Dispensationalism Refuted

Status
Not open for further replies.

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The ten Northern tribes were punished by God with exile from the holy Land.

I agree

Ezekiel 4:4-5 plainly states that this exile was to be for a decreed time; 390 years.

No it doesn't.

It states Ezekiel was to lay on his side for a number of days = to years of the house of Israel's iniquity: 390 years of iniquity = 390 days of Ezekiel laying on his side for the house of Israel.

Ezekiel 4:5 And I — I have laid on thee the years of their iniquity, the number of days, three hundred and ninety days; and thou hast borne the iniquity of the house of Israel.

The 390 years is not exile, it's the number of years of their iniquity (sins).

but the explanation is found in Leviticus 26:21....I shall increase your punishment seven times.....
This gives us 390 X 7 = 2730 years total exile for the House of Israel.
They were conquered in 722 by Shalmanasser, then finally deported to Northern Assyria by King Sargon 11, circa 719-714.
This means that their exile is now over or very near to it.

I disagree with your interpretation because Ezekiel 4 does not say 390 years of exile.

It is the house of Israel whose years of iniquity is 390.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ebedmelech
Upvote 0

ebedmelech

My dog Micah in the pic
Supporter
Jul 3, 2012
8,998
678
✟187,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Why bring up fulfilled prophecy? Ebed's rabbit trails?
The 70 years of Judah's first exile was completed as prophesied.

Since then, Judah was exiled again; by the Romans, THAT is the exile Ezekiel 4:5 refers to.
If you think Leviticus 26:18-26 has been fulfilled, please show where and when.
Keras, this is so bad I don't know where to start...but rather than do this with you, I'll stick to the subject of the thread. Please study the Kings of Israel and Judah...perhaps you'll find out where you're missing the boat.
 
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,012
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,485.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul, from the tribe of benajamin and not from ephraim, including himself in the children of the desolate woman in galatians 4 destroys your argument of the children of the desolate woman being solely of Ephraim seemingly based on the theology of British Israelism.



Jerry, are you not fully reading my posts again? I specifically stated the promises UNDER THE OLD COVENANT were conditional on obedience:

From post #328:

"The promises under the old covenant were conditional on obedience.

Deuteronomy 30:9-10 The Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers, when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul."



I agree, the promises made to Abraham and his offspring were not conditional, that's why I stated:

From Post #328:

"The promises made to Abraham, were not conditional on obedience.

Galatians 3:17-18 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise."



Notice Paul states "this is what I mean". Paul literally states that Jesus is the seed that the promises (plural) in genesis referred to and then states "this is what I mean".

Galatians 3:16-18 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. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

The old covenant, whose promises were conditional on obedience, do not annul the promises to Abraham and his offspring BECAUSE JESUS IS THE OFFSPRING, THE HEIR OF THE PROMISES TO ABRAHAM.

The old covenant, whose promises were conditional on obedience, was added because of sin, UNTIL Jesus would come, TO WHOM THE UNCONDITIONAL PROMISES OF ABRAHAM WERE MADE.

Galatians 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made,

This, along with Paul, who is from the tribe of benjamin, and not Epraim, including himself in the children of the desolate woman, destroys your assertion that it is solely Ephraim that composes the children of the desolate woman. It also silences your exegesis which seems to be built on British Israelism.

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




The promises under the old covenant were conditional upon Israel's obedience, correct?



Paul confirms the PLURAL UNCONDITIONAL PROMISES to abraham are to Christ.

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.



So the 10 northern tribes weren't made desolate during the time of Isaiah? I disagree, as Isaiah wrote during the time Ephraim was divorced by God through the Assyrian Exile.



I agree, which is the point I made.

Ephraim, the 7th century northern kingdom, was divorced by God and exiled by the Assyrians. God promised that one day Ephraim's descendants would be more than that of the southern kingdom, who remained married to God.



I agree. So what would be the status of Ephraim from the time of its Assyrian exile, leading up to the time of Christ? Barren and desolate or married and restored?



Your going to have to clarify this Jerry.

At first you say that I am in error that Ephraim, the barren and desolate woman refers to the time of Isaiah:
1.) "You are in gross error that the barren and desolate women in Isaiah 54 represents the time of Isaiah."

