Concerning Jn 1:11
bib posted
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Jn 1:11
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
This verse, nor none of the others that the opponent has quoted says anything about Jesus being of the bloodline of the jews. When I say blood line, I mean that He was a physical jew by blood. However He did have blood, the blood of the God Man, and His Blood did not receive any properties from mary's blood, for His Blood received properties from His Deity.
Now this verse Jn 1:11 perhaps more than any seems to oppose what I am stating, but it does not. Who does it mean that He came to His own and His own received Him not ?
It is talking about the Nation of Israel, God's Covenant People under the Mosaic Covenant. For you see, Jesus was and is God Jn 1:1 and in His Divine Nature, Jesus was the God of Israel.
Ex 24:9-11
9Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
10And
they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
11And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also
they saw God, and did eat and drink.
National Israel according to the Old Covenant, and Nationally were God's own People, and they were of Christ's own People.
But His Death changed the relationship God had with the Nation as a Covenant People, they are no longer so Matt 21:33-46,43
43Therefore say I unto you,
The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
So, Yes, Jesus as the God Man, the God of Israel, the God of a Elect people, did come to His Own, and they , for the most, they received Him not except for them which had been born of God Jn 1:12-13 and it is declared of them
13Which were born,
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
What does it mean "born not of Blood "
John Gill writes on this verse:
Which were born not of blood…
Or bloods, in the plural number. The birth, here spoken of, is regeneration, expressed by a being born again, or from above; by a being quickened by the Spirit and grace of God; by Christ being formed in men; and by a partaking of the divine nature; and by being made new creatures, as all that believe in the name of Christ are; and which is the evidence of their being the sons of God: and now this is owing not to blood, or bloods; not to the blood of circumcision; or of the passover, which the Jews had an high opinion of, and ascribe life and salvation to, and to which notion this may be opposed: so their commentators F6 on (Ezekiel 16:6) where the word "live" is twice used, observe on the first "live", by the blood of the passover, on the second "live", by the blood of circumcision; but, alas! these contribute nothing to the life of the new creature: nor is regeneration owing to the blood of ancestors, to natural descent, as from Abraham, which the Jews valued themselves upon; for sin, and not grace, is conveyed by natural generation: all men are of one blood, and that is tainted with sin, and therefore can never have any influence on regeneration; no blood is to be valued, or any one upon it, but the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin.
Folks there is absolutely nothing in Jn 1:11 that states or even suggests that Jesus Christ was born of the blood of the jew. If anything, it is against the whole ideal completely. Even those who received Him , it had nothing to do with them being born of a jewish ancestry, that meant nothing, they were born again, born of God, as all Jews according to God's Definition are Born Rom 2:28-29