What do you think?
Rate this book
Perspectives
Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views
The relationship between Israel and the church is one of the most debated issues in the history of theology. Some hold the view that there is almost seamless continuity between Israel and the church, while others believe there is very little continuity. Additional perspectives lie between these two. This debate has contributed to the formation of denominations and produced a variety of political views about the state of Israel.
To advance the conversation, Perspectives on Israel and the Church brings together respected theologians representing four
To advance the conversation, Perspectives on Israel and the Church brings together respected theologians representing four
328 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2015
30 people are currently reading
114 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
February 19, 2017
Perhaps there is no issue which more clearly divides conservative Evangelicals, than the question of the relationship between Israel and the Church. Subsumed beneath that overriding concern are the intramural debates over soteriology (Calvinism, Arminianism or “neither”), eschatology (premillennial or amillennial and pre-trib or post-trib), and ecclesiology (paedobaptism or credobaptism). These questions are not minor. The baptism question divides the Protestant church into denominations. The millennial question bars the entry into parachurch organizations, mission boards and educational institutions. Yet most agree that people from all perspectives on this issue take the Bible seriously: this is a Christian debate, separating fellow believers.
In the last hundred years, the larger question over Israel and the Church has turned from a covenant theology vs. dispensationalism debate into a more nuanced and many-sided affair. Dispensationalism has matured, and progressive dispensationalism presents a new understanding of the question which is both true to its dispensational roots and yet distinct at the same time. And in recent years, new covenant theology has arisen and is often referred to by the term “progressive covenantalism.” This refinement and change is not a bad thing. As the views have interacted with each other, people have tried to modify and clarify their understanding of Scripture. Such has been the history of the Church down through the ages. And while some look at the newer positions as an abandonment of principles, others may see a hopeful realignment that results in a greater unity across all the positions. Indeed it seems that progressive dispensationalism has become a primary view in the academy that is viewed with mutual respect by covenantal views.
A new book from Broadman and Holman offers a restatement of the four dominant positions today, and includes an interaction between them. "Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views" brings together three of the most proficient authors for their positions, along with a team of authors for the newer progressive covenantal view. This book presents the debate in a calm and safe environment and allows some of the foremost representatives of the positions to advocate their approach.
Covenantal Theology:
Robert L. Reymond’s chapter on covenantal theology is sharp and clear. He makes a point that modern softenings of dispensationalism still remain somewhat unclear as to the nature of saving faith for Old Testament saints. Throughout his chapter and in his responses, he does a great job unpacking his view and addressing the important points in other positions. He sees both progressive dispensationalism, and progressive covenantalism (as presented in this book) as still too close to dispensationalism and its pre-tribulational, pre-millennial position. His is a strictly amillennial position that sees Revelation as a cyclical book with the millennium being another description of the church age. He does not stress too much the three covenants of classic covenantal theology (coventant of grace, of redemption, and of works), instead he focuses more on the biblical covenants in an approach similar to that of O. Palmer Robertson. He also does not shy away from the term “replacement theology” but proudly uses that description of his position (p. 49).
Traditional Dispensationalism:
Robert L. Thomas’s chapter on traditional dispensationalism presents the dispensationalism I learned with clarity. This is Ryrie’s position which has sometimes been described as “modified” as opposed to “classical.” Thomas doesn’t agree necessarily with the “modified” descriptor, however. Thomas explains that the kingdom was offered and then rejected in Christ’s ministry, and presents a case against taking the NT use of the OT as a guide for how we should interpret Scripture. He also emphasizes how the OT promises are not cancelled by the NT. In his treatment of the land promise, however, he doesn’t deal with the conditionality in the OT associated with it (for instance Deuteronomy’s exhortations to faithfulness so that they would inherit the land, and even how passages like Ps. 37:9, 11 should be understood). He also doesn’t address Rom. 4:13 and how the “land” is expanded to the “world.” He makes a big deal too about no clear-cut use of the term “Israel” for the Church (although so many other Jewish terms and descriptions are used for the Church).
Of note is Thomas’s interaction with Saucy’s chapter on progressive dispensationalism. He takes issue with Saucy’s allowance for the NT use of the OT to shape his understanding of the OT passages. Thomas notes:
"By allowing NT passages to provide meaning for the OT, one is doing the same as other nondispensational systems… Saucy’s statement, 'proper interpretation begins with the Old Testament,' should be refined to read, 'proper interpretation of the Old Testament begins and ends with the Old Testament before going to the New Testament.'" (p. 218)
He also is not happy with Saucy’s refusal to defend a pre-tribulational rapture.
Progressive Dispensationalism:
Robert Saucy does a good job explaining progressive dispensationalism. Many reared in traditional dispensationalism, like me, have later rejected that system and now find themselves leaning toward covenant theology but without a good understanding of later developments in dispensationalism. This chapter offers a helpful explanation for those unfamiliar with this position.
Saucy painstakingly lays down hermeneutical principles undergirding his position. He ultimately agrees with an “already, not yet” approach to prophecy but emphasizes the “partial” nature of many of the begun-to-be fulfilled prophecies. Salvation is not just provided through Israel and her Messiah, it is “channeled through” Israel:
"From Isaac, the descendants of Abraham are traced by physical descent through Jacob and his sons until the Seed, Jesus Christ, appears and the Gentiles are included in him. It is therefore impossible to ignore this physical dimension and identify Abraham’s seed merely as anyone of faith…. Thus, on the basis of the promise to Abraham, Israel is an ethnic people who constitute a nation among nations that bears a unique relationship to God – a nation created by God in fulfillment of his salvation promise." (p. 166-167)
So even though salvation extends to the Gentiles, they are not “spiritual Jews” or “conceived as part of Israel” (p. 184). Eph. 2 does not speak to Gentiles joining Israel in the covenant people of God. Instead both are part of a new humanity, but each are still distinct (p. 191). He again emphasizes that the Church is never called Israel (yet it is called the “real circumcision”…). So there is a unity in the people of God now as both Israel and the Church are together the “eschatological people of God” (p. 190). Yet, there is still a role for political Israel to play in a future millennium to totally fulfill historic promises. Saucy’s conclusion explains it best:
"Rather than detracting from the spiritual unity of God’s saving program present in the church, the fulfillment of Israel’s role as a particular nation, in which God is yet to display his glory, will expand the present spiritual salvation to bring about that holistic salvation of individual and society promised by the prophets, in which all people are united in their diversity as the one people of God." (p. 208)
Progressive Covenantalism:
Chad Brand and Tom Pratt, in their chapter on progressive covenantalism intriguingly point to the debate over the new perspective on Paul as a way forward in this debate. There is a debate over whether personal salvation was primarily in view in Romans or the wider work of God for the people Israel and indeed all of creation. The answer is yes: both are in view. And that is how they approach the question of Israel vs. the Gentile church. There is a corporate and personal element in this question. Who are the people of God and what are their place in salvation history? “Israel” and the “Church” are terms separating out a “dichotomy” where there really seems to be a unity, a oneness to the people of God throughout the Old and New Testaments (p. 233-237). Supporting points for this include:
1) The oneness of God demands one people.
2) The people of God are his by divine election and spiritual birth.
3) The people of God arise from the supporting root of historic Israel.
4) The marker of the people is the internal presence of the Holy Spirit.
5) The people of God are the body of Christ.
This approach avoids the rigid “replacement theology” that is directly advocated by Reymond. Instead it interprets the true people of God through all ages as representative of true believers today. This presentation actually struck me as less directly baptistic than the new covenant theology position of Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry presented in Kingdom through Covenant (Crossway, 2012). (The authors of this volume mention that Wellum and Gentry’s work was released after their book was all but finished, yet they are in substantial agreement with that position, see p. 12.) Emphasizing the experience of the Spirit in the true people of God has the drawback of downplaying the church ordinance of baptism, which seems odd since new covenant theology typically corrects covenant theology on the very question of baptism.
