BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 18TH, 1929
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 18TH, 1929
Mr. S. J. B. Carter.
My Dear Mr Carter, — Thanks for your brotherly letters.
First, as to 1 Thessalonians 5, the article in Believers’ Friend. I had not seen in MSS. R.B. must have revised it. But I always considered “sleep” in verse 10 to be death, as in chapter 4. I find J.N.D. so regards it — Synopsis. No doubt your information is correct as to kathendo, although I note LXX has it in Daniel 2; but this is hardly an exception. At any rate, like our own word sleep, this and koimaomai strictly are used only in a figurative way of death. The context, it seems to me, of 1 Thessalonians 5: 10 shows that death is meant, for I do not see how the apostle could use sleep in the sense in which the state or conduct of unbelievers is described earlier in the chapter. “Whether we may be watching or sleep, we may live together with him”, seems, as it stands, to mean, whether we are watching — as alive in the body — or asleep in Jesus. Otherwise it would be ‘whether we be watching or, like those of the night, in a state of insensibility to Christ and His things, we should live together with him’. This would treat lightly the very bad state alluded to. As I said, I cannot see that the apostle would thus speak. Mr.
Darby, as I remarked, regards “sleep” here as “asleep in Jesus”.
When the subject of our Lord’s sonship was mentioned at Barnet I was unaware — had forgotten perhaps — that you had written a leaflet on it — quoting F.E.R. Lately this was sent me by a brother named Ghinn, of Melbourne. I think it right to mention this, as it might seem that I had you specially in mind. In truth, I was thankful you brought the matter up — although you did, I was not thinking of you, or attacking you in my remarks. It is a most weighty subject and I have no doubt the spiritual intelligence in the meetings warranted attention being called to it. What I expressed has been in my mind for at least twenty-five years; it came to me through F.E.R. when he was in America in 1902. It came out in a reading but was not included in the printed notes. It is also extant in correspondence. J.N.D. evidently had the same thought, although like F.E.R. he generally treated the subject as commonly accepted; Mr. Raven had the thought later, I think. I refer to ‘Notes and Comments’, Volume 7, page 7: ‘Nor do I see’, he says, ‘that in this character (John 1: 14) He is spoken of as Son save as known in the flesh’. He guards this afterwards in a note, but the text remains.
But, of course, what we must rely on is the Scripture itself and the more I weigh it on this great matter the more I am unable to see the justness of applying the designation Son to our Lord as in “the form of God” — before incarnation, I mean.
Your remark (in the leaflet) that the relationship was not made by the revelation is just as far as it goes, but what should be noted is that the Lord’s Sonship in manhood existed before the revelation. It was of course, there from His birth, and Luke and Matthew formally recognise this, but the announcement of it was at His baptism.
As was said at the meetings, the great and blessed fact is His eternal distinct personality and the infinite glory of it — He was God. We are all agreed as to this and there can be no admission of compromise or doubt as to it. The language of Scripture (John 1: 1 - 3) is wonderfully plain and concise. The question then is, Does Scripture apply sonship to Him as in the form of God, or before He became flesh?
What is usually said is that God could not send or give a Son unless He had one. This is obviously true, but what underlies the remark is that the act, so to speak, of giving or [p. 264] sending must be before incarnation, or that the incarnation was the expression of it. I am not prepared to deny or aver anything as to time definitely, but the matter should be weighed in a spiritual way. We might also, on the same ground, say that God must have had “Jesus Christ” (John 17) in order to send Him. No one will say that that designation applied to Him before incarnation. We have also, “Whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world”. As far as I understand, J.N.D. connects sanctification there (John 10) with Him as Man. Anyway I am assured it should be.
It helps, I think, to bear in mind that revelation is for finite minds — no man can take in the form of God — and so sonship, being owned in Christ by the Father, conveys what He is personally; our minds can take this in, we can apprehend (not comprehend) Who He is thus, always bearing in mind that no one knows the Son but the Father. But the truth of His Person — Who He is — is in the soul as a solid rock. It is a term (I am only submitting this, seeking to be subject and cautious as on such holy ground) therefore, which, while applied to Him as in manhood only, asserts His deity; the Person is before the adoring believer (John 9) and known. We cannot compass Him, but we apprehend Who He is; He loves me in a known personal way, and I love Him. But, as I said, my finite mind is met; I can apprehend Sonship in a Man, but I do not pretend to apprehend it in One in the form of God. This is beyond the finite mind, it seems to me. The relationship of Son, or Son of God, in a Man is enough to denote His Person (a Person I can know and love) but what He is in the Deity is beyond my range. He dwells in light unapproachable, whom no man has seen nor can see.
Thus in John’s gospel, where the truth of our Lord’s Person is formally treated, Sonship is not mentioned until He is said to have become flesh; and then it is given as the conclusion arrived at by those who contemplated Him; they saw His glory as of an only-begotten with a Father. John the baptist’s testimony is also on the ground of what he saw, and that of Nathanael. In verse 18 we have the formal statement of the Lord’s Sonship by the Spirit, but this obviously also contemplates Him as Man; He is in the bosom of the Father. The preposition “in” (eis) as you will know, points to His coming to the position. This probably implies His personal worth or attractiveness as Man.
[p. 265] As to giving and sending, while these are generally in the past tense, the greatness of the person given or sent is in view. Such terms as the “Word” (John 1) and “Jesus Christ” (John 17) and “Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 1) have to be borne in mind as well as “the Son”. Designations known and used, having come out in Christ become Man, are used to indicate His Person whether before or after incarnation. As I said, I do not see how we, as finite, can apprehend His Person save as we see what He is to and with God. What was seen was intelligible to man — an only one, with a father.
I return Mr. C———’s letter — if you are free you may show him what I write. As far as I can recall (and I had much correspondence with him) W———’s view bordered on the denial of Christ’s eternal Personality — not the application of the term Son. W——— implied the Lord’s inequality with the Father.
My wife joins in love in Christ to Mrs. Carter and you.
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.