W
W W W World Wide Web
Witness Inc. Home Page
Contents
Page for Volume What is New
CHAPTER THREE
THE STONES ON THE ROAD OF THE GALLOP
THE WORD OF GOD ONLY, ALWAYS, JUDGES
AND WHEN THIS
IS CONTRAVENED
DUST OBSCURES
VISION, and
SOME BECOME
BLINDED TO THE STATE OF THE RACE
BUT THE RACE CONTINUES ACCORDING TO HIS WORD
It may prove profitable to
consider in some more detail the 'Jewish' assault noted, in terms of Biblical
teaching.
It appears confused and
perhaps chiefly, and others may therefore benefit from its exposure.
Thus the STATEMENT
presented on procedure is this: "My catchcry is and has always been that
Scriptural truth must always be interpreted in the light of proven and
incontestable factual-historic truth." This of course is contrary to the
Biblical requirement, as noted for example by Paul in I Corinthians 2:9-13, by
Isaiah in
'Proven' this and that 'truth' is readily claimed by many, who contradict one another with a regalia of almost regal indifference, in this generation, while philosophy captures the many butterflies and the 'obvious' is frequently absurd. But beyond this, these non-infallible criteria and sources are NOT AT ALL what is necessary when interpreting the Bible. The Book of the Lord does not stand by additions, which can fail and which it forbids (Proverbs 30:6); it stands alone, and its interpretation must be from itself.
But let us proceed to the
assault in more detail.
One of the summaries reads:
"1. All Israelites are
Hebrews and Semites.
2. Only a few of the
Israelites were called Jews (or, Judahites, or Judeans).
3. Many non-Israelites were
called Jews (Judahites, Judeans) simply because they lived in
I have added numbers for ready identification.
1 is correct.
2 relates to what is below in dark
blue, and is incorrect.
The presentation does not follow either the evidence or the scripture.
In fact, when
Hence in Ezra 5:1 we are not to imagine that some division has been made, and many of those who returned were irrelevant to the call. Such would be as groundless as feckless. It would be creating what is not there in terminological distinction. There is no evidence for such a usage, division or setting aside of some. Quite the contrary, using the Biblical method of interpreting what it means by what it SAYS (Matthew 4:4), as is normal in non-patronising usage of speech, we find that a vast diversity of people from varied sources had come (Ezra 2).
There was, we learn, a most careful process of registration, involving careful attention to so much as complex issues (3:62ff.).
In Ezra 3:1
we learn that "when the seventh month had come, and the children of
I think this is enough. The
facts have now been demonstrated several times, are in any case irrelevant to
the issue. HE is of the tribe of
Hence the term "Jew" or Judah-ite if some wish it, depending on what slant anyone wishes to place on it, but in any case, as occurs in terminology, the PEOPLE to whom the term Jew or Judah-ite is now deemed applicable (perhaps because of their undoubted concentration from Judah in Babylon, from which they had just come, & cf. the blessings of Genesis 49:8,10), are the returning, non-differentiated, so-named, children of Israel. This identity contradicts the contrary assertion, not only verbally, but in substance. Any such limitation varies from the terminology and usage and substance and criteria of the text. ALL the Israelites WHO RETURNED, without reference to distinction here bore that name.
This is merely to add to the simple fact that many contexts have already been provided, to identify FROM THEM ALONE, from their substance and data, what is meant. This confirms it, though it needs no confirmation, for only by DISESTABLISHING these, one and all, can any beginning of question appear.
Point 3 above, is correct, in the first part, but not relevant to the contentiond regarding the Jews. It is one more non sequitur. Thus as noted, in Isaiah 56 AMPLE and LIBERAL PROVISION is made for proselytes. It is found also in Deuteronomy 23:8 that there is provision for the possibility of entry of people from Edom in the 3rd generation. Adoption of the Jewish faith was the criterion, and when it was Biblical in form, that was that, provided the various procedures were kept and the acceptance confirmed. That is, from the early times, there was no MERELY racial matter. England can accept Frenchmen if it wants, on its own terms, as citizens. It does not cease to be England, if not invaded. The Jews (the current term, and that current from Ezra as readily seen) could accept whom they would.
It is always amusing to find the question arise, CAN you refer to a CURRENT city, or a city extant at a time later than that of one's reference, BY its later name ? Of course you can: it depends as all sound writing, on your PURPOSE. If you want to specialise in nomenclature for some purpose, then you will want to look it up and put in the exact form contemporary to the period to which you make reference. If however your purpose is to tell people who NOW know what the NAME MEANS, what happened in that PLACE, then you can use the one which fulfils these specifications. This often happens. "London, at that time, was mainly marshes" is not ridiculous, but is using current name to specify unchanged or basic location, in order to transfer the mind to the site. If you wanted to, you could add what was its name earlier (then called so and so). Many might be expected to know the name was not the same as now, or the issue might be deemed beside the point. You are, in such a case, NOT saying, The place now called London then had the same name, and was mainly marshes, but simply specifying a place by a known name, in indicating a former situation.
Wars of witless words can proceed, fulfilling Paul's implicit admonition not to argue about words (I Timothy 6:4). It is the task really to make yourself clear, and not to state anything incorrect. If you want to fill in an ellipsis, you could say, "London, the place we now call this, was at ..." but for many this is deemed an insertion of problematic value, and perhaps patronising needlessness. The question is this: Do you mean what the name signifies by LONDON, and if so are you saying more than that ? Not actually. SO be it.
However, such points are merely peripheral. The criterion is what the context shows to be the meaning of the term, not the nuance attributed by someone else's cultural preference, on the basis of a certain viewpoint on the history of the term. If the meaning is the desire, this is the necessity, without addition.
Thus the children of Israel could ALWAYS have proselytes and these could enter the "congregation", and have a place, in some cases, as Isaiah is explicit in stating, BETTER than that of children, IF they were faithful to what it was all about, namely, THE LORD, for whom the children of Israel were a chosen instrument for praise, possessing as demonstrated in detail in earlier transmission, the guarantee of God for their continuity as a people.
The "simply cannot" phrasing (in point 3) CANNOT be accepted. It is a non sequitur. The facts are that the children of Israel was a common term, the call by Israel has been shown, by Jacob likewise, excluding non-line children of Abraham. The usage of Jew, and its correlation with the exile is of interest, but the designation of the term is clear from context, whether in Ezra or Esther.
The term "Jew" then can and should be used with complete freedom to refer to that body of people who fulfil whatever God promises Israel, as shown from the relevant contexts noted, in the materials sent, the descendants of the same. They come to the forefront to identifiability when they are aggregated in the way prescribed, in the site prescribed, for the purposes reviewed, as in Zechariah and Ezekiel, and the term, more recent in Biblical usage for this people, than Hebrews or Semites, and more specific in some usages, is not only good, but outstandingly precise. It leaves no doubt. It is the people who are racially derived, with whatever voluntary acceptances added, from Jacob, whose history has the facets traced in the prophetic contexts noted, who by culture, race or religion, or some combination, in terms of race and religion, make up a specifiable people. Call them what you will, they are designate and no possible ambiguity applies to their nature. In fact, we use various Biblical usages, but always assign the MEANING to ANY usage, as it allows, dictates and directs from context.
TO insist on some less historically clear term, or to seek to divest this clear Biblical usage from the scope of one's speech, is simply not Biblical. MANY terms may be used; but to EXCLUDE what the Bible uses, is inadmissible for anyone seeking to INTERPRET it. However, the main point is simply what one means, and this is made clear by the specifications in SMR Appendix A, and in the current volume.
The third point is
therefore a complete misnomer, without vestige of ground in any way whatsoever.
JEW IS HERE TO STAY AND THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ON ITS PORTENT
A SECOND STUDY (titled, Study No. 2) is similarly quite unfounded, and does not follow from any facts given. It apparently seeks to divorce Jesus Christ from being a Jew. It lacks nothing in daring, but fails in detail.
Thus Christ Jesus was born of Mary, of the tribe of Judah, and Christ accordingly was taken to the Temple for circumcision (Luke 2:22ff.) for the regulation sacrifice. In terms of Ezra's usage, He was therefore a Jew. It is not true that His movement to Samaria shows what, in this study, is erroneously claimed, that "This clearly indicates that Jesus did not practice the religion of the Jews in this matter." This error here comes about by ambiguous terminology, and logically constitutes a 'slide'. "The religion of the Jews" COULD mean, depending on context, Judaism of the ruling group, of the High Priestly party when in the ascendant, the religion which worked out from all the pressures and bases in their political and social conglomerates, or Old Testament Biblical religion. In the last case, it would be that PROPERLY the religion of the Jews, and in other cases, that ACTUALLY the (Biblically condemned in Isaiah 1 and 30) rebellious pollutant called by some the religion of the Jews.
