BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 15TH, 1929

BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 15TH, 1929

My Dear Brother, — Pardon my delay in writing, but your letter reached me late as I was then in Great Britain.

The subject of it is most delicate as relating to our Lord’s Person and so I am very desirous that nothing but what is divinely accurate should be written.

First, I wish to say that you must have misunderstood me in thinking that I said it would be derogatory to the Lord as a Divine Person to speak of Him as being sent. I am sure I never had such a thought and I cannot believe I said what you report. He is never less or other than a Divine Person — “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and to the ages to come” (Hebrews 13: 8). In John’s gospel, which presents Him in this way, He is said many times to have been sent — more often than elsewhere. Besides, as you say, the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person and He is said to be sent.

Further, I never had the thought that the idea of the Lord, the Son, being sent did not precede incarnation. “The Father sent the Son” is a full, general thought and I should not limit it to time; but I do believe that the bearing of it includes the Lord’s formally entering on His service, as anointed after His baptism. That He came down from heaven as sent is surely true and that He was conscious that He was here for God’s ^[p. 260] will from the outset of His incarnation is also true — He was cast on God from the womb — but Scripture presents facts in an orderly, intelligible way and so it is as anointed that He speaks of being sent (Luke 4: 18). John speaks of His becoming “flesh” — which necessarily includes His infancy, etc. — but what he records as after the event (John 1: 14) refers to the Lord as known publicly — after the Holy Spirit came upon Him. The force of “sent” is obviously in this connection. John the baptist was sent, a man from God; the Father sent the Son.

As regards the application of the term Son, or Son of God, to our Lord as “in the form of God”, I have long hesitated about it, while not entertaining any anxiety as to those who had no difficulty as to such application, who indeed, like yourself, held it as a cardinal truth. They held, thus, His eternal personality and so there was nothing to fear on this head.

Beginning with John 1: 1 we are all on the solid rock of Christ’s eternal personality, as being in the beginning and with God then, yea, being Himself God.

There being perfect agreement as to this, we can, without much fear as to error arising in the consideration, enquire calmly whether Scripture does, or does not, warrant the application of the terms mentioned to the Lord as in the form of God.

I have read F.E.R.’s remarks — had read them before you sent the paper — and they represent what he held at the time, of course, indeed, what was, and is, generally held; but as a matter of fact, it was Mr. Raven who first mentioned the questionableness of the application I have mentioned. This was in my hearing — when he was in America in 1902. The remarks were not published, as far as I know, but they are, well known by many. I heard of a letter of his lately to the same effect, and while J.N.D. like F.E.R. treats sonship in the ordinary, or accepted way, in ‘Notes and Comments’, Volume 7, page 7, he (speaking of John 1: 14) says, ‘Nor do I see that in this character He is spoken of as Son save as known in the flesh’. He guards his statements afterwards with a ‘note’ lest bad use should be made of them, but they remain in the text — hence we can see what was in his mind, although not pressed. What should be well observed in John’s gospel is that in treating formally of the Lord’s Person in chapter 1 he does not use the term Son, but Word (’Logos’ ). In verse 14 we have “only-begotten” to express the glory which they among whom He dwelt, contemplated. That is, it is not a formal designation by the Spirit, but expressive of their apprehension of what they saw in the Word become flesh. In verse 18 He is formally called the only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father; this also is said of Him after He became flesh. Later the Baptist witnesses to Him as Son of God, having seen the Holy Spirit descending and abiding on Him. Nathanael also calls Him Son of God, because of what he saw in Him. In each case (verses 14, 34, 39) He is regarded as, or called, Son of God because of what was apprehended in Him as Man. The formal statement of verse 18 also unquestionably alludes to Him as Man. The preposition “in” has (in Greek) the force of reaching to, or coming into, also the verse reads, “Who is in the bosom of the Father”.

The statement that the Father sent the Son does not in itself prove that He was actually in the relation of Son before incarnation, not only because of what I have already pointed out as to sending, but because if we say that it does we shall be obliged also to say that He bore the designation Jesus Christ before He became Man. When speaking to the Father(John 17) He says, “Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”. We have also, “Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world”, and “Christ Jesus came into the world”, etc. The Person is in view in each case.

But there can be no doubt that the term Son, or Son of God, is intended to convey the greatness and glory of the Person as become Man. Revelation is, of course, for finite minds and hearts and so this expression of relationship and affection, as covering what was contemplated in Christ as in manhood, is intended to convey His dignity and glory.

But this is not saying that He bore the term or title as in the form of God. While through it the believer apprehends clearly who the Person is we cannot assume to know Him in His essential Being; no one knows Him thus but the Father.

I am somewhat afraid that there is at times an assumption to know the form of God, which would mean that we bring Him within our compass; whereas He dwells in light unapproachable, whom no man has seen nor can see. The revelation of God, therefore, is not a question of His form. I hesitate therefore to apply names and relationships to Divine Persons as in absolute Deity. Many scriptures might be quoted that ^[p. 262] should check us in this, for instance, that the Son does not know certain things, which is without modification in Mark 13. It could not be applied to Him as in the form of God.

The remark that the revelation of the relationship of Father and Son did not make it is quite true, but when was the revelation made? After Christ became Man. It was plainly indicated from the outset Who He was, but the formal revelation was at His baptism; the declaration of the Father was by the Son as become Man. And He was marked off as Son by resurrection of the dead.

I trust what I have written may be of some help; it will show you, at any rate, that I am not thinking lightly or carelessly about this great and blessed matter. In the spirit of the man in John 9, I would worship the Son of God.

With love in Christ, I am,

Affectionately in Him,

James Taylor.