Replacement Theology Refuted

Jerryhuerta · Apr 30, 2019

ewq1938 said:
A divorced wife due to adultery.

Israel today is a new woman, born again through Christ, composed of all peoples of all races that accept Christ.

While God had not divorced Judah, they also needed to be released from the covenant to be betrothed to Christ. It is perceivable that in the original historical and cultural context Israelites were not allowed to see the particulars concerning their release from the Sinai Covenant that bound them in the marriage with Christ. It was Christ to whom they were wed revealed in Judges 2:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:4. Nevertheless, they were aware of the prophecies of Hosea and aware of the impediment of Deuteronomy 24:4 conveyed in Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3:1, 8.

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

The most relevant information not available in the original historical and cultural context in the NT is Romans 7:1–4, which alludes to Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and reveals that Ephraim’s release from the marriage contract (Jeremiah 2:3, 3:14, 31:32; Ezekiel 16:32) was required before they could become eligible to return to their first husband.

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

Romans 7:1–4 provides the particulars in resolving the impediment—it was the death of Christ and his resurrection by which the elect biological descendants were released from the OC to be betrothed to Christ in the NC. This confirms that the husband in Hosea who divorced Ephraim was Christ, before his incarnation. By deduction, Christ is revealed as the entity that Israel married at Sinai, as it was he that had to die to release them. It is not acceptable to say that it is the gentiles who fulfill the prophecy in Hosea as they were not joined to Christ by the OC as was Israel/Ephraim and Judah.

Jerryhuerta · Apr 30, 2019

ace of hearts said:
So what about Mat 21:43. I don't see it supporting your commentary.

Peter reveals the nation in 1 Peter 2:9-10, citing from Hosea 2:23, which is about Ephraim's restoration as God's people. See Romans 7:1-4.

Jerryhuerta · Apr 30, 2019

ace of hearts said:
Interesting presentation but Israel was divided into two factions - the northern tribes called Israel and the southern tribes called Judah. I think the southern tribes were Levi, Benjamin and of course Judah the largest tribe and most significant tribe of Israel.

Genesis 48:14-16 substantiates Ephraim and Manasseh retained the name of Israel, which is why the northern nation was also called Ephraim (Isaiah 11:13; Hosea 5:5,5:12-14,6:4,10:11,11:12; Ezekiel 37:16-19 and Zechariah 9:13,10:6). I've supplied a number of scriptures that vindicate Ephraim is the nation that bears the fruit in Matthew 21:43 and the gentiles represent the fruit.

Jerryhuerta · Apr 30, 2019

ace of hearts said:
Sorry but I don't chase down threads. I don't read every sub forum either. But since you mentioned it I may look if I have time.

Well if you don't then I'm not going to respond to questions I've answered over and over again. I don't have infinite time to do so.

Jerryhuerta · Apr 30, 2019

jgr said:
Your inability to respond to a simple request is a demonstration of the vacuity and bankruptcy of your cultic heterodoxy.

No, I am familiar with forum tactics to wear someone down with repetitious arguments, stemming from a lack of regeneration. Graciousness or regeneration should be kind and patient but all too often that is not what is displayed in so-called Christian forms. All too often hostility is displayed and impatience. So I'm not going to figure out your arguments for you, which is foolish to suggest.

jgr · Apr 30, 2019

Jerryhuerta said:
No, I am familiar with forum tactics to wear someone down with repetitious arguments, stemming from a lack of regeneration. Graciousness or regeneration should be kind and patient but all too often that is not what is displayed in so-called Christian forms. All too often hostility is displayed and impatience. So I'm not going to figure out your arguments for you, which is foolish to suggest.

Yes, Scripture's arguments are repetitious. They never change from one reading to the next.

I let them do the arguing for me.

Jerryhuerta · Apr 30, 2019

jgr said:
Yes, Scripture's arguments are repetitious. They never change from one reading to the next.

I let them do the arguing for me.

If you have anything original to contribute I'll respond, but I'm not going to answer the same query over and over, which shows someone is not really trying to understand in the first place.

jgr · Apr 30, 2019

Jerryhuerta said:
If you have anything original to contribute I'll respond, but I'm not going to answer the same query over and over, which shows someone is not really trying to understand in the first place.

No need for you to respond to anything other than Scripture's declarations.

ace of hearts · Apr 30, 2019

Jerryhuerta said:
While God had not divorced Judah, they also needed to be released from the covenant to be betrothed to Christ. It is perceivable that in the original historical and cultural context Israelites were not allowed to see the particulars concerning their release from the Sinai Covenant that bound them in the marriage with Christ. It was Christ to whom they were wed revealed in Judges 2:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:4. Nevertheless, they were aware of the prophecies of Hosea and aware of the impediment of Deuteronomy 24:4 conveyed in Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3:1, 8.

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

The most relevant information not available in the original historical and cultural context in the NT is Romans 7:1–4, which alludes to Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and reveals that Ephraim’s release from the marriage contract (Jeremiah 2:3, 3:14, 31:32; Ezekiel 16:32) was required before they could become eligible to return to their first husband.

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

Romans 7:1–4 provides the particulars in resolving the impediment—it was the death of Christ and his resurrection by which the elect biological descendants were released from the OC to be betrothed to Christ in the NC. This confirms that the husband in Hosea who divorced Ephraim was Christ, before his incarnation. By deduction, Christ is revealed as the entity that Israel married at Sinai, as it was he that had to die to release them. It is not acceptable to say that it is the gentiles who fulfill the prophecy in Hosea as they were not joined to Christ by the OC as was Israel/Ephraim and Judah.

The Sinai covenant bound no one to Jesus Christ. They (every tribe of Israel) indeed have been released from that covenant and given another completely new and unprecedented covenant. No one in mankind is bound by the Sinai covenant in any detail.

ace of hearts · Apr 30, 2019

Jerryhuerta said:
Peter reveals the nation in 1 Peter 2:9-10, citing from Hosea 2:23, which is about Ephraim's restoration as God's people. See Romans 7:1-4.

I've no idea where you're getting this from. I don't believe it's the Scripture. Yes I realize you referenced Scripture. Your 1 Pet and Hosea references aren't talking about any descendants of Israel. Ephraim are descendants of Israel. Read your Hos 2:23 reference again and pay attention to what it says. Rom 7 has nothing to do with Israel unless it relates to the law which includes all Israel.

Keep trying, you may stump me yet.

ace of hearts · Apr 30, 2019

Jerryhuerta said:
Genesis 48:14-16 substantiates Ephraim and Manasseh retained the name of Israel, which is why the northern nation was also called Ephraim (Isaiah 11:13; Hosea 5:5,5:12-14,6:4,10:11,11:12; Ezekiel 37:16-19 and Zechariah 9:13,10:6). I've supplied a number of scriptures that vindicate Ephraim is the nation that bears the fruit in Matthew 21:43 and the gentiles represent the fruit.

I don't think so. Keep trying to validate yourself.

ace of hearts · Apr 30, 2019

Jerryhuerta said:
Well if you don't then I'm not going to respond to questions I've answered over and over again. I don't have infinite time to do so.

Good for you. Consider the same from me. I'm not interested in chasing down to be convinced by or debating other threads and outside references from what I've seen so far from you. I'm not going looking for your answers.

ewq1938 · Apr 30, 2019

Jerryhuerta said:
While God had not divorced Judah, they also needed to be released from the covenant to be betrothed to Christ.

God divorced Judah.

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

put her away
7971

07971 shalach {shaw-lakh'}

a primitive root; TWOT - 2394; v

AV - send 566, go 73, (send, put,...) forth 54, send away 48, lay 14,
send out 12, put 10, put away 7, cast out 7, stretch out 5,
cast 5, set 5, put out 4, depart 4, soweth 3, loose 3, misc 22; 847

1) to send, send away, let go, stretch out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to send
1a2) to stretch out, extend, direct
1a3) to send away
1a4) to let loose
1b) (Niphal) to be sent
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to send off or away or out or forth, dismiss, give over, cast out
1c2) to let go, set free
1c3) to shoot forth (of branches)
1c4) to let down
1c5) to shoot
1d) (Pual) to be sent off, be put away, be divorced, be impelled
1e) (Hiphil) to send

To put a wife away is another way to speak of divorce.

Gill:

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes, whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery,.... Not only Judah saw, but God, who sees all things, saw the idolatry of the ten tribes which apostatized from him, and all the springs, causes, reasons, and occasions of it, and its consequences; and also the treachery, hardness, and idolatry of Judah:

I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; as men did, when they put away their wives, as they might lawfully do in case of adultery; and here being that which answered to it, spiritual adultery or idolatry, the Lord, who was married to this people, put them away from him, and caused them to be carried captive out of their own land into another, 2Ki_17:6 which is meant by the bill of divorce; so the Targum,

"I caused them to go into captivity, as those that give a bill of divorce (to their wives) and dismiss them:''

Barnes:

Jeremiah 3:8

Rather, “And I saw” that because apostate “Israel” had “committed adultery, I had put her away, and given her” the writing of her divorcement, “yet” false “Judah her sister feared not.”...The expression, “For all the causes whereby,” is probably the actual formula with which writings of divorcement commenced.

JFB:

Jeremiah 3:8

I saw that, though (whereas) it was for this very reason (namely), because backsliding (apostate) Israel had committed adultery I had put her away (2Ki_17:6, 2Ki_17:18), and given her a bill of divorce, yet Judah, etc. (Eze_23:11, etc.).
bill of divorce — literally, “a writing of cuttings off.” The plural implies the completeness of the severance. The use of this metaphor here, as in the former discourse (Jer_3:1), implies a close connection between the discourses. The epithets are characteristic; Israel “apostate” (as the Hebrew for “backsliding” is better rendered); Judah, not as yet utterly apostate, but treacherous or faithless.

SB:

Jeremiah 3:1-25

Contents: Jeremiah’s message concerning the impenitence of Judah. Encouragement to backsliders to return and repent.
Characters: God, Jeremiah.
Conclusion: Those will justly be divorced from God that join themselves to such as are rivals with Him, but God is ever ready to pardon sin and receive those who will return to Him humbly confessing their sins and acknowledging their dependence upon Him for salvation.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

"which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them"

This covenant is the marriage covenant which both broke.

Zechariah 10:6 And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the LORD their God, and will hear them.

Judah was "cast off" by God.

cast ...off
2186

02186 zanach {zaw-nakh'}

a primitive root meaning to push aside; TWOT - 564; v

AV - cast...off 17, cast away 1, turn...away 1, removed...far off; 20

1) to cast off, reject, spurn
1a) (Qal) to reject
1b) (Hiphil) to forcefully reject someone
2) to stink, emit stench, become odious
2a) (Hiphil) stink (perfect)

This "casting off" is the same reference of divorcing as in "putting away" a wife found in Jeremiah 3:8. Judah and Israel were "cast off" just as Israel had been "put away", both are terms for divorcing.

Mal_2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.

Here Judah is either presented as a male who has married the daughter of a false god, or a female who has married the daughter of a false god. Either way, Judah is no longer married to God.

Grip Docility · May 1, 2019

Romans 11 is pretty powerful when read in full context.

There appears to be a higher plan in there and it indeed cites Jews and Gentiles. The Grafted are warned to not overlook that the separated were temporarily cast aside for the sake of the grafted, and in their grafting should have compassion and mercy towards the temporal casting aside of the natural branches, as they can be regrafted all the easier....

I see a lot of Faith, Hope and Love in Romans 11.

ewq1938 · May 1, 2019

Grip Docility said:
The Grafted are warned to not overlook that the separated were temporarily cast aside for the sake of the grafted

Paul didn't say that. Paul simply said the removal of faithless branches was not permanent but to be re-attached they had to accept Christ.

for the sake of the grafted

This is also incorrect. No one was "cast aside" for the sake of the grafted. That is the error of replacement theology. They were "set aside" due to not accepting Christ, not for the sake of anyone else.

Grip Docility · May 1, 2019

Romans 11 is pretty powerful when read in full context.

There appears to be a higher plan in there and it indeed cites Jews and Gentiles. The Grafted are warned to not overlook that the separated were temporarily cast aside for the sake of the grafted, and in their grafting should have compassion and mercy towards the temporal casting aside of the natural branches, as they can be regrafted all the easier....

I see a lot of Faith, Hope and Love in Romans 11.

ewq1938 said:
Paul didn't say that. Paul simply said the removal of faithless branches was not permanent but to be re-attached they had to accept Christ.
.....
This is also incorrect. No one was "cast aside" for the sake of the grafted. That is the error of replacement theology. They were "set aside" due to not accepting Christ, not for the sake of anyone else.

He didn’t???

Romans 11:17-24

He did. I appreciate the concern that Paul was incorrect, but I paraphrased while reading the source text just Incase this exact statement was made.

ewq1938 · May 1, 2019

Grip Docility said:
He didn’t???

No.

I appreciate the concern that Paul was incorrect

Paul was not incorrect. You are mis-quoting/mis-remembering what he actually did say. No one was removed for the sake of anyone else. People were removed only because they lacked faith in Christ and can be re-grafted if they come to Christ.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Not broken off for the sake of the ones being grafted in as you claimed.

Grip Docility · May 1, 2019

ewq1938 said:
No.

Paul was not incorrect. You are mis-quoting/mis-remembering what he actually did say. No one was removed for the sake of anyone else. People were removed only because they lacked faith in Christ and can be re-grafted if they come to Christ.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Not broken off for the sake of the ones being grafted in as you claimed.

Romans 11:28-32 affirms he indeed did.

He contrasts unbelieving Jew, with believing Jew and Gentile, and warns people to not scorn the “Natural Branches” in “unbelief”.

He follows in verses Romans 11:28-32 to bring the point home that they are in disobedience to the Gospel for our sake.

Care to say he didn’t?

I’ll just quote the verses, instead of post the link.

Please remember, my initial post that you disagreed with cited “Romans 11 in full context”, thus I’m writing from the perspective of the entire chapter in context of the entire epistle.

Fortunately, Romans 11 gets right specific.

Romans 11:30-32 gets even more direct about what I’m saying was said.

Romans 11:30 sets it up and Romans 11:32 knocks it all back to my original point.

ewq1938 · May 1, 2019

Grip Docility said:
He follows in verses Romans 11:28-32 to bring the point home that they are in disobedience to the Gospel for our sake.

Care to say he didn’t?

Yes, I have done this for several posts.

You said, "The Grafted are warned to not overlook that the separated were temporarily cast aside for the sake of the grafted"

Paul does not say that. Paul says, "because of unbelief they were broken off"

He also does not say it's universally temporary. It can be temporary for those that decide to come to accept Christ, however it is permanent for those that refuse to come to Christ.

Grip Docility · May 1, 2019

ewq1938 said:
This is also incorrect. No one was "cast aside" for the sake of the grafted. That is the error of replacement theology. They were "set aside" due to not accepting Christ, not for the sake of anyone else.

Supersession teaches that Israel isn’t elect, but the Body of Christ is, now.

The word “Natural Branch” shows who the Elect is. However, it is only by the Elect, that salvation was dispersed globally... I.E. Jesus and the Jews that followed Him, right to the point of Paul, who becomes the Gentile emissary.

The Jews have always been on God’s radar of Love... even those who rejected Him.

Note that The final verse of Matthew 23 is spoken with deep Lamentation.

Replacement Theology Refuted

Historicist

Historicist

Historicist

Historicist

Historicist

Well-Known Member

Historicist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads