God has only got one chosen people

[Scott Downey]

example here
I asked this here from copilot, and you will see copilot points out it is a deviation from what scripture says

Premillennialism is fraudulent view because it assumes a pretrib rapture, and that is found no where in the New testament

You’re raising a sharp critique that many scholars and Bible readers have made: the pre‑tribulation rapture—the idea that believers are secretly taken before a seven‑year tribulation—does not appear explicitly in the New Testament. Let’s break this down carefully:

What the Text Actually Says
• 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 – Paul describes believers being “caught up” to meet Christ in the air, but he does not separate this event from the visible return of Christ.
• Matthew 24:29–31 – Jesus explicitly places the gathering of the elect after the tribulation, not before.
• John 5:28–29 – Resurrection of both righteous and wicked occurs at “the hour” of Christ’s coming, not in two stages.
• Revelation 20:4–6 – The “first resurrection” is tied to Christ’s visible reign, not a secret removal of the church.

Where Pre‑Trib Comes From
• The system was popularized in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby and later the Scofield Reference Bible.
• It relies on separating Israel and the Church into distinct programs, reading Daniel 9’s “70th week” as a future tribulation period.
• This framework is not directly stated in Scripture; it’s an interpretive grid imposed on the text.

Premillennialism vs. Pre‑Trib
• Premillennialism itself simply means Christ returns before a literal millennium.
• Pre‑tribulationism is one version of premillennialism, but not the only one.
• Historic Premillennialism (held by early church fathers like Irenaeus) was post‑tribulational—the church endures tribulation, then Christ returns.
So, it’s not accurate to say all premillennialism assumes pre‑trib. The “fraudulent” element you’re pointing to is really the modern dispensational pre‑trib system, not premillennialism as a whole.

Straightforward Reading
If you strip away commentary traditions:
• The NT consistently ties the resurrection, rapture, and Christ’s return together in one climactic event after tribulation.
• That aligns more with Post‑Trib Premillennialism or Amillennialism, depending on whether you take Revelation 20 literally or symbolically.

In short: You’re right that the New Testament never teaches a secret pre‑trib rapture. Premillennialism in its historic form doesn’t require it, but modern dispensational premillennialism does—and that’s where the disconnect from the text arises.
Would you like me to build a timeline chart directly from the NT passages (Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, Revelation 20) so you can see how the sequence unfolds without commentary overlays?

 

[Zao is life]

example here
I asked this here from copilot, and you will see copilot points out it is a deviation from what scripture says

Premillennialism is fraudulent view because it assumes a pretrib rapture, and that is found no where in the New testament

You’re raising a sharp critique that many scholars and Bible readers have made: the pre‑tribulation rapture—the idea that believers are secretly taken before a seven‑year tribulation—does not appear explicitly in the New Testament. Let’s break this down carefully:

What the Text Actually Says
• 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 – Paul describes believers being “caught up” to meet Christ in the air, but he does not separate this event from the visible return of Christ.
• Matthew 24:29–31 – Jesus explicitly places the gathering of the elect after the tribulation, not before.
• John 5:28–29 – Resurrection of both righteous and wicked occurs at “the hour” of Christ’s coming, not in two stages.
• Revelation 20:4–6 – The “first resurrection” is tied to Christ’s visible reign, not a secret removal of the church.

Where Pre‑Trib Comes From
• The system was popularized in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby and later the Scofield Reference Bible.
• It relies on separating Israel and the Church into distinct programs, reading Daniel 9’s “70th week” as a future tribulation period.
• This framework is not directly stated in Scripture; it’s an interpretive grid imposed on the text.

Premillennialism vs. Pre‑Trib
• Premillennialism itself simply means Christ returns before a literal millennium.
• Pre‑tribulationism is one version of premillennialism, but not the only one.
• Historic Premillennialism (held by early church fathers like Irenaeus) was post‑tribulational—the church endures tribulation, then Christ returns.
So, it’s not accurate to say all premillennialism assumes pre‑trib. The “fraudulent” element you’re pointing to is really the modern dispensational pre‑trib system, not premillennialism as a whole.

Straightforward Reading
If you strip away commentary traditions:
• The NT consistently ties the resurrection, rapture, and Christ’s return together in one climactic event after tribulation.
• That aligns more with Post‑Trib Premillennialism or Amillennialism, depending on whether you take Revelation 20 literally or symbolically.

