NOVEMBER 25TH, 1933
NOVEMBER 25TH, 1933
[p. 221] MY DEAR BROTHER, — I have looked over the paper in connection with the truth of our Lord’s Sonship which you left with me on Thursday. The different scriptures referred to have all been fully examined during the course of the enquiry into this great subject, and the matter published upon it should be carefully read by any one who wants help. I cannot take up every statement in the paper (this would mean writing a pamphlet) but I send a few remarks.
As to “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”, Psalm 2: 7, I quite agree that it must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament quotations. These, however, concur in referring it to Christ as incarnate. In Acts 13: 33 the promise is fulfilled in the raising up of Jesus, “as it is written”, etc. This is the raising up of Jesus as God’s Son begotten in time; it does not refer to His resurrection. His resurrection is spoken of in verse 34 but not in verse 33. In Hebrews 1: 4 He inherits a Name, and verse 5 shows that it is the Name of Son. He could not be said to “inherit” a Name which belonged to His essential Being as in Deity. Hebrews 5: 5 is the priesthood of Christ, which is clearly taken up in manhood. So that when we examine the context of the quotations we find that they definitely establish the truth that the Son begotten refers to Him as incarnate.
Colossians, Hebrews, and John’s gospel do say plainly that the Son was the Creator. But it is clear that they were all written after the Son had been here as Man, and had become the Object of faith to many thousands. Such were now divinely taught by these inspired writings that the Son in whom God had spoken to men, and on whom they had believed, was no less than the divine Person who created all things. It is a Person now known and believed on as the Son of the Father’s love who was the Creator, the One in whom we now have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, this necessitating His humanity and death. He did not have the kingdom, nor had the saints redemption in Him, nor was He the image of the invisible God, until He became Man. But as knowing all that He is and has brought to pass by coming into manhood, we are also permitted to know that long before He became Man, or the saints had redemption in Him, creation was brought about in His power. It is clearly looking back from how He is known now, subsequent to incarnation, to state what was accomplished in His power and through Him long [p. 222] before He became Man. Not at all saying that the title by which we know Him now applied to Him then. It is evident that the kingdom, redemption, headship of the body, firstborn from among the dead, cannot be carried back into eternity. But He in whom these things are now substantiated was from eternity and was the Creator. It is the Spirit looking back from the standpoint of how we know Him now to what was true of Him as creating long before. All this enhances His glory, and in no way derogates from it.
“Life in Him eternal and uncreated ... brought to light when the Lord Jesus came here ... Old Testament saints ... all ... had life ... the thing was in eternity in the Person of the Son”. I cannot follow what is in the writer’s mind in making these statements, but so far as I understand them he does not seem to distinguish between what belongs to Deity and is incommunicable, and that which is in divine purpose for man.
As to Galatians 4: 4; 1 John 4: 9, 14, it will be obvious, upon careful consideration, that the whole mission of the Son of God is in each case in view. It is in each case the object in view in the sending that is stressed — that He might redeem, that we might receive sonship, that we might live through Him. “His Son” in Galatians is the One announced as glad tidings; that is, the thoughts of God as to men are set forth in Him. “The fulness of the time” evidently refers to the making known those thoughts, in contrast to the “child” state in which the people of God were as under law. But then this necessitated the Son of God being here as “come of woman, come under law;” it is One in the place of man who was sent forth to redeem, and whose Spirit has now been sent out into our hearts. It is clearly not eternal Deity that is dwelt upon, but One, who was indeed eternally divine, now viewed as in the relationship of Son in view of our receiving sonship. No scripture brings out more plainly than this one does that the title Son of God is relative to divine thoughts as to men, and that those thoughts are secured through a divine Person coming into that relationship in manhood.
1 John 4: 9 is similar. It is the manifestation of the love of God as regards us. It refers to what has actually come under the eyes of men in the Son of God as manifested here. We do not live through Him as in pre-incarnate Deity, but through Him as the only-begotten Son of God. John’s gospel is written that we might “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name”. He was sent in love by God to that very end. Nothing could be more simple or precious.
1 John 4: 14 confirms this. “And we have seen, and testify, that the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world”. The apostles could testify this as having actually seen the Son here as sent by the Father. They did not see something that happened before He was here, but they saw Him here as Saviour of the world, and knew that the Father had sent Him to that end.
It is a mistake to say that Nebuchadnezzar recognised Him as Son of God. He said, “the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods”. He simply meant he was like a super-natural Being. What could a heathen king know of the Son of God?
With much love in the Lord to yourself and your dear wife,
Yours affectionately in Him,
November 25th, 1933.