MAY 20TH, 1931

MAY 20TH, 1931

^[p. 199] BELOVED BROTHER, — I am glad to send you a brief line with reference to the difficulty which you express as to the Lord Jesus being said, in certain hymns, to have shed His blood, though I may not be able to say anything that you have not already fully considered.

The whole matter stands, as I am sure you will agree, on how Scripture speaks. And you have, no doubt, noticed that there are only three scriptures which speak of the shedding of Christ’s blood. The subject of our inquiry, then, is to learn how these scriptures present it to us. The three scriptures are Matthew 26: 28; Mark 14: 24; Luke 22: 20 — all being our Lord’s own words at the Supper table, and referring to the blood of the covenant as shed for many, or, as in Luke, “for you”.

Now do our Lord’s words on that deeply touching occasion refer to an act of violence on man’s part, or do they refer to the infinite love in which the covenant was about to be secured by Christ on God’s part? I have no hesitation in saying that I am persuaded that the latter is the truth.

I believe that each of these scriptures views the shedding of Christ’s blood from the divine side, and it is from that side He would have it to be thought of affectionately by His own as they remember Him in eating His Supper. His blood was shed, or poured out (it is the same word as used of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10: 45 and Romans 5: 5) that expression might be given to all that was in the heart of God, and in His own heart, as made known in the covenant. It was a profound and blessed testimony of divine love.

The whole point of the Lord’s words is that He Himself was about to give expression, by the giving of His body and the pouring out of His blood, to the will and love of God. To introduce, at that moment, the thought that it was the act of another — and he a wicked man — seems to me to greatly detract from what the Lord would impress on our spirits as we hear His words and eat His Supper.

It is the Lord Himself who has spoken of the shedding of His blood, and He has spoken of it in a connection which puts it altogether on the divine side, and as securing the blessing of the covenant for men. This was surely His own act and deed, and not that of another. If this is so the references in the hymns are justified.

I am sorry not to write at greater length, but I hope I have ^[p. 200] said enough to answer your question, or, at any rate, to show the ground on which it is proposed to retain certain expressions in the hymns. I hope that, upon consideration, this may commend itself to you, as we would earnestly desire to carry our brethren fully both with the changes made, and also in regard to expressions which it is proposed to retain as they are. With much love in the Lord,

Yours affectionately in Him,

May 20th, 1931.