A Review of ‘Israel, the Church, and the Middle East’

A review of Israel, the Church, and the Middle East: A Biblical Response to the Current Conflict, edited by Darrell L. Bock & Mitch Glaser, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 296 pages, paperback.

This compendium of new essays follows the only occasionally stellar The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel, edited by the same two men.  This book marks Israel’s seventieth anniversary.  It is divided into four parts, Biblical Foundations, Theology and the Conflict, Yeshua in the Midst of the Crisis, and Current Challenges to Peace in Israel.

This book takes a good look at these four issues through the various viewpoints of the authors.  There are few weak contributions (e.g. a surprisingly tame essay from Bock), the general standard is high.  Here are my thoughts on a few of the articles:

First, Richard Averbeck’s opening piece on the biblical covenants starts things off well.  He is clearly uncomfortable being identified either as a covenant theologian or as a dispensationalist, but he has no time for replacement theology (22).  More notable to me though was this line:

The system of theology known as “dispensational theology” describes the historical biblical covenants as subsumed under a set of dispensations in God’s program… (22)  

I have been saying the same thing for many years, but who sees it?  Well, at least one other man does!  The covenants are right there for all to see and read about.  The dispensations are nowhere near as prominently set out.  But dispensations are allowed to define the system instead of the covenants nonetheless.  The essay includes some good interaction with crucial chapters in Genesis relating to the Abrahamic covenant (i.e. chs. 12, 15, 17, & 22).  He shows how the land promise is just as permanent as the seed promise.  He also rightly notes that the Davidic covenant “adds a dynastic element to the covenant program.” (32).

I did not agree with everything in the article.  For instance Averbeck’s simple definition of a covenant as “a solemn and formal means of establishing a relationship” (24), badly needs another definition; that of “relationship.”  Some covenants in the Bible only establish a relationship in terms closer to “you stay away from me and I’ll stay away from you” (e.g. Gen. 21).  Moreover, God’s covenants incorporate great promises, so that it is well to include that when discussing Divine – human covenants.  Finally, the solemnizing oath is crucial.

Covenant also receives plenty of attention in Mark Yarbrough’s analysis of the Bible Story in chapter 3.  He warns of just seeing the Big Picture without the important details.  I thought he made some good points.  My one major disagreement is that Yarbrough refers to Gentile believers as “spiritual Israel” based upon Galatians 3:29.  Paul does not use that language.

Michael Rydelnik’s oddly titled “The Hermeneutics of the Conflict” is extremely good.  It is long enough for him to address several points, such as the clarity of the promises in the OT, the understanding of those promises in the NT (with its seeming lack of interest in the land promise), and the misuse of some NT texts to “expand” that promise.  He forthrightly says that analogies by supercessionists which try to make God more generous than His original promises by expanding them not only fail, they illustrate “betrayal.” (75).  I think he’s right, which is why expansionist explanations often neglect to switch out the promisees in the way supercessionism teaches.

Craig Blaising is arguably one of the most nuanced theologians writing today.  His piece entitled “A Theology of Israel and the Church” is a welcome inclusion.  It serves as a promo piece for “Redemptive Kingdom Theology”, AKA Progressive Dispensationalism, (87 n. 7).  Blaising is always worth reading, and I liked his essay.  However, his treatment of the Church as a communion of ethnes for future kingdom development left me wondering whether PD sometimes makes the Church look like a placeholder for God’s kingdom plans for Israel and the nations.  Despite his appeal for clarity (100), I found myself with some weighty questions at the end of this essay.

Mitch Glaser provides a useful look at the politicized side of supercessionist theology by focusing on the work of the pro-Palestinian Kairos document.  His piece dovetails well with Craig Parshall’s analysis of the UN’s hypocrisy over the rights of Israel as a nation in the book’s penultimate chapter.

I will mention only one more essay here, which is Michael Vlach on “Israel and the Land in the Writings of the Church.”  Vlach identifies four factors which steered the early church in the wrong direction on this issue (121-122).  The first was the almost universal Gentile complexion of the Church.  Second was the fate of Jerusalem and the land after the revolts of 70 A.D and 135 A.D.  Third was the pragmatic theological turn that became replacement theology.  Finally, the hermeneutical guardrails were erected largely through allegorization.

Nevertheless, there are many examples of “restorationism” throughout the periods of Church History.  Vlach furnishes many examples to show that Christians have not all wrested the promises to Israel out of their hands.

The book closes with data from a Lifeway Survey on Evangelical attitudes toward Israel and the Jews.  Good indices are also on hand.

I liked this book a lot.  I think it stuck to its task well and should be seen as a reliably informative defense of the nation of Israel in Scripture.  It is a worthy gift from evangelicalism to the beleaguered nation.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. This was an interesting read, thanks.

    You criticize Averbeck’s simple definition of a covenant; I was hoping you’d provide your concise but more fulsome definition in point of contrast.

    Would you, please? (c:

    1. Sure,

      “A biblical covenant between God and man is a solemn and explicit declaration of intent and obligation, sealed by an oath, which binds one or both parties to fulfill the words of the covenant oath. Its function is to amplify or reinforce the plain terms of the covenant in order to clear away ambiguity or misinterpretation.”

      I prefer the language of binding the parties to speaking of a “relationship”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s