Friday, 3 July 2026

DID JEPHTHAH ACTUALLY OFFER HIS DAUGHTER AS A HUMAN SACRIFICE?

DID JEPHTHAH ACTUALLY OFFER HIS DAUGHTER AS A HUMAN SACRIFICE?

DID JEPHTHAH ACTUALLY OFFER HIS DAUGHTER AS A HUMAN SACRIFICE (JUDG. 11:29-40)?

In the book of Judges, we read the story of a great warrior named Jephthah. Asking God for victory, Jephthah made an impulsive vow. Many believe that this promise led to Jephthah sacrificing his only daughter as a burnt offering. This account is certainly troubling on many levels. But the most basic is that human sacrifice was explicitly forbidden under God’s Law: “There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering” (Deut. 18:10 ESV). How could a judge of Israel, commended for his valor (Judg. 11:1) and faith (Heb. 11:32), commit such a heinous sin? The answer is: he didn't. Keep reading.

JEPHTHAH’S STORY

Jephthah was the illegitimate son of a prostitute. This fact caused his half brothers, the sons of Gilead, to disown him. Nevertheless, he became a great warrior. Later on, after the Ammonites made war with Israel, the leaders of Gilead, the very ones who had cast him out, appealed to Jephthah to lead them in battle. If Jephthah led them to victory, they promised to make him their leader (Judg. 11:1-11). Therefore, Jephthah sought to negotiate with the Ammonites but they refused him. So Jephthah battled the Ammonites, and the Lord granted Jephthah a great victory (Judg. 11:12-28, 32-33). Thus, he became the eighth judge of Israel.

JEPHTHAH’S VOW

Despite his military success, Jephthah’s one major failure was the rash vow he made as he went to battle the Ammonites. He swore that if the Lord enabled him to defeat the Ammonites, “then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Judg. 11:30-31).

Much to his sorrow, Jephthah’s daughter was the first to approach him when he returned home after his victory. As a result, many conclude that Jephthah, a man honored in Scripture for his faith, actually engaged in the forbidden practice of human sacrifice.

JEPHTHAH’S SACRIFICE

That Jephthah would have practiced human sacrifice is extremely unlikely. Another but superior view of this troubling issue is that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter by giving her to lifetime service in the tabernacle, not as a burnt offering. Several lines of evidence support this alternative view.

First, the Hebrew conjunction in the verse that contains Jephthah’s rash vow could be translated with the word “or” to reflect two alternatives. It would then read, “whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me... it shall be the Lord's or I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Judg. 11:31).

This translation is legitimate. If this is correct, the vow would distinguish the resulting action between a human or an animal coming out to meet the victorious judge. If it were human, it would be offered up to serve God in the tabernacle. But if an animal came out, it would be given as a burnt offering.

Second, Jephthah’s statement that whatever met him “shall be the Lord’s" is similar to the phrase used of the Levites in the Pentateuch.  The Lord declared that the Levites would be separated out for God’s own service in the tabernacle, saying “the Levites shall be Mine” (Num. 3:12, 45; 8:14). Jephthah’s words use the same Hebrew verb and Hebrew particle as these phrases in Numbers. This is no accident. It demonstrates that Jephthah was saying that he would give someone over to belong to the Lord’s service, just as the Levites were given for God's service.

Third, the description of Jephthah’s daughter hints at her being offered to serve in the tabernacle. She came out to greet him “with tambourines and with dancing” (Judg. 11:34). This phrase was deliberately designed to remind readers of the virgins who were dedicated to serving God in the taber-nacle.

For example, Psalm 68:24-25 describes the procession of worshippers entering God’s sanctuary, the tabernacle. The depiction of the worshippers calls to mind the behavior of Jephthah’s daughter: “The singers went on, the musicians after  virginity, it appears that she believed she was going to become one of those virginal maidens serving in the tabernacle for life. Jephthah did not offer his daughter as a burnt offering, but rather gave her to the Lord by giving her to tabernacle service. In doing so, he gave up his only hope of having an heir.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The story of Jephthah’s foolish and unthinking vow is a great warning for followers of Jesus to be careful before making promises to the Lord. Solomon warned, “When you make a vow to God, do not be late in paying it; for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow! It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay” (Eccl. 5:4—-5). Believers need to take the vows we make to the Lord seriously because, like Jephthah, we are responsible to keep them, even if it brings us loss.

Although Jephthah did not carry out a human sacrifice, he did have to sacrifice his dream and desire for his posterity to continue through an heir. This was no small matter in that culture and it certainly broke his heart. Nevertheless, Jephthah paid his vow and in so doing, he taught us an important lesson: Be careful about the promises we make to the Lord.

God’s command the Israelites to destroy their? How to justify

God’s command the Israelites to destroy their? How to justify

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO JUSTIFY GOD’S COMMAND THAT ISRAEL DESTROY THE CANAANITES?

While it may be understandable for us to wonder at God’s command that issued such destruction, it is always helpful to look at the event in question in context. This command was given to the people of Israel by God at the end of their 40 years in the wilderness. As they were about to enter the Promised Land, they were told: “When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them” (Deut. 7:1—-2; cf. Ex. 23:32-33; 34:12-16; Deut. 20:15-18).

God’s command for Israel to utterly destroy the Canaan-ites is one of the most commonly raised objections to the God of the Bible as a just and loving God. Atheist Richard Dawkins charges, ‘The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.’ Dawkins’s words are clearly over the top, yet they echo the concerns of many.

The Lord’s requirement that Israel annihilate the Canaanites certainly raises serious issues about the mercy and love of God. How could He tell the Israelites to “show them no mercy” (Deut. 7:2 CSB)? To be blunt, there are no easy answers to this question, but there are several perspectives that help resolve the moral questions raised by the destruction of the Canaanites.

NOT A GENERAL PRINCIPLE BUT AN ISOLATED CIRCUMSTANCE

The commanded destruction of the Canaanites was not a general principle of war and conquest in Scripture; this ap-pears to be an isolated circumstance. Israel was not told to destroy every other nation they were to encounter. In fact, as a general rule, the Lord told Israel that when they went to war, they were to offer the enemy “terms of peace” (Deut. 20:10).

God's command to destroy was limited to the seven nations of Canaan (Deut. 7:1-2; 20:17). Clearly, this command was not a general rule for Israelite warfare in every place and every battle. Rather, it was limited in scope and time only to the conquest of Canaan, a one-time event.

NOT AN ETHNIC GENOCIDE BUT A DIVINE JUDGMENT

Generally, genocide stems from the ethnic hatred between tribes or nations. But in the case of this one-time destruction of the Canaanite nations, it was not driven by Israel’s ethnic hatred for these nations or because of their pent-up desire to murder and destroy.

It wasn't ethnic cleansing at all that motivated these actions but divine judgment by the Lord God Himself. The Lord had decided the time had come to judge the Canaanites for their debauchery. This act should not be viewed as genocide but a case of capital punishment, applied on a national scale.

God gave this as His explanation for His actions to Israel, declaring “the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants” (Lev. 18:25). We must remember that God is just in His judgments and so He demanded, in this case, that Israel be the instrument of His judgment on Canaan.

Similarly, acting as a righteous judge, God would bring judgment on Israel and Judah through the Assyrians and Babylonians. As human beings, we tend to object to God bringing His just judgment on ourselves or on anyone else. At those times, we must remember that He is God and we are not. His acts of judgment may not be clear to us from a human perspective; nevertheless, they are just.

NOT ETHNIC IDENTITY, BUT EXTREME WICKEDNESS

God declared, “It is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you” (Deut. 9:5). As mentioned earlier, God was acting in righteous judgment against the wickedness of the Canaanites. But were they really that bad? Actually... yes. Even by ancient standards, the Canaanites were especially morally depraved.

Their idolatrous fertility cults led to debauched sexuality to the extreme. If you visit the Israel Museum's archaeology wing, you will see, the display of ancient Canaanite idol figurines, both male and female, with grotesquely enlarged genitalia. The worship of these false gods produced all sorts of sexual perversity, including adultery, temple prostitution, pederasty, bestiality, and incest.

They also practiced divination, witchcraft, and human sacrifice. These sins were so severe that God said He would spew them out of the land as a consequence (Lev. 18:19-25). When God commanded Israel to destroy the Canaanites it was not because they were an unfavored people group or because of Israel’s ethnic hatred for them. It was the God of justice coming to the end of His patience with these morally corrupt peoples and finally bringing them to judgment.

NOT IMPATIENT OR INTEMPERATE, BUT LONGSUFFERING PATIENCE

Was God impatient or intemperate with the Canaanites, suddenly exploding with rage without expectation or warning? Certainly not! If you go back to God’s confirmation of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15, the Lord told Abraham that his descendants would spend 400 years in Egypt prior to their return to the Promised Land. God could easily have granted Abraham possession of Canaan immediately. He did not do so because, as He told Abraham, “the iniquity of the Amorite” is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16).

God would patiently tolerate the sins of the Canaanites until Abraham’s descendants would bring retributive justice upon them with the conquest under Joshua. The longsuffering patience of God is similar to His attitude toward pagans found in Romans, saying that “God gave them over” to their lusts, to degrading passions, and to a depraved mind (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28).

In this case, God did not launch immediate judgment but rather tolerated their dreadful behavior, allowing them to go farther and farther into sin than was even imaginable. An impatient or intemperate God would have destroyed all the Canaanites when Abraham entered the land. His patience allowed them to expand their revolt against the Lord until their iniquity was complete, hundreds of years later.

NOT DIVINE VINDICTIVENESS BUT DIVINE PROTECTION

Despite God’s patience, some might object that He could have granted Israel access to Canaan without necessarily destroying the Canaanites. Couldn't they have simply shared the land? Perhaps so, but God was concerned about protecting Israel and keeping them from the ungodly influence of the Canaanites’ sins.

He told Israel that His policy of destroying the Canaanites was “so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20:18). The legitimacy of this concern is evident in that the Israelites did not obey the Lord and “did not drive out the inhabitants” of the land (Judg. 1:27-33).

The horrific consequences of this were that “the sons of Israel lived among the Canaanites ... and they took their daughters for themselves as wives, and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods. The sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth” (Judg. 3:5-7).

Israel's failure to carry out the Lord’s command led to the very danger from which the Lord sought to protect them. As a result, the Canaanization of Israel led to the disasters of the days of the judges, when “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 17:6; 21:25). But why destroy the children? As painful as this must have been, it was a needed protection for Israel. First, because these children would grow up, pursue the same abominable practices as their parents, and then influence Israel to abandon the Lord. Second, it was necessary because as adults, they would pursue vengeance against the people of Israel for having carried out the destruction of their parents. God was protecting Israel from nations of men who would live to execute vengeance against the nation that killed their fathers.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Old Testament scholar, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. suggests one last thought about the destruction of the Canaanites. He says all prophecies or forecasts of doom have “a suppressed ‘unless’ attached to them.”? When Jonah proclaimed, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4), there was an implied “unless you repent” appended to that prediction. And repent Nineveh did, so “when God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it” (v. 10).

The Canaanites, like the Ninevites, were warned of their impending doom. Had they responded as Rahab did (Josh, 2:8-14), with faith in the God of Israel and repentance for their abominable deeds, there certainly would have been a better out-come for them. Just as Rahab, along with her family, was spared in the destruction of Jericho (Josh. 6:25), it’s likely that there would have been a brighter and better end for the Canaanites.

THE LAW OF MOSES REQUIRE A WOMAN TO MARRY THE MAN WHO RAPED HER?

THE LAW OF MOSES REQUIRE A WOMAN TO MARRY THE MAN WHO RAPED HER?

WHY WOULD THE LAW OF MOSES REQUIRE A WOMAN TO MARRY THE MAN WHO RAPED HER? 

THIS JUST SEEMS SO WRONG.

If you browse atheistic websites or books criticizing the Scriptures, you may hear the allegation that the Law required a woman to marry her rapist. This supposed fact is used to support the claim that the Bible is morally suspect and oppressive to women. But is it true? A careful reading of the Bible will show that the Law of Moses did not require a woman to marry her rapist.

This question comes from a misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 22:28-29: “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.” Various Bible versions (e.g., NIV, CSB) translate the words “seizes her” as “rapes her” and so it certainly may seem that this woman would be forced to marry her rapist.

But a closer reading of Scripture shows that this verse was actually designed as a protection for a young women. It focuses on a woman who has been seduced by a man and engaged in consensual sexual relations with him. A closer look at the original meaning of the phrase “seizes her” shows that this should be understood as referring to seduction, not rape. Here’s why:

THE CONTEXT OF THE LAW

The context of this statute indicates that this phrase refers to seduction and not rape. The previous paragraph (Deut. 22:25-27) describes the law about an actual rape and uses a different Hebrew verb (chazaq), meaning “forces” or “overpowers.”

The word used in the passage under discussion has a different word (the Hebrew verb tapas), translated “seizes,” indicating that there is a distinction in meaning being made with the rape of the previous verse. The word chazaq clearly indicates force, but the word tapas used here does not imply any kind of forcible attack or assault. The lexical differences of these two different verbs and the nearness of their uses in two adjoining paragraphs indicate that these refer to two different situations—the first to rape and the second to seduction.

Another distinction with the previous paragraph (Deut. 22:25-27) is that rape is treated differently than the situation being discussed in this passage (Deut. 22:28-29). First, in determining whether a rape occurred, the girl cried out but there was no one present to hear her (Deut. 22:27). In the second case, the issue of crying out is not even raised, demonstrating that a forcible attack was not being addressed. Second, the consequences are different in the two paragraphs. In the first case of rape, there was no charge against the woman but the punishment for the rapist would be execution; the crime of rape was viewed as a capital offense (Deut. 22:25). In the case of seduction, the consequence for the man was to marry the woman he mistreated (Deut. 22:29). He was not allowed to love her and leave her. He had to take responsibility for the woman. By reading the passage in context, it is evident that the issue being addressed in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is seduction and not rape.

THE SENSE OF THE VERB

The verb in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, translated “seizes,” literally means “captures” or “takes hold of” Yet, it can have a figurative sense, as it does in Ezekiel 14:5, in the phrase “to lay hold of the hearts”. The sense is more of persuasion than assault. The same verb is also used in the story of Potiphar’s wife’s seduction of Joseph, when she seized him, seeking to persuade him to sleep with her (Gen. 39:12). The verb itself can have the idea of capturing a woman’ feelings, not forcible sexual assault.

INTERACTION WITH OTHER PASSAGES

Additionally, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 must be read intertextually, meaning in association to other passages of Scripture. First, the parallel law, found in Exodus 22:16-17, uses a different Hebrew verb (patah), translated “entice,” and plainly refers to seduction, not rape. This is important because the passage in Exodus is referring to the same situation as in Deuteronomy. Exodus contains the first statement of this law, while Deuteronomy is a repetition and exposition of that same law. If the first statement of the law was clearly referring to seduction, so then the second one (Deut. 22:28-29) must also refer to seduction.

Second, when examining all the rape stories found in the Bible (Judg. 19:25; 2 Sam. 13:11-14), they use the verb “over-power,’ as found in the rape law in the previous paragraph. They never use the verb tapas used in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, showing that rape was considered distinct from seduction.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER

To summarize, the law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is about a man who took hold of a virgin, or seduced her, so that she consented to have sexual relations with him. It describes a man’s behavior that could include using sweet words or flattery but not physical force (i-e., rape). The resulting danger would be that, after having slept with this young woman, he would cast her aside and bring shame to her.

Therefore, as Old Testament scholar Meredith Kline states, the law requires that this “seducer of an un-betrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce.”

FINAL THOUGHTS

Although this law might be offensive to modern sensibilities, it was not designed to be unkind to a young woman but actually to protect her from having a man take advantage of her. It was intended to protect her honor and, even more, to prevent her from destitution.

In that culture, marriage was a necessity for economic stability. If she slept with this man consensually and he did not marry her, it would be unlikely that another man would take her as a wife. Moreover, this law provided financial support for a child that might have been born of this illicit union and served as a deterrent against seduction, premarital sex, and abandonment.

So rather than see this law as harmful to a woman, it should be viewed as helpful. Moreover, it guarded against the exploitation of women and held men accountable for their sexual behavior.

In depth-analysis of POLYGAMY from Biblical Lens

In depth-analysis of POLYGAMY from Biblical Lens

DID GOD ALLOW POLYGAMY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?

It is not surprising that many people assume that God per-mitted polygamy in the Old Testament. There are many examples of men with multiple wives, from patriarchs to kings. In fact, some contend that regulations in the Law of Moses endorse polygamy. Why does it seem that God allowed polygamy, when at creation He intended one man for one woman? Let’s examine what the Scriptures actually say about this.

GOD’S CREATION OF MARRIAGE

At the time of creation, God fashioned the very first woman, Eve, from Adam’s rib, and brought her to the man (Gen. 2:18-22). Upon seeing his wife, Adam burst into a song of joy (Gen. 2:23). Then Moses, the human author of Genesis, breaks into the story, giving the divine perspective on the creation of marriage. He states, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). This verse explains the God-ordained institution of marriage.

