Dispensationalism Refuted

Biblewriter said:

No gotcha here at all. As I said, if you had the slightest understanding of the system you are attacking, you would never make such foolish statements as imagining that this somehow disproves Dispensationalism.

Click to expand...

I asked questions.

Answer them.

Biblewriter said:

No gotcha here at all. As I said, if you had the slightest understanding of the system you are attacking, you would never make such foolish statements as imagining that this somehow disproves Dispensationalism.

Click to expand...

You're right Biblewriter. It's Paul who refutes dispensationalism, and he does it over and over and over!

ebedmelech said:

You're right Biblewriter. It's Paul who refutes dispensationalism, and he does it over and over and over!

Click to expand...

Actually, Dispensationalism was clearly taught in the inspired epistles of Paul.

thecolorsblend said:

I asked questions.

Answer them.

Click to expand...

It would be more polite to phrase this as a request, rather than as a demand.

Biblewriter said:

It would be more polite to phrase this as a request, rather than as a demand.

Click to expand...

I phrased them as questions already and you didn’t reply. So... yeah.

thecolorsblend said:

I phrased them as questions already and you didn’t reply. So... yeah.

Click to expand...

I will get to them when I can. But I am very busy right now in writing ministry for people who actually believe everything God said, rather than just part of what He said.

Biblewriter said:

I will get to them when I can. But I am very busy right now in writing ministry for people who actually believe everything God said, rather than just part of what He said.

Click to expand...

The New Covenant: Bob George

Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

.

Biblewriter said:

I will get to them when I can. But I am very busy right now in writing ministry for people who actually believe everything God said, rather than just part of what He said.

Click to expand...

It looks like you have time to explain why you don't have time. You also have time to make passive-aggressive swipes.

But time for answering some simple questions, oh boy, that's a challenge, eh?

Biblewriter said:

Actually, Dispensationalism was clearly taught in the inspired epistles of Paul.

Click to expand...

Actually no. Dispensationalism contorts what Paul teaches in the scriptures to their theology. A classic is the "two peoples of God" theology. Paul never taught that...and it's a shame that it's taught!

ebedmelech said:

Well first...let me state your idea of "replacement theology" is a misnomer when it comes to me. Theologically no one replaced anyone. Christ came in the fullness of time...and just as John 1:11-13 says. Under the New Covenant those who come to Christ are children of God regardless of Jew or Gentile...there is no difference. Reference Ephesians 2:11-22.

Click to expand...

Initially, Christ did not come for the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). It was only later that the Gentiles are included through a revelation to Peter (Acts 10:10-`16, 35). And of course, a council had to be held to determine whether they were going to have the Gentiles convert to Judaism and decided against the Old Covenant ministration (Act 15). What we have, more accurately, was that the New Covenant was initially established with the biological descendants with the intent of inevitably gathering in the gentiles, which is precisely what the Old Testament prophecies. You might read both treads where I posted and see this is exactly what I’ve substantiated from both Testaments.

ebedmelech said:

As to Romans 9:8 and Romans 8:1..no they are not idiomatic. How could that be? The context determines they are not. Paul set the terms in Romans 9:1-5. In that case "according to the flesh" simply refers to being born of human flesh or substance. The context shows that. Christ came according to the flesh...IOW, He was born of a woman as all humans are. This doesn't mean Christ was sinful...and the context will not allow that. "Children of the flesh" in Romans 9:8 is making the point that just because Jews are descendants of Abraham doesn't make them children of God. All one needs to do is hold to the context, following Paul logically.

OTOH, in Romans 8:1 the context of Romans 7 remains, where the context determines it's speaking of sinful fleshly desire.. The Greek is the word "sarx" and context determines how it's to be understood.

Click to expand...

Your perception of Romans 9:1-5 as it pertains to verse 8 epitomizes “replacement theology.” Your perception does not maintain the context at all, for instance:


The statement “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” clearly denotes that “some are Israel”, the children of the promise that Paul conveys as “called” in verse 24, above, the beloved in verse 25, God’s people in 26, the remnant “seed,” the collective sense, in verse 29. Conversely, the “children of the flesh” are noted as those who sought righteousness by attempting to keep the law, verses 30-33. Romans 9 clearly substantiates the phrases “children of the promise” versus the “children of the flesh” convey what Christ revealed: many are called but few are chosen, your perception of “sarx” notwithstanding.

ebedmelech said:

This is simply refers to how the gospel went out. Christ came to is own first, and He made that very clear...just as John 1:11 asserts.

Click to expand...

Just as I asserted above, which conveys it was the mission of Israel to gather in the gentiles, which is what I’ve been developing in two thread, this one and Battle of Dual Covenant Theology and the Charge of "Replacement Theology."

ebedmelech said:

So am I...however I'm a spiritual Jew!

