Ellen White (1827-1915): “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 the worlds…” (ST, July 30, 1896).
John Harris (1802-1856): “What infinite opposites meet in the person of Jesus Christ ‘The Mighty God;’ and yet a helpless child! The creator of all worlds, and yet without a place ‘to lay his head!” (The great Teacher, p. XV, 1835).
Ellen White (1827-1915): ““In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). It is not physical life that is here specified, but immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God… Physical life is something which each individual receives. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Life-giver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed… In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour”” (1SM 296, 297; ST, April 8, 1897).
Ellen White: “From Jesus is our life derived. In him is life that is original, – unborrowed, underived life. In him is the fountain of life. In us there is a streamlet from the fountain of life. Our life is something that we receive, something that the Giver takes back again to himself… And while in this world, we shall give to God, in sanctified service, all the capabilities he has given us” (RH, August 6, 1914).
John Cumming (1807-1881): “In him was life,” – that is, original, unborrowed, underived. In us there is a streamlet from the fountain of life; in him was the Fountain of Life. Our life is something we receive, something that the Giver takes back again to himself, – over which we have no control, and for which we must give God the account and the praise. But in Jesus was life underived, unborrowed; he was Life; and that life, it is said, “was the light of men” (Sabbath Evening readings on the New Testament: St. John, p. 5, 1856).
Ellen White (1827-1915): “The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary…” (5 BC, p. 1129; Letter 32, 1899).
John Harris (1802-1856): “The man Christ Jesus was not ‘the Lord from heaven;’ but, ‘in him dwelt all the fullness of the God-head bodily.’ The Deity did not suffer and sink under, the agonies of Calvary…” (The Great Teacher, p. XV, 1835).
Note: Scripture employs the titles “Mighty” and “Almighty” to Jesus as well (See Isaiah 9: 6; Revelation 1: 8).
Isaac Ambrose (1604-1664): “And thus we may say, that the man Christ is almighty, omnipresent, omnipotent, yet not in respect of his manhood, but in respect of the person which is God and man… on the contrary we may not say, that the godhead of Christ was born of a virgin, or suffered, or was crucified; nor may we say, that the manhood of Christ is almighty, omniscient, omnipresent; because the godhead and manhood are such words, as note to us the two natures of Christ, the one divine, and the other human…” (Works of Isaac Ambrose, p. 215, 1829).
Henry Kollock (1778-1819): “Thus, while the union with the divinity gave an infinite value and dignity to his sufferings, it did not interpose to diminish their severity… that these sufferings were felt only by the human nature of Christ; the divine nature possessed of infinite and immutable felicity, cannot possibly be affected by any sorrow or pain” (Sermons on various Subjects in four Volumes, pp. 318, 330, 1822).
Ellen White (1827-1915): “We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. Our faith must be an intelligent faith, looking unto Jesus in perfect confidence, in full and entire faith in the atoning sacrifice” (1SM, p. 256, 1958).
Ellen White: “There should not faintest misgiving in regard to the perfect freedom from sinfulness in the human nature of Christ….This is essential that the soul may not be enshrouded in darkness” (16 MR, p. 117, 1990).
Octavious Winslow (1808-1878): “The least misgiving concerning the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of our Lord, tends to weaken the confidence of faith in the atonement, and so to enshroud in darkness the hope of the soul” (The Glory of The Redeemer, p. 58, 1844).
Ellen White (1827-1915): “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” (5 SDA BC, p. 1113; Letter 208, 1904).
John Harris (1802-1856): “Was the divine nature in the person of Christ, transformed into the human nature of the son of Mary? And was the human nature of the son of Mary changed into the divine nature? No – but the two were mysteriously united, so as to become one person” (The Great Teacher, p. XV, 1835).
Ingraham J. H (1809-1860): “Jesus, the Son of Mary in his human nature, was the Son of God in His divine nature; an incomprehensible and mysterious union, whereby He has brought together in harmony the two natures, separated far apart by sin, by sacrificing His own body as a sin – offering, to reconcile both in one immaculate body upon the cross” (The Prince of the House of David, p. 453, 1855).
Isaac Ambrose (1604-1664): “I lay down my life, and take it up again. To lay it down was the action of man, not God; and to take it up, was the action of God, not man: In these respects we may say each nature remains in itself entire, without any conversion, commixtion, or confusion: there is no conversion of one into the other… It is easy to observe this real distinction of his two natures from first to last… In him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily” (Works of Isaac Ambrose, p. 211, 1829).
Henry Kollock (1778-1819): “In Christ, the two natures were perfectly united without being confounded or mingled together; and in all his sufferings, the divinity did not exert itself, or was operative only in communicating strength to the humanity…” (Sermons on Various Subjects in Four volumes, p. 330, 1822).
Ellen White (1827-1915): “By taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition…He was subject to the infirmities and weakness of the flesh with which humanity is encompassed” (16 MR, p. 116).
Octavious Winslow (1808-1878): “But His taking up into substance with His own, our nature in its fallen condition, comprehends the sinless infirmities and weaknesses with which it was identified and encompassed” (The Glory of The Redeemer, p. 58, 1844).
Ingraham J. H (1809-1860): “Being a man, with this divine power dwelling in Him for us, He is subject to infirmities as a man; He hungers, thirsts, wearies, suffers as a man… ‘It is not mine to escape human infirmities by any power my Father hath bestowed upon me for the good of men’” (The Prince of the House of David, p. 175, 1855).
