When did the 2nd temple literally initially cease being the holy place?

[Davidpt]

I remember hearing from a Jewish source that some time after Christ''s death the Glory of God was seen departing the temple. The Glory moved over to Golgotha, where Jesus was crucified. And the Glory of the Spirit of God was seen there for three days. As if directing everyone to look at what happened there. Following that the Spirit did not return to the temple.

Does anyone else recall this event or where it was recorded?

I don't think that's recorded in the Bible but could be something an early church father said in one of their writings. Or maybe even something the historian Josephus said in one of his writings. I'm not sure one way or the other. Maybe someone else is and will chime in.

 

[grafted branch]

Mark 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.


Are we to understand this like such, keeping in mind, Christians weren't being slaughtered big time back then, unbelieving Jews were?

And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the unbelieving Jews sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

There are two ways to shorten a period of time, end it sooner or start it later than originally thought.

I would say the days being shortened was them starting later than they otherwise would’ve. Both Jew and Gentile elect would not have been saved if the AOD was the first sacrifice made after the vail was torn but the days were not shortened. The fleeing would’ve taken place prior to Pentecost and the gospel being preached by Paul.

 

[Davidpt]

There are two ways to shorten a period of time, end it sooner or start it later than originally thought.

I would say the days being shortened was them starting later than they otherwise would’ve. Both Jew and Gentile elect would not have been saved if the AOD was the first sacrifice made after the vail was torn but the days were not shortened. The fleeing would’ve taken place prior to Pentecost and the gospel being preached by Paul.

You lost me. I don't have a clue what you are meaning here.

As to Mark 13:20 it is for the elect's sake these days are shortened. And since the elect can't be meaning the unbelieving Jews, I'm unable to comprehend that if this is meaning the first century, that in what way would it have been for the Christians sake that those days were cut short? Most of them if not all of them escaped before the Romans attacked and started slaughtering people, did they not?

The only way I can see verse 20 be meaning the first century is if the elect is meaning the Jews, unbelieving Jews in this case. Except it can't be, since Jews, unbelieving Jews, can't fit verse 22 nor verse 27. Are some of you ok with contradicting verse 22 and verse 27 by taking the elect in verse 20 to be meaning the Jews, unbelieving Jews in this case? But if you take the elect to be meaning Christians in verse 20, you then need to convincingly explain in what way was it for the Christians sake that those days were cut short?

 

[grafted branch]

And since the elect can't be meaning the unbelieving Jews, I'm unable to comprehend that if this is meaning the first century, that in what way would it have been for the Christians sake that those days were cut short?

The elect was referring to those who weren’t saved at that time but would become saved at a future time, but only if the days were shortened. If the days were not shortened then those people who would’ve become saved (elect) would not become saved.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[Davidpt]

The elect was referring to those who weren’t saved at that time but would become saved at a future time, but only if the days were shortened. If the days were not shortened then those people who would’ve become saved (elect) would not become saved.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Believe it or not I see that somewhat making sense. But I haven't had time to really think about in depth.

 

[tailgator]

I did say I don't see it being the case in our day and time. I never said it was not the case thousands of years ago, though. Per your view of these things what do you do with Ezekiel 38-39, for instance? That's involving the last days, the same last days we are currently in. I don't see anything in the text that leads me to believe that Jews are persecuting Christians.

The Jews have back in their homeland since 1948. And here it is almost some 80 years later. Have there been any cases you are aware of where Jews have been persecuting Christians during the past 80 years?

Jesus didn't come in 70 AD.
This is about Jesus coming and this persecution In Israel takes place for 42 months prior to Jesus coming in Mathew 10:23 below.


Mathew 10
21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

The Olivet discourse is also not about 70 AD.
It's about the persecution that takes place for ,42 months prior to his coming .



As for Ezekiel 38-39.
Gog invades Christs kingdom 1000 years after the persecuted saints of Israel are resurected and have reigned for 1000 years.

The saints are resurected in Ezekiel 37 .

Ezekiel 37
12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,

14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.





As revelation shows,this resurrection takes place 1000 years before Gog comes against these resurected saints .You've got at least 1004 years till Gog invades Jesus kingdom and is destroyed by fire from heaven.

 

[Scott Downey]

The elect was referring to those who weren’t saved at that time but would become saved at a future time, but only if the days were shortened. If the days were not shortened then those people who would’ve become saved (elect) would not become saved.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

That verse does refer to the elect who will obtain salvation, 'longsuffering to us-ward', the subject are the elect.
HE is not willing that any of US, His elect perish, Jesus said the same things
Peter was writing about and to the Beloved Elect, those God has saved and will save in the future.
Guess who reads and believes what Peter writes, God's very own elect whom He chose.
Only the elect will have faith.

John 6:39

37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will [f]by no means cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

Titus 1
Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, 3 but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;

 

[tailgator]

I don't share your thoughts on that since I don't see unbelieving Jews having anything to do with persecuting Christians one way or the other. Meaning in our day and time. That aside.

Just so you know,this is most likely the man who will soon have christians locked away in prison in Israel for preaching against the beast
As I'm sure your aware,anyone in Israel can be imprisoned for any reason without even being accused of a crime.

This is the man who currently commands Israels police force.

Ben-Gvir is a settler in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, whose "political background lies in Kahanism - a violently racist movement that supports the expulsion of Palestinians from their lands".[6] He has a long history of anti-Arab activism leading to dozens of indictments and at least eight convictions of crimes including incitement to racism and support for, as well as possession of propaganda of, a terrorist organization (the now illegal political party Kach).[7] As a lawyer, he is known for defending Jews accused of Jewish extremist terrorism on trial in Israel.[8]

Itamar Ben-Gvir - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

An idea for your consideration:

Perhaps a literal fulfillment and a spiritual fulfillment are not mutually exclusive.

I disagree with that idea. I believe that once you start allowing for things like this then you can make scripture say whatever you want it to say.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't share your thoughts on that since I don't see unbelieving Jews having anything to do with persecuting Christians one way or the other. Meaning in our day and time. That aside.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.


The first thing to note is that we can't divorce any of this from the following, the fact Jesus, in Matthew 24, connected the abomination of desolation with great tribulation.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

Just because these things are mentioned after verse 1 doesn't mean they don't fit during verse 1 nor verse 2. Take verse 13, for instance. Obviously, none of that can come to pass until verse 2 is fulfilled first. If verse 13 is relevant to verse 2, it only stands to reason that verse 11 is relevant to verse 1. And since verse 11 is meaning during verse 1, and that during verse 1 it leads to a resurrection event, we can know without a doubt that Matthew 24:15-21 is not involving 70 AD since nothing in Daniel 12 is involving 70 AD.


The following couldn't possibly be coincidences, thus nothing to see here.


Matthew 24:15 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: )
Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Both accounts are involving a time of trouble that can't be matched nor surpassed in greatness. Both accounts are involving an AOD during this time of trouble.

Then if we factor in the following. Both of these accounts lead to a resurrection of the dead at the end of this time of trouble.

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Mark 13:27 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.

The following verse, verse 12 below, mentions waiting and coming to the 1335th day, where, in my mind it is obviously meaning verse 13, and also meaning 'at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book(verse 1) and 'some to everlasting life'(verse 2), that being when one cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. And that there is no way to come to this 1335th day without it involving the 1290 days mentioned in verse 11 first.

Daniel 12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

The way some try and get around all these things, they insist that the time period that Daniel 12:1 is involving is not the same time period that Matthew 24:21 is involving. Some even go as far as insisting that Daniel 12:11 is involving the days of Antiochus E4 in 167 BC. Talk about an interpretation being all over the place and having no sound context. As if 167 BC has any relevance to verse 1 and 2 in Daniel 12. Not to mention, the AOD Jesus mentioned in Matthew 24 has zero to do with what A4E did earlier in history since He placed that in the future.

Yes, so just completely ignore the fact that Luke 21 exists then and don't bother taking that into account at all. You did a great job of cherry picking scripture here.

Beyond that, it appears that you believe that Daniel 12:2 will occur at the second coming of Christ, which I would agree with. So, who exactly do you think will be resurrected when He returns then? I would assume you would say the dead in Christ, but who do you think are those who will be resurrected "to shame and everlasting contempt" at that time?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That verse does refer to the elect who will obtain salvation, 'longsuffering to us-ward', the subject are the elect.
HE is not willing that any of US, His elect perish, Jesus said the same things
Peter was writing about and to the Beloved Elect, those God has saved and will save in the future.

Do you also think that God commands only the elect to repent?

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Matthew 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

I have listened to quite a few sermons and prayers but I have never heard anyone actually pray that their flight not be in the winter or on the sabbath. Since Matthew 24:20 is a command, I would think that someone who holds the view that the AOD happens in a spiritual temple would be earnestly praying about their flight.

Good point. None of these people who think that applies to the future even bother obeying what Jesus said to do by praying that their flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I get it that that sounds Jewish and first centuryish. How do we make sense of the following verse if we apply this to the first century?

Why do you ask your own question instead of answering his question? You didn't address what he said about how you should be praying that your flight is not in winter or on the Sabbath. Since you believe Matthew 24:20 is talking about a future global event that you might be involved in, shouldn't you be praying that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath as Jesus said to do? Are you doing that?

Mark 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.


Are we to understand this like such, keeping in mind, Christians weren't being slaughtered big time back then, unbelieving Jews were?


And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the unbelieving Jews sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

Do you think God wanted some of those unbelieving Jews to survive so that they would have the opportunity to believe and be saved? I do. So, in order to ensure that, He had to cut the days short or else all of the unbelieving Jews would have been killed with none of them having a chance to repent and be saved. As we can see in Romans 11:11-14, it's not the case that those Jews who were blinded back then had no chance to be saved, so it makes sense that God would not want all of them to be killed.

Then notice 2 verses later, this.

Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Obviously, whoever we take the elect to mean in verse 20, we need to take the elect to mean the same ones in verse 22. Should we then understand verse 22 like such then? That the following makes sense of the text rather than nonsense?

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the unbelieving Jews.

You waste so much time making straw man arguments. It's truly unbelievable. Who is saying that the elect Jesus referred to were unbelieving Jews? No one. So, who exactly are you addressing here?

Then there is verse 27 to consider. Are we to then understand it like such? That the following makes sense of the text rather than nonsense?

And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his unbelieving Jews from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

Again, no one is saying that the elect include unbelieving Jews, so you are completely wasting your time here with these comments.

My point then is this. In no way shape or form were Christians being threatened with extinction in the first century leading up to 70 AD, that unless those days were cut short, there might not be any more Christians remaining on the planet.

Is anyone even making that claim? I don't believe so. So, again, who are you even addressing here exactly?

Keeping in mind, these other verses I brought up prove that the elect can't be meaning the unbelieving Jesus in the first century, therefore, the elect has to be meaning the saved, the church.

Who is saying otherwise? Do you think that any of the unbelieving Jews there at the time would have eventually become part of the elect? I sure do. So, what you're not understanding is that the days were cut short for their sake. And, perhaps, for the sake of any elect still in the city who were not able to flee for whatever reason, such as being a nursing mother, pregnant woman or having issues fleeing because if it being in the winter or on the Sabbath.

And since this age isn't over yet, thus the worst is yet to come, maybe then Mark 13:20 will make sense to some of you if we apply that to the future rather than the past, especially with Revelation 13 in mind and that those that refuse to worship the beast are subject to being killed.

What doesn't make sense is why you waste so much time arguing against things that people don't even believe, such as thinking anyone is saying that the elect refer to unbelieving Jews. But, while an unbelieving Jew is not part of the elect while they are in unbelief, they can become part of the elect if they do believe. Don't you think that God would not want to destroy all of them, knowing that some of them would repent and believe?

 

[Davidpt]

The Olivet discourse is also not about 70 AD.
It's about the persecution that takes place for ,42 months prior to his coming.

Years ago, the fact I have never in my life ever taken Matthew 24:15-21 to be involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, my position at the time for decades was this. Since Matthew 24:15-21 isn't involving the first century leading up to 70 AD, neither is Luke 21:20 involving the first century leading up to 70 AD. At least I was being consistent about things at the time, I guess is one way to look at it. But then it dawned on me the fact 70 AD actually happened in history, which was something I never denied. Therefore, how could it be reasonable that none of the prophecies in the Discourse involve what happened in 70 AD?

I then changed my mind about Luke 21:20 but have never changed my mind about Matthew 24:15-21, nor will I ever, since there is zero chance that I can be wrong about those verses that they don't involve the first century leading up to 70 AD.

In Matthew 24 when we get to verse 15, Jesus some 14 verses later is now talking about his 2nd coming, but some interpreters have Him in limbo where He can't seem to get out of the first century, as if the 2000 years that follow are insignificant. That He goes from the first century, skips what happens over the next 2000 years, which includes what 2 Thessalonians 2 is involving, but instead of focusing on any of that, He then focus' on His 2nd coming next. IOW, He skips major events that have to precede His 2nd coming,

And the funny thing about it, right before verse 15 He was just talking about the end of the age. What does the end of the age have to do with the first century and 70 AD, though? Why would He be talking about the end of the age one minute, then the next minute He's back talking about first century events? As if first century events have some type of relevance to what He was going on about in verse 14.

Matthew 24:14 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.
15 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: )

Look at the text. It is not reasonable that if Jesus is now focusing on the end of the age in verse 14 that He then shifts His focus back on the first century again. For what reason if the context pertaining to verse 14 has zero to do with the first century and 70 AD? That's like how Preterists argue that Matthew 24:34 is meaning the first century though the context of the surrounding verses are in regards to His 2nd coming. But let's just make verse 34 about the first century, regardless. Let's just make verse 15 about the first century, regardless. Who cares if Jesus was just speaking about the end of the age just a verse earlier. And maybe the reason He did that is because the end can't come until what verses 15-26 are involving are fulfilled first.

And if verses 15-26 have to do with the first century and 70 AD, thus is already fulfilled, what does that then have to do with the end can't come until those verses are fulfilled first? Nothing, that's what. The end meant in verse 14 certainly didn't follow 70 AD, though some Preterists might argue that it did. But the end meant in verse 14 for sure can follow the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves. And once again, it for sure can't follow 70 AD. And the funny thing about it, some of these interpreters fully agree that the end meant in verse 14 can't come until the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves. And still they insist verses 15-21 are involving the first century and 70 AD, which then has no connection with verse 14 whatsoever.

 

[Brakelite]

When Christ died and rose? Or in 70 AD when it was fully destroyed? There can only be one answer here.

Why this matters is because of what Matthew 24:15, for one, records.

Matthew 24:15 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

If the holy place in this verse is meaning the 2nd temple, that obviously, thus undeniably, means that the 2nd temple did not cease to be the holy place when Christ died and rose, it continued to be the holy place up until it ws destroyed. Which then means since animal sacrificing continued even after Christ died and rose, that because some are interpreting the holy place to be meaning the 2nd temple, their interpretation implies that God was ok with animal sacrificing still continuing, because, after all, per their interpretation, the 2nd temple was the still the holy place until it was destroyed.

Some interpreters seem to speak out of both sides of their mouth. Where on one side of their mouth they insist that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, then on the other side of their mouth they insist the 2nd temple was still the holy place until it was destroyed. Don't some interpreters even grasp what a 'contradiction' is? That contradictions clearly lead to lies not the truth?

What does one do then, assuming they are at least humble enough to admit that they are contradicting that they agree Christ's death and resurrection made the 2nd temple no longer the holy place by insisting that the holy place in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple? Do they do like Dispys do, make it be involving a rebuilt temple in the future? Like that is the only option. But if it was the only option, I for sure don't fault them for insisting the holy place is meaning the 2nd temple in that case. Because clearly, a literal rebuilt temple in the future being how one should interpret this, is one of the most far-fetched ideas anyone has ever come up with. And I'm thinking there may have been a time in the past when that was my position as well. And if so, that was then, this is now.

Is there another option? Of course there is. It's involving 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves. Except 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is not involving a literal temple, not the 2nd one before it was destroyed nor a rebuilt one in the future. And the funny thing about it, some of these interpreters insisting the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is the 2nd temple are on the same page with me concerning 2 Thessalonians 2:4, that it is not involving a literal temple.

Why can't these same interpreters plainly see, that by applying 2 Thessalonians 2:4 to Matthew 24:15 rather than the 2nd temple, now they are no longer speaking out of both sides of their mouth? Now they are no longer contradicting that they agree that the 2nd temple ceased to be the holy place once Christ died and rose, as opposed to it continuing to be the holy place until it was destroyed in 70 AD. But who cares, right? It's way better to contradict something rather than trying to understand something in such a manner where nothing is being contradicted. God forbid, that the latter makes the better sense.

What one should be asking themselves since Jesus was a prophet and knew He was going to the cross, did He too think the 2nd temple remained the holy place until it would be destroyed in 70 AD? After all, keep in mind, Jesus is the one who called the temple in mind the holy place. Would He be so silly to contradict that His death and resurrection would make the 2nd temple no longer the holy place, by then meaning the 2nd temple rather than the 3rd temple, a spiritual temple?

When do some of you think the 3rd temple initially came into affect? In 70 AD when the 2nd temple was destroyed? Surely not. There you go then unless you want to continue speaking out of both sides of your mouth. That the 3rd temple came into affect once Christ died and rose, therefore, causing the 2nd temple to cease being the holy place, yet the holy place meant in Matthew 24:15 is meaning the 2nd temple. What a confused interpreter this person is, spouting nothing other than one contradiction after another.

When Jesus declared, your house is left into you desolate. That was the final time Jesus was in the temple, making it holy.

 

[Davidpt]

When Jesus declared, your house is left into you desolate. That was the final time Jesus was in the temple, making it holy.

That's an interesting point. What then do you make of Matthew 24:15-21 in light of that?

 

[ewq1938]

Matthew 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

I have listened to quite a few sermons and prayers but I have never heard anyone actually pray that their flight not be in the winter or on the sabbath. Since Matthew 24:20 is a command, I would think that someone who holds the view that the AOD happens in a spiritual temple would be earnestly praying about their flight.

A question for you David, have you been praying about your AOD flight? Maybe ask ChatGPT to search and find if there are any churches or published prayers that have prayed about their AOD flight.

That is written to pregnant women, not to men.

Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Traveling with a baby is difficult in winter, and traveling on the Sabbath was against the law.

 

[Brakelite]

That's an interesting point. What then do you make of Matthew 24:15-21 in light of that?

What makes anything holy? The temple... The Sabbath...us? It is the presence of God. The tent in the wilderness was holy because of the glory of God in the most holy place, above the mercy seat.
The prophecies concerning the second temple to come excited Israel, but the realisation of its size and splendor disappointed them. What made it more glorious than the first temple however was not its size, but the very presence of the Son of God. Previous to declaring their house desolate, Jesus had called the temple His Father's house. Now, it was their house. No longer God's house. No longer having any efficacy toward Israel's blessings. No longer holy.
70ad was merely the inevitable logical conclusion to Israel losing God's protection and covering. Can't say they weren't warned.
What people don't realise it's that Jesus want warning the nation, but the church. Christians, for the first several hundred years, observed the Sabbath. Do you know the history of those few years prior to 70ad?

 

[Scott Downey]

Do you also think that God commands only the elect to repent?

Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Of course not, but only the elect whom He foreknows as His people will have faith.
Are you an open theist?

Open theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.

 

[Scott Downey]

God commands all people every to repent and believe in Christ, But God has already foreknown and chosen His people before they were born. You do not have the mind of God who knows all things. God determines all things before they happen according to His will and purposes. Those God foreknows as His are those God calls to be the saved and they are saved, every one of them, none of them are lost.

Do you understand that your belief in Christ God has given to you?
That is why you are saved. Your salvation was God's choice for you, His alone, else you would never have believed, only the elect of God will have faith in the Son. Consider therefore your election by God. God called you to be saints.

There are many more scriptures attesting to this truth, here are some.

Philippians 1
29 For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 having the same conflict which you saw in me and now hear is in me.

1 Thess 1
2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, 3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father, 4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God. 5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.

Romans 12
3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.

Romans 8
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

1 Peter 1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

2 Thess 2

13 But we are [f]bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through [g]sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our [h]epistle.

16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and [i]establish you in every good word and work.

John 17
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He [a]should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together [b]with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Jesus Prays for His Disciples​

6 “I have [c]manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep[d] through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them [e]in the world, I kept them in [f]Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is [g]lost except the son of [h]perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.