BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 25TH, 1921

BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 25TH, 1921

Mr. P. R. Morford.

Beloved Brother, — Your remarks as to the great and blessed subject of our Lord’s sonship were most interesting. My mind has travelled on similar lines as yours has in regard of what F.E.R. said at different times. I was present at the reading to which you refer. My recollection is that our beloved brother hesitated to apply the title of “Son” to the Lord, before incarnation, but I do not think he was dogmatic on the point, and I remember him dwelling on John 17: 5. “The glory which I had with thee before the world was”. As far as I am able to say, my understanding of the subject has been governed by what I learned through F.E.R.

In view of Mark 13: 32, I am unable to connect the term “Son” with our Lord as “in the form of God”. It seems to me that it refers to Him only as having become Man. He was thus in the place of obedience and dependence, and hence one can understand that He could say that the Son did not know of the day or hour referred to. On the other hand, Hebrews 1: 2 speaks of the Lord as a divine Person under this title, and then He acted as one might say, mediatorially, before incarnation, that is, God made the worlds by Him. My mind is satisfied, however, that as in many other instances, the term “Son” here is employed by the Spirit to designate the Person who had then become Man. The Lord says elsewhere “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before” (John 6: 62): this does not mean that the title “Son of man” refers to Him before He became Man. But whilst the title “Son” refers to Him as Man, it is generally intended to indicate His deity rather than His humanity; that is to say, it is not employed historically or as denoting a person among others, here on earth, like “Jesus”. It usually indicates, as I said, the Lord’s deity or dignity.

On the whole, I think the simple and safe attitude of mind to take up in regard of this immensely important subject is that one cannot undertake to speak definitely of the relationships that existed between divine Persons as viewed absolutely in the Godhead, or apply names that would designate these relationships.

I used to think that revelation was simply the unveiling of what had existed, that is, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; but subsequently came to see revelation was of God or the Father, as to His nature and attributes. The Lord formally states that no one knows the Son but the Father (Matthew 11: 27). The thought of revelation applies only to the Father in this passage. The knowledge of the “Son of God” would refer to Him as Man, whereas Matthew 11 refers to His eternal Being.

I cannot lay my hands on the F.E.R. papers to which you refer. I am doubtful that the “form of God” admits of a relationship that implies obedience and subjection.

Affectionately yours in Christ,

James Taylor.

PS — I do not think it would be wise to publish my letter on this subject.