Dispensationalism Refuted

jgr said:

Scripture is unequivocal in identifying who the elect(ion) are. They are those of faith and obedience, who are saved by grace.

Under no conditions or circumstances are enemies of the gospel ever numbered among the elect.

Only the elect are beloved.


Luke 18:7
And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

Romans 8:33
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Colossians 3:12
Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Romans 11:7
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

1 Thessalonians 1:4
Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

1 Peter 5:13
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.

Click to expand...

This is manifestly incorrect. The word "elect" simply means "chosen." It most certainly refers to those "who shall be heirs of salvation," but it neither means, nor even implies, those that already have a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. God in His foreknowledge knows who will accept His message and when they will accept it. And those that He knows will accept this message are His elect.

jgr said:

The salient point is that there is no Scripture to be found wherein enemies of God, His Son, or His Gospel are also identified as the elect.

Click to expand...

This is factually incorrect. But even if it were correct, it would be meaningless.

Biblewriter said:

This is manifestly incorrect. The word "elect" simply means "chosen." It most certainly refers to those "who shall be heirs of salvation," but it neither means, nor even implies, those that already have a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. God in His foreknowledge knows who will accept His message and when they will accept it. And those that He knows will accept this message are His elect.




This is factually incorrect. But even if it were correct, it would be meaningless.

Click to expand...

You seem to be lacking in Scripture to support your claims.

Why is that?

claninja said:

This side steps and does not address the fact that Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 as being fulfilled with Children who are free under the new covenant. Additionally paul, from the tribe of Benjamin, includes himself has one of these children.

Click to expand...

Really! Who’s the married one? Who’s the barren and desolate one? Remember Paul testifies that the church is espoused, which means betrothed, to Christ; we are presented as a chaste virgin (2 Corinthians 11:2). The marriage supper, the wedding, doesn’t occur until Christ returns, related in Matthew 22, 25 and Revelation 19. So, who’s the barren and desolate one in Isaiah 54 who inherits the gentiles? (Here’s some clues; the gentiles can’t inherit the gentiles and the entity is anthropomorphized as a woman!) And who’s the married woman in Isaiah 54:1? This should be easy cause you don’t sidestep what is addressed. Looking substantively into these things goes beyond the shallow interpretations of those like John Gill or Matthew Henry.

jgr said:

You seem to be lacking in Scripture to support your claims.

Why is that?

Click to expand...

Because I am busy elsewhere.

Biblewriter said:

Because I am busy elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Take as much time as you need.

Everyone feel free to answer my queries, above, to claninja about Isaiah 54.

Jerryhuerta said:

Really!

Click to expand...

In post #207 you used Isaiah 54:1-3 to show that Ephraim, along with assimilated gentiles, is the nation that bears fruit.

In post #253 I counter argued that Isaiah 54:1-3 is about the body of Christ, which includes anyone who belongs to Christ (Jew, gentile, Ephraim, etc....), and not Just Ephraim. I did this by quoting Galatians 4:26-27, which has Paul quoting Isaiah 54:1 as being fulfilled with those of the new covenant. Paul states the heavenly Jerusalem is "our mother". Paul is from the tribe of Benjamin. Thus Paul includes himself with those of the barren woman (sarah which is an allegory for those under the new covenant; for sarah was barren while hagar produced an offspring).

In post #256, you did not address my argument of paul's interpretation of Isaiah 54:1 being fulfilled in the allegorical interpretation of Sarah being the barren and those under the new covenant being her children. Instead, you asked me to read Isaiah 54:5-8, which was not in your original post #207.

Jerryhuerta said:

Who’s the married one? Who’s the barren and desolate one?

Click to expand...

Paul allegorically interprets the children of Hagar, born according to the flesh, as slaves under the old covenant, and the children of Sarah, as those born through the promise, free under the new covenant.

Galatians 4:23-26 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother

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.

Galatians 4:27 For it is written,Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”

So again, according to Paul's interpretation, it's not just Ephraim, but all of those, jew or gentile, that are under the new covenant.

Jerryhuerta said:

Remember Paul testifies that the church is espoused, which means betrothed, to Christ; we are presented as a chaste virgin

Click to expand...

Correct. It's important to understand how ancient Jewish weddings worked. There was the betrothal and the wedding feast. The betrothal typically occurred much earlier than the wedding feast (7 years in the case of Jacob). However, even though the bride and bridegroom did not live together during this time, they were still considered 'married', and would need to be divorced if they decided not to go through with a future wedding feast. For example, Joseph wanted to divorce marry quietly even though the consummation/wedding feast had not occurred yet.

So to is it with the church. It is betrothed to Christ and considered married through the new covenant, even if the wedding feast is still future.

Jerryhuerta said:

The marriage supper, the wedding, doesn’t occur until Christ returns,

Click to expand...

