Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Churchgoer]

Maybe I should have posted two verses together:

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

In this case, she is innocent, she did not commit adultery.
They are "paper" divorced for their personal reason. This is not a "biblical " divorce.
That's why it says "remain unmarried ".

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Not to mention they are not born again Christians.
A divorced adulterous ex wife is not entitled to former husband s property after 2000 years.

Talking about stealing, robbing.....

Not to derail the thread but did you all see that guy, I don't know his name, that murdered his wife and was convicted yesterday? I thought I heard he was a worship leader? Sorry your post made me think of that. I thought that was shocking!

 

[Churchgoer]

Jesus IS in fact remarrying the formerly divorced Israel. Like it or not. Your denying it will never prevent this from happening.
And the legal mechanism so stated by Paul is fully applicable in the case of Israel.

1. Israel entered a marriage covenant with Jehovah at Sinai.

Jeremiah 31:32 explicitly describes the Mosaic covenant in marital language: Israel broke God's covenant although He was a husband to her.

2. Israel committed spiritual adultery.

Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah consistently employ this imagery.

3. God issued Israel a certificate of divorce.

Fruchtenbaum specifically identifies Jeremiah 3:6–10 as this stage.

4. Deuteronomy 24 created an apparent legal obstacle to simply restoring the previous marital arrangement.

This becomes especially significant because Jeremiah 3:1 itself appeals directly to precisely that law. Israel had gone after other “lovers,” yet God nevertheless promises eventual restoration.

5. The solution is not simply the resumption of the old Mosaic marriage.

God does not merely rewind history and put Israel back under Sinai.

Instead:

the Mosaic covenant terminates, Messiah dies, the Law ceases to govern as the covenantal administration, and God establishes a New Covenant.

That is exactly why Jeremiah 31 does not say:


It says:


That is tremendously important.

Fruchtenbaum himself describes Jeremiah 31:31–34 as the new marriage contract necessary for Israel's future remarriage precisely because the first marriage covenant was broken.

Thus the prophetic sequence becomes:

Sinai marriage
→ Israel's adultery
→ separation
→ divorce
→ judgment
→ death of Messiah / termination of Mosaic jurisdiction
→ national repentance
→ New Covenant
→ restored Wife of Jehovah.

And Hosea 2:19–20 fits beautifully:


Notice even the language is not merely “I will take back the old marriage exactly as it stood.”

It is “I will betroth you.”

Fruchtenbaum explicitly points to this as the future restoration of Israel as Jehovah's wife.

Like it or not, scripture has the last saying.
Only born again can marry Jesus!
A divorced one that refuse to be born again can not get married.
Look it up.

 

[cv5]

And what was the Oxford movement all about ? And what works did Darby and Scofield build upon ? Why doesn't everyone trace all this back to its roots ? Is it because both sides of the argument will have egg on their faces? Or is it because both sides will have to outright deny their own history ?

Partially informed to serve an agenda is not well informed. Take it right back to its roots

Lol. Conspiracy theories abound with the CT's and preterists.
That is their fall back position after losing in the debate arena.
These losses are by my count.....always.
Happened again today all day long.
We futurist dispensationalist NEVER lose. Ever.

Oh and BTW, Paul was undoubtedly a futurist dispensationalist. As was John, as was Peter.

 

[Revelation1v8]

And what was the Oxford movement all about ? And what works did Darby and Scofield build upon ? Why doesn't everyone trace all this back to its roots ? Is it because both sides of the argument will have egg on their faces? Or is it because both sides will have to outright deny their own history ?

Partially informed to serve an agenda is not well informed. Take it right back to its roots

That's a good idea! Let's look back into history, back to the 2nd century:

Justin Martyr is especially clear​

Justin Martyr, writing in the mid-2nd century, explicitly says that he and “many others” expected:

• a resurrection of the dead,
• a thousand-year reign, and
• Jerusalem to be rebuilt,
• with God's people gathered there,
• followed by the final resurrection and judgment.

He says:

“I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem.”

He specifically connects this expectation to Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation.

And notice something especially important in the passage: Justin says some Christians disagreed with him. So he isn't claiming that every Christian believed this. But he clearly regarded the earthly-millennial interpretation as a legitimate Christian position.

Irenaeus is even more explicit

Irenaeus, writing in the late 2nd century, describes an earthly kingdom following the resurrection of the righteous.

He says the righteous will:

“reign in it, when they rise again”

and describes the kingdom as an “earthly kingdom” associated with the renewal of creation.

Then in Book V, chapter 35, Irenaeus explicitly places the fulfillment after Antichrist and the resurrection, in “the terrestrial Jerusalem.” He connects the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Revelation with this future kingdom.

 

[cv5]

Like it or not, scripture has the last saying.
Only born again can marry Jesus!
A divorced one that refuse to be born again can not get married.
Look it up.

Oh yea, you tried a RT switcheroo alright.
But you failed. And it was conclusively proven that ALL of those Scriptural references indicate that in fact it is GOMER aka ISRAEL who will be redeemed, remarried, restored.

Key Terms and Action Verbs Used in Hosea

Betroth (’āraś): Hosea 2:19–20 uses this specific marital term three times: "I will betroth you to me forever... in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness." This marks a total covenant re-establishment.

Love (‘āhab): Hosea 3:1 commands Hosea: "Go again, love a woman who is loved by another lover and is an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the children of Israel." God's primary action toward her is persistent, unmerited love.

Buy / Ransom / Redeem (kārāh / pādāh): Hosea 3:2 records Hosea physically purchasing Gomer out of servitude for 15 shekels of silver and a measure of barley—a direct act of redemption. God uses the explicit redeem/ransom vocabulary in Hosea 13:14: "I shall ransom (pādāh) them from the power of Sheol; I shall redeem (gā’al) them from Death."

Show Mercy / Pity (rāḥam): God reverses the prophetic judgment of Hosea's children's names to signal restoration: "I will have mercy on No Mercy [Lo-Ruhamah], and I will say to Not My People [Lo-Ammi], 'You are my people'" (Hosea 2:23).

Allure and Speak Comfortably (pātāh & dābar ‘al-lēb): Hosea 2:14 states, "I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her"—drawing her away from her idols to restore her heart.

Heal (rāpā’): Hosea 14:4 describes spiritual restoration: "I will heal their apostasy; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them."
Purify / Remove: Purification is framed as removing temptation: "I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more" (Hosea 2:17).

 

[Revelation1v8]

In this case, she is innocent, she did not commit adultery.
They are "paper" divorced for their personal reason. This is not a "biblical " divorce.
That's why it says "remain unmarried ".

You're hilarious!

You don't know if she committed adultery or not. It doesn't appear to matter. If the wife leaves and wants to come back, AND THE SPOUSE IS WILLING TO ACCEPT HER BACK, it's a done deal.

 

[WayneNSO]

The first white horse rider is a fake Jesus.
The rev 19 rider is Jesus.

The first white horse and its rider symbolizes Rome victorious from 96 AD to 180AD. The rider had a bow in his hand symbolising the Cretian dynasty of Emperors Starting with Nerva in 96AD and ending with Marcus Aurelius in 180AD

 

[WayneNSO]

Lol. Conspiracy theories abound with the CT's and preterists.
That is their fall back position after losing in the debate arena.
These losses are by my count.....always.
Happened again today all day long.
We futurist dispensationalist NEVER lose. Ever.

Oh and BTW, Paul was undoubtedly a futurist dispensationalist. As was John, as was Peter.

Like I said you have to deny historic fact to uphold your view I rest my case

 

[cv5]

Like it or not, scripture has the last saying.
Only born again can marry Jesus!
A divorced one that refuse to be born again can not get married.
Look it up.

Yes, your lost your case. Nice try at bandaging up your shabby false doctrine.
And despite all of your continuous losses, you choose NOT to repent and receive the truth.
Sound familiar?

 

[cv5]

That's a good idea! Let's look back into history, back to the 2nd century:

Justin Martyr is especially clear​

Justin Martyr, writing in the mid-2nd century, explicitly says that he and “many others” expected:

• a resurrection of the dead,
• a thousand-year reign, and
• Jerusalem to be rebuilt,
• with God's people gathered there,
• followed by the final resurrection and judgment.

He says:

“I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem.”

He specifically connects this expectation to Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation.

And notice something especially important in the passage: Justin says some Christians disagreed with him. So he isn't claiming that every Christian believed this. But he clearly regarded the earthly-millennial interpretation as a legitimate Christian position.

Irenaeus is even more explicit

Irenaeus, writing in the late 2nd century, describes an earthly kingdom following the resurrection of the righteous.

He says the righteous will:



and describes the kingdom as an “earthly kingdom” associated with the renewal of creation.

Then in Book V, chapter 35, Irenaeus explicitly places the fulfillment after Antichrist and the resurrection, in “the terrestrial Jerusalem.” He connects the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Revelation with this future kingdom.

Oh yea, the CT's and preterists and amils love their hoaxing and conspiracy theories.
At the end of a long awful day of one defeat after another, its all that they have left to cling onto.

 

[WayneNSO]

That's a good idea! Let's look back into history, back to the 2nd century:

Justin Martyr is especially clear​

Justin Martyr, writing in the mid-2nd century, explicitly says that he and “many others” expected:

• a resurrection of the dead,
• a thousand-year reign, and
• Jerusalem to be rebuilt,
• with God's people gathered there,
• followed by the final resurrection and judgment.

He says:

“I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem.”

He specifically connects this expectation to Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation.

And notice something especially important in the passage: Justin says some Christians disagreed with him. So he isn't claiming that every Christian believed this. But he clearly regarded the earthly-millennial interpretation as a legitimate Christian position.

Irenaeus is even more explicit

Irenaeus, writing in the late 2nd century, describes an earthly kingdom following the resurrection of the righteous.

He says the righteous will:



and describes the kingdom as an “earthly kingdom” associated with the renewal of creation.

Then in Book V, chapter 35, Irenaeus explicitly places the fulfillment after Antichrist and the resurrection, in “the terrestrial Jerusalem.” He connects the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Revelation with this future kingdom.

That's good but still avoids the origin of many doctrines held today

 

[HeIsHere]

And what was the Oxford movement all about ? And what works did Darby and Scofield build upon ? Why doesn't everyone trace all this back to its roots ? Is it because both sides of the argument will have egg on their faces? Or is it because both sides will have to outright deny their own history ?

Partially informed to serve an agenda is not well informed. Take it right back to its roots

I have done the deep dive regarding the roots so no problem there.

Darby and Scofield did the most of the heavy lifting to promote this false view across the western world so focusing on them is fair although, yes, there is a lot more to the story.

 

[WayneNSO]

I have done the deep dive regarding the roots so no problem there.

Darby and Scofield did the most of the heavy lifting to promote this false view across the western world so focusing on them is fair although, yes, there is a lot more to the story.

The gospel according ST Scofield was definitely a powerful influence, Oxford press opened its first publishers in the USA just to promote it. And if memory serves me well Moody then made sure that Bible was in every Bible collage and school in the USA.

 

[OMC]

The gospel according ST Scofield was definitely a powerful influence, Oxford press opened its first publishers in the USA just to promote it. And if memory serves me well Moody then made sure that Bible was in every Bible collage and school in the USA.

Scofield’s system didn’t spread because his notes were “inspired,” it spread because he hit the perfect historical pipeline: Oxford University Press gave his Reference Bible prestige and industrial‑scale distribution, Moody’s network pushed it into every Bible college and training school, and American evangelicalism in the early 1900s was starving for a simple, unified prophetic system that claimed to make sense of Daniel and Revelation; once Scofield tied his notes directly to the page, millions treated his interpretations as if they were part of the text itself, and that shaped how pastors read Israel, how churches understood the rapture, and how prophecy conferences framed world events. The influence was massive, but it was cultural, not biblical authority — the gospel according to Scofield became powerful because it was printed everywhere, taught everywhere, and assumed everywhere, not because Scripture ever told the church to adopt his charts.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Oh yea, you tried a RT switcheroo alright.
But you failed. And it was conclusively proven that ALL of those Scriptural references indicate that in fact it is GOMER aka ISRAEL who will be redeemed, remarried, restored.

Key Terms and Action Verbs Used in Hosea

Betroth (’āraś): Hosea 2:19–20 uses this specific marital term three times: "I will betroth you to me forever... in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness." This marks a total covenant re-establishment.

Love (‘āhab): Hosea 3:1 commands Hosea: "Go again, love a woman who is loved by another lover and is an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the children of Israel." God's primary action toward her is persistent, unmerited love.

Buy / Ransom / Redeem (kārāh / pādāh): Hosea 3:2 records Hosea physically purchasing Gomer out of servitude for 15 shekels of silver and a measure of barley—a direct act of redemption. God uses the explicit redeem/ransom vocabulary in Hosea 13:14: "I shall ransom (pādāh) them from the power of Sheol; I shall redeem (gā’al) them from Death."

Show Mercy / Pity (rāḥam): God reverses the prophetic judgment of Hosea's children's names to signal restoration: "I will have mercy on No Mercy [Lo-Ruhamah], and I will say to Not My People [Lo-Ammi], 'You are my people'" (Hosea 2:23).

Allure and Speak Comfortably (pātāh & dābar ‘al-lēb): Hosea 2:14 states, "I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her"—drawing her away from her idols to restore her heart.

Heal (rāpā’): Hosea 14:4 describes spiritual restoration: "I will heal their apostasy; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them."
Purify / Remove: Purification is framed as removing temptation: "I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more" (Hosea 2:17).

I'm ALMOST surprised that the unbelievers haven't told us that we're accusing God/Jesus of POLYGAMY!!!


But this is how it works:

The Two Wives Made One — A Deeper Reading​

1. The Two Wives, Clearly Distinguished​

The Bible sets up two distinct covenantal marriages from the very beginning:

The Father's Bride — Israel

• Hosea 2:19 — "I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy."
• Isaiah 54:5 — "For your Maker is your husband— the LORD of hosts is his name, and the Holy One of Israel is he who is to be praised."
• Jeremiah 31:32 — "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
• Ezekiel 16:8 — "So I passed by you and looked upon you, behold, you were at the age for love. I spread the corner of my robe over you and covered your nakedness... and I betrothed you to myself and made a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine."

The Son's Bride — the Church

• Ephesians 5:25-27 — "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her... that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."
• 2 Corinthians 11:2 — "For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ."

Note the critical word in 2 Cor 11:2: "one husband." The Church is betrothed to a single bridegroom — the Son — not the Father. The Father's bride is Israel; the Son's bride is the Church. Two separate covenants, two separate marriages.

2. The "Barren" and the "Married" — Two Wives in One Prophecy​

Isaiah 54:1-3 is the single most important passage for your point, and it's worth reading in full:

"Sing, O barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song and cry aloud, you who have never been in labor; for more are the children of the desolate woman than of the she who has a husband, says the LORD. For your Maker is your husband— the LORD of hosts is his name, and the Holy One of Israel is he who is to be praised; he who repudiates will be called the Redeemer of Israel, the LORD is his name. For the LORD has called you as a wife despised and cast out, as a wife of youth when she is rejected, says your God. For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather you. In overflowing wrath for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you, says the LORD your God. For this is like the waters of Noah to me; for as I have sworn that Noah's waters shall no longer cover the earth, so have I sworn that I will not be angry with you, or reproach you. For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD who has compassion on you."

Read this carefully:

• The "desolate" / "barren" woman = Israel, temporarily set aside.
• The "married" woman = the Church, currently in her covenant-marriage with Christ.
• The prophecy says the barren woman will have more children than the married one — both will be fruitful.
• Then verse 5: "For your Maker is your husband" — the same God who is the Father's husband to Israel is speaking. He is not replacing one marriage with another. He is restoring the first and confirming the second.
• Verses 7-8: "with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you... my covenant of peace shall not be removed."