Three Views on Israel and The Church

[Josheb]

I've been reading the book, "Three Views on Israel and The Church," subtitled "Perspectives on Romans 9-11."The three points of view asserted and critiqued are,

• A non-typological future mass conversion of ethnic Israel with a future role in the Church
• A typological future mass conversion without a future role in the Church specific to ethnic Israel
• A typological future mass conversion not specific to ethnic Israel and without a role for ethnic Israel in the Church

Each point of view is asserted at some length and then the remaining contributors critique that point of view. Strengths and errors in each individual's exegesis are examined, so I encourage any reader to read the book of Romans before reading the "Three Views..." book and re-read chapters 9-11 each time a new chapter is read. Doing so will "refresh" the reader's view of Paul's exposition and aid in their own critique of the three positions and the means by which they were presented. I found each of the arguments flawed in some way or another but one was clearly more exegetically lacking than the others (sorry, no spoilers ). I found all three perspectives silent (or nearly so) on three points: 1) the scriptural history defining Israel, 2) Paul's definition of Israel, and 3) Paul's mention of "at the present time" (Rom. 11:5), which is something I find commonly occurring in commentaries on Romans. I also found that each author appealed more to a plethora of commentaries on Romans as a means for justifying various points of view. I'm not sure whether I should be impressed by the prowess shown reading so many doctrinal source materials, or disappointed in that the effort wasn't couched more in scriptural exegesis. Aside from that each representative author argued the case for their orientation well, even if it was eisegetic. It's likely that a reader will find him/herself subject to confirmation bias, but the book does a good job providing reasons not to do so. The many extra-biblical references also provide a pile of options for further reading on Romans and a variety of other topics.

 

[Mr GLee]

I've been reading the book, "Three Views on Israel and The Church," subtitled "Perspectives on Romans 9-11."The three points of view asserted and critiqued are,

• A non-typological future mass conversion of ethnic Israel with a future role in the Church
• A typological future mass conversion without a future role in the Church specific to ethnic Israel
• A typological future mass conversion not specific to ethnic Israel and without a role for ethnic Israel in the Church

Each point of view is asserted at some length and then the remaining contributors critique that point of view. Strengths and errors in each individual's exegesis are examined, so I encourage any reader to read the book of Romans before reading the "Three Views..." book and re-read chapters 9-11 each time a new chapter is read. Doing so will "refresh" the reader's view of Paul's exposition and aid in their own critique of the three positions and the means by which they were presented. I found each of the arguments flawed in some way or another but one was clearly more exegetically lacking than the others (sorry, no spoilers ). I found all three perspectives silent (or nearly so) on three points: 1) the scriptural history defining Israel, 2) Paul's definition of Israel, and 3) Paul's mention of "at the present time" (Rom. 11:5), which is something I find commonly occurring in commentaries on Romans. I also found that each author appealed more to a plethora of commentaries on Romans as a means for justifying various points of view. I'm not sure whether I should be impressed by the prowess shown reading so many doctrinal source materials, or disappointed in that the effort wasn't couched more in scriptural exegesis. Aside from that each representative author argued the case for their orientation well, even if it was eisegetic. It's likely that a reader will find him/herself subject to confirmation bias, but the book does a good job providing reasons not to do so. The many extra-biblical references also provide a pile of options for further reading on Romans and a variety of other topics.

Door #3

 

[Josheb]

Door #3

Thanks, but it's not a poll . Give the book a read. One of those guys may change your mind (or confirm it ). It's worth noting that one of the contributors referenced another comparative work, "Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament," another book I commend.