In short: You’re right that the New Testament never teaches a secret pre‑trib rapture. Premillennialism in its historic form doesn’t require it, but modern dispensational premillennialism does—and that’s where the disconnect from the text arises.
Would you like me to build a timeline chart directly from the NT passages (Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, Revelation 20) so you can see how the sequence unfolds without commentary overlays?

Your input began with a falsehood:

"Premillennialism is fraudulent view because .. it assumes a pretrib rapture"

Premillennialism does not and has never in its historic form assumed a Pre-trib rapture.

Your input was fraudulent - but your AI corrected your input by correcting your fraudulent input at the bottom of its output.

 

[Scott Downey]

Your input began with a falsehood:

"Premillennialism is fraudulent view because .. it assumes a pretrib rapture"

Premillennialism does not and has never in its historic form assumed a Pre-trib rapture.

Your input was fraudulent - but your AI corrected your input by correcting your fraudulent input at the bottom of its output.

You do realize I just getting that conversation going.... Copilot accurately stated the facts.
Give MS Copilot points for that. I think you will find it better at this than Chat GPT

 

[Zao is life]

You do realize I just getting that conversation going.... Copilot accurately stated the facts.
Give MS Copilot points for that. I think you will find it better at this than Chat GPT

AI still depends on human input though. For example @Davidpt inputting the verse:

"in regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers." (Romans 11:28)

and asking Chat GPT if the second group of people being called "they" can be referring to another group of people, rather than to the same group being mentioned in the first use of the word "they"

- and Chat GPT telling him that lexically and gramatically the second group can only be referring to the same as the first group, based on the word "they" being used twice.

- but David's input did not mention that the word "they" doesn't even appear in the original text but is published in italics both times in the KJV because it was added by scholars to make the verse easier to read.

Chat GPT would have given a completely different output reply if David's input had

(a) mentioned that the word "they" does not exist in the original text; and

(b) if David had compared the verse within its context - which is Paul's consistent comparison between the Jews who were broken off and the remnant which remained part of God's elect + the Gentiles who had benefited - which begins in Romans 9:1 and continues throughout Romans 11.

So the output still depends on human input.

 

[Davidpt]

AI still depends on human input though. For example @Davidpt inputting the verse:

"in regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers." (Romans 11:28)

and asking Chat GPT if the second group of people being called "they" can be referring to another group of people, rather than to the same group being mentioned in the first use of the word "they"

- and Chat GPT telling him that lexically and gramatically the second group can only be referring to the same as the first group, based on the word "they" being used twice.

- but David's input did not mention that the word "they" doesn't even appear in the original text but is published in italics both times in the KJV because it was added by scholars to make the verse easier to read.

Chat GPT would have given a completely different output reply if David's input had

(a) mentioned that the word "they" does not exist in the original text; and

(b) if David had compared the verse within its context - which is Paul's consistent comparison between the Jews who were broken off and the remnant which remained part of God's elect + the Gentiles who had benefited - which begins in Romans 9:1 and continues throughout Romans 11.

So the output still depends on human input.

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.


As concerning the gospel, enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, beloved for the fathers' sakes

How can when read in this manner that a pronoun is not meant?

Take the following, for instance.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The translators added the 'are'. Do you then think it is incorrect that 'are' is meant here? So do you think it makes sense of the text like such--where the beast and the false prophet? Probably not, right?

Getting back to Romans 11:28.

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.

From this point on through verse 28, the remnant that are not cutoff are not the subjects, Gentiles and unbelieving Jews are.

Provide one verse from verse 8 through verse 25 where the subject is the remnant that aren't cutoff. Then explain how this in verse 28-- As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes--doesn't agree with the subject matter concerning verses 8-25? You of course agree it does. But then you do not even remain consistent, though. You have the rest of that verse not even pertaining to the subject matter verses 8-25 have been involving. IOW, you are disregarding context in this case.

 

[WPM]

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.


As concerning the gospel, enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, beloved for the fathers' sakes

How can when read in this manner that a pronoun is not meant?

Take the following, for instance.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The translators added the 'are'. Do you then think it is incorrect that 'are' is meant here? So do you think it makes sense of the text like such--where the beast and the false prophet? Probably not, right?

Getting back to Romans 11:28.

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.

From this point on through verse 28, the remnant that are not cutoff are not the subjects, Gentiles and unbelieving Jews are.