We need to have our terms clear in logic. What it does show is this, that if you can find that those currently ruling the roost at that stage, in their traditional and political assemblage, forbad this, then Jesus did not follow that particular configuration of the contemporary power scene. That is meaningless RELATIVE to the point in hand, namely, whether Jesus was a Jew. Some Jews, like some Britons, do not cease to be such because they are not in alignment with the present power structure. Even less is it so, if that be unconstitutional, and they themselves ARE constitutional. In that case, they are very much Jews, or Britons.
It simply shows what Luke 11:53 and John 11:48ff. show very clearly, and much more so John 8:42ff. , that Jesus was condemning the CONTEMPORARY POWER CONSTRUCTION of Jewish religion under the authorities then current (especially the traditionalist additives as in Mark 7:7), much as Isaiah issued his declamation in the Lord's name, in Isaiah 30. When they put Christ to death, it was, one would think, clear without need of more words, that He contravened them, and they contravened Him. Since He was God, they were wrong, and as He made so clear continually, the scripture was the rule, and at that time, the scripture was the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17-21), which were to be kept to the uttermost point, and would rule to the uttermost point.
The citation of Samaria in
this fashion, is therefore is not even relevant to the question, Was Jesus a
Jew ? It shows precisely what He actually uttered, that there was a move to
make NOT a house of prayer but a place of merchandise, for example, the place
God had provided. It was HIS FATHER'S HOUSE for which they took this
liberty. He cited the (accepted) scriptures to show it (Matthew
He was not only a Jew, but the Messiah. He was in fact the One born "KING of the Jews" (Matthew 2:2), scarcely an alien to them (Jeremiah 30:21, Micah 5:1-3) and in the prophecy of Micah to which attention was drawn at the time of the birth, this One is He who is to be "ruler of Israel", the meaning of which term is not there open to question. It is the nation called from Jacob, whose name it bore. It is not part of the nation of which He is to be King; it is the nation. The King of the Jews in the Bible hence appears here also as the Ruler of Israel. It is an identity proposition.
Further, in Isaiah 49:6
(cited in Luke
He is not given LESS than
Jacob (explicitly the source name, in Isaiah 49:6), further identified as
Even if names apart, their nature is defined. It does not alter the realities defined. Names however, for finesse, could be added. They are here Biblically Jews.
If, then, Jesus were not a 'Jew', it would not in the least alter any of the substance of the prophecies for the nation or His own being. It would of course alter the Bible in the ways shown, and be inaccurate.
It would merely mean we had defined the term for our pleasure, and as in mathematics, were invented a new anti-historical form of designation. Nothing would alter but our oddity in usage. Jesus would still be a descendant of Judah, of Jacob, of the children of Israel in the flesh, and as Paul states in Romans 9:5: in the flesh a descendant of the Israelites, the point at issue, whose promises are clear and sure, to Israel, their chosen vessel in human format.
It is interesting that Paul
here calls them Israelites, who are
Now these of Paul's day are those, he declares, "my countrymen according to the flesh", are those "who are Israelites, to whom pertains the adoption, the promises, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises, of whom are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came".
Point closed. Christ is of
Israel, of the children of covenant, promises and is racially a Jew and an
Israelite by his own cognisance.
CAN YOU DE-JEW CHRIST IN JOHN 4, IF NOT ELSEWHERE!
Let us now proceed to
another effort in the study in view. What does John 4 show of the Jewishness
of Christ ?
In John 4, incidentally, it is simply incorrect is seeking to divorce the term 'Jew' from Jesus. HE states this, "Salvation is of the Jews". HE IS the salvation (Luke 2:32-33, Matthew 1:21 with Isaiah 42:6), and this fact is here encapsulated in the term "Jews", as of current usage, as already shown. Their very simple adversative, and geographical relationship is encapsulated in the woman's remarks. There are: ourselves, and YOU. We are Samaritans and you are other. WE are of this kind, but YOU! You are Jews.
This was relevant when a Jewish menage arrives en scène, and the leader asks for a drink. The Samaritan woman's preoccupation was further revealed in her contrast of Jerusalem and their own famous (false) religious centre (John 4:20). There are no two other nations of which this contrast is true. Hence the one is the JEWS, as rendered by the dictionary for the New Testament usage, and illustrated constantly IN the New Testament for precisely that body, without respect to divisions or differentiations of race, requiring or being given distinction. Israelite ? Yes, it is treated without equivocation as JEW.
