Harvesting of the Earth

[Musicmaster]

Show me please.

Israel's fall was not at all a matter of covenant. The New Covenant will one day be enacted at the Millennial Kingdom age given that it was crafted just for that purpose on the basis of the inferiority of the former, which is the Mosaic Law. The Law and statutes and commands that existed before Moses penned the Mosaic system of Law will not ever be replaced because it was not formed on the basis of any covenant.

Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

The fall of Israel was not, then, covenantal but your comment to that effect causes me to ask where you got that? When Jesus spoke of the fall of Israel in the gospels, He said nothing about that being covenantal but rather on the basis of Israel's continued rejection of Him and His not cutting down that olive tree until one year after His three years of ministry on this earth, as directed by the Father, which corresponds with Stephen's stoning one year after the ascension of Christ Jesus, which is the point at which Jesus was standing (no longer sitting) at the right Hand of the Father. Stephen's indictment against Israel at that time and our stoning of Him, all to our shame, was the tipping point (so to speak) whereby the Lord began the felling process to bring Israel down while the transition over to the Gospel of Grace was being raised up in its place.

Luke 13:6-9
6 He spake also this parable; A certain man [Christ] had a fig tree [Israel] planted in his vineyard [the world]; and he [Christ] came and sought fruit thereon [faith in Him as Messiah], and found none.
7 Then said he [Christ] unto the dresser [the Father] of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree [Israel], and find none: cut it [Israel] down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he [the Father] answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Cut it down did He indeed. Our fall was our own doing and our undoing until the restoration through tribulation to winnow out the chaff to be burned, with only one third left alive before His appearance at the end of the tribulation.

You may know all this, so please chalk it up as a benefit to others reading these posts.

It was only a few short years after Stephen's stoning that the Lord had prepared Saul to become the purveyor of the Gospel of Grace, which then culminated in the agreed upon division of responsibility between the twelve and he who became Paul, for the twelve remained as ministers to Israel with Paul being assigned unto the "heathen."

Does that answer your inquiry?

Generally speaking, those out there who want to label this with some seemingly negative-sounding label (on the basis of contrived snideness), that's on them, but when they can't legitimately negate it on the basis of sound, biblical foundations, they're only parroting their false teaching pastors, teachers and/or their own biased studies through the blinders that blocked their view of the clarity within the grammar, historicity and timeline within the biblical texts.

MM

 

[OMC]

Israel's fall was not at all a matter of covenant. The New Covenant will one day be enacted at the Millennial Kingdom age given that it was crafted just for that purpose on the basis of the inferiority of the former, which is the Mosaic Law. The Law and statutes and commands that existed before Moses penned the Mosaic system of Law will not ever be replaced because it was not formed on the basis of any covenant.

Israel’s fall was a matter of covenant, for the apostle says plainly that they “stumbled” because they pursued righteousness “as though it were by works of the law” and not by faith, and that they were “broken off” because of unbelief, not because God’s covenant promises failed. I acknowledge that the New Covenant, inaugurated in Christ’s blood, is already in force for all who believe, even though its full national and eschatological outworking awaits the day when He restores all things; it was not crafted merely for a future millennial enactment but is the present foundation of my salvation, for “this is the covenant I will make… I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts.” I confess that the Mosaic covenant was inferior only in that it could not give life, yet the moral righteousness of God expressed before Moses—rooted in His character rather than in covenantal administration—remains eternally true, even though the believer is no longer under the law but under grace. In this I hold fast to the unity of God’s revelation, the continuity of His righteousness, and the present reality of the New Covenant in Christ.

 

[Musicmaster]

Generally speaking, here's yet another item that I see being violated as a matter of routine among Evangelicals and other religious groups alike:

A Covenant and a Testament are not the same thing, even though at times they are translated from the same Greek/Aramaic word. They are no more the same than the polar opposite definitions for the English word "cleave." That English word has polar opposite definitions, the correct definition rooted in the CONTEXT.

A Covenant is not at all in force on the basis of the death of either party, but is in force upon both parties in agreement, thus the reason for Israel AGREEING to obey ALL the Law, stated before the Lord and before Moses.

A Testament is ONLY in force after the death of the testator, not before. Were the child of the testator to show up and take possession of the testator's property before his or her death, that would be theft!

So, this common, cesspool practice in error that so many seem to enjoy splashing about within, they should consider more carefully their choice of words and the contextual meanings. The redemption from our sins could ONLY be in force AFTER the DEATH of Christ, thus our being under the New Testament (hint, hint), NOT the New Covenant!

For proof of this fact consider this, which was written some years after the ascension of Christ Jesus:

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath (past tense) made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (present tense).

Given that the old covenant IS ready to pass away, written some years after the ascension of Christ, the old covenant, then, cannot be legitimately said to have passed away already and the inception of the New Covenant in its place. The irrational nonsense people are learning from their false teachings pastors and teachers should be scrutinized more and more by all who follow those clowns who aren't worthy to teach anyone because of their failure to realize the being judged doubly for tremendous responsibilities associated with teaching authority.

It's under the Old Covenant that unbelievers are indicted, for even Paul said that by the Mosaic Law we know what sin is. If the definition for sin has already passed away into oblivion, then the legitimacy for defining sin would then have been taken away from us, which clearly isn't the case at all, and yet the masses continue to follow those demonic doctrines without one thought to the resulting lies they consciously choose to follow after with itching ears.