Provide one verse from verse 8 through verse 25 where the subject is the remnant that aren't cutoff. Then explain how this in verse 28-- As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes--doesn't agree with the subject matter concerning verses 8-25? You of course agree it does. But then you do not even remain consistent, though. You have the rest of that verse not even pertaining to the subject matter verses 8-25 have been involving. IOW, you are disregarding context in this case.

How can born again Jews be considered enemies? That does not make sense.

 

[Scott Downey]

AI still depends on human input though. For example @Davidpt inputting the verse:

"in regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers." (Romans 11:28)

and asking Chat GPT if the second group of people being called "they" can be referring to another group of people, rather than to the same group being mentioned in the first use of the word "they"

- and Chat GPT telling him that lexically and gramatically the second group can only be referring to the same as the first group, based on the word "they" being used twice.

- but David's input did not mention that the word "they" doesn't even appear in the original text but is published in italics both times in the KJV because it was added by scholars to make the verse easier to read.

Chat GPT would have given a completely different output reply if David's input had

(a) mentioned that the word "they" does not exist in the original text; and

(b) if David had compared the verse within its context - which is Paul's consistent comparison between the Jews who were broken off and the remnant which remained part of God's elect + the Gentiles who had benefited - which begins in Romans 9:1 and continues throughout Romans 11.

So the output still depends on human input.

I see let me sort of try that in a little bit when I think about 'they'.
But before that here is a conversation on Romans 9 and 11 with Copilot
I point Copilot to Romans 9 here for reference
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Farther back in Romans 9 chapter, Paul explains as Isaiah says only the remnant of them will be saved.

Romans 9
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” 26 “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.” 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. 28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.” 29 And as Isaiah said before: “Unless the Lord of [c]Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, And we would have been made like Gomorrah.” Present Condition of Israel 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law [d]of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, [e]by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Excellent — you’re tracing Paul’s argument backward into Romans 9, which is the foundation for what he says later in Romans 11. Let’s unpack this carefully.

Romans 9 and the Remnant​

Paul quotes Isaiah:

“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved” (Romans 9:27).

This is crucial: Paul is saying that not all ethnic Israel will be saved, but only a remnant chosen by grace. This remnant is defined not by bloodline or works of the Law, but by faith in Christ.

Key Themes in Romans 9​

1. God’s Sovereign Mercy (vv. 14–18)
   
   • Salvation is not based on human effort (“him who wills or runs”), but on God’s mercy.
   • Pharaoh is an example: God hardened him to display His power. Likewise, Israel’s hardening serves God’s purposes.
2. The Potter and the Clay (vv. 19–21)
   
   • God has the right to shape destinies — some vessels for honor, some for dishonor.
   • This doesn’t mean blind fatalism; it means God’s purposes are higher than human objections.
3. Vessels of Wrath vs. Vessels of Mercy (vv. 22–24)
   
   • God endures unbelieving Israel (vessels of wrath) with patience, while revealing His glory in the vessels of mercy (believers, both Jew and Gentile).
   • The remnant is part of these vessels of mercy.
4. Gentile Inclusion (vv. 25–26)
   
   • Hosea’s prophecy is applied to Gentiles: those who were “not My people” are now called “sons of the living God.”
   • This shows that God’s people are defined by faith, not ethnicity.
5. Israel’s Failure (vv. 30–33)
   
   • Gentiles attained righteousness by faith.
   • Israel failed because they pursued righteousness by works of the Law.
   • Christ is the “stumbling stone” — unbelieving Israel rejected Him, while believers (Jew or Gentile) find salvation in Him.

How This Connects to Romans 11​

• Romans 9: Only a remnant of Israel will be saved; salvation is by mercy, not works.
• Romans 11: Israel’s rejection is partial and temporary. Though many are hardened, God’s covenant love remains, and He will graft them back in when they turn in faith.

So when Paul says in Romans 11:28 that unbelieving Jews are “enemies” yet “beloved,” he’s building on Romans 9: the remnant is saved, the rest are hardened, but God’s promises ensure that Israel’s story isn’t finished.

In Short​

Unbelieving Jews in Romans 9 are:

• Numerous but not all saved — only a remnant will be.
• Hardened vessels — their rejection serves God’s purposes.
• Still within God’s plan — their stumbling opens salvation to Gentiles, and their eventual restoration magnifies God’s mercy.

 

[Scott Downey]

Ok here asking about the they.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
now in the original Greek texts for Romans 11:28, is 'they' not present and was added by translators.

