It is important to mention William W. Prescott as one who contributed to the triumph of the message of justification by faith after Minneapolis. During the 1890s he remained close to Waggoner, Jones, and Ellen White. Like them, he made the divine-human nature of Christ the basis of his Christology.
William W. Prescott was born in New England in 1855 of godly parents who were fervent followers of the Millerite movement.
William spent his youth in the state of Maine. He graduated from Dartmouth College in 1877, then taught as a professor of Greek and Latin. From 1877 to 1880, he was principal of the secondary school at Northfield, then at Montpelier in Vermont. For a period of time he embarked in journalism before founding his own journal, The State Republican of Montpelier.
The year 1885 marked a turning point in His life. First he joined the Adventist movement, then accepted the leadership of Battle Creek College, a post which he held until 1894. While there, his expertise was requested to help with the establishment of Union College in Nebraska, and Walla Walla College in the state of Washington.
Prescott also took the initiative to organize the first educational institute for the training of the teaching personnel for the church.
Because of his reputation as an educator and Bible teacher, the leaders of the General Conference asked him in 1894 to go to South Africa, Australia, and Europe, to encourage the development of the educational work, to teach in the various biblical institutes that specialized in the training of pastors, and to take part in camp meetings. During his star in Australia he assisted in the creation of Avondale College; and in England he laid the foundation for the educational work.
During the 1901 session Prescott was elected to the vice presidency of the General Conference and the presidency of the publishing house committee; he also became chief editor of the Review and Herald. When he left these positions in 1909, he became the editor of Protestant Magazine. This provided him an opportunity to devote himself for seven years to the pursuit of intensive research. This monthly journal had the purpose of "protesting against ecclesiastical error and promoting gospel truth."[2]
A Fervent Supporter of the 1888 Message
Prescott readily accepted the message of justification by faith as preached by Waggoner in 1888. A 1930 report recalling the names of those who had taken a stand in favor of the message preached at Minneapolis gives Prescott a prominent place.[3] However, it also indicates that Prescott was so shocked by the spiritual state that prevailed during certain discussions that he left the session for a while before its closure.[4]
Nevertheless he quickly took a public stand on the side of Waggoner and Jones at the General Conference sessions of 1893 and 1895. There are several declarations in the General Conference Bulletin affirming his convictions on the subject of Christ's human nature. Here is an emphatic one regarding the human nature of Jesus.
"Although Jesus Christ took sinful flesh--flesh in which we sin--He took that flesh, and emptying Himself and receiving the fullness of God Himself, God was able to keep Him from sinning in that sinful flesh. So that although He was manifested in sinful flesh, God by His spirit and power dwelling in Him kept Him from sinning in that sinful flesh."[5]
However, the most complete and detailed account of Prescott is found in his study on John 1:14, presented during his visit to Australia (1894-1895). He was the featured speaker at various camp meetings organized specifically for his visit. Ellen White, who had then been living in that country since the end of 1891, likewise participated in these gatherings. Hence she heard Prescott preach and did not waffle in her appreciation.
The full content of this study was published in the Australian journal The Bible Echo.[6] In this account Prescott declared emphatically that Christ took upon Himself a sinful flesh. In reality, this is the theme of the study. Twenty-five times he affirms that Christ came into the world with the fallen nature of humanity, and twice he specifies that Christ did not come on earth in Adam's nature before the Fall. It is important, then, to summarize here the four main ideas that are clearly enunciated in this important Bible study entitled: "The Word Became Flesh."
1. The Incarnation, a Fundamental Truth
Prescott began his study by marking his preference for the American Revised Version, the translation most faithful to the original text: "the Word became flesh," rather than "the Word was made flesh." He writes: "Through Him all things became; now He Himself became. He who had all glory with the Father now lays aside His glory and becomes flesh. He lays aside His divine mode of existence, and takes the human mode of existence, and God becomes manifest in the flesh. This truth is the very foundation of all truth."
2. Incarnate in "Sinful Flesh"
To prove his point, Prescott referred to Hebrews 2:14: "Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (ASV).
From this passage Prescott deduced that "Jesus Christ had exactly the same flesh that we bear--flesh of sin, flesh in which we sin, but in which He did not sin, in which He bore our sins." Then Prescott challenged his audience: "Do not set this point aside. No matter how you may have looked at it in the past, look at it now as it is in the word; and the more you look at it in that way, the more reason you will have to thank God that it is so."
