This seems to be a divided post. I don't know who J H Allen is. I don't know if you're trying to say your second statement is heresy or being promoted as truth.
Where do you get your support for this?
Gal 3:29 doesn't say anything about Ephraim/Israel.
Your doctrines have been put forth by claninja and I've been addressing them. If you have anything original I'll address it.
I invite you to select any Scripture from those which I've cited, and explain how claninja's doctrines suppress that Scripture.
Israel is promoted by the Scripture to be God's wife.
The Scripture promotes the church as the bride of Christ. To say they are both the same is to have Jesus marrying His Father's wife.
Sorry but I don't chase down threads. I don't read every sub forum either. But since you mentioned it I may look if I have time.Then you should have read the thread, hadn't you? You should also read the thread "Dispensationalism Refuted," in the Eschatological and End Times forum.
Dispensationalism is about different eras the Scripture talks about. Gal 3:17-19 is a great example just like LK 16:16. Jeremiah also talks about different time periods in 31:31-33. The law had its run and has been replaced with another covenant of jurisdiction.Matthew 21:43 doesn't reveal the "nation" that bears the fruit either. These are theological issues that supersessionism is clearly quite wrong on, as is dispensationalism.
I don't waste my time with things that don't effect my salvation. That's why I don't spend time in the Eschatology sub forum.I invite you to select any Scripture from those which I've cited, and explain how claninja's doctrines suppress that Scripture.
He that marries a divorced woman commits adultery according to Jesus.A divorced wife due to adultery.
Israel isn't born again, but individuals are. Gal 3:28 says we are in Jesus Christ. It doesn't say we are in Israel. JN 15:1-7 backs this up wonderfully. JN 10 and 14:6 say without doubt you will only get access to God through Him, not Israel. JN 10:16 clearly shows that the church isn't this fold (Israel).Israel today is a new woman, born again through Christ, composed of all peoples of all races that accept Christ.
He that marries a divorced woman commits adultery according to Jesus.
Israel isn't born again, but individuals are.
It doesn't say we are in Israel.
You're marrying things that aren't together or the same. Hosea isn't talking about Ephraim. The Romans and Corinthians aren't Jews (Israel/Ephraim). Mat 28:19 isn't talking about Ephraim. Neither is the covenant made with Abraham that the nations would be blessed.My interpretation is simply reading romans 9, which clearly has hosea 1:10 and hosea 2:23 fulfilled with the inclusion of the gentiles, with Jews, as the vessels of mercy.
Romans 9:24-26 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
Paul does not mention Ephraim.
Correct, Hosea prophesied about Ephraim, and yet Paul has it fulfilled with the gentiles being included, with the Jews, as vessels of mercy. I'll stick with Paul's revelation of the OT over your interpretation of the OT.
Yes, I was. How many times have I said now that Ephraim became as gentiles?
Hosea 1:9 And the Lord said, “Call his name Not My People,b for you are not my people, and I am not your God.”c
The prophesies of enmity between Judah and Ephraim are found fulfilled with Judah persecuting the body of Christ, according to Paul.
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.
So the enmity doesn't end by Judah and Ephraim becoming brothers under Christ?
hosea 1:11 And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head.
Ezekiel 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms
Correct, Paul is discussing the enmity between biological descendants of Abraham and Gentiles. However, under the old covenant at the time of Christ, where does Ephraim fall in regards to the commonwealth of Israel and recipients of the promise, Jews or Gentiles?
Ephesians 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world
Ephraim was separated from the commonwealth of Israel and covenants of promise at the Assyrian exile, they became "not my people". They became as gentiles. Ephraim had been cut out of the root 700 years prior to Christ.
Hosea 1:8-9 When she had weaned No Mercy, she conceived and bore a son. And the Lord said, “Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God.
Thus, the killing of hostility between Jew and Gentile, by Christ abolishing the law, fulfills the end of hostility between Judah and Ephraim.
Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
How have I misapplied Romans 9:24-26?
I disagree with your interpretation, most likely because we disagree with the definition of the kingdom of God.
Jesus has the kingdom of God coming upon those in the 1st century
Matthew 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Jesus states some in front of him would not die until they kingdom of God after is comes with power.
mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”
Good we agree.
Satan has two little seasons?
Revelation 20:3 After that he must be released for a little while.
Revelation 12:12 because he knows that his time is short!”
I disagree, as Jesus received his kingdom upon ascension to the Father.
Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Daysand was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
Luke 19:12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return.
Which spring festival involved the high priest entering the holy places, in the presence of God, once a year? I'm not quite familiar with that spring feast.....
Hebrews 9:24-25 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own
The veil was not the presence of God.
Which "holy places" is the author of the Hebrews talking about the first compartment or the second compartment?
Hebrews 9:7-8 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing.
So you don't believe Christ has yet atoned for sin?
This is malarkey.She never remarries. Only the New Israel marries who never was married or divorced before.
Israel never appears in Scripture as individuals. The only individual called Israel is Joseph the supplanter who wrestled with an angel.Israel is individuals, and only Christian individuals that are born again.
You need to read your own bolded quote.Paul says it in Romans plus it's here:
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Christian gentiles are no more strangers but are fellowcitizens with those who weren't gentiles. This is gentiles joining Israelites, all being in Christ the corner stone.
True. Why you're reading this as Israel, I'll never know except to promote something that isn't correct. It's very true that God called both Israel and Jesus out of Egypt. God's calling Israel out of Egypt was a deliverance. Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt...Paul says Jesus is Abraham's seed, not the unbelieving Jews Galatians 3:16. Matthew's use of Hosea reveals that Jesus IS Israel.
“When Israel was a child, then I loved him, And called my son out of Egypt.” (Hosea 11:1)
That's stretching things a bit. Paul isn't saying he is Israel.“Then he [Joseph] got up, took the child and his mother during the night, and went to Egypt. He stayed there until Herod died. In this way what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet was fulfilled: “I called my Son out of Egypt.”” (Matthew 2:14–15)
“Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.” (2 Corinthians 11:22)
As a nation yes. As individuals they were called Israelites.So, Abraham’s seed were the Hebrews originally and also known as Israel.
No way! The people in Rom 2:14 are clearly not Israelites. There's no way to prove they are from Ephraim either.Paul says Jesus is Abraham’s Seed along with those who believe in him which means Jesus and believers are Israel.
Paul didn't forbid circumcision.Why did Paul forbid it?
Scripture won;t support this.Jesus is Israel along with the Church.
Scripture won't support that.Israel.
Support Ephraim didn't circumcise their male children with Scripture thus becoming gentiles to include Romans, Corinthians and Ephesians as descendants of Ephraim.“And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” (Genesis 17:14)
Interesting presentation but Israel was divided into two factions - the northern tribes called Israel and the southern tribes called Judah. I think the southern tribes were Levi, Benjamin and of course Judah the largest tribe and most significant tribe of Israel.As I stated, your interpretation is anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally. The preponderance of the context of Romans 9 concerns who is the true Israel God amongst the descendants of Jacob and Abraham and parenthetically the inclusion of the gentiles as chosen vessels also. Your comment that Paul does not mention Ephraim especially shows a lack of erudition, anthropologically as well as scripturally. Every time Paul used the term “Israel” he is referring principally to Ephraim and Manasseh according to scripture.
And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn). And he blessed Joseph and said, "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth." Genesis 48:14-16 ESV
And this is why the title “Israel” went to the northern kingdom, as opposed to the southern. I’ll stick to the chronological and anthropological accuracy of the grammatical-historical interpretation of scripture, which maintains the principal interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 pertains to Ephraim, your supersessionism notwithstanding.
You obviously think your repetition of an anachronistic and anthropological misrepresentation makes it acceptable. Isaiah 11:13, Ezekiel 37:19 and Hosea 1:10 substantiate the grammatical-historical interpretation that the 10 northern tribes are perceived by God as a nation and people, Ephraim, at the second advent. This and other evidence expose supersessionism as fallacious.
See, your backpedaling. You conceded that Ephraim was gathered in Christ at the first advent to proclaim the great commission. There is the enmity between Judah and Ephraim that was prophesied in Zechariah 11:14, by your own concession. Throughout our controversy, you had conceded that Ephraim is contrasted from Judah in that Ephraim accepted the gospel and Judah did not, the remnant of Judah through the apostles notwithstanding. As I stated, this is clear backpedaling.
Supersessionism has difficulty discerning fulfillment from consummation. The process of reconciling Ephraim and Judah commences with the first advent, it begins to be fulfilled, but it is exclusively consummated upon the second, then all Israel will be saved, according to Romans 11:26. Isaiah 11:13, Ezekiel 37:19 and Hosea 1:10 concern the consummation, not the commencement at the first advent. The kingdom of Christ is consummated, established, at his return and not the first advent, which what Christ relates when he proclaimed, he did not come to bring peace in Matthew 10:34. Until the consummation, he waits until his enemies are made his footstool (Psalms 110).
Note that you cannot resist agreeing with THT that the prophecies of Ephraim were commenced at the first advent! They took the great commission, while the Jews as a nation did not, which created the enmity. Your conceding Ephraim is amongst the gentiles; I agree. And you previously had to concede that Ephraim took up the great commission; I agree. What supersessionism has difficulty discerning is fulfillment from consummation; they are related, but not the same.
Again, supersessionism has difficulty discerning fulfillment from consummation; the "kingdom of God" is obviously not the promised Davidic kingdom when the grammatical-historical interpretation is upheld. The object of the Davidic Kingdom is to restore the promised land to the biological descendants, including Samaria, and execute justice and righteousness so that Judah and Israel/Ephraim can dwell securely.
Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD. Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD. And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jeremiah 23:1-6 KJV
Christ’s proclamation that he did not come to bring peace in Matthew 10:34 and the evidence in the NT that we must endure fiery trials until he returns (1 Peter 4”12-13), such as injustice and unrighteousness, is clear evidence that we are not abiding in the Davidic kingdom. That is not to say that some elements of the Davidic kingdom do not manifest in this age, such as John 14:27, but the Davidic kingdom simply cannot be upheld as this age through the NT. As I stated supersessionism has difficulty discerning fulfillment from consummation.
You’re failing to take into account Satan is cast to the earth in Revelation 12 and makes war with the saints, which is recapped in the next chapter. In the next chapter Satan, the dragon, gives the sea-beast his throne and great authority over “all the world” to war with the saints and overcome them, for the same amount of time the woman is in the wilderness. In Revelation 20:3 the dragon, Satan, is stripped of this ability to deceive the nations and is cast in a pit for 1000 years and then released to fulfill the prophecy of Ezekiel 38. In Ezekiel 38 God has Gog come against the “land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.” Gog says, “I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land” (Ezekiel 38:8-12). Ezekiel’s description of the land of unwalled villages is precisely the security that Jeremiah 23:1-6 prophecies about the Davidic kingdom. There is no doubt in the minds of those who maintain the grammatical-historical interpretation, as well as progressive revelation, that the Revelation upholds premillennialism as opposed to the amillennialism or postmillennialism that you're asserting. BTW, which is it that you are asserting?
As I confirmed, Christ can retain the authority that he had laid aside to become a man (Philippians 2:6-10), and yet not consummate the Davidic kingdom.
The earthly temple was a shadow of the heavenly sanctuary; the heavenly sanctuary is not bound by the earthly one. Hebrews 10:20 reveals Christ as the antitype of the veil suspended in the earthly sanctuary, and as that antitype, he resumed the presence of the Father to offer himself as the antitype of the Passover lamb to put away sin, which what Hebrews 9 conveys. As the mediator between man and God he had held that position before he humbled himself to become a man (Philippians 2:6-10). Supersessionism’s perception that the phenomenon of Hebrews 9:24-25 conveys the day of atonement is based on the nuances of the “presence” of God and “every year” to force their perception into the context that Christ “put away sin” at the first advent. As I stated, the nuances are explained by Christ is the antitype of the veil and that the phrase “every year” is explained by the “daily” sin offerings performed at the earthly sanctuary, in essence, done year after year. The preponderance of the context does not hold to the perception that the day of atonement was performed at the first advent, in indifference with the seven months that separated the spring and autumnal festivals.
Daniel 7, in contrast, conveys the antitype of the autumnal festivals. The judgment that is set in verses 9-10 is for the purpose of taking away the dominion of the little horn and to destroy and consume him, and to give that same dominion that the little horn ruled to the saints in verses 26-27. Of course, this kingdom must be secure for the saints, which I addressed in my preceding comments.
So what about Mat 21:43. I don't see it supporting your commentary.Matthew 21:43 doesn't reveal the "nation" that bears the fruit either. These are theological issues that supersessionism is clearly quite wrong on, as is dispensationalism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?