His Own - John 1:11
Bethlehem
QUESTION
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not." (John 1:11)
When Jesus said He came unto his own, He is referring only to his elect right? I don't know if there may be a different sense here than Jesus coming for his elect Jews for salvation, that maybe it refers to all the Jews in general, elect and non-elect alike. I assume he is referring to just his regenerate elect by other verses of being sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24, 10:6). What are your thoughts?
ANSWER
To answer this question, let’s take in a little more context as we so often do:
“He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:11-13)
In this context, “His own” (v11) is not speaking of the elect. It is a reference to the Jewish people, unto whom a Messiah was prophesied and promised. When it says that “his own received him not” it is affirming a broad rejection of Christ’s ministry among the people to whom he was sent. This is evidenced by their calls for his execution which was encouraged by the priests and elders of the Jewish faith (Matthew 27:20).
I don't know if there may be a different sense here than Jesus coming for his elect Jews for salvation, that maybe it refers to all the Jews in general, elect and non-elect alike.
It refers to the broad rejection of the ministry of Christ by the Jewish people. It is a general assessment of the Jewish response, not an absolute affirmation that Jesus was rejected by all Jews. Indeed, the statement of rejection is qualified in the next verse wherein some did receive him and believe him (v12). From this we understand John’s intent to be something like, “The Jews broadly rejected Jesus, but a few of them did not.”
I assume he is referring to just his regenerate elect by other verses of being sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 15:24, 10:6).
In these “sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” we find an interesting intersection between the type and antitype. A few affirmations follow:
Jesus earthly ministry was primarily to the House of Israel. This is supported by his lineage, location, and bounds of his ministry. These aspects of his ministry follow the predominate typology of the OT, wherein “Israel” typifies “God’s elect.”
Yet there are elements of Christs ministry that refer to the antitype, spiritual Israel, which includes both Jew and Gentile because of the breaking down of the wall of partition between them.
So you have the temporal, earthly ministry of Christ where he was sent “to the Jews” and “into his own” (i.e., National Israel) in the aforementioned ways wherein he was broadly rejected based on their reaction. This was a figure of his covenant people, who were equally unlikely to receive him, if equipped only with their fallen nature and the force of mere moral influence placed upon it by the law. But in this latter covenant, Christ accomplished what the Law given in the previous covenant could not: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:” (Romans 8:3) And so the type (National Israel) is said to have broadly rejected Christ, whereas the antitype (Spiritual Israel) are all receivers of Christ via the new birth, without the loss of one (Galatians 4:6). Those described as receiving him (v13) in this first century context represent an overlap between National Israel and Spiritual Israel.
You mention two other texts:
"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)
"But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:6)
These two passages refer to the fulfillment of Christ being sent unto the Jews as prophesied in the OT. I do not believe they teach that John 1:11 is speaking only of the elect when it says that Jesus was sent “unto his own.”
FOLLOW UP QUESTION
Are you saying all of Gods elect receive Christ in the sense of John 1:12? I thought believing and receiving Christ here was - "To receive Christ is to believe on Him as Son of God; see last clause of 1:12. To receive Christ is to accept and believe His doctrine and duties (Col 2:5-9)” as one website put it. And therefore, not all of Gods children will believe and receive Christ in this sense.
Or, are you saying believing and receiving Christ here is monergistic, like what you say for John 10:27, that all of Gods sheep hear and follow Jesus in the eternal sense to heaven? And it sounds like you’re saying the non-elect of Israel are also called sheep I never thought or considered that anyone but Gods children are ever called his sheep in Scripture. And so, when we come to verses like John 10:26, Jesus is specifically saying that those Jews are NOT sheep.
Or, would you say (like some) that when Jesus says ye are not OF my sheep, this implies they are sheep, just in a different sense (national Israel sense), but not Jesus "children" sheep? I thought there were only sheep (Gods children) and goats (non-elect children of the Devil) in Scripture?
FOLLOW UP ANSWER
Are you saying all of Gods elect receive Christ in the sense of John 1:12?
No. All of God’s elect receive Christ in the sense of John 1:13.
I thought believing and receiving Christ here was - "To receive Christ is to believe on Him as Son of God; see last clause of 1:12.
That is what is meant by “receiving” Him in v12.
To receive Christ is to accept and believe His doctrine and duties (Col 2:5-9)" as one website puts it.
That is the sense of v12 but it is not the only sense in which one might be said to “receive Christ.” One could be said to “receive Christ” when the spirit is imparted in regeneration. This would be receiving Christ in a passive sense, in the same way that all men receive natural life for example, but it is not what is in view in v12.
And therefore, not all of Gods children will believe and receive Christ in this sense.
Correct. Not all of God’s children receive and believe Christ in the v12 sense. Indeed, not all of God’s children come in contact with the explicit NT gospel.
Or, are you saying believing and receiving Christ here is monergistic, like what you say for John 10:27, that all of Gods sheep hear and follow Jesus in the eternal sense to heaven?
No. Verse 12 is speaking of a synergistic act wherein men exercise their God given faith toward the gospel truth revealed to them through ministry.
And it sounds like you’re saying the non-elect of Israel are also called sheep
These two passages refer to the fulfillment of Christ being sent unto the Jews as prophesied in the OT. Consider this: the non-elect of Israel are still part of the nation of Israel. Thus they are part of the OT type of God’s elect. You might say they are “National Sheep” being members of the OT type of “National Israel” that typifies the “Spiritual Sheep” (the elect) who are part of the NT antitype of “Spiritual Israel.” Paul explicitly references this discontinuity between the type and antitype saying, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:” (Romans 9:6) Stated another way, “Not everyone who was a ‘sheep’ in the Old Covenant flock known as the nation of Israel is a ‘sheep’ in the New Covenant flock known as God’s elect. Such discontinuities are common in typological relationships.
I never thought or considered that anyone but God’s children are ever called his sheep in Scripture.
I have not done a comprehensive study of the term “sheep” in the bible, so whether it is ever used in this way I cannot say. My point is to draw out the common ground that the term shares with other concepts. Consider this statement:
The SHEEP are the ELECT / SPIRITUAL ISRAEL typified by NATIONAL ISRAEL.
I don’t think that statement is controversial. This reveals an indirect relationship between the SHEEP and NATIONAL ISRAEL. Whether the bible ever uses the term “sheep” to refer to the non-elect is not what I have under consideration. Rather, I’m pointing out that both NATIONAL ISRAEL and THE SHEEP are typical references to the elect family of God and discontinuities exist in typology, indeed, there are no LITERAL SHEEP who make up God’s elect family, though there are LITERAL ISRAELITES who do. This should not be a disturbing observation, but one that arises of necessity when dealing with metaphors and typology. So we must manage both continuity and discontinuity when handling the symbolism of the bible and we must resist the urge to stretch the metaphors beyond the bounds of their intent, lest we find ourselves replacing pews with feed troughs.
And so, when we come to verses like John 10:26, Jesus is specifically saying that those Jews are NOT sheep.
NATIONAL ISRAEL is a type of the elect and SHEEP are a type of the elect as well. “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” (John 10:26) This verse is essentially making Paul’s aforementioned point, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:” (Romans 9:6) Were I to construct a case for the idea that “sheep never refers to the non-elect” this might be a place to start. That statement may be true, but I would avoid dogmatically defending it for lack of having given it due consideration. In such instances it is possible that one’s assumption may not withstand inquiry. That, coupled with the continuity/discontinuity issue that is a stumbling stone for many, make me reluctant to take up that cause. Perhaps a comprehensive study of “sheep” in the bible will make the docket for my 2024 ministry objectives.
Or, would you say (like some) that when Jesus says ye are not OF my sheep, this implies they are sheep, just in a different sense (national Israel sense), but not Jesus "children" sheep?
In John 10:26, it seems clear that those he was addressing were NATIONAL ISRAELITES. The Lord’s reference to SHEEP here is speaking of the elect (SPIRITUAL ISRAEL) in contrast with NATIONAL ISRAEL. This is an early example of the explicit NT revelation of the discontinuity between the type and the antitype later developed in Romans 9:6.
I thought there were only sheep (Gods children) and goats (non-elect children of the Devil) in Scripture?
With respect to eternal salvation and the elect and non-elect there are only SHEEP and GOATS. But affirming that does not prove that there are no discontinuities in typology, we know that these exist with respect to how “Israel” is employed per Romans 9:6. As a result, I am reluctant to insist that there are no such discontinuities where the term “sheep” is employed. In fact, having given the matter a cursory examination in the formulation of this answer, I find Asaph saying:
“But made his own people to go forth like sheep,
and guided them in the wilderness like a flock.”
(Psalm 78:52)
In that verse, NATIONAL ISRAEL is referred to as “his own people,” “sheep” and a “flock.” That this was written about NATIONAL ISRAEL is certain. Clearly it is a type of SPIRITUAL ISRAEL as well. When held alongside Romans 9:6, it seems that some of those referred to as “sheep” in this text were not of God’s elect. On that observation alone, I am reluctant to take up the argument that “sheep” ALWAYS has literal reference to God’s elect when it is typologically invoked in a symbolic metaphor. Stated another way…
SHEEP is a metaphorical reference to the elect family of God but this does not mean that those referred to as sheep (the nation of Israel) in the context of a given metaphor were therefore all members of God’s elect. One might say, “The CHURCH are God’s chosen people” and in so doing they might be speaking of “God’s elect” through the metaphor of the church, but this symbology does not mean “Every member of a local NT church is a member of God’s elect” any more than the many references to Israel in the OT mean that every national Israelite is one of God’s elect.
This is an interesting discussion. If nothing else, it highlights the need to exercise caution when dealing with the metaphors of the bible. We must avoid the common inclination to hyper-literalism by recognizing that continuity and discontinuity are inevitable attributes of typology. To the extent that we underserve one of them, we create vexing deformities in our understanding.
- Elder Daniel Samons