July 3, 1919

Page 110
PRESCOTT:
The greatest fact in the world is Christianity. Our ability to deal with this great fact is measured by our ability to deal with things invisible with that same reality that we deal with visible things. And until we are trained to that, we shall not be able to apprehend this greatest fact in the world. The center of this greatest fact is the greatest person. That person is Christ. The whole problem of Christianity is that the Christ of history shall become th Christ of experience. That is the whole problem of Christianity. If he is to us simply the Christ of history, as a person outside of ourselves and apart from ourselves, he has only that influences upon the life that any ideal will have. But ideals are not sufficient. No one can be saved from himself by an ideal. That ideal must become a personality in him, in order to change his life. Now our great difficulty, as I have come to apprehend it, is the separation of the Christ of history from the Christ of experience, so that he is an ideal to us, and an example, a pattern, and not an indwelling life. That is the whole question of Christianity.

Now I certainly hope with Elder Daniells that our study of these things shall not be merely intellectual. There is no study in the whole equal to this study simply from the intellectual standpoint. When one paces these wonderful mysteries and attempts to grasp them with the human mind, when one faces this book and attempts to grasp the theme, for I say the theme of this book, and to recognize that theme from Genesis to Revelation, to

Page 111
recognize the working of a purpose, a divine mind, in all the history that is covered from creation until now, if there is anything that will put the human mind upon the stretch, it is that. We have not been attempting to grapple with it in that way. We have done only piecemeal in little section. I hope we shall gain an appetite, a consuming appetite, to be able to deal with this book as a whole, to grasp what is really revealed here, not simply to grasp divers propositions, divers manners, but to grasp in that whole in which there was revealed to us the person of his son.

I would like to have you read some scriptures for me. (Elder Prescott then gave out various texts of scripture, and after they had been read, he commented on them one by one as follows:)

Page 119
Now another group of scriptures: Romans 8:8-10, 2 Cor. 4:10-11, 2 Cor. 3:17, Acts 4:3, 4, and 9, Col. 2:20, Eph. 3:17, Phil. 3:8-10, and Col. 1:27.

In the reading of these scriptures what I want to emphasize is the indwelling of Christ. He is the center of Christianity. He is the doctrine. Now, on the indwelling of Christ, Romans 8:8-10:

“So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”

“They that are in the flesh cannot please God.” What does that mean? It is exactly the same expression that we have in Acts 17, where the Apostle Paul in preaching said, “In him we live and move and are.” But in order to try to give the meaning, our translation reads, “Have our being.” But it is just the same very, “are.”

Ye do not have your being in the flesh. Any one who has his being in the flesh cannot please God. But then it changes and says But if Christ be in you, the body is dead.

The first expression is “Spirit of God,” the second “Spirit of Christ,” and the third “Christ.” What does it mean when you have those three in that connection? Synonymous. Then Christ in you is the Spirit of Christ in you, which is the Spirit of God in you, and if you have that experience, you do not have your being in the flesh. It is not the fleshly life, it is the heavenly life.

2 Cor. 4:10, 11: “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body? For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.”

Page 120
Death precedes the manifestation of Christ, and unless we are willing to pass through the experience of death, we shall not pass into that experience of life. That is fundamental.

The next scripture: 2 Cor. 3:17: “Now the Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

What I want you to note is just the same as in Romans 3:8-11. The Lord is the Spirit. When the Spirit is present, He is present. When the Spirit is not present, He is not present, and we only have so much of Christ as we have of the Spirit. We can only know Him through the Spirit. We can only have so much of Him as we have of the measure of the Spirit.

Acts 5:3,4, 9: “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan fill thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remaind, was it not thine own? and as it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast though conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. …Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.”

Page 121
Notice the three things here. First, lying to the Holy Spirit, which is set forth in the next verses to be lying to God. What does that mean? It means that when you deal with the Holy Spirit you are dealing with God. But note the steps. This omits one step. “Through him we have access in one Spirit unto God.” Note the steps. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Son, the Father. We only have so much of the presence of Christ as we have that presence of the Spirit. Through the Son we know the Father. And there is no other way of access, as we are situated now, in the flesh here, there is just one way to God—the Spirit, the Comforter, the Son, the Father.

Next Scripture—Gal. 2:20: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”

Here is where we have the ideal changed into the personal power. Follow his steps. “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk, even as he walked.” Likeness of Christ is the aim of the Christian, but how shall that problem be solved? What is the provision that is made in the gospel? It is not an impossible task; not an impossible ideal. It is an impossible ideal to copy it as something outside of ourselves, but according to the revelation of the gospel, a realization of the ideal when that ideal becomes a person within. You may set up all the ideals of reform in the world, you may set forth the most beautiful ideas of reform, but no ideas will save any one—never. But when the idea

Page 122
becomes a person, as in Christ, there is salvation; and that is the only person upon whom we can depend for salvation.

