July 6, 1919
Page 193

W.W.Prescott (Continuing his study on The Person of Christ):

Matt: 1:23: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is, God with us.”

PRESCOTT: This teaches us how He is the way. He is the way to God by being God with us. 1 John 1:1-3: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

This opens up more fully what is meant by the scripture, “He suffered that he might bring us to God.” He brings man to God by bringing God down to men,—Emmanuel, God with us.

But notice that another term is used in this scripture, 2nd verse: “The life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father.” In John’s gospel, the first chapter, “The Word was with God.” Here we have the same teaching in different words, and these words emphasize the idea of eternity. It is the “eternal life, which was with the Father.”

For what purpose was he manifested? “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship

Page 194
with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

He brings men to God, brings God down to men, brings men and God into personal fellowship with each other, and that which unites them in this personal fellowship is the eternal life. That is the whole basis of the question of life in Christ. The life is in the Son. “He that hath the Son hath life.”

Turn to 1 John 5:13: These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

Now 2 Cor. 5:19: “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” This is the same thought as in Matthew 1:23, but stated in a different way. There it is “Emmanuel, God with us,” and here “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.”

Why the need of reconciliation? Isa. 59:2: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.” What is it that has brought the separation, that makes it necessary to have a gospel of fellowship brought to us?

VOICE: Sin.

Now John 1:29: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” It is sin that separates, and sin must be taken away in order to bring this personal fellowship.

Isa. 53:5: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned away one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity

Page 195
of us all.” Now John 1:29 might properly be rendered, He bears the sin of the world.

Eph. 2:13: “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made night by the blood of Christ.”

In this group of scriptures, what truths are presented to us? First, that the purpose of Christ and his gospel is to bring men to God. He is the way to God. No one comes to God except through him. Through him we have access by one Spirit unto the Father. His name is Emmanuel, God with us, and, to bring men to God, he brings God down to men. Sin has done the separating. The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Behold, the Lamb of God that bears the sin of the world.

Those scriptures I regard as fundamental to the whole question. Our whole purpose of teaching the gospel is to bring men to God. That is the essential, the important thing,inline-blockmaking first things first. We shall find that all summed up in the person of Christ.

Let us read another set of scriptures: Ps 11:7, Ps 22:15, 1 John 5:17, 1 John 3:4, and Ps 11:7. (These texts were given to different individuals to read when called fore.)

What I want to emphasize in these scriptures is the righteousness of God.

Ps. 92:15: “To shew that the Lord is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.” 1 John 5:17: “All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death.” 1 John 3:4 RV “Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness. And sin is lawlessness.”

Page 196
Sin is the transgression of the law. It was lawlessness that separated between God and man. In order to bring God and man into personal fellowship, lawlessness must be removed, and righteousness must be substituted. If it is lawlessness that separates, lawfulness must bring together again. Lawlessness has been the cause of all that perplexity. Lawlessness is unlikeness to God, and lawfulness is likeness to God. The purpose of the gospel is to bring us to God. On one side we have sin, unrighteousness, lawlessness, separation and on the other righteousness, lawfulness, union, fellowship. We are not to wait until we can cleanse ourselves from sin before we have this fellowship. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from sin, from lawlessness.

[extended discourse on righteousness and lawlessness]

Page 201 last 7 lines:
“For this purpose the Son of God”—it does not say “Son of man,” but “Son of God.” The eternal life spoken of in the first verse was manifest that he might destroy the works of the devil. “Son of God” – emphasizes his ability to do it. He is the Son of God. The Son of God was manifested, took the flesh, and became a man, that he might destroy the works of the devil, that we should no longer do sin, but do

Page 202
righteousness.

We have spoken of the Lord as righteous. Now we speak of him as holy. Notice in these Scriptures another phase of his character –holiness.

Isa 6:3: “And one cried unto another, and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” This embraces that threefold song of holiness of Jehovah.

Isa. 57:15: For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” First simply the idea – Holy, holy, holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also—touching the idea of fellowship with the Holy One.

Lev. 19:2 – Speaking of the children of Israel: “Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, “Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.” Here is the idea of a personal relationship to the Holy One; Holy, Holy, Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place; with him also of a contrite heart; Be ye holy for I am holy. He transfers that expression to character.

[discusses holiness and righteousness]

Page 206 half way down
I feel very anxious in our personal study and in our teaching and preaching that these central ideas should mold us (amens)—that we do not get off on the outskirts and deal with some little minor terms and technicalities. It may be very interesting at times to state terms, but I feel when I come before an audience of several hundred or two or three thousand people—and I know they need salvation—I know they need an experience with this Person whom they do not know—I seek to bring him to them in order to bring them to God. I do not think it is the time to discuss minor terms or technicalities when we stand before an audience of people that are lost. The thing to tell them is that which will bring salvation to them, that they may glorify God. Introduce them to a new kingdom. Introduce them to a Person they do not know of.

But in order to do this we ourselves must have a very intimate relationship with and knowledge of him. It won’t do to talk “about Christ”. We must be in that personal rela-

Page 207
tionship with him that will enable us to bring him to them—not simply bring the doctrine about salvation to them.

I was reading something yesterday that struck me with great force. It was that “Even earnest study to find things about Christ may shut one off from personal fellowship with him.”

A brother once said to me the last time I was out at a meeting, “I never saw that before. I never saw the difference between the teaching about Christ and the preaching of Christ.” And there are many who do not see that difference. If they talk about Christ in their sermons they seem to feel they are preaching Christ.

There is a cry now back to Christ. It is not enough for us to preach that at some time 1900 years ago a righteous and just man lived who lived a sinless life,—and go on to tell about how he lived. I meet temptation today—not of 1900 years ago. My need is today. I face sin today; and unless I can bring that Man Christ Jesus today into my life; it will not avail for me. Therefore the Christ of history must become the Christ of experience.

[C.M.SORENSON ON THE EASTERN QUESTION: Turkey in Prophecy]

page 230
A.G. DANIELLS: Now we will take up the discussion of the morning’s study. Here is a change to enlarge, Brother Bollman, on the thought you had up this morning if you wish. It is open for questions or remarks.

M.C.WILCOX: There is one statement Brother Prescott made Friday, or Thursday, that I certainly do not wish to misunderstand, and it is a question whether he meant to be understood in the way the statement seemed to indicate. It is whether while Christ was on earth, he preached Himself, or was it really after all the one thing he did not do,—preach himself. Did he eliminate himself entirely, and represent the Father?

Page 231
W.W.PRESCOTT: I would not have it understood to the contrary. When I said Christ preached himself, I meant he preached himself as the revealer of God.

O.B.THOMPSON: I understood you to say this morning that all truth is personality. I cannot understand the personality of God and Christ, and also of angels and human beings, but I find myself unable to understand that all truth is personality. Is sunshine a personality? If so, in what sense?

W.W.PRESCOTT: I distinguished between what the Scripture says is truth, and a statement of fact. Sunshine is a fact, but Christ in the scriptures is truth. When Christ says “I am the truth,” He covers the whole field of truth as far as the Biblical revelation is concerned, and in Him, truth becomes a personality. We cannot understand the things that are revealed as abstractions. If we are to deal with these things intelligently, we must grasp them in a form in which we can lay hold on them. Any reference to truth as it is in Jesus, and that is the expression in the Scripture, has this meaning. As it is in Jesus it becomes personality. Our only comprehension of truth is as revealed in Christ,—truth in the sense of that which is real; reality as opposed to mere semblance or appearance.

J.L.SHAW: You would not mean scientific truth, then, but Biblical truth?

W.W.PRESCOTT: Yes, scientific facts enable us to understand biblical truth. There is a great difference between them.

M.C.WILCOX: Fact, is cold and dead; truth is living.

Page 232
T.E.BOWEN: Going back to Thursday, I should say, Brother Prescott, in speaking of the cycle of eternity, which none of us, I think, can fully comprehend, meaning the eternity that was before the world was and on the other side, representing it as you did by a little ruler that you had. Now the question in my mind was this: It seems to me that we are getting into deep water there and we better not speak of it in just that way. The point with me was this: How is it that just as soon as you can locate an event anywhere in the line of eternity, it ceases to be eternity? This thought has been brought out here.

Going back, for instance, to the place where Christ had a beginning, if we can comprehend such a fact which is brought out in the Scriptures, it would cease to be eternity. I cannot quite comprehend that. I want to know if Brother Prescott thinks eternity is set aside at that time? It seems to me that it is all eternity, and the experience of this world is a part of eternity as much as time will make up eternity after the history of this world is made up. I think that now time is making up eternity just as much as it did before the history of this world began.

W.W.PRESCOTT: Perhaps it would help me to explain if Brother Bowen would tell us where in the Scriptures it is taught that Christ has a beginning.

T.E.BOWEN: That will bring up another question I could not understand, brought out by Brother Lacey. I cannot understand any expression saying Christ the son has come forth and is not part of the Father. It seems to me, brethren, when we get there we are getting back where the Lord has not revealed and it is right here in “Early Writings” that God has called

Page 233
that a mystery and not revealed, but it was revealed to the angels in heaven that the Son was to be worshipped, and when He was brought into the world it calls Him the only begotten Son, and that is the point. He is spoken of in the Bible as the only begotten son.

W.W.PRESCOTT: But where does it touch the time of his beginning? I understood you to say the Scriptures teach that He had a beginning.

BOWEN: Don’t they speak of His being the only begotten son?

PRESCOTT: Certainly. Is that all you mean by that? That does not fix any beginning.

BOWEN: I do not pretend to say I know, and I don’t think any of us know, and I think that is the point: We ought to stop and not try to go back of it and go where angels do not go.

PRESCOTT: I do not know, Brother Chairman, that I can exactly handle the point raised; I don’t know that I fully understand it but I will try.

First, as to this statement that when we fix a point in eternity, we bring it unto time.

BOWEN: And time is no part of eternity.

PRESCOTT: No, I do not intend to convey that idea. When I tried to illustrate that, I meant that time is a mere section of eternity, past and future, but that of course it is all one eternity including the present. But this part is what we as finite minds can grapple with and deal with. It is a little section that we deal with as time. It can be measured as days, months, and years. Eternity cannot be measured that way.

Page 234
BOWEN: That is the point. I cannot understand that eternity is not made up in measuring time. I believe eternity is made up of time as we measure it now. This present minute is this present minute in heaven. The moment Daniel began to pray, heaven knew and before he was through his prayer the angel was here. It seems to me that eternity is made up of time as we measure it and that it will go on through all eternity and it will be made up of the cycle of time as we understand it.

Page 235
H.C.LACEY: As I understand it, God is omnipresent everywhere at the same time, and I have always understood that he is eternal at the same time. While our finite minds cannot grasp it, the Lord is just as truly present in the infinite eons yet to come to us. He exists in the future just as truly as he does today. To bring that within the scope of the human mind is impossible. He is just as truly existing in the millions of years yet to come to us as he has been in the millions of years in the past.

I wish we might have had that question answered. It was this, as to whether there was ever a time when Jesus was not, or when Michael, as he was called, was not. I think the Bible teaches that we are to answer that question with an emphatic negative. There never was a time when the Son was not. If the word Son puzzles us, let us remember that that is God’s own sacred word to present His love for that second person of the deity. We are to know God as his father and our father. Jesus is the revelation. He is the Son of God, not meaning that he proceeded forth and developed from him, nor is there another mother,—I cannot help being precise, His existence spans eternity, and we cannot settle upon any point in eternity past when he began any more than we can settle upon any point in the future when he will not be.

“In the beginning was the Word.” There are two Greek words used in that phrase. All things became by him. The Greek word that means to come into being is ______. It says He became man. This was the incarnation. When we raise the question of the origin of the Son, we say there is no origin to Him. He is the second person of the Godhead.

L.L.CAVINESS: I missed a good deal of this discussion, and I do not know whether the idea is that we are to accept the so-called

Page 236
Trinitarian doctrine or not. Personally, I have not been able to accept the so-called Trinitarian doctrine, that is, as generally presented, that there are three persons in the Godhead, and that there always were three. If that is the doctrine, I can not quite agree with it, because I was reading in the Bible yesterday, in the book of John, which is the book which reveals to us the deity of Christ, and I read as far as I could everything that Christ said concerning himself. Without contradicting what he said about himself, I cannot agree with the doctrine. As I understand it, his statement of the deity rests upon his Sonship, and I do not think there is any one thing through the book of John that is more constantly refereed to than the Sonship. I cannot believe that the two persons of the Godhead are equal, the Father and the Son,—that one is the Father and the other the Son, and that they might be just as well the other way around.

There is another statement he makes. He says that the Father, who has life in himself, gave the Son to have life in himself. When that took place, I do not know, but I believe it took place somewhere way back in eternity. I have to take Christ’s word for it, that at some time that was true, that the Father had life in himself, and gave the Son to have life in himself.

There is also that other statement, that he had received glory from his Father. In praying he said it was his wish that the disciples might see the glory which he had with the Father, and which the Father had given him. It was not something he had all through eternity, but the Father had some time given to him the Glory of God. He is divine, but he is the divine Son. I cannot explain further than that, but I cannot believe the so-called Trinitarian doctrine of the three persons always existing.

Page 237
Elder Daniels here made some suggestions as to the delegates not becoming uneasy because we are studying a subject that we cannot comprehend. He asked that these be not transcribed.



W.W.PRESCOTT: I shall be exceedingly sorry if any expressions that I have used shall turn our minds away from the vital truth that I tried to deal with. A mere discussion of terms to settle a theological question is not my point. My point is to strike the vital things of the gospel. When the spirit of prophecy used the expression, third person of the Godhead, I would think there were to others. When expressions the same as are used in the spirit of prophecy are challenged as being unsuitable to use in the discussion, I may have to refer to the terms that are actually used in the spirit of prophecy in dealing with this matter. I deal with it because it has brought great personal blessing to me, and has given me a view of the gospel that I never had before, and not because I am trying to establish a theory of Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, or any other ism. I was in the same place that Brother Daniells was, and was taught the same things [that Christ was the beginning of God’s creative work, that to speak of the third person of the Godhead or of the trinity was heretical] by authority, and without doing my own thinking or studying I supposed it was right. But I found out something different. It is because this study of the Scriptures in this way has brought great help and courage to me that I have presented it. It has brought as a view of God’s eternal purpose.

Another thing that occurs to me is that when we read the Bible we have to take the meaning that the Spirit has put into it, and not the meaning that we put into it. That will make quite a difference in our reading. We do not always see in Christ’s words what the

Page 238
Spirit sees in them, and tells us afterwards. You follow up certain teachings of the scripture that are merely hinted at or implied in Christ’s words, and find that fully developed later.

When the Apostle Paul came to talk to the Colossians who had fallen into a heresy over the question of the origin of things, he pointed out that all things had their origin in him. In him were all things created. In him all things existed or held together. The continuance of all created things is conditioned upon his continued existence. Then he goes on and said, “In him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden away.” That thought Christ suggested: “I am the truth.” Then he goes on and says further, “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead.” I do not see how we can get much farther than that in the study of the deity. That was implied in Christ’s own teaching, but he did not use those terms. His teaching was developed for us so that we could understand. “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead.” I do not see how we can find any stronger assertion of deity than in that statement. I think it is all taught in the gospel of John; but there is more meaning in these terms when they are applied to God and to Christ than we are able to put into them ourselves.

Page 239
(PRESCOTT—Cont’d)
There must be opened to us by the Spirit, either in the Scriptures or by illumination that will impart to us something of the great meaning that is found in the simple terms in these scriptures.

Now I would like to have the whole matter turn over the question of some terms use or whether we are seeking to establish a certain doctrine. My desire is that we shall have a clear comprehension just so far as it is possible for finite minds to comprehend the wonderful truths of the gospel—the good news concerning his Son. As we go on in the study I shall hope to call attention very definitely as to how much is involved in this good news in order that we may more fully comprehend the greatness of the salvation brought to us and the wonderful basis for absolute confidence—absolute certainty concerning this gospel.

When one enters into that experience he will be able to teach that with the accompanying Spirit that will convince others of the certainty of it. While it will not be so much logical demonstration as conviction that goes with the assertion of truth by one who knows the truth. I think if we could study in to that experience we would see much more results from our teaching than by merely appealing to the intellect.

Now the living Word will speak to the heart as well as to the intellect, but if we stop with the intellect we shall fail of being able to grasp these truths. I would like to emphasize again this thought that I hope that the use of some terms will not lead us away from the vital thing. I had in mind in bringing in this matter to show the absolute foundation of the gospel—the good news concerning his Son, so that we may be able for ourselves personally, without regard to anyone else—get more out of the gospel than we have so far.

Page 240
WILCOX: We all believe the deity of Christ. It is not a question as to his deity or non-deity. In all this discussion there is no question regarding this.

FAKEHAM: Would you consider the denial of the co-eternity of the Father and Son was a denial of that deity?

PRESCOTT: That is the point I was going to raise: Can we believe in the deity of Christ without believing in the eternity of Christ?

BOLLMAN: I have done it for years.

PRESCOTT: That is my very point—that we have used terms in that accommodating sense that are not really in harmony with the Scriptural teaching. We believed a long time that Christ was a created being, inspite of what the Scripture says. I say this, that passing over the experience I have passed over myself in this matter—this accommodating use of terms which makes the Deity without eternity, is not my conception now of the gospel of Chrsit. I think it falls short of the whole idea expressed in the Scriptures, and leaves us not with the kind of a Saviour I believe in now, but a sort of human view—a semi-human being. As I view it, the deity involves eternity. The very expression involves it. You cannot read the Scripture and have the idea of deity without eternity.

KNOX: I believe all the statements that were made this morning by Elder Prescott concerning the promises that are

Page 241
given to us through Jesus Christ—that is, the many Scriptures that were read; and I believe that are made sure to us because they are bound up in the Deity of Jesus Christ. I think that we are all agreed in the deity of the Son of God (Amens).

I think also that we ought to remember what Brother Daniells reminded us of this morning, that we cannot by searching find out God—that this is a matter—a subject that will be unfolding all through the days of eternity. And yet I do believe that the Lord has given us glimpses in his Word, which he has intentionally placed there, to draw our minds out into the contemplations of truths concerning God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

Now I cannot but believe as Brother Prescott has said, the Deity must be eternal. But the difficulty with me is that I cannot believe that the deity of the Son as a separate existence is eternal. I believe in the trinity of God, and I believe that Jesus is God. It says, “Unto us a son is born?” and then you remember the names by which he is called—the Everlasting Father—the Prince of Peace—in Isaiah. The same Scripture speaks of him as the Son and as the Everlasting Father.

You remember the Word says that “in the beginning was the Word.” Now that has been spoken a number of times, and by it we are carried back through eternity. But the same words are used exactly concerning the existence of matter. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now some time God called the things that we see out of the things that did not appear. I do not suppose there is one here that will contend the co-existence of matter without God. Matter has been called into existence by God; but it was called into existence

Page 242
“in the beginning,” and “in the beginning” was the Word. Now the Word was the agency God used to call matter into existence, for “by him were all things made that were made.”

