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.
Dispensationalists have always known the elect to be Israel. Covenant theology is replacement theology. Period.
Hello Scott and welcome
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 😉 ).
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!
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.
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—
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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!😉
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.
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!
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
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;
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
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.
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. 😉
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!
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.”_*
Aidan,
Thank you, Aidan. I totally agree with you.
Anytime Ed, again, well said.
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
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
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
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.
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
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!
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
“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!
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
“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.
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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
“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!
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.
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
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.
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well!
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.
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
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
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
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.”
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!
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.
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?
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)
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?
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
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
“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.”
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
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”.
Hello Joel and welcome
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
“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!!
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.
Excellent Jennifer,
Some people here just don’t want to see the truth concerning Matthew 24.
But again, thank you for that!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. “
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
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
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
Absolutely!
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.
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
The law was powerless to save. They could only be saved by grace through faith even in the old testament.
There was no such thing as being saved by grace under the law. Did you not read what I submitted? The law is not of faith.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Excellent stuff Dnjohn. I can’t see anything unscriptural in what you’ve said. Keep it up.
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
Hello dnjohn and welcome
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.
Thank you. GOD bless.
My Pleasure.
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.
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.
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
You can thank Phillip and Brian – I merely pointed out an info source.
But thanks for the kind thought Ed! :-]
You may find the book, ‘How the Bible Defines: Election’ to be very helpful in understanding election. It conclusively shows that the definition, Chosen for salvation, does not originate from the Bible.
https://www.clearwaters.net/how-the-bible-defines-election/
Caleb,
Very good. I’ll check that out this week.
Ed Chapman
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
“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. 🙂
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
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.
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
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
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/
Hello Caleb – and welcome
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.
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
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.
I recommend looking at the Greek words in the LXX. Most enlightening. If you decide to do this, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot is an invaluable tool. https://apostolicbible.com/
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.
Hello dnjohn – and Welcome
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
( I really need to proof read before I rush and push the send button.)
Arminianism is an attempt to retain the Platonism of “traditional” Christianity while throwing out the most repugnant aspects of Calvinism.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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”.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Sorry, but ya can’t ignore the context of Mth 24 and Jesus’ explanation.
I dont’ ignore the context of Matthew 24. You have invented a new one.
Well Ed, maybe if you listened to Jesus’ explanation of Mth 24 it wouldn’t be so new to you!
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
Joel,
I lean that Luke was a Jew.
https://www.levitt.com/essays/luke
http://www.bpnews.net/18466/luke-was-jewish-speaker-tells-messianic-fellowship
Blessings, brother.
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.
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.
Correction.
I can’t say “I know” Luke was Jew…
Sorry for the typo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Gracious, as always.
You are a blessing, brother.
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
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.
Yes, Ed seems to shout a lot perhaps because he’s deef! Or perhaps, because he likes to EDphasize things a lot.
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
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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
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)
Joel,
And yet, you didn’t address the question.
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
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)
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
Okay, thank you Tammy,
God bless you.
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!!!!)
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
TS00,
How do you expect BLIND JEWS to come to Jesus BY FAITH? I’d LOVE to hear your explanation on that one!
Ed Chapman
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.
dnjohn,
I kinda like the story of Joseph and his brothers better.
Ed Chapman
Jesus opens eyes and gives understanding when they humble themselves. Pride keeps one blind.
The bible does not say that. Don’t put words where they are not.
Ed Chapman
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.
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
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.
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. )
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
It might not be your dogfight, but the things you said are well worth thinking about.
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.
Amen, and Amen.
AMEN. Thanks for sharing that encouraging word. God bless.
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.
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.
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.
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
Hi Ed, Thanks for explaining your point of view. Since you mentioned the promised land, that ties into eschatology. I think Hebrews 3 and 4 has some good insights on that in regards to the place of rest…the promised land. I dont maintain the dichotomy between earthly and heavenly ( like dispensationalists) as the earthly becomes heavenly in the New Creation. The incarnation makes it possible. The incarnation unites the earth with the heavens; the created with the uncreated, the material with the immaterial. Eschatology is a whole different topic which would be a robust discussion for sure! Thanks for the theological conversations.
Hi Ed, Thanks for explaining your point of view. Since you mentioned the promised land, that ties into eschatology. I think Hebrews 3 and 4 has some good insights on that in regards to the place of rest…the promised land. I dont maintain the dichotomy between earthly and heavenly ( like dispensationalists) as the earthly becomes heavenly in the New Creation. The incarnation makes it possible. The incarnation unites the earth with the heavens; the created with the uncreated, the material with the immaterial. Eschatology is a whole different topic which would be a robust discussion for sure! Also it seems saint Paul was pretty straightforward about the circumcision of disobedient jews being considered uncircumcision and the faithful gentiles uncircumcision being counted as circumcision. Physical circumcision does not matter either way. What does matter is BEING A NEW CREATURE, obeying Christ’s commandments OF LOVE, in other words.
SEE 1 CORINTHIANS 7:19. GALATIANS 5:6 GALATIANS 6:15. Thanks for the theological conversations.
dnjohn,
You definately had me at hello on this one, but…
Your mention of Hebrews 3 and 4 are excellent. I will add one more from Hebrews, tho:
Hebrews 11:16
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Translate:
Those Jews (THEY) are no longer interested in the PHYSICAL land of Israel, but they now desire HEAVEN, the spiritual promised land.
Now, you are totally against dispensationalism, and for the life of me, I can’t figure out why.
The promise to Abraham was TWOFOLD.
1. Carnal
Specific borders of the physical land of Israel. Specific.
Genesis 15:18
18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
So take THAT promise of PHYICAL LAND, knowing that God cannot take back that promise at all, and you will see that those borders have NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED yet.
Then move ahead in time for when circumcision came about and the REASON for it.
Ismael is the RIGHTFUL heir of Abraham, being the FIRST BORN.
BUT, God said that the PROMISED LAND would be thru Isaac, not Ismael, hence circumcision.
THEN due to THAT promis alone, circumcision was INCORPORATED into the Law of Moses.
And that is why the CONFUSING talk about circumcision in the NT.
Seems as tho people on BOTH SIDES are confusing the PHYSICAL LAND of PROMISE, with the SPIRITUAL land of Promise.
The PHYSICAL land of Promise must still happen, but many Christian have already written that off, especially BEFORE 1948. They think at God is FINISHED with the Jews and REPLACED that promise with Heaven, instead of seeing BOTH being a promise, HENCE eschatology, and dispensationalism being rejected.
But…if you see that promise of being TWOFOLD, one carnal and the other spiritual, then I can’t reject dispensationalism at all.
Both promises come true.
Ed Chapman
The new creation is the fulfillment of it all. There is no more sea there. It is all the land of the seed of Abraham because all who will be there will be in Christ. The literal land promises this side of history are not unconditional as dispensationalism asserts. Many passages express conditions. Other times they are not spoken. These promises are yes and Amen in Christ. They will be surpassingly fulfilled with the true israel in the new creation after the end of history.
dnjohn,
No. It is twofold, like I said. One is carnal, the other is spiritual. The new creation is a different topic.
And yes, it is unconditional to the Jews, because the promise was not made to them. The promise was made to Abraham, and he didn’t have to do anything, hence, unconditional.
I don’t know why you put conditions.
Ed Chapman
Ed, Great Question. The covenant stipulations tied with historical dwelling in the Land under Gods blessings and conditional for it are a big theme of the Book of Deuteronomy and other books as well.
The new Jerusalem/new creation is a union of earthly and spiritual. One cannot put it in the spiritual category only so as to deflect it away from its fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Jesus fulfilled the prophesy of being the king on David’s throne in his resurrection and ascension not is some this -worldly earthly throne in the earthly city of Jerusalem as I will show from the Apostolic proclamation.
First Let’s look at Roman’s 4
For the promise that [Abraham] would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation.
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. 18 Hoping against hope, he believed that he would become “the father of many nations,” according to what was said, “So numerous shall your descendants be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was already as good as dead (for he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 Therefore his faith “was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 23 Now the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.
Acts 2
But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to what I say. 15 Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. 16 No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
17
‘In the last days it will be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams.
18
Even upon my slaves, both men and women,
in those days I will pour out my Spirit;
and they shall prophesy.
19
And I will show portents in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood, and fire, and smoky mist.
20
The sun shall be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood,
before the coming of the Lord’s great and glorious day.
21
Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’
22 “You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death,because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. 25 For David says concerning him,
‘I saw the Lord always before me,
for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken;
26
therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
moreover my flesh will live in hope.
27
For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,
or let your Holy One experience corruption.
28
You have made known to me the ways of life;
you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’
29 “Fellow Israelites, I may say to you confidently of our ancestor David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 SINCE HE WAS A PROPHET, HE KNEW THAT GOD HAD SWORN WITH an OATH TO HIM THAT HE WOULD PUT ONE OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE. 31 FORESEEING THIS, DAVID SPOKE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE MESSIAH, saying,
‘He was not abandoned to Hades,
nor did his flesh experience corruption.’
32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. 33 Being THEREFORE EXALTED at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
35
until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
36 Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that GOD HAS MADE HIM BOTH LORD and Messiah,[h] this Jesus whom you crucified.”
AND REVELATION 1 says he was already in the kingdom of jesus Christ and that we are a kingdom and priests to serve our God.
Notice in the Acts passage, he is addressing Israelites and taught that the Davidic promise is fulfilled by the resurrection and ascension of Christ and his session at the Fathers right hand as Lord and Messiah.
Here is an article that discusses the covenant.
https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-biblical-covenants/
The covenant fulfillment is absolutely certain because of the gracious provision of the new covenant that brings the conditions to fruition.God circumcizes the heart. writes his laws in the Heart, causes us to know him, gives us the Spirit, we have the Lord Jesus himself as redeemer and mediator etc. This fulfillment is guaranteed THROUGH JESUS CHRIST BY FAITH to all of the descendants of Abraham as Paul teaches in Roman’s 4 which I posted above. It is. Both conditional and it is also certain because of God’s predestination of the Church IN CHRIST as St Paul wrote to the Ephesians. A PERSON CAN CHOOSE TO BE IN THE ELECT FLOCK OR REMAIN ON THE OUTSIDE. If one perseveres in the fold of Christ and remains in him then the inheritance is certain. They partake of the predestination and election of the Church. Thus we must make our calling and election sure, as the Apostle Peter teaches us.
I totally disagree with your applied verses. Romans 4 is indicating that the promise came before the law, and that promise cannot be annulled.
I will stipulate that there is a condition. That condition… circumcision. That’s it.
Again, I’m speaking of the physical land of Israel, promised to Abraham and his seed thru Isaac, and all Abraham had to do was to believe it. Faith. And so it was accounted to him righteousness.
There is two different topics being discussed here.
1. Carnal, physical land of Israel, and Isaac.
2. Spiritual, heaven, and Jesus.
You want to talk #2. Fine. Good. Perfect.
I’m talking #1.
And regarding #1, the only condition is circumcision. Otherwise, they are cut off.
The promise to Abraham is not subject to the law of Moses, and therefore, the behavior of the Jews is not an issue, but you keep wanting to make it the total issue.
#1 above has nothing to do with #2 above.
The promise goes both ways. Carnal and spiritual.
We fall under the spiritual, they fall under the carnal… unless they become Christians, then they fall under # 2, just like we do.
I can’t believe you guys ain’t being this stuff.
Ed Chapman
What
Galatians 4 is telling. It says present jerusalem is Hagar, not Isaac [and therefore not Jacob i.e Israel.] Read it below. The Jerusalem above is true Israel!
“Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23 One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia[g] and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,
burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs;
for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous
than the children of the one who is married.”
28 Now you,[h] my friends,[i] are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29 But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.” 31 So then, friends,[j] we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. ”
Roman’s 2 refutes the whole dispensational 19th century theory in all of its main points. It does not teach this dichotomy He says he is NOT a jew who is one outwardly.
Romans 2
Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. 2 You say,[a] “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” 3 Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
12 All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
The Jews and the Law
17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God 18 and know his will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the law, 19 and if you are sure that you are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth, 21 you, then, that teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 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. ”
The Apostles were not dispensationalist. No dispensationalist would say what the Holy Apostle Paul says in these passages. Their mistake lies in trying to interpret the new testament according to their understanding of the old. Rather than letting the new testament shed the light of fuller revelation onto the old testament.
dnjohn,
Again, I must stress, and reiterate, that you are speaking of the spiritual land of promise, and the spiritual seed.
You are not discussing the carnal.
The carnal promise had no bearing on the law of Moses at all. It’s all based on circumcision of the flesh.
Why do you keep discussing Romans and Galatians on a carnal promise? It’s not related.
Late last night, I posted a comment to TS00, and addressed it to EVERYONE, regarding what God told Abraham about LAND of Canaan, and the purpose of the covenant of circumcision.
Ya might want to read genesis, instead of Romans and Galatians.
Salvation is not three topic. Land is. And it’s not based on obedience of the Jews.
Ed Chapman
DNJOHN wrote:
“Jesus fulfilled the prophesy of being the king on David’s throne in his resurrection and ascension not is some this -worldly earthly throne in the earthly city of Jerusalem”
My response:
I couldn’t agree more. The dispensationalists ignore what Peter said in Jesus fulfilling this prophecy when He ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father (Ps. 110:1). Where He will remain ruling until the end of time.
DNJOHN wrote:
AND REVELATION 1 says he was already in the kingdom of jesus Christ and that we are a kingdom and priests to serve our God.
My response:
Again, I couldn’t agree more. This means that the kingdom is already here since Pentecost (Acts 2). There is going to be no future earthly kingdom and earthly throne of David of any kind (1 Cor 15: 24-26).
DNJOHN wrote:
If one perseveres in the fold of Christ and remains in him then the inheritance is certain. They partake of the predestination and election of the Church. Thus we must make our calling and election sure, as the Apostle Peter teaches us.
My response:
I don’t know all that you believe on the above, but I can say for certain that the heavenly reward is conditioned on being faithful to the end. One can lose their heavenly reward if they don’t remain faithful. There are plenty of warnings in the scriptures concerning this (Heb. 3-4). And as you rightly pointed out, one must make their calling and election sure.
I see that you seem to be a Southern Baptist? Unfortunately, they don’t seem to teach the truth concerning the purpose of baptism in the New Testament?
I used to be a southern Baptist. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian now. I appreciate what this website is doing to expose the flaws in calvinism and doing it in an objective way. God bless you.
I’m not familiar with Eastern Orthodox teachings, but from what you’ve said so far seems to be somewhere along the lines of what I would agree with. Does the Eastern Orthodox see baptism as necessary for the forgiveness of sins – salvation? If you are hesitant in discussing this question, I will respect that.
Aidan
What do you believe the purpose of Baptism is in the New Testament?
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
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 2:36-38).
As you know, Peter had just finished preaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to these people. In v.36 he calls on them to believe “know for certain” that God had made Him both Lord and Christ. Then In v.37, we see that they believed, because they are convicted “pierced to the heart,” and asked “what shall we do?”
Peter tells them (v.38) to “repent and be baptized” in Jesus name for the “forgiveness of their sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” So we have in just these few short verses, belief, confessing with the mouth, repentance and baptism unto the forgiveness of their sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. Therefore, just from this passage alone, baptism is necessary for salvation. Their sins were not forgiven until after they had repented and being baptized.
I would agree. The dispensationalist completely ignores the conditions of the covenant, which were spelled out very carefully, including threats of sickness, plagues, dispersion and destruction to all who reject or refuse to obey the conditions and commands of God. So why would anyone be surprised when that is exactly what happened to stubborn, rebellious Israel, who enshrined ceremonial Religion as their idol? (The faithful remnant were saved from both spiritual blindness and physical destruction, going on to establish the ekklesia, or Body of Christ, which is the true Israel made up of Jew and Gentile.)
Non-Zionists do not have a thing against the Jews – they simply reject the claim that they alone are exempt from all of the commands, warnings and teachings of scripture. Non-Zionists do not reject the many promises made to Israel – they simply believe what scripture says, which is that all who are of Israel are not Israel. I simply do not understand how anyone can get around the ONLY possible meaning of that verse, and how it informs the understanding of surrounding verses.
Non-Zionists believe that God is impartial, just and – just as he says – treats every single individual in the exact same manner – by judging each one’s heart and life. Judgment comes upon all who reject God and resist his commands – with no distinction based upon who their fathers were. Every individual will be judged on the basis of his own faith and righteousness, or lack thereof. Try reading Ezekiel and clinging to a tradition of father/race-based favoritism. No one is rewarded or punished based upon who his father is or what his father did or didn’t do.
This was what Romans was all about, reminding the Jews that they were never offered an irrevocable promise based upon genetic heritage, contrary to what they now claimed. No one denies that Israel was beloved and elected for a glorious purpose – which God accomplished in spite of their stiff-necked, self-seeking rebelliousness, not due to faithfulness on their part. The original tribes received the land promised to them, as declared by Joshua: “Not one of all the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.” Did you hear that? “Not ONE of all the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; ALL came to pass.” And yet Zionists completely ignore this statement, and claim that God still has unfulfilled promises to an Israel that no longer exists, attempting to substitute that which was made by men’s hands as the Israel of God. We are supposed to take Hagee’s word over Joshua’s.
Zionism is the real replacement theology, as men assert that a man-made nation state, created in the twentieth century, is the subject of the ages-old promises of God to the true Israel, made up of every single individual who has a circumcised heart. As Ed confirmed, one does not even have to have a drop of Jacob’s blood to belong to this ‘new’, man-made Israel. Many claim Jacob as a father, others assert that most so-called Jews descended from Turks long ago, but it doesn’t really matter. The only real requirement is that one has to deny Jesus. The very definition of ‘they which say they are Jews, and are not’. That’s right, the one requirement of being part of the ‘new’ Israel is to declare a rejection of Jesus and the gospel. You must be anti-Christ.
TS00,
What you’ve done here is what is common to those who reject dispensationalism and Zionism.
You are confusing the COVENANT of the law of Moses with the COVENANT of Abraham.
Ed Chapman
You’re kidding, right? The covenant of Abraham involved blessings which were unto all people, all nations, not simply his flesh (Israel). It is the covenant of Abraham that all non-dispensationists recognize in the ‘New Covenant’ of Jesus, rather than the limited, conditional, transitory covenant of Moses. This was the mistake national Israel made, conflating these two covenants, or rather, rejecting the greater for the lesser.
It was pretty easy to recognize the coming of the Messiah with his ‘New Covenant’ even from the proclamation of the angels, who announced good news which was to all men. The era of the covenant of Moses was about to come to an end, and the fulfillment of the original covenant of promise to Abraham was coming to fruition. Sadly, most of national Israel did not fulfill the conditions of their conditional covenant, and faced the warned of consequences.
Jesus declared a ‘New’ covenant because, as far as the average Israelite was concerned, the covenant of Moses was all their was, because their teachers had deliberately conflated it with the covenant of Abraham. You do realize that this is what the gospel, and all of scripture is all about, right? This is exactly what you and I disagree about, what I perceive you as misunderstanding in Romans and all of the New Testament. You cling to the lesser, temporary, conditional covenant of Moses – all of which has been fulfilled, according to Joshua – and I embrace that the greater and lasting covenant was always that of Abraham, which was to be unto all nations and conditioned on faith. This covenant, of salvation, was the one the teachers of Israel ignored, coveting only the temporal, wealth-based promises of Moses.
Uh, NO. GOD promised Abraham LAND AND SEED, hence the phrase, “Promised Land, and Promised Seed”. Each was a separate covenant. The seed was Isaac, in the carnal. The land was Canaan, in the carnal. Ishmael was the first born, and by all rights Ishmael receives the inheritance. But God said the the PROMISE goes thru Isaac, and so CIRCUMCISION, as a SIGN to the promise, that the Promised Land of Canaan goes to the seed of Abraham, thru Isaac, not Ishmael.
And that promise was not based the Jews performance. If it were, God would have informed Abraham.
Again, this promise is TWOFOLD.
1. Carnal
2. Spiritual
Carnal, Canaan, Isaac.
Spiritual, heaven, Jesus.
The law of Moses has nothing to do with it. There is a verse that states that the promise came before the law, and that means that the promise still stands.
I’m at work, but later I’ll provide it.
This NEW covenant you speak of is the law of Christ, as opposed to the law of Moses, and it has nothing to do with the carnal Abrahamic covenant, but it has everything to do with the spiritual Abrahamic covenant.
Like I said, you are getting the covenants confused.
We inherit three spiritual promise land, not the carnal promise land of Canaan. But the Jews inherit that land carnal land, because it’s a promise.
Ed Chapman
To everyone, including TS00,
TS00,
I really don’t have a problem at all with your spiritual interpretation of THE PROMISE thru Jesus. That’s not my issue. My issue is that you dismiss the carnal promise, where the Jews INHERIT the physical land of Israel UNCONDITIONALLY.
Many Christians think that the promises of God to Abraham for his seed thru Isaac comes with CONDITIONS of the behavior of the Jews thru the Law of Mose.
Galatians 3:18
For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Promised Land
Genesis 12:5-7
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him.
Genesis 13:14-18
14 And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.
Genesis 15:7,18
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
*********COVENANT FOR THE PROMISED LAND*******************
18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Genesis 17:7-
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
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.
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
—————————————
So, please see that God never promised the Jews anything regarding Land, but God promised Abraham that they would get it.
BUT FOR US, the promised land is heaven, and the promised seed is Jesus, and we are SONS OF ABRAHAM, LIKE ISAAC, where we INHERIT the SPIRITUAL PROMISE.
Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 4:28
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
As you can see, I agree with you on the spritual side, but you do not agree on the carnal side, which is why you dismiss dispensationalism, and Zionism.
Based on the above Genesis references, I cannot dismiss either one. The Jew get that land, unconditionally.
Ed Chapman
And I would agree that the all the promises God made to Abram in Genesis 12:1-3, have been fulfilled. There were three promises: first the land promise, second, He would make him a great nation, and third, in him “all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” God fulfilled all three promises to Abraham. This last promise by the way, is still being fulfilled until the end of time. But then God told Israel that their continuance in the land was conditional upon their faithfulness. Guess how that worked out? And now they use O.T. passages like Isaiah 11:11 as proof of this so-called physical ‘regathering’ of the whole nation of Israel? But that’s not what this passage teaches at all.
My response:
ONLY THE REMNANT ARE RECOVERED: (Isaiah 11:10-11).
(v.10) “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.”
“In that day” refers to the time dealt with in the context, which is the day of the Shoot (Branch or Twig) of Jesse that bears fruit (vv. 1-5). The “Ensign”(Signal, Banner) is the Messianic King who was to come, around whom the people would rally. Paul quotes this verse and applies it to the present time under Christ. “Again Isaiah says,
“THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE,
AND HE WHO ARISES TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES,
IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE” (Rom. 15:12).
Paul uses this verse to show the right of the Gentiles of his day to the gospel of Christ. According to Paul, this verse is now fulfilled in Christ; the Gentiles NOW have hope. Therefore, He (the root of Jesse, the ensign) is reigning or ruling now, not in some future time. This passage finds its fulfillment in the conversion of sinners since Pentecost. If it is not now fulfilled in Christ, then the Gentiles have no basis for hope.
Next:
(v. 11) “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.”
The first time God set His hand to recover the remnant involved the return of the Jews under Zerubabel and Joshua the high priest from captivity in Babylon (Ezra 1-6).
Note carefully in (v. 11) “In that day” – the day of Branch, the root of Jesse, the ensign (vv.1,10) – He would “set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant” from all parts of the earth. Under the gospel God has been doing this since Pentecost (Acts 2). Paul, in speaking of those Jews who were being saved says, “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5).
THIS REMNANT, is NOW being called and gathered, because we in N.T. times, are in the DAY of the Branch, the Ensign, the Root of Jesse (Rom. 15:12).
(v.12) “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth” (Isaiah 11:12).
With the “ensign”(Jesus) set up as the rallying point for the nations, God would gather the outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah “from the four corners of the earth,” – a figure of speech for all quarters of the earth. The envy and vexation that had existed between Ephraim and Judah (v.13) would no longer be; the two would dwell together as one. Only by being called and gathered together, through the gospel, would this prophecy concerning the remnant be fulfilled.
This is what O.T. prophecy had foretold, namely, that only a REMNANT would be saved. This is what Isaiah the prophet had said, according to Paul in (Romans 9:27):
“Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved” (Rom. 9:27).
THEREFORE: It is only the remnant who are being “recovered” and it is only a remnant who are being saved – namely, those among Israel who respond to the call of the gospel.
Amen.
Colossians 1:12 giving thanks[d] to the Father, who has qualified you[e] to share in the inheritance of the saints(the holy ones) in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
——-
Colossians 3: 23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.
——-
Ephesians 1:3-14
——–
Galatians 3:17-19 English Standard Version (ESV)
17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.
Hebrews 6:12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, 14 saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.”
15 And thus Abraham,[b] having patiently waited, obtained the promise.
16 For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. 17 So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.
————
(Hebrews 7: *4-10 : looking back and looking forward, the promise and the promises)
—————
Hebrews 9:14-16 English Standard Version (ESV)
14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our[a] conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.[b] 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
————
Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
————
1 Corinthians 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
God accounted for the Spirit and the flesh, revealing His plan to save mankind from their sins and the enemy.See the standing slain Lamb, see Jesus with flesh and bone before the ascension, see the blood poured out for ‘you’, to give an inheritance to the holy ones (=saints) who believe through faith, according to all He promised.
Acts 20:31-33 English Standard Version (ESV)
31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
———————
Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 23 But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!
——————
Mark 12:6-8 English Standard Version (ESV)
6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.
—————
Matthew 19:29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
Matthew 25:34Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.———————
Revelation 3:12The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the newJerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
Revelation 21:2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Revelation 21:9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”————————
Types and shadows:priestsEzekiel 44:28 “This shall be their inheritance: I am their inheritance: and you shall give them no possession in Israel; I am their possession. 29 They shall eat the grain offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, and every devoted thing in Israel shall be theirs.30 And the first of all the firstfruits of all kinds, and every offering of all kinds from all your offerings, shall belong to the priests. You shall also give to the priests the first of your dough, that a blessing may rest on your house. 31 The priests shall not eat of anything, whether bird or beast, that has died of itself or is torn by wild animals.———————Psalm 82:8Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=tribe%2C+nation&begin=73&end=73—————
Matthew 5:3“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ( even now according to the Spirit, as we walk by faith and not by sight, someday to see our Savior and all of our family from history face to face beginning at the end of this present age, according to the resurrection that is unto eternal life.)
Matthew 5:5“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.========================================
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 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. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
1 Corinthians 15/John 3——————–
Ephesians 1:13-15 English Standard Version (ESV)
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee[a] of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,[b] to the praise of his glory.
————————————
Galatians 6:8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
11See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. 12It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 14But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whichb the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
15For neither circumcision counts for anything,
nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
16And as for all who walk by this rule,
peace and mercy be upon them,
and upon the Israel of God.
————————
To note:
The holy ones ( that equal= saints)
Like the working of the term “the elect” is revealed in the living and active truth of God’s word moving through history, in the light of contexts, is also how the working of the term saints(=holy ones) is revealed. “The saints”( the holy ones) are not to be recognized as only Jewish in the flesh, as “the elect” is not to be recognized as only Jewish in the flesh.
[Reasoning:My focus here is not the relation of “the holy ones” as to the family of God in relation to heavenly hosts and saved humans as to the yet bigger realities of God’s revelation, but to bring forward His revelation of (humans) “ the saints” (= holy ones) as to the faith related to “the elect” , who will receive the promised inheritance at the renewal of all things, being the saints(= the holy ones) .]
Through and according to the Holy Spirit of God, He revealed to us what ‘transpires’ in history.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=saints
—————
(Key word: inherit/ saints {in light of God’s People, Ephesians 2})
When I realized I typed and posted: without when I meant with, and I typed do not when I wanted to type do, and when I typed do and meant to type do not…. I can only hope that readers here figure it out according to the larger context.(Ahhh, sorry) Thank God for us His word is not human in origin like ours.
Be blessed today sisters and brothers, believing the good news of our Lord and God about our salvation! With 1 Corinthians 15 /Romans 8 ( there is a subtly, of history, that comes through between verse 27 and 28. 🙂 )
Hey Tammy, I couldn’t find a reply option earlier but I was able to read your post on 2 John today.
I do agree with you that this term elect is being used for those within the church in 2 John. I believe that the elect lady has reference to the bride of Christ and that’s one reason I believe it is referred to as elect lady. There are other times that it seems clear that these terms of elect and 12 tribes(in james) that once were used for the nation of Israel are now being used in the same way for the church(which is made up of all believers, not just jews). I don’t know if I could go so far as to say there was necessarily an actual woman included in the greeting of 2 John but maybe. I also believe that the “children of your elect sister” could be reference to the believers of your sister church.
I agree that in 2 John, James, and also 1 Peter that these terms are now being used for the church. However for 1 Peter, I don’t like to go as far as some others, especially study Bibles, that say this is being done because the church is living in the world and dispersed and exiled from heaven in a sort of figurative and spiritual sense. I just think that would have not been very clear to the readers in those days so I am not too sure how that could be the meaning but I don’t completely discredit that reasoning but it just seems less likely to me. To me, the diaspora would have been understood as those dispersed from Jerusalem, including all believing Gentiles on the basis of Gentile inclusion as God’s people. This is not to say there wasn’t many Jewish Christians but just that both Gentiles and Jews of faith in Christ were being addressed in the same way. To me, this is clear from the content found in the letters with those greetings. It’s to all Christians not just Jewish ones. I suppose because Peter was apostle to the Jewish believers there is more of an argument to say that for Peter’s letters he was addressing Jews only but I would say that is still very unlikely considering all the areas he included that certainly couldn’t have been strictly Jewish Christians with the address being so broad.
I also like what you said about the term “elect lady” and terms like that being used to veil the identity of who it was being sent to. That makes a lot of sense. It also would confirm the persecution the church was receiving in those days and that they needed to keep certain details concealed in the greetings at times depending on the time and area the letters written were being received.
I think you have a great point where you mentioned that for 2 Peter there are differences in the first letter and second letter’s greeting. The second letter, you made mention that he greets them as “those who have obtained a faith as equal as ours.” and that it is the second letter and it’s true that in chapter 3 of 2 Peter he confirms it is the second letter. That would make sense then that the “elect exiles” from the first letter and ‘those who have obtained a faith” from the second are synonymous.
Blessings to you sister.
Joel,
When I see “elect lady”, all I see is FEMALE JEW. Whether she is a Christian or not is irrelevent. What scripture can you provide where God said, “THE CHURCH, MINE ELECT”?
Ed Chapman
Moderator question- BR.D,
A thought: a like button and a read button?
Lol- maybe 2- read part, read all
Lol-maybe 3-opened and read links
“Lord, what must I do to be saved?”
“Well, that’s easy,” said Jesus, “all you have to is believe in Me and … wait, hold on a second, let Me check My list again … Oops, sorry, you’re not one of the elect. Bummer for you, there’s nothing you can do to be saved. Better luck next ti … oops, wait, sorry, there is no ‘next time.’ So too bad for you. But at least My Father gets glory for your eternal torment. So cheer up.”
– said no Bible verse ever
Making a list, looking for a blot.
Gonna find out who is elect or not.
Jesus Christ is coming to town.
Blessings, Sis.
Well Ed, right here.
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.
1 Peter 5:13 KJV
http://bible.com/1/1pe.5.13.KJV
You of all people should know the use of symbolism from the Old Testament is also now seen in the New Testament.
Also, if the “elect lady is a female Jew(and not even matter if it’s a Christian one) like you say. Then who is the elect sister who sends her greetings to the elect lady in 2 John?
The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.
2 John 1:13 KJV
http://bible.com/1/2jn.1.13.KJV
It would have to be the Jewish nieces and nephews of the “elect lady”, in that case, if we went by your reasoning.
P.s.
You may need Bible school after all Ed. This one, for me to understand, was just a simple reading of Scripture. No school taught me it.
Joel,
I’m not into symbolism. I’m into defining.
However, I stand by what I’ve already stated that there were tons of Jews in Babylon, and that the Babylonian Talmud was written there, and completed a couple centuries after Peter’s epistles. And that Peter was an apostle to the Jews.
And that more Jews stayed in Babylon after the captivity than those Jews who came back, and that Peter’s epistles were written to the Jews only, no different than the epistle of James to the twelve tribes scattered abroad.
Jews Jews Jews.
Elect Jews. There is no such thing as elect Gentiles.
SAVED Gentiles are saved but not elect.
Ed Chapman
This passage is particularly clear about this subject. What do you think?
Colossians 3:5-13
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry). 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient. 7 These are the ways you also once followed, when you were living that life. 8 But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices 10 and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator. 11 In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!
12 AS GOD ’S CHOSEN ONES, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. 13 Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
DNJOHN, Yes great text ! for the subject of what has been passed down to ‘us’ obedient to the truth of the good news and a great text for the larger scope of all that Soteriology101 has been challenging in light of scripture about our human theological systems.
In that renewal there is no longer
Greek and Jew,
circumcised and uncircumcised,
barbarian, Scythian,
slave and free;
but Christ is all and in all!
12 AS GOD ’S CHOSEN ONES,
holy and beloved,
( And the dispensationalist in their disconnects would Amen that is what the text says and celebrate it. This for them is ‘the church age’ which is the ‘the age of the gospel of grace.’ Maybe someone closest to adhering to that system will jump in here and explain their difference between God’s Chosen Ones, who are holy and beloved and “The Elect” more precisely ? This is why I stress Romans points out it is first to the Jew and then to the Gentile/Greek(being not to the Jew/Gentile/Jew again), instead of focusing on primarily the no difference(which is more than a ‘good’ argument and the believers identify is now named in Christ: Ephesians 1-3, with this verse in Colossians saying NO LONGER.)
Like calvinist and arminians, there are lots of dispensationalist leaners who really are not familiar with the greater system and/or the systems adherence to details. Like Catholics and Lutherans and Reconstructionist, too. And then as those of us who are familiar with our own systems and/or positions about scripture talk, we are often not familiar with the larger system details another is holding to, so we spend time playing pingpong, instead of breaking down the pointed details on which a larger systems stands to fall IF certain details are actually false …. as iron sharpens iron….. that we may agree of the sparks( light and fire) of truth.
Or you already know this, for example, and I am just speaking out loud my own reminder for engagement on ‘ the subject of “the elect” on hand.’
I will stand all day long that in JesusChrist their is only one “election” that was the plan of salvation and those who really believe will not lose what they received the moment they believe, according to the law of faith, (1 Corinthians 15:1-4*/At least Isaiah 52:13-53 because God crossed that person over from death to life and they were sealed with the Spirit of Truth, who is the guarantee of all who receive the inheritance found in The Resurrection of Life. There is one plan of salvation for all people, now, the mystery revealed for the Jew and the Gentile about The Resurrection and Revelation of Life. The command of God from the beginning is “God said”. Our common sense is to think for a reason, free to worship, according to the truth life or death now set before us : Deut 30/Roman 10 )
…clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. 13 Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
(Blessing, with Ephesians 2 as we sing to eachother)
Excellent post, and dnjohn’s before it. (For some reason I can no longer ‘like’ a post on this site.) I see the dispensationalists doing the exact same thing that Calvinists do here, picking out random verses and arguing about what they ‘might’ mean, all in subservience to an overarching theory to which they are committed.
In doing so, they stomp right over the overall message of scripture, which flows forth in one harmonious flow, triumphantly climaxing in the glorious message of the gospel, that good news from God which was always intended for all men.
In the case of the Calvinist, I can only presume that they are so covetous of their guaranteed ticket to heaven that allows them to live as they wish that they are willing to throw God under the bus. For dispensationalists, I’m guessing they are terrified and clinging to that thar rapture to escape the horrors they have been convinced are just down the road.
