- Jul 21, 2018
- 1,029
- 131
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You're sidestepping the point I was making. You were trying to dismiss that God reinstates Ephraim as a chosen people in Hosea 2:23, the elect individuals who comprise Ephraim. They are not gentiles. It’s a simple fact that some people in our modern society are descendants of the ten northern tribes of Ephraim and some are not. Supersessionists can grumble all they want but this fact still stands. When the inerrancy of scripture is upheld, the Old Testament texts concerning the restoration of the elect of Ephraim pertain to the descendants of the ten northern tribes and those concerning the elect gentiles pertain to those who are not descendants of the ten tribes. Your comments make no such distinctions so they are anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally.
Your interpretation ends the inerrancy of scripture in that it no longer maintains the OT as a guide for the original addressees, as well as succeeding generations. The inerrancy of the OT is shattered when the prophets are interpreted as in error as to the identity of Ephraim, or that the ten northern tribes become synonymous with the gentiles, undistinguishable by God as to who is a descendant of Ephraim and who is not. God’s omniscience is called into question if he is unable to make such a distinction in the end and having ordained it to the prophets who lived thousands of years before its consummation. The prophets are simply incapable of relating future events concerning their people to their contemporaries and their future descendants is such an interpretation as yours and supersessionism that attacks the inerrancy of the OT.
Again, supersessionism fails to grasp fulfillment in juxtapose with consummation. Some prophecies are intended to be protracted phenomena; fulfillment is for an extended period until the consummation. Revelation 11 affirms the kingdoms of the world do not become Christ’s to rule until the time arrives to judge the dead and to reward the saints. Consequently, texts such as Romans 15:12 cannot be truly interpreted as consummated but only begun, any more than Judah and Ephraim’s reconciliation in avowing Christ. Isaiah’s prophecy that Ephraim is only fully reconciled with Judah when Christ strikes the “earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked” (Isaiah 11:4) substantiates the enmity ends with Christ’s return in Revelation 11. Isaiah 11 cannot be correctly interpreted as fulfilled at the first advent.
In response to my perception that Ezekiel 37:19 and Hosea 1:10 are second advent events you wrote,
It is poor exegesis that cannot reconcile the prophecy that Christ breaks the brotherhood between Ephraim and Judah at the first advent and the NT texts that maintain peace for those IN Christ.
As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. Romans 11:28
Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. Galatians 4:28-29
Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. Galatians 4:28-29
As to the latter text, you conceded it pertained to Judah, and as to the first, you conceded Ephraim was not included according to Zechariah 10:8-9 as they were grafted in again to proclaim the great commission.
Again, you remonstrate against my perception that Ezekiel 37:19 and Hosea 1:10 are a second advent phenomenon you wrote,
One cannot correctly interpret Christ came to bring Ephraim and Judah together when Zechariah 11:14 prophesied he would come to break the brotherhood apart (which is a fallacy), which substantiates Ezekiel 37:19 and Hosea 1:10 are a second advent phenomenon. Jews that are grafted in with Ephraim again in this age are the exception and not the rule. Romans 11:28 maintains the rule; they were hardened. Supersessionism continually and mistakenly attempts to make exceptions the rule.
And what happened to your acknowledgment that 2 Timothy 3:16 is to be adhered to? All scripture is by inspiration. There is no need for prophecy in the OT to be repeated in the New in order for it to be considered defensible. Such a notion is what is wrong with supersessionism and its adherents. Furthermore, arguments from silence are fallacious. Both Testaments must agree or 2 Timothy 3:16 is undermined.
Your avoiding that gentiles are not prophesied to be sown in the world as Ephraim, which demolishes your argument, amongst others.
You’re merely sidestepping here with your implication that under the Old Covenant the Jews considered Ephraimites gentiles, which they did not if they read Isaiah, Hosea, and Zechariah, which affirm they are restored. 1 Peter 1:1, 2:9;10, Romans 9:25-26 and 7:1-4 affirm the time in which they were restored as a covenant people.
As stated, Isaiah 36:1 reveals that Sennacherib took cities from Judah captive. There were refugees from Judah that went with the 10 tribes into captivity. And Samaria was never restored to Ephraim, so they couldn’t come back, while the Jews could. All this affirms Peter addressed his epistles to Ephraim, who were still “exiles” in the fullest sense of the word.
Do you maintain that they are no longer hardened?
Your acknowledgment/concession that Ephraim is gathered in Christ and sown in the world to proclaim the great commission is a huge contraction and that is why you are trying to backpedal now by trying to call them gentiles. Show us in scripture were the gentiles were sown in the world to proclaim the great commission if you can. History affirms, both Judah and Ephraim ultimately lost there homeland, which facilitated God sowing Ephraim amongst the gentiles to proclaim the great commission.
A poorer argument is for someone who wasn’t there to judge someone’s credibility who was there.
No, you’re not grasping the implications. 1 Peter 1:10-12 affirms the prophets were inquiring about the salvation of the elect exiles of the dispersion, which you are trying to morph into the salvation of the gentiles. Ephesian 3:4-6, which you brought up, maintains the prophets knew nothing about the gentiles becoming fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in their Messiah, so they couldn’t have been inquiring about their salvation, period. It had to be Ephraim’s salvation they were inquiring about.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
