BROOKLYN, N.Y., MAY 1ST, 1931
BROOKLYN, N.Y., MAY 1ST, 1931
My Dear Brother, — Your letter of the 25th ultimo was received late as I was away from New York and did not return until last week.
I am sorry you are so seriously troubled over what has been said recently about our Lord’s sonship. I am assured you will find in time that there is no real cause for this. What was said at Barnet conveyed what had long been in the minds of many brethren, the expressions ‘Eternal Son’ and ‘Eternal Word’ being regarded as questionable as wanting of scriptural warrant. I have weighed the matter much before the Lord since, especially in regard of what has been advanced in support of the expressions, and I am confirmed in what I have held.
It has often been said that we should get thoughts from Scripture and not take any to it. In the latter case we are exposed to the danger of forcing Scripture to our view. You quote John 1: 14, 18 as ‘ample proof’ of your view. Then you proceed: ‘The Greek words for’ who is ‘in John 1: 18 are equivalent to’ I am ‘or the Eternal One — the One who is, and do not refer to time at all’. This statement illustrates what I said. The verse treats of relationship and position, not eternal existence as in chapter 8: 24, 58. Thus “who is in the bosom of the Father” is a present fact in regard of the matter to be spoken of — the declaration of God. Earlier in the chapter references to the Lord’s eternal existence are in the past tense and we damage the truth and ourselves if we do not pay attention to this. In considering a subject so profound, holy and delicate, it is of the utmost importance to observe [p. 322] every word and all that attaches to it that the Holy Spirit uses.
And so the preposition “in” in verse 18 must be noted. It denotes motion towards — that thus the position was reached. Added to the tense of the verb governing it and the relationship of Christ to the Father, the preposition conveys that He is viewed as Man.
Of this preposition you say, ‘It has recently come to light and I think has been thoroughly well established that in New Testament Greek’ eis ‘is used in John 1: 18 without any idea of motion at all, but rather of proximity to’. This reminds me of the ‘higher critic’s’ way of furnishing evidence — ‘It has recently come to light ... thoroughly well established’. But by whom? How? ‘Eis’ is employed about 1,600 times in the New Testament and in the vast majority of instances, including passages similar in structure to John 1: 18, it expresses motion towards (compare Englishman’s Greek Concordance). How then does New Testament Greek show that in John 1: 18 it is just proximity? If position only were meant, ‘en’ would be more intensive as proper to the relation of sonship and is indeed used in chapter 14 — “I am in my Father”. ‘En’ is also used in John 13: 23 to convey the beloved disciple’s position; ‘epi’ in verse 25. If proximity were in view, ‘para’, as in John 1: 14, would be appropriate. ‘Pros’ is used in verse 1 as more intensive, implying association in equality, essential being, with God.
As I said, we must observe carefully the words the Holy Spirit uses and if, as in the present case, He uses a preposition implying motion towards when He could have used others, we are bound to own that He did so with a purpose; He knew that Greek readers would necessarily regard the word according to its ordinary or general meaning. Ellicott in his Commentary says, ‘The’ is in ‘is probably to be explained by the return to, and presence with the Father after the ascension’. I believe they refer to the Lord as Man before and after the ascension, but I quote the commentator to show how a scholar regarded the verb and preposition here.
You say, ‘The words “only begotten” in the same verse have no reference to being born at all ... the words convey the thought of “darling” or “only one”’. Here again is a statement without adequate proof. I have not ‘Greville Ewing’s Lexicon’ but I have Strong’s ‘Exhaustive’, G.V.W.’s and Young’s, and none of them indicates that the words “only begotten” ‘have no reference to being born at all’. On the contrary, they all give the words as including the idea of birth. Besides, according to G.V.W., the word ‘monogenees’, other than the references to Christ, is only used in the New Testament in connection with children. Then the context helps. The only one of a father (and John 1: 14 is illustrative) would be a son or child. If a husband speaks thus (as in Song of Songs 6: 9) he would refer to his wife. Another thing to be noted is that we must not assume that the Holy Spirit is not loved of other Divine Persons, and this would be at least beclouded if we say that one of the Persons viewed as in the Deity is an only one to Another. Applying the term of endearment to Jesus as Man is intelligible, for He only became flesh; as Man He was contemplated in this blessed relationship. When this is made to apply to Christ as in the form of God, describing His relationship then with Him whom we know in revelation as the First Person of the Trinity, I cannot follow — I feel forbidden by Scripture.
The chapter we are considering (John 1) is expressly intended to instruct us — in relation to others, of course — on this great subject of our Lord’s Person, and we must err unless we pay strict attention to the order in which it presents it, and, as I said, the words used. In verse 1 His essentially divine eternal Personal existence is stated; in verse 14 the condition He took or “became” — He was a Man among men, and contemplated by some as an object of the intensest affection to the Father; verse 18 presents Him further as Man, the Holy Spirit formally designating (verse 14 is a description by others of what they saw) Him as ‘The only begotten Son’, and the position reached (redemption as well as incarnation included) in connection with the declaration of God. It is present and abiding. Except verse 18 all the references to the Lord’s sonship in the chapter are to what men saw, verse 18 being a formal designation by the Holy Spirit, but in keeping with the others. To make what men saw descriptive of relations in essential Deity is, I am certain, going beyond Scripture, it being expressly stated that no one had seen God at any time, indeed that He cannot be seen by men.
The designation “Word” is characteristic, referring to the Lord as speaking or expressing the mind of God. It has an active and necessarily mediatorial significance, for in making known the mind of God He was acting for Him. John uses [p. 324] it obviously not as a title revealed by his gospel but as one known amongst saints. The Lord was that practically and known as such. His Sonship was announced at His birth and later from heaven; then too Emmanuel, Jesus, Christ, Saviour, Lord, etc., are divinely announced in the gospels but not the Word. In Revelation 19 He has a name written which no one knows but Himself, but His name is called The Word of God. This is characteristic — it is not said to be written — and so known. It agrees with the use of the term “Word” by John and Luke. Therefore, to apply this designation to the Lord as in absolute Deity is unsupported by Scripture to say the very least. It seems to me that the word ‘Logos’ being so much used in the Lord’s service and so characteristic of it, so commonly used, so to speak, and applied to Him, that the Spirit employed it instead of Son in John 1: 1 to preclude the idea of it being applicable to essential Deity. When there was no speaking or revealing the mind of God (and there could not be the need of this as between divine Persons as such) the designation “Word” could have no place, but it had force when God began to operate.
And this leads me to another important consideration — the mediatorial sphere, which existed before incarnation, but necessarily had the incarnation in view. All God’s operations, as far as Scripture shows, were on the mediatorial principle, and the Son was the Mediator. Thus looking back we have to take account of absolute Deity outside the mediatorial sphere and beyond creature understanding; and then we have to consider “the beginning”, which implies the mediatorial system which looked on to and centred in Christ as Man. He was no afterthought, Adam being but a figure of Him. Whatever the instrumentalities used, the Son was the Mediator. This relationship being in purpose, He was in the mind of God in this light, although it cannot be scripturally said that He was actually in it while in the form of God, for Scripture presents sonship as implying subjection and obedience. There was the promise — to someone — of life before the ages of time and a choosing in Christ before the foundation of the world. All centred in Christ become Man, the material creation itself being preliminarily essential to this.
Having looked into the matter of ‘eternal sonship’ and ‘eternal word’, I am persuaded they originate in theology. As creed-making began, there was a felt need of definitions,
[p. 325] and theologians did not hesitate to attempt to define the relations existing among divine Persons as in absolute Deity. This resulted in much blasphemous error; but even orthodoxy is not free from this as is to be seen in the ‘Creed of St. Athanasius’. Here it is stated that our Lord was begotten of the Father before the worlds and begotten of His mother in the world; ‘one, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person’. He is ‘of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting’. God and man (dual personality) is ‘one Christ’. The thought conveyed is that the Lord was personally a man with ‘reasonable soul’, as we are, and besides this is another ‘substance’, God, another Person, the unity was not ‘confusion of substance’, but of Person. Thus Christ was a union of God and man, a dual Person, not a divine Person become flesh; the latter is the truth Scripture presents. There is no change in the Lord’s Person, but in His condition. “The word became flesh”. As in this condition He could say, “Before Abraham was I am” — the Person is unchanged: “the same yesterday, and today and forever”.
I mention all this because of the place the Creed has or had with some who have objected to certain features of the truth of our Lord’s Person from time to time since 1890. Mr. J. A. Trench was one of the most able of those, and perhaps the most highly esteemed of those who led in the Glanton movement. The following will show the importance he attached to the Creed. The meeting room long used by the brethren in Sligo was his and leased in the usual way. The brothers who signed the lease did not read it, assuming its contents to be such as a brother would ordinarily require. A few days after the Glanton division occurred, however, Mr. James C. Trench, acting for his brother, served a notice of ejection on the brethren who signed the lease. When they remonstrated he directed them to read the lease and it was found that it required that the room was to be used for the breaking of bread, preaching the gospel, etc., by brethren who held the Athanasian Creed. As it was judged the brethren did not now hold this Creed, the lease was cancelled. The brothers (now with the Lord) who signed the lease and who had directly to do with this transaction told me of it together, and I am sure it will be confirmed by brothers in Sligo.
I make no apology for relating above incident because I believe it to be a background to the present attitude of some [p. 326] who are, or were, in the Glanton fellowship. I do not, of course, apply this to you, but I think you should be on your guard as to what comes from the direction I mention.
With love in Christ to you and yours in which my wife joins, I am,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.