As I stated, your interpretation is anachronistic, anthropologically as well as scripturally. The preponderance of the context of Romans 9 concerns who is the true Israel God amongst the descendants of Jacob and Abraham
and parenthetically the inclusion of the gentiles as chosen vessels also. Your comment that Paul does not mention Ephraim especially shows a lack of erudition, anthropologically as well as scripturally. Every time Paul used the term “Israel” he is referring principally to Ephraim and Manasseh according to scripture.
And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn). And he blessed Joseph and said, "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth." Genesis 48:14-16 ESV
And this is why the title “Israel” went to the northern kingdom, as opposed to the southern. I’ll stick to the chronological and anthropological accuracy of the grammatical-historical interpretation of scripture, which maintains the principal interpretation of Romans 9:25-26 pertains to Ephraim, your supersessionism notwithstanding.
You obviously think your repetition of an anachronistic and anthropological misrepresentation makes it acceptable. Isaiah 11:13, Ezekiel 37:19 and Hosea 1:10 substantiate the grammatical-historical interpretation that the 10 northern tribes are perceived by God as a nation and people, Ephraim, at the second advent. This and other evidence expose supersessionism as fallacious.
See, your backpedaling. You conceded that Ephraim was gathered in Christ at the first advent to proclaim the great commission. There is the enmity between Judah and Ephraim that was prophesied in Zechariah 11:14, by your own concession. Throughout our controversy, you had conceded that Ephraim is contrasted from Judah in that Ephraim accepted the gospel and Judah did not, the remnant of Judah through the apostles notwithstanding. As I stated, this is clear backpedaling.
Supersessionism has difficulty discerning fulfillment from consummation. The process of reconciling Ephraim and Judah commences with the first advent, it begins to be fulfilled, but it is exclusively consummated upon the second, then all Israel will be saved, according to Romans 11:26. Isaiah 11:13, Ezekiel 37:19 and Hosea 1:10 concern the consummation, not the commencement at the first advent. The kingdom of Christ is consummated, established, at his return and not the first advent, which what Christ relates when he proclaimed, he did not come to bring peace in Matthew 10:34. Until the consummation, he waits until his enemies are made his footstool (Psalms 110).
Note that you cannot resist agreeing with THT that the prophecies of Ephraim were commenced at the first advent! They took the great commission, while the Jews as a nation did not, which created the enmity. Your conceding Ephraim is amongst the gentiles; I agree. And you previously had to concede that Ephraim took up the great commission; I agree. What supersessionism has difficulty discerning is fulfillment from consummation; they are related, but not the same.
Again, supersessionism has difficulty discerning fulfillment from consummation; the "kingdom of God" is obviously not the promised Davidic kingdom when the grammatical-historical interpretation is upheld. The object of the Davidic Kingdom is to restore the promised land to the biological descendants, including Samaria, and execute justice and righteousness so that Judah and Israel/Ephraim can dwell securely.
Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD. Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD. And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jeremiah 23:1-6 KJV
Christ’s proclamation that he did not come to bring peace in Matthew 10:34 and the evidence in the NT that we must endure fiery trials until he returns (1 Peter 4”12-13), such as injustice and unrighteousness, is clear evidence that we are not abiding in the Davidic kingdom. That is not to say that some elements of the Davidic kingdom do not manifest in this age, such as John 14:27, but the Davidic kingdom simply cannot be upheld as this age through the NT. As I stated supersessionism has difficulty discerning fulfillment from consummation.
You’re failing to take into account Satan is cast to the earth in Revelation 12 and makes war with the saints, which is recapped in the next chapter. In the next chapter Satan, the dragon, gives the sea-beast his throne and great authority over “all the world” to war with the saints and overcome them, for the same amount of time the woman is in the wilderness. In Revelation 20:3 the dragon, Satan, is stripped of this ability to deceive the nations and is cast in a pit for 1000 years and then released to fulfill the prophecy of Ezekiel 38. In Ezekiel 38 God has Gog come against the “
land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.” Gog says, “
I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land” (Ezekiel 38:8-12). Ezekiel’s description of the land of unwalled villages is precisely the security that Jeremiah 23:1-6 prophecies about the Davidic kingdom. There is no doubt in the minds of those who maintain the grammatical-historical interpretation, as well as progressive revelation, that the Revelation upholds premillennialism as opposed to the amillennialism or postmillennialism that you're asserting. BTW, which is it that you are asserting?
As I confirmed, Christ can retain the authority that he had laid aside to become a man (Philippians 2:6-10), and yet not consummate the Davidic kingdom.
The earthly temple was a shadow of the heavenly sanctuary; the heavenly sanctuary is not bound by the earthly one. Hebrews 10:20 reveals Christ as the antitype of the veil suspended in the earthly sanctuary, and as that antitype, he resumed the presence of the Father to offer himself as the antitype of the Passover lamb to put away sin, which what Hebrews 9 conveys. As the mediator between man and God he had held that position before he humbled himself to become a man (Philippians 2:6-10). Supersessionism’s perception that the phenomenon of Hebrews 9:24-25 conveys the day of atonement is based on the nuances of the “presence” of God and “every year” to force their perception into the context that Christ “put away sin” at the first advent. As I stated, the nuances are explained by Christ is the antitype of the veil and that the phrase “every year” is explained by the “daily” sin offerings performed at the earthly sanctuary, in essence, done year after year. The preponderance of the context does not hold to the perception that the day of atonement was performed at the first advent, in indifference with the seven months that separated the spring and autumnal festivals.
Daniel 7, in contrast, conveys the antitype of the autumnal festivals. The judgment that is set in verses 9-10 is for the purpose of taking away the dominion of the little horn and to destroy and consume him, and to give that same dominion that the little horn ruled to the saints in verses 26-27. Of course, this kingdom must be secure for the saints, which I addressed in my preceding comments.