APRIL 10TH, 1931
APRIL 10TH, 1931
BELOVED BROTHER, — I think I can understand the exercises expressed in your letter of March 25th, with reference to such terms as “the eternal Son”, and the “everlasting Word”, for mine was a similar attitude when the subject was suggested for our consideration over thirty years ago. One has had to learn that on all great and holy subjects, and especially on that which relates to the Son of God, our Lord and Saviour, absolute subjection to the Holy Scriptures is the only safe [p. 196] ground. And it is important that we should be careful to make sure that Scripture does really say what we have been accustomed to think that it says.
I will confine myself for the present to the scriptures which you have mentioned, viz., John 1: 14, 18.
I feel sure that I cannot give you any greater help than to beg you to consider well these scriptures. They refer, unquestionably, to the Word and to the only-begotten Son as incarnate, as in a condition in which His glory could be contemplated by men. His disciples contemplated One who dwelt among them full of grace and truth, and who had unique glory “as of an only-begotten with a father”. The whole point of the statement lies in the fact that this unique glory was contemplated by men; it was the glory of the Word as become flesh. So manifest is this that I cannot recall that any other interpretation was ever put upon it by intelligent Christians.
Then verse 18 states that the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared God. It is a statement of what He has done as incarnate in time, and that He has done it as having this wonderful place “in the bosom of the Father”. It is the unique place which He occupied as incarnate in the affections of the Father, and from which He declared God. That He did not have a less place in the past eternity we may be well assured, but what the Scripture states is the place which He occupied in relation to His declaration of God, which was clearly as incarnate.
I am sure that the One spoken of in verse 18 is “I am”, but I should have thought that eis referred to His characteristic place in the Father’s affections rather than to His essential Being. You have no doubt observed that eis is used characteristically in John 3: 13, 31; 6: 46; 8: 47; 18: 37. I may add that I do not follow what is in your mind in saying that eis “in New Testament Greek” is used without any idea of motion into, as I am sure you must have noticed that it is used in this sense more than 100 times in John’s gospel. But I do not pretend to know Greek.
Scripture establishes without any possibility of question the eternal Personality in Godhead of Him whom we know and adore as known through revelation as the Word and the Son. Scripture is full of the relationship in which He stands to God and the Father as Son, being found in manhood in that relationship. But to say that that relationship “ever subsisted”
[p. 197] in absolute Deity is; I believe, to go beyond what Scripture makes known.
We only know divine Persons as and when revealed, and in relation to purposes of love formed before the foundation of the world. In purpose all that attaches to the names or titles of the Son, the Word, the Christ, even the Lamb, was there eternally, but it awaited time and the incarnation for manifestation. It must be obvious that the Scriptures speak of the Son as sanctified, sent, given, as coming down from heaven to do the will of the One who sent Him. The blest name of Son marks Him as the Father’s sent One. That is, He is presented as holding a mediatorial place. Why should we not allow our hearts to expand in all the wealth and blessedness that has come to us from God in Him? We shall find enough within the bounds of revelation to fill us with deep divine joy now and in eternity. We recognise that essential Deity is altogether beyond creature ken, but in boundless love to the creature, and for His love’s own satisfaction, God has come into the light of revelation. In that light He is known as the Father, known by the presence here on earth of the Son, and I am sure that the revelation brings to us the light of affections between divine Persons so far as it is possible for creatures to know them. The revelation is in a form suited for creature apprehension, though surely only truly apprehended in virtue of the presence and teaching of the Holy Spirit. We glory in it, find it our blessing and joy, and we adore the grace that marks it.
We could not, as creatures, know the manner or the character of affections that subsisted between divine Persons in essential Deity. But they have been disclosed to us, so far as it is possible, by the coming of One divine Person into manhood to be known by men as the Object of the Father’s love in the relationship of Son, and as responding in Son’s affections to the Father. We can get no nearer to essential Deity than it is our holy privilege to be as we contemplate the Son in manhood loved by the Father and loving the Father. To be with Him where He is, and to behold the glory given Him by the Father, is to get the nearest and fullest apprehension of the love that existed before the foundation of the world that it is possible for creatures to have. But the wondrous thing about it is that it is glory given to One who has taken the place of glorifying the Father on earth, and completing the work given Him by [p. 198] the Father to do, and who asks and receives all from the Father. He is in that place according to divine purpose from eternity, but it is a place of doing what Another has given Him to do, and of receiving all from Him. It is in this way that the mediatorial glory of the Son of the Father shines for the adoring contemplation of creatures.
I should be fully prepared to say that the mutual relations and affections of divine Persons in essential Deity in eternity could not be less than they are now as known in revelation. But I think we should also be prepared to admit that there are inscrutable depths in Deity which are wholly beyond creature apprehension, and which therefore do not have place in revelation, which must in the wisdom of divine love have regard to creature capacity. All that has been said of late is with a view to reserving this, that the proper and essential greatness and majesty of God may have due place in our thoughts, and in the attitude of our souls towards Him. The result will be that the love and grace of the revelation which God has been pleased to make of Himself mediatorially in the Son will be greatly magnified before our hearts.
I will not add more at present, but I shall be glad to hear from you if anything that I have said presents any difficulty to your mind.
With much love in the Lord,
Yours affectionately in Him,
April 10th, 1931.