Calling in the army of a distant nation

a reply to: OpinionatedB
Yes, and you will notice that the destruction of Israel is never, in practice, a total destruction.
Over and over again, from Noah onwards, God threatens a final end and then pulls back at the last moment. He can't bring himself to do it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

If I am a righteous Israel, who is my family now?

a reply to: OpinionatedB
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I think the answer is "everyone who is a member of God's people".
That certainly includes those who belong to him through Christ.
Paul forbids us to think that the Jews have been excluded (Romans ch11 vv1-2).

a reply to: DISRAELI

It was hypothetical. You understood right, or answered correctly. It makes good sense.

Thank you. I didn't know Paul said that btw.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: AlephBet
We will recognise God directly when he makes himself known directly.
In the meantime, God is dealing indirectly with man's human nature, and this is one way of doing it.

I completely agree with this. The best evidence we have of a future salvation for humanity is to recognize that the primary deficits to our own nature is that of division of the seed (image) that accomplished Yahweh's control over us. We were divided from our full image, weakening us sufficiently for division of our nature.

He expected good fruit from it, and found sour fruit instead. What this means, without the metaphor, is that he expected them to treat each other with justice and righteousness, but he found the nation filled with bloodshed, and appeals for help coming from the victims.

Can the same be said of the Father's examination of the Son?

a reply to: AlephBet

How can you imply that Isaiah was a false prophet, when Jesus fulfilled his prophecies and even quoted them. Its not Yehwah that was fractured its your perception of Him.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You are absolutely right in that God will bring discipline on His people when they wander astray, but Israel is not the Church, nor is the Church a replacement of Israel. The story of Christ, Israel and the Church is the story of Jacob, Rachel and Leah. Jacob paid for Rachel, but got Leah instead, so he had to work 7 more years to pay for Rachel. Jesus came to redeem Israel (Rachel), but was turned down by her rulers (Laban), and instead wound up redeeming the Church (Leah). So, the 70th Week is not the Church's time. That time is set aside for Israel's redemption (Rachel). Both Israel and the.Church shared the status as Bride, but the Church cannot replace Israel...they are two separate covenants that cannot be broken.

In the OT, Israel was isolated as a nation. However, the Church is all over the world. In the Church Age, the nation with the stongest congregation becomes God's client-nation. When the client-nation moves away from God, it will suffer, along with the rest of the Church abroad. The fall of the present client-nation is coming. If another does not rise to replace it, then the Church (Leah) will be removed (Rapture) and Israel's (Rachel's) last 7 years will play out.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I wish you would understand the commandments that Moses carved:

You Shall have no Gods before me

= that means YOU are God. Worship yourself with a humbleness of learning from and respecting others, but put yourself first! Trust in yourself.

Your Jewish? The laws are the same for Jews and Christians: Moses carved them and they were written down in the OT books.

I am so stupid, when they told me not to worship any gods before me... I wasn't sure if that meant before or after so I chose to worship and trust myself.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

It ALL hinges on the truth of Elohim in Genesis 1. Elohim is Mother and Father. Yahweh is the Son. I can verify this many ways, but a quote I found from Manly P Hall sums it up:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. * * * So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, * * *."

Consider in thoughtful silence the startling use of pronouns in the above extract from "the most perfect example of English literature." When the plural and androgynous Hebrew word Elohim was translated into the singular and sexless word God, the opening chapters of Genesis were rendered comparatively meaningless. It may have been feared that had the word been correctly translated as "the male and female creative agencies," the Christians would have been justly accused of worshiping a plurality of gods in the face of their repeated claims to monotheism! The plural form of the pronouns us and our reveals unmistakably, however, the pantheistic nature of Divinity. Further, the androgynous constitution of the Elohim (God) is disclosed in the next verse, where he (referring to God) is said to have created man in his own image, male and female; or, more properly, as the division of the sexes had not yet taken place, male-female. This is a deathblow to the time-honored concept that God is a masculine potency as portrayed by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The Elohim then order these androgynous beings to be fruitful. Note that neither the masculine nor the feminine principle as yet existed in a separate state! And, lastly, note the word "replenish." The prefix re denotes "back to an original or former state or position," or "repetition or restoration." (See Webster's International Dictionary, 1926.) This definite reference to a humanity existing prior to the "creation of man" described in Genesis must be evident to the most casual reader of Scripture.

---Ruach Elohim is the Holy Spirit Feminine. All of Isaiah may very well be true, but it is not founded on the will of the Father. That's that point we must never miss from the promise of the Rainbow. When the Son gathers HIS Elect together, the Father will be there to stop him. ALL nations and all life must be saved. The nail in the hand will not be removed until all life is valued. Moses could not enter the promised land because of his sin. All of this story was a lesson to Yahweh from the Father, just as the lessons learned from Isaiah and Yahweh are for us one level down. Ultimately, Yahweh will need to repent to the Father if he continues to deny the will of the Father.

His Baptism with John the Baptist demonstrated his first repentance. How can I know this? Because his plans still involve the same patters as before. War, division and destruction as an accuser and adversary. He can't have it both ways. His own words will condemn him. He must love ALL his enemies and must forgive the entire creation. He made the snake. Ultimately, it's his sin that brought us all here. He is responsible for ALL of us. None can be lost.

Now, you could easily argue that this is his plan. I would be all for it if the Isaiah text can show this. Matthew 10 shows me different. It's a lie compared to Malachi 4, the last words of Yahweh. They do not match. It's a repeat of Nineveh. He goes back on his word.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
I see God's people as a continuous entity which expands into the rest of the world in the New Testament period. I believe that's the viewpoint of the New Testament itself.
The only reason for the separation of the Jews from the church is that most of the Jews refused to accept the expansion, failing to see that the expansion had been God's intention all along. They had been chosen as the starting-point for God's contact with the world, not as the exclusive contact point.

There is no foundation for the "client-nation" theory. It would have been difficult to operate in the days when church organisation did not stop at national boundaries. When the Catholic church filled western Europe, and the Orthodox church filled eastern Europe, where was the client-nation?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Its not the local church organization that counts, its which nation has the highest concentration of matured Christians, regardless of which church they belong to. Recognizing the client-nation is easy, as a strong client-nation has a level of freedom that correlates to the quality of christians under that nation. At one point, Rome became a client-nation.

Like I said, Israel cannot be lumped together with the Church. The Church has the indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Israel was limited to a physical temple. The Church is a body of believer-priests, destined to become king-priests, like Melkizedek; Israel was limited by the Levitical priesthood. Rachel cannot be the same as Leah, they are two separate individuals.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
I do not believe that the physical Temple and the dominant priesthood are part of the "permanent" nature of Israel in God's eyes.
God did not ask for a Temple, and he kept telling them that he did not really want sacrifice. He has already allowed the whole Temple and sacrificial system and priesthood to be destroyed.
What he was trying to lead them towards was something closer to the way the church developed.
So I do not see the difference between "Israel" and "the church" as one that exists in God's understanding.
It is only something that has developed because the Jews were reluctant to follow the path which God wanted them to take, and become part of a world-wide people of God.

a reply to: DISRAELI

God didnt ask for a Temple, because He already instituted the Tabernacle. The Temple was just an "upgrade", so to speak. Neither did God WANT a sacrifice, yet He REQUIRED it through Christ...that is why He instituted the blood sacrifices through the Levites to foreshadow Christ. Now, had Israel remained faithful, they would have been upgraded into the Church, where each believer would have been a Tabernacle, but that was not the case. The Church was selected due to Israel's faithlessness, but God is still bound to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Church has inhereted the birth rite that Israel rejected, but by no means has the Church replaced Israel...that would make God a liar.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
The Church was selected due to Israel's faithlessness, but God is still bound to the Abrahamic Covenant.

You need to re-read Galatians.
The covenant with Abraham is a covenant offering salvation by faith;
"Thus Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness". (ch3 v6)
"So you see it is the men of faith who are sons of Abraham" (v7)
"Those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith" (v9)
The blessing is that "we might receive the promise of the Spirit by faith" (v14)
Then Paul goes on to explain that the laws provided through Moses cannot supersede that original promise to Abraham.

So of course God is still bound to the Abrahamic Covenant.
And the Abrahamic Covenant is the offer of salvation by faith, to those who are "sons of Abraham" by virtue of their faith rather than physical descent.
In fact the "physical descent" definition can't be allowed as an alternative, because that would wreck Paul's argument.
So all God would want from the Jews is that they would accept the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant as it is outlined in that chapter.

There is nothing in Paul's teaching about Israel and the Church being two permanently distinct entities. His only anxiety for the Jews (e.g Romans ch11) is that they should re-join the fold which they have temporarily left (allow themselves to be grafted back onto the plant), and this would have the result that the distinction would disappear.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

Romans 11 is a bit more than Paul's anxiety, its a warning of what will happen when the Church stagnates (and it will). It will be removed from the earth, and Israel's 7 years will play. By the end of the 7 years, Israel will have been regrafted into the family of God.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
The "being cut off" metaphor is not about being removed from the earth, just about the danger of getting detached again from God's people. That's what the "olive tree" represents in that passage.
And this is a warning against complacency rather than a definite prediction (still less a prediction with a time-table).
"This is what could happen if you're not faithful" is not the same thing as "this will happen".
Nothing in Paul's image speaks against the hope that the old branches might be re-grafted back in without the new branches being cut off.
The connection between v22 and v23 is not "one leads on to another, and v22 must come first", but "these are two equally possible events".
If God dosn't have to wait for v22 before he does something about v23, then the new branches and the old branches can both be on the tree at the same time.

a reply to: DISRAELI

That isnt Paul's message. The Church as a whole is one branch, and Israel as a whole is another. When one branch (Church) stops baring fruit (due to arrogance), then it will be cut off completely (removal from the earth) and the old branch (Israel) will be grafted in. The passage does not directly reference the Rapture, but the allusion is obvious. There is no way this message can apply to the individual level. That would be sayng, that for every apostate Christian that is cut off, a Jew is saved. There is no corroboration for that line of thinking, where as the distinction between Israel and the Church is both demonstrated with Jacob's two wives, and the Parable of the 10 Virgins. The foolish virgins missed the opportunity to join the Church (Rapture) so Christ tells them to "watch therefore, for you know not the day or hour (of His return)". Once you understand the distinction, the prophecies make sense.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
When one branch (Church) stops baring fruit (due to arrogance), then it will be cut off completely (removal from the earth) and the old branch (Israel) will be grafted in.

I can only repeat, the passage just says "removed from the tree", which is not the same thing at all.

There is no way this message can apply to the individual level. That would be sayng, that for every apostate Christian that is cut off, a Jew is saved.

You are still missing the other point I tried to explain.
Paul's image does NOT necessarily involve a cutting off followed by a grafting.
He is not describing a sequence, one leading on to the other. He is describing two parallel possibilities.
It would still be feasible, in terms of Paul's argument, that neither the cutting off nor the re-grafting would take place.
It would still be feasible, in terms of Paul's argument, that the cutting off would come WITHOUT the re-grafting.
It would still be feasible, in terms of Paul's argument, for the re-grafting to come WITHOUT the previous cutting off.

Please look over v22 and v23 again and show me where Paul states that they will both come, and that they will come in that order.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Please look over v22 and v23 again and show me where Paul states that they will both come, and that they will come in that order.

Paul is implying what the Parable of the 10 Virgins states. The wise will be taken, then the foolish will have to wait for the return. That is the point you have been missing.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
V22 is conditional. It might or might not happen, depending on whether the Gentiles "continue" in God.
v23 is also conditional. It might or might not happen, depending on whether the Jews persist in their unbelief.
Neither of them is dependent upon the other one.