Just who are the ELECT? (The Truth will surprise you)

[Bill]

You just cannot help yourself from telling other people what to do.

Try to be better!

Come on Rmema, you asked me to answer you and I did. But you don't even respond to it

The elect in heaven are those whose Hearts have been circumcised

 

[KingJ]

You just cannot help yourself from telling other people what to do.

Try to be better!

You a real keyboard warrior. Probably never been in a real fight in your life.

 

[Bill]

You a real keyboard warrior. Probably never been in a real fight in your life.

No we have not experienced South Africa. And we have not experienced the Middle East and China either. And I know that we can't even imagine what it would be like.

But this is a really good example of why people like myself don't care much about Outsiders coming in and trying to explain to me what the mega movement is about. It would be like me trying to tell you how to experience the struggle or The Strife of South Africa or me trying to tell somebody in the Middle Eastern China how they're supposed to have a forgiving heart for all the crap that's going on, especially when I can't relate to it.

In the same manner you can't relate to the mega movement, although you think you can

 

[Rhema]

But you don't even respond to it

Why are you replying to a post I sent to KJ?

mega movement

I think you mean maga.

mega movement

Pretty sure it's maga.

You okay Bill? Bad night's sleep?

The elect in heaven are those whose Hearts have been circumcised

You might need to re-read the OP. (And your own post calling me Satan.)

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

You a real keyboard warrior. Probably never been in a real fight in your life.

Then comes the insults.

You have a nice day,
Rhema

 

[Bill]

Why are you replying to a post I sent to KJ?


I think you mean maga.

Pretty sure it's maga.

You okay Bill? Bad night's sleep?


You might need to re-read the OP. (And your own post calling me Satan.)

Rhema

Yeah it's Maga. It's the voice to chat

 

[Rhema]

Yeah it's Maga. It's the voice to chat

Welcome to tech dystopia. Someday these people will understand that AI is just merely possession.

Obviously, the premise of my thread is that Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 speak to the same event (the end of the world).

And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels.​

(Matthew 13:39 DRB)

And when he was sitting on mount Olivet, the disciples came to 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?​

(Matthew 24:3 DRB)

How could it not be?

Rhema
(noting that I use the DRB just for you. )

 

[KingJ]

No we have not experienced South Africa. And we have not experienced the Middle East and China either. And I know that we can't even imagine what it would be like.

But this is a really good example of why people like myself don't care much about Outsiders coming in and trying to explain to me what the mega movement is about. It would be like me trying to tell you how to experience the struggle or The Strife of South Africa or me trying to tell somebody in the Middle Eastern China how they're supposed to have a forgiving heart for all the crap that's going on, especially when I can't relate to it.

In the same manner you can't relate to the mega movement, although you think you can

I think I said MAGA slogan fifty times. You fire rockets before properly reading and grasping a post, just as well you were never in a war.

 

[KingJ]

Then comes the insults.

You have a nice day,
Rhema

I am speaking fact though. You type and speak like you missed parental discipline, brothers beating you or school mates slapping you.

 

[Rhema]

I think I said MAGA slogan fifty times. You fire rockets before properly reading and grasping a post, just as well you were never in a war.

Please take this elsewhere out of my thread,
Thank you

 

[Charlie24]

But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.​

(Mark 13:24-27 KJV)

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.​

(Matthew 13:40-43 KJV)

"Elect" is the common gloss used in English for the Greek word ἐκλεκτός. But that's not a "special" word in Greek. It just means the things that are "selected."

LINK to the Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon for ἐκλεκτός

A.picked out, select,​

As one can see from the above parallel passages. The ones selected to be gathered by the angels are those who do iniquity. It's pretty obvious to anyone who can read plain Greek, or even plain English. "His Elect" are the ones He selected to be gathered by the angels and be cast into a furnace of fire.

(But I can feel the indignation rising.)

@Brightfame52 might start posting that Christ died for the Elect. To which I can readily agree:

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.​

(Romans 5:6 KJV)​

The "Elect" are "the ungodly," those who "do iniquity" and shall disappear at the end of the world, when removed by the angels.



But... But... But... (first, go read through the above scripture passages again.)

But... But the Elect are those chosen to go to heaven !!! No? (Again, go read through the above scripture passages again.)

Over the Two Millennia, the Christian Church has created it's own vocabulary, which it then teaches by rote as it indoctrinates the initiates. And yes, the Church does teach (in spite of scripture) that the Elect are the "Believers" who are "saved."

And one could even use three verses from Matthew 24 as a Proof Text to show that "The Elect" are these "special people" selected to be saved.

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.​

(Matthew 24:31 KJV)​

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.​

(Matthew 24:24 KJV)​

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.​

(Matthew 24:22 KJV)​

But this is an illusion of translation. What is sometimes called an artifact. As is clearly shown in Matthew 13, if those selected by Jesus to be removed from the Earth by the angels are those who do iniquity, the above three passages should read without contradiction when the word "elect" is replaced by "iniquitous."