Next Scripture—Eph. 3:17: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith”—Yes, that will do. What is the difference between Gal. 2:20 and Eph. 3:17—“Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me,” and “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” I would like to have you notice the permanency of the expression—That Christ may dwell in your hearts. Not simply come and visit,--dwell in your hearts; that you may become a living temple where the holy God is always seen. “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.”

Phil. 3:8-10: “Yea, doubless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: For whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.”

Now the epistles of the apostle Paul are notable for the development of certain doctrines, but if you follow carefully you will see that he develops all these doctrines in Christ, not apart from him at all. Before his conversion he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, as touching the law blameless. A Hebrew of the Hebrews. Among the Scribes and Pharisees he would pass 100 per cent. But the difficulty was that it was all apart from his person. When he saw Christ in the way it changed the whole current of his life, and what before had been self

Page 123
and self exaltation, and righteousness by works, and commending himself to God for what he was and did of himself, all that was worse than nothing now, for his righteousness, he says, is “found in him.” You see that these Scriptues bring two ideals out—first, Christ in us, and second, we in him. “Abide in me and I in you.” “At that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” It is a double experience. That is the experience of the person in Christianity.

Col. 1:27: “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” We deal with the wisdom of God in a mystery. That myster is unfolded to us in the Scriptures through which we come to the person and see that mystery unfolded in the person of Christ, and that is “Christ in you the hope of glory.” We must recognize constantly that in dealing with these spiritual truths we deal with that which to the natural man is simply foolishness. We deal with that which to the world does not appear to be wisdom at all. We appear to the world to be off up in the air somewhere. Now I say, let us keep our feet on solid ground, and not be carried off into a sort of mythical ideal—a religion which is merely a notion or sentiment. If there is any solid foundation for anything it is for Christianity. It is solid foundation of actual fact. What we must hold to, anchor to, are facts. Then we must know what these facts mean, and that is what we learn in this book, and what we will ty to learn more and more. These texts emphasize the facts that the center of Christianity being a person, that person must dwell in us. That is Christianity. We must grasp the meaning of the texts that

Page 124 set forth this ideal of Christ in us—that godliness must become a personality; not an abstract teaching, not a mere demonstration, as a problem of geology to prove a theory. The mere proof of the theory of theology has no more salvation in it than the proof of a theory of geometry. Not a bit more. I have heard so much mere teaching that was nothing more than a mere demonstration of the theory that I feel the need of emphasizing this. This idea of preaching Christ is not to demonstrate the theory and then tack Christ on to it. It is not that. It is to preach Christ in the theory. And personally I have found that was a field for the greatest study—how to do that so that it would not be a theory and then Christ tacked on to it. Not a dry demonstration, a thin exhibition; but that the thing itself should be the exhibition, the thing itself should be the drawing power.

I am speaking now especially with reference to the teaching Bible in the school. I think the great thing in the Bible teaching in our schools is that the whole field of necessary truth shall be covered in preaching Christ in person—a personal Christ. As I said yesterday morning, I am hoping that if there is anything at all to this ideal we are dealing with now, it shall have influence upon our method of Bible teaching in our schools.

This last trip I was out I set a company of our workers four times, had four opportunities, and I tried to impresss some of these things in relation to our personal experience and teaching the truth. At the close of the fourth meeting they had a testimony meeting, and one brother—a worker, got up, and he said, “I am ashamed of myself. As I came to

Page 125
this meeting I saw a man on the car with his Bible open, and I thought probably he was a minister, so I got in the seat with him and had a chance to study with him, and I just wound him all up on doctrines, and I embarrassed him. As I look back, I am sure I did not help that man a bit. I am ashamed of myself. I am going to throw the whole thing aside and start over. Lately I have felt that I was losing my personal experience, and I hardly knew exactly what to do. I thought I would prepare a new set of Bible readings and see if there was anything that would bring back that spiritual part that I was losing. I am ashamed of myself.”

I was attending a Bible institute in China, with Chinese workers and a few foreigners. After we had been studying for a few days the different native evangelists were called upon to tell in what order they would present the doctrines, and they had written down on the board with which doctrine they should begin. When it came the turn of the Chinese evangelist, who had gained some experience, he took the eraser and rubbed it all off the board. He said, “I will rub it all off and start with Christ.” I was pleased that he went at it in the right way. He had got the vision—that is was not to study doctrines which lead up to Christ. He was going to rub it all out and start with Christ.

Page 134
An exposition of Romans 11:25 was called for.
M.C.WILCOX: I don’t know whether anyone else agrees with me on this scripture or not. I think that all the fullness is met in our Lord Jesus Christ, and I think that in the first chapter of John “Of his fullness have we received, and grace for grace,” was spoken to the Jewish people, and is met in one of the texts quoted this morning, that “In him should all fullness dwell.” Here the fullness of Jew and Gentile was met in Jesus Christ. It came in when Christ was presented to both Jew and Gentile in all his fullness by the gospel, and from that time on till the present time until probation closes there is no difference between Jew and Greek.