Passing on to the case of Adam, Prescott avers that by his sin he lost the image of God, and so did his descendants. That is why "Jesus came, of flesh, and in the flesh, born of a woman, made under the law; born of the Spirit, but in the flesh. And what flesh could He take but the flesh of the time? Not only that, but it was the very flesh He designed to take; because, you see, the problem was to help man out of the difficulty into which he had fallen. ... Christ's work must be, not to destroy him [the man], not to create a new race, but to re-create man, to restore in him the image of God.
"To accomplish this work of salvation, "Jesus Christ came for that work, and in order to do it, He came, not where man was before he fell, but where man was after he fell. ... When Christ comes to help man out of the pit, He does not come to the edge of the pit and look over, and say, Come up here, and I will help you back. ... Jesus Christ comes right down where he is, and meets him there. He takes his flesh and becomes a brother to him."
3. The Flesh of Adam, After the Fall
Throughout his article Prescott repeats untiringly this point he considers fundamental: "He came and took the flesh of sin that this family had brought upon itself by sin, and wrought out salvation for them, condemning sin in the flesh. ... To redeem man from the place into which he had fallen, Jesus Christ comes, and takes the very flesh now borne by humanity."
Likewise, when Prescott considers the temptation to which Jesus and Adam were subjected, he specifies that 'it was in sinful flesh that He was tempted, not the flesh in which Adam fell." It is true, remarked Prescott, that Jesus "had a holiness that enabled Him to come and dwell in sinful flesh, and glorify sinful flesh by His presence in it; and that is what He did, so that when He was raised from the dead, He was glorified. His purpose was that having purified sinful flesh by His indwelling presence, He might now come and purify sinful flesh in us, and glorify sinful flesh in us."
4. Christ in Us, the Hope of Glory
After the theological exposition, Prescott draws the practical applications: "Let us enter into the experience that God has given Jesus Christ to us to dwell in our sinful flesh, to work out in our sinful flesh what He worked out when He was here. He came and lived, here that we might through Him reflect the image of God."
Prescott goes on to exclaim: "This is the very heart of Christianity. Anything contrary to it is not Christianity." In support he quotes the apostle John: "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" (1 John 4:1-3, KJV).
"Now that cannot mean simply to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was here and lived in the flesh. The devils made that acknowledgement. They know that Christ had come in the flesh. The faith that comes by the Spirit of God says, 'Jesus Christ is come in my flesh; I have received Him.' That is the heart and life of Christianity."
"The difficulty with the Christianity of today is that Christ does not dwell in the hearts of those professing His name. He is an outsider, one looked at from afar, as an example. But He is more than an example to us. He made known to us what God's ideal of humanity is, and then He came and lived it out before us, that we might see what it is to be in the image of God. Then He died, and ascended to His Father, sending forth His Spirit, His own representative, to live in us, that the life which He lived in the flesh we may live over again. This is Christianity."
"It is not enough to talk of Christ and of the beauty of His character. Christianity without Christ dwelling in the heart is not genuine Christianity. He only is a genuine Christian who has Christ dwelling in his heart, and we can live the life of Christ only by having Him dwelling in us. ... Do not be satisfied with anything else. ... 'Christ in you, the hope of glory.' His power, His indwelling presence, that is Christianity."
Thus Prescott consistently emphasized the difference between a traditional Christianity which is satisfied with a Christ who did not share the flesh and the blood of humanity and who, consequently, could not make them "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1 :4, KJV); and gospel Christianity which affirms, on the contrary, that Christ came in "a flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3, margin, AR V), that He "has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin" (Heb. 4:15), and He "is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us" (Eph. 3:20).
Prescott concludes by wishing that the life of Jesus Christ, "the Word" that "became flesh," might dwell in us each day.
Ellen White Approves Prescott's Christology
At the beginning of 1895 Jones presented at the General Conference session what he called "the third angel's message." This he equated with the message of "justification by faith," based on the total humanity of Christ and His perfect divinity as the precondition of our reconciliation with God.
Because this was also the conviction of the Adventist community in the United States, the leaders of the organization sent Prescott to preach this message to the churches overseas, in South Africa, in Australia, and in Europe. Thanks to the Australian journal, which published his study entitled "The Word Became Flesh," and the many testimonies of Ellen White, we know precisely what Prescott taught regarding Christ's human nature, and to what extent his presentation was appreciated and considered to be an expression of Adventist faith.
At the camp meeting of Armadale, near Melbourne, Australia, Prescott delivered his study on John 1:14. Ellen White was present. She had spoken to the same assembly on Sunday afternoon, October 31, 1895. Thus she knew clearly what she was speaking of in her letters when she expressed her enthusiastic appreciation for the message presented by Prescott.
