The Church is absolutely Israel.
Nope. "The Church" did not exist prior to the 4th century AD. If anyone believes that there were no true branches before that time, they are following a different teacher.
You are correct that the door is open for anyone to return and especially those to whom the revelation was first given. They are the branches cast off to be prepared FOR the fire, but they can be re-grafted. They just have to accept the Lamb and stop sinning.
I am not correct. The word is correct. All of it. Not just the parts that agree with a dogma. I fixed some things that were easier corrected than retyped.
One of the consistent types running throughout the OT is the older brother losing his inheritance and persecuting the younger brother who receives it instead. Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his broretype.
One of MANY types used to illustrate that God isn't limited by human means. He establishes who He establishes by their heart and not their birth order. The arrogant are set aside for the humble. Those who would take the crown for themselves, for those who set aside their life so that others might have a share In it.
The criteria is the same as it ever has been and will be. Just as Ruth and Rahab were grafted into the ancestry of David, so too have gentiles always been able to attach themselves to God through the promise of His son, The Lamb, by choosing His ways, and not following the traditions of mankind.
Not all descended of Israel are Israel, just as not all in the Church will be acknowledged before his Father by Jesus. The arrogance of believing someone else is cut off you to be grafted in is the sane as Israel's arrogance in believing the occupants of the land were cut off FOR them.
God was very specific that the previous occupants were cast out because of their disobedience. In fact, that's why Abraham to whom the promise was made couldn't take possession right away. Their chosen corruption wasn't yet complete. The new tenant does not "replace" the old tenant on the old lease. The lease agreement is specific to each tenant, even if the terms are exactly the same as before.
We should never be so arrogant as to think someone was broken off FOR US. That is the essence of the replacement doctrine. It is putting new wine into old wineskins, just as is accepting the Lamb but going right back to sinning as if nothing changed but your outer garments.
It's like saying the person broken off because of their choices can't be grafted back in at the same spot because you've taken it. The parable of the prodigal son tells us otherwise. We need look at the whole word to understand the difference.
Not trying to be a jerk. I just don't want things being misrepresented.