JANUARY 15TH, 1932
JANUARY 15TH, 1932
Beloved Brother, — Thanks for sending me Mr. W———’s paper, which I had not seen.
The weakness of the writer’s position appears at the outset (page 4), as he is compelled to put something into the quotation he gives from the ‘prominent leader’ so as to make it the subject of adverse criticism. The quotation in part is, ‘The essence, or being, of God is not a subject of revelation;’ the criticism in part is ‘He ... confuses the ... essence of God and the relations between divine Persons in the Godhead’. The quotation says nothing about relations. Mr. W——— says the ‘prominent leader’ writes thus of sonship, but the quotation refers to ‘essence or being’ which is not relationship. The paper then goes on, ‘To advance the thought that in the Godhead ... such wonderful Persons have no relationship the one with the other’. Who has advanced such a thought? I certainly have not heard of it. Then follows, ‘And ... to deny to such Persons, if relationship does exist, the ability to reveal Themselves in that relationship is unconsciously to assume a knowledge that has placed a limit even upon God Himself’. Who has made such a denial? The writer adduces no evidence that anyone has done so. He is [p. 342] thus in the position of publicly charging his brethren with most serious error without furnishing proof of it, and it may be assumed that if such proof had been available he would have produced it.
On page 5 we have, ‘This glorious Person is in this theology reduced to a nebulosity; for it is part of the teaching that not only as Son, but as the Word, our Lord Jesus became such at His birth’. Think of one charging his brethren with reducing their Saviour to a nebulosity on such evidence! I use the word evidence, but there is none brought forward. Saying that our Lord became in fact the Son and the Word as becoming Man cannot affect His Person as in the form of God — He is the Same, yesterday, today and forever. Mr. Raven held and taught (as can be shown from his printed ministry) what Mr. W——— says reduces Christ to a nebulosity — yet Mr. W——— remained in fellowship with him! F.E.R.’s thought was mentioned at the Barnet meetings, the notes of which Mr. W——— has evidently seen. What is objected to is not ‘new light’. Mr. W——— says (page 1) that the Lord, as a distinct Person in the absolute Godhead is not challenged by those who offer us ‘new light’. How then are they reducing Him to a nebulosity? The charge is absurdly false.
On page 6 we read, ‘It is wrong for any one, however gifted, to say that nothing can be known of Godhead in His eternal Godhead glory’. Here again is an implied charge without proof. The quotation from the ‘prominent leader’ speaks of ‘the essence or being of God’ not being the subject of revelation (Mr. W——— admits this in part), but this is not saying ‘that nothing can be known of Godhead in His eternal Godhead glory’. God is, and ever was love; we know this blessed fact. We know, too, that there are and were three Persons in the Deity. No one with whom we are walking denies these things. They are not in question, but rather: Does Scripture warrant us in saying that the relationships taken by divine Persons with each other so that God should be known and His counsels in Christ (involving sonship in Him and His own) carried into effect, are the relationships of Deity in the past eternity? That these relationships were in purpose and so existed in the Divine Mind from eternity is true; it is also true, I believe, that being in purpose (involving the family thought) they entered into the creation from the outset, as we learn in Proverbs. But from the time Mr. Raven spoke of [p. 343] the matter in America I have shrunk from applying such relationships to divine Persons as in absolute Deity (i.e. before incarnation) as would imply that One of Them was in a position of relative inferiority. I said little or nothing as to this important matter for many years, but the more I weighed it the more assured I was of the truth F.E.R. advanced. It can be seen as to the “Word” in his Readings on John, and as to the Son in his printed letters. To say, as those who object are obliged to do, that “Son” and “only-begotten” do not imply relative inferiority (subjection, etc.) is simply to discredit the language that God has been pleased to use. These expressions were understood in this sense, and to say that God used them as stripped of their ordinary meaning is surely not right.
