BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 21ST, 1917
BROOKLYN, N.Y., JULY 21ST, 1917
Mr. P. R. Morford.
My Dear Brother, — I thank you for your letter of June 28th which came this week. I appreciate the spirit of your letter and I will try and convey briefly, as well as I can, my understanding of the features of the truth you mention.
(1) ‘The centering of all God’s purposes in the Second Man (morally the First) and not attaching to Adam’. This, to my mind, answers itself. All God’s purposes surely centre in Christ. Adam can have no place save that of a sinner saved by grace (which I believe him to be) like the rest of us.
(2) ‘The fall and its irretrievable character as far as man is concerned’. The ‘fall’ involved utter and irretrievable ruin for man according to nature. He was lost. As to anything in himself, he must disappear under the judgment of God. But God had His own thoughts and these centre in man — the Second Man, of whom Adam was only a figure, but nevertheless Man. We cannot suggest anything as to God finding a way of introducing Christ as Man other than the one He designed; but had He introduced man in Christ otherwise and destroyed Adam and Eve when they sinned, there would have been no idea of ‘lost and found’ or recovery. The judgment of God against sin (although not as at the cross) would be in evidence, but not His rights in mercy. Hence He immediately speaks of the woman’s seed. Instead of destruction there was clothing for Adam and Eve. Typically, man is covered by God (accounted righteous), but through the death of another. This, of course, introduces Romans, where the ‘ungodly’ is said to be justified. Adam was a man after he was clothed as [p. 148] before, but how different morally! I refer, of course, to Romans. The point in that epistle is not that God destroys the sinner and creates a righteous man in his stead (although new creation as an all-important truth has its place elsewhere), but that the sinner having judged his sin, is justified by faith, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. He judges himself, sin and the world in the light of Christ’s death, as receiving the Holy Spirit. Although unchanged as to identity, and still a man, he is morally another man; he is after the order of Christ; he reckons himself alive in Christ; he has eternal life in Christ; as walking in the Spirit, he fulfils the righteous requirements of the law; he pleases God. In him is seen in this world the triumph of God where outward defeat had been. Underlying all is the new birth, for that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and it profits nothing.
What I have been saying refers to the triumph of God where Satan seemed to have had his way. It takes place in time — the millennium being on the same line, having a like end in view, that is, God’s victory in regard of Israel and the nations. New creation has more reference to heaven and the eternal state of things. As to new birth, it is to be noted that the man or person is born anew, not simply something in him.
(3) ‘Recovery, or re-instatement. How far recovery goes and is it wholly outside the man that we speak of as gone in judgment’. This is largely covered in what is said above. As to recovery, Luke 15 admits of no doubt. Of course the young man is different as back in his father’s house from what he had been. The moral change is seen in, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee; I am no more worthy to be called thy son”. All that follows refers to Christ, and it involves that the prodigal was changed into a new order of man. All in the house is according to Christ. The man born after the flesh has no portion in it — indeed he desires no part in it, as seen in the “elder son”. As to ‘re-instatement’, I would use it in the sense that man (that order of being in contrast with the angels) which was lost for God through Adam’s fall is seen again before God in Christ. For since “by man came death, by man also resurrection of those that are dead” — the same order of being (as compared with angels, as I said) but not the same order of man. One was made of dust and sinful, the other the Son of God out of heaven, a quickening Spirit; but each was a man. We see God’s [p. 149] triumph here again — He holding to the order of being that He had purposed in whom to carry out His will.
(4) ‘Going to heaven; the ground of going there. The bearing or not of Enoch’s walk or our walk on this’. Ephesians 2 teaches that we are raised up and seated in heavenly places on account of God’s rich mercy and great love. It also tells us that we are created in Christ Jesus — we are God’s workman-ship. We are thus fitted for our great place. Although we could not be in heaven save through Christ’s death, yet our position there is in connection with God’s sovereign counsel and love. This epistle also shows that the church is formed down here subjectively according to its great calling. It is inconceivable that God would have it otherwise, so He works in us for the willing and the working according to His good pleasure. See also Ephesians 5: 21 - 27 for Christ’s work with the same end in view. Enoch, being a type of the church, had before his translation, the testimony that he pleased God. F.E.R. says, ‘God wrought in Enoch that he might be for God’s pleasure, and hence God translated him..’. God says, ‘I will produce that upon earth that shall be for my pleasure, and will translate what pleases me’. (Readings and Addresses in U.S.A. and Canada, 1898, page 401).
(5) ‘The right of a creature to predicate fulfilled responsibility of any other creature’. This is a very peculiar query. What was said last year was that ‘fulfilled responsibility’ could not be predicated of any one save the Lord. To this others and myself strenuously objected. Now the contention is that no creature can predicate it of another! In a recent letter an elder brother asserted this, and at the same time he spoke of certain brethren who had been standing earnestly and faithfully for the truth of Christianity before I was born, and were continuing to do so. They were responsible to do this and were doing it ‘earnestly’ and ‘faithfully’, and so were fulfilling their responsibility ‘in measure’. Of course these brothers are creatures as well as the brother who wrote! And in a recent article of yours (’The Measure of a man’ ) you refer to the angels fulfilling responsibility as maintained by God. Of course inspired statements are ruled out, seeing it is one creature speaking of another, but surely if a brother is faithful and fears God above many I am at liberty to refer to these things as Nehemiah did. The Spirit speaks of Dorcas being full of “good works”, but then the “widows” showed [p. 150] the garments which she had made. Instances of this kind can be multiplied. As to Luke 17: 10, I apprehend “we are unprofitable servants” refers to one’s judgment of one’s own service. As a bondman the Lord has bought me, and I am sure I do not yield a full return for what He has expended on me. I do not see that “unprofitable servants” can be rightly used to set aside the thought of a believer fulfilling responsibility, for the Lord’s words state that the bondman may do what he is ordered to do (that is, fulfil literally his responsibility, it seems to me) but nevertheless is to regard himself unprofitable.
As to Colossians 1: 12, I understand it to mean that the Father has made us suited in every way for the sharing of the portion of the saints in light. It is like the prodigal being robed, etc., and brought into the house. In closing I may make reference to 1 Corinthians 4: 1 - 3. I apprehend that this passage refers rather to motives than to overt things. The latter surely become the occasion of judgment. We are to judge those that are within and to judge what may be said in ministry. Indeed it were impossible to maintain the discipline suitable to the house of God without this principle.
I am glad to hear that you are all well through God’s mercy. Many thanks for copies of Mutual Comfort just received.
With love in Christ, I am,
Affectionately yours in Him,
James Taylor.