Now again the servant of God speaks of the Son as the first created being. I never saw that, and never believed that, but it speaks of him as having sprung from the bosom of the Father. Now the Word also speaks of Levi paying tithes while he was in the loins of Abraham. Now it would have been equally true if the Lord’s Spirit had carried the acts of Levi back to the time where he was in the loins of Adam. From God’s viewpoint Levi had existed in the loins of his forefathers from the very beginning of time, but he did not have a separate existence until he was born.

And so Christ, with the Father, and of the Father—and the Father—from eternity; and there came a time—in a way we cannot comprehend nor the time that we cannot comprehend, when by God’s mysterious operation the Son sprung from the bosom of the Father and had a separate existence.

PRESCOTT: I would like to call Brother Knox’s attention to this, and ask how on that basis he would deal with John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was born I am.” What does “I am” as to our conception of time, mean?

KNOX: His personal existence. I believe in the eternity of Jesus Christ. I cannot grasp the eternity of his separate and distinct existence.

TAIT: I feel we are discussing something we ought to wait sixty billion years before we start in on. Some of these scriptures do not mean to me what the brethren say they mean

Page 243
to them. But now I think if we still get hold of Christ and what he is to us now and what he will be to us who will reign with him in glory we will go a long ways. Now I am willing to wait to found [sic] out a lot of things I do not understand now, until I get on the other side. (short page)

Page 244
A.G. DANIELLS: Now we shall have to change the order. We don’t want to keep on and go too far in fine distinctions. But I don’t think I can altogether with Brother Tait. I have enjoyed these discussions. They have been helpful to me. I am glad for them.

H.C.LACEY: Is it necessary, in order to have a heart apprehension of a Bible truth, that our minds should have clean-cut apprehension of it. Are we not to understand the theory within the mind as well as with the heart? I have enjoyed these discussions and I think the Bible has given us enough to answer that question. I didn’t see it myself, years ago. But now I think I can see how Jesus can be the eternal son.

M.C. WILCOX: Doesn’t the heart sometimes apprehend what the mind cannot comprehend?

A.G. DANIELLS: So far as I am concerned, I went along with a mystified idea quite a while, and the thing that began to knock the scales from my eyes was when the Desire of Ages came out. I was in Australia when the page proofs were brought out. I never believed some other things till the Testimonies came out and set me thinking. And I said, Look here, Sister White has always been in harmony with the Bible, now she has dropped a stitch somewhere or else I am wrong. I went to studying, and that did more for me.

Perhaps we have discussed this as long as we need to. We are not going to take a vote on trinitarianism or arianism, but we can think. Let us go on with the study.

KNOX: Does the discussion, so far as it has gone, involve the question of trinitarianism or arianism? I can’t see that it

Page 245
does.

PRESCOTT: Some things have been said this afternoon which I think a word will just help the whole thing. I referred to this scripture: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” [John 5:26] I also referred to other scriptures of the same character in my studies. Perhaps some will remember, and brought out the point that Christ’s attributes, what he was, was subordinate to the Father in this sense, that it was derived from the Father, but not that it was any less. The same glory, the same power, that the Father had. But you can’t put those things to cold reasoning after our manner of dealing with such things, and say that the one who derived is just as great as the one from whom he derived it.

JOHN ISAAC?: What are we Bible teachers going to do? We have heard ministers talk one way. Our students have had Bible teachers in one school spend days and days upon this question, then they come to another school, and the other teacher does not agree with that. We ought to have something definite so that we might give the answer. I think it can be done. We ought to have it clearly stated. Was Christ ever begotten, or not, or this thing, or that thing.

A.G. DANIELLS: Perhaps in another study we might have a study on the word begotten. I thought this morning when Brother Bollman spoke of it, if we could have five or ten minutes on that word, bring in the law of precise meaning in that interpretation, it would be well. But we shall have to drop it here this time. Now we will go on. Now let’s not get a bit nervous nor scared.

