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, pbk.
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 It is where “God’s purpose and program for Israel has been abrogated and thereby superseded.”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.