MM

 

[OMC]

The fall of Israel was not, then, covenantal but your comment to that effect causes me to ask where you got that? When Jesus spoke of the fall of Israel in the gospels, He said nothing about that being covenantal but rather on the basis of Israel's continued rejection of Him and His not cutting down that olive tree until one year after His three years of ministry on this earth, as directed by the Father, which corresponds with Stephen's stoning one year after the ascension of Christ Jesus, which is the point at which Jesus was standing (no longer sitting) at the right Hand of the Father. Stephen's indictment against Israel at that time and our stoning of Him, all to our shame, was the tipping point (so to speak) whereby the Lord began the felling process to bring Israel down while the transition over to the Gospel of Grace was being raised up in its place.

Israel’s fall was covenantal, because the Lord Himself tied Israel’s standing to their covenant fidelity, saying, “If you will not obey… all these curses shall come upon you,” and Paul explains their fall as the result of pursuing righteousness “as though it were by works of the law,” which is covenantal disobedience expressed as unbelief. I recognize that Jesus did not frame Israel’s fall merely as a timeline of rejection culminating in Stephen, but as the outworking of their covenant breach—He wept over Jerusalem because they “knew not the time of their visitation,” and He declared their house “left unto them desolate,” language drawn directly from covenant judgment. I affirm that Stephen’s stoning was indeed a climactic moment, and that Christ standing at the right hand of God signified judicial readiness, yet I confess that this moment did not begin the felling of the olive tree but revealed the covenantal reality already in motion: Israel had rejected the prophets, rejected the Son, and now rejected the Spirit’s witness. I therefore acknowledge that the transition to the gospel going forth to the Gentiles was not the replacement of Israel by a new system, but the unfolding of God’s covenant plan in which Israel’s fall—because of unbelief—opened salvation to the nations, even as Paul promises their future restoration.

 

[OMC]

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath (past tense) made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (present tense).

Given that the old covenant IS ready to pass away, written some years after the ascension of Christ, the old covenant, then, cannot be legitimately said to have passed away already and the inception of the New Covenant in its place. The irrational nonsense people are learning from their false teachings pastors and teachers should be scrutinized more and more by all who follow those clowns who aren't worthy to teach anyone because of their failure to realize the being judged doubly for tremendous responsibilities associated with teaching authority.

It's under the Old Covenant that unbelievers are indicted, for even Paul said that by the Mosaic Law we know what sin is. If the definition for sin has already passed away into oblivion, then the legitimacy for defining sin would then have been taken away from us, which clearly isn't the case at all, and yet the masses continue to follow those demonic doctrines without one thought to the resulting lies they consciously choose to follow after with itching ears.

Hebrews 8:13 teaches that the old covenant was already rendered obsolete (“He has made the first old”) and was in the process of vanishing (“is ready to vanish away”), and I confess that this means the covenant was legally displaced at the cross even though its outward forms continued for a time until the destruction of the temple. I therefore reject the idea that the New Covenant has not yet begun, because Jesus Himself said, “This is My blood of the new covenant,” and I stand in that covenant now, having the law written on my heart by the Spirit. I affirm that the Mosaic covenant’s function of exposing sin remains, not because the covenant is still in force, but because God’s moral righteousness—revealed in the law—continues to define sin, as Paul says: “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” I refuse the notion that defining sin requires the Mosaic covenant to remain active; rather, I confess that sin is defined by God’s eternal character, and the law bears witness to that character even though its covenantal administration has passed. I also reject the idea that pastors who teach the New Covenant’s present reality are “clowns” or “demonic,” because Scripture commands me to speak with grace and to judge doctrine, not people. I hold firmly that the New Covenant is inaugurated, the old covenant is obsolete, God’s moral law remains, and sin is still defined—because God’s Word stands forever.

 

[Musicmaster]

Israel’s fall was covenantal, because the Lord Himself tied Israel’s standing to their covenant fidelity, saying, “If you will not obey… all these curses shall come upon you,” and Paul explains their fall as the result of pursuing righteousness “as though it were by works of the law,” which is covenantal disobedience expressed as unbelief.

Wait. you're mixing together two entirely different concepts as if they're one and the same. Being under the curse for disobedience resulting from our disobedience and our fall as described by Paul are not the same thing. How is being cursed a matter of being in a fallen state in relation to the Lord's definition for being cut down. You're adding to the language things that aren't there.

I recognize that Jesus did not frame Israel’s fall merely as a timeline of rejection culminating in Stephen, but as the outworking of their covenant breach—He wept over Jerusalem because they “knew not the time of their visitation,” and He declared their house “left unto them desolate,” language drawn directly from covenant judgment. I affirm that Stephen’s stoning was indeed a climactic moment, and that Christ standing at the right hand of God signified judicial readiness, yet I confess that this moment did not begin the felling of the olive tree but revealed the covenantal reality already in motion: Israel had rejected the prophets, rejected the Son, and now rejected the Spirit’s witness. I therefore acknowledge that the transition to the gospel going forth to the Gentiles was not the replacement of Israel by a new system, but the unfolding of God’s covenant plan in which Israel’s fall—because of unbelief—opened salvation to the nations, even as Paul promises their future restoration.

At no time throughout what you call the OT is our failure to obey the Law ever even once shown to be a "cutting down," with the resulting need for an alternative means for salvation offered to Gentiles APART from Israel and the Law. If you believe otherwise, then please show it.

Thanks

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Hebrews 8:13 teaches that the old covenant was already rendered obsolete (“He has made the first old”) and was in the process of vanishing (“is ready to vanish away”), and I confess that this means the covenant was legally displaced at the cross even though its outward forms continued for a time until the destruction of the temple. I therefore reject the idea that the New Covenant has not yet begun, because Jesus Himself said, “This is My blood of the new covenant,” and I stand in that covenant now, having the law written on my heart by the Spirit. I affirm that the Mosaic covenant’s function of exposing sin remains, not because the covenant is still in force, but because God’s moral righteousness—revealed in the law—continues to define sin, as Paul says: “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” I refuse the notion that defining sin requires the Mosaic covenant to remain active; rather, I confess that sin is defined by God’s eternal character, and the law bears witness to that character even though its covenantal administration has passed. I also reject the idea that pastors who teach the New Covenant’s present reality are “clowns” or “demonic,” because Scripture commands me to speak with grace and to judge doctrine, not people. I hold firmly that the New Covenant is inaugurated, the old covenant is obsolete, God’s moral law remains, and sin is still defined—because God’s Word stands forever.

I have no clue as to how you can intentionally ignore the tense to the extent that you believe the present tense of something somehow indicates its already having passed. Your rationalization of this absolutely defies reason and logic, thus my inability to accept this irrationality.

MM

 

[OMC]

Wait. you're mixing together two entirely different concepts as if they're one and the same. Being under the curse for disobedience resulting from our disobedience and our fall as described by Paul are not the same thing. How is being cursed a matter of being in a fallen state in relation to the Lord's definition for being cut down. You're adding to the language things that aren't there

you are right to distinguish between covenant curses and Paul’s specific language of Israel’s “fall,” but Scripture itself closely links these categories rather than separating them absolutely. Under the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s disobedience brings covenant curses—exile, desolation, loss of blessing—yet Paul describes Israel as “broken off” and as having “stumbled” because of unbelief, which is precisely the covenantal disobedience Deuteronomy warns about. When I say Israel’s fall was covenantal, I do not mean that every use of “curse” equals “fall,” but that the state Paul calls “broken off” and “fallen” is the mature outcome of long‑standing covenant breach: rejecting the law’s demand for faith, rejecting the prophets, and finally rejecting Christ. I am not adding foreign language to the text; I am recognizing that the Lord tied Israel’s historical standing to covenant fidelity, and Paul interprets their present fall as the fruit of that same unbelief.

 

[OMC]

At no time throughout what you call the OT is our failure to obey the Law ever even once shown to be a "cutting down," with the resulting need for an alternative means for salvation offered to Gentiles APART from Israel and the Law. If you believe otherwise, then please show it

throughout what you call the Old Testament, the language of “cutting down” is not used for Israel’s disobedience in the same metaphorical form Paul later uses in Romans 11, but I confess that the OT repeatedly presents Israel’s covenant breach as a removal, a casting off, a breaking, and a rejection—precisely the realities Paul interprets through the olive‑tree imagery. I see the Lord saying, “You have forgotten the God who formed you… and you are cut off from My presence” (cf. Hos. 9:17), and I recognize that He declares Israel “not My people” (Hos. 1:9), which is covenantal removal from standing. I acknowledge that the OT shows God cutting down nations and even Israel metaphorically through judgment (Isa. 10:33–34), and I confess that the OT repeatedly warns that Israel’s unbelief would lead to their casting away (Jer. 6:30), their breaking (Isa. 8:15), and their being rejected (Lam. 2:7). I therefore reject the idea that the OT never presents Israel’s disobedience as a “cutting down,” because Paul’s olive‑tree metaphor is simply the apostolic interpretation of the same covenantal removal the prophets proclaimed. And I affirm that the OT never offers Gentiles salvation apart from Israel, but it repeatedly promises that Gentiles will be blessed through Israel’s covenant (Gen. 12:3), and Paul explains that Israel’s fall—because of unbelief—opened that blessing directly to the nations without abolishing God’s promises to Israel.

 

[Musicmaster]

you are right to distinguish between covenant curses and Paul’s specific language of Israel’s “fall,” but Scripture itself closely links these categories rather than separating them absolutely.

The question I have, then, is for you to make that connection, where did the OT ever indicate the need for salvation THEN coming to the Gentiles with Israel under the curse resulting from their disobedience? How did that nullify their priesthood as is the case with our being cut off? If they are linked, then where is that link as would be indicated in relation to Gentiles in the OT times?

You see, what you're doing is setting the Lord Himself up for accusation on the part of Gentiles for them to say that they were then left without any pathway to salvation, for the Law was not given to Gentiles at that time. It was delivered and entrusted ONLY to Israel. Dare one open up an illegitimate pathway for blame upon the LORD for that pathway being cut off from them, as was the case with Israel's fall and THEN the need for salvation to come directly unto the Gentiles, this connection simply fails un the acid test of all things considered (no pun intended given that NPR is an illegitimate , hypocritical exemplification of such).

Under the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s disobedience brings covenant curses—exile, desolation, loss of blessing—

Yes, I agree, but that's not the only consideration in relation to what you're positing in your posts...

yet Paul describes Israel as “broken off” and as having “stumbled” because of unbelief, which is precisely the covenantal disobedience Deuteronomy warns about.

Then please, pray tell, where in the OT are Gentiles blessed by the cursing of Israel for disobedience to the Law, although not having been broken off. Do you see the illegitimacy within your drawing the parallels you're trying to foist upon the scriptures? It was ONLY in the context of Israel's being cut off that Gentiles were then blessed by that cutting off and the resulting salvation having come to them, which is well established through only Paul's ministry.

It wasn't the crucifixion of Christ that brought about our fall, for it was Satan and his princes who crucified Christ:

1 Corinthians 2:8
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

When I say Israel’s fall was covenantal, I do not mean that every use of “curse” equals “fall,” but that the state Paul calls “broken off” and “fallen” is the mature outcome of long‑standing covenant breach: rejecting the law’s demand for faith, rejecting the prophets, and finally rejecting Christ. I am not adding foreign language to the text; I am recognizing that the Lord tied Israel’s historical standing to covenant fidelity, and Paul interprets their present fall as the fruit of that same unbelief.

Again, you're somewhat intermixing disobedience to the Law and rejection of Christ as Messiah, whether you frame it in the softer meaning behind "culmination" or as if they are one and the same. That just doesn't follow because they're not at all one and the same in any basis of comparison. Disobedience the Law compared to rejection of the Giver of that Law aren't the same thing. Where it's true the parallel association can be made by way of grammatical gymnastics through chosen definitions of key terms, the foundational concept simply isn't congruent.

When considering our rejection of Christ, as His chosen people, we rejected not only His identity as Messiah but also the substitutionary fulfillment He accomplished by the putting away for our sins. We inadvertently have chosen to keep our sins upon ourselves as a nation, as a people, thus the much harsher "cutting off" compared to our disobedience to His instructions to us. Rejecting the words versus rejecting the Man are not entirely one and the same, and treating it as such introduces a measure of dishonesty when we adopt such on the basis of retaining what we want to believe.

You also appear to still be violating the distinction between covenant (Law) and testament (deliverance). Am I understanding your meaning correctly?

MM

 

[OMC]

The question I have, then, is for you to make that connection, where did the OT ever indicate the need for salvation THEN coming to the Gentiles with Israel under the curse resulting from their disobedience? How did that nullify their priesthood as is the case with our being cut off? If they are linked, then where is that link as would be indicated in relation to Gentiles in the OT times?

I acknowledge that the OT never uses Paul’s exact phrase “salvation comes to the Gentiles through Israel’s fall,” but the OT repeatedly lays the theological groundwork for that very reality by showing that when Israel breaks covenant, God turns to the nations in mercy, not because Israel’s priesthood is abolished, but because Israel’s covenant failure triggers God’s promised outreach beyond them. I see the Lord declaring that Israel’s disobedience will lead to Him provoking them to jealousy by a “not‑a‑people” (Deut. 32:21), which Paul explicitly cites as the OT foundation for Gentile inclusion; I see Isaiah foretelling that because Israel refuses to listen, God will speak to the nations who were not seeking Him (Isa. 65:1); and I see Hosea prophesying that those who were “not My people” will be called “My people,” which Paul applies directly to Gentile salvation. I therefore reject the idea that the OT never links Israel’s covenant curse with Gentile mercy, because the prophets consistently show that Israel’s disobedience leads to God turning outward in grace, not by nullifying Israel’s priesthood, but by expanding His saving purpose to the nations in anticipation of Christ.

 

[OMC]

Then please, pray tell, where in the OT are Gentiles blessed by the cursing of Israel for disobedience to the Law, although not having been broken off. Do you see the illegitimacy within your drawing the parallels you're trying to foist upon the scriptures? It was ONLY in the context of Israel's being cut off that Gentiles were then blessed by that cutting off and the resulting salvation having come to them, which is well established through only Paul's ministry

the OT never uses Paul’s later phrase “Israel is cut off so salvation comes to the Gentiles,” but the OT repeatedly teaches the same pattern Paul expounds—Israel’s covenant disobedience results in God turning in mercy toward the nations—not because Israel’s priesthood is abolished, but because Israel’s failure triggers God’s promised outreach beyond them. I see Moses declaring that Israel’s provocation will lead God to make them jealous by a “not‑a‑people” (Deut. 32:21), and Paul explicitly cites this as the OT foundation for Gentile salvation; I see Isaiah foretelling that because Israel refuses to listen, God will be found by those who did not seek Him (Isa. 65:1), which Paul applies directly to Gentiles; I see Hosea prophesying that those who were “not My people” will be called “My people,” which Paul again applies to Gentiles. I therefore reject the claim that the OT never links Israel’s covenant curse with Gentile blessing, because the prophets consistently show that Israel’s disobedience leads to God turning outward in grace—not by nullifying Israel’s priesthood, but by expanding His saving purpose to the nations in anticipation of Christ. Paul is not “foisting” a new idea onto Scripture; he is interpreting the very pattern the OT already established: Israel’s unbelief → Gentile mercy → Israel provoked → Israel restored.

 

[OMC]

Again, you're somewhat intermixing disobedience to the Law and rejection of Christ as Messiah, whether you frame it in the softer meaning behind "culmination" or as if they are one and the same. That just doesn't follow because they're not at all one and the same in any basis of comparison. Disobedience the Law compared to rejection of the Giver of that Law aren't the same thing. Where it's true the parallel association can be made by way of grammatical gymnastics through chosen definitions of key terms, the foundational concept simply isn't congruent.

When considering our rejection of Christ, as His chosen people, we rejected not only His identity as Messiah but also the substitutionary fulfillment He accomplished by the putting away for our sins. We inadvertently have chosen to keep our sins upon ourselves as a nation, as a people, thus the much harsher "cutting off" compared to our disobedience to His instructions to us. Rejecting the words versus rejecting the Man are not entirely one and the same, and treating it as such introduces a measure of dishonesty when we adopt such on the basis of retaining what we want to believe.

You also appear to still be violating the distinction between covenant (Law) and testament (deliverance). Am I understanding your meaning correctly?

I acknowledge your distinction—disobedience to the Law is not identical to rejecting Christ—but Scripture itself treats these two realities as organically connected stages of the same covenantal unbelief, not as unrelated categories. When Israel rejected Christ, they did not merely reject “the Man”; they rejected the One who is Himself the Giver, Goal, and Fulfillment of the Law. I see Jesus saying, “If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me,” which shows that rejecting Christ is the final and climactic expression of rejecting the Law’s true intent. I therefore reject the idea that these two forms of unbelief are unrelated, because the prophets repeatedly show that Israel’s refusal to obey the Law was fundamentally a refusal to trust the Lord—and when Christ came, that refusal reached its consummation. I affirm that Israel’s rejection of Christ is indeed harsher, and Paul’s language of “cutting off” reflects that escalation, but I also confess that Paul explicitly roots this cutting off in the same covenantal unbelief Deuteronomy warned about. So I maintain the distinction between covenant (Law) and testament (deliverance), but I refuse to sever them as if Israel’s rejection of Christ were disconnected from their long‑standing covenant breach; Scripture presents them as the same unbelief reaching its final expression, not as two unrelated failures.

 

[Musicmaster]

the OT never uses Paul’s later phrase “Israel is cut off so salvation comes to the Gentiles,” but the OT repeatedly teaches the same pattern Paul expounds—Israel’s covenant disobedience results in God turning in mercy toward the nations—not because Israel’s priesthood is abolished, but because Israel’s failure triggers God’s promised outreach beyond them. I see Moses declaring that Israel’s provocation will lead God to make them jealous by a “not‑a‑people” (Deut. 32:21), and Paul explicitly cites this as the OT foundation for Gentile salvation; I see Isaiah foretelling that because Israel refuses to listen, God will be found by those who did not seek Him (Isa. 65:1), which Paul applies directly to Gentiles; I see Hosea prophesying that those who were “not My people” will be called “My people,” which Paul again applies to Gentiles. I therefore reject the claim that the OT never links Israel’s covenant curse with Gentile blessing, because the prophets consistently show that Israel’s disobedience leads to God turning outward in grace—not by nullifying Israel’s priesthood, but by expanding His saving purpose to the nations in anticipation of Christ. Paul is not “foisting” a new idea onto Scripture; he is interpreting the very pattern the OT already established: Israel’s unbelief → Gentile mercy → Israel provoked → Israel restored.

No, I disagree because in verses 1–7 — God has states that He has been available, but Israel resisted Him. God says he allowed himself to be found by those who were not seeking him, which is commonly understood, even in in Christian commentaries, as pointing toward the Gentiles, while Israel continued in stubborn disobedience. Jewish commentators often emphasize Israel’s rejection of God’s repeated invitations and the contrast between sincere worship and idolatrous practices. It's a comparison, and His outreach to the nations is based upon His stated desire that ALL men be saved.

In verses 8–10 we see a faithful remnant of Israel will be preserved in the very end of the tribulation AND at the end of the exiles throughout. The imagry of juice remaining in a cluster of grapes points to God not destroying the whole nation, which He has never done and never will do as He has done to other nations. “My servants” refers to the faithful within Israel, not Gentiles, who will inherit the "land" and be restored to places such as Sharon and the Valley of Achor.

So, no, the alleged closeness of the parallels you're inventing simply fail the acid test from the specifics in each case, for there is still a vastness between rejecting the words and instructions of the One versus a rejection of His accomplished redemption, what was and is a far worse place to be.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I acknowledge your distinction—disobedience to the Law is not identical to rejecting Christ—but Scripture itself treats these two realities as organically connected stages of the same covenantal unbelief, not as unrelated categories.

But they are unrelated categories.

When Israel rejected Christ, they did not merely reject “the Man”; they rejected the One who is Himself the Giver, Goal, and Fulfillment of the Law.

Yes. I agree, but that rejection carried with it a FAR more profound reaction from the Lord as a result, thus my highlighting the categorical fallacy in your comparison.

MM

 

[OMC]

No, I disagree because in verses 1–7 — God has states that He has been available, but Israel resisted Him. God says he allowed himself to be found by those who were not seeking him, which is commonly understood, even in in Christian commentaries, as pointing toward the Gentiles, while Israel continued in stubborn disobedience. Jewish commentators often emphasize Israel’s rejection of God’s repeated invitations and the contrast between sincere worship and idolatrous practices. It's a comparison, and His outreach to the nations is based upon His stated desire that ALL men be saved.

In verses 8–10 we see a faithful remnant of Israel will be preserved in the very end of the tribulation AND at the end of the exiles throughout. The imagry of juice remaining in a cluster of grapes points to God not destroying the whole nation, which He has never done and never will do as He has done to other nations. “My servants” refers to the faithful within Israel, not Gentiles, who will inherit the "land" and be restored to places such as Sharon and the Valley of Achor.

So, no, the alleged closeness of the parallels you're inventing simply fail the acid test from the specifics in each case, for there is still a vastness between rejecting the words and instructions of the One versus a rejection of His accomplished redemption, what was and is a far worse place to be

You’re reading Isaiah carefully, which I respect—and you’re right that Isaiah 65 is making a sharp distinction between stubborn, idolatrous Israel and a faithful remnant. Where I part ways with you is not on that basic structure, but on what that structure actually does in relation to Gentiles and to the nature of Israel’s unbelief.
Isaiah 65:1–2 really does link Israel’s resistance with Gentile mercy
You summarized it well:
Israel: God says, “I have spread out my hands all day to a rebellious people.”
Nations: “I was found by those who did not seek Me; I revealed Myself to those who did not ask for Me.”
That is not just “God wants all men to be saved” in the abstract; it is a concrete contrast:
Israel: persistent resistance to God’s self‑disclosure.
Nations: unexpected reception of that same self‑disclosure.
Paul is not inventing that contrast in Romans 10–11; he is quoting it as the prophetic foundation for Gentile inclusion in the face of Israel’s unbelief.
So yes, the OT does exactly what you say: it shows Israel resisting, and God turning to those who were not seeking Him. That is the pattern Paul is drawing on.
The remnant imagery in Isaiah 65 fits Paul’s remnant theology.
You’re right again: the “juice in the cluster” imagery is remnant language.
God does not destroy the whole nation.
He preserves “My servants” within Israel.
They inherit the land, Sharon, Achor, etc.
Paul’s remnant theology in Romans 9–11 is built on this same prophetic pattern:

“Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.”
“There is at this present time a remnant according to the election of grace.”
“The rest were hardened.”
So we agree: Isaiah 65 is about a faithful remnant within Israel, preserved through judgment, inheriting the land. Paul is not denying that; he is assuming it.
Where we differ: the nature of Israel’s unbelief and its climax in Christ.
You’re drawing a sharp line between:
Disobedience to the Law
Rejection of Christ’s accomplished redemption
You’re saying the second is “a far worse place to be,” and in one sense, I agree—it is the climactic form of unbelief. But here’s the crucial point:
Scripture does not treat these as two different kinds of unbelief, but as one continuous line of covenant refusal that reaches its apex in rejecting Christ.
Jesus: “If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me.”
Jesus: “You search the Scriptures… yet you refuse to come to Me.”
Stephen: “You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.”
In other words:
Rejecting the Law’s God‑given intent, Rejecting the God‑given Messiah, are not two unrelated failures; they are the same refusal to trust God, reaching its final expression when the One to whom the Law pointed actually appears.
So when I say Romans 11 sees Israel’s “stumbling” and “being broken off” as the covenantal disobedience warned of in Deuteronomy and exposed in Isaiah, I’m not flattening the distinction between “words” and “Man”; I’m saying the rejection of the Man is the consummation of the rejection of the words.
The OT does tie Israel’s unbelief to Gentile mercy.
You say I’m “inventing” parallels. But the OT itself gives you:
Deuteronomy 32:21: “I will make them jealous with a not‑a‑people.”
Isaiah 65:1: “I was found by those who did not seek Me.”
Hosea 1–2: “Not My people” → “My people.”
Paul explicitly cites these as the scriptural basis for:
Gentiles being shown mercy
Israel being provoked
Israel’s unbelief being neither final nor total
So the pattern is:
Israel resists.
God turns to those who were not seeking Him.
Israel is provoked.
A remnant is preserved.
Israel’s ultimate restoration is promised.
That is not my invention; that is the prophetic structure Paul is expounding.
The “vastness” you see between rejecting words and rejecting Christ is real—but not hermeneutically decisive.
You’re right that rejecting Christ’s accomplished redemption is a deeper, more final act than ignoring prophetic words. But that “vastness” does not break the continuity of the covenant story; it intensifies it.
Same God rejected.
Same covenant spurned.
Same unbelief exposed.
Same remnant preserved.
Same nations unexpectedly brought near.
So I’m not denying the escalation; I’m denying that the escalation creates a different kind of unbelief that severs the OT pattern from the NT fulfillment.
Where this lands in Romans 11?
Paul’s logic is:
Israel’s unbelief (culminating in rejecting Christ) = being broken off.
Gentile mercy = grafted in.
Israel’s calling = irrevocable.
Israel’s future = “all Israel will be saved.”
That is not a denial of Isaiah 65; it is its apostolic exposition.
You and I agree on:
Remnant
Land
Faithful servants
Gentile inclusion
We differ on whether Israel’s rejection of Christ stands outside the OT covenant‑unbelief pattern or as its climax. I’m saying Scripture itself insists on the latter.

 

[Musicmaster]

You’re reading Isaiah carefully, which I respect—and you’re right that Isaiah 65 is making a sharp distinction between stubborn, idolatrous Israel and a faithful remnant. Where I part ways with you is not on that basic structure, but on what that structure actually does in relation to Gentiles and to the nature of Israel’s unbelief.
Isaiah 65:1–2 really does link Israel’s resistance with Gentile mercy
You summarized it well:
Israel: God says, “I have spread out my hands all day to a rebellious people.”
Nations: “I was found by those who did not seek Me; I revealed Myself to those who did not ask for Me.”
That is not just “God wants all men to be saved” in the abstract; it is a concrete contrast:
Israel: persistent resistance to God’s self‑disclosure.
Nations: unexpected reception of that same self‑disclosure.

My question, then is where you see mercy offered the the Gentile nations in spite of their continued and never-ending idolatries? When you cast "mercy" into the mix where it's not stated nor implied, other than that the Lord listens when called upon by individuals from those nations, I don't see what appears to be in your statements an blanket mercy upon them of the magnitude of salvation having come unto Gentiles ONLY after the inception of the Gospel of Grace preached ONLY by Paul and those whom he raised up under his ministry. Gentiles on those ancient times simply had no other avenue to salvation apart from Israel, even in their state of disobedience.

For context, we need to go back to what Paul said about the state of the Gentiles and the nations in all of that time:

Ephesians 2:12
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:

So, the ancient Gentiles and their nations could not comparatively parallel with Paul's ministerial foundations by any measure nor stretch of the imagination when they were "aliens from," even "the commonwealth of Israel." One simply cannot have it both ways. They, the Gentiles and their nations were strangers from the covenants of promise, without HOPE, and even without GOD in the world. Those absolutely distancing realities have no bridge apart from those Gentiles becoming Jews, therefore avowed and tied directly to the Law...not that the Law saved anyone, but that obedience to the Law was the REQUIRED demonstration of one's faith IN the LORD for what only He attributed to them, which is the forgiveness of their sins.

Paul is not inventing that contrast in Romans 10–11; he is quoting it as the prophetic foundation for Gentile inclusion in the face of Israel’s unbelief.

One observation, if I may, is that your statement needs qualification because Paul is not using Isaiah 65 to teach that Gentiles are saved independently of Israel, which I believe you did admit. He's using Isaiah’s contrast to explain how Israel’s unbelief and Gentile inclusion can occur within the constraints of God’s continuing covenant plan that did not at all involve Gentiles having salvation available to them apart from joining into the commonwealth of Israel, as Paul pointed out and quoted above.

Where it's true, as you've shown, that in Romans 10:20–21, Paul quotes Isaiah 65:

“I was found by those who did not seek me…”
“All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

In Isaiah’s original context of his inspired writing, God contrasts those who seek him with Israel’s rebellious idolaters without closing any gaps between joining with Israel versus refusing to join with Israel and therefore become coupled into and under the Law. Where it's true that Paul applies a form of pattern to the Gentiles and unbelieving Israel: Gentiles, who had not pursued Israel’s covenantal righteousness by way of joining with the commonwealth of Israel, thus no longer being without God and without hope, they were not subject to nor in relation with Christ as the Author of the Law.

However, Romans 11 prevents us from interpreting ancient Gentile salvation detached from Israel by comparison to now, given that Gentiles can now be graft into the vine, which is Christ. Ancient Gentiles didn't receive a separate tree or an independent covenantal root of any kind given that the Lord never created a covenant with Gentiles. In Christ now and by joining with Israel in ancient times, Gentiles share in Israel’s spiritual blessings rather than replacing Israel as though Israel had become irrelevant through our failures in obedience in ancient times.

For today, as you know, Paul warned Gentile believers not to boast over the natural branches. Today, Israel’s hardening is partial and temporary, and Paul expects Israel’s eventual salvation. Gentiles’ inclusion was part of God’s plan to provoke Israel to jealousy and ultimately show mercy to Israel.

There's also an important distinction between historical context and canonical application. Isaiah 65 originally addresses Israel’s rebellion and God’s preservation of a faithful remnant; Paul rereads that prophetic pattern in light of the modern gospel. He doesn't simply equate the Gentile church with the entire subject of Isaiah 65, nor does he erase Isaiah’s concern for Israel. Rather, he sees the Gentiles’ unexpected turning to God as fitting Isaiah’s broader pattern, in that God judges rebellion, preserves a remnant, and extends mercy beyond the expected boundaries as He has always done, whether in the time of faithfulness or the times of unfaithfulness in the heart of Israel.

Thus, if “in the face of Israel’s unbelief” means apart from Israel or instead of Israel, it is misleading. If it means during Israel’s present disobedience, while remaining dependent on Israel’s Messiah, Scriptures, promises, and covenantal root, then it accurately reflects Paul’s argument in Romans 10–11.

Gotta run. Lots of things to write up for another project.

MM

 

[OMC]

My question, then is where you see mercy offered the the Gentile nations in spite of their continued and never-ending idolatries? When you cast "mercy" into the mix where it's not stated nor implied, other than that the Lord listens when called upon by individuals from those nations, I don't see what appears to be in your statements an blanket mercy upon them of the magnitude of salvation having come unto Gentiles ONLY after the inception of the Gospel of Grace preached ONLY by Paul and those whom he raised up under his ministry. Gentiles on those ancient times simply had no other avenue to salvation apart from Israel, even in their state of disobedience

Was there mercy for Gentile nations before Paul? If so, what kind? And did Gentiles have any avenue to salvation apart from Israel?
1. I acknowledge your premise:
Gentile nations lived in continual, generational, unbroken idolatry.
Scripture says this plainly:
“All the gods of the nations are idols.” (Ps. 96:5)
“The nations walk in the stubbornness of their evil heart.” (Jer. 16:12)
“They exchanged the glory of God for images.” (Rom. 1:23)
There is no biblical record of God giving Gentile nations a covenant, priesthood, sacrificial system, or prophetic line.
Israel alone had those.
So I agree with you: Gentiles had no covenantal avenue to salvation apart from Israel.
The Old Testament does not teach a blanket mercy upon Gentile nations.
It teaches:
judgment on Gentile nations
wrath on Gentile idolatry
condemnation of Gentile gods
destruction of Gentile empires
no covenant with Gentile peoples
The only mercy shown is:

Individual mercy​

God hears individuals who call upon Him (Rahab, Ruth, Naaman, Ninevites, Nebuchadnezzar).

Mediated mercy​

Gentiles can approach God through Israel, its temple, its sacrifices, its priests, its covenant.

But there is no national mercy for Gentiles in the OT.
No blanket grace.
No universal invitation.
No “Gentile program.”
So I reject the idea that OT Gentiles had a parallel path to salvation.

I stand firmly on this:
Gentile salvation before Christ was always mediated through Israel.
This is not theology—it is Scripture:
“My house shall be a house of prayer for all nations.” (Isa. 56:7)→ But the nations must come to Israel’s temple.
“Ten men from the nations will take hold of the robe of a Jew.” (Zech. 8:23)→ They must cling to Israel to reach God.
“In your seed all nations will be blessed.” (Gen. 22:18)→ Blessing flows through Abraham, not apart from him.
“The foreigner who joins himself to the LORD…” (Isa. 56:3)→ Must join Israel.
There is no Gentile covenant,
no Gentile priesthood,
no Gentile sacrifices,
no Gentile prophets,
no Gentile access apart from Israel.
So I agree with you completely: Gentiles had no avenue to salvation except through Israel—even in Israel’s disobedience.
Where is mercy for Gentile nations before Paul?
Nowhere. Not as nations. Not as peoples. Not as collective entities.
Only individual Gentiles receive mercy, and only by:
coming to Israel
submitting to Israel’s God
embracing Israel’s covenant
worshiping at Israel’s temple
receiving Israel’s Scriptures
trusting Israel’s Messiah (prophetically)
There is zero biblical evidence of God giving Gentile nations a blanket mercy before the gospel.
So I reject the idea that OT Gentiles had widespread mercy. They did not.
This is where your question hits the nerve.
Paul says:
“Salvation has come to the Gentiles.” (Rom. 11:11)
“The mystery hidden for ages… now revealed.” (Eph. 3:5–6)
“The Gentiles are fellow heirs.” (Eph. 3:6)
“The gospel… is the power of God unto salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1:16)
Paul is not saying Gentiles were never saved before.
He is saying: **Gentile salvation was never offered to the nations as nations.
Now it is.**
Before Christ, Gentiles could be saved only by coming through Israel.
After Christ, Gentiles can be saved directly through Christ, without becoming Jews, without temple, without sacrifices, without Israel’s covenant.
This is the “mystery” Paul says was hidden and is now revealed.
I agree with you fully. The OT never gives Gentiles:
a covenant
a priesthood
a sacrificial system
a prophetic line
a national promise
a national mercy
a national salvation
Only Israel had those.
Gentiles were saved through Israel, not alongside Israel. Paul’s gospel does not contradict this—it explains it.
I acknowledge that Gentile nations lived in continual idolatry and that Scripture never grants them covenantal mercy; I confess that the Old Testament offers no blanket grace to Gentile peoples, only individual mercy mediated through Israel’s covenant, temple, sacrifices, and God; I reject the idea that Gentiles had any independent avenue to salvation before Christ, because every Gentile who was saved was saved through Israel; and I stand firmly on this: Paul’s gospel does not invent Gentile salvation—it reveals that the salvation once accessible only through Israel is now offered directly to Gentiles through Christ, apart from Israel’s covenant, temple, and national identity.

 

[Davidstarr]

What is happening In Revelations 14:14

14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.”

16 So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.

Back on topic Omegatime;

That is the 4th of the 5 angels depicted in Rev 14:6-20. Each angel follows the previous one in succession (chronological order).
It's like joining a mathematics class (Math 303) but without passing 101 or 202. You could never understand the concepts taught in the 3rd class.

How well do you understand the 1st 3 angels of Rev 14:6-13?
How well do you understand other related prophecies found in scripture concerning events of the last days?

To answer your question (which would make more sense if you understand other related prophecies) is this:

Like Rev 19 this is a symbolic representation of Jesus' 2nd coming. He separates the wheat from the tares using the standard harvesting tool of the times, a sickle. The "wheat" (His people - including the resurrected righteous dead) are taken to heaven. The "tares" are bundled up to await final destruction by fire (which happens 1,000 years after the 2nd coming).

Verses 17-20 is a 2nd reaping when all the wicked AND this actual physical world we call "Earth" are destroyed by fire. It is the 2nd resurrection of Rev 20 and Joel 3:9-13 (among others).

 

[Churchgoer]

@OMC
Melchesadez, the priest of most high.
Who had, has , will have blanket salvation?
"Gentiles were saved through Israel" ? Or the God of Israel?