Page 246
Don’t let the conservatives think that something is going to happen, and the progressives get alarmed for fear it won’t happen. Let’s keep up this good spirit. Bring out what you have. Let us get all the light we have, believe what we can, and let the rest go. I don’t want to believe or be called upon to believe what I don’t believe, nor call upon anyone else to believe what I believe if he can’t. But let us press right toward the enlarged vision, the broader conception. While we will never comprehend it all, let’s get as near to it as we can.

E.R. PALMER: Are not these studies on the sonship to be continued, and the discussions to be continued?

A.G. DANIELS: Yes. Brother Prescott continues his studies. And here are all our other studies written out verbatim. They look mighty good.

CHAS. THOMPSON: There’s another thing, we are going to get into, I’m afraid. People keep coming in late, they don’t know what has gone before, and it will all have to be gone over again.

A.G. DANIELLS: We will ask Brother Sorenson to proceed. We decided to devote the two hours now to this subject, or until he and Brother Lacey have completed their thought. So we would like to have you travel right along your road without backing up and going over too much, or being switched by questions.

(C. M. SORENSON then took the floor, but the first part of his presentation was not reported, by direction of Chairman A.G. Daniels)

end of Page 246
-------------------------------

page 255
H.C.LACEY: Elder William Miller had a view of Daniel 11. I have his lectures that he used to deliver, up to 1842, and he brings into the purview of this prophecy Napoleon Bonaparte, and he has something for every specification in those closing verses. He held that when he planted the tabernacle of his palace between the seas was when Napoleon Bonaparte was in Milan, Italy. He came to his end and none helped him when the British took him prisoner and sent him to St. Helena. That is the end of the prophecy, and Brother Miller pointed out the singular accuracy with which those events were fulfilled, and he laid a great deal of stress on that prophecy, believing, of course, that Jesus was coming in 1844. It was natural for him to find events that he could apply. Now, if I understand it, when our people had to recede from Brother Miller’s position, then they studied these last verses; and right there comes this point, that before all had decided—Elders Waggoner, White, and Butler—before there had been a full decision, Elder Uriah Smith was writing his book, and he, believing that the papacy would not be restored, he felt like following some other prophetic interpretation, and brought in France and Turkey, and the

Page 256
thing was—-shall I say—foisted out upon our people, with the best of intentions, of course. We are the descendants of those who have accepted this interpretation without question. We revered Thoughts on Daniel, and read it earnestly. I used to sit up till midnight reading it, until I had some chapters almost by heart. We all respect Brother Smith highly. Personally I do. He was one of the giants of this denomination. One of the brightest remembrances of my stay in Battle Creek is in connection with Brother Smith. I used to be invited to his home. I went and helped him on Sunday night. Our associations were personal and friendly, and I look back with great pleasure upon them. But there are some things that we have had to change a little bit. I believe that the history of Brother Smith’s interpretation is that he crystallized the thing at a little early date, and discounted the restoration of the papacy, and brought in these other powers, France and Turkey, and so we have his interpretation.

The verses that he switched off to France, those verses are quoted in Second Thessalonians, and our interpretation of Second Thessalonians is that it is the papacy. Yet when we go back to Daniel 11 we say it is France. Just a little inconsistency there. That is the problem, as I understand it….

Another point. The Spirit of Prophecy is absolutely silent as to the interpretation of the details of this prophecy. Daniel 11 is nowhere quoted in Sister White’s writings. To me that is a significant fact. She has never authorized by any published word Page 257 the current interpretation of Daniel 11. In Volume 9 she says “The prophecy of Daniel 11 has nearly reached its complete fulfillment.” It looks to me as if the field is open. I have adopted this principle of interpretation: When Sister White has put an interpretation upon a passage, that is the primary interpretation, and I am glad to accept it. If we can decide either way, and Sister White has something to say, that settles it.