MARCH 23RD, 1934

MARCH 23RD, 1934

MY DEAR BROTHER, — ... The glad tidings of Romans 1: 1 clearly refer to the Son of God as known and preached by Paul. You cannot legitimately detach “his Son” from the context, that is, from the fact that He is “Jesus Christ our Lord;” the glad tidings are concerning Him in His present condition and position — in which alone Paul knew Him. But Paul tells us further that these glad tidings had been “before promised by his prophets in holy writings”. We turn to those holy writings to see what was “before promised” and we find that all the promises centre in One who is spoken of as the Seed of the woman, the Seed of Abraham, the Seed of David, the Son of man, the virgin’s Son called Immanuel as born of her, the Christ, the Son of God. There is nothing metaphysical about any of these promises. And if we turn particularly to the prophecies in regard to Christ as the Son of God (Psalm 2; 2 Samuel 7: 14; Psalm 89: 27; Isaiah 7; Hosea 11: 1) we find that they all refer to Him as come of David’s seed. And it is thus that Paul speaks of Him.

Indeed Paul himself has enlarged on Romans 1: 1 - 4. His own preaching reported in Acts 13 is an exact and illuminating exposition of those verses. It gives us an actual example of how he carried out the ministry to which he was separated. We get it all there — the promises fulfilled in the bringing to Israel of David’s seed a Saviour Jesus, raising Him up as begotten in time according to Psalm 2, in which connection he speaks of Him as God’s Son, and then raising Him from amongst the dead. He presents Jesus as the theme and substance of God’s glad tidings, God’s Son, and the promises substantiated in Him as come in flesh and having died and been raised. Apart from these great realities there would be no glad tidings at all.

God’s glad tidings are concerning His Son. But, having said this, Paul, as though anticipating that some learned commentator in the last days would darken counsel by speaking of a “metaphysical sonship”, adds at once, “come of David’s seed according to flesh”. Nor is this an isolated connection; the whole usage of the New Testament falls into line with it; it ever links together the thought of the Christ and the Son of God. Nathaniel’s confession (John 1) and Martha’s (John 11) show the connection in the mind of pious Jews. It was Jesus who had appeared to Paul in the way whom he preached “that he is the Son of God”. Do you not think that his Jewish hearers in the synagogues would understand this as referring to Psalm 2? The signs in John’s gospel were written that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Paul speaks of “the Son of God, Jesus Christ”, 2 Corinthians 1: 19, of “Jesus the Son of God”, Hebrews 4: 14. John says that “Jesus is the Son of God”, 1 John 4: 15; 5: 5, and speaks of “Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father”, 2 John 3. Then there are several passages in which the same phrase is found as in Romans 1: 3; viz. 1 Corinthians 1: 9; 1 John 1: 3, 7; 3: 23; 5: 20, every one of which absolutely excludes any “metaphysical” idea. In short the testimony of Scripture is everywhere clear and unequivocal that the title Son of God is applied to Him either as viewed personally as Jesus, or officially as the Christ. If there is a scripture anywhere which connects the relationship of the Son with Him as in the past eternity, let it be produced. If this is so vital to the glad tidings as you would have us to think, how comes it that Scripture is absolutely silent with regard to it? I agree with you that it is the introduction of the Son that brings light and understanding, but He must be introduced as Scripture presents Him, and things must not be regarded as essential and necessitous of which Scripture says nothing. Scripture does contain definite statements as to the pre-incarnate ^[p. 227] existence in the form of God of our Saviour and Lord, but it does not say that He was in the relationship of Son then. We know Him as in that relationship now, and we know also that previous to His incarnation He was in the form of God and was the Creator — was God in the most absolute sense.

Those who talk of a “metaphysical sonship” must first prove from Scripture that such a Sonship exists; the whole usage of the New Testament is to speak of the Son of God in a way which precludes such an idea. Your opinions as to the terrible consequences which logically follow the refusal of your ideas have not the slightest weight because you must first establish your premises before you are entitled to draw deductions from them.

I trust you will bear with me in saying that, in my judgment, there is nothing more hindering to the reception of divine light than self-confidence; I trust you may be delivered from every trace of it.

Yours sincerely in the Lord,

March 23rd, 1934.