My mistake. I meant to say Moses in that case of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3).
And of which doctrine do you speak?
Some of the reasons I pulled away from Dispensationalism.
- Thread starter Beckie
- 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.
My mistake. I meant to say Moses in that case of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3).
And of which doctrine do you speak?
Do you have scripture that supports the concept that the blood sacrifice and new covenant of Christ was hidden from OT saints in all cases?
I agree that the letters to the 7 churches of Revelation are literal. This is an example of why I am not fully subscribed to Dispensationalism. But if I was forced to identify with a theological system, I would identify as a Dispensationalist...not because I agree with every theological position, but because I adopt the same hermeneutical approach to Scripture.
A mystical doctrine of the Cistercian Monks - in which Abraham and the issue of the offering of Isaac is juxtaposed with the Father offering His Son on the Mount of Transfiguration. Clearly the heresy is that this was not the meaning of the Transfiguration.
Romans 16
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
The cross had to be hidden. Satan thought he was gaining the victory by killing the promised seed of Genesis 3:15.
1 Corinthians 2
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Colossians 1
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
I am a premillennialist and I agree with that theology for the most part. That isn't what I was saying. I just disagree with dispensational premillennialism which requires dual-covenant theology to work effectively among other heresies. I am what is known a historic premillennialist.
This type of teaching gives open rein to a new veil to that one of Moses, being the Law.
It is taught that the Gospel given to Abraham, the first man to receive it, is not the same as what all receive in Jesus Yeshua.
God did not lie to Abraham. Grace was availed to many in the OT. Anyone reading it will understaand that.
Thank you for explaining to me what "dispensationalism ," I never knew that doctrine.
All are separated to God by faith in Christ. The sacrificial system is symbolic of Christ.
the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, Eph.3:6
Yes, I know, but they did not know at the time that what they were doing would be future symbolic. They sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins they committed under the law. That's the best they could do. Obey the word of God that He had given at that point in history.
Faith come by hearing the word of God. The OT saints had God's word for them at the time and it required obedience. That's the difference. After the cross, the believer is justified by the faith of Jesus Christ. All the work to justify man was accomplished at the cross.
If I may, I would like to address the above (underlined).
I would (and do, often) recommend that one study (in the Genesis text) the distinction found there between "SEED [SINGULAR]" and "SEED [PLURAL]" in order to (better) grasp Paul's use of "SEED [SINGULAR]" in Galatians 3:16.
The article [/commentary] below provides just an added glimpse, after one thoroughly examines this distinction ^ found in Genesis:
[William Kelly commentary on Galatians 3:16 "seed [singular]"]
[...]
Now [in Chapter 3's progression] we come to the question of promise, which is a very different thing. Faith involves, at any rate, the condition of soul in the person who believes; the promise looks at the dealings of God; and although we have seen that those who have faith are the only receivers of the blessing, and not those essaying to do the law, now we have to consider God promising, as well as law given. "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man's covenant, yet, if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made" - not the law given. Abraham knew nothing about the law, neither did his seed or son; yet they could not deny that Abraham got the blessing. So that here he stands on a new ground. It is not only that souls which have faith will get the blessing, but why not have faith in the law too? The latter part of the chapter takes up this question, and shows that God has given promises; and the question is, how to reconcile God's law with His promises. What did He give these two things for? Were they meant to produce the same end? Were they on the same principle? The Holy Ghost settles these questions. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ." Here it is plain, that the allusion is to two distinct and signal occasions in Abraham's history. These two occasions were first to Abraham alone; (Gen. 12
and secondly, to Isaac, or rather in Isaac alone. (Gen. 22) In the last chapter, both the numerous seed and the single seed are referred to. With the numerous seed God connects the possessing the gate of their enemies - that is, Jewish supremacy, But this is not what one acquires as a Christian. I do not want my enemies to be overthrown, but rather to be brought to Christ. But the Jews, as such, will have not only blessing through Christ by-and-by, but their enemies put down. Israel will be exalted in the earth, which God never promised to the Gentiles. In Genesis 22. the two things are quite distinct. Where the seed is spoken of without allusion to number, the blessing of the Gentiles comes in; but where they are said to be multiplied as the stars and the sand, then the character is unequivocally Jewish precedence. Such is, I believe, the argument of the apostle. Where Christ, typified by Isaac, is meant, it is "thy seed" simply, without a word of seed innumerable as the stars or the sand. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made;" namely, of the blessing of the Gentiles, and not merely of the putting down of the Gentiles. The promises were made first to Abraham, and then were confirmed in his seed. "He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and of thy seed, which is Christ." He takes Christ as the one intended by Isaac.Let me recall the circumstances under which God made the promise in Isaac as a type of Christ. In Genesis 22 Isaac is ready to be offered as a sacrifice, and Abraham did not know till the last moment but that his son was to die. For three days Isaac was, as it were, under the sentence of death. Abraham had confidence in God, who had promised that in Isaac he should possess the land; and he was, therefore, certain that in this very Isaac the promise must be accomplished. It was not a question of Sarah having another son, but of this son, his only son. He was perfectly assured, therefore, that God would raise him up and give him back again, to be the head of the Jewish family. A beautiful type this, of God's sparing not His own Son. Abraham had as good as offered up his son, and God not only gave Isaac back again, but then and there gave the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Thus it is in Christ risen from the dead that our blessing comes. Christ dead and risen again is perfectly free to bless the Gentiles. As long as He was merely living on the earth, He said, "I am not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," but, when risen, all is changed. Accordingly, He commissions His disciples, "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations." And so He predicted the gospel must be published among all nations. The apostle draws attention to the fact, that this early oracle does not connect the numerous seed when God spoke of blessing the Gentiles, but the one seed, Isaac, as the type of Christ, and of Christ after He had been under death and had passed into resurrection. The importance of this is immense; because, while Christ was upon the earth, He was under law Himself. Risen from the dead, what had He to do with law? The law does not touch a man when he is dead. The apostle argues that the Christian belongs to Christ in resurrection. When any one is baptized into Christ, this is what He confesses: - I belong to Christ dead and risen, taken out of my old place of Jew or Gentile. The Jews had to do with a Messiah who was to reign over them on the earth; the Gentiles in that day shall be the tail and not the head, and kings shall be the nursing fathers of Zion, and queens the nursing mothers, bowing down to the earth and licking up the dust of Israel's feet; but we, Christians, begin with Christ's death and resurrection. All our blessing is in Christ raised from the dead.
"And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ," (or, as it should be rendered, "to Christ,") "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." God took care that, between the promise given to Abraham and Isaac and the law, there should elapse a period of more than four centuries. Had He given the law a short time after, they might have said it was all one and the same thing. But how could this be thought, seeing that four hundred and thirty years passed between? The promise has its own special object, and the law its design also; and we are not to mingle the two things together. Not that we are to set aside either. On the contrary, I maintain that no man has a right value for the promises of God who could despise His law. I own the exceeding value of the law; but what is its object? This we have here, and are not left to our own conjectures. The covenant of the law, that came in four hundred and thirty years after the giving of the promise to Abraham, cannot disannul what God had said before. [...]
--William Kelly, Galatians 3 commentary - https://biblehub.com/commentaries/kelly/galatians/3.htm
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
[more at link... continued starting at about halfway down the page]
____________
On the other point (re: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.")... consider that Jesus, by referencing "[rejoiced to see] my day: and he saw it and was glad," was speaking of [what we now call] His Second Coming to the earth FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age (that [My] "day"); The text does not say (nor suggest), "Abraham rejoiced to see me on the Cross, and he saw it and was glad" or the like.
Hope that helps. = )
^ ETA: (I just happened across and old post of mine, that I will add here as a supplement to the above post)
[quoting old post]
As for the Heb11:13 "these all died in faith"...
[quoting excerpt from Wm Kelly's Commentary on Hebrews 11--I tried to place his first paragraph here in such a way as to draw attention to the various Greek words (etc) used for what is most often translated simply as "by faith" in our English, but which are actually distinct Greek words... (inserts in BLUE are mine)]
But "that day" is not yet come; and we return to their fathers. From the rising above difficulties insuperable save to God on whose word they relied (verses 11, 12), we have a summary in verses 13-16, which brings out the patriarchs refusing all temptation, and by faith holding on their pilgrim way to death consistently with the accomplishment of promise. This is the reason why the phraseology chances [changes] in the beginning of verse 13.
It is no longer "in" [en] faith, that is, in virtue (or the power) of faith as in verse 2, where such a force is requisite, [...].
Nor further is it the proximate cause, the dynamic or instrumental dative as in verses 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and again in 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, and 31.
Still less does it distinguish faith as the means "through" [dia] which, as in 4, 7, 33.
Here (verse 13), if we say "in," we mean according to [kata] faith, contrasted with sight or possession of the things promised. What indeed would be the sense of saying that "by" or "through" faith all these died?
Nor is it "in" i.e. in virtue of faith, but according to [kata] faith as in verse 7 of our chapter, where the precisely same phrase occurs [that is, in v.7c]. [...] Conformity with faith is here predicated of Abraham and those patriarchs that followed, not for perseverance to the end though this was the fact, but in being content to wait for God's fulfilling the promises in due time.
"According to [kata] faith died these all, not having received promises, but from afar having seen and saluted [or, embraced] them, and confessed that they were ["are," historical] strangers and sojourners on the earth [or, land]. For they that say such things clearly show that they seek after a fatherland. And if indeed they were* calling to mind whence they went out, they would have had opportunity to return; but now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly. Wherefore God is not ashamed of them to be called their God; for he prepared for them a city" (verses 13-16).
[...]
The aim in these verses is to present vividly that common pilgrim path in which the patriarchs walked, even to their death, before the Spirit takes up characteristic workings of faith, even in Abraham as well as in each of those that followed, as far as it bore on the subject in hand and the special help of those virtually addressed. How timely and needful it must have been we may gather, because they expand the truth already set forth briefly in verses 9, 10.
Neither death, nor the unseen state that succeeds, was the accomplishment of the promises. On the contrary their death without receiving what was promised was in accordance [kata] with faith, and the witness of its single-eyed integrity. And the accomplishment of the promises supposed, what they could not as yet understand any more than anticipate, the second advent of the Lord even more than the first, although the first was the far more solemn in itself, and the righteous basis of the blessings and glories which await the second. Hence the force of our Lord's word in John 8:56, "Abraham rejoiced that he should see my day, and he saw and was glad." Neither technically nor substantially was the first [advent] mainly in view as has been thought, but that day when God's word and oath shall be vindicated before a wondering and rejoicing world. The patristic dream, which some dream over again, [i.e. the supposition] that it refers to what Abraham beheld after death when our Lord was here, is as unwarranted a perversion as the Socinian interpretation which Meyer justly stigmatises [...]. The design of our Lord and of that chapter is to prove Himself the Light and Word and Son and God Himself; and hence the contrast between Abraham who believed and his seed who did not. Whatever glimpse Abraham may have had of the truth to which the sacrifice on Moriah pointed, it was to the full accomplishment of the promise he looked, and saw by faith what still awaits fulfilment, the period of Christ's manifested glory, "My day." In this hope brightly breaking through the clouds Abraham exulted, and he saw, as faith ever sees, and rejoiced. He, like the rest, saw the promises in their accomplishment from afar off.
And so died these all in accordance with faith as they lived, looking forward to Messiah's day for making good the promises.
--William Kelly, Commentary on Hebrews 11 (From BibleHub) - https:/ /biblehub.com/commentaries/kelly/hebrews/11.htm
[end quoting; bold, underline, and some bracketed inserts mine (in BLUE)--including the particular Greek words he's referring to--; parentheses and some brackets original]
____________
bottom line: the phrase "these [G3778] all died according to faith" refers to those in vv.8-12 in particular.
[end quoting that post]
[quoting old post]
As for the Heb11:13 "these all died in faith"...
[quoting excerpt from Wm Kelly's Commentary on Hebrews 11--I tried to place his first paragraph here in such a way as to draw attention to the various Greek words (etc) used for what is most often translated simply as "by faith" in our English, but which are actually distinct Greek words... (inserts in BLUE are mine)]
But "that day" is not yet come; and we return to their fathers. From the rising above difficulties insuperable save to God on whose word they relied (verses 11, 12), we have a summary in verses 13-16, which brings out the patriarchs refusing all temptation, and by faith holding on their pilgrim way to death consistently with the accomplishment of promise. This is the reason why the phraseology chances [changes] in the beginning of verse 13.
It is no longer "in" [en] faith, that is, in virtue (or the power) of faith as in verse 2, where such a force is requisite, [...].
Nor further is it the proximate cause, the dynamic or instrumental dative as in verses 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and again in 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, and 31.
Still less does it distinguish faith as the means "through" [dia] which, as in 4, 7, 33.
Here (verse 13), if we say "in," we mean according to [kata] faith, contrasted with sight or possession of the things promised. What indeed would be the sense of saying that "by" or "through" faith all these died?
Nor is it "in" i.e. in virtue of faith, but according to [kata] faith as in verse 7 of our chapter, where the precisely same phrase occurs [that is, in v.7c]. [...] Conformity with faith is here predicated of Abraham and those patriarchs that followed, not for perseverance to the end though this was the fact, but in being content to wait for God's fulfilling the promises in due time.
"According to [kata] faith died these all, not having received promises, but from afar having seen and saluted [or, embraced] them, and confessed that they were ["are," historical] strangers and sojourners on the earth [or, land]. For they that say such things clearly show that they seek after a fatherland. And if indeed they were* calling to mind whence they went out, they would have had opportunity to return; but now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly. Wherefore God is not ashamed of them to be called their God; for he prepared for them a city" (verses 13-16).
[...]
The aim in these verses is to present vividly that common pilgrim path in which the patriarchs walked, even to their death, before the Spirit takes up characteristic workings of faith, even in Abraham as well as in each of those that followed, as far as it bore on the subject in hand and the special help of those virtually addressed. How timely and needful it must have been we may gather, because they expand the truth already set forth briefly in verses 9, 10.
Neither death, nor the unseen state that succeeds, was the accomplishment of the promises. On the contrary their death without receiving what was promised was in accordance [kata] with faith, and the witness of its single-eyed integrity. And the accomplishment of the promises supposed, what they could not as yet understand any more than anticipate, the second advent of the Lord even more than the first, although the first was the far more solemn in itself, and the righteous basis of the blessings and glories which await the second. Hence the force of our Lord's word in John 8:56, "Abraham rejoiced that he should see my day, and he saw and was glad." Neither technically nor substantially was the first [advent] mainly in view as has been thought, but that day when God's word and oath shall be vindicated before a wondering and rejoicing world. The patristic dream, which some dream over again, [i.e. the supposition] that it refers to what Abraham beheld after death when our Lord was here, is as unwarranted a perversion as the Socinian interpretation which Meyer justly stigmatises [...]. The design of our Lord and of that chapter is to prove Himself the Light and Word and Son and God Himself; and hence the contrast between Abraham who believed and his seed who did not. Whatever glimpse Abraham may have had of the truth to which the sacrifice on Moriah pointed, it was to the full accomplishment of the promise he looked, and saw by faith what still awaits fulfilment, the period of Christ's manifested glory, "My day." In this hope brightly breaking through the clouds Abraham exulted, and he saw, as faith ever sees, and rejoiced. He, like the rest, saw the promises in their accomplishment from afar off.
And so died these all in accordance with faith as they lived, looking forward to Messiah's day for making good the promises.
--William Kelly, Commentary on Hebrews 11 (From BibleHub) - https:/ /biblehub.com/commentaries/kelly/hebrews/11.htm
[end quoting; bold, underline, and some bracketed inserts mine (in BLUE)--including the particular Greek words he's referring to--; parentheses and some brackets original]
____________
bottom line: the phrase "these [G3778] all died according to faith" refers to those in vv.8-12 in particular.
[end quoting that post]
^
I need to clarify the above ENLARGED portion... in my original posting of this, I had inserted my comments IN BLUE... but that's not how it transfered here ^ (in the above post), and in this re-posting, I instead high-lighted OTHER text IN BLUE (Wm Kelly's words, to be clear)
I need to clarify the above ENLARGED portion... in my original posting of this, I had inserted my comments IN BLUE... but that's not how it transfered here ^ (in the above post), and in this re-posting, I instead high-lighted OTHER text IN BLUE (Wm Kelly's words, to be clear)
Yes, and Luke 16:2,3,4 is another chapter where this "G3622 oikonomia" word is also used (translated in the kjv here as "stewardship," but in another version using a different English word--shown in bold, below):
Luke 16 -
The Parable of the Shrewd Manager
1Now also He was saying to the disciples, “There was a certain rich man who had a manager, and was accused unto him as he is wasting his possessions. 2And having called him, he said to him, ‘What is this I hear concerning you? Give the account of your stewardship [G3622], for you are not able to manage any longer.’
3And the manager said within himself, ‘What shall I do, for my master is taking away the management [G3622] from me? I am not able to dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4I know what I will do, so that when I shall have been removed from the management [G3622], they might receive me into their homes.’
5And having summoned each one of his master’s debtors, he was saying to the first, ‘How much do you owe to my master?’
6And he said, ‘A hundred bathsa of oil.’
And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and having sat down quickly, write fifty.’
7Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’
And he said, ‘A hundred corsb of wheat.’
He says to him, ‘Take your bill and write eighty.’
8And the master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the sons of this age are more shrewd than the sons of the light in their own generation. 9And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by the mammon of unrighteousness, that when it fails, they might receive you into the eternal dwellings.
10The one faithful in very little is also faithful in much, and the one unrighteous in very little is also unrighteous in much. 11If therefore you have not been faithful in unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true? 12And unless you have been faithful in that which is of another, who will give to you that which is yours?
13No servant is able to serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and he will love the other, or he will be devoted to one and he will despise the other. You are not able to serve God and mammon.”
14Now the Pharisees, being lovers of money, were listening to all these things, and they were ridiculing Him. 15And He said to them, “You are those justifying themselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is exalted among men is an abomination before God.
16The Law and the prophets were until John. From that time the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone forces his way into it. 17But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
18Everyone putting away his wife and marrying another commits adultery. And the one marrying her put away from a husband commits adultery.
--kjv https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/16/2/ss1/s_989002
The best anyone can do in any age is this,
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psa.51:17
This is the reason for the sacrifice and sins are not forgiven without true repentance.
After the cross our sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ. under the law, sins were forgiven through the sacrificial system, but they were not cleared. That’s recognizing dispensational differences.
No it wasn't. Sin against God doesn't justify the sinner. Being truly sorry for sinning against him is why God forgives sinners.
What our sweet Savior accomplished at the cross was showing sinners his great love for them, not immediately judging them as they committed abominable sins against him. And Jesus taught and expected obedience to the law. Not from a self righteous attitude, but from a humble spirit.
Thank you very much for taking the time.
"And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him." - Gen 12:7 KJV
In Genesis 12, we see that "seed" is indeed singular and related to a promise. This fits in with Galatians 3 where it is stated that Christ is the sole seed of the promise.
"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;" - Gen 22:17 KJV
There are two seeds in Gen 22:17. I agree with your/W.Kelly's assessment that this is a multiple of seeds / seeds of flesh ussage in the first instance of seed in Gen 22:17. This passage lines up well with Romans 9:27.
"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 KJV
There is no explicit promise to the multiple seed in Gen 22:17, only that Abraham is promised to have a multitude of descendants. And of these descendants through Israel only a remnant is saved. The second seed in Gen 22:17 however very clearly lines up with Christ.
"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." - John 10:9 KJV
"Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate." - Heb 13:13 KJV
"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." - Rev 1:18 KJV
When we look at Gen 22:18, this also in reference to the singular seed that is Christ.
"And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." - Gen 22:18 KJV
"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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." - Romans 9:7-8 KJV
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." - Galatians 3:16 KJV
The seed of the promise (Christ) was called in Isaac's line (e.g. Matthew 1:1-25 KJV).
The seed is Christ, not Isaac.
"And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the Lord thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:" - Deut 28:13 KJV
The entirety of Deuteronomy 28 starts with an "IF" statement, and that "IF" statement is repeated in the line that talks about the tail and head.
The fact is that no one except for Christ fulfilled the law, therefore He is the only one that could be the recipient of the promises listed there. Christ is the head.
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." - James 2:10 KJV
"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 49:23&26 KJV
This was addressed to the Israelites of the day.
I realize this is just a quoted section from William Kelly, but assuming you are advocating for the same position, are you proposing that Isaiah 49 contains a bestowed stewardship that is not continuous with Christ (who is of Israel) but is continuous with those of Israel that reject Christ?
If this is the case, why does it not apply to Christ? And why do you perceive it as a bestowed stewardship as opposed to a prophesy?
"For he that is dead is freed from sin." - Romans 6:7 KJV
The time-frame is an interesting question. I'm not terribly familiar with the context of the years. It sounds like a teachable moment and I would love to hear more on this.
I don't think anyone is making the claim that anything promised was voided or spoken falsely in scripture. The dispute is usually about what specifically was promised, how it was promised, and to whom it was promised.
Our sin against the Son (and thereore against the Father) are only forgiven by repenting of them and sins are cleared this way in any age.