Chapter 8: Israel – The Land of Abraham

Chapter 8

ISRAEL - THE LAND OF ABRAHAM

T is an astonishing fact that, at the heart of controversy surrounding the nation of Israel today and the Jews in particular, the matter which most frequently awakens fervent dispute concerns the ownership and inhabitation of the land of Palestine, that is a specific geographic region, a material territory, a piece of historic real estate, that generates world shaking concern. In paralle with this are underlying biblical considerations that raise the question of disputed legitimacy for the Jewish people who have now comprise the State of Israel since 1948, and thus regained the Land, ha´aretz. The reason for this dispute is no small matter for consideration. It should noted that while Jews, as individuals, are barely tolerated in their dispersal throughout the world yet it is the current dispute over the Land, especially in relation to the hostile claims of surrounding Arab nations, that continually threatens to bring about calamity of internation proportions. Hence, it is proposed that, as emphasized elsewhere in this book, as Jewish individualism is endured while at the same time Jewish nationalism is more strenuously opposed even within the United Nations, so the Land has become a trigger, a catalyst that ignites world-wide animosity to Zionism. For Zionism is rooted in the biblical concept of the Land. And the Land epitomizes an indivisible union between territory and people. So Baruch Maoz explains this distinctive phenomenon.

[Linguistically] “Israel” denotes both people and land. . . . The land is no passive observer, a mere sphere in which Israel as a people operate. It is spoken of as altogether at one with the people—so much so that it becomes liable for the people’s actions (Lev. 26:14; Deut. 6:12). It is also a privilege granted to the land (Lev. 25:4-5). Israel’s sin brings punishment to the land (Lev. 26:33; Deut. 24:4, 28-29), for God will be “angry with the land” because of the people’s sin. Conversely, when the people are true to God, he will bless them and the land (Deut. 30:9). Israel’s destiny is that of the land (Ps. 122:1-2, 6; 147:2).

1

Hence while the individual Jew is tolerated at best in Western society, yet his national identification with the Land of Israel seems to awaken much greater controversy. And th appears to be the case in the theological realm as well. Jewish individuality is tolerated while the nation and territory of Israel is repudiated by means of such misguided epithets as “car Zionism,” “Dispensationalism,” “a temporal earthly shadow,” etc.

Those who have no premillennial sympathies that closely identify ethnic Israel with the land are usually quick to present a common objection, namely that the New Testament revelation of the Word of God places no emphasis on the land of Israel in contrast with the Old Testament where references are numerous. It is interesting that these comments frequently arise in the consideration of Romans 9-11. With regard to Romans11:25-26 Herman Bavinck comment “[E]ven if Paul expected a national conversion of Israel at the end, he does not say a word about Palestine to the Jews, about a rebuilding of the city and a temple, about a visible rule of Christ: in his picture of the future there simply is no room for all this.”

2 Similarly Cranfield writes

concerning Romans 11:26b-27: “[T]here is here no trace of encouragement for any hopes entertained by Paul’s Jewish contemporaries for the re-establishment of a national state i

1 Baruch Maoz, “People, land and Torah: a Jewish Christian perspective,” The Land of Promise, eds. Philip Johnston and Peter Walker, pp. 191-192. 2 Herman Bavinck, The Last Things, p. 107.

I

independence and political power, nor—incidentally—anything which could feasibly be interpreted as a scriptural endorsement of the modern nation-state of Israel.”

3 Lloyd-Jones is even

more shrill in tone when, in preaching on vs. 25-32 during 1964 and 1965, he declared: “Whe do you find any reference whatsoever to the land of Palestine or of Israel in this section? Whe there any mention of the restoration of the Jews to the land? Where is any mention of Jerusale as such and the reigning there of the Lord for a thousand years?”

4 Finally, Bruce Waltke gives

similar strong criticism that relegates the premillennial/dispensational understanding of the la to a cheap representation of that which is transcendently enriching in its spiritual fulfillment.

5

What is astonishing here is that such comments are made of Paul, the converted rab especially in Romans 9-11, is so eager to maintain his passionate loyalty and love fo Israel. In other words he writes as a Hebrew Christian and it is a conspicuous weakn concerning Bavinck, Cranfield, Lloyd-Jones, and Waltke, that they seem to avoid contemporar conservative scholarship which is rooted in a Hebrew Christian perspective that is similar to th of Paul. Indeed, it could be enquired, apart from such categorical Gentile criticism, where is th any breadth of Hebrew Christian scholarship that would add support with equal force to what these authors maintain? To the contrary, it ought to be considered that a prepondera Hebrew Christian opinion does indeed repudiate such a Gentile understanding with equ vehemence.

6 It is granted that amidst the dominance of contemporary Gentile Christianity this

voice is not as influential. Nevertheless ought not this neglected focus cause the Gentile stud the New Testament to more carefully consider Romans 9-11 in the light of the fact that is was written by a converted, highly qualified Jewish Rabbi? Frankly, one suspects that Paul respond with exasperation at that exegesis which, while strangely tolerating limited individua concerning the contemporary fact of the Jew, most vigorously opposes any territorial national that might still be rooted in the Abrahamic covenant. Besides, to suggest that the exclusion o term “land” in Romans 9-11 has significance is as insignificant a conclusion as that which mig be drawn from the exclusion of the terms “repentance” in the Gospel of John and “love” in the Acts of the Apostles. To suggest that in boldly confessing, “I too am an Israelite, a descendan Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin,” 11:1, yet the Apostle disavows any attachment to the Lan is ludicrous. Here, as already indicated, is sadly evident that Gentile tendency towards detachment and aloofness from the “natural branches” 11:17-24 which has been the blight of Christian church for centuries.

3 C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle To The Romans, II, p. 579. 4 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans, Exposition of Chapter 11, pp. 231-35. Preaching during 1964-5, He is repetitive in this vein, even denying any relationship in this passage to the Second Coming of Christ. Howe one wonders if there was an adjustment in perspective by 1980, shortly before his passing in 1981, when, interviewed by Carl Henry for Christianity Today, the response was given: “To me 1967, the year that the Jews occupied all of Jerusalem, was very crucial. Luke 21:43 is one of the most significant prophetic verses ‘Jerusalem,’ it reads, ‘shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled.’ It see to me that that took place in 1967—something crucially important that had not occurred in 2,000 Luke 21:43 is one fixed point. But I am equally impressed by Romans 11 which speaks of a great spiritual return among the Jews before the end time. While this seems to be developing, even something even mor spectacular may be indicated. We sometimes tend to foreshorten events, yet I have a feeling that we are period of the end.” Carl Henry, “Martyn Lloyd-Jones: From Buckingham to Westminster,” Christianity Today, February 8, 1980. 5 Bruce K. Waltke, “A Response,” Dispensationalism, Israel And The Church, eds. Craig A Blaising and Darrell Bock, pp. 357-9. 6 Refer to the writings of Michael Brown, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Dan Gruber, Baruch Maoz, Mark Nanos, David Stern, as well as the ministry of the Caspari Center, Jerusalem.

A. The Land in the Old Testament.

The origin of the land commences, as Stephen relates, when “the glory of God appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him, ‘Leave your country [pagan Ur of the Chaldees] and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you’” (Acts 7:2-3). In Haran, following the death of his father Terah, the call is repeated to Abraham, “Now the L ORD said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land [Jr# a# h,* ha´aretz] which I will show you” (Gen. 12:1). Upon his arrival at Shechem from Haran, there further confirmation: “The L ORD appeared to Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I will give this land’” (Gen. 12:7). Hence this specific territory is rooted in persistent prom (Gen. 13:14-17) that is then covenantally, unilaterally signified or cut (Gen. 15:7-21). The finality here was in no way abrogated when, 430 years later, the temporary, interven foreshadowing administration of Moses “was added because of transgressions . . . until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made” (Gal. 3:19; cf. Rom. 5:20). The exodus looked forward to the inhabitation of the land according to the Abrahamic covenant (Exod. 6:1-9). The subsequent necessity of the interregnum Mosaic covenant was nev intended to overshadow that which had originally been promised. In this regard we believe that W. D. Davies is incorrect when he writes that, “In the Christological logic of Paul, the land, like the Law, particular and provisional, had become irrelevant.”

7 With respect, the

Land was not promised to Abraham as a passing shadow. There is no such representation in the Bible. Rather, unlike the structure of the mosaic economy, the land is perpetuated as a vital element of the new covenant (Jer. 31:27-40;

Ezek. 11:14-21; 36:22-37:23).

In other words, it is important to understand that the Abrahamic Covenant finds its fulfillment in the New Covenant, notwithstanding the intervening, temporal Mosaic Covenant. As the Abrahamic Covenant promised the land, and the intervening Mosaic Covenant involve temporal inhabitation of the land, yet the New Covenant declares consummate fulfillment of that promise to Abraham with its specific references to the land, and not some abst universalism. In particular, the New Covenant describes Israel’s return to the land fro dispersion as “the land that I gave to your forefathers” (Jer. 31:38-40; Ezek. 11:17; 36:24, 28).

Hence in terms of roots, the Old Testament as a whole always originally identifies the land with the Abrahamic Covenant, but never the subsequent Mosaic Covenant. Certainly Mosaic Covenant draws upon the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant (Exod. 3:6-8, 15-17; 13:5; 33:1-3; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27), nevertheless the Mosaic Covenant can never nullify that which was inaugurated with unilateral finality 430 years earlier (Gal. 3:17). While the New Testament Scriptures frequently describe the Mosaic Old Covenant as being comprised of shadows and types, this terminology is never directly applied to the promise character of the Abrahamic Covenant, notwithstanding its signification by means of circumcision (Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 8:3-6; 10:1). Certainly circumcision was a sign of the covenant that Go made with Abraham. However, the land was never regarded as a sign of the covena rather it was intrinsic to that covenant, and this is a most vital distinction to keep in mind (Gen. 12:1, 7). It is for this reason that the land is distinguished from Mosaic typology since it is an abiding reality in itself.

7 W. D. Davies, The Gospel And The Land, p. 179.

By way of summary, we may understand the land from different perspectives according t ways in which it is predicated

1. The land as promise, according to God’s irrevocable covenant, sworn oath (Ge 50:24; Exod. 12:25; Deut. 6:3; 19:8).
2. The land as holy, that is set apart by God who is holy, from other lands for inhabitation by His people (Ex. 15:13; Zech. 2:12-13).
3. The land as God’s possession, so that the people of Israel, as His redeemed children, are tenants since “the land is Mine” (Lev. 25:23).
4. The land as God’s gift, was according to God’s gracious bestowal to Abraham and his descendants (Deut. 1:20, 25; 2:29).

5. The land as the fathers’ possession, that is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, hence subsequent generations (Gen. 31:3; 48:21; Exod. 33:1).
6. The land as the nation of Israel’s inheritance, possession, permanent dwelling according to covenant promise (Gen. 12:7; 15:7; 24:7; 28:4; 36:43; 40:15).
7. The land as security, blessing, and rest, a place flowing with milk and honey, hence material and spiritual prosperity (Exod. 33:3; Lev. 20:24).
8. The land as the center of the world, that is its navel, the intention being that it will be blessing to the world (Ezek. 5:5; 38:12).

9. The land as God’s dwelling place with His people, especially in holy and intimate unio (Ps. 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34; 132:13-15; Isa. 1:19).

B. The Land in the New Testament.

The following compendium addresses the objection concerning the supposed silence of th New Testament concerning the land of Israel as a continuing divine heritage. Duri formative years of the Christian Church, certainly no Jewish Christian, and especially the mother Church in Jerusalem, would have faintly considered the thought that the prom concerning the land was about to be rescinded or transcended. For that matter, it is just a unlikely that the Gentile Church at Antioch, having been granted great liberty by Council of Jerusalem, would have concluded that the Jewish Church at Jerusalem had, by decree in giving freedom to the Gentiles, at the same time established its own demise wi regard to being distinctively Jewish. Surely this was never in the mind of Paul or Barnabas

1. Some Biblical indications.

In the New Testament, ’Isra»l, Isra¯ el, is used seventy-three times, eleven of which are found in Romans (9:6 (2), 27 (2), 31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 7, 25, 26). ’Israhl…thj, Isra¯ elit ¯ e s, is used four times. With regard to the Synoptic use, Mayer declares that “ stands for the people and the land (Matt. 20:1; 21:1).”

8 Concerning Paul’s overall

8 R. Mayer, “Israel,” Dictionary of New Testament Theology, II, p. 315.

usage, and after consideration of Romans 2:29; 9:6; I Corinthians 1:18; Philippian 33:3, Burton concludes that, “there is, in fact, no instance of his using ’Isra»l, Isra¯ el, except of the Jewish nation or a part thereof.”

9 Hence, to suggest that Paul the Israelite

had nevertheless abdicated recognition of the legitimacy of the land is to impose upon the Apostle a Gentile perspective that he never remotely contemplated. In the light of the preceding, it is astonishing that Robert Strimple makes the following major proposition:

The true Israel is Christ: He is the suffering Servant of the Lord [Isa. 41:8-9; 42:1-7; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4], this one who is—wonder of wonders—the Lord himself! . . . Yes, Israel was called to be God’s servant, a light to enlighten the nations and to glorify God’s name. But since Israel was unfaithful to her calling and failed to fulfill the purposes of her divi election, the Lord brought forth his Elect One, his Servant, his true Israel.

10

To begin with, here is a Reformed seminary professor describing Israel’s lost election through disobedience! However Berkouwer rightly addresses this inconsistency as follows:

Can a past that has been qualified by election ever come to naught? Can “election God” as we usually understand it ever be changed into “rejection”? Can the Church inherit the place of the chosen people of Israel, so that election passes over to the church? Do we not usually consider God’s election as something irrevocable, definitive, and all-powerful; and is it consequently meaningless to assume that the election of Israel could be negated by human reaction, even unbelief?

11

Nevertheless, the greater point of significance here is that for all of the identification of Christ as Israel, which truth is not without its relevance, nevertheless this meaning is nowhere found in the New Testament! However, we do believe that the following references quite clearly give New Testament indications that the land of Israel h retained its validity during the Church age, particularly because “the gifts [empha added] and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29).

a. Matthew 24:30. “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the S ON OF M AN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.” A problem is brought to the fore here concerning the translation of aƒ fulaˆ tÁj gÁj, hai phulai t ¯ es g¯ es, “the tribes of the earth,” since if tÁj gÁj, t¯ es g¯ es is uniformly translated in the New Testament as “the earth,” then the absence of any mention of the land of Israel in the New Testament is virtually guaranteed. However the context suggests that Zechariah 12:10, 14 is inferred by Matthew in this instance, in which case “the tribes of the Land [of Israel]” is a more appropriate translation.

12 The

meaning here would then indicate that reference is being made to the conversion of national Israel at the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed the subsequent reference to Christ “gathering His elect from the four winds,” an further parable of the fig tree would all the more lend credence to the focus here

9 Ernest De Witt Burton, Galatians, p. 358.
10 Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, pp. 87-88.
11 G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 326-327.
12 Indebtedness here for this interpretation is due to David Stern, Restoring The Jewishness Of The Gospel, p.

39. Similarly John Gill, also J. A. Seiss, Revelation, I, pp. 57-58, concerning Revelation 1:7.

being upon national Israel. The same translation problem arises in Revelation 1:7 where, in the light of reference again being made to Zechariah 12:10, 14 translation should probably read, “the tribes of the Land [of Israel].” Certainly reference to “the Land” in Zechariah 12:11-12 offers further support to th aforementioned interpretation.

b. Luke 21:20-24, especially v. 24. “And they [the Jerusalemites] will fall by the edg of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until [¥cri oá, achri hou, as Rom. 11:25] the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Thus following the subjugation of Jerusalem, and consequently the Land, to Gentile dominion for many centuries, there shall follow a reversal of this order in which the Jerusalemites, and hence the Jews, sh regain dominion over the Land and Jerusalem. Such a fulfillment would unquestionably validate Israel’s covenant claim to the Land at the close o present dispensation. This restoration to tangible favor would include the climactic “fulfillment” experienced by Israel according to Romans 11:12. So J. C. Ryle concludes:

While the nations of Europe are absorbed in political conflicts and worldly business, the sands in their hour-glass are ebbing away. While governments disputing about secular things, and Parliaments can hardly condescend to fin place for religion in their discussions, their days are numbered in the sight of God. Yet a few years and the “times of the Gentiles will be fulfilled.” Their day visitation will be past and gone. Their misused privileges will be taken away. The judgments of God shall fall on them. They shall be cast aside as vessels in which God has no pleasure. Their dominion shall crumble away, and their vaunted institutions shall fall to pieces. . . . When [the times of the Gentiles] do end, the conversion of the Jews and the restoration of Jerusalem will take place. . . . The Jews shall be restored. The Lord Jesus shall come again in power and great glory.

13

c. John 1:11. “He came to his own [embassy, residence, inheritance] and his ambassadors did not welcome [receive] him.” That Christ came to t¦ ‡dia, ta idia his “own things/possessions,” indicates his territory and all that it contains, the land of Israel (II Chron. 7:20; Isa. 14:24-25; Jer. 16:18; Mal. 3:1). The sam expression is found in 19:27: “the disciple whom He [Jesus] loved . . . took her [Mary] into his own household [t¦ ‡dia, ta idia].” In support of this territorial understanding, Westcott comments:

There can be no reasonable doubt that this phrase, and the corresponding masculine which follows, “his own” (oƒ ‡dioi, hoi idioi i.e “his own people”, describe the land and the people of Israel as being, in a sense in which no other land and people were, the home and the people of G OD, of Jehovah (Lev. 25:23; Jer. 2:7; 14:18; Hos. 9:3; Zech. 2:12).

14

d. Romans 9:26. Here Paul quotes Hosea 1:10 as follows: “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ there they shall be called sons of the living God.” Danish scholar Johannes Munck, in his clas work Christ & Israel, notes that, “there”, ™ke…, ekei, is “a natural designation for

13 J. C. Ryle, Luke, II, pp. 371, 374. 14 B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 8. Likewise Alford and Ryle.

Palestine, in order to imply that the Gentile nations will gather in Jerusalem and the Messianic kingdom will be established there (cf. 11:26).”

15

e. Romans 11: 1. Here Paul is boasting that, “I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” The last expression being fulÁj Beniam…n, phul¯es Beniamin, would, for a Hebrew Christian, undoubtedly include territorial meaning or divine land allocation. Tribal association for the Jew meant not only demographic personal identification, but also geographic territorial identification with a portion of the Land. Hence W. H. Bennett declares that, “After the conquest [of the Land] the tribes became essentially territorial.”

16 So before King

Agrippa, Paul declares, “And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews” (Acts 26:6-7). Surely Paul not only has the Diaspora in mind, but also the geographic portions and accompanying populace of the Land as a whole. There is not the slightest intimation here that upon conversion of the Jews, such territorial regions will be eliminated. Again in James 1:1 we read, “James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings.” The attempts to spiritualize this reference are numerous and betray a Gentile bent, though it is not difficult to sense t such a conclusion is doctrinally rather than exegetically driven, especially in the light of the Jewishness that diaspor£, diaspora in this same verse clearly indicates.

17 A similar problem is faced in Revelation 7:4-7 where the 144,000 from

the twelve tribes of Israel is commonly understood, according to frequent Gentile exegesis, as representing the Church, even though v. 9 describes a distinct Gentile assembly, that is “a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and people and tongues.”

18 Of course, in all of these references to

the tribes of Israel, their demographic Hebrew identity, inevitably suggests a territorial association as well.

f. Romans 11:26. More recently, many commentators have expressed a belief that this passage does indeed refer to an eschatological national conversion of Je toward the end of this age. More often than not in these expositions, there is no qualification as to whether such resultant Jewish Christians will retain nationa Jewish identity according to divine mandate. John Murray is a case in point where he argues very persuasively for a future national conversion of “the mass of Israel,” according to covenantal promise, that is “for the sake of the fathers [Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob],” v. 28. However he fails to explain the resultan status of converted Israel as a body, that is as to whether it retains nationa

15 Johannes Munk, Christ & Israel, p. 12. 16 W. H. Bennett, “Tribe,” Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible, IV, p. 810. 17 In An Introduction to the New Testament by Carson, Moo, and Morris, p. 415, to begin with we are told, “this designation [of 1:1] is so general as to be of little help in identifying the addressees.” Then in conclusion there is the grudging confession: “Nevertheless, the early date and Jewishness of James favors the more litera meaning.” 18 So J. A. Seiss writes: “[T]hese 144,000 are just what John says they are—Jews, descendants of the sons of Israel—the first fruits of that new return of God to deal mercifully with the children of His ancient people for their father’s sakes.” Revelation, I, p. 408.

distinction in the sight of God, which would then entail a relationship to t land.

19 Morris similarly opts for a future national conversion of Israel, though he

less distinctly concludes: “Paul then is affirming that the nation of Israel a whole will ultimately have its place in God’s salvation.”

20 A number of writers

convey the idea that while there will be some future Jewish ingathering, n national identity according to a covenantal basis is to be attributed here. Rather such a corporate conversion will result in incorporation into the people of God that has no identification with national and geographic Israel. So John Sto comments:

The prophecy of Romans 11 is a prophecy that many Jews will return to Christ, but the land is not mentioned, nor is Israel mentioned as a political entity. [A]ccording to the apostles, the Old Testament promises are fulfilled in Christ and in the international community of Christ. A return to Jewish nationalism wou seem incompatible with this New Testament perspective of the international community of Jesus.

21

To begin with, Stott’s reference to “many Jews” is nebulous terminology since an definition he might offer disallows fundamental Jewishness. Again we have here condescension to temporal, vague individuality that seems almost offended at th thought of prospective corporate expression. But further inconsistency arise concerning this overall modern approach to Romans 11 in that yielding to obvious meaning of references to “Israel” that are consistent throughout Roman 9-11 whereby some future form of national conversion is admitted, there is yet a reluctance to accept the obvious national associations that Paul makes with term “Israelite” as a converted Hebrew. Rather, the explicit boasting of Pa concerning his Jewishness in Romans 9:3-5; 11:1, particularly obvious territorial implications, must surely be associated with v. 26 and thus anticipate nat conversion unto the Land. However a major problem arises at this point if a mere vague approach toward the future conversion of the Jews is concerned. If there i belief in some type of national conversion of Jews at the conclusion of the “times of the Gentiles,” then what was their national status prior to this awakening, and what shall it be following their regeneration? Are they in every sense of the word national Jews according to the flesh, even though remaining in bondage t unbelief (Rom. 11:28)? If so, then while their unbelief has resulted in dispersion from the land, yet their conversion would qualify them for inhabitation of same land, especially since there is no biblical indication that the land has been forever taken from the Jew. In other words, to speak merely nominally of the Jew in Romans 9-11 is to fly in the face of the Jewishness that Paul there up especially in Roman 9:1-5; 11:1-2, 28-29. Paul’s ongoing Jewishness would find quite unthinkable for him to uphold his Jewish national status and at the same time deny continuity with its territorial foundation.

g. Romans 11:29. “For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” The plurality of the t¦ car…smata, ta charismata, surely follows on, by way of explication, from that which is secure according to “the sake of the fathers,” v. 28. Of course the

19 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, II, pp. 96-101.
20 Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 421.
21 John Stott, “Forward,” The Promised Land, eds. Philip Johnston & Peter Walker, p. 11.

“gifts” include saving grace for Israel, yet surely more is included such as the more encompassing covenant blessings of 9:4-5 that would unquestionably include the land.

22

h. Galatians 3:16, cf. v. 21. “Now the promises [aƒ ™paggel…ai, hai epangeliai] were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” While the usual focus here falls upon Paul’s doctrinal understanding of the singular “seed,” which is indicated to be Jesus Christ as the seed of Abraham, rarely is there any relating of this truth to the plurality of “the promises.” What then were “the promises” that were spoken to both Abraham and consequently Jesus Christ? Lacking specificity Burton explains that “[t]he promises here spoken of are those whi accompanied the covenant and which constituted it on the side of divine grace.”

23

However Lightfoot appears to get closer to the truth when he comments:

A question has been raised as to the particular passage to which Paul refers. In answering this question it should be observed, (1) That the words must be spoken to Abraham himself, and not to one of the later patriarchs; (2) That ka…, kai must be part of the quotation. These considerations restrict the reference to Genesis 13:15; 17:8, either of which passages satisfies these conditions. It is true that in both alike the inheritance spoken of refers primarily to the possession of the land of Canaan, but the spiritual application here is only in accordance with the general analogy of New Testament interpretation.

24

Aside from Lightfoot’s dismissal of the literal primacy of the land here with regard to the details of “the promises,” based upon supercessionist presuppositions,

25 the

parallel references to this covenantal term in Romans 9:4; 15:8 are instructiv Gentile commentators generally identify “the promises” as those made to the fathers and especially those that are Messianic, though without specific reference to the Land. An exception is H. C. G. Moule who defines “the promises” as being “of the Land, and of the Messiah.”

26 However Jewish commentator Joseph

Shulam provides the most comprehensive explanation of the plurality here th also includes the Land.

The “promises” are those God gave to Abraham, that his descendants would be as the sand and the stars (cf. Gen. 12:2; 15:5: 17:1f; 28:14); of the land ( cf. Gen. 15:7; 17:8; 28:13; Exod. 12:25; 13:5; Deut. 1:11; 6:3; 19:8; Neh. 9:8; Rom. 11:29; Heb. 11:11-13, 17); to the House of David and his messianic offspring (cf. I Kgs. 2:24; 8:20; II Kgs. 8:19; Isa. 7:13-16; 9:6-7; 11:1-5; Rom. 1:3; II Cor. 1:20; Gal. 3:16-22; I Pet. 1:10, 12); of the Spirit and the new covenant (cf. Jer. 31:31; Ezek. 37:26; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:16-21, 39; Gal. 3:8, 15f; 4:24-28; Eph. 1:13; 2:12); and of life itself (cf.

22 So H. C. G. Moule, Romans, p. 164; Shulam, Romans, p. 327. 23 Ernest De Witt Burton, Galatians, p. 181. 24 J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 142. 25 Lightfoot subsequently explains that, “the Israel after the flesh becomes the Israel after the Spirit; the Jewish nation denotes the Christian Church,” p. 143. Concerning 6:16, the “Israel of God . . . stands here not for the faithful converts from the circumcision alone, but for the spiritual Israel generally, the whole body of believers whether Jew or Gentile,” p. 225. 26 Moule, Romans, p. 164.

Deut. 8:3; 30:15-16; 32:39; Prov. 3:16; 8:35; Hab. 2:4; I Tim. 4:8; II Tim. 1:1; II Pet. 1:4).

27

Of course “the promises” of Romans 9:4; 15:8 are rooted in “the fathers, from whom is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:5). However it is obvious from the preceding context that the plurality of “the promises” includes much more for Paul, who writes as presently being an “Israelite” (Rom. 11: and thus in his terminology undoubtedly incorporates the Land as part of overall present inheritance.

2. Some Theological indications

a. The argument of Bavinck, Cranfield, Lloyd-Jones, Waltke, etc., that is the argument from supposed silence, is simply based on the alleged absence of exp and even implicit references to “the Land” in the New Testament. The to these commentators is often quite categorical and we believe it is not inappropriate to suggest that such a response has the undertones of a G perspective. Certainly few Jewish Christian commentators would support th reasoning. Rather we believe that the preceding biblical evidence, especially wh viewed through Jewish lens that most of the New Testament writers empl provides both explicit and implicit references to the Land which are intima related to such expressions as “Israel” and “tribe,” as well as Jerusalem,” “Zion,” etc. But furthermore, it could also be argued that since the land was undoubtedl a divine bestowal up to the New Testament era, then it is necessary that evidenc be provided of explicit land disinheritance that is irrevocable.

b. Reference has already been made in Chapter One to William A. VanGeme article, Israel As The Hermeneutical Crux In The Interpretation Of Prophecy. With regard to infrequent references in the New Testament to the restoration of the Jewish people, he provides two significant reasons which also relate to question of the sparseness of references to the Land.

First, most of the NT writings were written before the events of A.D. 70. The judgment described by Jesus in the Mt. Olivet discourse pertains to Jerusalem and not the Jewish people. When Jerusalem was destroyed, the Jewish population remained in Judea and Galilee in large numbers. Most Jews voluntarily left the land during the subsequent centuries because of business opportunities elsewhere; however, a flourishing community continued in Palestine (Yabneh, Beth Sheari and Tiberias). The excavation of ancient synagogues witnesses to a thriving a learned Jewish population in the land. All of this fulfilled God’s promise given by Amos. Arguments against the future of Israel in the land, based on a naïve view of history, are not uncommon because most Christians do not know the history Judaism post-A.D. 70. A study of the historical and theological development o Judaism would help Christians have a proper understanding of Jews and Judaism. Secondly, the apostolic concern is for the conversion of the Jewish people. Th Gospels of Matthew (pre-A.D. 70) and John (post-A.D. 70) share this concern. The restoration of the land was never an issue because the Jews were in the lan remained in the land in large numbers for hundreds of years after the fall o Jerusalem (S.D. 70). They voluntarily left the land in large numbers over a period of

27 Joseph Shulam, A Commentary On The Jewish Roots Of Romans, p. 327. hundreds of years, but returned before the founding of the State of Israel. Their return was not from exile but from the diaspora. They look in themselves as ‘olim (returnees), not golim (exiles).

28

c. Baruch Maoz, pastor of Grace and Truth Christian Congregation in Rishon LeTsion, Israel, being of Reformed Baptist convictions, presented a insightful paper for the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism in 1986 that was subsequently revised and included in The Land of Promise, edited by Philip Johnson and Peter Walker, titled, “People, land and Torah: a Jewish Christian perspective.” Some significant representative statements are as follows.

Israel as a people cannot truly fulfill its duties to God apart from the land. Please not this is not “land” in general, nor even any land in particular, but only on certain and specific land. This is the land repeatedly designated in the Bible by way of its borders (Gen. 15:18; Exod. 23:31; Deut. 11:24; Josh. 1:4), its topography (Deut. 1:7; Judg. 1:9, 15; I Sam. 14:4-5), its climate (Deut. 11:10-11; Judg. 6:40; Isa. 18:4; 55:10; Jer. 18:17; Hag. 2:17) and its history. . . . The land of Israel is not merely a piece of turf. It is God’s blessing (Gen. 1:22; 26:3; Num. 24:1, 5-7) and it is God’s presence (Gen. 15:18; Exod. 23:31; Deut. 11:24; Josh. 1:4). It is evidence of an ongoing relationship between God and the people of Israel (Deut. 7:12-13; II Kgs. 21:14; Jer. 23:39; Lam. 5:16-22). The land is the covenant made concrete (Gen. 17:7-8; Exod. 6:8; Neh. 9:8; Jer. 31:31, 38-40; 32:37-41). The climax of blessing in the land is the divine promise: “I will be your God” (Lev. 25:17, 55). The land is thus the epitome of God’s promises, and an important part of the whole without which the remainder is incomplete. Nowhere in the Scriptures are the people of Israel considered to blessed outside of the land. Nowhere is blessing promised to the people apart from blessing to the land (Deut. 28:65-68; Ps. 69:35-36; 85:10, 12). Small wonder, then, that the people of Israel have come t love the land so vehemently. The people will be restored to the land if they repent (Deut. 30:1-10); otherwise they will be brought back to the land, and will there repent (Jer. 50:20; Ezek. 30:27-29; 36:4-21). . . . Spiritual restoration and a return to the land are linked (Jer. 23:7-8; 24:6-7; 30:1-9; Ezek. 34:13-27; 36:16-38; 37:21-27; Mic. 4:1) so that the people are never considered blessed, forgiven or redeemed except in the land of promised their fathers: ‘You will know that I am the L ORD, when I bring you into the land of Israel’ (Ezek. 20:42). The New Testament neither contradicts nor corrects what we have deduced from the Old Testament data. On the contrary, Old Testament expectations are heightened in the New Testament by the sheer fact that their fulfillment of Old Testament promise, the reliable description of a climax of hope being realized and clarified by the coming of Messiah. Jesus is not a cancellation of the Old Testament hope but its unequivocal affirmation (Luke 24:38-44; John 11:24; 20:24-27; Acts 24:15; Rom. 8:18-24; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 21-22). . . . Consequently, Israel is not displaced by th church. Rather, the church enters into enjoyment of Israel’s blessings as a strang branch “grafted in . . . contrary to nature”, but never in place of the natural branches, who will be grafted in again (Rom. 11:23-24).

29

28 Willem A. VanGemeren, “Israel As The Hermeneutical Crux In The Interpretation Of Prophecy,” WTJ, 46 (1984), pp. 293-294. 29 Baruch Maoz, “People, land and Torah: a Jewish Christian perspective,” The Land of Promise, eds. Philip Johnston and Peter Walker, pp. 189, 192, 194-195, 198.

C. The Land and Patrick Fairbairn.

While the amillennial perspective of Fairbairn has already been considered in Chapter 2, fact that this author addresses the matter of the land in his The Typology of Scripture, as well as his Commentary on Ezekiel, calls for additional consideration. It should also appreciated that Anthony Hoekema has indicated his reliance upon Fairbairn,

30 and this in

turn has influenced Venema, Waldron, etc.

1. The relationship between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.

It is not uncommon for amillennialists to associate the temporal nature of the Mosaic Covenant with the Abrahamic Covenant with the result being that the latter is consequently defined in similar temporal terms. Of course by this process, the promi of the land to Abraham in Genesis 12:13 becomes absorbed into a conditiona typological frame of reference with the result being that this same land, having been forfeited through disobedience, at the same time is merely regarded as a micro earth representation of future macro heavenly glory that the church inherits on a universa scale. We subsequently respond to W. D. Davies in this regard, and have also addres O. Palmers Robertson’s representation of this concept in Chapter 2. He wrote:

The land of the Bible served in a typological role as a model of the consummate realization of the purposes of God for his redeemed people that encompasses the whole the cosmos. Because of the inherently limited scope of the land of the Bible, it is not to b regarded as having continuing significance in the realm of redemption other than function as a teaching model.

31

However Patrick Fairbairn expressed a similar approach, though over 150 years prior He likewise writes that “the relations of the covenant people, as connected w occupation of Canaan, leads naturally to he conclusion, that their peculiar connection with that territory has ceased with the other temporary expedients and shado which it belonged.”

32 In other words, the land is merely a basic type that projec

through the Mosaic economy into the New Testament reality, and as such has tangible relevance today. Hence one cannot but suspect that this association Abrahamic land promise with the Mosaic economy is most necessary, even if unbiblical, so that it too might, by association, be abrogated. Thus for Fairbairn there is necessary progression from Moses to Abraham.:

The Mosaic religion did not start into being as something original and independen grew out of the Patriarchal, and was just, indeed, the Patriarchal religion in a further stat of progress and development. . . . We are not to imagine, however, that the additional religious truths and principles which were to be historically brought out at the commencement of the Mosaic dispensation, must have appeared there by themse distinct and apart from those which descended from Patriarchal time s.

33

30 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, p. 276n, 279. He specifically references Fairbairn’s
Typology of Scripture, I, pp. 329-61; II, 3-4.
31 O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God, p. 194.
32 Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, I, p. 497.
33 Ibid., II, pp. 2-3.

However, we strenuously respond that this unsupported portrayal is incorrect and further sense a difficulty in proving what is a most necessary point for the upholding of a system. After all, if the land promised to Abraham remains as permanent for national Israel as the other terms of that covenant, then it radically interferes with supercessionist theology. In reality, the New Testament makes a clear distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, and especially their conditionality, including the permanence of one and the abrogation of the other, as Galatians 3:17 and Hebrews 8:13 make clear. Further, Paul’s explanation that the law “was added because of transgression” (Gal. 3:19; cf. Rom. 5:20) also conflicts with the idea of progression from Abraham.

2. The critical analysis of Horatius Bonar.

Having already considered Bonar’s general critical assessment of Fairbairn’s eschatology in Chapter 2, nevertheless there are further specific aspects that should be considered. They arise in an review article by Bonar in which he further challenges the amillennialism of Fairbairn as represented in his Typology of Scripture. Bonar freely acknowledges the author’s dignified manner, learning, and lofty views. Nevertheless he comments: “That with such powers and dispositions he has still so widely missed the truth, is owing, we think, to an undue influence to late German authors who have led him to mistake their false systems for the teachings of the word of God.”

34 What then is

the essential problem with Typology of Scripture? It is reflected in Fairbairn’s subtitle taken from the first edition: “The Doctrine of Types, investigated in is principles, and applied to the Explanation of the earlier Revelations of God considered as preparatory exhibitions of the leading truths of the Gospel. With an appendix on the Restoration of the Jews.” Thus Bonar sums us the fundamental problem as follows.

He alleges that not only the principle things in the Mosaic ritual are types of corresponding things in the work of redemption as it is unfolded in the New Testament; but that all the chief personages, acts, and arrangements, that are recorded in the Testament, both in the histories and prophecies, are typical, in like manner, of other persons and events in the Christian church; and assumes and affirms that the very nature and design of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, and actors, acts, and events that appear in their records, are such, that they are of necessity typical of things in the Christian church, and are to be taken, as far as they are prophetic, as exclusively predictive of them. No prophecy of the Old Testament, accordingly—if this scheme is adhered to—can by possibility relate in any degree to the real Israelites or Gentiles, Jerusalem or Palestine, or any other persons or places that are literally mentioned in them, and are philologically the subjects of their declaratio ns.

35

3. The hermeneutic of supercession.

As was pointed out, the very subtitle of Fairbairn’s Typology of Scripture leads us to the conclusion that far more than a mere consideration of types in the Bible is intended here. Rather, we have the proposal of a whole hermeneutical system whereby the Old Testament revelation, as a complete unit, is regarded as typological whereby it

34 Horatius Bonar, “The Typology of Scripture,” The Theological and Literary Journal, ed. David N. Lord, January, 1852, p. 354. 35 Ibid., p. 355.

is fulfilled and superceded by the New Testament. Thus Bonar rightly complains that this work

is nothing else than the theory of Origen reproduced under another name, and set off wit much speciousness of learning and argument, but in fact without any ground for support. . . . The supposition indeed which led to the invention of the system, that the persons, transactions, and events of the Old Testament histories and predictions must be contemplated as types of answering things in the Christian system, in order that they ma be the means to us of that instruction for which they were designed, is altogethe mistaken. Mr. F. proceeds throughout his volumes on the assumption, that were it not fo a typical office, the persons and occurrences of which the ancient Scriptures pres record would be almost wholly uninstructive to us.

36

We believe this criticism to be especially true when it comes to the interpretation of Testament prophecy. In this regard, it is fascinating to detect considerable correspondence here with the hermeneutic of “reinterpretation” that George El Ladd upholds, whereby the Old Testament has no independent, objective prop significance except it be expounded by the New Testament. Hence, we find ourselves a period in which Fairbairn’s considerable influence, especially as evidenced in writings of Hoekema, Venema, Waldron, etc. with regard to amillennialism, has led to a dominant typological hermeneutic. Since this in turn has resulted in objective textu and historic realities being subjected to New Testament categories, it is suggested th we need to reconsider Bonar’s call for a return to one hermeneutic for the whole Bibl and not two.

37 Further, that hermeneutic needs to return to the apostolic Judeo-

hermeneutic that is not obscured by vision being forced through Gentile lens. Judeo-centric premillennialism will come into its rightful place once again.

D. The Land and W. D. Davies.

The scholarly contribution of W. D. Davies toward a Christian understanding of the Land i massive indeed, though from the outset is must be frankly considered that the presuppositions of this author are not according to a conservative evangelical perspectiv This being said, appreciation of his exegetical conclusions is important, especially becaus their influence, even as is evident in the subsequent further consideration of the conservative contribution of David Holwerda. To get to the heart of the matter, we focus upon “Paul and the Land” and quote the following as of the very essence of Dav conclusions.

With the coming of Christ the wall of separation between Israel and the Gentiles was removed This wall, usually interpreted of “the Law,” or of “the veil in the Temple,” in the passage in Ephesians 2:11-22, which here, whether written by him or by a member of his school or not, brings Paul’s thought to its full expression, we may also interpret implicitly to include geographic separation between those in the land and those outside the land. Because the log Paul’s understanding of Abraham and his personalization of the fulfillment of the promise “in Christ” demanded the deterritorializing of the promise. Salvation was not now bound to the Jewish people centered in the land and living according to the Law: it was “located” not in a place, but in persons in whom grace and faith had their writ. By personalizing the promise “in Christ” Paul universalized it. For Paul, Christ had gathered up the promise into the singularity

36 Ibid., p. 392. 37 Especially refer to his Prophetical Landmarks, the full text of which is available, via PDF files, at www.bunyanministries.org, under the new title of Judeo-centric Premillennialism. of his own person, In this way, “the territory” promised was transformed into and fulfilled by the life “in Christ.” All this is not made explicit, because Paul did not directly apply himself to the question of the land, but it is implied. In the Christological logic of Paul, the land, like the Law, particular and provisional, had become irrelevant.”

38

In response, while the alienation of the Gentiles was from “the commonwealth of Israel, and the covenants of promise,” particularly as rooted in Abraham, Christ’s breaking down of “the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph. 2:11-22; refer to Appendix B), was Hi abrogation of the Mosaic economy (Rom. 7:1-4), and not the covenants of promise in which the Land is integral. Davies’ incorporation of the Land into the dissolution of the Law, the terminology of “the land, like the law,” is a common but unwarranted association. Further we would suggest that it is logically unnecessary for the doctrine of both Jew and Gentile, being “in Christ,” to necessitate the “deterritorializing” of the original land promise. T similarly suggest that to be “in Christ” is consequently to “universalize” the land promise is to wrongly assume that within a universality there can be no diversity, which in fact the Old Testament prophetically anticipates (Isa. 60:1-4; 62:1-12; Mic. 4:1-5; Hag. 2:1-7; Zech 14:16-21, etc.). The same fallacy arises with regard to the frequent appeal to Galatians 3:28 where in fact the stated unity incorporates a masculine and feminine diversity. So th triunity of the only blessed God comprises the personal diversity of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Refer to Appendix E where Jonathan Edwards describes the unity of the coming kingdom of Christ on earth that comprises Israel in the Land, under its Messiah, hav harmonious relations with the surrounding Gentile nations. While it is comforting to read of Davies’ acknowledgment that his conclusion here is implicit, it would undoubtedly be discomforting for the contemporary Jew to be evangelized with the glorious good news that the Land has become “irrelevant.” Does anyone for a moment think that, as Paul witnessed from synagogue to synagogue, this was integral to his gospel message?

D. The Land and David E. Holwerda.

In Chapter 6, there was consideration of David E. Holwerda’s Jesus & Israel: One Covenant or Two? though particularly with regard to his Reformed estimate of Jewish identity, especially in the light of Romans 11. While there was acknowledgment of God’s pres regard for unbelieving Jews as a whole, and not simply the Christian remnant, the question of nationality, but especially the divine validity of the land was raised and not answered. However in pp. 85-112 this subject is dealt with in some detail under the chapter heading, “Jesus and the Land: A Question of Time and Place.” Hence we now consider this further explanation. Clearly the author is aware of criticism of much Reformed teaching in t regard when he comments:

[T]he faith of many Christians has been more heaven-oriented than land-oriented. The biblical themes of land and city have been spiritualized and focused elsewhere than on this earth. Is this the inevitable result of New Testament teaching? Is the land or this earth no longer important? Strikingly, since the return of the Jews to Palestine, the biblical theme of the land has caught the attention of Christian theologians.

39

To begin with the Land is identified with an irrevocable promise, though like so many of a Reformed persuasion, there is no interaction with the vital place of the unilateral

38 W. D. Davies, The Gospel And The Land, p. 179. 39 David. E. Holwerda, Jesus & Israel: One Covenant or Two? p. 87.

signification of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15.

40 However the Land is then qualified

as a conditional possession according to the covenant stipulations promising blessi cursing in conjunction with obedience or disobedience. Consequently, in continually breaking the covenant Israel reaps judgment through exile. Nevertheless under the heading of “The Land: Lost and Promised Again,” we read:

The amazing message of the prophets is that in spite of the faithlessness of his people, God is faithful and will act in mercy to restore the covenant blessings. God’s covenant with Israel is a certain as the order of creation. As long as the fixed order of creation continues, so will God’s covenant with Israel continue (Jer. 31:35-37).

41

Yet how strange it is that here the author makes no reference to the fact that his comme and reference to Jeremiah 31, also Ezekiel 36, are in fact with regard to the new covenan that replaces the old covenant. Furthermore, the Land was never lost since it was rooted the Abrahamic covenant. Nor does Scripture indicate that the Land was lost in a covenan sense. Though God’s people were exiled from the Land, yet the promise of Jeremiah was that they would return to it after seventy years. The new covenant replaces the covenant and incorporates the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, including the land.

The most vital matter arises when we move on to consider Holwerda’s understanding of t Land according to the New Testament and the closely related eschatological Jerusalem. W obvious sympathy for W. D. Davies’ aforementioned explanation whereby the prom concerning the Land have been “personalized” and “universalized” in Christ, the a offers evidence from Ephesians 6:2-3. Here Paul’s rendering of Deuteronomy 5:16 concerning the land is modified to, “so that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.” Thus,

By omitting this specification [concerning the land], Paul declares that now in Christ t promise applies to any land. The promise has indeed been universalized, but it has b universalized precisely with reference to land. What was once a blessing promised to people in the particular land of Canaan, given by God as a gift, is now promised to people living anywhere on the earth, which was given by God as a gift. Thus, there is at least this one hint that Paul’s relative silence about the land should not be construed as an implicit declaration that the land has become irrelevant and that the promise of the land sho forgotten. A universalized land is not an irrelevance.

42

We would agree with the author that at best we have a “hint” here of his proposal, especi since the fact that while Paul appears to adapt the Mosaic reference on account of his Gen audience, he in no way is denying the original territorial intent. However, of greater conce is the further linguistic plasticity that is employed to suggest that God’s saving intent with regard to the whole earth is somehow an indication of how He continues to have continue interest in “the land.” From a contemporary Reformed perspective, Palmer Roberts

40 A classic instance of this omission is found in, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow, by Curtis I. Crenshaw and Grover E. Gunn, III. In Appendix 3, “Conditional & Unconditional Covenants,” pp. 321-325, there is not so much as one reference to Genesis 15. 41 Holwerda, Jesus & Israel, p. 95. 42 Ibid., p. 102. Support is claimed from Calvin’s exegesis at this point.

employs the same hermeneutic.

43 To add some substance to his explanation, Holwerda refers

to Paul’s explanation in Galatians 3:29 whereby

Christ is the corporate embodiment of Abraham’s seed, the One who represents and defines the authentic covenant lineage. In Christ it has been revealed that the inheritance of the promises is not by law but by promise, that the inheritance is a gift of God’s grace (as was Canaan in the Old Testament) to those who believe. All those who have faith as Abraham had faith, who now believe in Jesus Christ, are “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). Heirs of what? Of “the promises,” according to Galatians, and, according to Romans 4:13 these promises to Abraham and his descendants can be summarized in the promise “tha would inherit the world.” For Paul, the promise of Abraham has a cosmic sweep, including not just the territory of Canaan but the entire inhabited world.

44

Granted that Abraham “would inherit the world,” it is strange logic indeed that concludes that this prospect would of necessity eliminate distinct national identity for Israel, especially since the original promise of Genesis 12:1-3; 18:18; 22:18 indicated that Israel, as a nation and through its seed, would bring about blessing to the families of the earth, that i Gentiles (Gal. 3:8). This promise never indicated that there would be a final blending, an absorption whereby Israel would lose its identity, and nor did subsequent confirmations of this promise. Thus Paul tells us “that Christ [the seed, Gal. 3:16] has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy” (Rom. 15:8-9). Here again we are faced with the same illogical, unbiblical suggestion that a universal cannot incorporate distinctive particulars, that oneness in Christ cannot incorporate distinctive maleness and femaleness, that the messianic kingdom of Christ cannot include Jewish and Gentile identity. Such concept is quite fallacious. But we are further told:

Has Paul rejected or even forgotten the promise of the land? By no means. Instead, the horizons of the land have been shaped by the revelation of Jesus Christ. His previous Jewish focus on a particularistic fulfillment has been transformed into a Christian universalism focused on th new creation.

Yet again, definition of “the Land” is reshaped whereby the land of the nations has both assimilated the land of the fathers and evacuated it of any distinctive Jewish heritag Whether this process is called “transformational” or whatever, what stands out here, that is yet essentially akin to replacement theology or supercessionism, is the eventual striping aw of all things Judaic so that pure “Christian universalism” might remain. This does not appear to seriously heed Paul’s warning to the Gentiles, “”[R]emember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you” (Rom. 11:18). It will not do for recognition to be given to the Jews as “all Israel,” not simply the remnant, accordin Romans 11, as Holwerda does,

45 and then at the same time take away national and

territorial identity. As W. D. Davies makes plain, “The Land is so embedded in the heart of

43 “In the process of redemptive history, a dramatic movement has taken place. The arena of redemption has shifted from type to reality, from shadow to substance. The land, which once was the specific place of God’s redemptive work served well in the realm of old covenant forms as a picture of paradise lost and promised. But in the realm of new covenant fulfillments, the land has expanded to encompass the whole world.” The Israel Of God, pp. 30-31. Again we would point out that the land is grounded in the Abrahamic rather than the old Mosaic covenant. Further, it is not represented as a shadow, but rather as part of the promise of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-40; Ezek. 11:14-21; 36:22-32). 44 Holwerda, Jesus & Israel, p. 103. 45 Ibid., p. 164.

Judaism, the Torah, that—so, its sources, worship, theology, and often its history attest— is finally inseparable from it.”

46 But more importantly we would suggest that this is so

according to the terms of the new covenant.

“For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be you God” (Ezek. 36:24-28; cf. 11:14-21; Jer. 31:31-37).

D. The Land and the Heavenly Jerusalem.

When the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews is considered, usually two ma problems loom large. First are the warning passages (2:1-4; 3:6-4:3; 4:14-16; 5:11 10:26-39; 12:3-17, 25-29), which some would wrongly suppose indicate a conditionality in the Christian life that allows for a final falling away from authentic saving grace. Second i the manner in which Old Testament quotations appear to be related to the autho teaching. Concerning this second difficulty, John Owen warns us: “There is not any thing i this Epistle that is attended with more difficulty than the citation of the testimonies out of the Old Testament that are made use of in it.”

47 This being the case, let cavalier explanations

of these Old Testament references be shunned, that is those which simplistically suggest the more illustrative use of an Old Testament passage in Hebrews automatically nullifies original literal meaning. The truth is that the author is at liberty to quote with a variety of intentions and meanings. For instance, consider some comments of John Calvin in regard. Concerning Hebrews 2:7 where Psalm 8:5-6 is quoted by the author, he comment

[This] Psalm which he [Paul?] quotes must be examined, for it seems to be unfitly applied to Christ. . . . He [David] does not, then, speak of any particular person, but of all mankind. To this I answer, that all of this affords no reason why the words should not be applied person of Christ. . . . [I]t was not the Apostle’s design to give an exact explanation words. For there is nothing improperly done, when verbal allusions are made to embe subject in hand, as Paul does in quoting a passage in Romans 10:6, from Moses.

48

Hence this leads us to suggest, with regard to the necessity of caution in interpr Hebrews, that perhaps one of the most significant and yet neglected characteristics of th

46 W. D. Davies, The Territorial Dimension Of Judaism, p. 85. It should be noted that this author adds the following qualification: “However, all this being recognized, it remains to emphasize one thing. If territorial religion is meant, as is usually the case, ‘a cult whose constituency is a territorial group identifie by common occupation of a particular land area, so that membership of the cult is in the final instance a consequence of residence and not kinship or ethnic designation’ [quoting J. M. Schoffeleers], then Judaism not a territorial religion: The Land is not the essence.” As far as it goes, this is true. Of course this would al be true of carnal, hence cultic Israel as Diaspora having longings for the Land prior to 1948. But what stan is God’s covenant promise to convert a carnal Israel into a spiritual Israel with the result that there will be kinship in the Land (Ezek. 36:22-28; 37:1-23). This being the case, then surely the Land remains covenant until that glorious day, intervening national conflict notwithstanding. 47 John Owen, An Exposition of Hebrews, I, p. 106. 48 Calvin, Hebrews, pp. 56, 58. Also refer to Calvin’s further similar comments concerning Hebrews 2:7, 13, pp. 59, 68-69.

distinctive portion of Scripture concerns the vital truth that this epistle was written b Hebrew Christian for Hebrew Christians. This might seem an unnecessary comment except for the fact that problems can arise when a Gentile imposes his presuppositions upon the text that only Hebrew presuppositions can illuminate. Whether Paul wrote Hebrews or not, it is a thought well worth bearing in mind that whereas the epistles of the Apostle were all addressed to Gentiles in the main, here the distinctive character of Hebrews is due to the fa that Jewish Christians are addressed by a Jewish Christian who presumes a Jewish mindset in his addressees.

With the preceding thoughts in mind, we now move to consider the most common objection to the idea of national Israel having title to the land promised to Abraham, whether in the present or future. This concerns several New Testament references that are all set forth as evidence that the earthly ha´aretz is indeed a former earthly hope that has been superceded by a more universal and heavenly hope. This cluster of references is Hebrews 11:10 12:22, along with Galatians 4:25-26, whereby it is proposed that while Israel’s inheritance of the land according to the Old Testament economy was decidedly earthy, materiali and shadowy, the Christian’s future, although rooted in the promise God made to Abraham, is yet a more transcendently spiritual and heavenly hope. As an example of this pop understanding, especially where the repudiation of national Israel is concerned, consider O Palmer Robertson’s explanation.

Just as the tabernacle was never intended to be a settled item in the plan of redemption but was to point to Christ’s tabernacling among his people (cf. John 1:14), and just as the sacrific system could never atone for sins but could only foreshadow the offering of the Son of God (Heb. 9:23-26), so in a similar manner Abraham received the promise of the land but ne experienced the blessing of its full possession. In this way, the patriarch learned to look forward to “the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). . . . [I]f the promised land of the old covenant becomes the blessed object to be achieved, then its tremendous fulfillment in the new covenant could be missed. To claim “the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10), Abraham had to look beyond the shadowy form of the promise, which he never possessed, to the realities that could perceived only by faith.

49

Also consider Peter Walker’s similar commentary.

[In Hebrews 11] positive descriptions of the physical land, however, are then immediately eclipsed by is [the author’s] insistence that the real focus of the promise to which Abrah “looked forward” was the “city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (v. 10). This eschatological focus is then repeated in verse 16: “Instead, they were looking for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he h prepared a city for them.” So the patriarchs were looking forward, not so much for the day when their descendants would inherit the physical land, but rather to the day when they would inherit the heavenly country (or city) which the physical land signified. In a sense they “saw through the promise of the land, looking beyond it to a deeper, spiritual reality.

50

Consequently, we consider a collection of expressions, “the present Jerusalem . . . th Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:25-26), “the city which has foundations, whose architect an builder is God” (Heb. 11:10), “a better country, that is a heavenly one” (Heb. 11:16

49 O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God, pp. 13, 31. 50 Peter Walker, “The Land in the Apostles’ Writings,” The Land of Promise, eds. Philip Johnston and Peter Walker, p. 90.

“Mount Zion . . . the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb. 12:22), that are commonly agreed to be speaking of a truth that is essentially the same, but esp represented in the perception of Israel’s founding patriarch.

To begin with, consider Abraham, called of God and converted from paganism in Ur of the Chaldees, having entered Canaan is confronted with more paganism in the land of promis He explores this inheritance from north to south, as an unsettled nomadic tent-dweller, a continues to be appalled at its pervasive unholiness that only the future leadership of Jos could begin to cleanse. Yes, he was looking for “a better country, that is a heavenly one,” but the vital matter here concerns not how a Gentile world view perceives this expression but the Hebrew perspective of the author. Franz Delitzsch makes a significant comment o Hebrews 11:16 at this point.

It must be confessed that we nowhere read of the patriarchs, that they expressed a conscious desire for a home in heaven. The nearest approach to anything of the kind is in Jacob’s vision the angel-ladder, and his wondering exclamation (Gen. 28:17), sym?h ruv hz, but even there no desire is expressed for an entrance into the heavenly land, but the promise renewed of fut possession of the earthly Canaan; “The land whereon thou sleepest will I give to thee.”

51

Then he adds further concerning Hebrews 11:10.

[H]ere the heavenly Jerusalem is not contrasted with the earthly city, but with the fra moveable dwellings of the patriarchs in their nomad life.

52

Thus Abraham’s hope was eschatological, but certainly not in the sense of the superiority heaven above compared with earth below, of the superiority of the spiritual over material. Rather his hope was of the future messianic age, the millennial kingdom in whic heaven would be manifest on earth and residence there would be gloriously holy, perman Consequently George Peters explains this perspective as follows.

Evidently that which misleads the multitude in this matter is the statement of the apostle (He 11:16), that “they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly.” Commentators, as Ba Bloomfield, etc., overlooking entirely the Theocratic relationship that this country (i.e. Palestine) is to occupy in the Kingdom of God, at once conclude that this “heavenly” country the third heaven. They forget that this phraseology would not mislead a Hebrew, who accustomed to designate the restored Davidic Kingdom a heavenly Kingdom, and the country enjoying its restoration and Theocratic blessings, a heavenly country. The expression does no mean “the third heaven,” but something that pertains to, or partakes of, the heavenly heavenly vision, body, calling, etc.

53

Hence the hope of a “heavenly Jerusalem” was not a matter of a superior, exclu spiritual extraterrestrial location, but rather a fulfilled, holy, spiritually substantial regeneration of that which was formerly polluted and imperfect. James Calvin De Young explains such a Hebrew hope.

This eschatological liberation [of Jerusalem] is the antitype of the liberation of the Isra from the bondage of Egypt, but is, of course, far greater and more glorious. Israel will at this

51 Franz Delitzsch, Hebrews, II, p. 246. 52 Ibid., p. 238. 53 George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, I, p. 295. J. B. Lightfoot confirms this thought of Hebrew perception when, on Galatians 4:26 concerning “the Jerusalem above,” he comments. “St. Paul here uses expression familiar to rabbinical teachers, but detaches it from those sensuous and material conc which they invested it.” Galatians, p. 182. Also refer to Alford, Greek Testament, III, p. 48. time be gathered and re-established; Jerusalem will be rebuilt and her glory will last forever. Of all the apocalyptic literature, Tobit 13:8-18 paints the clearest and best picture of the fut restored Jerusalem. . . . The clearest evidence that this renewed city is the earthly Jerusalem of Palestine is found in the numerous passages in Jewish literature where this renewal demands a great expansion in the city’s territory.

54

The problem then concerns, as was stated earlier, the necessity of a hermeneutical approac to these passages under consideration, especially in Hebrews, that gives weighty consideration to Hebrew perception.

55 It is granted that rabbinical embellishment must be

considered. Nevertheless C. K. Barrett, in making such an allowance, nevertheless conclude that such eschatological language, as represented in Hebrews, looked forward to holy earthly glory, that is a both/and resolution rather than one which takes us out of this world.

The Rabbinic literature in general looks forward to a restored Jerusalem under earthly conditions. The new city is described in detail in terms which are often fantastic, but the welter of imagination bestowed upon the subject does not alter the fact that what the Rabbis hoped for, and described as abh slwu l? sl?wry “the Jerusalem of the age to come”, was essentially the material capital of a material state. The heavenly tabernacle in Hebrews is not the product of Platonic idealism, but the eschatological temple of apocalyptic Judaism, the temple which is in heaven primarily in order that it may be manifested on earth.

56

Again, such an approach to any supposed tension concerning the material and spiritual, tha is between the material land and the heavenly Jerusalem, should be considered according to a both/and rather than an either/or resolution. Thus Baruch Maoz writes:

Of course, salvation is not exclusively or primarily a matter of material realities (Heb. 4:8); nor are the Old Testament promises exhausted by exclusively material accomplishments as opposed to heavenly ones (Heb. 11:16). The contradictions found between ‘heavenly’ and ‘earthly’ lie not in terms of geography but in terms of the priority of things: Godward or otherwise, holy or sinful. The new heaven and new earth are said to ‘descend’. There are spiritual bodies a natural ones (I Cor. 15:36-44), and the New Testament doctrine of resurrection implies a spiritual kind of material existence rather than a non-material state of being (Exod. 3:6, Num. 32:11; Deut. 30:20; Neh. 9:7-8).

57

In conclusion, it is readily confessed that some manifestations of premillennialism are carna with regard to a balanced or both/and comprehension of the material and the spiritu while on the other hand some representations of amillennialism are so mystically ethereal that their exegesis of Scripture is contextually untenable. So with regard to national Israel, but especially the territorial factor, there is a considerable amount of premillennialism that i carnal in its Zionist loyalty while at the same time there is a considerable amount o amillennialism that is theologically anti-Semitic in its supercessionism and textually obscurantist. This is not to suggest here that improvements in these realms concerning both schools of eschatology is the final answer. Nevertheless it is hoped that renewed focus on th eschatological primacy of the Jews in relation to the Hope of Israel will result in a m

54 James Calvin De Young, Jerusalem In The New Testament, pp. 113-114. 55 Refer to Chapter 4 where George Eldon Ladd’s hermeneutic is considered, especially its lack of consideration of this vital Hebrew element, as well as the helpful insight of Simon Kistemaker and Horatius Bonar. 56 C. K. Barrett, “The Eschatology of Hebrews,” The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, eds., W. D. Davies and D. Daube, p. 374, 389. 57 Baruch Maoz, “People, land and Torah: a Jewish Christian perspective,” The Land of Promise, eds. Philip Johnston and Peter Walker, p. 192.

spiritual premillennialism and a more genuinely pro-Semitic, substantial amillenniali Should these attitude changes develop, then rapprochement may not appear to be such insuperable difficulty.