J. Doukhan, the author of The Mystery of Israel teaches at Andrews University and has written a number of other works, especially on Daniel and Revelation. In this book he wrestles with the question whether or not Israel has been rejected by God and replaced by the church, the so-called Rejection or Supersession Theory traditionally espoused by many Adventists. He also addresses the interpretation of Dispensationalism. Both of these approaches he rejects. Instead he suggests a new model, called the Two-Witness Theory. According to this theory God has not rejected Israel. He uses two witnesses to point to the fullness of His revelation, the Jews and the Christian Church. Both are imperfect. Both are being called to service, which does not necessarily imply salvation. The Jews point to the law, neglected by Christianity, whereas Christians point to Jesus as the Messiah, neglected by many Jews. The messages of both witnesses are brought together in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In an appendix he deals with E. G. White’s statements on Israel and the Jews.

Doukhan must be applauded for heightening the awareness of the Adventist church to the Jewish question, for pointing out the problem of anti-Semitism which may affect even the most devout Christians, and for pointing Adventists through the writings of E. G. White to the importance of the mission to the Jews as well as their role in the final days of earth’s history.

The work contains many interesting insights, but it may also trigger mixed reactions. It seems that the author reads the New Testament through the lenses of the Holocaust. The danger of such an approach is to use the New Testament selectively and to avoid showing that at least in the first century–according to the witness of New Testament books--Jews created problems for Christians. There is no question that Christianity in the later centuries failed, often miserably, but a full picture of what happened, as far as it is accessible to us, would be helpful. The exposition of biblical texts as well as the interpretation of E. G. White material differs sometimes substantially from serious work done by other well-known Adventist scholars. This can be expected to some extent, but some tentativeness of one’s own insights would be appreciated. In addition, some tentative suggestions early in the book become certitudes later on so that the work tends to sound dogmatic in a number of places. Some conclusions drawn by the author may be overstatements, e.g. to accept the Rejection Theory does not necessarily mean to exclude “the law from the plan of salvation” (p. 75). A definition of Israel is found rather late in the book (pp. 109-113). A definition of the law and a discussion of the issue of the law and its different aspects with which the first century church had to wrestle, is missing. While Jesus confirmed the law, he criticized the Jewish interpretation of the law. Paul showed that some elements of the law came to an end with Christ‘s death on the cross and that salvation is not accomplished by keeping the law. This understanding of the law caused problems not only with Judaizing elements of the early church but also with Judaism. It would have been good to explore these aspects. It seems that the Two-Witness Theory is not able to reconcile all historical data, nor is it supported by the New Testament. Obviously, a reconciliation of the law and the Messiah is not only found in the Adventist church. It was already present in New Testament times, when Paul stated that in Christ the barrier between those being circumcised and those being uncircumcised has been done away with and that Christ has created “one body,” the church (Eph 2-4).

The book raises many questions. It alerts us to fight any tendency of anti-Semitism and tactfully reach out with the full gospel, the Messiah and the law, to the Jewish community. This may be its contribution. Whether or not its main thesis is helpful for the church is another issue.