I agree, as scripture clearly states.

Jerryhuerta said:

So, who’s the barren and desolate one in Isaiah 54 who inherits the gentiles? (Here’s some clues; the gentiles can’t inherit the gentiles and the entity is anthropomorphized as a woman!) And who’s the married woman in Isaiah 54:1?

Click to expand...

As stated above, Paul interprets Isaiah 54:1 for us. The children of the barren and desolate are those under the new covenant, children according to the promise. Just as sarai was barren but birthed Isaac according to the promise, so does Paul equate to all those being born again by the holy spirit under the new covenant.

Jerryhuerta said:

This should be easy cause you don’t sidestep what is addressed.

Click to expand...

Then please address paul's interpretation of Isaiah 54:1

Paul interprets Isaiah 54:1 for us, and therefore, that should set the precedent for us reading through Isaiah 54, with a mind unveiled.

Jerryhuerta said:

Looking substantively into these things goes beyond the shallow interpretations of those like John Gill or Matthew Henry.

Click to expand...

I didn't use either of those. While I do enjoy to read matthew henry's commentaries, I do agree they are not always detailed but very often generic.

claninja said:

In post #256, you did not address my argument of paul's interpretation of Isaiah 54:1 being fulfilled in the allegorical interpretation of Sarah being the barren and those under the new covenant being her children. Instead, you asked me to read Isaiah 54:5-8, which was not in your original post #207.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did address your interpretation by pointing out verses 5-8. We mustn’t avoid context, now, should we? Context tells us more about the TWO women that Isaiah was writing about in verse 1. In all your presentation you avoided identifying the married women by resorting to the technical detail of the ancient Jewish wedding. 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. You were unable to tell us who the married woman was. 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.


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. The “remnant” of Jews that you keep espousing to try and solve your dilemma did not represent the nation of Judah. 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 and represent the nation to this day.

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, but Isaiah wrote strictly to Israelites, and passively to the gentiles in verse 3. Of course, Paul’s intent is that the prophecy was fulfilled, 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. 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.


Now you’ve acknowledged that Paul conveyed the fulfillment of Isaiah 54:1, but you have refused to deal with the grammatical-historical implications and then have the temerity to say I’m the one who is sidestepping, which is an ad hominem argument. 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, that inherits the gentiles, verse 3, which inaugurates the promise to Abraham that in him “shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).


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.

Jerryhuerta said:

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)

Click to expand...

The kingdom was taken from the nation which rejected the "chief cornerstone", and was given to the "holy nation", which accepts the "chief cornerstone" in the passage below.


1Pe 2:4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious,
1Pe 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHIEF CORNERSTONE, ELECT, PRECIOUS, AND HE WHO BELIEVES ON HIM WILL BY NO MEANS BE PUT TO SHAME."
1Pe 2:7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE,"
1Pe 2:8 and "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
1Pe 2:10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

.

Jerryhuerta said:

Context tells us more about the TWO women that Isaiah was writing about in verse 1

Click to expand...

Correct

Jerryhuerta said:

all your presentation you avoided identifying the married women by resorting to the technical detail of the ancient Jewish wedding.

Click to expand...

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."

Jerryhuerta said:

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

Click to expand...

I agree

Jerryhuerta said:

You were unable to tell us who the married woman was.

Click to expand...

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. "

Jerryhuerta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jerryhuerta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jerryhuerta said:

The “remnant” of Jews that you keep espousing to try and solve your dilemma did not represent the nation of Judah. It

Click to expand...

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.

Jerryhuerta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.”

Jerryhuerta said:

and represent the nation to this day.

Click to expand...

can you clarify this? You believe the ethnic kingdom of Judah, who rejected Christ, still exists today?

Jerryhuerta said:

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,

Click to expand...

Good, we agree that Paul applies the barren woman of Isaiah 54 to the Church: anyone who belongs to Christ (Jew, Ephraim, Greek, etc....)

Jerryhuerta said:

but Isaiah wrote strictly to Israelites, and passively to the gentiles in verse 3.

Click to expand...

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.

Jerryhuerta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jerryhuerta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Jerryhuerta said:

Now you’ve acknowledged that Paul conveyed the fulfillment of Isaiah 54:1,

Click to expand...

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.

Jerryhuerta said:

but you have refused to deal with the grammatical-historical implications .

Click to expand...

What grammatical-historical implications have I ignored specifically?

Jerryhuerta said:

d then have the temerity to say I’m the one who is sidestepping, which is an ad hominem argument.

Click to expand...

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.

Jerryhuerta said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Jerryhuerta said:

which inaugurates the promise to Abraham that in him “shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3).

Click to expand...

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.

Jerryhuerta said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Jerryhuerta said:

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)

Click to expand...