Then you state it is future when Ephraim comes out of its rejected, barren and desolate phase:
2.) "which substantiates Isaiah is prophesizing of the transitional phenomenon in the future when Ephraim is coming out of its rejected, barren and desolate phase"

When does Ephraim's desolate barren phase begin, if it doesn't begin with God divorcing Ephraim through the Assyrian Exile during the time of Isaiah?



Your have not surmounted my argument.

Jesus is the one who inherits the nations
Psalm 2:8 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.

Psalm 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

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, through whom also he created the world.

Those in Christ are co-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.

The pejorative label British Israelism, two-house theology (THT), cannot be sustained by the scriptures, unlike the pejorative label of supersessionism. There are two women in Isaiah 54:1 and Paul testifies the “Jerusalem which now is” represents Hagar and we have both acknowledged this Jerusalem is symbolic of the married woman in Isaiah 54, Judah, unless you want to retract your affirmation. Indisputably, Paul is a literal descendant of Benjamin, one of the tribes of Judah, the “Jerusalem which now is.” Your claim clearly cannot be upheld in any literal sense, as Paul is a literal “child” of Judah, the “Jerusalem which now is,” the married woman in Isaiah 54. This is your dilemma and the only viable solution is that Paul is imparting the spiritual sense; Paul is a child of the “Jerusalem which is above” in the spiritual sense, as opposed to any literal sense. THT is upheld by Paul’s use of the spiritual; his allegory and citation of Isaiah 54:1 parallel Matthew 21:43 when Christ cast out the bondwoman and gave the kingdom of God to the “nation” who was to bear the fruit of the vineyard, the spiritual first-born son and heir, Ephraim/Israel/Zion (Jeremiah 31:9). In the spiritual sense Paul, the church, comes to Zion in Hebrews 12:22-23 and that Zion is the same one in Isaiah 54 and throughout the said book, who fulfills the birthright of fecundity, Ephraim/Israel. Your claims have a feeble foundation in scripture because they stem from supersessionism and their improper timing of when to use the spiritual as opposed to the literal.

Now being you acknowledge that promises to the descendants of Abraham are unconditional through Christ, why even broach the supersessionist’s rhetoric of conditionalism? It is of no value with our controversy.

As to your insistence the timing of Isaiah 54, there is nothing to “sing” about if the object of the text is the continuation of this barren and desolate “state”; the singing conveys the state is at an end, at a future time from when Isaiah wrote. This affirms the chapter is a prophecy of the future when Christ reestablishes the covenant relationship with the nation of Ephraim under the New Covenant.

As to the “seed” inheriting the gentiles in Isaiah 54:3, as I’ve stated before the “seed” has two sense: Christ and the descendants of Ephraim/Israel. Isaiah is replete with defining this “inheritance” in several places like chapter 60.

Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee…. The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 60:5, 14​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,012
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,485.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. That won't prove correct in light of Romans 4:9-15
9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.”
10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;
15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

Paul's point here will not allow your explantion to stand...the point being that BEFORE the Law came, ALL who have the faith of Abraham are descendants of Abraham.

The covenant with Israel begins at Exodus 24:3-8. At that point Israel became God's covenant people...BUT...the promise to Abraham and his descendants is well before this. That is Paul's point...ROCK SOLID.


No brother...Peter puts that to rest at 1 Peter 2:4-10:
4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,
5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6 For this is contained in Scripture: “Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone,
And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, “The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone,”
8 and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Peter has applied your passage to Gentiles equally! Therefore, your conclusion is not in step with Paul nor Peter, who are both declaring that Gentiles are just as much heirs as Jews because at the cross the Old Covenant dies and Israel is no longer God's covenant people, as Peter is declaring ALL Christians to be a chosen race, a royal priesthood...etc.

Romans 4:9-15 does not exclude the circumcised, the biological descendants, in God’s covenant—it merely includes the uncircumcised at the time of the end of the Old Covenant and the inauguration of the New. And we mustn’t exclude how Paul leads into this exegesis on Genesis: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law (Romans 3:31 ESV). Of course, under the New Covenant the “seal of righteousness,” the law, has changed; we no longer receive the seal of circumcision but baptism.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Ephesian 2:8-10​

Baptism is but part of the ordained good works, the seal of righteousness.

And 1 Peter 2:9-10 is not about gentiles, as Peter cites directly from Hosea 2:23, which is about Ephraim. This is substantiated by and to whom Peter addressed his epistles: the elect exiles of the dispersion, 1 Peter 1:1, who are not gentiles, your supersessionism notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
British Israelism, two-house theology (THT), cannot be sustained by the scriptures,

I agree

There are two women in Isaiah 54:1 and Paul testifies the “Jerusalem which now is” represents Hagar and we have both acknowledged this Jerusalem is symbolic of the married woman in Isaiah 54, Judah,

I agree

Indisputably, Paul is a literal descendant of Benjamin, one of the tribes of Judah, the “Jerusalem which now is.”

I agree, and yet Paul does not include himself in the "Jerusalem which now is". He includes himself in the children whose mother is the Jerusalem from above.

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

Thus it is solely through Christ under the new covenant and not by race, tribe, or nationality.

This is your dilemma and the only viable solution is that Paul is imparting the spiritual sense; Paul is a child of the “Jerusalem which is above” in the spiritual sense, as opposed to any literal sense.

How is that my "dilemma" if it's the correct interpretation as literally stated by Paul?

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

THT is upheld by Paul’s use of the spiritual;

How so? Paul seems to not believe in a 2 house theology, but a one body under the head of Christ theology.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:15-16 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.

Your claims have a feeble foundation in scripture because they stem from supersessionism

Christians supersessionsim: "is a Christian doctrine which asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ supersedes the Old Covenant"

Yes, I do believe the new covenant superseded the old covenant, as scripture clearly states:

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second. But God found fault with the people and said:

Hebrews 8:13 By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear

Do you believe the old covenant is still in effect? If you don't, than you are also supersessionist.

Now being you acknowledge that promises to the descendants of Abraham are unconditional through Christ, why even broach the supersessionist’s rhetoric of conditionalism? It is of no value with our controversy.

That's not what I acknowledged. I stated the promises spoken to Abraham were to his seed, who is Jesus. The conditional promises of the old covenant do not annul the unconditional promises given to Abraham. How? because the unconditional promises were given to a singular seed: Jesus.
Galatians 3:16-17 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. What I mean is this: The law that came 430 years later does not revoke the covenant previously established by God, so as to cancel the promise

the nation of Israel was removed from the land by Assyria and Babylon based on the conditional promises of the old covenant. So how do we reconcile that with the unconditional promise given to Abraham and his seed? His seed is singular: Jesus.

As to your insistence the timing of Isaiah 54, there is nothing to “sing” about if the object of the text is the continuation of this barren and desolate “state”; the singing conveys the state is at an end, at a future time from when Isaiah wrote.

This doesn't answer my question

"When does Ephraim's desolate barren phase begin, if it doesn't begin with God divorcing Ephraim through the Assyrian Exile during the time of Isaiah?"

This affirms the chapter is a prophecy of the future when Christ reestablishes the covenant relationship with the nation of Ephraim under the New Covenant.

Which has been my argument the entire time.............

from post #253 " I would say the new nation bearing fruit is NOT JUST Ephraim with gentiles, but also those from Judah and Benjamin who have put their faith in Christ. Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 as being fulfilled in regards to the free children of the New covenant who belong to the heavenly Jerusalem, while the slave children of the old covenant belong to 1st century earthly Jerusalem. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin and he states the new Jerusalem is "our mother". This new nation includes more than Ephraim. "

As to the “seed” inheriting the gentiles in Isaiah 54:3, as I’ve stated before the “seed” has two sense: Christ and the descendants of Ephraim/Israel. Isaiah is replete with defining this “inheritance” in several places like chapter 60.

Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee…. The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 60:5, 14

How does this surmount that it is Jesus who inherits the nations?

Jesus is the one who inherits the nations
Psalm 2:8 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.

Psalm 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

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, through whom also he created the world.

Those in Christ are co-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.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,012
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,485.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree



I agree



I agree, and yet Paul does not include himself in the "Jerusalem which now is". He includes himself in the children whose mother is the Jerusalem from above.

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

Thus it is solely through Christ under the new covenant and not by race, tribe, or nationality.



How is that my "dilemma" if it's the correct interpretation as literally stated by Paul?