Proverbs 8 is appealed to as treating of our Lord’s sonship before incarnation. This is natural, for it has certain expressions that seem to favour the thought. The understanding of the chapter, however, requires special attention and dependence on Divine teaching. That wisdom, as seen there, refers to Christ in a certain sense, has been recognised by Christians generally. It has also been used derogatorily by His enemies; the Arians alleged that the chapter showed that our Lord was a creature. In the paper before us (page 6), wisdom is viewed as a divine Person, in whom another divine Person objectively delights, and this, notwithstanding that wisdom is said in this chapter to be “possessed” by Jehovah and “brought forth”. Although I gladly observe that Mr. W——— is emphatic as to our Lord’s eternal Personality, yet his treatment of Proverbs 8 weakens this, and lends support to the error of the ‘Creed’ that He was begotten of His Father before the worlds.
In this chapter wisdom speaks as on earth, active in a world of sin. She speaks as a person and refers to prudence in a personal way, saying she finds the knowledge that comes of reflection. In verses 22 - 31 she gives an account of herself in the past; Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way; I was set up from everlasting; before the hills I was brought forth — this expression used twice. It is clear, therefore, that we must view wisdom as active here on earth, but supremely in Christ, who, as Man, is said to be the wisdom of God, and made to us wisdom; and then to trace it from eternity. From the way this part of the chapter is introduced, there can be no doubt that wisdom comes in in view of divine operations. It is relative. It was in God integrally, but comes into evidence as needed. Jehovah “possessed” (’acquired’, “set up”) me in the beginning of His way; before the hills I was “brought forth” (referring to birth). The effort (pages 19, 20) of Mr. W——— to get rid of the serious obstacle in his way expressed in the words “brought forth” is exceedingly weak and futile. He tries to show that the words express the ‘exercise’ of God in the creation; that it involved emotion, solicitude, etc. — whereas, the chapter connects the expressions “possessed”, “set up” and “brought forth” with wisdom before the creation. Then in verses 27 - 31, as the creation is proceeding, Jehovah is the worker, not wisdom, although elsewhere in the book wisdom is very active here on earth. Hence it is obvious that verses 22 - 31 are intended to enhance the position and service of wisdom among men. It was ever in and of God as a supreme quality and regarded in a personal way by Him, evidently in view of Christ becoming Man, who, as Man, is said to be it. In the New Testament it is also treated as a Person, the Lord saying, wisdom is justified of all her children. It was active in its infinite perfection in Himself. Christ was always in view in the purpose of God, and so we can understand that wisdom’s account of herself alludes to Him in this light, and hence the beautiful spirit and touches in it throughout. But to make the passage apply to a divine Person in absolute Deity before incarnation is, I am assured, forcing it. The Jehovah who is presented in it as operating is Christ, for “The Word was God”, by whom all things were made.
I may explain here as to the alleged remark at Bristol (page 14) that in making statements or answering questions in a large meeting a thing may be said, the meaning of which is quite clear to those present, but when reported by itself may be wrong. Any one who reads Proverbs 8 knows that wisdom loves and can be loved; but he may know also that wisdom, while personified there and elsewhere, is properly a quality or attribute, being possessed, brought forth, etc., and so does not love in the sense that Christ loved and is loved. This is what was intended to be conveyed at Bristol, and I believe, understood by the brethren present at the reading in question.
The next subject in the paper is Proverbs 30. In keeping with the book, this chapter has a prophetic outlook. Agur’s question (verse 4) is fully answered in the New Testament. The passage proves nothing as to the subject treated. Mr.
[p. 345] W——— says, or implies, that the names taken by God in the Old Testament applied to Him before He took them; but it should be noted that they are relative and come in as needed. “Jehovah” is hardly an exception to this, but almost personal, equal to “I Am”. What the names denote was, of course, in God inherently, but this is another matter. The Father, Son and Spirit formally come into evidence as Christ was baptised. That there are three Persons is plainly alluded to in the Old Testament, but now that One of Them has become Man, He is owned as Son by the Father, and the Spirit comes upon Him. This is how Scripture presents the facts. We must not intrude into the things we have not seen and say that Divine titles which are relative, applied formally to the Persons as in absolute Deity before the things to which they relate existed. To be clear in our minds as to these wonderful things we must apprehend Deity by Itself; then Deity in relation to its counsel and purpose; then in relation to creation; and finally to redemption. In connection with the last we have the relationship of Father and Son, which enters into the eternal counsel of God. The relationship was in counsel and purpose from eternity, but as One of the divine Persons became incarnate, it took actual form, and attention was called to it at His baptism. It had been announced prophetically in Psalm 2, “Thou art my son; I this day have begotten thee”. It may be said by some that this is another sonship, but this cannot be shown from Scripture. Hebrews treats it as the sonship of Christ in the fullest sense; e.g., “as to the Son, Thy throne O God”, etc.
What I detect in the papers urging so-called eternal sonship is disregard (unconsciously, I believe) of the magnitude of the incarnation. The enemy is in this. How little the bearing and greatness of the wonderful transaction enters into any of our minds! It was in the divine mind from eternity, cherished there, we may say. What the communications between the divine Persons were, who can say? Then the emptying of Himself and the inscrutable transaction which enabled our adorable Lord to be in man’s estate! and the communications between the Father and the Son from the outset of the Son’s humanity as seen in Psalm 22: 9, 10! All this, and indeed all that the Lord was personally, all that He was in Deity, entered into the position He had thus taken in obedience and love. All was in the Father’s heart as He said, “This is my [p. 346] beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”. In saying these things, is one denying the Father and the Son, as is hinted on page 8 of this paper? I trow not; it is rather that the truth of the relationship as presented in Scripture is asserted. This page asks, ‘Have they also dropped the Triune God, the Trinity, because the term is not in our Bibles?’ The answer is that the Trinity is formally stated in our Bibles to exist and so true Christians believe in it; eternal sonship is not. The absence of the term ‘eternal Son’ in Scripture, although important to notice, is not the determining factor, but the general teaching of Scripture.
Hebrews 7 is introduced (pages 15, 16). ‘The idea conveyed by Mr.——— seems unavoidably to involve the error that the Son of God had beginning of days’. But we are not told what the ‘idea’ is. When something is combated publicly, fairness requires that the words conveying what is alleged to be erroneous should be given. Throughout this accusatory paper I cannot find a quotation, which justifies or gives any ground for the comments which are made upon it. That on page 4 is evidently from a private letter, the intent of which is said to be to discredit the term eternal sonship; but the quotation itself treats of the inscrutability of ‘the essence or being of God’, not eternal sonship. Why not quote what was written to ‘discredit’ this? Instead of a plain (however brief) statement of what is attempted to be controverted in the actual words of those whose teaching is impugned, innuendo marks the paper. It is sorrowful to have to make such a statement regarding one highly esteemed in the past, but I believe no unbiased reader of his booklet will fail to own the truth of it.
Returning to Hebrews 7, I suppose what is alluded to in the quotation given above from page 16 is what appeared in the Barnet notes as to the Lord’s sonship, but the eternal Personality of our Lord is most emphatically stated in these notes and elsewhere, and this is fully admitted by Mr. W——— (page 1). How then can what is conveyed ‘involve the error that the Son of God had beginning of days?’ Hebrews 7 treats of the Person of the Son of God, who is ever the same — “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today and to the ages to come”. In this section of Hebrews the Son is introduced from Psalm 2. “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”. Here His sonship begins in time, but this, of course, cannot affect His eternal Personality. “Son” or “Son of God”, though titles referring to our blessed Lord here as Man, usually denote this in Scripture, and evidently it is so used in Hebrews 7: 3.
As to revelation (page 16), while the word is current amongst Christians, it is worthy of note that when the thought of God being made known is formally introduced (John 1:18) the word is “declared”, not ‘revealed’. No one has seen God at any time, but the Son has declared Him. Revelation is used as to the Father, but to certain persons, not general, as far as I can find. The Son, as to His Person, is not said to be revealed. He is known to the Father only. “To reveal his Son in me”, does not, of course, weaken this, and cannot include the inscrutability of our Lord’s Person referred to in Matthew 11: 27. The rolling away of a veil from before an ‘existing object’ does not accurately describe what is said in Scripture of God (the Deity) being made known. It would imply, the veil being removed, that the Deity could be seen by the creature, which John 1: 18 denies. The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared God. It is not the removing of a veil, but One telling of God, bringing Him out. He is thus through a Man (the Only-begotten Son) brought within the range of man’s apprehension. It is a question of God’s nature and attributes, not, of course, His essential being and form. While God is thus declared He, in His essential being and form, remains inscrutable — “Whom no man has seen nor can see”.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.