Q.-In the Gospel of John, and again in the 1st Epistle of John, the Lord Jesus is called the " only-begotten Son of God," and yet in 1 John 5:11Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1) and 18 believers are spoken of as " begotten of God," which would seem to imply that the Lord is not now the " only " begotten; is this so? S. R.
A.- "The only-begotten Son of God" is a title of special affection, and of personal glory, peculiar to the Lord Jesus Himself, and one which, we believe, He will ever retain. Moreover, as such, He actually stood alone when God in His love gave Him to be our life and propitiation. Believers, as having Christ for their life, are truly " begotten " of God, but this in no wise touches the place which alone Christ has as the " only-begotten " One.
Q.-The Apostle Peter speaks of our blessed Lord as the "living stone;" does this refer to His having been once dead?s. K.
A.-We think the reference here is undoubtedly to Christ's own inherent life as the Son of God. He had been revealed to Peter by the Father according to His own personal glory, so he witnessed to Him as " the Son of the living God;" and it was in this connection that Peter was told by the Lord that He would build His church upon " this rock," meaning thereby Himself as Peter had confessed Him. Christ was manifested in resurrection as Son of the living God, but He was this before death in His own Person. Believers are built on Him as living stones because they have His life, and they once, so to speak, were dead stones, but in no sense was this true of Christ. Peter says of Him, in Acts 2:2424Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (Acts 2:24), " Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." Christ had " life in himself." See John 5:2626For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; (John 5:26).
Q.-Should we keep the " bitter herbs " in view at the Lord's table? and shall we remember them when in the glory? S. IL
A.-"Bitter herbs" typify self-judgment or repentance, and they were to be eaten with the passover (EL xii. 8); hence we quite think that at the Lord's supper, which now answers to the passover, as bringing His death before us, they should have their place. Self-judgment is quite fitting to our remembrance of the blessed Lord's death for us, however free in heart and conscience we may be in virtue of what it has brought us into.
The thought of the " bitter herbs " seems clearly before the apostle's mind, when, in 1 Cor. 11:2828But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (1 Corinthians 11:28), he says, "Let a. man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." We cannot conceive though,however sweet and real the remembrance of that death will be in glory, that the " bitter herbs " will have any place there.
4. Q.-Would you please explain what the Holy Ghost means when we read, " not discerning the Lord's body, and " being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;" and how would you compare, " Take, eat, this is my body," with the construction Romanists put on the above two texts?
W. R. S.
A.-The context makes it plain that the apostle was warning the Corinthian believers against taking the bread and wine, that present to faith " the body and blood of the Lord " -the food of the soul-as simple bread and wine to satisfy the natural hunger and thirst of the body. By so doing they would be guilty before God of contempt for the Lord Himself and His love in dying for them. A solemn warning surely, but one containing blessed instruction for souls in our day when, if the abuse be not quite of the same nature, the danger of taking with lightness and indifference the Lord's supper is the same. The Romanist makes the actual body and blood of Christ to be in the wafer after its consecration, thus making it a purely material thing apart altogether from faith, which would, if it were true, render the apostle's warning meaningless; for if the bread itself be really the Lord's body, in seeing it I do discern, or see, the Lord's body necessarily, whereas what the apostle meant was that what to the natural eye was only bread was to be discerned by faith as the Lord's body. At the moment when the Lord instituted the supper, and used the words, " Take, eat, this is my body," He was Himself actually holding a piece of bread in His hand, and the disciples were to eat it as His body then, which, according to the Romanist view, would make the Lord Himself then in the piece of bread He held in His hand, for whatever those words meant then they mean now. Moreover at the time of the Lord's speaking to His disciples He had not died for them, and yet He said of the wine, " this is my blood which is shed for you." If the wine meant the actual thing, instead of what He plainly intended it to set forth, He was actually dead at the moment He spoke to them. To state things in this way is to show their fallacy. C. W.