Dispensationalism Refuted

[ebedmelech]

You are jousting with windmills. I’ve never held that the wall of partition in Ephesian 2:14 is still in effect. What I’ve been substantiating is that the gentiles are made fellow citizens through Christ and with the assistance of the elect biological descendants of Abraham (Genesis 22:18). The prophets provide a progressive revelation of the fulfillment of Genesis 22:18 through Christ and the assistance of Ephraim/Israel. This progressive revelation is suppressed by the presuppositions of supersessionism.

Let me politely call this response "theological nonsense".

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Quotes please.

Here's one.
Eph 2:14
For he is our peace,.... The author of peace between Jew and Gentile: there was a great enmity of the Jew against the Gentile, and of the Gentile against the Jew; and chiefly on account of circumcision, the one being without it, and the other insisting on it, and branding one another with nicknames on account of it; but Christ has made peace between them by abrogating the ceremonial law, which was the occasion of the difference, and by sending the Gospel of peace to them both, by converting some of each, and by granting the like privileges to them all, as may be observed in the following verses: and Christ is the author of peace between God and his people; there is naturally in man an enmity to God; sin has separated chief friends; nor can man make his peace with God; what he does, or can do, will not do it; and what will, he cannot do; Christ is the only fit and proper person for this work, being a middle person between both, and is only able to effect it, being God as well as man; and so could draw nigh to God, and treat with him about terms of peace, and agree to them, and perform them; and which he has brought about by his blood, his sufferings and death; and which is made on honourable terms, by a full satisfaction to the law and justice of God; and so is a lasting one, and attended with a train of blessings: moreover, Christ is the donor of peace, of external peace in his churches, and of internal peace of conscience, and of eternal peace in heaven: this is one of the names of the Messiah with the Jews. John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible 1690-1771

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Right. British Israelism (BI) is the only repository of truth.
Just a reminder: "Most Christians regard it as a cult."
Myself included.
The myths and falsifications of BI/RB/BS cultic racialism are legion.



There was no enmity between believing Gentiles and believing Jews. They were united in belief.
There was no enmity between unbelieving Gentiles and unbelieving Jews. They were united in unbelief.
There was enmity between believing Gentiles and Jews; and unbelieving Gentiles and Jews.

There was no other enmity, BI/RB/BS "interpretation by imagination" notwithstanding.

You are aware, though, that supersessionism, RT, is looked on as a great heresy by a great part of Christianity!

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Let me politely call this response "theological nonsense".

Let me politely call this response "theological nonsense".

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.... For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11:1-2, 29

Well, when I come across what is in my opinion nonsense I don't even comment. I am usually compelled to comment on those posts that I deem worthy of my attention.

 

[jgr]

You are aware, though, that supersessionism, RT, is looked on as a great heresy by a great part of Christianity!

Unlike BI, RT is not considered a cult by any part of Christianity.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jerryhuerta said: ↑
Your side-stepping that Ephesian 2:15 reveals as the law of commandments contained in ordinances created enmity between the gentiles and the descendants of Abraham, Israel. Circumcision discouraged the inclusion of the gentiles. Acts and Galatians testify that it was still a problem until the councils, through revelation, decided against it.

jgr said: ↑
The law of commandments contained in ordinances created enmity between those who were faithful and obedient to them, and those who were not.

Nothing to do with physical DNA.

No scripture discourages the inclusion of the Gentiles.

No RB or BS.

The lengths some supersessionist will go to maintain their false doctrines has no bounds. Even so, there are a significant number of supersessionist who published commentaries that agree with me that Ephesians 2:13-14 concerns the enmity between the “gentiles” and the “Jews”, due to the law contained in ordinances, the Mosaic Covenant. Rev. Joseph Benson, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, John Wesley, John Gill and Albert Barnes to name a few.

jgr said: ↑
Right. British Israelism (BI) is the only repository of truth.
Just a reminder: "Most Christians regard it as a cult."
Myself included.
The myths and falsifications of BI/RB/BS cultic racialism are legion.
There was no enmity between believing Gentiles and believing Jews. They were united in belief.
There was no enmity between unbelieving Gentiles and unbelieving Jews. They were united in unbelief.
There was enmity between believing Gentiles and Jews; and unbelieving Gentiles and Jews.