Isaac Ambrose (1604-1664): “Christ had all the propensities that belong to either to the soul or body of a man: nay, more than so, Christ had all the infirmities of our nature, sin only excepted: I say the infirmities of our nature, as cold, and heat, and hunger, and thirst, and weariness, and weakness, and pain” (Works of Isaac Ambrose, p. 210, 1829).
Henry Kollock (1778-1819): “You also find him represented with a body subject to the same innocent infirmities and frailties, and possessing the same properties with our own; and with a soul with the same faculties as our own: was he not then truly man?” (Sermons on Various Subjects, Vol. II, p. 58, 1822).
Ellen White (1827-1915): “The Holy One died instead of the unholy. He clothed himself in our filthy garments, that we might wear the spotless robe of his righteousness, which was woven in the loom of heaven” (The Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895).
John Henry Newman (1801-1890): ““Most manifestly,” says St. George of Nyssa, doth Zechariah of Jesus clothed with the filthy garment, our slavish flesh, and stripping Him of His mournful vest adorns Him with a pure garment…” (Tracts for the Times, Vol. II, p. 384, 385, 1836).
John Henry Newman (1801-1890): “In like way [says] St. Jerome… “This Jesus was clothed with filthy garments, who having done no sin, was made sin for us; all which are called filthy garments; and will be taken away from him, when He shall have done away our sins; that because he was clothed in filthy garments, we rising again in Him may hear after our Baptism, “Be thy garments always white”” (Tracts for the Times, Vol. II, p. 384, 1836).
Ellen White (1827-1915): “Christ did not possess the same sinful, corrupt, fallen disloyalty we possess, for He could not be a perfect offering” (3 SM, p. 131; MS 941, 1893).
Octavious Winslow (1808-1878: “But let no one suppose that a liability in Jesus to yield to Satan’s temptation, necessarily implies the existence of the same sinful and corrupt nature we possess. Far from it” (The Glory of The Redeemer, p. 61).
Ellen White: “He 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” (16 Manuscript Releases, p. 182, 1990; MS 57, 1890).
Ingraham J. H (1809-1860): “…tread through the mire of Adam’s sin which spreads through this world; but without taint of sin upon His robes” (The Prince of the House of David, p. 61, 1855).
Thayer E. W (1812-1902): “… and they knew he was a man… And as such he was in all respects, sin excepted” (Sketches from the Life of Jesus, Historical and Doctrinal, p. 22, 1891)
Isaac Ambrose (1604-1664): “…he assumed the nature of man, yet by reason of this pure conception, and of this union… he took upon him the seed of man, but not the sin of man, save only by imputation” (Works of Isaac Ambrose, p. 214, 1829).
Ellen White (1827-1915): “As God, Christ could not be tempted any more than He was not tempted from His allegiance in heaven. But as Christ humbled Himself to the nature of man, He could be tempted. He had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (MS 57, 1890; MR 16, pp. 181-182, 1990).
Octavious Winslow (1808-1878): “It surely requires not an argument to show that, as God, He could not be tempted, but as man He could. His inferior nature was finite and created. It was not angelic, it was human. It was completely identical with our own – its entire exemption from all taint of sin, only excepted” (The Glory of The Redeemer, p. 60, 1844).
Otts, J. M. P. (1838-1901): “The divine nature in Jesus could not have needed any preparation, nor was it possible for temptation to make any appeal to it. The trial involved only the human nature in Christ Jesus, and that was a sinless human nature… in the case of Jesus there must have been a possibility of his sinning” (The Fifth Gospel p. 127, 1892).
Ellen White (1827-1915): “Sin-burdened, struggling souls, Jesus in his glorified humanity has ascended into the heavens to make intercession for us” (RH, January 2, 1913).
Ellen White (1827-1915): “Christ ascended to heaven bearing a sanctified, holy, humanity. He took this humanity with Him into the heavenly courts and through eternal ages He will bear it” (6BC, p. 1054; RH, March 9, 1905).
Ellen White: “Ascended in the form of a man to Heaven, and took his place at the right hand of God” (6Red: Redemption: or resurrection of Christ; and His Ascension, p. 73, 1877).
Octavious Winslow (1808-1878): “The glory into which His human nature entered on His ascension into heaven. The Divine human nature once united, were united forever” (The Glory of The Redeemer, p. 145, 1844).
Phoebe Palmer (1807-1874): “She [Phoebe Palmer] believed in accordance with Scripture testimony, the sentiment comprehensively expressed by a recent writer, Christ has taken glorified humanity to heaven in order to represent us before the throne of mercy…” (The Way of Holiness, p. 89, 1843).
John Ross Mac Duff (1818-1895): “It was, that Christ ascended as a Man; that He left the world still carrying with Him His glorified humanity… now wearing a glorified human form at the right hand of His Father” (Memories of Olivet, pp. 335, 349, 1868).
Isaac Ambrose (1604-1664): “According to what nature Christ said to sit at the right hand of God? I answer, according to both natures: first, he sits at God’s right hand as God; hereby his divinity was declared… He sits at God’s right hand as man too; hereby his humanity was exalted … to that glory which it never had before” (Works of Isaac Am brose, p. 385, 386, 1829).