Matthew 24:22 GRK) και ει μη εκολοβωθησαν αι ημεραι εκειναι ουκ αν εσωθη πασα σαρξ δια δε τους εκλεκτους κολοβωθησονται αι ημεραι εκειναι

First, I post this because there are no variants in the manuscripts. Second, the word "sake" is not in the text. Furthermore, the word "Elect" is not in the Genitive Case, so there can be no possessive (the elect's) anything. The text does Not read, "for the sake of the elect." Now I can understand that people would reject my translation (no matter how accurate) so let's look at the Young's Literal Translation:

And if those days were not shortened, no flesh would have been saved; but because of the chosen, shall those days be shortened.​

(Matthew 24:22 YLT)

And when we make the simple substitute, we get "And if those days were not shortened, no flesh would have been saved; but because of the Iniquitous, shall those days be shortened.

And that makes perfect sense. There are certain "Iniquitous" people who will do something SO bad that it would cause the extinction of all flesh. While the thoughts of many might just jump to nuclear weapon obliteration, y'all just came through COVID, which I consider to be a test run. But I don't want to hijack my own thread. It's enough to prove here, that if those days were not shortened, no flesh would have been saved; but because of the Iniquitous, shall those days be shortened.

Let's now look at the second "problem" scripture verse from Matthew:

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.​

(Matthew 24:24 KJV)​

Surely this means that these false Christs and false prophets are trying to deceive the very "Saved Believers" (if possible).

First, there's no real issue here in Greek, but again, looking at the Young's Literal Translation:

for there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and they shall give great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, also the chosen.​

(Matthew 24:24 YLT)​

Again, recognizing that in Matthew 13, the chosen, the ones chosen to be removed from the earth are the iniquitous, (it says that), we can read: there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and they shall give great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, also the Iniquitous.

Even the iniquitous could be fooled into following these false Christs and false prophets when seeing the great signs and wonders. Do you think that the iniquitous really want to get involved in any religious system? Not really, but if that were possible, these false cult leaders (there I said it) might even convince them. So verse 24 presents no problem when one reads "Iniquitous" instead of "Believer." And it creates no conflict with Matthew 13.

Now the final verse in Matthew 24 that needs to be addressed in order to understand that the Iniquitous are removed at the "Rapture" is verse 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.​

(Matthew 24:31 KJV)​

In this verse, we can just make a direct substitution from the lexicon, "they shall gather together his selected from the four winds." The Greek phrase is:

τους (THOSE) εκλεκτους (SELECTED) αυτου (BY HIM)​

​

And from Matthew 13, we know that those selected were the ones that do iniquity.

YES, this disagrees with all you were taught. But it doesn't disagree with what is written. But to MAKE the scripture say "Believers," the Eschatology Circus Engine goes into high gear claiming that Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 are speaking about two separate things, which to the common reader means there are Two end of the worlds, and Two second comings, and even Two Raptures. You can buy the pig in the poke if you want, but within the doctrinal frame of reference in Matthew (within its context), the "Elect" (those selected to be removed) are the ones who do Iniquity.

Jesus even confirms this in Matthew 24:

But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.​

(Matthew 24:37-41 KJV)

Who are the "THEY" ???

They were eating. They were drinking. They were marring and giving in marriage, and They knew not, right up until the flood came and took them all away (them that do iniquity). The flood took the evil ones away.

So there are two in the field, one is taken, one is left. The two women grinding, one is taken the other is left.

Who are taken?

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather (take) out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.​

(Matthew 13:41-43 KJV)

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear,
Rhema

I have to respectfully say that I can't agree with the OP. I'll show you why from Scripture but before I get into that, I want to make a truce if possible between us. I think it's time for us lay our differences to the side and have the positive side of argument on this rather than our usual negative side of argument.

You're a very intelligent person, and everyone here can recognize that. If we commit to the positive side of argument there is much that can be achieved in the Scripture. That's what I think anyway.

We are going to disagree, nothing can be done about that, but we can be respectful and agree to disagree in the end.

Here's what I've learned concerning the OP, if you don't agree let's have respect and just show why we don't agree.

There are two "Elects" found in the Scripture. One of course refers to the saved, the other refers to Israel who is not saved. These two "Elects" have totally different meanings and purposes.

Isaiah 45:4
"For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me."

Israel was not saved then and they're not saved now, but they are God's Elect. Israel is God's elect in that they were chosen by God to bring the Messiah into the world. They were given the Law when no other country had any Law from God, it was to prepare Israel for the arrival of the Messiah. They were to accept the Messiah and present Him to the world, in other words, Israel was to evangelize the Gentile world with their Messiah.

They failed miserably and God turned to the Church to evangelize the world, placing Israel on the back burner, you might say. Of course God in His foreknowledge knew all of this would happen.

Paul has told us that "all of Israel will be saved," in the future, Rom. 11:26. That happens at the end of the Great Tribulation at the Second Coming, as Zechariah explains this in several different ways.

This brings us to Matt. 24 in the OP, when this takes place. There are 3 clues in Matt. 24 that strongly lead us to believe that Christ is speaking to His disciples of what will directly take place in Israel, and therefore will effect the rest of the world indirectly. It is Israel that takes the full force of the anti-christ when he comes.

The strongest of the 3 clues is found in Matt. 24:15-16,
"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
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"

This is a direct reference of Daniel's warning (Dan. 8:9-14) of the "little horn" the anti-christ attacking Israel at the very end of the Great Tribulation. The prophet Zechariah gives us much more detail to this in his book. It concerns Israel directly and will effect the rest of the world indirectly.

If this is true, and I believe it is, the "Elect" in Matt. 24:31, that you have pointed out in the OP, is referring to Israel. This is when "all of Israel will be saved" as Paul prophesied in Rom. 11:26.

Zechariah tells us that 2/3 of Israel will be killed and 1/3 will survive and be alive at the Second Coming. This is when all of Israel will be saved, what's left of them. Christ returns the very time this battle is taking place, the battle of Armageddon. Christ destroys the anti-christ and his armies right in the middle of the anti-christ's destruction of Israel.

In Matt. 24:31, is the gathering by the angels of every single Jew in the world (The Elect) and they are brought to Israel, and they will forever be in Israel throughout infinity. Israel is now saved and what God intended for them to be.

The second strongest clue immediately follows this verse 31 with the parable of the fig tree beginning in vs 32.

The fig tree is Israel, and represents that when all of these signs are seen by Israel in Matt. 24, they will know this fulfillment is at the door.

You may not agree, and that's fine, but it's something you should give attention and we can take it further if you would like.

 

[Bill]

Welcome to tech dystopia. Someday these people will understand that AI is just merely possession.

Obviously, the premise of my thread is that Matthew 13 and Matthew 24 speak to the same event (the end of the world).

And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels.​

(Matthew 13:39 DRB)

And when he was sitting on mount Olivet, the disciples came to 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?​

(Matthew 24:3 DRB)

How could it not be?

Rhema
(noting that I use the DRB just for you. )

Oh thanks you are so kind .

 

[Rhema]

I have to respectfully say that I can't agree with the OP.

Why am I not surprised?

I'll show you why from Scripture but before I get into that, I want to make a truce if possible between us. I think it's time for us lay our differences to the side and have the positive side of argument on this rather than our usual negative side of argument.

I'm tempted out of sheer insouciance to hurl Dylan's hermeneutics at you, but the subtlety of such humor might be too nuanced.

As you wish... TRUCE. But that's not necessarily going to change how I present my views, since I don't speak KOINE English very well.

Just be mindful, that if you approach my posts as negative, you'll see negative. So Truce with the caveat that you might want to read my posts in a positive light. That might help.

If we commit to the positive side of argument there is much that can be achieved in the Scripture. That's what I think anyway.

Then let us soldier on.

We are going to disagree, nothing can be done about that, but we can be respectful and agree to disagree in the end.

I disagree. (Why are you not surprised.) I can be respectful, but at the end we would need to agree that if we do disagree, then one of us is wrong, or more specifically, that I've failed to penetrate the Theological Mindset that is peculiar to you. Now personally, I am not wedded to any particular theological bias, but there axioms which I follow when reading the Bible and can recognize that you likely use different axioms, or perhaps have not even thought about such at all. So it might be of benefit that I list my first axiom:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,​

(Mark 1:14 KJV)

Axiom 1)

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what Jesus preached, first and foremost.​

Now if you wish (you may not) but if you wish to accuse me of being a Red Letter Christian, then I will accept that badge of shame with all honor, as I do not believe that Jesus was incompetent and unable to ensure that his disciples understood his Gospel.

There are two "Elects" found in the Scripture.

And yet I wasn't talking about "Scripture" (and we have yet to define what that means...), but I was talking about the teachings of Jesus, and him alone.

This hearkens back to my other most recent post to you (hmmm.... perhaps you should read that first... LINK.... ah, I see you have). But as I was saying this hearkens back to my other most recent post where I state that creating "Christian-isms" or inbred ecclesiastical terminology such as "The Elect" can literally blind one to the truth that is being presented.

Let Paul say what Paul is saying, and let Peter say what Peter is saying, and let James say what James is saying, and above all let Jesus say what JESUS is saying. If one limits the sayings of Jesus TO Jesus, then what happens when the definitions and ecclesiastical terms from other people are imposed onto Jesus? One gets a twisted version of Jesus' gospel that is not His at all.

Jesus never said anything about there being TWO ends of the world - just one end. As such, the OP and the internal logic of the OP is unassailable. The only reason to disagree is if one starts changing the words of Jesus by using the definitions of other people.

Sure. Paul had his own terminology about "The Elect." But Paul did not have the book of Matthew to read. We cannot even establish if Paul ever spoke with Matthew, or if Matthew even read Paul's epistles.

So ... Christians take this BIG POT, and toss all the 27 "Catholic Selected" books of the New Testament into the pot, stirring them all up into one big mash of confusing terminology.

There are two "Elects" found in the Scripture. One of course refers to the saved, the other refers to Israel who is not saved. These two "Elects" have totally different meanings and purposes.

Well then let's see where these are defined and who uses such definitions.

Isaiah 45:4
"For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me."

LXX Isa. 45:4 - τοῦ (THE) ἐκλεκτοῦ (SELECTED) μου (OF ME)

No argument here. God did select Abram to leave Ur. God did select Moses to liberate the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt. God did select those individuals with whom He established covenants. And God did select Israel/Jacob.

But ἐκλεκτοῦ is SINGULAR, not plural to mean the Hebrews. So "elect" in this case (being singular) just meant Israel himself aka Jacob. Wait, did you think Jacob was the person and Israel meant the whole tribe? Were that the case, "Elect" would have been written in the plural, and the scripture would have spoken about the Israelites (plural).

This verse exhibits a classic doubling. Jacob "my servant's sake," and "Israel (Jacob's other name) my selected one (singular)." Did God not select Jacob? And was his name not changed to Israel?

So I'm rather sure one cannot use this verse to establish the premise that the term "Elect" means the Israelites. In addition to the singular words in the Greek LXX, the Hebrew for Jacob is singular, the Hebrew for Israel is singular, and the Hebrew adjective "chosen" is singular as well. The word "Israelites" plural is not to be found.

To that end, then, Dylan is right about accuracy. If Isaiah is meant to declare that the Israelites (pluraly) were God's elected ones (plural), then the words would be plural. They are not.

Granted, you likely can establish your definition elsewhere, but not with this verse.

Israel was not saved then and they're not saved now, but they are God's Elect.

And proves my point exactly. You've gone beyond what is written in the singular and have now added in plural words.

But I grant that Evangelical Christians do this all the time, it's just that they need to stop doing this.

They failed miserably and God turned to the Church to evangelize the world,

God turned to his Eleven to evangelize the world. IT'S EVEN WRITTEN THAT WAY....

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:16-20 KJV)

Now I might drive you crazy, Charlie, but all I'm doing is asking you to READ WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN. The fact that you don't drives ME crazy. Maybe @Dylan569's lament doesn't go far enough. What good is the application of an hermeneutic on the wrong words? What good is interpreting a word as plural when it is written as singular?

Of course God in His foreknowledge knew all of this would happen.

So just what scripture says this? (I honestly ask.) ... Although I think I know what verse you might use.

Paul has told us that "all of Israel will be saved,"

And Paul has his own terminology and definitions that should NOT be thrust down the throat of Jesus. If anything, the words of the Messiah, the Christ should be preeminent, and placed above that of others. Was Paul the Messiah? No. So.... unless Jesus had used "The Elect" to mean the Israelites, (and you have yet to show this) then who would have the utter audacity to put words in Jesus' mouth? (Not I, dear sir. Not I.)

This brings us to Matt. 24 in the OP, when this takes place. There are 3 clues in Matt. 24 that strongly lead us to believe that Christ is speaking to His disciples of what will directly take place in Israel, and therefore will effect (sic) the rest of the world indirectly. It is Israel that takes the full force of the anti-christ when he comes.

"... the rest of the world indirectly".... ??? One would think that when the world ends, it would affect all the world... quite directly.

Where do the words of Jesus directly limit his narrative to Israel? They don't. Do the words of Jesus speak about the entire world? They do...

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.​

(Matthew 24:14 KJV)

Now there is an event that will happen in Jerusalem, and Jesus refers us to Daniel. And indeed those in Judea should flee.

But these two verses describe the same event - the sending of angels at the end of the world who gather....

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.​

(Matthew 24:31 KJV)

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;​

(Matthew 13:41 KJV)

Occam's Razor. You have been misled by the Evangelical "special words" that invent The Elect. The Greek states, they shall gather together the ones he selected.... (ask, and I'll give you the Greek translation). And those are the same ones he selected to have removed in Mat. 13.

If this is true, and I believe it is, the "Elect" in Matt. 24:31, that you have pointed out in the OP, is referring to Israel.

Well I've already disproved that above, so you would need to provide another supportive reference.

This is when all of Israel will be saved, what's left of them.

So ALL means "what's left." (That made me smile.)

In Matt. 24:31, is the gathering by the angels of every single Jew in the world (The Elect) and they are brought to Israel, and they will forever be in Israel throughout infinity. Israel is now saved and what God intended for them to be.

My, what fantasies we arrive at when we go beyond what is written, and don't even read what actually IS written.

The fig tree is Israel,

You make these big bold didactic statements, and think, what, we're just to believe something because you say it?

So where is it written that the fig tree is Israel (as a plurality of people). ???

This may be true, but YOU didn't support your premise. And you need to do so.

START WITH THAT FIRST.... prove that the Fig Tree is Israel.

I'll pause there.

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Charlie24]

Why am I not surprised?


I'm tempted out of sheer insouciance to hurl Dylan's hermeneutics at you, but the subtlety of such humor might be too nuanced.

As you wish... TRUCE. But that's not necessarily going to change how I present my views, since I don't speak KOINE English very well.

Just be mindful, that if you approach my posts as negative, you'll see negative. So Truce with the caveat that you might want to read my posts in a positive light. That might help.


Then let us soldier on.


I disagree. (Why are you not surprised.) I can be respectful, but at the end we would need to agree that if we do disagree, then one of us is wrong, or more specifically, that I've failed to penetrate the Theological Mindset that is peculiar to you. Now personally, I am not wedded to any particular theological bias, but there axioms which I follow when reading the Bible and can recognize that you likely use different axioms, or perhaps have not even thought about such at all. So it might be of benefit that I list my first axiom:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,​

(Mark 1:14 KJV)

Axiom 1)

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what Jesus preached, first and foremost.​

Now if you wish (you may not) but if you wish to accuse me of being a Red Letter Christian, then I will accept that badge of shame with all honor, as I do not believe that Jesus was incompetent and unable to ensure that his disciples understood his Gospel.


And yet I wasn't talking about "Scripture" (and we have yet to define what that means...), but I was talking about the teachings of Jesus, and him alone.

This hearkens back to my other most recent post to you (hmmm.... perhaps you should read that first... LINK.... ah, I see you have). But as I was saying this hearkens back to my other most recent post where I state that creating "Christian-isms" or inbred ecclesiastical terminology such as "The Elect" can literally blind one to the truth that is being presented.

Let Paul say what Paul is saying, and let Peter say what Peter is saying, and let James say what James is saying, and above all let Jesus say what JESUS is saying. If one limits the sayings of Jesus TO Jesus, then what happens when the definitions and ecclesiastical terms from other people are imposed onto Jesus? One gets a twisted version of Jesus' gospel that is not His at all.

Jesus never said anything about there being TWO ends of the world - just one end. As such, the OP and the internal logic of the OP is unassailable. The only reason to disagree is if one starts changing the words of Jesus by using the definitions of other people.

Sure. Paul had his own terminology about "The Elect." But Paul did not have the book of Matthew to read. We cannot even establish if Paul ever spoke with Matthew, or if Matthew even read Paul's epistles.

So ... Christians take this BIG POT, and toss all the 27 "Catholic Selected" books of the New Testament into the pot, stirring them all up into one big mash of confusing terminology.


Well then let's see where these are defined and who uses such definitions.


LXX Isa. 45:4 - τοῦ (THE) ἐκλεκτοῦ (SELECTED) μου (OF ME)

No argument here. God did select Abram to leave Ur. God did select Moses to liberate the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt. God did select those individuals with whom He established covenants. And God did select Israel/Jacob.

But ἐκλεκτοῦ is SINGULAR, not plural to mean the Hebrews. So "elect" in this case (being singular) just meant Israel himself aka Jacob. Wait, did you think Jacob was the person and Israel meant the whole tribe? Were that the case, "Elect" would have been written in the plural, and the scripture would have spoken about the Israelites (plural).

This verse exhibits a classic doubling. Jacob "my servant's sake," and "Israel (Jacob's other name) my selected one (singular)." Did God not select Jacob? And was his name not changed to Israel?

So I'm rather sure one cannot use this verse to establish the premise that the term "Elect" means the Israelites. In addition to the singular words in the Greek LXX, the Hebrew for Jacob is singular, the Hebrew for Israel is singular, and the Hebrew adjective "chosen" is singular as well. The word "Israelites" plural is not to be found.

To that end, then, Dylan is right about accuracy. If Isaiah is meant to declare that the Israelites (pluraly) were God's elected ones (plural), then the words would be plural. They are not.

Granted, you likely can establish your definition elsewhere, but not with this verse.


And proves my point exactly. You've gone beyond what is written in the singular and have now added in plural words.

But I grant that Evangelical Christians do this all the time, it's just that they need to stop doing this.


God turned to his Eleven to evangelize the world. IT'S EVEN WRITTEN THAT WAY....

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

(Matthew 28:16-20 KJV)

Now I might drive you crazy, Charlie, but all I'm doing is asking you to READ WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN. The fact that you don't drives ME crazy. Maybe @Dylan569's lament doesn't go far enough. What good is the application of an hermeneutic on the wrong words? What good is interpreting a word as plural when it is written as singular?


So just what scripture says this? (I honestly ask.) ... Although I think I know what verse you might use.


And Paul has his own terminology and definitions that should NOT be thrust down the throat of Jesus. If anything, the words of the Messiah, the Christ should be preeminent, and placed above that of others. Was Paul the Messiah? No. So.... unless Jesus had used "The Elect" to mean the Israelites, (and you have yet to show this) then who would have the utter audacity to put words in Jesus' mouth? (Not I, dear sir. Not I.)


"... the rest of the world indirectly".... ??? One would think that when the world ends, it would affect all the world... quite directly.

Where do the words of Jesus directly limit his narrative to Israel? They don't. Do the words of Jesus speak about the entire world? They do...

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.​

(Matthew 24:14 KJV)

Now there is an event that will happen in Jerusalem, and Jesus refers us to Daniel. And indeed those in Judea should flee.

But these two verses describe the same event - the sending of angels at the end of the world who gather....

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.​

(Matthew 24:31 KJV)

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;​

(Matthew 13:41 KJV)

Occam's Razor. You have been misled by the Evangelical "special words" that invent The Elect. The Greek states, they shall gather together the ones he selected.... (ask, and I'll give you the Greek translation). And those are the same ones he selected to have removed in Mat. 13.


Well I've already disproved that above, so you would need to provide another supportive reference.


So ALL means "what's left." (That made me smile.)


My, what fantasies we arrive at when we go beyond what is written, and don't even read what actually IS written.


You make these big bold didactic statements, and think, what, we're just to believe something because you say it?

So where is it written that the fig tree is Israel (as a plurality of people). ???

This may be true, but YOU didn't support your premise. And you need to do so.

START WITH THAT FIRST.... prove that the Fig Tree is Israel.

I'll pause there.

Kindly,
Rhema

I see a glimmer of hope that we may be able to discuss our differences after all. you declared a starting point to discuss.

As far as I know that's a first, and opens the door for discussion. I'm happy to see that!

Just as anything else in the Scripture, there is division, unable to come to terms in context. The "fig tree" is no different. But I will show you why I believe it represents Israel, and it seems you're ready to represent the other side. That's good, we can just throw it out there and see what sticks.

The Bible presents 3 trees that are associated with Israel nationally, spiritually, and dispensationally in both the OT and NT. These are the fig, olive and the vine.

There are many examples throughout Scripture, I will give only a few from both the OT and NT. If you want more I can provide that, but these are the ones I can pull from memory.

The Olive Tree (OT)

In Jeremiah 11: 16-17, God symbolizes Israel and Judah as the olive tree. They are symbolized as being planted by Him.

"The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.

For the Lord of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal."

The Olive Tree (NT)

In Rom. 11:24, Paul clearly symbolizes Israel as the Olive tree. He is telling the Gentile Church (the unnatural branches) that they have been grafted into the natural olive tree (Israel). He tells them that some of the natural branches (Jews) have been broken off, but God is able to graft them in again "into their own olive tree."

"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?"

The Fig Tree (OT)

In Hosea 9:10, Israel is likened to the "fig tree" in the beginning with their forefathers, before they went astray.

"I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baalpeor, and separated themselves unto that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved."

The Fig Tree (NT)

In John 1:47-48, Nathaniel is sitting under the fig tree when Christ miraculously seen Him, representing an "Israelite indeed."

"Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee."

Another clue in Matt. 24:9 that Christ is speaking of Israel throughout Matt. 24, I forgot this one in my first post when I gave the other 2 clues.

"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

Christ is speaking to His Jewish disciples and telling them that when these things begin to happen in Matt/ 24, the Jews, Israel will be hated of ALL nations.

There is reasonable proof to believe Matt. 24 is concerning what will happen directly to the Jews, and effect the rest of the world indirectly.

 

[Rhema]

I see a glimmer of hope that we may be able to discuss our differences after all. you declared a starting point to discuss.

As far as I know that's a first, and opens the door for discussion. I'm happy to see that!

Well, to be truthful, I see no hope. Just an endless barrage of surmises and unsupported conclusions and declarations coming my way. Don't take it personally, that's just the squirrelly way Evangelicals think. BUT, you asked nicely, so I opened the door for practice as the suffering servant. And just to say, I tracked down every OT example of fig tree before opening the door.

Just as anything else in the Scripture, there is division, unable to come to terms in context. The "fig tree" is no different.

Only when people make stuff up. Pull things out of thin air and skate on thin ice. BUT... I'm listening (if begrudgingly).

The Bible presents 3 trees that are associated with Israel nationally, spiritually, and dispensationally in both the OT and NT. These are the fig, olive and the vine.

And we're off. Instead of discussing the fig tree, now two more are added. Pizzle-razzle-dazzle.

To maintain my sanity I shall have to ignore the other-tree-noise and just read what you say about the fig tree.

The Fig Tree (OT)

In Hosea 9:10, Israel is likened to the "fig tree" in the beginning with their forefathers, before they went astray.

"I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baalpeor, and separated themselves unto that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved."

"Likened to" does not mean IS within a metaphorical sense, nor does it indicate archetypal substitution. But we'll get to Hosea last.

The phrase "Fig Tree" is used 17 (seventeen) times in the OT, and I don't see it representing Israel in any of them. What I see is that the Fig Tree represents individual wealth and prosperity.

And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.​

(1 Kings 4:25 KJV)

Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me, and then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern:​

(2 Kings 18:31 KJV)

Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me: and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern;​

(Isaiah 36:16 KJV) (Not sure why it's in here twice, but it still carries the same meaning.)

Whoso keepeth the fig tree shall eat the fruit thereof: so he that waiteth on his master shall be honoured.​

(Proverbs 27:18 KJV)

Again, the fig tree represents individual wealth and prosperity but you have to work for it. You work? You prosper.

The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land; The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.​

(Song of Solomon 2:12-13 KJV)

While not about individual wealth and prosperity, the Fig Tree is not about Israel here either. It's about climate change meaning the seasons change, specifically SPRING has come, when a man's heart turns towards thoughts of frolic.

And this next verse is most certainly NOT about Israel, but the host of heaven;

And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.​

(Isaiah 34:4 KJV)

Even here there is no metaphor, just that various bounties that Israel had will be taken away, their wealth and prosperity:

I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them.​

(Jeremiah 8:13 KJV)

That's not about Israel, but the wealth and prosperity which Israel had.

Here too:

But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.​

(Micah 4:4 KJV)

Again, the above speaks about individual wealth and prosperity and even peace, for every man, not a collective of Israel.

Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.​

(Habakkuk 3:17-18 KJV)

In other words, rejoice in the LORD when you are not flush with wealth and prosperity and figs.

Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD'S temple was laid, consider it. Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you. ​

(Haggai 2:18-19 KJV)

Turn to the LORD and he will make you prosper. The Fig Tree is not Israel, but God's blessing on Israel.

For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.​

(Zechariah 3:9-10 KJV)

The Stone (now that could be Jesus) laid before Jesus(Joshua) a stone of seven eyes engraved? With iniquity removed in a day prosperity returns... every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

--------------------
So far we still have no metaphors where the Fig Tree represents Israel, and we covered, what, 11 of them?
-------------------

Can we now look at Joel? There are 3 references to a Fig Tree...

He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my fig tree: he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches thereof are made white.​

(Joel 1:7 KJV)​

​

The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men.​

(Joel 1:12 KJV)​

​

Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field: for the pastures of the wilderness do spring, for the tree beareth her fruit, the fig tree and the vine do yield their strength. ​

(Joel 2:22 KJV)​

I'd rather not spend the time to do a detailed verse by verse analysis, but suffice it to say, a nation attacks Israel and the fig trees are destroyed the vines are laid waste. That's not Israel, but the wealth of the land is devastated. All the crops, have failed; wheat, barly, Pomegranate, palm, and apple. Nothing special about the figs. There is an attack by an enemy, God calls the nation to repent, and then the land is restored, the grains, the vines, the animals, the figs, etc.

So let's finally look at Hosea -

The days of punishment have come, the days of recompense have come; Israel cries, "The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad!" Because of your great iniquity, your hostility is great. The prophet is a sentinel for my God over Ephraim, yet a fowler's snare is on all his ways, and hostility in the house of his God. They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of Gibeah; he will remember their iniquity, he will punish their sins. Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, in its first season, I saw your ancestors. But they came to Baal-peor, and consecrated themselves to a thing of shame, and became detestable like the thing they loved.​

(Hosea 9:7-10 NRSV)

I don't see how the fig tree IS Israel. I see this passage relating the hope that God initially had about Israel. Israel was like finding grapes in the wilderness and the first fruit on the fig tree. A thing of innocence having a good future, but "they came to Baal-peor" and then embraced a thing of shame becoming detestable.

If God had meant to use a fig tree as a metaphor to represent Israel, wouldn't he have said to the prophet something like... Behold a Fig Tree, having first fruit but rejecting the living water of the law of God it's roots turned rotten, and the branches withered and fall off. Termites and worm have chewed out the center and figs are only good to feed flies. And I'm talking about YOU Israel.

Now if something like that was written, then I'd agree. But the grapes and the figs are at best a passing metaphor about how God felt about the potential of Israel, not Israel itself.

Maybe someone better versed in Hebrew Lore could convince me, but not from what I've read.

The Fig Tree represents wealth and prosperity for the most part.

More later,
Rhema

 

[KingJ]

Please take this elsewhere out of my thread,
Thank you

Says the literal king of rabbit trails!!

 

[Charlie24]

Well, to be truthful, I see no hope. Just an endless barrage of surmises and unsupported conclusions and declarations coming my way. Don't take it personally, that's just the squirrelly way Evangelicals think. BUT, you asked nicely, so I opened the door for practice as the suffering servant. And just to say, I tracked down every OT example of fig tree before opening the door.


Only when people make stuff up. Pull things out of thin air and skate on thin ice. BUT... I'm listening (if begrudgingly).


And we're off. Instead of discussing the fig tree, now two more are added. Pizzle-razzle-dazzle.

To maintain my sanity I shall have to ignore the other-tree-noise and just read what you say about the fig tree.


"Likened to" does not mean IS within a metaphorical sense, nor does it indicate archetypal substitution. But we'll get to Hosea last.

The phrase "Fig Tree" is used 17 (seventeen) times in the OT, and I don't see it representing Israel in any of them. What I see is that the Fig Tree represents individual wealth and prosperity.

And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.​

(1 Kings 4:25 KJV)

Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me, and then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern:​

(2 Kings 18:31 KJV)

Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me: and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern;​

(Isaiah 36:16 KJV) (Not sure why it's in here twice, but it still carries the same meaning.)

Whoso keepeth the fig tree shall eat the fruit thereof: so he that waiteth on his master shall be honoured.​

(Proverbs 27:18 KJV)

Again, the fig tree represents individual wealth and prosperity but you have to work for it. You work? You prosper.

The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land; The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.​

(Song of Solomon 2:12-13 KJV)

While not about individual wealth and prosperity, the Fig Tree is not about Israel here either. It's about climate change meaning the seasons change, specifically SPRING has come, when a man's heart turns towards thoughts of frolic.

And this next verse is most certainly NOT about Israel, but the host of heaven;

And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.​

(Isaiah 34:4 KJV)

Even here there is no metaphor, just that various bounties that Israel had will be taken away, their wealth and prosperity:

I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them.​

(Jeremiah 8:13 KJV)

That's not about Israel, but the wealth and prosperity which Israel had.

Here too:

But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.​

(Micah 4:4 KJV)

Again, the above speaks about individual wealth and prosperity and even peace, for every man, not a collective of Israel.

Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls: Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation.​

(Habakkuk 3:17-18 KJV)

In other words, rejoice in the LORD when you are not flush with wealth and prosperity and figs.

Consider now from this day and upward, from the four and twentieth day of the ninth month, even from the day that the foundation of the LORD'S temple was laid, consider it. Is the seed yet in the barn? yea, as yet the vine, and the fig tree, and the pomegranate, and the olive tree, hath not brought forth: from this day will I bless you. ​

(Haggai 2:18-19 KJV)

Turn to the LORD and he will make you prosper. The Fig Tree is not Israel, but God's blessing on Israel.

