From time to time, I get feedback from readers that they wish I hadn’t gone so far in my reforms and actually abandoned dispensationalism. They view that move as more a pendulum swing on my part or being unduly influenced by the attraction of Reformed thinkers. I admit that such tendencies are real, and we should all watch out for the tendency to be carried away by the charismatic appeal of any given leader whom we respect. But my views on dispensationalism, I hope, are informed by my careful study of Scripture.
I am less hesitant of progressive dispensationalism, and I haven’t necessarily landed when it comes to new covenant theology or covenant theology proper. But when it comes to classic dispensationalism as originally taught by Chafer and Scofield, and as further elaborated by Ryrie, Walvoord and others, I have strong reservations. Certain beliefs and tendencies of classic dispensationalism contradict Scripture in my opinion and affect one’s entire outlook on the Scriptures. For me, Romans 4 and Galatians 3 were significant in directing me away from dispensationalism. Ephesians 2 is also a pivotal passage. I’ve blogged on Romans 4, in my series Understanding the Land Promise. Today I want to start a 3 part series on Ephesians 2.
For this series, I’m going to borrow from Kenneth Gentry’s study on “Dispensationalism and Ephesians”. He shares 6 points from Ephesians that he believes contradict the foundations of dispensationalism. I am choosing the 3 that were meaningful to me, in my own journey away from dispensationalism. Don’t misunderstand me, by borrowing from his blog with its controversial name: AgainstDispensalism.com, I am not advocating a mean and spiteful view of dispensationalists. I held to classic dispensationalism for many years and I know many good people who take a generally dispensationalist approach. I’m borrowing form Gentry’s study purely because I can, and it will make it easier for me to discuss why I believe Ephesians 2 is so detrimental to dispensationalism’s claims.
Without further ado, here is the first point from Ephesians 2 which I find so important for this whole debate.
The Jew and Gentile are forever merged into one body in the final phase of God\’s redemptive plan.
The leading classic dispensationalist scholar of the last fifty years is Charles C. Ryrie. On p. 39 in his important 1995 work Dispensationalism he reiterates his 1966 observation from the book\’s first edition: \”A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.\” According to Ryrie: \”A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.\” He then states rather dogmatically: \”This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.\”
We must note two aspects of the matter that come undermine the system. In dispensationalism\’s two-peoples-of-God theology they must hold that God (1) distinguishes Jew and Gentile and (2) that he does so permanently (at least in history, though many carry the distinction into eternity). How are these observations fatal to the system? And in light of our study in Ephesians, how do we see that problem in Paul\’s epistle?
Paul notes very clearly and forcefully that God merges Jew and Gentile into one body, which we now call the church. He even encourages the Gentiles with the knowledge that they are now included among God\’s people and are partakers of their blessings. They are not separate and distinct from Israel but are adopted into her. Note Ephesians 2:11\”“19:
\”Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called \”˜Uncircumcision\’ by the so-called \”˜Circumcision,\’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands \”” remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.\”
Note very carefully what Paul states and how it contradicts the notion of a distinction between Jew and Gentile, between Israel and the church:
1. Paul states that the Gentiles were \”formerly . . . at that time . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel\” (Eph 2:12). This is an observation about their past condition.
2. He argues that the Gentiles were \”formerly . . . at that time . . . strangers to the covenants of promise\” (plural covenants / singular promise). This is an observation about their past condition.
3. He reiterates the Gentiles\’ former condition that has now been changed: \”But now in Christ you who formerly were far off have been brought near\” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
4. He resolutely declares that Christ has effected \”peace\” in that he \”made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall\” (Eph 2:14). This is their new experience and condition.
5. He restates this once again by noting that Christ made \”the two into one new man, thus establishing peace\” (Eph 2:15). This is their new experience and condition.
6. He recasts this very thought noting that Christ determined to \”reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.\” This is their new experience and condition.
7. He continues by insisting that Christ \”came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were far away\” (Eph 2:17). This is their new experience and condition.
8. He states still again that \”through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father\” (Eph 2:18). This is their new experience and condition.
9. He declares this fact once again: \”So then you are no longer strangers and aliens\” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
10. He insists: \”but you are fellow citizens with the saints [obviously the Jews], and are of God\’s [singular] household\” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
11. Paul states once again that the Gentiles are a part of \”the [singular] whole building, being fitted together\” and \”are being built together\” (Eph 2:21). This is their new experience and condition.Dispensationalism distinguishes Jew and Gentile permanently. Paul merges the two into one new body permanently.
I can attest that a separation between Israel and the Church was drilled into me in Bible College. It certainly is the distinguishing characteristic of classic dispensationalism (progressive dispensationalists seem to ditch that point, from what I’ve read). I don’t know how you can read Eph. 2 and come away with the idea that God didn’t break down the barriers and make of the two peoples “one new man”. If that’s what God did, then where do we see here the concept of going back to the two separate peoples again at some point? Parallel to this is Rom. 11, we see there the Gentiles are grafted into a single Olive tree from which unbelieving Israel was broken off of. At a later point Israel may be grafted back in, but they will be grafted back into the single Olive tree, there won’t be two Olive trees, one Jewish and one Gentile.
Stay tuned for part 2 of this series.
Great post Bob, I’ve been studying this a lot lately and I’m glad to see you move away from Dispy too. I’m currently reading Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth by Gerstner and I find it fascinating how accurate he’s pegged so many of the issues I saw growing up in IFB.
I’ve looked into New Covenant Theology just a little bit, and so far my impression is that it completely looses the Law/Gospel distinction that I so love.
Thanks, Matt. I’m looking forward to Gerstner’s book. It’s on my “to-read” pile. I still need to study new covenant theology and progressive dispensationalism out more. As it is, I have been influenced by O. Palmer Robertson’s works, and some hard line CT guys think he’s off base, so I’m not sure exactly where exactly I’ll end up. As it stands I appreciate much of the CT model, and am happy to call myself CT for now.
Hi Bob,
Praise God that you were willing to examine the Scriptures to see if what you were taught in Bible college is true. Since you’re considering PD, CT, and NCT, may I plant some seeds about a consistent NT hermeneutic?
1. Disp. uses a NT herm. for ecclesiology and nomology, but an OT herm. for eschatology.
2. CT uses a NT herm. for eschatology, but an OT herm. for nomology and ecclesiology (paedos, but not RB’s).
3. NCT uses a NT herm. for ecclesiology, nomology, and eschatology.
IMO, NCT is the only system that uses a consistent NT herm. Something to think about…
Greg,
So is NCT a Reformed Baptist thing, mainly? Just wondering. Thanks for the input.
Blessings,
Bob
Bob,
I wrote a long post on my blog about this last year that I was surprised you didn’t pick up on and engage me on it…maybe you were too busy and missed that post as it rolled through.
Anyway, The church is a new creation where both Jew and Gentile are brought together and made one new man. This is what Eph. 2:20-21 are talking about. It is a different “dispensation” or way of dealing through the world than the old Jewish system which Christ found apostate. The church is established in chapter 1 as the new creation by which God will be glorified. So, in a sense, there has always been one people of God who believe by grace through faith…even Gentiles were saved in the Old Testament as proselytes. But that Old Covenant was the system by which God chose to govern His people and it was done through a nation of ethnic people whom He chose. Now the question is “in the new Covenant, does the church replace Israel as the new Israel?” This is what I deal with on my blog post that I mentioned here: https://reformingbaptist.blogspot.com/2009/11/few-objections-to-new-covenant-theology.html
I also revisit the land promise topic in this post. I would love to see you repent and come back to dispensationalism brother. 🙂
All in good spirits! God bless,
Will
Thanks, Will. I’ll check it out. The one new man idea, is similar to the Rom. 11 grafted into the olive tree idea. The end time conversion of Israel in Rom. 11 doesn’t result in a new olive tree but them being grafted back into the same olive tree. I don’t believe the church replaced Israel, I believe the church becomes a part of the true Israel which predates the church, ala Rom. 11. As I read the NT, there’s no going back to the days of two separate peoples. If the church becomes a part of the commonwealth of Israel and becomes a partaker of the promise, then why don’t they get to sit in with Israel in whatever Revelation has in store for Israel?
Good points, but what is the olive tree? I would say that they are the covenant promises. The reason I say that is because the New Covanent is made with the house of Israel and Judah: Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.
The New Covenant was not made with the general elect believers, but with the ethnic people of Israel. We were grafted in to those promises as Gentiles who were by nature, wild but he grafted us in so that we are reaping the benefits of those promises.
The idea of the “true Israel” that predates Romans 11 you mentioned – are you referring to: Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. ???
He is talking about ethnic Israelites who were believers as the true Israel here the same goes for Galatians 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
I recommend you read Richard Mayhue’s article on this from the Master’s Seminary Journal.
Your question at the end began with this statement: “As I read the NT, there’s no going back to the days of two separate peoples.”
There’s no going back to two separate peoples because in this age, the one new man is the church founded on Christ and the apostles in Eph. 2:20, but when Christ returns He will fulfill the Old Testament promises to the nation of Israel that were never fulfilled concerning His sitting on the throne of David and ruling from Zion and countless others promises that cannot be interpreted as the eternal state such as Isaiah 65:20; Jer. 31:38-40; Zech. 8:23 and 14:18 etc. etc..
The apostles were promised to sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel during the regeneration (Matt 19:28) while the rest of the saints rule and reign with him over the rest of the world (Dan. 7:22).
Then you asked: “If the church becomes a part of the commonwealth of Israel and becomes a partaker of the promise, then why don’t they get to sit in with Israel in whatever Revelation has in store for Israel?”
Good question, in Revelation, the people of Israel are not true Israel yet because they havn’t believed in their Messiah. They make a deal with the Devil (the abomination of desolations) and they are then driven into the wilderness and hunted down until they acknowledge Jesus to be Messiah and they finally cry out to Him during the time of Jacob’s trouble. Then as Romans 11 says, all Israel will be saved (that is all who are left at the judgment of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25). They will finally be grafted back in as a nation since they will all know the Lord such as Jeremiah predicted in Jer. 31:34.
Meanwhile, Christ’s church would have been rescued from the time of trouble via the rapture. There is precident for this: the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and a whole other topic opens up in this discussion. In the kingdom (that the apostles were expecting to come in Acts 1) will be established and governed through Israel and we who were grafted in Gentiles will rule with Him as if we were also natural born Jews.
Whew…I need to go now. I’ve got plenty of studying to do for my sermons. I do enjoy discussing this stuff since I’ve been taking classes about it through Veritas (www.inquiroveritas.com)over the past year.
Oops, I mistakenly referred to the deal with the devil as the abomination of desolations…that happens as a breaking of that deal.
Will,
We probably won’t be able to do a full scale debate on this, due to time constraints and all. But I do think this is important and want to write on it some more.
I believe the NT models a hermeneutic for how to approach the Old Testament. We do well to follow it.
Now the olive tree was often a symbol for the people of Israel see Jeremiah 11:16ff. and Hos. 14:6-7. I believe it stands for the people of God.
I believe the true Israel is the faithful within Israel – the remnant that Rom. 11 talks about – the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee. I believe the Gentile church is grafted in to the believing remnant/one true people of God. It doesn’t replace Israel, but becomes a partaker of the covenants of promise and an actual member of the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2). It becomes an heir of Abraham and a son of Abraham (Gal. 3). We in fact are “like Isaac”, “children of promise” (Gal 4:28). We are the “true circumcision” (Phil. 3:3). I could go on, we are “Jews” (Rom. 2, and Rev. 2). Also we are the kingdom of priests (1 Pet. 2:9, Rev. 1:5).
I believe the new covenant extends to us. We share in the cup of Christ (which was his inaugarating the new covenant). Also Heb. 10:15-25 expressly extends the new covenant to us believers. You can say Hebrews is only written to Hebrew Christians, then we have two distinct peoples even today, when Eph. 2 says the wall was broken down (at the least in this age according to you). You really want to say Hebrews wasn’t written to the church?
Anyway, I see no return to a two people system clearly prophesied in the NT, barring Rev. 20. And Rev. 20 should be read in light of the whole NT witness, in my opinion.
But we already knew we wouldn’t see eye to eye on this. I appreciate the back and forth, Will, I really do.
Gotta run,
In Christ,
Bob
Your passion to know the truth taught in Scripture became abundantly manifest when you posted this blog on dispensationalism. For many professors of evangelicalism it is a very touchy subject. I spoke with Dr. Gerstner before the original version of “Wrongly Dividing” was published and he was disappointed that the publisher thought the original manuscript was too long. Over the years I engaged in debate over the covenant/dispendational theology, and never realized it if any were persuaded to change their views. I learned, probably too late, that the best approach is to learn and teach the word of God as you are doing and engage the subject just as you are doing. I’ve found that some of my acquaintances persuaded by dispensational theology are more inclined to believe some doctrines that many covenant theologians should believe and do not. For example I know plenty of covenant theologians who detest natural law and many dispensationalists embrace this biblical doctrine. If you interested I have a paper posted entitled “Natural Law” posted on my Rational Thoughts website, https://www.rationalchristianthoughts.com. I have enjoyed reading your blogs and rejoice as you profess being fundamentally reformed.
Martin,
I’ll have to check that out. Thanks for dropping by and leaving your encouraging comments.
Blessings to you in Christ,
Bob
[…] –continued from part 1 […]
[…] see relevant post below from the Fundamentally Reformed Site: Ephesians 2 & Dispensationalism (part 1) Ephesians 2 & Dispensationalism (part 2) Ephesians 2 & Dispensationalism (conclusion) […]
Bob –
Thanks for the series! You and I have a very similar background and have landed in very near the same place. Without the presuppositional framework of Dispensationalism erected over the text of the New Testament, I don’t know how someone could arrive at those conclusions I once heard so dearly.
Thanks, Andrew. I agree. Once you step to the other side, it just doesn’t make sense looking back.
Glad you found my blog.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob