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 ".
Replacement theology? Yes or No.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
They are "paper" divorced for their personal reason. This is not a "biblical " divorce.
That's why it says "remain unmarried ".
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!
Lol. Conspiracy theories abound with the CT's and preterists.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 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.
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.
“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, 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).
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.
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
Like I said you have to deny historic fact to uphold your viewLol. 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.
I rest my case
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
- 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."
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: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."
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.
Resurrected formerly dead Husband, new marriage covenant. Both are in play regarding the redemption, NEW marriage, and RESTORATION of the Nation Israel.
The Rev Clarence Larkin, was an American Baptist pastor who lived from 1850 to 1924. His writings on dispensationalism had a great impact on Protestant churches in the 20th century, mainly because of his elaborate charts. A well known book of his is called "dispensational Truth" published in 1918, and it has been called the second bible of prophecy for Eschatology students.
Now bear in mind that this book and the elaborate charts within it, are about the futurist teaching of Revelation. And he made his money promoting the futurist viewpoint with his preachings and writings. Yet at the beginning of this book we have this confession:
"The “Preterist School” originated with the Jesuit Alcazar. His view was first put forth as a complete scheme in his work on the
Apocalypse, published in A. D. 1614. It limits the scope of the Apocalypse to the events of the Apostle John’s life, and affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the subsequent fall of the persecuting Roman Empire, thus making the Emperor Nero the "Antichrist." The purpose of the scheme was transpdrent, it was to relieve the Papal Church from the stigma of being called the "Harlot Church" and the Pope from being called the "Antichrist." ...
The "Historical School," sometimes spoken of as the "Presentist" scheme, interprets the Apocalypse as a series of prophecies predicting the events that were to happen in the world and in the Church from John’s day to the end of time. The advocates of this School interpret the symbols of the Book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are happening in the world. They claim that "Antichrist" is a "System" rather than a "Person," and is represented by the Harlot Church of Rome. They interpret the "Time Element" in the Book on the "Year Day Scale." This School has had some very able and ingenious advocates.
This view, like the preceding was unknown to the early church. It appeared about the middle of the Twelfth Century, and was systematized in the beginning of the Thirteenth Century by the Abbot Joachim. Subsequently it was adopted and applied to the Pope by the forerunners and leaders of the Reformation, and may be said to have reached its zenith in Mr. Elliott’s "Horae Apocalypticae." It is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards Popery as exhausting all that has been predicted of the Antichristian power. It was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation, and the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to "love not their lives unto the death." It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the Sixteenth Century.
The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally," except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks."
...In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist," and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants.
...The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."
(Dispensational Truth, or God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages, By Clarence Larkin, 1918)
So Clarence Larkin is admitting that the school of thought that he follows came about to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the Anti-Christ. But I guess thats where the money was.
Now bear in mind that this book and the elaborate charts within it, are about the futurist teaching of Revelation. And he made his money promoting the futurist viewpoint with his preachings and writings. Yet at the beginning of this book we have this confession:
"The “Preterist School” originated with the Jesuit Alcazar. His view was first put forth as a complete scheme in his work on the
Apocalypse, published in A. D. 1614. It limits the scope of the Apocalypse to the events of the Apostle John’s life, and affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the subsequent fall of the persecuting Roman Empire, thus making the Emperor Nero the "Antichrist." The purpose of the scheme was transpdrent, it was to relieve the Papal Church from the stigma of being called the "Harlot Church" and the Pope from being called the "Antichrist." ...
The "Historical School," sometimes spoken of as the "Presentist" scheme, interprets the Apocalypse as a series of prophecies predicting the events that were to happen in the world and in the Church from John’s day to the end of time. The advocates of this School interpret the symbols of the Book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are happening in the world. They claim that "Antichrist" is a "System" rather than a "Person," and is represented by the Harlot Church of Rome. They interpret the "Time Element" in the Book on the "Year Day Scale." This School has had some very able and ingenious advocates.
This view, like the preceding was unknown to the early church. It appeared about the middle of the Twelfth Century, and was systematized in the beginning of the Thirteenth Century by the Abbot Joachim. Subsequently it was adopted and applied to the Pope by the forerunners and leaders of the Reformation, and may be said to have reached its zenith in Mr. Elliott’s "Horae Apocalypticae." It is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards Popery as exhausting all that has been predicted of the Antichristian power. It was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation, and the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to "love not their lives unto the death." It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the Sixteenth Century.
The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally," except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks."
...In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist," and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants.
...The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."
(Dispensational Truth, or God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages, By Clarence Larkin, 1918)
So Clarence Larkin is admitting that the school of thought that he follows came about to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the Anti-Christ. But I guess thats where the money was.
I know Brother, Just helping.That was the point I was trying to make