Here is what we find in one of Ellen White's manuscripts, written on the morning after Prescott's presentation. "I have just been listening to a discourse given by Professor Prescott. It was a most powerful appeal to the people. ... [His] words are spoken in the demonstration of the Spirit, and with power, his face ail aglow with the sunshine of heaven. The presence of the Lord is in our meetings day by day."[7]
In yet another manuscript, we read more specifically how she received the content of Prescott's message. "The Lord has visited Prescott in a special manner and given him a special message for the people . ... The truth flows forth from him in rich currents; people say the Bible is now a new revelation to them."[8]
In a letter written during the same time span, Ellen White writes, "the Lord has sent Prescott, he is no empty vessel, but full of heavenly treasure. He has presented truths in clear and simple style, rich in nourishment."[9] Another letter: "W. W. Prescott has been bearing the burning words of truth such as I have heard from some in 1844; the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is upon him. Prescott has never had such power in preaching the truth." [10]
Other letters could be quoted in which Ellen White repeats praises both of Prescott himself and the content of his message, delivered "under inspiration of the holy spirit "[11] not satisfied with mentioning him in her appreciation to the whole church in an article sent to the Review and Herald, published on January 7, 1896, The following excerpt makes reference specifically to Prescott's study on the subject "the Word Became Flesh."
"In the evening (October 31) Professor Prescott gave a most valuable lesson, precious as gold. The tent was full, and many stood outside. All I seemed to be fascinated with the word, as he presented the truth in lines so new to those not of our faith. Truth was separated from error, and made, by the divine Spirit, to shine like precious jewels. ... The Lord is working in power through His servants who are proclaiming the truth, and He has given Brother Prescott a special message for the people. The power and spirit of the truth come from human lips in demonstration of the Spirit and power of God. The Lord has visited Brother Prescott in a most remarkable manner. We are sure that the Lord has endowed him with His Holy Spirit, and the truth is flowing forth from him in rich currents."[12]
These testimonies of Ellen White are of great significance in regard to the history of Christology in the Adventist Church. They tend to confirm Prescott's interpretation of Christ's human nature.
They also establish the context in which the letter addressed to Pastor W.L.H. Baker,[13] written during the same period of time, must be interpreted. Some Adventist theologians rely on this letter to justify their "new" interpretation, as we will see later in this study.[14]
But we must remember what Ellen White wrote on the topic during this period. It is out of the question that she would approve Prescott's interpretation with such fervor if she were in favor of a radically opposite interpretation.
Prescott Confirms His Christology
Throughout the year 1896 Prescott confirmed his convictions about the human nature of Jesus in a series of articles published in the Review and Herald.[15] He presented it in a natural way, as the spokesman for the beliefs of the church, and on the basis of the teaching of the Bible.
"The Scripture," he said, "does not leave us in uncertainty as to what kind of flesh and blood this was ... when God sent His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh. ... The flesh that Jesus Christ took when He came here was the only flesh that anyone could take by being barn of a woman, and that was the flesh of sin."[16]
To avoid any doubt as to the meaning of Paul's expression "the likeness of sinful flesh," Prescott incorporates a precise statement: "He [Jesus Christ) did not take the likeness of man just as Adam was before he fell, but He came down to the very plane to which man had fallen ... and took upon Himself the flesh of sin." [17]
Like those who before him had approached the problem of Christ's human nature, Prescott made use of Romans 1:3 to affirm that "the Scriptures emphasize the manner of His birth ... born of the seed of David."[18]
Appointed vice president of the General Conference in 1901 and at the same time editor in chief of the Review and Herald (1901-1909), Prescott seized the opportunity to repeat the teaching of the church on the human nature of Jesus. He devoted three editorials in particular to this topic. The titles alone reveal the content: "Like to His Brethren," "Christ and His Brethren," and "In a flesh of sin."[19]
The third article was actually devoted to respond to the questions from his readers. Quite naturally one of them commented on the subject of Romans 8:3 as follows: "I notice that this scripture does not say that God sent His own Son 'in sinful flesh,' but 'in the likeness of sinful flesh.' To me this seems a very different statement."[20] In his reply, Prescott clearly sets out four fundamental truths:
1. Jesus Participated in the Blood and the Flesh of Humanity
First, Prescott refers to Hebrews 2:14-17, which states that Jesus "took part in the blood and the flesh" of the children of human beings. "The natural and legitimate conclusion from this declaration would be that the flesh and blood of Jesus were the same as the children had. This is further emphasized in the same connection: 'For verily he taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold (margin). Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren."
