A Review of ‘The Future Restoration of Israel’ (Part 1)
Image
![](/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/2023/media_images/book-timber-burl-jarrah-900.jpg?itok=OkwW-Ggd)
A Review of The Future Restoration of Israel: A Response to Supersessionism, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Alan E. Kurschner, Eugene, OR, Pickwick, 2023, 448 pages, paperback.
Read the series.
I reviewed a book on supersessionism a few weeks ago, which you can read here. That book was a bit of a let down to say the least. This is a much bigger book. It is also a book written from a different perspective. All the contributors are premillennial, although not all are Dispensationalists. That, however, is not important as the quality of the essays throughout is outstanding, and for that full credit has to go to the editors, Porter and Kurschner. Truthfully, although I liked some chapters more than others, I would not want to be without any of the contributions to this book.
The authors define supersessionism as “the theological view that denies any future divine promises and blessings to national Israel” (5). It is where “God’s purpose and program for Israel has been abrogated and thereby superseded.” They add, “For our specific purposes in this volume, supersessionism renders any redemptive purpose that God would have for a future Israel meaningless” (4). They add, “Israel is conceived as nothing more than ‘the economy of redemption in prefigurative form” (4).
This is a large paperback (7.0 x 1.0 x 10.0) packed with articles addressing various aspects of the topic grouped into five parts: Part 1 – “The Covenants and Israel’s Future,” Part 2 – “The Nations and Israel’s Future,” Part 3 – “Paul and Israel’s Future,” Part 4 – “Jesus and Israel’s Future,” Part 5 – “Supersessionism in the Past.”
Opening up the proceedings is “The Servant of the Lord” by Robert B. Chisholm. This is a very welcome study of the Servant Songs in the Book of Isaiah. Chisholm separates the passages that speak of the servant as the nation of Israel (20), but he rightly notices that some of the songs refer to a Servant who restores Israel (21-22). He offers a thorough exegetical survey of Isaiah 42:1-9, 49:1-13, and 52:13-53:12, the first, second and fourth servant songs (25-32). Then he turns to several texts in the Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke to show how Jesus is presented as “the ideal Israel” of Isaiah’s songs (32-34).
Although I am not keen on seeing Jesus as “the ideal Israel” because it threatens to eclipse national Israel in the mindseye, Chisholm differentiates between the two. He notes that the Servant serving as “a light to the nations” points to a royal function (24), noting several ANE examples. This is intriguing, but the contexts of Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6 and the use these are put to in Luke 2:32 and Acts 26:23 do not suggest this meaning. As is often the case, ANE backgrounds can obscure what the texts are actually communicating.
Chisholm also notes that “His atoning work is the basis for his role of covenant mediator for both the nations (cf. Isa. 42:6) and Jacob/Israel (cf. 49:8)” (31). This is important because it translates to understanding Christ’s atonement as a New covenant atonement!
I would take issue with Chisholm’s belief that “a person cannot literally be a covenant” (26). I would say yes and no. Yes, Christ mediates the covenant, but there is much more to it than that. Jesus can be a covenant to the extent He plays the central role in its making, instigation, and application. In Christ the New covenant is not something external to Him. Christ is the covenant sacrifice (Jn. 1:29), and the terms of the covenant (the Gospel) are all about Him (e.g., Jn. 3:16). His blood is the blood of the New covenant (1 Cor. 11:25), and His body was provided to Him for that purpose (Heb. 10:5). He therefore doesn’t just mediate the New covenant like Aaron and his sons mediated the Sinaitic covenant.
Overall this was a good way to begin the volume.
The next chapter is by Walter Kaiser and is titled “The Christian Church: Built on the Foundation of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants.” Starting with Justin Martyr’s and Cyprian’s [in]famous replacement theology (37), wherein the Church inherits the promises to Israel, Kaiser asks “How could such a change have been portrayed in Scripture as a consistent and faithful view of the truthful character of God?” (39). How indeed? And the same question applies to those who would claim that the Church does not replace Israel, but is Israel. If such people do not want to be labelled as supersessionists, I would be happy to use David Rudolph’s term “eradication theology,” since it concludes that Israel the nation is passe.
Kaiser thinks the problem stems from an inexcusable misunderstanding of the three main promises of the Abrahamic covenant (41). He states it thus:
At the heart of this controversy was the assumption that all the promises of God expected of them as their part of three covenants; otherwise they would be disinherited. But that is not how the text reads or how the prophets later on viewed what God had said. (41)
Again, while many supersessionists would deny this charge, just let them give you their explanation of Matthew 21:43 and most will confirm your suspicions.
Kaiser notes that “Abram never participated one bit through this whole ceremony. This is what made this covenant an unconditional, unilateral covenant; it was not a conditional, bilateral, agreement…” (42). He cites Jeremiah 31:35-37 to establish the longevity of God’s covenant with Israel (43), and then deals with the “conditions” to the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants raised by supercessionism (44-46). There is a difference between all participating in covenant fulfillment and their eventual fulfillment upon the remnant. As he rightly states, “Jeremiah said that Israel did break [the] Mosaic covenant, a point none of the biblical writers made about the Abrahamic or Davidic covenants!” (45).
When he turns to the New covenant, Kaiser is one of those scholars who claim that it is only for Israel. He says, “God made no covenant with the church” (45). This position is not defended, and is contradicted by Mark Rooker in the next essay. Kaiser’s piece ends with his advocacy of Israel’s right to have their promised land in perpetuity (46-50).
Two essays in and we are off to a good start. Both Chisholm and Kaiser set out solid data to rebuff modern supersessionist writers like N. T. Wright and Anthony Hoekema. But better things are in store.
Dr Reluctant Articles
Reposted from Dr. Reluctant.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 724 views
I find much of this writing to be nonsense. I have a high degree of confidence that once the time comes for God to fulfill his promises, everyone will be shocked that they never truly grasped it. Just as the prophets, the nation of Israel in the OT and the disciples & apostles, never really grasped how the past promises would be revealed in the manner that they did. Much is hidden from us, just as it was in times past. At the end of the day, does it really matter what we feel will be the promises of Israel? God will fulfill it as He sees fit and not on how we interpret something which we are promised in Scripture we do not see clearly.
The comment above is a real specimen of what I might call Biblical Agnosticism. The writer opines that the scholars who have put a great deal of effort into writing these articles are really shooting in the dark. Has he read their arguments. Almost certainly No! He thinks that even though God has written such a big Book for us to read and have faith in it appears He has failed to communicate accurately what His intentions are. This despite God making several covenant oaths to do specific things and telling us that "an oath for confirmation is for [men] an end of all dispute" (Heb. 6:16), because "God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath." (Heb. 6:17).
Still, with all this oath-taking God's revelation is so obtuse that evidently even the Prophets, OT Israel, and the Apostles were none the wiser! And anyway, "does it really matter what we feel will be the promises of Israel?" Well, what we "feel" about the promises doesn't matter one whit. What God says matters a whole lot. Can God be trusted to mean what He says when He swears to do something?
My answer, after 15 years of study and half a million words on this very subject is that the Prophets cite the Pentateuchal covenants etc exactly as they were uttered. I demonstrated this in The Words of the Covenant: OT Expectation, as well as the fact that OT Israel anticipated the literal fulfillment of God's covenants. As for the disciples, I demonstrate that they do not deviate from the OT covenant expectation for Israel in The Words of the Covenant: NT Continuation (to be released), even though the Church is mainly in view. If the commenter who thinks much of this study is "nonsense" wants to actually interact with the arguments and assert something more than the autobiographical fact that he couldn't care less whether God means what He says, by all means let him prove his erudition to us. He is free to disagree with the (varied) conclusions of the book under review, and of my books too. But calling them "nonsense" is not a mark either of charity or of learning. It is pure twaddle.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I have read the article and have read much on it. And what I am left with is that 1) a great number of very godly men and great theologians have written convincing arguments on both sides of this fence. 2) it is clear based on this that the church does not have a good reading on this or a single view that is clear. 3) it has caused divisions in the church as people have extended their views beyond this and held great arguments on how we should view a political Israel today. 4) these promises are arguments are centered around items not in this age, but in the age to come. 5) regardless of where you fall, we can be confident that God will be faithful. 6) many great men were wrong about what coming prophecies really looked like prior to their fulfillment (even the disciples struggled while Christ hung on the cross, even though looking back Christ revealed all). So I feel everyone trying to jockey for their position on where they fall and point out where the other side is wrong, is ultimately futile, and not one that will be resolved until Christ fulfills it.
I believe David is basically correct. Over the years, I have read Dispensationalists denouncing Amillennialists (among others), and Amillennialists denouncing Dispensationalists, and both doing so according to their understanding of Scripture. I see weaknesses as well as strengths in competing positions. Years of study or number of scholars who hold "my" position doesn't settle the issue. You can pile a pretty good stack of books on both sides of the millennial question. Study as you are enabled. Draw your conclusions but hold them lightly. Test, and re-test them as you continue to study. Discuss your conclusions with others. Express your conclusions clearly, but humbly without denouncing those who draw different conclusions. It will be clear enough when we get to Heaven, but not so much until then.
G. N. Barkman
We see through a glass darkly. Now we only know in part. Our hope is in the fact that God is faithful. And I am confident that His faithfulness to come is more glorious that we can imagine. If His promises in the OT will be carried in a literal Israel, praise be to God. And if His promises have been carried out in a New Covenant where all who believe are in the Church, praise be to God. His grace and mercy are beyond my comprehension to fully understand. To be dogmatic on one side or the other results more in division than unification. Whether we believe one side or not has no bearing on how God’s faithfulness will be carried out to all those who have received His grace and believe on Him.
It's a good job you don't treat God's promises to you the way you treat His promises to Israel.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
God will keep his promises to Israel. How all of that fleshes out in our modern world tomorrow is still a bit of a mystery. Just because the people of Israel spent 70 years in Babylon does not mean that God did not keep his promises to them. Even if the modern nation of Israel were to fall, that would not shake my confidence in God's promises to them. God has not forgotten Israel and will fulfill his promises to them one way or another. The details of if it is one way or the other may not be worth debating, but I am willing to draw a line on the fact that God is not done with Israel. God did make promises to Israel and God does keep his promises.
BTW, too many excuse antisemitic comments by saying that the Jews turned their backs on God and rejected the Messiah, so they deserve it (sic). There will be a time of Jacob's trouble, but that is for God to implement, not any of us. Heb 10:30 says, "For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."" Yes, God will judge his people Israel, but he is also saving many of them today as Jews are still trusting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Paul’s comment above directly highlights the toxic nature of his approach. If you don’t believe in a certain view of Israel, than the response is an attack on your view of God’s faithfulness. This points to the very divisions that are created in churches over this matter. The argument is silly. Because despite the fact that I hold to the fact that God will be 100% faithful in all of His promises. That is not good enough. I need to bow directly to this very specific view of Israel. We can’t come to the place where very good men of God have fallen on different sides of the fence around a topic that is clearly not specific nor critical to the church and the work of the church. It is not good enough for me to sit in the middle and state that 1) this discussion is contentious, 2) very good men of God have fallen on both sides of this view of Israel, 3) because the Bible is not 100% clear, I will not dogmatically chose a side and attack those who do not hold to my view, and 4) that I can rest in the fact that while it may not be very clear, God is 100% faithful in all His promises and that is He is sovereign to bestow His grace on all that He deems should have His grace.
It depends on whether God means what he says.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
dgszweda: "I find much of this writing to be nonsense."
dgszweda: "Paul’s comment above directly highlights the toxic nature of his approach."
Of course, the offending response was "It's a good job you don't treat God's promises to you the way you treat His promises to Israel." My point being, he believes God means what He says when God is speaking to Him, but does not believe God means what He says when He takes an oath to Israel (remember Heb. 6:16-17?). This is not an attack upon him or anyone else who disagrees with me. It is me pointing out that he has little basis for his statement that, "I hold to the fact that God will be 100% faithful in all of His promises."
What does that mean? I really don't know since he thinks the oaths God made to Israel are obtuse. Presumably he thinks the prophecies of the first coming are clear enough to understand? But my position is "nonsense!"
Again, after misusing 1 Cor. 13:12 as a hermeneutical text he asserts, "If His promises in the OT will be carried in a literal Israel, praise be to God. And if His promises have been carried out in a New Covenant where all who believe are in the Church, praise be to God...To be dogmatic on one side or the other results more in division than unification."
The only one who is allowed to be dogmatic is the person who believes the above statement. If you want to read an example of dogmatism, try the first comment in this thread.
Look, I respect all those who put sincere effort into comprehending Scripture, even if I disagree with them. dgszweda is not the only one who believes there are good godly men on both sides. If he wishes to be agnostic in these matters that is up to him. I choose otherwise. Can't I do that without my studied position being labelled as "nonsense" by him?
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Not only has dgszweda characterized much of the article as "nonsense," but he also commented that "the argument is silly."
Such comments hardly accord with someone who says, "It is not good enough for me to sit in the middle . . ."
Discussion