Brother, Scripture never tells us to identify which nations have “no Christians,” because God has His people in every tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 5:9), and the gospel is still going forth even where it is opposed.
Harvesting of the Earth
- Thread starter Omegatime
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
my point was not that we can list nations without Christians, but that Scripture teaches Christ has a people in every nation (Rev. 5:9), so we must never speak as though any country is beyond His reach or outside His saving purpose.
The only thing I use it for is finding things on the internet and in other sources that I don't have on my book shelves.
As to reasoning, no. It is indeed worthless, as you stated. It has no rational capabilities, and it never will. It will always and forever being a product of its programmatic algorithms and the information to which it has access.
MM
Interesting. So, please comment on this:
Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Now, tell me if I'm logically wrong, but if something comes unto a group, that means they didn't have it before, otherwise how could it come unto them if it was already there and available to them apart from, as the context clearly points out, absent the fall of Israel?
MM
your logic is sound — if salvation “came unto” the Gentiles through Israel’s fall, then by definition the Gentiles did not possess that salvation in the same covenantal way before Israel’s fall, otherwise Paul’s statement in Romans 11:11 becomes meaningless.
Gentiles always had access to God — but not the covenantal administration of salvation.
Before Israel’s fall:
Gentiles could be saved
Gentiles could believe
Gentiles could join themselves to Israel (Ruth, Rahab, proselytes)
But they did not receive salvation as a direct, unmediated, covenantal offer from God.
They received it through Israel, not apart from Israel.
This is why Paul says: “You were strangers to the covenants of promise.” (Eph. 2:12)
Not “strangers to God,” but “strangers to the covenants.”
Romans 11:11 describes a new covenantal access, not the first existence of salvation.
Paul’s grammar is precise, “Through their fall salvation came unto the Gentiles.” does not mean:
Gentiles were previously unsavable
Gentiles had no access to God
Gentiles were universally lost
It means:
The administration of salvation changed
The door opened directly to the nations
The mediatorial role of Israel paused
The gospel went out apart from Israel’s national obedience
In other words, gentiles always had salvation available through Israel, but salvation came unto them directly only after Israel’s fall.
This is exactly Paul’s argument in Romans 11.
Paul is explaining:
Israel’s fall = temporary
Gentile inclusion = purposeful
The new administration = direct gospel access
The end goal = Israel provoked to jealousy
The final result = Israel restored
So your logic is correct as long as you keep the covenantal categories straight.
Gentiles were always included in God’s promise, but the covenantal delivery of salvation came to them directly only through Israel’s fall; before that, salvation was available to Gentiles only through Israel’s covenant, not apart from it — and this is precisely what Romans 11:11 teaches.
Realistically speaking, Jesus came ONLY to Israel, for He did not go to Arabians, Asia Minor peoples, North African peoples or any other of the nations other than Israel. Paul, however, was sent to other nations of Gentiles, but they were not to whom Jesus came throughout His three years of His earthly ministry.
And, yes, Gentiles HAD to become Jews:
Ephesians 2:11-12
11 Wherefore remember, that ye [Gentiles] being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
If that doesn't mean what it says, then what do you think it means? The context speaks loud volumes to the fact that salvation was not at all available to Gentiles apart from Israel and the Law. Esther 8:17 shows to us that Gentiles did indeed become Jews because Jesus’ earthly ministry was directed to Israel given that He instructed the apostles to go to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and not to Gentiles (Matthew 10:5–6; 15:24). The early commission emphasized Israel’s restoration, as can be seen in Acts 3:19–21, where Peter calls Israel to repentance so that the promised times of refreshing and restoration might come.
Gentiles could be blessed through Israel. Passages such as Zechariah 8:20–23 and Isaiah 2:2–3 portray the nations coming to Jerusalem and taking hold of a Jew, saying, “We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.” Some Gentiles in early Acts join themselves to Israel. Cornelius, for example, is a God-fearing Gentile who already worships Israel’s God and gives alms to the Jewish people (Acts 10:1–2). Gentiles were not entering an entirely separate “Body of Christ” program but were being blessed in connection with Israel’s kingdom hope.
So, before Israel’s prophetic program was set aside at the fall of Israel, salvation for Gentiles was presented through Israel’s covenants, promises, and kingdom, therefore, Gentiles who wanted Israel’s promised salvation had to identify with Israel—symbolically and in practically through circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic order, recalling that the believing Jews were still zealous for the Law and still practiced circumcision after the ascension of Christ.
MM
Israel’s fall occurred formally and covenantally when the nation rejected its Messiah, culminating in the crucifixion and the national refusal of the apostolic witness — and that fall is what opened the direct, unmediated door of salvation to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:11).
I think OMC is correct when he says the crucifixion.
Jesus quoted Ps.22:1. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Jesus wasn't speaking for himself but Israel
Allow me to clarify as I compressed several distinct biblical events into one moment, and Scripture does not do that.
Paul never says Israel “fell” at the crucifixion. He says Israel fell through unbelief (Rom. 11:20). That unbelief unfolds in three biblical stages, each necessary.
Stage 1 — Israel rejects the Messiah (Gospels)
This is the beginning of the fall.
“He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.”— John 1:11
This is rejection, not yet the formal fall.
Stage 2 — Israel rejects the resurrection witness (Acts 2–7)
This is the covenantal rupture.
They reject the Spirit’s testimony
They reject apostolic preaching
They kill Stephen
They resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51)
This is where the fall becomes formal.
Stage 3 — The apostles turn from Israel to the Gentiles (Acts 13, 18, 28)
This is the administrative shift Paul refers to in Romans 11.
“Seeing you put it from you… we turn to the Gentiles.”— Acts 13:46
This is the moment salvation comes unto the Gentiles directly, apart from Israel’s covenantal mediation.
This is exactly what Romans 11:11 describes.
So the crucifixion is central, but not the whole story.
The crucifixion is the culmination of Israel’s rejection.
Jesus bear all the sins, suffering God s wrath. God turned away from Jesus at that time, because of all the sins Jesus carried for us.
Brother, Scripture is clear that Jesus truly bore our sins and truly endured the wrath due to us, but we must speak of this with the precision the apostles use: the Father did not “turn away” from the Son in essence or break the Trinity, but He did pour out the judgment our sins deserved upon Christ as the sin‑bearing substitute, so that Jesus experienced the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13), the condemnation of sin (Rom. 8:3), and the forsakenness described in Psalm 22 — not because the Father ceased loving Him, but because the Son willingly stood in the place of sinners and bore the penalty that justice demanded.
Oh goodness I am So sorryThank you for correction!!!!!
I am a womanfyi.
