
Ellen G. White, letter 132, 1900 (Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 37).
_______, Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, pp. 182, 183.
_______, Manuscript Releases, vol. 16, p. 181.
_______, Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 244.

David Qualls is involved in organizing a new local congregation in connection with the Oklahoma Conference, the Tulsa Three Angel’s Seventh-day Adventist Church, located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Raised a Seventh-day Adventist by godly parents, he turned his back on God in his teens, but by the grace of God returned to the faith of his youth with a strong desire to serve God and to help others prepare for His soon coming. He has served in several self-supporting ministries and currently resides near Tulsa with his wife, Ruth. Having earned degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, he currently works in the software development field for a software consulting firm. Taking an active interest in current theological issues within the Remnant Church, he desires to let God use him to spread the true gospel and to help others avoid being blown about by every wind of doctrine.