Brand and Pratt go out of their way to renounce a “replacement theology” position:
"…we conclude that the idea of “replacement” of Israel by “the church” with a resultant “church age” is not only a misnomer but a misreading of the history of salvation as well. Richard Bauckham remarks, in commenting on Rev 7:4, that the picture there presented “indicates not so much the replacement of the national people of God as the abolition of its national limits.” In Goldswothy’s characterization, it is the glorious result of the mission to the Gentiles carried out by the saved remnant of ethnic Israelites. Therefore, the current stage is more adequately denominated the age of transformation or new creation, for “in Messiah” nothing matters but “new creation” (Gal 6:15), which for Paul and others has already begun, though it has not yet been consummated." (p. 257)
Brand and Pratt go on to explore how the NT really does refer to the church as “Israel” (or by terms referring to Israel). In this section I was intrigued by their explanation of how Luke in Acts doesn’t use the term “church” for the new people of God until after Stephen first roots the term’s meaning in the OT assembly of God’s people. They then conclude with an explanation of their post-tribulational, premillennial view. They concede that reading Revelation in a roughly chronological order is not necessary to their conclusion (premillennialism), but they don’t seem to go out of their way to allow for variations of progressive covenantalism that are not premillennial. Perhaps they are at pains to keep their position tenable for institutions that require premillennialism, I cannot say; but I found their advocacy of premillennialism confusing and contradictory. Kingdom through Covenant‘s presentation of progressive covenantalism lacked any premillennial hints, and also majored on the land promise (and Israel’s identity herself) as typological in nature, and that was extremely persuasive. So the progressive covenantalism offered in this book seems a step lower than what Wellum and Gentry offer. The position as a whole is still young, and this book will certainly help those trying to understand that position.
Recommendation:
I highly recommend this book for those seeking to sort out their own position on how the Old and New Testaments should be read in light of each other. Even if you have “landed” on one perspective in this debate, this book will both challenge and sharpen you. With the possible exception of the progressive covenantal view, the book presents a top-notch explanation for each of the major views. The arguments are well-reasoned, and Scriptural discussion abounds. Footnotes point the way to further reading on important questions, and the end result is a useful and accessible manual on the nature of this debate at present. The book will reward careful study and offer help to some who are confused. It was a joy to work my way through it and I trust it will benefit both student and teacher alike.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by B & H Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
In the last hundred years, the larger question over Israel and the Church has turned from a covenant theology vs. dispensationalism debate into a more nuanced and many-sided affair. Dispensationalism has matured, and progressive dispensationalism presents a new understanding of the question which is both true to its dispensational roots and yet distinct at the same time. And in recent years, new covenant theology has arisen and is often referred to by the term “progressive covenantalism.” This refinement and change is not a bad thing. As the views have interacted with each other, people have tried to modify and clarify their understanding of Scripture. Such has been the history of the Church down through the ages. And while some look at the newer positions as an abandonment of principles, others may see a hopeful realignment that results in a greater unity across all the positions. Indeed it seems that progressive dispensationalism has become a primary view in the academy that is viewed with mutual respect by covenantal views.
A new book from Broadman and Holman offers a restatement of the four dominant positions today, and includes an interaction between them. "Perspectives on Israel and the Church: 4 Views" brings together three of the most proficient authors for their positions, along with a team of authors for the newer progressive covenantal view. This book presents the debate in a calm and safe environment and allows some of the foremost representatives of the positions to advocate their approach.
Covenantal Theology:
Robert L. Reymond’s chapter on covenantal theology is sharp and clear. He makes a point that modern softenings of dispensationalism still remain somewhat unclear as to the nature of saving faith for Old Testament saints. Throughout his chapter and in his responses, he does a great job unpacking his view and addressing the important points in other positions. He sees both progressive dispensationalism, and progressive covenantalism (as presented in this book) as still too close to dispensationalism and its pre-tribulational, pre-millennial position. His is a strictly amillennial position that sees Revelation as a cyclical book with the millennium being another description of the church age. He does not stress too much the three covenants of classic covenantal theology (coventant of grace, of redemption, and of works), instead he focuses more on the biblical covenants in an approach similar to that of O. Palmer Robertson. He also does not shy away from the term “replacement theology” but proudly uses that description of his position (p. 49).
Traditional Dispensationalism:
Robert L. Thomas’s chapter on traditional dispensationalism presents the dispensationalism I learned with clarity. This is Ryrie’s position which has sometimes been described as “modified” as opposed to “classical.” Thomas doesn’t agree necessarily with the “modified” descriptor, however. Thomas explains that the kingdom was offered and then rejected in Christ’s ministry, and presents a case against taking the NT use of the OT as a guide for how we should interpret Scripture. He also emphasizes how the OT promises are not cancelled by the NT. In his treatment of the land promise, however, he doesn’t deal with the conditionality in the OT associated with it (for instance Deuteronomy’s exhortations to faithfulness so that they would inherit the land, and even how passages like Ps. 37:9, 11 should be understood). He also doesn’t address Rom. 4:13 and how the “land” is expanded to the “world.” He makes a big deal too about no clear-cut use of the term “Israel” for the Church (although so many other Jewish terms and descriptions are used for the Church).
Of note is Thomas’s interaction with Saucy’s chapter on progressive dispensationalism. He takes issue with Saucy’s allowance for the NT use of the OT to shape his understanding of the OT passages. Thomas notes:
"By allowing NT passages to provide meaning for the OT, one is doing the same as other nondispensational systems… Saucy’s statement, 'proper interpretation begins with the Old Testament,' should be refined to read, 'proper interpretation of the Old Testament begins and ends with the Old Testament before going to the New Testament.'" (p. 218)
He also is not happy with Saucy’s refusal to defend a pre-tribulational rapture.
Progressive Dispensationalism:
Robert Saucy does a good job explaining progressive dispensationalism. Many reared in traditional dispensationalism, like me, have later rejected that system and now find themselves leaning toward covenant theology but without a good understanding of later developments in dispensationalism. This chapter offers a helpful explanation for those unfamiliar with this position.
Saucy painstakingly lays down hermeneutical principles undergirding his position. He ultimately agrees with an “already, not yet” approach to prophecy but emphasizes the “partial” nature of many of the begun-to-be fulfilled prophecies. Salvation is not just provided through Israel and her Messiah, it is “channeled through” Israel:
"From Isaac, the descendants of Abraham are traced by physical descent through Jacob and his sons until the Seed, Jesus Christ, appears and the Gentiles are included in him. It is therefore impossible to ignore this physical dimension and identify Abraham’s seed merely as anyone of faith…. Thus, on the basis of the promise to Abraham, Israel is an ethnic people who constitute a nation among nations that bears a unique relationship to God – a nation created by God in fulfillment of his salvation promise." (p. 166-167)
So even though salvation extends to the Gentiles, they are not “spiritual Jews” or “conceived as part of Israel” (p. 184). Eph. 2 does not speak to Gentiles joining Israel in the covenant people of God. Instead both are part of a new humanity, but each are still distinct (p. 191). He again emphasizes that the Church is never called Israel (yet it is called the “real circumcision”…). So there is a unity in the people of God now as both Israel and the Church are together the “eschatological people of God” (p. 190). Yet, there is still a role for political Israel to play in a future millennium to totally fulfill historic promises. Saucy’s conclusion explains it best:
"Rather than detracting from the spiritual unity of God’s saving program present in the church, the fulfillment of Israel’s role as a particular nation, in which God is yet to display his glory, will expand the present spiritual salvation to bring about that holistic salvation of individual and society promised by the prophets, in which all people are united in their diversity as the one people of God." (p. 208)
Progressive Covenantalism:
Chad Brand and Tom Pratt, in their chapter on progressive covenantalism intriguingly point to the debate over the new perspective on Paul as a way forward in this debate. There is a debate over whether personal salvation was primarily in view in Romans or the wider work of God for the people Israel and indeed all of creation. The answer is yes: both are in view. And that is how they approach the question of Israel vs. the Gentile church. There is a corporate and personal element in this question. Who are the people of God and what are their place in salvation history? “Israel” and the “Church” are terms separating out a “dichotomy” where there really seems to be a unity, a oneness to the people of God throughout the Old and New Testaments (p. 233-237). Supporting points for this include:
1) The oneness of God demands one people.
2) The people of God are his by divine election and spiritual birth.
3) The people of God arise from the supporting root of historic Israel.
4) The marker of the people is the internal presence of the Holy Spirit.
5) The people of God are the body of Christ.
This approach avoids the rigid “replacement theology” that is directly advocated by Reymond. Instead it interprets the true people of God through all ages as representative of true believers today. This presentation actually struck me as less directly baptistic than the new covenant theology position of Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry presented in Kingdom through Covenant (Crossway, 2012). (The authors of this volume mention that Wellum and Gentry’s work was released after their book was all but finished, yet they are in substantial agreement with that position, see p. 12.) Emphasizing the experience of the Spirit in the true people of God has the drawback of downplaying the church ordinance of baptism, which seems odd since new covenant theology typically corrects covenant theology on the very question of baptism.
Brand and Pratt go out of their way to renounce a “replacement theology” position:
"…we conclude that the idea of “replacement” of Israel by “the church” with a resultant “church age” is not only a misnomer but a misreading of the history of salvation as well. Richard Bauckham remarks, in commenting on Rev 7:4, that the picture there presented “indicates not so much the replacement of the national people of God as the abolition of its national limits.” In Goldswothy’s characterization, it is the glorious result of the mission to the Gentiles carried out by the saved remnant of ethnic Israelites. Therefore, the current stage is more adequately denominated the age of transformation or new creation, for “in Messiah” nothing matters but “new creation” (Gal 6:15), which for Paul and others has already begun, though it has not yet been consummated." (p. 257)
Brand and Pratt go on to explore how the NT really does refer to the church as “Israel” (or by terms referring to Israel). In this section I was intrigued by their explanation of how Luke in Acts doesn’t use the term “church” for the new people of God until after Stephen first roots the term’s meaning in the OT assembly of God’s people. They then conclude with an explanation of their post-tribulational, premillennial view. They concede that reading Revelation in a roughly chronological order is not necessary to their conclusion (premillennialism), but they don’t seem to go out of their way to allow for variations of progressive covenantalism that are not premillennial. Perhaps they are at pains to keep their position tenable for institutions that require premillennialism, I cannot say; but I found their advocacy of premillennialism confusing and contradictory. Kingdom through Covenant‘s presentation of progressive covenantalism lacked any premillennial hints, and also majored on the land promise (and Israel’s identity herself) as typological in nature, and that was extremely persuasive. So the progressive covenantalism offered in this book seems a step lower than what Wellum and Gentry offer. The position as a whole is still young, and this book will certainly help those trying to understand that position.
Recommendation:
I highly recommend this book for those seeking to sort out their own position on how the Old and New Testaments should be read in light of each other. Even if you have “landed” on one perspective in this debate, this book will both challenge and sharpen you. With the possible exception of the progressive covenantal view, the book presents a top-notch explanation for each of the major views. The arguments are well-reasoned, and Scriptural discussion abounds. Footnotes point the way to further reading on important questions, and the end result is a useful and accessible manual on the nature of this debate at present. The book will reward careful study and offer help to some who are confused. It was a joy to work my way through it and I trust it will benefit both student and teacher alike.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by B & H Academic. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
December 19, 2018
I picked this up with interest, being already very familiar with the Covenantal position, and already being a convinced progressive-Covenantalist of sorts. I've read a lot of books arguing against dispensationalist positions, yet never actually read them in their own words. Of course, as most contemporary Christians, it is already "in the water" so to speak. But I read this with great interest.
The book begins with an introduction to the questions at hand, and an introduction to the histories of the various positions. The first essay is on Covenant theology by Reymond, and it is a very good summation of the position, though I was a little surprised by his preterism. I found myself in agreement with much of what he wrote, with the glaring exception of the baptism question.
The next essay is on classical dispensationalism, and it was all I could do to finish it without committing violence against myself or the book. Classical dispensationalism is almost unbearable to me. Reading it, is like trying to tell a joke to someone without a sense of humor, who simply cannot understand that you're razzing him. It is funny at first, but they you realize he's serious, and you just about fall off your chair.
Classical dispensationalists simply have no imagination, no ability to read and understand typology or imagery. Robert Thomas, the writer of this essay, measures orthodoxy, seemingly, by one's commitment to the grammatical-historical hermenutic--a position that would seemingly eliminate church fathers such as Augustine, who of course instructed that Scripture should interpret Scripture. But of course, that means using the New Testament to understand and interpret the Old Testament--a position that Thomas explicitly rejects.
The is simply a stunning, and logic-defying position to take, in my view, and Thomas' essay is a real chore to complete. There was one great paragraph in the essay, but all in all, the essay is really just about establishing what is hopefully a theology that will continue to diminish in adherents.
Saucy is the progressive dispensationalist, and he's much more tolerable, though again, too committed to the literalism of God's promises to Israel for the land. But he makes some very necessary improvements on the classical position.
Brand and Pratt take a middle ground path between the Covenantal and Progressive Dispensational view--rejecting infant baptism, but also rejecting the literalism of the dispensationalists. It is much closer to what I believe to be the biblical position. The weakest part of the position is the eschatology, which Reymond deftly critiques--and which I believe to be a helpful corrective.
As many are aware, Wellum and Gentry have written a massive tome, Kingdom Through Covenant, on a position similar to Brand and Pratt, and it is a worthwhile read, though it is very long. It is a very good introduction to the topic, and there is a good interaction by each of the contributors after each essay. I recommend it, especially to those that have not read deeply on the topic, or want to read on a new position they're not familiar with.
The book begins with an introduction to the questions at hand, and an introduction to the histories of the various positions. The first essay is on Covenant theology by Reymond, and it is a very good summation of the position, though I was a little surprised by his preterism. I found myself in agreement with much of what he wrote, with the glaring exception of the baptism question.
The next essay is on classical dispensationalism, and it was all I could do to finish it without committing violence against myself or the book. Classical dispensationalism is almost unbearable to me. Reading it, is like trying to tell a joke to someone without a sense of humor, who simply cannot understand that you're razzing him. It is funny at first, but they you realize he's serious, and you just about fall off your chair.
Classical dispensationalists simply have no imagination, no ability to read and understand typology or imagery. Robert Thomas, the writer of this essay, measures orthodoxy, seemingly, by one's commitment to the grammatical-historical hermenutic--a position that would seemingly eliminate church fathers such as Augustine, who of course instructed that Scripture should interpret Scripture. But of course, that means using the New Testament to understand and interpret the Old Testament--a position that Thomas explicitly rejects.
The is simply a stunning, and logic-defying position to take, in my view, and Thomas' essay is a real chore to complete. There was one great paragraph in the essay, but all in all, the essay is really just about establishing what is hopefully a theology that will continue to diminish in adherents.
Saucy is the progressive dispensationalist, and he's much more tolerable, though again, too committed to the literalism of God's promises to Israel for the land. But he makes some very necessary improvements on the classical position.
Brand and Pratt take a middle ground path between the Covenantal and Progressive Dispensational view--rejecting infant baptism, but also rejecting the literalism of the dispensationalists. It is much closer to what I believe to be the biblical position. The weakest part of the position is the eschatology, which Reymond deftly critiques--and which I believe to be a helpful corrective.
As many are aware, Wellum and Gentry have written a massive tome, Kingdom Through Covenant, on a position similar to Brand and Pratt, and it is a worthwhile read, though it is very long. It is a very good introduction to the topic, and there is a good interaction by each of the contributors after each essay. I recommend it, especially to those that have not read deeply on the topic, or want to read on a new position they're not familiar with.