As for me, I do not have to look down the road. I just look around, and at all of history, and see the wars, genocides, murder, oppression, child abuse, trafficking, etc. and don’t need to imagine any greater horrors. Rarely a day goes by when I don’t beg God to put an end to the evil and suffering we have wrought upon ourselves and one another. And I’m not just looking to save my own skin. My heart breaks with each story of abuse and suffering. It is not enough to just ‘escape’, as tempting as the thought often is. I truly want to do whatever I can to put an end to all of this, to see men come to the knowledge of just how we have been deceived and what our true need is.
It’s not about TS00. Or Protestant Christians. Or America. Or Israel. Or any individual, nation or race of men. That is simply too small of a picture, and contrary to the entire teaching of Jesus. He came to save the world. He is not working two programs, one for the Jews and one for everyone else. Such a belief requires ignoring the vast majority of scripture while clinging to a few twisted, taken out of context verses. Just like Calvinism. Both are, IMO, simply a rejection of the one true gospel and the substitution of the wild imaginings of men.
Well Ed, Here it is.
13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.
14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen. 1 Peter 5:13-14.( KJV)
Also, if you say that the “elect lady” is just a female Jew, then that would make her elect sister and her children nothing but her Jewish sister and her nieces and nephews who were the ones greeting this Jewish woman, if we were to go by your line of reasoning.
13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen. 2 John 1:13 (KJV)
p.s.
No Seminary taught me this. It was just a simple reading of Scripture.
Joel,
Not my words….
“The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, supply the word “church”, as we do. Some, by “Babylon”, understand Rome, which is so called, in a figurative sense, in the book of the Revelations: this is an ancient opinion; so Papias understood it, as Eusebius relates; but that Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed. It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon in Assyria, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the centre of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside, here being a number of persons converted and formed into a Gospel church state, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy in (Psalms 87:4) perhaps this church might consist chiefly of Jews, which might be the reason of the apostle’s being here, since there were great numbers which continued here, from the time of the captivity, who returned not with Ezra; and these are said by the Jews to be of the purest blood: many of the Jewish doctors lived here; they had three famous universities in this country, and here their Talmud was written, called from hence Babylonian.”
I have read that the word “church” or ekklesia” was added by the translators, which might explain why it was omitted in most translations like NKJV, NASB, and ESV, among others.
I do believe that the audience in the books of Peter is to the Jews, and the Jews only, as I previously outlined. But I could add more.
Here it is in the clearest of language.
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 (someone who lives in a foreign land temporarily) and pilgrims (someone who travels to a sacred place for religious reasons), abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles (within whom they were scattered), that when they (the Gentiles) speak against you (the Jew) as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation (second coming).
And then continues with…
1 Peter 4:3 (NKJV)….
For we (the Jews) have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries.
“Your conduct honorable among the Gentiles”, having spent “enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles”. It says “lifetime”. This is not speaking of Jews who just recently left Jerusalem for persecution reasons. These are Jews who have been living among the Gentiles for centuries. Taken on their cultures, lifestyles, and language.
I maintain that Peter is addressing the House of Israel, the former northern kingdom who went into Assyrian captivity (722 BC), and the “she… elect together with you” are those Jews (from the House of Judah taken captive by the Babylonians (586 BC)) still living in Babylon.
Blessings, brother.
Your quote from first Peter proves the opposite. He quotes from Hosea to show the inclusion of the Gentiles.( E.g those who were no people are now the people of God etc…same thing Paul specifically applied as referring to gentiles in Roman’s 9) into what he just beautifully described with all of these phrases from the Torah concerning Israel i.e ” chosen generation, royal priesthood, holy nation, peculiar people”. His point is that the Church is the new Israel and the unbelievers surrounding them are “gentiles” i.e not in the israel of God. The Nets translation refers to the ones KJV calls “gentiles who speak of them as evil doers” as ” non christians” .
dnjohn,
Jacob is Israel, not THE CHURCH.
Jacob wrestled with God and prevailed. Some bibles say, “struggled with God and prevailed”. The word Israel has that “biblical” meaning (as opposed to dictionary meaning).
The word CHURCH is ONLY another word for “assembly”.
Please note the last 5 words of the following;
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.
The opposite of the last 5 words would be:
“…the churches of the Jews.”
Ed Chapman
Also the Apostle Paul wrote this:
1 Corinthians 10
I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness.
6 Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not become idolaters as some of them did; as it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play.’ 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents. 10 And do not complain as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall. 13 No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.
14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel ] are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
Notice he reads current realities of Christ back to them and says one body not two. They were baptized, so to speak, into moses body. We are baptized in Christ, into his body. Now that Christ who is the new Moses, the Prophet, the Priest, and the King we are all baptized solely into him. Dispensationalism wants to keep the body of Moses in tact as if there are two peoples. The Apostles say NOT SO. There is one Bread, One Body. It was christological from beginning to end. He paints the ot people of God as a primitive church. The rock…the baptism…the spiritual food and drink like a foreshadowing of Christian Baptism and the Holy Eucharist/Communion. It was into Moses as a type of Christ. Dispensationalism want the keep the types when the anti type. They want to keep two congregations of the Lord as a dual reality when the new testament says clearly there is only One Body not two e.g one of moses and one of Christ. There is the remnants of the old but they are not of Isaac( i.e of promise) but of Hagar in bondage. There is still in some sense Jews ( Judeans) and Greeks and the Church of God. Only the Church is the Elect in Christ. The Jews and Greeks are of this world. Neither of these nationalities are the Church/Ekkesia of God. Only the unity of all in the one body of Christ is the elect…is the Church/ekklesia..is the Israel of God. The Apostle Paul taught these things at length in the book of Galatians. The old has passed away in the sense that all things have been made new.
DNJOHN,
You said… “Your quote from first Peter proves the opposite.”
No, brother, that quote from 1 Peter only confirms it.
Exodus 19:5-6 (NKJV)….
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.”
Now….
Galatians 2:7-9 (NKJV)….
But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter, for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles, and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we (Paul and Barnabas) should go to the Gentiles and they (James, Peter, and John) to the circumcised (Jews).
So Paul (with Barnabas) was commissioned to go to the Gentiles while James, Peter, and John went to the Jews.
James 1:1 (NKJV)….
James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad
Are you willing to go so far as to suggest that the “12 tribes” is a reference to the church?
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
God never dispersed the Gentiles. But He did the Jews. More than once. Neither is the church a race nor a nation (1 Peter 2:9). But the Jewish people sure were. For me, the “12 tribes” and “the elect” are synonymous. Both relate to the children of Jacob, His (God’s) chosen ones (1 Chronicles 16:13, Psalm 105:6).
The following can be found at http://www.biblestudytools.com….
“The Jews of the Dispersion, or simply The Dispersion, was the general title applied to those Jews who remained settled in foreign countries after the return from the Babylonian exile, and during the period of the second temple. At the beginning of the Christian era the Dispersion was divided into three great sections, the Babylonian, the Syrian, the Egyptian. From Babylon the Jews spread throughout Persia, Media and Parthia. Large settlements of Jews were established in Cyprus, in the islands of the Aegean, and on the western coast of Asia Minor. Jewish settlements were also established at Alexandria by Alexander and Ptolemy I. The Jewish settlements in Rome, were consequent upon the occupation of Jerusalem by Pompey, B.C. 63. The influence of the Dispersion on the rapid promulgation of Christianity can scarcely be overrated. The course of the apostolic preaching followed in a regular progress the line of Jewish settlements. The mixed assembly from which the first converts were gathered on the day of Pentecost represented each division of the Dispersion. (Acts 2:9-11) (1) Parthians… Mesopotamia; (2) Judea (i.e. Syria)…Pamphylia; (3) Egypt…Greece; (4) Romans…, and these converts naturally prepared the way for the apostles in the interval which preceded the beginning of the separate apostolic missions. St. James and St. Peter wrote to the Jews of the Dispersion. (James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1)”
And then there is this from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org…..
“The Jewish state comes to an end in 70 AD, when the Romans begin to actively drive Jews from the home they had lived in for over a millennium. But the Jewish Diaspora (“diaspora” =”dispersion, scattering”) had begun long before the Romans had even dreamed of Judaea. When the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722, the Hebrew inhabitants were scattered all over the Middle East; these early victims of the dispersion disappeared utterly from the pages of history. However, when Nebuchadnezzar deported the Judaeans in 597 and 586 BC, he allowed them to remain in a unified community in Babylon. Another group of Judaeans fled to Egypt, where they settled in the Nile delta. So from 597 onwards, there were three distinct groups of Hebrews: a group in Babylon and other parts of the Middle East, a group in Judaea, and another group in Egypt. Thus, 597 is considered the beginning date of the Jewish Diaspora. While Cyrus the Persian allowed the Judaeans to return to their homeland in 538 BC, most chose to remain in Babylon. A large number of Jews in Egypt became mercenaries in Upper Egypt on an island called the Elephantine. All of these Jews retained their religion, identity, and social customs; both under the Persians and the Greeks, they were allowed to run their lives under their own laws. Some converted to other religions; still others combined the Yahweh cult with local cults; but the majority clung to the Hebraic religion and its new-found core document, the Torah.”
You said…. “The Nets translation refers to the ones KJV calls ‘gentiles who speak of them as evil doers’ as ‘non christians’”.
I know. But the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and others keep it in the original as “the Gentiles”. Even the NET bible footnotes say “the Gentiles”.
I believe with all the scriptural support and additional historical information it is clear that Peter’s audience, and those of both James and John, are the Jewish people.
Blessings, brother.
The quote from Exodus matching the phrases in first Peter demonstrates that the Apostle Paul saw the church as the continuation, fulfillment and renewal of Israel not that he was writing to ethnic Jews. Colossians shows this clearly too as a posted elsewhere
COLOSSIANS 3
Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices 10 and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator. 11 In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all! 12 AS GOD’S CHOSEN ONES, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience.
Dnjohn,
We’ll just have to let others decide for themselves who “the elect” are in books of Peter with the information provided.
I do want re-ask I previous question.
James 1:1 (NKJV)….
James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad
Are you willing to go so far as to suggest that the “12 tribes” is a reference to the church?
Hi Phillip, In this passage it is addressed to Israelites who are Christians scattered among the nations (James 2:1 mentions our Glorious Lord Jesus Christ shows it was to believers. Also, his mention of Presbyters of the Church administering the sacrament of anointing of the sick shows this as well ). However the precepts expressed are general precepts applicable to all members of the body regardless of national origin. The epistle does not specifically mention the word elect or discuss election other than to say that God has chosen the poor rich in Faith and those who love him.
“Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him”? (James 2:5 )
Which seems to indicate Christian faith and love being the discriminating factors in being of the elect.
Unlike James 1, where I believe it is addressed to literal israelites who were converted. In Revelation when it talks about the 12 tribes of 12000 being sealed of the children of Israel, that is the Church, in it’s perfect numerological fullness. It is symbolic. Interestingly the tribe of Dan is not listed among the sealed tribes in revelation. The tribe of Dan was called a serpent in the old testament ( Genesis 49:17)and there are church fathers that indicate that Antichrist is probably going to be a Danite Jew and that it may be a hint to us that this tribe is omitted?
The holy.apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians gives his teaching on the subject of election and the inclusion of Gentiles in the one people of God. Of course chapter one sets the stage for what I post here from chapter 2.
Ephesians 2
So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called “the uncircumcision” by those who are called “the circumcision”—a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might CREATE IN HIMSELF ONE NEW HUMANITY IN PLACE OF THE TWO, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.[d] 17 So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are CITIZENS WITH THE SAINTS and also MEMBERS of the HOUSEHOLD OF GOD, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a HOLY TEMPLE in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.”
DNJOHN,
Indeed, what blessing has the Jewish Christian got that a Gentile Christian hasn’t? As Paul says:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,” (Eph. 1:3) Does the Jew then have more blessings than a Gentile, in that he is chosen and the Gentile is not? Certainly not, for Paul says:
“just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love” (Eph 1:4). It seems that both Jew and Gentile are equally chosen “in Christ.” How then can some say that one is more “elect” than the other, if both equally have every spiritual blessing in Christ? Its because they just don’t want to see it!
Hi, dnjohn.
“Unlike James 1, where I believe it is addressed to literal Israelites who were converted.”
At least we agree on that, brother.
“In Revelation when it talks about the 12 tribes of 12000 being sealed of the children of Israel, that is the Church, in it’s perfect numerological fullness.”
Well, that is the Amillennial view.
Blessings, brother.
Thanks Phillip for your kindness although we disagree. It’s a pleasure conversing with you all.
Same here, bro.
Again, I understand the confusion. I sensed your comments were sincere and treated them as such. You have been very gracious. Its appreciated.
Many blessings.
dnjohn writes:
“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might CREATE IN HIMSELF ONE NEW HUMANITY IN PLACE OF THE TWO, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.[d] 17 So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; 18 for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are CITIZENS WITH THE SAINTS and also MEMBERS of the HOUSEHOLD OF GOD, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a HOLY TEMPLE in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.”
Beautiful words, that are expressed in countless other passages (many of which have been quoted), that tell us that there is to be no more division of Jew and Gentile – EVER. Why anyone would suggest otherwise is utterly beyond my comprehension. This is not one verse, twisted into meaning something bizarre. It is the same thing that is reiterated again and again throughout the entire New Testament – the two (Jew and Gentile) have been made one, there is only ONE body, one temple, one holy chosen people of God. Such statements cannot be reconciled with the claims that the Jews are to be treated differently from others.
dnjohn,
Point blank, Peter was the apostle to the Jews. What part of that do you not understand?
We showed that Babylon is where Jews would be.
You keep thinking that elect has something to do with salvation. It had nothing to do with salvation in Isaiah at all. Just Israel. It didn’t say, Israel mine saved. Did it?
When you are in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and little green men from mars. But outside of Christ, there most certainly is a difference.
And yes, the Jews only inherit the promised land of Israel, the physical land.
That’s what God told Abraham, and the condition… circumcision.
If you think that there is no difference between Jew and Gentiles why aren’t the Christians flocking to Israel to set up a home?
Does Israel belong to Palestine?
Elect are Jews, regardless of salvation or not. This is so basic, I can’t understand folks that all they do is to default to, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.
One topic is carnal, the other is spiritual, and you are trying to mix them together.
Ed Chapman
What you appear to miss, my friend, is that nothing matters outside of Christ. In Christ, God’s true elect, is the living, eternal temple of God, the Body of all believers who will live forever with their Lord and Maker. And you are looking for the building of another temple made with men’s hands – the ultimate rejection of the One who came to put an end to the inferior, sacrificial system and put an end, once for all, to sin.
You are right that most of those who say they are Jews, and are not, have cast themselves outside of Christ. They have rejected Jesus and the gospel, the ONLY Way, truth and life. You are wrong to believe that this is a ‘safe’ place to be, even part of God’s determined plan, and that God is going to give them some other, second chance apart from the gospel message that has been freely proclaimed, offering salvation to all men on exactly the same basis. All because you think it is about some temporal piece of dirt? Have you never heard that this earth, and all of its lands is going to melt away, to be replaced with that which is utterly new. There will be nor more ‘Isreal’ for the Jews to inherit and rule over. This is chasing a pipe dream, the same one which made Israel reject Jesus in the first place.
God’s true elect are not Gentiles. You keep equating Israel with THE CHURCH.
When i see that Paul got mercy DUE TO ignorance in UNBELIEF…
I’m not sure that you read that part of the bible or not, but it’s there.
Then I read that God will show mercy on those BLIND ignorant Jews, just like he did Paul, then I see the story of JOSEPH, that Joseph gave mercy to those brothers of his, and I see the blindness that God put in the Jews… then i see three physical Israel as elect, and THE CHURCH has nothing to do with it. The remnant of Jews that are believers just so happen to be elect, but THE CHURCH isn’t.
You keep telling me that God blinded the Jews DUE TO disobedience. But when I read Deuteronomy, that’s not what it states. That’s what you state, but UNTO THIS DAY means never, and since that is the case, obedience, disobedience, has no bearing whatsoever.
Peter was the apostle to the Jews.
One body, one this, one that, but Peter was assigned to a race of people different than Paul.
Again, what Phillip and I are discussing has nothing to do with salvation, but you two are equating it to salvation.
But, you should agree with me that in Calvinism, there is a difference between male and female. They definitely want women to know and understand that, preaching that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, but women, shut up and speak when spoken to… now do the dishes, and fold my clothes!! Lol.
Ed Chapman
Phillip wrote:
“Are you willing to go so far as to suggest that the “12 tribes” is a reference to the church?”
My response:
Are you willing to go so far as to suggest that the “12 tribes” is a reference to Non-Christians, who are not the church?
Phillip wrote:
“Neither is the church a race nor a nation (1 Peter 2:9).”
My response:
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’ ?
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it” (Mth. 21:42-43).
In v.22 above, Jesus has become the “chief cornerstone” of what? Therefore what kingdom in v.23? And to what “nation” was the kingdom being given to? To the Jews to the exclusion of the Gentiles? Did you know that Gentile Christians were referred to as – a nation in Romans 10?
“But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:
“I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation”(Romans 10:19).”
The conversion of the Gentiles was to provoke the Jews. If the Jews were a nation, so were Gentiles Christians a nation!
But more than that: Those O.T. passages had a greater fulfillment for all the nations, for both Jew and Gentile together in the kingdom of God. In Romans 9, Paul quotes the same passage as Peter quotes to include Jews and Gentiles together in Christ, as the beloved, “My people” :
“even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As He says also in Hosea:
“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
“And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
Therefore, the Jews, Israel according to the flesh, are not “My people” but rather, it is the church comprised of both Jew and Gentile who are the children of God, “My people.” The church is God’s holy people and kingdom of God on earth, not fleshly Israel.
TS00 wrote:
JANUARY 17, 2020 AT 2:40 PM
In regards to what is interpreted from 2 Thess, as relates to the “temple” TSOO and I would probably find some agreement. But, below is the ‘possibility’ discussion I find that can be among family as we look towards things so we may not be divided.
Below, things we all might have and might not have considered:( obviously some of my position will be revealed)
Gentiles in the flesh are obviously in focus as relates to suffering persecution and death as believers that Jesus is Lord in 1 and 2 Thess
Paul speaks of Christ return for “us”, so His final coming is in view, called the day of the Lord:
(His return/coming was NOT in 70ad- His Day will not be missed.)
2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.
( they did not and won’t miss it, and those who have suffered death under persecution will be resurrected to life with them and gathered:
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 English Standard Version (ESV)
15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[a] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
Also see, how Paul is giving them assurance about how they know this letter is really from him:17 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.)
(So,I consider it is a single prophecy fulfilled and possibly a double prophecy/or Paul believes ‘soon’ to be fulfilled: A Jewish norm in interpretation of OT scriptures is double prophesy)
3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs
( Jesus will not return until the rebellion occurs- 70 ad fulfilled= it occurred)
{ the small stage of the school master- the result of Jesus first coming to the lost sheep of Israel and the hour of their wrath/ the large stage the result of Jesus coming to the world and Babylon’s hour of wrath}
and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped,
( politic 1 the beast and the false prophet-70 ad/ politic 2 the beast and the false prophet)
so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
( Paul, per writing dated, announced this before the destruction of the temple of 70 ad-destroyed by the Empire Cult of Rome/ Paul taught at the present time of this letter God’s temple was the ‘corporate body of which Christ is Head’ assembled which is of true believers with unbelievers/false christian proclaimers among them-see JesusChrist revelation to the 7 assemblies)
Is another physical temple possible? I would put forward it is definitely not necesarry as the dispentional system would argue.
( this is my short argument to the physical temple in bring forward a reason it is possible rebuilding is not necessary in viewing the most immediate context set in the larger context of 2 Thess and then 1 and 2 Thess, according to 1 Corinthians 15, see also the trumpet )
Note: I am still able to scratch that 70ad was the fulfillment before Christ returns as 70 ad, yet imminent after the book of revelation is revealed to the assemblies as it is filled with a rebellion{which= abomination) counterfeit spirit and not awaiting a ‘secret coming rapture’ or a built jewish temple – the dispensationalist solves this by the gathering/rapture taking place before a temple is built, leaving a 7 year plan. the problem is the last trumpet and hear is a word/verse study of the last day:https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV%3BNIV&quicksearch=last+day&begin=47&end=73
PS: there are translation questions to verse 7 as to ” he is out ” instead to say “he becomes.” I am good either way but any greek translators among us who have ever looked into this according to the original reading to translation? I’ve been curious.
A question I have as I consider these things, but first to consider what this verse is saying in its most immediate context : 1 thess 2:16b: But wrath has come upon them at last!
—————————
1Thess 5:3 While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief.
The living and active word of God, who has prepared us ahead of time: see China, see beheadings and the political/religious bodies who have murdered christians just in this last year: 4 Therefore we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions that you are enduring.
5 This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— 6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven…
————————–
(Who else is stuck inside because of a snow storm?)
Joel,
The Church at Babylon…
My response to that.
Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. At one point, the Jews were captive in Babylon. From my research from a non-Christian Jewish website, more Jews stayed behind in Babylon than those who came back to Israel after their captivity, and we now have the Babylonian Talmud, a Jewish book, which was completed long after Peter’s epistles.
I started studying that out when I learned that the Catholics think that Peter was covering up his location by SECRET CODE, so to them, Babylon means ROME.
In any case, Peter was talking about Jews when he said, “The Church at Bablylon”.
Ed Chapman
Ed, I know that Jacob was given the name Israel. That is where the name came from. Yes Ekkesia/Church means assembly. It is used in the Greek LXX septuagint for the Congregation of the Lord i.e the people of Israel and is used for the NT people of God as well. There is continuity from one to the other, the difference being that the Church of the Lord that was his since the creation of the Angels as his congregation becomes the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Body of Christ, the fullness of him that filleth all in all at Pentecost. The Church with the plenitude of Divine grace was born in that sense at Pentecost but in another sense already existed. The ekklesia of the Lord was not created out of nothing at Pentecost as a parenthesis but was the eternal purpose, the hidden mystery from the beginning, She was the continuation and fulfillment of the congregation that had existed prior. Dispensationalist see only discontinuity when scripture is clear that the Church…the ekkesia of the Lord is one and continuous from the beginning to the end. This is how the Apostles interpreted the Old Testament scriptures e.g sermons in the book of Acts and the statements in the epistles. They applied them to current realities of the church e.g Amos 9 & Acts 15:1-18 and many others.
(holy kiss)As related to Ed and Joel on the “elect sister”:
Peter was ‘entrusted’ with the ministry to his jewish kinsmen and Paul to the gentiles. Today, now, believers are (still) entrusted.It has been passed down to ‘us.’ The 2 letter of Peter and Paul’s writing of Galatians clearly establish cross over ministry. (Let alone we know Pau’sl first went to the synagogs) According to history we know John would have been the last living Apostle, The Elder, to the sister churches at the time of 1,2,3 John. JesusChrist makes John’s ministry to the assemblies evident in Revelations, see 1-3, all 4 written after 70 AD
Joel established the position that ‘the elect lady’ and her ‘elect sister’ of 2 John are not in reference as an ‘individual female jewish women’ according to the break down of your position, scripture to support : It is an ‘elect assembling, being of God’s children.’
What is now in view is: are ‘the elect’ always Jewish people or are ‘the Elect’ God’s people, according to the context scripture reveals while we are in the setting of history.
———————
[ In Review: Towards clarity of a differing position, that would also stand to “De-calvinize” views of ‘elect’, but disagree in part with the theology Ed has put forward, of which I believe, Phillip, the article writer would agree with Ed, that all instances of scripture of the term”the elect” are in reference to only Jews people.
Ed said: “Elect Jews. There is no such thing as elect Gentiles.
SAVED Gentiles are saved but not elect.”
Agreed, there is no such thing as “elect Gentiles” and now, there is no spiritual assembly deemed by scripture that only “the elect” are Jewish, as the assembly of God’s people in history became a reconciled people, 1 nation of people God created as His kingdom of citizens, born(again) to be His citizen, his (elect/chosen) body, now His body to proclaim His mediation, which is left in the world (John 17) as the only people one with Him.
——————–
Clarity of another De-calvinizing position, but different from what Ed has put forward as to hold a De-calvinizing position also:
Through Abraham
There is an elect Jewish nation-fleshly descended- ”
There is an elect spiritual nation- the seed
The seed looking back comes through the assembly of ‘the son of God'{ who a male is partnered with a female to reproduce-sexual is gender}See the genealogy of Matthew and Luke. Proceeding forward through Christ, The Seed, are the assembly BUILT on “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.”
Romans 11:3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”[a]? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.
Romans 9: 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.
——
I might post this line of reasoning at a later time as it relates to the church as the elect/chosen bride, she as the only one to be resurrected to life, those assembled throughout all of history, to God’s glory, 4 humanity, He gives us His glory, for/to His Glory. ( the assembly/called out ones ) God willing, if I make it back to this thread. Gotta break from the computer, but wanted to further clarify perspective and angle in the position I believe can be better established according to scripture to “De-calvinize what God has revealed actually to have been determined for ‘the elect’- He promises a bride will be resurrected and made a wife.
God beat the Gnostic enemy who lied and counterfeited words in the garden. God won, beating the enemy at his own gnostic game. God accounted for the Spirit and the flesh, see the Mediator and His plan of Salvation, for those counted with the ability to believe, following the instruction, today revealed about why Job, Noah and Daniel will be resurrected to life with us at the last trumpet : 1 Corinthians 15
Be encouraged: as we share the good news of our “blessed hope” (holy kiss)
Very well said Tammy.
Above I asked dnjohn…. “Are you willing to go so far as to suggest that the ’12 tribes’ is a reference to the church?”
To which Aiden (not dnjohn) responded… “Are you willing to go so far as to suggest that the ’12 tribes’ is a reference to Non-Christians, who are not the church?
I do believe these are Jewish believers in Christ, but I don’t think much of what he wrote would be considered “church language”. It doesn’t seem to align with what Paul wrote to us (but that’s a different topic). However, the “12 tribes” is a reference strictly to the physical descendants of Jacob. So Jacob, like Peter and John, are writing to Jewish believers only. Not Gentiles.
I believe the audiences of James, Peter, and John (who were all commissioned to the Jews/Circumcision) are the faithful (believing) remnant that God prophesied about in the OT and that Paul reiterated to in Romans 9:25-29.
Regarding Hosea 1:10 (NKJV)….
“Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them (the House of Israel), ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them (the believing remnant from the House of Israel), ‘You are sons of the living God.’
The very next verse (which most overlook)…
Hosea 1:11 (NKJV)….
Then the children of Judah (the former Southern Kingdom) and the children of Israel (the former Northern Kingdom) shall be gathered together (reunited), and appoint for themselves one head; and they shall come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel!
Yes, the destruction of the nation of Israel (especially the House of Israel) was God’s plan to bring salvation to the Gentiles. We benefited from it. God’s purpose for Israel was going to be fulfilled with or without her cooperation. But our (Gentile) salvation came at a great price for the chosen people.
Romans 11:11 (NKJV)…
I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
This is why our Lord said… “for salvation is of (or from) the Jews.”
Romans 11:30 (NKJV)….
For as you (the Gentiles) were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their (unbelieving Israel’s) disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.
The only reason we (as Gentiles) have obtained mercy was thru their punishment. Gentile salvation came at Israel’s expense. And the only reason God showed us mercy, was so that He could, in return, show unbelieving Israel mercy.
I believe this is how Romans 9:24 should be interpreted.
It seems some here either fail to understand this or, worse, just don’t care.
I am gonna read the above post right now Philip, but I did start replying to the other as related to James:
The twelves tribes scattered are in the ‘elect body; Do we not serve the same Lord and God as “believers”, in the same body now? Are unbelieving Jews the members of this ‘elect body’?( Ephesians 5 : 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. )
James, focused on the ministry to the Jewish people, first to the church in Jerusalem.
Living and active scripture, now both OT and NT , it is passed down to us today. Are not the truths so indicated in the text true for us today, beyond those who received the letter?
Are we today not also: “12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.” ?
:Are we not one in the same assembly of called out ones, the assembly in which by grace we have been saved, through faith?
Who are not to be polluted by the world?
27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
2 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism.
Are we not born again the same way Nicodemus must be born again to “see the kingdom of God”:5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?
22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the SCRIPTURE was FULLFILLED that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend.
17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure;
then peace-loving,considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.18 Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.
4:4 You adulterous people { the twelve scattered tribes),[a] don’t you know that friendship with the world
means enmity against God?
Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world
becomes{***FYI becomes here in the greek is-appointed} an enemy of God.
5 Or do you think Scripture ( that first given to the twelve tribes) says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us[b]?
6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”
7 Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming.
( Those of us left in the world, for to whomever is to be the last generation, are still waiting for The (last/same) Coming, patiently. John 17)
===============
Acts 15
14 Simon[a] has described to us how
God first intervened
to choose a people for his name
from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. (Ephesians 1-3)
=================
Acts 21:17 When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly.18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 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 zealousfor the law. 21 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. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 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. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision
================
Galatians 2:8-10 English Standard Version (ESV)
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.
Tammy spears,
You had said:
“Do we not serve the same Lord and God as “believers”, in the same body now?”
My response:
Tammy, that has nothing to do with it at all.
Here is the deal. God blinded the Jews from the beginning, right? Did he, or did he not? You need to ascertain that question.
Did the Jews go thru a Holocaust or not? Does the world HATE the Jews or not? Including Christians that fake their love for them?
Does the physical land of Israel belong to Israel based on God, or the League of Nations? Is it really Palestine, or is it Israel?
Is there prophesy in the Hebrew scriptures that states that God will “gather” the Jews that he scattered in 70 AD in the latter days?
Is there prophesy in the Hebrew scriptures that states that the Norther Tribes will reunited with the Southern tribes in the latter days?
Why did Jesus say, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”?
What would have happened if he Jews had NEVER killed Jesus? What would the END RESULT have been?
All these questions have NOTHING to do with “believers”, or “serving the same God” or “Church”, or anything else that you guys come up with. It has to do with the Jews being chosen to go thru the HORRIBLE things that they have to go thru and THAT is what makes them ELECT.
Why did they go thru the Holocaust? Because of disobedience and rebellian? Seems like what some are implying is that the Jews DESERVED to be burnt alive in ovens, becasue they were disobedient and rebellious towards God, and then quote something like, FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE, if only they would come to Jesus, right? Otherwise, they get what they deserve, right?
Think about these things, as you ponder, and then maybe you will see the terrible things that God has them go thru, and THAT is why they are elect in the first place, and it has nothing to do with THE CHURCH at all.
Ed Chapman
Phillip wrote:
“And the only reason God showed us mercy, was so that He could, in return, show unbelieving Israel mercy.”
“I believe this is how Romans 9:24 should be interpreted.”
My response:
In Romans 9:24 Paul says:
“even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
And then Paul immediately interprets that verse in the following verses, with:
As He says also in Hosea:
“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
“And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.” (Rom. 9:25-26)
But concerning Israel, Isaiah also cries out:
“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.” (Rom. 9:27) I think we need to keep this verse in mind when interpreting Romans 11:26; especially if you want to “align with what Paul wrote to us,” and also with what the rest of scriptures teach!
Romans 9:25-29 (NKJV)….
As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them (the House of Israel) My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” “And it shall come to pass in the (exact same) place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they (the believing remnant of the House of Israel) shall be called sons of the living God.” Isaiah also cries out concerning (Gentiles? No, but…) Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.” And as Isaiah said before: “Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed (remnant), we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah.”
There is nothing Gentile about the above. However, Gentiles benefit from God’s dealings with Israel, and Paul explains how in chapter 11.
It is interesting that you would leave out the context of Romans 9:25-29 by not quoting what Paul had just said before that! All we need to do is go back two verses to see who Paul is applying this to.
Romans 9:23-26
and that He might make known the riches of His glory(means abundant glory) on the vessels of mercy ( those who accept Christ – pardoned), which He had prepared beforehand for glory (namely, those who would obey Christ) even us whom He called (God called them by the gospel), not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles (He has called both Jew and Gentile alike) As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
That this prophecy of Hosea has a double meaning can hardly be doubted because of Paul’s use of it here. When first spoken it applied to restored Israel; but God meant it to include His “mercy” toward the Gentiles as well. Paul’s use of the passage is the best evidence of what God intended by it. Paul cites the passage to show that God had long purposed that the Gentiles should also become His people. He says, “There they shall be called sons of the living God.” Meaning, there they shall actually be sons of God, and therefore shall be called so. Having showed from prophecy that the Gentiles were also to become the people of God through the gospel; Paul then says of Israel, (v.27), only a “remnant will be saved.”
What’s interesting here is that both Jew and Gentile were in the same boat. Each could and would be called and saved by the same mercy of God, thus becoming His people together, in Christ.
I believe he is only talking about gentiles of that time who got the gospel sooner because the Apostles shifted their attention to them because of the disbelief of the jews. That is how they were shown mercy through the disbelief of the contemporary jews. I do not believe it is somehow necessary now for jews to be blinded by God for gentiles to be saved. The notion of divinely initiated blindness for gentiles to be saved is ludicrous and not necessary for the interpretation of the relevant texts and unbecoming of God, actually.
dnjohn,
You had said:
” I do not believe it is somehow necessary now for jews to be blinded by God for gentiles to be saved”
My response:
REALLY? If they were NOT BLIND, then they would have recognized that Jesus was the Messiah, and if that were the case, the Gentiles would NOT HAVE BEEN A PEOPLE at all.
The ONLY REASON that we stand, is because of their fall. And you don’t think that matters?
Deuteronomy 29:4 King James Version (KJV)
Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
What does, “UNTO THIS DAY” imply?
How do you completely ignore that verse?
As well as:
Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
THROUGH THEIR FALL SALVATION IS COME UNTO THE GENTILES.
That one verse SINKS YOUR BOAT of “I do not believe it is somehow necessary for the Jews to be blinded by God for Gentiles to be saved.
And that implies that had the Jews NOT KILLED Jesus, but had recognized him as the Messiah, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE STOOD A CHANCE AT SALVATION at all.
Do you acknowledge this, or are you gonna continue in your belief still?
Ed Chapman
1 Thessolonians 2
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.
Acts 17:1-5 (NKJV)…..
Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews (these Jews were Thessalonians). Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas. But the Jews (living in Thessalonica) who were not persuaded, becoming envious, took some of the evil men from the marketplace, and gathering a mob, set all the city in an uproar and attacked the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
dnjohn,
You had said:
“1 Thessolonians 2
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.”
My response:
Just as Phillip is saying, TAKE IT BACK TO ACTS 17, and you will see that Paul is talking to the Jews ONLY. Verse 6 use of the word GENTILES should give you a clue, coupled with what is stated in verse 14 about SUFFERING THE SAME THINGS by UNBELIEVING JEWS, but obviously it doesn’t.
Gentiles DON’T CARE what other Gentiles believe regarding religion, so Gentiles are NOT GONNA SUFFER as a Jew would by defecting Judaism for a different religion, preaching that other Jew follow suit. Jews DON’T CARE what Gentiles believes, JUST AS LONG AS THE GENTILES STAY AWAY FROM PROSELYTISING THEM.
Therefore, you SHOULD see CLEARLY that 1 Thessalonians is to the Jews ONLY, and no one else.
And, how many Gentile believers were there in Judea?
Think, people, THINK.
Ed Chapman
If those gentiles are non Christians and enemies of God they do care. Non believing gentiles persecute us every day and slander us. It was no different then. Christian’s were persecuted by heathens and by jews. Because St Peter identified the church with the titles that were given to Israel in Exodus 19 theit detractors were called gentiles. It’s simple. The word used there could be translated heathens, pagans, unbelievers, nations, gentiles. It does not mean these were jewish people only. Jesus himself uses similar terminology in the book of revelation when he says outside of the new Jerusalem are the “dogs”. That was what the Jews called the surrounding heathen.
REVELATION 22
“See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes,[g] so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. 15 OUTSIDE ARE THE DOGS and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
[ DOES THIS MEAN ONLY ETHNIC JEWS ARE IN HEAVEN AND GENTILES/DOGS ARE OUTSIDE, OR DOES GOD USE OTHER CRITERIA TO MAKE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE …BETWEEN THOSE WHO ARE ELECT AND THOSE WHO ARW NOT? Even if the proper translation in the passage about the outsiders maligning them is “gentiles” (which I believe the sense of the passage is shown through the word pagan, or non believer); it still does not mean that the others are who are insiders are jews only, any more than Jesus’ statement means the ones in heaven are jews only]
16 “It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
17
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.”
And let everyone who hears say, “Come.”
And let everyone who is thirsty come.
Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift.”
In reply to your other comment about the blinding of the Jews. God could have found another way to redeem us by the blood of his son but he chose they way he did according to his foreknowledge. It does not mean he took innocent men and hardened them and blinded them to cause them to do the most wicked crime ever. The Apostles and our Lord himself does not tell the story that way. It should rather be explained in a scriptural way befitting the holiness of God.
Horrific persecutions were done by the Roman’s to the Christians in satanic hatred and because they would not call caesar Lord or offer incense to the roman idols, or dont participate in other immoralities etc.
The confession that Jesus is Lord was on the lips of Christian’s leading to their maltreatment or martyrdom.( Roman’s 10:9). This refusal to call caesar KURIOS infuriated people. KURIOS was the name for God in the Septuagint Greek Old Testament. That is why to say Jesus is Lord( Kurios) does not just mean he is sovereign or in charge. It means he is Divine with a capital D. The pagans used that title for the emperor.
The Roman Emperors were fierce persecutors of Christians regardless of nationality until the 300’s. Pagan gentiles absolutely persecuted Christians who were not of jewish descent. Everyone should study history of the Church. St Peter is speaking of heathens who are practicing pagans in a pagan world not benign gentiles.
dnjohn,
You had said:
Horrific persecutions were done by the Roman’s to the Christians in satanic hatred and because they would not call caesar Lord or offer incense to the roman idols, or dont participate in other immoralities etc.
My response:
Ya, ya, ya…we hear that all the time from cults all the time anyway. Blame it all on the Catholics…
The Bible states something totally and completely different, that the JEWS were the ones causing trouble to OTHER JEWS who wanted to convert OTHER 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…
This is NOT ABOUT ROME.
Ed Chapman
I am not talking about Roman catholics. I am talking about the pagan roman emperors and the pagan idolatrous society that fiercely persecuted Christians. Nero was a Beast of a man and so was Domitian and their successors. The Roman Empire covered virtually all of the civilized world so I am talking about what it was like for a Christian in the Roman Empire.
dnjohn,
Where is the word “pagan” in the bible?
I’m not talking about ROME…you are. I’m talking about the OLD Testament Jews vs. the NEW TEST Jews, having nothing to do with ROME.
Ed Chapman
It is in plenty of translations of the Bible. The KJV prefers gentiles or heathen to translate the greek word.
Heathen? How about the word Ethnos, as in ethnic.
Religion has nothing to do with it.
Ed Chapman
In this epistle, religion does have something to do with it as the text says.
1 Peter 4 ( CJB)
2 with the result that he lives the rest of his earthly life no longer controlled by human desires, but by God’s will. 3 For you have spent enough time already living the way the pagans want you to live — in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, wild parties and FORBIDDEN IDOL-WORSHIP. 4 They think it strange that you don’t plunge with them into the same flood of dissoluteness, and so they heap insults on you.
dnjohn,
You sure like bouncing around English versions.
Your 1 Peter 2:3 Greek word for Gentiles is…
ἔθνος éthnos, eth’-nos; probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
NOTE: The definition states, “NON-JEWISH”. But you will probably ignore that.
ETHNOS is the Greek word used, and it is defined as: A RACE. The words to the right of “RACE”, is nice to know stuff, but not the official definition.
Ed Chapman
I used a messianic jewish translation to show that jewish scholars know that the word “ethnos” is not purely racial in the book of 1st Peter. I did not bounce around translations except to show what your own definition showed i.e that there is a breadth of meaning to the Greek work ethnos depending on word usage and the descriptive context.
dnjohn,
Regardless, Gentiles are NOT discussing Jews. Nations is NOT discussing Jews, but…you want to make all of this a “For there is no difference” topic for some weird reason, when my discussion is OT Jews vs. NT Jews, because the OT Jews were the ones causing havoc to ANYONE discussing NT Jesus to them. The Gentiles had nothing to do with their internal conflict at all.
Ed Chapman
You were saying gentiles would not persecute other gentiles and it is simply not true. So the words in first Peter are in reference to non believers i.e the heathen..the pagans..the polytheists speaking evil of the believers in Christ there. Believers which are a union of Jews and gentiles in the one Church of God
1 Peter 2( complete Jewish Bible CJB)
… with the result that he lives the rest of his earthly life no longer controlled by human desires, but by God’s will. 3 For you have spent enough time already living the way the pagans want you to live — in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, wild parties and forbidden idol-worship. 4 They think it strange that you don’t plunge with them into the same flood of dissoluteness, and so they heap insults on you.
Phillip said:”So Jacob, like Peter and John, are writing to Jewish believers only. Not Gentiles.
It seems some here either fail to understand this or, worse, just don’t care.”
—————————————
No, at this point we simply disagree.
I see an assembly of called out ones moving in history as John writes to the people of God, which after 70 ad He is serving, being saved are Jewish and Gentile people to the Lord and King JesusChrist. Then we see JesusChrist revelation to John to the 7 lamp stands, of who Jesus brings attention to the present living church, calling martyred Antipas by name.
I care very much because my theology is The Revelation of Jesus Christ is the active and living word of God as it was spoken to the present assemblies of John’s day, is for those present today and for the final generation. The letter went out to the common believers in the church who Jesus Christ delivered to John that it might be understood for both their encouragement and rebuke and call to repent. (the 7 letters to the church show that the fulfillment will conclude in His return, yet it really was to the end of the 1st church)
I care very much that a generation of individuals meeting in assemblies is prepared to stand firm on the testimony of Jesus because they really believe the truth of the good news, Jesus their first love. I see Him knocking on the church door.
We do not escape tribulations and we do not make this world a better place. God has power over our effects in the world and has called us to effect/affect a neighbor with His eternal message 1 person at a time, the believers aroma to man is one of life or death as we share the good news. We preach the good news in Glory to God , for our neighbor either way. Paul didn’t ask permission, he made the most of an opportunity , see Acts 17. Sin and death remain the enemy until our Lord returns. No one is guaranteed tomorrow in this world before God intervenes and brings about the fulfillment of His already won victory, and our blessed hope. 1 Corinthians 15
This is not our home.
On the other end of teachings such as NT Wright/ Doug Wilson and Apoligia Church Federalists/ Univesalist/ Emergents-Progressives/Kingdom Now ( another words all versions of dominionist of soft or hard as we protect humans rights according to ‘law’ and/or we make this world a better place before Christ return, which results in using ‘the politic’) My answer is Daniel 2, 1 and 2 Thess and the Book of Revelation (written after 70 ad) are not pointless books.
It is Jesus who said:” The flesh COUNTS for nothing.” People who’s spirits are not raised to life are not resurrected to life, and the sooner they come to Christ, the sooner a person may share in working the field of harvest with us, or see more of the battle Ephesians 6:10-21.
YOU, Phillipp, now ARE one in the 2 witnesses- for those who believe:
4 They are “the two olive trees” and “the two lampstands”, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.”[a] 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.
7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days the breath[b] of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.
13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
I care very much that John, according to the Holy Spirit, is for us an example of ministry to a persecuted assembly of reconciled people who love one another, standing firm as one people.
According to Daniel 2, it never gets better for the people, which is the key to the rest of Daniel. In Daniel 3 and 6, we can see the Law was written to entrap the servants of God. In type and shadow we see Jesus in Daniel 6 and we see us, and we can see us at the second coming, as we can see a history of example, before us, shadow and type:
Roman 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:
“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”[j]
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
I care very much that each generation of believers should be passing down the truth for those who love the appearing of Jesus Christ, to be encouraged that God prepares us ahead of time that many will be like Jesus and Daniel and Noah and Job and the prophets and the Apostles in this world, laying down our life for a friend in a place like China, or Nigera, or India or Iran or the USA.
Romans 11:30-32 English Standard Version (ESV)
30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but NOW have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have NOW been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may NOW receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
I care very much that we should be passing down,For Example, the things we are ‘elected’ unto, because we really believe the promises of God, for those who love the truth, now.
“the end of the 1st church”: I meant the letters really being sent were really of course spoken first directly to the 1st century churches ( end indicating around the end of the 1st century being 100 ad ) though also for the last generation of churches.
In case someone doesn’t gather I missed typing the word century and ‘es’ on church.
Tammy,
Speaking of church-es…
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.
The churches of Gentiles.
What is the opposite of Gentiles here? Does this also imply churches of the Jews, too? Or do we serve the same God, ONE body, ONE this, and for there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, in that we are all one church.
And yet, we have “churches” of the Gentiles,meaning, that we have “churches” of the Jews, too. Right?
Ed Chapman
Ed, Doesn’t gentiles mean also “nations”? Churches of the “nations” just means assemblies located outside judea among the nations. There is the church in Judea in Christ…and those outside judea. Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Acts 9:31. ESV
So the church ( gr. EKKLESIA) throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.
Roman’s 16:4 Youngs Literal Translation
who for my life their own neck did lay down, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the assemblies of the nations
there is no theological significance in saying assemblies of the nations because he is the apostle to the nations. The same word for nation in hebrew “goy” or goyim ( plural) often translated gentiles is used of the seed of israel itself in the hebrew text of Jeremiah. See the article about this below.
http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/articles/itemlist/category/384-the-israel-of-god
“Here is the clearest passage on the perpetuity of Israel’s nationhood: “If those ordinances [sun, moon and stars, etc] depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus saith the LORD: if heaven above can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD” (Jer 31:36-37).
That seems clear: the state of Israel, as a political entity, is under the eternal blessing of God, and will always be a nation. But we should notice a few things.
First, what does the text mean by nation? The Hebrew word is goy, the plural of which, goyim, means the Gentiles. A nation would appear to be a distinct people with a head, or a people with a king.
Second, how did God keep this promise in a way to satisfy the most literalistic premillennial dispensationalist? Israel only became a nation at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19. God declared Israel to be a peculiar treasure (Hebrew: segulah; Greek: laos periousios) and a kingdom of priests and an holy nation (Hebrew: goy qadosh; Greek: ethnos hagion) (vv. 5-6). Was Israel a nation when the 10 tribes were carried away into captivity; was Israel a nation when the remaining 2 tribes were carried into Babylon for 70 years; was Israel a nation when she existed as a plaything for the nations from the return to the time of the Roman empire, and when no Davidic king ever sat on the earthly throne in Jerusalem again; was Israel a nation when she was destroyed in AD 70; and was Israel a nation from AD 70 to AD 1948/1967; and is Israel today a nation?
Third, the promise of Jeremiah 31:36-37 is made explicitly to the seed of Israel, and not to the corporate entity known as Israel. The seed of Israel includes all those, whether ethnic Jew or ethnic Gentile, who believe in Jesus Christ, and excludes all ethnic Jews (and all ethnic Gentiles) who reject Jesus Christ. Since the Jews who returned to Israel in AD 1948 were unbelievers, Jeremiah 31 has nothing to do with them.
But what of the nationhood of Israel? In which people is this promise fulfilled if not in the unbelieving Jewish state in the Middle East? And is there a king to sit on David’s throne? The New Testament tells us that Jesus is the son or seed of David and that He sits on David’s throne: “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32-33). Premillennial Dispensationalists are fond of asserting that this prophecy will be fulfilled in a future millennial reign. First, 1.000 years is not forever, and Luke 1 demands that Jesus rule forever over the house of Jacob. And, second, Acts 2 teaches that Jesus is already sitting on the throne of David in heaven (vv. 30, 33-36). “
dnjohn,
I’ll be quite busy today, so I won’t have much of a chance to interact today, but…
I’ll tell ya what, change the words in your bible “Jew” to person, and the word “Gentile” to person, and the word “circumcised” to person, and the word “uncicrumcised” to person”, so that “THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERSON AND PERSON is CLEARLY understood.
But don’t forget, the Calvinists make a POINT to dictate to women that there is indeed a difference between male and female…am I right about that? Well, they are in for a HUGE surprise, KNOWING that we are the BRIDE of Christ, and this ain’t no transvestite thing, either. Those men preaching that there is a difference between man and woman are the BRIDE, meaning, WOMAN.
Just a little comedy…be sure to tip your waitresses, I’ll be here all week! (oops, some religious folks are not supposed to know what that means…as it involves fermented grape juice!) LOL.
You had said:
“Ed, Doesn’t gentiles mean also “nations”? Churches of the “nations” just means assemblies located outside judea among the nations. There is the church in Judea in Christ…and those outside judea. Acts 1:8”
My response:
Here is what it does NOT mean: Churches of the Jews. We all know that, so I don’t know why you keep reverting to THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE stuff.
Location has nothing to do with it. Location only matters regarding when negotiating orders for transfer in the military. LOL.
Not only that, in Acts 1:8, there were NO GENTILES as Christians yet.
Peter had NO CLUE that the Gentiles would be allowed in UNTIL…
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.
That was Acts 10. Long after Acts 1. So…NO GENTILES, or NATIONS as you call them.
Acts 2:5
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Is the above word, “nation”, GENTILES?
*********************DING DIING DING*********************
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.
Who is “they” in the above?
Acts 13:5
And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.
NOTE: THE ABOVE VERSE TALKS ABOUT “JOHN”
Ed Chapman
In Acts 17:4 it says a great multitude of Greeks joined with Paul and Silas too so the church at thesaolonica was mixed and not jewish only as you insist. A great many or a great multitude of Greeks as the KJV says joined the Apostle Paul and Silas. To say that only Jews were in the church at thessolonica is erroneous. It mentions their conversion to God from idols…something not applicable to 1st century jews . Therefore all of the believers are spoken of as Elect and not only the Jews among them.
“Some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.” Acts 17:4
The point of acts 17 was about the Jews in Thessalonica, not about the Gentiles.
The Jews caused a ton of problems there for the believing Jews.
Why do you insist on making this about Gentiles?
Gentiles didn’t cause problems, the Jews did, not to Gentiles, but towards Jews.
Then take THAT back to three epistles of 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
My goodness, man. I can’t understand your resistance here.
Christians today are the worst kind of anti Semites of them all, and we see them here today among us.
Ed Chapman
Not being a Zionist does not equal anti semitism. That is an ad hominem argument. I am just expressing what is in the text….a great multitude of Greeks joined the Apostle Paul. It refutes your jewish only argument concerning the church at Thessolonica. Thus all israel is elect…the jewish remnant and the gentiles grafted in.
It sure does in my book
dnjohn,
So, you are basing your conclusions on 1 Thess on the word “idols”?
Hosea 3:1
Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.
Jeremiah 1:16
And I will utter my judgments against them touching all their wickedness, who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, and worshipped the works of their own hands.
Jeremiah 7:18
The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
Jeremiah 11:10
They are turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, which refused to hear my words; and they went after other gods to serve them: the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers.
Jeremiah 13:10
This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
And that’s just in the book of Jeremiah and Hosea.
Are you saying that they’ve NEVER HAD A HISTORY OF WORSHIPING IDOLS before?
Do another word search for idols.
Ed Chapman
These jews came likely from the synagogue as the text indicates in Acts 17. Not a likely place to find al ot of idolators.
dnjohn,
Wow, this stuff you provided is like studying a cult. I KNOW why we have Antisemitism from Christians, and it’s sick. They will deny it, but it’s obvious. They’ve written off the Jews. I once spoke to an Orthodox Jew online, and he speaks of Christians performing GENOCIDE against the Jews by attempting to DRAW Orthodox Jews to a DIFFERENT religion, called CHISTIANITY.
Empathy is certainly lacking here. Lack of UNDERSTANDING the bible, too. Putting a spin on it, telling people, “that they Jews are NOT BLIND to begin with, and if they are, it’s their own fault.”
You had said:
“Third, the promise of Jeremiah 31:36-37 is made explicitly to the seed of Israel, and not to the corporate entity known as Israel. The seed of Israel includes all those, whether ethnic Jew or ethnic Gentile, who believe in Jesus Christ, and excludes all ethnic Jews (and all ethnic Gentiles) who reject Jesus Christ. Since the Jews who returned to Israel in AD 1948 were unbelievers, Jeremiah 31 has nothing to do with them. ”
Why do you people use the word, “corporate” so much?
The SEED of JACOB (Israel) CERTAINLY IS JEW ONLY, and NOT to be spiritualized as, “THE CHURCH” AT ALL. Why you people do that is erroneous.
The Jews REJECT Jesus Christ for a REASON, and you just can’t get what that reason is. You refuse to acknowledege their blindness that God placed on them from the very beginning so that they can’t accept Jesus Christ, and it has nothing to do with obedience, or disobedience, either. But you just can’t accept that.
Romans 11state that THOSE UNBELIEVING JEWS will get MERCY.
Tell me, HOW IS PAUL ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE AVERAGE EVERYDAY NON-BELEIVING JEW?
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.
That was Paul discussing himself. NOTE THE WORDS:
1. IGNORANTLY
2. UNBELIEF
3. MERCY
Paul had to be DIRECTLY CONFRONTED with Jesus Christ. Do you think that he came up with being a believer ON HIS OWN?
Sounds like Calvinism, doesn’t it? This is why I always say that the Calvinits take what was meant for the Jews only, and apply it to themselves.
Here is what God promised Abraham, and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JEWS BEING OBEDIENT, except for CIRCUMCISION, which is why it was BROUGHT INTO THE LAW OF MOSES.
Promised Land
Genesis 12:5-7
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him.
Genesis 13:14-18
14 And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.
Genesis 15:7,18
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
*********COVENANT FOR THE PROMISED LAND
18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Genesis 17:7-
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
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.
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
—————————————————-
The UNBELIEVING JEWS GET THAT LAND, and it has nothing to do with the Jews, it has everything to do with the promise that God made ABRAHAM.
God did not inform Abraham of any stipulatons regarding their conduct at all.
https://www.jewishvoice.org/learn/restored-israel-and-jewish-jerusalem
A Restored Israel and Jewish Jerusalem
We affirm that the re-establishment of Israel and Jerusalem returning to Jewish sovereignty is key in our understanding of the times and seasons in which we are living. According to the Bible, at the End of Days, Yeshua returns to Jerusalem. Specific prophecies about Israel and Jerusalem have been fulfilled in modern times:
Israel reborn in a Day: Isaiah asked, “Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment?” (Isaiah 66:8). After nearly two millennia and a succession of foreign rulers, on May 14, 1948, David Ben Gurion declared the restoration of the Jewish State, Israel.
Jerusalem Restored to the Jews: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24 TLV). Signs of this prophetic fulfillment have begun rapidly falling into place since the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
The Desert Will Bloom: The prophet Isaiah foretold a time when “the desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom” (Isaiah 35:1). In her short time of existence as a modern State, Israel is known for its abundant flowers and produce. Desert lands have become fertile farms.
The Hebrew Language Revived: According to the prophet Zephaniah, God would restore to the peoples a pure language (Zephaniah 3:9). In the late 1800s, Russian immigrant to Israel, Eliezer Ben-Yehudah, revived the ancient Hebrew language, giving the returning exiles of Israel a common language.
———————————————-
https://www.jewishvoice.org/learn/gospel-proclaimed-nations
The Second Return is from All Nations
This second return was to be from every nation where they had been dispersed (Jeremiah 16:14–15; 23:3, 7–8; 29:14; 31:7–8), not just Babylon. Over the past 120 years or so, more than 3.5 million Jews have immigrated to the Land of Israel from all over the world—from the north, south, east, and west—in literal fulfillment of God’s promises (Isaiah 43:5–6).
A Banner to the Nations
The regathering of the Jewish people to their land is depicted as God’s banner to the nations (Isaiah 11:12). A banner was often a rallying point in military operations, and was carried to lead a formation, but often bore the name or image of that army’s God. Using this symbolism, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah considered the ingathering as a proclamation of God’s name and His character to the nations (Ezekiel 28:25).
The Return is not Based on Merit
The Mosaic Covenant was clear that living in the Land of Israel was a benefit of walking in obedience with God, and that even after exile, repentance would lead to Israel’s return. However, the Hebrew prophets spoke of a day when God would sovereignly gather His children back to the Land, not because of anything they had done, but to be a witness to the gentiles and to vindicate His name. The timing was up to Him (Psalm 102:13); He would do it (Jeremiah 23:3), and He would even use the gentiles to make it happen (Isaiah 49:22–26; 60:8–12).
God vindicates His name because it has been profaned before the nations through the disobedience and exile of His people (Ezekiel 36:22). He will demonstrate His holiness (Ezekiel 36:22–23) and His faithfulness, whether His children are deserving or not. It reflects His love and mercy toward them (Isaiah 60:8–10), as well as toward the world He plans to redeem and fill with His truth and glory for eternity (Psalm 102:16–22).
This Great Act of God Leads to Revival
The ingathering of the Jewish people in modern times holds great promise for Israel and for the world, as it heralds the soon coming of the Messianic kingdom. While it is a physical return with many logistical and practical aspects, it is a sacred thing because it is building a platform for the coming of the kingdom of God, when the glory of the Lord appears (Psalm 102:15–16) and He tabernacles with man (Ezekiel 37:26–27: Revelation 21:3).
That the gentiles are called to assist in this process is an amazing and holy thing. Isaiah 66:20 describes the act of gentiles bringing His people home—the people He loves and will use to bless the whole earth—as so sacred it is likened to “bringing an offering to the Lord.” What a wonderful image depicting the biblical significance of the return of the Jews to their homeland.
Ed Chapman
Ah, so perhaps you didn’t dream up all your beliefs on your own, just you and your bible. 😉 What you call antisemitism is simply the belief by many that there is no legitimate distinguishing of men by race – Jewish or any other. Much of the suffering the Jews have endured through the ages – and no one is denying its reality – has been due to the stubborn insistence of their rabbis that they remain separate and not intermix with the nations and peoples of the world.
I am not racist. I think it is absurd for people to put any weight whatsoever in their genetic heritage. The way I see it, we all came from the same original parents; we are all brothers. Of my 7 siblings, 4 married individuals of another ethnicity. My Chinese brother-in-law does not deny his heritage, but when he came to America he did not insist upon living, worshiping, etc. with only Chinese. The same is true of my Italian, Polish and Spanish in-laws. They love their families, and sometimes visit overseas relatives, but they do not keep separate from others based on ethnicity.
This is true of pretty much any ethnic group that migrates to other lands, with the exception, in large part, of the Jews. And why is that so? Because of the Zionist story, the ages old claim that they are unique, special, God’s chosen people who, no matter what they have done, or might do, are going to receive unique honor and blessing from God. As if God is partial. As if everything in history centers on one so-called race of men, who all others are to bow to. Talk about setting people up to become targets for resentment and abuse! It is ridiculous.
Which is why, in fact, Jews have often ignored their religious leaders’ commands to remain separate from all other people, and this is on the rise. One of my (non-Jewish) good friend’s daughters is soon to marry a Jewish young man from a prominent northeast family. He does not live for the day when he supposedly gets a piece of land that he has never seen and has no interest in. Some have long suggested that antisemitism has been deliberately stirred up by Zionists themselves, in order to provide uninterested Jews an incentive to move to Israel. This would be very difficult to prove or disprove.
The real kicker is that many who have most actively pursued political Zionism over the years have no religious beliefs to legitimize their actions. They don’t believe in or serve the God that Zionism asserts has chosen them. They simply use this story as a tool to justify their political, ideological and imperialistic pursuits. Individual Jews and families have been used as pawns in some very dangerous and destructive agendas, which has long made them targets for distrust and resentment. This grieves me, as all manipulation and abuse does.
It should not be a shocking possibility that Satan might be using this whole scheme to deceive and destroy, as per his usual MO. In this exact same way he seduces many into Calvinism and all of the other ‘isms’ of this world. It is inaccurate and unjust to denounce all who reject Zionism as anti-Semites; particularly as a growing number of Jews also reject the legitimacy of Zionism. It is my rejection of racism, along with the claim that God is racist, that leads me to deny Zionism’s legitimacy, not a dislike of Jews.
Thanks to all who have provided thoughtful and helpful input to this discussion. I leave you to pursue it as you see fit, as continuing in this vein does not appear to me to be a good use of my time.
Excellent points TSOO.
Seems like many are intent on rebuilding those old walls of separation and enmities in the name of Christ. And they call us racist?
dnjohn,
This sinks your boat again:
Promised Land
Genesis 12:5-7
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him.
Genesis 13:14-18
14 And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.
Genesis 15:7,18
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
*********COVENANT FOR THE PROMISED LAND
18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Genesis 17:7-
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
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.
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
————————————————
Additional info:
The Second Return is from All Nations
This second return was to be from every nation where they had been dispersed (Jeremiah 16:14–15; 23:3, 7–8; 29:14; 31:7–8), not just Babylon. Over the past 120 years or so, more than 3.5 million Jews have immigrated to the Land of Israel from all over the world—from the north, south, east, and west—in literal fulfillment of God’s promises (Isaiah 43:5–6).
A Banner to the Nations
The regathering of the Jewish people to their land is depicted as God’s banner to the nations (Isaiah 11:12). A banner was often a rallying point in military operations, and was carried to lead a formation, but often bore the name or image of that army’s God. Using this symbolism, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah considered the ingathering as a proclamation of God’s name and His character to the nations (Ezekiel 28:25).
The Return is not Based on Merit
The Mosaic Covenant was clear that living in the Land of Israel was a benefit of walking in obedience with God, and that even after exile, repentance would lead to Israel’s return. However, the Hebrew prophets spoke of a day when God would sovereignly gather His children back to the Land, not because of anything they had done, but to be a witness to the gentiles and to vindicate His name. The timing was up to Him (Psalm 102:13); He would do it (Jeremiah 23:3), and He would even use the gentiles to make it happen (Isaiah 49:22–26; 60:8–12).
God vindicates His name because it has been profaned before the nations through the disobedience and exile of His people (Ezekiel 36:22). He will demonstrate His holiness (Ezekiel 36:22–23) and His faithfulness, whether His children are deserving or not. It reflects His love and mercy toward them (Isaiah 60:8–10), as well as toward the world He plans to redeem and fill with His truth and glory for eternity (Psalm 102:16–22).
This Great Act of God Leads to Revival
The ingathering of the Jewish people in modern times holds great promise for Israel and for the world, as it heralds the soon coming of the Messianic kingdom. While it is a physical return with many logistical and practical aspects, it is a sacred thing because it is building a platform for the coming of the kingdom of God, when the glory of the Lord appears (Psalm 102:15–16) and He tabernacles with man (Ezekiel 37:26–27: Revelation 21:3).
That the gentiles are called to assist in this process is an amazing and holy thing. Isaiah 66:20 describes the act of gentiles bringing His people home—the people He loves and will use to bless the whole earth—as so sacred it is likened to “bringing an offering to the Lord.” What a wonderful image depicting the biblical significance of the return of the Jews to their homeland.
Ed Chapman
test…my last 2 commenst not posting. Try again:
I’ll split them in case too long:
dnjohn,
Promised Land
Genesis 12:5-7
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him.
Genesis 13:14-18
14 And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
16 And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
17 Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
18 Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.
Genesis 15:7,18
7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
*********COVENANT FOR THE PROMISED LAND
18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Genesis 17:7-
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
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.
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
dnjohn
The Second Return is from All Nations
This second return was to be from every nation where they had been dispersed (Jeremiah 16:14–15; 23:3, 7–8; 29:14; 31:7–8), not just Babylon. Over the past 120 years or so, more than 3.5 million Jews have immigrated to the Land of Israel from all over the world—from the north, south, east, and west—in literal fulfillment of God’s promises (Isaiah 43:5–6).
A Banner to the Nations
The regathering of the Jewish people to their land is depicted as God’s banner to the nations (Isaiah 11:12). A banner was often a rallying point in military operations, and was carried to lead a formation, but often bore the name or image of that army’s God. Using this symbolism, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah considered the ingathering as a proclamation of God’s name and His character to the nations (Ezekiel 28:25).
The Return is not Based on Merit
The Mosaic Covenant was clear that living in the Land of Israel was a benefit of walking in obedience with God, and that even after exile, repentance would lead to Israel’s return. However, the Hebrew prophets spoke of a day when God would sovereignly gather His children back to the Land, not because of anything they had done, but to be a witness to the gentiles and to vindicate His name. The timing was up to Him (Psalm 102:13); He would do it (Jeremiah 23:3), and He would even use the gentiles to make it happen (Isaiah 49:22–26; 60:8–12).
God vindicates His name because it has been profaned before the nations through the disobedience and exile of His people (Ezekiel 36:22). He will demonstrate His holiness (Ezekiel 36:22–23) and His faithfulness, whether His children are deserving or not. It reflects His love and mercy toward them (Isaiah 60:8–10), as well as toward the world He plans to redeem and fill with His truth and glory for eternity (Psalm 102:16–22).
This Great Act of God Leads to Revival
The ingathering of the Jewish people in modern times holds great promise for Israel and for the world, as it heralds the soon coming of the Messianic kingdom. While it is a physical return with many logistical and practical aspects, it is a sacred thing because it is building a platform for the coming of the kingdom of God, when the glory of the Lord appears (Psalm 102:15–16) and He tabernacles with man (Ezekiel 37:26–27: Revelation 21:3).
That the gentiles are called to assist in this process is an amazing and holy thing. Isaiah 66:20 describes the act of gentiles bringing His people home—the people He loves and will use to bless the whole earth—as so sacred it is likened to “bringing an offering to the Lord.” What a wonderful image depicting the biblical significance of the return of the Jews to their homeland.
dnjohn,
Jews Return is from All Nations
This return was to be from every nation where they had been dispersed (Jeremiah 16:14–15; 23:3, 7–8; 29:14; 31:7–8), not just Babylon. Over the past 120 years or so, more than 3.5 million Jews have immigrated to the Land of Israel from all over the world—from the north, south, east, and west—in literal fulfillment of God’s promises (Isaiah 43:5–6).
A Banner to the Nations
The regathering of the Jewish people to their land is depicted as God’s banner to the nations (Isaiah 11:12). A banner was often a rallying point in military operations, and was carried to lead a formation, but often bore the name or image of that army’s God. Using this symbolism, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah considered the ingathering as a proclamation of God’s name and His character to the nations (Ezekiel 28:25).
The Return is not Based on Merit
The Mosaic Covenant was clear that living in the Land of Israel was a benefit of walking in obedience with God, and that even after exile, repentance would lead to Israel’s return. However, the Hebrew prophets spoke of a day when God would sovereignly gather His children back to the Land, not because of anything they had done, but to be a witness to the gentiles and to vindicate His name. The timing was up to Him (Psalm 102:13); He would do it (Jeremiah 23:3), and He would even use the gentiles to make it happen (Isaiah 49:22–26; 60:8–12).
God vindicates His name because it has been profaned before the nations through the disobedience and exile of His people (Ezekiel 36:22). He will demonstrate His holiness (Ezekiel 36:22–23) and His faithfulness, whether His children are deserving or not. It reflects His love and mercy toward them (Isaiah 60:8–10), as well as toward the world He plans to redeem and fill with His truth and glory for eternity (Psalm 102:16–22).
This Great Act of God Leads to Revival
The ingathering of the Jewish people in modern times holds great promise for Israel and for the world, as it heralds the soon coming of the Messianic kingdom. While it is a physical return with many logistical and practical aspects, it is a sacred thing because it is building a platform for the coming of the kingdom of God, when the glory of the Lord appears (Psalm 102:15–16) and He tabernacles with man (Ezekiel 37:26–27: Revelation 21:3).
That the gentiles are called to assist in this process is an amazing and holy thing. Isaiah 66:20 describes the act of gentiles bringing His people home—the people He loves and will use to bless the whole earth—as so sacred it is likened to “bringing an offering to the Lord.” What a wonderful image depicting the biblical significance of the return of the Jews to their homeland.
Ed Chapman
Romans 16
Phoebe, sister and deacon.
Prisca and Quila are jewish in the flesh and obviously ministering to gentiles in the flesh, too.
https://biblehub.com/text/romans/16-4.htm
3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well.
Epaenetus
6Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. 7Greet Andronicus and Junia,c my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners.
8Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord.
9Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. 10Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ.
Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus.
11Greet my kinsman Herodion.
Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus.
12Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa.
Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord.
13Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.
14Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brotherse who are with them.
15Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.
16Greet one another with a holy kiss.
All the churches of Christ greet you.
20The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
21Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen.
22I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.
23Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you.
{ 3 John}
Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.
25Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
—-
Romans 16:17I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,f and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
————-
Romans 15 (Romans, which is a letter to the Gentiles and the Jewish in Rome)
25At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. 26For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. 27For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings. 28When therefore I have completed this and have delivered to them what has been collected,b I will leave for Spain by way of you. 29I know that when I come to you I will come in the fullness of the blessingc of Christ.
30I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, 31that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints, 32so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company. 33May the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
—————————————————————————————————————
?
Ed, ( and Phillip)what is your point about the members of one body at multiple locations? Do you believe that every assembly was either jewish in the flesh or gentile in the flesh so as to say that 2John, for example, must be a gathering of only jewish believers because your position is only Jewish people are ‘the elect’?
As Paul points out in Ephesians 2: “that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two”
—————————————————————————————————————
Ephesians 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace,
who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances,
that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
21 in whom the whole structure,
being joined together,
grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by[e] the Spirit.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Rev1:
19 Write therefore the things that you have seen,
those that are
and those that are to take place after this.
20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand,
and the seven golden lampstands,
the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches,
and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
?
Ed,( and Phillip) in these 7 churches, was everyone one of them a gathering where Jesus Christ was only speaking to Jews in the flesh , John being told to write? Or was it strictly they had to be either a gathering of gentiles in the flesh or jewish in the flesh? Was any one of the 7 churches a gathering of people that contained jewish and gentile people in them?
—————————————————————————————————————————-
1The revelation of Jesus Christ,
which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.
He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ,
even to all that he saw.
Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy,
and blessed are those who hear,
and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia:
The below are not my words, but just thought I would share. Sorry for the length, but I hope it is a blessing to all.
Why Did God Choose Israel?
The very idea that God could choose the people of Israel over all the others offends sensibilities and can be hard to swallow. Both Jew and Gentile alike have been known to puzzle at this apparent favoritism. How are we to believe that God is just and loves everyone, but at the same time “sets His affection” on one people group in particular? And how are we supposed to align ourselves with this way of thinking?
For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 7:6-8)
This theme of His passionate love for His people is repeated throughout the whole Bible – sometimes with conditions such as following the law, and sometimes in spite of their breaking all the conditions. He refers to Israel as His “special treasure” (סגולה) and the “apple of his eye” (בבת עיניו) among other tender and affectionate designations. His anger and fury is aroused if they are hurt, and their unfaithfulness pains Him like no other.
And this is not even thrown out of the window on the safe arrival of Yeshua the Messiah. He states that He was sent to “the lost sheep of Israel”, and Paul says the gospel should go first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. We see God’s distinct choice of Israel right to the end of Revelation, because His calling and gifts are irrevocable (Romans 11:28-29).
How are we to align ourselves with this passion of God’s heart, when it seems contrary to our sense of justice and fair play? Indeed, contrary to God’s revealed heart for every nation, and His declared lack of favoritism? (“I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism”, declared Peter in Acts 10:34).
Lord, Couldn’t You Choose Someone Else?
We often think of God’s choice of Israel as an honor and privilege, but it also carries a heavy responsibility. More than one Jewish person has verbally wished that the choice had landed on another people group instead. God warns Israel,
“You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.” (Amos 3:1-2)
God calls Israel to a higher standard, precisely because of His unique revelation and choice of them. Just as a judge might “make an example” out of a criminal, Israel serves as an example and a lesson to the world. The curses and punishments in Deuteronomy promised to Israel if they fail are eye-watering in their severity and extremity.
Psalm 147 declares: “He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation.”
God wanted us all to have access to the scriptures – the “oracles of God’ as Paul calls them – the precious words of God to the world. He also wanted to bring His Messiah into the world through a people group. Through humanity itself. A personal delivery. The Jewish people are trustees, guardians and messengers of these gifts to the world.
Israel may be the nation that was chosen, but they have been chosen for a reason. The reason is not merited by themselves, but God’s reason is to bless all the nations on the earth.
God wanted a ‘flagship’ nation that was an example to the world – not of how they behave, but of how He behaves.
We can learn by observing the twists and turns of the love story between God and Israel what kind of character it is that we are following. We can see His faithfulness. We can see His standards. We can see His compassionate love and mercy, as well as His jealousy and wrath when He is rejected for other lovers.
The Bible cannot be understood without appreciating the place of Israel in His grand scheme – from beginning to end. Indeed, looking through the lens of His dealings with Israel is like a key that unlocks the scriptures.
However, a cursory glance backwards through history shows how time and time again, while the people of Israel may be the object of God’s undying affection, they are also targeted for special hatred – the unquenchable, Satanic drive to annihilate them continues throughout the generations. It is enough to make anyone envious of the chosen people retreat from that position with gratitude.
Appreciating Diversity
Part of our problem is that we have bought the lie that uniformity is good.
Paul writes to the Galatians that there is no longer “Jew nor Greek” (3:28), but then he also says there is no “male nor female”, so we understand that he does not mean those identities vanish when we come to faith, but rather that we are all equally valuable in God’s sight. Our identity in the flesh does not give us preferential treatment or diminish our status before God. Clearly, we remain either male or female, and our gender is part of who God created us to be – these differences are roles, and functions in God’s created order which we can either respect or ignore. As time goes by, in the drive for equality, the human race is confusing difference with value and denying the differences that God has put in place, thinking that if we are different than one must be better than the other. This is a mistake. The fact that we can be different but equally precious is a truth that the enemy is trying to hide.
We see this strategy insidiously contaminating many areas of life – we must be the same – we must have the same – we must look the same. This is not the will, nor is it the purpose or the desire of God. We just have to consider the flora and fauna around us to see how God takes great delight in variety working in harmony together, and then compare that with Communist apartment blocks that drown out any hint of individuality with a monotonous, monochrome drone.
God’s creation of each individual is unique, and His plans for us are also tailor-made. We often fall into the trap of thinking “But everyone else…” and believing that we are therefore rightfully due the same. After his resurrection, Jesus has a conversation with Peter about his future. He bestows great honor upon him but also gives him a heads-up about his painful end. Peter immediately looks over at John…
When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Yeshua answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” (John 21:21-22)
Jesus tells Peter, and all those who read these words, that we are not to look at others and insist on identical treatment, but to accept the privileges we receive from God with understanding – and also the challenges that He has uniquely put before us. His path for each one of us is different. It’s hard not to compare, but the Body of Messiah depends upon each one embracing their unique calling, giftings, privileges and responsibilities, and celebrating those of others (1 Corinthians 12).
In other words, we must not covet the package that others have got. Following this commandment means learning to be satisfied and content with what God chooses for us, and not begrudging what he chooses for others. Even graciously rejoicing in the blessing of others, and appreciating their contribution. A deepening trust in God’s sovereign plan and his perfect goodness to us can help us accept the differences we see – to steward our privileges well and generously, and to humbly accept the difficulties we experience that others seem to escape from Scott-free. It is a command against the greed and bitterness that we so easily fall into.
This can only be done when we truly believe that God really loves us. Satan whispers to us that God is rejecting us, that he prefers another, that someone else is getting better treatment and that we are losing out. But these too are lies. We need faith to believe in God’s goodness to the whole world, and every individual in it. He loves each one passionately, but he has different plans and a different relationship with each of us.
Joining God’s Heart For Israel
If we believe God is loving and wise, we must trust God with his choice of Israel. We can rejoice in God’s divine plans for us all, enjoying what God has chosen for us to its full extent without believing that we are any less esteemed at all. It’s a beautiful thing to forego a demanding attitude that insists on exactly the same treatment for all, and is ready instead to draw alongside our Father God – to join him and share His heart for His people. It requires that we refuse to believe the lie that we are rejected or second best – or that God’s grace and favor must be merited. All those who have come to love the God of Israel and have been forgiven by Yeshua the Messiah have been brought into the commonwealth of Israel to share in God’s riches, and have been grafted into the chosen people. Ephesians 2:12-13 says,
“At that time you were separate from Messiah, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Messiah Yeshua, you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.“
We all have equal standing before God and free access to the Father through his son, Yeshua. Yet the tribes of Israel are still there right to the end of Revelation, just as God promised that they always would be (Romans 9-11, Jeremiah 31:35-36). It is easy to see the unique role that God had for Israel in the past, bringing us the Scriptures and the Messiah, the story of God… but we have the amazing privilege today of seeing God’s faithfulness in action as we see his ancient promises to Israel coming to pass before our eyes today.
Israel was, and still is, like a fuzzy felt illustration to the rest of the world to teach us what God is like. He will not give up on Israel, He will not renege on his promises (despite Israel’s unfaithfulness), and if He says he will do something, he will do it. Israel is our concrete proof of this truth, and will continue to testify to the certainty of God’s word by being a living example of it. The fact that God is a covenant-keeping God is good news for everyone.
Phillip, compare these two passages
Ezekiel 34
1 The word of the Lord came to me:
2 Mortal [son of man], prophesy against the shepherds of Israel: prophesy, and say to them—to the shepherds: Thus says the Lord God: Ah, you shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?
3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed the sheep.
4 You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured, you have not brought back the strayed, you have not sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled them.
5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd; and scattered, they became food for all the wild animals.
6 My sheep were scattered, they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with no one to search or seek for them.
7 Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord:
8 As I live, says the Lord God, because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild animals, since there was no shepherd; and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep;
9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord:
10 Thus says the Lord God, I am against the shepherds; and I will demand my sheep at their hand, and put a stop to their feeding the sheep; no longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, so that they may not be food for them.
11 For thus says the Lord God: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out.
12 As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places to which they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness.
13 I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land; and I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the watercourses, and in all the inhabited parts of the land.
14 I will feed them with good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel shall be their pasture; there they shall lie down in good grazing land, and they shall feed on rich pasture on the mountains of Israel.
15 I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I will make them lie down, says the Lord God.
16 I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with justice.
17 As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord God: I shall judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and goats:
18 Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, but you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture? When you drink of clear water, must you foul the rest with your feet?
19 And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have fouled with your feet?
20 Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them: I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep.
21 Because you pushed with flank and shoulder, and butted at all the weak animals with your horns until you scattered them far and wide,
22 I will save my flock, and they shall no longer be ravaged; and I will judge between sheep and sheep.
23 I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd.
24 And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I, the Lord, have spoken.
25 I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild animals from the land, so that they may live in the wild and sleep in the woods securely.
26 I will make them and the region around my hill a blessing; and I will send down the showers in their season; they shall be showers of blessing.
27 The trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase. They shall be secure on their soil; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I break the bars of their yoke, and save them from the hands of those who enslaved them.
28 They shall no more be plunder for the nations, nor shall the animals of the land devour them; they shall live in safety, and no one shall make them afraid.
29 I will provide for them a splendid vegetation so that they shall no more be consumed with hunger in the land, and no longer suffer the insults of the nations.
30 They shall know that I, the Lord their God, am with them, and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, says the Lord God.
31 You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture and I am your God, says the Lord God.
John 10
Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers.’ 6 Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
7 So again Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
11 ‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away—and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 The hired hand runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes[a] it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.’
19 Again the Jews were divided because of these words. 20 Many of them were saying, ‘He has a demon and is out of his mind. Why listen to him?’ 21 Others were saying, ‘These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?
22 At that time the festival of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, ‘How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah,[b] tell us plainly.’ 25 Jesus answered, ‘I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me; 26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.[c] 30 The Father and I are one.’
31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus replied, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?’ 33 The Jews answered, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.’ 34 Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law,[d] “I said, you are gods”? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand[e] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.’ 39 Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.
40 He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing earlier, and he remained there. 41 Many came to him, and they were saying, ‘John performed no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true.’ 42 And many believed in him there.
Sounds like it is fulfilled spiritually for the sheep and the other sheep( gentile believers) , Christ gathers into the the one fold with one shepherd. He gathers the lost.
Also from a New Testament point of view, what is the significance in the fact that Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically semites but were European converts to Judaism after the Christian era? Do you believe circumcision alone still makes one a son of Abraham? Does that agree with what the New Testament says?
DNJOHN, I liked this post, according to scripture, before the last paragraph. While I believe I noticed you worded some last paragraph questions carefully, even if you were correct about what you believe is “fact”, I would reason how you ordered your questions according to ‘your fact’ confused the issue .
In case anyone reading the thread is further interested about ‘ facts of Ashkenazi Jews’, I thought I’d share some homework on the questions being asked and debated as the world views the issue and their deeper links:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=How+do+Jews+view+Ashkenazi+Jews&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
I might ask a question more like this to christians:
If someone read the Old Testament and wanted to enter into a community of the law, given to Moses, because they believed it to be God’s true revelation, why could they not actually, in reality, to do this?
I guess that could get circumcised but that brings them under the law and they are a debtor to keep all of it and none of them can. Both Paul and James say the same. That was a key message of Saint Paul. He talks about that is Galatians. He calls the Law the “ministry of death and condemnation”in 2 Corinrhians and the “Letter that kills” elsewhere. If one wants to do that after being a Christian then they have fallen from grace and christ will be of no benefit to them according to what Paul said in Galatians. Christ is the Word of God. He is the revelation of God. The definitive revelation that completes all prior revelations.
Good point Tammy. I probably should not have posted that question. It seems that Jewishness is a complicated thing from a worldly point of view. Is it a race? Is it a religion? It has been said in posts earlier that jewishness is just about race and that religion has nothing to do with in regards to God’s covenant with Abraham. My point was to show that if we talk about physical race some Jews may be jewish through conversion in their family history only and not physically semites. It is definitely a religion and faithfulness is included in God’s covenant with Abraham. In the OT, It has to do with lineage but also has to do with relationship with God. I will show this by looking at Genesis 22 and then go back to chapter 17 and will include St. Paul’s commentary on it that I have not posted yet…so this will be new.
Also there is much to rejoice about in the jewish heritage. Salvation is from the Jews. Everything was given to them first. A Jewish believer certainly can rejoice in these things mentioned by saint Paul just as he himself did!
Romans 9:3-5 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people,[a] my kindred according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah,[b] who is over all, God blessed forever.[c] Amen.
Now let’s address the nature of the Abrahamic covenant.
Genesis 22
The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” 19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham lived at Beer-sheba.
First Genesis 17
When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I AM GOD ALMIGHTY;[a] WALK BEFORE ME, AND BE BLAMELESS. 2 AND I WILL MAKE MY COVENANT BETWEEN ME AND YOU, AND WILL MAKE YOU EXCEEDINGLY NUMEROUS.” Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be Abram,[b] but your name shall be Abraham;[c] for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, TO BE GOD TO YOU AND TO YOUR OFFSPRING[d] after you. 8 And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I WILL BE THEIR GOD.”
9 God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. 13 Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
15 God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live in your sight!” 19 God said, “No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac.[e] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I will bless him and make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.” 22 And when he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.
SO chapter 22 says if was because Abraham obeyed God in sacrificing his son that he will bless him like he declared in chapter 17. Is that a contradiction? Absolutely not. WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE LORD Almighty to BE GOD TO SOMEONE? It means that it also includes obedience from them. It means it is NOT ONE SIDED as some may claim. This makes perfect sense when you read Deuteronomy and the books of the Kings and see this conditionality. Now God will fulfill this because he will bring about the fulfillment of the conditions through his empowering grace in his holy people. ( Romans 8)Jesus accomplished this for us. He did everything objectively for our salvation. Now we just have to want to he his, deny ourselves, and take up our crosses and follow him.
Now let’s see what St.Paul had to say about this:
He says that circumcision and uncircumcision is not what counts. He says rather that a new creation and keeping the commandments of God( faith working by love) is what matters. That is what counts ( please see 1 corinthians 7:19 and galations 5:6 and galatians 6:15)
Concerning their rejection of Christ, Paul says, “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6) And, “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved” (Rom. 9:26). No, “God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew” (Rom. 11:2) For Paul said, “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5) But concerning those who were broken off, Paul says, “Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off” (Rom. 11:20).
“And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again” (Rom. 11:23). Therefore, it is only through the gospel of Christ can they be saved, if they repent of their unbelief. Yet, Paul says, only “The remnant will be saved” (Rom. 9:26). It will only be those who respond to the call of the gospel who will be saved. As Paul says, “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. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”(Rom. 1:16-17).
Today, God’s people are to be found in Christ.
Deuteronomy 30
1 When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you,
2 and return to the Lord your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today,
3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you.
4 Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back.
5 The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.
6 Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.
7 The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies and on the adversaries who took advantage of you.
8 Then you shall again obey the Lord, observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today,
9 and the Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all your undertakings, in the fruit of your body, in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your soil. For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, just as he delighted in prospering your ancestors,
10 when you obey the Lord your God by observing his commandments and decrees that are written in this book of the law, because you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away.
12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?”
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?”
14 No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.
15 See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity.
16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess.
17 But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them,
18 I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live,
20 loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
See also 1 Kings 8 and 9
Acts 3
12 When Peter saw it, he addressed the people, “You Israelites, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk?
13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him.
14 But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you,
15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
16 And by faith in his name, his name itself has made this man strong, whom you see and know; and the faith that is through Jesus has given him this perfect health in the presence of all of you.
17 “And now, friends, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
18 In this way God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer.
19 Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,
20 so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus,
21 who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.
22 Moses said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you.
23 And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.’
24 And all the prophets, as many as have spoken, from Samuel and those after him, also predicted these days.
25 You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, “And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’
26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”
In this passage we see that the judeans did act in ignorance in the crucifixion of the Lord. Acts 3:17. We all with our sins contributed to that as well. This does not mean that their ignorance is imposed by God as something he initiated rather than due to a hardening resulting from their own apostasy from God’s sheep as John 10 shows us. Also this passage in Acts 3 shows that they are capable of repentance and turning to the Lord and failure to listen to God’s Prophet, Jesus results in being cut off from their people. Acts 3:23. In order to believe they must humble themselves and truly turn to the Lord. Not doing that is why the cannot believe. I know Christian Jews. In fact my wife is of jewish ancestry. I know jewish believers and they reject this false zionism. They are by no means antisemitic.
In addition to this, God will remove the veil over the minds of the jews if they turn to him seeking for truth in humility. (SEE also 2 CORINTHIANS 3)God desires none to be lost.
I have written generally so as not to let the ongoing conversation of Aidan and DNJOHN go unchallenged, specifically, because of the damage proof texting the Letter of James and the conflating of the word ‘baptize/baptism’ are continually bringing into the assembly of God’s people. This is a standing reply, practical in intention.
—————————
AIDAN MCMANUS
JANUARY 25, 2020 AT 8:14 AM“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). We are justified by works, faith alone cannot save. This is anathema to most evangelicals today, because they don’t understand the works that James is talking about. And they think that Paul was talking about “all works” when he wasn’t. James was talking about works of faith, Paul was not. That pretty much sums it up! No one was ever saved by faith alone, grace alone, or by works alone; you need all three. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?” Again, James is talking about works of faith, the obedience of faith.
Baptism is a work of faith, the obedience of faith, just as much as repentance or any other thing that God commands us to do. But baptism, a complete burial in water, is the point at which a person’s sins are forgiven, and he enters into Christ
&
DNJOHN:Hi Aidan, we agree on the importance of Baptism. ..We see here that Baptism is the fulfillment of old covenant circumcision. It does what Old Covenant circumcision did and much much more because of the superiority of the New Covenant. It is in no way deficient in comparison to the old rite of circumcision. In the old circumcision it was limited to males but now this is for both genders. In the old covenant circumcision was applied to infant males upon the eighth day. (The eight day symbolizes the new creation! It is the day after the 7th day week so it is outside time. It is also the first day and that is the day Christ was raised from the dead and inaugurated the New Creation, which will come to complete fulfillment on the last day.) Also notice Circumcision , as noted in the case of our Father Abraham, it was a seal of the righteousness of the faith( Roman’s 4) and yet was still applied to infants. The same is true for New Testament Baptism. The arguments brought against circumcision i.e they dont know anything etc…is what people will say against infant baptism. So it is moot. Infants can’t confess faith; they also can’t disbelieve either. God used the rite of circumcision to bring them into the old testament church; the sacrament of Holy Baptism brings them into the new testament church and fulfills circumcision as St.Paul describes.
Someone may protest and say, Baptism is a human work; this is works righteousness! What one notices when they read this text carefully is that Baptism is a work of God not of man. This translation I posted says” faith in the power of God”. The original Greek says: “Faith OF the operation of God” like in the KJV. It is God’s work; God’s act. It is NOT a work of righteousness that we perform to fulfill an obligation. Thus the Church has ALWAYS called it a holy mystery or sacrament NEVER a mere “ordinance or obedience.”
———–
THe conversation that is here public, before what is above copied, covers multiple scriptural interpretation by Aidan and DNJOHN that I find points of agreement with , but mostly an overall disagreement with, as relates to their conversation. Because we are reading the same scriptures it is natural at some point I agree with one over the other as a specific point is drawn out, but disagree with both on certain points and how contextually we can see them reveal their positions. I am going to stand at this point in opposition to them because of their public testimony against those , like myself, who believe God’s assurance of salvation is given to those who believe God alone has worked to obtain our reconciliation for salvation: to obey the good news is to believe confessing the good news,
See 1 Corithians 15:1-4, explicitly explained, implicitially understood- confessing this true good news that must be in ‘your’ mouth and in ‘your’ heart reveals one who believes to know Jesus Christ is Lord and is resurrected from the dead- in faith we believe, knowing only God can forgive sin, all sin being against God.
I hear both with theologies of putting forth a defense of ‘ALSO work TO MAINTAIN your OWN salvation’, instead of ‘work OUT your salvation’.
Aidan, for example, is ‘proof texting’ James out of context, which presents a pretext. As related, both hear and see God’s gift for the forgiveness of sins, as if God’s forgiveness is first applied and then kept or lost according to believing and human works (“of faith”) , first to include human water baptism.(Aidan will disagree with the “works of faith” explanation. The reader can decide for themselves, if like me, the system of Eastern Orthodox Theology is manipulating words( absent of actually persuading) to the same ends, so as to cohere to the EOT salvific theology of sacrament.
Much like “ the elect” conversation, is the issue of faith, works and baptism. There is an immediate context in the greater context of truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit’s within the setting of history. Both have revealed how they ‘hear’ scripture which accords to their central lens and the greater context of ( what may be their own) frame work, or the spirit of a systematic theology.
Because of their public position here, I do not want to leave their position unchallenged in light of the believers testimony of Christ on which the believer stands, because the good news is of FIRST IMPORTANCE.(1 Corinthians 15:*1-4 which is equal to the 1st and greatest command which Jesus Christ was faithful to fulfill, according to (OT) scripture as the Mediator, in which believing we are faithful to be one in Him, having died to ourselves, hidden with Christ in God. The ‘works of faith’ are given that we MAY KEEP the 2nd greatest command, following the example to love our neighbor as we ourselves have been loved. The new commandment we are given is to love eachother, those reconciled, who are ’the elect’ to obtain the resurrection of eternal life. Ephesians 2:8-10. The order: He who is without the gift of the Spirit, because they are not relying (belief unseen in truth is alive and active) on the Truth of the good news, does not receive the works of the Spirit(prepared in advance) as such a person does not obtain the faith they have not believed has been obtained for them, in which we receive the works prepared in advance for us to do, which come by grace, through faith.)
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I NOW live IN THE FLESH I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Baptism: There is 1 essential baptism for salvation. In this way baptism is necessary for salvation: It is receiving/obtaining THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This baptism is not obtained by submitting to water baptism. The Holy Spirit is the gift received for those who believe.( Both Aidan and DNJOHN are reading the water baptism of Acts 2:38 according to a lens of necessary human performance or work, instead of the lens revealed by the Spirit.)
The thief on the cross and Cornelius are not exceptions. Just the opposite: they are evidence that God knows the moment you believe in HIs work and promise of salvation. Unseen by man, but seen by God, confessing and believing God has revealed we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit ( who is unseen ). What Peter was to learn was that Jesus had obtained THE FAITH for gentiles, too. And, further, in this Peter would see that God knows the confession of the heart and mind( in which God sees the truth of living and active repentance), at the moment of belief. Peter was neither confused that water baptism is a family memorial, confessing together our reconciliation to each other and to God, for the flesh welcomed into the faith. Note also Philip, who understood, together with the eunuch ethopinian. ( The issue here was not about him being a prostyle to Judaism, but how Philip would respond to him as a eunuch, different from Israel’s teachers.See Isaiah 56 as related to 53 which Philip had just shared.)
Acts 10:45
And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.
Everytime the word baptism is viewed in scripture it is often absent of ‘water baptism’. Like the word ‘elect’, ‘baptize/baptism’ is a word filled with meaning all on its own, of which many conflate and draw in the act of human ‘water baptism’ OR draw ‘water baptism’ into passages, determining, according to a theology a passages use of the world ‘water’, making as if it is related to human’s baptizing with water.
1 Corinthians 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize
but to preach the gospel,
and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
(Now see 1 Corinthians 15:1-11)
————————————
Related to the letter of James, when the practicality to ‘him’ and ’them’ is misapplied to “save”, the surrounding text is further lead to be built with misinterpretations about “justified” man before men. This letter, misunderstood, has been the lens for many to ‘theologically manage’ the new testament doctrine of salvation and grace, personally, in gathering or in denomination. ( To include almost every biblical new religious cult, claiming restoration of the 1st century church.)
The Spirit of God does not contradict Himself as He Himself accords scripture. So, either Aiden is ‘hearing’ James wrong, not seeing he is ‘proof texting ‘ OR ( either I believe unintentionally) he does not ’see’ how he is holding out scripture verses to be in contradiction with other scripture verses of God’s own living and active revelation.
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham was justified by works,
he has something to boast about,
BUT NOT BEFORE GOD.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=justified
Paul and James are not in contradiction, as they live according to the Spirit in the flesh, being God’s handiwork/workmanship/masterpiece, believers being born(again) of the Spirit, first having entered this world as man with flesh. John 3/Ephesians 2( nor is the good news different for all who are called through faith, by those who have believed and received grace. (grace=unmerited/undersered favor that cannot be returned to the giver for merit on your behalf)
The letter of James is basic belief about those who should live according to the Spirit they claim to have, Christianly 101 as we live in this perishable flesh and with others in perishable flesh, the believing left in this world. John 17
So, what is the word save and justify and faith reveal in context?
Man CONSIDERS whether another man is righteous or not, God gives CREDIT/COUNT of righteousness. We should reflect God’s righteousness: Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect: Love and serve your neighbor. If we live with outward evidence of doing unrighteous works OR we live without evidence by lacking righteous works, this is what the Spirit of God revealed through Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:5:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in THE FAITH. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
THe question for examination is :Do you really believe you have received the Gift? God is not deceived but man can be self deceive that his ( living and active, unseen) faith is in God alone. https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=God%2C+alone&begin=47&end=73
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=your+faith&begin=47&end=73
God is not the one who needs to come to understand if we have deceived ourself. And God is not the one who needs to be made mature(perfect) and complete in faith. He grants us partnership as a tool in His hand. ( The testimony of clarification, as those who believe hold to the Word of Faith: Matthew 7)
I am more highlighting and bring forward verses, instead of going through every verse, yet beyond proof texting ( that someone may return to the context and reread for themselves) so that the common man, given our common sense from God, may see that which is living and active in truth, according to the word of God. The reader is free to/ and should test the spirits of interpretation as relates to me challenging that Aidan or DNJOHN interpretations are a misrepresentation of the Spirit of Scripture He has revealed to us.
The opening context of James:
2 Count it all joy, my brothers,[b] when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
The end of chapter 1:
26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
1st verse of chapter 2:
2 My brothers,[a] show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.
What’s the subject we are now giving our attention to?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Good question:
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
(FYI note:: Some translation servants have rendered this as a statement and not a question. Either way it will speak consistently with its context)
Who is HIM here?
Can that faith save him?
[ and this is the NIV, instead of the ESV
Who is “them”, which is equal to the ESV “him”
Can such faith save them?}
Let us see who him and them is ?:
15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to THEM, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving THEM the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
( The faith by itself is not absent, but if not accompanied by works {which are exemplified in the text as simple and reasonable one} is worthless, of no use, dead to you neighbor. { In the context of the assembly: do not sin and favor the rich over the poor over a seat in meeting/ starving people, being your brother, are saved from starving if feed}
Now about the demons:
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
( Often, in how many handle this text, they speak it AT someone as a ‘proof text’, and leave it to question instead of explain it.
There is NO Redemption plan for demons who shudder at the truth. So, what is James reveling by comparison? Demons work to destroy us and/or our neighbor as they believe this truth. Demons do no good serve of works for our fleshly neighbor. The question, due to context, is not : Who is eternally saved? It is : What makes me( us human believers) different from the demons in light of my(our) fellow believer/neighbor?)
So, how is faith(present), apart from works ( not present) useless?
Note context and where and how the word saved and justified are used and not used in the entirety of the context, specifically, when James 2: 24 as proof text is a pretext.
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
(Yes)
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
( Did he obtain an outcome of his faith? )
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
( Yes, it is men who acknowledged to God that Abraham was the friend of God. God had already “COUNTED/CREDITED” Abraham as righteous. SCRIPTURE ( the word of God according to the Spirit) was FULFILLED the Abraham believed God. As Hebrews reveals he believed God would resurrect his son. Hebrews 11/ Romans 4/2 Chronicles 20:6-8
( What does this verse not say? It does not speak to eternal salvation as to be justified before God in accordance with works and faith. The person is justified in light as it concerns their neighbor.)
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
————————————————
We add nothing to the work of God to save ourself. God counts to us righteousness according to His determined standard: mankind is without excuse to believe. We now live in the age where His mystery has specifically been revealed and we must believe the Father has given the Son, according to His revelation every one is generally sought through creation as to be a fool to deny God has given us faith to believe and that He rewards. Romans 1/Hebrew11/
—————————————————
God does NOT test us in the here and now so that He can know our heart and mind.
It is so YOU many know you have eternal life. Fear is the first fruit of wisdom, but perfect love cast out fear.
At that present time in history, to include theologies that even affect the church now , as they did then: See Rev 1-3 about the works that are NOT COMPLETE and the TEACHINGS in the church. Who can be mature and complete in Christ if they do not KEEP what they ‘heard’ what they claimed to believe: What did they KEEP because they ‘heard’ and ‘received’ it?
1 John2:antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.( False teachers comes out from us. They do not all abandon ‘the faith’ but claim to be of ’the faith’, proclaiming a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
( Who is John speaking to that He believes are anointed by the Holy One: those who have knowledge according to the Holy Spirit of Truth, who will stand firm, even unto death, to confess their only hope is in Christ, their testimony is the testimony of Christ, who came to make the Father known. In the 1st century what had John experienced as an Apostle and the Elder:
3 John 9-11
9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. 10 So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.
—————————————————
1 Cor 1:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled[b] master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
( I suggest a contextual reading of at least 1-3, 4 example )
—————————————————
Elihu( speaks according to the Spirit of Christ)
in Job 34:
“Suppose someone says to God,
‘I am guilty but will offend no more.
32
Teach me what I cannot see;
if I have done wrong, I will not do so again.’
33
Should God then reward you on your terms,
when you refuse to repent?
You must
decide,
not I;
so tell me what you know.
Job 35:7-9
7
If you are righteous, what do you give to Him,
or what does He receive from your hand?
8
Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself,
and your righteousness only other people.
( See Romans 4 and James 2 in the context of truth as would be seen through Elihu ).
God knows the heart and mind of man. Man to man can only ‘hear and see’ the confession of another man: man can stand by or challenge (the mind’s reason)confession according to agreement of the word of God we both submit to, and question a life in behaviors in opposition to the command of Christ to love your neighbor. Scripture calls us to examine our faith and asks if we have the Spirit. You must “decide”. The Body together acts in obedience to the scripture: I would , for example, never submit to the statement of faith of Aidan or DNJOHN as they expressed/defined how they “WORK OUT” the truths of this revelation:
Ephesians 2:8-10 English Standard Version (ESV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
==============================
For those who believe or will come to believe how God SO loved us, hearing the example set before us:
John 12:49-50 English Standard Version (ESV)
49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life.
What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”
John 3:*12-21: God SO loved the world / Jesus prays for those who had/will turn to come out of the world . John 17
————————–
Besides a jewish remnant, who is still now being saved, now alongside the gentiles, until the last of the gentiles reaches fullness, and in this way all ( the remnant of) Israel will be saved, as together we as a reconciled people who are “the elect” nation, HIs people, remember this: All of Israel’s branches that were broken off, from abiding in the vine, were broken off because of unbelief, having thought they could obtain the prize by works of the law( that they didn’t keep, let alone perfectly), instead of acknowledging the truth, that God alone saves according to how he determined an age IS ENTERED into His race. (Romans 11)
————————–
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.
————————-
As we repeat the word of God today, now complete for us, the angel said to John:
I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Who are the elect, the people of God today?
The Church at Colossae it would seem, was largely Gentile (1:21,27; 2:13), yet Paul refers to them as the “elect” in ( Col. 3:12).
Paul addresses both Jews and Gentiles in his epistle to the Romans (Rom. 7:1; 11:13). Furthermore, in Chapters 8 Paul says, “..whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us who can be against us? who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,..” having encouraged them with such words as these, then he asks; “Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies”(Rom. 8:30-33). Notice how Paul refers to them all as God’s elect to whom Paul asks, “who can be against us (v.31) who can bring a charge against God’s elect (v.33)? It is God who justifies” As Christians, they had all been justified, and likewise, they were all “elect.”
But of Israel, Paul revealed that not all Israel were of Israel (9:6), and that not all Israel were the “elect,” the chosen of God (11:5,7). In other words, Israel had been divided into two classes, namely, the remnant who are the elect, the chosen, the believing Israel, who are worthy of the name. And then the rest of the nation, physical Israel, who had not submitted to the righteousness of God, these were hardened. It was always the remnant, the believing Israel, who were going to be saved. According to Paul, they were the elect among the whole of the nation of Israel.
(Romans 9:6; 10:21; 11:5,7) NKJV:
“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel”
“But to Israel he says: “All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people.”
“Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
“What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”
Therefore, it is the “elect, the chosen” who are in Christ, both Jew and Gentile alike; These are the people of God today, not the physical nation of Israel, nor any other physical nation for that matter!
“Therefore, it is the ‘elect, the chosen’ who are in Christ, both Jew and Gentile alike”
Not in the context of 2 Timothy 2:10 it isn’t.
First, Paul’s use of the term “elect” always refers to believers (Romans 8:33; Col. 3:12)
Secondly, Paul makes a distinction within physical Israel. He divides the nation into two classes, namely, the “elect” and the “rest” (Rom. 11:5,7). The “elect” here are the believing Israel and remnant.
It would be more consistent with Paul’s general use of the term “elect” to say that they refer to Christians in (2 Tim 2:10). There is no mention of Israel, or Jews, no necessary distinctions like this are made in that context. And, it would also make more sense to say that he was persecuted by “Unbelieving” hardened Israel. But of course, if they were to not continue in their unbelief, they would also discontinue their persecution of the church. In fact, they too would be grafted in. It was because of unbelief they were broken off (Rom. 11:20). “And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again” (Rom. 11:23). Your interpretation seems too forced! In the N.T. when do we ever see the term “elect, God’s chosen” refer to those who are lost? That’s something you’ll need to explain with book, chapter and verse!
It is wise to let Paul’s clear statements interpret his ambiguous ones otherwise one is just begging the question or doing circular reasoning. He tells us who the elect are in Colossians 3: 11,12 . Besides, He says he endures all things for the elect not FROM the elect.
DNJOHN wrote:
“It is wise to let Paul’s clear statements interpret his ambiguous ones otherwise one is just begging the question or doing circular reasoning. He tells us who the elect are in Colossians 3: 11,12 . Besides, He says he endures all things for the elect not FROM the elect.”
My Response:
Agreed! I have used (Col 3:12) before to show that the elect are not “Jews only,” especially since Paul also calls these Gentile Christians “the elect of God.” That seems pretty unambiguous from the outset, that there are no distinctions made for those “in Christ” (v.11). Do you find Romans 8:33 ambiguous? Paul is talking to those who are in Christ (v.1), who had received the Spirit (v.15), whom he calls brethren (v.12) and “joint heirs with Christ” (v.17) if indeed they are prepared to suffer with Him that they may also be glorified together (v. 17). They were saved (v.24), the saints (v.27), the called(v.28), justified (v. 30). And, if God is for them, who can be against them (v.31)? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies (v.33). It is Christ who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for them (v.34) – I think its clear that the “elect” in this chapter are those who are Christians.
But for those who think that in N.T. times, the whole of the nation of Israel is “the elect,” Paul is also quite clear that such is not the case even in Israel. “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). Only the remnant will be saved (v.27). They are the “elect” whom God saves (by grace through faith) from among the nation of Israel (Rom. 11:5). The “rest” of the nation(v.7) are – ‘unbelieving Israel’ – cut off because of their unbelief in the gospel. They can only be saved if they turn and believe in the gospel, like everybody else.
Therefore, Phillip’s use of “elect” in (2 Timothy 2:10) is nothing like Paul’s use of it, ever; even when he speaks of the elect of Israel. It is these unambiguous passages that inform us about this so-called ambiguous text in (2 Tim. 2:10). I fully agree that Paul “endures all things FOR the elect, not FROM the elect.” Those who believe that you can’t fall away and be lost, have a real difficulty with this verse. Also, some peoples’ difficulty comes from the fact that they have made national Israel their hobby-horse, their mission in life! For that reason they are reading into this passage ( and the whole of the N.T.) what is not there!
As an Orthodox Christian, I cannot follow private interpretations but can only persevere in the faith once for all delivered unto the saints. I have to follow what has been universally held since the beginning of the church. This deposit of faith is confessed in the ancient creeds agreed upon by the Church in council and received by her. They express what is in the Scriptures.
We cannot follow what one man in a given place came up with as a new interpretation…this is the root of sectarianism.
Dispensationalism is traced back basically to John Darby and then popularized in the Schofield bible and that is how it is spread. Those bibles were given out free in the seminaries and landed in the hands of those preparing to be pastors. They then taught it to their people and the zionistic end times mania was born.
The church has always had the self understanding that she is the continuation and renewal of God’s Israel not a paralell to israel or a replacement of israel. This is what the Apostles taught again and again.The Church is fulfilled Israel, Israel renewed.
Zionism is based on the false teaching that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional in all ways except circumcision . Here is what God says about that.
GENESIS 18
And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; 18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
I don’t actually know much about what John Darby taught concerning dispensationalism, or about Zionism when it first reared its ugly head; but I do know that they are not scriptural. From a cursory glance, it seems like much of it is coming from a completely wrong approach to Revelation and also the Apocalyptic literature of the O.T. Also, instead of trying allow the more simpler, unambiguous passages, guide our understanding of end times prophecy in the N.T., they want to impose their own interpretations.
You say, “Zionism is based on the false teaching that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional in all ways except circumcision.” They also forget that God fulfilled His promises to Abraham, including the land promise. But Israel were told that it was conditional. That they needed to be faithful to God if they were to remain in the land. For the most part, they were never faithful.
But Christ is now in heaven, ruling on the throne of David. There He will rule until the end of time, when the last enemy, death, is destroyed, and He hands back the kingdom to the Father. It’s as simple as that in terms of refuting the false doctrines of dispensationalism, and Zionism! The kingdom is here and now, in the church of Christ. Daniel 2 and 7 have been fulfilled in His spiritual kingdom here on earth!
But I would say to you, ‘scrap the creeds of men’. They are just as much the problem of sectarianism as anything else! All one needs is the scriptures (2 Tim 3:16-17). Anything beyond that is superfluous.
I mostly agree with your comments but the scriptures themselves although they do say that they are inspired and profitable, nowhere does it say scripture “alone” . This is just a slogan of men. In fact where do you find a table of contents in scripture to know which books are included? The church precedes the NT and determined its contents and the church is the pillar and foundation/bulwark/ground of the truth. God guides his church into all truth. I profess the faith with one mind and one voice with the ancient church which continues to this day.
Paul wrote: 1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Paul wrote: 2 Timothy 3:16-17
“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.”
“By inspiration of God” means God-breathed, pointing to God as the source or origin of the Scriptures which have been handed down to us. The church is not the source or origin of the word, God is. Neither does the church precede the word of God, but rather, the word preceded the church. Christians are brought forth by the word of truth (Jas. 1:18), begotten through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15). Certainly, the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). But how was this done? It was revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets, which they wrote down: (1 Pt. 1:12; 2 Pt 1:21 ).
Peter says: 1 Peter 1:23
“..having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
because
“All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away,
But the word of the LORD endures forever.”
Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.”
Therefore, this word, this gospel, this faith, having been once for all delivered to the saints, would continue to live and abide and endure FOREVER. That is something determined by God, not man. The church is the pillar (prop, support) and ground, stay, bulwark of the truth, not the source of it. The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into ALL of the truth (Jn. 14:26; 16:12-14; Lk. 12:12). Which means that the church had been given all of the truth in the first century, which will never pass away.
“That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Suggests that one has all that they need in the word alone to make them complete, and fully equipped to know and do God’s will. We don’t need the creeds of men! If they add or subtract anything from the word of God, they are condemned. And, if they simply parrot the word of God, then they are unnecessary and could easily be done away with. But I find that they tend to add or take away from the word of God. Either way, they are unnecessary. The word of God alone should be one’s creed; we need nothing more, nothing less! “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 pt 4:11), not the oracles or creeds of men!
Aidan, sometimes when the NT speaks of the word it is referring infallible and inerrant Divine Scriptures or the proclamation of the Gospel. The Bible is the word of God in human language. On this point we agree. .
Other times when the NT speaks of the Word , it is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. HE IS THE REVELATION OF GOD. JESUS is the Word of God in human flesh. He became man to reveal God to us, to save and to heal us. The Church is the body of the incarnate Word of God! Think about that. The Church is the city on a hill that cannot be hid. It is visible as Christ’s body was visible. Ecclesiology is built on Christology. I invite one to do a study of Ephesians, the Letters to the Corinthians and the Letters of St. Peter and write down all of the Titles and phrases the Apostles use as descriptions of the Church. You will see that they had a high view of the Church and were not individualists. Faith is personal but not individualistic Some things were handed on by the Apostles through written word and other things were handed on by word of mouth.
( 2 Thessalonians 2:15)
So then, brothers and sisters,[a] stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
Ephesians 1:15.
I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love[e] towards all the saints, and for this reason 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you as I remember you in my prayers. 17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him, 18 so that, with the eyes of your heart enlightened, you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance among the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power for us who believe, according to the working of his great power. 20 God[f] put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. 22 And he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Hebrews 1:1-4 World English Bible (WEB)
1 God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. 3 His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, who, when he had by himself purified us of our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels as the more excellent name he has inherited is better than theirs.
Hebrews 4 (WEB)
12 For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 There is no creature that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him to whom we must give an account.
DNJOHN,
My point is this; the councils didn’t decide what the books or canon of the N.T. were. In fact, I believe the church had long started to apostatize in its teaching and organisational structure well before these councils were formed. The Apostles and prophets laid the foundation of the church by their teaching (Eph. 2:20). The prophets were the New Testament prophets (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28-29), chosen by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands (Acts 19:6). We now have their work in the completed revelation ( 2 Pt 3:15-16; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Therefore, under the direction of the Apostles, the early church in the first century knew what were the approved apostolic writings. The early church didn’t need a council to tell them, they had the Spirit guided apostles. The churches KNEW the Apostles when these epistles were being passed around and copied. How else do you think the early church knew what was true and what was spurious from false teachers? The churches at that time also had the spiritual gifts.To some were given the “discerning of spirits” by which they could discern whether one was of God or not. We have to believe that from the very beginning God’s hand was in its preservation, even when these later councils set about formalizing what already had been canon.
The Church herself did not apostasize. Some heretics apostasized from the church. Heretics try to get followers to go after them and they start sects. That is not the apostasy of the church. People fall away from the Faith and they fall away from the Church to go their seperate ways in their intellectual pride but the church stands firm. The Church cannot apostasize per the promises of Christ and the words of the prophets. I think instead of adding to the Faith like Rome did after their schism, the protestants mainly subtracted( although they did add unbiblical slogans and unbiblical individualism and dichotomous modes of thought unable to think in terms of “both/and” but always “this vs.that”) ..and in their subtracting , “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”. I will say that what a lot of people do is they beg the question by assuming the correctness of their private interpretations and using that to judge the historical, ancient Orthodox Church negatively. They do this instead of letting the church show why she does what she does and how it ties in with Scripture. There may be scriptural things one has not thought of. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. I think a little more humility is required. Investigate and seek the truth and be inquisitive. Ask the hard questions. Keep seeking till you find. Anyway, I dont think we should have this discussion here….not the right forum for it. Thank you though for the dialogue.
If you have studied the New Testament Church you will know that each local church had autonomy. It wasn’t long before that organizational structure was corrupted by men, who formed hierarchical systems like the Catholic Church. But the fact that the governmental structure of the early church was local and autonomous, helped as a protection against corrupting influences and apostasy. But whether from the outside, or from within, it didn’t always protect it. All you have to do is read about the seven churches in Asia to know that a church can indeed apostatize.
Much of what you see today isn’t the church that Christ built. We need to get back to New Testament Christianity!
Aidan, I have studied new testament extensively AND church history and you are mistaken. A local congregation going astray is not the whole church. And no they were not autonomous as Titus ordained presbyters in every city under his oversight as the Bishop of Crete to give just one example.( Titus 1:5) The Apostles were the first Bishops and they ordained men to carry on the authority and grace they were given in order to perpetuate the Church through time. All Bishops are presbyters but not all presbyters are bishops. So there is some interchangeability of terms. Also these are priestly roles within the priesthood of believers. They are icons of Christ and it is his priesthood not their own. The difference is that ordained ministers have succession from the Apostles through the laying on of hands and the authority Christ gave the Apostles is handed on to them in an unbroken chain. There is certain authority Christ gave to the Apostles that he did not give to all. St. Irenaeus speaks of this as well as other early church writers who were directly under the Apostles. I am glad you want new testament christianity though.
DNJOHN, I am only interested in what the bible says and historically what is revealed therein. I agree, “A local congregation going astray is not the whole church.” Yes, but when you have several or more going astray, you have a general apostasy. But of course, that doesn’t mean that all of them went astray. I think you are mistaken, for according to the New Testament, Elders(presbyters), Bishops (overseers), Shepherd and Pastor, were all one and the same person. Some of these terms are used interchangeably in the following passages (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5,7). Therefore you are mistaken when you say, not all presbyters(Elders) are bishops. For starters, Acts 20:28 alludes to the extent of their authority and consequently to the autonomy of the local church.
You say, Titus had “oversight as the Bishop of Crete?” I would like to see the verse where Titus was ordained as a Bishop.
You also say, “All Bishops are presbyters but not all presbyters are bishops?” I would like to see the verse that teaches that.
Finally, you said:
“The difference is that ordained ministers have succession from the Apostles through the laying on of hands and the authority Christ gave the Apostles is handed on to them in an unbroken chain.” – I would really like to see the verse or verses that teach this!
Hi Aidan,
All truth is God’s truth even historical truth.
Scripture only mentality is keeping you from seeing reality. Not everything is recorded directly in scripture. Scripture is not exhaustive.
We know historically that Titus was bishop of Crete. The Church has kept records of ordinations down through the centuries. Every Orthodox Bishop must have an unbroken lineage to the Apostles. The early Church Fathers speak of this necessity e.g Ignatius of Antioch and others. Oversight of the churches in that area is implied in the text in that he was to set things in order and ordain presbyters in every church. That is what Bishops do.
See the passage below from the Holy Gospel.
“This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:25 KJV
Hi DNJohn,
Not all that is historical is truth, but all scripture is truth (Jn. 17:17).
Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into ALL truth. “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; (John 16:13). Which means that by the time that they had all died, all truth had been revealed and written down for our benefit. Jude writes, “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The faith is the body of doctrine we possess in our hands.
Maybe Titus at some later point in his life became a Bishop, but he was simply an evangelist when the Apostle Paul directed him to appoint elders. But only those who met the scriptural qualifications laid down by the Apostle Paul could be appointed (Titus 1:5-9). He also gave similar instructions to the evangelist Timothy, for those who desired the work of a Bishop (1 Tim. 3:1-7). It seems the evangelist has a great responsibility to teach the duties and qualifications of elders, and in leading in their appointment, at least where there are no elders . But once appointed, the Bishops (plural), only have oversight authority over that local congregation which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers of (Acts 20:28).
The things that you have said sound very much like the traditions of men, and Catholicism. These things that have no basis in scripture! Paul urged the Corinthians “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). The church must have Christ’s authority for all that it does (Col. 3:17). Jesus said “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mth. 28:20). This means, nothing more, nothing less!
We have all that we need written down for us:
“And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:30-31)
We should be content with what God has revealed for us in His word (Dt. 29:29).
“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.”
Hi Aidan,
Jesus gave authority to the church to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever is bound or loosed on earth is bound or loosed in heaven. The power to forgive and retain sin. The Church is both the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Matthew chapters 16 and 18. And John 20.
You took the passage about not going beyond what is written out of context and also you have not showed me a scripture that says scripture is exhaustive. There is none that say that. The scripture is not the totality of God’s revelation but it is an inspired and inerrant record of it. Jesus is the Word of God and the Church is his body which he guides by the Spirit into all truth. ( read john 14-16) The scriptures are inspired and useful in completing the man of God for all good works. Perhaps on this point you should not “go beyond what is written”.
Perhaps what I say may sound “catholic”. The Roman Catholic church broke from the other churches ..the eastern churches…in 1054. They had much in common with the eastern churches but have added dogmas not accepted by the eastern churches at any time.
It appears that you have accepted restorationist ideas like what stone and Campbell started in the 19th century in the venerable attempt to imitate the early church, of course, filtered through their protestant ideas and bias. However, One cannot imitate a body and become that body. There must be an organic connection. That is why Apostolic succession is important. It is the perpetuation of the Church through time without a break from the original body and the handing on of the original faith. Continuity is necessary. I would like to share some more thoughts on Baptism and justification as well. I think we agree on much of it but there are some aspects that may be different. I will post a reply to that as well. Thanks for the discussion.
DNJohn wrote:
“Jesus gave authority to the church to have the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever is bound or loosed on earth is bound or loosed in heaven. The power to forgive and retain sin.”
My response:
That authority was Apostolic only, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I think if you re-read those passages you will see this.
DNJohn wrote:
“You took the passage about not going beyond what is written out of context and also you have not showed me a scripture that says scripture is exhaustive.”
My response:
Not going beyond what is written(1 Cor. 4:6) is a principle that applies across the board. Here’s a few more (Dt. 4:2; 12:32; Pr. 30:6; Mth. 5:19; Rev. 22:18-19) It seems the Corinthians should have learned through Paul and Apollos not to go beyond what is written, but rather, to stay within the confines of God’s revelation. But some were swept off their feet by the philosophies of men whose teaching was not scripture.
DNJohn wrote:
The scripture is not the totality of God’s revelation but it is an inspired and inerrant record of it.
My response:
Again, in scripture we have all that we need for salvation and to make us complete (2 Tim. 3:15-17). We have all truth (Jn. 16:13). And the faith has been ONCE FOR ALL delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
DNJohn wrote:
Jesus is the Word of God and the Church is his body which he guides by the Spirit into all truth. ( read john 14-16)
My response:
Start in John 13 and you will see that Jesus is speaking to the Apostles, not the church, in (John 14-17).
I came out of Catholicism here in Ireland. You should know that Jesus condemned the doctrines and traditions of men in Matthew 15, and Mark 7.
You speak against restoring the old paths, namely, in this case, first century Christianity!
(Jeremiah 6:16)
Thus says the LORD:
“Stand in the ways and see,
And ask for the old paths, where the good way is,
And walk in it;
Then you will find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
DNJohn wrote:
However, One cannot imitate a body and become that body. There must be an organic connection.
My response:
When a person is baptized for the right reason, he is baptized into His body, the Church (1 Cor 12:13). You can’t get more connected than that. You talk about “Apostolic succession?” Again, where is the scripture for that? There’s none that I know of!
The Apostles handed on the gift of God through the laying on of hands as stated in the new testament. Jesus did not condemn all tradition. He himself kept traditions like the feast of the dedication, prayers in the synagogue etc. He condemned unholy traditions that go against love like traditions to forbid helping ones parents on the pretense that the funds were dedicated to God etc. Traditions from people with hardened hearts that only honor God with lip service etc.
Hi DNJohn,
The Apostles were able to impart spiritual gifts through the laying on of their hands ( Acts 8:14-19; 19:6). No one else had the power or authority to do this except the Apostles. This is why the spiritual gifts died out with the Apostles. But there is no record of them passing on their apostleship to others in the N.T.
I didn’t say that Jesus condemned all tradition, He condemned human traditions, the traditions of men. The word tradition just means what was handed down. This speaks of what the Apostles handed down, first in oral form, and then in written form in the N.T. But what Jesus condemned in Matthew 15 were the traditions of men. They were the teachings of men added in, on top of the word of God. These traditions either added to, or took away from, the word of God. They were nullifying the word of God through their man-made traditions. In so doing, they were honoring God with their lips, but their heart was far away from Him.
But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him (1 Jn. 2:5)
Hi Aidan,
Here is a verse from Romans to consider.
15 “But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God,
16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” Roman’s 15:16
Acts 1 KJV
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
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.
The gift of God that they handed on includes ordination to Apostolic priesthood among the priesthood of all believers as a special grace from God. St Paul talks about this grace of priesthood he received in the verse above from Romans. This is the gift handed on. Paul himself was ordained by the Church of Antioch. If ordination in Apostolic Sucession was not required then why did the Holy Spirit command this kind of setting apart even in the case of Paul and Barnabas? Acts 13:1-3. I am ordained in the Antiochian Orthodox Church as a Deacon. This church is the continuation of the church we read of in the Book of Acts where the disciples were first called Christians. The Church of Antioch was Founded by St. PETER. I am in the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Our Bishops have an unbroken chain to him and the faith has been handed on from generation to generation. Tradition prevents novelty and individual interpretations to corrupt the original deposit given by Christ to the Apostles and then from the Apostles to the Church.
Jesus spent 40 days explaining things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Jesus instructed his disciples in many things that were not written down. These apostles spread the faith and how things were to be done when they started churches. They instructed the bishops as to how to worship and how to take care of things. The epistles were written to address specific issues that arose in the life of the communities…they were not exhaustive or encyclopedic.
When you look historically you can see what all of the Churches shared in common all over the world even they they were started by different Apostles. It is these things that are the Holy tradition. Jesus handed it on to the Apostles and they passed it on everywhere when they founded congregations. Paul says to the Church at Thessolonica to “hold fast to the traditions whether by word or letter”. He did not say he would put all things in a written letter. The letters were addressing specific things in specific congregations or to teach general principles but none claim to be exhaustive How -to manuals on everything.
Jesus is the Word of God incarnate. He wrote nothing. He founded his church which is his body. He guides this Church by the Spirit of truth by whom he teaches it all truth. In this Church there are Apostles who wrote letters to communities to address issues and there are Gospels written about the life of the Saviour. The Gospel admits everything could not be written in books. John 21. There were churches before the NT books were completed. We do not have new revelations of Dogma but we do protect the truth from heresy by saying what it is and what it isn’t based on the deposit of Faith…the ” form of sound words” ” standard of sound teaching”…that we have always held from the beginning and has been handed on in the church of which the scripture is a witness.
The apostolic priesthood is also a gift from God and Paul handed that on through ordination to the bishops he ordained such as Titus and Timothy. The teaching was to be handed down as well as he instructs Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:1 . They were to hand on what they audibly heard in the presense of many witnesses. This is Holy tradition.
There is no scripture that says all spiritual gifts ended with the death of the Apostles. That is a private interpretation. The Apostles could hand on the gift of priestly ordination but the gift could not be bought with money as Simon tried to do. They did not say it could not be passed on. They just said it could not be bought with money. Attention to detail is important. ACTS 8
Bishops and those they have ordained can administer the Sacrament of the seal of the gift of the HOLY Spirit called Chrismation because of their Apostolic Succession. This sacrament follows after baptism just like in the book of Acts.
The Church was not waiting for a complete book to be created, as if the purpose of the Apostles were to author an exhaustive book and then everyone just refers to the book and individually interprets it. The solo Scriptura narrative is false; it is more like Islam than the Church of Jesus Christ.
The church did close the canon. That does not mean that all spiritual gifts have ended or that the Bishopic received by the Apostles could have no succession. Matthias was ordained to replace judas because he lost his bishopric. As I posted from Acts 1. The Apostles were the first bishops and they ordained successors…and this has continued to this day.
Blessed Lord’s Day to you.
When Paul writes those words: “that the man of God be perfect, equipped for every good work” were the new testament books all written by then or did others get written after that? This passage teaches the inspiration, usefulness and necessity of the Scriptures for the perfection and equipping of the man of God. ( he was probably referring to the old testament scriptures in this quote) It does not teach, however, scripture alone, left only to private interpretation. Thanks for sharing.
It doesn’t matter if all the books were not written by the time Paul wrote, the Scriptures are given so that, “the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Its application is to all scripture, all that is God-breathed. Peter tells us that what Paul wrote was scripture! Before written revelation was completed, the church had inspired men and the spiritual gifts. But once written revelation was completed, there was no more need for the gifts, and so they passed away (1 Cor. 13).
No one is saying that this passage is teaching scripture alone, privately alone. I know of the importance of the church which was in the mind of God before the world began. I also know of the sufficiency of the church: And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, etc.. (Eph 4:11-14) You get the point.
But notice, each of the gifts, workers, functionaries mentioned by Paul (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) have in common the function of teaching. But to teach what? The word of God, or the creeds and traditions of men? Certainly not the doctrines of men! The early church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.”(Acts 2:42). Which was the teaching of Christ (Mth. 28:18-20). To preach anything beyond His word is condemned: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8).
So, yes, the word of God alone, but as functioning members of the body of Christ!
How do you know your biblical interpretations are the truth?
There is only one way to know the truth – John 8:31-32
I’m still growing in the knowledge of the truth, what about you?
Yes, growing in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord. 2 Peter 3:18. The more I learn, the more I dont know. Thank God. Glad to hear you are growing too.
The same here. The more I know, the more I realize I need to know. But I must also abide in His word to be truly His disciple. Contrary to popular opinion, faith alone cannot save.
Hi Aidan, AMEN I agree. It is faith hope and love. Not faith ” alone”. With that being said, it is due to God’s grace and we cannot earn it. It begins in our new birth in water and the Holy spirit in Holy Baptism ( John 3:3, Titus 3:5, Roman’s 6:1-10, Col 2:10-13; 1 Peter 3:21) and then we participate in it though via “faith which worketh by love”. Galatians 5:6. We experience union with Christ through the Holy Communion of his Holy Body and Blood. Also, We must not commit sin that darkens and defiles the soul and severs us from Christ. When we do sin we must confess and be cleansed ( 1 John 1:1-9) We must abide in Christ. Galatians 5:13-19 Roman’s 8 :12, John 15. Refreshing to hear you say this. Certainly it is faith without works of the Law but not faith “alone”. Faith must be completed by our actions. This is our part on the subjective side. objectively jesus accomplished everything for our Salvation. He gives it to us. We must be found in Him. He is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. We can boast only in Him! (1 Corinthians 1:30)
James 2:22
“You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works”.
1 Corinthians 13
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,[a] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). We are justified by works, faith alone cannot save. This is anathema to most evangelicals today, because they don’t understand the works that James is talking about. And they think that Paul was talking about “all works” when he wasn’t. James was talking about works of faith, Paul was not. That pretty much sums it up! No one was ever saved by faith alone, grace alone, or by works alone; you need all three. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?” Again, James is talking about works of faith, the obedience of faith.
Baptism is a work of faith, the obedience of faith, just as much as repentance or any other thing that God commands us to do. But baptism, a complete burial in water, is the point at which a person’s sins are forgiven, and he enters into Christ (Rom. 6:3-7; Acts 2:36-38; Gal. 3: 26-27). And if one is baptized into Christ, he is not “in Christ” until he is baptized into Christ. It is the point at which sins are forgiven, because its the point at which one unites with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, in which the blood was shed. And, it is where the new birth truly happens, when one is raised up out of the watery grave to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2: 11-13). Funny that Paul was still in his sins right up until he was baptized (Acts 22:16). And many are contradicting Paul when they say that there is more than one baptism today, not so (Eph. 4: 5). One also receives the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in baptism (Acts 2:38). Which I think ties in with the water and the Spirit in (John 3:3-5).
And yes, you are also right when you said: “When we do sin we must confess and be cleansed ( 1 John 1:1-9) We must abide in Christ. Galatians 5:13-19 Roman’s 8 :12, John 15.” You are absolutely right, one can lose their salvation if they continue in sin and don’t repent of it and seek forgiveness. Salvation, is conditional on faithfulness. This is how one depends on God’s grace. In fact, how else could grace teach and instruct, except through the word?
(Titus 2:11-12):
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age”
Hi Aidan, we agree on the importance of Baptism. I wanted to share some other thoughts from the perspective of the Orthodox Church on Baptism. First I will provide some biblical references and make some comments about them.
Colossians 2:10-15 NRS
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.”
We see here that Baptism is the fulfillment of old covenant circumcision. It does what Old Covenant circumcision did and much much more because of the superiority of the New Covenant. It is in no way deficient in comparison to the old rite of circumcision. In the old circumcision it was limited to males but now this is for both genders. In the old covenant circumcision was applied to infant males upon the eighth day. (The eight day symbolizes the new creation! It is the day after the 7th day week so it is outside time. It is also the first day and that is the day Christ was raised from the dead and inaugurated the New Creation, which will come to complete fulfillment on the last day.) Also notice Circumcision , as noted in the case of our Father Abraham, it was a seal of the righteousness of the faith( Roman’s 4) and yet was still applied to infants. The same is true for New Testament Baptism. The arguments brought against circumcision i.e they dont know anything etc…is what people will say against infant baptism. So it is moot. Infants can’t confess faith; they also can’t disbelieve either. God used the rite of circumcision to bring them into the old testament church; the sacrament of Holy Baptism brings them into the new testament church and fulfills circumcision as St.Paul describes.
Someone may protest and say, Baptism is a human work; this is works righteousness! What one notices when they read this text carefully is that Baptism is a work of God not of man. This translation I posted says” faith in the power of God”. The original Greek says: “Faith OF the operation of God” like in the KJV. It is God’s work; God’s act. It is NOT a work of righteousness that we perform to fulfill an obligation. Thus the Church has ALWAYS called it a holy mystery or sacrament NEVER a mere “ordinance or obedience.”
Acts 2:38-39 NRS
38 Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.’
Notice that it is a salvific work of God bringing forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Secondarily it is a command. Primarily it is a gift and promise for the repentant believer AND their children. He says this ” promise ” is for you and for your children. The emphasis is on the grace of God. We see baptisms of whole households in the book of Acts. This makes sense if it is a gift, promise, work of God and fulfills circumcision which was given to the children too. Of course the child will have the free will to depart from the Faith and the grace they were given ( God forbid) . We further them in the Faith and give them the Holy Communion as full members of the Church. Because they have the freedom to turn away, It is no cancelling of free will.
So they question comes to mind as to whether God can give the gift of the Holy Spirit to an infant? The answer is YES. We see this in the example of John the Baptist. This was even before the plenitude of grace given in the New Covenant. The grace that pours out the Spirit on all flesh in the last days ( this is the time from the resurrection to the last day) when Jesus returns and brings about the new heavens and new earth…this plenitude of grace bring infants into the body of Christ. It is by pure grace. They did nothing to deserve it. They receive the grace first as preventative medicine, so to speak. A child does not have to understand how vitamins work before a parent nourishes them. ( They have no guilt as Eastern Orthodox reject the reasoning of the Roman Catholics on this issue.) They were in Adam and now are brought into Christ!
God has not changed. He extended the blessings of the covenant community to infants under the old law. Is he going to refuse it to them in the New Law? Is he going to institute a sign and seal of it in the Old Testament and not have a Fulfilled sign and seal in the New Testament. It seems Paul answers that question showing the continuity of circumcision to baptism and showing its NT fullness of grace. The seal is the gift of the Holy spirit given through the sacrament of Chrismation. This is the anointing for the gift of the Holy Spirit that happens immediately after Baptism. This corresponds to the NT practice of going to the Apostles for the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit after being baptized as we see in Acts
Luke 1:15 NRS
15 for he [John the Baptist] will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Titus 3:5 NRS
5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.
We see from this passage that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism brings the washing of new birth and renewal of the Holy Spirit and yet at the same time is not among any works of righteousness that we have done. This reiterates the sacramentality of Baptism that it is Gods work on our behalf not our act for him to fulfill an obedience. The obedience of faith comes after our death burial and ressurection with Christ…when we walk in newness of life.
Is Baptism a symbol or reality? This is a false dichotomy. Yes. It is a symbol. It is a symbol in which God does what it symbolizes! Empty symbols are for the old law to typify the power life and grace that were coming in the new law of Christ. No scripture says Baptism is showing anything or is just a powerless symbol. Rather it says we were buried with him BY Baptism into death and raised… not only that but in Baptism we become children of God and we have put on Christ! (Galatians 3:27)
The Baptism of John was a mere symbol of repentance; it was not the Christian Baptism. Those Baptized by John were later Baptized by the Church for new birth and forgiveness of sins. We see this in Acts 19.
People like to get around these things to say it is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The scriptures say there is ONE baptism not two. ( EPHESIANS 4)In addition THE LORD JESUS says: ” born of water and the Holy Spirit in John 3:3. The Apostles use the terms: Washing of regeneration in Titus 3:5. Baptism is an anti type that now saves us 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism for remission of sins Acts 2:38. Etc.
Some bible students force symbolism on the text because their system requires the unbiblical notion of salvation by “faith alone.” As we said before it is not alone but God gives hope and love as well that manifests in actions. These actions of love are what completes the faith so that it is not barren and lifeless like the human body without the human spirit animating it. Thus, the actions are making it living faith instead of ” dead faith”. (James 2:22 )Actions WITHOUT this lively faith is rightly called “Dead works” in scripture as well. (Hebrews 9:14). The two are in synergy together and both are in synergy with God’s grace. These scriptural principles only work when one sees salvation as a continuum with past present and future dimensions….as something inward….intrinsic….dynamic…more than a one time transaction.
We Baptize by triple immersion in the Orthodox Church unless reasons of necessity prevent it. We do not perform single immersion baptism because the Church has always done triple immersion and because single immersion is what the non trinitarians did historically to contrast themselves with the Church. Triple immersion Baptism symbolizes the three days of Christ in the tomb and the three persons of the Divine Trinity. When I have read the writings of restorationists [ “church of christ” denomination] the emphasis is on baptism as something we do because we are commanded to do it and upon doing it, God saves. At least that is how it seemed. I believe this is the wrong emphasis per Titus 3:5. Baptism is necessary and therefore we are told to let ourselves be baptized but it is fundamentally God’s work for us based on his grace rather than our work for him as the Apostle Paul relates to us.
So Aidan, there is much we agree on but a few things that differ that I wanted to attempt to explain why we do what we do.
I suspect with your solo scripture view you will deny infant baptism because it is not commanded verbatim in scripture. It being the fulfillment of circumcision already set the precedent and it was not forbidden to include children in the new testament scriptures concerning the sacrament. In fact it speaks inclusive of them. So one is not being scriptural in being against it but are basing it on human arguments related to it supposedly being a human work we do for God which is not what it is! The Scriptures show Holy Baptism as a divine work. Can’t emphasize that enough. Thanks for the discussion.
DNJohn,
I will try and read through this and respond tomorrow evening, as its 01:32 am here, and I’m up early to go to worship in the morning.
Thanks,
Aidan
Blessed Lord’s day to you!
Hi DNJohn,
Thank you for your thoughts on baptism. I will try to comment as best I can in accordance with how I have understood you. Since I myself have come out of Catholicism, some of your arguments and references to sacraments and rituals, will not be unfamiliar to me. I have studied the N.T. for a long time now, with a similar background, only to find that such rituals and sacraments were unknown to the New Testament church, or should I say, to the churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16).
I just want to preface this by saying, that I agree that man’s salvation is first and foremost a work of God. The church was a part of God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 3:10-11). In reference to that salvation in Christ, Paul said to the Ephesians: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” (Eph 2:10). And that it was , “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”
Colossians 2:10-15:
You quoted this passage and then applied it to infant baptism saying that, “the sacrament of Holy Baptism brings them into the new testament church and fulfills circumcision,” and that faith was unnecessary. First of all, you cannot arbitrarily apply something in a way that the New Testament doesn’t apply it. What you have done is nullify the need to believe in order to be baptized. In Mark 16:16 Jesus made faith a necessary requirement for baptism when He said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” This is precisely the thing that Jesus condemned in Matthew 15: 1-9. Even in your passage in Colossians 2, God makes faith necessary for baptism. It says, “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). Infants cannot believe, therefore they are not proper candidates for scriptural baptism.
Secondly, infants have no need of salvation. Jesus said, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 19:14). They are without sin and therefore have no need of forgiveness (Ezekiel 18). Another requirement for baptism is repentance, for they were called to ““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 2:38). Even if infants had something to repent of it would be impossible for them to do so! The Lord commands faith and repentance for the one being baptized. Furthermore, Infant baptism also nullifies the need to confess with the mouth (Acts 8:37; Rom. 10: 9-10). Infant baptism is unscriptural!
You say, whole households were baptized in Acts? Yes, but many households have grown up children, therefore the word ‘household’ does not necessarily imply infants. Acts 16:30-33 shows that the Philippian Jailer’s household were old enough to hear the word and believe before being baptized by Paul.
Finally, you say that baptism is not a command in the New Testament? Really? Let’s hear what Jesus has to say about this:
“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. (Mt. 28:19-20). Notice again: “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” Well, what had He just commanded them to do in v.19?
Peter commanded water baptism in Acts 10:
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..” (Acts 10: 46-48).
Luke 18
People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it. 16 But Jesus called for them and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. 17 Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.”
Your arguments only apply to those capable of doing those things i.e verbally confess . God does not require that which is impossible. Also God can give faith in ways unknown to you and different than your rationalistic mindset
“Out of the mouth of babies and nursing infants God has perfected praise. ” the Scripture says.
Matthew 21
Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 13 He said to them, “It is written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a den of robbers.” 14 The blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he cured them. 15 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did, and heard the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became angry 16 and said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, “Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?” 17 He left them, went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there.
You see salvation as a result of meeting requirements and baptism as one of them. This is a legalistic mind set. That is why you all call it an Ordinance. That is one reason why a person can’t see giving it to infants. We are not saved because of the fact of meeting a requirement or obeying an ordinance.
If this is truly believed that baptism is God’s work for us, then one should call it a sacrament or mystery ( these are the new testament words) instead of an ordinance or obedience.
Because it is given to infants shows it is all grace and not something the individual does to earn salvation.
It is completely a gift of God, preceded by repentance and confession of faith in adults, and preceded by nothing for infants. The repentance and faith are conditions for those of accountable age. There is nothing infants need to rectify first. They are born ready for the grace of Christ to fill them for their healing and preservation so they become warriors for Christ.
There is some mystery involved. Our Lord speaks of it in his talk with Nicodemus in John 3. It is not as rationalistic as portrayed by you in your remarks.
John 3
“Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2 He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, “You must be born from above.’
8 The wind blows [ or better the “Spirit breathes” as the Douay Rheims translation says ] where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
There is more to salvation that forgiveness of committed sins. Salvation is many faceted. Preservation from sin by God’s grace is salvation too. Being brought into the Church, which is the kingdom of God among us is salvific because it is union with Christ. Healing, renewing, renovating, transfiguring, sanctifying the inward self is salvation and it is not limited to forgiveness. Infants have salvation but they need more. They need the restoration and rectification from the effects of the fall even though they have incurred no actual guilt. ⁷1They need to grow into salvation .Being full members of the body of Christ helps with this and the support and prayers from the other members as well. To say that because they have no sins to repent of, they need no salvation is erroneous.
Next I will show how the Eastern Orthodox view of the nature of newly born babies differs from the familiar Western idea of Original Sin
We do not believe in the Romish doctrine of “Original Sin”. Children are 100 percent innocent. We believe instead in what is called the Ancestral Sin. It means we are damaged in the fall because we now have mortality and our nature is disordered. The flesh now rules the spirit instead of the proper dominion of the spirit over the flesh. Because of this disordering caused by the fall we have a (un) natural propensity toward sin caused by the fallen state.
Therefore, We come into this world needing healing. We need the glory of God that we lost in the fall, the Divine Likeness. The grace of Baptism brings healing to an infant as it does for an adult. The koine greek work “save “means to heal.
St John the Baptist had no sins to repent of before he was divinely given the gift of the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb. It makes zero sense to makes God’s gifts of full covenant membership dependent on our sinning…to make sinning and then repenting a pre-requisite before full Church membership is given to a child. Would not it be better to give the plenitude of grace first to preserve them in holiness and nourish them with Holy Communion of Christ’s Body and Blood while teaching them the Faith of Christ all along? Preservation from falling away is salvation too and better actually. Once they do consciously commit a sin there is confession to be restored. Confession is a renewal of baptism and they can commune again in Holy Communion. The view of salvation you propose is too narrow.
Faith is given by God along with hope and love. Babies have their own ways to respond to love and to have implicit faith that is not rationalistic. It is child like faith that God wants of us.
Baptized Babies in the Orthodox Church have more than heard. They have received the full grace of Baptism, have been anointed with the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit and have been given holy Communion. They have received the living Word of God and communed with him. That is more real than hearing and rationalizing about scripture.
You say I am arbitrarily applying the concepts of new covenant Circumcision i.e Baptism to infants. It is not arbitrary at all. It is according to biblical precedent from beginning to end in regards to God’s covenants with man. Paul showed it as corresponding to circumcision and he never excluded children in any of his statements.
The Apostles said the promise was for the believer and their children in Acts 2:39. There were, I believe 5 records of household baptisms and no doubt many more not recorded and yet you arbitrarily believe there were no little children in those households.
If including infants was the norm and precedent in Israel regarding the Abrahamic covenant of which we are recipients then if it was not acceptable to baptize babies there would have been a specific prohibition against initiating children in the NT. Instead we find words indicating their inclusion in Baptism and the gift of the Spirit.
The Abrahamic covenant to bless the nations in Christ was for believers AND their children. “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable”.
The hermeneutic error is in supposing that everything continued has to be repeated in the New Testament verbatim. Any literary analysis will show that the writings of the NT were limited in scope and not meant to repeat everything. Just saying we are in the Abrahamic covenant and baptism fulfills circumcision is enough.
Faith is necessary for salvation and one who is a disbeliever cannot be baptized. Babies have not rejected Christ with the sin of unbelief. Are little children ever reckoned with the unbelievers in the New Testament? I can’t recall that ever being imputed to them.
Only those who through their freely chosen personal trespasses and sins have become dead in sins ( under condemnation of death) are children of wrath. WE ARE NOT BORN DEAD IN SIN. This in an unbiblical phrase altogether because scripture says it in the plural e.g trespasses and sins. Ephesians 2
In contrast to that unhappy scenario, Believer’s children are in grace, sanctified and when baptized are being saved through God’s work of healing within them and are fully in Christ and partakers of divine nature.
In orthodoxy we have a dynamic understanding of salvation. It isn’t static and transactional as in most of protestantism.
In the baptismal service the devil is renounced, one unites with Christ and professes faith in him verbally. Then they are baptized, anointed for the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit and then given holy communion. Then they are taught the Faith through many means within the life of the Church.
Baptism for adults is usually preceded by a time of preparation in which the person is taught the faith of Christ and begins their repentance.