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



How so? Paul seems to not believe in a 2 house theology, but a one body under the head of Christ theology.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:15-16 by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments and decrees. He did this to create in Himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace and reconciling both of them to God in one body through the cross, by which He extinguished their hostility.



Christians supersessionsim: "is a Christian doctrine which asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ supersedes the Old Covenant"

Yes, I do believe the new covenant superseded the old covenant, as scripture clearly states:

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second. But God found fault with the people and said:

Hebrews 8:13 By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear

Do you believe the old covenant is still in effect? If you don't, than you are also supersessionist.



That's not what I acknowledged. I stated the promises spoken to Abraham were to his seed, who is Jesus. The conditional promises of the old covenant do not annul the unconditional promises given to Abraham. How? because the unconditional promises were given to a singular seed: Jesus.
Galatians 3:16-17 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. What I mean is this: The law that came 430 years later does not revoke the covenant previously established by God, so as to cancel the promise

the nation of Israel was removed from the land by Assyria and Babylon based on the conditional promises of the old covenant. So how do we reconcile that with the unconditional promise given to Abraham and his seed? His seed is singular: Jesus.



This doesn't answer my question

"When does Ephraim's desolate barren phase begin, if it doesn't begin with God divorcing Ephraim through the Assyrian Exile during the time of Isaiah?"



Which has been my argument the entire time.............

from post #253 " I would say the new nation bearing fruit is NOT JUST Ephraim with gentiles, but also those from Judah and Benjamin who have put their faith in Christ. Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1 as being fulfilled in regards to the free children of the New covenant who belong to the heavenly Jerusalem, while the slave children of the old covenant belong to 1st century earthly Jerusalem. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin and he states the new Jerusalem is "our mother". This new nation includes more than Ephraim. "



How does this surmount that it is Jesus who inherits the nations?

Jesus is the one who inherits the nations
Psalm 2:8 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.

Psalm 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

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, through whom also he created the world.

Those in Christ are co-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.

What I stated was that, “the pejorative label of THT cannot be sustained by scripture,” not that THT cannot be sustained by scripture. Do you know what pejorative means?

You’re side-stepping the significance that Paul was a literal descendant of Benjamin, one of the tribes of Judah, the “Jerusalem which now is.” The significance is that we are compelled into interpreting that Paul is speaking spiritually and not literally. It substantiates he doesn’t have to be a literal descendant of Ephraim to be spiritually perceived by God as one of the children of Ephraim, when Ephraim is the nation given the kingdom of God in Matthew 21:43. It substantiates that Paul and the apostles are the spiritual children of the barren and desolate women, Ephraim, in Isaiah 54. Once one concedes that we are compelled into interpreting that Paul is speaking spiritually and not literally it demolished any argument that the “Jerusalem which is above” cannot be Ephraim because Paul was a literal Benjamite.

Your assessment of supersessionism is incomplete. The comprehensive definition of supersessionism maintains that Israel was a chosen people and that their failure to avow Christ ended this relationship, which was superseded by the church. THT exposes supersessionism as a fallacious doctrine.

You unavoidably promoted supersessionism when you wrote: “the nation of Israel was removed from the land by Assyria and Babylon based on the conditional promises of the old covenant. So how do we reconcile that with the unconditional promise given to Abraham and his seed? His seed is singular: Jesus.”

The promises were just to Christ and his church and not to the biological descendants of Israel because of the conditions of the Old Covenant in your interpretation, which is supersessionism. The conclusion of your interpretation maintains that all the biological descendant from Moses until the first advent have no part in eternal life since the seed and promises pertain strictly to Christ and his church. Your conclusion maintains there are no elect descendants of Abraham under the Mosaic covenant. Yet, if you protest against this conclusion and concede that the promises were also the elect biological descendants of Israel prior to Christ’s first advent, then you also concede to THT and that the “seed” in Genesis 22:18 also represents the the elect biological descendants of Abraham.

Again, you failed to comprehend that Isaiah 54 is about the end of Ephraim’s barren and desolate period and is the metaphoric reason “she” is encouraged to sing. It is Ephraim that is married again in verse 5 and is the mother of the children who become more than the married woman who represents Judah.

