Evaluating Dispensational Claims About Two Distinct Hopes
Question
Is the “Two Hopes” devotional from Berean Bible Society biblically accurate, particularly its distinction between Israel’s earthly hope and the body of Christ’s heavenly hope?
Originally published in Vol. 1, Number 9, September 2026, Ask The Theologian Journal.
Answer
The devotional in view comes from a solid mid-Acts dispensational ministry and reflects a broadly right-dividing framework. Much of its presentation of Israel’s earthly kingdom hope versus the body of Christ’s heavenly hope is biblically sound. However, some of its wording and conclusions go beyond what Scripture clearly states, especially regarding (1) the role and location of the body of Christ in the future, and (2) the use of certain Ephesian texts to support a strict heaven/earth separation.
The piece rightly emphasizes that Israel’s messianic kingdom is the subject of prophecy and that our present dispensation arose after Israel’s rejection of her Messiah. It also rightly denies that the church inherits Israel’s earthly kingdom. The points at issue are more precise: whether our hope includes ruling and reigning with Christ in heaven and whether the body of Christ can in any sense participate in or be present during the millennial reign on earth.
Strengths in the devotional’s dispensational framework
The article accurately stresses several important truths:
The prophetic nature of Israel’s kingdom hope. The devotional notes that the earthly reign of Christ and Israel’s exaltation are plainly prophesied. This is consistent with passages such as Isaiah 2, Isaiah 11, and the kingdom promises in the Gospels.
The temporary setting aside of Israel. The statement that Israel rejected her Messiah, then continued in unbelief in relation to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and that God paused His program with Israel to introduce a new dispensation, aligns with a mid-Acts understanding and with Romans 11 and Acts 7.
The distinctness of the body of Christ. The devotional rightly affirms that the church, the body of Christ, did not exist before this dispensation and is not Israel, nor a continuation of Israel’s kingdom program. That is good right division.
Heavenly character of our hope. Verses like Philippians 3:20 (our “citizenship” or “conversation” is in heaven) and Colossians 1:5 (“the hope which is laid up for you in heaven”) rightly indicate that the locus of our hope is heavenly, not earthly. The devotional is correct to contrast this with Israel’s earthly kingdom expectation.
All of that is doctrinally sound within a dispensational framework and is helpful for distinguishing Israel and the body of Christ.
Over-statements and problematic inferences
The difficulties arise where the article pushes the distinctions beyond what the text actually says.
Ruling and reigning in heaven
The devotional says that while Israel’s hope is to rule and reign with Christ on earth, the body of Christ’s hope is to rule and reign with Christ in heaven. Several concerns arise:
Lack of explicit textual support. There is no clear passage that states the body of Christ will “rule and reign with Christ in heaven.” Texts about believers being raised, seated, or blessed in heavenly places describe status and blessing, but they do not clearly describe a heavenly governmental role parallel to Israel’s earthly rule.
The problem of Christ’s location. During the millennium, Christ is presented as reigning on David’s throne in Jerusalem on earth. To assert that Israel reigns with Him on earth while the body of Christ simultaneously reigns with Him in heaven implies Christ’s continual presence in both realms or a back-and-forth that Scripture does not describe.
Confusing citizenship and reign. That our “citizenship” is in heaven or that our hope is laid up in heaven does not necessarily mean we exercise rule there. These texts affirm our identity and security, not a defined administrative role over heavenly realms.
It is more biblically careful to say that the body of Christ has a heavenly hope and heavenly blessings than to conclude we will exercise co-regency in heaven parallel to Israel’s earthly rule.
A rigid heaven/earth partition
The article also seems to contend that:
“Everything earthly belongs to Israel. Everything heavenly belongs to the body of Christ.”
and then concludes that the body of Christ will not return with Christ to the earth at His second coming, nor participate in the millennial scene.
This creates several problems:
Unwarranted exclusions. The notion that Israel receives no heavenly blessings, and that the body of Christ receives no earthly participation, goes beyond Scripture. Israel clearly has promises that involve heavenly realities and glory, not just physical territory, and there is no explicit text that excludes the body of Christ from benefiting from or being present during the millennial reign.
Ignoring 1 Thessalonians 4:17. This verse states:
“Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
If we are forever with the Lord, and He later returns in visible glory to earth to establish His kingdom, a rigid statement that “we will not be coming back to the earth with Christ” conflicts with the plain implication of always being with Him. To maintain both, one has to posit that Christ never truly reigns on earth physically while we are with Him, which contradicts kingdom prophecy, or that we are “with Him” but somehow not participating in His return, which is difficult to reconcile logically.
Conflation of location and inheritance. It is correct that we do not inherit Israel’s kingdom and do not occupy Israel’s roles of ruling and reigning over the nations. But non-participation in Israel’s governmental structure is not the same as non-presence on earth or non-enjoyment of millennial blessings. Distinguishing inheritance from presence helps avoid overstating the division.
Thus, the statement that the body of Christ will not return with Christ to the earth appears stronger than Scripture warrants.
Misuse of Ephesians 1 and 2 for a strict heaven-only destiny
The devotional appeals heavily to Ephesians 1:3 and Ephesians 2:6:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” Ephesians 1:3
“And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Ephesians 2:6
These are taken as decisive proof that our blessings and sphere are exclusively heavenly, and therefore we cannot have any earthly dimension in the future. Several observations undermine this conclusion.
Ephesians 1:3 and the identity of “us”
If one takes the “us” of Ephesians 1:3 as the body of Christ, consistency requires following that pronoun through the section:
Ephesians 1:4: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world...” If “us” is the body of Christ, then the body is chosen before the foundation of the world, even though the body of Christ is presented elsewhere as a mystery hidden in earlier ages.
Ephesians 1:5: “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself...” But Romans 9:4 says of Israel:
“Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption...’’
The adoption language naturally aligns with Israel. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture favors seeing the “adoption” of Ephesians 1:5 as Israel’s adoption.
Ephesians 1:10: The revealed “mystery of his will” concerns:
“that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth...”
This is not Paul’s mystery of the body of Christ but the revealed goal of history: the uniting of all things under Christ in the dispensation of the fullness of times. That is kingdom/consummation language more naturally associated with Israel’s prophetic program.
Ephesians 1:12:
“That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.”
Israel is repeatedly called God’s glory, and Israel, not the later Gentile body of Christ, is naturally “who first trusted in Christ” in a prophetic sense.
If the “us” of Ephesians 1:3–12 is Israel, then using verse 3 as a proof-text for an exclusively heavenly destiny for the body of Christ is exegetically suspect. That section can be read as describing spiritual blessings in heavenly places that belong to Israel, consistent with their status and future in the fullness of times.
Ephesians 2:6 and heavenly seating
Ephesians 2:6 does speak directly about believers in this dispensation: we are raised and seated together in heavenly places in Christ. However:
The text describes our spiritual position and identification with Christ, not the full geography of our future movements. Being seated in heavenly places in Christ does not logically preclude future participation in events on earth, especially when Christ Himself will reign on earth.
The devotional presses the phrase “in heavenly places” to mean “not on earth at all in any sense.” That is not a necessary implication. It is one thing to say our blessings and position are heavenly, another to say we are eternally prevented from any earthly scene or enjoyment.
In both Ephesians passages, the devotional reads more into the text than is actually stated, using them to support a very sharp dichotomy between heavenly and earthly realms that Scripture does not explicitly demand.
A more precise right-dividing conclusion
In light of these considerations, a more cautious evaluation would be:
The devotional is broadly correct in teaching:
Israel’s prophesied earthly kingdom and exaltation.
The present dispensation of grace, introduced after Israel’s rejection.
The distinct identity of the church, the body of Christ, and our heavenly hope.
The non-transfer of Israel’s earthly kingdom promises to the body of Christ.
However, it likely overstates:
The idea that our specific hope is to “rule and reign with Christ in heaven,” a claim not clearly grounded in explicit texts.
The assertion that we will not return with Christ to earth or have any earthly participation in the millennial reign, which strains 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and ignores the distinction between inheritance and presence.
The use of Ephesians 1:3 as a proof that our blessings are heavenly in a way that bars any earthly dimension, particularly if the “us” there is better read as Israel.
Thus the devotional is helpful in its overall dispensational direction, but its pronoun handling in Ephesians and its hard heaven/earth partition appear insufficiently grounded in Scripture. One can appreciate its contribution to right division while still calling for greater exegetical precision and resisting conclusions that go beyond what is clearly revealed.