ON THE RELATIONS OF THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD

Introductory Note.-In Feb., 1920, a number of servants of Christ being providentially brought together in Seattle, Wash., it was suggested to ask Mr. C. Crain to meet with them for daily readings-a proposition that was agreeable to all. So much that was profitable was brought out that it was thought well to prepare the notes for publication, that others might share in the edification. Those present were, in addition to Mr. Crain, B. C. Greenman, A. E. Booth, F. J. Enefer, Win. Haigh, B. F. Elliot, N. Thompson, H. A. Ironside and occasional local brethren.

John 5:19 was read. A question was asked as to whether the words, "The Son can do nothing of Himself" referred to His humiliation, or were always true of Him.

C. C.-Such are the relations of the persons in the Godhead that no act of one can be independent of the others. Therefore it is always true that the Son can do nothing of Himself-never acts independently of the Father and the Spirit.

A. E. B.-That is illustrated, is it not, in creation ? There we have, "In the beginning God created;" it is the Trinity, as further down, "Let us make man in our image," etc.

C. C.-Yes; note carefully that God is a trinity in unity. It means, to use different terms, that the Godhead expresses the idea of an association, a partnership, a fellowship, but such terms imply unity.

F. J. E.-What of that verse in Col. i,"In Him all the fulness was pleased to dwell ? " and in Col.
2, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ?"

C. C.-The last applies to Him in manhood. We are not dealing with that just now.

W. H.-But the other would be as the Eternal Son. Col. i is what He was from eternity.

C, C.-Yes;.but the other verse is the Son in manhood.

A. E. B.-Does not John i:i help us as a starting-point ?

C. C.-Yes; I think the important thing to be noticed in that chapter is the distinction between "was"and "became." We have first what He was, and then what He became. So we begin with the eternity of the "Logos"-the Word. He was the Creator; Himself uncreated and underived.

A. E. B.-I think that expression is in very fine form. He was uncreated, and the Creator of all things.

C. C.-He never began to be; and He brought into being everything that ever came into being.

W. H.-He was uncaused, underived and uncreated.
B. C. G.-Sometimes we have to meet one who confesses the eternity of the Word but denies the eternity of the Son. But it is written, "God so loved . . . that He gave His only-begotten Son:" He had to have a Son to give. The nature of the gift is called in question if you deny His eternal Son-ship.

F. J. E.-Some object very strongly to the expression "the eternal Son." They say it is not in Scripture.

A. E. B.-Yes; they own the eternal Logos on the authority of this verse, John 1:1. i John 1:2 cleared me as to the eternal Son. "We show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." The "Life" was with the Father.

H. A. I.-That's it. There could be no Father in the past eternity, if there were no Son.

A. E. B.-Yes; so we have the eternal Word in John i, and the eternal Son in i John 1:

"B. C. G.-He says Himself, "I came forth from the Father."

A. E. B.-But some might say an angel could do that. But the Life was with the Father; it is the clear declaration of Sonship before incarnation.

H. A. I.:-He was God the Son before He became the Son of God as a man, born of the virgin.

C. C.-Then notice:If the Godhead is a trinity, there must of necessity be distinctions in the Godhead. We speak commonly of three persons. That is, we have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All are in perfect fellowship. But if you speak of fellowship, persons are implied. If you speak of association, persons are implied. If you speak of partnership, it is the same thing-there must be persons.

B. C. G.-What is the force of the word, Godhead? C. C.-Deity.

F. J. E.-It is different, is it not, in Romans i ? There it should be divinity instead of deity.

C. C.-Yes; that is another line. It is a different word. Now, if there are persons in the Godhead, and yet the Godhead is a unity, in what sense or senses are the three persons one ? They are one in substance; one in nature; one in life; one in purpose, plan and counsel.

A. E. B.-They are one in aim-always have the same object.

C. C.-Also one in work; none acts independently of the others.

F. J. E.-And of course they are one in power.

C. C.-We may say, also, one in wisdom; but that is perhaps implied in counsel.

A. E. B.-And so we see, as in psalm 139, the Trinity is omniscient (verses i to 6); omnipresent (verses 7 to 12); and omnipotent (verses 13 to end).
C. C.-Now, if we turn to Gen. i, and are able to read it in the Hebrew, we are struck with the very simple fact that the word for God, "Elohim," is in the plural. The Hebrew has singular, dual and plural. In the plural there must be at least three, and so is this word for God; yet it is constantly used as the subject of a singular verb.