It is for this reason that when the High Priest seeks to determine the course to SAVE the nation, so called, He acts to murder Christ, so that what ? This: "Therefore Jesus no longer walked openly among the Jews": He became hard of access for a time in the country. The NATION is about to act in terms of its authoritative officers; murder is afoot; Christ does not walk openly in terms of some sub-group ? Not at all, it is in terms of what Ezra called the nation, with similar lack of differentiation, in the all important BIBLICAL USAGE: JEWS. The national authorities were out to kill Him; He absented Himself from the relevant body, in the sense of being readily available. But let us return to Samaria.
Samaritans and Jews were two groups known; she indicated her relationship to the one, He His to the other.
But He transcended it, not by failing to be of the line specified amongst the children of Israel for this purpose, but by being God in flesh (Luke 1:35). It is a case of addition, Biblically, not subtraction. The distinction, as always, is important.
Of necessity, since HE IS THE SALVATION, and salvation is from the Jews, HE MUST BE A JEW, for otherwise the claim would be a lie. Again, when the lady refers to Jesus as "being a Jew" and so creating a confusion or tussle in her mind, He does not remove it by simply stating this, that she is mistaken, and that there is no problem. If she thinks He is a Jew, and He does not clarify it, or remove the error from her, He would become an accessory to confusion, not truth, a dealer in misconception, not truth, in this interested in the ways of darkness not light. In not removing this as a misconception, He would be abetting it, and as truth, calling it true. In leaving it as a conception, He speaks as He does, truth, implies as He states, truth, walks in a pathway of a given nature, truth.
What He does indicate by non-correction, is this: that He, even if it appears that He should be disqualified from such things as a Jew, were taken in terms of what nonetheless He can do, then she would not stumble so at this fact. Now the fact that the Jewish Messiah (to use Ezra's terminology), the One to raise up the tribes of Israel and restore the preserved ones of Israel (Isaiah 49:6) is an Israelite, as were Paul's countrymen by his own statement (Romans 9:1-4); that He is one of Israel, of Israelite ancestry from Jacob, of those called through Isaac, those to whom specifically were related the giving of the law and the promises, is clear and attested continually, just as Nathaniel was "an Israelite in whom is no guile". The nexus and tie-up of terms is complete, as is the substance to which they also refer.
This is so. But there is more, much more. We see that the One whom she addresses IS this Messiah. She also needs to be made aware that here is no mere oddity, but a culmination, a consummation, the whole ground in the end of salvation being from, out of, the Jews: HE IS IT.
Not only (AND OF COURSE) IS
He what the nation is in nationality, an Israelite, one of the nation,
"the Jews" whose people took up stones, and sought to kill Him (and
hence a Jew as defined by the dictionary of Greek terms, and cited of
the people, in John 10:33), one of a people of that NAME, Israelite, in the
flesh (a term used of his contemporaries of that nation by Paul - Romans
9:4-5), a people who also sought by their shorter name, Jew, to murder Paul (as
cited for that term in Acts 22:3, 23:12).
Paul was born one (Acts 22:3), stating "I am indeed a Jew", and concerning himself, he states that Ananias, a young of good report among the Jews, came to him saying, "The God of our fathers has chosen you". In Acts 26:16, we read: "I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you." Now the people who threatened Paul at the time he here reviews, were the nation, via its authorities. The people who are not the Gentiles, are the Jews. The people who are bound in one comprehensive overview, in the address to Paul, are the Jews and the Gentiles. It is precisely the same as in John 4 with the Samaritan lady.
Thus in being delivered from the Jews, Paul is sent to the Gentiles. There is no segmentation, or qualification.
He is threatened here as so often by this people, the "His own" to whom Christ came as in John 1.
HIS OWN ? These of course, for the Good Shepherd - Ezekiel 34, John 10, are as defined there, "The house of Israel are My people... You are the flock, the flock of My pasture" whom He will feed "on the mountains of Israel" . These are they for whom HE UNDERTAKES to come, and "search for My sheep and seek them out", so that in His coming, He achieved the result on the scope and ground-plan assigned, here as always and ever - Ezekiel 34:11, Isaiah 44:26. Unlike the false shepherds, God undertakes to do the job properly, thoroughly and unsparingly (Ezekiel 34:11, Isaiah 44:26). In coming where He came, as predicted, He covered the case, as specified: ISRAEL. He will be so zealous that He will bring His people "to their own land" of Israel (Ezekiel 34:13) and "seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away" - Ezekiel 34:16, and "be their God, and My servant David a prince among them: I, the LORD, have spoken." Unlike the false shepherds, God undertakes to do the job properly, thoroughly and unsparingly. In coming where He came, as predicted, He covered the case, as specified: ISRAEL. He has come and sought "the lost sheep of the House of Israel", restoring His people, and winning many of them also in Spirit (as in Ezekiel 37).
But let us revert to Paul. He, we find in the above data concerning him, is to be delivered from these same Jews, not some sub-branch or construction of the mind. This nation, duly constructed and operating in a power situation of its own, is the problem. It killed Christ and here threatens Paul. Paul is one of them. Christ is one of them, and was king of them, referring to them as the lost sheep of Israel, those not His already, in sharp and clear contradistinction from any other people, such as Syro-Phoenicians, close though they were. This then is the Biblical statement, this is the Biblical usage, its own repeated internal attestation in terms of which we proceed.
Thus in being delivered from the Jews, Paul is sent to the Gentiles. There is no segmentation, or qualification. He is threatened here as so often by this people, the "His own" to whom Christ came as in John 1. He is to be delivered from the same, not some sub-branch or construction of the mind. This nation, duly constructed and operating in a power situation of its own, is the problem. It killed Christ and here threatens Paul. Paul is one of them. Christ is one of them, and was king of them, referring to them as the lost sheep of Israel, those not His already, in sharp and clear contradistinction from any other people, such as Syro-Phoenicians, close though they were. This then is the Biblical statement, this is the Biblical usage, its own repeated internal attestation in terms of which we proceed.
Thus, then, does Christ make the Samaritan woman aware of the magnificence of her opportunity. Jew ? Yes, nothing wrong with that in ONE VERY CLEAR INSTANCE; a Jew, but not MERELY a Jew. Far from it. IF SHE KNEW... if she but knew what was to come FROM the Jews, AS He stated, then she would see the answer to her 'problem'. Yes He was a Jew like those to whom He came, for He came to His own and they did not receive Him (John 1), and these, they took up stones (John 10:31), and these, they were Jews of which He was indeed King, though they did not understand Him as a people, or His ways. This is the usage of the New Testament repeatedly without differentiation of any kind.
That nation ? Jews. Of that race or religion or both, out of that nation, Jews.
There is in this Study 2, to which we are referring, also a reference to a Greek preposition ek. The idea is that this word of Christ, rendered, salvation is of the Jews, is not really saying that. However endeavour to divorce this preposition from the meaning common to Micah 5:2 (Septuagint translation into Greek, where ek refers to Christ coming FROM little Bethlehem, despite its smallness), and John 4 is in vain. Salvation is from this source or womb is the basic meaning: it is out of there, relating to as a base. That is the lectionary meaning and the historically famous prophetic point, alike. Efforts to alter this dictionary fact to something else, and to remove the bulk of its array of meanings is simply in vain. It is rather staggering that it is even attempted. Ek is what it is.
There is no slightest suggestion of difficulty or even relevance to be found in any other consideration. The term ek is not , gives no problems when one follows the lectionary, and is a focus and feature concerning the Messiah, as to His arising.
What then does Christ mean ? He does not mean that salvation is NOT of the Jew, from the Jews, out of the Jews, through the Jews as a basis of transmission. It is HE who is out of Jerusalem, out of Bethlehem. Further, the translation 'out of' is simply one. The basic meanings from Thayer, for the preposition ek are: out of (place); from the midst of; down from (as from a local surface); from, of a direction; of a condition or state from which something comes; taken from. Then in addition, it means: of generation, birth, lineage, nativity; of various kinds of origin; of that on which a thing depends; of the cause... and in general it is very much like our English 'from', which can bear all these meanings. In this case, the relevant meanings would be: or origin, source, lineage, race, cause. There is not even a question. The Jews are not to be denied; it is from them that salvation comes (whether, terminologically, as a source, cause, lineage).
Which it is, is not relevant to the present point. It is FROM them! just as Christ was FROM Bethlehem, each was a causative element in His coming, by providing means. In Hebrews 7:14, to which reference is made in this Study 2, it simply affirms the prophetic fact that Christ had to come from a specific tribe, which had been selected for this purpose, that of Judah.
Here it says this, "Judah, of which tribe...", showing the intent, from Genesis 49:10. Revelation 5:5 is also cited, "Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David", but this simply affirms what is already stated, that the particular, predicted tribe, one of the indentikit facts of the then coming Messiah, is this: that He has a particular tribe, just as a particular birth-place and history, all of which things came to pass and are verified, and expose the more fully who He is. There is no slightest relevance to the question, WHO are the Jews ? or Was Christ a Jew ? It simply shows He was to be born from one of the tribes of Israel. Since Ezra and Kings alike use the contemporary term "Jew" to cover this body, as shown, then being an Israelite (as Paul uses the term in Romans 9), yes it shows He was a Jew. There is nothing very remarkable in that. From that follows with necessity, precisely what Christ so clearly stated, "Salvation is of the Jews".
To suggest that being out of, from, based in, having lineage from, means something less is without ground.
He says out of, let it be so, it is not NOT out of it. It relates to it as a source, base, basis and origin mode.
The reason is this, that the One who IS statedly the salvation, is a Jew. It is not that He is NOT Jew, who IS the salvation. That would be a flat contradiction. He who is a Jew IS the salvation, so that salvation both is and must be of the Jews. His statement is clear, its usage is not unusual, and HE is the salvation which arrives from the Jews VIA Himself, and of course all the prophecies which depicted Him, from the Jews, in advance. So far from its being 'blasphemy' to call Jesus a Jew, as this Second Study suggests, it is simple inaccuracy to try to divorce Him from the nation of which He was twice called King: King of the Jews.
The amazing effort to make the (current) Jews too horrible for Christ POSSIBLY to have come from them is so outrageously contrary to the Biblical specifications of Israel, call it what you will, its LONG-TERM indictments as in Isaiah 30:8-9), its exposures as in Jeremiah, its denunciations as in Isaiah 1, its degradations as in Isaiah 65, that it is apparent that in germ here we have another religion, one which is not satisfied with a Christ who is a Jew. Just as many Jews now use additive books like the Talmud, so did they use additive traditions, roundly condemned by Christ in His own day, and it was precisely this which made for them, void, the word of God as He states in Mark 7:7. Just as the ignominy and folly found then in their religion, leading to the murder of its Head, did not alter the predicted future of their nation, so it does not do so now; indeed, it is precisely in the very MIDST of folly and weakness, that the Lord undertakes to intervene for HIS OWN NAME'S SAKE, BOTH in Deuteronomy 32 and in Ezekiel 36-37, as also reflected in Romans 11.
That ANY other nation or group or people should want to be so pure that He might smile reflectively on their efforts to inhabit, from afar, the mountains of Israel, or become Jerusalem "in its own place - Jerusalem", is a matter for both marvel and horror. COULD anyone fail to see that ALL FLESH is to be exposed (Isaiah 2), that NO FLESH shall exalt, that ALL are condemned that those who believe might be GRATUITOUSLY and by grace delivered. Must the flesh cling even to the point that having as Head, a crucified man, is not enough to bring it to its base basis, in sin!
The entire irrelevance of the point concerning the term "Jew" and Jesus, is another venture into non sequiturs. First, Israel is as Biblically specified, defined and shown from it, on this site and in these expositions repeatedly. The history is the same, use what name you will, and the people are the same, who were in the Exodus, the restoration of Ezra, the day of Jesus in Palestine, who plotted against Him, resisted the gospel in Paul in their synagogues, who bore the persecutions and pogroms as predicted, were present in the national return as predicted, in the manner as predicted, for the purpose predicted, and fulfilled by now in all major categories, except the one thrusting into existence so vigorously, since the Jews had restored to them, their Jerusalem. There are more of them than this; but this is the Biblical focus, defined, determinate, indefeasible and visible to the eyes.
There is
no other body but Christ, who bore sin;
no other nation but Israel, His own to whom He came, being not accepted as predicted (Isaiah 49:7, John 1:1-14); there were
no other lost sheep who in His day on earth were His vast focus; there is
no other Jerusalem which was to be ruined, stone removed from stone by the word of His mouth, and to be restored by the same word, "in its own place" - not in some other place, a flat contradiction - with the Gentile nations surging about it; there is
no other location which as such serves as a witness to the times and a testimony to His coming; there is
no other focus for the Jews who slew Him, in their national repentance but Jerusalem, where Christ is exposed to their view by His Spirit; there is
no other fulfilment to God's concern about His NAME which induces Him to bring Israel back to its land, and deliver them in it, but that to Israel, to the Jews of which He was King, to Palestine which was the place, use what name caprice may suggest or desire discover; and history knows
no other way of obeying, but doing what it does, following with minute precision, every detail of what is written, so that it is presented in this century, as in the last, to our very eyes.
All these things, step by step, have been verified in what has been presented in this topic, and are here summarised in part.
Nothing of value is gained by fiddling extra-Biblically and erroneously with terms. Even if it were right which is unbiblical, and since we are simply defining terms from the Bible that is excluded, the result is precisely the same. Secondly, that Christ is genealogically derived in the flesh from Judah, established no fact of any import, except to show He is an Israelite, a member of the nation of Israel where He was born. It has no effect on the meaning of "Jew" that one of its tribes has some things predicted of it. It does not alter the demonstrated New Testament usage of the term, that of Esther or Ezra after the Babylonian captivity, nor the lexicon's reflection of that fact in its definition of the Greek word used in the New Testament for this term.
In Sum to our present particular
sub-topic: the term 'Jew' here in John 4 - not that it matters to the
point, but it simply confirms it - is used by Jesus of Jesus, just as Paul's
first century A.D. kinsmen were ISRAELITES, and hence precisely those to whom
(if anyone should want to be preoccupied with various terms instead of
their demonstrable referents) the promises applies, as he also SAYS. Paul's
brethren, his kinsmen, ARE, not were, Israelites. Their continuity from Paul's
day is not difficult to find. Nomenclature from this or that religion or
philosophy, does not in the slightest degree affect facts.
LOVE IS OF GOD, AND SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS
Getting our
Words' Worth is not without interest
The preposition, ek, transliterated, ek, incidentally, is used in Galatians 4:4, just quoted, in what is rendered, "born of a woman". It is similarly in his source sense used in the "love is of God" in I John 4:7 (just as salvation if OF the Jews). In each case, the ek signifies the source or place of derivation. In the former, it has the lexical meaning of derivation in lineage. Thayer explains this sort of usage thus: things "having their prototype in God, and being wrought in the soul by His power". This is the ek usage from a source or location, for derivation. It is normal.
Christ IS the salvation of the world, and HE states it is from the Jews. Incidentally, the dictionary whose task it is to deal with the verbal side of things, notes this: that Ioudaios means "Jewish". That is, as shown above, its New Testament usage. The dictionary is not in error.
Linguistically, OUT OF THE JEWS means from them as source, cause, origin or lineage resource. Hence the JEWS are the source, or basis, or recourse, the lineage resource for salvation. Jesus is it and hence is a Jew. Case closed. There is no difficulty, about things which can be imagined, as some may wish; this is the meaning of the word.
It is not subject to doubt. It applies in several of these categories, and its applicability is in this instance, as the Old Testament indicated it would be, relates to this people as lineage base, means instrumental and cause productive. THESE ARE ALL major cited meanings of the term, as to setting, force and overtone.
The statement of this Study being reviewed, on John 4, incidentally, that "Jesus disavowed his connection with either Jewish worship at Jerusalem ..." is another of a stream of non sequiturs. Actually, He took great pains to PURIFY it, which is an enormous connection. The statement simply does not follow from the premises, nor tally with the facts. It is an addition of outside thoughts to what is written... and this seems to be the difficulty all through, in a number of instances. God will not suffer this (Proverbs 30:6). What Christ actually said, was this: that the time WAS COMING (future in reference, one should perceive) when worship would not be Jerusalem centred, OR Samaria centred. It was closely coming. WHEN HE was crucified and rose, the Temple quickly ceased to have relevance to religious exercises; the New Covenant had come. HE was the centre; and HE is not Jerusalem. HE was however crucified there and uses it as He will.
That is all. That
consideration therefore does not bear on the point at issue to the slightest
extent.
DECLARING MYSTERIES, AND SOURCES OF WONDER
ROMANS 11 and
Knowing your OLIVES
Again, on another topic
(the Study 3, or Third Study), unsustainable from the dictionary, it is claimed:
"There is a popular
but mistaken notion that this blindness has to do with the Jews being blinded
to faith in Christ, or the Messiah."
The term "mystery" appears used in some sort of effort to divorce the dictionary meaning from the contextual result, or to result in it. However the meaning of the term appears not entirely clear in the Study of our review. Thus Thayer of musthrion has this, for specifically New Testament Greek. If anyone want another language, perhaps he/she could invent one, but this is the one in which the New Testament is written. Thayer: "a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding"; a "hidden purpose or counsel, secret will; a mystic or hidden sense". Using the sense, "a hidden purpose or counsel; secret will", it provides for Romans 16:25, and more generally in the New Testament, for a of musthrion of God, this:
"the secret counsels" which are in God's determinations "in dealing with the righteous, which are hidden from ungodly and wicked men but plain to the godly". Mysteries can as here be DECLARED (cf. I Cor. 15:51) or shown. Here the simple facts of what had been a marvel are uncovered. It is the same in Romans 16:25 as well. There is nothing left which is strange, by any necessity, or anything even hinted at here, in Romans 11, of this type. On the contrary, Paul in the end of this chapter, following this aspect, is exulting in the clarity which allows the complexities to be so surely discerned.
In Romans 16:25, this is the gospel which was already in the scriptures, as Paul declares, but now is made manifest. In Romans 11:25, it is not different or difficult. Further such usages are found in Ephesians 3:8-12, concentrating on the unsearchable riches of Christ, Colossians 1:26-27 and so on. This too relates to the Gospel now made manifest, in terms of Christ in you, the hope of glory. In Ephesians 3:4ff. we find it again, as not made known in former times AS NOW it is. To what then does it relate ? to Christ in you, His riches, Gospel.
Now then in Romans 11, the nature of the term musthrion both in Romans 16 and elsewhere frequently in Paul is clear.
It is a hidden thing, in part at least, which concerns the wonders of the Gospel, specified indeed but not as manifest as now, and revealed to those who find it. To this end Paul proceeds to "labour mightily" (Col. 1:29). What could spoil this effect ? "vain philosophy" is one culprit (Col. 2:8). Of whom does Paul speak in positive contravention of this result of revelation ? The Jews as Biblically defined, here Israel the nation, and those of the race/religion still dispersed or willingly so. Where do we see a prominent example ? In Acts 13:40ff.:
"Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you:
"Behold you despisers,
Marvel and perish!
For I work a work in your days,
A work which you will by no means believe,
Though one were to declare it to you."
Where do we see the Jews, thus at work ? Why in Acts 13:42ff., the Jews, the same in name as those, the nation Israel, of whom Christ was King. What did they do ? "The Jews" found Gentiles there also rejoicing in this Gospel, they "raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabus... and expelled them from the city."
With such moods, small
wonder Paul made the above citation from the Jewish prophet, Habakkuk.
This puts together the Old
Testament exposure of this state of affairs, in Habakkuk 1:5, and Paul's
experience and denunciation in precise application of the generic statement
about the mystery, STILL HIDDEN from the Jewish People as such, though not of
course from many individuals, such as Paul himself, to whom God chose to REVEAL
HIS SON (Galatians 1:15). That is the quite straightforward dictionary
assessed, Biblically verified meaning of the term in Paul's usage generally in
the New Testament, and there is no question or doubt about it.
Despite the Biblically verified, linguistic and contextual meaning of the term repeatedly in Paul, Study 3 another non sequitur to offer. But it is based on ignorance of another kind, perhaps. In this Study, the statement is made: "If this new covenant was to have its fulfilment in a very large measure, in the people of Israel, then Israel’s "blindness" in Romans 11:26, could not possibly have any anything to do with Jewish unbelief in Christ. Why? Because under this new covenant, Israel were to become known as Christians."
The error in this has already been in detail Biblically demonstrated, and here for teaching purposes, we expound it further. The Jews are OUT of the state of grace in the sense that the Old Covenant is broken as in Zechariah 11. They are PROGRAMMED (not in any impersonal way) to come back to the land. It is predicted as shown in Ezekiel 36-37, Zechariah 12, that this will be as still unbelieving in the Messiah.
WHEN they so DO believe as precisely and repeatedly predicted of the people of Israel, the one to be returned (as shown) to its land, then they will have a new name like the rest, as already shown in detail before. THEN OF COURSE they will be Christians. BEFORE THAT, the nation is NOT so.
For our part, then, we are not
dispensationalists (see Biblical Blessings Ch. 3), for this
is not the authorised milieu of World Wide Web Witness Inc.. Only the word of
God will hold. It is regrettable that in the Study such things or philosophical
concepts seem to act as stimuli, or spurs to thought, even if it be negative.
It is only the Bible which is in authority in this field. In reality, you are
speaking to those whose pursuit is to follow what is written, PLUS NOTHING, for
doctrine. There we differ from you by YOUR OWN STATEMENT.
This may be disputatious, but it is not logic.
DEFINED
CONTEXTUAL DYNAMICS in ROMANS 11
and the Biblical Surrounds
We do not need to, and are ill advised to invent. This is what it says. These are the declarations.
is blind, is the thing to which they are awakened in context.
Further, this IS TO OCCUR in a people of notorious history, one religiously founded from antiquity.