Direct Answer: In the original Greek of Romans 11:28, the word “they” does not explicitly appear. The Greek uses plural adjectives (ἐχθροὶ = “enemies,” ἀγαπητοὶ = “beloved”), which imply a plural subject. English translators supply “they” to make the sentence grammatically clear, but it is not a separate word in the Greek text.

The Greek Text of Romans 11:28​

Greek (Nestle 1904 / Westcott-Hort):

κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐχθροὶ δι’ ὑμᾶς, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας·

Word-by-word:​

• κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον – “as regards the gospel”
• ἐχθροὶ – “enemies” (plural adjective, nominative masculine plural)
• δι’ ὑμᾶς – “for your sake”
• κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν – “but as regards the election”
• ἀγαπητοὶ – “beloved” (plural adjective, nominative masculine plural)
• διὰ τοὺς πατέρας – “for the sake of the fathers”

Why “they” Appears in English​

• In Greek, adjectives like ἐχθροὶ (“enemies”) and ἀγαπητοὶ (“beloved”) are used predicatively without an explicit subject.
• The subject is understood from context: Paul is speaking of Israel (unbelieving Jews).
• English requires a subject for clarity, so translators insert “they” to make the sentence flow naturally:
  • “Concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”

Thus, “they” is not an addition that changes meaning — it is a necessary grammatical supply to render the Greek sense into English.

Theological Implication​

• The Greek emphasizes the paradox: Israel is simultaneously ἐχθροὶ (enemies) and ἀγαπητοὶ (beloved).
• The absence of an explicit pronoun makes the statement more stark — Paul simply labels them with these identities.
• Translators add “they” to smooth the English, but the force of Paul’s tension remains: Israel is both rejected (in unbelief) and beloved (because of God’s covenant promises).

Summary: The original Greek of Romans 11:28 does not contain the word “they.” Instead, plural adjectives imply the subject. English translators supply “they” for readability, but the meaning is fully present in the Greek itself.
Would you like me to show you a side-by-side comparison table of Romans 11:28 in Greek, literal English, and standard English translations, so you can see exactly how “they” is supplied?



yes

Perfect, Scott — let’s lay this out clearly with a side‑by‑side comparison so you can see how Romans 11:28 looks in the original Greek, in a literal rendering, and in standard English translations.

Romans 11:28 Comparison​

Text	Content
Greek (Nestle-Aland)	κατὰ μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐχθροὶ δι’ ὑμᾶς, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέρας·
Literal English (word-for-word)	“As regards the gospel, enemies for your sake; but as regards the election, beloved for the sake of the fathers.”
Standard English (NKJV/ESV/NIV)	“Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”

Key Observation​

• In Greek, there is no explicit pronoun like αὐτοί (“they”).
• Instead, the plural adjectives ἐχθροὶ (“enemies”) and ἀγαπητοὶ (“beloved”) carry the subject implicitly.
• Translators add “they” in English to make the sentence grammatically complete, but it’s not a separate word in the Greek text.

Why This Matters​

Paul’s Greek phrasing is stark and forceful: he simply labels Israel with two identities — enemies and beloved. The absence of an explicit pronoun makes the paradox sharper. English smooths it out with “they,” but the tension is already present in the Greek.

Would you like me to expand this into a forensic-style protocol card — showing how the Greek grammar works (implicit subject via adjectives), how translators supply pronouns, and what theological weight that carries? That way you’d have a chart you can reuse when analyzing other passages where pronouns are implied.

 

[Davidpt]

[*]The subject is understood from context: Paul is speaking of Israel (unbelieving Jews).

Exactly. And that's been my reasoning all along. Only someone with doctrinal bias' would treat it differently.

Why do some interpreters apparently do not want unbelieving Jews to still be beloved so that they too can be saved? It's not like once they are cutoff, there are no more chances for them. Obviously then, they are still beloved, otherwise why does God give them another chance after having been cutoff? Does that equal hatred of them instead? The text indicates they are beloved for the father's sakes.

 

[Zao is life]

I see let me sort of try that in a little bit when I think about 'they'.
But before that here is a conversation on Romans 9 and 11 with Copilot
I point Copilot to Romans 9 here for reference
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Farther back in Romans 9 chapter, Paul explains as Isaiah says only the remnant of them will be saved.

Romans 9
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As He says also in Hosea: “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” 26 “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.” 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. 28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.” 29 And as Isaiah said before: “Unless the Lord of [c]Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, And we would have been made like Gomorrah.” Present Condition of Israel 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law [d]of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, [e]by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Excellent — you’re tracing Paul’s argument backward into Romans 9, which is the foundation for what he says later in Romans 11. Let’s unpack this carefully.

Romans 9 and the Remnant​

Paul quotes Isaiah:

This is crucial: Paul is saying that not all ethnic Israel will be saved, but only a remnant chosen by grace. This remnant is defined not by bloodline or works of the Law, but by faith in Christ.

Key Themes in Romans 9​

1. God’s Sovereign Mercy (vv. 14–18)
   
   • Salvation is not based on human effort (“him who wills or runs”), but on God’s mercy.
   • Pharaoh is an example: God hardened him to display His power. Likewise, Israel’s hardening serves God’s purposes.
2. The Potter and the Clay (vv. 19–21)
   
   • God has the right to shape destinies — some vessels for honor, some for dishonor.
   • This doesn’t mean blind fatalism; it means God’s purposes are higher than human objections.
3. Vessels of Wrath vs. Vessels of Mercy (vv. 22–24)
   
   • God endures unbelieving Israel (vessels of wrath) with patience, while revealing His glory in the vessels of mercy (believers, both Jew and Gentile).
   • The remnant is part of these vessels of mercy.
4. Gentile Inclusion (vv. 25–26)
   
   • Hosea’s prophecy is applied to Gentiles: those who were “not My people” are now called “sons of the living God.”
   • This shows that God’s people are defined by faith, not ethnicity.
5. Israel’s Failure (vv. 30–33)
   
   • Gentiles attained righteousness by faith.
   • Israel failed because they pursued righteousness by works of the Law.
   • Christ is the “stumbling stone” — unbelieving Israel rejected Him, while believers (Jew or Gentile) find salvation in Him.

How This Connects to Romans 11​

• Romans 9: Only a remnant of Israel will be saved; salvation is by mercy, not works.
• Romans 11: Israel’s rejection is partial and temporary. Though many are hardened, God’s covenant love remains, and He will graft them back in when they turn in faith.

So when Paul says in Romans 11:28 that unbelieving Jews are “enemies” yet “beloved,” he’s building on Romans 9: the remnant is saved, the rest are hardened, but God’s promises ensure that Israel’s story isn’t finished.

In Short​

Unbelieving Jews in Romans 9 are:

• Numerous but not all saved — only a remnant will be.
• Hardened vessels — their rejection serves God’s purposes.
• Still within God’s plan — their stumbling opens salvation to Gentiles, and their eventual restoration magnifies God’s mercy.

Your input is still faulty because Paul has been speaking about one entity called Israel and divided it into two groups of people - the part of the one entity (Israel) that has been handed over to blindness, and the part that is not (the elect).

How can he suddenly be talking about one and the same group in verse 28?

Copy @WPM @Davidpt

Honestly, as though the saints aren't confused enough about this, they have now chosen to exacerbate the problem by going to AI and giving it faulty input and trusting AI's faulty output which it derived from the faulty input of themselves and others.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're just another terrorist loving, Jew hating, anti semitic worker of evil who cannot rightly divide the word of truth, you know not God, you know not the scriptures or the promises of God to His Chosen People, did I mention Nazi? Well, you're a Nazi.

I don't believe any of those things of course, nice post. I just thought I would try to prepare you for what's coming next. Maybe this forum is different. But threads such as the one you have created often go down hill rather quickly.

Sorry, I hope I didn't give you a heart attack. I've been told I have a strange sense of humor.

Much love, much peace.
Well done.

LOL. My blood pressure definitely went up a bit after reading your first paragraph. Glad I kept reading and didn't just respond after reading that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

God's elect are tribe of the second man (1 Corinthians 15:47) who is the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). He created all things and is before all things (Colossians 1:16-17).

1. GOD AND ZOE (LIFE)​

The life [zoe] that is in Him is eternal life [zoe aionios].(John 1:4; John 5:26). He alone has eternal life [zoe aionios] in Himself.

Eternal life [zoe aionios] is given in Christ to those who have been born again of His Spirit. (John 1:4; John 5:26; John 14:6; 1 John 5:11-12; and Colossians 3:4).

Jesus told those who believe in Him and belong to Him:

"I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (John 14:19b-20b).​

He also told all human beings that we need to be born of the Spirit (John 3:3-8) in order to perceive, experience, and have knowledge of the Kingdom of God,

which He said "does not come with external evidence (that can be observed). Nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'It's over there!' For take heed, be discerning, and perceive this:

The kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21);​

and in Colossians 1:27 Paul talks about "the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints,

which is Christ IN you, the hope of glory."​

"When Christ, who is our life [zoe], shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." (Colossians 3:4).

2. THE CREATURE AND ZAO
(TO BE ALIVE | TO BE LIVING | TO LIVE)​

God created human beings to live | to be alive [zao] in created bodies, on the created earth; and He breathed life [ZOE] into Adam in order that Adam could ZAO [live | be alive] forever. God did not create human beings to "die and then go to heaven when we die" - and the first humans lived in a paradise,

but ever since Adam - the created human being - sinned and began to die, no descendant of Adam and Eve has continued to be alive | live [zao] forever, because no human being can live | be alive [zao] forever (be immortal) unless he also has eternal life [zoe] in him

- but only Christ has eternal life IN HIMSELF (John 5:26).

This is why Paul taught:

"He (Christ) alone has (possesses) immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen." (1 Timothy 6:15-16).

And,

"For this reason Christ died [apothnesko] and rose again from the dead [anistemi], and lived again [anazao], so that he may be the Lord of both the dead [nekros] and living [zao: those who are alive, not dead]." (Romans 14:9).

So Jesus said to John,

"Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that is alive / that liveth [zao], and was dead; and, behold, I am alive [zao] to the ages of the ages, Amen; and I have the keys of hades and of death." (Revelation 1:17-18).

Adam was alive [zao] forever (immortal) but he sinned, and the moment he sinned, his body began to die. So when Adam died, what happened to the spirit of life [zoe] that God had breathed into him?

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Solomon).

[-- "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living [zao/chay] soul [nephesh]." -- Genesis 2:7).]

When Jesus raised a young girl from the dead, the gospel of Luke tells us that:

"her spirit came again, and she arose straightway: and he commanded to give her meat." (Luke 8:55). (This occurred before Jesus had died and risen again bodily from the dead).

==================================​

* There is only one Spirit that was the source of life [zoe] that enabled Adam to live [zao] forever before he sinned, lost his connection to the source of life, and his body began to slowly die;

and there is only one Spirit that is the source of life [zoe], by which human beings can live | be alive [zao] FOREVER (be immortal) after having been resurrected from the dead.

==================================​

No so-called 'dead human spirit' being "regenerated from death" is going to be 'another' source of life [zoe] enabling the person to live [zao] forever.

There are at least four passages where the New Testament uses the word zao to talk about those who had died but will live again | be alive again following the resurrection of the body from the dead, where main-stream churches conflate zao (to live | to be alive) and zoe (spiritual life, which is of God) by replacing the word zao with the word zoe in their doctrine:-

|| Matthew 22:32 & Mark 12:27; John 5:24-29; John 11:25-26; and Revelation 20:4-5. ||

Those who have their theology wrong regarding zoe aionios (eternal life) and being alive [zao] forever (immortal) and refuse to be corrected will never hear, and hence will also never understand the millennium of Revelation 20 - and will forever conflate what God says in scripture regarding His chosen (Christ and those in Christ), with Christ's Revelation of the first age of the ages of the ages - and will no doubt merely respond to posts like this one with a (as they have done so many times before).

I won't 'bless' you with encouraging you to enjoy your confusion, brother - because your confusion is not a blessing, nor is your inability to hear and hence to grow in your knowledge and understanding of the things you speak about.

This post didn't address anything said in the OP at all. You continue to make a fool of yourself over and over again. How can you not get tired of that?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have falsely asserted two things in the OP:

1. That Premillennialism is Dispensationalism (or Premillennialsm equates to believing in a chosen people who are not those who belong to Christ).

2. That a literal millennium following the return of Christ equates to the same.

You need to grow - which requires growing up first - something which your replacement of your usual with the letters Lol in your reply to my post betrays the fact that you are not even able to do the latter yet.

LOL. He did not even mention Premillennialism in the OP. He was refuting dispensationalism in the OP.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are wrongly attributing blessing and favor to those who are under the wrath of God, who are antichrist, are of their father the devil, and are of the synagogue of Satan. That is because you fail to see the 2 groups of Israelis that Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11.

What is the whole thrust of Romans 9-11? What is the subject matter? The whole context involves Paul talking about the two types of ethnic Israeli – one elect and the other blinded. This is undeniable. God is showing how He is bound to His elect and against those who reject Him. To argue otherwise is to twist Scripture to support one's false teaching.

