Israel is “saved” nationally - not as the Christian is

[AdHoc]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

The conditions of Romans 11 were first-century conditions that have nothing to do with 21st century conditions. The text of Romans 11 specifically, explicitly states "at the present time," NOT "in the far distant future." 

 

Romans 11:1-32 ESV
"I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.  God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?  “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.”  But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”  So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.  But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.  What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”  And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.”  So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.  Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!  Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.  For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?  If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.  But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.  Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”  That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.  For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.  Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.  And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.  For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.  Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.  And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”  As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.  For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.  For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."

 

The "remnant" of which Paul wrote existed "at the present time" when he wrote that epistle. The apostle cites six different prophets, the Law and Job to say what those OT persons said was happening "at the present time". The "hardening" had already occurred (Jesus spoke of it in the gospels) and it was all couched in "at the present time." 

 

Tally: each of the three opening points do not reconcile with scripture, and neither does the statement about the fulness of the Gentiles if it is intended to be made relevant to the 21st century. 

You have badly misread this passage. God has ALWAYS had a REMNANT. In this text Paul reminds the ex-Jews in the Church at Rome that BOTH in Elijah's time AND THEN, God has His Remnant. Who do you think are the 144,000 of the Tribes of Israel in Revelation 7? Here is a partial list of Remnants:

• Noah when the world's "generations" were polluted
• Abraham when Noah's descendants turned to the host of heaven
• Jacob
• Joseph of Egypt
• Levi when all Israel failed
• The Nazerite when the priests failed
• Joshua and Caleb when all Israel failed
• The prophets
• The 2.5% of Judah that returned to build the second Temple
• Zacharias and his type
• John Baptist
• The Overcomers of the Church
• The 144,000 of Revelation 7
• The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11
• The Man-Child of Revelation 12 

[AdHoc]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

How about if we give the fulness of the Gentiles the meaning Paul gave it when he mentioned it and not make it something occurring in the 21st century when Paul clearly said it was happening in the first? 

Even then they may not believe. 

They did not believe ANY of the miracles they witnessed for hundreds of years. 

John 12:37-43
"Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”  Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.  Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue;  for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God."

 

Think for a moment what Jesus' appearance would mean to a Jew and all Jews. They'd have to acknowledge we are right and they are wrong and they'd have to admit they've always been wrong, and they murdered the Messiah and his blood is actually on their hands and they're not the wrongly persecuted people they've always imagined themselves to be. 

And they'd have to stop being Jews! 

Think how difficult it is for the Dispensationalist to acknowledge the errors of Dispensationalism and then compare that to a Dispensationalist having to deny their entire religion, not just the dispensational aspect of their pov. 

The Jews are not going to change just because some bloody shiny guy comes out of the clouds and lights foot on earth. 

Think for just a moment what it was like for the disciples between the visitation to Thomas..... 

.....and Pentecost. 

How much different is faith when it is operating by grace in a regenerate and Spirit-indwelt person than a believing person who is not indwelt who'd spent three years with Jesus. Now compare that to the unregenerate Messiah denying Jew. Unless God regenerates and indwells them first the miracle of a shiny bloody man appearing in the clouds won't make a difference. 

It is an assumption. 

 

It's the kind of thing that sounds good upon first glance or hearing, maybe driving down the road listing to the preacher on Christian radio, but it does not stand up to the repeated testimony of scripture. It is psychology elevated above God's witness.

Anyone who bothers to consider what Thomas' experience was like is much more likely to grasp what needs to happen if bloodline Israel is to believe. 

The one thing that you did not mention, which I think you should, is why, if Israel will hardly believe that that glorious Man coming out of the clouds with wounds in His hands and feet (the same sign that Thomas looked for), why do they MOURN? And the inspired record gives the reason for their mourning. They admit that THEY pierced Him!

[AdHoc]

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

Scripture plainly states otherwise. 

Genesis 15:18
"On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates....."

 

God made a covenant with Abrahm two chapters before Genesis 17. The covenant to which God was referring in Genesis 17 was the covenant God initiated two chapters earlier. God made the covenant in Gen 15 and He established it in Gen 17.

I'll grant you this. Covenant means "cutting", and this was done in Chapter 15. Chapter 17 is the requirement of the seed of Abraham for the completion of this Covenant - that is, man's part.

But I'm glad to concede this point because it applies equally to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31. It is "made" in "that day" (the day when Israel is again united), but ratified on Golgotha in Christ's blood. This is a point mostly misunderstood in Christian circles. They think because the New Covenant is ratified on Golgotha that it applies to them. It doesn't. It is made exclusively with Israel.

I rejoice, for we have agreed on an important point.

[AdHoc]

8 hours ago, Josheb said:

No, because everything stated up to this point is not an accurate reflection of God's word, AND salvations often overlap. 

    Correct on both counts. 

 

Odd since elsewhere in the thread 1) context was ignored and then 2) when I brought it up it was denied. 

Point of fact: there is no Israel now! There a lot of Jews spread all over the world and there is a geo-political nation-state on the east side of the Mediterranean bearing the name "Israel," but neither bear much resemblance to the covenant Israel of the Bible. That Israel is gone. Maybe it will come back. Maybe not. 

Otherwise, Yes, Israel refused their Messiah. The op has this correct. 

In refusing their Messiah they violated the last past of the covenant that could possibly be violated; the denied the promised seed of Abraham for which all the people of faith listed in Hebrews 11 longed when the gospel was preached to Abraham. "Refusal" in the context of a covenant means something.

 

That is the context that decided the matter of Israel's future. 

Yep. 100% correct.  

Jeremiah 17:13,18
"O LORD, the hope of Israel, All who forsake You will be put to shame. Those who turn away on earth will be written down, Because they have forsaken the fountain of living water, even the LORD..... Bring on them a day of disaster, and crush them with twofold destruction!"

Deuteronomy 28:15-24, 45-48, 61
"But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:  "Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.  "Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.  "Cursed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock.  "Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.  "The LORD will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me.  "The LORD will make the pestilence cling to you until He has consumed you from the land where you are entering to possess it.  "The LORD will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish.  "The heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron.  "The LORD will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed.... So all these curses shall come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you would not obey the LORD your God by keeping His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.  "They shall become a sign and a wonder on you and your descendants forever.  "Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and a glad heart, for the abundance of all things; therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things; and He will put an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you. Also every sickness and every plague which, not written in the book of this law, the LORD will bring on you until you are destroyed."

 

Destroyed. 

 

The killed their Messiah, their Redeemer, their Deliverer. They refused him. 

Matthew 27:20-25
"But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to death.  But the governor said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas."  Pilate *said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all *said, "Crucify Him!"  And he said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they kept shouting all the more, saying, "Crucify Him!"  When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves."  And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!" 

He was beaten, scourged, and then stripped and nailed up for display as a criminal.

"Refused"

 

Context

There seems to be quite a lot of agreement here. I'll only comment on your first point. Israel is not the Land, nor a political entity. Israel is the seed of Jacob - renamed Israel. In Acts 2 Peter addresses those who from the diaspora as "ye men of Israel".

[AdHoc]

9 hours ago, Josheb said:

God has always had a remnant. 

Maybe that is true. 

However, that is a red herring because it has nothing to do with the remnant of Israel or the fullness of the Gentiles. That remnant was plainly and explicitly stated to exist "at the present time." Paul meant what he wrote and teachers who ignore what he wrote to make what he wrote say things he didn't write are false teachers who abuse scripture. 

If someone says, "God has another remnant of Israel," then maybe that's true. Maybe that is all well and good but..... where does the Bible say God has a remnant here in the 21st century?????  because any teacher that message had better have some scripture upon which to base the belief before he starts teaching others. Or maybe the reader does not hold his/her teachers to such standards. Any teacher who teaches God has a future remnant of Israel had better not be using Romans 11 because Romans 11 plainly states "at the present time" and NOT "in the 21st century." That teacher is abusing scripture to make it say something it does not say. 

James 3:1
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."

 

Do not change what Paul wrote. 
Do not trust those who do. 
Don't replicate their wrongdoing. 

 

God had a remnant in the first century. Paul said so. Paul was referencing the precedent established in Genesis 45. Paul was also referencing the fact that most Old Testament references of a "remnant" were either a remnant of pagans that were left before being eradicated (bet few futurists here checked that out before signing on to futurist eschatology), or remnants of Jews living at the time of their mention...... just as was the case with Romans 11. None of the OT references of any remnant say they are 21st century phenomenon. None of them. It is an assumption those are about the 21st century. 

And I do not need to tell any of you this perspective has a long history of false teachers whose predictions have never come true. 

At least I hope I don't need to tell you that. 

If Paul was referencing the OT fulness of the Gentiles, then he was also plainly stating that was happening "at the present time." Anyone who uses Romans 11 as a far-distant future event is abusing the text. Maybe there is a scripture saying, "in the far distant future of the 21st century," but if so then 1) stop using Romans 11 and 2) show me the scripture stating it's the 21st century, not the first.

 

This used Romans 11. 

This op has already erred. 

This op has already abused the Romans 11 text. 

 

And I do not see any acknowledgement of the mistake or any effort to justify its position with an alternative scripture. 

I'll let the matter rest. God has a Remnant throughout human history. Romans 9 to 11 deal with the fate of Israel right until they are again grafted into the Olive Tree. I find it a most strange way to base a doctrinal fact on what is NOT said in a particular passage, especially when the rest of the Bible reveals it. The reader of Romans is concerned, after reading the first eight Chapters, what will become of Israel? To peg the solution to the 1st century AD is very strange. Even Hosea says that Israel's chastisement lasts two days (6:2) and from AD 70 the only two days found in the Bible that fit are 2,000 years.

Do you really think that because God only had a Remnant in 55 AD that His plan to recover Israel is abandoned now? You ask for alternative scripture, but they were given in the very posting you answered. I repeat - God ALWAYS works with a Remnant. They are everywhere to be found - in scripture and in history.

A Remnant in our day is present. It just needs to become visible by provocation. 

[Dennis1209]

18 hours ago, AdHoc said:

The "phrase "... led captivity captive" appears three times in the Bible - in Judges 5:12 and Psalm 68:18 besides Ephesians. Psalm 68 is a bit obscure, but the first mention, Judges 5:12 is clear. Israel, under chastisement, are being held captive by foreigners and a foreign king. Barak intervenes and the king is removed. The actions of Barak did not take Israel anywhere. They merely changed the king. So also Judah's captivity in Babylon. They dwelt in Babylon and one night a Persian king, Cyrus, took Babylon captive. What happened to Judah? Nothing - except the BOSS changed. Captivity was taken captive by the captives having a new boss.

Okay, that's one way to interpret this passage with a reasonable analogy. I look at "led captivity captive"; as trophies or spoils of war from Christ's victory on the cross, and yes, the Boss did change. 

My analogy: Paul used an interpretive rendering of Ps. 68:18 as a parenthetical analogy to show how Christ received the right to bestow the spiritual gifts (v. 7). Psalm 68 is a victory hymn composed by David to celebrate God’s conquest of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem and the triumphant assent of God up to Mt. Zion (cf. 2 Sam. 6, 7; 1 Chr. 13). After such a triumph, the king would bring home the spoils and the prisoners. John MacArthur Jr.

In this analogy, where would home be? I submit Heaven.

19 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Since Hebrews 9:27 categorically states that a man can only die once, these saints must be still alive today. There are only three places a man can be; (i) Dead in Hades under the earth, (ii) on earth bodily, or (iii) like Jesus, Bodily in heaven. I propose, based on this, that these saints are waiting in heaven to return with Christ to earth. If so, all questions are addressed except one. In Acts 2:27-34 we discover that David is still dead and in Hades. He cannot be one of the firstfruits of Matthew 27 - probably because of Bathsheba. Note that I speculate on this.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

I agree with your assessment of only three places they could be. The people Jesus and the apostles raised from the dead; their ultimate bodily status is uncertain. The Bible is strangely silent on the topic? 

I have to assume they must have had to die twice, and there must be certain exceptions. How does Enoch and Elijah fit into Hebrews 9:27, unless they are the Two Witnesses, which is another long discussion.

19 hours ago, AdHoc said:

One last interesting case in this line is Moses. Moses we know was buried by the Lord. But we see Moses, some 1,500 years later, BODILY on the Mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17. Was Moses one of the firstfruits of Matthew 27? No. Matthew 27 is too late for Matthew 17. Another and simpler explanation is available. Moses was raised in all the wisdom and knowledge of Egypt (Act.7:22). The religion of Egypt remains today, in its purest form, in Free Masonry. And in Free Masonry your body is pledged to Lucifer when you die. The Masons will come and take your body and bury it a special way. We see from the case of king Saul and the Jebusites, that God honors such pacts. So, in order to get Moses back for Matthew 17, He must send Michal to "fight for Moses' BODY" (Jude 9).

I have more questions than convictions on the above? One of a number of reasons I suspect the Devil contended over the body of Moses, and the Lord personally secretly buried Moses body. Perhaps because the devil wanted to claim Moses because of his sins, and likely if known, his burial site would have turned into another relic, and be worshiped? I've read several reasons that make theological sense.

Another interesting question: At the Transfiguration; how do you suppose Peter, John, and James (inner circle), recognized it was Moses and Elijah?

19 hours ago, AdHoc said:

The religion of Egypt remains today, in its purest form, in Free Masonry. And in Free Masonry your body is pledged to Lucifer when you die. The Masons will come and take your body and bury it a special way.

I'm not doubting you, but where did you obtain this information from? I've read a number of books by people in the know, converted 32nd degree Masons, such as Dr. Larry Bates, who have spilled the beans. I don't recall any mention of the preceding burials? 

There's no doubt Freemasonry is mysterious and satanic to the core. The symbolism of our nation's capital and currency screams of the occult, but that's another rabbit trail. 

I apologize to all, for splintering this OP thread like a family genealogical tree. But I find these discussions very insightful and interesting. 

[AdHoc]

12 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Okay, that's one way to interpret this passage with a reasonable analogy. I look at "led captivity captive"; as trophies or spoils of war from Christ's victory on the cross, and yes, the Boss did change. 

My analogy: Paul used an interpretive rendering of Ps. 68:18 as a parenthetical analogy to show how Christ received the right to bestow the spiritual gifts (v. 7). Psalm 68 is a victory hymn composed by David to celebrate God’s conquest of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem and the triumphant assent of God up to Mt. Zion (cf. 2 Sam. 6, 7; 1 Chr. 13). After such a triumph, the king would bring home the spoils and the prisoners. John MacArthur Jr.

In this analogy, where would home be? I submit Heaven.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

I agree with your assessment of only three places they could be. The people Jesus and the apostles raised from the dead; their ultimate bodily status is uncertain. The Bible is strangely silent on the topic? 

I have to assume they must have had to die twice, and there must be certain exceptions. How does Enoch and Elijah fit into Hebrews 9:27, unless they are the Two Witnesses, which is another long discussion.

I have more questions than convictions on the above? One of a number of reasons I suspect the Devil contended over the body of Moses, and the Lord personally secretly buried Moses body. Perhaps because the devil wanted to claim Moses because of his sins, and likely if known, his burial site would have turned into another relic, and be worshiped? I've read several reasons that make theological sense.

Another interesting question: At the Transfiguration; how do you suppose Peter, John, and James (inner circle), recognized it was Moses and Elijah?

I'm not doubting you, but where did you obtain this information from? I've read a number of books by people in the know, converted 32nd degree Masons, such as Dr. Larry Bates, who have spilled the beans. I don't recall any mention of the preceding burials? 

There's no doubt Freemasonry is mysterious and satanic to the core. The symbolism of our nation's capital and currency screams of the occult, but that's another rabbit trail. 

I apologize to all, for splintering this OP thread like a family genealogical tree. But I find these discussions very insightful and interesting. 

Don't apologize. You have a right before God to hear those who take it upon themselves to teach. But to your points.

In the phrase "led captivity captive" there is, by implication (i) a Captivity. That is, some person or company of persons is in captivity. Their right to freedom of movement is removed. If is is the dead, then the Gates of Hades hinders them. So you have to decide who or what is captive. 

(ii) There is one who leads. He can lead by example, or be the first to do something thus going in front. What did our Lord do. He was firstborn from the dead, He passed effortlessly through the Gates of Hades, He now holds the keys to the Gates of Hades, and He has defeated the one who had the power over death. In all these things, He leads. But except for the firstfruits that were resurrected on the same day as Him, those captives in captivity have gone nowhere. How do we know? Because the dead ALWAYS "RISE". 1st Thessalonians 4:16 has the dead RISING at the last trumpet. That is, until the last trump, dead men are somewhere BELOW.

(iii) At no time does the "captivity" go anywhere. The grammar does not indicate any change of status of "the captivity"

Your analogy of Psalm 68 is correct. There were captives and a jailmaster. The jailmaster is removed but the captives do not change their location. 

When our Lord Jesus answered the disciples' questions in Matthew 24:3, He dealt with all three types of people on earth, (i) the Jew, (ii) the Christian, and (iii) all Nations - the Gentiles. In Matthew 24:4-31 you see all things Jewish. The Temple, false Christ's (the Jews still look for their Messiah), Jerusalem, Judea, Daniel - a Jewish prophet to "his People", the Jews, the Abomination of Desolation, the Law and the Sabbath. The whole context is Jewish and it ends with the "sign" of the Son of man. Finally, our Lord bursts through the clouds and the Tribes of the Land mourn because they pierced Him. Then our Lord commands His angels to collect His "elect" from the "four winds".

Who was driven to the four winds. ISRAEL! (Jer.49:36, Zech.2:6). Who will collect from the four winds? ISRAEL! (Ezek.37:9). But notice that it is the "four winds" - NOT of the earth, but of "heaven". Why? Are not Israel scattered among the nations. Yes, but what if some had been resurrected and were sojourning in heaven? Enoch was a Gentile, bit Elijah was an Israelite. What about Lazarus? What about those who where raised from the dead by the hand of the Apostles? Is there any problem with them being BODILY in heaven. No. Our Lord is BODILY in heaven.

I agree that Masons keep such information quiet, after all they are not a secret organization, but an organization of secrets. It takes quite a lot of research in ancient Egyptian practices, Mason practices and Roman Catholic practices. Thus, having studied this nearly four decades ago, I am unable to refer you. But, the Internet will give you substantial notes on the matte. I won't be offended if you set aside my premise. I just don't have the energy to find the reference from the Books of Free Masonry. To my best knowledge, a good source is "Morals and Dogma ... " by Gand Master Albert Pike, and "Occult Theocracy" by Lady Queensborough.

But I can accept your theory. Fact is, Moses' body needed to be recovered and God sent the chief angel of Israel to get it. And Moses needed his body to be on the mount of Transfiguration.

By the way, I also agree that the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 are Enoch and Elijah. Much speaks for them. Moses cannot be one of them because he would have to die twice then.

Nice talking to you. Go well 

[Marilyn C]

On 12/2/2021 at 12:30 AM, Your closest friendnt said:

Hi Marilyn C,

I always admired how articulate you are with the english language.

There is always abiquity in the language.......

In that formation, in the formation of the three groups standing apart from each other

(nothing to bond them together) 

And Jesus is call to take his place and the question will be asked

( to help with the answer) 

Will he stand with his body or with the OT saints or with Israel? 

Or with some other group which you have not mention and that group may include John the Baptist or do you see John the Baptist in anyone of these groups? 

 

 

Hi Your closest friendnt,

(have been visiting a friend, but now I will seek to answer you important question.)

Thank you for the encouragement and you have taught me a new word - `abiquity.`

Now you are asking what is binding together the 3 groups that I mentioned?

We read in Ephesians 1: 10, about God`s great purpose to `gather in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Christ.` 

We can tend to think of that as all in one group in one place. However we know that God is `one,` but that does not mean He is in one spot and just one being. We know that God is 3 persons and can move around His great kingdom - heaven and earth. The `oneness,` refers to them being in unity together.

And that is what thee 3 groups will be under Christ`s rulership - all in unity of purpose, ruling righteously and worshipping God Almighty. 

God made the 3 realms (Col. 1: 16)and even though each realm has had rebellion we know that the Lord Jesus is putting down all rule and authority and might and power, (1 Cor.15: 24) so that He righteous rulership will come throughout God`s great kingdom.

Will answer the other question next. Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

On 12/2/2021 at 12:30 AM, Your closest friendnt said:

Hi Marilyn C,

I always admired how articulate you are with the english language.

There is always abiquity in the language so some may think, such as the statement "the body of Christ".

Which you have used in this post, along with the "OT saints", and "israel".

What is this that makes the "the body of Christ " and "the OT saints" and "Israel" stand apart from one another? 

In that formation, in the formation of the three groups standing apart from each other

(nothing to bond them together) 

And Jesus is call to take his place and the question will be asked

( to help with the answer) 

Will he stand with his body or with the OT saints or with Israel? 

Or with some other group which you have not mention and that group may include John the Baptist or do you see John the Baptist in anyone of these groups? 

 

 

So to your next logical question. `What is this that makes the "the body of Christ " and "the OT saints" and "Israel" stand apart from one another? `

And that is a huge study, however I will try and be succinct and then you may have more questions.

The Body of Christ - the Ekklesia/called out ones, called out from Israel and the nations. Their inheritance ruling with the Lord on His throne in the third heaven.

 

Israel - also the Ekklesia/called out ones, called out from the nations. They have two aspects to their inheritance -

- stars - prominent position in the universal heavens. (the city rulership.)

- sand - predominant position on earth. Rulership over the nations.

 

The Nations - Kings and people (under Israel) on the earth. 

 

God`s word delineates these 3 groups - `Give no offence, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the Church of God,..` (1 Cor. 10: 32)

Each group have been given the inheritance of a part of God`s great kingdom and all because of Christ`s sacrifice and all under His righteous rulership. 

And you will notice that in each realm the Lord has His throne, His authority there. So the Lord is with each rulership which are under His overall rulership from the highest. 

We can discuss the scriptures if you would like.

regards, Marilyn.

[Marilyn C]

If we want to discuss those  comments I made, (your closest friendnt) then perhaps we should start its own thread.

I`ll wait to see what you think.