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.

claninja said:

However, there seems to be a lot we agree on Jerry.

Click to expand...

I must apologize for missing your acknowledgment that the married woman in Isaiah 54 represented the Jerusalem in bondage (Galatians 4). And I think you conceded she also represented Judah, the nation? But your affirmations are tenuous at best and still not meeting the grammatical-historical intent of Isaiah, which misinterprets Paul’s intent. In the principal sense, how can the Jews, gentiles, and Scythians (who are gentiles) be analogized to a woman who was forsaken and grieved in spirit in Isaiah’s time? In the principal sense, how were the aforesaid people a wife of youth that was forsaken by God, divorced, in Isaiah’s time? In the principal sense, how did God, in wrath, hide his face from these people in Isaiah’s time and then show mercy upon them in Paul’s time? The answer to these queries is that God did not do any such thing with these people in Isaiah’s time and then have mercy upon them in Paul’s time. In the principal sense, the grammatical-historical sense, it was only Ephraim, the ten northern tribes that fulfills all of the aforesaid in Isaiah’s time and then Paul’s time. We find the part of the gentiles in verse 3.


In a derived sense, the seed is Christ, but in the principal sense, the seed represents Abrahams descendants, the ten northern tribes of Ephraim.


The kingdom was taken from Judah and given to the nation who inherits the gentiles, Ephraim.

Jerryhuerta said:

I must apologize for missing your acknowledgment that the married woman in Isaiah 54 represented the Jerusalem in bondage (Galatians 4).

Click to expand...

No worries

Jerryhuerta said:

And I think you conceded she also represented Judah, the nation?

Click to expand...

Concede is not the right word, as I already believed Judah was the woman and her children in slavery to the old covenant prior to our discussion.

Jerryhuerta said:

But your affirmations are tenuous at best and still not meeting the grammatical-historical intent of Isaiah, which misinterprets Paul’s intent.

Click to expand...

This is a generic statement, maybe try to be a little more specific when you point out an issue. I could say the same about you and generically state your affirmations misinterpret Paul's intent.

Paul, from the tribe of Benjamin from the kingdom of Judah, includes himself in the children of the desolate woman (sarah, allegorically the new covenant). Paul even states the heavenly Jerusalem is OUR mother, and then goes into Isaiah 54:1: FOR IT IS WRITTEN.

Galatians 4:26-27 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is OUR mother. For it is written: “Rejoice, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have never travailed; because more are the children of the desolate woman,

By Paul, who was not Ephraim, including himself in the children of the barren woman, we see the true interpretation of Isaiah 54 does not only include Ephraim, but all those who belong to Christ under the new covenant.

Jerryhuerta said:

In the principal sense, how can the Jews, gentiles, and Scythians (who are gentiles) be analogized to a woman who was forsaken and grieved in spirit in Isaiah’s time?

Click to expand...

Isaiah 54:1 Shout for joy, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth into song and cry aloud, you who have never travailed; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband,”

I believe there are 2 ways to interpret prophecy: 1. the type (immediate context) and 2. the antitype (fulfillment in Christ)

The principle (type) or immediate context is the nation of Israel in Isaiah's day, which had been split into 2 kingdoms: north and south. God had divorced the northern kingdom, but the southern kingdom remained married to God.

The purpose of God remaining married to Judah is ultimately revealed in Christ, who is the true seed of Abraham

Genesis 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the staff from between his feet

Galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,”g meaning One, who is Christ.

in the immediate context, the principle, the type, God promised to make the descendants of the barren woman more than that of the married.

****So in the principle sense (immediate context), PRIOR to revealing the mystery that gentiles were to be included, the descendants of the barren woman would be from the northern kingdom.

So how could the 10 northern tribes have more descendants than Judah, especially when the northern kingdom had been scattered for several hundred years? Through the fulfillment of the antitype (Christ)

Through Judah's rejection of the messiah, the nations would come to Christ.
Romans 11:11 I ask then, did they stumble so as to lose their share? Certainly not! However, because of their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous

And these nations (10 northern tribes and gentiles) would be grafted into the olivet root, because of Christ.
Romans 11:17 Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root

Thus fulfilling Isaiah 54 that the children of the barren would be more numerous than those of the married woman. For the body of Christ became more numerous than the kingdom of Judah, which rejected Jesus.

Jerryhuerta said:

In the principal sense, how were the aforesaid people a wife of youth that was forsaken by God, divorced, in Isaiah’s time?

Click to expand...

***In the principle sense, which is the type or immediate context, which was prior to revealing the mystery that the gentiles would be included, it would not have been understood as the barren woman and her children being of those outside of Israel

Jerryhuerta said:

In the principal sense, the grammatical-historical sense, it was only Ephraim,

Click to expand...

I agree, within the immediate confines of the type or principal sense it was about the northern kingdom. The immediate type is prior to knowledge of the mystery that through the gospel, the gentiles would become heirs and fellow partakers in Christ.

Ephesians 3:5-6 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.

Jerryhuerta said:

In a derived sense, the seed is Christ, but in the principal sense, the seed represents Abrahams descendants, the ten northern tribes of Ephraim.

Click to expand...

I agree. And I would add the derived sense (or antitype) is the true fulfillment.

Jerryhuerta said:

The kingdom was taken from Judah and given to the nation who inherits the gentiles, Ephraim.

Click to expand...

It is Jesus that inherits the nations, for he is the heir of all things

Psalm 2:7-8 I will tell of the decree:The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.

Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world

And if we are God's children we are co-heir with Christ.

Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Thus, those that are in Christ (Jew, Gentile, Ephraim, etc.....) are co heirs with Christ.



By Ephraim being included in the body of Christ through the new covenant, Isaiah 54 is fulfilled.

claninja said:

Thus, those that are in Christ (Jew, Gentile, Ephraim, etc.....) are co heirs with Christ.

By Ephraim being included in the body of Christ through the new covenant, Isaiah 54 is fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Hello claninja.
Concerning Ephraim, that was discussed over on this other thread if thou art interested..

Battle of Dual Covenant Theology and the Charge of "Replacement Theology"

Jerryhuerta said: ↑
Christ is the Servant that is tasked to "raise up the tribes of Jacob" at the time the "nation" Judah is ordained to abhor the Redeemer (Isaiah 49:6-7). Clearly, Jacob is also Ephraim that is desolate, captive, and removing to and fro (v.21), which we also see in Isaiah 54:1. The Servant is also tasked to be a light to the Gentiles, that he may be God's salvation unto the end of the earth (v. 6). All of which was ordained for the first advent.
======
jgr said: ↑
If “Ephraim” can explicitly appear as the name of a New Testament city, then there is no reason that it should not also explicitly appear in association with what you espouse, which is of far greater
Such espousal thus constitutes an importation of “interpretation by imagination” of the type so frequently seen in the dispensational genre.
What is replacement theology, and how is it heresy?
=======

Ephraim and Dan are not mentioned in Revelation.......Here is some info on Ephraim.......

Zec 9
10 I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
And the horse from Jerusalem; [Revelation 18:10-13]
The battle bow shall be cut off.
He shall speak peace to the nations;
His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth.'[fn]
13 For I have bent Judah, My bow, Fitted the bow with Ephraim,
And raised up your sons, O Zion, Against your sons, O Greece,
And made you like the sword of a mighty man.”
==================
Paul's tribe of Benjamin is stationed with both Ephraim and Manasseh on the west side, the side the Holy of Holies is located at,
and just opposite of Judah on the east side where the entrance gate is.

Num 2:18
3 “On the east side, toward the rising of the sun, those of the standard of the forces with Judah shall camp according to their armies; and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be the leader of the children of Judah.”
18 “On the west side the standard of the forces with Ephraim according to their armies, and the leader of the children of Ephraim shall be Elishama the son of Ammihud.
===================
The tribe of Levi eventually joined with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin to comprise the Southern priestly kingdom, creating the House/Kingdom of Judah

Hebrew 7:14
For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah,
and in regard to that tribe, Moses said nothing about priests.





The Great City/Harlot/Queen Revelation chapts 17-19

Revelation 18:
10 From afar<3113> having stood because of the fear of the tormenting<929> of Her saying
"Woe! woe! the great City Babylon! the strong City!
That to one hour came the judging<2920> of Thee.

12 Cargo of gold and silver,................................
13 .....................................
and wheat and cattle and sheep
and of horses and of chariots
and of bodies and souls of men.

I must say that I was more careful to read your response so that I wouldn’t make the same mistake as before and overlook that you did address my queries. Again, I asked three questions to show in the principal sense the desolate woman cannot be interpreted as the gentiles but must be resolved as Ephraim, the 10 northern tribes. You did affirm this on one hand.

claninja said:

The principle (type) or immediate context is the nation of Israel in Isaiah's day, which had been split into 2 kingdoms: north and south. God had divorced the northern kingdom, but the southern kingdom remained married to God.

Click to expand...

But, on the other hand, you stated that it did not represent Ephraim.

claninja said:

By Paul, who was not Ephraim, including himself in the children of the barren woman, we see the true interpretation of Isaiah 54 does not only include Ephraim, but all those who belong to Christ under the new covenant.

Click to expand...

It’s a given that the gentiles are included as the children of “Jerusalem which is above” (they inherit them) but the NT does not change the interpretation of Isaiah as you assert. Paul does not have to be a literal descendant of Ephraim to be viewed as a child of the desolate woman in an allegory. After all, Paul does preface what he is stating is an allegory in verse 24. Isaiah prophecy is also an allegory because Israel is not a literal woman. In truth, the desolate woman in Isaiah’s allegory can only be properly interpreted as Sarah, the “Jerusalem which is above,” in Paul’s allegory. That is what you are remiss in. Again, Paul does not have to be a literal descendant of Ephraim to viewed as a child of the desolate woman in the allegory; it’s merely an allegory. In the allegory Sarah is the “Jerusalem which is above” and the Hagar is the “Jerusalem which now is.” You’ve conceded that the latter was fulfilled by the nation of Judah but are remiss in identifying Sarah as Israel/Ephraim in Isaiah’s allegory because Paul was a child of Judah, a Benjamite. In order to make your point, above, you must shift from an allegory to a literal account, without warrant.

Your shift to a literal account destroys the original intent, the principal sense, of Isaiah and has Paul affirm that Isaiah’s prophecy was not fulfilled, which is a non-sequitur! Paul relates that Isaiah 54:1 was being fulfilled. It’s simply poor exegesis to say that it was not being fulfilled and that’s why Paul cited it; that's what your asserting. Ephraim is the nation that bears the fruit of the vineyard and the gentiles are the fruit.

Jerryhuerta said:

Ephraim is the nation that bears the fruit of the vineyard and the gentiles are the fruit.

Click to expand...

The "son" is the "heir" to the vineyard.

Mat 21:33 "Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.
Mat 21:34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit.
Mat 21:35 And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another.
Mat 21:36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them.
Mat 21:37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.'
Mat 21:38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.'
Mat 21:39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
Mat 21:40 "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?"
Mat 21:41 They said to Him, "He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons."

.

Jerryhuerta said:

Again, I asked three questions to show in the principal sense the desolate woman cannot be interpreted as the gentiles but must be resolved as Ephraim, the 10 northern tribes. You did affirm this on one hand.

Click to expand...

Isaiah wrote during the time Assyria had taken the northern kingdom. During Isaiah's time the northern kingdom was still distinctly from the people of Israel. Thus, in the principal sense (the type), Isaiah was prophesying to those people, who were distinctly of Israel.

Fast forward ~700 years to Paul's time, where the northern kingdom was dispersed throughout Europe and Asia and intermingled with many different races and religions. After 700 years many of them would no longer be distinctly Israel, but a much different people, genetically, culturally, and religiously.

So how does God fulfill his promise in Isaiah 54 to make the northern kingdom have more children than the southern kingdom if the northern kingdom does not exist?

By being fulfilled in the ultimate sense (antitype) through Christ, where race, tribe, or genealogy no longer matter. Only being in Christ matters.

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

Colossians 3:10-11 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and is in all.

The children of the new covenant consist of Jew, Ephraim, Gentile, etc... and are more than that of the children of the old covenant, thus fulfilling Isaiah 54.

Jerryhuerta said:

But, on the other hand, you stated that it did not represent Ephraim.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, re-read the red highlighted section you quoted. I stated the true interpretation of Isaiah 54 does not ONLY include Ephraim, especially considering Isaiah 54 makes no mention of Ephraim

"the true interpretation of Isaiah 54 does not ONLY include Ephraim, BUT all those who belong to Christ under the new covenant."

Jerryhuerta said:

It’s a given that the gentiles are included as the children of “Jerusalem which is above”

Click to expand...

Good, we agree that the gentiles are included in the new covenant whose mother is the Jerusalem from above.

Galatians 4:24-26 These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present-day Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Jerryhuerta said:

but the NT does not change the interpretation of Isaiah as you assert.

Click to expand...

I have never asserted the NT changes the interpretation of Isaiah 54. I have only asserted that Paul reveals how to interpret Isaiah 54.

Jerryhuerta said:

Paul does not have to be a literal descendant of Ephraim to be viewed as a child of the desolate woman in an allegory.

Click to expand...

Good, we agree.

So what makes someone a descendent of the desolate woman, if Paul is included as one of her descendents?

Jerryhuerta said:

Isaiah prophecy is also an allegory because Israel is not a literal woman. In truth, the desolate woman in Isaiah’s allegory can only be properly interpreted as Sarah, the “Jerusalem which is above,” in Paul’s allegory

Click to expand...

I agree, this has been my point the entire time.

Jerryhuerta said:

That is what you are remiss in.

Click to expand...

Not sure how that is what I am remiss in, considering it's been my point the entire time.

Jerryhuerta said:

Paul does not have to be a literal descendant of Ephraim to viewed as a child of the desolate woman in the allegory; it’s merely an allegory

Click to expand...

Again, we agree.

Jerryhuerta said:

In the allegory Sarah is the “Jerusalem which is above” and the Hagar is the “Jerusalem which now is.”

Click to expand...

I agree

Jerryhuerta said:

You’ve conceded that the latter was fulfilled by the nation of Judah

Click to expand...

Again, conceded is the wrong word.

Definition of concede: admit that something is true or valid after first denying or resisting it. OR
surrender or yield (something that one possesses).

I never resisted nor denied that Judah, those of the old covenant in the 1st century, were the children under slavery in the allegory of hagar. I have always held that the children of hagar in Paul's allegory was 1st century Judaism under the old covenant.

So why do you keep stating I conceded that?

Jerryhuerta said:

remiss in identifying Sarah as Israel/Ephraim in Isaiah’s allegory because Paul was a child of Judah, a Benjamite.

Click to expand...

Not following you here Jerry. My argument the entire time has been that Sarah, the barren woman, represents the heavenly Jerusalem whose children are those of the new covenant. Hagar, the married woman, represents 1st century Jerusalem whose children were those of the old covenant.

The children under the new covenant are more numerous than that of the old covenant, thus Paul has Isaiah 54 fulfilled.

Jerryhuerta said:

Your shift to a literal account destroys the original intent, the principal sense, of Isaiah and has Paul affirm that Isaiah’s prophecy was not fulfilled, which is a non-sequitur!

Click to expand...

I disagree. Again:

My argument the entire time has been that Sarah, the barren woman, represents the heavenly Jerusalem whose children are those of the new covenant. Hagar, the married woman, represents 1st century Jerusalem whose children were those of the old covenant.

The children under the new covenant are more numerous than that of the old covenant, thus Paul has Isaiah 54 fulfilled.


What would be non sequitar is to disconnect the allegory of Sarah and hagar from paul's use of Isaiah 54. The allegory helps us understand how to appropriately interpret Isaiah 54.

Jerryhuerta said:

Paul relates that Isaiah 54:1 was being fulfilled.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. That's the point I have been making the entire time: that paul cites Isaiah 54 as being fulfilled in the 1st century: the children of the new covenant are more numerous than the children of the old covenant.

Jerryhuerta said:

It’s simply poor exegesis to say that it was not being fulfilled and that’s why Paul cited it; that's what your asserting.

Click to expand...

That's a completely false statement. I have never said it was not being fulfilled.

I believe Paul cited Isaiah 54 as fulfilled. My argument the entire time as been that the children of the desolate woman (the body of Christ under the new covenant) are more than that of the married woman (1st century judiasm that rejected Christ).

Jerryhuerta said:

and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles,

Click to expand...

Jesus is the seed that inherits all things, it is Jesus that inherits the nations

Psalm 2:7-8 will proclaim the decree spoken to Me by the LORD: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father. Ask Me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance,

Hebrews 1:2 But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.

The body of Christ is co-heir with Jesus

Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ

claninja said:

Fast forward ~700 years to Paul's time, where the northern kingdom was dispersed throughout Europe and Asia and intermingled with many different races and religions. After 700 years many of them would no longer be distinctly Israel, but a much different people, genetically, culturally, and religiously.

So how does God fulfill his promise in Isaiah 54 to make the northern kingdom have more children than the southern kingdom if the northern kingdom does not exist?

By being fulfilled in the ultimate sense (antitype) through Christ, where race, tribe, or genealogy no longer matter. Only being in Christ matters.

Click to expand...

You only seem fit to maintain the scepter shall not depart from Judah but are remiss that Ephraim and Manasseh have the first-born rights.


Part of the birthright of the firstborn is to receive a double portion when the inheritance of Jacob is divided.


Isaiah prophesied of Joseph’s double portion and how his seed, Ephraim and Manasseh, would gain fame among the Gentiles.


God prophesied the complete opposite of what you have been taught by false teachers. In truth, the Jews were aware of the whereabouts of the 10 tribes at the first advent.



The Jews of the first-century knew where the descendants of the 10 tribes were dwelling and that’s where Peter went to spread the gospel according to his epistles.


Paul wrote to the Galatians, where, according to Peter, there were elect exiles of the dispersion, which can only mean the apostles knew where the descendants of the 10 tribes were in the first century. Even the first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus wrote, “the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers" (Antiquities of the Jews, 11.133). After that, they continued to move westward into Europe and intermingled with many different races but they took the gospel with them, contrary to the false teachers from where you got your information.

In response to my comment that you stated that the desolate woman does not represent Ephraim, you wrote.

claninja said:

Incorrect, re-read the red highlighted section you quoted. I stated the true interpretation of Isaiah 54does not ONLY include Ephraim, especially considering Isaiah 54 makes no mention of Ephraim

"the true interpretation of Isaiah 54 does not ONLY include Ephraim, BUT all those who belong to Christ under the new covenant."

Click to expand...

Either the desolate woman represents Ephraim, the ten northern tribes, or it does not. A part does not equal a whole. You know this to be true, which indicates that you did say the desolate woman does not represent Ephraim. Only the aggregate of the ten northern tribes was the wife of youth who was refused, divorced, and cast out of the land. Neither Judah or the gentiles fit the context and the description of the barren and desolate women. From the beginning I’ve maintained we mustn’t avoid the context, which is precisely what your analysis does. As I’ve confirmed to your dismay, the gentiles represent those whom Ephraim inherits, verse 3, and Judah represents the married women. Proper exegesis does not allow their shuffling.

claninja said:

I have never asserted the NT changes the interpretation of Isaiah 54. I have only asserted that Paul reveals how to interpret Isaiah 54.

Click to expand...

Shuffling the personas in Isaiah 54 changes the interpretation.

I made the statement, in which you agreed, that Isaiah 54 and Galatians 4:22-31 represent two allegories in which Paul relates Sarah as the barren and desolate woman in Isaiah 54 and Hagar represents the married woman. But you balked at my comment that you’ve taken Paul’s allegory to destroy the original intent, the grammatical-historical sense of Isaiah.

claninja said:

I disagree. Again:

My argument the entire time has been that Sarah, the barren woman, represents the heavenly Jerusalem whose children are those of the new covenant. Hagar, the married woman, represents 1st century Jerusalem whose children were those of the old covenant.

The children under the new covenant are more numerous than that of the old covenant, thus Paul has Isaiah 54 fulfilled.

What would be non sequitar is to disconnect the allegory of Sarah and hagar from paul's use of Isaiah 54. The allegory helps us understand how to appropriately interpret Isaiah 54.

Click to expand...

As stated above, you have destroyed the original intent by trying to make part of the desolate woman equal to her whole, when the whole is the only entity in the allegory that was a wife of youth who was refused, divorced, and cast out of the land. Neither Judah or the gentiles fit the context and the description of the barren and desolate women that represents the 10 northern tribes.

You have fallen into the problem with allegories in that their literal intent is often overlooked and even suppressed by poor theologians; this is pervasive in Covenantalism or Replacement theology. They over spiritualize and suppress the grammatical-historical intent. While Sarah was barren and desolate, she was not a wife of youth who was refused, divorced, and cast out of the land. Paul doesn’t employ his allegory to maintain that Ephraim is only part of the Jerusalem which is above. Paul employs the allegory to show that Sarah was persecuted by Hagar just as the Judaizers were persecuting the descendants of the 10 northern tribes in Galatia, the children of the promise. This is the meaning of the allegory and not that Paul changed the meaning of Isaiah. As stated above, Peter testifies that the elect exiles of the dispersion were in Galatia, which means that the Judaizers were persecuting the children of the promise, who inherit the gentiles according to Isaiah: Ephraim, the descendants of the 10 tribes. Paul cites Isaiah 54:1 to reveal the additional revelation that the married women persecutes the barren and desolate one, just like Hagar did with Sarah, and that is the object of Paul’s allegory and nothing more and if one continues to spiritualize it, they inevitably destroy the original intent, the grammatical-historical sense of Isaiah, as you do.

BABerean2 said:

The "son" is the "heir" to the vineyard.

Mat 21:33 "Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.
Mat 21:34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit.
Mat 21:35 And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another.
Mat 21:36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them.
Mat 21:37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.'
Mat 21:38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.'
Mat 21:39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
Mat 21:40 "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?"
Mat 21:41 They said to Him, "He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons."

.

Click to expand...

When did I mention the heir? My issue is who is the nation that bears the fruit, which according to scripture, none other than Ephraim. 1 Peter 2:9-10.

Jerryhuerta said:

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)

Click to expand...

The only and the correct conclusion obtainable from this clear statement of Jesus, is that the Jews have lost the Kingdom permanently, and the nation' that is: the entire people of God, inherit the Kingdom. Romans 8:16-18, +
They, we Christians; are the ones who bear the fruit of the Spirit, Galatians 5:2-28, Romans 7:4

Jerryhuerta said:

You only seem fit to maintain the scepter shall not depart from Judah but are remiss that Ephraim and Manasseh have the first-born rights.

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's: ) 1 Chronicles 5:1-2

Click to expand...

Under the new covenant ,genealogies are useless

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the law, because these things are pointless and worthless.

Christ is the seed (singular) to whom the promises were spoken to

Galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,” meaning One, who is Christ.

Jerryhuerta said:

Part of the birthright of the firstborn is to receive a double portion when the inheritance of Jacob is divided.

And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow. Genesis 48:21-22

Click to expand...

I agree that Joseph was given a double portion by Jacob.

Jerryhuerta said:

Isaiah prophesied of Joseph’s double portion and how his seed, Ephraim and Manasseh, would gain fame among the Gentiles.

For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them. For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed. Isaiah 61:7-9

Click to expand...

I disagree that this refers to only Ephraim and Manasseh, especially considering this does not mention specifically the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. You seem to forcing the interpretation of Jacob giving Joseph a double portion to God giving the tribes of Ephraim and Manessah a double portion in the future.

I would argue that this everlasting covenant in Isaiah 61 is the covenant that releases the prisoners and restores the double portion is the new covenant through the work of the blood of the King who is Christ.

Zechariah 9:9-12 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your King comes to you, righteous and victorious, gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem, and the bow of war will be broken. Then He will proclaim peace to the nations; His dominion will extend from sea to sea, and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth. As for you,
because of the blood of My covenant, I will release your prisoners from the waterless pit.Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope; even today I declare that I will restore to you double.

Jerryhuerta said:

God prophesied the complete opposite of what you have been taught by false teachers. In truth, the Jews were aware of the whereabouts of the 10 tribes at the first advent.

Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come. Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? John 7:33-35

Click to expand...

I never said the Jews were unaware of the whereabouts of the 10 tribes.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion:

Notice, in my last post, I said many, not all:

"After 700 years many of them would no longer be distinctly Israel, but a much different people, genetically, culturally, and religiously."

additionally, I disagree that those in the dispersion were only the 10 northern tribes. I believe all 12 tribes could be found in the dispersion.

Acts 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.
James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion

Jerryhuerta said:

After that, they continued to move westward into Europe and intermingled with many different races but they took the gospel with them, contrary to the false teachers from where you got your information.

Click to expand...

Strawman arguments are easy to tear down.

Jerryhuerta said:

Either the desolate woman represents Ephraim, the ten northern tribes, or it does not. A part does not equal a whole. You know this to be true, which indicates that you did say the desolate woman does not represent Ephraim.

Click to expand...

How can the children of Ephraim be more than those of Judah outside of the new covenant?

Jerryhuerta said:

From the beginning I’ve maintained we mustn’t avoid the context, which is precisely what your analysis does.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe you avoid the context in which paul interprets Isaiah 54:1. I'll take paul's word over yours.

Jerryhuerta said:

s I’ve confirmed to your dismay, the gentiles represent those whom Ephraim inherits, verse 3, and Judah represents the married women.

Click to expand...

You have not confirmed that Ephraim inherits the gentiles. you have not provided a single verse that specifically states "Ephraim" will inherit the nations.

Isaiah 54:3 states your offspring (singular) will inherit the nations. The offspring is Christ.

Psalm 2:7-8 will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,

Hebrews 1:2 in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world

Jerryhuerta said:

made the statement, in which you agreed, that Isaiah 54 and Galatians 4:22-31 represent two allegories in which Paul relates Sarah as the barren and desolate woman in Isaiah 54 and Hagar represents the married woman.

Click to expand...

Paul uses the allegory to teach us how to interpret Isaiah 54:1.

Jerryhuerta said:

But you balked at my comment that you’ve taken Paul’s allegory to destroy the original intent, the grammatical-historical sense of Isaiah.

Click to expand...

Jerusalem above is our mother FOR IT IS WRITTEN......We cannot separate the allegory from Isaiah 54:1.

Paul includes himself in the children of the desolate one. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin, not Ephraim.

galatians 4:26-27 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

Jerryhuerta said:

As stated above, you have destroyed the original intent

Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe you have destroyed the true interpretation. You seem to separate the use of the Allegory in Galatians 4 to explain the interpretation of Isaiah 54:1.

Jerryhuerta said:

You have fallen into the problem with allegories in that their literal intent is often overlooked and even suppressed by poor theologians; this is pervasive in Covenantalism or Replacement theology.

Click to expand...

Again, strawman arguments are easy to tear down.

Jerryhuerta said:

Paul employs the allegory to show that Sarah was persecuted by Hagar just as the Judaizers were persecuting the descendants of the 10 northern tribes in Galatia, the children of the promise.

Click to expand...

I would argue not just the descendents of the 10 northern tribes, but those under the New covenant.

Jerryhuerta said:

Paul cites Isaiah 54:1 to reveal the additional revelation that the married women persecutes the barren and desolate one, just like Hagar did with Sarah, and that is the object of Paul’s allegory and nothing more and if one continues to spiritualize it, they inevitably destroy the original intent, the grammatical-historical sense of Isaiah, as you do.

Click to expand...

Paul uses the allegory of 2 covenants to explain Isaiah 54:1. By saying the children of the desolate only refers to Ephraim you contradict Paul, who includes himself in children of the desolate woman.

galatians 4:24 this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants.

Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother