Who Are The Elect?

The following was written by Phillip Stratton, a friend of Soteriology 101, and posted with full permission. Thank you, Phillip!

To both Calvinists and Arminians, the identity of “the elect” is widely accepted as “the saved ones”. Even if the sides disagree how one becomes saved the usual consensus is that new covenant believers are “the elect”. To see if that definition fits, let’s take a look at one passage in the New Testament where the term “the elect” is used as well as the term’s Old Testament roots .

2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV), “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

Who were/are “the elect” for whom Paul was willing to suffer with much hardship?

The two most widely accepted interpretations are the unconditional elect and/or the conditional elect.  According to Calvinism, the former, the elect are those predestined and predetermined by God for salvation from eternity past.  This group is certain and locked in.  The elect will be saved and the non-elect will be lost.  Period.  According to Arminianism the elect are those foreseen by God who will accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior by their own free will; ie. conditional elect.  Those who are “in Christ” are the elect of God.  In short, one becomes elect when he or she elects to believe.  However, neither of these widely accepted interpretations fit the content and grammar of the text.  

Who Are the “They Also”?

Look, again, at the text….

“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

John Calvin writes… “When Paul says that he endures everything for the sake of the elect, he reveals how much more important the edification of the church is for him than his own safety. For Paul is not only prepared to die but even to be known as a criminal in order to promote the welfare of the church.” (1 & 2 Timothy & Titus: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, pp.134-135)

If the elect, and the elect alone, are guaranteed salvation, why the “they also”?  For Calvinism to be correct the word “also”, or “too” would have to be omitted.  John Piper does as much when he preaches on this verse (please see video link provided).

Three times Piper quotes this verse and all three times he omits the word “also”.  Once might be a mistake.  But three times?  Then what about the elect “may” obtain salvation?  In Calvinism, the elect are guaranteed salvation.  There is zero chance that one of God’s elect will be lost.  So why would Paul say “may” obtain, clearly suggesting that they “may not”?  If Paul was preaching Calvinism, the verse would have to read….

“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they (alone) will (not “may”) obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

The Arminian definition of the elect also suffers problems with this verse.  Again, according to Arminianism, the elect are those “in Christ”.  Here’s how Brian Abasciano defines the Arminian view of election….  

“By way of summary, there are two different views of election conditioned on faith. First, individual election is the classic view, in which God individually chose each believer based upon his foreknowledge of each one’s faith and so predestined each to eternal life. Second, corporate election is the main alternative view, holding that election to salvation is primarily of the Church as a people and embraces individuals only in faith-union with Christ the Chosen One and as members of his people.”

He clarifies this statement with the following….

“In the New Testament, only believers are identified as elect.”

http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvationc-conditional-election/

Is that true?  The book of Timothy is found in the New Testament.  Let’s see….

“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of those in Christ Jesus (or believers), that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

But haven’t those in Christ already obtained salvation?  Can someone be “in Christ” and still be lost?  Doesn’t make sense.  And we still have the problem of the “they also”.  Since the “also” or “too” introduces another category of people, in this instance, the other category would have to be those not “in Christ” or the Lost (unbelievers).  Inserting “believers” in place of “the elect” suggests that non-believers can and, indeed, have obtained salvation as well.  It just doesn’t work.  A non-believer can obtain salvation, but only by becoming a believer.  Thus a non-believer will not obtain salvation. 

Whoever the elect are, Paul definitely considers them to be lost.  And the “they also” inserts the notion that someone other than the elect can obtain salvation as well.  If “they” refers back to “the elect”, then the “also” means someone other than the elect can obtain salvation as well.  That “other category”, in context, would have to be the non-elect. That makes hash of Paul’s purpose and theology. There is a much easier explanation.

If “The Elect” are not the “Saved Ones”…?

So who are the elect?  What do the scriptures say?

For Jacob My servant’s sake, And Israel My elect, I have even called you by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me.

Isaiah 45:4 (NKJV)

O seed of Abraham His servant, You children of Jacob, His chosen ones!

Psalm 105:6 (NKJV)

Nowhere in God’s word is there a more clear and concise rendering of who the elect are.  It is Israel.  And its not limited to the Old Testament.  We find the word “elect” 4 times in the gospels and each time Jesus is referring to the Jews (Matthew 24:22, Matthew 24:24, Matthew 24:31, Luke 18:7).  But does it work within the scope of 2 Timothy 2:10?  Let’s see….

“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of Israel, that they too may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

That interpretation seems to work perfectly within the text.  Paul is saying he is enduring hardship for his fellow Israelites so that they also, along with the Gentiles to whom he was an apostle, may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.  But does Israel fit the immediate context?  Let’s look at the previous verses….

Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David (a Jew from the tribe of Judah; one of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel), was raised from the dead according to my gospel, for which I suffer trouble (at the hand of the Jews) as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained. Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

2 Timothy 2:8-10 (NKJV)

Yes.  Israel, or the Jews, fits the immediate context.  How many times do you hear Calvinists screaming “Context, context, context!”  Well, we have context.  Do we have any other scriptural support that suggests Israel being Paul’s focus here?  Yes.

For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites

Romans 9:3-4a (NKJV)

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

Romans 10:1 (NKJV)

For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.

Romans 11:13-134 (NKJV)

For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”

Acts 28:20 (NKJV)

Was Paul willing to be eternally cut off from Christ for the Gentiles?  Nope.  Was it for the hope of the Church that Paul was bound with chains?  Nope.  Paul’s heart, focus and goal was always for the salvation of his fellow Jews because the Gentiles were accepting the Gospel while his countrymen spurned it.  The very ones who hunted him down, stoned him, and left him for dead (Acts 14:19), and even had him imprisoned.  Paul could just as easily have said….

“I endure all things for the sake of the circumcision, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

Grammatical Analysis

“2Tim 2:10 – διὰ τοῦτο πάντα ὑπομένω διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ σωτηρίας τύχωσιν τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου

My literal translation – ‘on account of this, these [things] I am enduring on account of the elect [ones] in order that even to/for/with/by them salvation/deliverance they should obtain/experience, the [kind that is] in Jesus, with everlasting glory.’

The και – meaning ‘even’, has to do with Paul’s introducing another category of people, besides the Gentiles to whom he is an apostle, and whom he is wanting to see saved. This other category he also wants to see saved and is willing to keep enduring all things so that might happen.

That other category is ‘elect ones’, and so Phillip has context and other passages on his side pointing to ‘elect ones’ here meaning Jews who are not yet saved, but on account of whom (their forcing Paul’s arrest and trial by Rome) he is enduring his current imprisonment.”

“The context leans towards identifying the ‘elect’ as the same ones ‘on account of which’ he is willing to endure suffering, that they also (the ones causing the suffering) ‘may obtain’ salvation… but not certain they will.”

From longtime friend of the Soteriology 101 blog, Brian Wagner

Brother Brian’s analysis and rendering is spot on.  What can we take from these observations?

1. “The elect” are the elect if they obtain salvation or not
2. There is a high probability the “the elect” will not obtain salvation
3. The elect are the ones who have imprisoned him and want him dead

What has been provided is sound exegesis.  We have context, grammar, and other scriptural support.  Both the Calvinist and Arminian interpretations have nothing.

A Category Error

So when Calvinists or Arminians alike assume “the elect” are the new covenant believers, they are not speaking in the same categories as the biblical authors do. The OT is abundantly clear that Israel is the elect of God.  Nothing in scripture says He ever abandoned Israel.  Jesus confirms their election during His earthly ministry when speaking of His second coming in the last days.  The apostle Paul states that Israel never lost their election (Romans 9:4-5, Romans 11:2, Romans 11:28, 2 Timothy 2:10).  Saved or lost, they are still His chosen people.  God swore He would never forsake His chosen people (1 Samuel 12:22).

“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of Israel, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the Jews, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

“Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the circumcision, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

Each works perfectly within the context and grammar without doing damage to the word of God.  Even though Paul was called by God to be an apostle to the Gentiles, his heart was always for his fellow Israelites and their salvation. Calvinists will tell you that we preach the gospel indiscriminately to everyone because we don’t know who “the elect” are.  Well, Paul knew precisely who the elect are and, apparently, so did Timothy.  Of course the apostle should have known who the elect were.  The OT scriptures told him plainly.

943 thoughts on “Who Are The Elect?

  1. Dispensationalists have always known the elect to be Israel. Covenant theology is replacement theology. Period.

  2. Thank you for affirming friendship and my exegesis of this misunderstood verse. Of course some think “elect” when used in the NT always/only means Israel. Imo, in an attempt to avoid the idea that Scripture teaches individual election in Christ, some have tried to limit the noun – ἐκλεκτός – as only meaning corporate Israel, which ends up asking the normal reader to put away what they would normally think in some passages (Matt 20:16, 22:14; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 2John 1:1, 13; Rev 17:14; plus other possible ones) as also including Gentiles, and also to ignore the use of the verb – ἐκλέγομαι – in a number of clear contexts where Gentiles are included (1Cor 1:27, 28; Jas 2:5) and – αἱρέω – (2Thess 2:13).

    It is easier to believe that Christ was the only Elect One before creation and others become the saved “elect” in Him when joined to Him through faith. Israel was an elect corporate nation with saved and unsaved to fulfill a purpose, just like the disciples were an elect group with saved and unsaved to fulfill a purpose, and there is a group of elect angels (whatever that means 😉 ).

    1. Brian,

      As always your thoughts are appreciated.

      Regarding the “elect” angels.

      Here’s a thought. What if the elect angels are those assigned to watching over the people of Israel?

      Blessings, brother!

      1. Hebrews 1:14 – Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

        Could be an answer that is on the right track. But still does not say why they are the “elect angels”

        A question I have asked BRD. Could there ever be another rebellion amongst the angels like there was with Lucifer and a third of the angels?

        With LFW it seems as if would be possible. It happened once. What changed if anything?

        Unless those angels who rebelled were not a part of the Elect angels and that is why they were not kept from falling into rebellion.

        BC we never hear of the fallen rebellious angels, the demonic being referred to as Elect. When the word “elect” is spoken in Scripture in reference to God it is usually a good thing.

      2. I think elect Angel’s just means unfallen Angel’s as they are part of the church, God’s elect too. Hebrews 13:18-24 seems to indicate this.

        Also about the future aspect of salvation contingent upon remaining in Christ, here are some verses:

        Matthew 10:22

        And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

        1 Timothy 6
        But as for you, man of God, shun all this; pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life, to which you were called and for which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13 In the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14 to keep the commandment without spot or blame until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will bring about at the right time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords. 16 It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see; to him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

        17 As for those who in the present age are rich, command them not to be haughty, or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but rather on God who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, 19 thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life.

        Romans 5:9…
        Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

        Romans 8:23

        And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

        Romans 13:11

        Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

        1 Thessalonians 5:8–9

        But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

        Philippians 2:12

        Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,

        1 Timothy 4:16

        Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

        2 Timothy 4:18

        18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

        Hebrews 9:28

        28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

        James 1:21

        21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

        1 Peter 1:5, 9

        who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time . . . obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

        1 Peter 2:2

        Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—

    2. Thanks Brian.

      Maybe you can help me?

      Unfortunately I cannot seem to write a general comment, only reply to comments so I picked yours!

      I am studying Titus 1 and it mentions ELECT, but this surely is not referring to Israel? How would you explain the use here?

      1. Hello Lee,
        Here is a response to your question from Brian.

        Of course some think “elect” when used in the NT always/only means Israel.
        Imo, they do this in an attempt to avoid the idea that Scripture teaches individual election in Christ before creation, which
        it doesn’t.

        Some have tried to limit the adjective – ἐκλεκτός – as only meaning corporate Israel, which ends up asking the normal reader to put away what they would normally think in some passages (Matt 20:16, 22:14; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 2John 1:1, 13; Rev 17:14; plus other possible ones, like Titus 1:1) as also including Gentiles, and also to ignore the use of the verb – ἐκλέγομαι – in a number of clear contexts where Gentiles are definitely included (1Cor 1:27, 28; Jas 2:5) and – αἱρέω – (2Thess 2:13).

        It is easier to believe that Christ was the only Elect One before creation and others become the saved “elect” in Him when joined to Him through faith. Israel was an elect corporate nation with saved and unsaved to fulfill a purpose, just like the disciples were an elect
        group with saved and unsaved (Judas) to fulfill a purpose, and there also is a group of elect angels (whatever that means 😉 ).

        As for Titus 1, 2 – πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων – preposition noun adjective – “before times everlasting.”

        The word “times” is associated with creation, time as measurement of matter in motion. The word “everlasting” a few times in the NT is about or includes the everlasting past before creation (eternal) but usually means forever after creation began. So this phrase here basically means “before the everlasting times of creation began”.

        The fact this verse also mentions an event – promised – between members of the Godhead before creation confirms that there was sequential activity between the members of the Godhead before creation.

        Sincerely,
        Brian H. Wagner

      2. Thanks for responding for me Br. D. I misunderstood your email. I didn’t realize it was a request to respond to Lee, which I missed and did not get a notification for.

      3. Lee,

        Titus 1:1 (NKJV)….
        Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness

        The “faith of God’s elect” is faith in the God of Israel, His elect (Isaiah 45:4). The word of God is Jewish in its origins (1 Corinthians 14:36). God entrusted the Jews with the word of God (Romans 3:2). All of its authors, starting with Moses, are Jews. Jesus was/is the promised Messiah to the Jews. The gospel of Christ was first to the Jew and only then to the Gentile (Romans 1:16, Acts 13:46). The Jews were the first to trust in Christ (Ephesians 1:12). When Gentiles accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior they become co-citizens with Israel (Ephesians 2:19). Gentile salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22, Romans 11:11).

        Luke 2:29-32 (NKJV)….
        “Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word;
        For my eyes have seen Your salvation which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel.”

        Blessings.

    3. I really like your analysis but…In the following passage:
      Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David (a Jew from the tribe of Judah; one of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel), was raised from the dead according to my gospel, for which I suffer trouble (at the hand of the Jews) as an evildoer, even to the point of chains; but the word of God is not chained. Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. At the hands of the Jews is not in the text and He is merely pointing out that Jesus was a Jew.

      We know that Israel i elect and I am a Calvinist, but we believers are also the elect. Regardless of who the elect is let us look at what Jesus actually says.

      Let us look to John 6 “in context”. The bread of life discourse. What is Jesus speaking of? Following Him. Pretty simple. I am an accountant and I can figure that out. what does he say in John 6:29 in response to their question as to “what must we do to do the works God requires? John 6:29 “This is the work of God, that that you believe in the one whom He sent!” Jesus says basically they can’t do anything that God does. Then in 6:36 he says, “But I told you, you have seen me and still not believe.” Now to the “elect” part if you will. Jesus says in verse 6:44, NO one can COME to ME UNLESS the Father who sent me DRAWS him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” So seems t me that God chose or elected who will come to Jesus since IN CONTEXT, Jesus is pretty clear. Not Paul that everyone talks about but Jesus. This really upset the people as we know from the story because Jesus repeats it in John 6:65 “This is why I TOLD YOU that NO ONE CAN COME TO ME UNLESS it is GIVEN to him by the Father.” So again IN CONTEXT Jesus makes it quite clear, Jesus reiterates the point that NO WILL COME TO JESUS UNLESS GOD gives, calls, elects,or whatever other term you want to use.

      SO I believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God in every aspect, so while I am sure that Paul is speaking of Israel as part of the elect, he is not speaking of them as only the elect, or he may be in these passages as it suits his purpose, don’t know and don’t care, but I am sure that in other places he is speaking of all elect because Jesus said we are called, given, elected, whatever yuo want to say.

      But one last thought. John 6:37, “ALL that the Father GIVES me WILL come to Me, and whosoever comes I will never drives away.” Sure sound like irresistible grace to me. he didn’t stutter. He said ALL, not some, not many, not a few, He said ALL. He also didn’t say should, could, might, etc. He said WILL COME. Now we can debate the cooperation thing al you want but to contradict Jesus by saying that if you are called you can reject seems a little cocky, Since He is God and we are not.

      1. Hi Derek,
        I won’t get into the particulars of the texts as you and Brian are.
        But you mentioned that you look at a particular text and you can’t help but interpret it to affirm a Calvinistic interpretation.

        A couple things to be aware of in regard to influences that come into play with interpretations.
        Dr. Gordon Fee – in his College Seminars asks the student to consider the possibility that ideas external to the text inform the mind and lead it into an inevitable interpretation.

        He warns his students – if they want to approach the topic of interpretation in a mature manner – they need to take influences external to scripture into consideration.

        You are for example – familiar with the Rorschach ink-blot test.
        The interesting thing about the ink-blot is that it does not actually express any information.
        It is simply a random blot of ink.
        Never-the-less the human mind SEES a pattern in that image and associates that pattern with something the human mind already internally accepts.

        One fellow looks at a certain ink-blot and sees two gay men in love with each other.
        He just happens to be gay.

        A girl looks a the same exact ink-blot and sees a man and woman having an argument.
        She just happens to have recently broken up with her boyfriend.

        A classic example is of a general in the Nazi party under Hitler who was in charge of medical experiments on Jewish people – looks at an ink-blot and sees an insect being dissected.

        All of these serve as indicators of how the human mind interprets any given data.

        So what we start to understand is – how susceptible the human mind is to unrecognized influences.

        A Non-Calvinist will read the same verses that you read – and they’re minds will not draw Calvinistic associations from those texts.

        So we need to be aware of influences that are at work behind the scenes that we would not otherwise take into consideration.

        And the higher the psychological investment you have in Calvinistic influences or interpretations – the more probability it is – your mind will simply be unable to see the text in any other way than it has been conditioned to see it.

        Something to consider
        Blessings

      2. Derek,

        I really like your exe-Jesus! On the WHOLE, God “chose”, if you will, the Jews, from Abraham, thru Isaac (as opposed to Ismael), and Jacob.

        It is the Jews alone who tell the story of God to the world. It is the Jews alone who was given the law of Moses.

        When we ponder, do we ponder as to why God did not set the whole world (for there is no difference) down and give them the SAME (for there is no difference) laws, duties, responsibilities, etc.?

        In my opinion, THAT’S the reason that the Jews alone are the elect. Most don’t realize this, but SOME letters that Paul wrote were NOT directed at BOTH (for there is no difference) Jews and Gentiles. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, yes? However, Paul goes to the Jews FIRST before going to the Gentiles.

        When I see the following, we do indeed see a for there is a difference:

        Romans 16:4
        Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

        Churches of the Gentiles. That tells me that there are “Churches of the Jews.

        So, what else are there “for there is indeed a difference”?

        Jews must EARN their salvation thru WORKS…but works fails. That’s what the law was all about.

        Deuteronomy 6:25
        And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

        Gentiles were never given a job of works.

        Romans 3:21
        But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

        JEWS:
        Romans 11:8
        8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

        GENTILES:
        Romans 15:21
        But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

        I submit, that the only elect are the Jews. When you see in the NT scripture (epistles, if you will), and it addresses THE elect, I submit that the conversation was to the Jews only, the “churches of the Jews).

        It’s kinda weird, to me, that many theologians seems to think that there was only ONE meeting place (a church building), for BOTH “for there is not difference” Jews and Gentiles to congregate in each town. Well, I’m not so sure about that. Other than Jesus, what do “for there is no difference” have in common with one another?

        I mean, really, we even had Paul circumsize a Jewish Christian, when he kept telling us that circumcision is meaningless.

        The Jews tell a story, a SPIRITUAL story, to us Gentiles about God. The Promised Land, for example. Do you think that the Promised Land is JUST a small piece of real estate in the middle east? Many reformers seem to think JUST THAT, and why? Because of something that they call EXPOSITORY.

        Well, if that is the case, who then is the PROMISED SEED? Expository tells us that Isaac is. But what does Galatians 3:16 state?

        I say that BOTH Isaac and Jesus is the promised seed. Isaac in the carnal, Jesus in the spiritual. The Promised Land is a small piece of real estate in the carnal, and WHAT, in the spiritual?

        It is for these reasons and many more that I believe that the Jews only are the elect, and NOT the Gentiles at all.

        Ed Chapman

      3. Well Derek you gave alot to respond to… but let me share a few insights from John 6 that I think you have missed.

        John 6:28-29 – John Calvin said, “Those who infer from this passage that faith is the gift of God are mistaken; for Christ does not now show what God produces in us, but what he wishes and requires from us.” I agree with Calvin’s interpretation on this one. 🙂

        John 6:36-40 – Definitely there are a number of puzzle pieces in these verses without much explanation on how to put them together. The Father sends and gives, the Son raises up, and each disiciple must see, believe, and come. Of course there is some order and overlap in these activities that must be figured out. But does coming and giving always mean salvation? “Raising up” in verse 40 seems to indicate yes they do. But Judas in 17:12, seems to indicate no. Jesus will of course raise up everyone, either to life or damnation (5:28-29). So, I think this passage is best understood to say that the Father is “giving” (present tense, vs. 37) those that He wants to “come” personally to “see” His Son and to be given an opportunity to “believe” in His Son. Those that truly become part of the “given” (perfect tense, vs. 39) in a settle way, evidently because of placing their trust in Christ, will be raised up to everlasting life on the last day. It is much like the phrase Jesus said later – “I will draw all men unto me.” They are not all thus saved, just because they are “drawn,” but they are brought to a saving opportunity and they will be without excuse if they reject that opportunity. Of course, one day, all men also will be literally drawn to Christ as Lord and will have to bow the knee, both saved and unsaved alike.

        6:43-44 – This whole passage is full of “hard saying(s)” (6:60) It appears that here Jesus is trying to winnow out the crowds to find true disciples among the food and king seekers. I do not think He is trying to teach the crowds Calvinist theology, as if He is sitting back saying – “You poor souls you just don’t get it, and that is because you are not especially given to me by my Father, or drawn by my Father. They are the only ones I am going to save, not you guys!” Instead, I think Jesus is basically saying, “Today, if you hear God’s voice drawing you, do not harden you heart, because you can only come to me for resurrection life when God calls. You can’t come any time you like.” I choose to believe that Jesus is saying these “hard sayings” not as a rebuke but as a plea, and not just a plea to the elect but to everyone, though especially as a plea to those seekers at this moment, i.e. those who are already responding positively to God’s gracious initiative in their lives.

        6:63-65 – You are correct in seeing these verses as a repetition of what was said before. So the idea is the same. I agree with the Calvinist that no one is able to believe until God draws them, gives them, causes them to come to that moment of opportunity. I disagree with the Calvinist in that I believe that they come to that opportunity already with the ability to believe or reject what the Father is offering them in Christ. If they reject and walk away, there is no guarentee that the Father will give them another opportunity, nor can they bring themselves back to the moment of decision.

        Yes , it is God’s work to save the individual, which includes drawing, enlightening, and convicting, which He promises to do for all. But I colabor with God so closely that I can say like Paul, I “save some” (1Cor. 9:22) or like James, I “save a soul from death” (James 5:20), or like Jude, some I “save with fear” (Jude 1:23). And though they are each individually responsible for their rejection of God’s mercy when it was offered to them, I am in some way responsible for not telling them, to such an extent that God says to me “their blood will I require at thy hand.” (Ezekiel 3:18) Whatever that may mean, it doesn’t sound good, and falls into the same category as, “Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.” (1Cor. 9:16)

      4. Brian,

        Hope all is well, brother.

        Just to add to your comments, the Jesus who said “no one can come to” is the same Jesus who said….

        “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” (Matthew 10:5-7)

        And…..

        “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

        I think many Christians err in getting their doctrine from the 4 “gospels” which were a fulfillment of the scriptures directed to Israel. Our doctrine should come from the writings of Paul whose “gospel” was the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and not the gospel of the kingdom taught by Jesus to the twelve.

        Blessings.

      5. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV — All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

      6. Amen.

        Still, its safe, and biblical, to say that the gospel Jesus gave to the 12 wasn’t the death, burial and resurrection and His intended audience (using His own words) was limited.

      7. Mark 10:45 NKJV — “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

      8. And, to Nicodemus Jesus said that the Son of Man must be lifted up, that WHOEVER believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:14-16).

      9. Yep.

        And….

        Luke 18:30-34 (NKJV)….
        Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.” But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken.

        And while all scripture is God breathed we have…

        Acts 2:38 (NKJV)….
        Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

        Do you proclaim water baptism for the remission of sins? I know I don’t. But I can assure you there are some today who do.

        James 2:24 (NKJV)….
        You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

        Do you proclaim justification by faith plus works? I know I don’t. But, again, I can assure you there are some today who do.

        Of course, at the time of these writings, neither Peter nor James knew anything about the teachings of Paul given to him by the risen Lord.

        Many blessings, brother.

      10. Matthew 28:19-20 NKJV — “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

        Peter had just preached, “whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (vs 21), with no mention of baptism as part of his gospel preaching. Now Peter called people to repent of their rejection of Jesus, exhorting them each to be baptized, presuming they were calling in faith “upon the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness” to be saved (Acts 2:38).

        Instead of the translation suggesting “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness”, the preposition – επί- suggests “each one be baptized, on the basis (of your calling in faith upon) the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.”

        We learn from Peter more clearly how to interpret baptism’s disconnect from the moment of forgiveness by his experience and description of what happened to Cornelius. Cornelius trusted Christ immediately when hearing Peter’s preaching of the gospel of forgiveness through Jesus.

        God demonstrated that Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit and salvation’s forgiveness so that Peter exclaimed they should now be baptized (Acts 10:43-48). Peter later affirmed without mentioning baptism that Cornelius had received the HS and a purified heart through believing the gospel he heard (Acts 15:7-9).

        Peter clearly says baptism does not cleanse, but is an answer of an already 👉good conscience👈. (1Peter 3:21).

        Those who add baptism to the gospel make a false gospel and make the cross of Christ of no effect. (1Cor 1:17). But I find you can only present this truth to those who have defended baptismal salvation. You can’t convince those who have taught and defended it for years. Only God can, if they’ll let Him.

        Baptism is like a wedding ceremony. Does the Scriptures teach that a wedding ceremony makes one married, or does it just announce and confirm publicly the bond already formed by leaving, cleaving, and their hope for conceiving? 😉 But if one doesn’t want a wedding ceremony, one could easily doubt the commitment exists.

      11. Brian,

        I mildly disagree with your explanation. Peter was merely teaching what John the Baptist taught early on. The only difference being Peter was able to attach a specific name (Jesus).

        Mark 1:4 (NKJV)….
        John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

        Peter’s teachings were just a continuation of the kingdom message.

        You wrote… “Those who add baptism to the gospel make a false gospel and make the cross of Christ of no effect. (1Cor 1:17).”

        Agreed. Adding any work, and water baptism is a work, makes Paul’s gospel of Christ of no effect.

        You didn’t touch on James 2:24, but I already know you reject salvation by faith plus works. Still, God breathed and there it is in black and white (James 2:24). Not my doctrine nor anyone who believes Paul’s gospel of grace. But, O, how many have tried to explain it away (while stumbling all over themselves).

        Again, hope you are doing well. Our country is becoming more depraved by the day.

      12. Phillip,

        You had said:
        You didn’t touch on James 2:24, but I already know you reject salvation by faith plus works. Still, God breathed and there it is in black and white (James 2:24). Not my doctrine nor anyone who believes Paul’s gospel of grace. But, O, how many have tried to explain it away (while stumbling all over themselves).”

        My response:

        James 2 is not a “plus”. I don’t know how anyone can conclude that James is discussing “plus”.

        Here is what James said:

        James 2:18
        Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

        Faith is show “BY” what you do, and therefore, what it’s saying is that you will “LIVE” by what you BELIEVE.

        And the example given is:

        James 2:21
        Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

        Now, WHY did Abraham offer his son upon the alter? Was it JUST because God told him to, or ordered him to, that it was Abraham just being “obedient”?

        I’d submit NO.

        Here is why:

        Hebrews 11:17-19
        New International Reader’s Version

        17 Abraham had faith. So when God tested him, Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham had held on tightly to the promises. But he was about to offer his one and only son. 18 God had said to him, “Your family line will continue through Isaac.” (Genesis 21:12) Even so, Abraham was going to offer him up. 19 Abraham did this, because he believed that God could even raise the dead. In a way, he did receive Isaac back from death.

        Abraham believed God’s promise that his seed would continue through Isaac, as God promised, and therefore, BY FAITH, Abraham believed that God would have to raise Isaac from the dead to fulfil that promise, so Abraham LIVED what he believed.

        James use of the word works is NOT Catholic Charity, or having anything to do with the law.

        The word works, outside of James is the following:

        Deuteronomy 6:25
        And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

        That, my friend, is works. Not James.

        BUT NOW…

        Romans 3:21
        But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

        And, the final reference:

        Romans 4:4-5 (KJV)
        4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

        5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

        So, to conclude, James 2 use of the word “works” has nothing to do with Romans 4’s use of the word works.

        Roman’s use is about Deuteronomy 6:25 (obeying the law), whereas James’ use is about Hebrews 11:17-19 (living what you believe).

        And again, it’s not about “charity”, either. It’s about “loving your neighbor as yourself”. The Golden Rule, and LIVING what you believe.

        Ed Chapman

      13. Hey, Brian,

        It seems some don’t understand that both Peter and Paul preached the same gospel from the beginning. Peter’s very first sermon on the day of Pentecost tells of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:14-41). And, when Peter told these Jews to “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v.38), he continued – “For the *PROMISE is for you* and for your children *AND for all who are far off,* *EVERYONE* whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” _In other words, to Jew and Gentile alike._ Whether Peter fully understood this at the time makes no difference, it was the Spirit who was speaking as it were!

        Regarding your little comment on Acts 2:38 you wrote:
        _”Now Peter called people to repent of their rejection of Jesus, exhorting them each to be baptized, presuming they were calling in faith “upon the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness” to be saved (Acts 2:38).”_

        Yes, that’s right, of their rejection of Jesus and every other sin they had ever committed! For that is *HOW* _in the context_ they were to call on the name of the Lord, namely, _through faith in baptism IN WHICH we are united into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord for the forgiveness of our sins._ (You know the passages Rom. 6, and Col. 2). As Saul was told in (Acts 22:16), ‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, *calling on the name of the Lord.’*

        So, when you say, _”the preposition – επί- suggests “each one be baptized, on the basis (of your calling in faith upon) the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.”_ You are correct insofar as our *calling on the name of the Lord* is occurring while we are being baptized. It is also interesting that if we take out what you have inserted in brackets above, we are left with this:

        _”the preposition – επί- suggests “each one be baptized, on the basis of the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.”_

        NOW YOU HAVE IT!😉

      14. Well, Aidan, we’ll just have to agree that there is only one gospel. And we’ll just have to disagree that the benefits of it are only given in Spirit baptism (Rom 6, Col 2) and water baptism at the same time.

        Cornelius is a good example to show that one follows the other and that forgiveness is given before water baptism. I think we may have discussed this all before. 🤓

        As for Acts 22:16 NKJV — ‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

        Act 22:16 — καὶ νῦν τί μέλλεις ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου 👉ἐπικαλεσάμενος👈 τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου

        The baptizing and purifying of Paul’s testimony are after having called on the Lord in faith. The participle – “having called upon” – is Aorist tense and would normally be taken as an antecedent action to the main verb unless the context demands otherwise.

        Here the main verbs are “baptize yourself and wash away”. So the “calling upon the name of the Lord” is being assumed by Ananias as something Saul/Paul had already done, since Ananias was already informed Saul/Paul was praying (9:11) and was a chosen vessel for God. It is better translated, imo, as – “having called in the name of the Lord.”

        The word here for “wash” is also only used twice in the NT. I believe this is exhorting Paul to clean up his past testimony now as a believer. Paul speaks about this purification responsibility of believers in –
        2 Corinthians 7:1 NKJV — Therefore, having these promises, beloved, 👉let us cleanse ourselves👈 from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

        Note also that Luke records the inference that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit (a sign of salvation) before being baptized. Acts 9:17-18 NKJV — And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

        Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.

      15. Quoting Acts 22:16 in Greek, very impressive Brian!

        YOU WROTE:
        “As for Acts 22:16 NKJV — ‘And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’”

        “The baptizing and purifying of Paul’s testimony are after having called on the Lord in faith. The participle – “having called upon” – is Aorist tense and would normally be taken as an antecedent action to the main verb unless the context demands otherwise.”

        RESPONSE:
        Participle: — “Corresponds for the most part to the English participle, reflecting “-ing” or “-ed” being suffixed to the basic verb form.”

        You say, your opinion is that it should be rendered as “having call-ed” rather than “call-ing on His name” even though most of the scholars translate it “call-ing” in most translations of this passage? Okay, so you’re in the minority with scholarship on this verse!

        But I’m not saying you are for that reason necessarily wrong, because according to Lenski, the action expressed by the aorist particple — “calling on His name” — is either SIMULTANEOUS WITH “get thyself baptized and get thyself washed as to thy sins” or — IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES IT, the “difference being merely formal.”

        But lets see what happens if we follow your opinion that Paul was already saved(forgiven) because he had already “called in the name of the Lord” :

        — So, it’s literally “get thyself baptized and get thyself washed as to thy sins — having called upon His name.”

        Hmmm!! So even though he supposedly was already saved(forgiven) — according to you — YET, Ananias seems to not have gotten the memo, because he tells Paul, — “…get thyself washed as to thy sins.” In other words, Paul was still in his sins! Funny how that fits perfectly with the rest of scripture on baptism.

        The word here for “wash” according to Thayer is very interesting:
        “ἀπολούω: to wash off or away; in the N. T. twice in 1 aorist middle figuratively [cf. Philo de mut. nom. § 6, i., p. 585, Mang. edition]: ἀπελούσασθε, 1 Corinthians 6:11; βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου, Acts 22:16. For the sinner is unclean, polluted as it were by the filth of his sins. Whoever obtains remission of sins has his sins put, so to speak, out of God’s sight — is cleansed from them in the sight of God. Remission is [represented as] obtained by undergoing baptism; hence, those who have gone down into the baptismal bath [lavacrum, cf. Titus 3:5; Ephesians 5:26) are said ἀπολούσασθαι to have washed themselves, or τὰς ἁμαρτ. ἀπολούσασθαι to have washed away their sins, i. e. to have been cleansed from their sins.”

        At least, in this instance, he was willing to say precisely what the passage represents and not allow his scholarship become subordinate to his opinions! You, on the other hand — not so much!

      16. Aidan,

        Revelation 1:5
        And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

        When John Baptized, did his baptism wash away sins?

        Mark 1:4
        John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

        He PREACHED the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Repentance seems to be the subject, and the word FOR is a separate subject matter. You can be sorry (repentance), but your sin isn’t washed away…yet.

        Acts 19:4
        Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

        So now, revet to Revelation 1:5, which shows that it is the blood of Christ that washes away sins. John’s water baptism is only about REPENTANCE, not the forgiving of sins, and certainly nOT washing away sins.

        The water has no magical power.

        Ed Chapman

      17. John’s baptism was only symbolic and preparatory and not sacramental or effectual. It had to be followed by Chriatian Baptism like we see in Acts 19.

        Christian Baptism was unto regeneration and forgiveness of sins and not merely a public testimony of past conversion. Most NT baptisms were not even done publicly. It is the sacrament of new birth because the person is buried with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life. (Romans 6)Resurrection is called a “begetting” in scripture. We see this in passages about Christ’s ressurection. ( Acts 13:33, Revelation 1:5) Likewise, Our ressurection, our begetting to new life and sonshp with God is regeneration or new birth and this happens in Sacramental Christian Baptism.
        COLOSSIANS 2
        In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

        12 Buried with him in BAPTISM, WHEREIN also ye are RISEN with him through the faith of the OPERATION OF GOD, who hath raised him from the dead.

        13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he QUICKENED together with him, having FORGIVEN you all trespasses;

        14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

      18. dnjohn,

        I agree it’s symbolic. What I don’t agree with is the word REGENERATION as pertaining to gentiles. It’s a word used twice in all of the Bible, and it’s not directed at gentiles at all. Romans 15 explains that, AS IT IS WRITTEN, that the gentiles will find what they were not looking for… Jesus. Romans 11, the Jews are looking, but can’t find. They are the ones needing regeneration. Simply put, Jews are blind, gentiles are not. Romans 15.

        But again, the water in baptism has no magical powers. Sin is not washed away by water, but by the blood of Jesus, in accordance with Revelation, that is.

        And since the blood of Christ is what washed away sins, then the sins of those who died before Jesus was born was also cleaned with the blood of Jesus. They, too, were baptized… with fire.

        No one seems to want to discuss the baptism that Jesus gives. They just want to discuss potable water that the city will make you pay for. Who travels to the Jordan River?

        But I agree that it’s symbolic pertaining to DIED WITH CHRIST.

        BUT, we must keep in mind that John’s WATER baptism was not for the remission of sins. It was just for repentance.

        Without the blood of Jesus, sins are not washed away.

        Ed Chapman

      19. dnjohn – Cornelius was saved before water baptism. And Peter acknowledged he was saved like Cornelius.

        Acts 15:7-10 NKJV — And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

        Putting the “yoke” of circumcision as necessary for salvation is the same as putting the “yoke” of baptism as necessary for salvation of infants or adults..

        Cornelius received salvation when he received the HS before he was baptized. That is clear. And Peter said Cornelius’ heart was purified through faith when he heard the gospel Peter preached.

        Acts 10:44-48 NKJV — While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

        The point is adding something to the gospel, anything, makes a false gospel. Wasn’t circumcision a sign of the covenant in the OT? Was it necessary for salvation in the OT? Or was only faith in the promise what brought justification? See Rom 4.

        Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. It is an answer of an already good conscience (1Pet 3:21) by one already made a disciple (Matt 28:19).

        Baptism doesn’t bring about justification either. And saying it does is a false gospel. Paul saw adding baptism to the gospel made the preaching of the cross of no effect.

        1 Corinthians 1:17 NKJV — For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

      20. Aidan, I gave you the only other NT verse that uses the same Greek word for wash… 2Cor 7:1. Was Paul talking about baptism in that verse? No. Does Ananias really think a person like Paul washes away his own sin by being baptized. It is certainly a start to him cleaning up his testimony. But only God washes away the guilt of all sins, and that is in the moment of regeneration through faith before water baptism. I don’t mind standing alone in the contextual grammatical meaning I reasonably see in that verse. But I know I’m not alone. 😉

      21. Brian, 2 Cor. 7:1 “katharizō” is a completely different Greek word the one in Acts 22:16 “apolouō.” I think the one you are looking for is in 1 Cor. 6:11 which I gave you when I cited Thayer. I believe 1 Cor. 6:11 is also speaking about water baptism. And, I think you are mistaken to suggest that “Paul washes away his own sin by being baptized.” The verbs — “get thyself baptized and get thyself washed as to thy sins” are both in the “middle voice” which — “Denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action.” Paul is simply getting himself baptized and getting himself washed as to his sins, but it is only through the blood of Christ that this occurs at the moment he is baptized into His death, and is buried with Him, and is raised up with Christ through faith in the WORKING OF GOD, who raised Him from the dead. There’s a lot more to water baptism than you think when it’s done in faith!

        Baptism is not an act of merit, but an act of faith!

      22. You are correct… I was thinking of the word in 7:1 as a synonym. My mistake!
        And I agree that purification takes place at the moment of the new birth, through faith, but not through proxy faith, only through personal faith.

        Peter reminds those at Jerusalem that Cornelius’ heart was purified by faith (Acts 15:9) when he heard the gospel and received the Spirit. Peter mentions nothing about baptism. And we look back in Acts 10-11 and see that Cornelius’ salvation was before his water baptism.

        Like I said before. I think we’ve been through this all before. I’ve nothing more to add. The Lord will have to correct each others’ thinking some other way, whatever thinking needs correcting. All the best is still wished for you.

