Harvesting of the Earth

[OMC]

That grammar states that Jesus came ONLY to Israel, not just first, but ONLY. It's also stated that salvation is OF the Jews, which is why Gentiles in times past had to become Jews for salvation. The reason I say this is because when I see alterations stated about the text that doesn't support the changes in language applied by various commenters in these threads, I have to question this practice and the content of the claims

Brother, here is the biblical balance:
Christ came to Israel first — covenant priority
Salvation is from the Jews — covenant source
Gentiles were always included — covenant promise
Gentiles do not become Jews — covenant fulfillment
Christ is the door for all nations — covenant completion
To affirm Gentile inclusion is not antisemitic.
To affirm Israel’s election is not exclusionary.
Scripture holds both truths together without contradiction.

 

[OMC]

And yet antisemitic replacement theology says that Israel has been cast aside forever because of their alleged guilt in crucifying Christ. Perhaps you don't believe this, but there are those who do. Replacement theology manifests in many, many forms in theological discussion and beliefs. Most deny that Gentiles, before salvation had come to them, didn't have to become Jews for salvation before the fall of |Israel, which is a denial of what scripture portrays throughout the gospels and Acts

Brother, here is the truth Scripture holds together:
Replacement theology is wrong — Israel is not cast off.
Israel is central in God’s plan — past, present, future.
Salvation is from the Jews — source, not restriction.
Jesus came to Israel first — priority, not exclusivity.
Gentiles never had to become Jews — covenant, not ethnicity.
The gospel is for all nations — through Israel’s Messiah.

 

[OMC]

Please note that Jesus agreed that it was the "crumbs" of what feel from the table by which the Gentiles could be blessed, which clearly shows the source of any and all blessing Gentiles could ever receive THROUGH Israel, not in spite of Israel.

Brother, you are correct:
The “crumbs” prove Gentile blessing comes through Israel
Jesus affirms Israel’s covenant priority
Gentiles were not equal participants before Israel’s fall
Gentiles approached Christ through Israel’s covenant structure
Replacement theology contradicts Jesus’ own teaching
Israel remains the table of covenant blessing
Gentiles receive mercy from Israel’s Messiah, not apart from Him
The “crumbs” are not an insult. They are a theological blueprint.

 

[OMC]

Notice, if you will, the grammar, where it states that IN Abraham and his descendancy, IN Israel were all nations blessed. That blessing is made glaringly graphic in Esther 8:17.

Brother, you are correct:
The grammar of “IN Abraham” and “IN Israel” establishes the covenant channel.
Gentiles are blessed through Israel, not apart from Israel.
Esther 8:17 graphically illustrates Gentile alignment with Israel.
The Syrophoenician woman illustrates Gentile blessing from Israel’s overflow.
Jesus affirms Israel’s covenant priority, not its replacement.
Salvation remains “OF the Jews,” not “instead of the Jews.”
Replacement theology contradicts the grammar of Scripture.
The covenant structure is:
Israel → Messiah → Nations
Not:
Israel → Fall → Gentile takeover

 

[OMC]

Israel was indeed exclusive at the only portal through which Gentiles had to pass for salvation, adhering to the Law like all the genetic Jews. Gentiles became Jews once they joined themselves to Israel.

Brother, here is the biblical balance:
Israel was the exclusive covenant portal — correct.
Gentiles had to join Israel’s covenant — correct.
Gentiles had to obey the Law under Moses — correct.
Gentiles received blessing through Israel — correct.
Gentiles did not become ethnic Jews — correction needed.
Gentiles became covenant members, not genetic Israelites — biblical.
Replacement theology is false — absolutely.
Israel’s role remains central — absolutely.
Christ is the Jewish Messiah through whom Gentiles are saved — absolutely.

 

[OMC]

Inclusion in blessings, yes, but not in the New Covenant yet to be established in the Millennial Kingdom after the tribulation.

Brother, here is the full biblical balance:
Gentiles receive blessing now — yes.
Gentiles do not receive the New Covenant now — correct.
The New Covenant is Israel’s alone — correct.
It will be fully established in the Millennial Kingdom — correct.
Gentiles were blessed through Israel before the fall — correct.
Gentiles are blessed through Israel’s Messiah after the fall — correct.
Gentiles never become ethnic Jews — correction needed.
Gentiles become covenant participants, not covenant owners — biblical.
Replacement theology is false — absolutely.
Israel’s role is central, permanent, and irrevocable — absolutely.

 

[Churchgoer]

Brother, here is the biblical balance:
Christ came to Israel first — covenant priority

God is using Abraham to carry out His big plan.
"Israel " simply means "one struggles with YHVH"
It is not about "israel" per say. It is about YHVH.

Salvation is from the Jews — covenant source

Again see above.
God centered, not ethnic centered.
Is fig tree higher rank than apple tree? Lobster better than pig ?

Gentiles were always included — covenant promise

Every one is a gentile until becoming children of God.
The condition is Jesus covenant.

Gentiles do not become Jews — covenant fulfillment

Correct. Becoming jew will not enter kingdom of God.
Becoming true Christian will.

Christ is the door for all nations — covenant completion

Amen.

To affirm Gentile inclusion is not antisemitic.
To affirm Israel’s election is not exclusionary.
Scripture holds both truths together without contradiction.

Correct, don't shut the Jesus door for Israel. Whoever shut that door is a true anti isreal.

 

[OMC]

Paul wasn't speaking to Israel given that he was the apostle to the Gentiles

Yes — Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles.
No — this does not mean his teaching excludes Israel.
Paul speaks to Gentiles about Israel constantly.
Paul affirms Israel’s ongoing covenant position.
Paul warns Gentiles not to boast over Israel.
Paul teaches Israel’s fall is temporary.
Paul teaches Israel’s restoration is guaranteed.
Gentiles receive blessing through Israel’s Messiah.
Gentiles do not replace Israel in covenant ownership.

 

[OMC]

Remembering that the Kingdom is for Israel only, who alone will rule the world under the Kingship of Christ

Gentiles do not inherit the Kingdom, but they enter it.
Jesus says: “The nations will come before Him.” Matthew 25:32
And: “The nations shall go up year by year to worship the King.” Zechariah 14:16
Gentiles:
enter the Kingdom
worship the King
receive blessing
live under Israel’s rule
enjoy peace and prosperity
But they do not become Israel.
They do not inherit Israel’s promises.
They do not receive Israel’s land.
They do not receive Israel’s covenant.
They are subjects, not co‑heirs.

 

[Beekeeper]

Gentiles do not inherit the Kingdom, but they enter it.
Jesus says: “The nations will come before Him.” Matthew 25:32
And: “The nations shall go up year by year to worship the King.” Zechariah 14:16
Gentiles:
enter the Kingdom
worship the King
receive blessing
live under Israel’s rule
enjoy peace and prosperity
But they do not become Israel.
They do not inherit Israel’s promises.
They do not receive Israel’s land.
They do not receive Israel’s covenant.
They are subjects, not co‑heirs.

"Under Israel's rule" should not mean under the rule of modern earthly Israel.
The old covenant nation was destroyed by God because it failed to keep the old covenant.
Modern earthly Israel is a demonic counterfeit of that nation that no Christian should support.
"New covenant Israel" under Jesus is the kingdom of heaven.
It is not earthly, or it could not be everlasting.
"Replacement theology" is correct in so far as the new covenant replaced the old covenant.
Hebrews 8.

 

[OMC]

"Under Israel's rule" should not mean under the rule of modern earthly Israel.
The old covenant nation was destroyed by God because it failed to keep the old covenant.
Modern earthly Israel is a demonic counterfeit of that nation that no Christian should support.
"New covenant Israel" under Jesus is the kingdom of heaven.
It is not earthly, or it could not be everlasting.
"Replacement theology" is correct in so far as the new covenant replaced the old covenant.
Hebrews 8.

“Replacement theology is correct in so far as the new covenant replaced the old covenant.”
This part is biblically correct.
Hebrews 8:13: “In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
The old covenant (Sinai covenant) was:
conditional
national
temporal
breakable
mediated by Moses
The new covenant (Jeremiah 31; Luke 22; Hebrews 8–10) is:
unconditional
eternal
mediated by Christ
internal (Spirit)
unbreakable
So yes — the new covenant replaces the old covenant.
But this is not “replacement theology” in the sense of:
“the church replaces Israel,”
“God is done with the Jews,”
“Israel has no future,”
“the promises to Abraham are cancelled.”
Hebrews 8 teaches covenant replacement, not people replacement.
That distinction matters.
“New covenant Israel under Jesus is the kingdom of heaven.”
This is partially correct, depending on how you define “Israel.”

What is fully correct:​

The kingdom of heaven is not earthly in its present form (Luke 17:21).
The kingdom is everlasting (Daniel 7:14; Luke 1:33).
The kingdom is under Jesus, not under Moses.
The kingdom is new covenant, not old covenant.

What needs precision:​

The New Testament never uses the phrase “new covenant Israel.”
Instead, it uses:
“church of God”
“body of Christ”
“holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9 — applied to believers)
“Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16 — debated, but not a simple synonym for “church”)
The kingdom is not identical to “Israel,” but Israel has a role in the kingdom’s future consummation (Romans 11:25–29).
“The old covenant nation was destroyed by God because it failed to keep the old covenant.”
This is biblically correct.
The prophets say:
Israel broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31:32).
God judged the nation (2 Kings 17; 2 Kings 25).
The old covenant system ended (Hebrews 8:13).
But this judgment was covenantal, not ethnic.
God judged:
the Sinai covenant nation, not the Abrahamic covenant people.
The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional (Genesis 15). The Sinai covenant is conditional (Exodus 19).
This distinction is essential.
“Modern earthly Israel is a demonic counterfeit of that nation.”
The modern State of Israel (established in 1948) is a political nation. It is not:
the old covenant nation,
the Sinai covenant nation,
the kingdom of God,
the fulfillment of Hebrews 8,
the restored kingdom promised in the prophets.
It is a secular state, not a covenant nation.
That is a historical fact, not a theological judgment.

What Scripture does say:​

The old covenant nation was judged (Jeremiah 31:32).
The new covenant is spiritual, not national (Hebrews 8:10).
The kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
The church is the present “holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9).
These are biblical statements, not political ones.

Correct​

The new covenant replaces the old covenant (Hebrews 8).
The kingdom is everlasting and not earthly in its present form.
The old covenant nation was judged.
The kingdom is under Jesus, not Moses.

Needs precision​

“New covenant Israel” is not a biblical phrase.
The kingdom ≠ Israel, though Israel has a future role (Romans 11).
The modern State of Israel is political, not covenantal — but not “demonic.”

Incorrect​

That modern Israel is a “counterfeit” in a spiritual sense — Scripture does not say this.
That the new covenant erases Israel’s future — Romans 11 forbids that.

 

[Churchgoer]

"Under Israel's rule" should not mean under the rule of modern earthly Israel.
The old covenant nation was destroyed by God because it failed to keep the old covenant.
Modern earthly Israel is a demonic counterfeit of that nation that no Christian should support.
"New covenant Israel" under Jesus is the kingdom of heaven.
It is not earthly, or it could not be everlasting.
"Replacement theology" is correct in so far as the new covenant replaced the old covenant.
Hebrews 8.

Keyword -> Counterfeit

How can a nation rejecting God be a nation of God? Who came up this idea?

And intelligent people buy into it?

 

[Churchgoer]

“Replacement theology is correct in so far as the new covenant replaced the old covenant.”
This part is biblically correct.
Hebrews 8:13: “In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
The old covenant (Sinai covenant) was:
conditional
national
temporal
breakable
mediated by Moses
The new covenant (Jeremiah 31; Luke 22; Hebrews 8–10) is:
unconditional
eternal
mediated by Christ
internal (Spirit)
unbreakable
So yes — the new covenant replaces the old covenant.
But this is not “replacement theology” in the sense of:
“the church replaces Israel,”
“God is done with the Jews,”
“Israel has no future,”
“the promises to Abraham are cancelled.”
Hebrews 8 teaches covenant replacement, not people replacement.
That distinction matters.
“New covenant Israel under Jesus is the kingdom of heaven.”
This is partially correct, depending on how you define “Israel.”

What is fully correct:​

The kingdom of heaven is not earthly in its present form (Luke 17:21).
The kingdom is everlasting (Daniel 7:14; Luke 1:33).
The kingdom is under Jesus, not under Moses.
The kingdom is new covenant, not old covenant.

What needs precision:​

The New Testament never uses the phrase “new covenant Israel.”
Instead, it uses:
“church of God”
“body of Christ”
“holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9 — applied to believers)
“Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16 — debated, but not a simple synonym for “church”)
The kingdom is not identical to “Israel,” but Israel has a role in the kingdom’s future consummation (Romans 11:25–29).
“The old covenant nation was destroyed by God because it failed to keep the old covenant.”
This is biblically correct.
The prophets say:
Israel broke the covenant (Jeremiah 31:32).
God judged the nation (2 Kings 17; 2 Kings 25).
The old covenant system ended (Hebrews 8:13).
But this judgment was covenantal, not ethnic.
God judged:
the Sinai covenant nation, not the Abrahamic covenant people.
The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional (Genesis 15). The Sinai covenant is conditional (Exodus 19).
This distinction is essential.
“Modern earthly Israel is a demonic counterfeit of that nation.”
The modern State of Israel (established in 1948) is a political nation. It is not:
the old covenant nation,
the Sinai covenant nation,
the kingdom of God,
the fulfillment of Hebrews 8,
the restored kingdom promised in the prophets.
It is a secular state, not a covenant nation.
That is a historical fact, not a theological judgment.

What Scripture does say:​

The old covenant nation was judged (Jeremiah 31:32).
The new covenant is spiritual, not national (Hebrews 8:10).
The kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).
The church is the present “holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9).
These are biblical statements, not political ones.

Correct​

The new covenant replaces the old covenant (Hebrews 8).
The kingdom is everlasting and not earthly in its present form.
The old covenant nation was judged.
The kingdom is under Jesus, not Moses.

Needs precision​

“New covenant Israel” is not a biblical phrase.
The kingdom ≠ Israel, though Israel has a future role (Romans 11).
The modern State of Israel is political, not covenantal — but not “demonic.”

Incorrect​

That modern Israel is a “counterfeit” in a spiritual sense — Scripture does not say this.
That the new covenant erases Israel’s future — Romans 11 forbids that.

my head is still spinning.

Every ethnic group has a future, before we die, we still have opportunities to repent, return to God.
When God end people s life, then that's it. Either eternal heaven or hell.

 

[Beekeeper]

That modern Israel is a “counterfeit” in a spiritual sense — Scripture does not say this.
That the new covenant erases Israel’s future — Romans 11 forbids that.

Romans 11 is about a remnant of Paul's kinsmen, not any earthly nation.
Paul understood that Jerusalem was to be destroyed when he wrote it.

The modern State of Israel is political, not covenantal — but not “demonic.”

The modern state of Israel is political not covenantal, but spiritual attachment to it is idolatry,
and therefore demonic.
That is evident by the things that supporters attempt to justify.

 

[OMC]

The modern state of Israel is political not covenantal, but spiritual attachment to it is idolatry,
and therefore demonic.
That is evident by the things that supporters attempt to justify

I affirm your concern about idolatry while also adding an important biblical caution. Scripture is clear that no earthly nation—whether ancient or modern—can occupy the place of God, and when believers attach spiritual significance to a political state, that is a form of idolatry. But Christians must also avoid declaring any modern nation “demonic,” because Scripture never assigns demonic identity to ethnic groups or political entities. The real issue is the idolatry itself: when people defend injustice, excuse violence, or treat a nation as sacred, they reveal that their loyalty has shifted from Christ to something earthly. The New Testament teaches that the only covenant nation is the kingdom of God, and it is spiritual, eternal, and centered on Jesus—not on geopolitical structures. So the Christian critique is not that Israel (or any nation) is demonic, but that elevating any earthly state to spiritual status is a violation of the first commandment.

 

[Churchgoer]

I affirm your concern about idolatry while also adding an important biblical caution. Scripture is clear that no earthly nation—whether ancient or modern—can occupy the place of God, and when believers attach spiritual significance to a political state, that is a form of idolatry. But Christians must also avoid declaring any modern nation “demonic,” because Scripture never assigns demonic identity to ethnic groups or political entities. The real issue is the idolatry itself: when people defend injustice, excuse violence, or treat a nation as sacred, they reveal that their loyalty has shifted from Christ to something earthly. The New Testament teaches that the only covenant nation is the kingdom of God, and it is spiritual, eternal, and centered on Jesus—not on geopolitical structures. So the Christian critique is not that Israel (or any nation) is demonic, but that elevating any earthly state to spiritual status is a violation of the first commandment.

If a nation openly reject Jesus, openly say Jesus is in hell, openly say Jesus is a liar, what do we call that nation?

 

[OMC]

If a nation openly reject Jesus, openly say Jesus is in hell, openly say Jesus is a liar, what do we call that nation?

What you can say, biblically, is that when any nation publicly rejects Christ, publicly mocks Him, or publicly denies His lordship, that nation is acting in unbelief. The Bible calls unbelief darkness, rebellion, or hardness of heart—but it applies those terms to spiritual condition, not to political entities. Nations are collections of individuals, and individuals can be faithful or unbelieving; Scripture never assigns spiritual identity to geopolitical borders. So the Christian answer is: a nation that rejects Jesus is simply a nation walking in unbelief. But we still pray for its people, preach Christ to them, and refuse to demonize them, because Christ died for sinners in every nation.

 

[Churchgoer]

What you can say, biblically, is that when any nation publicly rejects Christ, publicly mocks Him, or publicly denies His lordship, that nation is acting in unbelief. The Bible calls unbelief darkness, rebellion, or hardness of heart—but it applies those terms to spiritual condition, not to political entities. Nations are collections of individuals, and individuals can be faithful or unbelieving; Scripture never assigns spiritual identity to geopolitical borders. So the Christian answer is: a nation that rejects Jesus is simply a nation walking in unbelief. But we still pray for its people, preach Christ to them, and refuse to demonize them, because Christ died for sinners in every nation.

Very good. Thank you
My head is spinning less

 

[Beekeeper]

What you can say, biblically, is that when any nation publicly rejects Christ, publicly mocks Him, or publicly denies His lordship, that nation is acting in unbelief. The Bible calls unbelief darkness, rebellion, or hardness of heart—but it applies those terms to spiritual condition, not to political entities. Nations are collections of individuals, and individuals can be faithful or unbelieving; Scripture never assigns spiritual identity to geopolitical borders. So the Christian answer is: a nation that rejects Jesus is simply a nation walking in unbelief. But we still pray for its people, preach Christ to them, and refuse to demonize them, because Christ died for sinners in every nation.

Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The people of Ephesus lived under a demonic power too..

Revelations 2:2 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

 

[Omegatime]

OMC said: So the Christian answer is: a nation that rejects Jesus is simply a nation walking in unbelief.

So, which nations have no christians?????