For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.​

(Zechariah 3:9-10 KJV)

The Stone (now that could be Jesus) laid before Jesus(Joshua) a stone of seven eyes engraved? With iniquity removed in a day prosperity returns... every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

--------------------
So far we still have no metaphors where the Fig Tree represents Israel, and we covered, what, 11 of them?
-------------------

Can we now look at Joel? There are 3 references to a Fig Tree...

He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my fig tree: he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches thereof are made white.​

(Joel 1:7 KJV)​

​

The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men.​

(Joel 1:12 KJV)​

​

Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field: for the pastures of the wilderness do spring, for the tree beareth her fruit, the fig tree and the vine do yield their strength. ​

(Joel 2:22 KJV)​

I'd rather not spend the time to do a detailed verse by verse analysis, but suffice it to say, a nation attacks Israel and the fig trees are destroyed the vines are laid waste. That's not Israel, but the wealth of the land is devastated. All the crops, have failed; wheat, barly, Pomegranate, palm, and apple. Nothing special about the figs. There is an attack by an enemy, God calls the nation to repent, and then the land is restored, the grains, the vines, the animals, the figs, etc.

So let's finally look at Hosea -

The days of punishment have come, the days of recompense have come; Israel cries, "The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad!" Because of your great iniquity, your hostility is great. The prophet is a sentinel for my God over Ephraim, yet a fowler's snare is on all his ways, and hostility in the house of his God. They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of Gibeah; he will remember their iniquity, he will punish their sins. Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, in its first season, I saw your ancestors. But they came to Baal-peor, and consecrated themselves to a thing of shame, and became detestable like the thing they loved.​

(Hosea 9:7-10 NRSV)

I don't see how the fig tree IS Israel. I see this passage relating the hope that God initially had about Israel. Israel was like finding grapes in the wilderness and the first fruit on the fig tree. A thing of innocence having a good future, but "they came to Baal-peor" and then embraced a thing of shame becoming detestable.

If God had meant to use a fig tree as a metaphor to represent Israel, wouldn't he have said to the prophet something like... Behold a Fig Tree, having first fruit but rejecting the living water of the law of God it's roots turned rotten, and the branches withered and fall off. Termites and worm have chewed out the center and figs are only good to feed flies. And I'm talking about YOU Israel.

Now if something like that was written, then I'd agree. But the grapes and the figs are at best a passing metaphor about how God felt about the potential of Israel, not Israel itself.

Maybe someone better versed in Hebrew Lore could convince me, but not from what I've read.

The Fig Tree represents wealth and prosperity for the most part.

More later,
Rhema

Of course you don't see it. Neither can you see that the main purpose of the Great Tribulation is to bring Israel to Christ.

I would say you're in the camp that believes God is finished with Israel and they are of no more consequence.

The truth is that Israel is the very center of the fulfillment of Revelation. They are the timeline.

God made great promises to Abraham concerning Israel and He will keep those promises.

We are living in the times when Israel will not hear the Gospel, they have been partially blinded that the Gentiles may be saved.

But when Matt. 24 begins to unfold, "all of Israel will be saved" and the power in this world will shift to the Chosen people of God for 1000 years.

 

[B-A-C]

Neither can you see that the main purpose of the Great Tribulation is to bring Israel to Christ.

Rom 9:27; Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED;
Rom 11:5; In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.

So then how do we reconcile those verses with...

Rom 11:26; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

For me personally, I don't think "all" of Israel will be saved, I think it will be the remnant. I think "all" of Israel who accepts Jesus will be saved.
But the Bible says it won't only be Jews who come out of the tribulation.

Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and all races of peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;

So we have a great multitude of people here, much bigger than 144,000. From every race of people on the earth. Not just Jews.
They are all wearing white robes. Who are they and where did they come from?

Rev 7:13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"
Rev 7:14 I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

 

[B-A-C]

Interesting to note in Romans, Gentiles are also called the elect.

Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;
Rom 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

 

[Charlie24]

Rom 9:27; Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED;
Rom 11:5; In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.

So then how do we reconcile those verses with...

Rom 11:26; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

For me personally, I don't think "all" of Israel will be saved, I think it will be the remnant. I think "all" of Israel who accepts Jesus will be saved.
But the Bible says it won't only be Jews who come out of the tribulation.

Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and all races of peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;

So we have a great multitude of people here, much bigger than 144,000. From every race of people on the earth. Not just Jews.
They are all wearing white robes. Who are they and where did they come from?

Rev 7:13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"
Rev 7:14 I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

I understand what you're saying, BAC. There are so many views involving this, and I'm certainly not saying my view is the absolute truth. Taht would be foolish on my part.

The way I see it, the remnant is the 1/3 of the Israel left at the Second Coming that the prophet Zechariah told us about. All of this remnant will be saved according to Paul.

Zech. 13:8-9
"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God."

Then Zechariah continues in 14:1 to tell us how this happens.
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city."

Zechariah goes further to tell us that when Israel actually see's Christ save them from the anti-christ, and then realizing it is Jesus "of Nazareth, we are told there will be great weeping in the land (Israel) as one weeps for their firstborn.

This is when ALL of Israel (the one third left) is saved when they see for their own eyes who the Messiah really is.