Tracing the Meaning of the Remnant

Last week, we traced the remnant pattern throughout the Bible. Let me begin with a brief recap.

From the time of the fall, God has preserved a small group of people through whom His purposes continue. This pattern begins with Seth and becomes especially clear with Noah. Noah was chosen to carry God’s purpose forward, not because he was inherently righteous or exceptional, but because of God’s grace. This same pattern continues through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the nation of Israel, and the prophets.

In the New Testament, Paul addresses a difficult question. If Israel was God’s chosen people, how should believers understand the fact that many within Israel did not accept Jesus as the Messiah?

Paul explains and expands the remnant theme in Romans. Even though many Israelites rejected Christ, God preserved by grace a group who accepted Him. Through the failure of those who rejected Jesus, God opened the way for the Gentiles. The broken branches of the olive tree were removed, and Gentile believers were grafted in to share the same root of God’s promise. As a result, the remnant is defined by faith in Christ rather than ethnicity, law, or heritage.

This understanding shaped Protestant thinking during the Reformation. The remnant was seen as faithful believers within the church who returned to Scripture and trusted in salvation by grace through faith. We also looked briefly at how Seventh-day Adventists understand the mission of the remnant in the prophetic book of Revelation. In this view, the remnant is a visible end-time community shaped by grace, centered on Christ, guided by Scripture, confirmed by prophetic witness, and missioned to proclaim three angels’ messages.

Addressing last week’s comments

Before moving further, several important comments from last week deserve attention.

Remnant ≠ Salvation

A central concern was whether saying the remnant is “chosen by grace” implies that grace itself is selective or discriminatory. It is important to be clear. The remnant should not be confused with salvation. Being part of the remnant does not mean being selected for salvation. Salvation is offered to all by grace. The remnant serves a different purpose. It exists because God preserves a people for His work.

The story of the flood helps clarify this distinction. The invitation to enter the ark was open to everyone. At the same time, the responsibility to build the ark and care for those within it was given to Noah and his family. In the same way, grace is offered freely to all, while the work of witness and preservation is entrusted to those who respond.

The remnant is therefore best understood as mission-focused rather than salvation-focused. Its purpose is to carry forward God’s work in the world. It is not a measure of personal spiritual achievement. 

Many religions and movements have claimed some form of remnant or special status, often centering on identity, numbers, or privilege. In Romans, Paul makes it clear that the remnant is something God preserves, not something people appoint themselves to be. 

Remnant = Manifesting goodness

Another theme raised last week was the idea that the remnant might be understood as the recognition of goodness among us. This shifts the focus away from labels and toward what grace produces. In this view, the remnant is seen wherever goodness persists in a broken world. This goodness does not originate in human effort or moral strength. It flows from God’s grace at work in human lives. When people respond to grace, goodness becomes visible. The remnant is people whose lives quietly reflect the character of God. Their mission is to make goodness visible in a world shaped by fear and self-preservation.

This becomes clearer when we consider how the world normally responds to evil. Violence is met with more violence. Hatred leads to retaliation. Fear produces control and force. Jesus chose a different way. He overcame evil through love, forgiveness, and self-giving goodness.

Jesus prepared His disciples for this mission when He said, “I am sending you out as sheep among wolves.” Sheep survive by remaining close to the shepherd and by being what they are. In the same way, the remnant does not endure by adopting the methods of the world. It endures by remaining aligned with the character of Christ. Its strength lies in trust, faithfulness, and dependence on God. This is the deeper calling of the remnant: to live as people shaped by grace, who respond to evil with goodness, and who walk closely with the Shepherd even in a hostile world.

Paul later captures this same truth when he urges believers to overcome evil with good.

Romans 12: 9-21: Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The words behind “remnant.”

Another theme from last week concerned the meaning of the word “remnant” itself, often understood simply as “God’s chosen people.” This raised an important question. What words do the Bible actually use in Hebrew and Greek for “remnant,” and how do those words shape the meaning?

To explore this, I gathered the biblical terms used for remnant, arranged them in roughly chronological order, and asked a simple question. How did the biblical writers themselves shape the meaning of “remnant” from Genesis to Revelation, especially through prophecy and apostolic teaching?

Below is a chronological word map of “remnant” in Hebrew and Greek.

Era	Language	Biblical Term	Core Meaning	Theological Nuance	Key Example
Patriarchal (c. 2000–1600 BC)	Hebrew	פְּלֵיטָה (peletah)	escapees, survivors	physical deliverance, preservation after disaster	Gen 45:7 (Joseph speaks of preserving survivors)
Patriarchal / Early narrative	Hebrew	שָׂרִיד / שְׂרִידִים (sarid / seridim)	survivors, those who remain	the “surviving ones” after judgment or war	Josh 10:20; Isa 1:9 (concept appears broadly)
Mosaic / Law (c. 1400–1200 BC)	Hebrew	יָתַר (yathar)	what is left over	remainder language, often practical or descriptive	Ex 10:5 (what remains after locusts)
Mosaic / Law	Hebrew	שָׁאַר (sha’ar)	to remain, be left	verb form that underlies later remnant nouns	Ex 16:19–20 (basic “leftover” usage)
Early Monarchy (c. 1000–800 BC)	Hebrew	עֲנָוִים (anawim)	the humble, afflicted	spiritual posture of dependence, often the faithful poor	Ps 37:11
Prophetic (c. 750–550 BC)	Hebrew	שְׁאֵרִית (she’erit)	the remainder	survivors with covenant significance, often after judgment	Isa 10:20–22
Prophetic (c. 750–550 BC)	Hebrew	שְׁאָר (she’ar)	remnant, survivors	closely tied to Isaiah’s “returning” theme	Isa 10:21 (“a remnant shall return”)
Prophetic / Exilic	Hebrew	יֶתֶר (yeter)	remainder, what is left	overlap with “leftover,” sometimes more neutral	Isa 44:17 (context varies)
Exilic (c. 586–500 BC)	Hebrew	אַחֲרִית (acharīt)	end, latter outcome, future	future hope, posterity, an “after” that continues	Lam 3:26; Prov 23:18 (word is broad, sometimes remnant-adjacent)
Post-exilic	Hebrew	פְּלֵיטָה / שְׁאֵרִית (paired)	survivors / remainder	restoration language, returnees, God’s preserved community	Ezra 9:8, 13–15
Intertestamental (LXX translation layer)	Greek (LXX)	κατάλειμμα (kataleimma)	what is left behind	Greek “remainder” term often used to translate remnant language	LXX Isaiah passages
Gospels (c. 30 AD)	Greek	πραΰς / πραεῖς (praus / praeis)*	meek, gentle	inward remnant posture, echo of anawim	Matt 5:5
Pauline (c. 50–60 AD)	Greek	λεῖμμα (leimma)	remnant	explicitly “according to grace,” theological anchoring	Rom 11:5
Apocalyptic (c. 90 AD)	Greek	λοιποί (loipoi)	the rest, those remaining	endurance under attack, faithful remainder	Rev 12:17

When we line these terms up, we can see an evolution in the meaning of “remnant.” Across Scripture, the concept develops in stages. What begins as physical survival gradually becomes a theological, spiritual, and missional reality.

1. The Survival Stage: Physical Continuity

In patriarchs and the Law, remnant language is concrete and practical. Terms like peletah (escapees) and sarid (survivors) show that the focus is on physical preservation. When Joseph tells his brothers that God sent him ahead to preserve a remnant, he is speaking about preventing a family from perishing during famine. At this stage, the remnant is defined by survival. God’s promise to Abraham continues only if his descendants remain alive. The remnant serves as the bridge that carries God’s promise into the future.

2. The Judicial Stage: Covenant Representation

With the prophets, especially Isaiah, the focus shifts to surviving God’s judgment. The word she’ar that Isaiah used introduces the image of a forest cut down until only a stump remained. That stump is the remnant. It signals loss because the tree is gone, but it also signals hope because the root remains alive. Here, the remnant becomes a representative “holy seed.” God preserves the remnant so the covenant continues when the majority has been unfaithful.

3. The Internal Stage: The Posture of Humility

In the Psalms and the Gospels, the word anawim introduces an inner dimension to the remnant idea. The focus moves from who is left to who is yielded. The remnant is defined by dependence on God rather than ethnicity or survival. When Jesus blesses the meek in the Beatitudes, He draws from this tradition. The remnant becomes a matter of the heart, grounded in humility, trust, and reliance on God.

4. The Theological Stage: The Anchor of Grace

In the New Testament, Paul uses the word leimma to describe a remnant that exists according to grace. This marks a decisive shift. The remnant is no longer tied to heritage or ethnicity. It exists because of God’s grace, apart from works, through faith in Christ. Faithful Gentiles are grafted into the same root as faithful Israelites. Remnant identity becomes a witness to God’s faithfulness rather than a claim to privilege.

5. The Apocalyptic Stage: Faithful Endurance

In Revelation, remnant language appears within a setting of cosmic conflict. Using the word loipoi, meaning “the rest,” John describes those who remain faithful while pressure to compromise increases. The dragon wages war against them because they keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

This stage is especially important for understanding why Adventists identify themselves with the remnant. Adventists understand this faithfulness as keeping the commandments of God, placing special emphasis on the Sabbath, holding faith in Jesus Christ, recognizing the prophetic gift associated with Ellen White, and proclaiming the three angels’ messages.

Without dismissing this interpretation, let’s ask an important question. When the emphasis falls on commandment keeping, it can appear that remnant identity depends on human performance. The focus can shift from what God has done to what we must do.

Paul’s words in Romans bring this tension into focus.

Romans 11:5-6: “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.”

Paul states clearly that the remnant is not based on works. Yet Revelation speaks of commandment keeping. How should this tension be understood?

To answer this, we need to listen carefully to John himself. When John wrote Revelation, Christians were facing persecution because they followed Christ. Both Roman authorities and religious leaders opposed them. John himself was imprisoned on Patmos because of his faith.

So what did John mean by “keeping the commandments of God” and “the testimony of Jesus”?

The Commandments According to John

In his first epistle, John explains God’s commandments:

1 John 3:23 “And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.”

For John, the commandments are not a burden but an expression of a relationship with God.

1 John 5:3 “In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.” 

John repeatedly ties commandment-keeping to love.

1 John 2:7-9 “Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness.” 

He goes even further:

1 John 3:14 “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death.” 

1 John 4:21 “And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.” 

For John, loving God and loving others cannot be separated. To keep the commandments is to love. To hold the testimony of Jesus is to believe in Him and reflect His love in life.

This brings us back to the theme of goodness.

Paul, in his letter to Timothy, describes the last days. 

2 Timothy 3:1-5: “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power.” 

Notice Paul’s emphasis. The last days are marked by self-centeredness and the absence of love.

This helps us understand why the dragon wages war against the remnant in Revelation. John is describing people who continue to live out Christlike love in a world increasingly shaped by selfishness and hostility. In a world without love, they persist in loving. In a world driven by self-preservation, they practice self-giving goodness.

This is why the dragon is enraged. The remnant exposes the lie that survival requires selfishness, that security comes through control, and that love is weakness. Their very existence testifies against the dragon’s kingdom.

The crucial point is this. This love is not their achievement. It is the work of grace. When John says the remnant keeps the commandments of God, he is describing people in whom grace has produced love. They do not keep commandments to earn remnant status. They keep them because grace has transformed them.

Paul’s words in Romans 11 remain true. The remnant is “chosen by grace” and “cannot be based on works.” Grace does not leave people unchanged. Grace produces love. Grace produces goodness. The remnant are recognized not by their claims or achievements, but by the presence of love in their lives.

The remnant is not preserved from conflict. It is preserved through it. They endure by remaining aligned with Christ.

Taken together, Scripture leads us to a sober and hopeful conclusion. The remnant is not a title to be claimed, but a life to be received. It exists because God remains faithful, not because people perform well. Grace creates a people who endure, not by escaping conflict, but by remaining aligned with Christ within it. The remnant is recognized not by its assertions or structures, but by the quiet persistence of love, goodness, and faith in a world shaped by fear and self-preservation. Where grace is at work, the remnant is already present.

Discussion Questions

1. If the remnant in Revelation is defined by endurance and witness rather than escape, how should that shape the way we think about faithfulness in times of conflict or pressure today?
2. If God preserves a people to make His goodness visible, not to secure their status, how do we guard against turning remnant identity into a source of confidence in ourselves rather than dependence on God?

[Editor’s note: Following Kiran’s talk, good deal of the discussion (perhaps as much as 30 minutes) was missed due to a recording issue, therefore what follows may seem somewhat discontinuous.]

Reinhard: Jacob is an example of a “chosen people” idea, because remnant means remaining or left over. It begins with a large group and then becomes small, especially in the Old Testament. I see the remnant clearly during the time of Elijah, when the 7,000 were hiding during the reign of Ahab, who persecuted the followers of God. I believe the same thing happened in Jeremiah’s time: the remnant came from a group that was once large and then became small.

If we fast-forward to the present day, the remnant is often identified with the Seventh-day Adventists. We claim to be the remnant, which is fine. Other churches probably claim the same thing, according to their beliefs, because remnant really means moving from a large group to a smaller one, often because of persecution or other pressures.

Revelation 18 talks about “coming out of Babylon.” I believe this is a metaphor for people who follow Jesus, keeping His commandments and holding to His testimony. Babylon represents the systems of the world, which we see operating right now. These systems draw people away from God, and that is why we are called to remain in God’s will and in God’s commandments, which we also see in the New Testament.

Romans 11:5 says the remnant exists by grace. Several verses talk about being “chosen.” We are chosen by God to keep His will. At the same time, when we look at the global Christian population—Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox—we are talking about something like 2.6 billion people out of a world population of about 8.2 billion. That is hardly a remnant in terms of numbers.

So it depends on how individual churches define the remnant—often by believing they keep the right commandments of God. It’s interesting when we compare this with Judaism. Since the time of Jesus, the Jewish population has not expanded in the same way Christianity has. Christianity began with a small group of disciples and grew into billions of followers over the last 2,000 years. In the last 200 years, including the rise of Seventh-day Adventists, some groups have claimed to be the remnant church.

I think God allows this, depending on belief. If people believe they are the remnant and keep their faith and the testimony of Jesus, that can be fair. As Seventh-day Adventists, we believe in teachings associated with Ellen White, whom I highly regard because I am a member of this church. If we believe this is our calling, I think that is fair.

At the same time, other Christians who keep God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus may see it similarly. The main distinction for Seventh-day Adventists is in our name: Seventh Day—meaning we keep the Sabbath on Saturday—and Advent, emphasizing the Second Coming. Many Christians believe in the Second Coming, but we emphasize these two points as central to our mission. That is why we describe ourselves as a peculiar people, or a remnant.

I understand the remnant as those who keep the testimony of Jesus and the commandments of God, especially the Sabbath commandment mentioned in Revelation. This is what distinguishes us from other churches. But again, God’s grace extends to everyone who believes in Him. We cannot judge other Christians who do not keep the Sabbath. For us, if we believe this is the truth we have been given, then I think it is fair to live by it.

Donald: If we talk about remnant and interchange some words here, I was saying earlier “remnant person” or “remnant church.” What I’d like to have you discuss is this idea: what is the difference between remnant and chosen, or is there a difference?

Robin: I don’t think there is a difference, but I think what people tend to do—ever since the fall, I guess—is that we want to be special to God, and we easily forget that each person is special to God. I think God perhaps has had a purpose for each developing denomination. Certainly Martin Luther—what he did was a huge upheaval—and John Wesley and all the other reformers.