B. C. G.-I think it is used 45 times in the first two chapters of the Bible, and over and over again we find this plural noun used with a singular verb. This would seem ungrammatical in English, yet it is the divine way of expressing the fact.

C. C.-We might say in English, "In the beginning the Trinity created." Trinity expresses plurality, but it is trinity in unity.

H. A. I.-There are those who object, and say it is simply the plural of majesty that is used here.

C. C.-But the use of it is too common for that. " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," implies unity of persons in counsel.

B. C. G.-Counsel always implies deliberation.

F. J. E.-In the New Testament we read that God created all things by Jesus Christ. Is that the same thing ?

C. C.-Yes; but what is important is that while we think of persons in the Godhead, there is no person that is independent of the rest. Neither Person thinks, speaks, or acts independently.

B. C. G.-Of course all human illustrations fail, but we might think of a firm of three partners commissioning one partner to do a certain thing on behalf of all. Thus, one might take a servant's place, but in full harmony with the rest.

H. A. I.-I have tried to illustrate it by a firm appointing one of its partners to act as receiver and straighten out the business, then hand it back to the firm. Christ became, so to speak, the receiver for this universe after sin had marred it. When all is straightened out, He hands it back to the firm.

Question-As to the Word, He was always that, was He not, but only spoken in time?

C. C.-From eternity He was the potential Word. Let us think of creation. Was not God speaking when He created ? Creation was a form of revelation. God was displaying Himself, revealing Himself. How can we think of that apart from the Son Himself as the speaker ?

F. J. E.-What is the thought of the eternal Word ?-always the expression of God ?

C. C.-Yes; I believe so. The best definition that I have seen is that given by G. V. Wigram:"A word is an idea and the expression of it." Now apply that definition to the term the "Logos" in John i :1,2. It is the title of the second person of the Trinity. In the beginning was the Word. He existed eternally as the idea and expression of Deity. Being that, He was the Expresser of the mind and will of God.
W. H.-Would you not say the eternal Expresser, whether before or after the incarnation ?

B. C. G.-Expressed or not, that is what He is.

C. C.-God was never without the ability to express Himself.

B. C. G.-Some raise the question, Why called " the Word " when there was no activity?

C. C.-He is that in Himself. John's first chap, speaks of Him as eternally living. In Him was life. Life never began in Him. It began in us. As being eternally the Living Word, we see the ability of Deity to express itself.

W. H.-We need to hold fast to that. Christ was eternally the Living Word.

F. J. E.-Would you say Christ?

C. C.-I think so. In i Cor. 10, the apostle writes, "They drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ." He applies the term to pre-incarnation. Then Moses is said to have borne the reproach of Christ. He was the one to whom faith looked; and even in that day, as being present amongst His people, He was under reproach.

A. E. B.-The Anointed, or Christ, is more than a Jewish title. It is more than what we generally associate with the thought of the Messiah of Israel. In Prov. 8 wisdom says:" I was set up from everlasting." "Set up "is the same as anointed. He was anointed from everlasting. So He was the Christ in the mind of God in the past eternity. He was the Christ in God's purpose before incarnation. Historically He was anointed as Christ at His baptism; and God made Him Lord and Christ, confirmed Him as such, in resurrection.

B. C. G.-Even the Jews said, "We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth forever."

C. C.-But Jesus was His human name. It was the name given Him in incarnation. He was the Anointed from everlasting, just as He was the Lamb from everlasting-the foreordained Lamb, set apart for sacrifice. What is very important is that the young believers be brought to see that the relations of the persons of the Godhead are such that there is no independence in purpose, counsel, or activity.

W. H.-There is danger, I believe, of pressing passages like John i, Col. i, and Heb. i, as though creation were the independent work of the Son.

C. C.-The point is that in creating He was not acting Simply from Himself, just as the Holy Spirit now is said not to speak from Himself. He acted in conjunction with the other persons of the Trinity.

H. A. I.-Then are we to understand that John 5 119 has no reference to His humiliation, and refers only to Him as a divine person ?

C. C.-Well, I would not say that dogmatically. I would not say that He is limiting it to His deity. I understand that He is speaking in view of the fact that He has come down into human conditions, and as man He is in the place of dependency. But always He did nothing independently. As become man, He still has divine authority, divine wisdom, and sovereignty, but He does not act independently. It would be contrary to His relations (whether those essential and eternal, or those assumed when become Man) so to do.