In the case of Children, their God parents make these declarations of faith on their behalf until they do so on their own. We confess our faith verbally every Sunday when we recite the Creed and daily in our prayers.
You quoted Colossians 2. Our modern versions often translates the Greek ” faith of” as ” faith in”. I pointed out that it says: we are raised through the faith OF the operation of God…. I think that nuance is significant.
I am glad you also reject the notions of being born a condemned sinner. We are sinners because we sin. We do not sin because God inputed Adam’s sin to us to make us sinners by nature at birth! A sinful nature is developed by personal choices to commit sin which enslaves the person making sin a ” second ” nature. It is therefore from the point of view of our original nature, un natural or against nature to sin. Sin entered the world and brought death/mortality to us and because of that weakness we personally sin bearing fruit even more for death. This is Roman’s 3 – 5 and 7.
Thanks for the reply.
DNJohn wrote:
“Your arguments only apply to those capable of doing those things i.e verbally confess .”
My response:
That’s right, because the scripture makes clear that the sinner must be willing to believe, repent, confess Him and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. What sins does a baby have?
DNJohn wrote:
“You see salvation as a result of meeting requirements and baptism as one of them. This is a legalistic mind set.”
“The repentance and faith are conditions for those of accountable age.”
My Response:
I said repentance and faith are “requirements” for baptism, and you accuse me of being legalistic!
You say repentance and faith are “conditions” for baptism and you accuse me of being legalistic???
Don’t you know? To say that faith and repentance are “conditions” for baptism is the same as saying they are “requirements” for baptism.
Tell me, when Naaman the leper was told to dip himself seven times in the Jordan river and was cured; did he earn it, or was it by God’s grace? I don’t think anyone believes that Naaman earned it. All men are afflicted by the leprosy of sin, and whatever God calls us to do to be cleansed by the blood of Christ, is in accordance with His great mercy and grace. I can tell you now; no man who sees himself as he really is before God is doing anything but calling out to God for mercy and forgiveness. And if that meant dipping myself seven times in the nearest river, I would do precisely what God “required” of me, thankful to Him for His great mercy toward me.
DNJohn wrote:
Concerning babies: “To say that because they have no sins to repent of, they need no salvation is erroneous.”
My response:
You have the same malady as Catholics do; you reject the authority of the scriptures for the sake of the infallible authority of the Church. You exalt the doctrines and traditions of the Church(men) over the word of Christ! The Catholics and the Jews made the same mistake saying, “check our lineage, we have Abraham as our father” or “Yes, but we have Peter as our father,” no but ” the Orthodox church has all of the Apostles as our fathers.” These things mean nothing to God who shows no partiality. For those who reject His word will be judged by that word. Concerning infants, Jesus said, “For of such is the kingdom of Heaven,” but you say ‘they need salvation’. Hear what Jesus says to those who reject His word:
“He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).
Do you not hear what Jesus has said? “For of such is the kingdom of Heaven,” meaning infants, little children, are already in the kingdom of heaven. They belong to God. And, if they belong to His heavenly kingdom, they are not separated from God. Are you listening? They are in the kingdom!
You use the same language I have heard all my life in Catholicism like, this is a ‘sacrament’ of God’s grace, and words like ‘anointing’ and ‘mystery’ are frequently used. Beautiful language used to convey deeper things, especially the word ‘mystery’ to tell us that we should simply accept what we are being told from the top down. This is just another form of Gnosticism, where there are deeper spiritual mysteries that only the few seem to understand better than most, namely, the hierarchy. The churches’ explanation of these greater mysteries must be accepted by faith, for we are the true church with the true lineage! It’s a good way to control the masses. If only people knew that God has made known, unveiled, the mystery of His will in the N.T.
If there is one major thing I learned in coming to the gospel, its that God made Jesus both “Lord” and “Christ” not the church, nor the hierarchy (Acts 2:36). And if He is ‘Lord’ He means that we must obey Him above all else. God has warned us what will happen to those who refuse to listen to His Son, they will be destroyed! Peter warned, “‘And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people’” (Acts 3:23).
That warning is well worth taking to heart!
Aidan, I do not reject the Scriptures. I don’t reject the authority of the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. I DO reject the authority of private individuals and sects founded by private individuals to interpret the scripture against the Church founded by our Lord 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. Private interpretation is no different than the scribes who spoke of the scriptures but did so with no authority.
I showed the biblical precedent for including children in God’s covenants and that they should be brought to him. You only quote the last half of the passage. Regardless, The phrase that the Kingdom of heaven/God is theirs does not at all imply they should be excluded from the sacraments until they become a sinner. The proclamation at Pentecost is that it is for you and your children….
I was just pointing out inconsistency in terminology when the writings of your church refer to it as ordinance and emphasize it as such. In your soteriology, You have to meet requirements to fulfill an additional requirement an ordinance i.e baptism, versus in Orthodox theology, a sinner has to meet conditions to be eligible for a gift/promise i.e the new birth of baptism.
No conditions for children to be baptized but once baptized the child will work out their salvation through ongoing repentance once they are conscious of sin etc. The emphasis and nuance is different.
Basically, It is God work for us so it can be given to children. Our God does not keep Children from being added to the Church with full membership.
You apply requirements towards ” sinners” to those who are even by your admission NOT sinners and presume that they cannot be added to the church because of not fulfilling inapplicable requirements.
A Gentile adult had to confess faith in the God of Israel to be circumcised but his little children were included without any such requirement. The same biblical principle applies. You cannot find where this was reversed. God is somehow less generous in the New Testament in the view that your propose.
God has not changed how he does covenants in the New Covenant. You believe the New Testament is a kind of how to manual and all things have to be said again there to be applicable. That is a mis use of the New Testament scriptures by expanding them beyond their scope. The NT allows for Holy Tradition but you deny it unless it is expressly written down. By doing this you can keep your own campbelite tradition instead of the Holy tradition and the precedent already set historically in the Apostolic Churches and the biblical precedent that has not been reversed. Sectarians think they know better than the church actually founded by christ himself and continued to this day.
Scripture is part of the Holy Tradition along with what is not written but is handed on to the Churches from the Apostles. I believe you are an upright man and you reverence the scriptures. I reverence them too.
Concerning the other sacraments: Where did your ministers get the authority to celebrate Holy Communion? In Scripture, Jesus gave that authority to the apostles alone. The Apostles handed in on through ordination to their successors and so on. This is an important question because without an authentic Eucharist i.e the Holy Communion of Christ’s body and blood, there is no Church.( See 1 Corinthians 10:15-17). Jesus also said “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you”. John 6
Thanks for the lively discussion.
DNJohn, you wrote:
“Aidan, I do not reject the Scriptures. I don’t reject the authority of the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. the Church founded by our Lord 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.”
My response:
I am sure that you sincerely believe that you belong to the true Church, founded by our Lord 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. I genuinely believed the same thing when I was in Catholicism. Because we had the succession of popes from Peter, the rock upon which Christ built His Church. So we could trace our Church right back to the very beginning with Peter and the rest of the apostles. And her teachings as infallible in the traditions handed down to us by the one true Apostolic church. These traditions handed down to us were on an equal par, if not often superseding scripture (which in reality is what they did). So in the end, what you are trying to do is serve two masters, or two sources of authority. One is Christ and His word, the other is fallible men and their commandments (the traditions of men). DNJohn, you cannot serve two masters! All you do is make of none effect God’s commands by your traditions.
What about infant baptism? Most arguments in favour of such would be stopped before they got started if all of the divine prerequisites were considered. Babies cannot be taught to understand the Gospel. They are too young to believe in Jesus and are incapable of repentance. Therefore, little children are not the subjects of Bible baptism. They have no need of it. Baptism is for sinners, but babies are in a complete state of innocence. This, Jesus affirms when He says of little children, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). There is not a single case of infant baptism found in Scripture! There is no statement of it, no example, or necessary inference by which to establish authority for its practice. This means that infant baptism is without divine approval – a tradition of men that seeks to make of none effect God’s command that one first be taught, believe, and repent of sins before baptism.
Jesus said:
“..Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’ ”(Mth. 15:6,9).
Hi Aidan,
Roman catholicism is not orthodoxy. I agree that Roman Catolicism is not correct. They have added dogmas not known by the early church and not accepted in the Other Churches. They have made the Bishop of Rome to be above the whole Church. That place is reserved for Christ alone. I converted to the Orthodox Christian Faith from protestantism. I am not going back to unscriptural individualism. The scriptures are ecclesial.
Ephesians 3
Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to accomplish abundantly far more than all we can ask or imagine, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
DNJohn wrote:
“The Apostles said the promise was for the believer and their children in Acts 2:39. if it was not acceptable to baptize babies there would have been a specific prohibition against initiating children in the NT. Instead we find words indicating their inclusion in Baptism and the gift of the Spirit.”
My response:
(Acts 2:38-39)
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. “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
What does the Holy Spirit mean in (v.39)? He means that the Promise of (v.38) was to the Jews, their descendants and to the Gentiles, i.e. to all who were afar off (Acts 2:39).
“Your children” i.e. their descendants. The term “children” is used more than once in the book of Acts to contrast descendants with ancestors. The “fathers” were contrasted with the then current generation of the Jews in (Acts 3:25). Stephen repeatedly called their ancestors “our fathers” (Acts 7:12,15,19,38,39). Likewise, the people of Israel are quite often referred to as “the children of Israel” in the book of Acts (Acts 7:23, 37; 9:15; 10:36).
Secondly, Notice that the “promise” of (v.39) is conditional upon those who repent and are baptized (v.38): The true import of the Apostle’s meaning here, is demonstrated by fact that the “Promise” in question is based upon the conditions of repentance and immersion, – something which infants could not possibly comply with.
Third: When Peter says, “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off,..” that makes the “Promise” universal in scope. But then we have the expression ” as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Although the gospel is universal, and is always to be preached in all the world to every creature (Mark 16:15):The promise can only be assured to those who respond to that call in (v.39). Otherwise, why not seek to baptize all, both believing and unbelieving? For the simple reason that God only calls men through the gospel (2 Thess 2:14), and this gospel calls on men to hear an believe (Rom. 10:14-17). But how can the gospel be preached to infants? How can God’s call go to them? Not until God is able to address His call to unconscious babies, any attempt to infer from this passage the right to baptize infants, will always be futile.
The context of Acts 2:38-39 is crystal clear – babies not included!
In my next post, I hope to deal with the context Colossians 2:11-13.
Hi Aidan,
the baptism of households shows you are incorrect. 5 instances are recorded and probably many more not recorded and are you insisting that none of them had little children? Children are descendants obviously. An ancestor of a jew is still a jew so no need to distinquish descendants from ancestors. This is a baseless argument.
Jesus approved of infants being brought to him and chided those who objected.
The Abrahamic covenant instituted circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith and it was given to children 8 days old. I did not make the connection to circumcision, the Apostle Paul did. He called it the circumcision from Christ. The church has always baptized infants. Babies are immersed, baptized into Christ who loves that they are brought to him.
Only the children of those who are called are baptized. They promise to raise them in the faith of Christ. There are sponsors chosen called God parents who commit to helping with that as well.
Solo Scriptura is extreme tunnel vision. It is contrary to the intent of the scriptures. It is putting a burden on the NT writings never intended by the authors.
The context of Colossians 2 parallels the context of Ephesians 2 and is about Paul’s good news that the Gentiles are united in one body and co heirs with the jews and are recipients of a fulfilled circumcision. It focuses on the exceedingly abundance of grace now lavished upon the people of God. Much more that the old covenant.
The application you are making with Colossians 2 in regard to circumcision is erroneous! I hope to get to that tomorrow. But until you stop taking the word of men over the word of God, you will never be able to see the truth!
Hi DNJohn,
This argument for infant baptism assumes that circumcision for babies has been replaced by baptism. I say this because an effort has been made by you to prove such in your use of Col. 2:11-13. There is no passage which says that baptism has now taken the place which circumcision once occupied for infants. Col. 2:11-13 does not imply what you assume. Can infants / unbelievers be said to have been ‘raised with Christ through faith in the working of God (v.12)?’ This passage makes it clear that baptism must be an act of faith, thereby excluding infants / unbelievers. Other passages, such as, (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-38; Rom 6:17) also confirm that baptism must be an act of faith.
Another reason why baptism has not taken the place of circumcision for infants, is what Paul says in (Col. 2:13) in connection with (v.11). The circumcision of Christ in baptism, is the putting off the body of the flesh(Col. 2:11), having forgiven our trespasses (2:13). The circumcision which Christ performs in baptism, is the cutting off of our old man with the body of sin (cf Rom. 6:6), thus separating us from our sins. And since babies have no sin, the circumcision of which Paul spoke of cannot apply to them, for they are without sin. This act is performed in connection with baptism, in that baptism is unto the forgiveness of sins. Let it be said that baptism itself does not forgive sins. It is through Christ that forgiveness is given to the penitent believer who is baptized into Him.
The only conclusion is that Col. 2:11-13 cannot sanction baptism as circumcision for infants. In fact, there is no passage of scripture that sanctions infant baptism – period.
You seem to have reduced salvation to only forgiveness of actual misdeeds. Salvation is more that just that. If a baby dies, they go to heaven because of the love of God and that he is a just judge. It is not because the child was perfect in every possible way. We do not baptize because we fear that if the baby dies, they will go to hell. God forbid. God is just and he does not punish one for the sins of another. Ezekiel 18. So the kingdom of God is theirs by God ‘s love. God will rectify what is lacking to them because of his goodness in the event of infant death. This is not the issue. It is not the rationale for baptizing babies.
They also have not experienced the corruption that happens to people as a result of committing sins. So they are innocent and without Guilt.
A baby is not born a Christian. A baby is born a child of Adam and a child of the flesh. We baptize to make the a child of God and of the Spirit. A baby is not” born from above”, they’ve only born of the flesh. A baby in not born already in the kingdom. We bring them because the kingdom of God belongs to them. A baby has the effects of the fall. They are not born as if they were Adam before the fall. Everything happens to them in baptism that happens to us except there are no actual misdeeds that need to be forgiven. Babies have a fallen “nature” although as ” persons “they are innocent.
We baptize babies and God does his saving work in them now and it is preventative medicine, so to speak. You have reduced salvation to mere forgiveness of infractions. Sure babies have no infractions and God will not damn them for those of Adam or anyone else, but salvation is more than just that. We have the effects of the fall even at birth. The child needs to be brought to Christ and United with him.God can then preserve them in sanctification and fill them with his Spirit and prevent the worse corruption that would come later without such protection.To not do that for them just because God will save them if they die, is faulty rationalistic reasoning. When they receive baptism and communion they are receiving God himself who will do for them what they need.
Jesus was pleased with babies being brought to him. He says “he who receives a little child in my name receives me”. So we receive them in his name in obedience to the will of our Lord. You not receiving them and giving them through baptism the birth from above and uniting them with Christ fully and giving them holy communion is the cause of future sins and Jesus condemn causing a little one to sin. You are not fortifying them and protecting them against the evil one. You are leaving them wide open. Jesus is truly present in the mystery of holy communion and communes with them and sanctifies them in the way suited to them. Jesus has both sheep and lambs in the fold and if we shepherd the flock we are to feed both. Even without the analogy between the circumcision of the OT church and the Baptism of the Church in the NT, there is still the call to receive children and still the blessing of our Lord for them to be brought to him.
We do not just being them externally. We bring them inwardly to our Lord through the means of grace he has provided in his church.
God has never be exclusionary toward infants in the covenant community. It is contrary to the words of the covenant he gave to Abraham of which we are a part.
There church has always and everywhere since the beginning of the church baptized infants. This comes from the Apostles. The early church Fathers explain this. Your arguments about what baptism does and the call of sinners to repent and believe is misapplied. This stance is novel.it is contrary to the Church and the biblical precedent established always in God’s covenants. Your arguments against infant baptism sound like the palagian heresy. ( The Orthodox church is not Palagian, nor did we agree with St. Augustine 100 percent in that historical controversy but made the qualifications expressed in this post).
DNJohn,
I’m afraid there is no point talking to you since you flat out reject the authority of the scriptures. In fact to reject the word of Christ is to reject Christ Himself. Jesus said “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “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. Therefore, everything the Apostles wrote are the commandments of the Lord. The Holy Spirit guided them into ALL of the truth (Jn 16:13). For that reason the early church “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” (Acts 2:42). Paul said; “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment” (1 Cor. 14:37). He also made it clear, “that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11-12). But Paul earlier warned them; But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9).
If its not found in the writings of the Apostles and prophets of the N.T. it is a perverted gospel and falls under the Lord’s condemnation. Notice what Paul said; But even if we (Apostles, prophets), or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. That certainly includes your precious early church fathers, and your so-called precious lineage of Bishops / Apostles! Jesus said, ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN’” (Mt. 15:9). All that you’ve said in regard to infant baptism is a corrupted gospel. Nothing of what you said came from what Jesus or the Apostles taught. Like Catholicism, this doctrine of yours prevents millions from coming to Christ to be truly baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. And like Catholicism with all of its man made traditions, nullifying the truth, the word of God, millions are being led astray and lost by these false prophets. Men who speak like they have the deeper things of God. But they only speak from their own imagination and not from the word of God.
“To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).
Hi Aidan,
I do believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am not lost or anathema as you suppose. Here is some more stuff on Baptism and some scriptural references to consider as well.
BAPTISM IN THE ORTHODOX FAITH
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,… (Matt. 28:19). By this command of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church proceeded to baptize with water. The most basic of all elements (water) to human life has been selected by God to be the instrument of our spiritual rebirth. “Most assuredly, I say to you”, said Jesus “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Baptism is God filling the emptiness in man with His life and presence. Baptism is God rejoicing over the child He has created. Baptism is God laying claim to you. Baptism is new birth. It is the creation of the new man in Christ. At our baptism God cleansed us, gave us a new heart and put His Spirit within us. Baptism is to be clothed with Christ’s strength. Baptism is a regeneration, a new life. It makes us partakers of divine nature. Baptism is the adoption of an orphan by – God – Who adopts us to share with us His kingdom and His life forever, granting us the privilege of addressing Him as “Our Father Who art in heaven…”
Baptism is God breathing into us His breath of the life. Baptism is our own personal Pascha. When we are plunged under the waters of baptism, we are not only washed, we die to sin. The old sinful nature is drowned. When we rise from the waters, we rise to new life in Christ. We share in Christ’s death and resurrection. The baptismal font becomes both a tomb and a womb.
Early Christians baptized entire families including children. Thus, infant baptism continues to be practiced in the Orthodox Church today as it was in the early apostolic Church. Baptizing infants before they know what is going on is an expression of God’s great love for us. It shows that God loves us and accepts us before we can ever know Him or love Him. It shows that we are wanted and loved by God from the very moment of our birth. To say that a person must reach the age of reason and believe in Christ before he/she may be baptized is to make God’s grace in some way dependent on man’s intelligence. But God’s grace is not dependent on any act of ours, intellectual or otherwise; it is a pure gift of His love.
We bring infants to baptism not because they believe but in order that they might believe. Baptism is like the planting of a seed of faith in the human soul. Nourished and fed by Christian training, catechesis, in the family and in the Church school, the seed of faith will grow to produce a mature Christian. Baptism introduces the child to the love of God and opens him to the grace of the Holy Spirit. ” ( Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church Wilmingtom De Website)
I do not reject Scripture or Christ’s words at all. I just don’t accept your presuppositions on their interpretation and application. I am not sure you quite believe all that the Bible teaches…or maybe you just have not considered fully the passages I am about to share. I think it’s the latter.
The Gospel of Luke says that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mothers womb and when the words of the Virgin Mother of God were spoken he leapt in Elizabeth’s womb in response. So here we having a baby filled with the Spirit having a response of faith! BUT NOT SO, ACCORDING TO YOU. Therefore infant baptism is believers baptism. They have an undeveloped faith as exemplified here, but it still counts. But you count them as unbelievers; That is an unscriptural notion, as that example proves
Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” (Psalm 22:9-10)
MATTHEW 18:1-14
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
Temptations to Sin
6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
The Parable of the Lost Sheep
10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.[1] 12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.
Colossians 2 Weymouth
In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision not performed by hand, when you threw off your sinful nature in true Christian circumcision;
12
having been buried with Him in your baptism, in which you were also raised with Him THROUGH FAITH PRODUCED WITHIN YOU BY GOD who raised Him from among the dead.
13
And to you–dead as you once were in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your natural state–He has nevertheless given Life with Himself, having forgiven us all our transgressions.
14
The bond, with its requirements, which was in force against us and was hostile to us, He cancelled, and cleared it out of the way, nailing it to His Cross.
15
And the hostile princes and rulers He shook off from Himself, and boldly displayed them as His conquests, when by the Cross He triumphed over them”
They have the seed of Faith produced within them in their baptism. God pours out Faith hope and love through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
(There is also the objective side of THE faith. Sometimes translations leave off the definite article when the original Greek has it. For example Galatians 3:26,27 “In Christ Jesus you are all Children of God through THE faith”. As many of you as were baptized into christ have clothed yourself with Christ.” Also even the well known passage Ephesians 2:8,9 For by grace you have been saved through THE faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast.” We are also baptized into the Faith of Christ. The faith is personal but is bigger than the individual. Augustine thought that it was the Faith of the Church or Faith of the parents that mattered in the infant Baptism; I think God gives a kind of faith to the child so it is all of this at once. This reminds me of the invalid who was carried by four men to Jesus and when they could not get into the house because of the crown they climbed up on the roof and let him down through the tiles. It says that when JESUS SAW THEIR FAITH, He said to the Paralytic, Be of good cheer your sins are forgiven. Then he healed the man physically ).
Colossians says in baptism we are risen “through the faith OF the working/operation of God” ( KJV, YOUNGS LITERAL TRANSLATION, BEREAN LITERAL TRANSLATION, DARBY TRANSLATION, DOUAY RHEIMS) . Do you know what that means? It means “faith produced in us by God”. The original Greek does not say “faith IN the working of God “as many translations interpret. Infants do not have the built up defences that adults do. God can work within them like he did with John the Baptist. For in the “last days he pours out his Spirit upon all flesh”…it won’t be exceptional cases like this one. This was quoted from the prophet Joel on the day of Pentecost by St Peter.
Faith is of God : 2 Peter 1:1, Philippians 1:29, Acts 3:16
So there is an intuitive faith in the child being baptized. It is not the reflective faith that adults have but it is still faith. Our Lord calls us to be converted like them, not vice versa.
Also you quote Mark 16:16. “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved. The one who does not believe will be condemned”.
This just teaches that faith and baptism must be present for one to be saved. It says nothing of chronology. The “one who does not believe will be condemned” means that without faith you will be condemned at judgement day with or without Baptism. This passage does not cancel infant baptism as you suppose.
You assume infants are unbelieving. Please show me in the scripture where infant children of believers are considered unbelievers.
“Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ”. Roman’s 10:17
I believe they do hear the word of life from Christ SPIRITUALLY (not literally )when he enlivens them in baptism. John 5: 25 Jesus said, ” The time is coming and NOW IS when the dead will hear the voice of the son of God and those who hear will live.” Christ does produce the seed of faith in them. The faith that Jesus extols is not the scholastic faith based on level of cognitive ability but the trust and humility of a child.
You think verbal profession is an absolute requirement. What about for a mute person. Can God make an exception for them?
With Holy Baptism comes responsibility. They have to continue in the Faith and thereby grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord. They must be taught and nurtured in the faith. They must be taught the true worship of God. They must persevere in the faith of Christ. May we all continue in the Faith, hope, and love of Christ.
I believe in Jesus Christ and in his Holy Gospel. 1 Corinthians 15
“First, Paul’s use of the term ‘elect’ always refers to believers (Romans 8:33; Col. 3:12)”
Not in the case of 2 Timothy 2:10 it doesn’t.
There is a way in which your argument that 2 Timothy 2:10 refers to Jews and also affirm that the other passages in the NT include both groups as elect IN CHRIST. This would be a huge exception on Paul’s part to single out one group but he does yearn for his own people the israelites to be saved. I can concede that this is POSSIBLE as long as one does not insist that all references to elect or chosen one is to Jews only. That would not be the truth.
THE WAY THIS POSSIBILITY COULD WORK IS that You can say that he is referring to the individual election according to foreknowledge only and NOT CORPORATE ELECTION . One is according to divine purpose and predestination and the other is simply by foreknowledge.
There are jews whom God knows will be converted and thus they are elect according to his foreknowledge. Paul could endure all things that the Gospel may get to these chosen ones among the jews( according to foreknowledge) ? That is the only way I can reconcile your contention as being in tune with the rest of the NT. He wanted to be used as an obedient vessel to save them as well as the Gentiles ones fore -known by God. I do not think this is what he meant but I can concede that it is a possible interpretation in this limited sense.
I have written generally so as not to let the ongoing conversation of Aidan and DNJOHN go unchallenged, specifically, because of the damage proof texting the Letter of James and the conflating of the word ‘baptize/baptism’ are continually bringing into the assembly of God’s people. This is a standing reply, practical in intention.
—————————
AIDAN MCMANUS
JANUARY 25, 2020 AT 8:14 AM“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). We are justified by works, faith alone cannot save. This is anathema to most evangelicals today, because they don’t understand the works that James is talking about. And they think that Paul was talking about “all works” when he wasn’t. James was talking about works of faith, Paul was not. That pretty much sums it up! No one was ever saved by faith alone, grace alone, or by works alone; you need all three. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?” Again, James is talking about works of faith, the obedience of faith.
Baptism is a work of faith, the obedience of faith, just as much as repentance or any other thing that God commands us to do. But baptism, a complete burial in water, is the point at which a person’s sins are forgiven, and he enters into Christ
&
DNJOHN:Hi Aidan, we agree on the importance of Baptism. ..We see here that Baptism is the fulfillment of old covenant circumcision. It does what Old Covenant circumcision did and much much more because of the superiority of the New Covenant. It is in no way deficient in comparison to the old rite of circumcision. In the old circumcision it was limited to males but now this is for both genders. In the old covenant circumcision was applied to infant males upon the eighth day. (The eight day symbolizes the new creation! It is the day after the 7th day week so it is outside time. It is also the first day and that is the day Christ was raised from the dead and inaugurated the New Creation, which will come to complete fulfillment on the last day.) Also notice Circumcision , as noted in the case of our Father Abraham, it was a seal of the righteousness of the faith( Roman’s 4) and yet was still applied to infants. The same is true for New Testament Baptism. The arguments brought against circumcision i.e they dont know anything etc…is what people will say against infant baptism. So it is moot. Infants can’t confess faith; they also can’t disbelieve either. God used the rite of circumcision to bring them into the old testament church; the sacrament of Holy Baptism brings them into the new testament church and fulfills circumcision as St.Paul describes.
Someone may protest and say, Baptism is a human work; this is works righteousness! What one notices when they read this text carefully is that Baptism is a work of God not of man. This translation I posted says” faith in the power of God”. The original Greek says: “Faith OF the operation of God” like in the KJV. It is God’s work; God’s act. It is NOT a work of righteousness that we perform to fulfill an obligation. Thus the Church has ALWAYS called it a holy mystery or sacrament NEVER a mere “ordinance or obedience.”
———–
THe conversation that is here public, before what is above copied, covers multiple scriptural interpretation by Aidan and DNJOHN that I find points of agreement with , but mostly an overall disagreement with, as relates to their conversation. Because we are reading the same scriptures it is natural at some point I agree with one over the other as a specific point is drawn out, but disagree with both on certain points and how contextually we can see them reveal their positions. I am going to stand at this point in opposition to them because of their public testimony against those , like myself, who believe God’s assurance of salvation is given to those who believe God alone has worked to obtain our reconciliation for salvation: to obey the good news is to believe confessing the good news,
See 1 Corithians 15:1-4, explicitly explained, implicitially understood- confessing this true good news that must be in ‘your’ mouth and in ‘your’ heart reveals one who believes to know Jesus Christ is Lord and is resurrected from the dead- in faith we believe, knowing only God can forgive sin, all sin being against God.
I hear both with theologies of putting forth a defense of ‘ALSO work TO MAINTAIN your OWN salvation’, instead of ‘work OUT your salvation’.
Aidan, for example, is ‘proof texting’ James out of context, which presents a pretext. As related, both hear and see God’s gift for the forgiveness of sins, as if God’s forgiveness is first applied and then kept or lost according to believing and human works (“of faith”) , first to include human water baptism.(Aidan will disagree with the “works of faith” explanation. The reader can decide for themselves, if like me, the system of Eastern Orthodox Theology is manipulating words( absent of actually persuading) to the same ends, so as to cohere to the EOT salvific theology of sacrament.
Much like “ the elect” conversation, is the issue of faith, works and baptism. There is an immediate context in the greater context of truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit’s within the setting of history. Both have revealed how they ‘hear’ scripture which accords to their central lens and the greater context of ( what may be their own) frame work, or the spirit of a systematic theology.
Because of their public position here, I do not want to leave their position unchallenged in light of the believers testimony of Christ on which the believer stands, because the good news is of FIRST IMPORTANCE.(1 Corinthians 15:*1-4 which is equal to the 1st and greatest command which Jesus Christ was faithful to fulfill, according to (OT) scripture as the Mediator, in which believing we are faithful to be one in Him, having died to ourselves, hidden with Christ in God. The ‘works of faith’ are given that we MAY KEEP the 2nd greatest command, following the example to love our neighbor as we ourselves have been loved. The new commandment we are given is to love eachother, those reconciled, who are ’the elect’ to obtain the resurrection of eternal life. Ephesians 2:8-10. The order: He who is without the gift of the Spirit, because they are not relying (belief unseen in truth is alive and active) on the Truth of the good news, does not receive the works of the Spirit(prepared in advance) as such a person does not obtain the faith they have not believed has been obtained for them, in which we receive the works prepared in advance for us to do, which come by grace, through faith.)
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I NOW live IN THE FLESH I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Baptism: There is 1 essential baptism for salvation. In this way baptism is necessary for salvation: It is receiving/obtaining THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. This baptism is not obtained by submitting to water baptism. The Holy Spirit is the gift received for those who believe.( Both Aidan and DNJOHN are reading the water baptism of Acts 2:38 according to a lens of necessary human performance or work, instead of the lens revealed by the Spirit.)
The thief on the cross and Cornelius are not exceptions. Just the opposite: they are evidence that God knows the moment you believe in HIs work and promise of salvation. Unseen by man, but seen by God, confessing and believing God has revealed we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit ( who is unseen ). What Peter was to learn was that Jesus had obtained THE FAITH for gentiles, too. And, further, in this Peter would see that God knows the confession of the heart and mind( in which God sees the truth of living and active repentance), at the moment of belief. Peter was neither confused that water baptism is a family memorial, confessing together our reconciliation to each other and to God, for the flesh welcomed into the faith. Note also Philip, who understood, together with the eunuch ethopinian. ( The issue here was not about him being a prostyle to Judaism, but how Philip would respond to him as a eunuch, different from Israel’s teachers.See Isaiah 56 as related to 53 which Philip had just shared.)
Acts 10:45
And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.
Everytime the word baptism is viewed in scripture it is often absent of ‘water baptism’. Like the word ‘elect’, ‘baptize/baptism’ is a word filled with meaning all on its own, of which many conflate and draw in the act of human ‘water baptism’ OR draw ‘water baptism’ into passages, determining, according to a theology a passages use of the world ‘water’, making as if it is related to human’s baptizing with water.
1 Corinthians 1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize
but to preach the gospel,
and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
(Now see 1 Corinthians 15:1-11)
————————————
Related to the letter of James, when the practicality to ‘him’ and ’them’ is misapplied to “save”, the surrounding text is further lead to be built with misinterpretations about “justified” man before men. This letter, misunderstood, has been the lens for many to ‘theologically manage’ the new testament doctrine of salvation and grace, personally, in gathering or in denomination. ( To include almost every biblical new religious cult, claiming restoration of the 1st century church.)
The Spirit of God does not contradict Himself as He Himself accords scripture. So, either Aiden is ‘hearing’ James wrong, not seeing he is ‘proof texting ‘ OR ( either I believe unintentionally) he does not ’see’ how he is holding out scripture verses to be in contradiction with other scripture verses of God’s own living and active revelation.
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham was justified by works,
he has something to boast about,
BUT NOT BEFORE GOD.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=justified
Paul and James are not in contradiction, as they live according to the Spirit in the flesh, being God’s handiwork/workmanship/masterpiece, believers being born(again) of the Spirit, first having entered this world as man with flesh. John 3/Ephesians 2( nor is the good news different for all who are called through faith, by those who have believed and received grace. (grace=unmerited/undersered favor that cannot be returned to the giver for merit on your behalf)
The letter of James is basic belief about those who should live according to the Spirit they claim to have, Christianly 101 as we live in this perishable flesh and with others in perishable flesh, the believing left in this world. John 17
So, what is the word save and justify and faith reveal in context?
Man CONSIDERS whether another man is righteous or not, God gives CREDIT/COUNT of righteousness. We should reflect God’s righteousness: Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect: Love and serve your neighbor. If we live with outward evidence of doing unrighteous works OR we live without evidence by lacking righteous works, this is what the Spirit of God revealed through Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:5:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in THE FAITH. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
THe question for examination is :Do you really believe you have received the Gift? God is not deceived but man can be self deceive that his ( living and active, unseen) faith is in God alone. https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=God%2C+alone&begin=47&end=73
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=your+faith&begin=47&end=73
God is not the one who needs to come to understand if we have deceived ourself. And God is not the one who needs to be made mature(perfect) and complete in faith. He grants us partnership as a tool in His hand. ( The testimony of clarification, as those who believe hold to the Word of Faith: Matthew 7)
I am more highlighting and bring forward verses, instead of going through every verse, yet beyond proof texting ( that someone may return to the context and reread for themselves) so that the common man, given our common sense from God, may see that which is living and active in truth, according to the word of God. The reader is free to/ and should test the spirits of interpretation as relates to me challenging that Aidan or DNJOHN interpretations are a misrepresentation of the Spirit of Scripture He has revealed to us.
The opening context of James:
2 Count it all joy, my brothers,[b] when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
The end of chapter 1:
26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
1st verse of chapter 2:
2 My brothers,[a] show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.
What’s the subject we are now giving our attention to?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Good question:
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
(FYI note:: Some translation servants have rendered this as a statement and not a question. Either way it will speak consistently with its context)
Who is HIM here?
Can that faith save him?
[ and this is the NIV, instead of the ESV
Who is “them”, which is equal to the ESV “him”
Can such faith save them?}
Let us see who him and them is ?:
15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to THEM, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving THEM the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
( The faith by itself is not absent, but if not accompanied by works {which are exemplified in the text as simple and reasonable one} is worthless, of no use, dead to you neighbor. { In the context of the assembly: do not sin and favor the rich over the poor over a seat in meeting/ starving people, being your brother, are saved from starving if feed}
Now about the demons:
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
( Often, in how many handle this text, they speak it AT someone as a ‘proof text’, and leave it to question instead of explain it.
There is NO Redemption plan for demons who shudder at the truth. So, what is James reveling by comparison? Demons work to destroy us and/or our neighbor as they believe this truth. Demons do no good serve of works for our fleshly neighbor. The question, due to context, is not : Who is eternally saved? It is : What makes me( us human believers) different from the demons in light of my(our) fellow believer/neighbor?)
So, how is faith(present), apart from works ( not present) useless?
Note context and where and how the word saved and justified are used and not used in the entirety of the context, specifically, when James 2: 24 as proof text is a pretext.
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
(Yes)
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
( Did he obtain an outcome of his faith? )
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
( Yes, it is men who acknowledged to God that Abraham was the friend of God. God had already “COUNTED/CREDITED” Abraham as righteous. SCRIPTURE ( the word of God according to the Spirit) was FULFILLED the Abraham believed God. As Hebrews reveals he believed God would resurrect his son. Hebrews 11/ Romans 4/2 Chronicles 20:6-8
( What does this verse not say? It does not speak to eternal salvation as to be justified before God in accordance with works and faith. The person is justified in light as it concerns their neighbor.)
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
————————————————
We add nothing to the work of God to save ourself. God counts to us righteousness according to His determined standard: mankind is without excuse to believe. We now live in the age where His mystery has specifically been revealed and we must believe the Father has given the Son, according to His revelation every one is generally sought through creation as to be a fool to deny God has given us faith to believe and that He rewards. Romans 1/Hebrew11/
—————————————————
God does NOT test us in the here and now so that He can know our heart and mind.
It is so YOU many know you have eternal life. Fear is the first fruit of wisdom, but perfect love cast out fear.
At that present time in history, to include theologies that even affect the church now , as they did then: See Rev 1-3 about the works that are NOT COMPLETE and the TEACHINGS in the church. Who can be mature and complete in Christ if they do not KEEP what they ‘heard’ what they claimed to believe: What did they KEEP because they ‘heard’ and ‘received’ it?
1 John2:antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge.( False teachers comes out from us. They do not all abandon ‘the faith’ but claim to be of ’the faith’, proclaiming a different gospel, which is no gospel at all.
( Who is John speaking to that He believes are anointed by the Holy One: those who have knowledge according to the Holy Spirit of Truth, who will stand firm, even unto death, to confess their only hope is in Christ, their testimony is the testimony of Christ, who came to make the Father known. In the 1st century what had John experienced as an Apostle and the Elder:
3 John 9-11
9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. 10 So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.
—————————————————
1 Cor 1:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled[b] master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
( I suggest a contextual reading of at least 1-3, 4 example )
—————————————————
Elihu( speaks according to the Spirit of Christ)
in Job 34:
“Suppose someone says to God,
‘I am guilty but will offend no more.
32
Teach me what I cannot see;
if I have done wrong, I will not do so again.’
33
Should God then reward you on your terms,
when you refuse to repent?
You must
decide,
not I;
so tell me what you know.
Job 35:7-9
7
If you are righteous, what do you give to Him,
or what does He receive from your hand?
8
Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself,
and your righteousness only other people.
( See Romans 4 and James 2 in the context of truth as would be seen through Elihu ).
God knows the heart and mind of man. Man to man can only ‘hear and see’ the confession of another man: man can stand by or challenge (the mind’s reason)confession according to agreement of the word of God we both submit to, and question a life in behaviors in opposition to the command of Christ to love your neighbor. Scripture calls us to examine our faith and asks if we have the Spirit. You must “decide”. The Body together acts in obedience to the scripture: I would , for example, never submit to the statement of faith of Aidan or DNJOHN as they expressed/defined how they “WORK OUT” the truths of this revelation:
Ephesians 2:8-10 English Standard Version (ESV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
==============================
For those who believe or will come to believe how God SO loved us, hearing the example set before us:
John 12:49-50 English Standard Version (ESV)
49 For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life.
What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”
John 3:*12-21: God SO loved the world / Jesus prays for those who had/will turn to come out of the world . John 17
————————–
Besides a jewish remnant, who is still now being saved, now alongside the gentiles, until the last of the gentiles reaches fullness, and in this way all ( the remnant of) Israel will be saved, as together we as a reconciled people who are “the elect” nation, HIs people, remember this: All of Israel’s branches that were broken off, from abiding in the vine, were broken off because of unbelief, having thought they could obtain the prize by works of the law( that they didn’t keep, let alone perfectly), instead of acknowledging the truth, that God alone saves according to how he determined an age IS ENTERED into His race. (Romans 11)
————————–
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.
————————-
As we repeat the word of God today, now complete for us, the angel said to John:
I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Phillip,
Unless Paul is contradicting himself. The elect and the church are one. See his words to the church at Collosae below and 2 timothy 2:10 which I also posted.
” I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. 25 I became its servant according to God’s commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, ” Colossians 1:24,25
Compare with 2 Timothy 2:10
10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, so that they may also obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.
Dnjohn,
Understood. I could also add…
Ephesians 2:1 (NKJV)
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles
Please go back and re-read the article where I address the flaws of this view. To interject those “in Christ” in place of “the elect” doesn’t work within the context of the verse. Whoever “the elect” are in 2 Timothy 2:10, Paul considers them to be lost.
Brother Brian, objectively, though reluctantly, 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.”
In other words, the elect have not only obtained salvation (they are still lost so they can’t be “in Christ”), but are the very ones who have imprisoned him and want him dead. And these “elect” may not obtain salvation and be lost forever.
Even a Calvinist leaning brother said… “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.”
And he is right.
Odd that a Calvinist leaning brother can see the obvious, when my non-Calvinist brothers can’t, or refuse to.
Obtaining salvation does not mean the group spoken us is lost. I was saved. I am being saved and I will yet be saved on the last day if I persevere by God’s grace to the end. We are also being saved in the body of Christ as a member and not as an isolated individual. We are being saved together. Scripture speaks of all of these aspects of salvation as a continuum: past present and future. The idea of it being a static, point in time thing is not biblical. It is dynamic and continuous. So this works perfectly with the biblical soteriology that sees salvation this way. Justification is not seperate from sanctification either in the NT. But I understand. I was formerly conditioned to view salvation as a one and done thing. So to speak of a person who is already a christian obtaining salvation was incomprehensible. In my former mind set obtaining salvation only meant being “lost” before and ” getting saved”. Now If someone asks me if I have accepted the Lord Jesus as my personal saviour. I will say “I have and I DO accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my king and God and Saviour”. I have to remain in Christ to reach the goal of finally “obtaining salvation in Christ Jesus with eternal glory”. It is possible to not remain in Christ as Scripture warns in many different ways. It is a mistake for one to interpret conditional promises as if they are unconditional …to ignore the IFs in Scripture. So with these concepts in mind, the passage makes perfect sense that St. PAUL endures all things for the sake of the elect that they may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. We know he is speaking of final salvation…the future aspect… as that is when we will have eternal glory. God bless.
Dnjohn,
As one brother wrote… “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.”
This seems to align with another brother’s analysis….
“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.”
Paul was willing to endure his suffering, so that the very ones who were causing his suffering, may, implying they may not, obtain salvation.
I know why the Jews wanted him lock up. But why would believers imprison Paul?
Jesus had to be a descendant of David to be Messiah. He says that in Romans 1:3 as well.
Roman’s 1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Holy Apostle Paul says Jesus being a descendant of David is part of his Gospel in 2 Timothy 2:8.
Jesus has the Davidic title of the Prophet, the Priest, and the King all of which are Davidic and are part of the Gospel. Those are the offices that he is anointed to as the Anointed One/ Christ/Messiah.
He says the following to St. Timothy later: ( 1 Timothy 4)
Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions, and my suffering the things that happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. What persecutions I endured! Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 Indeed, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived. 14 But as for you, CONTINUE in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 AND HOW FROM CHILDHOOD YOU HAVE KNOWN THE SACRED WRITINGS THAT ARE ABLE TO INSTRUCT YOU FOR SALVATION THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”
St Timothy was saved and yet the scriptures were still able to “instruct him to salvation” as verse 14-15 says.
It is also interesting that in Galatians when Paul talks about the gentiles he speaks in solidarity with them and says WE not you or they. Here is an example: Galatians 3:14.
I agree that he yearns for their salvation and he does not hold a drudge against his persecutors. He is like St Stephen who prayed for those stoning him and our Lord himself who interceded for the transgressors. He says his hearts desire for his fellow israelites is for their salvation in Roman’s 10:1. On this point we can agree. Certainly he would suffer any thing necessary for them. What love the Apostles had. All of God’s holy ones love their friends and their enemies too. I can agree with your keen observation about Paul’s love for the israelites. But having compared scripture with scripture, conclude that the Elect is the renewed Israel, the Church. The old covenant saints are included in that too for Christ ransomed them on the cross and delivered them from death and hades when he descended there in spirit when he died.
God bless.
Dnjohn,
Thanks for confirming the Lord’s lineage and Paul’s love for his fellow Israelites.
But, again, why would “the elect”, according to you, those in Christ Jesus, want Paul imprisoned?
Hi Phillip, I don’t see where it says that the elect wanted him in prison. What is the reference?
“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.”
“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.”
The text does not say that they want him imprisoned. That is being read into the text. They also means that he is including himself as he says earlier here:
1 Timothy 2: 3 Share in suffering like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No one serving in the army gets entangled in everyday affairs; the soldier’s aim is to please the enlisting officer. 5
And more personally here
2 TIMOTHY 1
8 Do not be ashamed, then, of the testimony about our Lord or of me his prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel, relying on the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace. This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 11 FOR THIS GOSPEL I WAS APPOINTED a HERALD AND AN APOSTLE AND a TEACHER,12 AND FOR THIS REASON I SUFFER AS I DO. But I am not ashamed, for I know the one in whom I have put my trust, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that day what I have entrusted to him.[b] 13 Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.
See verse 11, 12 above
Who was he appointed a herald of the Gospel for? Of course for all but he is the Apostle for the “uncircumcision” specifically. The elect is the jewish remnant chosen by grace and the gentiles added in as descendants of Abraham through union with Christ, the singular seed of promise. Galatians 3 and 4.
“The text does not say that they want him imprisoned. That is being read into the text.”
That was how it was translated by someone qualified to translate it. And I think the context supports it.
“They also means that he is including himself….”
Again, by someone qualified to translate…
“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.”
Another category. Since, for you, the elect are the saved in Christ Jesus, wouldn’t Paul fall into that same category? How can another category be one in the same?
{holy kiss}
The elect IN Christ ( remember, I am not a calvinist/arminian or a dispensationalist) have obtained an inheritance, yet we who have hoped/ have hope in the promises of God have not obtained our inheritance in full. We have not yet been resurrected to life, and we do not yet live face to face with each other and God in the new heavens and earth. In faith, we HOPE, for the outcome of our faith, for which we were and are being saved. ( Unless you believe in vain.) The Resurrection( of Jesus the Christ) is the evidence for the faith: that God(unseen) put on skin for us and we are guilty of sins as God defines what is Good and what is evil,(unseen),all sin being actually against God of which only God could accomplish the work to pay in full for the sins of the world that ‘you may’ be saved.
JesusChrist is the election, crucified from the foundations of the world. God rested ON the 7th day.
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. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
(1 Corinthians 15:1-4*)
Because a promise has been obtained, does not mean all the promises revealed and received, as given, have been obtained.
God promised The Resurrection, according to The Revelation, will receive the inheritance for the living or for the dead.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=ESV&quicksearch=obtain&begin=47&end=73
—————-
We are free to love(worship) death or Life. Through God’s word(His Good moving of communication) living and active in the garden, God seeks us(continually living and active in history against our Murderer who counterfeited God’s Good communication that we may be deceived and may disobey),God giving us our common sense, to common mankind: the ability to think for a reason, in which we were created in God’s image, but born(fathered) in Adam’s image according to the same flesh.
In the beginning,
“God said”
There is only one Eternal Good News, the mystery has been revealed, paid in full(it is finished) on the cross of Jesus Christ.
God is the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, so says the Alpha and Omega.
{ About subtle differences,
test the spirits to see whether they are from God,
according to the Spirit,
in the word of Truth )
Proclaiming the good news freely, without favoritism, as long as I am left in this world, I know God prepared us before hand, telling us the truth, so we may love/warn/encourage/prepare a neighbor to know our God reveals He desires mercy over sacrifice and justice for us: John 17 (Genesis 2:17) Revelation 22:14-15
Who is guaranteed tomorrow?Who needs to repent from the sin of unbelief and turn to God in belief?
——————————————-
2 Cor14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:*1-4*54-58
{following The Example(s)- repeating the Word of the Holy Spirit, according to the Prophet(s) and Apostles}
Jesus said to Peter: Who do ‘you’ say I am?
{2 Corinthians 5:16From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.}
(key words: elect, inheritance , obtain)
Dnjohn,
“I can concede that this is possible…”
So far, this interpretation is the only viable one.
I think it is obvious to the casual reader of scripture that within the context of 2 Timothy 2:10, Paul considers “the elect” to be lost and is not talking about other aspects, elements, or stages of salvation. Paul wants “the elect” to both obtain salvation which is in Christ Jesus and also experience the eternal glory which comes from being with Him.
Your view is not so much that the elect may “obtain” salvation, but rather “maintain” their salvation. Obtain means to get something you don’t already possess. Maintain means to keep that which you already have. To suggest that Paul is enduring his present imprisonment so that the saved will be “finally” saved is, as you say, reading something into the text.
Whoever the elect are, they are not the only ones who can be saved. The “also” or “too” introduces another category or group, not an individual, other than “the elect”, which, in context, would have to be the non-elect. That is just simple grammar. Again, to imply that the “also” means “like me” or “like myself” is reading something into the text.
You might not be able to accept that “the elect” are the very ones who have imprisoned him and want him dead, but this translation comes from a dear brother who is qualified to do just that, and, God bless him, who is not fully onboard. However, he still provided this translation objectively, in spite of how he felt about it.
Even here, on this very blog, there are some who admit that in context, consistent with the grammar and the other supporting scriptures, the “the elect” is a reference to the Jews. Lost Jews. That is why this view works so perfectly.
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.
And according to Paul, not Calvin nor Arminius, nor whoever, the salvation of “the elect” is not a guarantee. There is a high probability that some, perhaps most, of “the elect” may not obtain salvation and be lost forever.
No doubt most came here (to this website) thinking they understood 2 Timothy 2:10 properly. However, now, what was so obvious, is not only not so obvious, but highly unlikely. Probably just wrong. And that was the point. Now, those who have been exposed to this interpretation can’t (well, they can, but you know…free will) say…
“Paul’s use of the term ‘elect’ always refers to believers.”
No it doesn’t.
Hi Phillip,
All of the Apostles who wrote in the NT speak of this future aspect of salvation. Here are a few of the selections that come to mind.
Romans 2
Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
KEEP yourselves in the love of God; look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to[n] eternal life. Jude 1:21
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[e] the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 1 Timothy 6
“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.” Hebrews 9:28.
1 Peter 1
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who are being PROTECTED BY THE POWER OF GOD THROUGH FAITH FOR a SALVATION READY TO BE REVEALED IN THE LAST TIME. 6 In this you rejoice,[a] even if now for a little while you have had to suffer various trials, 7 so that the genuineness of your faith—being more precious than gold that, though perishable, is tested by fire—may be found to result in PRAISE and GLORY and HONOR WHEN JESUS CHRIST is REVEALED. 8 Although you have not seen[b] him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy, 9 for you are receiving the OUTCOME OF YOUR FAITH, the SALVATION of YOUR SOULS.
Roman’s 8:24-26
For in[a] hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes[b] for what is seen? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
Hope this is helpful.
Dnjohn,
I understand why you believe what you believe, but, again, in the context of 2 Timothy 2:10 I don’t think that is what Paul is alluding to.
Blessings, brother.
Not sure why people think 2 Tim 2:10 must refer to either Israel or believers? That is a false dichotomy. ‘The elect’ simply refers to all those who God knows ever will believe. The elect does not mean ‘all who now believe’ – that would just be ‘believers’, which is why the two are not used interchangeably. Rather, ‘the elect’ of God are all who will believe, much like a president who is not yet seated is referred to as ‘President elect’ – the term was once well understood (until dispensationalism was born). This is exactly why they are referred to as ‘the elect’ rather than simply believers. Believers were once ‘believers elect’ – unbelievers who God knew would one day believe, but do not yet. Once they came to faith, they simply became believers, or children of God.
‘For the sake of the elect’ = for the sake of those who do not yet, but will someday believe. Note how this makes sense of the many things being disputed here. When Paul is concerned for the elect of Israel, he is not talking about all of national Israel, or even believers, but all those who will someday believe.
TS00
JANUARY 22, 2020 AT 7:06 PM
We are close in our position aiming to also try and shine light of “the elect”.
I brought it forward with some explanatory difference than you in my entry.
First using the context (this time), while considering the dispentional system reader’s reasoning pattern ( and the calvinist/arminian system readers pattern also), embedded in the dispensational system, and how a dispensational view/er ( may) think to interpret inside the system according to how it interprets details.
Those of a strict dispensational system ‘hear’ Paul say( if consistent with what system builders heard) “my gospel” as to say that Paul’s gospel is different for this age, being ‘the church age of grace’, which then transfers back to the ‘Jewish who are elect’-according to how they ‘hear’ the (dispensational) irrevocable promised of God (to include opportunity for the not raptured gentile unbelievers) after the rapture of believers, which then ushers in the beginning of the 7 year dispensation, which the system sees at its beginning the end of ( Paul’s commission, being our ‘father’) this present ‘ church age of grace.’ So, the system is concerned with the detail of Paul saying “my gospel” which has internal effects on how they hear “the elect” or why someone may think, similar to what calvinist do, “You just don’t get it.”
TS00, I am guessing you may be familiar with this detail , in the lens as related to the good news, within the dispensational system. But, I am not sure and not sure if you have considered how much this particular detail guides the strict system.
One of the subtleties ( I believe I see) in theological systems in these conversation, as they butt up against each other, is the human speech to put forward things as what is transitioning in history or as if it is progressive, instead of what did transpire through history. { transpire- what flowed through history where God reveals to us what has occurred to be newly established while the old fades away, the old having become obsolete in light of the new, now we wait in history for all God’s promises to ’the elect’, as He has revealed.}
A brother in the faith, (who is jewish kindred according to the flesh) puts this forward, being wise in evangelism, without favoritism towards mankind: God did not make a new religion but enacted the new covenant.
“The elect” is a term in fulness, with meaning, all on its own. ( and ‘ ’salvation’ has meaning that is fully related inside ’the elect.’)
So, for example, the circle when DBJOHN and Phillip weighing in from different perspective:
Phillip can’t see how someone else can’t see how “the elect” has nothing to do with salvation.
And DBJOHN can’t see how someone can state that “’the elect’ has nothing to do with salvation.”
And I wonder as I read each entry who knows, like calvinism, dispensationalism, has a bias that surrounds ’the gospel’?
The system has a particular position on what it means when Paul states: “my gospel”
So, both systems maintain the preaching of the gospel as specifically repeated, in the immediate to be believed: 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4
And both systems believe they are defining “the elect” purely according to the context of scripture.
( and “ the elect” relates to each systems philosophy/theology as they render “inherit”- according to context)
Be blessed: Matthew 5 – with a mind governed by the Spirit and not a mind governed by the flesh.
{ on the issue of ‘ the elect’,according to scripture, I believe we are trying to sing the same song. Yes? }
Tammy, your words are at times like poetry, at others, difficult to grasp. I find myself wondering if they are translated from another language, thus the sometimes unusual phrasing and cadences. I do suspect that we think much alike. 😉
TS00
I definitely am USA born and raised, ( my kindred are gentiles in the flesh …lol) english speaking.But, my writing tends towards reasoning out through recapitulation , while being conversational.(so, conversationally i naturally like hanging out with believing family who are kindred to those who are Jewish in the flesh) ….and add in I am a terrible proof reader at times.
I risk speaking to multiple thoughts through the thread , instead of the direct position of one person. In this I am trying to be truthful while casting a large net , yet gentle while listening and responding in the entire ‘room’.
Poetic and cadence( thanks TS00):truly encouraging and singing, yet leaving people open to the Spirit , drawing them towards the position I believe I see in the context of scripture, hopeful the word of God may be heard to voice the position we all might see .
I assume people might catch something I am building from or to , about what they were building from or to, and don’t worry if they grasp everything I am not precisely writing out, ( or I don’t have time to write out what I see as the position of scripture more clearly , as most of us here also probably try to manage in our writing positions)as we sharpen eachother, for those who love the truth.
Simply, I am giving the room another reason to model patients. ❤️
( Of interest: having read in one of your thread entries you don’t want to ‘like’ posts for a certain reason, I related to that. I am confident most, if not all here, would relate. ( even if I like in part I may not like enough to ‘like’ over some ‘point’ of disagreement ) It’s one of the reasons I think a ‘read’ button on a board post like this would be handy. I want people to know I am listening, truly and respectively engaging with their work/thoughts and have read even if I give no response or before sending out a response.)
Ps: At the least , Matthew 5 was a hint to the ‘blessed’ position about ‘the elect’ about things ‘ the elect’ inherit, with poetry and candence credited to the One who governs with the mind of the Spirit.( in all of 5) As Paul reminds us:Romans 8, For Example, Him a light on the hill of a city. Blessing to you TS00, as the Spirit leads us. ( & to everyone one else who may read this as we love eachother, for those who believe: 1 Cor 15:1-11)And, I was truly singing to you.
Sometimes, writings are just a natural addition of getting carried away in the love of our Savior among those seeking to be one in/for truth, even in the midst of pointing to a position. John 17
“For the sake of the elect’ = for the sake of those who do not yet, but will someday believe…. all those who will someday believe.”
Brian explains…
“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.”
Another category. Not the same category just at a later date.
“…‘the elect’ of God are all who will believe….. who God knew would one day believe, but do not yet.”
Brian explains…
“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.”
So Paul is not certain that “the elect” will ever believe and fears they will be lost forever.
Joel writes… “Good article, I think the writer makes better sense of who the elect are referring to in 2 Tim. 2:10.”
Kevin writes… “I mean I spent at least four hours trying to think of a way to refute this. So well done Phillip…”
Damon (on another thread) writes… “I agree with you that 2 Timothy 2:10 is talking about elect Israel.”
BrD (on another thread) writes… “I think that makes the most sense of that passage. Although Paul in other places calls Jews with different references. ‘my brethren after the flesh’, or ‘the circumcision’ etc.”
Acts 28:24 (NIV)….
Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe.
If I were to agree with Phillip ( as a second option of rendering an interpretation according to context ) it would still not be to claim “the elect” are always Jewish flesh – which would also be to include all who entered Judaism to remain faithful to uphold the law given to Moses. [ which has been impossible , without question, since 70 ad. Presently, in reality , anyone such as to be ‘the elect’ is impossible.] We would agree at the least that this text cannot support individual philosophical determinism.
————————-
Seeing the verse through a different lens, according to its immediate context and Paul’s recapitulation from what we find, if you return to read, in his opening 1st chapter:
2 Timothy 2 You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men,who will be able to teach others also. 3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him. 5 An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. 6 It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops. 7 Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.
8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel,9 for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal
( Jesus is the Christ fulfillment of THE FAITH of the scriptures . Timothy, I am bound for proclaiming this goods news, before the ( Jewish) unbelievers[see acts 24] and the false super apostles/Judizers sending letters as if they were from the others with authority or from me .This is “my gospel” message, the one gospel message we proclaim. [see 1Cor15:1-11/ &
Galatians 1:11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.[c] 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. *Galatians 6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
2Thess1:1b we ask you, brothers,[a] 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us
*2Thess3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write. )
. But the word of God is not bound!10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect,
( decalvizing/dearminiamizing “elect” individual determinism and dedispensationalizing “elect” determinism for Jewish flesh &the proselytizes converts: Paul endures everything for this body of THE FAITH, “the elect”, by record of proclaimation of God’s word which is not bound by chains in time and space, that “the elect” may also obtain the salvation <—- which is in view:
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. 24 For in this hope we were saved.
Romans 5:2
Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Romans 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
Phil3:11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
1Thee5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.
2Thess2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.)
that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 11 The saying is trustworthy, for:
If we have died with him, we will also live with him;
12 if we endure, we will also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us;
13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
for he cannot deny himself.
14 Remind them of these things, and charge them before God[b] not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,[c] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened.
( See the subject in view: the resurrection is to “the elect”. Paul “endures” for the sake of “the elect” as the enduring will reign with Christ , this is the salvation of our inheritance we have yet to obtain. Paul also, even now waits to obtain this inheritance and also the earth.)
addition: there is NO such thing as ‘your spirit is resurrected’. The believing spirit is raised to life.( eph 2:6) ‘Your spirit- in your body raised is resurrection. There is no resurrection that is not ‘bodily’- to claim ‘ your spirit is resurrected is to spiritualize instead of understand what is spiritual in truth.
2Peter1:1bTo those who have
obtained a faith
of equal standing with ours
(2 Peter 1:a Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,)
by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Acts 20:28
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
1 Cor 9:19-24 19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.
Hebrews 8: starring *6
Sent from my iPhone
Hi phillip, election of individuals is according to foreknowledge as stated here:
Romans 11
What shall I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God hath not cast away his people which he FOREKNEW.
Roman’s 8
28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29For whom he did FOREKNOW, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of GOD’S ELECT? It is God that justifieth. 34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
And here
2 Peter 1:1-2)
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, ELECT ACCORDING to the FOREKNOWLEDGE of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
A Living Hope
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
So my question is that how can one say that those individuals who are elect may be finally lost when it is according to God’s perfect foreknowledge? Can his foreknowledge fail and prove to be in error?
Because election has nothing to do with salvation.
Amos 3:1-2 (NKJV)…..
Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
Who was God’s elect in the OT? Israel. Did that mean that every Israelite was saved? Nope. Did that mean that every non-Israelite was lost? Nope.
Romans 11:1-2 (NKJV)….
I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.
Romans 11:13-14 (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 (that He foreknew).
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of my Jewish brothers, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
Acts 28:20 (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.
Blessings, brother.
Has nothing to do with salvation? It seems that one may say that because they are basing their notion of election on the types and shadows of the old testament. These were a “shadow of things to come but the substance is of Christ “as Paul declares. Why let the shadows and partial revelation interpret the fuller revelation and not the other way around. Old Testament is typological. Divine revelation is progressive as
Hebrews 1 (NASB) shows us.
“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they”.
EPHESIANS 1 NASB ( corporate election in Christ)
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having alsobelieved, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.
15 For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints, 16 do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 18 I pray that the eyes of heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Dnjohn,
Are you an Arminian? Just asking because a lot of what you write sure sounds like it.
Hi Phillip. Good question. No, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. There is some semblance on election and freewill/synergism but also some big differences. We pre date Arminius by 15 centuries 🙂
My comments should be waiting moderation.
Br.D.
I am wondering if the issue is somehow on my end.
On this thread, on longer posts.
Once something was stuck in moderation.
Once something appeared to post immediately , never showed in moderation, and then was not here at all.( I did not bother to repost this one. “Inherit” was the focus.)
My post from Jan 23 at about 2 am, shows in my phone to be in moderation, of which it was sent. Whether in WordPress or in google it does not show in moderation on my computer, which I am now sending this from.
All through this thread, I only receive an email if someone hits ‘like’ on my entry.
I have received no new comments by email this entire thread, though the box is checked. So, I have continued to scan through the thread.
The system has its own internal business rules as to why it holds posts.
One of them I know of is the addition of links to other sites.
Sometime I think it holds posts that are overly large.
On your last post – I’m not sure what caused it.
It was not unusual for Paul to suffer for the body of Christ, the church, in which was his brethren, the elect of God:
He says to the Colossians in (Col. 1:24)
“I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church.”
But then tells them that they were the elect of God:
“Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved..” (Col. 3:12)
Indeed, Paul was willing to endure all things for the sake of the elect (2 Timothy 2:10):
“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.”
Paul says, “may obtain”: (Tugchano)
In this verse, Thayer and Strong define it as a transitive verb.
akin to the base of G5088 through the idea of effecting; properly, to affect; or (specially), to hit or light upon (as a mark to be reached), i.e. (transitively) to attain or secure an object or end,
Vine:
“to meet with, light upon,” also signifies “to obtain, attain to, reach, get” (with regard to things), translated “to obtain” in Act 26:22, of “the help that is from God;” 2Ti 2:10, of “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory;” Hbr 8:6, of the ministry obtained by Christ; Hbr 11:35, of “a better resurrection.”
That same word “obtain” is used in the following passage:
“Women received their dead raised to life again. Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection” (Heb 11:35). Clearly they were looking to “obtain” that better resurrection.
Paul himself says that there was a future salvation to be obtained:
“for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed” (Rom. 13:11) Peter likewise says: “receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls” (1 Pt. 1:9). So when Paul says “.. that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory,” clearly in the context of “with eternal glory” speaks of the promised future (tense) blessing of salvation (glorification).
Notice that Paul includes himself by using the word “also.”
Remember, he too is of the elect in Christ, and is now facing imminent death. Paul was about to receive the end of his faith, namely, the salvation of his soul. In another place he says, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” There has always been that future salvation to obtain.
There’s a crown for the faithful:
“Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.”(Jas. 1:12) “and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away” (1 Pt. 5:4). “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10).
The Christian is in a race, but he must strive to obtain the prize:
“And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. (1 Cor. 9:25)
Paul later says to Timothy: (2 Tim. 4:6-8)
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.
Clearly, Paul wanted his brethren in Christ, to also obtain this crown of righteousness. He may have been bound in chains, but the word of God was not bound. For this reason, Paul was able and willing to suffer and endure all things, not only for his own sake, but also for the sake of his brethren in Christ – the elect of God (Col. 3:12).
As he says:- “that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
BrD,
I just wanted to share the following with you. This is not my website, nor article, but it appears someone else out there is reading the first part of Romans the way I have been. I just stumbled upon this site in the past few days and thought you might be interested as well (you come across as open-minded).
As you now, I believe “the elect” found in 2 Timothy 2:10 relates to the people of Israel, even lost Israel. Because of this, I also believe “God’s elect” in Romans 8:33 refers to Israel as well. Kind of refreshing, and reassuring, to know someone else does too.
I would appreciate your thoughts. Its an easy read. You can respond here if you like, or if you prefer, reach out to me via email (I assume you have my email address).
God bless.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/calvinism/U/Rom8_29.html
Thank you Phillip!
I’m aware of that interpretation of those texts.
On my own part – I prefer to let the Greek scholars work that question out.
However my personal impression of the Calvinist reading of any scripture is that they twist the language of scripture in order to manufacture what they need out of it – rather than approaching it to see what it says.
But thank you for your post my friend!
Sincerely appreciate your kind and thoughtful words!
Warm blessings.
“I prefer to let the Greek scholars work that question out. However my personal impression of the Calvinist reading of any scripture is that they twist the language of scripture in order to manufacture what they need out of it…”
Sadly, the “Greek scholars” do the exact same thing, or we wouldn’t have replacement theology, Calvinism, and Arminianism. All of which are a skin cancer to the body of Christ.
I prefer to be led by the Holy Spirit even if it means being treated like a leper at times.
Yes – I understand that position.
But we also realize that pretty much everyone perceives themselves as having the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.
But logic tells us that can’t be possible.
True, or we wouldn’t have disagreements.
I sent the same link to Leighton and, for what its worth, he mostly agreed. He even directed me to one of his articles on this website, which I missed, that leaned the same direction.
For me, Paul couldn’t have made his intended audience more clear. He was speaking to those who were the physical descendants of Abraham, those who “knew the law” and those who “died to the law”. No Gentile can make that claim (why would we want to?). This same Paul said that in times past Gentiles were “without Christ” and “without God”.
Anyway, just wanted to share it with you.
Blessings to you always, brother. Keep those “as ifs” coming. They’re hilarious.
Wonderful!
We both appreciate Dr. Flowers very much!!
My sincere thanks Phillip!
And thanks for your kind encouragement :-]
Deu 14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. These people are elect, but are they all saved? Something to ponder. Also consider the debtor parable….Mat 18:27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. Would he not be the elect according to Calvinism? But notice his end….Mat 18:32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
Mat 18:33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? He had to be saved, he was forgiven everything, I would say he lost his salvation. People are elect for all kinds of purposes besides salvation. And when election involves salvation, it is according to God’s prescience…..1Pe_1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,…no one is saved by osmosis. There is no robot theology in Scripture. It is a latter day delusion that maligns the character of God.
Very good, Richard. Only a remnant of Israel have accepted Christ and are saved. Most, who have rejected Christ have died in their sins. And yes, one can lose their salvation, they can be cut off if they do not continue in faith – Romans 11. There are many who twist the scriptures on these matters.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
These Scriptures are much abused and misunderstood. As regards to Christ we are all one IN CHRIST. However, outside of that context we are different. A Jew is not a Greek, a slave is not free, a male is not a female. The church is not Israel, the Jews are not rejected,( Zec_8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you) there are two temples coming…2 Thes 2:4, Ezek 41:1. We need to take seriously the Lord’s prayer….thy Kingdom come. Jesus will reign on the earth from Jerusalem, Israel. Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east,…Augustine’s City of God is in for a rude awakening. Isa 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Hey Richard, it is truly a terrible mistake to take the likes of Isaiah 2:1-4 literally. These messianic passages have already been fulfilled in the coming of Christ and the preaching of the gospel. His kingdom has come on the day of pentecost and Jesus already reigns on the throne of His Kingdom in heaven.
Aidan,
As you should be aware, Richard and I had some disagreements this last week on another thread. But in this, Richard is right. Besides, it’s NOT just about your one verse of Isaiah 2:1-4. It’s a conglomeration of a whole bunch of verses that are put together as a connect the dots.
I fully agree with everything that Richard said here. I fully support Richard here. The only Elect are Jews only, and the Refore people have hijacked that title for themselves, equating the word CHRISTIAN with the word Elect, as if it belongs to them. It doesn’t.
The word elect is in no way connected to the word Christian. Even tho there are SOME JEWISH CHRISTIANS who are Elect. The word belongs to the Jews only.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
I also have something more to contribute to the discussion as well, regarding your “Pentecost” reference…which can be found in Acts 2.
https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/70-weeks/
This puts things in more perspective that it’s about the Jews only, not the Gentiles at all.
It’s a long read, but that’s my statement and I stand by it.
Ed Chapman
Hey Ed, good to hear from you again. I’m answering this second post because I’m watching TV on Saturday night here. Thanks for that Url. I’ll probably won’t be able to have a look at it until tomorrow. What thread were you on last week? I didn’t see anything on Sot. 101. Anyways I was focusing on the idea that these OT messianic passages are being interpreted literally which as you know, I believe is the mistake that’s being made. I’m absolutely certain that there won’t be two literal temples coming, or a literal reign of Jesus in Jerusalem. When He comes again it will be the end of all things. But you and I have gone head to head on these things before, if memory serves, therefore I don’t think we are going to agree. But I will try to have a look at that thing you have me. One last thing, I was sorry to see how the election turned out; it’s heartbreaking when you see the shananigans that are going on. But, then again, what’s new?
No prob. I’m busy watching old speeches of Ronald Reagan before YouTube has a chance to threaten to deleting them.
It’s just ridiculous isn’t it?
Very much. We are in unchartered territory now. I’ve never seen it this bad here, as I have the last 4 years of all the false allegations against my president, and the hatred directed to anyone who supports Trump. Reagan once said that tyranny is but one generation away. I think we are there now. Some immature people break glass and sit in a chair and they call that seditiion? Terrorism? With the stuff that went on in Seattle this last summer, I’m wondering what all the fuss is about. It’s legal to break into houses and burn them to the ground in Seattle. No one gets prosecuted. What’s the fuss? They took a few selfies, and left.
And then, the republicans caved to a FEW who broke in, when there was a HUGE crowd outside that had nothing to do with anything illegal.
I can’t wrap my head around this at all. I served in the USN under Reagan proudly, and I believe that Trump is the next best thing to Reagan. Personal opinion, of course. It’s just that since Reagan, our society has changed for the worse, and we Christians LET IT HAPPEN. No wonder we are known as the Silent Majority, because we are too timid and weak to do something about it, thinking that somehow Jesus wants us to just go with the flow, because we are supposed to turn the other cheek, blah blah blah. Well, this Christian does not think that way.
Many in the Southern Baptists don’t even believe in a “man’s government” at all. Thank God I’m not in that camp.
Anyway, yes, it’s all crazy here now.
Ed
Yeah! It’s nothing more than theatrics and double standards. They will be making the biggest mistake of their lives if they actually try to impeach him. I don’t see how that is going to unite the country, quite the opposite! I will keep your country in my prayers. All I know is that God is in control, perhaps there are lessons that need to be learned over these next 4 years. Perhaps many will have realized their mistake even before the 2 year mark….. hopefully! Amen and A-women🤣
Yes Aidan, except His Kingdom hasn’t been established on earth yet. I don’t deny the heavenly realm of His Kingdom, but let’s look at what you’re saying.
Aidan said: “Hey Richard, it is truly a terrible mistake to take the likes of Isaiah 2:1-4 literally.”
My response:
Why wouldn’t I take it literally. Israel became a nation in 1948 after 2000 years of exile by the people and the nation not being there. There are now far more Jews living in Israel than in Jesus’ time. Also, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. So that’s literal. Look at verse 4….Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. That obviously never happened yet so it can’t be fulfilled at the time of Christ. In fact, that quote is etched on a wall at the United Nations in hope of it being fulfilled one day, and it will, but not in the way they think. Also, when do you decide when a prophecy is literal or not. We take Isaiah 53 literally….and see Jesus…Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. So I would be wary of spiritualizing prophecy especially with the Jews back in their land as predicted….Eze 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land….Eze 36:28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. So they are there, and the conversion is next, it’s already happening in a rapidly growing Messianic movement, but national conversion will happen when the Lord returns to Jerusalem in the end of days…Zec 13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Hey Richard, thanks for the cordial response. I would like to start off by saying that the best interpretation of OT prophecy must always be what the NT reveals.
First of all, you said that Christ’s “Kingdom hasn’t been established on earth yet.” But I would suggest that if you were to consider the kingdom to be a spiritual kingdom, then you might see it differently. The NT reveals that Christ’s kingdom was established on earth on the day of Pentecost. It came in the lifetime of the apostles! Note the following:
John the Baptist preached that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 3:1-2) – which of course meant that it was near. Jesus preached that “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mk. 1:14-15). He taught the disciples to pray for the kingdom to come (Mt. 6:9-10). He sent out the twelve apostles to preach “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 10:7). He sent out the 70 disciples to preach “that the kingdom of God has come near” (Lk. 10:10-11).
The church (kingdom) was established in Jerusalem on Pentecost:
In response to Peter, Jesus said, “I will build My church” (Mt. 16:18) and “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven..” (Mt. 16:19). But then goes on to tell them in verse 28, “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” In other words, both the church and kingdom would come in the lifetime of His disciples. In Mark 9:1 He says the same thing adding that the kingdom would come with POWER. Take note of Jesus’ statement that the kingdom would come with POWER in their lifetime: “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” This “power” was associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Just before His ascension into heaven Jesus told the eleven apostles to wait in Jerusalem “until you are clothed with POWER from on high” (Lk 24:44-49; Acts 1:6-8). The coming of the Holy Spirit would provide the POWER. The only coming with power in the lifetime of His disciples, was the coming of the Holy Spirit with power from on high in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. The kingdom certainly did come with power in their lifetime!
To be in the church was to be in the kingdom!
The church and kingdom are made up of the same individuals: Note that Christians are individuals who have been purchased (redeemed) by the blood of Christ (1 Pt. 1:18-19); likewise, the Church has been purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28); And the kingdom is likewise made up of those who have been purchased by the blood of Christ (Rev. 5:9-10). Every blood bought individual is a member of the church and a citizen in the kingdom. Saints in the church at Colossae had been “translated into the kingdom” of Christ (Col. 1:13). Time: about AD 62. The saints of the Hebrew letter were receiving a kingdom that could not be, and has not been, shaken (Heb. 12:28). Time: about AD 68. In writing to the seven churches of Asia, John claimed to be their brother “in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance” (Rev. 1:4,9). Time: about AD 96. Hence, first century Christians were already in the kingdom.
The kingdom was a present day reality in the first century AD. This must be how we interpret the kingdom according to the OT prophets such as Isaiah and Daniel – because it was a SPIRITUAL kingdom established in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. If you like, we can talk about how this fits in with Isaiah 2:1-4 in our next discussion?
Richard wrote:
“So that’s literal. Look at verse 4….Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. That obviously never happened yet so it can’t be fulfilled at the time of Christ.”
My response:
You can’t be serious taking this verse – literally? So all the nations are gonna go back to literally fighting with swords and spears again before they literally beat them into plowshares and pruninghooks? I don’t think so! I think you’ve gotten the wrong end of the pruninhook here.😉 The prophet points to the character of the citizens of the spiritual kingdom in the church. The prophet is certainly not speaking of the world, for the people of the world will war continually, but rather of the “all nations” and “many people” who will come to the mountain of the LORD’s house.
He is describing the character of the citizens of the new kingdom. In the holy mountain they will learn war no more. “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain” (11:9). Isaiah is not describing a future situation in which the nations of the world will not fight wars; that’s pie in the sky stuff, wars will always be fought. He is describing the character of the kingdom of the “latter days,” the church; the unshakable kingdom to which the Hebrew saints had already come (Heb. 12:18-29), and to which men of all the nations may and do come today.
Zechariah 9:9-10
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.
I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
And the horse from Jerusalem;
The battle bow shall be cut off.
He shall speak peace to the nations;
His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.’
Zechariah 9:9 is quoted by Matthew (21:5) and applied to Christ’s triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem. It was therefore in His kingdom that the implements of war would be cut off. Zechariah said, He would speak peace to the nations! This He did, as recorded in the Gospels and by Paul: “He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near” (Eph 2:17). Both Isaiah and Zechariah describe the character of the kingdom of God under Christ, contrasting it with the kingdom under the old economy. The new kingdom would not be extended or defended by weapons of carnal warfare; its weapons are spiritual ( 2 Cor. 10:3-5; Eph. 6:10-17). This is what I mean by going to the New Testament writers to interpret the Old.
Well said Aidan. We must be like the early church who were ” constant in listening to the teaching of the apostles and in their attendance at the Communion, that is, the Breaking of the Bread, and at prayer”.Acts 2:42 (Weymouth). The teaching of the apostles is fundamental. The Church is one, holy, catholic, that is, universal, and “Apostolic”. The apostles handed on to us their doctrine and practices i.e what was given them by Christ himself and the Lord promised to guide his Church into all truth, as the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, would be with us forever.
Isn’t it amazing how they can completely ignore the explanations of the inspired men of the NT in favor of their own convoluted interpretations. The fulfillment of prophecy doesn’t have to be one or the other in terms of literal vs spiritual. Some prophecies were fulfilled in a literal sense, while some were spoken in metaphorical language and ultimately fulfilled in a spiritual sense. We must always defer to what the NT writers have revealed concerning prophecy.
Hi Aidan, There are assumptions taken for granted in the way dispensationalism interprets the book of Revelation. Dispensationalism assumes that the book is always following in a chronological order. This is not always the case in this book in which visions are recorded St. John.
The phrase ” and I saw” introduces another vision and does not imply that it is following chronologically from the prior vision. The events shown in the rev 20 vision is concurrent with the events in chapter 19. Both may be foreseen in Ezekiel 38. The parallels are there to see. Just a different angle, not a sequential narrative but two visions, showing us the same time from a different vantage point.
That is one of the basis of premillenialism that chapter 19 is on a storyline prior to chapter 20 rather than being a two visions with much overlap…showing us the same battle. If chronological assumption is not taken for granted, then one can see clearly what is expressed. For this reason they think the second coming must happen before the millennium because they see it wrapped up in chapter 19, which comes before chapter 20. But that is an error. They also view Daniel’s seventy weeks as future too in error as it was fulfilled beautifully by Christ.. he confirmed the covenant,, he made an end to sins…he abolished the sacrifices of the old law etc…they place a gap within the weeks and project things onto antichrist wrongly e.g peace treaty etc.
I do understand where they are coming from as I was a believer in dispensationalism in the past and we were taught that it was the biblical teaching…Basically this was portrayed as what the Bible says. Simple as that. I believed in the pre trib secret rapture and so forth. I felt sure of it.. that is what was taught in Sunday school and coming from the pastor and proof texts were shown. I did not envision that these proof texts don’t really prove the claims under closer scrutiny..
So like you said it takes willingness to allow the new testament light to shine on the partial revelation of the old testament prophets. (Hebrews 1) I believe in the reign of Christ with his saints now in heaven. The tribulation, kingdom and patient endurance is experienced now. REV 1:8. We await a new heaven and a new earth at the second coming 2 Peter 2:13 and those who are not ready will not be left behind on the earth for 7 years but rather will experience the Judgement day and could be shut out from the kingdom, from God’s new creation. I am glad there is no need to go through a temporal 1000 year “this- worldly” delay before the new heavens and new earth and all things are made new! This will be the Land of Israel with a new Jerusalem and boundaries to the ends of the earth.
Another problem is that All passages are basically read the same way in the dispensational approach it seems.
And it takes questioning things taken for granted in the hermeneutic, to ever leave that novel system behind.
This system has a lot of sizzle and sells a lot of books! That’s for sure.
God bless,
Dn John
As you see in my post, I do not deny a spiritual aspect to the Kingdom of God. The part that hasn’t been fulfilled yet is Jesus reigning on the throne of his father David, at Jerusalem, Israel. You can do an experiment to test whether God’s Kingdom is established on earth yet. Place a hungry wolf and a lamb in a cage and see what happens.
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord,
Now I know you’re going to go through convoluted verbal gymnastics and contortions to explain this away, but I have the luxury of just believing it, nothing to explain. It will happen just as God’s word states it.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Richard, you suggested that the kingdom hasn’t come on earth, but that you ” don’t deny the heavenly realm of His Kingdom.” But if you notice in the time of Christ, the Jewish people were in high expectation that the kingdom was about to COME. Both Jesus and John the Baptist said it was about to COME. Then, Jesus told His disciples that the kingdom would come in their lifetime and that they would SEE IT COMING. This type of language suggests a kingdom that has COME to us. If it only exists in heaven then it hasn’t COME. And Peter declared in Acts 2 that Jesus was raised up and is now seated on the throne of David in heaven. You still have the luxury of just believing Jesus and the apostles, so why don’t you?
Adian:
David’s throne is not in heaven….As you can read….it will be restored on the EARTH, not heaven…. “In that day will I raise up the TABERNACLE OF DAVID that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by My Name, saith the LORD that doeth this. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God” (Amos 9:11-15). This all occurs on the EARTH. There are no waste cities in heaven.
“Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
The Apostle John saw a prophetic vision of Jesus coming in His Kingdom…Rev 1:7, and then he died. Paul had a prophetic vision of Jesus coming in His Kingdom, 2 Thes 2:8, and then he died. Matthew and Mark and Luke had visions of Jesus coming in His Kingdom, they wrote about it in their Gospels, and then they died. The saints that are alive and see Jesus return to set up His earthly 1000 year Kingdom won’t die at all, but will be given eternal glorified bodies…1 Thes 4:17
Hi Richard and Aidan, The Apostle James actually quoted that Amos passage in reference to the Church. See Acts 15:13-18. Jesus holds the key of David and sits on the throne of David in heaven as the Apostles taught in Acts 2:29-26. The heavenly saints do reign from heaven as intercessory priests and kings with christ and impact things on earth. They exercise power over nations. Bishop challoner commenting on Revelation 2:26 writes that the saying that they will have power over the nations indicates that the “saints , who are with Christ our Lord in heaven, receive power from him to preside over nations and provinces, as patrons, and shall come with him at the end of the world to execute his will against against those who have not kept his commandments.”
We do not mean to imply that earth will never be a part of God’s kingdom.. There is also the new heavens and new earth in which The kingdom is consummated….so earth is not excluded but there is no time in history of a millennium in which Jesus sits on a literal throne in earthly Jerusalem. This earthy aspect is after the end of history and is the eternal state.
The millenial reign is now. It is the entire time of the New testament. The thousand years is a heavenly reign of those who have died in Christ as John saw their souls in heaven with Christ…this entry into life following physical death is the first ressurection. The second ressurection is the resurrection of the body on the last day, the general resurrection of all.
Read Rev 20 again closely, it is talking about the souls of the martyrs with Christ who had been beheaded and had experienced the first ressurection, The spiritual one.. It says nothing there about it being a reign physically on the earth or anything about the resurrection of the body there. The resurrection of the body is the second ressurection.
When Jesus subdues all his enemies, (the last of which is death) he will deliver up his kingdom to God the Father and God will be all in all. That is why we say to our heavenly Father, Thy Kingdom Come. See 1 Corinthians 15:12-28. God bless.
Richard, you quoted Amos 9…“In that day will I raise up the TABERNACLE OF DAVID that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by My Name, saith the LORD that doeth this.”
The “TABERNACLE OF DAVID that is fallen” represents David’s house, the rule of David’s house which will have long fallen into decay. It would be built “as in the days of old,” as when David ruled over the combined houses of Judah and Israel. “That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by My Name”: Although the people of Edom were related to Israel, they were Israel’s bitterest enemies. These, along with the heathen nations were to have the name of Jehovah called on them and become the possession of the new David. This declaration of the prophet is clearly Messianic fulfilled under Christ. This is confirmed by James’s use of this passage at the council of Jerusalem, to justify THE BRINGING IN OF THE GENTILES BY THE GOSPEL (Acts 15: 13-19).
13 After they stopped speaking, James responded, saying, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has described how God first concerned Himself about taking a people for His name from among the Gentiles. 15 The words of the Prophets agree with this, just as it is written:
16 ‘After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
18 Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.
19 Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God,
Clearly the prophecy looked to the present dispensation or era, and not to a future millennial reign of Christ on earth! If we properly understand James’s use of this passage, we should realize that it is meant to be metaphorical, its ultimate fulfillment of which is not to be looked for literally but spiritually.
And Jesus, who is the new David, is now reigning over His house from heaven itself. Take note of Peter’s use of David’s prophecy concerning the Messiah being raised up to sit on the throne of David at the right hand of God. That it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ to the right hand side of the Father.
Acts 2:30-31,34
“Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, FORESEEING THIS, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ,..” “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
‘The LORD said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
This is where Jesus is now reigning from in heaven until all His enemies are made a footstool for His feet; the last enemy to be destroyed is death itself. Which means Jesus will remain ruling on the throne of David in heaven until the end of time when death is finally destroyed and He hands over the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24-26). You need to start putting your trust in what the New Testament says is the fulfillment of the prophets.
RICHARD SAID:
“The Apostle John saw a prophetic vision of Jesus coming in His Kingdom…Rev 1:7, and then he died. Paul had a prophetic vision of Jesus coming in His Kingdom, 2 Thes 2:8, and then he died. Matthew and Mark and Luke had visions of Jesus coming in His Kingdom, they wrote about it in their Gospels, and then they died. The saints that are alive and see Jesus return to set up His earthly 1000 year Kingdom won’t die at all, but will be given eternal glorified bodies…1 Thes 4:17
JESUS SAID:
“Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matthew 16:28). And Jesus was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power” (Mark 9:1).
I guess you know better than Jesus who said to his disciples:
1. ASSUREDLY, I SAY TO YOU… YOU SHALL NOT TASTE DEATH TILL YOU SEE the Son of Man COMING IN HIS KINGDOM.
2. TRULY I SAY TO YOU….some of those WHO ARE STANDING HERE WILL NOT TASTE DEATH until they SEE THE KINGDOM
3. AFTER IT HAS COME WITH POWER.
I wonder who I should believe, Jesus, or Richard? Hmmmm?
ALSO:
Those passages you cited, Rev. 1:7; 2 Thess 2:8, and 1 Thess. 4:17 say NOTHING about Jesus coming to set up a kingdom on earth for 1000 years! NOTHING!.. ZILCH!.. I’m sorry, but that is simply you reading your own thoughts and ideas into the passage!
Aidan said: “And Jesus, who is the new David, is now reigning over His house from heaven itself.” Please show me the quote, chapter and verse where Jesus is called the “new David.” I’ve got news for you….David is David, and Jesus is Jesus.
Also, you have failed to explain why the wolf isn’t lying down with the lamb if the earthly Kingdom arrived 2000 years ago. In addition…where does it say the church is the Kingdom? And where does it say there are waste cities in heaven?
Aidan also said: “If we properly understand James’s use of this passage, we should realize that it is meant to be metaphorical, its ultimate fulfillment of which is not to be looked for literally but spiritually.” This is the heart of your error, metaphorically, spiritually. I predicted you would have to resort to verbal gymnastics and contortions to defend your views. How do you know when to invoke spiritual interpretations? Isaiah 53 is accepted as literal for the first coming of Christ. Why would His second coming to establish the 1000 year reign from Jerusalem, Israel be any different? Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, Micah 5:2, interpreted LITERALLY and fulfilled LITERALLY.
Then those you follow had a sudden epiphany to go SPIRITUAL. Please explain the basis of your logic and answer my questions.
Ezekiel 34: 20-30 is where the concept of Christ as the New David is derived as it paralells Jesus words in John 10.
Richard, the explanations have already been given to you by inspired men in the NT, yet you continue to reject their interpretations. You rejected Peter’s explanation of OT prophecy regarding Jesus being raised up to be seated on the throne of David (Acts 2:30-34). You also rejected James’s confirmation concerning Amos 9 and the tabernacle of David; in that he used the bringing in of the Gentiles through the gospel as its interpretation and fulfillment. And, not only did you reject Peter’s interpretation of Psalms 110, but you also rejected Paul’s interpretation of it in 1 Corinthians 15:24-26.
I fear that ‘If you do not hear Peter, and the rest of the apostles, neither will you be persuaded even if they rose from the dead and explained it to you.’
By the way, that’s how you know when to invoke spiritual interpretations; by listening to them!
Thank you DNJohn for the reply, but the problem is that David is mentioned twice and the words New David are nowhere to be found. Since we know David will be resurrected one day, it would be talking about David. in the role of a prince under Jesus, v. 23,24 That would be the plain sense of the verses. Also we are warned about adding words to the Scriptures, Pro 30:6 I’m not saying you added to the Scriptures, but that you read someone who did write that or a Bible teacher told you that. Any pastor of a church has the role of a shepherd to guide his congregation in the truth and steer them away from error.
This is typology. David is a type of Christ here. Jesus confirmed this is John 10. He is the One Shepherd and the Church is the old Fold, a continuation and fulfillment of true Israel.
dnjohn,
Sorry, bud, but the only True Israel are circumsized Jews.
Richard slam dunked you regarding Satan being in the abyss for 1000 years, and yet, he’s still roaming around now.
Ed
New testament teaches that the Baptized are the circumcised. Colossians 2:10-13 Unless you want to limit the sacrament to Jews only against scripture, that argument is lacking.
dnjohn
You had said:
“New testament teaches that the Baptized are the circumcised. Colossians 2:10-13 Unless you want to limit the sacrament to Jews only against scripture, that argument is lacking.”
My response:
The word “circumcised” used in the NT has nothing to do with the “circumcised” of Abraham’s day, which was brought into the law of Moses. Two different discussions.
Let’s review. The REASON for cirucmcision for the family line of Abraham THRU ISAAC was for the sole purpose of the “INHERITANCE” if the physcal land of Israel, TO BE inherited by the family line of ISAAC.
By custom, the RIGHTFUL heir would have been Ishmael, the first born. The “sign” of circumcision was God’s ETERNAL promise of The Promised Land to the descendents of THE PROMISED SEED, Isaac.
Now, that is the CARNAL. This, Richard disagrees with me. But now lets see the SPIRITUAL.
Gentiles are not circumcised in the flesh. But the circumcised in the heart is relevant to the INHERITANCE of the PROMISE of ETERNAL LIFE, thru the PROMISED SEED, Jesus.
So, to conclude, the ONLY True “Israel” is the circumcised Jews in the flesh, not the circumsized Gentiles of the heart.
The words, however, related are PROMISED LAND, and PROMISED SEED. Both have a carnal meaning, and both have a spiritual meaning, to wit:
Carnal
Promised Land: Physical Land of Israel
Promised Seed: Isaac
Spiritual
Promised Land: Heaven, aka Eternal Life
Promised Seed: Jesus
In other words, a dual meaning. One pertains the the Jews, the other pertains to Christians. For there is a difference between Jew/Gentile who are NOT in Christ.
Ed Chapman
Hi Ed, Abraham will inherit the world…(Romans 4:13 )all of it, including but not limited to the area of the land of Israel in the new heavens and new earth…that is where it will be fulfilled and we as the true Israel are co heirs with Christ the promised seed of Abraham if we are In Him.
We are children of Abraham by Faith and Baptism. So Christian Baptism is the fulfillment of Circumcision and entitles those who are in Christ to an inheritance much greater that the small area of earthly Israel but certainly includes it. The Land of promise this side of history is a type of the real destiny, the eternal one.. See Hebrews 12 and 13.
Even beyond that are the spiritual blessings we receive through union with Christ!
New Heaven and new earth fulfills all that the carnal Israel cannot receive in their apostasy.
This is the teaching of the Apostle Paul in all his Epistles. One people of God!
dnjohn,
You had said:
Abraham will inherit the world…
My response:
I agree…but…that’s not telling the complete story.
You are getting the CARNAL promise mixed up with the SPIRITUAL promises.
The physical land if Israel, WITH SPECIFIC BORDERS are promised to the circumsized Jews THRU ISAAC. That land belongs to the Jews, no matter how you slice it. To date, the borders of Israel, as explained in Genesis, has NOT come to fruition yet.
Gentiles do not pertain to that promise at all.
Christians, Jews/Gentiles are PROMISED a DIFFERENT Promised land, to wit:
Hebrews 11:
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
This is the difference between a carnal story, and transforming it into a spiritual one. The carnal still stands.
All the promises of God find their yes in Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:20
dnjohn,
1 Corinthians 1:20 (KJV)
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
What’s your point? What are you implying?
I get the feeling that you would also remind me of “Do not lean on your own understanding”? That I’m to lean on yours instead? Hmmmm.
Ed Chapman
My point is that Christ is the key and fulfillment of all the promises of God not old law Judaism.
dnjohn,
You had said:
“My point is that Christ is the key and fulfillment of all the promises of God not old law Judaism.”
My response:
You are still confusing carnal promises with spiritual promises, by DISMISSING the carnal promise. BOTH come true. BOTH are relevant.
The physical land of Israel IS the promised land for the Jews. HEAVEN is the Promised Land for Christians. Isaac is the Promised seed for the inheritance on the carnal side, Jesus is the promised seed on the spiritual side. The latter does not negate out the former.
Ed Chapman
Except for the fact that carnal Israel apart from christ has fallen away from the vine of Israel while believers in Christ are grafted in, but the fallen ones can be grafted back if they come to faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Carnal Israel is disqualified, they fail to meet the stipulation of listening to God’s prophet, Jesus and are cut off from the people, just like Deuteronomy says.
dnjohn,
You had said:
“Except for the fact that carnal Israel apart from christ has fallen away from the vine of Israel while believers in Christ are grafted in, but the fallen ones can be grafted back if they come to faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Carnal Israel is disqualified, they fail to meet the stipulation of listening to God’s prophet, Jesus and are cut off from the people, just like Deuteronomy says.”
My response:
I don’t know who’s been feeding you that garbage, but that’s not true at all. It’s the “IF THEY COME TO FAITH IN THE DIVINITY OF JESUS…” that I have a problem with, regarding your statement.
Romans 11 gives a different story.
Did you know that the story of Joseph and his brothers is prophesy of Jesus’ relationship with the Jews?
Probably not, and you would probably conclude that it is a silly suggestion.
The story. Joseph REVEALED himself to his brothers (after hiding his identity), and forgave them for throwing him into the PIT (crucifixion of Jesus). Let’s not forget that Joseph “toyed” with his brothers for a little whiile.
Are you aware of the books of the PROPHETS declare that the Jews will all be forgiven of their sins against God? Probably not, huh?
Are you aware that it is God who BLINDED the Jews from the VERY BEGINNING so that they would NOT know Jesus, and that it has nothing to do with whether they sinned, or not? Probably not, huh?
I’ve read and studied the bible regarding the Jews for quite some time.
And the following is a small synopsis:
John 9:
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.
Pay CLOSE attention to verse 41. This is to the Jews, not the Gentiles.
Romans 11 references a verse from Deuteronomy, in that God has NEVER given the Jews “eyes to see, ears to hear, or a mind that understands”, and that their sins had nothing to do with it. But there will come a day that God UNBLINDS all of them, and they will all be given MERCY, which is the hallmark word and subject of Romans 11 to the JEWS, aka ISRAEL.
That word, Israel, is not us, not the Gentiles at all. Jacob is not us. The children of Jacob (Israel) is not us.
In short…they will be Christians ONCE GOD UNBLINDS THEM, and forgives them, as he has promised in the PROPHETS. In their GOD GIVEN blind state, they can’t come to Jesus by faith. At all. Remember Lydia? She was a Jew. God had to “open her heart”. She is NOT a Gentile. That can be proven. Paul’s first stop is always to the Jews before talking to Gentiles. He had just got into town, and on the FIRST SABBATH after getting into town, he visits the JEW FIRST, and Lydia was during THAT DAY. Gentiles are NOT ALLOWED in Jewish gatherings on their Sabbath.
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;
Ed Chapman
This is serious heresy, Ed. Jews do not get salvation in their disobedience to the Son. The apostles quote this passage in Acts 3:23 and state that those who disbelieve the Prophet will be Completely cut off from the people. The apostles John wrote he that believes on the Son has everlasting life but he who does not obey the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God remains on him. John 3:36.
The blinding or hardening was a response to the shutting of their own eyes as a judicial act in retribution for their own stubborn sin Romans 11:9 specifically calls it a recompense. ..it was not a preemptive block to their initial faith. This is really bad theology you are teaching. Dangerous. Jews and Gentiles alike are under sin and accountable to God that is the main argument of Romans 3. God says in Roman 2. specifically that the unrighteous jew will be condemned not just graced with de facto forgiveness because of special identity. This is bad heresy . Heresy is a sin that deprives one of salvation as it is rooted in human pride. John the Baptist preached against this kind of presumption.
dnjohn,
Heresay? I beg to differ.
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.
The words “unto this day” is the same as saying, “NEVER”.
That verse is referenced in Romans 11. You might want to read the whole bible SLOWLY, when it comes to the Jews only. You will learn a lot. Hence the reason for this particular Blog Post regarding the word ELECT.
MERCY is given to them. To spiritualize Israel as meaning Christian is hearsay, heresy, theirsay, whosay, theysay.
Ed Chapman
God reconciled the world to himself…that means mercy is given objectively to everyone but that does not mean all will be saved. In fact all must heed the call subjectively to be reconciled to God. No different with jews.
dnjohn,
As usual, you don’t get the WHOLE picture. You are missing a lot.
Ed Chapman
dnjohn,
The verse that gets used that there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE is so misused, and abused, because they forget about the part that states, “IN CHRIST”.
Outside of “IN CHRITS”, there is indeed a difference between Jew and Gentile. And it is that difference that one must learn about. And WHY there is a difference between Jew and Gentile.
YES, Jews are in a DIFFERENT CATEGORY. YES everyone is under sin, but since God USES the Jews in their blindness, and CAUSED that blindness due to nothing that they did wrong, THEN JUSTICE DEMANDS that God gives them mercy.
You just dont seem to grasp that.
Ed Chapman
If your teaching was right their would be no condemnations of the jews for their unbelief in the NT and would be no attributing it to their own sin. That is not the case though.
dnjohn,
Again, you are only reading HALF of the storyline. You miss the other half. There are verses that you have NOT considered that cannot be ignored, or swept under the carpet.
Here is a great example of a problem that a lot of people have:
Romans 5:13
I know you will, too.
Ed Chapman
I have zero problem with that verse. Before the Divine Law was given, sin was not imputed to Adam. It was not a legal imputation but an ontological change from which healing is needed. It is the permeating of mortality/death in our nature. I am Eastern Orthodox, I do not believe that God imputes sin to people in a legal sense. Guilt comes from rebellion, lawlessness toward God. No one “inherits”guilt. But we do inherit the effects of the fall in our nature e.g mortality, propensity toward sin…i.e the law of sin.. We reject augustinian original sin concept as this verse teaches. There is no law for the people right after Adam and their is no law for the new born baby, therefore there is no guilt attributed, no imputed sin without a breaking of Law. I have zero problem with this verse. I am not sure what you are getting at with this statement. Please clarify.
dnjohn,
Uh, I am not sure that you understood that verse. The law came about under Moses, not before Moses.
Ed
I know the law was given by Moses. I was just arguing against the idea that God impute sin to those who have never rebelled. The calvinist idea that God imputed sin to all people so that people are born guilty. I deny that teaching. I thing the principles of that verse refute it too. But I do not know what you were hinting at about a lot of people having problems with Romans 5:13? I have no problem with the verse and accept what it teaches and implies. What problems are you referring to specifically?
dnjohn,
Rebelled? Hmmmm. No, that’s not how I read that. I remember reading Romans 7:7-9, and REALIZING what the name of that tree was that Adam ate from. The word KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil was the name of the tree, with the word KNOWLEDGE being the key word.
Once you have KNOWLEDGE of Evil, then you FIND OUT what you did ALREADY. Then sin is imputed to you. Ignorance of sin is WINKED AT (ACTS 17:30), for those Gentiles who’ve never been under the law in the first place.
FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN (Romans 3:20). That is our basis for our guilt…KNOWLEDGE of the law. No knowledge, NO SIN IMPUTED.
Ed
There is the natural law that God gives to the heart of man whereby they do by nature the things of the Law. Romans 2 and become a law to themselves….
dnjohn,
Yes, I know about Romans 2 for many years. Tell me tho, does that include the 1st Commandment? 2nd Commandment? 3rd Commandment? 4th Commandment?
What are the “natural” laws?
And what about their JUDGEMENT at death? These people never knew God, they never knew who Jesus is…what about these people when they die?
What if they stole something in this life. Were they caught? What was thier eartly judicial punishment? Did the victim forgive them? Did he pay for his crime?
From my reading of Romans 2, it is the SECRET disobedient of natural laws that they are held to account for, SECRET being the key word. But God is still the judge, and he has the authority to give mercy for.
But the purpose of Romans 2 was showing that those UNDER THE LAW will be judged BY THE LAW…JEWS, not Gentiles. Hence Gentiles NOT UNDER THE LAW judged by NATURAL LAW…but my main question is:
LIST ALL OF THOSE NATURAL LAWS FOR ME PLEASE!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Jews will be judged as GUILTY, but their SENTENCE is going to be MERCY AND FORGIVENESS. I implore you to read the PROPHETS in the HEBREW SCRIPTURES. Oh, and Jeremiah 31 and 33. Oh, by the way, Romans 11 states that they are NOT CUT OFF.
Ed
Jews are under judgement as well as gentiles Romans 1:18-32. verse 9,10 says “Jews first”, becauE privileges granted to the covenant people ( (Romans 3:1-8) increase responsibility (Romans 1:16, Amos 3:2, Luke 12:48)
Rule of Judgement: Law of Moses for the Jew. Law of conscience for the Gentile.. Paul recognizes ( despite Romans 1:18-32) that there are morally sensitive and responsible Gentiles,however far short they may fall of God’s righteous demands. Romans 3:25 “circumcision becomes uncircumcision”…in the sense that the Jewish violator of the Law stands before God precisely where the pagan violator stands( Jeremiah 9:25,26)
copied from the comments of Bruce Metzger on Romans 1:1-16 through Roman 2:1-16
dnjohn,
UGGGHHHHH. I know that. But again, you are not painting the whole picture. You are missing so much.
Yes, they get judged as guilty…but the sentence is listed in Romans 11…MERCY.
Again, the problem with ORTHODOX, is their RIGID EXPOSITION interpretion of Genesis to Malachai, which is WHY you disagree with me regarding my earlier posts regarding the PROMISED LAND and PROMISED SEED being twofold (carnal and spiritual).
The bible was NOT MEANT to be interpreted by EXPOSITORY, but SPIRITUALLY.
Ed Chapman
No scriptures say Jews will be pardoned for being jews. Romans 2 says everyone will be judged without partiality according to their works and those who do evil will have tribulation, wrate, fury , distress etc to the jew first and also to the Greek.for God shows no partiality. There is no guaranteed pardon here for jews. That is erroneous.
Matthew 3
Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sad′ducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruit that befits repentance, 9 and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Luke 13:28 – There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out.
dnjohn,
What I’m getting at is this…
You mention that you are Eastern Orthodox. The word Orthodox is what I have a problem with. Let me explain.
Someone else decided FOR YOU what you are to believe. And if you DISAGREE with ANY point, then you can’t be orthodox.
I like the Berean style. Which means, NEVER BELIEVE WHAT SOMEONE ELSE TELLS YOU until you verify it for yourself.
That way, we can’t be called SHEEPLE, we can’t be accused of not having a mind of our own.
I’ve never been a fan of ORGAN-IZED Religion. I prefer a guitar and drums.
Ed Chapman
I have a problem with individualism as it not NT teaching but contrary to it. But that would be another topic altogether.
dnjohn,
Do you deny the word BEREAN in the bible and WHY they were more NOBLE?
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.
What does that say? They searched the scriptures to see if what they were being told was right, or wrong. They verified it for themselves. INDIVIDUALISM at it’s BIBLICAL FINEST.
Ed
Inquire…Test all things…then become a member of the body. We are members of the body if we are in Christ, not the whole body. That is the phase of the learner before they are baptized. That is not condoning individualism as a matter of polity.
dnjohn,
I’m sorry that you feel that way. These Bereans were Jews, by the way. How do I know? Gentiles had NO ACCESS to the scriptures to verify anything. But they were teaching us that INDIVIDUAL STUDY is a DUTY in order to be able to avoid FALSE TEACHERS.
Since you are ORTHODOX, you have no way of knowing who is teaching truth, vs. teaching error. It’s EASY to say to TEST ALL SPIRITS, but what are you doing to TEST ALL SPIRITS? Cults claim to do that.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they TEST ALL SPIRITS. How?
I guarantee that if you STUDY on your own, you will find something that just isn’t right about your ORTHODOX teachings. This is why I am non-denomination. The preacher reports, I DECIDE by study.
I make a joke that the ORTHODOX people study their notes to see if the Bible is right. Non-Denominatino studies the Bible to see if what they are being told is true, or false.
Ed Chapman
You could not be more wrong about this. Protestants just have warring opinions about the meaning of scripture. We have the apostolic tradition always believed and handed down universally since the beginning and that is the canon of proper interpretation not the novel ideas of individuals seeking a following. The faith once for all delivered to the saints. The Church is the Pillar and foundation of the truth. Non denomination folks have no way of knowing if their private interpretations are correct so every one chooses a different faction or a self made one. Complete doctrinal confusion. They have no way of even being sure what books are even in the Bible as no book of the Bible has the list. The NT was established by eastern orthodox bishops. The Church came before the canon of the NT and the Church passes on what was given bybthe apostles and perpetuates the legitimate apostolic priestly authority through the apostolic succession. I just shared that passage as it just outlines what Paul himself said in the first two chapters of Romans.
We do study the scriptures constantly and when we hear false teachings we know it and show its error. Our services are filled with scripture too. We also know its false when it is not consistent with what the Church has taught universally since the earliest times everywhere the apostles started churches and confessed in consensus. That is solid and authoritative teaching not teachings with no authority like the scribes of Jesus day based on the opinions of Individuals that began at some later point in time away from the apostles.
dnjohn,
Well, I’m gonna back out of this conversation. I didn’t mean to hijack your conversation with Richard.
Ed
Again he is restrained and bound so that he cannot rally the nations against christ and the Church for the final revolt under Antichrist. That is his binding.. Jesus spoiled the principalities and powers and made a show of them, triumphing over them through the cross. COLOSSIANS 2:15.. one cannot spoil the strong man’s house without first binding him.. Jesus taught this in Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27.
The 1000 year is the reign of the saints in heaven with Christ, having received the first resurrection, which is spiritual. The second ressurection is on the last day and it is the bodily ressurection. The millenial reign is the reign of the martyrs, their victorious souls with Christ. It is right there in Revelation 20.
For anyone interested, I suggest read the following:
https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/70-weeks/
It explains a lot to this. A lot.
Ed Chapman
DNJohn said: “The millennial reign is now.”
There is a major problem with that notion. During that thousand years, Satan is imprisoned,
REV 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Of course we know from direct experience that the nations are deceived, as WWI, WWII and the holocaust testify.
Also, I guess Peter didn’t get the news, because he warns us that Satan is prowling around like a lion….
1 Pet 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
So any thought that we are in the Millennium NOW is completely refuted.
The Fallen angels are also said to be in hell ( greek: tartarus)too and in chains but they are still active so that argument fails too, not considering the meaning of those expressions. 2 Peter 2:4