BROOKLYN, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 6TH, 1905
BROOKLYN, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 6TH, 1905
Mr. J. Boyd.
My Dear Brother, — I am in receipt of your letter of the 21st ult. I am glad you have expressed yourself so fully and freely, and I feel it is due to the truth, to you, and to me that I should answer as well as I can as to the different points in question.
As you consider the points of difficulty in the address on Matthew 11 of minor importance I shall refer to them only briefly. In alluding to the Lord’s standing in relation to Judaism and the empire I wished only to emphasise the necessity of an entirely new system being introduced. Although what I said was quite scriptural I was making no special point of it: the Lord owned what was there (the temple, Moses’ seat, etc.) and He also recognised the empire. The power the Romans had was from God (John 18: 11). I did not say that He intended to use them: I said, ‘The Lord took up what He found in Israel, and if possible would have used it’. The [p. 24] whole thought in the passage is negative. In saying He could not take command of an army, etc., I did not have ability (you say ‘able’, which word I did not use), in my mind at all. ‘Could not’ is moral; morally, He could not be connected with that system. You say, ‘You bring in the invitation, “Come unto me” as having reference to the kingdom’. I do not. I was speaking on Matthew 11, and it was natural that I should refer to this. I did not connect it with the kingdom. I connected it with Christ (see pages 6, 7). Again, you say, ‘Jonah and Solomon had no reference to the kingdom’. I did not say they had. I said chapter 12 spoke of great men, Jonah and Solomon, but there was a Greater. I did not say any more about them. I spoke about the Greater. You assume that the kingdom was my subject, which was not the case. What was on my mind was Christ as seen in chapter 11. The title of the address is ‘Christ as Turning-Point and Model’. You remark, ‘You seem to have gone crazy on the kingdom’. I do not mind being regarded as crazy, but the thought should not be connected with the kingdom of God: we should respect it. You quote, ‘The Lord Jesus has His forces here to enforce His rights’. This is not correct. I used an illustration as to the king of England, and ‘enforce his rights’ is used only in connection with him. What I said as to the Lord was that His forces (transferring the figure to the Holy Spirit) were here. You object to this and say, ‘He speaks of coming with them the angels of His might’. I do not accept that angels are designated as His forces in a specific way. They are mighty agents of the divine will, but the power of subjugation in the future is the Spirit (compare Philippians 3: 21 and Romans 8: 11). Divine force, or power, if spoken of in any distinctive way, is the Holy Spirit.
As to the Reading on Romans 4, the subject proposed was the kingdom. I think the opening paragraphs might have indicated this to you. Had you so understood it you would have felt that to advance the specific teaching of Romans as an objection would be irrelevant. But you say, ‘You would never learn from Romans that God had a dwelling-place upon earth’. This is extraordinary. Is the Holy Spirit not spoken of in Romans as dwelling here? “If indeed God’s Spirit dwell in you;” “But if the Spirit ... dwell in you;” “His Spirit which dwells in you” (Romans 8: 9 - 11). The Spirit of God dwelling here means that God is here; the ‘dwelling-place’ is also indicated — ‘you’. I quite agree that the dwelling place of God is not the subject of the epistle, but to say that you could never learn from Romans that God had a dwelling place upon earth is the opposite of the truth.
Your next objection is to the kingdom having a collective sense. You say, ‘The kingdom is much more individual than the body or the house’ and, ‘I am not so closely linked with others’. What do ‘much more’ and ‘so closely’ mean? As I understand their meaning it is that they admit the collective sense, only in a reduced degree; so that you practically affirm what you object to. Your contention that isolated ones are at no disadvantage is very weak and would become injurious if souls were to act upon it; besides, it is not in keeping with the admission which I have pointed out you make. The spirit of Scripture tends to unity, and the further away from the saints you are the greater the disadvantage.
You quote, ‘Our hope is that the Lord will soon remove the tares’, and proceed to cite the different scriptures that treat of the Christian’s hope. I should have thought anyone could have seen from the context that I used the word ‘hope’ in regard of the state of the kingdom. I was not speaking of the Christian’s distinctive hope at all.
We come next to something ‘dreadful’. ‘The gospel refers more to what is down here than to what is in heaven’. If this stood unguarded there would be cause for complaint, but it is followed by, ‘It is true that Christ is the theme, but it is Christ according to what He can do for man; and this involves what He has established down here, etc’. You say ‘It does not refer to what is down here at all, and you know it does not’. If I knew it did not I should not have made the above statement. You further say, ‘It is the report of a glorified Christ and of all that is established in Him which shall not be down here till He appears’. I have read the above two statements several times over to make sure that my eyes did not deceive me. Sure enough they did not: there are the statements in plain English: ‘It does not refer to what is down here at all;’ ‘All that is established in Him which shall not be down here till He appears’. I cannot believe that you really mean what the words express, but, as they stand, they are to my mind a subversion of Christianity. The Holy Spirit is referred to in the gospel: He is down here (Acts 2). The kingdom is referred to in the gospel (Acts 20: 25), and it is down here (compare Romans 14: 17;
[p. 26] Matthew 13, and Colossians 1: 13). God’s house is alluded to in the gospel (Luke 14, Luke 15) it is down here (Ephesians 2). I could mention other things referred to in the gospel which are available down here, but I need not; the above suffice to show the error of the statements in question. I hope you will withdraw these statements, dear Mr. Boyd; you certainly should do so; for whatever you may have had in your mind (I do not charge you with an evil thought), the statements as they stand are not only erroneous, but, as I said, subversive of Christianity. As to my own statement, I am willing to make it read, ‘The things referred to in the gospel are here rather than in heaven’. This, or any other form of expression that would convey the thought of their being practically available to men, rather than abstractly in heaven. This latter is the notion of the gospel that pervades your letter and it does not comport with the teaching of Scripture, nor with the fact as to its introduction into this world presented there.
You object to ‘It is Christ according to what He can do for men’. You tear this away from ‘Christ is the theme’ and then say, ‘No, it is what God has wrought on man’s behalf in and by Christ’. This is what Romans presents, but why object to Christ’s doing something for man? Scripture speaks of His doing something. He died; He annulled death, and brought life and incorruptibility to light by the gospel: He gave the Spirit. Your objection is to Scripture and not to my words.
You quote, ‘In virtue of the establishment of these (the kingdom and the house), salvation and the blessing of Abraham are brought close to men’ and say, ‘Not at all. Salvation and the blessing of Abraham are brought close to men in a risen Christ ... and the Holy Spirit has come down with a report’. ‘A report:’ Is this all that can be said of the Holy Spirit in reference to salvation and the blessing of Abraham? Look at the passage in Galatians 3. 14; “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ: that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith”. The Spirit Himself was promised (see also Acts 2: 39); and indeed He is subjectively the blessing. “The Spirit is life”. You may say the blessing of Abraham is not said in the passage to be in the Spirit: that it is said to have arrived at the nations in Christ. But this would be putting one side of the truth against the other. I admit fully (as, also, do the Notes), that [p. 27] Christ is the Vessel of the blessing of Abraham, and that everything that God has for man comes through Him; but my object was to show how it arrives in a practical way at the Gentiles. It was through the church. It is puerile to ask me for a text (I intend to furnish scriptures): what I say is simply the statement of a fact presented in the Acts. What was ministered to the Gentiles (Galatians 3: 5) was in the church before its being ministered to them. Now, I do not mean that the church ministered it: all I mean to convey is that what was ministered was in the church prior to its reaching the Gentiles. As to a scripture, Acts 2 is what I should quote: the Spirit was there in the church, and the announcement was that those who repented, etc., would receive forgiveness and the Spirit. The Samaritans also received the Spirit; not directly from the Lord, but through the administration of the apostles. The same holds good as to Saul (Acts 9). Although the Lord spoke to him outside Damascus, He did not preach the gospel to him there, nor give him the Spirit. Ananias laid his hands on him, and in this way he received the Holy Spirit (from Christ, of course). Cornelius also is further evidence as to how particular God was that the testimony of the gospel and what was consequent on it were to stand connected with the church. It is true it was Peter and his “words” that were in question (the church does not teach or preach); but the apostles must always stand connected with the church (1 Corinthians 12: 28; Ephesians 4: 11, 12). There is doubtless some significance in the fact that Peter did not lay his hands on Cornelius and his company, but at any rate the Holy Spirit who fell upon them had been before in the church. In every case, of course, it was Christ, or God, who gave the Spirit: I do not call this in question at all; the point is, where the Spirit was who was given and the mode God used in giving Him. I am not discontented with the way Scripture puts the truth. “Acts” is scripture. It presents the facts connected with the establishment of the church and the promulgation of the gospel, and if we are to be intelligent as to these we must pay attention to that book.
I do not say that the Spirit is exactly the blessing of Abraham, but the gift of the Holy Spirit involves the blessing of Abraham. I was helped through the ministry of Mr. Raven to see that the blessing of Abraham is eternal life. ‘Life for evermore’ is the characteristic term for ‘blessing’ according to Psalm 133.
[p. 28] I have had this in view in speaking of the blessing of Abraham. The psalm begins with unity: then both the ointment and the dew are seen descending — all pointing to the gift of the Spirit from Christ on high. The dew descends on Zion, and there the blessing is commanded. Now all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, and, whatever question may be under consideration, the Scriptures which treat of it should be considered. What then may we understand from Psalm 133? It is clear to me that while it speaks, strictly, of what is future, it has also application to the church. The conditions (Scripture supposes that we should compare things), were all there on the day of Pentecost, and the coming of the Holy Spirit involved the blessing being “commanded” — at least in the sense in which we have eternal life in the present time. Zion was God’s “desired” dwelling-place. The church is this now, and where God dwells the blessing is. Psalm 134: 3 says, “The Lord ... bless thee out of Zion”. What follows chapter 2 in Acts corresponds with this. We should also own the force of all Scripture as to salvation. The New Testament says it is in Christ, but Isaiah 46: 13 says, “I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory”. You may say that Zion is a risen Christ: it does not always mean just this (see Psalm 48).
I cannot understand how you expect me to speak in the language of Scripture. You do not yourself. My exercise is that my thoughts and words may be according to Scripture.
You quote, ‘Living water is still here’ (in the house), and then proceed to quote the Scripture “Thou wouldst have asked of him”, etc. This is not to the point. The quotation you give does not speak (nor do the Notes anywhere) of the believer giving the living water — it was there; that was the point. Of course Christ gives the living water, but, what He gives is now here. Revelation 22: 17 says, “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely”.
You speak of those who have the truth being in hot conflict with Satan. I shall be deeply pained if it be shown that erroneous statements of mine are the occasion of this conflict, but I would say this: If any are contending (I do not believe anyone is), ‘that all that is established in Christ ... shall not be down here till He appears’ they will not encounter any opposition from Satan.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
James Taylor.