BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 3IST, 1942

BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 3IST, 1942

Beloved Brother, — I received your letter of the 1st instant and I appreciate your expression of regret, etc. Had I known that there was any different view as to Ephesians 1: 22, 23, from that which I have often given expression to, I should probably have observed alterations in the text of the MS. in question, but I had no knowledge of it until I received Mr. ———’s letter. The passage you refer to in ‘Names of Divine Persons’, page 23, was in no way intended to convey any other thought than that which Mr. Darby’s translation furnishes. In that passage, as you will have observed, I stressed “given” to convey that the place of headship over all things ^[p. 276] was seen there as given to Christ, and not the outcome of His Person as in Colossians. I had no idea of connecting the word given with the assembly by itself. I used it in the sense that it was granted, or given to Him to take the position stated, that is, head over all things to the assembly. I note in your letter to Mr. Parker of the 9th instant, that you say that, the Greek word in the passage is universally translated ‘give’. It may be that you use the word universally in the sense of generally, at any rate, the word is translated otherwise many times, particularly as grant. But I quite accept the word ‘give’, but in the sense that it refers to the Lord Himself — something given to Him. In Revelation 19 it is said as to the bride, “It was given to her that she should be clothed in fine linen”. Philippians 1: 29 should also be noted.

I quite see that the original structure is somewhat difficult and is evidently regarded so by scholars, but Mr. Darby’s translation, confirmed by the authorised version and the revised authorised version, should heavily weigh with us in the matter. The Spirit of God in the passage is enlarging on what God has made Christ, and to make verse 22 mean that among these glories and honour He is given to the assembly, is making too much of the assembly. Whereas, if we accept that it is given to Him to be head over all things to the assembly, the main thought of glorifying Him is maintained. At the same time the assembly is honoured in her own relative place in that she is associated in headship, which is strengthened by the statement that she is His body, the fulness of Him, who fills all in all. This is in keeping with the general teaching of Scripture as to the relative position of man and woman, for the man was not made for the woman but the woman for the man, and the woman was given to the man — not the man to the woman.

I do not think I need say more, and from what I have said you will see that I do not agree with your view of this passage. But I do not regard that it should be made a matter of controversy. I would add that as you directed Mr. Parker to look at the October number of the Notes of 1941 for confirmation, I have examined the original MS., “He is given to be head over all things to the assembly which is His body”. The printed page 199 reads, ‘It is as head over all things that He is given to the assembly which is His body’. This change was not made either by Mr. Parker or myself. As I said to ——— ,

^[p. 277] I can understand that you could have made this change with the understanding that it agreed with what I held. In view of this peculiar situation arising, it seems that it is a good opportunity to review the matter of authorship as related to the publication of ministry. It is quite clear that authorship and editorship should have their full place and responsibility in all publications, and that if the publisher is forced, under certain conditions, to make changes, it should be as sparingly as possible, and that he should make no important changes at all unless he consults the author or editor of a paper. In view of the unprecedented delays in mails, some alterations may need to be made by the publisher, but these should not affect doctrine.

I feel very free in leaving papers that I am responsible for in your hands and have been most thankful for the help you have been to me for these many years, and I am not altering the position at all, only, I would suggest that changes should be as sparing as possible. I regretted that you omitted some reference to Numbers 21 in a recent paper, because I believe that what was said was in keeping with Scripture. While I fully admit that there is little said in Scripture about singing to the Spirit, there is something said and this should be fully recognised. The well in Numbers 21 undoubtedly refers to the Spirit, and this should not be ignored. The truth of the Trinity is foundational in Christianity and we are baptised “to the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The three Persons are seen there objectively and the Name involves all. I fully believe this underlies Hymn 126. Mr. Parker wrote you about this matter but I am adding this note now so that you may have before you my exercises. While the Spirit in His grace keeps out of sight as an object of worship, the passage I allude to recognises Him in this sense, and I am certain He should be held objectively in our souls as in His place in the Deity. Although we may avoid addressing Him formally, yet we never lose the sense that He is operating objectively in relation to the Father and the Son. Some Psalms, e.g., Psalm 46, have allusions to the Spirit involving at least indirect praise. The subject involves the intelligent subjective response in the saints to God revealed.

Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.