Page 141
G.B.THOMPSON: Suppose in reading the Bible I come across a word, such as the word “covenant,” for instance, and I do not know what it means; what should I do?

W.W.PRESCOTT: If you go to the dictionary you will find the definition of “covenant” as “an agreement between two persons,” and if you take that definition you are back under the old covenant. Read the Bible and find in the Bible a definition of the term “covenant.” If you keep on studying the Bible you will find somewhere a statement that will enable you to understand what it means and all about it.

H.C.LACEY: I understand you do not believe that we should dispense with the dictionary entirely?

W.W.PRESCOTT: O no, I do not mean that we should throw our dictionaries on the scrap heap. But in our study of the Scriptures we must be the meaning as found in the Scriptures, and our dictionary definition must accord with

Page 142
the Scripture use of it, whether in Greek, Hebrew, or English.

QUESTION: Is it all right to use the two together?

W.W.PRESCOTT: Much depends on which you let govern when you come to these critical things. If a man takes Webster’s definition of “covenant” I think he is going wrong.

M.C.WILCOX: By studying the Scriptures one’s knowledge can be infinitely enlarged upon, and the Bible will give a great deal better definition of the word than the dictionary can possibly do.

H.C.LACEY: Is not the Bible its own lexicon, its own commentator, its own encyclopedia. It is complete in itself.

Page 176
H.C.LACEY: There is one more that I have used, and that is what I call the law of emphasis. There is one peculiarity about the ancient Hebrew and Greek, and particularly the Greek, and that is that the written language expresses all the subtleties of emphasis that a good reader would put into it. Being inflected languages, you can put in toward the front of the sentence the emphasis. The New Testament Bible has much subtle emphasis, and we miss the meaning of the passages when we do not catch their emphasis. For real accuracy one needs to be somewhat familiar with those original tongues. But there are translations in which the emphasis is presented.

Take John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” I think nearly everybody reads it that way. I have heard presidents of colleges read it that way. But just think what it means when you say, “and the Word was God.” The inference would be that He is not now. “In the beginning was the

Page 177
Word, and the Word was with God”—the eternity of the Word, the personality of the Word, and then, “and the Word was God.” In a very simple way, yet a very beautiful way, the emphasis is placed on the word God. That is one of the simplest illustrations of that principle.

[literal Greek is: In beginning there-was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word. Jehovah Witnesses make a big deal about the fact that there is no definite article before that second and last occurrence of “God” which they claim should be translated “ and the Word was a god.” But the real thought, as Lacey explains here is one of emphasis. Placing God first and without a definite article, as “beginning” also has no definite article, indicates that it is not God Himself, but the nature of God that is being emphasized. The Word was not God Himself, but the Word had the same nature as God. The Word was divine.]

Page 180
H.C.LACEY: When we mean the Law of First Mention we do not mean the first time the word appears, but that there are a sufficient number of instances of that kind where the first mention of the topic is made which gives the key to the whole subject in that field. In many instances we might say that is the Law of First Mention.

Page 181
Take the word elohim “In the beginning God created.” The Hebrew word for “God” there is (elohim). And right at the beginning we can see that the trinity is suggested. In the beginning God—he created; it is singular. There is the trinity in unity. Perhaps we see it in its purity there—In the beginning God (Greek word theos) created by a single act; and so the unity of the Godhead is beautifully taught in the original Hebrew. And then when the Spirit of God is mentioned, as it is in the next verse, it says the Spirit of God brooded upon the face of the water. The Hebrew word rakhaf means brooded, and there is a beautiful word, the Holy Ghost represented throughout the Bible as brooding—characteristic of a bird. There are gods many and lords many, but only one God. [1Corinthians 8:6 “one God the Father, of whom are all things” “the great Source of all” DA p. 21] And when he says “In the beginning God created” it is given the distinctive attribute of the Spirit of God. [“God is a spirit” John 4:24] We read in Genesis 3, 1 to 15 the account of the first temptation, when the woman was led to eat of the forbidden fruit, and we find three suggestions under which all possible sin is covered. Centuries later John warns against “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”—exactly these three things that caused the original sin.

In the original promise, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpents head, and thou shalt bruise his heel,” we have the promise of the second advent and then the first advent, and the essential work between—the incarnation of the Son of God, the seed of the woman.

Page 192
W.W.PRESCOTT: May I add a word on this general belief? I would like to be understood as being a conservative. I thought I would have to proclaim it to you myself. (Laughter) I do not think we should be looking around for opportunities to change what we have taught. We should start with the idea that this message is a true message, and we are not here to tear it down. That is my position. But I stand here: Because we have taught a thing that does not prove that it can not be changed; and when we see clear light, we should advance in the light….

G.B. Thompson: Then you do not believe the fathers in this movement were any more infallible than the early fathers?

W.W.PRESCOTT: I believe they were godly men, and that they were led by God.

(Adjourned to Sunday, at 8:00)