Isaiah 60 substantiates that Ephraim/Israel “inherits” the gentiles. “Inherit" is from the Hebrew: H3423 יָרֵשׁ יָרַשׁ (yārēš yāraš) 1.) to seize, dispossess, take possession of, inherit, disinherit, occupy, impoverish, be an heir. Isaiah 60 substantiates that the gentiles who afflict Israel/Zion shall “bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel,” which substantiates that the gentiles that are not converted are seized, dispossessed, taken possession of, occupied and etc. and etc. By definition, Zion inherits the gentiles in Isaiah 60 and other texts in the said book.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ebedmelech

My dog Micah in the pic
Supporter
Jul 3, 2012
8,998
678
✟187,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Romans 4:9-15 does not exclude the circumcised, the biological descendants, in God’s covenant—it merely includes the uncircumcised at the time of the end of the Old Covenant and the inauguration of the New. And we mustn’t exclude how Paul leads into this exegesis on Genesis: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law (Romans 3:31 ESV). Of course, under the New Covenant the “seal of righteousness,” the law, has changed; we no longer receive the seal of circumcision but baptism.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Ephesian 2:8-10​

Baptism is but part of the ordained good works, the seal of righteousness.

And 1 Peter 2:9-10 is not about gentiles, as Peter cites directly from Hosea 2:23, which is about Ephraim. This is substantiated by and to whom Peter addressed his epistles: the elect exiles of the dispersion, 1 Peter 1:1, who are not gentiles, your supersessionism notwithstanding.
No. Kinda read Exodus 12:43:49 Jerry. Perhaps that will hep you understand how Gentiles became Jews under the Old Covenant.

Now...the difference is under the New Covenant Christ has fulfilled the Passover. He is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world. Just as in the passage above Gentiles became Jews by becoming circumcised and the partaking of the Passover, under the New Covenant they come to Christ and receive a circumcised heart just at Dueteronomy 10:12-16. No matter how you try to slice it scripture refutes you.
 
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,012
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,485.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. Kinda read Exodus 12:43:49 Jerry. Perhaps that will hep you understand how Gentiles became Jews under the Old Covenant.

Now...the difference is under the New Covenant Christ has fulfilled the Passover. He is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world. Just as in the passage above Gentiles became Jews by becoming circumcised and the partaking of the Passover, under the New Covenant they come to Christ and receive a circumcised heart just at Dueteronomy 10:12-16. No matter how you try to slice it scripture refutes you.

The scriptures only refute me under your presuppositions of supersessionism, not under any true exegesis. All you are doing to conceding to my perception of Ephesians 2:11-12, that the gentiles were alien in regards to the covenants of God and without hope in the world as opposed to the biological descendants of Israel; their patriation was discouraged by the Old Covenant until the ratification of the New. And it was through the promises to the descendants Abraham that the gentiles would ultimately be converted and find favor with God (Genesis 22:18).
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
the gentiles were alien in regards to the covenants of God and without hope in the world as opposed to the biological descendants of Israel; their patriation was discouraged by the Old Covenant until the ratification of the New.

No evidence at all that "their patriation was discouraged by the Old Covenant".

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

Numbers 15:16
One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
 
Upvote 0

ebedmelech

My dog Micah in the pic
Supporter
Jul 3, 2012
8,998
678
✟187,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The scriptures only refute me under your presuppositions of supersessionism, not under any true exegesis. All you are doing to conceding to my perception of Ephesians 2:11-12, that the gentiles were alien in regards to the covenants of God and without hope in the world as opposed to the biological descendants of Israel; their patriation was discouraged by the Old Covenant until the ratification of the New. And it was through the promises to the descendants Abraham that the gentiles would ultimately be converted and find favor with God (Genesis 22:18).
You simply do not read scripture apart from your theology. Ephesians makes it clear that Gentiles were aliens prior to Christ except they come to God through Old Covenant law, as I stated. Paul is writing to the Ephesian church which was almost wholly a Gentile congregation. Paul's purpose in calling them "formerly Gentiles" is clear...he had told them Christ made Jews and Gentiles into one body to God...which is the point Paul is making. Gentiles in Christ are no longer alien or strangers. Paul intensifies that by telling them they are FELLOW CITIZENS with the saints built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as the Cornerstone.

I've conceded nothing to you...but I have effectively refuted you. Paul reiterates the same to the Philippian church when he tells them this in Philippians 3:3-5

3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

The TRUE CIRCUMCISION is all who are in Christ...they are spiritual Jews...you simply can't and don't see it!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,012
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,485.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No evidence at all that "their patriation was discouraged by the Old Covenant".

Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.

Numbers 15:16
One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

Ephesian 2:14 makes it clear that God constructed a wall of partition, the Old Covenant, between Israel and the gentiles that inhibited their patriation. The wall allowed for a limited inclusion of gentiles, but it was a wall nonetheless that had to be broken down to facilitate the fulfillment of Genesis 22:18. I do not see how you have surmounted this. The texts you cite only substantiate this limited inclusion.
 
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,012
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,485.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You simply do not read scripture apart from your theology. Ephesians makes it clear that Gentiles were aliens prior to Christ except they come to God through Old Covenant law, as I stated. Paul is writing to the Ephesian church which was almost wholly a Gentile congregation. Paul's purpose in calling them "formerly Gentiles" is clear...he had told them Christ made Jews and Gentiles into one body to God...which is the point Paul is making. Gentiles in Christ are no longer alien or strangers. Paul intensifies that by telling them they are FELLOW CITIZENS with the saints built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ as the Cornerstone.

I've conceded nothing to you...but I have effectively refuted you. Paul reiterates the same to the Philippian church when he tells them this in Philippians 3:3-5

3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

The TRUE CIRCUMCISION is all who are in Christ...they are spiritual Jews...you simply can't and don't see it!

You are jousting with windmills. I’ve never held that the wall of partition in Ephesian 2:14 is still in effect. What I’ve been substantiating is that the gentiles are made fellow citizens through Christ and with the assistance of the elect biological descendants of Abraham (Genesis 22:18). The prophets provide a progressive revelation of the fulfillment of Genesis 22:18 through Christ and the assistance of Ephraim/Israel. This progressive revelation is suppressed by the presuppositions of supersessionism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Ephesian 2:14 makes it clear that God constructed a wall of partition, the Old Covenant, between Israel and the gentiles that inhibited their patriation. The wall allowed for a limited inclusion of gentiles, but it was a wall nonetheless that had to be broken down to facilitate the fulfillment of Genesis 22:18. I do not see how you have surmounted this. The texts you cite only substantiate this limited inclusion.

God constructed no wall of partition. Ephesians 2:2 makes it clear that alienation and separation were the choice of those who were alienated and separated:

Ephesians 2
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The Scriptures in the foregoing posts make clear that God's covenant promises and blessings were fully available to all irrespective of physical DNA.

Covenant compliance of faith and obedience, aka spiritual DNA, were the only covenant conditions.

As they have always been.

No Replacement Biology (RB) or Biological Supersessionism (**) there.
 
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,012
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,485.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God constructed no wall of partition. Ephesians 2:2 makes it clear that alienation and separation were the choice of those who were alienated and separated:

Ephesians 2
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The Scriptures in the foregoing posts make clear that God's covenant promises and blessings were fully available to all irrespective of physical DNA.

Covenant compliance of faith and obedience, aka spiritual DNA, were the only covenant conditions.

As they have always been.

No Replacement Biology (RB) or Biological Supersessionism (**) there.

If it was merely their choice there would have been no need for the blood of Christ to deconstruct the wall of partition, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. The wall was clearly revealed and the Mosaic covenant. The wall allowed for a limited inclusion of gentiles, but it was a wall nonetheless that had to be broken down to facilitate the fulfillment of Genesis 22:18. I do not see how you have surmounted this. The texts you cite only substantiate this limited inclusion.

What I’ve been substantiating is that the gentiles are made fellow citizens through Christ and with the assistance of the elect biological descendants of Abraham (Genesis 22:18). The prophets provide a progressive revelation of the fulfillment of Genesis 22:18 through Christ and the assistance of Ephraim/Israel. This progressive revelation is suppressed by the presuppositions of supersessionism, which you hold.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If it was merely their choice there would have been no need for the blood of Christ to deconstruct the wall of partition, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. The wall allowed for a limited inclusion of gentiles, but it was a wall nonetheless that had to be broken down to facilitate the fulfillment of Genesis 22:18. I do not see how you have surmounted this. The texts you cite only substantiate this limited inclusion.