Marriage, as God intended, has several components. The first is independence. A man leaves his family home and creates a new family unit with his wife. Second, marriage must be exclusive, meaning it is between one man and one woman.

There isn't the hint of polygamy in this text. Third, marriage is to be permanent, seen in the word “joined” (some versions use the word “cling”). The same Hebrew verb (dabagq) is used of Ruth clinging permanently to her mother-in-law Naomi (Ruth 1:14) and referring to Hezekiah’s faithful commitment to the Lord (2 Kings 18:6). It has the idea of holding on and not letting go, showing that marriage was designed to be a permanent relationship.

The fourth aspect of marriage is unity. Although some only see marital sex in the phrase “they shall become one flesh,” it actually depicts a couple that had become unified as a new family unit. Therefore, sexual union is merely an expression of the unity between a husband and wife. The establishment of the institution of marriage as de-scribed in Genesis makes it apparent that God’s intention for marriage was that it was to be between one man and one woman for life. There was no hint of bigamy or polygamy in God's creation plan.

BIBLICAL EXAMPLES OF POLYGAMY

Despite the evident expectation of monogamy in God’s establishment of marriage, Scripture gives numerous examples of men with multiple wives. These examples should not be viewed as an endorsement of bigamy or polygamy but rather as man’s rebellion against God’s prescriptive will. For example, the very first person to take multiple wives was Lamech (Gen. 4:19), yet this account is found in the midst of the rebellious line of Cain (Gen. 4:17-24).

Other cases include Abram, who succumbed to his wife’s idea of taking Hagar as a concubine. Yet, Scripture never portrays this action as a good choice. In fact, Genesis 16 uses language similar to Genesis 3, deliberately associating Sarai’s suggestion with Eve’s temptation, including the sentence “And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai” (Gen. 16:2), calling to mind Genesis 3:17: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife ....” The rest of the story demonstrates the disastrous consequences of Abram’s choice. Certainly, the example of Jacob taking two wives while living with his pagan Uncle Laban was not intended to be understood as proper behavior (Gen. 29:1-30).

Likewise, David’s marriage to multiple wives set up his ultimate failure with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11) and led to his many difficulties later in life. Solomon's decision to marry 700 women and to maintain a harem with 300 concubines was not recorded as an example of someone obeying the Word of God. In fact, these women turned Solomon's “heart away after other gods” (1 Kings 11:3-4). It’s plain in Scripture that although people practiced bigamy or polygamy, it was never presented as if these practices were good or obedient to God's intention for marriage.

ALLEGED EVIDENCE FOR POLYGAMY

There are only five passages that seem to support biblical approval for having more than one wife. But do they really endorse polygamy? Let’s examine them.

Exodus 21:7-11

The law of Exodus 21:7-11 has to do with a young girl being sold to a man in payment of a debt, initially to serve as a servant girl but in the future, when she comes of age, as a bride. In our culture, selling a young girl to another house-hold to serve as an indentured servant and ultimately as a wife would be morally reprehensible, but in biblical times all fathers received a bride price for giving their daughters in marriage.

This law was designed to protect the rights of a young woman sold before reaching marriageable age. The servant girl was not to be released in her seventh year, as was a male indentured servant. Instead, her master could choose to marry her or to have his son marry her. Many modern English versions follow the ancient Greek Bible (the Septuagint) in their translations and therefore misunderstand Exodus 21:8.

Literal translation can be as, “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master, who does not designate her (or betroth her), then he must allow her to be redeemed (for a price). He has no right to sell her to a foreign people because of his deceit of her (in not marrying her).” It goes on to say ifhe does betroth her to his son, he must treat her as he would his own daughter (Ex. 21:9) and not as a servant. The support for polygamy is often found in verse 10, it being understood that he has taken an “additional wife” (HCSB). But the word translated “wife” could just as well be translated “woman,” which fits the context.

Since he has not designated this servant girl as his own wife, he chooses “an-other woman” as his wife. If the servant girl is not redeemed her “food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.” Of course, use of the words “conjugal rights” makes it seem as if the man has taken an additional wife. However, the Hebrew word translated this way only appears here in the Old Testament. It’s not clear that it even means “conjugal rights.” It is translated this way only because the ancient Greek version guessed that it was its meaning, so English versions have followed suit.

Some have suggested that it referred to her daily allot-ment of ointment or oil.' Another, more likely, possibility is that the word is derived from an altogether different Hebrew root meaning “dwelling” and refers to her right to stay in the household even with a different wife there. If the man did not provide these three items (food, clothing, lodging), accord-ing to verse 11, the girl was to be released without paying the man a redemption price for her. Admittedly, this passage is fairly difficult to interpret, but, once translated carefully, it really specifies treatment of a servant girl and does not endorse polygamy.

Leviticus 18:18

The prohibition found in Leviticus 18:18 is that a man is not to “marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.” Some presume that this only prohibits taking a sister-in-law as a second wife while any other woman would be permissible. In light of God’s establishment of marriage as being between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24), it seems better understood as a prohibition of a specific kind of polygamy.

In addition to the general ban on multiple wives, this forbidding of marrying one’s sister-in-law would be necessary for the community of Israel to learn this in light of Jacob’s marriages to sisters Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29:21-30). The people of Israel were not to consider their patriarch’s actions as a valid exception to the prohibition of polygamy and therefore, they were not to practice Jacob’s same vexing sin of marrying two sisters.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 describes a man having had sons with two different wives, one loved and the other unloved. If the son of the unloved wife is the firstborn, the father may not prioritize the son of the loved wife over him when making his will.

It states, “he cannot make the son of the loved the first-born before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deut. 21:16-17).

The presumption of many is that this discussion demonstrates that having two wives was lawful. Two responses must be considered. First, this law is dealing with inheritance rights, not lawful marriage. While it is dealing with a problem that might come up if someone were to break the law of monogamy, it should not be read as endorsing bigamy. Rather it is seeking to regulate the problems that ensued when God’s people disobeyed His command for monogamy.

Second, it need not be assumed that this is discussing a man having two wives at the same time. The Hebrew verb tenses are not concerned with time. Therefore, it could be understood to discuss the problems that might ensue when a man has had two wives in succession and wants to treat the son of the second wife, whom he loves, as if he were the

firstborn. Regardless, this passage is certainly not an endorsement of having two wives at the same time and may not even address that issue at all.

Deuteronomy 25:5-10

In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, Moses gives the law of levirate marriage (from the Latin word levir, a husband’s brother), calling for a brother to marry his dead brother’s widow. The purpose of such a marriage was to raise a child to inherit the dead brother’s name and property, and thereby keep the inheritance in the family. Some believe that levirate marriage would be required even if the surviving brother was already married and therefore consider it God-ordained bigamy.

Others do not see this as a blanket endorsement of multiple wives but a permitted exception to monogamy under these circumstances alone.

It seems better to see levirate law as requiring an unmarried brother to raise up the heir for his dead brother. The only examples of levirate marriage in Scripture involved unmarried men (Gen. 38; Ruth 3-4). But what if the brother was married?

Then he would be disqualified and another unmarried relative would need to take up the role as kinsman-redeemer. This is perfectly acceptable because the Hebrew word for “brother” is elastic enough to mean “relative.” Thus, Boaz, who was only a relative and not a brother, could act as the kinsman-redeemer for Ruth (Ruth 4:6-10).

2 Samuel 12:7-8

After David committed the sin of adultery with Bathsheba, Nathan the prophet came to rebuke him. Speaking for the Lord, he recounted for David all that God had done for him, including “I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah” (2 Sam. 12:8). Some have taken this to mean that God gave Saul’s wives to be David's wives, thereby showing God’s approval of polygamy.

This is unlikely because the Law of Moses prohibited kings from having multiple wives (Deut. 17:17). The verse is actually saying that the Lord gave into David's care everything that had been Saul’s, including his household, his kingdom, and his women (a more likely translation than wives). Renowned Old Testament scholar Walter C. Kaiser Jr. concludes that this is not saying that the Lord gave Saul’s wives to David but rather Saul’s women. These included giving David the oversight of Saul's female domestics and courtiers, in fact “everything was placed under the control and supervision of David much as a conquering king exhibited his full victory over a subjugated nation by taking control of the defeated king’s household.”

FINAL THOUGHTS

God created marriage to be between one man and one woman for life. He didn’t create marriage to be monogamous, only to change His mind to allow polygamy in the Law of Moses, and then change it back to monogamy in the New Testament.

Rather, God always intended marriage to be monogamous.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT I’M UNDER A GENERATIONAL CURSE?

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT I’M UNDER A GENERATIONAL CURSE?

I STRUGGLE SO MUCH WITH PERSISTENT SIN AND CONTINUE TO FACE SPIRITUAL AND PHYSICAL PROBLEMS. 

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT I’M UNDER A GENERATIONAL CURSE?

Many people have asked if curses from past generations could have been passed down, causing spiritual problems in their lives. These kinds of questions arise because certain Bible teachers have misinterpreted a few verses and developed a whole theology of generational curses.

By generational curses, they mean that a curse that fell on one generation for sins committed in the past has been passed down to the next generation and then on and on. According to these teachers, these types of curses can cause demonic affliction on later generations even though these individuals did not actually commit the sins of the previous generations.

As a result, these teachers have developed workshops and seminars on how to break generational curses, usually involving the alleged casting out of demons from believers and other sensational counter-actions designed to break the chain of curses. Although their presentations seem powerful, they’re actually based on weak and incorrect interpretation of God’s Word.

EXAMINING THE CLAIM

As evidence for the existence of generational curses, people frequently cite the biblical commandment against worshiping idols which also states that God would visit “the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me” (Ex. 20:5). The same idea is stated elsewhere in the Torah (Ex. 34:7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9). But it is a mistake to assume that these passages support the idea of generational curses.

The first reason is that the generational curse interpretations miss the point of these verses. They are all designed to emphasize that God's love and mercy is far greater than His just judgment. For example, after saying that God will visit “the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me” (Exod. 20:5, italics added), the very next verse says that God will show “lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments” (Exod. 20:6, italics added). The same message of God’s greater mercy and love is found in Exodus 34:6-7, Numbers 14:18 and Deuteronomy 5:9-10.

By reading these passages in context, we better understand the emphasis on God’s mercy and love. Second, these verses are not about curses caused by sin, but rather the consequences of sin. This is captured much more clearly in the CSB translation, which states that God will bring “the consequences of the fathers’ iniquity on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing faithful love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commands” (Ex. 20:5-6, italics added).

This passage identifies the reason parents must be careful to bring their sinful behavior to the Lord for forgiveness and transformation by Him. Sadly, studies have shown that alco-holism and substance abuse, adultery, anger, and emotional and physical abuse as well as other sins, cause damage, and too often these sins repeat themselves in the lives of the next generation.

Heartbreakingly, children often follow in the footsteps of their parents and pass the consequence of that same sin on to the next generation. It’s naive and harmful to believe that the sinful behavior of one generation won't cause damaging consequences to the next generation and even the following one.

PRESENTING THE COUNTER-EVIDENCE

Old Testament Evidence Although there are observable consequences of sinful behavior on the following generations, there are four biblical passages which present ideas that contradict the idea of generational curses. To begin, the Torah itself, in a section about capital crimes, declares “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut. 24:16). The point of this command is that people are to be responsible for their own sins. Moreover, it is forbidden to take vengeance on family members for the sin of another, whether parents or children. If God were to send generational curses, He would be violating His own law.

Second, many years later, the prophet Ezekiel affirmed the above Mosaic commandment, stating, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon him-self, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20). When a father or mother sinned, God would not respond by breaking His own principle, punishing the next generation with a generational curse for the parent's sin.

New Testament Evidence

A third way the Scriptures contradict generational curses is in the story of the healing of the man who was born blind (John 9). There, the disciples asked Jesus, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” (John 9:2). The implication of their question is that it would be possible for the punishment of the parents’ sin to fall upon a newborn baby. The Lord Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3).

The disciples had adopted the mistaken ideas of Job’s friends, that all suffering is a direct result of personal, or even parental, sin. Although suffering is indeed a result of living in a fallen world, caused by Adam’s sin, the Lord Jesus makes it plain that the man’s blindness was not a result of sin, committed by the parents or the man. Rather, the man was born blind so that God would be glorified in him. In this way, the Lord Jesus Himself repudiates any idea of a generational curse that would cause the man to be born blind.

Fourth, the apostle Paul reminds us that it is impossible for a follower of the Lord Jesus to experience condemnation. He writes, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). A generational curse would be a punishment and condemnation passing from one generation to the next. Even if that were possible (which all the above Scriptures indicate that it’s not), then trusting in Jesus would immediately break any condemnation. To be clear and plain, the idea of generational curses goes against the consistent teaching of Scripture.

BREAKING THE CYCLE

Although the Bible rejects any form of generational curses, it is possible for the consequences of parental sin to be passed from generation to generation. In light of that, is it possible to stop the consequences and break the cycle of sin? Absolutely! A child of alcoholics or drug abusers does not have to relive those issues. The Bible gives hope for breaking the cycle of sin in four ways.

A New Creation

First, when a person comes to know the Lord, trusting in Jesus as their Redeemer and Leader, he or she becomes a new new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17). Coming to know the Lord has a transformational effect—we have a new capacity for obedience to God. God sees us as united to the Messiah Jesus. We really do become new people.

A New Spiritual Power

A second way that God empowers us to overcome the consequences of parental sins is through the indwelling Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul is clear—once we come to know the Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit dwells in all of us. In fact, Paul says, “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (Rom. 8:9).

Clearly, the opposite must be true—if anyone belongs to Christ, he has the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him. Paul clarifies the significance of the indwelling Holy Spirit and the patterns of sin into which we may have fallen. He declares, “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11).

The simple point of this is that the very power that was potent enough to raise the Lord Jesus from the dead dwells in us and will enable us to break the cycle of sinful patterns. As we learn to appropriate the Holy Spirit's power, sin will no longer reign over us and these habitual or even instinctual sins will lose their hold over us.

Even though there are no generational curses, there are certainly generational consequences for sin. What God has done by creating us anew and empowering us by the power of the Holy Spirit is strong enough to break harmful family patterns of sin.

A New Community

Third, when we follow Jesus, we are put into a new com-munity, the body of Christ. This community is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” and “growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:20-22). Not only is the Spirit of God at work in individual followers of Jesus, He is building us into a community that looks more and more like Jesus.

That's why the author of Hebrews encourages us to keep meeting together so that we can “stimulate one another to love and good deeds” (Heb. 10:24-25). It’s also the reason being part of a congregation is so vital—it is one way God works to help us break the cycle of sinful patterns we may have learned from our parents. Just as alcoholics need to go to Counselling (meetings) to help stay on the path of sobriety, so we, as recovering sinners, need to be in our home congregations to help us on the path to obedience, thereby breaking the cycle of sin.

A Renewed Mind

A fourth way we can break the cycle of parental sins is through the renewing of our minds. Paul urged followers of Jesus to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2). The Scriptures are central to biblical mind renewal. This follows the basic computer programming principle of “garbage in, garbage out.” When we program our thoughts with the excellence of God’s Word, God uses it to produce obedience in us. Therefore, we need to read, memorize, and meditate on the Scriptures to experience transformed lives (Ps. 1:1-3; 119:9-11).

FINAL THOUGHTS

A young boy whose father was violent, angry, and abusive. As a boy, this child vowed never to be like his dad. Many years later, having married and raised a family, a friend asked him how it was that he was able to be such a loving dad and reject his father’s behavior, thus breaking this sinful pattern.

This man thought for a moment and said, “As a child, I was determined that whatever my dad did, I would do the opposite. But I would never have been able to fulfill that promise, except that as a teenager, I trusted in Jesus as my Redeemer and Lord. He made me into a new creature, gave me His Holy Spirit, and gave me the Scriptures to guide me and fellow believers to encourage and strengthen me. That’s how God did it, not me.”

Clearly, this man demonstrates that the patterns of parental sins need not be replicated in the next generation because God's “divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3) in order to break the consequences of sin from one generation to another.

WILL A SPIRITUAL REVIVAL HEAL OUR LAND OF PLAGUES, FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, AND/OR CIVIL UNREST

WILL A SPIRITUAL REVIVAL HEAL OUR LAND OF PLAGUES, FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, AND/OR CIVIL UNREST

WILL A SPIRITUAL REVIVAL HEAL OUR LAND OF PLAGUES, FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, AND/OR CIVIL UNREST?

It probably seems that 2020 will remembered in history as the year of the plague. Many followers of Jesus were promoting the idea on social media that COVID-19 was a plague, a judgment of God, on our nation and world because we have abandoned the Lord and adopted all sorts of ungodly behavior.

Beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, that year included all sorts of other difficulties: economic stress, civil unrest, social isolation, and medical anxiety. In response to these challenges, many of God's people were advocating that if Christian around the world would repent and experience a revival, God would relent and heal the land of the plague and all these other problems. This isn't really a new idea. This same message was promoted during the economic downturn of the late 1970s and the great recession of 2008.

Many turn to 2 Chronicles 7:14 to support the hope of revival as the key to the restoration of God’s blessing on His people. Here's how it reads in the most familiar way it is quoted: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (KJV).

The problem is, this verse isn’t speaking about our nation or our difficult circumstances. Let’s take a closer look.

THE ANCIENT TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM

First, we need to consider the biblical context. This passage is referring specifically to the ancient temple in Jerusalem, not Washington, DC or the United States. The verse falls in a chapter of Scripture detailing Solomon's dedication of the temple he built for the Lord. In 2 Chronicles 7:12-22, God gave His response to the temple dedication. God kept emphasizing the temple, saying He had “chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice” (v. 12), that He would hear “prayer offered in this place” (v. 15), and that He had “consecrated this house [temple]” (v. 16). God also promised to destroy the temple in response to sin (v. 20). Of course, we have no holy temple in Christian countries and in fact, no temple exists anywhere today.

MY PEOPLE ISRAEL

Second, the phrase “My people, who are called by My name” refers to the people of Israel not to Americans, not even to American followers of Jesus. Throughout the whole Old Testament, the phrase “My people” refers to Israel. But, specifically, in 1 and 2 Chronicles, the phrase usually adds the word “My people Israel.’ In fact, in the books of Chronicles, God declared that David would be leader “over My people Israel” (1 Chron. 17:7; cf. 1 Chron. 11:2), that He would “appoint a place [of worship] for My people Israel” (1 Chron. 17:9), and that He chose Jerusalem for His own namesake and for the Davidic dynasty to lead “My people Israel” (2 Chron. 6:5-6). So the phrase “My people” in 2 Chronicles 7:14 clearly refers to the people of Israel, not to Americans.

DISOBEDIENCE TO THE TORAH

Third, the sins described in 2 Chronicles 7:14 refer to disobeying the Torah (the Law of Moses). In verse 19, the sin of Israel is de-scribed as abandoning God's “statutes” and “commandments,” words that describe the Law of Moses. Even the disciplines in the passage, “no rain” or “pestilence” (v. 13) are promised in Deuteronomy 28:21 and 24 as consequences of disobeying the Torah. In fact, ultimately, Israel would be dispersed from the land for their failure to obey the law of Moses. This isn't about the sins of the United States but the sins of the nation of Israel.

THE LAND OF ISRAEL

Fourth, the land to be healed was the land of Israel, not the United States. When God says He will heal their land, He is referring back to the promises in the Torah telling Israel that when they repent, God will restore them to their land (Deut. 30:1-6). This will yet take place “at the end of days” (Deut. 4:30), when the nation of Israel will turn to their Messiah Jesus in faith and God will circumcise their hearts (Deut. 30:6), so the whole nation will experience the New Covenant. The evidence is clear: 2 Chronicles 7:14 doesn't really address any pandemic, economic downturn, civil unrest, natural disaster, or any other difficult circumstances in the United States. This is based on a crucial principle of biblical interpretation, that there is only one meaning to a given text of Scripture. This verse promises the restoration of the nation of Israel if they would repent.

APPLICATIONS FOR TODAY

There's another important principle to biblical interpretation. It is that although there can only be one meaning to a passage, there can be many applications. And we certainly can apply 2 Chronicles 7:14 today. First, God desires revival in all places for all of His people. We are correct to think that God longs for the United States to have a mass return to Him by faith in Jesus.

If God cared for Nineveh so much that He sent the prophet Jonah to preach to the pagan capitol of Assyria (Jonah 1:2; 3:2; 4:10-11), He certainly cares about our nation as well. Also, when Nineveh repented, God relented from the judgment that He was about to inflict on the Ninevites (Jonah 3:10). Similarly, if our nation repents, God will heal our land of sin and unrighteous-ness. He may even keep His hand of blessing on His people. Nevertheless, revival in our nation will not necessarily lead to the ultimate end of any plague, economic problem, or civil unrest that may be afflicting our country. This verse can also be applied to our local church congregations, and the New Testament confirms this principle. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul dealt with a congregation that was tolerating an open immoral relationship (1 Cor. 5:1).

In fact, they were boasting about it (1 Cor. 5:6), perhaps saying something like, “See how open and tolerant we are?” Paul exhorts this community of believers to “clean out the old leaven [a symbol of sin]” (1 Cor. 5:7), so they can be restored to God. Their own tolerance of sin led to the spread of sinful behavior, like yeast in dough, throughout the whole congregation. If the Corinthian church, or any other local congregation, “would humble themselves and pray” and turn from their sinful behavior, certainly God would restore it spiritually and revitalize that community of believers.

Spiritual revival will bring spiritual renewal to our local congregations. Perhaps most important of all, we can apply this verse to ourselves! If we have strayed from the Lord and decide to come back to Him, confessing our sin, we know that the blood of Jesus will cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

Turning back to the Lord will bring God’s restoration. This doesn’t mean we'll be protected from getting a disease or that we're promised to recover if we do. It doesn’t mean that we will gain material prosperity either. The focus of this truth is that God will heal our lives of sin and restore us spiritually to fellowship with Him (1 John 1:7).

FINAL THOUGHTS

So, should we pray for revival in our Place/Country? Absolutely! The entire Bible confirms this. As the psalmist prayed, “Will You not Yourself revive us again, that Your people may rejoice in You?” (Ps. 85:6). God wants to use the difficulties and distress of our times, whether a worldwide disease, civil crises, or global financial crises, to cause all people to see their need for a Redeemer and turn to the Lord Jesus. He causes all things to work together for our good and for His glory (Rom. 8:28). If we turn back to Him, then our nation, even our world, will be healed of a far greater disease than COVID- 19; it will be healed of sin.

Thursday, 2 July 2026

CAN I CLAIM THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISES MADE TO ISRAEL AS MY OWN

CAN I CLAIM THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISES MADE TO ISRAEL AS MY OWN

AS A FOLLOWER OF JESUS, CAN I CLAIM THE OLD TESTAMENT PROMISES MADE TO ISRAEL AS MY OWN?

Claiming biblical promises is one of God’s great gifts to fol-lowers of Jesus. Peter says that through the Messiah Jesus own glory and excellence, God “has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:3-4). We do not want to claim promises that Scripture gave to someone else. How-ever, we know the whole Bible is “breathed out by God” and designed to be “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man [or woman] of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17 ESV).

How can we resolve the tension of knowing that some Scriptural promises were not given directly to us, while on the other hand, knowing that all Scripture should be relevant to our lives? The following are some interpretive principles for claiming promises of God in the Old Testament.

DETERMINE THE MEANING

Start by reading the biblical promise in its context to determine to whom it was given and what it meant for them. For example, one of the most beloved Old Testament promises is Jeremiah 29:11: “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.” The context indicates that these words were found in a letter sent by Jeremiah to the leaders of the exiles of Israel in Babylon (Jer. 29:1).

Additionally, the verse just previous to the promise states that the length of their captivity would only be 70 years (Jer. 29:10). The point of the promise in Jeremiah 29:11 is that although God had disciplined Israel with the exile, He had limited their captivity to 70 years, indicating that God’s discipline was all part of His good plan for the nation. So, unless we are Israelites in the Babylonian exile, it’s incorrect to claim this promise as directly belonging to us.

DISCOVER THE APPLICATION

A good rule of biblical interpretation is that although there is only one meaning to a given passage, there are many applications of that truth. That’s why the whole Bible is profitable for us as members of the universal church, even if the direct meaning of a promise was designed for the people of Israel. So rather than claim the promise itself, we can apply the truth of that promise to our circumstances. Using Jeremiah 29:11, here’s how to find the application.

IDENTIFY THE SIMILARITIES

Although a Gentile follower of Jesus is not part of ethnic Israel, there are a number of similarities, especially as they pertain to Jeremiah 29:11. The first resemblance is that just as Israel was chosen as a nation to represent God,’ so we have been chosen as individuals for salvation (Eph. 1:4-5). So, just as God made promises to His elect nation, those promises must somehow apply to the chosen individuals who make up the church.

The second likeness is that just as God promised to discipline His chosen nation (Lev. 26:14-45), so the Lord promises to discipline individual believers as well (Heb. 12:7). The proof that God had adopted Israel was in His commitment to their correction. Likewise, discipline in the life of the believer is proof that we are His children.

The third similarity is that God designed Israel’s national correction for their benefit, just as God’s purpose for discipline in the lives of followers of Jesus is for our good (Heb. 12:10). The point of Jeremiah 29:11 is that God would use the devastation of the exile to restore Israel. Since the exile was intended for their well-being, it should give them hope for the future. In the same way, we can know that God uses the difficulties of our lives today, either to restore us to Him or to cause our spiritual growth. He does not allow us to suffer meaninglessly but with kind intentions for our good. That gives us hope for the future as well.

ARTICULATE THE PRINCIPLE

Having identified the similarities between Israel and us, we need to synthesize the truths of Jeremiah 29:11 into an enduring principle. The point of Jeremiah’s promise to Israel was: Since God chose them for Him, He would use the difficulties they faced as means of correction and growth so they could have a hopeful future.

In the same way, we can know that God chose you and me as His children and that He will use the difficulties and challenges of our lives for our correction and growth, giving us a hopeful future. As we walk with the Lord, when we struggle with difficulties, we can know that God has a good end in view, giving us a confident expectation as we anticipate the future (Phil. 1:6; 1 Thess. 5:24).

CONFIRM WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT

Having determined the simple meaning of a text and discovered the application, the third step in applying Old Testament promises is to confirm the application by comparing it to what is written in the New Testament. The promises should not be inconsistent. Jeremiah 29:11 indicates that God has a good purpose and plan for the difficulties we face, giving us a hopeful future.

But does the New Testament also teach that? Absolutely! Specifically, in the most extensive New Testament passage about discipline, Hebrews 12:4-11, we are told that God uses difficulties in the life of a believer as a means of teaching and it is always done for our good. It even says that the outcome of persevering under difficulties will be good: “to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness” (Heb. 12:11).

A second New Testament promise is that “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). A few years ago, a friend of mine, when he was in his early sixties, was laid off from a position he had held for many years. He was stressed because his circumstances were truly difficult and distressing. But when I asked how he was doing, he said this was just an opportunity for him to believe his life verse, Romans 8:28. He knew that God had a good plan _ in mind for him. In a sense, Romans 8:28 promises precisely the same thing as Jeremiah 29:11.

All that to say, the New Testament confirms the principle given in Jeremiah’s promise. Just as an aside, here’s an example of the reason New Testament confirmation is so crucial. In Deuteronomy 28:1-14, God promises Israel material blessing for obedience to the Law of Moses.

The application could be that God promises us blessing for obedience to God’s Word. However, the New Testament confirmation demonstrates that God promises spiritual blessing for obedience to the Scriptures, not material blessing (2 Peter 1:10-11). The New Testament clarifies the promise for us in the body of the Messiah, the church.

FINAL THOUGHTS

There’s a popular and long-cherished praise song, Every Promise in the Book is Mine:

Every promise in the book is mine,

Every scripture, every verse, every line.

All are blessings of His love divine,

Every promise in the book is mine.

Although the song contains a happy sentiment, it’s not exactly true. We have to be careful to understand precisely to whom God gave each promise in His Word. Then, thought-fully, we should develop a true and practical application of the promise, with confirmation from the New Testament. Although not every promise was written directly to us, the whole Bible is indeed profitable for us.