Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth

Amen and amen!

Uscgvet, in response to your posting; perhaps the first thing to consider is that Israel split into two parts that are namely Ephraim and Judah. Ephraim was the dominant tribe in the north, and Judah was the dominant tribe in the south. Additionally, Ephraim was also referred to as Israel; however, Judah was never refereed to as Israel, but Jerusalem. It is for this reason that Isaiah's introduction at Verse 1:1 is perhaps most confusing wherein he states "Judah and Jerusalem" since both names pertain to Judah. That is, at the time Isaiah wrote his work, both names pertained to the southern kingdom of Judah. However, during our time Jerusalem pertains more specifically to the followers of Christ that are Ephraim. Thus, that which is confusing to the people of Isaiah's day is more clear to us and his introduction states Judah and Jerusalem (the Christians). That is, the two names (of Isaiah's day) pertain to Judah whose tribe remains in tact, and secondly, in our day, Jerusalem refers to Ephraim who in the last days are called Christians. Keep in mind that the "prophets" work in linguistic devises the most prominent of which are metaphor.

Notice in Verses 1:2-4, Isaiah groups the two kingdoms (north and south) into the one kingdom "Israel" wherein he calls them "children, Israel my people, sinful nation" etc. In the second chapter we again have the two groups at Verse 2:1 "Judah and Jerusalem" but at Verse 2:3 you can see that the word of the Lord is from Jerusalem and this is the Christians. This point is easily proved by reading the Gospel According to John, Chapter 1. However, and more interestingly stated is that out of Zion shall go forth the law and since the metaphor Jerusalem in Verse 1:3 is Ephraim, then Zion in that verse is Judah. Thus, out of Judah goes forth the law and we know this to be true because the Torah of the OT came to us via Judah. Thus, as you can see, once it is understood how Isaiah placed his metaphors, then it is easier to understand his work.

Again at Verse 3:1 Isaiah uses the Judah and Jerusalem terms for the latter day Jews (Judah) and Christians (Ephraim), and at Verse 7:17 both Ephraim and Judah are stated in the clear that Ephraim departed Judah via the king of Assyria. My point is that there are two houses to Israel and those two houses are Judah and Ephraim the Christians. That is, when the mantel of authority was taken from Judah, it was given to Ephraim, the Christians. With this understanding the works of the NT are easier to understand because for the most part the NT is from Ephraim and not Judah. Whereas, the OT has come to us from Judah.

With that in mind the entire NT is to Ephraim, the Christians. Because, once Judah accepts Christ they are of Ephraim. That is, Ephraim is Israel and once Judah comes to the fold then they are once again in line with the house of Israel. Thus, they will once again follow the one God, Lord Jesus.

In response to the point about the woman. Lord Jesus was saying that he was sent for his believers. He was making the point that the woman was the one he was sent to, not her daughter. Had the blessing been for the woman, a believer, then there was not difficulty. However, where was the daughter? The daughter was clearly not a believer. Had she been, then she would have been there herself. Look at this in contrast to the believers who came to Christ. This woman was asking for a blessing to her for her daughter. That is, she as a believer was asking for a non-believer. Lord Jesus is saying that he is not sent for the non-believers but for the believers. That is, he is sent only to the house of Israel, the believers. This woman's daughter was not of the house of Israel. The woman was, but the daughter was not.

It is a misconception to believe that the woman's daughter was a little child since Lord Jesus repeatedly healed little children at their parents request. No, this woman's daughter was an adult who had made adult decisions and became vexed with a devil. Thus, the woman's daughter was not of the house of Israel and Lord Jesus was making that point. Had the woman's daughter repented and come unto Christ then she would have readily been healed from the devil.

This is too close to replacement theology for my taste.
I disagree that Christians are Ephraim.  
Paul did however write that we are Jews inwardly when we believe in Christ.  

Anyway, I'm not trying to stir up anything.  I deleted my original post.  I agree with Robert Breaker and he makes a very good case.
I came up to the same conclusion studying the Word with the H.S. leading me.  

I guess that makes a lot of the book of Romans pretty silly because that is from the mouth of Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit. Puts a whole new meaning to a lot of the scriptures regarding Jews and even Israel in the Bible. Not being combative, just making a point.

I think these verses below are pretty straightforward to whom the Lord views as a Jew out of the book of Romans. Seems being a true Jew, not one physically or by genetics, but by these verses say is quite the goal to be aiming for in the eyes of God.

I would suggest a study on an uncircumcised heart because this theme is all throughout the OT and NT on a continual basis. The Lord is impartial to no persons or people which includes genetics, race, nationality or even their current beliefs.

28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Romans 8-9 is a good in depth study on this topic.

This is an interesting list of terms that Messianic Jews use and why they don't use the term Christian. (And some other interesting things)

home.snu.edu/~hculbert/Yeshua.htm

Can I say Uncle?