What Dispensationalism Provides?

Eph. 2:14"For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, (15) 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 (16) and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross by it having put to death the enmity."

1. Jesus reconciled both groups (Jews and Gentiles) into one group; a new man.

2. This reconcilation was made on the cross.

3. This reconcilation established peace.

4. This reconcilation will bring both groups as one new man to Almighty God.

I do not see how dispensational theology can be reconciled to this very plain truth that is clearly taught in scripture.

If you believe God has a separate plan for Israel and the church, then you must believe that...

1. Jesus Christ will undo His work on the cross.

2. Jesus Christ will separate the one new man back into two separate groups.

3. Jesus Christ will undo His work of reconcilation between Jew and Gentile.

4. Jesus Christ will undo His work of peace.

5. Jesus Christ will re-establish the enmity (the Law) which He had previously put to death.

This statement is a fallacy. You are saying that you must bring your understanding of dispensational theology to scripture. Therefore, dispensational theology has a higher place than scripture, since scripture cannot be understood correctly without it. I cannot accept that view.

Please explain to me how dispensational theology can be consistent with this passage of scripture from Eph.?

peace to youraying:

 

dispensationalism invents its own myths and hardly expounds the truths of scripture. It is a most divisive system and has parted company with more believers than any other sect.

The only reason some remain baptists is because the Plymouth Brethren, the founders of dispensationalism, don't have a paid clergy.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Strange! With all the emphasis on dispensations the word is not mentioned in the Old Testament and is used only 4 times in the New Testament. Yet dispenastionalism assigns five dispensations to the Old Testament and only two to the New Testament. It is a Biblical truth that God deals with His people through Covenants, not dispensations. Furthermore, rather than dispensationalism destroying doctrinal heresies and vain practices it creates them inasmuch it ignores much of the interpretation of the Old Testament provided by the New Testament.

 

Why?

Because this passage is talking about the church, not Israel. All people believe that Jew and Gentile are one in the church. Citing this passage as if it refutes dispensationalism is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the verse is talking about and what dispensationalism believes. Whatever the differences between CT and DT and the various inbetween points might be, this verse does not address them.

Though it is interesting that if the church has no racial/ethnic divisions, and if the church has always existed since the the time of Adam or Abraham (i.e., in the OT), then what does Eph 2 really say? It is talking about something new, is it not? If the unity between believing Jew and Gentile is new in the NT after Christ died, then that has some pretty serious implications for the church in the OT, whether as to its existence or its makeup.

 

"Dispensation" describes a period of time when things are done different than the time before it, or possibly after it.

There's the "Dispensation" of the OT and the "Dispensation" of the NT, and the MK.

"Dispensations" simply divides one period of time from the others, so that the subject is kept in "CONTEXT" with that period of time.

Dispensations has nothing to do with changing the plan of salvation.

Jesus died to fulfill the law for the sins of the "WHOLE WORLD" that the whole world "MIGHT BE" saved.

His death did not "Automatically" save you or the whole world would be saved.

You have to be as willing to shed the "life/blood" of the "body of sin" for the "SPIRIT" as Jesus did "IF" you want to be saved. (Conform to Jesus's image)

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,

The church "Spiritually" crucifies the "body of sin" because Jesus has already suffer the "CHASTISEMENT/STRIPES" due them in 'HIS FLESH".

But because Israel rejected Jesus, during the trib they are turned over to satan for the "destruction" of their flesh, they "LITERAL DIE" (crucify the body of sin) to be saved.

This is "CHASTISEMENT/STRIPES" in their flesh for rejecting Jesus.

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.


Under Moses "LAW" the woman caught in adultery/brought to Jesus should have been stoned to death, she wasn't, "WHY"??

We're under a "GRACE DISPENSATION", during the trib, Israel goes back under the "LAW" (and prophets) Dispensation, (Two witnesses/Moses/Elijah), if you're caught in sin then you will literally die,

Which if you confess your sins to be saved, you're not going to worship the beast image and be killed.

God was married to Israel, the "woman" who brought forth the "man child". (Jesus)

But for Israel to be married to Jesus they must become "Dead to the law" to be married to another, (Jesus), the son can't have his Father's wife. (his Mother)

And as Chastisement/Stripes, Israel will have to "LITERALLY CRUCIFY THE BODY OF SIN" to be married to Jesus.


Mt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,


Ro 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead,

"Born again" is a "NEW CREATURE".


1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Now you know why Israel can't attend the "SON" (lamb's) marriage supper, which take place "DURING THE TRIB", (Pre Trib Rapture)

And why Satan persecutes the "woman" that brought forth the man child, Israel is still Jesus's mother instead of his Bride.

 

Are you suggesting we should do theology based on word counts? Surely not. I don't know of any dispensationalist who would argue this way.

Dispensationalism simply recognizes that God deals with people differently in different times. As revelation changed/increased, man was responsible to a different thing.

These two things are hardly mutually exclusive. The covenants of Scripture (Abraham, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, New), with the exception of the Noahic covenant, are covenants of God with Israel as a nation, including unbelievers in the nation. The covenants themselves take place in the framework of a dispensational economy.

There are certainly some doctrinal heresies espoused by dispensationalists, just as there are by covenantalists. But in neither case is it the product of the system itself. I am not aware of any doctrinal heresy or vain practice demanded by the sine qua non of either position, or the mediating positions. OR has certainly made a valiant attempt to show some, and Jim has made a couple of comments here and there, but both have clearly fallen short of demonstrating any heresy. The most they have done is show that they differ on what a particular passage means.

 

Because the Eph. 2 passage specifically states that the work of Christ on the cross accomplished certain things. Among those things was, abolishment of the Law, a reconciliation between Jew and Gentile, the creation of "one new man" that is one body, that through Jesus this one body, the new man, made up of Jew and Gentile (i.e. the church) will have access to the Father.

For dispensationalism to be true, all of these things would have to be undone, so that a separate future for the Jews can be established.

You are ignoring what the passage says. It is directly relevant to the dispensational belief that Jews will make up a revived National Israel that has a separate future than Christians.

How can that be possible if the Law has been abolished? How can that be possible if both Jew and Gentile are reconciled into one new man and therefore gain access to the Father through Jesus Christ as the one new man?

I honestly do not know what point you are trying to make here. Perhaps I don't understand enough of dispensational theology to understand your point.

Merry Christmas

peace to youraying:

 

I was expecting to read that it provided comic relief. :tongue3:

 

Which part of this do you think dispensationalism disagrees with?

I think you are missing the point of the passage. Paul is not talking about anything past or present (whatever that may contain). He is talking about what God is doing right now ... that is calling out a church through sovereign grace that is made up of all nations. So whatever might have been the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the past, or whatever it might be in the future, neither is the subject of Paul's writing here. Again, context is the key to this. By looking at the context, we can immediately rule out several things.

Becaues the Law is not what determines Israel. I don't see how the Law is relevant here.

How is it not possible?

Let me try again. Ephesians 2 is talking about something new. If the church existed in the OT (as some claim), then Ephesians 2 would be talking about something old. So Ephesians 2 seems meaningless if the church existed in the OT. There, Jew and Gentile were not "one new man." They were separate. With the church came a change.

Same to you.

 

The context is all about the relationship between the Jewish nation, and their law, and the Gentile nations in the present (with Christ) and how that relationship changed by what Jesus Christ did on the cross.

You are ignoring the context, imho. The current relationship between Jew and Gentile is established by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. That is what the passage says.

The work of Jesus Christ on the cross has reconciled Jew and Gentile into one new man (i.e the church) that is to be presented to God the Father. This work has allowed both Jew and Gentile to be reconciled to the Father through Christ. The law has been abolished.

Does dispensationalism teach that the Jews have a separate future from the Church?

If so, then that is contrary to the Eph. 2 passage, which states both Jew and Gentile have peace as one new man (the church), reconciled to God the Father through Jesus Christ.

Does dispensationalism teach that the Jews will re-establish National Israel and once again keep the O.T. Law?

If so, then that is contrary to the Eph. 2 passage which states the law has been abolished by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

The only reason I can think of that you will not directly address these questions is because you understand the flaw in the dispensational theology that is exposed by this passage of scripture.

I haven't heard anyone claim the church existed in the O.T.

Eph. 2 is talking about what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross. It is the coming of Christ and His work on the cross that brought about a change.

That change is permanent. It cannot/will not be undone.

Christ will not undo His work of reconciliation. He brought peace through His suffering. He will not undo that peace, and bring hostility where there is peace.

Christ will not divide that which He brought together by the shedding of His own blood.

Christ will not re-establish that which He abolished (the law) on the cross.

The context and meaning of the passage is clear. And this passage of scripture is clearly contrary to the teachings of dispensational theology.

peace to youraying:

 

Yes, exactly. It is not about what previously was, or what will be in the future. It is talking about the present. So whatever the relationship between Jew and Gentile in the next age (whether Trib, MK, eternal state), it is not addressed by this passage. This is, as you say, about “the present” … and the “current relationship.”

Dispensationalism doesn’t disagree. The one new man is the church.

Yes

Not contrary at all. Remember, Eph 2 is about, to use your words, “the present … the current relationship.” It is not about the future. So whatever the future of the Church and Israel, Eph 2 does not address that. You are bringing that in from somewhere else. It is not in the passage.

Yes, and some yes. Not all believe that the Law will be reinstituted. But remember the Law was the civil constitution. Just as our laws, they exist to regulate life. Life in the MK will still need to be regulated.

Not at all.

How much more directly would you like me to address them? Ephesians 2 is talking about the church. It is not talking about Israel.

OR was adamant about it, as were others. That is a pretty standard covenantal position. It goes way back and is held by virtually all covenantalists today.

Yes, and dispensationalism does not disagree.

I don’t see how. The only way it is contrary is if this passage is talking about something other than the church. But it’s not. Ephesians is all about the church. It is not about Israel.

The contention of dispensationalism is that God made promises to Israel that will be fulfilled to Israel. What he is doing with the church does not change that. Israel’s disobedience to the Law does not mean that the promises are annulled (as Galatians 3 makes clear).

So Ephesians 2 is not talking about the future of Israel, but about the present church (as you say in your opening paragraph).

 

Are you contending that dispensationalism teaches that the work that Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross will be undone? This work includes:

1. Reconciling Jew and Gentile into one "new man" to be presented to God the Father.

2. Abolishing the Law

3. Bringing peace

All that Christ accomplished by shedding His blood on the cross to bring this peace, this reconciliation, creating the one new man will be undone?

Please tell me directly if that is what you believe.

peace to youraying:

 

Da 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,

1. to finish the transgression,
2. and to make an end of sins,
3. and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
4. and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5. and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
6. and to anoint the most Holy.

Jesus has already fulfilled this prophecy for "BELIEVERS",

But what about Israel????

The 70th week (trib) has begun for them, "YET"?????

So how can it be "Fulfilled" for Israel?????

 

Many believe the 70 the week culminated with the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem and that the Antichrist was Nero Caesar possibly a combination of Nero And Calligula. So Daniel ends with the destruction of Jerusalem and the establishment of christianity.

 

No I don't think any of that will be undone. But that's not the point at all. These things are said about the church, in which Jew and Gentile are "one new man." These things are not said about the future of Israel.

I think the promises to OT Israel are still good (they have not been annulled [Gal 3]). God will keep them, and therefore, Israel as a nation will be restored. That will not affect the church.

 

OK, if Israel as a nation will be restored, will any of the Jews that live there be saved and if so, how? And if they are saved, do they become part of the body of Christ, the one new man (i.e. the church)?

peace to youraying:

 

If this present nation of Israel is involved, we are assured of at least a billion more years on earth!

This parenthetical church age, an after thought of God, is a lot of hogwash, if I must say so.

I don't know how many types of dispensationalism there is to-day. I haven't kept up with it. Has the Scofield Reference Bible been revised? Did someone rewrite the handiwork of the two purveyors of dispensationalism (Clarence Larkin).with charts and other fancies? I know the PB's still have a hayday with all the chart stuff.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes. When Israel is restored it will be "all Israel" after the fulness of the Gentiles has come in (Romans 11). They will be saved by turning to their Messiah whom they previously rejected (Zech 12:9; Rev 1:6-7).

No.

The church is the one new man. Those who are not a part of the church are not included.