JT rules for Bible study

Rules for Bible Study

First: In any doctrine taught by types or shadows, the anti-type must always correspond with the type, and the shadow with the substance.

Second: In studying the Scriptures, consider that the New Testament is a commentary on the Old.

Third: Never be afraid of results to which you may be driven by your investigations, as this will inevitably bias your mind and disqualify you to arrive at ultimate truth.

Fourth: Investigate everything you believe – if it is the truth it cannot be injured thereby; if error, the sooner it is correct the better. 

Fifth: Pursue this course with as much independence as if you were the only one concerned.

Sixth: Rely on no authority less than divine in so momentous an undertaking.

PROVE ALL THINGS: HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD.

John the Baptist, gospel of

What can be determined about the gospel preached by John the Baptist? It can be established, from the Bible, that he taught:

  1. Mortality of man: Isa 40:6-8.
  2. Jesus, perfect sacrifice: Joh 1:29,36.

  3. Jesus, judge of all: Luk 3:17.
  4. Holy Spirit: Luk 3:16.

  5. Repentance: Mat 3:2; Luk 3:3.
  6. Baptism for remission of sins: Mar 1:4.

  7. Life of faith and self-denial: Luk 3:10-14.
  8. Resurrection: implied in Mat 14:2.

  9. Kingdom of God: Mat 3:2 // Mat 4:17!

Jude, background

AUTHOR: Either Judas the apostle (Luk 6:16) or Judas the half-brother of the Lord (Mat 13:55). The first of these is ruled out by most commentators on the ground that one who was himself an apostle would not write: “Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v 17). But why shouldn’t he? There is a very close parallel in 2Pe 3:2: “…that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of our Lord and Saviour through your apostles”. If Peter could write about “your apostles”, why should not one of his fellow apostles do the same? There is also the consideration that if this Jude were the apostle, then all the epistles of the NT came from apostolic pens. (The strength of the case for regarding the Epistle of James as written by the son of Zebedee is not to be set aside.)

On the other hand, this Jude is explicitly “brother of James”. But by analogy with “Judas Iscariot of Simon” (Joh 6:71), “Judas of James” (Luk 6:16) appears to mean “son of James”, and not “brother of James”. If it can mean “brother of James”, the point is settled.

What grounds are there for identifying Jude with the son of Mary and Joseph (Mat 13:55)? Exactly none, except that he appears to be the only alternative to the Judas just discussed. There is, of course, the possibility of the writer being some other Judas of whom nothing is known, but the likelihood of this is mighty small.

DATE: The date of the epistle has to be inferred from the slight incidental indications which the text affords. It is surely a valid argument that Jude wrote before the troubles of AD 70, for had he written after that date, he could hardly have let the destruction of the temple go unmentioned. Indeed, there seem to be several prophetic hints in the epistle of impending judgement. God destroyed His saved people “who believed not” (v 5). A judgement of being “plucked up by the roots”, such as Jesus foretold regarding Jewish opposition to the gospel, is implied (v 12). “Wandering stars, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness of the ages” (v 13) seems very appropriate to the dispersion of Israel.

Peter’s prophecy concerning evil men “in the last days” (2Pe 3:3) is picked up by Jude as having a fulfillment in the corrupt movement he excoriated: “These be they…” (vv 18,19). What “last days” if not the last days of the temple?

PURPOSE: The great enemy of the gospel in the first century was neither Jewish nor Roman persecution, but the systematic infiltration of the ecclesia, as part of an insidious Judaistic campaign, by unscrupulous Jews who were set on wrecking this new movement from within. The methods employed were, in the main, threefold:

  1. The insidious corruption of Christian morals: “lasciviousness… fornication… defiling the flesh… they corrupt (the ecclesia)… twice dead” (vv 4,7,8,10,12).

  2. Abrupt rejection of the authority of the apostles, and the exaltation of other leaders in their place: “speak evil of dignities…. hard speeches… murmurers, complainers… having men’s persons in admiration” (vv 8,15,16).

  3. One part of the campaign which does not come in for mention in Jude, but which caused Paul much trouble elsewhere, was an insistence that faith in Christ must be bolstered up with observance of the Law of Moses.

One has the impression that the recipients of the letter were Jewish believers, and probably Jews of the Holy Land. Some of the phrases seem to take on special meaning from this point of view. But there is not enough to go on regarding this.

OUTLINE:

  • Introduction: vv 1,2
  • Godless men — their sin and ultimate doom: vv 3-16

  • Exhortation to perseverance: vv 17-23
  • Doxology: vv 24,25

John’s figurative language

With great regularity, those around Jesus understood his figurative language as literal: John 2:19,20; 3:3,4; 4:10,11,32,33; 6:41,42, etc; John 7:34,35; 8:56,57; 9:39,40; 10:30-33; 11:11-13.

Tying these thoughts together is a Greek word used three times in John’s Gospel: “paroimia”, which is a different way of saying “parable” or “proverb” than the Greek word “parabole” used 48 times in the other three gospels. Consider how John uses this word: (1) “Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them” (John 10:6); (2,3) “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father… Then Jesus’ disciples said, ‘Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech’ ” (John 16:25,29).

And, of course, even today there are those who misunderstand or even wrest Jesus’ words to “prove” their own false doctrines, chief of which is the Trinity. So these regular occurrences of misunderstanding in the Gospel of John indicate plainly when a literal interpretation is “out of order”. To recognize this pattern is very useful in counteracting several false teachings that derive their support primarily from John’s Gospel.

John, overview

The fourth and most spiritual of the gospels. The first three gospels portray mainly what Jesus did and how He taught, but the Gospel of John is different. It moves beyond the obvious facts of Jesus’ life to deeper, more profound meanings. Among the gospels, therefore, John offers a unique portrait of Christ that has been cherished by believers through the centuries.   John concentrates on Jesus as He taught in private, while the other three gospels record a more public method of address. The other gospels portray the actual form of Jesus’ teaching, while John shows greater insight into Jesus as a person.   John writes with a modest vocabulary, but his words are charged with symbolism. Terms like believe, love, truth, world, light and darkness, above and below, name, witness, sin, judgment (eternal) life, glory, bread, water, and hour are the key words of this gospel.   Main Themes

a. The gospel contains a clear statement of purpose: “These [signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). John brings out the thought that the sole purpose of life is to know the Father and experience life eternal through faith in the Son.
b. The Son has come from above to glorify the Father (John 17:1); and He does so in His “hour” (John 12:23; 13:1) through His suffering on the cross.
c. In the synoptic gospels — Matthew, Mark, and Luke — Jesus utters short sayings. Longer discourses, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5-7), are either collections of sayings on various themes, or, like (Mat 13), mostly parables. John, on the other hand, records no parables and few of the brief sayings so common to the synoptics. Rather, he expands upon an incident:

  • Nicodemus (John 3),
  • the woman at the well (John 4),
  • the man born blind (John 9),
  • Lazarus (John 11),
  • or footwashing (John 13).
d. In the first chapter, John introduces Jesus by seven key titles, a perfect echo to the Book of Rev: Word, Lamb of God, Rabbi, Messiah, King of Israel, Son of God, Son of Man.
e. In his Gospel, John stresses the importance of “believing.” The verb “to believe” is found nearly a hundred times in the gospel.
f. John does not record Jesus discussing questions of prayer, fasting, almsgiving, swearing, marriage, or wealth as do the other gospels. He rather concentrates on that all-important proof of discipleship — Love.

Outline

John 1:1-18: Introduction: Jesus, the Word of God
John 1:19-51: Jesus, the Son of Man and the Son of God
John 2:1 — 4:54: Teaching though signs, and the new birth
John 5:1-47: The Son of God
John 6:1-71: The bread of life
John 7:1 — 10:42: The Jews’ questions
John 11:1-54: Resurrection
John 11:55 — 17:26: The Passover — Jesus and his Father
John 18:1 — 19:42: Jesus’ death
John 20:1-31: Jesus’ resurrection
John 21:1-25: Final words

John, timeline

JOHN, TIMELINE (Xdn 115:47):

The 6 feasts of John’s Gospel: Other events:
1. Baptism, temptations, Cana (John 2:1-11).
2. First passover (John 2:13)
3. Early Judean ministry (John 3:22-24; 4:1-3), through Samaria (John 4:1-43); John imprisoned.
4. “A feast” (John 5:1) — 2nd passover
5. Third passover (John 6:4) 5. Feeding of 5,000 (John 6:1-14)
6. Tabernacles (John 7:2)
7. Dedication (John 10:22)
8. Raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-46)
9. Fourth passover (John 12:1)

Jesus’ death on the cross, how does it save me?

HOW DOES JESUS’ DEATH ON THE CROSS SAVE ME?

The moment we ask that question, we have to address another one: What is Atonement? If we can’t answer this satisfactorily, then Jesus’ death is just an unfortunate incident of 2,000 years ago.

“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement” (Rom 5:10,11, KJV).

It’s clear that atonement means reconciliation here. In fact, the Greek words used are the same, two in verb form — ‘reconciled’ — and one in noun form — ‘atonement’. Modern versions use ‘reconciliation’ in place of ‘atonement’ here (Rom 5:11), the only place in the KJV New Testament where the word ‘atonement’ appears. The apostle Paul helps us with our understanding of reconciliation:


“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled [reconnected, reunited] us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation [reuniting]; that is, in Christ God was reconciling [reuniting] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them… We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled [reunited] to God” (2Co 5:18-20, RSV).

The Companion Bible does a good job of expressing the thought here: “We see here, revealed in simple majesty, the sovereign grace of God in providing by virtue of the precious blood of Christ a means where-by the rebellious creature can be restored to the favor of the Creator. It is not an entreaty [by man asking God] to ‘forgive and forget’ everything on man’s side, but a command [for man] to return to God by means of the new connection, and by that means alone, ie, the new and Living Way which God Himself provided through the death of His Son.”

Restoration

Originally, the English word ‘atonement’ simply meant ‘reconciliation’, and was not a theological word — it was at-one-ment, a restoration of friendly relations between any two parties. There was no idea of reparation, expiation, compensation, or payment. Those ideas were introduced by the orthodox theory of substitution: ‘Christ died in my place, paying the penalty for my sin so that I don’t have to pay for my guilt myself’ (!) [But what happens when someone else has to pay for what I owe? I have no real need to do anything, my conscience is dulled, and my mind turns away from the issue. It’s not just a matter of words. All sorts of things change!] So the term atonement acquired a new flavor, but not a Biblical one.

Atonement is basically an Old Testament word, appearing numerous times in connection with the Levitical sacrifices. The Hebrew is “kaphar”, meaning ‘to cover’, as is apparent in its first Old Testament use:

“Make yourself an ark of gopher wood, make rooms in the ark, and cover [kaphar] it inside and out with pitch” (Gen 6:14).

Figuratively, the word comes to mean cleansing, pardon. Atonement was necessitated by the seriousness of sin and man’s inability to deal with it:

“If they sin against thee — for there is no man who does not sin — and thou art angry with them…” (1Ki 8:46).

“They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one” (Psa 14:3).

“… since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23).

What can be done? Appeasement won’t work. Payoff will not do it. The solution: Atonement [covering] is secured by sacrifice, the divinely appointed way:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement [‘covers over’], by reason of the life” (Lev 17:11).

Note that atonement is made BY God, not simply TO Him:

“Truly no man can ransom himself, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of his life is costly, and can never suffice” (Psa 49:7,8).

The sacrifices in the Bible were not to pay for sin, nor were they substitutes to suffer and die, in the place of the sinner. Instead, they were a humble recognition that the only condition acceptable to God is purity and perfection — that sin is uncleanness — and that sinful man can be reconciled to God only by being covered by and washed in the blood of the Lamb. Those who offer are covered (as was Adam! — Gen 3:21) by that which is supplied by God and considered adequate by Him. We do not receive atonement directly; we receive its result, which is reconciliation, cleansing, forgiveness. As we saw in 2 Corinthians 5, what God has done in reconciliation He has done in Christ. The purpose of God is always reconciliation, removing estrangement, restoring fellowship; His work ever since Eden has been aimed toward restoring what was lost there.

A Covering

A word should be said about the ‘mercy seat’ in the tabernacle. The phrase ‘mercy seat’ was first used by William Tyndale, translating a German word used by Martin Luther, which he in turn used to translate the Septuagint “hilasterion”. This Greek word was also a translation from the Hebrew “kapporeth” (a noun form of “kaphar”), “kapporeth” being the name for the lid or cover on the Ark of the Covenant — the place God established (Exo 25:22) where He was pleased to meet with His people, speak with them, and command them. The New International Version expresses it well:


“There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites” (Exo 25:22).