June 28, 2025
A helpful book providing what the title promises, perspectives from 4 different exegetical conclusions concerning God's salvation economy with reference to Israel and the church. Irenic without at the same time compromising what are in some cases serious hermeneutical differences. A helpful read in that it challenged me to think through my own position, providing stimulating challenges.
November 18, 2015
I don't know. The Reformed Covenant view obviously has a rich history followed by Classic Dispensationalism from Lewis Sperry Chafer's works. The Progressive Dispensational system seems to be winning out among evangelicals and in churches from pastors who graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary, while Progressive Covenantal view seems pretty new and almost made-up and forced on to the Scriptures.
I think each writer did a good job in explaining their view as much as they could; but for my part the least strained exegesis seemed to be the Reformed Covenant view.
It's a good starter if you're wondering about what prominent views are out there; but I wonder if better dialogue, exegesis, explanation, and refutation would have been accomplished had the book just incorporated the two most prominent (and probably easiest to defend) views: Reformed Covenant and Progressive Dispensational.
If you end up reading it; I recommend reading just those two views. The others are too well refuted in scholarly circles (and near to death) or are not well developed enough.
I think each writer did a good job in explaining their view as much as they could; but for my part the least strained exegesis seemed to be the Reformed Covenant view.
It's a good starter if you're wondering about what prominent views are out there; but I wonder if better dialogue, exegesis, explanation, and refutation would have been accomplished had the book just incorporated the two most prominent (and probably easiest to defend) views: Reformed Covenant and Progressive Dispensational.
If you end up reading it; I recommend reading just those two views. The others are too well refuted in scholarly circles (and near to death) or are not well developed enough.
April 24, 2016
Review series forthcoming...
May 2, 2015
This book presents the following four perspectives, (1) the traditional covenantal view by Robert L. Reymond, (2) the traditional dispensational view by Robert L. Saucy, (3) the progressive dispensational view by Robert L. Saucy, and (4) the Progressive Covenantal View (which seems to be loosely parallel to New Covenant Theology) by Chad O. Brand and Tom Pratt, Jr.
Over the years I've greatly appreciated Robert Reymond's writings on Scripture, theology proper, and Christology. I've also known that he was staunchly opposed to dispensational theology. However, I was interested to see his response to progressive dispensationalism. I've found that too often covenant theologians attack either the most stringent forms of dispensationalism or what they think are the logical consequences of dispensationalism (consequences often denied by the dispensationalists themselves). I thought that a four views format would force closer interaction with what dispensationalists actually claim. I was, however, disappointed. Reymond spent an inordinate amount of space arguing that, despite their protestations, dispensationalists really do believe in two (or multiple) ways of salvation. All dispensational scholars today clearly believe that salvation for all people in all eras by grace alone through faith alone. Reymond, however, fastens on a Dallas Seminary doctrinal statement that makes the object of the faith the promises of God in some eras rather than faith in the Messiah. There are three problems with this focus. First, what is reflected in the DTS statement is an awareness of progressive revelation not an inclination toward two ways of salvation. Second, some dispensationalists actually lean more toward Reymond's position on this issue than DTS's. Some acknowledgement of this by Reymond would have been appropriate.
When Reymond actually turns to look at the future of Israel and the land, Reymond uses John Hagee as his representative dispensationalist. Hagee is not even entirely orthodox. He is certainly not a representative dispensational scholar. Sadly, this is too often par for the course for covenant theologians who write critiques of dispensationalism. They find fringe figures who make outrageous statements or take indefensible positions rather than interact with dispensational scholars.
Finally, Reymond does not really interact with the progressive dispensational view. In his own chapter he simply notes that some think that progressive dispensationalists will simply become premillennial covenant theologians. He then notes that they have not made that transition yet and are therefore "a long distance away from historical covenantal theology." He defers all other comments to his response to Robert Saucy's chapter. But in the response, Reymond does not really interact with Saucy's comments. Reymond's argument follows the following lines: Progressive dispensationalists are premillennial. Premillennialism is wrong. Therefore, Progressive Dispensationalism is wrong and no further attention should be paid to it.
Reymond spends most of his time critiquing what he understands to be the gross errors of dispensationalism, but he does give some space to articulating his own view. He holds that the OT land promises to Israel are types. Christians are the real inheritors of the land promises "in their fulfilled paradisiacal character" (34). Indeed, "ethnic Israel per se was never the centerpiece of God's covenant program." That program has always focused on "true spiritual Israel" (36). Indeed, Abraham himself never believed the land promises would be fulfilled literally. Hebrews 11 teaches that Abraham "spiritualize[d]" the promise and applied it to "future heavenly kingdom realities" (43). Though Reymond says "the future messianic kingdom will embrace the whole of the newly recreated cosmos," he insists that it "will not experience a special manifestation that could be regarded in any sense as 'Jewish' in the region of the so-called Holy Land or anywhere else" (60). In addition, Jesus in his parable of the landowner’s son teaches a "a biblical 'replacement theology'" in which the nation of Israel is replaced by an "international church" (47). Israel, apart from the remnant is now "lo-ammi, 'not my people,' only now with a finality about it" (49). What of God's promises to national Israel? Reymond's thesis is that Romans 9 teaches that God made no promises to national Israel. He only made promises to true, spiritual Israel (51).
There are a number of problems with Reymond's argumentation. In the first place, it is not clear that a covenant promise can be a type that has only a spiritualized fulfillment. A promise is very different from the institution of a sacrificial system or a temple. Second, though both Genesis itself, opaquely, and the New Testament, clearly, indicates that the land promise will extend to all the nations, it is not clear why Israel, to whom the promise was explicitly given, should be excluded from this promise in the restored earth. Third, Reymond's interpretations of the parable of the landowner’s son and of Romans 9 are not the necessary interpretations of those texts. Neither text requires an interpretation that God has never really concerned himself with national Israel and has now cast off national Israel altogether. Indeed, Romans 11's promise of a restoration of national Israel tells against such a position.
At the opposite end of the spectrum from Robert L. Reymond is Robert L. Thomas. As with Reymond, I've found Thomas's writings, in particular his commentaries on Revelation and Thessalonians, helpful over the years. However, in this essay Thomas displayed what I believe are some of the key weaknesses of traditional dispensationalist argumentation. For instance, Thomas did a lot of quoting from Milton Terry and Bernard Ramm and asserting that the other views don’t measure up to the hermeneutical standards that Terry and Ramm set. I don’t find this line of approach persuasive. Why are Terry and Ramm the standard? It would seem that Thomas would need to demonstrate why his hermeneutical approach is better than competing approaches rather than simply asserting it. This is especially the case since Thomas ends up with strained interpretations of NT passages such as Acts 15. At one point he claims that the NT authors don’t always interpret literally. They don’t have to because they were inspired. We, however, ought not follow the interpretive practices of the NT authors because we are not inspired. I find this a troubling conclusion and an indication that something is amiss with Thomas's hermeneutic. Scripture itself should provide the hermeneutical standard by which we measure our interpretation—not Bernard Ramm or Milton Terry.
Thomas does make some helpful comments in the course of his essay. For instance, he notes, "Of the promises made to Abraham, the land promise is the most specific, not lending itself to possible variations of interpretation. It fixed specific geographic boundaries and did not lend itself to generalizations, as did the promise of becoming a great nation and the promise of being a worldwide blessing." He also gives some helpful listing of land promises in the Psalms and prophets, but these are given almost without comment. One section of the essay looks at passages in which Jesus and the apostles might be expected to cancel Israel's promises and did not. There is some helpful material here, especially when Thomas is countering arguments that certain passages do cancel promises to Israel. What is missing, however, is a positive argument. A lengthy section comparing three commentators' views on passages in Revelation could have been better spent making a positive argument.
I expected to agree with the Progressive Covenantal/NCT chapter more than I actually did. Given that PC/NCT seems to be a diverse group perhaps greater agreement would have been the case with different authors. Brand and Pratt lay as the foundation for their view that since God is one, he people must be one. Therefore, there cannot be any distinctions within the people of God. This is actually an odd argument for Trinitarians to make. God is not merely one; God is one and many. Shouldn't the conclusion be, therefore, that God's people are one and many. In any case, it is not entirely clear to me that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. They also look to passages that speak of "one body," "one flock," "one faith" and so forth. These passages do affirm that Jew and Gentile are now united in one new man. Progressive Dispensationalists would agree that there is one people of God, the redeemed through all the ages. But the authors seem to want to use this point to deny that God ever could refer to the nation of Israel as his people. Against this, however, is the fact that God covenanted not only with the true remnant of Israel. He covenanted with the nation of Israel. Thus it is appropriate for him to refer to the nation as his people in one sense while also recognizing that some in that nation are not truly his people in another sense. This is not a move back to a two peoples of God view. It is simply a recognition of the way language works in varied contexts.
Brand and Pratt also argue on the basis of John 4 that Jesus relativizes any kind of holy land. He is now the place to which people must come to worship truly. The end of the temple and its worship meant the end of any place/land focus. But this seems to relativize a whole strand of redemptive history. The curse did not merely affect man in his spiritual life. It affected all of creation, including the physical world. This is why land is a fundamental component of the Abrahamic covenant. Israel is at the nucleus of the promise, since it is through Abraham and his seed that blessing comes to the whole world. But, as even the Old Testament indicates, the land promise will be extended to the whole world. This extension, however, does not exclude Israel from enjoying what God has promised.
Brand and Pratt reject the idea that the church replaces Israel. They instead argue that the true people of God within Israel are the root into which Gentiles are added. Thus Israel is not replaced. It is expanded to include Gentiles. However, this seems to misunderstand the teaching of Ephesians about Jew and Gentile being brought together in one new man. In addition it seems to allude to the root and branches metaphor in Romans 11. But in Romans 11, Israel is not the root. Israel is the natural branches.
Brand and Pratt also, following N.T. Wright, interpret “all Israel” in Romans 11 as church. Even Wright concedes that he is in the minority of scholarship on that interpretation. I find Douglas Moo and Thomas Schreiner's interpretation that "all Israel" refers to the salvation of a great number of ethnic Israelites in the future to be the more exegetically tenable position. Interestingly, both Moo and Schreiner have been associated with PC/NCT. This is an indication of the difficulty in sorting out what is core to PC/NCT and what is distinctive to individuals.
Overall, I thought that Robert Thomas developed untenable interpretations of New Testament texts in order to maintain his position on Old Testament Texts. Brand and Pratt, on the other hand, trimmed the Old Testament promises to maintain their interpretation of New Testament texts. Ideally, both Testaments should be given their voice in a way that neither are trimmed but such that both Testaments are shown to fit together. It is this goal that I think Robert Saucy accomplished.
Robert Saucy provided the best essay in the book. He was the one author that seemed to stay on topic throughout. The others seemed to get drawn off on related side-issues that were not entirely germane to the topic at hand. Saucy looks at texts both in their original context and in their canonical context. He lets Old Testament passages say what they say in their original context, and he allows later revelation to extend the meaning of passages. But he does not allow later revelation to contradict or reinterpret previous revelation. A partial fulfillment or an extended fulfillment does not change what a passage means. Saucy also had the most careful discussion of typology. For instance, he notes that types can be understood as shadows that point forward to future realities. Types can also be understood as correspondences between earlier and later historical occurrences. Too often traditional and progressive theologians want to understand all types in relation to the former kind of type. In all Saucy had the most careful discussion of hermeneutics among the authors.
Saucy also provided the one clear positive description of how Israel and the Church relate (in contrast with the other authors who at times seemed more focused on critiquing opposing positions than in presenting a positive vision). Saucy argues that Israel has the role of mediating salvation throughout salvation history. This role is rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, continues with Israel's role as a kingdom of priests in the Mosaic Covenant, and is predicted to continue in the future by the prophets. The redemption that Israel mediates includes both internal salvation for individuals and a restoration of creation and social structures. In all of this Israel is predicted to mediate salvation to the Gentiles without the Gentiles being absorbed into Israel. The nations remain the nations. Christ is the focal point of the promises. But this does not mean that the promises fail to have application to his people. To the contrary, through Christ his people find the promises are fulfilled for them.
As the promises are fulfilled in the present era, it is important to see that it was Israelites who first brought the gospel to the Gentiles. Next it is important to see that the church is God's people, both Jew and Gentile. But the church is not the new Israel that takes over the promises given to national Israel. Finally, though Old Testament promises are presently being fulfilled, not all Old Testament promises are presently being fulfilled. There are still future promises for national Israel that remain unfulfilled. God will bring these promises to pass. In arguing these points Saucy provides solid exegetical and theological arguments. His reviews of other positions were both gracious and insightful critiques.
Over the years I've greatly appreciated Robert Reymond's writings on Scripture, theology proper, and Christology. I've also known that he was staunchly opposed to dispensational theology. However, I was interested to see his response to progressive dispensationalism. I've found that too often covenant theologians attack either the most stringent forms of dispensationalism or what they think are the logical consequences of dispensationalism (consequences often denied by the dispensationalists themselves). I thought that a four views format would force closer interaction with what dispensationalists actually claim. I was, however, disappointed. Reymond spent an inordinate amount of space arguing that, despite their protestations, dispensationalists really do believe in two (or multiple) ways of salvation. All dispensational scholars today clearly believe that salvation for all people in all eras by grace alone through faith alone. Reymond, however, fastens on a Dallas Seminary doctrinal statement that makes the object of the faith the promises of God in some eras rather than faith in the Messiah. There are three problems with this focus. First, what is reflected in the DTS statement is an awareness of progressive revelation not an inclination toward two ways of salvation. Second, some dispensationalists actually lean more toward Reymond's position on this issue than DTS's. Some acknowledgement of this by Reymond would have been appropriate.
When Reymond actually turns to look at the future of Israel and the land, Reymond uses John Hagee as his representative dispensationalist. Hagee is not even entirely orthodox. He is certainly not a representative dispensational scholar. Sadly, this is too often par for the course for covenant theologians who write critiques of dispensationalism. They find fringe figures who make outrageous statements or take indefensible positions rather than interact with dispensational scholars.
Finally, Reymond does not really interact with the progressive dispensational view. In his own chapter he simply notes that some think that progressive dispensationalists will simply become premillennial covenant theologians. He then notes that they have not made that transition yet and are therefore "a long distance away from historical covenantal theology." He defers all other comments to his response to Robert Saucy's chapter. But in the response, Reymond does not really interact with Saucy's comments. Reymond's argument follows the following lines: Progressive dispensationalists are premillennial. Premillennialism is wrong. Therefore, Progressive Dispensationalism is wrong and no further attention should be paid to it.
Reymond spends most of his time critiquing what he understands to be the gross errors of dispensationalism, but he does give some space to articulating his own view. He holds that the OT land promises to Israel are types. Christians are the real inheritors of the land promises "in their fulfilled paradisiacal character" (34). Indeed, "ethnic Israel per se was never the centerpiece of God's covenant program." That program has always focused on "true spiritual Israel" (36). Indeed, Abraham himself never believed the land promises would be fulfilled literally. Hebrews 11 teaches that Abraham "spiritualize[d]" the promise and applied it to "future heavenly kingdom realities" (43). Though Reymond says "the future messianic kingdom will embrace the whole of the newly recreated cosmos," he insists that it "will not experience a special manifestation that could be regarded in any sense as 'Jewish' in the region of the so-called Holy Land or anywhere else" (60). In addition, Jesus in his parable of the landowner’s son teaches a "a biblical 'replacement theology'" in which the nation of Israel is replaced by an "international church" (47). Israel, apart from the remnant is now "lo-ammi, 'not my people,' only now with a finality about it" (49). What of God's promises to national Israel? Reymond's thesis is that Romans 9 teaches that God made no promises to national Israel. He only made promises to true, spiritual Israel (51).
There are a number of problems with Reymond's argumentation. In the first place, it is not clear that a covenant promise can be a type that has only a spiritualized fulfillment. A promise is very different from the institution of a sacrificial system or a temple. Second, though both Genesis itself, opaquely, and the New Testament, clearly, indicates that the land promise will extend to all the nations, it is not clear why Israel, to whom the promise was explicitly given, should be excluded from this promise in the restored earth. Third, Reymond's interpretations of the parable of the landowner’s son and of Romans 9 are not the necessary interpretations of those texts. Neither text requires an interpretation that God has never really concerned himself with national Israel and has now cast off national Israel altogether. Indeed, Romans 11's promise of a restoration of national Israel tells against such a position.
At the opposite end of the spectrum from Robert L. Reymond is Robert L. Thomas. As with Reymond, I've found Thomas's writings, in particular his commentaries on Revelation and Thessalonians, helpful over the years. However, in this essay Thomas displayed what I believe are some of the key weaknesses of traditional dispensationalist argumentation. For instance, Thomas did a lot of quoting from Milton Terry and Bernard Ramm and asserting that the other views don’t measure up to the hermeneutical standards that Terry and Ramm set. I don’t find this line of approach persuasive. Why are Terry and Ramm the standard? It would seem that Thomas would need to demonstrate why his hermeneutical approach is better than competing approaches rather than simply asserting it. This is especially the case since Thomas ends up with strained interpretations of NT passages such as Acts 15. At one point he claims that the NT authors don’t always interpret literally. They don’t have to because they were inspired. We, however, ought not follow the interpretive practices of the NT authors because we are not inspired. I find this a troubling conclusion and an indication that something is amiss with Thomas's hermeneutic. Scripture itself should provide the hermeneutical standard by which we measure our interpretation—not Bernard Ramm or Milton Terry.
Thomas does make some helpful comments in the course of his essay. For instance, he notes, "Of the promises made to Abraham, the land promise is the most specific, not lending itself to possible variations of interpretation. It fixed specific geographic boundaries and did not lend itself to generalizations, as did the promise of becoming a great nation and the promise of being a worldwide blessing." He also gives some helpful listing of land promises in the Psalms and prophets, but these are given almost without comment. One section of the essay looks at passages in which Jesus and the apostles might be expected to cancel Israel's promises and did not. There is some helpful material here, especially when Thomas is countering arguments that certain passages do cancel promises to Israel. What is missing, however, is a positive argument. A lengthy section comparing three commentators' views on passages in Revelation could have been better spent making a positive argument.
I expected to agree with the Progressive Covenantal/NCT chapter more than I actually did. Given that PC/NCT seems to be a diverse group perhaps greater agreement would have been the case with different authors. Brand and Pratt lay as the foundation for their view that since God is one, he people must be one. Therefore, there cannot be any distinctions within the people of God. This is actually an odd argument for Trinitarians to make. God is not merely one; God is one and many. Shouldn't the conclusion be, therefore, that God's people are one and many. In any case, it is not entirely clear to me that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise. They also look to passages that speak of "one body," "one flock," "one faith" and so forth. These passages do affirm that Jew and Gentile are now united in one new man. Progressive Dispensationalists would agree that there is one people of God, the redeemed through all the ages. But the authors seem to want to use this point to deny that God ever could refer to the nation of Israel as his people. Against this, however, is the fact that God covenanted not only with the true remnant of Israel. He covenanted with the nation of Israel. Thus it is appropriate for him to refer to the nation as his people in one sense while also recognizing that some in that nation are not truly his people in another sense. This is not a move back to a two peoples of God view. It is simply a recognition of the way language works in varied contexts.
Brand and Pratt also argue on the basis of John 4 that Jesus relativizes any kind of holy land. He is now the place to which people must come to worship truly. The end of the temple and its worship meant the end of any place/land focus. But this seems to relativize a whole strand of redemptive history. The curse did not merely affect man in his spiritual life. It affected all of creation, including the physical world. This is why land is a fundamental component of the Abrahamic covenant. Israel is at the nucleus of the promise, since it is through Abraham and his seed that blessing comes to the whole world. But, as even the Old Testament indicates, the land promise will be extended to the whole world. This extension, however, does not exclude Israel from enjoying what God has promised.
Brand and Pratt reject the idea that the church replaces Israel. They instead argue that the true people of God within Israel are the root into which Gentiles are added. Thus Israel is not replaced. It is expanded to include Gentiles. However, this seems to misunderstand the teaching of Ephesians about Jew and Gentile being brought together in one new man. In addition it seems to allude to the root and branches metaphor in Romans 11. But in Romans 11, Israel is not the root. Israel is the natural branches.
Brand and Pratt also, following N.T. Wright, interpret “all Israel” in Romans 11 as church. Even Wright concedes that he is in the minority of scholarship on that interpretation. I find Douglas Moo and Thomas Schreiner's interpretation that "all Israel" refers to the salvation of a great number of ethnic Israelites in the future to be the more exegetically tenable position. Interestingly, both Moo and Schreiner have been associated with PC/NCT. This is an indication of the difficulty in sorting out what is core to PC/NCT and what is distinctive to individuals.
Overall, I thought that Robert Thomas developed untenable interpretations of New Testament texts in order to maintain his position on Old Testament Texts. Brand and Pratt, on the other hand, trimmed the Old Testament promises to maintain their interpretation of New Testament texts. Ideally, both Testaments should be given their voice in a way that neither are trimmed but such that both Testaments are shown to fit together. It is this goal that I think Robert Saucy accomplished.
Robert Saucy provided the best essay in the book. He was the one author that seemed to stay on topic throughout. The others seemed to get drawn off on related side-issues that were not entirely germane to the topic at hand. Saucy looks at texts both in their original context and in their canonical context. He lets Old Testament passages say what they say in their original context, and he allows later revelation to extend the meaning of passages. But he does not allow later revelation to contradict or reinterpret previous revelation. A partial fulfillment or an extended fulfillment does not change what a passage means. Saucy also had the most careful discussion of typology. For instance, he notes that types can be understood as shadows that point forward to future realities. Types can also be understood as correspondences between earlier and later historical occurrences. Too often traditional and progressive theologians want to understand all types in relation to the former kind of type. In all Saucy had the most careful discussion of hermeneutics among the authors.
Saucy also provided the one clear positive description of how Israel and the Church relate (in contrast with the other authors who at times seemed more focused on critiquing opposing positions than in presenting a positive vision). Saucy argues that Israel has the role of mediating salvation throughout salvation history. This role is rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, continues with Israel's role as a kingdom of priests in the Mosaic Covenant, and is predicted to continue in the future by the prophets. The redemption that Israel mediates includes both internal salvation for individuals and a restoration of creation and social structures. In all of this Israel is predicted to mediate salvation to the Gentiles without the Gentiles being absorbed into Israel. The nations remain the nations. Christ is the focal point of the promises. But this does not mean that the promises fail to have application to his people. To the contrary, through Christ his people find the promises are fulfilled for them.
As the promises are fulfilled in the present era, it is important to see that it was Israelites who first brought the gospel to the Gentiles. Next it is important to see that the church is God's people, both Jew and Gentile. But the church is not the new Israel that takes over the promises given to national Israel. Finally, though Old Testament promises are presently being fulfilled, not all Old Testament promises are presently being fulfilled. There are still future promises for national Israel that remain unfulfilled. God will bring these promises to pass. In arguing these points Saucy provides solid exegetical and theological arguments. His reviews of other positions were both gracious and insightful critiques.
