which is impossible; he says:

`In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God',

which is gloriously true.

The reference to the `Father' in John's gospel awaits verse 14 of Chapter 1. There `The Word' is said to have

been made `flesh', and there the Word is spoken of as `The only begotten', and `God' is revealed as `The Father'.

It may be that some reader will feel that the language employed in Isaiah 9:6 contradicts what is here brought

forward. We affirm that there can be no confusion between the persons of the Father and of the Son, yet Isaiah says

that the `Son' shall be called `The everlasting Father'. Further, we have here taught that the title `Father' does not

pertain to a past eternity, yet Isaiah uses the word `everlasting'. The explanation is that the Hebrew word translated

`everlasting' is ad, a word that looks forward, not backward, and the order in which the words stand demands the

translation: `The Father of the Ages'.

The Biblical use of the title `Father' as a term indicating pre-eminence, and not paternity, can be seen in Genesis

4:20,21. It does not follow that because Jubal is there called `the father of all such as handle the harp and organ'

that the Organist of your local meeting place is a direct descendant of Cain, nor that the cattle rearers of this country

must trace their pedigree to Jabal!

In two passages in the epistle to the Hebrews where the A.V. reads `worlds', the word aion is found in the

original, and when Hebrews 1:2 is translated: `By Whom also He made the Ages', and Hebrews 11:3 is translated:

`Through faith we understand that the ages were adjusted by the Word of God', we are reading passages that

indicate the pre-eminence of Christ in the Ages, or, as the Hebrew would frame the idea, He is the `Father' of the

Ages, for as the Saviour, Sacrifice, and Mediator the attainment of the purpose of the Ages is in His blessed keeping.

Rightly understood, therefore, Isaiah 9:6 confirms the truth here stated.

In 1 Corinthians 15:28 we read, `Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under

Him, that God may be all in all'. In the minds of many this stupendous verse is made to read `Then shall the Son ...

that the Father may be all in all'. This, however, is denying that the title `God' is used by this same apostle Paul of

both the Father and of the Son.

In Hebrews we have already seen that, with the advent of Jesus Christ, God had now `spoken in Son'. If we can

but see that the sonship of Christ is a title that belongs to His mediatorial and messianic offices, we can readily

perceive that such a title must have had a beginning; that it must have, or may have, an end, without touching the

question of His deity, and that when these voluntarily assumed limitations have accomplished their divine purpose,

He Who once laid aside His glory and stooped to manhood can and will resume the glory that is His by right, when

God - not the `Father' or `The Son', but God - shall be All in all.

The same chapter in Corinthians that speaks of the Son being subject at the end of the ages in His mediatorial

capacity, refers also to His manhood in connection with the first man, Adam, and the beginning of this same great

age purpose:

`For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in

Christ shall all be made alive ... the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a

quickening spirit ... The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven ... and as we

have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly' (1 Cor. 15:21-49).

When once we learn from the sound words of Paul's doctrine the true relationship of `The Father' and `The

Son', there will be no incongruity in the thought that `The Son' learned obedience by the things which He suffered;

there will be no robbing Him of His divine dues because, for our sakes, He laid His glory aside.

Where is the sense of teaching in the same chapter, that `the Son' is the express image of the substance of God;

that, as God, His throne is for ever and ever; that He is the Lord Who created heaven and earth; that angels worship

Him, yet for all this He has `fellows'; that He has obtained, by inheritance, a more excellent name than angels; that

He was begotten of the Father on some particular `day', and that He is called the `First begotten'? God, as such, has

no fellow; God, as such, cannot be said to have been begotten on any particular day. No revelation is needed to tell