The Land. Does it belong to Israel?

[Bob Moore]

Several people have suggested that a thread examining whether or not the land occupied by Israel today is rightly theirs. Some people are of the opinion that since Israel is a secular nation (no doubt about that), they have no legitimate claim on the Land. Others suggest that Israel has no claim on the Land because a politically constructed entity, the Palastinians, somehow deserve preferential treatment. There are many other views as well. The purpose of this thread is not to examine the range of personal opinions, but to see what the Soverign King of the Universe has said about it.

It is always good to begin with Scripture, so here we go:

Genesis 12:1-7, Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came. And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Genesis 15:7, And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

Genesis 15:18, In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Hebrews 11:9, By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:


This is merely a beginning. Who want's to argue that God did not mean what He said?

I understand that this sort of topic might lead to some side discussions. In other words, who knows which way that rabbit might jump? No problem.

Things to keep in mind, and some possible questions:

Do the Jews occupy the land because God said it was theirs, or because some human government said so?

What, if any, is the relevance of Israel being a thoroughly secular nation?

Can the actions of men (the created) upset the will of God (the Creator)?

Why do you suppose the current situation in the Middle East is what it is? Is Satan involved? Yes, no, maybe?

Do you think that the forces arrayed against Israel, including the United Nations, are working for or against God's plans? Why? (Careful, this is a trick question.)


That's good for starters.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello Bob,

Thanks for taking the time to start this thread. I hope this is intended to be a discussion amongst Reformed Christians. I hope our dispensational brethren won't comment, because this subject is clearly spelled out in their theology, and we all know where they stand. This should be a discussion between Reformed Christians.

Let me see if I can mention some points of agreement first. We agree that God did promise the land to Abraham’s heirs. However, we seem to disagree with one another on how that plays out today.

I would like to point to some other aspects of the land promises that are given after the Exodus and Israel’s return to Canaan.

(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which [were] before you, and the land is defiled That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that [were] before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. (Lev 18:27-29)

Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. (Lev 20:22)

And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God. (Deu 8:20)

I think this sampling is enough to show that Israel’s “inheritance“ was tied to covenant faithfulness. I know we all agree that the modern, secular state of Israel is not a covenant faithful people. And their biblical claim to the land is void.

In the new covenant we find much on this matter as well. First, Jews (Israelis) who reject Jesus Christ are not Israel and have no claim to the covenant inheritance. We find in the Romans 11 an olive tree used to represent God’s covenant people. Here we find that “unbelieving” Israel was “cut off” from the covenant people of God and believing Gentiles were grafted into their place. Anyone in Israel who is cut off is no longer heir to the covenant promises. The Modern state of Israel is made up of people who have been (cut off” and have no Covenant claim on the Land, unless Dispensationalism is correct and it is not.

Who are the heirs of the promises God made to Abraham?

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. (Gal 3:18)
So we see that that even with the Old Covenant Law passing away the promises remain, but who are the heirs of Abraham. Is it ethnic Israel? I think not, they have been cut off and are no longer heirs.

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:29)

As mentioned before, in Romans 4 the land promise to Abraham and his heirs was expanded to the whole world and ties in nicely with the Great Commission. We are Israel and we are to bring all the world into Christ’s kingdom.

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: (Rom 4:14)

Only those of faith are heirs to the land, which is now the whole world and not that sliver of land on the east cost of the Mediterranean Sea.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Bob Moore]

The land did spue the Jews out, but only temporarily.

I am convinced, from what I know of the nature of God, that His promisses are good notwithstanding how men react to them. God said the Land was to be an 'inheritance', and that usage is the same as the inheritance which we, as the elect, will receive despite the fact that we are frequently wandering sheep. So what if Israel as a nation is way over in left field? Does that in any way nullify what God distinctly said?

 

[chrismon]

I think a need to retain the land for the people of God is against the purpose of Christ's advent. In Christ God become available to the nations. The freedom of Christ afforded to Israel can be seen through Paul's exopsitions in Romans but also very consiscely (and conversely) with Jesus interaction with the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath. The Law, and truly the whole Sinaic covenant, was not only a force through which condemnation came, but was made burdensome by its own adherents. The Land suffered the same problems. The gift, a means by which the Hebrews were to flourish within, instead became a resource sinfully adored as though gotten through their own doings and selfishly protected at any expense. Now, in Christ, (the true) Israel can be free from those bonds: no longer is their light confined to the borders of the Land and no longer is their hope determined by the prosperity of the Land. Rather, now, those things are metered by Christ's victory. To hold on to the Land in light of Christ is an attempt to contain him within the inherent insufficiency and past misunderstandings of the Law. As there is no longer a need for an Ark or Temple, there is longer a need for the Land.

