BROOKLYN, N.Y., NOVEMBER 2ND, 1920

BROOKLYN, N.Y., NOVEMBER 2ND, 1920

Mr. F. W. Jerrard.

My Dear Brother, — I am thankful to you for writing and enclosing Mr. J. S. Giles’ serious statements in regard of the Notes on 1 Corinthians 15. Mr. Sinclair had mentioned this matter to me, and others on your side wrote, but I had not seen what Mr. Giles had actually said. I am distressed that he should attribute such dreadful thoughts to one he knows so well. Indeed, I am persuaded that he knows that I am wholly innocent of such shocking thoughts. Were I in his position I should recoil from the very thought of a brother holding such things until I had given him opportunity of explaining. I can see that more care should have been used in regard of so delicate a matter, and I am sorry accordingly, but I was assured that the word ‘vicarious’ guarded the Lord’s Person — which indeed it does, for anyone wishing only to know the truth. I quite accept your suggestion that, if the passage objected to had read ‘the going down refers to what (the state of those whom the Lord represented in His death) displeases;’ the guard against any misapprehension would be stronger. But this is what is meant, as the statement following (’Hence His burial is part of the vicarious work’ ) shows. What was before us at the reading was 1 Corinthians 15, and we were dwelling on the terms of the gospel which the apostle had, preached at Corinth, among which was the fact that the Lord was buried. The import of this was remarked on, and other scriptures bearing on it were introduced. Surely His burial ^[p. 185] has a meaning. That He was infinitely delightful personally to God, is true here as ever (and I am assured that I hold this as firmly as Mr. G.); but, why was He in the grave? It is true that loving hands placed Him there, and that He was not ‘with the wicked’ as intended; but the solemn fact that the Son of God lay in a grave has its own voice. It speaks of the state and guilt of those for whom He died. The Lord speaks of His being in the heart of the earth three days and three nights, as a sign to a wicked and adulterous generation (Matthew 12: 39, 40). Note that He does not refer to His literal death here, but to His burial. Besides, in baptism we are buried with Christ and we are said to be thus planted in the likeness of His death. So that burial is, as it were, an integral part of His death. Indeed the forsaking of God, the Lord’s actual death and His burial are all treated as one thing, one great event, in Scripture. The wrath of God was endured on the cross; but for redemption, the life in which the Lord bore our sins had to be laid down, for without shedding of blood there can be no remission. Mr. Giles seems to think that the Lord’s vicariousness ended with the forsaking of God. But this would make him hold that the Lord actually died otherwise than vicariously. This would be as bad as the error he attributes to me, but I do not accuse him of it, although his words imply it. Mr. Giles says ‘Before He expired, all the claims of God’s holy nature had been satisfied and glorified’. This sounds well, but it is not the whole truth, nor the truth at all; for He had not yet died, and the holy nature of God required that actual death should take place — His blood had to be shed. It is true that He said “It is finished” before He died, but this embraces His entire work, and so His actual death; it was in part anticipative. The constant references of Scripture as to atonement, is to the Lord’s death; of course we know that this included the forsaking of God. But to say atonement was complete before the Lord actually laid down His life is not true. Mr. Giles’ words imply that our Lord’s actual death and burial were not vicarious; and so he exposes himself to the charge (which I do not make) that he holds that the Lord died for personal reasons. I mention this as showing that, in seeking to fix evil on another, one may fall into it himself, or expose himself to a charge like that he would make. There is not the least suggestion in the Notes (God forbid that there should be) that there was anything displeasurable to God in our Lord’s blessed body as dead and buried, but as taking the sinner’s place, it was due to God that He should not only be forsaken, but die; as it is said, “Christ died for our sins ... and that he was buried and that he was raised”. “He was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification”. This involves His burial; and I would say that all was vicarious. In baptism the believer is buried with Christ and this shows that His burial was part of the filling out of His work for us. It was due to God that the man that sinned (whom Christ represented in death) should disappear entirely. Adam as having sinned was to return into the ground! The Lord descended into the lower parts of the earth. He bore the wrath of God on the way down, as we may say; but He went into the lower parts of the earth — why did He descend there? Surely not because of anything in Him; it was on account of us.

Affectionately yours in Christ,

James Taylor.