Dispensationalism Refuted

[Jerryhuerta]

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

Of course, this fails miserably with the prophecy in Zechariah 10.

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. And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the LORD. I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased. And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again. Zechariah 10:6-9​

Zechariah prophesied after the return from the Babylon captivity, which affirms there was to be another diaspora and return. You are a poor student of the Old Testament and for this reason don’t grasp the New.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Under the new covenant ,genealogies are useless

Oh please! Even in the NT the New Covenant is to Israel and Judah (Hebrews 8). It is from the promise in Jeremiah 31. Matthew testifies Christ did not initially come for the gentiles.

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 10:5-6​

The consequences are that prior to the New Covenant the children of God were determined by biology; they were born into it while the gentiles had to be converted. Kick against the pricks all you want, biology has played a part in God's covenant and promises from the beginning. And Ephraim was lost because they were cast off but in addition, because their house was fallen.

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

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

In 1 Chronicles 5:1-2 the firstborn birthright was given unto “the sons of Joseph.” That would be Ephraim and Manasseh.

In Isaiah 61 “the acceptable year” (v.2), the restoring of the old wastes, the former desolations of many generation (v. 4) and proclaiming liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound (v. 1), were previously introduced by Isaiah in chapters 49, 54 and others.

For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Isaiah 54:3

Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places. Isaiah 49:8-9​

The proper analysis confirms they are addressing the same entity, the 10 tribes of Ephraim, the tribes of Jacob, whom the Servant, Christ, is tasked to raise so as to be a light unto the gentiles and salvation to the ends of the earth (Isaiah 49:6). Isaiah 49 reveals who the mother is in Galatians 4:26.

But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me…. The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell. Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they been? Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me. Isaiah 49:14, 20-23​

The children who are lost are under the Old Covenant and those found are under the New. Your Replacement theological perceptions inhibit joining this thread about the 10 tribes of Ephraim that runs throughout Isaiah and the other Old Testament prophets into the New Testament. They are the ones that inherit the gentiles and are the nation that bears the fruit of the vineyard.

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

When the Assyrians sent Ephraim into captivity a trivial number of refugees fled to Judah. When Judah was sent to captivity by Babylon these trivial number of refugees went with them. This doesn’t preclude the preponderance of exiles from the Assyrian captivity retained the title of Ephraim.

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

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

The antecedent of the pronoun “thy” and noun “seed” in Isaiah 49:3 refers to the desolate woman; according the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, which your Replacement theology destroys. Again, you are remiss in the context of Genesis 22:18, from where Paul cites in Galatian 3:16. The antecedent verses in Genesis are:

And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. Genesis 22:16-17​

The term “seed” has both a singular and collective sense, the latter being a body of individuals, also substantiated in Genesis 13:15-16. That is why Paul uses the collective sense in the last verse in Galatians 3.

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

We find the same two senses in Isaiah 54:3, except in the untenable perception of Replacement theology. The “seed” is initially Christ and again, collectively Ephraim.

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

Repeating your assertion does not truly address my post or surmount it. Peter testifies that the elect exiles of the dispersion were in Galatia (1 Peter 1:1), which means that the Judaizers were persecuting the children of the promise, the descendants of the 10 tribes, who inherit the gentiles. The evidence is too powerful for those who are truly committed to the truth. Paul cites Isaiah 54:1 to reveal the additional revelation that the married women persecutes the barren and desolate one, by the use of a parable in which Hagar represents the married women in Isaiah 54:1 and Sarah represents the barren and desolate woman. The object of Paul’s allegory is the progressive revelation that the married woman in Isaiah 54:1 was to persecute the barren one, which is Ephraim. According to Isaiah 49, Paul is also a child of the tribes of Jacob, Zion.

But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me…. The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me: give place to me that I may dwell. Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they been? Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me. Isaiah 49:14, 20-23

And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people. Isaiah 51:16

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. Isaiah 61:1-3​

Paul, as well as you and I, are characterized in Isaiah 49 as the children of Zion under the New Covenant after she had lost the ones under the Old Covenant.

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. Hebrews 12:22-24​

 

[BABerean2]

The consequences are that prior to the New Covenant the children of God were determined by biology; they were born into it while the gentiles had to be converted.

That is not what Christ told Nicodemus.
A person must be "born again" of the Spirit of God to see the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'


Isa_63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?


Luk 2:25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Luk 2:27 So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law,
Luk 2:28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said:
Luk 2:29 "Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, According to Your word;
Luk 2:30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation
Luk 2:31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples,
Luk 2:32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel."


Luk 1:41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Luk 1:67 Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:


Do you think the Baal worshipers were the children of God because of their "biology"?

.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

That is not what Christ told Nicodemus.
A person must be "born again" of the Spirit of God to see the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'


Isa_63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?


Luk 2:25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
Luk 2:27 So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law,
Luk 2:28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said:
Luk 2:29 "Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, According to Your word;
Luk 2:30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation
Luk 2:31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples,
Luk 2:32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel."


Luk 1:41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Luk 1:67 Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:


Do you think the Baal worshipers were the children of God because of their "biology"?

.

Again, asked and answered: many are called, few are chosen. God called those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but few were chosen. It's called election base upon faith, faith in the Redeemer to come.

 

[BABerean2]

It's called election base upon faith, faith in the Redeemer to come.

Make up your mind.

Before you said it was based on "biology".

"The consequences are that prior to the New Covenant the children of God were determined by biology; they were born into it while the gentiles had to be converted."


Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Paul said the children of the flesh are not the children of God.
The Baal worshipers during the time of Elijah prove that the same was true in the Old Testament.
See Romans 11:1-5.

You cannot seem to let go of your Ephraim theory, which is still based on the flesh...

.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Make up your mind.

Before you said it was based on "biology".

"The consequences are that prior to the New Covenant the children of God were determined by biology; they were born into it while the gentiles had to be converted."


Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Paul said the children of the flesh are not the children of God.
The Baal worshipers during the time of Elijah prove that the same was true in the Old Testament.
See Romans 11:1-5.

You cannot seem to let go of your Ephraim theory, which is still based on the flesh...

.

This is an indication of indoctrination; the refusal to see. I've answered this repeatedly but some will not listen. When I stated that many are called but few are chosen under the Old Covenant it means God elects some to save by faith, not by works.

Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved. Romans 9:27​

Again, God saves some of those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which means that for some it is by faith and by the coincidence of birth; it is both. That is what Romans 9:6, 8 means. "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." That means some ARE. Only indoctrination would prevent someone from grasping that some who are born as Israelites are also children of the promise. For "some" Israelites salvation is by faith and the coincidence of birth, it is both. But for gentiles it is merely by faith. Furthermore, the phrase children of the flesh in Romans 9:8 is idiomatic of walking after the flesh, and not the coincidence of birth, as Replacement theology attemps to assert.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:1
​

The phrase children of the flesh in Romans 9:8 does not mean the coincidence of birth, it means those who walk after the flesh. Those who are born Israelites and are saved is because they walk after the Spirit, which is FAITH.

 

[BABerean2]

This is an indication of indoctrination; the refusal to see. I've answered this repeatedly but some will not listen. When I stated that many are called but few are chosen under the Old Covenant it means God elects some to save by faith, not by works.

Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved. Romans 9:27​

Again, God saves some of those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which means that for some it is by faith and by the coincidence of birth; it is both. That is what Romans 9:6, 8 means. "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." That means some ARE. Only indoctrination would prevent someone from grasping that some who are born as Israelites are also children of the promise. For "some" Israelites salvation is by faith and the coincidence of birth, it is both. But for gentiles it is merely by faith. Furthermore, the phrase children of the flesh in Romans 9:8 is idiomatic of walking after the flesh, and not the coincidence of birth, as Replacement theology attemps to assert.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:1
​

The phrase children of the flesh in Romans 9:8 does not mean the coincidence of birth, it means those who walk after the flesh. Those who are born Israelites and are saved is because they walk after the Spirit, which is FAITH.

The promise of the flesh was fulfilled by Jesus Christ found in Matthew 1:1, and confirmed by Paul in Galatians 3:16.

Based on what we find below, and based on what Paul said in Titus 3:9, God is not now a respecter of persons based on race.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Anyone who claims the future fulfillment of promises based on race, is ignoring what is found in scripture.

.

 

[ebedmelech]

Again, asked and answered: many are called, few are chosen. God called those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but few were chosen. It's called election base upon faith, faith in the Redeemer to come.

Jerry, I hate to just jump in here...but you're making a circular argument based on the Old Covenant and trying to mix it with the New Covenant. If you have carefully read Romans 4 you would know better.
I step in here to ask what do you do with Romans 4 which clearly declares that ALL who are of the faith of Abraham are the descendants of Abraham? A promise that was made to Abraham well before the Old Covenant was made at Exodus 24:3-8.

You can't side step that point. Paul, after making it clear in Romans 2 that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin makes this powerful argument to close out his point...Romans 2:17-28:

17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God,
18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law,
19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth,
21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?
24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

A quite reasonable arguement! Paul furthers his point at Romans 9:6-8:
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Given what Paul has said...how do you read this from Galatians 3:15-18?

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Jerry, I hate to just jump in here...but you're making a circular argument based on the Old Covenant and trying to mix it with the New Covenant. If you have carefully read Romans 4 you would know better.
I step in here to ask what do you do with Romans 4 which clearly declares that ALL who are of the faith of Abraham are the descendants of Abraham? A promise that was made to Abraham well before the Old Covenant was made at Exodus 24:3-8.

You can't side step that point. Paul, after making it clear in Romans 2 that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin makes this powerful argument to close out his point...Romans 2:17-28:

17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God,
18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law,
19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth,
21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?
24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

A quite reasonable arguement! Paul furthers his point at Romans 9:6-8:
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Given what Paul has said...how do you read this from Galatians 3:15-18?

Let me ask you, is the phrase children of the flesh in Romans 9:8 idiomatic of walking after the flesh as we note in Romans 8:1 or the coincidence of birth as Replacement theology attempts to assert? And how do you interpret?

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 2:10-11​

BTW, I'm a Christian gentile.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

The promise of the flesh was fulfilled by Jesus Christ found in Matthew 1:1, and confirmed by Paul in Galatians 3:16.

Based on what we find below, and based on what Paul said in Titus 3:9, God is not now a respecter of persons based on race.

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Anyone who claims the future fulfillment of promises based on race, is ignoring what is found in scripture.

.

Matthew 1:1 hardly substantiates the promises were not to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and through them stem the blessings to the gentiles. And I've exegeted on Galatians 3:16 that it is also indicative of the collective sense concerning the elect descendants of Abraham. Furthermore, your strawman argument derived from Titus 3:9 and Acts 10:34-5, doesn’t surmount the grammatical-historical intent of the Old Testament passages that substantiate Ephraim’s part as Zion in Isaiah 49, 51 and 61, to name a few, that finds their way in to the NT as Sion in Hebrews 12:22 as well as the nation that bears the fruit of the vineyard. One does not have to be a respecter of persons to correctly interpret Old Testament prophecy and its fulfillment. Titus 3:9 and Acts 10:34-5 do not suppress the Old Testament and its relevance in determining eschatology, except in the fallacious doctrines of Replacement theology and dispensationalism.

 

[claninja]

Oh please! Even in the NT the New Covenant is to Israel and Judah (Hebrews 8). It is from the promise in Jeremiah 31. Matthew testifies Christ did not initially come for the gentiles.

Which leads us back to who is true Israel under the new covenant? The answer is NOT found in genealogies or tribes, the answer is those in Christ

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

Ephesians 2:11-14 Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility

For the Jews that rejected Christ were broken off of true Israel and the gentiles who accepted Christ were grafted in to true Israel.'

Romans 11:17-18 Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, remember this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

The consequences are that prior to the New Covenant the children of God were determined by biology; they were born into it while the gentiles had to be converted.

In 1 Chronicles 5:1-2 the firstborn birthright was given unto “the sons of Joseph.” That would be Ephraim and Manasseh.

I agree, we can see this play out in genesis 48.

In Isaiah 61 “the acceptable year” (v.2), the restoring of the old wastes, the former desolations of many generation (v. 4) and proclaiming liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound (v. 1), were previously introduced by Isaiah in chapters 49, 54 and others.

Jesus fulfilled this during the 1st century, as quotes Isaiah 61:1-2a as being fulfilled in their presence.
luke 4:17-21 he scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. Unrolling it, He found the place where it was written:“The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor.He has sent Mee to proclaim deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind,to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”f Then He rolled up the scroll, returned it to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on Him, 21and He began by saying, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

The proper analysis confirms they are addressing the same entity, the 10 tribes of Ephraim, the tribes of Jacob, whom the Servant, Christ, is tasked to raise so as to be a light unto the gentiles and salvation to the ends of the earth (Isaiah 49:6). Isaiah 49 reveals who the mother is in Galatians 4:26.

Paul reveals who the mother is: the jerusalem above

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

The jerusalem that is above is represented by Sarah, which represents the New covenant.
galatians 4:24 These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants.

The children who are lost are under the Old Covenant and those found are under the New. Your Replacement theological perceptions inhibit joining this thread about the 10 tribes of Ephraim that runs throughout Isaiah and the other Old Testament prophets into the New Testament.

Another strawman argument. I don't believe the gentiles replaced Israel. I believe gentiles have been grafted into the true Israel that is of Christ.

As clearly stated by Paul, the gentiles don't replace Israel, but are FELLOW heirs, FELLOW members, and FELLOW partakers

Ephesians 3:6 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.

When the Assyrians sent Ephraim into captivity a trivial number of refugees fled to Judah. When Judah was sent to captivity by Babylon these trivial number of refugees went with them. This doesn’t preclude the preponderance of exiles from the Assyrian captivity retained the title of Ephraim

This doesn't address the argument though. You keep arguing those dispersed that are mentioned in the NT are the 10 northern tribes. I would argue, its not just the 10 northern tribes, but all 12 tribes.

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

The antecedent of the pronoun “thy” and noun “seed” in Isaiah 49:3 refers to the desolate woman;

You mean Isaiah 54:3? right?

The antecedent of the pronoun "thy" and noun "seed" in genesis 12:7 and genesis 13:15 refers to Abraham, and yet Paul applies the seed to Christ.

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

according the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, which your Replacement theology destroys.

I don't believe in replacement theology. I do not believe the gentiles have replaced Israel. I believe the gentiles were grafted into the Israel of Christ.

We find the same two senses in Isaiah 54:3, except in the untenable perception of Replacement theology. The “seed” is initially Christ and again, collectively Ephraim.

Here is where we agree and disagree. I agree that the seed is Christ.

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

I believe collectively, it is the body of Christ who are co heirs.

Romans 8:17 And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Repeating your assertion does not truly address my post or surmount it.

Pot calling the kettle black. You have yet to provide even 1 new testament scripture that sides with your case by explicitly stating Ephraim.

Peter testifies that the elect exiles of the dispersion were in Galatia (1 Peter 1:1)

Peter does not state '10 tribes', this is your assumption.

which means that the Judaizers were persecuting the children of the promise, the descendants of the 10 tribes, who inherit the gentiles.

Paul, from the tribe of benjamin, includes himself in the children of the desolate woman.
Galatatians 3:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Paul was persecuted by the judiazers. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin.

Acts 14:19 Then some Jews arrived from Antioch and Iconium and won over the crowds. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, presuming he was dead.

the children of the promise are anyone in christ.

Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Which leads us back to who is true Israel under the new covenant? The answer is NOT found in genealogies or tribes, the answer is those in Christ

For the Jews that rejected Christ were broken off of true Israel and the gentiles who accepted Christ were grafted in to true Israel.'

Which does not preclude that the gentiles are blessed through the descendants of Abraham (Genesis 12:3). And the elect of Israel weren’t grafted to Israel, they were born on to it.

This doesn't address the argument though. You keep arguing those dispersed that are mentioned in the NT are the 10 northern tribes. I would argue, its not just the 10 northern tribes, but all 12 tribes.

Fallacious argument; it concedes the elect exiles of the dispersion in 1 Peter 1:1 are still comprised of the 10 tribes and the object of the nation in 1 Peter 2:9-10. Having refugees from Judah with them doesn’t preclude the nation is the one that bears the fruit in Matthew 21:43.

You mean Isaiah 54:3? right?

The antecedent of the pronoun "thy" and noun "seed" in genesis 12:7 and genesis 13:15 refers to Abraham, and yet Paul applies the seed to Christ.

Yea, Isaiah 54:3. My exegesis maintain the term “seed” as it was used by Paul in Galatians 3:16 has a singular as well as a collective sense; the collective sense in Isaiah 54:3 is Ephraim. Don’t see where you surmounted this.

Here is where we agree and disagree. I agree that the seed is Christ.

I believe collectively, it is the body of Christ who are co heirs.

Your avoiding context again. In Galatians it is collectively referring to being in Christ; the context of Isaiah 54 does not allow for that simplification. In Isaiah we have three discrete entities, Ephraim, Judah, and the gentiles; the seed refers to Ephraim, collectively.

Paul, from the tribe of benjamin, includes himself in the children of the desolate woman.
Galatatians 3:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

Isaiah develops Zion in chapter 49 as the barren and desolate women in 54:1. We see Zion in chapter 49 as the mother of the tribes of Jacob that the Servant, Christ, is tasked to raise, clearly substantiated as occurring at the first advent; Jacob is another name for Ephraim, to whom the gentiles are gathered. An in-depth analysis substantiates that the Zion in Hebrews 12:22 is clearly the same Jerusalem in Galatians 4:26 and the same mother in Isaiah 49. And therein lies the difference in the ways we are perceiving Galatians chapter 4. I have gone to great lengths and study to maintain the grammatical-historical intent of the texts from Isaiah, while your position, stemming from Replacement theology, goes through great lengths to suppress said hermeneutic, which subverts Paul’s progressive revelation.

 

[ebedmelech]

Let me ask you, is the phrase children of the flesh in Romans 9:8 idiomatic of walking after the flesh as we note in Romans 8:1 or the coincidence of birth as Replacement theology attempts to assert? And how do you interpret?

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.

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.

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 2:10-11

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.

BTW, I'm a Christian gentile.

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

 

[thecolorsblend]

My big problem with dispensationalism is that it makes the eternal covenant into the temporary covenant.

I mean, Our Lord never said:

"This is my blood. The blood of the new and eternal covenant. Do this in memory of... actually, wait a minute. Nah. When I say 'eternal', I don't actually mean, like, ETERNAL. Yanno? I mean, this is a totally legit covenant and stuff but, like, when I come back as Space Jesus and rapture everybody and stuff, this new and eternal covenant that I'm about to make will be shown as the temporary covenant. Then we'll be back to the old covenant.

"No, srsly, there will be a third temple and valid animal sacrifices will be offered. I know the second temple hasn't been destroyed yet. Just go with me here, k?

"So yeah, the third temple will be totally accepted by God because there will be this one guy, it's a weird story, just trust me, there'll be this one guy who goes in there and does some really scandalous stuff to defile the temple that shouldn't even exist because the old covenant it represents has been fulfilled by Me and I'm supposed to set up a new and eternal covenant. Right? But, like, My new covenant won't be very eternal. And like I say, after that we go back to the old covenant, lolz. Wacky times, huh?

"So when I say 'eternal', I don't literally mean ETERNAL eternal, you dig what I'm saying? But when John over there writes the Apocalypse, he will be TOTALLY literal when he talks about a thousand year reign. 365,000 days; no more, no less. Anybody who says otherwise is a papist or something. Don't worry, you'll find out about the papists later. Pete, you'll LOVE this, I promise, lol!

"But anyway, whatever, this is my blood. The blood of the new and eternal..."

Is the New Covenant eternal or not? Dispensationalists will usually answer starting with "Yes but..." and then go on to explain why it's not actually eternal after all.

It's nonsense.

 

[Biblewriter]

My big problem with dispensationalism is that it makes the eternal covenant into the temporary covenant.

I mean, Our Lord never said:

"This is my blood. The blood of the new and eternal covenant. Do this in memory of... actually, wait a minute. Nah. When I say 'eternal', I don't actually mean, like, ETERNAL. Yanno? I mean, this is a totally legit covenant and stuff but, like, when I come back as Space Jesus and rapture everybody and stuff, this new and eternal covenant that I'm about to make will be shown as the temporary covenant. Then we'll be back to the old covenant.

"No, srsly, there will be a third temple and valid animal sacrifices will be offered. I know the second temple hasn't been destroyed yet. Just go with me here, k?

"So yeah, the third temple will be totally accepted by God because there will be this one guy, it's a weird story, just trust me, there'll be this one guy who goes in there and does some really scandalous stuff to defile the temple that shouldn't even exist because the old covenant it represents has been fulfilled by Me and I'm supposed to set up a new and eternal covenant. Right? But, like, My new covenant won't be very eternal. And like I say, after that we go back to the old covenant, lolz. Wacky times, huh?

"So when I say 'eternal', I don't literally mean ETERNAL eternal, you dig what I'm saying? But when John over there writes the Apocalypse, he will be TOTALLY literal when he talks about a thousand year reign. 365,000 days; no more, no less. Anybody who says otherwise is a papist or something. Don't worry, you'll find out about the papists later. Pete, you'll LOVE this, I promise, lol!

"But anyway, whatever, this is my blood. The blood of the new and eternal..."

Is the New Covenant eternal or not? Dispensationalists will usually answer starting with "Yes but..." and then go on to explain why it's not actually eternal after all.

It's nonsense.

When you say things like this, you only demonstrate your ignorance of what Dispensationalism actually teaches.

 

[thecolorsblend]

When you say things like this, you only demonstrate your ignorance of what Dispensationalism actually teaches.

Is the New Covenant eternal?

Think carefully before you answer.

 

[Biblewriter]

Is the New Covenant eternal?

Think carefully before you answer.

O f course it is eternal, and any Dispensationalist will say the say the same thing.

 

[thecolorsblend]

O f course it is eternal

Gotcha. What about a third temple? Will it be desecrated at some point?

 

[claninja]

Which does not preclude that the gentiles are blessed through the descendants of Abraham (Genesis 12:3).

Which is fulfilled in Christ. For without Christ, Genesis 12:3 would not be fulfilled.

Galatians 3:8-9 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and foretold the gospel to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

And the elect of Israel weren’t grafted to Israel, they were born on to it.

I agree. "to the Jew first, then gentile".

Fallacious argument.

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:

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

Acts 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

it concedes the elect exiles of the dispersion in 1 Peter 1:1 are still comprised of the 10 tribes and the object of the nation in 1 Peter 2:9-10.

Do we need to go over what concede means again Jerry? I have never denied nor resisted that the 10 northern tribes could be found in the dispersion. I have only stated that MANY of the 10 northern tribes would have intermingled with other cultures over 700 hundred years, thus becoming not so distinctly Israel from a genetic, cultural, and religious stand point. But I never said ALL of the 10 northern tribes would have undergone this same transformation.

Having refugees from Judah with them doesn’t preclude the nation is the one that bears the fruit in Matthew 21:43.

Which further bolsters my argument that it is NOT ONLY Ephraim (10 northern tribes) that this new holy nation consists of, as even you admit that those from the tribe of Judah, even a remnant, are part of them.

My exegesis maintain the term “seed” as it was used by Paul in Galatians 3:16 has a singular as well as a collective sense;

At least we agree, that in a singular sense, the seed is Jesus.

the collective sense in Isaiah 54:3 is Ephraim.

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.

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

*** Paul gives us the collective meaning of the seed: IF YOU BELONG TO CHRIST. notice no tribe, race, or nationality is mentioned.

Your avoiding context again.

I disagree. I am including ALL of the context of Galatians 4 as the progressive revelation. You seem to believe that Paul revealing the children of the married woman persecuting the children of the desolate woman is the only thing being revealed.

I believe that Paul ALSO reveals that children of the desolate woman are those of the new covenant. But you have to ignore this to make your analysis work, because the children of the new covenant do not exclusively include Ephraim, but consist of anyone in Christ regardless of tribe, race or nationality.

In Galatians it is collectively referring to being in Christ

I agree.

the context of Isaiah 54 does not allow for that simplification.

I absolutely agree. In the grammatical-historical context of Isaiah 54, the mystery of God had NOT YET been revealed. However, thankfully the mystery has been revealed through Christ and we can read the prophets with a mind not veiled.

Ephesians 3:4-6 In 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.

In Isaiah we have three discrete entities, Ephraim, Judah, and the gentiles; the seed refers to Ephraim, collectively.

If Jesus never came and there was no new covenant, then I would agree. However, Jesus came, and the new covenant replaced the old, so I disagree that the seed refers to only the 10 northern tribes collectively and exclusively.

Isaiah 54:3 For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left, and your offspring will possess the nations

As revealed through the NT, the seed in the singular sense is Christ. He is one to inherit the nations. He is the heir of all things.


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

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.

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.

As revealed through the NT, the seed in the collective sense is the body of Christ, who is co-heir with Christ.

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

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

Revelation 2:26-27 And to the one who is victorious and continues in My work until the end, I will give authority over the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter and shatter them like pottery —just as I have received authority from My Father.

how is the seed singular and yet collective? this is revealed through the mystery of marriage, in that it represents the unity of Christ and his body.

Ephesians 5:31-32 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, but I am speaking about Christ and the church.

Isaiah develops Zion in chapter 49 as the barren and desolate women in 54:1

Isaiah 49 is clearly about Christ. For Christ has the sharp sword of the mouth and is the glory of God in flesh.

Isaiah 49:1-4 Listen to me, O islands, and pay attention, O distant peoples: The LORD called me from the womb; from the body of my mother He named me. He made my mouth like a sharp sword; He hid me in the shadow of His hand. He made me like a polished arrow; He hid me in His quiver. He said to me, “You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will display My glory.” But I said, “I have labored in vain,
I have spent my strength in futility and vanity; yet my vindication is with the LORD, and my reward is with my God.”

revelation 2:16 Therefore repent! Otherwise I will come to you shortly and wage war against them with the sword of My mouth.

Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word

Paul has Isaiah 49:8 as fulfilled in the 1st century with the FELLOW workers, the church, the body of Christ, as he states NOW is the time of favor, NOW is the day of salvation.

Isaiah 49:8 This is what the LORD says: “In the time of favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you;

2 Corinthians 6:1-2 As God’s fellow workers, then, we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. For He says: “In the time of favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you.” Behold, now is the time of favor; now is the day of salvation!

An in-depth analysis substantiates that the Zion in Hebrews 12:22 is clearly the same Jerusalem in Galatians 4:26 and the same mother in Isaiah 49.

If she is the same mother as Isaiah 49, This would make her the same mother as in revelation 12, who gives birth to Christ and whose offspring are those who obey the word of God/hold to the testimony of Jesus. Here we see the singular and collective sense together coming from the same mother.

Revelation 12:1,5, 17 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and crying out in the pain and agony of giving birth. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was caught up to God and to His throne. And the dragon was enraged at the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

I have gone to great lengths and study to maintain the grammatical-historical intent of the texts from Isaiah

Yes you have. you have done a great job specifically on the grammatical-historical intent, which I agree with. However, the grammatical-historical intent was written prior to the revealing of the mystery of God through Christ. This is where I believe you fall short.

while your position, stemming from Replacement theology,

I do not believe in replacement theology. I do not believe the "church" replaced the nation of Israel. I believe the gentiles were grafted into Israel through Christ.

which subverts Paul’s progressive revelation.

You seem to believe Paul's progressive revelation is simply that the children of the married woman persecute the children of desolate woman. I disagree with your analysis if that's the case.

It seems you have to stop there to make your argument work. For if you go further with what Paul reveals, that the children of the desolate woman are those of the new covenant, then your argument, of the children of desolate woman being exclusively the 10 northern tribes, falls apart.

For those of the new covenant consist of not ONLY Ephraim, but of Jew and gentile who belong to Christ.

Can Ephraim have more children than Judah outside of the new covenant?

 

[Biblewriter]

Gotcha. What about a third temple? Will it be desecrated at some point?

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.