[Note: This is the only place where God specifically says He will meet with His people.]


“…since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified [reckoned as righteous] by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation [KJV: ‘propitiation’; NIV: ‘sacrifice of atonement’; FF Bruce: ‘our living mercy seat’; Greek hilasterion = ‘covering’] by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:23-26).

It was precisely this wonderful divine forbearance that caused the repentant David to cry out:


“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered” (Psa 32:1).

It is the blood of Christ, the perfect sacrifice, that covers and cleanses us — not ritually, but practically and gloriously. Jesus lived and died to become the cleansing medium by which our sins are mercifully covered and washed away.

Deliverance from death

The greatest problem in the world ever since Eden has been death. The people of Israel had a graphic demonstration of the problem:


“From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the people became impatient on the way. And the people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die, in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.’ Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. And the people came to Moses, and said, ‘We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Num 21:4-9).

What is the point of this strange episode? The people shook their fists at God. He was the cause of their problems, they declared. The wonders they had experienced, the manna they ate each day, were forgotten in their self-pity and disobedience and faithlessness. Only when they were forced to realize their inadequacies and their dependence upon God did they come to regret and repent of their actions. They recognized that they could do nothing for themselves. So they called upon their mediator to intercede for them, to ask God to restore the relationship that they had broken. God gave them a pictorial ex-ample of the means of their deliverance in the serpent on the pole — a public spectacle displayed before them. And they were given the means to be healed.

[Note: There was nothing magical in the serpent. The power to heal resided in their looking in faith and obedience at the representation of what was killing them.]

It is not often noted that Jesus makes a poignant reference to this very incident in connection with his own mission:

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:14,15).

Just as Israel had to repent of their faithlessness and disobedience, face squarely the representation of their problem — sin and death — in the public spectacle lifted up before them, and look in faith and obedience to the God-provided means of their deliverance — just so, all who would be reconciled to God must look to Jesus, the representative man.

Look at the cross. Look at what sin does! Sin is impulsive and cruel. Sin looks away from God and to self. Sin destroys the best that God has to give. And sin is killing us. God might look on sin and just turn away, or He might strike out in wrath, but He does neither; He acts in love — He provides the means for deliverance, as He did for Israel:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (v 16).

In what may be a commentary on his own words in John 3, Jesus says (John 6:40):

“For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

And Paul says:

“While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly… But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for [on behalf of] us… For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Rom 5:6,8,10).

Jesus consented to a death normally reserved for those guilty of desperately evil crimes, to reveal the terrible character of sin.

Any sin is a violation of God’s holiness. How can God — who is holy, just, and separate from sin — forgive a sin against His holiness, and so reckon a sinner as justified (righteous)?

By overlooking it? No, that’s not forgiveness.

By having Jesus pay off the debt as our substitute? No, that is not just, and sins aren’t transferable.

The correct answer is given by Paul:

“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3).

FF Bruce puts it: “He passed the death-sentence on sin in the domain of human flesh.” Jesus’ flesh was the arena of the perfect and total victory over sin.

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage” (Heb 2:14,15).

Now that sin has been defeated on its own ground, the way is open for God to forgive sinners on the basis of faith and obedience, without compromising His own holiness.

Summary

Jesus Christ, the bearer of a sin nature like ours, destroyed sin by a life of perfect obedience, finally being obedient to the cross in offering himself as a perfect sacrifice. Sinners, repentant and identifying themselves with Jesus in baptism and a subsequent holy life (like Israel looking upon the bronze serpent), look to Jesus in faith. On that basis, God meets with us at the ‘mercy seat’, the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Jesus), and forgives our sins. And thus we are justified (made righteous) by his blood. (NZ)

Jesus, paradoxes

“Jesus” (By Gregory of Nazasazus AD 38)

Jesus began his ministry by being hungry… Yet he is the Bread of Life.

Jesus ended his earthly ministry by being thirsty…

Yet he is the Living Water.

Jesus was weary… Yet he is our rest.

Jesus paid tribute… Yet he is the King.

Jesus was accused of having a demon… Yet he cast out demons.

Jesus wept… Yet he wipes away our tears.

Jesus was sold for thirty pieces of silver… Yet he redeemed the world.

Jesus was brought as a lamb to the slaughter… Yet he is the Good Shepherd.

Jesus died… Yet by his death he destroyed the power of death.

Jesus, perfect obedience or faith?

The Law is said to have in fact contained a promise of eternal life in reward for perfect obedience and to have actually conferred it on Jesus because he kept it faultlessly. Such reasoning is false. Three epistles (Hebrews, Romans and Galatians), prove it to be so.

Hebrews. None could dispute that the ministration of righteousness is a better covenant than that of Sinai if only because it is established upon better promises (Heb 8:6). One of the chief of these is the promise of eternal inheritance (Heb 9:15). Eternal life is a prerequisite of such an inheritance: a man, to possess an inheritance for ever, must, as JT logically argues, be made immortal to enable him to possess it everlastingly. There was thus a distinct promise of eternal life in the everlasting covenant which, apart from any other, constituted it a better covenant than the covenant of Sinai, for the latter contained no equivalent promise. This fact is easily verified from the Old Testament itself: we look in vain in the Sinai covenant for any such promise, explicit or implicit, in reward for perfect obedience.

Romans. A man who earns a reward by effort receives it as his due. In the words of Paul, to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt (Rom 4:4). Paul therefore concludes logically that if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory. But what are the facts? What saith the Scripture? Abraham had faith in God, and that faith was reckoned to him for righteousness (Rom 4:2,3). That is, Abraham did not receive the reward by works. Why? Was it simply because, through the weakness of the flesh, he obviously could not obtain it by merit? By no means: Christ did in fact live sinlessly, and if for that reason the Law had power to confer life on him, then the reward must have been reckoned to him of debt. But Paul shows that the principle which applied in the case of Abraham applied also in that of Christ, his Seed, for the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, though law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom 4:13).

Galatians. A human covenant, once ratified, is binding: though it be but a mans covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto (Gal 3:15). So it is with God’s arrangements: This I say, adds Paul, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect (Gal 3:17). Such, however, would be the case if the Sinai covenant had contained the same promise: it would have been a modification of the Abrahamic covenant, and have rendered it obsolete, for if the inheritance be of law it is no more of promise (Gal 3:18). Is such a contingency conceivable? Is the Law against the promises of God? God forbid, for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law (Gal 3:21). In view of this statement the Law of Moses could not possibly have had the essential power to confer life. The law made nothing perfect. It was but the bringing in of a better hope (Heb 7:19, mg).

Habakkuk. Habakkuk’s words (quoted in all three epistles) settle the matter finally so far as the position of Christ is concerned: The just shall live by faith (Hab 2:4). Variant renderings for Habakkuk’s statement as quoted in Heb 10:38 are helpful: My righteous one shall live by faith (RV): it is by faith that my righteous servant shall live (Weym); and again, My just one by faith shall live (Diag). Stephen tells us that the prophets shewed before of the coming of the Just One (Act 7:52). Jesus was without doubt the Holy One and the Just of whom Habakkuk spoke (Act 3:14). Why was he called the Just One? Because he lived a sinless life, observing the Law perfectly. How then did he, the Holy One and the Just, attain to life eternal? Habakkuk answers, by faith. Why not by works, even in his case? Because God GAVE the inheritance BY PROMISE to Abraham, and if to Abraham then to Jesus also, for, as we have already seen, to Abraham AND HIS SEED were the promises made — to Abraham and Christ, that is, since Christ is the seed (Gal 3:16).

We now perceive the twofold weakness of the Law of Moses. Firstly, no one could keep it: as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal 3:10). Secondly, even if a man kept it, it lacked the essential power to confer life. We find this illustrated in Christ. He kept the Law perfectly, but that no man is justified by law in the sight of God is evident: for, The just shall live by faith (Gal 3:11). Had it been otherwise — if righteousness came by law — then Christ died needlessly (Gal 3:21). But Christ did not die in vain, but to make good the deficiencies of the Law.

Yet he died a sinless man. Necessarily so, for without perfect obedience on his part to the Law of Moses, righteousness could not justly be imputed to those who could not keep it (and so were unjust). But, by virtue of the fact that he offered himself without spot to God, his blood purges our conscience (Heb 9:14) and by it we are justified (or declared righteous), our faith being counted for righteousness for his sake (Rom 5:9; 4:5).

His sinlessness emphasized by contrast the wickedness of the hands that crucified him. If only because sinners could not be permitted to triumph over the One in whom God was well pleased, it was essential for him to rise. But altogether apart from this, God’s purpose in and through him could not be frustrated, and necessitated his resurrection. So God raised him up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. He is now, in consequence, alive for evermore, having as our forerunner entered into that within the veil, to which the righteousness which is of the Law could never give access. So the Apostle bids us be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience, inherit the promises (Heb 6:12) (RIC).

Jews, God’s witnesses

“Therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God” (Isa 43:12).

“Though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee” (Jer 30:11).

The Jews, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, have a special place in the purpose of God with mankind. They were recipients of, and custodians of, God’s written revelation. Through them God raised up His Son, their Messiah. In their deliverance from Egypt and their subsequent history they have become witnesses to the truth of God’s promises to them, and thus witnesses to His existence. Their role has not ceased with the first coming of Jesus, for their regathering in the twentieth century, in fulfillment of Bible prophecy, is a witness to the nearness of Jesus’ second coming, and the focus for the revelation of Divine power to save them from international aggression. This will cause God’s Name to be known among all nations, and will establish Jerusalem as the center of the Kingdom of God. Gentile believers are given title to the promises made to the fathers of Israel through belief of the gospel (also described as the Hope of Israel) and baptism into Jesus Christ. If faithful they will be part of the “all Israel [that] shall be saved” (Rom 11:26) when Jesus comes.

Beloved for the fathers’ sakes

The children of Israel were selected as the channel of Divine revelation because they were the descendants of the faithful fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not for their moral excellence. They were expected to show a similar faith by believing and obeying God’s Law. In this way they would become an example to the surrounding nations, and fulfil their calling as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Gen 12:2; 13:15,16; 22:16-18; Exo 19:4-6; Deu 4:5-8; 7:6-11; Joh 8:39).

A covenant people

The descendants of Jacob were forged into a distinct nation in Egypt. Their deliverance was a signal act which showed God as a God of judgement, power and graciousness. This event is commemorated annually when Jews keep the Passover to celebrate their redemption from Egypt. At Sinai their calling was confirmed when they agreed to be obedient to God’s law. This covenant was renewed with the generation that actually entered the Land of Promise, Canaan, and is the basis of God’s treatment of them, as witnessed by their history: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2; Gen 15:13,14; Exo 1:7; 9:13-16; 12:15,17; 24:7; Deu 4:23,24; Jos 24:21-25; Rom 3:1,2).

Scattering and regathering

Israel were offered prosperity and blessing in return for obedience, but deprivation and cursing if disobedient. Continued disobedience would result in removal from the land and scattering among the nations, where they would be oppressed and become a proverb. Both outcomes have been experienced by the nation. Blessings were abundant in the reigns of David and Solomon and other faithful kings; trouble and captivity came following continued disobedience, culminating in the deportation of the ten tribes to Assyria and the two tribes to Babylon.

Following the national rejection of Jesus as their Messiah, the nation was scattered throughout the world for nearly two millennia, and Jerusalem became subject to Gentile control. Yet their national identity has been preserved, a witness that God keeps His word.

God’s promises also allowed for their return and re-establishment as a nation in the Land of Promise. This became a reality in 1948, and the whole of Jerusalem came under Jewish control in 1967. However, the prophets tell us that this situation will be opposed by other nations, resulting in an international attack that will require the nation to be saved by Divine intervention on Jesus’ return (Deu 28; Lev 26; Joel 3:1,2,9-17,20,21; Zec 14; Luk 21:20-27).

Not cast off

Some contend that Israel’s persistent disobedience, culminating in the murder of their Messiah, means that the nation has been cast off and its place taken by believers in Jesus Christ. Paul specifically refutes this idea. The Jews are still the basis of God’s work of salvation, but Gentiles can, by faith, share the promises, which will be fulfilled at the return of Jesus when “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:26).