Hebrews 10:14

[Darrell C]

Hebrews 10:14 NASB
For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy.

This verse is frequently poorly translated, as in the case above by the NASB.

What is the "one offering?" The sacrifice of Christ's life on the cross.

What does it mean to be Perfected? To be made perfect, complete, blameless and holy, able to be united with the holiness of God and His perfected chosen ones. Able to enter heaven, the abode of God.

For all time simply refers to the fact, once a person has been perfected, that perfect state is for eternity, never to be lost or diminished.

"Those who are made holy" misses the action of the verb, which is to be set apart in Christ, thus undergoing the washing of regeneration, which results in perfect righteousness.

Unity, God in Christ, Christ in Us, Us in Christ.

You are absolutely correct—this verse is frequently the victim of poor interpretation.

You were correct about the "one offering" referring to Christ's sacrifice, though.



The sanctification in Hebrews 10 is positional, not progressive. The One Sacrifice of Christ is contrasted with the sacrifices of the Law. By those sacrifices they were made holy (in standing) but they were not made complete:


Hebrews 10
King James Version

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


That's why they were continually offered.


9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


This positional sanctification is a one-time process accomplished by His Sacrifice.

Now, v.10 speaks of what that sanctification accomplishes:


14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Whereas the Law could not make complete, His Sacrifice, for those who have been sanctified by His death, makes them complete in regard to remission of sins forever.

There is no context of progressive sanctification to be found in v.10.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

If we were individually elected before the world was, as foreseen individuals, how is it that once we had not been chosen as a people and once had not received mercy.

You aren't taking the context into consideration:


Romans 9:24-26
King James Version

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.


There was no Church (Body of Christ) prior to Pentecost. Israel is a picture-prophecy of the Church, but not the Church herself. This "People" began when God made the twain one.

If we had been chosen individually before our creation, then we would have always been a people chosen for God's own possession, and we would have always received mercy. But scripture says, no, once we were not a people and once we had not received mercy. See 1 Peter 2:9-10.

Consider that God shows mercy to His people even through hard times and catastrophe. Take the Flood, for example: it's my own view that God's mercy was extended to the children that died. Their deaths prevented their growing up and continuing in their parent's sin, thus they will receive the lesser judgement (and in my view end up in Heaven).

But God's election is a pretty simple matter, in my view. I view it as a recognition of the believer's response in eternity past. I do not view it as the Lord said, "Okay, this one, but not that one. Him, him, her. No, not her! Her!"

Therefore your assertion is an unbiblical claim as I see it.

It is not an unbiblical claim that all believers are only saved once they are regenerate, and that takes place at a particular point in time. The statement you responded to is a bit muddled, and might even be baiting. Not sure why you would let it bother you.

And for another scriptural preclusion of your doctrine, consider that no charge can be brought against God's elect, Romans 8:33? If we were already elected individually for salvation before our individual creation, then we would never have been children of wrath, Ephesians 2:3.

Not so. Paul makes that clear: we were all children of wrath, because we were dead in trespasses and sins and out of relationship with God.

This shows the necessity of Christ's sacrifice for all men.

I could go on, but in more than 10 years, no Calvinist has ever publicly admitted his or her doctrines were in error.

Have you?

He has made holy (perfected) those set apart into Christ.

This is not a temporal holiness, it is our standing in Christ.

Hebrews 10:14 contrasts the means of remission of sins of the Law with the means of the New Covenant.

So, in view is a completion of what those sacrifices were made for: remission of sins. Thus, an interpretation of the verse would be, "His sacrifice has brought about irrevocable forgiveness."

God bless.

 

[Zaatar71]

If we were individually elected before the world was, as foreseen individuals, how is it that once we had not been chosen as a people and once had not received mercy.

If we had been chosen individually before our creation, then we would have always been a people chosen for God's own possession, and we would have always received mercy. But scripture says, no, once we were not a people and once we had not received mercy. See 1 Peter 2:9-10.

Therefore your assertion is an unbiblical claim as I see it.

And for another scriptural preclusion of your doctrine, consider that no charge can be brought against God's elect, Romans 8:33? If we were already elected individually for salvation before our individual creation, then we would never have been children of wrath, Ephesians 2:3.

