Israel: At the Center of History and Revelation

By Charles Feinberg, Multnomah Press, 1980, 240 pp.

The modern re-emergence of the state of Israel has fueled the debate in theological circles concerning the place of ethnic Israel in God's prophetic program. This newly updated version of an earlier work (1964) from the pen of Dr. Charles Feinberg, the Dean Emeritus of Talbot Theological Seminary, presents the dispensational position. Written in a popular and at times almost homiletical style, the book defends the thesis that ethnic Israel, being God's timepiece for human history, is at the center of the divine plan to bring universal blessing to the whole human race. This standing prominence of the nation Israel is "demonstrated" by an appeal to both Scripture and history. Specifically, the book sketches the place of Israel in the law, the prophets, the gospels, the epistles, and the Scriptures in general. This biblical survey is then interspersed with several, brief excurses into the history of the Jews since the completion of the canon of Scripture, which rounds out the author's consideration of Israel in revelation and history.

The major shortcoming of the book is its lack of a careful, exegetical defense of Israel's centrality. The dispensational position is simply pontificated. With the absence of this careful apologetic, the book cannot be regarded as a serious contribution to the ongoing discussion of the future of ethnic Israel. In particular, the non-dispensational reader will object to the leading proposition of the book which is assumed throughout, i.e., that history and revelation are Israel-centered.

An important question emerges: Does the plan of God center in the nation of Israel, or in His Son, Jesus Christ? Does the message of the Bible center in the age­long vicissitudes, but ultimate restoration and triumph of the nation Israel in a millennial reign, consisting of a rebuilt Temple, a restored priesthood, and reinaugurated sacrifices and ceremonial rituals? Or does it center on Christ and the blessings which He procured for His people by His life, death, resurrection, and outpouring of the Spirit? Dispensationalism, of course, would argue that the two cannot be so nearly separated. But the consequence of mingling the two is objectionable in light of both the N.T. in general and the Book of Hebrews in particular, which argues that the readers should remain faithful to Christ and not turn back to Judaism. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, leads to the conclusion that human history will climax with a restored and Christianized form of Judaism (or Mosaism), and will stand for a thousand years as the pinnacle of God's redemptive program in history. Thus, contrary to the message of Hebrews, Judaism and Christianity will stand wedded together, and revealed religion will have reached its consummate form in this union.

Perhaps the most important criticism of the book is that it gives testimony throughout to the pitfalls of the dispensational hermeneutic of consistent literal interpretation (Ryrie says that "the consistent literalist is a dispensationist." Dispensationalism Today, p. 96). This attempt to be consistently literal results in a rigid dichotomy between Israel and the Church, with the promises, blessings, and destiny of Israel being all earthly, while those of the church are all heavenly. W.E. Bell in an unpublished doctoral dissertation, A Critical Evaluation of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology (1967), has demonstrated some of the weaknesses in this dispensational hermeneutic. Using the biblical development of the "seed of Abraham," he reasons:

The final test for the meaning of an O.T. passage is not necessarily its literal meaning, but the meaning given to it by the inspired N.T. writers, whether that meaning be literal or typical... the Biblical teaching of the significance of the "seed of Abraham" concept, briefly, is as follows: God promised certain blessings to Abraham "and his seed," this phrase undoubtedly being understood by Abraham at the time to mean all of his physical descendants. God progressively revealed to Abraham, however, that He did not mean all of Abraham's physical descendants, but only those of Isaac — not of Ishmael. Despite the undoubted understanding of Abraham and Isaac to the contrary, God further revealed in time that not all of Isaac's descendants were included in the promises either. Jacob was to be included — but not Esau. Further O.T. revelation began to make it clear that not even all of Jacob's descendants (the Israelites) were included in the promises, but only believing Israelites (the remnant), and this fact was made abundantly clear by the apostle Paul centuries later when he enunciated the concept that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." The capstone of the entire doctrine is found in Paul's Galatian teaching that Christ Himself is preeminently the seed of Abraham, and thus the initial Abrahamic concept of a vast physical progeny has been narrowed down repeatedly until one figure alone remains of his physical descendants — Christ Himself. Just when it seems, however, that the Abrahaic promises have been narrowed down to the exclusion of all but Christ Himself, it is revealed that the promises obtain for all those who belong to Christ, and with this revelation, the doors are flung open once again to include not only believing Israelites, but believing Ishmaelites, believing Edomites (descentants of Esau), and believing Jews and Gentiles of every age.

It is obvious, then, that God's doctrine of the "seed of Abraham" took some 2,000 years for its complete revelation, and it should be obvious as well that any premature conclusion as to the meaning of the term at any point in O.T. times would be incomplete and ultimately misleading.

Thus the dispensationalist practice of deciding the meaning of a concept at its first embryonic appearance in the O.T., together with the refusal to expand, restrict or otherwise modify the concept in the light of additional and fuller subsequent revelation, must be rejected as an unacceptable hermeneutical method, because it must frequently distort N.T. revelation in order not to disturb a premature "literal" O.T. interpretation, and thus it simply does not account satisfactorily for the totality of the Biblical data (This dissertation is available from Dallas Baptist College for $5.00).

In connection with this hermeneutical critique, I am eagerly awaiting the appearance of the Feinberg Festschrift (scheduled to be published this fall by Moody Press), and Dr. Bruce Waltke's contribution to it entitled, "A Canonical Process Approach to the Royal Psalms." Referring to this chapter in the June, 1980, Crux, Dr. Waltke argues that "the exegete must make a conscious attempt to trace the progressive development of how the text's literary parameters expanded its meaning and became more full and precise." Because of the hesitancy of dispensationalism to do this, it is ironic that the system which claims to have the highest regard for the principle of progressive revelation effectively disallows it in its hermeneutic.

Finally, I am of the opinion that the book jacket is being far too generous when it says that the Scripture and subject indexes will enhance the usefulness of Feinberg's effort as a reference tool. The book is an insufficient treatment of an important subject, and consequently is of limited value.

—    Pastor Steve Carpenter Houston, Texas

 

Previous Article Summer 2003 Front Page Next Article