Click to expand...

While perceivable in an allegorical sense, the claim is commonly abused in “replacement theology.”

claninja said:

Fallacious argument? so I am mistaken that all 12 tribes were in the dispersion? I disagree, as Acts 2 and James 1 make it very clear that it was not just the 10 northern tribes in the dispersion:

Click to expand...

Your assertion is fallacious because it suppresses the grammatical-historical hermeneutic that substantiates the nation in 1 Peter 2:9-10 is the northern kingdom, as Peter cites directly from Hosea 2:23. Judah is never spoken of as having been divorced; it is never spoken of having no mercy and not being a people of God prior to the first advent, refugees notwithstanding. These descriptions are specifically applied to the northern nation under the Old Covenant. And the grammatical-historical hermeneutic can explain the dissolution of the brotherhood between Judah and Israel/Ephraim in Zechariah 11:14, which your perceptions of the “Jerusalem which above” cannot reconcile without ad hoc explanations.

In referring to my exegesis that the term “seed” in Galatians 3:16, 29 and Isaiah 54:3 have a “singular” as well as a “collective” sense you obviously failed to grasp my exegesis.

claninja said:

If you exclusively mean the 10 northern tribes, then I disagree.

If you mean Ephraim/Israel as in the body of the Christ (those from the house of Judah, those from the house of Israel, and gentiles, who are in Christ), then I agree.

Click to expand...

Galatians 3:29 clearly has a “collective sense,” as in “a body” or “people.”


But Paul cites Genesis 22:18 in his verse 16, which is before the time of Christ. The point being is the “seed” is not only singular in Genesis 22:18 but collective and represents the elect descendants of Abraham, as it cannot at the same time represent the gentiles, who are distinguished as blessed by the seed/descendants. The grammatical interpretation does not allow for destroying this distinction between the “seed,” when used collectively for the biological descendants of Abraham, and the gentiles in Genesis 22:18 and this is what you are attempting to assert with Isaiah 54:3. The “seed” inherits the gentiles; the “seed” cannot be the gentiles at the same time, too. And the “seed” cannot be the woman who is married, either. That type of thinking hurts my head but if you want to live with it, so be it. The seed in Isaiah 54:3 is clearly Ephraim when the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is obeyed and progressive revelation does not suppress it. It's not a true progressive revelation if it attempts to suppress the grammatical-historical sense.

The rest of your post is merely a poor attempt to suppress the clear evidence that the “Jerusalem which is above” is the Zion in Isaiah, who is illustrated as being raised by the Servant Christ and to whom Christ draws the gentiles.


Zion is clearly Ephraim, who in the last days, as one of the sons of Joseph, Jacob prophecies “from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel” Christ (Genesis 49:22-26) and the gentiles are drawn to them.

Jerryhuerta said:

Your assertion is fallacious because it suppresses the grammatical-historical hermeneutic that substantiates the nation in 1 Peter 2:9-10 is the northern kingdom, as Peter cites directly from Hosea 2:23.

Click to expand...

James has all 12 tribes in the dispersion. Are Judah And Benjamin a part of those 12 tribes?

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

Paul also quotes from hosea 1:10 and hosea 2:23. And while in the grammatical historical context of Hosea the "not my people" refers to the 10 northern tribes, Paul attributes the "not my people" to the gentiles. This revelation is consistent with Paul's theology on the mystery of God including the gentiles into the body of Christ, the collective

Romans 9:24-26 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

And as revealed by Paul's Progressive revelation, it was not know in generations past that the gentiles would be Fellow heirs, Fellow members of the body, and Fellow partakers in the promises of God.

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:

Judah is never spoken of as having been divorced; it is never spoken of having no mercy and not being a people of God prior to the first advent, refugees notwithstanding. These descriptions are specifically applied to the northern nation under the Old Covenant.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. In the grammatical historical context you are absolutely correct.

However, according to the mystery that was not made know to them during the time of Hosea, your full analysis is not complete. The mystery is that the gentiles would be fellow partakers in the promises of God. We can not simply turn a blind eye to the revelation revealed by Paul.

Jerryhuerta said:

And the grammatical-historical hermeneutic can explain the dissolution of the brotherhood between Judah and Israel/Ephraim in Zechariah 11:14, which your perceptions of the “Jerusalem which above” cannot reconcile without ad hoc explanations.

Click to expand...

How can Judah and Israel's brotherhood be broken.......
Zechariah 11:14 Then I cut in pieces my second staff called Union, breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

......And yet Judah and Israel will be gathered together under one leader?
hosea 1:10-11 And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ Then the people of Judah and of Israel will be gathered together, and they will appoint for themselves one leader, and will go up out of the land. For great will be the day of Jezreel.

Body of Christ.

Judah and Israel's brotherhood was broken through the children of the old covenant persecuting those of the New covenant. But Judah and Israel are gathered together through the new covenant, hence paul, from the kingdom of Judah includes himself in children of the new covenant.

Jerryhuerta said:

Galatians 3:29 clearly has a “collective sense,” as in “a body” or “people.”

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatian 3:29

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. As I have said multiple times now, we agree on this. We agree on the identity of the singular seed, but we appear to disagree on the identity of the collective seed through the new covenant. I believe it to be the body of Christ, but you seem to believe it is only the 10 northern tribes.

Jerryhuerta said:

But Paul cites Genesis 22:18 in his verse 16, which is before the time of Christ.

Click to expand...

I disagree it is only genesis 22:18. The word "Promises" is plural in Galatians 3:16. There are several promises made to Abraham that include the words "your seed".

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:

The point being is the “seed” is not only singular in Genesis 22:18 but collective and represents the elect descendants of Abraham, as it cannot at the same time represent the gentiles, who are distinguished as blessed by the seed/descendants.

Click to expand...

The promises to Abraham in the grammatical historical context were to the nation of Israel and they were fulfilled:
Joshua 21:43-45 Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.

The promises to Abraham in the progressive revelation are to Jesus, who is the only one that can truly fulfill them.
galatians 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.

and if you are in Jesus, then the promises of Abraham apply to you.
Galatians 3:29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

For those that are in Jesus are one with Jesus, the collective and singular are 1.
galatians 5:31-32 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church

And Paul is very, very clear that the those who belong to this collective seed are both Jew, Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, etc.....
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all

***So you are simply incorrect, and it shows that you have to ignore the mystery of the greeks, barbarians, scythians, etc....being included in the 'seed' to make your argument work.

Jerryhuerta said:

The “seed” inherits the gentiles; the “seed” cannot be the gentiles at the same time, too.

Click to expand...

The seed is clearly Jesus, as God tells him he will make the nations his inheritance.

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, and the ends of the earth your possession.

Jesus is the heir of all things.
Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things.

Collectively, those who are in Christ are FELLOW heirs with him.
Romans 8:17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Jerryhuerta said:

And the “seed” cannot be the woman who is married, either.

Click to expand...

I agree

Jerryhuerta said:

The seed in Isaiah 54:3 is clearly Ephraim when the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is obeyed and progressive revelation does not suppress it.

Click to expand...

In the grammatical-historical context, we agree. Just as in the grammatical historical context of the promises to Abraham, they were fulfilled in Israel entering the promise land leading up to the reign of David.

However, your analysis does not include the mystery of Christ as revealed in paul's progressive revelation, and is therefore inadequate.

Jerryhuerta said:

The rest of your post is merely a poor attempt to suppress the clear evidence that the “Jerusalem which is above” is the Zion in Isaiah, who is illustrated as being raised by the Servant Christ and to whom Christ draws the gentiles.

Click to expand...

Now you are confusing me Jerry, I thought this is where we agreed?

Jerryhuerta said:

Zion is clearly Ephraim, who in the last days, as one of the sons of Joseph, Jacob prophecies “from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel” Christ (Genesis 49:22-26) and the gentiles are drawn to them.

Click to expand...

As paul reveals that the body of Christ consists of anyone who is in Christ, regardless of race, tribe, or nationality, your argument of it only being Ephraim (10 northern tribes) is proven wrong.

Biblewriter said:

I will get to them when I can. But I am very busy right now in writing ministry for people who actually believe everything God said, rather than just part of what He said.

Click to expand...

So, You are too busy preaching to the choir to be bothered, huh?

claninja said:

James has all 12 tribes in the dispersion. Are Judah And Benjamin a part of those 12 tribes?

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

Paul also quotes from hosea 1:10 and hosea 2:23. And while in the grammatical historical context of Hosea the "not my people" refers to the 10 northern tribes, Paul attributes the "not my people" to the gentiles. This revelation is consistent with Paul's theology on the mystery of God including the gentiles into the body of Christ, the collective

Romans 9:24-26 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

And as revealed by Paul's Progressive revelation, it was not know in generations past that the gentiles would be Fellow heirs, Fellow members of the body, and Fellow partakers in the promises of God.

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.

Click to expand...

Peter is the one who identifies the elect exiles of the dispersion as Ephraim in 1 Peter 2:9-10. That there are refugees from Judah with them does nothing to assert “seed” Isaiah 54:3 refers to gentiles. Paul mentions the gentiles only twice in Romans 9 to reveal they are chosen but only after Israel; no doubt the citation from Hosea refers to Israel and not the gentiles. Gentiles were never divorced from the covenant relation with Christ, Israel was, which is the implication of the citation from Hosea.

claninja said:

Absolutely agree. In the grammatical historical context you are absolutely correct.

However, according to the mystery that was not made know to them during the time of Hosea, your full analysis is not complete. The mystery is that the gentiles would be fellow partakers in the promises of God. We can not simply turn a blind eye to the revelation revealed by Paul.

Click to expand...

Paul states nothing of the sort of which you write. He states the gentiles are fellow heirs based on Genesis 22:18 in Galatians 3. In Genesis 22:18 the gentiles are blessed THROUGH the seed and that is how they are made fellow heirs. The progressive revelation that the term “seed” has the singular sense meaning Christ is Paul’s contribution through the Holy Spirit, but it does not do away with the “collective” meaning of the biological descendants of Abraham in Genesis 22:18. This is substantiated by Paul’s “collective” use of the term seed in Galatians 3:29.


This is the collective sense of the “seed.” It substantiates that the term “seed” has a “singular” sense and a “collective” sense, the latter as “one body.” It would be safe to state the patriarchs had no grasp of the singular sense and that is why it is a progressive revelation. The progressive revelation is Paul’s contribution through the Holy Spirit but it cannot destroy the grammatical-historical sense or it is not true progressive revelation. Progressive revelation can add information but it cannot take away what the original intent was and that is exactly what your Replacement theology attempts. Paul reveals the gentiles are fellow heirs through Christ with the assistance of the biological descendants of Abraham, the latter being the original intent. Your perversion of Paul’s progressive revelation destroys the original intent that inclusion of the gentiles is accomplished through Christ’s assistance of the biological descendant of Abraham.

claninja said:

The promises to Abraham in the grammatical historical context were to the nation of Israel and they were fulfilled:
Joshua 21:43-45 Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.

The promises to Abraham in the progressive revelation are to Jesus, who is on the only one that can truly fulfill them.
galatians 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.

and if you are in Jesus, then the promises of Abraham apply to you.
Galatians 3:29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

For those that are in Jesus are one with Jesus, the collective and singular are 1.
galatians 5:31-32 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church

And Paul is very, very clear that the those who belong to this collective seed are both Jew, Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, etc.....
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all

***So you are simply incorrect, and it shows that you have to ignore the mystery of the greeks, barbarians, scythians, etc....being included in the 'seed' to make your argument work.

Click to expand...

How quickly you forget that I pointed out to you in particular that Zechariah prophecies another dispersion after the return from Babylon, which was clearly the one accomplished by the Romans, and that God promises to bring them back as if he had not rejected them. Zechariah 10:6-12. Paul reveals the gentiles are fellow heirs through Christ with the assistance of the biological descendants of Abraham, the latter being the original intent. Your perversion of Paul’s progressive revelation destroys the original intent that inclusion of the gentiles is accomplished through Christ’s assistance of the biological descendant of Abraham.

The rest of your post is clearly an attempt to suppress the grammatical-historical intent of the OT scriptures in the classic Replacement theological style. Out of one hand you state you agree with the grammatical-historical intent and out of the other you attempt to destroy it.

Jerryhuerta said:

Peter is the one who identifies the elect exiles of the dispersion as Ephraim in 1 Peter 2:9-10.

Click to expand...

I think I understand your argument now.

Because Peter quotes Hosea 2:23 in regards to the elect exiles of the dispersion, and because in the grammatical historical context, the "not my people" who are now his people refers to the 10 northern tribes, that Peter must be writing to the elect of Ephraim.

Initially it seemed you appeared ONLY to believe the 10 northern tribes were in the exile, because every time I brought up ALL 12 tribes being in the dispersion with James 1 and Acts 2, you would disagree.

We know Peter was an apostle to the circumcised

Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.

And even just a little further down in 1 Peter 1, Peter states to keep you conduct "among the gentiles" honorable. Thus Peter, appears to be writing to biological Israelites.

1 Peter 2:12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable,

I can concede to this, as it doesn't affect Paul's inclusion of the gentiles in the "once not my people" now "my people" as stated in romans 9.

Jerryhuerta said:

That there are refugees from Judah with them does nothing to assert “seed” Isaiah 54:3 refers to gentiles.

Click to expand...

So it appears that you agree that the those from Judah, AND NOT JUST EPHRAIM, would be included in the descendants of the desolate woman.

I have never stated that the descendants were solely gentiles. I have repeatedly stated the descendants of the desolate woman are those of the new covenant: Jew, Ephraim, gentile, etc.... anyone from any race who is in Christ.

Jerryhuerta said:

no doubt the citation from Hosea refers to Israel and not the gentiles.

Click to expand...

I disagree with you here, Jerry.

You argument of Paul referring to Israel and not the gentiles in quoting hosea 2:23 means that those of the vessels of mercy that were not God's people, were the Jews.

Paul is specifically talking about the vessels of mercy in Romans 9:23-25. Those of the Jew and also from the gentiles. Paul clearly uses hosea 2:23 to refer to the vessels of mercy which include the gentiles.

Romans 9:24-25 including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles? As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘My People’ who are not My people,
and I will call her ‘My Beloved’ who is not My beloved,”

This is consistent with Paul revealing the mystery not known to previous generations, that the gentiles would be included as fellow heirs of the promises.

Ephesians 3:3-6 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. n reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 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:

Gentiles were never divorced from the covenant relation with Christ, Israel was, which is the implication of the citation from Hosea.

Click to expand...

The implication of Hosea 2:23 in solely its grammatical historical context, prior to the revelation that the gentiles would be fellow heirs of the promises, is that the northern kingdom was divorced and scattered among the nations by Assyria. They became NOT GOD's PEOPLE. However, God promised that one day, they would again become God's people. This we agree on.

Now, how was that promise fulfilled? Both Paul and Peter quote from Hosea 2:23 as being fulfilled. Paul has it fulfilled with Gentiles being vessels of Mercy through Christ. Peter has it fulfilled with the elect in the dispersion coming to faith in Christ.

By the northern kingdom becoming "not God's people", they became the same as the gentiles in relation to God. Over 700 years many of them would mix with the gentiles, socially, religiously, and culturally. Many from these 10 northern tribes would become not so distinctly Israel.

So how does God fulfill his promise in hosea 2:23 to call those his people, who were not his people? By including all those from every nation to belong to the collective in Christ under the new covenant.

Acts 10:34-35 Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, but welcomes those from every nation who fear Him and do what is right

**Jerry, do you believe Ephraim can have more descendants than Judah outside of the New covenant?

Jerryhuerta said:

Paul states nothing of the sort of which you write.

Click to expand...

That's simply false Jerry. Paul explicitly states that the mystery of the gentiles being included in the people of God was not known in other generations. I've highlighted it in red in case you missed it in the previous post:

Ephesians 3:3-6 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Jerryhuerta said:

He states the gentiles are fellow heirs based on Genesis 22:18 in Galatians 3.

Click to expand...

I agree

Jerryhuerta said:

Genesis 22:18 the gentiles are blessed THROUGH the seed and that is how they are made fellow heirs.

Click to expand...

I agree. and it is through the singular sense of the seed (Jesus) that they are fellow heirs. For neither Jew nor Gentile could become co heirs without Christ.

Galatians 3:29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Jerryhuerta said:

The progressive revelation that the term “seed” has the singular sense meaning Christ is Paul’s contribution through the Holy Spirit, but it does not do away with the “collective” meaning of the biological descendants of Abraham in Genesis 22:18. This is substantiated by Paul’s “collective” use of the term seed in Galatians 3:29.

Click to expand...

I agree and I would add: NOR does it do away with the collective-meaning that it includes the gentiles in the new covenant.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

Jerryhuerta said:

This is the collective sense of the “seed.” It substantiates that the term “seed” has a “singular” sense and a “collective” sense, the latter as “one body.”

Click to expand...

Do you agree or disagree that the gentiles, Jews, and the 10 northern tribes are all included in this collective seed under the new covenant?

Jerryhuerta said:

It would be safe to state the patriarchs had no grasp of the singular sense and that is why it is a progressive revelation.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Jerryhuerta said:

Progressive revelation can add information but it cannot take away what the original intent was

Click to expand...

Just so we are on the same page. Progressive revelation doesn't mean it's new information that wasn't in the OT scripture before, it means that true understanding of scriptures wasn't available until Jesus came and sent to the Spirit to give us true understanding of the intent of the OT scripture.

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

And this progressive revelation tells us that through Christ and the gospel, the gentiles are fellow heirs of the promises. Additionally, Paul reveals that this was not known in past generations, thus by just simply reading through the OT scriptures in the grammatical historical context, the mystery cannot be known. Only through the spirit can it be revealed as the fulfillment of the OT scriptures.

Ephesians 3:3-6 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Jerryhuerta said:

and that is exactly what your Replacement theology attempts.

Click to expand...

Straw man argument Jerry. I never stated the Gentiles replaced Israel, I stated the gentiles were grafted in.

Jerryhuerta said:

Paul reveals the gentiles are fellow heirs through Christ with the assistance of the biological descendants of Abraham,

Click to expand...

"Assistance"? If you mean the biological descendants of Abraham sharing the gospel with the gentiles as the "assistance", then I agree. Through the gospel being brought to the gentiles, it would turn many of them to the one true God, thus grafting them in to the body of Christ, the collective.

Acts 15:12-14 The whole assembly fell silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul describing the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they had finished speaking, James declared, “Brothers, listen to me! Simon has told us how God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people to be His own.

Acts 10:34-35 Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, but welcomes those from every nation who fear Him and do what is right

Acts 10:44-45 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard his message. All the circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.

Acts 28:28 Be advised, therefore, that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!”

Jerryhuerta said:

Your perversion of Paul’s progressive revelation destroys the original intent that inclusion of the gentiles is accomplished through Christ’s assistance of the biological descendant of Abraham.

Click to expand...

Another straw man argument. Those are easy to fabricate and tear down Jerry.

My intent is that the inclusion of the gentiles in Christ through the gospel makes them fellow heirs to the promises. Thus, gentiles are included in the new covenant. They DO NOT REPLACE the biological descendants who accept Christ.

Jerryhuerta said:

How quickly you forget that I pointed out to you in particular that Zechariah prophecies another dispersion after the return from Babylon, which was clearly the one accomplished by the Romans, and that God promises to bring them back as if he had not rejected them. Zechariah 10:6-12.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your interpretation Jerry. The dispersion by the romans in 70ad was not a sowing, it was a punishment.

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

For disobeying God, Israel would be scattered, not sown. 2 different Hebrew words.

פוּץ: to disperse or scatter

Deuteronomy 28:64 And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known

זָרַע: to sow or scatter seed

Zechariah 10:9 Though I will sow them among the nations, yet in far countries they shall remember me, and with their children they shall live and return.


I would argue the sowing has to do with the coming of Christ in the flesh. For he is the son of man that sows the good seen in the world

Zechariah 10:9-10 Though I will sow them among the nations, they will remember Me in distant lands;
they and their children will live and return. I will bring them back from Egypt and gather them from Assyria. I will bring them to Gilead and Lebanon until no more room is found for them.

Hosea 2:23 And I will sow her as My own in the land, and I will have compassion on ‘No Compassion.’
I will say to those called ‘Not My People,’ ‘You are My people,’ and they will say, ‘You are my God.

Jeremiah 31:27-28 The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of man and of beast. Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear them down, to demolish, destroy, and bring disaster, so will I be attentive to build them and to plant them,” declares the LORD.

Matthew 13:37 He replied, “The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom.

Jerryhuerta said:

Out of one hand you state you agree with the grammatical-historical intent and out of the other you attempt to destroy it.

Click to expand...

Notice the grammatical historical intent of Jeremiah 31:15

Jeremiah 31:15 This is what the LORD says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing consolation, because they are no more.”

Notice how Matthew has if fulfilled: with king Herod killing children

Matthew 2:16-18 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”

Without Matthew, by the Holy Spirit, interpreting the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 with Herod killing children, would we have ever known that is what Jeremiah 31:15 was referring to?

Or would argue that Matthew is taking it out of the grammatical historical context and destroying the original intent.

claninja said:

So it appears that you agree that the those from Judah, AND NOT JUST EPHRAIM, would be included in the descendants of the desolate woman.

I have never stated that the descendants were solely gentiles. I have repeatedly stated the descendants of the desolate woman are those of the new covenant: Jew, Ephraim, gentile, etc.... anyone from any race who is in Christ.

Click to expand...

How can Jews be descended from the 10 tribes? You acknowledged the desolate woman represents Ephraim when Isaiah wrote and at the same time try to make me believe that Jews are included as the descendants of the 10 northern tribes.

Again, you protest that Paul cites Hosea in reference to Israelites.

claninja said:

I disagree with you here, Jerry.

You argument of Paul referring to Israel and not the gentiles in quoting hosea 2:23 means that those of the vessels of mercy that were not God's people, were the Jews.

Paul is specifically talking about the vessels of mercy in Romans 9:23-25. Those of the Jew and also from the gentiles. Paul clearly uses hosea 2:23 to refer to the vessels of mercy which include the gentiles.

Romans 9:24-25 including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles? As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘My People’ who are not My people,
and I will call her ‘My Beloved’ who is not My beloved,”

This is consistent with Paul revealing the mystery not known to previous generations, that the gentiles would be included as fellow heirs of the promises.

Ephesians 3:3-6 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. n reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 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.

Click to expand...

Paul never destroys the original intent of any ciliation from the Old Testament. The revelation/mystery is that the gentiles are fellow heirs in Christ through the assistance of the biological descendants of Abraham, the latter being the original intent of Genesis 22:18. The offspring or seed in the “collective” sense, was affirmed by Paul in Galatians 3:29. Zechariah 10:7-10 substantiates that the gentiles were blessed when Ephraim was gathered in Christ and scattered to the nations.

Again, you protest against the grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

claninja said:

The implication of Hosea 2:23 in solely its grammatical historical context, prior to the revelation that the gentiles would be fellow heirs of the promises, is that the northern kingdom was divorced and scattered among the nations by Assyria. They became NOT GOD's PEOPLE. However, God promised that one day, they would again become God's people. This we agree on.

