BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 9TH, 1932
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JANUARY 9TH, 1932
Beloved Brother, — Your letter is very interesting to me, and I desired to reply at once, as it was received, but my hands have been more than full. Even now I can write but briefly.
The distinct impression your letter makes, is that you do not allow full weight to the facts which Scripture presents as to our Lord’s sonship. I refer particularly to John’s gospel, which, as you say, ‘presents Him as Son of God. He comes, as it were, out of eternity, touches the earth, and then goes back into eternity’, you rightly say; but this is the Person. If it were intended to be conveyed that His relation in the Deity was that of Son, the Holy Spirit would surely say, ‘The Son became flesh;’ but He does not, but “The Word”, etc. Not indeed, that if He did say “The Son”, this would be conclusive, but the fact that He did not, indicates clearly that He is guarding against the thought of eternal sonship. What John says he and others contemplated is not a formal statement of our Lord’s sonship, but that His glory was as the glory of “an only-begotten with a father” — it is descriptive. With the exception of verse 18, the references to Christ’s sonship in John 1 are records of what others saw or discerned in Him. In verse 18 the only-begotten Son is in the bosom of the Father — not was. In verses 1 and 2 it is “was”.
You write, ‘So when He comes to speak of those divine relationships He still uses human terms and calls them Father and Son. This is not a new relationship’. How do you know [p. 339] that it is not? Your further remark (as to the relationship not being new) ‘No more than in the Man Christ Jesus do I see a new God’, does not help for we are definitely told in Scripture that there is but “one God” (Ephesians 4: 6).
Then you go on to say, ‘It is the human expression that God has used to convey to me the wonderful relations of divine Persons, I cannot comprehend it, no more than I can comprehend God’. Here again Scripture is not allowed its force. We are told by it, that no one has seen God — “Whom no man has seen, nor is able to see” (1 Timothy 6: 16) but of the Son it is said that His glory was contemplated by men as the glory of an only-begotten with a father — they saw the relationship (John 1: 14). You urge that we must guard against materialism, but to what materialism do you refer? The disciples (some of them at least) saw the Word as become flesh as in the relation of an only-begotten with a father. They saw Him as become flesh not as in the form of God, this being beyond the creature’s vision. Surely, ‘all these terms’, as you write, ‘are used to convey spiritual ideas’, but sonship in Christ is an actual reality brought within man’s range in Him as Man, and so is more than a spiritual idea.
You write, ‘If you say it was not till He reached earth that He became Son, it loses its lustre’. In Psalm 2 Jehovah says, “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”. This is used in Hebrews 1: 8 as expressing sonship in the fullest sense, e.g. “as to the Son, Thy throne, O God”, etc.; you will not, I am sure, deny that Psalm 2 refers to what took place on earth, nor affirm that because it did take place in time and on earth the sonship of Christ has lost its lustre. If you say it is another sonship you are at variance with Scripture. All that our Lord’s Person is, enters into the sonship according to the epistle to the Hebrews. How a divine Person, being thus God (”The Word was God”), could be born or ‘come of’ a woman is infinite mystery, but it is a fact and we bow in worship in the presence of it. It seems to me that this stupendous transaction has but little place in the minds of the saints. As here God says to Christ, “Thou art my Son, I this day have begotten thee”. This clearly guards against the error of the ‘Creed’ that He was begotten of His Father before all worlds, but begotten in time by His mother. “I (emphatic) this day”. One saying, because Scripture does not show it, that He was not in the relation of Son before, cannot weaken [p. 340] the sonship of Psalm 2 or that of the epistle to the Hebrews. All that our Lord is personally enters into it, as I said, and all that He was to the Father before incarnation enters into it. What is involved in Psalm 2 is infinite mystery, as I said; the divine history looking forward to it stretching back into eternity, the communications between the divine Persons bearing on it, and the power engaged in the wonderful transaction are infinitely beyond the ability of men to grasp. There is also to be taken into account by us as priests the reciprocated affections and communications between the Persons in this relation of purpose (before the public announcement, Luke 3) such as are conveyed in Psalm 22: 9, 10. What transpired in this respect in the ‘thirty years’ who can tell? But all entered into God’s estimate of His Son; so He says, “Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight”. The reference here is clearly to Christ as Man.
The early part of paragraph 3, page 3 of your letter is a convenient way of settling a matter, the understanding of which requires the most profound spiritual thought, and weighing of one Scripture with another. According to your remarks here Psalm 2 is Messiah, John 14: 28 is Christ in manhood, and Matthew 11: 27 as in Deity. The first as I have shown, is regarded in the New Testament (and the New Testament gives the full bearing of the Old Testament) as sonship in the fullest sense and so cannot be limited to the thought of the Messiah. Then while the Person of the Son is in view in Matthew 11: 27 and while He, of course, has part in the Deity, yet He is speaking of Himself as He then was — He was inscrutable save to the Father. To say that this is Sonship before incarnation is simply to add to Scripture. You say, ‘To infer from this verse (John 14: 28) that the Son of God is inferior to God’, etc. I certainly have no such thought that there is, or could be any absolute inferiority; but relative inferiority, involving subjection, is implied in the relationship of Son and constantly applied by the Lord to Himself in this relationship. This is undeniable and it is also undeniable that the thoughts, relations, etc., thus involved and expressed cannot be applied to Him as in the form of God, i.e. before incarnation.
As regards Hebrews 1: 2 (page 4), what you remark is just building on the title, or designation of relationship, rather than on the Person. “By whom” is the Person. But in saying this I am jealous not to weaken the great force of the passage,
[p. 341] for while other designations are used to indicate the Lord’s glorious Person, “Son” is usually employed by the Spirit to convey it fully; e.g. “unto the Son he says”. What you say as to Wellington does not set aside M.W.B.’s thought. That he was the son of Wellesley at Eton and ‘ever since he existed’ is true, but to apply this to our Lord is just ‘begging the question’ and hence valueless. You say, ‘Son expresses relationship and that cannot be made’. ‘Made’ is vague, but sonship is in Scripture, the result of begetting or adoption; in either case it is the result of a transaction. Christ is the only-begotten Son; we are adopted.
I have written much more than I set out to write, but as I proceeded I found more detail was needed than I anticipated. I am assured you will give full attention to what my letter contains; if you do, God will, I believe, make our correspondence profitable.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.