If you study the whole thrust of Romans 9-11 you will see that Paul is comparing the chosen elect (the election) within Israel to those who are "blinded." In Romans 11:1-5, Paul identifies “his people which he foreknew” as a spiritual “remnant according to the election of grace.” This is in complete contrast to the “blinded” natural majority of Israelis who reject Christ. There is no way they can be deemed God’s chosen people, God’s elect or the people of God, regardless of how loud or often Dispensationalists claim this.

We see the whole dichotomy between true Israel and false Israel throughout Romans 9-11. Romans 11:7-10 corresponds, “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded [Gr. poroo – hardened]. (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. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.”

This is actually saying the opposite to what many Premillennialists argue. In fact, it is actually saying what is says: “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for.” In short, salvation or favor with God has absolutely nothing to do with one’s ethnicity. It is not about being an Israelite; it is nothing to do with racial status or nationality; it is all to do with being chosen – namely being one of God’s elect remnant. This is the only means of favor with God. This spiritual family are the true Israel and the only accepted people of God. To be of the “election” one has to have a real personal intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.

Paul underlines in Romans 11:28: “As concerning the gospel, they (Christ-rejecting Jews) are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election (God’s people), they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”

There are two distinct but diverse peoples described here – one saved and the other lost. These two distinct groups operate under two antithetical banners: “enemies” and “the election.” The enemies are the general Christ-rejecting populace of natural Israel. They are also identified as the "blinded." The "election" are the chosen believers.

Paul shows throughout his teaching that there are two groups within Israel: one faithful and true, the other unfaithful and merely professing. One is known as “the election” (or “the elect”) and the other as the “blinded” or ‘hardened ones’. One is a friend of God, the other is an enemy of His. One is all outward, the other is inward. God shows Himself bound to one, and strongly against the other.

Sadly, Dispensationalists back the wrong Israel in their teachings. They choose natural Christ-rejecting apostate Israel, above the elect spiritual remnant in order to justify their false doctrine. In doing so, they miss the whole development of faithful Israel into the New Testament Church.

Absolutely right. Dispensationalists think that people like the scribes and Pharisees who Jesus called hypocrites and vipers "are beloved for the father's sakes". Nonsense! As you showed, it's only the remnant of believers (the election) who are beloved for the fathers' sakes. Those who were blinded ("the rest") "are enemies for your (the Gentiles) sakes".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So why did God work with Israel for 2,000 years expecting them to fulfill the law in their own strength?

God never expected them to do that. He wanted them to realize that they couldn't do that and that they needed His grace and needed a Savior instead.

Why did God then make a new group, the Body of Christ who also were disobedient before He enabled them to obey Him?

Because He wanted all of His people, Jew and Gentile, to be in one body and no longer separated. The blood of Christ accomplished that, as Paul explained in Ephesians 2:11-22.

That is partial, and we know God is NOT partial.

What does this mean?

 

[WPM]

LOL. He did not even mention Premillennialism in the OP. He was refuting dispensationalism in the OP.

I did in the original post. I changed it for clarity purposes.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”

The interpretation you’re providing seems to split the two occurrences of “they” into two different groups:

“They are enemies for your sakes” = the Jews who were broken off (unbelieving Israel).

“They are beloved for the fathers’ sakes” = the remnant (believing Israel).

But grammatically and contextually, that doesn’t work. The same subject (“they”) must be carried through the whole sentence. The first clause defines who “they” are, and it is clearly the group presently “enemies” with respect to the gospel---the unbelieving portion of Israel. That same group is then called “beloved” with respect to election on account of the fathers.

This does not mean the unbelieving are presently saved or part of the remnant. Paul’s point is that even though they are currently in unbelief and therefore “enemies,” they are nevertheless still beloved in terms of God’s covenantal purpose rooted in the patriarchs. That’s why Paul immediately adds that God’s gifts and calling are “without repentance” (v. 29)---God has not abandoned His covenant promises, even though many Israelites have abandoned belief.

But this in no way removes the requirement for salvation. Just like Gentiles, any Jew who was “cut off” must come to Christ the same way anyone else does---by faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The remnant did not need to be grafted back in because they never left, they believed from the beginning. But that does not change the fact that the “they” in verse 28 refers to unbelieving Israel, not the remnant.

The flow of Romans 11 supports this reading.