Then his first conclusion: "The mission of Jesus was not to rescue fallen angels, but to save fallen man. He therefore identified Himself with man, and not with angels, and He became 'in all things' like unto those whom He proposed to help. The flesh of man is sinful. In order to be 'in all things' like unto man, it was necessary that Jesus should take sinful flesh."
2. A Flesh Like Unto That of Sin
Next Prescott quotes Romans 8:3, "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and raises the question: "What does it mean? Does it mean 'in sinless flesh'? If so, why did it not say so? Why are the words 'flesh of sin,' as it reads in the margin of the American Revised Version, introduced as if it is not the intent to convey the meaning that the flesh of Jesus was the same sinful flesh that we have? It seems to require a forced interpretation in order to attach any other meaning to the statement."
Prescott explains further, "But we may apprehend the meaning of this passage more clearly if we compare it with another statement in which a similar form of expression is used. Here is one: 'He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.' Do we not rightly conclude that Jesus was really a man when we read that He was made 'in the likeness of men'? Most certainly. The only way in which He could be 'in the likeness of men' was to become a man. ... Is it not equally clear that the only way in which God could send His son in the likeness of sinful flesh' would be for that Son to have sinful flesh? How would it be possible for Him to be 'in the likeness of sinful flesh', and yet His flesh be sinless? Such an interpretation would involve a contradiction of terms."
To avoid perplexity Prescott quickly adds that although Jesus was sent 'in the likeness of sinful flesh,' yet He did not commit sin. 'Him who had no sin He made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him' (2Cor. 5:21)."
3.Sent to Condemn Sin in the Flesh
Still wanting to clarify the necessity for "sinful flesh," Prescott continues: "In order that the character of God might be manifested in sinful men who should believe on Him, it was necessary that Jesus should unite divinity and humanity in Himself, and that the flesh which He bore should be the same as the other men in whom God was thus to be manifested. Another way of expressing it would be to say that the Son of God tabernacled in the flesh when He appeared in Judea, in order that the way might be prepared for Him to dwell in the flesh of all believers, and that it was therefore necessary that He should take the same kind of flesh as that in which He would afterward dwell when He should take up His abode in the members of His church."
This was not merely a theoretical matter." If the Son of God did not dwell in sinful flesh when He was born in to the world, then the ladder has not been let down from heaven to earth, and the gulf between a holy God and fallen humanity has not been bridged. It would then be necessary that some further means should be provided in order to complete the connection between the Son of God and sinful flesh. And this is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church has done. The creed of that organization is in perfect harmony with the view taken by our correspondent.
The formal expression of this doctrine is called the dogma of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary. ... We avoid these consequences by denying the doctrine and holding to the plain teaching of the Scriptures."
4.In Order to Be Able to Participate in His Divine Nature
There still remains the second question of the reader to be answered: "How could one in sinful flesh be perfect, be holy?" This is a common question asked by new converts to the Adventist message. It also called forth an answer from Ellen White. "Prescott considered that "this question touches the very heart of our Christianity. The teaching of Jesus is 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.' And through the apostle Peter comes the instruction, 'Be ye holy, for I am holy."
"No one will deny that we have sinful flesh, and we therefore ask how it will be possible to meet the requirements of the Scripture if it is not possible for one to be perfect or holy in sinful flesh. The very hope of our attaining perfection and holiness is based upon the wonderful truth that the perfection and holiness of divinity were revealed in sinful flesh in the person of Jesus. We are not able to explain how this could be, but our salvation is found in believing the fact. Then may be fulfilled the promise of Jesus: 'If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.' It is the crowning glory of our religion that even flesh of sin may become a temple for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit."
"Much more could be said in reply to the question of our correspondent, but we hope that the principles involved and their relation to Christian experience have been made clear, and we trust that none of our readers will accept the doctrine of the papacy because they are unable to explain the mystery of godliness. It is safe to believe the plain teaching of the Scriptures."
A Truly Christocentric Message
In Prescott's eyes, the fundamental truth that Christ laid aside His equality with God to become "a simple man," "like unto men," "in all things," "participating in the blood and the flesh" of humanity remains "the central truth of Christianity." He emphasized this point in opposition to the interpretations of other denominations, because of its newness to many new converts to the Adventist message, and because of its importance in understanding how Jesus was able "to condemn sin in the flesh," and enable sinners to be set free from "the law of sin and death" by the power "of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:2-4).