There was no other enmity, BI/RB/BS "interpretation by imagination" notwithstanding.

You are aware, though, that supersessionism, RT, is looked on as a great heresy by a great part of Christianity!

Unlike BI, RT is not considered a cult by any part of Christianity.

I would go so far as to consider Dispensationalism a form of Zionism...and it appears it is shunned by much of Christianity.....

Christian Zionism - a modern-day heresy?

Christian Zionism is a movement to "usher in the end times".

I voted yes due to the simple fact that man has absolutely NO say in determining the will of GOD.

What I always find strange is the fact that they cant wait to see,or they promote the temples or temples being built ,that will have animal sacrifices.I guess they never read this.

Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Heb 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

It may be rather funny to see something.Did they ever realize if they get this prefabricated temple they have up and running,that maybe nothing will happen.No antichrist may bother with it.

I think they are genetically trying to breed a red hiefer! Talk about a move of the flesh.

SummaScriptura said: ↑
If that's your definition of Zionism then, in addition to my being a chiliast, please count me among these heretics too. Along with the Apostles of the Lord.

2 Peter 3:11-13, Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!

1 Corinthians 16:22, Come, O Lord!

It seems to me the Church is a movement to "usher in the end times".

Sorry my friend...my definition describes modern day heresy.
You are not a heretic mind you...but the ideal that you said you hold is actually heresy.
Hoping and Praying for Jesus' second coming is not heresy mind you.
You and I have posted on and off together for a long time, so I hope you take my words for what they are worth(not much in the long run) and don't get offended here.
Honestly support of Christian Zionism is unorthodox theology and is just wrong exegetically.
Also, the Apostles did NOT ever want to rush things by man made ideals to promote an idea that in essence show a controling of the will of GOD Almighty to make the end times come "sooner".
They prayed and hoped beyond hope that Jesus would come again in their lifetimes, and promoted that idea.
There is a big difference between that and what is transpiring now with the building of the 3rd temple, etc.

I still love ya though!

Christian Zionism = A modern heresy?

1. *
   Yes
   93 vote(s)
   71.0%
2. No
   38 vote(s)
   29.0%

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jerryhuerta said: ↑
Let me ask you, is the phrase children of the flesh in Romans 9:8 idiomatic of walking after the flesh as we note in Romans 8:1 or the coincidence of birth as Replacement theology attempts to assert? And how do you interpret?

ebedmelech said: ↑
Well first...let me state your idea of "replacement theology" is a misnomer when it comes to me. Theologically no one replaced anyone. Christ came in the fullness of time...and just as John 1:11-13 says. Under the New Covenant those who come to Christ are children of God regardless of Jew or Gentile...there is no difference. Reference Ephesians 2:11-22.

Jerryhuerta said: ↑
Initially, Christ did not come for the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). It was only later that the Gentiles are included through a revelation to Peter (Acts 10:10-`16, 35). And of course, a council had to be held to determine whether they were going to have the Gentiles convert to Judaism and decided against the Old Covenant ministration (Act 15). What we have, more accurately, was that the New Covenant was initially established with the biological descendants with the intent of inevitably gathering in the gentiles, which is precisely what the Old Testament prophecies. You might read both treads where I posted and see this is exactly what I’ve substantiated from both Testaments.

ebedmelech said: ↑
No. What you need to do is understand that Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join Israel as natives of the land. Ever read Exodus 12:42-49? How is it that Rahab and Ruth...who are both Gentiles end up in the line of Christ? They followed the Exodus reference above and became Jews!
This is what I mean in saying you "contort the scriptures"...what you write above actually proves my point. You simply don't understand or you're spinning the passage. Even further, how could you read Romans 4 and come to such a conclusion and Paul totally annihilates that thinking With Galatians 4:21-31.

Try Ephesians 2:11-22. How readest thou?

No. "Replacement Theology" is simply a "dispensational spin" against what scripture clearly teaches. Jesus came unto His own and they didn't receive Him. This is because just as you are trying to assert they had missed the fact they where to be the light to the world and they simply broke the covenant just as God told Moses they would do at Deuteronomy 31:14-18.

Open your eyes brother!

Hi ebedmelech.
Yes, Dispensationalists either bring up the "R T" or "anti Semetism" cards to defend their doctrinal views.
You have more patience debating against it than I do.

 

[keras]

Yes, Dispensationalists either bring up the "R T" or "anti Semetism" cards to defend their doctrinal views.

The 'rapture to heaven' of the Church believers bitterly hate what they call Replacement Theology.
That is: how every faithful Christian is deemed by God to be His Israelites, the Overcomers for Him, as seen in each of the seven Churchs of Revelation.
This fact destroys their precious idea of going to live in heaven, as the Jewish people have exactly the same status in God's eyes, as every other godless people group.
The 'rapture' belief will result in much consternation and angst when the Lord arises to take action against His enemies and they remain on earth.

 

[claninja]

What I stated was that, “the pejorative label of THT cannot be sustained by scripture,” not that THT cannot be sustained by scripture. Do you know what pejorative means?

I thought pejorative labels were ok, as you continue to insist that I believe RT theology, even though I stated multiple times I don't believe the church replaced Israel.

ou’re side-stepping the significance that Paul was a literal descendant of Benjamin, one of the tribes of Judah, the “Jerusalem which now is.”

Have I not acknowledged multiple times that Paul is biologically from the kingdom of Judah?

The significance is that we are compelled into interpreting that Paul is speaking spiritually and not literally.

Bingo

It substantiates he doesn’t have to be a literal descendant of Ephraim to be spiritually perceived by God as one of the children of Ephraim, when Ephraim is the nation given the kingdom of God in Matthew 21:43.

It substantiates that race no longer matters for children of God through Christ under the new covenant.

It substantiates that Paul and the apostles are the spiritual children of the barren and desolate women, Ephraim, in Isaiah 54.

Yup, that's the argument I have been making the whole time. Jews, Gentiles, Ephraimites, etc..... are all spiritual children of the desolate woman through Jesus Christ under the new covenant.

Once one concedes that we are compelled into interpreting that Paul is speaking spiritually and not literally it demolished any argument that the “Jerusalem which is above” cannot be Ephraim because Paul was a literal Benjamite.

Did we ever disagree that the desolate woman was ephraim?

Your assessment of supersessionism is incomplete. The comprehensive definition of supersessionism maintains that Israel was a chosen people and that their failure to avow Christ ended this relationship,

Those of Israel who rejected Christ were broken off.
Romans 11:20 That is correct: They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith.

which was superseded by the church.

The gentiles were grafted in, replacing, the unfaithul natural branches that were broken off.
Romans 11:17 Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root,

The church did not "replace" Israel. Gentiles were grafted in to faithful Israel to become fellow heirs through Christ. Anyone who teaches the church "replaced" Israel teaches a false doctrine.

THT exposes supersessionism as a fallacious doctrine.

how so? Do you believe the New covenant superseded the old covenant?

You unavoidably promoted supersessionism when you wrote: “the nation of Israel was removed from the land by Assyria and Babylon based on the conditional promises of the old covenant. So how do we reconcile that with the unconditional promise given to Abraham and his seed? His seed is singular: Jesus.”

How do I promote supersessionism if Jesus was always the heir to the promises of Abraham, AS PAUL TEACHES. How can Jesus supersede himself?

I believe Jesus was always the intended heir to the unconditional promises of Abraham. I believe Israel was given conditional promises through the old covenant, Israel failed because of sin and disobedience to maintain their end of the covenant. Thus God did away with the old covenant, because he found fault in his people. God then enacted the new covenant through his son, to whom all the promises of Abraham were intended. Jesus fulfilled the law, so that all those in him are no longer bound to it. The new covenant is built upon better promises. The new covenant superseded the old covenant.

Do you believe the old covenant still exists along side the new covenant?

As to your insistence the timing of Isaiah 54, there is nothing to “sing” about if the object of the text is the continuation of this barren and desolate “state”; the singing conveys the state is at an end, at a future time from when Isaiah wrote. This affirms the chapter is a prophecy of the future when Christ reestablishes the covenant relationship with the nation of Ephraim under the New Covenant.

This doesn't answer my question. When did Ephraim become desolate? Was it during the time of Isaiah when Assyria sent them into exile or was it still future to the time of Isaiah?

Isaiah 60 substantiates that Ephraim/Israel “inherits” the gentiles. “Inherit" is from the Hebrew: H3423 יָרֵשׁ יָרַשׁ (yārēš yāraš) 1.) to seize, dispossess, take possession of, inherit, disinherit, occupy, impoverish, be an heir. Isaiah 60 substantiates that the gentiles who afflict Israel/Zion shall “bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel,” which substantiates that the gentiles that are not converted are seized, dispossessed, taken possession of, occupied and etc. and etc. By definition, Zion inherits the gentiles in Isaiah 60 and other texts in the said book.

How does this surmount my argument that it is Jesus who inherits the nations?

Psalm 2:7-8 will proclaim the decree spoken to Me by the LORD: “You are My Son;today I have become Your Father.b Ask Me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance, the ends of the earth Your possession.

Psalm 82:8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are Your inheritance.

 

[ebedmelech]

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.... For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11:1-2, 29

Well, when I come across what is in my opinion nonsense I don't even comment. I am usually compelled to comment on those posts that I deem worthy of my attention.

The nonsense continues in how you avoid the entirety of Romans 11. Like how the Gentile and Jewish believers are grafted in as ONE olive tree. How is it you leave that out Jerry? It's because it refutes your viewpoint thoroughly.

Paul goes into great detail in the scriptures to make the point that there is no difference, while you labor to say there is a difference.

The point is Jewish and Gentile believers are the "Israel of God" Paul says it this way in summation at Romans 2:28, 29:
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I thought pejorative labels were ok, as you continue to insist that I believe RT theology, even though I stated multiple times I don't believe the church replaced Israel.



Have I not acknowledged multiple times that Paul is biologically from the kingdom of Judah?



Bingo



It substantiates that race no longer matters for children of God through Christ under the new covenant.



Yup, that's the argument I have been making the whole time. Jews, Gentiles, Ephraimites, etc..... are all spiritual children of the desolate woman through Jesus Christ under the new covenant.



Did we ever disagree that the desolate woman was ephraim?



Those of Israel who rejected Christ were broken off.
Romans 11:20 That is correct: They were broken off because of unbelief, but you stand by faith.



The gentiles were grafted in, replacing, the unfaithul natural branches that were broken off.
Romans 11:17 Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root,

The church did not "replace" Israel. Gentiles were grafted in to faithful Israel to become fellow heirs through Christ. Anyone who teaches the church "replaced" Israel teaches a false doctrine.



how so? Do you believe the New covenant superseded the old covenant?



How do I promote supersessionism if Jesus was always the heir to the promises of Abraham, AS PAUL TEACHES. How can Jesus supersede himself?

I believe Jesus was always the intended heir to the unconditional promises of Abraham. I believe Israel was given conditional promises through the old covenant, Israel failed because of sin and disobedience to maintain their end of the covenant. Thus God did away with the old covenant, because he found fault in his people. God then enacted the new covenant through his son, to whom all the promises of Abraham were intended. Jesus fulfilled the law, so that all those in him are no longer bound to it. The new covenant is built upon better promises. The new covenant superseded the old covenant.

Do you believe the old covenant still exists along side the new covenant?



This doesn't answer my question. When did Ephraim become desolate? Was it during the time of Isaiah when Assyria sent them into exile or was it still future to the time of Isaiah?



How does this surmount my argument that it is Jesus who inherits the nations?

Psalm 2:7-8 will proclaim the decree spoken to Me by the LORD: “You are My Son;today I have become Your Father.b Ask Me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance, the ends of the earth Your possession.

Psalm 82:8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are Your inheritance.

Again, you cannot avoid responding with RT presuppositions. The Israel that failed were those who God had not chosen to begin with.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew…. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11:1-2, 29​

The kingdom was promised to the elect, it was never promised to those destined to be cast off and to remain in that condition. The intent was to restore the kingdom to the elect biological descendants under the New Covenant and the nation Ephraim would be the mother, Zion, by which this was to be accomplished. This is substantiated by Hebrews 12:22-24. Zechariah 10:7-10, Isaiah 49 as well as many other OT texts affirm this, which you conceded by acknowledging Ephraim’s part in the great commission. The elect of Ephraim represent the nation; they are regrafted onto their own tree, affirmed in Romans 11. The promises and prophecies in the OT to Israel belong to the elect descendant of Judah and Ephraim, albeit Ephriam in given the kingdom in Matthew 21:43. You also concede this by agreeing the barren and desolate woman represents Ephraim and that her children represent the church. This is an acknowledgement the desolate woman in Isaiah 54 is also Zion in the OT and specifically the woman in chapter 49:14-26 that is “desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro,” but bears the children to whom the gentiles are gathered to.

Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. 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 49:22-23​

You’ve challenged me to show scriptural evidence that Ephraim/Zion inherits the gentiles, but you must relinquish your supersessionalist’s presuppositions to comprehend the evidence. I gave you the Hebraic meaning of the word “inherit” and it fits perfectly with the recalcitrant gentiles bowing down to Zion in Isaiah above. Relinquishing your supersessionalist’s presuppositions would allow you to see that the promises of the kingdom to Israel were only to the elect and that’s why Israel didn’t fail; the kingdom was never promised to the branches that were to be cast off. This is the reason Paul declared that when Christ returns all Israel will be saved.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

The nonsense continues in how you avoid the entirety of Romans 11. Like how the Gentile and Jewish believers are grafted in as ONE olive tree. How is it you leave that out Jerry? It's because it refutes your viewpoint thoroughly.

Paul goes into great detail in the scriptures to make the point that there is no difference, while you labor to say there is a difference.

The point is Jewish and Gentile believers are the "Israel of God" Paul says it this way in summation at Romans 2:28, 29:
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

One must relinquish their supersessionalist’s presuppositions to comprehend Romans 11. Unless they do they miss the point that the gentiles shouldn't boast against the natural branches. They are made one on the olive tree, but the olive tree belongs to Israel, the biological descendants. Gentiles are grafted onto Israel, not the other way around. The gentiles are blessed by the biological descendants of Abraham, not the other way around (Genesis 22:18).

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Unlike BI, RT is not considered a cult by any part of Christianity.

Members of a theological disposition that is heretical accusing others from another theology as a cult does not inspire confidence in the former but hypocrisy.

 

[ebedmelech]

One must relinquish their supersessionalist’s presuppositions to comprehend Romans 11.

So when are you going to do that?

Unless they do they miss the point that the gentiles shouldn't boast against the natural branches. They are made one on the olive tree, but the olive tree belongs to Israel, the biological descendants. Gentiles are grafted onto Israel, not the other way around. The gentiles are blessed by the biological descendants of Abraham, not the other way around (Genesis 22:18).

No. The Olive tree doesn't belong to Israel, it belongs to God! Furthermore the point is, the Olive tree was Israel, who lost it through breaking the Old Covenant which was between them and God...they were God's chosen people. Jesus appears and Israel rejects their messiah, who then institutes a New Covenant. Once again you demonstrate your inability to accurately comprehend scripture. What do you do with Paul's clear points that Israel failed?...particularly:

Romans 9:24-26
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
25 As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’
And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”
26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

Then Romans 9:27-33
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved;
28 for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly.”
29 And just as Isaiah foretold, “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity,
We would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.”
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written,
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,

And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

You simply can't see it through the convoluted theology you tout. If you stay with Paul, and not your theology it comes through clear as day.

 

[jgr]

Members of a theological disposition that is heretical accusing others from another theology as a cult does not inspire confidence in the former but hypocrisy.

A racialized cult of RB masquerading as a theology is the epitome of risibility.

 

[jgr]

The gentiles are blessed by the biological descendants of Abraham

You won't find that in any Bible.

But you will find that the Gentiles are blessed by the biological descendant of Abraham.

Genesis 22:18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Galatians 3:16
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 3:14
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

 

[claninja]

So does Ephraim become desolate during isaiah’s Time with the Assyrian exile or at a different time?

The Israel that failed were those who God had not chosen to begin with.

I absolutely agree, as not all of Israel is Israel

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,
Romans 9:6 - Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9:6 - English Standard Version

The kingdom was promised to the elect, it was never promised to those destined to be cast off and to remain in that condition.

I absolutely agree

The intent was to restore the kingdom to the elect biological descendants under the New Covenant

As well as the gentiles who became one with the elect biological descendants through Christ under the new covenant


There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Galatians 3:28-29 - Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 3:28-29 - English Standard Version

and the nation Ephraim would be the mother, Zion, by which this was to be accomplished.

Ephraim/israel/Zion/heavenly Jerusalem would be mother of the descendants, whether they are jew, Ephraim, or gentile through Christ under the new covenant.

This is substantiated by Hebrews 12:22-24. Zechariah 10:7-10, Isaiah 49 as well as many other OT texts affirm this, which you conceded by acknowledging Ephraim’s part in the great commission.

You are still using the word concede incorrectly.

The elect of Ephraim represent the nation; they are
regrafted onto their own tree, affirmed in Romans 11.

Since romans 11 mentions Ephraim nowhere, do you believe gentiles is another term for Ephraim?

The promises and prophecies in the OT to Israel belong to the elect descendant of Judah and Ephraim, albeit Ephriam in given the kingdom in Matthew 21:43.

I believe the Jews who are in Christ also inherit the kingdom, as Paul includes himself in inheriting the kingdom

Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe,
Hebrews 12:28 - Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 12:28 - English Standard Version

The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
2 Timothy 4:18 - Bible Gateway passage: 2 Timothy 4:18 - English Standard Version

I believe the gentiles who are in Christ also inherit the kingdom


This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Ephesians 3:6 - Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 3:6 - English Standard Version

You’ve challenged me to show scriptural evidence that Ephraim/Zion inherits the gentiles, but you must relinquish your supersessionalist’s presuppositions to comprehend the evidence

The only supersessionist presupposition that i hold is that the new covenant supersedes the old covenant.

Do you believe the old covenant is still a valid contract between God and biological israelites? Or do you believe the new covenant superseded it?

I gave you the Hebraic meaning of the word “inherit” and it fits perfectly with the recalcitrant gentiles bowing down to Zion in Isaiah above.

How does this surmount that it is Jesus who inherits the nations?

I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.
Psalm 2:7-8 - Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 2:7-8 - English Standard Version

supersessionalist’s presuppositions would allow you to see that the promises of the kingdom to Israel were only to the elect and that’s why Israel didn’t fail; the kingdom was never promised to the branches that were to be cast off. This is the reason Paul declared that when Christ returns all Israel will be saved.

I’m not following your logic here jerry. I agree with you here, so how would believing the new covenant superseded the old covenant not allow me to see that?

 

[Jerryhuerta]

So when are you going to do that?


No. The Olive tree doesn't belong to Israel, it belongs to God! Furthermore the point is, the Olive tree was Israel, who lost it through breaking the Old Covenant which was between them and God...they were God's chosen people. Jesus appears and Israel rejects their messiah, who then institutes a New Covenant. Once again you demonstrate your inability to accurately comprehend scripture. What do you do with Paul's clear points that Israel failed?...particularly:

Romans 9:24-26
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
25 As He says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’
And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”
26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

Then Romans 9:27-33
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved;
28 for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly.”
29 And just as Isaiah foretold, “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity,
We would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah.”
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written,
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,

And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

You simply can't see it through the convoluted theology you tout. If you stay with Paul, and not your theology it comes through clear as day.

Romans 11:
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew…. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace…. And if some of the branches be broken off…. if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? Romans 11:1-2, 5, 17, 23-24​

Paul states that God is able to regraft the branches that were broken off onto “their own olive tree” and that the gentiles came from a wild, alien, olive tree. You need to read Paul more carefully. Also, Hebrews makes it very clear the New Covenant is to Judah and Israel, which is peculiar if Israel lost the kingdom. Again, you are not reading Paul correctly. And Paul states unequivocally God has not cast away his people and that a remnant according to the election of grace must abide on the olive tree. Again, your reading Paul through the atrocious presuppositions of supersessionism and failing to recognize the promises to Israel were to the elect remnant in the first place and not to the vessels fit for destruction.

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:23-24​

 

[Jerryhuerta]

A racialized cult of RB masquerading as a theology is the epitome of risibility.

Holding the gentiles superseded the natural descendants is the true anti-Semitism.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

You won't find that in any Bible.

But you will find that the Gentiles are blessed by the biological descendant of Abraham.

Genesis 22:18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Galatians 3:16
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 3:14
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Genesis 22:
17 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…​

The “seed” is also likened to the stars for their abundance, which is the promise of the fruitfulness of the descendants of Abraham. The “seed” has a singular and collective sense, which substantiates the interpretation that through Abraham’s descendants the gentiles are blessed in the succeeding verse.