Review of ‘Elisabeth’ by Ken Yates

When a father writes a book about a beloved and departed daughter there is a good chance that it could turn into a rather sentimental panegyric; a balm for the families wounds, but not a right representation of the subject. This wonderful book does not fall into that trap; avoiding it scrupulously by several reminders from the author that he does not want the reader to leave with that impression, and also because the book is really about Jesus Christ.

Elisabeth is a book which succeeds in its purpose of being a spiritual uplift for believers by wedding excerpts from the life of Yates’s daughter to the blessings reserved for faithful saints in glory. Elisabeth Yates suffered from cerebral palsy. Pain, along with unfulfilled dreams like walking, dressing, and motherhood were her attendants through life. But she was a joy-filled, hopeful believer on Jesus, and she brought others into that sphere of joy that she often inhabited.

Using therefore, Elisabeth as an example, Ken Yates has written a book about rewards! He reminds us of the many times rewards are mentioned in the NT and of how they reflect the kindness and mercy of our God. And he does this not in a preachy or an exhortative way, but by way of encouragement. Elisabeth did not put herself first. She was a warm light who drew you to her Lord. She had so many disadvantages and she longed to be with Jesus and to be released from her pain, but her father writes of her as one from whom he learned saintliness.

This attachment of the NT teaching about future rewards to snippets of biography work really well together. Yates manages to steer a course between saccharine remembrances and formalized theologizing, and the result is a highly beneficial devotional work from which the reader will emerge refreshed, informed, and encouraged.

Throughout the centuries of Christian history there have been very many saints who have had to endure great difficulty while being hidden from view. They are represented by the widow who dropped two mites into the coffer in Luke 21:2-3, whom Jesus saw and whom He singled out as the most generous donor. It is comforting to know that the Lord sees us (Gen. 16:13a), and He sees behind the exterior and into the trials of heart and soul which beset us – arranging themselves around us oftentimes with great disparity. That Jesus sees and will reward the Elisabeth’s of this world, and that He wants to reward us ought to promote godliness and selflessness in our own lives, and I am glad that Ken Yates wrote a book that made me reflect upon these things and encouraged me with this portrait of Jesus as the One who said, “many who are first will be last, and the last first.” (Mk. 10:31).

I have not included page numbers in this review for the very good reason that I passed this book on to my daughter. I have also given a copy to our Women’s Bible Study leader at the Church. Unsurprisingly then, I want to recommend this little book to you.

Review of ‘Dispensationalism Revisited,’ edited by Bauder & Compton (Pt. 3)

Part Two

The next essay in the book is by Ryan Martin and is about Israel and the Church and the issue of supersessionism with a concentration upon Romans 9 – 11. I want to say at the outset that Martin does not really deal with supersessionism very fully in this piece, so those wanting a clear refutation of that teaching may be disappointed. However, he does present a patient and reasonable exposition of the section with useful exegetical notes. He begins with a helpful review of Romans 1 -8 (198-201) which sets up the rationale for the following three chapters in Romans.

As he covers the first thirteen verses of Romans 9 he fails in my opinion to shine a light on the corporate aspects of election which Paul has in mind (e.g., Rom. 9:3-5, 6, 7-8, 10, and 13). This is a common mistake since the Apostle is often construed as teaching about individual salvation. But this is not what he tells us in the passage (Rom. 9:3-4, 27, 31-33. cf. 10:1, 21; 11:1-2, 5, 7, and the “they/you” contrast in 11:11-25. Also, notice – as Martin does – that Pharaoh is used as an exemplar of “hardening” which is then applied to Israel corporately in 11:25 as “blindness,” 211). Hence, Martin’s exegesis of Romans 9:15-29 gets bogged down in the salvation of individuals and not elect Israel (204). He does, however, deal skillfully with Romans 9:24, saying “it makes little sense for Paul, at this stage of his argument, to introduce the idea of God now calls Gentiles ‘my people'” (205).

When he reaches Romans 11 Martin pinpoints the logic of Paul’s concern. If the Church is fulfilling the promises to Israel spiritually then why doesn’t he just say so? (210). When he expounds 11:16-26 the deliberate contrast between Israel and the Gentiles (not Church – 232) is emphasized well (e,g., 216 quoting Lanier Burns, whom the author relies on a lot). The remaining part of the essay which focusses especially on Romans 11:25-27 is very good. In it the author builds a case for “all Israel” being first Jews turning en masse to Christ (226), and then identifying them as elect [national] Israel as separate from the Church (232). He also exegetes Romans 11:26b-27 as a New covenant passage. The chapter is a little long but has much to commend it.

W. Edward Glenny then contributes a chapter on the premillennial understanding of Revelation 20 as opposed especially to amillennialism. Those familiar with Glenny’s work know that this will be a good essay, and Glenny doesn’t disappoint. It is not that he really says anything new, but rather in the way he calmly argues his points that makes it as good as it is. I’m not going to run through the details as they are too well known. All that needs to be said is that this is a great exposition and a persuasive presentation of the vast superiority of the premillennial understanding of Revelation 20.

Concluding the essays is Jonathan Pratt’s discussion of the pretrib rapture. What is needed when writing on this subject is a. information, b. balance, and c. no overreach. I though Pratt did a good job on the first count, and a fair job on the other two. He chooses three texts in which he believes exegetical arguments are strong: John 14:1-3; 2 Thess. 2:6-7; and Rev. 12:5 (250-259).

He did well with these passages, but when all is said and done none of them furnish a lot of exegetical grist for the pretribulationist’s mill. A valid alternative exegetical conclusion for John 14:1-3 is that Christ prepares a place for the disciples, as well as for those who come after them. There is no necessary pretribulational link in this scenario. In 2 Thess. 2 the removal of the Restrainer (the Holy Spirit) who is “taken out of the way” (2 Thess. 2:7) “could refer to the removal of the Holy Spirit through the removal of the church in the rapture.” (255-256). Well, it could, but if it is a reference to the rapture it is extremely veiled. Thirdly, the position that the mention of the “man child” in Rev. 12:5 refers to the Church as well as Christ via “a double referent” (257) looks obtuse and unconvincing. I have encountered this before in the work of Michael Svigel (whom Pratt leans on), and while I respect Svigel I can’t keep out of my mind that his arguments in this case sound very like the type of arguments Covenant theologians employ to arrive at their conclusions. A lot of weight is put on the assertion that John is alluding to Isaiah 66:7 here. But he isn’t! Isaiah 66:7 is a metaphor relating to the re-birth of Israel’s kingdom in the next verse. Of course, someone like G. K. Beale (257 n. 40) is going to argue for such an allusion because he spiritualizes any verse he wishes, but what is a Dispensationalist doing following suit? And to what end? Many fellow Dispensationalists are rightly far from won over by such strained exegesis!

Pratt then offers several theological arguments for pretribulationism, and here he does better. He ought to have led with these in my opinion. One little annoyance with the essay was Pratt’s insistence that PreWrath is basically warmed over midtribulationism (249 n. 3). I trow not!

As stated previously, the book ends with a very nice set of tributes to Dr Hauser. As well as an index, what this book lacks is a chapter on refining or improving Dispensationalism. Some of the chapters are excellent (Beacham, Bauder, Glenny), some are good (Barrick, Compton, Pettegrew, Martin), and some are lacking. Since many pages are taken up with the first two categories I recommend Dispensationalism Revisited to all readers.

Review of ‘Dispensationalism Revisited,’ edited by Bauder & Compton (Pt. 2)

Part One

After Beacham’s excellent offering we get one by Kevin Bauder. Bauder is one of the best representatives of Dispensationalism, and any contribution by him will be eminently worthwhile. He writes on Israel and the Church and his chapter is welcome because of the way Bauder tackles the subject. First he addresses the question of just what is meant by “a people of God” (72-79). This is perhaps a little long-winded but at the same time the delineation is most useful in view of the fact that God says that He will have all nations worship Him (78-79).

From there attention is turned to Israel’s meditorial role (81-82) through whom the other nations will become peoples of God (83), with Israel entering into her promised blessings. Then the Church as Christ’s body through purely spiritual union with Christ (84). The author then illustrates this from John 10:16 (85-86). The olive tree metaphor of Romans 11 is briefly treated, and I appreciated the clear way Bauder distinguishes the root of the tree from its branches (92), something that is too often missed. The best part of the essay in my opinion is Bauder’s treatment of inward versus outward circumcision (95-99). He pulls many threads together in his discussion which the Bible student will appreciate. The whole piece is sure-footed and well-written.

Next comes William Barrick on the covenants of the Bible. Barrick identifies six divine covenants made with Israel: Abrahamic, Mosaic, Deuteronomic, Priestly, Davidic, and New (103). These are briefly surveyed (106-110). The New covenant is given more attention than the others, and I was pleased to read it being described as the covenant that delivers forgiveness of sins (108).

Barrick then deals with the dispensations (110-115). He believes there are eight of them (112), including Eternity but excluding (for whatever reason) the Tribulation! Though the survey is adequate, I was not convinced that the changes in diet reveal dispensational change (110-111). Neither was I impressed with the attempt to track the relationship of the dispensations with the covenants. But he rightly stresses that dispensational progress does not effect salvation by grace through faith (111), and he is correct to say that “Dispensationalism is not a hermeneutic” (116). I disagree that the biblical covenants do not furnish a hermeneutic. I argue that due to their deliberate wording and prescriptive nature they are important hermeneutical signposts.

Bruce Compton’s look at the Kingdom of God/Heaven is valuable. He believes the expression always refers to the future Kingdom (136). He does not dodge potential problems for this interpretation, dealing with the “at hand” and “within” passages well in a few pages. Then (127-132) he turns to the Parables of the Kingdom in Matthew 13. Compton’s reasoning is good, but unfortunately he neglects the crucial phrase “the kingdom of heaven is like” which only appears in Matthew. He does not demonstrate how good and evil can exist side by side in a process (e.g., wheat and tares; leavening; sorting) which ends with the righteous only entering the future Kingdom (Matt. 13:41-43). While I do not think Christ is reigning now from Heaven I think Dispensationalists must carefully engage the meaning of Jesus’ when He says “the kingdom of heaven is like.”

After this comes the last written work of Larry Pettegrew who passed on to his reward earlier this year. It is an article about the way the Church Fathers viewed Israel and is very informative. His chapter reaffirms the fact that up until the middle of the third century many held to premillennial or chiliast eschatology. However, Pettegrew believes that the reason they were not pretribulational was because they accepted the teaching that Israel had forsaken God or had been forsaken by Him. Hence, they had no reason for a removal of the Church before the second advent. I feel this essay should have been placed either up front or at the back of the book. It doesn’t fit where it is and disturbs the flow of the book up until that point.

Chapter 7 (although annoyingly the chapters aren’t numbered) is by Andrew Hudson on the use of the OT in the NT in Acts and its transitional character. Although there were some good things in the chapter, especially in its second half, I think the essay tries to do too much and doesn’t end up doing anything with any real success. The middle section where Hudson runs through the argument of Acts is pretty basic and clogs up the essay (175-179). I did like the overview of interpretations for Peter’s use of Joel 2 in Acts 2 (185-188). Like I said, the latter half of the piece is better than the first.

Review of ‘Dispensationalism Revisited,’ edited by Bauder & Compton (Pt. 1)

A review of Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement, edited by Kevin T. Bauder & R. Bruce Compton, Plymouth, MN, Central Seminary Press, 2023, 294 pages, paperback.

This book was written to commemorate the life and teaching of Charles A. Hauser, Jr, a man who did not have a high profile ministry but who had a big impact through his faithful service to the Lord, and the tributes at the back of the book are not to be missed.

Dispensationalism Revisited is slanted toward traditional dispensationalism, although some contributors are sympathetic towards progressive dispensationalism (13). The editors say they wanted the book to be readable (15), but that academics would also read it. They explain that the first three chapters are “the heart of the book” (15); chapter 1 on the Sine Qua Nons; chapter 2 on hermeneutics; and chapter 3 on Israel and the Church. These chapters comprise the first hundred pages of the book.

The first chapter is written by Douglas Brown on Dispensationalism’s sine qua nons, and in particular the glory of God, which was famously propounded by Charles Ryrie in the mid 1960’s. The essay puts forth seven premises to prove the importance of the doxological purpose within Dispensationalism. Although there is nothing earth-shaking about any of the premises, Brown unpacks then adequately. He notes “If God called creation to seek something other other than his own glory, he would be calling people to idolatry.” (23). The piece does not persuade me that the glory of God is a sine qua non of Dispensationalism. That is to say, it does not prove that God’s glory is an essential component or outcome of the system. In fact, only premises four, six, and seven are weighty enough when tied to Dispensationalism to have any force for the argument.

But here it might be argued that I am confusing that which dispensationalists have traditionally highlighted with what the system when stepped back from is seen to produce. To this I will concede that although dispensationalists have not very often lent prominence to God’s glory in their setting out of the system, Dispensationalism itself could be understood as a picture of how God glorifies Himself in the history of our fallen world. But this would be saying something different from pointing to the literal hermeneutic or the Israel-Church distinction. Those are intrinsic ingredients in the system. The glory of God is different. It is a feature of any theological system which takes Scripture seriously (cf. 31), some more than others. And in this sense Covenant Theology takes the laurels owing to its redemptive hermeneutic and theological telos.

Brown believes “God has chosen to reveal himself progressively in each dispensation.” (26). He provides a brief synopsis of this (26-27), but these are more singular instances than dispensational markers. Even the coming of Christ does not institute a new dispensation according to Dispensationalism. This is the kind of thing I mean when I assert that dispensations are shaky pillars upon which to rest a theological system. In truth, although it may invite brickbats to come my way I don’t think the arguments for the doxological purpose being a sine qua non are that convincing.

The second chapter is by Roy Beacham and is on the interpretation of the Prophets. Before I gush over this essay I should state that it just barely meets the standard of readability that the editors promised. It is rather stiffly academic and the word choices (hermeneutical rubrics, delimitations, preunderstanding, biblically perspicuous, apogee) do stretch the brief a little. For instance, what “common reader” would easily digest the following: “It seems apparent that the only impetus to forward such a drastic and non-self-evident bifurcation of this otherwise unified prophecy would find cause in theological preunderstandings and ensuing hermeneutical complexities that are forced upon the text from without.” (48)? So Beacham doesn’t get any plaudits on that score.

However, as a study in biblical hermeneutics Beacham’s article is one of the best pieces I have read on the topic. He writes that “Historic dispensationalism…believes that all the predictive prophecies of Scripture were meant by God to be understood, fulfilled, and thus interpreted literally and only literally, exactly as foretold” (35). Beacham proposes five reasons for this: the purpose, ground, nature, function, and test of predictive prophecy (37). Providing examples from the Book of Isaiah (reproduced for the reader to follow) he shows that God intended prophecy to validate Him as the only true God, but this only checks out if “everything that God foretells actually comes to pass precisely as foretold” (40). (This is the ‘God’s speech/God’s actions’ correspondence I have referred to elsewhere – cf. also 50).

By the ground of predictive prophecy the writer has in mind the connection between what God says will come to pass and His essential holy and faithful character (42). He sums it up in a tidy maxim: “Exactly what he says is precisely what he does because of who he is” (43). That is worth committing to memory. Beacham takes his time on this point and I find him very persuasive. He concludes, “Deviant fulfillment, would, in fact, disprove his singularity and discount his perfections” (51 his emphasis).

Moving on to the nature of prophecy Beacham insists it was univocal (51), while its unitary nature does not posit a disconnect between divine and human authorship; in fact, it is the divine element in prophecy that ought to be given the precedence (54-55). Deuteronomy 18:15-22 is used to drive this point home. Divine propositions do not alter their meaning with the passage of time (56). This text also helps to define the function of predictive prophecy (60). He states,

“If the original hearers were responsible to understand and to believe God’s forecasts and to live in constant and obedient faith in the words of those forecasts, then God’s forecasts needed no intricate, sophisticated hermeneutical overlay” (61). Any attempts to commend a shadow-to-substance meaning “leaves OT saints in revelatory limbo” (62 n. 58).

Finally the test of predictive prophecy just correlates the accuracy of the human prophet’s words with their fulfillment (64-65). It is a “test by outcome” (66). The essay ends with Beacham summarizing his points and pressing their cumulative weight:

“It seems doubtful that God intended sophisticated literary theories, complex hermeneutical schemes, and/or classical theological preconditions to supersede both his clear instructions for this genre and its undeniable outworking in antiquity.” (69).

Throughout the essay the author interacts in footnotes with non-literal interpreters to shore up his arguments. I do not agree with Beacham’s position on the New covenant not being for the Church (49), but I do think he has hit the nail squarely on the head in all other respects. This is an excellent piece of writing and deserves to be expanded into a small book in its own right.

A Review of ‘Giants: Sons of the Gods’ by Douglas Van Dorn

A review of Douglas Van Dorn, Giants: Sons of the Gods, revised & expanded, Dacono, CO, Waters of Creation Publishing, 2023, v + 385 pages, pbk.

This review is certainly a departure from what I normally decide to write about (though see this). Yes, it is a book about the giants of the Bible and the ancient (and not so ancient) world. The author is a sober-minded pastor of a Reformed Baptist church in Colorado. Van Dorn is an amillennial covenant theologian (236-237).

I decided to read this book because I have a long-standing interest in the subject and I am a strong believer in the fact that the Bible is a lot weirder than modern scholarship has presented it.

The book is dedicated to Michael Heiser who sadly passed away last year. My opinion of Heiser is that he was a good man who brought foreword some important truths about the supernatural realm in the teaching of Scripture. I do not endorse all of his ideas. I don’t agree with his “Divine Council” views, nor do I buy into his view that saved humans basically replace those who left their first estate, etc. However, his work on Hermon is both fascinating and worthy of exploration, and his attempts to reveal the extent of the supernatural world is overall a real service to the Faith.

Van Dorn’s book begins with him considering and rightly rejecting the “Sethite” understanding of Genesis 6. His rebuttal of that inadequate point of view is fair, patient, and decisive. His Introduction is well worth studying.

The author begins with an examination of “Pre-Flood Giants” and is most compelling. Van Dorn takes Genesis 3:15 as referring to actual descendants both of Eve and of Satan (44-47). Satan’s physical seed would be the giants (nephilim, gibborim). These are memorialized in the legends of the demi-gods of the ancient world (e.g., Hercules, Gilgamesh, Orion). From here he goes to 1 Enoch, which he fully acknowledges is not inspired but believes contains some truth (48-51, Appendix 1), and was resorted to by Jude and 2 Peter (52, Appendix 2).

Van Dorn is a humble and sober researcher who believes the giants may have reached up to 12 feet tall (e.g. Og of Bashan, 125-126). He puts Goliath’s height at the upper end of 9 1/2 ft (154-157). His argumentation looks sound and I have no problem believing these proportions. In fact, owing to the report of the spies in Numbers 13:33 that they “were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight” I have think Van Dorn’s estimates are quite conservative.

Many writers in this area are guilty of placing far too much weight on extra-biblical works like the books of “Enoch” and “Jasher,” of circuitous and hyper-conjectural Bible interpretation, and of whacky theories about the pre-Adamic earth. Van Dorn always (or nearly always) let’s the reader know when he is speculating and he never pushes the boat out too far. He is a responsible writer who brings forth some highly suggestive and thoughtful studies in ancient words, biblical data, legend, and archaeology to build a plausible picture of the matters he discusses.

I particularly liked chapters 3 through 9 where the author does a good job of showing how the giants (nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, etc.) are constantly not far from view – much more prevalent than I had realized, and I thought I had tracked them quite well. Van Dorn pulls in not only stories from Genesis 14, Exodus 17, Numbers 13, and Deuteronomy 3, but he introduces data from the ancient world, including the Americas. He even is brave enough to mention the chimeras so commonly seen on stone reliefs and in ancient stories. All this makes for a consuming and diverting (if not slightly disturbing) read. For instance, I really enjoyed his discussion of Bashan and Hermon and his “discovery” of a snake mound close to the Gilgal-Refaim circle in the Golan Heights which points to Mt. Hermon (126-134). I don’t know what to make of them, but I’m glad Van Dorn is trying to make sense of then instead of doing the usual “nothing-to-see-here” maneuver of so many scholars.

Once we move into the NT things start to get less persuasive; at least to me. But even here there is intriguing information (esp. ch. 17). The Appendices are generally helpful, particularly 4, 5, and 6. I did not know that the ancient Christian writers are almost unanimous in their agreement of the existence of the giants and in their belief that the spirits of the nephilim are the demons of today.

The book is well furnished with endnotes (yes, I know!), making it a very handy resource on this often overlooked topic. While I do not invest as much trust in the use of the book of Enoch by Jude as Van Dorn does, and I think that here and there he goes too far, I gladly endorse the main ideas of Giants: Sons of the Gods, and respect the way the author has gone about his task in a mature and edifying fashion.

One final thing; Van Dorn’s son did the artwork for the book, and while it is a pretty good picture in its own way, it gives a wrong impression of the seriousness of the book’s contents. A smaller giant would have been more befitting the book’s thesis.

Benjamin P. Laird & Miguel G. Echevarria, “40 Questions About the Apostle Paul” – A Short Review

A review of Benjamin P. Laird & Miguel G. Echevarria, 40 Questions About the Apostle Paul, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2023, 319 pages, paperback.

This is another of Kregel’s generally excellent “40 Questions” series, several of which have been reviewed at this blog. The book is divided into three parts: Part One answers questions about the Apostle’s life. Part Two focuses on Paul’s writings, and then Part Three is about Paul’s theology. The first section does a great job of covering the bases of Paul’s life. Here is where this format works really well. The authors provide details about persons and places and institutions (there is even space given to the matter of whether or not Paul had a wife (26-28).  I especially liked Question 8 which addressed Paul’s final days and death (71-77). All this forms a great introduction to Paul.

Part Two falls off a bit to my mind because the subjects are more nebulous or at least less easy to be dogmatic about. Topics like the collection of Paul’s letters (Q. 15) or the question of whether he authored Hebrews (Q. 16) did not do much for me, but that is a subjective judgment. However, I thought they tackled the issue of the authenticy particularly well (Qs. 17-18). My only complaint is that the chapters are too short. 

Part Three on Paul’s theology starts with one of the books best chapters; “Is there a Center to Paul’s Theology?” (Q. 24). Although I don’t believe, for instance, that “cruciformity” is proposed by Michael Gorman as the center of Pauline theology, he does see it as a crucial missing piece in our understanding of the Christian life (He also holds places of importance for participation and theosis). Similarly, N. T. Wright only argues for “covenant” as a unifying perspective not a center. Despite this I thought this chapter did a lot a debris clearing. I wasn’t as impressed with the next chapter on Paul’s Christology (Q. 25). I think this should have been divided into two chapters, one dealing with the titles of Jesus and the other dealing with the natures of Christ. I understand that there could only be 40 questions, but I think one or two from Part Two could have been spared. Likewise, in Question 29 on the Lord’s Supper I thought the authors did a very good job, but they did not emphasize the New covenant! 

Finally, and hardly surprisingly since Echevarria has already given us his position on this, the authors’ inaugurated eschatology cannot avoid the dilemma of supersessionism (their protestations notwithstanding). You cannot take away Israel’s national covenanted promises and say they are fulfilled in the Church of Gentiles and Jews. What this actually ends up doing is absorbing Israel into the Church so that sooner or later Israel no longer exists save as a name for the Church and not the nation to whom it was first given.

This is a good introductory book. It is not outstanding, and there are a few better alternatives to choose from (one thinks of Rediscovering Paul by Capes, Reeves and Richards, and especially James P. Ware’s more sophisticated Paul’s Theology in Context). Still, it is a book to consider if one wants to begin diving into Paul.     

 

  

A Review of ‘The Future Restoration of Israel’ (Pt. 5)

Part Four

Part Four of the book contains essays on “Jesus and Israel’s Future.” Michael Wilkins is well known as an expert on the Gospel of Matthew, and his piece considers how the Gospel tackles Israel’s future is portrayed in light of the negative reactions to Jesus’ ministry (e.g., 314).

Wilkins’ long essay includes several interesting facts surrounding the Gospel and expositions of several Matthean statements. I appreciated the fact that “almost every use of the title “Son of David” in Matthew’s recounting of Jesus’ ministry is in direct connection with Jesus’ healing power, either requested or experienced.” (315). He notes a growing consensus in Matthew scholarship that Jesus is inveighing against the Jewish leadership in Matthew 21:43 and not Israel as a nation (327). Wilkins believes that the establishment of Israel in 1948 is “a confirmation of Jesus’ prophetic statement” in Matt. 10:23 (337). I think that is very much up for debate since the connection is obscure and the prophetic tradition, in my view, is focused upon the Tribulation. However, when he goes on to assert that 1948 shows God’s care for Israel I would agree.

Another lengthy chapter is “The Future of the Jewish People in the Light of Matthew’s Vineyard and Mark’s Fig Tree” by Craig A. Evans. The first pages of Evans’s chapter contain a few critical notes one might find in mainstream scholarship (341-342), but once he gets going the material is good. Evans looks at how the Church Fathers interpreted Matthew 21:43 (344-348) before proceeding to “modern interpretation.” He says that the range of opinions on Matthew 21:43 is wide (349), and proceeds to give many samples of supersessionist views in the commentaries (349-350, 354-356). I would characterize it as a helpful bibliographic essay.

The last part of the book is titled “Supersessionism in the Past.” It features two pieces, the first being by Helene Dallaire, “Anti-Semitic supersessionism.” Dallaire gives a helpful overview of supersessionism in the Church up until the Reformation. It is an excellent presentation which really needed to be longer!

Mitch Glaser finishes off with a chapter on “The Impact of Supersessionism on Jewish Evangelism.” Glaser chooses to interact with three amillennialist supersessionists, Gary Burge, Colin Chapman, and Stephen Sizer (380). I know these men are prominent supersessionists so I can’t blame Glaser for picking them, but I think a book like this would have benefitted from interactions with more influential scholars within Evangelicalism such as G. K. Beale and N. T. Wright. The chapter has a section in which the author identifies 11 “Hallmarks of the Christian Non-Zionist Position.” (382). I have encountered all of these opinions many times, both in person, in books, and online. It closes the book off well. Author and Scripture indexes complete the book.

The Future Restoration of Israel is not a cheap purchase, but it is one of the best books I have read on the ongoing problem of supersessionism in the Church and the biblical response to it. I congratulate the editors in their selection of contributors, each of whom brought insight into the issue. The fact that they haled from different theological camps and that therefore their essays sometimes challenged one another was a plus in my opinion. For someone who wants to study the subject I recommend they sit down with this work and read it through carefully with Bible in hand.

A Review of ‘The Future Restoration of Israel’ (Pt. 4)

Part Three

With a book the size of this one it is not possible to offer comprehensive comments on every chapter. William S. Campbell wrote the article on “Covenant and the New Covenant” in IVP’s Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. His chapter provides a close study on Paul’s understanding of Israel from Romans 9 – 11. Campbell does not believe one should treat these chapter as “a digression from the central focus of the letter” (201). I go backwards and forwards on this issue. What I see are definite continuities (esp. with Paul’s argument in Rom. 3 – 4. See 198-201), but there are obviously some discontinuities owing to the fact that the question of Israel’s promises comes into view.

In his piece Campbell carefully shows that Israel qua Israel is differentiated from the ethne (Gentiles) in Paul’s thinking. Thus,

“The line of Jacob is both by promise and fleshly descent…The statement in Rom. 9:8 “…it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as his [sperma] is not a general declaration that applies outside of the Abraham, Isac, and Lacob line of descent. This is a specific commentary on this particular line, only indicating that, though others are related to Abraham and to one another, and thus count as his tekna (children), they are not reckoned as sperma (i.e., within the line of promise).” – 205.

And so:

“Israel’s beginnings reflect her unique calling by God. But having been called Israel becomes a social reality, not an ideal group, or only a spiritual entity without the normal characteristics of peoplehood. Thus Israel, even though called into existence, becomes an ethnos like other nations, whilst still differing greatly because of their covenant with God.” – 207.

Although Campbell is unwilling to commit to any precise view of how Israel look in the eschaton (211), they must be a reality there otherwise God cannot be trusted: “The faithfulness of god that underlies and underwrites the covenant is the foundation of all confidence in those who trust him.” (213).

This is a finely poised piece of writing, with many insights. I could have done without the excessive alternate readings, but Campbell delivers the kind of article that makes one think, which is what a good article ought to do.

Up next is co-editor Stanley Porter’s study of Romans 11:26 (“and thus all Israel can expect to be saved” – his translation) in which he first gives the four main understandings of Paul’s meaning in contemporary literature (218-223) before giving a fifth view which frankly I found confusing. Porter seems to believe that the “new Israel” incorporates both Jews and Gentiles but is not the Church, yet he rejects what he calls “the eschatological view” which places fulfillment in the future (220-221, 228-229). He does claim that in Romans 9 – 11 the Church is not under consideration in these chapters (225, 228). He says that his intention was only to give an outline of his argument, but more detail was needed for me to fully grasp its implications.

David Rudolph writes on the 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 and 7:17-24 and how the Apostle understands the continuity of true Judaism within his ecclesiology (“L’Dor Vador” – the passing on of Jewishness). There are some good things here (e.g., 246) but I always find myself a bit bogged down in Rudolph’s assertions. Still, he is dead right to claim that if supersessionism in any form (see Wright below) is correct then it naturally leads to the disappearance of Israel. (233).

In “Paul between Supersessionism and Pluralism” J. Brian Tucker takes on N. T. Wright’s position that “the church is a continuation of Israel in a new stage of its existence.” (260). This, of course, is a common assertion one meets with today. The core of Tucker’s response is his treatment of Romans 9:26 (265-267) and his argument for Israel’s ongoing covenantal identity in Romans 11:26 (268-271). I liked the essay, but Tucker is far too genteel. He should be more assertive.

There follows two articles about Galatians. The first one by Michael Brown tackles Galatians 3:16 and is good at the beginning and the end, though falls a bit flat in the central portion. David Yoon’s grammatical analysis of the use of kai in Galatians 6:16 together with what he means by “the Israel of God” is solid and informative, although perhaps a little tentative. I believe strong arguments have been made for the premillennial view, including the common sense position that if Paul was referring only to the Church in this text he, by clumsy grammar, basically undid everything he argued so strenuously for in the rest of the epistle. The Judaizers would have pounced on him calling the Church “the Israel of God” and pushed through with their circumcision agenda.

I will complete this review next time.

A Review of ‘The Future Restoration of Israel’ (Pt. 3)

Part Two

The next chapter in the book is by Alan Kurschner, one of the editors of the volume. It engages G. K. Beale’s view of the chronology of the first part of Revelation 7. Basically, Beale believes that the two peoples mentioned in Revelation 7:4-8 and 7:9-12 are the same but seen at different times; the first appearance of them is upon earth, while the second appearance is in heaven (144).

Besides N. T. Wright Beale is the most influential supersessionist writer out there, so I was glad to see someone take him on. In previous engagements with the work of Beale I have referred to his habit of making inferences without much proof. Kurschner highlights many of Beale’s assumptions which find their way into his exegesis (e.g., 144, 145, 146, 154). Overall, I think Kurschner proves that Beale is mistaken and that the there are two people groups in Revelation 7. I do not buy Kurschner’s view that the seals of Revelation 6 are judicial proceedings which prove guilt and stack up the punishment of God which is meted out at the end of the Tribulation (148-149, 152), neither do I agree that the reference to “the beasts (therion) of the earth” in Revelation 6:8 refers to the beasts of Revelation 13 (the Antichrist and False Prophet). The use of the instrumental sense for the sword, hunger, and death in Revelation 6:8 is proper because they are inanimate objects, whereas the “wild beasts” in the verse are not (see 150). The person of the Beast is not yet introduced into the storyline of the Book at that point (even though the white horse rider of Rev. 6:2 is probably him, this is only hinted at. He lacks an introduction). Besides, it seems to me that since the action of the Four Horsemen in Revelation 6:1-8 is precipitated by the Lamb’s opening of the seals of the scroll of God (who appears to be depicted as a Judge in Rev. 4 – 5) it is hard indeed not to interpret these actions as Divine wrath, especially since they equal any demonstrations of God’s wrath found in the OT. Kurschner’s closing summary (156-158) is very well done.

On a separate note, I did find it surprising that he did not list Joel Willits’s chapter on the 144,000 in Beale’s Festschrift (From Creation to New Creation) where Willits contradicts his former teacher’s position.

Kurschner is a well-known defender of the PreWrath rapture position. Another PreWrath advocate, Alan Hultberg, writes a chapter on “The Future Restoration of Israel: Some Theological Considerations.” He contributes a well structured and illuminating chapter with many useful cross references and assertions. He notes, for instance, that even if one allows for certain fulfillments of restoration promises in the first advent, this does not rule out future fulfillment for the nation of Israel (162-163), and as far as Paul is concerned, he is concerned about the nation of Israel (174).

Hultberg continues by explaining that God’s promises include and cannot be separated from geo-political structures (163-166), noting that,

“there is a form of the kingdom where Edenic conditions are less than total, a form of the kingdom when the Messiah’s reign of peace, justice, and righteousness is enforced externally; it is not an outgrowth of the internal transformation of all of humanity.” (165).

He moves from there to a second reason for the restoration of the nation of Israel: the fact that it is through Israel that God makes His name known among the nations (166-169). This point is well made and is important because it is often lost sight of in discussions of future Israel.

The third reason why we can expect a future fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel is that if it were not to occur God’s faithfulness to His word could be called into question (169-174). Supersessionists fail to grasp this point, largely, I believe, because they already hold that God’s prophecies have this equivocal feature, because, well, He can do what He likes. Hultberg excels here, where he pinpoints Romans 9 – 11 for study.

Jim Sibley follows Hultberg with a good chapter entitled “Was Ethnic Israel’s Mission Transferable?”, which is often insinuated by supersessionists. We are often told that Israel forsook their position through disobedience and the Church has replaced them. Or that used to be the way it was put before these days where people speak euphemistically about what they really believe. Sibley uses Todd Mangum to capture the main point at issue: “The issue is whether national Israel as an administrative structure is still in the plan of God.” (178). This is followed by quotes from two covenant theologians, Bruce Waltke and Cornelis Venema, which answer the question with an emphatic No.

What comes next is a fascinating tour through the history of books on missions (178-181) where the author shows the supersessionist tendencies of many of these books up to and including Christopher Wright’s The Mission of God, which Sibley characterizes as “both supersessionist and anti-Zionist.” (180). Sibley uses the second part of his assigned space to give solid coverage to Israel’s role in God’s Creation Project – an excellent presentation (185-192).

A Review of ‘The Future Restoration of Israel’ (Pt. 2)

Part One

Mark F. Rooker is the next scholar in line and contributes a study of Jeremiah 31:31-37. He delineates the major features of the New covenant which include God’s writing His law on the heart (55-56). He is a little unclear in these pages, but the main thing he points out is the inner working of this covenant which produces a new relationship to God. This comes about as a result of God’s forgiveness of their sin (57).

The New covenant is certain because in Jeremiah 31:35-37 God has promised that “the choice of the people of Israel is as firm as the statutes of nature” (58), something supercessionism ignores by appeal to their own typology. Rooker summarizes Jeremiah’s prophecy well:

“Thus, two impossibilities are stated – the creation cannot be scoped out, and YHWH cannot reject Israel’s seed despite what they have done.” (60).

Rooker therefore believes “the new covenant is an unconditional covenant.” (61). There are lots of solid assertions in this article, including the statement that “The new covenant [is] the means whereby the Abrahamic is fulfilled” (65). He also insists that the New covenant is made with everyone, Jew and Gentile saints alike (65 cf. 66, 67). Once or twice I had cause to quibble, as when Rooker noted his belief in “second Isaiah” (62), and in his heading “The New Covenant in the New Covenant (New Testament)”, which adds ambiguity where none was necessary (62).

Next up is Michael VanLaningham’s critique of Progressive Covenantalism’s treatment of Israel’s land promise. Unsurprisingly for a system that employs typology as perhaps its main hermeneutical tool, PC makes both Israel and its land a type (usually fulfilled in Jesus – 83). His main foil is Gentry and Wellum’s Kingdom through Covenant, which has been a major influence in spawning this movement. His final sentence hits home: “I do not see how they can escape the accusation that their theological paradigm leaves them open to the charge that God lacks integrity in keeping his promises.” (83). PC’s will reject this because in their mind God fulfills all His promises once they have been run through their typological interpretations.

Darrell Bock writes a very solid chapter on “Israel’s Future as a Nation and Reconciliation.” I have read a lot of helpful studies by Bock, but this may be the best essay of his I have come across and is a contender for best contribution in the book. On page 90 he says that salvation is an ingredient of the covenant with Abraham, but this is on the strength of Galatians 3. but the Abrahamic covenant nowhere presents Christ as crucified (Gal. 3:1), but rather only as a descendant of Abraham. I have been quite vocal about the fact that the New covenant is the salvation covenant, which all the other unconditional covenants have to pass through so as to be literally fulfilled.

Bock soon hits his stride and clearly sets out Israel’s hope (90-91) before providing close readings of Isaiah 2:1-4, and Ezekiel 37, both excellent. Once in the NT he begins with Romans 11 (95-98), Ephesians 2:11-22 (98-99), and Luke’s “until” passages (Lk. 13:34-35; 21:20-24; Acts 1:6-7; 3:18-22 (with 26:6-7). He closes with a series of “Implications” for the Middle East and for God’s character (102-103). Rightly he states that “God’s grace and character as rooted in his promises” (103).

A full study of Zechariah 14 and its allusions in the book of Revelation is provided by David J. Fuller. Fuller does a survey of the treatment of Zechariah 14 in systematic theologies and biblical studies before launching into his literary analysis of the passage. He is less strident in his conclusions than I would have liked, but the chapter makes a positive contribution.

Vying with Bock for best essay so far is Mark Saucy’s effort, “One Nation Under God: Does the World Need an Israelite Theocracy?” Saucy begins with the important note that human life is meant to be “nationed life” (126-127). He counters the common view that nations only came about as a result of the Fall by taking Revelation 21:24, 26; 22:2 seriously (128). Obviously, if God is going to arrange eternity with nations and peoples around Him “nationed life” is central to His plan for humanity. As with Bock, Saucy asserts the soteriological importance of the Abrahamic covenant (129). He rightly claims that the salvific aspect is ahead, but he fails to tie this into the Abrahamic covenant’s encounter with the New covenant, which actually conveys salvation to all the saints. By all means, “life in the land” includes salvation (130) but it doesn’t deliver it.

As already indicated I really liked this contribution, but that does not mean that I always agreed with it. I put a question mark next to a number of statements on pages 130 and 132-133 especially. However, he also states that,

Like Eden, the prophets’ vision for human flourishing is fully resourced by God’s own gracious provision in a new covenant relationship and a Spirit-anointed servant leader (133).

Further, he says in a footnote that “This resolution of the sin-problem is the basis of the new covenant promises.” (134 n. 39), and his next footnote claims “A new enablement for the source of life, the heart, is where most scholars place the locus of the new covenant’s novum.” (Ibid n. 40 italics his). I couldn’t agree more.

It is this new covenant enablement through the Spirit that will turn Israel into witnesses to God’s glory among the nations (135, 139). This mission of Israel comes from a place of eminence among the nations (136), which is not what is spoken of the Church by the NT writers (137). This was an outstanding study.