Prescott's most developed Christology is found in his book The Doctrine of Christ, published in 1920 as a textbook for colleges and seminaries.[22] As explained in the introduction, this book was not a treatise of systematic theology, but "a revelation of Christ," for the purpose of a practical experience in the life of the believer .[23]
Prescott treated the subject very simply in 18 sections, each comprising several lessons. Each lesson is divided in two parts: The first contained Bible references appropriate to the subject; the second included numerous explanatory notes. As a whole, this work is really a Christology in the broadest sense of the term. For our purposes, we shall look only at the most significant statements in the three lessons devoted to the Incarnation.[24]
For Prescott, Christ was the central truth of Christianity, and the Incarnation constituted "the whole of the Christian gospel," "the truth ... absolutely essential to the Christian religion," "the mature expression in the fullness of time of the truth that 'God is love.' "[25]
In fact, "the Word, not only 'came in the flesh' as in 1 John 4:2, but 'became flesh.' These last words imply that the eternal Son entered at His incarnation a mode of existence new to Him, and became what He was not before; that He not only took upon Him human bodily form, but accepted the limitations of human bodily life as the mode of His own existence white on earth."[26]
"He who understands the incarnation of the Son of God," wrote Prescott, "has a surer ground of faith, and a richer hope and a straighter access to heaven, than if the ladder of Jacob stood at his bed-head and God's angels were ministering to him.[27] For at the time of His incarnation "in some actual and fundamental, though to us inexplicable, way, the divine Saviour so united Himself with the sinful race of man that He bare in His own body, in His own personal experience, not only the weight of its sorrow, but also the weight, though not the guilt, of its sin."[28]
To avoid any possible doubt about his notion, Prescott specifies again what differentiates the human nature of Jesus from that of Adam. "Christ assumed, not the original unfallen, but our fallen humanity. In this second experiment, He stood not precisely where Adam before Him had, but with immense odds against Him--evil, with all the prestige of victory and its consequent enthronement in the very constitution of our nature, armed with more terrific power against the possible realization of this divine idea of man--perfect holiness. All this considered, the disadvantages of the situation, the tremendous risks involved, and the fierceness of the opposition encountered, we come to some adequate sense both of the reality and greatness of that vast moral achievement: human nature tempted, tried, miscarried in Adam, lifted up in Christ to the sphere of actualized sinlessness."[29]
The reason for the Incarnation was the only thing left to be explained. "The problem which, in the assumption of fallen human nature, Christ proposed and accepted for Himself, was none other than this, namely, by personally identifying Himself with all its ill fortunes, and sharing the very lameness superinduced by sin, to master, in it and for it, the infernal power which had wrought all the mischief and woe." [30]
Thus God has provided for our salvation, concluded Prescott.
"He [Christ] was God manifest in the flesh, and came to this earth 'that he might bring us to God.' It is this that makes Christ central and dominant in every life that receives Him, winning trust, redeeming from sin, eliciting devotion, and inspiring hope. It is because He is God manifest, God entering into human life, God meeting human need."[31]
"We have only told half the story of the divine love when we have spoken of the descent of the Son of God from His greatness and majesty to the sorrows and conflicts of this earthly life; and that half of the story is incredible until we make it clear that He came in order to lift up the race to the heights of God."[32]
'He was manifested'--and let us not read into the 'he' anything small or narrow. If we do, we shall at once be driven into the place of having to deny the declaration that He can take away sins. If He was man as I am merely, then though He be perfect and sinless, He cannot take away sins. If into the 'he' we will read all that John evidently meant according to the testimony of his own writing, we shall begin to see something of the stupendous idea, and something of the possibility at least of believing the declaration that 'he was manifested to take away our sins."[33]
Conclusion
Undoubtedly Prescott's career was unique in many respects, in relationship to the history of the Adventist Church. A brilliant educator, professor of theology, editor, proficient administrator, and vice president of the General Conference, he exerted a decisive influence on the development of the work of education and the clarification of various doctrines. In particular, he contributed to the expansion of the message of justification by faith beyond the frontiers of the United States during his travels in the world.
Like Waggoner and Jones, Prescott did his best to build this message on a Christology that, while fully recognizing the perfect divinity of Christ, placed the accent on Adam's human nature after the Fall--that is to say, a sinful human nature--as a condition of humanity's reconciliation with God. Certainly Prescott's Christology has the merit of being both the most complete and the most explicit.
By his competence and the authority that he enjoyed as vice president of the General Conference, he was evidently empowered as a spokesman for the church. His testimony constitutes an undeniable indication of what Adventists taught and believed regarding Christ's human nature, since the origin of the movement to the end of Prescott's long career in 1944.
Notes: