Featured Elected or Chosen?

What verse says that?

 

Question for the Greek Guru's concerning this question..

In 1 Peter 1:2 that begins, "Elect," that Greek word is not there but is actually in verse one following, Christ.

I noticed that the Greek word there ἐκλεκτοῖς ends with, "ois," as does the next word for strangers, παρεπιδήμοις.

Question? According to the Greek of which I know, none; Could elect there refer to the preceding word Christ , as in Christ the elect and the thought be, to the strangers scattered?


If I knew how I would PM this to The Archangel and John of Japan.

 

One thing I know for sure tim and that is you are not a Biblical Greek expert. You even argue with The Strongs concordance. As if you know what your talking about. I'm not fool by your nonsense.
MB

 

That is a fact, we know you reject both because you are a Democrat. This will make the thread clear to you, Obama was elected, Biden was chosen. LOL

 

So "The Strongs" concordance is the standard and authority?????????? And I'm not the scholar????????????????????????

Clearly you have a fear of the obvious and undeniable truth. Instead of dealing with my argument, you resort to invective. And you dare call my posts "nonsense"?!?!

However, I would admit that I'm not a scholar but a student of the Book. I am pursuing education (almost finished w/ my ThM) to move into the realm of "scholar" but even then I am not a fan of the term. But I'll be sure to let you know when I publish another article in a theological journal.

 

First, do you read/know Koine Greek?

Second, if you do, can you tell me the grammatical difference between the two words?

Third, do you understand semantics, morphology, and words with the same roots/cognates/lemmas???

Fourth, just b/c you see a difference between the word, does that mean you are therefore right???? Even strongs gave the same definition of the word. Do you get to pick and choose which definition is the only definition? Reality check, most Greek words have a wide semantic range of meaning.

Fifth, did you not notice that even strongs said that the first word eklektos is "From G1586" which is the second word you listed eklegomai. And if the k and g is what is throwing you off, that is how the vocalization and augmentation work between noun and verbs with labials. The letters are pronounced nearly the same (especially if you hold to a more Semitic pronunciation system rather than Erasmian pronunciation). And the ending is the difference between the noun (nominative singular) vs. the verb (present middle/passive indicative) forms.

In the end, they have the same root! They share the same cognate and thus same idea dependent on the context. You entire logic is flawed.

 

I started another thread addressing a very related issue (http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1900167&postcount=1).

I'll quote:

I've made this point many times, but I haven't received much of a response. I am only calling out Winman because he makes this a prooftext often and most recently to my awareness.

Opposing Calvinism often points to 1 Peter 1:1-2 - "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:"

My point is, there is no reason (grammatically, syntactically, or otherwise) to assume the prepositional phrase "according to the foreknowledge" is linked to "elect."

Foreknowledge can just as easily refer back to (1) the reality that the exiles are exiles, (2) the Dispersion specifically, (3) each location mentioned (as in the dispersion taking place there as opposed to other places) and the people living there.

My point is that an exegetical leap is taking place to link "elect" and "according to foreknowledge" when there is so much in between. The nearest antecedent to the prepositional phrase is #3.

This argument can be taken the other way too. It could refer past "elect" and back to Peter either being an apostle of Jesus.

No matter what, 1 Peter 1:1-2 should not be used as a prooftext used to defend foreknowledge as the basis for election. (end quote)

To answer your question about the similar endings, you are just seeing the dative plural forms "to the elect" and "to the strangers/foreigner/alien/exile" likely to refer to the same thing or same people. It most likely should be understood that "elect" is an adjective for "aliens" translated "to the elect aliens". The issue I raised is whether "foreknowledge" has to go back to "elect" or is it more about the dispersion being experienced. It seems that since "elect" is likely describing the alien, then foreknowledge would refer back to that situation of alienation as to what God foreknew.

 

Can "elect" refer to "Christ?" No. "Christ" is a Genitive Singular Masculine Noun and "elect" is a Dative Plural Masculine Adjective. The incongruity in any relationship between "elect" and "Christ" is based on the fact that "Christ" is singular and "elect" is plural. One cannot have plural Christs being elect. Furthermore, the clause "Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ" is distinctly different from the following clause "to the elect sojourners of the dispersion." The dative case (of elect sojourners) includes as part of the case structure the "to," further signifying the disparity of those two clauses.

"Elect" clearly refers to the word immediately following, more properly translated, "sojourners" of the Dispersion.

This passage is notorious for its interpretive difficulties. So, I won't go into great detail. What is clear, however, is that Peter is writing to those who are "elect." Because of the geographic areas to which he is writing, it is highly likely (and perhaps a certainty) that he is writing to a predominantly Gentile audience. Peter applies decidedly Old Testament, covenant language to the "elect sojourners," indicating that he is addressing the Church--including Jews for sure, but also, most certainly Gentiles--as an "elect" people, just as Israel was an elect people.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Well the reason I asked was because I was going to make a post as; I think at the moment at least that the only one elect is Christ.

Well I got to thinking about it and in the passing of time I lost my post. However, I may still feel that way. Christ is the one and only elect. The one and only foreknown from the foundation of the world, as the lamb. the one and only, only begotten Son and we are chosen in him as adoptive sons.

But to chisel this in stone I would have to do a lot of looking and studying.

I think I can even see that in 1 Peter 1:1,2

See I posted before I saw The Archangel's post now I have to change my mind again.


Thanks Arch

 

This would be comical if it wasn't so horribly tragic.

Watching MB defend himself by using Strongs--especially in opposition to GreekTim, who often demonstrates facility and expertise in Greek--is like watching a someone driving into an accident. You can see it coming, but for some reason the other person can't.

[shakes head; shrugs shoulders]

The Archangel

 

How is the above reconciled with Isaiah 42:1?

 

There's nothing to be reconciled.

1 Peter 1:1-2 simply does not call Christ "elect." Perhaps there are other passages that do, perhaps there are other passages that dovetail nicely with Isaiah 42:1. 1 Peter 1:1-2 just isn't one of them.

The Archangel

 

So servant is not singular and elect is not plural in that passage?

 

The Archangel if you are still here does that make the foreknowledge singular refer to the; sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

And in Romans 8:29 refer back to purpose?

 

I assume you're referring to Isaiah 42:1?

Behold my servant (SINGULAR), whom I uphold, my chosen (SINGULAR), in whom my soul delights;

This is, by the way, a beautiful example of typical Hebrew Parallelism. The first line and the second line say, essentially, the same thing.

The Isiah passage does not relate, in any way, grammatically or hermeneutically to the 1 Peter 1:1-2 passage. In other words, there is no connection. The grammar from one does not circumvent, correct, or otherwise change the grammar in the other.

The Archangel

 

Colossians 3:12 Oh and there is some cement. Colossians 3:11 God’s corporate election of Israel and individual election (Jew and Gentile)

 

Your question illustrates why this is a very notorious passage to properly interpret. GreekTim has already given us an excellent post on the issue.

The passage can be put together in different ways. There are four clauses in question:

1. To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion...
2. according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
3. in the sanctification of the Spirit,
4. for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:

Are the elect exiles (better, sojourners...but I digress) elect according to God's foreknowledge? It could be, but it doesn't have to be.

It isn't likely that "foreknowledge" is referring to "sanctification of the spirit" or "for obedience to Jesus..."

What is likely, and here I follow Schreiner--a noted and well-respected New Testament and Greek scholar--is that "elect exiles" is the antecedent of all the prepositional phrases of verse 2.

So, I'd outline it like this:

To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion

|
|--according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
|--in the sanctification of the Spirit,
|--for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:
​

So...why and how were the elect exiles elected? According to the foreknowedge (which, essentially, means "choice"), in the sanctification of the spirit, for the obedience to Jesus Christ...

Remember...People are foreknown, not sanctification or obedience, which are things.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. But, "purpose" in verse 28 is not referred back to by "foreknown" in verse 29. Verse 29 begins a new thought, though it is related to what comes before it. But, no, "purpose" is not foreknown.

Foreknown carries its own subject--"he," referring to God. It does connect to the accusative relative pronoun, translated by the ESV as "those whom"--again, people are foreknown, not things. People are foreknown (again, meaning chosen), predestined, called, justified, and glorified by God ("He" being the implied subject of all the 5 verbs listed).

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Peter's audience (those to whom he is writing his first epistle) are not only Jews, but Gentiles too.

He addresses the predominantly Gentile audience as "elect exiles" or "elect sojourners."

Several Gentiles are then, indeed, referred to as "elect."

The Archangel

 

:wavey::thumbsup::wavey: