Bob MacLeod

• About this site

Jason My Child

• About this site

Stu Thompson

• About this site

Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

 Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth

• About this site

Phil Sarlo's Personal Story

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Some say that the word translated, “only begotten”, in such phrases as, “The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:14)," TARGET="_blank">John 1:14), merely means, “beloved,” and should be so translated especially in all passages relating to the Eternal Son—the Second Person of the Divine Trinity.

Do you think this is so?

My own conviction is other, though I know esteemed brethren who maintain it. I doubt indeed if such an opinion would ever have been broached, had it not been for the mistaken notion that to apply such a term as “only begotten” or even “begotten” to our Lord in a past eternity, necessitates the thought of a time before the begetting, and therefore must infringe on the eternity, and therefore on the true Deity, of the Son. This, however, is only so, if we insist on defining and explaining Divine relations by the human, whereas, the latter are the vaguest shadows of the Eternal and Divine: as soon measure the fixed stars with a foot-rule. The same objection applies to the terms “Father” and “Son”. Such terms do imply priority and subsequency in earthly relations, but there cannot be priority or the reverse in the case of Eternal Persons.

The same objection would apply to the epithet, “the Word,” for does not such a term necessitate to our minds a time before the word was uttered, and when consequently the word had no existence? was reading only the other day two writings, one by a denier of the Deity of the Son, the other by a denier of His Eternal Sonship, who both refused to believe, because their minds forsooth could not comprehend the possibility of such things. There must be no unsolved mysteries to this type of person, though one wonders how such can believe at all in the God of Revelation, for surely His existence is beyond their comprehension. Such might also lay to heart the limitation imposed by the Lord Himself, “No man knoweth the Son save the Father.” However, to return to those who, while holding firmly the Eternal Sonship of Christ, yet refuse the term “only begotten,”* and substitute for it “well-beloved.” This is indeed a secondary meaning springing, as we see, directly from the primary, forwho is more beloved than an only child? Now although “only-begotten” is the literal translation of the Greek word, it would be permissible, under certain conditions to abandon this—the etymological meaning—if usage justified it. But if the predominant usage agrees with the original philological meaning, then we must keep to that.

That this is the case here, can, I think, be clearly shown by a reference to our three chief sources of information (not to mention Latin ecclesiastical writers who translate—uni-genitus “only begotten”)—the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint Greek version, and the New Testament. (a) The Hebrew word, “yahidh,” occurs twelve times in the Old Testament, and is translated in A. V.: twice, “my darling”; margin “only one” (Psalm 22:20; 35: 17);" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22:20; 35: 17); twice “desolate” or “solitary” (Psalm 25:16;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 25:16; Psalm 68:6);" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 68:6); once “only beloved” (Proverbs 4:3);" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 4:3); and six times “only son” (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:2, 12, 16, of Isaac; Jeremiah 6:26." TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 6:26. Amos 8:10," TARGET="_blank">Amos 8:10, and Zechariah 12: 10);" TARGET="_blank">Zechariah 12: 10); and “only child” (Judges 2:34," TARGET="_blank">Judges 2:34, of Jepthah’s daughter); and with all these the R.V. agrees. (b) The Septuagint translates the two Genesis, the Proverbs, and the three prophetic occurrences by “beloved,” and the remaining five by “only child” or “son” (monogenës). It may be added that the LXX in their translation of Genesis 22:2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 22:2 have, “thy loved son, whom thou lovest,” the tautology of which translation might alone have raised a doubt as to its correctness. (c) In the New Testament the word “mono- genes” occurs nine times: once of Isaac (Hebrews 11:17)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:17)t and thrice of only children (Luke 7:12;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 9:38), and five times of the Son of God (John 1:14, 18;" TARGET="_blank">John 1:14, 18; John 3:16-18" TARGET="_blank">John 3:16-18 and 1 John 4:9)," TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:9), translated in each case both in A.V. and R.V. as “Only Begotten.” Lest anyone should imagine that this is the ordinary word for “beloved”, when applied to the Lord, I would mention the significant fact that on the two occasions on which the Father bore audible witness from heaven to the Lord as His beloved Son (Matthew 3:17;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17:5), He does not use the word we are considering (monogens), but the ordinary word for “beloved” (agapetos). Surely these two occasions would have been specially suitable for the use of the word “only-begotten,” if the Lord’s Sonship depended, as is falsely taught in some quarters to-day, on His incarna tion.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

THE BREAD

At the Lord’s Supper is the loaf a symbol of the human Body of the Lord, and also a symbol of His mystical Body—the Church?

When thus gathered, are we an expression of that Body on earth? It has been stated by a well-known teacher that “the Church which is Christ’s Body” (Ephesians 1:22-23)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:22-23) is spiritual, and spiritually discerned, lying altogether beyond the range of the natural senses and is without organisation or expression on earth.”
It has often been remarked that the order of things in 1 Corinthians 10" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10: differs from that of the following chapter, in that in the ioth the cup precedes the bread, whereas it is the bread which comes first in the i ith chapter, where we have the actual order of the celebration. In the former chapter, it is a question of communion which rests on the blood; in the latter, of remembrance, which views primarily the Person. Certainly in 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11: , the loaf represents the literal human Body of the Lord, according to His words: “This is My body, which is given for you.” How else could such words be understood, than as referring to His literal Body, which was crucified for us, and in which He bore our sins, and which the bread represents?

But in 1 Corinthians 10:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:17, we read: “For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread,” or as the R.V. margin has it, more clearly and I judge, more correctly: “Seeing that there is one bread, we, who are many are one body.” I do not think it is necessary for us to assert that “we are an expression of the body on earth,” for this may, as it has too often done in the past, savour of pretension, but rather that the one loaf is the expression of the one mystical Body of Christ. I do not think that this is out of harmony with the statement quoted above by the “well-known teacher.” The one loaf does not define the unity of the Body, it affirms it and we say, “Amen”!

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Please give a clear understanding as to the terms Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven?

These two expressions refer in the Gospels to the same thing, from a slightly different standpoint, as is seen by comparing Matthew 13:31-33" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:31-33 and Luke 13:18-21," TARGET="_blank">Luke 13:18-21, where the same pair of parables describe in the former, “the Kingdom of Heaven,” and in the latter, “the Kingdom of God.” When we read, “Kingdom of Heaven,” the place from which the kingly rule is exercised is in view, when “Kingdom of God,” the Divine Person who exercises that rule. Both expressions in the Gospels represent generally the condition of things produced in the world by the preaching of the Gospel in the absence of the King. This is always true, I believe, of the expression Kingdom of Heaven, which only occurs in Matthew. In the Kingdom of Heaven there is a mixture of good and bad—tares are sown by the evil one; worthless fish are caught with good; but when the King comes, He will cast out of His kingdom “all that offends and all that work iniquity.”

The kingdom aspect of truth represents the responsibility side of things and includes profession, which must be tested. To enter the real thing the new birth is needed. The Kingdom of God in this aspect is “not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” The kingdom includes the Church, but is greater than it, in that it began before it. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will sit down in the Kingdom of God, but they will not be in the Church. The kingdom will continue when the Church is taken, but will only be visibly established when the King returns.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Is there help when I fail in my thought life?

Failings need not produce hopelessness, for "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me" (Philippians 4:13)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 4:13). Therefore, despite our failure, we have a Savior who can deliver us from sin's power. Resolving the problem through human determination or methods is inadequate. If the means is not spiritual, the result won't be spiritual.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9). Immediate confession of wrong thoughts restores communion with the Lord, which provides the strength needed to withstand temptation. Confession is not a process that strengthens our resolve; it is an immediate return to normal Christian living.

Trying to force wrong thoughts from the mind only makes the problem worse, reinforcing wrong thinking. Replace wrong thinking with right thinking. Turn to Christ. Enjoy the wonderful contrast He is to all our miserable failures.

D. Oliver

• About this site

OVERSIGHT
Is it scriptural for overseeing brethren to hold that, and to act as if, they and they alone are responsible to God for the carrying on of the affairs of a local assembly?

Does attendance at a monthly oversight meeting constitute one an overseer?

It is not attendance at an oversight meeting which makes a man an overseer, nor the appointment of anyone, even an apostle, but the call of the Holy Spirit to the work (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). There will also be a desire for the work not an “office” 1 Timothy 3:1" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1 though there will be doubtless a consciousness of insufficiency. In addition, there must be also certain qualities in a man to enable his brethren to recognize his fitness and call.  He must be blameless, patient, not domineering; apt to teach (that is, not necessarily a teacher, but able to instruct in sound doctrine). He must be able to rule well his own house; he must not be a neophyte, that is, a newly converted person; and he must have a good report in the world (see 1 Timothy 3" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1: ). These chapters are an integral part of God’s Word, and it is quite a gratuitous assumption to say that they are in abeyance, because we have no apostles or apostolic delegates. Why should all these directions be left, if not to guide us on this very point?

What is proposed to take the place of an elders’ meeting?—a mere human arrangement without, I believe, one line of Scripture to authorise it—a meeting of the male members of the assembly. Surely it is evident that some of the men in a gathering may correspond very slightly indeed, if at all, with the conditions laid down in the Scriptures. They may be new converts; they may lack the power to keep their own homes in order; they may be lacking in the qualities and grace needed for the work of oversight; they may, perchance, not have a good report in the world. If so, they are as clearly excluded from oversight as the sisters. I was once long ago in a meeting where the leading brother, having come from a circle where the arrangement in question had vogue, insisted on all the males being invited to the “business meeting.” I remember still the hindrance this was to a true oversight meeting. Only two meetings are known to the Word—

(i) That of the “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:6; 20:18)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:6; 20:18), but because we have no elders of apostolic gifts, this principle is in no way affected. What excuse can there be for introducing mere “males,” whom the Scriptures exclude? (a) That of the assembly (Acts 14:27;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:27; Acts 15:4;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:4; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; Acts 21:22)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 21:22). What is known as the “oversight meeting” is a matter of convenient arrangement between brethren who have mutual confidence, but it ought not to be what is called “a closed oligarchy,” nor should it prevent anyone else, who believes himself called to the work of caring for the saints and of giving proof of his ministry, but such would naturally not force fellowship on others,but would wait to be assured of their welcome. Overseeing brethren ought to be on the lookout for Spirit-called helpers.

W.H.

• About this site