April 27, 2020
3 stars for me means it was helpful.
I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with 3 or 4 view books. Why? First, it seems like they are always missing one more level of cross-examination to really clear up or define unresolved counterpoints (I get that length of the book requires this limitation). Second, they tend to be a mile wide and an inch deep in terms of sustained coherent argumentation. Third, the quality of the book is often very hit or miss depending on the authors. This leads to (4) One position could seem very weak or strong simply because of the quality of the presentation. I don't think I have ever read one of these where all the authors represented their positions well. Given time, I would rather read four book-length defenses of each position. But who can do that on every issue? So I must admit that these books have their value. However, I am not sure if I have ever given one of these books more than a three for these reasons.
This book is broken down in the following ways: (1) the traditional covenantal view by Robert L. Reymond, (2) the traditional dispensational view by Robert Thomas, (3) the progressive dispensational view by Robert L. Saucy, and (4) the Progressive Covenantal View by Chad O. Brand and Tom Pratt, Jr.
I tend to line up more with the 3rd view so I may be biased here, but here is my synopsis of the presentations.
1. With TC, Reymond came out with "guns a blazing" and a "take no prisoners" approach. Here are a few notes. He was very clear that a truly covenantal view requires infant baptism. His whole approach to arguing against dispensationalism seemed to be guided by a strawman argument. First, he basically identified dispensationalism's view of present-day Israel with John Hagee. If you are going to argue against a position it would be best to do so by interacting with the position that is broadly representative. John Hagee is certainly not that person. Second, he does not understand dispensationalism, and he broad brushes all positions within dispensationalism as teaching more than one way of salvation. Have there been those within dispensationalism that are less than coherent, confusing, or flat out wrong on this question in the past? Yes. Is that the position of dispensationalism? No. Reymond should know better.
2. TD view by Thomas was also very polemical. Very similar to Reymond's approach of "take no prisoners." He does not view PD as a friend of dispensationalism. I found some of his argumentation helpful about distinguishing Israel from the church. Other argumentation seemed forced He interprets Matt. 21:43 as implying "the prospect of a future time when Israel would repent and receive a kingdom" (105). Matthew 21:43 says: Therefore, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people [he makes a big point that this is literally, 'a nation'], producing the fruit of it.
3. PD view by Saucy seemed to be the best presentation. I largely agree with his view so I may be influenced in that direction. However, I have read other views books and not been excited about the author who argued for my position. In this case, I believe Saucy presented PD in a very helpful and clear way.
4. The PC view by Brand and Pratt seemed incoherent to me and unfocused. I found it difficult to even understand where they stood on many things other than the fact that they also had a misunderstanding about what dispensationalism teaches regarding salvation.
Who is this book helpful for? I think he more you have wrestled with these issues in the Scripture yourself, the more helpful it will be. I can imagine that if I read this book 20 years ago it would not have been helpful to me at all. Rather, it would have merely confused me. I can also imagine if I read it 20 years from now after 20 more years of interaction with the many texts in play it would be even more helpful.
This is such a macro bible interpretation question that the more interaction you have had with Scripture on this issue through personal study the more fruitful this kind of book will be for you. These books assume a certain level of interaction with Scripture about these issues before the person reads this book with great profit. I suppose if each person reading stopped and looked at each text and personally worked through it that the profit of a book like this would go through the roof. But how many readers do that? I don't and I am guessing most don't. So in the end, the profit of this book and others like it have everything to do with your personal interaction with Scripture on the topic coming into this book.
For a more detailed review check out the one by Brian Collins: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with 3 or 4 view books. Why? First, it seems like they are always missing one more level of cross-examination to really clear up or define unresolved counterpoints (I get that length of the book requires this limitation). Second, they tend to be a mile wide and an inch deep in terms of sustained coherent argumentation. Third, the quality of the book is often very hit or miss depending on the authors. This leads to (4) One position could seem very weak or strong simply because of the quality of the presentation. I don't think I have ever read one of these where all the authors represented their positions well. Given time, I would rather read four book-length defenses of each position. But who can do that on every issue? So I must admit that these books have their value. However, I am not sure if I have ever given one of these books more than a three for these reasons.
This book is broken down in the following ways: (1) the traditional covenantal view by Robert L. Reymond, (2) the traditional dispensational view by Robert Thomas, (3) the progressive dispensational view by Robert L. Saucy, and (4) the Progressive Covenantal View by Chad O. Brand and Tom Pratt, Jr.
I tend to line up more with the 3rd view so I may be biased here, but here is my synopsis of the presentations.
1. With TC, Reymond came out with "guns a blazing" and a "take no prisoners" approach. Here are a few notes. He was very clear that a truly covenantal view requires infant baptism. His whole approach to arguing against dispensationalism seemed to be guided by a strawman argument. First, he basically identified dispensationalism's view of present-day Israel with John Hagee. If you are going to argue against a position it would be best to do so by interacting with the position that is broadly representative. John Hagee is certainly not that person. Second, he does not understand dispensationalism, and he broad brushes all positions within dispensationalism as teaching more than one way of salvation. Have there been those within dispensationalism that are less than coherent, confusing, or flat out wrong on this question in the past? Yes. Is that the position of dispensationalism? No. Reymond should know better.
2. TD view by Thomas was also very polemical. Very similar to Reymond's approach of "take no prisoners." He does not view PD as a friend of dispensationalism. I found some of his argumentation helpful about distinguishing Israel from the church. Other argumentation seemed forced He interprets Matt. 21:43 as implying "the prospect of a future time when Israel would repent and receive a kingdom" (105). Matthew 21:43 says: Therefore, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people [he makes a big point that this is literally, 'a nation'], producing the fruit of it.
3. PD view by Saucy seemed to be the best presentation. I largely agree with his view so I may be influenced in that direction. However, I have read other views books and not been excited about the author who argued for my position. In this case, I believe Saucy presented PD in a very helpful and clear way.
4. The PC view by Brand and Pratt seemed incoherent to me and unfocused. I found it difficult to even understand where they stood on many things other than the fact that they also had a misunderstanding about what dispensationalism teaches regarding salvation.
Who is this book helpful for? I think he more you have wrestled with these issues in the Scripture yourself, the more helpful it will be. I can imagine that if I read this book 20 years ago it would not have been helpful to me at all. Rather, it would have merely confused me. I can also imagine if I read it 20 years from now after 20 more years of interaction with the many texts in play it would be even more helpful.
This is such a macro bible interpretation question that the more interaction you have had with Scripture on this issue through personal study the more fruitful this kind of book will be for you. These books assume a certain level of interaction with Scripture about these issues before the person reads this book with great profit. I suppose if each person reading stopped and looked at each text and personally worked through it that the profit of a book like this would go through the roof. But how many readers do that? I don't and I am guessing most don't. So in the end, the profit of this book and others like it have everything to do with your personal interaction with Scripture on the topic coming into this book.
For a more detailed review check out the one by Brian Collins: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
January 29, 2021
2021 reads: #03
Rating 4.5 Stars
These multiview books have a tendency to confirm prior convictions. In acknowledging the reality of this confirmation, these books, if done well, still give exposure beyond the echo chamber.
Chad Brand brought together some top-notch scholars to defend the four basic positions on the relationship between Israel and the church. In my own estimation I think that Progressive Covenantalism can be better defended and demonstrated, perhaps recourse to someone like Stephen Wellum may prove more fruitful for a fuller explanation of this view.
As someone who aligns mostly with Progressive Dispensationlism (with some covenantal leanings), I found the essays clear in demonstrating the hermeneutical and theological differences between the various positions, and still found some helpful insights even amongst the opposing views.
For fair and balanced engagement, coupled with firm conviction, these essays and their responses serve as a great example of Evangelical dialogue.
Rating 4.5 Stars
These multiview books have a tendency to confirm prior convictions. In acknowledging the reality of this confirmation, these books, if done well, still give exposure beyond the echo chamber.
Chad Brand brought together some top-notch scholars to defend the four basic positions on the relationship between Israel and the church. In my own estimation I think that Progressive Covenantalism can be better defended and demonstrated, perhaps recourse to someone like Stephen Wellum may prove more fruitful for a fuller explanation of this view.
As someone who aligns mostly with Progressive Dispensationlism (with some covenantal leanings), I found the essays clear in demonstrating the hermeneutical and theological differences between the various positions, and still found some helpful insights even amongst the opposing views.
For fair and balanced engagement, coupled with firm conviction, these essays and their responses serve as a great example of Evangelical dialogue.
November 30, 2015
What is the relationship between Israel and the Church? Five authors present four views, three of whom are named Robert L.
The issue is not a peripheral one; the relationship affects one's interpretation of many passages. How exactly do OT promises to Israel relate to Christians today? Is the modern state of Israel fulfillment or fluke? Do Israel and the Church have separate destinies in the future? Are the promises to Israel fulfilled in a literal national Israel, in Christ, or in the Church, or ________?
Said relationship has occupied/troubled me for the past few years, and this volume was helpful in sorting out some of the issues and thinking trough some of the Scriptures. It lent credence to the perspective I've been leaning toward, and it also voiced criticism not easily overlooked. A very helpful volume.
The issue is not a peripheral one; the relationship affects one's interpretation of many passages. How exactly do OT promises to Israel relate to Christians today? Is the modern state of Israel fulfillment or fluke? Do Israel and the Church have separate destinies in the future? Are the promises to Israel fulfilled in a literal national Israel, in Christ, or in the Church, or ________?
Said relationship has occupied/troubled me for the past few years, and this volume was helpful in sorting out some of the issues and thinking trough some of the Scriptures. It lent credence to the perspective I've been leaning toward, and it also voiced criticism not easily overlooked. A very helpful volume.
December 16, 2021
A good start
As someone who isn’t well versed on different eschatological and hermeneutical views, this book covered a lot of ground quickly, hitting the main talking points for each view on Israel and the Church. I also appreciated the short responses after each position’s essay, which was probably the most valuable part of the book in clarifying the views.
In the end, the positions seemed to be talking past each other, especially when it came to hermeneutics and other eschatological beliefs that undergird their views of Israel. Since the book was not about eschatology or hermeneutics, many of these arguments and foundational clarifications went unanswered. For that reason, I would not recommend this book unless you have a breadth and depth of knowledge on both hermeneutic and eschatology diversity among evangelicalism.
As someone who isn’t well versed on different eschatological and hermeneutical views, this book covered a lot of ground quickly, hitting the main talking points for each view on Israel and the Church. I also appreciated the short responses after each position’s essay, which was probably the most valuable part of the book in clarifying the views.
In the end, the positions seemed to be talking past each other, especially when it came to hermeneutics and other eschatological beliefs that undergird their views of Israel. Since the book was not about eschatology or hermeneutics, many of these arguments and foundational clarifications went unanswered. For that reason, I would not recommend this book unless you have a breadth and depth of knowledge on both hermeneutic and eschatology diversity among evangelicalism.
June 18, 2020
Not a full review because it has been a little while since I read it.
It could have been my theologically spent state of mind but I found this book to be unnecessarily obtuse. Clearly, covering a subject such as this the minutia matters, but each point majored on the minutia in a way that was difficult to follow and nearly impossible to enjoy.
However, to be very honest, my real issue is that I was reading this as an E-book since hard copies were selling used for $40+ at the time that my group was reading this. That exacerbated the issues, and perhaps on a second pass with a physical book I would get much more out of it.
It could have been my theologically spent state of mind but I found this book to be unnecessarily obtuse. Clearly, covering a subject such as this the minutia matters, but each point majored on the minutia in a way that was difficult to follow and nearly impossible to enjoy.
However, to be very honest, my real issue is that I was reading this as an E-book since hard copies were selling used for $40+ at the time that my group was reading this. That exacerbated the issues, and perhaps on a second pass with a physical book I would get much more out of it.
July 16, 2022
Ironically, or perhaps fittingly, the proponents of traditional dispensationalism and covenantalism (Thomas & Redmond) sound just like each other, especially in their denigration of the other positions. The two middle positions, progressive covenantalism and progressive dispensationalism, both have the irenic disposition typical of mediating views. That said, Brand & Pratt (progressive covenantalism) present a hodgepodge of spiritualised and literalised interpretations resulting in "the church is the new Israel but doesn't replace Israel" kind of muddle. Saucy carries the day with consistency, sound theological logic, and the least outstanding problems.
October 6, 2020
The boundaries between the 4 views are not as established as the book portrays. I hold to a Progressive Covenant view and yet when it comes to the view of eschatology, I side more with Reymond or the Traditional Covenant view. So, as you read this book, you may find yourself agreeing with one view on the majority of things but disagreeing at certain points. But this points out the development that continues in this area of study. We find ourselves continually learning and growing. The book will help frame discussions with each other as this topic continues to be debated.
July 4, 2017
Read most of book.
July 20, 2018
Progressive covenantalism = :)
March 1, 2019
Good overview of the issues from different perspectives.
January 14, 2023
Good scholarly arguments from authors representing the different positions on this topic. I found it helpful.
February 25, 2017
Like most books in this series, this is a good way of encountering different perspectives on disputed truths, and being challenged about one's one assumptions. The contributors to this book do a good job of that, and seem to be on a similar page in terms of understanding the issues needing discussion. On the other hand, again like most books in this series, the interaction between authors is often disappointing, and would definitely benefit from a) having more space; and b) giving the original essay author an opportunity to reply. There is also always the issue of feeling frustrated at points, because the editing process sometimes seems to leave the authors talking past each other.
June 10, 2015
Here is another fine volume in B & H Academic’s Perspectives series. This volume tackles viewpoints on Israel and the Church, which means a debate between dispensational and covenantal thought. This volume, edited by Chad Brand, discusses the four most prominent views though there is even more variety out there. You will read on the traditional covenantal view (Robert Reymond), the traditional dispensational view (Robert L. Thomas), the progressive dispensational view (Robert Saucy), and the progressive covenantal view (Tom Pratt Jr.). The editor Chad Brand assists on the progressive covenantal view as well.
All the authors are scholars and some have been well known in this subject for years. Each was fairly dogmatic, as you would expect in such a series. Only Mr. Reymond seemed to go too far in harshness. While I must disclose that I do not agree with his position, I even wonder if those who hold that position would think he had a good approach. He also used extreme examples like quoting John Hagee as if he were the best representative for dispensational thinking.
All of the other three wrote more respectively and gave much food for thought. It seems issues on election, the Millennium, and other topics intersected strongly with this subject, but the authors did a good job only referencing the points that made sense to the Israel/ Church issue.
This volume did not change my mind, but it did suggest points that I needed to think through. What more could you ask for in a series like this? I recommend it.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
All the authors are scholars and some have been well known in this subject for years. Each was fairly dogmatic, as you would expect in such a series. Only Mr. Reymond seemed to go too far in harshness. While I must disclose that I do not agree with his position, I even wonder if those who hold that position would think he had a good approach. He also used extreme examples like quoting John Hagee as if he were the best representative for dispensational thinking.
All of the other three wrote more respectively and gave much food for thought. It seems issues on election, the Millennium, and other topics intersected strongly with this subject, but the authors did a good job only referencing the points that made sense to the Israel/ Church issue.
This volume did not change my mind, but it did suggest points that I needed to think through. What more could you ask for in a series like this? I recommend it.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
November 4, 2015
Good for showcasing the current perspectives on this doctrinal issue, but it is also bad in the sense because it demonstrates that many of the contributors have not developed their positions much. I am writing an academic book review of this book.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews