Context tells us more about the TWO women that Isaiah was writing about in verse 1
Correct
all your presentation you avoided identifying the married women by resorting to the technical detail of the ancient Jewish wedding.
Incorrect. The ancient jewish wedding example was merely there to point out the church is the Bride of Christ even prior to the wedding feast.
Maybe you didn't ready my post thoroughly enough before responding? I specifically stated, the children of the new covenant are those of the desolate and the children of the old covenant are those of the one who has a husband.
In post #267 I posted:
"Both Sarai and Hagar were wives to Abram. Sarai was the barren and hagar produced offspring.
Genesis 16:3 So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took
Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband
as a wife.
Paul connects Isaiah 54:1 to this allegory and has it fulfilled with the body of Christ under the new covenant. The children, those under the new covenant whose mother is the heavenly Jerusalem, who are of the desolate (Sarai: allegory for new covenant) are more than those children, those under the old covenant and 1st century Jerusalem, who are of the one who has a husband."
But the text,
Isaiah 54:1, is speaking of TWO women, one is barren and desolate (meaning without children) and the other is married and has children
I agree
You were unable to tell us who the married woman was.
I thought it was implied when I stated the children, those of the old covenant, are those of the one who has a husband? IS there any one else who was under the old covenant in the 1st century other than the kingdom of Judah and their proselytes?
I'll quote from post #267 again:
"Both Sarai and Hagar were wives to Abram. Sarai was the barren and hagar produced offspring.
Genesis 16:3 So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took
Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband
as a wife.
Paul connects Isaiah 54:1 to this allegory and has it fulfilled with the body of Christ under the new covenant. The children, those under the new covenant whose mother is the heavenly Jerusalem, who are of the desolate (Sarai: allegory for new covenant) are more than those children, those under the old covenant and 1st century Jerusalem, who are of the one who has a husband. "
In truth, it’s very simple, even from the “progressive revelation” that your covenantalism stems from, the married women was fulfilled by the Jewish nation, singular, that rejected Christ, which was prophesied in
Isaiah 49.
Not following your argument. In post #267, I stated the children of the old covenant are of the one who has a husband.
So it appears we agree, that it is those of the old covenant that rejected Christ, that are of woman who has a husband.
The redeemer of Israel is Christ, who was despised and rejected by all but a few men. In the eyes of God, according to
Isaiah 49:7, the
nation of Judah was prophesied to abhor Christ, which they did.
I agree. The few men of Judah, being the remnant chose by the grace of God.
Romans 11:4-5 And what was the divine reply to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In the same way,
at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.
The “remnant” of Jews that you keep espousing to try and solve your dilemma did not represent the nation of Judah. It
What dilemma? Where did I every say the Jews that accepted Christ represented the nation of Judah?
My argument the entire time is that the children of the desolate woman are the body of Christ under the new covenant, which consists of any race, ethnicity, gender, etc...
This was to counter your argument that the it was
solely Ephraim mingled with gentiles in post #207.
It was the majority who ruled Judah that represented the
nation and the Jerusalem that Paul stated was in bondage to the Old Covenant in
Galatians 4; it was they who were exiled by the Romans in 70 AD.
I absolutely agree. Even Jesus holds the scribes and teachers of the law accountable as a representation of Judah.
Matthew 23:34-36 Because of this, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and others you will flog in your synagogues and persecute in town after town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Luke 19:41-44 As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He wept over it and said, “If only you had known on this day what would bring you peace! But now it is hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will barricade you and surround you and hem you in on every side. They will level you to the ground—you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God.”
and represent the nation to this day.
can you clarify this? You believe the ethnic kingdom of Judah, who rejected Christ, still exists today?
Paul interprets
Isaiah 54:1 from a progressive revelation hermeneutic so as to mean something to the church, which is made up from people from all
nations, plural,
Good, we agree that Paul applies the barren woman of Isaiah 54 to the Church: anyone who belongs to Christ (Jew, Ephraim, Greek, etc....)
but Isaiah wrote strictly to Israelites, and passively to the gentiles in verse 3.
I agree.
The immediate context (type) = the kingdom of Israel was divorced from God and scattered by Assyria. It was of the barren and desolate woman. The kingdom of Judah remained "married" to God.
God then promised that the children of the desolate and barren would be more than that of the married.
We find the ultimate fulfillment in Christ (the antitype) = Everyone who belongs to Christ (Jew, 10 northern tribes of Israel, Greek, Scythian, barbarian, etc....) are the children of the barren woman that have, under the new covenant, become more than that of the married woman (kingdom of Judah that rejected Christ in the 1st century). For the children of the married woman, who rejected Christ to remain as a slave under the old covenant, were cast out just as hagar was.
but we can’t ignore the original intent, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, that Isaiah was addressing the circumstances of his day and what would happen in the future, the latter being what Paul wrote about.
How is the original intent being ignored? The original intent is revealed by Paul in Galatians 4. It is only through Christ that the barren woman would have more offspring than the married woman. Paul uses 2 covenants, allegorized through Sarah and hagar, to make his point. Thus it is not just Ephraim, but all who are in Christ that make up the children of the desolate.
Verses 5-8 conveys the grammatical-historical intent, which you and your covenantalism ignore, which is why we can’t expect the truth from covenantalism. The original intent of Isaiah was to convey that the future condition of the nation of Ephraim, the ten northern tribes, would not continue in the divorced, barren and desolate circumstances indefinitely.
I'm not exactly sure how "covenantalism" ignores this. The future condition of Ephraim (10 northern tribes) could only be fulfilled through Christ under the new covenant.
I believe the "everlasting kindness and mercy" are fulfilled through Christ to his body.
For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer. (
Isaiah 54:5-8)
Now you’ve acknowledged that Paul conveyed the fulfillment of
Isaiah 54:1,
Correct, that was my original counter argument of the Church (Jew, gentile, Samaritan, etc...) being of the desolate woman TO YOUR Ephraim and the gentiles being of the desolate woman in post #207.
but you have refused to deal with the grammatical-historical implications .
What grammatical-historical implications have I ignored specifically?
d then have the temerity to say I’m the one who is sidestepping, which is an ad hominem argument.
An Ad hominem argument would be if I ignored your content and instead attacked your character or motive. I have done no such thing.
In post #253, I specifically addressed the content of your post #207, and not your character. I then countered your argument of Ephraim being the nation, by using Paul's interpretation of Isaiah 54 to say that it is not JUST Ephraim, but anyone who belongs to Christ.
In post #253 I stated that Paul includes himself in the children of the desolate, as he states the heavenly Jerusalem is
OUR MOTHER in Galatians 4:26
In Post #256, you did not address Paul including himself with those who are children of the desolate woman. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin (kingdom of Judah) and not Ephraim.
The grammatical-historical intent of Isaiah’s initial prophecy was that the divorced, barren, desolate and widowhood circumstance of the ten northern tribes would not continue, but in the future their circumstance would be reversed and it would be the nation
See above, As I stated a similar thing. It appears we agree. I believe this to be fulfilled by Ephraim being a part of the body of Christ, along with Jews and Gentiles. That is the holy nation.
which inaugurates the promise to Abraham that in him “shall all families of the earth be blessed” (
Genesis 12:3).
I agree. The gospel going to the gentiles fulfills this promise made to Abraham. Paul was not from Ephraim, but Benjamin. He was an apostle to the gentiles.
Galatans 3:8-9 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and foretold the gospel to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”
b So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Your responses only perceive the progressive revelation by Paul, but without the grammatical-historical hermeneutic your responses fall short of any real advancement to the truth about what Paul actually meant.
Specifics please. what did Paul "actually mean"?
How could Ephraim be united to God (married) to receive everlasting kindness and mercy outside the body of Christ, who is the bride of the lamb?
Paul clearly states that those of the new covenant are the children of the desolate woman that are more than that of the married woman (those under the old covenant).
If we break it down by race, it would be those under the new covenant (Jews, Gentiles, scythians, 10 northern tribes, etcs.... ANYONE who belongs to Christ regardless of race) are more than that of the married woman (those of national Judah who rejected Christ and were still in slavery to the old covenant of the 1st century).
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (
Matthew 21:43)
My argument is that this nation is the body of Christ and not just Ephraim.
However, there seems to be a lot we agree on Jerry.