Verses 1–7---Paul describes the remnant---those already saved.

Verses 11–24---Paul speaks of branches broken off through unbelief.

Verse 25---He describes Israel’s current state as 'hardening in part'.

Verse 28---He refers to this unbelieving portion of Israel as enemies yet still beloved because of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Verse 23---These same enemies can be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief.

This is completely consistent with--the remnant = the believing Jews.

The enemies/broken-off = the unbelieving Jews.

But the unbelieving Jews remain beloved---not saved, but still within the scope of God’s covenant promises---because of the fathers.

You expect us to believe that unbelieving Jews like the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus called hypocrites and a brood of vipers are beloved? You can't be serious.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I did in the original post. I changed it for clarity purposes.

Okay. You obviously made it clear from the beginning that you were refuting dispensationalism and not premillennialism, but when he saw one mention of premils he saw an opportunity to come on here and make a fool of himself again and he took it.

 

[Marilyn C]

God never expected them to do that. He wanted them to realize that they couldn't do that and that they needed His grace and needed a Savior instead.


Because He wanted all of His people, Jew and Gentile, to be in one body and no longer separated. The blood of Christ accomplished that, as Paul explained in Ephesians 2:11-22.


What does this mean?

God is omniscient as we both know. So why did He make a separate nation from the other nations, work with them and expect them in their human flesh to obey Him and His laws?

Yes, God wanted them to realize that they needed His grace, but God could have revealed that much earlier in their history. Why wait about the 2,000 years to address Israel.

Again if all God wanted was one group why make not make that to start with?

Partial - If God didn`t enable Israel to obey Him but did that for us, then that is partial.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”

The interpretation you’re providing seems to split the two occurrences of “they” into two different groups:

“They are enemies for your sakes” = the Jews who were broken off (unbelieving Israel).

“They are beloved for the fathers’ sakes” = the remnant (believing Israel).

But grammatically and contextually, that doesn’t work. The same subject (“they”) must be carried through the whole sentence. The first clause defines who “they” are, and it is clearly the group presently “enemies” with respect to the gospel---the unbelieving portion of Israel. That same group is then called “beloved” with respect to election on account of the fathers.

This does not mean the unbelieving are presently saved or part of the remnant. Paul’s point is that even though they are currently in unbelief and therefore “enemies,” they are nevertheless still beloved in terms of God’s covenantal purpose rooted in the patriarchs. That’s why Paul immediately adds that God’s gifts and calling are “without repentance” (v. 29)---God has not abandoned His covenant promises, even though many Israelites have abandoned belief.

But this in no way removes the requirement for salvation. Just like Gentiles, any Jew who was “cut off” must come to Christ the same way anyone else does---by faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The remnant did not need to be grafted back in because they never left, they believed from the beginning. But that does not change the fact that the “they” in verse 28 refers to unbelieving Israel, not the remnant.

The flow of Romans 11 supports this reading.

Verses 1–7---Paul describes the remnant---those already saved.

Verses 11–24---Paul speaks of branches broken off through unbelief.

Verse 25---He describes Israel’s current state as 'hardening in part'.

Verse 28---He refers to this unbelieving portion of Israel as enemies yet still beloved because of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Verse 23---These same enemies can be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief.

This is completely consistent with--the remnant = the believing Jews.

The enemies/broken-off = the unbelieving Jews.

But the unbelieving Jews remain beloved---not saved, but still within the scope of God’s covenant promises---because of the fathers.

Do you know who "the election" are?

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 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. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Paul called the remnant of Israelite believers elected "according to the election of grace" of his time "the election". With me so far? Now, look at this...

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

Paul had already indicated that "the election" are the remnant of saved Israelite believers. So, when he said "as touching the election", he was talking about the remnant of believers. They (the remnant of believers) are beloved for the father's sakes. To claim that unbelieving Jews are beloved is like saying that the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus called "hypocrites" and "a brood of vipers" who were headed for hell are beloved. No. That makes no sense. Is that how Jesus would have talked to people who were beloved? Absolutely not. Instead, He would talk to them the way He talked to the disciples.

Since you claim that unbelieving Jews are included among those who are beloved, do you also include believing Jews among the enemies for the Gentiles' sakes? You'd have to do that to be consistent. But, of course believing Jews were not enemies. You're not allowing scripture to interpret scripture here. Paul differentiated between two groups of Israelites in Romans 11:1-7 and you need to interpret Romans 11:28 accordingly.