BROOKLYN, N.Y., APRIL 24TH, 1943
[p. 311] BROOKLYN, N.Y., APRIL 24TH, 1943
Beloved Brother, — I am quite interested in your enquiries and remarks in relation to Colossians 2: 9, and Hebrews 1: 3. What you say in (2) of your letter is quite acceptable to me. Fulness certainly refers to what is revealed, but as you say — one would not in any way limit them to this. This remark of yours governs the inscrutable which always has to be kept in mind, for Scripture gives no definite line between what is revealed and what is not revealed. That is to say what is revealed is not detached from the inscrutable. As regards effulgence, Mr. Darby’s note is helpful, that is ‘what fully presents the glory which is in something else’. The word “expression” would have a similar meaning as to substance. In regard to (3) of your letter, I do not agree with your remark ‘the expression of what He is in essential Being, and that is love, for God is love’. To say that God’s essential Being is love is not scriptural. It is true that Scripture says that God is love and it also says that God is light, but these expressions have a moral bearing being relative. God is love in that the quality characterises Him in His relations with others, but your statement makes it His essential Being which would shut out other qualities which have part in His Being. In dealing with this infinite matter, the passage in 1 Timothy 6: 15, 16, ought to be ever in mind. It is perfectly evident that love is involved in the fulness of God and that therefore we in result share in it; we are loved indeed by the same love by which Christ is loved. But to say that love is the essential Being of God is not scriptural, as I said; it would assume that we had part in the essential Being of God and were capable of apprehending it. Whereas He dwells in light unapproachable whom no man hath seen nor can see.
What you wrote about is really the greatest of subjects and deserves more consideration than I am able to give it for want of time. At the same time I have carefully weighed what I have written and believe it is in accord with the Scriptures. I have desired to make full allowance for the scriptural statement “the expression of His substance” but I would not limit the word “substance” to “love” nor assume that what is expressed of the divine substance implies that it is in its infiniteness apprehended by the creature. “Expression” is somewhat stronger than “effulgence” but the meanings are [p. 312] very much akin. Of course, Christ being Himself of the Deity brings the divine substance near us, but nevertheless the inscrutable is there always. The original word for substance is ‘substratum’ which leaves much to be considered in this great matter. As I said, we should not confine that to love.
Affectionately yours in Him,
James Taylor.