Does ‘Israel’ have a divine right to the land?
A few years agone, Martin Saunders (of Youthscape) wrote an fantabulous article highlighting four bug which often foreclose evangelicals from agreement what has been happening in the Israel/Gaza conflict—and these problems come up each time the conflict hits the news. First, he comments 'It'south not equally elementary as good guys vs bad guys', something which I have as well been trying to point out, though social media is not helping with this. 2nd is 'The fear of adventitious antisemitism', something we need to accept really seriously, as the ascent of antisemitism across Europe highlights; this last week anti-Semitism has been reported as rising five-fold.
But Martin'south third point is that 'We're not clear what the Bible says' nigh Israel and the land.
For many Christians (often termed Christian Zionists), the Bible clearly states that God has a special plan for Israel which includes a lasting covenant with the physical 'land'. For others, that covenant was fulfilled by the cantankerous (Matthew 5:17)…Whatever we believe, we can't claim to agree a 'biblical' position if we haven't read scripture. At that place are no curt-cuts; yous tin can fence anything with a proof text. Only by reading the Bible as a whole, and by understanding the g narrative of Scripture, tin nosotros truly understand God's human relationship with the land and the people of Israel.
In the low-cal of this, I offer some reflections on the status of 'the country' in Scripture. Two things demand to be considered at the outset. The showtime is that it is only not possible to place 'Israel' in the Bible with 'State of israel' the modern nation-country. Despite what the vast majority of commentators say, Israel is not a 'Jewish' country, even though it privileges immigration access to Jews in the global diaspora. Modernistic Israel is in fact constitutionally a Western-style liberal democracy, whereas biblical Israel was for about of its history a monarchical theocracy.
Secondly, both in Hebrew and in Greek, the word for 'state' and 'world' (i.e. meaning the whole globe) are the same:eretz (Hebrew); andge (Greek). So, for instance, in the first creation narrative the dry out basis is chosen 'eretz' (Gen 1.10), yet the term specifically used for the territory promised to God's people iseretz State of israel.We need to wait out for the mode that the biblical writers tin, at times, transform their significant and vision on the footing of this linguistic ambiguity.
Perhaps the virtually hit thing well-nigh the 'country' within the OT narrative of Israel is that, opposite to one dimensional claims about promise and inheritance, it really has multiple significance, and its theological meaning ever eclipses its geographical significance.
The first dimension is the land as a sign of the unmerited generosity and gift of the sovereign God. This is found in the hope to Abraham in Gen 12.1–3:
"I will brand you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I volition curse; and all peoples on earth volition be blessed through you."
Already we tin see the tension between the local and the global: the giving of the land to Abraham (how else can he become 'a nation'?) will have global consequences of blessing—whether all peoples volition be blessed or will 'anoint themselves past y'all' (the Hebrew is cryptic).
This theme of unmerited grace appears in a number of unlike forms in the narrative. Information technology is shown in the choosing of this (small and insignificant) people in Deut vii.7:
The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose yous because y'all were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples.
and in the repeated phrase 'a land flowing with milk and honey' (e.thou. in Moses encounter at the burning bush-league, Ex 3.8). The significance of 'milk and love' probably has to do with the fertility of the state, perhaps that the blessing comes from unexpected sources, merely as well that these things occur naturally. Unlike growing and harvesting crops, these things simply come up to you, equally Samson on one occasion found (Judges 14.eight). This is paralleled in the Deuteronomic tradition with the inheritance of 'cities you did non build, cisterns y'all did not dig, and groves you lot did non institute' (Deut half dozen.xi, Joshua 24.thirteen).
Note that, in all this, the nearly important matter is the truth that it points to nigh God (not nearly the people)—ane who is an abundant generous giver to those who do not in any manner merit this generosity. This truth in relation to the country (of Israel) is ane that is writ large on the land (of the whole of creation), and is prominent in the creation narratives. The affluence of the creation is a reflection of the generosity of the creator.
This link is of import in the second theme underlying the idea of 'the land': God's project of the restoration of humanity, and the role of State of israel in this project. The Abraham story follows hard on the heels of the account of 'the fall', which is found not merely in Gen 3, just in Gen 3–11; the turning from God in the garden which is known as 'sin' unfolds itself as a power which brings death and despair and disrupts relations in families and nations and destroys the fruitfulness and abundance of the globe.
The juxtaposition of this cluttered motion-picture show with the story of Abraham carries a potent implicit message: with Abraham God is commencement the job of restoration of humanity, hence the global significance of the story of this private. It is a link that Paul makes in Romans 1–4; these chapters get-go with humanity's idolatry which leads to unfruitfulness of the body, and they end with Abraham's obedience leading to surprising fruitfulness of his torso. This new people, in this new country, are to exist a 'low-cal to the nations', (Is 42.6, Is 49.6) a destiny which is fulfilled in Jesus followers (Matt 5.14) because it is fulfilled in Jesus himself (John viii.12).
This has a cardinal related strand, which is particular emphasised in the 'Priestly' tradition in Leviticus. If the people given this country are part of the restoration of humanity from sin to holiness, then the occupation of the country must exist inextricably linked with moral restoration. In fact, the expulsion from the land of the resident Canaanites is given a specific moral dimension: considering of their unholy practices, the land has 'vomited them out' (Lev xviii.25), and the life of the holy people of God is defined in contradistinction to those who lived in that location previously.
These three ideas—of divine grace and generosity, of the restoration of humanity, and of moral distinctiveness—are constantly brought together in the prophetic tradition. The promise of return following exile is a mark, not of the 'specialness' of the people, but of the faithfulness of God. No political power, and not fifty-fifty the past disobedience of the people, tin can thwart God's plans or disengage his faithfulness. And because of this, God'south grace in restoration is destined to overflow ethnic boundaries—a particular theme of the second and third parts of Isaiah. And in lite of this, the return to the land must involve a rediscovery of obedience to God's law—a particular theme of Ezra and Nehemiah.
All this means that 'the land' has a particular theological pregnant. It is, on the one hand, the identify of receiving God'due south blessings, only on the other, the arena of obedience to God'southward commands. In fact, the land itself has well-nigh greater theological significance in these regards than the ethnic identity of God's people. The 'resident conflicting' who is not an ethnic member of God'due south people, but does reside inside the geographical infinite of 'the land', is to both enjoy the privileges and blessings of God's people, but also must take on the responsibilities of observance (see, for instance, Lev 19.34). This idea is key as we at present turn to look at the mode the New Attestation interprets these ideas.
There are meaning indications that the gospels are located in the context of some sort of expectation of restoration of the land with the coming of messiah (though information technology is at present broadly agreed that in that location were a diverseness of expectations in the beginning century, and a diverseness of ideas about who the messiah was, what he would practice, or whether in fact 1 was needed). We can see this in Zechariah's prophetic poem now known as the Benedictus (from the first give-and-take in the Latin Vulgate):
Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come to his people and redeemed them.
He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David
(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),
salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who detest us—
to bear witness mercy to our ancestors and to retrieve his holy covenant,
the oath he swore to our father Abraham:
to rescue u.s.a. from the hand of our enemies,
and to enable us to serve him without fright
in holiness and righteousness before him all our days. (Luke ane.68–75)
In context, the main 'enemy' is of course Rome, and it is oppression past Rome that is preventing State of israel from 'serving him without fear in holiness.' So implicit in this expectation is the promise of restoration of the sovereignty of Israel as a nation, inhabiting the promised country. To make this even clearer, Zechariah goes on to allude to Is forty'due south announcement of the one who volition 'go before the Lord to prepare his way', which is also used in Mark's introduction in Mark 1.2–3. These verses (from Isaiah and Micah) are all near the people returning from exile and beingness restored to the land in fulfilment of God'southward promise of faithfulness. This is ane part of a complex of expectations, which Tom Wright characterises under the headings return from exile, restoration of Temple, renewed covenant, giving of Spirit, keeping of Constabulary, no king just God, and God'south anointed agent (Heb messiach Greek christos) (N T Wright The New Testament and the People of God chapter 10 'The Hope of Israel').
But from the very showtime of Jesus' ministry, these expectations are starting to exist transformed. Even the about sceptical commentator agrees that the proclamation of the nearness of 'the kingdom of God' was a core part of the teaching of the historical Jesus. This phrase, which hardly occurs at all in the OT, shifts the focus from thestate in which the people occupy to thereign or dominance nether which they alive. The separation between the costless occupation of the country and obedience to God, even so held together in the Benedictus, is most decisively broken in Jesus' answer to the question about taxes:
"Evidence me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose epitome is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar'southward," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar'southward, and to God what is God's." (Matt 22.nineteen–twenty)
The shock of this is non to exercise with the separation of the 'political' from the 'religious' every bit such, just the overturning of the expectation that the restoration of the state is tied in with the coming of God'south kingdom. Living freely in the country is not the prerequisite to forgiveness of sins and living in holiness.
Consequently, the New Attestation strikingly shows no interest in the further question of the land itself, and instead focus on theother elements in Wright'due south list. This is shown conspicuously in the responses of gospel writers to the destruction of the temple in lxx Advertising. Marking'southward gospel, probably written in the 60s before the temple was destroyed, shows virtually involvement in the immediate events and Jesus' predictions most them (Mark thirteen). Matthew'south similar account in Matthew 24, most likely writtenafter seventy, includes similar details to Mark, but and then goes on to focus on Jesus' words nigh theparousia,Jesus' 2nd coming to consummate the work begun in the outset. John's gospel goes fifty-fifty farther, and does something quite distinct. With the temple gone, and the tension betwixt the at present exiled Jews and Jesus' Jewish-and-gentile followers mounting, John makes clear that Jesusis the temple for those who follow him.
The Jews so responded to him, "What sign tin can you show us to prove your authorization to do all this?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will heighten it again in three days."
They replied, "It has taken forty–vi years to build this temple, and you are going to raise information technology in three days?" Just the temple he had spoken of was his body. Later he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (John 2.eighteen–22)
This is not so much about Jesusreplacing the temple, only Jesus being the fulfilment of the purpose of the temple—and with it the land. (Note that this is non an thought made up past John and read back into the story about Jesus; reference is made to it in the trial of Jesus in Mark 14.58. This is good example of one of many 'undesigned' historical connections between the gospels.) This over again is why John's gospel is so 'Jewish', in focussing on Jewish habits of eating, washing, and attending the pilgrim festivals, all the major festivals occurring in John's narrative. They all find their fulfilment and true meaning in Jesus.
Nosotros see in Acts ii.46 that the showtime generation of believers continued to visit the temple, though of course now with new understanding. While the temple was continuing, then Jewish followers of Jesus would continue to worship at that place. Simply once the temple was gone, in that location was no need to long for its restoration, since its pregnant was embodied in the person of Jesus. If the state was the arena for knowing the blessing of God and taking on the responsibilities of obedience, that role was now fulfilled in Jesus. So, equally with the temple, at that place is now no demand to long for physical return from exile and occupying the territory of the land—all this was now available to those non 'in Israel' but 'in Christ'. I think this is why the phrase is so of import in Paul. Where, in the OT, both Jew and gentile 'resident alien' enjoy God'due south reign when they are 'in State of israel', now for Paul the (theological) space where this happens for both Jew and gentile is 'in Christ.'
That is why Peter, writing to an audience containing at least some gentiles, can address the whole group as the 'diaspora', the term previously used of Jews scattered and awaiting (at least in principle) a return from exile to the state (1 Peter i.1). The scattered followers of Jesus are awaiting non their return from physical exile just the return of Jesus to restore all things. Even more than explicitly, in the book of Revelation, John sees the fulfilment of the gathering of God's people from all the nations (Deut thirty.3, Jeremiah 32.37, Ezekiel 11.17, twenty.34, 36.24) in this uncountable, Jewish-gentile people redeemed past the blood of the lamb (Rev 7.ix, too in Rev 5.9, 11.9, 13.7 and 14.6). This is just the way Matthew has understood Jesus' teaching in Matt 24.31.
Note that reading the NT in this way is not 'supersessionism', where 'The Church' replaces 'The Jews' equally the people of God; this but happens where the Jesus movement is detached from its Jewish historical context and expression. Instead information technology is a redefinition of what it means to be the people of Godacross ethnic boundaries, just equally happened in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and as Paul starts to do in his argument in Romans 2.28–29.
So the New Testament holds out no expectation that ethnic Jews will return to the territory of the land of State of israel as part of the fulfilment of the promises of God. All those promises are fulfilled in Jesus, who now becomes the place of God'due south approving and his people's obedience.
(It is perhaps worth noting that those who argue that the modern land of Israel is the fulfilment of prophecy accept to entreatment to OT texts lonely, and ignore what the NT does with such texts—as well as ignoring the fact that a render to the concrete state was really fulfilled in the return from exile.)
This leaves the one 'bogie' text of Romans 11.26: 'All Israel will be saved'. There is a massive literature on this, some following the view expressed by Tom Wright that 'all Israel' refers to all those who are part of God's new Israel i.e. all those now redeemed through Jesus, and others believing that 'all State of israel' here refers to ethnic Jewish people, indicating that there will be an 'end times' turning of Jews to organized religion in Jesus. For at present, I note some key points in the discussion:
one. There is no reference whatsoever to the idea of Jews returning to the country of Israel. So to fit these 2 ideas together is an artifice.
2. Verse 26 doesnot say 'And so all State of israel will exist saved' but 'and in this way all State of israel will be saved.' And so Paul is talking about the hardening of the Jews and the incoming of the gentiles as theways by which God'south purposes of salvation are accomplished, not as something that happens prior to this. I remember this strongly supports Wright's reading.
3. Paul and then cites texts from Isaiah and Jeremiah, which he conspicuously sees fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus: the deliverer from Zion who establishes a (new) covenant and takes away sins.
4. Information technology has been objected that Paul only ever uses 'State of israel' to mean those who are ethnically Jewish. But Gal half-dozen.16 is a counter-case to this, and Paul certainly uses the language of 'Jew' in literal and metaphorical ways earlier in Romans.
A person is not a Jew who is i merely outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the center, by the Spirit, not by the written lawmaking. Such a person's praise is non from other people, simply from God (Romans ii.28–29, TNIV).
Within his argument at this betoken, Paul is primarily highlighting that having the outward, ethnic and ritual signs of being a Jew doesn't actually brand you i, since existence function of the (chosen) people of God is about inward transformation, and e'er has been. Only a consequence of this is that an ethnic gentile can actually be a 'Jew' in this sense, so 'Israel' no longer (because of Jesus) simply refers to an ethnic grouping. Paul sees this logic, past immediately answering information technology in the next verse. If all who follow Jesus are 'State of israel', and gentiles have been grafted in to exist part of the olive tree, the idea of 'Israel' returning to the country makes no sense.
5. It seems very odd to me to think that Paul would describe an 'end-times' turning of the last generation of Jews to faith in Jesus with the term 'all Israel.' This leaves all the (not assertive in Jesus) Jews of all the intermediate generations excluded from this, so at the almost it could mean 'all those Jews alive when Jesus returns'. This hardly makes sense of the phrase.
6. Nosotros also need to annotation that, for Paul and others in the New Testament, the 'end times' were already upon them, as signified by the resurrection of Jesus, the outpouring of the Spirit, and the ingathering of the Gentiles.
No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'In the concluding days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people… (Acts two.16–17)
These things happened to them as examples and were written downwardly every bit warnings for united states, on whom the end of the ages has come (1 Cor 10.11)
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! (2 Cor 5.17)
For more than on the eschatological perspective of the New Testament, see my Grove bookletKingdom, Promise and the Stop of the Earth.
Because of all this, I exercise not believe that, remarkable though it is, the establishment of the Country of State of israel in 1947 is a 'fulfilment' of 'terminate times' 'prophecies.' Neither exercise I believe that Israel has a divine right to the state which trumps all other rights. Ipractise want to defend the right of Israel to be, and to be a particular homeland for Jews around the globe, and to use reasonable forcefulness to defend itself—similar any other nations. But I practice this on grounds other than 'divine right' or 'prophecy.'
In the current disharmonize betwixt Israel and Gaza, we demand to appeal to other grounds to back up whatever view we have on the matter.
(Published previously in 2022 and 2022 in different formats.)
If y'all enjoyed this, do share information technology on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If you accept valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skilful comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, tin add real value. Seek first to understand, and so to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view argue every bit a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-israel-have-a-divine-right-to-the-land/
0 Response to "Does ‘Israel’ have a divine right to the land?"
Post a Comment