Premillennialism contradicts scripture (1 Corinthians 15:50-54) by having mortal flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom of God when Jesus returns.

[WPM]

Your eyes must have glazed over when you read Hebrews 1:2, where Paul explicitly says that Jesus is the heir of all things. An heir has a future entitlement—something that is coming to them, but which they do not yet possess. For example, a prince is the a priori heir to the throne, meaning he is expected to inherit it, but he does not hold the power of a king until the actual succession takes place.

Hebrews 1:2 states that God "has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things." In this context, "heir" signifies Jesus' divine authority and rightful ownership over all creation, emphasizing His preeminence and sovereignty. Hebrews presents Jesus as the heir, but His full inheritance—His rule over the earth—culminates at His second coming. The idea of Jesus as the rightful ruler who will establish His kingdom on earth is a central theme in biblical eschatology, reflecting prophecies like those in Daniel 7:14, where "His dominion is an everlasting dominion.

This understanding ties into the broader biblical narrative of redemption: while Jesus has already secured victory through His death and resurrection, the full realization of His reign over the world is yet to come. His second advent marks the completion of God's plan, bringing justice, restoration, and the fulfillment of the promises made throughout Scripture.

While that may be true of some Premillennialists, I take the more pragmatic approach and simply look out my window to see that Christ is not ruling over the world right now.

So He is not king now? He is not ruling now? He is not at the right hand of majesty now?

 

[CadyandZoe]

It doesn't seem to matter to you what the Bible says.

On the contrary, the Biblical message means a great deal to me, which is why I learned how to read and study it. And I find it very easy to defeat your position because you don't. This is a case in point. Out of all the passages that you quoted and highlighted in red, none of them give evidence that anyone was mourning over the death of Jesus.

 

[covenantee]

Again, you are missing the point. Paul says that the "adoption of sons" belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. Their flesh is a critical aspect of God's promise to them. If he doesn't keep his promise to them, then God's word fails.

You may not realize that Paul often uses the genitive case to indicate the source of something. For example, in Romans 9:8, he refers to "children of the flesh," meaning those who were born through natural means. Reflecting on the story from Genesis, Sarah was initially unable to have children due to infertility, until God intervened and opened her womb. Isaac is described as a miracle baby because God had to heal Sarah's womb for him to be conceived. This is one reason Paul refers to Isaac as the "child of promise." In contrast, Ishmael was born naturally, as he was the son of Abraham and Sarah's handmaid. Isaac's birth, however, was a miraculous event, as it involved both Abraham and Sarah, after her infertility was miraculously healed.

Paul is not contrasting "flesh" vs. "spirit" in Romans 9. He is contrasting "natural born" vs. "supernaturally born". All of Abraham's children were his physical descendants. But Isaac was unique because he would not have existed apart from God's intervention.

He argues that although God made a promise to the descendants of Jacob, not all of Jacob's family line will be included in this promise, as inclusion will depend on God's intervention. Paul argues in Romans 11 that God always preserves a remnant for Himself and that Israel will remain partially blinded until the full number of Gentiles comes in.

Subsequently, God will remove the unbelieving descendants of Jacob from the earth, leaving the believing descendants of Jacob to witness the enthronement of Jesus on the throne of David.

If Paul for a split second had believed that his kinsmen's flesh was of any salvific efficacy, he would have been dancing for joy.

Instead, "... I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could [a]wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen..." (Romans 9:2-3)

His kinsmen's adoption as sons did not immunize them against committing sin and suffering its dire consequences. Numbers 25:9

Believers in Christ irrespective of their flesh are adopted.

Ephesians 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

The flesh profiteth nothing.

You are oblivious to the two essential prerequisites without which there would not have been an Isaac.

They were the faith and obedience of his father Abraham.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You mistakenly concluded that Romans 11:26 is concerned with the salvation of souls, rather than the deliverance of a nation.

That is no mistake. Paul speaks of salvation there in direct relation to the forgiveness of sins, so he clearly is talking about the salvation of souls there and none of your nonsense can change that.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When did Israel mourn over Jesus? They hadn't yet. But they will.

Have you never read this:

Luke 23:26 Now as they led Him away, they laid hold of a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, who was coming from the country, and on him they laid the cross that he might bear it after Jesus. 27 And a great multitude of the people followed Him, and women who also mourned and lamented Him.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So He is not king now? He is not ruling now? He is not at the right hand of majesty now?

Look around. Do you see him ruling now?

Did you read Hebrews 1:2? Do you understand what it means that Jesus was appointed as the heir of all things?

This tension arises from the distinction between possession of authority and the visible exercise of that authority. Christ's sovereignty is real, but in the present age, He allows human institutions to operate within their own free will, often in rebellion against Him. His reign is not yet forcibly imposed, but rather, He is allowing history to unfold until the appointed time when His rule will be made manifest and universally recognized (Philippians 2:10-11, Revelation 11:15).

In summary, Jesus’ authority is intrinsic in that He has always possessed divine sovereignty as the Son of God. However, when Scripture speaks of authority being granted to Him, it refers to the recognition and formal declaration of His authority within the framework of His messianic mission. By nature, he has always been sovereign. By role, he took on humanity, humbled himself, and then he was officially exalted after his resurrection and ascension. This is when his authority was declared and affirmed, rather than newly acquired. Finally, in that sense, while His sovereignty is entirely valid, it is not yet fully exercised or acknowledged in the earthly realm. That realization awaits His second coming, when He will actively subdue all authorities under His rule in a tangible, undeniable way (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I heard about a woman who argued from the Bible that a moon landing would never happen. You can argue from the Bible that Jesus is ruling over the earth, but anyone with a pair of eyes can look around and see that it isn't true.

So, in your estimation I guess you would say that God has never ruled over the earth, or at least hasn't since Adam and Eve sinned?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

And once again you avoid the Scriptures that explicitly teach that. You have to! Your fight is with God's Word, not with me. You deny the deity of Christ. You belittle His kingship. You strip Him of His authority. You dethrone Him from the right hand of glory. You exalt the power of Satan. You make the devil King and Lord of the affairs of life and man. You ignore Scripture after Scripture that refutes your error. This is heresy.

He clearly has no understanding whatsoever of who Jesus is. Sad.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That is no mistake. Paul speaks of salvation there in direct relation to the forgiveness of sins, so he clearly is talking about the salvation of souls there and none of your nonsense can change that.

Romans 11:26 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”

Remember the context. Paul is discussing Israel as a people and a nation. All Israel will be saved when the deliverer comes out of Zion. Understand? Isaiah isn't talking about the salvation of souls in that context. He is talking about the deliverance of Israel from her enemies, which will have also become the enemies of Jesus Christ.

When does Jesus take away our sins? At the cross, or when I confess that he is Lord? Objectively speaking, Jesus died for my sins at the cross, and he was raised for my justification. But subjectively speaking, this reality didn't apply to me individually until I confessed my sins and became a Christian.

The same thing can be said of Israel. Objectively speaking, Christ has taken away their sins. But subjectively speaking, their sins will continue to convict them until they individually confess their sins.

So then, Paul isn't focused on the cross; he is focused on the subjective experience of Israel during that time when Jesus delivers Israel from her enemies.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Remember the context.

I am. That's why I'm interpreting it correctly and you are not. The context is in relation to the forgiveness of sins which is an obvious reference to the salvation of souls.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”

None of your nonsense can change the context of this passage, so it would be best to just keep your nonsense to yourself.

 

[WPM]

On the contrary, the Biblical message means a great deal to me, which is why I learned how to read and study it. And I find it very easy to defeat your position because you don't. This is a case in point. Out of all the passages that you quoted and highlighted in red, none of them give evidence that anyone was mourning over the death of Jesus.

LOL. You are yet to land a punch. This is all noise! Why not admit you're wrong? The reader can see that. You are exposing the impotence of Premil by your avoidance. None of these passages have been addressed yet. That is because they forbid your error.

 

[WPM]

Look around.

Look around me at what? Please speak clearer.

Do you see him ruling now?

I do not see Him physically, but I see His sovereign power and His fingerprints all over creation.

Did you read Hebrews 1:2? Do you understand what it means that Jesus was appointed as the heir of all things?

What are you talking about? How many times do I need to present the text and explain it for you to see the truth?

This tension arises from the distinction between possession of authority and the visible exercise of that authority.

This is more theological doublespeak and gibberish from you.

Christ's sovereignty is real, but in the present age, He allows human institutions to operate within their own free will, often in rebellion against Him. His reign is not yet forcibly imposed, but rather, He is allowing history to unfold until the appointed time when His rule will be made manifest and universally recognized (Philippians 2:10-11, Revelation 11:15).

In summary, Jesus’ authority is intrinsic in that He has always possessed divine sovereignty as the Son of God. However, when Scripture speaks of authority being granted to Him, it refers to the recognition and formal declaration of His authority within the framework of His messianic mission. By nature, he has always been sovereign. By role, he took on humanity, humbled himself, and then he was officially exalted after his resurrection and ascension. This is when his authority was declared and affirmed, rather than newly acquired. Finally, in that sense, while His sovereignty is entirely valid, it is not yet fully exercised or acknowledged in the earthly realm. That realization awaits His second coming, when He will actively subdue all authorities under His rule in a tangible, undeniable way (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).

Where exactly is His sovereignty "not yet fully exercised or acknowledged in the earthly realm? What is not under His sovereign control?

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, in your estimation I guess you would say that God has never ruled over the earth, or at least hasn't since Adam and Eve sinned?

For me, it isn't simply a matter of judgment. It is also a matter of how Jesus thought about it. He taught his disciples to pray, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." When I look around, I don't see God's will being done on earth.

We can also understand the situation from God's perspective in the narrative of Israel's cry for a king to rule over them. The Israelites, dissatisfied with being led by judges, approached the prophet Samuel and demanded a king to govern them like other nations (1 Samuel 8:5). Their request was driven by insecurity and a desire for stability, but it also revealed a rejection of God's direct rule. I believe God said something like, "They aren't rejecting you, they are rejecting me."

In 1 Samuel 8:7, God tells Samuel:

"Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king."

This statement is powerful because it reveals the deeper issue behind Israel's request for a king. While they framed it as a practical need for leadership, God saw it as a rejection of His direct rule over them. Rather than trusting Him as their sovereign ruler, they wanted to follow the pattern of the surrounding nations, relying on human governance instead of divine guidance.

God’s sovereignty over Israel—and over all creation—was never diminished, even after Saul became king. The monarchy did not replace or override God's rule; rather, it functioned within His sovereign plan.

Even though Israel insisted on having a human king, God remained the ultimate authority, guiding events according to His will. He allowed Saul to reign, but He also anointed and removed kings based on their faithfulness (as seen later with David's rise and Saul's downfall). Proverbs 21:1 reinforces this idea: "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases."

Just as God’s sovereignty over Israel was never diminished despite the establishment of a human monarchy, Jesus' sovereignty over all creation has always been absolute, even in His earthly ministry. When Jesus returns, His sovereignty will be fully realized in a way that is visible and undeniable to all. While He is already sovereign over all creation, His second advent marks the moment when He will actively exercise His rule over the earth. Every knee shall bow; All opposition will be subdued; His justice and peace will be fully established. So, while His sovereignty has never been diminished, its complete, visible realization will come when He returns to reign over the nations.

The premillennial perspective holds that Jesus' return will precede a literal millennial reign, during which He will establish His kingdom on earth before the final judgment.

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. You are yet to land a punch. This is all noise! Why not admit you're wrong? The reader can see that. You are exposing the impotence of Premil by your avoidance. None of these passages have been addressed yet. That is because they forbid your error.

Just as an empty glass does not quench the thirst, a post without sound reason or evidence isn't a rebuttal. It's an admission of defeat.

 

[WPM]

while His sovereignty has never been diminished, its complete, visible realization will come when He returns to reign over the nations.

That does not in any way negate Christ's kingship, rule, authority and sovereignty over all mankind today. That does not in any way dilute His absolute control over all creation. That does not prevent Him having all power and authority over things in heaven and on earth. That does not stop Him opening and no man closes and closing and no man opens. That does not forbid Him ruling sovereignly over His enemies.

I think a major problem in your understanding is that you do not seem to understand the different aspects of the will of God.

• The proclaimed will of God is what He desires.
• The perfect will is God's thing, done in God's way, in God's time.
• The prevailing will is what happens.
• The permissive will is what He allows.

These descriptions accurately describe different interpretations of God's will. Here's a breakdown of each term:

Proclaimed Will:

This refers to God's openly communicated desires and instructions. It refers to the specific commands, guidelines, and messages that God has revealed to humanity through Scripture or by His Spirit.

Perfect Will:

This represents God's ideal plan, the ultimate good He desires for the creature and creation. It's His perfect design and purpose.

Permissive Will:

This is where, in His infinite wisdom, God allows things to happen that are contrary to His proclaimed will and in which He takes no pleasure. He permits evil to occur and uses it for His ultimate glory, for the greater good, to get His servants to where He wants them or to teach people deep valuable lessons. His permitting doesn't mean He approves of it.

God even allows His own people to make sinful decisions that are ultimately harmful in order to instruct them in righteousness and get them onto the path of blessing. While God permits destructive things, He still guides and directs His people through His Word and Spirit to seek His perfect will.

While God allows evil to function, He doesn’t let it triumph.

Prevailing Will:

While God's perfect will is not always realized due to man's weakness, rebellion and propensity to sin, God's purpose and plan will always prevail. This is talking about His sovereign overring will. This describes what ultimately happens, and what God allows for in human rebellion.

The bottom line is: man or Satan cannot thwart the purposes of God. Even though God allows both to resist, revile and rebel, His overriding will shall always prevail. It will be accomplished.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Look around me at what? Please speak clearer.

Do you see Jesus' active role over the nations directly and tangibly?

I do not see Him physically, but I see His sovereign power and His fingerprints all over creation.

So Jesus commanded the death camps, the holocaust, the World Wars, the dictators like Pol Pot, and Stalin, etc. Really?

What are you talking about?

So I guess the answer is no, you don't know what it means to inherit something.

This is more theological doublespeak and gibberish from you.

Which interpreted means you don't have an answer.

Where exactly is His sovereignty "not yet fully exercised or acknowledged in the earthly realm? What is not under His sovereign control?

If you don't see it for yourself, shackled by your cognitive bias, unable to see reality objectively or clearly, then what can be said?

 

[CadyandZoe]

I am. That's why I'm interpreting it correctly and you are not. The context is in relation to the forgiveness of sins which is an obvious reference to the salvation of souls.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; 27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”

None of your nonsense can change the context of this passage, so it would be best to just keep your nonsense to yourself.

I disagree with your proposal. The context of Romans 11:11ff is Paul's rhetorical question concerning Israel's ultimate fate. Did her stumble cause her to fall to her destruction? This is the context from which we interpret "when I take away her sins." Paul isn't talking about the salvation of individuals, he is talking about the deliverance of Israel.

 

[WPM]

Just as an empty glass does not quench the thirst, a post without sound reason or evidence isn't a rebuttal. It's an admission of defeat.

Again, text after text remains unaddressed above. That is a fact. It is there for all to see.

You have to avoid multiple Scripture. That is because it exposes your teaching.

 

[WPM]

Do you see Jesus' active role over the nations directly and tangibly?

So Jesus commanded the death camps, the holocaust, the World Wars, the dictators like Pol Pot, and Stalin, etc. Really?

So I guess the answer is no, you don't know what it means to inherit something.

Which interpreted means you don't have an answer.

If you don't see it for yourself, shackled by your cognitive bias, unable to see reality objectively or clearly, then what can be said?

You are fighting with the sacred text. It is very clear that everything and everyone is under His sovereign feet. They are under His supreme control. He opens and no man closes. He closes and no man opens. He is king of kings and Lord of lords.

Permitting man to be, do and say evil does not in any way negate Christ's current kingship. It does not negate His divine authority. It does not negate His sovereign power. He allows evil and uses it for His ultimate glory. There would have been no cross if there had never been a Fall. The greatest evil that was ever done - nailing God to a tree- ended up the greatest blessing that ever happened in history.

You are blind to His Lordship. You are blind to His kingship. You are blind to His rule over all.

You constantly dethrone Christ and exalt Satan in your teaching bringing shame on the name of our sovereign king.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That does not in any way negate Christ's kingship, rule, authority and sovereignty over all mankind today. That does not in any way dilute His absolute control over all creation. That does not prevent Him having all power and authority over things in heaven and on earth. That does not stop Him opening and no man closes and closing and no man opens. That does not forbid Him ruling sovereignly over His enemies.

You seem unwilling to distinguish between his declared sovereignty and his realized sovereignty.

I think a major problem in your understanding is that you do not seem to understand the different aspects of the will of God.

• The proclaimed will of God is what He desires.
• The perfect will is God's thing, done in God's way, in God's time.
• The prevailing will is what happens.
• The permissive will is what He allows.

We are discussing the Lord's prayer and specifically the statement, "may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." This statement falls within a broader category focused on the future.

‘Our Father who is in heaven,​

Hallowed be Your name.​

Your kingdom come.​

Your will be done,​

On earth as it is in heaven.​

The final line must convey crucial information regarding the overall theme, which is the establishment of God's kingdom and the vindication of His name. Our exegesis is derived from Old Testament passages, such as Ezekiel 36, where God talks explicitly about how He will vindicate His name.

The phrase "may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10) acknowledges a contrast between heaven—where God's will is perfectly realized—and earth, where human sin and rebellion often hinder His perfect purpose. To repeat myself, it reflects the tension of living in a world where God is ultimately sovereign, yet His direct rule is not yet fully realized—something that awaits Christ’s return. In essence, this prayer looks forward to the culmination of His kingdom, when righteousness, peace, and justice will reign without opposition.

In Ezekiel 36:22-23, God declares: "It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name... Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes."

This passage speaks to God restoring His people not because of their merit, but to uphold His reputation among the nations. Similarly, the Lord’s Prayer recognizes that God’s name is sacred and calls for its rightful honor to be restored.

This theme is a prediction of a future reality, not a current reality.