F. J. E.-It says He can do nothing, not merely He will do nothing.

C. C.-The nature of the case is such that He can do nothing of Himself-the unity of the Godhead necessitates cooperation.

W. H.-Verse 36 gives us the perfection of the Son in humiliation. He speaks of the works that the Father had given Him to do.

C. C.-We must not lose sight of the fact that we are occupied with a unique man. His humanity was thoroughly unique.

F, J. E.-Is that thought of dependency all through John's Gospel, in spite of what is revealed as to His true deity.

C. C.-Yes; for He is both God and man; possessing divine sovereignty, and at the same time a submissive, subject man.

F. J. E.-Some use the term the God-man. Is it not better to say God and 'man in one person ?

C. C.-I think the expression is all right if the thought behind it is right. I have used it. But I find even Unitarians now use it. They mean He is a divine man. They deify His humanity and deny His deity. So the fuller expression is better.

A. E. B.-We need to press that. Humanity is never deified. Christ is perfect man and true God.

C. C.-There are two natures combined in one person, yet distinct.

A. E. B.-Some expressions which were once safe to use are now unsafe owing to new forms of error giving new meanings to these expressions.

C. C.-He is a real man-spirit, soul and body.

A. E. B.-Yes; many see in Him God, as to person, in a human condition.

C. C.-But there is more than that. It was not merely that Deity was enshrined in a body. Deity and manhood are united. Manhood implies spirit, soul and body.

A. E. B.-Well then, what of our opening verse, " The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do ?"
C. C.-This was always true, as we have seen. But He was here on earth, in a new position for Him. Before His incarnation, He knew nothing of obedience. He did not act independently, He acted sovereignly with the Spirit and the Father. But He became man. As having come into our condition and circumstances, as having entered . into a new relationship, that of dependence, He learned obedience-an entirely new experience for Him.

F. J. E.-What of "The Father sent the Son"? Was that not obedience before He came to earth ?

A. E. B.-In John 14 we are told that the Father would send the Spirit. In chap. 15 the Son would send Him. In chap. 16 He would come Himself. So with the Son. There is perfect interdependence.

B. C. G.-There is no independent action on the part of any member of the Godhead.

C. C.-But as man he is subject to orders, to command. The temptation illustrates it very clearly. He will do nothing without orders from His Father.

H. A. I.-It is really, "The Spirit driveth Him into the wilderness." He was impelled to go by the Spirit.

C. C.-Yes. He was taken to the wilderness to be tempted. The devil says, "If thou be the Son of God "do thus and so. But He would not exercise sovereignty, though possessing it, and He had no word from God to make stones into bread, or to leap from the pinnacle of the temple. He could not turn aside from the path of subjection, of dependence.

W. H.-John 12 149 shows He was under commandment.

C. C.-Yes; His words were the Father's words, and His works those that the Father had given Him to do. Though He exercised sovereign power, He was yet acting in subjection and obedience as under authority, as when with a word He stilled the tempest.

B. C. G.-Even in connection with His atoning death He said, "This commandment have I received of my Father."

W. H.-But it was also voluntary, for He says, "No man taketh my life from Me. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again."

C. C.-Yes; but the great point is, He was not acting independently even there. All was in accord with the counsel of God.

F. J. E.-When the wrath was borne, we are told that " He dismissed his spirit." This shows He willing fly offered Himself.

W. H.-And it shows that He was possessed of a true human spirit-which some deny.

C. C.-He says elsewhere, "Now is my soul troubled"; so we know He had a human soul.
B. C. G.-Isaiah says, "He poured out His soul unto death."

H. A. I.-And we read, "He groaned in spirit and was troubled." The denial of this is an old heresy known as Apollinarianism. It is the teaching that the Logos took the place in His body that my spirit and soul do in mine.

C. C.-Well, let us remember that He only did the works that the Father gave Him to do. I would like to speak of a few concrete examples. Take the storm again. When the terrified disciples appeal to Him, He rises and quiets the wind and the wave. It is the exercise of sovereign power, but He says, "The works that my Father gave Me to do." Stilling the storm was one of the works. He exercised sovereign power in obedience to His Father. Divine sovereignty and obedience combine in Him, just as the divine and human natures unite in perfect harmony in Him.

F. J. E.-That is a new thought to many, and very helpful, that sovereign power was exercised only in obedience.

W. H.-Do we not see the same thing in the incident where He sends Peter to get the money in the fish's mouth ? It was omniscience, but He was doing the works the Father gave Him to do.

C. C.-Yes; that is the same thing.

B. C. G.-Then what we need to see is that every miracle He wrought was in accordance with the Father's will. Therefore the Son did nothing of or from Himself.

C. C.-Yes; and so every act was the act of a divine Person, and also of a perfect man.

A. E. B.-In verse 20 of John 5 we read, "The Father loveth the Son and showeth Him all things that He Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." It is all of one piece. There is perfect harmony, fellowship, and subjection. In verse 17 He says, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." That is the past. Verse 19 is the present, and verse 20 carries the thought on to the future.

C. C.-Then we have what is strange to a great many in verse 31, "If I bear witness of Myself, my witness is not true," 1:e.,not valid. The law requires two witnesses, and He recognizes its claims upon Him. In the preceding verse He says," I can of mine own self do nothing." That is, He cannot act independently. "As I hear, I judge." His judgments were in accordance with the mind and will of the Godhead. He was in such relationship with the Father that His judgments were fully in accord with Hi's.

H. A. I.-This thought of perfect fellowship in the Godhead is a very precious one. It makes the idea of trinity in unit)'' very clear.

B. C. G.-And as a man on earth this fellowship was never interrupted. The Lord was ever receiving of the Father. That is what we have in Isaiah, is it not?-"He wakeneth mine ear morning by morning. He wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned."
H. A. I.-It is really "as the learner"-is it not?

C. C.-Yes; and so we see Him as a man on earth receiving instruction, and taking orders daily. So He can say, "As I hear, I judge."

A. E. B.-In relationship, in dependence, in communion, He got all from the Father.

C. C.-He says also, "My judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent Me." And as the perfect subject man, He adds, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not valid." The law could not accept the testimony of only one witness. So He brings forward more than the law required. He cites four witnesses:John the Baptist, in verses 32 to 35; the works He did, in verse 36 ; the Father Himself, in verse 37; and the Old Testament Scriptures, in verse 39 – they all confirm His own testimony.

F. J. E. – In verse 34, "I receive not testimony from man:" what of that ?

C. C. – He does not depend on John's testimony.

A. E. B. – He says, "I have greater witness than that of John." So He cites three more witnesses.

B. C. G. – Because a man's testimony is rejected in court, it does not prove that it is not true. It may be unsupported and incompetent.

W. H. – In chapter 8 they throw it up to Him, "Thou bearest witness of thyself:thy witness is not valid."

C. C. – Yes, the Pharisees refuse His testimony as though it were unsustained. In verse 14 the Lord might seem to some to contradict Himself, "Though I bear witness of myself, my witness is valid." But notice the difference in His way of meeting them here from His way in chapter 5. Here He is bearing testimony to what He has eternally known. He is witnessing as personally acquainted with the Father from whom He had come, and to whom He was going. He was testifying to what He knew personally as the eternal Son. He says, "Ye judge after the flesh, I judge no man; yet-if I do, my judgment is just." But He says, "I am not alone – I and the Father that sent Me." So the Father confirmed His testimony. (See verse 18.)

H. A. I. – His witness was therefore valid, for the Father had confirmed it, but they would not receive His testimony.

C. C. – Yes; and as they had rejected the fourfold testimony previously given, He presses the validity of His own witness as that which had been fully proven to be valid.

W. H.-They claimed to be Moses' disciples. The Lord in effect said, "Now abide by the principles of Moses' law."

A. E. B.-In verse 26 (chap.8) He says that He speaks those things which He heard of the Father.

F. J. E.-Do we understand that while on earth He was constantly receiving from the Father ?

C. C.-Yes, it is, "As I hear, I judge." He was constantly receiving; His was ever the open ear.

H. A. I.-That shows how real were His exercises in prayer. It was no mere form with Him.

C. C.-Yes; think of His spending the whole night in prayer before selecting His twelve apostles. He went over every case with the Father.

B. C. G.-And at the grave of Lazarus, how real were His exercises.

C. C.-It is all exceedingly interesting. He does not draw on the divine resources within Himself. He is a dependent servant. As such He looks to the Father for counsel, for guidance.

A. E. B.-He knew all things, yet He took the place of dependence. In verses 26 to 29 this is made very plain:" He that sent Me is with Me;" " He hath not left Me alone; "I do always those things that please Him."

C. C.-His words expressed Himself:ver. 25:"I am exactly what I am saying" is a better translation.

B. C. G.-We may use speech to conceal thought. He was altogether what He said.

-Notes taken ly H. A. I. Corrected by C. Grain.