But not one denomination, and that includes this one for sure, can handle everything there is to preach or understand about God. So God gives each one a certain mission. You also have to keep in mind that a remnant is not a whole. A remnant—if you think of a remnant of cloth or a remnant of carpet—is part of a whole. It’s not something that mysteriously or magically creates itself; it’s part of the larger picture.

Kiran: Donald’s comment is very important. Why do we think we can advance the claim that we are the remnant? A paper by Fernando Canale published in the Andrews University Journal talks  about why Adventists believe they are the remnant and make those kinds of claims. I plan to talk about that next week.

Purposefully, I didn’t talk about the church’s claim to be the remnant in my talks last week and today, because I wanted us first to understand the meaning of remnant as a biblical pattern and also in the wider world. Next week, I want to look directly at why Adventists think they are the remnant and ask what that means for other churches. Are they remnant or not?

The whole 1844 event happens only in the United States. It doesn’t happen in the rest of the world. It doesn’t happen in Rome, or in the Roman Catholic Church, or in the Coptic Church, or anywhere else. So how can we take something that happened in a very isolated place at that time and claim that this is where God did everything right? That’s something I struggle with, and that’s what I want to talk about next week.

I also struggle with the language the Bible uses. When it says they keep the commandments of God and have faith in Jesus, is that asking us to be legalistic? In one place it says we’re saved by grace, and then in another place it says we have to keep the commandments. Who is actually keeping the commandments? Honestly, if you ask, every person breaks the commandments every single day. So what are we talking about?

Then in Psalms, David says that a fetus is formed in iniquity. How does a fetus commit iniquity? If a fetus is already formed in iniquity, what does that even mean? These are the frustrations I have with the remnant ideology in the Adventist Church. It can become a trap that pushes people toward legalism. Historically, the doctrine, action, and reform movement in the church was extremely legalistic, and we have to come out of that trap to find the true meaning of remnant.

That’s why I’m looking carefully at what John says about the last days. I understand that people in 1844 thought those were the last days, but it’s been 200 years. We’re now in the 21st century, and Jesus still hasn’t come. Clearly, those were not the “last days” in the way people thought at the time. So this needs a reset. We’ll talk about that next week, hopefully with a better voice.

Donald: Certain words that just seem to set people off. When you say, “We are the remnant church,” anyone who is not part of that group is going to hear that and think, So what is that supposed to mean about me? The same thing happens with the phrase “chosen people.” I suppose it’s okay to be peculiar if you want to be peculiar, but truth is another word that really sets people off.

When we say, “We have the truth that needs to be told,” it can sound harsh. It’s not that I don’t believe in truth. It’s the confidence implied—that I understand something you don’t, and that you need to know this because it’s critical to who you are, how you live, and what your salvation is going to be about. That’s where people shut down.

C-J: When you talk about “the truth” and the way you outlined those phrases—almost like bullet points—it frames a particular relationship with the Creator. Revelation gives that relationship its energy, but it also constantly offers an opportunity not to see God as saying, “You sinned, so I want nothing more to do with you,” but instead, “Teach me to lean in where I don’t have to keep doing it this way. Transform me.”

I think that’s what God has always been about. I don’t have the same problem using words like Creator or Spirit when I talk to people who don’t identify as Christians. I never run into the reaction, “Oh, you think you’re so special,” because I’m using a common language that isn’t specific to my belief system. I’m talking about something most people have experienced in their spiritual lives, regardless of their tradition.

I’m also very mindful about using words like absolute truth and revelation. I believe God gives people understanding through their own traditions and in their own time. We didn’t always have the kind of media or access to language that we have today. Now, if I don’t understand what someone is saying in another language, I can use my phone to translate it. They didn’t have that. They had to work at relationships instead.

Don: Maybe Kiran could do a little word study on the word chosen—look at the Hebrew and Greek words used—and see whether there’s any overlap with the words translated as remnant. And if anyone’s interested, you could also go back through the blog and search for some of the Sabbath studies we’ve done. Those might shed extra light on the remnant claim we’re talking about here.

The Sabbath isn’t about what we do; it’s about what God does for us. When you see it that way, it changes the whole perspective on what it means to be the remnant.

* * *