      23. You are terribly mistaken … Salvation by grace through faith does not eliminate the obedience of faith. In rendering the obedience of faith we are submitting to God’s righteousness, not to our own way of making men righteous.

        Although our obedience of faith does not merit salvation, yet salvation is conditioned on the obedience of faith. Gal. 3:26 for example, teaches that we are children of God “by faith,” but then verse 27 shows that faith must be obedient to the gospel in order to make us children of God. Obedience in baptism, verse 27, is included in the general statement of verse 26 that we are sons of God — through faith.

        Faith, when it is said to justify, is not viewed apart from the conditions which God has laid down for faith to meet in order to bring justification “by faith.” It is in this way our hearts are purified “by faith” (Acts 15:9). In regard to Cornelius, you say that Peter mentions nothing about baptism, true, but neither does he mention “calling on the name of the Lord.” Would you dare say, ‘we don’t need to call on the name of the Lord?’ Contrary to your opinion there’s not a verse in Acts 10-11 that says he was saved-forgiven before baptism.

        Those who say otherwise are denying the earlier testimony of the Holy Spirit regarding Jew and Gentile in Acts 2:38-39.

        Acts 2:38 NASB95 — Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

        Acts 2:39 NASB95 — “For THE PROMISE is for you and your children and FOR ALL WHO ARE AFAR OFF, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

        Keep safe, and all the best for you and your family.

      24. Aidan,

        You, like many others, I have a question. What does it mean to you when you say that we must be “OBEDIENT” to faith? OBEDIENT?

        Break that down for me. What is faith, and what is it about faith that one must be OBEDIENT to? It sounds like hard line militant, like a dictator when that catch phrase is used. OBEDIENT.

        Abraham was gonna kill his kid, BY FAITH. Why? Was he just being OBEDIENT…by faith, of course. YES, he was, actually, but what did he BELIEVE that the outcome would be if he was OBEDIENT, before God stopped him?

        The answer to the above is what being obedient to faith actually is. You live what you believe, and if you do, you are OBEDIENT to faith.

        When “RELIGIOUS” foke use the word OBEDIENT, it kinda puts a bad taste in my mouth. Yes, the word is used in the bible as in the following:

        Acts 6:7
        And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

        But what does OBEDIENT mean when in the context of faith? What does FAITH mean…in English.

        Ed Chapman

      25. I think you answered it yourself when you said, “You live what you believe.”

        Abraham BELIEVED GOD — not just God’s promise. Faith in God’s promise was grounded upon a FUNDAMENTAL CONFIDENCE IN GOD HIMSELF.

        Therefore, the faith Paul discusses in Romans and illustrates in Chapter 4 is not just the faith of one critical moment of surrender (the moment of conversion). Paul is describing the faith one must have ALL THROUGH HIS LIFETIME in order to be justified before God. It is a faith that will have many different applications all through life depending upon the circumstances.

        Gen. 22 is just another manifestation of the same faith (Abraham BELIEVED GOD) and shows how that kind of faith responds IN OBEDIENCE to a positive COMMAND of God, just as Gen. 15 and Gen.17 show the response of that faith to a divine PROMISE.

        You said “obedient TO faith.” I would be more inclined to say the, ‘obedience OF faith.’ Which, when push comes to shove is OBEDIENCE TO GOD, because, as the scripture says — Abraham BELIEVED GOD.

        Let us walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham (Rom. 4:12).

      26. Brother,

        “….there is just one gospel”.

        But has that always been the case?

        Galatians 2:7 (NKJV)….
        But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised (that’s one) had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised (that’s two) was to Peter

        Could there not have been a moment in time when two gospels overlapped? When one gospel (of the kingdom) transitioned to another (Paul’s gospel of grace)?

        And, again….

        Galatians 1:6-7 (NKJV)….
        I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

        Galatians 2:11-12 (NKJV)….
        Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

        Acts 15:1 (NKJV)….
        And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

        Acts 20:21 (NKJV)….
        And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews (living in Judea) there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law…”

        Why would believing Jews living in Judea, under James’ leadership, be zealous for the law and causing havoc with Paul’s disciples elsewhere if James (Peter’s apprentice) taught the exact same gospel?

        Blessings

      27. Hi Phillip, It is one gospel progressively unfolded and revealed more and more till we have the full NT picture. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism…. God bless.

      28. Whatever “gospel” James and the others were preaching in Judea, Paul considered it a perversion of the gospel of Christ revealed to him. Three (3) times Paul referred to it as “my gospel” (Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 2:8) distinguishing it from the other.

      29. False assumption:
        Romans 2:16, St.Paul speaks of judgement day when God ” judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus, according to my gospel…

        When he says “my gospel”, he just means the good news he is bringing to them…he is not saying it is exclusive to him and the others aren’t preaching it too elsewhere.

        Same when he wrote to Timothy ” that christ was raised from the dead according to my Gospel”… Christ was raised from the dead according to his glad tidings that he is proclaiming…he is not implying anything else about the other Apostles.

        If St Peter considers the words of St Paul to be scripture..if so how could Peter’s gospel be a perversion.

        What is new in Paul’s message is that the gentiles are incorporated into the Israel of God without difference…Peter learned this in his interactions with Cornelius. This does not mean he wasn’t preaching the gospel before then or that his was a different gospel. It does means is that his knowledge of that gospel was increased by this experience and further developed by Paul unpacking what that meant in its fullness.

      30. Just observation.

        Biblical facts:

        James was now the leader of the church in Judea replacing Peter (Acts 15:13, Acts 15:19, Acts 21:18). Those from Judea causing havoc in Galatia were disciples of James (Acts 15:1, Galatians 2:12). Those trouble makers from Judea were called believers (Acts 15:5, Acts 21:20). James believed and preached different conditions of salvation for Jews (the circumcision) and Gentiles (the uncircumcision) (Acts 15:19, Acts 21:21-25). James wrote to the 12 tribes of Israel (James 1:1) that justification was not by faith alone (James 2:24). Those believers, living in Judea, under James’ tutorship, were “zealous for the law” (Acts 21:20). Paul called this “gospel” coming from Judea a perversion of the gospel he preached (Galatians 1:11). The belief that someone had to be “circumcised and keep the law” caused such a raucous that even the apostles and elders in Judea were divided (Acts 15:6). Still, even after the Jerusalem Council meeting, James’ influence was so strong that Peter folded (Galatians 2:12) when he should have known better (Acts 15:11, Galatians 2:11).

        Actually, its an assumption, held by most Christians, that the 12 apostles, including Peter, taught the same gospel as Paul. The simple fact that Paul and his entourage had to confront and rebuke the apostles and elders in Jerusalem is proof of that.

        Blessings, bro.

      31. Phillip,

        With all due respect to you, and I do respect your position on the Jews, as we agree a LOT on things, but not this one. The book of James has nothing to do with a different gospel for the Jews. I already covered this with you in another comment, in that WORKS that James mentions is NOT works of the law of Moses at all.

        Romans 4 is works of the law. James is discussing that you must live what you believe. DO. The word DO is works, or in other words, Abraham was justified by WORKS…what works? The law? Oh no. He believed God’s PROMISE, and therefore lived that belief when being told to kill his son, because he believed that God would have to raise Isaac up from the dead, so he had no problem putting a knife to his son’s throat. Abraham lived what he believed. WORKS.

        So, to complete this, James’ Works has nothing to do with the law of Moses’ works at all. Romans 4 confirms. Therefore, James isn’t bringing in a different gospel for the Jews than Paul is for the Gentiles.

        Ed Chapman

      32. Well said Ed,

        You and I don’t always see eye to eye on things, but with this we do. I totally agree, people conflate the works in Romans with the works in James. Not the same thing! And, when we bring Abraham into this argument it completely resolves the issue. Romans 4 and James 2 is not speaking of two different Abrahams. If Abraham was NOT justified by works of the law, but by works of faith, then so is everyone else who is a son of Abraham, Jew and Gentile alike.

        Those Jews who went down to Antioch were a rogue element from the sect of the Pharisees (Acts 15:1,5). They were preaching a FALSE Gospel in saying that one needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved. Notice that neither the apostles nor the elders had sent these men who were teaching that “You must be circumcised and keep the law” — to whom we gave no such commandment—” (Acts 15:24).

        The Gospel for the Jew and Gentile was always the same Gospel with the same conditions for salvation (Mk. 16:15,16; Luke 24:46,47; Acts 1:8).

        *Acts 15:7-11*
        _Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, *9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”_*

      33. Phillip,

        According to dictionary.com, one definition of “work” is: a deed or performance, the word “deed” is defined as: something that is done, performed, or accomplished; an act, and the word “do” is defined as: To perform, to accomplish, to execute.

        Romans 4:2 (NOT Justified by Works)
        *For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

        James 2:21 (JUSTIFIED by Works)
        Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

        Sounds contradictory, right? That’s why Luther had a problem with it. But he didn’t understand James at all. He only concentrted on the word “Works”, but didn’t dissect the TYPE of work that James was discussing.

        Deuteronomy 6:25
        And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

        NOTE the word “DO”? That is WORKS. Works of the Law. Notice also the word “Righteousness”.

        Genesis 15:6
        And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

        Romans 3:21
        But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

        Romans 4:5
        faith is counted for righteousness.

        Romans 4:4
        Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

        In other words, God would “OWE” them a “wage”.

        Romans 3:20
        Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

        Romans 3:23
        For all have sinned.

        Romans 6:23
        the wages of sin is death

        NOTE: The word “wages” is tied into the word “WORK”. If you work, you EARN a wage. Those under the law earn a wage of death.

        Galatians 2:16
        a man is not justified by the works of the law…for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

        Galatians 3:10
        For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

        NOTE the word “DO”? That is “works”.

        Romans 4:13
        not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

        Romans 4:16
        Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace

        Galatians 3:12
        the law is not of faith

        Galatians 3:21
        if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

        Romans 4:2
        For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

        Romans 4:5-6
        But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

        Romans 11:6
        And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

        Ed Chapman

      34. Ed,

        Again, let’s outline what happened at the Jerusalem Council.

        Believers (let that sink in…..BELIEVERS) from Judea were causing trouble with Paul’s disciples in Galatia by preaching that you had to be “circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved”. Where would they get such an idea?

        The (12) apostles and elders (including James) were divided on this issue. Why?

        Peter agreed with Paul that both Jews and Gentiles were saved the same way. Now I look at this as Peter reflecting back on his encounter with Cornelius, thought carefully about what Paul was saying and conceded that going forward Paul’s gospel was the only means to salvation. If Peter, from the beginning, taught the same gospel as Paul and passed it on, then why were the apostles, James, the elders, and the congregation in Jerusalem still divided regarding salvation?

        Even so, James judged that only the Gentiles (excluding the Jews) in Paul’s audience did not have to be “circumcised and keep the Law of Moses”, but that the Jews did.

        Acts 15:19 (NIV)….
        It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles (excluding the Jews) who are turning to God.

        This is confirmed, later….

        Acts 21:17-24 (NIV)…..
        When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach ALL THE JEWS who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is NO TRUTH IN THESE REPORTS ABOUT YOU, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. AS FOR THE GENTILE BELIEVERS, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

        There it is in black in white. James is insisting that the believing Jews among the Gentiles are required to “circumcise their children” and “live according to our customs”. The Gentiles believers are not. James saw a distinction between Jew and Gentile regarding salvation.

        This is precisely what Paul opposed when he wrote to his Jewish audience…

        Galatians 3:28 (NIV)….
        There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

        Again, I know I am in the vast minority on this. I am not looking to win the “popular vote”. But I put this out there for any open-minded believer to look upon and ponder.

        Bonus

        Acts 15:24 (NIV)….
        We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

        Acts 15:24 (ESV)….
        Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions

        Acts 15:24 (NET)….
        Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said,

        Notice it wasn’t the message that wasn’t authorized, but the mission. These believers in Judea set out of Galatia without the elders consent.

        God bless

      35. Phillip,

        With all due respect, your explanation has nothing to do wiith Abraham, where Romans 4 states that Abraham is NOT justified by works, but in James, Abraham IS justified by works.

        That ALONE should tell you something, but it seems to get missed.

        Why? Because IF in James, Abraham IS justified by works…WHAT WORKS? Explain that one. There was NO LAW.

        And then the references I provided state that NO MAN is justified by works. NO ONE. The wages of (WORKS PRODUCES) sin, (and for all have sinned) IS DEATH.

        Therefore, James is discussing a DIFFERENT kind of works, NOT works of the law, but works of faith.

        Romans 3:27
        Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

        Speaking of Acts 15

        Also, on a DIFFERENT topic that has nothing to do with anything, you mention Acts 15. But I would remind you of Peter, whom Paul admonished TO HIS FACE, in that Peter in a FREEDOM kind of way around Gentiles, but a different kind of way around the Jews.

        Acts 15:9-11
        9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

        10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

        11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

        Pay very close attention to verse 10…the latter part.

        Ed Chapman

      36. spurcalluth
        What I am asking is whether you think there is any philosophical, rather than theological, reason to believe that the Bible is part of the landscape and not part of the map.

        br.d
        There is a confusion I see especially Calvinists have with the concept of philosophical / logical thinking.
        But not all Calvinists struggle with it.
        One author for example says “All TRUTH is God’s TRUTH. And this is especially TRUE when it comes to philosophy”

        I’m glad you hold scripture as the inspired word.
        The scripture says “A FALSE balance is an abomination to the Lord”

        A Balance is a tool designed to aid in man’s ability to compare and measure.
        But the design requires weights which conform to a standard – which is agreed upon by all participating parties – who agree to conform to it.
        Any party who refuses to conform to the standard is untrustworthy.
        Jesus would have found a few of those players within the money changers – when he cleansed the Temple.

        Logic is also a tool designed to aid in man’s ability to measure and discern TRUE from FALSE.
        But just like the balancing scale – it also requires standards which all participating parties commit themselves to conform to.
        The Law of non-Contradiction for example

        Jesus says “Let your yea be yea – and your nay be nay – for anything else comes of evil”
        That is a clear declaration of the law of Non-Contradiction.

        I often bump into Calvinists who have a need to get around logic – and want to set themselves up as the standard.
        They do this of course because they have a need to make “Yea = Yea” one minute and then have “Yea = Nay” the next.
        But again such evasions serve as a sign of untrustworthy.

        Scripture is divinely given – and thus a part of the landscape.
        The question is – will my stand on that be “Yea = Nay”.
        For me – that would not be trustworthy.

        spurcalluth
        Some of the people here think that Calvin, the Westminster divines, and the puritans are dismissible because they died.

        br.d
        They are no more dead than the writers of scripture.
        But the Non-Calvinist does not hold their writings as CANON like the Calvinist does.

      37. Phillip,

        This is part 2 of my response, because you mention Acts 21:17-24.

        My response to that is simple:

        1 Corinthians 9:20
        And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

        That’s the reference that I offer you. However, just a couple more verses below the verse above is:

        21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

        22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

        Ed Chapman

      38. 1 Corinthians 9:20
        And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

        Ed,

        I agree. Question. Why would Paul need to “gain the Jews” if they already believed the same gospel (Acts 15:5, Acts 21:20)?

        Read carefully…

        Acts 15:21, 24b (NIV)…..
        They (the believing Judeans, under James’ leadership) have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs…..Then everyone (the believing Judeans) will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

        Why would James, along with the elders in Judea, want these reports regarding Paul telling his Jewish audience elsewhere “to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs” (verse 21) to be “not true” (verse 24) when, in fact, that is precisely what Paul told his Jewish audience (Galatians 3, 4, 5)?

        Bonus

        Galatians 2:4 (NIV)…
        This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.

        Who were these “false” believers?

        Galatians 2:12 (NIV)…..
        For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

        Came from who? James

        Happy Thanksgiving, bro!

      39. Phillip,

        You had said:
        “I agree. Question. Why would Paul need to “gain the Jews” if they already believed the same gospel (Acts 15:5, Acts 21:20)?”

        The reference I provided you regarding “gain the Jews” ALSO shows the DIFFERENCE between the Law of Moses vs. the Law of Christ.

        BOTH are known as the LAW OF GOD. But each is different. Hence, the law of works vs. the law of faith.

        The law of FREEDOM vs. the law of BONDAGE.

        You can’t combine them. It’s either one, or the other, but not both. Take your pick. And remember, Paul is dead to the law. He died with Christ.

        Ed Chapman

      40. “You can’t combine them. It’s either one, or the other, but not both. Take your pick. And remember, Paul is dead to the law. He died with Christ.”

        Exactly! And that is precisely what Paul told his Jewish audience ad nauseam. He was having to clean up after James!

        My point in all of this is that the gospel James preached was not the same gospel Paul preached. James was the cause of Paul’s woes. James was the issue, which is why Paul had to approach him not just once, but twice. James was the problem!

        Enjoy some turkey, my brother!

      41. Phillip,

        You had said:
        “He was having to clean up after James!

        My point in all of this is that the gospel James preached was not the same gospel Paul preached. James was the cause of Paul’s woes. James was the issue, which is why Paul had to approach him not just once, but twice. James was the problem!

        My response:

        No, Paul was NOT cleaning up anything from James. You still have ignored Abraham, in that Abraham is justified by works, and I ask again, WHAT WORKS? The law of Moses? What law of Moses?

        James was preaching works of the law of faith, NOT the works of the law of Moses.

        Abraham is the key here, not Moses.

        And I’ll look forward to cold turkey sandwiches to bring for lunch to work next week!

        Ed Chapman

      42. “No, Paul was NOT cleaning up anything from James.”

        Galatians 2:11-13 (NIV)….
        When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

        And, yet, there it is.

      43. Quote:– “And, yet, there it is.”

        That’s right! Because Peter was the problem NOT James or the circumcision. Paul was cleaning up after Peter NOT James!

      44. Phillip,

        You had said:
        “Galatians 2:11-13 (NIV)….
        When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”

        My response:

        FINISH THE CHAPTER.

        When you do, you will see the following:

        Paul was admonishing Peter for LIVING LIKE A CHRISTIAN among the Gentiles, but reverting back to Judaism when he got around the Jews.

        Peter was AFRAID of the Jews. He was being a hypocrite. That’s why Paul had to admonish him.

        Ed Chapman

      45. That’s exactly it, Ed! Peter was the problem here not James. This was like the old Peter rearing it’s ugly head! Remember how he denied the Lord three times. It seems he had a tendency to succumb to fear — the fear of men!

        Happy Hanukkah.

      46. Phillip,

        Acts chapter 11, and you can also back up to chapter 10 to give context, appears to match the timeframe of Galatians 2. This is where the transition BEGAN from preaching the gospel ONLY TO JEWS, to the very beginning of FINALLY preaching the gospel to Gentiles.

        And keep this one in mind regarding Peter, as to WHY Peter would be afraid of the Jews:

        Acts 10:28
        And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

        Acts 11:19
        Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

        So, the preaching of the word of God to Gentiles was JUST BEGINNING, and Peter apparently did convert some Gentiles, aka Cornelius being the first (even tho his main job was to the Jews), but he was AFRAID of the Jews. The Acts 15 council had not yet taken place, and that appears to be WHY Paul had to admonish Peter in Galatians 2, as confusion set in regarding the law of Moses in conjunction with the gospel, or NOT in conjunction with the Gospel. Othewise, Paul need not be at the Acts 15. But, look at the following just as Aidan has shown you:

        Acts 15:11
        11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

        WE (Jews) as THEY (Gentiles).

        Ed Chapman

      47. I seem to recall – Martin Luther considered the book of James to be NON-Canon.
        Luther – scholars today will say – read Paul – through the lens of his own personal experiences with the Catholic church.
        His reading of Paul is considers short-sighted because it fails to understand how the recipients of Paul’s letters in Paul’s day would understand what Paul was communicating.

        Luther felt certain he understood what Paul was communicating.

        But what he understood – was heavily filtered through and heavily influenced by presuppositions – which his personal experience with the Catholic church brought to the text.

      48. br.d,

        You had said, speaking of Luther:
        “which his personal experience with the Catholic church brought to the text.”

        That’s exactly how I understand it as well, when I first learned and studied that aspect of Luther.

        In my personal opinion, regarding Calvin, I think it was not just that, but Calvin wanted to make a name for himself above and beyond that of Luther. I could be wrong, but that’s what I see.

        Ed Chapman

      49. Yes I think your instincts are correct in regard to Calvin’s need for recognition.

        Concerning Michael Servetus – who criticized Calvin’s institutes – Calvin writes: “If he comes here [To Geneva], and if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive”

        Calvin obviously saw his wishes as having authority within Geneva.- such that if he wished someone dead – that wish would be considered as having authority and therefore obeyed.

        Paul would look on any kind of authority as that as totally carnal
        And he would classify Calvin in Geneva as a principality and power rather than godly.

        And IMHO Calvinism does in fact function as a religious principality and power.

      50. 1 Corinthians 9:20
        “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;”

        Phillip: “Why would Paul need to “gain the Jews” if they already believed the same gospel (Acts 15:5, Acts 21:20)?”

        Hey, Ed,
        When Paul said, “that I might gain the Jews” he is referring to those who are not saved as per 1 Cor. 9:22 “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means SAVE some.” Therefore, in 9:20 Paul is talking about trying to SAVE his lost countrymen who are WITHOUT the gospel. Unless Phillip thinks these believing Jews who were zealous for the law were lost, I believe he is taking 1 Cor. 9:20 out of context!

        ED: “You can’t combine them. It’s either one, or the other, but not both. Take your pick. And remember, Paul is dead to the law. He died with Christ.”

        Amen! Dead right! And we know which one should be picked!

      51. Aidan said:
        “When Paul said, “that I might gain the Jews” he is referring to those who are not saved as per 1 Cor. 9:22”.

        My response:
        Yes, I already know that, which is WHY he had to BECOME A JEW.

        1 Corinthians 9:20
        And unto the Jews I became as a Jew

        How does a Jew become as a Jew, if not for the fact that he’s dead to the law of the Jews? It’s the only way. PHYSICALLY, he was already circumcized. Jews can’t UNDO that.

        Why was circumcisian a part of the law of Moses to begin with? It was a sign to the promised land of WHO gets that land, whether it be Ishmael, or Isaac. God promised the seed of Abraham through Isaac, and Abraham believed that promise, and because of that, Abraham is JUSTIFIED by his FAITH when we was tested when called to sacrifice his son Isaac, because Abraham KNEW that God would raise Isaac up from the dead in order to fulfill that PROMISED LAND promise. That is the works that Abraham was justified in, in which JAMES mentions, but Phillip disregards.

        Ed Chapman

      52. “That is the works that Abraham was justified in, in which JAMES mentions, but Phillip disregards.”

        Agreed! Phillip is pulling everything out of context and doesn’t want to see things any other way! The Great Commission tells us that there was only ever ONE gospel by which men are saved, which began to be proclaimed in Jerusalem unto the ends of the earth! Jew to Gentile!

      53. Phillip: “My point in all of this is that the gospel James preached was not the same gospel Paul preached. James was the cause of Paul’s woes. James was the issue, which is why Paul had to approach him not just once, but twice. James was the problem!”

        Not so! I suspect it was the sect of the Pharisees that caused much of the problem in the Acts 15 saga! And, he’s wrong about Gal. 2:4 and Gal. 2:12 being the same instance and the same people! First of all, Peter wasn’t in Antioch when those troublemakers came down from Jerusalem in Acts 15. And, secondly, Paul’s meeting with Peter, James, and John, Gal. 2:1-4,9, was in Jerusalem, NOT Antioch!

        Happy thanksgiving over there.

      54. Aidan,

        You had said:
        “…And, he’s wrong about Gal. 2:4 and Gal. 2:12 being the same instance and the same people! First of all, Peter wasn’t in Antioch when those troublemakers came down from Jerusalem in Acts 15. And, secondly, Paul’s meeting with Peter, James, and John, Gal. 2:1-4,9, was in Jerusalem, NOT Antioch!”

        I’m a bit confused by your response here, because I never said that Peter was in Antioch at the same time that he was in Jerusalem, therefore I did not equate Galatians 2 to Acts 15. I equated Galatians 2 to Acts 11, and when you see that, then you can see that Acts 15 had not happened yet, and therefore, there was CONFUSION in Acts 11 about the Gentiles, because up to that point in Acts, only the Jews were being preached to. Period.

        Ed Chapman

      55. Sorry, Ed, the confusion is my fault. It was Phillip who equated the two by making out that Gal. 2:12 refers to the false brethren of Gal.2:4. But the fact is there is absolutely no evidence that they are the same, especially since they refer to two completely different occasions in two different cities.

        Just because someone was of the circumcision does not mean they were “false brethren” (Acts 11:18).

        Again, sorry about the confusion.

      56. Phillip,

        Quote:– “Believers (let that sink in…..BELIEVERS) from Judea were causing trouble with Paul’s disciples in Galatia by preaching that you had to be “circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved”. Where would they get such an idea?”

        They got that idea most likely from the sect of the Pharisees who believed (Acts 15:5). Those who came down to Antioch from Jerusalem to cause trouble were called “false brethren” by Paul. Notice:

        Gal. 2:4-5 NKJV “And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

        You might have also observed above that Paul includes himself, a Jew, in the statement – “OUR liberty which WE have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring US into bondage.” Into bondage to what? To the law of Moses! In other words, Paul did not believe that Jews needed to keep the law of Moses to be saved — they only needed the gospel, they were justified by faith. This is precisely what he says in verse 16 of the same chapter: Again, notice that Paul is including himself, a Jew, in this:

        Gal. 2:16 NKJV “knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even WE have believed in Christ Jesus, that WE might be justified by faith in Christ and NOT by the works of the law; for by the works of the law NO FLESH [Jew and Gentile] shall be justified.” It seems Paul understood that NO FLESH (not even the Jew) could be justified by the works of the law of Moses.

        Quote:– “If Peter, from the beginning, taught the same gospel as Paul and passed it on, then why were the apostles, James, the elders, and the congregation in Jerusalem still divided regarding salvation?”

        The trouble that was being caused was by the sect of the Pharisees at that public meeting in(Acts 15:5). But Peter, James, John, Paul and Barnabas were NOT divided — they were of one mind on this matter. It seems they already had a private meeting together on this issue and had worked it out, as is seen in the following passage.

        Gal. 2:1-4 NKJV “Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, BUT PRIVATELY to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.”

        Gal. 2:9 NKJV “and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be PILLARS, gave to me and Barnabas THE RIGHT HANDS OF FELLOWSHIP, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision.”

        The meeting they had with the elders in Acts 15, seems to be another meeting whose purpose was simply to bring everybody on board (Acts 15:6).

        Quote:– “James saw a distinction between Jew and Gentile regarding salvation.”

        Nope! You are assuming too much! James was NOT in agreement with the Pharisees when they stood up and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to keep the Law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). Instead, as was said before, he WAS ALREADY in agreement when Peter stood up and said that God had: “made NO distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:8).

        The whole effect of this council was in ousting these false teachers, and preventing the church in it’s very early stage from splitting into two along that old dividing line between Jew and Gentile. What these false teachers were promoting was a false gospel — a perverted gospel.

        The gospel that was to be preached to the Jew first and then to the Greek “beginning at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47) …”and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) was NOT two gospels but the ONE gospel commanded under the Great Commission.

        Romans 1:16 NKJV “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.”

        Whatever the case maybe, what is clear is that NO FLESH could ever be justified by the works of the law — that’s why the Jew needed the gospel instead — that he might be justified by faith in Christ.

      57. Phillip,

        Regarding your Acts 21, I need to ask you something regarding circumcision. Why did Jews get circumcized to begin with?

        Circumcision began with Abraham. There was no law of Moses with Abraham. So why was it brought into the law of Moses?

        Circumcision had to do with God’s promise to Abraham regarding WHO inherits the PROMISED LAND, aka, the physical land of Israel with SPECIFIC borders. That’s the totality of it.

        What’s the answer? The answer is, who is the seed of Abraham through ISAAC. But Ishmael was the FIRST BORN. But the promise was through ISAAC, and the TOKEN of that promise is circumcision. And it was for that reason alone that it was brought into the law of Moses.

        That’s why Gentiles don’t get circumsized. And when a Jew converts the Christianity, circumcision means NOTHING anymore, because Christians do NOT inherit a piece of real estate in the middle east.

        See the FOLLOWING regarding the word WORK:

        Galatians 5:6
        For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

        and what did James say about that he shows his faith by what he DOES?

        And FINALLY, the following, and pay attention to Paul’s words in the last verse. Last I checked, Paul was a Jew:

        Galatians 2:
        11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

        12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

        13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

        14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

        15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

        16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

        17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

        18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

        *******19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.*******

        Is Paul a Jew, or not?

        So if Paul is DEAD TO THE LAW, how is it that you want him to do WORKS of the law as a dead man?

        Romans 6:7, 11
        7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

        11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin

        Ed Chapman

      58. Aidan,

        Aidan doesn’t seem to understand that the only people that Peter preached to in Acts 2 was Jews only. No Gentile was present. Peter had no clue that Gentiles were allowed until Acts 10.

        It had to be decided and put to rest once and for all in Acts 15, and it was decided based on a declaration that Abraham was right with God BEFORE he was circumcized based on FAITH alone, without all of the gobbly gook of the law of Moses. Therefore, Abraham was a GENTILE.

        Now you have it!

        Ed Chapman

      59. Brian,

        You referenced 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in light of Phillip presenting you with Matthew 10:5-7 and Matthew 15:24.

        I’d submit to you that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is for you to consider, not Phillip. There is a reason that Jesus said the things that he said in Phillips presentation, and it seems to be ignored. For there is a difference between Jew and Gentile here. The context of Jew and Gentile where there is no difference is a completely different conversation to have.

        Ed Chapman

      60. Acts 10:34-35 NKJV — Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.”

        Acts 15:11 NKJV — “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

      61. Brian,

        Acts 15 is after Paul’s revelation to James and the Jerusalem Council. Peter was conceding that Paul was right and they were now wrong. The gospel of the kingdom given to the 12, and James, was now over. The only way for both Jews and Gentiles to be saved going forward was thru Paul’s gospel of grace alone thru faith alone.

        However, even after that (the Jerusalem Council) Luke writes…

        Acts 21:17-25 (NKJV)….
        17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James (the leader of the assembly), and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles (the uncircumcised) through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews (or better, Judeans, Jews born or living in Judea) there are who have believed (believed what? Paul’s gospel of grace? No, but the gospel of the kingdom), and they are all zealous for the law (if you believed the King and the kingdom were coming soon, why would you not be zealous for the law which will be reinstated once the kingdom is established?); 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles (not Judeans, but Jews, by birth, born outside Judea) to forsake Moses (the law), saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly (the leadership in Judea) must certainly meet, for they (the believing Judeans) will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing (not true), but that you yourself also walk orderly and (wait for it….) keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles (the uncircumcision) who believe, we have written and decided (at the Jerusalem Council) that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

        So we see a distinction here. James is telling Paul that the Gentiles, the uncircumcision, those not practicing Judaism, who believe, are not required to “walk orderly and keep the law”, but those believing Jews living in Judea, under James’ leadership and direction, and elsewhere, are required to “walk orderly and keep the law”. This is consistent with what James wrote to his fellow Israelites.

        James 2:24… “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

        Faith plus works to be justified before God. Kingdom language.

        However, Paul’s gospel of grace teaches there is now no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Romans 10:12, Galatians 3:28). We are all saved by grace thru faith, not by works, so that no man can boast.

        Praise His Name!

      62. Those who are born again by the Holy Spirit and joined to the body of Christ who refuse to be baptized in the name of the Lord as His disciple and as an answer of their good conscience before God are disobedient to the Lord Jesus.

        Acts 16:31-35 NKJV — So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

      63. If Baptism is a public declaration before the congregation as an act of obedience only, why was he baptized immediately in the middle of the night instead of waiting for the gathering of believers?

      64. Great question, dnjohn. I don’t believe baptism is primarily a public declaration before the congregation of other believers. Peter says it’s an answer of a good conscience before God. (1Pet 3:21)

      65. Brian,

        Was Peter God’s chosen vessel to go to the Gentiles? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

        Have you ever noticed how Christians have to go outside of Paul’s writings to support their doctrine?

        Then…..

        Galatians 1:6-7 (NKJV)….
        I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

        Galatians 2:11-12 (NKJV)….
        Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

        Acts 15:1 (NKJV)….
        And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

        Acts 20:21 (NKJV)….
        And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews (living in Judea) there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law…”

        If Paul and the 12 were on the same page, why the meeting at the Jerusalem Council? Why the conflict? Why would these believing Jews living in Judea, under James’ leadership, be zealous for the law?

      66. Brian,

        You speak of BORN AGAIN. When was the FIRST TIME that any human was BORN AGAIN?

        I ask that for a specific reason. No one was BORN AGAIN until…what? Until Jesus died on the Cross first, right?

        Now, tell me about Abraham? Is he born again? If so, how? If not, why not? And if he’s not born again, WHERE IS ABRAHAM NOW? Why, if he’s not born again?

        What does BORN AGAIN actually mean? What does “again” mean in regards to those in heaven now, who died before Jesus walked the planet? WHEN was Abraham “born again”?

        You see, I have a different take on “born again” than you do. I think your “born again” explanation is no different than that of Nicodemus’s explanation, which is born once of the flesh, then born again of the spirit. But Jesus scoffed at that explanation.

        We are FIRST, “born of God” when we were created (as opposed to formed in the flesh). Then we die a spiritual death. Then, once we come to Christ, we are REBORN, a resurrection from spiritual death, and that, my friend is what the word AGAIN means in “born again”.

        Ed Chapman

      67. Brian,

        You quote Peter from Acts 10, which is quite interesting since Peter also said in Acts 10 the following:

        Acts 10:28
        And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation…

        and

        Acts 11:19
        Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

        Now, is Acts 11 before, or after Acts 10?

        Which brings me BACK to the conversation of what Phillip brought to your attention about the words of Jesus.

        There is a difference between Jew and Gentiles when Jesus spoke.

        Ed Chapman

      68. “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

        Ed,

        Yep. “Nothing to see here. Shut up! Move along. Move along.”

      69. Phillip,

        You had said:
        “Yep. “Nothing to see here. Shut up! Move along. Move along.””

        Yep, Brian just doesn’t want to go there, nor has any interest in why Jesus would say such a thing. But it does show that his conversations were not addressed to the Gentiles when he spoke in John chapter 6.

        How can Gentiles have a “come to Jesus” moment, if there was no Jesus who died on the cross yet? There was no “gospel”, if you will.

        Can you imagine telling Gentiles about 2 Generations before Jesus walked the earth the GOSPEL? Wait a minute…what Gospel? Could they say that Jesus DIED FOR YOUR SINS if there was no Jesus even born yet?

        The best that Gentiles could do in THOSE DAYS was to convert to Judaism. There were no Christians yet.

        Ed Chapman

  3. Good article, I think the writer makes better sense of who the elect are referring to in 2 Tim. 2:10. However, when he writes,

    “We find the word “elect” 4 times in the gospels and each time Jesus is referring to the Jews (Matthew 24:22, Matthew 24:24, Matthew 24:31, Luke 18:7)”,

    I think he is misleading from a presumptuous understanding of who Jesus is referring to in those passages. It would fit within the dispensational system of the who the elect is referring to in those verses but that assumption leads to other necessary implications. It seems to me that Jesus more easily could be understood as referring to the church when referencing the elect in those passages.

    So, I think he went too far by saying “each time Jesus is referring to the Jews”.

    1. Joel wrote:

      Quoting Phillip,
      “We find the word “elect” 4 times in the gospels and each time Jesus is referring to the Jews (Matthew 24:22, Matthew 24:24, Matthew
      24:31, Luke 18:7)”,

      It seems to me that Jesus more easily could be understood as referring to the church when referencing the elect in those passages.

      Aidan:
      Absolutely correct, because first of all, Jesus is both speaking to, and counselling His disciples in those verses (cf. Lk 18:1; and Mth. 24: 1-5)
      Secondly: From (Matthew 24: 4-34), Jesus is only dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D.70. The warning signs that He gave His disciples to look out for, helped save and deliver the Christians who knew what to look out for and escape in time. It was actually the Jews who were caught unawares and were massacred by the Romans in the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system. It’s only when we get to v.35 that Jesus begins to talk about the end of the world in His Second Coming!

      Aidan

      1. “Jesus is only dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D.70. The warning signs that He gave His disciples to look out for, helped save and deliver the Christians who knew what to look out for and escape in time. It was actually the Jews who were caught unawares and were massacred by the Romans in the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system. It’s only when we get to v.35 that Jesus begins to talk about the end of the world in His Second Coming!”

        Excellent!!

      2. History records the Jewish population being decimated by about half over the course of the siege, with even many of those who surrendered to Rome being killed (from approx 4 million to about 2 million, if I remember the numbers right, it’s been a few years since I studied it.) But history doesn’t record a single death of a Christian from that era. Most took the 6 month lift in the siege as a warning and fled through the mountains. While some might have died and we just have no record of it, overall it is safe to say that they understood Jesus’ warning to the elect as applying to them, and heeded his words so as to escape the coming tribulation. Conversely, the Jews took the brief lift in the siege as a sign of peace and safety and stayed put.

      3. Excellent Jennifer,
        Some people here just don’t want to see the truth concerning Matthew 24.

        But again, thank you for that!

      4. Hi Jennifer, Great points. Seems like the direct fulfillment of Matthew 24 had to do with the destruction of the temple. Amazing that the Christians were spared by heeding the Lord’s warning. Also it is typological of the end of the world as well.

    2. Joel,

      Thanks for the comment.

      Matthew 24:30-31 (NKJV)….
      Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

      Every word Jesus spoke here was directed solely, and exclusively, to the people of Israel, and not the church. The OT is full of this prophecy of Israel being scattered and being gathered again at His second coming.

      Deuteronomy 30:4 (NKJV)…
      If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you.

      Ezekiel 5:10 (NKJV)….
      Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments among you, and all of you who remain I will scatter to all the winds.

      Isaiah 11:12 (NKJV)….
      He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.

      Isaiah 43:5-6 (NKJV)….
      Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your descendants from the east, and gather you from the west; I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ And to the south, ‘Do not keep them back!’ Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth….

      Isaiah 27:12-13 (NKJV)….
      And it shall come to pass in that day that the LORD will thresh, from the channel of the River to the Brook of Egypt; and you will be gathered one by one, O you children of Israel. So it shall be in that day: the great trumpet will be blown; they will come, who are about to perish in the land of Assyria, and they who are outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.

      Zechariah 2:6 (NKJV)….
      “Up, up! Flee from the land of the north,” says the LORD; “for I have spread you abroad like the four winds of heaven,” says the LORD.

      Of course there are other clues given within the text that show Jesus’ words were directed to the Jewish people.

      Matthew 24:20 (NKJV)….
      And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.

      Why would a Gentile, or even a Christian, care about the Sabbath? He wouldn’t. But if you were a Jew and under the law, you could only travel so far.

      Given the context of Matthew 24, it should be clear that Jesus was speaking of His Jewish brothers.

      Blessings.

      1. Matthew 24:30-31 (NKJV)….
        “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

        These verses do not refer to the second coming of Christ, but rather to the time immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem. This conclusion necessarily comes from what is said in verse 34: “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” There is no reason to lift some of these verses out of context and arbitrarily change the order of events as they are presented in the chapter!

        It should be noted that Jesus is using prophetic language, and therefore employs symbols. Parallel symbols are found many times in prophecies of the Old Testament. Verse 29 for example uses similar language found in (Isaiah 13:10); which has reference to God’s judgment against Babylon:

        “For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light;The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine.”

        Likewise, the expression “and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (v.30), does not refer to a literal coming of the Lord, but is a continuation of the symbolic language being used. It is similar to the prophecy of God’s judgment against Egypt:

        “Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud,
        And will come into Egypt;
        The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence,
        And the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst.” (Isaiah 19:1)

        The Lord did not literally come into Egypt, nor did He literally ride upon a swift cloud. He did, however, come in judgment against Egypt. Likewise, in our text in Matthew 24, His “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” signifies His coming triumph in judgment, and of the gospel, following the destruction of Jerusalem.

        From the context of Matthew 24: 4-34, it is clear that Jesus was speaking to His disciples about the overthrow of the city, not His second coming.

      2. I would dare to add that it was not just the overthrow of the city of Jerusalem, but the final destruction of a dead, legalistic religion standing in opposition to the living Word of the God who had led this people who were clinging to this false religion, and used them – in spite of their many rebellions – to bring into the world the Deliverer. It was, in effect, the end of the Old Testament.

        Which is not to say that any ‘race’ of men was condemned. All of the apostles, and much of the early church were Jews – the elect, the remnant of the nation of Israel who believed. All were called to repentance and given miraculous evidence that Jesus was indeed the long awaited Messiah promised by God. Those who believed, along with all who will ever believe, are the elect. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, male and female, free and slave, or any other distinguishing factor.

      3. Everything you said, I totally agree with, but had decided against going down that road for now. I had actually hinted at it in an earlier post to Joel. Here’s what I said: “It was actually the Jews who were caught unawares and were massacred by the Romans in the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system.”

        In regards to Matthew 24, the aim of his article was to apply this passage to Christ’s second coming in order to widen the “elect” to mean all of National Israel. I just want to keep it simple by showing that the context of the greater part of Matthew 24, apply only to the coming judgment against Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Romans. Beyond that, I didn’t want to get into any of the other arguments!

        When you see that the first 34 verses of that chapter are only dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem, the “elect” of that passage takes on it’s proper meaning with those whom He was instructing here. I have no problem in agreeing that these were mostly “Jewish Christians” in around Jerusalem and Judea. But this passage certainly makes them “elect” among a Jewish population, because it was the disciples who were forewarned here, so that they could escape and be delivered from what was to come.

        Notice that Jesus had told them:
        “Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.” (Mt. 24:22) Many of the Jewish people perished in that catastrophic event, but the Christians who heeded Jesus’ warnings, escaped with their lives intact. It was for the sake of the elect that those days were cut short. Under the New Covenant, only Christians are God’s chosen people in Christ. I totally commend you for what you have said, namely, that all are one in Christ, both Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free. That’s what we are talking about here, and at the end of the day that’s all that will matter, not our ethnicity!

      4. Aiden, I appreciate your encouragement. It’s not an issue I prefer to debate, nor one that I pour an extensive amount of time pondering or researching. I only felt compelled, reluctantly, to put forth a dissenting viewpoint because of the post that was shared.

      5. And I’m glad you did, because it needed to be said. And, it also meant that I could pursue just that one point without distraction, while the more controversial aspect could be voiced by someone else. Obviously there’s enough support for Phillip on this site for him to be allowed to post such an article as this. But the things you said were so bang on, I couldn’t but support you in them. All I can say is, keep standing for the truth.

      6. You are always kind. I am just sad that this subject is so emotionally laden and controversial. It is difficult for me to understand, as in making no distinction between men, I do not see what the issue is. I reject Zionism/Judaism for the same reasons I reject Calvinism. I believe all men are equal in God’s eyes, period.

        First of all, partiality cannot be supported by the vast majority of scripture, and secondly because both Zionism and Calvinism entail the exact same process. They allege that God is responsible for sin and unbelief, being the cause of TD or blindness. Thus, it is necessary that God be the determiner of who he will ‘save’ from depravity or blindness. To the Zionist, he irresistibly saves all ‘elect’ Jews. To the Calvinist, he irresistibly saves all ‘elect’, that being a mixed multitude, yet still arbitrarily chosen by God.

        In reality, the ‘good news’ message of the gospel is to all men. God loves and desires to save all men, and all on the exact same basis. All sin, and all need a savior. This savior, Jesus Christ, has provided all that any man needs to be declared forgiven and righteous by God. All any man need do – Jew, Gentile, man, woman, slave, free, any race, any heritage, any geographical place – is have faith in the promise of salvation offered by Jesus. All who believe in his death and the promise of eternal life inherent in his resurrection may be saved.

        I simply do not understand why such a fair, just, equitable offering would not be recognized as such by anyone. It is inequality, injustice and partiality which I reject as being not in the character of God.

      7. TSOO,
        Thank you for those sobering truths. I think you are right to point to the kind of God the bible speaks of, rather than the god that men try to depict. God is love the bible says. God is also the One who has created us in His image. That means that every human being has been wonderfully created in the likeness of God, and is loved by Him. I can only paint this in human terms, but can you imagine favoring and loving one of your children over another? Consciously selecting one for a life of misery and death while the other is selected for life, happiness, and joy – and all simply on the basis that you decided to favor one over the other? We’d say, that’s just unimaginable. No parent who deeply loves their own children could ever contemplate such an evil act, and yet in terms of salvation, men want to paint God in this way?

        They remind me of what God said to Job when He spoke to him out of the whirlwind, and said: “Who is this who darkens counsel
        By words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2)

        You are right, the God that they speak of is not the God that Jesus revealed or spoke of. All you have to do is meditate on Jesus’ words in John 3:16 to know that this is true. But a tree is known by it’s fruit. Its true, Zionism and Calvinism bear the fruit of depravity, blindness, inequality, injustice and partiality. And the name of God is blasphemed because of it! That says it all for me. They have an earthly or carnal view of the kingdom of God, which was the same mistake the Jews made in the first century. Yep! All that you’ve said is so true, and I agree, but so sad at the same time.

      8. We know from the book of Acts that judean Christians were permitted to maintain jewish customs while the temple was standing. It was a transitional period. During this time St Paul was called of God to explain things thoughly for their benefit so that they would know what going from the old covenant to the new meant. He explained things in his treatise to the Hebrews. God was merciful and knew how engrained the jewish customs were for them and allowed a time of transition in his mercy. So the references to sabbath etc in Matthew 24 does not mean they were not Christian’s.

        Many judean Christian’s were zealous for the Law during this time and teaching that that the law was set aside or hinting at such a thing was not expedient in Judea unless you wanted to be killed or have a riot on your hands. Acts 21:20 and following. God in his mercy allowed a time of adjustment until the temple was destroyed in the providence of God by Titus and the roman armies. Jesus had already confirmed the covenant with many in his blood on holy Thursday before his death on the Cross, having ended the sacrifices and accomplished all things predicted by the prophet Daniel in ch.9 So this visible manifestation when God had the temple destroyed could have been the setting things right that Hebrews is referring to in the passage from Chapter 9 that I am posting below. Many scholars believe this treatise was written before AD 70. So during this time they would outwardly conform to the norms of Judea…so the reference to them being elect and the reference to the sabbath does not mean jewish. These were Christian’s and they were divinely warned and fled to Pella. No Christians died in the siege by Titus miraculously.

        St Paul writes: Hebrews 9
        Such preparations having been made, the priests go continually into the first tent to carry out their ritual duties; 7 but only the high priest goes into the second, and he but once a year, and not without taking the blood that he offers for himself and for the sins committed unintentionally by the people. 8 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent[f] is still standing. 9 This is a symbol[g] of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, 10 but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right.

  4. Interesting stuff, but I don’t think it works with Romans 11:7:

    “What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened.”

    Of course, in verse 11, Paul says that the unelect of Israel (“the others”) are not beyond recovery, and will in fact be fully included, yielding greater riches. But in verse 7, it’s clear that “elect” and “people of Israel” are not used equivocally.

    Then again, another possibility is that Paul was not 100% consistent in his taxonomy, particularly across letters, and expected his readers to get what he was going after from context to context. Expecting 100% clarity from Paul might be wishful thinking; his writing is hard to hogtie, as Peter would remind us.

    1. Stanrock,

      Thanks for the comment.

      Romans 11 can be tricky, but consider….

      Romans 11:7 (KJV)….
      What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest (of the nation) were blinded.

      “The election” could be that part of the nation of Israel that remained faithful to God. Just moments later, Paul says regarding “the election”….

      Romans 11:28 (KJV)….
      As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching “the election”, they are beloved for the father’s sakes.

      “The election” are beloved because they are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So that faithful remnant were still Israelites, not Gentiles.

      Blessings.

    2. Stanrock,

      You had said:
      “Interesting stuff, but I don’t think it works with Romans 11:7:

      “What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened.”

      Of course, in verse 11, Paul says that the unelect of Israel (“the others”) are not beyond recovery, and will in fact be fully included, yielding greater riches. But in verse 7, it’s clear that “elect” and “people of Israel” are not used equivocally.

      Then again, another possibility is that Paul was not 100% consistent in his taxonomy, particularly across letters, and expected his readers to get what he was going after from context to context. Expecting 100% clarity from Paul might be wishful thinking; his writing is hard to hogtie, as Peter would remind us.”

      My response:

      THIS is what gets a lot of people confused, because they ISOLATE verses, rather than reading the whole chapter.

      Verse 11 is from verse 5:
      5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

      Which is of verse 3-4.

      So, the words ELECTION OF GRACE is NOT THE SAME TOPIC as ELECT, because back in the book of ISAIAH, where God calls ISRAEL “MINE ELECT”, it SURELY was not about GRACE, while being UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES.

      So, Romans 11:7 is discussing GRACE as opposed to WORK, meaning, THE LAW OF MOSES.

      So what we have going on here, is a CONFUSION of the word ELECT going on here, where it is clear from Isaiah that the use of the word Elect, here in Romans 11:7 is NOT THE SAME TOPIC AT ALL.

      So Romans 11:7 is GRACE vs. WORKS (LAW OF MOSES), not ELECT as “Israel Mine Elect” from Isaiah, because NO ONE in Isaiah was under ANY SORT OF Grace at all, they were all under WORKS when God said that in Isaiah.

      Final conclusion, PHYSICAL ISRAEL is the ELECT ONLY, not Gentiles. Of those ELECT, some were chosen to be unblinded NOW, such as Lydia, for the ELECTION OF GRACE, and the rest remain blinded, but those blinded are STILL ELECT, just not chosen for ELECTION OF GRACE.

      Do you see the diffference?

      Ed Chapman

      1. Roman’s 11 is about the basis of our being elected. His argument Is that It is not mosaic law keeping but grace that is the basis of Election. Thus it is called the election of grace. Everyone comes into the family as a sinner needing forgiveness not as a legalistically righteous person chosen because of their self generated righteousness. That is what Paul is saying to them in chapter 11. We are all under sin and it is grace for all of us to be included in the elect regardless of ethnicity.
        Roman’s 4:16 “For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”)—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. “

      2. dnjohn,

        No, it’s not. Romans 11 is about the Jews. The blind Jews to be more specific. It discusses MERCY for the blind Jews, more specifically.

        Paul was one of those blind Jews.

        In another epistle, forgive me, I’m at work, and it’s lunch, but Paul states of himself the specific reason that HE got mercy

        The reason:

        Ignorance in unbelief.

        And that is the sole purpose of Romans 11, to show that those blind Jews will get the same MERCY as Paul did.

        Romans 11 = MERCY for the blind Jews.

        Gentiles have NOTHING to do with ROMANS 11.

        I can’t figure out how anyone can conclude that Gentile Christians are elect.

        Gentile Christians are not elect.

        What people do, is redefine elect to a synonym of the word, “SAVED”, then every time they see elect, they think it states saved. And vice versa.

        But that’s not the case.

        Ed Chapman

      3. Well, Ed, the syllogism, according to your claims, would look like this:

        Israel = the elect
        and, All Israel will be saved
        Therefore, the elect will be saved

        Contrariwise, if

        Not all Israel = Israel
        and, All Israel will be saved
        Therefore, not all Israel will be saved

      4. TS00,

        You had said:

        “Well, Ed, the syllogism, according to your claims, would look like this:

        Israel = the elect
        and, All Israel will be saved
        Therefore, the elect will be saved

        Contrariwise, if

        Not all Israel = Israel
        and, All Israel will be saved
        Therefore, not all Israel will be saved”.

        Actually, I would point that BACK AT YOU, and why? Because what you are doing is REMOVING the JEWS from the ELECT, making it BELIEVERS ONLY, thereby equating the word BELIEVERS to the word ELECT.

        So, you take that back to Isaiah, Israel MINE ELECT.

        Which one of those JEWS were “BELIEVERS”?

        Believers in WHAT?

        I will continute IF you can answer that, and I wil give MORE INSIGHT to “Not all Israel is of Israel”.

        Ed Chapman

      5. I disagree with the dispensationalist notion of “no grace only law” in the old testament. Paul argues in Galations that justification by faith cannot be cancelled by the law added later. That Abraham was justified by faith. They were justified by active faith in the God of Israel who is Jesus, pre incarnate. Jesus identifies himself as ‘the I AM” in the Gospel of John. Jesus told the pharisee: Before Abraham was, I AM. John says that Christ “came to His Own and his own received him not. But to as many as received him, to them he gave the power to become children of God: to them that believe in his name. Who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God.” John 1:12 The appearances of the LORD in the OT were appearances of the Son. When the Son came, he revealed the Father. However these OT believers were held back from heaven due to the Fall and had to await the redemption to come. They waited in sheol/ Hades. They were in a place of comfort in Abraham’s bosom but not in heaven until the Lord Jesus set them free. So grace was realized with the coming of Christ but it does not mean that there was no grace before that at all.

      6. dnjohn,

        You had said:
        “I disagree with the dispensationalist notion of “no grace only law” in the old testament.”

        My response:

        What do you think that the Old Testament is? The Old Testament is the Law of Moses, and the law is NOT OF FAITH.

        The law of Moses is works. Earning your way to eternal life. There is NO GRACE in that.

        WORKS vs. GRACE

        1. WORKS

        We should all know that the Old Testament, aka, Old Covenant, First Covenant, begins in Exodus 20. This is where God spoke to ALL of the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. After God Spoke the Ten Commandments to ALL of the children of Israel, they were afraid that if God continued to speak to them, that they would die, so they asked if Moses would speak to them about what God wants of them, instead of God himself.

        Exodus 20:19
        And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. So, Moses continued to listen to God, and Moses gave the word of the Lord to ALL of the children of Israel.

        Exodus 24:3
        And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

        Notice the last word in that verse, “do”. Later, in Deuteronomy 5, Moses once again reiterates what was spoken in Exodus 20 – 24. After that review, the children of Israel responds:

        Deuteronomy 6:25
        And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.

        Again, notice the word, “do”. That is works of righteousness. Obedience to the law of Moses is known as works of Righteousness. If anyone can keep the law perfectly, then they have “earned” a wage, and God “owes” them eternal life. That is why it is called “works”, or “deeds”.

        DING DING DING DIND:
        Romans 4:4
        Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

        Romans 3:20
        Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

        Romans 3:23
        For all have sinned.

        Romans 6:23
        the wages of sin is death

        So, who can be obedient to the Law of Moses and get to heaven? No one.

        Galatians 2:16
        a man is not justified by the works of the law…for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

        Galatians 3:10
        For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

        2. No Works

        1 John 3:4
        sin is the transgression of the law.

        Romans 3:20
        the law is the knowledge of sin.

        Romans 5:13
        For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

        Romans 4:15
        where no law is, there is no transgression.

        Romans 4:8
        Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

        Romans 6:7
        For he that is dead is freed from sin.

        Romans 6:11
        Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead

        Romans 7:4
        ye also are become dead to the law

        Galatians 2:19
        For I through the law am dead to the law,

        Romans 7:8
        For without the law sin was dead.

        Galatians 2:21
        if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

        Romans 3:21
        But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested

        Romans 4:5
        faith is counted for righteousness.

        Romans 4:13
        not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

        Romans 4:16
        Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace

        DING DING DING…DING DING:
        Galatians 3:12
        the law is not of faith

        Galatians 3:21
        if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

        Romans 4:2
        For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

        Romans 4:5-6
        But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

        ANOTHER DING DING DING DING:
        Romans 11:6
        And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

        Faith is NOT imputed.

        There is ONLY two things that can be “IMPUTED” to us.
        1. Sin
        2. Righteousness

        Righteousness can only be imputed in two different ways.
        1. Works (DEEDS/OBEYING/OBSERVING) The Law of Moses
        2. Faith

        Ed Chapman

      7. The law was powerless to save. They could only be saved by grace through faith even in the old testament.

    3. stanrock,

      Addendum to my last:

      Notice Romans 11:5, the word REMNANT. That is a key word. Remnant applies to the Jews. It is the remnant that gets unblinded by God IN THIS “IN THE FLESH” LIFE. The remaining Jews are STILL elect, just not “UNDER” the eletion of Grace, but “UNDER” the Law of Moses.

      Elect of God = Physical (national) Israel = Election of Grace vs. Law. Gentiles NOT INCLUDED in the equation as ELECT.

      Elect is not a synonym for SAVED. Elect is a PEOPLE (Jews, not Gentiles). Election of Grace is a different topic, different use of the word. Howver, GENTILES are NOT under the “ELECTION” of grace either. Gentiles are just under grace, period. No election about it. The use of the word ELECTION has to be used to distinguish blind jews from those unblinded, and there is two sides to the coin…GRACE VS WORKS.

      Heads or tails?

      Ed Chapman

    4. Since elect simply means “chosen,” there is no reason Paul always has to refer to the same group by the use of the term “elect.” Israel was God’s physically chosen nation on Earth – He entered the Old Covenant with them, and the Messiah was brought through them, etc. The church is God’s spiritually chosen people in the New Covenant, a Holy priesthood, Jew and Gentile alike – all who believe.

      So, yes, context is incredibly important. It’s not a term that is required to mean the same group every time it is used.

      1. Absolutely right Jennifer,
        “The church is God’s spiritually chosen people in the New Covenant, a Holy priesthood, Jew and Gentile alike – all who believe.”

        Because it is a spiritual kingdom consisting of Jew and Gentile alike.

  5. In this passage, St.Paul is including himself as enduring all things for final salvation and that is why he says they ALSO. He know he himself must endure to the end. What he is enduring as an Apostle is on behalf of others and also on behalf of himself. He is enduring all things for the sake of the elect. To be elect means to be in Christ. When one is in Christ they must remain in Christ as commanded by christ in John 15. This implies it is possible to not remain in Christ and thus not obtain salvation on the last day. Thus he endures all things to help those who are now in Christ to remain in him and continue in the faith as he also must do. If one is not biased with the novel teaching of once saved always saved and views salvation as both an event and a process, then this verse is completely straightforward in what it is saying. The elect are not lost but there is a salvation that they have yet to attain and is dependent on them remaining in the faith of Christ and continuing to cooperate with Divine grace and that is the justification received when they stand before christ, having persevered to the end. It is then that he gives them the crown of life. There is past, present, and future dimensions to salvation.
    In the doctrine of election there is two sides to it. There is the corporate side in which God elects Christ and us in him as his members. It has to do with Gods purpose. The second aspect is individual and is based only on foreknowledge.

    1. I agree with you summary DNJOHN. It seems a rather obvious interpretation that Paul is saying ‘also’ to mean, along with me (himself) as well as perhaps others who already believe. It is only when you bring in presuppositions that you read ‘the elect’ as meaning national Israel, in spite of many verses that make it clear that neither all of Israel nor all of any people group will be saved determinitively. All are saved by the exact same condition: faith in Jesus Christ as the manifestation of God’s deliverance from sin and death.

      The other comments are spot on as well. The author makes many assumptions that simply cannot be sustained.

      1. Galatians says Christ is the seed of Abraham and we are included in that as believers. National israel is made up mostly of Ashkenazi jews who are not physically related to Abraham. They were converts to Judaism after the Christian era…after Jesus ended physical circumcision by fulfilling it. Thus they are not the elect. Even if they were physically related they are not in Christ the promised seed of Abraham if they are not believers in him. If they are believers then they are in the one body of the Church. This is NT Christian faith. Certainly paul agonized about his ancestors and yearned for their salvation and say God is able to graft them in again…implying clearly that they are removed from the olive tree of israel due to their unfaithfulness to the God of Israel incarnate in Christ Jesus.

      2. Agreed. And with Aiden, I welcome your well written insights. Too often a false dichotomy is made, insisting that one must choose whether all Israel (and as you said, that does not mean all who today are called Jews) is saved or whether Israel, the elect, has been replaced.

        I would assert that neither is true, but that, as has always been the case, not all who are of Israel are not Israel. In other words, there is an ‘Israel’ of which scripture speaks, which is not the same as ‘Israel’ the nation-state. This true ‘Israel’ is that which has always been called ‘the elect’ – those which believe the promises of God.

        Abraham, while being the father of national Israel, was not of the nation-state Israel. More significantly, he was the father of all who would ever be true Israel, that is, all who would ever believe, from every tribe and nation. Abel, Noah, Enoch were all ‘elect’ , part of the ‘true’ Israel which would come to comprising believers of every age and nation.

      3. Excellent stuff Dnjohn. I can’t see anything unscriptural in what you’ve said. Keep it up.

    2. dnjohn,

      You had said:
      “To be elect means to be in Christ…”

      And:

      “In the doctrine of election there is two sides to it. There is the corporate side in which God elects Christ and us in him as his members. It has to do with Gods purpose. The second aspect is individual and is based only on foreknowledge.”

      My response:
      When I read Romans 9-11, Paul is discussng HIS FAMILY of Jews, not OUR FAMILY of Gentiles.

      For us Gentiles, yes, we know that salvation if by faith in Jesus Christ. This would also apply to the AWAKE, UNBLINDED Jews as well, hence, LYDIA.

      But for the SLUMBER, ASLEEP, BLIND Jews, there is a different storyline. That storyline is in the PROPHETIC story of Joseph and his brethren, where Joesph REVEALS HIMSELF to his brothers, and WHERE DOES THAT TAKE PLACE? HOW did Joseph reveal himself? HOW will Jesus reveal himself?

      Think of Doubting Thomas…holes in his hands and feet.

      Psalm 22:16
      For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

      Luke 24:40
      And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

      Zechariah 12:10
      And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

      John 19:37
      And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

      Revelation 1:7
      Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

      Keep in mind, that when Jesus was killed, HE FORGAVE THEM already for that crime (SIN). So no one will be held to account for killing Jesus.

      But, when I see that it was GOD that blinded the Jews in the first place, then God must unblind them, EVEN AFTER THEY DIE.

      Jesus did say the following:

      John 9:39-41 King James Version (KJV)

      39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

      40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

      41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

      In light of THIS, what SINS can be charged against a BLIND JEW?

      Romans 2:14-16 is discussing GENTILES who have NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHO A JESUS IS, and Paul calls this GOSPEL, that Jesus will judge then NOT BY HAVING FAITH IN JESUS CHRSIT, for they don’t even know who Jesus Christ is, until they meet their maker (die), and Jesus judges them based on their CONSCIENCE after they die.

      Again, THEY CAN’T HAVE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, because they don’t know who he even is.

      The same with a BLIND JEW (John 9:41).

      Hebrews 9:27

      Hebrews 9:27 King James Version (KJV)

      27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

      AFTER DEATH is the judgment, NOT BEFORE.

      But we have Christians judging them BEFORE DEATH, talking about that if they didn’t believe in Jesus, they are burning in hell. Well how is THAT possible for Gentiles who never even heard of the guy?

      So, Romans 9-11 is discussing the FAMILY of IN THE FLESH Jews of Paul, not Gentiles. He wants them saved NOW in the flesh, before they die. Hence LYDIA…a female Jew. But, the BLIND will be saved. Why are they STILL BLIND? Because THEY are a light to the Gentiles and THEY hold the oracles of God, and THEY still have things to do as being blind in order for prophesy to come true, all because of NATIONAL ISRAEL, and THE PROMISED LAND (PHYSICAL LAND OF ISRAEL). The story isn’t finished yet.

      My conclusion, Romans 9-11 is not, and cannot be any part of GENTILES IN THE FLESH at all. Gentiles are NOT ELECT. Never were, never will be.

      Ed Chapman

    3. DNJOHN, I agree with you, that in the N.T. to be elect means to be in Christ. And, I am thankful for your comments on the fallacy of once saved always saved.

      1. Aidan, this is where I must stand on the testimony of Jesus (John 6:*29 and following) to disagree with you and DNJohn.

        It is not fallacy that once saved always saved. However, it is within the norm that many who express at some point and time they are/were saved are/were also self deceived. Rev 1-3, the 7 churches for example. The false prophet word of doers: Matthew 7

        We humans can only go by the testimony of one’s mouth, according to scripture , Romans 10-1 Corinthians 15, 1 Corinthians 1. If someone’s out workings appear to defy their testimony that they have the love of Christ , scripture directs they should test/examine their faith. 2 Corinthians 13:
        1 Cor 5 is example of how the church should react to those in the church in such sins of sexual immortality the worldly don’t even justify because they claim to testify to being a believer in Christ.

        God knows the heart and mind of those who really believe Him and in Him. The moment you believe God crosses you over from death to life. Sealed by the Spirit we are changed from merely human to born again, regenerated into the masterpiece/ workmanship/ handiwork of God- the human now one with the Spirit.
        Ephesians 2:8-10/John 3/ John 5:24/ 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
        Romans 5
        Romans 8

        God disciplines the children he loves Hebrews 12.
        He is a Shepherd with a rod to steer a dump sheep.

  6. For those interested, below is a link to a website that BrD (thanks, BrD!) discovered when this verse (2 Timothy 2:10) was called into question.

    http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/2Tim2_10.html

    Below is just a sampling from that website….

    Question: Who are the “chosen” and what is the implication of “they also”?

    Answer: I believe that this references to the Jews. Why would Paul add the description of Jesus being a “descendant of David”? David was a Jew. Who caused Paul such “hardship”? It was the Jews. Who chased him down from city to city, and had him stoned and placed in prison and treated as a “criminal”? It was the Jews. Yet, despite being an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had a zealous passion for reaching the Jews. (Romans 9:1-5, 10:1-3, 11:12-14) That explains the expression, “they also.” It must be pointed out that Paul sometimes references the Jews by other expressions. Galatians 2: 7-9 states: “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” Another example is Romans 15:8: “For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy.” It’s clear that Paul is making an indirect reference to the Jews. That seems to be the case at 2nd Timothy 2:10 as well, given all of the aforementioned factors. Moreover, I believe that the Jews are specifically called “elect” by Jesus, insomuch that the Jews have an election in Abraham. At Matthew 24:22-31, Jesus specifically discusses what I believe must exclusively be the Jews.

    1. Phillip, br.d, and Brian Wagner,

      I didn’t get a chance to thank all of you for posting this, and your research, so I am saying it now!! THANK YOU!

      I think that this topic here is vitally important for several reasons. Those reasons: T U L I and P, are debunked with this topic alone, if one is interested in seaking that out.

      Now, we know that not every Jew is saved:

      Many call the following a parable. I don’t.

      Luke 16:19-31

      Notice in those verses, the thirsty one is calling Abraham, FATHER ABRAHAM, indicating he is a Jew. In addition, FATHER ABRAHAM answers him back by saying that his brothers have MOSES AND THE PROPHETS (Gentiles didn’t have that).

      The reason that I don’t see that passage as a parable. Zipper the gospels. When you zipper the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and you will see the ACTUAL TIMELINE of events, and sometimes all three gospels line up mentioning the same event, sometimes only two, sometimes only one. But with that, it’s easy to line things up for an actual timeline. Nothing is out of place.

      Why is that important? Because Jesus didn’t speak to his disciples in parables, but if you are only reading Luke, you THINK that Jesus was talking to the Pharisees in Luke 16:14-18, where divorce is being discussed in verse 18 only.

      But zipper it with Matthew and Mark and Luke, this is what you see in a timeline.

      The Pharisees derided Jesus in Galilee———————————————————————-Luke 16:14-17
      Jesus deoarts Galilee for Judea————————————Matthew 19:1-2 Mark 10:1
      Jesus discusses topic of “Divorce” to the Pharisees————Matthew 19;3-12 Mark 10:2-9 Luke 16:18
      Jesus discusses topic of “Divorce” to Disciples only (IN A HOUSE)—————– Mark 10:10-12
      Jesus discusses the Rich Man & Lazarus to Disciples ONLY——————————————— Luke16:19-31

      So, we know that there will be Jews UNSAVED.

      As I have said numerous times, Elect is NOT a synonym for the word SAVED, and THAT is still a sticking point to the Calvinists, as they equate those two words to mean the same thing.

      All in all, this topic of ELECT needs to be brought up into the forefront of debunking TULIP, and I beleive it is CENTRAL to the argument. Central.

      Thank you Phillip, Brian, and br.d.

      Ed Chapman

      1. You can thank Phillip and Brian – I merely pointed out an info source.

        But thanks for the kind thought Ed! :-]

      2. Thanks for the suggestion. Is there something I specifically wrote that you think misrepresented specific Scriptures that I said pointed to non-Jews who are saved elect in Christ?

      3. Caleb Bulow,

        You had me at hello with your comment to me, which you said:

        “Chosen for salvation, does not originate from the Bible.”

        But…

        After reading your further explanation explanation, which you said:

        “but there are other passages in the NT that clearly refer to believers. Rom 8:33 – Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? Col 3:12 – Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved… 1 Pet 2:9 – But you are a chosen [elect] generation…”

        So, I had to do a complete 180.

        YES, there are those passages. But I’m with Phillip on this specifically. The word believers is not a synonym for the word elect. Also, saved is not a synonym for the word elect, either.

        Just because you see the word BELIEVERS, and SAVED, that does not mean elect at all. So, what I would like to do is to ask everyone who actually believes that believers and saved is a synonym for the word elect, tell me how you ascertained that, a step by step procedure.

        Where is the first place that you saw the word in the bible, and how did you apply it, and how did you TRANSITION that to INCLUDE Gentiles at a later time? What was the DECIDING verse that convinced you that ELECT is the same thing as GENTILE believers. Gentile believers are “saved”, but HOW are they ELECT? Just by being saved? Just by being believers? This is where you and I differ.

        Once I figured out that the Jews only (saved now as a remnent, or unblinded at a later time) are the elect, THEN it was EASY PEASY to figure out who Paul was addressing when he used the word Elect, whether he was talking to Gentiles ABOUT the Jews, or whether he was talking to Jews about the Gentiles, or whether he was talking to Jews about the Jews.

        Remember one thing about Paul. His custom was ALWAYS to go to the Jews on the FIRST SABBATH in whatever town he was in to talk to them first. THEN AFTER THAT, he would go to the Gentiles. So Paul played both sides of the JEW/GENTILE thing.

        Peter spent a lot of time where the JEWS ONLY would be…such as Babylon, which he mentions in one of his epistles. There were MORE JEWS left in Babylon than the total number of Jews that returned to Israel during the time of Jesus, hence the BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

        Galatians 2:9
        And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

        James begins his epistle with something about the TWELVE TRIBES SCATTERED.

        John…yes, John…Revelation…I say that the letter is DIRECTED to the Jews, and why? Christians won’t be here for the events, whether you be Jew or Gentile, and it pertains to a small piece of real estate in the middle east. But, I have many here that disagree with me on that one, but Galatians 2:9 is my default.

        Yes, Peter baptized Cornelius, but that was not his PRIMARY mission.

        And besides all that, the Jews had the Law of Moses, and there isn’t a one Gentile that ever did.

        Ed Chapman

      4. Ed,

        No, I wouldn’t say believer is synonymous with elect for the simple reason that the form of elect we are talking about is an adjective. It describes and object. It can be applied to Jews, believers, and other objects. If you look in the LXX (the Bible of early believers), you’ll see it was applied to many objects: cows, chariots, soldiers, burial places. I think we need to take the LXX into account because it was so widely used by the early believers. They would have understood the meaning of the word based on how it was used in the LXX.

        One way to define it is the elect object has higher value in the eye of the beholder than other similar objects. Thus, Jews are elect (as a special people in the sight of God) because they are the descendants of Abraham. Gentile believers (see Col. 3:12) are elect in the sight of God because they believe in Christ. They are not the same kind of elect but the word is applied to both groups.

      5. Caleb,

        One theory/option (and there are other theories/options).

        It could be that at the time of Paul’s writing, the church in Colossae was entirely Jewish. While outlandish as this might seem, Paul’s custom (Acts 17:2 NKJV) was to go into every Jewish synagogue and preach the gospel of grace. His gospel was first to the Jew and only then to the Gentile (Romans 1:16 NKJV). It wouldn’t surprise me at all if some, if not most, of these synagogues during Paul’s ministry were completely Jewish, especially the leadership. There were Jews living in every nation who, by the time of Paul’s ministry, had adopted the local culture and language (Acts 2:5-6 NKJV). So while they were ethnically/racially Jews, they were legally Colossians. So when Paul speaks of both Onesimus (Colossians 4:9) and Epaphras (Colossians 4:12) as being “one of you” it doesn’t have to mean they were Gentiles, but rather citizens of Colossae. And it wasn’t uncommon for these Jews to be given Greek names.

        There are all kinds of commentary out there about the early churches being mostly Gentile. I disagree. I believe the early churches, especially in its infancy, were predominantly Jewish, but the fact is we don’t know. Its speculation. We weren’t there. But Paul was. And he certainly knew if someone was a fellow Jew or not. If anyone knew who “the elect of God” were, it was Paul. And since all they had to go by was the OT (for clarification/validation), it was the people of Israel.

        If, indeed, the “elect of God” in Colossians 3:17 (NKJV) is referring to the Jewish believers living, as citizens, in Colossae, then that would harmonize perfectly with the majority of scripture stating that the children of Israel are God’s elect (Isaiah 42:1 NKJV, Isaiah 45:4 NKJV, Isaiah 65:9 NKJV, Isaiah 65:22 NKJV. Matthew 24:22 NKJV, Matthew 24:24 NKJV, Matthew 24:31 NKJV, Mark 13:20 NKJV, Mark 13:22 NKJV, Mark 13:27 NKJV, Luke 18:7 NKJV, Romans 11:28 NKJV, 2 Timothy 2:10 NKJV, Titus 1:1 NKJV, 1 Peter 1:1 NKJV, 1 Peter 1:2 NKJV).

        Again, just one theory and I could be wrong. I am just looking for consistency and continuity throughout the scriptures. And when it comes to “the elect” we have to start in the OT.

        Blessings.

      6. You appear to not have understood what Caleb explained. The ‘inconsistency’ you see would disappear if you did, as you would understand that the word ‘elect’ does not have to be applied to one and only group or category of people.

        Were Israel ‘elect’ as in chosen for salvation, it would be inconsistent with God’s desire to wipe them out after their rebellion and start over with Moses, among other punishments of persons of Israel.

        Without a doubt, Israel was singled out by God for special favor, for a specific purpose. Thus, in the many instances in which Israel is called ‘My elect’, we understand what is intended. The point of Romans is to spell this out. That Israel’s being the people unilaterally, irresistibly, irrevocably elected to reveal the law and produce the Deliverer of the World was not the same as being unilaterally, irresistibly, irrevocably chosen for salvation.

        What must not be missed is that, with Jesus, the barrier to the Gentiles also being called ‘My elect’, and ‘the children of God’ was forever removed, as had always been the plan. With Jesus’ death, the mission of the elect nation of Israel was finished, and the path to being the true Israel, or children of God, was opened to all men.

        As far as God is concerned, never again is there to be any distinction between races or tribes of men. Nor was such a distinction in regards to salvation ever implied, as God’s promise to Abraham was for his seed to bless the people of every nation.

        This is what much of Israel resisted and rejected, the stumbling stone over which they fell. They did not want to be leveled with the rest of mankind, and insisted that not only were they chosen to reveal the law, but to be the sole recipients of the promised salvation of God, simply by rite of birth and circumcision. Romans, and other epistles, debunk that false belief.

      7. TS00,

        I have a couple questions for you.

        You had said:

        “That Israel’s being the people unilaterally, irresistibly, irrevocably elected to reveal the law and produce the Deliverer of the World was not the same as being unilaterally, irresistibly, irrevocably chosen for salvation.”

        And you had said:
        “As far as God is concerned, never again is there to be any distinction between races or tribes of men. Nor was such a distinction in regards to salvation ever implied, as God’s promise to Abraham was for his seed to bless the people of every nation.

        This is what much of Israel resisted and rejected, the stumbling stone over which they fell. They did not want to be leveled with the rest of mankind, and insisted that not only were they chosen to reveal the law, but to be the sole recipients of the promised salvation of God, simply by rite of birth and circumcision. Romans, and other epistles, debunk that false belief.

        My response:

        You had defaulting to “FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERECE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE”. That is a totally different topic, and unrelated to what we are talking about. You are talking APPLES, and we are talking ORANGES. One does not have anything to do with the other.

        Yes, “IN CHRIST”, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. But, there most certainly is OUTSIDE of Christ.

        But that isn’t even what we are talking about.

        THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT:

        JEWS
        Deuteronomy 29:4 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
        But to this day the Lord hasn’t given you a mind that understands. He hasn’t given you eyes that see. He hasn’t given you ears that hear.

        Romans 11:7-8
        7 What should we say then? The people of Israel did not receive what they wanted so badly. Those Israelites who were chosen did receive it. But the rest of the people were made stubborn. 8 It is written,

        “God made it hard for them to understand.
        He gave them eyes that could not see.
        He gave them ears that could not hear.
        And they are still like that today.”

        GENTILES
        ROMANS 15:21
        21 It is written,

        “Those who were not told about him will understand.
        Those who have not heard will know what it all means.” (Isaiah 52:15)

        THAT is what we are talking about.

        So my questions:

        1. Did God blind the Jews or NOT?

        2. If so, when did he unblind ALL OF THEM to see?

        3 If he didn’t unblind them all, when did he unblind SOME, and will he unblind the rest?

        So, they brought the law, and killed Jesus. SO THAT’S IT? There is NOTHING more for the Jews to do? So what’s up with that 144000 THING in Revelation?

        Tell ya what, we’ll come back to that.

        But, comgin back to your Romans 9:6

        For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

        1. WHO IS “THEY”?

        2. WHO IS “OF ISREAL”?

        MY CONCLUSION IS THAT BOTH ARE THE JEWS. THERE IS A CONTEXT ABOVE AND BELOW TO PROVE THAT.

        THE REMNANT OF JEWS WHO ARE IN CHRIST ARE THE CHILDREN OF GOD, AND THE REST ARE ISRAEL.

        SO, THE ANSWER KEY TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS:

        1. REMNANT UNBLINDED JEWS, SAVED IN CHRIST…STILL ELECT

        2. REMAINING BLIND JEWS, NOT UNBLINDED, BUT WILL BE (FOR ALL OF THESE WILL BE #1 BY MERCY), ELECT

        PAUL SPEAKING OF HIMSELF:

        1 Timothy 1:13
        Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

        Last I recall, Paul is a Jew. I may be wrong, FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE, right?

        So, why did THAT JEW get MERCY again? IGNORANCE IN “UNBELIEF”.

        Is Paul really THAT SPECIAL? Does God show FAVORITISM? But WHY did he it IGNORANTLY IN UNBELIEF? Because he was BLIND, WASN’T HE? AND DIDN’T GOD HAVE TO REVEAL HIMSELF TO PAUL FOR HIM TO BELIEVE? He asked, “WHO ARE YOU LORD?”, DIDN’T HE?

        Well…

        Romans 11:31-32
        31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

        32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

        WHO IS “THEM” IN VERSE 32?

        In conclusion, I answered your For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. To review:

        THE REMNANT ARE OF ISRAEL, BUT NOT ISRAEL, FOR THEY ARE THE CHILDREN OF GOD INSTEAD NOW.

        THE WHOLE TOPIC IS STILL THE JEWS, BOTH ABOVE THAT VERSE, AND BELOW THAT VERSE, ALL THRU CHAPTER 11.

        BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT 144,000, THING…something about 12,000 from each tribe? Not related to ZIONISM? Just something we picked up from televangelists, and Left Behind books, huh? Okee dokee, then.

        Revelation 2:9
        I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

        Revelation 3:9
        Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

        WHY DID JESUS MAKE A POINT TO TALK ABOUT THE JEWS HERE? I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE?

        Ed Chapman

      8. “32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

        WHO IS “THEM” IN VERSE 32?”

        As I mentioned in an earlier post, the ‘them’ does not even belong there. It was improperly added in by translators, and completely distorts the meaning. Funny how often that happens. It should read:

        “For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all”, which, if not considered carefully in context, would lead to Universalism.

        When you realize this bias, and see it in so much of English translations, you begin to look a little closer at what scripture actually says, not what biased translators gave us. I would not recommend the NIV or its variations for study, although some prefer it for devotional reading. I would strongly encourage you to always check any verse you are studying with an interlinear to see what actual words were in the original language vs what English translations read. Translator bias is very real.

        Like I said earlier, I am not interested in debating this. I honestly don’t know why this post was put up, as it seems far from the purpose of the blog, but that’s just me I guess. I view it as a distraction, as in ‘debatable issues’ that we are urged to stay away from. But since it was brought up, I did feel compelled to offer another perspective. That was all I intended, and am not going to go back and forth about it. That belongs on another blog, IMO. One which I would not participate in. 🙂

      9. Improperly added? OK then. Come on, man, I’m not that gullible. Where is YOUR CONTEXT from the PREVIOUS verses about THE JEWS being ENEMIES? THEY are enemies. THEY are enemies. Is that ALSO improperly added? It had to be added to DECLARE who is being discussed.

        Why do you think that I mentioned PAUL getting Mercy mercy mercy DUE TO “ignorance in “””””UNBELIEF”””””””. Then I went back to Romans 11:32

        So, WHO do YOU think is being discussed in Romans 11:32, since we both agree that it CANNOT be universalism. Is it discussing ALL GENTILES, or ALL JEWS, OR who? There HAS TO BE A THEY INSERTED to DECLARE WHO is being discussed.

        But you wish to DENY that there is a WHO, but acknowledge that it isn’t UNIVERSAL. So I’m not getting what you are even declaring here.

        Ed Chapman

      10. Check an interlinear, and see if ‘them’ is in the Greek. Don’t take my word for it. Which leaves the verse saying the same as similar verses that tell us that all alike are under sin so that all alike can be offered grace. In other words, no difference between Jew and Gentile. This is the whole point of Romans. But I know saying that to you is like trying to tell a Calvinist that the whole point of the New Testament is to offer grace to all men. Actually, that is pretty much the same point, isn’t it? All men are the same before God, in sin, in need of grace and in the offer of grace. No one is determined to resist, rebel, not believe, etc. That is a free choice, and sadly the choice made by the vast majority, but not all, of national Israel and, it would seem, the vast majority of all men.

        In all honesty, I remain open to the hope of apokatastasis, or all creation being eventually restored; which would, of course include all of ethnic Israel. Some suggest such beliefs were held by the early church fathers. Nothing would make me happier than to discover that someday all will freely bow the need to God and be redeemed. But I do not see the moral or scriptural grounds for asserting that some are irresistibly chosen for salvation, on some ethnic or random basis, while others are excluded.

        That’s really all I have to say on the subject, so signing off.

      11. I am well aware that NONE of the bible has “pronouns”, therefore, pronouns were added in order to be understood. Just like there are no punctuations, and in the Hebrew, there are no vowels. I know all that.

        I leave it up to the TRANSLATORS who translated it FOR ME. Pronouns were added and if you read the CONTEXT, you KNOW who is being discussed, and it doesn’t take an interlinear to steer me into a different direction, because the CONTEXT is there.

        You know how the Calvinists LOVE to discuss EXE-JESUS ALL THE TIME, well, the exegesis is PERTAINING TO THE JEWS ONLY, and that is EASY to figure out, but we got some deniers out there, that’s for sure.

        I’ll close this conversation with you, because you have your mind made up, and I have my mind made up.

        Ed Chapman

      12. TS00,

        Sorry, but had to add this, about the REASON that this post is here. It has EVERYTHING to do with SOTERIOLOGY, because the Calvinists have DETERMINED, if you will, that everything that applies to the Jews, applies to EVERYONE, for to them, and you, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE.

        This ELECT thing is what CALVINISTS claim for themselves, when it isn’t for them at all. It’s not for ANY GENTILE period.

        And THAT is the reason that the WHOLE T U L I and P can be DEBUNKED.

        Ed Chapman

  7. I think it’s helpful to understand how the Bible defines election. The verb form speaks of a deliberate choice for a specific purpose. The Bible applies the verb form in a number of choices that God made: Aaron’s family as priests, the Levites as ministers, Jerusalem as His city, Israel as His people, the 12 apostles, and those in Christ as holy and blameless (Eph 1).

    The adjective form describes the object as choice in the sense of best in its class: a choice cut of meat. In the LXX it is frequently used to speak of high quality object such as the choice plot of land for Sarah’s tomb, the choice cattle that ate the lean cattle in Pharaoh’s dream, etc. It seems to me that when it is applied to the people of God (Jews or believers), it is intended to describe them as people who are a treasure to God.

    I agree with the author above that Paul must be speaking of Israelites in 2 Tim 2:10, but there are other passages in the NT that clearly refer to believers. Rom 8:33 – Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? Col 3:12 – Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved… 1 Pet 2:9 – But you are a chosen [elect] generation…

    I recommend the book ‘How the Bible Defines: Election’ for an indepth look at the Greek words for election. It strives to convey the meaining of the word through Biblical illustrations. https://www.clearwaters.net/how-the-bible-defines-election/

    1. Caleb,

      Thanks for the comment.

      Regarding the book of Peter, I agree that Peter’s audience are believers, but they are Jewish believers. My observation is that Peter is addressing his fellow Israelites, specifically those from the former northern kingdom (or the House of Israel).

      1 Peter 1:1-2 (NKJV)….
      To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ

      Compare that with….

      Acts 2:5-11 (NKJV)….
      And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

      Then…..

      1 Peter 2:9-12 (NKJV)…
      But you are a chosen generation (or race), a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.

      Compare that with the following….

      Exodus 19:3-6 (NKJV)….
      And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

      Then….

      1 Peter 5:13 (NKJV)….
      She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son.

      Who is the “she” in Babylon, elect together with you? Who was captured and taken into Babylon? The former Southern Kingdom, or the House of Judah.

      2 Peter 1:10 (NKJV)…
      Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble

      What was Israel’s calling and election for? To be a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6) and a light to the Gentiles (Luke 2:32, Acts 13:47).

      My point with the article above is that the Jewish people, Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh, are the elect of God, regardless if they believe or not. Their election is due to being the physical descendants of Abraham (Romans 11:28).

      Blessings.

      1. I don’t think Roman’s 11 :28 supports your thesis.
        “As regards the Gospel they are enemies of God for your sake ; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable”. Romans 12:28 NRS

        Although they are rejectors of God’s Gospel and are thus God’s enemies. John 3:36 They are still beloved and called to once again become elect. This is the irrevocable calling. It just says regarding the election, they are “beloved” because of their (elect) ancestors i.e the patriarchs. (Jesus himself wept when he considered Jerusalem. He loves them and takes no pleasure in their demise). It says in the Greek “regarding THE election”, not THEIR election. It does not mean that they themselves are still elect in their disbelief and not cut off from the elect flock. If they were of his sheep…his people… they would have heard his voice and followed him. If they accept their irrevocable calling to faithfulness they become thereby chosen by grace personally and THE election becomes THEIR personal election. That is why “many are called but few are chosen”. The mystery made known to the Holy Apostle Paul is the inclusion of believing Gentiles into the Israel of God with true believing Jews. They are all circumcised with a circumcision made without hands in the circumcision of Christ. BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM and Raised with Him…. COLLOSIANS 2:10-13

  8. The problem, as I see it, is we have allowed our Calvinist brothers define what “elect/election” means. Our Arminian brothers, in a desperate attempt to rebuke Calvinism, came up with their own definition of it. Neither fits the entirety of scripture.

    Don’t allow them to “blur” election with salvation. That’s the point. 2 Timothy 2:10 clearly points to Paul’s Jewish brothers, his fellow Israelites, as being God’s elect. Yet, Paul was not certain if they would “obtain salvation”, but was willing to suffer, at their very hands, in the hopes that they may. The Gentiles are the non-elect. Always have been. They were in the OT and today. Yet we know folks like Abel, Enoch, and Noah were saved and yet God never referred to them as “the elect”. That title, or distinction, was reserved only for the people of Israel. Even Christ, the Elect One, is a physical descendant of Israel, from the tribe of Judah.

    Election has nothing to do with salvation. That is an Augustinian notion that has been passed down for centuries and has infected many of our schools and seminaries. Throw the baby out with the bath water.

    The word elect/election (as a noun) only appears 19 times (or thereabout) in scripture (Isaiah 42:1 (NKJV), Isaiah 45:4 (NKJV), Isaiah 65:9 (NKJV), Isaiah 65:22 (NKJV), Matthew 24:22 (NKJV), Matthew 24:24 (NKJV), Matthew 24:31 (NKJV), Mark 13:20 (NKJV), Mark 13:22 (NKJV), Mark 13:27 (NKJV), Luke 18:7 (NKJV), Romans 8:33 (NKJV), Romans 11:7 (NKJV), Romans 11:28 (NKJV), Colossians 3:12 (NKJV), 2 Timothy 2:10 (NKJV), 1 Peter 1:1 (NKJV), 1 Peter 1:2 (NKJV), 1 Peter 5:13 (NKJV)).

    Just do a word study on it, in context (allowing for grammar), and look for the common denominator. I lean that all of the above refer to the Jews, regardless if they believed or not.

    Blessings.

    1. I am no calvinist. Nor am I an Augustinian. I am an Orthodox Christian. However it is clear from the book of 1 and 2ndThessolonians that there is election for salvation. See 2 thess 2:15. Also 1 Thess 1:4. Of course Ephesians 1 demolishes this notion that it is not about salvation. It is NOT an individualized unconditional election as Calvinists teach as part of their determinism philosophy. You are right to be against that. However, it is still a corporate election in Christ and an individual election according to foreknowledge and it DOES have to do with Salvation. Titus 1 speaks of the Faith of Gods elect…because they are the believers! 2 Timothy 1: 9 says that grace was granted us …grace for salvation…before the beginning of time. How is this possible if we were not corporately elected to salvation and individually foreknown, (contingent on our persevering to the end) ? The old covenant promises ( Land, longevity, prosperity, peace) are types and shadows of the true and eternal blessings we receive in Christ. The NT church is the New humanity…the one body in place of the two groups ( jew and gentile) as Paul clearly says in Ephesians 2:15. The one body of the Church is the Israel of God in the Chosen One, Christ Jesus.

      1. dnjohn,

        When you take 1 and 2 Thessalonians back to Acts 17, you will see that the ELECT being discussed is the Jews that did believe, and therefore, these 2 epistles were to the believing Jews, not the Gentiles.

        But yes, I know I know, those who have a different take on the word “elect” are the same ones who think that “For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile”, and so they think that 1 and 2 Thessalonians is for CHRISTIANS in general.

        i always cringe when I see the “orthodox” word called, “corporate”.

        Ed Chapman

  9. My thoughts: I liked this article with some ‘but’ is there a still bigger context on ‘elect’ in perspective and angle according to scriptures with the order of reasoning the article writer is following.( Being scripture=the big picture of revealed living and active reality of truth which is dynamic and not ‘static determinism’ in the order of Calvin’s thoughts as he fell for a dead philosophical working out of how the revelation of God is actually revealed. )

    https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=elect&begin=47&end=73
    ( Every time you see the word elect/election, I am suggesting, read elect and then repeat after it:”according to scripture”)

    Paying special attention to Titus 1:1-4 what do you see?

    Paul depended on being always in agreement with what the Holy Spirit had already revealed to mankind through God’s elections, according to scripture( being to him the OT ), as he wrote/spoke. Today, we have the advantage of seeing the mystery revealed as scripture, both old and New Testament, of God’s word though His prophets and apostles, as it passes all standards of God self-identifying standards of at least 2 witnesses, or 3. We rely on the NT with the OT through the Holy Spirit as Paul relied on the OT according to the Holy Spirit and the testimony He received from Jesus, which Paul knew had an immediate witness according to the standard of God who also provide the testimony of Ananias revelation, and so Paul wrote/spoke with Authority.

    John, being JesusChrist secretary for the book of The Revelation, knew as he wrote this scroll he was writing down a scroll as scripture because he was having a vision from God and being told to write from Jesus Christ( evidenced as the closing of scripture, the book of the Alpha and Omega. It is interesting, the intensity of John towards the ending of the scroll, telling people they better not add or take away from the scroll of this book).

    ———————-

    Sooo… I deleted the … at least 3000 words that further followed through these thoughts.

    1. Tammy,

      Thanks for the comment.

      Titus 1:1 (NKJV)….
      Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness

      “The faith of God’s elect”.

      Who were entrusted with the word of God? The Jews. Romans 3:2 (NKJV)

      To whom belong the covenants and promises? The Jews. Romans 9:4 (NKJV)

      Who’s promised Messiah was it? The Jews. Romans 9:5 (NKJV)

      From whom is salvation? The Jews. John 4:22 (NKJV)

      Who were the first to trust in Christ? The Jews. Ephesians 1:2 (NKJV)

      At whose expense did salvation come to the Gentiles? The Jews. Romans 11:11 (NKJV)

      Blessings.

      1. Ed, you claimed in an earlier post that 1 and 2nd Thessalonians was written to jewish Christian’s. The evidence points to them actually being converted pagans instead. It says that they ” turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…” 1 Thess 1:9 so his election references apply to all believers.

      2. dnjohn,

        You had said:
        “Ed, you claimed in an earlier post that 1 and 2nd Thessalonians was written to jewish Christian’s. The evidence points to them actually being converted pagans instead. It says that they ” turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…” 1 Thess 1:9 so his election references apply to all believers.”

        My response:
        Study out Acts 17, and then go back and study 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

        For example:

        WHO are the Bereans?

        Acts 17:11 [Full Chapter]
        These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

        Now, my question to you would be, WHAT SCRITPURES?

        The only scriptures they had back then was the HEBREW scriptures.

        And where do you suppose that those HEBREW scriptures would be? At the local book store? No. A synagogue. Gentiles are not allowed in any synagogue.

        The Bereans were Jewish.

        Then when you go back to 1 and 2 Thessalonians, you will begin seeing things that ONLY THE JEWS would have known back then.

        You can’t use TODAY’S knowledge of 1 and 2 Thessalonians as a guide that all Christians today have. Put yourself in history, in those days, and you tell me if the Gentile Christians would KNOW Jewish stuff that only the Jews would know.

        You’d be surprised.

        But you have to LOOK FOR IT, otherwise, you will never find it, and thereore conclude that they were former pagans…whatever that is. I’ve done a word search and can’t find the word PAGANS in the bible. So, is every non-Christian a pagan? Just curious as to the origination of that word in Christendom.

        Ed Chapman

      3. dnjohn,

        An addendum to my last:

        You had said:
        “It says that they ” turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…” 1 Thess 1:9 so his election references apply to all believers.”

        My response:

        The Jews were NOTORIOUS for playing the harlot with these idols in the “old testament”. Is this the first you have heard about that?

        Ed Chapman

  10. “according to the faith of God’s elect” said Paul (jewish) to Titus (gentile).

    Ephesians 1-*2-3 The Jewish receive the inclusion of the Gentiles, the ministry of reconciliation of our God. God removed the dividing wall. The elected identity are ‘His(chosen) people in (the promises of) Messiah/ Christ’. Paul, looking at his present time, speaking about that which was behind and is ahead, explained an election: to do good works prepared in advance for ‘you’ to do,(‘you ‘in the new covenant) the masterpiece created in Christ Jesus. God sends His Spirit and seals the believer( there is no difference between the jew or gentile that must believe(through faith) they are saved by God’s unmerited favor, according to the good news. Every saved individual is a member in the body, which is the elect body of Christ, JesusChrist being the head.

    So, the context helps determines the ‘elect’ and ‘election’ spoken of in context, as Paul speaks precisely as he looks back, present and forward, according to the faith, putting Jewish and Gentile identities in context (Ephesians 1-2-3) in light of the prophetic revelation of first importance for the individual to believe to be saved:1Corinthians15:1-4*

    See 2John as he speaks about (the yet to this day waiting) bride.

    Yes, in Romans 1, first to the Jew and then to the Gentile, according to the gospel being the power of God for salvation for those who believe,,,,, Romans 1 is of course the opening context that is the key to Paul speaking to the Romans about a history of the purposes of election.

    1. “Every saved individual is a member in the body, which is the elect body of Christ, Jesus Christ being the head.”

      Isaiah 45:4 (NKJV)….
      For Jacob My servant’s sake, And Israel My elect….

      Colossians 1:24 (NKJV)…
      ……for the sake of His body, which is the church

      There is the scriptural distinction. Nowhere in scripture do you find the phrase “elect body”.

      People will say “that election to salvation is primarily of the Church as a people and embraces individuals only in faith-union with Christ the Chosen One and as members of his people.”

      How can people explain so clearly what Paul, thru inspiration, could not? If the above was the clear teaching of scripture, Calvinism would have never raised its ugly head.

      1. Phillip writes:
        “If the above was the clear teaching of scripture, Calvinism would have never raised its ugly head.”

        Actually, you have it backwards. If Calvinism had not reared its ugly head, the clear teaching of scripture would never have been thusly distorted in so many minds. Likewise with other false teachings arising from demons whose purpose is to confuse and deceive. Hence the apostles’ warnings concerning doctrines of demons.

        Few of us stop to think where we got our beliefs. In anything. Why do we believe the earth is round, that kissing is nice, that God is who we think he is? If instead of kissing us as infants our mothers had pinched our cheeks would we give our dates a goodnight pinch when we grow up?

        All of our beliefs are shaped by countless factors that are all but impossible to delineate. We are bombarded with truth claims, suppositions, propaganda, false teachings, errant science, etc. from the moment we hear our first lullaby.

        Most of these truth claims enter into our subconscious through no volition of our conscious mind. Which is why it is a necessity, if we desire to grow in wisdom and understanding, to take the time and effort when we are mature, to re-evaluate our beliefs and understandings. For most of us, this endeavor will continue for all of our adult years. I am always astounded when I unearth some new misconception that I have been carrying around for decades, unthinkingly. Unfortunately, it would seem that too few embrace this lifelong, challenging endeavor.

        How many christians automatically accept the concept of a ‘Left Behind’ type rapture, because that is what they have heard their entire lives, in the churches, radio programs, podcasts, books, etc. to which they have been exposed? The same is true concerning our beliefs about sin, atonement, salvation, hell, ECT, and everything else we believe about God and his interactions with men. If we never stop and examine where those beliefs came from, what they actually mean (logical conclusions), and if they hold up to scripture and experience, we will never unburden ourselves of misconceptions and errors that we picked up subconsciously, unthinkingly throughout our lifetimes.

        Two weeks of hosting and entertaining even the people I love most on earth, over the holidays, left me starving for quiet time for study and reflection, which I found very little time for in the demands of meeting others’ needs. It reminds me why this study time in my life had to await the growing up of my five children and old(ish) age. 🙂

        But what if you never engage in such endeavors? Will your presuppositions and beliefs, however immature and faulty, ever be challenged and corrected? Or do you just count on your pastor, your books and your podcasts to do the research for you? I know of people who openly admit that they do not have the time or inclination for such deep thinking, so they rely on others to do it for them. That’s what ‘the experts’ are for. I’m afraid life has taught me that few experts can be mindlessly trusted. Used as resources, certainly, but never allowed to replace our God-given minds.

  11. Hi Phillip
    Romans 9:11
    though they were not yet born
    and had done nothing either good or bad—
    in order that
    God’s purpose of election might continue,
    not because of works but because of him who calls—
    12 she was told,
    “The older will serve the younger.”

    Col1: 24
    Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, (assembly/called out ones)
    25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you,
    to make the word of God fully known,
    26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints {=holy ones}.

    27 To them

    God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery,

    which is Christ in you,
    the hope of glory.
    28 Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom,
    that we may present everyone mature in Christ.
    29 For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.

    ———————-

    2 John 1:1 The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,

    2 John 1:13 The children of your elect sister greet you.

    ———————–

    We agree that Calvin’s determinism is false which includes what is built into it, being his misinterpretation of the elect and election.

    The election and elect of the Jewish nation, whether a faithful individual or not a faithful individual , belong to an elect nation.

    The position of election is not static : The Faith of the OT Jew is The Faith of the NT Believer{ jew and gentile identified so as to explain who together as one they are one body in Christ) and the mystery revealed in JesusChrist includes His People lay down their life as Jew and Gentile and become the citizens of God Kingdom. We die to ourself, hidden with Christ in God.

    My point is to say that the skeptic(for example a Calvinist) when challenged by the language for a ‘nation of faith’, if we say ‘the elect’ are always Jewish, might miss the movement of the Power of election according to The Faith and how God works to define The Elect through history looking back and looking forward. Scripture reveals the purpose and The Elect in view according to what is revealed in the context according to The Faith. (we are entrusted to contend for)

    The OT revelation is the school master that brings us to Christ, unveiled. The power of God, as relatated to election, is found in the good news, which came first to the Jew( as an elected nation ) and then to the Gentile (the world nations) which immediately reconciled The People of God where there is neither jew nor gentile but a born again people who are citizen in the Kingdom of God, who should walk as ambassador called out of this present worldly system {dan 2} yet sent out into the nations of the world with the message of the good news about our Blessed Hope.Titus 2/1 Peter/Eph 1_2_3/John 3/1 Corinthians 15/(The good news of salvation of course is ABSENT of deterministic philosophy which misrepresents the doctrine of things determined. The good/bad news of determinism is a misdirecting lie used by our Enemy. The bad news is PEOPLE DIE and sinners/all are deserving of just judgement and sin and death is still the enemy we must face in this world, but the good news is the message of Jesus Christ is the offered Savior with an eternal plan.Romans 8/Rev 21-22/1 Corinthians 15

    Precept upon precept, I think to say ‘the elect’ are always the Jewish nation is to limit the follow through of your good position of what ‘election’ reveals to us in its context, whether the immediate context or of the bigger picture of the entire Revelation. ( See the chosen/elected bride become a wife- Rev 21)

    ( the older election serves the younger election and some faithful of the older election became recognized( having already been elected coming out of the nation) for the younger election of the New Covenant. We can see in Hebrews, given another relational perspective and angle, we understand how a marriage contract works between a groom and (elected) bride and when a marriage partner dies.)

    Just as these positions reveal NOT a Calvinist, they also reveal NOT a dispensationalist. They actually also reveal a bit of NOT Political- but instead Governed by God, ‘entrusted’ with the power of His message, His ( now believing) People ‘elected’ to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ who Himself made the Father known. We share this with those who were our ‘own people’ , our mere human kinsmen of Jews and Gentiles 1 Corinthians 15: *1-4 – John 17 ( Presently, the (elected) bride functions to the Glory of God through the Holy Spirit, treating our neighbor as we want to be treated and loving each other, through the hands and feet (on the ground Ephesians 6:10-21) of the body of Christ- and the older election, according to the Holy Spirit, continues to serve us younger everytime we read the scriptures.

    Until He raises the bodies of the [elected/chosen] bride as promised, the resurrection promised throughout all of history, when as one, we see the Groom face to face, may we sharpen each other for that which is of first importance in truth and love for our neighbor: 1 Corinthians 15, this is the good news as long as it is called today. Today is the day of salvation, not determinism.

    (Sharping: Disagree and need to correct me, confused, or something sharpened?)

    While we wait :
    Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

  12. I have honestly been trying to go though this jigsaw puzzle that has been put together in the above article. I don’t mean that to be disrespectful Philip. You really got me looking at this verse and thinking.

    It does seem to come from a Premil Dispensational (To think once I was good at spelling, time to turn on grammerly.) point of view or what I mean I think Philip might be in this camp. Not sure. But that does not make him wrong.

    I want to ask an honest question. Is the author saying that 2 Timothy 2:10 is the smoking gun that has put a silver bullet in the ugly head of Calvinism as so stated?

    Well two questions actually.

    Is the author saying that 2 Timothy 2:10 is only Gospel saved by Christ Jews?

    Don’t get excited anyone. I actually think the article is “stuff that is interesting”

    It has actually made me rethink the verse myself. I mean I spent at least four hours trying to think of a way to refute this.

    So well done Philip and others involved.

    I know I sound a little negative but you all know that I have a Calvinist bent. That may be weakening. Not for sure yet.

    But everyone seems to think the demonic beast of Calvinism has been slayed. As if all rest on this one verse. Maybe it does. I am getting so confused anymore that is why I have hesitated in responding for so long.

    I am low hanging fruit. I don’t know the Biblical Greek. Just a layman so your not going to get much of a push-back for me. I may try if I can understand better. But the article does seem plausible. Would like to see someone who is of much more familiar with the Calvinist beliefs read this and see what could be said from the other side.

    Just do not like the fact that is seems like a bunch of puzzle pieces from different puzzles poured into one box and then trying to make the case. Not saying it is wrong just still unsure and ask for patience.

    Philip does say Calvinist brothers. So I am thinking he does think that as “we Calvinist saw their sinful” condition before a God who is angry with the wicked every day, and called upon the name of the Lord, that the Calvinist is saved by the grace of Christ through faith as he is. But he did not say Calvinist Christian brothers. I know there are many on here who think the Calvinist is a sinner for following a demonic belief. I know some don’t.

    So if I ask questions or put forth something that may seem to challenge the article. Just please be patient with me and show me my misunderstanding.

    It just seems more and more info keeps popping up that is making me rethink some things. What if I am being deceived. But what if I am not.

    So I will start from here and who knows I may not say another word. Just as BRD silenced me here to a large extent. But I think you BRD for your patience and understanding.

    So some of you Ex-Calvinist consider where I am at right now. No I do not want to deny what I believe but at the same time I am honestly reconsidering some things. This one has hit me hard.

    I may ask someone who in the past sent me a refutation of Corporate Election (Karl Barth. NT Wright) by the name of Dr. Sean Cole. Do not know if he has the time like he use to.

    And if I try and refute this and you think I am wrong. Please just correct me in what you think I have said is wrong.

    So in some sense I have doubts about but then I see the strength of what Philip is saying.

    But with all due respect I always find it humorous when Soteriology101 agrees with the god of John Calvin and use him as a resource to back up their findings. I mean that respectfully.

    I think FOH is right about me putting down my theology books. None of them seemed to help me with this subject.

    And no Calvinist has yet tried to engage and refute this. The silence may be speaking volumes. I do not know.

    So God bless and be in prayer for me.

    1. jusklntime2442,

      Thank you for your very kind and gracious comments.

      If my understanding of 2 Timothy 2:10 is correct (and the context, grammar, and other supporting scriptures support that), yes, it is, what you call, a “silver bullet” to Calvinism. The “U” in the TULIP has withered and died. However it also deals a heavy blow to Arminianism as well. There are even some here who adhered to this way of thinking, but have yet rebuke my take on 2 Timothy 2:10 with scripture.

      To answer your first question, yes, I am a dispensational premillennialist. I see a clear distinction between Israel and the church. Most (but not all) Calvinists are Amillennialists. But even this has no bearing on my rendering of the verse in question.

      You asked… “Is the author saying that 2 Timothy 2:10 is only Gospel saved by Christ Jews?”

      If I understand you correctly, no (please correct me, if I have misunderstood). Salvation is obtainable by all, both Jew and Gentile. Both elect and non-elect. That salvation is only thru Paul’s gospel of grace (1 Corinthians 15:1-5 NKJV). And that, I believe, is Paul’s point in 2 Timothy 2:10.

      You said… “It has actually made me rethink the verse myself. I mean I spent at least four hours trying to think of a way to refute this.”

      Bless your heart, brother. Some haven’t even done that.

      You said… “I know I sound a little negative but you all know that I have a Calvinist bent. That may be weakening. Not for sure yet.”

      And if that is the case, then I thank both Leighton and Eric for posting my article. And thanks to my dear brother and friend Brian Wagner for his input. And praise God!

      Jusklntime2442, I will add you to my prayers, brother. Please keep in touch with the good folks here at soteriology101. For the most part, they are an open-minded bunch who love the Lord. Some here might disagree with my take on 2 Timothy 2:10, and that’s fine. They are all still my brothers and sisters in Christ. But I have been extremely humbled by your comments and blessed to know that it has caused you to re-think Calvinism.

      God bless, brother.

    2. Thank you Philip for being patient and kind.

      I did word this a little ambiguous and confusing so it was hard to understand when I said:

      “Is the author saying that 2 Timothy 2:10 is only Gospel saved by Christ Jews?

      I think I was asking if you are saying this verse refers to the Jews only? I understand you believe Gentiles can be saved also.

      and yes your article is good. It was through BRD that my doubting began. But this article really hit hard. I am going to try and see if there is a response. I do have a train of thought of how to maybe push back on it somewhat. But one thing I have learned is that there are many insightful individuals here who know their Bible. So I am no longer being dogmatic with my fingers in my ears not listening.

      Thank you for your Prayers.

      1. Yes. Paul is enduring all things for the sake of his Jewish brothers, his kinsmen according to the flesh, in the hope that they may (implying they may not) obtain salvation. The salvation of “the elect” is not a guarantee. And that is what causes Paul so much anguish (Romans 9:3, Romans 11:13-14). If Paul was willing to be cut off from Christ for his fellow Israelites, then he was certainly willing to be imprisoned by them (Acts 28:20).

        Blessings.

  13. I want to start off by giving a response by Dr. Sean Cole in his understanding of Ephesians 1:4 and the fact that he disagrees that no one could have been “chosen, elected” or picked out” from “eternity” because no one existed and that Ephesians 1:4 does teach the Doctrine of Election. This is in response to a person I highly respect.

    Here is Dr. Sean Cole on Ephesians 1:4

    Dr Sean Cole
    “Let me give you my thoughts on this. In the grand scheme of things a dative (indirect object or interest) has no bearing on the meaning of the passage. Let’s break it down.

    God gave (aorist passive)

    What did God give? In the immediate grammatical context it is probably grace but it could be both purpose and grace

    Here’s the question: To whom was this grace given? TO US—(dative—if a normal dative indirect object—we are the recipients of this grace that was given. Even if it is a dative of interest it could be translated that this grace was given “for our benefit or advantage”—but the Greek does not allow the grace to be given to Jesus to then someday in the future turn around give to us.

    He does believe that the grace was given before (pros) times eternal or before creation or in eternity past—however you want to translate it.

    Here is his problematic statement: That grace was given before creation to Christ Jesus to possess and reveal later (vs. 10) for us who are now saved and called

    Why would God give grace to Jesus to later on give to us? Nowhere else in the NT do we see this concept of God giving grace to Jesus before time and then coming later to reveal this grace. The grammar will not allow the grace to be given to Christ. Even if he takes it as a dative of interest the grace is still given to US (for our benefit or advantage or interest) in Christ—not that the grace was given to Christ.

    Here is his other problematic statement: Neither was grace given TO you or me individually before salvation, as if we had it placed into our lives back then, for our lives did not exist back then. One can speak anachronistically and say “grace that was given to us” but it would be more logical and literal to say “grace that was given for us”. This “us” is a dative of interest, not a dative indirect object.

    The grammar will simply not allow this. The direct object or recipient of the grace is “US”—not Christ. Even though our lives did not exist back then, God still predestined us to be saved. This would mean that when God created He had no knowledge of you or me. Or we can believe what the Bible says that God predestined US and chose US before the foundation of the world. In God’s mind, even though we didn’t exist, God still shows specific electing love to all those whose names were written in the Lamb’s book of life before the foundation of the world.

    Even if the grace was given TO us or given FOR us, he still has to answer his own objection. How can something be given FOR us if we did not exist? I guess he thinks this salvation was a plan that God would enact one day when Christ came but that there was no eternal decree by God to save anyone in particular.

    Even if the grace was given for us or to us, we are still the recipients of that grace and God did it before time and only the elect will be saved.

    I’m afraid he is trying to make the text say something it doesn’t in order to not deal with unconditional election. Which is probably the case since he is a corporate election guy.

    This is a minor detail and one that I wouldn’t be dogmatic on. The real question is this—if sinners are spiritually dead and unable to come to Christ on their own, how then do they come? Are they drawn? can they resist that drawing? Does God foresee who will be saved and then ratify their decision based upon what he sees? Does a dead sinner use his or her free will to come to Christ and then once they come to Christ they are one of the elect?

    These are the greater questions.

    I hope this helps.

    Sean

    1. I must fix a mistake I made in the beginning, Dr. Sean Cole was responding to a person who says that in Ephesians 1:4 God did not choose “us in Christ” because no one existed and that In Ephesians 1 is not teaching Individual Election in Christ to be predestined to Salvation in Christ in time and history.

      The way I said it made it sound like that was what Dr. Cole believed.

      I want to start off by giving a response by Dr. Sean Cole in his understanding of Ephesians 1:4 and the fact that he disagrees with an individual that no one could have been “chosen, elected” or picked out” from “eternity” in Christ because no one existed and that Ephesians 1:4 does teach the Doctrine of Individual Election. This is in response to a person I highly respect.

      That sounds better.

      Sorry for the confusion.

  14. The individual Dr. Cole who was responding to was an assertion to the fact that he said it was not the “us who were chosen in Christ’ Because no one existed in eternity. I will get it right some day.

    Looking into the word “beginning” might seem a strange place to start. But there is a reason behind it that will become clear maybe. We will see. “In the beginning refers to (timeless eternity) I do not think many of us have looked at the word “beginning” in this way in certain places in the Bible where the context makes this definite.

    John 1:1-3 – 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
    3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

    Below are different commentators speaking of the word “beginning” in the Gospel of John 1:1-2. Notice the temporal is not mentioned until verse 3. If you want to know who the commentators are just let me know. Trying to save space and time. You do not have to read them all to get the idea. There is a method to my seemingly madness.

    “1. (Joh_1:1-2) The origin of the Word (Logos).
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
    a. In the beginning refers to the timeless eternity of Gen_1:1 : In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth. John essentially says, “When the beginning began, the Word was already there.” That is, that the Word predates time or creation.”

    “So blessedly John opens his Gospel, in attestation to the Essential Godhead of the Son of God, as God. This was in the beginning, before all time, before all worlds, before all things. He was with God, and was God, and is God! And elsewhere he calls him Eternal Life. 1Jn_1:1-2. I beseech the Reader to mark this down, or rather to beg of God the Holy Ghost to mark it down for him in the fleshy tables of his heart, as the sure and unerring foundation of all the fundamental principles of faith.”

    In the beginning – This expression is used also in Gen_1:1. John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to “the Word” an expression which is there applied “to God.” In both places it clearly means before creation, before the world was made, when as yet there was nothing. The meaning is: that the “Word” had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which “became” a man, or was incarnate Joh_1:14. The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. ”

    “In the beginning — Namely, of the creation, (for the evangelist evidently refers to the first word of the book of Genesis, בראשׁית, bereshith, rendered by the LXX. εν αρχη, the expression here used,) was the Word — That is, The Word existed at the beginning of the creation, and consequently from eternity. He was when all things began to be; whatsoever had a beginning. And the Word was with God — Namely, before any created being had existed.”

    “The first chapter asserts what He was before all things, and the different characters in which He is a blessing to man, being made flesh. He is, and He is the expression of, the whole mind that subsists in God, the Logos. In the beginning He was. If we go back as far as is possible to the mind of men, how far soever beyond all that has had a beginning, He is. This is the most perfect idea we can form historically, if I may use such an expression, of the existence of God or of eternity. “In the beginning was the Word.” Was there nothing beside Him? Impossible! Of what would He have been the Word? “The Word was with God.”

    “1–5.] THE ETERNAL PRÆ-EXISTENCE OF THE λόγος: HIS PERSONAL DISTINCTNESS; BUT ESSENTIAL UNITY WITH GOD. HIS WORKING IN CREATION, AND IN THE ENLIGHTENING OF MEN BEFORE HIS MANIFESTATION IN THE FLESH; HIS NON-APPREHENSION BY THEM.”

    “The Bible identifies many beginnings. The beginning that John spoke of was not really the beginning of something new at a particular time. It was rather the time before anything that has come into existence began. The Bible does not teach a timeless state either before Creation or after the consummation of all things.”

    “At the beginning of this eternity, when there was nothing else, the Word existed.”

    “Our finite minds cannot comprehend eternity. John is condescending to our level of understanding. He gives us a point in time (the beginning) from which to reflect upon the eternal existence of the Word. All other things came into being, but the Godhead has enjoyed timeless existence. Jesus said the same thing in Joh_8:58 . . . “before Abraham came (genesthai—was begotten), I am (eimi—timeless existence).” Jesus also laid claim to pre-existence with the Father in His high priestly prayer, Joh_17:5.”

    “Being existing ἐν ἀρχῇ, and therefore prior to all beginning. That was the first moment of time; this is eternity, transcending time. S. John insists on this and repeats it in Joh_1:2”

    “The Logos did not then begin to be, but at that point at which all else began to be He already was. In the beginning, place it where you may, the Word already existed. In other words, the Logos is before time, eternal. Cf. Col_1:18 ”

    “John glances, in the first three verses, back to the beginning, recorded in Genesis, and affirms: (1) That he who was afterwards manifest as the Christ existed before creation began; (2) that he was present with God; (3) that he was divine; (4) that he was the Word; (5) that by or through him were all things made that were made (Joh_1:3).”

    “In the beginning — of all time and created existence, for this Word gave it being (Joh_1:3, Joh_1:10); therefore, “before the world was” (Joh_17:5, Joh_17:24); or, from all eternity”

    “His existence in the beginning: In the beginning was the Word. This bespeaks his existence, not only before his incarnation, but before all time. The beginning of time, in which all creatures were produced and brought into being, found this eternal Word in being. The world was from the beginning, but the Word was in the beginning. Eternity is usually expressed by being before the foundation of the world. The eternity of God is so described (Psa_90:2), Before the mountains were brought forth. So Pro_8:23. The Word had a being before the world had a beginning. He that was in the beginning never began, and therefore was ever, achronos – without beginning of time.”

    “Joh_1:1. In the beginning, etc.—ἐν ἀρχῇ. The בְּרֵאשִׁית etc., of Genesis 1 denotes the beginning of that movement of the divine creative energy from which sprang the visible universe. The Evangelist’s words take us beyond this definite point into the immeasurable eternity. In the beginning the Word was. The Logos was not then called into being. He existed “before all worlds” (Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24), i.e. before time, which measures the visible universe, had begun. As eternity has neither beginning nor end the Word is eternally existent (for the meaning of the term Logos see Introduction, p. 10, and notes below).”

    “In the beginning (en archēi). Archē is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be reshith in Gen_1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity.”

    “In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν)
    With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until Joh_1:3. This beginning had no beginning”

    “Joh_1:1. In the beginning was the Word, —
    Christ the Word has existed from all eternity. He is the eternal Son of the eternal Father; he is really what Melchisedec was metaphorically, “having neither beginning of days, nor end of life.” “In the beginning was the Word,”

    Genesis 1:1 – 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    Prov 8:23
    I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. I was set up – Rather, “I was anointed” (compare Psalm 2:6 margin: 2 Chronicles 28:15). The image is that of Wisdom anointed, as at her birth, with “the oil of gladness.”

    Or ever the earth was – literally, “from the times before the earth.”

    We will see other places in Scripture where this word is used in this manner later.

  15. Philip, my name is Kevin. There is a reason I am telling you that 🙂

    Just to let you know it was BRD who has me staggering and leaning more in the direction of disagreeing with Calvinist Determinism. Unless I hear a more congent argument for Calvinist soft-determinism than LFW. I still have questions but if you go back and read the discussion I had with BRD you will see why I could no longer hold dogmatically to that position.

    But I was still holding onto Calvinist Soteriology strongly. Now I am somewhat staggering in that also bc of your article. I would be Postmil in my eschatology but that does not having any bearing on this either.

    I agree with what AIDAN MCMANUS
    JANUARY 7, 2020 AT 1:40 PM

    said above. Not saying he is postmil but what he said fits into the Postmil understanding. But you know eschatalogy. It is hard to get any two Christians two agree on that. 🙂 I heard one person say, “when he (Jesus) comes, we go.” That was his eschatology. 🙂

    So thanks once again.

  16. Philip, So I see now you are saying you believe that 2 Timothy 2:10 is talking about the elect as being the Jews and that it is not an absolute that the elect Jews will be saved.

    But in the verse you are saying that the elect are saved and cannot lose their salvation correct?

    And they are “and they are elect and then become saved but maybe not”

    Not in the sense that sense “you become the elect after you are saved” Correct or am I mistaken?

    I will re-read why you came to this conclusion.

    Am I wrong to say that Mr. Brian Wagner who I respect greatly believes “that all the elect are believers in Christ?” As Brian believes Christ is the elect one

    In Brian’s own words and I quote: “It is easier to believe that Christ was the only Elect One before creation and others become the saved “elect” in Him when joined to Him through faith.”

    Does he believe that 2 Timothy 2:10 is speaking only of the Jews as you do ?

    Or do you two slightly differ on this aspect?

    Do you and Brian differ even on who the “elect are?”

    You believing that “the elect are only Jews saved and unsaved?

    And Brian believing the “God elects the saved. Jews or Gentiles after they are saved?

    Not saying that Brian does not believe the “elect” in 2 Timothy 2:10 is not speaking of believers in Christ.” I would say he probably does believe that.

    Sorry Brian if I misrepresented you.

    Also I guess I need to re-read the post again bc I thought you were saying along with John Calvin that Paul was talking about individuals already saved (Jews as you have told me) being the Elect.

    But then you said it is not an absolute that the Jewish Elect will be saved.

    Do you mean that in general it is possible?

    But yes in 2 Timothy 2:10 the Jewish individuals are the saved Elect? Meaning here God is speaking of “elect Jewish believers who were at one time “Elect Jewish Sinners.”?

    Is being an “elect believer” just a name God calls believers when they become saved?

    Jewish saved elect in 2 Timothy 2:10.

    Or how does God elect Jewish believers in Christ once they are saved as it seems Brian is saying?

    Sorry for what it seems to be asking the same question over and over in different ways but I want to be sure I understand.

    The word “elect” I know but may not be exact as “choosing or picking out of” in all contexts. I know there are some nuances but I think they are pretty close.

    Like when we “elect, choose or pick the candidates for President from two different persons.

    How does God do that with Elect Jewish Believers? Or as in the Old Testament you believe God “elected, chose and picked out of” all the Nations of the earth, Israel, because he Loved them.

    That would be the way I understand the word elect as far as electing amongst nations.

    Brian it seems he holds to the position that God elects saved people. This is confusing to me because I do not know in what way or manner.

    As you know that Calvinist understanding is God elects, chooses or picks out of the mass of fallen humanity to be saved in time and history through means.

    Acts 15:14 – Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.

    Sort of like this verse here where Peter explains how God granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles. Peter said “God first visited the Gentiles (TO TAKE OUT OF THEM) a people for His name.

    God was doing in time what he had elected in Christ to do in eternity. To save those elected in Christ in eternity. By “God coming to the Gentiles for the first time, to execute his “election unto salvation” in time and history and “taking out some of the Gentiles” (picking out of the whole who had been elected unto salvation.)

    It does not say he came to the Gentiles to try and save all, but actually, really and most powerfully take out the Gentiles a people for His name.

    I know got off subject, time to quit for a while.

    I need to stop and read the article again.

    Ok, everyone knows when I start thinking I start posting to many comments.

    Philip I say to you as I said to BRD if I become overwhelming and wear out my welcome just tell me or ignore me.

    For some reason I have no option to get an email reply to my comments. So I do not know if there will be a reply button. Sorry and God bless Philip.

    1. Kevin writes:
      “Acts 15:14 – Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.

      Sort of like this verse here where Peter explains how God granted repentance unto life to the Gentiles. Peter said “God first visited the Gentiles (TO TAKE OUT OF THEM) a people for His name.

      God was doing in time what he had elected in Christ to do in eternity. To save those elected in Christ in eternity. By “God coming to the Gentiles for the first time, to execute his “election unto salvation” in time and history and “taking out some of the Gentiles” (picking out of the whole who had been elected unto salvation.) ”

      I just wanted to point out that what you say can be absolutely true without individual determinism entering into the picture. God can take out of the Gentiles all who believe, thereby taking out of them a people for his name. This does not require God to irresistibly call out John, Joe and Judy, but simply call out to ‘whosoever will believe’ and taking for himself all who respond.

      This is, indeed, what he had determined to do in eternity past – create a people (the elect, or children of God) of all who ever will believe in his Word incarnate. This is an open category – whosoever chooses to believe becomes one of those determined by God to be his children, to be eventually conformed to the image of his Son. Not because they were irresistibly compelled, but because they responded to the truth claims of Jesus, their belief causing them to be included in this elect group who become One Body ‘in Christ’.

      1. That is plausible TSOO. I never thought of it that way before. I take it you understand this as God foresees the sinners faith?

        Thanks for engaging and helping ,me not to just think in a Calvinist way about a passage but to consider the alternatives.

        “This does not require God to irresistibly call out John, Joe and Judy, but simply call out to ‘whosoever will believe’ and taking for himself all who respond.”

        Although TSOO you said and I quote: “This is, indeed, what he had determined to do in eternity past – create a people (the elect, or children of God) of all who ever will believe in his Word incarnate. This is an open category – whosoever chooses to believe becomes one of those determined by God to be his children”

        Are they determined to believe in eternity, or is it those who choose to believe become determined in time and history by God to be his children? Or both in some way?

        I see the strength of this assertion and will consider it. I will think on this and reply back later.

      2. Kevin writes:
        “Are they determined to believe in eternity, or is it those who choose to believe become determined in time and history by God to be his children? Or both in some way?”

        Neither. No one is determined to believe. That is an oxymoron. Belief is, by definition, a choice. Not believing must always be an option for belief to be meaningful. Being loving and gracious, God determined to take for himself a people, that being all who would believe, rather than all who are perfect in every way, all of a particular race, all who keep the law or a random, arbitrary subset of humanity. Those determined to be saved are believers, a category from which no one is excluded except by their own free choice.

      3. Kevin,

        “I take it you understand this as God foresees the sinners faith?”

        Compare this with Brian Abasciano’s comment in the article provided.

        “….individual election is the classic (Arminian) view, in which God individually chose each believer based upon his foreknowledge of each one’s faith and so predestined each to eternal life.”

        As I have proven in the article, this interpretation doesn’t work within the context of 2 Timothy 2:10 for several reasons.

        1. The elect are lost and so can’t be “in Christ”.
        2. Believers (those in Christ) have (not may) obtained salvation.
        3. The elect are the ones who have imprisoned Paul and want him dead.
        4. The other category introduced by the “also”.

        Was Israel elected based upon their foreseen faith?

        Deuteronomy 7:7-8 (NKJV)…
        The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

        Please re-read the article where I discuss the Arminian option (of election) in detail.

        Blessings, brother.

    2. Brother Kevin,

      “So I see now you are saying you believe that 2 Timothy 2:10 is talking about the elect as being the Jews and that it is not an absolute that the elect Jews will be saved.”

      Yes. The Jews are the elect of God. But just to be clear. From a salvation standpoint, there is no such thing as a non-elect Jew. All Jews are the elect of God, so saying “elect” Jew is redundant.

      “But in the verse you are saying that the elect are saved and cannot lose their salvation correct?”

      No. In the context of the verse, Paul considers them (the elect) to be lost. He is enduring his suffering and imprisonment for his fellow Jews, and by their very hands, in the hope that they will be saved. I do lean towards the eternal security of the believer, but that is a different topic.

      “And ‘they are elect and then become saved but maybe not.’”

      Exactly. A Jew (an elect) can both be saved and lost. They are not elect because they believed, they are elect because they are the physical descendants of Jacob (1 Chronicles 16:13, Psalm 105:6, Romans 11:28).

      Regarding brother Brian. I believe he currently disagrees with me. I say “currently” because at one point we agreed. He even provided his own literal translation of the text in question as shown in the article. But now, I believe he reads 2 Timothy 2:10 somewhat differently than I do, but admits my interpretation is at least possible. It was then he added….

      “The context leans towards identifying the ‘elect’ as the same ones ‘on account of which’ he is willing to endure suffering, that they also (the ones causing the suffering) ‘may obtain’ salvation… but not certain they will.”

      Who were the ones causing his suffering and imprisonment? The Jews.

      “I will re-read why you came to this conclusion.”

      Please do. Its pretty straight forward.

      1. Thank you Philip for replying.

        Overall like you said over-all pretty straight forward. But for me in some places ambiguous.

        But reading it more may and meditating may help instead of asking you a thousand questions.

        I just want to be sure I am understanding correctly and representing you correctly when I interact with the article.

        Because for some reason, for the life of me I do not know why, I thought you were saying the verse was speaking of Jews who were saved, the elect of God as you would put it. Not that being saved is what makes them elect. That I was confused about.

        I had already gathered from your Premil Disp. Understanding there can be no “non-elect Jew.”

        I was not trying to pit you and Brian against one another. I just seen where you quoted him in your article and thought you were on the same page.

        But when I read the comments I thought I detected some minor disagreements. But that helps me in understanding.

  17. Wow, did I really have that all confused Philip. I had read your article then read all the comments going straight down the page.

    I am use to this page, Soteriology101 being in unity on whatever article is written bc of stance against Calvinism.

    But I see there is disagreement with you over your understanding of 2 Timothy 2:10 by some who are not Calvinists.

    I had it all boggled in my mind bc I am use to to the unity of sticking together against Calvinism. I was reading into your article some of the comments that maybe disagreed in some way in my mind and that is where the confusion came from.

    But the “elect” in this verse who are said to always be talking about those who are “saved in Christ” Well this is confusing to me since Paul in this verse is talking about the “elect” and “that they may obtain salvation also” even as he and Timothy were already in possession and experiencing salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

    I do not see how the “elect” in this 2 Timothy 2:10 are already saved and in Christ.

    1. Kevin,

      “I do not see how the ‘elect’ in this 2 Timothy 2:10 are already saved and in Christ.”

      Exactly. Whoever the “elect” are, Paul considers them to be lost. And it is this same “elect” that have imprisoned him and want him dead. That is precisely why the Arminian interpretation doesn’t work in this verse.

      Again, as I said earlier, my interpretation of 2 Timothy 2:10 deals a heavy blow to both Calvinism and Arminianism. And it is these two schools of thought that dominate most of Christendom. That is why you will see resistance to this from most.

      But believe me. I am not alone on this interpretation. There are others out there who understand “the elect” in 2 Timothy 2:10 referring to the Jews. Even some on this very website have been persuaded that “the elect” in 2 Timothy 2:10 refers to the Jews.

      Acts 28:24 (NIV)….
      Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe.

      Blessings, brother.

    2. Kevin,

      “But the ‘elect’ in this verse who are said to always be talking about those who are ‘saved in Christ’ Well this is confusing to me since Paul in this verse is talking about the ‘elect’ and ‘that they may obtain salvation also’ even as he and Timothy were already in possession and experiencing salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”

      Great observation. There goes the Arminian interpretation. And Paul fears this same elect may not obtain salvation. There goes the Calvinist interpretation.

      Blessings.

      1. Phillip and Kevin, ( holy kiss )

        I am praying and following. I have a lot of thoughts I would like to add in ( of which I would not roll so much together and be a much more careful writer.) The truth is I prefer phone conversation to writing where much more gets covered in time and perspective.

        Anyway, :-),

        Kevin,

        You said something of great importance as we submit to be washed by the word of God:You have identified in observation of yourself that it is identifiable that you have a ‘lens’ when going to the scripture and now recognize it: “thinking like a Calvinist”
        So, this matters in how you see and hear others even in the subtleties.

        I might take a different path because of things you shared hear but I don’t want to throw off a good conversation, but I will jump in with some thoughts here.

        First a thought about Calvinist and Christian brothers/sisters: Giving the benefit of the doubt and thinking the best, this is how I hear the heart and mind of a Calvinist who does repeat they believe the good news: I hear them wanting to honor God and give Him all glory and credit for their salvation, saying that ‘believing’ had nothing to do with themselves coming to believe as this becomes ‘a work’ they would then be taking credit for, to come to believe. (Hence, this then leads also into the Calvinist thinking about what it means to “give all glory to God” and they want to give God all the God. There heart is to hold God in the Highest Esteem.

        So, a few thoughts because of what you recognize:

        What is the lens that you should now have when reading scripture? Why?
        (And you may want to add to that, and can re-adjust to recognize what he see with certain bias or what certain bias help bring to the forefront of attention: What is you essential framework, with you essential lens?) *FYI: One of the issues of division in the church: we are trying to speak the same detailed language when we have different frameworks,,, and worse when we have a different lens. {Hmmmm… if only we could get a group of (professional)systematic theologians into the same room as common believers. :-)… okay, I digress… back to us… for Example.}

        And,a basic practice measure, because of how long you have practiced thinking like a Calvinist: (others might add- thinking as a US citizen, a western American, immature views and not reading scripture as the living and active word of God )
        Read a book like Ephesians, all the way through with YOU assuming YOU to be always PLURAL, and then delineating its perspective and angles in what it is communicating to the PLURAL and how it demands the plural might be individually singular, remembering the saved individual belongs to a functioning family, where our Father calls us to work… for example… or not and just stick with YOU. AND, what is the essential lens you( as an individual reading ) consider when Paul speaks? ( Hint: Paul tells us what is of “first importance” )

        —————————-
        Extra sharing: I more than lean, for definitional purposes in term, towards amill- my 2nd considered leaning would be pre-mill if ‘ I am interpreting wrong’. On the amill, important- resurrection is always to include the body. There is no ‘your spirit is resurrected’- I have no problem handling Revelation 20 in explaining this. Hence, lean. 🙂 Anyway, how did I come to my position: I took on the framework of all the escatololy position and sought the truth in them to discover errors as I used them to sharpen each other. A ‘we can both be wrong, but only one of us can be right’ kind of exercise. And I considered to I have the right lens , according to scripture, and am I using the truest framework possible according to what scripture reveals. So, eschatology was a detail in framework and not the framework itself.
        Now, about thinking like a Calvinistic or a “Reformer” and lets ago back to Augustine, too: What was their framework of scripture? What did they think WHILE constructing and most of the thinking/writing about the book of Revelation itself?
        Piper is premillennialism ( ahhh, but he has been way to open to Doug Wilson, and here the issue is dominionist ahhhhhh )
        Spurgeon was premill
        Calvin was not a dominionist BUT how did he actually live out his position of ‘the politic’ as related to the church? Amill leaning- but why?
        Sam Storms: amill, informed by the book of revelation( in a way unlike Calvin and Luther? Hmmm, we have more historical evidence behind us then they did to consider) , but how does Sam work out Rev 20?
        ——————-
        about NT Wright: He is over compensating in his battle one one end and leaving something out on another…( I can expand )And I haven’t read a single book of his. Get enough to see this from the articles and videos I have watched and listened by him.
        ——————
        And are you familiar with Michael Heiser? (Not a Calvinist) and I really like him, but he is WRONG on Genesis 6. He is sooo solid on the good news I can’t figure out how he doesn’t see the problem his position has as related the historical passage of the good news we must defend.
        ——————
        The point here: How you understand/reason to think and if you spiritualize a text instead of see the spiritual truth of the resurrection has ‘thinking’ effects. It effects your ‘doctrine’ if you have a spiritualized theology as related to the defined truth of what resurrection means and actually is ‘resurrection.’

        Okay, sorry, ended up rolling together again, instead of keeping it simple. But, it is a good exercise ……. wondering what people may be thinking instead of assuming.

        Blessings, gentlemen, love a sis in Christ. 1Corinthians 1-3, 4 example, as we sing to each other

        PS: What is the good news of God? Do you believe it?
        Why?

        ( Show me how you work out your salvation, I don’t want to assume.)

        And do that exercise in Ephesians, for you ‘thinking’ practices.(I’m “momming” on you.)

        We have common sense, which has been theAdam ability to think for a reason, from the beginning. In the beginning “God said”, personally having molded humans from the dirt and personally breathing into their nostrils, different from the animals. You know, a personal touch, for example. Why does it matter that he rested ON the 7th day?

  18. Arminianism is an attempt to retain the Platonism of “traditional” Christianity while throwing out the most repugnant aspects of Calvinism.

    1. Carl
      Arminianism is an attempt to retain the Platonism of “traditional” Christianity while throwing out the most repugnant aspects of Calvinism.

      br.d
      I liked this post Carl – as I am interested in the history here.
      It is my understanding that Arminius spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove he did not deviate from Calvin.
      But I seems like he must have disagreed with Calvin on some major points?

      I’m uncertain as to whether Arminius was savvy enough to know Calvinism is founded on Theological Determinism?

      1. Your are correct, Arminius just wanted Calvinism without the L in TULIP. He saw the basic problems with God just picking out a few people and damning the rest, while declaring His love for them. Don’t know what his position on Determinism was. Most of what we know was written by his enemies.

        Augustine and Origen contaminated early Christianity with Platonism. It is very difficult, impossible I would say, to reconcile the Biblical picture of God with the Platonic God taught in most Evangelical Churches today.

      2. Thanks Carl
        Yes I totally agree on Augustin an NeoPlatonism
        And there are Augustinian experts who see remnants of Gnosticism remaining in his conceptions throughout his life.
        From what I understand – the Gnosticism of his day was a veritable soup of different belief systems – including NeoPlatonism.
        One of its components being “Good-Evil” dualism – which Augustine embraced.
        He called it “Antithesis” – and said it was pleasant to contemplate.

        But for me – that constituent of “Good-Evil” dualism – is that aspect of Calvinism that most non-Calvinists object to
        Even if they don’t have an academic knowledge of what it is – they have at least an intuitive sense that a “Good-Evil” deity is not what the scripture depicts.

        And it is the “Evil” side of the deity that the Calvinist is constantly trying to obfuscate.
        Usually through all sorts of DOUBLE-SPEAK.

  19. in response to some of those who responded to my original comment,

    Just because the “elect” is used by Paul to mean a certain group in 2 Timothy, does not necessarily mean that Jesus needed to have the same usage for the word “elect” in the same way was my point.

    Also, It has been said by a few here that when Jesus used the word elect in Mathew 24 he needed to mean Jews because of context and the use of prophetic language with God coming in the clouds from Old Testament references. This would be presuming Jesus’s words were only to be understood figuratively and that all the prophesy mentioned in Mathew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, with Jesus coming in a figurative way and with the Gospel arriving. However, in Luke 18 He says,

    18 He then told them a parable on the need for them to pray always and not become discouraged: 2 “There was a judge in a certain town who didn’t fear God or respect man. 3 And a widow in that town kept coming to him, saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’

    4 “For a while he was unwilling, but later he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or respect man, 5 yet because this widow keeps pestering me,[a] I will give her justice, so she doesn’t wear me out[b] by her persistent coming.’”

    6 Then the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 Will not God grant justice to His elect who cry out to Him day and night? Will He delay to help them?[c] 8 I tell you that He will swiftly grant them justice. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He find that faith[d] on earth?”(HCSB)

    Two points would be,
    1: Would Luke present Jesus using the word “elect” only in reference to Jews and not gentiles? I think not.
    2: It seems clear from this passage when Jesus speaks of coming back to earth and asking if He will find faith, He most certainly is not referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

    1. Joel,

      The below are not my words, but I believe address both of your concerns. The below can be found at…

      https://israelmyglory.org/article/the-time-of-jacobs-trouble/

      The Commands (Mt. 24:16–20)

      In light of the ominous desolation associated with the setting up of the detestable thing in the Temple in the middle of the seven-year Tribulation, Jesus issued several urgent commandments to the Jewish people who will live in Judea at that time.

      First, flee for refuge to the mountain wilderness as soon as you see the detestable thing set up in the Temple (v. 16). Second, don’t even take time to obtain provisions from your homes (vv. 17–18). Third, pray that your flight will not be during the bad weather of winter or on the Sabbath (v. 20). He also indicated that flight will be extremely difficult for pregnant and nursing women (v. 19). The urgency of His speech implied that Israel’s desolation will begin as soon as the detestable thing appears in the Temple.

      The Description (Mt. 24:21–28)

      Jesus gave the reason for His urgent commands: The unparalleled time of trouble in all of history will begin at the moment the detestable thing is set up in the Temple in the middle of the Tribulation. That time will be characterized by “great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be” (v. 21).

      The word translated “tribulation” refers to “distress” and was used to describe birth pangs. The word translated “great” emphasizes the “intensity” of the distress. Earlier in His discourse (vv. 4–8), Jesus indicated the first half of the Tribulation will be characterized by “the beginning of sorrows” (literally, “birth pangs”). The concept of “great” distress in verse 21 means the second half will be characterized by the intense, hard-labor birth pangs. The Greek text reveals that Jesus used a double negative to emphasize the impossibility of any other time equaling the intense distress of that time.

      To emphasize this aspect even more, in verse 22 Jesus indicated that, if God in eternity past had not determined to cut off the second half of the Tribulation at the end of three and one-half years, all flesh would perish. For mankind to survive, God determined to prevent the time of “great tribulation” from running indefinitely beyond the time limit He had set.

      Jesus’ statement implied that period will be the unparalleled time of trouble for all flesh (Jewish and Gentile) on Earth. For several reasons, this fact prevents the “great tribulation” from referring to the Roman Empire’s destruction of Jerusalem, the second Temple, or Israel as a nation-state in A.D. 70:

      (1) Only Jewish flesh was threatened in A.D. 70. (2) The A.D. 70 destruction was not worse than that of Samaria and the northern kingdom of Israel as a nation-state in 722 B.C. or the destruction of Jerusalem, the first Temple, and the kingdom of Judah as a nation-state in 586 B.C. (3) The destruction of A.D. 70 was not worse than the Holocaust of World War II. Four times as many Jewish people were killed in the Holocaust than in the war that ended in A.D. 70.

      Jesus warned that the unparalleled time of trouble will also be characterized by false christs (messi-ahs) and prophets making deceptive claims (vv. 23–28).

      The Aftermath (Mt. 24:29–31)

      Jesus indicated that immediately after the time of “great tribulation,” cosmic disturbances will take place (v. 29). Then His sign will appear in heaven (perhaps a display of His brilliant Shekinah glory against the backdrop of the darkened heavens). Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and will see Him coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (v. 30; cf. Rev. 1:7).

      It is important to note that every part of Jesus’ statement in verse 31 comes from Old Testament statements that relate exclusively to Israel, not the church. Jesus indicated that at His Second Coming, He will send His angels to gather His elect. God called Israel His “elect” (Isa. 45:4; cf. Dt. 7:6).

      Jesus said that His angels will gather His elect “from the four winds.” God warned Israel that, because of its rebellion, He would scatter them into “all the winds” (Ezek. 5:10). Later He declared that He did scatter them abroad “like the four winds of heaven” (Zech. 2:6). God also promised that in the future, He will gather them together “from the four corners of the earth” (Isa. 11:12)—from the east, west, north, and south (Isa. 43:5–6).

      Jesus declared that His angels will gather His elect “from one end of heaven to the other” (v. 31). God asserted that, in the future, if any of the people of Israel be scattered to the farthest parts under heaven, even from there He will gather them (Dt. 30:4).

      Jesus signified that His angels will gather His elect “with a great sound of a trumpet” (v. 31). God promised that, in the future, the people of Israel will be gathered when “the great trumpet will be blown” (Isa. 27:12–13).

      1. Thanks for that Phillip,

        My point in bringing in the passage in Luke was to show how Luke would not likely reference a passage with Jesus concerning only the Jews when speaking of the elect. Seeing how Luke’s Gospel would have been intended for a more Gentile audience, Jesus, in Luke, seems to be regarding all those of faith as God’s elect regardless of race. He shows the elect as all those of faith.

        If Jesus was referring only to Jews as elect in Matthew, it would have been only the believing Jews and not all Israel. Jesus nor His angels would be gathering all unfaithful Israel from the four winds upon his return.

        Also, just to be clear, I agree Jesus is referring to the end in the tail end of the passage in Matthew, however the elect would refer to more than just elect Jews, but all elect in Christ. Just like Paul speaking in Romans (and Ephesians) of all those gentiles of faith being grafted into Israel, so it would make sense that all those in Christ are the ones elect in Christ or Jesus’s elect that will be gathered. The elect in Christ could not just be Jewish believers even if in Matthew one could prove he was referring to the elect believers out of the Jews. I still don’t think that would be enough to prove he will gather only Jewish elect. At the very most, it would only mean that Matthew, because of his audience being Jewish believers, made the topic of concern a Jewish election but that would still not exclude the gentiles who we know are grafted in according to Paul. The election in Mathew and Luke should be seen in terms of salvation and it is “the church”(both Jewish and Gentile people of faith) that we know makes up the elect regarding salvation.

        I would agree with the original writer of this post’s article that Paul is using elect in reference to the nation of Israel in 2 Timothy but not in terms of salvation. I just didn’t agree with him that election is always referring to the nation of Israel exclusively, especially whenever Jesus uses the word “elect”.

      2. Joel,

        When one simply takes Matthew 24 in its context, this is what it reveals:
        In Matthew 24:4-34 Jesus is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system. Then from Matthew 24:35 – 25:46, Jesus is dealing with His Parousia, His second and final coming at the end of time. The transition verse from speaking about AD 70 to speaking about His second coming is verse 34: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” In other words “all these things” spoken of before vs 34 would happen in the lifetime of His Apostles.

        And, before vs 34, they are told to watch out for the various events by which they could know that the time was near, and escape out of the city. If this referred to His second coming what would be the purpose of fleeing, nobody will escape that event? And why would He be telling His disciples to flee from something they should look forward to and embrace with joy? But the elect in the context of AD 70 are certainly the Christians. They are the ones who escape this judgment – while many of the Jews perished and National Israel was brought to an end.

        Notice that after verse 34, that there would be no signs of His Coming and no way of knowing when that time is near. No one would know the day nor the hour, and that He will come like a thief in the night. It will be just like the days of Noah where life would be carrying on as normal, as in peaceful times: “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, “and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Mt. 24: 38,39,44) Clearly, it is only after verse 34 He begins to discuss His second coming.

      3. Joel Boulianne

        You had said:
        “My point in bringing in the passage in Luke was to show how Luke would not likely reference a passage with Jesus concerning only the Jews when speaking of the elect. Seeing how Luke’s Gospel would have been intended for a more Gentile audience, Jesus, in Luke, seems to be regarding all those of faith as God’s elect regardless of race. He shows the elect as all those of faith.

        If Jesus was referring only to Jews as elect in Matthew, it would have been only the believing Jews and not all Israel. Jesus nor His angels would be gathering all unfaithful Israel from the four winds upon his return.”

        My response:

        Didn’t Jesus say that he did NOT come BUT FOR the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel? When he sent out 72 disciples, he forbid them from going to ANY GENTILE.

        What does Luke have to do with a Gentile audiece? He was giving an accurate TIMELINE HISTORY of Jesus, JUST LIKE Matthew and Mark did, hence, WITNESS STATEMENTS, and never once put in an ounce of opinion. There is ONLY ONE INSTANCE of the word Electin the 4 gospels, and yes, it is in Luke, BUT…it was a quote of Jesus, SPEAKING of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.

        The Gentiles didn’t come into play until THOUSANDS of Jews had already come to the faith. it wasn’t until what, Acts 10 that Peter finally was told? Up until then, there were NO GENTILES in the faith at all.

        The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John is a lot harder) can be zippered together to form an accurate timeline of events.

        Sometimes the event is listed in all three gospels (the same event), and at other times, only two of the three. Sometimes, only once. But let me say this…the timeline is accurate.

        Salt
        Parable of Lost Sheep
        Parable of Lost Coin
        Parable of Lost Son
        A Brother who sins
        Unforgiving servant
        Dishonest steward
        The Pharisees derided Jesus in Galilee
        Jesus departs Galilee for Judea
        Jesus discusses topic of “Divorce” to the Pharisees
        Jesus discusses topic of “Divorce” to Disciples only
        Jesus discusses the Rich Man & Lazarus to Disciples
        Sin & Forgiveness
        Increase faith / Mustard seed
        Servant’s duty
        Jesus cleanses ten lepers
        The coming of the Kingdom
        Parable of Widow and the Judge
        Parable of Pharisee & Publican
        Topic of Little Children
        Topic of Rich Young Ruler
        Topic of Laborers in the Vineyard
        Jesus foretells his death for the third time
        The Request of James and John
        One Blind man receives sight
        Jesus and Zaccheus
        Parable of ten pounds
        Two Blind men receive sight
        Bartimaeus receives his sight
        Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem on a Donkey
        Cleansing of Temple
        Bethany for the night
        Jesus curses fig tree
        Cleansing of Temple again
        Bethany for another night
        Jesus explains cursed fig tree
        Jesus’ authority questioned
        Parable of two sons
        Parable of wicked husbandman
        Parable of marriage feast
        Taxes – Paying to Caesar
        Resurrection – Questions of
        The Great Commandment
        David’s Son
        Denouncing of the Pharisees and Scribes
        Jesus laments over Jerusalem
        Widows offering
        Signs of the End
        Sign of Coming of Jesus
        Day and Hour

        My point, Luke gave a timeline of events, just like the rest of the gospels did. John’s gospel is hard to do, but Matthew, Mark, and Luke is easy. Takes some time, but well worth it in the end.

        I listed the order of events JUST IN CASE anyone was interested to PUT THE CORRESPONDING GOSPEL REFERENCES TO THEM, from all three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or two of the three gospels, or only one gospel. You will see that it is IN ORDER OF EVENTS, and the MATCH of all three gospels comes up quite a bit, but mostly two out of the three, but some, one only.

        In addition, I agree with Phillip regarding Matthew 24… END TIMES, and it has to match Daniel, because HE is the one that Jesus quotes regarding the OBAMA NATION OF DESOLATION standing in the TEMPLE (HOLY PLACE)…AND, if you believe like I do, regarding the book of Revelation…it’s all about the Jews, cuz the REST OF US CHRISTIANS will be OUTA HERE in Revelation 7.

        And there will be a HARVEST of Jews later on too. All of this stuff has to match, so for anyone to say that Matthew 24 was about the Romans destroying Jerusalem in 70 AD…it does NOT match Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, and other prophetic books, such as Jeremiah, etc.

        FLEE TO THE MOUNTAINS…The Mountains is STILL IN ISRAEL, not in Montana, not in Iran, not in Gilbralter, not in the Himalaya’s. Just in Israel.

        You guys are all very anxious to make all of this a BOTH JEW AND GENTILE thing for some ODD REASONING, all because FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE?

        Revelation 2:9
        I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

        Revelation 3:9
        Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

        WHY is Jesus discussing Jews here, discussing those who say they are, but are not? What’s the POINT of THAT?

        Ed Chapman

      4. Joel,

        Genesis 12:2-3 (NKJV)….
        “I will make you a great nation (the people of Israel); I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

        John 16:2 (NKJV)….
        They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you (the Jews) will think that he offers God service.

        Matthew 25:31-46 (NKJV)….
        “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep (nations) on His right hand, but the goats (nations) on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’ “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren (fellow Jews), you did it to Me.’ “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

        Notice the nations are divided according to how they treat the Jewish people, believers or otherwise, not Gentiles. The world, the Gentile nations, will be judged how they have treated the chosen people of God. So, yes, I lean that the elect in Luke 18 is consistent with the elect mentioned in Matthew 24. No one throughout human history has been persecuted more than the Jewish people.

      5. Joel and Phillip(greetings,holy kiss)

        🙂 1 Thess 1:6 and 1 Corinthians 15 again :-), verse 52: Who were the listeners at that time in history? And Rev 1-3, the 7 churches, who was in them? ( established as written after 70 ad of course, yet such an example of the power of the living and active word on God in history! Our God is Amazing! Who has looked into Antipas[gentile as to the flesh, the name Antipas] , who Jesus obviously knows by name as He brings attention to Antipas’ standing on the testimony of Jesus for the churches?)

        https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=trumpet&begin=47&end=73

        Ohhhh, the prophetic depth of the OT SchoolMaster that brings us to Christ, as the world was turned upside down. ( thinking about the written of Hebrews commenting on the Mt Sin trumpet)

        {Momming here: Every christian,mature in Christ, should make themselves very familiar with the chapter of 1 Corithians 15. it is a deep well that centers out into the scriptures from beginning to end, after having explicitly laid out the good news as of first importance, which would make it equal to the 1st and greatest commandment, that brings us to the 2nd!}

        Yes, the word of election of the faith is not static, but is living and active, revealed in context, as its purpose continues through history, as we wait and watch patiently. Blessings, as we keep asking, seeking and knocking about all the treasure He has already revealed to us in His word, as God prepares His people ahead of time.
        ————————–
        ( Now, if Kevin sees this, may he read that last paragraph exercising the mind of Christ, knowing the writer is not theologically[=studying God as] a individually deterministic in position of belief( a prepared word4verse study may be in order-hmmm, romans 9:22-24, my lens is the cross of Christ, according to the good news, when I read that text… just thinking out loud )

        https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=prepare&qs_version=ESV

      6. Joel and Phillip( greetings with a holy kiss)

        Mark 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

        And if The Lord had not cut short
        the days,

        no human being
        would be saved. ( saved how and from what?)

        But for the sake of The Elect,
        whom He chose,

        He shortened the days.
        ———————————

        Joel’s point about Luke being a gentile, therefore sharing a thinking perspective in relationship to being a gentile is food for thought, but in no way does it establish the position of whether the elect here is of only Jewish heritage, or not, at the prophetic fullfillment. ( What ever the truth is Luke is one in Spirit and in Truth with Mark and Matthew, being 1 among the members of the body of Christ. Shall we dare say the she/them ‘the elect’ (one with Christ, chosen and faithful throughout history’s members) is judged a bride due to receive her promised fulfillment?
        What is established is Jesus is speaking forward to prepare His people and we have at the least the second witness in scripture as we seek to interpret according to the revelation of the Holy Sprit. It is also evident from the 2 texts Jesus is bringing attention to the situation among humans on earth at the time revealed for fulfillment.
        ——————————

        6 And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says. 7 And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? 8 I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

        —————————–

        I deleted a lot…. :-). With the depth of question and the primary subject at hand on this post, I just find it wise to ‘dig’ in a private conversation among believers instead of the public forum. Like…. double prophecy fulfillment in conversation, for example.

        Is there a private chat room that could be arranged or a private way to share emails so anyone interested could set up , lets say, a Skype bible study, as an off-shoot….if anyone is interested?

      7. TAMMY
        JANUARY 10, 2020 AT 3:54 PM
        YOUR COMMENT IS AWAITING MODERATION.
        Joel and Phillip(greetings,holy kiss)

        🙂 1 Thess 1:6 and 1 Corinthians 15 again :-), verse 52: Who were the listeners at that time in history? And Rev 1-3, the 7 churches, who was in them? ( established as written after 70 ad of course, yet such an example of the power of the living and active word on God in history! Our God is Amazing! Who has looked into Antipas[gentile as to the flesh, the name Antipas] , who Jesus obviously knows by name as He brings attention to Antipas’ standing on the testimony of Jesus for the churches?)

        https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=trumpet&begin=47&end=73

        Ohhhh, the prophetic depth of the OT SchoolMaster that brings us to Christ, as the world was turned upside down. ( thinking about the written of Hebrews commenting on the Mt Sin trumpet)

        {Momming here: Every christian,mature in Christ, should make themselves very familiar with the chapter of 1 Corithians 15. it is a deep well that centers out into the scriptures from beginning to end, after having explicitly laid out the good news as of first importance, which would make it equal to the 1st and greatest commandment, that brings us to the 2nd!}

        Yes, the word of election of the faith is not static, but is living and active, revealed in context, as its purpose continues through history, as we wait and watch patiently. Blessings, as we keep asking, seeking and knocking about all the treasure He has already revealed to us in His word, as God prepares His people ahead of time.
        ————————–
        ( Now, if Kevin sees this, may he read that last paragraph exercising the mind of Christ, knowing the writer is not theologically[=studying God as] a individually deterministic in position of belief( a prepared word4verse study may be in order-hmmm, romans 9:22-24, my lens is the cross of Christ, according to the good news, when I read that text… just thinking out loud )

        https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=prepare&qs_version=ESV

        On my end this comment shows as if stuck in moderation

    2. Holy kiss Ed,

      “You guys are all very anxious to make all of this a BOTH JEW AND GENTILE thing for some ODD REASONING, all because FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE?”

      Anxious? I’m not. And I think those of us who are commenting on it are not into odd reasoning ,but open to be challenged and/or sharpened with the measurement of scripture . It appears to me, and this includes you Ed, that there are quiet a few people with years of submitted study to the Word of God who are seeking truth over wanting to be right.

      It’s a lot to submit what amounts to sound bites on a ministry blog, when you are also considering which perspective you want to follow within the thread.

      I am not anxious to point of that “the elect” belongs to “the faith” and I am ‘listening’ and searching and considering whether the scriptures establish whether in the faith the elect always falls to those of Jewish heritage. I am still leaning away from that position. All the study I am not typing on this board, seeing the study, for example I have considered that you have typed, has not persuaded me to abandon my presenting leaning interpretation.

      But I love you enthusiasm and fearless and bold stance to speak when you are confident you are speaking in the Authority of scripture with the very words of God,

      So, what is your answer the the elect of 2John again?

      1. Hey, Sis.

        I think it is safe to say the audience in question are not Gentiles, but Jews, albeit believing Jews. Only Paul was commissioned to the Gentiles. With that said….

        2 John 1:1 and 2 John 1:13 (NKJV)…
        The Elder, To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all those who have known the truth……..The children of your elect sister greet you. Amen.

        Now please consider….

        Ezekiel 23:1-4 (NKJV)…
        The word of the LORD came again to me, saying: “Son of man, there were two women, The daughters of one mother. They committed harlotry in Egypt, they committed harlotry in their youth; Their breasts were there embraced, Their virgin bosom was there pressed. Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah.”

        Then I found this from the Jewish Encyclopedia…

        “The symbolic meanings of the names themselves serve to complete the entire picture. ‘Oholah’ means ‘tent’, and is meant to signify that the tent of God is Samaria, the capital of Israel. ‘Oholibah’ signifies ‘My [God’s] tent is therein’; that is, the Temple which is located in the center of the territory of Judea, on Zion. It is remarkable that the prophet, contrary to Lev. xviii. 18, represents two sisters as the simultaneous wives of a single husband.”

        Now here is scriptural support that both nations/houses of Israel are referred to as “sisters”.

        Jeremiah 3:8 (NKJV)….
        Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel (the Northern Kingdom) had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah (the Southern Kingdom) did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.

        So the two (2) elect sisters in the Book of John could be referring to both the former Northern Kingdom and the former Southern Kingdom; both the House of Israel and the House of Judah, making up the entire nation of Israel. Oholah/Samaria, the Elder, the capital of Israel/the Northern Kingdom is writing to Oholibah/Jerusalem, the younger sister, the capital of Judah, the Southern Kingdom. John, the author, is one of the children (sons and daughter) of Oholah/Samaria.

        This would be consistent with what we find in the books of Peter. Peter is writing to Jewish believers scattered abroad from the House of Israel (1 Peter 1:2), from those Jewish believers living in Babylon (the House of Judah) (1 Peter 5:13).

        How do you interpret the elect in 2 John?

      2. Hey, Tammy,

        Regarding an epistle of John… The word elect…

        I’ve gotta conclude exactly what Phillip is saying.

        In Galatians, Paul makes a point that Peter, James, and John’s responsibility is to the Jews, and that Paul’s responsibility is to the Gentiles.

        That lays out the framework for me when reading their epistles, as to who the audience is.

        James, he’s pretty blunt. He states, To the twelve tribes scattered abroad. He’s not addressing Gentiles.

        The book of Hebrews… not knowing who the author is, is really directed at Jews, too.

        We definitely learn things from those books, relating to our faith… But, dig into what is being said, and you will see that a lot of info is stuff that only Jews would know, not your average everyday Gentile coming to the faith.

        So, James is easy to see that his audience was Jews. I agree with Philip regarding Peter.

        Now John was also an apostle to the Jews, as Paul states in Galatians.

        So, when I read the epistles of John… including Revelation, I conclude that his audience is NOT Gentiles, but Jews.

        So when John, in his epistles, states, ELECT LADY, he’s discussing a Jewish female.

        I’m not going to say CHRISTIAN female, and I’m also not going to say JEWISH Christian Female, although, both statements are true.

        I’m just gonna say, Jewish female.

        Why? Because Gentile CHRISTIANS are not ELECT, male, or female.

        Christians are saved…no doubt.

        But, a Gentile Christian is not elect.

        But they are saved, nonetheless.

        A Jew Christian is elect.

        So, you see, many here are still trying to equate the word saved, with the word, elect, while denying that they are. How can I tell? They keep discussing salvation, when it isn’t about salvation.

        It’s about the blindness, and God’s mercy on them, because he’s the one responsible for that blindness, and it’s because of that mercy that they are saved.

        They CAN’T come to Jesus. Romans 11 tells us that.

        Then we have those that think that their rebellion is the reason for that blindness.

        But that’s not what the bible states in Deuteronomy, or Romans 11.

        Study the SHADOW of Jesus and the Jews thru the prism of Joseph and his brothers.

        His brothers had no idea who Joseph was when they went to him for food. Eventually, Joseph did REVEAL himself to them.

        They had thrown Joseph in a PIT WHEREIN THERE IS NO WATER ( a spiritual depiction of hell), Jesus was crucified and went to hell…

        Then remember the dreams that Joseph had as a kid, and his brothers mocked him.

        Those dreams came true in the carnal sense, but are a SHADOW of Jesus and the Jews.

        There is so much info to be had, and not many are all that interested, because they default all this to a salvation topic, concluding that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, and, to me… it’s frustrating. Really frustrating.

        But, there is lots of us in Christendom that see what Phillip and I see. But it’s almost non-existant in the reform world.

        Ed Chapman

      3. holy kiss gentlemen,

        I wrote the John 2 response last night but didn’t send it because of a formatting issue in the copy and paste, so left if for today to fix before sending. I figured I would clean it up and send it after looking into some verses. But…. in looking into a few verses I decided to go through the whole book of Romans from beginning to end, noting certain flows of communication. So, ( I should be working out of the house today , and my hubby is being patient, … cause I should really be working outside the house) so I am still working through Romans. Just got to chapter 9.

      4. This covers specifically ‘stuff’ as related responding to Phillip and Ed, but catches the threading through of others. As the Spirit leads you, holy kiss, sharing in the love of our Savior, good day to you.

        Paul and Peter go where?
        What about ‘elect’?
        2 John with an opinion of his short note put in pen and paper
        (Specific)prophetic text of ot to nt women mentioned in scripture
        Romans11-Somehow this all relates to touching on ‘the faith’ we contend for to proclaim the good news
        ________________________________________

        Paul to the Galatians:

        7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

        2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.[a] 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

        1 Peter
        1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
        To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

        2 Peter
        1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
        To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

        2 Peter
        3 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,

        15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.

        ——-
        Note the introduction of Peter’s second letter, which in after his introduction he states “the second letter that I am writing to you”

        While Peter was entrusted to go to the Jews and Paul the Gentiles they crossed over in ministry as we see in both Galatians and 2 Peter. We know that though Paul was entrusted to the Gentiles he would at times would first be found going the the jews and the synagog.

        And….I mean like, was the assembly divided that Peter was writing too?
        ——————————
        Romans 11
        28 As regards the gospel(as to the faith), they(faithless Jewish) are enemies for your sake( as to the faith). But as regards election( as to the faith), they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers( as to the faith). 29 For the gifts and the calling of God( as to the faith) are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God(as to the faith) but NOW have received mercy( as to the faith) because of their disobedience( as to the faith), 31 so they too have NOW been disobedient( as to the faith) in order that by the mercy shown to you( in the faith) they also may NOW receive mercy( in the faith). 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience(as to the faith), that he may have mercy on all (now).

        For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be NAMED.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
        Question: At this point of discourse, where Paul is speaking to the jewish and gentile audience, is Isaac being pointed out as “our forefather” purposed for the reconciled who are together one to understand “election”, in the same way that Abraham is our father in the faith? Or is he clarifying at this point in the discourse why Jacob/Israel is the ‘elect’? In context: “that God’s purpose of election might continue”- It is Jacob who is called/named “Israel”, according to the fleshly descendants.

        ——————————

        John is thought to be the last living apostle and thought to be the last living apostle at the time 1,2 and 3 John were written.

        Do you image that at this point of the churches persecution , after 70 ad, ( and I am submitting to believe John is the only living apostle) the church he was writing to and the church he was writing from were of only jewish heritage in these 2 assemblies? I do not.

        First an opinion that goes into my thoughts here for consideration: John is using true terms with spiritual words familiar and filled with meaning when speaking to the beloved, but at the same time he is using language to mask the letter incase it is intercepted and/or its reading is relayed to the Roman authorities and/or because of the false christians. As to those being served in this assembly, as pointed out in the letter: “I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth” and “8 Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we[a] have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”
        I believe this letter carries a dire warning beyond spiritual implications of the heart and mind, but to beware of that that is presently surrounding you and coming to your door.

        So about the ‘elect’:
        1 The elder ( the identifier of John, without using His name to those familiar with his authority and endearment )
        to the elect lady ( to the overseer and elders of this church, elect indicating John recognizing the assembling of true believers because she contains the true believers within her assemblies, and yes to include a female available to receive the letter)
        and her children, whom I love in truth, ( Hi everyone in the house, confident in her children-leaning into those who walk in the truth)

        and not only I,
        but also all who know the truth, ( elect and love in truth are still in view )
        2 because of the truth that
        abides in us
        and will be with us forever:
        ——
        13 The children ( John indicating: all those walking in the truth among everyone with me, where I am at)
        of your elect sister ( and your family in/of assurance, 1 among all who know the truth)
        greet you. ( a true historical mark at the end of the letter, actively left with the remembrance of the family who greets you)

        These women in 2John are not the elect because they are the descents of the flesh.That title was given to men. They are named the elect because they are one in Spirit.

        —————————————
        About the prophetic relevance of the texts you brought up from the old testament as related to 2 John, I do not see that they bare a specific prophetic weight beyond to say that the faithless assemblies among the elect were related, are also called sisters and attention is brought to the sisters being similar in a heart and mind of behavior, the assembly of the unfaithful elect moved toward division in a land that was whole, in comparison to the faithful elect who must live in the land of divisions yet sharing the Sprit of unity.

        The world turned upside down, first the school master(guardian) of the descendants that (now) sets people free according to the same Spirit. Just thinking,,, about the revelation from Genesis to Revelation as, I believe, God patterned it.

    3. Joel, ( and anyone who may follow in the history of this thread and is able to track the point of my clarification and apology for confusing a good line of reasoning.)

      Joel, later in the thread I did not delineate something I said well, related to food for thought or actually establishing a position. This happened because I over assumed something you intended, not being a careful enough reader.

      I said: “Joel’s point about Luke being a gentile, therefore sharing a thinking perspective in relationship to being a gentile is food for thought, but in no way does it establish the position of whether the elect here is of only Jewish heritage, or not”

      After you DID establish your position,JOEL BOULIANNE
      JANUARY 10, 2020 AT 12:15 PM, according to scripture, I then over assumed your position in this statement you made: “1: Would Luke present Jesus using the word “elect” only in reference to Jews and not gentiles? I think not.”

      (I ASSUMED into you line of reasoning: Would Luke, AS A GENTILE, present Jesus) To much to explain, but I was thinking ahead to how certain ‘strains’ of dispensational theology might ‘hear’ your argument because of positions on rapture/2nd coming/the book of Revelation as they believe it relates to Jew’s in a dispensation/ and therefore, later more maybe possible relating arguments that maybe Luke was Jewish. lol… I was trying to ‘mediate’ to much in my expressed thinking at one time. )

      Basically, I saw that you established your position already, with out the 2 additional points.

      So, as to the thread Joel and I agreed in what was established, per Luke, who wrote what Jesus said. Sorry, if I may have confused Joel’s line of reasoning. To Joel, personally, sorry for over assuming something into what you put forward about what you did establish, according to what Jesus said.

      {Joel may be the only one following as it personally ties to his posts. That’s okay, because this is mostly a ‘forgive my error’ to him, who graciously said “Okay Tammy.” But, just incase, it may also clarify something for those who followed the related apology to the thread.)

  20. Aidan Mcmanus

    You said:

    “Joel,

    When one simply takes Matthew 24 in its context, this is what it reveals:
    In Matthew 24:4-34 Jesus is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system. Then from Matthew 24:35 – 25:46, Jesus is dealing with His Parousia, His second and final coming at the end of time. The transition verse from speaking about AD 70 to speaking about His second coming is verse 34: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” In other words “all these things” spoken of before vs 34 would happen in the lifetime of His Apostles.

    And, before vs 34, they are told to watch out for the various events by which they could know that the time was near, and escape out of the city. If this referred to His second coming what would be the purpose of fleeing, nobody will escape that event? And why would He be telling His disciples to flee from something they should look forward to and embrace with joy? But the elect in the context of AD 70 are certainly the Christians. They are the ones who escape this judgment – while many of the Jews perished and National Israel was brought to an end.

    Notice that after verse 34, that there would be no signs of His Coming and no way of knowing when that time is near. No one would know the day nor the hour, and that He will come like a thief in the night. It will be just like the days of Noah where life would be carrying on as normal, as in peaceful times: “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, “and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Mt. 24: 38,39,44) Clearly, it is only after verse 34 He begins to discuss His second coming.”

    Aidan, I agree with what you are saying. I never said that I believed all the verses are referring to the end times, just the tail end as I mentioned in my earlier reply to Phillip, exactly like you mentioned in your reply. I can understand why there can be misunderstandings though if I wasn’t clear and also with so many different opinions closely in agreement but not completely.

    I just don’t agree with the idea that at the end(parousia), there won’t be any believing gentiles left because the church was raptured up in Revelation 7 like Ed Chapman and the other dispensationalists believe. There are certain aspects within dispensationalism that I sometimes agree with or rather end up in agreement with but more out of coincidence than anything else.

    1. Joel,
      I’m sorry for the confusion. I spelled out the context of Matthew 24-25, more for the benefit of others, while suspecting that you would agree with most of it, except for the dispensationalism which is a doctrine that I would reject. I think all the intellectual game playing over the book of Revelation is the cause of much of the false theories regarding Christ’s return to earth.

      Notice first of all the Prophecy in Psalms 110:
      The LORD said to my Lord,
      “Sit at My right hand,
      Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

      This prophecy, according to the N.T. speaks of the resurrection, and ascension of Christ into heaven to be seated at the right hand of God. But it says a lot more than that. It says that He is to remain at God’s right hand in heaven, until all His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. In other words, until all His enemies are defeated and destroyed. And, according to the N.T. the last enemy to be put under His feet will be death itself, in the last day. Therefore, Jesus will remain ruling at God’s right hand until the end of time, when death is destroyed and He hands back the kingdom to the Father. People love to go to obscure and difficult passages in order to come up with all sorts of theories. But, whatever those theories might be, they are false if they deviate from the more simple and straightforward passages of scripture.

      Do you believe this to be the case? Or, would you like me to provide more scripture?

      Aidan.

      1. Good afternoon Aiden,

        I think I can agree with you, yes.

        Personally, I will say I see things more similar to that of a “Kingdom now but not yet fully realized”(G.E.Ladd) interpretation.
        Meaning that the spiritual Kingdom is now with Chrsit reigning but do believe in some more future aspects of His future reign without all the dispensational baggage. I sit an historical-premillenial to be specific in terms of Christ’s return but do have a lot of respect for the amillenial position but just don’t agree enough with all of it’s understanding, especially not Revelation 20. I do believe in a lot of symbolic reference when it comes to prophetic literature, however.

      2. Joel,
        So your view would also be known as post-tribulational premillennialism? If Christ remains on the throne in heaven until the end of time (1 Cor. 15:23-26) does that not rule out everything else in these theories on Revelation? You probably already know that they(dispensationalists) use a lot of verses from the OT, out of context, to back up their theories on Revelations.

      3. Aidan,

        You had said:
        “I think all the intellectual game playing over the book of Revelation is the cause of much of the false theories regarding Christ’s return to earth.”

        Oh, you mean like as ALSO the REST OF THE BIBLE? You may reject DISPENSATIONALISM, whereas I don’t, but I can point you to SEVERAL OT prophets that shows you, so we are NOT LIMITED to Revelation or Isaiah. We’ve got a LOT OF INFO in the OT that people don’t want to SEE, because they think it’s SILLY, because they like EXPOSITORY preaching, line by line, precept upon precept. Do you really think that Jonah was in the whale 3 days and 3 nights because God was ANGRY with him? OR, was that supposed to be a PROPHET prophesying about JESUS’s death and resurrection? Me, I say BOTH. Expository folks say the first one. They think that the 2nd one is SILLY.

        Ed Chapman

      4. Yep, I already know that they use a lot of verses from the OT, out of context, to back up their theories on Revelations. It’s just crazy!

      5. Out of context is a myth. When Jesus said that three prophet Daniel foretold something, you conclude it was 70 AD. Daniel 9:24-27 was fulfilled in 70AD? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

        Ed Chapman

      6. As I said, you need to keep it in the context of what Jesus revealed it to be. Jesus, in Matt. 24:15, specifies the “abomination of desolation” as the fulfillment of His and Daniel’s predictions. When the Roman armies penetrated the city walls (after a long siege bringing famine and disease) and then entered the holy sanctuary of the temple, the divine signal was to be recognized–this would be “the end!” (v.14) I am satisfied with Jesus’ explanation of it in Matt. 24.

      7. Aidan,

        Sorry, bud, but Daniel is NOT discussing 70 AD. How you conclude that, IN ANY CONTEXT, is beyond me.

        Daniel 9:24-27

        Daniel 9:24-27 King James Version (KJV)

        24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

        25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

        26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

        27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

        Most people KNOW what the 70 weeks is all about, and that 69 1/2 weeks have already been fulfilled, and there is 3 1/2 days left, prophesy of 3 1/2 years of GREAT TRIBULATION, not TRIBULATION, but GREAT tribulation, which does not being until…after the Christians are “SNATCHED” OUT OF HERE…for the Jews.

        By the way, rapture is in the Bible. “CAUGHT UP” is the two English words used, and the Greek Definition is….?????????

        Look at the use of it in 2 Corinthians 12, where Paul states:

        2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

        Who was that man that Paul knew? Note the words CAUGHT UP? Caught up TO where? Same word for Caught up is used in the Greek, and it’s transliteration is…RAPTURED.

        Same definition. So for all those who teach that rapture is not in the bible…yes, it is. Several times it’s mentioned.

        Ed Chapman

      8. ED: “Sorry, bud, but Daniel is NOT discussing 70 AD. How you conclude that, IN ANY CONTEXT, is beyond me.”

        Aidan: I’m sorry, but Jesus put that verse in the context of 70 AD.

      9. No, Jesus did not. Aiden did. Let me expound a bit more…

        Daniel 11

        36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

        37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

        38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

        40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

        41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

        42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

        43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

        44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

        But that’s not all…operators are standing by!!!!

        The very next sentence is the next chapter.

        Daniel 12
        1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

        2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

        NOTE VERSE 2, and equate that with Revelation Chapter 20.

        Note verse 1, “AND AT THAT TIME”.

        That was NOT 70 AD. This anti-Christ has to be in a TEMPLE, and that temple is NOT the 70 AD Temple, and Michael did NOT stand up in 70 AD for the children of “thy” people in 70 AD, either.

        You need to re-work your timeline in Matthew again.

        Ed Chapman

      10. Aidan,

        GREAT TRIBULATION

        Matthew 24:21
        For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

        Revelation 7:14
        And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

      11. Sorry, but ya can’t ignore the context of Mth 24 and Jesus’ explanation.

      12. Well Ed, maybe if you listened to Jesus’ explanation of Mth 24 it wouldn’t be so new to you!

      13. Aidan,

        OMG dude…

        Matthew 24:3
        3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

        14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

        15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

        That is NOT 70 AD. The END does not come UNTIL the gospel has been preached unto all nations, and THEN…NOTE THE WORD, “THEREFORE”, THE Anti-Christ will be in the HOLY PLACE (Temple) (Daniel 11, and 9:26-27 and 12).

        Your timeline is skewed.

      14. Ed, I would appreciate it if you would not post something to me while taking God’s name in vain!

        Let’s just stick with Matthew 24 and not quote isolated verses out of context.

        In the preceding chapter, Jesus had severely rebuked the Jewish leaders, climaxing it with the prediction “that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah,…“Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” (Matthew 23:35-36) There was a judgment coming upon that generation!

        You quoted Matthew 24:3 which shows their confusion, but left out the previous verses (Mt. 24: 1-2).
        “Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Jesus is clearly predicting the overthrow of the temple and city.

        In (v. 20) Jesus tells His disciples to “pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.”

        Then in (v.23) He warns them “if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him.”

        Then in (v.25) He says to them, “Behold, I have told you in advance.”

        Finally, again He warns them in (v.34), – (cf. 23:36)
        “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

        The die was cast; the city and nation would fall in their lifetime. The ‘end that was coming’ in (v.14) – was the end of the Jewish state in the lifetime of the Apostles. How on earth could Jesus not have told them?

        My timeline matches the context – 70.AD.

      15. I didn’t know that OMG was taking the Lord’s name in vain.

        That accusation is something that was invented just a few short years ago due to the acronym in texting. We’ve been saying Oh, my God for ions before the advent of computers, and no one accused anyone of that in those days.

        But that was before Y2K.

        Lastly, you are bringing up Matthew 23, which is not related to Matthew 24.

        Matthew 23, Jesus was talking to the Pharisees about THIS generation.

        Matthew 24 starts out the Jesus left the temple area and begins a new conversion.

        The disciples ask about the END OF THE WORLD, the sign of his coming, that’s when Jesus returns, and he didn’t return in 70 AD.

        The only thing that you can offer is the destruction of the temple, but can offer nothing about false Christ’s, pestilences, famines, earthquakes, false prophets to deceive many, gospel preached in all the world, for a witness to the nation’s.

        When Jesus died on the cross, he said, FATHER FORGIVE THEM, FOR THE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING, right?

        Wrong. They did not know what they were doing.

        The last sentence in chapter 23 states, ” He shall not see me henceforth, till ye (the Pharisees) Bless is he (Jesus) that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

        Now, context.

        Jesus is saying that he is leaving, and he won’t be back… until….

        That’s the context.

        So, while you only concentrate on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, you don’t finish the story to our FUTURE, but place all of it at 70 AD.

        Jesus did not return in 70 AD.

        Many false Christ’s did not come between 33 AD and 70 AD.

        70 MINUS 33 IS 37 years. And you want us to believe that all of Matthew 24 was accomplished in a 37 year time frame?

        Especially since verse 3 discusses THE END OF THE WORLD.

        You must believe that the end of the world was only 37 years after Jesus ascended?

        There is a lot wrong with your timeline.

        All those things I mentioned above (famines, pestilence, earthquakes, false Christ’s (PLURAL), is before the anti-Christ sits in the temple proclaiming to be above God (Daniel 11), Matthew 24:15, which means that there will be a BRAND NEW TEMPLE for him to be in.

        Ed Chapman

      16. Nothing blows my mind more than people thinking God desires a new temple and re-instituting that which served only as a tutor to the Real Thing; which was not Coke, but Jesus. With his proclamation that ‘It is finished’ came the supernatural renting of the veil – the end of the era of the Law. With his resurrection and Pentecost, Jesus introduced a personalized, one-on-one relationship with God, provided by his Spirit indwelling each believer. No more temples, priests, sacrifices, religious ceremonies – but the real thing – walking with God, knowing him personally.

        And you think God wants to bring back the temple, which must, one would presume, entail bringing back sacrifices. Was Jesus’ sacrifice not enough, not the real, final deal? It i s as if the entire New Testament does not even exist, and Jesus’ life and death did not put an end to the Old Covenant and issue in the new, better one. This is so utterly difficult to think anyone genuinely believes. They sure didn’t find it by just reading their bibles – but by listening to some wild, faulty teaching.

      17. Nothing blows my mind more than people NOT taking the book of Daniel, as Jesus stated, that SOMEONE is going to be in a temple proclaiming to be God, thereby thinking that the person was in a temple in 70 AD, and that there was earthquakes, pestilence, famine, etc., etc., and neglect that the question to Jesus was about the END OF THE WORLD, not 70 AD. How can there be a person proclaiming to be God in a Temple if since there is no temple. LOGIC tells you that a new temple must be rebuilt. The one in 70 AD was a rebuilt Temple, so it isn’t out of character for another one to be rebuilt either.

        So, TS00 and Aidan, who was this person in 70 AD proclaiming to be God, if this person was in the Temple in 70 AD?

        Where were these earthquakes and famine, and pestilence?

        IT IS FINISHED has a context of Jesus dying on the cross.

        The law of Moses only ended for those “IN-CHRSIT”. The Law of Moses is still in effect for those Jews who are not “IN-CHRIST. The law (TORAH) “AND THE PROPHETS” (TANAKH) is not finished yet, hence Matthew 5:17-18. People seem to forget, “and the prophets”, when quoting Matthew 5:17-18. The law here is the torah, not the old covenant called the law of moses.

        Daniel and Ezekiel are SOME of those prophets who are prophesying END TIMES, not 70 AD.

        As far as the Law of Moses…

        What do you guys do, begin with Matthew and disregard the Hebrew scriptures? You don’t think that Daniel has anything to say about the END TIMES, or Ezekiel?

        Daniel 9:24-27, and Chapters 11-12 spell it out that a person is gonna be in the temple proclaiming to be God, and that the kings of the north, and the kings of the south will fight against him.

        How is that related to Rome? Nothing blows my mind more than people equating Matthew 24 to Rome. Especially those who proclaim that the Pope is THE Anti-Christ (7th Day Adventists), and that Rome is the place that the Pope will be proclaiming himself to be God.

        All sorts of stories out there about Rome this and Rome that, when all that Rome did was destroy a temple, and the REST of the story hasn’t happened yet, which means a temple must be rebuilt.

        Catholics are HATED SO MUCH that they pawn EVERYTHING to ROME. They proclaim that Rome is the HARLOT in the book of Revelation. Wow, man! Rome, huh?

        Ed Chapman

      18. TS00,

        Sacrifices WILL come back, as noted in Daniel 9:24-27. Then, they will cease AGAIN.

        The only reason that there is no sacrifices now, is due to no temple, but they are still under the law of Moses, regardless. So, when a new one is rebuilt, they will resume sacrifices. When they were in Babylon, the same situation, no temple, no Levitical priests could perform the sacrifices.

        Keep in mind that the Jews are under the Law of Moses, and due to no temple, they can’t sacrifice. They can only do the Levitical stuff when there is a temple standing, and therefore, once a new temple is built, they will begin sacrificing again.

        The requirements of the law of Moses didn’t cease just because Rome destroyed a temple. But because they did, they can’t do sacrifices.

        THE anti-Christ is an IMPOSTER OF JESUS, and since they rejected Jesus, they will be convinced that THIS GUY is THE ONE, so when he proclaims to be THE ONE, many will believe him. And there will be sacrifices, because for THEM, they law of Moses DIDN’T CEASE, like what you are trying to portray with the words of Jesus of “it is finished”.

        Daniel Chapters 9-12 explains all this.

        If it really is finished as you say, we’d all be in our resurrected bodies NOW, since it is finished.

        Matthew 24:3
        3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

        Does the last 5 words mean anything to you at all?

        Ed Chapman

      19. ED, wrote:
        So, while you only concentrate on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, you don’t finish the story to our FUTURE, but place all of it at 70 AD. And you want us to believe that all of Matthew 24 was accomplished in a 37 year time frame?

        You must believe that the end of the world was only 37 years after Jesus ascended?

        There is a lot wrong with your timeline.

        AIDAN writes:

        STOP MISREPRESENTING ME! I never placed all of Matthew 24 at 70 AD. Nor did I indicate for one second, that the end of the world was only 37 years after Jesus ascended!

        Is STRAWMAN your middle name or something? Why do make these things up? Is it because you can’t actually answer the real argument, so you have to make your own strawman to attack? This tactic is nothing but disgraceful.

        HERE’S WHAT I POSTED BEFORE!
        “When one simply takes Matthew 24 in its context, this is what it reveals:
        In Matthew 24:4-34 Jesus is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system. Then from Matthew 24:35 – 25:46, Jesus is dealing with His Parousia, His second and final coming at the end of time. The transition verse from speaking about AD 70 to speaking about His second coming is verse 34: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” In other words “all these things” spoken of before vs 34 would happen in the lifetime of His Apostles.

        And, before vs 34, they are told to watch out for the various events by which they could know that the time was near, and escape out of the city. If this referred to His second coming what would be the purpose of fleeing, nobody will escape that event? And why would He be telling His disciples to flee from something they should look forward to and embrace with joy? But the elect in the context of AD 70 are certainly the Christians. They are the ones who escape this judgment – while many of the Jews perished and National Israel was brought to an end.

        Notice that after verse 34, that there would be no signs of His Coming and no way of knowing when that time is near. No one would know the day nor the hour, and that He will come like a thief in the night. It will be just like the days of Noah where life would be carrying on as normal, as in peaceful times: “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, “and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Mt. 24: 38,39,44) Clearly, it is only after verse 34 He begins to discuss His second coming.”

        If you are going to misrepresent people on this site, at least read ALL that they have said on this site before you do!

      20. Aidan,

        Let me begin by saying that I agree with you regarding the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. But what is “system”? I did a bible word search for “system” and didn’t find it. What version do you use?

        You had said:
        “Jesus is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system.”

        My response:
        Jesus said nothing about the end of a Jewish “system” in Matthew 24.

        System? Where did that word come from?

        The Law of Moses still exists to this day for the Jews who are not “in-Christ”, so what “system” are you talking about?

        The only “system” that they can’t do under the law of Moses is the sacrifices, because a temple is required for sacrifices. It’s no different than when they all went to Babylon. No Temple, no sacrifices.

        You are indicating that the Law of Moses does not exist to anyone ever, anymore. But that is not true. It exists for them.

        After the destruction of the Temple, the Jews scattered throughout the world,

        Scattered.

        The words that you use, such as, “system”, and “joy” in the following :’they should look forward to and embrace with joy?”

        You sound like a Jehovah’s Witness (I studied them for 6 years), “A central teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that the current world era, or “system of things”, entered the “last days” in 1914 and faces imminent destruction through intervention by God and Jesus Christ, leading to deliverance for those who worship God acceptably.”

        Then you use verse 34, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

        THIS, pun intented, is the generation that sees all those things, and those things did NOT happen in 70 AD as you conclude, because Jesus references the book of Daniel, which you ignore, and it has a LOT of info in it regarding the story line of the OBAMA NATION OF DESOLATION standing in the temple proclaiming to be God.

        The word THIS in verse 34 is those people who see THE Anti-Christ proclaiming that he is the Messiah, claiming that he is above God, and THAT did not happen in 70 AD.

        And, as this blog post is about, the Jews only are the elect, not Christians in general.

        So, bottom line…if you are concluding your theology on the words “THIS GENERATION”, then it is you who do not put things into context.

        We never heard of the pestilance, famine, etc. happening in 70 AD, but you think it did, all because of the words, “this generation”?

        OK, buddy! Whatever floats your boat.

        Ed Chapman

      21. Aidan,

        What the heck is a “Parousia”. Is that like the Catholics calling the Holy Spirit a parakeet? Or is it a pair of cleats? I speak English, not Latin or Greek or Hebrew. I speak a little Japenese, tho. I was stationed there for 3 1/2 years. So, konichiwa McManus san.

        Essentially what you have done, by your use of “Jewish system”, is that you have written off the Jews, altogether.

        You limit yourself to Matthew 24, without reading anything in the Hebrew writings, disgarding them, because Jesus said, “THIS GENERATION”?

        We understand the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, but the rest of the story is of a FUTURE GENERATION, in our future, and that is the context of THIS GENERATION.

        The disciples asked 3 questions, not just one.

        when shall these things be?
        70 AD

        and what shall be the sign of thy coming, (NOTE THE WORD “SIGN” in the following)
        30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

        and of the end of the world?
        31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

        NOW, let’s take that to REVELATION:

        Christians won’t be here for that event, because they were raptured in chapter 7, but…

        The 144,000 are raptured in Revelation 14

        Revelation 14
        14 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.

        2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

        3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

        4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

        NEXT…

        13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

        NEXT…

        Revelation 15:2

        FINAL RAPTURE BEFORE ARMEGEDDON!

        2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

        NEXT…

        Armegeddon:

        Revelation 16:16
        16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

        I had no clue that Armegeddon was in 70 AD.

        Ed Chapman

      22. Aidan,

        I’m not a strawman, but I wish I was. Starbucks in my area has done away with plastic straws, and someone needs to be a strawman to provide straws now.

        Have a good night! Oops, Morning!

        Ed Chapman

      23. Aidan,

        By the way, Aidan, you’ve never heard of the NATION of Israel being “REGATHERED” by God? You think that the Jews are TOAST? Finished, Kaput?

        From a Jewish website:
        https://www.jewishvoice.org/learn/regathering-jewish-people-physically-back-land-israel-four-corners-earth

        From a Gentile website:
        https://int.icej.org/susans-blog/what-does-bible-have-say-about-return-jews-their-homeland

        Please take note that the book of Revelation is NOT about the Gentile CHRISTIANS at all, but that of Jewish “unbelievers”, physically in the NATION OF ISRAEL.

        Ed Chapman

      24. Aidan states:
        ” Clearly, it is only after verse 34 He begins to discuss His second coming.””

        My response:

        and what shall be the sign of thy coming

        Look at 4 verses ABOVE verse 34 and NOTE the word “sign”.

        30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

        Last I did math, 30 is before 34. I could be wrong. I’m 55 years old, but if my math is wrong, I’d love to be 21 again, and relive the 80’s when MTV actually played Music Video’s.

        Ed Chapman

      25. Joel and Aidan,

        If I asked each of you: Are believers left in this world to make this world a better place? How would you answer and what chapter(s) of scripture comes to mind?

        How do you see the kingdom of God?

        Has Daniel 2 been fulfilled? When fulfilled?

      26. Tammy asked:
        If I asked each of you: Are believers left in this world to make this world a better place? How would you answer and what chapter(s) of scripture comes to mind?

        How do you see the kingdom of God?

        Has Daniel 2 been fulfilled? When fulfilled?

        My Response:
        1.Yes, believers are here to make this world better. “You are the salt of the earth;..“You are the light of the world.” “Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Mth. 5:13-16) Also, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

        2. The Kingdom of God is here. It is a spiritual kingdom and Christians are in the kingdom. (Colossians 1:13; Heb.12: 18-24)

        3. Daniel 2 has indeed been fulfilled. It began its fulfillment in the first century when the kingdom of God came with the church being established on Pentecost (Acts 2).

        Hope this helps,
        Aidan

  21. Ed Chapman,

    I was under the understanding that the fact Luke most probably was a Gentile, writing to Gentiles, was not an issue of disagreement here. Because of that, I will explain my reasoning.

    I would say the majority of New Testament scholars think Luke would have written to a more to a more gentile audience. Even the slightest comparison of the Gospels shows how Luke made decisions to not include certain aspects or ways of speaking found in Mathew but not in Luke. There are reasons for this and an analysis of the synoptic Gospels shows that there is a more gentile leaning in its style and a lot of its content. That doesn’t mean that absolutely everything Jewish was stripped away and that there isn’t a historical accuracy of the Jewish people being shown. However, there is very little reason to believe Luke was a Jew or that his audience was Jewish through the fact he was writing to Theollopus, who also is most widely accepted by scholars a gentile, who Luke would have known would be sharing this with other gentiles to spread the Gospel throughout the Roman empire. This is why in my earlier comments, I mentioned this fact: to show the unlikelihood of Luke including a reference to the elect as only Jewish. The following paper supports these comments.

    http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-08532014000100009

    One scriptural proof text for Luke being non Jewish I will include is found in Colossians 4, where in Colossians 4:11 Paul chooses not to include Luke within the same group of circumcised. He later includes him in verse 14 instead.

    11 and so does Jesus who is called Justus. These alone of the circumcision are my coworkers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. 12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a slave of Christ Jesus, greets you. He is always contending for you in his prayers, so that you can stand mature and fully assured[a] in everything God wills. 13 For I testify about him that he works hard[b] for you, for those in Laodicea, and for those in Hierapolis. 14 Luke, the dearly loved physician, and Demas greet you.

    All that being said, in response to both Ed and Tammy’s comments,

    I would say my reason for stressing Luke’s audience being Gentile is because it would make Luke using Jesus’s words in reference to Jews only and not both Jews and Gentiles as His elect more unlikely. Seeing as Luke does quote Jesus in regards to his elect in his writing, to me gives more strength to the fact that the elect in Luke’s mind included more than just the Jewish people or Jewish believers. If Luke knew that when Jesus spoke of His elect as pertaining to Jewish or Jewish believers only, without clear indication who he was referring to; I would argue Luke would not have included this reference to God’s elect in his letter to Theophillus in Luke 18.

    This was my main reason for first commenting: to say that I agreed with the writer’s understanding of elect in 2 Timothy being possibly Jewish but didn’t agree that Jesus always refers to elect as Jewish only in the places he mentioned:

    “We find the word “elect” 4 times in the gospels and each time Jesus is referring to the Jews (Matthew 24:22, Matthew 24:24, Matthew 24:31, Luke 18:7). ”

    Have a good day guys

      1. Luke was not a Jewish kinsmen in the flesh.

        And there is power in the standard of scriptures with the fulfilled standard of a second witness, or three: Luke, a gentile, becomes a believer, is a second generation follower of Jesus, interviewing first generation followers of Jesus to include those who saw and touched the Lord, writing as a second generation follower of The Way, having been a companion of Paul, Paul being a jew in the flesh preaching no division in the Spirit, who saw the resurrected Lord and Paul himself also being witnesses to perform miracles.

        And the Holy Spirit used this man for (the elect) scriptures.

      2. Tammy,

        “And there is power in the standard of scriptures with the fulfilled standard of a second witness, or three: Luke, a gentile, becomes a believer…”

        Witness (defined): (noun) a person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place. (verb) have knowledge of (an event or change) from personal observation or experience.

        So you know Luke was a Gentile because you were there?

        I believe Luke was a Jew mostly because of Romans 3:2 (NKJV). There are also other biblical reasons to conclude that Luke was a Jew based on those outlined by brother McCall (link provided above). I can’t say “I know” Paul was a Jew, because I wasn’t there. I wasn’t a witness to anything. My belief is based upon the contents of scripture.

        Blessings, Sis.

      3. Hi Tammy. I think there is good support for Luke to be seen as a Jewish believer, not only because of the early tradition that he was one of the 70 sent out (Luke 10) and also the other man on the Emmaus road (Luke 24) who met the risen Lord.

        Luke talks about his “perfect understanding of all things from the very first” and does not mention himself as a Gentile seen with Paul in Jerusalem when the riots broke out because the Gentile Trophimus was seen with Paul (Acts 21:29).

        His name was Greek, but so was the apostle Philip’s. And in Col 4:11… the word “only” can be more about their being dedicated only to the kingdom of God with Paul and a comfort to him instead of being the only ones of the circumcision with Paul, though Luke is mentioned in vs 14.

      4. Phillip ( holy kiss)

        And my position is also based on the content and context of the scriptures. You reveled you are just leaning.

        Luke was not of the circumcision, I more than lean.

        So, one of us is wrong about what we can know. We know both of us cannot be right.

        Luke is the fleshly kinsmen of scripture. I know I have a second witness.

      5. Thanks Brian.

        It will take time to ‘re-evaluate’ my position, to test my position according to scripture, according to thoughts on how you defend your position.I doubt I will repost on it anytime soon, as it is a ‘ there are reasons I want to get to this’, but wanted to let you know I read your comment. I am beyond being persuade as I hold a position, so I would have to be dissuaded according to scripture, of which I can use for re-test what you shared ( and the article Phillip shared) to re-examine the scriptures.

        There main reason of course is because of honoring what is true, and I am being challenged I do not hold a ‘truth’ in position. But, the working reason is this, of which I would find worth returning the challenge if I am correct: For example, in taking down bricks when talking to someone who is an unbeliever and does believe that scripture is historical. May position on Luke as a gentile in the flesh is something the works through historically in substantiating historicity, which must then naturally follow it is then true it is scripture and that ( lets say the atheist ) takes apart the ‘mythology’ position as we follow the historical trail within common humanity of history, which is common to all men… in history. It works back to the lens, to defend the (history) of the good news, reality, not a theology.

        I do have a question as I want to be able see if any of your reason may be strain through a theological lens, so I can think like you MAY be thinking. So you hold a dispensation theology( they you believe would them be doctrinally true)? If so, do you hold to an acts 2 or a mid position of Acts 9 or Acts 13.If not can you share , for definitional purpose, if you fall close to a ‘theological/eschatolical system’ you lean towards, or another position or framing you find doctrinally essential that leads you to believe Luke must have been a Jew? (For example: only Jews of the elect, therefore, Luke had to be Jews to be used through the Holy Spirit to write scripture?)

        {I am curious to Ed and Phillip also, as to what dispensational they lean towards or hold position to.}

        I am not committed to ANY theological system, as to work inside of it. I work from a framework, with a central lens, of which I would ‘claim’ the edges of the frame work are revealed truths, being doctrine, so that I can discover if my (theology) discovered details of study, according to a revealed doctrine would have to be crossed out as actually wrong or believe it to be right.

        For example, lets take baptism, of which a position is held in EVERY systems. I ‘view’ how much of ‘the system’ might biase how the text might be interpreted and (if you will)which interpretation must be ‘crossed out’ and which could be carried through in agreement with the lens and the framework.( Which suggests grasping more deeply the worth of having familiarly with some systems.)
        ( I think many of our ‘doctrinal church divides’ could be eliminated if we worked from the same central lens and agreed on the framework beyond a system as if it is framework. For example: If revelation 20 is someones ‘end framework’, then they really are reasoning with bias within a system, and their system becomes their framework held together by eschatology bias of which to challenge objections, in stead of the last thing prophetically revealed to us. It results in a ‘disconnect’ in seeing if they rely on a theological system instead of a revealed truth, a doctrine. ( I say this a the guilty.)

        Systems are good for this: Bringing forward lines of our deductive thinking so we can sharpen each other, that we may hear the truth of God and discover the lies of the Enemy’s counterfeits of God word of truth, who wants to destroy us and veil the good news we are entrusted to share with our neighbor.

        Yes, way more then necessary here, but I decided it was worth dropping this into this board of truth seekers, so as we might talk less around each other.

        So, a very small FYI history, with this addition: The good news has never itself been ‘reformed’. I read the Bible and that is how I was saved by JesusChrist at 24.( then I picked a church and went ) A history of all the voices talking at me before I was ‘saved’ was brought with me to the living and active text of God as I sought “what is the dang truth.” I grew up worldview pot luck. Where I was protected from not being a fool for the world as ‘evolved’ because of truth’s self evidence. Therefore, the Bible was a true option of relaying truth. No matter how much ‘secular education’ shoved down my throat “evolution” I could not match it up with what the reality of the world around me revealed to be “true.”
        While I knew I already disagreed with the rapture 7 years before the end BECAUSE of what I discovered in scripture I still learned a lot from learning the specifics in the system of the Acts 9 dispensionalist in my first years of being a Christian because the couple who headed the para ministry I served with, which was counter cult apologetics, were Acts 9 dispensationalist. Willow Creek was my church ( before the emergent ‘flavor’ was ‘entertained’ as valid, of which I stood against ) So, there was a huge mix of reformed, Calvinist( flavors) and Arminianist, Trib and Pre and A and post, cessationism and non, and what Soterology 101 deems provisionist . And, I served in the evaneligism/apologetics ministry( including as unpaid staff for a short time). Also, as a church they were Ega, but there were lots of Comps….of which I am neither of these either, there is some point in leaning I have with each ‘system.’

        I have come full circle after …being tested… by philosophical/theological systematic leanings men make to be doctrinal positions. Logic is not philosophy! And what makes it even more lonely is I am truly apolitical, which ‘political’ is either in a system as ‘good’ intentionally or they have a disconnect by saying it is not ‘political’ but function as if it is, a disconnect because of word definitions.

        The full circle: I am here for the defense of the gospel, that I believed as of first importance, of which I am often ‘repeating’ to christians who cannot ‘specifically’ tell me where it is explicitly found in scripture without telling me: Well, its the whole bible or its obedience to the gospel truth. Okay, so what does it mean to obey the gospel? And they end up telling me about Jesus forging them and how they live in line with ‘gospel truth’. This, the same people who are ‘believers’ that to ‘believe’ is to do something. So many do not understand “the work of Christ” and end up believing ‘the work of Christ is they I came to believe’. And, then there are those who believe they can lose/walk away from being saved but say they believe in ‘salvation by grace’. I am preaching “the gospel’ into the church and often it is on the street with unbelievers they ‘understand’ what I am saying, even if they won’t receive it to be ‘true.’ So, they often cannot lay out out it imperially works for their salvation, because they cannot explicitly repeat or find in in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, let alone grasp the idea OT text that are unveiled as the gospel preached in advance.

        This is why I think the voice out of Soteriology 101 matters. To Leighton Flowers: hold out ‘scholars’ to be looked at because they show disciplined work and effort as servant scholars to truth, not because being a professional makes them reputable scholars.( Theological systems from scholars dispersed into the public square of those without an institute of education are the loudest voices that helped with the many divides, while claiming to defend the truth and/or understand something “new” are the counterfeit ‘ideas’ we spend more time pondering then reading the text of scripture.Yes, other peoples books.) Don’t fall for what the fight is against: philosophy and theology as if they are doctrine, that then veils the very good news they hold out. Doctrine has been revealed to all, being all men are common to test what is true, to understand the scriptures , according to the Holy Spirit. Suggest scholars who have evidence of discipline by degree to be servants, giving there life to seeking the truths of scripture, not as if being a “reputable scholar” makes them the reputable voice who can better make the argument. If you get my subtly here.

        Now, about the unbeliever on the street: The power of the determinism philosophy/theology as a christian voice is getting so well known, that when I share the gospel on the street I am assumed to be a determinist christian. I have to spend time taking down the bricks of determinism, (them telling me I believe God predestined them to Hell not able to become a believer), to unveil the Good News! I have been surprised at how many unbelievers are familiar with this ‘idea’ as if this is ‘the good news’ I must hold to if I call myself a christian.

        Okay, I am gonna push the button instead of delete most of this from my reply. lol… sorry to Brian. The first paragraph would have been enough.

      6. HI Brian, (holy kiss)
        I started searching and I am not dissuaded, at all to be honest.

        (Hi Phillip, I am also not lacking in humility to hold a position instead of a leaning, I do believe it is revealed by scripture, after re-evaluating . However, I do believe you can only lean that I might be wrong, humbly. 🙂

        I found it interesting from the article Phillip shared that Dr. Allen takes it to the height that Luke might have wrote Hebrews.

        Having read the articles Phillip provided , I also read others, on both sides. Until today, I never knew it was deemed a ‘traditional’ position. The battle is years old.
        In circles of conversation, over the years, I usually bring up the book of Job, Neb in Daniel and the return to Jerusalem contracts and that Luke was a gentile when someone quickly calls out,” All the writers of scripture were Jewish.” Some people will say, “Oh yea, Luke.”
        I am usually the persuader that there is prophetic depth of Luke being a gentile in the flesh, which I ’naturally’ picked up as I read scripture.
        As witnessed here, I reason the scriptural standard of God of always providing at least ‘2 witnesses’.( Which I found in no other articles.)
        In circles of ministry, over the years, when going through scripture in evangelism/contending most I worked with held Luke.

        ( I read articles of those who would lean with me after I searched the scriptures, re-evaluating my position.
        I found only 1 thing new, and a few things I would disagree with using ‘other verse’ to support the position.
        Here is what the 1 new thing I found, that today really added not weight for or against, but worth being familiar with: “The next earliest account of Luke (after Paul’s writings) is in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke” by Scott Young
        And here is a opinion about the Anti-Marcionite Progogue with quotes: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/antimarcion.html)

        In short: The ‘extra’ reasoning provided in the articles, such as Romans 3:1-3, I would use to weight the opposite way in explanation.
        I thought maybe their would be a more substantial challenge.

        Brian, your use of Luke 1:3, according to context, I would suggest weights the opposite way:

        Luke1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been
        accomplished among us,
        2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered
        them to us,
        3 it seemed good to me also,
        having followed all things closely for some time past,
        to write an orderly account for you,
        most excellent Theophilus,
        4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

        https://biblehub.com/text/luke/1-3.htm

        I will skip talking about “Theophilus”.

        Well…But, whoever “Theophius” is-
        *Luke writes all the maps upside down. For me this speaks both with prophetic depth,
        historical evidence of the time according to mapping, and a mark of Luke communicating the truth naturally (during the time of an eternal transition) as a gentile out of the Roman world would have.
        ( I haven’t saw this in any commentary either. But I have shared my thoughts with some scholars in passing.)

        So, I am not dissuaded about Colossians 4:14, which in context shows Luke to be gentile.

        Acts 21 flows naturally and in no way argues against Luke being a gentile.

        I find Acts 16:10 to be a clear change in Luke’s writing to keep his written witness precise. He becomes a “we” actively.

        More food for thought for me, is the related timing of the issue of circumcision through the eyes of Acts 15 and 16.
        As related to Acts 15, Galations 2:

        Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.

        3 But even Titus, who was with me,

        was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

        11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.[a] 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

        Lucius the Cyrene in Acts 13 and in Romans 16 I do not believe to be Luke. I believe Lucius to be a jewish kinsmen.

        I find it interesting that Luke never ended up in prison with Paul.

      7. Thank you, Tammy, for the response. I still believe the evidence I gave still points to Luke being Jewish, an early disciple, one of the 70, and that all the written oracles of God (OT & NT) came through the Jews chosen by God as prophets and apostles… the apostles who witnessed the resurrection, all being Jews. But we can ask Luke when we see him! 😉

        Also, I’m a premillenialist that leans towards thinking there will be a pre-trib rapture because of the removal of the restrainer before the man of sin is revealed (2Thess 2).

    1. Well, Joel,

      All of that may be useful for another topic, but regardless, Luke was quoting Jesus when the word ELECT was mentioned. And just because his audience was Gentile, that does not take away that elect is JEWISH ONLY.

      The problem that I see in our back and forth, is that you equate the word ELECT with the word “SAVED”, OR “believer”, or “Christian”, when that isn’t even the point.

      To put it more simply ALL CHRISTIANS ARE SAVED, WHETHER JEW OR GENTILE, FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE…right?

      A Gentile Christian is SAVED…but…NOT ELECT. Apples and oranges as far as the conversation is.

      Whether Luke is, or isn’t a Jew, or whether his audience is Jew of Gentile is not really what my point is. According to Luke’s FIRST few sentences in Luke 1, MANY people wrote a timeline of Jesus. And he was just putting it all in order as he had learned it, and what he quotes Jesus saying isn’t in Matthew, Mark, or John…but since he got the INFO second hand, SOMEONE ELSE, other than Matthew, Mark, and John RECALLS IT, and therefore, Luke is just writing what he heard, or read for himself of the timeline.

      But that does NOT mean that Gentiles are ELECT, just because Luke penned the word of Jesus, while being a Gentile, to a Gentile audience. Too many SCHOLARS are making ASSUMPTIONS. Too many scholars are equating the word ELECT with the word SALVATION, or SAVED, or BELIEVER.

      Until people can grasp that the word ELECT is not a synonym for the word SAVED, meaning SAVED GENTILES, THEN we can finally move ahead here.

      Saved Gentiles are saved. What more do you want? ELECTION, TOO? Do you see the hardships that the Jews go thru, and you want to be elect? WW2?

      When the blind Jews meet their maker (Jesus), they WILL get MERCY.

      Think about this:

      1 Timothy 1:13 (Paul discussing HIMSELF…as a Jew, mind you…)
      Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

      NOW…take that over to ROMANS 11, and SEEK OUT the words, MERCY AND UNBELIEF, as they are ALSO in the above verse.

      How is Paul ANY DIFFERENT than your average BLIND IGNORANT JEW? He isn’t, so for people to say that PAUL GETS MERCY and THEY DON’T? That would mean FAVORITSM, and we know that God is NOT a respector of persons, for the bible tells us that. And if THAT be true, then the ELECT will get the SAME MERCY THAT PAUL DID, it’s just that they will have to wait until they MEET JESUS after they die. But there will ALWAYS be a RENMANT of believing unblinded Jews…hence, when Jewish believers are RAPTURED, there is a NEED for 144,000 Jews in Revelation to attempt to preach the gospel to the ones…LEFT BEHIND.

      Have you ever read Romans 2:14-16, about Gentiles that NEVER HEARD OF A JESUS? How does Paul say that THEY will be judged? Automatically Damned to hell for NOT ACCEPTING A JESUS WHO THEY HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT? NO. Secret THOUGHTS? YES. In other words, judged based on their conscience. And that is GENTILES.

      Jews under the law…judged based on the Law of Moses. Found guilty of all charges, but the GOOD NEWS IS…ROMANS 11.

      Will there be Jews in hell? Well, our boy Luke sure said that there is at least one Jew there, in Acts 16. But why would he be there?

      John 9 explains that one, regarding Jews who claim that they can see, such as, the PHARISEES.

      John 9:39-41
      39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

      40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

      41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

      As a LAY PERSON, and not a SCHOLAR that wears strange religious garb, HOW DO YOU interpret those 3 verses? And to what ethnic group is Jesus discussing? Jew or Gentile or Both (for there is no difference?)?

      Ed Chapman

      1. Ed,

        Please ease up on the cap locks. I get the impression you are yelling when you write like that. I realize you may in fact be yelling at me but if we are going to discuss; please don’t yell.

        Okay, firstly I see that you are unfairly categorizing certain doctrinal beliefs with other necessary conclusions in regards to this topic. Like if a person is expository then they are necessarily something else. Please try not to do that. I am a Traditionalist by the way; not a Calvinist.

        Also, on the issue of election, as I said a few times, I believe different authors and persons using the word elect can take on different meanings. I don’t equate election with always pertaining to salvation. When Christ speaks of it I tend to believe he is. I also don’t believe, like you seem to be implying, that election in both Testaments is always related to salvation. Kings are elected to as God chose without it necessarily mean they were elected unto salvation. I believe that the church(not just Jewish believers) are God’s chosen people to bring the message of the Gospel to the world.(much like Leighton Flowers I believe tries to emphasize) Not the Jewish believers exclusively; that much is clear. I do believe that the Jews as a nation, were elected for this but refused. I believe this is the aspect in 2 Timothy that it is being used in reference to Israel(the nation) but would naturally be speaking of their lack of salvation also in that case.

        However in John’s epistles “the elect lady”, I believe is in reference to the Church(for salvation, but also being chosen to bring God’s word to the world. In terms of Israel, they were elected to bring about the child of promise(Leighton Flowers) and through them the Gospel originally. However, now I believe that election is now more a Gentile one in terms of bringing the Gospel to the world.

        So, no, I don’t always look at election as unto salvation. I know that just because Israel was elect that not all Jews were always eternally saved.

        Also, in 1 Peter there is quite a bit of support that the dispersed ones (elect exiles) are more than just Jewish believers. I would say they are being considered exiled from Jerusalem through their faith in Christ being dispersed because if Israel would have accepted Christ then the Gentiles would also have access to Jerusalem much like the proselytes that conformed before in Judaism.

        In the verse in John 9:39-41, he is speaking to the religious Pharisees that Jesus knew were not God-fearing, as stated later in John: “Children not of the Father but of the devil.”

        But what does that prove? In that passage, he is speaking to non humbled Jews who weren’t truly repentant. Jesus changes who he is speaking too many times in all Gospel accounts. The authors of the different Gospels normally make it clear who he is speaking to. A lot depends on the theme and what the author is trying to portray to the readers he is writing to.

      2. Yes, Ed seems to shout a lot perhaps because he’s deef! Or perhaps, because he likes to EDphasize things a lot.

      3. Sorry… caps for emphasis, not shouting. I didn’t make ethic rules for typing on a keyboard, so I don’t adhere to them either.

        I learned how to type on an old typewriter back in the 70’s, not a computer from the 2k.

        And, I am non denomination, so I don’t conform to what dead people already concluded for you.

        Also, there is no recorded phrase, elected unto salvation in the bible.

        I believe that there is only one chosen people.

        I reject traditionalists, or reform, or Calvinist take on Ephesians 1:4, and have explained why several times in the last year or more.

        Why did three Jews refuse?

        Due to a sound mind, with eyes to see, ears to hear?

        Not according to Deuteronomy.

        Did God blind them or not?

        If so, when? And if there is a when, then when did he unblind them all, and if he only unblinded a remnant, will he be merciful to the rest?

        In Romans 9-11, it discusses Election of Grace, and explains that it is the exact opposite of Works. Works is what is “done (do, deed) to “earn” a wage. Self righteousness is another term for it, to earnsalvation by works instead of receiving a gift.

        The Jews are working. Gentiles never worked for salvation.

        Election to grace is not the same topic as the word, “elect”, nor is it the same topic of “elected unto salvation, a term not found in the bible.

        So you say that you don’t always equate it to salvation. But I day it has nothing to do with salvation, but a people.. The Jewish people, not the Gentile people.

        Jesus never spoke about the salvation of Gentiles until after he rose from the dead and said that he has other sheep to bring in. He had said that her did not come BUT FOR the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So how could Jesus discuss elect as Gentiles?

        Ed Chapman

      4. I’m not sure why you conclude exiles in Peter as Gentiles. I know Catholics think that when he used the word Babylon, thru think it’s code for Rome. Other than that, he’s talking to Jews only, no different than three book of James opening up with, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.

        But you would change his words by scratching all that out and rewording it to saints, believers, Christians, Jew and Gentile?

        I know your education. But I’d say…back to the drawing board, all traditionalists, or reformers, former Catholics, under Augustine who were Jew haters cuz the Jews killed Jesus.

        Ed Chapman

      5. Joel,

        You had said:
        “In the verse in John 9:39-41, he is speaking to the religious Pharisees that Jesus knew were not God-fearing, as stated later in John: “Children not of the Father but of the devil.”

        But what does that prove? In that passage, he is speaking to non humbled Jews who weren’t truly repentant. Jesus changes who he is speaking too many times in all Gospel accounts. The authors of the different Gospels normally make it clear who he is speaking to. A lot depends on the theme and what the author is trying to portray to the readers he is writing to.”

        My response:

        I’m not getting your explanation at all. Not being God fearing has nothing to do with the conversation. Non-humbled has nothing to do with the conversation. The author of a gospels have nothing to do with the conversation.

        Acadamia seems to be too acedemic. Let’s stick with the actual conversation, and not go off on tangents, please.

        John 9:39-41 states:

        39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

        40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

        41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

        What I wanted you to focus on, as an acedemic, is the words, “blind” and “We see”, as well as “sin”, specicially, “no sin” and “sin remaineth”

        My point:

        You asked what does this prove? Well, it proves that…

        Blind Jews have no sin imputed, even tho they have sinned.

        “We See” Jews, their sins are imputed to them (remains).

        But your answer is, “Children not of the Father but of the devil”, and, “Pharisees were not God fearing”, and authors of the gospel?

        This is why I’m not a fan of semitaries if this is what they teach.

        Ed Chapman

      6. Okay Ed, you lost me also then.

        A lot of what I have had to say isn’t as a seminary student but as a layman. Whatever else I am learning in school for now is a compliment to what I have already studied on these issues. Because I have just started my studies in school.

        I was not going off on tangents when I answered your question you asked me.

        You said,

        “As a LAY PERSON, and not a SCHOLAR that wears strange religious garb, HOW DO YOU interpret those 3 verses? And to what ethnic group is Jesus discussing? Jew or Gentile or Both (for there is no difference?)?”

        So, I was just trying to answer and respond to what you have been saying here and in your last response to me.

        Anyways, like I said before, we lost each other because I think you might have forgot what you were asking me then. Or I’m not getting it and I no longer see a point to continue engaging with you, either way at this point.

      7. Joel,

        I acknowledge your last comment. The John 9 reference regarding being blind is all related to the elect issue, coupled with the “remnant” issue that was “unblinded”, hence Lydia, the seller of purple, and the explanation in Romans 11, and the special treatment that Paul got mercy due to “ignorance in unbelief”. It is all related.

        I’ve never been to school for any of this. What I did was to read the bible 5 times as a novel before even thinking about studying. What it takes is sleepless nights, knowing that I have to go to work in a few hours, with tons of coffee, hi-liters of different colors, black pens, red pens, college ruled paper, several bibles of various English Translations, and only one Strong’s Concordance, with no commentaries at all, and use that concordance for more than just a dictionary, look at those words, and how several words form to make one word to define something else in the Hebrew. For instance…Benjamin is two Hebrew words. Ben, and Yamin. Son of the Right Hand. Who is that pertaining to? Jesus, right? Well, there is a hint to study Benjamin, etc. Long before I had a Strong’s concordance, in order to find something, I’d begin reading again at Genesis 1:1 until I found it. That way, I knew exactly where to find things quickly. Now…we got computers to do word searches. Makes it easy now. But I still love that Strong’s concordance.

        Then when you are done, study what you don’t believe for sure, and see if it’s true, or false. This way, there is no preconceived anything. Commentaries are out of there at all cost. They started this mess. Then they made you create “articles”. I thought it was Bible alone, but as it really turns out, it’s anything but bible alone…it’s bible plus plus divided by, times 20.

        My point: Do you really need school to figure this stuff out?

        Imagine the tuition you could save!

      8. Ed,

        Bible school is more than just gaining knowledge. It is about showing you are prepared and ready to minister to others too. Pastors and leaders serving in the church aren’t usually called to a church from only sitting at home as a laymen.

        I know you know this already but as critical as you are of me or anyone else who attends Bible school, I could be even more critical of you for being so far removed from what you are critiquing that you are guilty of just “leaning on your own understand” or “being wise in your own estimation” which the word of God tells us to avoid.

      9. Joel,

        It’s always amusing to me when people play the “lean not on your own understanding” card, which they are really saying to lean on their understanding instead. The context of the use of that statement gets pretty skewed.

        The reason I do such a thing of critique like this, is due to the knowledege that you should already have. It is the reform side of the house that does not see what many of us in Christendom actually do see. The reform is expository driven, and when they read the story of Jonah, they do not relate 3 days and 3 nights as prophesy of Jesus, whereas Jesus did.

        Note the word, “all” in the following, meaning that Jonah was a prophet about Jesus, not Ninevah.

        Luke 24:27
        And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

        Matthew 12:39
        But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

        Jesus called Jonah a prophet, and the purpose of prophets in, “The Tora and the Prophets”, or Tanakh for short, is to prophesy about Jesus, hence, Luke 24:27.

        I know that I’ll never get rid of seminaries, but I don’t see anyone going to college in any of the epistles, do you? Nehimaiah 8 is pretty straight forward. In my upbringing, we are to respect our “elders”, and the definition of elder is “older”, but somewhere in Catholic time, elder became an office, rather than an old person, but old people have “wisdom”, and are supposed to be “mentors”, not authoritarians to beat and whip us into shape, as most in the reform world preach. We are to obey them, but why?

        Why, I ask? Because they have lived life already, been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt. They know the pitfalls, they know how to avoid them so as to teach the younger ones how to avoid making the same mistakes that they made. That’s an elder, but religiocity has turned it into an office to beat down people, when Jesus said:

        Luke 22:24-26 King James Version (KJV)

        24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

        25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

        26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

        But you need a school for that? I know, I know, my critique won’t change a thing. I’m just curious why people need a school to be a pastor/elder, when all the pastor is supposed to do is to feed us knowledege and understanding, and the elder is supposed to mentor us, and the qualifications is not a college degree, but a husband of one wife, knows how to rule his own household, has a good reputation with those outside the church, etc. Now, we have doctors that don’t even wear a stethoscope, pretending to be experts, and it’s frustrating.

        Ed Chapman

      10. Why I brought up children of the devil was because that is who Jesus is speaking about in the context of the verses you brought up in John 9. I may have said it is mentioned later but I should have said before in chapter 8.

        “You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars.” John 8:44 (HCSB)

      11. Joel,

        You had said:
        “The authors of the different Gospels normally make it clear who he is speaking to. A lot depends on the theme and what the author is trying to portray to the readers he is writing to.”

        My response:

        I’m sorry, but like I said yesterday, all the authors of the gospels are doing is writing down a timeline of events as they remembered them, and I do not see “personality” or “theme”, as if to entertain the reader, like a preacher does on Sunday in the pulpit.

        Where do you guys come up with this stuff, trying to make the author the story, rather than the facts of the case of what was said, and stick with that, and explain what was said, instead of “the children fo the devil” routine.

        Are the Jews blind, or not? If so, why? When did that begin? Did God unblind any? If so, why not all? Why did Paul get special treatment?

        So many questions that I already know the answer to, that you do not answer, but skirt the issue to “the children of the devil”. That does not address my original question at all.

        Ed Chapman

    2. Joel, ( holy kiss )

      I understood how you originally wrote about Luke’s thinking and were trying to persuade towards the ‘elect’ position.

      It appears to me we are closest in agreement of ‘elect’ in our faith, but I agreed with Ed because of how you weighted establishing your position, though I disagree with what Ed concludes by way of his interpretation.

      You are(single, in a plural) a continued blessing to me, you elect with Soteriology101, all of you who share your thoughts.

      (The power of our God, who has revealed Himself to be triune, is amazing! Blessings)

      1. Tammy,

        With all due respect, when I see what is spoken by those who’ve went to seminary, or bible school use the same exact reasoning, as if it were a talking point that they learn in school, then it is not Joel that speaks from his own research of it, but it is what he was told to use by his schooling.

        I love being non-denomination, because I’m not limited to THE BOX. I can seek things out that most of them in the schools have no clue about, yet, they got degrees galore, calling themselves Doctor, and…before ya know it, they like to have preeminence, because who is able to question a college grad without getting into trouble, for doctors are experts. Let’s be real, are the “little people” allowed to question the expert, without reprocussion?

        The expert states that Luke was a Gentile and gives a reason that is taught in school, not because he researched it out all by himself. I like independent research myself.

        Granted that Luke was not an Apostle…

        When the Apostles wanted to replace Judas…

        Acts 1:21-26
        21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

        22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

        23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

        24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

        25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

        26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

        I’d be willing to say that Luke was a disciple of Jesus, all because they had many disciples to choose from to replace Judas as an Apostle.

        In addition to that, I am still in agreement with Phillip with the links that he provided. Notice, if you will, one of the links, LEVIT. Levit is a Jew (he’s since past away (died)) who is a Chrsitian, who was raised in the Jewish faith.

        I have more faith in a Jew than I do in a Gentile college setting. I have more faith in a non-believing Jew. Why is that? Because I can see Jesus very clearly by what a non-believing Jew states, more than I can by a Gentile who thinks he’s an expert at Greek.

        Ed Chapman

      2. Joel, did you happen to read my reply to things Phillip and Ed revealed their position towards, related to 2John and ‘elect’ issues? (I posted Jan 12.)

        Ed, whether someone receives an institutionalized formal education or not, is not what BOXES ‘christians’ into a formal systematic theology/line of reasoning , as if it is the true doctrine, as if trustworthy in discovery because we ‘claimed’ to seek the truth.

        Ed said:”The expert states that Luke was a Gentile and gives a reason that is taught in school, not because he researched it out all by himself. I like independent research myself.”

        We may come to a false conclusion because of the pride of man or because of human error some where in the line of our own human reasoning in a search for truth.We may fall upon truths the same way. Forms of institutional higher education are not necessary for the set up of being the ‘claimed’ expert.

        It appears to me Joel is not depending on sharpening and discovery according to human experts, but by being a disciplined student of scripture and openly presenting lines of reasoning, open to be challenged, as he explains how he reached a conclusion.

        1 Corinthians 1-3,4 example

        ( thank you Lord for language translators of scripture!!!!)

      3. Tammy,

        Acts 17:11
        These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

        They didn’t just take the word of Paul. They searched the scriptures daily to see if what they were being told was true, or false.

        Being in school, disciplined, as you said, is like being a “yes-man”, only doing what you are told. Just following orders.

        Every flavor of denomination has their own college that teaches a different thing for the same topic. Have you ever noticed that?

        So, which DOCTOR are we to listen to? The one who makes the most money? Writes the most books on Amazon?

        Ed Chapman

  22. BR.D, RE our earlier exchange on the contamination of Early Christianity by Platonism….

    Most modern Evangelicals cannot accept the concept, taught very clearly in the Bible, of a God who learns, and modifies His behavior based on that new information; a God who can be surprised. IE. Clear scripture with God saying “now I know”, or “I regret” some action; that scripture must be vigorously twisted to fit Plato and his concept of the unchanging, timeless God.

    1. Hi Carl,
      Yes – from what I’m familiar – I agree.
      We also have various opinions on how to interpret verses as “Anthropomorphic”
      And I think people tend to use that mode of interpretation to their personal advantage (for verses they don’t want to take literally)

  23. Origen and Augustine did not take most of the OT literally, They thought most were not factual but “figurative”. So they had no trouble making the OT fit their adherence to Plato.

    Most of their adherents today struggle to reconcile “inerrancy” with their reluctance to take what the “inerrant” texts say at their plain meaning.

  24. St Paul in Roman’s 9:25 quotes the Holy Prophet Hosea. It is significant to this discussion as I will show. I will compare his interpretation with the Words of St Peter.
    We begin with the Apostle Paul
    Home

    Read

    Plans

    Videos

    Romans 9
    NRSV
    God’s Election of Israel
    1I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
    6It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. 9For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, 12not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” 13As it is written,
    “I have loved Jacob,
    but I have hated Esau.”
    14What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses,
    “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
    16So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
    God’s Wrath and Mercy
    19You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction;

    23and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,
    “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
    and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ ”
    26“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
    there they shall be called children of the living God.”
    27And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; 28for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.” 29And as Isaiah predicted,
    “If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us,
    we would have fared like Sodom
    and been made like Gomorrah.”
    Israel’s Unbelief
    30What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33as it is written,
    “See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall,
    and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

    ***Notice saint Paul says that the vessels prepared ahead of time for glory i.e the elect include all of the called even GENTILES and he quotes Hosea to prove it.

    St Peter uses this same scripture from Hosea when he describes the elect people of God using the same descriptions as found in the Torah is Exodus 19:6.

    EXODUS 19:6

    1On the third new moon after the Israelites had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that very day, they came into the wilderness of Sinai. 2They had journeyed from Rephidim, entered the wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness; Israel camped there in front of the mountain. 3Then Moses went up to God; the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the Israelites: 4You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, 6but you shall be for me a PRIESTLY KINGDOM and a HOLY NATION. These are the words that you shall speak to the Israelites.”

    1Peter

    1Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. 2Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation— 3if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
    4Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet CHOSEN and precious in God’s sight, and 5like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in scripture:
    “See, I am laying in Zion a stone,
    a cornerstone chosen and precious;
    and WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM will not be put to shame.”
    7To you then who believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe,
    “The stone that the builders rejected
    has become the very head of the corner,”
    8and
    “A stone that makes them stumble,
    and a rock that makes them fall.”
    They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

    9But you are a CHOSEN race, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, a HOLY NATION, GOD’S OWN PEOPLE, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

    10Once you were not a people,
    but now you are God’s people;
    once you had not received mercy,
    but now you have received mercy.

    HIS INCLUSION OF HOSEA 1:9,10 TALKING ABOUT THE GENTILES BECOMING A PEOPLE OF GOD AND TYING THAT IN WITH HIS Torah-like LANGUAGE SHOWING THE CHURCH AS ELECT/ISRAEL IS PROOF THAT THE ELECT PEOPLE OF GOD IS INCLUSIVE OF NON JEWISH CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL.

    BOTH PAUL AND PETER USE THIS PASSAGE TO SHOW GENTILE INCLUSION. IF THEY WERE NOT CHOSEN, THE APOSTLE WOULD NOT HAVE INDICATED THEY WERE with his language borrowed from the Torah that had been used specifically in reference to Israel. Nor would saint Paul had written so much in Galatians indicated that believers are all children of Abraham and heirs . Their use of Hosea 1 in Roman 9 and 1 Peter 3 means that the gentiles are part of the Israel of God united with the Christians of Jewish ancestry in Christ.

    The unbelieving Jews were judicially hardened only after they hardened their own heart. This does not mean because God hardened their heart and they were blinded that they are going to be automatically saved as John Hagee and others teach. A judicial hardening only occurs when the person hardens their own heart and resists grace and God gives them over to their own devises.

    St Paul also applies his same language of vessels of honor and dishonor that he does in Roman’s 9 but provides the insight that our cooperation has something to do with what kind of vessel we become. There is no language here in his letter to Timothy that makes it exclusive to Jews.

    “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.”
    2 Timothy 2:19‭-‬21 KJV
    https://bible.com/bible/1/2ti.2.19-21.KJV

    Faithful ones in Christ regardless of nationality are the true Jews. See Revelation 3:9

    Roman’s 2 :28,29

    For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical.
    Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God.

    1. Good points dnj. As I have said many times, the entire New Testament is filled with language of unity and inclusion. One cannot get away from the comparisons of the ‘old’ and ineffective way of the Law vs. the ‘new’ true Way, which is faith in Jesus. In the many, many times this is emphasized, never does it suggest that this is just for the Gentiles and an entirely different plan is going to apply to the Jews. This ‘theory’ arose the same way Calvinism did, by philosophizing from partial, unrelated verses to manufacture a bizarre theory that is nowhere laid out in scripture.

      If there was such a thing as a separate, unique thing going on with national Israel why isn’t it more than ‘hinted’ at? Unless clearly spelled out, it would be in direct contradiction to the many, many passages stating that ALL are saved on the same basis – being faith. Jews are exactly like all other men – they will be judged individually on their faith. Note that Paul asserts that the Jews ‘stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”’

      This verse is also helpful in seeing past the typical definitions of ‘hardening’ or ‘blinding’. Men are hardened, blinded and stumble when, confronted with the truth, they refuse to submit to it. God ‘hardens’ and ‘blinds’ men by confronting them openly with the truth, just as he did with Pharaoh. I do not believe for a second that he did some mystical whammy on Pharaoh and changed his heart. This is simply the absurd interpretation of men upon reading this translated Hebraism. Those who believe, whose hearts are soft and yielding and willing to repent, are saved. Those who stubbornly cling to their idols and sin (or Law) are, by their own choice, hardened and blinded; those who continue on his path will eventually become totally depraved. This is true of every single individual.

      This does not require God to do something supernatural within the person to make them ‘unable’ to understand truth or choose to do what is right. This is essentially the same concept as Total Depravity, the claim that it is God who makes people unable to see, know and choose the good. This is something that any non-determinist would reject as contrary to scripture’s portrayal of God’s self set boundaries to allow humans moral freedom to choose good or evil.

      When confronted with the truth of who Jesus was, some Jews believed and converted. Contrary to the claims of Calvinists, and apparently Zionists, this was not God choosing who would and wouldn’t believe, but each individual Jew deciding for himself. Some, like all who were a part of the early church, humbled themselves, joined with the Gentiles and became followers of Jesus. Others, were hardened by their stubborn unbelief, and there is nothing that God can (by his own decision to not overstep the freedom he granted to men) do against the individual’s own will to make them believe or not believe. This is why I have long viewed Calvinism as simply Judaism 2.0. They make the same claims, with slight variations.

      1. TS00,

        Unity, huh? OK, you go to NATIONAL Israel, and you tell them about this UNITY thing, and see what they say about it.

        Did you not know that any Jew that is a Christian is FORBIDDEN by the government of Israel to return to Israel as a CITIZEN?

        Unity, huh?

        Ed Chapman

      2. Thanks to TSOO and Ed

        Ed, that is a lot of work you did. Where I may agree or disagree is related to the depths of exercising this, which you said: TYPE AND SHADOW it, which I call SPIRITUAL vs. CARNAL.

        All the work you put forward it a great sharper, as we sharpen one another according to the Word of God, living and active, with a mind governed by the Spirit and not a mind governed by the flesh. Romans 8, again. 🙂

        Daniel 2:19 During the night the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision. Then Daniel praised the God of heaven 20 and said:

        “Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
        wisdom and power are his.
        21 He changes times and seasons;
        he deposes kings and raises up others.
        He gives wisdom to the wise
        and knowledge to the discerning.
        22 He reveals deep and hidden things;
        he knows what lies in darkness,
        and light dwells with him.
        23 I thank and praise you, God of my ancestors:
        You have given me wisdom and power,
        you have made known to me what we asked of you,
        you have made known to us the dream of the king.”
        Daniel Interprets the Dream
        24 Then Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, “Do not execute the wise men of Babylon. Take me to the king, and I will interpret his dream for him.”

        25 Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, “I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means.”

        26 The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?”

        27 Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, 28 but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries.

      1. Jesus opens eyes and gives understanding when they humble themselves. Pride keeps one blind.

      2. Information about the biblical teaching of self hardening followed by judicial hardening with bibliography found here:
        https://soteriology101.com/2015/02/07/judicial-hardening-gods-sinless-use-of-sinful-actions/ and excerpts posted below:

        “Self-Hardening of the heart goes beyond the tragic obtuseness of our inherited condition in the Fall of man. Working on the fertile soul of our innately immoral hearts, the act of sinning hardens the heart into a stubborn rebellion against all that is good. So, people may harden their own hearts, in sinful rebellion, in bitterness, or in sheer self-will. (Ex. 9:34-35; 2 Chron. 36:13; Zech. 7:12; Dan. 5:20; Eph. 4:18; Heb. 3:12-15)

        This type of self-hardening is most clearly seen in Zech. 7:11-13:

        “Your ancestors would not listen to this message. They turned stubbornly away and put their fingers in their ears to keep from hearing. They made their hearts as hard as stone, so they could not hear the law or the messages that the LORD Almighty had sent them by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. That is why the LORD Almighty was so angry with them. ‘Since they refused to listen when I called to them, I would not listen when they called to me,’ says the LORD Almighty.”

        Judicial Hardening — In a few instances such as Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Ex. 7:3; 9:12), Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deut. 2:30), and the Hivites living in Gibeon (John 11:19-20), it is said that God hardened their hearts. Apparently these people were so irremediable in their rebellion against God that God entered into the hardening process so that he could accomplish his purposes in spite of, and yet in and through, that hardenness. It is God’s prerogative, as God, to do this (Rom. 9:18-21). That they are morally responsible for their condition is a theological given, and we are warned not to harden our hearts as they did, a command that would make no sense if hardening were simply God’s act (1 Sam. 6:6).

        Israel’s hardening as a nation was an act of self-hardening followed by God’s act of judicial hardening as clearly portrayed in the scripture (Matt. 23:37; Rom. 10-11).

        God tells Isaiah that Israel, with its calloused heart, will reject him as God’s messenger when he goes to them (Isa. 6:9-10). The event was taken as prophetic by Jesus (Matt. 13:14-15) and Paul (Acts 28:25-27) as referring to Israel’s rejection of Jesus as God’s Messiah. For Paul, Israel’s hardening paved the way to a ministry of ingrafting the Gentiles (Rom. 10-11; Acts 28:28) and was not intended by God to be final, but only until the fullness of the Gentile’s ingrafting was accomplished.

        Only the Word of God has the power to cut or pierce a hardened heart (Heb. 4:12) and he has given that word through his Son, the Apostles, the scriptures and by his Spirit all of which can be resisted and ignored as seen throughout the Bible as the hardenness and callousness of the heart only grows thicker with each act of rebellion.

        According to scripture only those in a hardened state are unable to see, hear, understand and believe (Acts 28:26-28: John 12:39-40). ”

        Other scriptural evidence I found for the assertions in my last post….

        Mark 3 KJV

        And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.

        2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

        3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.

        4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

        5 And when he had looked round about on them with ANGER, BEING GRIEVED FOR THE HARDNESS of THEIR HEARTS, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.”

        WHY WOULD JESUS BE ANGERED AND GRIEVED AT THE HARDNESS OF THE JEWS HEARTS IF GOD HIMSELF INITIATED IT? Was the Divine Son of God mad at God? NO, He looked on THEM WITH ANGER BECAUSE THEY ORIGINATED THE HARDNESS OF HEART!

        6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

        St Stephen the first Martyr preached these words to the Jews:

        You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever OPPOSING THE HOLY SPIRIT, just as your ancestors used to do. 52 Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. 53 You are the ones that received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it.”

        Wisdom 3( a book accepted by the ancient Orthodox Church and all churches of historical apostolic origin)

        A foreshadowing of Jesus rejection by the jewish religious leaders.

        “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
        because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
        he reproaches us for sins against the law,
        and accuses us of sins against our training.
        13
        He professes to have knowledge of God,
        and calls himself a child of the Lord.
        14
        He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
        15
        the very sight of him is a burden to us,
        because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
        and his ways are strange.
        16
        We are considered by him as something base,
        and he avoids our ways as unclean;
        he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
        and boasts that God is his father.
        17
        Let us see if his words are true,
        and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
        18
        for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him,
        and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
        19
        Let us test him with insult and torture,
        so that we may find out how gentle he is,
        and make trial of his forbearance.
        20
        Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
        for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
        Error of the Wicked

        21
        Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
        for their wickedness blinded them,
        22
        and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
        nor hoped for the wages of holiness,
        nor discerned the prize for blameless souls;
        23
        for God created us for incorruption,
        and made us in the image of his own eternity,
        24
        but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
        and those who belong to his company experience it.

        1 John 2:10-12 (NRSV)

        10 Whoever loves a brother or sister lives in the light, and in such a person there is no cause for stumbling. 11 But whoever hates another believer is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go, because the darkness has brought on blindness.

        LUKE 24:44-46 (NRSV)

        44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 THEN HE OPENED THEIR MINDS TO UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES, 46 and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah[a] is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day,37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you, desolate.39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

        With this in mind, I was traveling to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13 when at midday along the road, your Excellency, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. 14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.’ 15 I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ The Lord answered, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you. 17 I will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 TO OPEN THEIR EYES so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

        19 “After that, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance. 21 For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. 22 To this day I have had help from God, and so I stand here, testifying to both small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would take place: 23 that the Messiah must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, HE WOULD PROCLAIM LIGHT BOTH TO OUR PEOPLE and to the Gentiles.”

        Why would God proclaim light to the people of Israel THROUGH ST Paul if God himself initiated their blindness?

        St stephen the first Martyr preached that they resist the Holy Spirit.

        Scripture list taken from this url.
        https://soteriology101.com/2014/11/25/why-did-you-choose-to-accept-christ-what-makes-you-better/

        1 Peter 5:5-6: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.

        Isaiah 66:2: “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word.

        James 4:10: “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.”

        2 Kings 22:19: “Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people—that they would become a curse and be laid waste—and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord.”

        2 Chronicles 12:7: When the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, this word of the Lord came to Shemaiah: “Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak.

        2 Chronicles 12:12: Because Rehoboam humbled himself, the Lord’s anger turned from him, and he was not totally destroyed.

        Psalm 18:27: You save the humble but bring low those whose eyes are haughty.

        Psalm 25:9: He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way.

        Psalm 147:6: The Lord sustains the humble but casts the wicked to the ground.

        Proverbs 3:34: He mocks proud mockers but shows favor to the humble and oppressed.

        Zephaniah 2:3: Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the Lord’s anger.

        Matthew 18:4: Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

        Matthew 5:3: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

        Matthew 23:12: For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

        Luke 1:52: He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.

        Luke 14:11: For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

        Luke 18:14: “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

        James 4:6: But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”

        Jesus enlightening souls and opening spiritual eyes is revealed in several scriptures. What I briefly said is shown to he true through the testimony of Holy Scripture.

      3. dnjohn,

        Keep in mind that this blog is set up by a FORMER Calvinist, and therefore, some words are used that I would never use, such as JUDICIAL. I’m just a lowly non-denomination, so I don’t use MANY words that Calvinists, or former Calvinists, or any reform would use as a normal everyday Reform Christianese would. And to be honest, I can’t even pronounce the word “soteriology”, and I never knew what that meant until I came to this blog. There are tons of words that I had never heard before I began looking at Calvinism.

        I never knew what an Arminian (maybe spelled wrong) is, or a Pelagian (maybe spelled wrong), let alone what a Semi-Palagian was. I never knew what Catholics believed, as I am not one. But this I have learned. Reformers would still be Catholic if…IF they would have reformed themselves. But my question is, reforemed to what?

        So, they have Augustine, and such. I never knew what Augustine believed. Nor, did I ever care. He puts his pants on the same way that I do. I have the same book that he did. And that book is the only thing I use to find things out. Many in the reform world base their beliefs on what Augustine believed, and when the split happened, all of a sudden, we have dead people dictating what you are to believe, hence, ARTICLES, INSTITUTES, CONFESSIONS, catechisms, etc. So, they decided for you. So, I don’t use the word, judicial.

        I have a saying…denominations search the commentaries daily to see if the bible is right.

        In any case, as I have said before, I see the following:

        Deuteronomy 29:4
        Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

        And I see the words, “unto this day” as meaning, “never”, meaning, they are blind NOT BECAUSE of anything they did, or didn’t do. Period.

        NEXT

        You had said:
        “WHY WOULD JESUS BE ANGERED AND GRIEVED AT THE HARDNESS OF THE JEWS HEARTS IF GOD HIMSELF INITIATED IT? Was the Divine Son of God mad at God? NO, He looked on THEM WITH ANGER BECAUSE THEY ORIGINATED THE HARDNESS OF HEART!

        So…

        Let’s look at even the disciples of Jesus, just as an example…

        Luke 9:44-45 King James Version (KJV)
        44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
        45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

        And

        Luke 18:31-34 King James Version (KJV)
        31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
        32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
        33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
        34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

        So, here is Jesus (God), telling these guys to LET IT SINK DOWN INTO YOUR EARS (understand), and THEY COULDN’T, and WHY? Because God (Jesus) hid it from them so that they could NOT understand.

        So Jesus is telling them to understand something that Jesus hid from them to understand. Understand? LOL.

        Ed Chapman

      4. Ed, you make a very simple mistake in assuming that which is interpreted ‘it was hid from them’ means that God/Jesus is actively, deliberately doing the hiding. The scriptures you quoted do not say that. In fact, it would be utter nonsense to believe that Jesus was trying to teach men something while at the same time deliberately ‘hiding’ understanding of it from them. Which would also make utter nonsense of the apostles being sent to preach to the Jews first, and only turning to the Gentiles when those Jews – for the most part – rejected it.

        Don’t you see how your logic creates the same issues that Calvinism creates?

        1) God is the determiner of who is the elect, thus no elect (Jew in your mind) is individually responsible for his response to God, faith or lack thereof.

        2) God is the one who blinds (or curses with Total Inability) men, making them not responsible for their sin, resistance, rebellion, etc. This makes countless verses and passages of scripture absurd and pointless, in which God warns, rebukes, calls, urges and condemns men for their wickedness.

        3) God is partial and unjust, treating some men differently than others. This is contrary to all that he declares about himself, anywhere in scripture. And if you are clinging to the same verse that Calvinism twists into meaning something it does not, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy’, it does not suggest that God is random and can do whatever he darn well pleases, but that he has determined the conditions of grace (mercy), which is faith and its attendants. He WOULD grant Moses mercy because he had genuine faith and a submissive heart. He would NOT, however honor Moses’ request that he grant mercy to all of Israel, in spite of their stiff-necked rebellion. He would have mercy on who he would have mercy – those who responded to him in faith and obedience, as did Moses. (Nor did he demand perfection, but was gracious with the ignorance, over-enthusiam and other human frailties of men.)

        I believe the clue is found in the phraseology, ‘hid from them, so that they did not perceive’. You read that to mean God hid it from them because he did not want them to understand. In other words, he deliberately blinded them. That is simply an interpretation (one which I would judge as faulty), guided by your presuppositions. It could just as easily, and much more logically, be that it was hidden from them means that for one reason or another ‘it was beyond their ability to understand’. It was something they could not yet grasp, not because God was ‘keeping’ it from them, or deliberately blinding them, but because they simply had too many idols, presuppositions, faulty conceptions about what things were supposed to look like, etc. Just like you and I today.

        This has become increasingly clear to me (less hidden?) as I have experienced it after stepping out of the Reformed circle in which I had immersed myself. Things that had long remained ‘hidden’ began to appear, to be clearer in my ‘vision’ as I walked away from the brainwashing and twisting of scripture that I had sat under for so long.

        It was not that God had been, or is even now, hiding understanding from me, or anyone else. But I have to be open, humble, willing to sacrifice any thought, idea, belief, presupposition – however precious and long held. It is the great deceiver – with the Calvinist often unwittingly doing him service with their faulty system – who seeks to blind and keep truth hidden from people’s understanding.

        God is all about revealing truth. Jesus is described as the way, the truth and the life, or sometimes the light of the world. He did not come to bring darkness or blindness, to Israel or anyone else. In all of his workings with Israel, God attempted to teach them, to persuade them to believe what was true and right, from Egypt to this very day. It is the same blasphemous claim that Calvinism makes to assert that God deliberately blinds or depraves men so that they cannot understand truth and goodness. It is the exact same process which has God blinding, then unblinding – in other words, deterministically controlling the hearts, minds and faith of individuals.

        I do not believe God did this with Pharaoh, Israel or any single human in history, despite many ‘scholars’ (as you like to say) whose commentaries allege a ‘judicial hardening’ is indicated by the phraseology of scripture when it describes the hardening of men’s hearts. I agree 100% with dnjohn that the hardening described in scripture comes from the individual himself, due to arrogance, pride, and the love of darkness. Translators have done us no favor, along with the archaic structure of the original languages which attribute all things to God, often interpreted as deterministic instead of sovereign. God’s giving over of men to their blindness is what is termed ‘judicial hardening’.

        Perhaps it is merely semantic, but I believe it is a distortion to portray it as something God causes rather than allows. Read Romans 1. Again and again. It seem so obvious that Paul is spelling out that these depraved men and women (given over to their ignorance/blindness) had no excuse. They had been provided every opportunity – along with all other men and women – to know and embrace the truth. They did not reject the truth because God blinded them, but because they loved their sin and the darkness in which it dwells. They EXCHANGED the truth for the lie, meaning, they had knowledge of the truth, understood it, and deliberately replaced it with something that would allow them to live as they wished.

        God does not hide light or truth from the ignorant sinners. Jesus demonstrated his love for the lost, freely moving among those considered wicked and sinners, because he knew that they were simply ignorant of the truth, having been brought up on the distorted legalism of Judaism, which had long ago abandoned any relationship with the living God.

        God will indeed, at times, keep knowledge from wicked men in order to defuse their evil plans. That, of course, is far, far different from keeping the light of truth from men so that they are unable to see and embrace the truth, which is what you are claiming. This, in effect, puts the blame for sin upon God, just as Calvinism does in asserting that it is God who cursed men with inability, and their only hope is to be one of the lucky few ‘elect’ granted his secretive, unilateral regeneration. Your secretive, unilateral regeneration of the ‘elect’ is upon those who call themselves Jews but are not, because the true Jew is one who is circumcised in the heart, not the flesh.

      5. This is a differen scenario that the situation with the rejecting Jews. Jesus had a lot of things to share with his disciples but because they could not bear it, he post poned further revelation. It is the same concept in the example that you gave. The words we use do not matter as much as the meaning being expressed. Paul in Roman’s 11 called their blinding a ” recompense” meaning it is a response to them….they initiated it and God recompensed. Secondly, st Paul explains this blindness very thoroughly in another passage we have not discussed yet. But first I will post the words of the Lord himself. I suggest reading the greater context as well.

        John 5.
        You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. 40 Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. 41 I do not accept glory from human beings. 42 But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”

        2 Corinthians 3
        Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Surely we do not need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you, do we? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our[a] hearts, to be known and read by all; 3 and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

        4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

        7 Now if the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses’ face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, 8 how much more will the ministry of the Spirit come in glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory! 10 Indeed, what once had glory has lost its glory because of the greater glory; 11 for if what was set aside came through glory, much more has the permanent come in glory!

        12 Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that ] was being set aside. 14 But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.

        Notice verse 16*** When they turn to the Lord, God removes the veil that blinds them. All thy have to do is humble themselves and sincerely ask if Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah and God will open up the scriptures to them. That is why I said it is pride that keeps them blind. They can call on the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob with humility and the Lord will open up their spiritual eyes, having removed the veil. They are taught from a very young age to reject Christ and that it is part of being jewish to do so and they refuse to humble seek the God of truth specifically about this . Instead they harden their hearts against Jesus as Messiah. The proposition that Jesus may be the messiah is an idea they are strongly encouraged to never consider by their Jewish Leadership.

        Again…if they turn to the Lord the veil is removed. This is where humility comes in.

        Also Roman’s 2 is clear. There is no partiality with God. Both Jews and Gentiles will be accountable. He specifically says that. No pass because God supposedly initiated their blindness. Their blindness was a recompense as St Paul said and it can be rectified if they humbly turn to the Lord and seek his truth about Messiah. This chapter 2 of Romans…all of it…it important to this topic.

        Now in Roman’s 9 -11 St.Paul says that the blindness of the Jews benefited the gentiles. This is how: they got the message to the gentiles sooner and those 1st century gentiles may not have gotten the Gospel as quickly as they did if the Jews were continuing to be converted. The Apostles naturally would have been focused almost exclusively on the Jews and the contemporary gentiles may not have heard at that time. It would eventually have gotten to the gentiles but because of the concerted effort to reject jesus, the focus was shifted to the gentiles of that time instead of later. It was a timing issue. God brought good out of a bad scenario. He is sovereign and specializes in doing that. God did not antecendently will the refusal of the jews to accept Christ but he consequentially willed because of their rejection to take the Good news to the Nations more speedily. Their calling as the natural branches to be grafted back into the olive tree of true Israel is irrevocable and they can respond to the call once they turn to the Lord and the veil is removed as St Paul tells us.

        (Perhaps when they become disillusioned with the antichrist, many jewish people will seek the Lord about Messiah and God will open their minds to understand the scriptures and a large number will be converted and added to the Church. )

      6. dnjohn,

        Sorry, but I do not buy into “recompence”. I gave you the verse that is an, ” It is written” that takes you back to Deutrronomy, showing that God has NEVER given them a mind to understand, ears to hear, eyes to see, and it is NOT based on anything they did, or didn’t do.

        It is because of the blindness that they trip, they are not blind because they trip.

        Ed Chapman

      7. dnjohn,

        Keep in mind that it was God who gave them 613 commandments to LIVE BY. He did not give those laws to YOU. Or to any Gentile for that matter. Just the children of Israel.

        TS00 and you, I presume, thinks that God blinded them because they stumbled, was rebellious, sinned, etc., etc.

        God blinded them from the beginning, NOT BECAUSE of anything they did or didn’t do. They had to kill Jesus for starters. How could they do that if they could see?

        Deuteronomy 29:4
        Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

        That means NEVER. Then take that to Romans 11.

        Do you really think that the Jews are blind because of rebellion, sin, stumbling, pride?

        John 9:39-41
        39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

        40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

        41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

      8. The verses you post do not back up what you allege.

        John 9:39-41
        39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

        This does not say all Jews, who have been blind from the start, will remain blind. Just the opposite – It speaks of Jesus coming into the world to unblind the blind – which more naturally suggests the Gentiles, who were actually blind as to the way to God. It speaks of coming to blind those which ‘see’, which are more likely the Jews, who have the Law, the prophets, the history of God’s working among them, and the living Word walking, teaching and demonstrating that he is the fulfillment of the promise of God and all that they have long been awaiting.

        Their problem wasn’t blindness imposed upon them by God, but a blindness that was the result of their own stubborn, proud, self-seeking hearts. It was a refusal to accept God’s terms, to be lowered to the level of common sinner, like the Gentiles they despised. They thought they were going to rule the world like kings, and Jesus was asking them to give up all claims to honor and distinction and unite with the hated heathen in one, unified ‘ekklesia’ or what is called church. One Body, united under one head, which is Jesus. But no, you’ve got Jesus having two bodies. Forever? Or is this little sideshow going to finally end so all people will finally be one in Christ, as all of the New Testament asserts?

        40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

        41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

        The Pharisees were playing games, as usual. Jesus tells them that they are not ‘blind’, but fully cognizant and responsible for their sin. (You do like to point out, and rightly so, that those who do not know that they are doing wrong will not be charged with sin.) They have full knowledge of all that anyone needs to be saved, (Why else did Jesus upbraid Nicodemus for not understanding, as being one who had full access to all the necessary info and should have ‘gotten it’?) yes, even to receive grace by faith, just as Paul and the other apostles did, his many male and female disciples did, and the thousands at Pentecost. I presume you are not going to claim those were not Jews?

        Indeed, the Jews had more ‘sight’ and insight than any other men on earth. But their arrogance and lack of love for God (most, not all) made them resist the truth, and murder he who was truth incarnate. Why would God have held out his arms all day long to a people who he had made too blind to see? Seems kinda silly, doesn’t it? He should have spared himself the trouble and waited until he had unblinded them. Why did Paul hope to provoke the Jews to jealously, that he might save ‘some’? Kinda silly, if he is actually claiming that all will be saved, once they get ‘unblinded’. Not sure how that jealousy stuff is going to work on those poor blind blokes who just can’t see truth from error, no fault of their own.

        No, the majority of Jews did not reject Jesus because they were blind and ignorant – that is not what Jesus ever said – but because they never knew God, they were vipers, white-washed sepulchres, children of their father, the devil. Now why would Jesus say all those nasty things to those poor guys if they were helplessly blinded by God, so they could not know that they were doing (This hatred of God would indeed lead them to become hardened/blind eventually and perish, just as they were warned.) and were all going to be saved someday? I guess he was just pulling their leg? (Ha, ha, just kidding – y’all are really God’s favorites! He likes vipers, really!) If all Jews have been blind from the beginning, how were some – such as the prophets – righteous servants of God? I just don’t get it.

        One minute you say all Jews are elect, but this has nothing to do with salvation. Then you say all Jews will be saved – because they are the elect. Wait, that sounds sorta like election has something to do with salvation. And you never explain, as far as I can understand, what happens to all of the rebellious Jews, like the ones who died in the wilderness for their lack of faith in God (because, yes, men could have or not have faith in God even before Jesus was born – just like Abraham. God dwelt among them, or spoke directly to them, as he did with Abraham and the prophets.)

        What happens to the non-Jews who converted, and their relatives? Were they unblind Gentiles, but became blinded Jews when they converted? How could some Jews be rebellious and others not, if all were blind from the beginning? How could some be righteous, like Simeon, Mary, Joseph, Zechariah, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, etc. if all were blinded from the beginning? Why were some ‘unblinded’, and how and when? Why doesn’t scripture mention this? Sounds just like Calvinism’s regeneration, imposed upon the (select) totally depraved and turning them into new creatures who could then believe! But never mentioned in the countless passages depicting this salvation, which is the entire purpose of the entire book!

        Do dispensationalists believe that every so-called Jew who ever lived is going to be saved, granted salvation post-humously, no matter their faith or conduct while on earth? If so, where does scripture ever teach universal salvation based on race, (or is it national status, or circumcision), or salvation after death? Where are all these dudes right now, those blind, dead folks who will someday be unblinded and saved? Will all dead Gentiles also have the chance to convert after death? Or are you suggesting this only applies to the lucky Jews who happen to be alive at the end of the world? I have asked you this before, but for some reason you never answer directly.

        Or, after all the teaching about how the law was never intended to save, but only to serve as a tutor to bring men to Christ, and the Jews should have known that (They knew they needed a Messiah, so they knew their ‘Law’ and animal sacrifices were not enough to save them. This is what their tutor, the Law, taught them.) God is nonetheless going to build another ‘temple’ and restore the useless sacrifices, (What does Paul say about those who return to the beggarly elements, while rejecting the true, living sacrifice?) which he says he never desired in the first place? I’m not just being snarky, I honestly cannot see how what you believe makes the least bit of sense or can be made to line up with the vast majority of the New Testament. Which is what the Old was pointing to – Jesus was the fulfillment of all of the prophets, promises and the Law. For all men, first the Jew, then the Gentile.

        I just don’t get it, and never could, even though I’ve heard some of this stuff for decades. I didn’t see it when I was reading my bible as a child fifty years ago, or in the countless ’70 weeks’ sermons I’ve heard since. I’d be like, ‘Wait, who says this part is literal and this part is symbolic? Who decides?’ I still don’t see it in my old age, or even how to make it into a workable theory, despite all of the wild imaginings I’ve heard. Once one stops insisting on taking the prophetic language as literal (except where they don’t) everything begins to make sense. (Do you think, as one pastor taught, that we will literally be laying on our faces casting our crowns before God’s throne for eternity? Do we have to stop long enough to put them back on again, or do we magically grow new ones, like in Dr. Seuss? I kid you not, after the pastor taught this, a poor frightened woman pulled me aside later and asked me if I thought it was true. Cause if it was, she didn’t even want to go to heaven.)

        But I’ll let you have the last word. Perhaps, instead of deflecting, you will address the very many real problems with your scenario. In any case, I’m ready to move on and leave it to others to challenge. It’s not my dogfight.

      9. TS00,

        You had said:
        “Their problem wasn’t blindness imposed upon them by God, but a blindness that was the result of their own stubborn, proud, self-seeking hearts. It was a refusal to accept God’s terms, to be lowered to the level of common sinner, like the Gentiles they despised. ”

        My response:

        I don’t know where you learned that stuff from, but…

        The following is the originating quote from Romans 11:8

        Moses speaking:

        Deuteronomy 29:4
        Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

        Now, Romans 11:8
        (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

        THIS shows that they were ALWAYS blind (unto this day), and that it is NOT due to anything they did, or didn’t do. It has nothing to to with them being rebellious, or sinning, or stumbling.

        Blind people stumble. Those who can see, walk around:

        Leviticus 19:14
        Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.

        NEXT

        You had said:
        “The Pharisees were playing games, as usual. Jesus tells them that they are not ‘blind’, but fully cognizant and responsible for their sin. (You do like to point out, and rightly so, that those who do not know that they are doing wrong will not be charged with sin.) They have full knowledge of all that anyone needs to be saved, (Why else did Jesus upbraid Nicodemus for not understanding, as being one who had full access to all the necessary info and should have ‘gotten it’?) yes, even to receive grace by faith, just as Paul and the other apostles did, his many male and female disciples did, and the thousands at Pentecost. I presume you are not going to claim those were not Jews?

        My response:

        I totally disagree that they, the Pharisees, have FULL KNOWLEDGE of all that anyone needs to be saved.

        As a matter of fact, I’m sceptical that you even know. Grace alone CAN’T DO IT. And it seems that both you and dnjohn seem to think that’s all it took. At least, when I read both of your stuff.

        JESUS HAD TO DIE ON A CROSS.

        They were BLIND to the fact that Jesus was the Messiah, and THAT is why they played their games with Jesus.

        Jesus, on the cross, stated, “Father, forgive them, for they KNOW NOT what they do.

        Now, WHY did they KNOW NOT of what they do?

        Regarding my take on Nicodemus, HE WAS CLUELESS, no different than the REST of the Rabbi’s. You do know that I am not a fan of EXPOSITORY preaching, right? Well, the Jews, and many Christians, study the bible in an expository way, rather than to TYPE AND SHADOW it, which I call SPIRITUAL vs. CARNAL.

        But let’s look at even the disciples of Jesus…

        Luke 9:44-45 King James Version (KJV)
        44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
        45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

        And

        Luke 18:31-34 King James Version (KJV)
        31 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
        32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
        33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
        34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

        So, here is Jesus (God), telling these guys SINK DOWN INTO YOUR EARS (understand), and THEY COULDN’T, and WHY? Because God (Jesus) hid it from them so that they could NOT understand.

        Note that above I said that Jesus had to DIE ON A CROSS. NOBODY understood that. But yes, it is written in several places, and we as Christians KNOW THAT, but they did not, EVEN THO IT IS WRITTEN.

        So, blind blind blind blind blind.

        BUT…SOME…SOME…SOME can SEE, and Jesus states so:

        39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

        Now, we know, based on Acts 16 that there is at least ONE PERSON that is NOT in heaven. But let’s look at…

        Luke 16:20-29

        20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

        21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

        22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

        23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

        24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

        25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

        26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

        27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

        28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

        29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

        NOTE: Abraham’s bosom is NOT heaven

        But, evaluate that, and tell me WHY the Rich Man is on the BAD SIDE of Hades/Sheol (Hell).

        Then evaluate verse 29…Did the Gentiles have VERSE 29 at their disposal?

        So NO, all Jews are NOT SAVED, but that is NOT the context of “All Israel will be saved”.

        My conclusion is that THIS GUY is fofeited Israel. He once was, but NOW is not.

        Just like I explain Romans 9.

        I’ll give an example:

        Let’s say that Israel is numered at 1,000. Each time an individual Jew converts to Chrisitianity, subtract 1. When it gets down to Zero, all Israel is saved.

        For “THEY” (which you disregard pronouns) are not all ISRAEL (BECAUSE THEY WERE CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY), who are OF Israel (JACOB).

        When there are ZERO Israel, all Israel will be saved.

        NEXT:

        You had said:
        “Indeed, the Jews had more ‘sight’ and insight than any other men on earth. But their arrogance and lack of love for God (most, not all) made them resist the truth, and murder he who was truth incarnate..”

        My response:

        WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW. You surely are one heck of a stone thrower. I tell ya what…does the bible say, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED or not? How are YOU any different than they are?

        Romans 11:18
        18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

        The one thing that gets my blood to boil is when people talk bad about the Jews, AS IF they are NOT SINNERS THEMSELVES.

        EMPATHY is lacking here. Put yourself in THEIR SHOES.

        Why did the Jews kill Jesus? BECAUSE IT WAS WHAT GOD WANTED THEM TO DO.

        Imagine, if they could see, then Jesus would have died of an old age, and not paid the price for sin for ANYONE…if only they could see.

        Grace alone from the OT doesn’t save anyone. Jesus dying on a cross is what saves. And since he died on a cross, now sinners can be SAVED…even Abraham, who also is a sinner, can be removed from ABRAHAM’S BOSOM to be in heaven with Jesus.

        When I read your stuff, you really have an anger towards the Jews for some reason, and I see it from you due to your anger towards Calvinism, which is UNDERSTANDABLE.

        Now, I’m gonna SOUND as if I’m Calvinist, and it might TRIGGER something…

        1 Corinthians 2:7
        But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

        And you expect Nicodemus to KNOW that “hidden wisdom”? You think that the Pharisees KNEW that Jesus was not just the Messiah, but God in the flesh?

        Ed Chapman

      10. So, start with Deut 29:4. Again, just like the Calvinist, you cannot yank a verse out of context and make it say what you want. I mean, you can, but you will more than likely end up with error. And, as always, you cannot trust the English translation to give a viable meaning of the words, because those translators had as many biases as any other being. Hate to burst people’s bubbles, but you cannot compare English translations with interlinear word for word translations and not see discernible, troubling issues.

        First, read the whole chapter of Deut 29, as well as the whole book. You so proudly claim that this is how you study, yet what I see here are out of context individual verses. Then read them in the interlinear, so that you see what words are actually present, and what ones have been added, assumed or improperly borrowed from preceding or following thoughts.

        Deut 29:4 in the interlinear does not read anything like what we have in our English translations. It does NOT say ‘God has not given you’. The words translated ‘given you’ refer to verse 3, and all the signs and wonders that God has given (them). But the English translation just totally butchers this, distorting the meaning, as it so often does; because we are all ignorant and trusting, and believe that if that’s what our English bibles say, then gosh golly, that must be what the original manuscripts said. Except it is often not so. And modern tools allow us to check with our very own eyes, rather than be reliant on the integrity and skill of dead, unknown ‘experts’. (See, I do share many of your passions! 😉 )

        Instead, this passage is an accusation and a warning, – it describes these as a curse – IF, in spite of all that they had seen, all that God had done for them, they still refused to ‘see’ and recognize him for who he is. It was a rebuke, a warning, not a claim that the poor blokes had been helplessly blinded by God, so who could blame them? Read the whole chapter, the threats of what will happen to them if they continue to not ‘see’, believe and do what God has said, done and demanded from them. (Yes, I do believe that genuine faith results in genuine acts of faith. It is the true faith, however that God, the perfect judge, recognizes and rewards, even if the resulting fruit is somewhat less abundant than it might be.)

        The rest of the chapter would be nonsensical if the interpretation you offer is presumed, that they CANNOT see because God has blinded them, rather than being blind due to their own self-serving desires and lusts:

        ““I make this covenant and this oath, not with you alone, but with him who stands here with us today before the Lord our God, as well as with him who is not here with us today (for you know that we dwelt in the land of Egypt and that we came through the nations which you passed by, and you saw their [b]abominations and their idols which were among them—wood and stone and silver and gold); so that there may not be among you man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations, and that there may not be among you a root bearing bitterness or wormwood; and so it may not happen, when he hears the words of this curse, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall have peace, even though I [c]follow the dictates of my heart’—as though the drunkard could be included with the sober.

        **What is the warning here? Don’t kid yourself by ignoring the clear meaning of my words and ‘blessing yourself in your heart’ and assuring yourself that you will have peace (the promised blessings of Israel) even if you ignore my warnings and do what you want. The opposite of something you would say to ignorance and other-imposed blindness.**

        “The Lord would not spare him; for then the anger of the Lord and His jealousy would burn against that man, and every curse that is written in this book would settle on him, and the Lord would blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord would separate him from all the tribes of Israel for adversity, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this Book of the Law, so that the coming generation of your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, would say, when they see the plagues of that land and the sicknesses which the Lord has laid on it:

        ‘The whole land is brimstone, salt, and burning; it is not sown, nor does it bear, nor does any grass grow there, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the Lord overthrew in His anger and His wrath.’ All nations would say, ‘Why has the Lord done so to this land? What does the heat of this great anger mean?’ Then people would say: ‘Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt; for they went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods that they did not know and that He had not given to them. Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against this land, to bring on it every curse that is written in this book. And the Lord uprooted them from their land in anger, in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.’

        **Why, does it read, will horrible evens and eventually destruction of Israel occur? Is it because they were made blind by God, and he just allowed terrible things to happen to them? Because he is cruel? Maybe to bring in the Gentiles? Ouch, that’s quite a ‘love’. It’s also NOT what it says.

        Rather: ‘Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt; for they went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods that they did not know and that He had not given to them. Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against this land, to bring on it every curse that is written in this book. And the Lord uprooted them from their land in anger, in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.’

        The curses God here warned them of came upon Israel because they rejected the God who had revealed himself to them, and pursued false idols. Even when they repented of worshipping idols made of stone and clay, they pursued the idolatry of Judaism, making ‘The Law’, the temple, circumcision, sacrifices, ‘The Land’ etc. their ‘gods’. To this day, Zionism exchanges the true promises of the living God and the eternal inheritance he promises to all people of every tribe and nation, for temporal ownership of a piece of dirt and an imagined elite position of power over the entire world. Does it surprise us if Satan concocts a parody of this, using war, greed and violence? Even if he has a temple of stone built?

        The true and eternal temple which is being built, is the church, the Body of Christ, with Jesus as the cornerstone. He will not build another temple made with men’s hands, (though Satan no doubt will) which was only ever a picture of the real thing, but the true temple of God, made of living souls eternally offering true worship.**

        “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

        And yes, many take the last, as well as the 4th verse out of context and contort its meaning. But read the whole chapter, and you cannot miss that God is asserting that he has provided abundant evidence for these people to believe, and he will hold them entirely responsible if they reject the true God who has done so much for them and given them abundant evidence of his goodness, power and faithfulness. Even if the entire plan has not been revealed in more than figurative terms, enough has been given that all are without excuse. What sort of God makes such frightful threats to men who cannot believe because he has blinded them? Who have the perfect excuse for not believing – ‘You blinded me!’ Again, just like Calvinism, which I suspect was invented simply to make it easier to revert to the original Judaism, which is Zionism.

        So yeah, you claim that you are reading in context. I don’t care if you have read through the bible a thousand times. (Actually, I think it would be great, but do so with interlinear and literal translations on hand to verify what you are internalizing.) But every time you take a verse or two alone, without checking for valid wording from some literal interlinear translation, and reading in context of all the surrounding verses (And no, we cannot rely on the false, man-made sentence, paragraph and chapter structures to be accurate.) you are just kidding yourself.

        You later ask if I expect Nicodumus to understand. It doesn’t matter what I expect. Jesus expected him, as a teacher of the Law, to understand such things. It was simply due to faulty goals – power, wealth and glory – that the teachers of the Law ignored its very teachings and embraced a substitute, which was known as Judaism. The Pharisees had everything they needed to understand the truth – yet exchanged the truth for a lie. Because they sought something other than what God was truly offering – blessing upon all men, with no differentiation by race or heritage, no special privilege to any.

        I have no anger toward ‘the Jews’. Frankly, I consider them to fall into the category scripture calls ‘Those who calls themselves Jews, but are not’. As I said before, I do not believe that blood or cutting of the flesh makes one a Jew. In reality, neither does belonging to the so-called modern, man-made nation of Israel, which, as you yourself acknowledged, only demands that one embrace the ‘religion’ of Judaism, vs. Christianity. It it not about flesh and heritage, but about religion. There is a huge difference between rejecting Zionism ( which many so-called Jews also do) and being anti-Semitic. I do believe many who call themselves Jews, and their well-meaning supporters, have been deceived into endorsing violent, oppressive, imperialistic political agendas. In the name of ‘God’ and his ‘Promises’, while rejecting the true Word of God and his explanation of what the true Promise was all about.

        Those who do so knowingly, wickedly, are of the wicked who will someday face God’s wrath. But the average so-called Jew is just like the average so-called Calvinist. And those, in my opinion, are the ones God desires to have their eyes opened so that they might embrace the truth. This requires having the One and only gospel of Jesus preached to them. But this you would withhold from them, in believing in the mirage of Zionism. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that my desire for every single man, woman and child to hear and have the opportunity to embrace the true, freely offered and universal grace of God is hatred of any man or race.

      11. TS00,

        An addendum to my last:

        The following is just a small example of what I mean by the guy in Luke 16 forfeited:

        The words, “CUT OFF”

        Exodus 12:15
        Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

        Exodus 30:33
        Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall even be cut off from his people.

        Exodus 30:38
        Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even be cut off from his people.

        Exodus 31:14
        Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

        Leviticus 7:21
        Moreover the soul that shall touch any unclean thing, as the uncleanness of man, or any unclean beast, or any abominable unclean thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which pertain unto the Lord, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

        Leviticus 7:25
        For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.

        Leviticus 7:27
        Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

        Leviticus 17:4
        And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:

        Leviticus 17:9
        And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the Lord; even that man shall be cut off from among his people.

        Leviticus 17:10
        And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

        Leviticus 17:14
        For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

        Leviticus 18:29
        For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

        Leviticus 19:8
        Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the Lord: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

        Leviticus 20:3
        And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

        Leviticus 20:5
        Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

        Leviticus 20:6
        And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

        Leviticus 20:17
        And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

        Leviticus 20:18
        And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

        Leviticus 22:3
        Say unto them, Whosoever he be of all your seed among your generations, that goeth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from my presence: I am the Lord.

        Leviticus 23:29
        For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.

        Numbers 9:13
        But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.

        Numbers 15:30
        But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

        Numbers 15:31
        Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

        Numbers 19:13
        Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

        Numbers 19:20
        But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.

        Judges 21:6
        And the children of Israel repented them for Benjamin their brother, and said, There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day.

        ——————————–

        My point…these people ARE OF ISRAEL, but ARE NO LONGER ISRAEL due to forfeit, based on THE LAW OF MOSES of the above verses that CUT THEM OFF. General sins, not forfeit, but THESE ABOVE…forfeit by default. Cut off from Israel.

        Ed Chapman

      12. One more addendum, TS00

        Genesis 17:14
        And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

        God TOLD them to get circumcised. Or be CUT OFF from HIS PEOPLE.

        So we got Chrisitans that are hammering Jews for being circumcised, yet, GOD told them to be, and why? Because it was a SIGN to those who INHERIT the physical land of Israel thru Isaac.

        So, that land belongs to the Jews today. It is their DEED (Title) of the land that God promised with specific borders. That is expository preaching.

        spiritual preaching, the PROMISED LAND is eternal life in heaven, where Jesus is the promised seed, not Isaac. But expository, Isaac is the promised seed, and the physical land of Israel is the promised land, therefore, we cannot dismiss the NATION OF ISRAEL, just because Jesus came on the scene.

        Ed Chapman

      13. It might not be your dogfight, but the things you said are well worth thinking about.

      14. By coincidence, a post I made on Facebook 7 years ago today came up:

        “I will bring the blind
        by a way they did not know;
        I will lead them
        in paths they have not known.
        I will make darkness light before them,
        and crooked places straight.
        These things will I do for them
        and not forsake them. Is 42:16

        One of my favorite verses, which I have turned to literally thousands of times! I can truly testify, as one very blind, how faithfully God has brought me down paths I have not known, nor would have chosen on my own.”

        I have been, and am in many ways still am, blind to so much truth. And absolutely NOT because God ordained, desired or caused, in any way, my blindness. No, God is always gently leading the blind, patient with their weaknesss, and gradually making their darkness into light as they are able and willing.

        It is not defective eyes that is my problem, but ignorance, false teaching, idols and so many other things which keep me from allowing the light of God to pour out on my understanding as he desires. God blinds no one, but sends light to dispel darkness. It is the one who rejects the light who is blind. Some do so out of immaturity, ignorance and fear, and with those God will continue to provide guidance and lead them forward, step by step. Others, as in Romans 1, resist the truth because they love darkness, they replace it with a lie, saying ‘This is my truth. This fits my agenda.’ It is those who God ‘hardens’ – allowing them to continue on in their ever-increasing blindness, as they wish.

        My other favorite verses are found in Psalm 25:4-5

        “Show me Your ways, O Lord;
        Teach me Your paths.
        Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
        For You are the God of my salvation;
        On You I wait all the day.”

        This has been the cry of my heart since I was a twelve year old. To this day, I desire to know truth, to get past my blind spots and surrender idols I do not yet even recognize. They can be people, doctrines, beliefs, political parties, dreams, homes – anything. I have given God permission, yea, even begged him, to show me these things and give me the strength and courage to give them up, one by one. So that I can be conformed to the image of his Son, which is both my and God’s greatest desire for me, and for all men. May it be so.

    2. DNJOHN,

      There is a lot to unfold there and I will attempt to address some of it, if time and space allows. That said, I would like to address one portion of scripture you alluded to.

      Romans 2:28-29 (NKJV)….
      For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter (the Law); whose praise is not from men but from God.

      Sadly, this verse is frequently taken out of context in an attempt to show that all believers become some kind of “spiritual Jew”. However, the context is pretty clear. Paul is speaking to Jews about Jews, and not Gentiles. Even though their election is based on being the physical descendants of Abraham, from a salvific standpoint, it means nothing to God. God is not concerned with their physical circumcision. It is the circumcision of the heart (being “born again”) that they need in order to be saved. This is precisely the message Jesus took to Nicodemus. If the Jew is not “born again” he will neither “see” nor “enter” the kingdom of God.

      Blessings.

      1. If a Jew does not keep the Law, his circumcision becomes uncircumcision according to Saint Paul. No jew can keep the law. They need the good news of Roman’s 8. If his circumcision becomes uncircumcision upon what can he rely? He is in the same boat as all other humans. St Paul rips away all confidence in the flesh!

        Just national origin apart from lively faith in Christ the Saviour is not real jewishness in the eyes of God. They say they are Jews but they are not

        Philippians 3 (NRSV)

        3 Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord.
        To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard.

        2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh— 4 even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh.

        If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

        7 Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. 8 More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, 11 if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
        12 Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.

        17 Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us. 18 For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. 19 Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21 He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.

      2. Does St Paul not say that if Gentiles keep the Law ( of course in the Roman’s 8 sense) their uncircumcision becomes circumcision? Does he not also teach in Collossians 2 that Baptism is the NT circumcision because of the fulfillment accomplished by Christ in his own circumcision? He himself says it best. The passage is posted below.

        Colossians 2
        For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, 14 erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.

      3. dnjohn,

        This is where you learn the difference between expository preaching, and spiritual preaching.

        First, you must ascertain the meaning being discussed regarding circumcision in the flesh.

        Then you can discern the meaning behind circumcision of the heart.

        What was the purpose of circumcision in the flesh?

        It goes back to Abraham. It’s a sign. A sign for what?

        Promised Land. Who inherits the promised land?

        Those circumcised in the flesh that are the offspring of the promised seed of Isaac.

        That’s the carnal.

        Now… spiritualize it.

        The promised seed is Jesus. The promised land is heaven. Those circumcised in the heart receive the promise, just like those circumcised in the flesh receive a the carnal expository promise.

        I don’t know why the subject of baptism enters in, cuz that’s a different topic.

        But I discussed the difference in circumcision of the flesh, vs. The heart.

        One is carnal of the Jews and Israel, thru Isaac and the other is spiritual of Christians and heaven, thru Jesus.

        Ed Chapman