I could go on, but in more than 10 years, no Calvinist has ever publicly admitted his or her doctrines were in error.

He has made holy (perfected) those set apart into Christ.

Before The cross the gentiles were considered non covenant people, ie, not a people. God is now using the gentiles to jealousy.
Election takes place before time. Regeneration takes place in time, Your vision is inaccurate. Born children of wrath lost sheep, regenerated into saved sheep. Calvinists know these truths. Listen to the Calvinists

 

[Van]

You aren't taking the context into consideration:


Romans 9:24-26
King James Version

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.


There was no Church (Body of Christ) prior to Pentecost. Israel is a picture-prophecy of the Church, but not the Church herself. This "People" began when God made the twain one.




Consider that God shows mercy to His people even through hard times and catastrophe. Take the Flood, for example: it's my own view that God's mercy was extended to the children that died. Their deaths prevented their growing up and continuing in their parent's sin, thus they will receive the lesser judgement (and in my view end up in Heaven).

But God's election is a pretty simple matter, in my view. I view it as a recognition of the believer's response in eternity past. I do not view it as the Lord said, "Okay, this one, but not that one. Him, him, her. No, not her! Her!"




It is not an unbiblical claim that all believers are only saved once they are regenerate, and that takes place at a particular point in time. The statement you responded to is a bit muddled, and might even be baiting. Not sure why you would let it bother you.



Not so. Paul makes that clear: we were all children of wrath, because we were dead in trespasses and sins and out of relationship with God.

This shows the necessity of Christ's sacrifice for all men.




Have you?




This is not a temporal holiness, it is our standing in Christ.

Hebrews 10:14 contrasts the means of remission of sins of the Law with the means of the New Covenant.

So, in view is a completion of what those sacrifices were made for: remission of sins. Thus, an interpretation of the verse would be, "His sacrifice has brought about irrevocable forgiveness."

God bless.

1) Yes, my view reflects of context. The claim seems to be that the being chosen as a people does not refer to being individual chosen for salvation. But that is nonsense as they are called into the kingdom. just read 1 Peter 2:9!

2) Again the mercy not yet received is to be chosen for salvation. Just read 1 Peter 2:9-10.

3) No person had any response before they were created. You seem to be in a "loop" where God knew what people would do before he created them. Thus He had created them in his mind before He created them. You are turning word meanings into sausage.

4) The claim individuals were chosen before they were created is unbiblical because 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes it.

5) Again "no charge can be brought against God's elect. You can deny this, but it is as plain as day.

6) Yes of course I have been shown where I held invalid views, and I have no problem changing them because I formulated them. On the other hand no Calvinist can admit any of the TULIP is invalid because they did not formulate the doctrine, it is a relic from the dark ages.

 

[Van]

Before The cross the gentiles were considered non covenant people, ie, not a people. God is now using the gentiles to jealousy.
Election takes place before time. Regeneration takes place in time, Your vision is inaccurate. Born children of wrath lost sheep, regenerated into saved sheep. Calvinists know these truths. Listen to the Calvinists

The verse has nothing to do with the Old Covenant, it is specifically referring to people called out of darkness into His marvelous light. Sorry, but absurdity will not hide the obvious.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth. Again, before a person can have faith in the truth, they must exist, and put their trust in God's promise. It is a lock.

 

[Darrell C]

1) Yes, my view reflects of context. The claim seems to be that the being chosen as a people does not refer to being individual chosen for salvation. But that is nonsense as they are called into the kingdom. just read 1 Peter 2:9!

Again, a specific generation is in view, so I don't see it as relevant to Election. The obvious problem would be, "What about all those who died prior to Eternal Redemption being made available to mankind?"

2) Again the mercy not yet received is to be chosen for salvation. Just read 1 Peter 2:9-10.

This changes the entire structure of the discussion.


1 Peter 2:9
King James Version

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


Again, the Church was not a "people" prior to Eternal Redemption being made available. And in case you aren't aware of it, I am not a Calvinist (nor am I Arminian); but this isn't a good argument against election.

I will agree, though, the mercy is their salvation.

3) No person had any response before they were created. You seem to be in a "loop" where God knew what people would do before he created them. Thus He had created them in his mind before He created them. You are turning word meanings into sausage.

I don't view God's omniscience as a loop, lol. It is what it is. Are you suggesting God didn't know who would be saved?

In a nutshell, the reason why both Calvinists and Arminians are wrong is because they do not accommodate the Ministry of the Comforter. Yes, men must actively believe, but that belief is a response, not an effort of the believer. I throw a bucket of ice water on you on a hot day and you will respond to that. You aren't going to be given credit for the response, because you didn't intellectually prepare it.

When the Comforter reveals the Gospel Mystery the believer responds. He/she doesn't intellectually prepare a response. So it is not an active effort on their part, it is the work of God in their heart.

4) The claim individuals were chosen before they were created is unbiblical because 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes it.

No, actually it doesn't, because it is directed at a partial group of the Body of Christ. He is not speaking universally about the Church, He is speaking to the scattered strangers.

5) Again "no charge can be brought against God's elect. You can deny this, but it is as plain as day.

When? Before they are saved? I tro not.

6) Yes of course I have been shown where I held invalid views, and I have no problem changing them because I formulated them. On the other hand no Calvinist can admit any of the TULIP is invalid because they did not formulate the doctrine, it is a relic from the dark ages.

It is entirely possible for believers to conclude similarly based on a reading of the relevant texts, thus, they can say "I formulated this doctrine" as you do.

The question is, why do you care? Why do you spend so much time trying to prove them wrong? It's kind of a pit, in my view.

You could be spending your time with more productive conversations. Just sayin'.

And that's it for me. Hope you, and everyone, have a blessed evening.

 

[Zaatar71]

The verse has nothing to do with the Old Covenant, it is specifically referring to people called out of darkness into His marvelous light. Sorry, but absurdity will not hide the obvious.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses people for salvation through faith in the truth. Again, before a person can have faith in the truth, they must exist, and put their trust in God's promise. It is a lock.

non cals many times neglect the ot. as Van does here. If he read in the ot. he might have found this;
Hos.1:9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

If Van had read this, we might have been spared his errant post!

Hey Van, notice the Apostle Paul the Calvinist, did not miss this exact verse as he quotes it here in Romans 9:
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Van, are you suggesting the Apostle Paul was offering as you say...an absurdity???,lol

Good thing it had nothing to do with the Old Covenant,lol

 

[Van]

non cals many times neglect the ot. as Van does here. If he read in the ot. he might have found this;
Hos.1:9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

If Van had read this, we might have been spared his errant post!

Hey Van, notice the Apostle Paul the Calvinist, did not miss this exact verse as he quotes it here in Romans 9:
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Van, are you suggesting the Apostle Paul was offering as you say...an absurdity???,lol

Good thing it had nothing to do with the Old Covenant,lol

Good Grief, what nonsense.
1) Change the subject of the non-germane Hosea 1:9!
2) Here, the poster tries to equate being individually chosen for salvation, called into the kingdom, with the believers chosen to bring the Redeemer to the world.
3) Next, another subject change, wanting to discuss the idiotic claim Paul was a Calvinist. Paul's writings preclude Calvinism, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where individuals are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election.
4) Lastly, the poster makes my chase, indicating that some of the people chosen to bring the Redeemer to the world, will not become "a people for His own possession.

As I said at the beginning, good grief!

 

[Van]

Again, a specific generation is in view, so I don't see it as relevant to Election. The obvious problem would be, "What about all those who died prior to Eternal Redemption being made available to mankind?"



This changes the entire structure of the discussion.


1 Peter 2:9
King James Version

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


Again, the Church was not a "people" prior to Eternal Redemption being made available. And in case you aren't aware of it, I am not a Calvinist (nor am I Arminian); but this isn't a good argument against election.

I will agree, though, the mercy is their salvation.



I don't view God's omniscience as a loop, lol. It is what it is. Are you suggesting God didn't know who would be saved?

In a nutshell, the reason why both Calvinists and Arminians are wrong is because they do not accommodate the Ministry of the Comforter. Yes, men must actively believe, but that belief is a response, not an effort of the believer. I throw a bucket of ice water on you on a hot day and you will respond to that. You aren't going to be given credit for the response, because you didn't intellectually prepare it.

When the Comforter reveals the Gospel Mystery the believer responds. He/she doesn't intellectually prepare a response. So it is not an active effort on their part, it is the work of God in their heart.




No, actually it doesn't, because it is directed at a partial group of the Body of Christ. He is not speaking universally about the Church, He is speaking to the scattered strangers.




When? Before they are saved? I tro not.



It is entirely possible for believers to conclude similarly based on a reading of the relevant texts, thus, they can say "I formulated this doctrine" as you do.

The question is, why do you care? Why do you spend so much time trying to prove them wrong? It's kind of a pit, in my view.

You could be spending your time with more productive conversations. Just sayin'.

And that's it for me. Hope you, and everyone, have a blessed evening.

1) Yes specific generation is in view, those individually chosen for salvation and are caused to become siblings of Christ!
2) The OT saints had to wait in Abraham's bosom to be made perfect after Christ shed His blood.
3) The structure of election for individual salvation is not changed by 1 Peter 2:9-10, its structure is defined.
4) Again, the people refers contextually to the people chosen for God's own possession under the New Covenant.
5) The issue is not that salvation is an act of God's mercy, the issue is when were individuals chosen for salvation, after they had not received mercy, or before they were created. There answer is crystal, individuals are chosen for salvation after they are initially created as children of wrath, due to the consequence of Adam's sin.
6) Yet another attempt to change the subject to Divine Knowledge, rather than when individuals are chosen for salvation.
7) Then yet another change of subject effort to the ministry of the Comforter. Stick to the issue please.
8) Then an unwitting support argument, we are responding to God's revelation when we trust in Christ, something that happens after we are created.
9) Next a denial of all the verses that refer to "his faith" or "your faith" rather than God's instilled faith.
10) Another return to the bogus argument 1 Peter 2:9-10 is only applicable to those living and scattered at the time of writing, rather than everyone "called into the kingdom." But clearly those "called into the kingdom" are in view!
11) What part of no charge can be brought do you not understand. It does not say no charge can be brought against God's elect once made perfect. Rewriting scripture to change it so it conforms with false doctrine is unsound. Change your doctrine to conform to scripture.
12) It is impossible to people who objectively study the specific verses I cite to believe individuals were chosen for salvation not through faith in the truth, or before they were created. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says individuals were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, and 1 Peter 2:9-10 says individuals called into the kingdom once had not been chosen and once had not received mercy, an impossibility if chosen before creation.

 

[Zaatar71]

Good Grief, what nonsense.

What do we have here? Did you ever wonder why someone who is mistaken badly on a topic ,remains mistaken on a topic day by day?
This poster excels in demonstrating how to remain in error, and how to hide from the truth by inventing false ideas to use instead.
The poster has been caught in error having failed to research the verses in question.
The poster has ignored the teaching the Holy Spirit has given to The Apostle Paul in Romans.
This poster perhaps thinks his ideas are more useful than the truth as revealed by The Spirit?
This poster having been caught in his folly, doubles down on the error by acting as a "truth suppressor". Very sad!

1) Change the subject of the non-germane Hosea 1:9!

There was no change of subject at all! The poster is trying to cover his error .
Instead of humbly apologizing for offering a falsehood, an attempt is made to suggest a "change of subject" is taking place???
We can read! We can scroll back a bit and see the poster suggested the verses have nothing to do with the OLD COVENANT?
Here is his post in post 25 once again:

{The verse has nothing to do with the Old Covenant, it is specifically referring to people called out of darkness into His marvelous light. Sorry, but absurdity will not hide the obvious.}

There was no change of subject.
We see that the Holy Spirit had Paul quote from Hosea using the language he did for us to come to a biblical understanding.
The verses in Hosea, can have no other meaning than what the Spirit of God has Paul explain to us. This is an exact meaning.
When a person ignores God given light from scripture, to invent novelties, only error and darkness can come from it!

2) Here, the poster tries to equate being individually chosen for salvation, called into the kingdom, with the believers chosen to bring the Redeemer to the world.

Now he exchanges individual calling to salvation, to people being called to a task apart from salvation? What a confused thought here!

3) Next, another subject change, wanting to discuss the idiotic claim Paul was a Calvinist. Paul's writings preclude Calvinism,

Not the poster cannot grasp why Paul was a Calvinist!
Paul was used of God to expound the truths of scripture which are the very foundational truths of what is known as Calvinism.
It does not matter as much as to the chronology, but rather the substance of what is believed.
Paul was a Calvinist, before Calvin existed.
Moses was a Calvinist before Calvin existed.
David was a Calvinist before Calvin existed.
Jonah was a Calvinist before Calvin existed.

Non Cals seem to hate that this is indeed the case. So they remain in error day after day.

such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where individuals are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election.

An idea of a conditional election is a falsehood. When you turn from revealed truth, this is what you are left with.

4) Lastly, the poster makes my chase, indicating that some of the people chosen to bring the Redeemer to the world, will not become "a people for His own possession.

As I said at the beginning, good grief!

Consider your ways!

 

[Van]

What do we have here? SNIP

{The verse has nothing to do with the Old Covenant, it is specifically referring to people called out of darkness into His marvelous light. Sorry, but absurdity will not hide the obvious.}

1 Peter 2:9-10 refers to those called into the kingdom, thus applicable to everyone saved.

SNIP

 

[Zaatar71]

What do we have here? SNIP

{The verse has nothing to do with the Old Covenant, it is specifically referring to people called out of darkness into His marvelous light. Sorry, but absurdity will not hide the obvious.}

1 Peter 2:9-10 refers to those called into the kingdom, thus applicable to everyone saved.

SNIP

There are many OT. passages that peter had in mind when the Holy Spirit had him write . To depart from this understanding is to make a novelty and go off on a rabbit trail.

Hosea:
10 Yet the number of the sons of Israel
Will be like the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered;
And in the place
Where it is said to them,
“You are not My people,”
It will be said to them,
“You are the sons of the living God.”

2:23 “I will sow her for Myself in the land.
I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion,
And I will say to those who were not My people,
‘You are My people!’
And they will say, ‘You are my God!’ ”

Pastor Steven Cole ;
Note the terms that Peter piles up to paint a corporate identity for his readers as the people of God. All these terms come from the Old Testament: A chosen race (Isa. 43:20); a royal priesthood (Exod. 19:6); a holy nation (Exod. 19:6); a people for God’s possession (Exod. 19:5). In verse 10 Peter draws from Hosea 1:10 & 2:23 to remind his scattered readers that formerly they were not God’s people, but now they are. Formerly they had not received mercy, but now they had. Peter wrote this because his readers were scattered fledgling churches under persecution. To keep from falling apart, they needed to see their identity as God’s people. Since they had come to the Living Stone who, though choice and precious in God’s sight, was rejected by men (2:4), they could expect that they, too, though chosen and precious in God’s sight, would be rejected by men. But in the long run, they would not be put to shame, but rather would share the honor with Christ (1:6b-7a).

 

[Zaatar71]

Romans 9:25 As He says also in Hosea, "I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, 'MY PEOPLE,' AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, 'BELOVED.' " (NASB: Lockman)

Dr S Lewis Johnson the respected former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary wrote…

Paul follows with a series of Old Testament quotations in support of the fact that God has called Gentiles to faith and left Israel with a remnant in the earth. In other words if Israel had read the Scriptures, they would have understood what might happen, if they should reject the revelation of God climaxed in the appearance of their Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Ro 9:25-29). Oh! How many things become clear when we read the Scriptures! (Romans 9:14-33)

 

[Van]

There are many OT. passages that peter had in mind when the Holy Spirit had him write . To depart from this understanding is to make a novelty and go off on a rabbit trail.

Again, the effort to hide that 1 Peter 2:9-10 refers to those called out of darkness and into the kingdom, those saved under the New Covenant, and has nothing to do with the Old Covenant chosen people!

Romans 9:25 clearly indicates God calls people who were not under the Old Covenant, but under the New Covenant, again supporting that 1 Peter 2:9-10 refers to "MY People" of the New Covenant!!

 

[Zaatar71]

Again, the effort to hide that 1 Peter 2:9-10 refers to those called out of darkness and into the kingdom, those saved under the New Covenant, and has nothing to do with the Old Covenant chosen people!

Romans 9:25 clearly indicates God calls people who were not under the Old Covenant, but under the New Covenant, again supporting that 1 Peter 2:9-10 refers to "MY People" of the New Covenant!!

Denney - Paul here applies to the calling of the Gentiles words which spoke originally of the restoration of Israel—an instance which shows how misleading it may be to press the context of the other passages quoted in this chapter.

In this section Paul begins with some passages from Hosea to establish the acceptability of the Gentiles, then goes on to some from Isaiah to show that the call does not include all Israel.

He says (3004) (lego) speaks with a focus upon the content of what is said. God spoke and present tense indicates He is still speaking.

Paul quoted (Hosea 2:23) somewhat freely using it as a statement to indicate that God would turn (temporarily) from the Jews and call the Gentiles…

Hosea 2:23 "And I will sow her for Myself in the land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion (corresponds to Hosea's daughter "Lo-Ruhamah = not compassion, without compassion or love), and I will say to those who were not My people (corresponds to Hosea's son named "Lo-Ammi"- Apostate Israel, God says, was "not My people" for they had lived as heathens and now they had become as heathens. But that was not God’s last word as the next clause shows!), 'You are My people!' (Those whom God wills to restore will be restored) and they will say, 'Thou art my God!'" (Comment: Interpreted in its OT context, Hosea 2:23 refers to Israel and not to the Gentiles. It looks forward to the time when Israel will be restored as God’s people and as His beloved.)

English translation of Hosea 2:23 in the Septuagint: "And I will sow her to me on the earth; and will love her that was not loved, and will say to that which was not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art the Lord my God."

Paul's point is that the call of the Gentiles should not have come as a surprise to the Jews.

God directed Hosea to give his children symbolic names—one son Lo-Ammi (not my people = Gomer's second son, his name symbolized the rejection of Israel, who, at Sinai, had covenanted to be God's people) and the daughter Lo-Ruhamah (not… loved or means "not pitied" or "not having obtained mercy," signifying that Israel will not find mercy when the impending judgment falls).

These names of Hosea's children represented God’s abandonment of the Northern Kingdom of Israel to the Assyrian Captivity and Exile (Hosea 1:2-9). However, God was not permanently casting away the people of Israel.

In the verses quoted by Paul, God promised to restore them as His beloved and as His people. By ethnic heritage the Gentiles were not God’s people, so Paul was led by the Spirit of God to apply these verses to Gentiles—and Jews also—who were sovereignly chosen by God and called to be His people in Christ. The quotation of Hosea 2:23 is rather free with the order of the clauses reversed to fit the application to Gentiles. Paul was applying these verses from Hosea to the Gentiles, not reinterpreting them. He was not saying that Israel of the Old Testament is part of the church.

 

[Zaatar71]

Henry Alford - It is difficult to ascertain in what sense the Apostle cites these two passages from Hosea as applicable to the Gentiles being called to be the people of God. That he does so, is manifest from the words themselves, and from the transition to the Jews in Romans 9:27. (Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary)
Peter (1Peter 2:10) uses the same passage from Hosea in his first epistle, but probably with a slightly different desired "endpoint" (see comment after verse below)…

for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY. (see note 1 Peter 2:10)

Comment: In Hosea it is Israel who is not God's people. In Romans it is the Gentiles to whom Paul applies Hosea's words. Thus in 1 Peter the words could apply to both Jews before they met their Messiah and pagan Gentiles before the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. This is especially apropos in light of the difficulty to dogmatically label the recipients of Peter's letter as Jewish versus Gentile believers.

As noted above, although Hosea was speaking of the remnant Israel, Paul (writing under the Spirit's inspiration) applies the same principle to God's calling of a remnant of the Gentiles as well

And the LORD said, "Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people and I am not your God." (Hosea 1:9).

 

[Zaatar71]

Anyone who looks into these verses comes up with the same understanding rather than rogue unstudied opinions;


Marvin Vincent commenting on "that my people which was not My people" notes that "The Greek is much more condensed. “I will call the not-My-people My-people.” See Hos 1:6-9. The reference is to the symbolical names given by the prophet to a son and daughter: Lo Ammi not my people, and Lo Ruhamah not having obtained mercy. The new people whom God will call My people will be made up from both Jews and Gentiles. Hosea, it is true, is speaking of the scattered Israelites only, and not of the Gentiles; but the ten tribes, by their lapse into idolatry had put themselves upon the same footing with the Gentiles, so that the words could be applied to both. A principle of the divine government is enunciated “which comes into play everywhere when circumstances reappear similar to those to which the statement was originally applied. The exiled Israelites being mingled with the Gentiles, and forming one homogeneous mass with them, cannot be brought to God separately from them. Isa 49:22 represents the Gentiles as carrying the sons of Israel in their arms, and their daughters on their shoulders, and consequently as being restored to grace along with them” (Godet). (Word Studies in the NT)

 

[Zaatar71]

Leon Morris in explaining the phrase "not beloved, beloved" (or "I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one.") writes that "Hosea has this before the “not my people” clause and his verb here seems to mean “my pitied one”; Paul has reversed the order of the clauses and has “love” rather than “pity”. He is saying that in Scripture it is the call of God and the love of God that makes the people of God, and this quite irrespective of Jewish or Gentile origin. There is, of course, a sense in which all the people of the world are the objects of God’s love (John 3:16). God loves because it is his nature to love. But there is also a sense in which those who are his people are specially beloved, and this is the theme of the present passage." (Morris, L. The Epistle to the Romans. W. B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press)

To reiterate, Hosea's words in their original Old Testament context referred to Israel and not to the Gentiles. They looked forward to the time when Israel would be restored as God’s people and as His beloved (this time is yet future - they are back in the nation but largely in unbelief as of 2014). When Paul quotes these OT passages in Romans, he applies them to God's effectual call of the Gentiles. What right does Paul have to make such a radical change? The answer of course is that the Holy Spirit Who inspired the words in the first place has the right to reinterpret or reapply them at a later time.

 

[Van]

Denney - Paul here applies to the calling of the Gentiles words which spoke originally of the restoration of Israel—an instance which shows how misleading it may be to press the context of the other passages quoted in this chapter.

In this section Paul begins with some passages from Hosea to establish the acceptability of the Gentiles, then goes on to some from Isaiah to show that the call does not include all Israel.

He says (3004) (lego) speaks with a focus upon the content of what is said. God spoke and present tense indicates He is still speaking.

Paul quoted (Hosea 2:23) somewhat freely using it as a statement to indicate that God would turn (temporarily) from the Jews and call the Gentiles…



Paul's point is that the call of the Gentiles should not have come as a surprise to the Jews.

God directed Hosea to give his children symbolic names—one son Lo-Ammi (not my people = Gomer's second son, his name symbolized the rejection of Israel, who, at Sinai, had covenanted to be God's people) and the daughter Lo-Ruhamah (not… loved or means "not pitied" or "not having obtained mercy," signifying that Israel will not find mercy when the impending judgment falls).

These names of Hosea's children represented God’s abandonment of the Northern Kingdom of Israel to the Assyrian Captivity and Exile (Hosea 1:2-9). However, God was not permanently casting away the people of Israel.

In the verses quoted by Paul, God promised to restore them as His beloved and as His people. By ethnic heritage the Gentiles were not God’s people, so Paul was led by the Spirit of God to apply these verses to Gentiles—and Jews also—who were sovereignly chosen by God and called to be His people in Christ. The quotation of Hosea 2:23 is rather free with the order of the clauses reversed to fit the application to Gentiles. Paul was applying these verses from Hosea to the Gentiles, not reinterpreting them. He was not saying that Israel of the Old Testament is part of the church.

Again, this post supports my position!
Peter used the phrase "my people" and applied it to those chosen under the New Covenant!

Therefore 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes the view that individuals were chosen for salvation before creation, as they were chosen after they had been "not a people" for His own possession, and had not yet received mercy.

 

[Zaatar71]

Again, this post supports my position!
Peter used the phrase "my people" and applied it to those chosen under the New Covenant!

Therefore 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes the view that individuals were chosen for salvation before creation, as they were chosen after they had been "not a people" for His own possession, and had not yet received mercy.

Actually it shows how a person can look and not see! They look, ignore the clear teaching of the Holy Spirit, then repost it to say something God does not say. We should never do this.