Dispensationalism Refuted

Jerryhuerta said:

This explains Matthew 21:43.

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.​

The kingdom was taken from the Jews and given to the nation of Ephraim/Joseph, which is what Peter confirms in his epistle.

​

Click to expand...

parousia70 said:

Fascinating.

When, then, do you say was the "Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard" (Matthew 21:40) that accomplished this removal of the Kindgom from the Jews?​

Click to expand...

Jerryhuerta said:

The removal of the kingdom from the Jews is not the same thing as the "coming of the Lord of the vineyard."

Click to expand...

parousia70 said:

Demonstrably false.
Perhaps you might take a closer look at the scripture you provided:

Matthew 21:40-41, 43-44

40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons....

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

The coming of the Lord of the Vineyard to destroy them is the vehicle by which the Kingdom is removed from them and let to others. As the scripture states, the removal of the Kingdom from them happens "WHEN the Lord of the Vineyard cometh." and not before.

You would have to ignore, or redact from your Bible, verses 40-41 to make you view work.

Click to expand...

mkgal1 said:

Great point, Parousia70 ^ - and just a clarification (addressing Jerry Huerta).... I don't believe it's really accurate to state "The kingdom was taken from the Jews when Christ pronounced their house desolate" - because it was Jews that made up the early church. It's maybe better stated that "the kingdom was taken from the apostate religious Jewish leaders" because they were those that bore no fruit.

I think that's an important distinction - because without it, many things get confused (and the whole "two people of God" theology gets brought in).

Click to expand...

Copperhead said:

The topic is refuting dispensationalism. Seems kind of strange. Does that mean we are discussing how to refute the Bible? In almost every English Bible I have seen, dispensation is a word used repeatedly. 4 times in the KJV. 5 times in the Geneva Bible. Even once in the English translation of the Book of Judith from the Septuagint

And really, what does dispensation really mean? (rhetorical). It simply means that a revealing of truth that had previously not been revealed. Like when Abraham was called out personally by YHWH. Like when the Torah was given. It revealed more of the nature of YHWH than was known by those previous. And like when Yeshua came. Same deal. Also when Paul was given the privilege of revealing stuff like the mystery of the removal of the righteous, which are concepts that had not been revealed explicitly in scripture before, only inferred allusions. Also, the revealing of the Lord's fury upon the earth's inhabitants during the GT period. And when Yeshua comes again and rules on the earth, the ultimate revealing of the Lord, more than any other point in history. Each dispensation is a further revealing of the Character and person of YHWH and likewise the Messiah and the overall plan as laid out before the world began.

And that is how Paul used dispensation.

Click to expand...

Jerryhuerta said:

Did you not read, dispensations are scripturally viable, dispensationalism is not!

Click to expand...

Copperhead said:

Well, maybe it takes a delineation of what dispensationalism is. Just like with many theologic issues, there are different streams of thought that tend to fall into narrow theologic compartments. But the focus needs to be what it is what differentiates a false dispensationalist view from a viable one? Since the scripture does make reference to dispensations, the assertion that dispensationalism being not viable is unreasonable.

That would be like saying even though the scripture mentions a Messiah, Messianic related teaching is not viable.

You might disagree with certain aspects of dispensational thought, but that doesn't invalidate the concept.

Click to expand...

Jerryhuerta said:

see post #109

Click to expand...

Copperhead said:

Ok. You believe that Israel and the church are the same, and your disagreement is regarding those who don't?

Well, there is a bit of a problem. Especially Hosea 5:14-15 combined with Yeshua's comments in Matthew 23:37-39. In Hosea, and expounded upon in Matthew, Yeshua is quite clear that He will return to His place, which implies that He left it, because of Jacob/Israel's rejection of Him.

But it also states quite clear in Hosea that along with that return to His place, it would be until Jacob/Israel acknowledges that rejection and, continuing on in Hosea 16, Jacob/Israel would have to petition for His return. That is expounded on in Matthew 23:39 which is expositional commentary on Psalms 118.

So, if the church is now Israel, when did the church reject Yeshua so that it would cause Him to return to His place and, the church being made up of only the redeemed, has to acknowledge that offense of rejection and petition for Yeshua's return? Especially since Yeshua returned to His place prior to Shavuot / Pentecost which is the accepted time that the church as a entity began?

Now, that has absolutely nothing to do with dispensationalism. it is just a clear reading of the OT and NT letting Yeshua provide all the commentary. There is a scriptural distinction, even in this day, between national, corporate Israel / Jacob and the church of Yeshua.

And when one studies out Hosea 5-6, Matthew 23:37-39 and Psalms 118, along with many other passages, it becomes pretty evident of two inescapable facts.....

1) Even if the entire world became Christian, if tiny Israel does not repent of rejecting Yeshua and petition for His return, He is not coming back.

2) Even if the entire world goes to hell, if tiny Israel repents and petitions for Yeshua's return, He will indeed return and set up the Kingdom promised.

Yeshua had been going around Israel telling them the Kingdom is near. But at Matthew 23:37-39, Yeshua tells them He had wanted to gather them and be their King, but because of their rejection, His Fathers house in now their house and it is left to them desolate. The offer to be their Messiah and King and set up the kingdom here on earth is now rescinded. They will not see Him again until they repent and petition for His return. Matthew 24-25 are the consequences of that rejection.

So it is incumbent on national corporate Israel to repent and petition for Messiah's return. That is the main purpose of the Tribulation period. To drive them to the wall. But before they do, Zechariah is clear that 2/3 of the Hebrew people will die. Twice as many as the Nazi holocaust.

And it is because of the requirement of jacob / Israel to repent and petition for the Messiah that Satan has done everything he can to destroy them in an attempt to keep the Messiah from returning.

Now, what part of all of this is dispensationalism? There is not one snippet of progressive revelation or dispensationalism. Everything Yeshua talked about this was laid out in the Prophets hundreds of years before Yeshua showed up.

Click to expand...

jgr said:

How does God distinguish and identify His Israel?

1. Jewish DNA
2. Jewish religion
3. Jewish culture
4. Faith and obedience in and to His Son?

?

Click to expand...

Copperhead said:

Really not concerned with that. Not my problem or in my pay grade. He knows who they are. And it really doesn't make much difference. Yeshua was crystal clear the conditions that would facilitate His return in Hosea and Matthew. And the church has nothing to do with it. The church did not reject Yeshua to cause Him to return to His place. And it is not the church that has to repent of that rejection and petition for His return before He will return.

You cannot find one verse or allusion anywhere in scripture that the church has anything to do with Yeshua leaving or returning. But the Torah requirement has been met.... it takes the testimony of two witnesses to establish something. And those two witnesses are the OT and NT, and from Hosea and Matthew there is a clear assertion that Israel is the key component that caused Yeshua to leave and return to the Father, and the key component to His returning.

Not the Antichrist, not the church, nothing else. No other entity but the Hebrew people can fit Hosea 5:14 - Hosea 6:2 and Matthew 23:37-39.

And if there is no longer any people that YHWH can identify as Hebrew, then Satan has won. Game over. Adn if there is no Hebrew people to petition His return, and He was not able to keep a unique Hebrew people separate for that purpose, then He is also cannot be trusted for anyone's salvation. This is all wasted time.

Click to expand...

jgr said:

If you don't know who they are, how do you know that the nation of Israel today qualifies?

Click to expand...

Copperhead said:

I never said they did. Why are you trying to sidestep the issue? Could it be that you cannot argue against the scripture I showed you? I could really care less if modern Israel is the Hebrew people that need to repent and petition for Messiah or not. It really is not the focus whether modern Israel is that Hebrew people or not. One still cannot get out of the fact that it was the Hebrew people's rejection of Yeshua that caused His returning to the Father, and it will be the Hebrew people that have to repent of that and petition for His return before He will.

Click to expand...

jgr said:

My question in post 152 was in response to your claim in post 151 that the Church is not Israel. I was seeking to know how you think God would distinguish between the two.

Click to expand...

Copperhead said:

Ok. You believe that Israel and the church are the same, and your disagreement is regarding those who don't?

Well, there is a bit of a problem. Especially Hosea 5:14-15 combined with Yeshua's comments in Matthew 23:37-39. In Hosea, and expounded upon in Matthew, Yeshua is quite clear that He will return to His place, which implies that He left it, because of Jacob/Israel's rejection of Him.

But it also states quite clear in Hosea that along with that return to His place, it would be until Jacob/Israel acknowledges that rejection and, continuing on in Hosea 16, Jacob/Israel would have to petition for His return. That is expounded on in Matthew 23:39 which is expositional commentary on Psalms 118.

So, if the church is now Israel, when did the church reject Yeshua so that it would cause Him to return to His place and, the church being made up of only the redeemed, has to acknowledge that offense of rejection and petition for Yeshua's return? Especially since Yeshua returned to His place prior to Shavuot / Pentecost which is the accepted time that the church as a entity began?

Now, that has absolutely nothing to do with dispensationalism. it is just a clear reading of the OT and NT letting Yeshua provide all the commentary. There is a scriptural distinction, even in this day, between national, corporate Israel / Jacob and the church of Yeshua.

And when one studies out Hosea 5-6, Matthew 23:37-39 and Psalms 118, along with many other passages, it becomes pretty evident of two inescapable facts.....

1) Even if the entire world became Christian, if tiny Israel does not repent of rejecting Yeshua and petition for His return, He is not coming back.

2) Even if the entire world goes to hell, if tiny Israel repents and petitions for Yeshua's return, He will indeed return and set up the Kingdom promised.

Yeshua had been going around Israel telling them the Kingdom is near. But at Matthew 23:37-39, Yeshua tells them He had wanted to gather them and be their King, but because of their rejection, His Fathers house in now their house and it is left to them desolate. The offer to be their Messiah and King and set up the kingdom here on earth is now rescinded. They will not see Him again until they repent and petition for His return. Matthew 24-25 are the consequences of that rejection.

So it is incumbent on national corporate Israel to repent and petition for Messiah's return. That is the main purpose of the Tribulation period. To drive them to the wall. But before they do, Zechariah is clear that 2/3 of the Hebrew people will die. Twice as many as the Nazi holocaust.

And it is because of the requirement of jacob / Israel to repent and petition for the Messiah that Satan has done everything he can to destroy them in an attempt to keep the Messiah from returning.

Now, what part of all of this is dispensationalism? There is not one snippet of progressive revelation or dispensationalism. Everything Yeshua talked about this was laid out in the Prophets hundreds of years before Yeshua showed up. All He did was put it together in Matthew 23:37-39.

Click to expand...

Jerryhuerta said:

The church is the vehicle to “raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel” (Isaiah 49:6). The text has it that the “Servant” accomplishes this but since Christ is the head of the church it follows that the Servant personifies the church just as he personifies Israel. There is no conflict with the texts you pose when Ephraim is recognized as the “the tribes of Jacob,” as opposed to Judah. Hosea 2 prophesies that Ephraim, the ten northern tribes, will be allured into the wilderness and there the relationship with their prior husband will be restored and be “betrothed” to him, and then he “will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.” This is also what 1 Peter 2:10 affirms.

Yet, Deuteronomy 24:4 impedes Hosea’s prophecy.

Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:4)​

The prophets also affirmed this impediment.

Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away. (Isaiah 50:1)

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord. (Jeremiah 3:1)​

Paul reveals the principle that satisfies the law.

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (Romans 7:1–4)​

Dispensationalists are ignorant of the issue that pre-incarnate Christ was the person who gave the covenant to Israel and it was to him that they were married and were released by Christ’s sacrifice.

And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. (Judges 2:1)​

Christ’s death released Ephraim (and Judah) from the law and the marriage under the Old Covenant but only Ephraim is betrothed to him and sown in the world, which is part of the source of the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13. Now read my post #126.

Click to expand...

Copperhead said:

Take a slow concerted look at Hosea 2, specifically Hosea 2:13-23. And compare that to Revelation 12:6. No, the plan is still the same. Sure, YHWH divorced Israel, but will restore Israel as His wife unto Him again.

It is still the Hebrew people that is required to repent and petition for Messiah's return before He will. One can play all the scripture gymnastics they want, but either Yeshua was lying or telling the truth. Each person has to determine that on their own.

Click to expand...