Again, no one is arguing that no Israelite hasn't entered into the New Covenant. We know there are Messianic Jews/Christians living inside of Israel. I'm not sure why you continue to use language to take steps backwards to make it appear as though something has been implied that is not being implied. What the Bible shows us is that many more Israelites will be brought into the New Covenant during the time of the final Tribulation period and into the Millennial Kingdom period than any prior previous period of their history. The Bible tells you this outright and directly in Isaiah 54.
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.
Again, no one is arguing that no Israelite hasn't entered into the New Covenant. We know there are Messianic Jews/Christians living inside of Israel. I'm not sure why you continue to use language to take steps backwards to make it appear as though something has been implied that is not being implied. What the Bible shows us is that many more Israelites will be brought into the New Covenant during the time of the final Tribulation period and into the Millennial Kingdom period than any prior previous period of their history. The Bible tells you this outright and directly in Isaiah 54.
That helps, because what you've just said is significantly different from the claim I thought you were making.
If your position is simply that there will be a much larger turning of Israel to Christ in the future than what we see today, then I don't have a fundamental objection to that.
Romans 11:25-27 itself points toward a future salvation of Israel on a scale beyond the present remnant.
My confusion comes from the fact that several times in this discussion you have appealed to the future restoration passages as though they establish that Israel's New Covenant participation is deferred until that future event.
That is the point I have been pushing back against.
If we agree that Paul, the apostles, the Romans 11 remnant, and Jewish believers throughout history have already participated in New Covenant blessings, then we have already conceded that covenant participation is not exclusively future for Israel.
The remaining question is one of degree, not kind.
You are arguing that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Romans 11 anticipate a future and much greater ingathering of Israel. Fair enough. But that is a different claim from saying the New Covenant itself awaits a future inauguration for Israel.
As for Isaiah 54, I agree that it speaks in extraordinarily expansive terms about Jerusalem's future enlargement and blessing.
The question, however, is whether Isaiah 54 teaches a future increase in the number of Israelites brought into covenant blessing, or whether it teaches that no Israelites enter those blessings until that future time.
Those are not the same proposition.
My point remains that the future national turning of Israel does not, by itself, establish a future-only participation in the New Covenant.
It establishes a future expansion and culmination of God's saving work among Israel.
The first point does not automatically prove the second.
I believe Isaiah 54:1 answers your question:
Isaiah 54:1
54 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.
I believe that the verse above shows that the words "for more" means that more are going to be made, meaning that some who came out of the Old Covenant actually were considered children of God. We know this by looking at all of the Old Testament saints.
@OMC, I may need to revise this answer. I'll get back to you in more detail.
This is what my A.I. shows, but I think that depends on how we read that verse and it might be read in more ways than one:
In Isaiah 54:1, the identities of the "desolate one" and the "married wife" are interpreted differently across Jewish and Christian hermeneutics, though both view the "children" as a comparison of spiritual or national magnitude.
Jewish Interpretation
- The Desolate One: Represents Jerusalem (or the House of Judah) during its time of exile and desolation.
- The Married Wife: Represents Edom (identified as Rome or the Gentile nations) or the pre-exilous Israel under the Law.
- The Children: The "children of the desolate" are the Jews in exile who will return and multiply, surpassing the offspring of the married wife (Rome/Gentiles). Some commentators, like Rashi, explicitly contrast the barren Jerusalem with the flourishing Rome.
I think Isaiah 54:1 actually supports the distinction I've been making rather than removing it.
The phrase "for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife" is comparative language.
It assumes there are already children of the married wife and then predicts an even greater number of children associated with the desolate woman.
In other words, the text speaks of increase.
So if your argument is that the future restoration will result in many more Israelites entering God's blessings than at previous points in Israel's history, I agree that Isaiah 54 is consistent with that idea.
My question was never whether there will be more.
My question was whether the existence of that future increase proves that covenant participation is exclusively future.
In fact, what you have just said seems to concede the very point I was making.
If "more" are going to be added later, then there must already be some who belong to God beforehand.
As you note, the Old Testament saints were God's people.
Likewise, Paul, the apostles, and the remnant of Romans 11 were God's people.
Therefore Isaiah 54 does not appear to teach an all-or-nothing contrast.
It describes expansion.
The debate, then, is not whether God will bring many more Israelites to Himself in the future.
Romans 11 and numerous prophetic passages can certainly be read that way.
The debate is whether that future enlargement means the New Covenant blessings were unavailable to Israelites before that future event.
I don't see Isaiah 54 making that argument.
Rather, I see it describing a dramatic increase in the number of God's covenant people, which is perfectly compatible with there already being a remnant before that increase occurs.
The word "more" seems to require that conclusion rather than exclude it.
Yes, I think we both see it that way. There's always been a saved "remnant" from every scenario in the Bible and that number is going to increase much much more as the future events unfold. At this point, I'm just trying to get more detail on Isaiah 54:1 that makes more sense to me than just the initial reading of it.
Where the debate would begin is over who those additional children are and when that increase reaches its fullest expression.
A dispensationalist might point to a future national restoration of Israel.
Others might point to the growth of the church among Jews and Gentiles throughout the present age.
Both sides would agree that Isaiah is describing remarkable increase.
In that sense, your observation about the word "more" is important.
It does not sound like a transition from zero children to some children.
It sounds like a transition from some children to vastly more children.
That appears to fit the grammar of the verse much better than an all-or-nothing reading.
I think I finally figured it out for Isaiah 54:1!! This is where it gets tricky when history starts repeating itself and we can see how everything that happens fits within a pattern to fit all generations who are reading the Bible the way it was written.
Cycle 1 — Fulfilled (Babylonian Exile)
- Married Wife (pre-exilic Israel, before 586 BC)
- Covenant active, Temple standing, Shekinah present
- Israel in full "married" fellowship with God (Isa 54:5–6; Ezek 16:8)
- Desolate (exilic Israel, 586–539 BC)
- God's presence withdrawn, Temple destroyed, people scattered
- National barrenness — a cessation of bearing, not an original condition (Isa 54:1; 2 Kgs 25)
- Restoration (post-exile return)
- Return under Cyrus; population exceeds pre-exile
- "Children of the desolate" outnumber "children of the married wife" (Isa 54:1; Ezra 2)
- Covenant state: Post-exilic covenant (Second Temple) — temporary
Cycle 2 — Yet to Come (End Times)
- Married Wife (pre-tribulation Israel)
- Nation in the land, covenant not dissolved (Isa 54:8: "I have not spoken in anger")
- Marriage metaphor active, God's presence with the nation
- Desolate (the Great Tribulation / 70th Week)
- "Time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer 30:7)
- "Desolations are determined" — the 70th week (Dan 9:26–27)
- "A time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation" (Dan 12:1)
- "Abomination of desolation" — Jesus names the same Hebrew concept (שִׁמּוּם) (Matt 24:15)
- Gog and Magog: final assault on "the peaceful and uninhabited" land (Ezek 38:14)
- National mourning, every family apart (Zech 12:10–14)
- The woman (Israel) flees into the wilderness for 3.5 years (Rev 12:13–17)
- Marriage not dissolved — husband's presence withdrawn in judgment, exactly as in Cycle 1.
- Restoration (the Millennium)
- "They shall be as numerous as they were before" (Zech 10:9)
- "The land that was desolate… filled with people" (Ezek 36:37–38)
- "Enlarge the place of your tent… your descendants will dispossess the nations" (Isa 54:2–3)
- New heart, new spirit (Ezek 36:26–27)
- "All Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:25–27)
- "The LORD will be king over all the earth" (Zech 14:9)
- Covenant state: Everlasting covenant (Ezek 37:26–28) — final, in contrast to the temporary post-exilic covenant.
- The Babylonian exile is not a one-time event but a type — a pattern God will repeat at greater scale
- Jeremiah 30:7: the tribulation will be like the exile but worse
- Daniel 12:1: "such as never was" — the desolation will be deeper
- The restoration will be greater, and the covenant will be final (Ezek 37:26: "an everlasting covenant")
- Isaiah 54:1 is the hinge verse: fulfilled in the 6th century BC, but its structure (married wife → desolate → more children) is the same structure the entire prophetic canon maps onto the end times
- The first fulfillment was a down payment; the second will be the fullness
I never said it did say that.
I am saying that is who they are.
Millions or billions left behind and martyred.
It is a picture you are minimizing.
They, the martyrs, mirror the 5 foolish virgins.
1) left behind
2) dirty robes
3) dirty robes is equal to sin.
4) their number is too numerous to accurately count. A literal sea of people.
5) all of that, pluse the fact rev13 says the ac overcomes the saints, and power is given him to overcome the saints, points to the pretrib doctrine i am laying out.
"It" began with Jesus teaching.
No brainer.
Postrib rapture is never taught.
Never.
Not in the Bible at all.
In fact look ar your extra biblical false post.
It is from a LACK of investigation.
The hyperpauline doctrine is also based on your methods.
Poor investigation.
I think you're getting closer to the real issue, but this is exactly where I would slow down and separate the pattern from the conclusion.
I agree that there is an exile-restoration pattern running through the prophets.
I agree the Babylonian exile becomes a lens through which later prophetic hope is described.
I agree that later restoration language often seems greater than what occurred under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
What I'm not yet convinced of is that Isaiah 54 itself is presenting two distinct cycles.
When I read Isaiah 54, I see one argument:
Zion is portrayed as a barren, forsaken wife who will experience a restoration so great that her future children will outnumber her former children.
The passage certainly fits the exile and restoration pattern.
The question is whether the text itself signals a second end-times repetition, or whether that comes from correlating Isaiah 54 with Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation.
To put it another way, I think your pattern is plausible.
I just don't think Isaiah 54 alone proves it.
Ironically, what I find most persuasive in your argument is not the tribulation connection but the fact that Isaiah 54 describes increase.
The "children of the desolate" are more than the children before the desolation.
That language naturally suggests restoration and expansion, not replacement.
So if your point is that God repeatedly brings Israel through judgment into greater blessing, I'm tracking with you.
But if your point is that Isaiah 54 therefore establishes a future tribulation-millennium cycle, I think another step still has to be demonstrated from the text.
In other words, I can see the pattern you're seeing.
I'm just not yet convinced that Isaiah 54 itself tells me there are two fulfillments rather than one fulfillment that later prophets echo and expand.
That's the bridge I still think needs to be shown.
The bible says "falling away, and the AC revealed" then they rapture.
Obama was revealed years before he took power.
The AC will be revealed also, way before he takes power.
Not yet in power, but revealed to those with discernment.
You are thinking "in power"
The bible says "revealed"
You're still asserting the conclusion rather than demonstrating it from the text.
I agree Revelation 7 presents an innumerable multitude.
I agree Revelation 13 says the beast is permitted to make war with the saints and overcome them.
But neither passage says those saints are people who previously missed a pretrib rapture.
Look at the actual chain of evidence:
Revelation 7 says they came out of great tribulation and washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 13 says the beast overcomes the saints.
Matthew 25 says the foolish virgins are shut out and hear, "I know you not."
The question is: where does Scripture connect those three groups together?
You say the martyrs "mirror" the foolish virgins.
But a parallel is not an identification.
Two groups can share similarities without being the same group.
Your point about dirty robes also has a problem.
Revelation 7:14 does not emphasize dirty robes.
The emphasis is that their robes have been washed white in the blood of the Lamb.
The text presents them as redeemed, not as second-class believers who finally got right after being left behind.
More importantly, the five foolish virgins are not described as tribulation martyrs.
They are not described as overcoming saints.
They are not described as washing robes in the Lamb's blood.
Those details must be imported from elsewhere.
So the issue is not whether a pretrib model can be constructed.
The issue is whether the passages themselves teach it.
Right now the argument looks like this:
The foolish virgins are left behind.
Therefore they become tribulation saints.
Therefore they are the multitude of Revelation 7.
Therefore Revelation 13 refers to them.
But every step in that chain is an inference.
None of those identifications are explicitly made by the text.
The burden is not on me to disprove the connections.
The burden is on you to show where Scripture actually makes them.
Until then, what you have is a theological model built from inference, not an explicit biblical teaching.
What you're actually asking me to do is show you the same things over and over again until it sinks in, which is fine, I guess.
When I read Isaiah 54:1 I immediately knew that we were going to have to determine who exactly the barren and desolate woman was and then compare it against the children of the married wife.
Your claim that you see only one argument or event in Isaiah 54:1 IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
What I have proven over and over again is that ALL of the prophetic books show a cycle of past and future events laid out in the same books, although some arrange them differently. This is where I have to continually repeat myself (just like history)!
In Samuel s time, people are crying for an earthly king to rule over them.
Today, still they same, they don't want YHVH, they just want an earthly one that suits their earthly desire.
Nothing changed, unless YHVH give a new heart.
Today, still they same, they don't want YHVH, they just want an earthly one that suits their earthly desire.
Nothing changed, unless YHVH give a new heart.
What you're actually asking me to do is show you the same things over and over again until it sinks in, which is fine, I guess.
When I read Isaiah 54:1 I immediately knew that we were going to have to determine who exactly the barren and desolate woman was and then compare it against the children of the married wife.
Your claim that you see only one argument or event in Isaiah 54:1 IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
What I have proven over and over again is that ALL of the prophetic books show a cycle of past and future events laid out in the same books, although some arrange them differently. This is where I have to continually repeat myself (just like history)!
@OMC
If you need me to point out the specific verses in Isaiah 54 AGAIN showing how there is yet another future event, here they are, but we've already discussed them before.
Isaiah 54:
8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.
9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.
13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.
You're misunderstanding my objection.What you're actually asking me to do is show you the same things over and over again until it sinks in, which is fine, I guess.
When I read Isaiah 54:1 I immediately knew that we were going to have to determine who exactly the barren and desolate woman was and then compare it against the children of the married wife.
Your claim that you see only one argument or event in Isaiah 54:1 IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
What I have proven over and over again is that ALL of the prophetic books show a cycle of past and future events laid out in the same books, although some arrange them differently. This is where I have to continually repeat myself (just like history)!
I'm not asking you to repeat the pattern until it sinks in.
I've already acknowledged the pattern.
I've explicitly agreed that exile-restoration themes run throughout the prophets and that later restoration language often appears greater than the return from Babylon.
What I'm asking is much simpler:
Where does the text tell us that the existence of a pattern requires two distinct fulfillments of Isaiah 54?
Those are not the same claim.
You keep saying, "Look at Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation."
I understand that argument.
The issue is that you're no longer deriving your conclusion from Isaiah 54 itself.
You're deriving it from a synthesis of multiple prophetic books.
That's perfectly legitimate as a theological argument.
But it is different from saying Isaiah 54 itself proves it.
You say the problem is that I see only one event in Isaiah 54.
My response is: where in Isaiah 54 do you see two?
The barren woman is identified as Zion.
The forsaken wife is identified as Zion.
The restored wife is identified as Zion.
The chapter reads as one continuous movement from desolation to restoration.
If your argument is that the Babylonian restoration was incomplete and that later prophets expand the hope into a greater future restoration, I can follow that reasoning.
But you're making a stronger claim.
You're saying Isaiah 54 itself is deliberately structured as a repeating cycle that points to both the Babylonian restoration and a future tribulation-millennial restoration.
That's the step I'm still asking you to demonstrate from the text.
In other words, I'm not disagreeing that the pattern exists throughout the prophetic canon.
I'm asking why that pattern necessarily means Isaiah 54 contains two fulfillments rather than one restoration that becomes the model for later prophetic hope.
Those are not the same thing, and I think you're treating them as though they are self-evidently identical when that is precisely the point under debate.
That's like saying nothing in the bible means anything.
Just jettison all typology and every sight post.
Whatever you do, do not read Hebrews or revelation.
Both are loaded with typology.
You keep saying "the burden is on you".
Not at all.
I report what is there.
The burden is on you to accurately CHALLRNGE IT.
Not throw spitballs and say nobody but you can connect the dots.
See, that is what you guys do.
You don't have a single postrib rapture verse.
Then when a accurate model is presented, VIA STUDY AND EXEGESIS, Of verses you never looked at, you just go to " the burden is on you" default since you can not accurately challenge.
Concerning the robes that needed to be washed, well there you go, just throw in some kind of inference and guess work at it.
if you read earlier, the martyrs were handed robes and they were already clean, and then they were told that they had to wait under the altar.
So there's an added twist, that I'm sure you won't be able to challenge as well, in that those martyrs were previously confined to under the altar, but now, in the enumerable number verses, they are in the general population of heaven.
That's pretty easy to unpack. But I don't know if the post trib work book has ever even bothered to look at that.
What is the significance of all that? ??
Are we allowed to look at "signifigance" , or is that another dynamic only you can use?
we are not allowed to connect any dots.
Only you can do that huh?