Now, in some more tangible way does the Land "belong" to the people whom we call "Jews"? As Christians, I think we should be wary of thinking of any land beonging to any one people since no power or principality has ever shown itself capable of dealing justly with the resources God has given it. Although God made clear promises to the Hebrews, he made very clear conditions upon which his promises would remain intact. To this very day, the Land of Israel does not contain a people who care for the sick, the poor, the widow amd especially the resident alien within the same understandings that Moses relays in his sermon in Deuteronomy. Not to mention that the State of Israel does not harbor a people who hope in the might of God rather than treaties and chariots. This alone would predicate any right to the Land.

 

[strengthinweakness]

Bob, thus far, I think that Cajun Huguenot is doing a good job of addressing the Scriptures that you mentioned, so at least for this post, I will leave that part of the discussion to you and him (I will probably jump in with a future post though ). However, there is a another passage of Scripture that I think is relevant to this issue, and I am interested to see how you will answer it. In Romans 9:3-8, Paul writes, "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs, the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.' In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring."

I don't know how you understand this passage (although, as I said, I am interested to hear! ), but from what I can tell, Paul clearly states that the natural (physical) Israelites are not God's children simply by virtue of being part of the actual physical, geographical nation of Israel. Therefore, God's promises do not necessarily apply to all Israelites currently living in the country who, together, make up the nation of Israel. In verse 4, Paul even goes through a list of the original, God-ordained blessings of the nation of Israel-- "the adoption as sons... the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises." He then goes on to say that "It is not as though God's word had failed."--meaning that, as you have said, God is faithful to what He has promised. However, Paul then clarifies this statement, and explains exactly how God's faithfulness to His promises is going to be shown. As I quoted, "It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children." (italics mine, for emphasis) God will fulfill his promises to Israel, but not all who are Israelites by birth actually are Israel, in God's eyes. In verse 8, Paul further explains, In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring." (again, italics mine) The crucial question here is, who is the true Israel, in God's eyes? From these verses, it seems clear to me that, now, in the context of the nation of Israel's rejection of Christ as the Messiah (as a nation, overall, not speaking of individual Israelites who believe that Christ is the Messiah, of course), God regards the true Israel as all who believe in His son, submit to Him, and worship Him. Part of what this means, though, is that God has sovereignly chosen (ordained), as He has the right to do, that any promises that He originally made to the physical, geographical nation of Israel will now apply to all people who believe on Christ, repent of sin, submit to Him, and trust in Him for sanctification in this life, and eternal glory in the life to come-- thus becoming, in God's eyes, by His sovereign grace and mercy upon them, the true Israel. As Paul explains in verses 6-8, true Israel is Israel, by virtue, not of where its "inhabitants" happen to be born, or where they reside, physically, but by virtue of being true "children of the promise"-- true believers in Christ. This means (among other things) that the promises that God made to the physical, geographical nation of Israel, regarding the land, no longer stand for the nation of Israel, as a nation, but are now applied spiritually to all believers in Christ everywhere-- including to Palestinian Christians who have suffered under the rule of the geographical nation of Israel.

Please understand-- I am not saying here that God is arbitrary, capricious, undependable, inconsistent, etc. in making promises to the nation of Israel, and then "revoking" them, based on the nation's rejection of His son. As Cajun Huguenot has shown, from the start, God actually made those promises to the physical nation of Israel conditionally, based upon their faithfulness to Him. This fact also does not, in any way, justify the "open theist" characterization of how God interacts with men, "waiting" to see what they will do, in regard to something that He has said, and then acting, as an after-the-fact reaction to what they have done. Rather, God, already knowing, omnisciently and sovereignly, how the nation of Israel would reject His son, made the promises to Israel in the Old Testament conditionally, based upon their faithfulness (or lack thereof) to Him. For God to do so is not strange or inconsistent at all with His omniscience, sovereignty, and truthfulness to His word. He made the same sort of conditional promise to the land of Nineveh in the Book of Jonah, already knowing (and thus, sovereignly ordaining) how they would react. If they repented, God would not destroy them. That was a promise on His part, and He meant it. However, it was a conditional promise, based on Nineveh's repentance and faithfulness to Him (which He had already "foreseen," i.e. sovereignly foreordained, as He is sovereignly in control of all people, places, and things in creation). God made the same sort of promises to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, concerning the geographical land. He made the promises, and He meant them, but from the beginning, as He stated them, they were conditional promises. He made them as such. At least, this is my present understanding of the situation, Biblically speaking. If you can educate and enlighten me further, and otherwise, Bob, as your brother in Christ, I truly hope you will do so. I mean that with absolute sincerity, because I wish to know the truth, more than I ever wish to merely argue for my own "postion." I believe that on this matter, so far as the Bible speaks of it, I do know the truth, by God's mercy on my fallen, faulty reasoning. If you can show me otherwise though, I sincerely look forward to your doing so.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hey Bob,

Thanks for your reply. I think we can all agree that ALL God's promises are Yea and Amen. If He has promised something then it shall be, but God's ways are not our ways.

I think strengthinweakness' post is right on target.

The Jews in Christ day saw ethnicity as being "almost" the all-important thing for being a true Israelite, but Christ and Paul both, time and again destroy that mindset. This was one of the great persistent heresies of the Pharisees, and this error was picked up again in the early 19th Century by John Darby, when he invented Dispensationalism.

I do understand how you feel about this thing. I once believed the samething, but my studies have driven me far from that position, which I believe was no more than dispensational seepage (error) that I retained from pre-Reformed days.

I don't know how you have come to your position, but now that you have stated it, how do you answer what has been said above?

I think we must be biblical. What do the Scriptures teach on this subject. I believe the sliver of land that was promised to Abraham were but a shadow that Abraham's Seed (Christ) would inherit, not just Palestine, but ALL the earth.

Also, that land promise, if it is valid was not for the current boundaries of modern Israel, but for the land between Euphrates and the Nile. Should we support Israel if she were to try and get ALL her promised land that was promised to Abraham? Israel, according to the promise, would include large parts of Egypt, all all of Syria, much of Jordan and even part of Iraq. Should all the Arabs be driven from these lands, and resettled by Jews?

I think not. Modern Israel exists because God in His providence has but it there. According to the Law, it should not exist at all. According to the New Covenant, you and I and all who follow Christ, are the true Israel and we are the inheritors of the promises God gave to Abraham, but that promise is expanded to include the whole earth.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Bob Moore]

I may be on the edge of changing my mind. I remember once before when I was mistaken about something. It was September 42, 1961.

If there is one thing I really like about this place it is what I learn from others. I am going to really think about strengthinweakness's post before I comment further.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I may be on the edge of changing my mind. I remember once before when I was mistaken about something. It was September 42, 1961.

If there is one thing I really like about this place it is what I learn from others. I am going to really think about strengthinweakness's post before I comment further.

Hey Bob,

I am impressed, the last time I was wrong about something was ten minutes ago, and the time before that was only five minutes earlier.

Semper Reformanda (alway reforming) that is what we are to be doing , especially me.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[heymikey80]

I guess I see it a little differently. Ok, maybe a little wackier.

I see the promises for remaining on-land and off-land to be conditional because the land is actually promised to the Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. He will reign the new Earth from the New Jerusalem there, and so ... well, the Land is His.

I'm looking forward to worshipping Him there.

Sorry, no wild-eyed dispensationalism, I just thnk the Land was actually promised to Jesus Christ, and we in union with Him will go up to worship and embrace Him in this New Jerusalem someday in new bodies.

Whose land is it now? Well, it's whoever God gives it to. Right now that appears to be the Jewish people -- it's been that way since 1948. Is that fulfilment of prophecy? I wouldn't put it past God to use this somehow to bring His people to a knowledge of the Savior. But right now Christians in the area don't seem to have any greater love for the Jewish people than Muslims.

It makes me wonder who will get evicted next. There is an odd "cursed are those who curse these people". I think we owe a whole lot more to the Jewish people than simple tolerance; we owe a look at them as the new "prodigal sons", still out on a self-consuming lifestyle. But I don't know, what will their return be like when we are the older brothers? I fear for us then.