What I’ve been substantiating is that the gentiles are made fellow citizens through Christ and with the assistance of the elect biological descendants of Abraham (Genesis 22:18). The prophets provide a progressive revelation of the fulfillment of Genesis 22:18 through Christ and the assistance of Ephraim/Israel. This progressive revelation is suppressed by the presuppositions of supersessionism, which you hold.

God constructed no wall of partition. Ephesians 2:2 makes it clear that alienation and separation were the choice of those who were alienated and separated:

Ephesians 2
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The Scriptures in the foregoing posts make clear that God's covenant promises and blessings were fully available to all irrespective of physical DNA.

Covenant compliance of faith and obedience, aka spiritual DNA, were the only covenant conditions.

As they have always been.

No Replacement Biology (RB) or Biological Supersessionism (**) there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,012
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,485.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God constructed no wall of partition. Ephesians 2:2 makes it clear that alienation and separation were the choice of those who were alienated and separated:

Ephesians 2
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

The Scriptures in the foregoing posts make clear that God's covenant promises and blessings were fully available to all irrespective of physical DNA.

Covenant compliance of faith and obedience, aka spiritual DNA, were the only covenant conditions.

As they have always been.

No Replacement Biology (RB) or Biological Supersessionism (**) there.

Your side-stepping that Ephesian 2:15 reveals as the law of commandments contained in ordinances created enmity between the gentiles and the descendants of Abraham, Israel. Circumcision discouraged the inclusion of the gentiles. Acts and Galatians testify that it was still a problem until the councils, through revelation, decided against it.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your side-stepping that Ephesian 2:15 reveals as the law of commandments contained in ordinances created enmity between the gentiles and the descendants of Abraham, Israel. Circumcision discouraged the inclusion of the gentiles. Acts and Galatians testify that it was still a problem until the councils, through revelation, decided against it.

The law of commandments contained in ordinances created enmity between those who were faithful and obedient to them, and those who were not.

Nothing to do with physical DNA.

No scripture discourages the inclusion of the Gentiles.

No RB or BS.
 
Upvote 0

Jerryhuerta

Historicist
Supporter
Jul 21, 2018
1,012
130
Tucson
Visit site
✟217,485.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The law of commandments contained in ordinances created enmity between those who were faithful and obedient to them, and those who were not.

Nothing to do with physical DNA.

No scripture discourages the inclusion of the Gentiles.

No RB or BS.

The lengths some supersessionist will go to maintain their false doctrines has no bounds. Even so, there are a significant number of supersessionist who published commentaries that agree with me that Ephesians 2:13-14 concerns the enmity between the “gentiles” and the “Jews”, due to the law contained in ordinances, the Mosaic Covenant. Rev. Joseph Benson, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, John Wesley, John Gill and Albert Barnes to name a few.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The lengths some supersessionist will go to maintain their false doctrines has no bounds. Even so, there are a significant number of supersessionist who published commentaries that agree with me that Ephesians 2:13-14 concerns the enmity between the “gentiles” and the “Jews”, due to the law contained in ordinances, the Mosaic Covenant. Rev. Joseph Benson, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, John Wesley, John Gill and Albert Barnes to name a few.
Quotes please.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The lengths some supersessionist will go to maintain their false doctrines has no bounds.

Right. British Israelism (BI) is the only repository of truth.
Just a reminder: "Most Christians regard it as a cult."
Myself included.
The myths and falsifications of BI/RB/BS cultic racialism are legion.

Even so, there are a significant number of supersessionist who published commentaries that agree with me that Ephesians 2:13-14 concerns the enmity between the “gentiles” and the “Jews”, due to the law contained in ordinances, the Mosaic Covenant. Rev. Joseph Benson, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, John Wesley, John Gill and Albert Barnes to name a few.

There was no enmity between believing Gentiles and believing Jews. They were united in belief.
There was no enmity between unbelieving Gentiles and unbelieving Jews. They were united in unbelief.
There was enmity between believing Gentiles and Jews; and unbelieving Gentiles and Jews.

There was no other enmity, BI/RB/BS "interpretation by imagination" notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.