Now, how was that promise fulfilled? Both Paul and Peter quote from Hosea 2:23 as being fulfilled. Paul has it fulfilled with Gentiles being vessels of Mercy through Christ. Peter has it fulfilled with the elect in the dispersion coming to faith in Christ.

By the northern kingdom becoming "not God's people", they became the same as the gentiles in relation to God. Over 700 years many of them would mix with the gentiles, socially, religiously, and culturally. Many from these 10 northern tribes would become not so distinctly Israel.

So how does God fulfill his promise in hosea 2:23 to call those his people, who were not his people? By including all those from every nation to belong to the collective in Christ under the new covenant.

Click to expand...

Those from every nation, meaning the gentiles, are included by using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. The revelation/mystery is that the gentiles are fellow heirs in Christ through the assistance of the biological descendants of Abraham, the latter being the original intent of Genesis 22:18. The offspring or seed in the “collective” sense, was affirmed by Paul in Galatians 3:29. Zechariah 10:7-10 substantiates that the gentiles were blessed when Ephraim was gathered in Christ and scattered to the nations. The grammatical-historical hermeneutic maintains that Hosea 2:23 refers to Ephraim and not the gentiles and still saves the gentiles through the descendants of Abraham in Genesis 3:18. You have to show me the prophecies to Israel were conditional in the light of Galatians 3:17.


Concerning my exegesis that Genesis 3:18 affirms the gentiles are saved by the descendants of Abraham in the “collective” sense, you stated.

claninja said:

I agree and I would add: NOR does it do away with the collective-meaning that it includes the gentiles in the new covenant.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

Click to expand...

No one here is denying the gentiles are made one with Israel in Christ, what we are contending is what the scriptures or prophecies state about HOW they are made one. They are save by the promise to Abraham, cited in Galatians 3:14, 16. Of course, the context maintains the promises and prophesies concerning Israel are affirmed in verse 17. The evidence substantiates that they are saved by Christ and through the assistance of the biological descendants of Abraham according to Genesis 22:18. You agree with the collective sense of the term “seed”, in accord with verse 29, which substantiates Genesis 22:18 makes a clear distinction between the collective sense of seed and the gentiles. In Genesis 22:18 the collective sense of the word “seed” cannot be the gentiles; the gentiles are not blessed through the gentiles, they are blessed by the seed, and in the collective sense, in Genesis 22:18, the seed represents the biological descendants of Abraham.

claninja said:

Just so we are on the same page. Progressive revelation doesn't mean it's new information that wasn't in the OT scripture before, it means that true understanding of scriptures wasn't available until Jesus came and sent to the Spirit to give us true understanding of the intent of the OT scripture.

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

And this progressive revelation tells us that through Christ and the gospel, the gentiles are fellow heirs of the promises. Additionally, Paul reveals that this was not known in past generations, thus by just simply reading through the OT scriptures in the grammatical historical context, the mystery cannot be known. Only through the spirit can it be revealed as the fulfillment of the OT scriptures.

Ephesians 3:3-6 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Click to expand...

You seem to grasp progressive revelation. And then you finally comprehend what Genesis 22:18 and Galatians 3 are really communicating.

claninja said:

"Assistance"? If you mean the biological descendants of Abraham sharing the gospel with the gentiles as the "assistance", then I agree. Through the gospel being brought to the gentiles, it would turn many of them to the one true God, thus grafting them in to the body of Christ, the collective.

Click to expand...

With this understanding, you can unlock all of scripture, including the OT. Then the barren and desolate woman remains Ephraim, the nation in 1 Peter 2:9 remains Ephraim and the nation in Matthew 21:43 can be none other than Ephraim, the Zion in Isaiah 49 who barres the children that include the gentiles and that we come to the same Zion in Hebrews 12:22.

In protest of my interpretation of Zechariah 10:7-10 you state.

claninja said:

I disagree with your interpretation Jerry. The dispersion by the romans in 70ad was not a sowing, it was a punishment.

Click to expand...

Zechariah 11 prophecies Christ breaks the covenant with Judah by his death in Romans 7:1-4, and severs the brotherhood with Ephraim. Judah is punishment, they are blinded (Romans 11), while he saves Ephraim in Hosea 2:23, who also affirms they are scattered. Ephraim is not being punished; it’s just not the appointed time for them to return. Through them, the gentiles are blessed, fulfilling Genesis 22:18. There is a lot more scripture that substantiates this, but unless one comprehends why I used the term “assistance” it would be pointless to present it.

claninja said:

Notice the grammatical historical intent of Jeremiah 31:15

Jeremiah 31:15 This is what the LORD says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing consolation, because they are no more.”

Notice how Matthew has if fulfilled: with king Herod killing children

Matthew 2:16-18 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”

Without Matthew, by the Holy Spirit, interpreting the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15 with Herod killing children, would we have ever known that is what Jeremiah 31:15 was referring to?

Or would argue that Matthew is taking it out of the grammatical historical context and destroying the original intent.

Click to expand...

Rachel is the mother of Joseph, and of Ephraim and Manasseh, by lineage.


Remember, the shepherd and stone, Christ, stem from Joseph, Genesis 49:24, making the fulfillment literal in the sense it was time for mercy to be restored to Ephraim and that he becomes the people of God again through the body of Christ.

Jerryhuerta said:

Initially, Christ did not come for the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). It was only later that the Gentiles are included through a revelation to Peter (Acts 10:10-`16, 35). And of course, a council had to be held to determine whether they were going to have the Gentiles convert to Judaism and decided against the Old Covenant ministration (Act 15). What we have, more accurately, was that the New Covenant was initially established with the biological descendants with the intent of inevitably gathering in the gentiles, which is precisely what the Old Testament prophecies. You might read both treads where I posted and see this is exactly what I’ve substantiated from both Testaments.

Click to expand...

No. What you need to do is understand that Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join Israel as natives of the land. Ever read Exodus 12:42-49? How is it that Rahab and Ruth...who are both Gentiles end up in the line of Christ? They followed the Exodus reference above and became Jews!

Jerryhuerta said:

Your perception of Romans 9:1-5 as it pertains to verse 8 epitomizes “replacement theology.” Your perception does not maintain the context at all, for instance:

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour.... Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:21, 24​

The statement “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” clearly denotes that “some are Israel”, the children of the promise that Paul conveys as “called” in verse 24, above, the beloved in verse 25, God’s people in 26, the remnant “seed,” the collective sense, in verse 29. Conversely, the “children of the flesh” are noted as those who sought righteousness by attempting to keep the law, verses 30-33. Romans 9 clearly substantiates the phrases “children of the promise” versus the “children of the flesh” convey what Christ revealed: many are called but few are chosen, your perception of “sarx” notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

This is what I mean in saying you "contort the scriptures"...what you write above actually proves my point. You simply don't understand or you're spinning the passage. Even further, how could you read Romans 4 and come to such a conclusion and Paul totally annihilates that thinking With Galatians 4:21-31.

Jerryhuerta said:

Just as I asserted above, which conveys it was the mission of Israel to gather in the gentiles, which is what I’ve been developing in two thread, this one and Battle of Dual Covenant Theology and the Charge of "Replacement Theology."

Click to expand...

Try Ephesians 2:11-22. How readest thou?

Jerryhuerta said:

While perceivable in an allegorical sense, the claim is commonly abused in “replacement theology.”

Click to expand...

No. "Replacement Theology" is simply a "dispensational spin" against what scripture clearly teaches. Jesus came unto His own and they didn't receive Him. This is because just as you are trying to assert they had missed the fact they where to be the light to the world and they simply broke the covenant just as God told Moses they would do at Deuteronomy 31:14-18.

Open your eyes brother!

Jerryhuerta said:

While perceivable in an allegorical sense, the claim is commonly abused in “replacement theology.”

Click to expand...

Circumcision of the heart is merely "allegorical"?

Only to the proponents of RB (Replacement Biology).

ebedmelech said:

No. What you need to do is understand that Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join Israel as natives of the land. Ever read Exodus 12:42-49? How is it that Rahab and Ruth...who are both Gentiles end up in the line of Christ? They followed the Exodus reference above and became Jews!



This is what I mean in saying you "contort the scriptures"...what you write above actually proves my point. You simply don't understand or you're spinning the passage. Even further, how could you read Romans 4 and come to such a conclusion and Paul totally annihilates that thinking With Galatians 4:21-31.



Try Ephesians 2:11-22. How readest thou?



No. "Replacement Theology" is simply a "dispensational spin" against what scripture clearly teaches. Jesus came unto His own and they didn't receive Him. This is because just as you are trying to assert they had missed the fact they where to be the light to the world and they simply broke the covenant just as God told Moses they would do at Deuteronomy 31:14-18.

Open your eyes brother!

Click to expand...

It is obvious you aren’t comprehending Ephesian 2.

Ephesian 2 rather substantiates my perception, not yours! There was a wall of partition between the biological descendants of Abraham and the gentiles that was codified in the Mosaic Covenant. That codification inhibited the gentiles from being saved, which is undeniable, but RT, you, deny it all the same. Yet, God had a plan, at an appointed time, that through Christ and the assistance of the biological descendant and the end of the Mosaic Covenant, the gentiles would be saved. RT suppresses all of this so don’t think I’m going to go backward in my walk with Christ and accept RT's darkness.

jgr said:

Circumcision of the heart is merely "allegorical"?

Only to the proponents of RB (Replacement Biology).

Click to expand...

The reference is certainly not literal. And while I agree with the spiritual, I don't agree with RT's abuse of the meaning.