Societal Characteristics of the Last Days: Part 1

olive tree

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

This is repudiating your concept of a separate gentile and a separate "jewish" church - there is ONE olive tree - God's family, the church.

Gentiles are GRAFTED on to the tree. There is no separate Gentile tree and Jewish tree, but one

In fact read a bit earlier - verse 7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but [f]those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened - those who were chosen obtained it -- namely that this is about the Jewish Messiah, Jesus

olive tree

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

This is repudiating your concept of a separate gentile and a separate "jewish" church - there is ONE olive tree - God's family, the church.

Gentiles are GRAFTED on to the tree. There is no separate Gentile tree and Jewish tree, but one

==========

Let's look at the Olive tree in the OT

Is 17:6 - talking of the Olive tree being shaken by the Babylonian capture

Jer 11:16 - the Lord has named Israel a green Olive tree that He set fire to and whose branches are worthless

I would also suggest today's gospel

Gospel

MT 21:28-32

Jesus said to the chief priests and the elders of the people:
“What is your opinion?
A man had two sons.
He came to the first and said,
‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’
The son said in reply, ‘I will not,’
but afterwards he changed his mind and went.
The man came to the other son and gave the same order.
He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go.
Which of the two did his father’s will?”
They answered, “The first.”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you,
tax collectors and prostitutes
are entering the Kingdom of God before you.
When John came to you in the way of righteousness,
you did not believe him;
but tax collectors and prostitutes did.
Yet even when you saw that,
you did not later change your minds and believe him.”

This shows that the kingdom was to be moved from exclusively One nation to the world

The first son was the Gentile people, the second the Jews, since from the time of Noah there had been Gentiles. And he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. To day, i. e. during this age. He spoke with him, not face to face as man, but to his heart as God, instilling understanding through the senses. To work in the vineyard is to do righteousness

when, at the coming of the Saviour, the Gentile people, having done penitence, laboured in God’s vineyard, and atoned by their labour for the obstinacy of their refusal, this is what is said, But afterward he repented, and went.

I am 100% serious. And more so, this belief that

God's family expanded from a man (Abraham) to a family (isaac, Jacob) to a nation (Israel) to the world
That the kingdom is of all humanity

These beliefs are from the 1st century of Christianity

Before 21:28-32 you have Jesus' authority challenged from the Sanhedrin elders

Then after that, the parable of the landowner

33 “Listen to another parable. There was a [n]landowner who planted a vineyard and put a [o]fence around it, and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and he leased it to [p]vine-growers and went on a journey. 34 And when the [q]harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his fruit. 35 And the vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other slaves, more than the first; and they did the same things to them. 37 But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let’s kill him and take possession of his inheritance!’ 39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 Therefore, when the [r]owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?” 41 They *said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end and lease the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the fruit in the proper seasons.”

Again the same - the vineyard is the Kingdom of Heaven. The people of ISrael killed the heir and so the kingdom is given to other vine-growers

This is glaringly apparent in Matt 21:43-44

43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a [t]people producing its fruit. 44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and on whomever it falls, it will crush him.”

Seems you are insistent to cram the church into places it doesn’t belong. It can’t be done logically. Please see Gill on the parable, and the USCCB definition of the vineyard below. Is USCCB wrong again, Cronos?

Matthew 21:28

But what think you?

&c.] (See Gill on Matthew 18:12)

a certain man had two sons.
This is a parable; the design of which is to show the hypocrisy and deceit of the Scribes and Pharisees, in pretending to works of righteousness, and not doing them; and to reprove them for their disbelief and rejection of John’s ministry; and to make it appear, that the worst of sinners in the Jewish nation were preferable to them; and that many of them were, and would be, happy, when they would be miserable. By the “certain man”, in the parable, God is designed; who, though he is not a man, nor to be represented by any human form; yet, as man is the image of God, he is therefore, in an improper and figurative sense, compared to man, and set forth by him; which may be allowed in a metaphorical and parabolical way: and though the Son of God only assumed human nature, and really became man; yet God, the Father, seems rather to be here intended, who is sometimes compared to a husbandman and a vinedresser; see ( John 15:1 John 15:2 ) and as appears from the relation of the “two sons” unto him; by whom are meant not Jews and Gentiles; for the latter can never be intended by the first son; for these were not sons in such sense as the Jews were, nor were upon an equal foot of sonship with them, as the parable supposes; much less were they called first, and bid to work in the vineyard: but, on the contrary John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles, were first, and only sent to the Jews; and God, as yet, was not come even in the external ministry of the word to the Gentiles; nor were they brought to repentance and obedience: but by them are meant two sorts of people, among the Jews, the Scribes and Pharisees, and publicans and sinners; as the application of the parable, by our Lord himself, most clearly shows: these were both the sons of God; not only by creation, as all men are, all having, in this sense, but one common father, whose offspring they be; but also by national adoption; for to all, who were Israelites, according to the flesh, whether good men, or bad men, alike belonged the general privilege of adoption, ( Romans 9:4 ) . This publicans and sinners had an equal right to, as well as the Scribes and Pharisees, though they were not all the sons of God by special grace, or spiritual adoption:

and he came to the first;the publicans and sinners among the Jews, by the ministry of John the Baptist, Christ, and his disciples, who first and chiefly preached to such sort of persons;

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-21-28.html

[21:33] Planted a vineyard…a tower: cf. Is 5:1–2. The vineyard is defined in Is 5:7 as “the house of Israel.” https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/21?28

Note - it’s not me that insistent - it is Jesus, Paul, Peter and John who insist that God’s bride, the Church, i.e. the community, the ecclesia of believers is the New israel.

The sermon you posted completely forgets what comes BEFORE and AFTER Matthew 21:28

BEFORE —
1. Jesus cleans out the temple
2. Jesus points out the barren fig tree - Israel
3. Jesus’ authority is challenged by the chief priests and elders

Jesus then says to them the parable of the two sons - one who says NO but then regrets and does it and one who says YES but doesn’t do it

AFTER
1. the parable of the landowner who keeps asking the renters to receive His fruit, but they then murder His son, so the land-owners says he will lease the vineyard to OTHER vine-growers
2. The parable of the wedding feast where again the invited don’t come so outsiders are invited.

All of these make the perfect sense that the inheritance of Israel, the kingdom of Heaven, was rejected by Israel, so is given to “others” and yet LATER Jesus then talks of Jerusalem destroyed, then he talks of waiting (10 virgins) for Him and also using that time (the talents)

This is very clear right from Matthew 15:26 that the family of God is being extended, that Israel is being extended

That’s Pseudo-Chrysostom’s interpretation — and he goes on to say “The Lord abundantly confirms their decision, whence it follows, Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and harlots shall go before you in the kingdom of God; as much as to say, Not only the Gentiles are before you, but even the publicans and the harlots.”

I suppose that the publicans here are to represent all sinful men, and the harlots all sinful women; because avarice is found the most prevailing vice among men, and fornication among women. For a woman’s life is passed in idleness and seclusion, which are great temptations to that sin, while a man, constantly occupied in various active duties, falls readily into the snare of covetousness, and not so commonly into fornication, as the anxieties of manly cares preclude thoughts of pleasure, which engage rather the young and idle. Then follows the reason of what He had said, For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not.

To put it simply - Jesus in Matthew continually tells the children of Israel that they should accept the kingdom of God otherwise it will be taken away. Then He moves on to how His ministry is not to destroy the law but fulfil it and how even “the dogs” can have faith and finally He ends with the injunction to spread His word among the nations.

This is God’s family extending out to include more and more people

I rejoined it after first being agnostic, then spending flirting time in the Assemblies of God, Baptist and then after learning about both of what these taught was utterly contradictory to the bible and history, I moved to atheism before reading the Bible in more detail again and comparing with the early christian beliefs and that brought me back to the Church.

Based on the various canonical books, church history and secular history it is clear that Catholicism or Orthodoxy are the only Christian faith along with the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches.

The pre-tribulation rapture philosophy I spent a lot of time looking into this firstly just by the books of the Bible - whether Daniel or Matthew/Luke/Mark or the Epistles or Revelation and it rings false. Then looking at the historical details around the 1st century, this philosophy was proved doubly false. Finally, looking up the history of this philosophy it is apparent that the pre-tribulation rapture arose out of the same con-man group that led to mormons, Millerites, Jehovah’s witnesses.

Firstly let me say that Israel has a right to that land - I see that they treat Middle Eastern Christians well and that’s good.

Secondly, Israel WAS the apple of God’s eye definitely God sent his prophets repeatedly and warned Israel, and when Israel was divided in half, of course between the southern and northern half, Judah, and then what became known as Israel Ephraim, God warned them through the prophets again and again, and ultimately sent foreign invaders in to deport them.

In Zachariah 2:8, when God says, “You are the apple of my eye.” That’s not said in a vacuum. It’s said within the context of other verses. It’s said within the context of Zachariah chapter two

Zechariah is a prophet around the time of Shahenshah Darius the great BEFORE the temple is fully rebuilt.

Then 12 And the Lord will [e]possess Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem.

And this is about Jesus - or you can say even the time of the Maccabean dynasty

Zechariah prophesied about the same time as Haggai, when after returning from exile in 593, the people had still not rebuilt the temple. Only about 50, 000 returned. From Ezra 2. 36-39 we see that out of the 24 orders of priests, representatives of only four had returned. Only 74 Levites and 392 temple servants came back: Ezra 2. 40, 58.

I would suggest that you read the Talmud - the Babylonian talmud and it will tell you a lot about this time. A book to start with is “Talmud: a brief history”

As to “the apple of his eye”, it would refer to God’s eye, what is dear to Him (the expression, apple of eye, is found only here in all the Old Testament).

WHY is Israel the apple of God’s eye? it’s because of Abraham-Isaac=Jacob’s lineage

So we find this in the book of revelation that God’s family has widened. We have Abraham as the spiritual father of all Christians.

So now the apple of God’s eye is the new Israel - Christianity

The thing about Catholicism is that if one just looks at superficial one gets caught with the gotchas like “call no man father” or “Easter eostre” and yet if one looks into it deeper, the many statements against the church turn out the same way - half-knowledge.

I love to repeat how silly the “Easter is a pagan festival derived from Eostre, a pagan goddess”

If you dig into that you find that the only. Yes, the ONLY. reference to a goddess “Eostre” is in the 7th century by a Christian monk Bede who guesses about this goddess. England had been Christian for centuries, so he’s making a guess.

There is no mention of Eostre in any anglo-saxon or Germanic written or oral myth or fragment. you have tons of mentions of Tiw, Woden etc. but no Eostre.

In fact the name seems derived from the Germanic word for “East” as Pascha happens in spring.

Now the second point that many evangelicals in the USA fail at is realizing that English is a limited language - and that there are other languages — Easter is only in English and in German, while other languages have a form of Pasqua, Passover even Dutch and Swedish (both Germanic languages) except polski which calls it Wielkanoc (great night)

The same flaws (historical, linguistic and bibilically unsound) I see in many “evangelical” viewpoints (a side-note, in Central Europe “evangelical” is a term used by Lutherans and the Reformed church :) while the American “Evangelicals” are called “green shoots movement”

Regarding Easter and Christmas, I traveled that path long ago. It’s not an issue for me, but I do understand people’s unease when they first learn about them and how the Jewishness has been stripped by religious organizations for their own selfish motives. Like the lie of Jesus’ birth on December 25. Can’t hardly blame them for wanting to learn the truth about it. They are seeking to know more about Christ Jesus and, for that, one should not ever shake the finger at them. Having that tender conscience before God is precious. We should ever extend grace to those who are learning about God and never be puffed up enough to think that they are somehow lower in station. God forbid.

The greater issue is the replacement of Israel by some which puts God Almighty in the blasphemous position of making promises that He won’t fulfill. I would hope you agree.

On the Babylonian Talmud, I’ve still got it on my bookshelf and appreciate the reminder to chuck the damn thing in the garbage where it belongs. Read it years ago as a new Christian searching for answers. As you already are aware, I didn’t find what I was looking for in the Talmud. It took me a couple or few years of exploring to finally make my way to Scripture alone. God’s word can’t lie, but men can and do. When people go out of the Word and start making their own religion based on their own self-serving opinions, there will be trouble and many lost souls. I want no part of it.

The repugnant arrogance of some I’ve witnessed against anyone not in their clique is appalling. Noses stuck up a mile high at everyone who doesn’t bow to their organization’s beliefs which are based on nothing but the whimsical, unfounded and delusional opinions of man. Mohammed did much the same. They seem to think that God is subservient to their man-made religion. They are filled with the snotty notion that they hold salvation in the palm of their own puny hands and that God must cave to their opinions. At the judgment, they can tell Jesus to move over because now there’s two of ‘em.

And if I had a nickel for every time I’ve read that the Catholic organization is the only way to get saved, I’d be a millionaire. Again, the puffed up arrogance. I can’t imagine having to give account for it. But doesn’t it (Catholicism) teach that Muslims are going to Heaven? Weird, to say the very, very, very least. I wish too that I had a nickel for every time I read that Peter is somehow the lead man for Catholicism. After learning more than I ever cared to know about Catholicism, I now just shake my head at the arrogance and ignorance of Scripture and move along the Internet Highway. Catholics have heard the Gospel and have made their choice between man’s word and God’s Word. That said, if I see a lost soul asking for answers from Catholicism, I take the time to give them the truth of God’s word and steer them clear of the con … just as so many here took their precious time to do for others and which saved me from it.

I owe a debt of gratitude to a handful here who spared me from all the trappings (false doctrines, etc.) and enticing accouterments (rancid pride) of Catholicism. For the most part, they are ex-Catholics who finally saw the light. I praise God for them.

Hardly no Catholic seems to know that Paul, and only Paul, was sent to the Gentiles and that he is the lead man for Gentiles. Instead, Catholicism builds its house on Peter which is so wrong and weird, to say the least, since he was sent to the circumcision (read that, “Jews”). The foundation is shaky, the house wobbles, and the windows are in desperate need of cleaning.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.