Who are God's chosen People?

[Josheb]

Once Paul's Spirit-revealed definition of Israel is learned. it then becomes incumbent to go back and re-read the Old Testament with that definition in mind.

Romans 9:1-13 ESV
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit — that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls — she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”


It is the children of promise and not the children of flesh that are Israel.

Therefore, when we read promises made to "Israel" we should understand those promises are made to the people of promise, not flesh.

Psalm 14:7
Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores His captive people, Jacob will rejoice, Israel will be glad.

That should be understood to say, "Oh, that the salvation of God's people of promise would come out of Zion!" and not "Oh, that salvation of people of flesh would come out of Zion." The psalmist needn't specify "Israel" if salvation of people of flesh is the objective because people of flesh are not limited to bloodline Israel.

Psalm 73:1
Surely God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart!

God is good to the people of promise. People of flesh are not pure in heart.

Isaiah 10:20-22
Now in that day the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant within them will return; A destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness.

Not all Israel is descended from Israel (nor Abraham). It is the children of promise, not flesh, that are counted as offspring. The remnant of Israel that would be preserved, along with those of the house of God prevails who would escape, are those that would return to God. The remnant of Israel is the remnant of people of promise, not people of flesh. It is the people of promise, those in whom God prevails, that God preserves. When Paul wrote, "all Israel will be saved," that cannot be read to contradict what he'd earlier written. Not all Israel is Israel. There is, therefore, no expectation that the Israel that is not Israel would be saved. It is the Israel that is Israel that will be saved. It is ALL of the Israel that is Israel that will be saved.

All the people of God promise that will be saved. People of flesh will not be saved. They are not God's people.



Romans 8:5-9
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.


People thinking and living by the flesh cannot please God. Flesh and Spirit conflict with, and are contrary to, one another. That is what Israel of the flesh does. Just as there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, there is no Jew or Gentile in sin. There is no inheritance for those who live by the flesh. Paul warned his readers; those who practice works of flesh do not inherit the kingdom of God. They are not God's chosen people.



God's chosen people are the people of God's promise (and faith therein).

 

[Josheb]

Apart from a temporary national election, those who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of world are Gods true chosen people Eph 1:4 and these are comprised of people out of all nations of the world

I'm inclined to agree but there's some ambiguity in that post.

• Where might we find "temporary election" stated in scripture?
• How do you get from "just as He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him"?
• Due to the way Post #20 is written, it appears to imply there are two groups of God's chosen people, one which is a "temporary national election" group and another group chosen before the foundation of the world. It also implies there is a true group and a false group. The words, "apart," and "true" implies two groups.

Apart from Fords, automobiles are excellent machines for transporting people (implying there are good automobile for transporting people and bad automobiles for transporting people). What, exactly, are false chosen people? They are chosen people, buy false chosen people?



Would you, therefore, please clarify what was intended by "apart," and "true," and tie Ephesians 1:4 to the whole of scripture (or at least all the way back to where we first read of God's chosen people). Thx

 

[Josheb]

There are over 100 verses in the Bible that contain the word "chosen" but only eight of them specifically mention God's chosen people.

Deuteronomy 7:6
For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Deuteronomy 14:1-2
You are the sons of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave your forehead for the sake of the dead. For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

1 Kings 3:8
Your servant is in the midst of Your people which You have chosen, a great people who are too many to be numbered or counted.

Psalm 33:12
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.

Psalm 105:42-43
For He remembered His holy word With Abraham His servant; and He brought forth His people with joy, His chosen ones with a joyful shout.

Isaiah 43:20-21
The beasts of the field will glorify Me, the jackals and the ostriches, because I have given waters in the wilderness and rivers in the desert, to give drink to My chosen people. The people whom I formed for Myself will declare My praise.

Isaiah 65:22
They will not build and another inhabit, they will not plant and another eat; for as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, and My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands.

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.


Those being the only explicit statement is a little surprising, isn't it? That there's only one such verse in the NT and it explicitly applies the OT references to the Church is equally surprising. As we can see, none of those verses explicitly stipulates the geo-political nation-state Israel, or the bloodline Jews are the chosen people.

• God's chosen people are His possession.
• God's chosen people are holy (separated for sacred purpose).
• God's chosen people are too numerous to count.
• God's chosen people are God's inheritance (implying someone dies).
• God's chosen people are brought forth from the holy word God made to Abraham.
• God's chosen people are given drink.
• God's chosen people are the work of God's hands (not human hands).
• God's chosen people are, according to Peter, chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood.

Not a single mention of bloodline Israel or Jews anywhere to be seen. Most of those Old Testament verses can be found referenced and explained in the newer revelation of the New Testament.

 

[brightfame52]

@Josheb

• Where might we find "temporary election" stated in scripture?

Its an inference made from biblical studies, the physical nation of israel is no longer Gods covenant people, so it was temporary until Christ came and fulfilled prophecy

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

Its an inference made from biblical studies,

Thank you for that honest and accurate, timely response, @brightfame52!

The fact that you were forthcoming in saying it is an inference is commendable. Well done. I draw attention to that so others may know it is always best to acknowledge the inference when asked about what is stated.

the physical nation of israel is no longer Gods covenant people, so it was temporary until Christ came and fulfilled prophecy

Where might I find scripture stating the physical nation of Israel was God's covenant people? Where might I find God explicitly telling (not a post hoc inference) the nation it's chosen status was only temporary?

• Are you aware there are only about two dozen verses in the entire Bible that speak of Israel as a nation?
• Are you aware only three of those verses exist in the New Testament?
• Are you aware none of the three New Testament verses speak of Israel as God's chosen people?
• Are you aware that at least one of the New Testament verses mentioning the nation of Israel does so to the exclusion of the nation as God's chosen people?

Just curious

 

[makesends]

Thank you for that honest and accurate, timely response, @brightfame52!

The fact that you were forthcoming in saying it is an inference is commendable. Well done. I draw attention to that so others may know it is always best to acknowledge the inference when asked about what is stated.

Where might I find scripture stating the physical nation of Israel was God's covenant people? Where might I find God explicitly telling (not a post hoc inference) the nation it's chosen status was only temporary?

• Are you aware there are only about two dozen verses in the entire Bible that speak of Israel as a nation?
• Are you aware only three of those verses exist in the New Testament?
• Are you aware none of the three New Testament verses speak of Israel as God's chosen people?
• Are you aware that at least one of the New Testament verses mentioning the nation of Israel does so to the exclusion of the nation as God's chosen people?

Just curious

Not to defend @brightfame52 but maybe he meant, 'temporal'. Wouldn't that make a difference? I, at least, still consider old political Israel to be God's temporal Chosen People in the OT, also referred to in John 1 as "his own", to whom he came (and was rejected). But that pretty obviously was done as a 'type' of sorts, of the NT body of believers, and as a lesson and lessons concerning many spiritual principles, and, specially, the covenant.

 

[Eleanor]

Not to defend @brightfame52 but maybe he meant, 'temporal'. Wouldn't that make a difference? I, at least, still consider old political Israel to be God's temporal Chosen People in the OT, also referred to in John 1 as "his own", to whom he came (and was rejected). But that pretty obviously was done as a 'type' of sorts, of the NT body of believers, and as a lesson and lessons concerning many spiritual principles, and, specially, the covenant.

Checkin' in on "chosen" for what. . .

"Chosen" meaning those who are saved by faith in the promise (Ge 5:5, seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16).

And now in the NT, practicing Jews who deny Christ are not God's "chosen" people.

In the NT, all mankind is on the same footing, the "chosen" are those saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

All God's "chosen" are those in Christ, right?

 

[brightfame52]

@Josheb

Where might I find scripture stating the physical nation of Israel was God's covenant people? Where might I find God explicitly telling (not a post hoc inference) the nation it's chosen status was only temporary?

It is an inference, a lot of biblical truth are inferences derived from other scriptures, if you always demand letter, you will never be enlightened. Now the nation of israel has lost its stewardship I derive that from scripture like Matt 21:43

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

It is an inference, a lot of biblical truth are inferences derived from other scriptures, if you always demand letter, you will never be enlightened. Now the nation of israel has lost its stewardship I derive that from scripture like Matt 21:43

I disagree and find that argument a very poor defense for sound doctrine and a very poor excuse for is often lazy thinking. Notice I have NOT disagreed with the positions asserted. I have only asked for what is stated.

Inferences are supposed to be built on what is stated, not assumed in the absence thereof.

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

You, the kingdom was going to be taken from them, but the kingdom had never been given to them in the first place. Not only shall the kingdom be taken from them, but we were not discussing the kingdom. We were discussing the identity of God's chosen people. Switching the chosen people in favor of the kingdom giving is a change of topic.

So, let's try to stick to the explicitly specified subject, the identity of chosen people of God according to well-rendered scripture.

In Post #24 it was implied nation-state Israel was temporarily God's people. Presuppositionally speaking, that claim has to pre-existing assumptions: 1) Nation-state Israel was the identity of God's chosen people and 2) that identity was temporary. It is entirely justifiable for anyone to ask what I asked. In addition to the (unstated) presuppositions, a few conclusions logically follow the implication of the temporary nation-state identity. Such a position would necessarily mean God has two chosen peoples, not one. One of them is in the past and no longer existent as the chosen people, and the other is the elect of Ephesians 1:4. This, in turn, could be used to justify the temporary standing of nation-state Israel changing. There is, in fact, an eschatology that does teach two peoples and there is an eschatology that says the temporary status will be restored.

So we see that inferences not based on what is stated lead to more and more inferences, and inferences bult atop inferences.

None of which will I support because that is not how exegesis is supposed to be conducted. Given the admitted inferential nature of the positions asserted these are valid questions. This is how discussion is supposed to work. Perhaps, if it is discovered there is no explicit basis for inferring national identity and/or temporary status, then the positions can/should be discarded or at least held as solely inferential arguments. And if there are more exegetically sound cases built on what is actually, explicitly stated then perhaps they should be considered more veracious over the inference-only positions. Isn't that how exegesis, discussion, and sound doctrine are supposed to work? I therefore ask again,

• Where might I find scripture stating the physical nation of Israel was God's covenant people?
• Where might I find God explicitly telling (not a post hoc inference) the nation it's chosen status was only temporary?

Remember: We're not talking about the kingdom or the stewardship thereof. We are supposed to be discussing the identity of God's chosen people. Nothing more.

 

[brightfame52]

@Josheb

I disagree and find that argument a very poor defense for sound doctrine and a very poor excuse for is often lazy thinking. Notice I have NOT disagreed with the positions asserted. I have only asked for what is stated.

I know u would disagree, I dont care how much scripture someone shows you, you wont see it.

 

[Josheb]

Not to defend @brightfame52 but maybe he meant, 'temporal'. Wouldn't that make a difference?

It might, if some sort of justification for "temporal" was provided. Given that what Peter wrote is correct and assuming my examination of Peter is correct, then the distinctions between temporal and whatever the alternative may be (eternal? heavenly? ) are distinctions without a difference. The saints never stop being the saints, whether they are here on earth, or in heaven, or someplace else in creation. The holy nation chosen people royal priests don't stop being holy, national, chosen, people, royal, or priestly. Several passages in the epistolary show the identity fo God's chosen people is intrinsically tied to a body, a temple, a city, a land built by God's hands and not human hands. In John's visions contained in Revelation we read of the saints in heaven, not merely here on earth, and we also find none of the three mentions of Israel in that book have anything to do with geo-political nation-state status.

So, while there are some valid distinctions between the temporal and the eternal, or the earthly and the heavenly, the identity of God's chosen people is not one of them if Peter is correct (and, of course, he is correct).

I, at least, still consider old political Israel to be God's temporal Chosen People in the OT, also referred to in John 1 as "his own", to whom he came (and was rejected).

Either cite the specific text so I can look it up or quote it in the post so everyone can see what it actually states and objectively verify that.

John 1:9-13
There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Do not assume that is a reference to geo-political nation-state Israel. There was no nation of Israel in the gospel era. Israel was occupied by Rome and under Roman rule. The nation was gone. Israel had no king (other than God, and God had been rejected long before the light came to his own. and was rejected). Some will dissent and say Herod was the king, but Herod was not king of Israel. Herod was the ruler only of Judea and a few other small portions of what had previously been Israel. The light, Jesus, came to fellow Jews. We might even argue Jesus came only to those described by Peter and Paul in their epistles because the fact is Paul and Peter did reject Jesus. The point is that an appeal to John 1's "his own" is vague. We might appeal to Jesus, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel," but that does not confirm the Israel in that verse is geo-political nation-state Israel. A huge problem results if that verse, or the "his own" of John 1 is treated as the Israel that is not Israel. Jesus was sent to and came to the Israel that is Israel, not the Israel that is not Israel. Those are "his own." Jesus was sent to the Israel that is Israel, the people of promise, not the people of bloodline or Law.

Do you see the importance of whole scripture? Do you see how problems arise when selected verses are treated inferentially apart from the whole of God's word?

But that pretty obviously was done as a 'type' of sorts, of the NT body of believers, and as a lesson and lessons concerning many spiritual principles, and, specially, the covenant.

Maybe, but I have yet to read a sound exegetical treatment of John 1's "his own," especially one that avoids the problems I just wrote about. The fact is John 1:9-13 do not actually state it is geo-political nation-state Israel to whom John is referring. If, after reading this post, you think that case can be made then make it. I'll read it and give it fair consideration.

Remember: The word "Israel" is used with enormous diversity in the Bible and only a very small portion of scripture uses "Israel" as a geo-political nation-state term. Israel and the sons of Israel existed many centuries before the nation of Israel ever existed, centuries before God ever spoke of Israel as a nation-state. That nation was short lived...... and God's chosen people are everlasting (not temporary or temporal).

 

[Eleanor]

I agree. I think a good subject for another thread would be...what do you think heaven will be like.

Those who have had near death experiences say there is colors there we have never seen before.
I think the angels are physical...with other characteristics.
Will there be sin in heaven? At one time there was. Will it still be possible to sin? Probably, but I don't think Christ followers from earth will sin.
Will there be technology? I think there is.

Only when Christ sins in heaven, whose body we are.

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

I know u would disagree, I dont care how much scripture someone shows you, you wont see it.

Attacking me and accusing me of having no regard for scripture does not prove the case. It does not prove Post 24 is correct. Ad hominem is worse than an inference-only case, and the best response is to prove the geo-political nation of Israel was temporarily God's chosen people (and by extension, there have been two chosen peoples, not one).

 

[brightfame52]

Attacking me and accusing me of having no regard for scripture does not prove the case. It does not prove Post 24 is correct. Ad hominem is worse than an inference-only case, and the best response is to prove the geo-political nation of Israel was temporarily God's chosen people (and by extension, there have been two chosen peoples, not one).

You already specified you looking for a specific scripture to say a specific thing, knowing there isnt a scripture that is going to verbatimly say what you demand it to say, thats a debate tatic. Scripture truth is mostly spiritually discerned and not verbatim. For instance a person can say, show me a scripture that says God is a Trinity, since the person demands the word Trinity to be shown, he can always deny the Trinity and say, he never denied scripture.

 

[makesends]

It might, if some sort of justification for "temporal" was provided. Given that what Peter wrote is correct and assuming my examination of Peter is correct, then the distinctions between temporal and whatever the alternative may be (eternal? heavenly? ) are distinctions without a difference. The saints never stop being the saints, whether they are here on earth, or in heaven, or someplace else in creation. The holy nation chosen people royal priests don't stop being holy, national, chosen, people, royal, or priestly. Several passages in the epistolary show the identity fo God's chosen people is intrinsically tied to a body, a temple, a city, a land built by God's hands and not human hands. In John's visions contained in Revelation we read of the saints in heaven, not merely here on earth, and we also find none of the three mentions of Israel in that book have anything to do with geo-political nation-state status.

I think you would agree that the Children of Israel were God's particular nation, upon which to deal in a way he did not with any other. So yes, there is a huge difference between that Israel (the nation) and the spiritual Israel, and a huge typical similarity with them. I'm not at all saying, and I didn't take @brightfame52 to be saying, that old Israel is the same as spiritual Israel, but maybe he is thinking that.

But, yes, I agree that the 'already but not yet' nature of the characteristics of the Body of Christ, Spiritual Israel, are hard to distinguish in the temporal vs the eternal. It might be better to consider the difference as temporal vs glorified. But I didn't think that was what Brightfame was referring to.

So, while there are some valid distinctions between the temporal and the eternal, or the earthly and the heavenly, the identity of God's chosen people is not one of them if Peter is correct (and, of course, he is correct).

Of course

Either cite the specific text so I can look it up or quote it in the post so everyone can see what it actually states and objectively verify that.

John 1:9-13
There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Do not assume that is a reference to geo-political nation-state Israel. There was no nation of Israel in the gospel era. Israel was occupied by Rome and under Roman rule. The nation was gone. Israel had no king (other than God, and God had been rejected long before the light came to his own. and was rejected). Some will dissent and say Herod was the king, but Herod was not king of Israel. Herod was the ruler only of Judea and a few other small portions of what had previously been Israel. The light, Jesus, came to fellow Jews. We might even argue Jesus came only to those described by Peter and Paul in their epistles because the fact is Paul and Peter did reject Jesus. The point is that an appeal to John 1's "his own" is vague. We might appeal to Jesus, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel," but that does not confirm the Israel in that verse is geo-political nation-state Israel. A huge problem results if that verse, or the "his own" of John 1 is treated as the Israel that is not Israel. Jesus was sent to and came to the Israel that is Israel, not the Israel that is not Israel. Those are "his own." Jesus was sent to the Israel that is Israel, the people of promise, not the people of bloodline or Law.

Do you see the importance of whole scripture? Do you see how problems arise when selected verses are treated inferentially apart from the whole of God's word?

Maybe, but I have yet to read a sound exegetical treatment of John 1's "his own," especially one that avoids the problems I just wrote about. The fact is John 1:9-13 do not actually state it is geo-political nation-state Israel to whom John is referring. If, after reading this post, you think that case can be made then make it. I'll read it and give it fair consideration.

Remember: The word "Israel" is used with enormous diversity in the Bible and only a very small portion of scripture uses "Israel" as a geo-political nation-state term. Israel and the sons of Israel existed many centuries before the nation of Israel ever existed, centuries before God ever spoke of Israel as a nation-state. That nation was short lived...... and God's chosen people are everlasting (not temporary or temporal).

You continue here to sound as though Brightfame's contention is that of temporal (or temporary) Spiritual Israel and the Eternal Israel. Maybe you are right, but it is useless for me to continue to argue one way or the other about that. I had assumed he was dealing with the temporal Israel as contrasted with the Spiritual Israel. If not, my bad for contributing.

 

[David Lamb]

I don't think he was being specific. Just getting a point across.

Possibly so, but I have no idea what point he was making by saying such things.

 

[brightfame52]

@makesends

I think you would agree that the Children of Israel were God's particular nation, upon which to deal in a way he did not with any other. So yes, there is a huge difference between that Israel (the nation) and the spiritual Israel, and a huge typical similarity with them. I'm not at all saying, and I didn't take @brightfame52 to be saying, that old Israel is the same as spiritual Israel, but maybe he is thinking that.

There were two Israels, the nation israel and spiritual Israel within it Rom9:16

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

The Spiritual Israel that was predominately in national israel is the Israel of God Paul writes of here Gal 6

16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

 

[makesends]

Possibly so, but I have no idea what point he was making by saying such things.

I suppose that what we will be doing in Heaven is work in keeping with the kind of life there? I don't know.

 

[makesends]

@makesends



There were two Israels, the nation israel and spiritual Israel within it Rom9:16

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

The Spiritual Israel that was predominately in national israel is the Israel of God Paul writes of here Gal 6

16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Ok, but is THAT 'spiritual Israel' the same 'spiritual Israel' as WE redeemed Gentiles are also?

 

[Josheb]

You already specified you looking for a specific scripture to say a specific thing, knowing there isnt a scripture that is going to verbatimly say what you demand it to say, thats a debate tatic. Scripture truth is mostly spiritually discerned and not verbatim. For instance a person can say, show me a scripture that says God is a Trinity, since the person demands the word Trinity to be shown, he can always deny the Trinity and say, he never denied scripture.

You are bickering and attacking me, instead of discussing the identity of God's chosen people. I have explained why inference-only cases may be incorrect. One of the basic principles of Bible exegesis is to have the literal take precedent over the non-literal (whether that be figurative, allegorical, or inferential). That's not an opinion. In the last two posts I've received, you have chosen to take our exchange off topic with personal derision. I'd prefer we stay on topic, you make the case for your position (even if that means a few corrections have to be made along the way), and we reach some sort of agreement based on well rendered scripture (not just each other).

• Stay on topic
• Make the case, making adjustments as the conversation necessitates
• Reach consensus with scripture

It is completely correct for me to ask if there is something explicit. It's not a tactic. Once the lack of explicitly is mutually acknowledge two (or more) posters can discuss the nature of the inference-only case. Yes, there are some truths garnered from scripture by inference but, comparatively speaking, there is a lot more dross propagated by inference-only reading of scripture. More importantly, ad hominem is never rational. Neither is gaslighting. If the questions asked cannot be answered with explicit statements in scripture, then just say so. I have never attacked anyone for "I do not know," "There is not explicit statement," or "It's an inference and I do not know of any such explicit statement," and you were commended for doing so in this very thread. So, let's give this one more try....

• Where might I find scripture stating the physical nation of Israel was God's chosen people?
• Where might I find God explicitly telling (not a post hoc inference) the nation it's chosen status was only temporary?

If the answer to either question is, "There isn't any such scripture. I reached that position by reading X to imply what I said because _______________," then post that. Would you please, kindly, leave the derision out of this conversation? Thank you